Plenary session
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
PLENARY European Parliament
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 2
And also, we have to protect the right to privacy. We condemn squatting because it goes against these rights. It leads to uncertainty, insecurity, and reduces the rental supply. Now, we have to increase investment.
Public funds are very important, but they are never going to be enough. They will always fall short. We need to attract private investment and make it easier to access credit. We want the EIB, the European Investment Bank, to play a more important role. And we want to harness European funds efficiently so that we can support affordable housing plans and schemes.
We need to help those who most need it: young people who cannot buy their first home, families that cannot pay their rents, and key workers such as the police, teachers, and doctors who cannot live near their jobs.
Workplaces. We cannot have those who support our cities unable to live in them. That's why we want a European family plan. To help first-time buyers and make sure there is more housing for students.
Then, data. Without reliable data, we are blind. Ladies and gentlemen, housing is one of our main challenges. But it is also an opportunity. We have to tap into this opportunity to invest more and better, and to give hope back to many citizens. There isn't a silver bullet, but there is one here, and that is that there has to be understanding, and there have to be ideas. Now, we have to build on this.
Because housing underpins a prosperous society, the future of Europe hinges on it. Thank you.
Speaker 1
And now, I pass the floor, on behalf of the Commission, to Commissioner Dan Jorg. Jorgensen.
Honorable.
Speaker 3
Chair, honorable members, dear friends, it is a true pleasure to be here with you today. Over the past year, we've been working very hard hand in hand, and I want to thank you so much for that collaboration. Together, we have opened a new and inclusive European discussion about tackling the affordable housing crisis. And together, we've shaped the first-ever European affordable housing plan. I would like to thank you for your dedication and commitment to our shared work.
And I very much welcome this report. It contains concrete and practical suggestions that can reinforce and complete the work we have set in motion through the affordable housing plan.
Tackling the housing crisis demands collective action. And today, we are showing that we are ready to act together. This is a crisis that undermines the values upon which our Union was built.
To protect, promote equality, ensure stability, and provide opportunities for our people. This is a crisis that affects the most vulnerable. Those without a home, those coping with disabilities and facing discrimination, our young people, and, increasingly, our elderly.
Citizens. And this crisis also hurt the people who form the backbone of our communities and our societies. From health workers to teachers and people working in public transport. We cannot sit and allow our citizens to suffer. We cannot sit by and let our values erode.
Therefore, we're shaping a new way to work on housing at the European level. We are doing it across the political spectrum and between institutions. I believe that we've come to a broad consensus on the reading of this crisis. And that we share a vision for the main solutions.
In full respect of subsidiarity, we want to harness every tool we have at the European level. To make a tangible difference to all the people impacted by this crisis. Following the presentation of our last plan, the commission has already started preparing follow-up actions to deliver on our shared priorities.
We are preparing to address short-term rentals this year in the Affordable Housing Act. We are promoting the simplification of rules to boost supply at EU national, regional, and local levels. We're scaling up investments to deliver sustainable, quality housing at an affordable price while increasing transparency and discouraging exploitation and speculation. Through the pan-European investment platform and the state aid reform, we are opening new sources of public and private funding for social, affordable, and sustainable housing. To further increase supply, as we implement the European strategy for housing construction, we will deliver game-changing solutions for the construction sector across Europe.
By boosting skills and rolling out innovative digital tools with harmonized standards, we can achieve better results. We will continue to support energy-efficient homes and renovations, while also spreading the new European Bauhaus initiative to communities across our continent.
In December, I stressed that our vulnerable citizens would be put at the heart of our plan, and I repeat this here. Today. In the second quarter of this year, we will present the first-ever EU anti-poverty strategy. And a proposal for a Council recommendation on fighting housing exclusion. On all of these matters, we need to continue working closely together.
Across EU institutions, member states, and all other actors. That is why we've proposed setting up a European Housing Alliance, and I want the Parliament to play a vital role in this.
We are also holding a number of high-level meetings this year, including an informal housing ministerial meeting under the Cyprus-Irish. Presidencies. And finally, we will organize a housing summit, a pivotal moment to place housing at the top of the political agenda where it rightly belongs.
So honorable members, dear friends, let me again thank you for your very valuable report. This will shape our work for the remainder of the year and for as long as it takes for us to make a real difference in this crisis.
Together. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, Commissioner. Now I pass the floor on behalf of EPP to Nicolina Brignac.
Madam.
Nikolina Brnjac
President, dear colleague, today people are worried in Europe. They are worried that they are not able to afford their own home. Young people work. They get an education. And careers.
However, with these prices, they cannot buy a property; without a property, there is no family life. There is no demographic stability, and there is no future. So, this report sends a very clear message.
Europe has an issue. We do not have enough housing units. We are not constructing enough. This is why we invite the commission to present their package on the housing crisis in order to construct new residential units, use the land, and decrease prices. We need to simplify the laws that pertain to urban planning and permitting.
Permits need to become digital, and they need to be issued within 60 days. We also need to have a favorable tax framework for construction materials or perhaps not pay tax when you buy your first property.
This is the case in Croatia. We also need to tackle the issue of short-term rental. However, we need to bear in mind the precarious balance of a tourism destination. Today, I have something symbolic with me.
This is a key. This is a key for the millions of Europeans. It is security and stability. Our goal is for every young person in Europe to have this key in their hands: the key to their own home.
Thank you very much, and I invite you to support this report.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. I remind you that it is not allowed to have any haptic devices, issues in your handbooks, keys, or other things. We are a parliament, and we talk, not show symbols.
Now I pass the floor to the next speaker on behalf of S and T, Eon Oryodoin.
Little. Baby Jacqueline.
Speaker 5
That's not his name, but his story is real. He sleeps in a cot beside my daughter in a Dublin maternity hospital. As parents of premature babies, we share similar emotions. Concern, fear, love, and joy. Declan is very similar to our Roshin.
But unlike Roshin, Declan has been born into homelessness. Emergency accommodation for a homeless baby: two tiny babies side by side, but already one is burdened with the crushing injustice of homelessness. And looking at them both, I am overcome with shame. Shame that the promise of our republic, our fair city, and our European Union has betrayed him. Shame, because Declan isn't a one-off.
There are 4,000 Declans in Dublin, 5,000 in Ireland, and over 400,000 in Europe. 400,000 homeless children. And there are those who tell us that profit must rule. So, children and homelessness should not be accepted as collateral damage.
Families living in hotels, tourists staying in homes—we cannot accept that. It should offend us, insult us, and shame us all. Finally, today, we can say that the EU is intervening where the market and member states have failed.
Regulating short-term rentals, protecting tenants, and allowing our councils to invest. A housing commissioner, housing committee, and now a housing report delivered by the S and D group and proudly by the Irish Labour Party.
Today, say no more housing chaos, no more market-driven solutions, no more homeless babies.
Thank you very much.
No more shame.
Speaker 1
I really beg you to keep to the speaking time. We have a long list. The next speaker is Clara Dostalova.
Speaker 6
In. In Europe, housing has become one of the most pressing problems for young people. Young people cannot afford housing. Working people often have difficulties paying their rents, and the whole generation feels that their own housing is only a dream.
It is therefore correct that we discuss it in the European Parliament, but we need to hold a mirror up to the European Commission. The European Commission has been adopting regulations that make housing and new building very difficult. There are many administrative rules, and part of the Green Deal also affects new houses.
When it is expensive to build, it is expensive to find housing, and that's a problem we have overlooked. If we need to help people, we have to remove the obstacles that we have made ourselves. We have to make permitting processes easier and build faster.
We can help coordinate support, investments, and share experiences, but the policies of housing have to be in the hands of the member states. The European Commission can help when it admits its mistakes and removes the obstacles.
On behalf of ECR.
Thank you, Chair.
Speaker 7
Europe is facing its biggest housing crisis since the Second World War.
This is the crisis that is at the basis of the demographic decline of our continent. Our nation that cannot guarantee a roof over the head of its youth has no future, and the solution of covering the population deficit with migrants is suicide.
Unfortunately, the European Commission worked in haste and launched its proposal without listening to the Parliament. After voting on this report, I firmly asked the commission to make sure that its proposal reflects our work here.
As an ECR political group's negotiator, I have three firm messages. One: no more financial crumbs. The MFF needs money. We firmly request a clear program for housing finance like the SAFE program. Since we find money for everything everywhere, we also need to find money for the European houses.
Secondly, stop the Green Deal bulldozer before it destroys everything. Anyone who doesn't vote for an ECR amendment or the elimination of prohibitive green legislation will contribute to the demographic death of the Union.
Mandatory green renovations can cost way too much, over $100,000 per unit. Three, no squatting. This should not be viewed as an isolated phenomenon, as it affects us all. It is not only an attack on the fundamental right to private property, but a league of threat against us in general.
We need legislation that respects the citizen's wallet and the legal framework that honors the right to property and the member states.
Speaker 8
The agreement of renewal is with Brigitte Van den Berg. Europe is in a major housing crisis. And when you cannot find your home, you cannot build a life. The European Parliament has finally assumed its responsibility in tackling this crisis. And that's essential.
I was happy to negotiate it. Because while Europe may not build your home, it can make building easier and cheaper. By creating an internal market for construction materials, cutting red tape, and lowering energy bills by ensuring sustainable housing.
And let me say this: whatever laws we make and whatever policies we create, it's the skilled workers who are going to build our houses.
And I am proud that this European Parliament recognizes how crucial the efforts of vocationally trained professionals are. I want a Europe in which construction workers, electricians, and plumbers work across Europe with the same ease as everybody else. This is the only way we can build houses for all Europeans.
Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. The next speaker is Maria Ohisalo. On behalf of the Greens.
Speaker 9
Dear President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, housing is a human right.
And we, in this house, have the responsibility to make sure every single person in the EU has a place to call home. The report we're going to vote on today fails to recognize this right. Some of the solutions the report proposes are exactly those that have created the current housing crisis across Europe. Instead, we must put an end to housing speculation. We must invest in public, green, safe, and affordable housing. We must end homelessness by 2030. And we must stop short-term rentals from pushing up rents. And we must make renovations fair and accessible to everyone.
Home should be for the people, not for profit.
Leila Chaibi
You're. A magician. It was supposed to be a report on housing. And now, it's a report on properties. The goals for 2030 have been decided. It's all about the rights of owners.
You're stronger than David Copperfield, Mr. Hermanus Laraz. It's not about the right to housing. It's about the lobbies of the lobbies, for example, Airbnb. What you have been defending all the time.
You've seen the representative of tenants only once. More market and nothing about limiting rents. It's a pretext for deregulation. We had the negotiation. You tried to tell us that the housing crisis was caused by the directive on the reduction of birds and speculation, not by Airbnb, but by birds.
Your proposals involve Europol with those who don't pay their rent. It's indecent what you're proposing, Mr. Jimenez. We'll be voting against your report, and we'll propose a Europe where cities aren't museums but places of life. We should have our city centers populated by those who work. Europeans don't need magicians; they need solutions to make the right to housing a reality in Europe.
Speaker 12
The next speaker is The Colleagues. Let's say this out loud. Prices of rent are very high. We use very expensive materials for building.
It's the most expensive in the world. So what we need to do is finally put a stop to this. So, I'm pleased that we're talking about this particular issue, but your solutions aren't really very close to reality.
Is this going to be supportive to people if you ban them from using fuel engines? How can you have a quota on emissions? How is that going to support people who need to find a home that makes a home 300,000 euros more expensive? So if all new housing in the future will be more expensive, then the situation is going to get even worse.
All this needs to stop because housing is not just for the rich or for millionaires. But also for people.
Speaker 13
Dear, Colleagues, Commissioner Jorgensen. Housing is a sense of security, a foundation of family life, and also an economic issue. Problems in member states are very different. While short-term rental is a problem in Southern Europe, different problems exist in the Baltic states.
The housing stock built during the Soviet occupation makes it difficult for people to buy their first home because banks' requirements are too stringent.
Heating bills in poorly insulated buildings are a heavy burden for senior citizens and families. Housing is the responsibility of the member states. And one size fits all will not work; we acknowledge that in our report.
But there are solutions. We have to invest in renovation and energy efficiency, and improve state aid rules. Secondly, we have to supply affordable housing by building new homes and using empty buildings and brownfield areas in accordance with the principles of sustainability and the New Bauhaus. We also need to use the European Investment Platform or the European Investment Bank. We have to cut red tape because it prolongs the implementation of projects.
And we have to invest in regions because Europe's eastern border regions are important for security.
Andreas Schieder
Olivier Collier, colleagues. Commissioner, I think the message from this report is quite clear. The housing urgency must be addressed at all political levels. The people in Europe are expecting the EU to act, and the housing crisis does not stop at national borders. In our report, it shows that at the European level, we can do a lot.
We call for the deregulation of short-term rentals, more investments in affordable housing, and fighting speculation. It's housing policy, if I can put it like that, my red Vienna, my home city, which is an example of successful housing that is affordable for people and of high quality. And now it's up to the European Commission, and we, as the European Parliament, to enact these proposals because it is high time that this topic is tackled, as housing is absolutely a fundamental right.
Speaker 16
Thank you. You, madam. Thank you, I would like to ask you a question, sir. Colleague, thank you for accepting this blue card. You spoke about the regulation of short-term rentals.
We're talking here about Airbnb and other platforms. And I do understand that this is important, but I know from my own experience and because of my friends and my circle of friends, people who want to travel through Europe.
Well, actually, short-term rentals are the only way for them to get to other countries in Europe. So, how can we regulate this without preventing young people who want to travel through Europe from finding cheap accommodation?
Thank you.
Andreas Schieder
Yeah. Thank you, sir. Thank you. For the question, I can just clarify one thing. We don't want to ban short-term rentals.
They're an important part of the tourism market. What we shouldn't do is assume that the business model of short-term rentals to tourists is more viable than providing housing for those who want to live in cities. That's why we need rules. Many cities and mayors, including Barcelona and Vienna, are looking for these rules. And we must give them the possibility to intervene in the markets so that people who want to live in cities can do so, allowing them to conduct those policies.
Yes.
Speaker 16
Thank you. My question is the following. So, how are we going to do this? How are we going to regulate the market without the prices going up, especially for young people who are involved in this?
Andreas Schieder
I mean, I do agree with what you say, but how can I see this in practice? I think it's about differentiating between private short-term rentals when somebody wants to rent their home over the summer and the commercial big firms who do that. Secondly, we must make sure that subsidized housing, for example, in communal housing, isn't used for Airbnb purposes. We must make sure that we have maximum limits. We need to have a mix in society and in cities.
Speaker 19
Mister Shida. The next speaker is Gyorgy Hirulbeni. Danke for the dear commission. Dear colleagues, what is the reason, in fact, for the crisis in housing? We do not do our homework.
That's the reason the Brussels left-to-liberal majority treats housing as a social project. They would like to centralize it. Centralize nation-state responsibility. In many countries, social housing is a means to tackle mass migration.
More than 1,000,000 Europeans are waiting for a home, yet illegal migrants can jump the line. Meanwhile, Brussels made political decisions to quit cheap energy sources, war inflation, and failed energy policies, the price of which is paid by European families. That is what is behind the housing crisis.
My country, Hungary, has chosen a different way. It's not a rich country yet. 5% of the GDP is spent on family and housing support. Housing is a matter of demography and a nation's future. Our objective is to give a home to every family.
While 68% of Europeans live in their own apartments, In Hungary, the rate is 92%. In the last 15 years, we had three pillars for the housing policy and paid a lot for that.
First, we had to protect half a million families from the debt due to the credit crunch. Half a million families were given apartments. And finally, first buyers, among them young people, have been supported since last year with advantageous 3% loans.
Hungary has chosen another way. We are responsible for our own families. We are supporting them.
Tony.
Thank you.
Speaker 20
Thank you very much. Madam President. Imagine, after years of working, paying your mortgage, and making sacrifices, a family buys a house and someone squats in it. Someone thinks that this is a solution to the housing emergency. We think that this goes against the law and property rights.
Housing isn't an experiment. And rights are not optional. There has been an unprecedented crisis since 2010. Rents have gone up by 50%. Mortgages are more difficult to pay, and more and more families find themselves paying too much for housing.
And in some cases, have to choose between paying the rent and eating. Putting up with squatting undermines legal certainty. We have to adopt specific policies between 2020 and 2024. Lombardy came up with specific policies to get houses back.
This isn't madness. This is a sound policy. So, those who have acquired something lawfully have to have it protected. We need clear and specific rules for everyone.
You, the president.
And mine.
Ciaran Mullooly
Over the past 8 years, average house prices around the EU have risen by nearly half, while rents have climbed by nearly a fifth. In many households, the cost of housing every month makes up 40% of the expenditure now.
It's just not possible to go on. Many citizens are unable to find proper accommodation and end up commuting for hours on end. Once again, we see students sleeping in their cars.
I've seen this. So, we have to act, and act quickly. I brought almost 50 targeted amendments to this committee, and I'm very pleased that most have been taken on board. I'm looking for a reform commissioner, vast legislation to allow member states to introduce a super reduced VAT on residential construction materials. I want to see us allowing fast-track or modular apprenticeships to scale up the workforce in this badly needed area. I'm asking member states to support young couples by allowing multiple dwellings to be built on family-owned land in rural areas.
These are pragmatic solutions. We have to remember what it is about. It's about Carina O'Grady from Galway City, who lost her home in the crash. It wasn't her fault. Now she lives in a Tewitt house and is a mother of seven. All of them are living at home. The oldest is 29 years old.
The eldest is 29 years old. It's a new generation of homeless people. We have to stop this. We have to stop it now. Thank you.
Speaker 23
Millions. 70% of Europeans can no longer live in decent housing. More than 1 million are out on the streets. And living on the streets. We need decent housing, and that's what the report should be about.
About. But the right wants to roll out the red carpet to finance to the detriment of European banking regulations. Securitization. This is a recipe that will just bring us back to the 2008 housing crisis. We know what awaits us if we go down this path.
Prices that shoot through the roof, rents that will be even more expensive, and a burden on households. When it comes to homelessness. The only proposal from the right is to criminalize them, ask Europol to provide files, and keep records of them as if they were criminals.
This is incomprehensible. I cannot believe you want to adopt a report that prefers property rights to the right to housing. Evictions and so on, instead of tenants' rights. There are more than 70 million Europeans who are going through a real nightmare.
Speaker 24
We need a genuine housing policy, so please vote against this report with us. Thank you. Denise Redne is Martin True.
Next speaker: Martin Tudor.
Speaker 25
Thank you very much, Madam President. People in Europe are working flat out. And they still can't afford their rent. Even just in Germany, exorbitant rents mean that up to 18,400,000 people are in housing poverty.
Greedy landlords are scamming these people and earning a fortune.
And short-term rentals, like Airbnb and Booking.com, are making housing even more scarce rather than strengthening the rights of renters. In this report, people are being attacked with databases of rent debtors rather than transparency registers.
Europol, rather than social policy. That is what your housing policy looks like. Property groups and big investors are already rubbing their hands. Renters, once again, are left in the cold. Rather than helping people, you are asking for tax breaks.
For construction companies without any social obligations. At the same time, environmental standards are abandoned, and squatting is criminalized. What you call progress is actually a gift to the rent mafia and the construction lobby.
We want that by 2030, every person can live in a home rather than just warm words and empty promises. People in Europe need real solutions. We need a rent cap, more social and public construction, clear rules against speculation, and a transparency register for properties. Because one thing is clear: housing is a human right.
Thank you very much.
Speaker 16
Mister Schuldevan, there's a blue card. Mister Sieper, I'm going to give you the floor, but you can't use a blue card all the time. Thank you. Thank you, madam. Well, you can strike me off the catch-the-eye list in that case.
But I do have a question for Mister Shodevan. Mister Shodevan, you've said some really great things. Basically, as far as the problems, you're absolutely right. But somehow, you need to talk about rent for those who rent.
And companies, construction companies that speculate, are people who leave their homes empty to make even more money. Okay? Fair enough. But if you know that 64% of rentals are in the hands of private owners, of small owners.
Speaker 25
So, do you believe that rentals are bad in that case too? Thank you very much for the question.
It's always a pleasure to discuss with you. Of course, we have a serious problem. In Germany, 80,000,000 people are affected by exorbitant rents, which affects tenants who have big companies behind them, but also private landlords, who are enriched by charging above-market rents. And we must act on that. That's the main problem.
I'm not challenging people's right to rent out homes. It's about certain people and interest groups connected to big construction groups using this situation and their property in a targeted way. To fleece people, we need to do something about that.
Speaker 16
Do apologize, I'm boring you, but this is a parliamentary debate after all. Mister Scheerwan, now we did agree that renting is not such a bad thing. So, what are we going to do to make sure that the number of private owners who want to rent could increase? So, we get a balance there. And that we can really have a proper balance in this case.
Thank you.
Speaker 25
Thank you very much. For the very sensible and parliamentary debate. Mister Ziebe. My goal, and that's where we differ, is that it's a good idea to have more public and social housing, and that there are more associations behind science and society. Associations, that's all right.
In a political debate. The goal must be that by 2032, Europeans have a roof over their heads. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1
Thank you so much. You know, you can all table a blue card. So, I mean, you may want to complain about this. It is a question of getting a key debate and actually getting the debate moving. And through a blue card, I think we can achieve this if the debate is conducted properly and reasonably.
Thank you. You.
Speaker 27
You want to eliminate the fact that people are homeless. But you keep talking about an increase in prices. A 60% increase. Look into the eyes of young people.
Young people who can't afford to have their own accommodation because they are hostages of your sick policies. So, what are you going to do about VAT? With your regulations, rent renewal or renovation of a home is going to cost as much as building a castle.
That is ridiculous, especially the provision on the entire renovation of homes. That is just a sign of arrogance. I think we need to reject ETS 2 on behalf of 60,000 Poles who signed my petition.
Speaker 28
People want to live normally. They don't want to live in your museum; protect the climate. So, we need to normalize this.
Does. Does it work? Yeah.
That.
Speaker 29
The problems come from within, not from outside. And it's a problem for workers and their families. This is one of the biggest problems: spending on our armaments is going up, and armaments companies are making huge profits with all these investments.
Rather, we must invest in housing so that housing is possible from a young age, where people are starting their families. We'd like to support demography. If young people don't have a roof over their heads.
We should invest in social housing; housing mortgages burden young people throughout their lives. We need to have public control so that Europe serves workers and those in need and can be strong.
Speaker 31
Thank you so much. Commissioner. Chairman, well, it's a good thing that we have a housing commissioner who also deals with energy, because look at the energy prices today, and the building of homes is actually going to be more expensive.
So the task that we have here is to try and design a path for a housing policy in Europe. Well, it is not. That's easy at the moment. Young people stay at home with their parents because they can't afford to pay for homes, and people are waiting for over a period of 10 years.
You know, the housing policy is not an exclusive policy of the European Union, but it is an issue that is a problem for all Europeans. I'm satisfied with this report.
I think that Borja and Chadows have done excellent work here. But the question to the European Commission is: do we want to be part of the solution, or do we want to stick to supporting the problem? You know, it's on the demand side.
You need to renew it. You need to build it. You need to do this quickly. You need to adjust the regulations and rules. And I think removing red tape is a good thing so that rental services can come closer to the people.
But simplification is what we need. And, Commissioner, you have said we need this in the member states because that is where the problem lies. But let us look at ourselves today, and we're therefore asking the commission: when can we see this simplification agenda? When can you table this before we forget this report and stick it at the bottom of a shelf? Thank you.
Speaker 1
Card from Mr. Gordon Bosnak. And I have to explain, Mister Buddha, it's not possible to ask within the same political group. So EPP cannot ask EPP. So, I have to, and you are on the catch-the-eye list. So I give the floor; there is a blue card.
Do you accept this from Mister Bosnak, Mister Hoting? Mister Bosnak. Yes. Okay. Mister Bosnak. Who's that? Thank you.
Gordan Bosanac
Dear colleague, you mentioned how warmly you support this report, and you also said that there is a really great need to build a new stock.
To solve this crisis. But at the same time, you're coming from the Netherlands. I'm reading that there are about 200,000 empty flats in the Netherlands. 21,000 only in Amsterdam. And in this report, there is nothing about that.
So what do you think about this? How can we actually mobilize the empty? Do we really need only to build, build, build?
It's good.
Speaker 31
I think the, how do you call it, the vacancies that you have, especially office space in inner cities, is an issue. But this is also something that has to be dealt with on a local level. I think the challenge here is that every time I have the same feeling about short-term rentals: are we trying to create a European solution for a very local problem that is very specific to a city like Amsterdam?
If you compare that to the rest of the cities in The Netherlands, it has very specific problems that do not apply to most of the other cities in the country. The same goes for Berlin or other cities in Europe. So I would say, give the mandate to the local and regional authorities, and that's where these kinds of problems need to be solved.
Not in Brussels or Strasbourg.
Irene Tinagli
Thank you, Chair. Today is a very important day, and it marks the recognition of the housing problem as a major priority of this union. It's been the result of long work based on four points.
First, what we have done is try to mobilize as many financial resources as possible for member states and local authorities, from the midterm review of cohesion funds to dedicated financing for housing provided by the European Investment Bank, to support both public and private investments.
Towards affordable housing. Second, it has made available best practices and successful models of social and affordable housing that can be scaled up across Europe. Third, where it has the competence to intervene directly, such as in the case of short-term rental, the commission will step up with legislative proposals. But fourth, in areas where direct intervention is not possible because the competence lies at the national level, like taxation, we have worked to guide and encourage government action.
But this is the point. We also need national governments to do their part. Some of them are doing that. Others seem to take too much time and commit too few resources.
To those countries, we say, wake up.
Speaker 1
There is a blue card from Mrs. Scheibbe. Do you accept it? Hello? There is a blue card from Missus Scheiby. Chiby, miss Scheiby, please. Yes. 30 seconds.
Leila Chaibi
Madam Tina Gliv, Missus Tinelli, you have been chairing the housing committee. You've been a good chairperson. I'll repeat what I was saying. Shall I give you time to put on your headset? Then I'll repeat what I said.
Madam.
Leila Chaibi
Sinagi, Missus Tignale, for one year now, you have been chairing the special committee on housing. You've been a good chairperson. You have organized a lot of hearings with ex-experts. You've heard from them. We've carried out studies.
Fact-finding visits. This led to findings, and then Missed Jimenez's report doesn't reflect what we've been talking about for a whole year. From your point of view, do you think that this housing RIP report reflects everything we've heard and everything that's happened over the last year in the housing committee, or do you think that the findings, conclusions, or recommendations are biased? Thank you.
Irene Tinagli
The report reflects, of course, the majority consensus of the committee and the different ideas. We are in a democracy. We confront, and we have a dialogue. It reflects most of the work that we have done, in the sense that it contains many things that, at the very beginning of the committee, were not even on the table.
Leila, you know that. The fact that now we have a report that addresses the issue of public housing, social housing, and homelessness also encourages the commission to take action on speculation to understand more where we couldn't get enough information.
Intervention on the shock term rentals. Of course, we cannot legislate now, but we have a commitment on the side of the European Commission to do so, whereas one year ago, everybody told us that this would never have been possible.
Thank you.
Speaker 36
I think if your diagnosis is wrong, then the results are propaganda. 95 pages, which don't talk about the basic problems of massive immigration. Demand is high, and there is no supply. 3 million people have entered Spain. Three million people have entered Spain who need a home, and they've really made the market very difficult, not only for ownership but also for rentals.
So, this means that young people and adults cannot own their own home or stable rentals. Which are good for both owners and those who want to rent. And what about all those foreigners who've been buying out the market? Is this because of you, because of your family regrouping and your forced insertion?
Policy. So there's a scarcity of housing, but that has not been caused by the invisible hand. It's the socialist governments, the EPP governments that have really been abusive on the rental market and using land, speculating for the future of young people, and you have abandoned policies of protected and social housing, which were so successful.
Gave home to owners from Spain, which is now going back to shacks. So the priority would be for re-immigration people to return to their countries, to build, and to reduce taxes.
Taxes and everything else are propaganda because those who govern the regions and the municipalities are those sitting on this side of the house. Please, Mr. Junglut. 30 seconds.
Yeah.
Fin tank.
Speaker 37
Thank you very much, colleague. You said very clearly that an important pillar for solving the problem is remigration. But when it comes to supply, there is a further aspect. A lot of new housing is so expensive because the costs are so high, and energy prices are a big part of that explanation.
And that's a problem in the EU. Perhaps you could propose a solution for that.
Speaker 36
Well. Of course, I'm going to have to agree with you, sir, because the climate policies have really led to a huge increase in the price of housing. And what we defend are homes, cheap homes that do not need any domotics or a whole series of things that are designed for you because we don't have really great wages.
I mean, people can't even dream of our wages outside, and normal people can't pay for these homes. So what we need are homes that are cheap and affordable for our young people who can actually start a family.
Thank you.
Speaker 1
Floor to the next speaker. I would like to explain one point of the rules we have for the blue card. Missus Ohisa, Salow asked for a blue card when the blue card of another person had already been asked for. You have to ask for the blue card with the original speaker, not during the action when the blue card is already raised by another, just to explain.
Now I pass the floor to Antonella Sperner, please.
Speaker 38
Thank you. The report that we're voting on today regarding the housing crisis is an important milestone in the debate on housing. For a long time, we looked at it from the social dimension, examining public support instruments and how to protect those who needed it. We're still keeping that focus, but we're also broadening the scope. That's why it's important that the final text also includes some very clear principles, thanks to, to some extent, the amendments that we tabled on this.
It's about protecting property rights and condemning squatting. Because if we protect property, it means there will be safety in our neighborhoods. And, of course, member states and local authorities play a very important role, and we've strengthened this. It's because of the principle of subsidiarity.
We've often forgotten realities in the debate, such as medium-sized towns and the need to support young families and students who more often than not find it difficult to access housing.
Last but not least, the text says that if there isn't innovation, less red tape, and more affordable housing, we won't be able to tackle this crisis. And this is the path to take, as has been done in some member states with national policies.
Georgia Meloni has been doing this. She has brought many new dwellings to the market. Unused dwellings mean that there is more supply. So, defending the right to a home is tantamount to protecting freedom, family safety, and property.
Commissioner. I hope that our work will not remain a dead letter and that it will be taken on board when looking at the affordable housing plan.
Gordan Bosanac
Colleague, here I am. Hi. You have mentioned how it's really important to solve the crisis at the local level in the cities. And you are coming from Italy, with beautiful Milan or Rome, etc.
But where to build more in Milan? Where to build more in Rome? Can you explain to us if there is still some space to give and to build the new stock? Can you explain a little bit about that? Thank you.
Speaker 38
You. I think that we need to take a comprehensive approach. It's not just about building. I talked about the Italian government's housing plan, which is about to be unveiled. It's also about changing the use of what is already there. It's about the public and private approaches.
We have to harness all these tools, and we have to look at the different towns and cities, not just Italian towns but European towns and cities, because there are inner-city areas that have very specific situations and then other town centers that have a lot of dwellings. But it's extremely important to make sure that we have policies that are useful for all citizens.
Speaker 40
Thank you. You. Well, all of us are thinking about Iran. The humanitarian crisis. And, without ignoring what's happening there, we're talking about housing. The basket cluster of construction talked to me a few days ago, and they want to be a solution.
To the problems in the area of housing. So apart from large buildings, there are 122,000 jobs involved in small companies and businesses making windows, carpentry, and waste disposal. They all want to contribute to access to affordable housing. And I would like to appeal to all of you so that the drop in red tape, support for youth and vulnerable groups, and increase in supply should be based on a public-private model, putting an end to abusive practices and making sure that this can have an effect on the real estate market, so that every single person can find a solution freely to buy or rent, and have access to a decent home.
Gordan Bosanac
Thank you. Millions of our fellow citizens are looking at this house with the expectation to deliver a solution to the devastating housing crisis. And today, a strangely divided majority will deliver the report, which unfortunately will not provide solutions. On the contrary, it may even deepen the crisis.
The housing crisis is not a natural disaster. It is the result of political choices. Decades of policies have treated homes as financial assets rather than places to live. The EPP group wants to continue going in this direction.
How else to explain? They don't even want to recognize housing as a human right. They do not recognize speculation and devastating short-term rental policies as root causes of this crisis.
With this report, the EPP and the right wing are betraying people in Europe, especially European youth. Some of you are sitting up there in the gallery. Who are struggling with rent and loans.
But there is no surrender. We shall keep on struggling together to ensure a decent home for everyone. Thank you.
Speaker 1
There is a blue card for Missus Grappini. Missus Grappini, do you want the blue card or the catch the eye? The catch the eye. Okay. Then it's fine. Thank you.
Speaker 41
The next speaker is Lee Anderson. The root cause of the housing crisis is a complete market failure.
Li Andersson
The problem is not a general lack of supply, but a shortage of not-for-profit affordable housing that could balance out the negative effects of this profit-driven market.
This point is exactly where these reports, which mostly focus on increasing market supply, fall short.
And therefore, I think it constitutes a huge missed opportunity for this Parliament and for the EU to really address this crisis that affects millions of Europeans. For my country, the most acute issue is the new Eurostat classification, which treats interest subsidy loans for state-subsidized housing as government debt, even when the government only acts as a guarantor for the loans. This needs to be changed if we want more incentives for social housing investments for member states. We need to address the failures created by the financialization of the housing market, and we need to recognize housing as a human right.
Next speaker is Ivan David.
Speaker 43
Madam. Chair, the housing crisis, including the growth of homelessness, has a number of causes and shows the failure of European Union policies. Priorities of the European Union, such as emission allowances, Russian sanctions, and high administrative demand, make housing expensive.
The so-called European plan for affordable housing is not going to solve the problem. It defines the goals, but there are no clear means to achieve those goals, and they are dubious, such as new technical solutions, new construction materials, or the favorite mantra of administrative burden.
Redesigning state aid seems to be of less importance than supporting the arms industry. And so the theoreticians in the European Union can now use a new term: next to energy poverty and transportation poverty, they can also define housing poverty.
Regina Doherty
Thank you, Chair. Commissioner, today, we have an opportunity to change the direction of the lives of a generation of young people. In my own hometown, Dublin, and the cities right across Ireland, young people who are working hard and doing absolutely everything right cannot find a home that they can afford to buy.
Many are still living with their parents long beyond the age they should have expected, which is delaying milestones that my generation and previous generations would have taken for granted. Moving out, settling down, planning a future, and having a family.
Ireland is not unique. Right across Europe, we see the same pressures: rising construction costs, financing and lending gaps, and a planning environment that has become convoluted, slower, more complex, and more difficult to navigate.
I think the outcome is clear. We're not building houses fast enough. I think that's why the work of this Parliament's special committee for housing has been so important over the last year. And really, we have worked collectively and together to examine the causes and the shortages of houses right across the Union and look for practical ways to actually help member states increase supply. Today's report hopefully sends a clear message that housing is, should be, and needs to remain firmly on the European agenda. Now, we all know that Europe can't tell people how to build houses. Policy will always remain a national competence, but we can absolutely help remove the barriers that come from here that limit investment and slow down construction.
In Ireland, judicially reviewing developments and blocking or delaying thousands of houses from being built has actually become nearly like a blood sport. And that's why this report calls for a housing simplification package to cut unnecessary bureaucracy and shorten promising procedures that are really delaying progress.
We also need investment from the European Bank, EU financial instruments, and particularly for smaller developers to support public and private partnerships. Today, we need to go from reporting the crisis to actually fixing it.
Speaker 1
I have two blue cards, Missus Doherty. One from Missus Ohi Salo and one from Mister McNamara. Do you accept them? Please, Miss Oysala.
Here.
I'll speak Finnish.
Speaker 9
I hope that people around Europe who are suffering from huge housing costs at the moment will find relief. I hope that millions of people around Europe who are suffering at the moment from high housing costs will read this report by Parliament and notice that the big problem in this report is that, according to the report, the greater right is to own a home rather than that each person has a right to a home. This is a huge problem.
And this is all about the EPP story here. I don't understand why the Social Democrats are voting for this report.
Speaker 46
Deregulation and more construction won't help. Please, Keith, stick to the time. Missus Dougherty, thirty seconds for the answer.
Regina Doherty
So, thank you for the question, and I'm not really sure I agree with the sentiment that you've outlined. What I have seen for the last 12 to 14 months is collective parties trying to work together in order to solve a problem for all the people in all of our member states.
It isn't about political ideology. It's about recognizing that our young people can't afford to have a home, which they absolutely should be able to do. And I think what I've seen is all of us trying to work collectively together to provide solutions to that crisis.
Speaker 1
The next question was from Mr. McNamara. 30 seconds, please. We have to stick to the time.
Michael McNamara
These are many of which are beyond the control of member states and indeed may perhaps even be beyond the control of the European Union. But do you think that any of the causes of the housing crisis in Ireland lie with the government of which you were a member, a minister with collective cabinet responsibility? Not all, but any of them?
Thank you.
Regina Doherty
I think there are many crises that have been caused by actions of the member states. But what we've been trying to do, Michael, as you well know for the last 12 months, is to address the issues that are causing delays and interrupting the building supplies that come from here.
We're not trying to interfere with member states and the decisions that they make, but we're trying to recognize that some of the barriers causing longer delays and less financing actually come from regulations—an abundance of regulations—from the European Union and restrictive lending rules that apply both to the European Investment Bank and our central bank rules.
Speaker 49
Madam. President, young people who live in their parents' home until they're almost 40 years old, overcrowded dwellings, and more and more homeless people—these are increasingly common realities, and we all acknowledge that for millions of Europeans, buying or renting a house has become almost impossible.
So, we have this housing crisis, and the EU has to shoulder its responsibility. I think this report is a step in the right direction. It acknowledges the fact that housing should be a policy priority. And that it is a right. But we have to go beyond that. We need specific EU funding for housing.
The right wing of this house still rejects that. We need more public housing both for disadvantaged people and for middle-income families. We also need to deal with homelessness because we should be ashamed of having homeless people on our streets.
Speaker 1
We need political courage and boldness to take this path because Europeans would not forgive us. If we didn't do that, then...
Yeah. Mister Oliveira, 30 seconds.
João Oliveira
Thank you. You, madam. Missus Gomez, you talked about the diagnostics. The problem of housing exists everywhere in Europe, also in Portugal, but do you feel that this report is really focusing on these priorities properly? Because here, it seems to refer more to the economic issues, which concern the construction and financial sectors. And it doesn't really focus on the social side, which is what it truly is.
So, an increase in public housing is important not just for social housing, but also for those who are faced with difficulties. Even people who have jobs but do not possess a home.
Thank you.
Speaker 49
Thank you very much. What I can say is that this report contains potential measures to allow us to overhaul housing policies as we've known them until now. Of course, we need investments, and I already said that. We need European funds, and we need specific funds to invest in this sector because otherwise, it will be very difficult to tackle the problem. But as I see it, this report does include a set of measures to provide a solution to this problem.
Forget it.
Speaker 51
Madam, in Europe, and especially in the Netherlands, there's a shortage of housing. And people keep seeing that what was a right has turned into an exclusive possibility.
The commission needs to look at the European laws and what regulations may make housing more difficult or almost impossible to build. They should look at the environmental rules, the directive on CO2, which really prevent building from taking place. All of this needs to be deregulated. And we need to get rid of this.
And then, of course, the asylum policies put stress on the market. We're going to have an increase in this problem if we don't stop immigration. So, commission, shoulder your response to look at the red tape.
Remove the red tape because, at the end of the day, it's not a luxury to have a roof over your head. It's a fundamental right.
Speaker 1
To stop the blue card now, and I also close the catch the eye already because we already have 20 requests for catch the eye. I will not be able to take all of them.
Just to be clear. And now, we have to follow the speakers' list without catching the eye and the blue card. Please, the next speaker is Marlena Malag.
Speaker 52
Allow. Me, to start with an image, one that is known by many Europeans: young couples in their thirties, both working. They want to start a family. They have dreams. But one thing is missing: a home.
And that's a housing crisis in Europe. A year ago, we set up a committee on this subject. There's not enough housing. What is built is too expensive. The prices of energy and construction are too high. Bureaucracy, red tape. But let's be honest, it's not a crisis that fell from the sky.
It's speculation. In the market, which has caused all this rather than homes for people, for families, we built buildings with less housing, fewer families; fewer families mean fewer children, and this means a Europe which is weaker.
So, we need bold decisions. The plan we're talking about is a step in the right direction, but it's not enough. We need to strengthen our actions in that regard. We have to cut red tape. Housing is the foundation of a family.
The next speaker is Barry Cohen.
Barry Cowen
Colleagues, My reason for pushing for a housing commissioner and this report was always very simple.
Two things needed to happen. Reform of state aid rules and a stronger lending role for the European Investment Bank. Both are clearly recognized in this report, and from my perspective, that means the core job here is done. At the same time, housing has become and remains a member state competence.
Delivery happens at the national, regional, and local levels. For Ireland, reform of state aid rules will broaden the criteria under which the state can invest in social and affordable housing. Meaning more homes for families and young people.
Meanwhile, the impact of expanded EIB financing is already visible, with our land development agency seeking up to 1,000,000,000 in funding, a step alone that could support the delivery of more than 2,500 homes.
Overall, this report makes our national goal of delivering 300,000 homes by 2030 more achievable than ever. So now it's for the commission to implement these recommendations, as it has promised to do, and for member states like my own in Ireland to turn them into delivery.
Thank you.
Speaker 54
Ladies and gentlemen, what you're putting forward in the report isn't going to solve the housing problem. It's going to make it worse because that is what has been happening over the last few years.
Those living in Valencia do not need anything explained. If you have deregulation and unbridled construction, then building houses that cost 1,000,000 or 2,000,000 dollars destroys the coast. While those who live in villages, like me, couldn't have access to any housing and then illegal tourist rentals, that means local citizens can no longer live in their neighborhood. And the fact that you can tap into public funds without any strings attached just fuels the fire and makes the problem worse.
We have to tackle the root causes of the problem and be bold. Let's put an end to the financial speculation surrounding property. We need to act against areas becoming increasingly touristy.
Thank you very much.
Daria Salis.
Speaker 55
Thank you. You. Well, hope is really one of our basic rights. If we have no home, everything becomes frightening. Fragile.
Our jobs, our health, and our dignity. But in Europe today, and in Italy in particular, too many people have no home. Too many people struggle to pay rent. Many workers cannot live in the cities where they work.
This is a housing crisis, and we all see it. I mean, it makes me angry and ashamed. How is it possible that we can't even guarantee dignity to all? And this happens when economic interests are put before the interests of individuals, when the market is left without any limits.
You know, we need to intervene. We need to find solutions. We need to find political will. We need to actually make the wealthy pay, and we also need to introduce taxes for tourists and the seasonality of much of the real estate.
Speaker 57
Colleagues, the report that we're voting on this week makes a clear diagnosis. The housing crisis is a problem of supply in many member states; construction of housing has been too weak. There are too few permits, and the gap between supply and demand means prices are going higher.
We want to have affordable housing. We need one thing: more construction, building more and faster. Europe can help by cutting red tape. The report calls for a horizontal review of EU legal acts.
And that drives up housing and renovation prices, and talks about a simplification package. The housing omnibus must start there. Remove dual regulations, remove unnecessary rules, and implement digital standards. The commission should deliver that soon, and this should be a priority for them.
We must also talk about financing. The report underlines how important it is to have access to housing finance. And the credit conditions and interest rates have become much stricter in recent years after the introduction of new capital standards. Construction project financing has become more expensive.
If you want to have more housing, you must have a quick look and not hold things up with more regulations. Sustainable financing for more construction. Those are the solutions for solving the housing crisis.
Thank you.
That is Marco Vesligay.
Speaker 58
Dear, Colleagues in Europe, housing units represent 57% of household income wealth, and they serve as security for the future. At the same time, 30% of Europeans believe that they will never be able to afford their own home.
In my country, Croatia, the research I've conducted shows that the situation is even worse.
70% of young people cannot afford to buy or rent an apartment. And how could they? When the average salary is around €1,500, while the average price of this per square meter is €600.
The problem is the lack of public housing. The countries are not planning long term, but they are providing incentives for private investors.
This is running away from responsibility.
Speaker 58
The state is the one that has to guarantee a roof over our heads, and this cannot be left in the hands of private entities. I will repeat once again. Home is a right, not a luxury.
Olivier.
Speaker 59
Thank you. You, Madam President. The housing debate is of key importance. It's a political debate that should be taking place, but not in this house. First of all, because the EU doesn't have powers in the field of housing, this is another example of how the European Commission is usurping power.
The second reason isn't of a legal nature, but it is political. You are a paramedic firefighter. You're saying that there's a lack of housing, but at the same time, millions of migrants are arriving in Europe, and you are organizing this. And this has an impact on member states that have to find dwellings for them.
And this takes up all social housing in France. We have guidance to have these migrants live in rural areas. People have to leave social housing in other countries so that new arrivals can live there.
When the EU deals with a subject such as coal, steel, vaccines, energy, or cars. We know that that just leads to a general collapse.
Speaker 60
Ericsson, then Erin, Nat, Kunal, Regunal, thank you so much.
Well, housing is a national, regional, and local responsibility. That is why Europeans shouldn't really get involved. Europe clearly has very different real estate markets from one country to another, depending on where we are. If we're in Barcelona or Berlin, it has nothing to do with what you may find in the rural areas.
So the housing crisis is a problem because of many different phenomena. In 2008, the United States had started to do ambitious work similar to this, but there have been consequences and people have been hit.
Especially because of what the politicians have decided. We need to deregulate. We need to make sure that member states can run their housing policies. Thank you.
Speaker 61
Paulina and Jonas have a problem. For many months, they have been desperately going around Hamburg trying to find a home in the city where they work and study for six months. They have sent applications. They've looked at lots of homes. Often, they didn't hear back from the landlord.
Paolo and Jonas aren't just some people. There are millions of people in a similar situation because they have a problem living in a city or in a rural area and finding an affordable home.
Those who have a home suffer from high rate increases and policies of big concerns that aren't bothered about their home. 1.4 million homes are available in Germany, but building isn't the solution.
We need to have affordable housing. For ordinary families and people. What the EU is doing is acting against speculation and empty properties to make property groups responsible, where the majority in this house isn't prepared to do that. However, we and the Greens are fighting for people like Pauline and Jonas.
Speaker 62
You. Madam President. Commissioner in Spain, there are a lot of people who earn €1,800. And if they're lucky, they pay €1,000 in rent, €400 for food, and then there's Internet, gas, insurance, €250. And €100 for petrol. And all you have left is €100 and you still have to buy clothes for your children, just hoping that nothing extra comes up. As you can see, people cannot make ends meet.
People are working, but they're not really earning anything because every euro they get is used to pay someone else. And where does the money end up in the European Commission now? The big companies have just raked in record-high profits.
Airbnb says that for 2026, there should be a two-digit rise in profits. Other people do not have homes. Investment funds by these houses without even viewing them. And this money, the profits go into the arms industry to wage war.
All these US vulture funds should be thrown out of our country and Europe. This is what invasion is. And do you know why this grand theft is happening? This is because you, European Commissioner, are not doing anything.
Write this, Balzac.
Thank you. Thank you so much, ladies and gentlemen.
Speaker 63
We're talking about the housing crisis in Europe. But for many people who are disabled, it doesn't start with the price of the home, but with the fact that there are simply no affordable homes because 6% of these homes are not adjusted for the disabled. And that is not just a question of comfort. It's an obstacle that makes it very difficult for people to become independent, to work, and to fully participate in society.
I'm very pleased to see that my proposal received ample support from the committee. Whatever our political views are, we've all recognized this problem. I appeal to the European Commission and the member states.
To agree, to grant a special situation for accessible housing so that individuals who are disabled can take advantage of this, because accessibility starts from the building phase or from the design phase; that is when you need to think of this space in an inclusive way. Way.
I'd also like to point out that the obligations that derive from the United States Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities need to be taken into account. Affordable housing support, personal assistance, and help are conditions that are fundamental for an independent and dignified life. I would also like to draw attention to disabled people as a whole.
Speaker 65
Thank you so much. Well, the housing crisis is not an abstract problem. It's a question of lots of young people who still live at home or a single mother who fears the increase in rent and the fact that people live without a roof over their heads. People try to look for affordable housing, and they can't find it.
We need to deal with this shortage. People in need should be able to live with a roof over their heads, but for this, we need more market and more access to ownership.
And it is the market that has actually caused this crisis. Because you look at homes as investments. Whereas what people are looking for is a home. So, if we really want to change something, we need to do things differently.
Social housing, more social housing, affordable housing without any rules preventing this from being built, because it's not a question of investment. It's a question of living in a Haida home for one minute, please.
Speaker 66
The board commission has discovered that there is a housing crisis, even though the EU does not have any powers. In housing, it is up to the member states. The commission wants to solve this problem.
Nonetheless, Commissioner, I have a tip for you. Speak to those responsible in the member states; I can help you. I can set up a meeting with the person responsible in my federal state.
We can tell you why there is a housing crisis. The emission certificates trading in energy has made energy expensive, which means that heating costs will get even more expensive from 2020.
The energy efficiency direction, the eco-design direction, and all these Green Deal legislations, which drive up housing costs, the EU and, in particular, the Commission, are the problem. And not the solution.
Stop your damaging and crazy green disaster policy; then the housing problem will be dealt with very quickly and swiftly.
Speaker 68
This. The report is an insult to European citizens and has no ambition. It is a gift to speculators and developers. Instead of investing in changing the measures that led to the housing policy, it ignores the causal reasons such as financial speculation, short-term increase in tourism, and illegitimizes privatizing social housing without any strings attached.
And just having the law of the jungle and not recognizing the human right to housing. Instead of this, you're asking for money so that you can build houses for wealthy people, so the wealthy can become even wealthier. And what about those in need? Nothing for them.
A full-time worker and employer can't even rent one house. She has to leave her city, sacrificed on the altar of profit, together with her family. This is the kind of person we want to help.
We don't want to help those who want to line their pockets and become millionaires. That is why we're going to be voting against this, and we're going to continue making sure that we defend those who have a right to housing.
Speaker 69
Dear colleagues, we're under huge time pressure, so I hope that you will respect the speaking time. And the next speaker is Mister, for one minute, please.
President.
Speaker 70
Colleagues, commissioner, finding a house at home is the first obstacle to being full citizens. The House Special Committee report recognizes the problem but offers an answer which does not really refer to the logic of the market. Private investment, deregulation, and accelerated procedures are not going to guarantee cheaper housing.
Accessible to all. For us, Tinguistele, we feel that housing is a fundamental right. We need to have a strong role for the public sector without any profit. Involved. We want to take measures against them.
Speculation and also all those empty houses that are on the market. And we need a commissioner. What we need to do is make your project more ambitious, sir. You know, you are not listening to me.
I see that you're looking at your phone. So we're spending billions on other investments, but we're spending very little in the housing sector and everything else. It is just a waste of words.
Thank you.
Speaker 71
Thank you very much, Madam President. Commissioner, in this year and a half, the housing committee has completed extraordinary work to analyze the root causes of the housing crisis in Europe. We've also looked at the expectations of European citizens.
We all agree on one principle. Principally, there isn't a one-size-fits-all solution for housing across the EU. So, the needs of the big cities in the North are very different from the needs of rural areas and towns in the South, and so on.
Of course, all of this is linked to depopulation. But also the social fabric of the communities themselves. This report has focused on two key issues. First of all, streamlining the regulatory framework, then reducing taxation and whittling down VAT.
This measure is something that the EA Italian delegation, Forts Italia, wanted. We need to release new resources. We need to boost private investment. There needs to be a new pact between the sector and public institutions.
Speaker 72
We've done our bit. Now, the ball is in the court of the commission to come up with specific answers.
Speaker 69
I know you don't have a long speaking time, but please, are you under time pressure? The next speaker is Miss Schering Wilkus for one minute. Please.
Speaker 73
Commissioner. The problem of housing is huge.
Sometimes. There are some stupid contributions from those on the right. There is a pathology where the prices of housing since 2010 have gone up by 30%, and rents have increased by 16%. This means that young people in Europe can't have an independent life of their own.
We shouldn't close our eyes to the way in which the housing problem affects the poorest; 400,000 children are sleeping in the streets. In Poland, we have 35 children who don't have a home.
It's a shock. It's a scandal because a home isn't a good that can be traded. We should create rights for people, not for those who are speculating.
It's Andre. One minute, please.
Speaker 74
To have decent housing, affordable housing is what we wanted to do, but the committee didn't rise to the challenge because it looked at what wasn't within its remit. Let us let member states deal with their own housing policy.
In France, housing accounts for 30% of household expenditure, and the real estate bubble has led to prices skyrocketing in a country where there is more and more unemployment and poverty.
Having a roof over your head isn't a right, but a luxury. And, obviously, if you pay more for housing, then you can consume less. There are more and more environmental constraints, making it increasingly difficult to build.
There are 2,000,000 dwellings. But because of the administrative burden, it means that we can't turn offices into dwellings. And then, also other problems. However, the solution is very simple.
Give us some air. Give us oxygen. Let the people decide what kind of roof is going to be over the heads of their families. Thank you.
Speaker 75
Thank you, madam.
Commissioner, yesterday I was at MEPIN, the international fair held in Cannes. The real estate fair. And I did put forward Mr. Arropertura's report and the commission's plan to contribute to solving the housing crisis. Or the housing crisis, because one of the proposals we spoke about was particularly the need for public-private cooperation. But I was also asked about European funding in the area of housing, the support of the EIB, the pan-European platform, InvestEU, and ERDF within the framework of the future budget.
Speaker 76
So, my question to you, sir, is this: Will these funds be kept? And what are the sums of money involved? Thank you.
For one minute, please.
Speaker 77
The. The housing crisis in Europe is a real one. We have housing prices that are rising faster than incomes; many young people and families have great difficulties paying for a home.
Politics is also responsible, but housing policy is something that leads to many questions about responsibility. We have responsibilities. In Europe and in the member states. The regulation in Europe sometimes creates obstacles for construction in member states.
We should start by looking at revising rules and withdrawing them. In Sweden, for example, we are being held up from investing in social housing in certain sectors and in other countries too. We must make sure we can fight homelessness, and it's also a question of building materials. We shouldn't invest 100%. We should make sure that this sector is dynamic.
One minute, please.
Speaker 78
Commissioner, dear colleagues, the housing crisis is one of the highest social challenges in Europe today. For millions of Europeans, including many Romanians, access to a decent house has become more difficult. Prices have gone up by about 50% from 2010 to now. Many young people and many families pay rent or mortgages that eat up a huge amount of their salaries.
That is why we've come up with a European plan for affordable housing. Europe should look at this problem with all seriousness, just as it treats large challenges. That is why mobilizing European funds to renovate and construct accessible lodgings is a priority.
We need more transparency and rules to curb speculation in real estate. We have included in the next European MFF a budget to allow a real right to leasing housing.
Speaker 79
Thank you very much, Madam President, Commissioner. Today, access to housing is a genuine social emergency, perhaps the worst one. Over the last 10 years, buying a house has become 55% more expensive. Salaries haven't gone up at that pace.
European families that rent spend 40% of their household income on housing. This is a European problem that needs European solutions. And, of course, we need a European policy that is a proper policy.
First of all, we need to regulate. We need to step into the market that is failing. We need to regulate situations such as flats for tourists and, of course, speculation.
Secondly, we need funding to build public housing, which is expensive, and we need the authorities to be able to harness funding. So, the EIB should help. And then we need the cohesion policy to help with housing.
We need to work hand in hand with the mayors of big towns and cities. The Barcelona mayor, for example, wants European leadership. In this area. Why? Because a home isn't just a roof. It is about decent living and the life dream.
Speaker 80
I think that we all accept that we have a problem with the market. The figures are terrible, but we need to do something about this. And that is really the question: do you want more market? More market.
You know, the medicine that has killed the patient is less of a green deal because that was due to the hike. That was even before the hike of energy prices.
And others think, well, with a bit of aspirin, we can solve this problem. So, speculation and short-term rent: we need to call upon the commission to table a legislative proposal.
And then the Greens and the Left, who speak about the rejection of this report. But all your quotes come from the first version. Yeah. We've worked for over 1 year. We would have been happy to have your contributions to find good compromises.
Democracy is based on compromise. Yeah. You may complain, but this report is the first step to support the commission in preparing a legislative proposal against speculation, for instance. And if you want to heal the patient, you need money.
And, of course, a lot of the spirals have been amended short-term rentals. That is only something the commission can regulate, and to find social housing for the cities, we need the commission again for this. I know that the commission needs to deal with this.
Speaker 69
Colleagues, we have far too many requests for Catch the Eye. To accommodate everyone. So, together with Vice President Verhaun and I, we have put a list together, balanced between the groups, and based on when you asked for CATCH GI.
And we will begin with Mr. Stier, seat 673, please.
Thank you. You, the president.
Davor Ivo Stier
The price of a square meter has risen by 55% during the last 10 years. And this is due to the lack of supply. We need to provide more housing units on the market.
And introduce limits for short-term rentals. And what we also need is cut-rate tape, as stated by the report. But we also need to take into account the price of new buildings and the cost of energy.
The commission made a promise for geothermal energy. I visited the vicinity in Croatia, and they would like to introduce geothermal energy. This way, they will cut energy costs for our citizens. So, I welcome this initiative by the Commission.
Thank you.
Speaker 83
When? We talk about housing; we are not just talking about prices.
Our statistics. We are talking about people's lives. We are talking about a young person who works, does everything right, and still cannot afford to build his own life; about a small family who lives every month with the anxiety of how they will make ends meet.
The elderly, who, after a lifetime of work, are afraid of losing their home. A home is not just a building. It is a stable place of mind and the place where we build our lives.
This is a European crisis. This is why Europe cannot continue to look on and make plans that remain on the shelf. Europe must mobilize its resources and address this crisis. We need tangible actions with European financial support in the next budget and by facilitating investment. So that our citizens have more access to a decent and affordable roof over their heads, this is not just an economic issue. It is an issue of dignity, justice, and a guarantee for the future.
Thank you very much.
Speaker 84
Thank you very much, Madam President. The housing crisis is one of the most serious problems and challenges that the EU has been called upon to tackle. The lack of affordable housing affects young people, as well as middle- and low-income families and vulnerable groups. It undermines social cohesion, dignity, and equality.
High rental prices are a scourge, and they have also dealt a blow to my country because we have skyrocketing rental prices. But as if that were not enough, in Cyprus, we also have evictions from primary residences; like in other countries, citizens have to leave their homes. They've been evicted. Without any protection of the right to housing and property, that just exacerbates the whole problem.
I'd like to say that evictions from first residences or primary homes have to stop. Every single citizen has the right to housing. This is something fundamental for our families.
Mister Kelleher, seat 9, please.
Speaker 85
Yes. The housing crisis is a challenge for individuals, for a generation, and could fracture social cohesion and generational solidarity.
So, we are in the midst of a crisis. Rather than climbing into the ideological trenches and trying to fight from there, we should just look at the obvious problems that we have. Supply is a significant challenge, and it seems to me that states and local authorities are conspiring to stop the development of homes because the planning and permitting system in Ireland and across most of Europe is a significant obstacle to developing homes. And whether they are for the private sector, for the rental sector, or for social housing, it is simply impossible at the moment to get homes through the planning process in Ireland.
I also welcome the fact that the state aid rules are included in this report. That is a significant issue, and I believe those on the left should really look at this as an issue that we fought hard to ensure would be included, because that will give flexibility to member states to fund local authority, social, and affordable housing. So, I very much welcome that.
Speaker 69
Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Catch the eye. One minute, dear colleague. The next speaker is Miss Langen Siepenseed, 87, please.
Speaker 87
Thank you very much. We've fought very hard, Commissioner, for your efforts so that we have housing on the European agenda. We were expected to do a lot. And at the end of the day, we have a sort of commercial report rather than a social report.
If we want to talk about homelessness and poverty, Commissioner, the Commission is preparing a poverty strategy. I expect that people like single mothers, persons who work in the health sector, are mentioned when we talk about housing.
The right property is fine, but the human right to have dignity in housing must be upheld. We must lower standards. People with little money have a right to dignified, standardized housing. Does cheap have to be bad in the commission? In the years ahead, we expect the speakers to be cut off.
Speaker 88
Ladies and gentlemen, the housing crisis in Europe isn't just an economic problem. It's a social problem. The report that we're discussing today says that the problem lies in the fact that there is a housing shortage and that we need more money to build new homes.
The reality for citizens is very different. In many towns and cities, houses have become goods, a golden visa, funded by loans, and means that there are auctions and foreclosures. And flats are becoming Airbnb apartments or are kept vacant so rents go up.
Housing is a basic social right, not a financial product. We need to protect first homes. We need more social housing, and we need rules that put an end to it. The report that we're discussing today doesn't protect citizens. It's tailored to help the market, but I think it will make the housing crisis worse.
That is why I will vote against it. And in the near future, I'm going to unveil a huge housing crisis in Greece that the report doesn't touch upon.
Care.
Speaker 89
I think that our policy should be based on families. In Malta, property prices have increased by 50% in the last five years. This has led to several young couples not being able to get married and have their own family because it is impossible to buy a property.
I also meet couples who are going through separation. After years of paying their loans, they are unable to buy a property individually. In this plenary, we must focus on solutions. European solutions.
First, what burdens are we placing on those who are trying to buy property? We cannot burden the construction industry with more expenses. For example, in the previous legislature, we increased the tax on cement, steel, and wood. These are the materials that we need to construct our houses.
Therefore, I urge you: there needs to be an audit. Yes. An audit on the laws that we have already passed and how these are affecting this industry.
Maria Grapini
Commissioner, dear colleagues, the housing crisis is not a story.
I'd like to say it in. Romania, we have problems that don't exist elsewhere. We can't compare housing to that. We need social housing. That's what we're talking about here.
Need. An instrument.
Maria Grapini
Taxi's VAT. The cost of energy and the regime of deductibles: somebody who wants to carry out repairs in their house must have tax reductions. We need flexibility with loans. What is the EIB doing? The citizens of Europe do not have equal conditions. We need to measure.
Daniel Buda
Colleagues. Europe is confronted with a deep housing crisis. It is a crisis of our future. For an increasing number of Europeans, the dream of owning a house is unachievable.
Many young people live with their parents today. In recent years, the prices of housing have gone up by 50%, and rents by 20%. At the same time, building permits have decreased significantly.
The report shows us a clear direction. We must increase the offer, simplify procedures, and mobilize more public and private investment. I insist on the fact that public-private partnerships are the key to this problem.
We urge the local public authorities to prepare their urban planning plans for new housing so that when they have the European funds after 2027, they may be prepared. Europe must turn this crisis into an opportunity: an opportunity to build better, faster, and more affordable housing.
Thank you.
You, Madam President.
Speaker 92
Commissioner John, thank you so much. Well, clearly, there's a separation here between those who feel that housing is a social right and those who believe that housing is subject to speculation and investment.
So we need to focus on the rights of individuals, the rights of those without a home, the rights of vulnerable people, and be in favor of short-term rentals.
But it's only the EU that could do one thing. You can make sure that there is no concentration of housing in those voucher funds. Because that is the real problem. That is why it is so difficult for younger people to have access to housing, and the same is true for workers. So you need to prevent vulture funds and investment funds from buying up housing.
That is part of the solution. And that is what the EU can handle. People who have the right to a home. Thank you.
Speaker 69
I know that many of you have been here the whole debate, and we are aware that we did not have enough time to give the floor to all of you.
We have a celebration at 12:00 that we need to stick to, and we also have other debates. So, I do apologize, and it doesn't help shouting. I have to say, it doesn't help shouting.
And we made a common decision to give the floor to those of you who asked for it first. So, it's based on time. When you push the button, we can. But we do not have more time, so I will not be able to give more to you.
Speaking time on the Catch GI. But, of course, point of order: if you can refer to a specific paragraph, I will give you the floor. See, Mister Costas, I will give the floor to Mister Costas.
Seat 180, please. Sorry, cat.
Thank you, Madam President.
It's not your fault.
Speaker 95
But this is not the first time I have followed the discussion from the very beginning. Many colleagues have had the chance to make one, two, and sometimes even more blue cards.
That is unacceptable. Those of us who stay for all this time, waiting until the end, hope for a chance to catch the eye. We will deny it. I repeat, it's not your fault, but we need to review this procedure.
Speaker 69
Thank you very much. Mister Costas. Mister Matrivios. I know it's difficult. We try to accommodate as many people as possible.
And during the debate, we don't know how many will ask to catch the eye, so we try to balance it. We will look into it, but thank you for your understanding. I know it's difficult.
So I will now give the floor back to the Commission and Commissioner Dan Jorgensen to wrap up the debate. Please. The floor is yours.
Speaker 3
Do. I need to turn it? Okay. Having an affordable, decent house. A roof over your head is not something that's nice to have. This is a basic need.
This is a human right. Therefore, we can see very clearly that we are in a housing crisis in Europe, where normal people with normal jobs—school teachers, nurses, police officers—cannot afford to live where they serve. We need to take it seriously.
And I want to thank this house for doing exactly that. I want to thank you for your hard work and for the report that you are now adopting. I also want to thank you for the collaboration between our institutions. It is a problem that needs to be dealt with at many different levels.
Locally, yes. Nationally, yes. But also, at a European level, there are things we can do. Some will take time. Others we can do right now, like, for instance, the state aid rules.
Already changed them, giving possibilities for member states to support more affordable housing. Short-term rentals: it is totally unacceptable that in some cities, we see people being crowded out of their own homes.
In order to basically make just money machines. Out of short-term rentals. Short-term rentals drive up prices in neighborhoods, so people can no longer afford to stay there.
This needs to change. And member states need better tools to change it. And we will deliver that. Speculation occurs when houses or buildings are just considered commodities. Don't get me wrong.
It's good to have a free market. It's good that there's money to be made in constructing and renovating houses. All of that is good. But if it becomes just a commodity, something that's just there for speculation, then we have a problem because it means that the decisions that are then made are made only for one reason.
To make money, not for the best of societies. And that will not stand. So, this is why we're taking the first steps. The first step is to do something about that. We need more analysis. We need more data.
I need an overview of where exactly the problem is. What is the problem with speculation? Then, we need to decide what to do to change it. Once again, I thank you so much for this very interesting debate and for your report.
Thank you.
Speaker 69
Thank you very much, Commissioner. And now I will give the floor back to the rapporteur, Mr. Jimenez Laraes, for two minutes, please.
Speaker 2
Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to wrap up with a very straightforward idea. There is a housing problem in Europe because we do not have enough dwellings. We have said a lot over the last few years, but we haven't built much. And we can see what is happening. Young people can't move out of their parents' home.
Workers can't live near their workplace, and that's why we have a social problem, an economic problem, as well as a competitiveness problem. Because if in Europe, people cannot afford housing, then Europe cannot grow.
The message is crystal clear. We need to build more houses and flats, and we need to do it more quickly. Because if it takes years to get a permit, if rules are constantly changing, and when uncertainty prevails in the market, then investment disappears and supply goes down.
And when there's less supply, the price goes up. This is a very obvious reality that we are experiencing in Europe. Another important point: the EU doesn't build dwellings, but it can create the right conditions for this. It can get rid of barriers. It can harness investment.
Can provide support to local and regional authorities. That should be our role. We should act as a catalyst. Ladies and gentlemen, most of us here feel that this report shows we should make ourselves useful. We should put dogmatic approaches aside and come up with effective and realistic measures.
I think that I really tried to make sure that I didn't have empty words or rhetoric in my report, and I think we have achieved this. We have also done our work based on the principle of building a broad consensus.
We are fully aware that the European Parliament has to send out a message that is loud and clear and that the European Commission will listen to. Let us make sure that this commitment goes forward, and let us lay the foundation so that Europeans can start building a home.
Thank you.
Speaker 69
Thank you very much, Robert Ture. And the debate is closed; the vote will be held. Today. And then we are going to shift commissioners and also the topic. And the next item on the agenda is council and commission statements.
Single market: how to move from an incomplete single market to one market for all. Europe. And before I give the floor to the commissioner, I will let you know that we are under time pressure today.
We have a celebration of International Women's Day at twelve or around that time. And, therefore, we will be under pressure. So, you cannot have both if you ask to catch the eye. Sorry.
If you get the blue card, you will not get caught by GI. So, you have to consider what you prefer. And even there, I cannot guarantee everyone will get the floor. While the commissioner is speaking, you can ask to catch the eye, and I will close the option afterwards in order to be able to consider how we spend the time in a good manner.
So, with those words, I will start not by giving the floor to the Commission, but to the Council and Deputy Prime Minister for European Affairs, Miss Aona. Please, the floor is yours.
Speaker 96
President. Honorable members, commissioner, Europe's competitiveness has been under intense geopolitical pressure.
This year's annual Single Market and Competitiveness Report has already sounded the alarm. This is precisely why competitiveness, together with energy, security, and geopolitical developments from Ukraine to the Middle East, will feature prominently in the agenda of the upcoming European Council. This was the focus when the leader of the leaders met in Altenbissen about a month ago to exchange views on the way forward to enhance European competitiveness. The message was clear and unambiguous: there is no European competitiveness without a fully functioning single market. And we must deliver with a sense of urgency.
The core objective is to upgrade the single market, just as we did in 1992 with the common market, into one market. The change is in the name: one Europe, one market, and it's in substance. And it reflects both the level of ambition and the strength of our commitment. To this end, the Commission is expected to present the One Europe, One Map and Action Plan at next week's European Council.
Our leaders have already agreed on the main building blocks of the roadmap. Let me take them in turn. The first building block is reducing the administrative burden. This year's annual Single Market and Competitiveness Report confirmed that the administrative burden on our businesses remains too high.
We must cut the red tape.
We have successfully concluded the first three simplification omnibuses, and we hope to close several more during our presidency.
Altogether, these 10 legislative packages, a core focus of the Cyprus presidency, are expected to save approximately €15,000,000,000 for our businesses and our economy. That is not red tape reduction on paper; it is real money back in the pockets of European companies.
And let me stress once again, simplification does not mean deregulation.
At the same time, it takes a while for these simplification efforts to translate into tangible results. For this reason, the presidency will aim to accelerate negotiations at the Council.
But reducing administrative burdens is impossible if barriers prevent the free movement of goods and services among member states. These barriers caused us lost growth, jobs, and competitiveness for every single day that they remain in place. Progress has already been made, but work must continue at full speed and with determination.
The second building block is the creation of a truly unified platform that allows our businesses to scale up. Today, operating cross-border means navigating a maze. Different national rules for legislation, different permitting procedures, and different taxation systems. This fragmentation is not a minor inconvenience. It is a structural competitive disadvantage for Europe.
This divergence, simply put, costs money.
More operational and compliance costs mean less competitiveness and higher prices for our consumers. This is why we look forward to the upcoming proposal on the 28th regime that will establish uniform conditions for companies to operate across member states.
Another key element is financing. In order to unlock financing for investment, it is imperative to work towards an investment and savings union. This will not only help companies receive financing to grow, but it will also facilitate mobilizing private funds and incentivize private investments.
At a time when national budgets are tight, this is crucial.
As Drag and Leta have highlighted in their reports, we also need to work towards an energy and digital union. These are not optional extras. They are essential prerequisites for a genuinely integrated market.
Honorable members, Commissioner, I trust that the cumulative effect of these elements will help reinforce the single market.
A strong single market will not only enhance our competitiveness; it is the backbone of our strategic autonomy.
It will provide us with resilience to protect Europe amid job tensions. In this context, the Cyprus presidency recently secured approval for a mandate for negotiations on targeted amendments to the Critical Raw Materials Act. At the same time, strategic autonomy is not about being introverted.
Quite the contrary. It doesn't mean closing our borders.
It means Europe must remain open as an economy and as an attractive place to invest in and to trade with. This is the fifth building block to one market. We should look for new opportunities for partnerships with like-minded countries and implement the existing ones.
The destination is clear: one Europe, one market. This is a joint venture between institutions, member states, the Parliament, and the Council. The time to act is now. The political will is there, and we now need to translate will into results.
Thank you.
Speaker 69
Thank you very much. And now, I give the floor to the Commission and Executive Vice President. Sitchener, please defer to yours.
Speaker 97
And. On behalf of the European Commission, it's a pleasure to take part in this debate on the integration of our single market. Competitiveness of Europe. Europe is faced with many difficulties within a context you are familiar with: an unstable geopolitical situation, and it is really our single market that is our best asset. To tackle external pressures.
450,000,000 consumers and companies want to deal with and work with the single mark. Through the annual report on the single market and competitiveness, the Commission has presented a diagnosis. On the situation of the single market and the implementation of the major strategies last year. And it is confirmed that there are still serious obstacles at the national level; particularly, we need to eliminate these obstacles that put a break on the single market. And that really requires a qualitative leap in the substance and then a permanent commitment at the national level as to the method. That is the objective that we have in hand.
The terrible 10 that we want to tackle to remove are these particular service sectors. For instance, in the construction sector, 82 professions have not been regulated. Or only in five member states, whereas 22 member states do not regulate these professions. We need to ask ourselves whether it is necessary to regulate this in these other member states because we need a true appropriation of our internal market.
Because there are too many obstacles, and many of them are created by national countries. Delay in transposition, divergent implementation or interpretation of European law, and also gold plating.
So that is why we've tabled the first annual program for the implementation of internal market rules. Let us look at the priorities, examine horizontal inquiries, and actually introduce a procedure related to sanctions.
Now, one of the main problems is delays in payments in the transactions between companies and the public authorities. There are also obstacles concerning the construction sector. Because of the installations related to the green transition.
This might be technical, but it does very much touch the very heart of our single market. And we need to deal with this. We need to fight these barriers, and we need to build the internal market. The internal market, the single market, is not complete.
And Enrique Letta has said this: we need to build a union of savings, investment, and energy. Of circularity, of research, of the twenty-eighth regime. All of this is essential, and the Commission puts forward to the Council and Parliament a list and a joint commitment to try to deal with all these obstacles. The market calls for this, and the world's situation really does impose this upon us. And this is the roadmap which the president will present to the parliament and council during the next European Council.
Thank you.
Speaker 69
Vice President, I will now give the floor to the first speaker on behalf of the group, Mr. Swat, for two minutes. I have now closed catch the eye.
The floor is yours, Mr. Swap.
Andreas Schwab
Thank you very much, Madam President. Vice President Sergey Ney, Minister Raunam, the European cyclical market is one of the biggest successes of the EU. And also of European cooperation. It has created prosperity for all citizens. It existed for 3 decades.
So, we need to be honest today. There are more possibilities for the single market if we're prepared to see and use them. But we'll only succeed if there are processes of simplification, as we talked about, that tackle this in all 27 member states.
And thank you, Madam Minister, for addressing this, but it's a difficult route because everybody has to be on board so that we can succeed. But this fragmentation of the single market, which is at the junction of national and European policy, social policy, and labor market policy, comes in. This fragmentation means that the US and China are profiting from our weakness in Europe.
We want that because of the prosperity that European citizens can create. We want to enjoy that in Europe. So, it's in the interest of us all that we achieve and implement these common goals together.
Our global competitors have large integrated markets. European companies still have different national rules, bureaucratic procedures, and legal uncertainties that they are confronted with. As soon as they act across borders. That should be the benefit of Europe.
Vice President, it's good and correct that you are proposing these actions and further steps with member states within this roadmap, which means that we should have one Europe, one market. That's a good thing.
You have our full support for that, but we might need to be serious about tackling the obstacles in the single market freedom of providing services. And the freedom of establishment with the member states is an important part of the simplification process.
Thank you.
Alex Agius Saliba
The single European market is the second biggest market. 450,000,000 consumers depend on our decisions.
450,000,000 consumers today are waiting for the European Commission to take action as quickly as possible in order to make sure that the pressure suffered by consumers is not because of the current political crisis or the war in the Middle East. We need to address these issues urgently.
Today, energy prices have increased threefold. We still have no answers for our consumers. Therefore, it is important that we give them a solution. The freedom of services on the EU level. Today, we have 60% obstacles when it comes to the service market.
Consumers are still paying 15% more in prices. Therefore, it is more crucial than ever to increase our resilience in order to ensure that strategic sectors such as these are strengthened and that consumers remain protected.
Speaker 69
Thank you. The next speaker is Miss Sharon, on behalf of the Patriots, please.
Virginie Joron
Thank you very much, Madam President. Vice President of the Commission, Madam Minister. If you read the title of the debate, I thought a miracle had occurred. I thought finally the European Commission realized how it has harmed our competitiveness: too much paperwork or red tape, as you just said. But the reality is different.
You list the 10 terrible tens, but the worst barrier is actually Brussels. Bureaucracy with 27 Sherpas in committees that won't help us in any way. Brussels always thinks it's never its fault, and if that weren't enough, you want to centralize with the umpteenth surveillance authority.
Mister Sejeurenet, Brussels is never responsible for the shipwreck. Your software says, "More Europe, more Europe." And in the last few years, US wealth has gone up, and yet it's only 21% in Europe. It's in the report.
13 percentage points difference. Now, look at what's happening to the car industry. Collapsing. The solution is simplification, but we have to stop this mentality of "I regulate, therefore I am."
Speaker 101
While we debate the enhancement of the single market, France unilaterally decides to apply Mercosur before the court in Luxembourg has ruled and without the parliament's approval.
We allow production to be more expensive. We introduced more restrictions and higher costs, but not the same standards. The commission wants to sign new commercial agreements. We all, but we already have €600,000,000,000 that is due.
We do not produce enough to pay debts and social costs. The most that we can do is transform today's debt into tomorrow's crisis. We cannot function without allowing our companies to breathe.
Our companies have been affected by the pandemic and by some other people's war. And by the climate crisis. And now, a few words on the single market. On insolvency, we have rules that favor companies surviving in France, for instance, and others that favor liquidation, such as The Netherlands. On the capital markets, there are economies with very developed capital markets and others. They are at the beginning in this field.
On state aid for companies, there is case law that favors granting state aid in some states, Italy for instance, and there is also case law against granting state aid for companies in countries such as Romania.
I wonder if we're not being hypocritical about a single market when we consider these three fields. This is such a beautiful-sounding concept: the single market. Should we not abandon hypocrisy first? Thank you.
Much.
Speaker 69
And the next speaker is Mr. Kotrim de Figueredo. For one minute, on behalf of Renu, please.
Thank you, Madam President, Mister Commissioner.
Speaker 102
Mister Minister. Europe's so-called competitiveness crisis is, in fact, a single market crisis because our potential is huge for 150 million inhabitants and €818 trillion in GDP, but we don't make proper use of it.
For example, today, there are €10,000,000,000,000 in idle savings in European bank accounts, which I lost to the US for financing. Some say Europe lacks capital; I say Europe leaks capital because it has failed to build a proper market to retain capital here.
This is what a savings investment union can help achieve. Example B: Did you know that since 2020, our trade and services with the rest of the world have actually grown faster than the trade between our own member states? This is amazing and slightly depressing. We find it easier to trade with external markets than with ourselves.
We neglect our own home market, where companies are lost in a maze of 27 different national jurisdictions and need the 28th regime to do this. There are dozens of other important measures I can mention, from the recognition of qualifications to the integration of the energy and telecoms market, from the end of gold plating to the review of ring fencing, from labor rules to fostering freedom, innovation, and knowledge. So much to do, and this Parliament has an important role to play.
But national governments matter more. Why? Because most are too selfish and shortsighted to see that their national interest is ultimately always aligned with European interests.
Very much.
Speaker 102
The choice is simple. Do you want a single market or do you want 27 Volley?
Speaker 69
The next speaker is Miss Fans Barentak. One and a half minutes, please, on behalf of the Greens.
Commissioner.
Speaker 103
Our European single market is often portrayed as just a set of rules.
But that is far from the truth. Our single market is made up of European companies, big and small, who work every day to ensure that Europe keeps going. And I'm looking forward to the one market roadmap; let's be honest here. We can't deregulate our way to competitiveness and a stronger single market.
We spent €250 billion on US cloud services. Each year, a large chunk of this is public money, and this means that we are strengthening American big tech companies and not our own companies.
We have to stop being naive. One of the best ways to strengthen the single market is to buy European. A euro spent on European companies circulates through our economy instead of leaking out of it.
It's positive to see that the Industrial Accelerator Act, for the first time, sets clear European preference criteria. But last time I checked, Japan and the US are not part of Europe.
And it's clear Big Tech is worried. We all see the huge campaign spending of Amazon in Europe, washing themselves even at the Brussels station next to the platform from where our train to Strasbourg left.
But I am looking forward to clearing by European criteria. For a stronger, more autonomous, and more competitive Europe, and for our European companies. Thank you.
Speaker 69
Thank you very much. The next speaker is Mr. Bausermann for one minute on behalf of ESN, please.
Arno Bausemer
Ladies and gentlemen, today, the patriots are against political things that add up. It's about the single market here. Citizens and companies are suppressed by bureaucracy regarding heating energy, in the hands of lobby organizations.
I think mobs on the streets now, for years, have not been stopped as they come into the parliament. You're hypocrites. And you have extremists in your own ranks.
We want peace, but you want war. We want sovereign nations. Despite the pro-propaganda at Namibia's national level, we want further land politics without heart; that is the EU. We want less. We want more allies.
"Our trend is our friend," as you say in the European Parliament. And in the meantime, our fatherlands are burning.
Speaker 69
Of speakers on behalf of the political groups, we are under huge time pressure today because of the celebration of International Women's Day. So, I will open the blue card, but only for a very short time. So, I hope you understand.
And the next speaker will be Mr. Arias Echevedia for one and a half minutes, please.
Speaker 106
Thank you very much. Thank you, President. Vice President Saint Germain, Madam Minister, against a difficult geopolitical context, we need to become leaders and make sure that this leads to competitiveness.
Fifteen years ago, we accounted for 20.21% of world GDP. Now it's less than 15%. According to the IMF, the trend is downward. Between now and 2030. We cannot avoid current and future problems despite the fact that we have the potential to harness more than 400,000,000 citizens.
We are going forward, but we have our foot on the brake. As Mrs. Vonderlien said, the world order is weakening, and we cannot keep internal barriers because they are also a consequence of the protectionism of the member states.
As the IMF says, this is the equivalent of a 45% customs tariff and 110% tariff for services. The first figure was goods. Now it's not just about reacting. If we want to be competitive, we have to simplify and reduce red tape, especially through the 28th regime, and a single energy market and financial market. We also have to look at connectivity, innovation, and attracting investment.
And in this way, the commission plans will become a reality, and we'll have one Europe, one market. We have to make sure that we no longer have our foot on the brake, but on the accelerator, and have a market based on legal certainty with crystal clear rules that are compatible with competitiveness so that we can maintain and appeal to talent, so we can keep people here that we can grow and that businesses can develop, including SMEs and young people.
Thank you.
Speaker 108
Minister Mann, President, Commissioner, Minister.
Well, there are many benefits attached to the single market. One of the most positive things is that there are no duties, but the fact that we don't have duties doesn't mean that all the limits have disappeared.
For a lot of people who want to work in Europe, it's still difficult. It's still very costly. And it's still very complicated, and that's what we need to change.
For Swedish.
Speaker 108
Employment is really important; the market should become a market like our own. I would like to be able to produce something today and then sell it in Europe tomorrow.
Hampstead University. Well, I would like to be able to get my degree there and then the next day work in Hamburg. And so, we need funding in order to bring about growth and change in Europe. But to do that, we have to manage to overcome all of these small problems, which together have a big effect: systems that don't intercommunicate, differentiation between products; we have to guarantee fair conditions for companies and workers throughout Europe.
Speaker 69
Thank you. As I know, it's not a lot of time. The next speaker is Mr. Shalab Baross for one minute, please.
President. Colleagues.
Speaker 109
If we look at the EU single market right now, it's not reaching its potential because Brussels and its ideology are stifling it. We're stifling innovation and entrepreneurship, with rising energy prices and the burden always upon business. We need to help businesses develop, but actually, they are shutting down. People are going out of business.
And of course, they're rubbing their hands with glee elsewhere around the world where they don't have the same energy supply problems; our competitors benefit. We can't import certain fuels for ideological reasons. And we need to put this behind us. We can't hold the economy of a euro Hungary, and the whole of Europe sacrifices.
Speaker 111
We are discussing a single European market.
But is there one? What's an internal market without a single capital market? Without a single energy market? Entrepreneurs experience, on a daily basis, 27 different markets. Ladies and gentlemen, we can only recover our economic clout in these difficult times if we demolish all obstacles to a real internal market. So I call for us to speed up the integration and completion of the single market. And if we can't do it, if we can't move forward all 27 at once, then let a smaller group of the willing go forward with this.
The Benelux group could play a pioneering role here. It's possible, under the EU treaty, to lead the way, to be a springboard to deepen the market, and to make sure that we develop an economic dynamic that will draw in other member states as well.
So let's take every opportunity, Commissioner, to complete our single market: more unity, more decisiveness, and more future for our citizens and our entrepreneurs. Thank you.
Speaker 69
There is a blue card. Mister Dick, there is a blue card. Mister Dick, there is a blue card. You want to take it? Blue card from Mr. Zipper. Seat 840, please.
Speaker 16
Thank you. You, Wilming, here. Thank you, sir. I listened very carefully to you, and I was happy to hear that you are in favor of European integration. In these very critical sectors.
So, I was wondering if you would agree with me that, if that is the case and if we want to reach this goal, we should in no way collaborate with those political forces who want to destroy the European Union and roll back European integration and the shifting of competencies from the member states.
To the union. Thank you very much.
Thank you. Thank you.
Thank you.
Speaker 111
Thank you. Thank you, dear colleague. I think my statement was very clear. One single market, one single capital market, one energy market, and, where necessary, find new forms of cooperation so that we can stand together strongly in a geopolitical situation where we are under pressure from other imperialist forces. So, yes, I think together we are strong.
Thank you.
Speaker 69
Very much. And I will now close the blue card because of time constraints. The next speaker is Mr. Lukkaert for one minute, please.
Commissioner.
Minister.
Speaker 112
For about a year, we've been arguing about simplification and omnibuses. The majority of us have succeeded in getting the omnibuses on the road, but we still have the largest task ahead of us.
Making the single market deeper. And we don't agree on how to do that. While we are simplifying and removing rules, we still need to build on new tools that make the single market a reality for our businesses, and that's where the EU business wallet on our phones is what we need. Here, companies could share information with their partners and with authorities, which would remove bureaucracy and make it much easier to run a business. And we should think bigger.
The 28th scheme will be that step. We need just one EU set of rules instead of 27 different ones. It sounds really easy. It should have been done a long time ago, but there has not been the political will to do so. So let's stop arguing and get moving.
We're ready to renew. Thank you.
Thank you. You, madam.
Speaker 113
One nation, one market, one European Union. The title of this discussion is the dream of any globalist: one European market under one commission. But we can no longer listen to this endless propaganda because for 30 years already, we've been getting promises about this grand ambition, but they require more subservience from the nation's states. But let's name three projects that have actually achieved the goals and the results promised by the European Union.
Those activities have only brought a downfall, and no propaganda from the bearable can hide behind this. There are no nations or states behind this idea.
There's only one thing behind these ideas, and there is something else. This type of European Union will come to an end soon.
Speaker 69
Thank you very much. And the next speaker is Miss Batusic for one minute, please.
Speaker 114
Dear colleagues, the single market is something on which the European Union was built.
By allowing free movement, it has created opportunities for growth and cooperation across our continent that had never been seen before. And yet, one of the EU's greatest assets remains incomplete to this day.
Because of this, it is as if we are placing 40% tariffs on ourselves. Not our foes, not our adversaries. We are doing it to ourselves by failing to complete one of the fundamental pillars of the European Union.
For the past two years, we have been discussing many different ways. To help our businesses become more competitive in the global market, we must implement effective strategies. Yes. This is the way. We must finish what we have started.
A truly unified market would boost innovation, attract investment, and empower European businesses to compete with major global economies. Completing the single market is the most effective way to help made in Europe succeed.
Thank you.
Speaker 69
Thank you very much. And the next speaker is Miss Demille for one and a half minutes, please.
Speaker 115
Thank you, President. The single market is the greatest success of European integration. The strength of Europe was made greater. Over 400,000,000 citizens, which has generated growth, innovation, and opportunities. But 30 years on from its creation, it's still incomplete.
There are too many normative and administrative barriers, which make it more difficult for our companies, especially the small ones. To grow, invest, and compete at the European level. Therefore, complete the single market's strategic need to strengthen autonomy against an increasingly competitive global backdrop. So, we need to intervene on certain crucial aspects, which are still hindering the development of our markets.
That's why we fully support the regulation on the 28th regime, which would allow people to operate across the EU with harmonized rules. But we have to speed up the capital union, energy union, and defense as well to mobilize investment and really free up our markets. And we also have to simplify mobility for workers in Europe, ensuring recognition of qualifications and removing red tape. Finally, we believe in a European law on products so that we can strengthen safety, traceability, and competitiveness.
Of our industry. The single market has to continue to be the cornerstone, but it's only by completing it, integrating it, and making it digital that we will be able to strengthen the role of Europe and strategic autonomy so that we have a market which is growing, competing, and innovating.
Thank you.
Dawson, for one minute, please.
Speaker 116
Thank you. You. President. The European single market is one of the greatest achievements of the European Union, but it must work equally for all citizens in both Western and Eastern Europe. But unfortunately, we see a paradox today that citizens feel all too keenly in their wallets. In many Eastern European countries, the prices of a basic food basket are often the same as or even higher than in wealthier Western European states.
Food price rises are two to three times greater than in Western European countries, but wages are not as high. Citizens in these countries often earn up to 4 times less, and almost a third of their wages goes to food.
In Croatia, almost 40% of citizens say that, because of inflation, they are buying less food. Eastern European citizens must not be second-class consumers. I call on the Commission to use its powers in the area of competition law and to punish those who put their greed before their fellow citizens.
Speaker 117
It's time for the EU to show that we're also full-fledged Europeans, not just statistics in a market.
Just for one minute, please.
Ladies.
Speaker 118
And, gentlemen, I think we all agree that the single market is one of the most important projects in the EU. So the EU, instead of dealing with things it shouldn't be dealing with, like the absurd Green Deal policy, gives us more problems than tangible effects.
The EU should focus on developing the single market. And there are many areas where the single market is still not functioning fully. For instance, digital services, geoblocking is one of the major pains for any person who travels throughout Europe.
You go outside of your country, and then it turns out you no longer have access to your favorite TV show because, in that given country, no license for it was ever given. This is about a trivial example, but the problem is much more serious. Geoblocking undermines the principle of the free movement of services and goods.
Speaker 119
If our single market is to be something more than just empty words, we have to do away with this.
Miss Han, for one minute, please.
Speaker 120
And in uncertain geopolitical times, there are some things we cannot afford. And one of those things is an incomplete single market because partners like the U.S. S. They are becoming more and more unpredictable.
More and more countries are massively betting on their own economies. The EU must finally pull out its biggest asset, which is its single market. And to be honest, it's unbelievable how we keep putting spokes in our own wheels. Getting bogged down in national egotism and national exceptions, it is this that is holding back a genuine single market. Our aim has to be one product, one service, subject to the same rules in one market.
If we finally complete the single market for services, for the digital and energy union, for the capital markets, and if we cut through red tape instead of increasing more and more rules and regulations, then we will create what we need, which is a strong single market that will boost Europe economically and geopolitically, instead of a fragmented single market that weakens us both internally and externally.
Speaker 121
Commissioner Sejeuner, I wish you all the best and every success in your fight for a strong single market.
Call for one and a half minutes, please.
K. Kolig.
Colleagues.
Tomislav Sokol
The single market is the cornerstone of our economic power and our greatest advantage, particularly compared with the USA and China. And we now have a space of almost 450,000,000 people who support innovation and economic growth. But, unfortunately, the single market is not yet complete. We can see that, in particular, in the services sector. Which accounts for the majority, but it is fragmented.
And there are still many obstacles between the member states. If we want Europe to be competitive, we have to remove the red tape. And really make it possible for our economy to grow. And that has to happen hand in hand with addressing unfair competition.
We have very high standards compared with other competitors, and we can't accept the fact that others with lower standards than ours should undermine and destroy our producers, our economy, and our agriculture.
Another problem is inflation, particularly the increase in food prices. Very often, food can cost up to 2 times more. I look at the situation in Croatia, and therefore, I would call on the Commission to look at the provisions on unfair trade practices and review them once again.
Speaker 123
Commissioner, as you know, Europeans are afraid. The 27 member states feel that they are in a position of weakness. We need to protect people, and the European Single Market is a way to relaunch competitiveness and social cohesion. In the letter, report 450 million consumers are a unique opportunity for businesses to achieve growth and for citizens to get hold of quality services, and the nationalist right is engaged on a self-destructive path. We need to do the opposite.
We need the capital markets. We need innovation in terms of social cohesion instruments. We need to move forward faster with innovation, digital technology, and green infrastructure to achieve global competitiveness. We need to simplify bureaucratic procedures, cut red tape, but not do away with good rules.
Encourage training. And innovation. More Europe, more good. Europe is what we need, and only in that way will we be able to replace today's fear with tomorrow's hope.
Anna-Maja Henriksson
Minister, in this dangerous world where we live right now, Europe must become stronger and strengthen its competitiveness. Why? Because our competitiveness and our security go hand in hand. That's why we must finally complete the single market.
For us in Renew Europe, this is a clear priority. Too often, businesses still face fragmentation, excessive administrative burdens, and poor implementation of EU rules across member states. Last autumn, this parliament sent a clear signal when we adopted our report on the implementation and streamlining of the single market rules. Which I was the rapporteur for. The message was very clear.
We need simplification, and we must eliminate gold plating. The member states have to do their homework. It's not efficient to have 27 different rules for the same thing. So, dear commissioner, you are on the right way, and now it's up to us, the member states, this parliament, and the commission to get things done.
Thank you.
Speaker 125
Thank you very much. And the next speaker is Miss Doherty for one and a half minutes. Please. Thank you, Chair. Commissioner, for more than 30 years, we've congratulated ourselves on the market.
Regina Doherty
We think it's the jewel in the crown of Europe, but we have to be honest, it's absolutely nowhere close to being truly single. We have 27 different energy markets, 27 digital rule books, 27 capital markets. In too many cases, we have 27 bureaucracies protecting national comfort zones.
That's not a single market. It's a complete patchwork. And while we're dithering, the world is moving on. The United States can scale innovation across one market to 330 million customers. China can mobilize and capitalize on an industry at continental scales.
In Europe, we make our entrepreneurs fill out 27 sets of forms. If we're really serious about competitiveness, then the job is far from done. A real single market means completing the Capital Markets Union. It means a genuine energy union so that power can be freely shared. It means a digital single market where a start-up in Dublin can really sell to the 450,000,000 customers that we have in Europe with ease.
The uncomfortable truth is that our fragmentation is mostly self-inflicted. So, the next steps of European integration will not be written in our treaties. They will be written in market integration—not 27 markets politely cooperating with each other, but one market, one ambition, one Europe.
Speaker 69
Thank you very much. And the next speaker is Mr. Gozi for one minute, please.
Present.
Speaker 126
Colleagues, there are too many barriers. Now we're talking about internal tariff barriers. For manufactured goods, 110%; for services, 110%. But what's the reason behind all of this? The reason is the fact that 27 different legislations still exist in strategic sectors, and it's the duty of counsel, obviously, to get rid of them.
Of course, we want to reduce red tape, but most of it stems from national protectionism. And so-called National Globe. Gold plating. Then, for the commission. Commissioner, there are rules.
They need to be implemented. We shouldn't hesitate with sanctions and infringement procedures. And finally, for us colleagues, let's shake off this pointless debate between regulation and deregulation. We have to deregulate at the national level and regulate in a more straightforward, effective fashion at the European level.
We're talking about the 28th regime now. It's a step in the right direction. But the aim has to be clear. One rule for one market, not 27 different rules plus one European rule.
Thank you.
Speaker 127
One minute, Zadnit Samutragu. Well, not long ago, I saw a toy elephant about 10 centimeters big.
But the label on it was 20 cm long. And this is due to the European and national regulations. The basic foundation of the European Union is the single market, but this is burdened by different barriers, and there are 44% customs tariffs and duties in place.
And we are responsible for that ourselves. We discuss this at every session, and the commission has recognized it. And gave some proposals for that, but now it's time to act, from theory to practice. We need to adopt measures that will make a single market possible.
So that the single market will also mean single standards, so that we won't have 27 different rules. Thank you very much.
Please.
Thank you, Valor.
Speaker 128
Thank you, Madam President, Commissioner, dear Stephane. The completion of the internal market is no longer a technological project. It's an economic and geopolitical necessity. And Commissioner, having listened to this debate today, you will have heard that you have broad support. It's clear to me that the completion of the single market must be priority number one. If it were up to me, in the next few days, we would keep going with this debate to define exactly what we have to do and how we have to do it.
We have to remove these internal barriers, and trade outside the EU is growing faster than trade within the union because we are imposing barriers upon ourselves. Commissioner, you have all our support.
The renewal is behind you. Parliament is behind you. Please get to work now. You have to stop gold-plating. Fewer rules address unfair competition from abroad, finally.
This is also something that will benefit our companies. And I'm running out of time now, so I just say, Commissioner, I invite you to come to Limburg because there, the citizens and industries have a lot to say to you.
Speaker 69
Speaker before Catch Jive is Miss Garswick Pihovich. For one minute. One and a half minutes, please.
Speaker 129
Ladies and gentlemen, Europe is dying under a heap of papers. Instead of building up our future, we continue filling out forms. People are mad. They are angry because they can see clearly enough that Europe has great potential. But Europe is destroying this potential with its own bureaucracy.
We are losing to the US and China any minutes that we spend on filling out forms. There is a gift and a boon for them. In every member state. We have heaps of papers, which are killing off our SMEs.
But Poland is showing that you can do it differently. A huge wave of deregulation: Poland has joined the top 20 biggest economies in the world. Our GDP is over $1,000,000,000,000, with one of the fastest growth rates in Europe, and unemployment slightly over 2%.
So today, in Europe, we are talking about the omnibus package. But this is not deregulation. This is about cosmetic changes: shifting time limits through deregulation and removing bureaucracy from the market, which is what Poland did.
Let's do it together now, not in one year, because our competitors are not waiting for us to agree on procedures.
Speaker 69
So, dear colleagues, now we have reached "Catch the Eye." I just want to remind you all, so you can be aware of it in the future, that as a general rule, you have to be present during the whole debate in order to catch the eye. So you know it for the future, and I will start by giving the floor to Mr. Stever.
Seat 674, please.
Thank you. You, the president.
Dear colleagues,
Speaker 130
The single market is one of the greatest achievements of European integration. But the truth is that this achievement remains incomplete. What is most important for Poland? What is most important for Europe today? The single market today needs to be a safety shield.
We need to increase our defense capabilities, our deterrence capabilities, but we also need to review, by the European institutions and the national governments, how we construe the single defense market and how we want to shape it.
I want to state very clearly that our main priority, within a short period of time, has to be the completion of the gaps in the military potential of the member states.
And Poland is doing its job. A safe instrument is one of the solutions, and €44,000,000 was received thanks to SAFE. We will build our common defense capabilities and the Polish military potential.
Thank you. Please.
President.
Speaker 131
Ursula von der Leyen said that Europe is the second biggest economy in the world but still has a handbrake on. To underline, I say that we still have a handbrake on. There is too much bureaucracy and overregulation, and this is enabling China to grow.
And now you wake up, and you want to improve the economy. By opening our markets to South American food through the Mercosur agreement, at the same time, our farmers are suffering. And at the same time, we are only pushing the can down the road with new legislation.
I believe that the regulation, to start with, has been going in the wrong direction. And the principle of regulation is one in, one out. This should also touch upon the commission: one in, one out.
Speaker 133
Chancellor Mertz and Prime Minister Maloney were happy to point out the recent IMF report's conclusion that we, in fact, impose a 110% tariff equivalent on ourselves by not completing the single market for services. We are, in effect, sanctioning ourselves.
What Mertz and Maloney failed to quote was the same IMF report, which concludes that the particular problem is the substantial domestic barriers to entry in services in several countries. So, this is substantially a Member State issue.
Italy has one of the most highly protected service sectors in Europe; Germany is also a fortress of services. As the Financial Times recently pointed out, in over 30 years of the single market, only one French baker has ever had his credentials recognized.
In Germany. So, the foot-dragging by member states has to stop. We have to lift the sanctions that we have imposed on ourselves. Thank you, Madam President.
Speaker 69
Thank you very much, also for sticking to the time. The next speaker is Mr. Norkvist, seat 558. Please.
Speaker 134
Thank you. It was mentioned only once by the commissioner regarding that one-time circularity.
And if we mean a single market, we need to create a single market for secondary raw materials to live up to the promises in the Clean Industrial Deal and the proposal for the Industrial Accelerator Act.
We can fix it by actually looking at the patchwork of slow, unpredictable, and costly procedures for shipping waste within the EU, which prevent us from growing a recycling industry and competing on the basis of environmental performance.
But we also need to look into stopping the leakage of materials outside of the EU, and I mean the scrap materials that we are exporting. This can actually create the secondary raw material market if we keep it here, just like other regions are doing. So, if we actually mean that we want one market for one Europe, the Circular Economy Act coming this fall will be key in achieving this.
Thank you.
Speaker 69
Thank you very much. And the next speaker is Mr. Olivares, Seat 125. Please.
Thank you.
João Oliveira
President. Commissioner Sergei Journay. The proposals which we discussed today for the completion of the single market are designed to help multinationals generate more profits and to ensure that the smaller and weaker economies of Europe are dominated by the stronger economies.
These measures are designed to benefit multinationals and harm small businesses. It's all about helping the big groups rather than the productive people. The ordinary workers are being used as pawns in a game. For greater profit generation across Europe, multinationals engage in offshoring and other practices that harm workers.
There are also specific measures here in relation to deregulation and doing away with protection mechanisms that were put in place during the financial crisis in order to protect consumers, particularly from events in the financial sector.
Speaker 69
And the last speaker in Catch the Eye is Mr. Dostahl, seat 845, please.
Speaker 135
In the field of pharmaceuticals, the EU single market doesn't work.
The pharma business has split it into 27 national markets, where dominant players apply differential pricing. The commission gave up the struggle for a single market in pharma fought at the European Court of Justice for more than a quarter of a century. No one really enforces the EU transparency directive on pricing, despite it existing for decades. Cross-border trade with pharmaceuticals is suppressed and partly moved into a gray zone where it generates Byzantine corruption.
The list prices of drugs in cheaper countries intentionally differ wildly from the real market prices to discourage parallel trade to expensive countries. So, the single market in pharma does not work, resulting in high prices and unequal access for citizens.
By inaction, we enrich American shareholders to the detriment of European taxpayers. Commissioner Sejourney, you already have the tools to remedy that. Please use them. Thank you.
Speaker 69
Thank you very much. And also, thank you, colleagues, for your patience. I will now give the floor back to the Commission and to Executive Vice President Sisjune to wrap up. The debate, please. The floor is yours.
Speaker 97
Thank you. President. I can be very brief. First and foremost, as all of you have said here today, we have a shared responsibility for the single market. We have to do away with national barriers in order to build an internal market. We need to look at all of those taxes which have been subject to divergent implementation in national regimes and those which run counter to national legislation.
But the Commission bears a responsibility too, to ensure that we deal with infringements, and we also have a shared responsibility that I would draw to the attention of the members of the European Parliament. Please be just as vigilant with national governments as you have been here today.
The commission has identified the terrible ten. Now there's a question of political responsibility, but it goes beyond that. Members of the European Parliament now also have their role to play in looking at where convergence can lie between the different national systems.
Then, we have the commission's agenda. We have the capital markets. We need to find ways and means to achieve greater convergence for services. We also have to look at the 28th regime and make progress as rapidly as possible.
And together with the Council and Parliament, we want to reach some form of inter-institutional agreement. The president of the commission will make a proposal to a forthcoming council in order to ensure that we can set an ambitious date in 2026, making progress with this.
We have over €500,000,000,000 annually, or around 3% of additional growth, which is lost purely due to the lack of a fully integrated single market. So, there are economic consequences for that, but there are also geopolitical consequences in the current climate.
We've got 450 million consumers who could stand to benefit from this. So, we need to ensure that we achieve as many reforms as possible by 2026 and complete that reform process. The commission is getting down to work.
Speaker 69
President. And, to end the debate, I will give the floor to the council and deputy minister for European affairs, Miss Rona. Please.
Speaker 96
Honorable members, Executive Vice President, Commissioners, thank you for this very important debate. This is indeed a key moment for the future of our single market. There is momentum. There is political will.
The hard work has already begun, and it needs to continue with urgency and speed. On behalf of the presidency, I want to assure you that we will work to advance all priority legislative files with the urgency and attention that they require. This includes, among others, the European business wallet proposal, the recently published industrial accelerator act, and, of course, the upcoming 28th regime.
With joint efforts and in a constructive and cooperative spirit, we advance in making the one Europe, one market idea a reality. To the benefit of our union, to the benefit of our citizens.
Thank you.
Speaker 69
Thank you so much, Deputy Medice. This, I can announce that the debate is closed, and the sitting will be suspended for one minute, please. Thank you, and thank you for your patience.
Good. Good afternoon, dear colleagues.
Speaker 137
It is my honor to welcome Jackie Fox to this house as we mark International Women's Day.
Jackie, thank you.
Speaker 137
Thank you for being with us today. Thank you for your courage and inspiration. And before we begin, dear colleagues, I invite you all to watch a short video about Jackie's story.
Speaker 138
Most powerful changes often start with just one voice, one that refuses to be silent. It begins with a message, a word, a wish in the shadows of the Internet.
For one young girl, those words became a burden too heavy to carry. Driven to despair by relentless harassment, Coco took her own life. Her mother lost her to the cruelty of cyberbullying.
Speaker 138
Jack refused to let it happen again. She turned her grief into action.
Speaker 141
One night, I just sat open-mouthed like a crazy person. I said, you know what? I'm going to bring a lawyer in. I'm going to make online bullying a criminal offense because I don't want anyone else, or any mom, dad, or family member, to go through what I went through.
Speaker 138
Her efforts led to the introduction of Kogo's Law, providing legal protection against online harassment and harmful digital communications. One law cannot undo the past. But it can change the future.
Speaker 141
Beacon Up is so important; do not keep it to yourself or let it get deeper and deeper in your head. You know, you have to speak up and tell someone; otherwise, you'd be just thinking.
Dear,
Speaker 137
Colleagues, as we mark International Women's Day, I want to speak about courage and about the unsung heroines whose determination is quietly, and sometimes through the most painful of circumstances, changing our world.
Jackie, you are one of Europe's heroines. The loss of a child is beyond what most of us can even begin to imagine. But what you then chose to do with that grief—to stand up, to speak out, and to fight so that no other family would ever have to go through what yours did—that is heroism.
Speaker 137
The result is Coco's Law, named after Nicole. This makes online abuse and the sharing of intimate images without consent a criminal offense. Since it came into force in Ireland in 2021, there have been over 200 prosecutions. It is now inspiring other member states as a possible model for Europe as a whole.
Jackie, when you look at this house, know that you will always find an ally here. Around 1 in 3 young people in the EU have experienced cyberbullying. And we know that it falls disproportionately on women and girls. That is why this Parliament adopted the first-ever EU directive on combating violence against women.
Provisions against the worst forms of online abuse. Online abuse corrodes the very fabric of our public life, driving women out of the conversations that shape our societies. This chamber is all too familiar with the threats, the harassment, and the relentless pressure. But when women step back from public life, all of Europe loses out.
This is why this Parliament voted to introduce proxy voting. Removing a barrier that has, for far too long, forced pregnant members and new mothers to choose. Between their family and their mandate. But we also know there is more to do. Much more.
This house will always be a voice for women everywhere. And today, I want to specifically mention the brave women of Iran. Who have stood up against one of the most repressive regimes in the world, armed with nothing but their own unshakable conviction that they deserve to live freely, without fear, and as equals. Their defiance has moved the entire world, and in these dramatic weeks, they are in our thoughts, and we stand with them.
Speaker 137
To you, dear Jackie, we will keep speaking Coco's name. Your family's courage is not invisible. This parliament sees you. We stand with you. And we give you the floor.
Okay.
Thank you. You.
Speaker 141
Okay. Good afternoon to all who have gathered here today. It is an honor to be invited back to Strasbourg. I stand before you with a heavy heart, but also with fierce determination.
My beautiful daughter, Nicole, was a vibrant, funny, bubbly young woman. She was the light of every room, with a huge smile, kind eyes, and always willing to help others. Even though Nicole used to sing, she had the most horrendous, horrific singing voice that you could ever hear, but that never stopped her. She used to just sing her heart out. And I had years of happy childhood memories with Nicole.
Nicole never suffered from mental health issues or anxiety as she was growing up. That all came later with the bullying. But Nicole, like so many others, was targeted by relentless physical and online abuse for three and a half years.
Why? Because of jealousy, drama, and because they could. Some of these were her so-called friends. It started with just one person. And this main girl, she targeted Nicole, but she was a coward. She couldn't target Nicole on her own because it is much easier to target someone online when you have a group.
Behind you. So, that's what she did. She got a group of sheep, a group of followers, to target Nicole because she couldn't do it on her own. And that's what a carrot is.
The physical attacks where they stuck cigarettes into Nicole's skin. Every chance they could get. They pushed her so hard into the corner of a table that they actually dislocated Nicole's hip.
Next one. They dragged her down a flight of metal stairs by the hair until she reached the bottom. And they would also beat her up every single chance they could get.
You know, she could just walk down to the shop, and she'd run into these people. And they would just beat her up every chance they could get.
They made a fake profile page on Facebook, and they said that they were never going to leave her alone, that they were going to beat her up so badly and leave her on life support.
But it was actually the online bullying that took Nicole away from me. Online, they told Nicole, every day with the likes of WhatsApp, Snapchat, and all other social media apps.
They told her every day to die, go and hang herself, slit her wrist. And everyone hates you. Why are you still here, encouraging Nicole every day to kill herself? The altar sent her videos of a noose many times on how to hang yourself.
My funny, lively, bubbly little girl Nicole started to spend so much time in her room. And this is where the self-harm started to happen. Nicole used to get her nails done, and she would dig them so deep into her skin. Until she bled. She would dig them so deep into her legs, then into her belly, until she was so frustrated she dug her nails so deep into her face.
Nicole was not a bully. She didn't understand why these horrible, nasty people were targeting her. She didn't know how to deal with it. Nicole used to go to bed every night, and every day, the next morning, she would wake up feeling just as bad as she did the night before. Nicole's anxiety worsened.
And every time, she would say to me, "What are you going to do next to me, ma'am?" It was impossible to get back my funny, bubbly, lively young woman.
I knew that I once knew. These people, these sheep, and this nasty coward made shared videos on WhatsApp. They shared a video of a girl, some random girl, and this girl had her face blurred out. But this girl was with three other men, and they shared videos all over social media saying, "Look what Nicole is doing now." They would send many videos of Nicole.
On January 18, 2018, Nicole's 14-year-old brother and I arrived home. And as we opened the door, right in front of us, Nicole had gotten the step ladder and the dog's lead. And she was hanging from the banisters into the hallway. I begged Nicole's 14-year-old brother to help me take her down. Nicole was barely breathing.
When Nicole was rushed to the hospital in the ambulance, unknown to me at this stage, Nicole took a massive heart attack and died on the way.
But the brave little girl of mine held on for three and a half years, being physically abused, burned, dislocated, hit, and beaten up, and then endured three and a half years of online bullying on top of that.
Nicole did not want to die. On the way to the hospital, the ambulance crew got Nicole's heartbeat. Back again. In the hospital, I remember the doctor called me, my two brothers, and Nicole's two brothers into a room.
Nicole's brother, who had just unhooked a dog's lead from his sister's neck, asked the doctor, "Is she going to be okay?" The doctor replied, "No." She is going to die. She has extensive brain damage, and her organs are going to start shutting down. What he was really telling me was that Nicole was never coming home to me again.
After losing the coal to horrible, nasty cowards online, I discovered that there was no law in Ireland. Even though social media was getting bigger, there was nothing in place to protect adults or children from these vicious attacks.
I was horrified and sickened to learn from the police that the people who ripped the soul from my daughter's body will never be prosecuted. I decided to go with my little girl one night. I missed her so much. All I wanted to do was give her a hug. Give her a kiss, smell her hair, touch her skin, and I missed everything about her.
There were days that I couldn't even breathe from crying that much. Instead, I stayed for my boys. But to stay, I needed a focus, a plan, something to keep me here, something to get me out of bed every morning.
So I decided to campaign to make online bullying a criminal offense. I had many protests outside Leinster House in Dublin. I had a huge march to Dublin City, and everyone brought a little single pink balloon for Nicole. I had meetings upon meetings with TDs and ministers, but most of all, I had the help of the amazing Irish people at the time.
After three years of campaigning, on 12/28/2020, Coco's Law was signed into the Irish statute books. And then the law commenced in Ireland on 02/09/2020. One. This was my little girl's legacy.
And when she died, I always said to my mom, "Ma'am, I'm going to make sure she's never going to be forgotten." Now, she has her own little legacy. Is it good enough? No. I would do anything, and I mean anything. To have my little girl back.
The law was the biggest, bittersweet moment of my life. The sweet moment is that Ireland and every person over the age of 12 now have Coco's Law to protect them.
But I had to lose my daughter. For other people to gain. If the law had been in place earlier, maybe, just maybe, Nicole would still be here. The bitter moment is that I will never get the chance to hold my little girl in my arms again.
Coco's Law is having a truly powerful impact across Ireland today. Prosecutions in Ireland have risen by 40%. There are 270 people who are now facing criminal justice. And many more are under investigation.
There are people in prison right now, as I stand here, under Coco's Law. Although online bullying is what made CocoCsa, the sharing of intimate images was also introduced at a later time. You know you cannot share or even threaten to share an intimate image online or offline, with or without the person's consent.
And now the government says they are not opposing amending Coco's law even further regarding the illegal sharing of AI images. The AI images are just going to go beyond and beyond, and there needs to be a law to prosecute people who think it's okay to share an intimate image of someone, or to change or put someone's face in that image, remove their clothes, or whatever they may do.
It's absolutely soul-destroying for the people that they do this to. And it has to stop; if there's not anything in place, it'll just get bigger and worse.
But this is bigger: Coco's Law is bigger than one country. And as I stand in Strasbourg, I implore you, members from the 27 nations, to make Coco's Law a European law.
Protect every adult and child before it's too late. Online bullying has the potential to impact any family at any stage and without warning. Please let Nicole's story be the reason we change the future. So that no other family will face this pain.
People say they are very proud of me. I struggle with the word pride. Because I shouldn't have been the one to bring an Allah.
As I said, this law or Allah should have been in place years ago to protect these people. But what makes me the proudest is that every single person in this room now knows who my little girl is. Whether she is in your heart or your head.
But. The main thing I know is that Nicole is proud of me. And every day, she is right beside me. Cheering me on. And I can hear her loudest face voice, saying, yep.
Hackers.
That's my mama bear.
Because that's what she used to call me.
Speaker 141
To have Cockel's Law at a European level would make me the proudest mama bear in the world.
I. I want to express my deepest gratitude to each of you for allowing me to share Nicole's story. The tragedy we face, and the hope that Coco's Law is bringing now in Ireland. Your attention and support mean the world to me. It's time to create real change.
So please don't sit on it. Don't wait. Until this happens to your family. As I said, the bullying is getting shared around by younger people. The bullion is getting younger and younger, and destroying younger and younger victims.
The intimate images, sharing the images, are so destroying. But now with AI, that's another big, huge thing that's coming along, and we have to stop it. We need so much to protect our adults and our children from this horrible creation. That is happening.
So I just want to say, again, thank you so much to everyone here today and to everyone who invited me over to let me share this story with you. Thank you.
Speaker 137
Thank you. Thank you so much, Jackie. I think you can see from the reaction that not only did we get the honor and the privilege to share this moment with you, but you have also called us to action, and it's our responsibility to take that forward.
I give the floor now to the representatives of the political groups, starting with the EPP group, Eleonora Meleti.
2. 06. Yes.
Now it works.
Okay.
Speaker 142
Thank you very much indeed, Madam President. I wish to address all those who think that Women's Day is just a quaint little trimming, those who are almost bored to hear about our problems and to talk about equality, and people who were talking on their phones and laughing as Jackie was talking.
Your attitude is not directed at us, women. It's your attitude towards the mother who gave birth to you and raised you, your attitude towards your sister and the social inequality she experiences, your attitude towards your daughter and the violence she may be suffering from her partner, your attitude towards your girlfriend, your wife, Jackie, Coco, and other women—all of us. And that attitude is the actual problem. That's the problem we are fighting against. And we will continue to fight against it until it changes.
Thank you.
Thank you, Miss Meletti.
Speaker 143
And now I give the floor to the president of the S&D group, Hiracha Garcia Perez.
Speaker 144
International Women's Day is about a simple truth.
Equality never moves forward by accident. It moved to war because women fight. For it. Across Europe and the world, reactionary forces are trying to turn back the clock on women's rights.
They attack feminists, trivialize violence, and spread hate. To them, we say clearly: we will not go backward. Not one step back, because feminism is not a threat. Feminism is democracy in action.
It is the belief that half of humanity deserves the same power, the same pay, the same safety, and the same freedom. Today, new battlefields are emerging in the digital space, where millions of women and girls face harassment and intimidation.
But our answer will always be the same, and we have to do it for Nicole. We have to do it for our women. We have to do it for our society.
The history of women's rights is the history of courage. And with that courage, Europe will continue moving forward.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Speaker 143
Miss Garcia Perez, and now the PFE group: Margarita de la Pisa Carreon.
President.
Speaker 145
Dear fellow members, this is a way of recognizing rights and dignity on International Women's Day. That applies to all aspects of society, but each country celebrates it in a different way, which is curious.
In Poland, flowers and gratitude, but in others, we see vandalism and protest. Like in Spain. So, seeing a threat in love, seeing slavery in motherhood, and seeing oppression in work. A lot of us don't understand that kind of celebration.
People are thinking about the bills they've got to pay, getting to the end of the month, whether they can start a family, getting threats online, in the street, or elsewhere. With a government like Sánchez's in Spain, saying it's the most feminine and feminist in their history, we have seen an 888% increase in sexual violence since they took office.
We are professionals, mothers, wives, daughters, sisters, and friends. We're all unique. We all have our own place in the world as women, but that doesn't mean we need to be confrontational with it.
And the structure.
Speaker 146
Madam. Thank you so much for your overwhelming testimony. Felt your pain, the pain of other women who lose their daughters in such a way. In 50 years, we've seen feminism being taken hostage by feminists trying to impose their beliefs and their ideology, leaving women and girls unprotected.
Today, we're told that the so-called transgender movement is the only danger that women have to face. But where's feminism in all this? If nobody denounces sexual abuse, violence, rape, murder when those who commit them come from abroad? Who denounces the dangers of migration for our women and girls? Where is feminism? When the murder of Claire, Lola, or Philippine is denounced, where is feminism when in France we call for the dissolution of Nemesis?
Let's defend women's rights. Yes.
Speaker 147
But the first white right woman who should have the floor now, on behalf of the Renew Europe group, is Abir Al Sahlani.
Go. Ahead, Abi.
Speaker 148
Today, we heard the story of Nicole Fox and the courage of her mother, Jackie.
The fight reminds us of a difficult truth.
Speaker 148
Violence against women does not always leave bruises or marks. It spreads through screens, through humiliation, through images weaponized to shame and silence girls and women. Generated without consent and replicated on a massive scale.
What happened to Nicole was not an isolated tragedy. Across Europe, misogyny is organized and amplified online because that is exactly where the anti-gender movement thrives. Misogyny is normalized by some in this house, who refuse to vote for women's rights every single time this parliament decides to act, but Europe must act.
Our laws must be enforced. Platforms must remove abusive content faster. Or rather, never allow it to be uploaded. Digital violence against women must be recognized for what it is: violence.
Thank you.
Speaker 149
Thank you. Thank you very much. Now I give the floor to the co-chair of the Greens Group, Terre Rhein. Kill.
You are a parasite.
Speaker 151
Your mother should have had an abortion instead of having you. Hate, online threats, and insults are a pandemic. They are a dangerous and very often overlooked pandemic, mostly targeting women.
And I, for one, have seen too many beautiful, smart, forward-looking women being victims of this pandemic, including your daughter, Coco, Jackie. I will not accept the Trumpers and masks of this world that pretend that bullying and hatred are forms of freedom of speech. It is a perversion.
Colleagues, it is a perversion to believe that threatening a young woman to post naked pictures of her online against her will has anything to do with freedom of speech. It is violence.
And colleagues, we have to stop it by enforcing the Digital Services Act, by banning Nudifier apps, and by speaking up time and again, as you have so clearly done today, Jackie.
Speaker 152
Thank you so much. Very much. We are by your side. We will continue this struggle.
Speaker 137
Now, thank you, Mister Ryan. Care. Now I give the floor to the co-chair of the left group, Manon Aubrey.
Speaker 153
We are so moved by cocoa because it was the life of a young woman, and so many women face this on a daily basis. And we have to ask about the responsibility of the platforms in controlling the content.
And because we're talking about International Women's Day, I would like to remind us that March 8 is the International Day of Women's Rights, not just the day of women, but their rights, because we fought for those rights.
And when I continue to see, right now, the far right instrumentalizing women's rights to better push forward their racist rationale to address foreigners as well, so many acts of violence are carried out by husbands and brothers. It's not religious at all, but yet we're letting the far right attack our rights. It's going against sexual rights as well, but we'll be onto you.
It's on.
Go on. Neyman.
Speaker 154
Giving and taking. That's the motto of Women's Day this year. A lot has been taken from us recently. Women no longer move safely around their cities. Women can no longer decide freely about their own lives.
Our safe spaces are being taken away from us. We women now have to battle to even gain recognition in society as women. What is being given to us in exchange? A woke LGBT IA plus agenda that distorts the image of women out of all recognition, illegal migration that has marked our cities, where we now feel unsafe and we don't feel at home anymore.
I can tell you what we would like to receive as women. We would like a forum for women that make women visible again and remigration in millions.
This.
Speaker 137
Brings us to: would you like to take the floor now, in this session? Okay. Go ahead, Miss Spanda, quickly, please.
Speaker 103
Thank you. I would like to make a point of order that the previous statements clearly violate rule 10 of the rules of procedure, which requires members to conduct themselves with mutual respect and uphold the dignity of Parliament, as well as rule 10, lit. 4, which prohibits discrimination in line with Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Trans women are women. Thank you.
Thank you.
Speaker 137
The Aguiletsk, this brings us to the end of this part. We say thank you to Miss Fox once again. Thank you very much. That was very moving. Thank you for being here.
Thank you.
Just.
One minute, dear colleagues.
Speaker 137
So. Dear colleagues, in accordance with Article 229 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Rule 160 of Parliament's Rules of Procedure, I declare the 2026-2027 session of the European Parliament open. We open this new session with another annual tradition. For the first time, Europe will honor extraordinary Europeans with the European Order of Merit. Europe has always been built by remarkable women and men from across society who had the courage to rise above our turbulent past.
Bridging divides, breaking barriers, overthrowing dictatorships, and overcoming crises to make a difference. To our continent and build a better future. This commitment to building Europe deserves to be celebrated, and this is why this Parliament has established the European Order of Merit to honor those who did not simply believe in Europe but who helped build it.
From civil society and academia to politicians, visionaries from the arts, culture, and music, and our humanitarians. I would like to thank the President of the European Council, the President of the European Commission, the heads of state and government, and the speakers of national parliaments for putting forward many proposals for appointment. I'd also like to thank the selection committee for their careful deliberation from an outstanding list. Of the candidates. Together, the laureates represent the astonishing diversity of excellence and commitment that advances our Union and promotes our values around the world. So, it is now my honor to present the inaugural appointment to the European Order of Merit and Order of Increasing Distinction.
Appointed as members of the order are the chef and founder of the NGO World Central Kitchen, José Ramón Andrés Puerta. We have basketball champion Giannis Antetokounmpo. Professor Emeritus Mark Gidara, scientist and academic leader Sandra Lainetze.
Human rights lawyer and civil society leader Oleksandra Matvichuk, former member of the European Parliament and former commission vice president Vivian Redding, and Paul David Hewson, known as Bono. Along with Adam Charles Clayton, David Howell Evans, and Laurence Joseph Mullen Jr., musicians and humanitarian activists known collectively as U2.
Appointed as honorable members of the order are former president of Lithuania Valdas Adamkus, former president of the European Parliament and former prime minister of Poland Jerzy Buzek, former president of Portugal Aníbal Cavaco Silva, former president of Finland Sauli Niinistö, cardinal and secretary of state of the Holy See Pietro Parolin, former president of Ireland Mary Robinson, president of the Republic of Moldova Maia Sandu, and former federal chancellor of Austria Wolfgang Schüssel.
Former NATO Secretary General and former EU High Representative Javier Solana, Ayedi Mariaga, former President of the European Central Bank Jean-Claude Trichet, are now appointed as distinguished members of the order, along with former Federal Chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel, former President of the Republic of Poland Lech Wałęsa, and President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky.
The. The extraordinary achievements of these laureates remind us that every person across all walks of society can make a difference in Europe. Shaping our union, upholding our values, and building a better future for Europeans.
So, the ceremony of conferral, dear colleagues, will take place during our May part session. And I count on all of you to join us in honoring Europe's laureates and invite you to stand for the European anthem, performed by the members of the European Youth Orchestra.
Thank you. You. Now, we move to the votes before that announcement. I would like to recall that on 06/16/2025, the bureau amended its decision on the rules governing access to and attendance in the chamber, as well as the conduct of debates.
Mobile phones may not be used in the chamber for taking pictures. Or making audiovisual recordings when this could harm Parliament's dignity, reputation, or the principle of mutual respect.
So, pursuant to rules 10 and 183 of the rules of procedure and the above-mentioned bureau decision, and after taking into account the observations of the members concerned, I have decided to impose the following penalties.
On Alvisa Perez, for recording during a plenary session another member of the European Parliament without his consent and subsequently disseminating the video on social media with derogatory comments, the forfeiture of his entitlement to the daily subsistence allowance for a period of 10 days and a temporary suspension from participation in the plenary activities of parliament for a period of 4 days on which parliament meets in part session, without prejudice to his right to vote in plenary, and subject to strict compliance with the member's standards of conduct.
Mister Perez has been notified of this decision. He lodged an internal appeal with the bureau under Rule 184. The bureau, at its meeting yesterday, confirmed the penalty imposed, without prejudice to the external rights of appeal open to the member concerned. The penalty is, therefore, final.
Secondly, on Leila Shaibi. For recording herself and making improper gestures during the formal sitting of the Fortieth Anniversary of the Accession of Spain and Portugal to the European Union, and subsequently disseminating the video on her social media account, she forfeits her entitlement to the daily subsistence allowance for a period of two days and is temporarily suspended from participation in the next two formal sittings during which a head of state or government is invited to address the plenary.
Third, regarding Rima Hassan: recording during a plenary session a member of the European Parliament without his consent and subsequently disseminating the video on a social media account accompanied by a personal comment warrants a reprimand.
So Miss Shaibi and Miss Hassan have been notified of the respective decisions. They have not lodged internal appeals with the bureau under rule 184. The penalties are therefore final.
So, we now move to the votes.
Speaker 155
Colleagues, We now come to the vote. And we start with a request from MV and EPB under the urgent procedure on the calculation of emission credits for heavy-duty vehicles for the reporting periods of the years 2025 to 2029.
And those in favor? Those against? Abstentions? Carrot. That takes us to Mr. Ingerad's report on insolvency law. And, the vote is open. The boat is closed.
Object. Falls.
The vote is closed.
That's correct.
Speaker 155
The first reading in parliament is thereby concluded. That takes us to the point from our colleague Al Sakhalani on establishing an EU talent pool, and the floor goes to the rapporteur for two minutes.
Microphone. Please.
Speaker 148
Now, chair of this session. The talent pool is the tool our businesses have long awaited.
It is the clearest example of what we, together in this house, can achieve when reason prevails and when we listen to our companies and businesses. It is rooted in the understanding also that migration is not just a challenge, but could be a part of the solution. Of a solution. At a time when irregular migration has significantly decreased, let us instead reinforce our legal pathways.
Read the legislation just once, and you will see this is about addressing labor shortages that cannot be filled at the national or EU level. I want to express my deepest gratitude to all those who have supported me. Together, we have done outstanding work to bring forward this innovative tool and to strengthen Europe's competitiveness.
Thank you.
Speaker 155
Thank you. So, we vote to begin with the proposal to reject the Commission proposal. Roll call vote. Voting is open. Voting is closed.
Rejected. That takes us to a vote on the amendments. Roll call vote. Voting is open. Voting is closed.
Rejected.
Speaker 155
Which brings us to the provision agreement. Roll call vote: voting is open.
Voting. It is closed. That's a carrot. So the parliament's first reading is thereby concluded. This takes us to our colleague, David McAllister.
Yes, congratulations. Report from our colleagues, David and Charles Guirens, on increased efficiency of the external action guarantee provision agreement. Roll call vote: voting is open. The upstream voting is closed.
Carried.
Speaker 155
Congratulations. The first reading by the Parliament is thereby concluded. This takes us to the report from our colleague, Deluk, on the appointment of the Vice President of the European Central Bank.
The appointment of Boris Vucic by secret ballot voting is open. The voting is closed.
Carrot.
Speaker 155
Next report from our colleague, Le Luc: appointment of the Chairperson of the European Banking Authority, appointment of François Louis Michaud, secret ballot. Voting is open.
Voting is closed.
Carried.
Speaker 155
Which takes us to the report from our colleague, Javier Sarta Lejos, on the appointment of the European chief prosecutor, Andres Ritter. The secret ballot voting is open. Voting is closed.
The proposal is carried. That takes us to the report for Mr. Vardbon on the European Union regulatory fitness, subsidiarity, and proportionality, the report on better lawmaking for 2023-2024. Vote on the resolution as a whole.
Roll call vote. Voting is open.
Voting is closed.
Speaker 155
That. This takes us to Mr. Jimenez La Raffi's report on the housing crisis in the European Union, with the aim of proposing solutions for decent, sustainable, and affordable housing. Amendment 24, roll call vote; voting is open. Voting is closed.
Rejected.
Voting is closed.
Rejected.
Speaker 9
Dear, President, colleagues, in this report, housing is not considered primarily as a human right. And as a cornerstone of dignity. But as a tool that can be used for speculation, I would like to put forward an oral amendment at the beginning of paragraph one, which reads as follows. Emphasizes that speculation in housing must be eradicated as a matter of priority.
Underlines that adequate housing is a fundamental human right and a cornerstone of human dignity.
Speaker 155
Thank you. Are there any objections to that request for an oral amendment? Please stand. We need 39. Well, we've got more than 39, so thank you very much indeed. And therefore, we will not vote on the oral amendment.
We move on to the next vote. That's in paragraph three of the original text, three parts: first, roll call vote. Voting is open. Voting is closed. Carried, second part.
Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions? Carried. Third part. Those in favor? Against? Abstentions? Carried. Amendment 64 roll call vote: voting is open. Voting is closed.
Rejected.
Speaker 155
Amendment 65 roll-call vote. Voting is open. Voting is closed. Rejected. 66 roll call votes.
Voting is open.
Speaker 155
67 roll call votes. Voting is open. Voting is closed. Rejected. Please provide the original text of paragraph four so I can assist with the corrections. First part: those in favor. Those against, abstentions carried.
Second part: roll call vote. Voting is open. Voting is closed. Carrot, third part. Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions? Correct.
13. Those in favor? Against? Abstentions? Rejected. 14 in favor. Against. Your abstentions were rejected.
15, roll call vote. Voting is open. Voting is closed. Rejected. 96 roll call vote. Voting is open.
Voting. It is closed.
Rejected.
Speaker 155
98 roll-call votes. Voting is open. Voting is closed. Rejected. 99 roll-call votes. Voting is open.
Everything is closed.
Rejected.
Speaker 155
Number 1. Those in favor? Against? Abstentions rejected. 25 roll call votes. Voting is open.
Voting is closed.
Rejected.
Speaker 155
Paragraph 11, original text, seven parts, all roll call votes. First part: voting is open. Voting is closed. Carrot. Second part.
Voting is open.
Nothing. It is closed.
Carried.
Carrot.
Carrot.
Speaker 155
Fifth part voting is open. Voting is closed. Carriage. Six parts. Open.
Closed. Closed Carrot Seven putt.
Voting is open. Voting is closed.
Carrot.
Speaker 155
Please provide the text of paragraph 12 for correction. Amendment 2. Those in favor, against, abstentions, rejected. Original text: roll call vote. Voting is open.
Yeah.
Carrot.
Speaker 155
100. Those in favor? Against? Abstentions? Rejected: 101. Those in favor, against, abstentions, rejected. Paragraph 13, original text in four parts. First part: those in favor? Against? Abstentions? Carried.
The others are roll call votes. The second part is open. Voting is closed.
Carrot.
Carrot. Fourth cut.
Open.
Speaker 155
Close. Carrot.
68 roll-call votes. Voting is open. The voting is closed.
Rejected.
Rejected.
Speaker 155
Amendment 69: voting is open. Voting is closed. Rejected. Amendment 26, roll call vote. Voting is open. Voting is closed.
Rejected. Amendment 27: roll call vote. Voting is open. Voting is closed.
Rejected.
Speaker 155
Which takes us to the original text in seven parts, all roll-call votes. First part, open. Voting is closed. Carrot, second part open. Voting is closed.
Carried.
Speaker 155
The third part of voting is open. Voting is closed. Carrot. Fourth part. Voting is open; boating is closed.
Carrot.
Speaker 155
Fifth part, open. Voting is closed. Carriage, six parts. Voting is open. Voting is closed.
Carrot. Seven-part open. Voting is closed. Carrot. Paragraph 17, original text, two parts.
First part: those in favor, against, abstentions. Carried. Second part: roll call vote. Voting is open. Voting is closed, Carrot. Paragraph 19, original text, two parts.
First part: those in favor. Against, abstentions carried. Second part: roll call, vote. Voting is open. Routing is closed.
Carrot.
Speaker 155
Paragraph 20, original text, two parts: first part, those in favor. Those are against. Abstentions carried. Second part in favor? Against? Abstentions? Carried. After paragraph 20, amendment 582 parts, both roll call votes for the first part one are open.
Voting is closed. Rejected. Second part: Voting is open. Pouting is closed. Rejected. Amendment 70, roll call vote.
Rejected.
Rejected.
Speaker 161
72 roll call vote: voting is open. Voting is closed. Rejected 73. Roll call vote: voting is open.
Speaker 155
Voting. It is closed. Rejected 74 roll call vote. Voting is open. Voting is closed. Rejected.
Paragraph 21, amendment 592, part both. Roll call vote: voting is open on part one. Bitting is closed.
Rejected.
Second part: open.
Speaker 155
Routing. It is closed. Rejected. That takes us to Amendment 3. Those in favor, against, abstentions, rejected.
Original text in five parts. First part, roll call vote. Voting is open. Voting is closed.
Carried, second part.
Speaker 155
Carried. And the third part: those in favor? Those against? Abstentions? Rejected. Carried, sorry. Fourth part: roll call vote. The vote is open.
The vote is closed.
Carried.
Speaker 155
Fifth part. Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions? Maybe it's just me. I didn't see very well.
Carried.
Speaker 155
Please stay strong. We've still got some way to go, so keep on showing clearly Paragraph 22, Amendment 28, a roll call vote. The vote is open.
The. The vote is closed. Rejected. We now come to the original text in six parts. First part: those in favor, those against, abstentions carried.
Second part: roll call vote. The vote is open. The vote is closed. Carried. Third part: those in favor.
Those against? Abstentions? I'm afraid I have to check that. Sorry.
The. The vote is closed.
Rejected.
Speaker 161
Fourth part: this is a roll call vote. The vote is open. Dear upstreaming, the vote is closed.
Carried.
Speaker 155
Fifth part: those in favor? Those against? Abstentions? Carried. Sixth part, also by roll call, the vote is open. The vote is closed. That is carried, Amendment 29, roll call vote.
Rejected.
Speaker 155
Amendment 30: roll call vote. The vote is open. The vote is closed. Rejected. We now come to the original text in three parts.
The first part: roll call vote. The vote is open. The vote is closed. Carried. Second part: those in favor? Those against? I'll do it again.
Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions? Carry it. Third part, by roll call, the vote is open.
The. The vote is closed.
Speaker 155
Carried. Amendment 107. Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions? Rejected? Amendment 31: a roll call vote. The vote is open.
The vote is closed. Rejected. Amendment 75: a roll call vote. The vote is open. The vote is closed.
Rejected. Amendment 76: the vote is open. Roll call vote. The vote is closed. Rejected.
Amendment 77: a roll call vote. The vote is open. The vote is closed.
Rejected.
Speaker 155
Amendment 78: the vote is open. Roll call. The vote is closed. Abdulen, that is rejected: Paragraph 28, amendment 32, roll call vote. The vote is open.
The vote is closed. Rejected. We now come to the original text by roll call vote. The vote is open. The vote is closed.
Carried. Amendment 79, roll call vote. The vote is open. The vote is closed. Rejected Amendment 80, roll call vote.
The vote is open.
Rejected.
Speaker 155
Amendment 102. Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions? Rejected? Moving on to paragraph 29, amendment 33, by roll call. The vote is open.
Rejected.
Speaker 155
We now come to the original text in three parts, all roll call. Part one is open. The vote is closed. Carried. The second part is open.
The vote is closed. Carried. The third part is open.
The. The vote is closed. That's correct. Amendment 34: a roll call vote. The vote is open.
The vote is closed. Rejected. Amendment 35, roll call. The vote is open. The vote is closed. Rejected.
Amendment 36 roll-call vote. The vote is open. The vote is closed. Rejected. Amendment 37, by roll call.
The vote is open. The vote is closed. Rejected. Amendment 38: By roll call, the vote is open. The vote is closed.
Rejected. We now come to paragraph 30, the original in two parts, both by roll call. The first part is open. The vote is closed.
Carried.
Carried.
Speaker 155
Paragraph 31, the original text in two parts. Part one: those in favor, those against. Abstentions carried. Second part: this is a roll call vote. The vote is open.
The vote is closed.
Carried.
Speaker 155
Amendment Four. Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions are rejected. Paragraph 32, the original text by roll call. The vote is open. The vote is closed.
Carried.
Speaker 155
Paragraph 33, amendment 103. Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions? Rejected? The original text is in six parts. The first part: those in favor? Those against? Abstentions carried. Second part: those in favor? Against? Abstentions? Carried. Third part: those in favor? Against? Abstentions? Carried.
Fourth part, by roll call, the vote is open. The vote is closed.
Carried.
Carried.
The. The vote is closed.
Carried.
Speaker 155
Paragraph 34, the original text in two parts. The first part is in favor. Those are against. Abstentions carried. Second part, by roll call, is open.
The vote is closed.
Carried.
Speaker 155
Paragraph 35, amendment 39, roll call. The vote is open.
The. The vote is closed. That is rejected. The original text in three parts. Part one: those in favor? Against? Abstentions? Carried. The second part: those in favor? Against? Abstentions? Carried.
Third part: those in favor? Against? Abstentions? Carried. Amendment five: those in favor? Against? Abstentions? Rejected. Paragraph 36, Amendment 6. Those in favor? Against? Abstentions? Rejected. And now, amendment 40 by roll call. The vote is open.
The vote is closed.
Rejected.
Speaker 155
Paragraph 37, the original text in four parts. First part in favor. Against? Abstentions carried. The second part, by roll call, the vote is open. The vote is closed.
Carried.
Speaker 155
Third part in favor? Against? Abstentions? Carried. Fourth part, who's in favor? Who's against? Abstentions. Carried. After paragraph 37, we have amendment 41.
Rejected.
Rejected.
Speaker 155
Paragraph 39, amendment 81, roll call vote. The vote is open. The vote is closed.
Rejected.
Speaker 155
Amendment 43. Roll call. The vote is open. The vote is closed. Rejected. We now come to the original text.
Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions? Carried. Amendment 44, that's after paragraph 39. 44, the roll call vote is open. The vote is closed. Rejected.
Amendment 45. Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions? Rejected. Paragraph 40, amendment 82, roll-call vote. The vote is open.
The. The vote is closed. Rejected. The original text is now in four parts. Part one: in favor? Against? Abstentions? Carried.
Second part: in favor, against, abstentions carried. Part three: those in favor. Against, abstentions carried. Part four, by roll call, the vote is open. The upstream vote is closed.
Carried. Paragraph 41, amendment 46, roll-call vote. The vote is open. The upchtemung. The vote is closed. Rejected.
We now come to the original text in eight parts: first part in favor, against, abstentions, carry; second part in favor. Against, abstentions carried. Third part in favor? Against, abstentions carried. Fourth part in favor, against, abstentions carried.
Fifth part by roll call: the vote is open. The optimum vote is closed.
Carried.
The. The vote is closed.
Speaker 155
Carried. Seven parts in favor. Against, abstentions carried. Eighth part in favor, against, abstentions carried. Amendment 47, after paragraph 41.
Roll call vote.
Open.
Speaker 155
Voting is closed. Rejected. Men 48, roll call vote is open. Voting is closed. Rejected.
Paragraph 42, original text, two parts. First part: those in favor? Those against? Abstentions? Carried. Second, roll call vote. Voting is open. Voting is closed.
Carrot, third part, roll call vote: voting is open. Voting is closed.
Carrot.
Rejected.
Rejected.
Speaker 155
Which brings us to paragraph 43. The original, we're going to start with the amendment and then go on to the original text. So, we'll start with amendment 84, roll call vote.
Rejected.
Rejected.
Speaker 155
Original text, two parts. First part in favor. Against, abstentions, carried. Second part in favor. Against, abstentions carried.
Amendment 50, those in favor? Those against? Abstentions rejected? Paragraph 45, Regents, two parts. First part: those in favor, against, abstentions. Carried. Second part: in favor, against, abstentions carried. Third part roll-call vote.
Carrot.
Rejected.
Speaker 155
104 in favor. Against. Abstentions are rejected. Paragraph 46, original text, two parts. First part, those in favor? Against? Abstentions? Carried.
Second part in favor, against, abstentions carried. 19, a roll call vote. Voting is open. Voting is closed. Rejected. Paragraph 47, original text, two parts.
First part: those in favor. Against. Abstentions carried. Second part, in favor. Against, abstentions carried.
Paragraph 48.
Rejected.
Vertease is closed.
Speaker 155
Carried. Second part: voting is open. Voting is closed. Carried. Third part. Footing is open.
Nothing is closed. Carried. Fourth part. Open. Voting is closed.
Carried.
Speaker 161
Open. Voting is closed. Carrot seven-part open. Voting is closed. Carried.
Eighth part open. Voting is closed.
Carrot.
Speaker 155
Ninth part open. Voting is closed. Carried. Amendment 20. Oh no, I apologize. Tenth.
Sorry. I forgot. Tenth part open.
Speaker 155
Voting. It is closed. Carried. Amendment 20 roll call vote: voting is open. Voting is closed.
Rejected.
Rejected.
Voting. It is closed.
Rejected.
Speaker 155
Paragraph 49, amendment 52, in favor. Against. Could I see that once again? In favor? Against? Abstentions rejected. Original text, two parts: first part in favor. Against, abstentions carried. Second part: in favor, against, abstentions carried.
Amendment 105, roll call vote. Voting is open. Voting is closed.
Carrot.
Speaker 155
One thousand sixty-two parts, both roll call votes. Part one open. Voting is closed. Carriage second part voting is open. Boating is closed.
Carrot.
Rejected.
Rejected.
Speaker 155
Paragraph 53, amendment 61, roll call vote. Voting is open. Boating is closed. Rejected. Original text.
First part: those in favor, against, abstentions. Carried. Second part, roll call vote. Voting is open. Voting is closed. Carrot: one third in favour, against, abstentions. Rejected. Paragraph 55, amendment 54. Roll call vote, voting is open.
Voting. Closed.
Rejected.
Speaker 155
Amendment 60 roll call vote: voting is open. Voting is closed. Rejected. Original text. In two parts.
First part: those in favor. Against, abstentions carried. Second part, roll call vote. Voting is open. Voting is closed.
Carrot.
Speaker 155
Paragraph 57, amendment 55, roll call vote: voting is open. Boating is closed. Rejected. Original text: two parts, both roll call votes. The first part is open.
Voting is closed.
Carried.
Carrot.
Speaker 155
Amendment 56 roll call vote: voting is open. Voting is closed. Rejected. Paragraph 58, amendment 57. Those in favour? Against? Abstentions? Rejected? Original text in two parts.
First part in favor. Against abstention.
Carried.
Carried.
Speaker 155
Citation 47: the original text roll call vote. Voting is open. Voting is closed. Carrot. Amendment 21: those in favor, against, abstentions?
Rejected. Recycle G, original text, three parts. The first part: load in favor, against, abstentions carried. Second part, in favor.
Against.
Speaker 155
Abstentions carried. Third part in favour? Against? Abstentions? Carried. 88 roll call vote. Voting is open. Voting is closed. Rejected.
Speaker 155
Amendment 89 in favor. Against abstentions, it was rejected. Amendment 90 roll call vote: voting is open. Voting is closed.
Rejected.
Speaker 155
Amendment 91 is in favor. Against abstentions, rejected. Recycle j, original text, three parts. First part: roll call vote. Voting is open.
Voting is closed. Carried. Second part roll call vote, voting is open. Voting is closed. Carriage. Third part in favor. Against abstentions, a carrot.
Recital K, original part two: parts were first part in favor, against, abstentions carried. Second part: in favor, against, abstentions.
Carrot.
Speaker 155
Recital n: original text in two parts. First part in favor. Against extensions carried. Second part roll call vote: voting is open.
Voting. It is closed. Carried. Recital O, Amendment 62 roll call vote. Voting is open. Voting is closed.
Rejected.
Speaker 155
Origins takes two parts, both are roll call votes. First part: voting is open.
Voting. It is closed. Carrot. Second part, roll call voting is open. Voting is closed.
Carrot.
Speaker 155
Amendment 22: in favor, against, abstentions, rejected. Amendment 92 roll call vote: voting is open. Voting is closed. Rejected. Recital P original text: two parts, first part in favor.
Against, abstentions carried. Second part in favor, against, abstentions: carried. Recital Q original text in two parts. First part in favor, against, abstentions carried. Second part: in favor, against, abstentions. I think we need to check that.
Voting is open. This is on Recital Q, second part. Voting is closed.
Carrot.
Speaker 155
Recycle. Amendment 93 is in favor. Against and abstentions rejected; original text in three parts or roll call votes. Part one. Voting is open.
Voting is closed. Carried.
Carrot.
Speaker 155
Amendment 23: roll call vote. Voting is open.
Voting. It is closed. It's rejected. 94 in favor, against, abstentions rejected. 95 in favor, against, abstentions rejected.
Recycled tea: original part in favor, first part against, abstentions. Carried part two in favor, against, abstentions carried. Original text part one in favor. Against abstentions, Part Two was carried in favor and adopted.
Amendment eight: in favor, against, abstentions; rejected. Amendment nine: in favor, against, abstentions rejected; 10 in favor. Against. Abstentions are rejected. Recital V original text in three parts.
First part in favor, against, abstentions carried. Part two: in favor, against, abstentions carried. Part three is in favor. Against, abstentions. Amendment 11 carried in favor. Against, abstentions. Rejected Recycle X original text in four parts.
Part one: in favor, against, abstentions carried. Part two: in favor, against, abstentions carried. Part three: in favor, against, abstentions carried. Z original text in two parts.
The. Vote on the fourth part now. Apologies. In favor, against, abstentions: carried. Z original text in two parts: part one in favor, part two against abstentions. Code.
Part two in favor.
Speaker 155
Against abstentions were rejected.
We move to the final vote on the resolution. That's by roll-call vote. Voting is open. The vote is closed. It's adopted.
My. Congratulations. Mr. Simon has a point of order. 197. Point of order.
Speaker 167
Madam President, colleagues, it's a point of order concerning Rule 191.
With the title committee filtering plenary amendments. Two sentences only.
It reads: when more than 50 amendments or requests for a split or separate vote have been tabled concerning a text tabled by a committee for consideration in parliament, the president may, after consulting its chair, ask that committee to meet to vote on each of those amendments or requests. Any amendment or request for a split or separate vote that does not receive votes in favor at this stage from at least one-third of the members of the committee shall not be put to a vote in parliament.
Madam President, please consider making use of this prerogative which the rules of procedure give to you or to any other president. Thank you.
Speaker 155
I will pass this information on for the planning of the next votes. Thank you very much. We move to the Zifferer Austrokhovna report on public access to documents for 2022 to 2024.
All the votes are roll-call votes. I do apologize, Mr. Zimmun. We vote on Amendment 10. Roll call vote. Voting is open.
Voting is closed. It's rejected. Amendment seven voting is open. Voting is closed. Rejected 11. The vote is open.
The vote is closed. Rejected.
Amendment 12. Open. The vote is open. The vote is closed. Rejected.
Amendment eight is open. The boat is closed. It's rejected. Amendment nine: the vote is open. The vote is closed.
Rejected. Amendment 13: the vote is open. The vote is closed.
Rejected.
Speaker 155
Amendment 14, roll call vote. The vote is open. The vote is closed. Rejected. Amendment one.
Speaker 161
The vote is open. The vote is closed. Rejected amendment two. The vote is open. The road is closed.
Rejected.
Speaker 161
Amendment three: the vote is open. The vote is closed. Rejected amendment 4. The vote is open. The vote is closed.
Speaker 155
Rejected amendment five. The vote is open. The vote is closed. Rejected amendment 6. The vote is open. The vote is closed.
Speaker 161
Rejected. We move to the vote on the resolution as a whole. The vote is open. The vote is closed. And the report is adopted.
Speaker 155
Moving to the Axlefos report on copyright and generative artificial intelligence opportunities, I give the floor to the rapporteur for two minutes.
Ladies.
Axel Voss
And gentlemen, given that time is pressing, I'll just give you a brief overview. With this report, we're trying to strike a balance between the AI developers, legal certainty, and not creating obstacles. On the other side, there are those creative forces in Europe who have added value to bring to the table. So, we're doing this through simple, or rather, adjusting the digital world with simpler tools, looking at digital licensing, etc.
Speaker 169
Maybe a brief thanks to the shadow reporters and to the Commission. Tell them that this is an urgent issue. Please solve this problem and push forward.
Speaker 155
Thank you very much indeed. All three votes are roll-call votes. Amendment two: first of all, the vote is open. The vote is closed. Rejected.
Rejected.
The. The vote is closed.
Adopted.
Speaker 155
We move to the Funkero Rodriguez report. On fisheries management approaches for safeguarding sensitive species, tackling invasive species, and benefiting local economies. I give the floor to the rapporteur for 2 minutes.
André Franqueira Rodrigues
President. Colleagues will be very brief. Today, what we're discussing is not an exotic topic.
These are concerns that affect fishermen, coastal regions, coastal communities, the outermost regions, and the tourism sector. But this also affects the real economy of many areas in the European Union.
This report makes progress with better responses in order to protect our biodiversity and to fight against invasive alien species. A high percentage of birds and mammals, 40% of sharks, and 100% of tortoises and turtles in Europe are currently under threat. 53% of the coastal areas in Europe are currently under pressure.
Be given the presence of invasive alien species. There are different regional variations, which are quite significant. A high percentage of the Baltic coastal area, 100% of the Black Sea area, and large swathes of the Mediterranean coast are all affected.
This trend will continue to grow and is boosted by climate change phenomena, which are causing significant losses in biodiversity, especially for artisanal fishing. We cannot continue this way. We have to do more, and we have to do better.
That's why I ask for your support and your votes on this report. I would also like to thank those who worked in the different groups on this particular report. Thank you.
Speaker 155
Kyung Dang, thank you very much. We move to the vote on paragraph eight in two parts. First part: in favor, against, abstentions, carried. Part two: roll call vote.
Carried.
Rejected.
Speaker 155
Amendment three: roll call vote. The vote is open. The vote is closed. Rejected. 18, original text in two parts.
Part one in favor. Roll call vote. The vote is open. The vote is closed. Carried.
Part two. Those in favor, please say, Kjell. Those against? Abstentions? Carried. Amendment four is in favor.
Against; abstentions. I'll check this one. The vote is open. On the check.
The. The vote is closed. It's rejected. Amendment five is in favor. Against abstentions. Could we repeat that? We're nearly there.
In favor.
Against.
The vote is closed.
Speaker 155
Carried. Now the vote on the resolution as a whole, as amended, roll call vote. The vote is open. Stemming. The vote is closed.
It's adopted. Moving to the resolution from the Trade Committee on the upcoming European Research Area. Amendment six is in favor. Against. Abstentions rejected.
Amendment 11: roll call vote. The vote is open. The vote is closed. Rejected. Amendment one: roll call vote.
The vote is open. The world is closed. Rejected. Amendment two, roll call vote is open. Now the gate is closed.
Rejected amendment 12. The vote is open. Roll call vote. The vote is closed. Rejected amendment 13. Those in favor? Against? Abstentions rejected.
Amendment 15: roll call vote. The vote is open. The vote is closed. Rejected. Paragraph six.
Roll call vote. The vote is open. The vote is closed. Carried amendment 16. Roll call vote.
The vote is open. The vote is closed. Carried. Amendment three: roll call vote. The vote is open.
Speaker 161
The vote is closed. Rejected. Amendment 14: roll call vote. The vote is open. The vote is closed.
Speaker 155
Rejected. Amendment for the roll call vote. The rep is open. The vote is closed. Rejected.
Amendment seven, roll call vote. The vote is open. The votes are closed. Rejected amendment eight with votes in favor, against, and abstentions. Amendment nine was rejected with votes in favor, against, and abstentions.
Amendment five is in favor. Against, abstentions rejected. Amendment 10 in favor? Against, abstentions rejected. Now, the vote on the resolution as a whole is a roll call vote. The vote is open. The vote is closed.
It's adopted. My congratulations. Looking now for the speakers for the next debate, I'd ask them to please stay in the room because we will proceed with the debate. Straight away.
Thank you.
Speaker 38
So. Can we restart? As per our agenda, the next item is the joint debate on the European semester. We have the report from Miss Peter Hansen, European Semester for the Economic Policy Coordination 2026, and the report by Miss Riel, European Semester for Economic Policy Coordination, Employment, and Social Priorities for 2026. We'll start the debate with the rapporteurs.
Miss Hanson, you have the floor.
Kira Marie Peter-Hansen
Thank you very much. And let me first make sure that you all know that tomorrow's voting list, despite the fact that this report also mentions housing, will not be as long as the vote we had today.
Thank you. And as the rapper turned the Econ report, I'm very happy to present this year's report. And let me first start by thanking the different shadows and the political groups for their constructive work on the report. It's been a pleasure working with you on this file.
Because we are living through a period of extraordinary geopolitical and macroeconomic turmoil, the chaos in the burning oil fields in Iran and the skyrocketing energy prices are only the most recent examples of how geopolitical instability and macroeconomic uncertainty are closely intertwined.
Putin's war of aggression in Ukraine and the resulting inflation spike, territorial threats to Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark, Trans-Atlantic trade conflicts—we've all seen these in recent years and months—and how Europe is struggling to adapt in these uncertain times. And in light of this, the European Semester and macroeconomic policy coordination remain absolutely vital for Europe's economic stability, security, and prosperity.
It's more important than ever, and I know politicians say that a lot, that member states work together to achieve common objectives. And above all, that of creating a more resilient, competitive, and sustainable European economy.
In light of this uncertainty, the agenda set by the Draghi report, it has been my ambition as a rapporteur for this year's report to maintain a focus on both the private and public investments that Europe needs to mobilize to maintain growth and become more resilient. Although I recognize that not all political groups see eye to eye on the solutions, I am very pleased that we have managed, at least in committee, to find a broad majority behind this report.
Those of you who've been here for many years know that is not always the case for the semester report. And more specifically, I'm pleased we have managed to include in this year's report an emphasis on the importance of EU-wide initiatives such as the RF and SHORE to tackle the economic and social consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic, and that the report also calls for new EU-level instruments for the provision of EU public goods.
And I'm also pleased to see that we've managed to include a mention of the increasing housing prices, if today's vote was not enough, across the European capitals as a serious macroeconomic and social issue that not only threatens the livability of our cities, but also labor mobility, productivity, and economic growth. And, of course, as a Green, I'm also particularly pleased that we've managed to include and maintain a focus on the challenges related to climate change and the green transition from a macroeconomic perspective.
Because increasing oil and gas prices from the current wars in the Middle East are yet another reminder, if we needed one, of the macroeconomic uncertainty that comes from Europe's continued dependency on the import of fossil fuels.
Across Europe, citizens and companies are once again looking nervously at the energy prices and fearing the impact that they will have on their finances and future opportunities. And as Draghi reminded us, we Europeans will only truly free ourselves from those exposures and fears when we set Europe on a path of sustainable energy sources, to the benefit of both European consumers and the competitiveness of European companies alike.
And, hopefully, this report will contribute to a fruitful way forward for Europe, and I look forward to the debate with both the Shadows and other members taking the floor.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Miss Reel, you have the floor.
Nela Riehl
Dear colleagues, I'm glad that we're having a debate on this matter report today.
We talk a lot about the MF being only 1% of the EU GDP, but we don't talk about the elephant in the room: the national budget. This is arguably the biggest leverage that we have for change in terms of public money.
And while leading the negotiations on this report, I realized that in this debate, we keep falling for the same three illusions. Like, let me explain what it is. First, we keep the illusion that we can tackle our common European challenges with separate national budgets. I mean, we all face the same problems here.
Energy, defense, and industrial competition. But for some reason, we still often try to solve them with 27 different national decisions. For example, look at defense spending, and that is not a favorite topic, but we have to talk about it.
Right now, we operate three major competing fighting jets, roughly 12 different tanks, and hold on 170 different weapon systems. All these are spread across national armies that are too small on their own.
So, we get a weak defense system and a huge bill. Studies estimate that this lack of cooperation costs European taxpayers between €18 and €58,000,000,000 per year. In my report, I call for coordinated and European spending that does not waste people's money.
From the United States' point of view, we could use this money for the society we are defending. Second, the second illusion: when did life actually become this expensive? I mean, our rent, our groceries, our heating bills—everywhere you look, prices are going up. This did not happen overnight. This happened because, for years, we've been falling for the same comforting but fatal illusion. The illusion that if we don't spend money today, we're somehow saving it.
But we are not saving money, just postponing the bill. Take energy, for example. For years, we said that investing in our own energy system was too expensive. So, we delayed it.
And now, every time there's geopolitical chaos in Ukraine, Iran, and Ismailia, our prices go up. Because when Europe defends itself, it depends on the world's instability; our living costs depend on both.
That's why a real choice isn't between spending or saving; it's between being dependent or independent. To be independent, we need to acknowledge that the challenges we face are European. So, the solutions must be European as well.
And again, that is the promise of the United States of Europe. Less dependency and more power to stand on our own. The power to protect our living costs. The third illusion: we often waste our money by believing in the illusion that insurance is nice to have and not a necessity.
I feel sometimes we are too busy discussing military startups and new technologies that we forget something very simple. None of these things would exist without people. It's the people who design the technologies. It's the people who build companies. And it is the people who make the economy grow.
Everyone's favorite buzzword nowadays is competitiveness. But what actually makes us competitive? Right.
It's the people.
Nela Riehl
Programs like Erasmus already allow millions of Europeans to learn from each other every year. Now, we need to build on that. European approach for Europeans: The United States of Europe. Dear colleagues, I'm very much looking forward to the debate today and to hearing your opinions on how we are going to take this forward.
Thank you very much.
Speaker 38
Thank you very much on behalf of the council. Now, Minister for European Affairs, Miss Rauna.
Speaker 96
Madam President, honorable members, Commissioner, first and fourth, let me thank the rapporteurs, Peter Hansen and Real. The 2026 European semester cycle takes place, as we know all too well, in an increasingly complex context. Rising geopolitical uncertainty, coupled with trade and fiscal challenges, and the need for strategic security and defense, all require a collective effort to sustain both economic resilience and social cohesion. The European Semester process continues to support the EU's efforts to better coordinate economic and employment policies. It also aims at ensuring the sustained convergence of the economic and social performance of member states and regions. Indeed, it is our main tool to identify and address our economic and social challenges, and, above all, to create opportunity.
We will work together on this with the overarching aim of a European Union that is more competitive and more resilient. The Cyprus presidency, building on the work initiated by the Danish presidency on the preparation of the 2026 European semester cycle, attaches great importance to coordinated and coherent work across all council formations. This is essential to ensure the smooth functioning of the semester. In this context, since the beginning of the year and the start of the Cyprus presidency, ECOFIN has closely followed the implementation of the reformed economic governance framework within the European Semester.
In January and February, ministers took stock of initial experiences with new medium-term fiscal structural plans and discussed key elements, including the application of the national escape clause and its implications for defense-related expenditure.
Now, looking ahead, the council will continue its work on the fourth Commission Spring Package and the assessment of the annual progress reports in relation to the medium-term fiscal structural plans. We will also prepare the country-specific recommendations with a view to ensuring consistent implementation across all member states by the end of the Cyprus Presidency.
Employment ministers convened in EBSCO on March 9 to adopt the joint employment report. Our labor markets remain resilient. And at the same time, more effort is needed to reach the two other 2030 EU headline targets on skills, in the form of 60% of adults participating in training every year, and poverty reduction.
To reduce the number of people at risk of poverty by 15,000,000. A novelty in the 2026 autumn package was the publication of a recommendation on human capital in the EU, which was also adopted at the EPSCO Council on March 9.
Both the letter and Draghi reports underline the need for workforces that are equipped with the skills they need to benefit from new technologies. To achieve this, people must be provided with education and adult learning opportunities, as well as quality jobs that incorporate skills development.
Member states are therefore called upon to take action to address skill shortages, particularly in strategic sectors of the economy. From a procedural point of view, the Cyprus president in the 2026 cycle is ahead of the European Council's meetings in March and June.
Ahead of the March European Council, the presidency will submit a synthesis report capturing the outcomes of these exchanges. In short, we will do everything in our power to bring this cycle's work to a successful conclusion. And in doing so, we remain firmly committed to continued close cooperation with the European Parliament and to this regular economic dialogue, which strengthens accountability and democratic ownership of the semester process.
Thank you very much.
Speaker 38
Thank you very much. Now, Commissioner Minsato, on behalf of the Commission, Executive Vice President, you have the floor.
Speaker 174
Members, I would like to thank the two rapporteurs for their reports, which provide a valuable contribution in view of the European Semester priorities for 2026.
This cycle was launched in a context marked by increased global uncertainties due to multiple economic, social, and security challenges. Our competitiveness and our sustainable prosperity are fundamentally challenged by economic and social divides, as well as by pressures from technological change, demographic shifts, shifting global landscapes, and the accelerating impacts of climate change. A lack of innovation and low productivity growth risk undermining our long-term growth potential and our social welfare state. And, in this overall context, enhancing Europe's competitiveness and resilience must remain a key priority.
I very much welcome the clear message from this Parliament. Investing in people's skills, promoting quality jobs, ensuring social fairness, and affordable, accessible, and sustainable housing are central to the resilience and competitiveness of our economies and our societies. The Parliament has been a strong partner for the European Commission to progress in this direction. And it is also thanks to your strong engagement that we now have an economic governance framework that places economic and social objectives on an equal footing. The European Semester will remain the central mechanism for coordinating the implementation of policies at national and regional levels.
Many of the policy levers to regain competitiveness and improve our prosperity rest within our member states and regions. For instance, member states and the regions have an important role to play in taking action to improve the business environment and reduce bottlenecks for the efficient allocation of savings. Also, policies to strengthen education and training are key.
The social convergence framework is now an integral part of the European Semester. It is a key tool to deliver on the principles and objectives of the European Pillar of Social Rights.
And this requires ambitious reforms and ambitious investments that should be put in place by member states. Despite the remarkable resilience of the EU labor market, the strong job gains in recent years have only been matched by a muted or limited reduction in poverty risks, including for those who are in employment. Moreover, skills and labor shortages in key sectors remain sizable and continue to pose bottlenecks for productivity and fair, green, and digital transitions. And for the first time this year, the Commission has proposed a new recommendation on human capital, as announced also in the Union of Skills last year, focusing on skills gaps in strategic sectors and making better use of skills intelligence.
Turning now to fiscal policy. Sound public finances remain the foundation of a sustainable and stable economy. We have already made a good start with the implementation of the new fiscal framework. We now need to maintain this focus and enhance the efficiency and quality of public spending and revenues. This is especially important given the immense demands on public finances, in a context of fiscal sustainability risks in many of our member states.
In particular, member states should make effective use of the temporary flexibility within the fiscal rules for defense spending. Honorable members, the draft report rightly focuses on the issue of delivery.
What ultimately matters most is that our policy recommendations are eventually implemented on the ground. The Recovery and Resilience Facility and the Cohesion Policy have already had a positive impact on boosting the implementation of crucial reforms and investments. We need to continue on the same track.
This is what we do with the Commission's proposal for the next Multiannual Financial Framework. In this context, we will step up our efforts further to improve engagement with and ownership of recommendations in the context of the European Semester.
Let me conclude by stressing that continued dialogue with the European Parliament remains an essential part of macroeconomic policy coordination under the European Semester.
Thank you.
Speaker 38
Thank you. Thank you very much. Mister Bozilager, now on behalf of the budgets committee.
Speaker 176
We have heard this week from the Commission President, and it is true. And that means that prosperity is something completely different now. Prosperity of individuals means resilience and democracy, and prosperity of the European continent means that we can stand up to blackmail.
And this is where the European Semester comes in. We can do a lot on the European level to harmonize our internal market, and actually, we're not doing enough. We can do a lot to simplify our laws, and we are doing something there. But we also need to understand that, on the national level, many reforms are not being done that are necessary to ensure the prosperity of our continent and our individuals.
Those are pension schemes that are actually sustainable for the next generations. That is making tech schemes work so that women can actually also work without being disincentivized from doing it.
If they are in a partnership. There's a lot of stuff that we need to do, and we need the Parliament to have a voice in this European semester so that in the future we have these national reforms. That the national governments actually do them.
Thank you very much.
Speaker 177
Thank you very much. Moving on to the debate now. Mister Berger has the floor. Thank you very much, Madam President, ladies and gentlemen. Today, we are talking about the financing of future policies in 27 member states.
We've heard that the world is in transition, but reality is very straightforward. Without economic strength, we have no political power to act. In difficult times, we hear more calls for more indebtedness and more mutual responsibility for that indebtedness.
We as Democrats do not think that indebtedness is a viable path. This is valid for the war in Ukraine. Peace is no longer self-evident. Security has its own price. But investment in our common defense policy has to be made, and this is essential.
It should not be seen as a permanent solution. But at the end of the day, we need to see a clear return to a robust budget.
Policy.
Speaker 177
If we're going to mutualize European debt, that would be the wrong way to go. Eurobonds are not going to generate solutions. They're not going to build factories. The EU doesn't have a debt problem. They have a growth problem.
Permit permits are too slow to be forthcoming. We need to look at other areas. It's not about going into debt. It's about providing the right framework conditions for growth. Investors and entrepreneurs don't need new pots of money.
They need less bureaucracy. If we want to give some breathing room to entrepreneurs, we can do that and create growth by itself, and we'll have finances for future resources as well.
India.
You. Miss Mendia is next.
Idoia Mendia
Thank you, President. Vice President, I worked to ensure that this European semester would guarantee growth and stability, but also social responsibility, which is what we're about in Europe. We can't just guide ourselves by the compass of competitiveness. If we want security and stability, we need a European semester that will make us the brightest and the best. So, we have to have quality jobs, inclusion, social cohesion, and a just transition for all.
Europe learned that we can have a loss of trust and confidence in the European Union and in the European project as well. So, we don't want to repeat the mistakes of the past.
We cannot have the policy being adopted. That comes at the expense of social cohesion. So, we can't sideline the fight against poverty, access to housing, health care for all, social protection, and guaranteeing care and basic services.
This safety net makes Europe stronger and more resilient. So a social Europe is not a break on competitiveness. Quite the opposite. It's a driver of progress. Thank you.
Giori.
Thank you very much. Miss Gyorri is next.
Enikő Győri
Ladies and gentlemen, MEPs, the European Semester was established in 2011 during the Hungarian presidency with the aim of coordinating the economic processes of the member states and ensuring financial discipline. Unfortunately, due to Brussels' continuous maximization of its powers, the instrument is now a shadow of its former self and interferes heavily in the internal affairs of member states.
It would shape social policy, abolish utility price reductions. These are just a few of the country-specific recommendations. This is life-threatening for Hungary. With war raging in our neighborhood, in the Middle East, and Ukraine imposing an oil blockade on us as a form of political blackmail.
The parliament's report goes even further. It clearly states that the semester would be used not only for economic coordination, but also to achieve sustainability goals, create social justice, and coordinate climate policy.
This ideological economic policy is destroying Europe's competitiveness. And what is most serious is that when assessing the macroeconomic situation of the Union, the text is silent on the burden of the war raging in our neighborhood.
The cost of supporting you, the transition away from cheap Russian energy, and the interest burden of the joint loans taken up by Brussels. If we don't talk about it, then there is no problem.
You're living in an alternative reality and pursuing a policy of burying your heads in the sand. Yet the interest payments on the €90,000,000,000 loan to Ukraine alone will cost European taxpayers €3,000,000,000 a year.
It's unpleasant for you to say this, isn't it? It is no coincidence that the report calls for the introduction of new European-level taxes because you know very well that there is no such thing as a free lunch.
We, the Patriots, say a resounding no to all of this. We do not want to burden our grandchildren. With debt, the introduction of European taxes, or left-wing ideology-based policies.
Thank you.
Speaker 52
Ladies. And gentlemen, when I talk to people in my country, they say very clearly, "We're in favor of Europe, but a Europe that respects sovereignty." Identity, the self-determination of peoples.
People do ask me, "Why should bureaucrats in Brussels be deciding for us?" And they're absolutely right. The European semester was meant to be a sensible tool for economic coordination, for oversight over public finances, a mechanism to help maintain stability. That's what was behind it.
But today, what we see is something different. Instead of a simple tool for economic cooperation, what we're seeing is an instrument of political pressure. And this pressure is pushed on social policy, labor market, and housing, pushing into decisions that have always belonged to the member states. And now we're seeing a further step: conditionality of European funds, making it dependent on the implementation of reforms that the Commission has decided on. Imposing policies that are not in the national interest but are in keeping with the Brussels agenda—that is the juncture when there is no longer coordination.
A question of discipline. Brussels is pointing the finger at people, telling who should be doing what in Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, and many other countries. And Europeans see this. They do not accept it.
There's something else they also see. And that is in Europe, where we're seeing some are equal. Some are more equal than others, however. Some have to listen. Europe was not created as a central management project.
It was established as a community of free nations.
Thank you.
Speaker 182
President, first, I would like to thank my colleagues that, this year, we have succeeded in getting this report done; it is quite trivial. Not that easy. Of course, this is the most important coordination instrument for us, and Europe can develop and grow only together.
The recommendations for member states have to be implemented, and funds have to be applied in order to do so because the developments have not been good enough so far.
Today, I would like to talk about two things. First of all, defense expenditure and coordination of the expenditure are necessary in order to advance our common defense capabilities. It is a good thing, but we need to coordinate more and work together. And secondly, these are the expenditures for development. And because if we take seriously the competitiveness problem in Europe, then not only should the European Commission pay attention to this, but also the member states with their budgets.
Thank you very much, Miss Toussaint.
Speaker 23
The European Commission is now using the European Semester as its sole tool for guiding the member states. To push them towards more competitiveness rather than towards improving the lives of European citizens.
But we need to understand that the objectives are not incompatible. We should have a key objective at the heart of this measure: making sure that we're not depleting the earth's resources beyond the natural ceiling that exists and have new own resources.
So, Madam Commissioner, we should have measures to fight poverty in the European Union. Will the commission be asking member states to ensure that their budgets do not contribute to further precarious living conditions, because no budgetary policy should be adopted if it makes it harder for European citizens?
If climate regulation and moving beyond the limits of the planet's resources should be guiding principles for our budgetary decisions. And, in short, that we make our investments accordingly. Because otherwise, we will have a budget that pays no real attention to the real constraints.
Thank you very much.
Speaker 153
Miss Lopry, thank you, President. I'm going to start with 3 simple words. Tax the rich. And I say this because these words might seem taboo. Officially, the European semester is supposed to balance out public finances, but we're seeing that we need to make cuts to retirement and health care, while we never look at the revenue that comes from the ultra-rich and multinational companies.
There's always radio silence when it comes to proposals. Regarding going for the money where it really is. The Greens and the Socialists really accept this logic? We need to open up the door and have a little more flexibility, although this seems to only affect certain spending. It seems to have an effect when it comes to natural disasters and healthcare. But there is money for other things.
There isn't money for hospitals, but there is for other things. And for some time, those words, "tax the rich," have been taboo, and that needs to stop.
Thank you.
President.
Speaker 113
We should focus on the truth about the current economic and fiscal state of the European Union.
Our economic growth is ridiculous. We do not adhere to the Maastricht criteria. We manipulate budget data.
This makes such reports pointless because the European Parliament ignores its own recommendations and reports.
You pointed out the data about the manipulated budget report for Bulgaria.
And you turned a blind eye to that.
This was a blatant case. There were video records showing the Bulgarian prime minister claiming that all data could be manipulated. And the European Parliament turned a blind eye to that.
And you allowed the rapporteur to be a representative of the party in Bulgaria whose sole aim was for Bulgaria to join the Eurozone.
This is European democracy in inaction.
And the next budget for 2026 was manipulated again. The commission didn't even start a budget imbalance procedure. This shows that these reports are only meant to deceive.
Speaker 185
Thank you. Very much. And thanks to the rapporteur. We've had a very constructive job of work on the European semester at a juncture where we have to be sincere in looking at the situation for business.
Where do we need reforms? Where do we need to have better investment to maintain our competitiveness? For me, it's clear. We need to have a solid fiscal state and the right conditions, and these all go hand in hand. And this is why the European Semester is a central instrument, because the challenges are genuine.
We have an aging population in Europe, and that has direct economic consequences. Expertise and know-how become decisive factors for competitiveness for the whole continent. Moreover, we need the framework conditions in place to enable competitiveness and innovation.
The European semester cannot be used as a Christmas tree of political desires. It has to focus on real reforms. In the previous term of office, we looked at competitiveness, and we certainly damaged and neglected that. Now, we're having to foot the bill.
No high levels of growth, high energy costs instead of technological development. And if that weren't enough, we also see a geopolitical situation that is adding to the mix. What we need to do is strengthen competitiveness because one thing is clear.
Speaker 186
Only a strong economy can enable a Social Europe. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Bahadur.
Speaker 83
On behalf of the SND Econ Shadow, I would like to thank the rapporteurs and shadows for their efforts. And cooperation.
There is no doubt that in an interdependent economy like that of the Union, it is necessary to have coordination between the member states, but we must not forget that the well-being of our citizens must come first.
Too often, these recommendations seem to forget the simple principle. The people. Recommendations such as removing energy subsidies for European families or increasing the retirement age for our workers. Then, at the same time, it was almost like a general command to increase defense spending by the member states instead of investing in people.
And now we're planning the next multi-annual budget framework. It seems that we are moving towards a system of European funds based on the European semester system, which is weak in methodology, poor in transparency, lacking democratic accountability, and focused mainly on increasing GDP.
Therefore, we often forget social investment in people, and I cannot accept that the European semester should have a binding nature over the next European budget.
Petrova.
Thank you. You, chair.
Hristo Petrov
I'm still a reporter on this file, but I have an issue.
If a person in Bulgaria asks me how we improve their life with the help of the European semester, there is nothing I can answer. As reporters, we aim to achieve our goals.
We negotiate the priorities of our groups, and we want to implement amendments to the text. But the final result in a country like mine seems to be something similar to a Christmas greeting card.
A lot of wishes, but nothing in particular. We need to have a much clearer connection between the recommendations, the national policies, and the European investment. This is the only way people can see that it is not just another European report, but a tool that serves them.
Thank you.
Sorry.
Sorry. Mister Avenites.
Speaker 190
Dear colleagues, the annual report on the European semester reminds us that the union's economic governance should not only be measured by competitiveness and fiscal discipline. Indicators, but also with its ability to strengthen social cohesion and improve the lives of European citizens.
Of course, we have the recent efforts by Mr. Trump. Still, linking the European Semester with the European Pillar of Social Rights in this report can only be positive. It is especially important to place emphasis on dealing with the poverty of working people, access to quality jobs, health, security, and safety at work.
The implementation of the directive for adequate minimum wages and the full implementation of the council recommendation for adequate minimum income. This also incorporates issues that are of primary importance for the left, such as dealing with child and energy in India.
Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Jungblut.
Speaker 37
Madam President, the core mission of the European Commission is to coordinate economic policy. The report that has been presented is now going beyond that to talk about structural reform and, beyond financial supervision, is going to be linking into social policy, to name just one area. These encroachments on national policy really go well beyond the Commission's responsibilities. Anyone who considers themselves to be a guardian of the Treaty must scrupulously respect the boundaries set out by the Treaties. For example, in the budgets, member states are asked to take on new policies. What we're seeing here is this slippery slope towards centralization that is not provided for.
Speaker 191
So, yes, corporation, but no dictates from Brussels on economic policymaking.
Speaker 57
Thank you. Mister Fauber. Ladies and gentlemen, the report on the European Semester shows very clearly where we are. The commission expects the European Union to have a very narrow level of growth in the coming years. And because of demography, we're seeing that the conditions are not really in place to help us.
So, we need to look at investments to help boost productivity and competitiveness. So we have to turn the economic semester into a competitive semester. The Commission is looking more at competitiveness and simplification.
That's the right approach. This is a focus that we need to fill with content. Above all, the country-specific recommendations for the member states need to be implemented in a serious fashion. The Recovery and Resilience Facility will come to an end at the end of this year, which means structural reforms are urgently necessary in the member states.
The semester can become a compass for the European Union if it focuses on growth, competitiveness, and private investment. We, as the EPP, stand behind that plan. Thank you.
Younous Omarjee
Thank you very much. We will now move to the catch-the-eye procedure, Mister Jinkinen. First of all, catch the eye.
Speaker 131
Most. European countries are up to their necks in public debt. How are they going to face up to the crisis? We already have rules for that. We have the 60% limit on public debt. And when you see big countries with their debt levels above 100%, you may ask yourself whether these rules really have any credibility.
We have special reports from the European Court of Justice on these issues. We have a shift in responsibilities, and we're seeing new rules being made on the labor market.
We have a fundamental product problem. We are wasteful in Europe. Looking to the next election and simply throwing around cash. And we can see that the institution doesn't want to save money.
Speaker 194
Also, we have to invest in our defense to make sure that we remain safe. Because our security is not free. But the money that we need for it is not free either.
We've made clear agreements with each other about state and debt, and to make sure that European member states are financially robust. Now, new situations require new choices. That's the same case with the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Corona outbreak, and also today, to guarantee our security and safety. We need money in order to do this. So, the question of making choices becomes important. We need to save money where we can. We need to direct our priorities towards investing in new security.
If we don't do that and just let state indebtedness or public debt increase, it's the taxpayer who has to foot the bill, and we can't allow that to go ahead.
In the Netherlands, we are daring to do this, but we need to do this throughout Europe because we stand shoulder to shoulder, facing these challenges. We need to assume responsibility, and that means sorting out your own backyard in financial terms so that it's not somebody else who has to foot the bill. Make sure they have fiscal solidity.
Invest in defense. Thank you.
Speaker 196
Colleagues, It's well known in all our different countries that every year, Europe comes knocking at the door to say, "Listen, you've been spending a little bit too much on pensions, or you're spending too much on health care." You need to make cuts, and then governments very often say, "Yes, okay, well, we'll make those cuts."
In Belgium, today, right now, the government is, hopefully, doing a holdup on pensions. Faced with these policies everywhere in Europe, and especially in Belgium, unions are rising up, and they're right to do that.
Then we hear colleagues say, "No." Well, we can't spend that too much. There's our austerity. We have to consider budgetary rigor. But what we're seeing now is that military spending is excluded from European rules, and this seems absurd.
You can invest if you invest in pensions and health care, but then Europe will get annoyed. But if you want to spend on weapons, don't worry about it. That's fine.
Why are we not looking at taxing the rich rather than taking money out of the pockets of workers? Thank you.
Speaker 16
Thank you very much. Lukas Zipper. People of Europe, when we listen to people like Mr. Juncker, we get the impression that Europe's biggest problem is the European Commission respecting its competence.
But the real problem is a different one. We should have more time to spend on competitiveness and economic growth if we weren't constantly having to fight against populists and extremists, people who reject the values of Europe and democratic values of people.
Now, any form of cooperation in Europe is rejected or dismissed as overstepping its remit; then that weakens Europe. It weakens Europe's economic might as well. Coordination in Europe is not a brake on wealth and prosperity. It's a driver for prosperity, and we must stand up to populists, extremists, and all those who oppose it elsewhere.
Younous Omarjee
Thank you. Thank you very much. And I now have the pleasure of giving the floor to the Vice President, Rosanna Mizatu.
Speaker 174
Thank you so much for the inputs from this debate on the European Semester process. Just a few remarks on some important topics. These are reflected in the European Semester process but are also present in our citizens' everyday life. Looking at topics such as energy prices, housing, but also their security, skills, how we prepare them for the transformations of our economy and budget, and how we invest in Europe. For all these topics you have mentioned, different views exist. For all these topics, the European Semester process is extremely relevant and has a direct impact on what the EU does to support member states and its citizens.
Obviously, monitoring the situation of housing prices, affordability, and accessibility is quite central to the monitoring processes of the European Semester, and there is an outcome. The outcome is the affordable housing plan that we've adopted, following which we are deploying all the tools meant to support member states in responding to this challenge. Looking at the evolution of energy prices and inflation driven by energy prices, we monitor them throughout the semester, and we are again acting at the European level.
We've approved the Affordable Energy Action Plan. We are continuing to work on these topics, and it is absolutely relevant. That through the semester, we are able to assess the vulnerabilities and the risks of the European Union and then act to strengthen our economies together. It is important to mention that we need to be coherent in our efforts for our common security and our common defense. The European semester allows member states to deviate from fiscal rules so that, by activating the defense escape clause, they can invest jointly in a common concept of security, providing for procuring military equipment as was mentioned here, inside a common cohesive European vision and approach.
We invest in people. We've presented the first human capital recommendation in this European semester, which is exactly about helping the European Union invest coherently across industries and value chains in the skills that people need so that we are able to empower them and make them able to benefit from the opportunities of new transformations in industry, but also protected from the restructuring or the vulnerability of the same industries.
And it's important to note that the European Union is quite involved with the budget elaboration. This semester, particularly linked to the next multi-annual financial framework, obviously, the way that we shape the next European budget is closely linked with what we monitor, what we collect, and what we do through our coordination mechanism in the European semester. Every debate on this topic remains relevant and important. It is a technical tool, but with a tremendous direct impact on Europeans' lives.
Thank you for your input, and those will obviously be taken into account in our work at the European Commission.
Younous Omarjee
Thank you very much indeed, Madam Vice President. I now give the floor to the council. And Marilina Rona, you have the floor.
Speaker 96
President, honorable members, executive vice president, you have raised some key points in today's debate, which make a valuable contribution to the ministerial debates taking place within the Council. I note that, in the context of the European semester, we share an interest in going beyond purely economic aspects. It is also about ensuring that investments have a social impact and contribute to economic, social, and territorial cohesion.
From affordable housing to energy. I am confident that we will continue our productive collaboration on effective solutions to meet the challenges ahead in a coherent way and transform them into opportunities.
Thank you very much.
Younous Omarjee
Thank you very much. Now, to conclude this debate, I give the floor to the co-operator, Ms. Peter Hansen.
Kira Marie Peter-Hansen
Very much, and thank you to both the commissioner, the council, and the colleagues for all of their remarks. I think today's debate has made it clear that we all care deeply about Europe. We care about the direction our union has taken. And listening to the remarks, some of you think this report is too radical; for others, it's not radical enough. And for me, that's actually what strikes a good compromise. So I'm rather pleased with the debate.
Several of you have also mentioned security and the importance of mobilizing spending for defense. I couldn't agree more. And I've tried in the report also with the shadows to emphasize the moral, economic, and geostrategic importance of Europe becoming independent, both in a defense aspect and also independent of fossil fuels. Those that are currently a part of our energy mix.
Several of you also mentioned the importance of the social dimension in the European semester, also in the economic report, and just taxation as a source of financing for the public good. Here, I also fully agree. And, in my view, the truth is that all of these are crucial priorities for Europe at the current juncture. And I firmly believe that we, as European policymakers, must face all of these challenges. It's our task to mobilize the necessary investment, both public and private, for achieving these common objectives and steering Europe in the coming years.
So, thank you again for the debate, and I look forward to hopefully adopting it tomorrow. Thank you.
Nela Riehl
Dear colleagues, thank you for the many very interesting remarks during this debate. I'm genuinely glad to see that the semester is a topic that sometimes stays in the shadows, but it does attract so much attention in this house because, in the end, it touches on one of the most fundamental political questions: how we spend our money. And the question is particularly timely.
As we are entering negotiations on the next multi-annual financial framework, we must not forget the elephant in the room, which is the natural budgets. They represent the vast majority of public spending in Europe and are therefore the largest leverage that we have to shape economic and social change. This is precisely why coordinating how member states use their budgets through the European Semester is so important. It is not only about coordination for its own sake.
For me, it's also a step towards what should ultimately be our long-term objective. A truly European federal budget that allows us to address common challenges together because the reason is simple. The challenges we face are European, and so must the instrument be that we use to address them.
Now, colleagues, we may not agree on everything in this debate; that's for sure. And that is perfectly normal in a democratic parliament. But I'm glad to see that there is clear governance on several important points, which are also clearly reflected in the report we negotiated.
First, many of you stressed the need for a stronger role of the European Parliament in Europe, and that's very clear. And if countries with specific recommendations become increasingly linked to EU funding and the next MFF, then democratic scrutiny by this House becomes even more essential. Second, we share the common goal of investing in people, education, and skills. And third, there's a broad agreement that economic policy coordination must better reflect social considerations.
So let me thank you again for this constructive spirit we had in working together. I look forward to tomorrow's vote and, of course, the response that we received from the commission.
Thank you very much.
Younous Omarjee
Thank you very much indeed, Miss Ariel. Thank you very much for this debate. The debate is closed, and the vote will take place tomorrow. We now move to Uzukov's report on the budget guidelines for the 2027 budget, section three.
Mister. Rappelle-toi.
Nils Ušakovs
Dear Chairman, Commissioner Serafin, Presidency, dear colleagues, it's a privilege to present today the guidelines for the 2027 European Union budget. It documented both an end and a beginning.
An end, because 2027 will be the final year of the current multi-annual financial framework. And in the beginning, the way we manage this final budget will determine the credibility with which the unit enters the next financial cycle. The beginning of the next financial cycle is paralleled by two ongoing wars, skyrocketing oil and gas prices, and risks that the geopolitical and global economic situation will become significantly worse in the coming months. This places unprecedented responsibility on this House to act in a united manner, putting controversial issues aside and concentrating on the numerous challenges ordinary Europeans will continue to face.
The forthcoming future. The guidelines we have managed to draft call for a budget that, despite everything happening in the world, is citizen-centered, efficient, and investment-oriented. One that supports prosperity, creates and protects quality jobs, strengthens territorial and social cohesion, reinforces Europe's competitiveness, and, which is so important these days, contributes to the security of our union. At the heart of this guideline lies a simple idea: especially in times of crisis, economic resilience and social cohesion must go hand in hand.
The 2027 budget must support resilient health care systems across all regions. And address the growing challenge of affordable housing, recognizing that housing is a basic necessity for citizens. It must ensure that the European Pillar of Social Rights is backed by real funding, including through the European Social Fund Plus, to combat poverty, reduce inequalities, and support the most vulnerable. At the same time, we must continue investing in the green and digital transitions.
Also, allow me to highlight three areas of particular importance. First, our border regions. Municipalities along the eastern borders in the Baltic States, Poland, Finland, and elsewhere face economic and social pressure. Demographic decline, the loss of essential services, and increasing security pressures. These communities need targeted and tangible support.
Solidarity must be territorial, not historical. Second, the situation of farmers in frontline member states. Farmers in countries bordering Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus are facing disproportionate pressures. Ensuring a fair distribution of direct payments under the Common Agricultural Policy. It is therefore not a request for privilege; it's a demand for equity.
Third, defense and security. The guidelines call for adequate financial support for member states with external EU borders, including resources to strengthen critical infrastructure and support necessary border protection measures where justified. Security without territorial resilience is fragile. Territorial resilience without budget backing is an empty promise.
As I have already said, we are adopting guidelines in a very complicated geopolitical and economic situation. The escalation of conflict in the Middle East is deeply concerning. It can have serious economic, energy, security, and humanitarian consequences for Europe and its citizens. For this reason, we call on the Commission to ensure that the 2027 Union budget is prepared to respond to current and future developments in this region.
Colleagues, a central question in this budgetary procedure, in general, will be the financial room for maneuver. What appears at first glance to be around €4,600,000,000 in available margins is significantly reduced once we account for the interest cost of NGU, the deficit under heading seven. In reality, we are left with roughly €1.3 billion of genuine flexibility. This is a very limited space in which to address many legitimate priorities.
This is why we call on the Commission to make full and timely use of the commitments and special instruments. Parliament cannot accept a situation in which programs such as Horizon Europe, Erasmus Plus, or EU for Health are weakened simply to cover interest costs. We also expect transparent and timely information throughout the procedure on all factors affecting budget availability. And in the final year of the MFF, we must remain guided by sound financial management. The objective is not spending for the sake of spending, but supporting major and high-impact projects that deliver real benefits for our citizens.
Colleagues, the EU budget is the most powerful tool this Parliament has to respond to citizens' expectations. In times of crisis, we must act in the most responsible way. Keeping in mind only one priority: the interest of Europeans and our Union.
Allow me to thank the shadow reporters for the constructive spirit of cooperation throughout this process, and I look forward to the final vote. Thank you.
Younous Omarjee
Thank you very much indeed. Mister Rapporteur. I wish to welcome Piotr Sever Serafin, commissioner, and I give him the floor now.
Speaker 199
Dear Mister Rapporteur, honorable members, let me thank the Rapporteur, Mister Rusakov, and the Budget Committee for the draft guidelines for the 2027 budget. In the current geopolitical context, the EU and a stronger EU budget remain vital to safeguard predictability and stability. And this is the strongest currency that we have to deliver predictability and stability. With global tensions rising, the ongoing war in Ukraine, and increasingly complex security threats, Europe must first and foremost protect its people and invest in its competitiveness. Solid and robust budgets are crucial for the union's response to these challenges.
You have to be aware that the room for maneuver to respond to unforeseen events will remain limited. But we must ensure adequate resources for existing priorities, notably to strengthen the Union's competitiveness and economic security, enable clean and digital transitions, deepen economic and territorial cohesion, and promote social equity and inclusion across Europe.
In this context, I want to assure you that the commission will propose the draft budget for 2027, fully focused on using our limited resources as effectively as possible. Let me also reaffirm that the commission will respect the agreement reached by the European Parliament and Council on the application of the uricascade mechanism. We commit to the 50% benchmark for financing the additional needs for the URI line under step two, to be targeted also in the draft budget for next year. The Commission will keep the Parliament updated throughout the budgetary procedure on the expected additional needs for duty lines.
Let me now turn to the next steps. In the first dialogue on April 14, we will discuss your guidelines and those of the council and agree on the calendar for the 2027 budgetary procedure. As concerns the draft budget proposal itself, the Commission aims to adopt its statement of estimates in early June.
We, honorable members, I look forward to an open and constructive dialogue and remain fully committed to cooperation with both arms of the budgetary authority to reach a timely agreement on next year's budget.
Thank you.
Younous Omarjee
Thank you very much indeed. Commissioner Seva Ervin. Now, Matthias Nemet.
Speaker 200
Their commissioner, their colleagues, we are debating the 2027 budget at the moment of percent and global volatility.
But if we want the EU to be a credible geopolitical actor, we must put our money where it's truly needed. Yet, our external funding remains a drop in the ocean compared to many challenges at our borders. The current crisis in Iran does not help either.
First, we must help resolve the crisis in the East. Second, we must address the human catastrophe in the South, including in Gaza, Lebanon, and beyond. And third, we must protect the values Europe was built on.
This means long-term support from international organizations, civil society, and a budget that systematically promotes the rights of women and girls. We must be the voice of reason, and we need to stand up for peace and international law again.
And finally, we must stop threatening and treating our diplomacy like a luxury we cannot afford. Including by properly financing our external action and our 144 delegations. Thank you so much.
Speaker 202
Thank you, President. Ladies and gentlemen, in budgetary control, the committee, obviously, has the especially important task of ensuring that taxpayers' money is protected well. And when I look at our own house here, unfortunately, there's a lot of misuse.
Marine Le Pen has been condemned. The investigation against the previous AFD group, the ID group, is still ongoing. We've seen examples of Mr. Anderson's website, about 60,000 being spent on it.
I don't know why you need to spend that amount of money on a website. Maybe it surprises you less if you realize that actually the money went to an AFT local politician, and some of the transfer didn't go to the corporate account but to the private account.
In recent days and weeks, we are seeing investigations coming to light again and again. That the AFD is not just pocketing money. But also, members of their own family are being given jobs. And it seems that in the European Parliament, this has happened.
Bostov, Jon Blut, and others have used family members who are being employed. We need to do something against this; hence, it might be a good idea that we give the EPO, Olaf, and the parliament administration enough money to take action.
Speaker 204
Thank you. Thank you very much. We're talking about the 2027 budget guidelines today, and we don't really know what's going to happen tomorrow or in the future, given the instability in the world.
It seems that there's never enough money, and that's why this budget needs to be very sensible and well-planned. There are two things I want to mention.
Firstly, trans NGOs that receive resources from this budget are, at the same time, involved in election campaigns. We want to keep people on-site; therefore, we need to show that we can be transparent.
The social fund should not be used for abortion. This is a fund intended for the most vulnerable people, children with diseases. Mental health shouldn't be used to finance abortion tourism.
Younous Omarjee
These rules should not be mixed with the objectives of the member state.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you. The Green Deal is more than an environmental strategy.
Pierfrancesco Maran
It sets the path of our growth, innovation, and resilience, and our budget must reflect that ambition. The 2027 budget, as the final year of the current MFF, is a decisive moment for the EU.
The European Environmental Agency warns that many climate and environmental targets are still off track. And the choices we make now will determine whether we deliver on our commitments. We must therefore reframe that the green transition is essential for Europe's competitiveness and security.
As Mario Draghi reminded us, this transformation requires substantial investment. Without it, our ambition risks remaining a word on paper. The MD Committee calls for a badge budget that reflects the urgent need of this moment.
Investing in renewable energy, energy efficiency, biodiversity protection, and safeguarding key programs such as life insurance. Just Anschism Fund and the EU Civil Protection Mechanism are essential to address biodiversity loss, pollution, and climate-related disasters.
Thank you, President.
Younous Omarjee
Thank you very much. And now, for the permitting public health, Tilly Metz.
Speaker 208
On behalf of the committee on public health, I would like to remind you that Europe's health objectives can only be achieved if we provide the necessary budget.
The commission must by no means lower the level of appropriations for health budget lines in the 2027 budget.
The challenges for public health are enormous. We agreed on this across committees and across this House. Citizens want Europe to do more in health; strengthening our health system benefits everyone.
Resilient health care systems are the cornerstone of social cohesion, democracy, and economic stability. We need resources to deliver on preparedness, critical medicine, beating cancer, the Safe Heart plan, and the health care workforce.
Crisis.
Speaker 208
Civil society is a good partner in that work.
It's wrong that the commission decided to stop operating grants for health civil society organizations.
The cuts to AU for health threaten the AU's ability to answer these challenges, so we urge your pardon. The parliament is ready to deliver on a EU-level action to support our member state health care systems. Please provide the means to do so.
Do not cut them.
Speaker 210
The. The war in Iran has demonstrated that we live in a vulnerable world. Energy prices have skyrocketed. The price of oil has exceeded $100 a barrel. That's what we face on a daily basis.
We need to wake up and go further in renewable energy. That should be our goal for the next few years. The future of our energy resources should be assigned sufficient budgetary lines, and so the financing of CREV should be a priority.
We should also understand the importance of investing in defense and the defense industry as a whole. These are important priorities for the next period. This year, these are major topics on the agenda of the committee.
Thank you.
Speaker 211
Thank you. Thank you very much. 2027 will be a key transition year, moving between two MFF (multi-annual financial frameworks). Against this backdrop, the Transport Committee asks for reinforcement of this CEF so that we can support projects and have a future-oriented and resilience-oriented infrastructure policy.
Against the background of increasing hostility, transport has a key role to play in terms of defense in Europe. So, we need to defend infrastructure projects that really support military mobility, with a 360-degree integrated approach.
European transport must also be more social, inclusive, and just. We need support for the just climate transition, and we must include measures for combating poverty in transport areas as well. We also need to give transport and tourism the place they deserve in the policy and in the budget. There should be a dedicated budget line to develop a sustainable tourism strategy.
Veronika Vrecionová
Thank you very much. Now, for the Agri Committee, Miss Postal? Commissioner?
This policy is indispensable for the resilience and vulnerability of our farmers. Maintaining budget continuity and predictability is crucial for planning and investment decisions of our farmers.
Therefore, any debates about reducing the budget are inadvisable. At the same time, we need to continue working on the simplification of our legislative requirements. The budget for 2027 needs to increase investments in agricultural research and innovation, as well as in digitalization, in order to support generational renewal and projects that deal with sustainable water management or rural development. These are areas that are somehow dealt with by every member state, and we need to financially support them.
Younous Omarjee
So, thank you, Mr. Sousa Silva, from the Call and Education Committee.
Speaker 213
President, Commissioner, Beotos Raffin. In these challenging times, we need to guarantee that the European budget remains a true tool for investment. Education, culture, and youth have a core role to play when it comes to leveraging competitiveness and boosting territorial cohesion.
So, he focuses on social policies and cohesion, and safeguarding the principles and rights of Europeans. Erasmus Plus, Creative Europe, and the European Solidarity Call are all emblematic programs with undeniable added European value. That's why we need to ensure adequate financing for them to achieve their objectives. Without this, we cannot accept cuts to European programs to fund the additional costs in the Next Generation EU. The budget must continue to respond to the real needs of European citizens, promote cultural resilience, as well as social and democratic resilience.
Thank you.
Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle
Dear colleagues, on behalf of the Femme Committee, a few days ago, on March 8, the world celebrated International Women's Day.
And two hours ago, this Parliament did the same. Our timelines were full of marches and beautiful shows of solidarity and admiration. For and from women, yes, but also, thankfully, from men. Men like our own Manfred Weber, who posted an inspiring video praising and celebrating women.
Saying the EPP won't stop being a champion for our rights. And we act. So, let's act.
Colleagues, let's act together.
Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle
Let's ensure that the positive answer given by the European Commission, by Ursula von der Leyen herself, to my voice, my choice citizens' initiative does not remain a paper tiger. Let's ensure safe and accessible abortion for every woman in the EU.
So that, in the same words of Mister Weber, women are equally treated and have a fair chance in our societies.
It shouldn't be hard.
Europe is watching. Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Now, Isabel.
Speaker 217
Thank you very much, President, Commissioner. The budget is the origin and the reason for the existence of the parliament. It brings together the political priorities, response to challenges and problems, and what we're doing today. We're discussing the priorities of the Parliament for the 2027 budget. And this is a budget that is being dragged down by the repayment of the debt and the interest on the debt for the next generation's funds.
For the EPP, our priorities are as follows. This budget should strengthen the competitiveness of our companies and SMEs by simplifying and reducing bureaucracy, and by making management processes easier.
It should support Ukraine. It should increase spending on defense and also strengthen our borders by combating illegal immigration, people trafficking, and drug trafficking. It should focus strongly on defending the rule of law and the mechanism of conditionality. It should focus on key proposals or projects of the EU, such as the Common Fisheries Policy, the Common Agricultural Policy, or Erasmus Plus. These budgets should also support families as a priority and as a social pillar of the EU.
And also believe it's important to protect religious communities, especially Christians who are persecuted throughout the world. It also needs to strengthen mechanisms for controlling aid to third countries by monitoring terrorism and respecting rights.
I think the text that will be voted on tomorrow brings together all of this, and I'd like to thank the rapporteur and the other shadow rapporteurs for the work that has been done.
Thank you very much.
Speaker 218
Commissioner. Colleagues, not one but two wars are threatening Europe in these dangerous times. And we have a huge responsibility. So, how can we tolerate what we've just heard from the EPP? Railing against the European budget.
This proposal, with the last-minute amendment on migrants and the amendment against universal access to abortion rights, was achieved through the My Voice, My Choice collective. Just a few hours ago, we were celebrating International Women's Day. Colleagues, you know very well that these amendments are unacceptable for the S&D.
We will oppose them if you vote for them. The whole text will fall. So siding with the far right doesn't really bring Europe to the right. It just makes Europe crumble.
So I call on you to be reasonable and to withdraw the amendments. There is too much at stake here. Don't play with fire. Thank you.
Charolais, Julien Sanchez.
Julien Sanchez
You, Julien Sanchez. Yes. So, we need to take on board the concerns of the outermost regions here. We see that they are at a disadvantage. They should be aided more from the European budget.
The European budget is money from taxpayers, first and foremost. We're seeing millions of workers behind this. People employed, independent people, but farmers who get up every day to work and feed Europe.
Today, these companies are seeing their competitiveness undermined by increasing prices of energy and the standards being foisted on them by Brussels. It undermines their whole production and the products they've provided. We're seeing outside companies, outside the EU, producing, and countries benefiting from better trade agreements like Mercosur from outside Europe.
Maybe we should reorient our ideas for the budget. We can see huge levels of indebtedness as well, which are going to burden Europe for decades to come. We need to turn this around to bolster our competitiveness on this.
My group, the PFE, has tabled 36% of the amendments to this. We want to strengthen our product production and strengthen our workers. Let's move away from nice words and dogmatism. Let's all act sensibly before it's too late.
Thank you. Berta Sitzel.
Speaker 220
Thank you. You, President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner. We find ourselves in an exceptional situation because we are facing war. There are no topics more important for Europe than security. This is a budgetary priority, the most important one for us. In fact, the issue of security is crucial, but security is linked to the economy and to employment. So, we cannot commit the same mistakes that we have in the past. We have to be more pragmatic and act more. Citizens are paying very high bills for energy.
And we're familiar with the Green Deal. But we need to go further. Agriculture is crucial for Europe's security and for its citizens. I have to repeat that once. We need to be sensible about this.
Speaker 221
Colleagues, here are the budget guidelines. They are an important occasion for the parliament to express its opinion to begin this budgetary process. We will have some hard times repaying the interest payments, and that will have a knock-on effect on many policy areas.
We've heard from many colleagues about this. Competitiveness obviously comes to mind from my perspective, but also being future-proof and being able to defend Europe and the rule of law. In Europe. All of that is very important.
But, colleagues, I think we have to be honest with the various amendments that have been tabled. There's a risk that the guidelines as a whole will not go through tomorrow. So I appeal to all colleagues to consider carefully, including those from my own group, whether this is the right course of action ahead of the difficult negotiations that we expect to hold with the Council.
At the end of the day, Europe is about finding compromise. We need to think about what we can do together to build a stronger Europe in these times, and that is the spirit with which we should approach tomorrow's vote.
Thank you very much.
Colleagues, now Rasmus Anderson.
Anderson.
Speaker 61
Thank you very much. The budget in 2027 will probably be the last budget in the current multi-annual financial framework. And I wholeheartedly share what Mr. Kurner has just said.
We, as the parliament, need to address the priorities and not allow ourselves to be fragmented, including in the vote tomorrow. One important priority is set out in this report, and I am very pleased about that.
Because the situation is very serious. For young people. 63% of young people in Germany say things are not going well. They suffer from loneliness. They have mental health issues.
The stress of having to perform and succeed in school and college is problematic. For young people, it's very difficult to hold out a hand for help.
It's good that we can then allow people to be strengthened and become more self-confident. So, we need to focus on mental health here. We can do that with various funds in the EU budget.
In the resolution, we agreed on this, and that's a path that we should follow. Thank you.
João Oliveira
Thank you very much, colleague. Now, Joao Oliveira. Thank you, President and Commissioner Seraphim, MEPs. I'd like to start my comments by congratulating the rapporteurs on these budget guidelines for 2027. But I think we should focus more on social and cohesion issues, especially when it comes to the budget. And I welcome the goodwill of the rapporteurs. We put forward a proposal so that this budget responds to the issues that affect people.
The social fund for cohesion, housing, and combating poverty—we need funds for all of this. We believe that economic, social, and territorial cohesion should be a horizontal part of this budget, and there need to be measures that are always guaranteed. These budgetary guidelines need to be more flexible.
They don't, and we need to take into account political priorities that consider the economic and social needs of the people. It shouldn't be used to increase the militarization of Europe.
Sandra Gómez López
Uncertainty is on the rise in Europe, not just because of the wars, but because of the new challenges we face. For example, the rising frequency of natural disasters that we see in my own region, Valencia, as well.
Obviously, these problems will not be resolved only by the annual budget. But if we have sufficient resources, we will be able to take action where it is needed. And against this backdrop of uncertainty and external risks, our group wants a budget that will generate prosperity for citizens, create job opportunities, and strengthen our security without leaving anyone behind.
So, our priorities are social investment, affordable housing, defending European values, implementation of the European Green Deal, defense cooperation and security cooperation, but most importantly, a stronger role for Europe on the global stage. All of that is very important because it is going to set the scene for the next MMFF.
Gurick.
Enikő Győri
Thank you very much. Ladies and gentlemen, we have to take stock of what is going on. We can see that Ukraine has been on fire for 4 years now, and the same is true in the Middle East.
War is threatening. The Straits of Hormuz are being closed off. Energy security is not guaranteed. You, Ukraine, have been blackmailing Hungary with Pep. With oil and Peter Mojor together with him, he has been called on by the EPP to stop these supplies of oil. You, Ukraine, should stick to its agreements and its obligations under the contract and provide oil.
Hungary, that's the issue. It's not us who are stopping the 90 billion loan. The national government in Hungary has made Hungary its priority. We're not going to allow ourselves to be blackmailed. And we can make sure that young people and cheap petrol can be provided for everybody.
Speaker 60
These guidelines for the budget 2027 require increased expenditure across the board. They're pushing for new higher taxes and new income. This includes red tape, green activism, and gender issues, which are driving this. And this is without any kind of holding back on entering into new costs or meaningful priorities.
Because the frugal position is glaringly absent. What we need to see is a more focused, more disciplined budget that will bring added value in a genuine fashion and respect the net contributors. Because this isn't happening as it should. If you try to prioritize everything, the brutal truth is you end up not prioritizing anything.
Thank you.
Younous Omarjee
Thank you very much. And now, it is my pleasure to give the floor to Mr. Stefan Ute, Vice President.
Speaker 225
Commissioner, we cannot talk about one thing in the morning and about something else in the afternoon. We have priorities, or we have just words. And now I'm going to talk about the housing crisis that I have been insisting on this entire week.
Because many people expect concrete solutions from us. We need to come up with them. We need to have a European fund for social housing. We need to have a European fund to improve the current housing conditions of people who don't afford proper housing.
There are people who write to me on Instagram and say, "I am a 31-year-old woman." My husband earns the minimum wage. And for a house, I still need to wait. Other people are telling me I need to be part of a couple in order to get credit from a bank. I cannot do this alone.
I am alone, and nobody is listening to me. So it's high time Europe used every fund that it has, regional development funds all put together, in order to envisage a whole package for housing in Europe. Unless we solve this problem, people will not be happy. And they are not going to support us.
We will have a unified Europe when we have a social Europe. Thank you so much.
Younous Omarjee
Thank you very much. Mister Stefan Newton, now we move on to catching the eye. And to start, I would like to give the floor to Mr. Sartas.
Monsieur.
Georgios Aftias
Commissioner. Dear President, the war is being waged. All governments are dipping into their budgets. Citizens from all member states require assistance to pay their energy bills, grocery bills, and fuel.
In order to avoid any deficits, I sent you a letter a few days ago asking for the additional expenditure in view of the war to support the people. The people to be supported vis-à-vis a war that doesn't show any signs of ending.
So we need to support societies and people who are suffering. Mister Commissioner, friend of Greece, thank you for being that. Thank you for your efforts. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 228
Mister President, your commissioner, colleagues, if there is one lesson learned from recent years, it is that health is security. Health is resilience. Health is prosperity. Yet, once again, in the debate on the EU budget, health risks are at risk of being sidelined.
We face rising chronic diseases, mental health challenges, antimicrobial resistance, and serious inequalities in access to care across member states.
And yet, the EU health program has already lost €1,000,000,000 in recent years.
That sends the wrong signal.
If we really want a stronger European Health Union, then the budget must reflect that ambition. If our health funding is not sufficient, visible, and predictable, then we risk repeating the mistakes of the past. Are we really in the position to do that? Thank you.
Merci beaucoup.
Speaker 231
MEPs. From Tisa. The opposition in Hungary depends on Ukraine and money from Ukraine, and they are voting in favor of cutting Hungary off from Russian energy. But we are hearing lies about the state of the pipeline from Zelensky. If Zelensky were not telling these lines, then he would not have denied the statements or denied access for these checks to take place on the pipeline.
So, we see MPs who are dependent on Zielinski, dependent on Ukraine, who do not support the security of Hungary, and who are not standing up against blackmail from Ukraine vis-à-vis Hungary.
Hungary made a commitment not to threaten the energy security of any member states. Yet, this is exactly what is happening to us in Hungary.
Tintin.
President.
Speaker 131
The. Money that they use for burning is now up in the billions. We hope that common sense will return. For example, we've seen the interest payments for the ridiculous corona package money that is severely lacking now. With that money, we could have bought 200 new Leopards. Leopard tanks.
In Ukraine, European tanks are being deployed, but we could have had many more if we had not been spending all that money on interest. And that's something that you have allowed to happen.
This waste is something that was decided here in this house. And now it's a question of not holding back on spending because of this interest bomb that's coming our way. How is this meant to work? Thank you, Mark Bottenga.
Speaker 196
Thank you. You, President, and Commissioner. When I read the budget, I saw that the commission won more money for their private jet trips. But in actual fact, you're talking about aircraft taxiing. At the end of the day, it's a taxi.
And over the last few years, it has increased to around €15,000,000, and I ask how you can defend this. You say it's for emergency trips to get to different parts of the world. I understand that.
But having looked at that, Miss Van der Leyen actually takes the private jet from Brussels to Luxembourg or Brussels to Strasbourg. Even when there's a train that can do the same trip in 3 hours.
So millions of EU workers can't even afford a week's holiday a year, but the commissioners are taking private jets left, right, and center. And a private jet also emits 4 or 5 times more CO2 than a regular airplane. So, these are things that are bad not just for pockets, but for our climate as well.
Speaker 135
Dear colleagues, in connection with the budget, I would like to remind you that we sit in Strasbourg, despite having a completely adequate building in Brussels. Each month, our traveling circles move to and from Strasbourg, spending three nights in expensive hotels and bringing along thousands of poor staffers, destroying their family lives.
The European Parliament has repeatedly voted with an overwhelming majority to have a single seat. The fact that we are still moving to and fro irrefutably proves our pathetic irrelevance. How can we discuss wars and values when we cannot even decide our own fate? They say the Strasbourg building is a European symbol.
Yes. It is a symbol of the EU's mismanagement and disrespect of many taxpayers. Please, colleagues, can we change it? Thank you very much.
Younous Omarjee
To conclude this section, I'll now give the floor to Piotr Seraphin.
Speaker 199
Honorable members, let me thank you for the constructive debate and the input from the committees and the political groups. The commission takes good note of the positions that you have expressed today.
I will repeat what I said at the very beginning. Our intention for the 2027 budget is to respect the commitments that have been made. We believe that this is the key role at the current moment in the history of the European Union: to provide stability and predictability. Of course, we are ready and we will use available flexibilities. But as I said, we have to be all aware that the room for maneuver remains limited. We have to factor it into our reflection, including in this house.
Therefore, I appeal in particular to those who care about the European Union. Do not expect from the European budget things that we are not able to deliver, and we know, and you know, that there are no sufficient resources that can be dedicated to new tasks. And finally, I believe that the guidelines of the European Parliament on the 2027 budget can make the European Parliament stronger in the discussion with the Council. We are at the very beginning of this process, but I believe that tomorrow's vote will mark the strong position of the European Parliament, and that will be extremely useful at this point in time before we start our dialogue negotiations.
Thank you very much.
Younous Omarjee
Thank you very much. Commissioner. That concludes this debate. The vote will take place tomorrow. The minutes of yesterday's meeting are now available, and the text has been adopted.
Any comments? That's not the case. The minutes are deemed approved. The next item on our agenda is now a Commission statement presentation of the energy package. I'd like to welcome Commissioner Jorgensen, and I give him the floor without further ado on behalf of the European Commission.
Speaker 3
Honorable. Members, now more than ever, Europe faces a key choice. To stay dependent on volatile global energy markets or to take control over our own? Future. The new conflict in the Middle East and the rising concerns about energy prices remind us once again that we can no longer afford to rely on imported fossil fuels.
That is why we must double down on our independence agenda. For our energy security, affordability, and equally for our competitiveness and social cohesion. Later this month, we have critical discussions on energy prices at the leaders' level. That debate will be essential to provide much-needed solutions to our citizens.
And businesses. Yet, in the meantime, we must continue to mobilize all the tools at our disposal. To deliver a cleaner, more secure, and affordable energy system. In Europe. So today, we deliver on three important areas.
Affordability of energy for our citizens, investments in clean energy infrastructure, and innovative nuclear technology, such as small modular reactors. First of all, we present practical solutions to bring down prices in our communities because over 30,000,000 Europeans have reported that they struggle to pay their utility bills on time. This needs to change. And our citizens' energy package can help. To make.
The change happened. We will enable consumers to reduce their bills. By making it easier to access cheaper offers, switch energy suppliers, and benefit from flexible electricity contracts and smart devices. This means giving citizens full control and the choice to use energy when it's cheaper. We also set out how member states can lower taxes or levies on electricity, helping citizens to save an average of €200 per year on energy bills.
We will protect our most vulnerable citizens and those facing energy poverty. For example, by promoting early warning systems and better death management at the national level. To make sure support is offered and disconnections are avoided.
We also want to empower citizens to produce and share their own energy. By 2030, we aim to achieve a tenfold increase in the renewable production capacity of energy communities. Enabling clean energy supplies for up to 30 million households.
As we boost the potential of our communities, we also enhance the power of our union. When it comes to our energy union, we have already set the direction of travel with the grid package and the proposal for the next MFF, including the proposed fivefold increase for ZEF Energy. Now, we are adding financial firepower to mobilize further private investments already under the current MFF.
Today, we present a clean energy investment strategy. Our strategy will de-risk projects and attract a wider base of investors for clean technologies, energy efficiency, and modern infrastructure. We will work in close partnership with the European Investment Bank Group, which intends to deliver €75,000,000,000 of financing over the next three years.
75,000,000,000. This is groundbreaking. Alongside this, the EIB will establish a strategic infrastructure investment fund, opening greater access to capital for grid operators. We will support the securitization of loans and intermediate lending so that banks can enhance their lending capacity. We will also support the commercialization of innovative clean energy technologies. So that we can rely less on external suppliers.
This brings me to the final part of today's package. The first European strategy for small modular reactors. Small modular reactors are a safe nuclear technology. They can contribute to delivering reliable, homegrown, decarbonized energy while strengthening our industrial competitiveness and reinforcing our energy security.
By 2050, total SMR capacity in Europe could reach 53 gigawatts. To unleash this potential, we focus on building a scalable European supply chain. Boosting skills, research, and innovation. And strengthening regulatory cooperation between the member states. Concretely, we will consider an additional InvestEU top-up of €200,000,000 until 2028.
To help de-risk the deployment of the first commercial units of innovative nuclear technologies within the the EU. We want Europe to stay at the forefront of the next-generation nuclear technologies, notably advanced modular reactors. Through these actions, our aim is to make the first SMRs operational in Europe by the early 2030s.
So, to conclude, today is about taking immediate and impactful actions for our citizens. It is about boosting investments to reinforce our economy. And it is about promoting groundbreaking innovations to open new prospects for our future. But this is not the end of the story. We need to keep working towards true European independence, powered by our own clean, secure, and affordable energy.
Younous Omarjee
Thank you very much, Commissioner. Now, Mister Poudka. If you could come to the lectern, please.
President.
Borys Budka
Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it's time to have a serious discussion on the future of our citizens, and it's time to review the ETS system and take into account the withdrawal of the system.
Citizens are frightened about energy prices right now. They see that certain mechanisms need to be modified. And I understand that the Commission is focusing on this issue right now. If mistakes are made here, they need to be corrected now.
Today. We need to have a real discussion on the future of Europe: a competitive Europe, an independent Europe that is separate from other regions of the world. And this is also related to our industry. We need to reduce prices and increase our competitiveness. We cannot sell a lot in the other parts of the world because energy prices are so high right now.
So, we're not just talking about citizens. We're also talking about consumers. We have to consider the needs of our businesses, our entrepreneurs, and workers as well, which is why it's important to talk about the mistakes made in the past and find solutions that, in the future, will remind us that we are and will be competitive. Commissioner, we are open to the proposals of the commission, but one thing needs to be said very clearly.
Younous Omarjee
We have made mistakes, and they need to be corrected now. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Mohammed Shaim.
Let us be honest.
Energy price shocks are not new.
Speaker 235
We saw them in the 1980s, and we will see them again and again. Because as long as our energy system remains vulnerable, these shocks will return. And when they do, it's always at the expense of our citizens.
They pay the price, especially the most vulnerable households, those living in poorly insulated homes. Now, responsibility is very clear. We must make the next price shock as harmless as possible because today's gas prices are rapidly increasing and show a lot of uncertainty. It shows that any disruption in the system that is not yet sufficiently diversified can lead to new price peaks. So, we must act now.
We need to protect households and small businesses with more stable pricing options. Including price caps and a windfall profit tax. We need our consumers to benefit from low energy prices by making use of purchasing power agreements.
And finally, Chair, energy communities are the future and must be empowered. Citizens should not just consume energy; they should produce it, share it, and benefit from it. Thank you very much.
Speaker 236
Thank you very much. Paulo Borchia is next. Yes. As ever, we often see an analysis of a problem, but even more often, you don't manage to come up with answers in what you propose.
Because we heard so much optimism when it came to the figures. Multiplying by 10, multiplying by 5. But when we conclude this debate, what we'll see is reality being far from this debate.
The commission was focusing on prices, which are an aspect that mainly concerns people, but at the moment, we haven't heard anything about the solutions. Small modular reactors were mentioned, but how long will this take? How many debates will have to take place to convince Europe that without nuclear power, we're not going to get anywhere?
What we're short of is the will to implement what is happening. The Green Deal, contrarily, has made us dependent rather than giving us autonomy. The United States has become independent.
When it comes to energy, And geopolitically, they can assume risks on that basis. We're going to have to start again, go back to the drawing board with the Green Deal. Then you said the ETS is not going to be changed, but I think we need to look at the plans.
Might be good plans, but obviously, we haven't realized that the reality of the situation is terrible if we don't leave the Green Deal.
Global Etech.
You, Daniel.
Speaker 237
Thank you. You. So, what must we now do to bring down energy? And this must happen quickly. It's urgent that we bring energy costs down in the countries that have a green energy mix, and a differentiated mix of it can be achieved in a three-month period.
Just think back to the COVID times and the regulations that were adopted in this Parliament within just 3 months. Enough taxes are being put on the industry. It's really just financial institutions that stand to gain from that.
Or. That just drives up the price of products. Europe is not competitive outside the European Union. Now, investment. And more room for maneuver. Well, if these technologies are so great, then why aren't they economically viable? And a further question: why should we be paying for private investment that's going to generate profit later down the line? Really, the fees for networks are being borne by everyday users.
Why is that? We are not destabilizing the grid. It's actually the energy producers. They should be the ones bearing the cost. So, when you've got these additional network prices, that's a problem.
Thank you.
Friedrich.
Thank you, Cypriot Fries.
Sigrid Friis
The. The world is becoming more and more uncertain. And in Europe, we are feeling the consequences of Russia invading Ukraine, which increased energy prices, and the same thing is happening now with Iran. This has an impact on the European people. But it does not have to be a consequence.
We could have access to green and cheaper energy. If we want that to be the case, then we need to make an effort. It is possible we can do it. This green attitude is not something that has been imposed. We need to make this possible by lowering prices.
And realize that we need an energy union. Every wind park that's not created makes us more dependent on oil and gas from the Middle East. The most important resources are our citizens, and together, I'm sure we will create a Europe that's safer and cleaner.
Speaker 225
Commissioner, tough job. You have to deal with both houses and the heating of said houses.
In my country, yeah, it was a lot. People cut down on the temperature inside their houses. They unpacked the woolies. Okay. We'll do it. 16 to 18 degrees Celsius inside, but we need to plan for this.
We need to be able to help. Our citizens. And then, when people take matters into their own hands and try to produce some energy, they are not allowed access to the market. The major companies don't allow them to sell the surplus. Or to give it to someone else.
You cannot give away cheap energy, even if you want to. We need to support this type of energy community. We need to bring down the electric bills because if people don't feel at home and that things are getting better, then they won't support Europe.
What we do here is very important. I can't wait to see the four pillars with all those actions. I can't wait for them. I mean it. And let me tell you something else.
We don't need to be dependent on various dictators, Aliyev or God knows who. We need our renewable energy produced here in Europe, and also produced by citizens with European support. Good European energy. That's what the Green Deal is all about.
It's not a woke, leftist, Marxist conspiracy. It is all about a Europe that relies on its own energy. Thank you very much.
Speaker 240
Thank you very much. Well, finally, ladies and gentlemen, very pleased to welcome the reference to implement standards that are already enforced. If the states had really achieved what they had planned more than seven years ago, we wouldn't be in this situation.
The recent report from the Court of Auditors, by way of example, highlights the untapped structural potential of the energy community and the defaults of the member states. The Italian government, after a delay of more than two years in implementing regulation, has finally launched an RRP bid but reduced the allocation from 2,200,000,000 to 795,000,000. This is versus a request to access 1,500,000,000.
And this was done with the approval of the commission, which is here today saying one thing but, a few months ago, was allowing the exact opposite. And what's that say about energy autonomy? Well, after putting us in the hands of the US and Qatari gas, with the geopolitical cost outcomes we're all aware of, the commission is pushing for nuclear power again. To make us more independent of enriched uranium from Rosatom and from the US.
Speaker 241
Well done. Well done, indeed. We need somebody to lead Europe properly. Think. Thank you, Markus Buchheit.
Speaker 242
Thank you, President. The European Commission is now trying, with its new energy policy and the clean industrial deal, to really pull the wool over our eyes. It's telling us this as a way to provide everyone with affordable energy. But really, the hard truth is that it's simply making the very problems that are driving prices up even worse.
Differences between gas and electricity prices are going to be balanced with more rules and more bureaucracy. That's not a free market policy. That's a planned economy from Brussels, and it's not in favor of the taxpayer.
The Green Deal is being set in stone instead of being stopped once and for all. We've got energy-intensive businesses for chemistry, chemicals, and other areas that are being moved out to China and elsewhere.
Highly paid jobs are being lost. The European Commission admits that Europe's energy prices are too high and pose a threat to its industrial base. Even the Commission and President Oslo Funderlein, as well as the German Chancellor, concluded that the phasing out of nuclear energy was a strategic error.
Factories are being closed, and jobs are being lost. Less prosperity, less tax revenue; all of that is bad for our country, so we say no to this package. We say yes to a pragmatic and open solution that really includes everyone without unnecessary bureaucracy. Thank you.
Speaker 243
Thank you, President. Today, the president of the commission has given us an important piece of news with the launch of the energy package. It moves away from mistakes in the past and focuses on nuclear energy as one of the key pillars, new interconnections, modular reactors, and energy for citizens.
They're going to create something that a lot of people thought was impossible. We will not be depending on Russia. We have a competitive economy. We will be able to put safe, clean, cheap energy into the market and make things easier for citizens' pockets.
And at the end of the day, we have put aside ideological sectorism, but the parliament is debating a new energy strategy, and the first vice president, Theresa Rivera, then responsible for climate, is not here to defend it. This means that she is perhaps not loyal to this parliament.
But do you know why she's hiding from us? First, because she is a coward. She's a coward because she is not able to explain why, when she was a minister, she bought nuclear energy from France while shutting down nuclear power stations in Spain.
Secondly, because of irrelevance, the fact that Teresa Rivera is not here today shows that she doesn't have any weight, voice, or influence in Europe. And thirdly, she is scared. She's scared of the corrupt implicating some of her cabinet members while she was a minister.
In the case, European funds were used for environmental projects, and up to €5,000,000 was assigned and ended up in the pockets of socialist ministers. We are seeing that she is not a good European Commissioner.
Speaker 244
Europe is moving forward without her; climate sectarianism is over for her.
Madam Montsart.
Yes. Response for a no.
Speaker 245
Two requests for a blue card. You are okay. Okay. Don't. No, continue.
Speaker 246
Okay. We'll carry on with the debate. Thank you, President Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to thank the commission for the presentation of this package. But, unfortunately, in this package, we cannot see scandalous developments in the prices of oil, gas, and petrol, and they cannot be regulated in this way.
We're seeing money being sold on the forecourts that was sent weeks ago. When the war in Iran was not even on the horizon. So, my request to the commission here is: please use the instrument to protect from excessive profits and deploy it in due time. To cushion the price shock, as we did at the start of the Ukraine war.
I think this sort of price pushing by these companies is unacceptable. Just a quick word on small modular reactors. It's true that the most secure form of energy generation is the one that we generate in the EU itself. But I don't think we can get cheap energy from these reactors. We're going to get the same problems that we get from old nuclear reactors, plus new decentralized aspects to these reactors, and this pushes the cost up. I don't think SMRs are going to be the solution to our energy problems.
Thank you, Andrei.
Thank you, Charles. Thank you, Eunice.
Ondřej Knotek
Dear Mister Commissioner, surprisingly, I will maybe start a little bit positively. There are some positive elements in your speech. Your thoughts on the grids go in a good direction.
I welcome the SMR points and also the idea of lowering taxes. Yes. This is the good time to lower taxes. But I will not be surprised that since your hearing as a commissioner candidate, there are still elements that I point out, and you are ignoring them a little bit.
Yeah? So when it comes to the state aid rules, we need nuclear without unnecessary restrictions. And not only for MSR, but also to include coal and gas under some conditions. It's really necessary.
Also, ETS had a huge effect on the price. We must have drastic changes. It will hurt, but it's necessary. The price must be below €30. No debates. And the ETS too, to be postponed as long as possible.
Also, there is a commissioner; I'm talking to you. Please do not chat with your colleague. Yeah? Also, there are a number of legislations that have an impact on the prices of gas. For example, the methane regulation, the EPBT directive, or also the "do no significant harm" criteria for gas. And maybe we need more diversified gas sources.
So it's not true that everything you put forward is wrong, but I'm afraid many of the things you put forward are wrong because you are repeating the same failure.
And this is that you believe that you can simply close the fossil sources without having a stable replacement. And I'm afraid it will not work. Thank you very much.
Are you set? Please, Emma.
Go ahead.
Speaker 249
So, do I understand you correctly that we are in a situation where oil and gas prices are skyrocketing because of the war in Iran and the situation in the Middle East?
What you want to do is take all of the climate policies that are meant to take us out of these dependencies on fossil fuels, remove them, and then continue using oil, gas, and coal.
How will that lower the energy prices for European consumers? It's the dependency on oil, gas, and coal that makes energy prices skyrocket at the moment.
I don't understand the logic here.
Ondřej Knotek
This is always the debate we have. For example, in my country, there are a lot of coal sources, and the grids are fully prepared for this. But because of the high EPS price, we are forced to close them earlier than necessary.
If you use them a few years longer, like five to ten years, we would not need to import so much gas. For the gas price, yes, of course, it is volatile.
I agree. But we can diversify. They are really diverse, and to diversify, you need long-term contracts. With mid-end regulation, for example, you don't succeed in having long-term contracts pushing the price down.
So, it's about the speed of carbonization. I do not question the decarbonization as such, but the pathway. We are doing it in too ambitious a way.
Speaker 249
But. Your side of the house, this part of the house needs to understand that it's this dependency on coal, oil, and gas that led us here.
That's why we are in the situation we are in today. That's why the prices are skyrocketing. Coal will not be a nice teddy bear you can go to whenever you have a problem.
It is the actual problem. Coal, oil, and gas are the main causes of the energy price problem that we are facing today.
Ondřej Knotek
Actually, without coal and steel, we would not be having the debate here. So maybe you could learn something from European history. It would be nice as well.
Yes. And when it comes to the prices, you must also understand that if you need to invest a lot into the grids, because the consumer doesn't pay the cost or the price on the market, he pays the final price.
So we need to find the balance between the speed of the carbonization and reasonable investments. And, again, we shall use local sources. In some countries, we still have coal.
Thank you.
Speaker 251
Mister President, Commissioner, I will also be slightly more positive today. First of all, I would like to mention that we finally have a commissioner for nuclear energy. We are not there yet because nuclear power, according to you, doesn't have sufficient support as I would like to imagine. We need level playing fields for nuclear energy when it comes to taxonomy, and we also need rules for low-carbon hydrogen. However, we are on the right path because I remember that in this house, a few years ago, the word "nuclear" was not allowed to be said out loud. The second thing I would like to mention is small modular reactors.
I'm happy that you have a strategy for them because we do need to develop them. However, let's not forget, and the Commission shouldn't forget, that many projects being developed are not only within the EU or individual member states. We develop them with our reliable partners outside of the EU, and I don't think that the purely European ones should have preference because all of them are important for our future. Do not forget that.
And I'm saying this especially in connection with the words of Stéphane Séjourné in this respect. Thank you.
Thank you.
Speaker 8
Thank you, Chair. Because seeing that Missus Montserrat is cool enough to rant on Ribera, but not cool enough to take a blue card, I will use my speaking time to respond to that. Because it was Missus Montserrat who was spreading ghost stories after the Spanish blackout. Because saying it was all the fault of the green agenda, but it's Montserrat and her political games that caused Europe to now have to fear their high energy prices.
We are not making enough progress. It is Miss Montserrat and her political games that make our Europeans fear the high energy bills and be unable to pay for them.
How many times do we have to make the same mistake before we understand? Before we understand that making European energy ourselves is the safest way, the cheapest way, and the way to go forward. This is the way to go forward and not to play games.
Please be real.
Missus. Toussaint is the next speaker.
Speaker 23
Ladies. And gentlemen, energy prices are skyrocketing once again, and yet we know that 1 out of 10 households find it difficult to heat their homes, and that is why we're thrilled that we got this energy package for our citizens.
Let us be crystal clear. As long as Europe depends on fossil fuel imports, our bills will also hinge on autocrats and geopolitical crises, while companies rake in the profits.
We prefer renewable energy. We prefer to give the power to citizens. We prefer to invest in the European and local economy, in renewable cooperatives, and to have lower bills; that's what we prefer.
Now, at the same time, the European Commission wants to invest billions of euros in gas, hydrogen, and CC plants. And these projects are close to the citizen. They increase our dependence on foreign fossil fuels.
So, it's not coherent. There is no consistency. Please reject the PCI list that will be submitted for the vote in March. Thank you.
Hana Haddin is next.
Speaker 252
Translation. I'm being told in the room. Can I get the confirmation? I really apologize. You can start. Sure.
Please start again.
The interpretation.
Works.
Speaker 253
So beyond everything that is happening in the Middle East, with the Israeli and American attacks, the reality that exists is the gas price, which is what we need to look at. The price of gas is, somehow, an indicator of the price of all the other fuels. So the wind energy goes up simply because it is linked to the gas price.
So how can we have that situation? It's not only a question of the electricity price. We need an infrastructure. We can see the consequences, and there are exports of electricity done at a very high cost. And this has an effect on us as well.
Mister Milan Mazurek is next.
Next.
Speaker 254
Fifteen years ago, the EU economy was the same size as the US economy. Afterwards, you came up with your salvation ideas. You came with saving the world, saving Europe, saving the climate.
And everything will be green. The result, the U. S.
It is 1.5x bigger, and let's not even compare ourselves with the rest of the world because we will all weep. Where did you bring Europe with your ideas? And then you come here and say that, finally, you will present some energy package. And this time, you'll make it. This time, it will work. This time, it will be green. This time, energy bills will be lower.
People will have better lives. Finally, food will be cheaper. And the result will be exactly the same as before. People will live worse and worse. The economy will stagnate.
It will go under the floor, and the whole world will just outrun us. And you will be happy about solar energy, wind turbines, and electric cars, which no one really cares about because young families cannot even afford to have a child.
We just want one package, a package for your departure. Let's call it the package of freedom, the package of resigning from this hopeless European Commission. And we really want you to take your charges with you, your solar panels, your wind turbines, and also your emission quotas.
Go away.
Alright.
Then, André Dostal.
Colleagues,
Speaker 135
It is high time to change the regulation of energies because times have changed. The US aggression against Iran has stopped supplies from the Persian Gulf. We have also severed ourselves from Russian supplies, and Russian and US supplies are very expensive.
Green energy is not going to save us. So, we are down to nuclear and coal. Building small nuclear reactors is slow, and some projects are being canceled.
Coal does not have to be imported; we mine it. We cannot be exploited through coal. So let's change it, and let's maintain coal energy. During the crisis. I grew up in Northern Bohemia, and I do not have to be preached to about coal pollution, but it is much cleaner today.
Speaker 257
Mister Popes, who is next? Chairman Commissioner, the energy crisis has taught us a very clear lesson. Europe's energy security does not depend only on imports and infrastructure, but also on our capacity to produce energy closer to the citizens. That is why the role of the prosumer is essential. Today, millions of Europeans already invest in the production of renewable energy at the local level. Over 300,000 consumers with an installed capacity of over 2 gigawatts have been added in the last four years.
These things indicate that citizens are ready to actively become involved in energy production. But for this to work, we need the correct rules. In many cases, prosumers face complicated administrative procedures. And given discriminatory practices from the part of suppliers or distributing companies because they lose income, they won't accept that.
This is not acceptable. Prosumers are not a problem for the energy system, but part of the solution. Local energy production, self-consumption, and all the other measures can reduce the price of bills for Europeans and can make the European system more efficient.
That is why the citizen energy package should send a clear message: citizens must be at the center of the European energy system because the energy transition will only be successful if citizens are part of it.
Speaker 225
Thank you. Mr. Popescu, will you accept the blue card from Missus Vandenberg? Yes.
Speaker 8
Mister Pepesco, I want to compliment you. On your contribution. I think we can easily agree that safe energy is produced in Europe. It is made locally, and that's the way to make it affordable for our citizens.
So, how do you feel about politicians making political games out of our energy debate at the expense of our citizens, instead of putting their best foot forward to ensure that we develop renewable, clean energy in Europe?
Speaker 257
I really don't understand your question, but I can tell you that, from my point of view, what I am talking about here is prosumer.
We have to encourage prosumers in Europe, and we started in 2021 in Romania. We modified the law to encourage them. Until now, we have more than 2 gigawatts, which is more than the 2 reactors that we have in Europe in Romania. So, this is part of the solution, not the whole solution.
So, I do not intervene in your internal political problems, but I can intervene in European energy policies. So don't ask me about other colleagues of yours or mine. Ask me about energy, about energy security, and I'll gladly answer all your questions.
Thank you. You.
Mr. Nils Fuglsang is next.
Listening.
Speaker 259
In this debate, I am puzzled by the colleagues who argue that we should slow down the energy transition. Because, honestly, I think we need to do the exact opposite. We are completely dependent in Europe when it comes to importing fossil fuels from abroad. 98% of the oil and gas that we use is imported from foreign powers, often from foreign powers with whom we don't share values. And we risk ending up being in the pockets of these foreign access.
You look at the Iran war right now with prices of gas and oil spiking, and we are in a horrible situation. Mr. Donald Trump is in a much better position because he has his own oil and gas.
We don't. In Europe. So, of course, we need to build our own energy. We can do that: invest in renewable energy, invest in energy efficiency, empower our energy consumers, and eradicate energy poverty.
We have 30 million people living in energy poverty. They struggle to pay their energy bills. Get on with it and stop this nonsense of dependency on fossil fuels.
Mister Fuglsang.
Speaker 252
Mister Fuglsang. Mister Fugul sang. I hate to interrupt you from your networking with the commissioner, but there is a blue card from Mr. Ignitek.
Ondřej Knotek
Will you accept it, honorable colleague, for accepting the question? I understand very well that you would like to invest in renewables as soon as possible and, of course, then have the local electricity production.
Unfortunately, we also need nuclear energy as part of the solution. It takes some time. So for this, we need the fossil fuels because otherwise, how can you explain that today in France, currently, the electricity carbon footprint is 20 times lower than in Germany, which has been massively investing for 20 years into renewables?
Can you explain that? Thank you.
Speaker 259
Well, you know, I don't exclude nuclear power for some countries. Renewable energy for other countries. I think it's a problem to put your money only on nuclear power for a number of reasons. One important reason, from my point of view, is that it takes too much time. If you look at the last three most recent nuclear power plant projects in Europe.
In Finland, France, and the UK, the average time is 17 years from when you start the process until you have them producing power. So I think it takes too much time, but I think we should invest broadly in our own energy in Europe.
Thank you.
Ondřej Knotek
Germany has invested a lot into renewables. And still, they have, on average, 15 to 20 times higher carbon footprint in electricity production than France with nuclear. So, basically, today, they are the same as the Czech Republic with coal and nuclear. And with nuclear energy, France is much better. So, if you invest only in renewables, you will end up like in Germany.
Will have gas dependency and still a very, very high carbon footprint.
Speaker 259
Is that the solution? Where is the decarbonization with the renewables? Well, I think Germany needs to invest more aggressively in renewables. I think Europe needs to invest more aggressively in renewables.
And if you look at my own country, Denmark, I think that's a counterexample to what you're saying. We don't have nuclear power. But we have invested in wind turbines. We have invested in different forms of renewable energy, and we have reduced our carbon footprint. In fact, we have a climate law that says we need to reduce CO2 emissions by 70% by 2030 compared to 1990.
And it looks like we're going to make it.
Speaker 263
Thank you. Thank you so much, President. Well, we have a Citizens' Energy Package. It's almost as if this is something from a marketing book from a university. I am pretty concerned that this is actually going to reach citizens and that it's really going to affect energy costs.
And I know we've seen this before. Basically, this is just some joke for citizens. Because the European Union is not really known for solving the problems of people who face high prices.
Well, new costs and new duties will be imposed upon the citizen. That is entailed by this citizen's energy package because there are different systems in energy and in the mix too. And you know this.
Just as well. You know which mix is best for you. You don't need the European Union for this. And the use of nuclear energy and the revival, as Vanderlaien has been talking about, is not a solution.
Thank you.
Speaker 265
Thank you, President. Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, when we talk about energy, we are not talking about a simple technical file. We're talking about European families' utility bills and the future of Europe in the world. I think that this is a step in the right direction.
The commission wants to bolster interconnections and to have energy interdependence here in Europe. But we have to make sure that we're careful with the transition. Technological neutrality is a principle, but often that doesn't lead to specific choices.
When everything is just concentrated on a handful of technologies, while other low emissions options such as new nuclear power are sidelined, then technological innovation becomes more theoretical than a reality. All technologies have to be harnessed.
Technologies that give us energy security of supply and sustainable prices, because we don't just need clean energy in Europe. We need a secure supply, and we need plenty of energy because, without it, the transition won't work.
Speaker 225
Thank you. Missus Vivaldini. Mrs. Kuderi would like to ask you a question.
Speaker 68
Honorable. Missus Vivaldini, you talk about ideology, that we shouldn't make any ideological choices, but the price of gas has gone up 50% over the last 10 days. Our dependence on fossil fuels makes it impossible to live sustainably. Our bills are going up.
The members of your party and the government in Italy, instead of investing, want to turn it into a gas hub. Italy has the highest electricity cost in Europe.
Speaker 265
This is not ideology. Isn't it important to do things for citizens? Thank you very much for your question.
I have a two-part answer. First of all, our utility bill decree means that Missus Maloney has tackled the crisis. And my second answer is with my mayor hat on.
Now, when it comes to energy prices, I could have 2,000 employees finding themselves at home because factories have to close down. We have to look at the whole issue of raw materials and ensure that we have low energy prices.
So, yes, we have environmental sustainability. But before we think about that, we have to consider economic sustainability. Because the consequences are of a social nature.
Utah, Paulus.
Okay. Ah, thank you.
Speaker 267
Now, Señora de Vivaldini, you just said that nuclear energy is so disadvantaged in Europe. My question is very simple.
No, no.
Speaker 265
They took it; I didn't say that nuclear power is at a disadvantage. I said that we don't talk about it enough.
I said that nuclear power isn't one of the options, one of the types of energy that we could harness now. I say to Europe, we have the tools to start harnessing nuclear power. I think that we can harness it, and this will bring costs down.
But I'm not just talking about nuclear power. I think everything I'm talking about is technological neutrality, not just one specific technology. We can reduce costs by tapping into renewable energy sources. That would be impossible.
Speaker 252
Not only. I'd say, dear colleagues, I will now only take one blue card person because we are behind on time, and I will also close the catch-the-eye session. I think everyone in the room should be advantaged.
Emma Wiesner.
Speaker 249
Colleagues, we are facing a very serious situation. The war in Iran is sending shock waves through our energy system, causing prices to soar. And we need to be prepared. The petroleum populism isn't working.
Our best way to prepare is to finally phase out fossil fuels for real. But we are not delivering. Renewable energy is taxed the same way as fossil energy in this union. Biofuels have the same tax as diesel, and biogas is treated the same way as natural gas.
This is not a bug. It's a feature. In a system that we built. I'm ashamed that the energy tax directive is designed to lock us into our fossil fuel dependencies.
Totally irresponsible. The opposite of "need to do right now." So, thank you, Commission, for raising this issue, but it is now up to the member states to finally do something about the energy tax issues.
The farmers in the EU want to do more. The Swedish farmers are ready to make a difference. But for doing that, they really need a real market for biofuels, and we need to stop protecting the interests of the fossil fuel industry once and for all.
Thank you.
Mister Nenisto is next.
Speaker 270
President, commissioner, Europe's energy debate has recently focused much on industry and infrastructure. These things matter, but the transition will ultimately succeed or fail with our citizens. So that is why the Citizens' Energy Package is an important shift, which we Greens have expected and which we also applaud. If you want public support for the transition, people must not only pay the costs, but they must also receive the benefits.
Today, millions of Europeans still struggle with energy bills, and yet households producing their own solar energy can save up to 260 to 550 euros per year. And participation in energy communities increases these savings to almost €1,000 a year.
Energy policy is not only climate policy. It is also an affordability policy, its inclusiveness, and its resilience in distributed energy, very smart in these geopolitical times.
Now, we must make sure that we can deliver this package, really to help Europeans in the energy transition and also to lower the costs. Thank you.
Gunta.
Mr. Martin Guenter is next.
Speaker 271
If you rely on fossil energy, you will feel the consequences. Exploding oil prices show that our dependence on fossil oil energy makes us vulnerable. Electricity is far too expensive. Millions live in energy poverty, and the gas lobby in Germany means that we're heading into a dead end.
In my camp. Country. We must invest in wind and solar energy. Spain shows that things can go differently. They've expanded wind and solar energy. The electricity prices there have dropped by 75% since 2019.
Nonetheless, the commission is granting state aid to the tune of billions in Germany for LNG terminals. Which are used less than half. We need to get away from fossil imports. Micro nuclear plants shouldn't be abandoned.
Speaker 272
And we should have social responsibility going hand in hand with climate protection.
Mister Sypniewski is next.
Thank you very much.
Speaker 252
Cabin. Again, you're on the Romanian channels, apparently. Why don't you all speak Romanian? Okay.
Is everything okay, English channel? Can you hear the English? Yes.
Okay.
Speaker 273
In 1990, one third of the power was produced from nuclear power. Now it's only 15%. Do we have to wait for decades for the European Commission to admit that it was a mistake to focus only on gas and renewable energy sources?
I think that it would be too late because these are changes that you can't backtrack on. I think the policy is inefficient. The Green Deal is pure madness.
We see the impact of these policies. We have energy poverty. We have plants that are closing shop and relocating abroad, which leads to more unemployment. We talked about energy security.
What security do we have for gas that comes from far-flung places and has to go through different seas and oceans? I can see these price fluctuations. So, we have so much fossil fuel, and we're not tapping into these sources. It's cheap. It's stable.
Speaker 252
And then, we have nuclear power, and we need to access our own resources.
Thomas Kaiser.
Speaker 274
President, colleagues, I don't exactly know how this energy package is actually going to be presented. I mean, the entire energy policy is turned into a monster, and energy costs are basically going up.
What we need is safe, affordable, and cheap energy. And also sustainable energy. So, we can't possibly have Brussels and some kind of planning commission decide the rules. We need to look at the available energy, rather than excluding certain suppliers by sanctions, especially in the case of fracking of gas. So, we need to really look into this more carefully.
For climate, we don't need a green deal. We need mechanisms to be implemented. To make sure that those who generate CO2 should pay the bill. Thank you.
Mrs. Vexter is next.
Speaker 275
President. Commissioner. For many people in Europe, energy policy is a priority. With the energy bill at the end of the month, And the question is: Can I heat my home? Can my company afford the costs? And can I afford next winter? About 42,000,000 Europeans can't heat themselves properly in winter.
For these people, energy policy is not an abstract debate. It's a question of dignity, security, and social justice. So the Clean Energy Citizens' Package is important. Rules and transparency allow citizens to control their energy costs.
People should be able to produce energy themselves and change their supply. They should understand what they're actually paying for. And that's correct. Energy policy must be citizens' policy, but at the same time, we must be honest. More transparency itself doesn't make energy affordable. And if we want to bring down energy policy costs in the long term, we need to deal with the structural problems.
We need more affordable energy investments in grids, infrastructure, and an energy market that really works. Thank you. There's a blue card. From Mr. Bloss.
Missus. Wexler.
Speaker 276
You just said that you welcome the Commission's package. I welcome it too. But the commission says that the electricity tax needs to go down for heaters. And we, the commission, say we need cheaper grids, and we need to get a proper distribution of energy sources.
Now, the German government doesn't seem to be doing this at all. Could you speak to the German government? Would you be prepared to tell them that they need to do their homework, just as the commission is setting out?
Speaker 275
When we go, we want to make sure that renewables, as well as classical security and classical markets, have a sensible framework. So, it's time to have an energy policy in Germany. Which recognize the costs of the grid and balance the whole thing with the investments that we need.
Yes, let's make sure at all levels, but not to go in that direction. That we have been going in for the last few years.
Sofie Ericsson is next.
Speaker 279
Ock Diesel.
Prices have changed in Sweden. And Sweden has become more vulnerable, and electricity investment is becoming more difficult. But you're not going to dupe the Swedish people. The government is trying to stop this development, but it's not assuming its responsibility.
It doesn't realize that they have not listened to our warnings. We warned them that we were going to depend on oil and petrol dictatorships. So, we warned them many times. And now, your voters are asking for explanations. Because citizens are not stupid.
Speaker 252
They understand what is happening: energy prices have gone up because of the war in the Middle East.
Oh, yeah.
Everybody.
Speaker 282
Everybody. Here, we're talking about the price of energy and the fact that citizens have problems, whether in Spain, Poland, or Germany. I'd all been saying for months that the European economy has big problems.
All the sectors—production, ceramics, steel, metals, and all those sectors—are coming to see us and say that one of the reasons for their problems is the lack of competitiveness. That is to say, taxes on CO2: would you be prepared, in your parties and others, to think about a revision of the directive in that area? I'm sorry.
Speaker 283
The translation was a bit unclear. Could I get a repeat of the last part, the actual question?
Speaker 282
Very. Briefly, I'd like to know, in light of everything we're saying today, as a political group, are you prepared to discuss a revision of the system of CO2 quota exchanges, the ETS, to change the situation?
Speaker 279
I'm going to try to answer as best as I can now. What we're talking about today shows one thing. We have to tell citizens that we've had a right-wing policy up to now, or a far-right policy.
These groups have been saying that it's thanks to them that there have been low diesel and petrol prices. That's what they've been saying. But we've realized that we're not the ones who led to the war in Iran.
Once again, we're facing exorbitant prices. And because of this, it is very clear that our dependence on these oil dictatorships means that we are more dependent, and this reduces our competitiveness. This is where we have to act.
Csaba Dömötör
Another war has broken out, but it is not our war either.
But in terms of economic impact, Europe is once again in the most trouble. Oil and gas prices have skyrocketed, and fierce competition has begun between European and Asian countries for available supplies. And everything is in place for prices to remain high.
But why is Europe in the most trouble again? Well, because the grand coalition here has narrowed down procurement options for ideological reasons. They have managed to impose sanctions on a product that Europe needs the most and has to import. There's one thing they didn't take into account: the consequences, and those consequences have arrived. The new war only exacerbates the situation of the past 4 years.
American energy companies are doing well. They have already made a lot of money. Russia can sell its oil and gas in Asia if it wants to. Intermediary companies are also doing well in distant countries.
There's only one region that is really suffering. Europe. The consequences are deadly. European companies pay several times more for energy than their American counterparts. In Germany alone, 124,000 jobs have been lost in industry in only one year. Volkswagen is cutting tens of thousands of jobs, and the Golf is going to be produced in Mexico.
It's one of the pillars of European industry. The sanctions could cause even greater damage to Slovakia and Hungary. You are cutting these countries off from cheaper imports. On top of that, Ukraine is blocking oil shipments for political reasons.
And this will brutally increase the energy bills of the Slovak and Hungarian people. You don't care. Who will take care of them? It's time for a change of direction.
You should review the sanctions policy. If you don't, the European economy will collapse, and then the question will be: who will turn off the last light in European industry? If the People's Party coalition is still unwilling to rethink its policy, we ask only one thing.
Speaker 285
Don't call yourselves pro-European forces because you are destroying Europe. Thank you.
Lucas.
Speaker 16
Thank you, Mr. Vice President. I would also be able to react to the reply of my colleague. Dear colleague, thank you for accepting the Blue Card. First, I would like to answer your question.
Who will turn off the light for European industry? It will be the Russian army. When they bombed us once, we lifted the sanctions and allowed them to push through. Ukrainian lines.
But my question is different. So, you talked about Volkswagen and the car industry. So I was wondering, don't you think that the European car industry, Volkswagen, would be in a better situation if we had not fought in this parliament, or some of us, against future technologies like electric cars?
Thank you.
Csaba Dömötör
Thank you. Thank you very much. Dear colleague. This is a question of essence. This house has made a lot of decisions which are imposing on European industry, particularly product production patterns, without taking into account the costs that are involved.
Just ask the actors of the German car industry if they are for making these rules even stricter. And please also ask them what they think about their rising energy costs. I'm sure if you ask the car manufacturers in Germany what the cause of the layoffs is, they will say that the number one reason is the price hikes for energy.
Speaker 287
I'm not going to say what decisions carmakers should take, but I think there are other solutions as well.
You. Thank you, Commissioner.
Speaker 289
I think our group was right because this energy package really takes on board what we suggested: a drop in prices, strengthening of energy security, investment in nuclear energy, and investment in interconnecting grids.
What about Spain? Well, Spain is blocking nuclear, and it wants to close Almaraz one in '27 and from October 26. If this plan has not been stopped by then, the closing of that nuclear plant, Almaraz, will be irreversible. This will have an impact both in Portugal and Southern France.
We saw this on April 28. During the blackout. We sent a letter to Missus Rivera, to Missus Vanderlijn, and to yourself. We want to call for transparency and technical criteria.
And please forget about your ideological calendars and diaries. Don't call for more industry, for more energy, and then look the other way if nuclear plants are being closed in certain member states.
Thank you.
Mrs. Anna Stuk.
He has the floor.
Danke, Präsident. Thank you, President.
Commissioner.
Speaker 290
Today, energy supply is our Achilles' heel. We have to shiver if we're blackmailed by Trump, or if Putin doesn't send us gas, or if Iran doesn't send us oil tankers. So, it's up to us to deal with this Achilles' heel and make it our superpower.
Dependence on fossil fuels to make it freedom and to have true European grids and innovation: we must translate talk into action because nothing we are talking about here is new.
Our access can be renewed. It can be European. If you are in parliament, do the right thing. But if the national governments, above all governments and parliaments, make the right decisions and use the transition, if we have all Europeans on board towards a European energy union, then our energy supply will become our superpower.
Thank you.
Asphalt, Michel Blost.
President.
Speaker 276
Ladies and gentlemen, millions of Europeans are afraid when they receive their electricity bills. And that's no coincidence. It's the result because we are so dependent on oil and gas. Let me go back to Christian Lindner's sentence.
Renewables give you freedom. They protect us from dependency on Putin and Trump. We get the cheapest energy, the one that you produce yourself. And the commission is doing a good job.
They're tabling good proposals, especially for cars and heaters, and locally produced wind is a good thing. But the Energy Ministry in Berlin is doing quite the opposite on every single point.
She says more gas rather than sun and wind. And, ladies and gentlemen, the price is going up. And at the end of the day, the citizens need to pay these bills.
Speaker 292
There's. A blue card. Would you be prepared to take it? Thank you.
Do you accept that every situation is different in each country? In the Czech Republic, even if we had thousands of windmills and photovoltaic panels, it wouldn't be enough.
We are an industrial country.
Speaker 292
We need stable electricity supplies; otherwise, we will have to close down the last steel plant. We have already closed down a lot of industry because energy prices are so high.
And you, as Germans, after you've been sending your extra energy and causing blackouts, do you accept that every country has a different situation? And do you let the individual countries do what they need to ensure energy for citizens and industry? You know, I'm very much in favor of a truly European energy system.
Speaker 276
Because this is exactly what brings prices down. We know that if we do, for instance, a central grid planning, we save more than €500,000,000,000. And I think this is what makes us strong.
Working together in Europe, this is what makes us strong. Let me tell you just one thing. As a beginner, I like the market. And there is no insurance company that insures nuclear power plants.
It has to be done by the state. I mean, I would say go ahead, but nuclear power doesn't work without big state subsidies; that is its biggest problem.
Missus Martin, she is next.
Catarina Martins
Thank you. Thank you very much. President. While the European people are despairing over energy price hikes, the European Commission is saying that it will bring the price down, but it is doing the opposite.
So, the cost of living is going up. Also, this is tarnishing the image of our institutions. These are the two things that the commission has achieved in this political farce.
We've seen Israel and the US attack Iran. We've seen atrocities unfolding. And then we've seen what the European leaders are doing. There's a cowardly approach and propaganda, and you are accepting a war that is making these energy prices shoot through the roof.
This European Parliament had policy resources to deal with climate change. And now, the situation is becoming worse because of the propaganda. We're the ones under attack. The energy crisis has a daily reality, and our lack of commitment to climate targets will affect our future, especially the poorest. I can no longer accept blue cars because otherwise, we won't catch the eye.
Speaker 294
So then, our house of the president. Thank you very much, President, colleagues, and Commissioner.
In Estonia, this winter was a clear reminder of the importance of a functioning common energy market. This past January in Estonia was one of the coldest in recent years.
Electricity demand went up by nearly 20%, and the subsequent price reaction was painful. The average electricity price in Estonia in January increased by 70% and reached €154 per megawatt hour.
And during the month, the price fluctuated from minus €7 to €441 per megawatt. At the same time, prices in Finland and Sweden, for example, were up to 1.5 times lower.
So, prices like this, both in terms of price fluctuations as well as the remarkable differences between member states, do not reflect the common market or a stable economic environment. And this is why it is important for the energy package to provide quick solutions: the competitiveness of our companies and the livelihoods of our people depend directly on energy prices.
So, my question to the commission is the following. What are the concrete measures in this package that help ensure the European single market actually functions in practice and that energy prices are uniform in all member states? That's stable and as affordable as possible.
Thank you.
I am Bruno Toback.
Bruno Toback is next.
Speaker 295
12 Worcester commissioners, colleagues, in 2022, when prices went up, there was one group which seemed to be very calm. Those were the men, the citizens who were members of cooperatives. They slept very quietly. Their bills went up by €0. And, of course, if you look at the oil and gas markets, those structural solutions give you better guarantees for citizens rather than subsidizing prices for consumers.
Because if we are dependent on imported oil and gas, basically, subsidies are a waste of time, and this entire thing is simply in the hands of Putin and Trump. Let us draw lessons from 2022.
Cheap energy is the energy that we control. That citizens, through energy communities, can produce in a flexible system, which makes this production easy. And it's not just a privilege for some and others to wait for energy to arrive or for wars to end.
Thank you.
Thomas Butchak is next.
Speaker 296
Thank you. You. A citizen's package, rather a package against citizens and others, a billion to the North Sea windmills, batteries, all to make a Polish miner, a Polish entrepreneur, and a Polish family pay for the climate fantasies of Brussels.
We want, we don't want green communism. We want cheap energy. Unfortunately, Poland is the main victim of this madness. We have a minister, a Ministry of Climate, but he prefers to save the planet rather than save Polish companies and their citizens.
We don't want to be an energy colony of Germany. We have our own technologies. We have coal. You've asked us to close our minds a bit, but if we had not had our coal-fired power plants last winter in Poland, it would have been deadly for many people.
With the choice between climate ideology and the welfare of citizens, we choose the welfare of citizens. We choose energy security and cheap electricity for citizens. We choose energy sovereignty, not Brussels.
Thank you.
Anna Zalewska
Thank you. Thank you very much. Just a piece of advice for colleagues. Could you read the report of the Court of Auditors, where you can see that the EU depends on imports of rare minerals for 90% of renewable energies, which can't operate by themselves because they have to be connected to something stable.
European experts say that the ETS system should be binned, and we have to look into it because it's a sort of green pyramid that will crack. Let's not listen to the Commission.
Ms. Fondelion said that the ETS should lead to decarbonization, which would lead to a clean industry. But it will. They're revising the target to 55% by 2030. Let a plight, let the Germans apply it, but otherwise, it won't really work out.
Speaker 298
Thank you very much. Commissioner. Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to welcome the European Commission's desire to support a policy on small modular nuclear and to promote renewable energy. I think that these are steps in the right direction.
But I must admit, I'm a bit disappointed to have clean, affordable, abundant European energy as the biggest challenge that Europe faces. It's an existential issue for Europe, for our future, and for our businesses.
Commissioner, would it not be possible to put forward more disruptive ideas to think outside the box, given the budgetary constraints that we have and the very fierce competition? Could we not have a European energy fee that would apply to all goods and products, no matter where they were produced? And this would help us reduce the price of decarbonized energy in Europe. This would allow us to get the virtuous on our side instead of having those who have a short-term approach who exploit this whole idea of "drill, baby, drill" without paying the consequences.
Mrs. Kuderi is next.
Speaker 68
Iran, Venezuela, and Afghanistan: what do they have in common? Do they have oil and gas? They have fossil fuels. We can never build peace. If we attack countries that have fossil fuels, ... If we keep importing oil and gas, we will have a global crisis after a global crisis.
So today, the price of electricity has gone up by 60% in Italy. So, we are paying twice as much as before; therefore, the cost of living is going up. So we need more renewables, new energy efficiency, proper installation, and to allow citizens to share their energy through energy communities.
Prices go down, and the costs to the environment will remain within the community. And this would also make it possible to prevent those who influence us, that is, Putin and the Trumps of today.
So in Italy, by 2030, we should have five Ticaquay energy communities. But the figure is much lower today. So, we're basically running out of time.
Speaker 225
Mr. Shaun Kelly is next. He's not here, though. So, I give the floor to Mr. Nardella.
Speaker 299
President with President Commissioner.
At the moment, there is a war that we did not want. But we have to foot the bill within a few hours. The petrol, excuse me. Oil and gas prices skyrocketed to levels that we had not seen since the pandemic, and the markets are trembling.
I know that you can't always stop the wars waged by others, but we've got to make sure that we are not unprepared. This energy package is a step towards a more independent Europe, especially when it comes to energy.
Well, we're investing in new technologies and renewable sources. I'm thinking of Tuscany, where I come from, where geothermal power is a source of energy that can be an important piece of the puzzle and of the strategy. And then certain suppliers speculate and shouldn't have.
We should say no to speculators who want to increase utility bills, as they're doing in other parts of Europe. We mustn't allow those who cannot pay for the transition to fall by the wayside.
40,000,000 Europeans cannot heat their homes properly. A transition cannot be a luxury for a few; it has to be a social justice transition.
Speaker 300
Mister Claudio, 30 weeks. Nice. Thank you, President, dear colleagues. It is hard to find in the Commission's archives a project that is less connected to reality and more utopic than this energy package.
We are in the eye of an economic storm, and this will make the best of our political players tremble with fear. Look what is happening in the Persian Gulf.
We have proof, the best proof there is, that humanity is dependent on the classical sources of energy. Non-polluting energies cannot ensure constant levels of energy to maintain the world's economies moving. We pay a very high price for the responsible policy that led member states to close down stable economic energy capacities.
Before preparing viable alternatives, Romania is a clear example of shutting down mines as a result of administrative choices that have turned us from producers into clients of external producers.
Energy is not an ideological experiment. Before anything else, the EU needs safe, secure, and accessible energy.
Speaker 133
Development and competitiveness are utopias. As commissioner, when you presented this package, the situation was already urgent. The events of the last 10 days supercharged the urgency of what we are debating here in this chamber today. We need to really face up to the unavoidable nature of that urgency right now.
In my own country, Ireland, we have extraordinary vulnerabilities. We rely on fossil fuels for 80% of energy consumption. 80% of our gas comes through just two pipelines from the United Kingdom. So we have extraordinary vulnerability.
And yet, just this morning, we received a report which shows that we're falling very far behind in our residential heat figures. Both in terms of heat pumps, retrofitting, and district heating, all of these figures are falling dramatically behind where they should be. So, shockingly, we also have BUR A and BUR D ratings, which are almost exactly the same in terms of consumption. So, there are lots of behavioral issues. I'll conclude by saying that we need the incentives and the investment to achieve much greater electrification. These costs, of course, are much less than the uncertainty and price risk.
Inherent in a fossil fuel system is its environmental impact. Thank you.
Thank you.
Mrs. Paulus is next.
Speaker 301
Thank you very much, President, Commissioner, colleagues. What's clear is that our electricity supply must be cheaper, more secure, more independent, and must fulfill our climate goals. But fifteen years after Fukushima, Ms. Fonda Laiya is talking about small nuclear reactors.
Which will not contribute to any of the goals. Costs of the couple of products that have been built or planned so far cost as much as big power plants per kilowatt. Secondly, security.
Thousands of small reactors with nuclear material are a goal for terrorists. And nuclear power isn't a good idea in the time of climate crisis failure. Security: a lot of what we use comes from Russian Temex fail.
Climate goals, fourthly. You say yourself, the first reactors can operate in 20 to 30 years at the earliest. How will that contribute to our climate goals of 90% by 2040 in any way? Commission, why should we put €200,000,000,000 of taxpayers' money? Why should we waste it when the Court of Auditors says we need more support? Let's free ourselves from Putin's nuclear trap. Renewables give freedom and acceptance among the populace. Thank you.
Mrs. Vinci.
Speaker 185
Commissioner President, well, I welcome this package because it includes a series of core priorities of the clean industrial deal and the action plan. Commissioner, I hope you're already working on the energy union because I think you're going to need that union, especially for countries such as Austria.
That has no nuclear energy. To modernize our systems, we are very expensive, so we need to have clean energy investment, and we need public and private money. Unfortunately, the colleague from the right side of this house is not here, but I can tell you that I'm energy independent up to 95%.
And anyone can do this. It's not a big deal. It's not very clear. So, why can't we do this all together? Thank you.
Annalisa Corrado
You. Thank you very much, President. Energy prices are just a burden on citizens. Three times, in fact. Utility bills: their shopping basket goes up because it is linked to energy.
And then also, when there are problems with their jobs, because industry and businesses find it difficult to shoulder such a cost burden. Therefore, we shouldn't be surprised that poverty and energy poverty are going up in Europe; 6 million people in Italy alone are affected by this.
That is why the European Commission has to put citizens at the heart of this, starting off with those who are most vulnerable. But with expensive electricity, we have to take action. But many solutions have not managed to take off. There are technologies that are mature enough to deal with this: heat pumps, electric mobility, and so on. But with high electricity prices because of the impact from gas wars and speculation, the economic advantage decreases.
Not only do we have high utility bills, but it's very difficult to come up with efficient solutions. That is why decarbonization isn't just a climate policy. It is our social deal and our freedom deal.
Thank you.
Mr. Ciliani is next.
Thank you, President.
Speaker 303
The Green Deal has really led to a very complex architecture in the area of regulations in the energy sector. It's a multiplication of very ambitious regulations. Brussels sets targets, but companies and households face higher electricity bills.
So today, the commission wants to involve citizens in the energy transition. Great. But let's look at the context. This package comes after the energy crisis. And the policies that have clearly failed, Europe seems to respond with new strategies and new packages instead of looking at the problem at its very roots.
You need a reform, a structural reform of the Green Deal, because you are just going to be correcting very timidly some of the imbalances that exist. If you want to put the citizens in the center, you need to be courageous and say that the Green Deal is a failure. We need to revise all of these energy security issues and sustainable prices, especially for households and SMEs. We need to revise the CBAP. We need to revise ETS because energy security needs to be sustainable, not just for the climate but also for European citizens.
Thank you.
Missus is next.
Danuše Nerudová
The recent energy crisis has shown how vulnerable our societies are, especially amid global instability, such as the war in the Middle East.
We are seeing sudden crisis spikes almost every day.
We cannot always control geopolitics, but we can control our own policies. Our regulations and taxes.
And, as politicians, we must recognize that we can sometimes be part of the problem.
Energy taxes account for about a quarter of the price that households pay.
A very strong energy connection across the union still remains, even though it would help to lower the prices. We do not have enough instruments to counter the price volatility of energy.
And we are not supporting enough energy sources that ensure an independent and secure supply, including nuclear energy.
The European Union should help its citizens.
This is why this mandate must focus more on the social impact of the transition.
I therefore welcome the Commission's proposal for this package.
Thank you.
You can pick and choose your supplier.
Speaker 306
Of course, in Hungary, it is the opposite. What is the situation? The friends of Orban have taken control of energy suppliers. They take all the profits from the whole system, and the system fees also land in their pockets.
Strangely enough, Russian oil converted into petrol is more expensive in Hungary than anywhere else.
Hungarian families spent twice as much on energy as their counterparts elsewhere in Europe. That's why even those who are not really poor have problems heating their homes. Energy sector, the energy sector is probably the number one source of income of this corrupt system.
Symbolized by a former gas feeder who is sitting on billions of euros. After the elections in April, we have to send them where the sun doesn't shine and where there is no electricity.
Mister Tony is next.
Distinguished.
Speaker 307
Colleagues, Commissioner, in recent years, we've been dealing a lot with high energy prices. We spent many hours debating this.
And we've come to the conclusion that our electricity prices were higher than in the US or in China, our competitors.
When things seem to settle down a little bit, bam, a new war, a new crisis, and once again, there are forecasts of another energy crisis that is going to hike up the prices.
So the question is: what have we as Europe learned? What lessons have we drawn from the Ukraine war? The lesson is very clear. We can only rely on ourselves. So, if we want to have accessible energy prices, we will have to develop an appropriate mix of energy sources, including nuclear energy, and that is the only way we can be competitive globally.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Yanis Maniattis is next.
Commissioner.
Speaker 308
In the last decade, the EU has tried to increase the involvement of citizens in a more decentralized energy system. However, putting consumers at the heart of the energy market is something that we haven't actually achieved. Energy prices in Greece and Europe are still a huge burden on our citizens' shoulders.
The cost of living is going up. And it means that their disposable income is decreasing. This energy package has to push forward investment and measures that will add value to GDP in the EU and that will help with employment. It's a pressing need.
We have to make sure that renewable energy sources become more present in our energy mix. And this should go hand in hand with the low energy production costs of these, so they can have a good impact on other prices.
But that's not happening, Commissioner. Citizens' involvement in the energy transition and the social dimension of the Energy Union are very important. Thank you.
Seán Kelly
Honorum Narcros, and apologies for not having been here earlier, President, and thank you very much for giving me the floor now.
It is clear from the outset that, while there are several things contributing to the high energy cost we face here in Europe, the number one reason is our continued dependence on expensive imported fossil fuels. Our electricity price is determined by a global gas market over which we have effectively no control. This means every time there's a disruption to a pipeline or supply route, as we are seeing right now in the Strait of Hormuz, energy prices go up. The week just before the US attacks in Iran, the Irish wholesale electricity price came in at an average of €90 per megawatt hour. In the last ten days, this has spiked to €145 per megawatt hour.
Consumers once again feel this increase. The answer to the problem, of course, is to end our reliance on gas, phase it out of our system, and power Europe with homegrown, low-cost renewables. But, of course, this won't happen overnight, and citizens have to be protected today.
If the last five years have shown us anything, it's that we need to become energy independent a lot faster than it probably is feasible. Enabling our citizens to participate effectively in transition, generating, selling, and storing energy, and providing flexibility helps edge Europe closer to this independence.
Objective. Every kilowatt of power produced and stored by citizens is a kilowatt less of expensive, imported fossil fuels we need to burn. Sheena will go forward with Otron. Milica Sarish.
Speaker 310
That's all I have to say. Thank you very much, President, for giving me the floor.
Speaker 252
I appreciate it. Mister Kelley, this concludes the debate, but we have to catch the eye, so bear with us, Commissioner Jorgensen. I will start by giving the floor to people who have followed the whole debate.
Speaker 312
Thank you very much, President, Commissioner.
The current energy system is made up of multiple layers that are inextricably linked. Electricity grids depend on digital networks for real-time checks; then a lot depends on data availability, and our energy system also depends on satellites. That's why energy and digitalization cannot be treated as silos. On the contrary, we have to make sure that we take a more integrated approach. It's also important to move forward with new digital technologies.
It's very clear that small nuclear reactors need less investment. They're more scalable. You can build them more quickly, and they reduce our energy dependence. I can't believe that there has been such resistance to this. So many of those responsible have dug in their heels and said they're against it. And I'm very surprised that so many people are against small modular reactors.
Because I think there are many opportunities linked to them. And then, my last point is about transparency. Do you know what type of transparency is best? I'm referring to electricity bills.
Speaker 313
You need consumers to understand their electricity bill from the moment they receive and open it.
Maria Grapini
Thank you. You, President, Commissioner. It is good that we discuss an energy package, but we have been saying for a long time that we need an energy market. Because it has been said here, we have millions of European citizens who live in energy poverty.
In my country, Romania, there are millions of citizens who cannot afford to pay their bills. Why is that? Because, first of all, in Europe, the price is higher than in the US and in China. But in the Eastern European countries, prices are higher than in the West, although purchasing power is lower. And yes, there is speculation, and we've talked about this in parliament.
I've raised the question: how can we curb speculation by suppliers? How can we have reasonable prices for the citizens if we do not produce energy within the EU? And there are other ways, Commissioner: biogas, waste turned into energy. We failed to use all the means to produce cheaper energy.
Please tell me, what can I say to my citizens when I go back home? What concrete measures are you taking so that the price of energy in the EU can be lower and fair, with equitable prices?
How can we make it so that they can afford their bills? Let's talk about aluminum and steel. Sectors. Everybody also talks about Montorla. Mister Davos Steer will have the floor now.
Davor Ivo Stier
The European Union imported this much gas and oil before the increase in prices caused by the war in the Gulf. Of course, the solution is not to curb the sanctions on Russia and to be dependent on fossil fuels, but small modular reactors can really be part of this solution.
Not only that, the commission said that in May, it will adopt a strategy for cooling and heating. And also, an action plan for geothermal energy. Why is this important? Because this is renewable energy.
We have the technology. This is constant energy. And in this way, we can really reduce the bills. We mustn't forget that half of the energy that we use in Europe goes for heating and cooling.
Thank you.
Commissioner.
Georgios Aftias
Abdominal effects of terrible circumstances in the Gulf. Gas prices have gone up by 70%. I listened to what you said extremely carefully. I agree with what you said, but it's not enough.
I'm not happy with that. Do you know why? Because for months and years, we've been talking about electricity cables across Europe. In Greece, Italy, Cyprus, Bulgaria, and Romania, we are paying higher electricity prices.
This is not a single market. This is something else, something completely different. So please speed up electrification for the good of our peoples. The Greek Prime Minister sent a letter saying that electricity prices cannot be so much higher in certain countries and that you have this issue. I know that you have the ability to solve this.
Our citizens are clamoring for this, and it is our duty, Commissioner, to deal with it. I'm going to keep harping on this, Commissioner.
Thank you.
Speaker 292
President. Commissioner, the words about clean and accessible energy for all citizens.
That sounds good, but it does not guarantee anything.
How many times have we heard similar slogans, packages, action plans, and strategies? And what is happening? Where is the price decrease for households in the EU? Nowhere. The energy crisis impacts low-income households the most because low-income people feel the impact differently.
Than people who don't care about how much they pay.
We don't have details about financing; you told us nothing about it.
And this, again, will be important to make sure that it's not the poorest people who pay for it, but instead those who pay no taxes and just abuse the energy prices.
Competitiveness commissioner, without limiting or getting rid of the Green Deal and removing bureaucracy, there will be no competitiveness for European industry.
Dariusz Lonsky is the last speaker.
Speaker 282
Thank you very much, President. This energy package is a step in the right direction. It's a good signal, too. We need it. But the European economy needs this cheaper energy today.
But the climate goals we adopted some years ago were created in a completely different reality. There was no war at the gates of Europe. There wasn't a war in the Middle East. There wasn't such pressure on energy prices. There wasn't all this brutality in competitiveness coming from China and the U.S. Yes, but the European Commission is acting as if nothing has changed.
If we do not review the ETS system, European industry will move outside of Europe. The Polish delegation in the EPP thinks that now is the time to act. That's why we're seeing these energy prices now, which are leading to instability in the world.
We need to take care of our jobs in the industry.
Speaker 252
Notes for all 60 interventions of our colleagues, and you'll have answers to each one of them. Thank you.
Speaker 3
Those. Who argues that in order for us to solve the present crisis that we're in and lower prices on energy, we should use more fossil fuels. That argument is like saying to a patient, "To prevent diabetes, eat more sugar."
Don't change your diet. The fact of the matter is that the more renewables we deploy, the cheaper our energy will be. The more secure we will be. The better we will be able to decarbonize, and thereby fight climate change. The more connected we are as an energy union, the cheaper our energy will be, and the more secure we will be.
The more energy efficient we are, the better our competitiveness will be, and the cheaper our energy bills will be. So it's not as if we don't know the cure for the problems we are in.
The illness is very clear. It's our dependency on fossil fuels. So let's get rid of fossils as soon as possible, as fast as possible. Now, of course, we need to look at what we can do to limit the effects of the present, very urgent crisis that we are in. For our citizens and for our companies, we are, of course, doing that.
But we cannot do it by applying and deploying solutions that will hurt what we know will work in the long term, which is a strategy to decarbonize our economies. And grow our own energy.
I thank you all so much for this very interesting debate. Obviously, today's package is not the only thing we are doing. We've done a lot before, and we will do a lot after. And I'm sure we will have plenty of opportunities to discuss those things.
Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you so much, Commissioner.
Speaker 225
Thank you, Commissioner. This debate is now closed. Can I have two brief announcements? Grupo Rila SND S and D and Renew have informed the presidency regarding a decision on changes in the appointments for committees. It will be noted in the minutes of today's session, and it will come into force on the date of this announcement.
As per Article 251 of the Rules of Procedure, I would like to inform you that there has been no request to vote on the rectification announced on Monday, March 9, in the plenary session. So, this rectification is approved, and it was published on the Internet page of the plenary session.
And now we open the next debate: Mr. Ostrovicius' report on the European Union's enlargement strategy. Mister, you have the floor.
Dear Commissioner.
Speaker 315
Colleagues, history has proved that European unification, which is so necessary today, has been firmly based on EU enlargement. Each stage of EU enlargement has positively contributed to Europe's growth in political and economic power, promoting the prosperity and security of all EU member states and the EU in general, not to mention their citizens.
The end of the Cold War and the emergence of the Copenhagen criteria laid the foundations for the enlargement policy. For recent decades, debate has continued.
However, the situation changed.
When a direct threat to democracy and European sovereignty reemerged,
On the continent.
Speaker 315
Russia's direct military aggression against Ukraine and its hybrid warfare against Europe require us to rethink our unification strategies.
Our strategic interests require more coordinated, firm, and clear responses that leave no room for insecurity or uncertainty. On the other hand, the EU must maintain a high level of normative policy and rely on legal harmonization and policy convergence by new members. This is both the EU's strength and its challenge.
Without a clear enlargement strategy, the integration process based on legal norms becomes a politically unbearable dialogue. Clearly, the EU must develop an integration model that aligns with its own interests and the expectations of the candidate countries. Any delay is unjustifiable. When rethinking the enlargement model, maintain a clear start date for negotiations, the regatta principle for healthy competition between candidates, and prioritize the EU's geostrategic interest.
Everything else, at least for me, is just technicalities. I would like to revisit the advantages of EU enlargement, which are often overlooked in political debates full of uncertainty.
Just to illustrate the results of the historical EU big bank enlargement, I would like to mention that trade between my country, Lithuania, and Germany grew by 3.6 times over the last 20 years.
Trade between the Czech Republic and the Netherlands grew fourfold during the same period of time.
In both cases, the positive trend balances on the side of the so-called old EU member states.
I am convinced that the upcoming enlargement will produce similar, and even better, results.
EU enlargement is directly intertwined with internal EU reforms. Ensuring the EU's institutional functionality and decision-making efficiency, especially through the expanded use of qualified majority voting.
Undoubtedly.
Speaker 315
It is also linked to the internal political and economic reforms of the candidate countries. One cannot be expected without the other. We must do our homework on internal EU reforms and be ready when candidates are prepared for accession.
Colleagues, now it's time to apply and demonstrate European values. We must apply them to broader politics, support European solidarity, and foster a free society and a common partnership. In the face of global challenges, let us not forget that standing together and growing stronger is an opportunity history has given us, one we must seize.
Before turning the floor to my colleagues, I would sincerely like to thank the shadow rapporteurs and my fellow colleagues for their great cooperation in preparing this report. Thank you for your attention.
Speaker 317
Thank you. You, Mr. Chair. Dear members of the European Parliament, especially those who are really big supporters of the enlargement process.
Enlargement today is much more than just enlargement.
Enlargement today is securing peace, security, freedom, and prosperity in Europe.
Allow me first to commend reporter Petrus Awestravicius. Thank you for the report and its clear and principled stance in favor of a merit-based process grounded in strict, fair conditionality and the strengthening of the rule of law.
Discussions have started on possible ways to evolve our enlargement model in line with the new realities we face. Having a debate about what EU accession means is very positive. Your report and today's exchange are very timely inputs to the current debate on how to move forward with EU enlargement. In that regard, I fully support your insistence that there can be no compromise on the rule of law, democracy, fundamental rights, nor on alignment with our common foreign and security policy.
The emphasis the European Parliament places on the fundamentals-first approach inevitably reinforces the credibility of the entire process.
No Trojan horses: countries that would undermine us from within cannot become EU member states. We must be absolutely sure of this. Countries that join the EU must be strong and resilient democracies, able to resist the toxic influence of Russia and others. And, of course, there can be no shortcuts in reforms.
Our European citizens expect this of us, of me, and of my team.
Having been considered a front-runner in the accession process in the past doesn't guarantee special status. This goes for the top performers of 2025: Montenegro, Albania, Ukraine, and the Republic of Moldova. Progress needs to be earned again and again through reforms. This builds credibility, but of course, we all know that it is not easy.
But this credibility, as Peter, as you have stressed, cuts both ways. I share your assessment that when candidate countries deliver tangible reform progress, the EU must also deliver on its commitments.
Your report rightly highlights the need to overcome bilateral blockages in the council and ensure that a merit-based approach prevails.
I particularly welcome the Parliament's recognition of the importance of gradual integration for candidates making substantial progress.
Our reform and growth facilities for the Western Balkans, Ukraine, and Moldova embody this ambition to accelerate the integration of our enlargement countries. These instruments are performance-based; disbursements are linked to concrete reform steps, many of them being directly aligned with the EU AKI.
Your report is equally clear that enlargement must strengthen the Union internally. I welcome your call for parallel preparations within the EU. Preparing our internal policies and conducting a serious reflection on how to ensure the effective functioning of a larger union. Accession is a transformative process for the whole society.
I share your emphasis on civil society organizations, independent journalists, youth movements, and national parliaments, which we should support.
They hold the governments in our candidate countries accountable.
And this is why our enlargement partners are associated with our democracy shield and the civil society strategy as equal partners to member states. We need to throw a democratic safety net over our continent.
You see, once again, the enlargement is much more than just the enlargement. In Georgia, you can see what happens when Russia prevails. An autocratic system represses democratic expression.
They have just adopted a new law attacking the country's democratic and civic space, pushing Georgia further away from the European future that the majority of its people want.
And they are lying to their people that they are bringing their country into the EU and that the EU is the one who should adapt to them. To our Georgian friends, the majority of Georgian people who value democracy and freedom, we are not giving up on you.
Finally, I would also like to commend the parliament for placing public awareness at the heart of its recommendations. We must be able to communicate much more clearly to our citizens why enlargement matters to our security and prosperity, and how the important reforms made by the most advanced candidate countries contribute directly to a more independent and secure Europe. By helping our candidate countries, we are working in the interest of our member states. The support of public opinion is crucial for the ratification of future accession treaties. It is crucial for our credibility, and this is a joint responsibility.
Dear members of the European Parliament, from 6 countries to 27, our union has continuously enlarged and evolved.
With every round of enlargement, we have grown stronger and found solutions to the talent challenges we face.
We proved wrong those who had doubts about our success. But we need to go on. Today, your report provides strategic and institutional guidance to ensure that the next chapter of enlargement is credible, principled, and transformative. We will continue to support our enlargement partners, and I'm confident that this house will continue to do so.
Your support is key to the candidate countries, the member states, and our success. As Petros was saying, there is no room for insecurity and uncertainty.
We should really speak very loudly and boldly when it's about the future of our independent Europe. Continent. Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Speaker 79
Now, we will start with the turn of the political groups, and the first one will be Mr. Kovacev for two minutes. Representing the ABB Group.
Speaker 319
Colleagues, dear Petrus, madam commissioner, we have worked so successfully on this report. Enlargement is a long-term investment in the prosperity and security of the whole continent, especially in the present-day geopolitical situation. It shows that the European model is attractive and transformative for societies that want shared values and the rule of law.
All candidate countries accept their commitments, and they must deliver on the basis of political will. Citizens have had enough excuses and explanations that somebody else is to blame. This refers to everybody. It's not a matter of short-term considerations. Or political games.
The European model shows that it is the model for reconciliation and reunification of a continent divided by communist dictatorships.
There is no place for discrimination in the EU, and I appeal to the authorities of North Macedonia to catch up, fulfill their commitments in the negotiation framework, and refrain from pressures and discrimination against those who profess their Bulgarian identity.
We've seen what happened to the Bulgarian cultural club in Bitola and a respected Bulgarian journalist attacked there. Police authorities often intimidate and pressure citizens who say they have Bulgarian identity.
A transparent investigation is necessary. Seeking responsibility is important. I wish good luck to all candidate countries. Their successes are our success. There is a place for all European countries here.
Thank you.
Speaker 320
The next speaker is Mr. Pichula, representing the S and D Group for one minute.
Thank you, Chair.
Speaker 321
Post on Apo Vernice: Madam Commissioner, colleagues, today, as many as 10 countries are waiting at the EU's doorstep. All of them are at different stages of the process, and the differences among them are simply too great. However, as enlargement policies are one of the Union's priorities during this mandate, we must find ways to ensure that the process maintains its momentum.
The EU is not only a common market, an area of free movement, or a shared currency. It is also a community of shared values and shared responsibilities. The EU has the absorption capacity for further enlargement.
That is for sure. However, economic cooperation and peace are no longer the only priorities of the enlargement policy. The focus is also on issues related to security and the preservation of democracy as a system.
For the credibility of the enlargement policy, it makes sense that only genuinely prepared candidate countries join the EU. They need to be aligned with our foreign and security policy, and they need to demonstrate an unquestionable commitment to the rule of law. In today's increasingly challenging geopolitical circumstances, such alignment is more important than ever. Only in this way will we no longer need to speculate about the timing of the next enlargement, as progress and results will speak for themselves.
Speaker 320
Next speaker is Mr. Tanjil Correa, for two minutes, representing Patriots Group.
Speaker 322
President. Madam Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, enlargement can be something wonderful, or it can be very bad. It can be wonderful when it boosts peace and prosperity in Europe. It can be a good thing when countries meet the Copenhagen criteria, and when we look at what the candidate country can bring on a case-by-case basis. But if we rush into it without weighing it all up, without calibrating right, then it can go very wrong.
Not only for the country, but also for the EU. So enlargement and future waves of enlargement have to be merit-based. For years, I have been in favor of the Western Balkan countries joining the EU. They are part of Europe. They are part of European culture and the socioeconomic base of our continent; these countries have to be part of the EU.
But ten years ago, these countries were actually closer to us than they are now, and that is serious. And that was also the case 20 years ago. So, I think we have to look at responsibility.
You are guilty, and so are we. We have abandoned these countries to their fate. And now we cannot come with our demands that are not constructive. And then there's the whole issue of unanimity, because, ladies and gentlemen, unanimity in decisions is key. If the EU is to meet its objectives.
And if we are to respect our legislation that has been defined before. You cannot change the rules midway. You can tail-adapt them. You can tweak them. But you cannot overhaul them.
So, I'm in favor of enlargement for a stronger Europe and solid foundations, but no to enlargement if it supports the type of federalism that would not lead anywhere and would just destroy Europe.
Speaker 320
Thank you very much. The next speaker is Mr. Sturza. For one minute. And a half, representing ECR. Group.
Speaker 323
Mister. President, Madam Commissioner, dear colleagues, on an international stage that is more and more unpredictable, it is necessary more than ever that we are able to protect our own security interests.
We can no longer knock on the door of the bigger powers. We need to be a strong leader of the member states when the situation requires it. Union means force. When there are many of us, we have more strength.
That is why we need enlargement; leaving the Western Balkans to a political gray area is strategic neglect. This void will be filled by China, Russia, and other competitors of ours. Those countries need to join the European family when they have met all the merit criteria. Enlargement is not an opportunity for our partners alone because a credible and accelerated enlargement policy is not a charity act, but an investment in Europe's security and stability.
It is high time that we unblock the enlargement process and no longer allow European security to be held hostage by bilateral disputes between some member states and candidate countries. If the EU fails to act now, others will surely do it in its place.
Thank you.
Speaker 320
Thank you very much. The next speaker is Mr. Saric. For one minute, representing Renu. Group.
Speaker 324
Dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, EU enlargement has lately been pushed to the sidelines; this has been a mistake. That's why enlargement has become an important political issue now. And our commissioner Marta Kosk, with all of her commitment, has contributed to this change.
I need to point out that the enlargement process should be based on clear criteria. It's not only about money. It's also about the values on which the EU has been based. At the same time, we need to bear in mind the strategic situation in which we live today.
In addition, enlargement cannot result in bilateral issues. Also, candidate countries are at different stages in their accession. We need to reward those who have made the most progress. This would be a signal that effort pays off, and it would also be a decisive message for other mem candidates.
Speaker 320
The next speaker is Mister. Wait for one minute.
And a half. Representing the RINs Group.
Thank you, President.
Thomas Waitz
By the Commissioner Coase, more than ever, it's time for European nations to stand together. If we want to defend our European way of life, if we want to defend our rules-based order, this is what we have to do. Stand together. And there is more understanding for that than I have ever experienced.
What is the common interest, and what is the actual strength of the European Union? Yes. It's our rule-based order. It's our predictability. It's the transparency that we are offering. It's the reliability that we're offering, and it's the institutions that are functional and delivering on the rule of law.
And this is exactly what a merit-based process means. Countries have to fulfill these rule of law criteria. Countries have to fulfill the criteria of an independent justice system, independent media, and civil rights of citizens because this is the precondition to become a member of our common club. And we have to insist on these criteria for membership.
And we need to deliver on our promises towards the countries with which we have been engaging. We need to step up support. We're already supporting a lot. But in this current global situation, we have to step up our efforts in supporting the countries in their ability to actually deliver on the reforms. To actually deliver on the needed steps. So, let's look into what we can still do for the countries that are not yet front-runners.
But let's also keep our promises to the front runners and finalize their accession because they are also lighthouses of hope and lighthouses of our promises that show the whole region it is possible if you do the needed reforms.
You're very welcome here in our European Union, and I hope for the best for us. This is the spirit of our report, and this is the spirit of the majority here in the house. I'm looking forward to working with all of you to fulfill our European promises to their citizens and our citizens.
Thank you.
Speaker 320
Thank you very much. The next speaker is Miss Kulenin for one minute and a half, representing the left group.
Speaker 326
President, colleagues, the enlargement of the EU isn't just an administrative process. Above all, it is a geopolitical choice. In the new present security situation, enlargement is a strategic choice for stability, democracy, and security in Europe.
The main message of the report is clear. Enlargement must remain merit-based.
Every candidate country has to meet the demands of democracy, fundamental rights, and the rule of law.
The report also says that the union has to do its own homework. The press has to be credible and reliable. The report speaks about advancing in stages. The candidate countries cannot be kept in the waiting room for years.
They should be able to progress in stages towards the single market before they reach full membership. This will strengthen reforms and give credibility to the Western Balkan countries. Ukraine and Georgia are an important part of the security architecture.
Enlargement policy isn't just neighborhood policy; it's also a key way to defend democracy and stability in Europe. So the question isn't about whether the union will enlarge, but rather if we can develop and lead this process in a credible and strategic way.
Thank you.
Speaker 320
Thank you very much. The next speaker is Mr. Simniewski for one and a half minutes, representing ESN Group.
Speaker 273
Thank you very much. We have to put an end to this madness. No. You are talking about Ukraine. Joining the EU, but its president is corrupt.
So, no to Ukraine joining. And there you have votes being bought. This is systemic. And there was even a corruption scandal surrounding the eggs provided to the army. Now, Ukraine is near Sri Lanka and Gambia on the corruption index. They rank near these countries.
So we're talking about $100,000,000 that has disappeared. During the war. It's the oligarchs dominating the economy. In agriculture, we have businesses that own hectares upon hectares. So, there would be unfair competition for Polish farmers.
Ukraine hasn't settled its accounts when it comes to history. We don't have Nazi flags in our country. And yet, flags are being flown in Ukraine that are linked to the killing of many Poles.
Do you want Nazi collaborators here? President Zelensky is threatening an EU prime minister because he thinks differently. And if it weren't for Poland, Ukraine wouldn't exist; we're saving it. But this doesn't mean that it should join the EU. No to Ukraine joining the EU.
Speaker 320
Kindly suggest to all the speakers on the list to respect the timing we have because we are running really late. And the next speaker is Mr. Guller. For WEN.
In it.
Speaker 327
President, Commissioner, colleagues, just to the previous speaker: if the Ukrainians think that the president doesn't fulfill his purposes in Ukraine, you can change your president, contrary to Russia. That's the reality.
I mean, it is our strategic interest, if not our geopolitical interest, to enlarge the area of peace, stability, prosperity, rule of law, and democracy in Europe. So credible enlargement is required from existing member states. So sometimes, 20 years of negotiations do not indicate such credibility. On the other hand, will and concrete efforts by candidate countries to work on this goal are also required.
Countries, as the commissioner rightly said, who would undermine this from within have no space in the European Union. With regard to the fulfillment of the political criteria, there cannot be flexibility. They must be fulfilled.
But for the economic criteria, such as access to the single market, we have already practiced transitional periods which would enable us to take a country in without having the full effect either on the existing member states or on the new member state. So, I think there is flexibility possible in the enlargement process.
Thank you.
Galer.
Speaker 320
Sorry. You have a blue card if you want to accept it. It's coming from Mr. Laszlo. From the Patriots. Okay.
I understand that you accept it. Okay.
Speaker 329
Mister Geller, as you have just said, you are a big supporter of Ukrainian membership, but they need to fulfill all the political criteria.
Do you think it is acceptable for a country that wants to join the European Union if its president personally threatens the prime minister of an EU country? Do you agree that that is unacceptable? And can you call on Mister Zelensky to apologize and withdraw this threat? Thank you.
Speaker 327
What we have seen was a tit-for-tat reaction to what had been said by Hungary earlier. I wouldn't have said it this way personally.
It's also not a requirement for membership. But you know what is happening in Hungary as we speak, especially with regard to the seizing of this money transporter, which was legally on the way from Austria through Hungary to Ukraine and not the other way around. That is an unacceptable situation, especially when your prime minister is apparently afraid to lose the elections.
Dankershin.
You know.
Speaker 320
I got the number. You know. You can ask on either side. On either side, we don't have enough time to continue the debate. The next speaker is Sanchez Amor, for 1 minute.
Speaker 331
Commissioner, yesterday we heard a speech which requires us to ask many questions. If values are no longer important, why are we still insisting on the values and enlargement if this ideological world no longer exists? Why do we think that the Union is a club of democracies and not a geopolitical club? Why do we have to insist on the maturity of candidate countries in this case? This toxic debate speech of the President of the Commission is the anti-Schuman, the anti-Delors moment of the European Union.
So what does this mean in relation to Allinger and in relation to enlargement? That is to have them come already now. It's a question of common interest. Of security, interest, and safety.
Are those the measurements that we're going to use for enlargement? Yesterday's debate and speech to reject the reverse membership issue—I think your whole agenda has become really difficult.
Speaker 332
I'm. A Hungarian from Subcarpathia, and I'm aware that several hundred thousand men and their family members are worried that people could be enrolled because many young men are forced into the army, caught in the streets, and they die during training.
Human rights are not being respected. So, for Ukraine, the accession process cannot continue. Because these enrolled recruits die due to the authorities and also because the European Commission doesn't act. The war is a tragedy, but it's not an excuse for not respecting human rights, and the European Union is letting those people down and is also threatening its own credibility.
Thank you.
Speaker 320
Thank you very much. The next speaker is Mister Gambino for one minute.
Speaker 333
Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, EU enlargement is once again at the heart of the EU agenda. Russia's war against Ukraine has proven how our neighborhood stability is inextricably linked to our continent's security. So, that's why a membership process has to be merit-based, transparent, and clear, based on the Copenhagen criteria, and has to be in line with the community acquis.
The Western Balkans are still a strategic priority, and we have to support Albania and Montenegro in completing the process because we would be boosting stability in the region and Europe. Security. At the same time, we have to boost cooperation with candidate countries in the field of security and migration flow management. Which I think is vital. Enlargement has to be a serious, gradual procedure based on the political responsibility of member states.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chair.
Speaker 334
Extendera enlargement is no longer a mere European policy. Today. It is our most potent geopolitical instrument for achieving peace and security for the Republic of Moldova, whose future is inextricably linked to the EU.
Joining is a historic necessity that we must support with maximum urgency. But we must face it. Enlargement can no longer be a one-way street. It is our moral obligation to reform the EU while the candidate countries that we want to allow in do the same. We cannot merely ask others to change while our own institutions remain in the romantic 1990s.
Adapting means getting rid of the trap of unanimity. That has blocked our capacity to adapt, eliminating unanimity and introducing QMV. For enlargement issues, we ensure that no state can hold our security hostage as it happens today.
We must be at the height of the expectations of the Moldovan people, and we must have a nimble, efficient European Union that is able to lead. We need an audacious EU that is as courageous as those who aspire to become part of it.
Thank you.
One, thank you, Chair.
Speaker 335
Commissioner. The Russian invasion of Ukraine was an urgent wake-up call that the EU must become stronger and more autonomous.
And the most effective tool to achieve this is in our own hands.
Speaker 335
The urgency has only increased with the threats now also coming from Washington. Yet, member states seem to backtrack on their ambitions and get stuck in old habits. While we so urgently need to keep our eyes on the ball and show leadership, we must also do so towards our own electorate.
That's the only way to keep the ambition for the necessary, meaningful reforms in candidate countries alive.
And avoid pushing them in the direction of our geopolitical rivals. That's the only way to reach the autonomy that we so much need, but also to give citizens in this country a real, true perspective.
Thank you.
Speaker 320
Thank you very much. The next speaker is Mr. De La Valle for one minute.
Thank you.
Speaker 337
The President will use enlargement as a geopolitical instrument.
For the foreign policies of Eastern countries.
You see double standards. However, Moldova and Georgia are proof of this. Now we're going to be opening the door to states which have not reached proper democratic standards.
For instance, Ukraine. So, we simply want to support the expansion of NATO. We don't say anything about the fact that after 2007, the workers in countries like Italy have really seen their standard of living go down.
There's been dumping, social dumping, and it further opens an enlargement. If you look at the report, this could lead to a cut in cohesion funds, cohesion funds which are essential for Southern Italy.
And we had actually the EU had promised to eliminate certain instruments, but we would have military bases and social dumping, and this, we believe, is to be criticized severely.
Speaker 338
Thank you, President. The enlargement of the European Union must be predictable. It must be guided by clear rules.
And candidate countries should fulfill the necessary criteria. The accession of any country without meeting the Copenhagen criteria will have negative consequences for the entire Union because it is clear some countries are making an effort to implement reforms, while others are just trying to cheat.
But superficial reforms hastily coupled together will cause damage in the long term, and delays in the enlargement process will not be overcome by tricks. We have Article 49, under which enlargement requires the unanimous consent of the member states.
And this principle should not be avoided. Enwatchment is a key process. It should not be used for political convenience. If it is abused, European citizens will pay the price. Thank you.
Speaker 340
Let's call a spade a spade. Ukraine doesn't belong to the European Union. Ukraine, not "the Ukraine," where dictator Zelensky is threatening Hungarian Prime Minister Orban just like a mafia gang; not Ukraine that is criminally blocking gas and oil for Slovakia and Hungary.
And I'm quite shocked that Brussels is unable to fully stand behind its member states and that it is not able to put away this arrogant circus clown from Kyiv.
I'm shocked that the European Union has lost its moral compass. You can't even condemn the US and Israeli aggression in Iran. You don't mind that the US killed 160 young girls. You don't mind that they are trying to starve Cuba.
I have been to Cuba for 10 days, and I saw the terrible results of the criminal blockade by the US. How can you be silent, ma'am? How can you look into the mirror, Miss Van der Leyen? It's sick that the European Union is jumping to the tune of the biggest criminals of the twenty-first century, Netanyahu and Zelensky. Shame on you.
Speaker 320
The next speaker is Missus Yugnavicine. For one minute. Well, it seems she is not here.
Okay.
Yeah. Yeah.
Thank you. Thank you very much.
Sorry, colleagues.
Speaker 341
Tomorrow marks 36 years since the parliament of my country bravely voted for the independence of Lithuania. Five divisions of the Soviet army were still stationed on our soil.
Some people in the West doubted.
Speaker 341
Later, we bravely chose membership in the EU and NATO. Some here doubted whether it was really necessary.
I am proud that we were brave enough.
Today, the entire EU needs brave decisions.
Ukraine is defending Europe more than some EU members are.
We need Ukraine and others as much as they need us. We live in times when extremely creative decisions are required.
Let us abandon our fears and allow the EU to make decisions faster.
The enlargement of the EU is vital because the completion of the continent is an investment in our defense.
Thank you, and sorry again.
Colleagues.
Andreas Schieder
When it comes to enlargement, there is super news from Iceland because the Social Democratic Government in Iceland, on August 29, has announced a referendum on EU membership. Iceland is an important partner. It is also a stable democracy. It's part of our European values and economic space, and an accession which, for all of us, for the EU and for Iceland, would be a win-win.
But as a report for Albania, I would like to point to the importance of the West Balkans EU enlargement. There needs to be more stability, more legal certainty, and economic perspectives for millions of people.
And the geopolitics of the Western Balkans. You shouldn't leave it to other actors there. Because of increasing geopolitical tensions, we must make sure that the EU continent remains open for democracy, which we all share.
Speaker 342
Mister Bistisen, for one and a half minutes. The Finnish: There isn't a crisis that you federalists shouldn't use to take more power. The enlargement of the EU, just with the poor countries like Ukraine, Georgia, but also Turkey and other Islamic countries, which are still kept within the possibility of EU membership.
It'll need to address a lot of problems: social dumping, criminality, corruption, and everything that leads from that. But not just that, because the enlargement plans are about taking more power.
Power to do away with the power of veto, having more powers in terms of EU defense, army, common defense budgets, and the power to have foreign policy on behalf of the European countries.
We can defend our continent. But it won't be better or more effective if the EU assumes competencies and power, which it did not assume when Denmark joined the union.
We promised a union without a common defense policy, defense, or currency.
We've got all of that. And now you're talking about a beer budget, where you're talking about doubling the amount that you will take from the Danes.
It's a note to that. It's not the right way to go. You'll lose people's support. We'll have a European United States of Europe; it is not what people want.
Speaker 343
Thank you, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues. We must adapt the enlargement process to today's geopolitical realities if we want to continue benefiting both the European Union and the candidate countries.
In the past, enlargement was largely a technical process focused on economic alignment and legal reforms. Today, however, the geopolitical environment is fundamentally different. Enlargement must, therefore, be approached strategically, not just while respecting the particularities of each candidate country.
The first issue in the current approach is the political weaponization of so-called European values. Forcing candidate countries to adopt interpretations of values that go beyond the EU treaties, such as gender ideological frameworks, undermines trust in the European project and provides easy material for Russian propaganda.
No sane society can accept the idea that a man who pretends to be a woman is an actual woman. Second, countries on Russia's doorstep. Countries such as Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine cannot be asked to carry out endless reforms without a clear timeline or credible security perspective. These countries that have suffered Russian aggression must have clarity about the path ahead.
Thank you.
Speaker 320
Thank you very much. The next speaker is Mr. Brent Statter. For one minute.
Speaker 344
Thank you, Mr. President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues. What an attractive community we are, the European Union. The Brits want to come back, the majority in Iceland will have a referendum, and there are many countries in the Western Balkans, Moldova, and Ukraine.
They also want to join us. And to all Ukraine haters, they are doing, like all the other countries, a lot of reforms. They know what the rule of law is. And by the way, money robbers should be imprisoned, but not in the government.
So, what do we have to do? We have to support these countries in their work for these reforms because they are necessary. And as I said, we know they are doing it. But we also have to ensure that one or the other autocrat cannot stop the process. Because that's what they want to do for their political reasons.
So what I say is, this veto is wrong. So let us build a strong, even stronger, European Union. We need it, and we can do it. Thank you very much.
Gordan Bosanac
Thank you very much. I will echo the previous speaker. I'm going to talk about blocking negotiations, and we have to see what we can do with the politics of relaxation. And common sense.
I remember when Slovenia blocked Croatia; we went to the arbitration court because we couldn't agree on the border. We thought the border was here. They thought the border was there, and we lost a few years for nothing.
Croatia and Montenegro are also discussing whose ship is whose and how to repair it. Let's repair it together with the money from the European Union and actually make it useful for defense.
The politics of common sense are maybe a way to avoid bilateral blockades. I especially want to say this to my friends in Bulgaria and North Macedonia. Thank you.
Sebastian Everding
The report on EU enlargement talks about democracy, rule of law, and the economy quite rightly, but it doesn't look at European concerns like animal protection and environmental protection; these aren't just morally relevant. They're relevant for health, tourism, and the development of society.
In Georgia. There are weak animal protection laws, and there are terrible killing methods rather than methods like castration. In Malteva, there has been protection, but the legislation is insufficiently weakened. And there are huge environmental problems with pollution, and that shows the urgency for an environmental policy throughout the EU.
It's not just a question of animals, but also of the economy and the quality of life for people. The situation in Turkey is getting even worse, with animals being killed on the roads.
Animals don't have a voice. We each must raise our voice about the problems there and improve things. Thank you very much.
Speaker 346
For years, we've been supporting Ukraine with a lot of money. Even Viktor Orban is supporting these fundings, and half of our imports come from Hungary. Now Zelensky, instead of being grateful, is actually threatening the Prime Minister of Hungary with murder. And we believe that a government that wants to kill the head of state of another country does not belong in this union.
We reject the entry. To Ukraine. A lot of our taxpayers' money has gone to Ukraine, and Zelensky wants to have large sums of money for reconstruction. This is going to cost us some 10,000,000,000.
Let's stop. We are no longer a rich country in Germany, but we're still paying the highest contribution to the European Union. We cannot afford enlargement. We are going to put a stop to all payments, especially payments to someone who is biting the hand that feeds him.
Speaker 320
Thank you very much. And an example is because Mr. Kartaysa was late by one minute.
Speaker 347
Thank you very much, President. Those who want to speed up Ukraine's accession to the EU have only one target, and that's to make sure that we enter into a war against Russia.
We cannot have this. Ukraine cannot receive preferential treatment compared to other countries. Before it joins the EU, it has to live peacefully side by side with its neighbors, and it has to respect the Copenhagen criteria.
That is not the case at the moment because we are talking about a state that is both totalitarian and corrupt. Its leaders have to stop threatening European heads of state and give up any acts that could harm the economic and political interests of a member state.
Now, as far as the EU is concerned, enlargement policy has to remain under the rule of unanimity, and there can be no exceptions to this. Our union isn't a federal state, but an association of sovereign states, and that is why unanimity not only has to be maintained, but it should become the rule of thumb in our decision-making procedures.
Thank you.
Speaker 348
The strength of the community is always its openness, which means benefits for the old union and for the new members. One of our goals, of course, is to receive the countries that meet the Copenhagen criteria and whose people want to live in a European world.
The European Union guarantees more happiness and a better environment for its residents. The voices of the friends of Putin: what surprises me is that everybody wants to flee Europe to Russia to live in Europe.
The Georgians can still choose their pro-European route. Still possible. We see what the Georgian regime is leading to, but snuffing out this will to accede to the European Union for the Georgian people cannot be done by force. I mean it.
Speaker 349
Colleagues, Commissioner, EU enlargement is the best way to ensure long-term security and stability on our continent. It is essential for our economic prosperity, and it will result in a stronger union, better capable of promoting our values and protecting our interests.
History has taught us that geopolitical gray zones lead to instability and invite aggression. Leaving our partners in Ukraine, Moldova, and the Western Balkans in a security vacuum has a price we cannot afford to pay.
For the enlargement process to be credible, we have to observe two principles. First, enlargement will have to be merit-based. There will be no compromises when it comes to the rule of law, judicial independence, or democratic accountability. And, obviously, enlargement cannot endanger the integrity of a single market.
But, on the other hand, the EU and its current member states must also stick to their end of the bargain. We cannot indefinitely hold back candidates who, by our own assessment, are ready to move ahead.
This is not acceptable. So, let us be firm and demanding, but also reliable and honest as a union.
Speaker 320
Thank you. Thank you very much. The next speaker is Mr. Laszlo for one minute and a half.
Speaker 231
EU. Enlargement is a historic success, which they want to ruin, led by the grand coalition. They want to change all the rules to take in Ukraine, which is at war with a nuclear power.
This is what they talk about in the report. Enlargement is key to lasting peace, the rule of law, promoting fundamental rights, regional stability, and peace. This is all correct, but instead of sustainable peace, EU leaders are not negotiating with Russia.
President Zelensky cut off oil supplies to Slovakia and Hungary due to political considerations. Forced enlistments violate fundamental rights. Instead of promoting regional peace, the President actually threatened the Hungarian Prime Minister. Instead of stability, there is war. And it seems you still want to take Ukraine as soon as possible.
We have others who have been waiting for accession for many years. What kind of message is this to them if you take Ukraine out of its turn? You are creating a military problem between Russia and the EU.
Because one member state attacked, the others have to come to its rescue. We have to say this clearly: we cannot make any exceptions. Only those countries that fulfill all conditions without fail can join the EU, and this is supported unanimously by all member states.
Thank you.
Thank you. You.
Speaker 350
Madam Commissioner, colleagues. The report outlined the importance of enlargement, but there is a fundamental problem. That is the removal of human amenity. I believe this to be incompatible with EU legislation because it deprives member states of their powers. And Ukraine is treated disproportionately, which is harmful to the Western Balkans.
My position is that a decision on Ukraine faster than the accession of the Western Balkans would be very unfair. Last but not least, we should remember that this could be a very bad favor we would do to the European citizens.
If the country is not prepared, then there will be consequences. There is no country that can be half a member and half not. There are responsibilities in this regard. Thank you.
Ilhan Kyuchyuk
Thank you, President, Madam Commissioner. The report of Mr. Ostrovicius actually points out certain ideas we are well aware of: enlargement contributes to our prosperity, socialization, and establishing a European model in the countries that want to join. These are all very positive elements that we experienced ourselves on the road to the EU. However, in this report, there are also some new prospects that can be discussed.
For instance, the question is how we can speed up enlargement. And yes, it is good to discuss enlargement as one of the best policies of the European Union. But we will not arrive there unless we insist on reforms in the European Union. Just look at today's debates.
We talk about the future of agricultural policy, cohesion policy; it will be different and difficult to come to an agreement with all these countries unless we have discussed the reforms within the European Union first. Mister Mina Marakis, for one minute.
Speaker 352
EU. Enlargement is linked to the future of the European project. It's about how we see the integration of the EU. It's about peace, cooperation, and stability, especially in regions that have experienced divisions and tensions for many decades.
Greece has always supported enlargement, especially when it comes to the Western Balkan region. However, enlargement without deepening the union cannot move ahead, and we cannot have enlargement if it goes against the fundamental principles of the EU. So, for Greece, we have a red line, and that is any attempt to get rid of unanimity when it comes to taking enlargement-related decisions. We have to vote on a report today, but there are references that suggest moving or shifting from unanimity to QMV, and we are radically opposed to this. Enlargement has to be the result of a consensus. Each and every member state needs to have a voice and to be substantially involved in the whole process.
Speaker 353
This is the only way that we can have a strong, reliable, and united EU. Thank you.
Speaker 320
Do you have a blue card? Sorry. Mister May Marakis, you have a blue card if you want to accept it. Okay. No. Next.
The next speaker is Miss Vint, number one. Thank you.
Speaker 354
In a time when there's war in Europe and disturbances around the world, our enlargement is not a question of if; it's a question of when. Because this is Europe's security.
It does lead to other questions. How do we ensure that this enlargement is not to the detriment of laborers' conditions? That's what happened in 2004. Many workers from the new EU countries traveled westward, hoping to find a good job that would allow them to support their family. But it left them with very low wages.
And that's not something we can offer them or anyone else. When the EU grows, our working conditions should also improve. We should have a fair wage, good safety, and health in the workplace. And we should stop social dumping.
Speaker 320
Thank you very much. The next speaker is Mr. Bayo. For Gwen. A minute and a half.
Speaker 356
Well, if we have to recognize one quality to renew behind this, it's perseverance. But unfortunately, perseverance is difficult. The EU's enlargement strategy always follows the same objective: to get rid of national initiative and replace it in accession by having unanimous votes replaced by qualified voting.
Now, basically, that will be the end of sovereignty in terms of foreign policy and any possibility for a country to put forward its own interests on the economic, social, or even the 10 countries which are candidates for accession.
Let's remember Turkey well; we know what happens with Muslim women, but things are already difficult with 27. Social dumping: well, imagine what is going to happen there. The rule of law is already being debated.
So, what are we supposed to say about the candidate countries where they have alarming levels of corruption? The former minister of foreign affairs, whose competence and wisdom go beyond issues, was saying just yesterday that Ukrainian accession would mean the end of the European Union.
People believing in Europe really haven't understood that it's only the will of sovereign peoples that counts for patriots.
Speaker 320
Thank you very much. I want to announce that I will not accept more blue cards because we are running really late. And the next speaker is Mr. Veriga for one minute.
Dear colleagues,
Speaker 358
The dynamic and constantly changing geopolitical and security situation forces us to rethink the vision of the European Union's enlargement and decide what we really prioritize: greater security and political stability or precise compliance with the Copenhagen criteria. Still, we realize that EU enlargement is closely linked to EU security and peace in the region, not only to economic opportunities. We must think about when and how we can apply faster procedures and greater flexibility when deciding on the readiness of candidates.
In this context, it's very important to avoid regionally demanding certain ideological goals, especially in the areas where discussions and corrections are taking place within the European Union itself, including the Green Deal.
It is equally important to listen to the concerns expressed by current EU member states regarding candidate countries. And you, in large, a union based on the pursuit of consensus, Canada moves forward, not confrontation.
Thank you.
Let's be serious.
Speaker 359
The union is not fit for the purpose with 27 member states.
It cannot act with the necessary speed in the current state of war disorder. And we need a stronger and larger union on the world stage. But if it doesn't work with 27 member states, how could it work better with 35 member states without reforms? Unanimity and vetoes are no longer sustainable. Even less so, a large union. We need to organize a Europe of free political choices.
To this end, we must fully use the flexibility enshrined in the treaties. Those who want to move ahead toward a more efficient power for a democratic union must be allowed to do so without obliging the most reluctant to follow.
And we need to adopt targeted treaty reforms, notably to better prevent and sanction serious violations of the rule of law and EU values in the large Union. Colleagues, let's withdraw the lesson of these 20 years of enlargement.
We have a problem with the rule of law after the enlargement of 02/2004. Within the European Union. So let's do our homework now to enlarge; there is no time to waste anymore.
Minute.
Thank you.
Davor Ivo Stier
President. The document is a good one. I can support it even if I don't fully agree with every single point. For example, I think that QMV is given undue importance. I don't think it will really solve the problem.
There will still be too much left to member states. The real question is: how can we ensure that we have an ambitious program for gradual integration? Most candidates are not going to conclude their accession negotiations in this presidency, and we can't come out of the whole thing empty-handed.
We've heard a lot recently about how the Western Balkan countries feel. It's not so much about voting rights and having a commissioner as about having access to the market and to movement.
So we should be taking into account integration and enlargement as geopolitical instruments of the Union, with candidates finding the right ballot.
Speaker 360
When? The foundations were laid for the European Union. It was quite clear that wars had decimated countries and peoples, and we had to unite to ensure that these dark times would never be repeated.
But now, over 70 years on, we're united. However, there are still too many wars destroying the world, and that's why it's crucial that we quickly move ahead to expand the union. It's an investment, first and foremost, in our security and in our stability. But we can't be naive in thinking that it is just enough to have a list of good intentions to have decent cooperation. Those who want to join the EU have to share its values and principles. There can be no backtracking on that, but they also have to show that they made specific steps towards those.
Also, the EU has to be ready to change its working methods because we can't imagine that the rules which were valid for just a handful of member states could be appropriate for a 30-member union.
With unanimity, we would not even be able to manage a housing block. Thank you.
Csaba Dömötör
Earlier principles of enlargement policy have been overturned. We see this particularly in the case of Ukraine. Here, there is talk of a reverse enlargement process. It means that membership is granted first, and then it will be checked whether Ukraine meets the conditions.
But we have no idea what will happen to European farmers if this happens, or how minority rights will be respected. We're talking about a country that is at war, and with Ukraine, the EU would also be taking war into its ranks.
Zelensky has threatened; the prime minister said that he would send soldiers to his house. If the Ukrainians behave in this way as candidates to the EU, what can we expect when they become full members? I suggest you ask your voters what they think. On the accession of Ukraine.
Patka, for one minute.
Speaker 361
Colleagues, dear Commissioner, we must always keep at the top of our minds that the future of the European countries which share our values lies in the European Union. Enlargement remains a strategic investment in peace, stability, and prosperity in Europe. This has been our shared commitment, especially for the Western Balkans, since at least the Thessaloniki summit of 2003.
Enlargement is a two-way street, and the EU needs to do its part, as well as the candidate countries, of course, have to do the reform agenda. Montenegro is the frontrunner in the accession process.
SAPP, shadow rapporteur for the country, closely follows the country's reform efforts. And when a candidate country delivers the necessary reforms in line with European values, we also have to keep our promises. That's our task.
Speaker 362
President, colleagues, in recent days, the Commission President, High Representative, and you, dear Commissioner, have all, in different ways, admitted that the enlargement process is not delivering the required outcomes. For starters, because of about 100 moments, to veto one accession process. It's absurd.
We also recognize that Member States and the Commission have actually failed candidate countries by letting bilateral issues take the process hostage, by championing those who reject reforms, and by not supporting public civil society and political actors who crave action in the right direction.
Without a credible and predictable accession perspective, how can we blame those who fail to reform? Yes. The process remains merit-based, but the geopolitical moment demands more of us to improve, to move forward, and to deliver. Colleagues, this enlargement report is solid based on the current methodology. Yes, but I agree with you, Commissioner.
We need to do more because member states don't. We must proactively push for maximum creativity and alternatives to the current methods. For ourselves and for Europe. Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Speaker 363
EU. Enlargement is geopolitics. Russia isn't waiting. They have attacked Ukraine, and they will threaten all countries that want to join the EU. They succeeded in Georgia, but Ukraine's place remains in Europe.
This country has shown what having a European spine means. A rhetorical question to you. The commissioner. Could we exchange Hungary for Ukraine? But the enlargement process has been planned for times of peace.
Now, we live in times of war. We need creativity. We need to protect democracy. Promises are best seen as propaganda for Russia. Now, we need action.
Speaker 200
Commissioner, colleagues, enlargement is not a choice. It's a necessity. Socialists and Democrats have been convinced of this for more than a decade. Why? Because it is one of the EU's most important geostrategic investments in peace, security, stability, and prosperity. These are values that everyone around us is abusing today.
Russia, the US, Israel, and Iran. This is why we need an enlarged and strengthened EU, guided by democracy and solidarity. There is no time for indecision, ladies and gentlemen. We need the full commitment of the Commission and the member states so that we come to a credible enlargement process based on clear rules and tangible progress by the candidate countries. There should be no shortcuts.
And double standards, but also the approximation of the candidate countries must in no way be subject to unilateral political blocking by a member state due to bilateral disputes. This is why it is clear that we need a qualified majority in the Council to decide on all intermediate steps in the integration process.
Speaker 364
You, Mister Vice President, Commissioner, dear colleagues. We have entered an era in which global powers compete for spheres of influence.
Russia and China, first and foremost.
Speaker 365
The aim of the European Union cannot be anything less than to prevent European countries from falling under the control of autocracies.
Enlargement is the most optimal way to avoid gray areas in Europe.
It is absolutely clear that if we don't provide our own security and our own way of life, it will be filled by competitors. To those skeptics who think that Europe cannot expand any further, I can assure you that is not true.
Enlargement has indeed been the European Union's greatest success story. Thank you.
Speaker 320
Thank you very much. The next speaker is Mr. Mavridias. For one minute.
Thank you.
Madam Commissioner, you will need your headphones.
Other commissioners, you will need your headphones.
Speaker 366
If you ever see anything about the Richmond Decoy, enlargement is an important geopolitical tool.
It promotes security, well-being, and safety in Europe. However, we need very clear criteria meeting the Copenhagen criteria: the rule of law, democracy, fundamental rights, and alignment with our foreign policies, crucial interests, and our values. And without any kind of adaptations, we can't even go to further deepening of the EU.
Now, I have to stress one case. That's Montenegro, which has a high level of compliance, and it is the most advanced country for accession. But Turkey is still infringing on human rights inside and outside its country. And it also has its policies towards other member states that have occupied territory in Cyprus as well. And I wonder whether, if this were not Turkey, we would have the same approach to it.
So, I think that we need to have unanimity to ensure that there is respect by all member states and for the whole of the EU.
Speaker 367
College colleagues, I want to remind you that the enlargement of 2024 was mainly a political decision. Also, now the geopolitical reality shows two wars next to Europe. Demand European political will and courage to take innovative solutions. The political help to Ukraine and Moldova is in the most direct interest of our own.
We will be the biggest losers if we do not give the reverse to enlargement to Moldova on U. Ukraine has increased responsibilities. In spite of the war, he is working on legislative reforms. It's aligning its policy with European values and foreign policy.
The military experience of the Ukrainian army is unique. It's already helping the United States in the Persian Gulf, fighting Iran and Russian shuckheads. Ukraine and Moldova are too important for European security. If we delay decisions now, we will endanger their progress and increase Russian influence in the region.
Thank you.
Speaker 368
Thank you, President, Madam Commissioner, dear colleagues. EU enlargement is a historic response, a necessity, and a testament to what we can achieve when we stand together.
But a union that grows must also be able to act. And in this Parliament, in this mandate, we have agreed to adapt our institutions by expanding the use of qualified majority voting and to make full use of the flexibilities within the treaty, including passerelle clauses, enhanced cooperation, and constructive abstention. We must also have the courage to adopt targeted treaty changes.
Institutional reform and enlargement go hand in hand. But enlargement must also be fair to people. It must serve people in their daily lives. Too often, social reforms are treated as secondary. Too often, the social dimension is underestimated in the accession process.
Yet across many candidate countries, inequalities and poverty remain high. We must place social progress at the heart of enlargement because convergence must be not only economic or institutional, but also social.
Thank you very much.
Speaker 320
Thank you very much, Mr. Angel. Now we have to move to the catch-the-eye, but we have a lot of catch-the-eye requests. We will not be able to accept them all.
We are going to accept five representatives of the groups of the chamber. The first one, it's Mr. Sokol, for when? Minute.
Tomislav Sokol
Southeastern. Europe, yes, we need more accessions, but not at any cost. Each candidate has to show its merits, and we need to ensure that all the conditions have been met before countries join the EU.
We should not have mass accession. Taking groups on the block. Montenegro and Albania have been making progress. But we have criticism of Serbia. Which is a major factor for insecurity in the region?
So, yes, we can be relatively optimistic about Montenegro; Serbia is interfering. It's interfering with the composition of the government and so on. And there's a change in the balance of power and the way in which the state is organized. So, we need to be vigilant about what is occurring in Montenegro. This could turn into a security problem.
Speaker 369
So, the commission does need to bear all these factors in mind for Montenegro.
Thank you very much.
Speaker 92
Thank you, President, Commissioner. Talking about enlargement seriously means talking about its institutional implications. First and foremost, we are talking about eight candidates on the waiting list. Nine, if we add Turkey, which has never been formally excluded or taken off. And this has implications, including in this parliament. It's going to have a seismic effect, especially with the rules of unanimity voting that apply to foreign defense and so forth. And the same applies to the commission.
So, we will have to assume that the only strategy to make a successive enlargement will be planning not just merit-based enlargement, but staggered enlargement with strict compliance, subject to conditionality rules and close scrutiny of the democratic values of the EU.
We have to stress that the EU is a union that corrects imbalances, but it is based on the rule of law and is committed to values, which include the rule of law and democratic values, enshrined in Article 2 of the Treaty of the European Union, that have to be complied with if you want to be a member of the EU.
Speaker 133
Thank you, President, Commissioner, and colleagues. We keep hearing about existential threats to the European Union, that the European Union is on the verge of collapse. This is a narrative that we regularly hear.
The far right would love nothing better than for the European Union to come to an end. So, someone needs to explain to me, and indeed to the far right, why so many countries are striving to join the European Union.
Why is the waiting room bursting with candidates for EU membership? We all know that the UK is undoubtedly worse off after Brexit. By contrast, Iceland's parliament today debated moving forward towards a referendum and EU membership, acknowledging the global turbulence. So, while Russia in Ukraine and the US in Greenland seek to expand their territorial range by invasion, the EU expands by invitation.
I was in Ukraine in November before this terrible winter. One of the most important motivations for them is knowing that there is a credible and indeed merit-based pathway to the European family. I therefore commend this report for illuminating that pathway.
Thank you, President.
Speaker 320
Thank you very much. The next speaker is Miss Konechnell. For one minute.
President.
Speaker 292
EU N. Enlargement has been a very popular theme over the last few years. But quite honestly, is there really someone who is in favor of a broader enlargement? Let's have a look once again at the relations between the EU member states and the candidate countries. Now, some have not followed the line.
North Macedonia is a reason for concern because it is not prepared to take the necessary steps regarding its language. And Zelensky is threatening to attack the prime minister of a European member state as well. So, there are many that have internal problems as well before we, within the EU, can think about further enlargement.
Speaker 371
Now, again, that's also a possibility for the commission to attack the veto right and call for it to be abolished.
One minute.
Thank you. You, President.
Speaker 372
Commissioner, colleagues. According to the assessment of 2025, Ukraine and Moldova have made huge progress.
Both countries went through the review process successfully.
They have made progress in administration and in democracy.
And in other areas, we should not postpone the finish line anymore. The previous enlargement waves have not destroyed the institutional functionality. On the contrary, our economic weight, security, and political influence have been strengthened as well.
So, we should not start major institutional reforms, as that's the only way for Europe to accept new members.
The most progressive countries, including the Balkan countries, can be accepted without major institutional transformations.
Some changes may be needed in the future, but that cannot be used as an excuse to make a political stop or break. It's not time to say it today; let's wait. Let's stop.
Now is the time to accept Ukraine and Moldova. Thank you.
Speaker 320
Thank you very much. Now, we are moving to the commission. Mr. Kos. Missus, sorry, Missus Cos. It's your turn.
Chris.
Speaker 317
And thank you for this debate.
What we agree on is that we all want to stick to merit-based principles. We all want to stick to the values.
CFSP alignment is important.
And I could hear and see that nobody is completely against the enlargement.
Which is making me confirm that we are doing something that is very right.
But we are using the enlargement methodology, which is plus or minus 40 years old and has also been used for countries like Portugal and Spain, who have been members of the EU for 40 years this year. And this methodology has been made for peace, for the times when there is enough time to do all the reforms.
But I have heard from you, and I know too that geopolitics has changed.
The biggest change today is that we cannot leave our neighbors and our candidates to the rivals.
We see, for instance, how Russia is weaponizing Belarus.
Against us.
Speaker 317
How Russia tried to ruin Moldova's EUA to be weaponized against us. So if we do not take care of them and integrate them, somebody else could take care of them and weaponize them. Against us.
I have heard from you that we should adapt the methodology, make meaningful reforms, take brave and faster decisions, and adopt a strategic approach to speed up. Ilhan said, "Mister Althola, we should use creativity."
Yes. I agree with all of you. So, let us work together. One more thing. I have heard that some of you have said that the European Commission is asked to abolish unanimity.
No. This is not the truth. But based on the European treaty, we need two unanimous decisions.
Forgiving a candidate status, and to finish. And we don't really ask to abolish this. It is in the treaty. What we are asking is that for in-between cases when we need 150 unanimous decisions, we do it differently.
And yes, I agree. Mister Covacho and Mister Andrews, you are attractive. Iceland is the case.
We are already preparing.
Speaker 317
We will see what the result of the referendum will be, but this is them coming back. And yes, we can be stronger, and we can do something good out of these perhaps difficult times for somebody who says it is impossible to do something new. You know, Jean Monnet once said, and I quote, "You will be forged in crisis, and you will be the sum of the solutions adopted to the crisis."
You have said that geopolitics demands more of us.
So let's work together, all of us: the European Commission, the European Parliament, and the member states. Thank you.
Speaker 320
Thank you very much, Commissioner. And now it's the turn for the reporter of the EU enlargement strategy, Mr. Astridicius.
Speaker 315
Mister Chair, colleagues, dear Commissioner, I would really like to thank all my colleagues who have participated constructively in our joint work and in today's discussion.
This approach is the way forward in finding the necessary solutions and preparing for EU enlargement.
We must recognize that no effort is too great when it comes to informing and involving the public.
In broad discussions about the future of the European Union, its enlargement, and the changes that lie ahead.
A responsible and inclusive discussion must be based on objective criteria. And on our vision for the future of our Union.
The European Parliament has a particularly important role to play in this area. We are witnessing fundamental events and changes in the European Union.
And in our neighborhood, with a clear understanding of the needs, further enlargement and deeper integration are necessary. With political understanding and a clear strategy for EU enlargement, together we can manage these processes and deliver what Europeans expect.
A secure, strong, and growing Europe.
Enlargement is our common task. Dear colleagues,
And I'm looking forward to working together with the European Commission and all member states to achieve a more united Europe. Long live a more united and larger European Union. Thank you.
Speaker 373
Well, this strategy. Thank you, Mister Ostravichus. And the debate is closed.
Dear colleagues, the vote will take place tomorrow. The next item on our agenda is the report by Mr. Tobias Kremer, recommending enhanced EU-Canada cooperation in the current geopolitical context, including the threat to Canada's economic stability and sovereignty.
Speaker 374
A world of great power rivalry: the countries in between have a choice—to compete with each other for favor, or to combine to create a third party with real impact. Colleagues, these were the words that Mark Carney used to give us perhaps the clearest description yet.
The challenge that Europe is facing today. And Carney is right. The international order is in rupture. War has returned to our continent and is showing its ugly face around the world. Long-standing assumptions about free trade, collective security, and international law are being tested as they haven't been in decades.
But Europe still has a choice. And today, right here on this floor, and tomorrow during the vote, we have a unique opportunity to respond to our Canadian friends by saying it clearly and loudly: when faced with the choice between simply lamenting the fading of an old order or acting together to shape a better one, Europe chooses action. We choose action for our citizens and our values, and we choose action not alone.
But together with our partners, we... Canada is chief among them.
Dear colleagues, today, Canada is perhaps the most European country outside Europe. Even though, recall that color isn't yet in Eurovision, we are united not only by our common heritage, by the languages that we share, but also by common values like democracy, free trade, and a strong social model. Today, Canada shares Europe's strategic interests and the challenges that we are facing together.
An assertive China and an increasingly erratic American ally. Europeans and Canadians know full well that we can only safeguard our interests in security, whether it be in the Arctic, Ukraine with regards to climate change, or Greenland, by standing together and deepening our cooperation. So, it is high time for this close strategic alignment to be translated into a deeper Euro-Canadian alliance. It is high time to put meat on the bone of the commitments made last year at the EU-Canada summit, and it is a hard time for this parliament to take a clear position with the first report in over a decade laying out the roadmap. Where we want this partnership to go.
It's a road map on security, where at a time of growing conflict and threats of annexation, Canada and Europe must uphold the most fundamental principle that no country has the right to invade or annex its neighbor. But we are also clear-eyed and recognize that in this new world order, our ambitions must be matched by our capabilities.
That is why this report strongly welcomes Canada's participation as the only non-European country in the SAFE program, and we support its further integration into the European defense technological industrial base.
Second, this report is a roadmap on multilateralism. Europe and Canada remain committed to defending international institutions such as the UN, the ICC, and the WTO, not out of idealism, but because we know it is in the interest of our people. But we also recognize that these institutions need reform. And this is why this report urges Europe and Canada to take the lead in these reforms, build alliances and coalitions to address the most urgent collective action problems we have, like AI, cybersecurity, or climate change, that no single great power can address alone. Third, this is a roadmap on trade.
While others declare trade wars, practice shortsighted protectionism, and weaponize supply chains, Europe and Canada must choose open, fair, and diversified trade. This means completing the ratification of Sitter, and it also means exploring deeper integration of critical supply chains, raw materials, and energy.
And finally, it's a roadmap for our city societies. Because where others retreat behind walls and embrace fearful isolationism, Europe and Canada stand tall and take pride in the attractiveness and openness of their societies. And therefore, through Horizon Europe, Erasmus Plus, and other labor mobility initiatives, we bring Canadians and Europeans even closer together because we know that alliances work best when it's not just governments cooperating, but people.
Colleagues, I began with a quote from Prime Minister Carney, so let me end with another. We know the old order is not coming back. We shouldn't mourn it. Nostalgia is not a strategy. But we believe that from the fractures, we can build something better.
Stronger and more just. Colleagues, Europe and Canada have a historic opportunity to lead that effort right now. So, let us seize it. By voting for this report and inviting Prime Minister Carney to this floor, we can discuss together how to take the Euro-Canadian Alliance to a new level.
Because let's be honest, we can't deepen our cooperation with Canada right now. With whom can we? Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Speaker 373
Now, I would like to ask Commissioner Koss to take the floor for the commission. The floor is yours.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Speaker 317
I will start with an anecdote. Mister Andrews, you've been speaking about the future of the EU.
A few months back, I received an email from a citizen of Canada. Madam Commissioner, could you explain to me under which conditions Canada could become a member of the EU? I gladly answered. I couldn't answer positively, but what we are doing and what we have heard from Tobias is really new partnerships with Canada.
So let me say, by way of introduction, that Canada is one of the EU's closest partners. We share similar values, the same commitment to open, pluralistic societies, and a similar vision for the global rules-based multilateral order. In these changing times, we face similar challenges.
We are both seeking to manage relations with Canada's southern neighbor. Canada's diversification drive is global, but the EU is a principal pillar. Of it. Canada is a NATO ally to many of our member states. It is also a G7 partner.
This is not new. The EU has an excellent and long-standing relationship with Canada. 2026 marks the 50th anniversary of the opening of the EU delegation in Ottawa. Ten years ago, we signed the EU-Canada Strategic Partnership Agreement and the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), which came into force in 2017. These agreements have delivered major benefits for both sides.
However, common wisdom states that you get to know your true friends when times are hard. What we have discovered is that Canada has stood solidly and unfailingly by Ukraine and Europe over the past 4 years. It was the largest per capita supporter of Ukraine amongst the G7 countries at the '25 and has recently increased its support with $2,000,000,000 in military equipment.
It has stood by Greenland and Denmark on their sovereignty and territorial integrity, opening a consulate in Nuuk in February. This also indicates to us that we need to cooperate in the High North, the Arctic, as well as on Europe's eastern flank.
With the geopolitical changes that we have witnessed over the past year, we have consciously decided with Canada to expand, deepen, and intensify our relations. Prime Minister Carney's speech, which you've been quoting, at the World Economic Forum in Davos in January, resonated with many leaders around the world and gave a good explanation of why we are doing this. That decision to deepen our ties is reflected in the outcome of the EU-Canada summit in Brussels in June, which was a pivotal moment and set very high ambitions for our partnership. We made new commitments on security and defense, and in our economic and trading relationship.
The adoption of the security and defense partnership clearly stands out. It has enabled us to sign, last month, the bilateral agreement with Canada under the SAFE regulation, which is just one of many ways we are supporting Europe's defense posture and our mutual security with Canada. At the same time, the summit signaled an intensification of our engagement on ongoing key areas of cooperation, namely the digital partnership, the EU-Canada strategic partnership on raw materials, and the Green Alliance.
That is all good and well, but as your recommendations also underline, we now need to focus on delivery. Delivery is our watchword. Aiding our delivery are the European Commission special envoy for relations with Canada, Your Corte, and the personal representative of Prime Minister Carney for relations with the EU, John Hannaford, both appointed late last year.
I'm pleased to say that we are making progress on delivery. Here are some highlights. I already mentioned SAFE. We are now working to facilitate the growth of flesh on the bones, with concrete projects. Beyond this, we are moving forward with the implementation of the security and defense partnership across the board.
We cooperate and coordinate closely on every main foreign and security policy priority, from the Arctic to Ukraine, from sanctions to democratic resilience, and the fight against hybrid and cyber threats. We have launched negotiations on a digital free trade agreement and held the first meeting of the Digital Partnership Council.
We continue to promote the benefits of SITA in Canada and at home. We are working together bilaterally and in multilateral fora to boost access and supply chains for critical raw materials. We hope to launch an industrial dialogue very soon.
There are many areas of increased engagement between the EU and Canada that I could list, but I would also like to listen to you. So, I look forward to your remarks and further deliberations.
Speaker 373
Thank you very much, Commissioner. Now, for Intercommit, we will speak with Javier Moreno Sanchez.
The floor is yours.
Speaker 375
Thank you. You are present. Madam Commissioner. With the report from my colleague Kremer, we're sending out a very clear message to our Canadian friends. And as he said very clearly, it's the most European country outside of Europe now, more than ever in this subset world.
We need a closer, more dynamic relationship with Canada, a crucial partner for the EU, both geopolitically and economically. As such, Zetta is key. It's a provisional application with huge success, giving benefits on both sides of the Atlantic for large companies, with a 75% increase in trade exchange for farmers with new markets as well, opening up access to public contracts, generating jobs, and enhancing work and mobility. And we're also going to have a digital agreement attached to it.
Now, we have two tasks ahead of us. We need to have information about the opportunities linked to Sete and also through parliamentary diplomacy. We have to convince our national partners to ratify the agreement.
Ten countries so far haven't done it. Now, the Canadians don't understand that, and they're right. We have to treat our friends well. Thank you.
Speaker 373
Now, colleagues, before I give the floor to the next speaker, we are far behind schedule today. So, as you may know, no. No. Not you. You are not guilty.
No. But please, we will be more strict than usual with the timing, so please cooperate. EPP, we'll speak. Sebastian Bugallo.
Pleasure.
President, Commissioner Koss.
Speaker 376
Symbolic is highly symbolic. That we should be presenting this not in external policy or in trade. As a context, but enlargement. Canada is almost a candidate country. €3,000,000,000 as a contribution to EU GDP, €1,300,000,000 to the Canadian GDP, greater visibility for companies, and greater transparency for consumers.
The EU and Canada can demonstrate that free trade works and can work for all 10 member states. There are laggards in ratification, and there's no reason for that. We look at defense following the 2025 summit.
Canada was the first non-EU country to join the SAFE program. We will build an industrial base to defend Europe on that. Basis. As we look across the Atlantic, we want to strengthen our capacity together.
Joining the international coalition against Daesh.
Speaker 376
They have defended the sovereignty of our continent with more than €23,000,000,000 to help Ukraine, and they defend European soil today. Leading NATO operations in Latvia, showing our enemies that the Baltic countries may be small in territory but strong in their resilience against threats.
Today, Canada is undoubtedly, as said, the most European of non-European powers, and certainly the most Atlantic of the American nations at this moment in time. Their principal pragmatism points away; pointless proclamation does not.
Like Canada, our union has no common language. No common ethnicity and no common religion. Their strength is their civility and their capacity to unite when history demands it. Today, we also face this demand. Tomorrow, we ask the commission; let's face it together.
Thank you.
Speaker 379
Thank you very much. Next speaker for the SMB group, Brando Bonifa. What is yours? President, thank you.
Speaker 380
The words of Mark Carney in Davos really struck gold because they were very clear. The old world is over, and we've moved into a new one, a world in which the EU has to change or disappear.
And that's why, with Canada, as with other medium powers, the EU has to build more advanced political and trade relations. Particularly, we have to do that with all those other countries like Canada that share our will to shape a new multilateral order from the ashes of what, so sadly, we are seeing burning before us right now. And that's why we have to continue to implement CETA, the agreement with Canada, where even in the past, we had some very heated arguments, even in this Parliament.
It's led to a 75% increase in trade between the two blocks in less than 10 years. So, we have to move ahead with determination and courage in the interest of Europeans. We can do it, so let's do it.
Thank you.
Andrée Taurinya
This. Recommendation on strengthening cooperation between the EU and Canada seems, at first sight, to be uncontroversial. But behind the tech, what this parliament is really calling for is the full ratification of the Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement, etc., ratification by all member states.
Remember SETA in France, in Belgium, and in Germany, thousands of citizens and farmers took to the streets to protest. Why? Because this agreement opens up our markets to agricultural goods that, once again, do not respect the same standards imposed on our farmers. And while our farmers have to respect increasingly stringent rules, unfair competition is being organized against our own market at a time when the European Union is trying to impose the Mercosur agreement, adding further trade pressure on our farmers is irresponsible.
Let's be clear: this text is not a straightforward analysis of EU-Canada relations. It's a political signal sent to our governments, telling them to speed up their ratification of an agreement that remains on ice in a number of member states, including France. In other words, this strategic partnership is becoming an instrument for political pressure to impose the ratification of the CETA.
And if CETA wasn't bad enough, this Parliament also wants to open up European funding for defense to Canada? Defense with €150,000,000,000 of our taxpayers' money should be spent on our own defense industry, not outside our borders.
Speaker 382
I'm all in favor of cooperation, but not at the expense of our sovereignty or our agriculture.
Thank you, Chair.
Speaker 334
In a geopolitical environment increasingly defined by great power rivalry and rising protectionism, the European Parliament highlights a critical truth. Strengthening our bond with Canada is no longer just a choice. It is a strategic necessity. As we face an unstable transatlantic relationship with the US, marked by shifting priorities and economic friction, Canada remains our most reliable, like-minded ally on the North American continent. We share more than values; we share a commitment to a rule-based order and economic resilience.
A vital pillar of this renewed partnership is our energy security. These reports emphasize the urgency of deep cooperation in the nuclear energy sector. Specifically, through a modernized Canada-Eurotome Agreement, by collaborating on nuclear reactors and securing stable supply chains for nuclear fuel and critical minerals, we can break our dependencies on hostile actors and power our green transition together.
In an era of fragmentation, let us choose the partner that stands with us for a secure, sovereign Europe. We must look to Canada. Thank you, and I want to thank Tobias and the other fellow shadow rapporteurs for the very constructive approach in this debate. Thank you, Tobias.
Speaker 373
Thank you very much. Next, the speaker for the Greens, Villanini. Stow.
Speaker 270
Mister President, the Arctic is heating up not only because of climate change but also because of geopolitics. That is also why cooperation between the European Union and Canada matters more than ever. We have a lot of values that bind us together, and we also have the possibility to forge an alliance where we can solve environmental, geopolitical, and economic challenges together to create the North as a region of peace, environmental protection, and, when it comes to the Arctic, also respect for the indigenous people's rights.
Our partnership should also pave the way for decarbonization and climate action. And also creating a fair and transparent international rules-based order. On these issues, we also need honesty. It's important that we also update our trade agreements, so I think we should reflect on our developed standards on climate ambition and democratic standards when it comes to trade agreements. But also that we forge these agreements.
Security and defense cooperation is also very important with Canada. I think this is a good outcome, and I thank the rapporteur and the shadows for their good cooperation.
Speaker 373
Thank you very much. For the left group, we'll speak with Mark Bottenga.
Thank you. You, Mr. President.
Colleagues.
Speaker 196
We're talking here about our duty to protect Canada from the United States. You've all seen Donald Trump's flag, putting the American flag over the map of Canada as if he wished to annex it as the nth state of the Union. And Canada has reason to be concerned.
I mean, Trump, you know, he doesn't mess about. He's kidnapped the leader of Venezuela. He now wants to appoint the new supreme leader of Iran, tell him what to do, and at the same time, he is imposing a suffocating embargo on Cuba, which is now deprived of fuel. People can't keep their fridges running to preserve their food. In hospitals, they're having to operate using the light from their mobile phones.
All of this means that one has to be very cautious about criticizing the United States. You don't really dare to say anything. If any other country had done, you know, just a tiny fraction of what the U.S. S. Has done, you know, we'd all be up in arms about it.
But developing a relationship with Canada can be a good thing. You know, if this is to help them break away from imperialism, what is Canada doing? Canada is wondering how they can protect themselves against American imperialism. We have to make sure that we don't follow the mistakes made by Canada when they have gone along with this imperialism in the past. President, we do have to carefully examine our relationship with Canada in the context of broader geopolitical trends because the whole world order is being changed by the US.
Davor Ivo Stier
So, we need a deeper relationship with Canada, not to gang up on the US, but to take account of all these changes because we have common values and common interests.
Canada is an Arctic state. We have common interests there for security and defense. For that reason, it's very important to have Canada in the safe program. We also have commercial interests. We have trade agreements with Canada.
This demonstrates how you can achieve an increase in trade, 63% on this occasion, through bringing in such an agreement. And even France has benefited from this agreement. So countries have been benefiting even if they haven't ratified.
A lot of sales.
Thank you. You, colleagues.
Speaker 384
Tobias. Who are our allies going to be tomorrow in a world shaken by the return of brutal force? Europe has to turn together with those countries ready to stand up to imperialism, whether it's coming from Russia, China, or elsewhere. When Mark Khan spoke in Davos in January, he said out loud what a lot of Europeans are keeping to themselves in their own thoughts.
He talked about a rupture in international relations, stating that the US was no longer a reliable partner. And he said that from this fracture, we can build something better, stronger, and fairer.
The Canadian prime minister had the courage to stand up to Trump, threatened by US tariffs, with three quarters of Canadian exports depending on the U.S. S. Market, but they boycotted when Trump threatened to turn them into the 51st state.
It's a lesson in dignity for Europe. To know how to be true to your values and to make yourself respected. In a world marked by rivalry between big powers, we know what to do.
We have to get together to create a third path, and that is what we need. Solidarity between Europeans and with other democracies like Canada, which refuses brutal violence, is essential. Thank you.
You. I'll speak in Danish.
Villy Søvndal
Please, this is completely new. Geopolitical reality where some of the big powers have left behind the international world order. So it's decisive. We have to fight this pressure from outside.
Some of our very best friends in this changing world. It is the Canadian people. 77% of Canadians want to increase cooperation with the EU, so we should show due diligence and do even more to integrate with the Canadian economy and our European market on a whole host of areas.
We share an understanding of global warming, and Kani's government has been a steadfast supporter of Denmark and Greenland vis-à-vis the threats from the US. Alliances should be built with countries that are like-minded and share our interests. So, we have to increase our alliance with Canada.
Thank you.
Speaker 387
It's very clear that the current trade turmoil has been cynically exploited to push through the investor court system that is in CETA.
And we see this happening now with the Irish government, one of the 10 who hasn't ratified CETA, advancing legislation to introduce investor courts. If Canada is such a reliable partner, as colleagues have talked about tonight, if Canada is almost like an EU country, why then do we need investment courts between us? Investor courts are undemocratic bodies established to serve the interests of multinational corporations and undermine the right to regulate.
The global ISDS tracker has highlighted that more than $100,000,000,000 of public money has been awarded to private investors in investor courts, with the bulk of it going to fossil fuel companies.
So, the EU has already recognized the danger of investor courts and has withdrawn from the Energy Charter Treaty because they accept that these courts undermine public policy, particularly on climate action.
Yet, the report before us ignores the real concerns of citizens right across Europe that their public money will be used for huge payouts to multinationals. I urge colleagues to vote against this report.
Thank you. Next speaker: Reinhold Lopatka.
Speaker 361
Dear colleagues, we must strengthen and deepen our relationship and our partnership with Canada. Canada is one of the most trusted partners and a close friend of Europe. And our cooperation is built on shared values: democracy and human rights. Our commitment is to a rule-based international order, which is so important in these states. And our cooperation is deeply economic.
Since the provisional application of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between the European Union and Canada. Our economies have increased by around 65%, reaching €80,000,000,000 in goods trade yearly.
The Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney recently highlighted that middle powers gain strength by acting together. That's the most important thing on days like this. Let's do exactly this. Acting together for a rules-based international order. This is the task for Canada and the European Union.
Please.
Krzysztof Śmiszek
In times when decisions are driven by inflated egos and emotions, it is predictability that we must strive for.
With predictability comes the potential for stability. Four Ps. And for security. These values are precisely what can be achieved with an alliance between two trustworthy partners: Canada and the European Union.
So much unites us: respect for human rights and the rule of law, trade agreements, open, kind, and tolerant societies, resistance to bloody conflicts by mad dictators. And there is only one thing that divides us: the Atlantic Ocean.
Ours is this long-distance relationship. Let's strengthen it despite any obstacles. And it is obvious that if Canada were closer, it would already be part of the European Union. Prime Minister Carney brings a wave of reason and stability from the continent in chaos. And it is the EU-Canada alliance that turns that wave into a line of defense.
Defense of freedom and defense of democracy. Thank you.
Speaker 373
Thank you. Next speaker: Mikhail Sherba. Collegial Sherba, the floor is yours.
Speaker 130
Thank you. You, President, Commissioner. Cooperation between the EU and Canada is a strategic investment in our security. The first important step to enhance it was the signing of the Security and Defense Partnership.
During the Polish presidency, another step I want to mention here is the partnership regarding the involvement of Canada in the Safe Instrument. We try to enforce the implementation of our strategic and military goals, but we also offer very good products in that field.
Poland offers such products. This cooperation between the EU and Canada is also important in the context of Ukraine because Ukraine is proficient in the production of anti-drone technology, and Ukraine could share its knowledge as it has done while combating Iranian Shahed drones. So, we support this cooperation, and we hope it will develop.
Thank you. Viola, please.
Speaker 321
During this intense time of geopolitical turmoil, strengthening cooperation with our allies and like-minded partners has never been more important.
Report on enhanced U. Canada's cooperation comes at a crucial moment. My congratulations to Mr. Kramer. Times like these, when democratic institutions and the rules are continuously threatened, the European Union and Canada must explore new avenues of mutual understanding.
Partnerships are not only about broadening economic ties, but also about defending the rule-based order. While we face threats to the very existence of our democratic system, enhancing EU-Canada cooperation will send a clear message that democracies have to stand together. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney advocated, in his excellent speech delivered in Davos, even closer cooperation of so-called middle powers in these times of uncertainty.
The European Union and Canada must lead, first of all, a global alliance in respecting international law and human rights. And in this respect, Canada and the European Union should serve as a superpower.
Thank you.
Results.
Thank you. You.
Speaker 363
The Arctic is no longer a frozen periphery. It is the next great arena for geopolitical competition, and Europe is just waking up. Russia has militarized its Arctic coastline. China calls itself a Neo-Arctic state and invests in it.
In the United States, our ally is openly coercing Canada, Denmark, and Crimland. Canada shares our vulnerability and our interest in the secure Arctic frontline.
We need a dedicated EU-Canada Arctic framework on security. It is not enough.
We need space capabilities, joint situational awareness, and a real investment.
The ice-breaking capacity, the logistics, and infrastructure across the High North: we are talking about tens of billions of euros. The commitment should be at a geostrategic scale.
The Arctic will be defined by whoever shows up; Europe must finally show up.
With its economic might, and Canada beside it.
Speaker 390
Géopolitique. Geopolitics is back in the form of pressure and power politics. In the US, the cradle of democracy, Trump is treating geopolitics like a business transaction. In this context, old alliances are no longer of any importance.
Our cooperation with Canada must be deeper. Democracies must stand together. The alternative is simple. Either we co-create the new rules, or we get new rules written by somebody else.
Sovereignty in the twenty-first century is not about standing alone. It's about being part of a strong alliance. The future is in the hands of those who are able to build such alliances. Trump, Putin, Orban, or Navrotsky in Poland fail to understand that isolationism today is a death sentence.
Please.
Speaker 307
Colleagues. Dear brothers and sisters from Canada, well, I see them as our American colleagues. We have a lot of similarities, and it is only right that the EU and Canada have deep cooperation. In the past, Canada has proven itself to be a reliable partner when it comes to the defense of our eastern borders. There was Canada, and Canada is in Latvia and helps protect our eastern borders.
And when we take a look into the Arctic, to the north, the new geopolitical frontline where China and Russia already implement their interests, Canada is of utmost importance. This is why we need courage to make appropriate decisions. And it is the Zetta agreement that provides the foundation for that.
Speaker 392
It is up to us to ratify this treaty agreement as soon as possible. Please.
Speaker 393
Dear colleagues, I would like to talk about the extraordinary dynamic that affects our relationship with Canada in the area of raw materials and how positive this can be. Canada has announced its strategy with a view to defense, and they are getting to work. They are committing to new raw materials projects and mobilizing double-digit million figures for this. While keeping environmental and social standards. They want to relaunch mining as a sector that provides crucial raw materials that need to be strengthened.
Colleagues, this represents a huge opportunity for us because everything is right with Canada. Geopolitics, trade agreements, political priorities, emphasis on recycling, and the complementarity of values. And now, we have to stay on an equal footing with Canada. We also need to invest. We have to discover new supply chains, and we have to integrate our markets further.
Rather than competing with one another by European or Canadian clauses, thank you.
Speaker 394
Thank you. You, the president. Commissioner, colleagues, the abusive use of tariffs distorts the market, changes the rules, and undermines consumers in the sector. Livestock farming. Right now, the political situation is causing an increase in production costs. We are also seeing tariffs affecting fertilizers and other related items.
Now, these are unjustified tariffs. On top of that, we think that we can actually overcome many other things by pushing ahead with CETA, which has brought benefits to a lot of sectors, particularly to the livestock sector and farming. It's transparent and fair for both sides, Europe and Canada. And, well, this is a reliable partner.
And in these geopolitical times, I think we're seeing trade increasing by 33%. Maritime security, logistics, health, education, technology—all of that, we have to do together. Thank you.
Speaker 373
I have three speakers on my list. First would be Juan Fernando López Aguilar.
Speaker 92
Well. Listening to this debate, we've got a recommendation here from the European Parliament for strengthening cooperation with Canada, a like-minded partner, first by strengthening security in the Arctic. We provided such support to Greenland and its constitutional status.
International rules, multilateralism, WTO rules, and not using tariffs as a kind of weapon in a war. So, we're strengthening cooperation not only through trade, but also through politics and through the preferences which we express. And that's what CTA can mean, too.
There's been a lot of fake news about the CTA. Saying it's going to be the end of the world for certain sectors, but it is proving positive for consumers and for companies with mutual trust.
Sebastian Timkenen.
Speaker 395
Dear President, candidates without question.
One of Europe's closest partners. Strengthening our cooperation should be an obvious priority. That is precisely why it is so disappointing to read this new EU-Canada report.
Instead of focusing on defense, economic resilience, or strategic cooperation, this text reads like a catalog of left-wing talking points.
Climate slogans, green ideology, and yet another round of finger-pointing at the United States. Seriously, is this ideological signaling all we have to offer? This new report is more about leftist political messaging than real geopolitics.
I cannot support such a report. EU Canada Corporation deserves a serious strategic partnership, not a lecture drafted through the lens of climate activism and anti-American rhetoric. Europe should do better.
Speaker 16
Dear, People of Europe, Mr. Tinkinen, climate protection is not an ideology. It's a necessity.
Madam Commissioner, I want to refer to something that Miss Bentley flagged up. With Canada, everything is fine. Canada ticks all the boxes. And when I have a quiet moment, I think about the EU and I ask myself, what is the EU actually? The EU is a legal construct, a supranational organization, a union of values, a union of a common market, but as a concept, as an idea, what is it? Can Europe alone do what the EU can do? I don't think so.
I think the idea of the European Union, this union of common values, this meeting of states on an equal footing, is something that could work throughout the world. Perhaps I'm a bit of a dreamer, but one fine day, we'll also have a union with Canada.
Thank you.
Speaker 373
KGI procedure is closed, and I would now like to ask for the floor for the commission.
Speaker 317
President Zile, honorable members, thank you for this important and timely debate. If Europe wants to become more independent, yes, indeed, we need partners like Canada. It's reassuring to know that as we identify our engagement with Canada, we have the broad backing of all EU institutions. Of course, I'm aware that some irritants remain, but given our solid channel of communication with Canada, we are confident that we can resolve them. I would like to ask all MEPs present today who are from a member state that has not yet ratified SITA to act as ambassadors for ratification back home.
The trade figures with Canada, which we heard, really speak for themselves. At a time when trade diversification is a priority, both the EU and Canada would benefit from the boost that ratification would bring.
We very much hope to be able to count on the support of this parliament to advance our shared management engagement with this critical partner, even if it's, as we have heard from Mister Smisek, a long-distance relationship. Thank you.
Speaker 374
Dear colleagues, dear Commissioner, dear Martha, thank you all for this very positive debate. Sometimes transatlantic relations can seem complicated, tricky, and even a little bit uncomfortable. This transatlantic relationship does not exist. It's straightforward. It's clear.
It's in our interest to cooperate. And I think all the rapporteurs who have really shown qualities that the Canadians have shown us as well. That is courage, that is clarity, and that is also the ability to see the bigger picture.
Colleagues, let us understand in what situation we are. In this report, we can make it clear that Europe has understood the challenge we are facing, and we can show the same courage as the Canadians have shown in this moment of rupture.
And if some colleague like Mr. Tinkerton thinks that's far-left rhetoric to seize this moment, I recommend first actually reading the report, and second, if you're still unhappy, talk to your appointer who supported this very clearly at ECR, because there are some people even in your party who understand the necessity in this moment to cooperate with Canada.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Speaker 373
Colleagues, we close the debate on this agenda, and the voting will take place tomorrow. The next item on the agenda is the council and commission statements: cutting the red tape to enable a competitive and clean transition, and the urgent need to shorten and simplify permitting.
So. We will wait a moment. For now, I'd like to give the floor to the Consul, Deputy for European Affairs, Madam Maravona.
Speaker 96
President. Honorable members, Commissioner, Europe is facing a new geopolitical and geoeconomic reality. Surging energy prices, shifting supply chains, and an accelerating race for clean industrial leadership. In this context, simplifying and shortening permitting procedures is not a technical matter. It is a strategic imperative.
European legislation needs to be made simpler to enable our energy transition and contribute to a more competitive European economy. Accelerating the permit granting procedures in the field of energy is a key element to remove grid spot bottlenecks in our energy industries.
The question is how we get there. We all agree that electrification has become one of the main drivers of the energy transition. And electrification will be instrumental in achieving our climate objectives and our energy security, which, in turn, is inextricably linked with our strategic autonomy. It will also help our economy with affordable energy prices, boosting the union's sector and its competitiveness.
Providing affordable energy to our SMEs and our households.
Speeding up electrification requires accelerating the development of the grid's infrastructure, addressing remaining energy infrastructure gaps, and enhancing our interconnections. These are not merely goals. It is the implementation of the lessons learned from the 2022 energy crisis. That crisis made it clear that interconnectivity equals security. A robust energy grid ensures that electricity can be transmitted efficiently.
This stabilizes prices and ensures the security of supply. We are therefore committed, at the Council, to prioritizing the work on the GRIDS package together with you, the European Parliament, and the European Commission.
We are holding intensive discussions in the council on the two files that form part of the GRIDS package. The Cyprus presidency aims to reach general approaches on these files in June. As soon as both colleges' leaders are ready with their positions, the inter-institutional negotiations can start.
Later this month, the European Council will discuss the importance of the GRIDS package in the context of the overall discussion on competitiveness and the single market. We welcome this development, as the Cyprus presidency strongly believes that the Grids package is a crucial component of the broader picture for addressing how to support European industries, boost their competitiveness, improve the functioning of the single market, and deliver a true energy union.
Part of our presidency's overarching objective is a more autonomous union. Honorable members, commissioner, the Industrial Accelerator Act, published last week, aims to address lengthy and complex permitting procedures, which often prevent new industrial manufacturing projects from being launched. The act introduces digital permitting procedures to be used for industrial manufacturing projects, as well as for decarbonization projects in energy-intensive industries.
The presidency will treat the Industrial Accelerator Act proposal as a priority.
Thank you very much for your attention.
Speaker 373
Thank you very much. Now I would like to ask to take the floor for the commission. Commissioner Oswald. The floor is yours.
Speaker 397
Thank you, President, Minister Rona, honorable members. Thank you for this opportunity to discuss fast and efficient permitting. This is crucial both for the clean transition and for our competitiveness. We urgently need to accelerate our decarbonization.
Increase our independence and strategic autonomy, and make it easier for business in the European Union.
We need to be very clear about the state of play: Europe cannot meet our vital strategic goals on competitiveness, economic resilience, prosperity, climate action, or environmental health while we are so dependent on others in critical areas like raw materials and energy.
Permitting procedures in member states are central to these goals. Today, these procedures often take too long. They are fragmented, complex, and implemented differently in different member states. This undermines our ability to grow and adapt our economies to today's challenges; stakeholders regularly point to this matter as an obstacle to growth. A clunky and cumbersome permitting system benefits nobody. It only serves to frustrate citizens, slow down the clean transition, delay vital processes, and hold back our industry.
Our Union, the Commission, the Member States, and this Parliament have a collective responsibility to act with them within our respective competences to address this. Honourable members, environmental assessments are a key part of permitting procedures.
They enable well-informed decisions on whether or not to authorize a project.
And they assure high standards of environmental protection, human health, legal certainty, and social acceptance. At the same time, as I said, this is an area with a lot of space for improvement.
In this context, our environmental omnibus from last December, especially the regulation on speeding up environmental assessment, has a very clear objective. Streamlining, simplifying, and accelerating environmental assessment, and therefore speeding up permitting processes.
Our proposal maximizes the efficiency of environmental assessments in five pieces of EU legislation. For example, we now propose a one-stop shop where project developers can turn to a dedicated single point of contact. It replaces complication and complexity with simplicity and speed. At the same time, we are giving flexibility to member states to adjust to their own national context. Crucially, through digitalization, the proposal will help to adapt our permitting systems to the modern world. This will make the process cleaner and shorter for everyone involved.
The regulation also provides substantive preclusion for member states that wish to use it. This will help to avoid obstructive, abusive litigations while maintaining access to justice. Honorable member, in the current economic and geopolitical context, we cannot afford to bury our heads in the sand.
Business as usual is simply not an option. We have to prioritize strategic sectors that are vital to our citizens, societies, economies, and our future. As an example, we urgently need to step up EU defense capabilities, and we have to achieve energy resilience and build on the European grid package that the Commission adopted in December.
That means special rules on environmental assessments are justified for defense, for renewable energy, and for grid development. Our proposal recognizes these needs and will support key strategic sectors. For example, it would speed up administrative steps, and it would ensure that strategic sectors enjoy preference in dispute settlements.
Not to weaken our high standards, and not to override access to justice or appeal, but to accelerate the permitting procedures. To reduce fragmentation and to ensure as much coherence across sectors as possible.
Honorable members, this overall framework will help simplify and accelerate permitting, lower investment risk, and speed up projects. And it will do so while upholding our high environmental standards and protecting people's human health.
With the environmental omnibus, we are proposing a coherent framework with consistent rules across member states and sectors. This is real simplification in action. Now it is for this Parliament and the member states, the co-legislators, to decide on the way forward. And I count on your support for swift inter-institutional negotiations. Together, we can deliver an efficient and effective permitting process that protects us and our environment, but also paves the way to a more competitive, resilient, and independent Europe.
Thank you.
Speaker 373
Thank you very much, Commissioner. For EPP, the group will speak: Lydia Prere.
Speaker 398
Thank you. Thank you very much. President. This week, Europeans, including millions of Portuguese, are paying 25¢ more per liter of diesel. Generally, fuel prices have gone up.
And Europe has not been at the table. In discussions where prices have been set. And this is where the problem lies. We are vulnerable. We are exposed.
When it comes to fossil fuels, this undermines our competitiveness. There are conflicts around the world. There's a lot of uncertainty, and such a dependency is a constraint on us. It undermines our freedom, and it undermines citizens' trust in the EU. It undermines our values and our prosperity.
Extreme climate events are increasingly frequent and devastating. They haven't been enough for us to move toward a true clean transition. So, we need to ensure that we examine all the dimensions of this. It's about well-being, justice, and the future.
It's not only an economic issue when fuel prices go up. It's about family businesses. We need to ensure that we have an economic model that leaves behind those traditional emission patterns. We need a new pattern. We need a public sector that doesn't impose red tape and make things difficult, but acts as a driver for growth and makes things easier and quicker so that we can move towards clean energy.
That's not about ideology. That's not about woke; it is wokeism, as the far right would have it. It's about necessity. We need interconnections that work. We need smart energy use, and we need to stop depending on imported fossil fuels.
Fuels. The time has come for us to do this together, with a vision and with courage, so that our future will be in our own hands. And will have a prosperous economy with decent wages to hand on to the next generation.
Senvi Mohamed Shahim, please.
Speaker 235
Thank you, Mr. President. When you look at the energy misery in which Europe finds itself, you can only draw one conclusion: we should wean ourselves off energy imports as soon as possible. That's our mission.
For people who are worried about the cost of living, the economy, and our security, or to support this, you can't just keep on calling for less regulation but then not stand up for European clean energy.
More solar panels? Oh, nonsense. Wind energy is bad for birds. Helping people in energy poverty to insulate their homes. Oh no. That's not necessary.
Mister President, it's clear that gas from Putin or oil from the Middle East is not the solution to our crisis. They are the reason why, time and again, we find ourselves in crisis. They're the cause of it all.
I see a self-sufficient Europe where we don't depend on just a few outside parties for our energy, but where we produce energy ourselves and where the price of our energy bills is not determined by the price of expensive imports.
Speaker 399
That's what the commission should be working on. Every party in this parliament should be calling for this.
President.
Europe.
Speaker 400
Wants to be a leader in clean technology, but all too often, complicated permitting procedures undermine all of that. Elsewhere in the world, projects are approved within a matter of months. But in Europe, it can take years. Europe doesn't need more reforms right now. What it needs are more projects.
Overlapping rules, unclear competencies, and never-ending administrative procedures slow down infrastructure and industry and weaken our competitiveness. So, what we need are faster, more transparent, and more predictable permitting processes. And that's why we should shorten the deadlines.
We should simplify the procedures. And we should throw out excessive bureaucracy. If we want investment in Europe, and not for it to go elsewhere in the world, we must act now.
Thank you.
Mantovani, Florizz.
President.
Speaker 401
Commissioner, colleagues, we've been talking about bureaucracy. In the energy sector. Do you know how long it takes to get a renewables plant up and running in Europe? Eleven years for wind energy and three to four years for solar. There are five different permitting processes: environmental impact assessment, habitat directive impact assessment, BirdLife directive assessment, and the effects on land use. There's a whole set of requirements for each of these, including the possibility of appeal.
It's etc. Once you go into the labyrinth, you have no idea when or if you are going to come out the other end. The renewables directive is supposed to speed things up, but it actually leaves the previous directives in place and makes everything more complex.
What Giorgio Meloni is proposing, and what European leaders have been proposing, is a maximum period, and we should get rid of everything that is superfluous. And if an administration does not respond in due time, then you can go ahead.
That's the way the Americans do it. You go ahead with the law unless there's a clear reason why you shouldn't. And in that way, you don't get bogged down in these procedures.
Speaker 249
I agree with President Macron. The energy transition is too slow. The pathway towards new mines is too slow. Reducing dependency on fossil fuels is progressing too slowly. Building Europe's competitiveness is too slow.
And one of the reasons is the lack of predictability that we are creating in this house; the political uncertainty is actually influencing our businesses. But secondly, it's also because of the long and complicated overdue permitting processes.
Waiting several years for a no is not a reality that we should accept. Not when we know that investments are needed to create the change and growth that we very much need in Europe right now.
So, to all of you speaking and listening here today, as a rapporteur for the commission proposal on speeding up environmental assessment, this is my invitation to you. Assessments that take too long, we can solve that. Regulatory overlaps, we can solve them. On unclear rules, we can solve that as well. Now, we have the chance to do something about it.
We should take it. I am ready to do the job. The question is, are you? Thank you.
Speaker 373
Thank you very much. Next speaker for the Green Group, Lena Schilling.
Lena Schilling
Dear colleagues, Europe is being told a very convenient story right now. About cutting red tape and simplification: speeding up the permitting will solve all our problems. But let's be honest. What is presented is not about simplification. It is, in reality, about deregulation.
Leaders like Mertz and Maloney are pushing for it. And the European Commission is increasingly following suit. So, let's be clear. This is not a technical discussion about efficiency.
It's a political choice, a deliberate decision to weaken protections in the name of competitiveness.
Take, and you just mentioned it, the proposed environmental omnibus. It sets extremely tight deadlines for environmental impact assessments. Sometimes, just 90 days for already understaffed local authorities. This is not a simplification. This is an overload.
Or look at the changes to the industrial emissions rule.
If companies are no longer required to publish which substances they use, how can citizens defend their health? How can they even prove the harm that has been done to them by chemical pollution? Also, in the field, and I could go on and on, the digital omnibus claims to save companies millions, but the biggest winners are not the small European companies.
It will be Big Tech.
Lena Schilling
Deregulation is like removing the brakes from a car to make it go faster. Yes. You might gain some speed for the moment, but you're heading straight for a crash. So, yes, we need faster permitting, and there I am with you.
But you don't solve traffic jams by removing the traffic lights.
Thank you.
Speaker 373
Thank you very much. For the left group, we will speak with Lynn Boylan. The floor is yours.
Speaker 387
Karam, I'll go to Uchteran. When we look at everything that's just justified as cutting red tape today, we have to admit that we're really just cutting our social and environmental protections.
The environmental omnibus strips down the permitting rules for anything strategic, and so-called strategic defense infrastructure, airports, and data centers will not help the green transition. In Ireland, data centers are pushing up the price of electricity for ordinary households, and they are blowing a hole in Ireland's climate targets.
The Industrial Accelerator Act wants to reduce permitting requirements for all factories and acceleration areas, despite our growing awareness that industrial pollution is destroying people's soils, water, and health across the EU. At the same time, access to justice is being restricted by legal tools.
Sweeping cuts to environmental rules and public participation will not give us a stable, just energy transition. For example, what we need is better resourcing of the planning system, not blocking people's rights to access justice. This obsession with simplification will bring us errors, but errors that will be felt for decades to come.
Gracias.
Thank you.
Speaker 404
President. Well, here we are once again stating the obvious, saying yes. We want more competitiveness. Yes. We want decarbonization.
Which means we need to cut out all of this red tape that's stifling our businesses. I'll give you an example. In Spain, a clean energy project will take up to 10 years. To get its permit. Ten years of paperwork, queuing up, and sending in papers.
And that means you are not decarbonizing. You're not generating wealth in the meantime. This is not acceptable. As others have said, we need to deregulate and simplify. But we also need to stop distrusting our companies and give our companies a break.
That's the way to have simple, agile approaches to production. The industrial accelerator was recently presented. This is a significant step forward in terms of simplifying and accelerating industrial permitting through the single stop shop, but we also need to ensure that public administrations in general are all capable of getting involved in this process. We need to ensure that we're helping competitiveness, cutting the red tape, and simplifying and accelerating the procedure. But that will mean that all public administrations have to be affected by it.
Thank you, President.
Annalisa Corrado
Well, not too long ago in this hemicycle, we were discussing the drama of high energy bills. And tomorrow, we're going to debate Iran. Do we need any further proof of how dangerous our dependence on imported fossil fuels is?
We have to accelerate decarbonization by streamlining authorization procedures and reducing the red tape that slows down the implementation of clean energy projects, networks, and strategic infrastructure. We're going to be working on that in the upcoming months, starting with the European Commission's proposal. But we have to be careful because the real challenge is not to undermine procedures in terms of environmental assessments, but rather to streamline them. We need better coordination between authorities, clear timelines for decisions, and clear spatial planning. We need to move beyond a purely chronological approach to permitting, which often blocks mature projects.
Because of old, speculative, or unfeasible initiatives. Energy transition certainly needs speed, but let's remember that its strength depends on its sustainability and the involvement of our communities. Thank you.
Dan Carnelli, floor reserves.
Thank you.
President.
Commissioner. Colleagues. We are very interested in these supposed simplification proposals in the Omnibus package. The Commission has said that, in terms of our political agenda, we need to decarbonize. But with a pretext for imposing more
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.