8 July 2025
VERBATIM REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS OF 8 JULY 2025

(C/2026/2301)

Contents

Opening of the sitting

Preparation for the 2025 EU–China Summit – Tackling China's critical raw materials export restrictions

Resumption of the sitting

Presentation of the programme of activities of the Danish Presidency (debate)

Resumption of the sitting

Amendment of the agenda

Voting time

7.1.

Bulgaria's adoption of the euro on 1 January 2026 (A10-0113/2025 - Eva Maydell) (vote)

7.2.

The role of gas storage for securing gas supplies ahead of the winter season (A10-0079/2025 - Borys Budka) (vote)

7.3.

Temporary derogation from certain provisions of Regulations (EU) 2017/2226 and (EU) 2016/399 (A10-0082/2025 - Assita Kanko) (vote)

7.4.

EU-Greenland and Denmark Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreement: Implementing Protocol 2025-2030 (A10-0099/2025 - Emma Fourreau) (vote)

7.5.

EU-Greenland and Denmark Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreement: Implementing Protocol 2025-2030 (Resolution) (A10-0103/2025 - Emma Fourreau) (vote)

7.6.

VAT: taxable persons, special scheme and special arrangements for declaration and payment, relating to distance sales of imported goods (A10-0119/2025 - Ľudovít Ódor) (vote)

7.7.

Financial activities of the European Investment Bank – annual report 2024 (A10-0112/2025 - Francisco Assis) (vote)

7.8.

Security of energy supply in the EU (A10-0121/2025 - Beata Szydło) (vote)

7.9.

Preserving the memory of the victims of the post war communist period in Slovenia (B10-0322/2025) (vote)

Resumption of the sitting

State of play of implementation of the European Media Freedom Act in the Member States (debate)

10.

Need for the EU to scale up clean technologies (debate)

11.

Resumption of the sitting

12.

Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting

13.

Presentation of the Chemicals Package (debate)

14.

Revision of the European Climate Law (debate)

15.

Amendment of the agenda

16.

Situation in the Middle East (debate)

17.

Composition of committees and delegations

101

18.

Delegated acts (Rule 114(6)) (action taken)

101

19.

Corrigenda (Rule 251) (action taken)

101

20.

Situation in Belarus, in particular the release of political prisoners (debate)

101

21.

2023 and 2024 reports on Albania (debate)

108

22.

2023 and 2024 reports on Bosnia and Herzegovina (debate)

116

23.

2023 and 2024 reports on North Macedonia (debate)

124

24.

2023 and 2024 reports on Georgia (debate)

133

25.

Explanations of votes in writing (Rule 201)

140

26.

Agenda of the next sitting

140

27.

Approval of the minutes of the sitting

140

28.

Closure of the sitting

140

Verbatim report of proceedings of 8 July 2025

PRESIDENZA: ANTONELLA SBERNA

Vicepresidente

1. Opening of the sitting

(La seduta è aperta alle 09:01)

2. Preparation for the 2025 EU–China Summit – Tackling China's critical raw materials export restrictions

Presidente. – L'ordine del giorno reca, in discussione congiunta,

—	le dichiarazioni del Consiglio e della Commissione sulla preparazione del vertice UE-Cina del 2025 (2025/2757(RSP)), e.

—	la dichiarazione della Commissione ‘Far fronte alle restrizioni imposte dalla Cina sulle esportazioni di materie prime critiche’ (2025/2800(RSP)).

Marie Bjerre, President-in-Office of the Council. – Madam President, it's a big honour standing here for the first time representing the Danish Presidency of the Council of the EU. We are taking over the Presidency at a crucial time for Europe, with the geopolitical landscape changing dramatically. I look very much forward to working together with all of you in the next six months for a common resolve for Europe.

Now, turning to the subject at hand, this year we marked the 50th anniversary of diplomatic relations between our Union and the People's Republic of China. The world has changed greatly since 6 May 1975, when Premier Zhou Enlai and Commissioner Sir Christopher Soames agreed to establish bilateral diplomatic relations.

Our policy approach to China, defined by the European Council in June 2023, still stands. China is a partner, a competitor and a systemic rival. As partners, we continue to cooperate with China where we can and where our interests align. We will continue engaging on tackling global challenges. We encourage China to take more ambitious action on matters such as climate change and biodiversity.

The next stop on that road is the upcoming EU-China High-Level Environment and Climate Dialogue in Beijing. This summit could be an opportunity to strengthen our cooperation with China on global public goods, and to deliver a clear message on a joint commitment on climate change ahead of COP 30.

The European Union and China continue to be important trade and economic partners. Our trade in goods and services is worth more than EUR 840 billion. The respective stock of investment is similar, with EUR 185 billion of Chinese investments in the EU, and EUR 184 billion of European investment in China.

The summit will be an important occasion to also discuss a number of global and regional issues with China.

Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine is a direct threat to our own security, and a fundamental challenge for the EU. We remain very concerned about China's support to Russia's war effort. As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, China has a special responsibility in upholding the rule-based international order, the UN Charter and international law. We will continue calling on China to press Russia to stop its war of aggression. China's diplomatic and material support to Russia impacts EU-China relations negatively.

The stability and reduction of tensions in the South China Sea and the Taiwan Strait continue to be important to us. We oppose any unilateral attempts to change the status quo by force or coercion, and remain fully committed to our own One China policy.

We also remain firmly committed to the promotion of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, with well-known concerns regarding forced labour, the treatment of human-rights defenders and persons belonging to minorities, the situation in Tibet and Xinjiang, as well as the honouring of China's previous commitments related to Hong Kong.

The 40th Human Rights Dialogue with China took place in Brussels on 13 June. The EU stated again its serious concern, and raised a number of clear individual cases, calling for the immediate release of those detained for the peaceful exercise of their human rights. The EU side made specific requests to improve the treatment and conditions of several individuals, including contacts with families.

Concerns have also been expressed about malicious cyber activities originating from China's territory. This is unacceptable.

To summarise: to advance in our relations, we need to speak together and to pursue concrete solutions to our problems where possible, while remaining firm on our own interests and principles.

Despite our different political and economic systems, the European Union and China have a shared interest in pursuing constructive and stable relations, based on respect for the rule-based international order, balanced engagement, and reciprocity.

In that respect, the upcoming EU-China summit presents an opportunity not only to reflect on the results of the past 50 years, but also to look forward and discuss how the European Union and the People's Republic of China can work together into the future.

Ursula von der Leyen, President of the Commission. – Madam President, Madam Minister, honourable Members, indeed, we discuss today EU-China relations ahead of the EU-China Summit, where I will be with the Council President, António Costa. Therefore, let me complement what you said, so that we have the whole view of the European Union's position.

Indeed, this year marks half a century of diplomatic relations between our Union and China. And this has coincided with possibly the most remarkable chapter in China's long history. In just 50 years, its GDP has grown by more than ten times. Villages were replaced by megacities. More than 800 million people lifted themselves out of poverty. Once a society of agriculture, China has become an industrial giant and a clean tech leader. Once an underdeveloped country, it has turned into the largest lender to developing nations. China has always been one of the great global civilisations, but in the last 50 years, it has also become one of the great global powers.

Honourable Members, this makes our relationship with China one of the most defining and consequential for the rest of this century. But our relations with China must be rooted in a clear-eyed assessment of this new reality. I have always said it: Europe is fully committed to a result-oriented engagement with China. And this Commission is leading the way when it comes to de-risking, not decoupling.

We, the EU and China, are two of the three largest economies and trade powers in the world, but we only trade some EUR 2 billion worth every day. This is only twice the volume we are trading with Switzerland because while the Chinese market is enormous, our access to the market remains limited.

The point here is that while we are leading voices on global challenges, there are very real risks at play for Europe. These risks are both strategic and systemic in nature. They affect our security and our competitiveness. These risks emerge from the fact that China has an entirely different system and it has unique instruments at its disposal to play outside the rules. This, for instance, allows China to flood global markets with subsidised overcapacity – not just to boost its own industries, but to choke international competition.

China has also become a formidable actor in the global information and cyberspace. We very much welcome the voices of all Chinese on global issues of shared concern, but we will be very vigilant against any form of influence operations and cyberattacks in Europe. This is plain and simply unacceptable.

Honourable Members, these realities do present a real challenge for Europe to confront. And we have started to address these challenges, whether it is de-risking our economy and industry, using our new toolbox for trade defence measures or diversifying our supply chains and sectors where China holds dependencies, if not outright monopolies.

At the same time, I believe there is also an opportunity here to build a more meaningful partnership with China. But to move our relationship forward, we need to make real progress and find fair solutions on the issues where we have been deadlocked for far too long. Predictability and reliability – this is how we can work in our mutual interest and this is the message I will bring to the EU-China Summit later this month.

There are three priorities which we need to focus on. First, rebalancing our economic relationship with China. Second, de-risking. And third, advancing diplomacy on global issues, including climate.

On my first point, China is running the largest trade surplus in the history of mankind. Its trade surplus with our Union has surpassed EUR 300 billion last year and this is while it is getting harder and harder for European companies to do business in China. Our products are systematically discriminated in public procurement because of Beijing's 'Buy China' policy. Goods and services that are made in China get an automatic 20 % price advantage in public bids. This is simply not fair. The system is explicitly rigged.

So, we have taken action to rebalance the public procurement market for medical devices, for example, because it is a matter of basic reciprocity. Europe remains fundamentally open, but most of our companies are rapidly losing market share in China. We want to see tangible progress on our long-standing requests for market access.

The same is true on state-subsidised overcapacity. China cannot rely on exports to solve its domestic economic challenges. Overcapacity must be addressed at its source. It cannot simply be offloaded onto global markets. That is the clear message behind our investigation into electric vehicles.

Interestingly, we see that a serious debate within China on excessive production, disorderly price undercutting and distorted markets has started. They understand that the domestic challenge cannot be solved at the expense of others. And let me be clear: if our partnership is to move forward, we need a genuine rebalancing, fewer market distortions, less overcapacity exported from China and fair reciprocal access for European business in China.

Honourable Members, the second priority is to speed up with de-risking. China invested early in many of the technologies of the future, but then it started flooding global markets with cheap subsidised goods to wipe out competitors. Entire Western industries closed, from solar panels to mineral processing, leaving China to dominate. I have always spoken about China's domination of the rare earth permanent magnets market and how that can be used for economic leverage. This is why we are developing alternative supply sources in close cooperation with our partners.

Of course, dialogue with China is also essential. We are engaging with Beijing so that it loosens its export restrictions because, as I said at the outset, we do not believe in strategic decoupling and this is not in our interest. I believe that for Europe it would be inefficient and ineffective. But we will continue to de-risk because we have learnt the lesson about the extent to which dependencies are vulnerabilities and how tech, trade and security are inherently linked. De-risking is simply a matter of European independence.

Honourable Members, my next point is on geopolitics. Security is more interlinked between the Euro-Atlantic and the Indo-Pacific than it has been in several generations, and it is evolving rapidly. So, it is in our interest to work together, but we also know that China's unyielding support for Russia is creating heightened instability and insecurity for Europe. We can say that China is de facto enabling Russia's war economy and we cannot accept this.

I have always said: how China continues to interact with Putin's war will be a determining factor for EU-China relations going forward. If China claims to defend the international rules-based order, then it should unequivocally condemn Russia's gross violation of Ukraine's sovereignty, territorial integrity and internationally recognised borders, and act accordingly. And if China claims to defend multilateralism, then it must respect the rules and principles of international trade anchored in the WTO.

Honourable Members, my final point is about our cooperation to address climate change. While China is the largest emitter in the world with 30 % of global emissions, clean energy also accounted for over one quarter of China's GDP growth. China invested over USD 900 billion in clean technologies alone, more than the US, Europe, Japan and India combined. Beijing is at once a staunch competitor in the clean tech race and, on the other hand, a vital partner for global decarbonisation.

This is the complexity we must deal with. We must switch gear in our competition, but also explore every avenue for cooperation. We are both convinced that the triple planetary crisis of climate, biodiversity loss and pollution requires a strong multilateral lateral framework. We want COP30 in Belem to deliver ambitious results. We both see net-zero targets and policies as a growth strategy and a real driver for industrial modernisation. We both see the opportunities to work closer together in sectors such as emissions trading, carbon capture and storage, and the circular economy.

Honourable Members, the point is that there is a lot we can do together if China is ready to work together in a spirit of predictability and reliability. Just like Europe, China is a continent-sized power. Just like our Union, it is a complex and fascinating giant. Our relationship must reflect this complexity. We will always defend our interests. We will de-risk our economies, but we do not want to decouple. As we enter our second half-century of cooperation, we know that China is changing. But this is also a new era for Europe – an independent Europe. So, we are ready to build a more balanced and a more stable relationship, and to write a new chapter in this defining relationship. Long live Europe.

Nicolás Pascual de la Parte, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Madam President, thank you very much President of the Commission, reciprocity, transparency and respect for a level playing ground. These are truly the three principles upon which our relationship with China has to build up.

Firstly, on the security front, we cannot accept that China continues supporting and assisting Putin's Russian war of aggression against Ukraine. If China wants to be recognised as a big power, it has to assume also big responsibilities. It is a member of the Security Council, that means that it's supposed to be a guarantor of peace and stability in the world, and you cannot guarantee peace and stability in the world if you assist Putin's war of aggression. Our relationship with China cannot be normalised as long as it continues supporting Putin.

Secondly: human rights. We cannot ignore that China massively and grossly disregards the human rights of racial minorities and religious minorities. We have to remember that.

Thirdly: trade and services. China has to abide by all the dispositions of the World Trade Organisation and not select those it likes and disregard those it doesn't like. We know the pattern of behaviour of China; they subsidise the industries in order to eliminate the competition, they get the monopoly and they impose the conditions afterwards.

Fourthly: rare earths and raw materials, critical raw materials. We cannot accept the threat and the menace of control of exports of raw materials. It goes against the rules of the World Trade Organisation. By the way, this particular point is not the responsibility of the Chinese only; we have renounced exploiting our own raw materials and rare earths because of the dispositions of our green agenda. This has to be reconsidered if we want to not depend entirely on China. So: reality, reciprocity, transparency and a level playing ground.

Γιάννης Μανιάτης, εξ ονόματος της ομάδας S&D. – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, κυρίες και κύριοι συνάδελφοι, η σύνοδος Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης-Κίνας έρχεται σε μια γεωπολιτικά εξαιρετικά ευαίσθητη περίοδο. Η σχέση μας με την Κίνα είναι περίπλοκη αλλά σημαντική. Φτάνει να θυμόμαστε το διμερές εμπόριο των 750 δισ. ευρώ κάθε χρόνο, αλλά και το εμπορικό μας έλλειμμα των άνω των 300 δισ. ευρώ κάθε χρόνο.

Οφείλουμε ως Ένωση να έχουμε ολοκληρωμένη στρατηγική με πυξίδα τις αξίες μας, οι οποίες παραμένουν αδιαπραγμάτευτες, αλλά και με ξεκάθαρο στρατηγικό ρεαλισμό για τον ρόλο και τη θέση της Κίνας στον νέο κόσμο που αναδύεται. Μια Κίνα παγκόσμια υπερδύναμη στην τεχνολογία, το εμπόριο και τις κατασκευές. Όμως, μονομερείς ενέργειες ή απειλή βίας στα Στενά της Ταϊβάν δεν μπορούν να γίνουν αποδεκτές. Χωρίς να υπαναχωρούμε από την πολιτική της μίας Κίνας, η ενίσχυση των σχέσεών μας με την Ταϊβάν, ειδικά στον τομέα των ημιαγωγών και της ψηφιακής συνεργασίας, είναι επένδυση στην ευρωπαϊκή τεχνολογική ανθεκτικότητα.

Παράλληλα, η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση δεν μπορεί να παραμένει αδρανής μπροστά στις αθέμιτες εμπορικές πρακτικές, τις στρεβλώσεις της αγοράς λόγω κρατικών επιδοτήσεων και την υπερβολική εξάρτηση από κινεζικές πρώτες ύλες και τεχνολογίες. Καλούμε την Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή να ενεργοποιήσει όλα τα διαθέσιμα εργαλεία για να διασφαλίσουμε ισότιμο πεδίο ανταγωνισμού και να προστατεύσουμε την ευρωπαϊκή βιομηχανία. Τέλος, οι περιορισμοί από τις εξαγωγές στις σπάνιες γαίες είχαν σημαντικές συνέπειες για τη βιομηχανία μας και πρέπει με κάθε τρόπο να αντιδράσουμε αποτελεσματικά και δημιουργικά.

Hermann Tertsch, en nombre del Grupo PfE. – Señora presidente, de lo muy poco bueno que hizo la Unión Europea en la legislatura pasada fue advertir del grave peligro que entraña la dependencia y debilidad estratégica que se había creado Europa respecto a China en los pasados lustros: el informe sobre China fue el marco para esa propuesta de giro radical para paliar dependencias y riesgos. En esta legislatura, la Comisión Europea y sus principales socios quieren, al parecer, volver un poco a la senda del error. Si yo creyera en algo todavía a la presidenta de la Comisión, estaría aquí contento, porque le veo tomar una serie de distancias, pero no es el caso, desde luego, que yo me vaya a fiar a estas alturas.

La animadversión, el odio hacia el presidente Trump, que ciega aquí a tantísimos en la delirante idea de dar la espalda a los Estados Unidos para sustituirlo por China —que es propia de dictaduras comunistas o de tiranías como Brasil o Sudáfrica—, se está viendo y se palpa también en estos ambientes. Y, como conocemos la capacidad corruptora del régimen chino, hay que tener especial cuidado con la compra de voluntades. China es siempre una amenaza: en la esencia totalitaria de su régimen está la voluntad de imponerse y fagocitarnos como hace con países en otros continentes.

Incidentes recientes nos han alarmado una vez más: diplomáticos chinos se atreven a amenazar y amedrentar a diputados al Parlamento Europeo en esta casa, porque no les gusta que se defiendan los derechos humanos y la libertad en China, en Taiwán o en cualquier otro rincón del mundo. Debe saber China que queremos relaciones sobrias y correctas en reciprocidad y que se va a acabar que ellos hagan aquí lo que quieren y nosotros no podamos hacer allí nada.

Daniele Polato, a nome del gruppo ECR. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, che la Cina ricorra a pratiche commerciali sleali non è una novità. Che queste restrizioni arrivino in un momento estremamente delicato per la nostra economia, nemmeno.

Dobbiamo reagire in modo coeso, difendendo un mercato davvero libero, ma chiediamoci: come siamo arrivati fin qui?

Inseguendo visioni ideologiche, abbiamo smantellato interi comparti produttivi come l'automotive. In nome di promesse futuristiche, che oggi si stanno rivelando realtà scomode, abbiamo permesso che intere filiere strategiche diventassero ostaggio della dipendenza da paesi terzi per le materie prime critiche.

Puntare il dito contro la Cina non basta: dobbiamo cogliere l'occasione del cinquantenario delle relazioni bilaterali per riflettere su quali errori abbiamo commesso noi, in Europa, in questi anni.

È tempo di cambiare rotta. La nostra reazione deve ripartire da ciò che ha reso grande la nostra economia: il know-how, l'impresa e la produzione.

Serve un nuovo slancio industriale. Serve una politica mineraria europea che riduca la nostra vulnerabilità. Serve riportare al centro l'economia reale. Ecco le risposte che i cittadini si aspettano da quest'Aula.

Engin Eroglu, im Namen der Renew-Fraktion. – Sehr geehrte Frau Präsidentin, sehr geehrter Herr Kommissar, sehr geehrte Frau Kommissionspräsidentin von der Leyen – willkommen in unserem Haus! Wir diskutieren heute – sehr wichtig – über den Summit, den wir am Ende dieses Monats haben. Frau von der Leyen, ich möchte Ihnen gerne drei Punkte mitgeben, die Sie aus Sicht des Europäischen Parlaments vielleicht einbringen können.

Wirtschaft. In der Wirtschaft haben wir im letzten Mandat, Frau von der Leyen, leidenschaftlich gekämpft dafür, dass wir tatsächlich Seltene Erden und Rohstoffe in der Europäischen Union abbauen können. Wenn Sie mich fragen, hat die Kommission nach dem Beschluss, den wir hier im Europäischen Parlament gemacht haben, tatsächlich in der Umsetzung vielleicht ein bisschen geschludert. Deswegen der klare Auftrag: Bitte, wir brauchen mehr Abbau der Seltenen Erden, aber auch aller anderen Rohstoffe in der Europäischen Union. Warum? Tatsächlich ist es so, dass 98 % der Seltenen Erden, die wir in der Europäischen Union brauchen, aus China kommen – 98 %! Wir sind quasi vollkommen abhängig von China. Die einzige Möglichkeit, uns in eine bessere Verhandlungsposition zu bekommen, ist der eigene Abbau und nicht der Aufbau von Abhängigkeiten zu anderen Drittstaaten. Deswegen der Appell: Wir brauchen den Abbau. Wir brauchen ein europäisches Minenprogramm, eine Task Force Mine.

Das andere ist Sicherheitspolitik. Ich war erschrocken über das, was Außenminister Yi gesagt hat, als er vergangene Woche Frau Kallas besucht hat, in Bezug auf China. Ich glaube, das müssen Sie adressieren, das müssen Sie ansprechen. Das ist ein zentrales Thema für uns hier im Europäischen Parlament – die Sicherheit.

Und ein dritter Punkt, das sind die Menschenrechte, Frau von der Leyen. Wenn Sie jetzt nach China reisen, die Chinesen sind in einer besseren Verhandlungsposition, weil wir in der Europäischen Union Fehler gemacht haben. Bitte, wenn Sie was hergeben, keinen Millimeter bei den Menschenrechten! Das sind die Lehren aus dem Zweiten Weltkrieg. Da stehen wir als Europäisches Parlament ganz klar, und es wird kein Abweichen von uns hier geben. Frau von der Leyen, ich wünsche Ihnen viel Erfolg da drüben.

Ville Niinistö, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, let's not sugar-coat it. China isn't just restricting exports. It is testing Europe's weakness. Seven rare earth elements and one loud message: 'we control your clean tech'.

This is not about trade. This is geopolitical blackmail with magnets. The EU imports 98 % of its rare-earth magnets from China. That's not a supply chain; that's a stranglehold. We cannot walk into the EU–China Summit begging for exemptions. That's not strength; that's surrender.

We cannot be quiet about China's support to the Russian economy, and we cannot be quiet about the deterioration of human rights in China. Therefore, our response to blackmail must be bold: resilience, secularity, autonomy. We need to stop chasing virgin materials and start valuing what we already have. Recycle more, waste less, design better. Permanent magnets must be built to last and to be reused.

Let's stop being naive. China has done this before, weaponising rare earths in 2010. Now they're doing it again. So that means that we in Europe must de-risk seriously. Secure strategic stocks and force risk assessments. Plan like it's already a crisis because it already is.

We have the tools and we have the laws. Now we need the political courage. When we source materials from the Global South, we must build on true partnerships. No extraction without consent. No transition built on exploitation.

Let's not trade our climate future for cheap magnets. Let's build a circular, just and sovereign Europe.

Martin Schirdewan, im Namen der Fraktion The Left. – Frau Präsidentin! Ich begrüße sehr, dass es im Vorfeld des Gipfels anlässlich eines halben Jahrhunderts europäisch-chinesischer Beziehungen zu einer Entspannung im gegenseitigen Verhältnis gekommen ist. Denn darin besteht eine große Chance, dass wir die notwendige Zusammenarbeit auf ein gemeinsames Fundament stellen können.

Die Welt im Wandel stellt China und die Europäische Union vor Herausforderungen, und wer die großen Menschheitsfragen angehen will – den Kampf gegen Armut, Hunger und Ungleichheit, gegen den Klimawandel, Krieg oder Frieden –, der muss sich für eine multilaterale, regelbasierte Weltordnung einsetzen. Dafür muss auch die Europäische Union ihre Hausaufgaben erledigen auf dem Weg zu strategischer Unabhängigkeit: Massive Investitionen in die Zukunft, in unsere Industrie, digitale Infrastruktur, in eine unabhängige und nachhaltige Energieversorgung und in die Daseinsvorsorge sind notwendig, um mit China und den USA auf Augenhöhe agieren zu können.

China ist nach den USA der zweitgrößte Handelspartner der EU. Ein weiterer Handelskrieg wie mit den USA wird nur schädlich sein und Millionen Arbeitsplätze bedrohen. Wir brauchen fairen Handel im Interesse der Menschen und nicht entfesselten Freihandel im Interesse der Konzerne. Aber es muss auch klar sein, dass wir uns in keine einseitige Abhängigkeit von China bei Zukunftstechnologien, bei kritischen Rohstoffen oder bei strategischen Sektoren begeben können. Deshalb, Frau von der Leyen, sollten Sie nicht nur mit einer Idee für wirtschaftliche Kooperation nach Beijing reisen, sondern auch mit einer konkreten diplomatischen Initiative: Seit fast dreieinhalb Jahren tobt der Krieg Russlands in der Ukraine. Donald Trump scheint trotz seiner Telefonate keinen Einfluss auf Putin zu haben, Xi Jinping wahrscheinlich schon.

Wenn Sie Geschichte schreiben wollen, dann fahren Sie mit einem konkreten Vorschlag für eine gemeinsame chinesisch-europäische Friedensinitiative für die Ukraine nach China. China ist die einzige internationale Macht, die Putin zur Vernunft bewegen kann, und die EU muss endlich eine Schlüsselrolle für Frieden in Europa an- und einnehmen. Jetzt ist die Zeit für Diplomatie!

René Aust, im Namen der ESN-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin! China ist ein Land mit 1,4 Milliarden Menschen und einer staatlichen Ordnung, die sich aus über 3 000 Jahren Kulturgeschichte herleitet. Wer glaubt, man könne ein solches Land mit Belehrungen und Ermahnungen verändern, der irrt nicht nur, er gefährdet die Stabilität globaler Beziehungen. China hat bei allen Auseinandersetzungen immer wieder bewiesen, dass es bereit ist zu Zurückhaltung. Ich erinnere daran, dass im Jahr 1999 während des Kosovokrieges eine chinesische Botschaft in Belgrad von NATO-Bomben getroffen wurde. Die Reaktion der chinesischen Führung darauf war keine Eskalation, sondern Nachsicht.

Europa darf sich nicht in ein feindliches Denken treiben lassen, weder von außenpolitischen Rivalitäten noch von innenpolitischer Symbolpolitik. Wir brauchen eine Außenwirtschaftspolitik, die sich an unseren Interessen orientiert, nicht an Wunschbildern. Europa muss gegenüber großen Bevölkerungs- und Wirtschaftsräumen geeint auftreten. Allein wären selbst Deutschland, Frankreich, Italien und Polen in der heutigen Welt zu klein. Natürlich müssen wir unsere Interessen formulieren und sie auch vertreten. Aber dies muss ohne moralische Überhöhung geschehen. Partnerschaft wo möglich, Standfestigkeit wo nötig und immer Respekt gegenüber einem kulturell ebenso alten wie selbstbewussten Gegenüber. Wir müssen als Europa die Verhandlungsmacht stärken, indem wir Abhängigkeit verringern und doch auch immer wieder die Hand reichen zur Zusammenarbeit.

Hildegard Bentele (PPE). – Sehr geehrte Frau Präsidentin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Wenn China es will, stehen in Europa die Bänder still. So klar muss man die Realität benennen. China nutzt sein Monopol bei Seltenen Erden und unsere Abhängigkeit gezielt als strategische Waffe – durch Exportbeschränkungen, durch langwierige Lizenzverfahren und neuerdings durch die Forderung, sensible Unternehmensdaten offenzulegen. Das verzögert Lieferungen, verteuert die Produktion und gefährdet unsere technologische Souveränität und unsere Sicherheit. Seltene Erden sind unersetzlich für unsere Industrie, von Smartphones über Solaranlagen bis hin zur Verteidigungstechnologie. Europa verfügt bislang kaum über eigene Minen oder Verarbeitungsstätten. Das ändern wir nun mit der Umsetzung des EU-Rohstoffgesetzes. Doch die aktuelle Lage zeigt: Wir müssen schneller und entschlossener handeln, auch mit kurzfristig wirksamen Maßnahmen wie besserer Sammlung, gezieltem Recycling und gegebenenfalls eigenen Exportstopps.

Wirtschaft, Politik und Finanzwelt – alle müssen jetzt an einem Strang ziehen. In der Rohstoffdiplomatie müssen wir einen Gang höher schalten. Ich bitte Sie, Frau Präsidentin, die unlauteren Praktiken beim EU-China-Gipfel klar zu benennen und sich mit Nachdruck dafür einzusetzen, dass sie beendet werden. Gleichzeitig müssen wir in Europa auf allen Ebenen schneller vorankommen, mit eigenen Projekten, neuen strategischen Partnerschaften, gezielter Bevorratung und mehr Innovation. China handelt hoch strategisch. Wir müssen das auch tun. Es ist höchste Zeit, dass die EU Verantwortung übernimmt und eine verlässliche Rohstoffversorgung für unsere industrielle Basis sicherstellt, damit Europas Wohlstand auch morgen noch Bestand hat.

René Repasi (S&D). – Frau Präsidentin, Frau Kommissionspräsidentin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! 300 Milliarden Euro lautet das Handelsdefizit zwischen der EU und China. Sind chinesische Waren unter fairen Wettbewerbsbedingungen tatsächlich so viel besser als europäische? Wohl kaum. Denn unsere Unternehmen stoßen in China auf Marktzugangshürden, auf unfaire Subventionen, die fairen Wettbewerb unmöglich machen, und auf eine politische Führung, die wirtschaftliche Macht als Druckmittel einsetzt. China fordert Respekt – zu Recht –, aber verweigert Gegenseitigkeit – zu Unrecht. Das ist dann keine Partnerschaft. Es ist ein Ungleichgewicht.

Partnerschaft bedeutet Gegenseitigkeit, Transparenz und Respekt. Respekt vor unserer politischen Kultur bedeutet auch, dass gewählte Vertreter für ihre freie Meinungsäußerung nicht mit Sanktionen belegt werden dürfen. Ich fordere daher die Aufhebung der chinesischen Sanktionen sowohl gegen den ehemaligen Europaabgeordneten Reinhard Bütikofer als auch gegen unsere Kollegen in den nationalen Parlamenten. Das wäre ein klares Signal und ein wichtiger Schritt hin zu echter Partnerschaft.

Anna Bryłka (PfE). – Pani Przewodnicząca! W tej debacie powinno wybrzmieć to, dlaczego Unia Europejska nie jest dziś równorzędnym partnerem dla Stanów Zjednoczonych i dla Chin. Potężny deficyt handlowy, zależność technologiczna, a wreszcie produkcja przemysłowa zbliżająca się do upadku – to wszystko jest efektem działalności Komisji Europejskiej, która niszczy europejską gospodarkę.

Wymuszacie na państwach członkowskich inwestycje w OZE czy samochody elektryczne, czym doprowadziliście do uzależnienia się w zakresie metali ziem rzadkich od Chin. I dzisiaj Chiny wykorzystują swoją dominację, aby ograniczyć suwerenność Europy. Zielona ideologia, upadek europejskiego przemysłu, chory plan w postaci redukcji emisji gazów cieplarnianych o 90% do 2040 r., walka z paliwami kopalnymi. To wszystko jest przeciwieństwem polityki, którą prowadzą Chiny i Stany Zjednoczone. Dziś nie ma twardej i stanowczej polityki handlowej opartej o interesy państw członkowskich. Najwspanialszy kontynent pod waszymi rządami stanie się za chwilę symbolem upadku, biedy i braku bezpieczeństwa.

Marion Maréchal (ECR). – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, dans les années 1990, les pays européens ont abandonné l'extraction et le raffinage des métaux critiques. Trente ans plus tard, faute de vision stratégique, les Européens se trouvent dans une délicate situation de dépendance à l'égard de la Chine, qui compte pour 60 % de l'extraction minière mondiale des terres rares et pour 92 % de leur production raffinée. Pékin couvre à ce titre plus de 90 % de nos besoins. Toute restriction d'exportation dans ce domaine fait peser de lourds risques sur nos industries et notre défense.

Alors, face aux défis que nous pose la Chine, cinq axes prioritaires doivent guider notre politique: 1) réduction de l'utilisation des terres rares si des solutions de substitution fiables existent; 2) diversification des partenariats dès lors que l'agriculture européenne n'est pas une monnaie d'échange – ce qui serait totalement inacceptable; 3) recherche et exploitation de nouveaux gisements européens; 4) développement de filières de recyclage; 5) relocalisation des capacités de raffinage.

Bruxelles semble enfin s'être décidée à suivre cette voie. C'est un motif de satisfaction, qui doit contribuer à rompre avec les carcans idéologiques que les écologistes décroissants nous ont imposés jusqu'ici.

Bart Groothuis (Renew). – Madam President, Commissioner, Europe faces dual coercion: from US tariffs, yes, but far more dangerously from China's strategic chokehold on rare earth exports. Gallium, germanium – critical elements – are already no longer reaching our industries.

Colleagues, remember that no guided missile can be produced without gallium. It's important because the Chinese Foreign Minister told High Representative Kallas that Russia may not lose the war, but also because our economic and our industrial survival is at stake.

And as President von der Leyen rightly said, this is about dominance, about building dependency and about state-organised blackmail. Some here still claim this is just collateral damage in the US-China rivalry. It's not. It's about showing where the power is.

Some here suggest we strike a deal: drop tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles in exchange for the withdrawal of Beijing's retaliatory measures. That's appeasement – it won't work. Feeding the beast won't pacify it.

Some here argue that European Member States should go for themselves and defend their own industries without the backing of the EU. Don't! It will only invite more coercion in the years to come.

I argue differently: economic leverage is there in Europe, at least theoretically, if we use it. So, use every tool in the EU economic toolbox: close markets if necessary, impose export controls, sanction Chinese banks fuelling Moscow's war of aggression. Leverage what we have, or we don't have leverage at all.

Commissioner, act with strength for European sovereignty and industrial survival, and above all, don't encourage more coercion.

Markéta Gregorová (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, dear colleagues, Council, Commission, the upcoming EU–China Summit is more than a diplomatic event. It is a test of Union's credibility. We often hear – and we have heard it today from the Commission – that the EU should engage with China as an equal partner, but it's time we actually behave like one. We allow our markets to be flooded with heavily subsidised Chinese goods, and also allow blocking our companies entering Chinese market, undermining them.

Most gravely, we ignore China's support for Russia's war of aggression in Ukraine. Yes, ignore. I have heard you saying: 'We are very concerned. We will continue criticising.' When have you ever done that? That has never been done. What's the success of the Commission? Has any heavy machinery not been sent from China to Russia thanks to your doing? I've never seen that.

China runs massive trade surpluses, and after a trade war with the United States, it really needs the European market. And do you know what that is called? Leverage. So I thus urge President von der Leyen, – or please, Mr Šefčovič, if you could convey that message, because she left – to stand firm in Beijing and defend our strategic interests. And our strategic interests are Ukraine, not German cars.

Danilo Della Valle (The Left). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, ieri la Presidente von der Leyen, in quest'Aula, ha dichiarato che nelle relazioni con la Cina si intendono tutelare gli interessi dei paesi dell'Unione europea.

Sono sei anni che i cittadini europei attendono che si inizi davvero a difendere i loro interessi, invece di pensare a quelli degli Stati Uniti o delle multinazionali come Pfizer e Rheinmetall.

Gli scambi commerciali tra Unione europea e Cina valgono circa 720 miliardi di euro l'anno. Le esportazioni verso la Repubblica Popolare sono cresciute del 50 % quest'anno e il potenziale di crescita è enorme.

Tuttavia, quando si parla della Cina o di altri paesi non allineati agli interessi statunitensi, si utilizza sempre un linguaggio conflittuale, semplificando la realtà in termini di amici e nemici.

Perché sostenere la guerra commerciale avviata da Trump dovrebbe significare difendere gli interessi dei cittadini europei? Come si può ignorare l'importanza dei mercati dei paesi BRICS, ad esempio, per le imprese europee? O, soprattutto, il ruolo fondamentale che la Cina può svolgere come attore di mediazione nei conflitti in cui ci avete trascinato, come in Ucraina, ma anche in Medio Oriente?

Allora, si abbia per una volta un sussulto di dignità, si riconosca che il mondo sta cambiando e diventando sempre più multipolare, si tutelino davvero gli interessi dell'Unione europea e si lavori per la cooperazione e per la diplomazia, non per gli interessi di un mondo destinato a scomparire insieme a chi lo sta rappresentando.

Станислав Стоянов (ESN). – Г-жо Председател, срещата на върха ЕС-Китай е възможност да докажем, че в свят, раздиран от конфликти и нестабилност, диалогът остава най-силният инструмент за преодоляване на различията. Европейският съюз и Китай са две от водещите икономики с комбиниран дял от над 36% от световния брутен вътрешен продукт и търговски обмен от над 731 милиарда евро за 2024 г. Да, различия съществуват, но нерешими проблеми няма. Възможността за напредък в отношенията между Европейския съюз и Китай не бива да се пренебрегва, напротив.

Днес, когато в Европа се води война, имаме нужда от разумни политики и надеждни партньорства. Санкциите се оказват контрапродуктивни, причиняват щети и на двете страни, без да решават проблемите. Само през последните две години над 50 милиарда евро износ от Европейския съюз за Китай беше засегнат, а цели сектори като автомобилната индустрия и машиностроенето губят позиции. В същото време Европейският съюз остава силно зависим от китайския внос в стратегически сектори, редкоземни елементи, батерии, промишлени компоненти. Прекъсването на тези вериги би нанесло сериозен удар върху европейската икономика.

Предизвикателствата пред нас са глобални, решенията също. Нашият интерес е ясен диалог, уважение и стратегическо сътрудничество с всички големи сили. Само така ще гарантираме сигурност, стабилност и икономически растеж за Европа.

Diana Iovanovici Șoșoacă (NI). – Doamnă președintă, chiar mă întrebam dacă doamna Ursula von der Leyen o să aibă și bunul-simț, și respectul față de toți europarlamentarii care vor lua cuvântul, dar și curajul de a mă privi în ochi după intervențiile sale directe în alegerile prezidențiale din România, unde eu am fost interzisă la solicitarea dânsei.

Vorbiți despre China. Sunt avocat și lucrez de 30 de ani cu chinezii. Vă este frică de ei pentru că nu-i cunoașteți. Vreți să vă duceți la summit și să vă luați de China, că e prietenă cu Rusia? E prietenă cu Rusia dintotdeauna. Face parte din BRICS. Asta nu înțelegeți. Noi facem parte din NATO. Eu aș prefera să facem parte din BRICS, pentru că este mult mai interesant BRICS și mult mai respectuos.

Vreți să vorbiți despre Taiwan? Mare greșeală! Vă duceți să discutați și vă spun eu ce s-a discutat la misiunea diplomatică a Chinei când i s-a reproșat despre Taiwan. A spus că așa cum Germania s-a unit, așa trebuie să se unească și ei.

Vreți să vorbiți despre drepturile omului? În Europa avem cea mai mare tiranie, dictatură și interdicția drepturilor omului și încălcarea drepturilor fundamentale ale omului. Așa că nu aveți nicio șansă, pornind de la premizele pe care le-ați discutat aici. Mai învățați un pic de diplomație și de politică internațională.

Juan Ignacio Zoido Álvarez (PPE). – Señora presidenta, dentro de dos semanas celebraremos una Cumbre histórica: el 50.o aniversario del establecimiento de las relaciones diplomáticas entre la Unión Europea y China, unas relaciones que han traído beneficios en el aspecto comercial, al promover inversiones y crear empleos. Pero en los últimos años, la relación ha acusado un concepto geopolítico turbulento, así como el surgimiento de crecientes asimetrías. Por eso, esta Cumbre —más allá de la efeméride— debe servir para reequilibrar esta relación con reciprocidad como base.

En primer lugar, debemos trabajar en el mantenimiento del orden internacional multilateral y de instituciones como la OMC. En segundo lugar, debemos poner coto al impacto negativo que genera la sobrecapacidad industrial. Tenemos que acabar con los precios artificialmente bajos que impiden que nuestras empresas compitan en igualdad de condiciones. En tercer lugar, tenemos que dar carpetazo a las investigaciones sin fundamento contra productos europeos tan sensibles como los productos de origen porcino, el brandy o los lácteos. En cuarto lugar, tenemos que lograr el fin de las restricciones selectivas a la exportación de materias primas fundamentales que ponen en jaque nuestra propia seguridad económica. Y, por último, debemos avanzar hacia una posición más responsable por parte de China en el marco de la guerra de Ucrania.

A partir de estas premisas, China y Europa podremos tomar un impulso renovado y garantizar que la relación continúe siendo mutuamente beneficiosa. No podemos ni debemos desaprovechar esta oportunidad.

Lucia Annunziata (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, subito dopo il cessate il fuoco con l'Iran, la Cina ha consegnato allo stesso Iran una nuova fornitura di missili terra-aria, i famosi SAM, secondo il Middle East Eye, notizia non smentita. Del resto, il 90 % del petrolio iraniano è destinato a Pechino ed è importantissimo per i prezzi generali del mondo.

Tutto questo per dire che la Cina non è la nazione benigna interessata solo al commercio. Non possiamo illuderci: la Cina è interessata, come tutte le grandi potenze, anche alla guerra. Del resto, non c'è miglior protezionismo economico che quello di avere un forte apparato militare.

Dunque, questa è la ragione vera per riaprire il dialogo con la Cina. Dobbiamo capire che cosa sta succedendo in quel paese. Non trascureremo i diritti umani, che resteranno il nostro principale parametro, ma dobbiamo aprire un dialogo con questa nazione, la Cina, che sia indipendente anche dalle informazioni delle altre nazioni e soprattutto dalle informazioni sulla Cina che ci propongono gli Stati Uniti.

Il dialogo in qualche modo è parte della nostra indipendenza strategica.

Enikő Győri (PfE). – Tisztelt Elnök Asszony! Tisztelt Képviselőtársaim! Az európai gazdaság talpra állásához, a versenyképesség javításához elengedhetetlen, hogy országok minél szélesebb körével álljunk összeköttetésben. A konnektivitás révén erősödhetünk meg. Ehhez viszont fel kell adni az ideológiai harcot, hogy a világot jókra és rosszakra osztjuk, és csak a jókkal kereskedünk. Az új geopolitikai helyzet is azt kívánja meg, hogy rendbe tegyük a kapcsolatainkat Kínával. Fogadjuk már el végre, hogy nem lesznek a mi értelmünkben vett demokratikus jogállam, s hogy nem fogunk mindenben egyetérteni. Ettől még kereskedhetünk kölcsönös előnyök mentén. Ez az újraindítás lenne a feladata a július végi EU–Kína csúcsnak. Be kell látni, hogy nem csak hasonszőrű politikai rendszerekkel lehet gyümölcsözően együttműködni.

Az USA, mely fő ellenségnek kiáltotta ki Kínát, bizonyos ügyekben már meg tudott állapodni az ázsiai hatalommal. Legyünk hát mi is képesek rá! Csökkentsük a függőséget, álljunk több lábon! És persze ne legyünk naivak. Tegyük érdekeltté Kínát a velünk való kapcsolatokban. Azt nézzük, mi a jó az európai cégeknek, mitől születnek munkahelyek. Tárgyalni és eredményt elérni pedig csak a kölcsönös tisztelet nyelvén beszélve lehet.

Dominik Tarczyński (ECR). – Madam President, dear leftists, China is laughing. China is laughing at you. Russia is laughing. India is laughing. You know why? Because of your eco-madness, because of your eco-God.

We are responsible for 7 % of pollution of the globe. When China is responsible for 30 %, and Madam von der Leyen wants to save the planet with our money! This is madness.

This madness will be stopped by people of common sense. We Republicans – we Republicans – we people of common sense, will restore Europe, rebuild Europe.

It's your fault, communists. It's your fault. Illegal migrants – it's your fault, communists. Eco-God – it's your fault, communists. So do not be like communists, be like Poland. We're going to give you another King Sobieski very soon. We're going to restore Europe. We're going to rebuild it. So do not be like communists, be like Poland.

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

Ondřej Dostál (NI), blue-card question. – Dear colleague, I would like to ask for a clarification. You speak against communists, but I'm not aware of communists liquidating the steel industry, liquidating the car industry, liquidating the pharmaceutical industry.

From 1949, we in Czech Republic were able to manufacture our own antibiotics, penicillin. Now we are unable. So why are you speaking against communists when the problem is somewhere else?

Dominik Tarczyński (ECR), blue-card answer. – Because Stalin was the biggest one to kill people of common sense, of values. There is no bigger threat to the world than the communism. And your agenda, your sick agenda – new God, illegal migration – is part of the communist way of thinking. They even call themselves communists. It's like someone would call themselves a fascist or a Nazi. How can you call yourself a communist?

This is a shame. I'm going to fight the communists till the end of my life, so help me God.

Hilde Vautmans (Renew). – Voorzitter, collega's, we hebben het hier vandaag al meermaals gehoord: de Chinese exportbeperkingen op onze grondstoffen zijn een van de grootste bedreigingen voor onze Europese industrie. Daarom moeten we ook nu een grens durven stellen aan China. China zal dat niet leuk vinden en zal terugslaan. Het zou echter veel erger zijn om nu te blijven doorgaan alsof er niets aan de hand is, want dat zou ons op termijn nog veel meer kosten. Dan dreigt echt wel het scenario van het Russisch gas.

Deze resolutie, met dank aan het harde werk van collega Bart Groothuis, is dan ook een heel duidelijk signaal aan jullie van de Europese Commissie. Ga voor strategische autonomie, creëer nieuwe toevoerlijnen met onze bondgenoten, binnen en buiten Europa en wees creatief. Bekijk wat mogelijk is inzake delving op zee en in de ruimte. Collega's, de wereld is groter dan China en de VS. Er zijn hele continenten die op Europa zitten te wachten. Niet het minst Afrika, dat erg naar Europa kijkt, maar door ons stiefmoederlijk behandeld wordt.

Dus, beste Commissie, ik hoop van harte dat jullie een sterke top gaan hebben. Stroop je mouwen op en ga de wereld in.

Majdouline Sbai (Verts/ALE). – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, le 4 avril 2025, la Chine a adopté une loi qui interdit l'exportation des terres rares. L'aveuglement de nos institutions a permis à la Chine, depuis des décennies, d'être en situation de quasi-monopole sur les terres rares, avec 61 % de la production et, accrochez-vous bien, 92 % de la capacité de traitement.

Vous nous placez donc devant un choix cornélien: d'un côté, faire des accords opaques avec un dealer que nous avons nourri depuis des décennies, ignorant ainsi le cri des travailleurs de l'industrie sacrifiée; de l'autre, ‘ne rien céder à la domination, à la dépendance et au chantage’ – je cite ici Ursula von der Leyen lors du G7. C'est une évidence: il n'y a rien à ‘dealer’ avec ceux qui ont réduit en esclavage le peuple ouïghour, ceux qui nient l'autodétermination des peuples. Rien à négocier face à des pratiques commerciales douteuses.

Une autre voie est possible, celle de l'autonomie stratégique. Pas celle de la course à l'extractivisme néocolonial, non, celle de la planification économique et écologique, de la sobriété des usages, de l'économie circulaire, de la protection des travailleurs et des consommateurs. Aucun secteur, aucun pays ne doit être sacrifié. L'Europe est forte lorsqu'elle est unie et démocratique, indépendante des stratégies d'influence de la Chine.

Jussi Saramo (The Left). – Madam President, China has shown with raw materials that we are dangerously dependent on it. But China is also dependent on us. When Trump's United States openly attacks both the EU and China, it would be tempting to leave the United States to fight with itself.

However, China shows every day that it cannot be trusted, by supporting Putin's Russia to kill the people of its neighbouring countries. Nor must we turn a blind eye to China's shocking human rights violations, for example in Xinjiang.

Since our destinies are intertwined in many ways, China cannot and should not be isolated. However, all strategic dependencies must be broken and the support for killing must end.

The EU must also look in the mirror. To be credible in the world stage, Europe itself must also stop supporting the genocide in Palestine. Now we are considered hypocrites, and for a good reason.

Miriam Lexmann (PPE). – Madam President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, current export controls on several minerals is yet another example of the toolbox China uses for its political purposes. Misusing its dominance over rare earths and deliberately causing disruptions in the supply chains is part of China's trade strategy, which allows it to maintain global dependencies. This puts in danger not only our car producers, but also healthcare, defence and our energy sector.

I expect the Commission to formally raise the issue of unjustified export controls with the WTO, and also to use the anti-corruption mechanism the EU has at its disposal. It is also high time to accelerate the implementation of the Critical Raw Materials Act we agreed upon about two years ago.

Finally, the upcoming EU-China summit is an opportunity for the EU to raise the dependencies and firmly defend the interests of our industry, our citizens, and also defence of human rights worldwide, but also particularly in China.

Bernd Lange (S&D). – Frau Präsidentin, Frau Ministerin, Herr Kommissar, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Jüngst hatte ich eine Diskussion mit einem Vorsitzenden eines großen Unternehmens, der mir sagte: Gegenüber China waren wir etwas naiv. Da habe ich ihm gesagt, wir waren nicht naiv, das war wirtschaftspolitische Strategie. Die Lohnkosten waren gering und vor allen Dingen die Umweltauflagen waren gering. Deswegen sind die Verarbeiter von Rohstoffen zurzeit alle in China. Lithium – 70 % wird in China verarbeitet, obwohl es da nicht gewonnen wird. Also, ich glaube, diese Frage ist eine Frage, die an uns gerichtet ist, wie wir stärker souverän werden können, wie wir stärker andere Zulieferer bekommen aus anderen Ländern und diese Abhängigkeit, die auch von uns verschuldet worden ist, gegenüber China abbauen. Natürlich werden wir gegenüber China einfordern, dass es fair den Regeln der WTO entsprechend sich verhält, und insofern muss die Lizenzgebühr und das Verfahren gegenüber kritischen Rohstoffen abgebaut werden. Das muss Ziel des Gipfels im Juli sein.

(Der Redner ist damit einverstanden, auf eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der ‘blauen Karte’ zu antworten.)

Lukas Sieper (NI), blue-card question. – Madam President, in accordance with Rule 178 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, I would also like to ask you for the possibility to react to the reply that Mr Lange gives to me right now.

Vielen Dank, Herr Kollege, dass Sie die blaue Karte akzeptiert haben. Meine Frage wäre, was man Ihrer Ansicht nach denn tun kann, wenn China sich nicht darauf einlässt, diese Praktiken, die wir hier mit großer Mehrheit kritisieren, tatsächlich dann wieder sein zu lassen? Wie gehen wir in Zukunft vor, wenn wir da nicht zu einer Übereinstimmung kommen?

Bernd Lange (S&D), Antwort auf eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der ‘blauen Karte’. – Glücklicherweise, lieber Kollege, haben wir in den letzten Jahren den Werkzeugkasten deutlich vergrößert und verbessert: Wir haben das internationale Procurement-Instrument geschaffen, was wir jetzt anwenden; wir haben das Foreign-Subsidies-Instrument angepasst, das wir auch anwenden und das dazu geführt hat, dass die Wettbewerbsbedingungen deutlich verbessert worden sind; und wir haben das Anti-Coercion-Instrument auch noch in der Tasche, sodass, wenn wir wirklich politischen Druck erleben, wir auch das als Gegenmaßnahme machen können. Und natürlich Klagen bei der WTO – werden wir auch machen. Auch mit einem Partner kann man in aller Deutlichkeit, wenn der Partner unfair spielt, die Maßnahmen, die man hat, nutzen.

Lukas Sieper (NI), Reaktion nach dem Verfahren der ‘blauen Karte’. – Vielen Dank, Herr Kollege, für diese Ausführungen. Ich kann Ihnen da nur zustimmen. Ich glaube, das Entscheidende an dieser Sache ist: Von den ganzen Sachen, die Sie gerade genannt haben – ich persönlich kannte davon ungefähr die Hälfte, ich denke, der durchschnittliche Bürger, die durchschnittliche Bürgerin der Europäischen Union kennt so gut wie gar keins davon. Ich denke, umso wichtiger ist es hier, dass wir diese Instrumente, dass wir die Möglichkeiten, die wir haben, in diesem Wettbewerb, in dieser Rivalität, der Bevölkerung auch ausreichend erklären, damit die nicht das Gefühl haben, dass die Chinesen uns den ganzen Tag nur auf der Nase herumtanzen.

Isabella Tovaglieri (PfE). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, la Commissione europea è riuscita a distruggere l'economia del nostro paese, ma di certo ha reso ricca l'economia della Cina.

Infatti, a causa dell'elettrificazione e della transizione ecologica forzata, siamo ormai del tutto dipendenti da un paese comunista e non certamente democratico.

E mentre noi ci impantaniamo nel Green Deal, tra vincoli, divieti e burocrazia verde, la Cina ci ha invaso di merci prodotte senza rispettare alcuna regola, e ci ha rubato la proprietà intellettuale e i nuovi brevetti tecnologici.

E nel mentre scava, raffina e vende al prezzo che vuole le materie prime, quel prezzo che oggi, guarda caso, sta alzando. Indovinate chi pagherà il conto definitivo? Noi.

Ecco che il paradosso quindi è servito: vogliamo le auto elettriche, le pale eoliche e le batterie, ma ci rifiutiamo di cercare o di produrre le materie necessarie per costruirle in Europa.

Quindi, dobbiamo capire che è già troppo tardi e si deve invertire la rotta, altrimenti dalla transizione verde in realtà rimarremo soltanto al verde.

Rihards Kols (ECR). – Madam President, in two weeks the EU lands in Beijing to mark 50 years of relations with China. It looks like a celebration; in truth it is a stress test. Trade still tops EUR 739 billion, yet our deficit is EUR 292 billion, and exports are falling.

State-subsidised overcapacity floods our market while China's stays selectively closed. As Commissioner Šefčovič fights in Washington to shield European jobs from blanket US tariffs, Beijing slaps duties on medical devices and cognac, rations rare-earth licences, and declares it 'cannot accept' a Russian defeat in Ukraine.

Treat the summit as business-as-usual and we tell Washington and Moscow that Europe swaps security for cheap batteries. After five decades China is still no responsible partner. We need thorough de-risking: tighten investment screening, rebuild critical supply chains with trusted allies, and enforce WTO rules wherever Beijing undercuts fair competition for European workers, business and innovation.

Speak with one transatlantic, not transactional voice. Autonomy built on dependency is not autonomy at all.

Svenja Hahn (Renew). – Frau Präsidentin! China flutet unseren Binnenmarkt mit subventionierten Überkapazitäten – von Spielzeug bis Stahl. Ich erwarte von Ursula von der Leyen, dass sie beim EU-China-Gipfel pragmatische Lösungen für faireren Wettbewerb für unsere Industrie findet. Aber vor allem darf Europa nicht wieder so naiv gegenüber China werden. Denn seit Jahren kämpfen wir mühsam darum, uns von diesen asymmetrischen Abhängigkeiten zu befreien. Wir haben uns als Deutschland, als Europa von China einlullen lassen. Gerade zeigt China doch mit den Restriktionen im Export für schwere Seltene Erden, dass sie bereit sind, unsere Abhängigkeiten als Waffe zu nutzen. Denn im Konflikt zwischen Autokratie und Demokratie dürfen wir nicht vergessen, dass China ein autokratisches Regime ist, das Demokratie und Menschenrechte nur stören. Denken wir an die Unterdrückung der Uiguren, an Hongkong, an die Drohungen gegen Taiwan.

Jetzt ist nicht die Zeit für Appeasement, weder gegenüber Trump/USA noch gegenüber China. Jetzt ist Zeit für klare Kante und geschlossene Stärke. Wir brauchen mehr Handel mit mehr Partnern. Ich baue auf die dänische Ratspräsidentschaft, Ministerin Bjerre, sammeln Sie die Mitgliedsländer für eine Offensive für mehr Freihandel. Öffnen wir neue Märkte und Quellen für Rohstoffe.

Michał Szczerba (PPE). – Wysoka Izbo, żyjemy w czasach, kiedy cały czas wyzwaniem pozostaje pełnoskalowa wojna na Ukrainie. Również wyzwaniem pozostają relacje transatlantyckie i w tej sytuacji Komisja i uczestnicy szczytu będą rozmawiać z Chinami. Chcę bardzo wyraźnie powiedzieć, że to podejście Unii Europejskiej wobec Chin powinno być asertywne, ponieważ jest kilka aspektów, na które chcę zwrócić uwagę.

Po pierwsze wsparcie dla wojny na Ukrainie. I o tym trzeba mówić wprost. Ta wojna nie mogłaby trwać, gdyby nie wsparcie krajów, które każdego dnia dostarczają albo irańskie drony, albo komponenty, dzięki którym ta wojna jest prowadzona i również wspierana jest gospodarka wojenna Federacji Rosyjskiej.

Trzeba mówić wprost o nieuczciwych praktykach handlowych. I trzeba mówić również wprost o zmniejszaniu zależności i o strategicznej autonomii. Potrzeba suwerenności. I bardzo prosimy o to, żeby to podejście było uwzględnione. Nie ma business as usual wtedy, kiedy od trzech lat wspiera się wojnę, która jest również ludobójstwem.

Javi López (S&D). – Señora presidenta, China representa hoy una sexta parte de la humanidad, ocupa una silla en el Consejo de Seguridad de las Naciones Unidas, tiene el 30 % de la producción industrial del planeta y ha pasado de ser el principal socio comercial de diez países en el mundo en el año 2000 a serlo hoy de 120. Es una realidad innegable, gigantesca, compleja y, sin duda, aprender a lidiar con ella es uno de los mayores retos geopolíticos y económicos que tiene Europa, porque están nuestros intereses en juego.

¿Qué es lo que espero que hagamos en la Cumbre? Poder reequilibrar nuestras relaciones económicas —y obviamente también hablar de las tierras raras—, revitalizar el multilateralismo en crisis, evitando la lógica de bloques en el mundo, tratar la agenda verde, asegurar un comercio abierto y unas relaciones internacionales basadas en normas y hablar de Ucrania, que está en el corazón de nuestros intereses estratégicos, y tiene que entenderlo China.

Nosotros debemos actuar como una potencia madura, exigente y constructiva y, sobre todo, no tenemos que elegir entre confrontación e ingenuidad, podemos elegir firmeza estratégica y diálogo con principios. Eso es lo que yo quiero para China desde la Unión Europea.

Pierre-Romain Thionnet (PfE). – Madame la Présidente, ‘cacher ses talents pour mieux attendre son heure’. C'était le conseil donné par l'ancien numéro un de la République populaire de Chine Deng Xiaoping. L'impressionnante restauration de la puissance de la Chine se lit en creux du déclin de l'Europe. Pékin a déployé une grande stratégie visant à combler ses dépendances critiques à l'égard du reste du monde. La Chine a constitué des stocks stratégiques et a organisé la transhumance vers son territoire des industries de l'Occident pour mieux l'inonder en retour de ses surproductions.

De son côté, l'Union européenne a passé les trente dernières années à se penser et à se construire comme l'avant-garde d'un nouveau nomos de la terre, fondé sur la négation du territoire et, plus globalement, sur le déni de la géopolitique. Les ‘Trente insouciantes’ volent en éclats, même si certains voudraient s'accrocher à cette parenthèse hallucinée. L'Europe n'échappera pas au devoir de puissance, et cette puissance, elle ne pourra y prétendre qu'en reconnaissant et en assumant la guerre commerciale mondiale qui est en cours, et dont l'un des fronts l'oppose à Pékin.

Tobiasz Bocheński (ECR). – Szanowna Pani Przewodnicząca! Ta debata pokazuje, że szanowna biurokracja i szanowna większość w tej Izbie odleciała w kosmos bez pomocy rakiety Elona Muska. O czym my dyskutujemy? Szanowni Państwo, w roku 2005 nominalne PKB Chin wynosiło 2,3 biliona dolarów, za to krajów Unii Europejskiej 13 bilionów. Byliśmy 5 razy bogatsi od Chin. A w tym roku? W tym roku po raz pierwszy nominalne PKB Chin będzie wyższe niż Unii Europejskiej.

Zawdzięczamy to waszej absurdalnej, nonsensownej polityce gospodarczej, którą uprawiacie od lat. Zawdzięczamy to Ursuli von der Leyen. Zawdzięczamy to Zielonemu Ładowi. Zawdzięczamy to biurokracji. Zawdzięczamy to socjalizmowi, który panuje w tej Izbie. I dlatego, że uczyniliście z Unii Europejskiej skansen – z kontynentu, który 100 lat temu, 50 lat temu był jednym z najbogatszych i najsilniejszych – Ursula von der Leyen zasługuje na dymisję, czego oczekujemy w tym tygodniu.

Wouter Beke (PPE). – Voorzitter, leden van de Commissie, collega's, wij spreken hier in dit halfrond vaak over strategische autonomie als het gaat over onze defensie, als het gaat over onze voeding, als het gaat over onze medicijnen. Telkens is de boodschap: we moeten de touwtjes meer in eigen handen kunnen nemen om onze burgers in de toekomst te kunnen beschermen. Dat geldt ook voor kritische grondstoffen. Zonder soms goed en wel te beseffen, zijn zij de onzichtbare motor geworden van onze samenleving. Want zonder kritische grondstoffen, geen smartphones, geen elektrische wagens, geen windmolens.

Net voor die kritische grondstoffen zijn we ongelooflijk afhankelijk van China: 90 %. We spreken dus eigenlijk niet over een louter handelsonevenwicht. Nee, het gaat over een strategische zwakte, die China gebruikt. Want China bepaalt of en op welke manier kritische grondstoffen gebruikt kunnen worden en mogen worden in Europa. Wel, dit is onaanvaardbaar.

Tijdens de aankomende EU-China-top kan het geen business as usual zijn. Europa mag niet de speelbal worden van Beijing en moet daarom, wat de kritische materialen betreft, op tafel kloppen, zoals u net gedaan heeft, mevrouw de Voorzitter.

Niels Fuglsang (S&D). – Fru formand! Fru kommissær! Fru minister! Kære kollegaer! Kina er en vigtig samarbejdspartner for Europa, en vigtig handelspartner og også en samarbejdspartner i forhold til at løse nogle af de store udfordringer som f.eks. klimakrisen. Men vi må samtidig indse, at vi har ført en naiv Kinapolitik, hvor vi har gjort os afhængige af det store rige i midten. Vi har solgt kritisk infrastruktur, og Grækenland har solgt sin største havn til Kina, Athens havn, Piræus. Vi har gjort os afhængige af kritiske råstoffer, sjældne jordarter fra Kina. Vi har gjort os afhængige af deres teknologi, når det gælder den grønne omstilling. 95% af de solceller, der sættes op i Europa i dag, kommer fra Kina. Vi bliver nødt til at gøre os uafhængige. Det må være det, vores Kinapolitik består i. Skal vi ikke give hinanden håndslag på, at vi fremover ikke sælger kritisk infrastruktur til Kina, at vi beholder den i Europa, og at vi gør, hvad vi kan for at gøre os uafhængige, når det kommer til den kritiske teknologi. Det ville være en god start.

Paulo Cunha (PPE). – Senhora Presidente, a União Europeia tem de ser mais firme e agir rapidamente perante a China.

Setores vitais, como o têxtil, a metalurgia, os plásticos, o automóvel, citando apenas alguns, vivem uma crise sem precedentes.

Enquanto as empresas europeias cumprem regras sociais, laborais e ambientais justas e exigentes, as empresas chinesas aproveitam-se das falhas das nossas leis ou ignoram-nas por completo. Com subsídios dados pelo Estado, abuso das exceções de minimis, falta de reciprocidade no acesso ao mercado chinês, entre outros, são a concorrência desleal que fecha empresas, muitas delas pequenas ou familiares, que elimina empregos na Europa e que tira recursos e impostos essenciais para financiar o nosso modelo social.

Como pretendemos falar de competitividade, se permitimos que as nossas empresas sejam arrastadas por práticas injustas? Passou o tempo das palavras. Precisamos de ações firmes e concretas para defender quem gera emprego, paga impostos e sustenta o nosso modelo europeu que tanto valorizamos.

Elio Di Rupo (S&D). – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, la présidente von der Leyen l'a rappelé, on a de profondes divergences avec la Chine: libertés fondamentales, soutien à la Russie, pratiques économiques déloyales, monopoles – notamment pour ce qui est des matières premières critiques –, sanctions contre les députés… Mais la Chine est un acteur mondial incontournable, et il serait irresponsable de freiner le dialogue avec Pékin.

Bien entendu, l'Union européenne doit défendre ses valeurs et affirmer ses intérêts tout en intensifiant un dialogue honnête, sans donner l'impression de faire la leçon, et en pleine compréhension mutuelle. Mais, Monsieur le Commissaire, je pense aussi qu'il faut être ferme et montrer à la Chine que l'Union européenne est un vaste marché et que, si nous nous bloquions, nous pourrions entrer dans un cercle qui serait un cercle véritablement négatif, bien sûr pour nous, mais également pour la Chine.

Je vous invite vraiment à rétablir un dialogue renouvelé avec les Chinois.

Rasa Juknevičienė (PPE). – Madam President, dear colleagues, my first message: engagement policies and economic dependence on autocratic regimes are dangerous. This is exactly what happened to us with Putin's Russia. Let's not make the same mistakes.

Secondly, the EU-China Comprehensive Agreement on Investment cannot be ratified until China stops its economic coercion against EU Member States. China's economic coercive actions against Lithuania and the EU back in 2021 grossly violated the legal norms of the World Trade Organisation. These discriminatory trade restrictions, directed at an EU Member State, challenged the unity of the entire bloc. Failing to take appropriate action against China's economic coercion will cause long-term damage to the reputation of the European Union as a reliable geopolitical actor.

Procedura ‘catch-the-eye’

Francisco José Millán Mon (PPE). – Señora presidenta, la próxima Cumbre con China es una buena ocasión para abordar al más alto nivel asuntos bilaterales y globales.

La relación bilateral no pasa por un buen momento: tenemos un enorme y creciente déficit comercial, en buena parte debido a las dificultades de nuestras empresas para acceder al mercado de China, una China que, además, bloquea nuestro acceso a minerales críticos mientras sus empresas se benefician ampliamente de nuestro mercado.

En la Cumbre debemos exigir un campo de juego equilibrado y avanzar en la diversificación hacia otros mercados mientras continuamos la reducción del riesgo. La Cumbre también será una gran oportunidad para tratar retos globales: cambio climático, pandemias, crimen organizado y narcotráfico, pesca ilegal y, desde luego, la paz.

Es decepcionante la cooperación sin límites de China con Rusia. China debe contribuir activamente a la paz, no ayudar al agresor. También debemos vigilar que nuestras exportaciones a China de material de doble uso no acaben convertidas en armas rusas.

Para terminar, vivimos en un mundo muy complejo. China, como gran potencia, debe asumir sus responsabilidades globales. En la Cumbre debemos insistir en este punto y también avanzar para corregir los desequilibrios.

Maria Grapini (S&D). – Doamnă președintă, domnule comisar, stimați colegi, 50 de ani de relație cu China și, dacă facem un bilanț, constatăm că am pierdut în acești 50 de ani mult din ceea ce puteam să avem.

Dar eu am învățat de la un investitor din țara doamnei președintă Ursula von der Leyen că nu poți să omori concurența, ci trebuie să înveți inteligent cum să o depășești. De aceea, eu cred că la summit noi trebuie să punem condiții foarte clare. Noi trebuie să avem posibilitatea să ne apărăm.

Ieri am discutat despre pachetele, 91% venite din China, de până la 150 de euro, miliarde de pachete fără siguranța produselor, o concurență neloială pentru IMM-uri. Iată de ce, domnule comisar, eu cred foarte clar că avem nevoie de relația cu China, dar trebuie să o facem pe principii asemănătoare. Dacă China dă 20% la autohtone la licitații publice, de ce nu punem și noi aceste condiții la licitațiile publice cu China?

Și da, infrastructura importantă și de securitate nu trebuie vândută de niciunul dintre statele membre ale Uniunii Europene. Doar așa putem să avem. Singuri nu putem fi pe lume. Cu Statele Unite, nu avem o relație bună, cu China, nu avem o relație bună, cu Rusia, știm de ce nu mai e bună.

Sebastian Tynkkynen (ECR). – Madam President, it's hard to believe that some politicians call for reducing dependency on the United States – our closest ally – while simultaneously pushing for closer ties with China. A regime that systematically violates human rights, oppresses minorities, and steals European technology is a serious security threat.

The balance of trade between Europe and China is already sharply in China's favour – in favour of a communist dictatorship that has long traditions of using economic relations as a tool for political pressure.

Europe should not build stronger trade relations with a country whose representative for European relations questions the independence of sovereign Eastern European states that seceded from the Soviet Union. This says enough. The growth of Chinese influence in Europe must be prevented.

Dainius Žalimas (Renew). – Madam President, dear colleagues, as the President of the Commission emphasised yesterday, when we go to China to defend our interests, Europe must show strength. This strength only comes through our unity, and unity must be based on our common values. Therefore, we must have in mind several important aspects.

Firstly, China's position in Russia's war against Ukraine – China's support to the aggressor cannot be tolerated. Secondly, inadmissibility of political, economic and diplomatic pressure on individual EU Member States, for example on Lithuania. Thirdly, inadmissibility of the use of, or threat of, force against the liberal democracy in Taiwan, which is freely established and developed on the same principles as ours. Fourthly, stopping the destruction of the unique identity of the Tibetan people, as well as interference into their religious freedom. Fifthly, ceasing the grave breaches of human rights against Uyghurs in Hong Kong and elsewhere in China.

Μαρία Ζαχαρία (NI). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, η Κίνα δεν είναι εμπορικός εταίρος. Είναι εμπορικός ανταγωνιστής. Πρώτα, οι ευρωπαϊκές βιομηχανίες και οι πολυεθνικές μετέφεραν μαζικά την παραγωγή τους στην Κίνα για να εκμεταλλευτούν φτηνά εργατικά χέρια και πρώτες ύλες. Έπειτα, η Κίνα έχτισε ναυτιλιακούς στόλους, αγόρασε λιμάνια όπως αυτό του Πειραιά, συνολικά συμμετέχει σε 10 ευρωπαϊκά λιμάνια, εγκαθίδρυσε καθεστώς εργασιακής εκμετάλλευσης με εργολαβίες και περιορισμένα εργασιακά δικαιώματα, με εργατικά ατυχήματα και δυστυχήματα, περιβαλλοντική μόλυνση, οικονομικές απάτες στα τελωνεία της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης.

Τρεις αναφορές για την COSCO βρίσκονται στην Επιτροπή Αναφορών. Καμία απάντηση από τον Φεβρουάριο. Στην Ελλάδα εξαγόρασε πολιτικούς από σχεδόν όλα τα κόμματα, και δημοσιογράφους. Και παρενέβη αρκετές φορές στην πολιτική της χώρας ο ίδιος ο πρέσβης της Κίνας. Για βάλτε την Ευρωπαία Eισαγγελέα να ελέγξει το ελληνικό σκάνδαλο με την COSCO, να δείτε πόσοι θα βρεθούν ένοχοι. Αυτά όλα σηματοδοτούν την απώλεια της κυριαρχίας. Δεν ακούτε, όμως. Δεν ακούτε. Αυτό είναι πρόβλημα. Πάρτε πίσω όλες τις υποδομές της Ευρώπης από την Κίνα.

Billy Kelleher (Renew). – Madam President, I welcome the EU-China summit that's happening in the near future, because we do need a reset of relationships between the European Union and China. We need to have reciprocity. We need to have mutual respect and fairness. We need to have access to the Chinese market for European companies. We need to ensure that we wean our dependency off China in certain areas of raw materials and rare earths.

And we need to insist on a rules-based order, an international rules-based order, the World Trade Organisation, the United Nations and the others that keep this world revolving around fairness and respect for each other.

On the issue of Ukraine, we have to call it out straight: China is actively supporting Russia in the war in a European country. And that has to be said very loud and clearly. We can't have a situation where we dance around this particular fact. And until such time as China says clearly that they respect the international integrity of the Ukrainian borders, well, then we must always call them out.

But I wish the summit well, because we do need a reset and we need to rebalance it, ensuring that it is in Europe's favour as well.

Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis (S&D). – Gerbiama Pirmininke, norėčiau pritarti Komisijos pateiktai pozicijai ir išties paraginti, kad derybose, atnaujintose derybose, būtų iškeliami tie klausimai, kurie būtų apibrėžti kaip tarptautinės teisės prioriteto palaikymas visuose santykiuose. Šiuo atveju ypatingai svarbu atkreipti dėmesį Kinijos į tai, kad karas, kurį Rusija tęsia prieš Ukrainą, turi būti sustabdytas, nes tai kenkia pasaulinei tvarkai, daugiašališkumui ir tarptautinės teisės viršenybės principui. Priešingu atveju mes iš tiesų turėsime labai sudėtingus santykius. Aš skatinu būtinai pragmatiškai, dalykiškai, bet apsibrėžiant tuos principus, kurie šiandien yra numeris vienas. Šalies teritorinis integralumas, tarptautinė teisė yra tai, apie ką turi būti pasakyta labai aiškiai, kad Kinijos parama Ukrainai būtų sustabdyta.

João Oliveira (The Left). – Senhora Presidente, contra o perigo da guerra, construir soluções de paz. Contra a política de confrontação, reforçar os laços de cooperação em benefício mútuo dos povos. Esta deve ser a orientação para o desenvolvimento das relações com a China e, naturalmente, para a cimeira que agora se realiza.

A União Europeia não deve ser uma caixa de ressonância da política de confrontação e de escalada de tensões dos Estados Unidos, que aponta a China como seu alvo preferencial. O caminho tem de ser outro: reforçar relações de efetiva cooperação, no respeito pelo Direito Internacional, incluindo o princípio da não ingerência e o respeito pelo princípio de uma só China, sem hesitações ou distorções. Estreitar relações políticas, diplomáticas, económicas e culturais em condições mutuamente vantajosas para os povos e tendo em conta as suas necessidades.

Esse caminho deve ser percorrido, respeitando o espaço próprio dos Estados-Membros para a sua própria política externa e relações bilaterais, designadamente as relações entre Portugal e a China, aprofundando relações históricas de amizade, paz e cooperação entre os povos português e chinês.

(Fine della procedura ‘catch the eye’)

Maroš Šefčovič, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, Ministers, honourable Members, I know that we are very much pressed by the time and we expect the arrival of the Prime Minister of Denmark, so I'll be very short.

First and foremost, I would like to thank all the honourable Members for their interventions, which for sure will contribute to the final preparation of the EU-China summit.

I also would like to appreciate that there was what I would describe as overall support for our approach to de-risk, but not to decouple in relations with China. It was very clearly the motto and the guideline principle that the Commission was following since the start of the mandate.

If you allow me a couple of words on de-risking, the honourable MEPs Lange, Maniatis, Eroglu, Kelleher, but especially Ms Bentele, highlighted how important it is to get better access to the critical raw materials.

I have, in particular, to thank Ms Bentele for exceptional work done on the critical raw materials report, because thanks to her, we opened new chapters in how to increase the economic security of the European Union. Based on that report, and with the new approach of the European Commission, we already completed the first selection process of more than 60 projects when it comes to critical raw materials – 47 in Europe and 13 outside.

I believe that this exercise, which will be repeated and which will be now tested, in getting these projects from on paper into real operation, will demonstrate how serious we are about being more independent when it comes to the supply of critical raw materials.

Coming back to China, I can also reassure you that all the issues you've been clearly highlighting – be it the trade restrictions in the field of agriculture, cosmetics, pharmaceutical business or in public procurement – are permanently raised on the technical level, but also by me in my regular interactions with the Chinese Trade Minister, Wang Wentao, and we are permanently pushing for the resolution of these issues.

But to conclude, I agree with all of you that what we need in Europe is to build stronger resilience, and for that, the policies which we charted together, like the Net-Zero Industry Act, and being stronger in getting critical raw materials to Europe, improving our competitiveness, would be the best responses to all the challenges which are ahead of us.

All the political issues in relation to human rights, to the war in Ukraine and to overall global geopolitics will for sure be raised by the leaders at the summit, as indicated by the President of the Commission and by the representative of the Presidency.

Marie Bjerre, President-in-Office of the Council. – Madam President, honourable Members, Commissioners, thank you for a good debate. Many important topics were mentioned: imbalanced trade support for Ukraine, respect for human rights, partnerships on global issues such as climate, together with many other issues. EU-China relations are complex, as many of you said. We value the trade and economic relationship with China, but it must benefit both sides.

Mr Pascual de la Parte, from the EPP, Mr Maniatis from S&D and Mr Eroglu from Renew, together with many of your colleagues, all mentioned trade and control of earth materials, so I want to elaborate a little bit more on that issue. Our trade relations with China remain, unfortunately, unbalanced, both in terms of trade and investments. We have long-standing concerns about lack of level playing field and the significant asymmetry in our respective market openings.

In addition, China's economic model has led to systemic distortions with negative spillovers to trading partners. EU firms have continued to face forced localisation policies and restrictions on the access to the Chinese market, as well as pressure resulting from overcapacities. The deficit in trade in goods has been widening over the last decade, fuelled by illegal subsidies. Last year, the EU-China trade deficit reached EUR 304.5 billion. A more recent headache is the export control measures on rare earth and related products introduced by China, which impact EU producers.

The EU will continue to reduce critical dependencies and vulnerabilities, including the supply chains, and will de-risk and diversify where necessary and appropriate. We do not intend to decouple or to turn inwards. A balanced relationship built on fairness and reciprocity in our common interest – this will be the message that the EU will deliver to China at the summit, seeking to press China to concrete steps in addressing them.

As regards Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine, China has spoken out in favour of peace, but we need to see actions to follow these words. Engagement and cooperation remain essential, including on human rights, as mentioned by Mr Niinistö from the Greens and by many others.

We are committed to working with China to improve bilateral relations and to address concerns through dialogue where possible. At the same time, we must remain firm in protecting our interests and our values. We need to find long-term solutions to tackle global challenges and ensure that the rules-based international order is upheld, with the UN Charter at the core.

Presidente. – Comunico di aver ricevuto sei proposte di risoluzione a conclusione della discussione, conformemente all'articolo 136, paragrafo 2, del regolamento.

La discussione è chiusa.

La votazione si svolgerà giovedì 10 luglio 2025.

Dichiarazioni scritte (articolo 178)

Katarína Roth Neveďalová (NI), písomne. – Verím, že by sme sa mali snažiť viac budovať mosty ako ich páliť. Potrebujeme partnerov, s ktorými môžeme obchodovať a s ktorými sa vieme dohodnúť na spoločných záujmoch. Už dlho sa tu pretláča, že máme nepriateľov a sme s nimi v obchodnej vojne. Jedným z nich je podľa niektorých z vás Čína. Podľa mňa je Čína príležitosťou. Verím, že nadchádzajúci samit EÚ – Čína využijeme na zlepšenie spolupráce, komunikácie a otvorenie ďalších nových spoločných kapitol. Čína je nielen významný producent, ale aj ťaží veľké množstvo surovín pre EÚ dôležitých.

V tomto roku oslavujeme okrúhle výročie spoločných diplomatických vzťahov a to je príležitosťou na ich revíziu a nový štart. Momentálne obmedzenie vývozu niektorých surovín z Číny je tiež odrazom našich posledných politík vo vzťahu k tejto krajine. Využime možnosť samitu na to, aby sme opäť boli partnermi a vzťahy zlepšili. Spolupráca s touto krajinou je v súčasnej turbulentnej medzinárodnej situácii a stále rastúcej hrozbe veľkého konfliktu kľúčová na upokojenie a nastolenie medzinárodného poriadku a rešpektu k medzinárodnému právu. Spoločne dokážeme toho oveľa viac. Čínsky technologický pokrok je obrovský a môžeme sa učiť navzájom. Sme exportne orientovanou ekonomikou, a tak by nám na dobrých vzťahoch s Čínou malo naozaj záležať.

Susana Solís Pérez (PPE), in writing. – Europe's dependence on China for critical raw materials is not new. It's structural. And it's becoming a strategic vulnerability. China controls a significant share of global CRM supply and has used this dominance to restrict exports, from rare earths in 2011 to gallium, germanium and graphite in 2023. This pattern exposes EU industries to bottlenecks, price shocks and loss of competitiveness.

From automotive to wind energy and defence, our key sectors rely on materials we import over 50 % from China. This reality demands more than speeches. We need European-scale action.

We welcome the Commission's clear priorities: rebalancing our economic relationship with China, reducing strategic risks, and advancing cooperation on global issues like climate. But these goals require concrete tools.

Europe must invest in its own CRM value chains, from mining to recycling, and boost European-specific financing for our strategic projects. We also need to diversify supply through partnerships with reliable allies such as the recently signed trade agreements with Mexico and Canada.

Strategic autonomy is not a slogan. It's an industrial and geopolitical imperative. We must shift from dependency to resilience. From short-term fixes to long-term solutions. Our competitiveness and sovereignty depend on it.

(La seduta è sospesa alle 10:39)

IN THE CHAIR: ROBERTA METSOLA

President

3. Resumption of the sitting

(The sitting resumed at 10:42)

4. Presentation of the programme of activities of the Danish Presidency (debate)

President. – The next item is the debate on the presentation of the programme of activities of the Danish Presidency (2025/2538(RSP)).

Prime Minister Frederiksen, dear Mette, dear colleagues, on 1 July, Denmark assumed the presidency of the Council of the European Union. Today, Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen joins us to present the Presidency's programme for the months ahead. So, Prime Minister, dear Mette, welcome to the European Parliament.

(Applause)

Nearly one year into this legislature, the Danish Presidency arrives at a decisive moment. In a world marked by uncertainty, we need a Europe that is stronger and that is safer. That means taking responsibility for our own security. It means scaling up efforts to address migration and tackling high energy costs. It means giving our defence industry a much-needed boost and remaining steadfast in our support for Ukraine. We know that a more secure Europe also depends on a strong and competitive economy, so we have accelerated in this House reforms and we are pushing ahead with our simplification agenda. But we also need to make full use of our single market and, crucially, unlock more capital.

Decisions must turn quickly into action. As I am sure you will hear, Prime Minister, in our debate today, companies need resources to grow and businesses need predictability to succeed. Denmark gets that. You understand that security starts with strength, and that strength is built through smart choices, and you are leading truly by example. Next week, the Commission will present its proposal for the next multiannual financial framework. The Danish Presidency will have a chance to show once again that commitment.

Here in Parliament, we are ready. We are already setting out our priorities, and we have done so in a resolution. Our expectations are clear: our long-term budget needs to meet today's challenges; it must be strategic; it must be responsible and flexible enough to adapt.

Dear Prime Minister, the Danish Presidency's motto – 'A strong Europe in a changing world' – captures exactly what is needed and resonates deeply in this House. Security and competitiveness must remain the twin engines driving our work. As we work together to build a stronger, smarter and safer Europe, this Parliament stands alongside you as a partner and as a friend.

Mette Frederiksen, President-in-Office of the Council. – Madam President, 'Europe will be forged in crises and will be the sum of the solutions adopted for those crises'. These are the words of Jean Monnet, one of the pioneers and founding fathers of European cooperation. Today, ladies and gentlemen, these words seem truer than ever before.

Dear Members of the European Parliament, Madam President and Commissioners, thank you for inviting me today. For the next six months, Denmark will hold the Presidency of the European Union. We do so at a time where Europe is facing the greatest challenges since the 1940s: Russia's brutal war against Ukraine, pressure on Europe's external borders from migration, conflicts in the Middle East, risk of trade war and tariffs on the rise and, increasingly, competition on the future of strategic technologies. And on top of all this: the climate and biodiversity crisis.

Our security, our values, our economies and our way of living is under pressure. We need to address the challenges head on and we need to do it together. Members of the European Parliament and Member States: we share the responsibility to find the right compromises on the difficult questions ahead of us. Solutions that work for all of us; first of all, our citizens, but also our businesses, labour unions and civil society. That is why I am so pleased to be here today.

The threats may be many and they are indeed serious, but I have trust in Europe; trust that we can move our continent forward, build a more secure Europe, a greener and more competitive Europe, a new Europe of tomorrow with possibilities and welfare for our citizens. But only if we remember what we are capable of, what our societies are built upon and who we really are as Europeans.

Our strengths come from within. We are much more than the reach of our countries and the sum of our populations – Europe is first and foremost an idea. It is the way we think: our fundamental values – freedom, democracy, the rule of law; our firm belief in progress, science and common sense; the fact that we always seek to make tomorrow better than today; our social model; and that we are free to think as we want, believe what we want and speak as we see fit. These are the fundamental ideas on which our continent is built, and they run in the blood of all Europeans.

Europe is cooperation, discussions and difficult compromises. But, above all, Europe is a magnificent, rich and diverse continent that has managed to rise again and again.

In a time where our fundamental values are being questioned, the response from our side needs to be firm and to be clear: we must in every way possible be willing to protect our democracies, our freedom and rights, and our prosperity. Therefore, the Danish Presidency has two overall priorities: first of all, of course, a secure Europe, and secondly, a competitive and green Europe.

First of all, we must take responsibility for our own security. Cutting our defence spending in the past 30 years was a huge mistake and we shall never repeat it. We cannot take the threat from the East lightly. Russia's military rearming means that they could, within two to five years, pose a credible military threat to Europe and NATO, and Russia is no longer working alone. We see it in Ukraine: North Korea providing soldiers and ammunition, missiles from Iran, and military technology from China.

We must act now to respond to this threat. We need to build a much stronger European defence industry – we have to invest more. Strengthening Europe's defence industry is an absolute top priority and we have to be able to defend ourselves by 2030 at the latest. We support an ambitious roadmap to get us there, as outlined in the June European Council conclusions. We have made a ReArm Europe investment plan and the Danish Presidency will take forward the proposals on defence simplification and the European Defence Industry Programme.

At the same time, we have to learn from Ukraine. In a very short time, they have established an impressive defence industry, producing weapons and ammunition much faster than we can, developing advanced drones and weapons while fighting a war – that is quite impressive. We have to continue our support to Ukraine in every way we can as Europeans, for as long as it takes.

(Applause)

Military support, ammunition, missiles, air defence systems with investments into Ukraine's defence industry, engaging in partnerships with Ukrainian companies and integrating the Ukrainian defence industry into the European, to our mutual benefit, and with financial, civil and, of course, political support. We need to look at our donations for Ukraine in a different way. Our donations are not a gift and they are not charity; they are a direct defence of Europe, our life and our freedom.

We also have to increase pressure on Russia with the toughest possible sanctions. We will drive forward the proposals to stop all imports of Russian gas.

(Applause)

All these measures are interlinked, so you have to applaud once more, because we have to take the next steps in the enlargement process for Ukraine, Moldova and the Western Balkans. By bringing these countries closer to Europe, we can help them flourish and grow and make the European Union even stronger.

Another part of our security as Europeans is migration. It is challenging Europe, affecting people's lives and the cohesion of our societies. We saw it very clearly in the European Parliament elections last year: migration was a top priority for many Europeans, including myself. Our citizens expect us politicians to find new solutions, with good reason, and European citizens have a right to feel safe in their own countries. That is why we need to strengthen our external borders. We have to lower the influx of migrants to Europe. We need to help stabilise Europe, neighbouring countries and make the process of returns easier and, of course, also more efficient.

(Applause)

What has been mainstream among our populations for many years is now mainstream for many of us politicians as well, finally. Maybe not in Parliament, but gladly, and I'm really happy about that, in the European Council. So of course, as the Presidency, we will prioritise the proposals on the table and also provide a much more effective response to Russia, who is using migration as a weapon at our eastern borders.

So that was a few words on security – we also need a competitive and green Europe. As we all know, Draghi published his report last year; he painted quite a bleak picture of too much regulation, high energy costs, a significant innovation and investment gap and a shrinking workforce. Europe is now falling behind and we ourselves bear a large part of the responsibility. These issues have become a top priority and luckily there is a general understanding that we need to act with urgency already this year. It has to be a top priority for all of us and therefore we must simplify our rules. We have to reduce burdens on businesses, citizens and public authorities – the Danish Presidency will aim for less red tape for European companies and individuals. Therefore, we must make progress on the Omnibus proposals and simplification agenda.

But, of course, we already know that more is needed. To increase the European Union's long-term competitiveness we need to boost our ability to innovate, develop and produce the technologies of tomorrow. We need to do it with urgency and ambition but, of course, without compromising what makes Europe special: our social balance, our democratic stability, our green ambitions.

Climate change remains one of the greatest challenges of the world right now. Billions of people around the world are already feeling the consequences – extreme weather, fires. It is leading to migration, poverty and political instability. Europe needs to keep pushing for an ambitious global green transition. That is why we need to agree on an ambitious 2040 climate target.

(Applause)

I don't see the applause coming from the whole Parliament on the whole speech – but this is important also to demonstrate that we take our climate leadership on our shoulders globally. We have to create a stable and clear political framework so businesses can be assured of our long-term direction. A just green transition, providing clean and affordable energy, new jobs and new opportunities. This means a better future for all of us – this is a key part of our long-term competitiveness.

We have to build more of our own clean energy, more and better infrastructure, and work towards a stronger energy union: ensuring low and stable energy prices for citizens and our businesses, strengthening our security of supply and, of course, at the same time, getting out of our dependency on Russian energy. We can use our trade policy to diversify and make supply chains more robust and, while others build tariff walls, we should form new trade partnerships. Get the agreement with Mercosur over the line and push on with partnerships, enabling access to critical raw materials.

To enable the EU to deliver results, the Danish Presidency will help set an ambitious and responsible course for negotiating the EU's next long-term budget. We have to rethink the structure of our budget. We have to make it more flexible to manage unforeseen events. We have to make it simpler, mobilise more private capital and make it more focused on political priorities. For me, the status quo is not an option. Last time we called the long-term budget negotiations 'the most difficult' – it was just after COVID-19 and Brexit. This time I believe they will be 'the most important'.

Dear friends in Parliament, Jean Monnet also once said 'anything is possible in exceptional moments, as long as you are ready'. We have to trust Europe – a Europe that will no longer seek shelter behind others, Europeans that are ready to stand up for ourselves and to defend ourselves. We have to do it together. So we count on you, the Members of the European Parliament, directly representing European citizens as co-legislator, we cannot do it without each other, of course. I hope for great cooperation in the next six months; let's build a stronger Europe together.

Maroš Šefčovič, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, first and foremost, Madam Prime Minister, dear Mette, I would like to thank you for putting forward Denmark's priorities for your Presidency of the Council. They are very much in line with the priorities of the Commission.

When I checked this morning, this is already your eighth presidency, so you are bringing a lot of experience, a lot of energy into the Chairing and management of the European Union in very challenging times. But we are absolutely convinced in the Commission that, as your previous seven presidencies have been very successful, that this will be another one.

I also would like to start by welcoming the Danish Presidency's focus on security and defence. The Commission has already started working on the roadmap for readiness for the European Council in October, and for this we will identify capability gaps and work with the Member States on common European projects for joint procurement.

Defence readiness is, however, not just about how much we spend, but also about how we spend it. And here the Danish Presidency will play a central role by ensuring the implementation of SAFE, our EUR 150 billion joint procurement investment programme. Before the end of the year, we also aim to finalise the participation of close allies in SAFE, starting with the UK and Canada, to ensure the necessary strategic depth.

In addition, we look to the Danish Presidency to swiftly finalise the negotiations with this House on the European defence industry programme to further strengthen Europe's defence industrial base. We also count on the Danish Presidency to progress with the Defence Readiness Omnibus, which will lift barriers and build an EU-wide market for defence.

Beyond this, it is important to reiterate that the security of Ukraine is also the security of the European Union, so we must maintain our financial support to Ukraine across all fronts: militarily, economically and politically. In that regard, we need to accelerate discussions for financial support to Ukraine in 2026 and beyond at EU but also at the G7 level. At the same time, we continue to put pressure on Russia and we will deliver the 18th package of sanctions.

Furthermore, we must accelerate Ukraine's path towards EU membership by opening all negotiating clusters in 2025, once Ukraine meets the relevant conditions. We also trust that the Danish Presidency will ensure the swift endorsement by the Council of the recently concluded agreement with Ukraine on the liberalisation of trade in agri-food products.

On migration, the implementation of the Pact on Migration and Asylum is a top priority for us, and we look to the Danish Presidency to take forward work on legislative files currently on the table: the return proposal, the safe third country concept and the safe countries of origin.

Turning to the second priority – a competitive and green Europe. Here, simplification is crucial as we seek to reduce administrative burdens. We have already put forward five omnibus proposals that we expect to bring over EUR 8 billion in cost savings. We have tackled some of the most pressing issues holding us back in the areas of sustainability requirements, investment, agriculture, small mid-caps and defence. Quick progress is needed to maintain the momentum and ensure that our omnibus proposals benefit our businesses. We welcome the strong emphasis that the Presidency is placing on simplification, and the aim to complete negotiations with this House on the first omnibus.

It is also worth reiterating that we must continue to improve the single market – our biggest asset. We count on the Danish Presidency to further the implementation of the single market strategy and conclude the customs union. I am very glad to highlight that this afternoon, together with Danish Presidency, will have a first trilogue on the deepest, most important customs reform since the customs union of the EU was established.

At a time when entrepreneurs struggle to access the risk capital they need, advancing on our savings and investment union is also a must. It will serve as a vital catalyst for enhancing our economic competitiveness, as highlighted in the Competitiveness Compass. We also have to deliver on the clean industrial deal, our flagship strategy to make decarbonisation a driver of industrial growth. Action plans have been put forward for the steel, chemicals and automotive sectors, setting out tailored actions for their specific needs.

Our new State aid framework will accelerate renewables, industrial decarbonisation and clean tech manufacturing. Our efforts must be underpinned by access to affordable clean energy, so we need to progress on the REPowerEU proposal, while a European grid package will be put forward later this year to speed up, permitting, and expand green capacity. And I know that my colleague, the Commissioner for energy Dan Jørgensen, is working very hard on all these files.

We will also work closely with all of you on the amendment to the European Climate Law to ensure that we stay on track with our climate agenda and keep targets realistic and achievable.

Third, honourable Members, dear Prime Minister, looking further afield, we will continue to boost trade with our partner and further diversify our supply chains and essentially grow our network of free trade agreements, which is already the world's largest. We increasingly see others around the world turning to Europe as a reliable, predictable and trustworthy partner who remains committed to rules-based, free and fair trade. We aim to finalise the deal with Mercosur and Mexico, and we hope to conclude negotiations with Indonesia and India before the end of the year. We also have made progress with the United Arab Emirates, and we are moving forward with the Philippines, Thailand and Malaysia.

At the same time, we continue to engage closely with our US counterparts on the tariffs placed on European goods. I want to assure you that we are working flat out to secure fair and mutually beneficial negotiated solutions, but we need to be prepared for all outcomes and be ready to rebalance if necessary.

It will also be very important to maintain an open and frank dialogue with China, which there has been a debate on this morning, because it's clearly to keep the view that we need to resolve systemic trade irritants, to rebalance our trade and investment relations.

And closer to home, we need to follow up on a successful EU-UK summit in May and we also support concluding trilogues on the Generalised Scheme of Preferences Regulation as quickly as possible, hopefully again under the Danish Presidency.

Finally, to continue delivering on our priorities in the coming years, next week we will present our proposal for a strong new Multiannual Financial Framework. Our aim is to strike the right balance between stability and adaptability, ensuring the EU budget can support key priorities while retaining the flexibility to respond to future crises. We are committed to managing repayments under NextGenerationEU responsibly without compromising our long-term investment capacity. It is also important to continue the discussion on the new own resources, which are essential for securing a sustainable EU budget without overburdening national contributions.

We welcome the Danish Presidency's intention to prepare the first negotiating box by the end of the year. A balanced approach will be key to preserving the integrity of the package and enabling constructive negotiations with this House.

Honourable Members, dear Prime Minister, with this, I would like to conclude. I would like to thank the Prime Minister for setting up the priorities and, of course, we are very much looking forward to our debate.

Jeroen Lenaers, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Madam President, Commissioner, colleagues, dear Prime Minister, welcome. You have big shoes to fill after the success of the Polish Presidency, but the EPP is ready to cooperate with your Presidency at a crucial time for our European Union.

While it's no secret that we do not belong to the same political family, I am happy to see a socialist leader here responsible, pragmatic and ready to engage. Perhaps in that sense, the Danish Presidency could be a good bridge-building Presidency.

Because for the EPP, this is not about politics. It is about content. We particularly support the focus on three essential pillars.

On defence, our message is clear: Europe is at a turning point. Russian aggression continues and the world is becoming more dangerous. We need to strengthen our defence industry, invest in capabilities and deepen cooperation with our allies, especially in support of Ukraine. The EPP stands firmly behind this, just like we stand firmly behind Denmark on the issue of Greenland.

On competitiveness, colleagues, let's be honest. While other global players race ahead, Europe risks suffocating under its own regulation. We need to make it easier to do business, to innovate, to grow, to compete, especially for our SMEs and family businesses. We need less ideology and more common sense, and this will also be our focus during your Presidency.

Finally, on migration, the EPP has long called for a fair, firm and effective system. We must tackle illegal migration, protect our external borders, combat trafficking networks, and ensure that those in genuine need are supported, while returning those who are not.

Prime Minister, your priorities are closely aligned with those from the European Commission. We need less moral posturing and more real solutions.

On this issue, you will find in the EPP a partner you can work with and rely on, and we rely on you as well to engage and convince your colleagues – also in this European Parliament, also those from your own political family, because, as you might have noticed, that part of the Chamber forgot to applaud that specific section of your speech.

President, we stand ready to work with the Danish Presidency to make Europe stronger, safer and more competitive.

Iratxe García Pérez, en nombre del Grupo S&D. – Señora presidenta, señora primera ministra Frederiksen, bienvenida al Parlamento Europeo. Su presencia aquí no es solo la de una jefa de Gobierno; es la de una líder valiente, europeísta y comprometida con la justicia social, una líder que ha demostrado que se puede gobernar desde la firmeza, con convicción y responsabilidad.

Bajo el lema ‘Una Europa fuerte en un mundo cambiante’, Dinamarca asume su octava Presidencia en un momento en el que la historia nos está observando. Cambian los equilibrios globales, se intensifican las amenazas externas y regresan fantasmas internos que creíamos superados. Pero Europa sólo tiene un camino posible: más unidad, más solidaridad y más ambición democrática.

Por eso, apoyamos que esta Presidencia priorice una Europa segura, competitiva y verde. Porque entendemos la competitividad no como una carrera de desigualdades, sino como la capacidad de construir economías que innovan sin excluir, que lideran sin contaminar, que protegen el empleo sin sacrificar la justicia social. Y sabemos que no hay justicia social posible si no garantizamos un derecho tan básico como el de la vivienda. Por eso también creemos que debe ser una prioridad durante este tiempo.

Europa también necesita un presupuesto a la altura de los retos. Queremos un marco financiero justo, con recursos propios y con un Fondo Social Europeo Plus más fuerte, autónomo y centrado en las personas. Lo decimos alto y claro: no hay defensa europea ni autonomía estratégica si no garantizamos la cohesión territorial y la cohesión social. Es posible abarcarlo todo, es posible hacerlo todo: avanzar en los nuevos desafíos defendiendo también la Europa que conocemos hoy.

Señora Frederiksen, acogemos con esperanza su impulso a la Directiva sobre la igualdad de trato. Aunque haya sido retirada, usted ha decidido no rendirse. Porque la igualdad no se archiva. Porque la lucha contra la discriminación no se aplaza. Porque construir una Europa sin racismo, sin homofobia y sin machismo es una urgencia democrática.

También es urgente levantar la voz fuera de nuestras fronteras. En Ucrania, con la confiscación de los activos congelados rusos frente a la masacre de Putin y, en Palestina, con la suspensión del Acuerdo de Asociación con Israel frente al genocidio de Netanyahu.

Señora Frederiksen, la historia de Dinamarca en Europa es la historia de un país que ha sabido defender sus convicciones con coraje. Un país que no ha necesitado levantar la voz para hacerse oír. Un país que ha comprendido que la soberanía no se pierde en nuestra Unión: se comparte, se multiplica, se transforma en fuerza colectiva.

Recordemos las palabras de Jens Otto Krag, el primer ministro danés que firmó el Tratado de Adhesión, en su discurso en Bruselas: ‘Mi deseo es que las Comunidades persigan sus políticas internas con un espíritu progresista de conciencia social’.

Ese deseo también es el nuestro y, con su Presidencia, señora Frederiksen, tendremos una oportunidad real de hacerlo posible.

Anders Vistisen, for PfE-Gruppen. – Fru formand! Ministre! Hvis Ursula von der Leyen skulle få lyst til at udpege sin drømmestatsminister, så kunne valget meget vel falde på dig, Mette Frederiksen. En statsminister, der siger ét til sine vælgere og gør det stik modsatte, når Bruxelles ringer. Du kaldte fælles EU-gæld for en rød linje. Alligevel så stemte den danske regering for EU-lån på 750 milliarder euro, og nu er støtten der til endnu mere gæld. Du sagde: ‘Vi skal have et mindre EU-budget’, men nu arbejder den danske formand for det største EU-budget i historien og en gigantisk ekstraregning til de danske skatteydere. Og oven i det hele støtter man nu en kæmpe østudvidelse med ekspresfart, uden den nødvendige omtanke eller reformer. Det vil få konsekvenser: løndumping, velfærdsturisme og organiseret østkriminalitet. Det er hverken ansvarligt eller nationalt, det er føderalt, og det er farligt.

Men du nøjes jo ikke med at svigte politisk, du har også svigtet demokratisk. Mens vi i disse dage behandler Ursula von der Leyens Pfizer-gate-skandale, så fandt du jo opskriften på at undgå ansvaret. Da din regering under coronakrisen ulovligt gav ordre til minkaflivning, blev grundloven brudt. Men i stedet for en retssag og en undersøgelse, så fik vi slettede SMS'er og en midterregering, der lukkede hele sagen ned. Det er imponerende! Du sletter og slipper. Ursula, hun nægter og bliver hængt ud. Så ja, Mette Frederiksen, du er virkelig ‘European by heart’. I hvert fald hvis det dækker over en ukritisk opbakning til et føderalt monster, som EU har udviklet sig til med din hjælp. Og det danske lederskab er ikke lederskab, men underkastelse, og derfor er Ursula von der Leyen en glad kvinde i dag, hvor Danmark overtager EU-formandskabet.

Kristoffer Storm, for ECR-Gruppen. – Fru formand! Kære Mette! Som dansker med respekt for retssamfundet, så gør det mig faktisk lidt trist at sidde og se dig sidde her i dag og nyde rampelyset, mens du stadig nægter at stå til ansvar for dine handlinger hjemme i Danmark. For som statsminister har du uden lovgrundlag lukket et helt erhverv. Du har gjort hundredvis af mennesker arbejdsløse, og du har sendt en regning på omkring 30 milliarder danske kroner ud til skatteborgerne. Og da spørgsmålene de kom, ja så gemte du dig bag Moderaterne og Venstre, og udnyttede jeres spinkle flertal til at undgå at skulle stilles for en domstol. Du sagde i din tale, at Europas byggesten er demokrati og frihed. Men du er den første statsminister i nyere dansk historie, der har begrænset borgernes ytringsfrihed. Det gjorde du, da du indførte Koranloven. Da valgte du at begrænse ytringsfriheden for helt almindelige mennesker og underkaste dig imamerne og lade dem diktere, hvad vi må sige, og hvordan vi må ytre os. Det er ikke alene et angreb på ytringsfriheden, det er også en ophøjelse af islam i det danske samfund.

Når jeg ser på regeringens arbejdsprogram for de næste 6 måneder, så ser jeg et arbejdsprogram uden konkrete løsninger, og som i princippet ligeså godt kunne være skrevet af et hvilket som helst andet medlemsland her i EU. Det er overfladisk, og der kommer ingen konkrete løsninger. En af de ting du dog nævner, som jeg syntes er positivt, er migration, men som sagt før: Ingen løsninger, kun tomme ord. Så Mette, jeg vil gerne hjælpe dig lidt. Lad os rejse flere hegn og mure langs EU's grænser. Lad os vende bådene i Middelhavet. Lad os sætte et stop for alt spontant asyl. Lad os give medlemslandene retten til at indføre permanent grænsekontrol. Og lad os lave en plan for remigration, og lad os tage et opgør, med de konventioner, som spænder ben for, at vi kan udvise uønskede og kriminelle indvandrere. Hvis du mangler flere gode idéer, Mette, så kan du altid skrive til mig. Jeg lover dig, at jeg sletter ikke mine SMS'er. Afslutningsvis vil jeg sige, at jeg er ikke i tvivl om, at du anser i dag og de kommende 6 måneder for én lang jobsamtale for din fremtidige karriere. Hvis du syntes, at jeg har været lidt for hård ved dig, så har jeg kun én ting at sige: Lev med det!

Billy Kelleher, on behalf of the Renew Group. – Madam President, first of all, I want to wish you, Prime Minister, and the Danish Presidency success over the next six months.

Of course, you're taking over at a very strategic time in Europe's destiny in terms of the uncertainty of international challenges, geopolitical challenges and, of course, the continuous threat of security and defence from Russia in Ukraine and our eastern borders. So, I do want to wish you and your government well.

Of course, the key issues that our citizens face on a daily basis are the issues that you refer to: competitiveness, the Green Deal, energy costs and ensuring that we have sustainable policies around housing. All very key and important areas.

Renew, as you know, Prime Minister, visited Copenhagen recently, where we met with your government and engaged with them. Renew will always be a bridge-builder. In fact, we will work as effectively as we can between the S&D and the EPP. At times, they do make it challenging, but we will continue to ensure that we have a pragmatic majority in this Parliament that can address the fundamental needs of the citizens.

Very often, Prime Minister, the difficulty is that we come to challenges with ideological baggage. What we need to do is look at things in a practical, clear sense. So, the Draghi report, for example, is a template that has been handed to us that we must address with urgency – not just talk about the report itself, but actually implement what it says it must do in terms of competitiveness, the Green Deal, deepening the single market, addressing energy costs and ensuring that we remain competitive and start engaging internationally in multilateralism as well. These are the key fundamental issues that are facing citizens.

One issue, Prime Minister, where I think you might look at it is single European skies. We have a situation where, continually, industrial disputes bring aviation to a standstill across Europe. It is a matter that affects jobs, competitiveness, citizens on holidays and business. I believe it is one key area that, if it was addressed, would send out a strong signal that Europe works for citizens, it works for competitiveness. So, I just hope that you take that specific issue on in terms of the single European skies, along with, obviously, the larger challenges that face the European Union.

I wish you, your government and your people the best.

Kira Marie Peter-Hansen, for Verts/ALE-Gruppen. – Fru formand! Tak for talen. Jeg har glædet mig til i dag, og det er jeg sikker på, at I også har, for det danske formandskab står over for nogle store udfordringer. I skal levere på et sikkert, et konkurrencedygtigt og et grønt Europa. Lad mig starte med at tage fat i det sidste, for jeg har nemlig store forventninger til Danmark. Især fordi ministre jo gennem tiden, når der har været et miljøproblem, de ikke selv vil løse, har kigget til EU. Det gælder for eksempel et forbud mod PFAS og evighedskemikalier, et stop for eksport af giftige pesticider og sprøjtemidler oppe fra Cheminova og beskyttelse af vores havmiljø. Nu har I muligheden for at gøre ord til handling, og det haster nemlig, for vandet, vi drikker, bliver stadig mere og mere forurenet, vores evne til at få børn påvirkes af fertilitetsskifte, og vores havmiljø ligger stendødt.

I SF og den grønne gruppe, der er vi klar, og det håber jeg også, at den danske regering er, for det må efterhånden stå klart for enhver, at kloden, den brænder. Så sent som i sidste uge så vi hedebølger, der lægger gaderne øde, vi så oversvømmelser, der sender mennesker fra hus og hjem, og vi så en landbrugsproduktion i knæ. Derfor er det også helt afgørende, at Danmark bruger formandskabet til at komme videre i den grønne omstilling og holde det grønne håb i live. Og vi er heldigvis beviset på, at det godt kan lade sig gøre – at klima, sikkerhed, en stærk økonomi og et trygt velfærdssamfund kan gå hånd i hånd. Derfor er det også så vigtigt, at Danmark lander en stærk 2040 plan, der reelt reducerer CO2 med 90 procent, uden klimakreditter og uden fikse regnemetoder. Det er for mig et af de helt store succeskriterier for det danske formandskab.

Det næste halve år sidder Danmark i formandsstolen. Det forpligter. Det forpligter ikke kun over for EU, men også over for en verden, der bliver mere og mere usikker. Jeg bliver stolt, når Danmark går forrest i den militære støtte til Ukraine. Jeg bliver også stolt, når vi står på de iranske kvinders side, og når vi forsvarer retten til at leve i et demokrati. Men desværre har vi en situation i Gaza og på Vestbredden, der er ude af kontrol, hvor civile og børn slås ihjel, hvor nødhjælp bruges som et våben, og hvor familier stadig venter på at få deres kære hjem. Det næste år er det Danmark, der har bolden. Jeg håber, I vil tage det ansvar på jer.

Per Clausen, for The Left-Gruppen. – Fru formand! Det kunne være fristende at holde en valgtale målrettet mod danskerne, men jeg vil faktisk fokusere på det program, som det danske formandskab har fremlagt. Der er nemlig rigeligt at kritisere: det er for lidt, det er for dårligt, og der er for meget copy/paste. Det synes jeg, er den bedste beskrivelse af prioriteringerne. Hvis man ser på de prioriteringer, der er kommet frem, så er der tale om en ukritisk Kommission, hvad den konservative EU-kommissionsformand allerede har sagt. Så jeg forstår i grunden godt EPP's begejstring. Men hvor er de reelle ambitioner for at tackle klimakrisen? Hvor er den målrettede indsats mod den grænseoverskridende sociale dumping, vi gang på gang ser eksempler på? Hvor er indsatsen for de svageste og mest sårbare i Europa? Hvor er den reelle indsats mod PFAS og den kemi, der forurener både mennesker, dyr og miljø? Og måske ikke mindst, hvorfor kan man ikke klart og utvetydigt sige fra over for Donald Trump i USA? Hvorfor skal vi fortsat være afhængige af USA? Og kan du svare mig på, hvorfor respekt for international ret ikke er i centrum for det danske EU-formandskab? For ja, EU skal støtte Ukraine, EU skal sige klart fra over for diktatoren Putin, så langt er vi 100 % enig. Men burde vi ikke gør det samme over for den krigsforbryder til Netanyahu, som regerer i Israel? Burde vi ikke gøre det over for Saudi-Arabien, Qatar eller andre diktaturer, som undertrykker befolkningerne? Det er nu – for at sige det på godt nordjysk – skuffende. Den gode nyhed er, at det stadig er muligt at rette op på de manglende ambitioner. Den dårlige er, at jeg tvivler på, at du vil gøre det, men hvis du vil, så vil vi i Venstrefløjsgruppen gerne hjælpe dig. Og som du ved, Mette, så kan du altid regne med mig og os, når du gør det rigtige. Det er kun, når du gør det forkerte, at det går galt. Så kom nu ind i kampen! I Venstrefløjsgruppen mener vi, at både Danmark og EU fortjener bedre end det her.

Mary Khan, im Namen der ESN-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin! Ein starkes Europa in einer sich wandelnden Welt. Unter diesem Motto übernimmt Dänemark die Ratspräsidentschaft. Ein starkes Europa, das bedeutet für mich ein Europa der Vaterländer, ein Europa, das auf Sicherheit, Souveränität und Traditionen baut, nicht auf offene Grenzen, Fremdbestimmung oder Ideologie. Doch es ist kein Zufall, dass Dänemark diesen Sonderweg in Sachen Migration gehen kann. Denn es ist nicht Teil des Gemeinsamen Europäischen Asylsystems. Und genau deshalb hat Dänemark Handlungsspielräume, von denen wir in Deutschland nur träumen können. Während Berlin an Brüsseler Quoten gebunden ist, kann Kopenhagen seine Grenzen schützen, Rückführungen konsequent umsetzen und über Asylzentren in Drittstaaten verhandeln. Deutschland hingegen zahlt Milliarden für ein System, das die Kontrolle längst verloren hat. Überforderte Kommunen, steigende Kriminalität und Frust in der eigenen Bevölkerung – all das ist die Realität offener Grenzen. Migration ist kein Schicksal, sie ist eine Frage des politischen Willens. Deshalb fordern wir auch von der AfD, aus dem gemeinsamen europäischen Asylsystem auszutreten. Und vielleicht können Sie das in Ihrer Zeit auch Friedrich Merz …

(Die Präsidentin entzieht der Rednerin das Wort.)

Niels Flemming Hansen (PPE). – Fru formand! Mange tak for talen, Mette. Normalt ser jeg mig selv som en glad mand, og i torsdags blev jeg endnu gladere. Markeringen af det danske formandskab var en folkefest ud over det sædvanlige. Der var fyldte gader, koncerter, debatter, diskussioner og sammenhold – dansk politik når det er bedst. Du, Mette, holdt selv en fremragende tale, hvor vi blev mindet om et mørkt kapitel i verdenshistorien, men også om, hvordan Aarhus' borgere gik pragmatisk til værks og samlede jern fra hele landet for at bygge det rådhus, der stadig står midt i byen. Den handlekraft har vi virkelig brug for igen. Denne gang gælder det forsvaret af Europa, den grønne omstilling og økonomisk vækst. Jeg håber, at den handlekraft vil præge det danske formandskab. Men for at det kan ske, så kræver det mere end godt samarbejde i Rådet. Det kræver særligt et frugtbart partnerskab her i Parlamentet. Især mellem din gruppe og den gruppe, jeg repræsenterer. Som en klog mand engang sagde, så er ideologi noget bras, og vi er nødt til at smitte Europa med den danske model. Modellen om, at ligegyldigt hvem der har magten i landet, så forsøger vi at lave løsninger sammen. Ingen får alt, men alle får noget – den konservative model. Tiden er ikke til politiske drillerier, så lad os sammen bygge bro over forskelle og sikre, at Europa kommer styrket ud af det danske formandskab. Lad os vise verden, at når det gælder Europas fremtid, så står vi skulder ved skulder.

(Taleren accepterede at besvare et blåt kort-spørgsmål)

Petras Gražulis (ESN), pakėlus mėlynąją kortelę pateiktas klausimas. – Norėjau Jūsų paklausti, ar ne per daug įvairiausių institucijų Europos Sąjungoje? Man atrodo, yra Europos Parlamentas, Europos Komisija, Europos Komisijos vadovas. Kam reikalinga dar atskirai, kad pirmininkautų kiekviena šalis? Ar yra tokia liaudies patarlė, Devynios auklės ir vaikas be galvos? Tai lygiai taip pat nežinom, nei kas už ką atsako, nei kas prisiima atsakomybę ar nereikia tikrai mažiau tos biurokratijos.

Niels Flemming Hansen (PPE), blue-card answer. – I have to say that I think that the gentleman speaking to me is completely wrong. Of course, it is important with the institution of a presidency that goes divided from country to country.

From the Danish Presidency, our biggest effort here is to put the European alliance on the right track, so that we keep moving forward and we need presidency and we need Danish leadership to do that.

Christel Schaldemose (S&D). – Fru formand! Kære Mette. Tak for din tale. Et stærkt Europa i en usikker verden. Det er mottoet for det danske formandskab. Det er godt, det skal også blive vores virkelighed. Og til det har jeg tre bemærkninger. For det første: Ukrainerne står ved frontlinjen. De kæmper også for vores frihed, demokrati og vores værdier. Derfor er det utrolig vigtigt, som du også sagde, at vi tager kampen op og hjælper ukrainerne i den kamp. Lad os være ærlige. De er med til at forsvare Europa, og vi kan ikke tale om solidaritet med det ukrainske folk om mandagen og så betale til Putins krigskasse om tirsdagen. Vores støtte må ikke vakle. Ikke i viljen, ikke i våben og ikke i vedholdenhed. Så tak til det danske formandskab. For det andet: Du taler om konkurrencedygtighed og grøn omstilling. Det er nemlig fuldstændig rigtigt. Grøn omstilling står ikke i modsætning til konkurrenceevne. De er hinandens forudsætninger, de er ikke hinandens modsætninger. Lad os kæmpe for, også at få sat gang i den grønne omstilling. Det er en af måderne, men selvfølgelig skal vi også forenkle. Så tak for at have begge dele med. Og endelig til sidst: Kampen for Europas fremtid føres ikke kun på slagmarken og i produktionshallerne. Det er også i vores børns værelser, bag skærme og også på måder, vi voksne ikke forstår. Jeg håber også, at det danske formandskab, vil være med til at kæmpe for, at børn ikke bliver overladt til algoritmer, misinformation og misbrug online. Tak for også at tage det med, selv om det ikke blev nævnt i dag. Vi skal kæmpe sammen for Europas fremtid, og Danmark går i forvejen med et godt eksempel.

Jean-Paul Garraud (PfE). – Madame la Présidente, le Danemark assure à présent la présidence du Conseil de l'Union européenne. Si votre gouvernement reste marqué, Madame le Premier ministre, par des politiques de gauche, il faut reconnaître qu'en matière migratoire vous avez infléchi votre position dans le bon sens. Mais rendons justice à ceux qui ont préparé cette évolution. Ce sont nos alliés du Parti populaire danois qui, les premiers, ont dénoncé les effets dévastateurs de l'immigration massive. Leur combat a fait bouger les lignes.

Vous avez désormais reconnu ce que les peuples répètent depuis des années: sans maîtrise de l'immigration, il n'y a ni sécurité, ni cohésion, ni justice sociale, et les coûts liés à l'immigration de masse sont considérables pour la collectivité. À présent que vous présidez le Conseil, il vous revient d'impulser cette même fermeté à l'échelle européenne, car les peuples attendent des actes: réduction des flux, durcissement du droit d'asile, fin des abus et retour à la souveraineté. Nos pays doivent garder la maîtrise de leur avenir et de leur destin: cela commence par la politique migratoire. Vous le faites au Danemark. À présent, il faut aussi le faire pour l'Union européenne.

Nicola Procaccini (ECR). – Signora Presidente, Primo ministro, onorevoli colleghi, il nostro compito, oggi, è valutare il vostro programma alla luce delle nostre diverse sensibilità politiche.

Ovviamente, apprezzo i Suoi propositi sulla lotta all'immigrazione illegale, sulla protezione delle frontiere esterne e sulla necessità di agevolare i rimpatri di chi non ha diritto all'asilo. Lei non sa da quanto tempo noi conservatori aspettavamo queste parole da una leader socialista. In tutti questi anni, solo per aver usato le Sue stesse parole, siamo stati insultati, dileggiati e combattuti dalle sinistre in questo Parlamento. Quindi, finalmente.

Purtroppo, in altre nazioni europee i socialisti continuano a perseguire una folle dottrina immigrazionista no borders. Penso alla Spagna o all'Italia, dove gli esponenti del Partito democratico rischierebbero di svenire sentendo un Suo ministro definire ‘incredibilmente positivo’ il protocollo Italia-Albania.

Purtroppo, le buone notizie nel Suo programma per noi finiscono qui. Le cattive notizie iniziano con la volontà di modificare al rialzo la tassazione europea sull'energia, quindi, tasse più alte per famiglie e imprese nel nome della transizione green.

Purtroppo, qui si rivela la matrice di sinistra del Suo governo, che interpreta l'ambientalismo come un surrogato del socialismo, che impone, tassa, vieta, obbliga e comprime la neutralità tecnologica e la libertà delle persone.

Tutto questo senza mai citare neppure una volta la parola ‘nucleare’, rivelando l'avversione per questa fonte energetica da parte del Commissario danese per l'Energia.

Primo ministro Frederiksen, converrà con me che è il bello della democrazia e della politica confrontarsi tra opinioni diverse. Noi lo faremo come sempre: cortesi nei toni, ma molto decisi nel rispetto dei nostri valori.

Morten Løkkegaard (Renew). – Fru formand! Kære Mette! Forleden indledte Danmark sit formandskab for EU, og vi havde en fest i Aarhus. En stor fest, hvor vi som danskere hyldede det europæiske lederskab midt i en brydningstid med kommissionsformand von der Leyen i spidsen. Det var dejligt at se, at danskerne bakkede så meget op, som de gjorde, og kontrasten til i går her i salen var til at få øje på. Her handlede det netop om mistillid, politiske spilfægterier og forsøg på at ødelægge det europæiske sammenhold, midt i en global krisetid. Misforstå mig ikke, selvfølgelig skal Kommissionens gøren og laden kunne tåle kritik og transparens. Vi i Renew er også kritiske på den måde. Men for nu at sige det lige ud: Timingen stank. Mens vi står og skændes her, fortsætter krigen i Ukraine, USA er ikke længere en sikker allieret, og risikoen for handelskonflikter og protektionisme stiger for hver eneste dag. Det kalder på lederskab og på et formandskab, der står fast, når det blæser. Jeg har personligt ikke nogen som helst tvivl om, at det kan det danske formandskab leve op til, og vi i Renew er i hvert fald klar til at yde vores. Det skal være budskabet herfra. Specielt også på den dagsorden, som handler om at gøre hverdagen lettere, gribe ind, der hvor frugterne hænger lavt, forenkle reglerne, fjerne bureaukrati, skabe bedre vilkår for dem, der hver dag får Europa til at hænge sammen, og det er jo som bekendt borgere og virksomheder. Der kan vi noget i Danmark. Og af samme grund roste von der Leyen også Danmark for sin effektivitet. Jeg er sikker på, at vi kan leve op til det. Jeg er i hvert fald hundrede procent sikker på, at det er den tilgang, Europa har brug for lige nu.

Rasmus Andresen (Verts/ALE). – Fru formand! Kære statsminister! I en tid, hvor had og nationalisme for alvor har indtaget scenen, er det vigtigt at stå sammen. Men som mindretalsdansker og borger i det dansk-tyske grænseland synes jeg, at EU og skiftende regeringer på begge sider af grænsen har svigtet os. Permanent og ulovlig grænsekontrol har gjort hverdagen for mange tusinder af mennesker i vores region langt mere besværlig. Grænsependlere og skoleelever, som krydser grænsen hver eneste dag, turister og almindelige borgere, som har familie, venner eller en læge på den anden side af grænsen. Men det er ikke det eneste. Siden permanent grænsekontrol blevet genindført i 2016, er det grænseoverskridende samarbejde blevet indefrosset, og vi frygter, at der i det nye EU-budget ikke ville være plads til grænseoverskridende projekter og samarbejde. Det er, som om vi ikke bliver hørt hverken i Bruxelles, Berlin eller København. De europæiske mindretal har gang på gang opfordret Kommissionen til at sætte mindretalsrettigheder på dagsordenen, og der er desværre ikke blevet lyttet. Så jeg har et simpelt budskab til dig og det danske formandskab: Glem os ikke!

(Taleren accepterede at besvare et blåt kort-spørgsmål)

João Oliveira (The Left), Pergunta segundo o procedimento ‘cartão azul’. – Senhora Presidente, Senhor Deputado Rasmus Andresen, queria perguntar-lhe se, na perspetiva dos Verdes, o programa da Presidência que foi hoje apresentado corresponde efetivamente à alternativa de que os povos precisam.

É possível construir a alternativa de que os povos precisam, insistindo nos gastos militares, insistindo no desvio de recursos orçamentais para a guerra, continuando a guerra na Ucrânia indefinidamente?

É possível construir essa alternativa com os pacotes da competitividade que favorecem as multinacionais, mas esquecem as micro, pequenas e médias empresas?

É possível construir uma alternativa, desprezando a necessidade de valorização e melhoria das condições de vida dos trabalhadores?

Rasmus Andresen (Verts/ALE), blåt-kort-svar. – Fru formand! Tak for spørgsmålet, og jeg vil da bare referere til, hvad vores næstformand for vores gruppe lige før sagde i sin indledende tale for vores gruppe. Jeg tror, det bliver vigtigt i de næste par måneder at få et EU-budget på plads, hvor vi både har plads til den grønne omstilling og plads til sociale spørgsmål, men selvfølgelig også med en styrket indsats for sikkerhedspolitik, som fylder mere, end den har gjort tidligere for EU. Og dette er i hvert fald den position, vi er meget enige om i den grønne gruppe. Og så syntes jeg til gengæld også, vi kan gøre noget mere for at beskatte f.eks. de store techvirksomheder. Og jeg håber på, at Kommissionen kommer med nogle konkrete forslag i næste uge.

Giuseppe Antoci (The Left). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, accogliamo con interesse il programma della Presidenza danese.

Certo, non ne condividiamo l'accelerazione verso il riarmo, mentre condividiamo l'urgenza di rafforzare la fiducia nello Stato di diritto.

Ma non può esserci una vera Europa dei diritti senza una vera Europa della legalità. Per questo, è inaccettabile che, dopo mesi di lavoro e negoziato sulla nuova direttiva anticorruzione, ci troviamo oggi con un dossier bloccato da un'esigua minoranza di Stati membri. La stragrande maggioranza dei paesi dell'Unione prevede già nei propri codici penali il reato di abuso d'ufficio.

Abbiamo perso tempo prezioso. Qui c'è la nostra relatrice che si è impegnata tantissimo e la corruzione non aspetta nessuno. Nel frattempo, risorse pubbliche, anche europee, continuano a essere sottratte nell'impunità.

Alla Presidenza danese chiediamo coraggio. Serve una forte leadership e determinazione per superare i veti isolati, molto isolati e dotare l'Unione, finalmente, di un'arma efficace e condivisa contro la corruzione.

Il tema non è solo politico, ma prioritariamente morale.

Marc Jongen (ESN). – Frau Präsidentin! Sehr geehrte Ministerpräsidentin Frederiksen! Viele Bürger in Deutschland schauen mit Neid, aber auch mit Hoffnung nach Dänemark, denn Sie haben geschafft, wozu unsere Regierung bisher nicht fähig war. Mit Ihrer konsequenten Migrationspolitik schützen Sie die nationale Identität und den sozialen Zusammenhalt Ihres Landes. Dieses Modell muss Vorbild für Deutschland und ganz Europa werden, um unsere Kultur und unsere Sicherheit zu bewahren – aller Respekt unserer ESN-Fraktion dafür.

Doch wir hören auch Beunruhigendes. Dänemarks Pläne zur EU-weiten Chatkontrolle und Bekämpfung sogenannter Falschinformationen sind ein Angriff auf die bürgerlichen Freiheiten. Ihr dänisches Islamgesetz war eine Unterwerfung, und Überwachung privater Chats und Zensur unliebsamer Meinungen bedrohen die Demokratie in ihrem Kern. Kinderschutz ja, aber unter diesem Deckmantel dürfen unsere Grundrechte nicht ausgehebelt werden.

Sorgen Sie bitte dafür, dass neben der Sicherheit auch die Freiheit ein Leitstern Ihrer Ratspräsidentschaft wird. Dann wünschen wir Ihnen auch viel Erfolg dafür.

Fernand Kartheiser (NI). – Madame la Présidente, Madame la Première ministre, l'administration Trump, le secrétaire d'État Rubio, le général Kellogg déclarent ouvertement que la guerre en Ukraine est une guerre par procuration, une guerre de coalition menée par les États-Unis et l'OTAN contre la Russie. Grâce au New York Times, nous savons qu'elle est commandée depuis Wiesbaden. En même temps, le président Trump nous dit que cette guerre est celle du président Biden et que, si lui avait été président, elle n'aurait jamais commencé.

Ainsi, les Américains contredisent aujourd'hui la propagande, qui est pourtant toujours la nôtre, d'une guerre d'agression unilatéralement russe. Ils n'admettent plus cette terminologie dans leurs déclarations officielles. Tirons-en les conséquences. Soyons aussi honnêtes que les Américains: mettons fin à cette guerre! Changeons notre politique à l'égard de la Russie et aidons les Ukrainiens à se reconstruire politiquement et économiquement! Nous espérons que la présidence danoise agira dans ce sens.

Angelika Niebler (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Vizepräsident, Herr Kommissar, Frau Ministerpräsidentin, liebe Kolleginnen, liebe Kollegen! Worauf kommt es jetzt an? Europa muss für die Sicherheit seiner Bürgerinnen und Bürger sorgen. Wir müssen unsere Verteidigungsfähigkeit sicherstellen. Wir müssen die Ukraine weiter verteidigen. Wir müssen gegen illegale Migration vorgehen, und unsere Unternehmen müssen entlastet werden. Wir müssen Bürokratie abbauen, unseren europäischen Standort stärken, uns gute Rahmenbedingungen schaffen, damit die Arbeitsplätze bei uns hier in der Europäischen Union bleiben. Natürlich müssen Klimaschutz und Wettbewerbsfähigkeit Hand in Hand gehen. Um all das will sich in den nächsten sechs Monaten die dänische Ratspräsidentschaft kümmern. Verehrte Frau Ministerpräsidentin, Ihnen und Ihrem ganzen Team wünsche ich gutes Gelingen, wünsche ich eine glückliche Hand bei Ihrer Ratspräsidentschaft und kann auch – wie meine Kollegen aus der Fraktion – nur gute Zusammenarbeit mit der EVP anbieten.

Gerne würde ich ein Thema noch einmal ansprechen, das Sie auch prioritär angehen wollen, das ist das Thema Entlastung, Bürokratieabbau. Ich wünsche mir sehr, dass der erste Omnibus, das erste große Entlastungspaket noch unter Ihrer Ratspräsidentschaft unter Dach und Fach kommen kann. Wir brauchen eine massive Entlastung unserer mittelständischen Betriebe. Der erste Omnibus zur Nachhaltigkeit ist ja noch unter der polnischen Ratspräsidentschaft weitestgehend beraten worden. Also viel Glück, und ich hoffe sehr, dass es Ihnen gelingt, wirklich das zuzumachen. Das ist das Signal, was gerade unsere Betriebe brauchen, dass wir es ernst meinen mit dem Bürokratieabbau.

Alex Agius Saliba (S&D). – Sinjura President, Prim Ministru, ma setax ikun hemm mument aħjar sabiex id-Danimarka, wieħed mill-aktar pajjiżi diġitalizzati, tieħu f'idejha l-presidenza tal-Unjoni Ewropea. Id-diżgwid dwar Greenland wera li d-Danimarka, li pajjiżhom u l-Unjoni Ewropea huma wisq dipendenti fuq it-teknoloġiji Amerikani. Huwa l-mument f'waqtu li nieħdu passi konkreti u nsaħħu s-sovranità tagħna fejn jidħlu t-teknoloġiji. Il-kompetittività fil-qasam diġitali tirrikjedi li l-Ewropa tibni l-kapaċità tagħha f'teknoloġiji diġitali ewlenin. L-innovazzjoni tinkiseb b'investiment li jsostni soluzzjonijiet diġitali alternattivi. Irridu noħolqu alternattivi Ewropej li jkissru l-mudelli finanzjarji inetiċi ta' data harvesting u profiling. Huwa biss permezz ta' dawn l-alternattivi li nistgħu negħlbu l-isfidi li nipproteġu ż-żgħażagħ minn kontenut abbużiv, inwaqqfu l-algoritmi vizzjużi u nillimitaw użu eċċessiv ta' aġġeġġi diġitali. Naqbel li b'mod urġenti jeħtieġ li jkollna strateġija għal start-ups, scaleups u infrastrutturi tat-teknoloġija sabiex insaħħu l-ekosistemi teknoloġiċi tagħna. Jiena kunfidenti li d-Daniżi għandhom il-konoxxenza sabiex nagħmlu l-progress fl-aġenda diġitali tagħna.

Ernő Schaller-Baross (PfE). – Tisztelt Elnök Asszony! Tisztelt Miniszterelnök Asszony! Tisztelt Miniszter Asszony! A soros elnökséget betöltő tagállam felelőssége óriási. Elsődleges feladata, hogy a tagállamok közötti koordinációt segítse akkor is, ha szocialista kormányokról beszélünk. Már a dán elnökség kezdetén politikai alapú állásfoglalások születtek az Önök részéről, melyek különösen hazámat, Magyarországot fenyegetik. Nem értem. Európának most békére, valódi versenyképességre lenne szüksége. Önök egy háborúban álló országot kívánnak gyorsítva felvenni az unióba. A magyar emberek erre egyértelműen nemet mondtak.

Önök ezzel a lépéssel az európai biztonságot, gazdaságot és agráriumot döntenék romba, miközben Magyarország szabadon választott kormányát és választóit zsarolják. A magyarok 2015-ben már egyszer nemet mondtak a fenyegetésükre, az okításukra, nemet mondtak az illegális migrációra, az integrációs nehézségekre, az importált terrorizmusra és antiszemitizmusra, a többségi nyelv elsorvadására iskoláinkban, intézményeinkben. Ez lehet a brüsszeli út, lehet az Önök útja, de mi nem kérünk belőle, ahogy most sem kérünk az okításból, a háborús uszításból és az európai gazdaság romba döntéséből.

Kérem a dán elnökséget, tartsa tiszteletben honfitársaim, a magyar emberek demokratikus döntését.

Charlie Weimers (ECR). – Fru talman! Ärade statsminister Frederiksen! I många år har Danmark varit en förebild för oss svenskar. Er pragmatism, er stolthet över nationen och er vilja att stå upp för danska intressen inspirerade. Ni sa nej till massinvandring långt innan alla andra gjorde det. Ni krävde en nykter EU-budget. Det var bra.

Men nu ser vi en annan bild. Ni omfamnar en större EU-budget. Ni tar den enkla vägen. Att spendera andras pengar är nog det enklaste som finns. Verkligt ledarskap handlar om att prioritera och göra upp med Bryssels ineffektivitet.

Fru statsminister! For 6 år siden kaldte De EU-budgettet fuldstændig gak. Helt rigtigt. Omtrent som tidligere bruger jeg udtrykket kompromisvillig som en svensker. Landet, der altid stemmer ja, aldrig nedlægger veto – Europas dommere. Kompromisvillig som en svensker, ville De virkelig også huskes for det, fru statsminister?

Stine Bosse (Renew). – Madam President, dear Prime Minister, dear Commissioners, for the next half year, Denmark bears a great responsibility, and what an important time to do so. The challenges before us are numerous, urgent and complex.

Europe is facing a busy agenda, from ensuring the security and defence of our borders to addressing the multifaceted threats we confront. We in the north and east must support our southern neighbours along the Mediterranean in strengthening our outer borders and fight illegal migration, while Europeans in the south and west must recognise the urgency of protecting our eastern borders against the rising threats from Putin's Russia.

At the core, we must defend our fundamental values, enabling our businesses, big and small, to thrive and grow, transforming our single market into a truly united one.

Simultaneously, we must simplify our processes without compromising on vital priorities: food security, environmental health, workplace safety and combating the devastating climate crisis, which is more urgent than ever. In other words, we need to work hard and work together. But I truly believe that, through dedication and determination, we can make a real difference for ourselves and for future generations.

Reinier Van Lanschot (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, dear Prime Minister, Denmark has great stories to tell. It gave Ukraine all its artillery so they could fight back. It launched the Danish model for defence investments to help Ukraine win. Now Denmark is targeting Orbán's veto so Ukraine can take steps towards its European future.

Denmark holds the rotating presidency for the next six months, and your Minister of European Affairs has said she wants to take away Orbán's veto and voting rights. A unique opportunity to blast through Europe's paralysis with a little Danish dynamite.

It's time to do what millions of Hungarians, tens of millions of Ukrainians and hundreds of millions of Europeans have asked for: stop this wannabe dictator. The least corrupt country on the planet going after the most corrupt leader in Europe. Isn't that a story we would all like to hear?

Νικόλας Φαραντούρης (The Left). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, αγαπητή πρωθυπουργέ της Δανίας. Σας καλωσορίζουμε στο Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο και, μαζί με εσάς, καλωσορίζουμε τη Δανική Προεδρία. Κυβερνάτε μια χώρα, η οποία τις τελευταίες δεκαετίες έχει κάνει σημαντικές προσπάθειες για την κοινωνική συνοχή, για τη συμπερίληψη, για τη μείωση των ανισοτήτων και, τελικά, για την ευημερία.

Σας καλώ να μην αφήσετε αυτά τα κεκτημένα να πάνε χαμένα και με την προεδρία σας να δώσετε έμφαση όχι μόνο στην ανταγωνιστικότητα, αλλά και στην κλιματική κρίση, αλλά και στην κοινωνική συνοχή. Θέλω να δώσετε έμφαση στη στέγαση και στην υγεία. Θέλω να ξέρουν οι Ευρωπαίοι πολίτες ότι η Ευρώπη, η κοινή μας οικογένεια, μεριμνά για τα σημαντικά προβλήματα που αφορούν όλους μας και σας καλώ να είστε επικεφαλής αυτής της προσπάθειας και όχι ουραγός.

Arno Bausemer (ESN). – Sehr geehrte Frau Präsidentin, sehr geehrte Frau Ministerpräsidentin. Ein starkes Europa in einer Welt im Wandel – so lautet also das Motto der dänischen Ratspräsidentschaft. Ein starkes Europa wäre ein Europa mit sicheren Außengrenzen und weiteren sichtbaren Maßnahmen gegen illegale Migration. Hier haben die Sozialdemokraten in Dänemark bereits einige positive Akzente gesetzt, deshalb wäre es zu hoffen, dass es hier endlich positive Impulse zur Remigration geben wird. Die anhaltende Flüchtlingsbegeisterung, vor allem bei deutschen Sozialdemokraten und Grünen, zeigt aber, dass hier wenig Grund zur Hoffnung besteht.

Verehrte Frau Ministerpräsidentin, lassen Sie sich bei der Migrationspolitik nicht bremsen. Zeigen Sie bei Störfeuern von außerhalb dieselbe Entschlossenheit wie der Trainer Ihrer so erfolgreichen Handballnationalmannschaft! Als im Januar ein Klimaaktivist ein Spiel von Dänemark bei der Weltmeisterschaft mit seinem Protest als Bühne missbrauchen wollte, da beförderte Trainer Nikolaj Jacobsen diesen seltsamen Ökofaschisten kurzerhand selbst vom Spielfeld. Er wollte, dass es ohne Störungen erfolgreich weitergeht.

Wie wäre es denn ersatzweise mit diesem Motto für die dänische Präsidentschaft? Ein erfolgreiches Europa ohne Störungen von außerhalb.

Siegfried Mureșan (PPE). – Madam President, Prime Minister, welcome back to the European Parliament. Denmark is taking over the Council Presidency at a very important moment. Setting the right priorities for the Union for the next six months is essential because, Prime Minister, your success will be our success.

Truth be told, we are seeing autocrats inside the European Union and outside the European Union cooperating closely, clearly wanting to weaken our democracy, weaken our security, weaken our prosperity.

Let me say clearly: we will only be able to defend our democracy and our prosperity if we fight for it. This is why setting security and defence on the one side, and competitiveness, prosperity, defending our way of life, our high social standards in Europe, are essential priorities for the next six months. They should be priorities of the Danish Presidency and they are our priorities for the next years.

We should also put our money where our mouth is. As the Prime Minister has said, as the Vice-President of the Commission has said, the European Commission will make their proposal on the multiannual financial framework of the Union on 16 July.

We should work closely together to make sure that that will be a budget that will be adopted in time, that will give certainty to beneficiaries of EU funds, to researchers, to farmers, to the regions, to students.

It should be a budget that makes Europe safer and more competitive. It should be a budget that prioritises and doesn't neglect traditional priorities. Farmers are important, regions are important and it should be a European budget, not a sum of 27 different national interests. For this, the European Parliament will fight together.

Gabriele Bischoff (S&D). – Frau Präsidentin, Frau Premierministerin! In der Tat, ein entscheidender Zeitpunkt Europas, wo die dänische Ratspräsidentschaft übernimmt. In einer Zeit, wo geopolitische Unsicherheiten wachsen, aber auch in unserer Gesellschaft sich immer mehr Menschen abgehängt fühlen – und gleichzeitig eben nicht sicher genug. Deswegen gehört zur Sicherheit für uns essenziell die soziale Sicherheit. Und ich möchte sagen, heute haben wir hier viele Beispiele gehört, wo alle gerne dänisch werden möchten.

Ich möchte ein anderes Beispiel nennen, wo Dänemark für uns ein Rollenmodell ist – und das ist die öffentliche Auftragsvergabe. Sie stellen sicher, dass es nicht das billigste Angebot ist, sondern tatsächlich, dass da, wo gute Arbeit geschaffen wird durch öffentliche Aufträge – und hier wollen wir von Ihnen lernen, wir machen gerade einen Initiativbericht, denn wir wollen gute Arbeit und auch faire und freie Mobilität – hier ist Dänemark ein Rollenmodell.

Wir brauchen digitale Methoden hier, um sicherzustellen, dass wir wirklich auch eine faire Mobilität in Zukunft haben und ein Punkt der (unverständliche Worte) Erweiterung und Reform der EU zusammen zu denken.

Pál Szekeres (PfE). – Tisztelt Elnök Asszony! Tisztelt Miniszterelnök Asszony! A dán elnökség nagyon sokat beszél a zöld átállásról, de a program szinte teljesen mellőzi a társadalmi szempontokat. Hol vannak belül azok az intézkedések, amelyek megvédenék az európai családokat az energiaárak drámai emelkedésétől? A zöld átmenet hosszú távú céljai szépen hangzanak, de addig is emberek millióinak kell kifizethetetlen számlákkal szembenézniük. A statisztikai adatok azt mutatják, hogy az uniós polgárok egyötödének gondot okozott a téli fűtésszámlák kifizetése.

Ezzel szemben Magyarországon a rezsicsökkentés rendszere világos és célzott válasz. Védi a családokat, kiszámíthatóvá teszi a költségeket, és enyhíti az inflációs nyomást is. Amit szintén hiányolok a dán elnökségi programban: a lakhatás kérdése nem elég hangsúlyos, pedig az európai fiatalok számára ez égetően fontos. Magyarország nem feledkezik meg a fiatalokról. Az első saját lakáshoz jutás érdekében a kormány háromszázalékos hitellel támogatja 50 millió forint értékben, 25 éves futamidővel. Ez egy valódi, kézzelfogható segítség. Önök is maradjanak a realitás talaján.

Tomas Tobé (PPE). – Madam President, Commission, Prime Minister, first, I'd like to say that you have my deepest respect for your leadership on Ukraine. From a Swede to a Dane, mange tak.

I would also like to state that the EPP have very high expectations of the Danish Presidency. We need a stronger defence – S&D Group, please, your Prime Minister is here, welcome to this debate – from the EPP Group, we need a stronger defence. We need to tackle and combat organised crime. We need to take back control of migration and we need to make Europe more competitive with more growth instead of decline. Therefore, we need to deliver on the omnibus proposals and also make sure that we sign more free trade agreements.

Prime Minister, if you deliver on this, you will have an ally in the EPP. We will support you and we will work with you. And I would say that I hope that the voice of the Danish Government, the Danish S&D, would also be the voice of S&D in this House, because then we could really get things done. We wish you luck and we would like to cooperate with you. Good luck.

Heléne Fritzon (S&D). – Fru talman! Kära Mette, jag välkomnar det danska ordförandeskapet. Mitt dejlige grannland. Välkommen!

I en tid då världen skakar behöver Europa ett ledarskap som står stadigt för vår säkerhet, för klimatet och för vår demokrati. Mette, du är en stark ledare. Du är en statsminister som står på medborgarnas sida, och det behöver vi i Europa i dag.

Danmarks prioriteringar är mycket tydliga. EU ska fortsätta ta ledartröjan med en ambitiös klimatpolitik. En grön omställning med gröna investeringar som driver Europas konkurrenskraft och tillväxt – ja, det är vägen framåt.

Men då krävs också ett tydligt mål för 2040. Jag säger minst 90 %, med målet 95, för det säger vetenskapen. Det här handlar om våra barns och barnbarns framtid, så jag önskar er all framgång med ordförandeskapet. Lycka till!

Pierre-Romain Thionnet (PfE). – Madame la Présidente, Madame la Première ministre, et si la présidence danoise était celle d'une préférence européenne enfin assumée? Le Danemark a l'occasion de montrer la voie. En matière d'industrie de la défense, vous héritez des négociations du programme EDIP, et il est essentiel que l'ambition de ce texte ne soit pas anéantie par des dérogations qui prolongeraient la dépendance à l'égard des États-Unis.

En matière de politique migratoire, le Danemark est source d'inspiration. Vous nous montrez que la cohésion culturelle et sociale d'une nation n'est possible qu'à l'aide d'un strict contrôle des frontières et d'une régulation des équilibres démographiques.

Défense, immigration: ce ne sont là que deux enjeux, mais peut-être les plus essentiels et les plus emblématiques du nouveau monde qui se dessine sous nos yeux. Les deux sont intimement liés. L'Europe n'aura pas de destin libre si elle n'a pas les moyens militaires de dissuader les nouvelles prétentions impériales. Et l'Europe ne sera pas crédible à l'extérieur si son identité n'est pas garantie à l'intérieur.

Gardien des détroits nordiques, le Danemark a aujourd'hui la possibilité de diriger l'isthme européen vers une nouvelle orientation: celle de sa renaissance.

Henrik Dahl (PPE). – Fru formand! Kære kolleger! Kære statsminister! Velkommen til Europa-Parlamentet og Strasbourg og tak for en god og vigtig tale. Vi har ikke brug for eksperimenter. Vi har brug for samling af vores fælles værdier, frihed, fornuft og folkestyre. Og jeg synes, det danske formandskab prioriteringer afspejler præcis den alvor og ansvarlighed, der er brug for. Den danske statsminister er kendt for at kunne sige tingene klart, når situationen og alvoren kræver det. Og den evne håber jeg, vores statsminister vil bruge i en helt afgørende sag: Ukraine. For sandheden er, at Europa tidligere har svigtet Ukraine. I 2008 afviste Tyskland og Frankrig at tilbyde Ukraine en vej ind i NATO af hensyn til Rusland. Det har haft store konsekvenser. I dag bakker Europa op om Ukraine i ord, men det kniber stadig med handling. I Danmark støtter vi med cirka to procent af BNP. Tyskland, Frankrig, Italien og Spanien giver langt mindre. Hvis alle støttede som Danmark, havde Ukraine for længst vundet over Rusland. Derfor opfordrer jeg statsministeren til at tale klart med de lande, der endnu ikke har forstået alvoren.

Catch-the-eye procedure

Michał Szczerba (PPE). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Panie Komisarzu! Wysoka Izbo! Przede wszystkim wyrażamy wielkie zadowolenie, że po przełomowej polskiej prezydencji skoncentrowanej na kwestii bezpieczeństwa Dania przejmuje prezydencję również z mocnym postanowieniem: bezpieczeństwo musi być w centrum naszej uwagi.

Dania otrzymuje tę prezydencję z instrumentem SAFE, który daje 150 mld euro na uzbrojenie Europy, ale również w bardzo ważnym momencie, jakim będą negocjacje nad wieloletnimi ramami finansowymi. Unia Europejska musi mieć solidny budżet, by sprostać wyzwaniom, także w obszarze bezpieczeństwa. I tutaj Fundusz Konkurencyjności będzie bardzo istotnym wsparciem. Chcieliśmy życzyć duńskiej prezydencji wszystkiego dobrego. Możecie polegać na polskich przyjaciołach.

Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis (S&D). – Madam President, Prime Minister, your programme calls for a strong Europe in a changing world. But it would be good to enshrine one word: a strong social Europe in a changing world. And I trust the Danish Social Democratic Government, because you can do your best, strengthening the social dimension in the EU, because a social dimension means possibilities to convince European people to have much stronger reforms.

We need a more integrated Europe, we need a more effective Europe, and we need more attention in next multiannual financial framework, defending cohesion funds, defending cooperation, defending agricultural funds and not cutting those investments.

And of course: enlargement, enlargement, and once again, enlargement! It's one important tool for defending Ukraine and defending peace in Europe. Peace in Europe means support in Ukraine and peace is our common value.

Sebastian Tynkkynen (ECR). – Madam President, Prime Minister, I would like to congratulate Denmark on the Council Presidency. I am delighted to see your programme addressing key EU challenges – tackling illegal migration and securing external borders, as well as continuing the unwavering support for Ukraine and the pressure on Russia.

Countering issues like migrant smuggling and instrumentalised migration are not only vital for the safety of the victims of these practices, but also for the internal security of Europe.

The recent incitements to Islamic violence in Europe by Iran, the ongoing threat posed by uncontrolled migration, the threat of Russia – this is not an easy time for Europe.

When it comes to migration policy, many European conservatives have envied strict Danish practices that have had vast support in your country. I hope those strict practices will become the future of Europe.

Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle (Renew). – Madam President, Madam Prime Minister, I fully agree with you – the European Union should have security and competitiveness as priorities. But there will not be real security as long as foreign governments can corrupt our public officials. And there will not be competitiveness in a corrupt system. That is why we need a strong anti-corruption directive.

And it is a disgrace that Member States are blocking this at this moment. They are playing political games in a dirty tit for tat: 'If you support my opposition to an anti-corruption directive, I will support your opposition to better green legislation.' We cannot allow this to happen.

Citizens are watching, and I hope, I really hope that under your leadership, the Danish Presidency will manage to convince Member States of the need for a new anti-corruption directive. I wish you all the luck.

(End of catch-the-eye procedure)

Maroš Šefčovič, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, dear Prime Minister, honourable Members, first and foremost, I know the time is really, really flying, but I think that also this debate was so clear that it allowed me to be very brief because the discussion among the honourable MEPs clearly confirmed strong, across-the-board support for the Danish Presidency's priorities.

I believe that there is a clear recognition of the challenging times we are living and therefore, in the Commission, we very much appreciate that the Danish Presidency's priorities keep focus on how to tackle these challenges and how to deal with them.

I think the debate clearly reflected strong underlying support for Ukraine, the need to work more for a secure Europe and promote a common defence, not to repeat the mistakes of complacency we committed over the last decade, as it was rightly pointed out by the Prime Minister in her opening remarks.

The second sectorial priority, which was reflected in many interventions of the honourable Members of the European Parliament, is the importance of the implementation of the Pact on Migration and Asylum, where we look forward to advancing legislative files which are currently on the table together with our Danish colleagues.

Third, most highlighted remarks have been focusing on the importance of competitiveness and simplification. And I agree with those MEPs who see it as absolutely crucial to respond to the current challenges. I believe that the programme of the Danish Presidency is clearly reflecting this priority as well.

As you know, Denmark is traditionally a strong supporter and ally in promoting the agenda of free and fair trade. And clearly there is a huge agenda there. And I can tell you, as Commissioner for Trade, that it is a good feeling to know that you have the support of the presidency and that we share common high ambition in this area.

To conclude, Madam President, I just would like to refer to the common Slovak proverb which, if translated into English, says 'good start means good conclusion', and we indeed need a good start on multiannual financial framework negotiations, because we know how difficult they are.

But I believe that with the ambition of the Danish Presidency to propose negotiating books already by the end of the year, we will get there, we will do that, and we will have a good start.

So, Madam Prime Minister, good luck. Lots of success to your presidency. Thank you very much.

President. – Thank you very much, Commissioner. Now, dear colleagues, we will hear from the Prime Minister.

Dear Mette, you have seen quite a broad version of views for the past one hour and a half. Thank you for sitting through them. If you can try to answer most of them, that would be good.

Dear colleagues, can we please listen to the Prime Minister of Denmark as the sitting presidency.

Mette Frederiksen, formand for Rådet. – Fru formand! Tak for mange gode indlæg. Jeg er enig i det meste. Der var nogle, der var lidt besynderlige, dem vender jeg tilbage til. Der var en af jer, der sagde – en dansker – at en af mine forgængere på et tidspunkt har sagt, at ideologi er noget bras. Det er jeg meget, meget uenig i. Hvis ikke man som politiker kender sin retning, så bliver man blæst omkuld. Og hvis vi som europæere ikke ved, hvor vi vil hen nu, så er der rigtig mange fjender i den her verden, der har tænkt sig at blæse Europa omkuld. Så vi bliver nødt til at kende vores retning. Og når vi har den, så skal vi være pragmatiske, så skal vi finde kompromiserne, og så skal vi være villige til at finde løsningerne.

For mig er der kun én vej frem nu, og det er Europa – Europa, Europa, Europa. Det siger jeg, måske også henvendt den her vej… (afbrudt af klapsalver) ja, men jeg skal se, om jeg kan få Parlamentet til at klappe på det samme tidspunkt i dag, for jeg vil gerne gøre det meget klart, at min forudsætning for at kunne sige Europa, det er, at jeg selv er meget, meget stolt af mit fædreland. Jeg er dansker, før jeg er noget andet. Jeg tror på nationalstaten. Jeg tror også på grænsekontrol. Jeg tror på, at vi skal have lov til at styre, hvem der kommer ind i vores land, og hvem der kommer ind på vores kontinent. Men forudsætningen for, at jeg kan passe på mit land – det Danmark, jeg elsker – det er… (afbrudt af klapsalver) det er… (afbrudt af tilråb og klapsalver) nej, nej, nej, I klapper alt, alt, alt for tidligt. I klapper alt for tidligt i denne her proces, fordi…

Yes, that's a good start, but…

Egentlig er jeg glad for at stå i midten i dag, fordi der er ikke nogen – beklager – politisk gruppe i det her parlament, jeg synes har svaret på alle udfordringer på samme tidspunkt, og derfor vil min appel være: læg måske partigrupperne lidt til side, og hav nu kun én ting for øje: Hvad er det fælles bedste for hele vores Europa? 1) Vi skal have ambitiøse klimamål. Venner, det er uholdbart, at vi betaler for Putins krigsmaskine i et europæisk land, det bliver nødt til at slutte. (Klapsalver i den ene side af salen). Nu glemmer I at klappe i den her side af parlamentssalen. Men 1) at finansiere en russisk krig i Europa er forkert, 2) vi er også nødt til at sige, at det er uholdbart, at vi som politikere ikke kan skaffe vores befolkninger og vores virksomheder ren, grøn og billig energi. Derfor: hold fast i ambitionerne, og sørg for, at den grønne transformation bliver til virkelighed. Og 2) krigen i Ukraine har aldrig handlet kun om Ukraine. Krigen i Ukraine handler om et Rusland, der ønsker at bygge et større Rusland, og de er villige til at slå vores europæiske naboer ihjel. Derfor skal vi fortsætte, ikke alene vores støtte og vores opbakning til Ukraine. Ukraine BØR blive medlem af NATO. De SKAL være medlem af EU. Vi bliver nødt til at se vores opbakning til Ukraine som forsvaret af os selv, og aldrig… (afbrudt af klapsalver) og aldrig nogensinde igen, må vi bringe Europa i en situation, hvor Europa ikke kan forsvare sig selv. Vi skal ikke ligge i læ af andre. Europa skal nu ranke ryggen. Vi skal inden 2030 kunne forsvare os selv i tætte alliancer med andre, men det er vores opgave – os, der er her – sammen med vores kolleger at passe på vores eget kontinent. Derfor bliver vi nødt til at få industrien til at køre.

We are no longer at peacetime. Europe is no longer at peacetime. Therefore, we have to rearm ourselves.

Og må jeg så til sidst bare lige sige et par enkelte ord omkring migration. Det er jo netop fordi jeg er socialdemokrat, at jeg tror på og kæmper for en stram udlændingepolitik. For de, der betaler prisen ved den alt for høje kriminalitet i rigtig mange europæiske hovedstæder lige nu – de, der betaler prisen for den usikkerhed, som den ukontrollerede indvandring har medført til vores lande, det er de dårligst stillede europæere. Så det er netop fordi, jeg er socialdemokrat, at jeg står for den udlændingepolitik, jeg gør… (afbrudt af klapsalver) I klapper herovre … jeg skal nok slutte nu … I klapper stadigvæk for tidligt, fordi der er for mange i den her side af Parlamentet, der bliver ved med at påstå over for europæerne, at I kan passe på Europa uden os andre. Intet europæisk land er i dag stort nok til at passe på sig selv og deres befolkninger. Derfor – og det skal være min afsluttende kommentar – jeg er glad for, at vi har en stærk EU-Kommission lige nu. Jeg er glad for, at det er Ursula von der Leyen, der står i spidsen for det europæiske samarbejde. Vi har brug for samarbejde, vi har brug for handlekraft. Et splittet Europa er den bedste gave, I kan give Rusland, og derfor får I aldrig nogensinde lov til, at det kommer til at ske. Vi bliver nødt til at stå sammen. Vi skal passe på vores befolkninger. Vi skal passe på vores værdier. Vi skal passe på Europa. Og i øvrigt tak for opbakningen til hele kongeriget Danmark inklusive Grønland. Jeg glæder mig til samarbejdet. Det bliver et svært halvt år, men tag ikke fejl, Europa har stået over for langt større udfordringer end dem, vi står over for i dag. Og står vi sammen i Europa, kan vi løse selv de sværeste opgaver. Jeg glæder mig til samarbejdet med jer allesammen.

Written Statements (Rule 178)

President. – That concludes the item.

Kinga Gál (PfE), írásban. – Július 1-jén Dánia vette át az Európai Unió Tanácsának soros elnökségét. A dán uniós ügyekért felelős miniszter az elnökség első napjaiban azt tartotta az egyik legfontosabb dolognak, hogy Magyarországot támadja a 7. cikk szerinti eljárással. Mindezt úgy, hogy Európa ma ezer sebből vérzik. Brüsszel elhibázott döntéseinek következményeként: az európai versenyképesség hanyatlik, az energiaárak az egekbe szöktek, a Green Deal a gazdák megélhetését veszélyezteti, az illegális migráció pedig az európai emberek biztonságát fenyegeti.

A mi álláspontunk világos: gyökeres fordulat kell. Az ideológia-vezérelt politikák helyett, olyan döntésekre van szükség, amelyek a józan észt tükrözik és az európai emberek érdekeit szolgálják. Migrációs Paktum helyett, a külső határvédelem megerősítése, az illegális migráció megállítása, az eddigi rossz intézményi és bírósági gyakorlat megváltoztatása. Brüsszeli túlszabályozás helyett a versenyképesség javítása és a bürokratikus terhek csökkentése. Méregzöld átmenet helyett, gazdabarát agrárpolitika. Ukrajna erőltetett uniós csatlakozása helyett, az érdemalapú bővítés előmozdítása a Nyugat-Balkánon.

Háborús retorika helyett pedig a béke előmozdítása és a diplomáciai erőfeszítések támogatása.

Bízunk benne, hogy a dán elnökség is ezekre a prioritásokra és a konstruktív együttműködésre fókuszál majd, a tagállamok ideológiai alapú leckéztetése helyett. A Patrióták az európai emberek érdekeit és a józan ész hangját képviselik. Ezt most, a dán elnökség idején is hallatni fogjuk.

(The sitting was briefly suspended)

IN THE CHAIR: NICOLAE ȘTEFĂNUȚĂ

Vice-President

5. Resumption of the sitting

(The sitting resumed at 12.26)

President. – We thank the Prime Minister of Denmark and we wish her a good presidency for Europe.

6. Amendment of the agenda

President. – I would like to make an announcement that the request for urgent procedure submitted concerning the European Climate Law has been withdrawn. As a result, the vote on this request, which was scheduled for today's voting session, will no longer take place.

7. Voting time

President. – The next item is the vote.

7.1. Bulgaria's adoption of the euro on 1 January 2026 (A10-0113/2025 - Eva Maydell) (vote)

President. – Our second point on the agenda. I have received a request for adjournment of the vote on the report on the adoption by Bulgaria of the euro on 1 January 2026. Pursuant to Rule 206(4), a political group or Members reaching at least a low threshold may present a motion calling for a vote to be adjourned. This is the case.

Rada Laykova, on behalf of the ESN Group. – Mr President, we move to adjourn the vote on the Maydell report until the Advisory Committee has made its ruling based on Rule 206(4). There is an active investigation into a serious conflict of interest because the rapporteur is from the same party that governs Bulgaria, the very government she is expected to evaluate impartially. This report asks one thing: have the convergence criteria been met? These exist to protect the citizens and not the interests of governments, and here the governing party is evaluating itself.

The Commission and the Bulgarian Government have already had their exchange, and now it's Parliament's job to scrutinise and not to rubber stamp. This conflict goes to the heart of institutional integrity – we filed a complaint weeks ago and there has been no ruling yet. If it comes after the vote, this could seriously undermine this Parliament's credibility. We still have the chance to act responsibly. This is not just a technical matter – it's about trust and democratic scrutiny and our role as guardians of public interest.

Jeroen Lenaers, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, so the EPP is against this request to adjourn the vote on Bulgaria's adoption of the euro.

Let's also be frank about what this is really about: Ms Laykova is not interested in the Rules of Procedure or some fantasy allegations on conflict of competence, especially coming from a shadow rapporteur with the same nationality on the same file.

What this is really about is that Ms Laykova and her friends in the ESN Group would rather have Bulgaria join the rouble than the euro.

So, all the correct procedures have been followed. This House is ready to vote, so let's do so.

President. – I put the request to a vote by roll call.

(Parliament rejected the request)

We continue with the votes.

The first vote is on Bulgaria's adoption of the euro on 1 January 2026 (see minutes, item 7.1).

– Before the vote on the Commission proposal:

Ева Майдел, докладчик. – Г-н Председател, днес гласуваме решение с огромно значение за България и за целия ЕС.

Докладът, който разглеждаме днес, е един от трите за бъдещето на България в еврозоната. Досегашните конвергентни доклади на Европейската централна банка и Европейската комисия ясно показват, че България е готова да се присъедини към еврозоната от 1 януари 2026 г. и изпълнява всички критерии. Нека не забравяме, че повече от две десетилетия България върви по този път. От валутния борд през 1997 г. до пълно участие в ERM2.

Фактите са ясни. Националното законодателство е напълно съгласувано с изискванията на ЕС, постигната е ценова стабилност с инфлация под референтната стойност, публичните финанси са стабилни, изискванията за дефицит и дълг са изпълнени. Валутата поддържа стабилен курс в рамките на ERM2 повече от нужните две години. И макар този доклад да изглежда доста технически, за всеки българин от последните три поколения, той е нещо много повече.

От онези, които бяха на площада през 1989 г. и мирно свалиха комунистическия режим, през онези, които изгладуваха валутната криза на 1997 г. до онези млади хора, които днес наричат Европа своя дом. Приемането на еврото е постигане на европейската мечта за тях в цялата ѝ пълнота. И ние дължим на всички тях одобрението на този доклад. България е готова, Европа е готова. Нека направим тази крачка заедно.

President. – It is adopted. Congratulations, Bulgaria!

(Applause)

It is a historic moment when a new Member State joins the euro area.

7.2. The role of gas storage for securing gas supplies ahead of the winter season (A10-0079/2025 - Borys Budka) (vote)

President. – The next vote is on the role of gas storage for securing gas supplies ahead of the winter season (see minutes, item 7.2).

7.3. Temporary derogation from certain provisions of Regulations (EU) 2017/2226 and (EU) 2016/399 (A10-0082/2025 - Assita Kanko) (vote)

President. – The next vote is on the temporary derogation from certain provisions of Regulations (EU) 2017/2226 and (EU) 2016/399 (see minutes, item 7.3).

– Before the vote:

Assita Kanko, rapporteur. – Waarom hebben wij het Entry/Exit System (EES) nodig? Wij hebben EES nodig om paspoortcontroles van burgers van derde landen accurater en efficiënter te kunnen uitvoeren. We hebben EES nodig om op elk moment te kunnen zien welke onderdanen van derde landen zich in de EU bevinden en of zij zich nog aan de termijnen van hun verblijf houden. We hebben EES nodig omdat het de hoeksteen is van de Europese grensarchitectuur en omdat in de toekomst andere belangrijke veiligheidssystemen op EES gebouwd gaan worden. We hebben EES nodig omdat het een stukje is van de puzzel om onze burgers veilig te houden. Enkel door de Schengenbuitengrenzen streng te bewaken, zullen wij de binnengrenzen open kunnen houden. Dat is van cruciaal belang voor onze burgers en bedrijven.

Collega's, ik ben blij dat we vandaag kunnen stemmen over het Entry/Exit System. Het is alweer van het jaar 2017 geleden, na de aanslagen in Brussel en Parijs, dat dit systeem door Raad en Parlement is goedgekeurd. Acht jaar later wachten wij nog altijd op de invoering. Als we de aanpassingen aan het systeem vandaag goedkeuren, kunnen de lidstaten dit najaar echt van start gaan. Zij hebben dit nu ook voor het eerst unaniem toegezegd.

Ik roep u dus allemaal op om hier nu voor te stemmen. Ik dank onze medewerkers, de Commissie, het Poolse Raadsvoorzitterschap en alle schaduwrapporteurs voor hun constructieve houding. Ik zie nu uit naar een positieve stemming die ons harde werken van de afgelopen maanden bevestigt en Schengen versterkt.

7.4. EU-Greenland and Denmark Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreement: Implementing Protocol 2025-2030 (A10-0099/2025 - Emma Fourreau) (vote)

President. – The next vote is on the EU-Greenland and Denmark Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreement: Implementing Protocol 2025-2030 (see minutes, item 7.4).

7.5. EU-Greenland and Denmark Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreement: Implementing Protocol 2025-2030 (Resolution) (A10-0103/2025 - Emma Fourreau) (vote)

President. – The next vote is on the EU-Greenland and Denmark Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreement: Implementing Protocol 2025-2030 (resolution) (see minutes, item 7.5).

– Before the vote on the motion for a resolution:

Emma Fourreau, rapporteure. – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, l'Arctique se réchauffe quatre fois plus vite que le reste du globe. C'est le signal d'alarme que lancent les scientifiques. Cette région du monde, pourtant essentielle dans la lutte contre le dérèglement climatique, en est d'ores et déjà la première victime. Le Groenland ne fait pas exception, et sa population souffre des effets du dérèglement climatique, lesquels touchent directement les lieux et les modes de vie. La pêche, qui représente le plus gros secteur économique avec plus de 15 % des emplois et 90 % des exportations, en est affectée, notamment par la fonte des glaces et par l'acidification de l'océan.

Dans ce contexte, l'accord de pêche que nous votons aujourd'hui est crucial en ce qu'il constitue un important mécanisme de soutien financier et un cadre de coopération entre l'Union européenne et le Groenland. Si cet accord est imparfait, notamment pour ce qui est de la surexploitation de certaines populations de poissons ou du manque de données scientifiques, je vous invite à l'adopter, car il est indispensable que l'Europe affirme haut et fort son soutien au Groenland.

Pourquoi aujourd'hui plus que jamais? Parce qu'une puissance étrangère, les États-Unis d'Amérique, et son président, Donald Trump, menacent un territoire membre des pays et territoires d'outre-mer de l'Union européenne; parce qu'une puissance étrangère promet d'envahir un pays constitutif du royaume du Danemark. Le manque de réaction de la part de la Commission face à des menaces d'emploi de la force est inacceptable. Nous devons envoyer un message fort au peuple groenlandais: nous vous soutenons et jamais nous ne baisserons la tête, jamais nous ne céderons devant l'impérialisme américain et étasunien.

C'est pourquoi je vous invite à voter en faveur de mon amendement de soutien face aux déclarations de l'administration Trump. Cet accord va dans le bon sens, car la contribution financière de l'Union européenne a été augmentée. Le protocole et la législation groenlandaise prévoient également des garanties visant à protéger l'environnement marin, les communautés de pêcheurs côtiers et les populations autochtones.

Aussi, en signe de soutien au peuple groenlandais, afin qu'il conserve des relations de partenariat avec l'Union européenne, et pour renforcer nos liens face à la menace étasunienne, je vous invite à voter pour l'accord et sa résolution.

7.6. VAT: taxable persons, special scheme and special arrangements for declaration and payment, relating to distance sales of imported goods (A10-0119/2025 - Ľudovít Ódor) (vote)

President. – The next vote is on VAT: taxable persons, special scheme and special arrangements for declaration and payment, relating to distance sales of imported goods (see minutes, item 7.6).

7.7. Financial activities of the European Investment Bank – annual report 2024 (A10-0112/2025 - Francisco Assis) (vote)

President. – The next vote is on the financial activities of the European Investment Bank – annual report 2024 (see minutes, item 7.7).

– Before the vote on Amendment 9:

Marc Botenga, rapporteur. – Mr President, I propose to push the European Investment Bank to align its activities with the recent report of UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese regarding the role certain corporations play in violations of international law.

The text of the amendment would be the following: 'urgently calls on the European Investment Bank to stop providing support to companies involved in sustaining the illegal Israeli occupation and its ongoing genocidal campaign in Gaza'.

You can, of course, oppose this, but it would mean putting the EIB outside international law.

(Parliament did not agree to put the oral amendment to the vote)

7.8. Security of energy supply in the EU (A10-0121/2025 - Beata Szydło) (vote)

President. – The next vote is on the security of energy supply in the EU (see minutes, item 7.8).

– Before the vote:

Beata Szydło, Sprawozdawczyni. – Panie Przewodniczący! Za chwilę będziemy głosować nad sprawozdaniem dotyczącym bezpieczeństwa dostaw energii, a to oznacza, że będziemy głosować nad sprawozdaniem dotyczącym bezpieczeństwa naszych krajów, bezpieczeństwa Unii Europejskiej. Bo dzisiaj bezpieczne dostawy energii to jest właśnie gwarancja bezpieczeństwa Unii Europejskiej i naszych suwerennych państw.

Jeżeli wyrazimy wszyscy zgodę na to, aby to sprawozdanie zostało przyjęte, Mamy szansę, że będzie to nasz wspólny europejski głos w sprawie bezpieczeństwa dostaw energii i będzie on jedynym takim głosem. Ponieważ przypomnę, że wcześniej zostały odrzucone konkluzje Rady dotyczące tego tematu. Niestety, z przykrością stwierdzę, że przez również siły, które są w tym Parlamencie, a rzecz dotyczy oczywiście współpracy z Rosją.

I nawiążę tutaj do słów pani premier Danii, która będzie w tej chwili przewodniczyła europejskiej prezydencji. Nie można współpracować z agresorem, a bezpieczeństwo powinno być ponad podziałami politycznymi, bez względu na to, po której stronie sali siedzimy. Pani premier wywodzi się z ugrupowań zasiadającej po lewej stronie sali Parlamentu Europejskiego. Ja jestem tutaj po stronie prawej. Ale podobnie jak ona, również z własnych doświadczeń wiem, że konsensus i współpraca dotycząca bezpieczeństwa jest naszym wielkim obowiązkiem i naszą wspólną sprawą.

Chcę podziękować wszystkim kontrsprawozdawcom, z którymi przez wiele miesięcy współpracowaliśmy nad tym projektem. To jest dobry konsensus. Różnimy się politycznie, mamy różne poglądy, ale udało nam się znaleźć porozumienie, które gwarantuje bezpieczeństwo Unii Europejskiej.

7.9. Preserving the memory of the victims of the post war communist period in Slovenia (B10-0322/2025) (vote)

President. – I would like to remind Members who are on the speakers' list for the first debate in the afternoon to remain in the Chamber. The debate will start immediately after the votes.

On the last point of the day, I have received a request for adjournment of the vote on the resolution on preserving the memory of the victims of post-war communist period in Slovenia.

Sandra Gómez López, en nombre del Grupo S&D. – Señor presidente, solicitamos que se posponga la votación sobre la base de los apartados 1, 4 y 12 de la propuesta de Resolución, porque se aprobó en la Comisión de Peticiones infringiendo las normas, ya que contó con el rechazo de cuatro grupos políticos, porque no es una petición ciudadana —la diputada Romana Tomc tuvo la desfachatez de escribir en sus redes sociales que ella misma había escrito la petición y la Resolución, lo que es una prueba más de la politización que hace la derecha de la Comisión de Peticiones—, pero, sobre todo, porque criminaliza a las personas que lucharon contra el fascismo y presenta como posibles víctimas a posibles nazis y colaboradores, lo que es un insulto a los valores de la Unión Europea, pero, sobre todo, a la memoria de las personas que construyeron esta Europa.

Quiero dirigirme a los populares: su compañera Ursula von der Leyen dijo que no dejáramos que la extrema derecha reescribiera la historia. Ustedes solo los señalan, excepto cuando les prestan sus votos. No nos tomen por estúpidos. No insulten nuestra inteligencia y dejen de alimentar al monstruo, porque no quiere pactos, quiere devorarles, y este jueves se lo va a dejar bien claro.

Tomas Tobé, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, colleagues, in Slovenia, the Government have abolished the national remembrance day of the victims of communism. Now, some colleagues on the left refuse to support this resolution.

This is not about facts. This is about choosing party affiliation instead of respecting the victims of communism in Slovenia. The horrible mass graves are real. This is not only disrespectful for the victims, I would say that it is dangerous.

I would also like actually to turn to my dear colleagues in Renew. Please take a hard look at Slovenia, where your Prime Minister now is even considering taking Slovenia out of NATO. Put your focus on that instead of helping him sweep history under the carpet.

Mr President, the EPP will reject the postponement and we will ask for a roll call vote.

Bogdan Rzońca, przewodniczący komisji PETI. – Panie Przewodniczący! Chcę zapewnić wszystkich państwa, że wszystko to, co działo się na posiedzeniu Komisji Petycji, działo się bardzo transparentnie, zgodnie z regulaminem Parlamentu Europejskiego, zgodnie z regulaminem komisji, każdej komisji. Każdy miał możliwość dyskutowania o treści tej rezolucji, a treść rezolucji nie jest prywatną własnością nikogo. Tylko autorami tej rezolucji są europosłowie z Komisji Petycji.

I o to dzisiaj proszę, żebyśmy po prostu zagłosowali niezwłocznie za tą rezolucją, ponieważ ofiary komunizmu na Słowenii nie mogą leżeć w workach foliowych, tylko ich szczątki i prochy muszą być godnie pochowane i uszanowane. Jeśli ktoś nie respektuje wartości chrześcijańskich, to niech zaglądnie do ‘Antygony’ Sofoklesa, i tam się dowie, jak właśnie uczono jeszcze w starożytności respektu i szacunku do każdego ciała.

Uważam więc, że trzeba po prostu za tą rezolucją zagłosować, bo to jest wiara naszego humanitaryzmu.

President. – We are voting for the request to adjourn that was introduced by the S&D Group.

(Parliament rejected the request)

We now continue with the votes. The next vote is on the motion for a resolution on preserving the memory of the victims of the post war communist period in Slovenia (see minutes, item 7.9).

(The vote closed)

(The sitting was briefly suspended)

8. Resumption of the sitting

(The sitting resumed at 13.03)

9. State of play of implementation of the European Media Freedom Act in the Member States (debate)

Președinte. – Următorul punct de pe ordinea de zi este dezbaterea privind Declarațiile Consiliului și Comisiei referitoare la stadiul punerii în aplicare a Regulamentului european privind libertatea mass-mediei în statele membre (2025/2785(RSP)).

Marie Bjerre, President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, honourable Members and Commissioners, freedom of expression and information is a fundamental human right. Free and pluralistic media are crucial elements of a vibrant and resilient democracy. To uphold these principles, the European Media Freedom Act is one of the flagship initiatives we agreed upon, and which will start to apply as of 8 August.

Member States have been working on the implementation. The Commission is formally tasked with overseeing the implementation of the legislation. But the Council maintains a dialogue between Member States and the Commission to facilitate the implementation.

This has proven very useful in exchanging on the implementation challenges faced by Member States. The Commission has also facilitated the process from their end by organising a workshop with the relevant authorities of the Member States.

The Danish Presidency is committed to continuing this dialogue in the working group within the Council.

The Council also looks forward to the Commission's announced guidelines on the implementation of particular provisions, such as on Article 18, on the content of media service providers on very large online platforms.

Maria Luís Albuquerque, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, dear Minister Bjerre, honourable Members, thank you for scheduling today's debate on the European Media Freedom Act. Media freedom and pluralism are at the heart of our European democracy. The debate today is an important opportunity to restate our joint commitment to upholding democratic values and supporting journalists across the continent.

A strong and independent media is essential to inform citizens and to make our democracies work. It serves as a watchdog, holding those in power accountable, exposing injustices, combatting disinformation and giving a voice to those who otherwise cannot be heard. Upholding media pluralism and media freedom, and supporting and protecting independent media and journalists are important priorities for this Commission. The swift and effective implementation of the European Media Freedom Act will be critical for achieving these priorities.

As you all know, we are approaching an important milestone as most of the provisions of the European Media Freedom Act will become applicable in exactly one month from today. As of 8 August, we will also be able to rely on more safeguards for the independent functioning of public service media providers and media ownership transparency. These rules will enable citizens to have access to a plurality of information and opinions, while being aware of who is behind the news that they consume.

The entry into application of the European Media Freedom Act on 8 August will also bring benefits to media service providers. They will enjoy fairer and more transparent allocation of state advertising expenditure and more predictability in media market concentrations, making it easier for them to expand their operations across the European internal market. Media companies will also be able to benefit from fair competition and better return on investment in the digital environment through, for example, the audience measurement transparency rules and new safeguards concerning content removals on very large online platforms.

As regards individual journalists, flagship rules on protection of journalistic sources and confidential communications will become directly enforceable. This includes provisions protecting journalists from being targeted by spyware.

The European Media Freedom Act includes several provisions where action from Member States in the form of specific implementing measures are expected. This includes setting up different mechanisms, bodies and procedures – if not yet in place – that will allow direct enforceability of the rules. National media regulatory authorities may also need to be officially granted new powers to give effect to the new rules.

For this purpose, the Commission has been engaging with Member States to ensure that the implementation of the European Media Freedom Act is on track ahead of the August deadline. Earlier this year, the Commission sent to all Member States a questionnaire regarding their national laws and implementation efforts. The questionnaire was followed by meetings with all the national administrations to gain more insight into specific national issues.

In the meantime, all Member States have submitted their responses to the questionnaire, and we are currently analysing the responses to ensure that we have a clear picture of the situation in Member States. We have remained at the disposal of Member States to support as needed so that, come 8 August, the European Media Freedom Act can be effectively applied.

We continue to monitor any relevant developments in the Member States while providing support to the independent European Board for Media Services, which was established in February. The board carries out the important task of ensuring the consistent application of the act and the wider EU media law framework.

Before concluding, I would like to recall that media freedom and pluralism are one of the four pillars of the rule of law report. Today, the Commission should adopt the sixth edition of the annual rule of law report. With the implementation of the provisions of the European Media Freedom Act underway, the report provides a useful support mechanism to Member States. A correct application of the European Media Freedom Act will also help address a number of the recommendations made in this year's rule of law report, in particular those on public media independence, certain aspects of the protection of journalists, and the transparency and fairness in the allocation of state advertising.

Finally, I would like to express my gratitude for the support of the Danish Presidency for facilitating progress in the implementation of the European Media Freedom Act and, more broadly, for their commitment to strengthening information integrity and media freedom. I also encourage the European Parliament, you honourable Members, to continue to promote the effective implementation of this regulation so that we can reap the benefits that it promises.

Sabine Verheyen, im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, sehr geehrte Frau Kommissarin, sehr geehrte Vertreterin der dänischen Ratspräsidentschaft, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Der European Media Freedom Act ist ein großer Schritt – ein Meilenstein auf dem Papier. Doch ein Gesetz alleine reicht nicht. Wir alle erinnern uns: Als der EMFA vorgestellt wurde, war die Begeisterung groß. Endlich ein europäisches Gesetz, das die journalistische Unabhängigkeit schützen soll. Ein klares Signal: Die EU steht an der Seite der freien Medien. Doch was wir jetzt sehen, ist ein bekanntes Muster. Der Gesetzentwurf wird gefeiert, aber wenn es um die Umsetzung geht, wird es plötzlich still. Dann reden wir über Ausnahmen, Übergangsfristen, nationale Befindlichkeiten, und ich sage ganz klar: Das reicht nicht! Was wir brauchen, ist kein Applaus für Absichtserklärungen. Was wir brauchen, ist politischer Mut, auch dann, wenn es unbequem wird. Denn es geht hier nicht um ein Detail der Regulierung. Es geht um die demokratische Grundarchitektur Europas. Eine vielfältige, unabhängige und freie Medienlandschaft ist kein nice to have. Sie ist das Fundament jeder freiheitlichen Demokratie. Und ja, Medien dürfen unbequem sein, sie müssen es sogar. Eine Regierung, die damit nicht leben kann, stellt sich nicht gegen die Medien, sondern sie stellt sich gegen die Demokratie selbst.

Was wir derzeit beobachten, auch in der EU, ist beunruhigend. Journalisten werden nach wie vor überwacht, verklagt, unter Druck gesetzt, und in manchen Mitgliedstaaten hinkt die Umsetzung des EMFA weit hinterher. Gerade in den Teilen, die nicht wie eine Verordnung formuliert sind, sondern wo aktives Handeln in den Mitgliedstaaten notwendig ist. Gleichzeitig sehen wir, in einigen Staaten fehlt schlicht der politische Wille, wirklich etwas zu tun und die Medien unabhängig zu machen. Deshalb mein Appell: Wir dürfen nicht zulassen, dass sich die Regierungen für ihre Zustimmung zum Gesetz feiern lassen und sich dann aus der Verantwortung stehlen, wenn es ernst wird und es in die Umsetzung geht. Es braucht konsequente Umsetzung, klare Kontrolle und wenn nötig, Verfahren gegen Mitgliedstaaten, die sich nicht an die gemeinsamen Regeln halten. Der 8. August ist nicht mehr fern und eigentlich ist das das Datum, wenn die Gesetzgebung wirken und umgesetzt sein soll. Nicht anfangen, umzusetzen und nicht anfangen, Strukturen aufzubauen. Das ist die Deadline gewesen. Wenn wir wirklich etwas für Medien machen wollen, dann müssen wir endlich konsequent und vor allem auch stark und mutig handeln.

Sandro Ruotolo, a nome del gruppo S&D. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, grazie on. Verheyen per le Sue parole di verità.

Tra un mese, l'8 agosto, entrerà in vigore il Media Freedom Act.

Sono tanti i paesi che non hanno ancora ‘registrato’ i loro regolamenti. A Cipro, per esempio, la bozza di legge rende più facile spiare i giornalisti; della Slovacchia è meglio non parlare; a Malta non si sa nemmeno quale ministero se ne occupi; nell'Ungheria di Orbán la volontà politica non esiste; e in Italia i vertici della Rai sono nominati dal governo, in contrasto con il Media Freedom Act.

La politica, ancora una volta, ha eletto il consiglio di amministrazione del servizio pubblico, ma non il presidente, perché si è divisa. Nessuna riforma della governance all'orizzonte: il controllo è nelle mani della maggioranza. Dirigenti della Rai hanno rivendicato pubblicamente l'appartenenza al partito della premier Meloni. E, per finire, quattro giornalisti italiani sono spiati illegalmente con uno spyware, Graphite, venduto solo agli Stati da Paragon, azienda israeliana con fondi americani.

Basta alibi. I governi sanno cosa devono fare: mettersi in regola con il Media Freedom Act. Bruxelles ha il dovere di pretenderlo.

Gerolf Annemans, namens de PfE-Fractie. – Voorzitter! Zou Big Brother van George Orwell ook een Big Sister hebben kunnen zijn? We kennen inmiddels het antwoord: ja, natuurlijk! Emily O'Reilly, de vorige ombudsvrouw van de Europese Unie, heeft het fenomeen beschreven. Een oppermachtige, onverkozen en ontransparante bedrijfscultuur aan de top van de Europese Commissie maakt de ondoorzichtigheid steeds erger. Ik was steeds, zegt ze, op mijn ongemak met de ‘machtige consiglieri’ uit het kabinet van de voorzitster van de Commissie (een woord waarmee men maffia-adviseurs omschrijft). Alles komt van boven, topdown. Informatie wordt achtergehouden op bevel van boven. Dàt is de cultuur: dat achterhouden en de terughoudendheid bij het overhandigen van informatie is, ik citeer nog altijd, verontrustend.

We weten dus dat er een Big Sister, omringd door ‘powerful consiglieri’, aan het hoofd staat van een Europa dat al lang geen samenwerking meer is, maar een imperium, een Big Sister imperium naar het model van Orwell.

Vandaag voegen wij daar andermaal een afschuwwekkend hoofdstuk aan toe: de Verordening 1083. De oprichting van een zogenaamde Europese Raad voor Mediadiensten. De centralisering van de macht over de media is Orwell copy paste. Dit wordt 100% zeker het toekomstige Ministerie van de Waarheid. Met onduidelijke definities en bevoegdheden die erop gericht zijn de oppositie te neutraliseren. Bovenaan staat werkelijk een sublieme versie van de typisch Orwelliaanse leugen. De verordening is gericht op, ik citeer, de bescherming van de vrijheid en de pluriformiteit van de media.

Ik concludeer, deze Europese Unie verwordt tot een totalitair regime. Moge onze kleinkinderen ons vergeven dat we het zo uit de hand hebben laten lopen.

President. – (Protests from the gallery)

Excuse me. You do not have the right to protest, and I ask the ushers to take care.

We thank you for your message, but this is not the way to do it. I ask you to quietly leave the room. I am sorry for your pain, but this is not the way to protest in this Parliament.

We continue with Piotr Müller on behalf of the Conservatives and Reformists Group of Europe.

Piotr Müller, w imieniu grupy ECR. – Szanowni Państwo, chcecie rozmawiać o tym, jak wygląda wolność mediów, ale chciałbym zacząć też od tego, w jaki sposób ona jest realizowana tu, w tej Izbie, ale również u państwa przyjaciół i liderów Europejskiej Partii Ludowej.

Donald Tusk, jeden z liderów Europejskiej Partii Ludowej, nie wpuszcza na konferencje prasowe w Polsce, na konferencję premiera polskiego rządu, największej stacji informacyjnej – Telewizji Republika. Po prostu fizycznie zabrania wejścia na ich konferencje prasowe. To jeden z przykładów.

Ostatnio, gdy dyskutowaliśmy tutaj wczoraj o odwołaniu przewodniczącej von der Leyen, zastosowaliście takie sztuczki, żeby posłowie nie mogli się wypowiedzieć, dlaczego chcemy tego odwołania. Chcieliście tylko krótkich oświadczeń.

Więc ja wykorzystam tę szansę, aby to powiedzieć: dlatego że prowadzicie niebezpieczną politykę dotyczącą migracji i paktu migracyjnego. Dlatego, że polityka Zielonego Ładu powoduje ubożenie społeczeństwa i zagrożenie jakości życia oraz że umowa z Mercosurem, którą chcieliście utajnić, powoduje, że polscy i europejscy rolnicy stracą na tej umowie.

President. – I'm sorry. Was there a point of order? OK. Thank you so much.

I will take note, and I'll look back at the minutes of the speech. We continue with Hristo Petrov.

Христо Петров, от името на групата Renew. – Европейският акт за медийната свобода беше гласуван в тази зала преди повече от година, но колко европейци знаят за него? Истината е, че недостатъчно.

Европейският акт за свободата на медиите е като ваксина, която ще защити нашите медии срещу политически натиск, ще наложи изисквания за прозрачност на това кой ги притежава и гарантира, че държавни пари няма да се използват, за да се финансират подчинени медии. След точно един месец, на 8 август, тези разпоредби ще бъдат приложими в много от държавите членки и реформите тепърва предстоят.

Как е възможно да говорим за прозрачност на собствеността на медиите, когато законите ги пишат собствениците на същите тези медии? Възможно е, защото няма обществен натиск, защото извън организациите и журналистическите кръгове никой не говори за това. Хората не знаят, а последният доклад за медиен плурализъм показва, че в редица страни ситуацията остава тревожна и рискът за медиите е висок. Ако защитим свободата на медиите, защитаваме гласа на хората и основите на демокрацията в Европа.

Diana Riba i Giner, en nombre del Grupo Verts/ALE. – Señor presidente, señora comisaria, aprobar el Reglamento Europeo sobre la Libertad de los Medios de Comunicación fue un acto de victoria democrática. Por primera vez, Europa cuenta con un Reglamento que garantiza el derecho de la ciudadanía a recibir información libre y plural. Pero hay un riesgo: tener un Reglamento histórico que no se cumpla. La organización Liberties ya nos ha alertado: hay Estados miembros que no están preparados para aplicarlo o directamente no tienen intención de hacerlo. Porque sí, hoy en la Unión Europea hay Gobiernos que han convertido los medios públicos en aparatos de propaganda y que utilizan el spyware contra periodistas, y lo más cínico de todo es que son los mismos que hoy aquí se atreven a hablar de censura.

Miren, si la extrema derecha se incomoda con este Reglamento, es que algo estamos haciendo muy bien. Pero la estela antidemocrática se extiende: el Partido Popular español aprueba leyes en Galicia para controlar la TVG, y en Valencia, con Vox, hacen leyes de lo mismo con À Punt, lo que vulnera un Reglamento europeo que ellos mismos aprobaron en este Parlamento. ¿Cómo se puede firmar el Reglamento con una mano y romperlo con la otra? Por eso, lo que reivindicamos es muy simple: vigilancia efectiva por parte de la Comisión y que el periodismo libre y plural no vuelva a estar solo. Necesitamos el impulso de las fuerzas democráticas —esas que vimos en Budapest— también para defender la libertad de prensa, para defender la democracia.

Νίκος Παππάς, εξ ονόματος της ομάδας The Left. – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η ελευθερία των μέσων δεν είναι πολυτέλεια, είναι θεμέλιο της δημοκρατίας μας. Κι όταν ραγίσει αυτό το θεμέλιο, ραγίζει η ίδια δημοκρατία μας. Ο κανονισμός, λοιπόν, για την ελευθερία των μέσων ήρθε για να βάλει τάξη. Η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση θέτει σαφείς κανόνες, υποχρεώσεις και μηχανισμούς προστασίας.

Τι λέει με απλά λόγια; Ότι η κρατική διαφήμιση δεν μπορεί να μοιράζεται κάτω από το τραπέζι σε λίστες με πολιτικά κριτήρια. Ότι οι δημοσιογράφοι δεν γίνεται να παρακολουθούνται επειδή απλά κάνουν τη δουλειά τους. Ότι τα δημόσια μέσα πρέπει να είναι ανεξάρτητα και όχι φερέφωνα της εκάστοτε εξουσίας. Και ότι οι μεγάλες πλατφόρμες δεν μπορούν να κατεβάζουν περιεχόμενο κατά το δοκούν χωρίς λογοδοσία.

Και, βέβαια, πολύ σωστά όλα αυτά, αλλά ας μην κοροϊδευόμαστε. Πολλά κράτη μέλη και ιδιαίτερα η χώρα μου, η Ελλάδα, απέχει δραματικά από αυτές τις αρχές. Ας μην γίνει, λοιπόν, ο κανονισμός απλώς ακόμα ένα νομικό κείμενο, αλλά να είναι εργαλείο υπεράσπισης της ελευθερίας του Τύπου και της ίδιας δημοκρατίας στην Ευρώπη. Ήρθε η ώρα, λοιπόν, να περάσουμε από τα λόγια στις πράξεις. Ή θα προστατεύσουμε την ενημέρωση ή θα τη δούμε να χάνεται μέσα σε σκιές και συμφέροντα. Και, σε αυτή την επιλογή, δεν μπορούμε να είμαστε θεατές. Αναμένουμε, λοιπόν, να δούμε την εφαρμογή του.

Ewa Zajączkowska-Hernik, w imieniu grupy ESN. – Europejski akt o wolności mediów. Zawsze, gdy w jakiejś unijnej dyrektywie, rezolucji albo rozporządzeniu słyszę termin wolność, to cierpnie mi skóra. Bo wolność według Komisji Europejskiej to cenzura, to reglamentacja treści, to nadmierna kontrola i kary za to, że ktoś ma inną definicję wolności. Wy już dawno zapomnieliście, czym jest wolność. Przede wszystkim czym jest wolność samodzielnego myślenia. Nie potraficie myśleć samodzielnie i przeszkadza wam to, gdy ktoś inny potrafi.

I żeby tę wolność w waszym mniemaniu wprowadzić, tworzycie narzędzia, które w rzeczywistości służą do cenzurowania przestrzeni medialnej. DSA będzie cenzurowało Internet, europejski akt o wolności mediów: radio, telewizję i prasę. Zawarliście w tym akcie zbiór pobożnych życzeń, żeby teoretycznie przeciwdziałać koncentracji mediów, ale tylnym wejściem wprowadzacie środki do wpływania na dostawców usług medialnych.

‘Rok 1984’ Orwella miał być ostrzeżeniem, a nie poradnikiem. To jest wasz model działania. Tworzycie narzędzia o pięknych nazwach, by nas, zwykłych ludzi, po prostu gnębić. Robicie brudne interesy i potrzebujecie mediów, by o tym nie wspominały, tworząc z mediów polityczne narzędzie. A jak coś się wam wymyka spod kontroli, to wprowadzacie cenzurę prewencyjną. Wydajecie pieniądze na lobbing np. za politycznym Zielonym Ładem. Przekupuje dziennikarzy i organizacje pozarządowe. I macie problem z tym, gdy to wychodzi na jaw i właśnie robi medialne zasięgi. Demokracja dla was jest wtedy, gdy kontrolujecie co, kto i o czym mówi. To nie jest ta Unia, do której Polska wchodziła w 2004 roku.

Președinte. – Nu știu dacă am înțeles bine că ați spus că colegii nu au capacitatea de a gândi liber. Cred că toată lumea are capacitatea de a gândi liber în această sală. Urmează domnul Zoltán Tarr.

Zoltán Tarr (PPE). – Tisztelt Elnök Úr! Tisztelt Miniszter Asszony! Tisztelt Képviselőtársaim! A médiaszabadságról szóló európai rendelet európaiságunk és nemzeti identitásunk megőrzésének egy nagyon fontos eleme. A kevesebb mint egy hónap múlva hatályba lépő rendelkezés a média szabadságát biztosító keretek minimumát rögzíti. A média szabadságának ügye nem csupán jogszabályi kérdés, hanem egy egészséges, demokratikus társadalom mércéje is. Magyarországról jövök. Megtapasztalom, milyen az, amikor a kormány rátelepszik a közmédiára, és a hirdetési piac torzításával befolyásolja a sajtót.

Azzal is tisztában vagyok, mivel naponta átélem, hogy milyen az, amikor a hatalom a médiát és annak munkatársait fegyverként használja, hogy hamis kérdésekkel erőltesse ránk saját narratíváját. Pontosan ez az, amit ez a szabályozás nem enged. Ez a rendelet ugyanis arról szól, hogy a közszolgálati média ne egyetlen politikai tábor szócsöve legyen, hanem valóban a közt szolgálja, és tájékoztasson, teremtsen lehetőséget a vitára. Ez a média feladata. Aki a hatalom birtokában van, de fél a média kérdéseitől, az valójában a saját népétől fél. Én abban hiszek, hogy a szabad tájékoztatás a nemzet éltető ereje. Ezért támogatjuk mi is ezt a jogszabályt.

Hannes Heide (S&D). – Herr Präsident, Frau Kommissarin, Frau Ministerin! Ohne freie Medien gibt es keine freie Gesellschaft. Und das Medienfreiheitsgesetz ist ein Meilenstein für den Schutz von Medienfreiheit, Unabhängigkeit und Pluralismus. Es schützt Journalistinnen und Journalisten vor politischer Einflussnahme und schafft notwendige Transparenz bei Eigentümerstrukturen und Finanzierung von Medien – damit schützt es direkt unsere liberale Demokratie. Und in exakt einem Monat, am 8. August, sind alle Bestimmungen in den Mitgliedstaaten anzuwenden.

Aber wo stehen wir? In einigen Mitgliedstaaten fehlt jede sichtbare Vorbereitung – es wird – teilweise politisch motiviert – verschleppt und verzögert. Gleichzeitig nimmt der politische Druck zu. Journalistinnen und Journalisten werden mit Spionagesoftware überwacht, regierungskritische Medien werden finanziell von Regierungen ausgehungert.

Die Kommission darf hier nicht zuschauen, sie muss für Klarheit sorgen! Das öffentliche Bewusstsein für den einen verstärken, den Druck auf säumige Mitgliedstaaten erhöhen und hart bei Verstößen und Versäumnissen umgehend handeln. Es darf und kann keine Ausnahmen geben: Medienfreiheit ist kein Verhandlungsgegenstand.

Jorge Buxadé Villalba (PfE). – Señor presidente, con su Reglamento Europeo sobre la Libertad de los Medios de Comunicación nunca quisieron promover medios de comunicación independientes ni fomentar el periodismo libre: ustedes buscaban crear un entorno mediático sumiso, obediente, censurador y limitado, donde solo quepan los relatos de la oligarquía dominante, se prohíba el disenso y los discursos que cuestionen su autoridad y legitimidad, y se someta la verdad al interés político del poderoso. Por eso persiguen las redes sociales: porque ahí sus medios subvencionados no tienen el control de la información.

Comisaria, vamos a hacer un juego: ¿qué Gobierno persigue a periodistas de investigación por destapar casos de corrupción de sus ministros?, ¿qué Gobierno pretende prohibir a periodistas entrar en el Congreso de los Diputados?, ¿qué presidente del Gobierno hace ruedas de prensa sin periodistas o solo con aquellos que él elige?, ¿qué Gobierno ha batido el récord de publicidad institucional a los medios? Pues, mire, el Gobierno socialista de Pedro Sánchez. Lo digo porque la bancada socialista ni siquiera aparece: sí, el líder de su Internacional Socialista. Y ustedes con la matraca de la extrema derecha, pero ¿qué extrema derecha? Son ustedes, populares, socialistas y todo el resto, los que no se merecen el respeto del pueblo español que ansía una España nueva y decente.

SĒDI VADA: ROBERTS ZĪLE

Priekšsēdētāja vietnieks

Laurence Farreng (Renew). – Monsieur le Président, Madame la Ministre, Madame la Commissaire, chers collègues, le 8 août, le règlement sur la liberté des médias entrera en vigueur. Cette loi, la première à donner un cadre clair pour la structuration de la presse européenne et pour la protection des journalistes, est désormais un pilier de notre démocratie. Pourquoi? Parce qu'elle permet à la Commission européenne d'agir de façon déterminante sur la concentration des médias. Cela est essentiel, parce que la liberté d'opinion n'est pas la liberté de désinformation et que seul le pluralisme garantit la liberté d'opinion.

Voilà pourquoi il faut empêcher Viktor Orban d'assujettir au pouvoir l'ensemble des médias hongrois, de même que Vincent Bolloré, en France, d'étendre indéfiniment son empire médiatique par la seule force de l'argent. Encore une fois, c'est la garantie du pluralisme qui doit prévaloir. Il faut donc une application claire et rapide du règlement sur la liberté des médias, qui devra être conforté par le futur bouclier démocratique. Et il n'y aura pas de bouclier démocratique sans volonté d'investir massivement dans nos médias européens, ce que nous exigerons dans le futur budget.

Nela Riehl (Verts/ALE). – Herr Präsident! Was bedeutet es, wenn die Medienfreiheit im Herzen Europas erodiert? Die EU hat sich mit dem EMFA klar der Wahrung der Medienfreiheit verpflichtet. Aber laut Reporter ohne Grenzen stehen Journalistinnen und Journalisten in Deutschland zunehmend unter Beschuss. Sie erleben Angriffe auf offener Straße von rechts, sie erleben Zensur, sie erleben politischen Druck und das gerade dann, wenn sie über den Genozid in Gaza berichten. Kritische Berichterstattung wird nicht geschützt, sondern gezielt verhindert. Erst diese Woche wurde ein Fall von einer Journalistin an mich herangetragen, die versucht hat, einen sehr kritischen Artikel bei sehr etablierten und eigentlich auch für kritischen Journalismus bekannten Zeitungen zu platzieren. Er wurde überall abgelehnt bis auf beim Freitag, vermutlich aus Angst vor Gegenreaktionen. Das grenzt an Selbstzensur und das ist höchst alarmierend. Der Bericht der Reporter ohne Grenzen muss bei uns die Alarmglocken läuten. Medienfreiheit ist nicht nur in der Peripherie bedroht, sie bröckelt im Kern. Die Glaubwürdigkeit der EU hängt jetzt davon ab, ob wir bereit sind, bei uns zu Hause die Medienfreiheit zu verteidigen und sonst auch überall in ganz Europa.

Gaetano Pedulla' (The Left). – Signor Presidente, signora Commissaria, onorevoli colleghi, in Italia una legge, come sapete, assegna al governo il potere di scegliersi i vertici della TV pubblica. Ecco perché per la Rai è stato coniato il termine ‘TeleMeloni’.

Sempre in Italia si registra il numero più alto d'Europa di querele temerarie, e giornalisti scomodi, come Francesco Cancellato e Sigfrido Ranucci, sono spiati o minacciati dallo stesso servizio pubblico.

Sempre in Italia, pochi imperi mediatici controllano quasi tutta l'informazione: Angelucci, un deputato della maggioranza; Caltagirone, favorito dal governo nel risiko bancario; la famiglia Berlusconi, proprietaria di Forza Italia. E sempre la destra tiene in ostaggio e blocca da mesi la commissione parlamentare di vigilanza sulla Rai. I risultati si vedono: nella classifica sulla libertà di stampa, l'Italia si colloca al 48o posto, peggio del Gabon e della Macedonia.

Dall'8 agosto prossimo, il Media Freedom Act sarà integralmente applicabile, ma nessuno – né il governo, né i partiti della maggioranza – ha cominciato a occuparsene. Uno schiaffo alla legge e anche a questo Parlamento europeo per garantire le fake news della propaganda delle destre italiane.

Per questo noi diciamo ‘Europa svegliati’, per questo noi diciamo ‘basta’.

Milan Uhrík (ESN). – Vážený pán predsedajúci, žiaľ, väčšina z tých takzvaných mainstreamových médií je dnes už absolútna žumpa a, žiaľ, väčšina z tých takzvaných novinárov dnes slovo objektivita nedokáže ani len vysloviť. Ja si normálne myslím, že im podľa mňa pri tom naskočí tá modrá obrazovka, ako keď skolabuje Windows. Pretože pozrime sa na fakty, milí kolegovia.

Na Slovensku podľa prieskumov nedôverujú mainstreamovým médiám až tri štvrtiny občanov. Až tri štvrtiny ľudí im jednoducho neveria a nie preto, že by novinári neboli slobodní alebo nemali dostatočnú ochranu. Je to preto, lebo sú arogantní a klamú. Klamali o Iraku, klamali o covide, klamú o vojne, klamú o imigrantoch, klamú o vlastencoch, klamú o všetkom. A to je dôvod, prečo im ľudia neveria. Mnohé z týchto mainstreamových médií vystupujú doslova ako tlačové orgány progresívcov alebo tlačové orgány Bruselu a už sa ani nesnažia vyzerať objektívne. A preto dnes už nikto normálny mainstreamovým médiám neverí a ľudia hľadajú pravdu na internete, ktorý je ešte ako tak slobodný.

(Rečník súhlasil, že odpovie na otázku položenú zdvihnutím modrej karty)

Sabine Verheyen (PPE), Frage nach dem Verfahren der ‘blauen Karte’. – Wir diskutieren hier heute über das Medienfreiheitsgesetz, das Rahmenbedingungen setzt, damit Journalisten frei und unabhängig schreiben, recherchieren und ihre Artikel verfassen können. Sie diskreditieren hier Medienschaffende, Journalisten als Lügner. Womit begründen Sie das? Wie können Sie das belegen? Wieso behaupten Sie, dass Medienschaffende von Mainstream-Medien Lügner sind? Ich finde, das ist ein unhaltbarer Vorwurf hier in diesem Haus und dieses Hauses nicht würdig.

Milan Uhrík (ESN), odpoveď na otázku položenú zdvihnutím modrej karty. – Väčšina z mainstreamových novinárov naozaj nepíše objektívne. A to netvrdím ja, to tvrdia občania, obyvatelia, ktorí týmto médiám nedôverujú, pretože vidia jasný rozpor medzi tým, čo čítajú v médiách, a medzi tým, čo vidia na ulici. A týka sa to či už je to vojnovej politiky, zelenej politiky, dúhovej politiky, imigračnej politiky Európskej únie. Ľudia vidia, že tá realita je úplne iná, ako píšu novinári, a preto im neveria a nepomôže tomu ani akt o digitálnych službách. Je to chyba novinárov, ktorí sa jednoducho spreneverili svojmu poslaniu.

Erik Kaliňák (NI). – Vážený pán predsedajúci, ak dnes niekto potrebuje našu ochranu, tak to nie sú novinári, ale demokracia a vôľa ľudu. Za posledné desaťročie totiž drvivá väčšina novinárov absolútne kapitulovala na svoju základnú úlohu objektívne a vyvážene informovať a dali prednosť politickému aktivizmu. Z pozície mäkkej moci začali ľuďom diktovať, čo si môžu myslieť, komu majú veriť a koho musia voliť. Cenzúrou a jednostrannou kritikou deformujú súboj politických názorov v prospech svojich koní, ktorí následne poslušne plnia ich vysnívaný zelený svet plný imigrantov a dúhy. Každý politik, čo nesúhlasí s touto progresívnou víziou, je okamžite označený za ruského agenta a ak napriek tomu získa dôveru občanov, je rovno povýšený na diktátora.

Najdokonalejší príklad toho, o čom hovorím, predviedol minulý týždeň novinár Andrew Rettman v newsletteri EUobserver, v ktorom nazval dvoch demokraticky zvolených premiérov za ich suverénne názory zradcami a ruskými zapredancami, ktorých treba zničiť zmrazením eurofondov, infringementmi, auditmi, súdnymi spormi či dokonca nasadením tajných služieb, aby novinárov ako on nakŕmili špinou proti Ficovi a Orbánovi.

Každý suverénny politik by mal proti takýmto novinárskym prešľapom ostro protestovať. Žiaľ, v Európe ani v tejto sále veľa suverénnych politikov nenájdete.

Sunčana Glavak (PPE). – Poštovani predsjedavajući, poštovana povjerenice, kolegice i kolege, pa danas zapravo stojimo, rekla bih, pred trenutkom istine za europsku demokraciju. Europski akt o slobodi medija nije samo zakon, on je i alat autoritarnim režimima. Slobodni mediji nisu ukras političkog sistema. I ako lijeva ili krajnje desna ili krajnje lijeva strana nisu zadovoljne, ako smo negdje u sredini, pa onda mora da radimo dobar posao. A sad ću reći i zašto. Zbog toga jer EMFA štiti glasove naroda, a ne interesa, pravo na neovisno izvještavanje, nepovredivost izvora i uredničku autonomiju. Transparentnost vlasništva – obavezna. Zaštita od špijuniranja novinara – čvrsta i neupitna. I ovo je trenutak prekretnica u borbi protiv dezinformacija i koncentracije moći.

Dakle, EMFA, rekla bih, ne dopušta politički filter na uređivačkim stolovima i mislim da je to dobra stvar. Međutim, ono što moramo pružiti novinarima jest financijska neovisnost. Ugovor o Europskoj uniji jasno govori da se Unija temelji na vrijednostima poštovanja ljudskog dostojanstva, slobode, demokracije, jednakosti, vladavini prava, poštovanja ljudskih prava. Ako te vrijednosti nešto znače, onda EMFA nije opcija, već nužnost. Dolazim iz Hrvatske i želim se samo referirati što se događa trenutno u mojoj zemlji. Kreće u javno savjetovanje i prijedlog zakona koji će omogućiti implementaciju Europskog akta o slobodi medija. Kolegice i kolege, zaštitimo novinare, zaštitimo njihovu neovisnost i pružimo im i onu financijsku neovisnost.

Katarina Barley (S&D). – Herr Präsident, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! ‘Demokratie stirbt in der Dunkelheit’ hat der US-Journalist und Pulitzerpreisträger Bob Woodward gesagt. Das Licht, das die Demokratie schützt, das sind die freien Medien. Ohne Journalistinnen und Journalisten und unabhängige Journalistinnen und Journalisten gibt es keine wirksame Kontrolle von Politik und Wirtschaft. Ohne sie verschwimmt die Grenze zwischen Fakt und Fake bis zur Unkenntlichkeit. Vor allem in Zeiten, in denen viele glauben, dass man Informationen ja gratis bekommen kann. Bei jungen Leuten sind TikTok und YouTube die wichtigsten Informationskanäle geworden, wo man natürlich etwas bekommt. Ob man das überhaupt noch Information nennen kann, das steht auf einem anderen Blatt.

Der European Media Freedom Act ist ein großer Schritt zu mehr Transparenz und mehr Unabhängigkeit. Ganz besonders stolz bin ich als Mitglied des Pegasus-Untersuchungsausschusses darauf, dass wir es geschafft haben, auch den Schutz vor Spähsoftware wie Pegasus darin zu verankern. Heute in einem Monat tritt das Medienfreiheitsgesetz endlich in Kraft. Es kommt darauf an, dass die Mitgliedstaaten es anwenden und die Kommission bei Verstößen hart durchgreift. Denn noch nie war eine freie, unabhängige Presse so wichtig wie heute.

Csaba Dömötör (PfE). – Tisztelt Elnök Úr! Ha ebben a házban média szabadságról beszélnek, akkor az valójában azt jelenti, hogy a liberális és a baloldali véleménymonopóliumot védik. Pár példa ennek alátámasztására: A brüsszeli intézmények csakis és kizárólag liberális médiumokat finanszíroznak, és a szerződések nem nyilvánosak. Miért? Ha Lengyelországban jobboldali médiumok működését akarják felfüggeszteni, akkor egy szavuk nincs itt; az is szokásos ügymenet, hogy jobboldali újságírókat nem engednek be ebbe a házba. Elhúzzák a regisztrációjukat.

Ennél is súlyosabb, hogy cenzúrarendszer kiépítésén dolgoznak, mindezt a tényellenőrzés álcájában. Már most is több mint ötven tényellenőrcsoportot pénzel az Európai Bizottság, és zárt ajtók mögött azt ígérte nekik, hogy még nagyobb lesz a finanszírozás. Ez így nincsen rendben, mert nemcsak a véleményszabadságot torzítják, hanem a választói akaratot is semmibe veszik. Ez nem fogjuk hagyni! Ahogy az NGO szerződéseket, úgy a média- és tényellenőri szerződéseket is közzé kell tenniük. Teljes körű nyilvánosságot követelünk!

Irena Joveva (Renew). – Gospod predsednik! Evropski akt o svobodi medijev je eden največjih naših dosežkov iz prejšnjega mandata. Nastal je tudi zaradi napadov vlade Janeza Janše v Sloveniji na STA in na RTV. Žal. In če to doživiš, veš, kako pomembno je imeti evropske varovalke. A težava je, kot je to pogosto, da se zakon ne izvršuje tako, kot bi se moral. Še točno mesec je do dneva, ko zakon v polnosti stopi v veljavo, a se države članice prepočasi pripravljajo na to.

Zato vas pristojne v Komisiji pozivam, nemudoma sprožite postopke pred Sodiščem in uveljavite zakon. Ker že od sprejetja je medijska svoboda marsikje po Uniji pravzaprav nazadovala, merim predvsem na Slovaško, mediji pa niso imuni pred napadi oblasti nikjer. Pri svobodi medijev je enako kot pri katerikoli svobodi. Ko jo zadušiš, jo težko vzpostaviš nazaj. In pomena svobode se zaveš šele, ko jo izgubiš.

V besedilu zakona je ogromno pomembnih členov, ki omogočajo zaščito medijev pred nedopustnimi državnimi pritiski, zasebnimi interesi ali tehnološkimi velikani. Manjka le pogum, predvsem pogum Komisije, da se tem pritiskom zoperstavi.

David Cormand (Verts/ALE). – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, les menaces contre la liberté de la presse s'accumulent. C'est d'ailleurs pourquoi nous avions mis en place ce règlement européen sur la liberté des médias.

L'indépendance de la presse est remise en question, certes, par des régimes illibéraux qui la musellent à l'intérieur même de l'Union européenne. Elle est mise en danger par des oligarques étrangers à l'Union européenne, qui essaient de prendre le contrôle de médias européens. Elle est aussi menacée par des milliardaires d'extrême droite, en Europe – comme dans mon pays, la France, avec le groupe Bolloré. C'est pourquoi, d'ailleurs, les services publics de médias sont une arme absolue pour lutter contre ce danger.

En France, encore, hélas, on a une ministre de la Culture qui veut désormais créer une grande holding des médias publics pour pouvoir mieux les contrôler. Je demande que l'article 5, qui prévoit l'indépendance des médias publics, soit réellement mis en œuvre pour que cette menace cesse de s'étendre dans nos pays et que nous puissions compter sur des médias publics de qualité qui informent nos concitoyennes et nos concitoyens.

Волгин Петър (ESN). – Господин Председател, така нареченият европейски акт за свободата на медиите сякаш е преписан от антиутопичен роман на Евгений Замятин или Джордж Оруел. Този документ уж трябва да защитава свободата, но истинската му цел е окончателно да премахне и малкото останала медийна свобода в Европа.

Това е куфар с двойно дъно. На повърхността са красивите фрази, а под тях е скрита истинската същност, а именно налагането на една-единствена гледна точка. Този акт създаде така наречения Европейски съвет за медийни услуги, чиято основна задача е борбата с дезинформацията. А според брюкселския новоговор дезинформация е всичко, което не се вмества в Прокрустовото ложе на официозния разказ.

Казано директно, ако някоя медия представя гледна точка, различна от официалната по повод работата на Европейската комисия, или Зелената сделка, или ЛГБТ истериите, войната в Газа, или убийството на десетки хиляди палестинци в Газа, тя ще бъде обвинена, че разпространява дезинформация и ще бъде забранена. Така че Европейският акт за свободата на медиите е път към ада на цензурата, постлан с добри намерения.

Bogdan Andrzej Zdrojewski (PPE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Obserwuję tę debatę i muszę powiedzieć, że najbardziej krytyczni wobec tego aktu są ci, którzy obawiają się wpływów obcych i wrogich Europie mocarstw, jeżeli chodzi o rozpowszechnianie własnej propagandy. Natomiast co jest najistotniejsze? Otóż wolność mediów, musimy pamiętać, to nie tylko prawo, to nasza wspólna odpowiedzialność. Kluczowe jest promowanie szacunku dla różnorodnych poglądów, rozwoju świadomości obywatelskiej i takiej edukacji medialnej, która pozwoli odbiorcom lepiej weryfikować źródła informacji.

W mojej ocenie europejski akt o wolności mediów wyraża jednoznaczne stanowisko. Wolność słowa jest fundamentem demokracji. Nie jest przywilejem, lecz obowiązkiem. Państwa członkowskie mają obowiązek zapewnić, aby dostawcy publiczni usług medialnych byli niezależni pod względem redakcyjnym i funkcjonalnym oraz aby zapewniali swoim odbiorcom pluralizm informacji i opinii. Z nadzieją patrzę na powołanie tego nowego unijnego organu, Europejskiej Rady Usług Medialnych, choć oczywiście nie bez pewnego krytycyzmu. Pamiętam rozmaite doświadczenia w tej materii, które nie zawsze kończyły się dobrze.

Pamiętajmy, co jest w tym akcie: ochrona niezależności redakcyjnej, niestosowanie oprogramowania szpiegowskiego wobec mediów, przejrzystość reklam, ochrona treści w Internecie, szacunek wobec prawa autorskiego. Jestem przekonany, że jesteśmy w stanie tym aktem dokonać pewnego postępu.

Joanna Scheuring-Wielgus (S&D). – Panie Przewodniczący! Pani Komisarz! Przysłuchiwałam się tej debacie i temu, co mówi prawa strona. I w zasadzie te ich krzyki i nawoływania do tego, że ten akt im się nie podoba, świadczą tylko i wyłącznie o tym, że dobrze, że ten akt w ogóle powstał.

Ale Pani Komisarz, w ostatnim raporcie organizacji Liberté czytamy, że bardzo dużo krajów, w tym mój kraj, Polska, nie przygotowało się do wdrożenia tego aktu. I uważam, że w swojej działalności Komisja musi doprowadzić do implementacji i do wymagania od państw narodowych w Unii Europejskiej tego, żeby ten akt był wdrożony tak, jak należy.

Bardzo często powtarzamy tutaj takie hasła jak wolność słowa, wolność informacji, mówimy o prawdzie, mówimy o faktach. Naszym obowiązkiem jako parlamentarzystów, ale też obowiązkiem Komisji jest zadbać o to, aby ten akt był wdrożony, ale również żebyśmy już myśleli o tym, jak sobie poradzić z tą dezinformacją i manipulacją, która jest w przestrzeni cyfrowej.

Pascale Piera (PfE). – Monsieur le Président, je me permets de rappeler que le règlement dont on parle sur la prétendue liberté des médias est en réalité l'un des piliers de la politique liberticide de l'Union européenne. En s'imposant comme unique organe de régulation en matière de contrôle des médias, l'Union européenne se dote d'un outil dangereux, qui muselle les opinions qui la dérangent, comme en Hongrie ou en Roumanie. Ce système orwellien viole tous les principes de liberté, fondement de nos sociétés démocratiques: la liberté d'expression, la liberté de la presse, la pluralité d'opinion. Dans toutes les sociétés véritablement libérales, le seul régulateur d'un contenu médiatique ne peut être que le lecteur, et certainement pas les technocrates censeurs de Bruxelles.

Je crois en fait que vous avez peur. Votre obsession d'instaurer votre vérité dans le débat public a pour objectif unique de créer une machine à penser européiste et mondialiste. À ce titre, votre comité européen pour les services de médias, piloté par la Commission, est en réalité un véritable ministère de la propagande. Face à ce consensus liberticide défendu par la gauche, par le centre, par la droite, nous, nous défendrons toujours la liberté.

(L'oratrice accepte une question carton bleu)

Lukas Sieper (NI), blue-card question. – In accordance with Rule 178(10), the last sentence of the Rules of Procedure, I would also ask for your permission to react to the answer that I will get from my colleague.

Thank you, colleague, for accepting the blue card – you talked a lot about the dangers of one unified administrative body that regulates the media and the press. My question would be, do you think that media and press should be fully free without any oversight, being able to also spread lies and disinformation? And if not, what body can control this? Where can we put a safeguard in place?

Pascale Piera (PfE), réponse carton bleu. – Cher collègue, merci pour votre question. Je n'ai qu'une seule réponse à vous faire: le seul régulateur, c'est le lecteur. Et voyez-vous, en France comme ailleurs, les médias traditionnels, s'ils n'avaient pas de subventions, ne vivraient pas. Pourquoi? Parce que leur contenu, qui est uniforme et totalement orienté politiquement, n'intéresse plus les lecteurs. C'est la raison pour laquelle ce sont les médias qui sont sur Internet, les médias alternatifs par exemple, qui aujourd'hui captent cette audience, et c'est très heureux.

Je vous suggère de relire le livre de George Orwell 1984, dans lequel se trouve le ministère de la Vérité.

President. – Ms Piera, Mr Lukas is using a point of order, and he can ask a following question.

Lukas Sieper (NI). – No point of order. No.

Or did I get the translation wrong?

President. – Yes, but according to the Rules, you can continue your second question.

Lukas Sieper (NI). – It's not a point of order; it's a reaction.

Thank you, dear colleague. I can just tell you two things when you talk about the fact that the only corrective that is needed is the reader – I advise you to research a little bit about the effect that the state-controlled media of the communist German Democratic Republic had or, on the other hand, the state-controlled media of the Nazi regime in Germany. I can tell you from my national experience, the idea that the only corrective is the reader is very, very naïve and you should think about this again.

Pascale Piera (PfE). – Merci pour vos suggestions, mon cher collègue, merci. Je vous signale que je suis une spécialiste de la liberté d'opinion sous le régime soviétique. Je pourrais vous en parler des heures, et, de ce point de vue là, ce n'est pas le lecteur qui faisait le média. Heureusement qu'il y avait des gens comme Soljenitsyne, qui étaient cachés, et qui écrivaient, et qui disaient la vérité, et qui trouvaient leur lectorat.

(L'oratrice refuse une question carton bleu de Sabine Verheyen)

Milan Zver (PPE). – Gospod predsednik! Akt o svobodi medijev se je torej začel izvajati. Če nepristransko pogledamo, da ga ne bomo samo hvalili ali kritizirali, lahko rečemo, da prinaša tudi nekaj pozitivnega. Mislim zlasti na večji lastniški preglednosti, ki je predvsem problem v nekaterih postkomunističnih državah, kjer so si stare bivše strukture zagotovile odločilen vpliv tudi v medijih in ga še imajo.

Po drugi strani pa si je s tem aktom politična levica na neki način kar v precejšnji meri uzurpirala nadzor nad mainstream mediji in pa tudi spodbujanje cenzure, kar je v nasprotju z načelom svobode govora, na katerem temelji naša civilizacija. Mimogrede, vesel sem, da se Musk in Zuckerberg na svojih platformah odpovedujeta cenzuri.

Preprečiti moramo, da se akt o svobodi medijev ne bo politično zlorabljal, kot se je v Sloveniji. Spomnimo, tu je slovenska levica z aktivno podporo bivše komisarke lomastila po medijski svobodi. Kultura, katere sestavni del so mediji, potrebujejo svobodo, ne regulacije ne cenzure ne nadzora. Nenazadnje, kdo bo nadziral nadzornike? To je ključno vprašanje.

Evin Incir (S&D). – Mr President, I want to start by saying to the far right here in our Parliament that free and independent media doesn't mean attacking them when it doesn't fit your ideology.

Actually, your ideology is an ideology of hatred. We have laws in our Union to ensure you don't import 1930s Germany to 2025. So stop attacking our democracies and go back to the 1930s and stay there, where your ideology belongs.

For us who believe in fully fledged democracies, we have a duty to defend free and independent media. We have a duty to strengthen them. It is every Member State's duty to implement the Media Freedom Act – not if, but when, and the time is now.

Brīvais mikrofons

Ana Miranda Paz (Verts/ALE). – Senhor Presidente, Senhora Comissária, manipular, impor, silenciar e vulnerar direitos não acontece só na Hungria, mas também no meu país: a Galiza.

Estou a falar da TVG, a televisão e a rádio públicas. É manipulada. E quem a manipula? O governo do Partido Popular, que viola a Lei dos Meios de Comunicação Social europeia. O governo do Partido Popular da Galiza interfere nos meios de comunicação públicos, que utiliza para os seus próprios fins políticos. É a ‘tele-PP’. Tem a televisão e a rádio ao serviço do seu governo. Hoje mesmo, impôs a nomeação, sozinho, da nova diretora-geral, ao contrário do que diz o Media Freedom Act.

A falta de independência editorial dos meios de comunicação públicos galegos, a ausência de órgãos de controlo independentes do poder público interno e externo, a falta de pluralidade, a nomeação de órgãos de controlo e gestão provocaram mais de 400 denúncias, folgas ou greves, o movimento Defende a Galega, com os ‘Venres Negros’, que cumpre 376 semanas. Por uma televisão pública e plural, também na Galiza.

Volker Schnurrbusch (ESN). – Herr Präsident, meine Damen und Herren! Der European Media Freedom Act ist ein trojanisches Pferd, eine Mogelpackung. Unter dem Vorwand, die Nutzer der Medien zu schützen, will diese EU durch die Hintertür immer mehr Kontrollmechanismen und Zensoren einführen. Wir als ESN lehnen diese Einschränkung der Meinungs- und Medienfreiheit aus voller Überzeugung ab.

Das Netz – die Älteren werden sich erinnern – wurde als großer Schritt hin zu einer Demokratisierung gefeiert. Endlich konnten sich auch Staaten ohne freie Medien untereinander unterhalten. Doch längst haben die Zensoren aller Couleur diese Freiheit eingeschränkt und die EU macht weiter munter mit.

Frau Barley eben von den Sozialdemokraten sprach von freien Medien – ihre Parteigenossin Faeser hat vor Kurzem ein freies Medium in Deutschland verboten, weil es regierungskritisch berichtet hatte. Die öffentlich-rechtlichen Medien sind ja gerade die in Deutschland, die den Bundesregierungen als Propagandakanal dienen und den Meinungskorridor immer weiter verengen.

Wir als ESN sind für die Meinungsfreiheit, für die Medienvielfalt und gegen diesen Akt.

Diana Iovanovici Șoșoacă (NI). – Domnule președinte, Media Freedom Act, de fapt, completează DSA-ul, pe care l-ați adoptat.

De fapt, nu faceți altceva decât să instaurați o nouă inchiziție. Iar în Spania, Inchiziția a durat 600 de ani. Vorbiți numai de control. Controlul puterii voastre, controlul socialiștilor și liberalilor, care în România constituie de fapt cumpărarea întregii prese.

Eu, cel puțin, sunt cenzurată în toată mass-media, la toate televiziunile, în toate jurnalele. Nu am voie, pentru că spun un adevăr care nu vă convine. Tot așa, DSA-ul a avut prima victimă, în calitatea mea, pe 5 octombrie 2024, când Curtea Constituțională, la solicitarea Ursulei von der Leyen, mi-a interzis să candidez la prezidențiale pentru declarații și opinii politice apărute în ziar, pentru că am militat pentru libertatea de a alege dacă te vaccinezi sau nu, pentru adevărul despre ‘plandemie’ și despre război.

Omului de sus, de acolo, i-ați interzis să vorbească, deși…

(Președintele a retras cuvântul vorbitoarei)

Vicent Marzà Ibáñez (Verts/ALE). – Señor presidente, señora comisaria, va a tener mucho trabajo si de verdad quiere que se implemente este Reglamento Europeo sobre la Libertad de los Medios de Comunicación, entre otros, en mi país, en el País Valencià.

¿Por qué digo esto? Porque el artículo 6, apartado 2, que dice que se debe garantizar la independencia editorial, especialmente de los informativos, se ve que directamente no lo han leído, porque en plena crisis de la DANA, de las inundaciones, cesaron al director de informativos porque era demasiado crítico, por buscar la verdad, y lo hicieron de forma totalmente política. El artículo 6, apartado 3, habla de la creación de órganos internos para garantizar la pluralidad y la independencia de los periodistas, y resulta que, estando lejos de incumplirse, porque en la Ley ya existía este organismo, ahora con otra Ley, por detrás, aprueban cargarse este organismo de independencia de los periodistas y además cambiar la Ley para poner a dedo a la dirección política del censor de la anterior televisión pública.

Además, no contentos con eso, atacan directamente las condiciones de los trabajadores. Por eso le pregunto: ¿cómo va a garantizar la implementación de este Reglamento…

(el presidente retira la palabra al orador)

Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – Señor presidente, señora comisaria, la libertad de expresión y la libertad de difundir y recibir información veraz son derechos fundamentales consagrados en el artículo 11 de la Carta de los Derechos Fundamentales de la Unión Europea. La libertad de expresión es el derecho del público a saber y el derecho a decir lo que algún poderoso no quiere oír. Pero estas libertades, que tienen como corolario el pluralismo informativo, afectan también a los medios de comunicación. Y, por eso, el Reglamento Europeo sobre la Libertad de los Medios de Comunicación exige a los medios de comunicación dación de cuentas y transparencia de su titularidad, de su financiación y de su publicidad institucional, exactamente por el derecho del público a saber.

La Unión Europea permanece así fiel al estándar más alto del mundo, que se complementa con esa intervención, a través del Reglamento de Servicios Digitales, sobre el modelo de negocio de las plataformas digitales, exactamente para proteger el derecho de la ciudadanía europea a saber qué es lo que hay detrás también de los medios de comunicación, cómo se financian y, por tanto, cuál es la intervención de los poderes privados en los medios de comunicación.

Luis-Vicențiu Lazarus (NI). – Domnule președinte, înțeleg că regulamentul acesta, 1083, este un regulament care vizează libertatea și protejarea presei și a jurnaliștilor.

Da, suntem de acord să fie protejați jurnaliștii. Da, suntem de acord să fie liberi, dar ce facem că acest lucru, efectiv, nu se întâmplă? Uitați-vă ce s-a întâmplat în țara noastră, în România. Practic, au fost interziși candidați și s-au anulat alegerile. Asta a fost ceva legat de democrație?

Spuneți că la baza Uniunii Europene stau libertatea presei și democrația. Uitați-vă ce s-a întâmplat ieri aici, la dezbaterea privind moțiunea împotriva Comisiei Europene. Inițiatorul moțiunii a avut trei minute, doamna Ursula von der Leyen a avut 15 minute, iar eu, ca semnatar al moțiunii, n-am avut niciun minut.

Ați făcut și un consiliu, care urmează să fie ‘poliția adevărului’. De mult am adus în discuție această posibilă poliție a adevărului. Acum o aveți, plătită din bani publici, din banii Uniunii Europene. Bravo! Tot ce e bine pentru protecția presei și pentru…

(Brīvā mikrofona uzstāšanos beigas.)

Maria Luís Albuquerque, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, I believe that this debate has shown how crucial it is that media companies are supported and media freedom is protected in our Union. Together, we are in the right place to properly enforce the newest tool in our toolbox: the European Media Freedom Act.

In the period leading up to 8 August, the Commission will continue to encourage Member States to intensify their efforts to facilitate the timely adoption of the necessary measures where needed. The European Media Freedom Act is a landmark legal instrument supporting the internal market for media services, while also protecting media freedom and editorial independence.

The act has a task no less than addressing pressing challenges identified in today's debate, while standing as a clear example of the EU's unwavering resolve to strengthening democratic values and upholding fundamental rights.

Rakstiski paziņojumi (178. pants)

Marie Bjerre, President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, honourable Members, Commissioners, thank you for putting this important issue on the agenda. As Sabine Verheyen from the EPP started saying, law on paper is not enough – it needs to be implemented. We agree about that; European legislation has to be implemented. I noticed some concern about the legislation, but I also noted a lot of support, for instance from Zoltán Tarr, from the EPP, and from many others.

Now the legislation is adopted and now we need to implement it. I hope that today's exchange can help the relevant, competent authorities of the Member States in the implementation of the regulation. We also trust that the Commission will continue to help and guide the Member States in its implementation. From our side, the Danish Presidency will continue facilitating exchange and sharing of information and good practices. In this context, I will also mention that my colleague, the Danish Minister of Culture, has proposed draft Council conclusions to follow up on access to reliable news.

President. – The debate is closed.

Joachim Stanisław Brudziński (ECR), na piśmie. – Od czasu, gdy w Polsce zaczął rządzić ponownie Donald Tusk, nie możemy już mówić o wolności mediów. Premier polskiego rządu nie wpuszcza na swoje konferencje prasowe dziennikarzy Telewizji Republika – bo ci zadają mu niewygodne pytania, są krytyczni wobec polityki jego rządu. Wcześniej siłowo przejął media publiczne, by zapewnić sobie monopol informacyjny, by media publiczne w maksymalny sposób kontrolować. Donald Tusk to czołowy polityk partii EPL, która tutaj tak płomiennie podkreśla, jak fundamentalną kwestią jest wolność mediów. No, chyba że tę wolność łamie ich partyjny kolega, to wtedy najwidoczniej dla brukselskiego establishmentu wszystko jest w porządku. Tak jak premier Tusk, tak Komisja Europejska coraz bardziej chce kontrolować to co się mówi w mediach, a prawo do wolnej wypowiedzi i informacji jest coraz bardziej zagrożone. Coraz łatwiej jest komuś zarzucić, że posługuje się na przykład tzw. mową nienawiści. I znowu walka z tą mową nienawiści ma być pretekstem do cenzury na coraz szerszą skalę: w internecie, w telewizji czy w prasie. Proszę państwa – brońmy wolności mediów – ale nie tak wybiórczo jak w chwili obecnej!

Vasile Dîncu (S&D), în scris. – Libertatea presei este coloana vertebrală a unei democrații funcționale. European Media Freedom Act nu este doar un instrument legislativ, ci o garanție a pluralismului, a transparenței și a protecției jurnalismului independent în fața ingerințelor politice și economice.

Din păcate, implementarea acestui act în statele membre este inegală și, în unele cazuri, blocată. Vedem cum persistă concentrarea excesivă a proprietății media, intimidarea jurnaliștilor, presiunile comerciale asupra redacțiilor locale, dar și lipsa de transparență a algoritmilor care decid vizibilitatea conținutului în online.

Fac un apel ferm către Comisie: să instituie un mecanism de monitorizare clar, public și periodic privind aplicarea acestui act în fiecare stat membru, să condiționeze finanțarea europeană pentru digitalizare și comunicare de respectarea reală a libertății presei și să intervină acolo unde autoritățile naționale eșuează în protejarea presei libere.

Nu putem apăra democrația fără să apărăm jurnaliștii care o susțin prin muncă zilnică, adesea în condiții ostile.

10. Need for the EU to scale up clean technologies (debate)

Priekšsēdētājs. – Nākamais darba kārtības punkts ir debates par Komisijas paziņojumu par nepieciešamību ES vērienīgāk izvērst tīras tehnoloģijas (2025/2787(RSP)).

Dan Jørgensen, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, it is an honour to discuss with you the need to scale up clean technologies in Europe. In times of energy transition, ever-mounting geopolitical tensions and fierce global competition, Europe must do its utmost to keep agency over its industrial destiny. This is our firm belief.

It is a sovereignty issue, but it is also a business issue. And the good news is that today the EU is a global leader and a trendsetter in these technologies. We must capitalise on this competitive edge, but to succeed we must go faster and act more boldly.

To clean tech project promoters, innovators and investors, I say: choosing Europe means access to a strong industrial base, a unique talent pool and a political commitment to climate neutrality. It's also accessing our single market. But as you know, some of Europe's clean tech value chains are under immense pressure due to unfair global competition. If we don't act decisively, we risk becoming mere assemblers, if not simply just buyers. If we want to have cars made in Europe that are electric and with own cost-competitive production of batteries and components, we need to take the next steps.

This is precisely the aim of the clean industrial deal. It brings together legislation, financing and simplification – not as abstract goals, but as tools for delivery, because time is of the essence.

Just last week, the Commission announced EUR 850 million of funding dedicated to six projects to boost the EU's battery manufacturing industry. We also need to simplify the way we provide investment support from research and development to commercialisation. And we need to create real demand for EU-made batteries, solar panels and wind turbines.

The implementation of the Net-Zero Industry Act and the Critical Raw Materials Act is in full swing. Across the EU, single points of contacts are being set up to fast track permitting and to coordinate net-zero strategic projects. The concept of net-zero acceleration valleys is a prime example of how the Net-Zero Industry Act is already being translated into concrete action at a regional and local level, where it matters the most.

At the same time, the Net-Zero Industry Act's non-price criteria – essential to biodiversity and avoid excessive import dependence – will become mandatory from 1 January 2026. We are actively supporting national authorities to apply these rules consistently. The early signals are encouraging in some sectors, like wind. Chinese firms have started sourcing EU-made components, driving demand and production here in Europe.

With the forthcoming Industrial Decarbonisation Accelerator Act, the provision of public procurement to follow, and greening corporate fleets, we will go a step further, creating lead markets for decarbonisation and competitive EU industries. Furthermore, we will step up our game in the use of trade defence instruments such as anti-dumping, anti-subsidy or safeguard measures.

Now, of course, beyond the sectoral considerations, cost competitiveness, financing, and public and private investments remain an overarching challenge, which we must address forcefully. At EU level, we are mobilising a toolbox, for example, the Innovation Fund, InvestEU and Step. Besides, the new Clean Industrial State Aid Framework gives Member States more flexibility. In the next MFF, the European Competitiveness Fund, tightly connected to the framework research programme, will strengthen the EU's strategic investment capacity.

But public funding alone is not enough. We must also unlock private investments at scale. That is why we are advancing the savings and investments union.

Finally, simplification: with a series of omnibuses, the Commission is focused on creating an enabling regulatory environment, ensuring that Europe is the best place to invest and produce. If Europe wants to lead, if we want to lead the clean tech transition and not just import, we must act now and we must act together. The tools are there. More is coming. The time for delivery is now, and I'm counting on your commitment to help us all achieve this.

Raúl de la Hoz Quintano, en nombre del Grupo PPE. – Señor presidente, señor comisario, es evidente, estamos todos de acuerdo en que Europa necesita acelerar la implantación de tecnologías limpias, un proceso que es absolutamente necesario para la consecución de los objetivos que nos hemos marcado en esta legislatura: competitividad industrial, soberanía energética y, por supuesto, la consecución de los objetivos climáticos.

Pero, para abordar este proceso, además de muy buenas palabras, de muy buenas intenciones —es evidente y usted lo ha dicho—, hace falta pragmatismo, hace falta determinación y, sobre todo, ambición. Y no solo eso, hace falta también dejar de lado los viejos clichés dogmáticos y algunos prejuicios ideológicos que han demostrado ser tan perjudiciales en el pasado. Además, hay que decirlo claramente y, en consecuencia, actuar.

La transición energética en Europa es imposible sin la energía nuclear. Si queremos de verdad una soberanía energética en Europa, necesitamos la energía nuclear. Si queremos de verdad precios asequibles en la Unión Europea, necesitamos la energía nuclear. Necesitamos, por tanto, que la energía nuclear sea tratada en condiciones de igualdad con las energías renovables. Necesitamos que desaparezcan de la legislación europea los sesgos contrarios a la energía nuclear que permanecen en este momento.

Tenemos el ejemplo de Alemania, de su error y de su rectificación posterior. Actuemos en esa dirección. Atendamos la carta que doce Gobiernos europeos han hecho a la Comisión recientemente, en la que se le pide avanzar en el desarrollo de la energía nuclear, y ayúdennos —concluyo con esto— a impedir que el Gobierno de mi país, contra los tiempos y contra toda lógica económica, social y medioambiental, siga adelante con su plan de desmantelamiento de las centrales nucleares que existen en nuestro país, única y exclusivamente por capricho…

(el presidente retira la palabra al orador)

Mohammed Chahim, namens de S&D-Fractie. – Voorzitter, toen eind 19e eeuw het nieuwe Philips naar een nieuwe thuisbasis zocht, kwamen ze in Helmond terecht. Een stad, mijn stad, met heel veel economische activiteit. Het innovatieve Philips stond te popelen om hun gloeilampen vanuit Helmond aan de man te brengen.

Er was echter een probleem: de gevestigde bedrijven in Helmond zagen Philips niet zitten. Zij overtuigden het stadsbestuur dat zo'n nieuwkomer alleen maar onrust zou veroorzaken. Ze beloofden zekerheid, werkgelegenheid en wilden geen verandering. En Philips? Die vertrok naar Eindhoven.

Bijna tachtig jaar later kreeg het stadsbestuur een keiharde reality-check. De industrie in Helmond was grotendeels vertrokken, terwijl Philips in Eindhoven maar bleef groeien en uitbreiden. Om de Helmondse werkloosheidscrisis tegen te gaan, vroeg het stadsbestuur Philips alsnog een fabriek te openen in Helmond. En de dominante industrie uit het verleden? Daar blijft maar weinig van over. Die lieten de stad en heel veel Helmonders achter. Helmond had helaas de boot gemist en eigenlijk is er niks zo speculatiefs als denken dat de grote spelers van vandaag er over vijftig jaar weer zijn. De geschiedenis bewijst dat keer op keer.

Dus laten wij als Europa die fout voorkomen, zodat we niet jaren later er alsnog alles aan moeten doen om de bedrijven hiernaartoe te halen. Dat kan nu. Door ons te richten op de toekomst en niet op bepaalde of enkele belangen. Dat betekent een lagere energierekening, de deuren niet langer openhouden voor fossiel, betere investeringscapaciteit, maar vooral een blik op de toekomst. Een blik naar voren.

Ondřej Knotek, za skupinu PfE. – Pane předsedající, pane komisaři, opakujete stejné chyby, stanovuje nereálné cíle. Snažíte se lidem jako jedinou možnost vnutit drahé a někdy nespolehlivé čisté technologie a vůbec vás nezajímá, že o ně značná část veřejnosti nemá zájem. Místo naslouchání veřejnosti raději regulujete, zdražujete anebo zakazujete.

A já Vám něco povím, pane komisaři, zdražením starých, často fosilních technologií sice urychlíte jejich konec, ale rozhodně tím nezajistíte odpovídající nárůst podílu čistých technologií. Výroba včetně emisí se přesune mimo Evropu, Evropané ještě více zchudnou a klima tím nezachráníte. Takže se, prosím, pane komisaři a celá vaše Komise probuďte a přestaňte opakovat chyby, dokud je ještě čas.

Ondřej Krutílek, za skupinu ECR. – Pane předsedající, pane komisaři, před půl rokem jste tady všichni vzývali Draghiho, ale od té doby se konkurenceschopnost stala bohužel prázdným pojmem. Komise musí udělat kroky, které povedou ke skutečné pomoci byznysu, včetně snížení cen energií, a ne ty, které dále utáhnou šrouby. Klimatický cíl 2040 nám nepomůže, naopak, to říkám otevřeně. Pokud jde o čisté technologie, tak ty mají samozřejmě obrovský potenciál, ale pokud nezměníme kurz, půjde o ztracenou příležitost.

Naše firmy nejlépe vědí, co a jak mají dělat. Umějí přinášet inovace. Potřebují ale prostředí, kde se jim nebudou házet klacky pod nohy. Musíme ještě mnohem více prosekat houštinu regulací a zbytečných povinností. Jinak průmysl čistých technologií v Evropě nevznikne. Anebo vznikne a potom uteče a místo Clean Deal budeme mít Chinese Deal. A to si opravdu nepřeju.

Christophe Grudler, au nom du groupe Renew. – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, il y a cinq ans, l'Europe affichait un excédent commercial de 200 millions d'euros sur les pompes à chaleur. Aujourd'hui, nous affichons un déficit de 400 millions d'euros. En cinq ans, nous avons basculé de la maîtrise à la dépendance, et dans 60 % des cas, c'est la Chine qui fournit. Pendant ce temps, certains ici, notamment à l'extrême droite, sabotent la transition écologique et attaquent les technologies propres. Mais refuser d'investir, c'est accepter que notre avenir énergétique soit fabriqué ailleurs. C'est choisir la soumission industrielle.

Monsieur le Commissaire, assez de naïveté. L'heure est venue d'adopter une vraie préférence européenne. Il nous faut un ‘Buy European Act’ sur les technologies propres, il nous faut produire chez nous, créer des emplois ici. L'Europe ne doit pas choisir la dépendance, elle doit choisir la puissance industrielle stratégique.

Sara Matthieu, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, colleagues, Europe has a unique opportunity to protect itself against aggressors like Putin or economic extortionists like Trump.

We must stop our addiction to fossil fuels and turbocharge clean tech manufacturers here in Europe, because every month that we delay, it costs our European citizens more. It costs them in their energy bills. It costs them in jobs that are lost overseas. It costs them in economic vulnerability.

But the good news is, clean tech already is the major driver of our economic prosperity today. These industries drive 30 % of total EU growth and grew twice as fast in the last decade, creating millions of green jobs.

But we need a more targeted action to become the world leaders against these Chinese competitors. So that's why we are calling for a dedicated action plan.

We need to build up our European clean tech and get the funding before China dominates the market. We need to buy European to ensure a stable and predictable market demand. And we need to shield our industries from unfair competition, from inefficient use of resources and from trade wars.

Dario Tamburrano, a nome del gruppo The Left. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, io ricordo che il regolamento per rafforzare l'ecosistema europeo delle tecnologie a zero emissioni prevedeva, già nel 2023, nella proposta iniziale della Commissione europea, un allegato con alcune precise tecnologie strategiche da supportare: dal fotovoltaico all'eolico, dalle batterie alle pompe di calore, dagli elettrolizzatori alle tecnologie di rete.

Tuttavia, il testo adottato nel 2024 ha cancellato questo elenco, che avrebbe dato una direzione chiara all'industria su quello che era necessario produrre in Europa e contiene – è in vigore, invece – un gran numero di altre tecnologie, senza che a questo aumento sia seguito un corrispondente e adeguato incremento di stanziamento economico.

La comunicazione del Clean Industrial Deal mi pare una replica di qualcosa di già visto: tante cose, poco focalizzate e pochi soldi.

Ci sono casi più che evidenti di come questa miopia possa provocare danni irreparabili, l'abbiamo visto in passato con il fotovoltaico, lo vediamo con l'automotive, lo vedremo con le pompe di calore prodotte in Cina, che stanno per invadere il mercato europeo.

Non è pensabile colmare il divario di competitività senza un massiccio pacchetto di investimenti, con imponenti aiuti pubblici europei nei settori strategici per la produzione di tecnologie verdi e del digitale, in cui l'Europa è diventata marginale.

Senza un'adeguata dotazione finanziaria, questi progetti rimarranno delle pie illusioni su carta e l'Europa continuerà a rimanere indietro e a perdere resilienza, competitività, posti di lavoro e potere di acquisto.

Lídia Pereira (PPE). – Senhor Presidente, caros colegas, a Europa é uma potência mundial em inovação clean tech. Lideramos em patentes, em investigação e desenvolvimento e em tecnologias verdes, mas falta-nos transformar essa inovação em ecossistemas industriais robustos. E qual o motivo? O financiamento é fragmentado, avesso ao risco e demasiado lento.

Temos uma oportunidade histórica. O setor das tecnologias limpas europeu requer mais de 1,5 mil milhões de EUR até 2030. E este não é um custo, é um investimento com retorno económico e social. Precisamos de instrumentos de mitigação de risco, empréstimos verdes, financiamento baseado na produção e, acima de tudo, de uma nova forma de avaliar o risco e o valor num mundo em transição climática.

O setor financeiro tem um papel essencial. Não basta preservar valor, é preciso criá-lo. Uma transição justa exige que o capital chegue aos inovadores, aos empreendedores, aos territórios em transformação e às indústrias que descarbonizam. A nossa ambição é clara: tornar o Clean Industrial Deal financiável e fazer da Europa líder mundial nesta transição. Investir no que conta, apoiar quem ousa. Este é um desígnio deste Parlamento, mas também deve ser dos líderes dos governos nacionais.

Nicolás González Casares (S&D). – Señor presidente, ¿alguien se imagina una Europa próspera a finales de siglo sin el desarrollo de las tecnologías limpias? No será posible.

Este ya no es el siglo de los fósiles, es el siglo de las limpias y —concretamente dentro de las limpias— de las tecnologías verdes, de las tecnologías renovables. Una Europa será próspera si invierte en esas tecnologías verdes, si las desarrolla, si vuelca su capacidad de financiación. Creemos que ahí el Pacto por una Industria Limpia debe movilizar un plan de acción específico para las green tech.

Europa, al mismo tiempo, debe garantizar que los beneficios de la transición lleguen a todos y a todas, porque las renovables y las tecnologías verdes que desarrollemos serán las más eficientes en términos económicos, pero también ecológicos.

He visto aquí muchos defensores de las tecnologías nucleares. Les voy a dar un consejo: que se vayan a la fosa atlántica a 700 kilómetros de mi región, en Galicia, donde se están viendo estos días 4 000 bidones de residuos radioactivos, una bomba nuclear de tiempo que estará ahí por cientos de años. Por lo tanto, seamos cuidadosos con lo que defendemos.

Julie Rechagneux (PfE). – Monsieur le Président, encore une fois, la Commission européenne agite le mirage des technologies propres comme s'il s'agissait d'une solution à tous les maux. Elle promet des milliards, des plans, des plateformes, mais la réalité, c'est que c'est un échec. Les pompes à chaleur? Elles sont importées à plus de 70 % et elles sont inadaptées à 60 % du parc immobilier ancien. Les panneaux solaires? Ils sont fabriqués à 90 % en Chine, pendant que les usines européennes ferment les unes après les autres. Les batteries européennes? Elles sont trois fois plus chères que les batteries chinoises et représentent une part de marché mondial inférieure à 5 %.

Ces industries propres sont trop souvent de fausses solutions vertes. Elles ne tiennent que grâce aux subventions massives. Plutôt que d'admettre l'échec, Bruxelles enfonce le clou: elle refuse de soutenir pleinement le nucléaire, qui est pourtant la seule énergie bas carbone pilotable, compétitive et véritablement souveraine.

Alors, nous disons stop! Nous disons stop à cette fuite en avant qui ruine notre compétitivité, qui détruit notre base industrielle historique et écarte les vraies solutions: souveraines, locales et efficaces.

Elena Donazzan (ECR). – Signor Presidente, signor Commissario, onorevoli colleghi, le tecnologie pulite sono patrimonio dell'Europa. L'approccio culturale al rispetto ambientale è europeo – certamente più di altre nazioni nel mondo – ma quello che noi rischiamo oggi è di essere fuori dal mercato.

Ci serve tornare a un approccio pragmatico e a un approccio di principio sulla neutralità tecnologica. È scritto nei nostri trattati, non è applicato.

Noi, oggi, adottiamo leggi che impediscono questo tipo di approccio, cercando quasi di dirigere, da un punto di vista assolutamente tecnocratico, le vie. Abbiamo bisogno di parlare di carburanti rinnovabili, abbiamo bisogno di non demonizzare i grandi investimenti fatti dall'automotive, non c'è solo l'auto elettrica, che peraltro dipende totalmente dalla Cina e diventerà sempre più costosa e sempre meno disponibile.

Dobbiamo avere un approccio rinnovato al tema del nucleare, senza pregiudizi sbagliati. Quella è un'energia pulita che oggi deve vedere l'Europa, e l'Italia questa scelta ha fatto: investire in questo campo.

Brigitte van den Berg (Renew). – Voorzitter, in de regio waar ik vandaan kom, zijn hele mooie nieuwe bedrijven gestart. Bijvoorbeeld een bedrijf dat eerst pijpen maakte voor olie en gas. Of een bedrijf dat eerst normaal afval weggooide en daar nu nieuwe grondstoffen van maakt. En bijvoorbeeld een bedrijf dat van zeewier groene meststof maakt en een bedrijf dat van pijpen die eerst voor olie en gas waren, nu pijpen maakt voor waterstof. Allemaal van het Just Transition Fund waar Europa in geïnvesteerd heeft. Dus daarmee wil ik Europa complimenteren.

Van al die bedrijven krijg ik echter ook te horen: wat was het een ontzettend ingewikkeld proces en wat staan de regels ons nog vaak in de weg. Bijvoorbeeld, wat staat een pragmatische definitie van waterstof ons in de weg om massaal groene waterstof te gaan produceren. Of wat staan de regels voor einde-afvalstatus ons in de weg om echt die circulaire toekomst te bouwen. Of wat staan boeren veel regels in de weg om te gaan innoveren en groenere meststoffen te gebruiken.

Dus laten wij, Voorzitter, commissaris, niet het Europa zijn van de gevestigde belangen, maar het Europa van de innovatie, waar ideeën de ruimte krijgen, waar vernieuwing de ruimte krijgt. Niet per se met minder regels, maar wel met toekomstgerichte regels…

(De Voorzitter ontneemt de spreker het woord)

Michael Bloss (Verts/ALE). – Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar, sehr geehrte Damen und Herren! Wir haben heute Morgen hier über das Verhältnis zu China diskutiert, und die Situation ist wirklich beängstigend. Vor Kurzem hat mich ein Chef von einem führenden Elektrolyseurhersteller angerufen. Wir haben die besten Technologien, aber gegen die Subventionen aus China, da haben sie einfach keine Chance. Er hat mir gesagt, wenn wir jetzt nichts tun, dann muss er dicht machen. Dann muss er die Menschen auf die Straße setzen, und dann verlieren wir in Europa den technologischen Anschluss. In vielen Branchen – bei Wärmepumpen, bei Wind – da sieht es genau so aus.

Liebe Kommission, wir dürfen unsere klugen Ingenieurinnen und Ingenieure nicht vor die Hunde gehen lassen. Die Wahrheit ist nämlich: Bisher hat sich die EU-Kommission einfach nicht gekümmert. Der Clean Industrial Deal ist da, aber es gibt keinen Plan, wie wir die saubere, wie wir die grüne Industrie in Europa aufbauen. Für uns Grüne ist klar: Wir werden nicht zulassen, dass unsere klügsten Köpfe keine Chance haben. Deshalb haben wir einen Plan vorgelegt: Buy European für Clean Tech. Wir brauchen eine Politik für saubere Technologien in der Europäischen Union.

Marc Botenga (The Left). – Voorzitter, commissaris, het contrast met wat u vertelt en de buitenwereld is af en toe toch wel groot. U spreekt hier over een leidende rol van de Europese Unie voor de groene industrie. Nadat we echter Audi in Brussel een CO2-neutrale fabriek hebben zien sluiten, dreigt ArcelorMittal nu in Gent hun Steelanolfabriek op te geven. En dat ondanks steun van de Europese Investeringsbank: een Europese subsidie van naar ik meen 262 miljoen euro.

Als we zo verder gaan, zitten we straks in Europa zonder groene industrie, zonder industrie, zonder jobs, zonder knowhow. Terwijl Europa industrieel wegzinkt in een moeras, blijft u eigenlijk vasthangen aan een marktlogica die onze industrie in feite al jarenlang ondermijnt. Wat zie ik? Nog altijd geen verplichting voor multinationals om hun winsten te herinvesteren, geen moratorium op fabrieksluitingen, geen bindende regels over wat en hoe te produceren en geen stem voor de mensen die daar effectief werken, vakbonden, arbeiders, burgers. We hebben een andere aanpak nodig. Neem dat publiek in handen.

Virgil-Daniel Popescu (PPE). – Domnule președinte, domnule comisar, dragi colegi, tranziția energetică a Europei trebuie să fie accelerată, dar nu oricum. Avem nevoie de o strategie care să combine decarbonizarea cu securitatea energetică și competitivitatea industrială.

Pentru mine, aceasta înseamnă consolidarea investițiilor în energie nucleară, în capacități regenerabile stabile și în tehnologii emergente, de la reactoarele modulare mici, până la producția de hidrogen și stocarea energiei. Uniunea Europeană are obligația să sprijine aceste eforturi printr-un cadru financiar solid, o politică industrială ambițioasă și recunoașterea diversității mixurilor energetice.

România poate deveni un pol regional de dezvoltare în domeniul energiei curate, contribuind activ la autonomia strategică a Europei și la reducerea dependențelor externe. Iar când vorbim de dependență, trebuie să fim foarte atenți să nu înlocuim dependența de gazul rusesc cu dependența de tehnologii așa-zise verzi din China, de exemplu. Trebuie să fim coerenți. Fără tehnologii curate, nu vom avea nici industrie europeană competitivă, și nici securitate energetică durabilă.

Matthias Ecke (S&D). – Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar! Als kleines Kind habe ich einmal erlebt, wie ein Drache nicht in die Luft abheben wollte, und dann gab es erst einen kräftigen Windstoß und dann ging er hoch und blieb auch oben. Das ist dieser Stoß, dieser Windstoß, den wir jetzt auch für unsere Clean-Tech-Industrie brauchen. Wir haben die Köpfe, wir haben die Vision, wir haben die Technologie – aber es fehlt auch noch viel. Mit dem Net-Zero Industry Act haben wir jetzt die Verfahren vereinfacht, haben wir einen Push gegeben. Wir haben einen neuen Beihilferahmen geschaffen, mit dem man diese strategischen Industrien endlich auch wettbewerbsneutral fördern kann.

Aber trotzdem geht Produktion verloren. Ich sehe es bei mir in Sachsen, ein ganz starker Solarstandort, der in den letzten Jahren abgeschmiert ist, obwohl die Branche eingentlich insgesamt wächst.

Wir müssen stärker vorgehen gegen Billigkonkurrenz, gegen das Überangebot, gerade aus China. Da muss die Kommission alle handelspolitischen Maßnahmen nutzen. Und wir brauchen auch einen EU-Haushalt, der unsere strategischen Industrien wirklich fördert und unterstützt. Da muss der neue Wettbewerbsfähigkeits-Fonds auch präzise mit Blick auf diese Industrien liefern.

Wir sind kein Öl-Staat – die Zukunft Europas liegt in den Erneuerbaren. Lassen Sie nicht zu, dass wir unsere Produktion hier verlieren.

Filip Turek (PfE). – Mr President, Everyone is talking about clean technology, but what Europe really needs is clean thinking – we must not lose common sense. We need innovation and freedom to choose – not bands, not green ideology.

Brussels keeps imposing more rules completely detached from reality. Why are we killing our own industries? It is our workers and our companies that are paying the price. The Green Deal is an economic death sentence. It is not green leadership, it is strategic suicide.

Germany is still bleeding from Merkel's legacy, and Ursula von der Leyen is finishing the job. Yesterday, she called all those who oppose her extremists and pro-Russian. Only history will judge who really damaged Europe.

Anna Zalewska (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Panie Komisarzu! Powiedzieć, że Europa jest na zakręcie, to nic nie powiedzieć. Musimy przyznać jednoznacznie, że stoimy nad przepaścią, a Komisja proponuje, żeby włączać kolejne biegi, żeby jeszcze szybciej znaleźć się na samym dnie.

Projekty bez pomysłu, bez analiz, bez źródeł finansowania, bez inżynierów, chemików i fizyków, wbrew logice i wbrew rozumowi. To powoduje, że przecież cały świat o tym mówi. Na szczycie klimatycznym przeżywaliśmy to w sposób jednoznaczny, że Unia Europejska nie wie, co robi. Nikt nie chce do nas dołączyć.

Pamiętam, kiedy pracowaliśmy w tamtej kadencji nad pakietem Fit for 55, za każdym razem przestrzegałam koleżanki i kolegów z komisji ENVI, że kolejny dokument to nabijanie kabzy Chińczykom, bo nie mamy ani metali ziem rzadkich, ani technologii, że jesteśmy daleko w tyle, o czym mówią wszystkie możliwe logiczne, ekonomiczne sprawozdania.

Oihane Agirregoitia Martínez (Renew). – Señor presidente, señor comisario, somos de los que creemos que en este Parlamento se habla poco de soberanía tecnológica, y la dependencia que tenemos hoy en día en esta materia —tanto de China como de los Estados Unidos— es sin duda uno de los grandes riesgos que tenemos también encima de la mesa. En algunos de los ámbitos estamos débiles, pero concretamente en las energías limpias, que es de lo que estamos hablando hoy, tenemos un diferencial, tenemos un potencial y, por lo tanto, creemos que tenemos un valor añadido que tenemos que aprovechar.

Este escenario es complejo, tenemos una competencia feroz, pero debemos reforzar nuestra industria y tenemos que ayudarla a descarbonizarse sobre la base de las energías limpias. Hablamos de producción de baterías, captura de carbono, hidrógeno, uso e integración en economía circular… Yo creo que los objetivos los compartimos todas y todos; la cuestión es cómo lo hacemos. Y aquí hay una petición muy clara: debemos ponérselo fácil, reduciendo la burocracia, y tenemos que facilitar la inversión. Por lo tanto, así le pedimos que sea en el nuevo marco financiero plurianual.

Niels Flemming Hansen (PPE). – Hr. formand! Meget er jo sagt på nuværende tidspunkt i debatten, og for ikke at stå og gentage alle de kloge ord, som nogle af mine kollegaer har sagt, så vil jeg prøve at sige noget andet. Som konservative taler vi jo rigtig meget om ansvar. Vi taler om økonomisk ansvar, men også ansvar for naturen og for at give en bedre og sikrere verden videre til den næste generation. Derfor skal EU investere langt mere i grønne teknologier og energieffektivitet. Det handler ikke om symbolpolitik, det handler om sund fornuft. Hvis vi skal sikre billig, stabil og ren energi, så skal vi turde investere nu, ikke kun i produktion, men også i at bruge energien klogere. Det gør os friere – fri af forurening, fri af afhængighed af ustabile lande og fri til at bygge vores egen industrielle styrke. Når vi ser Kommissionens bud på næste langsigtede budget, så forventer vi, at det afspejler denne prioritet. For det er nu, EU skal vise handlekraft. Grøn omstilling er ikke kun en nødvendighed, det er også en mulighed for vækst, jobs og europæisk sikkerhed. Så jeg håber, at vi i fællesskab her i Parlamentet, sammen kan tage det nødvendige ansvar.

Giorgio Gori (S&D). – Signor Presidente, signor Commissario, onorevoli colleghi, con il Net-Zero Industry Act e con il Clean Industrial Deal l'Unione europea si è data un quadro normativo per rafforzare la propria competitività nel campo delle tecnologie per la decarbonizzazione.

L'Unione ha imboccato la strada giusta, ma la sta percorrendo alla giusta velocità e con le risorse adeguate? Le restrizioni all'export di terre rare recentemente introdotte dalla Cina ci ricordano quanto, su questo e su altri fronti, siamo dipendenti e vulnerabili, perché dipendiamo da materiali, lavorazioni e tecnologie di cui altri hanno saldamente le chiavi.

Dobbiamo riuscire a diversificare l'approvvigionamento delle materie prime e nel frattempo sviluppare gli investimenti, i grandi investimenti che sono necessari per tradurre il primato europeo nella brevettazione delle tecnologie in effettiva capacità produttiva.

Per scalare queste tecnologie servono centinaia di miliardi di euro e per questo – lo sapete – serve il mercato unico dei capitali. Da qui, dall'implementazione dell'Unione del risparmio e degli investimenti, passa il cammino della decarbonizzazione e dell'autonomia strategica del nostro continente.

Kris Van Dijck (ECR). – Voorzitter, commissaris, vandaag gaat ons beleid nog te veel de mist in. Ik betreur dat.

Ten eerste moeten we beseffen dat een transitie die noodzakelijk is, zich niet van vandaag op morgen voltrekt. Ook Kopenhagen is niet op één dag gebouwd. Maar laat ‘best’ niet in de weg staan van ‘beter’. Fnuik, bijvoorbeeld, de business case voor blauwe waterstof niet door beperkende regulering die enkel groene waterstof omarmt.

Ten tweede, omarm technologieneutraliteit. De industrie smeekt erom. Ik herhaal ook mijn oproep voor een stabiel beleidskader voor kernenergie. Investeerders willen hierin duidelijkheid.

Ten derde, bewaak het gelijke speelveld op de interne markt. De versoepeling van staatssteunregels zijn nefast voor de kleine lidstaten.

Tot slot, heel wat investeringen in decarbonisatie worden nu door het strikt regelgevend kader uitgesteld. Ik hoor het dagelijks en het kost bovendien niks. Tegemoetkomen, commissaris, aan deze vier punten zullen een investering in schone technologie ondersteunen.

Angelika Winzig (PPE). – Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar! Wenn wir heute über Clean Technology sprechen, dann sprechen wir über die Zukunft unserer Industrie, unsere Energieversorgung und unsere Wettbewerbsfähigkeit. Der europäische Clean-Tech-Markt hat heute schon ein Volumen von 176 Milliarden, und bis 2034 wird er sich verdreifachen. Daher ist es wichtig, dass wir diese Technologien hier in Europa weiterentwickeln und produzieren. Wir dürfen uns in diesen wichtigen Bereichen nicht wieder von China und den USA abhängen lassen. Mit dem Clean Industrial Deal und dem Net-Zero Industry Act haben wir die richtigen Weichen hier im Haus gestellt. Jetzt geht es darum, schnell zu investieren und unnötige Hürden weiter abzubauen. Gerade für ein Industrieland wie Österreich mit innovativen KMU und starken Betrieben im technischen Bereich ist Clean Tech eine riesige Chance – und das übrigens ohne Atomenergie.

Niels Fuglsang (S&D). – Hr. Formand! 95 %! 95 % er det tal, der guider mine tanker, når jeg tænker på grøn teknologi, for 95 % af de solpaneler, der bliver sat op i Europa i dag, de er produceret i Kina. Det var en teknologi, der blev udviklet i Europa, og hvor vi havde en industri for 15 år siden, for 10 år siden. Det har vi stort set ikke mere. Nu ligger produktionen i Kina. For mig at se er der ikke nogen tvivl om, at de grønne teknologier, det er fremtidens teknologier. Det er det, vi skal konkurrere på. Det er det, der skal skabe arbejdspladser og udvikling og billig energi. Men der er heller ikke nogen tvivl om, at vi er pressede. Vi er inde i et kapløb. Vi inde i en hård konkurrence med andre dele af verden, Kina og USA, der presser os på en række af disse teknologier. Derfor bliver vi nødt til, at sætte alle vores ressourcer bag vores vindmøller, vores batterier, vores energieffektive teknologier og også vores solpaneler. Hvis vi skal konkurrere – det skal vi – for vi har brug for at komme af med CO2'en, og vi har brug for at komme frem i konkurrencen.

Brīvais mikrofons

Petras Gražulis (ESN). – Aš manau, kad žalias kursas turėtų būti subalansuotas ir negalėtų užgožti bendros ekonomikos. Mes dėl žalio kurso tikrai daugelyje šakų tampame nekonkurencingi ir manau, kad turime žiūrėti bendros pasaulinės rinkos ir nežlugdyti savo verslo. Todėl aš manau, kad mes neišlaikome to balanso ir, deja, žalią kursą bandome tiesiog prievarta steigti, žlungdant verslą pasauliniu lygiu. Ir Europos Sąjungoje, matome, uždarinėja ir automobilių pramonė, ir ūkininkai protestuoja, todėl turėtų būti labai subalansuota ir atsakingai vykdoma šita žalio kurso politika.

(Brīvā mikrofona uzstāšanos beigas.)

Dan Jørgensen, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, on behalf of the Commission, I wish to thank you for this debate, which reflects our shared determination to ensure that clean technologies are developed, produced and scaled here in Europe.

To succeed, we need stronger European investments and more coordinated industrial policies, not only at EU level, but across all Member States and regions. We must act together to strengthen entire supply chains, from securing access to raw materials and increasing circularity, to supporting advanced manufacturing, to attracting and retaining skilled workers.

This is not just about individual technologies. It is about creating the full ecosystem that enables clean tech and industries to thrive in Europe and to compete globally. That means more support for innovation, for permitting and for deployment, but also for people. Because none of this is possible without a workforce that is trained, reskilled and empowered to build Europe's industrial future.

Europe has the tools, Europe has the talent and Europe has the capital. What we need now is focus, coordination and scale. The Commission is fully committed to delivering on this agenda. I trust that the Parliament will continue to drive it forward with the same ambition.

Priekšsēdētājs. – Debates ir slēgtas.

Sēde tiek pārtraukta uz dažām minūtēm. Tā atsāksies plkst. 15.00 ar Komisijas paziņojumu – Ķīmiskās rūpniecības tiesību aktu paketes izklāsts.

Rakstiski paziņojumi (178. pants)

Sebastian Tynkkynen (ECR), in writing. – Europe has no future in clean technologies – unless it rebuilds its industrial backbone.

We need an economy that is capable of producing more, not politicians who are willing to regulate more.

When handling Green Deal, I hear constantly the words 'just transition'. Is it still 'just transition' if it kills jobs, weakens industry, and helps Chinese dictatorship?

What we should be discussing is Europe's transition – our industries coming back. That means real production, real investments, and the right conditions for European industry to grow. Not endless regulating. Not ideology.

The three words for the upcoming century should be: Made in Europe.

(Sēde tika pārtraukta plkst. 14.53.)

PRESIDENZA: PINA PICIERNO

Vicepresidente

11. Resumption of the sitting

(La seduta è ripresa alle 15.00)

12. Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting

Presidente. – Il processo verbale della seduta di ieri e i testi approvati sono stati distribuiti.

Vi sono osservazioni? Non vi sono osservazioni.

Il processo verbale è approvato.

13. Presentation of the Chemicals Package (debate)

Presidente. – L'ordine del giorno reca la discussione sulla dichiarazione della Commissione sulla presentazione del pacchetto sulle sostanze chimiche (2025/2788(RSP)).

Stéphane Séjourné, Vice-président exécutif de la Commission. – Madame la Présidente, Mesdames et Messieurs les députés, au moment où la Commission adopte une série de mesures essentielles pour le secteur européen de la chimie, je vous remercie d'avoir choisi d'organiser ce débat, car la chimie est mère de toutes les industries. Elle est présente partout, dans l'ensemble des secteurs stratégiques et industriels, de notre défense militaire jusqu'à nos médicaments en passant par les objets connectés, devenus omniprésents dans notre quotidien.

Or, c'est aussi une industrie qui se porte mal. Commençons par énumérer un certain nombre de chiffres qui repositionnent l'enjeu industriel que nous vivons. La chimie connaît une chute de près de 50 % de son chiffre d'affaires mondial depuis vingt ans. Elle a donc besoin d'un accompagnement résolu pour répondre aux différentes pressions qu'elle rencontre. Soutenir la chimie, c'est aussi soutenir 90 % de la chaîne de valeur industrielle, sur laquelle repose notre compétitivité européenne. C'est dire l'enjeu!

Rappelons également que ce secteur représente 1,2 million d'emplois directs en Europe. Or, comme d'autres secteurs, la chimie se heurte aux prix élevés de l'énergie, à une faible demande, à une concurrence déloyale, souvent venue de l'Asie, mais également à une complexité réglementaire, aux coûts induits par la décarbonation – dont nous avons choisi l'orientation au cours du dernier mandat – et à la pression financière de la fin des quotas carbone gratuits.

Le plan que la Commission, à travers la commissaire Roswall et moi-même, propose a pour objectif de garder nos vapocraqueurs et nos sites de production en Europe, de les rendre plus propres et d'utiliser également la décarbonation comme un levier de modernisation de notre industrie et de notre appareil productif, en Europe. Ce plan repose sur quatre piliers: le soutien à l'appareil productif européen et à l'innovation; la baisse des prix de l'énergie et l'accompagnement de l'industrie dans sa décarbonation; le soutien de la demande; la simplification.

Avec la création d'une Alliance pour les produits chimiques critiques, nous nous concentrerons sur des actions envers les molécules et les sites les plus stratégiques, qui pourraient nous faire courir un risque de dépendance. Par exemple, nous sommes à 80 % dépendants pour ce qui est du méthanol, un composé que l'on trouve dans une partie des produits de nettoyage et des cosmétiques. L'acide acétique, d'autre part, que l'on trouve dans l'éthylène, est lui aussi un élément de notre stratégie. Nous émettrons une feuille de route sur l'identification et la cartographie de ces molécules stratégiques, afin de permettre, dans la veine de ce que nous avions fait avec les matières premières critiques, de choisir quelles sont les molécules dont l'Europe a besoin pour pouvoir approvisionner son industrie.

Ensuite, nous accompagnerons la création de sites chimiques essentiels. Ces écosystèmes industriels, souvent déjà ancrés dans nos territoires, seront implantés là où se trouvent des bases industrielles, des compétences, des savoir-faire, des infrastructures. Il nous faudra moderniser ces bases avec les forces vives locales – industries, jeunes pousses, chercheurs et autorités publiques locales –, et nous attirerons également des nouveaux éléments d'innovation, d'emploi, de financement, y compris avec des fonds européens et régionaux, que nous proposons par ailleurs de pouvoir mobiliser.

Sur le plan international, l'Alliance nous permettra également de continuer à développer de nouveaux marchés pour la chimie européenne. Elle doit aussi nous aider à protéger le marché intérieur des produits chimiques de la concurrence déloyale venue de producteurs étrangers. Rappelons que, depuis 2024, la Commission a lancé plus de 18 investigations sur des importations de produits chimiques, au titre des instruments de défense commerciale. C'est aussi la preuve que la stratégie qui était positionnée dans le pacte pour une industrie propre sur l'utilisation plus fréquente de nos instruments commerciaux est actuellement à l'œuvre.

Le deuxième levier de notre action a trait aux mesures de baisse du prix de l'énergie, avec notamment une possible extension envers certains sites chimiques du régime d'aides d'État destinées à compenser la hausse des prix de l'énergie. Nous demanderons également une certaine souplesse pour le secteur de la chimie, en accélérant notamment les procédures d'autorisation quant à la modernisation de certains sites industriels et en tendant à un véritable marché européen de l'économie circulaire – ma collègue en parlera probablement dans sa conclusion.

Troisième levier: en soutien à la demande, nous introduirons des critères de contenu européen et de durabilité dans les marchés publics et privés. Nous ouvrirons également des pôles d'innovation pour permettre l'émergence de nouveaux acteurs dans le domaine de la chimie de pointe. Préserver la chimie, la tourner vers l'innovation et vers de nouveaux marchés, et construire la chimie du futur: telle est la stratégie que nous vous proposons.

Enfin, il nous faudra simplifier nos règles tout en gardant un seuil de protection du consommateur et de l'environnement qui soit élevé. Nous pourrions ainsi réaliser une économie anticipée de 400 millions d'euros par an pour le secteur, soit presque 1 million d'euros par jour. Nous proposons également de réviser la réglementation de l'Agence européenne des produits chimiques afin de répondre à des enjeux financiers, mais aussi de gouvernance et de rapidité, à travers la modernisation et la simplification du règlement REACH.

Pour terminer, je voudrais dire un mot sur les substances perfluoroalkylées et polyfluoroalkylées – les PFAS. Nous attendons des résultats scientifiques de l'Agence européenne des produits chimiques, et, comme je le dis souvent, nous nous fondons sur la science et uniquement la science pour pouvoir prendre des décisions. Il nous faut toutefois aller vite et donner de la visibilité au secteur industriel et aux consommateurs. Certaines applications des PFAS sont essentielles, et il sera sans doute difficile de s'en passer totalement. Aussi, tant qu'il n'y a pas de solution de remplacement, nos industriels n'auront pas d'autre choix que de continuer à les utiliser, en particulier dans des secteurs clés comme la défense et les industries propres.

Voilà, Mesdames et Messieurs les parlementaires, les quatre piliers sur lesquels s'articulent les mesures adoptées aujourd'hui, il y a quelques instants, lors du collège des commissaires. La commissaire Roswall et moi-même sommes à présent heureux d'écouter vos premières réactions et de travailler avec vous sur la mise en œuvre de ce plan.

Christian Ehler, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Madam President, Commissioners – and I use the gender neutral plural and very much welcome that we are talking to two Commissioners because the exercise we're going to undertake needs a collaborative effort from the Commission. I could also address DG ENER, where these days we are negotiating a low carbon hydrogen act, which will also be decisive for the chemical industry, and I hope it will help the ramp up for that.

But let me briefly show you the broader picture. 23 February: BASF plans to close plants in Ludwigshafen. 23 February: Dyneon plans to close the whole plant in Gendorf. 23 August: Lanxess plans to fully close in Krefeld-Uerdingen. 24 July: BASF plans to close plants in Knapsack and Frankfurt. 24 October: Evonik plans to cut down plants in Hanau. 25 May: Bayer plans to close plants in Höchst. 21 July: Dow plans the complete shutting down of the Mitteldeutsches Chemiedreieck in Schkopau and Böhlen.

And this is just Germany. Its dramatic and abstract figures don't help. We are in a process of dramatic deindustrialisation. That doesn't mean that we just talk about individual plans. These are a complete value change. These are the starting points, the trickle-down effect of a lot. I mean, France and French companies have been bravely investing in eastern Germany, but without basic chemical industry, this is not going to work, and we should understand that.

That's not an excuse for not doing something for our climate ambition. That's not an excuse for this industry not needing to transform. But we should realise we're at the brink – or it might even be 12:05 – and that we are simply ruling out the industrial base of the chemical industry in Europe.

And so, we highly appreciate what the two Commissioners – I would suppose it will be a more joint exercise in the future – have been announcing today. We welcome that. We think it's a coherent package. We think it's not easy for Commissioners to join in because there are environmental concerns and other issues.

But, it is just a starting point. We have to keep a business case for the chemical industry in Europe right now, and this is massively questioned by the industry itself.

Christophe Clergeau, au nom du groupe S&D. – Madame la Présidente, Madame la Commissaire, Monsieur le Vice-Président exécutif de la Commission, vous êtes ici parce que vous vous êtes engagés, avec tout le collège, à respecter les acquis du pacte vert. Vous êtes ici membres d'une Commission gardienne des traités, et notamment de l'article 168, qui indique qu'‘un niveau élevé de protection de la santé humaine est assuré dans la définition et la mise en œuvre de toutes les politiques et actions de l'Union’.

Alors, avec le train de mesures sur les substances chimiques – du moins ce que l'on en sait, puisque rien n'est officiellement publié –, rien ne va. Je vous le dis avec solennité: le groupe socialiste et démocrate de ce Parlement condamne avec la plus grande fermeté cette proposition, qui orchestre un retour en arrière extraordinaire et met en danger la santé humaine et l'environnement. Ce train de mesures n'a rien à voir avec la simplification, sauf si, pour vous, simplifier veut dire renoncer à sortir de l'usage des produits dangereux et exonérer les entreprises de leurs responsabilités.

Les mesures proposées vont augmenter l'exposition à des produits dangereux. Vous renoncez à rendre plus lisibles et plus compréhensibles les emballages et l'étiquetage. Vous renoncez à un délai raisonnable pour changer l'étiquetage quand la classification d'un produit a changé. Vous assouplissez l'utilisation des produits cancérogènes, mutagènes et reprotoxiques dans les cosmétiques et supprimez l'obligation de présenter une analyse des autres solutions. Vous autorisez la commercialisation pour une durée allant jusqu'à trente-six mois d'un produit cosmétique contenant des produits interdits.

Je vous le redis: rien ne va. En faisant cela, et je conclus par là, la Commission ne rend pas service à l'industrie. Plutôt que de pérenniser l'autorisation d'utilisation de produits dangereux, elle ferait mieux de soutenir les industriels qui se sont engagés dans le développement d'une économie durable et respectueuse du vivant.

Georg Mayer, im Namen der PfE-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin! ‘Nachtigall, ich hör dir trapsen’ sagt der Berliner in so einem Fall, was so viel heißt wie: Ich zweifle daran, dass hier viel Positives für die Industrie zu erwarten ist von Ihrer Seite. Es ist wieder einmal nur ein weiteres Kapitel des völlig ideologisch überzogenen Green Deals, an dem in Europa die Unternehmen leiden, indem sie immer mehr Auflagen und Verbote vorgeschrieben bekommen und immer mehr Berichtspflichten. Gerade die kleinen und mittleren Unternehmen sind das Rückgrat unserer Wirtschaft und werden mit immer mehr Pflichten belastet. Das ist ja nicht das erste Mal, dass wir das erleben. Damit treiben wir sie natürlich auch ins Ausland. Das Lieferkettengesetz ist ja auch ein gutes Beispiel dafür, völlig überzogen, unzumutbar für die Unternehmen und wird trotzdem so durchgezogen. Wir brauchen Chemikalien in allen möglichen Bereichen der Wirtschaft und der Landwirtschaft. Wir gefährden damit unsere eigene Versorgungssicherheit, wenn wir so weitermachen wie bisher, und treiben natürlich die Unternehmen auch ins Ausland.

Umweltschutz ist Heimatschutz, und das ist sehr wichtig. Das ist aber dann bitte mit Hausverstand zu betreiben, ohne utopische Ziele, die niemand einhalten kann, wo wir gleichzeitig nur unseren Betrieben schaden und uns auch in die Abhängigkeit von China und den USA treiben. Geschätzte Kollegen, wir fordern weniger Bürokratie, wir fordern Eigenverantwortung, wir fordern machbare Rahmenbedingungen, und wir fordern fairen Wettbewerb für unsere Betriebe. Das Ziel ist klar: Produktion zurück nach Europa, überzogene Bürokratie abbauen, Arbeitsplätze sichern, und alles andere ist Green-Deal-Irrsinn.

Beatrice Timgren, för ECR gruppen. – Fru talman! Ja, det här lät ju lovande: ‘One substance, one assessment’. Det låter ju som att det här ska vara ett enklare system för kemikaliebedömning. Men i praktiken är det här ett skolboksexempel på överdriven EU-byråkrati. Artikel 22 innebär nya anmälningskrav som mest ökar pappersarbetet utan att förbättra säkerheten. Det drabbar framför allt små företag.

Mer makt flyttas till EU:s kemikaliemyndighet och vi får mindre insyn. Kommissionen har ju själv satt ett mål på 25 % mindre rapporteringsbörda, men nu gör man precis tvärtom.

Därför säger jag nej till det här. Nej till onödig byråkrati och ja till konkurrenskraftig kemikaliepolitik. Vi måste börja stärka konkurrenskraften, inte försvaga den.

Martin Hojsík, on behalf of the Renew Group. – Madam President, Madam Commissioner, now, indeed, our chemical industry is not in good shape. The massive dependence on predominantly Russian gas puts the prices high up in the sky and that's something that's having a massive impact indeed.

I am very happy to see a number of improvements in your proposal. I am happy to see that there is a focus to revive the chemical industry and to bring back innovation in style.

But very honestly, in this House, we had the Special Committee on Beating Cancer. Honestly, the best way you can deal with cancer is not to get cancer. How do you want to protect people from getting cancer when we are extending the timelines for when companies are obliged to put on their product that it contains a cancer-causing chemical?

This is something which we indeed must change and I am really disappointed that labelling legislation, which was only recently adopted by this House with a big majority, is being undermined by a Commission proposal.

So yes, we need to revive the chemical industry, but it is not for the benefit of the industry, nor for the benefit of its competitiveness to put hazardous chemicals that can cause cancer on the market without the knowledge of the consumers.

Jutta Paulus, im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, Frau Kommissarin, Herr Kommissar, meine Damen und Herren! Anscheinend war niemand aus der Kommission mal mit einem Kleinkind am Strand und hat dem Kind ein Eis gekauft. Denn unweigerlich wird das Kind kleckern. Und genauso unweigerlich wird es sich das Verkleckerte von der Haut ablecken. Und, wo ist das Problem? Die Kommission meint, dass krebserregende Stoffe in Kosmetika nur verboten sein sollen, wenn sie bei Hautkontakt krebserregend sind. Begründung: Kosmetik verschluckt man ja nicht. Tut mir leid, liebe Kommission, dieser Vorschlag scheitert schon in der Eisdiele. Sie sagen Vereinfachung, aber Sie meinen weniger Schutz, weniger Kontrolle, weniger Verantwortung.

Weiteres Beispiel: Erst letztes Jahr haben wir Regeln beschlossen, nach denen gefährliche Chemikalien und Produkte besser gekennzeichnet werden müssen. Verantwortungsbewusste Hersteller haben auch bereits investiert, weil sie ja neue Etiketten drucken müssen, um das Ganze besser lesbar zu machen, oder weil sie ihre Werbung anpassen müssen. Jetzt soll das alles rückabgewickelt werden? Ich dachte immer, Planungssicherheit wäre das Allerwichtigste für die Industrie. Inmitten der dritten großen ökologischen Krise, der Umweltverschmutzung durch Ewigkeitschemikalien, durch krebserzeugende, durch fruchtbarkeitsschädigende Stoffe, entscheidet sich die Kommission gegen die Gesundheit von Bürgerinnen und Bürgern, gegen den Fortschritt und die Innovation und gegen die Eindämmung der Flut von Schadstoffen in unseren Flüssen, in unseren Böden und in unserem Blut. Das Vorsorgeprinzip, also der Schutz unserer Bürgerinnen und Bürger, ist kein Verwaltungsdetail, was man mal einfach wegkürzen kann. Es ist verankert in den europäischen Verträgen, und wenn Sie es aufgeben, gefährden Sie das Vertrauen, die Gesundheit und die Umwelt.

Per Clausen, for The Left-Gruppen. – Fru formand! Når jeg hører Kommissionen tale om kemipolitik, så ved jeg ikke, om det er vreden eller frustrationen, som er den dominerende følelse hos mig. Det er i hvert fald det, jeg hører, og det, som slår mere og mere klart, er, at hensynet til mennesker og miljø til sundhed og natur ikke bare glider i baggrunden, men forsvinder. I stedet er mantraet, at det skal gøres lettere for virksomhederne. Og det er vel også derfor, vi stadig venter på den REACH-reform, der skulle være kommet for år siden, og som dengang handlede om at beskytte mennesker og miljø bedre, men som nu handler om at gøre det nemmere at drive kemivirksomhed. Og det er vel også derfor, vi ikke har set EU skride ordentligt ind mod ting som PFAS på trods af, at vi har diskuteret det i årtier. Det er det modsatte af rettidig omhu, det er ren uansvarlighed. For det betyder, at de kommende generationer skal betale prisen for vores forsømmelser. Og jo længere vi venter med at handle, desto højere bliver den pris. Det er simpelt hen alt, alt for dårligt.

Anja Arndt, im Namen der ESN-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin! Heute diskutieren wir das neue Chemikalienpaket der EU-Kommission. Ziel ist es, die Regeln zu vereinfachen und den Unternehmen unnötige Belastungen zu ersparen – warum eigentlich erst jetzt und nicht gleich von Anfang an? BASF und Dow bauen gerade in Deutschland massiv Arbeitsplätze ab. Diese Vereinfachungen kommen zu spät – wie Herr Ehler auch soeben ausgeführt hat. Eine ganze Branche wandert ab, und Sie haben das hier verursacht! Die Vereinfachungen sind auch jetzt nicht umfassend genug. Die ESN begrüßt die ‘Eine Substanz, eine Bewertung’-Initiative. Sie schafft endlich mehr Übersicht, vermeidet Doppelarbeit, und Daten sollen an einem Ort zugänglich sein. Das hätte man auch gleich von Anfang an so konzipieren können.

Auch der Fokus auf frühzeitige Risikoerkennung von Auswirkungen von Chemikalien auf den Menschen verbessert den Gesundheitsschutz, ohne gleich alles zu verbieten. Das finden wir auch in Ordnung, aber zur Realität gehört auch: Die chemische Industrie ist ein strategisch wichtiger Sektor in der EU, auf den wir angewiesen sind. Die Emissionszertifikate müssen ebenfalls endlich abgeschafft werden, sonst wandert sie vollständig ab. Es wird Zeit, dass Brüssel nicht nur an Vorschriften denkt – sondern auch an Arbeitsplätze! Dafür braucht Europa die ESN und Deutschland braucht die AfD.

Massimiliano Salini (PPE). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, la direzione assunta con l'omnibus nel settore chimico è una direzione che, a nostro modo di vedere, segue le esigenze che l'industria europea e i cittadini europei hanno manifestato.

Quindi, sia sul regolamento su classificazione ed etichettatura, che sul regolamento sui cosmetici e sul regolamento sui fertilizzanti la prospettiva sembra affidabile, ma il pacchetto sull'industria chimica è un pacchetto estremamente complesso – come si diceva – in un momento in cui gli investimenti nel settore sono decisamente ridotti.

Oggi in Europa si consolida l'esistente, si tende a non innovare, a non investire su nuovi progetti, per cui, quali sono i pilastri di una strategia industriale per il futuro della chimica in Europa?

Innanzitutto, come si diceva, il costo dell'energia, la sicurezza energetica e il suo costo. Perché non parlare, ad esempio, di una prospettiva in cui si possa avere un mercato unico europeo dell'energia elettrica con prezzi armonizzati?

Il tema del futuro degli ETS: l'industria energivora non può permettersi troppa disinvoltura sulla fuoriuscita dalle quote gratuite, quindi prudenza e attenzione a che gli investimenti legati e i proventi derivanti dalle aste dell'ETS finanzino progetti innovativi nel settore chimico: il riciclo chimico, il futuro dell'idrogeno e altri grandi progetti che c'entrano anche con la transizione ecologica.

Infine, due punti: primo, la neutralità tecnologica, non facciamo in questo settore gli errori fatti nel settore automotive. Secondo, la classificazione delle sostanze, evitiamo l'idea del pericolo generico, del rischio generico, ma valutiamo il rischio specifico delle sostanze, in modo da tenere unite innovazione e sicurezza per le persone.

Mohammed Chahim (S&D). – Voorzitter, uit onderzoek blijkt dat bijna alle Nederlanders te veel PFAS in hun bloed hebben. Ik vrees dat dat ook voor heel veel Europeanen geldt. Vorig jaar heb ik zelf ook zo'n test gedaan en de resultaten waren zorgwekkend. Want zeg je chemie, dan zeg je PFAS, dan zeg je pesticiden en microplastics. Tweederde van de Nederlanders wil dat de overheid met strengere wetgeving komt.

Ik hoop dat de Commissie echt gaat luisteren en niet zoals vandaag met een rapport of met een voorstel komt om rapportageverplichtingen van bijvoorbeeld make-up-bedrijven te schrappen. In feite maakt de Commissie het nog makkelijker om giftige stoffen te gebruiken. Gelooft u echt dat dát is wat de mensen willen? Winst ten koste van gezondheid?

Willen we de chemiesector in Europa helpen, dan moeten we af van onze energie-afhankelijkheid. Waar de bedrijven echt tegenaan lopen is een vol elektriciteitsnet. Investeringen in het net, dat is wat de industrie vraagt. Een Europese investeringsagenda voor de chemie om te vergroenen. Toegang tot groene moleculen. Want chemie kan dus ook waterstof, biologisch afbreekbaar plastic of chemische recycling zijn. Allemaal cruciaal voor onze industriële toekomst.

Wat losse ideeën op papier, een nietje er doorheen, dat is niet wat wij een actieplan noemen. Daar redden we het niet mee. Een actieplan, zonder de benodigde investeringen, is voor de chemiesector wat een lege reageerbuis is voor een onderzoeker: je kan ernaar blijven kijken, maar er gebeurt niets.

Katri Kulmuni (Renew). – Arvoisa puhemies, kemianteollisuus on strategisesti erittäin tärkeä ala. Tällä hetkellä meidän lainsäädännössämme on kuitenkin sellainen tilanne, että yritykset, jotka noudattavat tiukkaa kemikaalilainsäädäntöä, eivät saa siitä välttämättä aina sitä liiketaloudellista hyötyä, mitä lainsäätäjä oli ajatellut, ja ne firmat, jotka eivät noudata tätä lainsäädäntöä ja valuvat järjestelmän ohi eli joita viranomaiset eivät pääse katsomaan, saavatkin sen hyödyn. Siksi tätä lainsäädäntöä täytyy myös tarkastella.

Täälläkin on puhuttu paljon ikuisuuskemikaaleista, PFAS:eista. On erittäin tärkeää, että niistä 24 keskeisellä yhdisteellä on jo olemassa ympäristölaatustandardit. Tosiasiassahan PFAS-ikuisuuskemikaaleja on noin 10 000 eri yhdistelmää, ja valitettavasti niitä kaikkia emme pysty hallinnollisesti tai ympäristöllisesti samalla lailla mittaamaan. On kuitenkin erittäin tärkeää, että komissio pystyisi keskittymään niistä kaikista vaikuttavimpiin ja poistamaan niitä meidän ympäristöstämme. Ja koska tämä lainsäädäntö on niin keskeinen ja aiheuttaa ihmisille ja ympäristölle ongelmia, sitä täytyy tarkastella erittäin huolellisesti, jotta myös viranomaiset voivat valvoa sitä meidän turvaksemme.

Marie Toussaint (Verts/ALE). – Madame la Présidente, Madame la Commissaire, Monsieur le Vice-Président exécutif, vous nous parlez d'un paquet pour soutenir les entreprises de la chimie. Mais je vais vous dire, en réalité, ce que vous nous présentez aujourd'hui, c'est un permis d'empoisonner délivré au pire de l'industrie chimique, au détriment, évidemment, des consommateurs et consommatrices, des travailleurs et des travailleuses, et de nos enfants. Vous appelez ça un ‘plan pour l'industrie’. Eh bien moi, j'appelle ça un plan pour multiplier les cancers. Vous vous vantez de simplifier les règles? En réalité, vous ouvrez la porte aux substances cancérogènes dans nos dentifrices, vous supprimez des exigences pourtant vitales sur l'étiquetage et vous affaiblissez la traçabilité des fertilisants qui polluent déjà nos sols et nos eaux.

Je vais aller plus loin. Parce que, voyez-vous, il y a plusieurs manières de faire la guerre aux femmes. Il y a une manière évidente, en s'en prenant à nos droits, par exemple sur l'avortement. Puis il y a une façon plus vicieuse, consistant à libérer dans les produits de notre quotidien des substances si toxiques qu'elles entraînent la mort en causant des cancers du sein ou des fibromes. Ainsi en va-t-il, par exemple, du formaldéhyde dans les shampoings, du benzophénone dans les vernis – avec une charge raciale supplémentaire, puisque ces substances dont vous facilitez l'usage se retrouvent dans les produits défrisants ou dans ceux utilisés pour blanchir la peau. Tout cela pour faire plaisir à quinze PDG, rencontrés en petit comité, pendant que les ONG, les scientifiques, les syndicats et les représentants des consommateurs ont été priés de rester dehors.

Ce train de mesures n'est rien de moins qu'un ensemble de textes dictés par les lobbys chimiques et faisant fi de la société civile et de la science. Alors, ne simplifions pas au prix de plus de cancers, plus de pollution et plus de méfiance des citoyens. Sauvons le pacte vert, sauvons le plan d'action ‘zéro pollution’ et, surtout, mettons en place le plan européen de lutte contre le cancer.

Marcin Sypniewski (ESN). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Szanowni Państwo! Omawialiśmy już kryzys w branży motoryzacyjnej, w branży stalowej, w rolnictwie, w energetyce, nawet w pszczelarstwie, a dzisiaj przyszedł czas na ratowanie branży chemicznej. Wszędzie kryzys, ale to tak naprawdę nie jest kryzys, a rezultat tej szalonej, biurokratycznej, klimatycznej polityki Unii Europejskiej.

Europa nie potrzebuje kolejnych strategii i planów, tylko realnego odciążenia gospodarki. Pakiet chemiczny jest krokiem w dobrym kierunku. Jest pewnym uproszczeniem, ale jest wciąż zbyt ostrożny, jest spóźniony i nadal zbyt biurokratyczny. Nadal tworzymy taki system, w którym przedsiębiorca musi rozmawiać z urzędnikiem i z prawnikami, a nie ze swoim klientem. W taki sposób nie zbudujemy konkurencyjności.

Nowe koncepcje, koncepcja One substance one assessment może zwiększyć spójność przepisów, ale grozi też centralizacją decyzji i marginalizacją państw członkowskich. Ma być prościej i szybciej, ale zabijamy w ten sposób konkurencyjność. Potrzebujemy deregulacji, prostych zasad, silnych firm i szacunku dla kompetencji narodowych. Potrzebujemy zdrowego rozsądku, a nie ideologii. Bez tego Europa będzie muzeum, a nie zdrową gospodarką.

Dennis Radtke (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin, verehrte Kommissionsvertreter, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Das Chemicals Package ist jetzt eine gute Gelegenheit für die Kommission, aber für uns insgesamt auch, die chemische Industrie nicht nur mit Worten zu loben, zu lobpreisen, sondern jetzt auch einmal mit konkretem politischem Handeln zu unterstützen – denn es steht verdammt viel auf dem Spiel. Und deswegen fordere ich Sie auch dringend dazu auf: Weg von diesen Allgemeinplätzen und von diesen Binsen.

Ja, wir wissen, dass die Energiekosten runter müssen, auch außerhalb der chemischen Industrie. Ich erwarte klare commitments mit Blick auf eine zukünftige REACH-Regulierung und auch mit Blick auf die Frage: Wie machen wir weiter bei PFAS? Und es geht eben nicht darum, wie es hier an einigen Stellen dargestellt wird, dass es darum geht, Schutz von Umwelt und Menschen oder das andere – sondern unser Anspruch muss sein, beides zusammenzubringen.

Und die Situation der chemischen Industrie ist mehr als kritisch, wenn man sich gerade ansieht, was bei Dow Chemicals in Ostdeutschland passiert. Wir reden eben hier über Verbundstrukturen. Es geht nicht nur um einzelne Arbeitsplätze und ein bisschen Wertschöpfung, sondern es geht darum, wenn der falsche in der Kette umfällt, dass dann wie die Dominosteine alle anderen hinterher purzeln. Das ist die Situation, in der sich die chemische Industrie gerade in Europa befindet, vor allen Dingen in Deutschland – einer der wichtigsten Chemiestandorte überhaupt auf der Welt.

Deswegen bitte raus aus diesem Modus der allgemeinen Beschreibung, jetzt klare commitments zu PFAS. Denn ohne die chemische Industrie, das muss auch klar sein, werden zentrale Bereiche, ob mit Blick auf Pharma, mit Blick auf die Energiewende und mit Blick auf andere wichtige Sektoren, nicht aufrechterhalten werden können.

Letzte Bemerkung – und das ist auch wichtig, weil hier über die Rechte der Gewerkschaften gesprochen worden ist: Wo werden denn in Europa Spitzenlöhne verdient, auch von Menschen ohne akademischen Abschluss? Das ist vor allen Dingen in der Chemieindustrie der Fall. Deswegen handeln Sie, wir werden Sie weiter antreiben.

César Luena (S&D). – Señora presidenta, señora comisaria, señor vicepresidente, algunas observaciones críticas: dicen que simplifican, pero en realidad desregulan. Pongo dos ejemplos: en la clasificación y etiquetado de sustancias químicas o cuando contemplan excepciones para sustancias cancerígenas en productos cosméticos. Esa es la primera observación. La segunda: el sector químico es muy rentable, muy rentable. Por tanto, no hace falta perjudicar la salud pública, no hace falta perjudicar a los consumidores en nombre de la competitividad. No era necesario. Y digo más, para que siga siendo competitivo este sector, debe seguir dos principios: circularidad y descarbonización.

Nuestra meta debe ser la innovación sostenible, la salud pública, la preservación del medio ambiente, pero nunca retroceder ante las maniobras de grupos conservadores y la presión de los lobbies, que es lo que ustedes están haciendo.

¿Competitividad? Sí, desde luego, siempre, pero ¿a costa de la salud y del medio ambiente? No, señor vicepresidente, nunca.

Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska (PPE). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Pakiet chemiczny to sprawdzian, czy potrafimy regulować mądrze, biorąc pod uwagę osiągnięcia nauki, innowacje, realia rynkowe oraz czy potrafimy bronić konkurencyjności europejskiego przemysłu. Np. w kosmetykach obecnie obserwujemy niebezpieczne przesunięcie od oceny ryzyka do podejścia opartego wyłącznie na zagrożeniu. Obecna interakcja między rozporządzeniem CLP a CPR prowadzi do automatycznych zakazów substancji, nawet tych, które przy rzeczywistym zastosowaniu są bezpieczne i często obecne także w żywności. Problem pogłębia fakt, że derogacja dla substancji CMR kategorii 1 nie zawsze działa. Niejasne kryteria i nierealistyczne terminy utrudniają przemysłowi przedstawienie dowodów bezpieczeństwa, nawet gdy substancja została oceniona jako bezpieczna przez odpowiednie organy. To zagrożenie dla tysięcy produktów, innowacji, a także dla europejskich małych i średnich przedsiębiorców, którzy tracą konkurencyjność wobec firm spoza Unii Europejskiej.

Cieszę się, że Komisja zmierza dziś w stronę mądrego uproszczenia z priorytetem dla bezpieczeństwa. Jasne terminy, realistyczne okresy przejściowe, ochrona składników naturalnych, uwzględnienie realnych warunków użycia to podejście proporcjonalne, przewidywalne i oparte na nauce.

Proszę Państwa, uproszczenie nie oznacza deregulacji. Wręcz przeciwnie – to szansa na lepsze, bardziej zrozumiałe i skutecznie wdrażane prawo. Prawo, które chroni ludzi i środowisko, ale nie dławi przemysłu, nie blokuje innowacji i nie eliminuje niebezpiecznych składników.

Procedura ‘catch-the-eye’

Dariusz Joński (PPE). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Panie Komisarzu! Na początku chcę bardzo gorąco podziękować za tę debatę. Dyskusja o strategicznej branży, jaką jest branża chemiczna, i przedstawienie przez Pana Komisarza pakietu chemicznego dotyczy również mojego kraju, w którym w branży chemicznej zatrudnionych jest 341 tysięcy osób wypracowujących 10% PKB. Ale warto tu wspomnieć, że jeszcze 20 lat temu Europa w przemyśle chemicznym była kilkakrotnie silniejsza od Chin, mniej więcej w proporcjach 3:1. A dzisiaj te proporcje się odwróciły.

Dlaczego? Przede wszystkim z powodu cen prądu. I coś się musi zmienić. Byłem ostatnio na kongresie polskiej chemii w Krakowie, gdzie polskie firmy przedstawiły manifest polskiej chemii dokładnie wyszczególniający aspekty, które muszą się zmienić, a więc ceny energii, uproszczenie, modernizacja zakładów.

Cieszę się, że w pakiecie przedstawionym przez Pana Komisarza to się znajduje. Chcę jeszcze dodać, Panie Komisarzu, że nadszedł czas na działanie, i jest tutaj pełne wsparcie polskiej delegacji, bo dla nas miejsca pracy i przedsiębiorstwa konkurencyjne względem Chin, Indii czy Azji to jest to, o co też tutaj walczymy w Europie.

Sebastian Tynkkynen (ECR). – Madam President, Europe's chemical industry employs over 1.2 million people. But how many small companies have already given up because the EU makes them report more than they produce?

Simplification is promised, but too often we see just more rules, not less burden. A kind reminder for the Commission: you are not the ultimate master of every sector. Different regions need different solutions. What suits big players in central Europe may harm small companies in the north. We must protect health and the environment, but we must also trust the Member States to know what works at home.

Real simplification means flexibility, national responsibility and space to breathe. Without it, we don't just lose competitiveness, we lose trust in our European system.

(Fine della procedura ‘catch the eye’)

Jessika Roswall, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, as we now come to the end of today's discussion, let me first start by saying thank you for your inputs and intervention.

I would like to start, as Vice-President Séjourné said, in the beginning. Our chemical sector in our Member States are facing both real challenges and also opportunities, and this is exactly the balance that we have tried to strike in the action plan. We all see the pressure from economic uncertainty and global shifts, but at the same time, there is a growing demand for clean, sustainable and innovative solutions. And this is not only a societal demand: companies are themselves driving innovation and change. Many have today mentioned competitiveness and it has also been mentioned, of course, strong protection for health and the environment. These two things must go hand in hand and by doing so, we not only protect people and the planet, but also give our companies a competitive edge, enabling them to lead the consumer in trust, innovation and for sustainable solutions. We also heard strong calls – both here and in our different dialogues that we have – asking for boosting investment in European critical production, ensuring access to affordable energy, accelerating decarbonisation and making sure global trade rules are fair and properly enforced. And these are all priorities that we are addressing in the chemical action plan, and they will remain central as we move ahead with implementation and shape future policy to support both industry and environment and public health.

I want to make clear that the Commission is fully committed to helping the chemical sector navigate this transition that is important for all industries because it's about the whole value chain. And the European Green Deal and the Clean Industrial Deal remain our guiding framework, but now we are shifting from setting goals to delivering results through investments, incentives and action. And the action plan is a key tool to support chemical industry that is modern, competitive and sustainable, but also it is our aim to provide predictability, clarity, fairness, so that businesses can invest and grow while keeping Europe's high standards.

There was a lot of questions about labelling. It is important to note that the changes do not affect the core principles, such as the readability and legibility of labels, but help avoiding disproportionate burden that does not bring any tangible improvement corresponding to the cost. They aim also at bringing safer products quicker to the market, and ensure that companies can adapt to important changes affecting their products under clear procedures and timelines, and do not have to fulfil redundant administrative obligations.

There were also questions about cosmetics products. Of course consumer protection and safety remains an absolute priority for the Commission, and companies will still need to provide strong scientific evidence showing that the use of the CMR substances is safe and meets strict legal conditions. The changes respond to the long-standing feedback from businesses and Member State authorities facing practical and legal uncertainties under the current rules.

And also some of you and also Vice-President Séjourné mentioned PFAS, and I will just add that this is a big concern for the citizens and for us also. PFAS is everywhere in the environment and in our waters. PFAS is in our bodies, as a recent Dutch study shows. And here we are working with two working streams, consumer and industry. And when it comes to the consumer side, we want to ban PFAS in consumer products such as clothing and kitchen equipment. And ECHA is working on this matter and we are urging them to speed up.

When it comes to industrial applications, PFAS are present in many important and strategic products and processes, for example, some medical devices and in semiconductors. Sometimes, there are safer alternatives available, but sometimes there are not. We want to encourage companies to continue to develop alternatives, while recognising that in some cases, there are not yet good alternatives to PFAS. In these cases, it is important to ensure that PFAS are handled in a way which is safe to employees and to the environment.

To conclude, the Commission is committed to continue the work in close cooperation with you to find practical, balanced solutions that benefit industry, citizens and the environment, so thank you very much and I'm looking forward to working together in the months ahead.

Presidente. – La discussione è chiusa.

14. Revision of the European Climate Law (debate)

Presidente. – L'ordine del giorno reca la discussione sulla dichiarazione della Commissione sulla revisione della normativa europea sul clima (2025/2802(RSP)).

Ricordo agli onorevoli deputati che per questa discussione si terrà un unico turno di interventi di oratori di gruppi politici. Non è prevista la procedura ‘Catch the eye’ e non saranno accettati i cartellini blu.

Wopke Hoekstra, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen, I truly appreciate the opportunity to have this conversation here with you.

Let us be upfront about the fact that the proposal we're going to discuss is sensitive, that it is complicated, also from a content and political perspective, and yet it is hugely important. If someone would ask me what the broader goal is that we are envisioning in the next few years, I would say that we need to make sure that decarbonisation is at the heart of our growth and competitiveness strategy, our climate strategy and also our strategy for independence. The way we need to go about this should be ambitious, it should be pragmatic and agile.

Let me move on to each of the topics to just articulate what we, as the Commission, view should be the way forward. First, on competitiveness or growth. Let us be upfront about that as well – we need more of it. We need more clean economic growth, we need more competitiveness because, frankly speaking, we're not doing as well as we should.

But let's also not have the illusion that the future will be like today. We're facing massive change and the industry, the economy of the future, will be one that is heavily decarbonised. So exposing ourselves to that, making sure we're going to be the winners in the domain of cleantech, re-industrialising Europe and making sure that the growth opportunities are being reaped over here is of essence. That means creating a level playing field. That means continuing with simplification no matter how difficult it is. It means lead markets for those industries that need it. It means significantly more investment in electrification and making sure that we decarbonise also as a way to drive down prices for both consumers and industry, when talking about energy prices.

Secondly, on climate – sometimes it might be tempting to just forget about the problem and act as if it is no longer there, but what is the reality? The reality is that the planet, on average, is warming up by 1.5 oC, and Europe is at double that number, so 3 oC. And that is an average for Europe – some would be on the higher end of that average.

The impact of that is huge. Just think about what that means for our ecosystem, but also think about what it means for our economy. We're easily talking about EUR 50-100 billion per year for the Union at large, and that number will go up significantly in years to come. And I'm not even talking, because we don't have the time today, about the geopolitical consequences of climate change all over the globe that will certainly be of huge consequence to us here in the European Union.

So what then makes sense? Well, it makes sense to listen to science and listen to what they articulate as what should be the true north. It also makes sense to be predictable, because that is one of the key things our companies across the Union ask from us as politicians. That is also why we decided to arrive at the 90 % number by 2040. Having said that – and I already mentioned agility or flexibility – it is important to also be 'street smart', if that is the way to phrase it, in how this proposal is going to work. That is why, as the Commission, we've decided to bake in three types of flexibilities into the design.

The first is to allow companies or governments, for a relatively small percentage of emissions, to take action outside of the European Union. Yes, I do know it is unorthodox, and I do agree with all those who are articulating for certification, for verification, for making sure that this is additional – but if we can pull this off, it truly matters, and it does mean climate action. By the way, this is a point that is undervalued in the debate, in my view, here in Europe: it builds a tremendously important bridge with our friends in the Global South who do see the merits in this endeavour.

Second, flexibility: making sure that negative emissions created here in Europe can be filtered back into the ETS system. I saw an amazing example recently in beautiful Sweden where the largest CCS project in Europe is taking place. I won't go into all the details of it now, but just to give you the numbers, we're talking about roughly 2 % of total emissions in Sweden with one project – that is absolutely huge. Yes, it takes a lot of investment, but it is a tremendous step forward because it would only take 50 of those type of projects to basically eradicate all emissions in Sweden. So let's continue with these types of projects, and then let's make sure that we also reward that in our system.

The third flexibility is not allowing Member States who do well in a couple of categories but who might do less well in another to lower the bar, but actually giving them room to compensate what they did well in a couple of categories in a category where they might do slightly worse. I think that is testimony to pragmatism and it also makes sense given the huge diversity of our European Union.

Final point, independence – let's not make the mistake that we made in the past again. We have been way too dependent on oil and gas from Russia. Unfortunately, it is actually still coming in, and we have a range of dependencies vis-à-vis countries and also dubious regimes in other categories across the board. Just to give you the number, we're talking about EUR 400 billion that the Union, which is of course, in the end, the Member States, pays every single year – EUR 400 billion for oil and gas. Wouldn't it be more appealing to actually invest that money over time in independence and in energy production and electrification in Europe? I think it would, and it would solve the problem that we're currently facing.

So once again: competitiveness, climate and independence. Doing it in a way that is ambitious, that is pragmatic and that is agile. That, to me, should be the road forward. I'm very much looking forward to the debates, I'm very much looking forward to the interactions that we have ahead of us, and let's make sure we bring this home.

Lídia Pereira, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Madam President, dear colleagues, Europe was borne out of the courage to turn conflict into cooperation, to build peace through industry and energy. Today, we need that courage once again.

The European Climate Law is more than targets on paper; it is a promise made to the next generation, those people sitting over there.

(The speaker gestures to the visitors' gallery)

More important than setting a numerical target is making sure we stay on the right course with ambition, with balance, and with real results.

What truly defines European leadership is not an obsession with numbers, but the ability to deliver meaningful, sustainable progress without sacrificing the competitiveness that sustains our European social model and democracy. Because this is not just about saving the planet; it is about building a new economic model: green, fair and competitive.

But let us be clear: our industries are under pressure like never before. Without investment, without innovation, without affordable energy, this transition will come at the cost of deindustrialisation, and that cannot happen. We need flexibility, we need to reduce energy costs, we need to invest in a new generation of technologies – ones that not only reduce emissions but capture them, that make emissions negative.

Establishing a European Industrial Decarbonisation Bank with over EUR 100 billion in funding could be a strong step forward, but private investment will also be essential.

And above all, we must ensure no one is left behind. Compensation mechanisms such as the ETS must support Europeans, turning the transition into an opportunity, not a burden. Our goals must be guided by science and by courage – that courage to act, to lead, to believe. Because this law is not just about the climate, it is about us and about what we leave to those who come after us.

Tiemo Wölken, im Namen der S&D-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, sehr geehrter Herr Kommissar, lieber Wopke! Schön, dass Sie heute hier sind, und vielen Dank für den Vorschlag. Es ist immer schwierig, mit einer Korrektur anzufangen, aber ich muss es leider. Der wissenschaftliche Beirat – Ihr wissenschaftlicher Beirat – hat gesagt, 90 % ist das Mindeste, was wir 2040 schaffen müssen, und wir können darüber hinaus Klimakredite als Flexibilisierungselement nutzen. Aber sie Teil der 90 % zu machen, ist gegen den Vorschlag Ihres eigenen wissenschaftlichen Dienstes. Wir übernehmen damit nicht mehr die Verantwortung, die wir übernehmen müssten. Deswegen sieht meine Fraktion den massiven Einsatz von internationalen Krediten auch so kritisch.

Was ich auch kritisch sehe, ist, dass der Vorschlag erst jetzt kommt. Wir hatten das Vergnügen, als Sie im letzten Mandat nachnominiert wurden, gemeinsam die Anhörung zu verbringen, und Sie wurden gefragt, ob ein 90-%-Ziel denn in Ihrem Sinne sei und im Sinne der Kommission. Schon vor Jahren haben Sie deswegen gesagt, ‘ja’. Und erst jetzt, wenige Wochen vor der Klimakonferenz in Belém, gibt es den Vorschlag der Europäischen Kommission, und es gibt nicht ausreichend Zeit, im Europäischen Parlament und im Rat darüber zu diskutieren. Das ist nicht mein Verständnis von Demokratie.

Gleichzeitig stehen wir vor der Klimakrise. Die Klimakrise ist ja nichts, was wir uns ausdenken, und wir müssen vielleicht mal ein neues Wort dafür finden. Vielleicht sagen wir nicht, wir kämpfen gegen die Klimakrise, sondern wir kämpfen um das Überleben der Menschheit. Dann sind auch viele Argumente, die hier in diesem Raum gemacht werden, langsam etwas komisch. Wenn dann die Wirtschaft wieder sagt: Aber es geht doch um Wettbewerbsfähigkeit, dann ist die Frage nicht Wettbewerbsfähigkeit oder Klimaschutz, sondern Wettbewerbsfähigkeit oder Überleben der Menschheit. Darum geht es. Deswegen finde ich es auch beschämend – und das geht jetzt an die EVP –, dass Sie sich weigern, mit uns über einen Dringlichkeitsantrag abzustimmen und dafür zu sorgen, dass wir dieses Thema endlich abhaken. 2019 hat das Europäische Parlament hier die Klimakrise erklärt. Die EVP war nicht dabei, sondern sie hat gesagt: Wir dürfen nicht Klimakrise sagen, sondern wir müssen climate urgency sagen. Jetzt auf einmal ist die urgency wieder ein Problem. Das halte ich, lieber Peter, liebe EVP, für ein Problem. Ihr verschließt die Augen vor dem, was wir gemeinsam schaffen müssen. Wir müssen vor Belém eine ambitionierte Positionierung hinbekommen, damit wir international glaubwürdig rüberkommen. Daran sollten wir ab morgen gemeinsam arbeiten.

Silvia Sardone, a nome del gruppo PfE. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, continuate a proporre obiettivi ideologici e irrealizzabili, come quello della riduzione del 90 % delle emissioni entro il 2040.

Eppure, ogni santo giorno interi settori produttivi europei chiedono un cambio di rotta. Von der Leyen e Ribera ignorano il grido di allarme di imprese, lavoratori, famiglie e consumatori, che sono sempre più colpiti dalle vostre scelte folli.

Il vostro Green Deal ha un costo stimato, da qui al 2050, di circa 1 285 miliardi di euro. Solo per l'Italia si parla di 40 miliardi di euro all'anno. Queste spese per acquistare nuove auto, ristrutturare le abitazioni o pagare le tasse verdi ricadono interamente su cittadini e imprese.

Siamo in piena crisi e secondo i sindacati l'industria europea perde 500 posti di lavoro al giorno. Ma a voi non interessa assolutamente nulla. Diciamolo chiaramente: secondo alcune stime, negli ultimi dieci anni, a fronte di una riduzione di dieci punti delle emissioni dei paesi dell'Unione europea, il resto del mondo le ha aumentate, le emissioni, di 120, quindi dodici volte tanto.

I cittadini europei devono sapere che questa Commissione sta costruendo un futuro di decrescita, che piace solo a qualche fanatico della sinistra. E questo lo dico anche a Lei, Commissario, a cui teoricamente questi fanatici della sinistra non dovrebbero proprio piacere.

Alexandr Vondra, za skupinu ECR. – Pane komisaři, ten Váš návrh je špatný od začátku až do konce. A já to tady řeknu česky, protože už tady anglicky skoro nikdo nemluví. Evropu tady stejně pohřbíváte svými národními jazyky. Proč je špatný? Za prvé, cíl snížení emisí o 90 % na rok 2040 je nerealistický. Není obhájen žádnou pořádnou dopadovou studií, to i Výbor Komise pro kontrolu regulace přiznal. Nedáme to technologicky, nedáme to finančně. Za druhé, právní základ je chybný. Má zásadní dopad na energetické mixy členských států, které jsou v jejich výlučné kompetenci, a nemůžete ho svévolně měnit, násilně a většinově. Za třetí, ten návrh definitivně zlikviduje energeticky náročný průmysl a pohřbí naši obranyschopnost. Z jaké oceli budeme vyrábět tanky? Z čínské nebo turecké? Jak budeme dál dělat munici bez chemie? Jak budeme dělat letadla bez hliníku? A ten plyn?

Ano, já jsem rád, že jsme se osvobodili od plynu z Ruska, ale Vaše země, Nizozemsko, ho dodneška odebírá jako jeden z největších odběratelů v Evropě. A co jste udělal Vy, abyste to zastavil?

Za čtvrté, ty návrhy na flexibilitu, to je jenom zelený kolonialismus, protože ten pomůže bohatým zemím, jako je Nizozemsko nebo Německo, velkým nadnárodním korporacím a chudé země a malé firmy to zaplatí. A za páté, blackouty ve Španělsku a v Česku ukazují, kam nás tato politika dominovaná ideologií jednou dovede – bída, anarchie a chaos. Čili nic nás nenutí ten zákon přijímat teď, jenom ambice vést svět, když se nám Amerika a Čína smějí. Nejlepší bude, když to vezmete a stáhnete to zpátky.

Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy, on behalf of the Renew Group. – Madam President, Mr Commissioner, dear colleagues, do we need an ambitious climate target in 2040 of at least 90 %? And the answer is clearly yes. And if you're not convinced, ask the relatives of the victims of the Valencia floods. Ask those farmers who are out of business because the crops do not grow any more on their dried-out land. Ask people who lost literally everything except their lives due to forest fires. Or ask Slovenia, where the floods of August 2023 alone already cost them roughly 10 % of GDP.

'Yes, but our economy', I hear colleagues on the right saying. Yes, what about the economy? Increased climate change might cost us up to 34 % of our economic output, while keeping the rise below two degrees will cost us just 1 to 2 % of global GDP. So tell me, what makes more sense economically? Fighting climate change is not a leftist ideological agenda. It's the harsh reality we're faced with. It's the harsh consequence of our own behaviour, and it's our responsibility to all the people represented in this House to save them from these consequences.

So yes, it makes absolutely sense to set an ambitious 90 % target in 2040, but it's also important to do so in time – in time for the Paris Agreement process, in time for a strong EU position at the upcoming COP30. So, I urge the EPP to support the urgent procedure, because that is the only way to be in time in this House, partly due to the late proposal from the Commission, but please don't endanger the Paris Agreement process and vote in favour of the urgent procedure this week.

Lena Schilling, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, dear colleagues, I also need to start with this House. The 2040 climate now is in the hands of the far right – the people that deny the climate crisis – that has to be the final wake up call for this Parliament.

We have tabled an urgency procedure tomorrow, and it's time for everybody here to really take responsibility. If we want to save the 2040 target, we need this urgency procedure now. And maybe you remember, six years ago, this House stood up and declared a climate emergency. The European Parliament made a promise to the people, to the European citizens, and now we must ask ourselves, are we acting like this is an emergency? Ask yourself for a moment.

And honestly, the science could not be clearer; it's so obvious what we have to do. We need to cut our emissions by at least 90 % in 2030, and stay on track for climate neutrality in 2050. We don't need 85 %, not 87 %, minimum 90 %.

And yet, what do we see? Instead of urgency, we see delay. Instead of clarity, we see loopholes. Instead of actions, we see games.

Colleagues, every so-called 'flexibility' you put into this law is not just a footnote; it's a gamble with the lives of the future generations. A percentage point less may sound harmless in this room, but outside those emissions are the flooded homes, the dead soil, and the collapsing ecosystems our children will inherit.

Dear colleagues, I'm not just speaking here as a Member of the European Parliament, I'm also speaking as a 24-year-old woman who dares you to act. And I'm not the only one. I think many of your children are honestly my age. If you don't do it for me, do it for them. Do it for the children that need to grow up in the next years, for the future generations. We declared a climate emergency. Now, let's act on it. A woman said a few years ago, we owe it to our children. These children are still here.

Catarina Martins, em nome do Grupo The Left. – Senhora Presidente, Senhor Comissário, acredita que a Terra é plana ou a ciência ainda tem algum lugar?

A Lei do Clima estabeleceu um corpo científico para informar sobre as decisões e sobre a meta de redução. Os cientistas disseram uma coisa fundamental: reduzir as emissões num sítio para aumentar no outro não resolve. O comércio de emissões, está provado, não funciona. Parece bastante óbvio. O planeta é só um. As metas têm de ser mesmo para cumprir.

E o que faz a Comissão? Ignora a ciência. Apresenta as metas depois do prazo e em mínimos de ambição e propõe mecanismos de flexibilização que os cientistas avisaram expressamente que não servem. Afinal, as metas não são para cumprir. Depois da saída dos Estados Unidos do Acordo de Paris, a Comissão decide mostrar que também não é de confiança. Para a Comissão, tudo se negoceia no mercado, até o clima.

Problema: o planeta não vai negociar a temperatura ou o nível do mar com ninguém. Vamos perder todos, a começar pelos mais pobres, que enfrentam, sem proteção, as ondas de calor e as tempestades. Mas esses, a Comissão nem os vê.

Dichiarazioni scritte (articolo 178)

Markus Buchheit, im Namen der ESN-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin! Nun, nachdem ja sehr viele heute auf die Zeit von vor sechs Jahren rekurriert haben, möchte auch ich das kurz tun – es war sehr spannend, insbesondere hier in Straßburg. Man hat sich quasi bei der EVP darum geschlagen, ein Foto mit diversen Säulenheiligen wie Anna Greta Thunberg hier zu tätigen. Ich weiß nicht, ob diese Fotos noch hängen, aber der Ungeist dieser Zeit, der schlägt bis heute durch.

Und wenn ich mir anschaue, was mit unserer Schwerindustrie passiert – Thyssen ist ja nur ein Beispiel unter vielen –, was mit unseren Zulieferern passiert, dass auch die IHK, die Industrie- und Handelskammer, jetzt gerade Alarm schlägt und sagt: Wir erwarten weitere 1,2 Millionen Arbeitsplätze, die auf der Kippe stehen, und wir erwarten weitere Zusatzkosten bis 2030 nur infolge der derzeitigen Klimaziele von bis zu 15 Milliarden Euro.

Dann frage ich mich, wofür? Ist es nicht Zeit, diesem Ungeist einer Greta Thunberg, den Klimaklebern von damals, die es heute vielleicht sogar bis auf die Parlamentsbänke geschafft haben, abzusagen und zu sagen: Schluss, wir wollen wirklich Wettbewerbsfähigkeit. Und dann ist auch der heutige Titel verfehlt. Denn es sollte nicht um eine Reform gehen, es sollte um die Abschaffung dieser Klimaziele gehen, genauso, wie das auch in den USA praktiziert wird. Stichwort: Wettbewerbsfähigkeit.

Wopke Hoekstra, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, I say thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen, for your input, your feedback, your support, and, in some cases, also your criticism. I would implore you that if the combination of growth, climate and independence, and even if it is only two or just one of them is appealing to you, then that would actually make sense to support the Clean Industrial Deal, this proposal and the whole approach by this Commission.

There are four things I feel are worthwhile to clarify, also listening to the various speakers. Tiemo Wölken I think has left the building, but nonetheless he was asking, why now? Well, because in my experience in politics, it is at least as much about process, about communication, about building majorities as it is about just plain content. So have we overinvested in this? Absolutely. Are we going to continue to overinvest in this in the weeks and months going forward? Absolutely. Because what we do need, particularly for these types of policies, are solid majorities. And yes, sometimes that takes more time than you anticipate beforehand.

Secondly, Ms Sardone, but also others were alluding to the cost and that takes a longer conversation than what we can just do here. But let me be very, very clear what elements you should take into account and whatnot. One is, let's never confuse out-of-pocket costs with investments, which is typically done in this debate. Secondly, it is of huge importance to take into account the cost of doing nothing and what that will do and what that damage would bring. And Mr Gerbrandy and others were already alluding to the damage that has been caused, but let me give you the number for Europe as a whole, once again: EUR 5.2 trillion and counting, and that number will simply only go up.

Last, on the domain of cost, let's not confuse ourselves or fool ourselves that even if we would forget about this whole thing, that no cost would be involved. It would have huge ramifications in cost in terms of funding what we currently already have. And I was just giving you the number of EUR 400 billion we invest every single year as Europeans in oil and gas. Do we want that with all the dependencies that come with it? I think we don't.

Third, Alexandr Vondra was mildly critical, if that is the way to label his contribution, but there's one thing I wanted to articulate to him as well: I would like to invite him to the text because he has often pleaded for technological neutrality, and he, of course, has often alluded to the importance of including nuclear. And I've said many times before that, in my view, particularly if you want to solve the problem we have in terms of climate, nuclear is part of the solution space. The wording is there. So the question for him as well is, is the glass half-full or is it half-empty? I would say it is half-full, even from his perspective.

Last but not least, there were also a couple of comments by Ms Martins and others about, 'hey, but how does it work with the percentage that actually comes from from outside of the European Union?' Well, just to be clear on a couple of things – one is, climate change does not discriminate. It doesn't matter where stuff is being pumped into the air. Even if all the emissions take place outside of Europe then still we have an incentive to do something about it. Why? Well, because we are on the receiving end of the impact and the impact in Europe, unfortunately, simply because where we are located on the globe is significantly larger, twice as large as on average, and therefore it is way more damaging for our economy and our geopolitical situation.

Let me also add to that, because Ms Martins was also slightly critical, that we are doing more than our fair share, more than our fair share in terms of climate action. We're currently at 6 % of our share in global emissions. That means that 94 % of emissions are from elsewhere, and we're doing far more than our fair share in terms of the financing of climate action abroad. We're talking easily about USD 30 billion out of USD 100 billion. If the rest of the developed world and countries like China and countries in the Gulf and others that have made giant leaps in their progress would do the same, we would be having a completely different debate.

Presidente. – La discussione è chiusa.

Nicolás González Casares (S&D), por escrito. – El nuevo objetivo climático del 90 % para 2040 es un paso decisivo hacia la neutralidad climática en 2050. Por eso, desde la Delegación Socialista Española en el Parlamento Europeo apoyamos con firmeza la propuesta de la Comisión y celebramos la inclusión de este objetivo en la revisión de la Ley Europea del Clima. Los socialistas creemos que reforzar el marco legal europeo es clave para avanzar de forma ordenada, justa y ambiciosa.

Además, hemos votado a favor del procedimiento de urgencia para garantizar que la Unión pueda presentar su contribución determinada a nivel nacional (CDN) al Acuerdo de París a tiempo y alineada con el nuevo objetivo para 2040. El liderazgo climático europeo requiere coherencia, ambición y capacidad de respuesta.

Sin embargo, expresamos nuestras reservas sobre el uso de créditos internacionales de carbono, que solo deben ser un recurso excepcional, con mecanismos estrictos de verificación y transparencia. Estos créditos no pueden sustituir los esfuerzos domésticos ni permitir retrasos en la transformación estructural de nuestra economía.

La acción climática es una responsabilidad intergeneracional. Frente a la presión de quienes quieren frenar o diluir la transición, reafirmamos nuestro compromiso con una Europa climáticamente neutra, socialmente justa y con visión de futuro.

César Luena (S&D), por escrito. – El nuevo objetivo climático del 90 % para 2040 es un paso decisivo hacia la neutralidad climática en 2050. Por eso, desde la Delegación Socialista Española en el Parlamento Europeo apoyamos con firmeza la propuesta de la Comisión y celebramos la inclusión de este objetivo en la revisión de la Ley Europea del Clima. Los socialistas creemos que reforzar el marco legal europeo es clave para avanzar de forma ordenada, justa y ambiciosa.

Sirpa Pietikäinen (PPE), in writing. – Climate change is intensifying and the impacts of climate change are worsening each year. Climate change poses also an economic crisis. The cost of inaction is as high as 10 times the cost of necessary climate adaptation.

The European Parliament approved a resolution declaring a climate and environmental emergency in Europe and globally in November 2019 – and rightfully so. Parliament urged the Commission to ensure that all relevant legislative and budgetary proposals are fully aligned with the Paris Agreement by limiting global warming to under 1.5 oC.

Despite this, we are still debating political compromises on climate targets while ignoring clear signals from scientists to reach domestic net-zero emissions far before 2050. While I welcome the Commission's proposal on the 2040 climate target, we are still falling short in aligning it with the 1.5 oC temperature limit. The EU should reach its gross emissions reductions domestically without the inclusion of international carbon credits that severely delay the process and undermine the EU contribution. In addition, we should not rely on carbon removals such as CCS, as we should focus on gross emissions reduction to avoid sidetracks and delays in climate action.

15. Amendment of the agenda

President. – I would like to inform you that the President has received three separate requests from Renew, S&D and the Greens for an urgent procedure pursuant to Rule 170(5) on the European Climate Law.

The vote will be taken tomorrow. If adopted, the vote will be added to the draft agenda for a future part session.

16. Situation in the Middle East (debate)

Presidente. – L'ordine del giorno reca la discussione sulle dichiarazioni del Consiglio e della Commissione sulla situazione in Medio Oriente (2025/2772(RSP)).

Marie Bjerre, President-in-Office of the Council. – Madam President, honourable Members, Commissioner, the European Union remains strongly committed to peace, security and stability in the Middle East region. In this regard, we welcome the recent stop of hostilities between Israel and Iran. Both sides must respect international law and refrain from actions that could escalate into broader regional destabilisation.

The European Union's view on Iran's nuclear program is clear. Iran must never be allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon and must comply with its obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. That is why we find it very worrying that the Iranian government has decided to suspend cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency. Such cooperation should be resumed without delay.

We have also said clearly that a lasting solution to the Iranian nuclear issue can only be achieved through negotiations. The European Union stands, therefore, ready to continue to contribute to all diplomatic efforts aimed at deescalating current tensions.

In Gaza, the situation has not improved. The European Council called again for an immediate ceasefire and the unconditional release of all hostages, leading to a permanent end to hostilities. Heads of state and government called once more on Israel to fully comply with its obligations under international law, including international humanitarian law, in ensuring that humanitarian aid reaches all those in need at scale.

The European Union is fully committed to a lasting and sustainable peace based on the two-state solution. We are ready to contribute to all efforts towards this solution and call on all parties to refrain from actions that undermine its viability. We keep the engagement on the High-level International Conference for the Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine and the implementation of the two-state solution, and we look forward to its organisation as soon as possible.

Presidente. – Siamo in attesa della Commissaria Roswall. Siamo costretti ad aspettare che arrivi la Commissaria. No, sostituisce la Commissaria Roswall il Commissario Hoekstra, prego.

Wopke Hoekstra, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, indeed, it is not yet Commissioner Roswall, but she is on her way. This reminds me of the fairy tale where you are constantly waiting for someone to arrive, but at some point she will arrive, I promise you. Until she's here, ladies and gentlemen, you have to do it with me and I'm going to speak on her behalf. She was actually planning to speak on the behalf of Kaja Kallas, who then, of course, speaks on behalf of the Commission.

Madam President, honourable Members of the European Parliament, during the last plenary session, we discussed the developments in the Middle East following the escalation between Israel and Iran and the military operation on Iranian nuclear sites. Since then, we've all seen that there has been a fragile ceasefire, if I may call it that.

The European Union has always been clear and unequivocal in its position when it comes to Iran. Let's have no illusions and let's make it clear that Iran can never be allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon. Let me stress that: it can never be allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon. In our view, therefore, the sustainable solution is to build through diplomacy.

Our High Representative Kaja Kallas clearly stated the EU's position in her discussion with the Iranian Minister of Foreign Affairs and she committed once again the commitment to dialogue for a peaceful solution. Ladies and gentlemen, it is in this context that we're deeply concerned by the approval of the law suspending cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency and the direct attacks – because it's nothing less than that –the direct attacks against the agency and against the Director General Mr Grossi in particular.

Therefore, let me state clearly once again our full support to the International Atomic Energy Agency and Director General Grossi in what we view as an absolutely essential task of continuing to monitor Iran's nuclear program in a professional and impartial matter because that is exactly what he and his team were doing before. The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons remains, in our view, the cornerstone of the global non-proliferation regime. And Iran, particularly because it is a signatory, must live up to its commitments.

It is also important to recall that there are also other grievances when it comes to Iran and the list is long, including their military support to Russia, the human rights situation – that includes arbitrarily detained EU citizens, many of us know examples by heart – and destabilising activities in the region for years that the EU continues to address with Iran.

Honourable Members, the humanitarian situation in Gaza continues to be also at the centre of EU concerns. At the last Foreign Affairs Council, ministers were clear that the situation does need to change on the ground and, as tasked, the EU has since been concluding a humanitarian dialogue with Israel. We're asking Israel for concrete, precise and tangible changes in the way the humanitarian assistance is being delivered in Gaza.

Of course, the EU also acknowledges recent developments, including the reopening of the Kerem Shalom crossing in southern Gaza on 19 May, which allowed UN manifested humanitarian trucks to enter, followed by the opening of the Erez West Zikim crossing on 11 June. In our view, these steps represent progress in facilitating the delivery of aid by humanitarian actors. However, also in our view, these remain insufficient to address the scale and severity of the humanitarian crisis that is going on within Gaza due to a range of ongoing challenges.

Ladies and gentlemen, minimum elements need to be in place to ensure that humanitarian aid reaches the people in need. Allow me to provide you with some examples. A total collapse – there is no other way to phrase this – a total collapse of humanitarian operations in the Gaza Strip is imminent if fuel is not urgently allowed to enter. For humanitarian aid at scale, there is also the need to significantly increase the flow of trucks across borders equally in the north and in the south. Looting and self-distributions continue affecting most of humanitarian trucks and this has to be addressed, along with ensuring the safety of humanitarian personnel.

These are elements we are currently insisting on in our dialogue that we're carrying out with Israel. The ministers of foreign affairs will revert to the situation in the Foreign Affairs Council of July and then decide on the way forward.

So, ladies and gentlemen, honourable Members, at what I would call a truly critical junction, we reaffirm our strong support once again for the security of all states in the region. We urge all actors in the region to avoid any steps that could jeopardise the fragile calm and potentially lead to catastrophic consequences.

Thank you very much and I am happy to see that the next Commissioner is here.

Michael Gahler, im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, werte Kollegen! Was zum Iran gesagt wurde, unterstreiche ich, brauche ich nicht zu wiederholen. Ich konzentriere mich auf Gaza, und habe den Eindruck, dass es hier schon recht weitgehenden Konsens im Hause gibt, was dort zu geschehen hat. Erstens braucht es dringend einen Waffenstillstand. Die Menschen in Gaza und die noch lebenden Geiseln haben lange genug unter den Kämpfen zwischen der israelischen Armee und der terroristischen Hamas gelitten, die Geiseln noch zusätzlich durch die Gefangenschaft unter schrecklichen Bedingungen. Zweitens müssen die noch lebenden Geiseln freikommen. Sie dürfen nicht weiter als Faustpfand von Hamas missbraucht werden und müssen auch Priorität der Bemühungen der israelischen Regierung sein. Drittens müssen alle Hilfsorganisationen, die an der Grenze mit ihren Versorgungsgütern warten, ungehinderten Zugang haben. Die Organisationen der UN und des Roten Kreuzes können das, die Gaza Humanitarian Foundation kann es nicht. Sie hat weder die Kapazitäten noch den Auftrag, etwa 600 Lastwagenladungen pro Tag dort auszuladen. Viertens muss klar sein, dass es in Gaza keine irgendwie geartete Zukunft für Hamas geben kann. Die Organisation war auch schon vor dem 7. Oktober gegenüber den Menschen in Gaza eine repressive Organisation und hat weiterhin die Zerstörung Israels als Ziel. Und fünftens muss klar sein: Die Menschen in Gaza haben eine Zukunft dort. Den gestern öffentlich übertragenen Lunch- oder Dinnertalk zwischen Trump und Netanjahu fand ich schon fast gespenstisch – wie dort zwischen Salat und Filetsteak über die Zukunft von zwei Millionen Menschen geplaudert wurde. Gegen den Willen der Menschen dort und gegen den Willen der arabischen Nachbarn und der Europäer wird es keine Umsiedlung, keine Vertreibung oder Deportation geben. Einen gerechten Frieden in einer Zukunft ohne Angst und Gewalt für beide Völker kann es nur in einer von beiden Seiten ausgehandelten Zweistaatenlösung geben.

Γιάννης Μανιάτης, εξ ονόματος της ομάδας S&D. – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, αγαπητοί συνάδελφοι, αν κάτι έχει αναδειχθεί από την τελευταία κρίση στη Μέση Ανατολή, είναι η αδυναμία της Ένωσης να έχει ουσιαστικό ρόλο στις εξελίξεις σε μια περιοχή ύψιστης γεωπολιτικής σημασίας. Η αδυναμία αυτή ήταν ιδιαίτερα έκδηλη κατά τη διάρκεια των επιθέσεων στο Ιράν. Ενώ ο κόσμος γύρω μας αλλάζει, η στρατηγική για τη Μέση Ανατολή έχει παραπεμφθεί από την Επιτροπή στο μακρινό μέλλον, σε αυτό που ονομάζουμε ελληνικές καλένδες.

Η Ευρώπη δεν μπορεί να είναι άλλο απούσα. Πρέπει να διασφαλίσουμε ότι η μεταβατική κυβέρνηση στη Συρία θα σέβεται το διεθνές δίκαιο και τα ανθρώπινα δικαιώματα, και ότι όλες οι θρησκευτικές και εθνικές μειονότητες θα συμμετέχουν ισότιμα και με ασφάλεια στη νέα αυτή πορεία. Να ενισχύσουμε τη νέα κυβέρνηση στον Λίβανο, στο δύσκολο έργο που έχει μπροστά της. Να απαιτήσουμε την άμεση κατάπαυση του πυρός στη Γάζα, την άρση του αποκλεισμού, την ελεύθερη πρόσβαση ανθρωπιστικής βοήθειας και την απελευθέρωση όλων των ομήρων.

Είναι απαράδεκτο ότι οι υπουργοί Εξωτερικών δεν αποφάσισαν την αναστολή της συμφωνίας σύνδεσης Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης-Ισραήλ, παρά τις ξεκάθαρες παραβιάσεις των ανθρωπίνων δικαιωμάτων από το Ισραήλ. Η Ευρώπη πρέπει να δράσει και να αποδείξει ότι στηρίζει το διεθνές δίκαιο και τα ανθρώπινα δικαιώματα παντού, όχι μόνο σε κάποιες περιπτώσεις. Οι ειρηνευτικές συνομιλίες που λαμβάνουν χώρα αυτές τις μέρες ελπίζουμε να είναι ένα καλό πρώτο βήμα για την έναρξη των συνομιλιών στο πλαίσιο της λύσης των δύο κρατών, με στόχο μια διαρκή ειρήνη στην ευρύτερη περιοχή.

Sebastiaan Stöteler, on behalf of the PfE Group. – Madam President, Commissioner, this debate about the situation in the Middle East will likely be taken as yet another opportunity to bash Israel. But the situation is: the Middle East has become a lot safer thanks to Israeli actions in response to the horrific and traumatic day of 7 October.

The Middle East is dealing with the dark terror forces of Hamas, Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Houthis and so many other terror factions in the region. It was those Iranian proxies that started the war on 7 October – not the only true democracy in the Middle East that upholds our common interests and values. It is the State of Israel that is fighting for its people's survival.

Yet, those dark forces, those terror groups (namely the Houthis) still find ways to make the world a more dangerous place. Just yesterday and today, the Houthis attacked commercial ships off the coast of Hodeidah, Yemen. Yesterday they attacked Liberian-registered ship Magic Seas. Fortunately, the crew of 22 people could be saved. And then this morning, another merchant vessel was attacked by reportedly five rockets, sustaining severe damage and losing power. From what we know now, two crew members were injured and two of them are still missing. We hope they found safety and are well.

Dear colleagues, this is the situation in the Middle East. The Islamic Republic of Iran fear the Houthis, fear other proxies attacking world trade, world order and thereby seeking to destabilise the world and economy and security. We should support Israel and America in their efforts to putting things in order.

Arkadiusz Mularczyk, w imieniu grupy ECR. – Pani Przewodnicząca! Od dekad słyszymy, że sytuacja na Bliskim Wschodzie jest na tyle skomplikowana i pełna niuansów, że osiągnięcie trwałego pokoju jest tam niemal niemożliwe. Polityka Donalda Trumpa spod znaku pokoju poprzez siłę zadała kłam tej tezie i przyniosła efekty w bezprecedensowym tempie. Przywódcy krajów zachodnich muszą zrozumieć bowiem jedną zasadę: kraje Bliskiego Wschodu rządzą się innymi prawami i wyznają inne wartości niż zachodnie demokracje.

Dla ajatollahów w Iranie próby ustępstw są dowodem słabości i niezdecydowania, czego wyrazem była fatalna umowa dotycząca kontroli irańskiego programu rozwoju broni jądrowej zawarta pod egidą prezydenta Obamy. W rezultacie, gdybyśmy mieli dzisiaj innego gospodarza Białego Domu, tak jak tego chciałaby Ursula von der Leyen, perspektywa posiadania przez jeden z najgorszych reżimów na świecie najbardziej śmiercionośnej broni byłaby bardzo realna. Na szczęście zamiast tego czarnego scenariusza mamy osłabiony Iran i potencjał na poszerzenie liczby członków Porozumień Abrahamowych. Za to prezydent Trump zasłużył na Nagrodę Nobla.

Hilde Vautmans, on behalf of the Renew Group. – Madam President, Minister, Commissioner, colleagues, the European Union stands at a crossroads. The recent reports confirm what we can no longer ignore: grave violations of human rights by Israel, including attacks on hospitals, the blockade of humanitarian aid and forced displacement. Over 17 000 children have been killed in Gaza, according to Unicef today.

There is no doubt, colleagues, these acts breach Article 2 of the EU-Israel Association Agreement. And international courts have spoken. So, if we fail to act now, we not only undermine our own laws, we erode our global credibility.

Therefore, I call for the immediate suspension of the association agreement. No trade, no cooperation, no impunity – this until international law is upheld. Let us prove that our values are not up for negotiation. And colleagues, if this is not happening, maybe we really should give a strong signal and not vote for the discharge of the Council in October.

Hannah Neumann, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, Minister, Commissioner, dear colleagues, the Iranian regime fuels terror at home and abroad, through executions, through proxies, through a nuclear programme built for impunity. Hamas, one of its proxies, committed the horrific 7 October attacks. Netanyahu's government responded with brutal force in Gaza, blocking humanitarian aid, expanding illegal settlements in the West Bank.

But what did Netanyahu's and Trump's bombs achieve? The centrifuges will spin again. The hate has deepened. This is not good versus evil. It is a tragedy of leaders abusing power and of people caught in between. Because Israel is also the protesters in the streets. Palestine is also the civilians trapped between occupation and Hamas. Iran is also the women who burn their hijabs and whisper 'azadi'. These people are not collateral to geopolitics; they are the path to peace. And if we centre our foreign policy on them, on human dignity and international law, we can support their call for a lasting peace rooted in freedom for everyone.

And because I was somehow just awarded 30 seconds, allow me to raise my frustration with the fact that Kaja Kallas is not here today to discuss this crucial topic for us here in the European Union and for the future of the region, and I would hope that she could be here with us a bit more often.

Antonio López-Istúriz White (PPE). – Madam President, our last plenary session three weeks ago saw the launching by Israel of Operation Rising Lion, aiming to contain Iran's nuclear threat. We have to recognise that, three weeks later, Israeli citizens, Arab, moderate people in the region and us Europeans, we feel safer. Thank you to Israel. And thank you for the United States for this, that we feel safer.

Although we Europeans, we are a little bit hypocritical, because we celebrate this in private, but we don't do it in public. It was about time to end this nuclear threat, not only for Israel, but also for ourselves, because as I always have stated in this plenary, we are the next target.

Make no mistake, the plans of the ayatollahs to threaten and blackmail us are continuing. Terrorist organisations continue to plan how to destroy our democracies and our freedoms. In this House, we have to be alert to this fact. The future of the Middle East is in the Abraham Accords, against terrorism, theocratic regimes, working with the opposition, democratic opposition to these regimes, whatever it is called, Tehran or Caracas in Venezuela or Moscow in Russia. This is what has to unite us in our common struggle.

Nacho Sánchez Amor (S&D). – Señora presidenta, ante nuestros ojos se despliega con todo su esplendor una política exterior europea presa del síndrome de Chamberlain: apaciguar y tranquilizar a los nuevos líderes autoritarios del mundo. Solo se muestra verticalidad moral hacia Putin y hacia Rusia; para el resto —para Trump, para Erdoğan, para Saied, para Al-Sisi, para Aliyev, para Netanyahu—, apaciguamiento: es la única política europea.

Exhibimos valores y principios como un pavo real, con Putin, aquí, en el lado oscuro de la calle Belliard, pero, para los otros, los dobles raseros, que se están convirtiendo en un componente no ya tradicional, sino genético: las metástasis de nuestra política exterior.

El caso de Israel es un buen ejemplo: la pereza en activar los mecanismos de defensa de los derechos humanos está costando vidas todos los días. En este Parlamento se recibe con normalidad al engendro supuestamente humanitario israelo-estadounidense, cuya única función es atraer a los hombres palestinos a las colas del hambre para ser allí tiroteados a placer por mercenarios americanos. Aquí el dilema es suspender o no un Acuerdo de Asociación; allí el dilema es ver morir a los hijos o arriesgar la vida en una cola del hambre.

Yo se lo pongo fácil al Consejo, porque el Consejo tiene que elegir cómo pasa la historia: o como Chamberlain, o como Churchill.

VORSITZ: KATARINA BARLEY

Vizepräsidentin

Hermann Tertsch (PfE). – Señora presidente, me encantan los socialistas evocando a Churchill… Ahora te voy a contar yo a ti. No sé si saben ya que el primer ministro Netanyahu ha propuesto a Donald Trump para el Premio Nobel de la Paz; un premio que le tenían que haber dado ya en su primer mandato por unos Acuerdos de Abraham que cambiaron Oriente Medio ya entonces y que avisaban de cuál iba a ser el camino de la auténtica paz y de las posibilidades de estabilidad en Oriente Medio. No se lo dieron, por supuesto, a Trump por ideología; por ideología se lo habían dado preventivamente a Obama, que sembró todo el mundo de guerras con su debilidad y su progresismo.

Es más, yo les propongo que, junto a Donald Trump, le den el Premio Nobel a Israel, porque Israel ha cambiado Oriente Medio —está cambiando Oriente Medio— para resistir al mal, para romper el eje del mal, y ha acabado con él. Hoy ya no existe Hizbulá. Hoy no existe Al-Asad. Hoy están debilitados los grandes lazos terroristas de Irán por todo el mundo, a pesar de que Irán sigue ahí y todavía no ha caído. Pero Oriente Medio tiene unas perspectivas de paz cuando se den cuenta de que Israel está ahí para quedarse, y se ha dado un paso de gigante para eso. Israel está defendiéndonos a nosotros, a todo Occidente, e Israel, que da la vida de sus hijos, de sus soldados, en una guerra cruel, se merece este reconocimiento.

Carlo Ciccioli (ECR). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, noi dobbiamo essere chiari: l'Europa in Medio Oriente è di fatto inesistente, non ha alcuna capacità di interlocuzione, né come Unione europea né come singoli Stati.

Certamente, i problemi in Medio Oriente hanno radici antichissime, storiche e culturali.

L'Islam più radicale coltiva l'idea di cancellare la presenza ebraica e lo Stato di Israele è vissuto come una provocazione intollerabile. Attorno a questa ferita aperta si sono costruite ideologie di odio, reti di terrorismo e finanziamenti occulti.

L'attacco del 7 ottobre ha rivelato la vulnerabilità di Israele e là si è fatta strada la convinzione che l'unica risposta sia annientare tutte le basi del terrorismo e chi le alimenta. È questa la logica dietro le operazioni contro Hamas, Hezbollah e gli Houthi.

Ammettiamolo: finché esisterà la Repubblica islamica dell'Iran – che arma, addestra e finanzia gruppi terroristici – non ci sarà vera pace. Serve una posizione univoca dell'Occidente, con Unione europea e Stati Uniti allineati. Necessario è anche un atto di autocoscienza: Israele deve darsi regole chiare di tutela verso le popolazioni civili.

Ma la scelta è una sola: o l'Occidente ritrova compattezza e coraggio per imporre la sua visione forte o lascerà spazio all'odio e al terrorismo per altri decenni.

Barry Andrews (Renew). – Madam President, Minister, Commissioner and colleagues, yesterday we bore witness to the very grotesque image of Benjamin Netanyahu presenting Donald Trump with his nomination papers for the Nobel Peace Prize. The words that come to mind are 'beyond parody', 'beyond ridicule', 'perversity', 'incomprehensible' – because on the same day, Israel Katz, the Minister for Defence, proposes to move Gazans to an enclosed area in Rafah, perhaps satirically referred to as 'humanitarian city'. George Orwell could not have invented this kind of language, described as well by Israeli academics and lawyers as, I quote, 'a blueprint for crimes against humanity'.

Eventually, all Gazans will have to go there. Even the Professor of Jewish History at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Amos Goldberg, said the plan was for, and I quote, 'the creation of a concentration camp or a transit camp for Palestinians before they expel them'.

I think the one thing that we can agree on in this divided House is that the Nobel Committee in Oslo will not dwell too long on those nomination papers.

Villy Søvndal (Verts/ALE). – Fru formand! Jeg bliver altid overrasket over de af mine kolleger fra det yderste højre, der kun kan tale om smerten for israelere, der mister, men ikke er i stand til med et eneste ord at forstå tabene for palæstinenserne i en situation, hvor det bliver mere og mere desperat for den palæstinensiske befolkning i Gaza, på Vestbredden og i Østjerusalem. De israelske bombardementer efterlader et Gaza i ruiner, mennesker uden boliger, uden hospitaler og uden skoler. Det er en kollektiv afstraffelse af et helt folk for Hamas' terrorangreb den syvende oktober. Israel blokerer for alt: mad, vand, medicin, brændstof, og ved de få nødhjælpsuddelinger bliver de beskudt af militæret, når de kommer. Mennesker sulter og dør, og verden ser på. Israel begår forfærdelige krigsforbrydelser i Palæstina. Det er også derfor, at modstanden mod krigen vokser i Europa og i Israel, hvor de kæmpestore demonstrationer fortsætter for at stoppe krigen og for at få gidslerne hjem. Vi er nødt til at tvinge den højreekstreme israelske regering til at stoppe bombardementerne og udsultningen af et helt folk.

Marc Botenga (The Left). – Madame la Présidente, Madame la Ministre, Monsieur le Commissaire, vous l'avez lu comme moi, Israël veut concentrer au moins 600 000 Palestiniens dans un camp, à Gaza. Ce serait comme rassembler trois fois la population de Charleroi ou trois fois la population de Liège dans un camp.

L'objectif ultime, selon les propres mots des Israéliens, ce serait de voir effectivement l'expulsion, l'émigration, la déportation des Palestiniens de la bande de Gaza. Israël renoue ainsi ouvertement avec les pires pages de l'histoire du colonialisme européen. En effet, rappelons-le-nous, bien avant les horreurs de la Seconde Guerre mondiale, l'Espagne coloniale avait déjà créé des camps de concentration à Cuba, où des dizaines de milliers de personnes sont mortes de faim et de maladies. Le Royaume-Uni en a aussi construit en Afrique du Sud, l'Allemagne lors de son génocide en Namibie, et la France, évidemment, en Algérie.

Aujourd'hui, le fait que même ces plans d'un camp de concentration n'ébranlent pas votre soutien à l'État d'Israël est inacceptable. Entre-temps, nous avons eu les luttes pour les droits de l'homme, nous avons les luttes contre le colonialisme. Mais vous, vous restez partenaire d'Israël, sans sanctions. Vous continuez même de traiter ce pays en partenaire privilégié. C'est inacceptable. Aujourd'hui, sanctionnons Israël d'urgence!

Ľuboš Blaha (NI). – Vážená pani predsedajúca, s úctou hľadím na velikánov židovského pôvodu od Karla Marxa cez Rosu Luxemburgovú až po Noama Chomského. Ale dnes si už musíme povedať pravdu do očí. Izrael je darebácky štát. A to nehovorím ja, ale americký profesor Jeffrey Sachs, mimochodom židovského pôvodu. Izrael pácha genocídu a vraždí ženy a deti v desaťtisícoch. Za posledného polroka Izrael napadol päť suverénnych štátov vrátane Iránu a Palestíny. To je Guinessov rekord v páchaní zla. A čo robí Západ?

Washington Izraelu asistuje a kriminálne zaútočil na Irán a Brusel ticho pritáka. Leyenová dokonca nachádza pochopenie pre zjavné porušenie medzinárodného práva. Už len za toto by mala byť okamžite odvolaná. Povedzme to už na rovinu, v časoch Hitlerovho Nemecka tu bola diabolská os Berlín, Rím, Tokio. Dnes je tu nová imperiálna os, a to Washington, Brusel, Tel Aviv. Americký sociológ William Robinson má pravdu, keď dokazuje, že sionizmus je nacizmom dvadsiateho prvého storočia. Leyenová a Kallasová tu chrlia sankcie proti Rusku, no pri izraelskom terorizme sú ticho. Kto ešte má brať tieto farizejky vážne? Odstúpte!

Sebastião Bugalho (PPE). – Senhora Presidente, em dezembro, o enviado da Comissão Europeia para a paz no Médio Oriente disse-nos: ‘Não podemos ficar surpreendidos se virmos um aumento do terrorismo nos próximos anos.’ O relatório anual da Europol confirmou: as imagens de morte e destruição em Gaza impactam a segurança da União Europeia, com um apoio que já vai além da Al-Qaeda e do Estado Islâmico.

Senhora Presidente, mesmo que a Europa não olhe para o Médio Oriente, o Médio Oriente olha para a Europa. A tragédia em Gaza é uma realidade para aqueles que estão em Gaza e um risco para aqueles que a ignorarem. No acordo de parceria entre Israel e a União Europeia, está previsto o respeito pelos direitos humanos como elemento essencial. Civis mortos junto de centros de ajuda humanitária põem em causa esse acordo.

É, por isso, fundamental que a Comissão Europeia apoie uma missão de observação externa e independente, que afira as responsabilidades destas mortes na eventualidade de crimes de guerra. Num território fechado a observadores e jornalistas, qualquer avaliação de qualquer acordo ficará incompleta. Façamo-la a tempo.

(O orador aceita responder a uma pergunta ‘cartão azul’)

João Oliveira (The Left), Pergunta segundo o procedimento ‘cartão azul’. – Senhor Deputado Sebastião Bugalho, acabou de fazer referência aos crimes de guerra cometidos por Israel nos postos de distribuição de alimentos, onde estão a ser assassinados adultos e crianças a sangue-frio.

E a pergunta que lhe faço é muito direta: o que é que é preciso mais entrar-nos pelos olhos dentro para exigir à União Europeia que suspenda o Acordo de Associação com Israel?

Senhor Deputado, não há comissões externas, não há avaliações que possam passar um pano e apagar a responsabilidade e a crueldade daquilo que está a ser feito à frente dos nossos olhos, daquilo que está a acontecer em Gaza há 640 dias.

O que é que falta mais para pôr fim àquele Acordo de Associação?

Sebastião Bugalho (PPE), Resposta segundo o procedimento ‘cartão azul’. – Senhor Deputado, só posso interpretar a sua interpelação como uma interpelação que era para a Comissão Europeia e não para um deputado. Por uma razão muito simples: como o senhor deputado sabe, o governo da minha coligação apoia a suspensão desse acordo em qualquer decisão que seja tomada em sede de Conselho, depois da avaliação da Comissão.

O senhor deputado diz-me: quanto mais tempo teremos que esperar por essa avaliação? Na minha perspetiva, já esperámos tempo demais.

Evin Incir (S&D). – Madam President, what was it – one, two, three hours ago that Tomas Tobé, on behalf of the EPP, was talking about the victims of communism? The only difference between us is that we never make a difference between 'victims' and 'victims'.

It should not be controversial to assert that killing, starving, mutilating and slaughtering children constitutes a clear violation of international law. That is what is happening right now in Gaza, what the far-right government of Israel is doing to the children of Gaza.

Make no mistake, history will judge each person that refused to act to end the ongoing genocide in Gaza. Hate is not the opposite of peace, apathy is. Apathy equals complicity. Those who don't want to be complicit to the genocide on the Palestinian people must demand the suspension of the EU-Israel Association Agreement now.

António Tânger Corrêa (PfE). – Senhora Presidente, Senhora Comissária, não há dúvida nenhuma que grandes mudanças se passaram no Médio Oriente nestes últimos tempos.

Parte do cerco do terror foi quebrado. O Irão vai conhecer uma transição à qual não vai poder escapar e que vai ser preconizada pelos seus próprios cidadãos. Não vai ser uma influência externa, mas vai ser uma mudança de dentro para fora no Irão, por um lado. Por outro lado, os seus proxys, como os Hutis, como o Hamas, como o Hezbollah, vão deixar de ter a cama fantástica que tinham, com o Irão a apoiar.

Meus caros amigos, é tempo de mudança, mas é tempo de mudança complicada porque temos a Síria também, que tem uma situação que não é fácil e não vai ser fácil de resolver, em período quer de transição, quer final.

Portanto, nós vamos ter que estar muito atentos a toda esta evolução. O quadro mudou. Os direitos humanos, como toda a gente aqui disse (não vou falar mais sobre isso), estão em perigo, mas o que é facto é que toda a geopolítica na região mudou e vai ser muito problemática.

(O orador recusa uma pergunta ‘cartão azul’ de João Oliveira)

President. – Dear colleague, do you accept another blue card from Mr Oliveira?

António Tânger Corrêa (PfE). – Madam President, no, because I was elected to the European Parliament, not to the Portuguese Parliament.

Γεάδης Γεάδη (ECR). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, ακόμη μια φορά συζητούμε τη νέα κατάσταση στη Μέση Ανατολή, όπως διαμορφώθηκε μετά την τρομοκρατική επίθεση της Χαμάς, που έφερε την αντεπίθεση στη Χαμάς, τη Χεζμπολάχ, τους Χούθι και κλιμακώθηκε με τον πόλεμο μεταξύ Ιράν και Ισραήλ.

Θα στηλιτεύσω όμως κάτι πολύ σημαντικό. Παρόλο που έχουν περάσει τόσοι μήνες με βία, πόλεμο, νεκρούς, θύματα, αμάχους, δυστυχώς αντιμετωπίζουμε ακόμη την άρνηση να επιστραφούν οι αιχμάλωτοι. Επιλέγουν συνειδητά να εμποδίζουν κάθε προοπτική ειρήνης, ακόμα και ενάντια του λαού που δήθεν υπερασπίζονται. Τα σχέδια τους, εξ όσων φαίνεται, ήταν άλλα: να δημιουργήσουν μαζική επίθεση για να φέρουν με κάθε κόστος ολοκληρωτική καταστροφή στον εχθρό τους.

Αυτά αποτελούν διδάγματα για τα κράτη της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης. Η ανοχή απέναντι σε χώρες που συναγελάζονται με την τρομοκρατία δεν μπορεί να συνεχιστεί. Η ανοχή γεννά ατιμωρησία. Και η ατιμωρησία νέα βία και πρόσφορο έδαφος για τους τρομοκράτες. Μέσα σε όλα αυτά, πρέπει να γίνει κατανοητή και η στρατηγική θέση της Κύπρου ως το νοτιότερο ευρωπαϊκό άκρο. Όποιος αγνοεί τη σημασία της, αφήνει την Ευρώπη ακάλυπτη.

Bernard Guetta (Renew). – Madame la Présidente, lorsque Benyamin Netanyahou dit que les Palestiniens devraient ‘avoir la capacité de se gouverner eux-mêmes, mais pas celle de nuire à Israël’, il a raison. Sauf si cela signifie pour lui – et il y a tout lieu de le craindre – que les Palestiniens ne doivent pas disposer d'un État. Ce peuple vivrait alors dans l'ambition de se retrouver l'année prochaine à Jérusalem, capitale de la Palestine. Rien ne le ferait renoncer à ce rêve, pas même deux mille ans d'attente, et ce ne serait donc pas la paix qu'il faut aujourd'hui bâtir.

Si les Israéliens savaient, en revanche, proposer aux Palestiniens de négocier les conditions d'une coexistence pacifique entre leurs deux États, la complète victoire qu'ils viennent de remporter leur permettrait d'asseoir leur sécurité sur la noblesse de cette offre. Parce qu'il en est le vainqueur, Israël peut faire que cette nouvelle guerre soit la dernière, mais encore faudrait-il pour cela que ce Premier ministre sache enfin s'en convaincre.

Mounir Satouri (Verts/ALE). – Madame la Présidente, Gaza, la Palestine, le Moyen-Orient, cela fait vingt et un mois que nous en parlons ici, encore, toujours. Nous avons parlé des preuves du génocide en cours, nous avons parlé des logiques d'apartheid, nous avons parlé de tous les éléments qui constituent un nettoyage ethnique. Mais qu'avons-nous fait?

Alors, pour une fois, je ne vais pas parler ici des enfants affamés, des hôpitaux détruits, des civils tués pendant la distribution de pain. Non, je vais parler de nous, de l'Europe. Gaza est devenue le miroir de notre impuissance. Face aux errances de Trump nous nous terrons; face aux attaques contre la CPI nous ne déclenchons pas le processus de blocage; lorsqu'il survole la Grèce, la France ou l'Italie, Netanyahou n'est pas arrêté. Ce qui nous fragilise, ce n'est pas l'absence d'alliés. Nous pourrions avoir tout le Sud global aligné avec nous. Ce qui nous fragilise, c'est notre incapacité à agir, à faire appliquer le droit international, à arrêter Benyamin Netanyahou et sa logique mortifère!

Réveillez-vous – passez ce message à Mme Kallas. Je le dis à mes collègues du PPE: réveillez-vous! Un continent qui veut sa sécurité sans sa souveraineté n'aura ni l'une ni l'autre. L'histoire vous jugera, et elle vous jugera sévèrement!

Arash Saeidi (The Left). – Madame la Présidente, Chani, Noya, Carmela, Mansour, Niloufar, Mahsa, Abbad, Ahmad et tant de milliers d'autres victimes civiles innocentes que je pleure toutes, quelle que soit leur nationalité, quelle que soit l'identité de leurs bourreaux. Qu'elles aient péri en Israël des mains de terroristes, assassinées lors d'une distribution alimentaire à Gaza, réprimées par le régime à Téhéran en se battant pour leur liberté, ou, toujours à Téhéran, sous les bombes d'un État agresseur qui n'a jamais eu pour but de libérer qui que ce soit, leurs vies, Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, Madame la Commissaire, leurs vies se valent toutes. Elles méritent toutes notre empathie et notre indignation.

Madame la Commissaire, je m'adresse solennellement à vous. Les droits de l'homme sont universels. Les invoquer parfois pour mieux les enterrer quand le bourreau se croit notre ami, c'est faire preuve au mieux d'hypocrisie et, sans doute, déjà, de complicité.

Elena Yoncheva (NI). – Madam President, dear colleagues, in the Middle East, the crisis is spreading fast: from Palestine, to Lebanon, to Yemen, and now to Iran. People need urgent help, but peace feels farther away than ever.

This is already our sixth debate on the Middle East since our new mandate began last July. And honestly, it feels like we keep saying the same things. We call for peace, we ask for action, but very little changes.

Each time we meet, the situation gets worse, and each time our words stay the same. We are stuck in helpless debate while humanitarian help is very much needed, while lives are lost.

So I ask our High Representative, when will we finally see a real EU plan for peace? We need strategy. The European Union cannot just watch from the sidelines. You must do more. And we must do it now.

Nicolás Pascual de la Parte (PPE). – Madam President, the Middle East is enduring a change of geopolitics and of the geopolitical map, and one of the main elements for this change is to hold Iran accountable for its sponsorship of terrorism and destabilisation across the region.

We know that appeasement doesn't work with this regime, and we know as well that direct military intervention is not advisable either. What will work will be international isolation based upon the hardening of the sanctions against this criminal regime, as well as political and diplomatic pressure.

At the same time, we have to recognise and support the democratic opposition of Iran, which will be the only one that will put an end to this regime.

As far as Gaza is concerned, we reiterate our call for unhindered access of humanitarian aid to the Palestinian people, as well as a kind of future for them which has to be without Hamas. Hamas cannot be in the future political framework of the Palestinians. And to back the cease fire immediately.

Concerning my colleague Botenga from The Left, I must say that Spain never set up concentration camps in Cuba. He has to review his history books, because the communist regime of Fidel Castro and his followers has forced millions of Cubans out of his country and oppressed them and brought them misery and repression.

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

Marc Botenga (The Left), blue-card question. – I think you need to check your history, the Spanish colonial history and the fight with the United States. There were, at the end of the 19th century, concentration camps set up.

But this is okay – you will check; let me ask you a real question.

Iran replied to an Israeli illegal attack by bombing Israel. It's easy to condemn Iran, as you have done time and time again. But over the last years, Israel has bombed, what is it, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Yemen, of course Palestine, and is illegally occupying Palestine, parts of Syria and illegally occupying parts of Lebanon.

Are you able to condemn this? Or do you say 'no, I fully stand with Israeli violations of international law'? Do you have these double standards or do you adhere to international law?

Nicolás Pascual de la Parte (PPE), blue-card answer. – Thank you, dear colleague, for your intervention.

It's totally unbalanced and untrue: Spain, again, never set up concentration camps in the modern time in Cuba. I mean, the real oppressors of Cuba are the communist regime under Fidel Castro and his successors. And you know that millions of Cubans have left the country because they cannot live in Cuba. These are the oppressors of Cuba: the communist regime that you represent.

The second point: I have not said anything about Israel. I have said that Iran is the head of the monster which will destabilise the entire region. And without this regime, we will probably leave the region and ourselves better off, and you as well.

Marta Temido (S&D). – Senhora Presidente, a situação no Médio Oriente continua a devolver-nos a imagem do desrespeito pela ordem internacional e pelo multilateralismo, mas também a imagem do nosso fracasso coletivo.

No Líbano, os termos do cessar-fogo não estão a ser respeitados e Israel realizou novos ataques aéreos.

No Irão, os bombardeamentos de Israel e dos Estados Unidos atrasaram o desenvolvimento de armas nucleares, provavelmente, mas levaram à suspensão da cooperação com a Agência Internacional de Energia Atómica e ao maior isolamento do país.

E em Gaza, onde mais de 20 reféns israelitas permanecem nas mãos do Hamas, continua o epicentro da maior tragédia humanitária. Após 33 meses de guerra, todos os dias sucumbem pessoas com fome. A UNICEF refere 112 crianças internadas por dia por subnutrição. Nas filas do acesso a ajuda humanitária, agora nas mãos da Fundação Humanitária de Gaza, já morreram 500 pessoas e foram feridas 4000 na disputa por alimentos.

Por isso, hoje, voltamos a fazer eco das vozes dos cidadãos europeus que questionam as nossas instituições. E perguntamos a cada um dos ministros dos Negócios Estrangeiros dos nossos Estados-Membros que se vão reunir no próximo dia 15 de julho: Senhores Ministros, que posição vão tomar quando discutirem a questão da suspensão do Acordo de Associação?

(A oradora aceita responder a uma pergunta ‘cartão azul’)

João Oliveira (The Left), Pergunta segundo o procedimento ‘cartão azul’. – Senhora Deputada Marta Temido, em Gaza, Israel usa a fome como arma de guerra e assassina adultos e crianças em ponto de distribuição de comida e o pretexto são os reféns feitos pelo Hamas. Na Cisjordânia, não há reféns feitos pelo Hamas. Israel persegue, desloca forçadamente refugiados de campos de refugiados e assassina palestinianos com a sua política dos colonatos. O que está em curso é um genocídio, é uma limpeza étnica.

E enquanto isto acontece, a União Europeia mantém o Acordo de Associação; continua a financiar, através dos fundos europeus da ciência, empresas israelitas de produção de armas.

E a pergunta que lhe faço, Senhora Deputada, é se a senhora deputada se revê nesta política de cumplicidade da União Europeia, ou se, pelo contrário, entende que a União Europeia devia tomar uma ação firme para pressionar Israel para pôr fim ao genocídio do povo palestiniano.

Marta Temido (S&D), Resposta segundo o procedimento ‘cartão azul’. – Senhor Deputado, estamos todos tão envergonhados com a recente postura da União Europeia como o senhor deputado e os europeus sabem disso.

Αφροδίτη Λατινοπούλου (PfE). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, όσο η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση συνεχίζει να κοιμάται βαθύ ύπνο, το Ισλάμ αποθρασύνεται. Πρέπει να είναι κανείς εντελώς τυφλός ή να τα παίρνει, για να λέμε αλήθειες, για να μην βλέπει τη συντονισμένη επίθεση που δέχεται ο Χριστιανισμός σε όλη τη Μέση Ανατολή με ενορχηστρωτή την Τουρκία του Ερντογάν.

Στην αρχή ήταν οι παγκόσμιας κληρονομιάς εκκλησίες, σύμβολα της Ορθοδοξίας, η Αγία Σοφία και η Ιερά Μονή της Χώρας, που με το ζόρι τις κάνανε τζαμιά. Σήμερα, η Αίγυπτος χτυπάει την Ιερά Μονή της Αγίας Αικατερίνης στο όρος Σινά, τον αρχαιότερο χριστιανικό ναό της υφηλίου. Χωρίς ντροπή, προσπαθούν να κλέψουν την περιουσία της Μονής. Γιατί; Γιατί έχουν το θράσος να είναι Χριστιανοί. Στη δε Συρία, μέσα στην εκκλησία του Προφήτη Ηλία, έγινε δολοφονία δεκάδων πιστών. Το έγκλημά τους; Ήταν Χριστιανοί.

Κυρίες και κύριοι, οι ισλαμιστές έχουν κηρύξει πόλεμο στη Χριστιανοσύνη. Οφείλουμε να αντεπιτεθούμε. Αυστηρές κυρώσεις σε κάθε κράτος που κάνει επίθεση στο χριστιανικό στοιχείο. Ταυτόχρονα, κλείσιμο όλων των παράνομων τζαμιών στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση και απέλαση σε όσους ισλαμιστές υποστηρίζουν τον νόμο της Σαρίας. Είμαστε σε πόλεμο. Ανοχή, τέλος.

Cristian Terheș (ECR). – Madam President, an old Arab proverb says: listen more than you speak, for the ears are closer to the brain than the mouth. This wisdom is essential as we confront the complex realities of the Middle East today.

We need to hear the United Arab Emirates, a persistent supporter of humanitarian aid in Gaza, a prosperous economy and an inspiration of tolerance in the region.

We must acknowledge Israel's right to self-defence and its legitimate security concerns in a region full of threats. We cannot ignore the grave danger that we all face when Iran openly pursues nuclear weapons with the explicit goal of wiping Israel off the map.

We must stand with Middle Eastern Christian communities, many of whom face existential threats of genocide or cultural cleansing by extremists.

And we must not forget the everyday Palestinians, people who seek to live in peace, not under the rule of a terrorist organisation like Hamas.

The Abraham Accords offered a concrete roadmap towards peace through truth and cooperation. Now, it's time for the EU to listen with the intent, to act with courage and to be part of a path through peace, through prosperity for all in the Middle East.

Özlem Demirel (The Left). – Frau Präsidentin! 21 Monate ethnische Säuberung – während in Gaza die Trümmer noch rauchen, sterben die Menschen nicht nur durch Bomben, sondern auch an Hunger, Durst und der systematischen Zerstörung. Wer versucht, Hilfsgüter zu bekommen, wird erschossen – nicht versehentlich, sondern gezielt. Es ist eine Politik der Zermürbung, der Vertreibung, der Unmenschlichkeit. Nun planen die USA Lager – angeblich humanitär, aber in Wahrheit Orte des Abtransports.

Das Ziel ist klar: Palästina soll von der Landkarte verschwinden. Die ultrarechten Zionisten wollen ein Großisrael und eskalieren die Lage im kompletten Nahen Osten. In Deutschland vergießt man Krokodilstränen, doch liefert Waffen. Man spricht vom Frieden, aber schreibt Narrative, die Unterdrückung legitimieren.

Und der Kanzler sagt: Israel erledigt unsere Drecksarbeit. Gemeint dürfte sein, das Ziel der gesamten Neuordnung des gesamten Nahen Ostens. Aber diese Ordnung, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen, wird auf Sand gebaut sein. Hände weg vom Nahen Osten!

Reinhold Lopatka (PPE). – Madam President, dear colleagues, I want to reiterate when we talk about the Middle East, we have always have to remember the most significant threat in the region stems unmistakably from Iran and its network of proxies like Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis. While Israel's pre-emptive strikes disrupted Tehran's operational capacity, the mullah regime, of course, will seek ways to continue destabilising the whole neighbourhood. And we saw it yesterday: the latest missiles were fired by the Houthis against Israel, and some weeks ago, Iran itself fired missiles on a major American base in Qatar.

What we need is to push for diplomatic, political and economic initiatives to help to stabilise the region, like the European Commission is doing it, with the negotiations for a free trade agreement with the UAE. This is a good example of how we should act as a European Union. But the real threat is Tehran.

Kathleen Van Brempt (S&D). – Voorzitter, collega's, duizend. Minstens. Dat is het aantal slachtoffers in Gaza, sinds 26 juni 2025, de dag waarop de Commissie en de Raad het conflict in het Midden-Oosten bespraken. Duizend levens en het merendeel daarvan vrouwen en kinderen. Met duizenden en duizenden levens die vandaag verder op het spel staan door de honger en ontbering die de regering Netanyahu bewust creëert en organiseert.

In Europa ligt er een rapport dat ons toelaat om druk uit te oefenen, om sancties te nemen en het geweld te doen stoppen. Maar er kwam niets. Wel, het is te zeggen, een brief van de regeringsleiders om vriendelijk te vragen humanitaire hulp toe te laten. Nog geen dag later, nog geen dag later, stopt Netanyahu de voedselbedeling in Noord-Gaza.

Het gebrek aan actie vanuit Europa is niet alleen intriest, het is een schandvlek. Het is onverklaarbaar, onverdedigbaar en onverantwoord. Hoe lang nog, Commissie? Nog duizend doden? Tweeduizend misschien?

Fabrice Leggeri (PfE). – Madame la Présidente, Madame la Commissaire, cela fait aujourd'hui six cent quarante et un jours que des otages israéliens sont retenus par le Hamas – six cent quarante et un jours d'attente, de souffrance, de silence pour des familles abandonnées par la communauté internationale. Pendant que les négociations piétinent à Doha, Israël continue de défendre sa population, seul face à une coalition islamiste – Hamas, Hezbollah, houthistes, qui sont tous financés et armés par l'Iran.

Ce que nous voyons, c'est une entreprise stratégique, méthodique, menée depuis Téhéran pour encercler, affaiblir et, à terme, détruire la seule démocratie stable de la région. Ce n'est pas un conflit local, c'est une guerre hybride, régionale, idéologique: une guerre contre l'Occident. Pendant ce temps, l'Union européenne joue les équilibristes. Elle distribue des aides humanitaires qui tombent trop souvent entre de mauvaises mains. Elle condamne les violences sans jamais nommer les agresseurs. Elle demande à Israël, victime d'un pogrom le 7 octobre, de faire preuve de retenue.

Mais Israël fait ce que nous n'avons jamais eu le courage de faire: combattre l'islamisme sans naïveté, sans double langage. Il est notre rempart. Il est notre allié naturel dans cette guerre de civilisation que beaucoup refusent encore de voir. Il est temps d'assumer notre camp: celui des démocraties, celui de la fermeté, celui de la liberté.

Marco Squarta (ECR). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, il 7 ottobre ha segnato una ferita profonda: Israele è stata colpita da un attacco sanguinoso, vigliacco.

Hamas è un'organizzazione terroristica che va smantellata, così come ogni forza che sogna di cancellare Israele dalla carta geografica.

Ma non possiamo ignorare altre immagini: bambini palestinesi senza vita, madri tra le macerie, ragazzi mutilati, affamati, corpi accatastati e cibo distribuito come se la dignità fosse un lusso. Non si può restare indifferenti di fronte a tutto questo.

L'Europa ha il dovere morale di alzare la voce, agire e mediare. Chiedo a Israele: sospenda subito i bombardamenti. Chiedo ad Hamas: liberi subito gli ostaggi. Fermiamo questa spirale che uccide innocenti.

Solo due popoli con due Stati potranno guardarsi non più con paura, ma con rispetto. Solo così ogni madre, israeliana o palestinese, potrà smettere di temere che il futuro del proprio figlio sia una tomba.

Ilaria Salis (The Left). – Madam President, everyday in Gaza and across Palestine, people are injured, killed, displaced. Land is stolen. Humanity denied. Life suppressed. How did we get to this point? And what is our responsibility?

This is not just a matter of international politics. It is also a matter of political economy, of capital, greed and profit. Private corporations actively fuel and profit from the Zionist settler colonial project, the occupation and the ongoing genocide. This is the key message of the latest UN report by Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese.

A powerful capitalistic machine of profit is feeding destruction. Arms manufacturers like Lockheed Martin, Leonardo and Thales supply the weapons and fuel military escalation. Tech giants such as Google, Amazon and Meta enable mass surveillance and repression with no ethical restraint. Construction and machinery firms like Caterpillar and Volvo deliver the bulldozers that demolish Palestinian homes.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is a coordinated system of profit. This is racial colonial capitalism. Genocide continues because it is profitable. But we have a duty. The European Union must suspend the EU-Israel Association Agreement now.

Alice Teodorescu Måwe (PPE). – Fru talman! Just nu förs avgörande samtal om en möjlig vapenvila mellan Israel och Hamas. Frisläppandet av gisslan som Hamas hållit i över 600 dagar måste vara högsta prioritet.

Om vi vill undvika ett nytt sjunde oktober måste Hamas, vars mål inte är fred utan Israels utplåning, besegras militärt och ideologiskt. Det palestinska folket förtjänar bättre än ett liv under ett brutalt terrorstyre. Trots risk för sina egna liv har många modiga Gazabor börjat protestera mot Hamas förtryck. Det är dessa röster som vi måste stötta.

En varaktig fred kräver två stater, men bara om båda staterna erkänner varandras rätt att existera. Förutsättningarna för fred börjar inte i vapenvilan. De börjar med viljan till samexistens.

Lucia Annunziata (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, insieme alla proposta di Trump come candidato al premio Nobel per la pace, abbiamo finalmente saputo anche qual è il progetto con cui si presenta con la pace.

A una cena alla Casa Bianca ha parlato dei palestinesi, dicendo che nel loro futuro c'è un trasferimento sicuro, ma solo volontario. Netanyahu ha poi fatto capire a cosa serve questo trasferimento, perché ‘ogni Stato palestinese sarebbe una piattaforma per Israele’.

È arrivato niente dai paesi arabi? Niente. In realtà, questi sono piani, colleghi, che non hanno nessuna possibilità di essere portati a termine. Tutta la strategia americana, a cominciare dal 1990, cioè dalla prima guerra in Iraq, è stato il fallimento dei tentativi di cambi di regime – ogni cambio di regime – semplicemente perché nemmeno grandi potenze come gli USA, o regionali come Israele, hanno forze e uomini a sufficienza per poterlo fare.

Non bastarono 500 000 uomini in Iraq a organizzare un cambio di regime, tanto meno basteranno a Israele i suoi soldati, sia pur messi con quelli americani, contro 80 milioni di sciiti.

Come vedete, questi piani non sono realistici: non dovrebbe essere molto difficile trovare un modo per metterli in discussione.

Tonino Picula (S&D). – Poštovana predsjedavajuća, kao što se svijet počeo nepovratno mijenjati 11. rujna 2001. tako je i Hamasov teroristički napad na Izrael 7. listopada 2023. pokrenuo lanac događaja koji radikalno mijenja odnose na Bliskom istoku. Netanyahu potiče sukobe kako bi transformirao sam Izrael, uspostavljajući dominaciju nad širim prostorom. Obračunava se s cijelim palestinskim narodom, ne samo s Hamasovim teroristima.

Paralelno, razina unutarnje represije u Iranu ojačala je nakon vanjske intervencije, dovodeći režim na rub. Ali može li Europska unija uopće izaći iz permanentne duboke zabrinutosti zbog situacije na Bliskom istoku jer ni ranije nije mogla dogovoriti zajedničke stavove? Europska unija kao ‘soft power’ očito ne uspijeva posredovati u sukobu ‘hard powers’.

Europska unija razmatra raspoložive mjere, uključujući moguću suspenziju Sporazuma o stabilizaciji i pridruživanju između Europske unije i Izraela. Bliski istok je na kritičnoj prekretnici koja zahtijeva odlučnije djelovanje. Naša uloga u postizanju JCPOA-a dokazuje da Europska unija, kada je ujedinjena, može postići ozbiljne globalne diplomatske uspjehe.

Thijs Reuten (S&D). – Madam President, I stand here rather desperate, to be honest, especially listening to the Commission and Council. But let's try one more time to find unity on one point – on humanitarian values, empathy and respect for the lives of innocent people. We here should, as a minimum, agree to the need to open Gaza for immediate and unrestricted access to humanitarian aid, food and medical supplies into Gaza by independent, internationally respected organisations.

This Parliament, it seems, and for sure a large majority of our citizens want this. Our citizens have lost respect for Europe's inaction over Gaza and Europe's double standards. There are no excuses. After all the well-documented violations of international law, the lack of a recommendation to suspend all or part of the agreement is a violation of the Commission's role as guardian of the Treaties, and the High Representative / Vice President knows that. Equally, the Council's lack of action is inexplicable and undermines protection of rules-based international order. We should find the political resolve to ensure that Europe acts now to open Gaza.

Chloé Ridel (S&D). – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, parfois je me demande: ‘Dans quel monde vit-on?’ Pendant que Benyamin Netanyahou nomme Donald Trump au prix Nobel de la paix, pendant que ces deux-là sont en ce moment même à Washington et qu'ils discutent à nouveau du transfert forcé de Palestiniens hors de la bande de Gaza, à Gaza le cauchemar perdure: les bombardements, la faim, la soif, la mort.

Depuis que l'aide humanitaire est gérée par la Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, au moins 613 Palestiniens ont été tués lors de distributions d'aide. Cette déshumanisation d'une population en détresse est insupportable. Des soldats israéliens sortent du silence pour dire l'horreur de la guerre. Ils expriment leur sentiment de trahison face à Netanyahou. Yotan, pilote de char, témoigne: ‘Cette guerre me hante. Personne ne nous avait dit les intentions du gouvernement, le nettoyage ethnique de la bande de Gaza pour s'y réinstaller ensuite.’ Par vengeance et par messianisme, Netanyahou sème la terreur sans ouvrir aucune perspective politique de justice et de paix pour la région. Encore aujourd'hui, à Washington, il a refusé la création d'un État palestinien et le retrait d'Israël de la bande de Gaza à terme.

Alors, le 15 juillet, les chefs d'État européens ont rendez-vous avec l'histoire. Ils peuvent s'afficher complices d'un criminel de guerre ou ils peuvent suspendre l'accord d'association entre l'Union européenne et Israël. Ils peuvent encore montrer qu'ils défendent la solution à deux États, pour deux peuples vivant côte à côte en égales liberté et sécurité.

Matjaž Nemec (S&D). – Madam President, dear colleagues, people in Gaza and in the Middle East are still being killed every day in hospitals, in refugee centres and in the lines for humanitarian aid.

We may have now narrowly avoided the escalation last month in the Israel-Iran conflict into a full-scale war, but the region remains far from peace. The people are still suffering with very little hope. A ceasefire must be achieved now.

The review of the EU-Israel Association Agreement confirmed violation of Article 2. Next week the EU foreign ministers must urgently come to a decision on concrete measures: suspend the agreement; sanction those responsible for war crimes; stop trade with illegal West Bank settlements; impose an arms embargo on Israel; ban Israel accessing EU funds and programmes; and protect international law and institutions.

Europe must act now. If not, EU leadership and institutions, including our foreign ministers, will be criminally responsible for their complicity under international law. Not in our name.

(The speaker declined to take a blue-card question from Petras Gražulis)

Aodhán Ó Ríordáin (S&D). – I dtús báire, ní mór don Ardionadaí Kallas, leithscéal a ghabháil as an méid a dúirt sí le gairid ó thaobh stair na hÉireann de. Dúirt sí nach ionann an taithí atá againne agus na tíortha san Iarthar, iad siúd a chaill a gcultúr agus a dteangacha. Ní mór di staidéar a dhéanamh ar stair na hÉireann agus ceistigh cén fáth a labhraítear Béarla in Éirinn agus cén fáth a bhfuil na milliúin daoine le sloinnte Éireannacha ar fud na cruinne mar thoradh ar fhoréigean, ocras agus bochtanas, a Ardionadaí.

As Irish people, such as many others, we know what it means to have your language, your culture and your very identity suppressed, we know what it means to live under occupation, to have foreign powers dictate your fate. This is why we have a deep sense of solidarity with Palestinian people and why we stand here calling for action from the EU. When EU ministers meet on 15 July, we must scrap the EU-Israel Association Agreement and we must sanction Israel now.

Saoirse don Phalaistín!

Lynn Boylan (The Left). – A Uachtaráin, we're now at a point where gunning down hungry people as they desperately try to get aid is a daily occurrence. There was international shock the first time, but just like with the bombing of the first hospital, when there are no consequences for Israel, they are emboldened and they carry on.

700 Palestinians have now been slaughtered at aid sites; baby formula is blocked. They are literally starving babies to death, and still the EU does not act. In fact, instead of holding Israel to account, President von der Leyen has Netanyahu, a war criminal, on speed dial, and she's actively encouraging him to carry out Illegal strikes on Iran. There is more outrage from EU leaders about artists calling out a genocide than there is against those who are actually carrying out that genocide.

Solidarity with Palestine is being criminalised and the EU is sacrificing its civil liberties to support Israel. But Palestinian solidarity grows stronger every day. The people won't be silenced. The people are demanding suspension of trade with Israel. The people are demanding sanctions against Israel. The people are demanding an end to their complicity with Israel's war crime and its genocide, and they are demanding that their EU leaders act and listen to them.

Spontane Wortmeldungen

Jean-Marc Germain (S&D). – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, le cessez-le-feu entre l'Iran et Israël est un soulagement, mais il ne doit pas détourner notre regard du Moyen-Orient, à commencer par Gaza, où les morts civiles doivent cesser, où les destructions doivent cesser, où la guerre de Netanyahou doit cesser, où la paix durable doit arriver. Surtout, Madame la Commissaire, le silence de l'Union européenne et des institutions européennes doit cesser.

L'Europe, on doit aussi l'entendre sur la répression sanguinaire en Iran. À la suite du conflit, trois opposants politiques ont été pendus, et des centaines d'arrestations ont eu lieu, dont huit d'Européens. Un Français de 18 ans est porté disparu: il pourrait avoir été pris en otage. Pour la vingtaine d'otages européens en détention, la situation s'est encore aggravée. J'étais hier et avant-hier avec les familles de deux otages, Cécile Kohler et Jacques Paris, emprisonnés dans des conditions inhumaines. Ils sont à bout! Depuis la guerre, leur lieu de détention est inconnu et le régime a ajouté à la torture psychologique la menace de la peine de mort sous des chefs d'inculpation infondés. Amnesty International alerte aussi sur le risque d'exécution imminente de leur codétenu suédois, Ahmadreza Djalali.

Alors, Madame la Commissaire, je demande à l'exécutif européen de mobiliser tous les leviers possibles pour obtenir la libération immédiate des otages européens en Iran.

Sebastian Tynkkynen (ECR). – Madam President, what would a better version of the Middle East look like? Hezbollah that is a shadow of itself. The Assad regime gone. Iran severely weakened.

This is already a reality. For the first time in a long time, there is genuine hope. What else we would need for a better future for the Middle East is the end of Hamas.

The EU must be careful to not undermine this goal. Israel is aiming for peace through strength. We cannot be pushing for a Palestinian state until the terrorist entity is removed from power.

Recognising a Palestinian state now would be an endorsement of terror. The intentions might be good, but the result will be catastrophic. Instead, we must demand that Hamas disarms, releases the hostages and surrenders.

Jaume Asens Llodrà (Verts/ALE). – Señora presidenta, dentro de unos años las nuevas generaciones nos van a preguntar qué hicimos mientras en directo se estaba produciendo un genocidio en Gaza.

Yo sí sé qué hice. ¿Y ustedes, señora comisaria, señora Kallas, señora Von der Leyen? Ustedes se pusieron de perfil, al lado de los verdugos, y las resoluciones de los tribunales de justicia internacional les rebotan en la conciencia como guisantes contra un casco de acero, sin dejar huella.

Es verdad que los más de 60 000 asesinados en Gaza —y los que vendrán— no se pueden levantar para señalarles con el dedo; pero yo sí puedo, a ustedes y a los Gobiernos que siguen dando dinero y armas para engrasar la máquina de exterminio de Israel.

Hoy en España se ha admitido una querella contra Netanyahu por el asalto violento a la Flotilla de la Libertad. Somos muchos —y estoy orgulloso de ser abogado— los que no vamos a parar hasta que los responsables tengan que responder ante la justicia y ante la historia. Y ustedes están en esa lista.

Irene Montero (The Left). – Señora presidenta, Israel continúa con su plan de exterminio y, como los nazis, está ejecutando su solución final para Palestina. Dos años de genocidio y, ahora, sobre las ruinas de Ráfah, va a construir un campo de concentración. Esto en Varsovia se llamaba ‘gueto’, el terror nazi, señorías.

Europa tiene obligaciones legales con los genocidas: el Tratado Internacional sobre el Comercio de Armas prohíbe hacer transferencias de material militar a los genocidas y la Corte Internacional de Justicia ha emitido orden de impedir las relaciones comerciales o de inversión con Israel. Entonces, ¿por qué los países europeos siguen comprando y vendiendo armas a Israel?, ¿por qué seguimos comerciando con empresas que sostienen la ocupación ilegal de Palestina y el genocidio?

Además, nos acaban de poner a las órdenes de Estados Unidos en la OTAN, siendo Estados Unidos el principal socio de Netanyahu: juntos han atacado ilegalmente a Irán y ambos son las principales amenazas para la paz y la seguridad en el mundo. El rearme es complicidad con el genocidio, señorías. Hoy mismo vuelve a ser noticia que el plan de rearme del Gobierno de España incluye la compra de material militar a Israel.

Señorías, en lugar de cumplir con la legalidad internacional, ustedes están siendo cómplices del genocidio y eso les convierte, señorías, en criminales.

Die Präsidentin. – Wenn ich das jetzt gerade richtig verstanden habe, dass Sie die Kolleginnen und Kollegen als Kriminelle bezeichnen: Das werde ich mal weitergeben zur Überprüfung. Wir wollen ja hier schließlich respektvoll miteinander umgehen.

Petras Gražulis (ESN). – Gerbiami europarlamentarai, nuolat aš keliu sau klausimą ir noriu užduoti tą patį klausimą Jums. Kas nustatė pasaulyje, kad vienos šalys gali turėti branduolinį ginklą, o kitos negali jo turėti? Štai, bombarduojamas yra Iranas, kad jis nesodrintų branduolinio ginklo, nors Iranas kalba, kad jis sodrina taikiems tikslams. Amerika sako ir Izraelis, kad sunaikins Izraelį, o Rusija negrasina atominiu ginklu? Grasina! Bet mes Rusijos nebombarduojam. O Kinija yra demokratinė šalis? Ne, bet ji turi teisę turėti atominį ginklą. Kas nustatė? Ir jeigu Ukraina būtų neatsisakiusi branduolinio ginklo ir nebūtų pasirašiusi Budapešto sutarties, aš manau, ji šiandien nebūtų Rusijos užpulta.

Cecilia Strada (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, anch'io volevo fare un paio di precisazioni.

Una per i colleghi deputati di destra, che prima si dicevano molto preoccupati del nucleare iraniano: lo sono anch'io, ma volevo dire che c'è un paese, in Medio Oriente, che ha un programma nucleare segreto, dove gli ispettori non possono entrare, un paese che non ha firmato né ratificato i trattati di non proliferazione nucleare. Quel paese è Israele.

E, invece, alla Commissione volevo ricordare l'obbligo di fare tutto quello che è in proprio potere per fermare non solo la carneficina in corso a Gaza, ma anche l'apartheid in Cisgiordania. E va fatto non per bontà, per carità o per potersi guardare allo specchio senza vergogna – cosa che comunque è molto importante – va fatto perché è un obbligo di comportamento, che deriva dal diritto internazionale: non cooperare con chi sta commettendo queste cose. Se non lo facciamo, rischiamo di finire dalla parte dei criminali.

Małgorzata Gosiewska (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Mówiąc o sytuacji na Bliskim Wschodzie nie sposób nie wspomnieć o losie chrześcijan, bo to oni są dziś jedną z najbardziej prześladowanych grup religijnych na świecie. W Egipcie i w całym regionie dochodzi do brutalnych ataków. Kościoły są podpalane, duchowni porywani i mordowani, wierni bici, gwałceni i zabijani za to, że nie wyrzekają się swojej wiary. Zamachy w Tancie i Aleksandrii w Egipcie, ponad 45 zabitych podczas mszy w Niedzielę Palmową, atak na autobus pielgrzymów w Minji, 33 chrześcijan zamordowanych strzałami w głowę. Ostatnia bulwersująca sprawa – odebranie klasztoru Świętej Katarzyny na Synaju wspólnocie chrześcijańskiej – to systemowy, bezwzględny terror i zaplanowana polityka.

Statystyki są porażające. Na świecie za wiarę ginie jeden chrześcijanin co sześć minut. Bliski Wschód jest jednym z najniebezpieczniejszych miejsc. Europa nie może milczeć. Jeśli wierzymy w prawa człowieka, musimy głośno potępić te prześladowania i domagać się ochrony dla chrześcijan. Milczenie czyni nas współwinnymi tej barbarzyńskiej przemocy.

Ana Miranda Paz (Verts/ALE). – Señora presidenta, huele a sangre, huele de verdad a muerte, pero, sobre todo, huele a hipocresía. Construir una ciudad en las ruinas de Ráfah para encerrar a 600 000 gazatíes ya es la última invención de Netanyahu, otro elemento más que configura la definición de genocidio. ¿Qué más pruebas de genocidio queremos?, ¿qué más pruebas quiere la Unión Europea?, ¿por qué no está hoy la señora Kallas aquí?, ¿por qué no se puede cambiar este sistema de ayuda humanitaria de Naciones Unidas, que Netanyahu y Trump quieren cambiar por un negocio?

Señora comisaria, el negocio de Trump y Netanyahu con la ayuda humanitaria y el traslado es precisamente para destruir el sistema de las Naciones Unidas y el sistema del UNRWA. No lo dice la eurodiputada del BNG, lo dice la señora Albanese, que es la relatora especial sobre Palestina. Treinta y tres meses de genocidio, de hambre y de devastación… Solo necesitamos una cosa: cumplir el derecho internacional, cumplir lo que dice la Corte Penal Internacional, sanciones y el fin de ese Acuerdo.

Y le digo al nuevo Consejo, que está hoy sentado aquí, que tomen medidas el 15 de julio: el Consejo de la Unión Europea y la Comisión no pueden seguir siendo cómplices.

(Ende der spontanen Wortmeldungen)

Jessika Roswall, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, the European Union will actively continue to contribute to all diplomatic efforts aimed at deescalating tensions and achieving a lasting solution.

We stand ready to engage constructively with Iran, remaining firm in our expectation and united in our resolve. A sustainable and credible resolution to the Iranian nuclear issue is only possible through a comprehensive, verifiable and durable agreement.

We are also committed to find ways to improve the humanitarian situation in Gaza and, together with the foreign affairs ministers, we will assess the way forward at the next Foreign Affairs Council on the 15 July. With that, I thank you very much for the debate.

Marie Bjerre, President-in-Office of the Council. – Madam President, honourable Members, Commissioner, the European Union reaffirms its commitment to regional peace and stability.

We urge continued restraint and adherence to international law and we renew our commitment to all diplomatic efforts to bring about a lasting solution to the Iranian nuclear issue. We will do so in coordination with our international partners, as we have recently done in the context of the G7.

Your interventions today were clear about the need to bring an end to the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza as a matter of urgency. In order to do so, the European Union will continue to support the efforts of the mediators to reach a sustainable ceasefire.

Furthermore, you can rest assured that the council will follow up on the reviews of Israel's compliance with Article 2 of the EU-Israel Association Agreement. The matter will be on the agenda of the next Foreign Affairs Council next week.

Die Präsidentin. – Die Aussprache ist damit geschlossen.

17. Composition of committees and delegations

Die Präsidentin. – Es folgen einige Mitteilungen. Die ESN-Fraktion hat der Präsidentin Beschlüsse über Änderungen von Ernennungen in Ausschüssen und Delegationen übermittelt. Diese Beschlüsse werden in das Protokoll der heutigen Sitzung aufgenommen und treten am Tag dieser Ankündigung in Kraft.

18. Delegated acts (Rule 114(6)) (action taken)

Die Präsidentin. – In Bezug auf die vom INTA-Ausschuss vorgelegte Empfehlung für einen Beschluss, keine Einwände gegen einen delegierten Rechtsakt zu erheben, die am Montag, den 7. Juli, im Plenum bekannt gegeben wurde, wurden innerhalb der Frist von 24 Stunden keine Einwände erhoben. Gemäß Artikel 114 Absatz 6 gilt die Empfehlung somit als angenommen, und sie wird mit den angenommenen Texten veröffentlicht.

19. Corrigenda (Rule 251) (action taken)

Die Präsidentin. – Gemäß Artikel 251 Absatz 4 der Geschäftsordnung möchte ich Ihnen mitteilen, dass zu der Berichtigung, die dem Plenum am Montag, den 7. Juli, bei der Eröffnung der Sitzung bekannt gegeben wurde, kein Antrag auf Abstimmung gestellt wurde. Die Berichtigung gilt somit als angenommen und wird auf der Website der Plenartagung veröffentlicht.

20. Situation in Belarus, in particular the release of political prisoners (debate)

Die Präsidentin. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über die Erklärungen des Rates und der Kommission zur Lage in Belarus, insbesondere zur Freilassung von politischen Gefangenen (2025/2789(RSP)).

Marie Bjerre, President-in-Office of the Council. – Madam President, honourable Members, Commissioners, let me start my intervention by reaffirming the EU's steadfast commitment to supporting the people of Belarus in the legitimate aspirations for a free, democratic, sovereign and independent country.

Following the fraudulent presidential election of August 2020, the Belarusian authorities have pursued a widespread campaign of persecution against all segments of society, including civil society organisations, independent media, human rights defenders and peaceful protesters. The continued crackdown on dissenting voices is unacceptable and must end. The recent release of several political prisoners, including Siarhei Tsikhanouski and those announced on 2 July, are positive steps after prolonged injustice. At the same time, they must not overshadow the broader picture. More than 1 100 individuals remain arbitrarily detained for political reasons. Many are reportedly held in degrading and inhumane conditions, with limited access to legal counsel, medical care or communication with their families.

This is why I state again here today the EU's call for the immediate and unconditional release of all political prisoners. The Belarusian authorities must end the practice of arbitrary detention and must ensure the full respect for the human rights of all detainees, in line with the Belarus international obligations, including under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Beyond international repression, we remain gravely concerned by Belarus's continued involvement in Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine, including through logistical and political support. Since 2021, Belarus has also been instrumentalising migration for political purposes to put pressure on the EU's external borders, a practice we have consistently condemned. In response to these developments, the EU has adopted restrictive measures, both individual and sectoral, targeting those responsible for serious human rights violations, undermining of democratic principles and the rule of law, and Belarus's complicity in the war against Ukraine.

Madam President, honourable Members, Commissioners, the Council will remain fully engaged on the situation in Belarus. The European Union will continue providing substantial support to Belarusian civil society, independent media and all those working towards a peaceful and democratic future for Belarus. We will continue to monitor developments, to apply pressure when necessary, and to support the resilience of Belarusian society. The European Union will not spare its efforts to stand by the Belarusian people in their struggle for freedom, dignity and self-determination.

Marta Kos, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, Madam Minister, we are together in the European Parliament for the first time, distinguished Members of the European Parliament, two weeks ago, it was a happy day. Siarhei Tsikhanouski and several other Belarusian and European citizens regained their freedom and were united with their families. And last week, another 16 individuals were pardoned by the Belarusian authorities.

These releases are part of a broader pattern that has seen over 300 political prisoners freed since July last year. These steps, while welcome, are not enough. Belarus still detains approximately 1 150 political prisoners, among them around 300 individuals in highly vulnerable situations – people suffering from serious health conditions, elderly detainees, persons with disabilities – all held under arbitrary charges.

Siarhei Tsikhanouski's description of his detention conditions are absolutely appalling. Like him, countless political prisoners endure inhumane conditions: solitary confinement, torture, denial of medical care and incommunicado detention.

Let us be clear: if Belarus intends to signal real and lasting change, it must first release all political prisoners immediately and unconditionally, repeal repressive laws, especially the so-called extremism provisions, and end politically motivated prosecutions and new arbitrary arrests. Third, guarantee fair trials, transparent proceedings, and respect for every detainee's fundamental rights. Fourth, eliminate torture, stop incommunicado detention, ensure proper access to medical care, and end all forms of discrimination and abuse against political prisoners. The regime must also stop its complicity with Russia in its war of aggression against Ukraine.

Honourable Members, since the fraudulent elections of August 2020, tens of thousands of Belarusians have faced brutal repression. Belarus has also become an accomplice in Russia's war against Ukraine – a war that Belarusian people do not support.

The European Union has been steadfast in its response. In March, we adopted the latest package of sanctions on Belarus, targeting those responsible for human rights violations against the Belarusian people and for the so-called presidential elections of January. The EU has also continued to raise awareness on the situation of political prisoners and urge their immediate and unconditional release. We have also opened doors to Belarusians fleeing persecution; over 400 000 now live in the EU.

We continue to support accountability efforts, leading resolutions at the Human Rights Council and supporting the International Accountability Platform for Belarus. We have provided support to Belarusian civil society human rights defenders, including via financial assistance to victims and families of political prisoners. In December last year, we reaffirmed our commitment with a new contribution of EUR 30 million. This brings our overall support to EUR 170 million since 2020.

We call upon all Belarusian civil society to join the efforts and intensify their joint engagement to achieve long and lasting changes. We will continue to be united and determined in exercising pressure on the regime and demanding justice for the crimes committed. We will also continue our solidarity with Belarusian society, including by welcoming Belarusian citizens, especially youth and students, to the EU.

And we will work together with you, dear Members of the European Parliament and other public and non-governmental organisations, to help the people of Belarus realise their rightful place as a free and democratic nation in a peaceful Europe. Thank you for your support for Belarus.

Andrzej Halicki, w imieniu grupy PPE. – Pani Przewodnicząca! Pani Komisarz! Pani Minister! Presja ma sens. Rzeczywiście, 21 czerwca przeżyliśmy bardzo ważny moment, kiedy Siarhiej Cichanouski dołączył do rodziny, do swojej dzielnej małżonki, prezydent Cichanouskiej, do swoich dzieci. Razem z trzynastoma innymi więźniami politycznymi opuścił łagry. Nie złamali go.

Ale w łagrach i w białoruskich więzieniach są jeszcze tysiące więźniów politycznych. Dyktator walczy ze swoim narodem, zwłaszcza z tymi, którzy mają odwagę wypowiadania się. Tłamsi wolność słowa. Wśród tych, którzy są w więzieniu, jest dziennikarz, Polak, Andrzej Poczobut. Upominamy się o uwolnienie ich wszystkich i będziemy o tym głośno mówić, i głośno walczyć o ich wolność.

Ostatnio także zaatakował wspólnoty wyznaniowe, zburzył kościół protestancki ‘Nowe życie’, zabrał wspólnocie katolickiej Kościół Czerwony w Mińsku. Katolickiego księdza Henryka Okołotowicza skazał na 12 lat więzienia pod pretekstem szpiegowania na rzecz Watykanu. Czy jest coś bardziej absurdalnego? Łukaszenka się boi, ale jest odpowiedzialny za zbrodnie i stanie przed Międzynarodowym Trybunałem Karnym. A wam, Białorusini, chcę powiedzieć tylko jedno: widzimy was, jesteśmy z wami. Miejcie wiarę i nadzieję. Bo presja ma sens, bo wiara jest ważna dla Waszej tożsamości, a nadzieja to wolna i niepodległa Białoruś. Ona będzie. Ona będzie. Żywie Biełaruś.

Robert Biedroń, w imieniu grupy S&D. – Pani Przewodnicząca! Aleś Bialacki, Maryja Kalesnikowa, Ihar Łosik, Wiktor Babaryka, Andrzej Poczobut: to tylko kilka nazwisk z listy ponad 1150 więźniów politycznych, których brutalny reżim Łukaszenki nadal nielegalnie trzyma, zamkniętych w nieludzkich warunkach. Kilka kilometrów od granicy z Unią Europejską reżim Łukaszenki utrzymuje nadal ostatnie w Europie kolonie karne, torturuje ludzi, gwałci kobiety w 2025 roku.

Dlatego my jako Unia Europejska nie możemy zapomnieć o najbardziej zapomnianym narodzie Europy, jak mówi Swiatłana Cichanouska. Nie możemy stać bezczynnie. Dlatego apeluję do Wysokiej Przedstawiciel Kai Kallas, do wszystkich ministrów spraw zagranicznych krajów Unii Europejskiej: bądźmy solidarni z Białorusinami i Białorusinkami. Białoruś jest naszym sąsiadem. Białoruś jest częścią Europy. Tak długo, jak Białoruś nie będzie wolna, Europa nie będzie wolna. Żywie Biełaruś!

Adam Bielan, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Madam President, dear Commissioner, we all remember the rigged presidential elections in Belarus in 2020 and the wave of peaceful demonstrations that followed. The regime responded, not with dialogue, but with brutal repression. Since then, we've seen the dismantling of civil society, attacks on religious freedom and mass repression.

The recent release of 14 political prisoners, including Siarhei Tsikhanouski, facilitated by the United States, is a positive step. But let us be clear: it is not enough. Over 1 100 political prisoners, including Andrzej Poczobut, remain behind bars, many in harsh, inhumane conditions, facing torture, isolation and medical neglect.

My group calls on the EU and its Member States to hold the Lukashenka regime accountable for its crimes. The release of a few must not distract us from the continued suffering of many. There can be no normalisation without genuine democratic reforms and the unconditional release of all political prisoners.

Helmut Brandstätter, on behalf of the Renew Group. – Madam President, dear Commissioner, dear Minister, when I think about Lukashenka, I don't think of a president. I think of a dictator. But moreover, I also think of a traitor because he sold out his country to a war criminal, to Putin. He told him he can make war against Ukraine also out of Belarus.

Of course, we talked about the political prisoners. I was always impressed when I talked to Ms Tsikhanouskaya. I really didn't dare to ask, 'Did you hear anything from your husband?', because once she told me, 'No, for over a year I haven't heard from him', and now we know that it's for many years.

Just imagine what kind of torture it is, not only to throw people into a prison, but then you say you will never hear from your family again. As it was mentioned, it's at least 1 100, 1 200 political prisoners who are still there and we have to talk about them. We have to put pressure on Lukashenka, as it was mentioned again.

Also, thank you very much, Commissioner, you talked about those 400 000 people here. We have to help them. We talked about action already – action is media. We need more information for the people who still live in Belarus. Belarus is Europe. It will be free. It belongs to the EU. Zhyve Belarus!

Sergey Lagodinsky, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, colleagues, I'm not going to be the first one in this round who will repeat the facts, but it is important to repeat them again and again.

The release of Siarhei Tsikhanouski was a moment of hope, but the grim reality is the 1 100 more who are still there behind bars. Every reunited family – every father who can embrace his daughter – is a moment of hope. But, how many of them cannot? How many of them are even in unknown locations? Maryia Kalesnikava, Maksim Znak – we don't know where they are, whether they are still alive.

And one more thing is important: this was not an act of mercy. These are cold-blooded strategy calculations by Lukashenka. Let us not be deceived by what he is playing here. This is not genuine reform; it's manipulation.

Genuine reform would be the unconditional release of every political prisoner in Belarus and, for us in Europe, it would be a policy where every Belarusian refugee would feel at home, that they would not have problems with their documents, that they will not be begging in our own foreign ministries for new passports because Belarus does not issue for them the passports of their own nation. This we owe to them. Zhyve Belarus!

Per Clausen, for The Left-Gruppen. – Fru formand! Det var med stor glæde at jeg læste, at Siarhej Tikhanovskij og 13 andre politiske flygtninge i juni blev løsladt i Belarus, løsladt fra domme, de aldrig burde have haft. Løsladt til et samfund, der stadig undertrykkes med jernhård hånd af diktatoren Lukasjenka. De 14 blev løsladt, men der er stadig mere end 1100 politiske fanger i belarusiske fængsler. Folk, der aldrig skulle have været bag tremmer. Derfor må vi også være klare i vores besked til Lukasjenka-regimet. Alle politiske fanger skal løslades, og der skal indføres respekt for demokrati, ytringsfrihed, retten til at være i fagforening og også for de rettigheder, som man har som arbejdstager. Før det sker, bør EU ikke så meget som overveje at slække på foranstaltningerne mod det diktatoriske styre i Belarus. At tro på, at Lukasjenka ville respektere demokratiet, er som at tro på, at Putin eller Netanyahu respekterer international lov.

David McAllister (PPE). – Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, as colleagues have already mentioned, the recent release of a number of political prisoners in Belarus indeed offers a glimmer of hope amid a dark reality. Yet over a thousand remain unjustly imprisoned still.

Belarus remains a battleground for truth. Journalists and dissenters face brutal repression, but their courage shines as a beacon for change.

I recall the words of Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya in this House. She said, 'the EU from Lisbon to Minsk is a nightmare for Putin, but for us it is a reality we strive to live in'.

Not despite, but precisely because of, the recent releases, we must stand firm, strengthening sanctions and supporting those who risk everything for freedom.

Dictatorships thrive when alternatives seem absent. The European Union is that alternative, empowering the democratic forces of Belarus to keep the dream of democracy and the rule of law alive. The future of Belarus belongs to its brave citizens and not to the dictator in Minsk.

Pina Picierno (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, accogliamo naturalmente con sollievo la liberazione di Sergei Tikhanovsky e di altri prigionieri politici bielorussi, ma sappiamo che i loro corpi segnati raccontano la brutalità della repressione carceraria, l'isolamento, i maltrattamenti, le privazioni. E sappiamo che per ogni persona liberata decine restano rinchiuse in condizioni disumane.

Anch'io aggiungo la mia voce a chi da quest'Aula oggi ne ha chiesto l'immediato rilascio senza condizioni. Sappiamo che l'ONU parla di crimini contro l'umanità e per questo le sanzioni contro la Bielorussia devono essere ferme, allineate a quelle contro la Russia.

Ma sappiamo che serve di più. Questo Parlamento e la Commissione devono rafforzare il sostegno alla resistenza bielorussa in esilio, dare voci, dare strumenti, dare protezione a chi lotta per la libertà. La libertà della bielorussa si difende anche da qui, con fermezza, con verità e senza distogliere lo sguardo.

IN THE CHAIR: SABINE VERHEYEN

Vice-President

Małgorzata Gosiewska (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Łukaszenko wypuścił 30 zakładników. Nie więźniów, a zakładników. Brutalnie torturowanych, wyniszczonych psychicznie i fizycznie. Ich wygląd mówi wszystko. Spójrzcie na twarz Siarhieja Cichanouskiego. To nie jest obraz człowieka, który odzyskał wolność. To świadectwo zbrodni.

Reżim nie zatrzymuje się. W 2025 r. mamy już ponad 1700 zatrzymań. Setki nowych zakładników. Pseudosądy działają każdego dnia, jak w przypadku Wiktorii Kulszy. Piąty wyrok. Dramatyczny stan zdrowia. Bezterminowe przetrzymywanie. To nie jest prawo. To jest system terroru.

Ułaskawienia to cyniczna gra reżimu, zasłona dymna. Łukaszenka słabnie. Sankcje działają. I dlatego właśnie nie wolno ich teraz łagodzić. Trzeba je wzmocnić. Uderzać dokładniej i głębiej. Unia musi mówić jednym głosem. Żadnych ustępstw. Żadnych iluzji. Zawieszenie sankcji może być rozpatrywane tylko w jednym przypadku: pełnego natychmiastowego uwolnienia wszystkich więźniów politycznych. Unieważnienie wszystkich spraw politycznych. Zero nowych represji. Każdy krok wstecz to przyzwolenie na zbrodnię. Żywie Biełaruś.

Michał Kobosko (Renew). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Pani Komisarz! Pani Minister! To oczywiście dobra wiadomość, że 14 osób na czele z Siarhiejem Cichanouskim wyszło na wolność, jednak nie pozwólmy, by ta dobra wiadomość przysłoniła nam najważniejszą prawdę: ci ludzie nigdy nie powinni byli trafić do więzienia. Nie popełnili żadnej zbrodni. Ich jedynym przestępstwem (w cudzysłowie) była walka o wolność, prawdę i demokrację. Uwolnienie tych osób to nie żadna łaska, to część wyrachowanej gry reżimu Łukaszenki, gry PR-owej, w której dyktator próbuje pozyskać punkty w relacjach międzynarodowych. Nie dajmy się temu zwieść. Uwięzionych wciąż pozostaje ponad 1100 osób, w tym polski dziennikarz Andrzej Poczobut.

Dopóki choć jeden więzień polityczny Łukaszenki pozostanie uwięziony, będziemy wzywać do rozszerzania sankcji. Choć wielu mówi, że białoruska gospodarka już się nie podniesie, to dane mówią co innego. Dla przykładu białoruskie linie lotnicze zwiększyły swój wkład do PKB o 14% rok do roku. To tylko jeden z wielu przykładów, że reżim się adaptuje, kombinuje, szuka luk w sankcjach. Nie możemy pomagać mu przetrwać. Tak długo, jak rządzi Łukaszenka, tak długo demokracja, prawa człowieka będą na Białorusi martwe, nieistniejące.

Panie Siarhieju, serdecznie zapraszamy do Parlamentu Europejskiego. Pana obecność wśród białoruskich opozycjonistów doda motywacji i doprowadzi do zrywu, który wreszcie obali reżim Łukaszenki. Żywie Biełaruś!

Rasa Juknevičienė (PPE). – Madam President, colleagues, I have decided to address you using the words of the Belarusians who continue to fight.

The essence of this debate is captured in two quotes from Siarhei Tsikhanouski, who was just released from Lukashenka's prison.

First, about Putin, I quote: 'Because of Putin, this illegal government is still in Belarus.' Second, about the situation of political prisoners, I quote: 'There were skin diseases and everyone had kidney problems from the cold – and no one really understood what was happening. Blood came out of my mouth, from my nose. Sometimes I had convulsions, but it was all because of the cold, that terrible cold when you sit in those punishment cells.'

So what should we, the EU, do? Not to be afraid to defeat Putin and his puppet Lukashenka. Slava Ukraini! Zhyve Belarus!

Mariusz Kamiński (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Debatujemy dziś po raz kolejny o sytuacji na Białorusi, o ponurej, trwającej już 30 lat dyktaturze Łukaszenki. Jego rządy to czas brutalnego deptania praw człowieka i podstawowego prawa narodu do życia w demokratycznym i niepodległym państwie. Łukaszenka to kat własnego narodu. To rosyjska marionetka, która bez wsparcia Putina i terroru nie byłaby w stanie utrzymać się przy władzy.

Dziś symbolem Białorusi nie jest jednak podła twarz Łukaszenki. Dziś Białoruś ma swoich prawdziwych bohaterów, bojowników o wolność. Pamiętajmy o Ramanie Bandarence zamordowanym 5 lat temu na ulicach Mińska. Pamiętajmy o przebywającym w więzieniu laureacie Pokojowej Nagrody Nobla Alesiu Bialackim O wybitnych dziennikarzach Kaciarynie Andrejewej, Andrzeju Poczobucie, o tysiącach mniej znanych bohaterów, takich jak małżeństwo Hanna Kmit i Andrej Selianinau. To są prawdziwe twarze Białorusi. Walka o ich wolność jest naszym moralnym i politycznym obowiązkiem.

Dainius Žalimas (Renew). – Madam President, fear Commissioner, dear colleagues, the recent release of 14 political prisoners gives us little hope. More than 1 000, including EU citizens, still remain behind bars in Belarus. They are still subjected to systemic torture and inhuman treatment. No doubt, our line to demand the release of all political prisoners and to ensure accountability for the crimes against humanity must remain intact.

In addition, first, we must call for a formal EU report on deaths of political prisoners. According to the available information, at least seven political prisoners – Shtermer, Shlettgauer, Kulinich, Lednik, Khrasko, Klimovich, Pushkin and Ashurak – died in recent years due to inhuman conditions.

Secondly, we must urge the EU to sanction all the accomplices of Lukashenko regime, including 110 pseudo-deputies of the so-called House of Representatives, 68 members of the so-called Council of the Republic, more than a thousand of so-called judges, prosecutors and investigators. All of them are puppets of the regime, complicit in imposing the repressive legislation and destroying lives.

Sandra Kalniete (PPE). – Cienītā sēdes vadītāja! Kolēģi! Es patiesi priecājos, ka Sjarhejs Cihanouskis un vēl daži politieslodzītie, galvenokārt ārvalstu pilsoņi, ir atbrīvoti, taču cietumos vēl arvien smok vairāk nekā 1200 politieslodzīto.

Nesen publicētais ANO ziņojums atklāj šausmīgu ainu. Tas ir kā no VDK rokasgrāmatas – politieslodzītie sistemātiski ir pakļauti spīdzināšanai, seksuālai vardarbībai, ļaunprātīgai izmantošanai un piespiedu psihiatriskai ārstniecībai.

Lukašenka ir cinisks, brutāls diktators, kas rupji pārkāpj starptautiskās tiesības un cilvēktiesības. Viņš ir Putina sabiedrotais agresijā pret Ukrainu. Atbrīvojot dažus politieslodzītos, viņš mēģina mazināt savu izolāciju un sankcijas. Tas nedrīkst notikt! Par pastrādātajiem noziegumiem pret baltkrievu un ukraiņu tautām Lukašenkam un viņa rokaspuišiem ir jāatbild Starptautiskajā krimināltiesā Hāgā.

Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann (Renew). – Frau Präsidentin, meine Damen und Herren! Wissen eigentlich die Putin-Freunde hier im Haus, was die Marionettenregierung von Moskau in Belarus veranstaltet? Es ist bezeichnend, dass auch keiner von denen hier ist. Zurzeit befinden sich in Belarus 1 160 politische Gefangene in Haft, darunter 165 Frauen. Im Verhältnis zur Einwohnerzahl hat Belarus die höchste Zahl politischer Gefangener. Am 14. Juli jährt sich die Verhaftung des belarussischen Literaturwissenschaftlers Ales Bjaljazki. Er wurde 2021 verhaftet, zwei Jahre später zu zehn Jahren Lager verurteilt – isoliert und immer kränker werdend. Der belarussische Künstler Ales Puschkin ist inzwischen in der Haft – wie viele andere – verstorben. Der belarussische Videoblogger Zichanouski war zwei Jahre in Isolationshaft. Seine Worte nach seiner Freilassung: ‘Ein Gefangener ist immer noch ein Mensch. Das ist unmenschlich. Das ist ein Albtraum. Das sind Folterungen. Das muss aufhören.’ Alexander Lukaschenko ist die Marionette Moskaus. Er ist ein brutaler Diktator. Vergessen wir diese Verbrechen nicht und stärken die Opposition.

Miriam Lexmann (PPE). – Madam President, colleagues, the release of Siarhei Tsikhanouski and other political prisoners gives hope to all of us who believe in a democratic Belarus.

But this single positive message doesn't signal the end of political repression in the country. Over a thousand political prisoners remain behind bars. Systematic crackdowns on citizens have only strengthened in recent months. Repressive measures have expanded to include unprecedented attacks on churches and on religious freedom in general.

Dear colleagues, we have to continue to exert pressure on Lukashenka, particularly by making sure our sanctions are not circumvented. We have to continue to support Belarusian civil society and the democratic opposition. And let's not forget that our support to Ukraine is also support for a sovereign, democratic and prosperous Belarus. Zhyve Belarus!

Reinhold Lopatka (PPE). – Madam President, dear colleagues, the situation in Belarus remains one of the most critical challenges facing Europe today. Nearly four years after these fraudulent presidential elections, as my colleague Ms Strack-Zimmermann mentioned, 1 160 Belarusians remain imprisoned not for crimes, but for bravely standing up for their fundamental rights of democracy, dignity and freedom. These political prisoners – journalists, students, trade unionists – are enduring unjust repression under this illegitimate Lukashenka regime.

Their detention constitutes a grave violation of fundamental human rights, and we must demand their immediate and unconditional release. Until this happens, we cannot think about normalisation with such a regime. The release of Siarhei Tsikhanouski is a signal for hope, but it's not the end of our fight against this regime.

Written Statements (Rule 178)

Catch-the-eye procedure

Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis (S&D). – Gerbiama Pirmininke, kolegos, aš norėčiau paminėti vieną pavardę – Mykola Statkevič. Tai Baltarusijos socialdemokratų partijos lyderis, kuris visą laiką nuo pat Baltarusijos nepriklausomybės paskelbimo, visą laiką aktyviai kovojo už demokratiją, žmogaus teises ir visą laiką pats buvo aktyviausias pasipriešinimo autoritariniam režimui dalyvis. Visi puikiai žinome, kad Europos Parlamentas ne kartą pasisakė dėl jo, tačiau šį kartą vėl man tenka priminti, nes jo išnykimas… nieko nebežinoma apie jo įkalinimą, nieko nebežinoma, kas su juo toliau yra atsitikę, jokių žinių. Ir aš raginu Komisiją, raginu dar kartą atkreipti ypatingą dėmesį į šį patį vieną iš iškiliausių pasipriešinimo didvyrių.

(End of catch-the-eye procedure)

Marta Kos, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, thank you for your interventions. Yes, let us celebrate the release of Siarhei Tsikhanouski and others, and call for their full rehabilitation and safe return home.

But we also insist that true progress will be measured not just by pardons, but by the comprehensive dismantling of a system of repression.

We call on the Belarusian authorities to immediately halt all political persecution, to enact meaningful reforms and to adhere to its international obligations.

And dear colleagues, let us continue to stand for freedom, justice and the rule of law in Belarus until every single political prisoner is free.

Marie Bjerre, President-in-Office of the Council. – Madam President, honourable Members, Commissioners, thank you for your valuable interventions and also very strong comments.

For instance, Robert Biedroń from the S&D mentioned specific names of prisoners. This is a brutal repression, as said by Adam Bielan from the ECR and also from many others. We have to talk about it and we have to be clear, as several of you said.

We will continue to call for the immediate and unconditional release of all political prisoners and for the end of repression against civil society, independent media and peaceful dissent. The EU will continue to urge the regime to end its violations while supporting the democratic aspirations of the Belarusian people. We will remain fully engaged and closely monitor developments on the ground and the issue will remain high on the EU agenda.

We remain united in our support to the brave people of Belarus in their quest for a free, democratic, sovereign and independent Belarus as part of a peaceful Europe.

President. – The debate is closed.

Michał Dworczyk (ECR), na piśmie. – Andrzej Poczobut jest symbolem oporu wobec reżimu Łukaszenki, walki o prawdę, wolność słowa i prawa mniejszości narodowych. Wielokrotnie represjonowany za swoją działalność, obecnie przebywa już 4 rok w więzieniu o zaostrzonym rygorze. Jego sprawa to przykład brutalności reżimu, ale także test solidarności świata demokratycznego.

To właśnie z myślą o takich osobach jak Poczobut zorganizowałem podczas czerwcowej sesji plenarnej Parlamentu Europejskiego wydarzenie poświęcone więźniom politycznym na Białorusi. Nie była to jedynie kolejna debata, ale próba oddania głosu tym, którym go odebrano. Historia Kaciaryny Andrejewej —dziennikarki Telewizji Biełsat skazanej na łącznie 10 lat więzienia za prowadzenie transmisji na żywo brutalnie tłumionego pokojowego protestu w Mińsku, po śmierci Ramana Bandarenki, nie jest wyjątkiem. To symbol losu setek ludzi, którzy płacą za prawdę swoją wolnością. Potwierdziły to dramatyczne świadectwa rodzin więźniów politycznych, którzy opowiadali o nieludzkim traktowaniu swoich bliskich: izolacja, brak kontaktu z rodziną, brutalne przesłuchania, psychiczna presja.

Dziś, według danych organizacji praw człowieka, w białoruskich więzieniach przebywa ponad 1400 więźniów politycznych. Ostatnie informacje o uwolnieniu kilku z nich są oczywiście ważne — dla rodzin to wielka ulga. Ale wobec całej skali – to zaledwie gest.

Dlatego apeluję: nie zostawiajmy ich samych, pamiętajmy o Andrzeju Poczobucie, o Kaciarynie Andrejewej i setkach innych bezprawnie więzionych przez Łukaszenkę.

21. 2023 and 2024 reports on Albania (debate)

President. – The next item is the debate on the report by Andreas Schieder, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, on the 2023 and 2024 Commission reports on Albania (2025/2017(INI)) (A10-0106/2025).

Andreas Schieder, rapporteur. – Madam President, Madam Commissioner, dear colleagues, in the last 30 years, Albania and the citizens of Albania have faced many obstacles. Just remember the hard Enver Hoxha regime, which was the hardest we had in the eastern Europe communist sphere. Then after the regime change, even in 1997, they had a pyramid scheme crisis where, again, everybody lost the little savings they had. The country had to overcome these obstacles and has also gone through an enormous change, like few other countries in Europe did.

Since 2009, Albania has been on its EU journey. In 2009, Albania applied for membership. In 2014, it became an official accession candidate. In 2022, this negotiation started and in 2024, the first negotiation chapter was finally opened. We see already that these statistics and numbers show that this is a long story.

Today, we discuss the first annual report in this term on the progress of Albania as a candidate country. The report covers the Parliament's response to the Commission enlargement, reports both of 2023 and 2024, the state of play and the latest developments of Albania's progress in joining a deal. I have to say – and on this point, I also want to thank the colleagues and shadow rapporteurs in the AFET Committee – the report was adopted with a large majority of 57 votes in favour, 11 against and six abstentions. Thank you all for this constructive work which has been done.

Secondly, before coming also a little bit to the content of the report – I'm just looking for where they are – I think also there is the Albanian delegation today here in the European Parliament from the Albanian Parliament. Welcome to the European Parliament and I hope that your work and our work will lead also that you in the future will sit amongst us here in the European Parliament. Welcome to your House.

So, the main topic of the report is, of course, progress concerning also some issues like the democratic institutions and how they have developed. Media freedom, what are the open issues there? For example, that we have in media freedom still the question of instant transparent ownership. So, it's not the freedom of journalists to ask questions, but it's the question of who owns the media platform. We have the question of involvement of civil society. We have the question of fundamental rights, the rule of law, of social economic reforms, of environment and of regional cooperation and foreign policy.

In October 2024, Albania started the negotiations on Cluster 1. In December came Cluster 6, in April 2025 came Cluster 2 and in May came Cluster 3. Now, Albania has opened 24 out of 33 negotiation chapters. We welcome this fast progress and Albania has been called a front runner by you, Madam Commissioner Marta Kos – I think this is very right that they are a front runner.

There are a lot of positive remarks to be made. We see good progress in the implementation of the justice reform, including also the waiting process in SPAK, in steps in environmental protection and also in full alignment with foreign policy.

To come to an end, of course, we see a lot of things to be done. As I mentioned before, there is the media situation, but also the implementation of OSCE audio recommendations, which have to be done on a broader political maturity and have to be done also sure in the future.

Finishing, I think I just want to say that we fully support Albania's objective to be front runner and to open all the other clusters, but it's more important also to close the clusters and to work on the reforms. I think if the speed and this unification on the whole country to join the European Union will continue, they will also manage. Our report is a positive one, but putting the points also on the things which have to be changed.

Marta Kos, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, dear rapporteur. I would like to extend my gratitude to this House for holding this debate and especially to you, Mr Schieder, for managing to consolidate a very balanced resolution on the 2023 and 2024 Commission reports on Albania. Thank you for your excellent work.

This report comes at a crucial juncture, as accession negotiations between Albania and the EU are progressing at an unprecedented pace, as we heard, with several important milestones already met in the past few months and more to come. Since the opening of the first cluster on the so-called 'fundamentals' in October 2024, 4 clusters and 24 out of 33 chapters have now been opened, as we also heard. This demonstrates that Albania has seriously engaged in enlargement, while the EU delivers, respecting the merit-based approach. We are working closely with the Danish Presidency to keep up the momentum. We trust that the two remaining clusters will also be opened as soon as feasible. Solid preparation on both the EU and the Albanian sides is already well advanced.

While work is moving forward across technical clusters, we continue to maintain a very strong focus on reforms in the area of the rule of law and fight against corruption. Albania is expected to consolidate further the very good progress in this area. The continued progress with justice reform and the vetting of magistrates, as well as the good results of the special structure against organised crime and corruption (SPAK) are positive steps which are also highlighted in the Parliament's report.

It is crucial that Albania continues to demonstrate concrete progress in key related areas, guided by three principles. First, justice reform is an irreversible process and its progress must not only be preserved but further consolidated.

Second, the efforts to combat corruption, particularly at high level, must continue with great determination. In this context, the independence of the special structure against corruption and organised crime (SPAK) must be fully upheld. SPAK stands today as the most trusted institution in the country. This must be safeguarded and strengthened.

Third, more efforts must be made to uphold fundamental rights, especially media freedom. That begins with stronger measures to protect journalists, ensuring the independence of both the media regulator and the public broadcaster, and promoting true pluralism and transparency of media funding. The growth plan for the Western Balkans will also continue to support Albania on reforms in these areas, which are necessary for its accession path, while granting them access to parts of the single market before actual membership in the EU.

Honourable Members, in the current geopolitical context, Albania and the Western Balkans remain a geostrategic priority for the EU. The swift progress in the accession negotiations is a clear signal that we stand by Albania, and we are genuinely committed to marking out a clear pathway for EU accession. But EU accession will remain, above all, a merit-based process. Rest assured that the Commission will continue to actively engage with Albanian authorities to ensure that Albania carries out the reforms needed to become an EU Member State.

I look forward to continuing close cooperation towards our common objective: Albania successfully concluding the accession negotiations with the European Union as soon as feasible. Ultimately, of course, all these reforms are first and foremost essential to guarantee that all citizens in Albania enjoy strengthened protection of their rights, increased welfare, prosperity and security.

Let me conclude with the observation that the transformational power of enlargement is clearly seen in Albania. Thank you, dear Members of the European Parliament for working on Albania. I am looking forward to our discussion.

Andrey Kovatchev, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Madam President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, in light of the growing threat from Russia and China, EU enlargement is no longer a possibility, but a necessity and an essential geostrategic investment in building a united and strong Europe.

I welcome Albania's significant progress on its EU integration path, having opened (as mentioned by our colleagues) 24 out of 33 negotiation chapters in just seven months. The European Union remains fully committed to delivering on its promises.

I welcome particularly the reforms aimed at safeguarding the rights of minorities, notably the adoption of the implementing legislation on the right of persons belonging to minorities, as well as the successful 2023 population census.

The EU enlargement process must remain merit-based. Every country must meet the necessary criteria and implement the required reforms to join the European family.

In this regard, I will stress the urgent need for further efforts, particularly in combating corruption and ensuring the independence and proper functioning of the judiciary, free from undue influence and interference, and a free and independent media.

Albania's political system remains deeply polarised and fragmented, with alarming clashes between the ruling majority and the opposition. This was evident in the run-up to and during the parliamentary elections on 11 May, with unlawful practices and persisting challenges, notably: vote buying and misuse of public resources by the ruling party, which were highlighted by the international observers.

A functioning opposition and genuine political plurality are vital for the health of any democratic system. Therefore, I call on the authorities to take decisive action to implement the OSCE/ODIHR final recommendations and to address the complaints and signals received during the electoral process.

The Albanian authorities must uphold the rule of law and ensure the separation of powers in order to advance further on their European path. Good luck Albania!

Marco Tarquinio, a nome del gruppo S&D. – Signora Presidente, relatore Schieder, signora Commissaria, onorevoli colleghi, l'Albania ha intrapreso il suo percorso di adesione con impegno e incisività e con un encomiabile lavoro di riforma.

Persistono problemi reali, ma le questioni da risolvere sono ben individuate: ne sono testimone da copresidente del comitato parlamentare UE-Albania.

Ora si tratta di procedere con una chiara assunzione di responsabilità e con un'efficace convergenza tra le forze politiche, che – lo ricordo – nonostante le differenze sostengono senza esitazioni il processo di adesione.

Da quest'Aula mi permetto di rivolgere un appello ai colleghi parlamentari albanesi, alcuni qui presenti oggi, e lo faccio con il massimo rispetto e con la fiducia che abbiamo costruito in questi mesi: che la pur legittima polemica interna non porti ad argomenti denigratori, caricaturali e soprattutto dannosi per l'immagine del paese delle Aquile e per il processo in corso.

Stiamo lavorando per un'Albania pienamente parte della famiglia europea, facciamo sì che l'obiettivo diventi realtà.

Matthieu Valet, au nom du groupe PfE. – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, Madame la Commissaire, je ne comprends pas. Alors que mon pays, la France, est gangréné par les ‘narcoracailles’, les narcotrafiquants, les narcoterroristes et le narcobanditisme, vous vous obstinez à maintenir le processus d'avancement d'adhésion de l'Albanie à l'Union européenne. Pourtant, l'Albanie n'est pas un partenaire fiable. Elle reste minée par la corruption, par les influences étrangères – notamment turque – et par des réseaux criminels solidement implantés à travers toute l'Europe.

Je ne sais pas, en revanche, si vous lisez les rapports d'Europol, l'agence de coopération des polices européennes, mais ils sont très clairs: les groupes criminels albanais figurent parmi les plus menaçants pour notre sécurité. Ils sont profondément impliqués dans le trafic de drogue, la traite des êtres humains, le blanchiment d'argent et le commerce illicite d'armes. D'ailleurs, rappelons que les armes utilisées lors des attentats du Bataclan en 2015 dans mon pays – qui avaient fait 131 morts – provenaient en grande partie des Balkans. Elles avaient transité par des routes de contrebande, vis-à-vis desquelles les réseaux albanais jouent un rôle déterminant.

Cette réalité perdure. Lisez les rapports, Madame. Europol alerte encore en 2025 sur la persistance de ce trafic depuis les Balkans occidentaux vers l'Union. Enfin, l'Albanie demeure un producteur majeur de cannabis, un point d'entrée du trafic d'héroïne en provenance d'Afghanistan et un autre acteur clé dans les réseaux de cocaïne. La mafia albanaise est omniprésente dans ces circuits criminels.

Dans ces conditions, rapprocher davantage ce pays de l'Union européenne serait une faute politique grave et qui compromettrait directement la sécurité des Européens, et particulièrement des Français.

Alberico Gambino, a nome del gruppo ECR. – Signora Presidente, signora Commissaria, onorevoli colleghi, la relazione in discussione riconosce con equilibrio i progressi compiuti dall'Albania nel percorso di adesione all'Unione europea. In particolare l'allineamento alla politica estera comune, il rafforzamento istituzionale e il contributo alla stabilità regionale.

Resta fondamentale mantenere alta l'attenzione sull'indipendenza della magistratura, sulla tutela dei diritti fondamentali e sulla lotta alla corruzione, così come superare la polarizzazione politica, elementi essenziali per rafforzare la fiducia reciproca e per concludere i negoziati di adesione.

Tra le altre cose, ho potuto constatare, anche con il relatore Schieder, che anche su questo versante sono stati fatti significativi passi in avanti.

Vorrei infine sottolineare il valore della cooperazione in materia di immigrazione. L'intesa tra Italia e Albania dimostra che è possibile affrontare sfide complesse con strumenti concreti e condivisi, nel rispetto del diritto europeo e della sovranità nazionale.

L'Albania è un partner strategico e l'Unione deve accompagnare con determinazione e rigore il cammino europeo.

Илхан Кючюк, от името на групата Renew. – Г-жо Председател, на първо място бих искал да поздравя докладчика, г-н Шилер, за много адекватните позиции, които определено могат да послужат като добра основа на Европейския парламент.

Разбира се, Албания показва непоколебим ангажимент към това да се интегрира към Европейския съюз. Виждаме ясните позиции както на управляващите, така и на опозицията в Тирана. Този непоколебим ангажимент е много силно подплатен и от гражданското общество не само като активна част по време на избори, но и като част, която работи ежедневно за отстояването на европейските ценности.

Не на последно място от гледна точка на позитивите, които Албания извървява по своя път към ЕС, са тежките реформи, които успява да направи правителството в Тирана. Разбира се, тези реформи са достатъчно амбициозни, за да покажат непоколебимия път на страната през 2027 г. да затвори всички преговорни глави.

И тук въпросът е по-скоро към Европейската комисия и към Европейския съвет, г-жо Комисар. Ако Албания изпълни всички тези критерии, условия и до 2027 г. успее да затвори всички преговорни глави, дали ще има политическа воля от страна на ЕС най-накрая да има разширяване по посока на Западните Балкани?

Tineke Strik, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, dear Commissioner, dear members of the Albanian delegation that may be here, dear rapporteurs and shadow rapporteurs, thank you very much for the report and the great constructive work.

Albania is an accession frontrunner, making solid progress to fulfil its aim of entering the EU by 2027. And that could be historic, of course. Albania's EU membership will accelerate economic prosperity for its citizens and increase the geopolitical strength of our union, but also encourage other candidate countries to work on their reforms.

Of course, we need more improvements on rule of law, fundamental freedoms, media freedom and tackling corruption. But I am confident that it is possible for the Albanian Government, dear Mr Kyuchyuk – that the Albanian Government will deliver on these priorities in time. And I hope that the EU will give all its support for that aim.

But we can only credibly demand to stick to a merit-based approach to improve the rule of law and refrain from political blackmail if we do it ourselves too. The Italy-Albania agreement opposes exactly these principles, because it's an abuse of Albania's EU aspirations by one EU Member State to dump people out of its borders. This agreement is inhumane, expensive and ineffective. And the Commission's silence so far is deafening.

Let us end this hypocrisy and stick to the values that we demand from our candidate countries too.

Sebastian Everding, im Namen der Fraktion The Left. – Frau Präsidentin! ‘Jeder auf der Welt hat seine Träume’ sagte schon der albanische Schriftsteller Ismail Kadare. Mein Traum ist es, dass Albanien auf dem Weg in die EU den Umweltschutz als Brücke sieht und nicht als Hindernis. Jüngste Entwicklungen wie der Flughafen Vlora, der im Vjosa-Narta-Schutzgebiet gebaut wurde, geben jedoch Anlass zur Sorge und verstoßen gegen EU-Umweltrecht. Wir brauchen zudem stärkere Maßnahmen zum Schutz gefährdeter Arten, insbesondere des Balkanluchses, dessen Überleben von intakten Lebensräumen abhängt. Ich begrüße ausdrücklich Schritte wie die Ausweisung des Vjosa-Nationalparks, aber Umweltschutz im Tourismus-Boomland Albanien muss konsequent und nicht selektiv erfolgen.

Vergessen wir auch nicht die Tierschutzproblematik: In jeder albanischen Stadt leben tausende streunende Hunde auf den Straßen. Diese Herausforderung sollte ganzheitlich angegangen werden! Aber die Lösung, die gewählt wurde, besteht darin, viele dieser Tiere auf grausame Art öffentlich zu töten. Die wenigen Tierheime sind überfüllt, und Kastrationsprogramme werden zu selten durchgeführt und dann nicht vom Staat, sondern von privaten NGOs finanziert.

Ja zur Mitgliedschaft Albaniens in der EU, aber nicht, bevor alle Bedingungen, einschließlich Umweltschutz- und Tierschutzstandards, erfüllt sind.

Alexander Sell, im Namen der ESN-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin! 1 Milliarde Euro will Frau von der Leyen an die Regierung in Albanien zahlen – an die Sozialistische Partei. Im Mai wurde dort gewählt, aber mit Demokratie hat das wenig zu tun. Premierminister Edi Rama lässt politische Gegner wegsperren, internationale Wahlbeobachter kritisieren massenhafte Stimmenkäufe, Pressefreiheit gibt es kaum, TikTok war im Wahlkampf verboten.

Wirtschaftlich profitiert Albanien vor allem vom internationalen Drogenhandel. Mit extremer Brutalität kontrolliert die albanische Mafia den Handel mit Kokain und Marihuana in Europa. Viele Milliarden Euro fließen so jedes Jahr nach Tirana – Hochhäuser und Glaspaläste sprießen aus dem Boden wie in Dubai. Die Regierung ist an diesem Geschäft beteiligt, Korruption ist weitverbreitet. Sogar die Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung der deutschen Linkspartei spricht von, Zitat, ‘kleptokratischer Kontrolle des Staates durch die Sozialistische Partei’. Experten nennen Albanien deshalb einen Mafiastaat – das Kolumbien Europas.

Dieses Land will Frau von der Leyen jetzt in die Europäische Union aufnehmen. Ich frage Sie: Was ist der Mehrwert für unsere Bürger? Warum sollen deutsche Steuerzahler das Luxusleben von korrupten Politikern und Mafiabossen in Albanien finanzieren? Das machen wir nicht mit. Wir sagen Nein zum EU-Beitritt von Albanien, und wir sagen Nein zu dieser Kommission.

Michael Gahler (PPE). – Madam President, colleagues, Commissioner, dear Andreas Schieder, thank you for your report where you highlighted a broad range of issues that are of relevance for the accession of Albania to the EU.

You also highlighted some positive developments, like SPAK, this body that is combating corruption. Indeed there is a need for that. The Commission has also said that efforts to combat corruption at the highest level must be maintained.

Now, I was in Albania on occasion of the latest election. Technically, that went well, but indeed we as observers and the OSCE concluded that there was not a level playing field, that there was an abuse of incumbency, meaning that, for instance, they afforded to pay an extra EUR 100 to pensioners just short of the election and traffic fines were abandoned two days before the election.

So these are issues that should not happen and that will have to be addressed, including also with the recommendations that had not yet been implemented.

Indeed, I have to say, the stories that you hear apart from the election observation, about the structures that relate to money laundering: that is a fact. There are 30 000 apartments standing there empty because there have been built with laundered money and people looking for flats they cannot afford. There are also drug trafficking schemes.

We have to see – and I'm confident we will manage this – that these structures will not profit from entry into the European Union. They must be crushed before this country enters.

Brando Benifei (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, il rispetto del diritto è quello che sta alla base dell'adesione all'Unione europea.

Proprio questo manca nel vergognoso memorandum firmato da Giorgia Meloni con l'Albania, un accordo fallimentare da 800 milioni, ora riciclato con l'idea di trasformare centri vuoti in CPR, buttando montagne di soldi dei contribuenti.

Un piano inumano, ma anche inutile e costoso, che non affronta davvero le sfide migratorie. Lo dimostrano anche le critiche arrivate da diversi governi europei, persino quelli più vicini a Meloni.

Il governo pensi invece a sostenere davvero l'ingresso dell'Albania nell'Unione europea e non strumentalizzi il tema per accordi inutili e dannosi. Va invece sostenuto il percorso europeo dell'Albania con serietà e impegno, sostenendo le riforme e sostenendo la vicinanza alla nostra Unione.

Noi continueremo a farlo con impegno, qui, dal Parlamento europeo.

Aleksandar Nikolic (PfE). – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, je ne sais pas si vous tenez les comptes, mais vous avez déjà donné à l'Albanie plus de 2 milliards d'euros depuis 2007. Cet argent, les Français et les Européens ne le reverront plus. Et pour quel résultat? Vous l'admettez vous-mêmes dans vos rapports: l'Albanie est gangrénée par la corruption, la liberté de la presse y est bafouée, et elle est une véritable plaque tournante du crime organisé en Europe selon Europol.

Ce pays a tout d'un État voyou et son adhésion à l'Union européenne mettrait gravement en danger la sécurité de nos nations. En l'admettant parmi nous, vous ouvrez encore plus grandes les portes au pire de la prostitution, du grand banditisme, du trafic d'organes et des mafias. Quelles conclusions tirez-vous de ce constat catastrophique? Vous voulez leur donner encore plus: 922 millions d'euros supplémentaires, 922 millions d'euros, dont on sait d'expérience qu'ils ne changeront rien à la situation désastreuse de ce pays, malheureusement, et qu'ils finiront en partie dans les poches d'oligarques et de mafieux.

Dans quel monde finance-t-on un candidat pour qu'il passe un examen d'entrée tout en sachant qu'il n'est pas prêt? Alors, je n'ai qu'une seule question à vous adresser, à vous et à Mme von der Leyen: qui vous a donné le droit de jouer ainsi avec l'argent et la sécurité des Européens?

Εμμανουήλ Φράγκος (ECR). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, η έκθεση για την Αλβανία αποδεικνύει ότι η Ευρώπη αδιαφορεί για την αλήθεια. Δεν υπάρχει αναφορά στο τεράστιο ιδιοκτησιακό πρόβλημα. Οι Έλληνες μειονοτικοί βρίσκονται να χάνουν τα δικαιώματα επί της περιουσίας τους και να παρακολουθούν τα σπίτια και τις εκκλησίες τους να γκρεμίζονται. Να αντιμετωπίζουν πάντα μπροστά τους ένα τείχος.

Η έκθεση συγχαίρει την Αλβανία για την πρόοδο στη Δικαιοσύνη. Αστεία φράση για τους Έλληνες μειονοτικούς. Πρόκειται για μια έκθεση που δεν βλέπει τους μαφιόζους μέσα στο δωμάτιο. Η αλβανική μαφία ρημάζει και καταδυναστεύει από τις ΗΠΑ μέχρι και την Κίνα. Λυπούμαστε που η έκθεση δεν αναφέρει καθόλου την ελληνική εθνική μειονότητα Βόρειας Ηπείρου. Δεν αναφέρει μια ιστορική, πολιτιστική, δημογραφική και πολιτική πραγματικότητα αγρίως και ποικιλοτρόπως διωκόμενη, δυστυχώς με την καθοδήγηση της Άγκυρας.

Και, προς Θεού, ο δολοφονηθείς Κωνσταντίνος Κατσίφας μέσα από τον τάφο του περιμένει δικαίωση. Οι μαφιόζοι δολοφόνοι του Κατσίφα ανήκουν στο αλβανικό παρακράτος. Προφανώς, καταψηφίζουμε την έκθεση, όπως και την απαράδεκτη έκθεση των Σκοπίων, καθώς και οι δύο είναι διαστρεβλωτικές και εξόχως προβληματικές.

David McAllister (PPE). – Madam President, Madam Commissioner, dear colleagues, since becoming a candidate in 2014, Albania has indeed made progress. Yet major reforms remain imperative.

The 2023 and 2024 reports on Albania have highlighted persistent challenges. The parliamentary elections in May this year took place in a deeply polarised environment. There were frequent parliamentary boycotts, constant confrontations and a lack of real dialogue.

As we just heard, our election observation delegation, led by our colleague Michael Gahler, confirmed that these elections were competitive, yet marred by the abuse of public resources and vote buying. The Central Election Commission's limited enforcement failed to ensure a level playing field.

The road ahead demands more than technical fixes. It requires political will and broad consensus. Real reform cannot come from a party alone. It requires dialogue, trust and inclusivity between all Albanian political forces.

The European Union, and especially this European Parliament, stands ready to support Albania's reform efforts, but the commitment must come from within.

Angéline Furet (PfE). – Madame le Président, chers collègues, aujourd'hui on nous demande d'examiner les rapports 2023 et 2024 sur l'Albanie. Des milliards d'euros: pour quoi faire? Ou plutôt pour faire quoi? Pour financer un régime corrompu, une justice aux ordres et une presse muselée? L'argent des contribuables européens mérite mieux que cela. Et je vais être plus précise: l'argent des Français mérite mieux que cela.

Cessons de financer l'illusion, cessons de financer la corruption et le mépris de la démocratie! Avant de parler d'élargissement, exigeons des résultats, exigeons la transparence!

Φρέντης Μπελέρης (PPE). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, κυρία Επίτροπε, η έκθεση που συζητάμε σήμερα ωραιοποιεί, αντί να παρουσιάζει την πραγματική κατάσταση στην Αλβανία. Θα ήθελα να επισημάνω τα εξής σημεία. Η απογραφή πληθυσμού αμφισβητήθηκε ως προς τη μέθοδο και ως προς τα αποτελέσματα από τις 8 εκ των 9 αναγνωρισμένων εθνικών μειονοτήτων. Η πολυσυζητημένη δικαστική μεταρρύθμιση έχει αποτύχει από τον συνεχή παρεμβατισμό της αλβανικής κυβέρνησης.

Πριν λίγες ώρες, ο Πρέσβης της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης κύριος Gonzato κατήγγειλε άλλη μια παρέμβαση του Αλβανού πρωθυπουργού. Στις τελευταίες εκλογές, οι εκθέσεις των παρατηρητών του ΟΑΣΕ και της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης κάνουν λόγο για πολιτικές πιέσεις σε ψηφοφόρους, χειραγώγηση των μέσων μαζικής ενημέρωσης, παρέμβαση του οργανωμένου εγκλήματος στην εκλογική διαδικασία και ύποπτες πηγές χρηματοδότησης.

Στην Αλβανία μόνο το 50% των περιουσιών έχει επιστραφεί στους νόμιμους δικαιούχους, ενώ στους δήμους της ελληνικής εθνικής μειονότητας μόλις το 20%. Ο νόμος για τον αυτοπροσδιορισμό παραμένει σκοπίμως ανεφάρμοστος. Τέλος, σύμφωνα με το διοικητή της Τράπεζας της Αλβανίας, 4 δις ευρώ κυκλοφορούν εκτός τραπεζικού συστήματος σε μια χώρα με ΑΕΠ μόλις 27 δισεκατομμύρια. Αν συνεχίσουμε να αγνοούμε αυτή την πραγματικότητα, ενισχύουμε τον ευρωσκεπτικισμό. Και αυτό είναι το τελευταίο που χρειάζεται η Αλβανία και η Ευρώπη.

Catch-the-eye procedure

Chiara Gemma (ECR). – Signora Presidente, signora Commissaria, Jean Monnet diceva: ‘l'Europa non cadrà dal cielo, si farà attraverso crisi e sarà la somma delle soluzioni trovate a queste crisi’.

Anche l'Albania, nel suo cammino europeo, affronta sfide complesse, ma ha già dimostrato di volerle trasformare in opportunità di crescita. Ora tocca a noi accompagnarla con coerenza e responsabilità, perché l'allargamento non è un favore: è un investimento sul nostro futuro comune.

Come vicepresidente della delegazione per i rapporti UE-Albania colgo con favore i progressi registrati, ma non posso ignorare le criticità ancora presenti, su cui occorrono passi decisivi e concreti.

Nonostante la persistente polarizzazione politica, il tema dell'adesione resta una priorità condivisa e sentita profondamente dalla società civile e dalla diaspora albanese in Europa.

L'Albania guarda a noi con fiducia. Sta all'Europa rispondere con fermezza e con spirito costruttivo.

Helmut Brandstätter (Renew). – Madam President, Commissioner, following this discussion, I had the impression, but I understand now why it is so difficult to have any conversation with the right-wing extremists. They come out and say, 'If you look at Albania, it's just a gang of drug dealers, and there's only crime'.

Yes, we heard about it. There is crime. There are problems. The media situation is not perfect at all. But on the other hand, there is a strong civil society that wants to develop. On the other hand, there is very strong Russian influence there, which you probably like, but which is very dangerous not only for Albania but is also very dangerous for us. So we have to talk to them. It's a merit-based process, as we heard many times, which is very good, and the Albanians have to prove that they can be part of the European Union.

And one last sentence: when I was in Albania in the early 1990s, many people spoke Italian and they knew a lot about the world because of the Italian media, even in this terrible communist system. And that brings me again to the idea we have to give more information for those societies today who have no information, like Belarus, when nobody of the right-wing people were there, like Russia and other countries. That's also our job in Europe.

Μαρία Ζαχαρία (NI). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, η έκθεση για την Αλβανία αποκρύπτει τη ζοφερή πραγματικότητα που βιώνει ο ελληνισμός της Βόρειας Ηπείρου. Εκτάσεις καταπατώνται, εγκαθίστανται Αλβανοί έποικοι, σπίτια κατεδαφίζονται, όπως στη Χειμάρρα και στον Αυλώνα, δήθεν στο όνομα της τουριστικής ανάπτυξης, με κρατική κάλυψη και σε βάρος των νόμιμων ιδιοκτητών.

Η ελληνική μειονότητα συρρικνώνεται δημογραφικά όχι μόνο λόγω μετανάστευσης, αλλά και λόγω νοθευμένων απογραφών, κατά τις οποίες οι αρχές αποθαρρύνουν ή απορρίπτουν τη δήλωση ελληνικής ταυτότητας. Η χρήση της ελληνικής γλώσσας περιορίζεται αυστηρά, σχολεία κλείνουν, ενώ η διδασκαλία και η πολιτιστική έκφραση εμποδίζονται έξω από τις στενές αναγνωρισμένες … (ακατάληπτες λέξεις, τεχνικό πρόβλημα).

Παραβιάσεις θεμελιωδών δικαιωμάτων τεκμηριώνονται από διεθνείς οργανισμούς. Ο ΟΑΣΕ, η Διεθνής Αμνηστία και η Human Rights Watch αναφέρουν πολιτικές διώξεις, περιορισμό της ελευθερίας του Τύπου, αστυνομική παρακολούθηση και άνιση πρόσβαση στη δικαιοσύνη. Και όμως, το Ευρωπαϊκό Συμβούλιο και η Ύπατη Εκπρόσωπος πανηγύριζαν στο Λουξεμβούργο για τις επιδόσεις της Αλβανίας τον περασμένο Απρίλιο. Η έκθεση αυτή εδώ τώρα τους συγχαίρει. Είναι απαράδεκτο και το καταψηφίζω.

(End of catch-the-eye procedure)

Marta Kos, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, many thanks for your contribution to this debate. We welcome the Parliament's recognition of the significant strides Albania has taken in the right direction in the context of the accession negotiations. At the same time, we count on Albania's government to continue pursuing all the reforms needed to address remaining shortcomings. Tackling this challenge will require strenuous efforts from the Albanian Government, as well as working hand in hand with the opposition in the parliament and civil society at large. Enlargement is a whole-of-society project and full buy-in across Albanian society will be needed to reach Albania's ambitious but realistic goal of closing all negotiating chapters by the end of 2027.

Andreas Schieder, rapporteur. – Madam President, thank you for contributing to this important debate and also thank you, Commissioner, for the work.

There is a huge necessity for reform in front of Albania – I think this is one conclusion we can draw. It is true that the polarisation in the political field is very deep.

But one thing is different to other countries in the Western Balkans: everybody is pro-European in the Albanian Parliament and also in the Albanian society itself. I think this is also the power which can lead to implement all the necessary reforms. This is the power which can lead towards the European Union.

We have to say, the success of these reforms is in the interest of Albania and the Albanian citizens, but it's also in the interest of the European Union and the European citizens. Therefore, it's worth working on this.

Finally, I also want to say that very soon, the European Parliament will open its antenna office, which is responsible not only for Albania in Albania, but will be also a liaison office for implementing all these reforms in the Western Balkan countries. So, this is also an argument which counts for the upcoming debates.

But at the end, all the best also to Albania to keep the speed going on in reforms and in the end, they will be European.

Die Präsidentin. – Die Aussprache ist geschlossen.

Die Abstimmung findet morgen, Mittwoch, 9. Juli 2025, statt.

22. 2023 and 2024 reports on Bosnia and Herzegovina (debate)

Die Präsidentin. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über den Bericht von Ondřej Kolář im Namen des Ausschusses für auswärtige Angelegenheiten über die Berichte 2023 und 2024 der Kommission über Bosnien und Herzegowina (2025/2018(INI)) (A10-0108/2025).

Ondřej Kolář, rapporteur. – Madam President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, the report on the 2023 and 2024 Commission reports on Bosnia and Herzegovina is the first report since the election of this House. Now, the main aim of the report was to show strong support for Bosnia and Herzegovina's accession path. The country is not just some country we don't know much about, but pretend to care about. Bosnia and Herzegovina is a battleground where another struggle for increased Russian influence is currently taking place, so we must be interested. This was in my mind while working on the report.

Now it is symbolic that we are discussing this report during the 30th anniversary of the events in Srebrenica and the signing of the Dayton Peace Agreement, which still today very much affects the functioning of the country. Against the backdrop of commemorative events, we now focus here on the future of the Balkans, which I believe is in Europe and not under Russian domination. The report calls for the implementation of necessary reforms, as well as the fulfilment of 14 key priorities set by the Commission on Bosnia and Herzegovina's membership application. We welcome the opening of accession negotiations with Bosnia and Herzegovina, and also welcome the reform agenda recently presented by the country.

Bosnia and Herzegovina fully aligns with the EU's foreign and security policy, but needs better enforcement. We stress the need to integrate the Balkans into the European family in full awareness of the Russian war in Ukraine and its growing desire to weaken Europe by all means, using not only military but also other hybrid tool,s such as disinformation campaigns supporting proxies of Mr Putin in the region, Russian intelligence operations and hybrid attacks on EU Member States.

In the report, we focus on the growing willingness to divide the country and openly call on the EU and Member States to take actions, including targeted sanctions against all destabilising actors, notably Milorad Dodik, as well as other high ranking Republika Srpska entities and Serbian officials providing political and material support for secessionist policies. We need to understand that there is a risk of rising anti-EU nationalism within and beyond the region. We call for the EU to stay alert and to avoid what I call a Georgia scenario for Bosnia and Herzegovina. Even though 75% of citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina back EU membership, reflecting strong public support, the EU needs to be present there and show its interest in welcoming Bosnia and Herzegovina to its family.

But this is not only about the EU – Bosnia and Herzegovina also needs to fulfil its obligations. We stressed the need to focus on electoral law, which is still discriminatory, constitutional reform and the lack of judiciary independence. Additionally, high-level corruption remains widespread. There is a need to end violence against women, minorities and vulnerable groups. On the EU side, we pledge to continue our support. We need to focus on helping civil society and making Bosnia and Herzegovina a place where young people want to stay and build a better future for the country. Unfortunately, a EUFOR and NATO presence is still crucial for peacekeeping and reform support. All actions that tend to weaken or question the Dayton Agreement jeopardise the existence of the country and can lead to chaos.

Finally, I would like to mention once again that despite many areas requiring further improvement, the European Parliament strongly supports Bosnia and Herzegovina's path to the EU. Bosnia and Herzegovina plays a crucial role in the European Union's enlargement strategy and will become a part of the European family. Bosnia and Herzegovina is in a very difficult situation, and we must find a way to help it achieve full integration into Western structures. Developments in Bosnia and Herzegovina demonstrate every day that we must strive for peace, stability and development, because if we give up, we may – in the worst case scenario – once again face war and destruction.

I would like to thank everyone who has participated in the debate over the report and in its preparation. I would also like to thank my two colleagues, Tineke Strik and António Tânger Corrêa, who joined me on a fact-finding mission in April. During the negotiations, we reached 23 compromise amendments, and I think we've managed to submit an unbiased report. I would like to ask all of you for its support.

Marta Kos, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, dear rapporteur, I wish to thank you, Mr Ondřej Kolář, for your work on the report concerning developments in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

In two days, I will travel to Srebrenica together with the President of the European Council, António Costa, to pay my respects to the victims of the genocide in Srebrenica in its 30th anniversary. What happened in Srebrenica was the culmination of three years of war and ethnic cleansing, with over 100 000 victims across the country.

While remembering the past and our responsibilities, we need to do our utmost to help build a better future, as you have said, for all citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Wounds from the past should not impede building a better future for the next generations to come. Therefore, I truly believe for Bosnia and Herzegovina, the only way forward is EU accession.

Over one year ago, the European Council decided to open accession negotiations with Bosnia and Herzegovina. This was the right call as the future of Bosnia and Herzegovina is in the EU. Yet, the past year has witnessed renewed challenges with the unconstitutional and secessionist legislation and initiatives adopted in the Republika Srpska entity. The EU response has been firm and unequivocal, and domestic institutions such as the Constitutional Court have proven able to step up to the challenge. We expect the Republika Srpska leadership to respect the decision of the Constitutional Court, to repeal the secessionist laws, and to respect the outcome of the ongoing trial in front of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina. This is necessary to de-escalate the situation and return to delivering reforms and advance towards EU accession.

In line with the 24 March decision of the European Council, we expect Bosnia and Herzegovina to take all relevant steps that the Commission identified in 2022, so that the Council may adopt the negotiating framework and we may hold the first intergovernmental conference on accession negotiations. These steps include adopting a new law on the courts and a new law on the High Judicial and Prosecutorial Council, fully in line with European standards, and appointing a chief negotiator. These reforms require all pro-EU political actors to join forces and deliver. The recent signature of the Frontex status agreement illustrates that when there is a will, this is possible.

And there is some positive development also on the field of growth plan. I'm very happy that Bosnia and Herzegovina is finally taking the required action not to lose the opportunity of over EUR 1 billion of investments through the growth plan for the Western Balkans. I welcome the political agreement found in the Council of Ministers ahead of the regional summit in Skopje last week, and I expect the immediate submission of the reform agenda to the Commission so that Bosnia and Herzegovina can benefit of the full amount of the allocated funds. The Commission will assess the content of the reform agenda for agreement, as for all other partners.

Distinguished Members of the European Parliament, progress on the EU path is the best guarantee for the stability and prosperity of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Commission will continue supporting Bosnia and Herzegovina's EU accession perspective as a single, united and sovereign country.

Davor Ivo Stier, u ime kluba PPE. – Poštovana predsjedavajuća, ovog tjedna obilježavamo 30 godina od genocida u Srebrenici. Ove godine obilježavamo i 30 godina od Daytona. I, nemojmo zaboraviti, ove godine obilježavamo i 75 godina od Schumanove deklaracije, od europskog mirovnog projekta kojemu se BiH želi pridružiti. I zato ja apeliram na sve aktere u BiH da donesu zakon o VSTV-u, zakon o sudu BiH, da imenuju glavnog pregovarača kako bi BiH otvorila pristupne pregovore, da predaju reformsku agendu kako bi iskoristili sredstva iz Plana rasta, da se konačno implementiraju presude Europskog suda za ljudska prava i Ustavnog suda Bosne i Hercegovine kako bi svaki građanin mogao birati i biti biran, kako bi svaki narod koji konstituira Bosnu i Hercegovinu mogao biti svoj na svome i birati svoje predstavnike. Jer je Bosna i Hercegovina multikonfesionalna, multinacionalna država, ali ne mora zbog toga biti neuspješna. Ona može biti uspješna, moderna. Može biti i građanska, ali onda mora biti i federalna jer je multinacionalna. Nema tu sukoba između koncepta građanskoga i federalnoga. Oni su zapravo u skladu, oni su komplementarni jer mogu osigurati da Bosna i Hercegovina bude ujedinjena u različitostima. I to je upravo moto Europske unije, gdje Bosna i Hercegovina pripada i gdje vidimo budućnost BiH i zato u potpunosti podržavamo ovo izvješće.

Matjaž Nemec, v imenu skupine S&D. – Gospa predsednica. Kolegice in kolegi, spoštovana komisarka Marta Kos. Včeraj smo se 30. leto zapored poklonili žrtvam genocida v Srebrenici in govorili o tragični preteklosti in pomembnosti sprave v Bosni in Hercegovini, danes pa razpravljamo o njeni prihodnosti.

Prepričan sem, da pot k spravi leži ravno v napredku Bosne in Hercegovine na poti k članstvu Evropske unije. Napredek države v procesu približevanja odraža voljo njenega naroda, ki želi biti del skupnosti evropskih držav, urejenih, mirnih demokratičnih držav Evropske unije. V teh prizadevanjih ji moramo pomagati in podpreti.

Del tega je tudi to, da si ne zatiskamo oči pred resnimi grožnjami. V Bosni in Hercegovini po tridesetih letih spet straši duh nacionalizma in secesionizma. Na čelu pogrebnega sprevoda, ki bi pokopal prizadevanja države, ki se izvija iz krča razkola, stoji en človek, Milorad Dodik.

V luči resne grožnje miru in državnosti Bosne in Hercegovine se moramo postaviti ob bok vsem silam v bosanski družbi, ki se borijo za mir, enakost in sožitje vseh narodov. Unija mora sprejeti sankcije zoper Dodika hitro, odločno in brez sprenevedanja.

António Tânger Corrêa, em nome do Grupo PfE. – Senhora Presidente, Senhora Comissária, em primeiro lugar, gostaria de louvar os esforços do relator Ondřej Kolář que, sem dúvida nenhuma, deu o melhor do seu esforço na elaboração deste relatório. No entanto, não posso deixar de apontar algumas falhas, nomeadamente o tratamento diferenciado que foi feito relativamente à Federação e à República Srpska, a falta de diálogo com os representantes da República Srpska, em contraste com o excessivo diálogo relativamente aos representantes da Federação, nomeadamente os bosníacos. Isto é complicado porque faz com que o relatório não seja perfeitamente isento.

Temos que pensar que a Bósnia tem duas entidades. Essas entidades estão cada vez mais à parte uma da outra e nós corremos o risco, de facto, de ter um país mais dividido hoje do que era há 30 anos. E é muito importante que tenhamos essa noção porque há 30 anos estive em Dayton, fui embaixador na Bósnia e conheci bem o país e conheço bem o país. E nessa altura estava mais perto da União Europeia do que está agora. Há 20 anos estavam mais perto do que estão agora.

Acho isto extremamente grave e acho que tem que haver mais diálogo e tem que haver uma menor demonização da parte sérvia relativamente à parte da Federação, porque ninguém menciona a crescente islamização de parte da Federação, a influência do Irão, da Turquia e do Catar em partes da Federação, o que é tão inaceitável quanto as influências da Rússia e da China na parte da República Srpska. Portanto, temos que ser diplomatas. Temos que fazer o diálogo.

Șerban Dimitrie Sturdza, în numele grupului ECR. – Doamnă președintă, stimată doamnă Kos, stimați colegi, extinderea Uniunii Europene este o prioritate strategică. Bosnia și Herțegovina trebuie să își continue parcursul european în baza progreselor concrete și a respectării criteriilor de aderare. Aderarea nu poate fi un gest simbolic sau un instrument ideologic. Ea trebuie să reflecte reforme reale.

În același timp, trebuie să fim lucizi. Influențele și ingerințele externe în Balcanii de Vest sunt tot mai agresive. Prin sprijin activ pentru integrarea regiunii, Uniunea Europeană își întărește propria securitate și reduce riscurile de destabilizare. Consider că Parlamentul European trebuie să susțină fără echivoc suveranitatea și integritatea teritorială a Bosniei și Herțegovinei, precum și ordinea sa constituțională.

Dar nu putem ignora faptul că lipsa unei voințe politice autentice pentru reforme încetinește acest drum. Bosnia și Herțegovina mai are pași esențiali de făcut, iar Uniunea Europeană trebuie să rămână exigentă, dar corectă în acest proces. Aderarea se câștigă, nu se oferă.

Helmut Brandstätter, im Namen der Renew-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, Frau Kommissarin! Ich werde auf Deutsch sprechen, denn ich wende mich auch an die vielen Menschen aus Bosnien und Herzegowina, die in Österreich leben, von denen ja viele als Flüchtlinge zu uns kommen mussten, bei uns eine Heimat gefunden haben, und die jetzt für mich so wichtig sind, weil sie zurück den Kontakt eben in ihre Heimat, in ihre beiden Heimaten in Europa haben können.

Aber zunächst auch herzlichen Dank an Ondřej Kolář. Vielen Dank für die Zusammenarbeit, für die harte Arbeit, und auch den anderen, den Schattenberichterstattern.

Wie gesagt, Bosnien und Herzegowina und die Bevölkerung, sie gehören auf jeden Fall in ihrer Vielfalt und ihrer Einzigartigkeit zur Europäischen Union. Die EU-Mitgliedschaft ist der einzige Weg, wie wir Bosnien zu Europa bringen können – das ist selbstverständlich. Diese Zukunft ist bedroht und der Name Milorad Dodik ist schon gefallen. Das ist natürlich ganz gefährlich, denn er will zerstören. Er will zerstören, auch im Auftrag, in Zusammenarbeit natürlich mit Russland, mit politischen Interessen, mit China, mit wirtschaftlichen Interessen. Und wir dürfen auch Präsident Vučić nicht vergessen, der auch seine Arbeit darin sieht, das Zusammenleben in Bosnien und Herzegowina zu zerstören.

Aber die EU steht zu ihrer Unterstützung für ein geeintes, stabiles Bosnien und Herzegowina. Die Menschen in Bosnien und Herzegowina verdienen das, und wir werden weiter für sie arbeiten.

Tineke Strik, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, dear Commissioner and also dear rapporteur, because I would like to thank you very much for your cooperation, together with the other shadows.

The adoption of the annual Bosnia report could not come at a more symbolic moment: in a week that we are commemorating Srebrenica, the horrific genocide of 30 years ago that still keeps the country hostage today, deeply dividing the political scene and society.

The Dayton structure after the war was only supposed to be a temporary solution, set up under enormous pressure to stop the atrocities, but over time actually entrenching the deep divide within the country.

As confirmed by the European Court of Human Rights many times, this Dayton structure is not democratic. It is used as a business model nowadays of ethno-nationalistic politicians who fuel tension for power and self-enrichment.

So the international community, especially the EU, must act to help the country overcome division and let Bosnia prosper as an inclusive and real democracy, and of course, as an EU Member State. That is the only way, colleagues, to truly pay tribute to the many victims and survivors of the genocide 30 years ago.

Reinhold Lopatka (PPE). – Madam President, dear colleagues, I want to mention at the beginning that I think we have to see the reality. Bosnia and Herzegovina has only made limited progress in the reform agenda. When we compare this report with other reports from the region, we see there big, big differences.

Yes, on the one side, Bosnia and Herzegovina continues to align with EU foreign and security policy – very important for us that new laws have been adopted on border control and data protection. But we have to see the role of Milorad Dodik. He has initiated unconstitutional actions undermining state laws, and he is always using secessionist rhetoric.

Here we must condemn this in the strongest terms we can, and we have to support the unity of Bosnia and Herzegovina. So here we stand at the crossroads. So we should continue with our support for Bosnia and Herzegovina. But we should also have in mind how Milorad Dodik is acting – as he was acting yesterday, as he is doing it today. And I think he will not change in the future.

Tonino Picula (S&D). – Poštovana predsjedavajuća, gospođo povjerenice, kolegice i kolege, ovog tjedna obilježavamo 30. obljetnicu genocida u Srebrenici. Izražavam duboki pijetet prema žrtvama i njihovim obiteljima. Samo obrana istine o prošlosti otvara šansu za bolju budućnost generacijama koje dolaze, a ta budućnost u Bosni i Hercegovini ostaje neizvjesna. Od internih političkih blokada, prijetnji secesijom, nepoštivanja domaćih i inozemnih presuda, preko presporog napretka na europskom putu do iznimno negativnih demografskih trendova.

Nažalost, dominacija političkih struktura stvorenih još u ratu usporava istinski napredak Bosne i Hercegovine. Hvala izvjestitelju na izvješću u kojem su pokrivene interne raznolikosti u Bosni i Hercegovini, konstitutivni narodi i manjine te potreba poštivanja svih presuda domaćih i međunarodnih sudova. Još jednom su poslane poruke kojima naglašavamo predanost europskoj Bosni i Hercegovini.

Zato trebamo prepoznati i svaki pozitivni iskorak, kao što je usvajanje reformske agende. To je dokaz da, unatoč svim preprekama, postoji kapacitet za napredovanjem. A isto od vlasti traži i većina građana. Bosni i Hercegovini je mjesto u Europskoj uniji. Svaki stvarni pomak na tom putu imat će našu punu podršku.

PRZEWODNICTWO: EWA KOPACZ

Wiceprzewodnicząca

Aleksandar Nikolic (PfE). – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, depuis tout à l'heure, je vous entends parler de la situation en Bosnie, et vous dites que c'est évidemment dans l'intérêt de ce pays d'entrer au sein de l'Union européenne. Mais moi, j'ai envie de vous poser une question: quel est le rôle de l'Union européenne? Quel est l'objectif de l'Union européenne? L'Union européenne, c'est normalement une grande zone qui doit nous servir commercialement, qui doit nous servir à être plus puissants. On l'a vu déjà dans le passé, quand on a incorporé certains pays et que leur niveau de vie ne s'est pas grandement amélioré – le SMIC en Bulgarie est toujours à 500 euros. En Bosnie, le SMIC est à 400 euros, et la question que je me pose est donc la suivante: à force de vouloir incorporer des pays en imaginant qu'ils vont vivre comme chez nous, ne va-t-on pas vivre de plus en plus comme en Bosnie, justement, ou comme dans des pays plus à l'Est que vous voulez encore faire entrer?

La situation en Bosnie, que je connais bien, m'inquiète, évidemment, particulièrement, comme vous tous. Il y a en effet une influence globale du crime organisé et de mafias. En Bosnie, il y a aussi l'influence du Qatar, il y a l'influence saoudienne, il y a l'influence turque. Beaucoup y voient une zone qu'ils veulent asservir. Et moi, je pense que c'est très, très dangereux de faire rentrer la Bosnie au sein de l'Union européenne, avec ce type de pays qui, aujourd'hui, ont une influence réelle, laquelle corrompt beaucoup de personnes. Parce que non, on ne sait pas où va l'argent, et oui, je pense qu'aujourd'hui il y a beaucoup de mafieux qui dirigent la Bosnie.

Stephen Nikola Bartulica (ECR). – Poštovana predsjedavajuća, kolegice i kolege, ove godine obilježavamo više važnih obljetnica. Već je spomenut strašan zločin u Srebrenici, ali imamo i 30 godina Daytonskog sporazuma. Još bih naveo i 30. obljetnicu vojne operacije Oluja u Hrvatskoj, koja je ne samo oslobodila Hrvatsku, nego i omogućila mir u Bosni i Hercegovini. Što se tiče europskih aspiracija te zemlje, rekao bih sljedeće: najbolje jamstvo da ostane Bosna i Hercegovina u zapadnom krugu je ojačati hrvatski narod, koji je već 30 godina pod velikim pritiskom. S jedne strane koncept ‘srpskog sveta’, a s druge strane utjecaj islamskih država koji neumorno ulažu u tu zemlju. Dakle, ima budućnost u Europi, međutim, trebamo biti svjesni da unutar Bosne i Hercegovine hrvatski narod najbolje je jamstvo da ona ostane zaista europska.

Gordan Bosanac (Verts/ALE). – Poštovana predsjedavajuća, a sada nešto drugačije od mog prethodnika. Pozdravljam ovaj izvještaj koji jasno detektira probleme s kojima se BiH i dalje suočava na putu prema Europskoj uniji. Svaki put kad posjetim Bosnu i Hercegovinu, osim iznimnog gostoprimstva, čujem priče ljudi koji žele samo mir, sigurnost i bolji život. I zato razumijem da većina građana želi ulazak u Europsku uniju. Nažalost, taj put stalno zapinje jer političke snage godinama ne žele staviti europski put ispred svojih nacionalističkih i privatnih interesa.

Pozivam da se to promijeni u federaciji, u Republici Srpskoj, u distriktu, u kantonu, u gradu, u svakom selu. Oni će to učiniti samo ako vi, ljudi iz Bosne i Hercegovine, izvršite na njih pritisak. Nemojte im dozvoliti da se kockaju kao što su se kockali sa 100 milijuna eura novca EU-a za rast. Nemojte im dozvoliti da se ne mogu dogovoriti tko pregovara u vaše ime i da izbjegavaju zakone Bosne i Hercegovine. Ovaj parlament čeka zastupnika i zastupnice izabrane i u Bosni i Hercegovini.

Jan-Peter Warnke (NI). – Frau Präsidentin, Frau Kommissarin! Zuerst möchte ich Herrn Kollegen Kolář für seine Arbeit danken. In Teilen unterstütze ich den Bericht, denn er beschreibt auf sehr realistische Weise die tiefgreifenden Probleme und strukturellen Herausforderungen, die mit dem EU-Beitrittsverfahren von Bosnien und Herzegowina verbunden sind. Wenn wir ehrlich debattieren wollen und nicht nur symbolische Gesten pflegen, müssen wir aber Konsequenzen aus dem Bericht ziehen. Gleichzeitig sollten wir genau hinschauen und auch die Stimmen aus der Republika Srpska ernst nehmen, selbst wenn diese nicht mit der gegenwärtigen außenpolitischen russophoben Linie der EU einverstanden sind.

Wir sollten weiterhin offen sein, besonders gegenüber der Jugend, denn sie steht für eine mögliche gemeinsame europäische Zukunft. Aber lassen wir dem Land den Raum, seine staatliche Struktur zu stabilisieren und politische Funktionsfähigkeit herzustellen, bevor wir über konkrete Beitrittsperspektiven weitersprechen. Symbolische Fassaden helfen nicht weiter, sie schaffen nur Enttäuschungen in Brüssel und in Sarajevo. Denn in Potjomkinschen Dörfern kann man nicht leben und schon gar nicht glücklich.

Željana Zovko (PPE). – Poštovana predsjedavajuća, poštovana povjerenice, zahvaljujem izvjestitelju Kolářu koji je jasno prepoznao načelo konstitutivnosti naroda kao temelj institucionalnog uređenja u Bosni i Hercegovini 30 godina nakon potpisivanja Daytonsko-pariškog mirovnog sporazuma. Na početku ove plenarne sjednice izrazili smo duboko poštovanje žrtvama srebreničkog masakra u tjednu kad obilježavamo njegovu 30. obljetnicu. Operacija Oluja, čiju ćemo 30. obljetnicu proslaviti u kolovozu, spriječila je daljnje masakre i dovela pregovarače u Dayton te davne 1995. godine.

Trideset godina nakon, Hrvati, koji su odigrali ključnu ulogu za američke partnere na terenu, nemaju predstavnika u Predsjedništvu Bosne i Hercegovine, koje je uređeno da bude civilni jamac tog istog teško stečenog mira. Ovo izvješće prepoznaje potrebu postizanja političkog dogovora, implementacije presuda Ustavnog suda Bosne i Hercegovine i presuda koje vraćaju mirovni sporazum u njegove okvire. Pozivam na usuglašavanje o reformskoj agendi svih nadležnih tijela kako bi narodima u Bosni i Hercegovini bio dodijeljen novac koji smo ovdje u Europskom parlamentu izglasali za tu namjeru. Ne dopustite da Bosna i Hercegovina ostane siroče vaše nebrige.

André Rougé (PfE). – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, la Bosnie-Herzégovine est un État artificiellement maintenu en vie par les accords de Dayton et au sein duquel seule fonctionne la Republika Srpska. Or, la condamnation du président Dodik par une cour de justice contestée et contestable alimente les tensions centrifuges en Bosnie. Pourtant, il serait illusoire de penser promouvoir sans dégâts un État bosnien unitaire. Son émergence se solderait par une marginalisation des Serbes et contribuerait à l'islamisation croissante de la région. Un tel projet tournerait le dos à la complexité historique des Balkans et créerait les conditions de futurs affrontements.

Le devoir des Européens est de stabiliser les Balkans. Comment? En respectant les accords de Dayton – et donc la République serbe de Bosnie – et en soutenant un dialogue constructif entre Belgrade et Zagreb. Le groupe des Patriotes pour l'Europe demande le respect de ces orientations et des grands équilibres des Balkans, qui sont, en réalité, les seules garanties de la paix au sein de cette région.

Hélder Sousa Silva (PPE). – Senhora Presidente, Senhora Comissária, caros colegas, a União Europeia tem uma responsabilidade direta e estratégica na estabilidade da Bósnia-Herzegovina. O apelo que nos chega é claro. Este é um problema europeu que só a Europa pode e deve resolver. Se não formos nós, fá-lo-ão outros por nós, com interesses na desestabilização da região, como a Rússia ou a China.

Mas palavras não bastam e olhar para o lado e até ignorar a realidade não pode ser opção. Por isso, o progresso nas negociações para a adesão não pode continuar a ser uma arma política daqueles que continuam com tentações seccionistas. Não há alternativa a não ser promover uma reforma constitucional que una em vez de dividir. É na presença da EUFOR Althea, no apoio técnico e financeiro, no combate à corrupção e à interferência externa que a nossa credibilidade é testada no dia a dia.

Sem ações concretas, perderemos credibilidade e, com ela, perdemos a Bósnia-Herzegovina. Por isso, não vamos nunca desistir. Vamos continuar a apoiar a Bósnia-Herzegovina.

Zgłoszenia z sali

Tomislav Sokol (PPE). – Poštovana predsjedavajuća, izvješće o Bosni i Hercegovini kritizira sve izraženije separatističke ideje, kao i koncept ‘srpskog sveta’ koji je suprotan svakom obliku europske integracije, a koji je na terenu, nažalost, postao realnost. Ipak, golemi problem je i bošnjački unitarizam, koji danas predstavlja najveću prijetnju opstojnosti BiH kao države tri ravnopravna naroda.

Priča o građanskoj državi samo je maska za hegemoniju najbrojnijeg naroda i odražava se u daljnjem onemogućavanju hrvatskog naroda da bira svog legitimnog predstavnika u predsjedništvu države. Stoga je bitno da se u izvješću izrijekom potvrđuje načelo konstitutivnosti naroda, koje je temeljni preduvjet dugoročne stabilnosti i funkcionalnosti BiH.

Osim toga, treba istaknuti da posebno zabrinjava porast antisemitizma, osobito u bošnjački većinskim sredinama, zbog kojeg je otkazana i konferencija europskih rabina u Sarajevu. Radikalizacija dijela Bošnjaka sve je veći problem koji ne smijemo ignorirati. U tom kontekstu želim jasno istaknuti da su Hrvati danas jedini konstitutivan narod u BiH koji iskreno, bez fige u džepu, gleda prema zapadu i Europskoj uniji. Zato mu napokon moramo omogućiti punu ravnopravnost.

Sebastian Tynkkynen (ECR). – Madam president, Russia's aggressive interference in the Western Balkans, especially its direct support for Milorad Dodik and secessionist forces in Republika Srpska, is a calculated attack on European unity. The Kremlin's goal is clear: to destabilise Bosnia and Herzegovina through Dodik, fracture the region and undermine the EU's influence. Dodik's frequent meetings with Vladimir Putin, coupled with the adoption of anti-constitutional laws, are not isolated events – they are a hybrid campaign targeting our collective security. We must respond with strength.

The EU cannot turn a blind eye to the Trojan horse of Russian intelligence on European soil. Peace, sovereignty and democracy in the Balkans are not negotiable – they are the bottom line of European values. We need to be stronger to block Russian influence.

Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle (Renew). – Madam President, thank you to the rapporteur and thank you, Madam Commissioner. Nearly 30 years ago, more than 8 000 men and boys were murdered in Srebrenica. The international community, including the Netherlands, failed them. This truth leaves us as Europeans and me as a Dutch politician with a debt of honour, an ereschuld, that's what we say.

Today, I met a genocide survivor. He was 10 when he fled through the forest with his little brother. Six days without food. Dead bodies along the way. Today, he lives back in Srebrenica, but he doesn't have a job – even though he has the right skills to be a history teacher – because he faces institutional discrimination and economic exclusion. I think that in such a way, scars will never heal. They're not allowed to.

So my question to you, Madam Commissioner, is: would you be willing to explore the possibilities within the Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance for specific funding for victims or survivors of this genocide, maybe as part of the growth plan for the Western Balkans?

Sunčana Glavak (PPE). – Poštovana predsjedavajuća, poštovana povjerenice, zahvaljujem prije svega kolegi na ovom izvješću. Trideset je godina od zločina u Srebrenici. Trideset je godina od Daytonskog sporazuma i trideset je godina od veličanstvene ‘Oluje’, oluje mira. Upravo u ovom kontekstu stoga moramo prihvatiti da je europski put Bosne i Hercegovine jedini jamac trajne stabilnosti i razvoja te zemlje.

Osuđujemo stoga zapaljivu retoriku i secesionističke poteze koji ugrožavaju u ovom trenutku stabilnost Bosne i Hercegovine. Iskazana je spremnost otvoriti pregovore čim se ostvari dovoljan napredak. Lopta je u dvorištu Bosne i Hercegovine.

Kao zastupnica iz Hrvatske želim posebno istaknuti da je za napredak BiH nužno osigurati ravnopravnost sva tri konstitutivna naroda i svih građana u duhu Daytonskog sporazuma. Ne smije biti nazadovanja u vladavini prava niti dovođenja u pitanje suvereniteta i teritorijalne cjelovitosti Bosne i Hercegovine. Ključno je provesti izborne reforme kako bi se otklonila diskriminacija i ojačala legitimna politička zastupljenost Hrvata. Pozivam stoga sve aktere u BiH da smanje tenzije, vrate se reformama i nastave put europske integracije.

(Koniec zgłoszeń z sali)

Marta Kos, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, thank you for the opportunity to hear your views and concerns regarding the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina. It has been a valuable exchange, illustrative not just of the challenges on Bosnia and Herzegovina's EU path, but also the clear way forward. This requires de-escalation by the Republika Srpska entity leadership, a clear pro-European orientation of the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the return to delivering on the EU path. This includes adopting pending judicial reforms, appointing a chief negotiator, and submitting – and later implementing – a reform agenda to the Commission for agreement.

So, the Commission will continue to support Bosnia and Herzegovina on its path towards the EU. Synchronised and coordinated communication is key in this regard. By rejecting divisive rhetoric and building bridges of reconciliation, even if this is very, very difficult, especially because of Srebrenica, Bosnia and Herzegovina can progress on its path towards European integration, benefiting generations to come.

And yes, I am ready, together with my services, to check how we could contribute to the possibilities of your idea. I will do this.

Ondřej Kolář, rapporteur. – Madam President, dear Commissioner, you mentioned the commemoration of Srebrenica on Friday. Honestly, I will be there too, but I would be much happier to visit the country on a more cheerful occasion than this one.

Thank you all for your remarks. I think that I won't hurt anyone's feelings when I say that we share a productive approach and that is very, very good. I see also that we share the understanding for the need of judicial and legal reforms for the rule of law. Again, I praise this.

Milorad Dodik was mentioned here and that the report doesn't reflect the needs of the Republika Srpska entity. My answer to this is: I do not intend to negotiate with individuals who have troubles with the law. I'm sorry about that. But it does not mean that I will not talk to anyone from Republika Srpska. I've had meetings with representatives of this entity, simply because I understand the necessity to listen to all the arguments that are on the table. I just have some red lines.

Honestly, one opinion that I heard when I was there in Bosnia is that the majority of those who want to live in the EU have already left the country to live in the EU. That is quite sad. Another opinion that I heard there was that, due to the inability to make an effective move from Dayton to Brussels, as we say, due to which we still keep military contingents in the country, Bosnia and Herzegovina is simply a protectorate. Sorry to say that.

I think that we finally need to get over this. If we don't get over the past, we won't be able to move towards the future. That's true. I've spent half of my life outside of the EU and half of my life inside the EU, and I can tell you that being inside is much better, and I would love to share this experience with other countries, with new countries that will join the EU as well.

I think it is in our best interest, when Russia was mentioned, to share our future with newcomers. But it won't happen by itself. Russia does everything possible to demonstrate that the EU is not the only option, but we must strive to ensure that everyone understand that EU is the best option.

Przewodnicząca. – Zamykam debatę.

Głosowanie odbędzie się jutro, w czwartek 9 lipca 2025 r.

23. 2023 and 2024 reports on North Macedonia (debate)

Przewodnicząca. – Kolejnym punktem porządku dziennego jest sprawozdanie sporządzone przez Thomasa Waitsa w imieniu Komisji Spraw Zagranicznych w sprawie sprawozdań Komisji dotyczących Macedonii Północnej za lata 2023 i 2024 (2025/2021(INI)) (A10-0118/2025).

Thomas Waitz, rapporteur. – Madam President, Commissioner, colleagues, North Macedonia is a fantastic country north of Greece, south of our wonderful Strasbourg here. North Macedonia is a country that came through the Balkan wars of the 90s without massive outbreaks of violence. Even though this country is a very diverse country that is constituted of different peoples, different ethnicities and different religions, still they managed to form a peaceful society.

North Macedonia once was frontrunner, 20 years ago, when they started their accession process, a frontrunner together with Slovenia. Where's Slovenia today? And what happened to North Macedonia? Well, some obstacles were in the way. Obstacles related to history, obstacles related to wars in the last century, obstacles in terms of building good bilateral relations to their neighbours. Good bilateral relations always need to be built from both sides. That is very clear.

EU negotiations have not formally started yet. We could, but they have not formally started yet. Still, the country, as it has 20 years of accession path, has already implemented quite substantial amounts of European acquis. So, if you look at the legislation, they're actually quite well on track. If you look into them being a partner for the European Union, they have been a reliable partner to us. They are sharing our common foreign and security policy 100 %. They have been joining NATO, they have been joining our common efforts that we have in the European Union. And especially today when we see the geostrategic situation, when we see that we Europeans understand that we need to defend our destiny by ourselves, and that we Europeans need to stand together in the light of what globally is happening, especially in this light, I think we should look into speeding up accession process with North Macedonia.

But also, I must say, the report – and I thank my shadow rapporteurs for the good cooperation – covers a full picture of where the country is and some parts we're commemorating; other parts we're still demanding reforms. The report talks a lot about the constitutional amendment that is demanded to start accession talks, constitutional amendment that includes additional minorities into the constitution, also the Bulgarian one. This report talks a lot about hate speech, about hate crime, about a need for prosecution. It talks about the need for rule of law and further developing not just legislation, but really making it felt for citizens. And the report talks about the need to fight corruption. None of our countries is free of corruption. But the question is, do you have institutions that have the ability and the resources to tackle, to fight corruption? This is the main question here.

We're talking about the economic situation that has positive sides, but also downsides and lack of ability to uptake the support that comes from European Union. This is very important that the country invests into professional structures and keeps professional people that have once shown that they can.

This country is full of amazing natural heritage: mountains, lakes, cultural sites, but unfortunately the country is also full of illegal waste deposits and pollution. Yes, there is a bettering of the situation, but still there's a lot to do. We can say that in North Macedonia, civil society still has space to work. And also we see a lot of foreign influence and we have to fight against foreign influence, whether it's Russian, Chinese, Saudi Arabian, Serbian, wherever from – people need to decide upon their own destiny. So we talk about media, also about the need for transparency on the ownership of media. And we talk about the potential this country has.

This report is an important stepping stone towards EU accession, and I hope that many of you tomorrow in the vote will support this report, will support the accession of North Macedonia to the European Union, at least the next step that we can take in a constructive and united and pro-European manner.

Marta Kos, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, dear rapporteur, thank you, dear Thomas Waitz, for your excellent and tireless work on the report on North Macedonia.

I would like to thank the European Parliament for its constant engagement in strengthening democratic processes in North Macedonia. You have a key role to play in encouraging all political forces to work constructively together to advance the country on its EU accession path.

This report is the first one to be adopted in three years. The EU hereby sends a clear message of support to North Macedonia's European path, as well as on conditions necessary for moving forward.

During my discussions with the leaders of North Macedonia in Skopje last week, I reiterated our commitment as the EU to support the country in moving forward in the accession process. I also recalled on several occasions the necessary steps that need to be undertaken to open accession negotiations on the fundamentals cluster. The only way forward is to adopt the constitutional amendment.

North Macedonia has made progress on the opening benchmarks. It submitted updated roadmaps on the rule of law and public administrative reform. They are also continuing work on the action plan on the protection of minorities, which will require the necessary consultations. The documents are currently being reviewed. We encourage North Macedonia to finalise them swiftly.

North Macedonia has also taken a proactive approach concerning the growth plan and was the first country to receive prefinancing under the reform agenda. Efforts should not stop there and the implementation of the reforms will be essential. North Macedonia remains committed to fully aligning with the European common foreign and security policy, underscoring its consistent and long-standing European aspirations.

The report on North Macedonia provides a comprehensive and balanced assessment of the situation in the country, including in key areas such as the rule of law. North Macedonia needs to step up reforms, especially in the area of fundamentals, and should further strengthen the rule of law, in particular the independence of the judiciary and the fight against corruption, and reform its public administration. We also urge North Macedonia to uphold fundamental rights, the freedom of expression and media freedom. Civil society has a key role in fostering and protecting important values.

The accession process is a key driver for crucial reforms. It is therefore important that North Macedonia continues to progress on the accession process, first and foremost, by implementing the constitutional amendments as agreed by the Council. The Government in Skopje has a historical opportunity and responsibility to make a decisive step towards the EU and use the enlargement momentum that is clearly there. We continue to support North Macedonia on its path to the European Union.

Matej Tonin, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Madam President, Madam Commissioner, dear colleagues, North Macedonia has been an EU candidate since 2005, with 20 years of efforts towards membership. During this time, the country has demonstrated real dedication, enacted many important reforms and moved closer to the EU. Yet we must be clear – enlargement must remain a merit-based process. Countries that deliver results and respect democratic values should get a clear and fair EU response. The next step is to adopt the constitutional changes requested by the EU Council in July 2022, including the formal recognition of the Bulgarian community.

I call on all political parties in North Macedonia to engage constructively in this process. This step is not just a technical one; it reflects the European principles of inclusion, respect for diversity and minority rights. Let me also stress that bilateral issues should not block the start of the negotiation process, especially since Member States have the final say. Enlargement is one of the EU's strongest strategic tools. Let us not undermine it because of a historical disagreement. We must focus on the present and find a way forward.

At the same time, we should not forget that enlargement is not simply a political priority – it is a strategic choice. It delivers economic benefits both for existing Member States and for new ones. Therefore, advancing North Macedonia's EU integration is not only in the interest of the country itself, but also in the interest of the European Union as a whole. I cross my fingers that we will have soon North Macedonia as a full member of the European Union.

Thijs Reuten, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Madam President, the EU and Macedonians share the vision for the country's European future.

The very good work of the rapporteur and the negotiations resulted in a comprehensive and balanced report recognising that enlargement decision-making should not be misused to settle bilateral disputes. They require diplomacy based on equal footing.

After everything North Macedonia has gone through – up to changing the name of the country – Macedonians' frustration is understandable. However, another constitutional amendment is necessary.

But we call on the Council to ensure a credible accession path without new conditions for the next step in the accession.

On Macedonian language and identity, let's be short: they exist, and this Parliament respects them.

And for the road ahead, I want to encourage our colleagues in the Sobranie and ourselves to think about what to answer our children and grandchildren when they ask us what we did when we had a chance to change the future of a country and of Europe.

Αφροδίτη Λατινοπούλου, εξ ονόματος της ομάδας PfE. – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, σήμερα θα σας μιλήσω ως Μακεδόνισσα, γιατί είμαι περήφανη Μακεδόνισσα, αληθινή, και όχι μουσαντένια, όπως πλασάρονται οι κάτοικοι των Σκοπίων σήμερα χωρίς να ντρέπονται. Τι ήταν τα Σκόπια; Ένα κομμάτι γης που αιώνες μετά τη μοναδική, την τεράστια, την ελληνική Μακεδονία του Φιλίππου και του Μεγάλου Αλέξανδρου της Ελλάδας, πήγαν κάποιοι Σλάβοι και, αιώνες μετά, απαίτησαν αυθαίρετα να αποκαλούνται Β. Μακ. Συγνώμη, αλλά αυτό το όνομα δεν θα το πω ποτέ.

Όμως, αυτό είναι παραχάραξη της ιστορίας και της πραγματικότητας. Κι όμως, αυτή την απαράδεκτη απαίτησή τους την έκανε πράξη η ελληνική κυβέρνηση των Τσίπρα-Καμμένου. Μια πράξη εθνικής μειοδοσίας που στην ουσία χάριζε γλώσσα, εθνότητα και ιστορία σε σλαβικό φύλο που ήρθε στην περιοχή αιώνες μετά τις χρυσές σελίδες της Μακεδονίας που ουσιαστικά ήταν και είναι ελληνική.

Δυστυχώς, και η σημερινή κυβέρνηση της Νέας Δημοκρατίας, ενώ έλεγε πως, αν της δοθεί η ευκαιρία, θα καταγγείλει αυτή την μειοδοτική συμφωνία, επιμένει να μην το κάνει, ενώ συνειδητά τα Σκόπια ακόμα και αυτή την κατάπτυστη συμφωνία την καταστρατηγούν καθημερινά. Την τιμή της αληθινής Μακεδονίας και της Ελλάδας φτάσαμε στο σημείο να την υπερασπίζονται οι Βούλγαροι που αντιδρούν, και σωστά κάνουν, γιατί γνωρίζουν πως η σημερινή γλώσσα των Σκοπίων είναι βουλγαρική διάλεκτος, όπως και βουλγαρική είναι και η εθνότητα τους.

Εάν θέλουμε λοιπόν ειρήνη και καλές σχέσεις στα Βαλκάνια, η αλήθεια πρέπει να αποκατασταθεί. Αλλιώς, την ένταξή τους στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση δεν θα τη δουν ούτε στον ύπνο τους. Η Μακεδονία είναι μία και είναι ελληνική. Χωνέψτε το.

Ивайло Вълчев, от името на групата ECR. – Г-жо Председател, в тази зала много често говорим за човешки права и за върховенство на закона, но кажете ми в коя държава член на Европейския съюз може да бъде осъден човек за това, че цитира историческа личност? В коя държава може да бъдат нападани хора за техния произход? Коя държава си позволява да потъпква международните договори?

Днес тук, сред нас в залата е господин Любчо Георгиевски и той може да отговори на тези въпроси, защото е достоен българин, който е заплашен с ефективна присъда само защото има смелостта да се нарече българин от Македония. Аз лично искрено вярвам, че пътят на Северна Македония е да бъде част от Европа. Но за да бъдем отново заедно, властта в Северна Македония трябва да изостави своите господари от Белград, от Будапеща и да защитава човешките права, особено на изстрадалата българска общност, както и да спазва ангажиментите, които е поела.

Искам да се обърна към македонското общество – Мицковски ви лъже. Вкарването на българите във всички релевантни части на Конституцията и спазването на договора с България от 2017 г. и преговорната рамка няма да застрашат вашата идентичност. Всяко забавяне на реформите, с които ще започнете преговорите за членство, обаче ще направи точно това.

Dan Barna, on behalf of the Renew Group. – Madam President, Madam Commissioner, well, listening to the previous two interventions, this has not been an easy file. It was marked by some controversy, sensitive issues, and of course, the always-in-fashion misinformation.

Nevertheless, the fact that we finally have a report after three years is a major step forward. I congratulate the rapporteur and the other fellow shadows for their resilience in the face of an obvious smear campaign, and I praise the negotiation process, which is the essence of politics.

The European Parliament is not in the business of qualifying or quantifying core national issues. Our report is here to assess North Macedonia's path to becoming an EU member: reforms and steps forward, but also areas where the country needs to pick up the pace.

My message today is one of hope. Our past determines our present. And our present determines our future. This is the path towards progress. I hope that all actors will – at some point – act wiser and responsibly and recognise enlargement for what it is: a strategic imperative benefiting our nations and the entire continent.

Κωνσταντίνος Αρβανίτης, εξ ονόματος της ομάδας The Left. – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, σας ευχαριστούμε πάρα πολύ για τη συνεργασία, γι' αυτή την πολύ ωραία δουλειά και θα έρθω στο θέμα. Συζητάμε σήμερα την έκθεση για την ενταξιακή πορεία της Βόρειας Μακεδονίας, που είναι από μόνο του μια ευπρόσδεκτη καλή είδηση, καθώς η προηγούμενη έκθεση δεν έφτασε ποτέ στην Ολομέλεια.

Η ένταξη της γείτονος στην Ένωση περνά αποκλειστικά, σημειώνω, από τη Συμφωνία των Πρεσπών. Είναι διεθνής συμφωνία, χωρίς αστερίσκους, γλωσσικά παιχνίδια και τυχοδιωκτικά ροκανίσματα της διεθνούς συμφωνίας. Η ένταξη όλων όσων επιθυμούν να έχουν ευρωπαϊκή προοπτική περνά μέσα από την εκπλήρωση των κριτηρίων της Κοπεγχάγης. Χωρίς διπλά μέτρα και σταθμά, χωρίς κρυφές ατζέντες και πάντα με βάση τα συμφέροντα των λαών της Ευρώπης και της γειτονιάς μας.

Εμείς θα υπενθυμίζουμε πάντα πόσο η ιστορική στιγμή ήταν αυτή η συμφωνία της Ελλάδας και της Βόρειας Μακεδονίας με τις υπογραφές του Τσίπρα και Ζάεφ. Είμαστε απαρέγκλιτα υπέρ της ενταξιακής πορείας της Βόρειας Μακεδονίας και των δυτικών Βαλκανίων, υπό την προϋπόθεση του σεβασμού στο ευρωπαϊκό κεκτημένο. Καλώ, λοιπόν, την Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή να δείξει τον ίδιο ζήλο και για τα Δυτικά Βαλκάνια, όπως δείχνει για την Ανατολική Ευρώπη.

Станислав Стоянов, от името на групата ESN. – Г-жо Председател, процесът по съставянето на годишния доклад за Република Северна Македония беше белязан от сериозни нарушения, теч на вътрешна информация, индикации за външна намеса и пренебрегване на правилата на Европейския парламент.

Още преди да стане член на Европейския съюз, властта в Скопие вече оказва натиск, погазвайки етичните норми и процедурите на Парламента. Това компрометира работата му и не може да остане без отговор. Независимо от изхода на вота, утре ще настояваме разследването на тези нарушения да бъде доведено до край. Не можем да допуснем подобна намеса в полза на трети страни и догодина. Докладът ще остане в историята и с нещо друго. За първи път Европейският парламент прави опит да признава нечия идентичност и език. Това не е в неговите правомощия и представлява опасен прецедент.

И най-важното, в България и в Северна Македония живее един народ, който говори един език – български. Над 216 хиляди граждани на Северна Македония, около 12% от населението са доказали с документи български произход и на тази основа са получили българско гражданство, а броят им продължава да расте. Един народ сме.

Андрей Ковачев (PPE). – Г-жо Председател, изстрадалите граждани на Република Северна Македония чакат заслуженото си европейско бъдеще вече повече от две десетилетия. Но явно политиците в Скопие не бързат и системно саботират този процес. Вместо реформи и истински напредък виждаме популизъм, националистическа риторика и удобно представяне на България като враг, заради който не върви европейската интеграция на страната.

Тази политика води и до директни репресии срещу хората, запазили българското си самосъзнание, наследници на мнозинството македонски българи. Те са подложени на натиск, дискриминация и открити заплахи, както е случаят с г-н Георгиевски, един от най-изявените представители на българската общност там, който е днес тук в залата. Европейският съюз не може да си затваря очите за това. Трябва да спре погазването на правата на собствените граждани заради тяхната етническа принадлежност, а споделянето на истината за историята не трябва да води до съдебни разправи.

Управляващите в Скопие искат гаранции, че няма да имат други условия, ако изпълнят поетите вече от тях ангажименти.

Dear colleagues, the biggest guarantee for the Republic of North Macedonia is the fulfilment of the Council conclusions adopted in 2022 and the negotiation framework. They ask the rulers there for more. And they got the firm position of Bulgaria, adopted unanimously by the Bulgarian Parliament, that there are not – and will not be further in the future – other conditions than those mentioned above.

My urgent call to the political elite of this beautiful country is: don't waste more time for your citizens and start the negotiation process immediately. We will support you and we will warmly welcome you in the European Union. Dear politicians from North Macedonia, the destiny of your citizens is in your hands. Don't look around to find enemies and excuse your counterproductive actions by them.

И накрая искам да изразя една голяма надежда. Дано час по-скоро изгрее зората на свободата и европейската иднина на Македония.

Andreas Schieder (S&D). – Madam President, it's been a long time since my first meetings and visit to Macedonia, or FYROM in those days, as it had to be called.

Since those days, I have seen politicians in the country, some which were terribly corrupt and fled the country, but also others which beat the high effort to solving the problems in order to have a better future for the country, going beyond the line for a better future.

Therefore, I would say that it is also important nowadays to have such politicians and for my colleagues also in the ruling party and the Government in North Macedonia to adopt the necessary steps in order to get the negotiations for the European Union membership.

But I also call on the Bulgarian politicians to understand that an accession of North Macedonia is in the interest not only of North Macedonia, but especially also for Bulgaria. Therefore, they should work together and not try to block the accession of North Macedonia.

Șerban Dimitrie Sturdza (ECR). – Doamnă președintă, stimată doamnă comisar, stimați colegi, votul nostru privind dosarul Macedoniei de Nord reprezintă mai mult decât un pur exercițiu legislativ. Este un semnal politic.

Uniunea Europeană are nevoie de extindere pentru a rămâne relevantă și stabilă într-o lume în schimbare, iar Macedonia de Nord are nevoie de noi, de un semnal clar că drumul european îi rămâne deschis atunci când va finaliza reformele constituționale la care s-a angajat.

Această țară a făcut pași curajoși, chiar dureroși, aș spune, pentru a-și continua parcursul de aderare europeană. Dacă nu le recunoaștem acest efort, riscăm să pierdem încrederea cetățenilor și a clasei politice de acolo și, chiar mai grav, riscăm să lăsăm loc influențelor străine tot mai agresive din afara Europei.

Aderarea europeană trebuie să reflecte reforme reale. Să ne amintim că extinderea nu trebuie să fie un teren al disputelor, ci o dovadă că Europa își respectă cuvântul. Locul Macedoniei de Nord este în marea noastră familie europeană.

Христо Петров (Renew). – Аз съм един българин. Бил съм много пъти в Македония, много преди тя да приеме името Северна Македония. Нека моите приятели в Скопие, в Битоля, в Охрид, в Струмица знаят същото, което знаят моите приятели в София, в Пловдив, във Варна, Бургас, Благоевград.

В политиката има хора, които са там, за да направят нещо добро, а има и такива, които са там, защото няма къде другаде да отидат. От всички нас зависи на кого от тях позволяваме да ни представлява, дали на тия, които градят европейското ни бъдеще заедно или на тия, които измислят минало, в което сме били отделно.

Интелигентните хора в Северна Македония заслужават да бъдат част от Европейския съюз, а политиците, които се хранят с омраза, заслужават да бъдат оставени да гладуват.

Волгин Петър (ESN). – Република Северна Македония категорично не отговаря на условията за започване на преговори за членство в Европейския съюз. Правата на малцинствата в тази държава не се спазват. Представители на българското малцинство са подложени на съдебни и извънсъдебни преследвания, а престъпленията срещу българите често остават или ненаказани, или наказанията са символични.

Като добавим към това и наглите кражби на българската история и българското културно наследство от страна на управляващите в Скопие, става ясно защо тази държава не заслужава членство в Евросъюза. Защо тогава висши еврофункционери толкова много настояват Скопие да започне преговори за членство?

Причината е същата, поради която на България беше заповядано да стане член на еврозоната. Евроначалниците искат да покажат, че техните организации са все още желани, че независимо от всички кризи, разтърсващи ЕС, има държави, които жадуват да са част от него. Само че да си затваряш очите пред очевидни нарушения на европейските правила от страна на кандидат членки не е рецепта за добруването на един съюз, а е доказателство за неговия упадък.

Μαρία Ζαχαρία (NI). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, η συμφωνία των Πρεσπών είναι μια άκυρη συμφωνία, εργαλείο γεωπολιτικών συμφερόντων και αλυτρωτισμού. Ένα προϊόν εξαναγκασμού και πολιτικής χειραγώγησης που υπαγορεύτηκε από την κυβέρνηση Trump στην τότε κυβέρνηση Τσίπρα και επιβλήθηκε χωρίς δημοκρατική νομιμοποίηση, με εξαγορά βουλευτών και εκβιασμούς, τόσο στην Ελλάδα όσο και στη γειτονική χώρα.

Στηρίζεται σε πλαστή ιστορία, που οι ηγέτες των Σκοπίων για δεκαετίες έχτιζαν μια ψεύτικη εθνική ταυτότητα των δήθεν απογόνων των αρχαίων Μακεδόνων, για να ενώσουν με αυτόν τον τρόπο τις τόσο διαφορετικές εθνικές ταυτότητες των ανθρώπων που ζούσαν στην περιοχή: Τούρκοι, Σέρβοι, Σλάβοι, Αλβανοί, Ρομ, Έλληνες, Βούλγαροι. Ούτε μακεδονική ταυτότητα, ούτε μακεδονική εθνικότητα υπήρξε ποτέ στην αρχαία ρωμαϊκή Scupi ή στη γιουγκοσλαβική επαρχία Vardarska του προηγούμενου αιώνα. Ο ελληνικός λαός ποτέ δεν ρωτήθηκε για να αποδεχτεί την ψευτο-Μακεδονία. Ποτέ δεν θα αποδεχτούμε την εσκεμμένη παραχάραξη της ιστορίας μας.

Η απαράδεκτη αναφορά στην έκθεση ότι πρόκειται για μοντέλο επίλυσης διαφορών είναι προσβολή για την ιστορική αλήθεια και την καταψηφίζω. Η Μακεδονία είναι ελληνική.

Željana Zovko (PPE). – Madam President, 21 years ago, at Mostar airport, I was waiting for President Trajkovski. His plane never arrived; he crashed, along with all his cabinet – people I knew. He was a great man, a man of peace, a man of reconciliation. He made the awkward agreements. And he was the man who brought peace in Macedonia at the time. I remember him from the conferences we used to attend together, and everything he suggested was bringing peace in the Western Balkans.

Mostar, my home town since then, has a special memory and close ties with Macedonian people. Enlargement is a merit-based process that must firmly enforce respect for the fundamental values of the European Union, while at the same time acknowledging the progress made, on the part of the EU.

North Macedonia has undertaken substantial reforms to advance towards European integration. Over the last two years, North Macedonia has maintained its full alignment with the EU common foreign and security policy, and participated in EU military crisis management operations, including EUFOR Althea in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

North Macedonia needs to make progress in respect of the rights of minorities, including the protection of minority languages. They will do that, I'm sure. Unfortunately, some Member States do not uphold the respect due to North Macedonia. I wish North Macedonia well on its path to the EU. I wish this country finds friends like us.

Кристиан Вигенин (S&D). – Госпожо Председател, имам само минута, за да кажа три неща:

На гражданите на Северна Македония: България иска страната ви да бъде член на Европейския съюз. Каквото и да ви говорят, в лицето на българите, а и на българските евродепутати, вие имате приятели.

На управляващите в Скопие: престанете да създавате паралелна реалност в страната си, да търсите оправдания и извинения. Стигнахте дотам да обвинявате Европейския съюз, че не е демократичен. Инвестирайте усилия в нашето общо европейско бъдеще, вместо да създавате противоречия по отношение на нашето общо минало. Фактите от миналото няма как да заличите, но можем да създаваме заедно фактите на европейското ни бъдеще. Променете Конституцията, спазвайте правата на българите, приемете ги наравно с представителите на другите народи и дайте шанс на добросъседството.

На моите колеги тук: докладът, който обсъждаме днес, създаде много напрежение и конфликти. Накрая никой няма да помни какво пише в него, ще останат само коментарите и скандалите. Затова в бъдеще трябва да се подхожда по-внимателно, по-прозрачно и Европарламентът да не отваря въпроси, които не може да реши.

И накрая, правата на човека са винаги пред скоба и с тях не може да се прави политическа търговия по никакъв повод. Кураж, г-н Георгиевски!

Irena Joveva (Renew). – Gospa predsednica! Dobro me poslušajte, kolegice in kolegi. To poročilo je poročilo o evropski poti ene države kandidatke. Poti, posuti s čisto preveč trnja, poti naroda, ki je bil tolikokrat ponižan in nalagan, pa je še vedno boljši od marsikaterega znotraj Unije. Vsa čast izjemam.

To poročilo ni poročilo o pravici do obstoja makedonskega naroda, makedonskega jezika ali makedonske identitete. Čeprav me ta del besedila v poročilu seveda ne moti; podpiram ga in ne bom glasovala za njegov izbris, moram kljub temu biti fer in makedonskemu narodu sporočiti: vem, da boli. Mene osebno tudi. Ampak ne pristajajte na narativ politike, ki bo govoril, da vam je Evropski parlament s tem odvzel identiteto ali jezik. Ker ni res.

Tistim, ki govorite ravno to, ker si želite vse razen pravičnosti, pa sporočam: makedonski jezik je avtentičen. Vaši poskusi so moderna fikcija. Identiteta, ki je preživela stoletja, ne bo izginila zaradi enega glasovanja ali vašega lobiranja.

(Govori v jeziku, ki ni uradni jezik EU).

Liudas Mažylis (PPE). – Pirmininke, Komisijos nare, kolegos. Jau prieš du dešimtmečius Šiaurės Makedonija ėmėsi ryžtingų institucinių reformų, gavo kandidatės statusą, tačiau integracijos procesas vilkinamas neadekvačiai ilgai. Europos Sąjunga, deklaruojanti, kad plėtra naudinga visiems, lemiamais momentais elgdavosi dviprasmiškai. Šiandienos geopolitinėje realybėje delsimas priimti strateginius sprendimus yra dovanėlė Kremliaus propagandai ir provakarietiškų nuostatų regione silpninimas. Šiaurės Makedonija ne kartą parodė ištikimybę Europos vertybėms – dalyvauja Europos Sąjungos misijose, koordinuoja su Bendrija savo užsienio ir saugumo politiką. Ji yra tarp labiausiai pažengusių kandidačių. Ilgi svarstymai apie poreikį gilioms vidinėms Europos Sąjungos reformoms, kaip plėtros sąlyga, neturi stabdyti procesų. Tad gal pagaliau įvardinkite ir datą – kodėl ne, pavyzdžiui, 2027-ieji? O jeigu ne, tai kada?

Илия Лазаров (PPE). – Г-жо Председател, в един доклад за напредъка на която и да е страна кандидат няма място да се говори за идентичност и език. Още повече, че Република Северна Македония е мултиетническа държава, в която освен хора, които се идентифицират като македонци, има албанци, турци, сърби, хървати и особено българи, които са потиснати от управляващите.

Задачата на подобен доклад е да говорим за напредъка в изпълнението на критериите от Копенхаген и поетите ангажименти, както и за спазването на правата на човека. А кой какъв се чувства и на какъв език говори си е негово право, но това няма място в този доклад, тъй като поражда напрежение и разделение, и нарушава неговия функционален интегритет.

Zgłoszenia z sali

Marion Walsmann (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin, sehr geehrte Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Seit zwei Jahrzehnten strebt Nordmazedonien den EU-Beitritt an – mit Ausdauer, Reformwillen und klarer Unterstützung der Bevölkerung. Trotz Herausforderungen hat das Land beeindruckende Fortschritte gezeigt. Und doch, der Beitrittsprozess stockt. Bilaterale Streitigkeiten blockieren seit Jahren den Weg. Das untergräbt das Vertrauen in Nordmazedonien und in die Glaubwürdigkeit des Integrationsprozesses der EU. Ja, weitere Reformen sind nötig. Ich kenne die Schwierigkeiten vor Ort, aber sie dürfen kein Vorwand sein, den Beitritt ewig hinauszuzögern. Es ist an der Zeit, das Vertrauen in die EU und ihre Werte zu stärken, indem wir Nordmazedonien endlich auch die Perspektive bieten, die es verdient. Ich unterstütze den Bericht meines Kollegen daher ausdrücklich. Der Europäische Rat muss ein klares Signal senden für den zügigen Beginn der nächsten Verhandlungsphase mit voller Achtung der mazedonischen Sprache und Identität. Auch die EU-Kommission soll Nordmazedonien beim Erreichen der nächsten Schritte aktiv unterstützen.

Γεάδης Γεάδη (ECR). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, από τη νοτιότερη εσχατιά του Ελληνισμού, την Κύπρο, οφείλω να καταδικάσω την κατάπτυστη συμφωνία των Πρεσπών που καταστρατήγησε κάθε έννοια δημοκρατίας, αφού δεν είχε καμία νομιμοποίηση από τον ελληνικό λαό. Ταυτόχρονα, οφείλω να καταγγείλω τις αναφορές στο ψήφισμα σε μακεδονικό λαό, κοινωνία και γλώσσα, να καταγγείλω κάθε προσπάθεια δημιουργίας ψευτο-μακεδονικής εθνικής ταυτότητας.

Κυρίες και κύριοι, τα έθνη δεν είναι κοινωνικά κατασκευάσματα όπως είπε ο Gellner, αλλά, όπως είπε πολλούς αιώνες προηγουμένως ο Ηρόδοτος, καθορίζονται από το όμαιμον, το ομόγλωσσον, το ομόθρησκον και το ομότροπον. Ο σφετερισμός της ελληνικής ονομασίας και της ιστορίας, αλλά και ο σφετερισμός της βουλγαρικής γλώσσας δεν μπορεί να οδηγήσει σε παρθενογένεση έθνους.

Κυρίες και κύριοι, η Μακεδονία ήταν, είναι και θα είναι μία και ελληνική. Κλείνοντας, απευθύνομαι στους Γάλλους συναδέλφους. Πώς θα αισθανόσασταν αν μία γειτονική χώρα σφετεριζόταν την ιστορία και τη γλώσσα σας, ενώ αποκαλούσε τον Ναπολέοντα Βοναπάρτη δικό της εθνικό ήρωα και το δίδασκαν στα σχολεία; Αυτό ακριβώς ζούμε εμείς οι Έλληνες με τον Μέγα Αλέξανδρο.

Никола Минчев (Renew). – Г-жо Председател, България подкрепя пълноправното членство на Република Северна Македония в Европейския съюз и има дълга история на подкрепа. Първи признахме нейната независимост, имаме декларация и договор за добросъседство, изпращали сме и военна помощ. Бяхме сред първите ратифицирали протокола за присъединяване на Северна Македония към НАТО.

В същото време ние сме обезпокоени. Обезпокоени сме, че вместо да се фокусира върху изпълнението на ангажиментите си по френското предложение, включително защита правата на българското малцинство, настоящото правителство на Република Северна Македония поставя сериозен акцент в своята политика на антибългарската реторика и действия, както виждаме и от присъдата срещу Любчо Георгиевски, когото имаме днес удоволствието да посрещнем в Европейския парламент. Очевидно настоящото правителство в Северна Македония не търси напредък в европейската интеграция, а удобно извинение да остави нещата в застой.

Аз се радвам, че с много труд, усилия и разговори стигнахме до разбирателство тук по съдържанието на доклада, за което благодаря на всички участници в тези разговори и се надявам, че това ще се прояви утре в гласуването. Трябва да потвърдим, че докладът следва рамката на френското предложение и решението на Европейския съвет, а когато това бъде изпълнено, с удоволствие ще приемем Северна Македония в Обединена Европа.

Gordan Bosanac (Verts/ALE). – Poštovana predsjedavajuća, javio sam se za riječ samo zato što sam čuo opet jako puno bilateralnih nesporazuma između Sjeverne Makedonije, Grčke i Bugarske i sjetio sam se epizode koju je moja zemlja, Hrvatska, prošla na pridruženju Europskoj uniji kada je Slovenija blokirala Hrvatsku. Danas, evo, povjerenica Kos je iz Slovenije i ja sam iz Hrvatske, mislim da oboje možemo otići na neko bezalkoholno piće i dobro se nasmijati toj situaciji jer ono što je izgledalo nepremostivo bilo je pitanje granice, a postalo je, evo, nekoliko godina kasnije potpuno besmisleno.

Da ne bude zabune, pitanje se nije riješilo. Dakle, i dalje povjerenica Kos misli možda da je crta na jednoj strani zaljeva, ja mislim da je na drugoj strani zaljeva. Ali to je nebitno zato što danas građani Slovenije i Hrvatske, ribari iz Slovenije i Hrvatske žive puno bolje nego što je to bilo prije nego što je Hrvatska bila u Europskoj uniji. I zato bih apelirao na sve da spustite loptu, smirite doživljaj i probajte da uđemo svi u Europsku uniju i da se onda riješe bilateralna pitanja, da ih se ne stavlja ovdje kao prepreke.

Branislav Ondruš (NI). – Madam President, I want to thank Thomas, first of all, for his very good job. Thank you, Thomas, for the report. I think the report is very good and is mirroring the real situation and is very balanced, and I want to thank Thomas for that.

Secondly, I want to condemn attempts to humiliate the Macedonian nation. Sorry, colleagues, but if you say Macedonia is Greek, Macedonia is Bulgarian or anything else, it is absolutely not credible to me and to many others.

I want to warn you of the eruption of nationalism and misusing the accession process. Sorry, Mr Valchev, Mr Kovatchev, Mr Volgin, in all EU countries, people praising Nazis, collaborators with Hitler and Himmler, people working on establishment of SS troops should be punished by state institutions. Those who name clubs after Nazis should be in prison, not in government.

Please, colleagues, stop abusing the accession process to ventilate unquenched nationalism.

Sebastian Tynkkynen (ECR). – Madam President, free speech must remain the bedrock of any democratic society, including those aspiring to join our Union. But we must also recognise the clear and present danger of foreign interference.

In North Macedonia, coordinated malign influence campaigns by hostile third countries are actively undermining trust towards institutions, polarising society and targeting electoral integrity. This is strategic manipulation.

North Macedonia must continue to bolster their cybersecurity, strengthening media literacy and building public resilience. By defending truth and transparency, North Macedonia would not only help their people, but the whole European security.

(Koniec zgłoszeń z sali)

Marta Kos, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, dear rapporteur Thomas Waitz, many thanks for this debate.

We will continue to work and support North Macedonia in its accession process and stand ready to move it forward.

We count on North Macedonia to take the necessary steps to complete the opening phase of accession and to maintain efforts at the technical level, notably on the fundamentals.

I count on the support of this House to remain engaged. North Macedonia belongs in the European Union.

Thomas Waitz, rapporteur. – Madam President, Commissioner, thank you, colleagues, for your contributions.

Just to make one thing clear, this is a report of the European Parliament on the state of accession of an accession country called North Macedonia. This is what it should talk about and this is what we tried, together with my shadow rapporteurs, to portray in this report, with the good and the needed reforms, with the progress and the still-to-do's.

I am doing this and I think most of us are doing this for the citizens. For the citizens of North Macedonia, for the citizens of Bulgaria, of Greece, of all our European Union.

Let me say one thing as an Austrian: the European Union is built on leaving our past behind. Yes, we reconcile. Yes, we apologise. Yes, we acknowledge the atrocities that have happened in the last century. But we leave history with this behind and we join forces to build our common future.

This is what Germany and France managed, and this is what Austria managed with its neighbours Slovenia, Hungary and the Czech Republic. We were overcoming history and we joined forces for the common good, for our citizens, for our European Union, for the destiny of our societies.

This is what European Union is about, this is what accession is about and this is also what this report aims to be about. I hope that you will vote in favour tomorrow. Thank you for the good cooperation and thanks for everything.

Przewodnicząca. – Zamykam debatę.

Głosowanie odbędzię się w środę 9 lipca 2025 r.

24. 2023 and 2024 reports on Georgia (debate)

Przewodnicząca. – Kolejnym punktem porządku dziennego jest sprawozdanie sporządzone przez Rasę Juknevičienė w imieniu Komisji Spraw Zagranicznych w sprawie sprawozdań Komisji dotyczących Gruzji za lata 2023 i 2024 (2025/2024(INI)) (A10-0110/2025).

Rasa Juknevičienė, rapporteur. – Madam President, dear colleagues, it is a very sad, but probably fitting coincidence that we are discussing the situation in Georgia on the same evening as the debate on Belarus.

Who would have thought that Georgia – once the flag bearer of democracy, not only in the region, but among all Eastern Partnership countries – would turn into a Lukashenka-style autocracy? That today we would be speaking not only about Belarusians in Lukashenka's prisons, but also Georgians in Bidzina Ivanishvili's prisons?

I would like to thank all the pro-European political groups in the European Parliament and their appointed shadow rapporteurs for the excellent cooperation.

The attacks by representatives of the Ivanishvili regime against Members of the European Parliament – even EU ambassadors – have only strengthened our common position. We understand that these statements do not reflect the views of the Georgian people. We see their struggle and we recognise their clear desire to continue on the path towards EU membership.

As the situation has worsened since the AFET vote, new amendments by pro-European parties have been prepared, which I recommend we support.

The main proposed changes include: updating the text to reflect the most serious recent developments, specifically the detention and politically motivated sentencing of almost all main opposition leaders and the legal persecution of prominent civil society organisations; and updating our position on the upcoming municipal elections, as due to the imprisonment of the key opposition leaders, these elections cannot be considered free and fair.

There will also be two oral amendments. I propose we support both.

One relates to the worsening health of Mzia Amaglobeli, an imprisoned journalist whose condition is rapidly deteriorating. She is losing her eyesight, has been denied proper medical care and remains behind bars for political reasons.

Another amendment strengthens the language around the review of the EU-Georgia Association Agreement. It calls for immediate action as Georgia has clearly breached core democratic principles.

I want to emphasise: the full responsibility for the possible suspension of Georgia's visa-free regime lies with Ivanishvili and his party. Visa-free travel is granted to democratic countries, not to regimes that imprison citizens for political reasons.

Georgia matters to all Europe. The regime falsely claims that no one cares about the Georgian people. That is why their friends in the Kremlin and the far right, like ESN, have proposed amendments opposing Georgia's accession to the EU. No, we will not vote for that.

The Georgian people, who have been fighting for a European Georgia for over 200 days, are true European heroes. They deserve our full respect and unwavering support.

Marta Kos, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, I would like to express my gratitude to the rapporteur, Rasa Juknevičienė. Thank you, dear Rasa, for your dedication and outstanding work on the report. And thank you to all Members of the European Parliament for your dedication to upholding democratic values and safeguarding Georgia's European future.

Let me be clear: what we are witnessing in Georgia is far from anything we expect from a candidate country. Georgia's democratic foundations are being eroded by the day. The Georgian Dream regime has launched its most dramatic crackdown yet on the country's pro-EU opposition and civil society. A number of opposition leaders have been jailed over the past weeks. Civil society and independent media are facing continued attacks. The authorities continue rolling out new repressive legislation without due public consultations. The authorities' repressive actions run contrary to EU values and principles.

As rightly pointed out in your report, the EU has an important role to play in providing a lifeline to Georgia's civil society and independent media. Since the start of the crisis, the Commission has already considerably stepped up efforts and is currently implementing projects supporting civil society organisations that amount to over EUR 46 million. Additional funding of EUR 32 million will be made available shortly following adoption by the Member States.

We have a serious challenge in how to ensure finances for the civil society organisations to avoid further repression by the Georgian Government. The latest repressive laws, notably the Foreign Agents Registration Act and the amendments to the Law on Grants and to the Law on Broadcasting, will have a negative impact on our ability to deliver EU financial assistance. But let me be clear: we are committed to finding the best ways for our support to reach Georgian civil society and media without endangering their safety.

You also know the disinformation campaigns and narratives against the EU and its Member States. These attacks are simply not acceptable. In order to combat this disinformation, we are stepping up our communication efforts. An additional EUR 7 million is set to be contracted by this autumn upon approval by the Member States. These funds will be used to improve the Georgian public's understanding of the EU and its integration path, and to enhance citizens' access to accurate, diversified and credible information.

The people of Georgia are overwhelmingly in favour of a European future for their country. We must continue working together and show the Georgian people that we stand with them. Next week, the Foreign Affairs Council will discuss the situation in Georgia, including possible next actions to address the Georgian Dream government's repressive action and all responsible for violence and human rights violations.

All options should remain on the table to respond to the current backsliding on democratic standards, while keeping a possibility for engagement in interest-based policies beyond the enlargement framework, including in the context of the Black Sea strategy and regional connectivity.

Ondřej Kolář, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Madam President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, I will be a little bit critical now.

During the debate about Bosnia and Herzegovina, I said that we need to do everything to make sure that we oppose Russia when it tells countries aiming for EU accession that the EU is not an option. I said that we must show that the EU is the best option. I am afraid we failed to do this in Georgia.

Look at the outcomes of the elections. When Georgian Dream won, the only high-ranking representative of the EU who visited Georgia was, unfortunately, Viktor Orbán, a Trojan horse of Russia inside the EU who opposes our efforts to enlarge the EU. There were no high-ranking EU officials who would travel to Tbilisi to stand beside President Salomé Zourabichvili to support her and the demonstrations that were taking part in the streets.

Rasa Juknevičienė, who I am very grateful for her honesty in this report, was the only one to represent the European Parliament, or with a small group of MEPs. I think we need to change this approach. If we really want to do what we mean and what we say in our resolutions, we need to take action.

Tobias Cremer, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Madam President, dear colleagues, if you are looking for a definition for democratic backsliding, you can forget the dictionary; you can just look at what Georgian Dream has been doing to its own population over the last few years.

Not long ago, Georgia was a beacon of hope on the Caucasus, but what we are seeing today are foreign agent laws, rigged elections, brutal crackdowns on peaceful protesters. Georgian Dream is applying the Russian playbook of intimidation, disinformation, manipulation to the letter. Let's be absolutely clear: this is not a distant or abstract problem, but a direct challenge to Europe itself and a real living nightmare for the people of Georgia, for the journalists thrown into jail, for the opposition leaders beaten in the streets, but especially for those millions of ordinary Georgians – students, nurses, farmers, workers, teachers – for the 80 % of Georgians who still yearn for a European future, who still believe in their freedom, and who still stand up to the authorities and protest over 200 days later.

This report is also our opportunity to give these Georgians a voice and to tell them: 'We hear you, we see you, and we stand with you on your path to Georgia's European future'.

András László, a PfE képviselőcsoport nevében. – Tisztelt Elnök Asszony! Ez a jelentés Grúziáról egy szégyen, egy szégyen az Európai Parlamentre nézve. Ez természetében se nem európai, se nem demokratikus, és a legalapvetőbb tisztelet is hiányzik belőle. Az azonban világos, hogy az Európai Parlament többsége egy bábkormányt szeretne Grúziában, és amíg ez nem történik meg, Önök szándékosan az európai-grúz kapcsolatok elmérgesítésén dolgoznak. A jelentésük pont ezt a célt szolgálja, hogy csak néhány pontot említsek belőle.

Az EP meg akarja mondani a grúzoknak, hogy kik lehetnek kormányon, hogy tartsanak új választásokat, azt is, hogy mikor, hogy kik szervezhetik, hogy kik ellenőrizhetik az eredményt, és lényegében azt – most idézem a jelentésből –, ‘mi az emberek valódi akarata’. Önök ezt is jobban tudják. Az EP akarja eldönteni, hogy kik az igazi grúz civilek. Azok, akiket a Biden–kormányzat pénzelt a USAID-n keresztül. Most, hogy a Trump-kormányzat elzárta a pénzeket a globális baloldali aktivista hálózat elől, azt akarják, hogy az EU fogadja ezeket a szervezeteket örökbe. Az EP akarja eldönteni a grúz külpolitikát is. Pedig az még EU-s országok esetében is nemzeti hatáskörbe tartozik.

Önök nem partnerként tekintenek Grúziára, hanem gyarmatként. Nem szankciókra, hanem őszinte párbeszédre van szükség, amely tiszteletben tartja Grúzia szuverenitását, geopolitikai helyzetét, és a közös európai-grúz érdekekre fókuszál.

Małgorzata Gosiewska, w imieniu grupy ECR. – Pani Przewodnicząca! W Gruzji narasta dyktatura. Gruzińskie Marzenie – prorosyjska partia – łamie prawo i w ekspresowym tempie uchwala przepisy, które marginalizują opozycję, likwidują niezależne media i uciszają społeczeństwo obywatelskie. Brutalnie traktuje się protestujących Gruzinów, którzy nie godzą się na taką politykę. W ostatnich tygodniach aresztowano ośmiu liderów opozycji. Cały czas bezprawnie więziony jest były prezydent Saakaszwili. Jednocześnie władze Gruzji świadomie realizują strategię zacieśniania relacji z Rosją, Białorusią i Iranem, czyli planowe oderwanie Gruzji od Europy i wartości Zachodu wbrew woli narodu. To prawdziwy obraz Gruzji.

Nie możemy pozostawać bierni. Wzywam do natychmiastowej izolacji władz Gruzińskiego Marzenia na arenie międzynarodowej, utrzymania kontaktu z prezydent Zurabiszwili jako ostatniej gwarancji kursu na Europę oraz wprowadzenia indywidualnych sankcji, w tym zakazu wjazdu oraz zamrożenia aktywów.

Apeluję o nacisk na uwolnienie wszystkich więźniów politycznych oraz uruchomienie funduszu wsparcia dla gruzińskiego społeczeństwa obywatelskiego.

Nathalie Loiseau, au nom du groupe Renew. – Madame la Présidente, Nika Melia, Nika Gvaramia, Mamouka Khazaradze, Badri Japaridze, Irakli Okrouachvili, Guiorgui Vacharidze Guiorgui Targamadze, Zourab Japaridze et bien sûr Mikheil Saakachvili: toute l'opposition géorgienne est aujourd'hui poursuivie, une grande partie en prison. Mzia Amaglobeli est en détention. Son état de santé empire. Elle est en détention, comme d'autres journalistes. Guiorgui Ramichvili, entrepreneur, a été arrêté. Les manifestants qui, inlassables, descendent dans la rue tous les soirs, risquent de plus en plus gros. Leur tort à tous? Ne pas s'aplatir, ne pas vouloir que la Géorgie passe en quelques mois d'une démocratie pro-européenne à une dictature pro-russe.

Nous devons soutenir le peuple géorgien parce qu'il croit à l'Europe et que nous avons le devoir de ne pas le décevoir, et nous devons isoler totalement le régime de Tbilissi qui a volé les élections et qui veut transformer la Géorgie en nouvelle Biélorussie.

Sergey Lagodinsky, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, colleagues, in light of recent catastrophic developments, it is clear what we're lacking: the EU needs a long-term strategic approach towards Georgia. Without vision and effective tools, we remain unprepared in the face of anti-democratic backsliding and other challenges that Georgia and the region are having.

We must go beyond crisis management. We must think about the larger picture. Commissioner Kos, the Black Sea strategy offers an opportunity to align our vision of the future Georgia with regional priorities. But this is only possible if civil society is free, if democracy is protected, if the opposition is not oppressed.

And yes, we can do both: be geopolitical and stand up to repression; speak for the imprisoned and for all other Georgians who see Europe as their future. We can support Georgia as a victim of Russian aggression and criticise a ruling party that imitates the aggressor itself. It's a balance, but one worth fighting for – for Georgia, for the Eastern Partnership and for the future of Europe.

Danilo Della Valle, a nome del gruppo The Left. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, 8 ottobre, 13 novembre, 17 dicembre, 21 gennaio, 18 giugno, 8 luglio: da ottobre ad oggi, ci avete fatto discutere ben sei volte sulla Georgia e su tutti i problemi che ha e che conosciamo in gran parte, ma a noi sembra tanto che parliamo perché Tbilisi non vuole aprire un nuovo fronte di guerra in Caucaso.

Immagino che ci sia qualcuno, qui, che non dorme la notte pensando alla Georgia, ma io ho una soluzione per voi, così che non ce ne sarà una settima.

Provate a chiudere gli occhi per un attimo. Ora immaginate che la Georgia si trovi in Medio Oriente. Immaginate che questo paese stia uccidendo centinaia di giornalisti. Immaginate che migliaia di cittadini vengano messi in galera senza processo. Immaginate che il suo governo sostenga pulizia etnica e apartheid. Immaginate che i ministri reclamino a gran voce l'obiettivo di sterminare un intero popolo. Immaginate che quel governo uccida oltre 100 000 persone, la maggior parte donne e bambini. Immaginate che sparino sui bambini disperati che fanno la fila per un po' di pane.

Ecco, adesso potete dormire sonni tranquilli e senza nessun turbamento, visto che da nove mesi votiamo risoluzioni su Georgia e zero sul genocidio in Palestina.

Ho una sola parola per voi: vergognatevi!

Hans Neuhoff, im Namen der ESN-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Das Europäische Parlament präsentiert sich gerne als moralische Anstalt, als Richter über Gut und Böse in der Politik. Seit Monaten empört sich das Parlament darüber, dass die Georgier im Oktober 2024 nicht die Regierung gewählt haben, welche die EU vorgesehen hatte. Seit Monaten grübeln Ausschüsse und Gremien darüber, wie die Georgier dafür zu bestrafen wären. Die georgische Regierung besaß dann auch noch die Unverschämtheit, die Beitrittsverhandlungen zur EU von sich aus bis 2028 auszusetzen, was man doch selbst so gerne getan hätte.

Der Bericht der EVP über Georgien soll nun schadlos dafür halten. Er präsentiert sich als ein einziger Sündenkatalog und er versteigt sich dabei in Forderungen, die klipp und klar dem EU-Recht selbst widersprechen. Persönliche Sanktionen ohne Gerichtsverfahren oder Kollektivbestrafungen sind nur zwei Beispiele dafür. Kein Wort der Anerkennung, dass die georgische Regierung ihr Land aus dem Konflikt zwischen den Machtblöcken herausgehalten hat, in den man es so gerne wie die Ukraine hineingetrieben hätte. Mit diesem Bericht wird das institutionelle Mandat der EU überschritten und der Grundsatz der souveränen Gleichheit missachtet. Die ESN-Fraktion wird den Bericht daher geschlossen ablehnen.

Krzysztof Brejza (PPE). – Szanowni Państwo! W ubiegłym miesiącu byłem z misją w Gruzji i nie można już mówić o wpływach rosyjskich, to jest kopia systemu rosyjskiego. Kiedy słyszę tutaj głosy ludzi Orbana, ludzi AfD, wspieranych przecież przez Putina, którzy chcą Gruzję, młodych Gruzinów, europejską Gruzję zostawić samą sobie, oddać ją na pastwę Rosji, to trzeba jasno powiedzieć: działacie w interesie Kremla i Putina. Na to nie będzie zgody w Unii Europejskiej i w Europie.

Gruzinom powiem, że jesteśmy z wami, dostrzegamy waszą walkę, ale dostrzegamy też ludzi, którzy was niszczą. Dostrzegamy funkcjonariuszy reżimu. Chcę wymienić z nazwiska panią sędzinę Nino Galustaszwili. Nino Galustaszwili to sędzina reżimu gruzińskiego, która skazała 21 letniego chłopca Metedewizjego na 4,5 roku więzienia za zorganizowanie demonstracji proeuropejskiej. Taka jest rzeczywistość w Gruzji i chciałbym, żeby ta kobieta nie miała prawa przyjeżdżać na wakacje do Włoch.

Chciałbym, żeby każdy funkcjonariusz reżimu prorosyjskiego nie był wpuszczany do państw Unii Europejskiej i nie robił tu biznesów. Potrzebujemy twardych sankcji, potrzebujemy izolacji tych prorosyjskich bandytów, którzy rusyfikują Gruzję.

Nacho Sánchez Amor (S&D). – Señora presidenta, el guion de los autoritarios es aburridamente similar, si no fuera porque crea tanto dolor y tanta crueldad.

Además de en la presión sobre los medios, sobre las ONG, el acoso a las minorías, el desmantelamiento del poder judicial, las narrativas paranoicas sobre imaginarios enemigos exteriores, la falsificación de las elecciones y un largo etcétera, siempre coinciden en la detención de los líderes de la oposición.

Está pasando en Turquía y está pasando en Georgia. Putin los detiene y los mata, a algunos de ellos los mata incluso sin detenerlos. En el caso de Sueño Georgiano le basta con quitarlos del escenario con cualquier excusa absurda.

Por si cabe alguna duda remota sobre el carácter político de la persecución, miren la oferta del presidente del país: se ofrece a indultar a los líderes de la oposición encarcelados si se comprometen a participar en las elecciones locales. Primero te detienen para que no hagas vida pública —y todas las sentencias se refieren a que no puedes tener cargos públicos— y luego tus mismos carceleros te ofrecen la llave de la celda si les sirves para legitimar sus elecciones y su más que probable victoria. Sarcástico y cruel.

Comisaria Kos, cuidado con la comparación y con el tono que utilizamos con Georgia y con Turquía, porque están pasando las mismas cosas.

Dainius Žalimas (Renew). – Madam President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, I fully support the report on Georgia as it is in full compliance with EU values and EU law.

Georgian institutions have been captured by the authoritarian criminal oligarch regime. The Georgian Dream follows the Kremlin's manual of repression. They act as bandits and speak as bandits.

Recently, the last formally remaining opposition for Georgia party representatives was stripped of its mandates in the parliament for a peaceful boycott. That is a means of political fight in any democracy. However, what is really against democracy is the existence of a current single-party parliament.

The EU response must be stronger. First, we must find a way to sanction on the EU level the Georgian Dream regime and to support the Georgian people. We must strictly follow non-recognition policy of the Georgian Dream authorities.

There is still one key difference of Tbilisi from Moscow and Minsk. That is the continued presence of the active civil society in the streets demanding new parliamentary elections and striving for European future. We cannot abandon the Georgian people.

Ondřej Dostál (NI). – Paní předsedající, ve věci Gruzie bych rád vyzval k umírněnosti a k respektu. Gruzie zažila po rozpadu Sovětského svazu krach a rozklad sociálního státu. Po barevné revoluci za Saakašviliho dostali diktaturu a válku. Dnes za Gruzínského snu mají hospodářský růst, obnovující se zdravotní systém, investice z Číny a v neposlední řadě mír. Nelíbí se vám to? Nepřijde vám to dost? Tak to porovnejte s osudem Ukrajiny pod Zelenským.

Evropský parlament nyní fakticky žádá po Gruzii převrat a zrušení voleb, jinak hrozí sankcemi, vízy a přerušením spolupráce. Jak by se vám líbilo, kdyby se takto vměšovaly třeba Spojené státy do toho, kdo je šéfkou Evropské komise? Tak proč to děláte Gruzii? A co jim vlastně nabízíte? Boj za západní zájmy do posledního Gruzínce? Gruzínci si řádně zvolili vládu, která není protievropská, jen chrání bezpečí své malé země nacházející se na horkém místě mezi velmocemi a konflikty. Nezměníte to, pokud na ně budete vytvářet nátlak. Jen ztratíme přítele, partnera a spojence.

Michał Szczerba (PPE). – Pani Przewodnicząca! To już ponad 200 dni, kiedy każdego dnia obywatelki i obywatele Gruzji protestują przeciwko skradzionym wyborom, ale tak naprawdę skradzionej przyszłości, europejskiej przyszłości. Wszystko zaczyna się od fałszerstw w wyborach – to zawsze pierwszy krok. Od zeszłorocznych wyborów parlamentarnych Gruzja podąża w kierunku Rosji, w kierunku Chin, w kierunku klubu autokratów.

Dążenie do Europy to nie są deklaracje, to konkretne działania, to uczciwe wybory, to wolne media, to niezależna prokuratura i niezależne sądy. Jeżeli patrzymy na gruzińskie władze, między słowami a czynami jest przepaść.

Unia, w tym mój kraj, Polska, powinny nadal wspierać europejskie aspiracje gruzińskiego społeczeństwa, jednocześnie zwiększając presję na gruzińskie władze, również biorąc pod uwagę dotkliwe sankcje. Przed nami wybory lokalne w Gruzji. To może być test, Pani Komisarz, również wobec tego wszystkiego, co my jako Wspólnota, możemy zaproponować Gruzji.

Marcos Ros Sempere (S&D). – Señora presidenta, señora comisaria, la aspiración de Georgia de ser parte de la Unión Europea se ha convertido en una pesadilla. ¿El culpable? Sueño Georgiano. Ya lo comprobó la misión del Parlamento Europeo en las elecciones del pasado octubre: compra de votos y otras irregularidades antes de los comicios y mientras se celebraban. Las elecciones no fueron limpias y el Gobierno de Sueño Georgiano ahora está tomando una deriva autoritaria. Todos los días se atacan las libertades fundamentales, se retrocede en conquistas sociales, se promueven reformas legales para criminalizar la protesta legítima y a la oposición. Y nosotros no lo podemos consentir.

Queremos a Georgia dentro de la Unión Europea y vamos a trabajar para conseguirlo. El país lo merece, y no dejaremos que Sueño Georgiano se lo arrebate. Por lo tanto, tenemos que apoyar sanciones contra los responsables de esta pesadilla: que la oposición democrática sienta el apoyo de sus aliados.

Zgłoszenia z sali

Sebastian Tynkkynen (ECR). – Madam President, once a promising candidate for EU integration, Georgia is now on its way to a terrible direction. Democracy, human rights and the rule of law – the fundamental principles of the European Union. These are exactly the ones that are in alarming decline in Georgia currently.

Georgia's EU integration cannot come to question now – not at the cost of our common values. However, the responsibility now lies in the hands of Georgian leaders who are betraying their own people.

The fraudulent parliamentary elections, brutal repression by the authorities towards their own people and taking their country to a Russian-inspired path are proofs of this.

The Georgian people have repeatedly shown their commitment to European future. While we are tough against the Georgian Government, the Georgian people we must not abandon.

(Koniec zgłoszeń z sali)

Marta Kos, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, I would like to thank you once again for the interest in the situation in Georgia. We share the concerns set out in your report. Violence against protesters, and threats, intimidation and assaults against the civil society, political opposition and independent media have no place in an EU candidate country.

Against the backdrop of democratic backsliding, it is important to show that the EU continues to stand with the Georgian people, civil society and independent media. We should not be afraid to speak against the repressive actions that go against our values and principles. However, with the increasingly difficult situation, we need to be careful when communicating about our support – not about what we do, but whom we help. The safety of our partners and beneficiaries needs to be ensured above all.

While the vast majority of Georgian people want Georgia to join the European Union, the Georgian authorities are leading the country away from its EU path. The responsibility lies solely with the Georgian Dream government. A return to the EU path could only be considered if the Georgian authorities take credible steps to reverse democratic backsliding, meaning stopping the violence against citizens, releasing all those unjustly detained, suspending repressive laws, and engaging in a meaningful dialogue with civil society and all political actors to find a way out of the current crisis.

In view of the deteriorating situation, the Commission stands ready to explore further measures. A coordinating approach among Member States will be essential in this regard.

Rasa Juknevičienė, rapporteur. – Madam President, dear colleagues, I am glad that, apart from a few MEPs who are always pro-Russian, all the other groups who have spoken today are on the side of a European Georgia. Thank you for that.

Madam Commissioner, I know that you are also with the people of Georgia. I very much hope that the European Council will soon adopt the necessary position and that the Member States will take action, first of all, on sanctions against the regime.

I appeal to the Danish Presidency to take the initiative to bring countries together – at least the willing countries – to put pressure on the regime for new, free and fair elections. This is the only way to help Georgia. Thank you very much, and I hope that tomorrow we will adopt this report with an overwhelming majority.

Przewodnicząca. – Zamykam debatę.

Głosowanie odbędzię się w środę 9 lipca 2025 r.

25. Explanations of votes in writing (Rule 201)

(Oświadczenia pisemne dotyczące stanowiska zajętego w głosowaniu znajdują się na stronach internetowych posłów na portalu Parlamentu.)

26. Agenda of the next sitting

Przewodnicząca. – Następne posiedzenie odbędzie się jutro, tj. w środę 9 lipca 2025 roku od godziny 9:00. Porządek obrad został opublikowany. Jest dostępny na stronie internetowej Parlamentu Europejskiego.

27. Approval of the minutes of the sitting

Przewodnicząca. – Protokół dzisiejszego posiedzenia zostanie przedłożony Parlamentowi do zatwierdzenia jutro po głosowaniu.

28. Closure of the sitting

(Posiedzenie zostało zamknięte o godz. 21:02)