Verbatim report of proceedings of 11 March 2025
Date: 2025-03-11
Institutions: European Parliament
Subjects: European Parliament, parliamentary debate








C_202506062EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series














13.11.2025







            11 March 2025
            VERBATIM REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS OF 11 MARCH 2025
            
         
(C/2025/6062)

Contents







1.

Opening of the session
3










2.

Opening of the sitting
3










3.

European Council meetings and European security (joint debate)
3










4.

International Women's Day
37










5.

Resumption of the sitting
43










6.

Voting time
43










6.1.

Request for the waiver of the immunity of Adam Bielan (A10-0015/2025 - Dainius Žalimas) (vote)
43










6.2.

Establishing the Reform and Growth Facility for the Republic of Moldova (A10-0006/2025 - Siegfried Mureșan, Sven Mikser) (vote)
43










6.3.

Appointment of a member of the Single Resolution Board (A10-0024/2025 - Aurore Lalucq) (vote)
43










6.4.

Appointment of a member of the Single Resolution Board (A10-0025/2025 - Aurore Lalucq) (vote)
43










6.5.

Appointment of the Vice-Chair of the Single Resolution Board (A10-0026/2025 - Aurore Lalucq) (vote)
44










6.6.

Verification of credentials (A10-0016/2025 - Ilhan Kyuchyuk) (vote)
44










6.7.

European Social Fund Plus post-2027 (A10-0014/2025 - Marit Maij) (vote)
44










6.8.

Assessment of the implementation of Horizon Europe in view of its interim evaluation and recommendations for the 10th Research Framework Programme (A10-0021/2025 - Christian Ehler) (vote)
44










7.

Resumption of the sitting
45










8.

Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting
45










9.

Roadmap for Women`s Rights (debate)
45










10.

Presentation of the proposal on Critical Medicines Act (CMA) (debate)
64










11.

Presentation of the proposal on a new common approach on returns (debate)
76










12.

White paper on the future of European defence (debate)
95










13.

Corrigenda (Rule 251) (action taken)
126










14.

Clean Industrial Deal (debate)
126










15.

The need for EU support towards a just transition and reconstruction in Syria (debate)
147










16.

Deteriorating situation in Gaza following the non-extension of the ceasefire (debate)
157










17.

Explanations of vote
167










18.

Agenda of the next sitting
167










19.

Approval of the minutes of the sitting
167










20.

Closure of the sitting
167




Verbatim report of proceedings of 11 March 2025
                  


IN THE CHAIR: ROBERTA METSOLA


President

1.   Opening of the session

President. – I declare open the 2025-2026 session of the European Parliament.
2.   Opening of the sitting

(The sitting opened at 09:01)

3.   European Council meetings and European security (joint debate)

President. – Good morning, dear colleagues. The first item on the agenda is a joint debate concerning European Council meetings and European security:






—


European Council and Commission statements on the conclusions of the special European Council meeting of 6 March 2025 (2025/2589(RSP));










—


Council and Commission statements on preparation of the European Council of 20-21 March 2025 (2025/2544(RSP));










—


European Council and Commission statements on European security architecture: urgent decisive steps and unwavering support for Ukraine (2025/2590(RSP)).




The President of the European Council is on his way. He was delayed by fog in Brussels, so as soon as he lands he will come straight to the Chamber. So we can go first to the Council and the Minister for the European Union, Adam Szłapka.

Adam Szłapka,
President-in-Office of the Council. – Madam President Metsola, Madam President von der Leyen, honourable Members, allow me to focus on the preparation of the meeting of the European Council on 20 March, which will, as always, start with an exchange with the President of the European Parliament.
The spring European Council meeting is traditionally focused on economic issues. However, in view of the rapidly evolving international context, leaders will also follow up on the special meeting of 6 March. We are all aware of what is at stake, and the leaders will build on the important progress made at their meeting last week.
Allow me to add my voice here in stressing that only a comprehensive, just and lasting peace for Ukraine can put an end to the Russian war of aggression. A peace that is negotiated by Ukraine and its legitimated authorities led by President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. A peace that involves Europeans, whose security it will affect without a doubt. A peace based on strong security guarantees.
The European Council is also expected to revert to the situation in the Middle East, which has evolved substantially since the leaders last addressed the topic in December.
Let me now turn to competitiveness, which is a centrepiece of the agenda of the next European Council. 2024 was a year of assessment and reflection, with the Letta and Draghi reports the strategic agenda for the next five years. 2025 is the year for action and delivery.
Three priority areas have been identified for the leaders' debate on competitiveness: simplification, energy and the Saving and Investments Union. For the EU to remain competitive, we need to cut red tape and simplify EU rules for businesses, especially SMEs. Reducing administrative burdens and creating a simple and clear legislative framework remain a matter of urgency.
Europeans also require access to clean, secure and affordable energy, and we have to take steps to address the saving and investments mismatch in the EU in order to better meet Europe's investment needs, in particular those of young and innovative companies. This will also be important to ensure private financing to develop our defence industry for years ahead.
Leaders will also address the topics of the single market, industrial policy and skills, paying special attention to those sectors that are heavily impacted by the sustained rise in energy prices.
Finally, under this point, the European Council will also turn to its customary point on the European Semester. For a more long-term perspective, leaders will have a first exchange of views of views on the next multiannual financial framework and the new own resources, following the publication of the Commission Communication of 11 February and ahead of the proposal expected in summer 2025.
Migration also remains high on the European Council agenda. Leaders will take stock of progress made in the implementation of previous conclusions and ensure a steady pace of work on returns.
Finally, other foreign policy issues will be addressed, notably multilateralism and oceans, which are expected to be on the table during the working lunch leaders will have with UN Secretary-General António Guterres on Thursday. Depending on developments, Member States may also want to address issues in specific third countries or regions.
A Euro Summit is also scheduled to take place in the margins of the European Council, and will include the usual discussion on the economic situation with the President of the Eurogroup and the European Central Bank.
To conclude, we expect a substantial European Council meeting following up on the decision taken at last week's special European Council and advancing on essential work to ensure we are well prepared to meet the many challenges ahead. We are at a crucial juncture. We must rise to the occasion.

Ursula von der Leyen,
President of the Commission. – Madam President, dear Roberta, Minister, honourable Members, it's now 70 years ago that Alcide de Gasperi said: 'We do not just need peace among us, but to build a common defence. This is not to threaten or conquer, but to deter any attack from the outside, driven by hatred against a united Europe. This is the task of our generation.'
70 years have gone by, but our generation is faced with the very same task. Because peace in our Union can no longer be taken for granted. We are facing a crisis of European security, but we know that it is in crisis that Europe has always been built.
So this is the moment for peace through strength. This is the moment for a common defence effort. And at the European Council, I saw a level of consensus on European defence which is not just unprecedented but was completely unthinkable only a few weeks ago. There is a new understanding that we must think differently and act accordingly. We have started to mobilise Europe's massive resources. And in the coming weeks and months, more courage will be necessary and other difficult choices await us.
Honourable Members, the European security order is being shaken, and so many of our illusions are being shattered. After the end of the Cold War, some believed that Russia could be integrated in Europe's economic and security architecture. Others hoped that we could rely indefinitely on America's full protection. And so, we lowered our guard. We cut our defence spending from routinely averaging more than 3.5 % to less than half of that. We thought we were enjoying a peace dividend, but in reality we were just running a security deficit.
The time of illusions is over now. Europe is called to take greater charge of its own defence, not in some distant future but already today, not with incremental steps but with the courage that the situation requires. We need a surge in European defence, and we need it now.
We need it first and foremost because of the situation in Ukraine. There is the urgent need to fill the gaps in Ukraine's military supplies and to provide Ukraine with solid security guarantees. But this moment of reckoning is not only about Ukraine. It is about all of Europe and our entire continent's security.
Putin has proven time and again that he is a hostile neighbour. He cannot be trusted, he can only be deterred. And we know that Russia's military complex is outproducing ours. If we look at the military expenditure in real terms, the Kremlin is spending more than all of Europe combined. Europe's production is still on a lower order of magnitude. And beyond traditional capabilities, the range of threats that we face is getting broader by the day. I know that the European Parliament argued for years that Europe needs to do more, and you were absolutely right. And this is more dangerous, today, the era we live in, so Europe really needs to step up.
This is the goal of the plan that I presented to leaders last week. Its logic is very simple: we want to pull every single financial lever we have, to strengthen and fast track our defence production. With the REARM Europe plan, we can mobilise up to EUR 800 billion. So, honourable Members, let me focus on some of the main features of this plan.
First, there is the so-called national escape clause. Let me start with why it is crucial to mobilise national budgets. If we look today, we spend just short of 2 % on average of our GDP on defence. Every analysis today agrees that we need to move north of 3 %. Now look at the entire European budget – it only reaches 1 % of the GDP. So it is obvious that the bulk of new investments can only come from Member States. This is why we are activating the national escape clause, foreseen by our new fiscal rules. This is a new tool that was created just last year, and we propose to trigger it in a controlled, time-bound and coordinated way for all Member States.
This can transform our defence budgets quickly and effectively. Member States could mobilise up to EUR 650 billion over the next four years, adding round about 1.5 % of GDP to their defence budgets over four years. This is massive. And yet the European Council has tasked us to explore further measures, to facilitate significant defence spending at national level while ensuring debt sustainability.
The second point the European Council has agreed on our proposal for a new financial instrument. We call it SAFE (Security Action for Europe). We offer Member States up to EUR 150 billion in loans, to invest following a few basic principles – they could focus on a few selected strategic capability domains, you are familiar with them, it's advanced air defence, drones, missiles and ammunition, strategic enablers, military mobility, cyber, artificial intelligence, to name just a few – so that we maximise the impact of our investments.
These loans should finance purchases from European producers to help boost our own defence industry. The contract should be multiannual, to give the industry the predictability they need. And finally, there should be a focus on joint procurement, because we have seen how powerful this can be. Just think of the Czech initiative or the Danish initiative to provide weapons and ammunition for Ukraine. One nation took the lead. Others joined in, to place larger orders. Industry then scaled up, and prices went down. It was both very quick and very effective. And this is exactly what we need right now: scale and speed.
This is why we have chosen the emergency procedure under Article 122, which is designed precisely for times when 'severe difficulties arise in the supply of certain products'. In other words, Article 122 allows us to raise money, to lend it to Member States for them to invest in defence. This is the only possibility for emergency financial assistance, and that is what we need now. We will keep Parliament constantly updated on progress.
This leads me to my third point: the cohesion funds. This is a possibility that we are offering to Member States. Member States will have the possibility to redirect some of their uncommitted funds to defence-related projects. This could be infrastructure, it could be research and development. This would be voluntary – voluntary for those who want to go the extra mile. It will be up to Parliament and Council to decide on this additional option. For the same reason, REARM Europe also includes measures to mobilise private investment, with the European Investment Bank and our upcoming Savings and Investment Union.
Honourable Members, all of this will also have positive spillovers for our economy and our competitiveness. It will include new factories and production lines that will be necessary, creating good jobs right here in Europe. The investment boost will be felt well beyond the defence sector. We know the spillover effects to both sides, be it from steel to space, large transport companies or the innovative AI start-ups.
Together, we have the size to deter any hostile country, we have the economic power and now, finally, we also have the political will. We all wish we could live in more peaceful times, without any question. But I'm confident that if we unleash our industrial power, we can restore deterrence against those who seek to harm us. It is time to build a European Defence Union that ensures peace on our continent, through unity and through strength. This is Europe's moment. And Europe will rise to it. Thank you very much, and long live Europe.

Manfred Weber,
on behalf of the PPE Group. – Madam President of the European Parliament, European Commission, Council representatives, dear colleagues, we as the EPP know what we owe the Americans: as Supreme Commander Eisenhower and American soldiers brought freedom and democracy back to Europe; as Reagan's call to the Soviet Union – 'Tear down this wall!' – in 1987 brought freedom and democracy also to Central and Eastern Europe.
On the other hand, what happened in the White House two weeks ago was simply a scandal. To say Ukraine is responsible for the war is simply a lie. And even with our long history, with our US friends in mind, we must call a lie a lie. No one can twist the truth. Putin doesn't want to end the war; he wants to end Ukraine. And as Europeans we will never allow this.
After the speech of Vice President Vance in Munich and what happened with Zelenskyy in the Oval Office, one reality is clear: dear friends, we are alone. The world is in turmoil. Europe has to wake up. We have to become responsible for ourselves. Our security is not in the hands of Washington or Moscow. It must be in our hands.
Since 1952, Madam President – the Commission President referred to this – more than 70 years ago, we had the first idea of building up a defence union. I have to say, we wasted a lot of time in the last 70 years for discussing it endlessly. Last Thursday, putting EUR 800 billion on the table to build up a European defence was an important step, showing that Europe finally takes its defence into its own hands. Money is in this regard a precondition, but is only the starting point of doing so. We need to go further.
The first point: we would save a lot of taxpayers' money if we act together. We have 17 tank models in the European Union. The Americans only have one. We need standardisation. We need an obligatory common procurement. And we need to build up a true European market for defence goods, with all the further mergers in the industry side. This is not yet fully foreseen in the plan of Thursday.
Secondly, we need joint European projects, like a missile or drones defence system, especially in the east side of Europe; a cyber-defence brigade where everybody understands that cyber is not any more a national issue; a satellite surveillance system where we are not any more depending on US data. And every European citizen would immediately understand it's better to do these kinds of investments together.
I would love to see, then, parts of the troops with the European flags on their uniform. This is not yet foreseen in the plans of last Thursday.
Europe has to answer the offer of France to define the French nuclear shield as a kind of a European shield. This is not yet part of the plan of last Thursday.
Imagine for a second that Trump finally would invite Europe to go to the negotiation table to Saudi Arabia. Who would represent Europe then? Commission President? Council President? High Representative? Merz? Macron? Who would speak on behalf of Europe and on which basis could he or she then speak and act? Unanimity as a precondition for having a voice, then, in Saudi Arabia? Dear colleagues, that shows clearly we are ridiculous. We are not up to the task in this moment of time to give a proper answer. Kissinger said years ago, decades ago, 'Whom shall I call when I want to speak with Europe?' Let's be honest, he didn't give a proper answer on this until now.
Europe stands at a self-defining moment. Personally, I think we should once in the future elect the president of the European Union directly by the citizens of Europe. This is naive. This is a dream. Without dreamers, as Adenauer, De Gasperi, Schuman, Václav Havel and Wałęsa, no one of us would sit today in this Chamber of the European Parliament.
The truth is that the plan of 1952 was more ambitious on a European spirit than what is on the table today. We need dreams that create hope and the determination to implement them. This method brought 70 years of peace and then finally the reunification of the European Union 35 years ago.
Finally, dear colleagues, because the purpose of the European defence union is to defend our democracy, even more democratic legitimacy of the process is needed. The Parliament must be fully involved. Bypassing the Parliament with Article 122 is a mistake. Europe's democracy stands on two pillars: it's the citizens and it's the Member States. We need both for our security.
Last Thursday was a great starting point, and I truly congratulate Ursula von der Leyen and António Costa for the strong message – the will to invest into our defence and to our strength. But this can only be a starting point. The main task of our generation is to create a true European defence union. The European People's Party is ready to do so.

Iratxe García Pérez,
en nombre del Grupo S&D. – Señora presidenta, hoy, una vez más, podemos mirar hacia atrás y reconocer que nuestros fundadores tenían razón: Europa se forja en las crisis. Desde los escombros de la Segunda Guerra Mundial hasta la pandemia, pasando por la caída del Muro de Berlín, cada desafío nos ha hecho más fuertes, más unidos y más conscientes de nuestro papel en el mundo.
               

                  La llegada al poder de Donald Trump y su vergonzoso acercamiento al criminal de guerra Vladímir Putin han dejado claro que no podemos depender de terceros para garantizar nuestra seguridad. Esta crisis nos brinda una oportunidad sin precedentes: dar un salto adelante en la construcción de una verdadera Unión Europea de Defensa.
               

                  El plan de rearme para movilizar 800 000 millones de euros es un paso positivo; pero no nos engañemos, es solo el primer paso. La suspensión de las reglas fiscales para liberar 650 000 millones no garantiza que se alcance esa cifra, ya que no todos los países tienen el mismo músculo fiscal; y los 150 000 millones en préstamos respaldados por deuda comunitaria deben ser el embrión de un nuevo instrumento, el sucesor del Next Generation EU.
               

                  No podemos permitir que las soluciones nacionales fragmenten nuestra defensa y aumenten los costes. Necesitamos más deuda común, más solidaridad y más visión estratégica y, al mismo tiempo, garantizar que esta inversión en defensa no se haga a costa del gasto social y del estado de bienestar, que son la esencia del proyecto europeo. Porque, si sacrificamos nuestro modelo social, estaremos alimentando el caldo de cultivo de la extrema derecha y socavando los cimientos de nuestra democracia.
               

                  Madam President, colleagues, the construction of a genuine common defence and our support for Ukraine are two sides of the same coin. For three years now, a democratic nation has been suffering the brutal aggression of Vladimir Putin, an aggression driven by imperialist paranoia, justified with lies, aimed at stopping Ukraine's integration into our democratic and prosperous Europe.
               

                  We cannot and will not allow Ukraine's sacrifice to be in vain. A sacrifice that has already cost thousands of lives, with hundreds of thousands injured and millions displaced. The European people have a long memory. Neither Trump nor Putin will make us forget the bombing of civilians, the massacres in Bucha, Mariupol and Zaporizhzhia, or the bravery of families who have sent their loved ones to the frontlines only to lose everything.
               

                  But let me be clear, we cannot resign ourselves to helping Ukraine only to resist. We must help Ukraine to win this war. To achieve this, we need bold and decisive action. Mrs van der Leyen, we are waiting for your legal proposal to confiscate the EUR 200 billion in frozen Russian assets to rebuild and arm Ukraine. We cannot we cannot continue to tie Ukraine's hands while Russia bombs its people.
               

                  Colleagues, if we let Kiev fall to Putin, autocrats will have won a decisive battle against democracy, a battle that will define the 21st century.
               

                  As Churchill said to Chamberlain, ‘You were given the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour and you will have war’. Let us not repeat that mistake. Let us stand with Ukraine. Let us defend our values and let us ensure that democracy prevails.
               

Jordan Bardella,
au nom du groupe PfE. – Madame la Présidente, Madame la Présidente von der Leyen, vous voilà rattrapée par l'histoire et par la réalité d'un monde dont vous avez toujours rejeté l'existence – un monde dans lequel vous avez cru bon et juste de déléguer notre sécurité aux États-Unis, nos industries à la Chine et notre politique énergétique à la Russie. La leçon des dix derniers jours est celle de l'humanité tout entière: une nation qui ne maîtrise ni ses armes, ni son économie, ni son destin est une nation condamnée à subir l'histoire plutôt qu'à l'écrire. Nous voilà donc immergés dans un monde d'intérêts et d'ambitions, un monde dur, dangereux et mouvant, où les appétits s'aiguisent. Face à l'enlisement du conflit en Ukraine et au risque de prolonger une guerre sans perspective de victoire claire, face à l'horizon du désengagement américain, nous devons avoir deux priorités absolues: la paix et l'indépendance.
               

                  La première, la plus urgente, se construira par la diplomatie. L'organisation d'un sommet de la famille occidentale, idée formulée par la Première ministre italienne, Giorgia Meloni, devrait nous permettre de définir clairement nos objectifs pour la souveraineté de l'Ukraine, les exigences que nous devons mettre sur la table et les garanties de sécurité à offrir à ce pays allié, afin qu'il ne subisse plus jamais les assauts de l'agresseur russe.
               

                  La deuxième boussole, à plus long terme, est de bâtir l'autonomie des nations d'Europe, pour faire en sorte que personne d'autre que nous ne détermine nos intérêts et les conditions de notre sécurité. Si elle est capable de repenser une diplomatie libre et indépendante, la France peut redevenir la force d'entraînement du continent et l'interlocutrice évidente et naturelle de ce nouveau monde, parce que la France est dotée d'une armée de métier reconnue, d'une base industrielle d'exception, d'un siège permanent au Conseil de sécurité de l'ONU, de la dissuasion nucléaire et, bien sûr, parce qu'elle est l'héritière d'un pacte vingt fois séculaire entre la grandeur d'une nation et la liberté du monde.
               

                  Madame von der Leyen, permettez-moi de vous dire que tous vos choix politiques se sont, hélas, fracassés sur le mur du réel. Avec le pacte vert, vous avez opté pour la décroissance, alors qu'il fallait produire sans entrave. Vous avez désavoué le nucléaire, opté pour l'inflation de normes et de taxes, et encouragé les achats de matériel américain plutôt que d'appliquer la préférence européenne en matière de défense. Ce n'est qu'au prix de changements d'orientation profonds que l'Europe restera une actrice de l'histoire, dissuadera les menaces et imposera le respect aux empires.
               

President. – Now I give the floor to the President of the European Council.
Mr Procaccini, can I give the floor to the President of the European Council first, because he has just arrived?

António Costa,
President of the European Council. – Madam President, Madam President of the European Commission, Minister Szłapka, honourable Members, the European Union is living a defining moment. The sense of urgency is upon us. Geopolitical tensions have risen over the last weeks. Multilateralism is under enormous pressure, and so is the rules-based international order.
Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine entered its third year and the threat it represents has wider implications for Europe and international security. This is exactly why, last week, the European Council took fast and ambitious decisions on defence and Ukraine. We are putting our money where our mouth is. We are delivering on what we promised.
Three years ago precisely, in Versailles, we decided to boost Europe's defence to build the Europe of defence. Three years ago, we laid the foundation of what we decided last week. Over the last three years, Member States increased their defence spending by 30 %. Over the last three years, on average, among the 23 European Union Member States that are in NATO, we reached the NATO target for 2024 of 2 % of GDP.
Now we are going much further. In one month, working hand in hand with the European Commission, we have kick-started the Europe of Defence. On 3 February, in the informal leaders' meeting with the special participation of the British Prime Minister and the Secretary General of NATO, we opened the way for decisions.
Last week, the Commission anticipated some of its proposals on defence financing, which were the basis for European Council decisions. In this special European Council, we decided to invest in the priority areas already defined by the European Defence Agency, reflecting the lessons learned from the war in Ukraine and in full coherence with NATO: air and missile defence, artillery systems, missiles and ammunition, drones and anti-drone systems, strategic enablers, military mobility, artificial intelligence, cyber and electronic warfare.
We have also decided to mobilise more public and private funds for our defence. We welcome the Commission's initiative to dedicate EUR 150 billion of additional defence spending to funding the capabilities we urgently need. In addition to the loan instrument proposed by the Commission, leaders were clear that we need flexibility. With the Stability and Growth Pact and in the use of the European funds, it will also be important to provide more public money for the defence sector where Member States decide to do so.
The European Investment Bank initiative to broaden its mandate for more loans to the defence sector will improve access to private financing.
Finally, we decided to spend better and more efficiently together, with joint procurement ensuring standardisation and simplifying permitting and reporting requirements.
Our focus is clear: next week, the Commission and the High Representative will present the white paper on defence, and the European Council will continue to take work forward to build our deterrence, to strengthen the security of our continent.
Competitiveness and defence must go hand in hand to boost Europe's industrial and technological competitiveness, to create jobs, reinforcing economic convergence and the resilience of our value-chain networks. It is the right way to make the European Union stronger. It is the right way to protect our citizens and our social model.
Madame la Présidente, Mesdames et Messieurs, les efforts que nous déployons pour dépenser davantage en faveur de la défense européenne profiteront également à l'Ukraine. La sécurité de l'Ukraine et celle de l'Europe sont indissociables. Les meilleures garanties de sécurité que nous pouvons apporter sont le renforcement de la capacité de l'Ukraine à assurer sa défense et la construction d'une Europe de la défense crédible et solide.
La semaine dernière, nous avons également chargé le Conseil de travailler rapidement à de nouvelles initiatives visant à répondre aux besoins urgents de l'Ukraine en matière militaire et de défense. Dans le même temps, nous nous préparons à soutenir l'Ukraine lorsqu'elle aura décidé d'entamer des négociations, afin de l'aider à parvenir à une paix globale, juste et durable. Nous nous tenons, ainsi que de nombreux partenaires, aux côtés de l'Ukraine.
Vendredi, j'ai organisé une vidéoconférence avec la présidente de la Commission européenne, la haute représentante et des partenaires de l'OTAN tels que les États-Unis, le Canada, la Turquie, la Norvège et l'Islande. La réunion extraordinaire du Conseil européen venait de se terminer, et nos amis ont eu des réactions très positives en ce qui concerne nos décisions, notre rapidité, ainsi que l'engagement et l'intérêt qui sont les nôtres dès lors qu'il s'agit de renforcer, toujours plus, notre coopération.
Nous devons garder le rythme. Lors du Conseil européen qui se tiendra la semaine prochaine, nous poursuivrons les discussions et prendrons des décisions supplémentaires sur la compétitivité, la prospérité partagée de l'Europe et l'autonomie stratégique européenne. Nous sommes tous conscients de l'urgence qu'il y a à combler notre retard en matière d'innovation, de productivité et d'investissement. Le rétablissement de la compétitivité de l'Europe doit donc rester au premier rang de nos priorités. Il s'agira d'une question essentielle lors de la prochaine réunion du Conseil européen, et je reviendrai devant ce Parlement pour rendre compte de nos discussions.
Senhora Presidente, Senhoras Deputadas e Senhores Deputados, hoje não é apenas o terceiro aniversário da Declaração de Versalhes, é também o quinquagésimo aniversário da primeira reunião do Conselho Europeu, em março de 1975 — e é também o meu centésimo dia nestas funções.
Cem dias em que se tornou claro que a Europa da Defesa e a Europa da Prosperidade Partilhada são as prioridades deste mandato e são prioridades interdependentes.
Cem dias em que se tornou claro que reforçar o papel da Europa no mundo é uma prioridade estratégica. Porque o atual contexto nos impele a alargar a nossa rede de parceiros, uma rede que já é vasta, mas uma rede que tem tudo para poder crescer: nos acordos de comércio, na cooperação para o desenvolvimento e na liderança das grandes causas globais, como o Pacto para o Futuro ou o combate às alterações climáticas. Porque a União Europeia é um parceiro fiável, previsível e atrativo e muitos países têm muita vontade de colaborar connosco a todos os níveis.
Por último, cem dias num espírito de excelente cooperação interinstitucional. Thank you, dear Roberta, danke schön, liebe Ursula.
As instituições europeias e os Estados-Membros têm de estar mais unidos do que nunca para reforçar a União Europeia. Para avançar, precisamos de ter mais confiança em nós próprios, mais confiança no nosso poder coletivo, mais unidade para enfrentar uma nova era geopolítica.
Não há dúvida de que estamos a obter resultados mais rapidamente, de que a União está mais forte pela segurança e pela paz e pela prosperidade na Ucrânia, pela segurança e pela paz e pela prosperidade na Europa.

Nicola Procaccini,
on behalf of the ECR Group. – Madam President, now I deserve an extra minute because of the discomfort you cause me.

President. – I understand, I understand!

Nicola Procaccini (ECR). – So thank you, President. The European Council represents a step in the journey back to reality, which we welcome.
Yes, we would have liked greater clarity on the sources of financing for the plan, on long-term planning and on its integration within the overall framework of the Atlantic Alliance.
Considering rearmed EU retaliation against Trump and the USA is a tragic mistake, just as it would be to see it as a concession to the Trump administration. Investing in defence and security is an act of dignity for our nations, and the mark of respect for our international allies.
It was Obama and Biden before Trump who asked Europe not to rely solely on the sacrifices of the American working class. And what was Europe's response? The Green Deal, a massively expensive welfare system, tariffs on American cars, and some moral lessons towards those who ensured our security with their own money and even their own blood.
Macron is right when he says that imagining the European Union as the only herbivorous power in a world of carnivores is pure utopia. The problem is that we don't stop breeding the carnivores. Look at the European imports of liquefied natural gas from Russia. Do you know how much France alone has increased its LNG purchases in the past year? By 81 %! Money that Putin uses for the missiles, with which he bombs Ukraine daily.
When Trump says that the European Union has given more money to Putin than to Zelenskyy, he is telling the truth. I hope this hypocrisy ends once and for all.
The Italian Prime Minister is right. Let us not call it ReArmEU, but DefendEU because the peace and freedom we enjoy must be defended. And defence is not only about weapons but also about strategic infrastructure, raw materials, communication systems and technological innovations.
Meloni is right again, and not only her, when she states that the European defence detached from American allies and NATO is unthinkable.
Politicians and legislatures come and go, but the West remains and must remain for a long time. We are bound by a common path and a common destiny. As they say in Latin, ‘
                  Simul stabunt, simul cadent
                  ’.

Valérie Hayer,
au nom du groupe Renew. – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Président, Madame la Présidente de la Commission, chers collègues, Monsieur le Ministre, qui aurait pu penser, il y a quelques semaines, que les États-Unis soutiendraient à l'ONU, avec la Chine et la Corée du Nord, une résolution russe contre l'Ukraine? Qui aurait pu penser que son président dirait un jour qu'il récupérerait le Groenland, territoire européen, ‘d'une manière ou d'une autre’? Ce qui est en train de se passer outre-Atlantique, ce n'est pas un simple désengagement; c'est un renversement complet d'alliances. Je ne pensais pas dire cela un jour, mais aujourd'hui les faits sont là: dans un monde où, depuis vingt ans, la Russie et la Chine augmentent massivement leurs dépenses de défense, la Maison-Blanche, sous Donald Trump, n'est plus notre alliée. Notre monde est de plus en plus hostile, et nous devons en tirer deux conséquences.
               

                  La première, c'est que nous devons savoir nous défendre tout seuls. Alors, Madame la Présidente, achetons européen, investissons européen et produisons européen. Oui, cent fois oui, à ces 800 milliards d'euros, à sortir la défense de nos règles budgétaires et même à un emprunt commun. Oui à une préférence européenne, faute de quoi notre argent ira encore alimenter d'autres économies que la nôtre. Sans préférence européenne, pas d'autonomie stratégique et donc pas de souveraineté.
               

                  Toutefois, il faut aussi dire les choses: on aura besoin de plus. Il faudra donc travailler très vite, Madame la Présidente, aux obligations européennes proposés par le Parlement et par un certain nombre de gouvernements en Europe. Il faudra aussi travailler aux modalités de mobilisation de l'épargne des Européens. L'enjeu stratégique, évidemment, c'est l'argent, mais pas uniquement. La coordination sera clé. Il faut que nos armées et notre million de soldats européens soient capables de travailler ensemble. Il faut aussi que nous avancions sur le bénéfice européen de la dissuasion nucléaire, sans bien sûr remettre en cause la décision souveraine nationale de l'activer. C'est à ces seules conditions que nous préserverons la paix pour nos concitoyens.
               

                  Il est également urgent, pour assurer notre sécurité, de continuer à soutenir l'Ukraine, parce que la sécurité des Ukrainiens, c'est aussi notre sécurité. La décision de Donald Trump d'arrêter les livraisons d'armements et le partage de renseignements ne nous rappelle qu'une chose: nous devons reprendre notre destin en main, continuer à essayer de convaincre l'administration américaine qu'elle fait une erreur, évidemment, mais, pendant ce temps, accélérer notre aide à l'Ukraine et être force de proposition pour offrir des garanties de sécurité à l'Ukraine – et à nous-mêmes. Cela passe notamment par l'envoi de troupes européennes pour le maintien de la paix, une fois un accord obtenu. Nous devons dissuader une fois pour toutes la menace russe.
               

                  La deuxième conséquence à tirer, c'est que notre modèle démocratique est attaqué: à l'est par les ingérences russes et à l'ouest par le camp Trump et les alliés de cette internationale réactionnaire, ici même dans cet hémicycle. Monsieur Procaccini, quand vous prétendez que les États-Unis ont donné davantage d'argent et de soutien à l'Ukraine que l'Europe, c'est faux. Vous le savez parfaitement et vous reprenez en ce sens à la fois la propagande de Trump et la propagande du Kremlin. Nous sommes aux côtés de l'Ukraine, nous avons été aux côtés de l'Ukraine depuis le début et nous continuerons de l'être jusqu'à l'obtention de la paix – la paix n'étant en aucun cas la capitulation.
               

                  Madame la Présidente, le bouclier démocratique doit être une clé de voûte de ce mandat, et nous attendons votre proposition avec impatience autant qu'exigence; mais commençons déjà par appliquer les lois qui existent déjà. Où en est l'enquête sur le DSA? Le principe fondamental du droit, c'est que, quand on viole les règles, il y a sanction, et c'est votre responsabilité d'en assurer le respect.
               

                  Chers collègues, l'Europe est une puissance stabilisatrice. Notre objectif, c'est la paix, l'ordre international et la promotion de la démocratie. Nous avons les atouts pour être une puissance politique et militaire. Il est temps de s'assumer comme telle.
               

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

VORSITZ: KATARINA BARLEY


Vizepräsidentin


Martin Schirdewan,
im Namen der Fraktion The Left. – Frau Präsidentin! Donald Trump ist bereit, die Ukraine Russland zum Fraß vorzuwerfen. Die Zerstörung des Völkerrechts und eine internationale Ordnung, in der nicht mehr die Stärke des Rechts, sondern das Recht des Stärkeren Gültigkeit hat, sind dabei eingepreist. Umso mehr rächt sich jetzt, Frau von der Leyen, dass Sie die Diplomatie in den letzten Jahren leider so schändlich ignoriert haben und einzig und allein auf eine militärische Lösung des Krieges in der Ukraine gesetzt haben.
                  

                     Keine einzige diplomatische Initiative wurde durch die Kommission unterstützt, weder die Bemühungen der Türkei, Brasiliens, Chinas, Israels, der afrikanischen Staaten, nicht einmal die des Papstes. Und ja, es handelt sich um ein massives politisches Versagen europäischer Politik. Und auch jetzt in Ihrer Rede – aber auch in Ihrer Rede, Herr Costa – kein einziges Wort dazu, dass die Kommission oder der Rat sich der Diplomatie zuwenden wollen, die doch vor allem und zuallererst der Ukraine dienen würde.
                  

                     Die transatlantische Partnerschaft existiert nicht mehr. Trump überzieht die Welt mit einem massiven Handelskrieg und macht seinen Frieden mit Diktatoren à la Putin, während europäische Politiker am Nasenring durch die Manege des Weißen Hauses gezogen werden. Doch hier bei Ihnen dominiert weiterhin ausschließlich militärisches Denken. Plötzlich gibt es 800 Milliarden mehr für Aufrüstung, keine Schuldenbremse mehr – Geld, das garantiere ich, das vor allem in amerikanische Waffen fließen wird.
                  

                     Aber strategische Unabhängigkeit bedeutet doch, für verantwortungsvolle Politik endlich Schluss mit der Schuldenbremse zu machen und massive Investitionen in Industrie und in digitale Infrastruktur vorzunehmen. Sie bedeutet Energiesicherheit, soziale Sicherheit und Forschung und Entwicklung. Jetzt ist die Gelegenheit, die klügsten Köpfe nach Europa zu locken. Der europäische Digitalmarkt darf sich nicht länger in den Händen von Elon Musk und anderen Tech-Faschos aus den USA befinden.
                  

                     Die NATO ist doch jetzt schon Geschichte. Die EU braucht eine eigene Sicherheitsarchitektur, bei der Diplomatie immer Vorrang vor militärischen Lösungen haben muss. Das widerspricht nicht der Idee notwendiger Verteidigungsfähigkeit, das widerspricht aber fundamental den Profitinteressen der Rüstungskonzerne und ihrer Großaktionäre: Damit niemand am Krieg verdient, muss die europäische Rüstungsindustrie verstaatlicht werden.
                  

                     Und Sie sollten sich gerade jetzt für die Stärkung internationaler Organisationen wie der UNO einsetzen und das Völkerrecht verteidigen. Doch auch dazu kein einziges Wort, weder in Ihrer Rede, Frau von der Leyen, noch in Ihrer Rede, Herr Costa.
                  

                     Ja, Selbstbestimmung und Souveränität stehen der Ukraine zu. Doch nicht nur bei Russland, sondern auch bei der Türkei und Israel müssen Völkerrechtsbrüche klar kritisiert werden. Internationales Recht gilt auch für Freunde, nicht nur für erklärte Gegner. Wer Glaubwürdigkeit will, muss Doppelstandards überwinden.
                  

                     Und strategische Unabhängigkeit bedeutet nicht zuletzt auch ein besseres Verhältnis zu China. Frau von der Leyen, die EU-Kommission muss endlich aufhören, Weltpolitik mit der strategischen Weitsicht eines Kindes zu betreiben.
                  

Zsuzsanna Borvendég,
a ESN képviselőcsoport nevében. – Elnök Asszony! Tudják, mit nevezett Arthur Koestler zárt rendszernek? Egy olyan gondolkodási sémát, amely kizárja a realitást és a logikai összefüggéseket az érvelésből. Érzelmi alapon áll, és figyelmen kívül hagyja a józan észt és a valóságot. Amikor Önök a körülmények változásától függetlenül Ukrajna további töretlen támogatását erőltetik, ebben a zárt rendszerben gondolkodnak. A realitások tagadásával elérték azt, hogy úgy tűnik, Európa kimarad a békerendezésből és ezáltal az érdekszférák újrafelosztásából is.
                  

                     Ideje lenne szembenézniük a valósággal. Magyarországot évek óta szégyenpadra ültetik jogállamisági problémák és a transzparencia hiánya miatt. Ukrajna kapcsán ez miért nem zavarja Önöket? Demokráciáról nem beszélhetünk, illegitim az elnöke, mindennaposak az emberi jogokat sértő, erőszakos kényszersorozások, a kisebbségi jogok tiprása lassan népirtásba fordul, mégsem hallok jogállamisági aggodalmakat.
                  

                     Ahelyett, hogy újabb csillagászati összegeket szavaznak meg a háborúra, ki kellene vizsgálni a transzparencia jegyében, hogy az eddig Ukrajnába küldött eurómilliárdokból mennyi került oligarchák kezébe. Tisztázni kell, hogy az oda érkező fegyverek egy része valóban olyan terrorszervezeteknél kötött-e ki, mint a Hamasz vagy az ISIS, esetleg a mexikói drogkartell is profitált-e belőle? Lépjenek ki elméjük zárt rendszeréből, és mérjék fel a realitásokat, mielőtt Ukrajna EU-s és NATO tagságáról fantáziálnak, mert Európa végzetes elgyengülésével és a harmadik világháborúval játszanak!
                  

Die Präsidentin. – Damit endet die Runde der Fraktionssprecherinnen und -sprecher. Ich werde jetzt mit der Redezeit relativ streng sein müssen, weil wir im Anschluss einen fixen Termin haben. Ich schließe auch das Catch-the-Eye-Anmeldeverfahren; wir haben schon jetzt mehr Anmeldungen, als wir nehmen können.
                  

Andrzej Halicki (PPE). – Pani Przewodnicząca! To bardzo ważne dni i bardzo ważny moment. To moment, na który czekają też obywatele, żeby przestać już rozmawiać, tkwić w nieustannych sporach politycznych. Trzeba działać. Bezpieczeństwo wymaga dzisiaj szybkiego działania, bo na to czekają obywatele. I patriotyzm nie polega już dzisiaj na gadaniu. Dziś patriotą jest ten, kto szybko uruchamia środki, projekty, które służą budowaniu bezpieczeństwa. Nie ma prawa nazywać się patriotą ten, kto proces ten będzie spowalniał, blokował albo głosował przeciw. I to nie jest też moment, w którym możemy prowadzić proceduralne spory.
                  

                     Apeluję z tego miejsca do Parlamentu o podjęcie bardzo szybkiej decyzji i uruchomienie środków z silnym mandatem dla Komisji Europejskiej i z silnym mandatem dla rządów i naszych liderów. Tak, dzisiaj te projekty musimy uruchamiać jak najszybciej i tempo podejmowania decyzji jest kluczowe. Obywatele czekają nie tylko na uruchomienie miliardów na przemysł zbrojeniowy, ale także na wzmocnienie infrastruktury granicznej. Lata straciliśmy, żeby przekazać w tym kierunku pieniądze. Dziś pierwsze euro popłynęły, ale to kropla w morzu potrzeb.
                  

                     Potrzebny jest projekt Tarcza Wschód. To nie jest projekt polskiego rządu. To jest projekt wzmacniania bezpieczeństwa całej Europy, od Finlandii po Rumunię. On musi mieć europejskie wsparcie. Potrzebne są środki na projekty tak zwanego podwójnego przeznaczenia, bo szkoły, szpitale, parkingi mogą być kluczowe także dla bezpieczeństwa, i te projekty muszą mieć wsparcie europejskich środków, europejskich funduszy.
                  

                     Obywatele czekają na nasz rozsądek i szybkie decyzje. Jeszcze raz apeluję: mniej sporów, mniej gadania, mniej biurokracji, mniej debat i rezolucji. Szybsze wspólne decyzje, by można było uruchomić proponowane miliardy przez Komisję Europejską dla bezpieczeństwa naszych obywateli.
                  

Γιάννης Μανιάτης (S&D). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, αγαπητοί συνάδελφοι, η αναθεώρηση της εξωτερικής πολιτικής των Ηνωμένων Πολιτειών φέρνει την Ευρώπη προ των ευθυνών της. Πρέπει να συνεχίσουμε να στηρίζουμε την Ουκρανία. Είναι η καλύτερη επένδυση που μπορούμε να κάνουμε για τη δική μας άμυνα. Η στρατηγική αυτονομία της Ένωσης, ιδιαίτερα στους τομείς της ασφάλειας και της άμυνας, είναι πλέον αναντίρρητη ανάγκη. Το ReArm EU, αν και ακούγεται φιλόδοξο, δεν κάνει τη διαφορά, και τα 800 δισεκατομμύρια είναι δάνεια που σε καμία όμως περίπτωση δεν πρέπει να εξευρεθούν σε βάρος του κοινωνικού κράτους, του κράτους πρόνοιας, των ταμείων συνοχής. Επιπλέον, αν η ρήτρα διαφυγής δεν εφαρμοστεί με αυστηρούς κανόνες, ώστε να αντιμετωπιστούν οι στρατηγικές ανάγκες που έχουμε ως Ένωση, η εφαρμογή της μπορεί να δημιουργήσει περισσότερα προβλήματα από αυτά που επιχειρεί να λύσει. Η Ευρώπη οφείλει να υπερασπιστεί τα σύνορα και τους πολίτες της απέναντι σε κάθε απειλή από τρίτη χώρα, είτε αυτό αφορά τις χώρες της Βαλτικής και της Ανατολικής Ευρώπης είτε τις χώρες της Ανατολικής Μεσογείου, όπως είναι η Ελλάδα και η Κύπρος. Σας ευχαριστώ.
                  

Tamás Deutsch (PfE). – Elnök Asszony! Európában az emberek békét akarnak, Amerikában az emberek békét akarnak. Az USA patrióta vezetése ezért elkötelezetten békepárti. Az európai vezetők viszont továbbra is a háborút akarják folytatni. Ez több, mint bűn. Ez hiba. Brüsszel eddigi Ukrajna stratégiája megbukott. Az európai vezetők háborús uszítása, a hangzatos szónoklatok, a szankciós politika biztos sikeréről, az orosz agresszor katonai térdre kényszerítéséről eddig már 134 milliárd euró elköltését jelentették a háborúra, és mindez csak gazdasági bajokat, pusztítást és szenvedést hozott.
                  

                     A háborúpártiak ráadásul még fordítva is ülnek a döglött lovon. Donald Trump világosan megmondta, Amerika kiszáll a háborúból, és békét fog teremteni, pont. Tehát, amikor már az amerikaiaknak sem kell a proxy háborújuk, akkor ezt a levetett amerikai háborús hacikát akarják a háborúpárti vezetők Európára kényszeríteni. Az eddig elköltött eurómilliárdok után, immár bármennyi pénzzel finanszírozni akarják az ukrajnai öldöklést. Amerika helyett is, sőt az amerikai béketörekvéseket megakadályozandó is. Brüsszel vezetői ráadásul növelik a bajt, megfejelik ezt azzal, hogy már Ukrajna gyorsított uniós csatlakozását mantrázzák, ami egyenesen összedöntené az európai gazdaságot. Ezt a háborút le kell zárni, és lezárni csak tárgyalásokkal lehet.
                  

Patryk Jaki (ECR). – Madam President, Ministers, there is no doubt who is the aggressor and who is the victim. The aggressor is Russia and the victim is Ukraine. There is no doubt that no reset with Russia has ever succeeded and never will. The only thing that can stop Russia is credible force, and the general direction of strengthening European arms capabilities is good.
However, you will not escape from the fundamental questions. You are talking about the security of Europe. Great. I would like to ask you how the security of Europe is served by cancelling elections in Romania and not allowing the candidate with 50 % of support to run? How does allowing Tusk to destroy the opposition, take away all public money from the opposition party, and imprison MEPs serve Europe's security? How do your immigration policy and the Migration Pact serve European security? And the key question is: do you want Europe to defend itself from external threats, or for Europeans to kill each other? Instead of integrating Europe in the face of threats, as usual you choose your particular interests.
If the strength of Ukraine grew from the number of your empty words, the Ukrainian army now would be preparing to parade in Moscow. Do you want to help? You have EUR 300 billion of frozen Russian assets. Give them to Ukraine. That will be enough for five years of war. But you won't do it. You keep it because you want them to use to negotiate further resets with Russia. That is why you keep attacking America, provoking it to leave Europe. And you yourselves do not have those military capabilities. Your behaviour will cause the EU countries that border Russia to be in great danger. President Zelenskyy found about this after the summit in London. He will not provide the army weapons with your slogans, and that's why we need to change it.

Billy Kelleher (Renew). – Madam President, the EU is a beacon of hope for millions of people across the globe. It's why Ukrainians broke down in tears when they crossed into our Union after Putin's immoral invasion of their country. And it's why migrants do everything to get here, to live and raise their families. And that's why Putin and other tinpot dictators despise us. We give people hope, while they only give people fear. It's why it must be defended.
'If something is worth building, it is worth defending' – these are the words is Seán Lemass, former Irish Taoiseach and leader who submitted Ireland's application to join the European Economic Community. My country is militarily neutral. We won't join a military alliance, but that doesn't mean we don't take sides. We are on the side of freedom, democracy, multilateralism, and a global order based on international law.
Ireland is lucky. We are an island in the Atlantic, surrounded by non-threatening nations. But I know my friends and colleagues along the eastern border of our Union live in fear of the return of Russian imperialism. I see the worry in their eyes. I hear the pain in my friends' voices when they speak about living under Russian occupation before independence. That is why I will not stand in the way in terms of defending your homelands and your homes.
And Europe must collectively defend itself. Our unity is our strength. This is a big change, and I know I will be castigated by the extremists at home, on the left and on the right, but it is morally the right thing to do. Ireland will not join NATO, but I firmly believe we must ensure our fellow Member States have the resources needed to defend their sovereignty and their values.
We must have defence bonds. We must make it easier for the states to strengthen their militaries by relaxing Stability and Growth Pact rules. We must all work together on sharing intelligence and ensuring interoperability and defence systems and energy security. Ireland must use every possibility under our constitution to support our European friends: humanitarian aid training, non-lethal weapons, support for demining initiatives, financial support and increasing our own military defence capabilities.
I will say it again, if it is worth building, it is worth defending. There has never been a greater force for peace, prosperity and progress than the European Union and we must defend this.

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


Petras Gražulis (ESN),
pakėlus mėlynąją kortelę pateiktas klausimas. – Gerbiamas pranešėjau, daug skambių žodžių, bet labai mažai darbų Ukrainos atžvilgiu iš valdančiosios daugumos ir iš Europos. Kodėl po šiai dienai Ukraina nepriimta į Europos Sąjungą? Kas, Amerika kalta? Ar Rusija kalta? Kodėl jūs neišgirdot Zelenskio per tokį laikotarpį? Gal išgirsit ir priimsit?
                  

Billy Kelleher (Renew),
blue-card answer. – Well, we have been very supportive of Ukraine's application to join the European Union and it has happened over many, many years. In fact, in recent times we have supported them financially. They have been supported militarily. And of course, you are promoting the propaganda from Russia and elsewhere saying quite clearly that the European Union does not support. But if you look at it, and if you listen to President Zelenskyy himself, he says quite clearly and categorically that the European Union has been a friend to Ukraine and a support them both financially, militarily and in humanitarian assistance as well. So I reject your points out of hand, as they don't stack up with the evidence.

Mārtiņš Staķis (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, Europe is a giant in chains: wealthy, powerful, yet paralysed. Objective reality and data show that there is no need to despair. Quite the opposite. We have given Ukraine EUR 134 billion. That sounds like a lot, but it's just 0.2 % of our GDP. If the US steps back, we can raise that to 0.4 % without difficulty. The Baltics, Finland and Denmark already contributed nearly 1 % – a small price for lasting security – and our economies have only become stronger as a result.
We can make Russia pay. Let's seize 200 billion of frozen Russian assets and direct them to Ukraine. Madam President, the European Commission must make a decision on this right now.
Dear colleagues, the numbers don't lie. We are 450 million Europeans. Russia has just 140 million people. Our economy is 12 times larger. We have everything we need to defend ourselves and others. The only step left: removing the chains we have placed on ourselves.

Marc Botenga (The Left). – Voorzitter, 800 miljard euro: niet om de salarissen of pensioenen te verhogen, niet om de wachtlijsten in de gezondheidszorg weg te werken, en ook niet om in elk dorp eindelijk stipte bussen en treinen te garanderen. Nee, voor wapens.
                  

                     Laat me even wat cijfers voorleggen. We geven nu al 2 tot 3 keer meer uit aan oorlog dan Rusland. Deze week verklaarde de Duitse pers dat we over vier keer zo veel oorlogsschepen, drie keer zo veel gevechtstanks, drie keer zo veel artillerie en twee keer zo veel gevechtsvliegtuigen beschikken als Rusland. Ondertussen slaagt Rusland er gelukkig niet eens in om een kwart van Oekraïne te bezetten. De Russische tanks zullen dus niet meteen op de Grote Markt van Brussel staan.
                  

                     Aan al wie vandaag zegt dat we meer wapens en meer soldaten nodig hebben, wil ik de vraag stellen – en aan mevrouw Van der Leyen – wie zal straks zijn zonen en kinderen naar het front sturen? Hou op met die oorlogskoorts en onzin. We hebben meer investeringen nodig in diplomatie. We moeten meer coördineren, niet meer wapens financieren.
                  

Ewa Zajączkowska-Hernik (ESN). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Szanowni Państwo! Nowy militarny eurodług będzie narzędziem nacisku na państwa i zagrożeniem dla ich suwerenności. To będzie dokładnie ten sam mechanizm jak w przypadku KPO. Jeżeli spełnimy kamienie milowe, a rząd będzie podobał się Komisji Europejskiej, to dostaniemy jakieś pieniądze. To nic innego jak polityczny szantaż. Co będziemy musieli oddać w zamian za te pieniądze? Jakie będzie oprocentowanie zaciągniętych pożyczek? Jedyne co potraficie, to zaciągać pożyczki i przeżerać je na unijną machinę. Planeta już nie płonie, że chcecie stawiać fabryki i produkować broń? Zmarnowaliście lata na Zielony Ład i obudziliście się z ręką w nocniku. Chomika bym wam nie dała pod opiekę, a co dopiero armię, widząc, jak obalacie demokrację w Rumunii. Potrzebujemy pokoju, a nie wojny. Bezpieczeństwo kraju i jego suwerenność zależy od jego potencjału militarnego, a nie wielkiej wspólnej unijnej armii. Ani skrawka więcej naszej suwerenności dla Was. Za nasze pieniądze chcemy budować naszą potęgę militarną, a nie – Ukrainy.
                  

Κώστας Παπαδάκης (NI). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, ούτε άβουλη, ούτε αδύναμη, όπως ισχυρίζονται οι απολογητές της, αποδείχθηκε η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, για να κλιμακώσει την πολεμική προετοιμασία της στον ανταγωνισμό της με τη Ρωσία και την Κίνα, και εν μέσω εντεινόμενων αντιθέσεων με τις Ηνωμένες Πολιτείες. Ο κυνισμός on camera για τη μοιρασιά της λείας των σπάνιων γαιών και των ενεργειακών δρόμων μεταφοράς της Ουκρανίας κονιορτοποίησε τα προσχήματα και των δύο πλευρών. Οκτακόσια δισ. αύξηση με δάνεια εκατοντάδων δισ. και με εξαγγελίες για έξτρα ψηφιακούς φόρους και άγριες περικοπές στον λαό συνοδεύονται με επιδοτήσεις και διευκολύνσεις στις πολεμικές βιομηχανίες. Η δε ρήτρα διαφυγής από το Σύμφωνο Σταθερότητας δεν αναιρεί ότι οι λαοί στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση καλούνται να αποπληρώσουν τον βαρύ λογαριασμό σε αίμα, πολεμικούς προϋπολογισμούς, πρόσφυγες, επικίνδυνη εμπλοκή. Μόνη ρήτρα διαφυγής για τον λαό είναι η πάλη για καμία εμπλοκή, να μην πληρώσει ο ίδιος τα σφαγεία των ιμπεριαλιστών. Αυτοτέλεια για τον λαό δεν είναι αυτή της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης από τους ανταγωνιστές της. Οξυγόνο είναι η δική του αυτοτελής πάλη για τα συμφέροντα και τις ανάγκες του ενάντια σε Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, κυβερνήσεις και κεφάλαιο.
                  

Siegfried Mureșan (PPE). – Madam President, President of the European Council, dear colleagues, unfortunately, our long standing partner the United States of America is disengaging from Europe. It is disengaging in terms of security and defence, it is disengaging in terms of trade and economy, and it is disengaging in terms of defending democracy, rule of law and human rights.
We do not want this to happen. We regret this. We will never turn our backs on the United States of America. But we need to recognise the new reality where the United States administration has other priorities.
When Russia is challenging us from the East, and the current Trump administration is questioning the defence of Europe from the West. The conclusion for us, Europe, is simple we have to defend ourselves. What matters most now is what we are going to do ourselves at European level. And I believe we have to do two things.
Firstly, continuing to support Ukraine. Stopping military support to Ukraine is not a way to peace, it is a way to help Russia. We should not do that. Keeping Ukraine safe means keeping Europe safe.
Secondly, we have to invest in defence. And I believe the EUR 150 billion common European project put forward by the European Commission is correct. But we have to do it right. When we spend European money, we have to support European projects. What projects we are going to finance matters a lot. We should use this European fund to do projects which none of the Member States can do alone, so that the citizens of Europe see the added value of Europe. We should do the Common European Air Defence Shield and other European projects, invest in European research, produce more oil in bigger quantities and at smaller unit prices. Same equipment for the militaries of all EU Member States. Europe can do a lot to make sure that our militaries are well equipped with this European project. And of course, if European money is spent, the European Parliament has to be involved.
Let me say, in the end, that investing in investing in our defence means keeping Europe safe. If we are weak, we are a target. If we are strong, we are safe.

Sven Mikser (S&D). – Madam President, colleagues, a wise person once said that tactics is the art of using personnel and arms to win battles, whereas strategy is the art of using battles to win wars. Much has been said about how we need to rebuild European defence and security in the medium- to long-term, and I agree with most of it. Meanwhile, the decisive battle for Europe's future is playing out on the front lines in Ukraine and needless to say, following the very dramatic reversal, of course, by our American allies, the outlook has changed to worse.
So we need to step out, and we need to fill the gap left by Americans. And we need to do it now. It's not a matter of months or years, it's a matter of hours, days, maximum weeks. If we fail in Ukraine, if Ukraine falls, then we will not merely be back to square one, we will be in a much, much darker place, starting to rebuild Europe's security from shambles. We must not let this happen.

Anna Bryłka (NI). – Pani Przewodnicząca, Panie Przewodniczący! Unia Europejska próbuje zaklinać rzeczywistość kolejnymi prawami, regulacjami, a tak naprawdę znajduje się w gigantycznym kryzysie przywództwa, kryzysie gospodarczym i kryzysie bezpieczeństwa. Takie są owoce Unii Europejskiej.
                  

                     Komisja Europejska wykorzystuje wojnę na Ukrainie i kryzys w relacjach z administracją amerykańską jako pretekst do przyspieszenia budowy europejskiego superpaństwa. Prawdziwą intencją Komisji Europejskiej nie jest udzielenie pomocy ogarniętej wojną Ukrainie czy rozwiązanie jakiegokolwiek europejskiego problemu. Kolejne problemy to tylko pretekst do zawłaszczania kolejnych kompetencji przez Unię. Mieliśmy już propozycje zmiany unijnych traktatów, reformę procesu decyzyjnego, w tym likwidację prawa weta, i po ostatnim posiedzeniu Rady Europejskiej dostajemy decyzję o kolejnym eurodługu, aby następnie właśnie tymi środkami szantażować finansowo państwa narodowe, jak w przypadku krajowych planów odbudowy. Nie ma naszej zgody na przekazywanie nowych kompetencji Unii.
                  

                     Teraz Unia rzekomo chce się zajmować rozwojem przemysłu zbrojeniowego w Europie. Najlepsza pomoc, jakiej może udzielić Europie ta Komisja i ta Izba, to powstrzymanie się od jakiegokolwiek działania. Europy nie da się obronić ani rezolucjami, ani scentralizowaną władzą biurokracji. Dzisiaj potrzeba nam jak nigdy dotąd silnych państw narodowych. To one mają działać, to one mają rozwijać swój przemysł militarny i budować narodową armię, samodzielnie decydować, czego im potrzeba i w jakich ilościach, a nie anonimowy urzędnik z Brukseli.
                  

Alexandr Vondra (ECR). – Madam President, European security is under immense strain. Panic and reactionary statements, especially on social media, only make matters worse. We must stay clear-eyed and strategically focused. European nations must recognise reality. The burden of defence now rests mostly on our own shoulders. We see clearly the signs of this shift. Governments are waking up. I am keeping my fingers crossed for Chancellor-elect Merz to find the financial resources for much-needed security enforcement.
We must act swiftly. Our defence industries need a framework that enables them to deliver, both through cooperation and national initiatives. That means cutting bureaucracy, simplifying the processes, providing real financial access and bringing energy prices down. We cannot have both an overambitious green transition and a fully capable military. Resources are finite. Europe must decide what it values most.

President. – Dear colleague Gražulis, I will explain it again. If I keep giving you blue cards now, with every speaker that comes, I cannot give them to other people. And there will be a point where I have to say no blue cards at all anymore.
This is why I decided to give every Member the opportunity to raise a blue card, but only once, because otherwise we cannot finish in time. We are limited in the end. If you do not agree, then please file a complaint to the President.

Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy (Renew). – Madam President, Commissioner, Minister, Yes, we can!, Nous pouvons!, Wir schaffen das! After every major geopolitical shock in our young history, we have responded with the courage to share our sovereignties.
After 1945, we stopped the cycle of European civil war by merging our resources and our political destinies. And after 1989, we healed a divided nation, created a single citizenship, and proceeded to reunite a continent with parts that were caught behind the Iron Curtain.
And now, in 2025, Europeans are asking us to respond to the shock unfolding before our eyes. The rupture of the transatlantic alliance in the face of war on our continent. I believe we know what to do and how to do it. We can support Ukraine and its defence against Russian aggression. To replace the US, the EU would thus have to spend only another 0.12 % of its GDP. We can build up a European defence industry worthy of the world's envy. We already have the technology. Now it's just a matter of investment and long-term contracts. We can jolt our economy into unprecedented growth and build up the euro as an alternative to the dollar as a global reserve currency.
It's a matter of breaking down jealously guarded national barriers, investing massively in our universities, issuing common European debt and opening up trade with all those countries looking for new leadership in the West.
And finally, we can build a European army in order to achieve lasting peace. We need a European Defence Force to secure and defend our continent, enabled by commonly procured European capabilities and led by a European commander. The only thing standing in our way is a giant Orbán shaped elephant in the room. But that too we can fix. We in the Parliament can provide ideas and political pressure. After that, Mr Costa and Mrs von der Leyen, the fate of Europe is in your capable hands. And remember. Yes, we can!

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


Bogdan Rzońca (ECR),
pytanie zadane przez podniesienie niebieskiej kartki. – Chciałem Pana dopytać, ponieważ bardzo uważnie słuchałem Pana wypowiedzi. Co Pan miał na uwadze, mówiąc, że więzi transatlantyckie zostały zerwane? Kto zerwał te więzi? Kto zrywa? Ewentualnie kto jest winny zerwaniu tych więzi transatlantyckich? I druga rzecz: gdy już uzbieramy te pieniądze, załóżmy, że one będą. Czy Pan dopuszcza taką sytuację, że będziemy z tych pieniędzy kupować najnowsze technologie zbrojeniowe w Stanach Zjednoczonych?
                  

Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy (Renew),
blue-card answer. – Well, for me, it's absolutely clear that Europe not at all wants to tear down the transatlantic alliance. It seems to be a unilateral decision now from the US to at least make it much weaker than it is.
If Article 5 is under pressure and it's not a total guarantee, then NATO is not as strong as it should be. It's a deterrence. It's not an aggressive force.
And yes, we have to rebuild our European defence industry. That's absolutely clear. We have to be able to build up our own military and not buying it somewhere else.

Diana Riba i Giner (Verts/ALE). – Señora presidenta, la Unión Europea gasta un 1,9 % de su PIB en defensa, casi el famoso 2 %. ¿Y qué significa esto? Voy a poner dos ejemplos para que se entienda mejor: en primer lugar, la Unión Europea gasta tres veces más en defensa que Rusia y, en segundo lugar, la Unión Europea y el Reino Unido gastan en conjunto más que potencias globales como China. De hecho, si Europa fuera un Estado, sería la segunda potencia global en términos de gasto militar.
                  

                     Señoras y señores, el problema no es cuánto se gasta, sino cómo se gasta. El dilema es que tenemos veintisiete sistemas defensivos diferentes sin una coordinación efectiva. Somos ineficientes y esto no lo resolveremos con una lluvia de millones en los presupuestos nacionales; aunque esta lluvia de millones tal vez sí calme a Donald Trump y a la industria armamentística estadounidense.
                  

                     Representantes de la Comisión, analicen cómo podemos ser más eficientes, coordinen desde la Unión Europea la estrategia y la inversión y hablemos sin tabús de cómo financiar este esfuerzo, por ejemplo con impuestos europeos propios, impuestos a los más ricos y a los que más contaminan, porque, de lo contrario, sabemos que será la ciudadanía quien pagará esta factura. Y esta es una línea roja.
                  

                     No podemos permitir que los presupuestos estatales o de la Unión Europea vean reducidas las partidas sociales y climáticas, porque hace quince años en la Unión Europea se recortaron derechos sociales en nombre de la austeridad. Hoy no lo harán en nombre de la guerra.
                  

Danilo Della Valle (The Left). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, oggi tutto il Movimento cinque Stelle è qui a Strasburgo con il suo leader e i suoi eletti nazionali ed europei: Le portiamo la voce del popolo, che è stanco di questa guerra senza fine e vuole solo pace e prosperità.
                  

                     Il vostro piano di riarmo è una dichiarazione di guerra, non si sa a chi o a cosa, ma è un attacco ai cittadini europei, perché sposta miliardi di euro dal sociale alle armi, dalla sanità alla militarizzazione.
                  

                     Noi crediamo che sia indegno spendere 800 miliardi per il settore militare mentre le imprese fanno bancarotta, le famiglie non riescono a pagare le bollette e i giovani non fanno figli perché non hanno i soldi per crescerli. Invece voi preferite compiacere le lobby delle armi.
                  

                     Oggi, gli stessi leader che da tre anni a questa parte hanno sbagliato tutto, puntando sulla sconfitta militare della Russia e boicottando ogni iniziativa di pace, come quella in Turchia, ci dicono che dobbiamo continuare ad armarci inseguendo la follia bellicista.
                  

                     Volete la Terza guerra mondiale per nascondere i vostri fallimenti: ma noi ve lo impediremo. Non un euro per le armi! Le armi non sono la soluzione ma l'ostacolo al raggiungimento della pace. L'Europa senza pace è morta.
                  

                     Per questo voglio lasciare la bandiera europea cucita con quella della pace: per non dimenticarlo mai. L'avrei lasciata alla presidente von der Leyen ma ancora una volta ha snobbato il dibattito parlamentare e questo luogo che, più della Commissione, rappresenta la democrazia.
                  

President. – There is a blue card.

(Mr Della Valle unfurled a flag)

Please, please come on. No blue card then.
I might remind you that this is probably against the rules. This is a parliament. It comes from parlare. Yes, I know it's the European flag and we love it.

Milan Uhrík (ESN). – Vážená pani predsedajúca, pani Leyenová, vy chcete nakupovať zbrane za 800 miliárd eur? Neskrývajte sa, prosím vás, tam v zákulisí a radšej nám ukážte, ako ste nakupovali vakcíny, pretože ja som presvedčený, že pod vašou taktovkou bude nákup zbraní len ďalším obrovským megapodvodom na Európanov.
                  

                     A takisto by ma zaujímalo, že kto by mal s tými všetkými nakúpenými zbraňami ísť bojovať, pretože pre Európanov to bude znamenať len ďalšiu militarizáciu, ďalšie zadlžovanie, ďalšiu konsolidáciu a ďalšie zdražovanie. Mrzí ma, že jediný, kto sa na samite postavil proti tomuto vojnovému plánu Leyenovej, bol opäť iba maďarský premiér Viktor Orbán, že všetci ostatní – Macron, Scholz, Fiala, Fico a ďalší – hlasovali za Leyenovej navýšenie európskej vojenskej a finančnej pomoci pre Zelenského namiesto toho, aby sa pridali k tomu Trumpovmu plánu a zatlačili na Zelenského a dotlačili ho k mierovým rokovaniam. Zradili a sklamali týmto mnohých voličov.
                  

                     Ja viem garantovať, že my v hlasovaní Leyenovej vojenský plán nepodporíme a našich voličov nezradíme.
                  

Μαρία Ζαχαρία (NI). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, βλέπω ότι η πρόεδρος της Επιτροπής το έσκασε. Κυρία von der Leyen, από πού νομιμοποιείστε να πάρετε 800 δισ. από τις τσέπες των Ευρωπαίων πολιτών, για να τα δώσετε στις πολεμικές βιομηχανίες; Διαβάζω ότι εσείς μοιράζατε τα συμβόλαια στους λομπίστες των όπλων σαν τον πασατέμπο και απομακρυνθήκατε από το γερμανικό Υπουργείο Άμυνας. Ισχύει; Τώρα θέλετε να θυσιάσετε ολόκληρη την Ευρώπη για τα συμφέροντα των ίδιων. Τυχαίο; Και καλείτε και την Τουρκία στην ευρωπαϊκή άμυνα· την Τουρκία, που κατέχει τη μισή Κύπρο, που απειλεί την Ελλάδα με casus belli. Η Τουρκία, κύριε Costa, είναι κατά δήλωσή σας στρατηγικός εταίρος. Στην πραγματικότητα είναι εισβολέας σε ευρωπαϊκό έδαφος. Αλλά ξέχασα: η Κύπρος δεν έχει σπάνιες γαίες.
                  

                     Κυρίες και κύριοι, έχετε εγκαταλείψει την ειρήνη και τη διπλωματία, για να γεμίσουν οι πολεμικές βιομηχανίες τα ταμεία τους. Οι φόροι μας θα γίνουν όπλα αντί για υγεία και παιδεία, ενώ νοσοκομεία θα κλείνουν, σχολεία θα ρημάζουν, συντάξεις θα εξαφανίζονται. Καλώ όλους τους Ευρωπαίους πολίτες να βγουν στους δρόμους να σταματήσουμε τον πόλεμο. Ναι στην ειρήνη.
                  

Željana Zovko (PPE). – Madam President, dear colleagues, the proposal endorsed by the European Council on 6 March is an encouraging sign towards the strengthening of European defence. A good sign in times of stormy weather.
However, the EU's much-needed wake-up should not make us forget that the American umbrella is vital for us. We still need the rainy-day friend, now more than ever. The strengthening of our defence must go hand in hand with the strengthening of our relations with our allies, including with the US.
Besides the fact that the current EU measures will only produce effects in at least four years, we have to bear in mind that the United States and Russia together account for 85 % of the world's new nuclear arsenal. The European Union also also strongly needs American intelligence, with some Member States even relying entirely on NATO. And the relative autonomy from American intelligence would take years. However, time is running out now – we all know in Ukraine what is going on.
For all these reasons, the EU must intensify its diplomatic efforts to find common grounds with our US ally. The EU defence and strengthening of a pillar of NATO can become robust within some years, but we don't have time to lose in not engaging in dialogue.

Thijs Reuten (S&D). – Madam President, colleagues, Council, Commission, Europe is at a critical juncture. You said it yourself, Minister. We are relevant now or never again to act or to be passive observers of the destruction of the rules-based order.
I commend the Member States for their clear understanding that Ukraine and Europe's future requires peace through strength – strength for Ukraine to stand up against Putin and against Trump. The US is forcing Ukraine into an unacceptable surrender it could also achieve without their help. If the circumstances are unfavourable for Ukraine, for Europe, we will not accept it. We have to change these circumstances towards a just peace, or accept the ugly consequences.
Now President von der Leyen said that the Parliament was right, asking for more military support all along. Translate understanding then into real united action now, and for all the Member States, President Costa – some a bit more than others – that means sending Ukraine the weapons it needs now. It's irritating – it's appalling even – that there are still warehouses where there's critical air defence that Ukraine needs now. Do what is necessary now for Ukraine, for Europe.

Anders Vistisen (PfE). – Madam President, EUR 35 billion in loans for the Ukraine Recovery Mechanism. EUR 100 billion in Corona loans, EUR 750 billion for the recovery funds. And now the Commission proposes EUR 150 billion for rearmament.
But none of this would have been necessary if we had a Commission that was more preoccupied with creating growth instead of bureaucracy. If you had a Commission that was willing to prioritise within the EUR 1.2 trillion budget. Ursula von der Leyen, you are making the Europeans into welfare junkies and you're doing it from borrowed money.
So let me put this very simple. We want our money back!
Når vi ser på det fra et dansk perspektiv, må man sige, at EU har gjort meget lidt. Igen og igen har Danmark støttet Ukraine militært og økonomisk, og igen og igen har vi set, hvordan de største EU medlemsstater; Tyskland, Frankrig, Italien og Spanien ikke har fulgt trop. Så det er let at give Trump skylden for den situation, Ukraine står i. Men hvis man virkelig vil forstå, hvorfor vi tre år inde i krigen har et EU, der ikke er i stand til at forsvare sig selv, har et EU, der ikke er i stand til at forsvare Ukraine, så skal vi se indad. Der har været alt for lidt handling og alt for meget snak, og det fortsætter desværre.

Assita Kanko (ECR). – Madam President, Commissioner, for energy we used to look at Russia; for trade we depend on China; for defence we rely on the United States. When we fail, we blame someone else. The truth is that we are weak because we neglected our potential power. Because by not investing enough, or soon enough, in defence and industry, we gave up the right to be respected. We abandoned our primary duty, which is to provide security and pride to our citizens.
They wonder when we will take responsibility. Right now, we are only excited because Trump woke us up. Basically, he just showed us that there is no such thing as a free lunch. And we are upset? The fact that we needed this wake-up call about defence is so disturbing for our citizens.
We need to remember that Europe was stronger, and can be strong again. We need to remember that still the end of the Cold War was not the end of history, that we cannot earn respect if we do not change our mindset.
We need to invest in our defence and values, and stand firm for our principles – not only when it's comfortable, but also when it is not. Because to the question of whether our citizens can count on us, the answer must be 'yes'!

João Cotrim De Figueiredo (Renew). – Senhora Presidente, Senhor Presidente do Conselho, Senhores Comissários, Senhores Deputados, o mundo mudou muito desde o último plenário aqui, em Estrasburgo.
                  

                     No dia 13 de fevereiro, último dia desse plenário, o secretário da Defesa americano, Pete Hegseth, disse a seguinte frase: ‘Os Estados Unidos já não estão disponíveis para garantir a segurança da Europa’. Clarinho como água. Como disse a presidente da Comissão há pouco, o tempo da ilusão acabou.
                  

                     E, por isso, fez bem o Conselho Europeu, o Conselho da passada quinta-feira, em flexibilizar as regras do Pacto de Estabilidade e Crescimento, em criar uma nova linha de financiamento e até em alterar o mandato do Banco Europeu de Investimento para permitir créditos em projetos na área da defesa, o que, aliás, mostra bem a forma adormecida como esta instituição europeia estava a olhar para a indústria da defesa.
                  

                     Portanto, o Conselho fez bem. Fez bem, mas não chega. Porque é urgente definir uma arquitetura de defesa europeia, porque, sem isso, o plano industrial que é longamente falado continuará vago, as compras conjuntas continuarão descoordenadas e a defesa da Europa continuará dependente de outros, inclusivamente na sua componente nuclear.
                  

                     Portanto, o fim do tempo da ilusão exige estas respostas rápidas e decididas, mas já sabemos que a velocidade tem riscos — e vale a pena, hoje, falar aqui destes riscos. O risco de, sistematicamente, se ultrapassar e passar ao lado do Parlamento Europeu; o risco de a Comissão e a sua presidente passarem a ser essencialmente uma figura decorativa face a iniciativas políticas de Macron, Starmer, Merz ou, quem sabe, outros; e o risco de destruir a NATO, para a qual ninguém tem hoje uma alternativa credível.
                  

                     Portanto, é esse, Senhores Deputados, o nosso desafio: salvar a Europa — a começar pela Ucrânia, que tanto merece a nossa ajuda —, sem destruir as suas instituições. E é nossa responsabilidade estar à altura deste desafio.
                  

(O orador aceita responder a uma pergunta ‘cartão azul’)


João Oliveira (The Left),
Pergunta segundo o procedimento ‘cartão azul’
                        . – Senhora Presidente, Senhor Deputado Cotrim de Figueiredo, o senhor deputado acha boa ideia aliviar o garrote orçamental para gastos militares, o garrote do Pacto de Estabilidade para gastos militares, mas não acha bem se for para gastos com a habitação, com a saúde, com as pensões.
                  

                     O senhor deputado acha que os recursos públicos não podem servir para investir na habitação, para resolver os problemas do acesso à habitação, porque são recursos públicos, mas desviar 800 mil milhões de euros para gastos militares, já, na perspetiva dos liberais, está certo. E o senhor acha que é com a corrida global aos armamentos, aumentando os riscos de confrontação, de guerra e de destruição, que se alcança a paz e a segurança coletiva.
                  

                     Explique-nos lá, senhor deputado, essa ilusão liberal, porque nós não encontramos nisso nenhuma referência que sirva a povo nenhum, incluindo ao povo português.
                  

João Cotrim De Figueiredo (Renew),
Resposta segundo o procedimento ‘cartão azul’
                        . – Senhor Deputado João Oliveira, eu acredito é que, se não pararmos Putin, não há habitação, não há educação, não há saúde que valha a nenhum europeu.
                  

                     E, portanto, quem tem de explicar é o senhor deputado: porque é que, há três anos, desde a invasão da Ucrânia pela Rússia, defende sistematicamente uma política de apaziguamento de tiranos como Vladimir Putin? Isso é que o senhor deputado tem de explicar.
                  

Villy Søvndal (Verts/ALE). – Fru formand! Det smerter mig at konstatere, at vi ikke længere kan stole på USA under Trumps ledelse. Jeg er netop kommet tilbage fra Ukraine. Her kæmper landets befolkning for deres liv, deres frihed og deres fremtid. Vi ser den ukrainske befolkning blive svigtet af USA. USA har gjort det lettere for Rusland at bombe i Ukraine og dræbe civile. Det ser vi hver dag nu på tabstallene. Vores tætte allierede kan vi ikke længere kende. I Det Hvide Hus skal frihedskæmperen Zelenskyj, ydmyges og presses til at sige tak foran rullende kamera. Det er skammeligt! Jeg vil dog gerne sige tak. Tak til Zelenskyj og det ukrainske folk for at stille op mod autokraterne. Tak til de ukrainske soldater, der kæmper på slagmarken. Kolleger, lad mig gøre det klart: Europa skal gøre sig uafhængigt af Trumps USA. Det betyder øget samarbejde med forsvarsmateriel, teknologi og efterretninger. Det betyder, at vi skal skabe de nødvendige alliancer med de lande, der stadig støtter en verden formet af den internationale retsorden. Det betyder, at vi skal tro på os selv, på Europa og på Ukraine.
                  

Li Andersson (The Left). – Madam President, as a leftist, I think that Putin and Trump form one of the most dangerous ideological alliances that the world has seen in a long time.
Therefore, it is essential that the EU strengthens its support for Ukraine. In addition, the EU should set a strategic goal of reducing our dependencies on the US. This means: creating a European security architecture, redirecting all financing currently going to the US arms industry to Europe; reducing energy dependencies; and limiting the powers of the digital oligarchs.
Changes to the fiscal rules must enable all of these investments. I do understand that the goal might also require more investment in European defence. But it would be a historic mistake to finance this by cutting welfare, because that would only cement the rise to power of Putin's and Trump's allies in Europe: the extreme right. And for once, the EU needs to be smarter than this.

Станислав Стоянов (ESN). – Г-жо Председател, прахосването на 800 млрд. евро, от които 150 милиарда нови заеми, ще натовари държавите членки с непоносим дълг. Ръководството на Европейския съюз, което вече се провали зрелищно в редица случаи като ‘зелената’ сделка, нелегалната миграция, войната в Европа и икономическата рецесия, сега очаква да му доверим нашата сигурност. Лидери, които сега говорят за независимост от САЩ, дълги години бяха първи евроатлантически послушници.
                  

                     Да, защитата на Европа е от решаващо значение, но отговорността за отбраната трябва да остане в ръцете на суверенните нации. Не бива да разхлабваме процедурата за прекомерен дефицит, нито да използваме кохезионните фондове за закупуване на оръжия. Европейската икономика вече е в криза и без това.
                  

                     Европейският съюз трябва да търси сътрудничество със своите съседи и с всички глобални сили, да си осигури достъп до евтини ресурси и да изгради стратегически партньорства. Най-лесният начин да се спестят тези огромни пари, а и да се гарантира сигурността, е като се използва дипломацията и се възстановят нормалните отношения с Русия. Щом САЩ може да го направи, защо Европейският съюз да не може?
                  

Jeroen Lenaers (PPE). – Madam President, when your neighbour's house is on fire, you don't haggle over the price of the garden hose. With those words, the US under President Roosevelt came to our aid during the Second World War. 80 years later, war is raging again on the European continent, but this time, the US does not only want to negotiate the price of the garden hose, they bully the neighbour into giving up his house altogether before considering any help.
This is the situation we are in today and it's a wake up call like never before for Europe, a wake up call that should not have been necessary. For years and years, we have been discussing the need for Europe to get serious about its own defence. Many European leaders have stood here in this room, passionately arguing the necessity of this.
So it's fair to ask exactly what we have achieved in all these years, and the clear answer is not enough. So in that sense, I really welcome the determination and the ambition shown by President von der Leyen and the European leaders last week. This ambition needs now to be translated into immediate and tangible European action.
Extraordinary circumstances ask for extraordinary measures, and we must be brave and bold not only to be able to help Ukraine, which is, of course, of crucial importance, but ultimately to help ourselves, because Ukraine's interests are Europe's interests, we are defending common European values. We are defending international law and the rules-based order. We are defending the very basic principle that the aggressor should not be rewarded at the expense of the victim.
Today, we must defend a future for our children in freedom and safety on our European continent.

Kathleen Van Brempt (S&D). – Voorzitter, Europa was, is en zal altijd een vredesproject zijn. Maar kiezen voor vrede en vrijheid betekent dat we onze veiligheid in eigen handen moeten nemen. Daarom zijn de voorstellen van de Commissie en de Raad een eerste belangrijke stap. Een nieuwe Europese vredesarchitectuur omvat echter veel meer 27 lidstaten die extra investeren. Het vereist ook coördinatie en strategie.
                  

                     Veiligheid is ook zoveel meer dan kogels en tanks alleen. Het gaat ook om infrastructuur, technologie en het afbouwen van onze afhankelijkheid. Denk aan energie, grondstoffen aar bijvoorbeeld ook medicijnen. Veiligheid betekent ook niet bezuinigen maar juist verder investeren. Ja, in defensie, maar ook in duurzaamheid, infrastructuur en sociaal beleid. Ons sociaal model is immers uniek in de wereld en dat is wat Europa zo anders maakt dan waar Poetin en Trump voor staan. Dit is waar de Oekraïners voor vechten: vrede, vrijheid en veiligheid. Dat is wat we nu, meer dan ooit, moeten beschermen.
                  

Roberto Vannacci (PfE). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signora von der Leyen: ma dov'è?
                  

                     Monsieur Costa, elle ne se cache pas derrière vous, Mme von der Leyen?
                  

                     Perché la signora von der Leyen ha paura di questo Parlamento ed invoca l'articolo 122, lo stato di emergenza, per raggirare l'unica istituzione europea eletta dal popolo e per indebitare noi e i nostri figli per 850 miliardi di euro da spendere in armi.
                  

                     Eppure i carri russi non sono a Varsavia, neanche a Budapest e neanche a Praga. E Parigi non brucia sotto gragnole di colpi. Quello che brucia in Francia sono le chiese cristiane. Queste sono le vere emergenze signora von der Leyen!
                  

                     Sono le famiglie europee che non arrivano a fine mese e che non hanno i soldi per pagare le bollette del gas, che le politiche scellerate della sua Commissione hanno fatto lievitare esponenzialmente.
                  

                     Le vere emergenze sono l'autarchia e la dittatura e la sospensione della democrazia, come è avvenuto pochi giorni fa in Romania, che i tecnocrati di Bruxelles appoggiano e sostengono.
                  

                     Le vere emergenze sono gli attentati e la criminalità e gli atti di criminalità, che quasi giornalmente gli immigrati illegali portano a termine a spese e a danno dei cittadini europei nelle nazioni europee.
                  

                     Queste sono le vere emergenze, signora von der Leyen, non la paura di vederci un soldato russo col colbacco in testa alle porte di casa. E ci venga in Parlamento, e non abbia paura, perché qua non l'aspetta un plotone di cosacchi con le sciabole, ma i rappresentanti del popolo europeo che vogliono dire la loro sul loro futuro.
                  

Charlie Weimers (ECR). – Madam President, Europe's security isn't built on words, it's guaranteed by firepower. Strong national defences are key. I believe we can cooperate, we can scale up production, without surrendering national control. REARM Europe is a start, but without real output, it's just words.
We need bullets, drones, missiles streaming quickly, unimpeded by delays. Last year we produced 500 artillery shells. Ukraine burns through that in two months. Scaling up – experts say years. We don't have years. Bureaucracy kills. Delays kill. Either we act or we fail. Ukraine needs firepower now. Tanks, jets, not just applause. Drop the taboos – landmines, cluster bombs – because Russia has no red lines. It's time to turn plants into production, factories into force. Support Ukraine now. Peace through strength now.

Dan Barna (Renew). – Doamnă președintă, domnule comisar, domnule președinte Costa, apreciez și vă mulțumesc pentru prezența dumneavoastră la dezbatere. Contextul de securitate al Uniunii Europene nu mai este, din păcate, o certitudine liniștită, ci mai degrabă un câmp de luptă. Ne-am văzut vulnerabilitățile după instalarea unei administrații americane cu priorități și afinități pro-Putin. Ne-am amintit din nou – și statele din estul Europei știu asta foarte bine – că pariul pe garanții externe este unul foarte periculos pe termen lung.
                  

                     Nu. Nu ne mai putem permite refugii iluzorii în dependențe strategice, nici militare și nici energetice. Acum este momentul ca Uniunea Europeană să devină un adevărat constructor al propriei sale securități. Propunerile actuale ale Comisiei sunt un pas vital, dar avem nevoie de mai mult decât de alocări financiare. Avem nevoie de o industrie de apărare robustă și unificată. Avem nevoie de forțe interoperabile, capabile de desfășurare rapidă. Avem nevoie de o abordare strategică comună, de o înțelegere unitară a amenințărilor actuale. Trebuie să devenim stăpânii propriului nostru destin și garantul propriei noastre securități. Doar atunci ne vom putea proteja cu adevărat valorile, cetățenii și viitorul.
                  

Sergey Lagodinsky (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, Mr Vice-President, Mr President, our challenges are monumental; our instruments are outdated. But the idea that unites us all – our Europe – it is not. I believe in the power of Europe because, frankly, what other choice do we have in the world divided between Trumps and Xis and Putins?
Ideas inspire, but actions define our future. We need real European capabilities, not grand promises; real European money, not 800 billion of hot air that was promised by the Commission.
We need a strategic decision-making centre and we need an opportunity to leave spoilers like Orbán behind. We need a decision-making centre, not 27 passionate speeches per meeting – a core Europe for defence that should emerge with the big and bold, with the committed and capable. France and Germany, yes, but also Estonia and Latvia and Lithuania. Let's not forget about those. And London and Oslo. And yes, we make Europe act again. And yes, we will.

Kathleen Funchion (The Left). – A Uachtaráin, as a Member from a country that cherishes our neutrality and recognises the benefits it has brought to the world, I want to express my opposition to any backsliding when it comes to the neutrality of Ireland.
Our country has a proud history of UN-mandated peacekeeping missions, a tradition that has gone on for decades. Our neutrality has enabled us to maintain an independent foreign policy, and this is a strength that is valued and supported by the Irish people.
It is therefore shameful that our Irish Government would try to use this real emergency to end the 'triple lock' policy, which is in place to protect our neutrality. The 'triple lock' is a core component of Ireland's independent foreign policy, and is enshrined in national declarations to the Irish people by governments in advance of a previous EU referendum. So if the Irish Government wants to remove this protection, it should put it to the people and have a referendum on it.

Dolors Montserrat (PPE). – Señora presidenta, el nuevo orden mundial ha puesto a Europa frente al espejo, obligándonos a elegir en qué lado de la historia queremos estar. Tres años después de la invasión, Putin ya no busca solo una capitulación humillante para Zelenski y su pueblo, quiere borrar los valores europeos de libertad, democracia y paz y avanzar en su sueño imperialista.
                  

                     Europa lo tiene claro: frente a la sumisión, liderazgo, acción y firmeza. Y esta es la peor noticia para Putin. No renunciaremos a la libertad, no descansaremos hasta una paz justa y duradera. Nuestro apoyo a Ucrania ha sido claro y firme desde el primer minuto, algo que no todos pueden decir aquí.
                  

                     Mientras Estados miembros como Polonia y Alemania redoblan su inversión en seguridad y defensa, España tiene el Gobierno que menos invierte en defensa en Europa, solo un 1,2 %. España es uno de los países que más gas compra a Putin desde que comenzó la guerra: 9 000 millones de euros. Sánchez es el equilibrista de una coalición de Gobierno sin presupuestos ni respaldo parlamentario que le exige la salida de la OTAN y blanquea a dictadores. Todo con un mismo objetivo: debilitar a España y a Europa desde dentro.
                  

                     Europa debe asegurarse de que cada euro europeo para defensa se dedique a ello y no se repita lo que ha hecho Sánchez con los fondos de Next Generation EU: usarlos como si fueran propiedad de él y de su Partido Socialista. El Partido Popular Europeo lo dice bien claro y bien fuerte: sí a la Unión Europea de Defensa y sí a una soberanía estratégica real. La historia ya nos ha enseñado el precio de la inacción y esta vez no podemos fallar.
                  

Christel Schaldemose (S&D). – Fru formand! Verden er forandret. Det er en mindre sikker klode, vi har i dag end for bare få uger siden. Derfor skal EU også forandre sig. EU skal tage ansvar for egen sikkerhed. Det har vi været alt for langsom om at gøre. Ukraine er vores lakmusprøve på, om vi vil, og om vi kan. Tendensen er desværre klar: Jo længere et EU land ligger fra Ukraine, jo mindre bliver der givet i støtte. Det duer ikke. Det er ikke måden, vi viser, at vi kan tage ansvar for Europas sikkerhed på. Vi siger, at alle i Europa skal stå sammen, men ikke alle handler derefter. Vi skal altså have øget den støtte til Ukraine, og det skal være nu. Og så skal vi selvfølgelig også opbygge vores egen europæiske forsvarskapacitet. Krigen i Ukraine, er simpelthen den prøve, der viser, om vi i Europa kan stå sammen mod trusler udefra. Vi skal have alle lande til at forstå, at det her, det handler faktisk ikke kun om Ukraine. Det handler også om os selv. Lad os sætte i gang. Lad os vise, at vi godt kan forsvare Europa selv.
                  

Jaroslava Pokorná Jermanová (PfE). – Paní předsedající, Evropa je vlastní vinou ve složité situaci, která prověří naši schopnost správně reagovat na osudové výzvy. Musíme jednat pragmaticky, být jednotní, ale zároveň respektovat suverenitu a zájmy jednotlivých států. Bezpečnostní politika se nemůže tvořit v Bruselu, ale musí vycházet z potřeb členských zemí. Šance Evropy je v transatlantické spolupráci. NATO disponuje obrannými mechanismy, které se vyvíjely celá desetiletí. Vytvářet paralelní evropskou strukturu je cesta špatným směrem.
                  

                     Soustřeďme se na posilování aliance NATO. Investujme diplomatické úsilí i finanční zdroje do tohoto projektu. Je potřeba se zastavit a o obranné politice přemýšlet s chladnou hlavou. Naše vzájemné vztahy se Spojenými státy americkými nyní omezujeme pouze na otázku Ukrajiny a necháváme je definovat tímto konfliktem. Přitom je zde mnoho jiných problémů, na kterých potřebujeme spolupracovat. Měli bychom vyvinout maximální úsilí na zajištění míru a vytvoření fungujících bezpečnostních záruk. Chytré a zodpovědné řešení je zajištění konkurenceschopnosti našeho hospodářství, udržování pro Evropu výhodných transatlantických vztahů a vedení pragmatické diplomatické politiky.
                  

Roberts Zīle (ECR). – Cienītā priekšsēdētājas kundze, Padomes priekšsēdētāja, Komisijas vicepriekšsēdētāja! Protams, Eiropadomes lemtais par šiem 800 miljardiem eiro ir solis pareizā virzienā. Taču uzdosim jautājumu, vai jau trīs gadus atpakaļ mēs nevarējām pacelt šo klauzulu, kas liedza 650 miljardus dalībvalstīm ieguldīt militārajā industrijā un aizsardzībā. Un arī šie 150 miljardi no SAFE programmas, šķiet, tiks aplikti ar pārliekiem nosacījumiem – šodien dzirdētiem no Eiropas Komisijas priekšsēdētājas puses, – kas varētu piemeklēt līdzīgu likteni, kā mums iet ar Atveseļošanas un noturības mehānismu.
                  

                     Kas būtu Eiropai jādara šajā izšķirošajā brīdī? Manuprāt, pārliecinoši ātri soļi, piemēram, palielināt sankcijas krievu ēnu flotei vismaz līdz ASV sankciju apmēram pret tiem, nepirkt Krievijas sašķidrināto gāzi, konfiscēt iesaldētos Krievijas resursus un nosūtīt Ukrainai palīdzību, nu, vismaz apmēram 1% no IKP militārajā pusē.
                  

                     Jā, nav patīkama ASV administrācijas pozīcija, taču Eiropas labākā atbilde būtu rīcība – demonstrācija, un tas parādītu to, ka vienīgā izšķirošā iespēja mums ir saglabāt (NATO ietvaros) stingru Rietumu pozīciju drošības jomā.
                  

Daniel Caspary (PPE). – Sehr geehrte Frau Präsidentin, geschätzte Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Es ist heute hinreichend oft gesagt worden: Wir haben die letzten drei Jahre nicht hinreichend auf Russlands Aggressionen reagiert. Und es ist auch deutlich geworden: Europa ist immer dann stark, wenn wir besonders unter Druck stehen.
                  

                     Ich möchte auf eine Sache noch einmal hinweisen, die unser Fraktionsvorsitzender Manfred Weber vorhin vollkommen zu Recht dargestellt hat: Wir sind gut in den Krisenzeiten. Aber schaffen wir es in den Krisenzeiten nicht nur als Europäische Union, die Mitgliedstaaten dabei zu unterstützen, ihre Hausaufgaben zu erledigen, sondern schaffen wir es auch gemeinsam mit den Mitgliedstaaten, endlich in Europa den nächsten Schritt zu gehen?
                  

                     Wir haben es doch gesehen bei der Corona-Krise: Der Corona-Wiederaufbaufonds war ein Riesenschritt der Europäischen Union, um den Mitgliedstaaten zu helfen. Aber wir haben es nicht geschafft, die europaweiten Stromnetze z. B. zu bauen, europaweite Eisenbahnnetze zu ertüchtigen. Wir haben es nicht geschafft, Europa als Kontinent mit einem gemeinsamen großen Projekt zusammenzubringen.
                  

                     Und auch jetzt – ReArm Europe ist dringend nötig. Aber auch hier gilt doch wieder: Es fehlen genau die gemeinsamen europäischen Projekte. Es geht doch nicht nur darum, die Mitgliedstaaten jetzt alleine dabei zu unterstützen, die nötige Aufrüstung zu machen, endlich verteidigungsfähig zu werden, sondern wir müssen doch gemeinsame europäische Projekte durchsetzen.
                  

                     Ich kann den Rat nur aufrufen, Herr Costa, ich kann die Mitgliedstaaten nur aufrufen: Bitte machen Sie im Rat Druck, dass wir einige Projekte auch gemeinsam machen! Die Beispiele, die Manfred Weber heute genannt hat: mit dem gemeinsamen Überwachungssatellitensystem, mit einem gemeinsamen Luftabwehrschirm, mit einem vielleicht auch gemeinsamen Flugzeugträger, Hubschrauberträger, Drohnenträger oder was auch immer. Wir müssen doch bitte auch als Europäer gemeinsam ein großes Projekt voranbringen, um auch nach außen zu zeigen: Wir meinen die europäische Einigung – gerade auch in Krisenzeiten – ernst.
                  

Nicola Zingaretti (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, io penso che l'Europa debba aumentare la sua sicurezza ma il modo per farlo è aprire il cantiere per la difesa comune europea. E va detto con chiarezza: il semplice aumento della spesa militare per 27 eserciti nazionali non ci rende più sicuri.
                  

                     La deterrenza o è europea o non è deterrenza e dobbiamo quindi finanziare progetti comuni, promuovere insieme acquisti a favore dell'industria europea, rafforzare il coordinamento dei sistemi e dei comandi, investire massicciamente nella ricerca dell'industria dell'aerospazio. Sicurezza è rilanciare il ruolo politico e unitario dell'Europa, il suo protagonismo come grande attore globale nel commercio, nell'industria e nella cultura, e rafforzare la sua politica estera.
                  

                     Contro più nazionalismo occorre più federalismo e questa stagione si può e si deve aprire senza colpire la spesa e la coesione sociale ma con politiche di investimenti comuni. Perché siamo tornati alla sostanza della straordinaria intuizione di Ventotene: l'Europa sarà libera se sarà più unita.
                  

Harald Vilimsky (PfE). – Frau Präsidentin, meine sehr geehrten Damen und Herren! Für den Kurs der Europäischen Union gilt in abgewandelter Form das Sprichwort: Immer, wenn du glaubst, es geht nicht mehr, kommt schon der nächste Wahnsinn daher. Und im Konkreten ist es jetzt der Plan, hier eine gewaltige Summe von 800 Milliarden dafür vorzusehen, diesen Kontinent aufzurüsten. Und rechnen Sie diese Summe um auf die Zahl der Einwohner Europas, so kommen Sie per capita – wie es so schön heißt, vom Baby bis zum Greis – auf eine Summe von um die 1 800 Euro. Rechnen Sie das auf die Aktivgeneration, kostet das jeden Europäer, der heute Steuern beiträgt, wahrscheinlich zusätzliche 4 000 bis 5 000 Euro pro Jahr.
                  

                     Ich sage: Das ist der falsche Weg. Europa braucht dieses Geld für neue und gute Jobs. Europa braucht dieses Geld für soziale Aktivitäten, für Spitäler, für den Bildungsbereich, für Schulen, aber nicht, um aufzurüsten. Und ins selbe Horn stößt auch der Vorschlag, der jetzt aus Frankreich kommt, nämlich den ganzen Kontinent mit Atomwaffen quasi zu übersäen. Das ist der falsche Weg.
                  

                     Wir haben zurzeit Verhandlungen in Saudi-Arabien mit der Trump-Administration – und jetzt kann man von Trump halten, was immer man möchte, aber es ist zumindest der Versuch, hier am Tisch Frieden herbeizuführen. Ich hätte mir gewünscht, dass die Europäische Union dort anknüpft, wo sie 2012, glaube ich, schon einmal war, nämlich eine Art Friedensnobelpreis erhalten zu haben, und sich jetzt hier in Kooperation und in einem Zusammenspiel mit dem Westen gemeinsam dafür ausspricht, das Sterben endlich zu beenden, endlich dafür Sorge zu tragen, dass es zu qualitativen Friedensverhandlungen kommt und dass wir in Zukunft wieder daran arbeiten können, den Wohlstand auf diesem Kontinent voranzutreiben, und nicht zuzusehen, wie hier mehr und mehr Tote und Verletzte generiert werden.
                  

Adam Bielan (ECR). – Madam President, for too long Europe has neglected its defence industry, leaving us dependent on external suppliers and slow to react to crises. While NATO allies uphold Article 5, they have failed to meet Article 3's obligation to develop their own defence capabilities.
EU Member States must urgently invest in their own security, as Poland did under Law and Justice leadership.
Recent events have shown that without the United States, Europe is unfortunately nearly defenceless. Regardless of political turbulence or disagreements, we must maintain strong and reliable transatlantic relations. Our security depends on it. And here, from this very place, I once again urge the Prime Minister of Poland to stop blocking President Duda's proposal to convene an EU-US summit in Warsaw under the Polish Presidency. Failing to hold it will only deepen the cracks in our relations with our most important ally. We cannot afford such missteps at a time when security challenges are multiplying across Europe and beyond.

Zoltán Tarr (PPE). – Madam President, dear colleagues, usually I speak Hungarian, but I'm compelled to speak English because I need to speak to the people of Europe on behalf of my fellow Hungarians.
In an increasingly uncertain global political situation we need a strong Europe, which requires the establishment of a new security system. Unfortunately, there is a risk that my country, Hungary, will not be part of this because the current Hungarian Prime Minister serves foreign interests. The country's economy is in despair, inflation is soaring and corruption is our present and our future.
The government is isolating Hungary. It claims to seek peace, but in reality it endangers the security of Hungarians and that of the whole of Europe. The vast majority of Hungarians believe that Hungary's place is in Europe. Everyone must clearly understand that. Hungary's home is Europe, and Europe's security is equal to Hungary's security.
We, the opposition, the Tisza party, are ready to lead Hungary back to the heart of Europe. Our future lies in a strong, secure and prosperous Europe, not in the shadows of the Kremlin.

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


Alexander Jungbluth (ESN),
Frage nach dem Verfahren der ‘blauen Karte’
                        . – Sehr geehrter Kollege, Sie haben ja kaum zum Tagesordnungspunkt gesprochen; Sie haben ja eigentlich Ihre Redezeit vor allem dazu genutzt, gegen Ihre eigene Regierung vorzugehen. Aber ich stelle mir mal folgende Frage: Sie wollen ja immer diese stärkere europäische Integration. Sie stellen hier in Aussicht, dass Ihre Delegation dafür steht, Ungarn in das Herz Europas zurückzuführen. Was wollen Sie denn eigentlich erreichen? Wollen Sie tatsächlich, dass eine ungarische Armee geopfert wird, damit es eben eine europäische Armee gibt, die Ungarn dann mit Sicherheit nicht mehr verteidigen will?
                  

                     Meinen Sie mit dem Herzen Europas das, was Ihre Fraktionskollegen von der CDU zu verantworten haben, dass es zu Massenvergewaltigungen in Deutschland kommt, dass es zu Terror in Deutschland kommt? Wollen Sie, dass das auch in Ungarn stattfindet? Glauben Sie, dass das der Punkt ist, wo Sie sagen, dass das Herz Europas Sie dahin zurückführt?
                  

Zoltán Tarr (PPE),
kékkártyás válasz. – Azt értem az Európa szíve alatt, hogy egy olyan Európában élünk és kell éljünk, ahol az európai országok önszántukból, saját akaratukból együttműködnek annak érdekében, hogy egy biztonságos, biztonságot nyújtó, egymásnak segítő Európát hozzanak létre. Ehhez arra van szükség, hogy az európai országok együttműködjenek, segítsék egymást és tiszteljék egymást. Erre gondolok akkor, amikor az Európa szívéről beszélek.
                  

Javier Moreno Sánchez (S&D). – Señora presidenta, señor comisario, señor presidente del Consejo Europeo, comienzo enviando, en nombre de la delegación socialista española, nuestro recuerdo, apoyo y cariño a las familias de las víctimas del 11M.
                  

                     Señorías, ¿guerra o paz? La Unión está en una disyuntiva impensable hace unos años, especialmente para quienes no hemos vivido la guerra. Crece la inquietud en nuestras sociedades, especialmente entre los jóvenes. Tenemos que hacer partícipe a la ciudadanía, con transparencia y pedagogía, de los cambios que exige la nueva realidad geopolítica. No podemos dejar el relato en manos de la extrema derecha, que aprovechará para seguir destruyendo la esencia de la Unión Europea.
                  

                     Tienen que decirnos claramente si están con Ucrania y con Europa o si están con Putin. Tenemos que explicar que la paz y la seguridad en nuestro continente pasan por seguir apoyando a Ucrania para lograr urgentemente una paz justa y duradera en la que participemos ucranianos y europeos. Y, a medio y largo plazo, tenemos que rearmar Europa y desarrollar una política de defensa común que nos permita ser autónomos y garantizar nuestra propia seguridad.
                  

(El orador acepta responder a una pregunta formulada con arreglo al procedimiento de la ‘tarjeta azul’)


Jaak Madison (ECR),
blue-card question. – I generally agree with you when we are talking about defence policies. We really have to support more Ukraine. I definitely agree.
But, as you are from the Socialist Party from Spain, just a very small, tiny question: what is your opinion on why Spain has provided so little help to Ukraine currently? Because when you look at the GDP, the real help – military aid – it has given to Ukraine, it's almost nothing compared to Poland, Estonia, Denmark, Finland and so on. So, why is there so much talk and no actions? What is the problem in Spain with the Socialists? Why are you not acting?

Javier Moreno Sánchez (S&D),
respuesta de ‘tarjeta azul’
                        . – Señor Jaak Madison, gracias por su pregunta. Desde el primer minuto de la invasión de Putin a Ucrania, el Gobierno de España ha estado con Ucrania. Haremos todo lo necesario para que consigamos esa paz duradera y justa. Estamos con Ucrania, seguiremos estando con Ucrania y pondremos los medios que hay que poner. No se preocupe que el Gobierno socialista español está en ello y seguiremos apoyando a Ucrania, porque no solo es la paz en Ucrania, es la paz en Europa, es la defensa de nuestras democracias y por eso tenemos que seguir unidos. Por eso pregunto a la extrema derecha europea si están con Putin o están con nosotros.
                  

Marion Maréchal (ECR). – Madame la Présidente, malheur aux vaincus et aux vassaux! Telle est la grande leçon inculquée aux Européens depuis maintenant plusieurs semaines. Si nous ne voulons pas risquer que, un jour, l'un de nos chefs d'État se retrouve dans la position de Volodymyr Zelensky dans le Bureau ovale, alors oui, il faut augmenter nos stocks, nos munitions, notre matériel opérationnel et le nombre de nos soldats, non pas pour jouer l'escalade guerrière, mais pour être craints par des adversaires convaincus de notre capacité à riposter. Si vis pacem, para bellum.
                  

                     Pour cela, nous devons dès maintenant écarter la dangereuse illusion d'une force armée au service d'une Europe fédérale. L'Union européenne peut et doit, bien sûr, faciliter le financement de ce réarmement, mais elle ne peut en aucun cas en être la générale en chef; c'est aux armées nationales de défendre nos nations. L'urgence qui doit nous occuper est d'établir une préférence européenne en matière d'achats militaires. Si cette priorité ne devient pas la pierre angulaire de la nouvelle architecture de défense de notre continent, alors toute velléité d'indépendance restera illusoire.
                  

                     Allons au bout du chemin: le réarmement militaire n'a de sens qu'accompagné d'un réarmement démographique et identitaire. Il est grand temps que cette institution cesse de regarder les menaces uniquement à l'aune de ses œillères idéologiques.
                  

Sebastião Bugalho (PPE). – Senhora Presidente, Senhor Presidente, há três anos, ninguém antecipou que a Europa se unisse em torno da Ucrânia, negando a invasão da Federação da Rússia.
                  

                     Três anos depois, a instabilidade americana faz com que muitos digam que a Europa não existe, que não conta, que não consegue.
                  

                     Caros colegas, nos últimos cem dias, as três instituições aqui reunidas mostraram que a Europa está aqui. À ameaça de tarifas respondemos no dia, defendendo a nossa economia. À ameaça de alívio de sanções respondemos na semana, com o 16.o pacote de sanções. À suspensão de apoio à Ucrânia respondemos na hora, não abdicando da liberdade ucraniana, da sua constituição, da sua soberania.
                  

                     A União tem provado que é possível reagir sem provocar, agir sem desistir. Fazemo-lo não para invadir ninguém, mas para impedirmos novas invasões. Fazemo-lo não por oportunidade económica, mas por necessidade, porque não há pobreza mais devastadora do que a pobreza da guerra.
                  

                     Friends, I am Portuguese. I was born in a most distant Member State from this war. So I say to my Polish friends: I know your security is our security. I say to my Romanian friends: I know your democracy is our democracy. I say to my Baltic friends: your defence cannot just be our defence.
                  

                     To our Ukrainian friends, I say: your freedom is our freedom. Today it is increasingly clear that a common response is the only fair response, that to invest in defence is the most urgent response in solidarity. Let's not waste time. Let's do it.
                  

René Repasi (S&D). – Frau Präsidentin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Nach den bizarren Szenen im Weißen Haus vor elf Tagen wissen wir: Die europäisch-amerikanische Freundschaft hat keine verlässlichen Freunde mehr auf der anderen Seite des Atlantiks. Wir müssen uns der bitteren Realität stellen: Wir sind alleine für unsere Sicherheit verantwortlich. Das verlangt echte Anstrengungen und keine Luftbuchungen. 650 Milliarden Euro mehr an möglichen nationalen Schulden führt noch lange nicht zu 800 Milliarden Euro zusätzlichem Geld für unsere Verteidigung.
                  

                     Ich verlange einen ambitionierten Vorschlag, der Verteidigung als europäische Aufgabe versteht, der echtes europäisches Geld in die Hand nimmt, ohne den sozialen Zusammenhalt zu schwächen. Das verlangt gemeinsame Verschuldung für gemeinsame Verteidigungsaufgaben, ohne nationale Schulden zu erhöhen.
                  

                     Lasst uns mutig sein! Die äußeren Gefahren unseres Kontinents sind die Pandemie unserer Zeit.
                  

Michael Gahler (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Der Aggressor im Kreml weiß gar nicht, wie ihm geschieht: Die bisherige Führungsmacht des Westens wechselte in Sachen Ukraine die Seiten. Es muss uns als Weckruf reichen, dass es Zweifel gibt, ob die USA gegenüber ihren Verbündeten im Ernstfall ihren Beistandsverpflichtungen nachkommen. Da müssen wir vom worst case ausgehen und so schnell wie möglich alle Instrumente aktivieren, um uns zu verteidigen und um uns verteidigungsfähig zu machen auf nationaler und europäischer Ebene – im Prinzip, wie es dem Vorschlag der Kommission entspricht.
                  

                     Als EP haben wir Probleme mit der Rechtsgrundlage, und ich hätte mir auch gewünscht, dass wir auch die nationale escape clause nur insoweit gelten lassen, als die zusätzlichen Ausgaben in gemeinsame Rüstungsprojekte investiert werden, um Skaleneffekte zu erzielen, um Interoperabilität zu erhöhen. Wir brauchen auch europäische Projekte, um uns gemeinsam zu schützen. Ein European Sky Shield wäre so ein Beispiel; andere Projekte sind genannt worden.
                  

                     In der Zwischenzeit sehen wir, wie die russische Rüstungsmaschinerie auf Hochtouren läuft und schon jetzt mehr produziert, als sie in der Ukraine einsetzt. Wofür wohl? Machen wir uns endlich klar: Die russische Bedrohung richtet sich gegen uns alle, und die Ukraine ist unsere erste Verteidigungslinie, die wir stärken müssen, während wir das eigene Potenzial hochfahren.
                  

                     Die Ukrainer sind die ersten, die Frieden wollen. Sie wollten auch den Krieg nicht. Aber sie wissen auch, wie ein russischer Frieden aussieht, ein stalinistischer Frieden im russischen Gulag. Das droht auch uns, wenn die Ukraine fällt und wir nicht verteidigungsfähig sind. Lassen wir es nicht so weit kommen! Slawa Ukrajini!
                  

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


Erik Kaliňák (NI),
otázka položená zdvihnutím modrej karty. – Počkám na pána. Je hrozné, že v čase, keď celý svet tlačí na diplomaciu a mierové rokovania, v Európskom parlamente rečníme dve a pol hodiny o zbrojení a potrebe akejsi vojenskej federalizácie. Za mňa úplne mimo, ale otázka na vás.
                  

                     Hovoríme o stovkách miliárd na zbrojenie ako spôsob, ktorým pomôžeme aj Ukrajine, ale tej začínajú zúfalo chýbať nie peniaze, nie zbrane, ale ľudia. Ako chcete riešiť tento problém? Deportáciou Ukrajincov z územia Európskej únie alebo nasadením našich vojakov?
                  

Michael Gahler (PPE),
Antwort auf eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der ‘blauen Karte’
                        . – Wir werden alles unterstützen, was zu einem gerechten Frieden führt – und je früher, desto besser. Und das heißt dann aber auch, dass wir dann, wenn wir einen Kriegszustand beendet haben, unseren Beitrag leisten, dass die Ukraine nicht noch einmal wieder überfallen wird, und das heißt, diese Abschreckung muss glaubwürdig sein.
                  

                     Die Ukraine braucht Sicherheitsgarantien, die den Namen auch verdienen, und der britische Premierminister hat gesagt ‘boots on the ground and planes in the air’. Ich glaube, das wäre nach Ende des Kriegszustandes eine gemeinsame Antwort auf die russische Bedrohung.
                  

Raphaël Glucksmann (S&D). – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, le grand écrivain et combattant de la France libre Romain Gary se demandait pourquoi les élites françaises n'avaient pas suivi le général de Gaulle à Londres en 1940. Était-ce parce qu'elles étaient violemment antisémites? Non, pas vraiment, nous dit Gary. Pro-allemandes ou pro-nazis, alors? Non plus. La raison était plus tristement banale, selon Gary: c'est qu'elles aimaient trop leurs meubles.
                  

                     Les grandes tempêtes exigent de rompre avec l'habitude, et le moment est venu pour nous aussi de nous défaire de nos meubles. La Russie nous menace directement, et les États-Unis nous abandonnent lâchement. Eh bien, c'est le moment de vérité de l'Europe.
                  

                     Il nous revient désormais, à nous et à nous seuls, d'aider massivement notre première ligne de défense qu'est la résistance ukrainienne. Le Conseil européen l'affirme, mais cela suppose de prendre des décisions fortes, devant lesquelles nos États reculent encore, comme la saisie des 209 milliards d'avoirs publics russes gelés en Europe et leur affectation à l'Ukraine.
                  

                     Il nous revient aussi désormais, à nous et à nous seuls, d'assurer notre propre sécurité et de construire une défense autonome. Nos dirigeants l'affirment, mais cela suppose d'aller plus loin que ce qui fut annoncé jeudi. Lançons un emprunt commun finançant des programmes européens et assurons-nous que cet argent serve à développer les industries européennes – et pas à empiler les F-35.
                  

                     Nous avons besoin d'agir plus, et plus en Européens. Слава Україні (‘Slava Oukraïni’)! Vive l'Europe libre!
                  

Luděk Niedermayer (PPE). – Madam President, the world has changed, not to better, in the last few years, but mostly in the last few weeks.
It's clear what we Europeans have to do: the exact opposite to what Moscow, Beijing, but also Donald Trump, is dreaming about. We must get united and we must get much, much, much stronger.
From that point of view, the summit was a good start. But not everything is about money. We need a strong and clear foreign policy to be able to represent the interest of Europeans. Common purchases are good, but it's not the same as the European defence that we desperately need, and this is what Manfred Weber was talking about.
So for me, the summit was a good start. But we must go much, much further and we must go much, much quicker, because there is very little time left.

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


Ondřej Dostál (NI),
blue-card question. – Good morning, Mr Niedermayer. I hope you will respond to my question. Do you really think it would be a good idea to transfer deciding about war and peace from Prague – or other capitals of sovereign nations – to Brussels, and let Brussels institutions decide if our sons will go to war? Because this is a necessary aspect of the common European defence you propose.

Luděk Niedermayer (PPE),
blue-card answer. – First, this is not exactly what I was talking about. But it's absolutely obvious: either we defend ourselves together, or we don't defend ourselves.
What I'm talking about are the projects that will substantially increase our ability to defend, and make it much more effective, and save money – for example, anti-missile defence, drone defence, electronic defence, and so on.
It would be – and I guess you understand – much more effective to make it together than try to develop 10 or 20 different systems at the same time. We don't each need to reinvent the wheel.

Dan Nica (S&D). – Doamnă președintă, domnule președinte Costa, domnule comisar Šefčovič, discutăm astăzi despre un program de asigurare, de fapt, a securității Uniunii Europene. Pentru mine ca român și pentru țara mea este extrem de important să știm nu că suntem doar în marginea Europei și că trebuie să apărăm Uniunea Europeană pe flancul estic, dar trebuie să ne asigurăm că avem și cu ce. Trebuie să-i asigur pe cetățenii români că trebuie să-și vadă de viața lor de zi cu zi, la fel ca toți cetățenii europeni, și că nu există vreo amenințare care să pună în pericol modul lor de a trăi, de a-și desfășura viața în condiții normale.
                  

                     Totuși, în actuala configurație globală, doar dacă ești înarmat suficient ești respectat. Aceasta este o lecție pe care am învățat-o, din păcate, în ultimii ani de zile, iar perioada de naivitate a Uniunii Europene s-a terminat. Trebuie să avem scut de apărare antiaeriană, să avem drone, să avem sisteme antidrone, să avem sateliți, să avem sisteme care să ne protejeze, pentru că doar și numai atunci vom putea să ne desfășurăm viața în mod normal. În plus, trebuie să avem grijă de industriile noastre strategice. Trebuie să avem oțel, trebuie să avem aluminiu produs în Uniunea Europeană, pentru că altfel nu vom putea realiza nimic din ceea ce înseamnă asigurarea intereselor noastre strategice.
                  

Rasa Juknevičienė (PPE). – Gerbiama pirmininke, lygiai prieš 35 metus pirmajame po okupacijos laisvai išrinktame parlamente balsavau už Lietuvos Nepriklausomybę, o šiandien ši diskusija man – to paties kelio tęsinys kartu su Europa.
                  

                     Mano žinia viena – Europa bus stipri, jei padėsime Ukrainai laimėti. Ir mes galime, tik reikia patikėti, kad galime. ‘ReArm Europe’ turi būti įgyvendinama solidariai tarp Europos Sąjungos narių ir solidariai su Ukraina, kuri jau yra ES narė de facto, nes savo krauju gina mus.
                  

                     Ukrainos fronte sprendžiamas Europos likimas. Kažkas paskaičiavo, kad iki šiol kiekvienam Europos Sąjungos piliečiui Europos karinė parama Ukrainai nekainavo nė dviejų puodelių kavos. Valstybės narės tikrai gali skirti Ukrainai daugiau. Sutarkim dėl ne mažiau kaip 0,25 proc. nuo BVP iš kiekvienos šalies. Iškelkim ambiciją: Ukraina – Europos Sąjungos narė iki 2030 m. Pasikartokim istorijos pamokas ir priimkim iššūkius. ‘Keep calm, carry on’ – Winston Churchill.
                  

Marta Temido (S&D). – Senhora Presidente, Caro Presidente do Conselho, quero começar por saudar as conclusões do Conselho Europeu extraordinário da semana passada.
                  

                     Mais do que nunca, todos compreendemos que a segurança europeia está estreitamente ligada ao desfecho da guerra na Ucrânia. O rearmamento da União Europeia, nomeadamente para responder às ameaças híbridas, não é uma escolha, é uma emergência de dissuasão.
                  

                     A Ucrânia precisa de apoio imediato, incluindo da mobilização dos ativos russos congelados, e as conclusões do Conselho mostram a compreensão de que vivemos uma rutura histórica.
                  

                     Mas precisamos de ir mais longe. Da mesma forma que fomos capazes de o fazer na resposta à pandemia, também no investimento em segurança e defesa precisamos de maior solidariedade e coordenação entre os Estados-Membros, nomeadamente através de mutualização da dívida e de compras conjuntas.
                  

                     E, ao mesmo tempo, precisamos de fazer tudo para manter a mesma ambição de investimento nas áreas sociais e ambientais da União Europeia, que são a nossa razão de ser.
                  

                     Por último, precisamos de ser claros com os nossos cidadãos: o momento que vivemos é grave, e provavelmente não o ultrapassaremos sem sacrifícios. A paz justa que queremos para a Ucrânia é a paz que nos protegerá, enquanto sociedades democráticas e livres, a todos.
                  

Tonino Picula (S&D). – Madam President, dear colleagues, I welcome the proposal to strengthen European Union defence capabilities with ReArm Europe, and I call on Member States to proceed forward.
I also believe that this House will support an even more ambitious position. It goes without saying that the transatlantic disruption caused by the new US administration has brought us long-term geopolitical changes. We must not base European security on voter attitudes in US swing states. The EU needs to plan de-risking policy towards Trump's Washington. This is not America that wants its allies to respect it. This is an America that wants its allies to fear it.
Europe must make some historical and responsible steps ahead. Bold leadership and adequate funds are needed, including through seizing EUR 200 billion of Russian assets. I always repeat that our security does not stop at our borders. That's why we have to act fast and to act now. Time is of the essence.

Spontane Wortmeldungen


Dariusz Joński (PPE). – Pani Przewodnicząca! ‘Bezpieczeństwo, Europo’ to nie jest tylko hasło polskiej prezydencji. To również jest wyzwanie, przed którym stoi dzisiaj cała Europa. I powiem absolutnie wprost: musimy się dozbroić, bo Putin wcale się nie chce zatrzymać na Donbasie, nie chce poprzestać na Ukrainie. I nie jest prawdą, kiedy mówi teraz, że już nie chce, żeby ludzie ginęli, bo gdyby tak było, to by trzy lata temu nie atakował Ukrainy.
                  

                     Otóż, choć wiem, że jeszcze na tej sali są osoby, które by chciały robić interesy z Putinem – choć ich jest coraz mniej na szczęście – i szerzą tutaj rosyjską propagandę, m.in. to, co mówi Russia Today, to jest najwyższy czas, żeby powiedzieć stop i dość. Dość już tego. My dzisiaj musimy zbudować europejską polisę ubezpieczeniową i żeby tak było, musimy zainwestować ogromne pieniądze w uzbrojenie. I ten plan Komisji Europejskiej, żeby wydać do ośmiuset miliardów euro właśnie na uzbrojenie jest bardzo dobrym pomysłem, tylko musimy to zrobić szybko, bez debat, bez konsultacji, bez rocznych dyskusji. Po prostu musimy to zrobić zaraz, bo my nie mamy czasu.
                  

                     I chcę powiedzieć jeszcze jedną rzecz. Polska chce przenieść z KPO, z krajowego planu odbudowy prawie 30 mld zł na to, żeby właśnie zainwestować w uzbrojenie, bo bezpieczeństwo dla Europy jest dzisiaj najważniejsze.
                  

Maria Grapini (S&D). – Doamnă președintă, domnule președinte al Consiliului European, domnule comisar, stimați colegi, astăzi trebuia să dezbatem despre ședința Consiliului din 20 martie. Din păcate, aproape toate discursurile au fost legate de reînarmare, de apărare; sunt foarte importante, dar vreau să mă opresc la cele trei puncte spuse de președinția poloneză și vreau să le discutați, domnule președinte, în 20 martie. Este vorba de problema economică. Nu putem să fim puternici – ați spus, domnule ministru, și pe bună dreptate, trei piloni foarte importanți: simplificare, energie și investiții. Dacă aceste trei lucruri nu le vom face, nu avem cum să ne apărăm.
                  

                     Trebuie să spun cu regret că, în ultimii 20 de ani, diplomația Uniunii Europene a scăzut. Dacă vrei să fii puternic în lumea globală, trebuie să știi să negociezi și cu cei mai puternici ca tine și cu cei mai slabi ca tine și să ai clar o economie solidă, care îți permite după aceea să poți să stai la masa negocierilor. De aceea, domnule președinte Costa, special pentru dumneavoastră, vă rog să discutați în 20 martie ce soluții avem pentru energie. IMM-urile sunt la pământ, populația nu-și poate plăti energia, cel puțin în țara mea și în alte țări din est.
                  

President. – I apologise: apparently there was not interpretation in every language, but at least in German I had it.

Γεάδης Γεάδη (ECR). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, σωστά έχετε αναφέρει στην ομιλία σας ότι πρέπει να οικοδομήσουμε κοινή άμυνα. Για πολλοστή φορά ακούσαμε πολλά για την Ουκρανία, όμως ούτε λέξη πάλι για την Κύπρο. Το πρόβλημα ασφάλειας της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης δεν είναι μόνο η Ρωσία αλλά και η Τουρκία. Κυρίες και κύριοι, κάποια γωνιά της Ευρώπης, η Κύπρος, ένα από τα 27 κράτη μέλη της Ένωσης, για όσους έχουν ξεχάσει, τελεί υπό παράνομη κατοχή. Δεν μπορεί να υπάρχουν κατοχικές δυνάμεις δύο προσεγγίσεων. Αποτελεί πρόκληση η παρουσία της Τουρκίας στη συνάντηση του Λονδίνου και η προσπάθεια να συμπεριληφθεί στην ευρωπαϊκή άμυνα ως εγγυήτρια ασφάλειας της Ευρώπης. Μία χώρα που κατέχει παράνομα το βόρειο τμήμα της Κύπρου, απειλεί με πόλεμο χώρες του ΝΑΤΟ και στηρίζει τρομοκράτες στη Μέση Ανατολή. Η Τουρκία όχι μόνο δεν έχει θέση στην Ευρώπη αλλά ούτε στην ευρωπαϊκή άμυνα και ασφάλεια. Ελευθερία στην Κύπρο, όπως λέμε ‘ελευθερία στην Ουκρανία’!
                  

Hilde Vautmans (Renew). – Voorzitter, mevrouw Ursula von der Leyen heeft haar job gedaan. Ze heeft op korte termijn gezorgd voor 800 miljard euro aan extra budgetten en de lidstaten hebben het goedgekeurd en gingen naar huis. Maar ik richt mij nu tot u, want nu begint het echte werk. Ik wil u ertoe oproepen om niet gewoon meer van hetzelfde te doen. We zullen het anders moeten doen. Ik reken erop dat u een ‘coalition of the buying’ aangaat. Koop samen aan. We weten wat er nodig is: een Europees luchtafweersysteem en een Europese nucleaire paraplu.
                  

                     Ik heb de heren Merz en Macron gehoord. Frankrijk en Duitsland doen mee en als zij meedoen, dan zullen andere landen sowieso mee instappen. Doe dit gewoon. Neem ook de Noren en de Britten mee aan tafel. We weten allemaal waarom. Laat ons niet gewoon meer van hetzelfde doen, alleen maar een ‘coalition of the willing’ vormen. Er is nog één grote stap die u samen met de Commissie moet zetten – en ik heb dit vandaag maar een paar keer gehoord – nl. de stap naar een Europees leger. Dat is wat we nodig hebben.
                  

Ana Miranda Paz (Verts/ALE). – Señora presidenta, señora Von der Leyen, ante la escalada militarista y belicista, le traslado como eurodiputada de una organización pacifista nuestra más rotunda oposición a este rearmamento europeo.
                  

                     A la señora de la guerra no le importa que el gasto militar lo paguen los pueblos, no le importa que la factura de la guerra la pague la ciudadanía, prefiere apoyar el belicismo antes que la política social, prefiere apoyar más gasto militar y menos servicios públicos como la vivienda, la salud o las pensiones.
                  

                     Hay que volver a la defensa de la paz, a la resolución pacífica de conflictos, a la diplomacia, a la defensa de los derechos humanos. Hay que volver a la democracia, no a estar supeditado ni a la OTAN ni a los Estados Unidos. No al rearme, ni a la escalada militar y belicista de la Unión Europea. (La oradora pronuncia una frase en gallego).
                  

Özlem Demirel (The Left). – Frau Präsidentin! Frau von der Leyen sagte: Die Zeit der Illusionen ist vorbei. Und sie streute dabei aber so viel Sand in die Augen der Bevölkerung, dass man kaum noch richtig schauen kann. Sie nutzt die Verunsicherung in der Bevölkerung für ein gigantisches Aufrüstungspaket. 800 Milliarden Euro: nicht für Bildung, für Jobs oder soziale Gerechtigkeit, sondern für Waffen. Das wird nicht zu mehr Sicherheit und Frieden hier in Europa beitragen. Nein, es dient nicht unserem Bedürfnis. Es dient der Großmachtkonkurrenz, über die Frau von der Leyen seit 2020 in diesem Parlament immer wieder gesprochen hat.
                  

                     Liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen, an diejenigen, die hier immer die alten Römer zitieren, dass diejenigen, die den Frieden wollen, jetzt für den Krieg rüsten sollten. Ich möchte euch sagen: Dann geht doch ab an die Front, aber schreit nicht nach der Bevölkerung! Unsere Söhne, unsere Kinder kriegt ihr nicht.
                  

                     Die Bevölkerung in Europa sehnt sich nicht nach Krieg, sie sehnt sich nach Frieden. Und unsere Geschichte in Europa hat uns beigebracht, dass immer mehr Waffen nicht zu Frieden beitragen werden.
                  

Lukas Sieper (NI). – Frau Präsidentin, liebe Menschen Europas! Unsere Frau Kommissionspräsidentin von der Leyen wird es nicht wissen, aber sie war einmal meine Vorgesetzte. Während sie in Deutschland Verteidigungsministerin war, diente ich als Ladeschütze bei der Panzertruppe in Munster, in Leopard-2-Panzern, die heute in der Ukraine im Einsatz sind – und genau dort gehören sie hin.
                  

                     Die Europäische Union ist ein Friedensprojekt, aber solange die UN ein zahnloser Tiger ist, muss man Frieden leider verteidigen. Und dafür brauchen wir langfristig eine europäische Armee, denn wohl kaum werden die Spanier die Portugiesen angreifen, die Polen die Tschechen oder – Gott behüte – die Luxemburger uns Deutsche.
                  

                     Mittelfristig muss die Beistandspflicht aus Artikel 42 Nummer 7 des Vertrags über die Europäische Union dem Artikel 5 des NATO-Vertrags mindestens gleichkommen, aber kurzfristig wird der Kampf um unsere Freiheit in der Ukraine geführt. Und dementsprechend muss es unsere größte Priorität bei unserer eigenen Verteidigung sein, die weitere und nun mit dem Wegfall der USA noch stärkere Aufrüstung der Ukraine voranzutreiben. Denn der Feind steht – leider genauso wie bei unseren Übungen damals auf dem Truppenübungsplatz – im Osten.
                  

Hélder Sousa Silva (PPE). – Senhora Presidente, Senhor Presidente do Conselho, Senhora Comissária, as conclusões do Conselho extraordinário representam o reconhecer de uma estratégia europeia que, durante décadas, desenvolveu um modelo de segurança fraco e contraditório, uma Europa geopoliticamente relevante, mas sem os instrumentos de poder necessários para influenciar a sua própria vizinhança.
                  

                     Andamos agora a correr para recuperar o tempo perdido. A segurança não é, tão-só, mais uma política pública, mas a condição existencial de todas as políticas públicas.
                  

                     O tempo da guerra é também distinto do tempo da burocracia em Bruxelas. Enquanto a Europa delibera, as linhas da frente movem-se, as capacidades industriais de defesa alteram-se, e as vulnerabilidades aprofundam-se.
                  

                     Com o plano ReArm Europe, é inegável que se abre uma nova janela de oportunidade para a Europa. É mesmo tempo de mudar.
                  

Thomas Bajada (S&D). – Sinjura President, aħna rridu l-paċi jew li tkompli l-gwerra? Bħala soċjalist u bħala rappreżentant minn pajjiż, Stat Membru newtrali, għandi inkwiet trawmatizzanti, li naħdmu biss li nikkreaw ekonomija ta' gwerra. Minn suq uniku Ewropew ta' popli, prodotti, servizzi u kapital, ninbidlu għal wieħed ta' munizzjon u armamenti li jeqirdu u mhux jgħaqqdu.
                  

                     Iva, huwa ċarissimu li hemm bżonn u hemm biża' serju ta' invażjoni fit-territorju tal-Unjoni. Speċjalment issa bl-inċertezza li ġejjin min-naħa l-oħra tal-Atlantiku. U b'hekk nifhem li l-gvernijiet Ewropej iridu jingħaqdu fi sforzi konġunti fejn jidħol l-investiment personali tagħhom għad-difiża. Argument li jagħmel sens, però ma nistgħux nagħmlu dan askapitu tal-ambizzjonijiet u tat-tama taċ-ċittadini Ewropej. Ħbieb, fl-istess waqt u bl-istess saħħa, ejja ninvestu fin-nies, fil-ħajja tan-nies u mhux inaqqsuhom. Ejja ħa nibbażaw l-ekonomija Ewropea fuq il-benesseri u mhux fuq il-gwerra, fuq il-paċi u mhux fuq il-qerda.
                  

(Ende der spontanen Wortmeldungen)


Maroš Šefčovič,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, Mr President of the European Council, honourable minister, my dear colleague Commissioner Kos, honourable Members of the European Parliament, first and foremost, I really would like to thank you for all the interventions and debate, which for sure will enter into history as a debate, as a plenary, where we made a decisive step towards building common European defence.
The spirit of the consensus from the European Council – unprecedented and unthinkable just a few weeks ago – was felt, I would say, in most of the debate very strongly here as well, in this House of European democracy.
As many of you said, we have to think differently. Only in that way can we mobilise Europe's massive resources and start the deterrence build-up we need.
Many of you honourable Members were absolutely right to underscore that we cannot benefit from a peace dividend anymore. To the contrary, we must address the running security deficit. It's a huge task, and I would say that we must work on all levels – European, national. We have to bring together our industry, our economic stakeholders.
As you heard from President von der Leyen, the first-ever Commissioner for Defence, Mr Kubilius, who also joined our debate this morning, together with the whole College of Commissioners, will be working day and night to achieve these goals.
We all realise that a powerful Europe means just and lasting peace in Ukraine, and a free and sovereign Ukraine means stronger Europe.
My colleague, Commissioner Kos, here with us today, has moved cooperation with Ukraine to a new level. She works tirelessly to support Ukraine in the path towards European membership. And I agree with her that we have to underline that we are living in historic times and therefore extraordinary challenges require extraordinary answers.
As we discussed the last time in this plenary, new geopolitics and transactional fragmentation of the world means that size matters again. Therefore, enlargement of the European family, enlargement of democracy and enlargement of respect for our values are the best answers for today's unstable world. The Commission will work hard to achieve these goals.
Let me conclude by the words of Mr Glucksmann, who said:

                     ‘C'est l'heure de la vérité pour l'Europe’ – et je suis tout à fait d'accord avec lui.

Adam Szłapka,
President-in-Office of the Council. – Madam President, President Costa, honourable Commissioners, honourable Members, thank you very much for your remarks and comments. It's clear for everyone that we are at a crucial juncture. The special European Council last week marked important progress, but we are aware that we have crucial work ahead of us, and an important part of that work must be carried out by the Council.
The Council is ready to do its job and follow up on the special European Council conclusions with the urgency that the moment requires, namely in the setting-up of the necessary instruments to bolster security in the European Union, and the ramping-up of the European defence, technological and industrial base.
Let me address the call of some MEPs on frozen assets. There will be a debate on it tomorrow. Last year, G7 leaders agreed to use the revenues from the immobilisation of Russian assets in the EU for repaying loans to Ukraine granted by the EU and G7 in the amount of USD 50 billion. The Council will consider all possible solutions in coordination with our international partners.
Thank you very much for this debate and thank you very much for your attention.

António Costa,
President of the European Council. – Madam President, honourable Members of the European Commission, Minister Szłapka, Members of the European Parliament, thank you for this opportunity for this democratic dialogue. Allow me to give five short remarks.
First, peace without defence is an illusion. We need to invest more, better and faster in our own defence. It is what we are doing and we need to do more, to invest more, to invest together, to develop common projects for sure. Last week we made a decisive step, but not the last one. We need to continue and we will continue.
Second, defence is broader than ReArm. We need to invest in our strategic autonomy to reduce our dependencies on energy, to secure supply chains, to fight disinformation and protect the integrity of our democratic process and to keep our borders under control.
Third, the European Union and the Member States do not need to choose to invest in peace or to invest in health systems, education or housing. ReArm and the escape clause provide additional funds for defence. Strengthening our societies, protecting our citizens and boosting our economies is essential to strengthening our defence.
Fourth, this war is not only about Ukraine. In fact, this war is about international law: a rules-based international order. Protecting the universal values enshrined in the United Nations Charter – sovereignty, territorial integrity, self-determination, respect of international recognised borders – is essential in Ukraine, as it is essential in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in the Kingdom of Denmark or in Cyprus. So we need to stand for the international law, because international law must be a must win this war.
A last remark: we need to invest more in diplomacy. We need to engage with partners around the world and widen a global network with, of course, our transatlantic partners and beyond – by enlargement, by trade – and stand for a multilateral system, and champion global causes like climate change, fighting poverty or engaging to develop the pact for the future.
These five remarks synthesise what we need to continue to do to ensure our security and to contribute to support for Ukraine for a comprehensive, just and lasting peace.

President. – The debate is closed.
Thank you very much for this interesting debate and for the time discipline. It's really remarkable. We are perfectly on time, so I will suspend for a very short moment until all colleagues have arrived, and then we will continue.


Schriftliche Erklärungen (Artikel 178)



Kinga Gál (PfE),
írásban. – Három éve dúl a pusztító háború Ukrajnában és Európa hatalmas árat fizet érte. Mielőbbi fegyverszünetre és béketárgyalásokra, tartós békére van szükség, nem pedig több fegyverszállításra, több háborúra. Itt az ideje, hogy az Európai Unió vizsgálja felül hibás Ukrajna-stratégiáját. Európának a béketeremtésre kellene összpontosítania ahelyett, hogy még több pénzt küldene Ukrajna katonai megerősítésére és a háború folytatására.
                  

                     Most, hogy az Egyesült Államok is visszavett a háború támogatásából, Európában is vissza kellene térni a józan ész talajára, változásra van szükség az EU háborúval kapcsolatos stratégiájában. A megváltozott világpolitikai helyzetben ugyanakkor kulcsfontosságú, hogy Európa meg tudja védeni magát és többet tegyen saját békéjének és biztonságának garantálásáért. De az Unió védelmi képességei megerősítésének kérdése nem köthető az Ukrajnának nyújtott további katonai segítséghez. Ezeknek különálló kérdéseknek kell maradniuk.
                  

                     A védelem területén támogatjuk azt az elképzelést, hogy Európának képesnek kell lennie arra, hogy megvédje magát. De a döntéshozatalnak tagállami hatáskörben kell maradnia. Miközben támogatjuk a tagállamok közötti ipari együttműködést és a közös programokat, ellenzünk minden olyan föderalista túlkapást, túlterjeszkedést a Bizottság részéről, amely aláássa a nemzeti szuverenitást.
                  

(Die Sitzung wird anlässlich der Feierlichkeiten zum Internationalen Frauentag unterbrochen.)


IN THE CHAIR: ROBERTA METSOLA


President

4.   International Women's Day

President. – Dear colleagues, honourable guests, dear Sviatlana, Palina, Leniie and Tata, thank you for joining us as we mark International Women's Day. I am proud that this House has, and will always be, a force for democracy, equality and solidarity.
Today we pay tribute to the courageous women across Europe who are standing up for the values so many of us far too often take for granted. Women who embody the spirit of courage, defiance and the audacity to believe in a better world, who are on the front lines of the struggle for a future of freedom, who are putting everything on the line as they refuse to give up on what they believe in: Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, leader of the democratic forces of Belarus; Palina Sharenda-Panasiuk, a former political prisoner in Belarus; Leniie Umerova, a former political prisoner from Crimea, and Tata Kepler, a Ukrainian medical volunteer and activist.
Dear friends, dear ladies, your brave actions are an inspiration to this House and to all who cherish liberty everywhere. Thank you for being an example for girls and boys across Europe and the world. Thank you.

(Applause)

In Ukraine today, hundreds of women and men are fighting every day for that dream of peace and freedom. We know their sacrifice and we honour what they stand for.
In Belarus, too many women and men are arbitrarily imprisoned and denied their rights under the boot of dictatorship. We know what they have given up and their plight is not forgotten.
So Sviatlana, Palina, Leniie, Tata, thank you. This House thanks you. Europe thanks you. I now pass the floor to my friend and a force that the world needs to hear more of, Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya.

Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya,
leader of the democratic forces of Belarus. – Dear Members of the European Parliament, dear President Metsola, dear Roberta, thank you for your powerful words, for our friendship and for your incredible leadership.
I always say that unconventional times need unconventional solutions, and last year, Roberta, we took such a step together. We signed a memorandum of cooperation between Belarusian democratic forces and the European Parliament. It was a clear message to my people: Belarus is Europe. And one day we will take our rightful place in this Chamber.

(Applause)

I want to give thanks to the members of the Delegation for Relations with Belarus, led by Małgorzata Gosiewska, and to rapporteur Helmut Brandstätter. Thank you for working with democratic Belarus and not with the illegitimate regime in Minsk.
Just last week, in Rome, we held a historic summit of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance for Democratic Belarus, hosted by the Italian Parliament. Deputies from 17 European countries signed the Rome Memorandum, showing that Belarus's fight for freedom is Europe's fight too.
I want to commend the European External Action Service, the European Commission and the European Endowment for Democracy for your support for Belarusian media and civil society. Every euro spent on truth and resistance builds a shield against the spread of tyranny.
Finally, I want to thank all your nations for welcoming Belarusians fleeing repression, especially Poland and Lithuania, which have sheltered hundreds of thousands.

(Applause)

And I want to congratulate Lithuanian friends who celebrate the Day of Restoration of Independence today. From your own history, you know the true value of solidarity when your homeland is under occupation. Ačiu, draugai!


(Applause)

Esteemed Members of the European Parliament. I want to thank each of you not only for standing with Belarus and Ukraine, but also Georgia, Moldova and Armenia. We all stand in this in the same 'zone of uncertainty', asking ourselves: Who will stand with us for our freedom? Will our countries ever be safe and free, or will we remain in the shadow of a giant – a force that does not respect us, does not recognise our sovereignty, and denies our place as free nations of Europe? Are we to be sacrificed, offered to the giant in the hope that giving him just us will make them stop? That he will take what he wants and go no further?
But we know history. The hunger of the empire is never satisfied. Yes, we live in uncertain times, but uncertainty must not lead to hesitation. Who will defend Europe if not Europeans themselves? Must we always look across the Atlantic for protection? Or is it time to say we will stand up for each other? 'For our freedom and yours,' as the famous motto says.
Dear friends, in such times, International Women's Day is not about celebration, it's about struggle. Today, many Belarusian women don't receive flowers, they receive prison sentences. They don't march in parades, they march into courtrooms. They don't enjoy the luxury of peace and democracy, they have to fight for it.
And we fight. We fight not to be in the shadow of the revanchist Russian Empire, seeking to subjugate our nations and to erase everything that connects us to Europe – our language, our culture, our identity.
We fight for our political prisoners. More than 1 200 behind bars, including 155 women – isolated, tortured, denied medical care. Yet they refuse to give up.
We fight for justice so that every perpetrator – of oppression, of torture and war crimes – is held accountable. Because justice delayed is justice denied.
We fight for the very values that define Europe – freedom, security and prosperity. And Belarus is proof: without freedom, there is no security, and without security there is no prosperity.
And, of course, we fight for Ukraine because our fates are intertwined. Without a free Ukraine, there will be no free Belarus, and without a free Belarus, there will be no lasting peace in Europe.
And we fight against illusions. Putin and Lukashenka don't want peace. They want submission. Any lasting peace must be built on respect, yet Putin has shown none. Like a drunken neighbour, he acts aggressively whenever he doesn't get his way. Without a real shift in his ambitions, any peace will be just a pause – a brief reprieve for Belarus and Ukraine.
It may not stop there. Ask Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia. They all wonder: 'If Ukraine falls, if Belarus disappears, are we next?' There should be no next.
That is why we also fight for Europe – Europe that doesn't give in to dictators and keeps them isolated, but not appeased. Because we know dictators will not stop until we stop them. We can do it only together.
Dear friends, a free Belarus is only possible when Europe is strong and united. As you discuss rearming Europe, I urge you to see support for Belarus as an investment into your own security. Belarus is key to stopping Russia's advance in Europe. Without a free and independent Belarus, the threat of war will not end – not for Ukraine, not for Europe.
As some allies pull back, I call on the European Union to step up. On one hand, increase assistance for Belarusian independent media. Strengthen our resistance. Show Belarusians a clear European perspective, so they know what they're fighting for.
On the other hand, intensify pressure on Lukashenka's regime. I urge you to see Belarus not only as a problem, but as an opportunity to make Europe safer. While isolating dictators, don't isolate our people. Provide visas, close borders for goods, not for passengers. We must not allow the dictators to build a new iron curtain and cement Russia's grip on Belarus for years to come.
Of course, change in Belarus is our task and duty. But to win, we need allies. I came here to say: we need you, Europe. And we need each other.

(Applause)

Let me assure you: we will not stop. Belarusians will not stop until every political prisoner is free. Until every Russian soldier leaves our country. Until we hold trials for crimes against humanity. Until we take our country back.
Yes, this fight is not easy. But thanks to you, to your passion, to your continued support, I know that Belarus and Ukraine will be free. And when that day comes, we will stand together in a safe and peaceful Europe – free of war, free of tyranny and free of fear. A Europe where borders are not redrawn by force, where nations choose their own future, where democracy always prevails and where Belarus, Ukraine and other nations are not in the shadow of the empire, but take our rightful place in the heart of Europe.

Zhyve Belarus! Slava Ukraini! Long live Europe!

(The House rose and accorded the speaker a standing ovation)


President. – Thank you, dear Sviatlana.
I now pass the floor to Belarusian opposition activist and former political prisoner Palina Sharenda-Panasiuk.

Palina Sharenda-Panasiuk,
former political prisoner in Belarus. – Madam President, dear Members of the European Parliament. My name is Palina Sharenda-Panasiuk and I represent here the European Belarus civil campaign. We support the integration of a free Belarus into Europe and this flag is the symbol of our struggle, of our fight and of our movement. Because of these flags, my friends and I have been beaten, imprisoned and subjected to terrible torture. Our campaign was also involved in the preparation of the revolution of 2020 and that is why I was arrested in January 2021, along with other members of our European Belarus campaign.
I spent four years as a political hostage of the Lukashenka regime. I endured all the hell of the dictator's prisons, where the methods of physical and psychological torture from Stalin's times remain unchanged. Four years of complete isolation from the outside world, from my children and my family. Four years spent in solitary confinement, in prison transport vehicles and a total of 2070 days in so-called punishment cells, places of total isolation and torture. But I endured and I was freed. I was freed in part thanks to your principled position, dear Members of the European Parliament. I am especially grateful to President Roberta Metsola for her tireless efforts in securing my release. I also extend my heartfelt thanks to all the Members of this House who fought for my freedom.
But thousands of other political prisoners remain hostages of the terrorist regime in Belarus. Among them my friends from the European Belarus campaign Yauhen Afnahel, Maksim Vinyarskii, Andrei Voynich and Paval Yukhnevich. For more than two years, there has been no information at all about many political prisoners, including Mikola Statkevich. We don't even know whether he's still alive. The situation with women political prisoners as with Viktoryia Kulsha, Alena Hnauk and Volha Mayorava is also catastrophic. I'm deeply worried for their lives.
Ladies and gentlemen, for 30 years there have been concentration camps in the very heart of Europe, on the very border of the European Union. Places where people are tortured and killed simply because they want freedom. It is unacceptable for the civilised world to allow Belarus to remain under the rule of a mentally deranged terrorist. I was freed only because of the pressure on this regime. Do not believe the regime's false claims. Do not believe the lies of its cronies, that political prisoners are released on humanitarian grounds. They are not. Because people are tortured into signing pardon letters to Lukashenka. They are forced to give confession statements and to sign cooperation agreements with the KGB. They are beaten, mutilated, blackmailed, and they are threatened. Hundreds of thousands of Belarusians were forced to flee the country, threatened with new repressions.
I call for increased pressure on Lukashenka's regime, not only through new sanctions but also with strict monitoring of their enforcement. A full blockade and trade embargo under Article 33 of the International Labour Organisation charter must be imposed and there should be no transit of goods from China and other eastern countries to Europe through the concentration camp named Belarus. The regime must be completely ostracised politically, economically and also during all sports events. These are real actions that will force the regime to release political prisoners. It will be the first step towards the liberation of all the people of Belarus.
Without a free Belarus, the existence of freedom and democracy in Europe will always be under threat, including under threat from Russian aggression. Furthermore, a victory in Ukraine will not be possible without a free Belarus. Belarusian opposition is fighting against dictatorship for the free, independent and democratic Belarus. We are fighting for the values on which the European Union is founded. In this struggle, we need your help. We need your help to protect and defend our own values. You can help us to free our friends and leaders who are currently in prison. You can help Europe get rid of the criminals who unleashed the bloody war on Ukraine, Lukashenka and Putin, for our freedom and yours. Long live Belarus!

President. – Thank you very much, dear Palina.
I now pass the floor to Crimean Tatar and former political prisoner Leniie Umerova.

Leniie Umerova,
Tatar former political prisoner from Crimea. – Madam President, my name is Leniie Umerova. I am a Ukrainian and Crimean Tatar activist. I spent nearly two years in Russian prison.
In December 2022, I was abducted by Russian security forces right at the border, as I was trying to reach Crimea to visit my critically ill father. My only crime was that I'm Crimean Tatar. I'm Ukrainian, born in Crimea, and I refused to take Russian passport. For Russia, that's enough to label me an enemy and throw me behind bars. During these years, I endured immense injustice and cruelty: abduction, psychological and physical abuse, interrogation, solitary confinement. Most of the time I was held in complete isolation. But you know what? I'm Crimean Tatar, and these are not the first repression in my family history.
In 1944, my grandmother was just 10 years old when she became a victim of Soviet deportation. Her entire family – like hundreds of thousands of Crimean Tatars, mostly women and children, as the men were at war – was declared a traitor of the motherland. They were given 20 minutes to pack. They were forced into cattle wagons and deported to Uzbekistan. Two of my grandmother's younger brothers, three-year-old Kadir-Ilyas and six-year-old Nazim, died of starvation. This is not only my family tragedy. This is the pain of every Crimean Tatar family.
Many countries have already recognised the 1944 deportation as the act of genocide against Crimean Tatar people, because history must be called by its true name. But history is repeating itself. Once again, Russia is trying to destroy us. Once again, it erases identities, rewrites borders, and crushes lives. In the occupied territories, Russia deports even ordinary civilians. They are abused, forcibly deported, subjected to forced labour. Any act of defiance, even silent, is treated as a crime. The punishment is prison.
Let me share the stories of several women I personally know. Oksana from Kherson region: before she was sent to a detention centre, she was held for six months with a bag over the head. One day she was brought to a pit and they told her, 'We will bury you alive here. No one will know where you are.' Yana from Zaporizhzhia region: she was tortured, her jaw was broken, several teeth knocked out, and then she was denied all medical care. Halyna Dovhopola from Crimea: a 70-year-old pensioner. Russian forces beat her, tortured here and tried to break her fingers. Iryna Danylovych, a Crimean journalist: she survived torture. Today she is denied medical help in prison. She has lost hearing in the ear, suffered a mini stroke, half her body is numb. She lives in constant pain with severe headaches and heart problems.
These are just a few stories. There are thousands more. Around 14 000 Ukrainian civilians are currently being held in Russian prison. In prison, I constantly heard the same phrase: your Ukraine has very little time left. But I'm here, and Ukraine continues to fight, even in the face of devastating news. We are fighting for freedom, for dignity, for every human life. And we are not facing Russia alone. Russia is supported by Belarus, Iran, China and North Korea. Authoritarian regimes have united – against democracy. This is more than a war for territory. This is the battle between light and darkness, between freedom and slavery, between democracy and tyranny. And Ukraine is still fighting and we are fighting for the win. But just imagine – what if Ukraine falls? Who will be next?

President. – Thank you very much, dear Leniie. Thank you very, very much.
I now pass the floor to Ukrainian frontline medical volunteer and humanitarian activist Tata Kepler.

Tata Kepler,
Ukrainian medical volunteer and activist. – Madam President, I'd like to start, please, with a moment of silence in the memory of all Ukrainian women and men that were killed by Russia during this war.

(The House rose and observed a minute's silence)

Thank you.
My name is Tata Kepler, I'm a volunteer and I deal with military medicine, with the tactical medicine supplies. When the full scale invasion started, I joined the unit that was organised by the Patrol Police of Ukraine. Due to that, I visited with my team more than 700 occupied territories and grey zones all over the frontlines. We were helping the civilian people with the medicine and a lot of different stuff.
I had one project that I talk little about in order to be respectful to survivors. But today I'll tell you something about it. It's called the 'silent' project and it's targeted directly to support raped families. We helped everyone with everything being asked for, from restoring houses to buying clothes and other necessary things. My oldest 'case' in this project was a 75-year-old woman that was raped by Russian soldiers and my youngest 'case' was four. She was a four-year-old girl.
I met her in her deoccupied village and she was, you know, really nice and beautiful and so cute and so sweet. She was raped by Russian soldiers – not one – when they came to her village and she did not understand what happened to her and why, as she said, those people were so bad to her.
The family was poor and I was asked to insulate her home and to buy some warm clothes. My friend and I went to the store, we walked between the rows with all those bright children's things and I saw grey warm overalls on pink rubber bands. I said, 'Oh, how nice, how beautiful. She will definitely love this. Let's buy this.' My friend took this one from the hanger and silently turned to me. On the reverse side, on its knees, there was written: 'Stay safe. Always.'
Then I did not cry, no, I howled. I was screaming. I was standing in the middle of that huge store holding this tiny jumpsuit and I howled because I realised that I won't be able to keep her safe anymore. Never.
You know, I understood that I'm still standing there in the middle of the store with the small grey overalls in my hands. I'll still remain forever in Bucha, standing over the people shot point blank because I saw them. I'll be forever holding the hands of a girl from Bucha. Her name was Julia and she was grasping at me and shouting, 'Help me, please help me! My husband and my brother were killed in the basement, their bodies are mined and people don't let me in. So please help me, Tata, help me!' But I couldn't.
I stand again and again in a small village in Kurakhovo in the Donetsk district and persuaded the grandmother Zoia to go with us. We said that we can help to save her life, but she refused because her only home was there. I'm also there, waiting for my friends to return from captivity, listening to the stories of survivors, and I'm still there, hugging my pharmacist, Ania, who has been waiting for the body of her husband for more than a year to be transported home and to be buried. I'm here in the stabilisation point, looking at doctors who are bringing back young, wounded soldiers from the dead. I'm still there, carrying flowers with black ribbons to the graves of my friends who are now and forever 20, 25, 30, 40. They freeze in time, as in my memory. Forever.
I'm telling you that because I want you to know that my country and I, like every other citizen, we will never return from this war, unfortunately. We can come home, we can come back, but we will never return. This will stay with us forever. With me, with my friends, with all the citizens of Ukraine and with this four-year-old girl.
We have to talk about the woman that fighting for democracy, it's really a very important topic, but today all women and men in my country are forced to fight for survival. Today, more than 130 000 women in Ukraine serve in various institutions of the security and defence sector. It's a huge number. I believe that it's the biggest in Europe. Today, tens of thousands of women, mothers, sisters and daughters are waiting for their relatives to return from Russian captivity. Tens of thousands of women will never see their beloved again because they were killed by Russia.
These numbers are terrible and they should scare you, because this is reality that happens not somewhere far away, but here in Europe. Here and now, the genocide of Ukrainian people are spreading before your eyes, it's true, and I ask you to stop tolerating it by silence.
Today, more than 1 300 000 Ukrainian children – again, 1 300 000 Ukrainian children – are in the occupied territories. One more terrible number: according to Russia itself, 744 000 Ukrainian children were exported from Ukraine and that means kidnapped. 744 000. It's a terrible number. 2 387 children were injured and killed, and this is the number that we know because there are a lot of numbers that we don't know.
What I see? I see the large-scale international violence unfolding in front of you and we cannot stop it just by being concerned. I'm really asking you to name names because it's really important. The things that are going on in Ukraine right now, this war, it's a really terrible war. I understand that you, here in Europe, you see the news and you think that you understand us. But I'm telling you all these stories because I want you to try to imagine, just for a moment, this personal hell of every Ukrainian citizen.
Grammatically, Ukraine is a feminine word. We are bombed, they tried to annex us and to destroy us with all this hell, you know. Anyway, I'm so proud to be Ukrainian. I'm so proud that I was born there and that I live in Ukraine. Ukraine is a country of courage. Slava Ukraini!


President. – Thank you all for your decisive and powerful words. They will resonate in this Chamber long after this event is over. Thank you to our honoured guests for joining us and sharing your experiences with us today. This House stands with you because Europe is on the side of democracy everywhere, every time. Thank you all.

(Applause)

5.   Resumption of the sitting

(The sitting resumed at 12:54)


President. – Yes, Mr Glucksmann, is this a point of order?

Raphaël Glucksmann (S&D). – Madam President, it is actually a point of order. It's a point that will show that we have solidarity among ourselves as Members of this Parliament.
Yesterday evening, on Russian TV, Vladimir Solovyov, the main propagandist of Putin's regime, attacked, insulted, threatened one of us: Pina Picierno, Vice-President of this House, has been assaulted with terrific violence on Russian TV.
And then you had campaigns of trolls and bots inside our own territory. So today it's time for us to show solidarity in front of fascist propagandists …

(The President cut off the speaker)


President. – Okay, Mr Glucksmann, thank you. The point is made. But can I please once again repeat that points of order are the only things that will be accepted just before the vote. It has to be done. Otherwise, we will never have rules that are followed. But thank you very much for the point you made.
6.   Voting time

President. – The next item is the vote.
6.1.   Request for the waiver of the immunity of Adam Bielan (A10-0015/2025 - Dainius Žalimas) (vote)

President. – The first vote is on the report by Dainius Žalimas on the request for the waiver of the immunity of Adam Bielan (see minutes, item 6.1).
6.2.   Establishing the Reform and Growth Facility for the Republic of Moldova (A10-0006/2025 - Siegfried Mureșan, Sven Mikser) (vote)

President. – The next vote is on the report by Siegfried Mureșan and Sven Mikser on establishing the Reform and Growth Facility for the Republic of Moldova (see minutes, item 6.2).
6.3.   Appointment of a member of the Single Resolution Board (A10-0024/2025 - Aurore Lalucq) (vote)

President. – The next vote is on the report by Aurore Lalucq on the appointment of a member of the Single Resolution Board (see minutes, item 6.3).
We vote on the appointment of Radek Urban.
6.4.   Appointment of a member of the Single Resolution Board (A10-0025/2025 - Aurore Lalucq) (vote)

President. – The next vote is on the report by Aurore Lalucq on the appointment of a member of the Single Resolution Board (see minutes, item 6.4).
We vote on the appointment of Slavka Eley.
6.5.   Appointment of the Vice-Chair of the Single Resolution Board (A10-0026/2025 - Aurore Lalucq) (vote)

President. – The next vote is on the report by Aurore Lalucq on the appointment of a member of the Single Resolution Board (see minutes, item 6.5).
We vote on the appointment of Miguel Carcaño Saenz Cenzano.
6.6.   Verification of credentials (A10-0016/2025 - Ilhan Kyuchyuk) (vote)

President. – The next vote is on the report by Ilhan Kyuchyuk on the verification of credentials (see minutes, item 6.6).
6.7.   European Social Fund Plus post-2027 (A10-0014/2025 - Marit Maij) (vote)

President. – The next vote is on the report by Marit Maij on the European Social Fund Plus post-2027 (see minutes, item 6.7).
6.8.   Assessment of the implementation of Horizon Europe in view of its interim evaluation and recommendations for the 10th Research Framework Programme (A10-0021/2025 - Christian Ehler) (vote)

President. – The next vote is on the report by Christian Ehler on the assessment of the implementation of Horizon Europe in view of its interim evaluation and recommendations for the 10th Research Framework Programme (see minutes, item 6.8).
I give the floor to the rapporteur for two minutes.

– Before the vote:


Christian Ehler,
rapporteur. – Madam President, this is not the usual comment of a rapporteur highlighting his sunny personality.
This is a decisive vote of this Parliament. This is about whether we are going to have a framework programme, an independent research framework programme, in the future or not. Whether it's squeezed into an absurd idea of an all-in-all competitiveness programme, which is squeezing together 35 years of independent research policies.
The committee had been clearly committing to that, and that's the second shot for the Commission today, because the Warsaw Declaration – the unanimous declaration of all research ministers in Warsaw – had been saying no to that endeavour.
We need an independent program. It has a mid-term, a long-term perspective. It must be open, it must be blue sky. It's not an instrument to have a seamless possibility to shift money from A to B. So vote for that and we will have a vivid discussion with the Commission on that.

(The vote closed)


(The sitting was suspended at 13:03)


IN THE CHAIR: JAVI LÓPEZ


Vice-President

7.   Resumption of the sitting

(The sitting resumed at 13.08)

8.   Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting

President. – The minutes of yesterday's sitting and the texts adopted are available. Are there any comments?
The minutes are approved.
9.   Roadmap for Women`s Rights (debate)

President. – The next item is the debate on the Council and Commission statements on the Roadmap for Women's Rights (2025/2592(RSP)).
The first speaker, speaking on behalf of the Council, will be Mr Szłapka, Poland's Minister for European Union Affairs.

Adam Szłapka,
President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, Commissioner, honourable Members, it is a great honour for me to address this assembly shortly after the celebration of the International Women's Day here in the hemicycle.
This year is an important year for gender equality. The world marks the 30th anniversary of the Beijing Platform for Action, and the Commission sets out its vision for the next five years and its roadmap. But before looking forward, we should also look back with satisfaction at the legislation that was recently put in place, most of which resulted from the agreement between Council and Parliament.
We have improved pay transparency, helping to reduce the pay gap between women and men. We have introduced rules for improving the gender balance in company boards, bringing equality and diversity into corporate boardrooms. We have created minimum standards for equality bodies, giving victims of discrimination an ally in claiming their rights. And we have provided women in Europe the protection of the first ever directive on combating violence against women and domestic violence.
Through these and other achievements, we can surely say that the College administrators have delivered for Europe's women. Therefore, let me take this opportunity to thank the Parliament for tirelessly campaigning for women's rights and for its constructive partnership with the Council in this endeavour.
But the work is never over. There is still a gender pay gap that stands at almost 13 %. There is still an employment gap of more than 10 %, with women and girls still performing a disproportionate share of informal care tasks. And we must, in particular, address the disproportionate impact that armed conflict and economic crisis have on women and girls.
At times when some voices may try to reverse the progress we have made in the EU to promote and protect women's rights, we should concentrate our efforts on stepping up action and working with all partners to promote a model in our Union which is more inclusive and provides a more just society.
We will continue to do so through policy and legislative measures, as well as by tackling the root causes of inequality.

Roxana Mînzatu,
Executive Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, minister, honourable Members, every year on International Women's Day, we celebrate women's achievements and contributions across the world. But despite progress, full gender equality is decades – if not centuries – away.
At the current rate, it will take until 2158, another 134 years, to reach full gender parity at global level, according to data provided by the World Economic Forum. Within the European Union, it will take us more than 60 years. That is why the theme for this year's International Women's Day is 'accelerate action'. We need to take swift and decisive steps to achieve gender equality. We need to address the barriers and biases women face in every aspect of their lives.
Equality between women and men is one of the foundational values of our Union and a strategic interest in all our policies. In the European Union, we have made historic progress with rules on pay transparency, work-life balance, gender balance on company boards and combating violence against women. But we know there is still lots and lots more to do.
This is a special year. We are celebrating the 30th anniversary of the Beijing Platform for Action. Commissioner Lahbib is now in New York leading the EU's delegation to the 69th session of the Commission on the Status of Women. She will pass on a clear message: enabling women's full and equal participation in all parts of society is key to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals.
On this International Women's Day, we show that we are serious about accelerating action with a new roadmap for women's rights. The roadmap sets out a long-term political vision to advance women's rights.
Our priorities are strategic. We have to think that 1 in 3 women has suffered violence in their lifetime and that is why we aim to eradicate all forms of violence against women and girls, including femicide, domestic violence, including coercive control, cyber violence, sexual harassment or exploitation. Every girl, every woman in Europe has the right and should feel safe.
Women's health. It has been under researched and under prioritised. That is why we propose a dedicated focus on women's health in full respect of Member States' competences in this field. That includes promoting gender-sensitive medical research, clinical trials, diagnostics and treatments, and it includes ensuring women's access to sexual and reproductive health and rights.
Employment and pay gaps. There is still much work to do there as well. We need to eliminate gender pay and pension gaps to promote equal employment and financial opportunities for women. Women in Europe should be economically independent and enjoy the same opportunities men do.
Our education should be free from discrimination, from sexism, from stereotypes and violence to encourage both girls and boys to seek the future that they want, because women should be at every table where decisions are made.
This is another objective of the roadmap: equal political participation and representation at all levels of political power. Gender balance at all levels of management, so that women's voices can be heard across the public and private sectors and shape the policies of tomorrow.
And we aim at better safety of women in public life, as they are more likely to be victims of hate speech than their male counterparts.
We also need strong institutional mechanisms that deliver on women's rights. This, among others, includes an effective gender mainstreaming approach. The gender mainstreaming principle that was adopted 30 years ago in the Beijing Platform for Action means that all policy areas should apply a gender perspective.
Striving for gender equality is not only the right thing to do, but it is also the smart thing to do. Gender equality is essential for building strong competitive economies, but also for building sustainable, democratic and inclusive societies.
I invite the European Parliament, the Council and other institutions and stakeholders to unite around this roadmap to put forward actions under their remit and make it so that we turn these principles into an enduring reality for every girl and every woman across our European Union.

Ελεονώρα Μελέτη,
εξ ονόματος της ομάδας PPE. – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, παρουσιάστηκε, λοιπόν, από την Επιτροπή ο χάρτης των γυναικείων δικαιωμάτων και ήρθε να θυμίσει, ειδικά σε εκείνους οι οποίοι ξεχνάνε εύκολα, ποιες είναι οι αξίες της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης: ισότητα, ελευθερία, δικαιοσύνη και ασφάλεια σε όλους τους τομείς και δράσεις της ζωής για γυναίκες και για άνδρες. Η Ευρώπη για ακόμα μια φορά κάνει ξεκάθαρη τη θέση της πως θέλει να συνεχίσει να μάχεται για την ισότητα των φύλων. Τι κι αν η ισότητα των φύλων είναι ένα θεμελιώδες δικαίωμα από το 1957; Τι κι αν τη συναντάμε εδώ και χρόνια στη Συνθήκη για τη λειτουργία της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης; Τι κι αν μέχρι σήμερα, μέσα εδώ, στο σπίτι μας, βλέπουμε πισωγυρίσματα σε εποχές και αντιλήψεις από τα οποία δίνουμε μάχη για να γλιτώσουμε. Εμείς όμως θα συνεχίσουμε αυτή τη μάχη.
               

                  Σε αυτό βέβαια θα μας βοηθήσει ακόμα περισσότερο η στρατηγική για την ισότητα των φύλων και όχι ο χάρτης. Μέχρι όμως να έρθει αυτό στα χέρια μας, εγώ θα θέσω ένα ρητορικό ερώτημα: Άραγε η νομοθεσία αρκεί για να ρυθμίσουμε όλες αυτές τις κοινωνικές ανισότητες και αδικίες που συζητάμε όλα αυτά τα χρόνια; Ποιος νόμος θα απαγορεύσει στους σεξιστές άνδρες και γυναίκες να μας κρίνουν για το ντύσιμό μας, για την ηλικία μας, για το αν κάνουμε ή αν δεν κάνουμε παιδιά; Ποιος νόμος θα σταματήσει τις πατριαρχικές αντιλήψεις και τις πεποιθήσεις εσωτερικευμένου μισογυνισμού να βρίσκουν χώρο στον λόγο και στις πράξεις ανδρών και γυναικών κάθε ηλικίας σε ολόκληρο τον κόσμο; Ποιος νόμος θα απαγορεύσει σε όλους εκείνους που αμφισβητούν, μειώνουν και αποδομούν τη γυναίκα των τόσων ρόλων και των τόσων επιτευγμάτων μόνο και μόνο επειδή είναι γυναίκα;
               

                  Αγαπητοί συνάδελφοι, πέρα από τους νόμους, πρέπει να δουλέψουμε, για να αλλάξουμε και το αφήγημα. Να διαμορφώσουμε ένα νέο συλλογικό ασυνείδητο. Αλλιώς, ό,τι και να κάνουμε, θα υπάρχουν πάντα επαγγέλματα που δεν είναι για κορίτσια. Θα υπάρχουν πάντα γυναίκες που θα πρέπει να φτιάξουν τη ζωή τους μέσα από τον γάμο ή τη μητρότητα. Θα υπάρχουν πάντα εγκλήματα πάθους, γιατί κάποιος αγαπούσε τη γυναίκα του και τη σκότωσε γιατί δεν μπορούσε μακριά της. Ακούτε τι λέμε; Ακούτε τι λέμε όλα αυτά τα εκατοντάδες χρόνια; Αυτό το αφήγημα πρέπει να αλλάξει. Και το αφήγημα δεν αλλάζει μόνο με νόμους. Το αφήγημα αλλάζει με αξίες, αλλάζει με ήθος και με παιδεία. Σε αυτό που συζητάμε το πρόβλημα δεν είναι μόνο οι νόμοι. Σε αυτό που συζητάμε το πρόβλημα είναι και η παιδεία, όπως επίσης είναι και η λύση.
               

Lina Gálvez,
on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, Vice-President, we really welcome this roadmap on women's rights and gender equality. So thank you very much, Vice-President. Thank you also to Commissioner Lahbib to show a clear commitment to gender equality.
In a moment, we are facing a backlash on gender equality and women's rights. So especially also for including sexual and reproductive health rights. It is very important and we really appreciate that this is finally in.
However, this is not the end of this journey. True equality means more than what we have achieved so far. It is about creating a world where every woman in every corner has the freedom and the material preconditions to choose her own path and the power to shape her future, and to participate in an equal path in our common future. Because we have to design also this common future.
So let's do that. This roadmap will be really the origin of the new strategy and work together on this.

Margarita de la Pisa Carrión,
en nombre del Grupo PfE. – Señor presidente, señora comisaria, señorías, aunque la presidenta sea una mujer, parece que la Comisión no termina de entender nuestras aspiraciones. No odiamos a los hombres. Valoramos la familia, la maternidad, la vida y poder cuidar de los nuestros, así como poder desarrollar una vocación profesional. Queremos ser respetadas y amadas, no cosificadas. Nos gustaría estar tranquilas tanto en casa como en la calle, y ser libres. Sin embargo, se responde con más normas de género que acaban con nuestra prosperidad y no nos protegen.
               

                  No se protege a la mujer gastando nuestro dinero en fomentar una ideología que nos denigra, confunde, victimiza y enfrenta, una ideología que nos está destruyendo como sociedad. No se protege a la mujer callando ante los fundamentalismos que no respetan ni la vida ni la dignidad de las mujeres. No se protege a las mujeres cuando se trata de cambiar los valores fundacionales de la Unión Europea por la ideología woke o el islamismo.
               

Laurence Trochu,
au nom du groupe ECR. – Monsieur le Président, Madame le Commissaire, mes chers collègues, la feuille de route pour les droits des femmes présentée vendredi dernier oscille entre autosatisfaction et déclaration de principe, plus utile dans les hémicycles feutrés que contre les réelles difficultés auxquelles font face les femmes dans la vraie vie, au XXIe siècle.
               

                  Vous souhaitez protéger réellement les femmes? Alors, commencez par fermer les frontières et cessez d'importer sur notre sol des millions de personnes qui considèrent la femme comme une possession, qui la voilent et qui lui interdisent tout libre arbitre. Vous voulez protéger réellement les femmes? Eh bien, cessez d'importer des prédateurs sexuels qui sont surreprésentés dans les agressions et à cause desquels nous pleurons Lola et Philippine en France.
               

                  Vous souhaitez protéger réellement les femmes? Poursuivez en condamnant ceux qui marchandisent leur corps, en interdisant la GPA et en contrôlant la pornographie. Vous souhaitez protéger réellement les femmes? Eh bien, donnez-leur la possibilité d'être mères, en restaurant la figure familiale, dont la destruction engendre pour elles toujours plus de précarité et de responsabilités lourdes à porter. Alors, et alors seulement, l'action de l'Union européenne sera plus qu'un vœu pieu.
               

Abir Al-Sahlani,
on behalf of the Renew Group. – Mr President, on behalf of the Renew Group, we would like to welcome the Commission's Roadmap for Women's Rights. The backlash on gender equality is here, ongoing every day, and now it's cheered on by President Trump.
Every victory we have made for women's rights, it has been a hard fight to win it and it has brought prosperity and development to the entire humanity. This movement is so eager on attacking fundamental rights and human rights. The EU is no exception. Ladies and gentlemen, the anti-gender movement is growing in our continent and in this House.
The trend of mainstreaming misogyny must end now. We have to mainstream gender equality. This is a call for action to us all feminists to mobilise, unite and to rebuild a better world based on feminism free from patriarchy. We must increase funding for gender equality in the next MFF; enshrine the right to abortion in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights; criminalise rape with a consent-based definition of rape; and finally, the EU needs a feminist foreign policy.
It will take us 130 years to eradicate extreme poverty for women and girls, and 60 years to reach gender equality in Europe. It is time to put in a higher gear.

Mélissa Camara,
au nom du groupe Verts/ALE. – Monsieur le Président, Madame la Commissaire, chers collègues, connaissez-vous ce visage? Il s'agit de Justyna. Je l'ai rencontrée il y a deux semaines en Pologne. Pourquoi montrer son visage aujourd'hui? Parce que, comme de nombreuses femmes dans le monde, Justyna fait preuve d'un courage extraordinaire pour protéger les droits fondamentaux des femmes. C'est une militante exceptionnelle du droit à l'avortement, condamnée en 2023 pour avoir aidé une femme à avorter dans son pays. En Pologne, il est quasiment impossible de bénéficier d'un avortement légal et sûr. Partout, les droits sexuels et reproductifs sont en danger. Partout, nos vies, nos corps, nos familles, nos choix sont remis en cause. On ne le répétera jamais assez, mais là où elle passe, l'extrême droite fait des dégâts, pour des années.
               

                  Le droit à l'avortement est un droit fondamental. Des femmes comme Justyna se mettent en danger tous les jours pour l'acquérir, le préserver et le rétablir. Pourtant, la Commission n'a pas jugé bon d'en faire mention dans sa feuille de route sur les droits des femmes. Nous ne le répéterons jamais assez: nos corps, nos choix. Je compte, Madame la Commissaire, sur vous pour défendre avec courage ce droit durant ce mandat, avec autant de courage que Justyna. Pour Justyna et toutes celles qui se battent chaque jour, merci!
               

Hanna Gedin,
för The Left gruppen. – Herr talman! Det är 30 år sedan Pekingdeklarationen, och vi har inte kommit längre. Det här är ett alldeles för svagt och urvattnat åtagande från kommissionen. Det är mycket fokus på företagande, konkurrens och tillväxt. Men kvinnors grundläggande rätt till våra kroppar struntar kommissionen i. Var är rätten till abort? Vi har en rättighetsstadga som värnar människors rätt att starta företag men inte kvinnors rätt till våra kroppar. Var är förslagen om samtyckeslagstiftning? Har inte kommissionen följt det fruktansvärda fallet Gisèle Pelicot i Frankrike? Och var är de internationella åtagandena? Att USA stryper biståndet riskerar över 11 miljoner kvinnors liv när det kommer till deras rätt till sexuell och reproduktiv hälsa. 11 miljoner! Var är Europas solidaritet? Vi skriver 2025. Den här färdplanen är en besvikelse. Vi borde ha kommit längre.
               

Irmhild Boßdorf,
im Namen der ESN-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Reem Alsalem darf heute nicht mitmachen. Die Sonderbotschafterin der UN für Gewalt gegen Frauen und Mädchen wurde von unserem FEMM-Ausschuss für die große heute stattfindende Konferenz in New York ausgeladen. Was ist ihr Vergehen? Sie war schon vor Jahren so frech zu fragen, wie es denn aussieht mit einer geschlechtergerechten Auslegung der Scharia. Doch es kam noch schlimmer. Nach der Einführung des Selbstbestimmungsgesetzes in Deutschland wandte sie sich in einem Brief an Außenministerin Annalena Baerbock. Sie markierte den potenziellen Missbrauch und die Aushöhlung des rechtlich möglichen Geschlechtswechsels in Deutschland als frauenfeindlich – die Quittung folgte nun.
               

                  Die ach so toleranten Mitstreiter im FEMM-Ausschuss beantragten ihre Ausladung, die dann auch prompt erfolgte. So ernst meinen es also unsere selbsternannten weiblichen Vorkämpfer mit der politischen Teilnahme und der gleichen Repräsentation von Frauen. Nicht einmal in den eigenen weiblichen Reihen werden andere Meinungen toleriert. Reem Alsalem – merkt euch den Namen der echten Kämpferin für Frauenrechte!
               

Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska (PPE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Pani Komisarz! Lata walki o nasze prawa i równość, a wydaje się, że przed nami jeszcze długa droga, a wręcz, że klimat do walki o nasze prawa, o równość nie jest dzisiaj na świecie przyjazny i odnoszę wrażenie, że jest coraz więcej polityków konserwatywnych, którzy chcieliby nam zamknąć usta i chcieliby zamknąć kobiety w domach.
               

                  Proszę Państwa, ale też musimy sobie zadać pytanie, czy Europa, którą budujemy, jest Europą dla wszystkich kobiet? Czy nasze strategie uwzględniają potrzeby tych, które mieszkają na terenach oddalonych, w małych miasteczkach i na wsiach? Równość nie może być bowiem przywilejem tylko metropolii. Musimy zadbać, aby każda kobieta, niezależnie od miejsca zamieszkania, miała dostęp do tych samych praw i możliwości. Dlatego wzywam Panią Komisarz i Komisję: inwestujmy w infrastrukturę na obszarach wiejskich, wspierajmy przedsiębiorczość kobiet na wsi, oferując programy szkoleniowe i finansowe. Przełamujmy stereotypy, promując równość płci w każdej społeczności. Niech nasza mapa drogowa dla kobiet będzie ścieżką, którą podążają wszystkie kobiety, niezależnie od miejsca, gdzie mieszkają, czy w sercu miasta, czy w małej wiosce. Bo tylko wtedy Europa naprawdę będzie zjednoczona w równości i sprawiedliwości. I myślę, że o tym marzą wszystkie kobiety, zwłaszcza te ze wsi i z małych miasteczek.
               

(Mówczyni zgodziła się na pytanie zasygnalizowane przez podniesienie niebieskiej kartki)


Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle (Renew),
blue-card question. – Thank you, Ms Łukacijewska, I really appreciate you mentioning rural women because I also live in a rural area, and I acknowledge how important it is to have the same access as other women.
My question to you is: would you agree with me that access to contraception and sexual and reproductive rights – including abortion and abortion pills – for women in rural areas is something that we should all work on?

Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska (PPE),
blue-card answer. – Of course, I agree with you. Also sexual education is very important.

Joanna Scheuring-Wielgus (S&D). – Panie Przewodniczący! Pani Komisarz! Trudno odnosić się dzisiaj do roadmapy, która została przedstawiona, po wystąpieniach świadectw kobiet z Ukrainy i z Białorusi. Świat się rzeczywiście zmienia na naszych oczach. Tuż obok nas Putin bombarduje Ukrainę. Dzieci są porywane, kobiety są gwałcone, cywile są mordowani.
               

                  Gwałty towarzyszą wszystkim wojnom. W Rwandzie mówiono żołnierzom, że kobiety Tutsi inaczej smakują. W czasie wojny na Bałkanach mówiono żołnierzom gwałcicielom, że gwałcąc muzułmanki z Bośni, łamie się ich wartości. W Ukrainie gwałt stanowi część rosyjskiej strategii militarnej. I mówię o tym dlatego i dzisiaj, ponieważ naszym podstawowym zadaniem teraz, kiedy trwają rozmowy pokojowe – oczywiście musimy mówić o zwiększeniu pieniędzy na wsparcie militarne, musimy mówić cały czas o bezpieczeństwie – ale naszym zadaniem tutaj jest mówienie również o sprawiedliwości dla ofiar potwornych zbrodni, tej strasznej wojny, która jest. I mam prośbę do Pani Komisarz, aby przy rozmowach pokojowych nie tylko było więcej kobiet, ale również kwestia sprawiedliwości, przemocy wobec kobiet była już teraz poruszana.
               

Mathilde Androuët (PfE). – Monsieur le Président, alors que nous célébrons les droits des femmes en Europe et partout dans le monde, ce chiffre est tombé hier en France: le nombre de victimes de violences sexuelles dans les transports a augmenté de 86 % en dix ans en Île-de-France. Pour ne parler que des populations qui intéressent la gauche, 90 % des femmes migrantes traversant la Méditerranée sont victimes de viol, selon un rapport de l'ONU de novembre dernier.
               

                  Dans un monde où 1 femme sur 8 dans le monde a déjà subi un viol ou une agression sexuelle enfant, le fait que les hommes ne suivent pas de stage en déconstruction, financé par l'argent public, ce même argent qui manque pour installer des maternités ou des services gynécologiques sur tous nos territoires, relève plus de l'élucubration de gauche que du féminisme sensé. Défendre les droits des femmes, ce n'est pas imposer des dogmes; c'est assurer leur sécurité et leur dignité face aux vraies menaces, et avoir également la lucidité de reconnaître que certaines cultures sont ouvertement misogynes. Quand je dis cela, je ne parle pas évidemment d'un patriarcat européen fantasmé.
               

                  Alors, ma question, largement partagée par des millions de femmes qui attendent qu'on change leur quotidien, est la suivante: qu'est-ce que nous en avons à faire de vos propositions fumeuses sur la théorie du genre, l'aide à la transition de genre ou l'écriture inclusive, quand des millions de femmes craignent de sortir ne serait-ce que dans leur propre rue?
               

(L'oratrice accepte une question carton bleu)


Abir Al-Sahlani (Renew),
blue-card question. – Dear colleague, you said that the patriarchy that we are talking about that has been oppressing women in Europe, and even in this House to some extent, at points when you see the number of chairs that are women or the positions that are, you know, given to women in politics, but also in finance and all of that and boards.
Is that a made up concept or is it a reality that we actually are living day to day?
And then you also say that there is an ideology that is called gender equality. So you do not adhere to the fact that women are also humans and they have also human rights?

Mathilde Androuët (PfE),
réponse carton bleu. – Votre question est tellement outrancière qu'elle prête plus à rire qu'à autre chose. En l'occurrence, je n'ai pas de souci; je pense qu'en effet, nous sommes très privilégiées dans ce Parlement européen.
               

                  Ce procès est très malvenu, compte tenu du fait que cela fait des années que je suis une femme qui s'appelle Marine Le Pen, qui va peut-être devenir la première femme présidente de la République en France. C'est donc assez malvenu de votre part.
               

                  Je pense que nous sommes des femmes à l'égal des hommes, donc je suis contre l'idéologie du genre, qui consiste à faire de nous des sortes de sous-hommes ou des hommes dérivés. Les femmes sont à part et singulières, et je milite pour leur singularité.
               

President. – We have another blue card, but we are going to accept only one blue card per intervention.

Chiara Gemma (ECR). – Signor Presidente, signor Commissario, onorevoli colleghi, questa tabella include davvero tutte le donne? O forse, troppo spesso, c'è una categoria che continua ad essere dimenticata? Credo di sì.
               

                  Eppure, più di una donna su quattro nell'Unione europea vive con una disabilità. Queste donne devono affrontare doppie e triple discriminazioni: come donne, come persone con disabilità e, in molti casi, anche in base alla loro età o condizioni socio economiche. Diciamo basta a queste donne invisibili. Diamo loro voce.
               

                  Ci aspettiamo, allora, che questa tabella di marcia riconosca esplicitamente anche i diritti delle persone delle donne con disabilità, promuovendo misure concrete per garantire loro accesso al lavoro, all'indipendenza economica, protezione dalla violenza e dagli abusi, diritto alla salute e alla maternità, parità nell'educazione, nella formazione, nella partecipazione politica.
               

                  La credibilità di questa tabella si giocherà sull'inclusione di queste donne: diamo aiuto a queste donne, e ci aiuti, Commissaria.
               

Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle (Renew). – Voorzitter, condooms, de pil, spiraaltjes en de morning-afterpil: ik heb ze allemaal gebruikt. Ik ben altijd vrij geweest om te bepalen wanneer en met wie ik kinderen zou krijgen. In Europa zou dit de norm moeten zijn. Helaas staat deze vrijheid stevig onder druk. Ultraconservatieve bewegingen investeren honderden miljoenen euro's om deze rechten in heel Europa in te perken. Ze maken voorbehoedsmiddelen moeilijk verkrijgbaar en onbetaalbaar. Ze promoten kansloze, natuurlijke contraceptie en criminaliseren abortus. Vrouwen met een gewenste zwangerschap die een late miskraam krijgen, worden naar huis gestuurd om te wachten totdat hun foetus vanzelf sterft, omdat artsen anders een gevangenisstraf riskeren. De Europese Unie heeft de plicht om vrouwen te steunen wanneer hun overheden ze in de steek laten, zodat zij, net als ik en mijn drie dochters, baas in eigen buik kunnen blijven.
               

Alice Kuhnke (Verts/ALE). – Herr talman! Vi lever i en tid av maktfullkomliga män. Män som erövrar, män som använder våld för att få sin vilja igenom, män som vill kontrollera såväl landområden som våra livmödrar. Jag tänker på flickorna och kvinnorna i Demokratiska republiken Kongo, som betalar med sina kroppar och sina liv i skuggan av männens krig om naturresurser. Jag tänker på kvinnorna i Iran som fortsätter kampen mot ayatollornas förtryck. Jag tänker på kvinnorna i Ukraina som mitt under brinnande krig organiserar sig i kampen mot mäns våld mot kvinnor. Jag tänker på alla de miljontals kvinnor genom historien som gång på gång rest sig, organiserat sig och kämpat och drivit igenom förändring. Kunde de så kan vi.
               

Carolina Morace (The Left). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghe e colleghi, la road map per i diritti delle donne ignora i diritti sessuali e riproduttivi, incluso l'aborto, e questo è inaccettabile. L'estrema destra sta imponendo la sua agenda nelle nostre istituzioni, mettendo a rischio conquiste fondamentali.
               

                  L'aborto è una scelta difficile, e spesso dolorosa: ma negarlo significa condannare le donne a sofferenze e pericoli.
               

                  La road map affronta temi cruciali, come la violenza di genere, le disuguaglianze economiche. Ma senza impegni concreti resta solo carta e la carta da sola non protegge nessuna donna, non garantisce i diritti e non cambia la realtà.
               

                  L'Europa non può permettersi passi indietro. Mentre negli Stati Uniti i diritti delle donne sono erosi, noi dobbiamo essere un baluardo. Servono azioni e non simboli, perché la libertà, la dignità e i diritti non si negoziano mai.
               

Christine Anderson (ESN). – Herr Präsident! Die linke Von der Leyen-Kommission will uns die Lüge auftischen, ein Gründungswert der EU sei es, die Gleichheit zwischen Frauen und Männern herzustellen. Tatsächlich steht in Artikel 119 des Vertrags nichts davon; dort ist nur der Grundsatz der Chancengleichheit und der Gleichberechtigung zwischen Mann und Frau genannt. Chancengleichheit und Gleichberechtigung sind aber etwas völlig anderes als Gleichheit.
               

                  Wenn die EU-Kommissare von Gleichheit zwischen Männern und Frauen sprechen, dann verdrehen sie die EU-Verträge in ihr Gegenteil. Zu dieser Rechtsverdrehung gesellt sich dann auch noch eine Tatsachenverdrehung, denn Männer und Frauen sind nun mal nicht gleich. Frauen können Kinder gebären und Männer eben nicht. Jedes Kindergartenkind kann den Unterschied zwischen einem Mann und einer Frau mit bloßem Auge erkennen. Das ist eine Anerkennung, die Sie hier aber beharrlich verweigern.
               

                  Wenn man von falschen Ideen und falschen Tatsachen ausgeht, dann kann natürlich auch eine Roadmap für Frauenrechte nur falsch sein. Diese gehört als Desinformation in die Tonne gekloppt, samt der unsäglichen Gender-Ideologie. Halten Sie sich doch einfach aus dem Leben von uns Frauen heraus! Damit wäre uns am meisten geholfen.
               

Judita Laššáková (NI). – Vážený pán predsedajúci, vážení kolegovia, vážená pani komisárka, blíži sa 75. výročie popravy doktorky Milady Horákovej. Možno málokto z vás sa s jej menom stretol. Jej život však charakterizuje odpor voči vojne. Vo veku 17 rokov ju vylúčili zo strednej školy kvôli účasti na protivojnovej demonštrácii. To bolo v roku 1918. Počas druhej svetovej vojny bola väznená nemeckými nacistami. Nemecký nacistický prokurátor v roku 1944 žiadal pre ňu trest smrti. Popravená však bola až v roku 1950 vo svojej vlastnej domovine. Napriek požiadavkám svetových osobností o jej omilostenie, medzi ktorými bola aj Eleanor Roosevelt, bola doktorka Milada Horáková popravená 27. júna 1948 obesením.
               

                  Vykonštruované súdne procesy proti niekoľkým stovkám odporcov komunistického režimu naprieč Európou sprevádzala masívna mediálna kampaň. Poučená z našej vlastnej histórie mi dovoľte byť trošičku kritickejšou k tomu, čo novinári dokážu vyprodukovať. Vykonštruované súdne procesy komunistickej strany v Československu započali aj pričinením doktora Rudolfa Slánského. Príkladom nám však nech je život Milady Horákovej a jej podobným vzácnym dušiam.
               

Ελισσάβετ Βόζεμπεργκ-Βρυωνίδη (PPE). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, κύριε Επίτροπε. αγαπητοί συνάδελφοι, φέτος η Παγκόσμια Ημέρα της Γυναίκας προβάλλει το ισχυρό μήνυμα για όλες τις γυναίκες και τα κορίτσια: ‘δικαιώματα, ισότητα, ενδυνάμωση’, το οποίο μάς φέρει προ των ευθυνών μας. Αν και ο δείκτης ισότητας των φύλων για το 2024 καταγράφει σημαντική πρόοδο στην Ένωση, οι γυναίκες συνεχίζουν να αντιμετωπίζουν σοβαρές ανισότητες, κυρίως στους χώρους εργασίας. Τα έμφυλα στερεότυπα των σύγχρονων κοινωνιών εξακολουθούν να επηρεάζουν την καθημερινότητα των γυναικών σε όλους τους τομείς. Σύμφωνα με τον οδικό χάρτη για την ισότητα των φύλων, η πλειονότητα των γυναικών εξακολουθεί να καλύπτει κακοπληρωμένες και υποβαθμισμένες αλλά ουσιαστικές θέσεις εργασίας. Ακόμη και σήμερα, στον 21ο αιώνα, οι γυναίκες ακόμη αγωνίζονται για την αναγνώριση των δικαιωμάτων τους.
               

                  Συνάδελφοι, απέναντι στους Ευρωπαίους πολίτες που μας εμπιστεύτηκαν τη διαχείριση κρίσεων, οφείλουμε γενναία αυτοκριτική. Έχουμε κάνει σημαντικά βήματα, αλλά η μάχη για την εξάλειψη των διακρίσεων δεν έχει ακόμη κερδηθεί. Έχουμε υποχρέωση να ευαισθητοποιήσουμε την κοινωνία των πολιτών με εκστρατείες ενημέρωσης για τις ρίζες των προκαταλήψεων και με προβολή υγιών προτύπων για παραδειγματισμό. Να παρέχουμε θεσμικά κίνητρα σε γυναίκες καριέρας και οικονομικά εργαλεία για την υλοποίηση καινοτόμων πρωτοβουλιών, και να προωθήσουμε κοινές πρακτικές με ανταλλαγή προγραμμάτων μεταξύ των κρατών μελών προς εξισορρόπηση επαγγελματικής και προσωπικής ζωής. Με το βλέμμα στις επόμενες γενιές, με αίσθηση καθήκοντος και ποιοτική πολιτική βούληση, ο στόχος δεν είναι μακριά.
               

Katarina Barley (S&D). – Herr Präsident! Schauen wir uns um in der Welt: Wer steht in der ersten Reihe, wenn es darum geht, die demokratischen Werte zu verteidigen? Sehr oft sind es die Frauen. Ob in Polen, in der Ukraine, in Belarus, im Iran, in Afghanistan, auch in den USA: Es sind oft Frauen mit ihrem Mut und ihrer Zivilcourage, die den Autokraten und Despoten dieser Welt furchtlos die Stirn bieten.
               

                  Sind Frauen die besseren Menschen? Nein, nicht unbedingt – das sehen und hören wir ja auch manchmal hier in diesem Plenum –, aber die Chance, dass sie sich nicht nur um ihre eigenen Interessen kümmern, sondern um die der Gesellschaft, ist etwas höher, und vor allen Dingen, sie wissen auch, wenn es der Demokratie an den Kragen geht, dann sind davon vor allen Dingen auch ihre eigenen Rechte immer betroffen.
               

                  Frauen haben so viel erreicht für die Gleichstellung der Geschlechter, und darauf sind wir alle stolz. Gleichzeitig sind wir noch lange nicht am Ziel, und schlimmer noch, wir wissen, dass auch das Erreichte nicht sicher ist. Hier in Europa und weltweit – Frauenrechte sind in Gefahr: gleicher Lohn, gleiche Chancen, Schutz vor Gewalt und vor allem auch das Recht, über ihren eigenen Körper zu bestimmen.
               

                  Doch wir sind stark, und wir kämpfen weiter; das ist auch unsere Aufgabe in der EU. Die Roadmap ist ein guter Beginn, aber am Ende brauchen wir gute Resultate.
               

Sebastian Kruis (PfE). – Voorzitter, we hebben het vandaag over de ‘Roadmap for Women's Rights’, maar als ik de linkse vrouwen in deze zaal beluister, voelt het meer als een ‘highway to hell’: genderwaanzin, abortus, klimaatverandering en subsidies is wat de klok slaat. Dit zijn allemaal ‘first world problems’, terwijl de grootste bedreiging voor vrouwen in Europa de import van een derdewereldwoestijnideologie is. Vrouwenbesnijdenis, geweld, sluiers, eerwraak en gedwongen huwelijken zijn inmiddels een bittere realiteit geworden voor veel vrouwen in Europese steden.
               

                  Met de komst van de islam hebben we massaal vrouwenhaat geïmporteerd. Onze vrouwen worden bespuugd, uitgescholden en verkracht. Ze zijn soms bang om überhaupt nog over straat te gaan. Eén op de drie vrouwen in Europa heeft inmiddels te maken gehad met seksueel of fysiek geweld. Waar minaretten rijzen, verdwijnen vrouwenrechten.
               

                  Deze roadmap zou moeten gaan over het verzet daartegen, omdat dit de enige manier is om recht te doen aan tientallen jaren vrouwenemancipatie in Europa. Wie voor vrouwen is, is tegen de islam.
               

(De spreker stemt ermee in om te antwoorden op een ‘blauwe kaart’-vraag)


Abir Al-Sahlani (Renew),
blue-card question. – A lot of what you said was utter nonsense, among others, about being a Muslim, that if you are against Islam, then you are for women's rights. Of course, that is just utter nonsense, because in the Islamic world there are women that are so much stronger than you are.
Nevertheless, to my question: you don't see yourself as a threat to women's rights? Because I am so much more afraid of you and what you can do with your power here – to my rights, to my girls' rights – with your anti-gender approach and with your racist approach. Don't you consider yourself as a threat to us?

Sebastian Kruis (PfE),

                        ‘blauwe kaart’-antwoord. – Voorzitter, deze vraag toont aan dat vrouwen en meisjes overal in Europa ‘vol in de wind staan’ en zich niet meer beschermd voelen door politici die massaal wegkijken voor de import van vrouwenhaat. Als deze mevrouw mij onderbreekt en zegt dat de islam een soort baken van vrouwelijke emancipatie is, dan antwoord ik natuurlijk dat dit absoluut niet waar is. Noem mij één land in de islamitische wereld waar vrouwen dezelfde rechten hebben als mannen. Die zijn er simpelweg niet. Kijk hoe vrouwen door het leven moeten gaan in de straten van Kabul, om maar een voorbeeld te noemen.
               

                  Als ik een dochter zou hebben, dan zou ik alvast een helmpje gaan kopen om haar te beschermen, want op deze manier worden vrouwen volledig in de steek gelaten door politici zoals u. Helaas.
               

Beatrice Timgren (ECR). – Herr talman! Islamisering, hedersförtryck, gängens terror och den destruktiva kvinnokultur som följer i massinvandringens spår. Det är det verkliga hotet mot kvinnors rättigheter. Vänstern vill inte prata om det här, utan de diskuterar hellre genusperspektiv och pronomen. Dagens så kallade feminister lever i en låtsasvärld där man påstår att män kan bli gravida. Kvinnokampen i dag; det handlar om trygghet, lag och ordning. Om att stoppa den migrationspolitik som förstört vårt land. Min mamma växte upp i ett säkrare land än vad jag gjorde. Men jag växte upp i ett säkrare land än vad min tonårsdotter växer upp i i dag. För att bryta trenden måste vi fatta de beslut som etablissemanget inte vågat. Sverige ska vara ett land där kvinnor kan känna sig säkra – inte ett land som böjer sig för hederskultur, islamism och gängvåld. Därför ska vi skicka hem kriminella illegala migranter.
               

Dainius Žalimas (Renew). – Mr President, dear colleagues, the fight for women's rights is not just a political choice. It is also a choice between civilisations or between inclusive, participatory democracy and authoritarianism, usually accompanied with violence and sexism.
However, progress on gender equality in the EU still seems to be uneven and fragile. A new EU-wide gender-based violence survey exposes that violence against women remains a daily reality. The EU directive on violence against women fails to include a consent-based definition of rape. Five EU Member States: Bulgaria, Czechia, Lithuania, Hungary and Slovakia, refused to ratify the Istanbul Convention, sounds like a betrayal of our core values.
The Women's Rights Roadmap is a step forward to the single European human rights space, however not sufficiently concrete. It should be implemented by ambitious legislative proposals, appropriate education and conditionality instruments for those who do not adhere to European standards of gender equality.
If we need a reminder of what is at stake, look at Ukraine. Even at war, Ukraine has launched its first gender equality index because of understanding that there is no civilised world without women's rights and gender equality.

Petras Gražulis (ESN). – Gerbiamas pirmininke, pirmiausiai tai norėčiau pasakyti repliką pirmininkaujantiems. Vienai moteriai čia buvo leista užduoti [klausimą] ta pačia diskusija du kartus. O kada aš norėjau paklausti ir į klausimą mano buvo neatsakyta, kodėl Europos Sąjunga po šiai dienai Ukrainos nepriėmė į Europos Sąjungą, man į klausimą neatsakė ir jūs neleidote pakartoti klausimo.
               

                  Gal jūs, pirmininkaujantis, pasakysite, gal čia Trumpas kaltas, kad Ukraina šiandien nėra Europos Sąjungos narė?
               

                  O dabar aš iš esmės. Gerbiamieji, Šventas Raštas kalba, kad yra dvi lytys. Tą pasakė ir Trumpas. Jūs gi pabrėžėt moters lytį, o sakot, kad yra septyniasdešimt dvi ar jau šimtas keturios lytys. Tai jūs diskriminuojat savo patį absurdą, pabrėždami moterį diskriminuojat kitas lytis. Ar jūs žinote patys, čia susirinkę europiečiai, kokios jūs esat lyties? Kas žinot? Pakelkit rankas. Pasirodo, čia sėdintys salėje net nežinote, kokios lyties esate. Aš norėjau pirmininkaujančio paklausti, jeigu nedraudžiama skaityti Švento Rašto, nes mane net teisė Lietuvoje, kad skaitau Šventą Raštą, tai aš jums noriu paskaityti, ką Dievas kalba ir ką Šventas Raštas kalba apie santykius šeimos. Pirmas, jūs, vyrai, mylėkite savo žmonas, kaip Kristus pamilo Bažnyčią ir atidavė už ją savo gyvybę. Jūs, moterys, būkite klusnios savo vyrams lyg Viešpačiui, ir jeigu bus, vyraus meilė, tada bus santaika ir pagarba vienas kitam.
               

(Kalbėtojas sutiko atsakyti į mėlynosios kortelės klausimą)


Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle (Renew),
blue-card question. – Thank you again for the Bible study lesson. It's always very interesting and I was wondering if you go around this House asking your colleagues if they have their period, because the Bible also says that you should not sit in a chair which has been occupied by a woman who has her period. Do you also abide to the Bible lesson in that sense?

Petras Gražulis (ESN),
atsakymas į pakėlus mėlynąją kortelę pateiktą klausimą. – Aš noriu pasakyti, kad jūs sakote, kad nėra nei vyro, nei moters – lyčių nėra. Jūs patys sau prieštaraujate. Mieli europarlamentarai, kur jūs nuėjote? Jūs Šventą Raštą išmetėte į šiukšlyną, Dievą nukryžiavote ir pasistatėte genderistinę ideologiją vietoj Dievo. Jūs – kelias į niekur, į pražūtį!
               

President. – Well, I only want to remind you that I accepted the blue cards during this debate. First of all, one per intervention. It was the same, because of two elements: first of all, because this debate deserves it; and secondly, because we have enough time to do it properly. It was not the same during the morning – just to be clear on that.
We are now continuing with our debate.

Sunčana Glavak (PPE). – Poštovani predsjedavajući, povjerenice, kolegice i kolege, žene i dalje čine manjinu u vrhu političkih, ekonomskih i društvenih struktura. To smo danas zaključili. Mislim da nismo otkrili ništa novo.
               

                  Međutim, želim vas podsjetiti da za svaki euro koji zaradi muškarac, žena zaradi 0,87 eura. Trenutno stanje u Europskom parlamentu, žena ima oko 40 posto, ali među liderima političkih grupacija i pojedinaca, predsjednicima vlada ta brojka puno je manja.
               

                  Naravno da prepreke poput rodnog jaza u plaćama, staklenog stropa i naplaćenog kućanskog rada i dalje ograničavaju žene. Ključne su nam politike koje podržavaju pristup kvalitetnom obrazovanju, poduzetništvu i financijskim resursima i naravno bolja ravnoteža između privatnog i poslovnog života, pa i u ruralnim područjima, nemojmo na to zaboraviti.
               

                  Međutim, više od polovice svjetske populacije činimo mi, žene. U Europskoj uniji ima nas 52 posto. Imamo potencijala preoblikovati sustave moći, ekonomiju i društvene vrijednosti. Ali ne kao raštimani orkestar, ne kao ideologija, već kao one koje doista žele politiku iskoristiti u svrhu poboljšanja uvjeta žena i da svim ženama u Europskoj uniji bude bolje.
               

                  Nećemo to postići ako ćemo se samo nadmetati u tome tko je u pravu, a tko nije.
               

                  Zaključit ću, ekonomska neovisnost omogućuje jedino slobodu izbora i na tome trebamo raditi.
               

VORSITZ: KATARINA BARLEY


Vizepräsidentin


Heléne Fritzon (S&D). – Fru talman! Flickors och kvinnors rättigheter är under attack. I ett av fyra länder har framsteg förvandlats till bakslag. En färdplan för kvinnors rättigheter är ett välkommet steg framåt med flera viktiga åtgärder, med rättigheter som vi kämpat för. Men den är också en påminnelse om att kvinnors frihet ständigt ifrågasätts. Rätten till en trygg och laglig abort är fortfarande kontroversiell i vissa delar av Europa. Det visar att våra rättigheter inte kan tas för givna. Vi står utan en samtyckeslag i EU. Vi behöver också en europeisk sexköpslag. Just nu lämnas tusentals flickor och kvinnor helt oskyddade. Håller vi denna takt kommer det att ta minst 60 år innan vi uppnår jämställdhet i Europa. Mitt budskap är kristallklart: Vi måste göra mer, här och nu!
                  

(Talaren godtog en fråga (‘blått kort’).)


Dick Erixon (ECR),
fråga (‘blått kort’). – Kvinnors rättigheter är naturligtvis någonting som är väldigt viktigt att ta upp här. Men jag undrar varför du inte nämner det som finns och sprider sig väldigt mycket i Europa nu, med den destruktiva kvinnokultur som islamistiska fundamentalister försöker genomföra med hedersförtryck och annat. Är inte det en väldigt stor och väsentlig del att ta itu med när det gäller kvinnors rättigheter i Europa?
                  

Heléne Fritzon (S&D),
svar (‘blått kort’). – Tack för frågan. Din kollega som sitter bredvid dig, Timgren, stod precis i talarstolen och talade om att det i Sverige bara är utländskt födda män som våldtar kvinnor. Och då är min fråga tillbaka: Är ni så naiva att ni inte ser att det är ett ständigt förtryck mot flickor och kvinnors rättigheter, oberoende av vilka män och pojkar vi pratar om? Vi måste göra upp med detta. Vi måste stå upp för flickors och kvinnors rättigheter. Tyvärr kan vi inte räkna med er i den kampen. Men vi tänker ta den.
                  

Catherine Griset (PfE). – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, dans cet hémicycle, l'autosatisfaction règne en maîtresse. Au sein de la commission FEMM, elle s'accompagne d'un féminisme misandre et d'une haine des hommes. Ces institutions, sous couvert d'égalité, sombrent dans l'hypocrisie. Elles attaquent les hommes tout en soutenant un islam radical qui infériorise les femmes. N'ont-elles pas financé une campagne promouvant le voile, symbole d'asservissement pour des millions de femmes à travers le monde? L'Organisation frériste Femyso n'est-elle pas reçue ici et attendue à la prochaine Rencontre des jeunes Européens au mois de juin? Ce féminisme à géométrie variable fait des technocrates européens les complices de l'islamo-gauchisme, qui d'une main soumet les femmes et de l'autre détruit les relations hommes-femmes, sous prétexte de lutte contre un prétendu patriarcat.
                  

                     Alors, oui à un féminisme qui défend vraiment les femmes, comme le collectif Némésis, qui dénonce ces hypocrisies. Oui à un soutien réel à leur carrière et à leur vie familiale, sans idéologie ni culpabilisation. L'égalité ne se construira pas dans la compromission avec ceux qui prônent la soumission des femmes.
                  

(L'oratrice accepte une question carton bleu)


Maria Guzenina (S&D),
sinisen kortin kysymys. – Arvoisa puhemies, mieltäni häkellyttää kovasti, kun täällä väitetään, että naisten oikeudet ja niiden puolesta taisteleminen olisi pois miehiltä. En ymmärrä lainkaan tällaista retoriikkaa. Yhteiskunnat, joissa naiset ovat tasa-arvoisia, ne yhteiskunnat kukoistavat. Niissä naisilla, miehillä ja lapsilla on parempi olla.
                  

                     Te väititte juuri äsken, että täällä puhutaan puppua ja alistetaan miehiä. Millä tavalla naisten oikeuksien esiin tuominen alistaa miehiä? Ei millään tavalla. Vastatkaa, mihin perustatte väitteenne?
                  

Catherine Griset (PfE),
réponse carton bleu. – Je ne vois pas en quoi vous avez compris que je disais que les femmes et les hommes n'étaient pas égaux. D'ailleurs, je suis contente de voir que le cordon sanitaire est rompu, puisque vous nous adressez la parole. Bravo! C'est bien. Je dis simplement que vous mélangez tout. Oui, l'islam radical est un danger pour pour les femmes. J'ai deux filles; je ne veux pas qu'elles soient voilées dans dix ans. En fait, vous mélangez tout. Nous sommes les seuls à défendre les femmes, ici, avec le Rassemblement national, et je profite de ce micro pour dire que la condescendance que vous avez vis-à-vis de nous vous fait oublier que nous avons gagné les élections européennes. Le RN est la plus grande délégation de tout ce Parlement, tous pays confondus. Donc un peu de respect, s'il vous plaît.
                  

Lara Magoni (ECR). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, oggi discutiamo i diritti delle donne e vorrei soffermarmi sugli episodi di gravità inaudita accaduti lo scorso weekend in Italia, dove, compresa nella mia Bergamo, sono stati dati alle fiamme manichini del presidente del Consiglio, Giorgia Meloni, prima donna premier nella storia della Repubblica italiana.
                  

                     Questo atto non può essere giustificato: è un episodio di violenza gravissimo, che trascende la satira e diventa un pericolosissimo strumento di incitamento all'odio verso le donne.
                  

                     Si cerca di attaccare una donna che, invece di essere un bersaglio di violenza, dovrebbe essere vista come un esempio di come la forza, il merito e l'ambizione possano permettere a chiunque di raggiungere i propri sogni.
                  

                     Giorgia Meloni rappresenta milioni di donne italiane che credono nel proprio potenziale, nella propria indipendenza, nel diritto di aspirare a grandi traguardi senza essere fermate dalla discriminazione e dai pregiudizi.
                  

                     E tutto questo avviene nel silenzio più assordante della sinistra e delle istituzioni. Sarebbe con questa violenza e intolleranza verso Giorgia Meloni che la sinistra intende difendere i diritti delle donne?
                  

Lucia Yar (Renew). – Madam President, dear colleagues, during this discussion, we need to acknowledge that gender equality is not just a matter of justice, but also of security. I think we hear it over here. Women need to be secure from physical and sexual violence, and they also need to be present when looking for safe solutions.
Thanks to this roadmap, we now have a path forward, and I am honoured to shadow its implementing strategy, but what should we do? First, we need to combat violence, including integrating consent-based rape laws. Second, we must ensure equality in all areas of life and work, and this means gender mainstreaming and gender budgeting. It is not an ideology.
Commissioner Lahbib is not here with us, but I want Commissioner Mînzatu to tell her that we really rely on her, because promoting equality is the key to a future where women – but eventually all of us – can live free from fear and discrimination. And the EU needs to lead this gender equality fight that we have worldwide, especially in those insecure times when geo-policy is changing.

Rosa Estaràs Ferragut (PPE). – Señora presidente, la hoja de ruta por los derechos de las mujeres marca nuestro firme compromiso de construir una Unión Europea igualitaria, donde los derechos de las mujeres estén en el centro de la política y las acciones de la Unión. Tenemos derecho a no ser víctimas de violencia por el hecho de ser mujeres. Romper el silencio es fundamental para erradicar esta violencia.
                  

                     En mi país, España, se han tapado episodios de acoso sexual por parte de dirigentes de la izquierda al mismo tiempo que se pedía a la población que no guardara silencio. ¿Cómo se puede guardar silencio ante los múltiples escándalos relacionados con prostitución por parte de dirigentes socialistas del Gobierno de España —al parecer, pagados con dinero público— y seguir defendiendo, al mismo tiempo, que su objetivo es acabar con la prostitución? Flaco servicio a la igualdad y los derechos de las mujeres. No deberíamos proclamar en público lo que luego no hacemos en privado.
                  

                     Tenemos derecho a una educación de calidad y romper con los estereotipos: contar con las mujeres con discapacidad en todos los sectores de nuestras vidas; derecho a la igualdad salarial y a tener oportunidades en el mercado de trabajo con condiciones dignas, derecho a una salud de calidad y derecho también a la conciliación. Sin conciliación ni corresponsabilidad las mujeres siempre hacen las renuncias.
                  

                     Hago un llamamiento desde aquí al Gobierno de España para que traspase ya el permiso parental remunerado; si no, hay muchas mujeres que en estos momentos no se lo cogen por esa falta de transposición que ha llevado a la Comisión a abrir un proceso de infracción. Está el tema en el Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea con una sanción que puede llegar a los siete millones.
                  

                     Nos desmarcamos del negacionismo de unos y de la hipocresía demagógica de otros.
                  

Marko Vešligaj (S&D). – Poštovana predsjedavajuća, evo, na početku hvala povjerenici Lahbib koja je bila zadužena za procese oko teksta ovoga putokaza za ženska prava, ali posebno hvala našoj kolegici, povjerenici Roxani Mînzatu, koja je danas ovdje s nama i koja se žustro borila da svi prioriteti važni za djevojčice i žene diljem Europe budu dio ove vizije.
                  

                     Tekst koji je zapravo predstavljen je dobar i pokazuje da unatoč otporima koje imamo na najvišim razinama u Komisiji postoji dovoljno snage da se ženska prava i zaštite, ali i unaprijede. No, moramo biti svjesni da je ovaj tekst samo iscrtavanje svojevrsne vizije i da nam tek pravi posao predstoji u novoj strategiji rodne ravnopravnosti.
                  

                     Ta strategija mora uključivati konkretne obaveze i prijedloge te opipljive zakonodavne i nezakonodavne mjere. Osim toga, ono što je važno za reći da strategiju trebaju pratiti vrlo konkretna financijska sredstva i tražit ćemo zasebnu i jasnu proračunsku liniju za ostvarivanje svih prioriteta u području rodne ravnopravnosti jer u vremenima kakva su danas, prepuna nestabilnosti i usmjeravanja sredstava prema obrani i sigurnosti, važno je naglasiti da je rodna ravnopravnost jedan od temeljnih uvjeta za društvenu sigurnosti i napredak.
                  

                     Nećemo dozvoliti da se ova tema marginalizira i da se napori u ovom dijelu umanje ili zanemare. U to budite sigurni.
                  

Maria Noichl (S&D). – Sehr geehrte Frau Präsidentin, liebe Kommissarin! Als allererstes möchte ich mich bei den Zuschauerinnen und Zuschauern, die vielleicht am Fernsehgerät sitzen, am PC sitzen, entschuldigen – entschuldigen für manche Reden, die hier im Haus gehalten wurden. Dieser Teil des Parlaments ist konstruktiv. Dieser Teil des Parlaments arbeitet freundschaftlich miteinander, auch wenn wir nicht immer einer Meinung sind. Aber es gibt auch einen Teil hier im Haus – dieser Teil ist destruktiv von Anfang an. Dieser Teil ist rückwärtsgewandt und teilweise einfach nur dumm – ich möchte mich dafür entschuldigen.
                  

                     Aber jetzt zum Thema: Wir haben einen Fahrplan bekommen. Einen Fahrplan: Schon allein das Wort bedeutet, wir sind immer noch nicht am Ziel – ein Fahrplan. Und ich muss ganz klar sagen: Ja, er ist nicht schlecht, der Fahrplan. Wir haben keine Erkenntnisdefizite, überhaupt keine Erkenntnisdefizite – wir haben Umsetzungsdefizite, Handlungsdefizite. Deswegen wünsche ich mir so sehr, dass dieser Fahrplan jetzt wirklich in diesem Jahr noch ganz konkrete Initiativen, ganz konkrete legislative Papiere, ganz konkrete Papiere, die uns voranbringen, bekommt. Denn Fahrpläne haben wir schon so lange – Umsetzung brauchen wir in den verschiedenen Bereichen.
                  

Emma Rafowicz (S&D). – Madame la Présidente, partout l'ombre réactionnaire s'étend, et avec elle le recul de nombreux droits pour les femmes. L'Europe doit se réveiller et notre réveil doit être féministe. La Commission avait une occasion majeure de tenir tête aux réactionnaires et de réaffirmer son engagement pour l'égalité. Cette feuille de route comporte des avancées importantes que les socialistes, avec Mme Mînzatu, ont arrachées à la Commission: lutte contre les violences sexistes et sexuelles, égalité salariale, participation politique, combat contre le sexisme dans les médias…
                  

                     Pourtant, une fois de plus, la Commission européenne déçoit. Ursula von der Leyen cède face aux conservateurs. Elle nous livre une opération de communication digne de la politique RSE d'un grand groupe privé, où l'égalité femmes-hommes est défendue uniquement sous le prisme de bénéfices économiques. J'accueille donc ce texte avec lucidité. C'est un premier pas, mais il est insuffisant.
                  

                     Nous ne pourrons pas nous contenter de déclarations d'intention. Il nous faut des engagements clairs, à la hauteur des enjeux. À l'heure où Poutine, mais aussi tous les impérialistes et les intégristes religieux que nous combattons, n'attaquent pas seulement nos frontières européennes, mais mènent une guerre contre les femmes, il nous faut assumer une diplomatie féministe européenne et leur opposer notre modèle féministe européen ambitieux, universaliste et combatif.
                  

Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D). – Pirmininke, komisare, kolegos, iš tikrųjų per pastarąjį dešimtmetį buvo padaryta pažanga lyčių lygybės srityje, tačiau tas kelias ir tas darbas dar tikrai nepadarytas iki galo. Ir mūsų piliečiai labai aiškiai pasakė, jog pagrindinėmis problemomis išlieka smurtas prieš moteris, niekam neįveikiamas, moterų ir vyrų darbo užmokesčio skirtumai už tą patį darbą, profesinio ir asmeninio gyvenimo suderinimas ir užtikrinimas. Pagaliau, moterų reprodukcinės teisės. Komisijos pateiktose veiksmų gairėse dar kartą pakartojama Europos Sąjungos, mūsų bendrijos, įsipareigojimas gerinti moterų teises. Tačiau pirmiausia, komisare, kreipiuosi, būtina išsamiai įvertinti, ar jau priimti teisės aktai iš tikrųjų veikia ir įgyvendinami valstybėse narėse. Ko gero, toli gražu ne, todėl mums būtina turėti veiksmingą ir įpareigojančią strategiją po 2025 m.
                  

Gabriela Firea (S&D). – Madam President, thank you for the opportunity to talk about such an important topic.
Doamnă președintă, dragi colegi, îmi aduc aminte, doamnă comisară, în momentul în care eram ministra familiei în România și dumneavoastră ministra fondurilor europene, câte lucruri frumoase am realizat împreună pentru femeile din România și sunt absolut convinsă că veți pune această experiență pe care o aveți în slujba tuturor femeilor din Europa. Noi, femeile, suntem obișnuite ca în jurul datei de 8 martie să primim foarte multe flori și promisiuni, inclusiv sub forma unor proiecte frumoase care, din păcate, pot să spun, rămân prăfuite în anumite sertare până anul viitor.
Totuși, vreau să vă asigur că nu suntem blazate și nici nu renunțăm, ci vom lupta împreună pentru dezideratele noastre și în special pentru femeile care au mai puține oportunități. Pare ireal, dar în 2025 trebuie încă să vorbim despre protecția drepturilor femeilor. Avem în continuare probleme de reprezentare: prea puține femei iau parte la decizii care le privesc direct. Avem nevoie să impunem cote de gen pentru accesul femeilor în poziții de conducere politică și administrativă. Împreună cu doamna comisară europeană, ca ministră a familiei, am propus în România o lege prin care în toate consiliile de administrație să fie incluse și femei, 30 % femei. Răspunsul a fost unul dezarmant. Răspund sub formă de întrebare, dar vom avea atât de multe femei (…)

Giuseppe Lupo (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, accolgo con molto favore la presentazione della tabella di marcia per i diritti delle donne e ringrazio la vicepresidente esecutiva, Roxana Mînzatu, per l'ottimo lavoro svolto.
                  

                     Nonostante gli importanti passi avanti, permangono forti divari di genere, soprattutto nelle aree più svantaggiate, come la Sicilia, la Sardegna, il Sud Italia, dove purtroppo l'occupazione femminile è ancora troppo bassa anche a causa dell'insufficienza di servizi alla famiglia.
                  

                     È necessario investire, investire in asili nido, in scuole per l'infanzia, in particolare dove la carenza di servizi è tuttora causa di forti diseguaglianze.
                  

                     Dobbiamo sostenere le politiche di conciliazione tra vita privata e lavoro, incentivando i congedi parentali, le politiche di flessibilità oraria, favorendo il lavoro delle donne, elemento essenziale per la crescita dell'intero sistema economico per una società più giusta.
                  

Elisabeth Grossmann (S&D). – Frau Präsidentin, werte Vertretungen von Kommission und Rat! Gut, dass es diese Roadmap gibt. Im Sinne des Gender-Mainstreamings ist sie Handlungsauftrag für die gesamte Kommission, damit es eben nicht bei Überschriften bleibt. Was ist also zu tun?
                  

                     Zum Prinzip 1: Freiheit von genderbasierter Gewalt. Das Verbrechen der Vergewaltigung ist als EU-weiter Straftatbestand zu definieren; das muss sofort geschehen. Online-Gewalt ist aktiv zu bekämpfen. Der DSA muss konsequent umgesetzt werden, und die Plattformen müssen in die Pflicht genommen werden, menschenverachtende Inhalte sofort zu löschen. Und die laufenden Verfahren müssen auch zügig abgeschlossen werden, auch wenn es sich um Riesenkonzerne handelt.
                  

                     Zum Prinzip 2: Zugang zu sexueller und reproduktiver Gesundheit. Das bedeutet auch das Recht auf sichere Abtreibung, auch das muss klar zum Ausdruck kommen.
                  

                     Die Prinzipien 3 bis 5: Gleichstellung am Arbeitsmarkt und Familienleben. Die Lohntransparenz-Richtlinie muss in allen Mitgliedstaaten rasch umgesetzt werden, und Berufe, wo viele Frauen tätig sind, wo hauptsächlich Arbeit am Menschen geleistet wird, gehören dringend aufgewertet. Wenn mehr Mittel für die Verteidigung umgeschichtet werden, dann darf das nicht auf Kosten der Frauen gehen.
                  

Marc Angel (S&D). – Madam President, Commissioner, Vice-President, Minister, dear colleagues, when talking about women's rights, the European Union has to be clear and precise, otherwise it creates potential for regress. The Commission must unquestionably support the right of women to have authority over their own body. If not, the far right, sponsored by the anti-gender movement, will do its absolute worse to backtrack on sexual and reproductive health and rights. The European Union either truly defends a union of equality or open its gates to the far-right extremists within and outside of Europe to dilute women's rights in all walks of life. Make no mistake: promising in the roadmap quality and inclusive education to all girls and women and then tiptoeing around the essence of it, such as the promotion of comprehensive sexual education, is playing in the hands of the far right and patriarchy.
There is a desperate need for progress and real equality, as the people marching on the streets all over Europe on 8 March showed it very clearly, so we have to listen to those voices. As our feminist and democratic values are under attack, there is no middle ground or room for hesitation. It's either mainstreaming gender equality or mainstreaming misogyny and sexism. You have our fullest support, Commissioner, on this roadmap, and the S&D Group is with you.

Spontane Wortmeldungen


Nikolina Brnjac (PPE). – Poštovana predsjedavajuća, povjerenice, dragi kolegice i kolege, plan za prava žena ukazuje na tragičnu činjenicu kako se u Europskoj uniji, koja je primjer poštivanja ženskih prava, još uvijek u prevelikoj mjeri suočavamo s nasiljem nad ženama.
                  

                     Istraživanje objavljeno u studenom prošle godine pokazuje kako je nasilje nad ženama i dalje gotovo običajno, čak i u Europi. Svaka treća žena doživjela je fizičko ili seksualno nasilje u odrasloj dobi, a svaka peta se suočila s obiteljskim nasiljem.
                  

                     I dok stariji oblici nasilja nad ženama nisu iskorijenjeni, nažalost svjedočimo novima. Posljednje godišnje izvješće o ravnopravnosti spolova ukazuje kako je nasilje nad ženama na internetu postalo sveprisutno. Od 2023. godine 97 posto online prijava seksualnog zlostavljanja djece na internetu odnosilo se na seksualno zlostavljanje djevojaka i djevojčica.
                  

                     Europska unija ima najnaprednije zakonodavstvo koje obuhvaća zaštitu od nasilja na internetu, uključujući nasilje koje se temelji na neetičkom korištenju umjetne inteligencije, ali samo zakonodavstvo nije dovoljno. Moramo educirati žene, a osobito djevojčice kako bismo se osnažili u pogledu nasilja svih vrsta, uključujući nasilje na internetu i nasilje putem društvenih mreža.
                  

                     Kao zastupnici u parlamentu moramo učiniti sve što je u našoj moći kako bi se žene osjećale sigurno i slobodno.
                  

Maria Grapini (S&D). – Doamnă președintă, doamnă comisară, întâi aș vrea să subliniez ceva pozitiv, și anume că pentru prima dată avem patru instituții europene conduse de femei. Sunt mândră că România, țara mea, de trei mandate are comisar femeie. Iată că sunt lucruri care s-au dezvoltat în societatea noastră democratică. Aș mai vrea ceva: s-a folosit foarte mult cuvântul ‘a proteja’ – haideți să-l înlocuim cu ‘asumare’, nu ‘protejare’. De ce? Femeile sunt puternice. Eu vreau să mă adresez acum partenerilor noștri bărbați. Asumați-vă să puneți accent pe criteriul valorii, că-i femeie, că-i bărbat, pe criteriul valorii. Atunci vom fi competitivi și eficienți.
                  

                     Vreau să vă mai spun ceva: în țara mea, în 8 martie sărbătorim – și în toată lumea, bineînțeles – Ziua Internațională a Femeii, dar în 9 martie e Ziua Bărbatului și ne respectăm reciproc și eu cred în acest parteneriat pentru a putea să facem proiecte împreună. Conduc o asociație a femeilor din România de 28 de ani și credeți-mă că lucrăm foarte bine cu partenerii bărbați. În foaia de parcurs, doamnă comisară, și sunt mândră că sunteți aici, trebuie să vorbiți și cu ceilalți comisari, să avem măsuri concrete. Așa cum am spus și la alte dezbateri, nu e suficient să dezbatem, ci trebuie să avem măsuri concrete pentru a face progrese.
                  

IN THE CHAIR: JAVI LÓPEZ


Vice-President


Sebastian Tynkkynen (ECR). – Mr President, one in three women report having experienced physical or sexual violence in the past 12 months. This should be a wake-up call. It begs the question: why have our streets become so unsafe for women?
The Finnish police recently published statistics on sex crime rates by nationality. The results are revealing. Compared to Finnish nationals, the rates of sexual offences committed are six times higher for Somalis; ten times higher for Iraqis; 12 times higher for Afghans and Congolese; and as much as 15 times higher for Syrians. Absolutely shocking numbers.
Colleagues, let us stand up for our daughters, sisters and wives. Let us make our streets safe again – let's protect our borders from the type of immigration that is harmful.

Έλενα Κουντουρά (The Left). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, κύριε Επίτροπε, ο χάρτης πορείας που συντάξατε για τα δικαιώματα των γυναικών δεν είναι όσο θα θέλαμε φιλόδοξος. Λείπουν συγκεκριμένοι στόχοι, δεσμεύσεις, χρονοδιαγράμματα αλλά και φιλόδοξες νομοθετικές προτάσεις για την αντιμετώπιση των ανισοτήτων, όπως τα έμφυλα στερεότυπα και οι παγιωμένες κοινωνικές αντιλήψεις. Θα περιμέναμε να ορίσετε συγκεκριμένους δείκτες και εργαλεία αξιολόγησης για την αποτίμηση και την αποτελεσματικότητα των ευρωπαϊκών εθνικών πολιτικών για ισότητα, ελευθερία και ασφάλεια. Να προβλέπεται επαρκής χρηματοδότηση και πόροι για την υλοποίηση των μέτρων, ώστε οι προτεινόμενες δράσεις να μην παραμένουν ανεφάρμοστες, και να περιλαμβάνει νομοθετικές προτάσεις για τα σεξουαλικά και αναπαραγωγικά δικαιώματα, όπως το δικαίωμα σε ασφαλή και νόμιμη άμβλωση, αλλά και μέτρα για την ισοδυναμία των μισθών. Θα κάνουμε πολύ περισσότερα. Πρέπει να αγωνιστούμε για να εξασφαλίσουμε ότι η πρόοδος που έχουμε πετύχει θα συνεχιστεί και δεν θα καθυστερήσει η επίτευξη μιας δίκαιης, ασφαλούς και ισότιμης κοινωνίας. Σας ευχαριστώ.
                  

Lukas Sieper (NI). – Mr President, dear people of Europe, my mother was born in 1966, in a small village in western Germany. Around the age of 16, she became the first female member of the local rifle club. A few years later, she became the first woman in our family to study – dentistry. Together with my father, she opened a dental practice and had two children, one of whom, as you know, has a special level of energy.
When my parents' marriage fell apart, it was my mother who mainly provided for us, ensured we received a good education and continued to run this practice on her own.
Women can achieve incredible things if we just let them, and that alone is why we should let them.

Arba Kokalari (PPE). – Herr talman! Otryggheten är vår tids största frihetsfråga, och kvinnors rättigheter är helt centralt i den frihetskampen när en av tre kvinnor i Europa har utsatts för våld, när de ryska soldaterna använder kvinnors kroppar som en del av den ryska krigföringen. Jag vill att alla flickor och unga tjejer som växer upp i vårt Europa i dag ska känna att vi står upp för deras framtid och deras frihet. Då måste vi göra gör allt vi kan här i dag för att stötta ukrainska kvinnor, för att se till att direktivet om våld mot kvinnor och Istanbulkonventionen mot våld mot kvinnor implementeras väl. Att vi står upp och grundlagsskyddar aborträtten för alla kvinnor i Europa och att vi inför en samtyckeslag i hela Europa. Historieskrivningen sker just nu, och kvinnors rättigheter och kampen för friheten avgörs nu. Nu måste vi se till att Europa står på rätt sida av historien.
                  

Marit Maij (S&D). – Voorzitter, commissaris, we vieren Internationale Vrouwendag dit jaar, terwijl we zien dat vrouwenrechten en gendergelijkheid achteruitgaan. Jonge mannen vinden geweld tegen vrouwen tegenwoordig vaker prima dan oudere generaties. Er zijn in de EU meer vrouwen onnodig overleden vanwege inperkingen van de abortusmogelijkheden. Vrouwen verdienen nog steeds 13 % minder dan mannen, voor hetzelfde werk. Ook vindt één op de tien mannen het prima als een man af en toe zijn vrouw of vriendin slaat.
                  

                     Dit jaar is het dertig jaar na de Beijing-verklaring en nog altijd is dat de meest vooruitstrevende en omvangrijke mondiale agenda voor gendergelijkheid. En veel van de rechten uit die verklaring staan tegenwoordig op het hakblok. Dit jaar voelde ik op de Dam, bij de demonstratie op de Feminist March, samen met twintigduizend anderen, de urgentie, omdat we na decennia weer achteruitgaan.
                  

                     De routekaart van de Commissie moet ons terugbrengen op het pad van gendergelijkheid, voor meisjes en voor vrouwen wereldwijd en in Europa. Want vrouwenrechten zijn mensenrechten.
                  

Nina Carberry (PPE). – Mr President, Commissioner, I want to start by welcoming the new Roadmap for Women's Rights. Gender equality is a fundamental principle of the EU, and this roadmap is a crucial step forward. However, we must ensure it leads to real change.
In these times of geopolitical uncertainty, we cannot afford to backslide on gender equality. Across Europe, we are seeing growing threats to these rights, from severe underfunding of critical support services for women to gaps in legal frameworks addressing gender-based violence.
An excellent example of progress, however, is the Zero Tolerance Meath pilot project in Ireland, led by Meath Women's Refuge and Support Services, to tackle domestic sexual and gender-based violence.
And so I urge the Commission to use this roadmap as a foundation for the post-2025 Gender Equality Strategy, while also ensuring the full and timely implementation of the Directive on gender-based violence. Words are not enough. Action is needed now!

Alessandra Moretti (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, desidero ringraziare la Commissione e la commissaria Minzatu per questa road map sui diritti delle donne. Sono felice di aver ritrovato nel testo riferimenti a battaglie cruciali per la libertà di tante donne. Tuttavia chiedo che queste non siano solo belle parole spese in occasione dell'8 marzo: servono impegni concreti da realizzare attraverso misure legislative e non tangibili.
                  

                     La violenza di genere resta una piaga: una donna su tre ne è vittima in Europa. Quanto tempo ci vorrà ancora per concordare una definizione di stupro legata alla mancanza di consenso? Come possiamo promuovere progetti che insegnino ai nostri ragazzi il rispetto dei corpi e delle persone?
                  

                     Poi le crisi che abbiamo affrontato, che ancora non abbiamo risolto: penso al COVID, alla crisi energetica, alla povertà, al cambiamento climatico. Le donne pagano il prezzo più alto. Servono misure concrete per alleviarne gli effetti.
                  

                     Infine il tema della salute: dobbiamo investire in programmi che mettano finalmente in luce una medicina di genere appropriata. La salute deve essere un diritto accessibile e di qualità per tutti. Non vogliamo più continuare a curarci con diagnosi e medicinali pensati per un corpo maschile.
                  

Maria Walsh (PPE). – Mr President, according to the European Commission, there's 229 million women living in the EU, 5 % more than men. Again, I point out – just ironic – about 5 % of elected officials here sit in this House to debate such an important issue, ignoring the 229 million people that elected us to be here. I certainly welcome the roadmap, but let's be very clear to all EU citizens on the realities facing women in today's world.
87 000 women across the world will die because they're women. Over the course of a decade, that's the city of Amsterdam. 96 % of AI-generated content known as deepfakes are pornographic in nature, sexualised content targeting women and young girls. We know this from reports that 99 % of them are indeed women and young girls.
The foundation of gender equality is built on the rights to live free from all injustices. Yet, at the current pace of progress, gender equality will only be achieved by 2158. Yet I ask, what are we doing in here for the 229 million citizens that elected us and expect us to do better?

Jessika Van Leeuwen (PPE). – Mr President, women's rights. Our grandmothers and mothers fought for these rights. And today, if we're not careful, we will lose them again. And as a mother of three daughters, I am a strong advocate for gender equality.
However, I do believe two things. First of all, without allowing men to actively, actively participate in gender equality, we will never achieve anything. So this feminist hatred against men will not bring us any further, but will polarise society instead.
Secondly, we women are part of the problem. As long as we victimise ourselves, we continue to keep the vicious circle of gender inequality intact. It's time to take responsibility for our actions and to refuse to be treated as victims. We are not victims. If we refuse to be, we are not victims.
It's time we take our rightful place in the society just because we can and not because a gender quota assigns us a spot.

(End of catch-the-eye procedure)


Roxana Mînzatu,
Executive Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, thank you for a very meaningful conversation. Women's rights are human rights and fighting for women's rights means being a democrat and then a feminist, and however we may call it.
We fight for our democracies when we fight for the rights of women in employment, in health, on the job market, in public positions, in research, in what concerns their safety, in their homes, on the streets, online, that I think should unite us.
And this roadmap – and I am also a woman of action and not necessarily just of words – is an invitation in these somewhat disruptive times, where we see some pullback. It's an invitation to all of us, to you Members of the European Parliament, to Member States in the Council, to all the stakeholders, social partners, all that are watching us, all that have seen this roadmap, to reaffirm, to recommit to all values for nothing can be taken for granted.
And yes, once we reaffirm and recommit – action. And we have such an important package of EU legislation that has been recently adopted, the directives that need to be transposed and implemented, and we will come with a gender equality strategy for 2026-2030, the next generation with new measures, new actions, and we need to think about how we mainstream the gender dimension in our funding policies, in the MFF, in every policy. And I would give just my own example because I recently adopted my first initiative, the Union of Skills, where it's not just about a general discussion, but for example, in STEM education I committed and I invite all to train 1 million girls and women in STEM education by 2028. And many said it's too much. What are you talking about? It's that kind of ambition.
In the end, I would address the elephant in the room. I come from Romania. I was born in 1980, in Romania, from 1966 until the communist regime was overthrown, overthrown, abortion rights were prohibited. Thousands of women died because of illegal interruptions of the pregnancies. Many remain traumatised physically and mentally. Many children were abandoned in state facilities that were absolutely horrendous.
When I speak and when I fought with Commissioner Lahbib and the Commission to have a reaffirmation of a clear principle stating that women should have access to sexual and reproductive health and rights, I do not speak from the books. I speak from reality. I come from a family where stories of women dying and suffering were told at coffee every morning, every neighbour, every aunt, it was normality.
Please think twice how much we need to commit to women's health and try to connect with the reality of transposing these rights. Our action starts from committing to principles and values. Our common action is the one that can deliver the rights and protections that women need.
And I would say this roadmap is important in 2025. And I invite you to join to support it, to sign it, to implement it and to work together. We need to be together in this fight every day, every year, no matter where our position is in Commission, in Parliament, in national politics or any other place.
Thank you and I'm looking forward to working with you on these topics.

Adam Szłapka,
President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, Commissioners, honourable Members, yes, women's rights are human rights. Women's rights concern all of us and I'm very thankful for this debate. As we heard, the Commission has charted a path forward with its Roadmap for Women's Rights and will be tabling new strategic documents on different aspects of equality in due course.
We are looking forward to these new initiatives while Member States implement the legislation that has recently been adopted. I can also inform you that the Polish Presidency will be hosting the informal meeting of equality ministers in April. Let us move forward together and make equality a reality for all women and men, boys and girls.

President. – The debate is closed.


Written Statements (Rule 178)



Caterina Chinnici (PPE),
per iscritto. – Celebriamo oggi la Giornata internazionale della donna.
                  

                     Come donna, madre, magistrato e deputata al Parlamento europeo, ritengo di rappresentare emblematicamente la molta strada, non facile, che è stata fatta sul fronte della parità di genere ma, è innegabile, non è ancora così per tante, troppe donne e ragazze!
                  

                     È infatti ancora lungo il cammino per assicurare l'attuazione concreta dell'art. 23 della Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell'Unione europea che stabilisce: ‘La parità tra uomini e donne in tutti i campi, compreso in materia di occupazione, di lavoro e di retribuzione.’
                  

                     Bene quindi l'introduzione della roadmap dell'UE per i diritti delle donne, presentata dalla Commissione nei suoi primi 100 giorni di lavoro, che rappresenta un rinnovato impulso a rafforzare la parità di genere, consolidando i progressi compiuti nell'ambito della strategia 2020-2025, e fornisce una panoramica dettagliata degli ambiti in cui sono necessari ulteriori interventi.
                  

                     C'è ancora molto lavoro da fare: per far fronte alla piaga silenziosa e inaccettabile della violenza contro le donne che, purtroppo, non accenna a fermarsi, per colmare il divario retributivo di genere e, soprattutto, per garantire concretamente, ad ogni donna, la libertà di non dover mai scegliere tra vita professionale e vita familiare!
                  

Loucas Fourlas (PPE),
in writing. – On the occasion of International Women's Day, we celebrate the women who have always been at the forefront of change – leading movements, shaping communities and breaking barriers. Today, we recognise their strength, achievements and unwavering drive.
But it's important to remember that this celebration is not just for one day – it is a commitment to equality every day. True equality goes beyond recognition; it's about ensuring equal opportunity for all. It's about creating a world where no girl grows up believing she has to fight harder to be heard. We should dismantle barriers, challenge outdated mindsets and build an environment where talent, not gender, defines success.
From the boardroom to the classroom, from the front lines to the voting booths, women are constantly redefining leadership. Yet too many still face discrimination, unequal opportunities and violence. These injustices must have no place in our societies.
Our words today should turn into actions tomorrow. The future we strive for – a world where every woman and girl can dream without limits – is not just an aspiration; it is a necessity. And as the European Parliament, we must work hard to make this future a reality for all.

Gabriella Gerzsenyi (PPE),
írásban. – Van egy fiam és egy lányom. Amikor megszülettek, azt kívántam, hogy mindketten megvalósíthassák az álmaikat. 2025-ben a lányom hátrányban van a fivérével szemben a társadalomban fennálló esélyegyenlőtlenség miatt.
                  

                     Négy kulcspontot emelnék ki a nők helyzetéről:
                  






1.


Béregyenlőtlenség: Az EU-ban a nemek közötti bérszakadék átlagosan 13%, Magyarországon 17%. Ez nemcsak a nőket érinti hátrányosan, hanem a férfiakat is, mivel a család fenntartásának terhe aránytalanul rájuk hárul.










2.


Munkahelyi diszkrimináció: A nők gyakran alacsonyabb beosztásban dolgoznak, mint az ugyanolyan végzettséggel rendelkező férfiak. Míg egy férfinek előny, ha családos, addig a nők számára sokszor hátrányt jelent, ha gyermeket vállalna.










3.


Döntéshozatalban való részvétel: A politikai és gazdasági döntéshozatalban a nők aránya elenyésző. Európában a parlamenti képviselők 33%-a nő, Magyarországon csupán 15,7%-a!










4.


A láthatatlan munka elismerése: A nők hozzájárulása a társadalomhoz – a gyermeknevelés, idősgondozás, háztartási munka – az EU GDP-jének 10%-át teszi ki.





                     Orbán Viktor kormányában kizárólag férfi miniszterek döntenek. A TISZA Párt elengedhetetlennek tartja a nők bevonását a döntéshozatalba. A nők jogainak védelme össztársadalmi érdek! Azért dolgozunk, hogy legyen igazságos bérezés, minden szülő számára elérhető és megbízható bölcsőde és óvoda, szabad orvosválasztás, valamint hogy a családok ne anyagi gondok között döntsék el, mernek-e gyermeket vállalni.
                  

Sirpa Pietikäinen (PPE),
kirjallinen. – Ihmisoikeudet ovat oikeusvaltion perusta. Naiset ovat ihmisiä, ja siksi naisten oikeudet ovat erottamaton osa ihmisoikeuksia – myös seksuaali- ja lisääntymisterveysoikeudet. Ilman näitä ei oikeusvaltioperiaate toteudu.
                  

                     On tärkeää, että komission uudessa naisten oikeuksien tiekartassa mainitaan digiväkivalta, joka kohdistuu erityisesti naisiin ja tyttöihin, rajoittaen heidän ilmaisunvapauttaan, osallistumistaan yhteiskunnalliseen keskusteluun ja turvallisuuttaan verkossa. Tämä on jatkumoa laajemmalle sukupuolittuneelle, rakenteelliselle väkivallalle, joka ylläpitää eriarvoisuutta ja pelon ilmapiiriä. Pekingin julistuksessa tunnistettu rakenteellinen väkivalta tarkoittaa yhteiskunnallisia rakenteita ja käytäntöjä, jotka jättävät naiset marginaaliin, esimerkiksi rajoittamalla heidän vaikutusmahdollisuuksiaan päätöksenteossa, sekä ylläpitämällä palkkaeroja ja kasautuvia hoivavastuita.
                  

                     Ilman määrätietoisia toimia nämä rakenteet jatkavat sukupuolten epätasa-arvon syventämistä. Siksi EU:n on rakennettava parempi tulevaisuus jokaiselle tytölle ja naiselle vahvistamalla perusoikeusnäkökulmaa kaikessa lainsäädännössä.
                  

Μαρία Ζαχαρία (NI),
γραπτώς. – Στην Ελλάδα του 2025 οι γυναίκες εξακολουθούν να αγωνίζονται για τα αυτονόητα. Το μισθολογικό χάσμα παραμένει προκλητικό, οι γυναίκες υποεκπροσωπούνται στις θέσεις εξουσίας και η εργασιακή ανασφάλεια τις πλήττει δυσανάλογα. Η μητρότητα αντιμετωπίζεται ως εμπόδιο στην επαγγελματική ανέλιξη, ενώ η απλήρωτη εργασία φροντίδας παραμένει αόρατη για την πολιτεία.
                  

                     Ακόμα πιο σοκαριστική είναι η αδιάκοπη μάχη ενάντια στην έμφυλη βία. Οι γυναικοκτονίες, οι βιασμοί και η κακοποίηση δεν είναι μεμονωμένα περιστατικά· είναι δομικό πρόβλημα μιας κοινωνίας που ανέχεται τη βία. Και όμως, στην Ελλάδα δεν υπάρχει καν νομοθετικό πλαίσιο που να αναγνωρίζει τις γυναικοκτονίες, δεν υπάρχουν ουσιαστικά μέτρα πρόληψης και προστασίας των θυμάτων. Οι δράστες μένουν ατιμώρητοι, ενώ οι γυναίκες συνεχίζουν να ζουν με τον φόβο.
                  

                     Η Ελλάδα δεν μπορεί να είναι ουραγός στην ισότητα. Χρειαζόμαστε άμεσες, αυστηρές πολιτικές και δεσμεύσεις με πραγματικό αντίκτυπο. Γιατί καμία κοινωνία δεν είναι δημοκρατική, όταν οι γυναίκες της ζουν με φόβο και ανισότητα.
                  
10.   Presentation of the proposal on Critical Medicines Act (CMA) (debate)

President. – The next item is the debate on the Commission statement on the presentation of the proposal for a Critical Medicines Act (2025/2568(RSP)).

Olivér Várhelyi,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, today the Commission adopted the Critical Medicines Act. This proposal is very much needed to ensure security of supply and availability of critical medicines, as well as accessibility of other key medicines where the market is not delivering. This is a priority file for the Commission, which is adopted on its hundredth day as promised.
Why, you might ask? Because medicine shortages are a long standing concern for the EU and our citizens. This concern has been raised multiple times by this House, as well. Enough to mention that a number of shortage notifications has increased substantially and persistently since 2013, reaching the peak in 2019 with close to 14 000 notifications. Enough to mention that most EU countries report increasing numbers of medicine shortages, with the great majority having recorded shortages for 200 or more medicines in 2023.
With the help of this House, we have already taken a number of steps at EU level to improve the situation. Together, honourable Members, we are reforming the general pharmaceutical legislation and have extended the mandate of the European Medicines Agency. These two building blocks establish a regulatory framework to prevent and mitigate shortages during crises and at all times. We have established together a Critical Medicines Alliance, bringing together more than 300 stakeholders from the patient and the scientific communities, health professionals, Member States and industry to explore ways to strengthen the supply of critical medicines in the EU. The Alliance has already provided us with recommendations in its strategic report.
The Critical Medicines Act builds on all this work we have done together. It provides a comprehensive approach to improve the availability of critical medicines and accessibility of other key medicines where there is a market failure. It complements the ongoing revision of the pharmaceutical legislation and aims to reduce dependencies for critical medicines and their ingredients to reinforce the EU's strategic autonomy in health.
It will also have a positive impact on the Union's competitiveness by fostering a more stable and predictable market environment, encouraging investment and supporting innovation in the pharmaceutical sector. The act has different mechanisms to achieve these goals. First, it will facilitate investments for companies that create or increase manufacturing capacity of critical medicines in the EU. It will become possible for these projects to be identified as strategic projects. This will give them easier access to funding and fast-track administrative, regulatory and scientific support. The Commission has today also published State aid guidance to help Member States to finally support such strategic projects or projects pursuing similar objectives.
Second, the act will increase the resilience of supply chains. Procurers will have to use criteria other than only price in their procurement procedures. For instance, these criteria could be the use of diversified suppliers or contractual clauses on timely delivery. There are also provisions for critical medicines with high dependency on supply from one or from a limited number of countries outside the EU. In this case, procurers will also be required, where justified, to favour suppliers that manufacture a significant proportion of these critical medicinal products in the EU, as long as they comply with the Union's international commitments.
Third, we will offer Member States the possibility to make use of aggregated demands. If interested, EU countries will be able to request support from the Commission to use different collaborative procurement tools, facilitating access to the medicines they need, building on the experience of jointly procuring medical countermeasures.
Finally, the Commission will seek to enhance existing cooperations and conclude new international partnerships to diversify supply chains for these critical medicines. When it comes to the new international partnerships, of course, I very much rely on the candidate countries and countries in our closest neighbourhood who should be in pole position to help us to bring back production in the EU or closer to the EU.
Honourable Members, together, these measures will reduce the EU's dependency on individual suppliers of critical medicines, improve the security of supply of affordable medicines, and increase the EU's manufacturing capabilities. So, to sum up, the Critical Medicines Act ensures that EU patients have access to the medicines they need, when and where they need them at an affordable price. In the current geopolitical context, this has become an even bigger priority.

Tomislav Sokol,
u ime kluba PPE. – Poštovani predsjedavajući, povjereniče, kolegice i kolege, farmaceutska industrija jedan je od najvažnijih strateških gospodarskih sektora za Europsku uniju. Bilo kakva nestašica lijekova predstavlja zdravstvenu, ali i egzistencijalnu, sigurnosnu prijetnju za Europu.
               

                  Nažalost, Europska unija sve više postaje ovisna o uvozu lijekova iz trećih država, a upravo je nedavna pandemija najbolje pokazala koliko smo ranjivi kad je u pitanju nestašica lijekova i medicinske opreme.
               

                  Ovakva situacija dodatno je pogoršana zbog geopolitičkih okolnosti u kojima se nalazimo. Budući da je došlo vrijeme brutalne sile u međunarodnim odnosima te se svatko treba pobrinuti, koliko god je to moguće, za vlastite interese.
               

                  Krajnje je vrijeme da preuzmemo stvari u svoje ruke, a ovim prijedlogom zakona o kritičnim lijekovima činimo korak u pravom smjeru. Zato pozdravljam mehanizme, posebno financijske potpore i ubrzavanje administrativnih procedura za strateške projekte kojima olakšavamo gradnju tvornica lijekova na europskom tlu.
               

                  Također, podržavam zajedničku nabavu kritičnih lijekova, što je posebno važno za manje države poput moje Republike Hrvatske jer time jačamo njihovu pregovaračku moć i osiguravamo bolje uvjete nabave.
               

                  Pri tome izuzetno je važno uvođenje dodatnih kriterija odabira u javnoj nabavi lijekova osim cijene, poput sigurnosti opskrbe i proizvodnje na europskom teritoriju, što će svakako olakšati dostupnost kritičnih lijekova za naše građane i smanjiti ovisnost o pojedinim dobavljačima izvan EU-a.
               

                  Jedna od stvari koje, međutim, nisu toliko naglašene je stvaranje zaliha kritičnih lijekova. Ne smije se nikada više dogoditi da pojedine velike države članice u zdravstvenoj krizi zadržavaju ključne medicinske potrepštine i time doprinose produbljivanju krize umjesto njenom rješavanju. Zato nam treba jačanje zajedničkih europskih zaliha i koordinacija na razini EU-a kako bi lijekovi i druge medicinske potrepštine u slučaju nestašice stigli upravo onima koji ih najviše trebaju.
               

                  Sve u svemu, pozdravljam ovaj prijedlog jer on doprinosi ekonomskoj sigurnosti EU-a smanjenjem ovisnosti o stranim dobavljačima i osiguravanju stabilne opskrbe. Osim toga, njime će se povećati konkurentnost EU-a na globalnom farmaceutskom tržištu, privući ulaganja u istraživanje i inovacije te stvoriti nova radna mjesta.
               

                  Vrijeme je da interes Europske unije i naših pacijenata doista postane prioritet i drago mi je da sada idemo u pravom smjeru.
               

Christophe Clergeau,
au nom du groupe S&D. – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, nous sommes cinq ans après la crise de la COVID-19 et, malheureusement, nous serions probablement confrontés à la même situation si une nouvelle crise sanitaire arrivait aujourd'hui, et aux mêmes défaillances dans l'accès aux médicaments. Nous avons donc besoin de ce texte pour protéger les Européens et garantir l'accès aux médicaments, en période de crise comme en période normale: c'est là une question de souveraineté de l'Europe. Nous avons besoin d'une politique incitative pour encourager la production de médicaments en Europe; cependant, nous n'avons pas besoin d'un texte pour l'industrie pharmaceutique, mais bien d'un texte pour les citoyens.
               

                  À cette fin, nous devons avoir un cadre rigoureux, clarifier les définitions des médicaments critiques et des pénuries, assurer la transparence de la chaîne de valeur, avoir des conditionnalités sur les marchés publics et favoriser des marchés ou des achats collectifs à l'échelle européenne – autrement dit, la solidarité européenne. Ce qui est le plus important, pour les socialistes, c'est peut-être de garantir à toutes et à tous en Europe l'accès aux médicaments – leur disponibilité un prix accessible, et des stocks disponibles –, et ce partout, au plus près des gens. Il s'agit bien, à travers ce texte, d'une politique de santé publique autant que d'une politique industrielle.
               

Ondřej Knotek,
on behalf of the PfE Group. – Mr President, Mr Commissioner, the Critical Medicines Act is an extremely important file. The world is in a de- globalisation phase. Dependencies reduction and self-sufficiency have become a logical trend. This for sure includes medicines, their availability and affordability simply matter.
Therefore, we welcome the ambition to maintain a list of critical medicines for which European research and production capacities would be granted. But it is not an easy task. As critical, we consider a wide range of medicines, including those old simple molecules whose production was, due to cost optimisation, transferred outside the EU in the past decades. And now we want them back.
Also, we shall consider what should be the role of the EU here. In my opinion, mainly coordination of fair distribution of supportive projects among Member States to avoid duplication and at the end, after implementation, coordination of logistics of critical medicines.
However, we believe that tools like CMA and Pharma Package can contribute positively to increase medicine supplies resilience on our continent, and in this regard, Mr Commissioner, you have our full support.
However, I would like to extend that attracting private investments of pharma industry in the EU would require at the same time, in parallel, energy cost reductions, decreasing of obligations linked to the medicines lifecycle and also less bureaucracy, which is exactly the opposite of which some of your colleagues, Mr Commissioner, are doing.

Ruggero Razza,
a nome del gruppo ECR. – Signor Presidente, signor Commissario, onorevoli colleghi, anzitutto grazie, Commissario, per avere rispettato uno degli impegni che lei aveva annunciato nel corso della Sua audizione, e cioè di essere qui entro i 100 giorni e presentare un atto normativo di straordinaria importanza.
               

                  Atto normativo che era largamente atteso, non soltanto per ciò che è emerso all'indomani della pandemia, quando abbiamo scoperto come Europa che la gran parte della nostra produzione avveniva al di fuori dei 27 Paesi e quindi era difficile un approvvigionamento, soprattutto in momenti di difficoltà.
               

                  Oggi c'è una questione molto importante che questo atto inizia ad affrontare ed è quella di rendere competitiva e di rendere realizzabile la produzione di medicinali, soprattutto generici, anche in Europa, mentre oggi sappiamo che la principale criticità sta tutta qui: nel fatto che produrre il farmaco in Europa è diventato antieconomico.
               

                  E allora è un lavoro che inizia col Critical Medicines Act, è un lavoro che è stato preso dalla bussola della competitività. Noi siamo ottimisti perché è anche questa una questione di sovranità.
               

Vlad Vasile-Voiculescu,
în numele grupului Renew. – Domnule președinte, avem, iată, un prim produs legislativ al noii Comisii și îi mulțumesc domnului comisar pentru păstrarea cuvântului dat în primele 100 de zile. Mulțumesc, de asemenea, tuturor celor care au contribuit, în special celor din Critical Medicines Alliance. Avem astăzi un pas necesar pentru a proteja pacienții din Europa de criza medicamentelor esențiale. În România, am fost martorii unor situații alarmante: spitalele de oncologie din România – nu în ultimul rând, oncologie pediatrică – raportează frecvent lipsa medicamentelor esențiale pentru diferite tipuri de cancer, compromițând astfel șansa copiilor și șansa adulților la un tratament corect.
               

                  Spitalele din Satu Mare din România s-au confruntat de curând cu lipsa hidrocortizonului. De asemenea, lipsesc în continuare multe medicamente antiepileptice, în special pentru copii și nu numai. Această lege propune independență strategică, coordonare a politicilor de stocuri, producție europeană și achiziții coordonate și poate, într-adevăr, să scadă dependența de lanțurile de aprovizionare globale și să crească accesul europenilor la medicamente. Totuși, fără mecanisme clare de implementare, bugete adecvate și sancțiuni pentru nerespectarea obligațiilor, acest act riscă să rămână doar o declarație de intenție.
               

IN THE CHAIR: SOPHIE WILMÈS


Vice-President


Tilly Metz,
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, this project is a perfect example of what you get when one writes legislation on the fly and in a hurry. Exactly what I fear has happened. The challenges for availability of critical medicines are enormous in Europe, the expectations of both patient and the pharmaceutical industry regarding effective solutions proposed by the European Union are as great as the challenges. Unfortunately, what has been presented today falls far short from the expectations. The measures proposed are too weak. There is nothing on EU stockpiling, nothing on the public medicine infrastructure, nothing to ensure transparency for the public, nothing innovative in terms of announcing. Nothing that would ensure public support actually translate into the availability of medicines. Only joint procurement and fast-tracking of administrative procedures will not solve the problem. The Critical Medicines Act must become an ambitious legislation to meet citizens' expectations.

Catarina Martins,
em nome do Grupo The Left. – Senhora Presidente, Senhor Comissário, a escassez de medicamentos é um problema crescente na União Europeia, há ruturas até em medicamentos para o cancro, e ter ou não acesso é uma lotaria geográfica. E a definição de medicamentos críticos, ela própria, esquece algumas doenças raras ou a saúde reprodutiva das mulheres.
                  

                     É, portanto, urgente agir. Mas a proposta da Comissão responde ao fundamental?
                  

                     A cadeia do medicamento está refém das grandes farmacêuticas e sujeita à vontade de países terceiros. A maioria dos medicamentos genéricos produzidos na Europa depende de substâncias ativas produzidas na China e na Índia. Garantir a produção e o abastecimento de medicamentos exige, por isso, transparência, novas regras de mercado, incluindo sobre as patentes, e investimento público.
                  

                     Ministros da Saúde de 11 Estados-Membros pedem agora que este investimento seja incluído nos programas de defesa. O pedido põe o dedo na ferida. Afinal, para o armamento há 800 mil milhões de euros e para a saúde só há restrições.
                  

                     E sem capacidade soberana nos medicamentos, como no digital ou na energia, não há segurança na Europa.
                  

Adam Jarubas (PPE). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Panie Komisarzu! Dziękuję za tę propozycję. Akt o lekach krytycznych to brakujący element odpowiedzi Komisji Europejskiej na niedobory leków po wykazie i Sojuszu na rzecz Leków Krytycznych. To większe bezpieczeństwo lekowe Europejczyków.
                  

                     Co z tego, że wynaleziono lek, że być może mamy nawet na niego fundusze, jeśli nie jest fizycznie dostępny w Europie, bo trafia na inne rynki, jest przedmiotem prac, presji w polityce międzynarodowej lub dostawy zostają odcięte z powodu pandemii, napięć geopolitycznych, sankcji czy otwartych konfliktów.
                  

                     Europa dziś sprowadza 80% leków lub substancji do ich produkcji. W niektórych przypadkach w ogóle ich nie produkuje i w stu procentach zależy od importu. Co jeśli, tak jak z energią z Rosji, przyjdzie nam zmierzyć się z dnia na dzień z odcięciem importu tych leków. Potrzebujemy zatem ambitnego Critical Medicines Act, który jak najszerzej będzie korzystać z propozycji Sojuszu na Leków Krytycznych.
                  

                     Istnieje pewien poziom produkcji leków, od którego zależy zdrowie i życie Europejczyków, który wyznacza granice pomiędzy prostym biznesem a bezpieczeństwem. Potrzebujemy funduszu leków krytycznych, który pozwoli zabezpieczyć ten poziom w Unii, zasilanego na przykład z uelastycznienia niewykorzystanych środków z polityki spójności lub z procentowego udziału w zliberalizowanej krajowej pomocy publicznej państw Unii, o co apelował w swoim sprawozdaniu Enrico Letta. Taki fundusz wzmacniałby europejską autonomię i odporność na przyszłe kryzysy, wojny handlowe i równoważył zaburzenie jednolitego rynku. W pełni popieram ideę aktu o lekach krytycznych.
                  

Tiemo Wölken (S&D). – Frau Präsidentin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Arzneimittelengpässe können für Patientinnen und Patienten zu einer Frage von Leben und Tod werden; deshalb ist es höchste Zeit, dass wir dieses Problem angehen. Zwar veröffentlicht die Kommission schon lange eine Liste der kritischen Medikamente, aber wir haben bisher noch keinen Gesetzgebungsvorschlag gehabt. Wir als Parlament haben in der Pharma-Verordnung und auch in der Richtlinie schon versucht, erste Schritte zu gehen, aber es ist höchste Zeit, dass wir dieses dramatische Problem endlich vollumfänglich anpassen; deswegen können und wollen wir auch Engpässe nicht mehr hinnehmen.
                  

                     Wir brauchen mehr Produktionskapazitäten in der Europäischen Union. Wir brauchen eine ausfallsichere Lieferkette, das heißt, nicht nur ein Hersteller darf ein Produkt liefern. Und wir müssen die Abhängigkeit von Drittstaaten drastisch reduzieren. Dafür brauchen wir gezielte Investitionen, wir brauchen strategische Unabhängigkeit. Es ist gut, dass die Kommission die MEAT-Kriterien endlich wahrnimmt und ernst nimmt und damit nicht nur den Preis als entscheidendes Kriterium hat. Als Sozialdemokratinnen und Sozialdemokraten haben wir das schon lange gefordert, aber die Wahrheit ist auch: Wir werden dafür Geld brauchen, und daran müssen wir jetzt gemeinsam arbeiten.
                  

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


Tomislav Sokol (PPE),
blue-card question. – I'm glad that you support the overall concept and the direction of the Critical Medicines Act, the same as myself, but there is one thing that I think is really missing and that is the provisions on stockpiling.
We remember from the last big crisis that we had a problem that some big Member States essentially kept everything that they could for themselves at the time where some other Member States had much bigger needs and where these medical countermeasures were more necessary there.
So, my question is: would you support that we do whatever we can to add to this Critical Medicines Act also provisions of common stockpiling and more coordination so that we make sure that patients actually get those medicines, which they need in times of crisis?

Tiemo Wölken (S&D),
blue-card answer. – Stockpiling is an essential part, yes, I totally agree and I'm happy that it is also part of the MEAT criteria.
I agree that in some Member States, medicine is more accessible than in others, and this is something we shouldn't accept. We should work together to have a European Union, a true European health Union, where every European citizen has equal access to medicines.
I'm really sure that we as a Parliament together can work on this commonly shared aim.

Gerald Hauser (PfE). – Frau Präsidentin, sehr geehrter Herr Kommissar! Bei dem Ziel, genügend kritische Arzneimittel und überhaupt Arzneimittel für die europäische Bevölkerung zu haben, wird Sie natürlich jeder unterstützen. Aber der erste Schritt – das wurde schon angesprochen – dazu ist, dass man sich einmal bemüht, die Wirkstoffe, die zu 80 % von China und von Indien produziert werden, auch in die Produktion nach Europa rückzuverlagern – über das müsste dann wirklich separat gesprochen werden.
                  

                     Aber die Frage, die sich mir stellt, ist: Wieso hat man überhaupt diese Allianz gründen müssen? Wir haben ja bereits genügend Gesundheitsbehörden in der Europäischen Union – neben der Kommission gibt es die EMA, wir haben die Europäische Gesundheitsbehörde, wir haben die HERA. Also wieso gründet man eine eigene Behörde? Und das wird mir schon eine Spur verdächtig. Möchte man da wieder intransparent arbeiten, weil diese Behörde ja nur beratend tätig ist? Und da entsteht dann immer wieder das Problem, dass man sagt, ‘na, wir sind eh nur beratend’, wissend, dass es hier um ein Milliardengeschäft geht.
                  

                     Und deswegen ist es wichtig, Herr Kommissar, dass man hier die Transparenz voll und ganz walten lässt und dass es nicht so wie bei der Beschaffung der COVID-19-Impfstoffe ist – vollkommen intransparent – und man die Antwort bekommt: ‘Die Vertraulichkeit muss gewahrt werden.’ Deswegen …
                  

(Die Präsidentin entzieht dem Redner das Wort.)


Aurelijus Veryga (ECR). – Pirmininke, komisare, dėkoju už iniciatyvą spręsti kritinės svarbos vaistų trūkumo problemą.
                  

                     COVID pandemija labai aiškiai pademonstravo, ką reiškia būti priklausomiems nuo trečiųjų šalių gaminamos produkcijos, tačiau tuo pačiu metu parodė, kad esant pakankamai valiai Europos Sąjunga gali per trumpą laiką mobilizuoti lėšas svarbių preparatų kūrimui ir gamybai.
                  

                     Globalia ekonomika grįstas tikėjimas, kad nebūtina visko gamintis patiems, nulėmė svarbių veikliųjų medžiagų gamybos iškėlimą į trečiąsias šalis ir su tuo susijusius vaistų trūkumus. Apie šių problemų sprendimą jau galvojama, tačiau aš pasigendu suvokimo, kad egzistuoja ir santykinis ypatingos svarbos vaistų trūkumas, kuris yra susijęs ne su fiziniu vaistų trūkumu, o su santykiniu trūkumu, kuomet vaistas yra tiesiog neįperkamas. Todėl aš noriu paprašyti svarstant ypatingos svarbos vaistų failą nepamiršti inovatyvių vaistų ir numatyti galimybę sukurti pagalbos šalims mechanizmą, realizuojamą per savanorišką bendrų vaistų derybų ir pirkimo mechanizmą.
                  

Olivier Chastel (Renew). – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, chers collègues, l'Europe ne peut plus rester spectatrice de sa propre vulnérabilité. Nous nous souvenons tous des pénuries qui ont frappé notre continent ces dernières années: amoxicilline, traitements contre le cancer, paracétamol, anesthésiants… Autant de médicaments essentiels qui ont cruellement manqué, dans nos hôpitaux comme dans nos pharmacies, ce qui a mis des vies en danger. Ces ruptures de stock n'ont pas touché que des traitements rares; elles ont aussi concerné des médicaments de première nécessité, dont la disponibilité aurait dû être une évidence.
                  

                     Depuis trop longtemps, nous avons laissé nos médicaments critiques devenir les otages des délocalisations et des tensions géopolitiques. Dépendre de quelques usines à l'autre bout du monde, c'est accepter l'impuissance face à l'urgence. L'acte législatif sur les médicaments critiques doit donc bâtir une véritable souveraineté pharmaceutique européenne. Cela passera par une législation ambitieuse: relocalisation stratégique des productions, établissement de stocks de sécurité et coordination renforcée entre les États membres.
                  

                     Il ne s'agit pas seulement d'un enjeu industriel; il s'agit également d'un impératif de santé publique.
                  

Ignazio Roberto Marino (Verts/ALE). – Signora Presidente, signor Commissario, onorevoli colleghi, discutiamo di come condividere fucili e cannoni, strumenti di morte. Ma gli strumenti di vita? Che valore ha un'Unione europea se un bambino in uno dei nostri Paesi può accedere a un farmaco salvavita e in un altro no? Se la nostra salute dipende dal mercato, dagli interessi, dai confini?
                  

                     Abbiamo visto cosa significa essere impreparati, lo abbiamo visto col Covid: mancavano le mascherine, i medicinali essenziali, i respiratori. Oggi in alcuni ospedali continuano a mancare farmaci oncologici, farmaci salvavita. L'Europa, culla della sanità pubblica, non può diventare il continente delle disuguaglianze sanitarie.
                  

                     Il Critical Medicines Act è un passo ma non basta. Dobbiamo trasformarlo in realtà, perché milioni di cittadini aspettano risposte e molti, nell'attesa, muoiono, signor Commissario.
                  

                     La salute non è un privilegio: è un diritto; un diritto che siamo chiamati a proteggere adesso, ora, qui! Dobbiamo ambire all'indipendenza strategica, non solo sulle armi, ma anche sui farmaci.
                  

Ondřej Dostál (NI). – Paní předsedající, nedostatek základních léčiv je selháním hospodářské politiky Unie. Dříve jsme byli ve výrobě soběstační, dokonce jsme měli i státní zdravotnické zásobování, které mělo ty sklady, když se tady mluvilo o zásobách. Nyní jsme závislí na dovozu účinných látek z Asie, jehož přerušení by bylo fatální. Proto pragmaticky vyzývám osoby odpovědné za zahraniční politiku, aby se zdržely obchodních válek se státy, na nichž jsme v lécích závislí, což je zejména Čína.
                  

                     Za druhé, vyzývám k odstranění těch regulací, které brání obnově výroby základních léčiv v Evropě, jako tomu bývalo, abychom se závislosti na dovozu postupně zbavili. Za třetí, léčiva vnímejme jako strategickou komoditu důležitější než zbraně. Nedostatek antibiotik jsme měli v roce 2023 a vůbec to nebylo pěkné. Místo bilionů na ReArm proto dejme raději prostor rozvoji vlastní farmaceutické výroby.
                  

                     A za čtvrté, mnohé výpadky jsou ve skutečnosti důsledek porušení hospodářské soutěže. Ty léky jsou, ale kvůli distribučním monopolům se nedostanou do menších lékáren a k pacientům. K potlačení tohoto nešvaru už Komise dávno pravomoci má, jenom je musí začít používat. Tak to dělejme!
                  

András Tivadar Kulja (PPE). – Elnök Asszony! Mindannyian emlékszünk a járvány legsötétebb pillanataira, amikor a tagállamaink és azok kórházai kétségbeesetten próbáltak gyógyszerekhez jutni, és az ellátási láncok hiányosságai miatt emberek haltak meg. A töredezett szabályozási környezettel, országokon átnyúló stratégiák nélkül egy krízis idején értékes időt veszítünk, miközben a tagállamok egymással versengenek. Mindannyiunk számára világos, hogy összefogásra van szükség az életmentő és kritikus fontosságú gyógyszerek biztosítása és igazságos elosztása érdekében. Az Uniónak kezébe kell vennie az irányítást, hogy elérhető és megfizethető gyógyszereket biztosítson az állampolgáraink részére.
                  

                     Ehhez elengedhetetlen, hogy összehangoljuk a szabályozást, ösztönző környezetet teremtsünk az innovációnak, beleértve az antibiotikum-kutatást. Meg kell őriznünk és meg kell erősítenünk az Európán belüli gyógyszergyártást, hogy csökkentsük a kiszolgáltatottságunkat. A kritikus fontosságú gyógyszerek esetén egy közös készenléti tartalékot kell létrehoznunk, amely biztosítja, hogy a tagállamokban ne forduljanak elő átmeneti gyógyszerhiányok. És különös figyelmet kell fordítanunk az árva gyógyszerekre és a ritka betegségek kezelésére. Ehhez összehangolt fellépésre és tagállamokon átnyúló finanszírozási programokra van szükség. A Critical Medicines Act garantálja ezeket, és biztosítja, hogy Európában többé ne forduljanak elő a pandémia alatt tapasztalt gyógyszerhiányok. Mert a nap végén egyetlenegy dolog számít, hogy rendelkezésre áll a gyógyszer, amivel meg tudjuk menteni a beteg életét, vagy nem.
                  

Nicolás González Casares (S&D). – Señora presidenta, señor comisario, por fin tenemos esta Ley de Medicamentos Esenciales, que es un paso más en esa Unión Europea de la Salud que queremos construir y que construimos en gran medida a través de los efectos de la COVID-19 y de los pasos que dimos en el pasado, por ejemplo con una lista de medicamentos esenciales o con una plataforma de seguimiento de la escasez de fármacos.
                  

                     Pero ahora vemos claramente que la escasez de fármacos es también uno de los talones de Aquiles de la seguridad en Europa. Tanto que hablamos de defensa, recordemos que la seguridad es un concepto más amplio y que tiene que ver también con el suministro de fármacos para actuar ante las enfermedades de los europeos y europeas. No lo olvidemos, porque la seguridad de las cadenas de suministro no puede quedar solamente en manos de las ayudas de Estado o de la simplificación administrativa. Hacen falta fondos europeos para fomentar esta autonomía estratégica y creo que falta ambición en la propuesta. Esperamos mejorarla en este Parlamento, pero, desde luego, esos medicamentos esenciales, además, deben ser fabricados en Europa en la medida de lo posible.
                  

Marie-Luce Brasier-Clain (PfE). – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, chers collègues, notre système de santé est en crise, nos hôpitaux et nos pharmacies manquent de médicaments. Des décennies de désindustrialisation et de dépendance aux importations, notamment depuis la Chine et l'Inde: voilà où nous mènent la libre concurrence et la recherche du moindre coût. L'acte législatif sur les médicaments critiques repose sur une approche technocratique et centralisée. Mutualiser les stocks à l'échelle européenne ne garantit en rien le bon fonctionnement de nos systèmes de santé, dont la gestion reste nationale.
                  

                     Sans réindustrialisation, pas de production. Elle passe par la priorité donnée à nos entreprises dans les marchés publics, par la relocalisation, chaque fois qu'elle est possible, de la production de médicaments et de principes actifs et par la protection de nos intérêts stratégiques contre les pratiques commerciales déloyales et la prédation économique. Nous voulons relancer la production en Europe et réduire nos dépendances. Comment garantir qu'une gestion centralisée respectera la souveraineté des États? La Commission assumera-t-elle un virage protectionniste, quitte à revenir sur certaines règles du commerce international? Le défi est de taille.
                  

Laurence Trochu (ECR). – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, mes chers collègues, l'Union européenne, nous avait-on promis, nous assurera compétitivité, bien-être et résilience. Pourtant, nous voilà obligés aujourd'hui de traiter du sujet central des médicaments, en commençant par les plus critiques. Serions-nous devenus un continent du tiers-monde?
                  

                     Puisqu'il faut répondre à ce problème, faisons-le en essayant, pour une fois, de ne pas répondre aux erreurs du passé par une fuite en avant. Il nous faut réduire notre dépendance aux pays asiatiques et développer notre propre industrie pharmaceutique à l'échelle européenne, mais pas au prix de la souveraineté des nations – sacrifiée par l'acte législatif sur les médicaments critiques, qui précise que les stocks d'un État membre ne doivent pas pouvoir porter préjudice à un autre – ni au prix de la transparence – qui a tant fait défaut lors de l'épidémie de COVID-19, ce qui a provoqué une défiance généralisée des Européens vis-à-vis de leurs dirigeants sur ces sujets.
                  

                     Rien dans l'acte législatif sur les médicaments critiques ne cherche à y remédier de manière concrète. La protection de la santé des Européens doit, elle aussi, se débarrasser des idéologies, accepter l'existence d'intérêts divergents au sein de l'Union et laisser aux nations européennes le monopole de leurs compétences propres.
                  

(L'oratrice refuse de répondre à une question carton bleu de Sieper.)


Veronika Cifrová Ostrihoňová (Renew). – Vážená pani predsedajúca, vážený komisár, milí kolegovia, sila a konkurencieschopnosť Európy nespočívajú len v navýšení obrany, ale aj v posilnení zdravotnej starostlivosti našich občanov a občianok. Na Slovensku sa ľudia v zdraví dožívajú v priemere 57 rokov. V najlepšej krajine Únie je to až 70. Tento rozdiel nie je len štatistika. Je to 13 rokov plnohodnotného života s rodinou, s deťmi, s vnukmi a vnučkami. Je to 13 rokov v plnom zdraví, ktoré nám chýbajú.
                  

                     Jedným zo spôsobov, ako tieto nerovnosti vyrovnať, je spoločný európsky prístup k rýchlejšej dostupnosti liekov. Pandémia COVID-19 nám ukázala, ako rýchlo a nečakane môžeme čeliť kritickému nedostatku liekov, a nemôžeme si dovoliť byť závislí od dodávok z tretích krajín, ako je Čína či India. Musíme investovať do európskych kapacít na výrobu liekov, podporiť výskum a zabezpečiť dostupnosť liekov pre všetkých. To však zvládneme len spoločne. Obrana, áno, konkurencieschopnosť, áno, no rovnaké áno platí pre kvalitnú zdravotnú starostlivosť pre všetkých občanov a občianky Európy.
                  

Oliver Schenk (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin, meine Damen und Herren, Herr Kommissar! Die Liste kritischer Arzneimittel ist mittlerweile über 270 Wirkstoffe und Substanzen lang, darunter einfache Hustensäfte für Kinder, und macht die Dringlichkeit für den Critical Medicines Act deutlich. Globalisierung und starker Kostendruck haben zu einer Abwanderung der Produktion und zu einer Konzentration auf wenige Hersteller in China und Indien geführt.
                  

                     Aber Lieferengpässe sind vermeidbar. Sie sind das Ergebnis von politischen Rahmenbedingungen, die die nationale und europäische Politik setzen. Wir können diese Rahmenbedingungen ändern; der CMA wird dazu einen Beitrag leisten. Wir können die Abhängigkeiten reduzieren und stabile Lieferketten schaffen, wenn wir sie für uns für eine starke, nachhaltige und international wettbewerbsfähige Pharmaindustrie in Europa einsetzen. Die aktuellen Engpässe sind ein wake-up call. Europa braucht eine starke Pharmaindustrie. Dazu müssen wir Industrie-, Forschungs- und Gesundheitspolitik zusammen denken, die gesamte Wertschöpfungskette in den Blick nehmen und die richtigen Signale an die Unternehmen aussenden.
                  

                     Wir müssen bei kritischen Wirkstoffen und Antibiotika, von denen heute zwei Drittel in Asien produziert werden, Anreize für eine eigene Produktion in Europa schaffen. Dafür brauchen wir finanzielle Anreize, und wir brauchen schnellere Genehmigungsverfahren, die unternehmerisches Engagement honorieren. Meine Erwartung an den CMA ist deshalb ganz klar: Er muss einen Beitrag zur besseren Verfügbarkeit von Arzneimitteln durch Anreize für mehr Produktion, stabilere Lieferketten und mehr Solidarität untereinander liefern.
                  

Nikos Papandreou (S&D). – Madam President, Commissioner, the Critical Medicines Act is our answer to shortages and supplies and less dependence on China and India. Very simple to say that.
What medicines are we talking about? Basic ones like penicillin, amoxicillin, but even infusions for chemotherapy.
The task will not be easy. We have many instruments at our disposal. We have the new pharma legislation. We have our effort on competition, AI effort and innovation. We're trying the Capital Markets Union. We want to industrialise. I don't even know if it's bringing back pharma to Europe. It's creating new pharma in Europe. It's not only reshoring. We are not going to use tariffs. We are going to produce it in our own country. We'll succeed on some. We won't succeed on others. That's how it works.
But I think today we heard that everybody agrees with the CMA with its own criticisms. So I think we're on a good road. Congratulations for bringing this in time. And we're all here to work with you for the health of European citizens.

Viktória Ferenc (PfE). – Elnök Asszony! Az elmúlt években az ellátási láncokban tapasztalható problémák miatt a kritikus gyógyszerek hiánya egyre gyakoribbá vált. Ennek okai a geopolitikai tényezők, mint például az orosz-ukrán háború vagy a koronavírus járvány, valamint a termelés és az alapanyagok beszerzésének túlzott koncentrációja Ázsiában. A Kritikus Gyógyszerek Szövetsége keretén belül az érdekelt felek kifejezhették véleményüket és kívánságaikat. Üdvözöljük, hogy a Bizottság lefolytatta ezt a párbeszédet, és javaslata reflektál a stratégiai jelentésre.
                  

                     A betegek helyzetének javítása érdekében kiemelten fontos a gyógyszerek elérhetősége és megfizethetősége, miközben biztosítjuk az európai gyógyszeripar versenyképességét és rezilienciáját. Fontos hangsúlyozni, hogy a Critical Medicines Act ne növelje az adminisztratív terheket, és ne legyen jogi átfedés, például a gyógyszercsomaghiánnyal foglalkozó részével. Üdvözlöm a bemutatott javaslatot, és köszönöm Várhelyi biztos úrnak és csapatának, hogy ilyen gyorsan elkészítették azt.
                  

Michele Picaro (ECR). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, fino a quando possiamo tollerare le carenze di farmaci essenziali in Europa? Colleghi, questa crisi è un problema strutturale che mette a rischio la salute dei nostri cittadini.
                  

                     Il nostro obiettivo è un'Europa indipendente nella produzione di farmaci, perché la salute non può dipendere da attori esterni. È una questione di sicurezza e sovranità per tutti gli Stati membri: senza un'industria forte e autonoma restiamo esposti a vulnerabilità inaccettabili.
                  

                     Per questo motivo vigileremo affinché il Critical Medicines Act persegua due obiettivi fondamentali strategici: il primo è evitare nuove sovrastrutture burocratiche e valorizzare gli strumenti di monitoraggio e risposta già esistenti; il secondo è rafforzare l'autonomia strategica dell'Europa, garantendo sicurezza sanitaria e leadership globale nel settore, sia nella produzione di farmaci essenziali che nello sviluppo delle innovazioni future.
                  

                     E per riuscirci abbiamo bisogno di strumenti concreti, incentivi alla proprietà intellettuale, norme sugli appalti pubblici che premino l'innovazione e procedure di approvazione più rapide per i farmaci innovativi.
                  

Elena Nevado del Campo (PPE). – Señora presidenta, señorías, señor comisario, yo creo que el mensaje es claro y es casi unánime: Europa tiene que ser autosuficiente y, con esta ley que se presenta hoy, la Comisión debe asegurar que el acceso de los ciudadanos a los medicamentos esenciales está garantizado.
                  

                     La escasez de medicamentos esenciales se ha convertido en un desafío en la Unión Europea. Las cadenas de suministro frágiles y dependientes suponen una vulnerabilidad para nuestros sistemas de salud y nuestros pacientes. Es esencial fortalecer la innovación, la producción y la distribución dentro de la Unión Europea, como se está haciendo, por ejemplo, en mi tierra, Extremadura, donde empresas como Natac están innovando en el sector vegetal y están ayudando en la fabricación de medicamentos huérfanos como los que tratan la ataxia de Friedreich.
                  

                     La Ley de Medicamentos Esenciales es muy necesaria. Sabemos qué hay que hacer; díganos, señor comisario, cuándo y cómo, porque se necesita ya, no le quepa la menor duda.
                  

Marta Temido (S&D). – Senhora Presidente, Senhor Comissário, a proposta de lei dos medicamentos críticos é uma peça essencial da arquitetura da nossa segurança e defesa comuns, como aprendemos durante a pandemia da COVID-19.
                  

                     Conhecemos, nos nossos países, a experiência da rutura de medicamentos vitais (como anestésicos, antibióticos, mesmo insulina), como conhecemos o diagnóstico das nossas fragilidades: dependência de menos de um punhado de origens geográficas em matérias-primas e erosão da base industrial europeia.
                  

                     A nossa ação é urgente porque os resultados exigem tempo, e as respostas legislativas são mesmo a parte mais fácil daquilo que precisamos de fazer. Sim, precisamos de uma lista de medicamentos críticos, de stocks de contingência, de novas práticas de aprovisionamento público. Precisamos mesmo de investir no fabrico europeu.
                  

                     Mas não basta. Precisamos de reconhecer que apenas com uma coordenação e investimento europeus comuns poderemos ser bem-sucedidos nesta estratégia, e que a disponibilidade de medicamentos no mercado não serve os cidadãos europeus, se o acesso, sob o ponto de vista da comportabilidade financeira, estiver em causa.
                  

                     Sim, precisamos também de falar do preço dos medicamentos, e estes são aspetos dos quais não vamos desistir.
                  

Μιχάλης Χατζηπαντέλα (PPE). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, κύριε Επίτροπε, αξιότιμοι συνάδελφοι, πραγματικά χαίρομαι για τις παρεμβάσεις που άκουσα σχεδόν από όλους τους συναδέλφους. Η νομοθετική πρόταση για τα φάρμακα κρίσιμης σημασίας αποτελεί ένα μεγάλο βήμα για την ενίσχυση της στρατηγικής αυτονομίας της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης στον τομέα της υγείας. Υπογραμμίζω την ανάγκη για την κοινή προμήθεια φαρμάκων, ιατρικών προμηθειών και συσκευών. Μέσω αυτής διασφαλίζουμε την έγκαιρη και οικονομικά προσιτή πρόσβαση σε αναγκαία φάρμακα για όλα τα κράτη μέλη.
                  

                     Ιδιαίτερα για τα μικρότερα κράτη μέλη, όπως η πατρίδα μου η Κύπρος, η κοινή προμήθεια φαρμάκων μπορεί να κάνει τεράστια διαφορά στη διαθεσιμότητα και στο κόστος των φαρμάκων για τον ασθενή. Ταυτόχρονα, πρέπει να διασφαλίσουμε ότι η ασφάλεια των φαρμάκων ακολουθεί τα αυστηρά κριτήρια που θέτουμε για την υγεία και ευημερία των πολιτών μας. Οι πρωτοβουλίες της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης έχουν ήδη αποδείξει ότι οι κοινές δράσεις επιτρέπουν ταχύτερες και πιο αποτελεσματικές αντιδράσεις σε υγειονομικές κρίσεις και προκλήσεις. Σας ευχαριστώ.
                  

Liesbet Sommen (PPE). – Voorzitter, commissaris, elke dag opnieuw zien wij dat de wereldorde verschuift en dat internationale samenwerking steeds moeilijker wordt. Als EU zullen wij voor strategische sectoren sterk moeten zijn en onze eigen boontjes moeten doppen. Zo ook voor de farmaceutische industrie. Want elke dag opnieuw ervaren zorgverleners en patiënten tekorten aan geneesmiddelen. Dat is een groot probleem.
                  

                     De geopolitieke instabiliteit, gecombineerd met onze afhankelijkheid van China en India op het vlak van geneesmiddelen, maakt ons kwetsbaar. Zeker in tijden van hybride oorlogsvoering. Want één geopolitiek evenement, één zotte beslissing van een bepaalde beleidsmaker of één probleem in een fabriek hier ver vandaan kan ons in een ongeziene gezondheidscrisis storten. Dat is een groot probleem. Geneesmiddelentekorten kunnen mensenlevens kosten. Reden te meer om dit in Europa samen aan te pakken met de volle impact van onze interne markt.
                  

Catch-the-eye procedure


Sérgio Humberto (PPE). – Cara Presidente, Caro Comissário, caros colegas, numa União Europeia com sistemas de saúde diversificados, o Critical Medicines Act permite uma resposta mais eficiente a emergências sanitárias e, por isso, os meus parabéns.
                  

                     Vivemos num tempo em que o acesso a medicamentos essenciais é mais urgente do que nunca e não podemos, como já disseram os meus colegas, estar dependentes de países como a China ou a Índia, que fornecem entre 60 % a 80 % das substâncias ativas utilizadas na produção de medicamentos na Europa. Esta dependência expõe-nos a riscos significativos, como vimos no caso da pandemia da COVID-19, quando as interrupções nas cadeias de abastecimento resultaram em faltas de medicamentos essenciais.
                  

                     O Critical Medicines Act tem um papel crucial para garantir que todos, mesmo todos, tenham acesso a medicamentos essenciais, reduzindo a nossa vulnerabilidade e reforçando a nossa autonomia, saúde pública e segurança.
                  

Sebastian Tynkkynen (ECR). – Arvoisa puhemies, lääkkeiden saatavuus kriiseissä on jäsenvaltioiden elinehto. Sen on oltava varmaa – ei toivotaan toivotaan -hommaa. EU puskee parhaillaan lääkkeiden toimitusketjuja paremmiksi, mutta tekemistä vielä riittää.
                  

                     Korona-ajan alku paljasti heikkoutemme. Tarvittavat välineet olivat Kiinassa ja eurooppalaiset paniikissa. Sama ei saa enää toistua.
                  

                     Kuten moneen muuhunkin asiaan, eurooppalaiset tehtaat ovat vastaus tähänkin. Vahva ja itsenäinen lääketeollisuus, joka ei kuikuile itään taikka länteen. Euroopan ei pidä olla maanosa, joka jää aina pahan paikan tullen odottelemaan apua. Se, jos mikä, on heikkoutta.
                  

                     Ja muistakaa, juuri nyt on tekojen hetki. Jos toimet aloitetaan seuraavan kriisin vyöryessä päälle, silloin on jo myöhäistä.
                  

Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle (Renew). – Madam President, in 2023, when the United States reversed Roe v Wade, it had a direct effect on the accessibility of abortion medication in the EU, because American states – fearing further restrictions on abortion medication – stocked up. And that led to shortages, for example in France.
Now, the worldwide backlash against abortion, in combination with increasingly restrictive US policies, could lead to stockpiling again and shortages. And that is why I urge this Commissioner to aim to include mifepristone and misoprostol on the list of essential medications.
As the Commissioner himself said, it's about providing critical medication there and where needed. And if we don't do this, we really risk a lot of women conducting unsafe, not legal or illegal abortions at home, especially in those Member States where this right is severely restricted.

Marc Botenga (The Left). – Madame la Présidente, écoutez, c'est en effet hallucinant de s'imaginer que, sur un continent aussi riche que le nôtre, les médicaments les plus essentiels, du paracétamol à l'amoxicilline, manquent, et que l'année passée, dans mon pays, la Belgique, 1 famille sur 3 a été confrontée à de telles pénuries et n'a pu avoir accès à certains médicaments parce qu'ils étaient indisponibles.
                  

                     Ce n'est pas tellement la faute des Indiens ou des Chinois, non: c'est la faute des Européens. Pourquoi? Parce que nous sommes dépendants en premier lieu des choix que font les grandes multinationales pharmaceutiques. Ce sont elles qui décident quoi produire, où produire, combien produire et à quel prix vendre, même lorsqu'elles ont reçu des subventions publiques à la recherche ou à la production.
                  

                     Ce qu'il faut casser aujourd'hui, c'est le monopole qu'ont ces entreprises, et pour ce faire les ONG, les associations et même les syndicats nous ont déjà donné la marche à suivre: il s'agit de créer une infrastructure publique pour la recherche et le développement en Europe. C'est possible. Vous trouvez 800 milliards pour les armes; vous allez bien trouver quelques milliards pour la santé. Qu'est-ce que vous attendez?
                  

Lukas Sieper (NI). – Frau Präsidentin, liebe Menschen Europas, Herr Kommissar! Stellen Sie sich vor, jemand in Ihrer Familie braucht dringend ein Medikament, aber in Ihrem Heimatland gibt es das gerade nicht, während es im Nachbarland in rauen Mengen vorhanden ist. Absurd, leider aber bittere europäische Realität. Und ironischerweise erlaubt das EU-Recht genau das: Alle vier Grundfreiheiten des Binnenmarkts kennen Ausnahmen aus Gründen der öffentlichen Gesundheit.
                  

                     Diese Regelungen aus dem letzten Jahrhundert gehören abgeschafft, denn gerade bei lebenswichtigen Arzneimitteln ist die öffentliche Gesundheit keine nationale, sondern eine europäische Frage. Den Critical Medicines Act begrüße ich ausdrücklich, aber seien wir ehrlich: Wenn wir wirklich eine europaweite Versorgung sicherstellen wollen, dann müssen wir tiefer ansetzen und endlich die legislativen Wurzeln von Ausnahmen in den europäischen Verträgen selbst beseitigen.
                  

                     Die Pandemie hat uns gezeigt: Krankheiten kennen keine Grenzen, und so sollten wir auch in Europa keine kennen. Denn Medikamente müssen dorthin, wo die Menschen sie brauchen – ganz ohne Grenzen.
                  

Peter Agius (PPE). – Sinjura President! Napprezza li l-Kummissjoni żammet kelmitha u ningħaqad mas-sens ta' urġenza biex aħna naħdmu fuq liġi Ewropea dwar id-disponibilità tal-mediċini. Jiena ġej minn Malta, għalina l-joint procurement li sar fil-COVID kien essenzjali u rridu narawh isir aktar sistematikament. Irridu nindirizzaw l-istockpiling. Bla dubju. Immaġinaw, ta' spiss f'Malta mediċini out of stock, mentri l-istess mediċina jkollhom bil-qabda l-Italja u Franza u l-Ġermanja.
                  

                     Għandna wkoll dimensjoni interna u esterna ta' din l-issue. Wara kollox għaċ-ċittadin qed nitkellmu fuq disponibilità. Internament, għandna l-pakkett tal-farmaċewtiċi li għadu jqassam is-suq f'market authorisations għal kull pajjiż. Dan qed jippenalizza bil-kbir gżejjer bħal Malta. Dan suppost suq wieħed. Ħbieb tiegħi, jekk tiġu Malta tisimgħu ħafna l-kelma out of stock, fl-isptar, fl-ispiżeriji, out of stock. Ejja naħdmu flimkien biex ikollna Suq Ewropew għall-Mediċini għall-Ewropej kollha.
                  

Kateřina Konečná (NI). – Paní předsedající, na základě toho, co jsme tady dnes slyšeli, se obávám velké byrokratické zátěže, která učiní návrh prostě nerealizovatelným. Rychlost musí jít ruku v ruce s efektivitou. A stejně tak bychom se měli zamyslet nad tím, co všechno jsme si tady v poslední době schválili, protože ono to má vliv na to, jestli tady ty firmy půjdou nebo nepůjdou, nebo jestli vůbec nějaký farmaceutický průmysl bude schopný v Evropě obstát. My neustále přijímáme další a další předpisy, ale poté se divíme, že tady ty firmy nejdou, respektive, že i když budeme vytvářet veřejné podniky, tak v podstatě nevytvoříme podmínky pro to, aby vůbec mohly být na území Evropské unie životaschopné.
                  

                     Takže pojďme se zamyslet nad tím, co jsme udělali. Pojďme škrtat, pojďme mazat naši legislativu, pojďme vytvářet podmínky. A poslední věc, vy jste tady všichni mluvili o tom, že potřebujete peníze. My tady rozhazujeme každé plenární zasedání stovky miliard. Dejme je konečně na něco užitečného! A toto je užitečná věc. Toto jsou léky život zachraňující a ne zbraně, které zabíjejí.
                  

(End of catch-the-eye procedure)


Olivér Várhelyi,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, I want to thank you for this debate. It seems that we have already started negotiating the proposal. I'm very glad to see the very high interest it has generated from this House. And I think we all agree that this act has the potential to significantly increase the resilience of our health care systems so that our patients will have the medicines when they need it, where they need it, and as they need it.
One should not forget about the other proposal, which is the reform of the EU pharmaceutical legislation. This House has already managed to come to an agreement. I hope that we will have very quickly an agreement also in the Council, so that these two pieces of legislation can go hand in hand and help us to create the security of supply across the board and in every Member State, because it is very clear also from this debate, the immense risk the shortages of critical medicines can create. And we have seen this already in the COVID crisis.
Now, maybe to respond to one of the key issues that was mentioned here by Mr Sokol. And then there was an exchange between him and Mr Wölken about the stock planning. Just to make it very clear. We have clear provisions now so that when Member States are setting their own rules, when it comes to the security of supply, they will be required by this law to come forward with programmes and to communicate this to the Commission, but also to other Member states. And when they do that, they have to be mindful when defining the scope of which products are covered, but also in terms of the timings or the time periods necessary, that it has to be proportionate. It has to be done in a transparent and in a solid way so that they are not putting risks on other Member States. I think this is a topic which we have all seen during the COVID crisis, but it is a reoccurring one, and this is why we have included this in the proposal itself.
Now, one of you also mentioned the issue of orphan drugs. I would also add the need for new antibiotics. This is why we have enlarged the scope of the act to cover all potential products, where we will have a critical need emerging so that we will be much faster to react to any problems on the market. And we will be able to deliver these products much faster.
And finally, on the points raised by many about transparency. I think it is very clear that this Commission aims for full transparency when it comes to the implementation of this act. This is why joint procurement is the key tool through which we are going from where the conditions and costs are going to be public, as it is the case in any procurement. Same goes for the facilities created through the possibility of providing State aid for re-attracting manufacturing capacities in the EU. I think the State aid rules already have a very high level of transparency in the European Union.

President. – The debate is closed.


Written Statements (Rule 178)



Dan-Ștefan Motreanu (PPE),
în scris. – Numeroase state membre ale Uniunii Europene, inclusiv România, se confruntă cu dificultăți majore în aprovizionarea cu medicamente esențiale, cauzate de perturbări în lanțurile de aprovizionare, creșterea costurilor și dependența de importuri din afara UE. În România, situația este agravată de retragerea unor medicamente generice din cauza prețurilor reglementate, ceea ce afectează disponibilitatea tratamentelor pentru pacienții cu boli cronice și afecțiuni acute. Propunerea de astăzi a Comisiei Europene privind Actul legislativ pentru medicamentele critice reprezintă un pas promițător înainte. Crearea unei liste europene a medicamentelor esențiale și implementarea unor mecanisme de stocare strategică sunt măsuri necesare pentru prevenirea penuriilor și pentru garantarea accesului continuu al pacienților la tratamente indispensabile.
                  

                     În acest context, doresc să subliniez necesitatea implementării unui plan ambițios de investiții, în special în perspectiva noului Buget UE 2028-2034, care să combine fonduri europene cu reglementări flexibile privind ajutoarele de stat, pentru a consolida și extinde capacitățile de producție farmaceutică pe teritoriul Uniunii Europene. State precum România, care beneficiază deja de infrastructură industrială farmaceutică, centre universitare de excelență și un capital uman specializat, trebuie să devină piloni esențiali în asigurarea securității farmaceutice a Europei.
                  
11.   Presentation of the proposal on a new common approach on returns (debate)

President. – The next item is the debate on the Commission statement on the presentation of the proposal on a new common approach on returns (2025/2567(RSP)).

Magnus Brunner,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, honourable Members of Parliament, in the past few years, I think the European Union has made great strides to bring our national migration policy actually up to a European standard. The pact on migration and asylum is actually a proof of what can be achieved with dialogue, with persistence, and also with a sort of pragmatism, I would say, and I assure you, I will take the same open, persistent and, as I said, pragmatic approach to the implementation of the pact. In fact, we are already off to a very good start, I would say.
But there is, of course, one important area of migration policy which has not yet been fixed – that's the rules on the return of third-country nationals who have no right to stay in the European Union. Right now, at the moment, we have the figures: four out of five people subject to a to return decision do not actually leave the European Union, and frankly speaking, this is just not acceptable. Not acceptable for me. Not acceptable I think for almost all people of the European Union. And in a way, it also undermines our credibility as a European Union. It wastes the resources we have, the resources of our authorities also, and these resources should be devoted to those with the right to stay within the European Union. And it also damages, in a way, people's trust in Europe's ability to manage the migration in an effective way. And worst of all, actually, it's the false message which is sent by that – that if you manage to get into the European Union, you will be able to stay. And that actually creates business opportunities for migrant smugglers who exploit people and place their lives at risk.
Therefore, I will today and in the next weeks to come, of course, ask you to take a further significant step in completing migration reform for Europe to fix the problems and bring the returns system up to the same high standards as we have achieved under the pact for migration and asylum. The rules we have today are simply not fit for the job, I would say. The national systems of returns are too fragmented. This creates enforcement gaps, also, allowing people subject to return decisions in one Member State to slip through the cracks and start with the whole process again in a country which is maybe next door. And that is also not acceptable.
In a European Union with 27 Member States, we need a common system for returns, one that makes clear that when someone is told to leave any Member State under the system, they are being told to leave the entire European Union. That must be actually pretty obvious, and the entire European Union will have the tools needed to make that happen. And I'm therefore proposing to create a new European return order. When one Member State issues a return decision, they will fill out a common standard form and share this through the common Schengen Information System database. There will be no more loopholes in that respect, and Member States will be able to mutually recognise and also directly enforce orders issued by another Member State without having to start another national procedure from scratch and all over again.
Another problem we have right now is that the rights and obligations for returnees are not always clear. This creates confusion. It can also cause further procedural delays. Under the proposal I'm presenting today, this will change. We are codifying the rights people have when subject to a return process, such as, of course, the right of information, the right to appeal, the right also to return counselling that is also in this proposal, and the same high standards as under the pact will also apply for the returnees, for example, the right to free legal assistance, and representation for appeals and as well as an independent monitoring mechanism in every Member State to ensure forced returns are carried out in full respect, of course, of fundamental rights. But with rights there are also obligations. On the other hand, and for the first time, these two will be codified. At EU level, returnees will have a legal obligation to cooperate with the authorities, for example, by remaining in the country, by providing authorities with the right information and other things like not destroying documents, for instance. And when those obligations are not complied with, there will be consequences. People who do not cooperate or who represent a flight risk can be detained pending their return.
I think effective returns and also effective return rules are also a matter of our security within the European Union. People who pose a security threat cannot be allowed to remain free on our streets with the potential to harm others. And our new rules on return will therefore set out a series of measures to protect against those security risks. To start with, we will clearly define exactly what security risks means, actually. And then a security check will be carried out early in the return process. So when someone poses a threat, they will be detained and subject to a forced return procedure. When they do leave, they will be banned also from returning for up to 20 years, because I think security is such a fundamental right, and to protect that, to protect security, we must be uncompromising.
These problems, of course, all relate to the internal dimension we are talking about today. The internal dimension of our returns policy. Of course, that is only, I would say, one side of the coin. A return decision means nothing if it is not followed up with a successful procedure, with a readmission procedure, so that the third country actually takes back the person. The legislation I'm presenting today only addresses the internal dimension, of course, but in parallel, it is also clear that we need to step up our efforts also for migration diplomacy, I would say, with third countries. We need to build strong partnerships to also address the root causes of migration, improve cooperation on readmission also, and also open up legal pathways. That is also something which is very important.
We need also to work on security cooperation to clamp down on smugglers and traffickers, and I will pursue this work relentlessly over the course of the next years, over the course of my mandate. But even on our side of the process, actually, there are things we need to do to smooth the path also for readmission. Every time a return order is issued, a request for readmission will have to follow automatically. That's also within the new proposal. Also by actually facilitating the transfer of data from the EU Member State to the third country.
And finally, we are setting out the legal framework also for Member States to work with third countries on new ideas like return hubs. Such forms of cooperation will, of course, and I stress that as well, only be possible with countries that respect human rights and also the principle of non-refoulement, and have safeguards there as well, including a mechanism for monitoring its implementation and a blanket exclusion, actually for unaccompanied minors and families with minors.
So, dear honourable Members, the new rules, I think, will make clear that when you are ordered to leave the European Union, you will leave the European Union, either forcibly or voluntarily, if the conditions allow. And the fact that this is not the case today is a threat, I would say to our credibility also as a European Union, to our unity, and also to the sustainability of our migration system altogether, and I look forward to engaging in a hopefully constructive way, and I'm sure it's going to be constructive negotiations also with you in this House and with the Member States in the Council, of course, as well, to bring these rules into effect. I hope we can be fast as well. That is also something which is very important because we have no time to lose. If you want to regain the trust of the European Union citizens also in our migration policies, I think they need to see swift action, especially on returns and on migration in general.

Tomas Tobé,
on behalf of the PPE Group. – Madam President, Commissioner, the migration pact was a crucial step in taking back control of Europe's external border and also creating a framework for a more European common approach on migration. I would like to thank the constructive political groups in this House who actually made that happen in the last mandate – extremely important.
But one major thing still remains and that is returns. Too many people without the right to stay in Europe are still in Europe. I would say it's quite hard to actually find Member States across Europe that are effective in their work that a no actually means a no. So, as the EPP, we have been calling for this proposal and we welcome it because we cannot have a system where people that are denied asylum can simply move to another Member State to avoid being returned. There must be clear rules, firm obligation and real consequences for non-compliance.
I think this proposal in general creates now the common framework that we need. It closes many of the loopholes and it puts forward also a legal framework for return hubs. These are key messages that ensure that the people that do not have the right to stay in Europe also must leave Europe.
But this is only a starting point. Negotiations must make this proposal as strong and effective as possible. Our system demands results and I think that those days of wishful thinking are over. Now we need a policy that is in contact with reality and from EPP we are ready to deliver and we are ready to get to work.

Ana Catarina Mendes,
em nome do Grupo S&D. – Senhora Presidente, Senhores Deputados, Senhor Comissário, se é verdade que para o Pacto em matéria de Migração e Asilo foi encontrado um consenso nesta Casa, não é menos verdade que as questões do retorno nos continuam a dividir.
               

                  Se há medidas apresentadas que são positivas, há três que eu gostava de sublinhar como sendo negativas e que, do meu ponto de vista, do ponto de vista do S&D, violam os direitos fundamentais.
               

                  Em primeiro lugar, a ideia de dar aos Estados-Membros a liberdade de escolher com que país terceiro negociar para o retorno dos seus cidadãos. Eu julgo que esta liberdade é um perigo, porque não vai ao encontro do que o senhor comissário aqui disse, que é necessário haver uma política comum de retorno.
               

                  Em segundo lugar, a possibilidade de as pessoas serem enviadas para países terceiros que não ratificaram nenhum instrumento de direito internacional ou que cooperam com entidades não reconhecidas, incluindo as que controlam partes dos países que não são reconhecidos do ponto de vista diplomático (termino) é um perigo e julgo que devia ser revista.
               

                  E, por último, Senhor Comissário, (estou mesmo a terminar) os menores não acompanhados poderem ser enviados para países terceiros é um perigo e viola as liberdades mais básicas — e peço ao senhor comissário que regresse atrás nesse ponto.
               

Marieke Ehlers,
namens de PfE-Fractie. – Voorzitter, ook dank aan de commissaris voor het presenteren van de nieuwe terugkeerverordening. Dit voorstel komt geen moment te vroeg en ik ben voorzichtig positief. Het migratiebeleid van de afgelopen jaren is een regelrechte ramp en de geldende terugkeerrichtlijn is daar geen uitzondering op. Het huidige beleid zorgt namelijk niet voor terugkeer en het is een goudmijn voor asieladvocaten. Elk jaar krijgen een half miljoen mensen in de EU een uitzetbevel, Maar het falende EU-beleid zorgt ervoor dat meer dan 80 % van de illegalen niet wordt uitgezet. Het is een totaal uit de hand gelopen logeerfeestje geworden. Ze zijn de woonkamer aan het afbreken en de ouders weigeren ze op te halen.
               

                  Wie hier illegaal aanwezig is, moet per direct vertrekken. Dat is niet radicaal, dat is gewoon gezond verstand. Het migratiepact wordt gebracht als een soort wondermiddel om de asielellende op te lossen. Maar we kunnen hier nog tien migratiepacten aannemen — als de terugkeercijfers niet fors omhooggaan, blijft het dweilen met de kraan open. Daarom hebben we een robuust terugkeerbeleid nodig. Eerlijk tegenover migranten, maar vooral eerlijk tegenover onze eigen burgers. Ik wil automatische sancties voor landen die hun onderdanen niet terugnemen. Geen terugname betekent geen ontwikkelingshulp, geen visumregelingen en geen andere privileges. Want Europa is te lang de gekke Henkie van de wereld geweest. We moeten ook onze interne procedures versimpelen. Wie is afgewezen, moet vertrekken en mag niet eindeloos doorprocederen. We moeten ervoor zorgen dat afgewezen asielzoekers ook naar andere landen en zogenaamde ‘return hubs’ buiten de EU gestuurd kunnen worden.
               

                  Als schaduwrapporteur voor de PfE-Fractie ben ik vastberaden om constructief samen te werken met de andere fracties. Zonder de PfE-Fractie is er geen meerderheid voor een streng terugkeerbeleid en wordt het linkse wanbeleid voortgezet en gaat het van kwaad tot erger. Laten we werken aan wetgeving die effectief is en de veiligheid van onze burgers op één zet.
               

Assita Kanko,
namens de ECR-Fractie. – Voorzitter, commissaris, dit is historisch. We zitten hier al zo lang op te wachten. Burgers willen moed en daadkracht zien en elk immigratiesysteem dat 80 % van de uitgeprocedeerde asielzoekers niet kan uitzetten, is ongeloofwaardig. We kunnen dan eindeloos doorpraten over zes weken of twaalf weken voor dit of dat procedurele stapje, of over twee of drie kansen op een herziening van het besluit bij de rechter. Maar het is gewoon niet geloofwaardig. Daarom is dit Commissievoorstel het belangrijkste voorstel op migratiegebied dat we in tien jaar hebben gezien. Ik ga hier maximaal constructief mee aan de gang en ik roep al mijn collega's op hetzelfde te doen.
               

                  We moeten toe naar een situatie waarin we de beslissingen van onze immigratiediensten effectief kunnen uitvoeren. Dat zijn we aan onze burgers verplicht. Concreet ben ik van mening dat de ‘obligation to co-operate’ zal helpen bij handhaving. Het Europese terugkeerbevel is een logische aanvulling op nationale instrumenten en goed ingebed in onze Schengenstructuur. De ‘return hubs’ in de derde landen met grondrechtenwaarborging is al lang noodzakelijk. Op ons kunt u rekenen.
               

Malik Azmani,
on behalf of the Renew Group. – Madam President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, after the successful establishment of the migration pact, I am pleased that today a new returns directive has been presented by the Commission, for which I would like to thank Commissioner Brunner.
Without a functioning system on returns, the European migration system will never function properly. At the moment, only 20 % of rejected asylum seekers are actually returned. This is not acceptable, and it undermines public support and trust in our migration policies. There is a need for a simple, fast and efficient returns directive, where mutual recognition of return decisions between Member States is essential. And there I see already – with my critical eyes – room for improvement, dear Commissioner.
Furthermore, rejected asylum seekers and the countries of origin must be required to cooperate with their return, and there should be consequences for those who do not. This requires intensive cooperation with these countries. We need agreements, Commissioner.
Let me be clear: the Renew Europe Group is adamant that human rights are always being taken into account. And from now on, in view of previous lessons learned, it's important that Parliament takes responsibility and works together.

Tineke Strik,
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, Commissioner, the EU return system is in dire need of improvement. Only one in five decisions are followed up by a readmission request by the Member States. And meanwhile, waiting times for asylum decisions skyrocket, hampering speedy returns.
We need Member States to take responsibility and clean up their act, but the proposed return regulation lets them off the hook. It blames and punishes returnees and countries of origin. It gives Member States a blank cheque to dump people in legal and humanitarian limbo in third countries without any prospect of a durable solution. So more suffering, migratory movements back to Europe, and millions – if not billions – in wasted taxpayers' money.
We had the chance to finally get it right and make returns work by fixing the gaps, forcing the rules and focusing on durable solutions. But this is just a shameless appeasement of the far right. A Trojan horse that, under the false guise of toughness, will only lead us further astray.

Estrella Galán,
en nombre del Grupo The Left. – Señora presidenta, señor comisario, lamentablemente, usted hoy nos ha presentado aquí una propuesta como una gran novedad. Sin embargo, nada de lo que ha presentado es nuevo: todo está ya más que fracasado y, realmente, lo único que hemos visto como novedad es que se han entregado a los más reaccionarios.
               

                  Hablemos claro: usted está hablando de retornos, pero es un eufemismo, porque lo que estamos haciendo es dar vía libre a las expulsiones forzadas. Hoy se está dando un paso más debilitando las obligaciones internacionales que la Unión Europea tiene para garantizar los derechos humanos.
               

                  Son varias las razones por las que esta propuesta es inaceptable. En primer lugar, porque es anacrónica y no tiene en cuenta las aportaciones positivas de las personas migrantes ni tampoco el millón de personas al año que, según la propia Comisión ha dictaminado, necesitamos para mantener nuestro Estado de bienestar. ¿Por qué van ustedes en contra de los intereses de la Unión Europea?
               

                  En segundo lugar, porque es inoperativa, pues están demostrados la ineficiencia y el coste desproporcionado de las expulsiones frente a opciones de regularizar y dar derechos. Y, en tercer lugar, es cruel, porque externaliza las violaciones de derechos humanos generando Guantánamos en países fuera de la Unión Europea…
               

Mary Khan,
im Namen der ESN-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin! Seit Jahren versinkt Europa im Migrationschaos. Seit 2015 kamen Millionen illegal auf unseren Kontinent, und heute wird wieder einmal klar: Sie haben komplett die Kontrolle verloren. Allein 2024 waren 450 000 Ausländer in der EU ausreisepflichtig, und gerade einmal 120 000 von ihnen haben Europa verlassen. Ich sage Ihnen sehr gerne, warum wir auch so skeptisch sind: Dublin III ist hier für viele ein Fremdwort, denn würden Sie und Ihre Mitgliedstaaten sich daran halten, wären uns in Deutschland schreckliche Anschläge wie in Solingen, Mannheim, München und Aschaffenburg erspart geblieben; die Kinder, Väter und Mütter würden noch leben.
               

                  Anstatt unsere Leute endlich zu schützen, spielt Frontex, die teuerste Grenzschutzagentur der Welt, Wassertaxi, statt endlich Grenzschutz zu betreiben und Pushbacks durchzuführen. Und hier in diesem Haus wurde eine Grüne zur Berichterstatterin der Arbeitsgruppe für die Vorschläge und Rückführungen ernannt – als ob man den Bock zum Gärtner macht. Und noch besser: Die Maßnahmen im Bericht wurden seit 2010 nicht einmal aktualisiert, weil Grüne eben auf Massenmigration und keine Abschiebungen stehen.
               

                  Seien Sie doch ehrlich: Diese Debatte hier führt nun dorthin, wo die EU eh schon Spitzenreiter ist – zu noch mehr Bürokratie. Sie wollen den Schein wahren und den Leuten vorgaukeln, Sie gingen wirklich gegen illegale Masseneinwanderung vor. Aber die Realität wird Sie Lügen strafen, wenn wieder Mütter und ihre Töchter ihre Söhne durch Ihre Schützlinge verlieren werden. Denn Sie haben Angst; Sie haben Angst davor, noch mehr Prozente zu verlieren, weil Sie jetzt schon wissen, dass sich diese komplette Seite ab 2029 halbieren wird.
               

                  Wenn Sie wirklich etwas ändern wollen, dann kann ich Ihnen sagen, was zu tun ist; es wurde jetzt auch schon angedeutet. Rückführungen machen in den EU-Staaten nur Sinn, wenn man sich an Recht und Gesetz halten würde, und das heißt Pushbacks, Pushbacks und nochmal Pushbacks. Wir brauchen Flüchtlingslager außerhalb der EU, damit die grüne Schlepperei endlich ein Ende nimmt, die Streichung von Entwicklungshilfe an Länder, die ihre Illegalen nicht zurücknehmen wollen. Ganz ehrlich, man könnte hier auch mal das Geld sinnvoll einsetzen, nämlich für Remigrationsprojekte.
               

(Die Präsidentin entzieht der Rednerin das Wort.)


Lena Düpont (PPE). – Madam President, Commissioner, those who don't have a right to stay in the EU should not be in the EU: a simple, self-explanatory sentence. Yet only one in five third-country nationals where the return order applies is effectively returned.
This stretches Member States' capacity. It undermines the promise of international protection for those who are in real need of protection. It can have devastating security consequences. Long procedures, shifting responsibilities between authorities, lack of coordination between Member States, lack of cooperation by the returnees and lack of cooperation with third countries are the core deficiencies. Yet an effective returns policy is an integral part of a fully functioning common asylum and migration system.
This is why I very much welcome today's proposal as finally closing the gap, as presenting the missing piece to the pact. It clearly paves the way forward. Mutual recognition and possibilities for common enforcement, obligation to cooperate for returnees and consequences for non-compliance, rules to prevent absconding, stricter rules on security cases, enhanced third-country cooperation: that will equip the Member States with a real tool to coordinate, to cooperate and to increase the numbers of effective and sustainable returns.
With that, we will not only react to our citizens' expectations, we will restore trust in a Union that can uphold the values, and act firmly and effectively, if needed. Colleagues, challenges at this scale need to be met by the democratic forces. We as the EPP stand ready.
Und ein letzter Satz: Ich freue mich, dass meine Vorrednerin gerade deutlich gemacht hat, dass Sie nicht Teil der Gespräche sein werden.

Birgit Sippel (S&D). – Frau Präsidentin! Die Rückkehr von ausreisepflichtigen Personen in ihre Heimatländer ist Teil eines funktionierenden Asylsystems, und hier müssen wir effektiver werden – da stimme ich mit Kommissar Brunner überein. Angesichts des heute präsentierten Vorschlags scheint mir dies aber womöglich der einzige Punkt, an dem wir uns einig sind: Einschränkungen der Rechtsbehelfe, teilweise womöglich im Widerspruch zu unseren Grundrechten, die massive Ausweitung von Inhaftierungen auf zwei Jahre – auch für unbegleitete Minderjährige – und die Möglichkeit, Abschiebezentren in Drittstaaten einzurichten, ohne dass klar wird, was mit den Menschen dort geschehen soll und welche Mindeststandards dort gelten, von Kontrollen ganz zu schweigen.
               

                  Und trotz der weitreichenden Auswirkungen auf Grundrechte hat die Kommission es erneut verpasst, die möglichen Auswirkungen ihres Vorschlags zu analysieren – es gibt wieder keine Folgenabschätzung. All das fügt sich nahtlos in das Narrativ der Kommission unter Frau von der Leyen, Migranten seien potenziell eine Bedrohung. Diese Erzählung lehne ich ab. Und Herr Brunner, wir werden einige Verbesserungen für Ihren Vorschlag einarbeiten müssen, damit das Ganze funktioniert.
               

Fabrice Leggeri (PfE). – Madame la Présidente, depuis des années, l'Union européenne promet de lutter contre l'immigration illégale, mais la réalité ne change pas. Aujourd'hui, la Commission présente un règlement sur les retours, mais cette proposition est-elle vraiment ferme? Aucun mécanisme de sanction n'est prévu contre les pays tiers qui refusent de reprendre leurs ressortissants en situation irrégulière: ni restriction de visas Schengen, ni sanctions économiques et financières. Sans pression, ces pays continueront de ne pas coopérer, laissant l'Europe démunie.
               

                  En outre, trop de garanties procédurales affaiblissent l'efficacité des expulsions. Les clandestins peuvent multiplier les recours et profiter de l'assistance juridique automatique. Pis encore, les mineurs non accompagnés et les familles avec enfants sont exclus des nouvelles mesures proposées. Sans fermeté à leur égard, l'appel d'air migratoire continuera. Les recours contre les expulsions ne seront certes plus automatiquement suspensifs, mais les juges disposeront encore d'une marge d'appréciation trop large leur permettant de retarder indéfiniment les éloignements.
               

                  Enfin, la vérification de l'âge des migrants reste trop laxiste. Il n'y a toujours pas de test osseux, ce qui laisse part à une fraude démesurée. Bruxelles prétend agir, mais si Bruxelles veut vraiment agir efficacement, il faut rejeter les compromis inutiles avec ceux qui chercheront toujours à mettre en échec la lutte contre l'immigration illégale. Nous, les Patriotes pour l'Europe, porterons dans ce Parlement la voix des 20 millions d'électeurs qui réclament la fermeté contre l'immigration illégale.
               

Charlie Weimers (ECR). – Fru talman! Låt mig förklara varför det är så viktigt att illegala invandrare faktiskt utvisas. Ett effektivt återvändanderegelverk räddar liv! Fotbollssupportrarna Kent Persson och Patrik Lundström, som mördades av en islamist i Bryssel, hade varit vid liv i dag om Belgien utvisat Abdesalem Lassoued till Tunisien. Carola Herlin och hennes son Emil skulle inte knivhuggits till döds på Ikea av eritreanen Abraham Ukbagabir om han skickats hem när asyl inte beviljades. Elvaåringen Ebba Åkerlund skulle ha varit vid liv om Rakhmat Akilov deporterats till Uzbekistan. Likaså de som nyligen dog i München. Nu kan vi hedra deras minne genom att skärpa återvändandereglerna rejält. Högermajoriteten måste ignorera vänsterns protester. Återvändandereglerna måste skärpas innan fler européer utsätts för dödligt migrantvåld. 80 % av de som ska utvisas blir i dag kvar i EU. Lag och ordning måste återställas, och mitt besked som ECR:s chefsförhandlare är tydligt. Vi är redo att bidra till det.
               

Fabienne Keller (Renew). – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire Brunner, chers collègues, le volet des retours était le seul texte manquant du pacte sur la migration et l'asile. Je me réjouis donc d'une avancée sur ce sujet pour parvenir à une solution commune, harmonisée au niveau européen. Pourtant, cette proposition pose problème sur plusieurs points.
               

                  Si je comprends bien votre présentation, Monsieur le Commissaire, la reconnaissance mutuelle des retours ne serait que volontaire, et non obligatoire. C'est bien dommage de se priver d'un outil commun, alors que les États membres ne font que se plaindre de décisions de retours dissonantes.
               

                  Au sujet des hubs de retour, quel sens cela a-t-il de renvoyer les migrants dans un pays intermédiaire avec lequel ils n'ont aucun lien? Comment pourrons-nous nous assurer du bon respect des droits fondamentaux des migrants en dehors de l'Europe?
               

                  Pour améliorer les retours, mon groupe, Renew, demande la négociation d'accords avec les pays d'origine, des pays souverains, pour qu'ils reprennent leurs ressortissants. Monsieur le Commissaire, chers collègues, donnons enfin une chance au pacte sur la migration et l'asile. Assurons-nous de sa bonne mise en application avant de rechercher des solutions simplistes et populistes.
               

Leoluca Orlando (Verts/ALE). – Signora Presidente, signor Commissario, onorevoli colleghi, il testo proposto non presta necessaria e adeguata attenzione al rispetto dei diritti umani dei migranti, né presta attenzione ai dati della realtà.
               

                  Dopo il fallito accordo tra Regno Unito e Ruanda, si ipotizza l'espulsione dagli Stati membri verso Stati terzi con cui si stipulano accordi che non contengono garanzie di diritti umani e che non tengono conto dei legami del migrante con il Paese terzo contraente. Non è neanche previsto, alla fine, il ritorno nel Paese d'origine: sembra evocare ancora un altro esempio fallimentare dopo quello Inghilterra-Ruanda.
               

                  Si finisce infatti con il dare legittimazione al recente protocollo fra Italia ed Albania, diventato un monumento di inefficienza e spreco di risorse, denunciato dall'opinione pubblica: è un monumento alla violazione dei diritti umani, condannato dai tribunali italiani.
               

                  Questo atteggiamento alla Ponzio Pilato non mi sembra degno dell'Unione europea nella quale crediamo. Voglio sperare che l'Unione europea alla fine contribuirà al rispetto di tutti gli esseri umani, perché anche i migranti, signor Commissario, sono esseri umani.
               

João Oliveira (The Left). – Senhora Presidente, Senhor Comissário Brunner, vá ao encontro dos migrantes, pergunte-lhes se fogem da guerra, da fome, das doenças ou se apenas procuram uma vida melhor, e, se tiver coragem, olhe-os nos olhos e diga-lhes que a única coisa que a União Europeia tem para lhes oferecer é uma política de uma vida na clandestinidade, uma política de detenções em massa, de expulsão e deportação, uma política de violação de direitos fundamentais, incluindo o direito de asilo.
               

                  Esta proposta de regulamento é o projeto racista da extrema-direita que dá aos governos da extrema-direita a cobertura legal que até agora não tinham.
               

                  É uma política que faz da expulsão dos migrantes a regra, que torna sistemática a detenção em massa de pessoas sem documentos, que admite a deportação forçada de migrantes para países terceiros onde nunca estiveram e com que nunca tiveram contacto. Uma política que admite a detenção e a expulsão de menores, incluindo de menores não acompanhados, apenas os salvando de serem enviados para esses países terceiros que lhes são desconhecidos. Esta é uma política que levará as pessoas migrantes a continuarem a ser exploradas, escondidas de quem os persegue e de quem os quer deter.
               

                  Há alternativas que a Comissão não quis considerar, e, por isso, contará com a nossa oposição.
               

(O orador aceita responder a uma pergunta ‘cartão azul’)


Ana Catarina Mendes (S&D),
Pergunta segundo o procedimento ‘cartão azul’
                     . – Senhor Deputado João Oliveira, concordo em absoluto com aquilo que disse e queria perguntar-lhe o seguinte: considera ou não considera que este é um regulamento que vai ao arrepio daquilo que está consagrado na Carta dos Direitos Fundamentais? Que vai ao arrepio do que é prática em Portugal, por exemplo, que não tem centros de detenção, tem centros de instalação temporária, até 72 horas, os cidadãos podem recorrer das suas decisões.
               

                  Pergunto-lhe se isto vai ou não vai no sentido de uma violação gritante daquilo que são os direitos humanos destas pessoas.
               

João Oliveira (The Left),
Resposta segundo o procedimento ‘cartão azul’
                     . – Senhora Deputada Ana Catarina Mendes, é óbvio que vai contra qualquer consideração de direitos fundamentais.
               

                  Esta é uma proposta que aprofunda o Pacto em matéria de Migração e Asilo da pior forma, violando e desrespeitando os direitos fundamentais dos migrantes. É óbvio que assume e reconhece medidas de detenção, particularmente em relação aos menores, que até hoje eram negadas, mas que aparecem no texto desta proposta de regulamento bem assumidas.
               

                  Mas, infelizmente, há um aspeto com o qual não posso concordar com a senhora deputada: é que, infelizmente, em Portugal, nós já tínhamos uma aproximação disto. Porque, quando o atual Governo português decidiu introduzir as alterações legislativas que introduziu na política de migrações, foi precisamente para impedir o reconhecimento da situação dos migrantes que estão indocumentados, e essa proposta de regulamento, infelizmente, também dá cobertura a essas más práticas do atual Governo em Portugal, que, se tudo correr bem, chegará hoje ao fim.
               

Milan Mazurek (ESN). – Vážená pani predsedajúca, Európa skutočne nepotrebuje migráciu. To, čo Európa v súčasnosti najviac potrebuje, je remigrácia: zbaviť sa všetkých nelegálnych imigrantov, ktorí v rozpore so zákonmi našich štátov vstúpili na naše územie. Zbaviť sa násilníkov, vrahov, zlodejov a teroristov, ktorí zabíjajú ľudí v západnej Európe.
               

                  Už neubehne pomaly týždeň, aby svetové médiá nezaplavili informácie o tom, ako nejaký sadistický vrah nožom náhodne bodá do ľudí. Neubehne týždeň, aby sme sa nedopočuli o ženách a deťoch, ktoré sú vraždené ľuďmi, ktorí boli vyhostení, no v rozpore so zákonom neopustili krajiny, kde už dávno nemali čo robiť.
               

                  Európa bojuje s obrovským nárastom kriminality, bojuje s obrovským nárastom terorizmu a musí sa týchto ľudí skrátka zbaviť. Nemajú tu čo robiť a treba ich vyhosťovať tak, ako ich v Amerike začal vyhlasovať Trump. A preto nechápem, ako môžu niektorí ľavicoví progresívni poslanci z tohto pléna obhajovať prítomnosť vrahov a násilníkov v Európe a hovoriť, že je to porušovanie ich ľudských práv, keď ich odtiaľ dostaneme. Nemajú tu čo robiť a zaslúžia si okamžite vypadnúť.
               

Monika Beňová (NI). – Vážená pani predsedajúca, kolegyne a kolegovia, pán komisár, súčasná migračná politika Európskej únie je dlhodobo neefektívna. A to, o čom hovoríme teraz alebo čo navrhujete teraz, také návrhy my sme tu už mali v roku 2015, neskôr v 2018. Ja vám držím palce, aby to tentokrát vyšlo. Napriek tomu, že členské štáty pravidelne vydávajú rozhodnutia o návrate, len približne 25 % migrantov sa skutočne vracia a ešte aj z tých sa nám časť vráti naspäť.
               

                  Dovoľte ešte zdôrazniť, že solidárny mechanizmus EÚ v oblasti migrácie bol odmietnutý viacerými krajinami a že mechanizmus je navyše evidentne nespravodlivý, pretože nezohľadňuje enormnú záťaž krajín, ako je Slovensko, Maďarsko, Rumunsko či Poľsko, ktoré už prijali milióny utečencov z Ukrajiny. Slovenský predseda vlády Robert Fico už desať rokov upozorňuje na tieto problémy a opakovane volá po základnej reforme európskej návratovej politiky. Preto vítame zmenu prístupu Európskej komisie a držíme vám palce, aby sa vám to podarilo.
               

Javier Zarzalejos (PPE). – Señora presidenta, señor comisario, esta es una buena propuesta y es una buena propuesta para empezar porque se trata de un reglamento, no de una directiva —y cuando estamos tratando de unificar y de armonizar las políticas de inmigración, en este caso la política de retorno, ese es un instrumento esencial— y porque estamos de acuerdo con el enfoque de esta propuesta: obligaciones más claras para los sujetos que deben ser objeto de repatriación, facilitar y fomentar el retorno voluntario, mayor coordinación… En definitiva, es una propuesta que va a hacer mucho más difícil el negocio de las mafias, entre otras consecuencias. Pero tenemos que mantener la ambición y, por supuesto, las órdenes de retorno obligatorias deben mantenerse en el horizonte de trabajo de la Comisión y en la discusión de este Parlamento.
               

                  El Parlamento dedicó especial atención a garantizar las salvaguardas y los derechos fundamentales en la negociación del paquete de asilo y de inmigración. Se podrá discutir esta propuesta, pero ciertamente no se puede descalificar sobre la base de que no respete estos derechos y tampoco los de los menores no acompañados.
               

                  Nos importa mucho el papel de la Comisión en la negociación con los terceros países, que va a ser clave para el éxito, y el propio papel de la Comisión a la hora de fomentar y hacer posible la aplicación del Reglamento. Esto no va a ser una rutina, esto no es business as usual, esto es un desafío que nos afecta a todas las instituciones de la Unión.
               

IN THE CHAIR: CHRISTEL SCHALDEMOSE


Vice-President


Murielle Laurent (S&D). – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, chers collègues, une directive qui devient un règlement, cela ne présage pas toujours de bonnes choses, surtout en matière de droits fondamentaux. Le règlement sur les retours est donc lancé, avec son lot de mesures plus qu'inquiétantes, douteuses et budgétairement excessives, à l'heure où des économies sont demandées dans un contexte géopolitique fragile.
                  

                     On nous parle de hubs de retour, de départs forcés et d'allongement de la durée de rétention, même pour les mineurs, qui pourront être détenus deux ans, alors qu'ils n'ont commis aucun crime. Nous ne sommes pas dupes; tout ceci n'a qu'un seul objectif: faire augmenter les taux d'expulsion. Pourtant, les entrées de migrants sont en baisse.
                  

                     Notre groupe a exprimé hier, tout comme les ONG, ses inquiétudes et son opposition catégorique à certains éléments de ce texte. Nous souhaitons une approche globale et cohérente des politiques migratoires, pas des décisions unilatérales sans objectif humain.
                  

António Tânger Corrêa (PfE). – Senhora Presidente, Senhor Comissário, em primeiro lugar, em minha casa entra quem eu convido.
                  

                     Em segundo lugar, a minha casa é um lugar regido pela lei, e essa lei chama-se Acordos de Schengen. Não tem visto, não entra. E quem entra sem visto, quem entra sem a minha vontade, tem de voltar para casa.
                  

                     E este, Senhor Comissário, é um primeiro passo. Tem falhas, com certeza, mas é um primeiro passo positivo para o retorno daqueles que não devem estar em nossa casa, porque a soberania nacional e a segurança são afetados por esta migração ilegal.
                  

                     O meu país era um país seguro até há dois anos e meio, agora não é um país seguro.
                  

                     E o que é que se passa em termos de direitos humanos? Os portugueses — os europeus — também têm direitos humanos. São eles o principal objeto dos direitos humanos. Porque é que nós caçamos os direitos humanos dos cidadãos da Europa, dos cidadãos dos nossos países, dos cidadãos de Portugal, para elevarmos os direitos humanos de outros que entram em nossa casa à força e sem convite?
                  

Nicolas Bay (ECR). – Madame la Présidente, mes chers collègues, Monsieur le Commissaire Brunner, cela fait maintenant des décennies que l'Europe vit à l'heure de l'urgence, et même du chaos, migratoire. L'immigration légale et l'immigration clandestine se cumulent, et aujourd'hui les failles du droit actuel et du pacte sur la migration et l'asile, voté il y a quelques mois, sont telles que 85 % des expulsions qui sont prononcées par des juges ne sont pas exécutées sur le territoire de l'Union européenne. Ce nouveau règlement sur les retours doit inclure des dispositions d'extrême fermeté.
                  

                     D'abord, abolir la distinction entre les pays sûrs et les pays non sûrs. En effet, n'oublions pas une chose, pourtant évidente: ceux qui ne sont pas sûrs, ce sont les migrants. Par conséquent, il ne faut pas se poser en permanence la question de savoir dans quel pays ils sont renvoyés.
                  

                     Ensuite, il faut conditionner les aides financières directes, mais aussi les accords économiques et commerciaux, à la réadmission automatique des migrants clandestins, sans attendre un hypothétique laissez-passer consulaire. Il faut augmenter les durées de rétention et de détention jusqu'à l'expulsion effective. Il faut des tests osseux et dentaires pour en finir avec le scandale des faux mineurs.
                  

                     En clair, on a besoin de volonté politique, mais on a aussi besoin d'outils juridiques pour protéger nos peuples. Il faut que ceux qui entrent ou se maintiennent illégalement en Europe n'aient qu'une seule certitude: ils seront tôt ou tard expulsés de notre continent.
                  

Jan-Christoph Oetjen (Renew). – Frau Präsidentin, verehrte Kolleginnen und Kollegen, sehr geehrter Herr Kommissar! Die Rückführung war ja nicht Teil des Migrationspakets. Insofern ist es richtig, und ich bedanke mich bei der Kommission dafür, dass wir endlich ein Papier auf dem Tisch liegen haben zu diesem Bereich.
                  

                     Es ist schon angesprochen worden, und ich möchte hier betonen: Zu einem funktionierenden Rechtsstaat gehören funktionierende und gute Asylverfahren, aber es gehört natürlich genauso dazu, dass ein Asylverfahren, das negativ beschieden wird, Konsequenzen hat, dass Menschen Europa wieder verlassen müssen. Und da sind wir nicht gut genug, da ist Europa nicht gut genug, und gerade auch in Deutschland sind wir da nicht gut genug.
                  

                     Ich finde es richtig, dass Sie jetzt einen Vorschlag vorlegen, der die Harmonisierung der Standards vorantreibt. Wir haben ja im Migrationspaket schon gesagt, wir brauchen mehr Einheitlichkeit in den Asylverfahren. Wenn wir Einheitlichkeit in den Asylverfahren haben und Einheitlichkeit nun auch in den Rückführungsverfahren bekommen, dann muss die Konsequenz sein, dass es auch eine gemeinsame Anerkennung dieser Entscheidungen zwischen den Mitgliedstaaten gibt.
                  

                     Verehrte Kolleginnen und Kollegen, die Sekundärmigration zwischen den Staaten ist doch ein Problem. Das können wir auch dadurch adressieren, dass wir diese Entscheidungen tatsächlich harmonisieren zwischen den Staaten und dass die Entscheidungen gegenseitig anerkannt werden. Dann wird Rückführung auch effizient, und das ist das, was wir hier erreichen wollen.
                  

Damien Carême (The Left). – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, l'extrême droite en rêvait; vous l'avez fait. En 2024, les révélations sur le projet de remigration de l'AfD faisaient scandale et mettaient un million d'Allemands dans les rues. Aujourd'hui, alors que tous les yeux sont tournés vers la défense et le réarmement de l'Europe, vous nous présentez un projet de règlement qui n'est ni plus ni moins que la concrétisation législative de ce délire xénophobe: une déportation. Le pacte sur la migration et l'asile, ce pacte de la honte, qui contient des dispositions très dures en matière de retour, n'est pas encore appliqué qu'il est déjà renforcé par des propositions plus inhumaines et indignes encore.
                  

                     Ces dernières semaines, les responsables européens brandissent à l'envi les valeurs européennes face à un Trump qui, lui, les piétinerait. Mais de quelles valeurs européennes parlons-nous? De la violation des droits fondamentaux des plus vulnérables? De la détention des chercheurs de refuge, y compris de jeunes enfants? De l'expulsion forcée des personnes fuyant la guerre ou la misère dans des centres de retour? De la sous-traitance de nos obligations humaines et juridiques à des pays tiers, que l'on qualifiera de ‘sûrs’ au gré de nos propres intérêts?
                  

                     Qui finalement les piétine, ces valeurs européennes, Monsieur le Commissaire? De Dublin à cette proposition de retour, en passant par le pacte sur la migration et l'asile, la politique européenne en matière d'asile n'a vraiment rien à envier aux délires d'expulsion massive de Donald Trump.
                  

Jeroen Lenaers (PPE). – Voorzitter, Europa is een veilige haven voor mensen die vluchten voor oorlog en vervolging. En dat moet zo blijven. Maar dat kan alleen als we ook duidelijk zijn naar de mensen die niet mogen blijven, mensen die veilig zijn in hun eigen land. Op dit moment keert slechts 20 % van de uitgeprocedeerde asielzoekers terug naar het land van herkomst. Honderdduizenden mensen per jaar negeren onze wetten en regels en blijven gewoon. Dat knaagt aan ons gevoel van rechtvaardigheid en het gaat ten koste van het draagvlak in de samenleving om de mensen te helpen die onze hulp echt nodig hebben.
                  

                     Zonder effectieve terugkeer zal geen enkel Europees asielbeleid houdbaar zijn en daarom is het cruciaal dat de Commissie nu met dit ambitieuze voorstel komt. Ik ben blij dat commissaris Brunner naar onze oproep geluisterd heeft en deze nieuwe terugkeerverordening al in de eerste honderd dagen van deze Commissie presenteert. Daarmee laten we vandaag duidelijk zien dat het een van de belangrijkste prioriteiten van dit mandaat is en dat we de boodschap van de kiezer gehoord hebben. Die boodschap zie ik ook terug in de inhoud van dit voorstel: één Europees systeem om eindeloze stapeling van procedures te voorkomen; strengere regels om medewerking met procedures af te dwingen; duidelijke regels voor gedwongen terugkeer en een no-nonsensebeleid tegen hen die een veiligheidsrisico vormen; meer instrumenten om te voorkomen dat mensen in de illegaliteit verdwijnen. En ja, ook innovatieve oplossingen zoals terugkeer. Dit ligt nu allemaal gelukkig op tafel en dit Parlement heeft nu een belangrijke verantwoordelijkheid om te leveren. We kunnen niet nog eens zes jaar lang oeverloos discussiëren. We moeten aan de slag.
                  

Cecilia Strada (S&D). – Signora Presidente, caro Commissario, onorevoli colleghi, questo regolamento contiene cose pericolose. Si parla di rimpatriare le persone verso Paesi terzi che, molto genericamente, devono rispettare i diritti, senza però alcun requisito specifico, come per esempio essere firmatari delle convenzioni internazionali in materia di diritti umani.
                  

                     Che cosa succederà poi alle persone quando sono nel Paese terzo? Nessuno lo sa. Per di più, non vi sarebbe alcun obbligo di trasparenza di rendere pubblici questi accordi con i Paesi terzi. Perché?
                  

                     Ancora: chi viene trovato sul suolo europeo senza documenti validi potrà essere detenuto fino a due anni – prima erano 18 mesi. I dati, per inciso, ci dicono che più si allunga il periodo di trattenimento, meno diventa probabile il rimpatrio. Ma questo è un altro discorso.
                  

                     Per le famiglie con i bambini minori non accompagnati, la detenzione sarebbe l'ultima opzione, ma non dovrebbe proprio essere un'opzione. Davvero l'Unione europea pensa di poter mettere in gabbia per due anni dei ragazzini che non hanno commesso alcun reato? Ci sono molte cose inaccettabili in questa proposta, sulle quali vigileremo e lavoreremo.
                  

                     Caro Commissario, sentiamo dire spesso che l'approccio europeo deve essere fermo e giusto e finora abbiamo visto molto bene la parte ferma: però vogliamo vedere anche la parte giusta.
                  

(L'oratrice accetta di rispondere a una domanda ‘cartellino blu’)


Estrella Galán (The Left),
pregunta de ‘tarjeta azul’
                        . – Señora Strada, desde su profunda experiencia en materia migratoria y en temas de rescate con seres humanos, ¿qué opina usted sobre si esta propuesta va a continuar fomentando la persecución de personas que el único delito que han cometido es no tener una documentación administrativa ya que no han encontrado vías legales y seguras para poder llegar a Europa de una manera regular porque no se lo hemos ofrecido? ¿Cree usted que con esta estrategia que nos presentan hoy aquí lo único que se está haciendo es vulnerar el Derecho internacional —o sortearlo— y fomentar que vayan desapareciendo, cada vez más, el derecho de asilo y los derechos de la infancia?
                  

Cecilia Strada (S&D),
risposta a una domanda ‘cartellino blu’
                        . – Sì, nella mia esperienza, ma in realtà anche nell'esperienza degli accademici che da trent'anni mettono insieme i dati, sappiamo che l'unico modo per evitare migrazioni irregolari, per evitare di avere persone senza documenti validi, in questo Paese, l'unico modo è aprire canali d'accesso sicuri e legali.
                  

                     Nell'esperienza di chi studia la materia sono le frontiere chiuse che generano le migrazioni illegali e che generano lo strapotere dei trafficanti di esseri umani. Dovremmo ricominciare ad aprire le frontiere e a dare visti.
                  

                     E, tra l'altro, sempre gli stessi accademici ci dicono che le persone si muovono perché qui c'è un bisogno di manodopera. È questo il pull factor: siamo noi.
                  

Jorge Buxadé Villalba (PfE). – Señora presidente, Habib Rahman, afgano con solicitud de asilo denegada, asesinó a su compañera de piso en Sajonia. Con nosotros habría sido deportado y esa mujer estaría ahora viva.
                  

                     Los inmigrantes ilegales y las organizaciones que los ayudan se las saben todas y alargan los procedimientos administrativos o judiciales sin fin. No lo podemos permitir. Toda deportación debe incluir el examen de la solicitud de asilo y producir efecto ejecutivo inmediato. Toda persona que entra o permanece sin permiso de residencia o visado en vigor debe ser detenida e internada —en un centro de detención o en un tercer país seguro— por todo el tiempo que sea necesario para que vuelva a su país. Solo así pondremos fin al efecto llamada: cuando sepan que hay derechos que solo tenemos los europeos o los extranjeros residentes legales.
                  

                     Para asegurar los retornos debemos incluir un mecanismo de garantía por el cual la ayuda al desarrollo, los acuerdos comerciales y la emisión de visados sean suspendidos automáticamente si el tercer país no coopera con los retornos, alegando la cláusula de orden público que ya tenemos en nuestros acuerdos internacionales, con lo cual no hay que firmar nada nuevo. Nada de esto está en la propuesta de la Comisión, que nos mantiene en el fracaso y nos lanza al abismo. Vamos a intentar mejorar.
                  

Jadwiga Wiśniewska (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca, Panie Komisarzu, Szanowni Państwo! Niemiecka polityka otwartych drzwi Angeli Merkel i brak skutecznej polityki powrotowej zebrały krwawe żniwo. Ataki nożowników w Bawarii, Solingen czy Arras, w których ginęli ludzie z rąk osób, które miały być deportowane, są tego wymownym przykładem. Jesteśmy w głębokim kryzysie migracyjnym. Według Frontexu liczba nielegalnych migrantów przekroczyła milion dwieście tysięcy. W rzeczywistości jest niestety znacznie większa. Dziś deportacje to fikcja. Według Eurostatu tylko co czwarta decyzja o deportacji jest wykonywana. Dlatego pilnie potrzebujemy skutecznych rozwiązań, jeśli chodzi o politykę powrotową. A więc potrzebujemy natychmiastowego odsyłania nielegalnych migrantów, bo bez tego nie rozwiążemy kryzysu bezpieczeństwa. Unijna współpraca handlowa i wizowa z krajami trzecimi musi zależeć od uznawania przez nie decyzji o deportacjach. Musimy tworzyć huby powrotowe poza Unią. A osoby, które nielegalnie przebywają w Unii Europejskiej, powinny zostać niezwłocznie wydalone.
                  

Karlo Ressler (PPE). – Poštovana predsjedavajuća, gotovo pola milijuna ljudi svake godine dobije odluku da napuste europski teritorij, no samo jedan od pet to zaista i učini.
                  

                     Toleriranje takvoga, potpuno disfunkcionalnog pa i grotesknog modela s pravom narušava povjerenje Europljana u sustav, privlači nezakonite migracije, a tragični napadi muškaraca koji nisu imali pravo biti u Europi naglašavaju i teške sigurnosne posljedice takvih trulih politika.
                  

                     Bez učinkovitih povrataka, dobrovoljnih, ali i prisilnih, cijeli sustav migracija i azila gubi svaki smisao. Zato odluka o protjerivanju, odluka o neodobravanju azila mora imati konkretne posljedice ako želimo vladavinu prava i da se Europu, njezina pravila i njezine granice nikada više ne shvaća neozbiljno.
                  

                     Uvođenje strožih pravila, inovativnih ideja pa i deportacijskih centara izvan Europe nagradit će pakt o migraciji i azilu koji treba uvesti i uvest će više reda na europske granice. Sada njegova implementacija zato mora biti prioritet jer bez učinkovite migracijske politike koja uključuje i učinkovitu politiku povrataka nema vjerodostojne Europe.
                  

Anders Vistisen (PfE). – Madam President, in September, a 19-year-old girl was found raped and murdered in Paris. In January, a two-year-old boy was stabbed to death in a city park near Frankfurt. In February in Munich, a two-year-old girl and her mom were killed by a car terrorist. What do these events have in common? Every one of them and a 100 more were committed by illegal migrants who have arrived illegally to this continent, been denied asylum and not been deported.
Time and time again, we have warned about the dangers of illegal migration, and time and time again we have been dismissed, ignored and vilified. How many more Europeans must die, be raped, robbed, attacked before you wake up? How many more grieving families must be left behind in sorrow and despair before we take this serious? For every victim, every shattered family, we must say: naïve policies cost lives.

Sebastian Tynkkynen (ECR). – Arvoisa puhemies, joka vuosi yli 300 000 laittomasti EU:ssa oleskelevaa ulkomaalaista määrätään poistumaan. Kuitenkin vain noin viidennes heistä saadaan palautettua lähtömaihinsa.
                  

                     Palautusjärjestelmä on yksi iso vitsi. Euroopassa ylpeillään oikeusvaltioperiaatteesta ja sen kunnioittamisesta. Hyvä niin, mutta mikä periaate se sellainen on, joka ei mahdollista laittomasti maassa olevien palauttamista.
                  

                     Palautusten tehostaminen on myös turvallisuuskysymys. Erityisesti Lähi-idän ja Afrikan maista tulleet muuttajat ovat selvästi yliedustettuina rikostilastoissa. Milloin Eurooppa oikein herää? Kielteisen päätöksen saaneet ja vakaviin rikoksiin syyllistyneet on palautettava viipymättä. Kehitysapu on tehtävä ehdolliseksi sille, että maat suostuvat ottamaan vastaan omia kansalaisiaan. Palautuskeskuksia on sijoitettava EU-maiden ulkopuolelle.
                  

                     Hyvät kollegat, tehdään tästä palautusten vuosi.
                  

Ελισσάβετ Βόζεμπεργκ-Βρυωνίδη (PPE). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, κύριε Επίτροπε, καλωσορίζουμε την πρόταση για τον νέο κανονισμό. Αποτελεί αναγκαίο συμπλήρωμα για την ορθή εφαρμογή του συμφώνου για το άσυλο και τη μετανάστευση. Τα τελευταία χρόνια αντιμετωπίσαμε πράγματι απειλές κατά της ασφάλειας των πολιτών μας, και λόγω της αποτυχίας μας στις επιστροφές όσων δεν έχουν δικαίωμα παραμονής σε ευρωπαϊκό έδαφος. Όμως οι πολιτικές επιστροφής δεν είναι μόνο ευθύνη της Ευρώπης. Η συνεργασία με τρίτες χώρες προέλευσης και διέλευσης είναι καθοριστική για την επιτυχία τους. Θυμίζω ότι η κοινή δήλωση Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης-Τουρκίας, που προβλέπει επιστροφές, και η συμφωνία επανεισδοχής, που ισχύει από το 2016, δεν εφαρμόζονται από την Τουρκία. Είναι αναγκαίο να συμφωνήσουμε ότι τα τρίτα κράτη προέλευσης και διέλευσης μεταναστών που αρνούνται να δεχθούν απορριφθέντες αιτούντες άσυλο, εφεξής θα αντιμετωπίζουν συνέπειες —το είπατε κι εσείς. Επιπροσθέτως, το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο οφείλει να επιμείνει στην υποχρεωτική αμοιβαία αναγνώριση ή εκτέλεση των αποφάσεων επιστροφής από οποιοδήποτε κράτος μέλος, ώστε να εξασφαλιστεί η αποτελεσματική εφαρμογή της νέας νομοθεσίας. Διαφορετικά, κινδυνεύουμε να καταλήξουμε σε υιοθέτηση μη εφαρμόσιμων πολιτικών ακόμη μία φορά. Αυτονόητη και η αναγκαιότητα ενίσχυσης του Frontex.
                  

                     Αγαπητοί συνάδελφοι, μόνο ένα κοινό ευρωπαϊκό σύστημα επιστροφών με ενεργό συμμετοχή όλων των κρατών μελών μπορεί να θωρακίσει τον χώρο Σένγκεν από δευτερογενείς μετακινήσεις. Ευχαριστώ πολύ.
                  

Tamás Deutsch (PfE). – Elnök Asszony! Brüsszel miatt Európát ellepték a migránsok. 2015-ben Soros György meghirdette: évente 1 millió illegális migránst kell beengedni Európába. És lássunk csodát: 9 év alatt 9 millió illegális migráns érkezett. Brüsszel alázatosan végrehajtotta a Soros-tervet, és ezt akarja folytatni, ezért erőltették át a katasztrofális migrációs paktumot, ami tovább ösztönzi az illegális bevándorlást és bünteti a határaikat megvédő tagállamokat.
                  

                     Az európai polgárok viszont a tömeges illegális bevándorlás azonnali megállítását, a határok védelmét akarják. Az emberek vissza akarják kapni a biztonságos európai életüket. Itt az ideje, hogy Brüsszellel szemben visszaszerezzük az ellenőrzést határaink felett. Az illegális migránsokat tilos beengedni Európába. Az a megfelelő visszatérítési, visszatoloncolási gyakorlat, hogy az illegális migránsok belépését az Unió külső határainál megakadályozzuk, és azonnal, késlekedés, kifogás nélkül visszafordítjuk őket.
                  

Stefano Cavedagna (ECR). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, finalmente la linea del Governo italiano, del Governo Meloni, sull'immigrazione clandestina è diventata la linea di tutta l'Europa.
                  

                     Finalmente si parla di impedire le partenze all'origine, stipulando degli accordi bilaterali con i Paesi del Sud del Mediterraneo per impedire di partire a chi non ha diritto all'asilo in Europa.
                  

                     E per la prima volta si dice quello che diciamo da tempo: bisogna avere un ordine di rimpatrio europeo, stipulando degli accordi con Paesi terzi. C'è qualcuno come Ilaria Salis che lo definisce la deportazione: ma noi non stiamo facendo altro che difendere i confini d'Europa e i confini dell'Italia, come ci siamo impegnati di fronte agli elettori e come continueremo a fare da oggi in avanti, anche a livello europeo.
                  

                     Siamo riusciti finalmente ad ottenere una cosa che dicevamo da tempo: non solo un abbattimento di oltre il 65% delle partenze dal Mediterraneo centrale ma anche un calo drastico delle morti in mare.
                  

                     Se nessuno parte, nessuno rischia la vita.
                  

Juan Ignacio Zoido Álvarez (PPE). – Señora presidenta, señor comisario, llevamos años construyendo una nueva política migratoria: el Pacto sobre Migración y Asilo que nos ocupó largas tardes y mañanas durante la pasada legislatura. Pero nos faltaba su clave de bóveda: la nueva legislación de retorno.
                  

                     La realidad es inapelable, se ha dicho ya varias veces esta tarde. Cada año, la justicia europea ordena la expulsión de medio millón de inmigrantes irregulares, pero solo uno de cada cinco acaba saliendo de Europa. Necesitábamos, por tanto, acelerar con urgencia estas expulsiones y debemos hacerlo antes de que los casos más extremos puedan suponer graves amenazas para nuestra seguridad. Por eso valoro muy positivamente que la Comisión Europea haya decidido poner el foco en los retornos.
                  

                     Necesitamos un marco jurídico con medidas para el caso de incumplimiento, medidas para evitar la evasión, prohibiciones de reentrada, creación de centros de retorno y, especialmente clave, mayor cooperación en materia de readmisión con países de origen y tránsito. El Pacto no estará completo hasta que hayamos logrado un sistema de retorno efectivo. La pelota está ahora en nuestro tejado. Pongámonos a trabajar.
                  

Anna Bryłka (NI). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Panie Komisarzu! Niemiecka polityka migracyjna pod hasłem ‘Serdecznie witamy!’ przyniosła absolutną katastrofę dla całej Europy. Dziś obserwujemy jej bankructwo, a miliony Europejczyków utraciło poczucie bezpieczeństwa na ulicach własnych miast. Europa potrzebuje dziś programu masowej deportacji imigrantów. Czas skończyć z polityką otwartych drzwi, bo każdy nielegalny imigrant to przestępca. Podrzucanie imigrantów sąsiadom czy pakt migracyjny pogłębia problem, zamiast go rozwiązywać. Takie postępowanie tworzy tylko dodatkowe zachęty dla milionów potencjalnych przybyszów.
                  

                     Niemcy ściągnęły na siebie problem, a teraz usiłują się nim podzielić z innymi narodami, co obniża poziom współpracy i zaufania, a także rozbija strefę Schengen. Czas na zdecydowane działania na rzecz powstrzymania imigracji. Czas na deportowanie kryminalistów z naszego kontynentu. Czas na pełne wdrożenie założeń deklaracji budapesztańskiej Patriotów. Tylko w ten sposób możemy uratować Europę.
                  

(Mówczyni nie zgodziła się na pytanie zasygnalizowane przez podniesienie niebieskiej kartki przez Lukas Sieper)


Joachim Stanisław Brudziński (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Panie Komisarzu! Może na początek trochę statystyki i liczb. Zgodnie z danymi Eurostatu tylko około jedna trzecia osób, które otrzymały nakaz opuszczenia obszaru Unii Europejskiej, skutecznie zostało deportowanych do kraju trzeciego. W latach 2014–2023 państwa Unii Europejskiej wydały 4,5 miliona nakazów powrotu, z czego tylko 1 milion 300 tysięcy doprowadziło do skutecznych powrotów.
                  

                     A może teraz należy sobie zadać pytanie skąd te miliony nielegalnych – podkreślam nielegalnych – imigrantów w naszym europejskim domu. Czy przypadkiem, tak jak już była o tym mowa, to nie polityka, idiotyczna polityka takich państw jak Niemcy – typu Herzlich willkommen Angeli Merkel – do tej sytuacji doprowadziła. Może najwyższy czas, żeby w tym miejscu padły słowa przepraszam pod adresem funkcjonariuszy polskiej Policji, Straży Granicznej za to, że wtedy, kiedy bronili naszego europejskiego domu przed tym zalewem nielegalnych imigrantów, to również z tej sali padały idiotyczne słowa: ‘Wpuśćcie ich, a później się zobaczy, kim oni są’. Kim oni są okazało się na ulicach Monachium i innych europejskich miast. Stop tej idiotycznej polityce otwartych drzwi naszego europejskiego domu.
                  

(Mówca nie zgodził się na pytanie zasygnalizowane przez podniesienie niebieskiej kartki przez Lukas Sieper)


Paulo Cunha (PPE). – Senhora Presidente, Senhor Comissário, os retornos são centrais para que tenhamos uma política migratória eficaz.
                  

                     Onde não existe a capacidade de retorno efetivo, vigorará o condicionamento da entrada de migrantes. A melhor forma de favorecer uma política migratória positiva é, pois, com uma verdadeira estratégia de retornos.
                  

                     Precisamos de uma resposta que seja europeia, rápida, uniforme e clara em matéria de retornos, que assegure o legado de Schengen, pelo que defendemos a implementação de um regulamento, enquanto ato legislativo, para os retornos.
                  

                     O regulamento a criar deve assentar em duas medidas essenciais: em primeiro lugar, o acompanhamento efetivo do migrante, desde a sua entrada até à verificação das condições para a sua permanência. Por outro lado, devemos assegurar que esse processo de análise seja breve, se cumpra dentro da jurisdição da União Europeia e obedeça a regras que assegurem tratamento condigno dos migrantes, sempre no escrupuloso respeito dos seus direitos fundamentais.
                  

                     Sejamos claros: precisamos de medidas que permitam os retornos, mas é nosso dever fundamental garantir que estas medidas são humanas e proporcionais.
                  

Αφροδίτη Λατινοπούλου (PfE). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, κύριε Επίτροπε, η λαθρομετανάστευση είναι μια καλά στημένη μπίζνα, για να θησαυρίζουν οι ενορχηστρωτές της και να ισλαμοποιηθεί η Ευρώπη. Γεμίσατε, με τις ευλογίες της Γερμανίας και της Γαλλίας, λαθρομετανάστες τις χώρες μας. Πληρώνουμε το Ισλάμ, που μας μισεί, από το υστέρημά μας, για να μας μετατρέπουν τις πόλεις μας σε γκέτο, να βιάζουν και να δολοφονούν μπροστά στα μάτια μας στο όνομα του Αλλάχ. Γεμίσαμε Μαχμούτ και Μοχάμεντ σε μια Ευρώπη που έχει καταντήσει αγνώριστη.
                  

                     Λύσεις υπάρχουν. Ενισχύστε με κάθε μέσο τις χώρες που αποτελούν πρώτη πύλη εισόδου, όπως η πατρίδα μου η Ελλάδα, αλλά και η Ιταλία και η Ισπανία. Όποιοι εισβάλλουν παράνομα σε ευρωπαϊκό έδαφος δεν πρέπει να δικαιούνται ούτε επίδομα ούτε άσυλο. Πρέπει να συλλαμβάνονται, να τους κατάσχονται τα κινητά, να μεταφέρονται σε κλειστά κέντρα, σε ακατοίκητα νησιά και από εκεί να απελαύνονται στη χώρα τους ή με διακρατικές συμφωνίες σε χώρες εκτός Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης. Σταματήστε επιτέλους να επιχορηγείτε τη διαμονή τους και επιχορηγήστε την απέλασή τους. Φάρος μας πρέπει να είναι οι πολιτικές της Ουγγαρίας και της Πολωνίας, τις οποίες αντί να υιοθετήσετε, τις πολεμάτε για να μην στεναχωρηθεί το Ισλάμ. Όποιος παραβιάζει τα σύνορα μιας χώρας είναι σαν να παραβιάζει την πόρτα του σπιτιού μας. Η λαθρομετανάστευση είναι ο καρκίνος της Ευρώπης και εσείς τον αντιμετωπίζετε με ασπιρίνες. Ξεκινήστε, λοιπόν, μαζικές απελάσεις χθες. Χρήματα υπάρχουν, αεροδρόμια υπάρχουν, κέντρα κράτησης υπάρχουν. Συγκεντρώστε τους σε κέντρα κράτησης και διώξτε τους πριν πεθάνει η Ευρώπη. Θέλουμε πίσω τις χώρες μας, την ταυτότητά μας και τις αξίες μας. Και αν εσείς οι δήθεν ευαίσθητοι σοσιαλιστές ψάχνετε για ρατσιστές, κοιτάξτε τους καθρέφτες σας. Είστε οι μεγαλύτεροι ρατσιστές κατά των Ευρωπαίων.
                  

(Η αγορήτρια δέχεται να απαντήσει σε ερώτηση με γαλάζια κάρτα)


Lukas Sieper (NI),
blue-card question. – Thank you for taking the blue card, colleague. I'm just wondering – because I'm hearing the word 'Germany' a lot here – as a German, I want to ask you: don't you think that the times where we put people in camps in Europe should be over?
And don't you think that we can have better solutions to the problems that do indeed rise with illegal immigration than putting people in camps, locking them away, taking their phones, taking their liberty and taking their rights?

(In response to laughter from another Member) … And you laughing at that is a shame indeed!

Αφροδίτη Λατινοπούλου (PfE),
απάντηση σε ερώτηση με γαλάζια κάρτα. – Πραγματικά ντροπή σας να συγχέετε κάτι τέτοιο! Είναι πραγματικά ντροπή σας! Αυτό το ψευτοδίλημμα το οποίο θέτετε εσείς είναι πραγματικά ντροπή και μόνο που το αναφέρετε. Καμία σχέση το ένα με το άλλο. Αλλά όποιος παραβιάζει, κύριε, την πόρτα του σπιτιού σας μπαίνει στη φυλακή. Και εδώ δεν μιλάμε καν για φυλακές. Εδώ μιλάμε για κλειστά κέντρα από όπου θα πρέπει να φεύγουν, για να επιστρέφουν πίσω στις χώρες τους. Το ότι κάνετε αυτήν την ταύτιση και το ότι εσείς επιτρέψατε να μπαίνουν μέσα στις χώρες μας, να τις γκετοποιούν και να τις βιάζουν, είναι δική σας ευθύνη, όχι δική μας. Εμείς ποτέ δεν λέμε κάτι τέτοιο.
                  

Michał Wawrykiewicz (PPE). – Madam President, Mr Commissioner, Minister, colleagues, it seems to be quite obvious that we have to take a decisive step to fix the EU's broken return system. This is the time.
The new regulation needs to deliver effective, fast and coordinated returns. Like my colleague Lena Düpont pointed out today, those who are not entitled to stay on EU territory should be returned – it's simple as that. As expressed by Mr Commissioner, those who posed a threat should be returned, should be removed. I would add that prioritising the returns of those who pose a threat to our common security is key.
Improving the effectiveness and sustainability of the returns is one of the priorities of the Polish Presidency. Poland is supporting innovative solutions, including the concept of return hubs. But let's be clear efficiency cannot mean turning a blind eye to human rights and dignity. Let us be effective, but never forget our identity.

Jaroslav Bžoch (PfE). – Paní předsedající, Evropská komise nám dnes předkládá další ambiciózní plán na řešení návratů nelegálních migrantů. Slibuje silnější tlak na třetí země, lepší koordinaci a efektivnější návraty. Ale položme si jednoduchou otázku: Co se stane, když státy, které by měly přijímat zpět své občany, prostě odmítnou spolupracovat? Odpověď je jednoduchá, nestane se vůbec nic. Tento návrh neobsahuje žádné automatické sankce pro země, které se nebudou řídit dohodami o zpětném přebírání.
                  

                     Komise sice mluví o možnosti zpřísnit vízovou politiku nebo omezit obchodní výhody, ale kde je povinnost tato opatření skutečně udělat? Kde je mechanismus, který by zajistil, že neochotné země okamžitě pocítí důsledky svého jednání? Nikde. Bez automatických nekompromisních opatření tento návrh opět skončí jako pouhý papír bez reálného dopadu. Evropská komise měla jedinečnou šanci přijít s tvrdým, jasně definovaným a vymahatelným systémem sankcí. Místo toho opět selhala. Předložila vágní plán, který se dá obejít, a my se pak budeme divit, že návraty stále nefungují.
                  

                     Dámy a pánové, pokud tento návrh zůstane v této podobě, nebude to řešení, ale bude to jenom další promarněná příležitost.
                  

Ana Miguel Pedro (PPE). – Senhora Presidente, Senhor Comissário, uma política migratória justa e credível assenta em dois pilares: acolher aqueles que realmente precisam de proteção e garantir que quem não tem direito de permanecer na União Europeia retorna ao seu país de origem.
                  

                     Quem não retorna permanece num limbo jurídico, vulnerável ao tráfico de seres humanos, à exploração laboral, à marginalização. Isto não é sustentável para os migrantes, para os nossos cidadãos, para a própria Europa. A alternativa é o caos, a perda de credibilidade das nossas instituições e o crescimento dos extremismos. E se há algo que a História nos ensina é que, quando o centro falha, os extremos vencem.
                  

                     Precisamos de procedimentos ágeis para que as decisões não se percam em labirintos burocráticos; cooperação firme com países terceiros, vinculando parcerias; precisamos de garantir que a política migratória não é um mosaico de abordagens descoordenadas.
                  

                     Não há acolhimento justo sem regras claras, não há integração bem-sucedida sem fronteiras controladas. Porque um continente sem ordem não pode ser solidário, uma política sem credibilidade não pode ser humana.
                  

                     É esse equilíbrio que devemos defender, é essa Europa que devemos construir.
                  

Petra Steger (PfE). – Frau Präsidentin, sehr geehrte Damen und Herren! Seit 2015 sind mehr als 8 Millionen Migranten nach Europa gekommen. Zwei Drittel, die zu uns kommen, sind nicht schutzwürdig, und trotzdem bleiben über 80 % für immer hier. Der Fehler im System ist für jeden offensichtlich: Jeder, der einmal einen Fuß auf europäischen Boden gesetzt hat, bleibt für immer hier und ist nicht mehr herauszubekommen. Daran wird auch diese Rückführungsverordnung leider überhaupt nichts ändern, denn der Fehler ist, dass sie überhaupt europäischen Boden betreten können. Schön, dass Sie nach so vielen Jahren endlich draufkommen, dass wir endlich konsequentere Abschiebungen brauchen.
                  

                     Doch auch Rückkehrzentren, die schon bald überfüllt sein werden, bringen nichts, solange es keine Rückführungsabkommen oder Abkommen mit Drittstaaten gibt, an denen Sie seit Jahren fulminant scheitern. Wie wollen Sie die auch abschließen, wenn Sie offensichtlich noch immer nicht dazu bereit sind, finanziellen Druck auszuüben? Davon ist natürlich noch immer keine Rede. Das Einzige, was sinnvoll wäre, wären nicht nur Rückkehrzentren, sondern auch Verfahrens- und Asylzentren, und zwar nicht in der EU, sondern außerhalb.
                  

                     Was wurde alles großartig geredet, versprochen und angekündigt. Und wieder einmal beweist die EU nach dem zahnlosen Asyl- und Migrationspaket ihren mangelnden Willen und ihre Unfähigkeit, tatsächlich für die notwendige Trendwende hier zu sorgen.
                  

Lukas Mandl (PPE). – Sehr geehrte Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Sehr oft habe ich von diesem Rednerpult aus, so wie viele Kolleginnen und Kollegen, die Überregulierung kritisiert, die Unfähigkeit der Europäischen Union, mit illegaler Migration zurecht zu kommen. Und jetzt kommt die neue Europäische Kommission ins Tun und zwar mit einem beachtlichen Tempo. Gestern haben wir hier den Kampf gegen die Überregulierung thematisiert, weil die Europäische Kommission einen guten Vorschlag gemacht hat, und jetzt, so früh im Mandat, gibt es den Vorschlag für Abschiebungen – wenn nur einer von fünf, der nicht bleiben darf, abgeschoben wird – bisher ist das schlecht.
                  

                     Dieser Vorschlag der Europäischen Kommission, wenn er umgesetzt wird, wenn er den parlamentarischen Prozess hier im Haus gut übersteht oder vielleicht sogar noch besser wird, wird dazu führen, dass jene, die Asyl verdienen und brauchen, weil sie ein Recht dazu haben, das in der EU auch bekommen. Aber die große Mehrheit derer, die illegal kommen und gar kein Recht auf Asyl haben, die kann schneller und effektiver abgeschoben werden. Volle Unterstützung für die Kommission und für Kommissar Magnus Brunner auf diesem Weg!
                  

Nikola Bartůšek (PfE). – Paní předsedající, vážená Komise, sebevražedná empatie na úkor našich lidí, to je dosavadní návratová politika Evropy. V roce 2022 obdrželo více než půl milionu lidí rozhodnutí o návratu, ale pouze osmdesát šest tisíc bylo deportováno, ostatní nelegálně zůstali dál v Evropě. Zatímco jsme od Komise i politiků roky poslouchali pohádky o tom, jak nás migrační pakt ochrání, v evropských městech se útočilo. Sollingen, Brusel, Mnichov, Berlín, to je jenom hrstka případů, kde útočil neúspěšný žadatel o azyl, který měl příkaz k návratu, ale beztrestně ho ignoroval.
                  

                     Sama jsem patnáct let pracovala při navracení uprchlíků do zemí původu a vím, že musíme být v naší legislativě nekompromisní a tvrdí. Nová přísnější politika návratů byla nutná už léta. Zákon o návratu musí vyslat jasný vzkaz: Nepřicházejte do Evropy nelegálně, protože budete vráceni zpět. V novém návrhu o návratech chybí povinný tlak na třetí země. Evropská unie musí využít svůj vliv, aby donutila země přijímat zpět své občany, obchodní sankce, víza nebo konec finanční pomoci. Přijměte zpět své občany, jinak…
                  

(Předsedající řečnici odebrala slovo.)


Tomáš Zdechovský (PPE). – Paní předsedající, čtyři a půl milionu příkazů k opuštění Evropské unie a jenom dvacetiprocentní úspěšnost. Ano, to je bohužel systém, kde riskujeme důvěru občanů Evropské unie. Nový návrh slibuje změnu: jednotný systém, přísná pravidla, skutečné následky pro ty, kdo ignorují naše zákony, návratová centra ve třetích zemích jako pilíř tohoto návrhu. Je to efektivní, rychlé, humánní řešení, které zajistí, že ti, kteří nemají právo zůstat na území Evropské unie, nebudou mizet neznámo kam. Ale tohle nesmí být konec!
                  

                     Musíme pokračovat v reformách: přísnější kontrola vnějších hranic, silný Frontex, efektivní přeshraniční spolupráce a systém, který bude nejen nařizovat, ale i vykonávat. A to si myslím, že musíme dále dopracovat v dalším návrhu.
                  

Tom Vandendriessche (PfE). – Voorzitter, de Europese Unie faalt totaal in haar migratiebeleid. Onze grenzen staan wagenwijd open. Illegale migratie blijft bijgevolg maar toenemen, terwijl terugkeerprocedures inefficiënt, traag en laks zijn. Amper één op de vijf van die asielbedriegers wordt daadwerkelijk teruggestuurd. De landen van herkomst ontvangen tegelijkertijd miljarden van de Europese Unie, maar weigeren hun illegalen terug te nemen. Dit beleid is absurd, naïef en onhoudbaar.
                  

                     Wat Europa nodig heeft, is een massale terugkeerstrategie, verplichte terugname door de landen van herkomst, grootschalige uitzettingen en een einde aan het misbruik van de beroepsprocedures. Landen die hun illegalen niet terugnemen, moeten daar ook de gevolgen van dragen. Geen geld, geen visa, geen handel. Europa moet eindelijk durven kiezen voor een daadkrachtig remigratiebeleid dat onze grenzen, onze welvaart en onze veiligheid beschermt. Maar dat is helaas niet de bedoeling van de Europese Unie.
                  

Bartłomiej Sienkiewicz (PPE). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Skuteczność systemu zaproponowanego przez Komisję w sprawie powrotów zależy ściśle od stopnia kontroli nad osobami objętymi nakazami powrotu. Mają one prawo do odwołania, ale w tym czasie muszą pozostać pod nadzorem elektronicznym bądź fizycznym. Bez tego cały system traci sens, a wysiłek włożony w jego dwa najważniejsze elementy, czyli wzajemne uznawanie decyzji przez państwa UE i zakaz wjazdu do UE jako całości, cały ten wysiłek pójdzie na marne.
                  

                     Wzywam do ułatwienia państwom narodowym stosowania nadzoru i detencji. Jeśli państwo decyduje w trybie administracyjnym, że dana osoba ze względów bezpieczeństwa ma opuścić jego terytorium, ma absolutne prawo, a wręcz obowiązek egzekwowania tej decyzji. Europa musi odzyskać kontrolę nad własnym terytorium. W przeciwnym wypadku nadal pozostanie szeroką autostradą dla nielegalnej imigracji.
                  

Catch-the-eye procedure


Sander Smit (PPE). – Voorzitter, eindelijk pakt Europa de controle over zijn grenzen deels terug. Strengere terugkeermogelijkheden en de optie van uitzetcentra buiten de EU zijn stappen in de juiste richting. Maar laten we eerlijk zijn: dit is slechts het begin. Het verdient nog aanscherping. Wat we nodig hebben, is een daadkrachtig en effectief terugkeersysteem dat niet vertraagt, maar daadwerkelijk zorgt voor terugkeer. Dat betekent betere samenwerking met herkomstlanden.
                  

                     Wie weigert mee te werken aan terugkeer, moet dat voelen in de portemonnee. Een verplichte erkenning van terugkeerbesluiten door alle EU-landen. Dit mag geen vrijblijvendheid zijn, maar moet een harde afspraak zijn. Wettelijke ondubbelzinnige regeling van asielopvang in veilige derde landen. Dat debat is al te lang blijven liggen, terwijl andere landen laten zien dat het werkt. Commissaris, ik wens u daarbij heel veel succes. Grenzen stellen is essentieel om draagvlak te behouden.
                  

Alice Teodorescu Måwe (PPE). – Fru talman! Migrationspolitikens långsiktiga legitimitet förutsätter att ett nej är ett nej. EU behöver hantera att endast en av fyra som har fått avslag återvänder till hemlandet. EU måste använda knutpunkter för återvändande i säkra tredjeländer, dit migranter med avslag kan utvisas om deras hemländer vägrar ta emot dem. Dessa länder bör bestraffas med indragna EU-medel.
                  

                     EU-kommissionens förslag är välkommet men, i det stora migrationspolitiska sammanhanget, otillräckligt. Om personer utan asylskäl aldrig fått komma till Europa hade vi aldrig behövt återvändandeåtgärder. Det är alltså hur och var asyl söks och beviljas som behöver ändras. Därför är behovet av en ny återvändandelagstiftning ännu ett argument för att ett nytt migrationspolitiskt system, där asyl söks och prövas utanför Europa, behöver utformas.
                  

Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – Señora presidenta, señor comisario, en cuanto al Reglamento sobre el retorno, ha escuchado usted puntualizaciones y críticas que debe atender, porque un reglamento crea obligaciones para los Estados miembros y no se trata, por tanto, de que se les abra el margen de maniobra en la visión de que los migrantes y los demandantes de asilo son una amenaza para nuestra seguridad.
                  

                     Primera puntualización: para que los retornos sean posibles lo que hace falta es una arquitectura de acuerdos con los países de origen y tránsito que los permitan dignamente, una arquitectura diplomática que actualmente no existe. Pero, en segundo lugar, centros de detención en países terceros, que no son de origen ni de tránsito, por hasta dos años, no solamente no son una solución imaginativa, sino que caminan en contra del estándar de derechos humanos al que se debe la Unión Europea. Y una última puntualización: no tiene ningún sentido modificar el régimen de tercer país seguro que negociamos y establecimos en el Reglamento sobre el Procedimiento Común de Asilo de la UE antes de darle la oportunidad de entrar plenamente en vigor.
                  

Silvia Sardone (PfE). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, incredibile! Finalmente la Commissione europea si sveglia. Meglio tardi che mai, direi. Dopo anni di parole vuote, atteggiamenti buonisti sull'accoglienza, vi rendete conto che va cambiata la strategia sui rimpatri e, in generale, che bisogna lavorare per limitare l'immigrazione clandestina.
                  

                     Dovete però fare un enorme mea culpa. Mentre in Italia il ministro Salvini bloccava gli sbarchi, faceva crollare gli arrivi e quindi diminuiva le tragedie in mare, voi lo criticavate! Quando noi chiedevamo la redistribuzione dei migranti e la rotazione dei porti, voi dormivate.
                  

                     È da sei anni che bloccate la riforma dei rimpatri, schiavi dei ricatti della sinistra. Ora la sbloccate ma non affrontate un problema importantissimo: non è prevista infatti alcuna sanzione verso gli Stati terzi che non si vogliono riprendere i loro connazionali presenti illegalmente nei nostri Paesi.
                  

                     Contro l'immigrazione illegale serve un lavoro più coordinato e più fermo, sennò ci troveremo di fronte all'ennesimo vostro fallimento: disperati nei nostri territori che non hanno alcun diritto a rimanervi e che vivono delinquendo. Basta!
                  

Γεάδης Γεάδη (ECR). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, τα τελευταία χρόνια γινόμαστε μάρτυρες μιας αυξανόμενης μεταναστευτικής κρίσης που απειλεί την ευρωπαϊκή συνοχή. Το πολυπολιτισμικό μοντέλο και οι πολιτικές των ανοιχτών συνόρων αποδεδειγμένα πλέον έχουν αποτύχει. Μαζί έχουν βυθίσει όλη την Ευρώπη και εκατομμύρια Ευρωπαίους να ζουν στον φόβο, αφού κανείς δεν μπορεί να τους εγγυηθεί την ασφάλειά τους. Ευρωπαϊκές πρωτεύουσες κλείνουν τα σύνορά τους, προχωρούν σε αυστηρότερους ελέγχους, γιατί, όταν προειδοποιούσαμε, οι δήθεν προοδευτικές δυνάμεις μάς κατηγορούσαν με τους χειρότερους χαρακτηρισμούς, αντί να κατανοούν το πρόβλημα. Με τους δείκτες των επιστροφών να βρίσκονται μόλις στο 20%, στην πατρίδα μου, την Κύπρο, να έχουν φτάσει σχεδόν στο 10% οι αιτητές ασύλου, επιβάλλεται να θεσπιστεί άμεσα μια ολοκληρωμένη, αυστηρή, αποτρεπτική μεταναστευτική πολιτική από το σύνολο της Ευρώπης. Επιβάλλεται να ξεκινήσουν άμεσα οι απελάσεις, να κοπούν τα επιδόματα, να στείλουμε μήνυμα ότι κανείς δεν θα εισέρχεται παράνομα εντός της Ευρώπης.
                  

Hilde Vautmans (Renew). – Voorzitter, het is een heel belangrijk voorstel waarover we hier vanmiddag gedebatteerd hebben. U heeft het zelf gezegd: het is eigenlijk het sluitstuk. Dit ontbrak nog. De nationale terugkeersystemen zijn te gefragmenteerd en u heeft het aangekaart: we moeten ervoor zorgen dat als iemand in een Europees land wordt uitgewezen, hij wel degelijk de Unie verlaat en het niet elders gaat proberen. Dus dat vind ik een absoluut noodzakelijke stap. Wij als liberalen zijn voorstander van een streng maar rechtvaardig asielbeleid en daar hoort snelle uitwijzing bij.
                  

                     Maar het moet me toch van het hart: de onzin, de leugens, de stigmatisering van extreemrechts hier in dit halfrond tarten alle verbeelding. Ik ga vragen aan die zijde. Één: kijk eens in de spiegel. Als jullie geboren worden in een land in oorlog en chemisch gebombardeerd worden, ga je niet vluchten? En twee: u mag van geluk spreken dat u geboren bent in Europa, in een land in vrede.
                  

Özlem Demirel (The Left). – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar! Mit Ihrem populistischen Vorschlag für eine Abschieberichtlinie haben Sie heute eigentlich nur ein Signal gesendet: Die EU will abschieben – schneller, mehr, rücksichtsloser. Und wenn Sie ganz ehrlich sind, haben Sie heute deutlich gemacht, dass Sie noch nicht einmal einen Plan haben, wie Sie es machen wollen.
                  

                     Herr Kommissar, Sie werden Menschenrechte mit Füßen treten mit Ihren Vorschlägen. Sie haben noch nicht mal eine Liste von Drittstaaten, die Sie uns vorschlagen wollen, aber Sie scheinen sehr zuversichtlich zu sein, dass Sie genug Autokraten in dieser Welt finden, die sich mit Ihnen auf diesen dreckigen Deal einlassen. Ich finde es wirklich bemerkenswert, Herr Kommissar, wie viele Rechtsaußenparteien heute Ihnen die Hand geschüttelt haben bei dieser Debatte.
                  

                     Herr Kommissar, wenn Sie wirklich Lösungen suchen wollen, auch für das Thema der Migration, dann tun Sie was dafür, dass Menschen nicht mehr ihre Heimat verlassen müssen. Tun Sie was dafür, dass die EU-Staaten nicht mehr Waffen in alle Welt schicken. Tun Sie was gegen den Klimawandel, der zu einer neuen Fluchtursache wird. Tun Sie was dagegen, wie die multinationalen europäischen Konzerne den globalen Süden ausplündern. Tun Sie was …
                  

(Die Präsidentin entzieht der Rednerin das Wort.)


President. – Thank you very much, colleagues. Just to be very transparent: there are a couple of groups who did not get speaking time, but that was because I had no indications of people wanting to take the floor during the catch-the-eye procedure.

(End of catch-the-eye procedure)


Magnus Brunner,
Mitglied der Kommission. – Frau Präsidentin, sehr geehrte Damen und Herren! Frau Demirel, ich würde Ihnen natürlich auch gerne die Hand schütteln, wenn Sie … Ich kann nachher gerne vorbeikommen, das hat mit dem überhaupt nichts zu tun. Aber gut. Und es ist auch wichtig und richtig, dass wir – das habe ich vorher versucht zu sagen – Menschenrechte natürlich auch entsprechend immer im Blick haben und die für uns nicht verhandelbar sind.
                  

                     But let me change and swap to the whole discussion maybe we were facing this this afternoon. I listened, of course, very carefully to the discussion. Thank you to all the speakers of this afternoon.
                  

                     For me, the clearest message is that the European Union needs a migration and asylum policy that is 100 % credible. That is important, and that's what we try to deliver.
                  

                     The pact has laid down a strong foundation and, of course, that has to be implemented now. That's the basis we have. But as a lot of you said, there was this missing piece we are talking about today.
                  

                     I think EU citizens expect us to complete the whole picture and have this comprehensive approach. Also, this whole picture has to be completed. They want to know that the system operates efficiently; that is, I think, very important, so that we are able to properly integrate all migrants who do have a right to stay.
                  

                     For migrants with no right to stay, they want them to be treated fairly, yes, but firmly, as you rightly mentioned. They want to know that dangerous individuals with no right to be in the European Union will not pose a threat, at the end of the day, for all of us. They are not anti-immigration, but they want migration that is legal and targeted at our labour market's needs also.
                  

                     At this stage they are no longer asking us, actually. They are demanding that we that we act. It's up to us to listen carefully, to assume our responsibilities and also to finish building the common European migration system we promise. One hundred percent of it, actually. I'm looking very much forward to discussing all the topics in a constructive way in the next weeks to bring these rules into effect.
                  

President. – The debate is closed.


Written Statements (Rule 178)



Mariusz Kamiński (ECR),
na piśmie. – Polityka migracyjna UE w ostatniej dekadzie to kompletna porażka. Stworzono dysfunkcyjny system, który zamiast służyć bezpieczeństwu obywateli, stał się narzędziem dla przemytników i przestępców. W efekcie ponad półtora miliona osób przebywa w UE nielegalnie, a system deportacji to jeden wielki żart. Europa chełpi się rządami prawa, a tymczasem z pół miliona wydanych decyzji powrotowych tylko co piąta jest egzekwowana. Decyzje służb imigracyjnych muszą być skutecznie egzekwowane, a nie ignorowane lub blokowane przez armie prawników, którzy zrobili biznes na obecnym chaotycznym systemie. To niedopuszczalne i niesie za sobą tragiczne konsekwencje. Osoby nielegalnie przebywające na terytorium Unii muszą wyjechać. To nie jest radykalne stanowisko – to po prostu prawo i zdrowy rozsądek. Panie Komisarzu, aby dyrektywa była skuteczna, osoby odsyłane muszą być przyjmowane przez kraje pochodzenia – a w tej kwestii Unia wciąż ponosi porażkę. Umowy o readmisji powinny być podstawą wszelkiej współpracy międzynarodowej. UE powinna także rozwijać sieć centrów powrotowych poza Unią, które przyspieszą deportacje. Potrzebujemy jasnych przepisów, surowych zobowiązań i realnych konsekwencji dla tych, którzy je łamią. Mam nadzieję, że Komisja wykaże się determinacją polityczną, by wypracować skuteczne narzędzia prawne i egzekwować je bez wyjątków. Moja grupa poprze tylko takie negocjacje dyrektywy, które przywrócą Europie prawo, porządek i bezpieczeństwo.
                  

Piotr Müller (ECR),
na piśmie. – Obecny kryzys migracyjny to efekt błędów Komisji Europejskiej i Niemiec, które w 2015 roku otworzyły granice, zapraszając setki tysięcy migrantów. Skutek? Niekontrolowany napływ ludzi, wzrost przestępczości, zamachy terrorystyczne.
                  

                     Zamiast bezpieczeństwa – chaos, który dotyka zwykłych obywateli.
                  

                     Polityka ‘otwartych granic’ okazała się katastrofalnym błędem. Obciążone systemy socjalne, rosnące napięcia społeczne i brak kontroli nad tym, kto wjeżdża do Europy, to rzeczywistość, której nie da się ignorować.
                  

                     Komisja Europejska zamiast rozwiązywać problem, jedynie go pogłębia, zmuszając kraje członkowskie do przyjmowania migrantów bez względu na ich możliwości i wolę społeczeństw.
                  

                     Dodatkowo pakt migracyjny UE stanowi kolejny impuls dla masowej migracji, zachęcając kolejne fale ludzi do nielegalnego przekraczania granic.
                  

                     Przymusowa relokacja i fałszywa solidarność osłabiają suwerenność państw. Każde państwo powinno mieć prawo decydować o własnej polityce migracyjnej, bez narzucanych przez Brukselę regulacji!
                  

                     Czas na zdecydowane kroki. Natychmiastowe wycofanie się z paktu migracyjnego i wdrożenie programu przymusowych deportacji to jedyne skuteczne rozwiązanie.
                  

                     Europa musi jasno określić, że nielegalna migracja nie będzie tolerowana, a jej granice będą realnie chronione.
                  

                     Europa potrzebuje ochrony swoich granic i bezpieczeństwa obywateli.
                  

                     Czas działać – zanim będzie za późno.
                  

Емил Радев (PPE),
в писмена форма. – Нелегалната миграция поставя на изпитание сигурността на ЕС с ефекта на бомба със закъснител. Ако не я обезвредим, ще ни струва скъпо! Без твърда, ефективна и хармонизирана политика по връщанията рискуваме срив на системата за убежище, ръст на престъпността и терористичните заплахи.
                  

                     Фактите са стряскащи: само 20% от лицата с издадена заповед за връщане напускат територията на ЕС. Останалите безконтролно се установяват в Европа и най-често в онези гета, където вече дори полицията се страхува да влезе.
                  

                     От ЕНП подкрепяме предложената от Европейската комисия нова система за връщане, но искаме още по-строги мерки. За всички ни е ясно, че те са закъснели, затова настояваме не просто за реформи, а за решителна и безкомпромисна промяна: задължителен контрол и строг мониторинг на всички върнати лица; ясни санкции за тези, които отказват съдействие – отнемане на помощи, задържане и дългосрочни забрани за влизане; изграждане на специализирани центрове за върнати мигранти в трети страни. За да прилагат ефективно принудителните връщания, държавите членки трябва да имат и повече правомощия.
                  

                     Така ще изпратим категоричен сигнал, че незаконното пребиваване няма да бъде толерирано. Нещо повече – ще има сериозни последици за всички, които нарушават правилата. Европа не е разграден двор и не бива да става заложник на своята инертност!
                  
12.   White paper on the future of European defence (debate)

President. – The next item is the debate on the Council and Commission statements on the white paper on the future of European defence (2025/2565(RSP)).

Adam Szłapka,
President-in-Office of the Council. – Madam President, Mr Commissioner, honourable Members, we are witnessing a paradigm shift in European security. We are witnessing unprecedented geopolitical changes that affect us – Europeans – directly. And the conclusion is clear: we need to take greater responsibility for our own security and defence. This requires a collective effort of EU institutions and Member States. The debate we have convened today is timely. It takes place between last week's Special European Council and the communication on the future of European defence that the Commission and the High Representative are expected to issue next week.
As I said, the direction of travel is clear: a Europe with more responsibility for its defence – the pace of our work is clearly accelerating towards that aim. Indeed, the European Council, at its special meeting on 6 March, marked an important moment in this context. As we have discussed this morning, leaders held a first discussion on the ReArm Europe plan set out by the President of the Commission and provided guidance for future EU actions. Let me briefly summarise how the Council of the European Union is working on boosting Europe's defence readiness.
We must strive for a stronger and more capable Union in the field of security and defence. Work in the Council takes place along five main priorities for EU security and defence. Firstly, we must spend more and better, and strengthen our defence, technological and industrial base. Deliberations are ongoing towards a Council general approach on the regulation establishing a European defence industry programme. We are looking forward to negotiations with Parliament. The Council is also currently conducting a strategic review of the Permanent Structured Cooperation, which will result in a revision of its legal framework.
Secondly, the EU must continue its unwavering support for Ukraine's independence, sovereignty and its territorial integrity. We must use all of our financial regulatory power to provide financial and military aid as long as it takes.
Thirdly, we need to increase the EU's ability to act, notably by effectively using both military and civilian means in a joined up manner. Efforts to operationalise the EU rapid development capacity are well underway, and military exercises will continue in 2025, increasing the EU's ability to act.
Fourthly, we must strengthen the EU's resilience and security, its access to strategic environments such as the space, maritime and air domains. To secure our access to these domains, we have agreed on strategies on cyber defence and space, and we updated the EU maritime security strategy. In October 2024, the Council approved the first ever EU cyber census, which tracks our progress in implementing the EU policy on cyber defence.
Finally, the EU should continue to strengthen and expand tailored and mutually beneficial partnerships with bilateral and multilateral partners. We stepped up political dialogue with NATO and we have also concluded a security and defence partnership with six key partners and more will follow. We must also preserve our transatlantic bonds. The step undertaken recently by the US administration may worry us, but this is our existential interest and we should keep it above the current political developments.
These are the basic aspects of what the Council considers as the priorities for developing the EU's defence capacities. We look forward to examining how these priorities are addressed in the upcoming white paper. To conclude, let me reaffirm that we are committed to building a safe and secure Europe with the same determination and a great sense of urgency. There is still a lot of work ahead of us.

Andrius Kubilius,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, thank you, first of all, for putting this debate and the morning debate on the future of European defence on the agenda.
In my view, those are the most important debates in the history of this House, because the days we are living through are days which will define the history of Europe and of the European Union.
This is a once-in-a-generation moment: we face a clear and present danger seen by none of us in our lifetimes. More than ever, Europe must prepare for the worst to prevent the worst: the possibility of military aggression against us. Such preparation is the only way to deter the worst. Russia's war industry is operating at full blast. Russia could be ready for a confrontation with NATO in five years or less. American actions are a wake-up call: their policy shift and pivot towards Asia.
Geopolitical reality is changing before our eyes. More than ever, we must stand on our two feet, take charge of our own defence and of deterrence. More than ever, we must support and defend Ukraine. Yes, there must be a peace, but a strong peace. Peace through real strength. A peace with Ukraine and Europe at the table. A just peace, not just a pause for Russia to lick its wounds and start a new, bigger war.
A strong peace also means a strong Europe, able to deter aggression and prevent war. To do that, we must completely overhaul our defence industry, because the gaps are colossal between the defences we have and the defences we need to protect our people. Already now there is a lack of thousands of tanks, fighting vehicles, armoured vehicles, pieces of artillery, as we can guess from publications about NATO's capability targets – a shortfall of EUR 500 billion at least. Even more hundreds of billions are needed for real air defence, space defence, military mobility. Member States need to invest massively to fill these gaps and the EU will support Member States with European Union added value, European scale, European coordination, European money and European laws.
This Commission put defence on the top of the European agenda since before our mandate even started. Defence was top priority in President von der Leyen's political guidelines, and she appointed me as the first-ever European Union Defence Commissioner. She charged me in my mission letter with High Representative Kaja Kallas to present a white paper on the future of European defence, and since the very first day of my mandate, we have been working non-stop in the college, with my services, in plenty of seminars, conferences and discussions, including in this House. I have met many ministers, Members of Parliament, CEOs of defence and space industry. We received many contributions and your very valuable resolution. This month of discussions helped prepare the ground, allowing us to present key proposals already last week with the historical decisions on ReArmEU, far ahead of the white paper's publication. Because if history is running, we cannot be walking.
Last week, President von der Leyen presented the ReArmEU plan, unanimously approved two days later by a historic European Council, with key proposals to supercharge our defence spending up to EUR 800 billion, such as activating the national escape clause of the Stability and Growth Pact and the European Union instrument to support Member States with loans, redirecting existing European funding for defence like cohesion funds, encouraging investment by private banks and the European Investment Bank.
We welcome the leaders' call to reconsider excluded activities to increase funding into defence, and we encourage Member States to continue support for Ukraine by buying arms in Ukraine, with Ukraine and for Ukraine, like Denmark and Czechia are already doing. All initiatives that ensure Ukraine can stay strong and defend itself need to be supported. We will present four legal proposals on ReArmEU before the next European Council.
It is not enough to spend more: spending more in a fragmented market will only fragment it more. Spending more can also mean spending more outside the European Union. This will only increase our dependence. We need to spend better, spend together and spend European, as well as work together on research and development, build more bridges between civil and military research and innovation. Artificial intelligence and quantum technology will change the nature of war, so we must leverage deep tech to level up defence readiness. We must work on priority areas for action at EU level in the field of capabilities like air and missile defence, strategic enablers – including in relation to space – and military mobility.
This is where European Union programmes for joint procurement and joint development programmes like EDIP are crucial. With these programmes, we can incentivise Member States to spend together, to overcome fragmentation, to spend smart and to spend the European. This is how we will build up our own European defence industry, because the defence industry is no ordinary industry, but a resource for our defence. We are encouraging joint procurement to give our European industry the big orders it needs, to simplify production, to reduce the price of armaments and reduce fragmentation. We will simplify our laws and rules to remove all obstacles that stand in the way of ramping up our defence industry. All that is what the white paper is about, and now we need to scale up and speed up. I know this House strongly supports European defence, as President Metsola made clear, as many of you made clear to me during last week when I spoke with the ITRE Committee.
This is why I call on you urgently to agree the Parliament's negotiating position on EDIP, the European defence industry programme, which will allow us to be much more effective in bringing European Union added value to help Member States spend their national defence money in the most useful way. I welcome the Council's call to conclude negotiations as soon as possible. EDIP was proposed a year ago. History will not wait for us. Putin will not wait for us. Next week we will present the white paper to rethink European defence in this strategic moment.
Let me close with some inspiration from history. I recently read the memoirs of Jean Monnet. Jean Monnet was a founding father of the European Union, our great project of peace. But did you know that Jean Monnet was also a father of victory in the Second World War? Jean Monnet helped Churchill and Roosevelt prepare the so-called 'victory programme' to ramp up military production in the United States to defeat the Nazis. He would have recognised many of our current challenges.
Jean Monnet also said 'people only make great decisions when crisis is on their doorstep.' This is the greatest security crisis of our lifetimes, and we must now take the great decisions. All of Europe is a target of Russian aggression. We are all frontline Member States. The white paper is the basis for our industrial victory programme. Victory in defence of peace on the European continent. The white paper and ReArmEU are just the beginning of our road: the road to the victory of peace and democracy in Europe, and we shall prevail.

Rasa Juknevičienė,
on behalf of the PPE Group. – Madam President, dear colleagues, if we want to avoid even greater war in Europe, we must be prepared for war with Russia in the shortest possible time. War with today's Russia, whose ideology – Russkiy Mir – means destroying or enslaving everything that is not Russian.
A challenge for Europe in the short term is on Ukraine's battlefield. The future of Europe will be decided there. Member States should commit at least 0.25 % of their GDP to military aid to Ukraine. Ukraine's defence industries should be integrated with the European one.
In the longer term, to ensure that most EU policies align with defence and security needs. Defence is the priority of priorities. We need to increase our defence spending to at least 3 % of GDP in 2026 as a start. The EU was not created as a defence union. Europe flourished on US security guarantees. Everything has changed.
We will have to fill the huge security capabilities gap and diversify our security policy to build our own capabilities while trying to maintain and strengthen the transatlantic bond.
Tomorrow we will vote for a resolution on the white paper on defence. But this is just the very beginning of a difficult but very necessary journey – an existential journey.

Γιάννης Μανιάτης,
εξ ονόματος της ομάδας S&D. – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, αγαπητοί συνάδελφοι, η Λευκή Βίβλος, που αναμένεται σε μερικές μέρες, πρέπει να αποτελέσει τον οδικό χάρτη, ώστε με συγκεκριμένο χρονοδιάγραμμα και μέτρα να κάνει την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση ικανή να αντιμετωπίσει τις σημερινές γεωπολιτικές προκλήσεις. Χρειαζόμαστε μια ισχυρή ευρωπαϊκή αμυντική βιομηχανική και τεχνολογική βάση. Δεν είναι βιώσιμο να πηγαίνει σε τρίτες χώρες πάνω από το 70% των χρημάτων που δαπανούμε για εξοπλισμούς. Πλήττει την οικονομία μας, πλήττει την κοινωνική μας συνοχή, πλήττει την ανταγωνιστικότητά μας, επηρεάζει αρνητικά την ασφάλειά μας, καθώς αυξάνει τις αμυντικές εξαρτήσεις από τρίτες χώρες.
               

                  Δυστυχώς, το ReArm EU, αν και φιλόδοξο, δεν αποτελεί όσο αποτελεσματική θα θέλαμε λύση στα προβλήματα που έχουμε. Δεν θέλουμε νέα δάνεια, αλλά κοινά ευρωπαϊκά χρηματοδοτικά εργαλεία. Για να έχουμε μια ευρωπαϊκή αμυντική ένωση που να μπορεί να υπερασπίζεται αποτελεσματικά τα σύνορα και τους συμμάχους της, δεν απαιτούνται μόνο επιπλέον χρήματα. Απαιτούνται προγράμματα όπως το EDIP, με αυστηρούς κανόνες, ώστε οι επενδύσεις να αντιμετωπίσουν το έλλειμμα στρατηγικών μέσων και διαλειτουργικότητας που έχουμε. Nα δαπανηθούν στην Ευρώπη, ενισχύοντας την ευρωπαϊκή αμυντική βιομηχανική βάση σε όλα τα κράτη μέλη, για να μειωθούν οι εξαρτήσεις από τρίτες χώρες. Oι επενδύσεις να μην γίνουν σε βάρος της κοινωνικής συνοχής και του κοινωνικού κράτους.
               

                  Τι σημασία έχει να έχουμε ισχυρό στρατό στα σύνορα, εάν υπονομεύσουμε την ασφάλεια των κοινωνιών μας αυξάνοντας τις ανισότητες; Δεν υπάρχει ευημερία χωρίς ασφάλεια. Δεν υπάρχει ασφάλεια χωρίς ευημερία. Χρειαζόμαστε κοινούς κανόνες εξαγωγών εξοπλισμού, ώστε να μη βρεθούν ευρωπαϊκά όπλα να απειλούν την κυριαρχία κρατών μελών. Τέλος, θα πρέπει να κάνουμε και τα απαραίτητα θεσμικά βήματα, ώστε η ρήτρα για την κοινή άμυνα, το άρθρο 42 παράγραφος 7 της Συνθήκης, να μην είναι κενή περιεχομένου, αλλά να αποτελεί τη βασική εγγύηση ασφαλείας όλων των κρατών μελών, από τη Φινλανδία και την Εσθονία μέχρι την Ελλάδα και την Κύπρο. Ευχαριστώ.
               

Pierre-Romain Thionnet,
au nom du groupe PfE. – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Ministre, Monsieur le Commissaire, chers collègues, je veux vous faire part d'une inquiétude et d'un doute. L'inquiétude, c'est celle d'une excitation européenne passagère, sans lendemain; le doute, c'est à propos de la réelle détermination à faire en sorte que l'Europe ne dépende de personne pour sa défense. Les déclarations de l'administration américaine ont provoqué un état de stupéfaction sur le continent. Une parenthèse historique s'apprête à se refermer: celle qui voulait que les États-Unis s'engagent à protéger l'Europe. Elle durait depuis soixante-dix ans pour certains États, depuis trente ans pour d'autres. Toutefois, est-ce que les appels à bâtir cette autonomie stratégique européenne sont vraiment sincères?
               

                  Imaginons un scénario: après avoir conditionné le maintien de la protection américaine à l'augmentation des budgets de défense, Donald Trump annonce demain une condition supplémentaire: le réarmement de l'Europe doit se faire auprès de l'industrie militaire américaine. Ce sera le moment de vérité pour l'Europe, le moment où elle sera confrontée à un choix existentiel: notre destin commun doit-il rester entre les mains du locataire de la Maison-Blanche, ou bien les nations européennes sont-elles capables de retrouver confiance en elles, de croire en leur génie, d'exploiter leur potentiel immense et de s'affirmer sur la scène internationale comme une union d'États libres, capables de décider et d'agir selon ses propres intérêts?
               

                  Chers collègues, disons-le tout haut: nous ne voulons ni d'une Europe russe, ni d'une Europe rendue barbare par l'islamisme, mais pas non plus d'une Europe américaine. Ce que nous devons rechercher et bâtir, c'est l'Europe européenne.
               

Reinis Pozņaks,
on behalf of the ECR Group. – Madam President, Mr Commissioner, dear colleagues, over the last thirty years, we have seen dozens of white papers come and go – we are good at this, but I cannot imagine any of them being more important and coming at a more critical moment than this one.
Despite everything we see happening all around us, we must recognise this white paper for what it is – an opportunity to shape our own future for the next generations on our own terms with our own tools. It is time to be bold in ensuring that we work towards a total defence strategy, one that combines military and civilian assets to ensure that we are no longer exposed to hostile powers to our east. One that demonstrates our commitments to our allies. One that does everything in our power to invest our political, economic, and military capital into securing our citizens.
Restoring deterrence is our primary objective. Our enemies must know and see that war against Europe and our allies is hopeless, and to do so requires us to undertake a strategic audit of European military forces and civilian assets to ensure that we outpower our enemies. The next years are a key opportunity for us to turn Europe from security consumer to security provider. We have all the tools we need to achieve this. We only need to maintain our political will.

Nathalie Loiseau,
au nom du groupe Renew. – Madame la Présidente, l'Europe de la défense est née jeudi dernier. Ce fut malheureusement un accouchement dans la douleur. Il aura fallu le rapprochement entre Donald Trump et Vladimir Poutine pour que l'on écoute enfin ceux qui plaident depuis des années pour l'autonomie stratégique européenne. Je ne céderai pas à la facilité de vous rappeler que nous vous l'avions bien dit, car personne n'imaginait que les États-Unis tourneraient le dos à leurs alliés et s'aplatiraient devant leurs adversaires. Je préfère vous dire qu'il n'y a plus une minute à perdre. Aussi, je salue le plan proposé par la présidente de la Commission, mais je nous alerte tous: ce que propose Ursula von der Leyen, c'est peu et c'est tard.
               

                  C'est peu, car cela repose presque exclusivement sur une démarche volontaire des États membres. Or, si beaucoup ont déjà augmenté leurs dépenses de défense, certains restent obstinément à la traîne. C'est peu, car rien ne dit que l'on résoudra nos principales faiblesses, celles qui résultent de la fragmentation de nos industries de défense et celles qui sont le fruit d'un paradoxe toxique: nos industries exportent en priorité hors de l'Union européenne, et la plupart de nos États achètent essentiellement hors d'Europe. Nous ne pouvons plus nous le permettre et nous devons absolument assumer une préférence européenne marquée – enfin!
               

                  Le plan d'Ursula von der Leyen arrive après des décennies d'indolence. Surtout, il ne dit pas clairement comment nous allons massivement aider l'Ukraine; massivement, parce que notre sécurité en dépend; massivement, parce que nous sommes de plus en plus seuls à le faire. Saluons donc le Conseil de jeudi dernier, mais soyons lucides: ce n'est qu'une première étape. Défendre les Européens est une ardente obligation, qui va nécessiter des efforts et, parfois, des sacrifices. Préserver la paix en Europe est à ce prix.
               

Reinier Van Lanschot,
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, dear colleagues, what do Putin, Trump and Xi have in common? They are all afraid of a united Europe. Our ambition in this vision for the future of European defence is far too low. Too many of you still believe that 27 Member States should simply do more, instead of doing things together. Too many of you still believe we can sit back and rely on NATO instead of saving NATO through European leadership. And too many of you still believe nation states alone can provide protection, instead of trusting in the protection of a united Europe.
Integrate our 27 little armies to fight as one. As President Zelenskyy said, the time has come for the armed forces of Europe to be created. So let's take the first concrete steps today. Make NATO's command and control European so we can operate as one. Jointly procure strategic enablers so we can fight effectively. Create permanent multinational units so we can get 50 extra brigades.
Europe is a peace project, but how can we be strong enough to defend it? The answer to that existential question is simple and consists of three things: Unite! Unite! Unite!
Let's not wait for war to unite us. Let's unite to prevent war. And to my Dutch colleagues in the national parliament who just voted against the REARM plans from Ms von der Leyen, I say you're making a massive mistake.

Marc Botenga,
au nom du groupe The Left. – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, chers représentants du Conseil, chers collègues, 800 milliards non pas pour augmenter les salaires des Européens, ni pour augmenter les pensions, ni pour garantir des soins de santé de qualité à tous les Européens sans liste d'attente, ni même pour avoir des bus ou des trains ponctuels dans chaque ville et chaque village. Non, vous voilà épris de la folie guerrière. Félicitations!
               

                  Disons les choses, cependant: nous dépensons déjà aujourd'hui de deux à trois fois plus que la Russie pour la guerre. Selon la presse allemande, nous avons actuellement quatre fois plus de navires de guerre que la Russie, trois fois plus de chars de combat et d'artillerie et deux fois plus d'avions de chasse, tandis que la Russie n'arrive heureusement pas à conquérir même un quart de l'Ukraine. Avant que les Russes ne déboulent sur la Grand-Place de Bruxelles, il faudra du temps! Si vous ne voulez pas l'entendre, ce n'est pas grave. Ce sont les faits, mais vous préférez l'idéologie.
               

                  Arrêtez votre cinéma: tous ceux qui veulent plus d'armes et plus de soldats, vous allez y envoyer vos enfants à vous? C'est ce que vous allez faire? Non, ce seront encore les enfants de la classe ouvrière qui devront mourir! Eh bien, nous ne l'accepterons pas. Nous devons coordonner plus, pas dépenser plus, et investir enfin dans la diplomatie.
               

Petr Bystron,
im Namen der ESN-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Während wir hier diskutieren, demonstrieren gerade in Rumänien Hunderttausende gegen diese EU und für ihren Kandidaten. Für den Kandidaten des Volkes, dem die Wahl gestohlen wurde, weil er gegen den Krieg war, gegen weitere Waffenlieferungen an die Ukraine. Und wie hat die EU reagiert? Wie hat dieses Parlament reagiert? Hier wurde die Debatte darüber verhindert. Das ist eine Schande! Stattdessen haben Sie hier Vertreter von dubiosen NGOs aus der Ukraine und aus Weißrussland eingeladen, die hier gegen Russland gehetzt haben. Was haben die hier im Plenum überhaupt zu suchen im Parlament? Die sind durch niemanden gewählt, durch niemanden demokratisch legitimiert, und deren Länder gehören nicht mal zur EU. Wer das zu verantworten hat, der tritt die Demokratie mit Füßen.
               

                  Ja, wer hat uns verraten? Die Christdemokraten. Die CDU stimmt hier mit den Sozialisten, Kommunisten und mit den Grünen, obwohl es rechts hier rechtskonservative Mehrheiten gibt. Und das ist Verrat am Wähler, mein lieber Kollege. Das will Merz in Deutschland genauso tun; da will man sogar das Grundgesetz ändern wegen 800 Milliarden neuer Schulden – 300 Milliarden für Waffen, 500 Milliarden, um die Infrastruktur waffen- und panzertauglich zu machen. Sie wollen uns in den Krieg treiben. Das ist es – und das völlig illegal, denn Merz will das sogar mit dem alten, abgewählten Bundestag machen, weil er die Mehrheiten in dem neuen Bundestag gar nicht hat. Das ist wirklich verfassungswidrig. Es gibt da überhaupt keine Eilbedürftigkeit.
               

                  Die Menschen wollen keine Kriegstreiberei, die Menschen wollen Frieden. Weil das so ist, müssen Sie hier solche Spielchen spielen wie am Vormittag mit diesen NGOs. Deswegen bauen Sie hier Russland zu einem Feind auf. Von wegen Russland will uns angreifen; das ist doch völliger Schwachsinn. Was will denn Russland, wenn sie uns hier besetzen? Wir haben doch gar nichts außer Schulden – 2,5 Billionen Schulden. Meinen Sie, das russische Volk will das abzahlen für uns? Und die 800 Milliarden obendrauf? Sicher nicht.
               

(Die Präsidentin entzieht dem Redner das Wort.)


President. – Colleagues, please calm down. Please. No, I have closed the microphone.
I will ask my colleagues to remember that you have the blue-card option very soon, so you have a chance to ask questions for your colleagues. And when you don't have the blue card, please let people speak quietly. Please, colleagues. Thank you.
So now we are here where I open up for the blue-card option. We always do that after the first round of speakers on behalf of the political groups. And we ended that.

David McAllister (PPE). – Madam President, dear Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I can echo a lot of things that have been said already in this debate, but not a single word of my previous speaker.
After numerous wake-up calls we have discussed here, Europe's moment of truth has finally arrived. We're not starting from scratch. In March 2022, the 27 heads of state or government adopted the Strategic Compass. A year later, the Commission published the European Defence Industrial Strategy, and we also adopted ASAP and EDIRPA and agreed on the capability development priorities.
All these initiatives are slowly but surely pushing Member States to step outside their national corridors in pursuit of a genuine European Defence Union. But now we really have to make a great leap.
Therefore, dear Commissioner Kubilius, the white paper must build on these achievements, and propose regulatory and programmatic initiatives at European level, rather than confining itself to a description of threats and shared needs.
You, dear Commissioner, and the HR/VP have a chance to significantly steer this debate. I look forward to discussing the white paper thoroughly at committee level.

Sven Mikser (S&D). – Madam President, colleagues, the fragile entire security situation around us makes it absolutely imperative that we improve our ability to deter our adversaries, but also, if and when necessary, fight and win wars.
The dramatic reversal, of course, by our traditional American allies further underscores the need to achieve European strategic autonomy and industrial sovereignty. It actually underscores that some dependencies that we used to regard as security guarantees may, in this changed situation, prove to be vulnerabilities instead.
A stronger focus on defence and defence industrial base is not merely expenditure. It actually provides a boost for our economic competitiveness and economic activity. But it's also important to see that this additional impetus to our economic growth be shared equitably across our Union.
It has been said that we need to spend smarter and do more together, but it is obvious it's inevitable that we also need to start spending more, both at EU level, but also in our national budgets, where, let's be honest, the bulk of our defence spending and also capability generation will continue to happen.
We must be open to considering all novel ways of financing our ambitious programmes, both public and private sources. But while it may be tempting to think that at this critical time everything except defence can be put on the backburner, this is not the case, because there are two types of challenges our democracies face, both external – of military nature – but also internal. We must not provide additional fodder for the pro-Putin illiberal sentiment.

Roberto Vannacci (PfE). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, oggi la signora von der Leyen è Polifemo e io mi chiamo Nessuno e posso dirvi con assoluta certezza che il libro bianco è un cavallo di Troia.
               

                  Perché, chi è il nemico? E quali sarebbero gli scenari strategici? Perché se il nemico è la Russia, la Russia spende in termini assoluti, in difesa, due volte e mezzo in meno di quanto non spenda l'Unione europea e ha un PIL più basso dell'Italia ed è un nono di quello dell'Unione europea ed ha una popolazione che è un terzo di quella dell'Unione europea ed ha una capacità industriale che è ridicola di fronte alla capacità industriale del Vecchio continente.
               

                  Ma come: negli ultimi tre anni ci avete dipinto una Russia infognata nel Donbass e che perde di fronte a un modesto avversario come l'Ucraina e oggi ce la volete dipingere come il nemico dell'intera Unione europea? Fate pace con il cervello.
               

                  La realtà è che Bruxelles vuole ingoiare la sovranità nazionale con la scusa e il pretesto della difesa comune. Quello di cui abbiamo bisogno sono nazioni forti con eserciti….
               

(La Presidente toglie la parola all'oratore)


Elena Donazzan (ECR). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, se questo è il tempo delle scelte forti, Commissario, come ha detto lei, perché il contesto è completamente mutato e oggi dobbiamo discutere di alcuni temi che pensavamo lasciati alla tranquillità: dobbiamo difendere la nostra civiltà, la nostra economia e i nostri confini in un contesto di conflitto ibrido permanente.
               

                  Accanto ad alcuni che abbiamo identificato come problemi, però, ce ne sono altri, di scenari: oltre a quello Russia-Ucraina, c'è il Medio Oriente, c'è il Centrafrica, ci sono altri soggetti pericolosi per noi, c'è la Cina, c'è il ruolo della Turchia, c'è il ruolo dell'Iran, c'è l'islamismo che avanza.
               

                  Ecco, nel libro bianco mi aspetto che ci siano valutazioni di questo tipo, perché avremmo bisogno di un'industria della difesa, avremo bisogno di dual use, avremo bisogno di forze armate sempre più preparate e di nostri soldati sempre più sicuri, perché a loro va il nostro grazie.
               

                  E, come ha detto nella relazione di Niinistö, c'è anche da guardare alla popolazione, che deve essere più preparata. E soprattutto ai giovani dobbiamo parlare, affinché possano avere più amor di patria e capacità di difesa.
               

Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann (Renew). – Frau Präsidentin! Dass es jetzt turbulent zugeht, ist angesichts des Themas nicht überraschend. Es geht hier um Krieg oder Frieden und darum, wie unsere Zukunft gestaltet werden wird, und wir haben heute auch Zuschauerinnen und Zuschauer hier. Ich glaube, so eine Debatte ist nicht nur wichtig, sondern es geht auch darum, darauf hinzuweisen, was gerade um uns herum passiert.
               

                  Die Welt brennt, und Russland bombardiert mehr denn je die Ukraine, und wir konnten uns heute Morgen noch einmal ein Bild davon machen, was sich dort alles abspielt – das ist unmenschlich, das ist schrecklich, und noch schrecklicher ist es, dass so etwas ignoriert wird.
               

                  Europa stellt sich auf – auch im Rahmen der NATO müssen wir stärker werden: die europäischen Staaten, die EU-Staaten, aber auch die europäischen Staaten, die nicht in der EU sind. Und das ist die gute Nachricht: 29 von 32 NATO-Staaten haben jetzt die Chance, auch unabhängiger zu werden.
               

                  Wir müssen aber auch wettbewerbsfähiger werden. Wettbewerbsfähiger, damit wir eben auch in die Zukunft gehen können, denn das Geld, was wir heute in die Hand nehmen, brauchen wir, aber es muss am langen Ende auch wieder erwirtschaftet werden. Das, was wir in der Ukraine sehen – ich komme noch einmal darauf zurück –, zeigt ja Bilder, wie wir sie aus dem Ersten Weltkrieg kennen, aber auch die moderne, schreckliche Kriegsführung, und darauf müssen wir Antworten finden in Forschung, in Technik.
               

                  Ich bin dem neuen Kommissar für Verteidigung und Sicherheit sehr dankbar, dass er mit großem Elan an die Arbeit herangegangen ist. Und natürlich ist das harte Arbeit, jetzt die Nationen zu überzeugen, die einzelnen Staaten, dass sie auch Europa vertrauen können. Und das wird die Zukunft weisen, dass wir auch vertrauenswürdig sind, dass wir das Geld, was wir in die Hand nehmen, auch sinnvoll und richtig einsetzen. Und das Weißbuch muss – hoffe ich – sehr klar und deutlich sein. Die Zeit von ‘lala’ und ‘wir gucken mal’ und ‘business as usual’ ist vorbei.
               

                  Meine Damen und Herren, so wie ich gerade angefangen habe, sage ich Ihnen, dass die Welt brennt, und wir in Europa können den Unterschied machen als größtes Friedensprojekt der Welt.
               

PREȘEDINȚIA: NICOLAE ȘTEFĂNUȚĂ


Vicepreședinte


Hannah Neumann (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, I guess you all remember those painful images from the Oval Office when Trump and Vance openly joined the autocrats' camp, bullying and humiliating President Zelenskyy in front of cameras? If this, dear colleagues, is not the world we want to submit to – and I certainly don't – then we must be the alternative.
We must defend the rules-based international order, basing decisions on facts, treating partners with respect, and we must finally stand on our own feet. This means weapons and funding, but most crucially, it means attracting the brightest minds in science, tech and engineering. And here, dear colleagues, is the perfect match because many in the US also reject this administration's agenda – they too, are desperately looking for an alternative. So let's roll out the red carpet, launch a new blue card for a new era, a fast-track visa for skilled professionals from the US who want to work in Europe and build a future based on ethics, sustainability and fair growth. And to the scientists, engineers and innovators in the US: come to Europe. When autocrats embolden autocrats, democrats stand with democrats.

Özlem Demirel (The Left). – Herr Präsident! Blühende Munitionslandschaften, blühende Waffenlandschaften, blühende Kriegslandschaften – das ist das Versprechen der Europäischen Kommission an die Bürgerinnen und Bürger der EU. Die Gelder aus den Kohäsionsfonds, die eigentlich dafür vorgesehen sind, die Lebensverhältnisse in der EU anzugleichen, können weiterhin umgeschichtet werden in die Waffenindustrie. Milliarden werden seit geraumer Zeit von der EU in den Rachen der Waffenindustrie geschmissen, und seit Beginn des Ukraine-Krieges ist die Rheinmetall-Aktie um das Zehnfache gestiegen – von 98 € auf 980 €. Ja, es gibt jene, die Partys machen aufgrund von Kriegen, und es gibt jene, die in Kriegen sterben, und das sind die Armen und die Arbeitenden.
                  

                     Sie fördern – das muss man sich mal vergegenwärtigen – Sie fördern und hegen und pflegen mehr die Rüstungsindustrie als das, was Sie im Moment in der EU für die Kinder, für ihre Zukunft investieren und tun, und das ist inakzeptabel. Aufrüstung wird weder Europa noch die Welt sicherer machen. Sie behaupten, damit würden Sie sogar die Demokratie stärken. Im Gegenteil: Militarismus schwächt die liberale Demokratie. Deshalb sagen wir Nein!
                  

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


Lukas Sieper (NI),
Frage nach dem Verfahren der ‘blauen Karte’
                        . – Frau Kollegin! Meine Frage an Sie wäre: Glauben Sie wirklich, dass irgendjemand Bock auf Krieg hat? Glauben Sie wirklich, dass wir die Rüstungsindustrie, dass wir die Verteidigung stärken, weil uns das Spaß macht, weil wir gerne Waffen bauen? Oder glauben Sie nicht viel eher, dass wir das zum Beispiel machen, weil ein blutrünstiger Diktator im Osten dieses Kontinents einen Angriffskrieg gestartet hat und seine Armee unzählige Kriegsverbrechen begeht?
                  

Özlem Demirel (The Left),
Antwort auf eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der ‘blauen Karte’
                        . – Herr Sieper, ich kann nicht in Ihren Kopf kucken und weiß natürlich nicht genau, was Sie möchten oder nicht möchten. Die Sache ist aber die, dass ich mir die Realität ankucke, und die Sache ist die, dass ich mir auch die Geschichte Europas ankucke. Wenn ich mir die Geschichte Europas ankucke, dann gab es eine Zeit der radikalen Aufrüstung; das war vor dem Ersten Weltkrieg, und das mündete darin. Die Lehre aus dem Ersten Weltkrieg war übrigens, dass man in Diplomatie und Abrüstung investieren sollte.
                  

                     Wenn Sie uns heute erzählen, dass Abschreckung mit Aufrüstung erreicht wird, dann sage ich Ihnen, auch im Kalten Krieg war es die Diplomatie, die uns davor beschützt hat, einen schlimmeren Krieg zu erleben als die Aufrüstung selber. Deshalb, wirklich, wenn Sie keinen Krieg wollen, Herr Sieper, dann plädieren Sie bitte für einen anderen Kurs in der EU als für die Aufrüstung!
                  

Sarah Knafo (ESN). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, chers collègues, nous assistons depuis deux mois à une scène improbable. Les plus fervents atlantistes de cette assemblée découvrent soudain qu'il ne faut plus dépendre de Washington. Même ceux qui se taisaient quand Barack Obama plaçait les dirigeants européens sur écoute, même ceux qui ne disaient rien quand Joe Biden empêchait la construction de sous-marins français en Australie, même ceux-là viennent nous dire aujourd'hui qu'on ne peut finalement faire confiance qu'à nous-mêmes. Vous découvrez l'indépendance par antitrumpisme. Nous, nous n'avons pas attendu le nom du locataire de la Maison-Blanche pour savoir qu'il fallait défendre notre pays nous-mêmes. Cela fait soixante-dix ans que le général de Gaulle vous le disait. Nos nations ont un devoir de puissance. Nous ne pouvons pas compter éternellement sur un pays dont les intérêts vitaux sont situés à un océan des nôtres.
                  

                     Attention, toutefois, ne remplacez pas une dépendance par une autre. Ce n'est pas la Commission européenne qui vous défendra. La défense d'une nation, c'est sa survie, et la survie ne se négocie pas entre bureaucrates, à la majorité qualifiée. Ne donnez pas à Mme von der Leyen le pouvoir d'envoyer vos fils sur le champ de bataille. Il faut nous réarmer, et on ne réarme pas une nation avec des comptes publics en faillite. Une économie de guerre, ce n'est pas une machine à jeter notre argent par les fenêtres au profit de pays du monde entier. Si nous voulons gagner la prochaine guerre, il nous faut d'abord gagner tout de suite la guerre contre le gaspillage, les gabegies et le désordre budgétaire.
                  

                     Notre réarmement doit bénéficier exclusivement à notre industrie militaire. Si vous achetez américain, vous restez sous tutelle américaine – c'est aussi simple que cela. La France, seule puissance nucléaire du continent, dotée d'une armée exceptionnelle, a un rôle historique à jouer. Pour les nations qui voudraient se placer sous notre protection, il faudra contribuer et donner à la France les moyens nécessaires, car la puissance exige des moyens. En revanche, notre dissuasion nucléaire ne sera jamais à partager avec quiconque, car la puissance ne se partage pas, la puissance ne se délègue pas, et la sécurité ne se sous-traite pas. C'est à nous d'assumer l'effort, ou à nous de nous préparer à en payer le prix.
                  

Fabio De Masi (NI). – Herr Präsident, sehr geehrte Damen und Herren! Seit drei Jahren wird nun ein sinnloser und vermeidbarer Krieg in der Ukraine geführt, bei dem schon viel zu viele Menschen gestorben sind und der sich im Wesentlichen um die NATO-Perspektive der Ukraine drehte. Der Krieg ist illegal, aber auch zahlreiche ranghohe US-Sicherheitsexperten haben gesagt, es war eine große Dummheit, immer weiter an die Tore einer Nuklearmacht heranzurücken.
                  

                     800 Milliarden Euro sollen nun in Rüstung verausgabt werden, während unsere Wirtschaft im Koma liegt und unsere Infrastruktur kollabiert. Dabei geben die europäischen NATO-Staaten bereits das Dreifache Russlands für Rüstung aus. Russland beißt sich seit drei Jahren in 20 % der Ukraine die Zähne aus. Deswegen ist es völlig illusionär anzunehmen, dass sie morgen auf dem Grand Place oder vor dem Brandenburger Tor stünden.
                  

                     Eines ist aber richtig: Russland verfügt über 5 000 Atomsprengköpfe, Frankreich über 290. Und die AfD fordert jetzt – Überraschung – in Deutschland deutsche Atombomben. Mehr Sicherheit erfordert aber wechselseitige Abrüstungsinitiativen und eine neue europäische Sicherheitsarchitektur. Während Herr Trump uns Strafzölle androht, hauen wir der US-Rüstungsindustrie die Auftragsbücher voll. Das ist völlig widersinnig, und deswegen ist es Zeit, mit diesem Unsinn Schluss zu machen, bevor sich Generationen von Untersuchungsausschüssen mit dem Filz im Rüstungssektor befassen.
                  

(Der Präsident entzieht dem Redner das Wort.)


Siegfried Mureșan (PPE). – Mr President, it looks like Mr De Masi's only concern is that we stop helping Ukraine. You cannot make up your mind whether Putin is strong or whether he is weak. The only thing that you care is that we stop helping Ukraine, which is, in fact, exactly what Mr Putin wants. This is exactly why we should continue to support Ukraine, because that is in the fundamental interest of European citizens. And whoever says we should stop helping Ukraine betrays the interest of European citizens and acts against the security of Europe.
If we are weak, we are a target. If we are strong, we are safe. This is the principle that needs to guide us. This is why I say invest more in defence, to keep our citizens safe and invest more in common European projects in defence.
Commissioner Kubilius, we very much welcome the work that you're doing, and we're very much looking forward to the white paper that you're going to propose. Our expectation is to see projects in there which we at European level can do better that than Member States can do alone. And then we should also find the funds, the resources, to support the projects which the European Commission puts forward. We should show to the people of Europe that spending money at European level on defence is worth it, and that it is better spent than at national level.

Javi López (S&D). – Señor presidente, señor comisario, un Libro Blanco de la defensa para tener hoy una Europa autónoma que se haga cargo plenamente de su seguridad.
                  

                     ¿Por qué? Porque no podemos dar por garantizado el vínculo atlántico y tenemos una guerra en suelo europeo con una fuerza hostil a nuestras puertas.
                  

                     ¿Cómo? Coordinando mejor nuestro gasto, creando capacidades europeas, gastando más europeo con una base industrial europea y gastando más en proporción al reto que tenemos enfrente.
                  

                     ¿Para qué? Para tener una fuerza de disuasión suficiente como para evitar la guerra, es decir, para proteger la paz, para proteger nuestras democracias y también para tener una diplomacia y ser un actor global creíble en el mundo.
                  

                     Y, al mismo tiempo, no solo vale con créditos y presupuesto nacional, necesitamos recursos y canales financieros europeos para hacerlo, para asegurar que, sobre todo, no entra en competición el gasto social con el gasto en defensa, algo que sería un suicidio político para Europa. Y, al mismo tiempo, diversificar nuestras alianzas también en materia de seguridad en un mundo crecientemente multipolar. Eso es una Europa autónoma.
                  

Vilis Krištopans (PfE). – Godātais sēdes vadītāj! Pēdējos piecus gadus Eiropa ir rūpējusies par sūnām un odiem, bet cilvēkus nezin kāpēc aizmirsusi. Eiropa ir ekonomiski atpalikusi un kļuvusi vāja bez stratēģiska redzējuma.
                  

                     Pat tad, kad pirms trim gadiem Krievija iebruka Ukrainā, mūsu līderi joprojām nesaprata vai negribēja saprast, kādā situācijā mēs esam. Tikai tagad, kad amerikāņi ir parādījuši mūsu vājumu, mēs kaut ko cenšamies darīt.
                  

                     Tagad tiek paziņots par 800 miljardiem lielu ieguldījumu Eiropas drošībā, bet tā ir tikai un vienīgi iespēja aizņemties. Vai mēs gribam vēl vienu inflācijas vilni? Vai mēs gribam vēl vairāk samazināt Eiropas konkurētspēju? Nekavējoši ir pilnībā jāatceļ zaļais kurss un visa nauda jānovirza aizsardzības industrijai. Ja mēs to neizdarīsim tūlīt, tad mēs neizglābsim ne klimatu, ne drošību.
                  

Adam Bielan (ECR). – Mr President, the white paper and its implementation present a timely opportunity to ensure Europe's boosted commitments translate into real capabilities and enhance protection for our citizens.
The war in Ukraine has highlighted the consequences of inaction and overreliance on external partners for European defence. Beyond Ukraine, Europe has increasingly become the target of hybrid attacks and disinformation campaigns, directly threatening our political and economic stability.
But, despite all possible efforts, NATO remains the cornerstone of our security. If Europe needs to step up, any European-led initiatives must complement, not duplicate, NATO's role.
In its current form, the joint resolution is concerning. Instead of strengthening Europe's security, it promotes an alternative to NATO, undermines the autonomy of Member States in defence matters and risks deepening confrontation with the United States – our most important ally.
Instead, Europe must focus on real security: replenishing stockpiles, strengthening transatlantic ties and investing in credible deterrence.

Hilde Vautmans (Renew). – Voorzitter, commissaris Kubilius, dit is het belangrijkste debat van de geschiedenis, want op dit ogenblik hebben we 27 legers, 27 defensiebudgetten en 27 verschillende aankoopstrategieën. Nu zeggen we hier allemaal samen dat we meer gaan uitgeven aan defensie. Ik zeg dat hier al tien jaar. Dus zeg ik: ja, meer uitgeven, maar niet méér van hetzelfde. Het zal anders moeten, het zal samen moeten en het zal Europees moeten.
                  

                     Ten tweede, commissaris, maakt u gebruik van artikel 122 van het Verdrag om het Parlement buitenspel te zetten. Van mij mag het, maar dat gaat de kwaliteit niet verbeteren. Een goed Europees defensiebeleid voer je niet in achterkamertjes.
                  

                     Ten derde, commissaris, komt u volgende week met een witboek. Ik hoop dat het duidelijker en concreter is dan u vandaag bent geweest. Er moeten echt grote Europese programma's in staan en een routekaart voor een Europees leger. Ook dit zeg ik hier al tien jaar. U wilt de geschiedenis ingaan? Wel, commissaris, maak die routekaart voor dat Europees leger, of u mist de afspraak met de geschiedenis.
                  

Ville Niinistö (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, coming from a country that shares 1 300 kilometres of border with Russia and a country that has had over 50 wars or border skirmishes with Russia in its history, I must say to you that we must show respect to Ukraine that is protecting democracy today, every day, with their lives.
This is not a theoretical discussion about where Europe shall head. This is a very serious discussion about how we can protect the international rules-based order, the national sovereignty of countries, and the right of countries to determine their own fate. Russia and Putin do not believe in that. They want their empire, they want their sphere of influence, and they are building a war economy that is threatening Europe, but also countries outside of the EU.
By this paper – and I urge you, Commissioner, to be very strong and ambitious – we show that Europe is united, that we can invest in defence, we can create military capabilities where Europe is united and can also act alone without the support of the United States. And that is something that negates the threat of Russia and protects democracy and peace in Europe – that is what we must achieve.

Γιώργος Γεωργίου (The Left). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, τελικά θα το κάνετε, ε; Μέσα από έναν πολεμικό παροξυσμό, θα δαπανήσετε 800 δισ., που δεν τα έχετε, για τη δήθεν κοινή άμυνα. Μα, για να υπάρχει κοινή άμυνα, πρέπει να υπάρχει και κοινή εξωτερική πολιτική. Εδώ υπάρχουν πάρα πολλοί απρόθυμοι. Κάνετε παράνομες, αντι-θεσμικές παρασυνάξεις και ανακηρύσσετε την Τουρκία εγγυητή της ευρωπαϊκής ασφάλειας. Ντροπή! Δήθεν για να στηρίξετε την Ουκρανία και τον λαό της.
                  

                     Πέστε την αλήθεια, εκείνο που θέλετε, μέσα από ένα χυδαίο παζάρι με τους Αμερικάνους, είναι οι σπάνιες γαίες και ο πλούτος της χώρας. Πέστε, επιτέλους, την αλήθεια. Θα πτωχεύσετε τους ευρωπαϊκούς λαούς και θα πλουτίσετε τους εμπόρους του θανάτου, για να κινήσετε τις ευρωπαϊκές οικονομίες μέσα από τους εξοπλισμούς. Ήδη το ομολογήσατε: χέρι χέρι με το αμαρτωλό ΝΑΤΟ θα βαδίσετε. Πάει περίπατο, βέβαια, και η ευρωπαϊκή αυτονομία.
                  

                     Κύριε Επίτροπε, σπέρνετε ανέμους και οι ευρωπαϊκοί λαοί θα θερίσουν θύελλες. Η μπάλα είναι πλέον στα πόδια των ευρωπαϊκών λαών. Μόνον αυτοί μπορούν να σας σταματήσουν.
                  

Νικόλαος Αναδιώτης (NI). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, κατ' αρχάς συμφωνούμε με τη διαμόρφωση ευρωπαϊκής άμυνας, εφόσον θα τηρείται το αυτονόητο, ότι η επίθεση ενός κράτους μέλους, θα σημαίνει επίθεση εναντίον όλων των κρατών μελών. Ελλάδα και Κύπρος έχουμε κάθε λόγο να συμφωνούμε στη συνδιαμόρφωση κοινής, μεταξύ των κρατών μελών, άμυνας. Πλην όμως, πρώτον, σαφής ευρωπαϊκή εξωτερική και αμυντική πολιτική και διπλωματία είναι προαπαιτούμενο. Δεύτερον, συμφωνία ως προς την αρχή της συλλογικής άμυνας, ανάλογη του άρθρου 5 της Συνθήκης του ΝΑΤΟ, είναι απαραίτητη. Τρίτον, επιβεβλημένος, επίσης, ο πλήρως θεσμοθετημένος τρόπος συμμετοχής ευρωπαϊκών στρατευμάτων σε επιχειρήσεις υποστήριξης ειρήνης.
                  

                     Και τρία καίρια ερωτήματα:
                  

                     Πώς θα γίνεται η κατανομή των αμυντικών δαπανών για τη χρηματοδότηση των κρατών μελών; Απαραιτήτως, συναρτήσει πολλών και σημαντικών παραγόντων, φαντάζομαι, όπως του πληθυσμού των κρατών μελών και άλλων ιδιαιτεροτήτων τους.
                  

                     Θα υπάρχουν κράτη μέλη που θα λάβουν τη μερίδα του λέοντος; Ελλάδα και Κύπρος πρέπει να επωφεληθούν τα μέγιστα, δεδομένων των αυξημένων αναγκών λόγω γεωγραφικής τους θέσης και γειτνίασης με χώρες όπως η Τουρκία.
                  

                     Τελικά, ευρωπαϊκή άμυνα ή ευρωτουρκική; Σαφώς ευρωπαϊκή, σε κανένα μέρος της ευρωπαϊκής άμυνας και σε καμία αμυντική δαπάνη δεν θα συμμετέχει η Τουρκία. Δεν θα βάλουμε τον λύκο να φυλάει τα πρόβατα.
                  

Michael Gahler (PPE). – Mr President, colleagues, dear Commissioner, when the Lisbon Treaty entered into force, we began checking the potential of the treaty in the area of defence, starting with the costs of non-Europe in this policy area. Simply adding all national defence budgets showed how inefficient the expenditure was – almost no common planning, no common procurement. And since 2011, instead of making use of the single market on defence products, the abuse of Article 346, which made Member States step out of European spending.
Times have changed: there is war in Europe, Putin threatens all of us, and this US administration leaves doubt whether they will live up to their NATO commitments. That is why I thank the Commissioner for presenting this white paper on the future of European defence, together with the earlier announcement on the programme to ReArm Europe. Let us make the best out of it – let us defend our European way of life together and let us start on the front line, supporting Ukraine with whatever it takes as they defend their and our freedom. Slava Ukraini!


Lucia Annunziata (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, mentre discutiamo, giustamente la nostra decisione importantissima di preparare la difesa dell'Europa, Trump, Putin e Zelensky sono, mi sembra, totalmente impegnati, e molto attivi, a preparare il tavolo delle trattative.
                  

                     Un tavolo, da cui ricordo, noi siamo stati espulsi senza neanche essere stati avvertiti, a meno che il ministro Lubilius non lo fosse stato. Questo è un vulnus incredibile, è il vero punto di queste trattative: tenere fuori l'Europa.
                  

                     Allora, io vi domando: mentre prepariamo giustamente questo piano di difesa, non dobbiamo porci il problema e la priorità di tornare a quel tavolo? Ministro, noi rischiamo oggi di fare un grande discorso militare ma di tenere fuori la politica a cominciare dal ruolo del Parlamento.
                  

Alberico Gambino (ECR). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, il Libro bianco sul futuro della difesa europea rappresenta un'opportunità cruciale per delineare una strategia chiara, realistica ed efficace. L'Europa deve rafforzare la propria capacità difensiva, evitando, però, di duplicare la NATO o creare nuove sovrastrutture burocratiche prive di utilità.
                  

                     L'Italia sostiene una difesa più forte e fondata su investimenti mirati, su un'industria competitiva nei settori strategici dello spazio, delle comunicazioni e dell'innovazione tecnologica. Investire nella sicurezza non significa alimentare una corsa al riarmo ma dare stabilità, autonomia strategica e crescita economica.
                  

                     Ecco perché il piano presentato dalla presidente von der Leyen, a mio avviso, deve essere rinominato come Defence Europe.
                  

                     La sicurezza è la vera garanzia di pace ed è per questo che voglio stigmatizzare anche il comportamento di alcuni che si professano pacifisti solo per raccogliere pochi consensi senza pensare agli interessi nazionali.
                  

                     Il Libro bianco deve essere l'occasione per costruire una difesa europea solida, rispettando le specificità di ogni Stato membro, e rafforzare il ruolo dell'Europa nel mondo.
                  

President. – The next speaker is Petras Auštrevičius. Congratulations on the independence of your country.

Petras Auštrevičius (Renew). – Mr President, thank you, it is indeed a special day. Commissioner Kubilius, Minister, dear colleagues, I must repeat myself, what I have written in my speech, sorry for certain repetitions. Exactly 35 years ago on this day, Lithuania declared the restoration of its independence. We knew about the evil Soviet Empire from our own painful experience, but we had no illusions about the better future of Russia.
Now, we must not only change our thinking and policies, but also defend Europe and our fellow Europeans. We must ensure European security, which is measured by the weakest link in its defence. Therefore, we must act together, not selectively. We must act now, not tomorrow.
Standardisation of weapons and military equipment, mobilisation of financial resources for their innovation, and speedy production and further development of military mobility and capabilities – these are the most important things now.
For the European defence community should involve our partners from the very beginning, especially candidate countries like Ukraine. Close cooperation in this area will undoubtedly benefit all participant countries and, most importantly, our citizens.

Mounir Satouri (Verts/ALE). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, chers collègues, le monde que nous avons connu n'est plus. Celui dont le projet européen a rêvé ne naîtra pas par magie, même avec 800 milliards d'euros d'investissements dans l'armement. L'argent est indispensable, mais pas n'importe comment. Il ne doit pas venir des fonds structurels ou des fonds agricoles. Il doit financer une industrie de défense européenne et garantir l'interopérabilité de nos forces, et non alimenter des intérêts étrangers. L'argent seul ne suffit pas. Sans volonté politique et sans stratégie de défense commune, ces milliards ne feront que servir les projets de Trump.
                  

                     Notre stratégie doit reposer sur notre émancipation de la défense américaine et s'appuyer sur une force européenne permanente, dotée de son propre commandement et capable de défendre nos intérêts et nos valeurs. Elle doit être fondée sur le respect du droit international, un droit que nous devons défendre, de Gaza à l'Ukraine. Notre place est aux côtés des peuples qui se battent pour la justice. Nous aurions dû être aux côtés de l'Afrique du Sud devant la Cour internationale de justice. Nous aurions dû soutenir la Ligue arabe dans son plan de reconstruction de Gaza face au diktat de Trump.
                  

                     L'Union européenne ne peut plus rester spectatrice. Elle ne peut plus garder le silence sur les grandes initiatives de notre monde. Elle n'a plus le droit d'avoir peur. Elle doit s'émanciper et agir.
                  

Marina Mesure (The Left). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, penser l'avenir de la défense de l'Union européenne sans penser l'avenir de notre industrie de défense est absurde. Penser l'avenir de notre industrie de défense sans penser l'avenir des industries lourdes européennes est une voie sans issue. Prenons l'exemple de la sidérurgie: aux dernières nouvelles, pour produire des armes, nous avons besoin d'acier, sauf que les hauts fourneaux européens ferment les uns après les autres, faute de régulation des prix de l'énergie et de protectionnisme. Ainsi, au moment même où nous discutons ici d'autonomie dans le domaine de la défense, ArcelorMittal, qui est pourtant biberonné aux aides publiques, prévoit de délocaliser sa production en Inde, là où nous allons signer des accords de libre-échange. Sans acier européen, il ne peut y avoir d'industrie européenne de défense réellement autonome, et sans industrie européenne autonome, les 800 milliards d'euros annoncés par Ursula von der Leyen n'auront qu'un seul débouché: celui de l'industrie militaire américaine.
                  

                     Donnons-nous donc les moyens de cette autonomie, en changeant radicalement nos politiques industrielles et commerciales, en prônant moins de libre-échange et plus de protectionnisme, et en achetant européen.
                  

Ruth Firmenich (NI). – Herr Präsident, meine Damen und Herren! Die EU, die sich gerne als Friedensprojekt bezeichnet, will zur europäischen NATO werden – 800 Milliarden Euro sollen in Aufrüstung fließen. Und genau wie die NATO ist die EU weder Verteidigungs- noch Wertegemeinschaft. Denn wo sind die europäischen Werte, wenn es um Gaza geht? Wo sind sie, wenn die EU Wahlfälschung in Rumänien bejubelt? Und warum gab es nie eine Initiative der EU für eine friedliche Beilegung in der Ukraine? Jetzt wollen Sie stattdessen den Stellvertreterkrieg in der Ukraine auch ohne die USA fortführen.
                  

                     Frieden gilt Ihnen als Verrat – das erinnert an George Orwell. Sie sagen Verteidigung und meinen Angriff. Sie sind dabei, einen Krieg gegen Russland vorzubereiten. Einige träumen sogar von französischen Atomwaffen für die EU, auch wenn die Reichweite der französischen Bomber nur bis Hannover langt. Die Zeit der Illusionen ist vorbei, sagte Frau von der Leyen heute. Dies sollte allerdings vor allem für die hemmungslose Selbstüberschätzung der EU gelten, bei der man sich an das deutsche Kaiserreich erinnert fühlt. Die EU verkommt zum Europa der Rüstungskonzerne, für deren Profite Sie über Leichen gehen. Die Kriegskredite müssen gestoppt werden, wir brauchen Entspannungspolitik.
                  

(Die Rednerin lehnt eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der ‘blauen Karte’ von Virginijus Sinkevičius ab.)


Michał Szczerba (PPE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Nie miejmy złudzeń. Za oceanem nastąpiła zmiana paradygmatów, choć bardzo nam się to nie podoba, a mówiąc wprost – jesteśmy wściekli. Nigdy wcześniej tak bardzo nie potrzebowaliśmy jedności i planu. Nigdy wcześniej nie byliśmy tak bardzo zdani na siebie. Za długo byliśmy zależni od innych. Czas jazdy na gapę w wydatkach na obronność się skończył. To, z czym się mierzymy jako Europa, to deficyt bezpieczeństwa. To, co powinno nas połączyć, to odpowiedzialność. Na nowo trzeba przedefiniować relacje transatlantyckie i sojusze, których trwałość, ale też wzajemne zobowiązania, nigdy wcześniej nie były kwestionowane. Opuszczenie Ukrainy przez sojusznika i gwaranta jej integralności musi rozpocząć dyskusję o ryzyku i konsekwencjach opuszczania Europy. Rosja rozpoczęła wyścig zbrojeń. Europa musi na to odpowiedzieć.
                  

                     Deklaracja niezachwianego wsparcia dla Ukrainy musi wyrażać się w konkretach. Potrzeba odważnych działań, by to aktywa rosyjskie finansowały obronę Ukrainy. Biała księga to mapa drogowa, której musimy się trzymać konsekwentnie, odważnie i hojnie. Musimy dozbroić Europę. Musimy zabezpieczyć nasze granice. Muszą być jak tarcza. Musimy zapełnić nasze magazyny i musimy wykorzystać ten czas.
                  

                     Europe: stay the course.
                  

Tobias Cremer (S&D). – Mr President, dear colleagues, Vance, Musk and Trump have achieved in just about one month what Stalin, Khrushchev and Putin have failed to do in 80 years: they have undermined the transatlantic alliance, they have surrendered America's claim to global leadership and dismantled the legacy of US presidents from FDR to Ronald Reagan.
I am a committed transatlanticist, and I still refuse to believe that this is the end. I still have faith that America will be back, but I also know that Europe cannot wait for that. This is why it is good that European leaders are finally waking up. It is good to invest EUR 800 billion in defence. It is good that countries like Germany are finally breaking free from self-imposed fiscal straitjackets.
But funds alone are not enough: we must anchor this investment in a broader security strategy, one that recognises that, in an era of hybrid warfare, social cohesion and resilience are just as vital for our security as tanks and drones. This white book offers the opportunity for us to do just that, to be a blueprint for a whole-of-society approach to defence. One that defends Europe, regardless of who is sitting in the White House.

Εμμανουήλ Φράγκος (ECR). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, τήν πατρίδα ουκ ελάσσω παραδώσω. Είναι ο ελληνικός όρκος που έρχεται από μακριά. Δεν έχουμε αιώνιες φιλίες. Η ακεραιότητα της πατρίδας μας αποτελεί προαιώνια πίστη. Όλοι ανεξαιρέτως έχουμε συμφέρον να γίνει η ηλεκτρική διασύνδεση Ελλάδας-Κύπρου. Το έργο πρέπει να γίνει. Γι' αυτό πρέπει να υπάρχουν πλοία όλων μας, αποτρεπτικά για τους Τούρκους εισβολείς που θέλουν να πλήξουν ένα ευρωπαϊκό έργο κοινής ωφέλειας. Κανένα άλλο κράτος μέλος δεν έχει δεχθεί τέτοια επιθετική ενέργεια.
                  

                     Είτε μας αρέσει είτε δεν μας αρέσει η κυβέρνηση των ΗΠΑ, δεν υπάρχει ούτε ένας σε αυτή την αίθουσα που να διαφωνεί ότι το ΝΑΤΟ εξασθενεί. Το κενό το καλύπτει η Συνθήκη για τη λειτουργία της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης στο άρθρο 42 παράγραφος 7· η ρήτρα για την αμοιβαία άμυνα. Άρα μας ενδιαφέρουν οι υποδομές διπλής χρήσης. Μας ενδιαφέρει η δυνατότητα ναυπήγησης περισσότερων πλοίων στο έδαφός μας. Μας ενδιαφέρει όλους η ενισχυμένη στρατιωτική κινητικότητα, για να υπερασπιστούμε των Ελλήνων τα ιερά, όπως τη Θράκη, το Καστελλόριζο, την Κάσο και την προσωρινά υπόδουλη Αμμόχωστο. Σας ευχαριστώ.
                  

Lucia Yar (Renew). – Vážený pán predsedajúci, kolegovia, kolegyne, priznajme si to a hovorme to už nahlas. V Európe máme vojnu, akú sme nezažili od štyridsiatych rokov a pod tlakom novej geopolitickej situácie hrozí, že sa naozaj skončí prehrou Ukrajiny. Vojna sa ale môže posunúť aj hlbšie do Európy a presne o to Putinovi ide. Poraziť Ukrajinu, získať čas na prezbrojenie a destabilizovať nás medzitým dezinformáciami. Koho potom obetujeme? Pobaltie, Poľsko, moje Slovensko?
                  

                     Nemáme desiatky rokov, možno máme mesiace, aby sme vytvorili spoločnú obranu, ktorá Rusko odstraší, ale presne o tom odstrašení je táto debata. O asertívnosti a o našej jednote. A o tom by mala byť aj debata o bielej knihe. Áno, bude nás to niečo stáť, ale bude to cena prevencie a udržateľného mieru určite nižšia ako cena vojny. A aby zvýšené náklady nepadli na tých najbližších, na to máme v Európskej únii a v členských štátoch nástroje.
                  

                     Takže včera bolo neskoro. My sa musíme poistiť a investícia do spoločnej bezpečnosti je našou poistkou. Európa sa musí brániť.
                  

President. – Mr Sinkevičius, happy Independence Day!

Virginijus Sinkevičius (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, the upcoming white paper on the future of European defence is a crucial step. But the expectation is that it's going to be finally more than just a paper. It must be a real catalyst for action. We cannot afford to continue business as usual.
The security of our citizens and the integrity of our borders depend on our ability to act swiftly and decisively. We must accelerate our efforts to enhance interoperability among Member States' armed forces. This is not just about spending more on defence; it's about ensuring that our forces can work seamlessly together.
We need also to integrate our defence industries and streamline our procurement processes to avoid duplication and inefficiencies. We also should move beyond intergovernmental agreements and build a genuine European Defence Union.
Our support for Ukraine is not just a moral imperative. It's a strategic necessity. We must provide more arms and ammunition, expand training operations and integrate Ukraine's defence industry into our own.
In doing this, we must remember that our ultimate goal is peace. We are strengthening our defence to avoid war, protect our values and ensure that the EU remains a beacon of stability in the world.

Νικόλας Φαραντούρης (The Left). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, φίλες και φίλοι, συζητάμε για μία κοινή άμυνα και μία κοινή πολιτική ασφάλειας και άμυνας. Η Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή καταθέτει προτάσεις κι εμείς εδώ σήμερα συζητάμε την κοινή μας στάση στα ζητήματα αμυντικής πολιτικής. Μου φαίνεται ότι μας διαφεύγει όμως κάτι κρίσιμο: ότι η άμυνα δεν μπορεί παρά να είναι παρακολούθημα μίας κοινής εξωτερικής πολιτικής· ότι αποφασίζεις να υπερασπιστείς κάτι και δαπανάς χρήματα, όταν έχεις αποφασίσει ποιο είναι το διακύβευμα, για να θωρακίσεις εθνική κυριαρχία, εθνική ανεξαρτησία και κάθε σπιθαμή εδαφικής ακεραιότητας των 27 κρατών μελών.
                  

                     Δεν μπορούμε, λοιπόν, αγαπητοί φίλοι, πριν ακόμα σταθμίσουμε τα επόμενα βήματα μιας κοινής εξωτερικής πολιτικής, για την οποία είμαι υπέρ και πιστεύω στην κοινή μας στάση και το κοινό μας μέλλον σε αυτή την ήπειρο, να σπεύδουμε να ξοδεύουμε χρήματα, χωρίς να έχουμε καταλήξει στον αντικειμενικό στόχο. Σας ευχαριστώ.
                  

Lukas Sieper (NI). – Herr Präsident, werte Abgeordnete! Wenn wir über Verteidigung sprechen, dann sprechen wir über Krieg. Einen Krieg, der hoffentlich niemals kommt, aber einen Krieg, den nicht der durchschnittliche Abgeordnete hier, mit seinen 55 Jahren, führen wird, sondern meine Generation. Meine Generation! Aber wenn es so weit kommt, dann garantiere ich Ihnen: Meine Generation, die mit Frieden und Freiheit aufgewachsen ist, wird sich diese Freiheit niemals nehmen lassen.
                  

                     Wir werden unsere Union verteidigen, koste es, was es wolle. Wir werden an unseren Küsten kämpfen, wir werden an unseren Grenzen kämpfen. Wir werden auf unseren Feldern und Straßen kämpfen, und wenn es sein muss, auf jedem Hügel und in jedem Tal Europas. Denn Europa ist unsere Heimat, und für unsere Heimat werden wir uns wehren. Wir wollen keinen Krieg, aber wenn es sein muss, dann werden wir für unsere Freiheit kämpfen.
                  

Βαγγέλης Μεϊμαράκης (PPE). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, αγαπητέ Επίτροπε Kubilius, χαίρομαι που βρίσκεσαι σήμερα εδώ μαζί μας ως ο πρώτος Επίτροπος Άμυνας της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, γιατί, σκεφθείτε, κυρίες και κύριοι συνάδελφοι, ότι από το 2006, η κυβέρνηση της Ελλάδας της Νέας Δημοκρατίας, στην οποία ήμουν υπουργός Άμυνας, ζητούσε τη δημιουργία Επιτρόπου Άμυνας, την υιοθέτηση της ρήτρας διαφυγής στις αμυντικές δαπάνες και μια δύναμη αποτροπής και προστασίας. Πώς να μην χαίρομαι, λοιπόν, σήμερα, που 20 χρόνια μετά, με γρήγορους ρυθμούς υποτίθεται, η Ένωση υλοποιεί τις προτάσεις μας αυτές. Γι' αυτό και χαιρετίζω το σχέδιο της Ευρωπαϊκής Επιτροπής, το οποίο θα δώσει στην Ένωση την αυτονομία και ανεξαρτησία την οποία χρειάζεται και τη δυνατότητα της προστασίας των συνόρων της, τα οποία δεν βρίσκονται μόνο στην ανατολική πλευρά, αλλά και στην ευρύτερη περιοχή της Νοτιοανατολικής Μεσογείου, την οποία δεν πρέπει να ξεχνούμε ποτέ.
                  

                     Και για να το ξεκαθαρίσουμε: η Ευρώπη δεν είναι η ήπειρος του πολέμου. Είναι το κέντρο της ειρήνης, της ανάπτυξης, της ευημερίας και της ελευθερίας. Είναι γεγονός, λοιπόν, ότι μια περαιτέρω αμυντική και αποτρεπτική πολιτική θα δώσει στην Ένωσή μας τη δυνατότητα να δρα ενιαία στη διεθνή σκηνή, να έχει ενιαία εξωτερική πολιτική, να έχει ισχυρή παρουσία στο τραπέζι των διαπραγματεύσεων και να τη λαμβάνουν σοβαρά υπόψιν. Σας ευχαριστώ πολύ.
                  

Elio Di Rupo (S&D). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, l'histoire des civilisations nous enseigne qu'il n'existe pas de puissance politique respectée sans une force militaire capable de défendre son peuple. Dans votre stratégie, je pense que chaque euro investi dans la défense doit l'être en faveur de nos entreprises et de nos PME, ainsi que de nos ouvriers, employés et ingénieurs qui y travaillent.
                  

                     Qui dit sécurité des peuples dit aussi sécurité sociale. Défense et sécurité sociale vont de pair – lutte contre la pauvreté, logement, santé, retraites, et j'en passe…
                  

                     Enfin, Monsieur le Commissaire, pensez-vous vraiment qu'il soit possible de construire une Europe de la défense avec 27 pays? Vu l'urgence, ne faudrait-il pas inciter un groupe restreint d'États membres à aller de l'avant à ce sujet, comme nous l'avions fait pour Schengen?
                  

Rihards Kols (ECR). – Godātais sēdes vadītāj! Eiropas aizsardzībai ir vajadzīgas skaidras prioritātes un strādājoši mehānismi. Eiropas pārapbruņošana nevar balstīties tikai uz paplašinātu aizdevumu iespēju piedāvāšanu. Ir dalībvalstis, kas jau gadiem būtiski audzē savu aizsardzības finansējumu krietni virs minimālā līmeņa, un tas tiek darīts uz nacionālo budžetu rēķina. Papildus 150 miljardiem aizdevumos jāievieš arī grantu mehānismi, lai vairāk atbalstītu tās valstis, kas jau dara vairāk, gan dotu stimulu starpvalstu kopīgiem iepirkumiem. Nosakot kvantitatīvus kritērijus un sniedzot tiešus stimulus, mudinās valstis veikt kopīgus iepirkumus, kas attiecīgi veicinās lielākas investīcijas kopējā drošībā un nodrošinās iegādātā bruņojuma un tehnikas savienojamību un savietojamību, kas ir neapšaubāma prioritāte.
                  

                     Mums ir jāizmanto tās priekšrocības, ko sniedz Ukrainas aizsardzības industrija – Ukrainas attīstītās militārās tehnoloģijas jau ir pierādījušas sevi kaujas laukā. Iepērkot bruņojumu no Ukrainas, mēs palīdzam ne tikai tās ekonomikai, bet arī investējam savā drošībā.
                  

                     Aizdevuma plāns ir iezīmēts četriem gadiem. Sagaidu, ka paredzētie un papildu finanšu avoti būs dalībvalstīm pieejami tūlītēji, nevis kaut kad gada beigās.
                  

Bart Groothuis (Renew). – Mr President, Commissioner, having heard the President of the Commission and the President of the Council this morning, and you, dear Commissioner, just now, I worry that we got it wrong, at least partially.
It's not about rearming individual countries, as in the Cold War. That would be insufficient, as it does not deter our adversaries. It is about collective rearming into an alliance which is able to compete with the deterrence that NATO had in the 1980s. That is the task.
For Europe, this requires delivering strategic enablers to operate on a divisional level, Commissioner, and the majority of those enablers are currently being paid for and operated by the US, which is still our ally. But Europe needs to develop or buy such enablers ourselves now.
Secondly, continental Europe is much bigger than the European Union. So the solution when it comes to a solid security architecture should, therefore, also include the UK, Norway, Turkey, Iceland, even Canada in a European security council – of which nothing has been mentioned. The industrial policy in the white paper should follow this security architecture. I ask you to take this on board, dear Commissioner, and get it right this time.

Benedetta Scuderi (Verts/ALE). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, ‘ReArm EU’: ma quando ci siamo disarmati? Spendiamo in armi più di Russia e Cina; eppure nessuno si sente al sicuro. E invece di coordinarci, ora vogliamo gettare altre risorse in un sistema disfunzionale, legandoci a un'economia di guerra con sussidi per i già alti profitti dell'industria militare.
                  

                     Trump e Putin ridono della nostra disorganizzazione e ci impongono le loro regole: un'Europa sempre più povera, disorganizzata, priva di una governance politica e una difesa comune è ciò che vogliono e che gli stiamo consegnando con la nostra idea di difesa: 800 miliardi per 27 eserciti, senza una missione comune e senza vaglio del Parlamento.
                  

                     Più sicurezza è una governance unica e democratica, non 27; interoperabilità, non altre armi; infrastrutture, diritti, welfare e rinnovabili, non tagliare questi investimenti; diplomazia, corpi di pace, nuovi alleati, non escalation dei conflitti.
                  

                     Nasciamo per costruire la pace: non sono le nostre armi a fare paura ma il nostro potenziale come unione politica, federale e democratica. Spinelli diceva: un'Europa unita è il miglior modo per garantire libertà e pace.
                  

(L'oratrice accetta di rispondere a una domanda ‘cartellino blu’)


Marta Wcisło (PPE),
pytanie zadane przez podniesienie niebieskiej kartki. – Mówi Pani o dyplomacji? Mówi Pani o pokoju, o demokracji? A słyszała Pani dzisiaj kobiety z Ukrainy, z Białorusi? Słyszała Pani o gwałtach? Słyszała Pani o gwałcie na 4-letniej dziewczynce? W jakiej rzeczywistości Pani żyje? Chce Pani 500 mln obywateli Unii Europejskiej narażać? Weźmie ktoś za to odpowiedzialność? Czy Pani wie, co czują obywatele w Europie Wschodniej? Bo ja z takiej pochodzę. Skoro Pani nie wie, to niech Pani przyjedzie i z nimi porozmawia.
                  

Benedetta Scuderi (Verts/ALE),
blue-card answer. – Thank you for your question. Have I ever said that? Have I ever said that we shouldn't have a common defence? Have I ever said that Europe should not try to build a common defence and a defence that is democratic? I have not said that. I've just said that we spend on weapons already, but we do not co-ordinate weapons. We do not have energy security, we do not have energy independence. If we got cut out from US and Russia, which is happening at the moment, and we do not invest in our welfare and in our energy, how do we make defence? We cannot make defence – we need a union, we need to invest in our people, we need to invest in a Europe, but especially we need to have a more democratic and federal Union. Otherwise the dream of Europe will go away from our population – and if that goes, no one will fight for Europe.

Pekka Toveri (PPE). – Madam President, dear colleagues, some people in this plenary question the need for defence investments. Either they say that we should try diplomacy or that Russia is not a threat – both are wrong. Russia has broken the Minsk agreements and other agreements hundreds of times and it is well recorded. We can't trust Russia. Diplomacy won't work.
Those who say that Russia is not a threat normally come from countries that has not been attacked, occupied, raped and pillaged dozens of times through history like Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and many other countries have. Don't lecture us about peaceful Russia, we know better!
Europe has finally – after decades of inaction – started to take the right steps towards our security and defence. Let us continue on this path.
I have three children, all in the Finnish army reserves, ready to defend us all. I want them to be properly equipped to do that. We must and we can afford to do that. Otherwise, saying that is not true, it is a lie.
And to those who claim that Russia's defence budget is much smaller than Europe's, please Google purchasing power parity and the Russian defence budget – you will be surprised.

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


Merja Kyllönen (The Left),
blue-card question. – Diplomacy really did not help Finland when our neighbour Russia decided to come across the border.
The US has also been a long-term partner, but now it seems that President Trump is using the divide-and-rule model known since Roman times to get China off Russia's side to divide Europe and oppress others under its own power.
One should not side with those who dream of Tsarist power or world empire. Mr Toveri, how do we find European cooperation and understand that the situation is that only a united and strong Europe, which covers its powers in all areas of activity, will survive?

President. – Excuse me, colleagues, blue cards are not an occasion for a speech in itself. Please stick to the question.

Pekka Toveri (PPE),
blue-card answer. – Thank you for the good question. I think we are living in very dangerous times, and this won't end in one year or two years, or not even in President Trump's term, it will continue for decades.
So Europe has to grow up and be strong – both economically and militarily – so that we can take care of our own independently, hopefully with good cooperation with the United States some time after Trump's term. But if not, we still have to be able to do it independently. We have people, we have money, we have innovation. We can do it.

Costas Mavrides (S&D). – Mr President, for years, very few of us were arguing in favour of European defence as a necessary step towards European autonomy.
Today, almost everyone supports it, and we recently reached European conclusions with reference to the defence of all EU borders, from the northeast down to the south and eastern Mediterranean.
But these EU borders are violated by the neo-Ottoman Turkey that occupies part of Cyprus. Currently, neo-Ottoman Turkey occupies also part of Syria and Iraq, it has a military presence in Libya and beyond. This neo-Ottoman Turkey has illegally intervened in the eastern Mediterranean, violating the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea against two EU Member States.
Paradoxically, though, the neo-Ottoman Turkey is considered an ally more than a threat. In fact, the Presidents of the Council and of the Commission had a teleconference the day after the conclusions to brief our partners, including Erdoğan, about European defence.
Mr Commissioner, this is hypocrisy in action. It divides us, and I strongly believe that it will not fool this House, neither the EU citizens.

Beata Szydło (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Panie Komisarzu! Wojna toczy się tu i teraz i te działania, które musimy podjąć, musimy podejmować natychmiast. Oczywiście rozmowa na temat przyszłości obronnej i bezpieczeństwa Europy jest konieczna i dobrze, że ona się toczy. Ale, Szanowni Państwo, czy pamiętacie szczyt w Wersalu w 2022 roku? Przecież wtedy również były dyskusje na temat, co zrobić, żeby zwiększyć możliwości obronne Europy. Po trzech latach stoimy w tym samym miejscu. No, może różnica jest taka, że w międzyczasie gospodarczo Europa straciła konkurencyjność, a europejski przemysł ciężki, praktycznie zniknął. Więc gdzie jesteśmy w tej chwili?
                  

                     Ci wszyscy, którzy myślą, że możemy sobie poradzić bez NATO i ci wszyscy, którzy próbują w tej chwili obrażać się na Stany Zjednoczone, popełniają ogromny błąd. Trzeba wyciągać wnioski, trzeba iść do przodu. Polski prezydent Andrzej Duda zaproponował polskiemu rządowi, ażeby zmienić konstytucję i wpisać 4% PKB z polskiego budżetu jako gwarantowane środki na obronę, mimo że Polska już wydaje 5% PKB. Mam nadzieję, że polski rząd przyjmie tę propozycję, że większość rządowa przyjmie tę propozycję, i mam nadzieję, że inne państwa członkowskie NATO zrozumieją, że trzeba wywiązywać się ze swoich zobowiązań, żeby Europa była bezpieczna.
                  

Engin Eroglu (Renew). – Herr Präsident, sehr geehrter Herr Kommissar Kubilius! Wir haben heute tatsächlich eine sehr wichtige und historische Diskussion, und ich wünsche Ihnen sehr viel Kraft. Ich glaube, Sie sind der richtige Kommissar zur richtigen Zeit, und ja, wir brauchen auch einen starken Kommissar im Bereich der Verteidigung, denn wir gerade deutschen Abgeordneten haben mit Frau von der Leyen im Bereich der Verteidigung keine guten Erfahrungen gemacht. In diesem Sinne stärken wir Ihnen den Rücken, und bitte enttäuschen Sie uns nicht.
                  

                     Wenn ich dann hier die Reden höre von der extremen Rechten und der extremen Linken, wie die uns unterstellen, dass wir als Europäer Krieg wollen, dann wird mir wirklich schlecht. Wenn man sich das anschaut, wie historisch vergesslich diese Kollegen sind, von linker und rechter Seite, dann sollten diese Kollegen mal weniger TikTok schauen, damit ihr Wissen nicht begrenzt auf 30 oder 60 Sekunden ist, sondern sollten einfach mal ein bisschen mehr in den Geschichtsbüchern lesen.
                  

                     Wladimir Putin hat unmittelbar nach seiner ersten Wahl zum Präsidenten von Russland die Tschetschenen angegriffen, 1999. Dieser Mann tötet seit 1999, seit 25 Jahren, Menschen auf diesem Kontinent und an den Grenzen seines Kontinents und auch indirekt in Afrika mit seiner Wagner-Gruppe und auch stellvertretend in Syrien und überall woanders. Wir müssen verteidigungsfähig werden, um diesen Mann endlich zu stoppen, damit er weiß: So geht es nicht weiter! All seinen Nachfolgern, wenn er mal beim lieben Gott ist, müssen wir auch ein Zeichen setzen.
                  

Markéta Gregorová (Verts/ALE). – Pane předsedající, Evropa zbrojí, ne z touhy po válce, ale protože agresor na Východě vraždí naše sousedy a přátele a někdejší spojenec na Západě se od nás odvrací. Ano, mocenské uspořádání staré osmdesát let končí a v tom novém se o svou bezpečnost musíme postarat sami. Dospět. Je to historický moment evropské nezávislosti a bohužel jsme pozadu. Mluví se o stovkách miliard eur na obranu, ale chybí konkrétní plány. My nepotřebujeme nutně další rezoluce a to, co je v té bílé knize, už dávno víme. Dokonce nepotřebujeme ani další summity.
                  

                     To, co nyní urgentně potřebujeme, jsou investice hodné globálního hráče s 15trilionovou ekonomikou. Musíme autoritářům po celém světě ukázat naši skutečnou ekonomickou sílu a akceschopnost. Tohle je náš moment. No a musíme jednat okamžitě. Máme-li vůbec nějaký čas, je to čas, který nám svými životy vykupují ukrajinští obránci. Mysleme na to! Sláva Ukrajině a sláva Evropě!
                  

Alice Teodorescu Måwe (PPE). – Herr talman! Kommissionär Kubilius! Vi måste prata om elefanten i rummet. Räcker Europas befintliga kärnvapen för att avskräcka världens största kärnvapenmakt, Ryssland, även utan USA i ryggen? I dag innehar USA och Ryssland tillsammans över 90 %, motsvarande drygt 5 000 stridsspetsar var, av den samlade kärnvapenarsenalen. I Europa har Frankrike och Storbritannien kärnvapen motsvarande 515 stridsspetsar tillsammans.
                  

                     Ukraina ingick Budapestuppgörelsen 1994, varpå man gav upp sina kärnvapen. I gengäld försäkrade Ryssland att inte använda våld eller hota Ukrainas territoriella integritet och politiska självständighet. Ryssland bryter det löftet varje dag. Vi får inte vara naiva. Om vi inte vill riskera att Putins erövringskrig fortsätter längre in i Europa – i ett läge där Trumps uttalanden väcker frågor kring USA:s lojalitet och intressen – behöver vi skaffa oss en egen trovärdig avskräckningsförmåga, vilket i klartext betyder en större kärnvapenarsenal.
                  

                     I en perfekt värld hade vi inte haft några kärnvapen. Men så länge som den europeiska avskräckningsförmågan i praktiken bygger på amerikansk förmåga äger inte vi vår egen säkerhet.
                  

Tonino Picula (S&D). – Mr President, Mr Commissioner, dear colleagues, four years ago, many expected that NATO would be back to business as usual, and that Trump was a one-time incident. We also had the strategic compass drafted.
Unfortunately, the turbulent developments of today's world show us how that expectation was wrong, and how we cannot take things for granted anymore.
Strengthening our collective defence to respond to all kinds of threats in the current circumstances is a must. The responsibility we bear to our citizens is something we cannot betray. We have to provide the right incentives to fully develop our autonomous security and build the European Defence Union.
At the same time, funding should not come at expense of our successful social and cohesion policies, which is why we need a viable investment strategy.
Finally, you cannot choose your neighbours, but you can choose your friends. This is also an opportunity for the European Union to strengthen foreign and security ties with like-minded allies and partners all over the world.

Gheorghe Piperea (ECR). – Domnule președinte, securitatea și stabilitatea financiară ne sunt puse la grea încercare acum, după lupta ineficientă cu criza financiară și cu pandemia și eșecul ambițiilor climatice iraționale ale birocrației Uniunii Europene. Prelungirea războiului găsește și Uniunea, și statele membre slăbite economic, vlăguite și vulnerabile politic. Planul militar al Uniunii Europene prevede mobilizarea a 800 de miliarde în următorii patru ani pentru a întări capacitățile de apărare ale Europei. O idee bună în sine.
                  

                     Circa 650 de miliarde vor fi culese de la statele membre ale Uniunii, care vor fi nevoite să-și crească bugetele apărării și să se împrumute. Alte 150 de miliarde vor fi acoperite din noi facilități de împrumut, cu dobândă. Majoritatea fabricilor de armament sunt acum închise în țări ca România pe motiv de decarbonizare a economiei. Ne vom împrumuta pentru a importa armament. România are cea mai lungă graniță cu Ucraina, deci va avea și cel mai mare cost militar relativ la PIB. Efectele? Supraîndatorare și dezechilibru economic. Așadar, cui profită acest plan?
                  

Helmut Brandstätter (Renew). – Sehr geehrter Herr Präsident, sehr geehrter Herr Kommissar, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Wir, meine Generation, wir sind die glücklichste Generation, die in Europa, im freien Europa aufgewachsen ist. Und es ist die Verantwortung unserer Generation und derer, die nachher auch die Freiheit bekommen haben, für die nächsten Generationen dafür zu sorgen, dass sie auch in Frieden und Freiheit leben können. Ich sage immer: Wir haben nichts dafür getan, aber jetzt müssen wir etwas dafür tun, dass wir auch für die nächsten Generationen Europa verteidigen können – und das können wir nur gemeinsam machen. Das können wir nur gemeinsam machen.
                  

                     Und dann heißt es manchmal: Ja, Russland ist schwach, was sollen uns die schon tun? Der Kollege Eroglu hat schon sehr deutlich gesagt: Die Brutalität von Putin müssen wir bedenken – seit 1999 mordet er Leute; wir haben heute gehört, wie die Menschen in der Ukraine unter ihm leiden. Und er droht ja auch uns, und das wollen viele bei uns nicht zur Kenntnis nehmen, und das ist das Traurige.
                  

                     Es gibt auch Desinformation, da sind die sehr gut. Und leider sitzen auch in diesem Haus – jetzt eh nicht mehr, die sind schon woanders – viele Leute, die bei der Desinformation Putins mitmachen, die das, was er auf Russisch sagt, hier auf Deutsch, Englisch, andere Sprachen übersetzen und uns damit gefährden. Dagegen müssen wir uns auch wehren.
                  

Juan Ignacio Zoido Álvarez (PPE). – Señor presidente, señor comisario, tras unas semanas de tormenta geopolítica, pocos dudan ya de que necesitamos una defensa europea sólida, conjunta y bien financiada. Sin embargo, todavía hay algunos, desde la izquierda, que presentan una dicotomía tan falsa como peligrosa: o invertimos en hospitales o invertimos en tanques. Que pregunten a los ucranianos, que sufrieron cientos de bombardeos y ciberataques en sus hospitales, a ver qué opinan de su dicotomía.
                  

                     Señorías, poner a la opinión pública en esta encrucijada es, además de un intento por infantilizarla, una irresponsabilidad en un momento crítico para nuestras democracias. El futuro de la defensa europea exigirá esfuerzo, como nuevas partidas presupuestarias, un mejor aprovechamiento de los recursos existentes y una cooperación más estrecha con nuestros socios.
                  

                     Pero nadie está hablando aquí de eliminar la protección social, las pensiones o la sanidad. Por mucho que digan Sánchez y Zapatero, ni nos sobra el Ministerio de Defensa ni nos sobra el Ejército. La inversión en defensa no solo es necesaria, sino que es el mejor escudo para poder seguir disfrutando del Estado del bienestar.
                  

Jean-Marc Germain (S&D). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, chers collègues, l'Europe de la défense, enfin! Il aura fallu l'agression militaire de Poutine contre l'Ukraine; il aura fallu les ingérences étrangères; il aura fallu les cyberattaques; il aura fallu les sabotages; enfin, il aura fallu le lâchage de Trump. Il fallait réagir vite, et ce fut fait.
                  

                     Nous accueillons positivement le plan de la Commission, mais le compte n'y est pas. ReArm Europe repose bien trop sur les États membres; en effet, même à supposer que les 650 milliards d'euros attendus soient au rendez-vous, sans davantage d'emprunt commun, sans davantage de recours à un budget européen doté de ressources nouvelles, sans utiliser les 200 milliards d'avoirs russes gelés, nous pouvons dire adieu à la cadence accélérée, à l'interopérabilité et au bouclier antimissiles et antidrones; nous pouvons dire adieu à la protection nucléaire française étendue et à l'autonomie stratégique. Davantage d'Europe dans la défense, voilà le chemin d'une défense de l'Europe sans les États-Unis.
                  

                     Enfin, Monsieur le Commissaire, nous vous demandons solennellement de renoncer à puiser dans les fonds de cohésion pour financer l'effort de défense. C'est notre ligne rouge sociale pour votre livre blanc sur la défense. On ne bâtira pas la force de l'Europe sur l'affaiblissement de son peuple.
                  

Γεάδης Γεάδη (ECR). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, έχω δηλώσει ξανά ότι η προσπάθεια για κοινή ευρωπαϊκή άμυνα αποτελεί ορθό βήμα, συνεπεία των γεωπολιτικών εξελίξεων. Επιβάλλεται ανάπτυξη ενός πλήρως ικανού ευρωπαϊκού πυλώνα του ΝΑΤΟ, ο οποίος θα είναι σε θέση να ενεργεί αυτόνομα όποτε χρειάζεται και θα μετατρέπει τις διακηρύξεις για αλληλεγγύη μεταξύ των ευρωπαϊκών κρατών από λόγια σε πράξεις. Συζητώντας όμως για το μέλλον της ευρωπαϊκής άμυνας, δεν μπορώ να παραλείψω ότι είδαμε την Τουρκία καλεσμένη στη συνάντηση στο Λονδίνο στις 2 Μαρτίου και τον σουλτάνο Ερντογάν να δηλώνει με θράσος πως η νέα αρχιτεκτονική άμυνας της Ευρώπης δεν μπορεί να μην περιλαμβάνει την Τουρκία.
                  

                     Κυρίες και κύριοι, η απάντηση πρέπει να είναι σαφής. Όχι μόνο η Τουρκία πρέπει να μείνει μακριά από την ασφάλεια της Ευρώπης, όταν το μόνο που προσφέρει στην Κύπρο, την Ελλάδα, την Αρμενία, το Ισραήλ, είναι απειλές και ανασφάλεια αλλά επιβάλλεται να θέσουμε κυρώσεις και βέτο πώλησης ευρωπαϊκού στρατιωτικού οπλισμού, ενόσω συνεχίζεται στην Κύπρο η κατοχή, ενόσω συνεχίζει να απειλεί την Ελλάδα με πόλεμο.
                  

Wouter Beke (PPE). – Voorzitter, who will defend Europe? Dat is niet alleen de titel van een boek. Dat is ook de cruciale vraag die hier vandaag voorligt. Who will defend Europe? En toen de commissaris aangetreden is, heeft hij gezegd: we hebben een big bang nodig. 800 miljard ligt er op tafel, mijnheer de commissaris. Maar gisteren had u het op Bloomberg TV zelfs over de noodzaak van duizend vijfhonderd miljard om ons te beschermen. Nu, geld is één zaak. De manier waarop we het moeten inzetten is een andere zaak.
                  

                     Laat ons van deze crisis gebruikmaken, deze kans benutten, om het geld efficiënt in te zetten, om het Europees in te zetten. Better together European. Dat moet het adagium zijn, anders is het een missed opportunity. We moeten het samen kunnen doen. De laatste Eurobarometer is duidelijk: de grootste zorg van de Europeanen is hun bescherming, is hun veiligheid. U heeft dus een stevig mandaat, niet alleen geld, maar u heeft een stevig mandaat om samen te werken aan die Europese defensie. Doe het nu. U heeft onze steun.
                  

Carla Tavares (S&D). – Senhor Presidente, Senhor Comissário, com a realidade que vivemos hoje, é inegável e inadiável promover mais investimentos na nossa segurança e defesa comuns.
                  

                     Temos de garantir que a União está preparada para enfrentar todo o tipo de ameaças, desde as híbridas às convencionais, estabelecendo uma forte dissuasão, reduzindo as nossas dependências e reforçando a nossa autonomia.
                  

                     Mas qualquer ideia de tentar escolher entre investimentos em segurança e defesa, ou em coesão social, ou em coesão, resultaria numa derrota certa em ambas as frentes. Qualquer estratégia de investimento tem de ser abrangente, terá de abordar tanto as nossas vulnerabilidades em capacidades militares como as do nosso tecido social.
                  

                     Estas são decisões estratégicas para a União e para o seu futuro. Isso significa que o Parlamento Europeu não deve ser excluído dos processos de decisão no que diz respeito aos programas de despesa subjacentes às opções tomadas para a União Europeia.
                  

                     A recente proposta do ReArm inclui novos empréstimos conjuntos com base no artigo 122.o do Tratado sobre o Funcionamento da União Europeia — e não podemos deixar de lamentar o recurso, novamente, a este artigo, que exclui o Parlamento da decisão. O Parlamento Europeu é a única instituição com poderes legislativos, orçamentais e de supervisão, com legitimidade democrática conferida pela eleição direta dos seus membros.
                  

                     Estamos cá para decidir em prol dos cidadãos europeus.
                  

Fernand Kartheiser (ECR). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, en 2012, l'Union européenne avait reçu le prix Nobel de la paix. Montrons-nous donc à la hauteur de cette distinction. Au lieu de réarmer, apprenons d'abord à nous reparler.
                  

                     Notre première ligne de défense doit être une bonne diplomatie. Or, à cet égard, l'Union pourrait faire beaucoup mieux. Nos relations sont tendues avec Washington, difficiles avec Pékin et inexistantes avec Moscou. Ce n'est pas toujours la faute des autres. Nous devons réapprendre à pratiquer la diplomatie, à communiquer, à écouter et à comprendre, même dans des circonstances apparemment adverses.
                  

                     Notre deuxième ligne de défense est la dissuasion. Nous voulons améliorer nos armées, mais essayons d'éviter une course à l'armement. Faisons plutôt renaître les mesures de confiance et veillons à ne pas dépenser de sommes démesurées et à ne pas contracter des dettes faramineuses pour couvrir des dépenses militaires. Nos sociétés connaissent encore bien d'autres besoins, souvent plus pressants. Le réarmement est une activité dangereuse à maints égards, vers l'extérieur comme vers l'intérieur: gardons-le sous contrôle.
                  

Hélder Sousa Silva (PPE). – Senhor Presidente, Senhor Comissário, a segurança da Europa finalmente deixou de ser uma questão secundária.
                  

                     O Livro Branco sobre o futuro da defesa europeia é um bom — é um excelente — alicerce, sobre o qual construiremos uma verdadeira União Europeia da Defesa. As nossas prioridades são claras: uma abordagem abrangente à segurança europeia, aumentar significativamente o investimento em defesa e desenvolver uma indústria de defesa credível, autónoma e soberana.
                  

                     A Comissão apresentou o plano ReArm Europe para mobilizar, inicialmente, 800 mil milhões de euros. Apoiamos estas medidas, mas exigimos compromissos vinculativos e imediatos com responsabilidades atribuídas a todos os Estados-Membros.
                  

                     A diplomacia sem capacidade de dissuasão é um pleno exercício de fraqueza. É tempo de honrar a responsabilidade histórica que nos foi confiada, e a História será escrita em função da nossa ação ou da nossa inação.
                  

(O orador aceita responder a uma pergunta ‘cartão azul’)


João Oliveira (The Left),
Pergunta segundo o procedimento ‘cartão azul’
                        . – Senhor Deputado Hélder Sousa Silva, o senhor deputado considera mesmo que é com a corrida aos armamentos que se garante a paz e a segurança coletiva?
                  

                     A União Europeia já despende hoje três vezes e meia mais em gastos militares do que a Rússia e 1,3 vezes mais do que a China. Qual é o sinal que se dá ao resto do mundo com esta corrida aos armamentos?
                  

                     Como é que desviar verbas dos fundos da coesão para os gastos militares pode corresponder às necessidades e expectativas dos povos? O senhor deputado não acha que se põe em risco não apenas aquilo que era prioritário para a vida dos povos, como, ainda por cima, se acentua a ameaça e o risco de a confrontação e a guerra se tornarem mais globais?
                  

Hélder Sousa Silva (PPE),
Resposta segundo o procedimento ‘cartão azul’
                        . – (início da intervenção com o microfone desligado) … tende a não ver a verdadeira dimensão do problema. A esquerda em Portugal vê que a China se está a armar, vê que a Rússia já se armou, mas quer que a Europa continue a enterrar a cabeça na areia.
                  

                     Aquilo que nós dizemos é ‘não’, nós queremos ter capacidade mínima de dissuasão para defender o povo europeu dos 27 Estados-Membros.
                  

                     Nós não queremos fazer um armamento até aos dentes, como se diz em bom português, nós queremos ter uma capacidade de dissuasão mínima para não sermos invadidos, como foi a Ucrânia, injustamente, por Putin.
                  

Eero Heinäluoma (S&D). – Arvoisa puhemies, nyt jos koskaan on tärkeää, että eurooppalaiset kokoontuvat yhteen ja puolustavat omia arvojaan. Venäjän raakalaismainen hyökkäys Ukrainaan pakottaa meidät satsaamaan turvallisuuteen. Vastaus Yhdysvaltain uuden hallinnon linjauksiin taas edellyttää sekin Euroopan omien suorituskykyjen vahvistamista.
                  

                     Komission puolustuksen valkoinen kirja on vasta alku tarpeellisille johtopäätöksille. Puolustusalan yhteistyössä on mentävä paljon pidemmälle kuin mitä komissio nyt esittää.
                  

                     Kun laitamme lisää rahaa puolustukseen, meidän on varmistettava, että nämä rahat tuovat turvaa myös taloudellisesti. Eurooppalainen puolustusteollisuus tarvitsee pitkälle tulevaisuuteen vakaita hankintaohjelmia. EU-rahalla tulee luoda osaamista ja työpaikkoja Eurooppaan – ei valtamerten ylitse. Buy European.
                  

Antonio López-Istúriz White (PPE). – Señor presidente, señor comisario, algunos —como usted y como yo— llevamos años pidiendo más gastos en defensa en esta Unión Europea. Ahora ya se nos han unido todos, menos mal, ya era hora. Vamos a ver si esto por fin hace que Europa pueda defender también su sistema de bienestar.
                  

                     Muchas gracias por el Libro Blanco y por los millones que van a acompañar a todo este asunto. El tiempo, como digo, nos dirá si estamos a tiempo de defendernos sin renunciar a este estado de bienestar.
                  

                     Las dudas que ahora son explotadas por los populistas y por la extrema izquierda se podían haber resuelto si se hubiese actuado antes. Pero la presidenta de la Comisión y el anterior alto representante han callado y han colaborado para cubrir la falta de cumplimiento de nuestros deberes en materia de defensa en el pasado en países como el mío, España.
                  

                     Ya no se trata de gastar dinero para mantener una buena relación con Maduro, ya no se trata de pagar más a las policías autonómicas que al Ejército español; se trata, sin duda, ahora, de gastar en defender nuestro sistema de bienestar. A ver cómo se lo explican a sus socios comunistas e independentistas. Ahí les quiero ver.
                  

Thijs Reuten (S&D). – Mr President, Commission, Council, dear colleagues, Europe is already under attack. And you, Commissioner, understand the need for bold ambition and courageous action, which the Parliament shares with you.
Member States say they do as well, but I'm not sure, at least not about all of them – your Member State excluded. They have had their chance to get European defence right, but they squandered precious time and opportunity for the last 15 years. Despite programmes, funds, platforms to promote true European cooperation, Member States have proven unable to rise above narrow national interests. And this costs us military ability, precious money and desirable jobs.
European security is a collective public good for all citizens. It should go hand in hand with resilient societies, with sound education, care and social fabric. No contradiction there. We need a truly European approach to defence that includes European financing, European planning, development, procurement and operational command. Let's get to work.

Željana Zovko (PPE). – Mr President, dear Commissioner Kubilius, as you are presenting the white paper on the future of European defence, you will set the tone for strengthening our defence capabilities and industrial competitiveness.
Some important elements must be addressed in this strategic document. As the foundation for our approach to European defence, we must take into account the security challenges of all Member States. When building the future of our defence, it is crucial that we are more open and comprehensive, including by considering the threats that our borders are facing, big and small, and from the east and the south, as we have heard here. The borders and the states of the eastern and south-eastern flank must engage in defence cooperation with our partners in enlargement countries that are participating in our CSDP missions that fully align with our Common Foreign and Security policy. By involving enlargement countries industry in defence procurement, we will fortify the security of European borders.
Finally, all the stakeholders should be engaged in building European defence. Only by having a state in our common defence vision, all Member States and citizens will embrace this paper as their textbook for future defence of our citizens. Once again, I warmly welcome the announcement that the US is engaging again to help Ukraine at this moment while we are building our European defence, and the good news from Riyadh is an encouraging step in our transatlantic relations.

Evin Incir (S&D). – Mr President, Commissioner, it is crucial that we cultivate strength. Recent global events, from the aggression of the dictator Putin to Trump's approach in the US, remind us of the urgent need for unity within the EU.
It is astonishing to find ourselves discussing the impact of both Putin and a US President in the same breath, but a fact is a fact. For the sake of future generations, we must invest in our industries, in our defence, in infrastructure and cybersecurity capacity, ensuring our societies are robust and resilient.
Moreover, we must broaden our alliance beyond the traditional transatlantic relations. While the partnership with the US is still important, Europe should also strengthen ties with states like the UK, Canada, Brazil, Mexico, India, Japan and countries across Africa. The future of global security, of course, depends on our strength, but it also depends on our cooperation with states with shared values and interests.

President. – I will not take blue cards for the moment because we are running very much behind.

Mika Aaltola (PPE). – Arvoisa puhemies, komission jäsen Kubilius, maailmalla yleistyy transaktionalistinen suurvaltatoiminta, pakottavan voiman diplomatia. Tehdyt linjaukset Euroopan varustautumisesta Venäjän varalle ovat sangen järkeviä.
                  

                     On aika aikuistua. Päätökset olisi ollut hyvä tehdä jo kolme vuotta sitten, mutta satsaamalla puolustukseen nyt voimme kolmen vuoden päästä ehkä huokaista helpotuksesta. Ukrainan vahvuus ja tuen jatkuminen on nähtävä Euroopan puolustuksen samanaikaisena synnyttämisenä.
                  

                     Liiallinen Amerikka-riippuvuuden karsiminen vaatii eurooppalaisten vaihtoehtojen kehittämistä. Tilanne, jossa noin 70 prosenttia kaikesta hankinnasta tehdään Yhdysvalloista, ei ole kestävä malli. Paljon kestävämpää on Euroopan teollisen kapasiteetin valjastaminen painavan pelotteen synnyttämiseen.
                  

Vasile Dîncu (S&D). – Domnule președinte, domnule comisar Kubilius, am auzit azi că timpul iluziilor a trecut, deci trebuie să spunem că și timpul strategiilor de hârtie a trecut. Avem nevoie în acest moment de o foaie de parcurs pentru o armată europeană. Avem nevoie de un plan de acțiune pentru a consolida autonomia strategică a Uniunii Europene și pentru a diminua dependența de NATO din acest moment. Avem nevoie de trei piloni pentru asta. Despre primii doi s-a vorbit mult: crearea în primul rând a unei capacități militare proprii, apoi o industrie de apărare integrată și mai ales, aș spune, o strategie proprie de descurajare. Voi insista asupra acestui al treilea element.
                  

                     Avem nevoie de un mecanism european de descurajare militară și economică, capabil să contracareze amenințările externe fără a depinde de NATO, și aici ar fi câteva lucruri. În primul rând, ar fi nevoie de o construcție a unei doctrine proprii, a unui scenariu de răspuns militar în cazul unui atac, și de operaționalizare a articolului 42 din Tratatul privind Uniunea Europeană, similar articolului 5 din NATO. Ne trebuie un scut european de apărare pentru atacuri cibernetice, de exemplu, dar poate și un scut antirachetă și, de asemenea, o definire clară a momentelor și a circumstanțelor în care Uniunea Europeană intervine militar, atât în intern, cât și în extern. Sunt investiții de inteligență absolut necesare. De asemenea, ne-ar trebui și o structură de guvernanță în apărare, pentru că acum este fragmentată.
                  

Matej Tonin (PPE). – Mr President, Commissioner, esteemed colleagues, now more than ever, we need a true European Defence Union. Today we face a key moment for our defence under the REARM Europe plan. While I strongly advocate for this initiative, we must recognise that we are at least three years late in addressing our defence needs.
Europe must reclaim its own security. We are at the beginning of an important journey to develop a European army. Together we can turn our vision into reality, but this will require strong commitment from all of us.
This is not just about buying equipment. It's about coming together. We must address challenges with a united military force. We need to significantly expand our military capabilities. Yes, challenges will come, just as they did with introducing a common currency – the euro. But today, the euro is a pillar of European stability. Tomorrow we have to add a European army.

PRESIDENZA: ANTONELLA SBERNA


Vicepresidente


Klára Dobrev (S&D). – Elnök Asszony! A mai napon egyszerűen csak szerettem volna örülni annak, hogy a múlt héten megszületett a megállapodás az erős európai védelemről, de sajnos nekünk, magyaroknak a múlt héten a világ veszélyesebb hellyé vált, mint volt előtte. Mert miközben Európa összefogott, mert megértette, hogy az állampolgárait csak itt tudja nagyobb biztonságban, aközben Orbán Viktor egy újabb lépést tett afelé, hogy országunkat kivezesse az Európai Unióból.
                  

                     Már nem elég, hogy belülről bomlasztja, Putyin utasításai alapján elutasít mindent, ami Ukrajna támogatásáról szól, de a múlt héten egy olyan törvényjavaslatot kezdeményeztek, amely lehetővé fogja tenni, hogy magyar állampolgárokat, a kormánynak nem tetsző civileket és politikusokat száműzzenek az országból. Ez országom Európa Tanácsból történő kilépését jelentené azonnal, amely egy hatalmas lépés az Európai Unió elhagyása felé. De nem fogjuk hagyni, Európa erősebb, és így Magyarország is erősebb lesz Orbán nélkül.
                  

Λουκάς Φουρλάς (PPE). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, φίλε κύριε Επίτροπε, η Ευρώπη δεν μπορεί πλέον να βασίζεται σε τρίτους για την ασφάλεια και την άμυνά της. Η επικείμενη Λευκή Βίβλος για το μέλλον της ευρωπαϊκής άμυνας πρέπει να ανοίξει τον δρόμο για τη δημιουργία μιας ευρωπαϊκής δύναμης που να είναι σε θέση να υπερασπιστεί τα σύνορα και τα συμφέροντά της. Αυτό υποστηρίζω από την πρώτη μέρα της εκλογής μου. Δεν μπορεί όμως να ξεκινάμε λάθος. Και θέλω να είμαι σαφής. Δεν μπορεί σε αυτή την προσπάθεια του Ευρωπαϊκού Αμυντικού Μηχανισμού να συμμετέχει η Τουρκία, μια χώρα που κατέχει παράνομα ευρωπαϊκό έδαφος. Μια χώρα που είναι πειρατής στη Μεσόγειο και απειλεί συνεχώς άλλα γειτονικά της κράτη. Μια χώρα που δεν εναρμονίστηκε με τις κυρώσεις κατά της Ρωσίας, αντίθετα ενισχύθηκε οικονομικά και ουδέποτε αναγνώρισε τη Χαμάς ως τρομοκρατική οργάνωση. Σας καλώ να αναλογιστείτε τις ολέθριες συνέπειες από μια τέτοια εξέλιξη. Επιβάλλεται να γίνουν βήματα προς την αμυντική αυτονομία. Αυτό το στηρίζω σθεναρά. Όχι όμως να γίνουν βήματα προς τη λάθος κατεύθυνση. Ευχαριστώ πολύ.
                  

Εμμανουήλ Κεφαλογιάννης (PPE). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, κυρίες και κύριοι: ευρωπαϊκή άμυνα. Ζούμε τη μεγαλύτερη κρίση από τον δεύτερο Παγκόσμιο Πόλεμο. Ας κάνουμε την κρίση αυτή ευκαιρία. Ας πιάσουμε ξανά το νήμα εκεί που το αφήσαμε πριν 70 χρόνια. Τότε που οραματιζόμαστε να δημιουργήσουμε την Ευρωπαϊκή Αμυντική Ένωση —European Defence Community—, την οποία καταψήφισε η γαλλική Εθνοσυνέλευση το 1950, για να δημιουργήσουμε τη Δυτικοευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, έναν οργανισμό που για 50 χρόνια ελάχιστα προσέφερε στην ευρωπαϊκή άμυνα και ασφάλεια.
                  

                     Κυρίες και κύριοι, ας ενισχύσουμε την άμυνα και την ασφάλεια, και σε εθνικό επίπεδο και με τα 150 δισεκατομμύρια του ευρωπαϊκού προϋπολογισμού. Δύναμή μας η Ευρώπη των αρχών και των αξιών, η Ευρώπη της ειρήνης, η Ευρώπη του διεθνούς δικαίου, η Ευρώπη της ειρηνικής επίλυσης των διαφορών. Δύναμή μας η Ευρώπη του σεβασμού του Καταστατικού Χάρτη του Οργανισμού των Ηνωμένων Εθνών. Σας ευχαριστώ για την προσοχή σας.
                  

Seán Kelly (PPE). – A Uachtaráin, a Choimisinéir Kubilius, Russia's invasion of Ukraine has upended European security, bringing conventional warfare back to our doorstep. Hybrid threats like cyber-attacks and disinformation now target our institutions.
For too long, Ireland has overlooked security and defence. While we remain committed to military neutrality, it does not equate to vulnerability. Securing our territorial waters and airspace is crucial, and the Government is prioritising the much-needed investment in our defence forces.
That is why I support Ireland's increased ambition in terms of urgent investment in primary radar, naval expansion and air defence. These are not luxuries: they are fundamental to our national security.
At the same time, Ireland's commitment to neutrality remains steadfast. But neutrality must be fit for purpose for the 21st century. That means contributing meaningfully to European security and contributing in areas in which we have a considerable degree of experience and expertise – like peacekeeping, for example.
It's time to get off the fence and get on with defence.

Ana Miguel Pedro (PPE). – Senhora Presidente, Senhor Ministro, Senhor Comissário, a política de defesa deve ser guiada pelo realismo, não por ilusões.
                  

                     A União Europeia reconheceu o óbvio: a Europa não está pronta para se defender. A paz depende da força, e a Europa não tem a suficiente. Durante décadas, acreditámos num mundo sem guerra, numa ordem baseada em regras e num continente seguro, sem investimento em defesa.
                  

                     A NATO continua a ser o pilar da nossa segurança, imaginar uma defesa europeia isolada da Aliança é uma fantasia perigosa.
                  

                     Não precisamos de um exército europeu, mas de 27 forças armadas eficazes, interoperáveis, com padrões comuns e capacidade de resposta coordenada. Isso significa mais harmonização, defesa aérea avançada e uma indústria de defesa robusta; assegurar o domínio estratégico no espaço e no ciberespaço, tudo isto são escolhas que definirão o futuro da Europa.
                  

                     Os desafios que enfrentamos não são teóricos, são reais, e a História não espera por quem hesita. Precisamos de uma política de defesa à altura do nosso tempo.
                  

Christophe Gomart (PPE). – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, chers collègues, le général français que je suis connaît bien le monde de la défense et l'industrie de la défense. Les traités fondateurs de l'Europe, ceux qui protègent notre unité, nous rappellent que la défense n'est pas une compétence de l'Union européenne. Nous n'avons pas besoin d'une armée européenne; nous avons besoin d'armes conçues, produites et vendues par les Européens et aux Européens. Cela donnera de la cohérence à nos armées nationales.
                  

                     N'ayons pas peur de faire face aux défis auxquels nous sommes confrontés: une Russie très hostile; des États-Unis qui prennent leurs distances et nous divisent; une Turquie liberticide qui occupe un tiers de Chypre et soutient les djihadistes en Syrie et l'Azerbaïdjan contre les chrétiens d'Arménie; un islamisme radical qui nous menace à l'extérieur comme à l'intérieur; enfin, une Chine de plus en plus puissante, dont nous sommes le plus dépendants économiquement, car elle représente 21 % de nos importations.
                  

                     Soyons concrets: chaque pays doit accomplir cet effort de cohérence en achetant européen. En effet, des achats d'armes étrangères peuvent nous empêcher de mener les actions militaires que nous aurions décidées. Surtout, six États membres disposent de 120 à 4 000 entreprises de défense en mesure de répondre à nos besoins. Ces six pays doivent pouvoir vendre davantage en Europe et élaborer des politiques industrielles communes. C'est à ce seul prix que nous deviendrons indépendants et autonomes.
                  

Procedura ‘catch-the-eye’
                        


Radan Kanev (PPE). – Madam President, dear colleagues, I followed the whole debate and I heard really many reasonable voices from almost all the groups in this Parliament. It seems that we are united around the evident truth that European security is our natural, first and common priority.
To that, I would say common defence makes common sense, that security requires more than a Commission proposal and a Council consent, but a strong common effort to build a strong European industry, from steel to chemicals, from raw materials to weapons, and from food to space technology.
Above all else, it requires real unity, a grand political coalition of pro-Europeans crossing national and ideological lines, leaving the cultural wars behind and building consensus around universally accepted European values and interests.

Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – Señora presidenta, señor comisario, de este debate sobre la defensa europea emergen tres lecciones claras. La primera es que reforzar la defensa europea no puede depender de incrementar veintisiete presupuestos nacionales fragmentados entre sí, porque sin interoperabilidad ni estructuras comunes no tendremos ninguna capacidad disuasoria frente a Rusia, pese a que nuestro ejército y nuestros presupuestos conjuntos sean superiores a los suyos; no, desde luego, sin el paraguas de la OTAN y con una Casa Blanca desvinculada del compromiso de la seguridad colectiva del artículo 5 del Tratado del Atlántico Norte.
                  

                     En segundo lugar, para reinterpretar correctamente la cláusula de seguridad colectiva del Tratado de la Unión Europea (artículo 42, apartado 7) lo que tenemos que hacer es especializar por valores añadidos la conjunción de capacidades militares, innovación y ciberseguridad. Y la tercera lección es que eso no puede hacerse a costa ni del pilar europeo de derechos sociales ni de la cohesión europea, de modo que resulta imprescindible ensayar herramientas e instrumentos de financiación nuevos, incluida, naturalmente, la deuda común para sustentar el esfuerzo defensivo de Europa.
                  

Rasmus Andresen (Verts/ALE). – Frau Präsidentin! Ich glaube, dass man nach über zwei Stunden Debatte feststellen kann, dass hier eine große Mehrheit gewillt ist, mehr für unsere Sicherheit zu tun und, ja, auch mehr gemeinsam zu investieren. Aber ich finde, unsere Rolle als Europäisches Parlament sollte nicht nur sein, abzunicken, was die EU-Kommission vorschlägt, mit dem ReArm Europe-Programm, sondern darüber hinauszugehen.
                  

                     Und ich will ganz deutlich sagen: Wenn wir mehr Kredite auch gemeinsam in die Hand nehmen wollen, dann müssen wir dafür sorgen, dass sie effizient eingesetzt werden, dass Transparenz herrscht und dass wir auch mehr gemeinsam europäische Projekte nach vorne stellen.
                  

                     Ich glaube, dass, wenn wir die Schuldenregeln aussetzen, das nicht ausreicht, sondern dass wir eine richtige Reform der Schuldenregeln auf europäischer Ebene brauchen, um wirklich auch mehr gemeinsam zu investieren. Ich glaube, dass wir das nicht nur tun sollten für Waffen und Rüstungen – die alleine schaffen keinen Frieden und keine Sicherheit. Wir müssen auch in innere Sicherheit, in Cybersicherheit oder aber auch in Klimainfrastruktur investieren – nur dann werden wir als Europäische Union gemeinsam wieder souveräner.
                  

Lynn Boylan (The Left). – Madam President, I've been listening to the whole debate, and I've heard a lot of colleagues talk about defending democracy and about the need to join an EU army, but I would like to ask them, what about Ireland's democracy? What about our right to be a neutral country? Because repeatedly, Irish citizens have rejected any form of EU common security and defence or EU army, both at Nice and at Lisbon treaties. They rejected those treaties on that basis, and consistently polling data shows that 75% of the Irish population support our position of neutrality. So I ask colleagues who are calling for NATO, who are calling for EU armies, what about Ireland's respect for our democracy and our democratic wishes to remain a neutral country and to not have our cohesion funds slashed and burned for the arms industry of Europe? So, respect Ireland's democratic wishes.

Luis-Vicențiu Lazarus (NI). – Doamnă președintă, dragi colegi, realitatea crudă este că nu avem strategie, nu avem lideri, nu avem diplomație. De ce spun asta? Pentru că, în realitate, dacă aveam, acest război fie nu ar fi avut loc sau, acum, la trei ani distanță, am fi stat cu Trump la masă și am fi pus la cale nu numai pacea din Ucraina, ci și pacea de pe întreaga planetă. În schimb, Trump nu se uită la noi. Trebuie să înțelegem că America de astăzi a lui Trump nu mai e America de ieri a lui Biden. Trump vrea pace și prosperitate, Biden vrea război.
                  

                     Poate nu ar mai trebui nici noi să dorim război, poate nu ar trebui să cheltuim 800 de miliarde pe înarmare și poate ar trebui să căutăm soluții. Ce soluții sunt? Dacă Președinta Parlamentului European, doamna Roberta Metsola, a fost la Washington, am înțeles că a mers la cimitirul Arlington, dar n-a ajuns să se întâlnească cu Vance sau cu Trump. Atunci de ce s-a dus acolo, să viziteze un cimitir? Poate dânsele ar trebui să-și dea demisia, să punem alți lideri importanți în funcțiile care contează și să stăm la masă cu Trump pentru a găsi soluții de pace, căci altfel o să ne ducem în… (câteva cuvinte care nu se aud)


Krzysztof Hetman (PPE). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Panie Komisarzu! Szanowni Państwo! Europejska unia obronna musi stać się faktem. Europejska unia obronna jako sojusz gospodarczy musi być nowym kołem zamachowym dla europejskiej i polskiej gospodarki. Ale żeby to się stało, muszą być zaangażowane wszystkie środki, zarówno europejskie, krajowe, jak i prywatne. Dzisiaj o tych prywatnych bardzo dużo tu rozmawialiśmy. Ale, Panie Komisarzu, jeśli nie uporządkuje się spraw certyfikacji i akredytacji wszystkich produktów związanych z szeroko rozumianą obronnością, niestety nie będziemy potrafili wykorzystać tego potencjału prywatnych przedsiębiorców w tak ważnej sprawie jak kwestia obronności.
                  

                     I drugi element to kwestia preferencyjnych kredytów, które przedsiębiorcy muszą uzyskać, ale bez tej buchalterii urzędniczej i biurokracji, która niesie za sobą środki europejskie pochodzące z budżetu Unii Europejskiej. Jeśli będziemy potrafili zaangażować w to prywatny biznes, prywatnych przedsiębiorców, pozostałe inne środki, jestem przekonany, że Europejska Unia Obronna będzie dla nas wszystkich naprawdę wielkim sukcesem.
                  

Davor Ivo Stier (PPE). – Madam President, dear colleagues, I think that we need to acknowledge that today the US has a different assessment of Russia and the threat it poses to European security. At the same time, we also need to acknowledge that we are cooperating well with the United States in promoting, for example, peace and stability in the Western Balkans, and that we need to keep that cooperation.
But in both cases, I think that we will be stronger allies and we will be a more secure continent by investing more and investing better in our defence. And that's why the ReArm Europe was necessary. We need to support it. It's probably not enough, but it's a decisive step in building the European defence capabilities. And that's why we also look forward to the white paper to be delivered next week, to see the ways how to spend not only more, but also to spend better and to produce more in the European Union.
We knew that we need to assume more responsibilities for our security. Now, that is not a choice. That is a necessity.

(Fine della procedura ‘catch the eye’)


Andrius Kubilius,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, I would like to thank you for this historic debate, as I said at the very beginning. It is very symbolic that we have this debate on this special day, for me, my Lithuanian colleagues here in Parliament and all the Lithuanian nation, on Lithuania's independence day.
In 1990, we regained our independence after 50 years of occupation by the Soviet Empire. My message on this day is very clear: we, Lithuanians, don't want to go through the same in the 21st century – another occupation and another independence day. I don't want my sons and my grandkids to face it and I don't want your – in the left, in the centre and the right – kids and grandkids to face the fate of Ukrainian children. That is why I wish Lithuanians a Happy Independence Day from the 1990s.
And to all my friends in Europe, I want to say: independence is easy to lose, but very hard to regain. We must now be ready to defend our European independence. I would like to remind you that Russia, this year, in so-called purchasing power parity terms, will spend for the war more than all of us in the European Union are going to spend.
I would also like to remind you of the numbers which NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte is always repeating. Now, at this moment, Russia during three months produces more weapons than all NATO Member States, including the United States, Canada, Great Britain, Norway and us in the European Union are producing during one year. We must really understand what this means. That is why I want to thank all of you for all of your support during this discussion, for Ukraine and for the defence of Europe.
Next week, we will present the white paper on the future of European defence, with a focus on investment capabilities and defence industry. We will continue our discussion and we will put words into action to deter aggression and prevent war.

Adam Szłapka,
President-in-Office of the Council. – Madam President, honourable Members, Commissioner Kubilius, congratulations with Lithuania's national independence day, of course. Thank you very much for this debate. I think we all agree that security and defence are top political priorities. I also see a lot of common ground when it comes to the question of defence financing and reinforcing our defence industry.
The special European Council last week gave a strong impetus to our work on European defence. The EU leaders had the first concrete discussion based on options tabled by the Commission. The President of the Commission presented them this morning. The EU leaders will continue their discussion on the European Council meetings next week and in June. As presidency of the Council, we stand ready to proactively take forward all initiatives that will reinforce European defence. I look forward to our continued exchange on this key topic and, of course, the forthcoming white paper on the future of European defence.

Presidente. – Comunico di aver ricevuto otto proposte di risoluzione a conclusione della discussione.
                  

                     Dichiaro chiusa la discussione.
                  

                     La votazione si svolgerà domani.
                  


Dichiarazioni scritte (articolo 178)



Γεώργιος Αυτιάς (PPE),
γραπτώς. – Η ενεργοποίηση της ρήτρας διαφυγής θα πρέπει να διασφαλίζει την ίση μεταχείριση μεταξύ των κρατών μελών της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης. Πρέπει να ισχύει η ίδια δημοσιονομική ελάφρυνση και σε εκείνα τα κράτη που ήδη καλύπτουν τον στόχο των αμυντικών δαπανών του ΝΑΤΟ, όπως η Ελλάδα, που δαπανά πολλά δισεκατομμύρια ευρώ για την προστασία των συνόρων της. Η Κομισιόν πρέπει να κινηθεί προς αυτή την κατεύθυνση, καθώς αρκετές χώρες της ΕΕ, όπως και η Ελλάδα, έχουν υποστεί τεράστιο κόστος για τη φύλαξη των συνόρων τους και την αναβάθμιση των αμυντικών τους δυνατοτήτων. Η σύσταση Ευρωπαϊκού Ταμείου Άμυνας είναι θετική. Ωστόσο, πρέπει εγκαίρως να διευκρινισθεί από την Επιτροπή ότι τα 150 δισεκατομμύρια ευρώ του νέου ταμείου πρέπει να αξιοποιηθούν αποκλειστικά και μόνο από τα κράτη μέλη της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης. Ουδεμία χώρα εκτός ΕΕ δεν πρέπει να δικαιούται χρηματοδότηση από την Ευρωπαϊκή Τράπεζα Επενδύσεων.
                  

Ioan-Rareș Bogdan (PPE),
în scris. – Cetățenii privesc cu îngrijorare planurile de a maximiza securitatea continentului prin investiții militare. Ei sunt conștienți că, fără ajutorul SUA, apărarea Uniunii Europene ar scădea semnificativ. Dar mai sunt conștienți că siguranța depinde de cât de mult investești în ea. Două aspecte trebuie avute în vedere de Comisie și Consiliul European atunci când vor stabili regulile concrete ale achizițiilor: transparența și obiectivitatea.
                  

                     În privința obiectivității, să nu uităm ceva: Vestul n-a trecut prin 50 de ani de comunism, unde nu au existat piață, competență, investiții în bunăstarea generală, transparență, ci doar lozinci sovietice bine ambalate. Decalajul este atât de mare încât a trata egal necesarul de investiții în apărare ar fi o nedreptate. Ar fi o neglijare a aspirațiilor cetățenilor din România, Bulgaria și restul țărilor din fostul bloc comunist în a-și obține infrastructuri civilizate în materie de sănătate, educație, transport, administrație.
                  

                     Și asta deoarece, dacă aloci bani pentru apărare, trebuie să îi iei din altă parte! Foarte mulți ani, în timp ce țările socialiste erau la frontiera Europei, orientate forțat, cu glonțul la tâmplă, către ruși, Vestul s-a dezvoltat. Românii au apărat Europa nu o dată și n-au vrut niciodată să o cucerească. Acum este rândul Europei!
                  

José Cepeda (S&D),
por escrito. – Vivimos un momento determinante para poner las bases en garantizar la defensa europea, y los socialdemócratas vamos a impulsar que se tengan en cuenta nuestras propuestas, que se entienda la seguridad como un concepto concreto y que no se comprometan las políticas sociales ni los recursos destinados a ellas para el necesario refuerzo de nuestra seguridad.
                  

                     Los principales temas que abordará el Libro Blanco son la evaluación actualizada de las amenazas para la UE, el apoyo a Ucrania y una estrategia para cerrar la brecha en nuestras capacidades de defensa y su financiación. Abordará la dimensión industrial, transformando la evaluación de amenazas y el análisis sobre la brecha de capacidades en un conjunto de objetivos industriales para la producción de capacidades y material de defensa.
                  

                     Los socialdemócratas defendemos mantener la capacidad de proteger a nuestros ciudadanos, disuadir a nuestros enemigos, apoyar a nuestros aliados y convertirnos en un actor poderoso en la defensa de un orden internacional basado en normas.
                  

                     Necesitamos un presupuesto sólido, además de otros instrumentos financieros europeos adicionales, una base industrial fiable y soberana, unas capacidades de seguridad europeas, incluidos los facilitadores estratégicos, y un mando integrado que permita a todas las fuerzas nacionales actuar bajo una única estructura. Defendemos, además, una contribución importante relacionada con la PCSD y sus aspectos operativos.
                  

Csaba Molnár (S&D),
írásban. – Európa csak akkor lehet biztonságos, ha képes saját magát megvédeni. Az Európai Unió döntése világos: erősítenünk kell közös védelmünket, mert ez nemcsak Európa, hanem Magyarország biztonságát is szolgálja. Miközben Európa összefog, Orbán Viktor újabb lépést tett az elszigetelődés felé. Nem elég, hogy belülről gyengíti az Uniót, blokkolja Ukrajna támogatását és Putyin érdekeit képviseli, de politikájával Magyarország európai jövőjét is veszélybe sodorja.
                  

                     Orbán Viktor nem akadályozhatja meg Európa megerősödését. A közös európai védelem az Európai Egyesült Államok felé tett újabb lépés és ez a jövő Orbán nélkül is meg fog valósulni. Mi, a Demokratikus Koalíció képviselői, egy olyan Európában hiszünk, amely nemcsak gazdasági és politikai, hanem valódi biztonsági közösség is. Erős Európa = biztonságos Magyarország. Mi ennek megvalósításán dolgozunk az Európai Parlamentben.
                  

Victor Negrescu (S&D),
în scris. – În contextul actual, marcat de evoluții geopolitice complexe, devine esențial să consolidăm industria de apărare europeană și să investim strategic în securitatea Uniunii Europene. Pentru a realiza acest obiectiv, este esențial să mobilizăm resursele europene disponibile, să sprijinim inovarea în domeniul apărării și să dezvoltăm capacitățile naționale de apărare.
                  

                     În acest sens, România are un potențial semnificativ de a deveni un actor important în industria de apărare europeană, însă pentru aceasta trebuie să acționăm rapid și strategic. Este necesar să simplificăm procedurile administrative, să implicăm mediul de afaceri, să creăm parteneriate strategice cu statele membre și să dezvoltăm proiecte concrete, care să contribuie direct la întărirea capacităților de apărare. În același timp, trebuie să elaborăm și să implementăm un plan național de dezvoltare a industriei de apărare, care să alinieze România la standardele și obiectivele europene.
                  

                     Avem nevoie de o viziune europeană de apărare care să răspundă eficient provocărilor externe, dar și să ofere o perspectivă strategică pe termen lung. Doar printr-o abordare colectivă și unitară putem construi o Europă capabilă să facă față amenințărilor actuale și viitoare.
                  

Bogdan Rzońca (ECR),
na piśmie. – Europa stoi przed kluczowym momentem w zakresie swojej obronności. Rosnące zagrożenia, takie jak wojna w Ukrainie, cyberataki i dezinformacja, wymagają natychmiastowych działań. Musimy wzmocnić nasze zdolności obronne i wyciągnąć wnioski z przeszłości, unikając iluzji, że możemy zapewnić bezpieczeństwo kontynentu w izolacji od naszych strategicznych sojuszników. Biała księga to krok w stronę zwiększenia naszego zaangażowania, ale musi ono przekładać się na realne działania, a nie tylko deklaracje.
                  

                     Każda inicjatywa wzmacniająca obronność Europy powinna uzupełniać, a nie dublować rolę NATO. Obecny projekt rezolucji budzi niepokój, ponieważ promuje alternatywę dla Sojuszu i podważa autonomię państw członkowskich w kwestiach obronnych. Co więcej, może prowadzić do niepotrzebnych napięć w relacjach z USA – naszym kluczowym sojusznikiem.
                  

                     Europa musi inwestować w realne bezpieczeństwo: odbudowę zdolności produkcyjnych, uzupełnianie zapasów oraz wzmacnianie transatlantyckich więzi. Kluczowe jest także, aby wszystkie państwa członkowskie wypełniały swoje zobowiązania obronne, wzorem Polski, która już dziś wydaje 5% PKB na ten cel. Tylko w ten sposób zapewnimy stabilność i odstraszanie.
                  

Mihai Tudose (S&D),
în scris. – Am votat rezoluția care prezintă propunerile Parlamentului European pentru documentul-cadru ce trebuie să asigure Europei capacitatea de a se apăra singură la orizontul anului 2030. Rezoluția identifică în mod corect deficiențele structurale ale bazei industriale tehnologice de apărare a UE – în special fragmentarea, subfinanțarea și lipsa competitivității. Drept urmare, este nevoie de pasul decisiv spre crearea unei piețe europene unice a apărării.
                  

                     De aceea, rezoluția noastră are la bază două principii esențiale: coerența și suveranitatea europeană în plan militar. Măsurile concrete pe care le propunem merg de la achizițiile publice comune pentru apărare la crearea unui sistem european de certificare a armelor, precum și de la înființarea unei bănci pentru apărare, securitate și reziliență la crearea unei flote aeriene a UE de răspuns în situații de criză și la investiții masive în infrastructura de mobilitate militară. Susțin totodată cererea fermă de transformări majore în plan decizional prin crearea unui consiliu al miniștrilor apărării și trecerea de la votul în unanimitate la votul cu majoritate calificată pentru hotărârile ce privesc securitatea europeană.
                  

Sebastian Tynkkynen (ECR),
in writing. – Europe's defence stands at a crossroads – we must rearm ourselves now. My home country, Finland, shares the EU's longest border with Russia: over 1 300 kilometres. The Finnish Defence Forces have shown how decades of commitment is now bearing fruit: conscription, military training and investments in defence have long been among the EU's best. We are ready to defend our borders.
Meanwhile, some EU countries have neglected their duties, keeping defence spending minimal while expecting others to bear the burden. Now the era of free riding is over – we cannot start to fund countries that have failed to prepare. Defence is not a charity; it's everyone's duty.
13.   Corrigenda (Rule 251) (action taken)

President. – Pursuant to Rule 251(4) of the Rules of Procedure, I would like to inform you that no request has been made to put the corrigenda announced in plenary on Monday, 10 March to the vote.
They are therefore deemed to have been approved and have been published on the plenary webpage.
14.   Clean Industrial Deal (debate)

Presidente. – L'ordine del giorno reca la discussione sulla dichiarazione della Commissione sul tema ‘Patto per l'industria pulita’ (2025/2588(RSP)).
               

Stéphane Séjourné,
Vice-président exécutif de la Commission. – Madame la Présidente, Mesdames et Messieurs les députés, merci de nous donner l'occasion aujourd'hui de débattre des propositions que la Commission européenne a publiées le 26 février dernier. Avec ce plan, nous donnons les moyens de décarboner et de réindustrialiser en même temps – plus de 100 milliards d'euros en tout. En effet, décarboner notre industrie n'est pas seulement une question environnementale; c'est aussi une stratégie de croissance et un impératif de sécurité pour nous, Européens. C'est tout l'objet du travail que j'ai engagé avec Teresa Ribera et Wopke Hoekstra; c'est un engagement fort et une production industrielle ‘made in Europe’, durable et compétitive.
               

                  Mesdames et Messieurs les députés, nous savons que les attentes sont très fortes autour de ce sujet. Elles se sont exprimées au cours de toutes les visites industrielles que j'ai pu faire depuis le début de ce mandat, y compris avec vous, parfois. En un mot, il faut peut-être synthétiser les choses ainsi: il faut produire plus et il faut produire mieux. Produire mieux, cela veut dire produire décarboné et produire européen. Ce pacte constitue en quelque sorte la feuille de route de l'industrie européenne bas carbone. Il repose sur quatre grandes lignes: la demande, les coûts, les financements et les intrants.
               

                  La demande, d'abord. Les entreprises et leurs salariés nous le disent tous: nous avons fait des efforts pour décarboner nos industries et nos entreprises, mais il n'y a pas assez de demande en acier propre ou en ciment propre. La priorité est donc de dynamiser le marché bas carbone en Europe. Pour cela, il faut stimuler la demande. Ce pacte propose de repenser totalement la logique d'achats publics, trop souvent fondée, jusqu'ici, sur le seul critère du prix. Nous introduirons de nouveaux critères de durabilité, de résilience, de performance et de préférence européenne dans les marchés publics, et plus généralement dans les aides publiques. Je sais que la commission du marché intérieur et la commission de l'emploi et des affaires sociales travaillent déjà sur ce projet. Nous aurons l'occasion, dans ce cadre-là, de revoir avec vous l'ensemble des objectifs et de partager l'ensemble des priorités et des prérogatives du Parlement sur cette révision des marchés publics.
               

                  La deuxième ligne, ce sont les coûts. Nos sites industriels font face aux mêmes problèmes, à savoir des prix de l'énergie trop élevés. Il s'agit ici de critères de compétitivité qui regroupent tous les problèmes que nous connaissons dans l'industrie. Le marché de l'électricité étant aujourd'hui trop volatil, ce qui contribue à augmenter les factures, il faut permettre aux sites les plus consommateurs d'énergie de s'extraire de cette volatilité. Avec Teresa Ribera et Dan Jørgensen, nous proposons donc de renforcer les contrats d'achat d'énergie à long terme. Cela doit permettre d'accroître la production d'énergie propre en Europe, de découpler les prix de l'électricité et ceux du gaz, et de promouvoir la sécurité énergétique en Europe.
               

                  Le troisième point, ce sont les financements. L'idée est simple: on accompagne financièrement les secteurs industriels qui jouent le jeu. Leur décarbonation est un objectif central de notre politique, avec les institutions européennes d'un côté, mais également les États membres, les autorités publiques et les entreprises privées. En ce qui concerne les fonds européens, nous prévoyons de mobiliser le Fonds pour l'innovation ainsi que les revenus tirés du SEQE, mais aussi de mobiliser des fonds, principalement privés, par l'intermédiaire d'InvestEU. Grâce à une bonne mesure de simplification, nous proposons d'augmenter sa force de frappe de 50 milliards d'euros, dont 25 milliards directement mobilisables pour la décarbonation de ces grands sites.
               

                  Dernière ligne de notre feuille de route: les intrants. Nous avons deux objectifs: diminuer la facture de matières premières et limiter nos dépendances. Cela passe d'abord par le fait de sécuriser nos propres extractions et exploitations de matières premières et de métaux rares. La Commission est en train de finaliser une liste de plusieurs dizaines de projets d'exploitation de matières premières aux quatre coins de l'Europe – vous en aurez probablement dans l'ensemble des pays et dans l'ensemble des États membres.
               

                  Par ailleurs, nous inciterons, dans la loi sur l'économie circulaire, à garder les déchets de nos matières premières critiques en Europe. Je l'avais dit d'ailleurs pendant l'audition des commissaires, mais aujourd'hui, il n'est pas normal que l'Europe exporte le broyat noir – des batteries, notamment – et que celui-ci soit ensuite racheté puis reconditionné au prix fort et réutilisable en Europe.
               

                  Enfin, nous proposons, toujours sur ce thème, de créer une plateforme commune d'achat de matières premières, et donc de décider ensemble à qui on achète, comment et à quel prix. Nous devons faire avec le lithium et le cobalt ce que nous avons fait pour les vaccins pendant la pandémie de COVID-19, ce qui m'amène à mon dernier point.
               

                  L'Europe, loin de n'être qu'un terrain de jeu, est elle aussi un joueur, et nous devons utiliser plus systématiquement nos outils de défense commerciale par un renforcement des règles, notamment de celles qui concernent les subventions étrangères, dont nos entreprises sont les premières victimes, et par l'introduction de nouvelles conditionnalités aux investissements étrangers sur notre sol.
               

                  Mesdames et Messieurs les députés, un certain nombre de ces propositions seront déclinées dans divers secteurs et plans sectoriels. Nous avons commencé à les dévoiler avec l'automobile la semaine dernière; la semaine prochaine sera consacrée à l'acier, puis suivront la chimie, le transport durable et la bioéconomie. En tout cas, vous pouvez être sûrs de notre mobilisation sur ce sujet, qui reste important, car il relève tant de la stratégie économique que de la stratégie climatique.
               

Christian Ehler,
im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar, meine Damen und Herren! Nach 100 Tagen der neuen Kommission ist klar: Die Kommission liefert – unter der Überschrift Wettbewerbsfähigkeit spricht der Kommissar heute das an, was wir fünf Jahre lang hier nur vorsichtig angesprochen haben, nämlich das Thema ‘Was ist der business case für den Green Deal?’ 14 000 Seiten Regulierung, 900 delegierte Rechtsakte, die noch vor uns liegen. Und wir diskutieren jetzt: ‘Was ist der business case für die europäische Wirtschaft?’
               

                  Und wir werden uns parteiübergreifend auch in unangenehmen Diskussionen – und ohne die, die es sich gemütlich machen in den ideologischen Gräben – über schwierige Zielkonflikte auseinandersetzen müssen. Also wie gehen wir um mit dem Trilemma aus den Zielen von Wettbewerbsfähigkeit, Klimaschutz, Umwelt, Nachhaltigkeit? Was adressieren wir? Die Interessen der europäischen Bürger, unsere wirtschaftlichen Grundlagen? Wir werden aus den ideologischen Gräben heraus müssen. Wir müssen Normen diskutieren. Wir müssen diese 14 000 Seiten jetzt in 900 delegierten Rechtsakten so umsetzen, dass wir die europäische Wirtschaft nicht erdrosseln, aber das Generationenziel Klimawandel nicht aus den Augen verlieren.
               

                  Wir werden rhetorische Positionen aufgeben müssen, wir werden aufeinander zugehen müssen, sonst wird die Wettbewerbsfähigkeit der europäischen Wirtschaft und die mangelnde Wettbewerbsfähigkeit der europäischen Wirtschaft all die Ziele, wie wir unterschiedlich sie haben für die Bürger, für die Umwelt, für den Klimaschutz, für die Wirtschaft, für kleine und mittelständische Unternehmen – wir werden sie alle gemeinsam nicht erreichen, weil die wirtschaftliche Leistungsfähigkeit der europäischen Wirtschaft die Grundlage für die Souveränität Europas, für unsere Bürgergesellschaften, für die Frage unserer geopolitischen Rolle und auch die Frage unserer Sicherheit ist.
               

                  Deshalb fordere ich den Kommissar auf, das jetzt umzusetzen. Es gibt kein one fits all. Wir brauchen sectoral talks. Wir müssen nicht über die europäische Wirtschaft sprechen, sondern mit der Wirtschaft – das permanent. Wir müssen andere Formen von Regulierung, von Umsetzung finden, wie wir das bisher gemacht haben. Wenn der Clean Industrial Deal ein erster Schritt in diese Richtung ist, ist er ein richtiger Schritt – aber er ist auch nur ein erster Schritt.
               

Mohammed Chahim,
namens de S&D-Fractie. – Voorzitter, groen industriebeleid valt of staat met het creëren van vraag. Vraag naar groene producten zoals elektrische auto's en bijvoorbeeld gerecycled plastic. Want wanneer we vraag creëren, zullen bedrijven innoveren en investeren. En dat is hoe wij in Europa het verschil kunnen maken. Zonder vraag geen ontwikkeling en dus ook geen groei. Die vraag moeten we zelf ook creëren.
               

                  Overheden, lokaal, nationaal en Europees, moeten het goede voorbeeld geven door groen in te kopen, door Europees in te kopen en ook aan te besteden. We moeten overheidssteun slim en gericht inzetten, zodat producten als waterstof, warmtepompen, maar ook batterijen een sluitende businesscase krijgen en daarmee betaalbaar zijn, zodat bedrijven kunnen opschalen en hun productiekosten kunnen verlagen.
               

                  Dat vraagt ook om keuzes. Kiezen waarin we willen excelleren en waar we onze koppositie willen behouden. Het vraagt ook om besluiten die onze autonomie versterken, en om strategische partnerschappen die daarvoor nodig zijn. Buiten Europa staat men niet stil. Een land als China investeert volop in de kampioenen van morgen. Laat ons hetzelfde doen.
               

Ondřej Knotek,
za skupinu PfE. – Paní předsedající, pane komisaři, k vašemu návrhu Clean Industrial Deal – není to snaha zachránit průmysl, ale je to vaše snaha zachránit Green Deal a klimatické cíle. Cíle, které možná v roce 2019 dávaly smysl, ale dnes víme, že jsou nereálné. Nereálné klimatické cíle, ale i nereálné technologické ambice, nejdražší poplatky za skleníkové plyny na světě, to jsou příčiny existenčních problémů evropského průmyslu. A co děláte vy? Zavíráte oči před skutečným problémem a ještě chcete, aby to samé dělal i průmysl a zavíral oči taky. Váš návrh nového, lepšího Green Deal jen vyžene více průmyslu z Evropy a bohužel klimatu nepomůže.
               

                  Pokud chcete, pane komisaři, skutečně pomoci průmyslu a navíc pomoci ihned, tak předložte návrh, který bez prodlení výrazně zlevní poplatky za emise skleníkových plynů, a namísto nového klimatického cíle pro rok 2040 zrušte ten cíl pro rok 2030.
               

Elena Donazzan,
a nome del gruppo ECR. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, clean, noi siamo già clean, Commissario: 6% di emissioni, primi al mondo per economia circolare – sto parlando, ovviamente, dell'Europa.
               

                  Abbiamo le industrie che hanno fatto i maggiori investimenti per il rispetto dell'ambiente. Forse da clean dovremmo passare a Real Industrial Act o Deal o quello che vogliamo fare, perché dentro questo atto ci sono 40 provvedimenti da fare nel 2025.
               

                  Ma cosa chiedono le imprese? E ce l'ha detto bene anche il rapporto Draghi: ci chiedono semplificazione, ci chiedono meno burocrazia, ci chiedono più ascolto. E io, questo non l'ho letto, in questo bellissimo 24 pagine, dove il termine ‘neutralità tecnologica’ è scritta solo cinque volte.
               

                  Siamo realisti: l'Europa che nasce sul carbone e sull'acciaio, cioè su un patto tra energia e produzione, è un'Europa che ad oggi è fatta di gas and oil e sono tecnologie che non sono così dirty ma, invece, hanno fatto investimenti rilevanti.
               

                  Abbiamo ridotto l'acciaio, l'alluminio, abbiamo ridotto il nostro automotive: forse è il caso di cambiare rotta veramente.
               

Christophe Grudler,
au nom du groupe Renew. – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, Mesdames et Messieurs, le pacte pour une industrie propre est une avancée majeure pour notre souveraineté industrielle. Merci, Monsieur le Commissaire, pour votre engagement à défendre notre industrie et nos emplois ici, en Europe, car un principe doit désormais s'imposer clairement et fermement: acheter européen.
               

                  Chers collègues, ces derniers jours, nous voyons nos concitoyens et nos entreprises se mobiliser pour acheter davantage européen, notamment pour nos technologies propres. C'est une chance pour nos bases industrielles, et nous devons répondre à cette attente. Nous avons un marché de 450 millions de consommateurs; c'est un levier économique gigantesque. Ne soyons pas modestes.
               

                  Ce pacte introduit les premiers éléments de préférence européenne. C'est un bon début, mais il faut aller plus loin face à un monde instable. Monsieur le Commissaire, je compte sur vous pour continuer en ce sens. L'Europe doit choisir: défendre son industrie ou s'effacer.
               

Sara Matthieu,
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, colleagues, in these challenging times, doubling down on the Green Deal is the key factor to save our competitiveness, to create more jobs, to reduce energy prices for our industry and for our families. And let me tell you why.
When autocrats like Trump, like Musk, like Putin, are trying to bully Europe into submission, sticking to an agenda of deregulation, of slowing down our energy transition will only play into their hands. What we need is Europe to make massive investments – investments that will make us the global leaders for green steel, for cement, for wind turbines, for heat pumps and all of that made in Europe.
I'm pleased that the Clean Industrial Deal does set out the first steps for us to get there. I'm also disappointed – I can't hide it, Commissioner – you didn't even mention the chapter on social and just transition and I think it's quite telling when it comes to the ambition that this Commission is setting there. So this is something we need to rectify – I'm counting on you to do so.

Dario Tamburrano,
a nome del gruppo The Left. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, il Green Industrial Deal esordisce: ‘La base industriale europea è essenziale per la competitività’. E che ‘l'Europa è alle prese con tensioni geopolitiche, economia stagnante e competizione tecnologica’. Quindi ‘necessita di un business plan di trasformazione’ Ma davvero? Non ce ne eravamo proprio accorti!
               

                  Mentre USA e Cina sovvenzionavano l'industria noi avevano il Green Industrial Plan senza sussidi a sostenerlo, né disaccoppiamento del prezzo dell'elettricità dal gas, tanto per dirne qualcuna.
               

                  E cianciamo ancora di Europa leader su questo ed Europa leader su quest'altro. Mentre siamo diventati gli ultimi e rischiamo di rimanerci.
               

                  Oggi di nuovo solo 100 miliardi sul piatto di finanziamenti già esistenti! Si potrebbe obiettare: non ci sono soldi. Poi, ecco arrivare ReArm Europe con 800 miliardi per la difesa. È il coniglio dal cilindro! Diventa chiaro che il vero piano industriale UE è la conversione bellica, ovviamente a debito, a spese dei contribuenti. Magari con una nuova guerra, che alza sempre il PIL.
               

                  Abbiate almeno il coraggio di dirlo apertamente ai vostri lettori!
               

Milan Uhrík,
za skupinu ESN. – Vážená pani predsedajúca, kolegovia, ja keď som videl, že Leyenová prezentuje ešte ničivejší Green Deal 2, tak ja som neveril vlastným očiam. Ja som normálne presvedčený o tom, že Eurokomisia sa buď zbláznila, alebo je skorumpovaná niekým zvonka, aby proste zničila európsky priemysel v prospech, ja neviem, Číny, Spojených štátov amerických alebo niekoho iného, pretože to nedáva absolútne žiadnu logiku, aby nejaký príčetný človek, príčetný politik po tom, čo spôsobil Green Deal, ako zničil európske hospodárstvo a poviedol k rastu cien energií, aby nejaký príčetný politik pokračoval v tejto environmentálnej politike v čase, keď Spojené štáty americké a Čína od toho utekajú preč. Proste to, čo nefunguje, robme toho ešte viac.
               

                  Píšete, že dekarbonizácia sa stáva nielen environmentálnym cieľom, ale aj našou rastovou stratégiou. Aká rastová stratégia? Však kvôli dekarbonizácii máme v Európe najdrahšie ceny energií na svete. Priemyselní výrobcovia by mali obmedzovať výrobu podľa toho, koľko bude stáť elektrina. Tak ľudia budú doma čakať na to, kedy začne svietiť slnko a začnú fungovať solárne panely, aby bola elektrina lacnejšia. Toto nie je plán na hospodársky rast, toto je plán na katastrofu a zastavte to. Zastavte túto nezmyselnú zelenú politiku.
               

Peter Liese (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Es ist extrem wichtig, dass wir jetzt nicht über weitere Auflagen an die Industrie sprechen, sondern dass wir sogar gezielt Auflagen reduzieren. Wenn etwas wichtig ist, zum Beispiel, wenn man nicht will, dass die Hose runter rutscht, dann kann man auch doppelte Sicherungen einbauen – Hosenträger und Gürtel. Aber wir haben so viele, so eng geschnallte Gürtel, dass die Industrie keine Luft mehr hat zum Atmen. Deswegen bin ich dafür, dass wir den Rahmen behalten, aber diese engen Gürtel lockern. Deswegen ist es gut, dass auch der Omnibus am gleichen Tag beschlossen wurde.
               

                  Wir brauchen Energie. Wenn jemand Leistungen erbringen soll und die Transformation ist eine riesige Leistung, dann braucht er keine eng geschnallten Gürtel, sondern Energie. Deswegen ist es so gut, dass die Kommission im Clean Industrial Deal gesagt hat: Wir brauchen mehr Strom, und wir brauchen günstigeren Strom. Strom ist die Energie der Transformation, und Strom ist auch die Energie, die uns unabhängig von Russland und anderen problematischen Lieferanten macht. Deswegen bitte mit massiver Kraft all diese Elemente umsetzen.
               

                  Wir brauchen Verfahrensbeschleunigung. Der Chef eines großen Stahlwerks hat mir gesagt, er will dekarbonisieren, aber er braucht 50 Genehmigungen von ganz vielen verschiedenen Behörden. Deswegen muss auch das, was Christian Ehler angefangen hat in der letzten Periode – Net Zero Industrial Deal –, jetzt vollbracht werden, nicht nur für Batterien, sondern auch für Stahlwerke.
               

Dan Nica (S&D). – Doamnă președintă, domnule vicepreședinte al Comisiei Europene, sunt mari speranțe legate de mandatul dumneavoastră și trebuie să vă mărturisesc că toată lumea se aștepta ca în primele 100 de zile să apară primele măsuri concrete de sprijinire a industriei europene, ca să putem avea un proces de transformare a acestei industrii într-o industrie curată. Astăzi, când vorbim, din păcate situația este foarte proastă. Industria europeană este într-o situație atât de proastă cum n-a fost niciodată. Că e siderurgică – apropo de asta, combinatul din Galați este în mare pericol să-și înceteze activitatea și zece mii de oameni să-și piardă locurile de muncă, zece mii de familii –, la fel este pentru industria aluminiului, la fel este pentru industria cimentului, pentru industria îngrășămintelor chimice.
               

                  Pentru că n-am reușit să luăm acele măsuri, avem prețuri mari la energie, importuri din țări din afara Uniunii Europene care sunt făcute cu emisii mari de bioxid de carbon și care au invadat piața Uniunii Europene, lipsa de finanțare din orice sursă – programe europene, Banca Europeană de Investiții care refuză să finanțeze toate aceste programe. Domnule vicepreședinte al Comisiei Europene, trebuie luate aceste măsuri acum. Suntem în al 12-lea ceas și vă implor și vă rog și vă cer să luați aceste măsuri cât mai repede posibil.
               

Enikő Győri (PfE). – Elnök Asszony! A Bizottság legújabb stratégiájáról először egy mém jutott eszembe, mely az EU-t egy szivárványszínű plug-in tankként ábrázolja, melynek vezetője egy szabálykönyvet olvas. Aztán eszembe jutott, hogy volt már egy stratégiánk, tele célkitűzésekkel, lisszaboni stratégiának hívták, abból sem lett semmi. Akkor a világ legversenyképesebb régiója akartunk lenni 2010-re, most meg a legkörforgásosabb. Eközben az ipari termelés 0,8 százalékkal csökkent decemberben. Ez az elmúlt évek elhibázott gazdaságpolitikájának az eredménye.
               

                  A tiszta ipar stratégia sem hoz változást. Ez egy átcímkézett zöld paktum. A Bizottság szeretné, ha a tiszta technológiai termékek összetevőinek 40 százalékát az EU-ban gyártanák. Ma a napelemeket és szélkerekeket szinte kizárólag Kínában állítják elő. Így kérdezem, hogy ez mennyire reális? Készült-e ehhez megvalósíthatósági elemzés? Olyan intézkedések kellenek, melyek már rövidtávon segítséget nyújtanak az iparnak és az embereknek. Ilyen volna például az energiaárak azonnali csökkentése. Brüsszel ehelyett folytatja hadjáratát a rezsicsökkentés ellen, és ki akarja vezetni a fosszilisenergia-projektek támogatását. A patrióták ehhez nem fognak asszisztálni. Nem kérünk az ideológia alapú gazdaságpolitikából.
               

Ondřej Krutílek (ECR). – Paní předsedající, je mi to líto, ale dohoda o čistém průmyslu ukazuje, že Komise jede stále ve starých kolejích, které vedou do cílové stanice ‘skanzen’. Ano, dokument obsahuje i některá pozitivní opatření, ale neřeší skutečné příčiny krize evropského průmyslu, a tak jeho konkurenceschopnost zvýší jen stěží. Třeba proto, že Komise trvá stále na závazku snížit emise CO2 o 90 % do roku 2040, aniž bychom věděli, jak bude vypadat situace v roce 2030.
               

                  Vyzývám proto Komisi, aby prioritně řešila problém zvaný ETS. ETS1 musí být předvídatelnější a ETS2 musí být minimálně o dva roky odložena. Co ale potřebujeme nejvíce, je levná energie pro naše firmy. Uvidíme, jak budou vypadat konkrétní legislativní návrhy, ale zatím dohodu o čistém průmyslu hodnotím jako hodně promarněnou příležitost.
               

Pascal Canfin (Renew). – Monsieur le Vice-Président exécutif de la Commission, chers collègues, le groupe Renew soutient très fortement votre pacte pour une industrie propre. Pourquoi? Parce qu'il appuie la demande en biens décarbonés, il met 100 milliards de plus sur la table, il soutient l'industrie ‘made in Europe’ et il assure des financements à l'innovation. Je voudrais aussi dire que vous avez mis le doigt sur quelque chose qui est clé, et qui est très important pour Renew: il n'y a pas de compétitivité sans décarbonation et il n'y a pas de décarbonation sans compétitivité. C'est cela, le cœur du pacte que vous nous proposez aujourd'hui et que nous soutenons.
               

                  Je voudrais dire aux collègues d'extrême droite, qui sont soi-disant des patriotes et des souverainistes, qu'en soutenant en permanence les énergies fossiles, que nous importons à 100 %, ils soutiennent en permanence un jour la Russie de Poutine, le lendemain les États-Unis de Trump, le troisième jour l'Arabie saoudite et le Qatar, le cinquième jour le Kazakhstan et l'Algérie… Ce sont ces pays – qui financent le terrorisme, qui financent la guerre en Ukraine, qui financent l'islam radical – que vous soutenez, à travers vos positions contre le pacte vert et aujourd'hui contre le pacte pour une industrie propre. Vous êtes les moins souverainistes de cet hémicycle. Vous êtes les moins patriotes de cet hémicycle.
               

Michael Bloss (Verts/ALE). – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar, liebe Damen und Herren! Dieser Industrie-Deal ist nicht schlecht, aber es fehlt etwas ganz Entscheidendes, nämlich die Richtung. Wenn wir eine starke, eine innovative, eine wettbewerbsfähige Industrie haben wollen, dann geht es nicht, wenn wir auf Öl und Gas und Verbrenner setzen – Europa hat nur Sonne und Wind. Und lieber Herr Ehler, Europa hat auch kein Businessmodell, wenn wir keinen Klimaschutz haben. Das Businessmodell muss doch sein, in Modernisierung, in Innovation, in Klimaschutz zu investieren.
               

                  Und an die Rechten muss man die Frage stellen: Von wem wollen Sie denn bitte das Gas kaufen? Lieber von Putin oder lieber von Trump?
               

                  Was noch fehlt, ist eine wirklich europäische Industriepolitik. Wenn alle 27 Mitgliedstaaten ihr eigenes Süppchen kochen, dann wird das nicht funktionieren. In Ihrem Plan steht aber nichts dazu, wie wir die 27 Hauptstädte dazu bringen, an einem Strang zu ziehen.
               

                  Also da muss nachgebessert werden. Europa kann Trump und Putin nur die Stirn bieten, wenn wir mit einer Stimme sprechen, auch bei der Industriepolitik.
               

Anja Hazekamp (The Left). – Voorzitter, de desastreuze gevolgen van klimaatverandering worden steeds zichtbaarder en kosten ook steeds meer mensenlevens. Dier- en plantensoorten sterven in een ongekend tempo uit. Vervuiling van bodem, water en lucht bedreigt de basis van ons bestaan.
               

                  Maar terwijl we nog maar één generatie de tijd hebben om onze planeet leefbaar te houden, komt de Europese Commissie met een agenda van greenwashing en clean washing. Mooie woorden lossen het klimaatprobleem niet op. Een blanco cheque aan vervuilende industrie stopt biodiversiteitsverlies niet en uitstel en versoepeling van milieuregels zijn geen antwoord op de voortgaande vervuiling van onze planeet.
               

                  Onder het motto van versimpeling wordt onze toekomst opgeofferd voor het blinde winstbejag van het bedrijfsleven. Hoe kortzichtig kunt u zijn, commissaris? Zelfs als u vindt dat geld het hoogste goed is, hoe gaat u dat dan verdienen op een uitgewoonde planeet?
               

Marcin Sypniewski (ESN). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Szanowni Państwo! Zmiana nazwy z zielonego ładu na czysty ład przemysłowy niczego nie zmienia, bo to wciąż ten sam szkodliwy projekt oparty na regulacjach biurokracji i ideologii. Niczego, niestety, Komisja Europejska się nie nauczyła. Przyznaje, że ceny energii w Europie są wysokie i że regulacje dławią przedsiębiorców, ale zamiast zlikwidować ten problem u źródła, czyli zlikwidować system ETS i zrezygnować z zielonego ładu, to otrzymujemy kolejne propozycje dotacji kwot made in EU i regulacji. Tak to nie będzie działać, bo to nie działa i nie będzie działać. Słyszymy, że będą obniżane ceny energii, ale nie słyszymy nic o zawieszeniu ETS-u, który sztucznie winduje te ceny. Jak można obiecywać tańszą energię, jeżeli utrzymujemy system, przez który jest ona droga? W tym samym czasie USA i Chiny mają tanią energię z paliw kopalnych. Tworzymy nowe instytucje, a mamy stare problemy i tak naprawdę eksperymentujemy na żywym organizmie. Czas na prawdziwą zmianę i odejście od tej szkodliwej polityki.
               

Raúl de la Hoz Quintano (PPE). – Señora presidenta, Estados Unidos se retira de las políticas climáticas. China, líder en renovables, lo es también en contaminación. Es una oportunidad de oro para que Europa asuma el liderazgo climático. Una buena oportunidad si sabemos jugar bien nuestras cartas, unas cartas que en el pasado no hemos sabido jugar adecuadamente: castigamos la política industrial para la consecución de unos objetivos climáticos excesivamente ambiciosos. El resultado ya lo hemos conocido: no hemos conseguido objetivos y hemos lastrado nuestra competitividad.
               

                  La buena noticia es que la Comisión tiene voluntad para reaccionar; tiene voluntad de asumir los errores cometidos y, a partir de ellos, rectificar para cambiar la dinámica de la política industrial. Y esto es importante, teniendo en cuenta que los objetivos de competitividad solamente se podrán alcanzar si somos conscientes de que política industrial y política climática deben de ir de la mano, coordinadas, y nunca se debe subordinar la política industrial a la política climática.
               

                  Y eso es el Pacto por una Industria Limpia. Un Pacto que, en primer lugar, habla de ‘limpia’, no de ‘verde’, y, en segundo lugar, se refiere sobre todo a la industria. Es un buen primer paso —corto, quizás, pero un buen primer paso— sólido en cuanto a sus principios, menos en cuanto a sus objetivos; y a nosotros nos hubiera gustado que fuera, sin duda, algo más ambicioso. Habrá que esperar al desarrollo normativo del Pacto para demostrar si hay esa voluntad de rectificar los errores del pasado y de impulsar realmente la política industrial en la Unión Europea. Para ello les pedimos determinación, coraje, pero, sobre todo, rapidez. No hay un minuto que perder en la carrera.
               

Tiemo Wölken (S&D). – Frau Präsidentin! Sehr geehrter Herr Kommissar, schön, dass Sie hier sind! Das Motto des Clean Industrial Deals muss sein: Tempo statt Totengräber. Wir brauchen bei der Dekarbonisierung Europas Geschwindigkeit, aber wir brauchen keinen Totengräber für den Green Deal. Der Green Deal für die saubere Industrie darf deswegen nicht als Alibi für allgemeine Deregulierung dienen, sondern muss gezielt strategisch wichtige Industrien fördern, ohne mit der Gießkanne zu fördern.
               

                  Ich finde es deswegen gut, dass der Vorschlag der Europäischen Kommission zum Clean Industrial Deal das große Ganze im Blick behält und über die Sektoren hinweg tatsächlich auch an Schwachstellen des Green Deals ansetzt. Wir haben zum Beispiel bisher ein absolutes Nachfrageproblem. Deswegen ist es richtig, Leitmärkte zu schaffen, deswegen ist es wichtig, zum Beispiel die Kreislaufwirtschaft anzukurbeln.
               

                  Aber man muss auch sagen, am Ende des Tages sind dort viele leere Versprechungen in Ihrem Vorschlag, insbesondere bei der fundamentalen Frage, wo eigentlich das Geld herkommen soll. Ohne die Investitionssicherheit werden wir es nicht schaffen, den Wandel hinzubekommen, deswegen vielen Dank für den Vorschlag, aber es liegt noch viel gemeinsame Arbeit vor uns.
               

Barbara Bonte (PfE). – Voorzitter, commissaris, collega's, kent u de definitie van waanzin? Dat is steeds weer hetzelfde doen, maar toch een ander resultaat verwachten. Het is exact hetgeen wat de Europese Commissie nu aan het doen is met de Clean Industrial Deal. Het is niet meer dan wat lapwerk om de desastreuze gevolgen van de Green Deal op te vangen. Het is gewoon meer van hetzelfde. Dit plan gaat onze industrie niet redden, maar verder vernietigen.
               

                  Brussel beweert dat deze deal de Europese industrie moet versterken. Maar tegelijk worden bedrijven verplicht tot peperdure CO2-reducties, extra regelgeving en torenhoge energiekosten. De oplossing is niet nog een Europees plan, maar het afschaffen van de Green Deal. We moeten daarom inzetten op drie zaken: ten eerste betaalbare energie door kernenergie, ten tweede bescherming van onze industrie tegen oneerlijke concurrentie, en ten derde minder EU-bemoeienis en minder bureaucratie. Want enkel op die manier heeft de industrie weer toekomst in Europa.
               

Beata Szydło (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Szanowny Panie Komisarzu! Czym jest ten czysty deal? Mówiąc w skrócie, to jest tak: z jednej kieszeni Unia Europejska ma wyciągać coraz więcej pieniędzy na Zielony Ład, a z drugiej coraz więcej pieniędzy na to, żeby naprawiać szkody tym złym projektem wyrządzone. Cały dzień dzisiaj rozmawiamy o bezpieczeństwie, o tym, że trzeba odbudowywać obronność Europy, że trzeba budować obronny przemysł europejski. No ale żeby produkować czołgi, potrzebna jest stal, a żeby produkować stal, potrzebne są huty, które potrzebują węgla koksującego. Zniszczono przemysł obronny. Nie ma dzisiaj już praktycznie hut. Są zamykane kolejne kopalnie. To jak mamy produkować ten przemysł obronny? Jak mamy te potrzebne nam wszystkim czołgi produkować? Mają być elektryczne? Symbolem sukcesów europejskiej polityki klimatycznej jest plastikowa butelka z przytwierdzoną do niej na stałe zakrętką. A naszym symbolem ma być właśnie ten czołg, który obroni Europę.
               

(Mówczyni zgodziła się na pytanie zasygnalizowane przez podniesienie niebieskiej kartki)


Martin Hojsík (Renew),
blue-card question. – As a country, you are heavily reliant on imports of gas, coal, but also oil from Russia. With security at the core, I wonder, do you prefer then to be dependent on the US with the Trump regime, with the supply of gas and oil, or do you prefer to be dependent on the Gulf states, or which part of the world you think is going to provide Europe enough oil and keep our independence?

Beata Szydło (ECR),
odpowiedź na pytanie zadane przez podniesienie niebieskiej kartki. – Szanowni Państwo, jeżeli ktoś dzisiaj myśli – to samo powiedziałam w tej poprzedniej naszej debacie – że stać Europę na porzucenie sojuszu ze Stanami Zjednoczonymi, że stać Europę na wypisanie się z NATO, jest w głębokim błędzie. I właśnie ci, którzy tak mówią i tak myślą, działają zgodnie z tym, czego chce Putin. Europa musi myśleć o własnym bezpieczeństwie energetycznym. Mamy wystarczające zasoby, które gwarantują to bezpieczeństwo. Trzeba prowadzić mądrą politykę, która będzie bezpieczna dla nas. I trzeba się zbroić, Szanowni Państwo, a nie snuć mrzonki.
               

Jan-Christoph Oetjen (Renew). – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar, verehrte Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Europa ist nicht wettbewerbsfähig. In der Analyse macht die Kommission aus meiner Sicht richtige Feststellungen. Die Energiekosten sind zu hoch und müssen für Industrie und Verbraucher gesenkt werden. Die Bürokratiekosten müssen angegangen werden – da würde ich sogar noch deutlich weiter gehen als die Vorschläge, die heute vorliegen, von der Kommission. Wir müssen innovativer werden in Europa, damit wir die besten Produkte auf den Weg bringen.
               

                  Es ist schon gesagt worden, die Klimaziele erreichen wir nur mit einer wettbewerbsfähigen Wirtschaft. Aber zur Wahrheit gehört halt, dass die Arbeitsplätze, die in dieser Wirtschaft geschaffen werden, langfristig nur dann da sind, wenn die Wirtschaft wettbewerbsfähig ist. Wettbewerbsfähigkeit erreicht man nicht durch mehr Subventionen oder durch zusätzliche Regulierung, sondern Wettbewerbsfähigkeit erreicht man dadurch, dass man Direktinvestitionen nach Europa holt, Wettbewerbsfähigkeit erreicht man dadurch, dass europäische Firmen innovative Produkte herstellen und dass die Abgabenlast gesenkt wird.
               

                  Ich würde mich freuen, wenn wir einen viel, viel stärkeren Fokus auf diesen Punkt setzen: Wie können wir die Kosten runter kriegen? Wie können wir die Unternehmen langfristig wettbewerbsfähig kriegen, und nicht: Wie schaffen wir neue Regulierungen und neue Subventionen?
               

Lena Schilling (Verts/ALE). – Frau Präsidentin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Dieser Clean Industrial Deal muss ein Versprechen sein: ein Versprechen in die Zukunft. Ein Versprechen, dass wir die Transformation der Wirtschaft in der Industrie gemeinsam mit Klimaschutz denken, dass wir anerkennen, dass es planetare Grenzen gibt. Und ein Versprechen, dass wir aufhören zu fragen, ob Green Deal oder competitiveness. Die Wahrheit ist: Wir brauchen beides, und daran können und müssen wir arbeiten. Dafür braucht es commitment und Mut. Wir brauchen ein Klimaziel 2040, wo es zumindest um 90 % Reduktion von Treibhausgasemissionen geht.
               

                  Wir können an einem Europa bauen, wo niemand zurückgelassen wird, wo Menschen in einem warmen Zuhause aufwachen, weil es nicht mehr beheizt ist durch teure fossile Brennstoffe, sondern durch bezahlbare, saubere Energie. Wir können daran arbeiten, dass Menschen morgens in die Arbeit gehen und keine Angst davor haben, dass ihr Job auf einen anderen Kontinent verlegt wird, weil sie spüren, ja, dieser Wandel kommt, diese Transformation kommt. Aber wir nehmen alle Menschen mit, wir machen das gemeinsam, und dafür müssen wir Außergewöhnliches leisten – aber ich glaube, das können wir auch.
               

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


Lukas Sieper (NI),
Frage nach dem Verfahren der ‘blauen Karte’
                     . – Vielen Dank, Frau Kollegin! Ich kann Ihnen nur zustimmen, dass wir die Leute mitnehmen müssen, dass wir mutig sein müssen. Ich frage mich, oder ich möchte Sie fragen: Wie genau können wir verhindern, dass wir in fünf Jahren wieder hier stehen und genau so, wie wir jetzt hier den Green Deal leider Gottes ein bisschen zerlegt haben für diesen Clean Industrial Deal, diesen Clean Industrial Deal dann wieder zerlegen, und dann ist es am Ende doch nur ein Industrial Deal und das Klima geht vor die Hunde? Wie können wir langfristig sicherstellen, dass wir unsere Klimaziele nicht noch weiter aufweichen müssen in der Zukunft?
               

Lena Schilling (Verts/ALE),
Antwort auf eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der ‘blauen Karte’
                     . – Das ist eine gute Frage. Ich glaube im Ersten, dass wir glaubwürdig bleiben, dass dieser Zickzack-Kurs aufhören muss, dass wir nicht das eine Mal was versprechen können und am nächsten Tag alles zerlegen können, sondern dass die Dinge, die wir hier verhandeln, die wir hier beschließen, die ja in einem langen Prozess entstehen, dass die am Ende des Tages auch halten, denn sonst kann sich wirklich niemand mehr darauf verlassen. Das Pariser Abkommen ist eine Verpflichtung, nichts, das wir freiwillig tun.
               

                  Die Frage, wie wir über unsere Zukunft sprechen, die müssen wir sowieso führen. Wir können nicht nur jedes Mal Klimakrise sagen, wenn es um eine Flut geht, sondern wir müssen endlich langfristig denken: Das schulden wir den Bürgerinnen und Bürgern und vor allem den jungen Menschen in Europa.
               

Anthony Smith (The Left). – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, Monsieur le Commissaire, soyons sérieux: avec le pacte pour une industrie propre, la Commission n'a toujours rien compris. Elle continue dans sa stratégie néolibérale, qui ne fait que recycler des mesures du passé ayant précipité l'industrie européenne dans le mur. Aucune leçon n'a été tirée sur le marché de l'électricité, cela a été dit, fondé sur un couplage des prix sur le gaz – qui fait exploser les factures; aucune sur le financement public de la transition industrielle, toujours encadré en cette matière par les règles austéritaires et absurdes du pacte de stabilité; aucune sur le manque de protection du marché européen face à la concurrence étrangère; aucune sur l'implication des travailleurs et de leurs organisations syndicales dans l'élaboration de la stratégie industrielle.
               

                  Pourtant, les solutions à la crise, Monsieur Séjourné, existent; mais cela implique un changement d'idéologie – oui, cela va être difficile. Il y a urgence, par exemple, à planifier démocratiquement la modernisation de l'outil industriel et à reprendre en main par la puissance publique des secteurs stratégiques. L'enjeu est simple: reconstruire une industrie européenne au service des travailleurs et des citoyens, et non des profits. Nous en sommes loin.
               

Eszter Lakos (PPE). – Elnök Asszony! A tiszta ipari megállapodás kiváló lehetőséget teremt arra, hogy az EU és a tagállamai biztosítsák a megfizethető és zöld energiát a magas áraktól szenvedő iparnak. Magyarországon, hazámban, a kormány szívesen beszél a rezsicsökkentésről, de közben elfelejti, hogy a magyar vállalkozások az Európai Unióban az ötödik, Közép-Európában pedig a második legmagasabb áramszámlát fizetik. A kormány jelenlegi energiapolitikája azonban nem támogatja a hazai ipart. Az energiatermelő kapacitások hiánya miatt Magyarország a többi EU-s tagállamnál jelentősen kiszolgáltatottabb az importált áramnak. A tízmilliós Magyarország 2023-ban több áramot importált, mint a 80 milliós Németország. Ezzel Magyarország a negyedik leginkább áramimportfüggő EU- tagállamnak számít.
               

                  Az infrastrukturális fejlesztések hiánya máshol is érezteti a hatását. Például 2029 előtt nem várhatóak új szélerőmű- kapacitások, a hálózati csatlakozások szűkössége miatt. A magyar ipar kiszolgáltatottságát továbbá növeli az is, hogy bár a kormány elhanyagolta az energiaberuházásokat, most adófizetői pénzből csábítja be a gigászi energiaéhségű kínai akkumulátorgyárakat és autógyárakat. Így pedig tovább emelkednek az áramárak, amelyek közvetlenül a magyar vállalkozások versenyképességét is veszélyeztetik.
               

                  A magyar helyzet megmutatja, milyen károkat tud okozni a megfizethető energiakínálat hiánya a versenyképességnek. Ezzel szemben a tiszta ipari megállapodásban kijelölt stratégia kiváló alapot ad a fenntartható európai iparfejlesztésnek.
               

Antonio Decaro (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, il Clean Industrial Deal è una risposta europea ai ricatti energetici ed economici a cui siamo sottoposti, soprattutto negli ultimi mesi. Dobbiamo reagire, sì, ma non ingaggiando una battaglia a chi inquina di più: non è questa la nostra missione.
               

                  Noi, invece, dobbiamo sostenere un grande piano dell'industria pulita in Europa e diventare leader nel mercato delle tecnologie politiche e delle energie rinnovabili. Possiamo farlo. Servono semplificazioni per le imprese e riduzione del costo dell'energia, nel rispetto degli obiettivi del Green Deal e degli impegni presi con le prossime generazioni.
               

                  Semplificare deve significare raggiungere prima gli obiettivi di transizione, non derogare. L'Europa può e deve puntare su industrie con prodotti e servizi carbon free e, soprattutto, made in Europe.
               

                  La proposta Omnibus, in questo senso, rappresenta una sfida per tutti. ‘Il futuro ha un cuore antico’ scriveva un autore italiano, Carlo Levi, e io credo che quel cuore non possa che chiamarsi Europa.
               

Mireia Borrás Pabón (PfE). – Señora presidenta, el Pacto por una Industria Limpia es otro bandazo de una Comisión que legisla con dogmas ideológicos en la mano y sin ningún tipo de visión estratégica. Su propia necesidad de una Brújula para la Competitividad no es más que la confesión de su fracaso.
               

                  En tres décadas, la producción industrial europea ha caído del 36 al 15 % del total mundial. ¿Y por qué? Porque la Unión Europea, como ustedes saben, no ha parado de imponer más ideología, más regulación, más costes energéticos y más barreras a la inversión en su industria. Ahora dicen que necesitan 480 000 millones de euros para salvar lo que ustedes mismos han destruido, pero ningún fondo puede compensar su obsesión con la hiperregulación y una política energética suicida.
               

                  Y lo más cínico, la verdad, es escuchar hoy aquí a socialistas y populares —que han impuesto esta agenda verde radical— fingir una preocupación por las consecuencias de sus propias políticas. La imposición forzada del coche eléctrico y la prohibición del motor de combustión son el mejor ejemplo de este suicidio industrial. Y, por otra parte, ¿qué sentido tiene, señor comisario, presumir de una reducción de emisiones cuando lo que estamos haciendo realmente es exportarlas?
               

                  Si de verdad queremos reindustrializar Europa lo que necesitamos es energía barata, acceso real a materias primas y libertad para innovar sin que los burócratas de Bruselas decidan qué sectores deben sobrevivir y cuáles no. De lo contrario, señor comisario, su Brújula sólo servirá para señalar el camino de salida a las pocas industrias europeas.
               

Mariateresa Vivaldini (ECR). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signor Commissario, ho letto con attenzione il testo e le confesso di non aver percepito la volontà di affrontare le sfide che la nostra industria sta fronteggiando con quel pragmatismo che è mancato negli ultimi cinque anni.
               

                  Rafforzare il sistema produttivo europeo richiede un diverso livello di impegno perché, sia chiaro, ci troviamo in questa situazione soprattutto a causa delle pessime scelte compiute nella scorsa legislatura.
               

                  Serve un cambio concettuale, non soltanto semantico. Neutralità tecnologica, riforma ETS, meno burocrazia, ricerca e innovazione, reciprocità e sicurezza energetica rappresentano urgenze necessarie a preservare il tessuto imprenditoriale europeo e a dare slancio alla crescita, dimostrando che il Clean Industrial Deal non sia un Green Deal mascherato.
               

                  Vi chiediamo lungimiranza. Il nuovo contesto geopolitico impone decisioni coraggiose e, da parte nostra, c'è la ferrea determinazione ad accompagnarvi e a sostenervi in questo percorso.
               

                  Abbiamo però, al contempo, la necessità di una presa di consapevolezza da parte vostra degli errori commessi. Riteniamo cruciale che si cominci a considerare anche la dimensione sociale, perché, sottolineo decarbonizzare non può né deve significare deindustrializzazione e delocalizzare.
               

Yvan Verougstraete (Renew). – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, chers collègues, le pacte pour une industrie propre est la seule voie crédible pour garantir notre autonomie stratégique et notre compétitivité. Aujourd'hui, plus encore qu'hier, aucune solution durable ne sera possible sans allier écologie et économie. Depuis trop longtemps, notre dépendance aux énergies fossiles importées nous rend vulnérables économiquement et géopolitiquement. Il est urgent de retrouver notre autonomie stratégique, en combinant renouvelables, nucléaire, flexibilisation et solutions de stockage. Pour ce faire, nous devons accélérer nos investissements dans les infrastructures en dégageant des moyens supplémentaires et en simplifiant les procédures. Il en va de notre sécurité et de notre défense.
               

                  Dans le même esprit, ce pacte doit aussi faire de l'Europe la cheffe de file de l'économie circulaire – entre autres – dans le monde, afin de diminuer notre dépendance aux matières premières critiques. C'est pour cela que nous saluons le fait que vous ayez repris dans ce pacte le principe consistant à n'acheter qu'une seule fois: une fois les matériaux entrés sur notre territoire, nous devons les garder ici et ils doivent y rester. En les recyclant et en les réutilisant, nous réduisons notre dépendance, nous baissons les coûts et nous sécurisons nos ressources.
               

                  Grâce à une énergie propre et à une économie circulaire, nous bâtirons une Europe plus forte et plus autonome.
               

Rasmus Nordqvist (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, how can we ensure that 'circular economy' is more than just words in the headlines in the EU's new industrial policy?
C'est plus ou moins la question que je vous avais posée lors de votre audition en octobre, Monsieur le Commissaire. Nous voici à présent avec la proposition du pacte pour une industrie propre, qui, je l'avoue, contient 36 fois le mot circulaire ou circularité.
But where are the concrete policies and financing to build a secondary raw material market? How can we ease transport and recycling materials across EU borders? Nothing concrete. And looking at one of the industries in dire need of transition, the textile industry, what are we missing to actually scale up fibre-to-fibre recycling?
You might answer that this will come as part of the circular economy act, but we will have to wait 21 months for that, so no real action will be taken to boost the circular economy with this industrial policy. My fear is that this is more than a mismatch in timing. This is actually a real strategic mistake.

Per Clausen (The Left). – Fru formand! Da jeg læste Kommissionens Clean Industrial Deal, blev jeg både glad og trist. Glad, fordi man trods alt ikke rullede 2040-målet tilbage. Trist, fordi man stadig satser på forældede energiformer som atomkraft og gas. Trist, fordi man ikke tackler de reelle problemer bag høje elpriser i Europa. Trist, fordi Kommissionens dereguleringsagenda helt klart står i vejen for de reelle grønne og sociale forandringer, vi har behov for. Og så må jeg indrømme, at så står jeg tilbage og er mest af alt sur og frustreret. For det, at det ikke blev så dårligt som frygtet, er vel ikke nok til, at vi skal glæde os. Europa har brug for det, som Kommissionen netop ikke foreslår: reel klimahandling, grøn og klimavenlig politik og en socialt retfærdig omstilling, som kan forbedre Europas konkurrenceevne. Så jeg synes, at forslaget trænger til en revision. Det skal tilbage til tegnebrættet.
               

Letizia Moratti (PPE). – Signora Presidente, signor Commissario, onorevoli colleghi, la salute della nostra industria è fondamentale per garantire un'Europa forte a livello globale.
               

                  Con 32 milioni di lavoratori diretti e il 65% delle attività di ricerca, l'industria genera innovazione e occupazione. Ma negli ultimi trent'anni la quota dell'industria sul PIL è diminuita di oltre cinque punti. Sono in gravissime difficoltà industrie come l'automotive, la chimica, l'acciaio ed altre ancora. Ci stiamo deindustrializzando.
               

                  In un mondo fortemente competitivo, incerto e con regole non uniformi, dobbiamo proporre soluzioni più favorevoli all'industria, ai lavoratori, ai cittadini.
               

                  Il Clean Industrial Deal è un segnale di cambiamento ma dobbiamo essere più ambiziosi: abbassare i costi dell'energia, eliminare la concorrenza sleale, tornare sui nostri passi quando le decisioni prese sono sbagliate.
               

                  Dobbiamo impegnarci di più per crescita e competitività per sostenere il nostro welfare, il migliore al mondo.
               

Nicolás González Casares (S&D). – Señora presidenta, el Pacto por una Industria Limpia tiene el potencial de ser un motor de transformación que fortalezca la industria europea. Mientras en otros lugares promueven la inestabilidad, nosotros tenemos que caminar firme a través del Pacto Verde Europeo como la única estrategia de crecimiento posible.
               

                  Algunos están promocionando aquí la vuelta a los combustibles fósiles, al gas, que fue verdaderamente el problema que lastró nuestra competitividad en los últimos años aumentando los precios de la energía. Por eso, cuando estos grupos hablan de promover de nuevo los fósiles, realmente quienes se frotan las manos son Putin y Trump. Por lo tanto, nosotros debemos continuar apostando por una energía limpia —preferiblemente renovable— y apostar por las interconexiones. Además, la financiación es una condición imprescindible para lograrlo. Damos la bienvenida a los 100 000 millones de euros, pero creemos que esto debe continuar en el nuevo marco financiero plurianual.
               

                  Miren, vivimos en un mundo hostil, pero no debemos hacer caso a la propaganda antieuropea. Valoremos nuestra posición favorable y lo que hemos construido. Nuestras condiciones de vida también forman parte de nuestra competitividad.
               

Aleksandar Nikolic (PfE). – Madame la Présidente, l'Europe a tout inventé ou presque: la voiture, le téléphone mobile ou encore, plus récemment, le web. Pourtant, elle est en passe aujourd'hui de sortir de l'histoire, reléguée au rang de simple consommatrice des inventions des autres. Cela fait vingt-cinq ans que les gouvernements de mon pays, la France, suivent vos recommandations. Il y a vingt-cinq ans, la France avait un excédent commercial. Nous avons aujourd'hui un déficit de 100 milliards d'euros. Nous étions le cinquième pays au monde en production industrielle. Nous sommes aujourd'hui le dixième.
               

                  Votre pacte pour une industrie propre est une hérésie idéologique de plus. Par exemple, vous voulez passer à 32 % d'électrification d'ici à 2030, mais vous fuyez la seule énergie capable de nous faire atteindre cet objectif: le nucléaire, à peine mentionné dans votre pacte. Nos industriels n'arrivent déjà plus à être compétitifs, mais vous continuez à leur imposer des objectifs hors-sol, comme la neutralité carbone en 2050. En réalité, avec votre pacte, notre industrie ne sera ni propre ni sale: elle disparaîtra, et nous importerons des biens produits par des industries polluantes à l'autre bout du monde.
               

Diego Solier (NI). – Señora presidenta, señor comisario, si seguimos en esta dirección corremos el riesgo de que, para 2030, nuestras industrias hayan desaparecido y nuestra soberanía esté en manos de potencias extranjeras. Nuestra industria se deslocaliza, nuestras empresas cierran, nuestra competitividad desaparece… Lo único que les aportamos desde Europa es burocracia, trabas e impuestos asfixiantes.
               

                  Europa ha pasado de marcar el rumbo a quedarse atrás: antes nos imitaban, ahora nos superan. Mientras discutimos normativas, el liderazgo industrial y tecnológico se nos escapa de las manos. El Pacto por una Industria Limpia es una oportunidad, pero solo si actuamos con inteligencia: menos trabas, más inversión, energía asequible, industria fuerte.
               

                  No podemos permitir que la descarbonización sea un freno en lugar de un impulso. Europa siempre ha sabido reinventarse. Es el momento de recuperar el liderazgo, de marcar el camino y de construir un futuro próspero.
               

Martin Hojsík (Renew). – Vážená pani predsedajúca, štvrtina domácností na Slovensku je ohrozená energetickou chudobou. Účty za energie sú pre nich o rozhodnutí, či mať doma teplo alebo sa normálne najesť. Čo to má spoločné s čistým priemyslom? Viac, než si myslíte.
               

                  Riešenie energetickej chudoby je aj o čistom priemysle. Je aj o investíciách do obnovy domov. Tie prinášajú nielen nižšie účty za energie, ale aj nové pracovné miesta a príjmy štátneho rozpočtu. Zbavujú nás závislosti na plyne z dovozu – príčine, hlavnej príčine vysokých cien energií. Je o dostupnosti tepelných čerpadiel či lepšom využití geotermálnej energie. O sociálnom lízingu elektrických áut, ktorý spraví modernú elektromobilitu dostupnou pre bežných ľudí, nielen výhodou tých bohatých. Nie na úkor hromadnej dopravy, ale popri rozvoji.
               

                  Dohoda o čistom priemysle je príležitosťou pre lepšie využitie odpadu ako zdroja materiálu pre recykláciu a opätovné použitie namiesto zbytočného skládkovania a spaľovania. Neposielať na šrot cez pol sveta, ale recyklovať ho v Európe. Čistý priemysel je o nových pracovných miestach, prosperite, konkurencieschopnosti, bezpečnosti a, áno, aj o ochrane planéty, pretože inú nemáme.
               

Jüri Ratas (PPE). – Austatud president, head ametikaaslased, volinik! Ma olen olnud 4 aastat Eesti peaminister ja korduvalt uhkusega rääkinud, kui palju on Eestis head. Nutikas ja hästi haritud rahvas, ägedad digilahendused, avatud innovatsioonile, kiire majanduskasv. Viimased kolm aastat on olnud Eestile rasked. Sõda Ukrainas, Venemaa hübriidrünnakud ja ebakindlus. Energiahinnad on mitmekordistunud, tarbijahinnad kasvanud nelja aastaga nelikümmend neli protsenti. See on kahjustanud meie ettevõtete konkurentsivõimet. Olen veendunud, et meie tööstus vajab positiivset tõuget. Puhta tööstuse plaan võib vajaliku tõuke anda. Toetan tugevalt kättesaadava hinnaga ja kindla energiavarustuse tagamist Eestile. Euroopale on see hädavajalik. Sõjaohuga silmitsi seistes vajame väga suurt pingutust nii Euroopa ühise välispiiri ehitamisel kui ka kaitsetööstuse arendamisel. Ja kolmandaks, Eesti vajab rohkem tarku ja hästi tasustatud töökohti. Nutikad, osavad ja hästi haritud inimesed on meie panus. Euroopa peab saama seda ressurssi rakendada. Eesti vajab rohkem investeeringuid ja ükski Euroopa Liidu riik ei tohi meie plaanides jääda ääremaaks.
               

Bernd Lange (S&D). – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Die Analyse des Clean Industrial Deals teile ich, allerdings fehlt mir ein bisschen die Konkretisierung. Sie haben richtigerweise gesagt, die Energiepreise, das ist ein zentrales Wettbewerbsmomentum. Heißt das, Sie wollen die Beihilfenregelung ändern? Heißt das, dass Sie eine Strompreiskompensation durchführen wollen? Also da möchte ich ein bisschen mehr Fleisch am Knochen haben.
               

                  Und dann auch die außenwirtschaftliche Absicherung. Wir haben immerhin 35 % unseres Bruttoinlandsprodukts durch außenwirtschaftliche Beziehungen erwirtschaftet, auch da müssen wir gucken, dass man mehr defensiv sicherstellt. Zum Beispiel, wenn es jetzt Zölle aus den USA auf Stahl gibt, dass nicht mehr Stahl auf den europäischen Markt kommt, also dass man auch eine Safeguard-Regelung schafft, aber auch offensiv sicherstellt, dass in fairen Partnerschaften Rohstoffe gewonnen werden können und vor allen Dingen grüner Wasserstoff hinreichend nach Europa importiert werden kann.
               

Isabella Tovaglieri (PfE). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, oggi, la Commissione ci propina l'ennesima strategia per rilanciare l'industria europea, dopo averla affossata con le sue stesse mani.
               

                  Eppure, nel vostro piano ‘Industria pulita’ non riusciamo a ravvedere dei ravvedimenti sostanziali: confermate la folle corsa verso l'elettrico; sussurrate, appena, l'espressione ‘neutralità tecnologica’ e snobbate bellamente l'uso del nucleare per fini civili.
               

                  In più, di fronte al tracollo dell'auto elettrica, anziché fare retromarcia sul Green Deal in modo del tutto incoerente, decidete di investire 850 miliardi di euro per costruire carri armati. Ma da quando i carri armati sono green?
               

                  E lo fate, peraltro, senza alcun mandato parlamentare e chiedendo, ancora una volta, enormi sacrifici a quei cittadini che, a causa delle vostre politiche scellerate, non riescono ad arrivare alla fine del mese.
               

                  Il problema è che, mentre qui dentro si perde tempo a giocare a Risiko, là fuori la Cina ogni giorno ci soffia quote di mercato e ogni minuto perso per salvare le nostre imprese è una pietra tombale sulla competitività europea.
               

(La Presidente toglie la parola all'oratrice)


VORSITZ: SABINE VERHEYEN


Vizepräsidentin


Piotr Müller (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Ja mam wrażenie, że wielu na tej Sali niestety nie przeszkadza to, że obywatele stają się coraz biedniejsi ze względu na wysokie ceny energii i ceny ogrzewania. Mam wrażenie, że wielu na tej Sali niestety też nie przeszkadza fakt, że w Europie upadają kolejne fabryki, a nasz przemysł się zwija. Ale co bardziej szokujące jest dla mnie: mam wrażenie, że na tej Sali na niewielu wrażenie robi wojna, która zbliża się do europejskich bram, ponieważ żeby ją wygrać, musimy być gotowi na to, aby przygotować nasze uzbrojenie, a do tego potrzebna jest stal. Czołgi nie są z kartonu, Szanowni Państwo. Jeżeli w Europie upadnie przemysł hutniczy, to nie będziemy mieli jak się zbroić. Dlatego pilnie potrzebujemy, aby wycofać się z systemu ETS, żeby zablokować wprowadzenie systemu ETS2, żeby wprowadzić po prostu pragmatyczną, a nie ideologiczną zieloną politykę przemysłową. I, Panie Komisarzu, o to do Pana apeluję. Liczę na francuski i europejski rozsądek.
                  

Anna Stürgkh (Renew). – Frau Präsidentin, sehr geehrter Herr Kommissar! 400 Milliarden Euro für fossile Brennstoffe fließen jedes Jahr aus der Europäischen Union. Auch heute, drei Jahre nach dem Start des Angriffskrieges Russlands auf die Ukraine, beziehen wir immer noch Gas aus Russland. Umso wichtiger, dass Energie im Clean Industrial Deal eine so wichtige Rolle einnimmt. Die Frage von einer vollständigen Energiewende, von einem resilienten, von einem sicheren und von einem nachhaltigen Energiesystem ist nicht nur eine Frage des Klimaschutzes.
                  

                     Energiepolitik ist Sicherheitspolitik. Wir dürfen nicht länger abhängig sein von Autokraten und auch nicht von denen, die es gerne wären. Eine erfolgreiche Energiewende mit einem modernen, grenzübergreifenden Stromnetz sichert unsere Freiheit. Eine echte Energie-Union, wo das Baltikum von der Sonnenenergie Spaniens und Kroatien von der Windenergie aus der Nordsee profitiert: Das ist ein Schutzschild für unsere Wirtschaft, für unsere Gesellschaft – nicht mehr und nicht weniger.
                  

Andrea Wechsler (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin, sehr geehrter Herr Kommissar Séjourné! Wir leben in einer Zeit tiefgreifender geopolitischer Umbrüche, und die Nachkriegsordnung, die uns so lange Stabilität und Sicherheit, aber eben auch Wohlstand gebracht hat, gehört ebenso der Vergangenheit an. In einer Welt voller Unsicherheiten ist eines klar: Europa muss in Sicherheit und Frieden, aber eben auch in wirtschaftlicher Stärke vereint sein, denn ohne eine starke Wirtschaft kann Europa seine Werte nicht verteidigen. Ohne industrielle Wettbewerbsfähigkeit bleiben wir abhängig, und ohne technologische Souveränität riskieren wir die Zukunft Europas. Sie wissen das, sehr geehrter Herr Kommissar, und deswegen sind Sie nach Baden-Württemberg gekommen, in das Herz der europäischen Automobilindustrie – und dafür noch mal herzlichen Dank.
                  

                     Und jetzt gehen Sie mit dem Clean Industrial Deal einen wichtigen Schritt, und er greift viele der zentralen Forderungen der CDU und EVP auf: die Stärkung des Standorts Europas, die Förderung von Forschung und Innovation und die Garantie bezahlbarer Energie. Aber das reicht nicht. Europa braucht mehr Tempo bei der Umsetzung, mehr Pragmatismus, mehr Vertrauen in den Markt und seine Unternehmen. Die Zeit zum Handeln ist jetzt.
                  

Sofie Eriksson (S&D). – Fru talman! Tack kommissionären! Jag noterar att en del så kallade patrioter här inne gärna agerar knähundar åt främmande makt. Men jag känner mig snarare äcklad av Europas beroende av galna gubbar i Ryssland, Kina, USA och andra ställen. Därför måste vi sluta vara beroende av deras gas och olja.
                  

                     Den här förändringen gör vi inte för att vara snälla mot någon annan, utan för vår egen skull: för jobben, industrisamhällena och de högst verkliga människorna. Ska vi vara en producerande kontinent i framtiden, med bra villkor för arbetare, kan man inte klamra sig fast vid teknik som blir föråldrad. Trots detta hör vi extremhögern lova att pausa tiden eller helst spola tillbaka den.
                  

                     Det är absurt och ett svek mot de som arbetar på bruken, på industrierna, de vars arbeten kommer att försvinna om EU-länderna försöker frysa tiden. Extremhögern sviker dem när de ljuger och säger att allt kan bli som det alltid har varit. Men det har aldrig varit som det alltid har varit. Fattar de inte det?
                  

Michał Kobosko (Renew). – Madam President, Executive Vice-President, let me first congratulate you for coming up with this plan within the Commission's first 100 days.
On a personal note, I had the chance to participate – perhaps as the only Member of the European Parliament – in President von der Leyen's presentation of the Clean Industrial Deal in Antwerp, in front of the Europe's top industry executives. I would sum up the room's reactions this way: well done for the first step.
But this is only the first step. We need to do much more to rebuild EU competitiveness, which is so vital to ensure our ability to defend ourselves in such a dangerous situation. To put it simply, we would not be able to defend Europe without the ability to produce steel, cement or pharmaceuticals on our continent. We need to focus on reducing energy costs for industry. Asking Member States to cut down their energy taxation cannot be our main and only response. We need European solutions and joint efforts to save our industries.
Dear Executive Vice-President, I encourage you to be bold and ambitious. This Parliament will support you.

Angelika Winzig (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar! Der Clean Industrial Deal verspricht Reindustrialisierung und Dekarbonisierung unter einen Hut zu bringen. Unsere europäischen Betriebe benötigen jetzt dringend unsere Unterstützung, denn sie kämpfen mit minimalistischen Wachstumsraten, hohen Energiekosten, starkem technologischem Wettbewerb, Überregulierung und mit einem spannungsgeladenen politischen Umfeld.
                  

                     Ich kann den Grundsätzen Ihres Plans durchaus etwas abgewinnen, aber ich habe noch viele offene Fragen. Mit Sicherheit wird es wieder zu neuer Gesetzgebung kommen – bitte smart und ohne zusätzliche Bürokratie. Die Mitgliedstaaten sind aufgefordert, Steuern auf Strom zu senken und Körperschaftssteuersysteme neu zu gestalten sowie Genehmigungsverfahren umzusetzen; auch sie brauchen Ihre Unterstützung. Aber auch die Ausgestaltung des Gesetzes zur Beschleunigung der industriellen Dekarbonisierung mit Resilienz- und Nachhaltigkeitskriterien sowie die Schaffung einer Wasserstoffbank lässt für mich noch einige Antworten offen, die wir mit Sicherheit in Zukunft noch diskutieren müssen.
                  

                     Wichtig ist, dass unsere Unternehmen jetzt Hilfe bekommen, die im Green Deal versprochen wurde, denn unsere Betriebe …
                  

(Die Präsidentin entzieht der Rednerin das Wort.)


Jens Geier (S&D). – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Vizepräsident Séjourné, verehrte Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Ich bedanke mich bei der Europäischen Kommission für die Vorlage dieses Clean Industrial Deals, und ich freue mich, dass die Kommission ernsthafte Schritte angekündigt hat, die Wettbewerbssituation der europäischen Industrie zu verbessern. Positiv ist, dass die Kommission einen Vorschlag aus einem Guss macht, anstatt das übliche Hickhack zwischen den Generaldirektionen entstehen zu lassen. Es wäre gut, Herr Séjourné, wenn die Kommission die Zeit der politischen Lösungen aus einzelnen Silos überwinden könnte. Ich bin mir aber nicht sicher, ob Teile der Industrie noch Zeit haben, bis die Maßnahmen der Kommission zu wirken beginnen.
                  

                     Mit dem Vorschlag für Leitmärkte für dekarbonisierte Produkte wie zum Beispiel Stahl macht die Kommission einen wichtigen Schritt nach vorne, denn damit werden nicht nur stärkere nationale Beihilfen möglich, sondern auch öffentliche Beschaffungen an andere Kriterien gebunden. Aber wird denn das kritische Merkmal die lokale Produktion sein oder dekarbonisierte europäische Produktion? Deswegen, um das zu klären, brauchen wir jetzt sehr, sehr schnell das Beschleunigungsgesetz für die Endkarbonisierung der Industrie, so schnell wie möglich.
                  

Oihane Agirregoitia Martínez (Renew). – Señora presidenta, señor vicepresidente de la Comisión, en este contexto de tensión y de amenazas continuas ya sabe que valoramos positivamente el Pacto por una Industria Limpia. Además, en Euskadi ya nos hemos puesto a trabajar en él, hemos tenido reuniones con el sector industrial para aprovecharlo. Así que hoy, teniendo en cuenta las últimas noticias y el contexto, queremos poner el foco en estos posibles aranceles del 25 % para el acero y el aluminio, que podrían entrar en vigor este miércoles, y el Plan de Acción para la siderurgia que ha mencionado y que presentará la próxima semana.
                  

                     Entiendo que en estos momentos estarán contemplando distintos escenarios en función de lo que pueda pasar en las próximas horas. Acabamos de saber que Trump también ha anunciado aranceles para Canadá, previstos para este miércoles, del 50 %: los ha duplicado en las últimas horas. Por lo tanto, las preguntas son si hay margen para sorpresas para los aranceles europeos de aquí a las siguientes horas y cómo vamos a responder también en su caso.
                  

                     Esa es nuestra preocupación en estos momentos, comisario, porque la competitividad de nuestra industria y la velocidad a la que va a poder descarbonizarse va a depender de ello también.
                  

President. – I forgot to say that the catch-the-eye and blue-card procedures are closed already because we are really running out of time.

Susana Solís Pérez (PPE). – Señora presidenta, señor comisario, el Pacto por una Industria Limpia es una muy buena señal de que Europa está cambiando y hay un apoyo decidido a la reindustrialización. Son buenas noticias. Pero, en mi opinión, esto llega cuatro años tarde y, por eso, hoy quiero recalcar, primero, la urgencia, porque su éxito dependerá de cómo de rápidos seamos a la hora de implementar todas las acciones que hoy ha anunciado y esta hoja de ruta: desde la simplificación normativa hasta incentivar la demanda.
                  

                     En segundo lugar, decisión. Necesitamos medidas más concretas y efectivas, porque el plan de energía asequible ya se queda corto para la industria electrointensiva, y muchas propuestas como reducir peajes, cargos e impuestos o invertir en redes son solo recomendaciones para los Estados miembros. Y en el caso de España, empeñada en cerrar las nucleares, me temo que no las seguirán.
                  

                     En tercer lugar, reglas del juego justas. Urge actualizar todos los mecanismos de defensa comercial para que sean efectivos. Lo conoce usted muy bien porque sectores como el acero están en una situación insostenible.
                  

                     Señor comisario, podemos hacerlo. Europa ha demostrado históricamente su capacidad para adaptarse y liderar en tiempos de cambio. Pero debemos actuar ya.
                  

Jonás Fernández (S&D). – Señora presidenta, señor comisario, un apunte inicial para intentar ganar algo de optimismo: las previsiones para la economía europea es que creceremos este año un 1 %. Es poquito, pero los Estados Unidos enfrentan una caída de la actividad en este primer trimestre del año superior al 2,5 %. Así que ya sabemos lo que no debemos hacer y tenemos que centrarnos en lo que sí sabemos y en lo que la Comisión plantea con este informe: esta hoja de ruta que yo creo que es bienvenida por la mayoría de esta Cámara.
                  

                     En cualquier caso, me gustaría hacer dos apuntes sobre el Pacto por una Industria Limpia, que creo que —como digo— es correcto y oportuno. El primero de ellos es la necesidad de mejorar los mecanismos de financiación. Si vamos a hacer política industrial en Europa no podemos hacerla de manera que la financiación sea descentralizada. Esto genera un grave riesgo para el mercado único. Yo creo que necesitamos pensar cómo financiarla. Y, en segundo lugar, y siendo de Asturias, esperamos el 19 de marzo ese Plan de Acción para el acero, tan necesario para territorios como el mío.
                  

Aura Salla (PPE). – Madam President, the Clean Industrial Deal is not only about sustainability goals; it is about Europe's security and competitiveness. It's about resilience. A strong and sustainable industrial base means scaling up our economy and strengthening our defence industry. Without this, we keep being dependent on others.
Let's be clear: we needed to get rid of Russian fossil fuels yesterday. An industry that can't be produced at home can't defend the home. Europe's supply chains for critical raw materials must be secured. We must utilise our key resources better and expand circularity. When it comes to regulation, we must finally build the single European energy market, supported by a free market economy, and ensure that our companies can keep up in the global competition. Weak industry means weak defence. Let us choose to scale up our sustainable industry for our autonomy, a strong economy and strong defence.

Thomas Pellerin-Carlin (S&D). – Madame la Présidente, deux mots: écologie et économie. Deux mots si proches, mais que beaucoup ici s'acharnent pourtant à vouloir opposer – notamment l'extrême droite, qui veut copier la politique de Donald Trump. Je constate avec vous, mes chers amis, l'absence totale de chacun des eurodéputés du groupe PfE de Jordan Bardella dans cette salle, en ce moment même, ce qui en dit long sur leur intérêt pour notre industrie.
                  

                     Alors, mes chers collègues, commençons par nous mettre d'accord sur une vérité simple et basique: l'Europe est pauvre en énergies fossiles. Nous importons déjà 90 % du gaz et 97 % du pétrole que nous consommons. Notre Europe est pauvre en gaz et en pétrole, mais elle est riche en ressources renouvelables: le vent, le soleil, la géothermie, la puissance des mers et l'élément central, à savoir l'innovation et l'intelligence collective des Européens.
                  

                     Nous, Européens du XXIe siècle, nous savons que l'écologie et l'économie sont les deux faces d'une même pièce. Alors, oui: la sobriété, l'efficacité énergétique, les énergies renouvelables, la réparation et le recyclage sont les piliers de notre prospérité économique future.
                  

Lídia Pereira (PPE). – Senhora Presidente, este não é o tempo para dúvidas que enfraquecem a nossa confiança. Este é, sim, o tempo de liderar a revolução industrial limpa, de recuperar a esperança e acreditar no futuro da Europa. É tempo de ter orgulho em sermos europeus.
                  

                     O Clean Industrial Deal não é apenas uma oportunidade, é um compromisso com o crescimento e com a inovação, um compromisso de construir uma Europa que lidera na transição energética, que gera riqueza e cria empregos de qualidade. Uma Europa que inspira e se destaca no contexto global.
                  

                     A indústria europeia foi sempre o motor do nosso progresso — agora temos a responsabilidade de descarbonizar para crescer. Este é o momento de agir, de avançar mais rápido, com mais determinação, é o momento de garantir que a aposta em tecnologias limpas impulsiona a economia, reforça a independência energética e cria novas oportunidades de emprego.
                  

                     A Europa do futuro começa hoje com inovação, com visão, com ambição, e começa connosco, com todos nós.
                  

Annalisa Corrado (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, disponibilità e costo di energia, materie prime, infrastrutture: queste le voci più importanti per qualunque impresa.
                  

                     L'Europa arranca su questi fronti ed è giusto e positivo che il Patto europeo per l'industria pulita identifichi chiaramente la strada da prendere: transizione energetica, economia circolare, formazione, innovazione, lotta alle speculazioni.
                  

                     Quello che ci preoccupa è che, senza gli strumenti comuni adeguati, un'efficace piano strategico si riduca a un bell'esercizio di stile. L'Europa è chiamata a compiere un balzo evolutivo verso una maggiore coesione sociale, comuni strategie e comuni investimenti.
                  

                     Dovremmo avere il coraggio di parlarne: no, non solamente quando si tratta di armi ma anche quando parliamo di indipendenza energetica e autonomia strategica dell'industria. Davvero pensiamo che bastino le armi per avere la sicurezza? E anche se per assurdo bastassero, come pensiamo di costruirle pagando energia a prezzi folli dai Paesi dai quali vorremmo difenderci?
                  

                     Non c'è difesa senza autonomia, non c'è autonomia e non c'è pace senza un'Europa forte, libera dai ricatti fossili, che parli con una voce sola: è tempo di prenderne atto.
                  

Matej Tonin (PPE). – Gospa predsednica! V prejšnjem mandatu so bile evropske politike in gospodarstvo vodeno na temeljih ideološkega zelenega prehoda. Posledice so danes znane vsem.
                  

                     V zadnjih letih so se cene električne energije in plina povzpele na rekordne ravni in kljub stabilizaciji ostajajo visoke.
                  

                     Clean Industrial Deal, ki ga imamo danes na mizi, je pragmatičen odgovor na norosti zelenega prehoda prejšnjega mandata. Je premik k razumnemu zelenemu prehodu, ki je nujen, da lahko evropsko gospodarstvo in tudi prebivalstvo sploh preživi.
                  

                     Da bo evropsko gospodarstvo lahko ne le preživelo, pač pa ostalo konkurenčno in relevantno, moramo zagotoviti naslednje:
                  

                     Prvič, cenovno dostopno energijo, pri čemer mora energetska strategija Evropske unije temeljiti na raznoliki mešanici energetskih virov. Torej, poleg obnovljivih virov energije moramo vključiti tudi jedrsko energijo.
                  

                     Drugič, bistveno moramo zmanjšati birokracijo in to ne postopno, ampak takoj.
                  

                     Tretjič, zagotoviti je treba varnost, kajti vojna je najdražja. Tudi v interesu gospodarstva je, da je varnost Evropske unije zagotovljena.
                  

                     Samo gospodarsko močan igralec je tudi geopolitično relevanten igralec.
                  

Giorgio Gori (S&D). – Signor Presidente, signor Commissario, onorevoli colleghi, il Clean Industrial Deal mette bene a fuoco come la decarbonizzazione dell'industria europea debba conciliare sostenibilità, competitività e autonomia strategica.
                  

                     Ci saremmo però aspettati più ambizione, in particolare su ciò che può essere fatto nel breve periodo: parlo in primo luogo del prezzo dell'energia. Per fare sì che i contratti di lungo termine diventino una prassi diffusa anche per le piccole imprese, servono strumenti di de-risking e di garanzia pubblica.
                  

                     Non basta suggerire agli Stati membri di abbassare le tasse. Il punto è come si forma il prezzo dell'energia e come si trasferiscono agli utenti i benefici che derivano dalla diffusione delle rinnovabili.
                  

                     Per questo occorre anticipare la valutazione di impatto sui mercati dell'energia a breve termine, anche perché i competitor delle industrie europee, oltre che pagare meno l'energia, possono contare su enormi sussidi.
                  

                     Sulla concorrenza sleale, su come fronteggiare l'overcapacity, le risposte del Clean Industrial Deal non ci sembrano ad oggi sufficienti.
                  

Spontane Wortmeldungen


Krzysztof Hetman (PPE). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Panie Komisarzu! Szanowni Państwo! Muszę przyznać, że przez ostatnie miesiące z coraz większym przerażeniem wsłuchiwałem się w głos europejskiego przemysłu, przede wszystkim przemysłu energochłonnego, który przedstawiał szereg problemów, jaki musi stawić czoła w obliczu radzenia sobie z ogromem przepisów i wymogów środowiskowych. Ważna jest walka o środowisko naturalne i chcemy, by Europejczycy oddychali czystym powietrzem. Ceną za to nie może być jednak uśmiercenie europejskiej produkcji przemysłowej. Skorzystałyby na tym tylko kraje trzecie, które z największą radością przejęłyby naszą rodzimą produkcję, co z kolei zachwiałoby nie tylko naszą konkurencyjnością, ale i bezpieczeństwem. Energochłonny przemysł wymaga pilnego wsparcia wobec borykania się z wysokimi kosztami energii, złożonymi regulacjami czy też nieuczciwą konkurencją globalną. Musimy, w celu zmniejszenia presji kosztowej na nasz przemysł, postawić na deregulację oraz wsparcie inwestycji. Czas dostosować się do zmieniającej się rzeczywistości, w której przede wszystkim musimy teraz stawiać nasze bezpieczeństwo oraz silną gospodarkę i odsunąć w czasie ETS2.
                  

Idoia Mendia (S&D). – Señora presidenta, las personas son la clave del éxito de cualquier plan de acción industrial europeo. Invertir en personas es invertir en la competitividad de nuestro modelo económico e industrial. Nuestro objetivo debe ser continuar trabajando por empleos de calidad, con salarios justos y condiciones laborales buenas y seguras. La semana pasada conocimos la propuesta Unión de las Competencias, llamada a garantizar una ciudadanía europea formada y preparada a través del reciclaje y perfeccionamiento profesional para responder con éxito a las transiciones digital y ecológica.
                  

                     Necesitamos fondos para apoyar a trabajadores y empresas en su transición hacia una industria limpia y digitalizada. Y para que este proceso pueda llevarse a cabo con éxito debe hacerse a través del diálogo social con los agentes sociales. Por ello, sería necesario contar con una Directiva para la transición justa que permita adelantarse a estas situaciones de transición.
                  

Billy Kelleher (Renew). – Madam President, I welcome the publication of the EU Clean Industrial Deal. Just to say at the outset: I want to wish you well, Commissioner, in this particular endeavour. It is critically important that we do use decarbonisation as a growth pathway to ensure that Europe becomes competitive.
But there is just one specific area I want to hone in on, and that is the issue of sustainable aviation fuel. Aviation accounts for about 4 % of our EU emissions. And if you look at it in the context of the transport sector, that would be about 14 % of transport emissions inside the European Union.
Yet at the same time, sustainable aviation fuel – and reference to it in the Clean Industrial Deal – is very light, to say the least. So I really hope that there would be policies put in place to incentivise and encourage not only the innovation, but the production scale-up aspect of it as well.
There is demand for sustainable aviation fuel. The problem is that there is no supply. We have to incentivise supply and encourage supply. So we need policies underpinned in that, because it will require huge capital investment. But more importantly, if there is certainty in policy, then I'm quite sure the aviation sector would embrace it.

Majdouline Sbai (Verts/ALE). – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, l'avenir de l'industrie sera écologique et social ou ne sera pas. Ceux qui disent l'inverse, ici, à l'extrême droite, mentent et le savent très bien, car les limites planétaires ne se manipulent pas comme on manipule l'information. Ce qui met en difficulté notre industrie, ce n'est pas l'écologie: c'est la concurrence déloyale et la dépendance aux énergies fossiles, qui plombe notre balance commerciale et constitue une fragilité coupable dans le contexte que nous connaissons. Il est urgent de protéger notre marché intérieur et de soutenir l'achat européen pour les besoins européens.
                  

                     Cette année, les travailleurs de l'acier et de l'automobile annoncent 300 000 licenciements. Une entreprise ne devrait pas pouvoir distribuer des dividendes record une année et licencier l'année suivante. En France, on appelle cela la privatisation des profits et la collectivisation des pertes, ce qui crée un immense sentiment d'injustice et entraîne la montée des populismes. Il faudrait désormais conditionner le soutien à l'économie et aux entreprises à la participation des salariés et des pouvoirs publics à leur gouvernance. C'est là la vraie nouvelle donne.
                  

Marc Botenga (The Left). – Voorzitter, de Commissie komt met haar Clean Industrial Deal en beweert dan dat de oplossing is voor alles. Laten we naar drie cruciale factoren kijken: ten eerste de energieprijzen. De energieprijzen blijven hoog en u komt niet met een mechanisme dat garandeert dat er voor alle bedrijven een stabiele, lage prijs zal zijn. U komt niet met een massaal publiek investeringspakket waarvan we zeggen ‘we nemen dat in eigen handen en de controle over de energieprijzen wordt weer publiek’.
                  

                     Ten tweede is er een ander probleem van het industriebeleid. Dat is dat we de laatste jaren heel veel publiek geld, belastinggeld, hebben gegeven aan bedrijven die dat in hun eigen zakken hebben gestoken, aan de aandeelhouders hebben gegeven zonder banen te garanderen in Europa. Ook op dat vlak schiet de Commissie tekort. Welke garanties zijn er voor de arbeiders, voor de werknemers?
                  

                     Ten derde wilt u nu ook nog eens de sociale en ecologische verantwoordelijkheid van multinationals afzwakken wat betreft ruwe grondstoffen. Dat wil zeggen dat we meer plunderingen zullen zien in Oost-Congo, dat we Rwanda nog meer zullen aanmoedigen om daar de oorlog op te stoken. Dat is niet de oplossing. Wij hebben een publiek industriebeleid nodig.
                  

Sander Smit (PPE). – Voorzitter, commissaris, de Commissie erkent eindelijk de problemen van onze noodlijdende industrie. De Clean Industrial Deal mag echter geen ‘clean out deal’ worden voor onze industrie. Peperdure innovatieve plannen, maar zonder pragmatische oplossingen in deze onconventionele tijden. Een 90 % CO2-reductiedoelstelling voor 2040 tegen 1 600 miljard euro per jaar is geen groene groei, dat is economische zelfvernietiging. Europese energieprijzen zullen op deze manier niet dalen, maar verder stijgen.
                  

                     De industriële ruggengraat van Europa, van onze familiebedrijven wordt gebogen onder bureaucratische en prijsballast. Voorzitter, technologieneutraliteit. De verbrandingsmotor verdient eerherstel. Het is tijd voor een fundamentele herziening van de Green Deal. Niet de realiteit moet zich aanpassen aan Brussel, maar Brussel moet zich aanpassen aan de gewijzigde realiteit.
                  

(Ende der spontanen Wortmeldungen)


Stéphane Séjourné,
Vice-président exécutif de la Commission. – Madame la Présidente, je veux remercier tous les députés pour ce débat éclairant, qui montre qu'on doit encore progresser vers le consensus autour de la décarbonation de notre économie. En réalité, depuis la guerre en Ukraine et la fin de l'approvisionnement en gaz russe à bas coût, notre stratégie de décarbonation est devenue une stratégie économique, puisque nous devons produire de l'énergie sur notre continent en réduisant les risques associés aux pays tiers. Nous devons aussi mettre les moyens nécessaires pour électrifier au maximum et accompagner nos entreprises et nos industries dans cette électrification. C'est une question économique, de compétitivité, mais aussi une question stratégique pour l'Europe. Quand j'entends un certain nombre d'orateurs, il y a probablement trois écueils dans lesquels la Commission ne tombera pas.
                  

                     Le premier est de recréer de nouvelles dépendances à d'autres énergies ou à d'autres continents, ce qui pose un risque de fragilité économique et géopolitique. Le deuxième est de considérer qu'il faut tout nationaliser et tout planifier pour pouvoir faire descendre le prix de l'énergie. Il nous faut une feuille de route avec une analyse qui montre que nos entreprises pourront dégager des marges et donc être plus compétitives avec une énergie moins chère. Jusqu'à présent, je ne connais pas de système nationalisé qui permette une efficacité économique.
                  

                     Le troisième – et, éventuellement, le quatrième – point que je voulais soulever, c'était la question des enjeux internationaux. Je pense que, dans un moment qui est agité d'un point de vue international – l'Europe est dans une situation complexe vis-à-vis des discussions et des menaces sur les droits de douane européens –, la réponse devra être globale. Elle est globale sur le volet compétitivité, et nous avons tenu à pouvoir aborder un certain nombre de sujets, tel le prix de l'énergie, qui s'avère être un facteur de compétitivité pour l'ensemble des industries européennes.
                  

                     Dans ce cadre-là, je veux rebondir sur quelques interrogations qui ont été faites sur le prix de l'énergie et notre capacité à le garantir dans le cadre des PPA. Oui, la Banque européenne d'investissement servira de garante pour les PPA, pour pouvoir sécuriser et réduire les risques associés à ces PPA, qui se multiplient et qui sont une bonne chose, puisqu'ils retirent la volatilité du cours de l'énergie et permettent de sortir du cours du prix carboné de notre électricité les contrats de ce genre qui sont passés entre les producteurs d'énergie et les industriels. Cette question, en tout cas, sera au cœur de nos priorités pour donner de la visibilité, sécuriser l'approvisionnement et garantir des prix bas de l'énergie dans la période. C'est une mesure d'urgence, mais que nous souhaitons pérenniser et élargir dans les prochains mois et les prochaines années.
                  

                     La réponse globale concerne le prix de l'énergie – je l'ai évoqué –, mais également la demande de produits décarbonés – je l'ai évoqué également sur la question des matières premières et de notre capacité à pouvoir produire de nouveau des matières premières en Europe. Oui, il faudra, à un moment donné, rouvrir des mines de matières rares, de terres rares et de matières premières en Europe, si nous ne voulons pas dépendre de partenariats, et éventuellement de mines qui font travailler des salariés dans des conditions que nous n'acceptons pas nous-mêmes, Européens. Ces partenariats ne seront pas conclus avec notamment des pays qui font travailler un certain nombre de travailleurs dans des conditions absolument désastreuses. Je pense notamment à la RDC: vu les conditions géopolitiques du pays, on avait, concernant diverses matières premières, plusieurs partenariats envisageables avec la RDC, et qui ne me le semblent plus aujourd'hui.
                  

                     La voie à suivre pour l'Europe doit être la réduction des risques associés à nos matières premières, y compris en produisant en Europe. C'est comme l'énergie. Nous ne produisons pas de pétrole, nous ne produisons pas de gaz et nous avons un certain nombre d'instruments pour pouvoir être autonomes dans notre capacité à produire de l'énergie, dans ce moment qui est crucial, y compris pour notre industrie: prix de l'énergie, financements, circularité et, enfin, formation et compétences, puisque ces plans sectoriels se font également avec les syndicats et les forces professionnelles. Nous les avons reçus, nous avons construit les plans sectoriels avec eux, que ce soit sur l'automobile, l'acier ou la chimie, et nous poursuivrons cette méthode de concertation et de co-construction des réponses, qui doivent correspondre à une réalité économique. Vous l'avez compris, notre objectif est d'accélérer la décarbonation pour des questions stratégiques, pour des questions de compétitivité, mais aussi pour rendre l'Europe plus forte dans ce moment complexe et incertain au niveau international.
                  

                     Je viendrai prochainement en audition au Parlement européen dans les commissions ITRE, ECON, IMCO, JURI, ENVI et INTA, qui m'ont convié. Nous aborderons tous ces sujets dans le détail, et je remercie également les groupes politiques pour leur soutien.
                  

                     Évitons de politiser le pacte vert. Il a probablement donné un certain nombre de sueurs froides administratives à nos entreprises, et nous essayons de régler cela. Mais, une fois encore, quand les sujets de notre stratégie économique et de nos objectifs climatiques se rejoignent, je crois que cela devrait réunir une très grande partie de cet hémicycle.
                  

Die Präsidentin. – Die Aussprache ist geschlossen.
                  


Schriftliche Erklärungen (Artikel 178)



Lina Gálvez (S&D),
por escrito. – La Delegación Socialista Española en el Parlamento acoge con satisfacción el Pacto por una Industria Limpia, que tiene el potencial de ser el motor de transformación que fortalezca la industria europea. Mientras otras regiones del mundo enfrentan vaivenes políticos, confrontación e incertidumbre en sus políticas, la UE debe demostrar estabilidad, y el Pacto Verde Europeo es y debe continuar siendo el pilar firme para la competitividad y la sostenibilidad.
                  

                     Reindustrializar Europa con un modelo sostenible y competitivo solo será posible si garantizamos energía asequible para nuestras industrias y nuestra ciudadanía. Necesitamos más renovables e interconexiones para una Unión de la Energía real y mercados e instrumentos que reflejen esta asequibilidad para la industria.
                  

                     Además, la financiación es una condición imprescindible. Es una buena noticia que este plan venga acompañado de recursos, pero debemos asegurarnos de que el próximo marco financiero plurianual continúe en esa dirección. Necesitamos apostar por campeones europeos capaces de competir a nivel global. Este Pacto es también una oportunidad para fomentar el sector de las tecnologías limpias para modernizar nuestra base industrial y mejorar nuestras condiciones de vida.
                  

András Gyürk (PfE),
írásban. – Az európai ipar nehéz helyzetben van. Az elszabaduló energiaárak, valamint a Bizottság fojtogató túlszabályozása rossz befektetési és termelési környezetet teremtett az iparvállalatok számára és közelebb hozta a tömeges leépítések veszélyét. Az uniós vezetők által egyhangúlag elfogadott Budapesti Nyilatkozat ezzel számot vetve egyértelmű cselekvési tervet jelölt ki Brüsszelnek. A most bemutatott Tiszta Iparról szóló megállapodás a pozitív célkitűzések ellenére inkább egy kihagyott lehetőségként azonosítható.
                  

                     Először, a Budapesti Nyilatkozattal összhangban, az iparpolitika középpontjában a versenyképességnek kell állnia. Ehelyett Brüsszel, a tagállamok döntését megkerülve, nem változtat a Zöld Megállapodáson, hanem újabb klímacélokat próbál az iparra és a vállalkozásokra kényszeríteni. Ez hibás megközelítés – a zöldítés nem mehet a versenyképesség rovására.
                  

                     Másodszor, bár az ipar szenved a magas energiaáraktól, a Bizottság továbbra sem foglalkozik ezzel kellőképpen. A Tisztaipar-megállapodásban javasolt intézkedések elégtelenek az energiaárak szükséges mértékű letörésére. Ehhez leginkább a rossz szabályozások felülvizsgálatára és az energiaszankciók azonnali eltörlésére lenne szükség.
                  

                     Harmadszor, a versenyképesség előmozdításához a bürokráciacsökkentés mellett az energia- és különösen a villamosenergia-infrastruktúra fejlesztésének fokozása szükséges. Fel kell gyorsítani az áramhálózati és elektromos töltőinfrastruktúra-beruházásokat, amihez az eddiginél erősebb támogatásra van szükség Brüsszeltől.
                  

                     Ez így nem elégséges. A Bizottságnak vissza kell térnie a Budapesti Nyilatkozathoz, és annak mentén kell dolgoznia. Mi, Patrióták ezt követeljük.
                  

Erik Kaliňák (NI),
písomne. – Clean Industrial Deal je prezentovaný ako veľkolepý plán na záchranu planéty a posilnenie európskeho priemyslu. No v skutočnosti? Je to ďalší drahý výstrel do tmy od bruselskej elity, ktorá ignoruje realitu našich národov.
                  

                     Tento deal sľubuje zelenú budúcnosť, ale za akú cenu? Prísne regulácie a miliardové dotácie do vetra – doslova – zvyšujú náklady pre naše firmy, ktoré už teraz bojujú s konkurenciou z Číny a Ameriky. Tam emisie neriešia, vyrábajú lacno a efektívne, kým my tu topíme peniaze daňových poplatníkov v byrokracii, solárnych paneloch a vrtuliach. Výsledok? Stratíme pracovné miesta, presunieme výrobu mimo EÚ a globálne emisie sa nezmenia – len sa presťahujú inde.
                  

                     Pýtam sa vás: Koľko ešte zaplatíme za zelené ilúzie? Koľko fabrík sa musí zatvoriť, koľko ľudí prísť o prácu, kým si priznáme, že tento deal nie je riešením, ale problémom? My nepotrebujeme ďalšie ideologické experimenty – my potrebujeme pragmatizmus, konkurencieschopnosť a slobodu rozhodovať o vlastnej budúcnosti.
                  

Javi López (S&D),
por escrito. – La Delegación Socialista Española en el Parlamento acoge con satisfacción el Pacto por una Industria Limpia, que tiene el potencial de ser el motor de transformación que fortalezca la industria europea. Mientras otras regiones del mundo enfrentan vaivenes políticos, confrontación e incertidumbre en sus políticas, la UE debe demostrar estabilidad, y el Pacto Verde Europeo es y debe continuar siendo el pilar firme para la competitividad y la sostenibilidad.
                  

                     Reindustrializar Europa con un modelo sostenible y competitivo solo será posible si garantizamos energía asequible para nuestras industrias y nuestra ciudadanía. Necesitamos más renovables e interconexiones para una Unión de la Energía real y mercados e instrumentos que reflejen esta asequibilidad para la industria.
                  

                     Además, la financiación es una condición imprescindible. Es una buena noticia que este plan venga acompañado de recursos, pero debemos asegurarnos de que el próximo marco financiero plurianual continúe en esa dirección. Necesitamos apostar por campeones europeos capaces de competir a nivel global. Este Pacto es también una oportunidad para fomentar el sector de las tecnologías limpias para modernizar nuestra base industrial y mejorar nuestras condiciones de vida.
                  

César Luena (S&D),
por escrito. – La Delegación Socialista Española en el Parlamento acoge con satisfacción el Pacto por una Industria Limpia, que tiene el potencial de ser el motor de transformación que fortalezca la industria europea. Mientras otras regiones del mundo enfrentan vaivenes políticos, confrontación e incertidumbre en sus políticas, la UE debe demostrar estabilidad, y el Pacto Verde Europeo es y debe continuar siendo el pilar firme para la competitividad y la sostenibilidad.
                  

                     Reindustrializar Europa con un modelo sostenible y competitivo solo será posible si garantizamos energía asequible para nuestras industrias y nuestra ciudadanía. Necesitamos más renovables e interconexiones para una Unión de la Energía real y mercados e instrumentos que reflejen esta asequibilidad para la industria.
                  

                     Además, la financiación es una condición imprescindible. Es una buena noticia que este plan venga acompañado de recursos, pero debemos asegurarnos de que el próximo marco financiero plurianual continúe en esa dirección. Necesitamos apostar por campeones europeos capaces de competir a nivel global. Este Pacto es también una oportunidad para fomentar el sector de las tecnologías limpias para modernizar nuestra base industrial y mejorar nuestras condiciones de vida.
                  

Rosa Serrano Sierra (S&D),
por escrito. – La Delegación Socialista Española en el Parlamento acoge con satisfacción el Pacto por una Industria Limpia, que tiene el potencial de ser el motor de transformación que fortalezca la industria europea. Mientras otras regiones del mundo enfrentan vaivenes políticos, confrontación e incertidumbre en sus políticas, la UE debe demostrar estabilidad, y el Pacto Verde Europeo es y debe continuar siendo el pilar firme para la competitividad y la sostenibilidad.
                  

                     Reindustrializar Europa con un modelo sostenible y competitivo solo será posible si garantizamos energía asequible para nuestras industrias y nuestra ciudadanía. Necesitamos más renovables e interconexiones para una Unión de la Energía real y mercados e instrumentos que reflejen esta asequibilidad para la industria.
                  

                     Además, la financiación es una condición imprescindible. Es una buena noticia que este plan venga acompañado de recursos, pero debemos asegurarnos de que el próximo marco financiero plurianual continúe en esa dirección. Necesitamos apostar por campeones europeos capaces de competir a nivel global. Este Pacto es también una oportunidad para fomentar el sector de las tecnologías limpias para modernizar nuestra base industrial y mejorar nuestras condiciones de vida.
                  
15.   The need for EU support towards a just transition and reconstruction in Syria (debate)

Die Präsidentin. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über die Erklärungen des Rates und der Kommission zur Notwendigkeit der Unterstützung eines gerechten Übergangs und des Wiederaufbaus in Syrien durch die EU (2025/2569(RSP)).
               

                  I really beg everyone who is speaking today to keep the time, because we are already very late.
               

                  And I announce directly at the beginning that we can just take five people for the catch-the-eye procedure. So we will open it shortly and then I will close it when we have five announced, because otherwise we will be here until midnight.
               

Adam Szłapka,
President-in-Office of the Council. – Madam President, honourable Members, Commissioner, we stand at a pivotal moment in Syria's transition. Three months have passed since the new authorities took over and, while we have seen some positive developments, the recent tragic events show how tense and fragile the situation is. Last Friday, former regime militias launched coordinated attacks across the provinces of Latakia, Tartus and Homs targeting government security forces. In response, the new Minister of Defence mobilised security and police forces but lost control of armed groups. Violent clashes erupted, leading to more than 1 000 deaths, including 745 civilians.
This is the worst episode of violence since the fall of the regime in early December. We see reports of horrific reprisal and revenge killing on both sides, and we have also received reports that several external actors are actively intervening and the regime remains to this day violent. These reports demand further investigation.
Now order has partially been restored in Latakia and Tartus, and the interim authorities have passed a strong message on holding all perpetrators accountable. We welcome the announcement on the establishment of an independent national commission to investigate these crimes. Everything must be done to prevent any such crimes from happening again. The EU is in contact with the interim authorities to express our concerns and urge them to translate their commitments into action.
The recent events also come on top of immense challenges. The humanitarian crisis continues to deepen, with 90 % of the population living below the poverty line and over 2 million people still in tents. And the security situation remains very worrying.
In the northeast we need an end to the violence between the Syrian Democratic Forces, a long-standing partner in the fight against Daesh, and groups backed by Türkiye. In this respect, the agreement announced yesterday evening between Syrian Democratic Forces and Damascus is a welcome development which could pave the way for more stability and a better future for many Syrians.
In the south it is critical for all external actors, including Israel, to respect the demilitarised buffer zone and Syria's territorial integrity within secured borders. It is also essential to prevent Russia and Iran from reviving their influence.
In response to the challenges the EU is taking action. Last month, the Council suspended sanctions in key sectors such as energy and transport. The Council also introduced new exemptions to facilitate financial transactions crucial for reconstruction and humanitarian aid. Further suspensions can be considered based on positive steps on the ground. Next week, the ninth Brussels Conference on Syria will focus on meeting the needs for a successful transition. It will provide an essential platform to mobilise the international community. A particularly difficult task will be to raise money for rebuilding Syria. Europe will, of course, play its part, but we will also need to mobilise other partners in the Middle East and beyond.
Finally, apart from supporting the civil society in Syria, we cannot overlook the importance of accountability and transitional justice. The pursuit of truth, justice and reconciliation remains non-negotiable if Syria is to achieve lasting peace. The EU will continue supporting the UN accountability mechanism and other transitional justice initiatives to ensure that those responsible for war crimes and human rights violations are held to account.
But despite the challenges and recent developments, let us not forget that political progress has already been made. In late February, the interim authorities convened a national dialogue conference, which was a welcome step towards fostering inclusive governance. Gathering 600 participants from all across Syria, it signalled commitment to national unity, institutional restructuring, human rights and transitional justice. A constitutional committee was also appointed last week tasked with laying the groundwork for serious future governance. These developments must be encouraged and supported.
Now, more than ever, it is crucial for the EU to step up its efforts to secure a more stable and peaceful Syria.

President. – Thank you very much also for keeping the time.
And I would again say that we closed already the catch-the-eye procedure. So for those who are now arriving, there is no chance for catch-the-eye or for blue cards.

Dubravka Šuica,
Member of the Commission. – Madam Chair, Presidency of the Council, honourable Members, thank you for having this very timely debate on Syria. The resolution that you will adopt tomorrow is the first of this Parliament after the fall of the Assad regime, and it is a vital contribution to the further shaping of the European position.
When we last debated the situation in the country, here in this House in mid-December, the former Assad regime had just been toppled. Three months after, while the fall of the regime represents clearly a historic window of opportunity and hope, the challenges the country is facing remain immense.
Three out of four Syrians depend on humanitarian aid. This includes essential areas such as food insecurity, water and housing, but also health and education. Around half of the population are without clean water.
After 14 years of war, Syria's economy is in ruins. The GDP loss is estimated at EUR 740 billion, and in its current trajectory, it may not regain pre-war GDP levels before 2080. The poverty rate today is at 90 %. Two thirds of Syrian people live in extreme poverty. Around half of the children in Syria are not attending schools, and energy production has fallen by 80 % compared to pre conflict levels.
In addition to the economic catastrophe, there is an overwhelming human tragedy that needs healing. Syria mourns over 618 000 casualties and 113 000 missing persons. Coming from a country with missing persons, I understand that not knowing the whereabouts of your loved ones is unbearable. More than 12 million Syrians have been forcibly displaced, out of which 7.5 million being internally displaced and almost 2 million living in camps.
Moreover, tensions in the south and the recent escalation in coastal areas show us clearly how fragile the security situation remains. The European Union condemns strongly any form of violence against civilians. A swift investigation must be conducted. The investigative commission established is a welcome commitment that needs to be translated into action.
However, there are also positive developments. The agreement reached between the Syrian authorities and the SDF is an extremely positive step that could pave the way for increased stability. A resurgence of civil war or Daesh must be prevented at all costs.
Overall, the situation remains quite volatile and we need to remain vigilant. It is vital that Syria's territorial integrity, unity and sovereignty must be respected, not least by the neighbouring states.
The European Union has been leading international efforts and support since 2011. We kept Syria in the political forefront. We have invested, jointly with our Member States, more than EUR 35 billion in support of Syrians in Syria and in the region. This is the moment to keep our leading role and step up our support to Syrians at this historic point and we have been doing so over the last three months.
Last month, I had the opportunity to participate in the Paris conference on Syria, in the so-called 'Aqaba format', alongside interim Foreign Minister Al-Shaibani and international partners. Three key conclusions emerged from the meeting.
First, a peaceful and inclusive transition in Syria and Syrian stability are critical to overall regional security and the European Union. We want this transition to be Syrian-led and Syrian-owned, guided by the respect of international law, human rights, fundamental freedoms, pluralism and tolerance among all components of society.
The organisation of the national dialogue and the appointment of the Constitutional Committee are steps in the right direction. We must keep supporting the Syrian authorities so that these ambitious endeavours do not slide into delays. A swift conclusion of the government-formation process will be another step, with many more hopefully to follow.
Second, while refugee returns are now a realistic perspective, with millions hoping to go home, returns cannot and should not be rushed in the context of a very fragile transition. The international consensus is clear: improving conditions inside Syria must be prioritised and we want returns to be sustainable and in line with international standards.
Third, on sanctions, the European Union has responded to the international call for support, sending a powerful message in support of Syrian people. We suspended sectorial sanctions in energy and transport, and introduced new exemptions to allow the banking sector to re-engage with Syria on transactions associated to these sectors, as well as on transactions needed for reconstruction. As you are aware, the sanctions relief is rolled out gradually and is reversible. We will regularly assess if the conditions in Syria allow for further suspensions.
The European Union is prepared to scale up its support for Syria's recovery and future reconstruction. We intend to scale up our development assistance inside Syria in key areas such as access to basic services, support to livelihoods and economic recovery.
Our approach will be gradual and proportionate to the steps taken by interim authorities in view of an inclusive transition. As a tangible sign of our continued support and building on the last eight years, the European Union is preparing the ninth edition of the Brussels Conference on the future of Syria and the region. The conference will be organised on 17 March. It will mobilise funds from the international community to support the immediate needs of all Syrian people in the early stages of the transition.
The funds pledged would be mobilised both in Syria and in refugee hosting-countries, with uncertainty concerning US assistance and decreasing pledges worldwide, the European Union assumes its increased responsibility to ensure that assistance reaches those in need. We are keen to cooperate in a coordinated manner with like-minded partners in the region and beyond. Our reconstruction efforts will be aligned with the upcoming New Pact for the Mediterranean and these bilateral partnerships and regional investment agendas.
The reconstruction of Syria must go hand in hand with strengthening Syria's state institutions, and capacity-building is existential.
Accordingly, we intend to call on the technical expertise from Member States. The electricity sector, for example, is an area where immediate support would be helpful. Syria's electricity infrastructure is of Western origin and where we can help, we should.
Let me conclude by underscoring the paramount importance of justice and accountability. One can build all the houses and the roads, but the key remains reconciliation. The European Union will continue to support the different accountability mechanisms as Syria moves forward with its transitional justice.
In this context, as also in the context of reconstruction, Syria's vibrant civil society within the country and abroad plays a vital role. The European Union remains a strong supporter of civil society actors and diaspora networks. We will keep supporting them in their historic task of rebuilding their country. Thank you very much and I look forward to your questions.

Ingeborg Ter Laak,
namens de PPE-Fractie. – Voorzitter, commissaris, collega's, de val van Assad biedt hoop aan vele Syriërs die ik spreek. Het is lastig om de nieuwe de facto overheid te vertrouwen, ook gezien de geschiedenis en het oplaaiend geweld van afgelopen weekend. We moeten ons realiseren dat stabiliteit in Syrië de stabiliteit in de hele regio vergroot.
               

                  Het liefst wil je dat Syriërs zelf aan zet zijn voor de wederopbouw. Hiervoor is ruimte nodig, mogelijkheden om te investeren en internationale samenwerking. Daarom moeten wij pragmatisch kijken naar het schorsen van de sancties. Ook zullen wij openstaan om diplomatieke posten te heropenen in Syrië. De Syrische de facto overheid zal moeten laten zien dat ze alle bevolkingsgroepen, alle etnische minderheden vertegenwoordigt, waaronder ook religieuze minderheden, vrouwen en kinderen.
               

                  Geweldsuitbarstingen zoals die van afgelopen week, waarbij meer dan duizend mensen het leven lieten in gerichte aanvallen op bevolkingsgroepen, zullen wij niet en kunnen wij als EU niet accepteren. Syrië heeft een lange weg te gaan. Zo zullen er democratische verkiezingen georganiseerd moeten worden, zal er hulp op gang moeten komen en zal er toegang moeten zijn tot zorg, onderwijs en schoon water als basisvoorzieningen voor iedereen in Syrië. Het is nu aan de EU om te kijken op welke gebieden wij kunnen samenwerken met Syrië en onder welke voorwaarden.
               

Γιάννης Μανιάτης,
εξ ονόματος της ομάδας S&D. – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, αγαπητοί συνάδελφοι, τρεις μήνες μετά την κατάρρευση του καθεστώτος Άσαντ, η κατάσταση στη Συρία συνεχίζει να είναι εύθραυστη. Καταδικάσαμε με σαφή τρόπο τις σφαγές αμάχων αλαουιτών και χριστιανών από τις δυνάμεις που πρόσκεινται στη νέα κυβέρνηση. Θεωρούμε ακατανόητη την ανακοίνωση της Υπηρεσίας Εξωτερικής Δράσης, που φάνηκε σαν να δικαιολογούσε τη νέα κυβέρνηση και ότι για τη βία φταίνε τα θύματα και όχι ο θύτης. Η ανοικοδόμηση της Συρίας θα πετύχει, μόνο αν είναι συμπεριληπτική με συμμετοχή σε αυτήν όλων των θρησκευτικών και εθνικών μειονοτήτων σε βάση ισοτιμίας. Η χθεσινή συμφωνία μεταξύ της κεντρικής κυβέρνησης και των Σύρων Κούρδων είναι ένα πολύ θετικό βήμα. Η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση οφείλει να είναι παρούσα και να συμβάλει προς αυτή την κατεύθυνση, διασφαλίζοντας ότι η Συρία δεν θα γίνει χώρα δορυφόρος καμίας τρίτης χώρας. Η άρση των κυρώσεων δεν είναι λευκή επιταγή, αλλά εξαρτάται από την προστασία όλων των μειονοτήτων, τον σεβασμό του διεθνούς δικαίου και των κυριαρχικών δικαιωμάτων όλων των κρατών μελών.
               

Pierre-Romain Thionnet,
au nom du groupe PfE. – Madame la Présidente, le grand problème de l'Europe, c'est de ne jamais faire les choses au bon moment: trop tôt, trop vite ou trop tard et trop peu. Il a fallu attendre l'invasion d'un pays européen pour prendre conscience de la faiblesse de nos stocks militaires et de l'ampleur de nos dépendances, trop tard ou presque.
               

                  En Syrie, c'est l'inverse. La grille de lecture manichéenne de certains leur a fait croire qu'à un bourreau ne pouvait succéder qu'un héros. Les ministres et les fonctionnaires, et malheureusement parmi eux, le ministre français des affaires étrangères, se sont envolés au plus vite vers la Syrie compliquée avec des idées simplistes. On apprend pourtant aux enfants qu'un train peut en cacher un autre. Faut-il rappeler à la diplomatie européenne qu'un régime dictatorial – celui d'el-Assad – peut cacher la barbarie islamiste – celle du nouveau pouvoir et de ses factions armées?
               

                  La prudence n'aurait pas permis d'éviter le terrible massacre des Alaouites, mais elle aurait évité le déshonneur. Honte à ceux qui ont tendu la main aux nouveaux maîtres de la Syrie alors qu'elle était sale des atrocités d'hier et qu'elle est pleine des crimes de demain!
               

Mariusz Kamiński,
w imieniu grupy ECR. – Pani Przewodnicząca! Przez ponad 60 lat reżim partii Baas i rodziny Asadów, wspierany przez Moskwę i Teheran, za pomocą terroru utrzymywał władzę w Syrii. Upadek Baszszara al-Asada otworzył drogę do zmian, ale jednocześnie pozostawił kraj w głębokim kryzysie humanitarnym i gospodarczym.
               

                  Sytuacja ta jest testem dla społeczności międzynarodowej, a przede wszystkim dla nowych władz. Czy będą w stanie zjednoczyć kraj po 14 latach wojny domowej? Upadek reżimu dał Syryjczykom nadzieję na lepszą przyszłość. Tymczasowy rząd mający islamistyczne korzenie musi jednak podjąć ogromny wysiłek, aby zdobyć zaufanie zarówno społeczności międzynarodowej, jak i przede wszystkim samych Syryjczyków. Syria potrzebuje sprawiedliwości, a nie kolejnych brutalnych zbrodni na cywilach. Nowe władze muszą zagwarantować ochronę mniejszościom etnicznym i religijnym, w tym chrześcijanom. Syria nie może być zagrożeniem dla sąsiadów ani piekłem dla własnych obywateli. Nie może też stać się bezpiecznym schronieniem dla terrorystów planujących ataki w Europie. To muszą być kluczowe warunki stopniowego i warunkowego znoszenia sankcji.
               

Nathalie Loiseau,
au nom du groupe Renew. – Madame la Présidente, le sang coule à nouveau en Syrie: plus de 1 000 morts entre Tartous et Lattaquié. Les tenants de l'ancien régime, dont on soupçonne qu'ils auraient été armés par l'Iran et pilotés par la Russie, ont craqué l'allumette, et le feu a pris. Des milices proturques et des djihadistes étrangers ont répondu avec une férocité abjecte.
               

                  Les violences de ces derniers jours, qu'exploitent sans honte les valets de Bachar el-Assad, y compris dans ce Parlement, alors qu'ils ont couvert sans ciller un demi-million de morts, disent tout de l'état dans lequel cinquante ans de dictature ont laissé la Syrie: déchirée par des tiraillements communautaires et en proie aux interventions étrangères les plus toxiques.
               

                  Que doit faire l'Europe? Aider la population épuisée, qui sort d'années de ténèbres, s'assurer que le pouvoir en place met ses actes en conformité avec ses paroles, continuer de combattre Daech, qui reste une menace, et aider à la stabilisation de la Syrie. Nous devrons être d'autant plus engagés que les États-Unis risquent de se détourner de là comme d'ailleurs. La stabilité de la nouvelle Syrie est dans notre intérêt et celui de la région.
               

Hannah Neumann,
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, 14 years of war, of bombs, torture, people disappearing without a trace: Syrians have gone through hell. Today, Assad is gone and many have a fragile hope for a brighter future. At the same time, violence is erupting again. The country clearly stands at a crossroads.
Those working for peaceful transition are asking us, the EU, for support, not to steer the wheel, but to be the wind in their backs; to support decisively, but not naively – decisively, because hesitation means losing this window of opportunity. We must ease sectoral sanctions that are crushing ordinary citizens. We need to support reconstruction, back democratic reforms and transitional justice, and ensure that the Syrian diaspora can contribute.
If we don't, others will fill the void, dear colleagues. But we must not support naively, because support must come with conditions: no new dictatorship, no new violence, no carving up the country like warlords, no exclusion of women opposition voices.
And to the foreign powers still meddling in Syria – Turkey, Israel, Iran, Russia – this is not your chessboard. Let Syrians finally reclaim their own future.
None of this is easy. None of this is quick. Fighting erupted again over the weekend, fuelled yet again by external interference and foreign fighters. This is exactly the vicious circle that Syrians want to break and that this new government must break. That's why we need to step up our support – so that Syrians can rebuild their homes, heal their wounds and turn their country into a country for everyone.

(The President cut off the speaker)


Pernando Barrena Arza,
en nombre del Grupo The Left. – Señora presidenta, señorías, cuando el régimen de Al-Asad cayó el pasado diciembre, todos sabíamos que Hayat Tahrir al-Sham y Ahmed al-Shara, el autoproclamado presidente de Siria, están relacionados con Al Qaeda y que el Ejército Nacional Sirio era una fuerza subsidiaria del Gobierno turco, ambos con un amplio historial de actuaciones contra los derechos humanos y violaciones del Derecho internacional.
               

                  Una vez más, la historia se repite y grupos yihadistas se hacen con el control de países ante la complacencia de las grandes potencias. Pasó con Afganistán, pasó con Libia y ahora se ha fomentado deliberadamente que pase en Siria.
               

                  No podemos aceptar que el nuevo Gobierno sirio reprima a las distintas comunidades nacionales o religiosas del país y menos que acabe con su vida, como acabamos de ver en el caso de los alauitas. Es fundamental apostar por un nuevo futuro para Siria que garantice la pluralidad del país, que cuente particularmente con los kurdos para organizar su futuro y que respete la administración autónoma de Rojava como fundamental para ese objetivo.
               

                  Quiero aprovechar para saludar la disolución del PKK que, sin duda, traerá estabilidad a la zona, al menos por la parte kurda. Es una buena noticia que debe ser correspondida por Turquía con la liberación inmediata de Öcalan y la aceptación del hecho nacional diferencial kurdo.
               

Alexander Sell,
im Namen der ESN-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin! Über 1000 Tote, ganze Familien ausgerottet, Alawiten, Christen und Drusen auf der Flucht. Seit dem Sturz von Assad wird Syrien von Islamisten regiert – der neue Machthaber war früher Chef von Al-Qaida in Syrien. Sein Ziel war immer die Errichtung eines islamistischen Kalifats, und das wird jetzt umgesetzt, mit tatkräftiger Unterstützung aus Brüssel. 235 Millionen Euro hat die EU-Kommission an das neue Regime in Damaskus überwiesen. Dazu kommen 100 Millionen Euro aus Deutschland, persönlich überreicht von Annalena Baerbock.
               

                  Und so geht es weiter. Für kommenden Montag lädt Frau von der Leyen zu einer Geberkonferenz nach Brüssel – auch Vertreter aus Damaskus sind eingeladen. Ich habe ja schon einige verrückte Dinge hier im Haus gesehen, aber das sprengt wirklich alle Dimensionen. Trotz Massaker an Alewiten und Christen lädt Frau von der Leyen zur großen Spendengala für den Dschihad in Syrien. Nie wieder sollten Sie hier von einer westlichen Wertegemeinschaft sprechen!
               

                  Die Amerikaner werden an der Brüsseler Spendengala nicht teilnehmen – zu Recht. Islamisten bleiben Islamisten, auch wenn sie sich den Bart stutzen und eine Krawatte umbinden.
               

Laurent Castillo (PPE). – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, des hommes, des femmes et des enfants abattus à bout portant parce que chrétiens ou alaouites: la barbarie marque une fois de plus la Syrie de son empreinte. L'Union européenne ne doit pas être naïve. N'oublions pas que le président al-Charaa a combattu dans les rangs de l'État islamique et d'Al-Qaïda. Porter une cravate ne lave pas le sang des innocents.
               

                  L'Union ne doit pas avoir de difficulté à nommer le mal qu'est le totalitarisme islamique. C'est lui qui a frappé la côte syrienne, c'est lui qui a déversé le sang de nos peuples sur le sol européen, c'est lui l'ennemi. Nous devons conditionner la levée des sanctions et le versement des millions d'euros d'aide à la preuve de la non-implication du gouvernement transitoire et à son engagement total à rétablir l'ordre, alors qu'il est aujourd'hui incapable de retenir des chiens de guerre face à des civils.
               

                  Exigeons des garanties de sécurité pour les minorités de Syrie! Ne reproduisons pas les mêmes erreurs qu'en Iraq et qu'en Libye!
               

Marco Tarquinio (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghe e colleghi, ho apprezzato molto le cose dette dalla Commissaria e dal rappresentante del Consiglio. L'UE deve fare al meglio la sua parte perché il futuro della Siria non sia più caratterizzato dalle lacerazioni terribili degli ultimi 15 anni.
               

                  Una dittatura brutale, finalmente finita, non deve scivolare indietro nel sangue, nell'odio, nelle sopraffazioni settarie e nei giochi di potenza esterni.
               

                  Abbiamo una parte da fare: dobbiamo sostenere, per davvero, in termini politico-diplomatici, umanitari e finanziari la transizione a una democrazia che valorizzi le caratteristiche culturali, etniche e religiose di questo Paese-mosaico.
               

                  Una transizione che renda giustizia alle vittime di dittature e guerra e che sia basata sul forte coinvolgimento della società civile, diaspora inclusa, sul rispetto del diritto internazionale.
               

                  I siriani chiedono il nostro sostegno. Assicuriamolo.
               

Mélanie Disdier (PfE). – Madame la Présidente, la situation en Syrie est dramatique. Si la guerre civile semble terminée, il ne faut pas lever notre surveillance pour autant. Ce n'est pas parce que le président syrien de facto a mis une cravate qu'il n'est plus l'héritier d'Al-Qaïda. De manière prévisible, des massacres sont actuellement commis contre les minorités chrétiennes et alaouites du pays. Je tiens donc à rappeler que le respect des minorités est crucial, et j'ai une pensée particulière pour ces nouvelles victimes de la barbarie islamiste.
               

                  Au vu des événements récents, il devient vital d'empêcher qu'un deuxième Afghanistan advienne à nos portes. Ce serait un drame humain et une menace inédite pour l'Europe.
               

                  Enfin, l'Union européenne veut parler de transition juste avec des islamistes qui ont été les principaux acteurs d'attentats terroristes internationaux, à l'idéologie totalitaire et rétrograde. Cela montre le caractère candide de la politique européenne, complètement inadaptée aux bouleversements mondiaux qui s'opèrent en ce moment.
               

Γεάδης Γεάδη (ECR). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, όταν προειδοποιούσαμε, κάποιοι προκλητικά μάς αγνοούσαν. Όταν κρούαμε τον κώδωνα του κινδύνου, κάποιοι χειροκροτούσαν το νέο δικτατορικό καθεστώς της Συρίας και φτάσαμε στο σήμερα να συζητούμε για το μέλλον της χώρας, την ώρα που στη Συρία γίνονται ανθρωποθυσίες και σφαγές χριστιανών και αλαουιτών. Την ώρα που βλέπουμε τα φρικιαστικά βίντεο που έχουν κατακλύσει το διαδίκτυο, θυμόμαστε ότι πολλοί ήταν αυτοί που έσπευσαν να προβούν σε συναντήσεις και χειραψίες με τη νέα δικτατορική κυβέρνηση στη Συρία, προσδίδοντάς της νομιμοποίηση. Όμως το ίδιο αυτό καθεστώς μέσα σε τρεις μήνες έδειξε το πραγματικό του πρόσωπο, προβαίνοντας σε εγκλήματα κατά της ανθρωπότητας εις βάρος αθώων αμάχων, γυναικών, ηλικιωμένων και παιδιών.
               

                  Άπαντες πρέπει επιτέλους να κατανοήσουν ότι, εάν η Συρία περιέλθει εξ ολοκλήρου στην κυριαρχία τζιχαντιστών, θα γίνει παγκόσμιος κόμβος τρομοκρατίας. Στο τέρας του ισλαμισμού και στην Τουρκία που το στηρίζει δεν μπορεί κανείς να έχει εμπιστοσύνη. Είτε ξυρίσουν τα μούσια είτε φορέσουν κοστούμι, τίποτα δεν μπορεί να κρύψει την εγκληματικότητα που τους διακρίνει.
               

Barry Andrews (Renew). – Madam President, Commissioner, colleagues, the path to a sustainable peace in Syria will, of course, not be a straight one. We all know that. But there are positive signs. We saw yesterday's announcement in relation to the SDF and the government, and that is very, very welcome. However, the horrific violence in the coastal area must not go unpunished, and making sure that there is transitional justice is essential for that sustainable peace.
The EU needs to invest in the political economy of reconciliation as a matter of urgency. The Syria conference that takes place next Monday is the ninth one, but different from every other – for some very obvious reasons and some less obvious reasons. The most obvious is the change in regime. The less obvious is the fact that international aid has collapsed in the last 12 months.
My plea to you, Commissioner, is to concentrate on the agricultural industry, to concentrate on replanting, on irrigation, on bakeries, on the core of the regrowth of the Syrian economy and the pathway to that sustainable peace.

Katrin Langensiepen (Verts/ALE). – Frau Präsidentin, werte Kommissarin, werter Rat! Nur weil man einen Diktator vom Hof gejagt hat, heißt es nicht, dass eine komplette Diktatur verschwunden ist; Länder, die Erfahrungen mit Diktaturen gemacht haben, wissen das. Assad ist weg, aber die Diktatur ist geblieben. Die Angst ist noch da, das Misstrauen unterhalb der Menschen ist noch da. Al-Scharaa ist der neue Präsident – ich würde mal sagen, er ist der Ansprechpartner in Syrienfragen, aber noch weit davon entfernt, als gewählter Präsident gesehen zu werden. Und er hat es bisher nicht wirklich überzeugend darstellen können, wie er sich ein geeintes Syrien vorstellt.
               

                  Ich war vor 14 Tagen in Syrien, in Suweida und in Damaskus, und die große Angst ist natürlich, dass ein Staat zerfällt. Aber dann muss mich dieser Staat, dann müssen mich auch die Menschen in diesem Staat interessieren; dann muss ich auch mal nach Suweida fahren, dann muss ich mich auch mal in den Kurdengebieten zeigen und nicht nur sagen: Ich will ein geeintes Syrien, aber bitte kommt bei mir vorbei.
               

                  Wir müssen die Armutsproblematik lösen, die Jugendarbeitslosigkeit, die Gewalt an Frauen – ich weiß, wir wissen nicht, wo wir noch löschen sollen. Bitte gebt das Geld direkt vor Ort hin und nicht einem Diktator, einem Terroristen im Anzug – das Bild wurde ja schon häufig bemüht.
               

Reinhold Lopatka (PPE). – Madam President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, we have to monitor developments in Syria very closely. We see, on the one hand, progress; on the other hand, of course, also setbacks.
It is vital for the country to continue developing national unity. It's good to see that the government finalised an agreement with the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces, and they have to use the chance to integrate them into the national army and into the governing structure.
While these developments are promising, challenges, of course, persist. The recent violence in Latakia, where more than 1 500 people lost their lives, highlights the fragile security situation. And this needs our engagement. No Syrian should live in fear anymore. Therefore, it is positive that we discuss Syria and that we work for a good future for the Syrian people. They deserve it.

Nacho Sánchez Amor (S&D). – Señora presidenta, después de un fin de semana sangriento que nos habla de la fragilidad de las nuevas instituciones y del peligro inherente a las milicias incontroladas, tuvimos anoche una buena noticia que parece despejar, aunque sea provisionalmente, una de las incógnitas más urgentes del laberinto sirio: el encaje nacional de la minoría kurda del norte, de sus instituciones de facto y de su fuerza militar.
               

                  En lo que afecta a las comunidades kurdas parece haber esperanza a los dos lados de la frontera, aunque con lógicas y ritmos diferentes. El acuerdo inicial alcanzado anoche tiene al menos dos raíces: las masacres del ataque de estos días y el riesgo de descontrol, y la llamada de Öcalan al desarme y disolución de la organización terrorista PKK, cuyas ondas han alcanzado a las fuerzas militantes turcas del norte de Siria.
               

                  Es un acuerdo inicial y, por tanto, sujeto a sacudidas, pero nuestra voluntad política hacia ese marco es que haya una Siria unida, soberana, inclusiva y en manos de los propios sirios. Por lo tanto, fuera Turquía, fuera Israel y fuera Rusia.
               

György Hölvényi (PfE). – Elnök Asszony! Tisztelt képviselőtársaim! Európa számára elsődleges a szíriai menekültek hazatérése. Dacára a helyzet minden ellentmondásosságának, tíz év után most először van lehetőség reálisan ezért valamit is tenni. A 235 millió eurós uniós humanitárius segély, valamint a Tanács döntése a szankciók felfüggesztéséről pozitív fejlemény. Az elmúlt napok tragikus eseményei azonban jelzik, jelenleg Szíria egyben tartása a tét. Éppen ezért fontos, hogy a de facto kormány – s nem érdemes azt minősíteni, hogy van rajta nyakkendő, vagy nem –, minden érdekeltet bevonva alakított egy vizsgálóbizottságot. Ez is egy pozitív tény.
               

                  Üdvözlendő a kurd vezetőkkel való megegyezés, az is, ami nélkül nincs egységes Szíria. Elejét kell venni a különböző vallási, etnikai csoportok megkülönböztetésének. Nem csak a kisebbségi jogokról van szó, ahogyan ezt a helyi keresztény egyházi vezetők megfogalmazták. Szíria minden közösségének egyenlő szabadságjogokat kell élveznie, ideértve a vallásszabadságot is. Ebben kell Európának tartós stratégiai támogatást nyújtania. A jövő heti szíriai konferencia lehetőséget ad az EU-tagállamok számára, hogy biztosítsák az Unió hiteles humanitárius szerepvállalását, és tegyenek az újjáépítésért. Vagyis lehetővé tegyék a 14 millió elvándorolt szíriai hazatérését és tényleg az ország egyben tartását. Látni kell, számukra munkahely, egészségügyi ellátás, gyermekeiknek oktatás kell. Ma 3,7 millió gyermek egyszerűen Szíriában nem jár iskolába. Ezek a tények.
               

Cecilia Strada (S&D). – Signora Presidente, cara Commissaria, onorevoli colleghi, a dicembre quest'Aula ha salutato la fine del regime di Bashar al Assad. Purtroppo, già nei giorni successivi, molti politici hanno sfruttato l'occasione per chiedere il rimpatrio dei rifugiati siriani, ignorando le difficoltà della transizione.
               

                  Il Paese rimane instabile: i diritti non sono garantiti, come dimostrano anche le esecuzioni sommarie dei cittadini alawiti sulla costa occidentale, negli ultimi giorni. Vogliamo sperare che le parole della nuova leadership siriana sull'inclusione delle minoranze e delle donne non siano soltanto parole.
               

                  L'Europa ha il dovere di ascoltare e proteggere il popolo siriano, tutto: le organizzazioni della società civile, le diverse confessioni religiose, quello straordinario esperimento che è il confederalismo del Rojava, fondato su democrazia, ecologia e femminismo.
               

                  Ci auguriamo che il vertice sul futuro della Siria possa andare in questa direzione. Purtroppo, lo scarso coinvolgimento della società civile non è un bel segnale. Rimane cruciale, nel breve termine, l'impegno di garantire aiuti umanitari alla popolazione e il sostegno. nel lungo periodo. a un percorso veramente democratico e inclusivo per il futuro della Siria.
               

Davor Ivo Stier (PPE). – Poštovana predsjedavajuća, gospođo povjerenice, kolegice i kolege, Sirija je imala režim koji se održavao potporom Rusije i Irana. Sada ima prijelaznu vlast koja se održava potporom Turske.
               

                  BDP u Siriji i dalje je manje od polovice vrijednosti iz 2011. godine. Infrastruktura naravno da je značajno oštećena, a većina Sirijaca živi i dalje u siromaštvu. Troškovi ponovne izgradnje zemlje mogli bi se kretati pa do 200 milijardi eura.
               

                  Europska unija i njezine države članice su mobilizirale već sada više od 35 milijardi, ali, naravno, pitanje je sada koji će biti prioriteti našeg djelovanja. To naravno da jesu mir, sigurnost, jedinstvo zemlje, zaštita svih manjina, ali posebno je zabrinjavajuća situacija kršćana. Do 2011. u Siriji je živjelo oko milijun kršćana, a danas ih je oko 300 tisuća i oni svaki dan strepe za vlastitu sigurnost.
               

                  Dakle, sve su manjine važne, ali ako se Europa ne zauzme za kršćane, onda to nitko neće. Stoga, ne smijemo ih zaboraviti.
               

Lukas Mandl (PPE). – Madam President, Commissioner, colleagues, I visited Syria three years ago. In the main place, I met with international organisations present there. Already then their recommendation was to make exceptions in humanitarian cases from the sanctions, which would have been important and which remain important, while sanctions also remain important, as long as we don't know whether jihadists have turned.
Have we learned our lessons from the other so-called 'Arab Spring', which was nothing but the change from winter to winter in many Arab countries? We don't yet know. The outrage and violence last weekend show a different picture. We should align with international organisations, Commissioner. We should align with organisations important for us in Europe, especially in the field of border management, such as the UNODC.
We should also align with our strong partner in the region, Israel, which has taken care to ensure that the military threat from whatever regime will not increase but decrease, and which takes care of stability in the region, in the buffer zone there.

Spontane Wortmeldungen


Sander Smit (PPE). – Voorzitter, commissaris, duizenden alawieten zijn vermoord door jihadistische milities, gelieerd aan de nieuwe machthebbers in Syrië. Vrouwen en kinderen zijn de bergen in gejaagd. Hele gezinnen zijn afgeslacht, ook christenen.
               

                  Toch nodigt de Europese Unie dit nieuwe Syrische regime voor maandag uit alsof er niets is gebeurd. Dat is, net zoals de persverklaring van de Europese buitenlandse diplomatieke dienst afgelopen weekend, schandalig. Terwijl wij de verantwoordelijken uitnodigen, kan Rusland zich neerzetten als een humanitaire opvanglocatie op zijn legerbasis Khmeimim. Dit is moreel failliet beleid.
               

                  Een nieuwe vluchtelingenstroom dreigt. Zolang de islamistische machthebbers in Damascus dit sektarische en genocidale geweld tegen niet-soennieten niet stoppen en daders niet bestraffen, mogen geen sancties worden opgeheven, noch donaties worden gedaan. Europa mag geen cynische politiek bedrijven die alawieten, sjiieten, Armenen, Aramese christenen, Koerden, druzen en jezidi's opoffert.
               

Paolo Inselvini (ECR). – Signora Presidente, Commissario Šuica, onorevoli colleghi, stiamo parlando di transizione e ricostruzione giusta della Siria. Ma è davvero giusto parlare di questo con chi governa ora, la Siria? Con coloro che negli ultimi giorni hanno trucidato e assassinato migliaia e migliaia di donne, di bambini, di civili cristiani e alawiti? È con loro che vogliamo fare tutto questo?
               

                  Lo avevamo detto dopo la caduta di Assad, che non c'era da esultare per coloro che avevano preso il potere. Lo avevamo detto. Eppure, qui c'era qualcuno che aveva reagito festante per l'avvento del regime di coloro, che anche noi qui ritenevamo terroristi e, che da un momento all'altro, si sono dimostrati, invece, per questo Parlamento, moderati.
               

                  Dobbiamo, invece, difendere da costoro la nostra civiltà, rappresentata dai cristiani che soffrono in tutto il mondo e, in questo momento, stanno soffrendo in Siria. Ed è questo che dobbiamo fare. Agiamo ora, prima che sia troppo tardi, prima che vengano sterminati o cacciati dalla propria terra.
               

Νικόλας Φαραντούρης (The Left). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, βρέθηκα στη Συρία και στη Δαμασκό αυτό το Σαββατοκύριακο και είδα από κοντά τις θηριωδίες και τις φρικαλεότητες που διέπραξε το νέο καθεστώς, είτε υπό την ανοχή του είτε υπό τον συντονισμό του. Ζητώ, λοιπόν, την άμεση αποστολή κλιμακίου από την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, είτε από το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο είτε από την Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή. Απαιτούνται η άμεση διενέργεια εκλογών, ο σεβασμός των ανθρωπίνων δικαιωμάτων, η τήρηση της αρχής της αντιπροσωπευτικότητας όλων των θρησκευτικών και των εθνικών κοινοτήτων, και θεωρώ απαράδεκτη τη δήλωση της Υπηρεσίας Εξωτερικής Δράσης, που εξισώνει τα θύματα με τον θύτη. Θεωρώ ότι αυτή τη στιγμή η Συρία βρίσκεται στο χείλος του γκρεμού. Θεωρώ ότι η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση πρέπει να δείξει αντανακλαστικά και κυρίως να μην αφήσει εκατοντάδες αμάχους σε βάναυση μεταχείριση από το καθεστώς.
               

Μαρία Ζαχαρία (NI). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, συνάδελφοί μου, οι Ευρωπαίοι ηγέτες, αφού πρώτα υποδέχτηκαν τους εγκληματίες τζιχαντιστές στην κυβέρνηση της Συρίας μετά βαΐων και κλάδων, με χαμόγελα και δηλώσεις περί τάχα δημοκρατίας, σήμερα επικρατεί η εκκωφαντική τους σιωπή για την, όπως την ονομάζουν, συμπεριληπτική Συρία. Τώρα που στη Συρία συντελείται γενοκτονία, πού είναι; Σφαγές αμάχων, γυναίκες, γέροντες, παιδιά και βρέφη που κατακρεουργούνται. Χριστιανοί, Δρούζοι, Αλαουίτες, Κούρδοι, αθώα θύματα. Καταγγέλλω το αίσχος και την υποκρισία. Ντροπή! Όταν η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση σιωπά μπροστά σε εγκλήματα κατά της ανθρωπότητας, γίνεται συνεργός. Όταν οι ζωές αθώων θυσιάζονται για συμφέροντα, αυτό δεν είναι πολιτική, είναι συνενοχή στη σφαγή.
               

                  Να παρθούν μέτρα τώρα με άμεση εφαρμογή για την πλήρη καταδίκη των εγκλημάτων από την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, επιβολή κυρώσεων στους υπευθύνους των σφαγών, διακοπή κάθε διπλωματικής σχέσης με τις δυνάμεις που αιματοκυλούν τη Συρία, αποστολή ανθρωπιστικής βοήθειας στις πληγείσες κοινότητες. Σταματήστε τώρα τους σφαγείς της Συρίας.
               

(Ende der spontanen Wortmeldungen)


Dubravka Šuica,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, dear Members of the Parliament, thank you for your contributions to this debate. All of us know, and all of us agree, that Syria's transition is in the making, that the path to stability and prosperity is long, and that the challenges are numerous, but we should remain there. This is something I hope all of us agree on.
Only a few words on the latest outbreak of violence. So we welcome, as I already said, the announcement by the interim authorities to support the investigative commission which is being established. Everything must be done to prevent any such crimes from happening again. This is why I said at the beginning that they had to translate their commitment into action.
On the Brussels conference, once again we think that it is a very important one, and a little bit different than earlier. For the first time, the Syrian interim authorities have been invited together with the United Nations, alongside Syria's neighbouring countries and other regional partners. There will be two different panels and two different pledges. One will be to address the immediate needs of the Syrian people, with the focus on socio-economic recovery. At the same time, it will be addressing the serious humanitarian needs which still exist.
On the different groups, some of you mentioned the Christians and the protection of Christian minorities or communities. You all know that the new authorities in Damascus have a major responsibility to ensure the protection of all components of society and to refrain from acts of vengeance. We are sure that this their task, but let's see what the future will bring. Of course, we have to protect all Syrians in their diversity, based on the equal rights of citizens. Once again, a very important issue is to support the inclusive transition in Syria, because it is critical for the regional security.
On returns – returns cannot and should not be rushed. In the context of a very fragile transition, something which we want to see is whether and at what moment Syria will be proclaimed a safe third country. So let's see how this will go.
On sanctions, we have already suspended sectoral sanctions, but now let's see how to proceed with financial sanctions. We know that American sanctions are already there. So let's see.
All that we have been doing in January and February at the Foreign Affairs Council has been in a gradual and irreversible manner. I want to thank you for the support you have shown this evening. Syria's reconstruction will need the backing of all of us – of the Commission, of the Member States and of Parliament – in a Team Europe spirit. Parliamentary diplomacy, outreach and expertise in state-building are of the essence at this critical juncture for Syria. What is important is that we here in Europe remain united and committed, and Syria's future depends on our collective action today. So we are looking forward to the resolution, which I hope will be voted tomorrow.

Adam Szłapka,
President-in-Office of the Council. – Madam President, Commissioner, honourable Members, let me reiterate that the EU condemns in the strongest terms the violent acts that have taken place and calls for the perpetrators to be held accountable.
In addition, we need to be vigilant towards the information manipulation by foreign actors to steer further violence and instability. Those foreign actors do not share our vision for a stable and inclusive Syria.
It is for the EU to support the transition and to become a reliable partner for Syria's future. The coming days and months will be decisive.

Die Präsidentin. – Zum Abschluss der Aussprache wurden gemäß Artikel 136 Absatz 2 der Geschäftsordnung acht Entschließungsanträge eingereicht.
               

                  Die Aussprache ist geschlossen.
               

                  Die Abstimmung findet morgen, Mittwoch, den 12. März 2025, statt.
               


Schriftliche Erklärungen (Artikel 178)



Tomasz Froelich (ESN),
schriftlich. – In Syrien morden die neuen islamistischen Machthaber wahllos Minderheiten – Alawiten und Christen. Und was macht die EU? Sie schickt noch mehr Geld nach Syrien. Sie verurteilt diejenigen, die sich dem Blutterror nicht beugen. Sie stellt sich auf die Seite des islamistischen Terrorregimes, das vor den Augen der Weltöffentlichkeit Alawiten und Christen ermordet. Eine moralische Bankrotterklärung. Man muss dieses Verhalten nüchtern einordnen: Brüssel biedert sich aus geopolitischen Gründen einem Terrorregime an – nur um konsequent gegen Assad zu bleiben. Warum? Weil man gegen Russland kämpfen will und Assads Syrien als russischen Partner betrachtete. Das offenbart die Heuchelei der ‘wertegeleiteten Außenpolitik’, an der man in Brüssel trotz Rückzug der USA festhält. Die Konfrontation mit Moskau wird damit begründet, dass man dem autoritären, despotischen und mörderischen Regime in Moskau entgegentreten müsse. Dass Ahmed al-Scharaas Syrien diese Karikatur eines despotischen Regimes tatsächlich verkörpert, ist Brüssel egal, wenn's um Machtpolitik geht. Man kann aber nicht Ungarn für konservative Kulturpolitik rügen und Rumäniens Wahlen rückgängig machen und zeitgleich ein islamistisches Terrorregime legitimieren. Man kann nicht Abschiebungen nach Afghanistan mit Verweis auf die Taliban-Regierung ablehnen, aber dann mit Al-Kaida in Damaskus kooperieren. Genau das tun die Brüsseler Eliten. Und genau deshalb werden sie scheitern.
               
16.   Deteriorating situation in Gaza following the non-extension of the ceasefire (debate)

Die Präsidentin. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über die Erklärungen des Rates und der Kommission zur Verschlechterung der Lage im Gazastreifen nach dem Auslaufen der Waffenruhe (2025/2603(RSP)).
               

Adam Szłapka,
President-in-Office of the Council. – Madam President, Madam Commissioner, honourable Members, I would like to focus on the situation in Gaza – in light of the latest developments around the ceasefire and the release of hostages – by elaborating on three aspects: first, the humanitarian situation; second, our support to the Palestinian Authority; and third, our commitment to a two-state solution.
The EU has been clear on the utmost importance of maintaining the ceasefire. For the moment, the ceasefire holds, but it remains very fragile. We now need to move towards negotiations on phase two of the ceasefire and a hostage release agreement.
The first aspect is to improve the humanitarian situation, which is again deteriorating. The UN tells us that food prices in Gaza have spiked and aid food parcels could soon run out. There is an urgent need to resume a consistent flow of supplies, and the EU continues to play its part.
The EU has also made an active contribution to the ceasefire through its CSDP mission, EUBAM Rafah, which is operational at the Rafah crossing point. More than 3 000 people have crossed the border since it reopened on 1 February. In addition, the EU is carrying out medical evacuations.
The second aspect is our continued support for the Palestinian Authority in its reforms and its gradual return to Gaza. We believe that the Palestinian Authority is best placed to govern Gaza. It needs to be strengthened and supported financially. There is no place for Hamas in Gaza.
On concrete support to the Palestinians, the EU is ready to work with the entire international community, our partners and the United Nations. The EU position is clear: we support UN Security Council Resolution 2735. This means rejecting any attempts at demographic and territorial changes in the Gaza Strip and stressing the importance of unifying the Gaza Strip with the West Bank under the Palestinian Authority. We therefore welcomed the initiative by the Arab countries to draw up a plan which covers interim measures, reconstruction and governance, and does not foresee any displacement of Gaza's population.
The third aspect is the two-state solution. It is the only way to ensure sustainable peace and security for Israel, the Palestinians and the entire region. The EU will continue to work to review the political process, in particular as part of the Global Alliance for the Implementation of the Two-State Solution. We are also opening a new chapter of strengthened engagement through the recent EU-Israel Association Council, and the first ever EU-Palestine high-level dialogue with Prime Minister Mustafa, which will take place in April on the margins of the Foreign Affairs Council.
To conclude, the EU is committed to play its role in contributing to a more stable situation in Gaza and supporting the Palestinian Authority. The ceasefire must be maintained and the negotiations for its second phase must start as soon as possible.

President. – Before I pass the floor to our Commissioner, I would like to announce that we will not open the catch-the-eye or the blue card because of the time delay.

Dubravka Šuica,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, Council President, honourable Members, we are very worried by the evolution of the situation in Gaza and the threats to the fragile ceasefire. We continue to call on both parties to ensure that the ceasefire lasts and that all hostages can and will be released.
The first priority for Gaza currently is to resume full access to humanitarian aid. Let us recall that there are 3.1 million people who are affected by 15 months of conflict ahead of the January ceasefire. The local population should not again suffer from the hostilities from all sides.
The European Union and its Member States are among the biggest financial supporters of the Palestinians, and currently the largest donors to the Palestinian Authority and to UNRWA. It has already mobilised an additional amount of EUR 120 million for humanitarian assistance. Since the onset of the Gaza crisis, this brings our total contribution to EUR 450 million.
The package of essential services includes food, clean water, healthcare and shelter. So far, 4 500 tonnes of humanitarian cargo have been transferred via humanitarian air bridge flights to Gaza. The European Union has also expanded its civil protection mechanism for medical evacuations in Gaza. A blockage of the delivery of humanitarian assistance and interruption of services such as electricity would have devastating consequences for the population on the ground.
Second, the extension of the ceasefire or a move to the second stage of the ceasefire and release of all hostages are the only ways to permanently end the hostilities, and it would allow us to start the early recovery and reconstruction of Gaza.
While European Union efforts are currently focusing on scaling up humanitarian support, we are also preparing for a long recovery and reconstruction phase. On 18 February, the European Union released its Gaza Rapid Disaster Needs Assessment, together with the United Nations and the World Bank. This assessment looks at the damages, losses and needs. It estimates that EUR 49 billion are required over the next decade. The Egyptian-led reconstruction plan came to similar conclusions.
Housing requires the largest share of recovery needs – about 30 % – followed by the health sector, commerce and industry, and agriculture and food. Given the magnitude of needs, the European Union cannot act alone. The international community must take collective and coordinated efforts to support Gaza's recovery and reconstruction. This is why we are working closely with our Arab partners. We welcome the Arab Recovery and Reconstruction Plan that was endorsed at the emergency summit of the League of Arab States in Cairo on 4 March. We are studying the technical details of the plan in order to identify and create possible synergies, and we look forward to the upcoming international conference on Gaza that Egypt will host soon.
Large-scale recovery and reconstruction can only start when there is stability on the ground. This includes arrangements on the governance and security of Gaza. We firmly reject any attempt of relocation of the population or of territorial change in Gaza and the West Bank. Discussions on the recovery and reconstruction of Gaza must involve the Palestinians. The Palestinian Authority is their legitimate body.
When it comes to Gaza governance, we see the Palestinian Authority as the only viable partner. This is why we are committed to supporting a reformed Palestinian Authority and avoid its fiscal collapse. Last year, the Commission disbursed almost EUR 400 million in emergency funding to address the most urgent needs.
We are now preparing a multi-year, comprehensive programme for the Palestinian recovery and resilience. It is based on the reform agenda of the Palestinian Authority, and we are encouraging Israel to support it by releasing withheld tax revenues. We hope that other regional stakeholders, including in the Gulf, will also support this approach.
Finally, I want to highlight the essential role that UNRWA has played. It has delivered more than half of the entire emergency response in Gaza over the last 15 months. As a provider of many essential services to Palestinians, also beyond Gaza, UNRWA has an important role. They are a humanitarian and development actor. As European Commission, we will continue our support to the Palestinian refugees and to the UN agency.
Let me finish by saying that I am looking forward to high-level political dialogue with the Palestinian Authority in April. It will take place on 13 or 14 April and will be a good occasion to take stock of the reform achievements.
We must not forget the central role of the Palestinian Authority and the role which it will have in the day after in Gaza. Thank you and I am looking forward to your debate.

Michał Szczerba,
on behalf of the PPE Group. – Madam President, Madam Commissioner, dear colleagues, we are witnessing a deeply concerning deterioration of the situation in Gaza following the non-extension of the ceasefire. The humanitarian toll is tragic, and our thoughts remain with all innocent civilians caught in this devastating conflict.
On 7 October 2023, Hamas, supported by other armed groups from the Gaza Strip, carried out a coordinated terrorist attack on Israel. Over 3 000 rockets were fired from Gaza and up to 3 000 terrorists infiltrated Israeli territory. Around 1 200 people were killed and approximately 250 others were kidnapped. In response, Israel officially declared that it was a state of war, launched air strikes on the Gaza Strip, and after about two weeks began ground operations.
The recent ceasefire between Israel and Hamas began on 19 January, following extensive diplomatic efforts by Egypt, Qatar, and the United States. It marked a significant de-escalation after 15 months of conflict, with both parties committing to halt hostilities and engage in negotiations.
High humanitarian costs in Gaza are unacceptable. We recognise the right of states to defend themselves, but at the same time Europe has a great role to play in promoting stability. We stand for peace, security and for the right of all people to live without fear.

Evin Incir,
on behalf of the S&D Group. – Madam President, colleagues, I am T-I-R-E-D, tired! Session after session, we are taking note of the horrific situation in Gaza. But my question is when are we going to do something about it? If I feel this tired about words remaining words, imagine how the people of Gaza are feeling right now. Family members murdered, mutilated, traumatised, electricity cut and threats to halt all humanitarian aid entering Gaza and using starvation as a weapon against innocent Palestinians.
I have seen it with my own eyes when I visited Rafah in Egypt three weeks ago, how children being mutilated and how the Israeli right-wing government refused to let basic humanitarian aid enter. And don't forget the Israeli annexation of the West Bank that is taking place right now.
Colleagues, Netanyahu is prolonging the conflict, refusing to move to the next phase of the ceasefire. To all colleagues still defending the Israeli far-right government, what more do you want Netanyahu to do before enough is enough? Take off your political blinders.
Wasn't it some of you who said all lives matters when we were discussing racism in EU? So what about the Palestinians' lives? Aren't they a part of all of us? International law is not cherry picking.

Sebastiaan Stöteler,
namens de PfE-Fractie. – Voorzitter, 7 oktober 2023 zal voor altijd in ons geheugen gegrift staan. De barbaarse slachting die de terreurgroepen uit Gaza pleegden onder leiding van Hamas was de zwaarste klap voor Israël sinds de Holocaust. Pas 471 dagen later werden Romi, Emily en Doron als eerste vrijgelaten en die weken daarna waren weken van hoop. Hoop voor de families van de gegijzelden en hoop voor Israël.
               

                  Israël heeft 1 904 gevangenen vrijgelaten, onder wie terroristen met veroordelingen voor meervoudige moord, terreuraanslagen, ontvoering, seksueel geweld en marteling. In ruil daarvoor kreeg Israël dertig gijzelaars vrij die nog, godzijdank, in leven waren, zij het amper, en acht lichamen, waaronder dat van de negen maanden oude baby Kfir Bibas. Mogen zij rusten in vrede.
               

                  Hamas houdt vandaag de dag nog 59 gijzelaars vast, waarvan wordt vermoed dat er nog slechts 24 in leven zijn. Al die 59 moeten worden vrijgelaten. Dat is prioriteit nummer één, commissaris. Bring them home now.
               

Bert-Jan Ruissen,
namens de ECR-Fractie. – Voorzitter, in de discussie over Gaza hoor ik heel vaak dat de situatie volstrekt uitzichtloos is. En zo voelt dat inderdaad. Toch zijn de bouwstenen voor de aanpak om uit deze misère te komen, volstrekt helder, namelijk onmiddellijke vrijlating van alle gijzelaars en harde veiligheidsgaranties, zodat 7 oktober zich nooit meer kan herhalen.
               

                  Zodra aan deze voorwaarden is voldaan, zal er ook van Israëlische kant weer heel veel mogelijk worden. Maar dat betekent wel dat er in het toekomstige bestuur van Gaza geen plek is voor Hamas. Ik ben het eens met de heldere stellingname van de hoge vertegenwoordiger op dat punt. Maar het vraagt ook om actie van de EU nu: namelijk om vervanging van de humanitaire steun via UNRWA door steun via instanties die niet met Hamas samenwerken, en om een EU-verbod op ons eigen grondgebied voor organisaties met duidelijke banden met Hamas.
               

Barry Andrews,
on behalf of the Renew Group. – Madam President, Commissioner, first of all, I welcome your endorsement of UNRWA. When I visited Rafah a year ago, Israel was blockading humanitarian access. The excuse given at that time was that UN agencies were disorganised, could not be relied upon, or that humanitarian items could be used for military purposes.
Israel has shut off electricity and aid again, but on this occasion, it is so emboldened by US support and EU inaction that it doesn't even offer excuses for the blockade of humanitarian access anymore. And in any case, what type of ceasefire is this? 100 people have been killed in Gaza since the ceasefire. We have seen the outlawing of passive collaboration with the ICC. We've seen the 'Gazafication' of the West Bank. We've seen vicious settler violence and Ben-Gvir rescinding the Oslo agreement, and we're told it's Palestinians that are breaching the ceasefire.
As we know, there can be no lasting peace and durable solution without full respect for Palestinian people's right to self-determination.

Mounir Satouri,
au nom du groupe Verts/ALE. – Madame la Présidente, même en l'absence de notre haute représentante, j'aimerais m'adresser à elle. Madame Kallas, vous avez récemment tenu un conseil d'association avec Israël. Mais comment avez-vous pu? Comment avez-vous pu maintenir cet accord sans condition, sans exigence, sans un mot pour le droit humanitaire? Comment avez-vous pu fermer les yeux, alors que l'Union européenne avait un levier, un poids, une voix?
               

                  Depuis cette abdication, regardons la réalité en face: le cessez-le-feu est mort, enterré sous les bombes. L'aide humanitaire est étranglée. Pas un sac de farine, pas un bidon d'eau n'entrent à Gaza. Israël a plongé Gaza dans le noir: 600 000 personnes n'ont plus d'électricité, plus d'eau, plus d'espoir. Côté Cisjordanie, 40 000 personnes ont fui, chassées de leur camp par l'armée israélienne, et les exactions ne font qu'augmenter. Que fait l'Europe? Elle détourne le regard.
               

                  Notre responsabilité est écrasante. Nous avions un devoir: empêcher le pire, mais nous avons laissé faire. Nous avions un principe: la clause des droits de l'homme. Mais vous l'avez piétinée. Madame la Haute Représentante, il y a un mot pour ce que vous venez de faire: la complaisance. Et l'histoire retiendra un mot: la lâcheté.
               

Lynn Boylan,
on behalf of The Left Group. – A Uachtaráin, the decision by the Israeli Government to cut off electricity to Gaza is just the latest in a series of actions designed to make life for Palestinians unliveable. The decades-long illegal occupation and the 18-year blockade and siege of Gaza have all been allowed to continue because of the inaction of the international community, and that includes the EU.
'Attacks against civilian infrastructure, especially electricity, are war crimes': those are not my words, those are the words of the President of the Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, who rightfully called out Russia but refuses to call out Israel when they deprive Palestinians of water, food and electricity. War crimes are war crimes, and international law applies to everyone. The obvious double standards that we are seeing are undermining the EU's credibility across the world and even with its own citizens.
The provisional measures ordered by the International Court of Justice in weighing the allegation of genocide brought against Israel specifically referred to the facilitation of aid deliveries. In the International Criminal Court, one of the charges against Netanyahu is that he is using starvation as a method of warfare.
We had the Association Council meeting in February, and some of us naively thought that maybe some strong words would be said to the Israeli authorities; maybe they would be asked to uphold international law. But instead, what we have seen is that things have gotten worse since that meeting. Israel is escalating its violation of international law.
So the question is: when is the EU going to finally stand up for international law and human rights?

Davor Ivo Stier (PPE). – Poštovana predsjedavajuća, povjerenice, kolegice i kolege, 15. siječnja je započeta prva faza primirja, što je omogućilo razmjenu 33 izraelska taoca za dvije tisuće palestinskih zatvorenika.
               

                  Druga faza, točnije druga faza primirja, nije započeta, ali nisu niti eskalirali sukobi, barem ne do onog intenziteta koji je bio prije 15. siječnja.
               

                  Međutim, 59 talaca još nije oslobođeno. Možda većina njih, nažalost, više nisu živi, ali je nužno da Hamas oslobodi sve taoce i to odmah kako bi mir imao šansu na Bliskom istoku. Hamas je započeo ovo poglavlje sukoba na Bliskom istoku terorističkim napadom 7. listopada 2023. godine i stoga Hamas može i mora to poglavlje odmah zatvoriti oslobađanjem talaca.
               

Hana Jalloul Muro (S&D). – Señora presidenta, señora comisaria, Gaza necesita un alto el fuego permanente tanto para los gazatíes como para los rehenes israelíes que deben ser liberados. El bloqueo de ayuda humanitaria a Gaza por parte del Gobierno de Israel supone un crimen de guerra. El sufrimiento de la población civil no debe ser una herramienta de presión. Los bebés están muriendo de frío en Gaza.
               

                  La Unión Europea debe impulsar las fases dos y tres del alto el fuego o solo quedarán dos escenarios posibles: una nueva guerra o el plan del resort de Trump.
               

                  Existe una estrategia silenciosa de ocupación por parte de Israel que se ha apropiado el 16 % de las tierras agrícolas de Gaza, al igual que en Cisjordania y Jerusalén, donde la expansión de asentamientos ilegales israelíes, la confiscación de tierras y el desplazamiento forzoso se han intensificado. Los puestos fronterizos han aumentado un 228 % y se están eliminando barrios enteros. Los palestinos no tienen la culpa del terrorismo de Hamás, que hay que combatir con firmeza. La ocupación se consolida en prime time.
               

                  Mientras tanto, el Gobierno de extrema derecha israelí prohíbe que el OOPS proporcione ayuda a más de 500 000 refugiados y asfixia, con un 80 % de impuestos sobre la financiación extranjera, a las ONG que no comulgan con dicho Gobierno, silenciando a los ciudadanos israelíes demócratas. Debemos seguir hablando de paz en Gaza, de los dos Estados y, sobre todo, del cumplimiento del Derecho internacional.
               

Hermann Tertsch (PfE). – Señora presidenta, afortunadamente, Israel tiene una sociedad con un instinto y una voluntad de supervivencia muy superiores a los europeos actuales. Si lo habían olvidado algunos israelíes, las salvajadas de Hamás del 7 de octubre se lo refrescaron. Y Hamás, eso está claro, volverá a ser esa inmensa base terrorista que fue y que, de alguna forma, sigue siendo. Por eso, la población árabe de Gaza debería haber entendido que su única posibilidad de seguir viviendo allí es deshacerse de Hamás, superar su victimismo odiador y aceptar que Israel existe para siempre.
               

                  Los Acuerdos de Abraham de sus hermanos árabes vecinos debieron avisarles. Pero como Gaza, y no solo Gaza, se acostumbró a vivir de dinero ajeno y Europa, los Estados Unidos y otros han pagado a los gazatíes para ser refugiados eternos y odiar y querer asesinar judíos, han seguido abrazados al terrorismo, algo que se ha vuelto a ver en los canjes por rehenes: no parece que hayan aprendido.
               

                  Gaza tiene que ser limpiada de terroristas y se ha visto en estos meses que se está aún lejos de ello. Convendría a todos que la población gazatí colaborara, que soltaran a todos los rehenes y se entregaran los túneles, todas las armas y esos uniformes planchaditos que se han utilizado en esos desfiles de propaganda cuando han soltado —humillándolos— a los rehenes. Si no lo hacen, lo harán las fuerzas israelíes.
               

                  Si los vecinos árabes —Jordania y Egipto— acogieran a los gazatíes, como los vecinos de Ucrania acogieron a los ucranianos, sería más fácil hacer todo este proceso, pero vamos a ver qué disposición hay. En todo caso, la base terrorista no puede subsistir.
               

Irena Joveva (Renew). – Madam President, and then there was darkness. And then we reached the point where a person – a human being at least – has no words left. Not even someone who, despite the darkness, clearly sees what is happening. Someone who will never turn a blind eye, who will never sway their position, who clearly and loudly speaks about facts.
The fact is that after Israel once again cut off electricity to Gaza, nine out of ten people no longer have access to safe drinking water. Nine out of ten.
The fact is that after Israel once again halted the delivery of humanitarian aid to Gaza, the genocide is only escalating. Generations are being wiped out before our eyes. And still the powerful are turning a blind one or worse.
If those of you who had even a shred – just a shred – of humanity in you, you would not look away. You would not excuse the inexcusable. You would do something that should have been done long ago. You would deliver.

Catarina Vieira (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, dear Commissioner, we celebrated a ceasefire, but it was short-lived. After a few weeks, Netanyahu unleashed full war on civilians once again. The cutting of aid and electricity in Gaza, as well as the intensified attacks on the West Bank, can be added to the ever-expanding list of war crimes that he should be imprisoned for.
Instead of supporting and upholding international justice, the EU continues business as usual with Israel. In the meantime, our credibility in the global south crumbles by the day with these double standards. As Israel's largest trading partner, we have a responsibility to force change and end the atrocities in Palestine – stop arms trade, cease this association agreement and impose sanctions.
So tonight, here are my questions: when will we finally stop business as usual with the aggressor? When will we stop applying these double standards? And when will we start treating Palestinian lives as human lives?

Pernando Barrena Arza (The Left). – Señora presidenta, en los 70 los soldados israelíes se ponían delante de un bloque en Gaza y pitaban con un silbato. Todos los árabes del bloque tenían que salir corriendo porque si no eran apaleados, fuesen mujeres, ancianos o bebés. Estas son palabras de Itzhak Ini Abadi, gobernador israelí de Gaza en los 70. Por lo tanto, que nadie venga a decirnos que todo empezó el 7 de octubre de 2023.
               

                  En Palestina, una espiral de violencia ha terminado con el respeto a los derechos humanos y en el vórtice de esa violencia está la ocupación ilegal de Palestina por parte de Israel, que tiene en vigor un sistema de apartheid político que trata a los palestinos como infrahumanos sin derechos.
               

                  Denunciamos el genocidio de 60 000 personas en Gaza y ahora debemos exponer las condiciones inhumanas de vida en la zona, los cortes de luz y agua y la ausencia de atención sanitaria. Israel no atiende a razones porque no es un país democrático, pero la Unión Europea debe exigirle que se permita la entrada del OOPS, de la ayuda humanitaria y de todo tipo de suministros y que cumpla con sus compromisos de alto el fuego.
               

                  Señora comisaria, a estas alturas seguir manteniendo en vigor el Acuerdo de Asociación con Israel no es negligencia, es colaboracionismo con crímenes de guerra. Están hundiendo el prestigio reputacional internacional de la Unión Europea. No en nuestro nombre.
               

Κώστας Παπαδάκης (NI). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, η συνεχιζόμενη επιθετικότητα του Ισραήλ και η μη επέκταση της εκεχειρίας στη Γάζα οδηγεί σε εξόντωση των Παλαιστινίων, οι οποίοι δεν έχουν πρόσβαση σε τρόφιμα και ρεύμα. Αποτελεί συνέχεια των δολοφονικών επιχειρήσεων και του ξεσπιτώματος των Παλαιστινίων στην ανατολική Ιερουσαλήμ και τη Δυτική Όχθη. Αυτή τη ‘δουλειά’ καλούσε ο Νετανιάχου τον Τραμπ να τελειώσουν, δηλαδή να εκτοπίσουν τους Παλαιστινίους από τη Γάζα και τη Δυτική Όχθη. Η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, όπως και η κυβέρνηση της Νέας Δημοκρατίας στην Ελλάδα, και τα κόμματα που προκλητικά υποστήριξαν την ‘αυτοάμυνα’ του κατακτητή, επιχειρούν να ξεπλύνουν το Ισραήλ από τις εγκληματικές ευθύνες του. Όπως κάνουν και με τους τζιχαντιστές στη Συρία, που δολοφονούν τον λαό, ιδιαίτερα τις εθνοτικές και θρησκευτικές μειονότητες, τους πολιτικούς αντιπάλους.
               

                  Οι λαοί απαιτούν να σταματήσουν τα εγκλήματα του συριακού καθεστώτος που επιβλήθηκε με την ιμπεριαλιστική επέμβαση Ηνωμένων Πολιτειών, Ισραήλ και Τουρκίας. Στηρίζουν τον δίκαιο αγώνα των Παλαιστινίων για ελεύθερη, ανεξάρτητη πατρίδα στο πλάι του Ισραήλ, στα σύνορα πριν τον Ιούνη του '67 με πρωτεύουσα την ανατολική Ιερουσαλήμ, ενάντια στα επικίνδυνα σχέδια ΗΠΑ-Ισραήλ στην περιοχή.
               

Alice Teodorescu Måwe (PPE). – Fru talman! Situationen i Gaza försämras för varje dag som vapenvilan inte förlängs. Men varför har den inte förlängts? Varför håller Hamas fortfarande 59 oskyldiga människor, varav merparten sannolikt är döda, som gisslan? Varför lägger inte Hamas ner vapnen, kapitulerar och utlyser demokratiska val, om de oroar sig för situationen för civilbefolkningen i Gaza?
               

                  Svaret är att kapitulation inte ligger i deras intresse utifrån det långsiktiga målet att utrota Israel. Svaret är att de inte oroar sig för Gazas civila, som de främst ser som civila sköldar som kan offras i kampen mot Israel. Så länge som dessa omständigheter kvarstår kommer ingen långvarig fred att kunna uppnås. Därför behöver EU öka trycket på palestinierna och deras ledare i såväl Gaza som på Västbanken, genom att villkora biståndet och rikta sanktioner mot Hamas ekonomiska struktur.
               

                  Den palestinska myndigheten behöver i handling ta avstånd från Hamas, och Gaza demilitariseras. Det palestinska folket behöver inse att vägen till fred förutsätter ett totalt avståndstagande från terrorism.
               

Marta Temido (S&D). – Senhora Presidente, Senhora Comissária, o frágil cessar-fogo entre Israel e o Hamas está num trágico impasse.
               

                  Para pressionar, Israel cortou todo o fornecimento de eletricidade a Gaza (o que também impede o acesso a água potável dessalinizada) e suspendeu toda a entrada de ajuda humanitária.
               

                  Nós não podemos continuar a assistir passivamente à degradação da vida em Gaza. Israel tem de voltar a permitir a entrada de ajuda humanitária — que não é um instrumento de pressão sobre o Hamas, mas um direito da população civil de Gaza.
               

                  O prolongamento da guerra em Gaza só serve os interesses políticos e pessoais de Netanyahu, apoiado por uma coligação de extrema-direita ultraortodoxa. As desrespeitosas propostas da administração Trump para o território só reforçam esta liderança, que está cada vez mais longe de representar todos os israelitas.
               

                  As feridas de décadas só começarão a sarar se construirmos uma solução baseada em dois Estados e em direitos iguais para israelitas e palestinianos. E, para isso, Israel e o Hamas precisam de voltar a avançar imediatamente para cumprir as fases subsequentes do acordo de cessar-fogo.
               

Vicent Marzà Ibáñez (Verts/ALE). – Señora presidenta, el domingo Israel cortó el único suministro eléctrico que le quedaba a Gaza. En estas últimas semanas han expulsado de forma ilegal a miles de trabajadores humanitarios, entre ellos del UNRWA, la organización que usted nombraba, señora comisaria. Hoy, ahora mismo, hay militares que están destruyendo, ocupando e inutilizando la única franja fértil que le quedaba a Gaza, en la que los palestinos trabajaban su tierra para poder comer; y eso está pasando hoy, en pleno alto el fuego.
               

                  Y mientras tanto, ¿qué está haciendo Europa, señora comisaria? ¿Mirar hacia otro lado para contentar a Trump? ¿El mismo Trump que acaba de detener a un estudiante palestino en la Universidad de Columbia para impedir que pueda expresarse libremente y seguir intentando que no se cumplan los derechos humanos ni en Gaza ni en los Estados Unidos?
               

                  Señorías, los valores europeos no son solo un eslogan, se tienen que cumplir cada día y, para ello, debemos proteger los derechos humanos en Gaza, aumentar la ayuda humanitaria, hacer misiones de paz y construir, de verdad, la paz en todo el mundo.
               

Marc Botenga (The Left). – Madame la Présidente, est-ce que je peux d'abord demander au Conseil d'arrêter de rigoler? Vous êtes en train de rigoler ici, pendant que nous parlons de la mort de je ne sais combien de Palestiniens, d'une population qui se fait affamer, et vous êtes là en train de rigoler et de faire des blagues! Ce n'est pas drôle! Les Palestiniens sont des êtres humains, eux aussi, et vous devriez avoir honte!
               

                  C'est là, la caractéristique de cette Union européenne, aujourd'hui: un mépris pour la vie des Palestiniens! Parce que oui, vous avez réussi à faire un discours en disant: ‘Ah! La situation à Gaza empire…’, sans mentionner pourquoi elle empire. Pourquoi est-ce qu'elle empire? Eh bien, parce qu'Israël bloque toute aide humanitaire, toute nourriture, et même l'électricité. Qu'est-ce que cela veut dire? Sans électricité, pas de désalinisation de l'eau, et donc pas d'eau potable. Ainsi, les gens, les familles, les enfants n'ont pas d'eau potable, et vous, vous êtes là en train de rigoler! Comment est-ce possible, Monsieur le Ministre? Comment est-ce possible, s'il vous plaît?
               

                  Alors, aujourd'hui, cette complicité européenne et ce manque de respect pour la vie des Palestiniens doivent cesser, parce que cela va se payer cash! Je vous le promets!
               

Fidias Panayiotou (NI). – Madam President, it's time for Palestinians to have their own state. Most countries around the world support a two-state solution for the Israel-Palestine conflict, but the biggest obstacle for this to really happen is the United States. The United States has used its veto power in the United Nations Security Council dozens of time to block resolutions to recognise a Palestinian state. Alongside the United States, only eight other countries have refused to recognise Palestine. On the other hand, 143 countries around the world recognise Palestine, many of them represented here in the European Parliament.
I believe the EU should push for a two-state solution and challenge its biggest ally. Now, more than ever, we should act independently from the United States in order to stop the genocide of Palestinians and finally achieve a two-state solution.

Aodhán Ó Ríordáin (S&D). – Madam President, Israel's breach of the ceasefire, cutting off electricity, food and fuel to over 2 million people is a calculated act of collective punishment, a violation of international law. For 10 consecutive days, starvation has become a weapon of war, and the EU Commission responds by continuing to hold meetings of the EU-Israel Association Council. Business as usual. This is a disgrace! It tarnishes our moral standing and exposes the hypocrisy in our commitment to human rights.
The recent obstruction of a European Parliament delegation and the deportation of MEPs and EU officials is an affront to our democratic processes, and I want to express my solidarity to my constituency colleague and Chair of the delegation, Lynn Boylan. You mess with one Dub; you mess with all Dubs! We stand with you, Lynn, in demanding the strongest possible response from President Metsola.
Far from business as usual, Israel must face sanctions now! Saoirse don Phalaistín!


Jaume Asens Llodrà (Verts/ALE). – Señora presidenta, con Trump y Palestina hemos vuelto al viejo Oeste, a cuando Estados Unidos exterminó a los norteamericanos nativos en 1830, o a cuando la Alemania nazi hizo lo mismo un siglo después con los judíos. Hay patrones que se repiten: una misma narrativa deshumanizadora, los guetos, los muros, la segregación, el exterminio, la deportación, la confiscación de los bienes, de las tierras… Es lo que hay detrás del vídeo macabro de Trump: donde había Gaza hay un resort turístico con estatuas de oro al estilo hitleriano, en honor a él, con hoteles construidos desde las cenizas de ese horror.
               

                  Pero esa distopía no es nueva, forma parte del proyecto sionista del Gran Israel como Estado étnicamente puro. Y nosotros ahora no podemos decir que no sabíamos. De hecho, no podemos decir ni tan siquiera que no participamos, porque lo hemos apoyado. Y ante la Corte Penal Internacional no solo debería juzgarse a Trump y a Netanyahu, sino también a aquellos que desde Europa lo han apoyado enviándoles armas y participando en ese plan monstruoso.
               

Hanna Gedin (The Left). – Fru talman! EU:s flathet mot den israeliska regeringen kommer att gå till historien som ett exempellöst svek, inte bara mot den palestinska befolkningen utan också mot internationell rätt. Som jurist förfäras jag. Jag förfäras över att de regler som vi kom överens om efter andra världskriget – att fasorna som vi då hade bevittnat aldrig skulle få ske igen – verkar vara värda noll och ingenting.
               

                  För hur kan EU träffa israeliska representanter och prata om samarbete när folkmord pågår? Hur kan EU acceptera att medlemsländer struntar i den internationella brottmålsdomstolens arresteringsorder mot israeliska ministrar? Hur kan EU blunda när Israel saboterar vapenvilan, hindrar nödhjälp från att nå Gaza och låter bulldozrarna rulla in i Västbanken?
               

                  EU måste nu klart och tydligt på riktigt, inte bara i ord, stötta de initiativ som finns kring återuppbyggnad av Gaza och på riktigt, inte bara i ord, ta avstånd från alla förslag som innebär folkfördrivning och brott mot internationell rätt.
               

Νίκος Παππάς (The Left). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, καλησπέρα. Η μη παράταση της εκεχειρίας δεν ήταν απλά μια διπλωματική αποτυχία. Ήταν η καταδίκη χιλιάδων αμάχων στη Γάζα. Το Ισραήλ συνεχίζει να βομβαρδίζει ανελέητα, καταστρέφοντας ολόκληρες γειτονιές, νοσοκομεία, σχολεία, καταυλισμούς προσφύγων. Και φυσικά ο αριθμός των νεκρών αυξάνεται, με τα παιδιά να πληρώνουν το μεγαλύτερο τίμημα. Αυτό δεν είναι αυτοάμυνα, κύριοι, ας μην υποκρινόμαστε, ας μην κοροϊδευόμαστε. Είναι μια συλλογική τιμωρία, μια κατάφωρη παραβίαση του διεθνούς δικαίου. Η πολιορκία της Γάζας έχει μετατραπεί σε μια γενοκτονική εκστρατεία, όπου οι άνθρωποι πλέον στερούνται τα πιο βασικά δικαιώματα και αγαθά: το νερό, την τροφή, την ιατρική περίθαλψη, ακόμα, και κυρίως, την ελπίδα για επιβίωση.
               

                  Η διεθνής κοινότητα οφείλει να σταματήσει να κλείνει τα μάτια. Η ατιμωρησία του Ισραήλ πρέπει να σταματήσει. Απαιτούμε άμεση κατάπαυση του πυρός, άρση του αποκλεισμού και δίκαιη λύση για τον παλαιστινιακό λαό. Ο χρόνος για ουδέτερες δηλώσεις έχει τελειώσει. Ή είμαστε με τη δικαιοσύνη ή είμαστε συνένοχοι στο έγκλημα. Δεν υπάρχει κάτι ενδιάμεσο. Η ανθρωπιά μας, λοιπόν, δοκιμάζεται. Ας μην επιτρέψουμε η σιωπή να γίνει συνενοχή.
               

Dubravka Šuica,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, thank you very much for your contributions. I have been listening carefully.
In my introductory statement, I already said a lot. So, against all odds, there are also opportunities with the dire situation in Gaza.
As a short-term measure, we need to focus on the resumption of full access to humanitarian aid. After all, it is about the most pressing needs of the population on the ground, as I already said: food, clean water and health services and, of course, electricity.
The longer-term path to recovery and reconstruction will be complex and challenging. I already explained that there is a plan, but let's see, which was endorsed by Arab countries. We are looking into it, and let's see, but there are some preconditions, meaning a ceasefire which should hold and last.
We want to go this path together with our partners in the region and with the Palestinian people. The relocation of the population or the questioning of the territorial integrity cannot have a place in a sustainable solution in Gaza.
There were some diverging views here, but I am grateful for the vast support you have shown this evening. I think that parliamentary diplomacy is also very important. Your outreach, your expertise in state-building could be essential for the future of Gaza.
Gaza's reconstruction needs the backing of all of us. So, once again, the Commission, Member States and Parliament in a team Europe spirit.

Adam Szłapka,
President-in-Office of the Council. – Madam President, Madam Commissioner, honourable Members, the EU has been clear on the importance of continuing the ceasefire and the resumption of the negotiation on phase two.
The EU continues to support the mediators and remains on the ground thanks to our civilian mission, EUBAM Rafah.
The EU is committed to reviving the political process and working towards the two-state solution, with Israel and Palestine living side by side in peace within secure and recognised borders. The Council will continue to monitor the situation.

Die Präsidentin. – Die Aussprache ist geschlossen.
               

                  Ich hätte mir gewünscht, dass die, die an der Debatte teilgenommen haben, vielleicht auch noch bis zum Ende da geblieben wären.
               

                  Ich bedanke mich ausdrücklich bei der Kommission und beim Rat für die Anwesenheit bis zum Schluss.
               


Schriftliche Erklärungen (Artikel 178)



Matjaž Nemec (S&D),
pisno. – Spoštovane kolegice in kolegi, čeprav oči svetovne javnosti niso več tako močno uprte v Gazo, se nočna mora Palestincev nadaljuje.
               

                  Premirje, ki bi že moralo preiti v drugo fazo, se vse bolj krha. V izraelskih napadih, predvsem z droni, pa še naprej umirajo nedolžni Palestinci tako v Gazi kot na Zahodnem Bregu. Že več kot 10 dni humanitarna pomoč ne doseže Gaze, saj dostop blokira izraelska stran. Najostreje obsojam izklop električne energije s strani Izraela. V nevzdržnih razmerah v Gazi že močno primanjkuje hrane, raven vode je kritično nizka.
               

                  Spoštovani, Izrael uporablja stradanje kot vojno sredstvo. To je vojni zločin. Evropska unija in mednarodna skupnost morata ukrepati!
               

                  Ali bomo še naprej gledali stran in dovoljevali nadaljevanje napadov na Gazo kot na Zahodnem bregu. In to medtem, ko na eni strani Trump sanja o rivieri, Izrael na novo riše zemljevide, Palestinci še naprej brezupno umirajo.
               

                  Vse napore moramo usmeriti k dosegu dogovora druge faze, ki vključuje trajno premirje kot tudi izpustitev vseh talcev. Evropska unija pa mora odločno podpreti in aktivno pristopiti k arabskemu načrtu za obnovo Gaze. Račun za obnovo pa moramo izstaviti Izraelu, ki je odgovoren za skoraj popolno uničenje Gaze, ter tistim državam, ki so Izraelu ves čas vojne še naprej dostavljale orožje.
               

Georgiana Teodorescu (ECR),
in writing. – So many innocent civilians have been murdered, women and men raped, bodies mutilated and children taken hostage. And yet, almost two years later, this Parliament still fails to state the obvious: Israel has the right to defend itself! What were Israel's options? Do nothing? Accept any demand made by the terrorists while the hostages were still being held? No country in the world would tolerate this! The EU did not negotiate with ISIS, nor did the US negotiate with al-Qaeda!
Just as the EU sees peace negotiations between Russia and Ukraine as dangerous and invalid without security guarantees for Ukraine, it should analyse the situation between Israel and Gaza in the same manner, as long as the hostages are not released. If not, let us admit that we are applying double standards in the EU institutions.
If we truly want peace, we should start by standing with those fighting against terrorism, not by legitimising those who practice it – including here, in Europe, in Brussels, Strasbourg, Paris and many other places.
Which of our children will be the terrorists' next victim?
17.   Explanations of vote

Die Präsidentin. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgen die Erklärungen zur Abstimmung.
               

                  Aber ich sehe, dass Herr Panayiotou den Saal bereits verlassen hat, und somit gilt dieser Tagesordnungspunkt als behandelt und Herr Panayiotou kann dann seine Erklärung in schriftlicher Form abgeben, wenn er dies wünscht.
               
18.   Agenda of the next sitting

Die Präsidentin. – Die nächste Sitzung findet morgen, Mittwoch, den 12. März, um 9.00 Uhr, statt.
               

                  Die Tagesordnung wurde veröffentlicht und ist auf der Website des Europäischen Parlaments verfügbar.
               
19.   Approval of the minutes of the sitting

Die Präsidentin. – Das Protokoll dieser Sitzung wird dem Parlament morgen nach der Abstimmung zur Genehmigung vorgelegt.
               
20.   Closure of the sitting

(Die Sitzung wird um 23.18 Uhr geschlossen.)



ELI: 
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)