Category: Brexit

  • MIL-OSI Global: What Trump could learn from the British and Irish trade war of the 1930s

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Richard Carr, Lecturer in History and Politics, Anglia Ruskin University

    The Blue Water Bridge border crossing connects Michigan in the US with Ontario in Canada. ehrlif/Shutterstock

    During his election campaign, US president Donald Trump claimed the word tariff is “more beautiful than ‘love’”. Now in office, Trump has targeted his closest neighbours and trading partners with those self same policies. He initially concentrated his levies on Canada, China and Mexico – two of which share land borders with the US – before implementing blanket tariffs on all steel and aluminium imports.

    History shows us the impacts these policies can have. In 1932, during Neville Chamberlain’s time as British chancellor, the country slapped what became 40% levies on key exports (including cattle, butter and other agricultural products) from the then Irish Free State. These were promptly met by Irish retaliation on British goods including coal and steel.

    A trade war ensued – and lasted in some form for almost six years.

    As with Trump today, raising tariffs is often partly about some other policy goal. As far as the British-Irish trade war goes, I show in my new book Britain and Ireland From the Treaty to the Troubles that the initial beef (pun intended) was over a decades-long debt obligation. These annuities, as they were known, were predominantly owed by Irish farmers to Anglo-Irish landowners, and were widely disliked.

    In early 1932 Éamon de Valera secured electoral victory in Ireland for his Fianna Fáil party, partly on the basis of refusing to hand over this money. At £5 million, it was a significant sum for a government that took in around £25 million annually.

    Instead, de Valera planned to use the annuities for domestic purposes. He wanted to reward his agricultural and working-class electoral bases principally in Ireland’s west, as well as win over new voters with the nationalist and anti-English nature of his message.

    The legality of the annuities dispute was ambiguous. But de Valera withheld the money, and to recoup the missing millions the British imposed tariffs and punitive quotas. This was swiftly followed by retaliatory measures from Dublin – just as Trump’s moves have seen reaction from abroad.

    The stakes were high. A massive 92% of Irish exports went to the UK, and civil servants in Dublin fretted about the knock-on effects. In the short term, they were right to. Exports of cattle, bacon and other goods collapsed, and emergency domestic subsidy was needed to plug the gap.

    Irish attempts to land a major trade deal with the US by way of compensation went nowhere, and Britain remained its key customer for decades.

    Yet, unlike Trump, de Valera had a clear end goal into which the tariff war fitted rather well. He wanted to retool Irish farming away from livestock towards crops, and invest in Ireland’s nascent industry elsewhere. This included expanding the country’s energy independence and kick-starting its manufacturing sector.

    The retained annuities and the increased political capital his government gained from the trade war both helped with these objectives.

    It took until about 1937, after two more election wins and a referendum victory for de Valera, for British leaders to accept that the Irish public broadly backed their leader. They realised that a bilateral agreement was necessary.

    The dispute was finally ended in April 1938. As the ink dried on a deal that saw tariffs dropped in exchange for a one-off payment from Dublin and the return of three ports to Ireland, the British media hailed the achievement of Chamberlain – now prime minister.

    But this reaction also tells us something. Initially, Chamberlain was portrayed as a genius who had clearly won. But then critics pointed to it being a rather better deal for de Valera (the £10 million one-off sum was nowhere near the £100 million the British had a nominal claim for).

    In this new stance, it had been a great deal precisely because Chamberlain had been so magnanimous. A terrible deal was actually a great deal. Some of that mentality could be seen in reactions to the Munich Agreement with Adolf Hitler a few months later.

    All told, the consequences had been significant. Perhaps 3% of the Irish economy was lost.

    In the meantime, Irish immigration to Britain consequently ticked up as people looked for work. Smuggling at the Northern Irish border ballooned, leading to additional costs to police a frontier where cattle were hurried across unmanned fields and rivers to avoid the tariff.

    Guinness even moved production to London in order to avoid future tariffs.
    gabriel12/Shutterstock

    Major Irish-based industry, including Guinness and Ford, moved operations to the London periphery (Park Royal and Dagenham respectively) to avoid any future duties. Although Ford kept some tractor production in Cork in the south of Ireland, for large parts of its European and imperial business the only way was now Essex.

    All this meant economic dislocation and diplomatic animosity at a point where the geopolitical outlook was troubled – not an unfamiliar story. Although Ireland remained neutral during the second world war – the ultimate show for de Valera of its independence – intelligence cooperation and the service of Irish men and women in the Allied war effort illustrated that the two countries just about muddled through.

    But today, tariffs provoking wider turmoil remains a big worry. As former Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau noted, Trump’s actions are “a very dumb thing to do” and could lead to “exactly what our opponents around the world want to see … a dispute between two friends and neighbours”.

    Trump may also be wise to note that de Valera’s position was bolstered when he could claim that he was being bullied by a more powerful neighbour. In the past few weeks, the Canadian Liberal Party has surged back in the polls, partly on the back of the same dynamics. The little guy sometimes swings back.

    Richard Carr does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. What Trump could learn from the British and Irish trade war of the 1930s – https://theconversation.com/what-trump-could-learn-from-the-british-and-irish-trade-war-of-the-1930s-252128

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: The UK has closed its flagship sustainable farming scheme, choosing short-term cuts over long-term security

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Emma Burnett, Honorary Research Associate, TABLE, University of Oxford

    EMJAY SMITH / shutterstock

    The UK government’s decision to abruptly close all applications for its flagship nature-friendly farming scheme has shocked many of the country’s farmers and environmentalists.

    The sustainable farming incentive (SFI) is one of a series of schemes which pays farmers in England to nurture the soil and wildlife and improve water quality. It is far from perfect.

    People have criticised its complexity and lack of clarity, its financial viability or its impact on how farms operate and how this would change the balance between producing food and reaching environmental goals.

    It’s too early to tell if these critics were correct, but the SFI certainly provided some stability for British farmers after EU farm subsidies ended post-Brexit. It seemed poised to make some positive impact.

    The government says a revised version will be announced in the coming months, but it will be hard to regain the trust of farmers. The decision to close the scheme for now throws a stark light on a broader issue: the tendency to prioritise immediate financial needs over the long-term health of both the farming sector and the environment.

    This is a classic example of what economists call “future discounting”, and it’s a dangerous game to play when it comes to vital services.

    Essentially, future discounting means we value things more in the present than we do in the future. If you are promised £100 today, or £110 in two months, which would you take? Sometimes there’s no right or wrong answer – do what you think is right for you with that £100. But sometimes… well, sometimes there is a right answer.

    The value of now, the value of the future

    The SFI scheme offers vital support for sustainable practices that, while crucial, often require upfront investment. This includes cover cropping, for example, where a crop is grown simply to cover a field rather than to be harvested.

    Cover cropping can help rejuvenate soils and is good for insects, but there are costs attached to purchasing the seeds, sowing them, and missing out on income by not growing a commodity crop.

    Other investment examples might involve creating grassland or ponds and ditches to hold back rainwater and prevent floods. These things have an immediate impact on farm output and activities, but with an eye to longer-term benefit.

    Investment in soil health might lower yields in the short run, but should pay off in the long run.
    William Edge / shutterstock

    The sudden closure of the scheme creates an immediate financial vacuum for those who missed the (unannounced) window. Thankfully, farmers with existing agreements will continue within the scheme, and applications that had been submitted prior to the sudden closure will still be assessed.

    However, even for those who are currently enrolled, this about-face instils fear that support will be withdrawn in the years to come – long before something like an expanded woodland has come to fruition.

    The government says that it has run out of money for the current budget cycle. Rather than celebrating the fact that so many farmers want to be involved, want to do adopt better farming practices and act as custodians of nature, it instead panicked and shut people out.

    Too much demand for a nature-friendly future, not enough cold hard cash. And now we can see how the discounting works – the perceived urgency of cashflow today overshadows the long-term benefits of healthy soil, thriving biodiversity, and a resilient ecosystem.

    There are specific actions that SFIs are meant to support, including soil health, water quality, biodiversity and pest management. Each of these requires investment to manage, and to rectify when things go wrong (see the huge fines for water companies).

    For example, it is easier to address issues of water quality by supporting better land use – reduced agri-chemicals, more grassland, tree cover, and so on – than to treat poor water quality downstream.

    But farmers operate both within tight financial margins and on long time-scales. They need security of income to plan land use, including whether they can afford to implement alternative strategies. But they do want to. That’s why there’s been so much demand for SFIs.

    A false economy

    Sympathy could be rustled up for the government, trying to manage complex budgets in a complicated time. But it has made one misstep after another in relation to both food and farming (farmer protests over inheritance tax, for instance) and the environment (such as the planned Heathrow airport expansion)).

    So while immediate fiscal prudence is important, ignoring the long-term consequences of environmental degradation is a false economy. We have a responsibility to value the future as much as the present. Failing to do so will have serious consequences for our environment, our food security, and the well-being of future generations.

    Rather than discounting futures, we should be doing the opposite – negative futures discounting. It sounds upside-down, but it boils down to this: we should value the future more, not less.

    In particular, we should be focused on nurturing good farming and environmental protection. These should take centre stage as mission critical things that we need, and not just for now, but always.

    The sustainable farming incentive shutdown is another chance to reflect on the fact that farming and environmental sustainability are not luxuries, but necessities. We cannot afford to continually discount the future, sacrificing the future of farming and the environment for the sake of short-term finance. It’s time to re-evaluate our priorities.


    Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?

    Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 40,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.


    Emma Burnett has previously received funding from sankalpa. She also works as a sustainability researcher for a whisky company.

    ref. The UK has closed its flagship sustainable farming scheme, choosing short-term cuts over long-term security – https://theconversation.com/the-uk-has-closed-its-flagship-sustainable-farming-scheme-choosing-short-term-cuts-over-long-term-security-252326

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Minister Thomas-Symonds speech at the UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly

    Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments

    Speech

    Minister Thomas-Symonds speech at the UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly

    Minister Thomas-Symonds speech at the UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly

    It really is a pleasure to be here with you all today.

    But I do want to just begin, by joining Maros in wishing all our Irish friends a very happy St Patricks Day. 

    I’d also like to thank the Assembly…

    …especially the Chairs, Sandro and Marsha…

    …for giving Maros and I this opportunity to speak to you all today.

    And it is that idea of opportunity that I want to talk about…

    …because we have a chance to strengthen the strategic alliance between the UK and the EU…

    …and I want to talk about how – by being ruthlessly pragmatic – we can harness this opportunity, for the benefit of the people that we are all elected to serve.  

    Now this is the very first meeting of the reconstituted Assembly…

    … and I know that you are welcoming members, both new and old.

    Since this Government came into power, we have worked tirelessly to change the UK’s approach. 

     In the recent past, we have been too focused on what divides us…

    …and it’s those differences that have too often defined the agenda.

    But I believe these groups and these meetings must be used for our collective good.

    This Assembly was set up under the Trade and Cooperation Agreement…

    …to ensure the voices of parliamentarians – and, in turn, our citizens – can be heard. 

    You’re all serving the interests of the people who voted for you…

    …and we must use every opportunity available to us to build trust…

    …and improve cooperation.

    And all of you here today – through your membership in the Assembly – are essential to that work.

    Now, I have already met members of both delegations – and I am committed to maintaining that engagement.

    The UK and EU’s future will be defined by how we both tackle our shared challenges together.

    We are living through a period of generational challenge…

    …and I know as political leaders – we all feel the scale of this moment. 

    War in Ukraine…

    …people smuggled in treacherous conditions by treacherous criminals…

    …the price of energy and the cost of inflation…

    …achieving growth and prosperity to boost living standards for our citizens… 

    …all of these challenges are exacerbated by a mindset of division.

    They are problems across our continent…

    …and they require a coordinated response.

    Just look at the actions of our Prime Minister this year.

    He was delighted to be a part of the European Leaders retreat last month…

     …where he made the case for greater cooperation between the EU and the UK.

    On 2 March, he hosted European leaders, as well as the NATO Secretary General and the Presidents of the EU Commission, EU Council and indeed welcomed Canada… 

    …for a summit focused on Ukraine.

    The importance of these meetings cannot be overstated.

    They are emblematic of how seriously this Government takes European security.

    And there is no greater imperative to this than supporting Ukraine.

    In the face of Russia’s illegal and barbaric invasion, we must be resilient.

    It is why we recently announced an increase in UK defence spending to 2.5% of GDP.

    We are stepping up, and we know that the EU is stepping up, too.

    It was heartening to see – on the anniversary of the invasion – that the EU reaffirmed its unwavering support.

    And at the European Council meeting earlier this month, where EU leaders agreed a significant increase in defence spending. 

    I know that, together, we are determined to help Ukraine prevail…

    …and rebuild.

    We must keep pushing – together – to find new ways to achieve this.

    At a time of such intense global change, I believe it is vital to recognise what unites the UK and the EU…

    …and understand how our mutual priorities can be realised through teamwork.

    We saw that in action this January…

    …where, on the same day, the UK Chancellor and the President of the European Commission gave speeches about the challenges facing them.

    Both spoke about their desire for growth…

    …both spoke about how their potential had been held back…

    …and both spoke too about the importance of trade openness.

    In fact, both our Prime Minister’s ‘Plan for Change’ and the President’s ‘Competitiveness Compass’ focused on the same priorities…

    …like reducing red tape, improving skills and a more resilient economy.

    The UK government was elected on a mandate to increase our security, keep our citizens safe and to encourage growth.

    Europe is a crucial partner in these priorities…

    …and, indeed, Europe shares those concerns.

    That is why we are living up to the obligations we have in existing Agreements and Frameworks…

    …that is how trust is earned. 

    No more threats to break international law in ‘limited and specific ways’… 

    …and no more undermining of the ECHR.

    So we are respectful of the TCA and the Windsor Framework… 

    …and we want to build on that structure to address emerging challenges and opportunities.

    The Prime Minister has tasked me with leading these discussions with Maros…

    …supported by our new EU Sherpa Micheal Ellam. 

    And I want to thank Maros – not only for the way he has been so constructive in his relationship with me…

    …but for the many years – and no doubt late nights – that he has dedicated to the EU – UK relationship…

    …but also the pragmatism he is known and respected for.  

    And in our discussions I have always been clear about our desire to strengthen our alliance – and I focus on the three priorities I mentioned…

    …on security, safety and prosperity…

    …where I believe there is much benefit to be gained.

    And it’s these priorities I would like to focus on.

    First, security.

    Now, I’ve already spoken about how seriously we’re taking this…

    …and I know that it is a topic you will be discussing later today.

    But it bears repeating: to keep Europe secure, we need to support allies like Ukraine…

    …and work with NATO on security and defence.

    As the Prime Minister said in the UK Parliament recently, we have: 

    “A recognition of the fact that once again, we live in an era where peace in Europe depends upon strength and deterrence.”

    So, we are seeking a broad UK-EU cooperation on security and defence matters…

    …and we’re ready to negotiate a Security and Defence Partnership.

    This has been central to the Prime Minister’s approach with European leaders.

    When he visited the informal European Leaders’ Summit, he discussed what this partnership could include…

    …and what it could address.

    He suggested a focus on R&D…

    …improved military mobility across Europe …

    …greater co-operation on missions and operations…

    …and building on our industrial collaboration.

    Building on that commitment, let me turn to the next pillar: safety.

    I am clear that if we want to protect our respective borders…

    …and keep our citizens safe…

    …then we need to work together.

    The criminals that we all try and combat pay no respect to our borders…

    …whether they’re taking part in the vile global trade in human trafficking…

    …or planning a terrorist attack to push their agenda and terrify our citizens.

    These challenges plague us all…

    …and I believe that it is only through greater cooperation that we can remain safe.

    It’s why we have already increased the UK’s presence at Europol…

    …but I believe we should be going further.

    We need to think of new ways to coordinate our security…

    …and ensure we have the intelligence and skills to combat cross-Europe criminal enterprises.

    And finally, prosperity.

    The European Union is the UK’s biggest trading partner…

    …with trade totalling over £800bn in 2023.

    And while that figure is still impressive, we know it is not as good as it could be.

    A study published last year by Aston University Business School showed that between 2021 and 2023, the goods EU businesses export to the UK were down by 32%…

    …while UK goods exports to the EU were down by 27%.

    What I’m hearing from businesses that I speak to is that this drop is down to them facing more barriers and more costs.

    They’re frustrated, and I can understand why.

    As ‘Businesseurope’ set out in a report this Autumn, and I quote: “There remain many unnecessary barriers to trade and investment. Following the elections of new governments in the EU and UK, there is a clear opportunity to upgrade the relationship to deliver for businesses and citizens.”

    And that is why we want to build on the structures we have – the TCA and the Windsor Framework…

    …to tear down trade barriers and make Brexit work better for the British and European people.

    We have already said that we will seek to negotiate a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement…

    …to help boost trade… 

    and deliver benefits to businesses and consumers in both the UK and the EU. 

    Now, all these issues have been at the forefront of our Government’s discussions with the EU.

    In fact, since the UK election, there have been over 70 direct engagements between UK ministers and their EU Counterparts.

    We have agreed to hold regular UK-EU Summits…

    …with the very first one, as Maros has said, being hosted in London on 19th May…

    …which will be a great opportunity to strengthen this work further.

    But ultimately, this is all about building trust…

    …and this Government wants to keep its word…

    …and become a trusted and stable partner.

    Our discussions continue on the full implementation of the TCA and the Withdrawal Agreement …

    …with almost all of our Specialised Committees meeting last year…

    …and there are plans in place to meet again in the coming months.

    The co-chairs continually update each other on their progress…

    …whilst monitoring and reporting on their passage to full and faithful implementation.

    We fully believe in these structures…

    …but we also fully believe in the opportunities to improve the status quo.

    So, ladies and gentlemen, the time for ideologies is over.

    The time for ruthless pragmatism is now.

    And it is the only way we can seek a closer, more cooperative relationship.

    After all, a stronger UK-EU relationship means a stronger Europe.

    This Assembly will be a vital part of that journey…

    …where that mutual interest will be demonstrated and discussed.

    I also know that many of you have deep expertise, insights and passion for this agenda…

    … and I am sure that this forum will be a fantastic way to bring these to bear. 

    I want to thank you for the time you have given me to discuss my work. To say how much that I am looking forward together. 

    This forum, this Assembly is such an important part of hat shared future and what a pleasure it is to discuss this with you today. 

    Thank you.

    Updates to this page

    Published 17 March 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom

  • MIL-OSI Global: Keir Starmer’s civil service reforms: what is mission-led government and why is it so hard to achieve?

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Patrick Diamond, Professor of Public Policy, Queen Mary University of London

    All governments, it seems, are destined to go to war with Whitehall. The administration of Keir Starmer has been in power only nine months, but there are clear indications ministers are frustrated and dissatisfied with civil service performance.

    They have so far avoided the temptation to publicly vilify Whitehall officials for the government’s inability to deliver rapid progress. There is no repeat of the rhetoric that a hard rain is about to fall on the civil service, as Boris Johnson and his chief adviser, Dominic Cummings, threatened in the aftermath of Brexit.

    Yet it is obvious that behind the scenes, senior figures in the Starmer administration believe the civil service is not functioning as it should. We’ve seen a flurry of announcements on reforming the machinery of government.

    The Cabinet Office minister, Pat McFadden, unveiled plans to subject officials to performance reviews, while removing poorly performing civil servants from their posts. The prime minister made it clear he wants to cut back quangos (notably scrapping the health agency, NHS England) and ensure ministers, not regulators, take significant policy decisions.

    Meanwhile, there is a determination to unleash artificial intelligence, ensuring public sector productivity improves. Starmer believes the British state has become “flabby”, slow-moving and ineffectual.


    Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.

    Sign up for our weekly politics newsletter, delivered every Friday.


    The apparent disconnect between ministers and the bureaucracy is scarcely surprising. Before coming to power, Labour had detailed plans to make British government “mission-orientated”.

    The Starmer administration declared in its first king’s speech that “mission-based government” would entail “a whole new way of governing” addressing “long-term, complex problems”. This mission mind-set is exemplified by the American general George S. Paton: “Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what you want them to achieve and they will surprise you with their ingenuity.”

    Missions are intended to galvanise UK government, involving the whole of society in the drive for once-in-a-generation reforms without micro-managing from the centre.

    At the outset, there was too little appreciation among officials of the challenge that mission-orientated government posed to traditional ways of working in Whitehall. Starmer’s first chief of staff, Sue Gray, was determined to emphasise a return to reciprocal partnership between ministers and mandarins given the turmoil and instability that afflicted British government in the Johnson/Liz Truss era.

    Yet the prime minister now appears more focused on change than continuity. The implications of mission-orientated governance are potentially transformational.

    Mission-led government in a nutshell

    The concept of mission-led government essentially rests on four principles:

    1. Bringing a long-term, strategic perspective to policy development. Missions focus on long-term goals for society, instead of short-term targets or milestones.

    2. Breaking down silos across the public sector. Different government services and agencies work together on missions, ensuring issues do not slip between the institutional cracks.

    3. Giving professionals working on the front line of public service delivery greater agency. The idea is that fewer rules and edicts mean staff can respond to pressing challenges, adapting organisations accordingly.

    4. Incorporating ideas and insights generated outside the civil service, challenging the traditional monopoly over policy and implementation. Missions involve external organisations at the outset.

    The reality on the ground

    Each of these ideas are important, yet there is too little recognition of the significant challenge they pose to the culture and practices of Whitehall.

    UK central government does not do strategy well – and the past 15 years have witnessed a cull of what strategic capability there was. Day-to-day operational management and cost-cutting has long been prized over long-term thinking.

    Breaking down silos is necessary, yet difficult to achieve. The problem isn’t so much the mindset or recalcitrance of civil servants, but the prevailing system of parliamentary accountability.

    Ministers are responsible for the public money that has been allocated to their department. This reinforces boundaries and makes shared working across departments less tenable. No government has resolved the problem of how to achieve joint working on key programmes with the right blend of incentives, including shared budgets.

    Moreover, civil servants, like ministers, are reluctant to give frontline staff greater autonomy. There is a culture of mistrust after 40 years of public management reform.

    There is also a prevailing belief that many public sector professionals are ultimately self-interested. Leaving professionals at the front line to get on with implementation is an attractive proposition, but difficult to achieve given Whitehall’s instinct to impose rules, regulations, oversight and monitoring.

    Constitutional arrangements are central to civil service reform.
    Shutterstock/Adam Cowell

    Meanwhile, many in Whitehall believe giving a voice to outside “interest groups” potentially corrupts the policy process. Officials view the ideas of thinktanks as flimsy and insubstantial (in fairness, proposals such as universal credit originated by the Centre for Social Justice in the late 2000s scarcely stood the test of time).

    None of this makes change in central government unattainable. But it emphasises that all governments need a concerted strategy for reform, including being willing to devote political resources, as few recent prime ministers have done.

    And, if the Starmer administration pursues a genuinely mission-orientated approach, it must confront the fundamental question of the constitutional relationship between ministers and civil servants. This is an issue successive governments have avoided since the late 1960s.

    There is a compelling argument that in delivering missions, senior officials ought to be publicly accountable for delivery, as is the case, for example, in New Zealand. Yet that would require the doctrine of ministerial responsibility to be overhauled. Many will agree it is an unhelpful facade that should have been dismantled a long time ago anyway.

    Patrick Diamond is a member of the Labour Party and the Fabian Society. He is a former government special adviser.

    ref. Keir Starmer’s civil service reforms: what is mission-led government and why is it so hard to achieve? – https://theconversation.com/keir-starmers-civil-service-reforms-what-is-mission-led-government-and-why-is-it-so-hard-to-achieve-252230

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: Two charts that explain why Reform isn’t being dented by its scandals

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Paul Whiteley, Professor, Department of Government, University of Essex

    The spat between Nigel Farage, the leader of the Reform party, and Rupert Lowe, the MP for Great Yarmouth, burst into the open when Lowe was suspended from the party. The allegation was that he had threatened violence to the party leadership, which he denies. The matter is currently being investigated by the police.

    The row does not appear to have affected support for Reform in the polls. A YouGov poll completed on March 10, after Lowe’s suspension, shows Reform on 23% in vote intentions, compared with 24% for Labour and 22% for the Conservatives. It is still a three-party race at the top of British party politics.

    In the 2024 general election a good deal of Reform’s support came from protest voters. These are voters who dislike all the mainstream parties and so see a vote for the party as a way of choosing “none of the above”. They are not attached to any party and can easily switch support when circumstances change. So why has support for the party not been affected by this row?

    Protest politics and support for Reform

    The answer to this question is that while Reform attracted a lot of discontented protest voters in the election, it has since acquired a more stable niche in British party politics. It is primarily a party of English nationalism, equivalent to the SNP in Scotland and Plaid Cymru in Wales. These three parties differ greatly in outlook and politics, but they occupy a similar place in the public’s minds.


    Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.

    Sign up for our weekly politics newsletter, delivered every Friday.


    To examine Reform’s support from protest voters we can look at the relationship between spoilt ballots in the 2024 general election and support for the party in the 632 constituencies in England, Scotland and Wales. Normally, observers of British elections pay little attention to spoilt ballots (or “invalid votes” as they are described in official statistics). However, it turns out that they played an important role in the 2024 election which has a bearing on support for Reform.

    Research shows that voters who spoil their ballots can be classified into two categories: those who simply make a mistake when filling in the ballot and those who are protesting about the current system.

    Mistakes are easy to make in countries with complex electoral systems. However, in Britain, the first-past-the-post system in which everyone has just one vote, ensures that this is not a significant factor because ballot papers are so simple. The bulk of spoilt ballots are protests of various kinds, taking the form of blank ballots, write-in candidates, or abusive messages about parties and candidates.

    This is illustrated in the Lancashire seat of Chorley, which is held by the speaker of the House of Commons, Lindsay Hoyle. By tradition none of the major parties challenge the Speaker by campaigning in his constituency. In the election there were no less than 1,198 spoilt ballots in his constituency. It is fairly clear that these were a result of some voters feeling disenfranchised by the absence of their preferred party on the ballot paper.

    The relationship between the Reform vote share and the number of spoilt ballots in constituencies in the 2024 election

    Protest voting takes different forms.
    P Whiteley, CC BY-ND

    There is a strong negative relationship (a correlation of -0.46) between the share of a constituency vote that went to Reform in 2024 and the number of ballots spoiled in that constituency. Where people were voting Reform, in other words, fewer people were spoiling their ballots. The implication is that the party picked up votes from people who would normally spoil their ballots or would not have voted at all if Reform had not stood in their constituency. These are the protest voters.

    Identity politics and support for Reform

    Not all support for Reform came from protest voters, however. The chart below compares the percentage of Reform voters with those who identified as English in the 2021 census in England. There is a strong relationship between the two measures (a correlation of 0.66). The more English identifiers there are in a constituency, the greater support for Reform. In effect, Reform has become an English national party.

    The relationship between Reform voting and English identity in 2024

    An English national party in the making.
    P Whiteley, CC BY-ND

    National identities can change over time, but the process of change is slow. There has been a growth in “Englishness” at the expense of “Britishness” over time and this is undoubtedly reinforcing support for Reform.

    It means the party has a relatively solid base of supporters to rely on in future elections. While the row between the party’s leader and one of his MPs could play out in any number of different directions at this early stage, it would be wrong to suggest that Reform isn’t thinking big picture and long term.

    Farage has clearly learnt from his past and will not let his current party disintegrate into chaos like UKIP or the Brexit party before it.

    Paul Whiteley has received funding from the British Academy and the ESRC.

    ref. Two charts that explain why Reform isn’t being dented by its scandals – https://theconversation.com/two-charts-that-explain-why-reform-isnt-being-dented-by-its-scandals-252201

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: Why increasing rates of tuberculosis in the UK and US should concern everyone

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Tom Wingfield, Deputy Director of the Centre for Tuberculosis Research, Reader in Tuberculosis and Social Medicine, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, UK; and Honorary Research Associate at Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden, and, University of Liverpool

    pardi hutabarat/Shutterstock

    With one of the largest tuberculosis (TB) outbreaks in US history, Kansas has more to worry about than its recent Super Bowl defeat. During the past year, 67 people with TB have been detected. This comes on the back of increasing rates of TB in the US year on year since the start of the COVID pandemic.

    Rather than a relic of the Victorian era, TB is the world’s most enduring pandemic, killing more people each year than any other single infection. While more common in low-income countries, TB continues to be found in more deprived communities, cities, prisons, homeless populations, and in black, Asian and Indigenous people, including in wealthy countries such as the US and UK.

    TB outbreaks in wealthy countries act as a canary in a coalmine, reflecting cracks in national public health systems. More broadly, TB outbreaks in any setting have deeper implications for the struggle to end TB globally.

    TB is an airborne infection that doesn’t respect borders. With increasing mass movement, including due to climate change and war, the maxim “TB anywhere is TB everywhere” is more resonant today than ever.

    In the UK, TB rates consistently declined between 2011 and 2020. But, like the US, this decline reversed since COVID emerged in early 2020.

    In 2023, there was a 13% increase in the number of people who became unwell with TB in England, compared with 2022.

    At 9.5 people with TB per 100,000 people per year, England is in jeopardy of losing its “low TB incidence” status (less than ten people with TB per 100,000 people per year).

    Rates of TB in England have a stark social gradient, with the poorest 10% of people having five times higher rates of TB than the richest 10%.

    In the UK, there is a cost of living crisis. Many people, especially the poorest, are struggling to put food on the table. TB is a social disease of poverty that thrives where there is overcrowding, undernutrition and poor working and living conditions.

    But the increase in TB in the UK cannot be put down to greater risk of disease alone. The response of the health and social care system to prevent and cure TB is crucial.

    The BCG vaccine, currently the only TB vaccine, is not nearly as effective as we would like at preventing disease. There is hope on the horizon with several vaccines under development, but their effect may be impeded by vaccine hesitancy driven by misinformation.

    BCG is still the only TB vaccine, but it’s not highly effective.
    TuktaBaby/Shutterstock

    Other barriers to address include lack of TB awareness, continuing TB-related stigma, understaffing of vital TB community nursing teams, and a breach between health and social care sectors to support those vulnerable to TB.

    For countries with lower incidence of TB across Europe and North America, many TB policies are targeted at identifying and treating TB in groups who are most at risk of being exposed to the disease, including people moving from regions of the world where TB is more common.

    Patterns of migration to the UK changed significantly following Brexit. A need to expand the workforce, particularly in health and social care, has led to active recruitment and movement of people from higher TB burden countries. This is relevant because, in England, four in five people with TB were born outside the UK, and rates among this group increased by 15% between 2022 and 2023.

    Screening migrant populations as part of their visa application process pre-entry is effective at identifying people with infectious TB. But prevention is better than cure, and there remains a gap in screening for TB infection or TB disease without symptoms.

    Providing well-tolerated, preventive TB treatment can reduce the risk of developing active TB disease by 85% in the future. Yet the screening programme in the UK is under-resourced, with just 11.5% of eligible migrants screened for TB infection in 2023.

    We should not overlook the fact that rates of TB also increased, although to a lesser extent (3.9%), among people born in the UK – the first time this has happened for many years.

    Among both UK-born and non-UK-born populations, often overlapping social risk factors such as homelessness, asylum seeker status, drug or alcohol misuse, incarceration and mental health disorders continue to drive TB. These factors, which jumped by 27% between 2022 and 2023, not only increase the likelihood of TB disease but are associated with much lower rates of cure.

    Early diagnosis and treatment of TB are crucial to prevent long-term health issues or even death. The sooner someone starts effective treatment, the sooner they stop being infectious, helping to reduce the spread of TB. Improving access to diagnosis and care will lower TB transmission.

    Unacceptable delays in treatment

    Nearly a third of people with TB in the UK experience a delay of four months between the onset of their symptoms (commonly cough, fever, night sweats and weight loss) and taking their first anti-TB medicine. This unacceptable delay is similar to (or even longer than) the treatment delays we have documented in low- and middle-income countries with much higher TB burdens, including Peru, Nepal and Mozambique.

    In the UK, most people are entitled to free NHS care, and TB care and prevention is free to all. However, the NHS is overwhelmed and policies relating to healthcare recovery costs of visitors and migrants can prevent people with TB, wherever they are from, from getting timely care. This situation poses a public health threat to us all.

    Effective TB prevention and care is possible. While current tools are imperfect, albeit with recent progress in diagnostics and treatment, researchers around the world are further advancing science and innovation in the fight against TB. This includes the promise of nutritional supplementation, financial and social support, and a new TB vaccine. Providing timely support to everyone with TB remains fundamental to our response to this illness of poverty.

    To end TB, whether in the US, UK, or globally, we would do well to remember and apply the old medical adage: treat the person, not the disease.

    Tom Wingfield is supported by grants from: the Wellcome Trust, UK (209075/Z/17/Z); the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO), the Medical Research Council (MRC) and Wellcome, UK (Joint Global Health Trials, MR/V004832/1); the Medical Research Council (Public Health Intervention Development Award “PHIND”, APP2293); the Medical Research Foundation (Dorothy Temple Cross International Collaboration Research Grant, MRF-131–0006-RG-KHOS-C0942); and UNITAID (2022-50-START-4-ALL). Tom is an honorary research associate at the Department of Global Public Health, Karolinksa Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden, and is also an ad hoc consultant for the World Health Organization and the Stop TB Partnership.

    Jessica Potter has previously received research funding from Medical Research Council UK. She chairs a grassroots network called UK Academics and Professionals to end TB and is an advisory member of the Innovations Constituency of the Stop TB Partnership.

    Kerry Millington receives funding from UK aid from the UK government for the research programme that she works on. Views expressed are those of her own and do not necessarily reflect the UK government’s official policies.

    ref. Why increasing rates of tuberculosis in the UK and US should concern everyone – https://theconversation.com/why-increasing-rates-of-tuberculosis-in-the-uk-and-us-should-concern-everyone-249202

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: Britain can still be a bridge between the US and Europe – here’s how Starmer can prove it

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Nick Whittaker, Subject Lead in Social Sciences & Law, University of Sussex

    The US-EU relationship is at its most fragile point since the build-up to the Iraq war in 2003. While President Donald Trump openly questions Nato and President Volodymyr Zelensky’s desire for peace, EU leaders have continued to voice their unequivocal support for Ukraine against Russian aggression.

    Between the two lies Britain. In a flurry of diplomacy, Keir Starmer has attempted to navigate the country’s tricky position: close to the US diplomatically, while staying aligned with the EU’s Ukraine policy.

    I argue that Starmer could use Britain’s island identity – separated from its closest neighbours just enough to allow a global outlook – to his advantage. Acting as an effective link between the US and the EU could turn this time of crisis into an opportunity. What Britain may lack in material capabilities, it can make up for in skilful diplomacy.

    Britain’s position as a “geopolitical bridge” stretches far back into the last century. As Britain was decolonising and reckoning with the growing power of the US and a uniting European continent, acting as a bridge was an effective way of ensuring relevance and maintaining alliances while its status as an imperial great power waned.

    This position was especially favoured by Labour politicians keen to emphasise how a socialist Britain could act as a link between the capitalist and communist worlds. In (sometimes reluctantly) arguing for Britain’s entry into the European Economic Community, some Conservatives posited membership as allowing Britain to bridge the Atlantic, given the UK’s strong postwar ties with the US.

    Even older is the idea of Britain as an “offshore balancer”. The UK’s proximity to the European continent meant it has always had an eye on political developments there. It has thus sought to maintain alliances in order to prevent Europe being dominated by one power (Napoleonic France, Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union) who could threaten the island sanctuary.

    With Britain no longer in the EU, this time of heightened transatlantic tensions provides an opportunity to reclaim these geopolitical stances (and some lost relevance) as a vital interlocutor between America and Europe.

    Nato on the brink

    Trump is notoriously erratic and unpredictable, yet one of his most consistent motifs has been to question Nato and “free-riding” allies. Herein lies the spectre of the most terrifying British nightmare: an American withdrawal from Nato.

    Britain and the US have, historically, both articulated their role as that of offshore balancer in relation to continental Europe. The threat against which they have been balancing since the end of the second world war is the Soviet Union and then Russia.

    If the Trump administration ceases to regard Russia as a threat or sees no utility in acting in its historic balancing role, the UK-US relationship will be placed under serious threat. For all of the importance of Anglo-Saxon identity tropes, kith and kin and the special relationship, alliances are best nurtured in conditions of shared interests.


    Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.

    Sign up for our weekly politics newsletter, delivered every Friday.


    Nato has been the real cornerstone of UK foreign, defence and security policy since the North Atlantic treaty’s inking in 1949, and is beloved of both Labour and Conservative politicians. US abandonment would be devastating. Thus it is Starmer’s greatest challenge and opportunity.

    The reality is that Nato is centred on continental Europe and always has been. Starmer can gain common ground with Trump at this critical juncture by emphasising Britain’s islandness, and the US’s similar separation from the continent.

    Starmer could position Britain as a mid-Atlantic interlocutor, close to Europe but not of Europe – appealing to the antipathy of some in the Trump administration about the continent. And his government has already gained Trump’s approval by increasing defence spending, an act that will also please nervous European governments.

    Global Britain?

    At this moment, Britain seems closer to the EU than it has been since 2016. Foreign and defence policy remain, to some extent, unfulfilled gaps in the EU’s portfolio. If Starmer can forge a close relationship around these issues, he can undercut some of the disappointments around Brexit, such as Britain being viewed as less relevant internationally and losing a seat at European security discussions.

    Notwithstanding the latest increase in defence spending, the British Army is smaller than it has been for several hundred years. Cuts to foreign aid, along with the merging of international development with the Foreign Office have prompted questions around Britain’s international clout.

    Yet its leaders remain high profile and listened to, with Starmer managing to cut a dignified figure in an era of posturing strongmen. He will need to convince Trump and his team that Europe (and Nato) is worthy of their time and attention. He must emphasise their common ground as offshore balancers, capable of providing a counterweight to Russia.

    EU leaders will also need to be reassured of Britain’s commitment to the continent after Brexit. Pressing harder for a UK-EU security pact is one way Starmer could signal this.

    Starmer’s White House visit was seen as a diplomatic success, but the mood has changed after Zelensky’s visit.
    Number 10/Flickr, CC BY-NC-ND

    Trump repeatedly emphasises the personal aspect of politics, seeing states and alliances through a prism of which leaders are willing to flatter him or, at the very least, be “respectful”. Starmer grasped this early on and thus has a shot at forging a productive relationship with Trump, however painful it might be for some in his party.

    Yet the stakes are much higher than disgruntled backbenchers. The Labour party, with its internationalist roots, is deeply proud of the foreign policies of Clement Attlee and Ernest Bevin (although less so of Tony Blair’s). Although it may be stressed in different terms to their Conservative opponents, the party is just as concerned with retaining relevance and influence on the world stage.

    If this Labour government can find a way to successfully act as a bridge – by interesting Trump in Europe and convincing the EU that they are a reliable partner – then this not only salves some of the wounds of Brexit, it also potentially keeps Nato alive, for now.

    Nick Whittaker does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. Britain can still be a bridge between the US and Europe – here’s how Starmer can prove it – https://theconversation.com/britain-can-still-be-a-bridge-between-the-us-and-europe-heres-how-starmer-can-prove-it-251405

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-Evening Report: The EU will spend billions more on defence. It’s a powerful statement – but won’t do much for Ukraine

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jessica Genauer, Senior Lecturer in International Relations, Flinders University

    On March 3, US President Donald Trump paused all US military aid to Ukraine. This move was apparently triggered by a heated exchange a few days earlier between Trump, Vice President JD Vance and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in the Oval Office.

    In response, European Union leaders have now committed to rearm Europe by mobilising €800 billion (about A$1.4 trillion) in defence spending.

    26 of the EU leaders (excluding Hungary) signed an agreement that peace for Ukraine must be accompanied by “robust and credible” security guarantees.

    They agreed there can be no negotiations on Ukraine without Ukraine’s participation. It was also agreed the EU will continue to provide regular military and non-military support to Ukraine.

    This jump in defence spending is unprecedented for the EU, with 2024 spending hitting a previous record high of €326 billion (A$558 billion).

    At the same time, the United Kingdom has committed to the biggest increase in defence spending since the Cold War.

    The EU’s united front will create strong defences and deter a direct attack on EU nations.

    However, for Ukraine, it will not lead to a military victory in its war with Russia. While Europe has stepped up funding, this is not sufficient for Ukraine to defeat Russian forces currently occupying about 20% of the country.

    For Ukraine, the withdrawal of US support will severely strain their ability to keep fighting. Ukraine will likely need to find a way to freeze the conflict this year. This may mean a temporary truce that does not formally cede Ukrainian territory to Russia.

    A Trumpian worldview

    The vastly different approaches of the US under Trump and the EU point to a deeper ideological divide.

    While the Trump administration has acted more quickly and assertively in foreign affairs than many expected, its approach is not surprising.

    Since Trump won the US presidential election in November last year, Europe and Ukraine have known that a shift in US policy would be on the cards.

    Trump’s approach to Ukraine is not only about economic concerns and withdrawing US military aid. It is about a deeper, more significant clash of worldviews.

    Trump (and, it appears, his core support base) hold a “great power politics” approach to world affairs.

    This approach assumes we live in a competitive world where countries are motivated to maximise gains and dominate. Outcomes can be achieved through punishments or rewards.

    Countries with greater military or economic strength “count” more. They are expected to impose their will on weaker countries. This viewpoint underpinned much of the colonial activity of the 19th and 20th centuries.

    This worldview expects conflict – and it expects stronger countries to “win”.

    Consistent with Trump’s outlook, Russia is a regional power that has the “right” to control smaller countries in its neighbourhood.

    Trump’s approach to Ukraine is not an anomaly. Nor is it a temporary and spontaneous measure to grab the global spotlight.

    Trump’s worldview leads to the logical and consistent conclusion that Russia will seek to control countries within its sphere of influence.

    Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine represented an attempt to impose its will on a militarily weaker country that it considered to be in its rightful domain of control.

    The EU alternative

    Contrary to this view, the EU is founded on the premise that countries can work together for mutual gains through collaboration and consensus. This approach underpins the operation of what are called the Bretton Woods Institutions created in the aftermath of World War II.

    This worldview expects collaboration rather than conflict. Mutually beneficial and cooperative solutions are found through dialogue and negotiation.

    According to this perspective, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is about a conflict between the values of a liberal democracy and those of an oppressive authoritarian regime.

    Zelensky has himself consistently framed the conflict as being about a clash of values: freedom and democracy versus authoritarianism and control.

    A mix of both?

    Since Trump’s second inauguration, European leaders have presented a united front, motivated by facing a world where US military backing cannot be guaranteed.

    However, there is internal division within European countries. Recent years has seen a sharp rise in anti-EU sentiment within EU member states. The UK’s exit from the EU is an example of this phenomenon.

    EU leaders previously followed a path of cooperation with Russia, with limited success. Following Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, France and Germany helped mediate the Minsk Agreements. These agreements, signed in 2014 and 2015, were designed to prevent further incursions by Russian-backed groups into Ukrainian sovereign territory.

    This did not prevent Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

    In an emerging new world order, leadership might require going beyond the seeming contradiction of a focus on military strength or cooperation. Leaders may need to integrate both.

    Jessica Genauer does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. The EU will spend billions more on defence. It’s a powerful statement – but won’t do much for Ukraine – https://theconversation.com/the-eu-will-spend-billions-more-on-defence-its-a-powerful-statement-but-wont-do-much-for-ukraine-251710

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-OSI: Regula Increases Its Global User Base by 52% Amid Rising Identity Verification Demands

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    RESTON, Va., March 06, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Regula, a global developer of forensic devices and identity verification (IDV) solutions, is now providing advanced IDV software technologies to 152 million online users worldwide. This new milestone marks an impressive growth of 52% compared to the previous year. Among the main drivers of wider IDV adoption, Regula points out the rising need for advanced anti-fraud solutions, regulatory shifts, and digital transformation initiatives.

    Countries with the most notable Regula’s client base increase, as up to the beginning of 2025

    The increasing adoption of Regula’s document and biometric verification solutions highlights a growing demand for secure and user-friendly IDV workflows in key sectors, including finance, e-commerce, government services, travel, and more. This strong year-to-year growth demonstrates that businesses are proactively adapting to the rapidly changing ID verification landscape with Regula’s complete IDV solution, which includes document authenticity checks, biometric verification, liveness detection, and deepfake prevention.

    Regional highlights

    From stricter KYC (Know Your Customer) and AML (Anti-Money Laundering) regulations in North America and Europe to erupting digital identity initiatives in Asia to booming fintech services in Latin America and the Middle East, identity verification is becoming an essential part of digital interactions. Here’s how different markets are driving Regula’s IDV adoption growth.

    North America

    • Key drivers: Rising fraud incidents and threats (according to Regula’s survey,* 96% of US businesses faced identity fraud in 2024) plus regulatory pressure.
    • Country highlight: The US (+55%) – Increased adoption of AI-driven fraud prevention and stronger authentication in financial services and e-commerce.

    Europe

    • Key drivers: Stricter regulations (GDPR, AMLD), the European Digital Identity Wallet initiative, and fintech expansion.
    • Country highlights:
      • The UK (+122%) – Post-Brexit compliance shifts and growth in digital banking.
      • Germany (+123%) – Strong data privacy laws and high demand for authenticity checks in digital scenarios.

    META (Middle East, Türkiye, and Africa)

    • Key drivers: Digital government initiatives, fintech growth, and a push for AI-driven security.
    • Country highlight: The UAE (+112%) – Rapid adoption of digital identity verification solutions due to its ambitions to become a leader in AI, fintech, and smart city innovations.

    APAC (Asia Pacific)

    • Key drivers: Booming digital payments, financial inclusion efforts, and strong government support for digital identity solutions.
    • Country highlights:
      • Singapore (+102%) – A financial hub with widespread digital banking and government-backed digital ID systems like Singpass.
      • Australia (+188%) – AML regulations and age verification initiatives.

    Latin America

    • Key drivers: Explosive fintech growth, mobile banking expansion, and high fraud rates requiring stronger ID verification techniques.
    • Country highlights:
      • Mexico (+156%) – Rapid adoption of digital payments and financial services.
      • Colombia (+241%) – The fastest-growing market, driven by fintech expansion and government-led digital ID initiatives.

    “The growth across these markets is a direct response to regulatory developments, digital transformation efforts, and the increasing sophistication of fraud – all the factors that make identity verification paramount. As businesses and governments worldwide accelerate their adoption of digital solutions, they face the complex challenge of ensuring security and compliance while maintaining a low-effort user experience. Additionally, the ever-rising cyber and identity fraud threats have made advanced IDV not just a regulatory requirement but a fundamental business necessity. By leveraging our decades-long expertise in forensic level document and biometric verification, we deliver comprehensive, future-proof solutions and help our customers build secure and user-friendly IDV workflows,” says Henry Patishman, Executive VP of Identity Verification Solutions at Regula.

    No compromise on security, efficiency, or compliance

    To help businesses and government institutions fight identity fraud effectively, Regula offers a complete IDV solution, comprising Regula Document Reader SDK and Regula Face SDK. This on-premise software performs extensive document and biometric authenticity checks, enables data cross-validation to spot discrepancies that might indicate fraud, and ensures sensitive personal data privacy.

    With more than 14,800 identity document templates from 251 countries and territories, Regula provides businesses with the industry’s most comprehensive ID template database. This asset allows for accurate identity verification regardless of the provided document, which is especially important for financial institutions, travel companies, and global businesses.

    Regula’s ID verification software is fully compatible with most third-party document readers, allowing organizations to adopt advanced offline ID verification without investing in new hardware.

    Also, Regula’s IDV technologies are inherently future-ready, supporting emerging standards such as ISO/IEC 39794-5 for biometric passport verification and Digital Travel Credentials (DTCs) aimed at streamlining travel and border crossing.

    Regula’s hardware and software solutions are trusted by more than 1,000 organizations all over the world. Among them:

    • UBS, the world’s largest private bank, has implemented a robust customer onboarding system powered by Regula’s comprehensive ID verification technologies.
    • Checkport, a Swiss aviation security provider, utilizes Regula’s identity verification solutions to enhance passenger screening and security protocols.
    • Pearson VUE, a global leader in online testing, relies on Regula to authenticate candidate identities for high-stakes remote exams.

    To learn more about Regula’s technologies and offerings, please visit Regula’s website.

    *The research was initiated by Regula and conducted by Sapio Research in August 2024 using an online survey of 575 business decision-makers across the Financial Services (including Traditional Banking and Fintech), Crypto, Technology, Telecommunications, Aviation, Healthcare, and Law Enforcement sectors. The respondent geography included Germany, Mexico, the UAE, the US, and Singapore. Find more insights on deepfake fraud in the survey report.

    About Regula

    Regula is a global developer of forensic devices and identity verification solutions. With our 30+ years of experience in forensic research and the most comprehensive library of document templates in the world, we create breakthrough technologies for document and biometric verification. Our hardware and software solutions allow over 1,000 organizations and 80 border control authorities globally to provide top-notch client service without compromising safety, security, or speed. Regula has been repeatedly named a Representative Vendor in the Gartner® Market Guide for Identity Verification.

    Learn more at www.regulaforensics.com.

    Contact:
    Kristina – ks@regulaforensics.com

    A photo accompanying this announcement is available at https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/47df2109-e416-4f49-a77f-7a950ba1d8c1

    The MIL Network

  • MIL-Evening Report: Can the UK prime minister make liberal democracies great again?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ben Wellings, Associate Professor in Politics and International Relations, Monash University

    There’s been some “great television” this past week for those who like to watch the end of the West.

    The US president and vice-president effectively sided with Russia in an attempt to bring the war in Ukraine to an end in a way that benefits a) the United States, b) the US president’s vanity, and c) Vladimir Putin.

    Starmer and post-Brexit Britain

    But every crisis also provides an opportunity. The UK prime minister, Keir Starmer, grasped the chance to slough off his uninspiring domestic image as he sought to keep the US engaged in negotiations and preserve a semblance of Ukrainian sovereignty.

    In truth, Starmer’s diplomacy continues the policy of the previous government, which made Ukraine the crucible for Britain’s post-Brexit reintegration into European diplomacy.

    Since the Russian invasion of 2022, Britain distinguished itself as one of Ukraine’s most vociferous backers. It provided strident rhetorical support alongside around £13 billion in aid since the conflict began.

    Like his predecessors, Starmer’s support for Ukraine has offered respite from domestic challenges. His recent advocacy has led to a three-month high in the polls, albeit with a still dismal net approval rating of -28.

    But we shouldn’t be overly cynical. His government has provided us with a framework to understand its approach. According to the doctrine of Progressive Realism, the UK government’s foreign policy reflects a “tough-minded” assessment of Britain’s position within the balance of power as it pursues enlightened ends.

    The initial fit is evident: throughout his advocacy, Starmer’s continued appeals for a US backstop indicate awareness of British limitations while championing Ukrainian self-determination.

    However, increasing Britain’s military budget to counter Russia at the expense of the country’s overseas aid budget is hardly progressive, as both Starmer and UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy have previously noted. Most recently, in Lammy’s case, this concerned Trump’s cuts to USAID last month.

    To his credit, Starmer has recognised that Britain cannot deter Russia alone, and is assembling a “coalition of the willing”. However, even with France and smaller players such as the Scandinavians, Canadians and Australians, this may well be insufficient. Hence the ongoing appeals to the US for security guarantees that it is clearly unwilling to provide.

    If we accept Einstein’s famous definition of insanity as doing the same thing and expecting different results, how should we interpret Starmer’s plans?

    Continuities and change

    Amid all the crisis diplomacy and commentary suggesting this might be the end of the trans-Atlantic alliance, continuity as well as change can be observed.

    One of the most striking examples is the extent to which Starmer emphasises Britain’s longstanding self-perception as a “bridge” between the US and Europe. While recent turmoil has prompted Germany’s new Chancellor Friedrich Merz to declare the need for strategic independence from the US, Starmer continues to depict the US as the “indispensable” ally with whom Britain must strengthen ties.

    Considered alongside Britain’s deep integration in the US’s defence and intelligence architecture, including through AUKUS – with which Trump seemed unfamiliar – it is unlikely Britain will break with America. In fact, it may even strengthen its relationship if Trump’s remarks about a UK-US trade agreement are to be believed.

    For some, these structural explanations suffice when considering Britain’s commitment to the “special relationship” and its identity as the transatlantic bridge. However, psychological factors are also worth considering. Britain’s relationship with the US has been a crucial element of Britain’s pretensions to global leadership since the second world war.

    The uncomfortable truth about bridges is that they get walked over, as was evident when Starmer was blindsided by the US decision to suspend military aid to Ukraine.

    Europe between the US and Russia

    With regard to Europe, it is another case of “plus ça change”. As in 1945, Europe again finds itself caught in the middle between Russia and the US. Critics might say the Europeans should have seen this coming.

    Following the 2022 invasion, Germany, Europe’s most significant economy, proclaimed the moment as one of Zeitenwende, or a “turning point”. However, it subsequently failed to fully substantiate the claim.

    Recently, President of the European Commission and former German Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen has proposed a “Rearm Europe Plan” that could see up to €800 billion (A$1.36 trillion) allocated to European defence. Whether this materialises remains to be seen.

    France has sought to assume its traditional leading role in advocating for Europe’s strategic autonomy from the US. President Emmanuel Macron has been a prominent figure, but his plan for a partial one-month truce has garnered only lukewarm support.

    However, Putin and Trump do have their admirers in Europe. What is perhaps surprising is that some of this has been too much even for the radical right to stomach – Nigel Farage, for example, leaped to Britain’s defence after Vance’s disparaging remarks. This only underscores the differences in attitudes towards Ukraine between MAGA Americans and Europeans.

    Starmer has undoubtedly secured diplomatic plaudits. However, the structural forces at play suggest that his “coalition of the willing”, if it sticks to outdated ideas, will struggle to make liberal democracy great again, much as that is needed.

    The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. Can the UK prime minister make liberal democracies great again? – https://theconversation.com/can-the-uk-prime-minister-make-liberal-democracies-great-again-251360

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-OSI Global: How to negotiate with Trump: forget principles and learn to speak the language of business

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Andrea Caputo, Professor of Strategy & Negotiation, University of Lincoln

    Joshua Sukoff/Shutterstock

    In any negotiation, understanding your counterpart’s style is paramount. The Ukraine conflict, and especially the heated discussion between presidents Trump and Zelensky in the Oval Office recently, has revealed a critical disconnect between the two administrations.

    Volodymyr Zelensky later called the fiery showdown with President Trump and vice-president J.D. Vance “regrettable” and wrote to Trump to say he was ready to negotiate. But the Ukrainian president and his European allies have approached talks from a principles-based position. In terms of negotiating style, this means they tend to emphasise multilateral mechanisms, such as collegial decision-making, long-term relationship-building and cultural sensitivity.

    Trump is a businessman and operates from a fundamentally different negotiation paradigm. Unfortunately, this misalignment has significant implications for Ukraine’s strategic position and for European security.

    Research my colleagues and I conducted, comparing US and Italian negotiation styles, has shown that US negotiators typically use a more competitive, transactional approach. They might appear unilateral or domineering but are also adept at connecting different parts of a deal and trading concessions across issues to achieve their goals.

    Trump, however, combines this with highly competitive tactics and emotional rhetoric. Unlike typical US negotiators who are thought to avoid emotional expression, as shown in our study, Trump uses anger and confrontation to dominate discussions and control narratives.

    He frames negotiations in zero-sum terms, where every deal must have a clear winner and loser. This reinforces his public image as a strong leader.

    And most importantly, Trump appears to negotiate selectively. He enters discussions only when he believes he holds the stronger position.

    Our study shows that Americans prioritise bottom-line outcomes and use competitive tactics when they perceive themselves to be in positions of power.

    Trump exemplifies this approach but adds his own distinctive elements – emotional pressure, public posturing and an unwavering commitment to his positions until a more favourable alternative emerges.

    Zelensky’s miscalculation

    President Zelensky’s primary negotiation error has been attempting to engage in a principles-based negotiation with a counterpart who favours transactional deal-making. When Zelensky appeals to democratic principles, territorial integrity and international law, he’s speaking a negotiation language that Trump doesn’t understand.

    Classic negotiation research suggests Zelensky should have structured negotiations around US economic interests rather than western unity or moral imperatives.

    Trump has made clear that he will protect Ukraine and Europe only insofar as it serves these economic interests. Zelensky is negotiating from a dependant position (Ukraine needs aid to survive). As such, the key is making the deal appealing to the stronger party while protecting his own interests.

    In our study, we also found that the Italian negotiators often emphasise emotional engagement, treating counterparts as collaborators rather than adversaries. They tend to focus on mutual interests and their approach balances technical considerations with human relationships.

    It is underpinned by principles such as liberal values and adherence to international norms. This chimes with other findings on the evolution of negotiation styles within the EU.

    And this strategy thrives in such multilateral, multicultural contexts, where shared values and consensus-building are prioritised.

    But this approach can be ineffective against Trump’s confrontational, power-based tactics. Emotional engagement may be misinterpreted as a weakness, and consensus-driven approaches fail when the counterpart insists on domination.

    The liberal world order appears unprepared to negotiate at Trump’s level. It still expects rational, interest-based discussions rather than emotionally charged confrontations.

    The rest of the world will have to adapt to Trump’s approach.

    The EU’s experience negotiating Brexit provides a relevant template for addressing the Ukraine conflict. The appointment of Michel Barnier as chief negotiator, backed by a bloc of 27 nations, proved effective despite initial scepticism.

    A similar approach could work for Ukraine. Appointing an authoritative chief negotiator with a clear mandate could be successful. Barnier, economist and former Italian prime minister Mario Draghi or ex-German chancellor Angela Merkel are obvious candidates. This structure might neutralise Trump’s preference for one-on-one, power-based deals and force negotiations on terms more aligned with European interests.

    But to engage Trump, European and Ukrainian leaders need to reframe their approach.

    First, proposals should be presented in terms of economic benefits. Trump prioritises trade, jobs and business opportunities over security or moral arguments. The negotiation landscape should emphasise the actual distribution of aid to Ukraine, highlighting that European nations collectively have provided substantial financial and humanitarian support.

    Second, objective data and power-based arguments are better than moral appeals. Economic impact assessments and strategic calculations will resonate more effectively than principles-based reasoning.

    Third, competitive tactics should be matched with controlled confrontation. Emotional engagement must be strategic, reinforcing firm but pragmatic positioning rather than appearing defensive.

    Finally, win-win scenarios will allow Trump to claim victory. Trump negotiates to win, and deals must enable him to declare personal success in front of his own supporters.

    The path forward requires strategic adaptation, not ideological entrenchment. Zelensky and European leaders must recognise that negotiating with Trump demands an understanding of his approach to international relations, perhaps favouring pragmatism over idealism.

    A crucial insight from previous research on Trump’s negotiation behaviour is this: he rarely backtracks explicitly but frequently pivots to new objectives when they become more appealing. This should inspire European leaders to develop attractive alternatives that serve both Trump’s interests and Europe’s security needs.

    Deal-making may not be the most desirable approach to geopolitical negotiations, but Trump’s return to power makes it the current reality. After decades of business negotiators learning from politicians, we now face a reversal. Political negotiators must learn from business tactics.

    In the high-stakes arena of international security, understanding your counterpart’s negotiation style isn’t just good practice – it may be essential for survival. The lessons from Trump’s first term suggest that principled stands alone won’t secure Ukrainian or European interests. Pragmatic deal-making (underpinned with principles) offers a more promising path forward.

    Andrea Caputo does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. How to negotiate with Trump: forget principles and learn to speak the language of business – https://theconversation.com/how-to-negotiate-with-trump-forget-principles-and-learn-to-speak-the-language-of-business-251399

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: French nuclear deterrence for Europe: how effective could it be against Russia?

    Source: The Conversation – France – By Benoît Grémare, Chercheur associé à l’Institut d’Etudes de Stratégie et de Défense, Université Jean Moulin Lyon 3

    In February 2020, French President Emmanuel Macron said it was time to reflect on the European dimension of French nuclear deterrence. He proposed a strategic dialogue as well as joint nuclear exercises between European partners. Five years later, Germany’s likely next chancellor, Friedrich Merz, responded to this call, advocating an extension of the French nuclear umbrella to Germany – while a US led by President Donald Trump no longer appears to be a reliable partner for protecting Europe.

    But does France have the capacity to defend Europe? Would the deployment of the French nuclear umbrella in Eastern Europe make Europe strategically autonomous, giving it the means to defend itself independently?

    French nuclear deterrence against the Russian threat

    France originally developed its nuclear arsenal in response to the threat of Soviet invasion and to avoid any dependence on the US. According to a stable doctrine that political leaders regularly reaffirmed, the state [would use] its strategic arsenal by air and submarine in the event of an attack against its vital interests.

    But the fact remains that without US support, the balance of power appears largely unfavourable to France, which has a total of 290 nuclear warheads compared to at least 1,600 deployed warheads and nearly 2,800 stockpiled warheads on the Russian side.

    Certainly, the explosive power of thermonuclear warheads, combined with the range of the French M51 strategic sea-to-land ballistic missile, would make it possible to destroy the main Russian cities, including Moscow.

    However, the Russians would only need “200 seconds to atomise Paris”, according to an estimate given on Russian television about “Satan II” thermonuclear missiles.

    These scenarios recall the spectre of adversaries destroying enemy cities in a piecemeal atomic exchange, in which Russia could rely on its vastness to win through attrition. This potential for reciprocity must be kept in mind amid the mutual bet of nuclear deterrence.

    To boost the impact of French nuclear deterrence, a partnership could be envisaged with the United Kingdom. A nuclear power since 1952, London now only has ballistic missiles launched by submarine and has decided, since Brexit, to increase its arsenal to 260 warheads. But although they share common interests, these two European nuclear powers are not equivalent.

    Unlike the UK, which is a member of NATO’s nuclear planning group and whose warheads are designed in the US, France produces its weapons on its own territory and is not subject to any NATO obligations. This gives Paris a great deal of leeway in defining its doctrine. France can also speak on behalf of the European Union, of which it has been a part since its creation.

    French nuclear power: an alternative to US deterrence

    France officially became an atomic power in 1960 by relying on its own resources, with US support fluctuating according to events. The emergence of an independent French strategic force long annoyed Washington, which sought to restrict it by means of international accords such as the 1963 treaty limiting atmospheric nuclear tests and the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty. Since 1974, the French nuclear force has officially had a specific dissuasive role within NATO, contributing to the overall security of the transatlantic alliance by complicating the calculations of potential adversaries.

    Almost 60 years ago, US president Lyndon Johnson reinforced doubts about the White House’s determination to fully commit to the defence of Europe. Today, Trump’s desire to end US support for Ukraine confirms these suspicions. Consequently, increasingly insistent voices are calling for the acceptance of a French nuclear force that would extend to the European level.

    A French nuclear umbrella in Eastern Europe

    Merz’s call for the French nuclear umbrella to extend to Germany aligns with Paris’s proposal to establish a dialogue involving Europeans in a common approach. As France’s defence minister has pointed out, the precise definition of vital interest is up to its president. However, the use of nuclear weapons to protect Europe requires a strategic discussion to define the power to be acquired, the interests to be defended and the method of nuclear fire command.

    Moving toward a Europeanisation of nuclear force means increasing deterrent capabilities and, therefore, expanding the French arsenal so it can respond to threats affecting all 27 EU member states. This would require the creation of additional stocks of fissile material and the reactivation of production plants in Pierrelatte and Marcoule, which were dismantled in the late 1990s.

    Dogma about what constitutes a sufficient arsenal must also be questioned. If 290 nuclear warheads represent the value that France places on defending its existence, this price seems to neglect the scale of the European continent, and logic confirms it: continent-sized nuclear powers such as the US and Russia – and soon, China – are deploying an arsenal of around 1,000 thermonuclear warheads.

    Ramping up power would take time and require a budgetary effort to increase the number of missiles and carrier aircraft. In addition to the construction of new infrastructure in European partner countries, the cost could exceed €10 billion per year, not including indirect costs related to maintenance and logistics. This is a lot to take into account, especially since the political and strategic offer of extended nuclear protection evolves according to circumstances.

    Until now, Germany preferred that France assume a role that was simply complementary to the extended deterrence of the US, but Washington’s threatened abandonment of Ukraine increases the Russian threat. As Macron has indicated, France could respond by proposing the pre-positioning of its nuclear forces in Eastern European countries with the idea of eventually replacing the US.

    This French nuclear umbrella would give concrete form to European strategic autonomy through the deployment of nuclear-capable combat aircraft, a sign of European political solidarity that would make Moscow’s calculations more difficult.

    The visible presence of these aircraft in Eastern Europe could prevent Russia from attacking countries in the region with conventional means, as such an attack could provoke a French nuclear response on behalf of Europe.

    Benoît Grémare ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.

    ref. French nuclear deterrence for Europe: how effective could it be against Russia? – https://theconversation.com/french-nuclear-deterrence-for-europe-how-effective-could-it-be-against-russia-251512

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: Netflix’s Toxic Town offers a stark warning on environmental rollbacks

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Kirsty Pringle, Atmospheric Scientist and Project Manager, Software Sustainability Institute, University of Edinburgh

    Netflix’s new drama Toxic Town tells the true story of a group of women from Corby in Northamptonshire, UK, who gave birth to children with limb differences in the 1980s and 90s. The children were born with shortened arms or legs or missing fingers. The drama follows their battle to uncover the cause and their subsequent fight for justice.

    This skilful portrayal of a real-life tragedy isn’t just compelling drama, it’s a stark warning about the dangers of weak environmental protections. With the UK no longer following EU environmental standards and the US rolling back key pollution regulations and scaling down environmental enforcement, the issues at the heart of Toxic Town feel more urgent than ever.

    As two atmospheric scientists, we were pleased to see Netflix taking on this recent event in UK history.

    Corby’s industrial heritage mirrors that of many English towns: for decades, the town’s steelworks provided jobs. Then in the 1980s they were decommissioned, leaving behind high unemployment and thousands of tonnes of hazardous waste. While many areas have decommissioned steelworks, the difference here is that environmental procedures for decommissioning hazardous waste appear not to have been followed.


    Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.


    Waste from the steelworks was transported through town in lorries to sites for long-term storage. Despite government advice to ensure their lorries were cleaned and their loads covered to prevent contamination, dirty, uncovered lorries carrying hazardous waste were repeatedly driven through the area, allowing toxic sludge to spill out on to the roads.

    Drivers were also paid bonuses for extra loads, which encouraged them to ignore regulations and cut corners. And, as the sludge spilled from their lorries dried, it turned into dust that was carried through the air and inhaled by residents, including pregnant mothers.

    Crucially, this dust was not typical air pollution which, while harmful, doesn’t usually come from contaminated land so doesn’t contain high concentrations of heavy metals and industrial chemicals. Yet, to the naked eye, Corby’s toxic dust would have been pretty indistinguishable from everyday grime.

    What is clear, however, is that there was a lot of it. During the 2009 court case against what was then Corby Borough Council, which was responsible for the steelworks’ decommissioning, residents recalled the orange dust coating surfaces and filling the air. Many stressed the need to wash their cars frequently as they quickly became coated in dust.

    As the show depicts, in 1999 concerns were raised about the impact of the pollution by mothers in the area who had given birth to children with upper limb differences. Northamptonshire Health Authority conducted an initial investigation and concluded the problem was no worse than elsewhere in England and Wales.

    Acting on behalf of the mothers, the solicitor Des Collins launched his own investigation. Ultimately birth differences in Corby were, in fact, found to be three times higher than in surrounding areas

    Inexplicably, even among environmental researchers, the Corby toxic waste case remains relatively unknown despite being a landmark legal case. It was the first time a link between airborne pollution and limb differences in children was officially established.

    The council lost the case and was found liable for public nuisance, negligence and breach of statutory duty. It disputed the verdict but reached a confidential private settlement with the families.

    Corby’s story has been dubbed the “British Erin Brockovich”. This is due to its parallels with the famous US environmental lawsuit in which Erin Brockovich, a legal clerk, helped build a case against Pacific Gas and Electric who were fined US$330 million (£415 million) for contaminating the water supply in Hinkley, California.

    Why environmental regulation matters

    It’s tempting to watch Toxic Town with the reassurance that such a disaster couldn’t happen again. Surely, with modern environmental monitoring and stronger regulations, we are now better protected?

    Environmental protections are only as strong as the political will to enforce them. History has repeatedly shown that weak or poorly enforced regulations can lead to catastrophic consequences. For example, the Bhopal gas disaster in India in 1984 saw a toxic gas leak that killed thousands.

    The Love Canal incident in the US in the 1970s exposed residents to hazardous waste, causing birth defects and illness. And the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the US in 2010, which became one of the largest marine oil spills in history.

    Despite such repeated events, environmental regulation is increasingly dismissed by some politicians and industry leaders as red tape –a bureaucratic burden that hampers industrial and economic growth.

    The UK’s exit from the EU means that it no longer needs to adhere to EU environmental regulations, including the Reach law which mandates the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals, It’s the main EU law that governs chemicals to protect both the environment and human health. While not flawless, Reach is considered to be the most robust chemicals regulation in the world and because of global supply chains, it often encourages manufacturers beyond Europe to comply.

    Campaigners worry that the UK’s departure from the EU environmental regulations will weaken its environmental benchmarks. Water quality in the UK has worsened in the past decade and is now worse than that of most EU countries. Yet, evidence shows that the chemicals industry lobby is powerful.

    The attitude of the new administration in the US to environmental protection laws has caused considerable concern across the global scientific community. There has been a rollback of more than 100 environmental regulations, including 39 relevant to air and water pollution. Most of these rule reversals have already been enacted, just over a month into the new administration.

    The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has had 168 staff placed on leave and environmental groups have warned “that these cuts put minority and lower income families living close to polluting sites at risk”. In parallel, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa), another federal agency which monitors oceanic and atmospheric conditions, is facing drastic cuts to it’s staff and budget. These cuts harm the capacity of the US to monitor and enforce environmental regulations.

    What happens in the US often sets a precedent for other countries. It is worrying that reducing environmental protection in the US may encourage other countries, including the UK, to follow suit.

    So, far from being a thing of the past, we could be witnessing a return to the toxic times seen in Corby if we fail to prioritise stringent environmental safeguards. As solictor Des Collins starkly reminds us at the end of the drama: “A town that is made by burning up red tape and using it as fuel does so much damage.”

    Kirsty Pringle receives funding from UKRI.

    Jim McQuaid receives funding from UKRI, Horizon Europe, The Royal Society and Defra

    ref. Netflix’s Toxic Town offers a stark warning on environmental rollbacks – https://theconversation.com/netflixs-toxic-town-offers-a-stark-warning-on-environmental-rollbacks-251168

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Channel Islands Ministers visit Brussels04 March 2025 Channel Islands Ministers discussed the planned reset in relations between the EU and UK with senior EU and British diplomats during meetings in Brussels. The discussions took place on the sidelines… Read more

    Source: Channel Islands – Jersey

    04 March 2025

    Channel Islands Ministers discussed the planned reset in relations between the EU and UK with senior EU and British diplomats during meetings in Brussels. The discussions took place on the sidelines of a reception to mark the 15th anniversary of the Channel Islands’ Brussels Office. 

    The External Relations Ministers of Guernsey and Jersey, Deputy Jonathan Le Tocq and Deputy Ian Gorst, met with senior diplomats from France, the UK, Poland and Malta. Discussions also included the Islands’ relationship with France, their closest European neighbour, and promoted the Islands’ financial services interests, noting both Islands’ recent positive MONEYVAL assessments, as well as developments in sustainable finance.

    Ministers also drew attention to the significance of the Islands’ relationship with Europe and spoke to existing areas of cooperation with Member States. 

    Speaking after the visit, Jersey’s Minister for External Relations, Deputy Ian Gorst said: “It is more important than ever, post Brexit, to engage with representatives of European Member States. Direct engagement with the EU in Brussels is essential to ensure our interests are known and understood. I look forward to continuing to build on our discussions over the past days through the work of the Channel Islands Brussels Office.”

    Guernsey’s Minister for External Relations, Deputy Jonathan Le Tocq said: “The visit was a key opportunity to speak with representatives in Brussels and inform them of the interests of the Channel Islands. Regular engagement with EU partners is an essential part of our long-standing good neighbour policy. During these meetings I was pleased to discuss our financial services interests as well as noting the positive MONEYVAL assessment.” 

    The Ministers’ programme in Brussels included meetings with the Permanent Representatives (Ambassadors) to the EU of France and Malta, the Polish Political Counsellor, the UK Deputy Ambassador to the EU, the UK Ambassador to Belgium, and representatives of the Devolved Administrations and other Third Country offices in Brussels. 

    The Ministers hosted a reception for partners and stakeholders in Brussels to mark the 15th anniversary of the Channel Islands Brussels Office, the representative office for the governments of Guernsey and Jersey to the European Union. They were joined at this event by Jersey’s Director of Financial and Professional Services, Guernsey’s Director of Finance Sector Development, as well as representatives from Guernsey Finance and Jersey Finance who collectively promoted the Channel Islands’ financial services expertise to the European audience.​

    MIL OSI United Kingdom

  • MIL-OSI Global: Governments can keep raiding takeaways and nail bars, but businesses will still employ undocumented migrants

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Aida Hajro, Chair in International Business, University of Leeds, and Founding Co-Director of Migration, Business & Society, University of Leeds

    hxdbzxy/Shutterstock

    The UK is far from the only country to be caught in a heated debate over its migration system and border security. Unfortunately, it is unlikely to get its response right, because the UK debate ignores a fundamental truth: migration trends largely follow economic cycles and labour demand.

    It is well-documented that immigration increases during periods of economic growth and declines during downturns. Furthermore, Brexit has aggravated the UK’s labour shortages – a pinch being felt across nearly every work sector.

    Nearly 40% of UK businesses have not been able to grow or take advantage of new opportunities because of these labour shortages.

    Public discussions, including recent news coverage, tend to focus on border control and enforcement while overlooking the economic realities that shape migration. Past and present UK governments have largely failed to address the fact that migration is driven by the needs of UK businesses – and is often facilitated by informal recruitment systems, due to the lack of efficient legal migration channels.

    Our recent research backs up the idea that demand for labour is a major driver of both documented and undocumented (also known as “irregular”) immigration. Despite not being legally allowed to work, undocumented migrants are still sought after because of the shortages.




    Read more:
    Irregular, not illegal: what the UK government’s language reveals about its new approach to immigration


    Efforts to “crack down” on irregular migration often fail because businesses – especially in sectors like agriculture, healthcare, construction and the service industry – continue to rely on these workers. So without addressing labour shortages and recruitment practices, policies to restrict migration won’t work.

    But who bears the cost of migration? It’s not the UK government.

    Like most countries, the UK requires prospective workers to obtain a work visa while they are still in their country of origin. Getting this paperwork done is costly and complicated. A worker needs to apply, certify translations of the required documents, in some cases undergo a medical examination, cover travel expenses, pay the visa application fee, and show proof that they have enough personal savings to support themselves in the UK.

    For example, Nepalese workers pay around £6,000 to emigrate to Europe. This can amount to four years of wages for low-income workers there.

    To get to the UK, many rely on licensed recruitment agencies, known as “sponsors”. However, neither these sponsors nor the employers who desperately need workers are legally required to cover the costs of migration. For instance, the UK’s seasonal worker scheme, designed to provide much-needed labour for agriculture, does not require employers to pay for visa fees or recruitment expenses.

    This is a major weakness in the system, as it leaves the burden of migration costs on prospective workers – people who are ready to take on low-paid and seasonal jobs that UK citizens often avoid. To pay their way, many of these workers borrow from private money-lenders in their home countries, whose monthly interest rates can be excessive. Unsurprisingly, some turn to people smugglers.

    These smugglers often operate a business model that offers shortcuts for entering the UK, frequently making false promises about the length of employment and wages on offer. Studies show that most migrants are aware of the severe risks involved in using these illicit services, yet they still do due to the lack of better alternatives.

    The Employer Pays Principle

    Crossing the Channel is not the primary source of undocumented migration into the UK. The main issue is people overstaying legally granted visas, as the renewal process is complex and costly.

    It is no secret in the business world that migrant workers are exposed to significant costs just to access employment. To address this, the Institute for Human Rights and Business – a UK-based thinktank – introduced the Employer Pays Principle (EPP). This asserts that the costs of migration should be paid not by the workers but by employers. Leading corporations in the UK including Unilever, Morrisons, Waitrose and IHG Hotels & Resorts have adopted EPP.

    However, embracing this principle can be much more challenging for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The more-than-800 premises, including nail salons and takeaways, raided across the UK in January 2025 are unlikely to have the human resources and financial means to cover migration costs for the workers they need. Issuing civil penalty notices and demanding that SMEs pay £60,000 per worker if found liable will not solve the problem of undocumented workers.

    In general, punitive policies do not stop migration. They simply make it more precarious for already vulnerable people.

    And the government’s social media campaigns in countries like Vietnam and Albania, aimed at discouraging people from illegal travel to the UK, are also unlikely to work. The EU tried similar policies between 2015 and 2019 at a cost of nearly €45 million (£37 million) – and they largely failed.

    The UK government has run campaigns aimed at discouraging would-be migrants from Vietnam.

    To prevent undocumented migration, firms in need of workers should take responsibility for covering the actual costs of migration. Large firms should be legally required to do so, while for SMEs, the UK government could consider ways to improve access to financing and advisory services. It should also consider incentives and rewards for companies that have voluntarily adopted the EPP or introduced other good practices.

    Important next steps

    It is possible to estimate the cost of responsibly recruiting a migrant worker from a specific country to the UK. Providing clear and open access to this information would be another important step towards facilitating legal migration routes. After all, universities, consultancies and non-governmental organisations are collecting this data. Cross-sector partnerships could save time and money.

    Social media campaigns should prioritise educating potential migrants about UK immigration laws and their rights. This would be more valuable than focusing on the risks of undocumented journeys.

    It is also crucial to evaluate whether educational campaigns are more effective than those aimed at deterring migration. The government should remain open to abandoning any overseas social media campaigns that don’t demonstrate cost-effectiveness.

    The solution starts with accepting the realities of migration and acknowledging labour market forces. Then, creating the right regulatory environment will reduce the human cost of irregular migration, while supporting UK businesses to find the workers they need.

    The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. Governments can keep raiding takeaways and nail bars, but businesses will still employ undocumented migrants – https://theconversation.com/governments-can-keep-raiding-takeaways-and-nail-bars-but-businesses-will-still-employ-undocumented-migrants-250947

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: The UK’s food system is broken. A green new deal for agriculture could be revolutionary

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Benjamin Selwyn, Professor of International Relations and International Development, Department of International Relations, University of Sussex

    William Edge/Shutterstock

    The UK’s food system was described as broken in a recent parliamentary report – and it’s not hard to see why. High living costs, a health crisis of diet-related chronic disease, farmers’ incomes squeezed and low pay across the agricultural sector all play their parts.

    And these elements are underpinned by an environmentally destructive mode of agricultural production – the longer the livestock-intensive system prevails, the greater the environmental, economic and social costs.

    The opportunity cost of not dealing with the food crisis is severe. The Food, Farming and Countryside Commission found that the price of the UK’s unhealthy food system is around £268 billion a year – almost equivalent to the government’s entire expenditure on health. And farmers are also worried about the sector as they face an unpredictable climate, smaller profits and changes to tax relief policies.

    I have researched how a green new deal for agriculture – namely a food system that complements rather than undermines the environment, while tackling social inequities – could begin to address these problems.

    In 2024 the UK’s farming sector experienced its second-worst harvest on record. Huge levels of rain last winter disrupted farmers’ ability to grow crops and reduced yields.

    The UK’s population faces a significant health crisis, exacerbated by the high cost of living. In 2022, around two-thirds of the population across all four nations were either overweight or obese.

    Retailers, processors and distributors grab an exorbitant share of the final value of many agricultural products. Sometimes farmers make as little as 1p profit for each item they produce. And farm workers’ earnings can sometimes leave them facing absolute poverty.

    What’s more, the UK farming sector is systemically inefficient. Dairy and meat products provide about 32% of calories consumed in the UK, and less than half (48%) of the protein. At the same time, livestock and their feed make up 85% of the UK’s total land use for agriculture.

    To make matters worse, land ownership is highly concentrated – about 25,000 landowners, typically corporations and members of the aristocracy, own about 50% of England, for example.

    What would change look like?

    A green new deal for agriculture would require a significant reorientation of policy, akin to the 1945 Labour government’s establishment of the welfare state. Critics might decry the costs and difficulties – but the longer the government waits, the greater the economic and environmental costs are likely to be.




    Read more:
    Britain’s unearned wealth has ballooned – a modest capital tax could help avoid austerity and boost the economy


    The government could introduce compulsory sale orders to spread land ownership more evenly. These would enable public bodies to obtain land that has been left derelict, vacant or that has been used in environmentally damaging ways. These measures could be supported by the establishment of community land trusts – non-profit, democratic organisations that own and work land for the benefit of local people.

    And a green new deal for agriculture could start with the government using its ecosystems service payments, where farmers and landowners are paid to manage their land in an environmentally beneficial way, to stimulate a transition to more plant-based proteins. This could combat hardship among farmers and agricultural workers, and tackle food poverty and ill health in the population. It would also establish the basis for a more sustainable agricultural system.




    Read more:
    Subsidised community restaurants could help tackle the UK’s broken food system – here’s how


    The UK think tank Green Alliance has mapped a green protein transition. It would entail an increase in “agro-ecologically” farmed land – that is, methods that bring a more ecological approach to farming. At present, this is about 3% of UK land, and it would have to rise to 60% by 2050. Under the plan, by 2030 10% of farmland would become semi-natural habitat, rising to one-third by 2050. This would protect land and facilitate natural restoration, and would also support agro-ecological farming methods.

    In this scenario, Britons would be projected to eat 45% less meat and dairy, replacing them with alternative proteins – plants and synthetic foods such as those made from precision fermentation. This is a revolutionary technology producing proteins that can be used in new alternatives to meat and dairy.

    Many conceptions of the protein transition from animal sources to more plant products ignore the necessity of improving farmers’ and agricultural workers’ incomes. But this will be crucial.

    Ecosystems service payments should be broadened to include a focus on sustainable incomes. Farms can be paid directly by government for sustainable production to combat farmer poverty. And the real living wage of £12.60 an hour should be compulsory for agricultural workers.

    As land use shifts from livestock grazing and feed crop production, more ground could be used for food crops for human consumption. There would then be more scope to change which food crops are produced – from wheat to legumes, for example.

    Flour made from broad beans – which can be grown in the UK – packs a bigger protein punch than traditional wheat flour.
    Narsil/Shutterstock

    Research has shown that flour made from broad beans is higher in key nutrients – protein, iron and fibre – than wheat flour. Bread, pasta, pizza, cakes and biscuits could increasingly be produced using broad bean flour, underpinning a shift towards more nutritious diets.

    A protein transition would also free up land for fruit and vegetable production for domestic consumption, reducing the UK’s heavy import dependence by using polytunnels and environmentally sustainable greenhouses.

    Climate breakdown means that the frequency of poor harvests will increase. And the volatile economic and political global picture means that affordable food imports cannot be taken for granted.

    A green new deal for agriculture could begin to remedy many of the problems the UK faces due to its broken food system. What’s needed is a coalition including courageous political parties, farmers, and workers within and beyond food production. Working together, these groups would be well placed to withstand the economic, political and environmental shocks that are on the horizon.

    Benjamin Selwyn does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. The UK’s food system is broken. A green new deal for agriculture could be revolutionary – https://theconversation.com/the-uks-food-system-is-broken-a-green-new-deal-for-agriculture-could-be-revolutionary-250565

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: Is a united European voice possible in the age of Trump, Putin and far-right politics? Germany’s new leader intends to find out

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Julia Khrebtan-Hörhager, Associate Professor of Critical Cultural & International Studies, Colorado State University

    Could Friedrich Merz be the man to speak for Europe? Sean Gallup/Getty Images

    “Who do I call if I want to speak to Europe?”

    The question was famously attributed to former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and refers to the historical inability of the political entity of Europe to coordinate on a united front in the global arena.

    And despite decades of integration under the European Union, who speaks for Europe – or what the bloc desires to be – is perhaps less clear now than at any point in recent years. Internal cleavages over immigration, right-wing nationalism, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and Donald Trump’s return to the White House all challenge the notion of what Europe is and should stand for.

    Friedrich Merz, the expected next chancellor of Germany, offered one continental vision shortly after his conservative party triumphed in the country’s national elections. “My absolute priority will be to strengthen Europe as quickly as possible so that, step by step, we can really achieve independence from the USA,” he said.

    Merz’s apparent desire for a stronger German role could portend a balance shift back to Germany’s preeminent place in the EU, a position it has pulled back from in recent years. But it remains an open question as to what extent Europe can be unified given the continent’s political landmines – or even what kind of Europe it would be.

    Filling Merkel’s shoes

    A German leader has, in living memory, succeeded in providing something approaching a singular European voice that the White House could deal with. Europe was long synonymous with Angela Merkel, Germany’s long-lasting – and only female – chancellor, who was known by affectionate nicknames like “Mutti Merkel,” or “Mommy Merkel,” and, during Trump’s first time in office, was even referred to by some as the de facto leader of the free world.

    Her legacy – Merkel served from 2005 to 2021 – was defined in part by strong commitments to clean energy, welcoming hundreds of thousands of refugees during the 2015 European migrant crisis and championing German leadership of the European Union. In the process, she became something of “Europe’s engine.”

    Merkel collaborated especially well with France’s Emmanuel Macron, a passionate fellow Europeanist, communicating a vision of a united Europe and its core values to the rest of the world. Dubbed “Merkron” by commentators, the pair were seen as the EU’s power couple.

    President Emmanuel Macron of France and German Chancellor Angela Merkel presented a formidable European double act.
    Emmanuele Contini/NurPhoto via Getty Images

    Meanwhile, former U.S. President Barack Obama often described Merkel as his closest ally, praising her humanitarian vision of refugee politics and even decorating her with the Medal of Freedom, the highest honor that the U.S. can award to a foreign national.

    Merkel was visionary, too, especially regarding the former superpowers of the Cold War and their controversial leaders. A child of East Germany, she never trusted Russia’s Vladimir Putin. She also experienced great difficulties collaborating with Trump during his first presidency. Somewhat anticipating Merz’s recent comments, Merkel in 2017 warned that neither Germany nor the EU could rely on the U.S. the way they used to, urging her fellow Europeans to take their fate and their interests in their own hands.

    A déjà vu of ‘the German question’

    But in some ways Merkel was more popular abroad than at home.

    The so-called “German question” – or the inability of the Germans to unify as a nation in its leadership and “Leitkultur,” or “guiding culture” – has been tormenting the country since the 19th century and gained renewed relevance during the years of German reunification following the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989.

    Years on from the so-called “Miracle of Merkel,” Germany’s increasing internal political divisions – especially pronounced between the country’s West and East – mirror the broader divisions facing the EU at large, including over who should claim the mantle of political leadership and around what vision.

    To regain the gravitas within Europe it had under Merkel, Germany now would need a similar kind of strong and visionary program that resonates with the continent. The country’s political, economic and social challenges in 2025 demand clear national leadership, something that in my opinion neither the unemotional and uncharismatic outgoing Chancellor Olaf Scholz nor the opposition right-wing leader and soon-to-be successor Merz has demonstrated in public over the past couple of years.

    Although Merkel and Merz represent the same political party, the CDU, their visions for Germany and the EU are strikingly different. A wealthy former business lawyer, Merz’s signature book, “Dare More Capitalism,” is a blueprint for a policy agenda that prioritizes reduction of government intervention, less bureaucracy, lower taxes and pro-market reforms. Merz also wants to strengthen German borders with restrictionist immigration politics, a reflection of how the country has moved far to the right on the issue amid the rise of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD), with whom Merz has at times flirted.

    Yet in Merz’s relatively different agenda, he similarly advocates for both Europe and NATO, and wishes to refashion Germany into the powerhouse it was in the Merkel years and make it again the envy of Europe.

    German Chancellor Angela Merkel confers with President Donald Trump in 2018.
    Ian Langsdon/AFP via Getty Images

    A changing conception of Europe?

    Given the current “America First” attitude of the Trump administration and the rise of far-right populism across the EU and the world, it is thought-provoking – some would say alarming – that Trump declared the results of an election that saw strong gains for the far right – propelling it into second place – as a “great day for Germany.”

    Whether it is great for Europe depends on what vision of the continent one has in mind. Merz, although more right wing than Merkel, nonetheless has advocated for a strong Europe, led by Germany, that could promote a Europe independent of U.S. influence, appearing to follow in the steps of former French President Charles de Gaulle, who sought to cleave Europe from American dominance.

    During his recent speech at the Munich Security Conference, U.S. Vice President JD Vance warned of a European “threat from within,” disparaging continental governments for their retreat from “fundamental values, values shared with the United States of America,” while defending far-right populism and policies on the continent. Elon Musk subsequently posted on his social platform X: “Make Europe Great Again! MEGA, MEGA, MEGA!”

    Despite the bewilderment and dismay expressed by the European leaders at such statements, today’s tormented and divided Europe can hardly claim it is a problem-free environment, nor that many of the continent’s leaders don’t likewise support such politics.

    The rise of populism and nationalism across Europe poses a huge problem for what could unceremoniously be described as “Old Europe,” especially now, when it is seemingly drifting apart from its former ally and protector, the United States.

    With Russian influence and authoritarian politics growing in Central Europe – especially in Hungary and Slovakia – and ultra-nationalist and far-right ideas likewise strong in Austria, Germany, France and elsewhere, today’s Europe is hardly a unified political, economic and cultural totality.

    In Italy, Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s right-wing political chameleonism, combined with her defense and praise of both Musk and Trump, is also a problem for those searching for a Europe unified more toward the political center.

    Don’t keep me hanging, s’ils vous plaît!

    Less than a year ago, France’s Macron, the still-passionate Europeanist, marked a somber note in suggesting: “We must be clear on the fact that our Europe, today, is mortal. … It can die, and that depends entirely on our choices.”

    ‘Would Henry Kissinger bother to even pick up the phone today?’
    Jack Robinson/Condé Nast via Getty Images

    Among other things, what Macron’s warning points to is the unresolved question of what the European bloc desires to be. So long as the answer to that question remains unclear, Kissinger’s question could be rephrased to, “Is there even a Europe to call?”

    And, given the Trump administration’s emerging hostility to a host of EU policies, including on the war in Ukraine, foreign aid, regulation and trade, there is a further worrying interpretation for EU leaders, even if there were “a Europe to call”: Would Washington bother picking up the phone?

    Julia Khrebtan-Hörhager does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. Is a united European voice possible in the age of Trump, Putin and far-right politics? Germany’s new leader intends to find out – https://theconversation.com/is-a-united-european-voice-possible-in-the-age-of-trump-putin-and-far-right-politics-germanys-new-leader-intends-to-find-out-249241

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Jim Allister highlights threat of US tariffs imposed on the EU catching Northern Ireland

    Source: Traditional Unionist Voice – Northern Ireland

    Speaking ahead of the Prime Minister’s discussions with President Trump North Antrim MP Jim Allister said:

    “Although we are entering unchartered territory, we have to assume for now that if President Trump proceeds with his 25% tariff on the EU that this will apply to Northern Ireland since the courts have ruled that we are part of the EU Customs territory.

    “This is something the Prime Minister, if he cared about Northern Ireland, should discuss with President Trump when he sees him later today. However, as Prime Minister his first job should be to reclaim sovereignty over Northern Ireland and thereby remove us from this bind of being within the EU’s customs control.

    “A 25% tariff would have a devastating effect on Northern Ireland exporters.

    “This provides yet another object lesson in the fact that, despite all talk of ‘having got Brexit done’ this is a fallacy.

    “Part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland remains in the EU.

    “The answer to this development is not for the UK Government to effectively apply the costs of the tariff to the whole UK and refund Northern Ireland businesses the difference.

    “It is rather that they stand up for the people of the whole United Kingdom and explain to the EU that an arrangement that disrespects the territorial integrity of the UK, that disenfranchises 1.9 million UK citizens, that causes trade diversion in violation of Article 16 of the Windsor Framework, and that has the effect of leaving any part of the UK vulnerable to 25% US tariffs cannot be allowed to continue.”

    MIL OSI United Kingdom

  • MIL-OSI Europe: RECOMMENDATION on the draft Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the Union, of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Kingdom of Norway amending the Agreement of the European Union and the Kingdom of Norway pursuant to Article XXVIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 relating to the modification of concessions on all the tariff rate quotas included in the EU Schedule CLXXV as a consequence of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union – A10-0017/2025

    Source: European Parliament

    DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION

    on the draft Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the Union, of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Kingdom of Norway amending the Agreement of the European Union and the Kingdom of Norway pursuant to Article XXVIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 relating to the modification of concessions on all the tariff rate quotas included in the EU Schedule CLXXV as a consequence of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union

    (13817/2023 – C10‑0189/2024 – 2023/0341(NLE))

    (Consent)

    The European Parliament,

     having regard to the draft Council decision (13817/2023),

     having regard to draft Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Kingdom of Norway amending the Agreement of the European Union and the Kingdom of Norway pursuant to Article XXVIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 relating to the modification of concessions on all the tariff rate quotas included in the EU Schedule CLXXV as a consequence of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union (13818/2023),

     having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 207(4), first subparagraph, and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a)(v), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C10-0189/2024),

     having regard to Rule 107(1) and (4), and Rule 117(7) of its Rules of Procedure,

     having regard to the letter from the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development,

     having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on International Trade (A10-0017/2025),

    1. Gives its consent to the conclusion of the agreement;

    2. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the Kingdom of Norway.

    EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

    In 2018, in view of the United Kingdom’s (UK) withdrawal from the European Union (EU), the EU launched negotiations at the level of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), under Article XXVIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994, with relevant Members of the WTO, in order to adjust the existing EU’s tariff rate quotas (TRQ) agreed at the WTO. The relevant Members had a principal or substantial supplying interest or held an initial negotiating right in relation to these TRQ.

    The underlying principle of the negotiations was a ‘joint approach’ developed between the EU and the UK back in 2017 on how to ‘apportion’ the quantitative commitments contained in the EU28 WTO schedule for the 143 EU agricultural, fish and industrial WTO TRQ.

    The basis of this approach was that the existing volume of each TRQ would be fully maintained in the future, but split across two separate customs territories: the EU27 and the UK. The principle of the applied methodology was based on the trade flows into the EU27 and the UK during a representative reference period of 3 years, from 2013 to 2015, for all WTO TRQ.

    The methodology is described in detail in Regulation (EU) 2019/216 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the apportionment of tariff rate quotas included in the WTO schedule of the Union following the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the Union, and amending Council Regulation (EC) No 32/2000. Article 2(b) of Regulation (EU) 2019/216 empowers the Commission to amend the apportionment shares taking into account pertinent information that it may receive either in the context of negotiations under Article XXVIII of GATT 1994 or from other sources with an interest in a specific TRQ.

    The negotiations between the EU and Norway resulted in the signature of an Agreement on 17 December 2020, which entered into force on 10 May 2021.

    As a result of subsequent negotiations with other WTO Members, the EU agreed to change the shares of three TRQ for which Norway had negotiating rights: two TRQ in the pig meat sector and one on skimmed-milk powder.

    The EU27 share of two erga omnes TRQ in the pigmeat sector had been revised to 4 786 tonnes and 5 720 tonnes respectively, taking into account a more recent reference period from 2015 to 2017.

    The EU27 share of an erga omnes TRQ on skimmed-milk powder had been revised to 62 917 tonnes to avoid a non-commercially viable volume on the UK side.

    Following bilateral consultations, the Kingdom of Norway agreed with the modifications and the resulting quantitative commitments taken on by the EU that no longer includes the UK.

    In accordance with Article 218(6) TFEU, the consent of the European Parliament is needed in order for the Council to adopt a Decision concluding the Agreement and for the latter to come into force in due time.

    In the light of the above, the Rapporteur recommends that the Parliament give its consent to the conclusion of the Agreement, without prejudice to its democratic right of continuous scrutiny.

     

    ANNEX: ENTITIES OR PERSONS FROM WHOM THE RAPPORTEUR HAS RECEIVED INPUT

    The rapporteur declares under her exclusive responsibility that she did not receive input from any entity or person to be mentioned in this Annex pursuant to Article 8 of Annex I to the Rules of Procedure.

     

     

    LETTER OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT (16.11.2023)

    Mr Bernd Lange

    Chair of the Committee on International Trade

    ASP 12G301

     

     

    Ref.: IPOL-COM-AGRI D(2023) 37941

     

    Subject: Opinion on the proposal for a Council decision amending the Agreement between the EU and Norway on the apportionment of WTO tariff-rate quotas following Brexit (2023/0341(NLE))

     

    Dear Chair,

     

    I refer to the proposal for a Council decision amending the Agreement between the EU and Norway on the apportionment of WTO tariff-rate quotas following Brexit (COM(2023)0564).

     

    AGRI Coordinators considered the matter at their meeting of 25 October. They agreed with the above amendment to the Agreement with Norway and asked me to convey their opinion to you pursuant to Rule 56.

     

    This recommendation was endorsed by the AGRI Committee at its meeting of 16 November 2023.

     

    Yours sincerely,

     

     

     

    Norbert Lins

     

    Copy: Mr Martin Hlaváček, AGRI Standing Rapporteur for Brexit related issues

     

     

     

     

    ANNEX: List of entities or persons

    from whom the rapporteur for the OPINION has received input

     

     

    The following list is drawn up under the exclusive responsibility of the rapporteur for the opinion. The rapporteur has received input from the following entities or persons in the preparation of the draft opinion, under form of letter, until the adoption thereof in committee:

     

     

     

    Entity and/or person

    The rapporteur declares that he did not receive input from any entity or person.

     

     

     

     

     

     

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: University of Aberdeen Principal announces his retirement Professor George Boyne, Principal and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Aberdeen, has announced that he will retire in December 2025 after reaching his 70th birthday and completing the seven-year term he began in 2018.

    Source: University of Aberdeen

    Professor George Boyne, Principal and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Aberdeen, has announced that he will retire in December 2025 after reaching his 70th birthday and completing the seven-year term he began in 2018.
    Julie Ashworth, Senior Governor (Chair) of the University’s governing body, University Court, expressed her “deepest thanks for outstanding service”.
    Professor Boyne took up the leadership when the University had more modest placings in higher education rankings. Now Aberdeen is ranked 12th by the Guardian – up from 46th in 2018 – and 15th by the Times and Sunday Times – up from 40th in 2018 – in their most recent assessments of over 120 Universities across the UK.
    The University, which has a strong reputation for helping students from every background reach their full potential, is also ranked second in Scotland and 15th in the UK in the prestigious National Student Survey.
    Professor Boyne has led the organisation, which dates back to 1495 and is the 5th oldest in the UK, through challenging times such as the global pandemic, the impact of Brexit on universities, the cost-of-living crisis and unprecedented financial challenges for the higher education sector.

    It has been the honour of my life to be the internal advocate and external ambassador for the extraordinary range of very high-quality work that is carried out in the Schools and Professional Services at the University of Aberdeen.” Professor George Boyne, Principal and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Aberdeen,

    He said: “It has been the honour of my life to be the internal advocate and external ambassador for the extraordinary range of very high-quality work that is carried out in the Schools and Professional Services at the University of Aberdeen. It has also been a privilege to lead the development of our academic and financial strategies during this eventful time in higher education.
    “We have made very strong progress on a wide range of activities including student recruitment, student employability, research funding, research impact, and regional and global partnerships; and most fundamentally, the creation of new knowledge and scientific discoveries.
    “I will miss the University very much but the time is now right to pave the way for a successor. In December I will be five months beyond the seven-year term of office as Principal that I accepted in 2018, and two months beyond my seventieth birthday. The sevens in my professional and personal life are in close alignment.”
    As is customary when Principals retire, Professor Boyne is offering advance notice so that the University has sufficient time for the recruitment process and the notice period that the new Principal may be required to give their current role.
    The Senior Governor added: “I would like to express my deepest thanks to George for his unwavering commitment to the University. He has achieved an enormous amount in seven years and clearly leaves the University in a very strong position to attract outstanding candidates. Our financial position is stable, our research awards grew by 30% last year, student satisfaction is consistently among the best in the UK, and we have achieved our highest ever UK rankings. I wish him the very best for the rest of his tenure.”

    MIL OSI United Kingdom

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Seasonal farm workers deserve proper protections

    Source: Scottish Greens

    Migrant workers are key to our farming industries – they must be treated as such.

    The Scottish Greens have welcomed an extension of the seasonal worker scheme for farmers, but have urged the UK Government to review their ambitions to taper it off too soon.

    Rural affairs spokesperson Ariane Burgess MSP is concerned that what is being proposed could have a lasting negative effect on Scotland’s agriculture industry that relies heavily on migrant workers annually. 

    Ms Burgess said:

    “It will be a sigh of relief for farmers knowing they will have workers to harvest their crops, fruit and veg. But they should not have been in this position in the first place, it is one of the many destructive legacies of Brexit on our agriculture and economy.

    “I have serious concerns about some of the government’s goals for the scheme, including lowering the number of visas granted, and its aim to replace workers with technology like robots for harvesting. 

    “While machines are continuing to get smarter, the act of picking strawberries and raspberries grown here in Scotland is a gentle handed one. 

    “Lowering visa numbers could create further problems and dangerous working situations for those who are working on our farms. 

    “While seasonal worker visas are necessary for farming here in Scotland, there are very real risks of exploitation and modern slavery, and there must be more protections offered to avoid workers being subjected to this.

    “One solution we would support is to introduce a Scottish visa as an alternative. This would be a fairer way to give migrant workers more rights on our own terms and to keep our rural and agricultural sectors thriving, without exploitative practice happening below the radar.”

    MIL OSI United Kingdom

  • MIL-OSI Global: Trump’s tariff and land grab threats signal U.S. expansionist ambitions

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Ilan Kapoor, Professor, Critical Development Studies, York University, Canada

    When U.S. President Donald Trump first suggested Canada should become the 51st American state, the federal government dismissed it as just a joke. Finance Minister Dominic Leblanc insisted it was “in no way a serious comment.”

    Similar skepticism was expressed by political leaders across the world when Trump talked about seizing Greenland and the Panama Canal in early January, by military force if necessary, to buttress U.S. national security. He also floated the idea of taking over Gaza to transform it into the “Riviera of the Middle East.”

    Now that Trump has carried through on his aggressive economic threats — launching a trade war with China and raising the possibility of similar conflicts with Canada, Mexico and the European Union — his imperialist expansionism is in plain sight.

    Canadian leaders have come to realize that Trump’s actions may not be a temporary or minor irritant, but rather an attack on Canadian sovereignty itself.

    The failure to take Trump’s words seriously is reminiscent of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s skepticism in 1938 that Hitler would actually risk world war despite the latter’s aggressive rhetoric, annexation of Austria and threats to Czechoslovakia and Poland.

    What, then, have been the signs of Trump’s expansionist tendencies? American economic and military might, albeit declining relative to emerging powers like China and India, still provides a solid basis for the projection of U.S. supremacy. But there are also two new key elements at play.

    A billionaire-corporate administration

    The Trump administration appears to operate with a distinctly corporate mindset, treating the nation like a business empire. Trump has stacked his administration with private sector leaders and corporate billionaires such as Elon Musk, Doug Burgum and Howard Lutnick.

    Like other billionaires, their immense business success has been founded not on mainstay competitive market practices like productivity or cost-cutting, but on predatory and cannibalistic ones.

    These include controlling resources like oil, gold, diamonds and coltan to secure production inputs; buying out competitors to monopolize markets and patents; and deliberately breaking up and destroying companies through mergers and acquisitions with little regard for the resulting job losses.

    It is within this framework that Trump’s allegations about buying Greenland and Gaza, annexing Canada through “economic force” and capturing the Panama Canal need to be seen.




    Read more:
    Billionaires and loyalists will provide Trump with muscle during his second term


    Under the guise of national security, the idea is not simply to safeguard borders, but to engage in economic expansionism and real estate development, aided by the U.S. military when needed. Taking control of land, waterways and mineral wealth is critical to building “America’s Golden Age” of corporate capitalism.

    This approach seems to be a mainly business one, with little concern for the social costs (recession, unemployment, violence) produced by such imperialistic ventures. In line with his infamous book, The Art of the Deal, Trump appears to view foreign nations and domestic opponents alike as obstacles to be callously bullied, degraded, manipulated, exploited and finally vanquished.

    American nationalist populism

    The Trump administration’s imperial ambitions lie in the nationalist populism that propelled Trump and his allies into power for the second time.

    Trump’s populism has successfully tapped into widespread anxieties among Americans — job insecurity, food prices, the housing crisis — by promising to soothe their worries through the “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) agenda.




    Read more:
    Trump’s view of the world is becoming clear: America’s allies come second to its own interests


    Like other right-wing populist movements around the globe — Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s in Turkey, Viktor Orbán’s in Hungary and the Brexit campaign in the U.K. — the MAGA movement has sought to unify the U.S. by identifying and targeting perceived national enemies. These include so-called “illegal” migrants, transgender people and the country’s largest trading rivals: Mexico, Canada and China.

    By blaming these groups, especially those seen as contributing to America’s economic decline, MAGA whips up nationalist sentiment in the form of suspicion, aggression and vengeance. The result is a deeply polarized nationalist discourse in which one is either a loyal supporter or an enemy; a believer or a “woke” liberal.

    A lethal imperial set-up

    The combination of U.S. global power, nationalist populism and the Trump administration’s corporate-driven, predatory approach makes for a dangerous dynamic.

    This mix is fuelling a form of economic expansionism that is now beginning to manifest itself. The impending trade wars, potential dismantling of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement (which Trump initiated in 2018 to avoid unilateral trade moves by its signatories) and the brazen disregard for the socioeconomic consequences of foreign territorial control, such as the forced displacement of Palestinians, are all signs of this.

    While many assumed Trump’s administration would be protectionist and isolationist, a more troubling and nefarious reality is emerging. His administration appears to be intent on securing America’s industrial dominance through trade wars while expanding it through hawkish economic imperialism.

    There is a clear ruthlessness to this approach, with a willingness to pressure not only America’s perceived enemies but also its allies. “America First” is starting to looks like “America Above All Others” as Trump attempts to bully U.S. rivals into subordination, with disturbing echoes of past authoritarians.

    Unravelling American imperial designs

    Many obstacles could prevent Trump’s aggressive expansionism from fully taking shape. While the key ingredients may already be there, and some have begun to be deployed, that doesn’t mean they will come to fruition.

    The Trump administration’s policymaking process is often chaotic and theatrical, prioritizing short-term political gains over long-term strategy. This instability undermines any consistent efforts at expansion.

    There is also the risk that Trump’s trade wars will backfire. They could end up causing hardship to U.S. companies and consumers through higher food and energy prices, job losses in key industries like agriculture and auto manufacturing, and increased stock market instability. Such consequences could negatively affect Trump’s corporate allies.

    Meanwhile, Trump’s economic and military rivals could forge new alliances to challenge his attempts at global supremacy. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, for instance, recently met with the head of NATO and other European allies to strengthen trade and security ties.

    The first step to any countermoves by Trump’s foreign adversaries will be seeing his regime’s designs for what they are: chaotic, perhaps, but serious expansionist ones.

    Ilan Kapoor does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. Trump’s tariff and land grab threats signal U.S. expansionist ambitions – https://theconversation.com/trumps-tariff-and-land-grab-threats-signal-u-s-expansionist-ambitions-249924

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: Why Keir Starmer may gamble on increasing Britain’s defence spending

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Peter Bloom, Professor of Management, University of Essex

    leshiy985/Shutterstock

    Amid rising tensions around the world, the UK government faces pressure to increase defence spending. External threats and uncertainty over the nature of peace talks with Russia over Ukraine have been in the spotlight. But there are also broader political and economic interests shaping these decisions.

    The UK prime minister, Keir Starmer, must navigate commitments to Nato, expectations from allies and the influence of the defence industry. All the while, the squeeze on domestic spending and public scepticism loom large.

    The UK’s total military spending for 2024-2025 is expected to be £64.4 billion, with a rise to £67.7 billion in 2025-26. This is equal to 2.3% of the entire UK economy (GDP). It would continue the trend of making the UK one of the highest military spenders in Europe. But it’s still not enough as far as the US president, Donald Trump, is concerned.

    In 2023-2024, the UK’s Ministry of Defence spent its budget across several key areas. Around one-third went towards investment in things such as equipment, infrastructure and technology. Another big area of spending was personnel costs, accounting for around one-fifth of the spend.

    In recent years, UK military spending has fluctuated, reflecting a balance between modernisation, deterrence and operational readiness. One of the most significant areas of investment has been in the UK’s nuclear deterrent (Trident).

    At the same time, cyber defence has become a growing focus, with £1.9 billion allocated to counter threats such as increased cyber attacks and misinformation campaigns from foreign governments and political extremists. The UK has also committed to expanding its next-generation air capabilities.

    Britain’s recent escalation in defence investment mirrors a global surge in military spending. In 2024, worldwide defence expenditures reached an unprecedented US$2.46 trillion (£1.95 trillion), marking a 7.4% real-term increase from the previous year.

    This trend is particularly pronounced in Europe, where nations are bolstering their military capabilities in response to geopolitical tensions such as the war in Ukraine. Germany’s defence budget experienced a significant 23.2% real-term growth, making the country the world’s fourth-largest defence spender.

    In the UK, Labour has pledged to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP, aligning with Nato expectations. It also serves as a response to concerns about the country’s military readiness. This could require several billion pounds more annually, raising questions about how this would be funded.

    Publicly, the party presents this commitment as a necessary investment in the UK’s global standing and ability to deter aggression. However, you can argue that there is more at play.

    Political and economic pressures

    Starmer’s government inherited a complex set of geopolitical challenges, from European security concerns to the UK’s international relationships post-Brexit. Nato commitments remain a significant driver of defence spending, particularly as European allies anticipate shifts in US foreign policy under the second Trump presidency.

    The UK must also respond to regional tensions beyond Europe, due to its military alliances in the Indo-Pacific and its arms trade relationships with Middle Eastern states.

    Domestically, Labour’s commitment to raising defence spending is not just about security – it is also a political calculation. Starmer wants to dispel any perceptions that Labour is weak on defence.

    However, it comes at a time of fiscal constraint. Any new defence commitments must compete with demands for public investment in healthcare, education and infrastructure. Without additional taxation or significant budget cuts, Labour may struggle to meet its defence spending targets without compromising other commitments.

    Beyond geopolitical necessity, increased military spending benefits the UK’s powerful military-industrial complex (the relationship between the country’s military and its defence industry). Major defence contractors such as BAE Systems, Rolls-Royce and Lockheed Martin UK secure billions in government contracts.

    The so-called “revolving door” between government and defence firms frequently sees former military officials and politicians taking on lucrative roles in private-sector defence companies.

    The cross-party consensus on expanding Britain’s defence industry, now embraced by trade unions and political commentators, reflects a narrow vision of economic security that overlooks more sustainable alternatives.

    The sector’s 200,000 jobs are frequently claimed to justify increased military spending. But investment in renewable energy infrastructure and domestic energy production could both boost employment and address fundamental security challenges exposed by the Ukraine crisis.

    The reliance on foreign energy sources can be weaponised by adversarial states, as reflected in the continued reliance of EU countries on Russia for their energy needs. By investing in domestic renewable energy infrastructure, the UK can insulate itself from geopolitical energy threats. Stable energy supplies can underpin both economic resilience and military readiness.

    But there is a disconnect between strong government protection for arms manufacturers and relatively limited support for green technology development. This, even as climate change poses an escalating threat to national stability.

    Labour faces a difficult balancing act. Increasing defence spending helps solidify the party’s credibility on national security. But domestically, it risks alienating voters who favour investment in social welfare over military expansion.

    Additionally, higher military expenditure could make tax hikes or borrowing necessary. Both pose political hazards. And there is a real risk that increased spending will disproportionately benefit corporate defence giants rather than the public.

    Starmer hopes increased defence spending will show that he is serious about European security.
    Fred Duval/Shutterstock

    Internationally, Starmer aims to signal Britain’s continued reliability as a Nato ally amid uncertainties about the US commitment to European security. This positioning becomes especially significant given the UK’s post-Brexit need to demonstrate its global relevance and military capability.

    Labour’s drive to increase defence spending is also shaped by economic imperatives that extend beyond immediate security needs. The party faces pressure to expand a major sector of British manufacturing. At stake are not just defence capabilities but jobs, regional development and industrial strategy.

    The government now finds itself caught between competing pressures. The commitment to military expansion reflects not just geopolitical imperatives but also domestic political calculations and economic concerns, which appear to be equally influential. And it raises fundamental questions about how national security priorities are truly determined in an era of multiple challenges.

    Peter Bloom does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. Why Keir Starmer may gamble on increasing Britain’s defence spending – https://theconversation.com/why-keir-starmer-may-gamble-on-increasing-britains-defence-spending-250447

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Jennie Lee lecture – Arts for Everyone

    Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments

    Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy has today (Thursday 20 February 2025) made an inaugural lecture marking the 60th anniversary of the first ever arts white paper.

    In 2019, as Britain tore itself apart over Brexit, against a backdrop of growing nationalism, anger and despair I sat down with the film director Danny Boyle to talk about the London 2012 Olympics Opening Ceremony. 

    That moment was perhaps the only time in my lifetime that most of the nation united around an honest assessment of our history in all its light and dark, a celebration of the messy, complex, diverse nation we’ve become and a hopeful vision of the future. 

    Where did that country go? I asked him. He replied: it’s still there, it’s just waiting for someone to give voice to it.

    13 years later and we have waited long enough. In that time our country has found multiple ways to divide ourselves from one another. 

    We are a fractured nation where too many people are forced to grind for a living rather than strive for a better life. 

    Recent governments have shown violent indifference to the social fabric – the local, regional and national institutions that connect us to one another, from the Oldham Coliseum to Northern Rock, whose foundation sustained the economic and cultural life of the people of the North East for generations. 

    But this is not just an economic and social crisis, it is cultural too.

    We have lost the ability to understand one another. 

    A crisis of trust and faith in government and each other has destroyed the consensus about what is truthfully and scientifically valid. 

    Where is the common ground to be found on which a cohesive future can be forged? How can individuals make themselves heard and find self expression? Where is the connection to a sense of belonging to something larger than ourselves? 

    I thought about that conversation with Danny Boyle last summer when we glimpsed one version of our future. As violent thugs set our streets ablaze, a silent majority repelled by the racism and violence still felt a deep sense of unrest. In a country where too many people have been written off and written out of our national story. Where imagination, creation and contribution is not seen or heard and has no outlet, only anger, anxiety and disorder on our streets.

    There is that future. 

    Or there is us.

    That is why this country must always resist the temptation to see the arts as a luxury. The visual arts, music, film, theatre, opera, spoken word, poetry, literature and dance – are the building blocks of our cultural life, indispensable to the life of a nation, always, but especially now. 

    So much has been taken from us in this dark divisive decade but above all our sense of self-confidence as a nation. 

    But we are good at the arts. We export music, film and literature all over the world. We attract investment to every part of the UK from every part of the globe. We are the interpreters and the storytellers, with so many stories to tell that must be heard. 

    And despite everything that has been thrown at us, wherever I go in Britain I feel as much ambition for family, community and country as ever before. In the end, for all the fracture, the truth remains that our best hope… is each other.

    This is the country that George Orwell said “lies beneath the surface”. 

    And it must be heard. It is our intention that when we turn to face the nation again in four years time it will be one that is more self-confident and hopeful, not just comfortable in our diversity but a country that knows it is enriched by it, where everybody’s contribution is seen and valued and every single person can see themselves reflected in our national story. 

    You might wonder, when so much is broken, when nothing is certain, so much is at stake, why I am asking more of you now.

    John F Kennedy once said we choose to go to the moon in this decade not because it is easy but because it is hard.

    That is I think what animated the leaders of the post war period who, in the hardest of circumstances knew they had to forge a new nation from the upheaval of war. 

    And they reached for the stars.

    The Festival of Britain – which was literally built out of the devastation of war – on a bombed site on the South Bank, took its message to every town, city and village in the land and prioritised exhibitions that explored the possibilities of space and technology and allowed a devastated nation to gaze at the possibilities of the future. 

    So many of our treasured cultural institutions that still endure to this day emerged from the devastation of that war.

    The first Edinburgh Festival took place just a year after the war when – deliberately – a Jewish conductor led the Vienna Philharmonic, a visible symbol of the power of arts to heal and unite. 

    From the BBC to the British Film Institute, the arts have always helped us to understand the present and shape the future. 

    People balked when John Maynard Keynes demanded that a portion of the funding for the reconstruction of blitzed towns and cities must be spent on theatres and galleries. But he persisted, arguing there could be “no better memorial of a war to save the freedom of spirit of an individual”.

    Yes it took visionary political leaders. 

    But it also demanded artists and supporters of the arts who refused to be deterred by the economic woes of the country and funding in scarce supply, and without hesitation cast aside those many voices who believed the arts to be an indulgence.

    This was an extraordinary generation of artists and visionaries who understood their role was not to preserve the arts but to help interpret, shape and light the path to the future.

    Together they powered a truly national renaissance which paved the way for the woman we honour today – Jennie Lee – whose seminal arts white paper, the first Britain had ever had, was published 60 years ago this year. 

    It stated unequivocally the Wilson government’s belief in the power of the arts to transform society and to transform lives.

    Perhaps because of her belief in the arts in and of itself, which led to her fierce insistence that arts must be for everyone, everywhere – and her willingness to both champion and challenge the arts – she was – as her biographer Patricia Hollis puts it  – the first, the best known and the most loved of all Britain’s Ministers for the Arts.

    When she was appointed so many people sneered at her insistence on arts for everyone everywhere..

    And yet she held firm.

    That is why we are not only determined – but impassioned – to celebrate her legacy and consider how her insistence that culture was at the centre of a flourishing nation can help us today. 

    This is the first in what will be an annual lecture that gives a much needed platform to those voices who are willing to think and do differently and rise to this moment, to forge the future, written – as Benjamin Zephaniah said – in verses of fire.

    Because governments cannot do this alone. It takes a nation.

    And in that spirit, her spirit. I want to talk to you about why we need you now. What you can expect from us. And what we need from you. 

    George Bernard Shaw once wrote:

     “Imagination is the beginning of creation. 

    “you imagine what you desire,

    “you will what you imagine – 

    “and at last you create what you will.”

    That belief that arts matter in and of themselves, central to the chance to live richer, larger lives, has animated every Labour Government in history and animates us still. 

    As the Prime Minister said in September last year: “Everyone deserves the chance to be touched by art. Everyone deserves access to moments that light up their lives.

    “And every child deserves the chance to study the creative subjects that widen their horizons, provide skills employers do value, and prepares them for the future, the jobs and the world that they will inherit.”

    This was I think Jennie Lee’s central driving passion, that “all of our children should be given the kind of education that was the monopoly of the privileged few” – to the arts, sport, music and culture which help us grow as people and grow as a nation. 

    But who now in Britain can claim that this is the case? Whether it is the running down of arts subjects, the narrowing of the curriculum and the labelling of arts subjects as mickey mouse –  enrichment funding in schools eroded at the stroke of the pen or the closure of much-needed community spaces as council funding has been slashed. 

    Culture and creativity has been erased, from our classrooms and our communities. 

    Is it any wonder that the number of students taking arts GSCEs has dropped by almost half since 2010? 

    This is madness. At a time when the creative industries offer such potential for growth, good jobs and self expression in every part of our country  And a lack of skills acts as the single biggest brake on them…bar none, we have had politicians who use them as a tool in their ongoing, exhausting culture wars. 

    Our Cabinet, the first entirely state educated Cabinet in British history, have never accepted the chance to live richer, larger lives belongs only to some of us and I promise you that we never ever will. 

    That is why we wasted no time in launching a review of the curriculum, as part of our Plan for Change. 

    To put arts, music and creativity back at the heart of the education system.

    Where they belong. 

    And today I am delighted to announce the Arts Everywhere fund as a fitting legacy for Jennie Lee’s vision – over £270 million investment that will begin to fix the foundations of our arts venues, museums, libraries and heritage sector in communities across the country.

     We believe in them. And we will back them.

    Because as Abraham Lincoln once said, the dogmas of a quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. 

    Jennie Lee lived by this mantra. So will we. 

    We are determined to escape the deadening debate about access or excellence which has haunted the arts ever since the formation of the early Arts Council. 

    The arts is an ecosystem, which thrives when we support the excellence that exists and use it to level up. 

    Like the RSC’s s “First Encounters” programme. Or the incredible Shakespeare North Playhouse in Knowsley where young people are first meeting with spoken word.

    When I watched young people from Knowsley growing in confidence, and dexterity, reimagining Shakespeare for this age and so, so at home in this amazing space it reminded me of my childhood.

    Because in so many ways I grew up in the theatre. My dad was on the board of the National, and as a child my sister and I would travel to London on the weekends we had with our dad to see some of the greatest actors and directors on earth – Helen Mirren, Alan Rickman, Tom Baker, Trevor Nunn and Sam Mendes. We saw Chekhov, Arthur Miller and Brecht reimagined by the National, the Donmar and the Royal Court.

    It was never, in our house, a zero-sum game. The thriving London scene was what inspired my parents and others to set up what was then the Corner House in Manchester, which is now known as HOME. 

    It inspired my sister to go on to work at the Royal Exchange in Manchester where she and I spent some of the happiest years of our lives watching tragedy and farce, comedy and social protest. 

    Because of this I love all of it – the sound, smell and feel of a theatre. I love how it makes me think differently about the world. And most of all I love the gift that our parents gave us, that we always believed these are places and spaces for us.

    I want every child in the country to have that feeling. Because Britain’s excellence in film, literature, theatre, TV, art, collections and exhibitions is a gift, it is part of our civic inheritance, that belongs to us all and as its custodians it is up to us to hand it down through the generations. 

    Not to remain static, but to create a living breathing bridge between the present, the past and the future.

    My dad, an English literature professor, once told me that the most common mistakes students make – including me – he meant me actually – was to have your eye on the question, not on the text. 

    So, with some considerable backchat in hand, I had a second go at an essay on Hamlet – why did Hamlet delay? – and came to the firm conclusion that he didn’t. That this is the wrong question. I say this not to start a debate on Hamlet, especially in this crowd, but to ask us to consider this:

    If the question is – how do we preserve and protect our arts institutions? Then access against excellence could perhaps make sense. I understand the argument, that to disperse excellence is somehow to diffuse it. 

    But If the question is – how to give a fractured nation back its self confidence? Then this choice becomes a nonsense. So it is time to turn the exam question on its head and reject this false choice. 

    Every person in this country matters. But while talent is everywhere, opportunity is not. This cannot continue. That is why our vision is not access or excellence but access to excellence. We will accept nothing less. This country needs nothing less. And thanks to organisations like the RSC we know it can be achieved.

    I was reflecting while I wrote this speech how at every moment of great upheaval it has been the arts that have helped us to understand the world, and shape the future. 

    From fashion, which as Eric Hobsbawm once remarked, was so much better at anticipating the shape of things to come than historians or politicians, to the angry young men and women in the 1950s and 60s – that gave us plays like Look Back in Anger – to the quiet northern working class rebellion of films like Saturday Night Sunday Morning, This Sporting Life and Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner. 

    Without the idea that excellence belongs to us all – this could never have happened. What was once considered working class, ethnic minority or regional – worse, in Jennie Lee’s time, it was called “the provinces” which she banned – thank God. These have become a central part of our national story.

    ….

    I think the arts is a political space. But the idea that politicians should impose a version of culture on the nation is utterly chilling.

    When we took office I said that the era of culture wars were over. It was taken to mean, in some circles, that I could order somehow magically from Whitehall that they would end. 

    But I meant something else. I meant an end to the “mind forged manacles” that William Blake raged against and the “mind without fear” that Rabindranath Tagore dreamt of.

    [political content removed]

    Would this include the rich cultural heritage from the American South that the Beatles drew inspiration from, in a city that has been shaped by its role in welcoming visitors and immigrants from across the world? Would it accommodate Northern Soul, which my town in Wigan led the world in?  

    We believe the proper role of government is not to impose culture, but to enable artists to hold a mirror up to society and to us. To help us understand the world we’re in and shape and define the nation. 

    Who know that is the value that you alone can bring. 

    I recently watched an astonishing performance of The Merchant of Venice, set in the East End of London in the 1930s. In it, Shylock has been transformed from villain to  victim at the hands of the Merchant, who has echoes of Oswald Mosely. I don’t want to spoil it – not least because my mum is watching it at the Lowry next week and would not forgive me- but it ends with a powerful depiction of the battle of Cable Street. 

    Nobody could see that production and fail to understand the parallels with the modern day. No political speech I have heard in recent times has had the power, that power to challenge, interpret and provoke that sort of response. To remind us of the obligations we owe to one another.

    Other art forms can have – and have had – a similar impact. Just look at the ITV drama Mr Bates vs The Post Office. It told a story with far more emotional punch than any number of political speeches or newspaper columns. 

    You could say the same of the harrowing paintings by the Scottish artist Peter Howson. His depiction of rape when he was the official war artist during the Bosnian War seared itself into people’s understanding of that conflict. It reminds me of the first time I saw a Caravaggio painting. The insistence that it becomes part of your narrative is one you never ever forget.

    That is why Jennie Lee believed her role was a permissive one. She repeated this mantra many times telling reporters that she wanted simply to make living room for artists to work in. The greatest art, she said, comes from the torment of the human spirit – adding – and you can’t legislate for that. 

    I think if she were alive today she would look at the farce that is the moral puritanism which is killing off our arts and culture – for the regions and the artistic talent all over the country where the reach of funding and donors is not long enough – the protests against any or every sponsor of the arts, I believe, would have made her both angered and ashamed.  

    In every social protest  – and I have taken part in plenty – you have to ask, who is your target? The idea that boycotting the sponsor of the Hay Festival harms the sponsor, not the festival is for the birds. 

    And I have spent enough time at Hay, Glastonbury and elsewhere to know that these are the spaces – the only spaces – where precisely the moral voice and protest comes from. Boycotting sponsors, and killing these events off,  is the equivalent of gagging society. This self defeating virtue signalling is a feature of our times and we will stand against it with everything that we’ve got.

    Because I think we are the only [political context removed] force, right now, that believes that it is not for the government to dictate what should be heard.

    But there is one area where we will never be neutral and that is on who should be heard.

    Too much of our rich inheritance, heritage and culture is not seen. And when it is not, not only is the whole nation poorer but the country suffers. 

    It is our firm belief that at the heart of Britain’s current malaise is the fact that too many people have been written off and written out of our national story. And, to borrow a line from my favourite George Eliot novel, Middlemarch, it means we cannot hear that ‘roar that lies on the other side of silence’.  What we need – to completely misquote George Elliot – is a keen vision and feeling of all ordinary human life.’ We’ve got to be able to hear it.

    And this is personal for me.

    I still remember how groundbreaking it was to watch Bend it Like Beckham – the first time I had seen a family like ours depicted on screen not for being Asian (or in my case mixed race) but because of a young girl’s love of football. 

    And I was reminded of this year’s later when Maxine Peake starred in Queens of the Coal Age, her play about the women of the miners’ strike, which she put on at the Royal Exchange in Manchester. 

    The trains were not running – as usual – but on one of my council estates the women who had lived and breathed this chapter of our history clubbed together, hired a coach and went off to see it. It was magical to see the reaction when they saw a story that had been so many times about their lives, finally with them in it.

    We are determined that this entire nation must see themselves at the centre of their own and our national story. That’s a challenge for our broadcasters and our film-makers. 

    Show us the full panoply of the world we live in, including the many communities far distant from the commissioning room which is still far too often based in London. 

    But it’s also a challenge for every branch of the arts, including the theatre, dance, music, painting and sculpture. Let’s show working-class communities too in the work that we do – and not just featuring in murder and gangland series. 

    Part of how we discover that new national story is by breathing fresh life into local heritage and reviving culture in places where it is disappearing.

    Which is why we’re freeing up almost £5 million worth of funding for community organisations – groups who know their own area and what it needs far better than Whitehall. Groups determined to bring derelict and neglected old buildings back into good use. These are buildings that stand at the centre of our communities. They are visible symbols of pride, purpose and their contribution and their neglect provokes a strong emotional response to toxicity, decline and decay. We’re determined to put those communities back in charge of their own destiny again. 

    And another important part of the construction is the review of the arts council, led by Baroness Margaret Hodge, who is with us today. When Jennie Lee set up regional arts associations the arts council welcomed their creation as good for the promotion of regional cultures and in the hope they would “create a rod for the arts council’s back”. 

    They responded to local clamour, not culture imposed from London. Working with communities so they could tell their own story. That is my vision. And it’s the vision behind the Arts Everywhere Fund that we announced this morning.

    The Arts Council Review will be critical to fulfilling that vision and today we’re setting out two important parts of that work – publishing both the Terms of Reference and the members of the Advisory Group who will be working with Baroness Hodge, many of whom have made the effort to join us here today.

    We have found the Jennie Lee’s of our age, who will deliver a review that is shaped around communities and local areas, and will make sure that arts are for everyone, wherever they live and whatever their background. With excellence and access.

    But we need more from you. We need you to step up.

    Across the sporting world from Boxing to Rugby League clubs, they’re throwing their doors open to communities, especially young people, to help grip the challenges facing a nation. Opening up opportunities. Building new audiences. Creating the champions of the future. Lots done, but much more still to do.

    Every child and adult should also have the opportunity to access live theatre, dance and music – to believe that these spaces belong to them and are for them. We need you to throw open your doors. So many of you already deliver this against the odds. But the community spaces needed – whether community centres, theatres, libraries are too often closed to those who need them most. 

    Too often we fall short of reflecting the full and varied history of the communities which support us. That’s why we have targeted the funding today to bring hope flickering back to life in community-led culture and arts – supported by us, your government, but driven by you and your communities.

    It’s one of the reasons we are tackling the secondary ticket market, which has priced too many fans out of live music gigs. It’s also why we are pushing for a voluntary levy on arena tickets to fund a sustainable grassroots music sector, including smaller music venues. 

    But I also want new audiences to pour in through the doors – and I want theatres across the country to flourish as much as theatres in the West End. 

    I also want everyone to be able to see some of our outstanding art, from Lowry and Constable to Anthony Gormley and Tracey Emin. 

    Too much of the nation’s art is sitting in basements not out in the country where it belongs. I want all of our national and civic galleries to find new ways of getting that art out into communities.

    There are other challenges. There is too much fighting others to retain a grip on small pots of funding and too little asking “what do we owe to one another” and what can I do. Jennie Lee encouraged writers and actors into schools and poets into pubs. 

    She set up subsidies so people, like the women from my council estate in Wigan, could travel to see great art and theatre. She persuaded Henry Moore to go and speak to children in a school in Castleford, in Yorkshire who were astonished when he turned up not with a lecture, but with lumps of clay. 

    There are people who are doing this now. The brilliant fashion designer Paul Smith told me about a recent visit to his old primary school in Nottingham where he went armed with the material to design a new school tie with the kids. These are the most fashionable kids on the block.

    I know it’s been a tough decade. Funding for the arts has been slashed. Buildings are crumbling. And the pandemic hit the arts and heritage world hard. 

    And I really believe that the Government has a role to play in helping free you up to do what you do best – enriching people’s lives and bringing communities together – so with targeted support like the new £85m Creative Foundations Fund that we’re launching today with the Arts Council we hope that we’ll be able to help you with what you do best.

    SOLT’s own research showed that, without support, 4 in 10 theatres they surveyed were at risk of closing or being too unsafe to use in five years’ time. So today we are answering that call. This fund is going to help theatres, galleries, and arts centres restore buildings in dire need of repairs. 

    And on top of that support, we’re also getting behind our critical local, civic museums – places which are often cultural anchors in their village, town or city. They’re facing acute financial pressures and they need our backing. So our new Museum Renewal Fund will invest £20 million in these local assets – preserving them and ensuring they remain part of local identities, to keep benefitting local people of all ages. In my town of Wigan we have the fantastic Museum of Wigan Life and it tells the story of the contribution that the ordinary, extraordinary people in Wigan made to our country, powering us through the last century through dangerous, difficult, dirty work in the coal mines.  That story, that understanding of the contribution that Wigan made, I consider to be a part of the birthright and inheritance of my little boy growing up in that town today and we want every child growing up in a community to understand the history and heritage and contribution that their parents and grandparents made to this country and a belief that that future stretches ahead of them as well. Not to reopen the coal mines, but to make a contribution to this country and to see themselves reflected in our story.  

    But for us to succeed we need more from you. This is not a moment for despair. This is our moment to ensure the arts remain central to the life of this nation for decades to come and in turn that this nation flourishes. 

    If we get this right we can unlock funding that will allow the arts to flourish in every part of Britain, especially those that have been neglected for far too long, by creating good jobs and growth, and giving children everywhere the chance to get them. 

    Our vision is not just to grow the economy, but to make sure it benefits people in our communities. So often where i’ve seen investments in the last decade and good jobs created, I go down the road to a local school and I see children who can see those jobs from the school playground, but could no more dream of getting to the moon than they could of getting those jobs. And we are determined that that’s going to change. 

    This is what we’ve been doing with our creative education programmes (like the Museums and Schools Programme, the Heritage Schools Programme, Art & Design National Saturday Clubs and the BFI Film Academy.) These are programmes we are proud to support and ones I’m personally proud that my Department will be funding these programmes next year.

    Be in no doubt, we are determined to back the creative industries in a way no other government has done. I’m delighted that we have committed to the audiovisual, video games, theatre, orchestra and museums and galleries tax reliefs, as well as introducing the new independent film and VFX tax reliefs as well.

    You won’t hear any speeches from us denigrating the creative industries or lectures about ballerinas being forced to retrain.

    Yes, these are proper jobs. And yes, artists should be properly remunerated for their work. 

    We know these industries are vital to our economic growth. They employ 1 in 14 people in the UK and are worth more than £125 billion a year to our economy.  We want them to grow. That is why they are a central plank of our industrial strategy.

    But I want to be equally clear that these industries only thrive if they are part of a great artistic ecosystem. Matilda, War Horse and Les Miserables are commercial successes, but they sprang from the public investment in theatre. 

    James Graham has written outstanding screenplays for television including Sherwood, but his first major play was the outstanding This House at the National and his other National Theatre play Dear England is now set to be a TV series. 

    You don’t get a successful commercial film sector without a successful subsidised theatre sector. Or a successful video games sector without artists, designers, creative techies, musicians and voiceover artists.  

    So it’s the whole ecosystem that we have to strengthen and enhance. It’s all connected.

    The woman in whose name we’ve launched this lecture series would have relished that challenge. She used to say she had the best job in government

     “All the others deal with people’s sorrows… but I have been called the Minister of the Future.”

    That is why I relish this challenge and why working with those of you who will rise to meet this moment will be the privilege of my life.

    I wanted to leave with you with a moment that has stayed with me.

    A few weeks ago I was with Andy Burnham, the Mayor of Greater Manchester, who has become a great friend. We were in his old constituency of Leigh, a town that borders Wigan. And we were talking about the flashes, which in our towns used to be open cast coalmines. 

    They were regenerated by the last Labour government and they’ve now become these incredible spaces, with wildlife and green spaces with incredible lakes that are well used by local children. 

    We had a lot to talk about and a lot to do. But as we looked out at the transformed landscape wondering how in one generation we had gone from scars on the landscape to this, he said, the lesson I’ve taken from this is that nature recovers more quickly than people. 

    While this government, through our Plan for Change, has made it our mission to support a growing economy, so we can have a safe, healthy nation where people have opportunities not currently on offer – the recovery of our nation cannot be all bread and no roses. Our shared future depends critically on every one of us in this room rising to this moment. 

    To give voice to the nation we are, and can be. 

    To let hope and history rhyme.

    So let no one say it falls to anyone else. It falls to us.

    Updates to this page

    Published 20 February 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom

  • MIL-OSI Global: How allies have helped the US gain independence, defend freedom and keep the peace – even as the US did the same for our friends

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Donald Heflin, Executive Director of the Edward R. Murrow Center and Senior Fellow of Diplomatic Practice, The Fletcher School, Tufts University

    French Gen. Jean de Rochambeau and American Gen. George Washington giving the last orders in October 1781 for the battle at Yorktown, where the British defeat ended the War of Independence. ‘Siege of Yorktown’ painting, Ann Ronan Pictures/Print Collector/Getty Images.

    Make Canada angry. Make Mexico angry. Make the members of NATO angry.

    During the first few weeks of the second Trump administration, President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said a lot of things about longtime allies that caused frustration and outright friction among the leaders of those countries.

    Trump and Vance indeed appear to disdain close alliances, favoring an America First approach to the world. A New York Times headline characterized the relationship between the U.S. and Europe now as “A Strained Alliance.”

    As a former diplomat, I’m aware that how the U.S. treats its allies has been a crucial question in every presidency, since George Washington became the country’s first chief executive. On his way out of that job, Washington said something that Trump, Vance and their fellow America First advocates would probably embrace.

    In what’s known as his “Farewell Address,” Washington warned Americans against “entangling alliances.” Washington wanted America to treat all nations fairly, and warned against both permanent friendships and permanent enemies.

    The irony is that Washington would never have become president without the assistance of the not-yet-United-States’ first ally, France.

    In 1778, after two years of brilliant diplomacy by Benjamin Franklin, the not-yet-United States and the Kingdom of France signed a treaty of alliance as the American Colonies struggled to win their war for independence from Britain.

    France sent soldiers, money and ships to the American revolutionaries. Within three years, after a major intervention by the French fleet, the battle of Yorktown in 1781 effectively ended the war and America was independent.

    Isolationism, then war

    American political leaders largely heeded Washington’s warning against alliances throughout the 1800s. The Atlantic Ocean shielded the young nation from Europe’s problems and many conflicts, and America’s closest neighbors had smaller populations and less military might.

    Aside from the War of 1812, in which the U.S. fought the British, America largely found itself protected from the outside world’s problems.

    That began to change when Europe descended into the brutal trench warfare of World War I.

    Initially, American politicians avoided becoming involved. What would today be called an isolationist movement was strong, and its supporters felt that the war in Europe was being waged for the benefit of big business.

    But it was hard for the U.S.to maintain neutrality. German submarines sank ships crossing the Atlantic carrying American passengers. The economies of some of America’s biggest trading partners were in shreds; the democracies of Britain, France and other European countries were at risk.

    A Boston newspaper headline in 1915 blares the news of a British ocean liner sunk by a German torpedo.
    Serial and Government Publications Division, Library of Congress

    President Woodrow Wilson led the United States into the war in 1917 as an ally of the Western European nations. When he asked Congress for a declaration of war, Wilson touted the value of like-minded allies, saying, “A steadfast concert for peace can never be maintained except by a partnership of democratic nations.” The war was over within 16 months.

    Immediately after the war, the Allies – led by the U.S., France and Britain – stayed together to craft the peace agreements, feed the war-ravaged parts of Europe and intervene in Russia after the Communist Revolution there.

    Prosperity came along with the peace, helping the U.S. quickly develop into a global economic power.

    However, within a few years, American politicians returned to traditional isolationism in political and military matters and continued this attitude well into the 1930s. The worldwide Great Depression that began in 1929 was blamed on vulnerabilities in the global economy, and there was a strong sentiment among Americans that the U.S. should fix its internal problems rather than assist Europe with its problems.

    Alliance counters fascism

    As both Hitler and the Japanese Empire began to attack their neighbors in the late 1930s, it became clear to President Franklin Roosevelt and other American military and political leaders that the U.S. would get caught up in World War II. If nothing else, airplanes had erased America’s ability to hide behind the Atlantic Ocean.

    Though public opinion was divided, the U.S. began sending arms and other assistance to Britain and quietly began military planning with London. This was despite the fact that the U.S. was formally neutral, as the Roosevelt administration was pushing the limits of what a neutral nation can do for friendly nations without becoming a warring party.

    In January of 1941, Roosevelt gave his annual State of the Union speech to Congress. He appeared to prepare the country for possible intervention – both on behalf of allies abroad and for the preservation of American democracy:

    “The future and the safety of our country and of our democracy are overwhelmingly involved in events far beyond our borders. Armed defense of democratic existence is now being gallantly waged in four continents. If that defense fails, all the population and all the resources of Europe, and Asia, and Africa and Australasia will be dominated by conquerors. In times like these it is immature – and incidentally, untrue – for anybody to brag that an unprepared America, single-handed, and with one hand tied behind its back, can hold off the whole world.”

    When the Japanese attacked Hawaii in 1941 and Hitler declared war on the United States, America quickly entered World War II in an alliance with Britain, the Free French and others.
    Throughout the war, the Allies worked as a team on matters large and small. They defeated Germany in three and half years and Japan in less than four.

    As World War II ended, the wartime alliance produced two longer-term partnerships built on the understanding that working together had produced a powerful and effective counter to fascism.

    A ‘news bulletin’ from August 1945 issued by a predecessor of the United Nations.
    Foreign Policy In Focus

    Postwar alliances

    The first of these alliances is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO. The original members were the U.S., Canada, Britain, France and others of the wartime Allies. There are now 32 members, including Poland, Hungary and Turkey.

    The aims of NATO were to keep the peace in Europe and contain the growing Communist threat from the Soviet Union. NATO’s supporters feel that, given that the wars in the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s and in the Ukraine today are the only major conflicts in Europe in 80 years, the alliance has met its goals well. And NATO troops went to Afghanistan along with the U.S. military after 9/11.

    The other institution created by the wartime Allies is the United Nations.

    The U.N. is many things – a humanitarian aid organization, a forum for countries to raise their issues and a source of international law.

    However, it is also an alliance. The U.N. Security Council on several occasions authorized the use of force by members, such as in the first Gulf War against Iraq. And it has the power to send peacekeeping troops to conflict areas under the U.N. flag.

    Other U.S. allies with treaties or designations by Congress include Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Israel, three South American countries and six in the Middle East.

    In addition to these formal alliances, many of the same countries created institutions such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the Organization of American States and the European Union. The U.S. belongs to all of these except the European Union. During my 35-year diplomatic career, I worked with all of these institutions, particularly in efforts to stabilize Africa. They keep the peace and support development efforts with loans and grants.

    Admirers of this postwar liberal international order point to the limited number of major armed conflicts during the past 80 years, the globalized economy and international cooperation on important matters such as disease control and fighting terrorism.
    Detractors point to this system’s inability to stop some very deadly conflicts, such as Vietnam or Ukraine, and the large populations that haven’t done well under globalization as evidence of its flaws.

    The world would look dramatically different without the Allies’ victories in the two World Wars, the stable worldwide economic system and NATO’s and the U.N.’s keeping the world relatively peaceful.

    But the value of allies to Americans, even when they benefit from alliances, appears to have shifted between George Washington’s attitude – avoid them – and that of Franklin D. Roosevelt – go all in … eventually.

    Donald Heflin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. How allies have helped the US gain independence, defend freedom and keep the peace – even as the US did the same for our friends – https://theconversation.com/how-allies-have-helped-the-us-gain-independence-defend-freedom-and-keep-the-peace-even-as-the-us-did-the-same-for-our-friends-248839

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Briefing – Czechia’s National Recovery and Resilience Plan: Latest state of play – 20-02-2025

    Source: European Parliament

    Under the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF), Czechia’s national recovery and resilience plan (NRRP) had an initial value of €7 036 million in grants only. In June 2022, its initial RRF grant allocation was revised upwards to €7 673.7 million (+ 9.1 %). In June 2023, Czechia submitted a request to modify its NRRP. The amended plan totals €9 231.3 million and now includes a REPowerEU chapter with an additional grant allocation of €680.5 million. Czechia also requested to transfer its remaining share of the Brexit Adjustment Reserve to its plan (€54.9 million). The total EU contribution is €9 227.3 million, i.e. 4.1 % of the country’s 2019 gross domestic product (GDP), with €8 409.2 million in grants and €818.1 million in loans. Czechia’s NRRP comprises reforms and investment to help the Czech economy recover, while advancing the green and digital transition and addressing structural weaknesses. Measures under the plan are to be completed by 2026. In the 2024 country report, the European Commission assessed the implementation of the plan as being under way, albeit with a risk of some delays. In this context, the Council recommended accelerating investment, maintaining reform momentum and addressing emerging delays. In December 2024, a third payment, consisting of a fourth and fifth instalment of €1 482.5 million (net of pre-financing) in grants and a first instalment of €190.9 million in loans, was disbursed to Czechia. However, a payment of €162.7 million from the fourth instalment and of €97.6 million from the fifth instalment of the grant support was suspended, pending full implementation of the two remaining milestones. So far, Czechia has received €4 365.4 million (47.3 % of the modified plan), of which €1 061.7 million is in pre-financing, €3 112.8 million in grant payments, and €190.9 million in loans. This briefing is one in a series covering all EU Member States. Fourth edition. The previous edition was drafted by Marketa Pape. The ‘NGEU delivery’ briefings are updated at key stages throughout the lifecycle of the plans.

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Global: Trust in politics is in long-term decline around the world – new research

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Viktor Valgarðsson, Leverhulme Early Career Fellow in the Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Southampton

    Pro-Trump rioters stormed the US Capitol building to protest against the result of the 2020 presidential election. 72westy / Shutterstock

    Citizens’ trust in their political institutions has been falling around the world. This may not come as a shock to many.

    British politics has been in chaos since the Brexit referendum in 2016. Rioters stormed the US Capitol in protest against the result of the 2020 presidential election. And the US president, Donald Trump, is continuing to attack the supposed “deep-state” controlling American politics. None of these things scream public trust in government.

    But declining political trust is not self-evident. It’s possible that we may be too focused on a couple of countries that dominate our attention, and a lot has been going on in recent years that could explain the situation that we find ourselves in.

    Many researchers have also pointed out that people have never been particularly fond of politics. They suggest that we’ve simply been seeing “trendless fluctuations” in trust – ebbs and flows where we happen to notice declines more than rises or stability.

    In a recently published study, my co-authors and I took on this debate. We analysed more data on political trust than previous studies, from over 5 million respondents to 3,377 surveys conducted in 143 countries between 1958 and 2019.

    Our models suggest that, at least since 1990, trust in parliament and government has indeed been declining by an average of about 8.4 and 7.3 percentage points respectively in democratic countries across the world.

    The same does not apply to trust in non-representative “implementing institutions”, such as the civil service, justice system or police. In fact, we find that trust in the police has increased by about 12.5 percentage points across democracies on average over the same period.

    Thus, declining trust in government appears to be rooted in how politics is practised, which is seemingly less inspiring to citizens today, rather than in a growing distaste for social institutions in general.

    Global trends in trust in six types of institutions in democratic countries between 1990 and 2019.
    Valgarðsson et al. (2025) / British Journal of Political Science, CC BY-NC-ND

    Of course, this global picture masks a more nuanced story. Political trust has been rising in a few smaller countries: Denmark, Ecuador, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland. These nations may chart a path forward for the rest of the democratic world.

    Conversely, trust in the legal system has been declining in many countries in eastern Europe and Latin America. The same appears to be the case more recently in the US, suggesting that implementing institutions are not immune to the political trust crisis.

    Our findings do not answer why citizens of democracies are gradually losing faith in their democratic institutions, or what the consequences could be. They also do not suggest how trust in politics can be rebuilt. But what we do know is concerning.

    For instance, our data tells us that political trust was declining dramatically in Hungary right up until 2010, when Viktor Orbán was re-elected as prime minister (his first term ended in 2002). When in office, Orbán started dismantling the country’s constitutional and liberal democratic order.

    Trust in parliament, the legal system and the police in western Europe and North America.
    Valgarðsson et al. (2025) / British Journal of Political Science, CC BY-NC-ND

    We also know that the US has seen one of the more dramatic declines of political trust in recent times, and that political distrust was a powerful predictor of voting for Trump at least in the 2016 Republican primaries.

    In a survey conducted that year by American National Election Studies, about 24% of Trump’s primary voters said they would “never” trust the federal government to do what is right. This compared with about 9% of voters for rival Republican candidate John Kasich, and 8% and 4% of voters for Democrat candidates Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton respectively.

    We do not yet have data for the 2024 US presidential election. But it does not take a political scientist to know that Trump leaned even more heavily on people’s distrust in government in his campaign. Since becoming president, he has stepped up his efforts to dismantle America’s constitutional and liberal democratic order.

    Declining political trust is not the only cause of these developments. We are also seeing illiberal candidates and parties doing increasingly well in countries where we didn’t see the same trust declines in our data. The rising popularity of Geert Wilders in the Netherlands or the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) party in Germany are both good examples.

    Some of this may be driven partly by more recent trust declines, like in the Netherlands where trust in parliament has dropped substantially since 2020. Or it could be driven by a polarisation of trust between a more trusting majority and a deeply distrusting minority. But much of it is also probably driven by other factors, such as economic distress, attitudes towards immigration and the “culture wars” of our day.

    It stands to reason that voters who deeply distrust the political establishment would tend to be attracted to populist leaders who rail against that establishment.

    These voters probably still support democracy as an ideal. Support for democratic principles has, in fact, remained high globally – although there are worrying signs among younger generations in US and UK. But these voters appear to be more willing to vote for politicians who will attack the institutions needed to make it work.

    Sceptical mistrust of government

    This brings us to one crucial question: are citizens right to distrust government? After all, political institutions haven’t been working all that well for a large portion of citizens – except maybe in areas like Scandinavia, where we have seen rising trust in recent times.

    A degree of sceptical mistrust of government is certainly vital for a healthy democracy. We are reminded of this by some of the more sobering points in our data.

    China has the highest rates of reported trust in the world, while Hungary and Russia have both seen rising trust levels as their governments have become less democratic and seized control of the media environment. Clearly, trust is not unequivocally good from a democratic perspective.

    Our challenge is to find the right balance: a climate of sceptical trust, where we hold our governments to account and engage critically with our institutions without throwing them away in favour of autocratic populists.

    To save the foundations of liberal democracy, we may need to rediscover its appeal to the ordinary citizen. If it’s something about the way politics is practised that citizens distrust, perhaps those politics need to change.

    Viktor Valgarðsson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. Trust in politics is in long-term decline around the world – new research – https://theconversation.com/trust-in-politics-is-in-long-term-decline-around-the-world-new-research-250078

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Economics: Lesetja Kganyago: Institutions, leadership and the populist challenge

    Source: Bank for International Settlements

    Good day and thank you for inviting me to give this keynote address.

    Let me join you all in congratulating Andile Nikani on his appointment as the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Arbitration Foundation of Southern Africa.

    Arbitrators work to achieve fair outcomes. Fairness is an objective that is valued universally, even by children from an early age. But arbitrators like you also achieve something else.

    As the field of law and economics has shown us, when you apply economic reasoning to law, you often find that traditional legal approaches overlook the importance of efficiency. In a dispute, especially a professional dispute, parties fear long delays and excessive costs. If you get stuck in a process like that, even winning offers little consolation.

    So let me commend you, not only for ensuring fairness, but also for doing it efficiently enough that parties freely choose you to resolve their conflicts and voluntarily accept your decisions.

    For this keynote, I have chosen a subject that I hope will interest both economists and lawyers. I want to talk about the populist challenge to institutions and what it means for leaders.

    The fact is that populism is widespread in the world.

    It was once seen as a developing-country phenomenon − something rooted in places like Argentina − and not much of an issue in mature democracies. But no one believes that now, especially not since 2016, with the surprise outcomes of the Brexit referendum and the United States election. Last year − the year of elections − made that point even clearer. Whether we are talking about rich countries or poorer ones, there is no denying that we are in an age of populism. We need to reflect on why populist ideas have this appeal, and how we can respond.

    MIL OSI Economics

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: GB Energy & Grangemouth show ‘You can’t trust Labour’

    Source: Scottish National Party

    ‘You can’t trust Labour’. It was an oft made comment during the latter year’s of Tony Blair’s premiership; particularly because of his role in dragging the UK into the Iraq war on the basis of a lie.

    But it took six years for that phrase to become common usage. With the current Westminster Labour government of Keir Starmer it’s only taken six months.

    And recently we saw an example which explains why trust in Keir Starmer’s Labour party has nosedived.

    Before the 2024 election Labour promised that Aberdeen would get 1,000 jobs from hosting the GB Energy headquarters; but now the appointed boss of GB Energy says it will only create 200 jobs in five years.

    The GB Energy boss who won’t even be working in Aberdeen but Manchester! So much for a ‘headquarters’ in Aberdeen.

    These revelations have been followed more recently by news that Grangemouth’s refinery is to close after 100 years.

    Again, another example of how Labour can’t be trusted.

    Before the election Labour, along with Keir Starmer and Anas Sarwar, promised to save the jobs:

    Now it’s scenes of Anas Sarwar repeatedly pleading that he’s powerless because it’s a private company…

    …a private company Labour will financially support when it comes to a football stadium in England and a refinery in Belgium!

    And it was Westminster who tied their own hands when it gave Grangemouth to the private sector:

    Is it any wonder that even Grangemouth’s own Labour MP sounds like he doesn’t trust Labour?

    Even a letter he wrote to Starmer was signed by only one other Scottish Labour MP. So much for Scottish Labour MPs standing up for Scotland.

    But those two examples are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Labour promises.

    Take the WASPI women pensioners; betrayed so often by the Tories and now by Labour. As leader of the opposition, Starmer promised to “do something about it”, saying he understood their anger at having “the goalposts moved”.

    In 2020 he railed against the two-child cap on child benefits. In the days running up to the election Scots were told to vote Labour to end child poverty.

    Yet just after the election he suspended seven Labour MPs for voting with the SNP to scrap the cap on child benefit and tackle child poverty.

    Then there’s the winter fuel payment for pensioners. In the run up to voting in July 2024 Starmerrailed against the Tories about how pensioners suffered under the Tories and promised them security.

    Safely in Downing Street his government announced a cut to pensioners’ winter fuel payments despite research by his own party that it could cause 4,000 deaths.

    And what about National Insurance?

    Labour’s manifesto specifically pledged that they would not raise national insurance. In her budget Rachel Reeves increased employer national insurance – a policy that will hit those employing lower paid workers the hardest, charities, GPs and care homes.

    You would think such a level of untrustworthy behaviour would be more than enough after seven months; but there’s more that specifically affects Scotland.

    In the July 2024 election Anas Sarwar expressly promised that Scottish Labour ‘would put Scotland at the heart of Starmer’s government‘; and ‘stand up to Keir Starmer and defend Scotland’s interests‘.

    Instead, as a group, Scottish Labour MPs have meekly voted for cutting the winter fuel payment, keeping the two-child benefit, and failing to support WASPI women.

    And there’s a range of issues where that group of MPs have been subdued when it comes to putting Scotland at the heart of Starmer’s government.

    In August 2024 Rachel Reeves pulled funding for an £800 million computer at Edinburgh University with a Labour source saying the project made “little strategic sense.”

    Yet by January Keir Starmer was announcing that his government had arranged £14 billion of investment in various AI projects.

    At the end of January Rachel Reeves announced her plans for growth in the UK … which amounted to a concentration of UK government assistance between the cities hosting the UK’s two elitist universities.

    The absence for similar assistance for Scotland was notable despite claiming it would deliver to “all corners of the UK“:

    Take CCS, or Carbon Capture & Storage; since the 2014 independence referendum the North East of Scotland has been repeatedly promised that Westminster would invest millions in it.

    Rachel Reeves eventually announced funding for Carbon Capture & Storage … in Teesside and Merseyside. No Scottish Labour MP or MSP has even mentioned this slap in the face to Scotland.

    Is it any wonder Scots believe Anas Sarwar doesn’t stand up to Keir Starmer. It’s no wonder Scottish Labour’s vote is at its lowest level in three years.

    And what is Anas Sarwar’s latest move as we approach a Scottish election year? To say he is open to ‘good ideas’ from Nigel Farage’s Reform party.

    A party that would like to abolish the Scottish Parliament and privatise the NHS. The party of Brexit which has increased the cost-of-living creating less money for public services.

    And Anas Sarwar’s latest gambit just raises more questions about trust in Labour. He’s now pledging to protect SNP policies like free tuition, free prescriptions and the Scottish Child Payment.

    After months of accusing the SNP government of ’18 years of failure’ he’s now saying it has been 18 years of “successes”.

    But why should anyone trust what many see as a panicked announcement by Anas Sarwar?

    On several occasions Labour’s Holyrood group of MSPs have voted against SNP government budgets which contained those policies. Even now they are not supporting the SNP budget containing those policies.

    A previous Scottish Labour leader notoriously called those policies a ‘something for nothing‘ culture which should end.

    Anas Sarwar’s health spokesperson, Jackie Baillie, is on record as saying prescription charges should “absolutely” be abolished.

    As for tuition fees it was only in February 2024 that Sarwar’s finance spokesperson, Michael Marra, said backdoor tuition fees, like endowments, would have to be considered.

    Shortly after Labour MSPs voted with the Tories in Holyrood against free tuition.

    And let’s not forget the behaviour of Anas Sarwar’s boss, Keir Starmer. In 2020 he promised Labour members in the party leadership election that he would “support the abolition of tuition fees”.

    Yet by September 2023 he claimed it would be ‘impossible‘ to abolish tuition fees … despite the fact that is the reality in Scotland.

    And let’s not forget which party first introduced tuition fees – whose policy they ultimately are.

    Just weeks before the 1997 election Tony Blair pledged: “Labour has no plans to introduce tuition fees for higher education.”

    A year after taking power, Blair went ahead and introduced tuition fees.

    It all just shows how the people of Scotland don’t and can’t trust any promise by Scottish Labour. Like a branch office they will always follow their bosses in Westminster.

    There’s only one party that Scots can trust to stand up and speak for Scotland. Speak out about Westminster ignoring your communities when it comes to investment. To vote for the benefit of Scotland’s pensioners, families and workers – the SNP.

    MIL OSI United Kingdom

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Debates – Thursday, 13 February 2025 – Strasbourg – Revised edition

    Source: European Parliament

    Verbatim report of proceedings
     491k  822k
    Thursday, 13 February 2025 – Strasbourg
    1. Opening of the sitting
      2. Proposal for a Union act
      3. EU-Mercosur Trade Agreement (debate)
      4. Threats to EU sovereignty through strategic dependencies in communication infrastructure (debate)
      5. Resumption of the sitting
      6. Voting time
        6.1. Recent dismissals and arrests of mayors in Türkiye (RC-B10-0100/2025, B10-0100/2025, B10-0103/2025, B10-0110/2025, B10-0115/2025, B10-0119/2025, B10-0121/2025, B10-0124/2025) (vote)
        6.2. Repression by the Ortega-Murillo regime in Nicaragua, targeting human rights defenders, political opponents and religious communities in particular (RC-B10-0126/2025, B10-0126/2025, B10-0128/2025, B10-0130/2025, B10-0131/2025, B10-0132/2025, B10-0134/2025, B10-0135/2025) (vote)
        6.3. Continuing detention and risk of the death penalty for individuals in Nigeria charged with blasphemy, notably the case of Yahaya Sharif-Aminu (RC-B10-0101/2025, B10-0101/2025, B10-0104/2025, B10-0111/2025, B10-0113/2025, B10-0117/2025, B10-0120/2025, B10-0122/2025, B10-0123/2025) (vote)
        6.4. Further deterioration of the political situation in Georgia (RC-B10-0106/2025, B10-0106/2025, B10-0107/2025, B10-0108/2025, B10-0112/2025, B10-0114/2025, B10-0116/2025, B10-0118/2025) (vote)
        6.5. Escalation of violence in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (RC-B10-0102/2025, B10-0102/2025, B10-0105/2025, B10-0109/2025, B10-0125/2025, B10-0127/2025, B10-0129/2025, B10-0133/2025) (vote)
      7. Resumption of the sitting
      8. Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting
      9. Cross-border recognition of civil status documents of same-sex couples and their children within the territory of the EU (debate)
      10. Explanations of votes
        10.1. Further deterioration of the political situation in Georgia (RC-B10-0106/2025)
        10.2. Escalation of violence in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (RC-B10-0102/2025)
      11. Approval of the minutes of the sitting and forwarding of texts adopted
      12. Dates of forthcoming sittings
      13. Closure of the sitting
      14. Adjournment of the session

       

    PRESIDENZA: ANTONELLA SBERNA
    Vicepresidente

     
    1. Opening of the sitting

       

    (La seduta è aperta alle 9:01)

     

    2. Proposal for a Union act

     

      President. – I would like to announce that, pursuant to Rule 47(2), the President has declared admissible a proposal for a Union act on the need to amend the Council Regulation on fixing the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks applicable in the Mediterranean and Black Seas for 2025, and to protect the trawling sector.

    The proposal is referred to the Committee on Fisheries (PECH) as the committee responsible, and to the Committee on Budgets, the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and the Committee on the Environment, Climate and Food Safety for opinion.

     

    3. EU-Mercosur Trade Agreement (debate)


     

      Maroš Šefčovič, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, good morning to all honourable Members in this House. It is a pleasure to be here this morning to discuss the EU-Mercosur partnership agreement with you. As you know, this has been a busy plenary week and it has been my honour to address the House from this podium several times.

    On each occasion, it has been necessary to frame our dialogue in terms of the world that Europe finds itself in today: a world of increased global competition, a rise in unfair economic practices, and a more complex and uncertain geopolitical reality.

    In the face of this, the European Union’s network of free trade agreements – the world’s largest – is a vital asset in ensuring we can maintain our economic edge. I’ve heard the same messages from many of you, honourable Members, in a plenary debate on Tuesday, when a new trade era was discussed, as well as yesterday when we discussed the Commission work programme for this year.

    Free trade agreements open up markets around the world to our companies. They provide drivers for growth and innovation, and they are helping our industry retain and regain its competitiveness. And these agreements are mutually beneficial, with the EU being a trusted trading partner in a rules-based system. We only need to look to the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between the EU and Canada to see the real-world benefit.

    At a time when the old-world order in global trade is being shaken up, it is more important than ever to grow this free trade agreement network. This growth can contribute to our overarching efforts to de-risk via trade diversification and ensure our long-term industrial competitiveness. The EU-Mercosur partnership agreement is a vital element of this effort and a sign of our commitment to the Latin American region.

    The conclusion of negotiations strengthens our political and economic ties, giving EU companies a first-mover advantage in a region where trade with China is dominant. For instance, China is the main exporter to and importer from Brazil. The agreement will provide additional continuity, stability and predictability in our trade relations, and it highlights that regional blocs can commit to shared values and deliver concrete results for the mutual benefits of our citizens.

    Above all, the agreement is an economic win-win for the European Union. It offers export opportunities to the fifth biggest global economic bloc outside the European Union, with 273 million potential consumers. Our exports to Mercosur already amount to EUR 84 billion, with EU investment in the region of some EUR 340 billion.

    But with this agreement, we can now strengthen this trade and investment relationship even further. For example, this agreement would help us to save, and especially for EU exporters, over EUR 4 billion in customs duties every year – EUR 4 billion a year. It would eliminate tariffs on key commodities, like, if we take as an example cars, which are currently at the level of 35 %. If I’m talking about machinery, I’m talking about 20 %. If you look at chemicals, it’s 18 %. And if you look at pharmaceuticals, it’s 14 %. So, you see that these duties are very, very high and we are going to completely eliminate them.

    Mercosur countries can become one of our best sources of critical raw materials, thereby increasing our resilience by diversifying our supply chains. And I can assure you that the deal reached in Montevideo in December is not only a good deal, but it’s also a new deal – different and better than the one agreed in 2019.

    We have secured several negotiated outcomes that respond to our sustainability concerns while preserving the EU’s sensitivities. By including the Paris Agreement on Climate Change as an essential element of the EU Mercosur Partnership agreement, this sends a strong message in support of multilateral cooperation on climate change and this allows for partial or total suspension if a party leaves the Paris Agreement or if it undermines it from within.

    The agreement also contains legally binding commitments to take measures to halt deforestation as of 2030. Importantly, the agreement provides a critical platform of cooperation with Mercosur countries on our common sustainability ambitions, with strong commitments on labour and the environment.

    In addition, we have reached a balanced outcome on agrifood trade, considerably improving market access for many EU agrifood products, while striking a cautious balance in sectors where our interests are more sensitive and negotiated clear and well-calibrated tariff quotas amounting to a very small percentage of EU consumption, for example, not more than 1.5 % of beef, as well as a gradual implementation to market opening over several years.

    The Commission will monitor market developments closely after the agreement is implemented, particularly with regard to the agricultural sector, to ensure that the partnership with Mercosur does not negatively affect the competitiveness of the European farmers. In case of an imbalance, we will impose safeguards to protect our sensitive sectors and to ensure that agricultural producers are fully protected. President von der Leyen has announced that at least EUR 1 billion will be available to address any unforeseen circumstances.

    As a last point on Mercosur, we know that EU consumers care about the quality and safety of their food and health and consumer protection was never and will never be up for negotiations. Already today, agricultural products imported from Mercosur countries and from any other third country, with or without trade agreements, must comply with the EU’s strict sanitary and phytosanitary standards.

    Honourable Members, I know how important openness and cooperation on trade issues is to this House. Indeed, it came up in our debate on trade and preparedness on Tuesday to which I was referring earlier on. So, I want to underline that I have already engaged on Mercosur with the INTA Committee and with the AGRI Committee, together with Commissioner Hansen, responsible for agriculture, as well as with different working groups. And I see this as an ongoing dialogue, and I want to assure you that we will continue to listen to your concerns and provide you with factual answers and ensure your views are taken into account moving forward.

    So, I will stop here, Madam President, and I look forward to our exchanges and the debate.

     
       

       

    VORSITZ: KATARINA BARLEY
    Vizepräsidentin

     
       

     

      Jörgen Warborn, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Madam President, Commissioner, I would like to use the beginning of my speech to paint a picture of the EU reality on the global stage. Because five years ago, the UK left the European Union. A month later – COVID‑19 – the pandemic broke out in Europe. And three years ago, Russia launched a full‑scale illegal invasion of Ukraine. And at the same time, European energy prices reached record levels, and this also, of course, created inflation for European citizens. A month ago, Trump was inaugurated in the US administration. All this at the same time when China is systematically disregarding the multilateral trade order, and the BRICs is growing.

    Never before has the EU and its citizens and businesses been faced with so much uncertainty and unpredictability as now, most evidently seen last Monday, when Trump increased the tariffs on steel and aluminium to 25 %. I have stood at this podium more times than I can remember to talk about the importance of the Mercosur deal. If there would ever be a moment to conclude the deal that would create the biggest free trade zone in the world, it would be now.

    We need it now because it will provide opportunities for businesses and citizens. It will enhance our energy security. It will create a channel of diplomatic and economic relationships with one of the biggest players in the world, and it will demonstrate that the EU is a global, relevant player that stands for an open, rules‑based geopolitical order. Let’s do it. Let’s conclude. Let’s finalise the negotiation. It is beneficial for all.

     
       

     

      Kathleen Van Brempt, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Madam President, colleagues, let me thank M Warborn for his short history lesson. Of course, we agree very much with the fact that geopolitics has changed dramatically in the last five-to-ten years and the EU-Mercosur agreement is, in that light, important.

    For the S&D, it is important also that, in the next coming months, we will fully scrutinise this deal up to the very detail. We need to make sure that this deal works not just for our economy, but for the environment and for the workers on both sides of the world. We hear the sincere concerns, Commissioner, from the unions, from the environmental NGOs and from the farmers.

    It is important, as you mentioned, that the Paris Agreement is now an essential element. But many questions, Commissioner, on deforestation, remain. And we need answers on these. Let it be clear: this Mercosur agreement cannot water down the EU Deforestation Regulation. So we need answers.

    The S&D will be a fair partner in this process, but we need answers to make sure that the impact of the agreement on climate, workers’ rights and European farmers is clear.

     
       

     

      Jean-Paul Garraud, au nom du groupe PfE. – Madame la Présidente, il est encore temps de désamorcer la bombe agricole. Il est encore temps pour la Commission de renoncer à l’accord de libre-échange entre les pays du Mercosur et l’Union européenne, contre lequel nos agriculteurs protestent depuis des mois. Mais vous ne voulez pas renoncer, Monsieur le Commissaire, je viens de vous entendre.

    Cet accord est pourtant un contresens, un archaïsme et une faute. Un contresens, puisqu’il remet en cause notre autonomie alimentaire au moment où toutes les autres puissances cherchent à la garantir face aux désordres du monde. Un archaïsme, car il contrevient à la raison écologique et multiplie les échanges avec des produits du bout du monde, produits qui, par ailleurs, ne respectent même pas les normes environnementales qui sont les nôtres. Enfin, cet accord est une faute: à travers un obscur mécanisme de règlement des différends, vous offrez à des pays tiers, à des concurrents, la possibilité de remettre en cause les décisions des États membres, donc leur souveraineté et les libres choix des peuples.

    En promettant aux agriculteurs un fonds de compensation, vous reconnaissez d’ailleurs implicitement que cet accord va provoquer des ravages au sein de nos filières agricoles. Or, nos agriculteurs ne veulent pas qu’on subventionne leur déclin ou, pire, leur disparition. Ils veulent être protégés et promus. Ils veulent vivre dignement et librement de leur travail, de cette noble mission: nourrir l’Europe.

     
       

     

      Carlo Fidanza, a nome del gruppo ECR. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signor Commissario, l’Unione europea ha colpevolmente lasciato il Sud America in balia della penetrazione cinese e di regimi, governi o movimenti che lo hanno spesso allontanato dall’Europa e dall’Occidente. L’accordo con il Mercosur ha quindi evidenti motivazioni geopolitiche e presenta anche altrettanto evidenti opportunità di crescita per alcuni comparti.

    Eppure, questo accordo ha generato una immediata reazione da parte degli agricoltori europei. E sapete perché? Perché nel recente passato è stata proprio l’agricoltura a pagare il prezzo più alto in molti accordi di libero scambio. Ma anche perché in questi anni le scelte ideologiche dell’Unione europea hanno colpito duramente la competitività degli agricoltori europei, con le follie green, con una burocrazia asfissiante, con una ripartizione non equilibrata della redditività lungo le filiere.

    È certamente vero che alcuni settori agroalimentari – penso a quello del vino o dei formaggi – potrebbero avere dei benefici dall’accordo. Ed è vero che il numero di denominazioni di origine formalmente protette è il più alto mai inserito in un accordo di libero scambio, sia pure con qualche evidente falla.

    Ma è altrettanto vero che la mancanza di reciprocità, la possibilità garantita ai produttori sudamericani di continuare ad utilizzare agrofarmaci da noi vietati da tempo, la mancanza di controlli affidabili in loco sugli standard sanitari e contro la contraffazione, così come nelle procedure doganali europee, in molti nostri porti europei, sulle importazioni, fanno pendere la bilancia verso una legittima e fondata preoccupazione da parte del mondo agricolo. E non basteranno a tranquillizzare i nostri produttori una clausola di salvaguardia di difficile attivazione o quel solo miliardo di euro previsto per le compensazioni, una goccia nel mare e addirittura meno di quel miliardo e ottocento milioni previsti dall’Unione europea per gli agricoltori del Mercosur.

    Oggi questo accordo si presenta ancora troppo sbilanciato e troppo penalizzante per la nostra agricoltura e noi, a queste condizioni, non possiamo sostenerlo.

     
       

     

      Svenja Hahn, im Namen der Renew-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin! Liebe Kollegen! Ich finde es ehrlich gesagt unverantwortlich, wie faktenbefreit und populistisch einige in diesem Parlament Ängste schüren, Ängste vor Freihandel.

    Natürlich müssen wir Sorgen wie die von unseren Landwirten ernst nehmen. Deshalb gibt es auch in sensiblen Bereichen sehr niedrige Einfuhrquoten, wie zum Beispiel bei Rindfleisch, wo es anderthalb Prozent des gesamten EU-Konsums sind. Das ist ungefähr ein 200-Gramm-Steak pro Person. Das ist keine Marktverzerrung, und sollte es doch welche geben, plant die Kommission sogar Hilfszahlungen.

    Das eigentliche Problem ist doch die EU-gemachte Bürokratie – nicht der Handel –, die die Wettbewerbsfähigkeit unserer Landwirte behindert. Protektionismus wird dieses Problem nicht lösen. Auch der Klimaschutz wird nicht geschwächt; er wird sogar gestärkt. Denn die Einhaltung des Pariser Klimaschutzabkommens ist eine essentielle Grundlage dieses Abkommens.

    Deshalb: Gucken wir doch mal auf die Zahlen! Dann sehen wir, dass alleine in der EU 800 000 Jobs am Handel mit den Mercosur-Ländern hängen. Allein aus meinem Heimatland Deutschland exportieren über 12 000 Unternehmen in den Mercosur, und 70 % davon sind kleine und mittelständische Unternehmen. Wir haben gerade gehört von Kommissar Šefčovič: Alleine die reduzierten Zölle bedeuten Einsparungen von 4 Mrd. EUR bei unseren Unternehmen. Die echten Chancen erwachsen doch erst durch diese Marktöffnung, wie zum Beispiel der Zugang zu kritischen Rohstoffen. Das hilft unserer Wirtschaft, unseren Klimazielen und vor allen Dingen reduziert es unsere Abhängigkeit von Autokratien wie China.

    Ich sage Ihnen ganz ehrlich: Ich bin nicht bereit, zuzusehen, wie die Autokraten dieser Welt Schulter an Schulter stehen – und wir in der Europäischen Union sollen nicht mal Handel mit anderen Demokratien hinbekommen? Ich bin nicht bereit, das zu akzeptieren, denn in Zeiten von drohenden Zollspiralen und Handelskriegen brauchen wir mehr Handel mit mehr Partnern, allen voran den Handel mit Mercosur. Wir brauchen keine Deglobalisierungs- und Degrowth-Fantasien. Wir brauchen das Mercosur-Abkommen für unsere Arbeitsplätze in der Europäischen Union, für Wirtschaftswachstum und vor allen Dingen auch für internationale Zusammenarbeit.

     
       

     

      Saskia Bricmont, au nom du groupe Verts/ALE. – Madame la Présidente, quand, en Europe comme dans les pays du Mercosur, les agriculteurs, le monde associatif, les associations de protection des consommateurs, les syndicats, les académiques, les citoyens s’opposent au traité commercial entre l’Union européenne et le Mercosur, ce sont des millions de personnes qui dénoncent ces impacts économiques, sociaux, environnementaux, climatiques, humains.

    C’est un accord qui date du siècle dernier, Monsieur le Commissaire, ce n’est pas un new deal. Ces millions de personnes pèsent peu face aux intérêts économiques de quelques industriels et des plus grosses exploitations agricoles pour – attention! – un bénéfice attendu de + 0,1 % du PIB. Peu glorieux, n’est-ce pas? Ah oui, il faut quand même aussi en déduire les millions du fonds de compensation agricole promis pour pallier les effets négatifs de cet accord sur le monde agricole, sans en régler les problèmes pour autant.

    Il faut aussi tenir compte des effets du mécanisme de rééquilibrage: rééquilibrage pour les États des pays du Mercosur qui va permettre au gouvernement, ou plutôt à l’agrobusiness, brésilien de contester nos lois si elles affectent leurs intérêts économiques et commerciaux. Exemples: mécanisme d’ajustement carbone aux frontières, lois anti-déforestation, contre le travail forcé, le devoir de vigilance de nos entreprises.

    Alors là, c’est la sidération totale, une atteinte insupportable à notre souveraineté stratégique et même à notre sécurité économique. Nous refusons de brader notre agriculture en la soumettant à une concurrence totalement déloyale. Nous refusons d’exporter nos produits chimiques et pesticides interdits en Europe, de brader davantage nos normes et de consommer des citrons verts au glyphosate, du bœuf aux hormones ou de la volaille à la grippe aviaire. D’encourager aussi la déforestation.

    Il est impossible de faire l’inventaire de tous les problèmes. Mais une chose est certaine, vous nous présentez un texte qui est pire qu’en 2019, quand le Parlement a dit qu’il lui était impossible de ratifier l’accord du Mercosur en l’état. C’est en défendant la démocratie, les valeurs, les normes sociales et environnementales qui protègent nos citoyens et assurent la prospérité de nos économies que l’Union européenne fera la différence.

    Chers amis du Mercosur, nous voulons des partenariats avec vous, mais des partenariats réellement équitables.

     
       

     

      Manon Aubry, au nom du groupe The Left. – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, comment osez-vous venir défendre ici l’accord avec le Mercosur, le plus grand et le pire accord de libre-échange jamais signé par l’Union européenne? Comment osez-vous dire aux agriculteurs, qui peinent déjà à joindre les deux bouts, qu’importer des centaines de milliers de tonnes supplémentaires de bœuf, de poulet ou de fromage n’aura aucun impact sur eux? Comment osez-vous exposer délibérément la population à des OGM et des pesticides interdits en Europe? Car non, il n’y aura aucune réciprocité des normes. Comment est-il possible, à l’heure de l’urgence écologique, de soutenir un accord qui va contribuer à accélérer le réchauffement climatique et la déforestation?

    Oui, Monsieur le Commissaire, vous devriez avoir honte. Honte, parce que la réalité, c’est que personne ne veut de cet accord. Et vous vous retrouvez ici à devoir passer en force, en piétinant les règles de consultation du Parlement européen. Hier, le vote d’un de mes amendements l’a montré très clairement: les inquiétudes sur cet accord sont extrêmement vives et il n’y a pas de réelle majorité en sa faveur.

    Le dogme du libre-échange étouffe les peuples et dévaste la planète. Il est déjà en train de vaciller. La bataille n’est pas terminée. Comptez sur nous pour le faire tomber.

     
       

     

      Станислав Стоянов, от името на групата ESN. – Г-жо Председател, г-н Комисар, търговското споразумение между Европейския съюз и Меркосур предоставя възможности за европейската индустрия, както чухме и от Вас, но може да има катастрофални последици за селскостопанския сектор и европейските фермери не бива да плащат цената на това споразумение.

    Липсва прозрачност относно процеса по ратификация на споразумението, както и относно предпазните мерки, предвидени от Европейската комисия. Беше споменат фонд от един милиард евро, без да е ясно нито откъде ще дойде финансирането му, нито пък дали то би било достатъчно. Няма никаква яснота и дали този потенциален фонд ще се създаде предварително или едва при смущения на пазара. Компенсаторните мерки няма да защитят нашето земеделие. На тях често им липсват ясни дефиниции, не достигат до истински ощетените, а докато влязат в сила, щетите вече ще бъдат нанесени. Освен това доказването на, цитирам, „сериозна вреда“, нанесена на производителите поради споразумението, е сложен и бюрократичен процес. Нека не предадем европейските фермери и този път.

     
       

     

      Gabriel Mato (PPE). – Señora presidenta, el Acuerdo Unión Europea-Mercosur no es un tratado comercial más. Se trata de hablar de futuro. Nos jugamos nuestra capacidad de seguir siendo un actor relevante en el comercio global, de generar crecimiento y empleo y de abrir las puertas a un mercado de setecientos cincuenta millones de consumidores. Es indudable que tiene claros beneficios, entre otros, la eliminación de cuatro mil millones de euros en aranceles, el acceso a mercados estratégicos, la mayor presencia de nuestras industrias y pymes y la protección de más de trescientas indicaciones geográficas.

    Dicho esto, entiendo y comparto, comparto claramente, las preocupaciones del sector agrario. No podemos ignorarlas. Pero seamos claros: el problema de nuestro sector agrario no es el Mercosur, es la política agraria europea diseñada sin tener en cuenta la realidad del campo. Si nuestros productores se sienten amenazados por este Acuerdo es porque la política agraria no les ofrece las herramientas necesarias para competir y esto es lo que debe cambiar. Por eso, más que bloquear el Acuerdo, lo que debemos hacer es reformar nuestra política agraria para que no penalice a nuestros productores con normas asfixiantes, asegurar salvaguardas eficaces que protejan a los sectores vulnerables de manera rápida y efectiva y garantizar un fondo de compensación justo y ampliable que realmente funcione y que se adapte cuando sea necesario. No se trata de elegir entre comercio y agricultura, se trata de hacer las cosas bien y de analizar con datos actualizados dónde está el origen del problema y buscar soluciones al mismo.

    Negarnos a ratificar este Acuerdo no resolverá los problemas del sector agrario y mandará un mensaje de que Europa renuncia a ser líder y prefiere dejar que otros aprovechen nuestras oportunidades.

     
       

     

      Bernd Lange (S&D). – Frau Präsidentin! Herr Kommissar! Meine lieben Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Ich finde es unredlich, wenn man sich hier mit einem Zeigefinger hinstellt und sagt, am europäischen Wesen soll die Welt genesen, ohne dass man vernünftige Abkommen mit anderen Partnern auf Augenhöhe schließt. Und das machen wir genau so, dass wir die gleichen Ziele zusammen mit den Regierungen von Uruguay, Paraguay, Brasilien und Argentinien umsetzen wollen, was den Klimaschutz, was den Schutz der Artenvielfalt und was den Schutz der Arbeitnehmerrechte anbetrifft.

    Das können wir nur gemeinsam machen und nicht mit einem erhobenen Zeigefinger nur hier aus Europa. Liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen, lassen Sie uns doch nicht so defensiv sein! Natürlich, wie Lenny Kravitz sagt: It Ain’t Over ‘Til It´s Over.

    Wir haben jetzt bis nächstes Jahr Zeit, zu gucken, wie die Entwicklung weitergeht. Wie wir es gemeinsam hinkriegen können, falls es Änderungswünsche, Ergänzungswünsche gibt, das umzusetzen. Wir haben das doch in anderen Handelsabkommen auch gemacht. Wir sind die Kraft, die letztendlich dafür sorgt, dass ein Abkommen ein gutes Abkommen wird.

    Und wir brauchen stabile Abkommen in einer globalen Welt, die von Konflikten gekennzeichnet ist. Ohne stabile Bedingungen in unserer wirtschaftlichen Situation, gerade wenn 40 % unseres BIP vom internationalen Handel abhängig sind, können wir nicht weiter existieren. Wir geben unsere Wohlfahrtssituation auf. Deswegen brauchen wir stabile Verhältnisse. Wir wollen uns nicht Autokraten dieser Welt anheimgeben. Deswegen lassen Sie uns Abkommen diskutieren, gegebenenfalls verbessern, aber gestalten!

    (Der Redner ist damit einverstanden, auf mehrere Fragen nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“ zu antworten.)

     
       





     

      Raffaele Stancanelli (PfE). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signor Commissario, è economicamente comprovato come il libero mercato porti sviluppo e benessere economico ed è per questo che, in linea di principio, noi siamo favorevoli allo stesso. Tuttavia, è fondamentale che gli accordi siano proficui per entrambe le parti. Questo non è il caso per il Mercosur.

    Gli agricoltori e gli allevatori stanno disperatamente cercando di farci capire la gravità dell’impatto che questo accordo potrebbe avere per le loro attività. I nostri agricoltori si troverebbero in una posizione di svantaggio economico e non potrebbero competere con i grandi latifondisti sudamericani. A questo squilibrio si aggiunga la grande contraddizione green della Commissione: da un lato impone norme sempre più rigide ai nostri agricoltori, dall’altro permette che il nostro mercato venga invaso da prodotti esteri che non rispettano gli stessi standard imposti in Europa, specie sotto il profilo fitosanitario e quello della sostenibilità ambientale e sociale.

    È un fatto ideologico dire che questo non è un accordo equo? No, noi pensiamo di no. Perché se è vero che gli accordi di libero scambio portano benefici, è altresì vero che il Mercosur, così come è strutturato, danneggia e svende i nostri agricoltori, produttori, allevatori e consumatori. Forse sarebbe il caso di non restare chiusi nei palazzi, ma ascoltare con umiltà chi lavora la terra e produce ricchezza.

     
       

     

      Rihards Kols (ECR). – Madam President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, trade agreements aren’t just about tariffs and paperwork; they create real opportunities. For our SMEs this means access to a market of 260 million consumers. So far, all EU trade agreements have delivered benefits while maintaining high standards. It’s a fact. This deal does the same: lowering tariffs, cutting red tape and ensuring fair competition.

    Yes, concerns exist. That’s why the Commission has announced a EUR 1 billion fund to support affected farmers. But if we can fund compensation, we should also fund opportunity. A one-stop EU platform should be established for Mercosur markets that will help our businesses expand without excessive costs, because access should not be a privilege but a policy priority.

    Commissioner, you must ensure a structured engagement similar to the CFSP and CSDP. We should have a CTP conference during every presidency, where civil society and national parliamentarians can engage with the European Parliament and with the Commission. This is a chance to expand, compete and lead – and we should take it.

     
       

     

      Marie-Pierre Vedrenne (Renew). – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, voitures allemandes contre agriculture française: certains voudraient réduire l’accord de commerce entre le Mercosur et l’Union européenne à ce clivage. À mes collègues, notamment allemands, je vous le dis, je ne me ferai pas complice de cette instrumentalisation.

    C’est une hérésie, une faiblesse politique abyssale que de nourrir un protectionnisme exacerbé qui ne fait que creuser des divisions et empêche toute évolution. Ce n’est pas un combat entre États européens que nous devons amplifier, mais notre crédibilité à construire des partenariats durables et équitables avec des États tiers avec qui nous dialoguons et commerçons déjà. Ce n’est pas une opposition entre secteurs qui est en débat, mais notre engagement à transformer des chaînes de valeur pour qu’elles soient durables, résilientes et sûres.

    Alors, au-delà des postures, de nombreuses questions demeurent, dont celle-ci: avons-nous, nous Européens, la capacité de contrôler les produits qui rentrent sur notre marché, accords de commerce ou non? Alors soyons à la hauteur de tous les enjeux. Ne laissons pas la souveraineté, la durabilité, la compétitivité devenir de vagues concepts déconnectés des réalités, de la vie de nos industries, de nos agricultures, de nos concitoyens.

     
       

     

      Vicent Marzà Ibáñez (Verts/ALE). – Señora presidenta, señor comisario, no se pueden hacer trampas al solitario. No puede usted decir que es bueno para el sector agrícola europeo y, al mismo tiempo, decir que hay que aumentar las compensaciones al sector agrícola europeo. ¿En qué quedamos? Si es bueno, no se debe compensar. Si hay que aumentar las compensaciones, no puede ser bueno para el sector agrícola.

    Segunda cuestión: ustedes han conseguido en este Acuerdo con el Mercosur dos unanimidades que son absolutamente increíbles. La primera, unanimidad de todos los sectores agrícolas y sus representantes de Europa, pero también de los países del Mercosur. También han conseguido ustedes la unanimidad en contra de todos los sindicatos europeos y de los sindicatos del Mercosur.

    ¿A quién beneficia este Acuerdo con el Mercosur si tiene en contra a todos los sindicatos agrarios europeos y del Mercosur y a todos los sindicatos de trabajadores europeos y del Mercosur? ¿A quién beneficia? Clarísimamente, a los europeos y a las europeas no, porque nos hace más dependientes. ¿De quién? De las grandes multinacionales, que son a los únicos a los que va a beneficiar.

    Por eso, nosotros estamos en contra, de forma clara y contundente. Necesitamos más apuesta de verdad por los trabajadores y las trabajadoras, más inversión en Europa para hacer una Europa mucho más fuerte, más inversión en la agricultura europea y no más vulnerabilidad y dependencia de terceros y, especialmente, de las grandes multinacionales.

     
       

     

      Luke Ming Flanagan (The Left). – Madam President, in order to properly debate the impact of this proposed agreement – proposed agreement; the title doesn’t say proposed, but we haven’t agreed to it yet – the proposed agreement on beef farmers in the EU, we need to compare like with like. In other words, you cannot compare carcass waste to processed premium beef waste. But that’s what your spin doctors are doing. The reality is that this deal will guarantee that at least 9 % of high-value cuts sold in the EU will come from Mercosur: 209 000 tonnes in a market of 2.3 million.

    I hear people talk of opportunities. If you’re a suckler farmer in the west of Ireland on a 30-hectare farm, where are the opportunities? If it’s a win-win, as you say, why then the need for a compensation package?

    And if there’s money, and EUR 1 billion for a compensation package, how come there’s no money to increase the farmers’ money that they get from the CAP, from what it was in 1991? Farmers in Ireland are facing a 60 % cut in CAP payments since that year.

    You’re talking about a EUR 1 billion compensation package for something that’s a win-win deal. There is no win-win – no win-win in science. You cannot destroy or create energy. It’s rubbish.

     
       

     

      Arno Bausemer (ESN). – Frau Präsidentin! Meine sehr verehrten Damen und Herren! Sehr geehrter Herr Kommissar! Es ist ein großer Fehler, gegen die Bürger Europas Politik zu machen. Es ist ein noch größerer Fehler, Politik gegen diejenigen zu machen, die diese Bürger Europas ernähren, nämlich unsere Landwirte.

    Die hohe Qualität der Produkte, die unsere Landwirte produzieren, ist weltweit einmalig. Wenn man sich anschaut oder anhört, was hier teilweise gesagt wird, dann ist es eben falsch. Es ist kein Wettbewerb, wenn man andere Standards – viel niedrigere Standards, etwa in den Mercosur-Staaten – mit den Standards vergleicht, die wir hier in Sachen Qualität haben. Nun habe ich mich natürlich mit dem Thema beschäftigt. Ich selbst bin kleiner Landwirt im Nebenerwerb und war auch bei den Landwirten bei den Protesten im Oktober in Brüssel; im Dezember auch hier in Straßburg. Wo waren Sie? Wo war die Kommission?

    Sie schicken Polizisten heraus, weil Sie Angst vor den Landwirten haben. Sie sprechen nicht mit den Landwirten. Mein Kollege von der ESN hat gerade den deutschen Bauernpräsidenten zitiert, der ganz klar gesagt hat: Dieser Weg ist falsch! Wir können mit diesen Produkten nicht konkurrieren, weil sie eben viel schlechter sind und weil sie unseren Markt mit geringer Qualität schwemmen. Das ist der Holzweg.

    Meine sehr verehrten Damen und Herren, es ist unsere Aufgabe, dafür Sorge zu tragen, dass die Landwirte ihre hohe Qualität auch in ihren Produkten an den Markt bringen. Nun gibt es Vertreter in diesem Hause – ich denke da besonders an die Grüne Partei –, die der Meinung sind, man könnte die Versorgung mit hochwertigen Proteinen, Vitaminen, Zink, Eisen damit herstellen, dass man den Bürgern getrocknete gelbe Mehlwürmer vorsetzt und nicht hochwertiges Fleisch. Das ist der Fehler. Ich rufe gerade die Kollegen – sind ja auch welche da – von der Europäischen Volkspartei dazu auf: Lassen Sie die Grünen bitte links liegen, im wahrsten Sinne des Wortes. Lassen Sie diese Politik auf den Scheiterhaufen der Geschichte verschwinden. Machen Sie Politik für die Bürger Europas!

    Ich sage Ihnen noch eines zum Abschluss: Die AfD in Deutschland als Teil einer Regierung wird dieses Mercosur-Abkommen niemals unterstützen. Wenn Sie in der Kommission auf die Idee kommen sollten, das mit irgendwelchen rechtlichen Tricksereien zu umgehen – wir stehen an der Seite der Landwirte in der ersten Reihe bei den Protesten und werden dieses Abkommen verhindern.

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

     
       





     

      Katarína Roth Neveďalová (NI). – Vážená pani predsedajúca, ideálna dohoda neexistuje. Dohoda je kompromis a umenie možného a ja si myslím, že aj vy to tak rozprávate o farmároch. Neviem, kde ste boli, keď sme hovorili o slovenských a východoeurópskych farmároch a o zaplavení produktmi z Ukrajiny poľnohospodárskeho pôvodu. Ale myslím si, že v tomto prípade by sme mali byť pragmatickí. Farmárom pomôžeme znížením záťaže a nezmyselnej byrokracie, podporou spotreby domácich produktov a potravín, zvyšovaním platov, udržaním pracovných miest. A práve udržanie pracovných miest je podpora priemyslu a konkurencieschopnosti, ktorú ponúka práve dohoda Mercosur. A ja ju vidím ako príležitosť pre európsku ekonomiku, pretože sme orientovaní exportne. Príležitosť pre otvorenie ďalších trhov a presne, ako aj komisár Šefčovič hovoril, zníženie záťaže, čo sa týka ciel a daní alebo taríf na naše napríklad automobily, ktoré pre Slovensko sú veľmi dôležité, je určite príležitosťou a, myslím si, že pozitívom dohody Mercosur. Vyjednávalo sa to viac ako 20 rokov. Veľa sa o tom rozprávalo, snažili sa byť naozaj pragmatickí a vidieť, aká je príležitosť v tom všetkom, čo môžeme s touto dohodou dosiahnuť.

    A rada by som upozornila aj na to, čo pán komisár hovoril: my sa tu rozprávame o nejakej kvalite potravín a o tom, že nechceme dovážať a chceme naše fytosanitárne štandardy. Komisia nám jasne povedala, že naše fytosanitárne štandardy budú dodržiavané a že to súčasťou tejto dohody je. Tak tu neklamme našich voličov a občanov Európskej únie.

     
       

     

      Davor Ivo Stier (PPE). – Poštovana predsjedavajuća, kolegice i kolege, u trenutku kada se svjetska trgovina fragmentira, za Europu je strateški važno osigurati trgovinske partnere s kojima ima ugovorom uređene odnose. U takvim okolnostima sporazum s MERCOSUR dobiva novu geopolitičku težinu za naše odnose s Latinskom Amerikom. Iako nas povezuju povijest i kultura, bez ovog sporazuma Europa neće moći se nositi sa sve jačom konkurencijom globalnih igrača. Prisutnih u Latinskoj Americi. I ne samo prisutnih. Kina je već danas prvi trgovinski partner za veliki broj zemalja ove regije. Stoga nema dvojbe da je ovaj sporazum potreban, da, za europsku industriju, ali i općenito za europsku ekonomiju. No, isto tako je točno da postoji potreba za dijalogom s poljoprivrednicima. Za Hrvatsku poljoprivrednu komoru, tri su sektora osjetljiva. Govedarstvo, peradarstvo i šećerna industrija. I zato je važno komunicirati da su sporazumom dogovorene kvote za uvoz tih proizvoda od svega 1,2 % do 1,5 % ukupne potrošnje na europskom tržištu. I uz to, te male kvote uvodit će se postupno. Dakle, europsko tržište neće biti poplavljeno poljoprivrednim proizvodima iz Južne Amerike, ali, da, Komisija mora pripremiti paket kompenzacijskih mjera koji bi se mogao aktivirati u slučaju potrebe. Dakle, MERCOSUR nije prijetnja, ali jest prilika da Europa bude konkurentna na svjetskom tržištu.

     
       


     

      Valérie Deloge (PfE). – Madame la Présidente, ce traité de libre-échange entre l’Union européenne et l’Amérique du Sud est en réalité une menace pour notre agriculture, notre environnement et notre souveraineté économique. Cet accord met en concurrence directe nos agriculteurs avec des productions dont les normes environnementales et sanitaires sont bien moins strictes.

    Vous sacrifiez nos filières européennes, déjà en crise, pour vendre vos voitures allemandes. Le Mercosur favorise un modèle économique basé sur l’exportation intensive et la destruction des écosystèmes. Il affaiblit notre souveraineté en inondant nos marchés de produits à bas coûts, il détruit les filières locales et fragilise nos producteurs au profit des multinationales. L’accord avec le Mercosur n’est pas un progrès, c’est une régression économique et environnementale. Il est urgent de le refuser et de défendre une agriculture juste, durable et locale.

    Sachez qu’un agriculteur se suicide tous les deux jours en France. Je pense que, en signant cet accord, les commissaires, Mme von der Leyen et les députés qui le signeront seront le dernier clou qui fermeront leur cercueil.

    (L’oratrice refuse des questions carton bleu de Marie-Pierre Vedrenne et Manon Aubry.)

     
       

     

      Patryk Jaki (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Panie Komisarzu! Wszystko, co mówicie w sprawie umowy z Mercosurem, przypomina dokładnie sytuację z Nord Streamem. Wiele osób w tej Izbie mówiło wam, że pozbywanie się własnych strategicznych zasobów energetycznych na rzecz importu gazu z zewnątrz da krótkotrwałe zyski niewielu, a w dłuższej perspektywie skończy się tragedią.

    No i co? I dzisiaj mamy dokładnie to samo. Chcecie zniszczyć europejskie rolnictwo, żeby sprzedawać samochody, które przestały być konkurencyjne między innymi przez was, przez Zielony Ład. Problem tylko polega na tym, że rolnictwo to nie tylko żywność, miejsca pracy, ale przede wszystkim bezpieczeństwo. I przestańcie kłamać, że to nie ma żadnego wpływu na rolnictwo. Gdyby tak było, to nie przedstawialibyście żadnych pakietów rekompensacyjnych. Po co takie pakiety?

    Zakładacie, że żywność do Europy zawsze będzie można ściągnąć. Tak samo myśleliście z gazem. No i co, pytam. Chyba, że zakładacie, że Europejczycy zawsze sobie jakoś poradzą, bo dopuściliście do jedzenia robaki. Ale tak naprawdę to was trzeba wykopać, a nie rolników. Im trzeba dziękować, bo mamy najlepszą żywność na świecie, i nie pozwolimy wam tego zniszczyć.

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

     
       

     

      Jörgen Warborn (PPE), blue-card question. – You said that the agreement will destroy the farmers. That is absolutely not true. Look back and see the agreement, which was actually beneficial for the farmers, even though a lot of people said that it would destroy the farmers.

    The Commission has, on the other side, done a very good job. They have TRQs, they have safeguards, and they have a compensation package. How can you say that it will destroy farmers? We recognise that there are sensitive products, but that’s why the Commission has worked with us. This will help the farmers. It is beneficial for the wine sector, for cheese, for a lot of businesses.

     
       

     

      Patryk Jaki (ECR), odpowiedź na pytanie zadane przez podniesienie niebieskiej kartki. – Jeżeli to jest tak, jak Pan mówi, że rolnicy na tym zyskają, to pytanie jest kluczowe, to dlaczego protestują? Pan myśli, że oni są głupkami, że nie wiedzą, co robią? Pan się lepiej zna na ich działalności niż oni sami? Ja uważam wprost przeciwnie. Poza tym, uważam, jest błąd logiczny w Pana pytaniu, bo skoro Pan twierdzi, że oni na tym zyskają, to po co pakiety rekompensacyjne? No po co? To szkoda pieniędzy. Lepiej przeznaczyć je na innowacje. Więc przykro mi.

    Dokładnie to samo na tej sali słyszałem w sprawie Nord Streamu. Jeszcze raz to powtórzę – twierdziliście, że nie będzie żadnego problemu. I co? Rolnictwo to jest nasze bezpieczeństwo.

     
       


     

      Marie Toussaint (Verts/ALE), question «carton bleu». – Madame Karlsbro, merci. Vous dites que vous ne comprenez pas pourquoi certains et certaines s’opposent à l’accord avec le Mercosur que, très manifestement, vous soutenez.

    Or, signer cet accord avec le Mercosur, le mettre en œuvre, c’est dire aux agriculteurs, qui souffrent déjà, qui crèvent déjà, de la faible rémunération liée à la vente de leurs produits, que nous allons les soumettre à une concurrence plus dure encore sur les produits les plus rémunérateurs.

    Signer et ratifier cet accord avec le Mercosur, c’est dire aux parents qui voient déjà leurs enfants souffrir, voire mourir, de cancers liés à l’exposition aux produits toxiques que nous allons continuer, voire même aggraver, cette exposition.

    Signer et ratifier l’accord du Mercosur, c’est dire aux citoyennes et aux citoyens européens que Javier Milei, la tronçonneuse à la main, qui sort de l’Organisation mondiale de la santé et terrorise ses citoyens, est un partenaire fiable pour l’Union européenne. Voilà pourquoi nous nous opposons à cet accord du Mercosur. Et je vous en prie…

    (La Présidente retire la parole à l’oratrice)

     
       



     

      Alexander Bernhuber (PPE), Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“. – Vielleicht möchte ich schon etwas Nachhilfe in Ackerbau und Viehzucht geben, was Landwirtschaft betrifft, weil Sie ja sagen, die Landwirtschaft profitiert. Die Landwirtschaft ist aber sehr vielseitig, und ein Bauer, der vielleicht gerade einen Stall gebaut hat, kann keinen Wein pflanzen und jetzt in Mercosur-Ländern Wein verkaufen.

    Also, man muss hier genau schauen, welche landwirtschaftlichen Sektoren durch dieses Handelsabkommen benachteiligt werden. Ich verstehe nicht, warum nicht einfach die Landwirtschaft von diesem Abkommen ausgenommen worden ist – wo man genau weiß, das ist der kritische Sektor, da gibt es die größten Bedenken.

     
       


     

      Thomas Waitz (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, Commissioner, has the Commissioner been listening to the family farmers on both sides of the Atlantic that urge us not to sign this trade agreement? Or have you been listening to the big land‑owning oligarchs that are teaming up with the agrochemical multinationals that run thousands of hectares‑big farms, spreading pesticides that are banned in Europe with aeroplanes?

    Have you been listening to the indigenous communities and Quilombo communities that came all the way to Brussels to report about their poisoned rivers, their poisoned wells, their burned‑down forests, the deforestation and the attacks on them. Have you been listening to the labour organisation that reports about child labour, about forced labour, but in very high numbers?

    Yes, we need to increase our cooperation with Mercosur. Yes, we need to increase our cooperation with democracies. But as it stands, this trade agreement, in my point of view, is not fit for purpose. We still need to work on that and need to improve it. As it stands, this trade deal is toxic for the planet and the people.

     
       


     

      Francisco José Millán Mon (PPE). – Señora presidenta, la comunidad internacional se encuentra en una situación de fragmentación, creciente polarización, abundancia de conflictos y auge del proteccionismo. En este contexto es oportuno para la Unión Europea reforzar las relaciones políticas y económicas con los países del Mercosur, con los que tantos vínculos compartimos. Son aliados naturales nuestros.

    No disponemos todavía de la versión final de la parte del diálogo político y cooperación del Acuerdo, señor comisario, pero entiendo que establece mecanismos institucionales que permitirán reforzar nuestras relaciones políticas y abordar de forma más coordinada los retos comunes y los retos globales, desde la lucha contra el narcotráfico hasta el cambio climático.

    El Acuerdo con el Mercosur nos ayudará también a contener la importante presencia de China en la región. La dimensión económica y comercial del Acuerdo ofrece muchas oportunidades para las empresas europeas. En efecto, el Acuerdo supone el fin de la tradicional política proteccionista de economías tan grandes como la de Brasil y la de Argentina y facilitará así el acceso de los productos europeos y de nuestras compañías al Mercosur.

    Necesitamos un diálogo permanente con los sectores que temen verse perjudicados, particularmente ganaderos y muchos agricultores. Hay que explicar el alcance real del Acuerdo, las cuotas, las cláusulas de salvaguarda, las posibles medidas compensatorias, y avanzar también, internamente en la Unión, en reformas que reduzcan la burocracia y simplifiquen la legislación, y facilitar así la labor y asegurar la competitividad de unos sectores víctimas estos años de una auténtica sobrerregulación.

    Espero que la Brújula para la Competitividad, señor comisario, contribuya también a ello. Queda trabajo por hacer.

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

     
       



     

      Brando Benifei (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, l’accordo con il Mercosur è un’intesa di grande rilevanza geopolitica e potrebbe ridefinire gli equilibri globali. Per l’Unione europea rappresenta un’opportunità strategica per rafforzare la propria presenza in America latina e contrastare l’influenza di altre superpotenze.

    Tuttavia, per decidere se possiamo votarlo, è essenziale valutarne l’impatto su lavoratori, imprese, agricoltura e ambiente, assicurando che siano rispettate regole chiare e condivise. L’inserimento dell’accordo di Parigi e del capitolo su commercio e sviluppo sostenibile sono passi positivi, ma permangono nodi irrisolti che vanno approfonditi: il meccanismo di riequilibrio, la risoluzione delle controversie, l’efficacia delle misure contro la deforestazione, ma anche la necessità di rafforzare il sistema doganale per garantire la sicurezza del mercato interno e dei consumatori.

    Come Socialisti e Democratici abbiamo avviato un dialogo con la Commissione, le parti sociali e le ONG per valutare ogni aspetto dell’accordo. Mi rivolgo in particolare alla Commissione: abbiamo un anno per dare risposte, come istituzioni, alle questioni sollevate dagli europei, per agire sulle criticità in modo convincente, con provvedimenti e azioni e poter quindi convincere anche questo Parlamento della bontà dell’accordo. Dobbiamo lavorare insieme e poi potremo decidere cosa fare.

     
       

     

      Tiago Moreira de Sá (PfE). – Senhora Presidente, Senhor Comissário, apoiamos firmemente o comércio livre, reconhecendo os seus benefícios para o crescimento económico e a prosperidade das nações. Conhecemos bem a história dos anos 20 e 30 do século passado e não queremos repeti‑la. Acreditamos também que o Acordo da União Europeia‑Mercosul tem vantagens geopolíticas, como a contenção da influência crescente da China na América do Sul e o fortalecimento do eixo Atlântico da Europa. Mas, como sempre, definiremos as nossas posições em função dos nossos interesses nacionais, especialmente os dos nossos agricultores, pescadores, industriais e pequenos e médios comerciantes, que constituem a espinha dorsal da nossa economia. Estamos em contacto constante com os empresários e trabalhadores dos setores abrangidos pelo Acordo, pois ninguém conhece melhor a realidade do que eles. As suas preocupações são legítimas, especialmente face à concorrência de produtos de países terceiros que não cumprem os mesmos padrões de qualidade e segurança que exigimos aos nossos produtores. Temos a obrigação de garantir uma concorrência leal e justa, e de assegurar que os nossos setores produtivos são devidamente salvaguardados. Assim o faremos.

     
       

     

      Kris Van Dijck (ECR). – Voorzitter, commissaris, ik verwelkom het akkoord met Mercosur met open armen, want het is niet alleen het grootste handelsakkoord dat de EU ooit gesloten heeft, maar is ook belangrijk om drie redenen.

    Op een moment dat de Amerikaanse president Trump tarieven oplegt aan ons staal en ons aluminium, is het de hoogste tijd om nieuwe markten aan te boren en bovendien dat terrein niet alleen over te laten aan China. Ten tweede bevestigt het ons geloof in vrije, op regels gebaseerde handel en geeft het zuurstof aan onze bedrijven. Ten slotte biedt het akkoord wel degelijk kansen op een verbetering van de arbeidsomstandigheden en wat betreft de strijd tegen de klimaatverandering.

    Maar ik begrijp ook de bezorgdheid van onze landbouwers wanneer het gaat over mogelijke toenemende concurrentie. Voor ons is het dan ook helder dat er daarvoor afspraken moeten zijn, dat er een voortdurende monitoring moet zijn, dat de Europese veiligheids- en gezondheidsnormen ook voor hun producten van tel moeten zijn en, finaal, dat er een steunpakket kan zijn indien dat nodig is. Op die manier geloven wij in dit akkoord met Mercosur.

     
       

     

      Benoit Cassart (Renew). – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, à plusieurs reprises, nous avons tiré la sonnette d’alarme sur l’impact de l’accord avec le Mercosur à propos de la déforestation, de la perte de biodiversité et du risque sanitaire. Regardons maintenant l’impact de cet accord sur notre autonomie stratégique.

    Le rapport Draghi a souligné l’efficacité de la Chine et des États-Unis par rapport à l’Europe. Pourtant, ces deux puissances ont toutes les deux décidé de protéger leurs marchés et leurs agriculteurs pour favoriser leur autonomie alimentaire. Pour rappel, la population mondiale a augmenté de 82 millions de bouches à nourrir en 2024. Être en mesure de produire son alimentation est un pilier fondamental de l’autonomie stratégique. Or, seulement 6 % des agriculteurs ont moins de 35 ans dans l’Union européenne.

    Monsieur le Commissaire, est-il vraiment raisonnable d’ouvrir les portes aux produits moins durables d’Amérique du Sud, alors que rien ne motive déjà les jeunes Européens à reprendre nos fermes?

    Cet accord n’a rien à voir avec le CETA, qui était un bon accord.

     
       



     

      Herbert Dorfmann (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin! Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Mit dem Mercosur-Abkommen plant die EU zum ersten Mal ein Handelsabkommen mit einem Partner, dessen primäres Interesse natürlich der Export von Agrargütern ist.

    Nicht, dass wir dort heute nicht einkaufen würden: Aus Brasilien kaufen wir im Jahr um 17 Mrd. EUR Lebensmittel, aus Argentinien um 5 Mrd. EUR – es sind also bereits wichtige Handelspartner. Aber, und das wurde heute auch gesagt, das Abkommen könnte natürlich einige Sektoren der Landwirtschaft treffen: Rindfleisch, Geflügelfleisch, Zucker, Bioethanol, Reis oder Zitrusfrüchte, um nur einige zu nennen.

    Natürlich gibt es auch Chancen für andere Bereiche in der Landwirtschaft, das steht außer Zweifel. Und natürlich gibt es ein geopolitisches Interesse an diesem Abkommen, das unterstütze ich ausdrücklich. Die Europäische Union verliert derzeit schnell – und in den letzten Stunden noch schneller – Partner und Freunde in der gesamten Welt, und unsere fehlende Entscheidungsfreude – und 25 Jahre Abkommen und Reden über Mercosur sind vielleicht ein Symbol dafür – zeigt, dass wir es uns nicht erlauben können, Partnern, möglichen Partnern die Tür vor der Nase zuzuschlagen.

    Aber wir brauchen eine Strategie für die Landwirtschaft, und die Strategie kann nicht nur einfach das Versprechen auf 1 Mrd. EUR sein. Wir brauchen ein Konzept, Sicherheiten für die Bäuerinnen und Bauern, Maßnahmen, um neue Märkte in der Welt zu erschließen. Und dann brauchen wir eine Finanzierung für dieses Konzept. Aber zuerst brauchen wir ein Konzept, und dann brauchen wir das notwendige Geld dazu.

    Ich bitte Sie, Herr Kommissar, sich zügig auf den Weg zu machen, um ein solches Konzept vorzulegen und die Bedenken, die es in der Landwirtschaft gibt, aus dem Weg zu räumen.

     
       

     

      Francisco Assis (S&D). – Senhora Presidente, Senhor Comissário, este acordo é bom para a União Europeia sob o ponto de vista político, sob o ponto de vista económico e sob o ponto de vista comercial. A União Europeia tem todo o interesse em reforçar as suas ligações com os países do Mercosul. Nós temos profundas afinidades históricas, culturais e políticas com essa região. Estamos a falar de um conjunto de democracias. Devemos aprofundar essas relações e nada melhor do que avançar com o tratado. Num tempo em que regressa em força o protecionismo e o mercantilismo, nós temos de manifestar sinais de abertura, um acordo de livre comércio e um acordo que visa regular de forma adequada as relações com outra região do mundo. Nós não queremos uma Europa fechada sobre si própria. Nós queremos uma Europa aberta. A Europa precisa de se relacionar com outras regiões do mundo. Precisamos de obter matérias‑primas que nós não temos no nosso continente. Precisamos de estabelecer relações comerciais que vão dinamizar as nossas economias e, por isso mesmo, é fundamental garantir finalmente a concretização deste acordo.

    Mas há uma coisa que aqui quero dizer. É legítimo, naturalmente, estar contra este acordo, mas o que eu tenho verificado, infelizmente, acho que em alguma esquerda e muita direita, é que há um verdadeiro discurso trumpista contra este acordo, porque é um discurso assente na falsificação da realidade e um discurso assente na tentativa de produzir o medo junto das populações. Façamos um debate sério, um debate na base dos factos, um debate na base daquilo que efetivamente está no acordo e não naquilo que alguns querem fazer crer que está no acordo, mas efetivamente não está lá. Este acordo é um acordo que deve, pode e deve ser discutido. Nós estamos aqui a iniciar essa discussão democrática. Somos um espaço aberto e democrático, mas temos a obrigação de o fazer com rigor.

    (O orador aceita responder a várias perguntas «cartão azul»)

     
       

     

      João Oliveira (The Left), Pergunta segundo o procedimento «cartão azul». – Senhor Deputado Francisco Assis, se este acordo é assim tão bom, porque é que a Comissão está a querer impedir os Estados‑Membros de fazerem o seu escrutínio nacional? Porque é que a Comissão está a querer dividir o acordo em dois, para impedir o escrutínio nacional pelos Estados-Membros que eventualmente possam impedir a entrada em vigor deste acordo? Não acha que isto é a confirmação dos prejuízos que podem resultar deste acordo em termos ambientais, em termos económicos, em termos sociais? As preocupações que têm sido colocadas pelos agricultores, relativamente à destruição da sua atividade económica por uma competição desleal, com produções a custos mais baixos, mas com riscos para os consumidores, são preocupações objetivas, Senhor Deputado. Não as ignore.

     
       

     

      Francisco Assis (S&D), Resposta segundo o procedimento «cartão azul». – Senhor Deputado João Oliveira, não desvalorize a importância democrática deste Parlamento Europeu. O acordo vai ser discutido e vai ser votado aqui no Parlamento Europeu; e este Parlamento é a expressão também da vontade dos vários países, dos vários povos, dos vários Estados europeus. O acordo é, do meu ponto de vista, um acordo bom, é um acordo que protege, no essencial, os interesses europeus. Haverá alguns setores que podem perder. Em todos os acordos há sempre esse risco. Então aí temos de encontrar mecanismos, cláusulas de salvaguarda, fundos de apoio e é isso que está previsto. Portanto, esse discurso, que é um discurso que visa criar medo na sociedade europeia, junto de determinados setores da sociedade europeia, é um discurso que não serve os interesses daqueles que supostamente os senhores estão a representar e a defender.

     
       


     

      Francisco Assis (S&D), Resposta segundo o procedimento «cartão azul». – Muito obrigado pela pergunta. O acordo, no essencial, como já tive oportunidade de dizer, é um acordo que garante e protege os vários setores económicos europeus. Nomeadamente no campo da agricultura, nós temos de fazer esse debate. Vamos ver quem ganha e, eventualmente, quem perde. Se houver alguns setores agrícolas europeus que venham a perder, evidentemente que nós temos, a nível europeu, de encontrar mecanismos de compensação, e é isso que temos feito ao longo dos anos. Se há um setor na União Europeia que tem beneficiado bastante dos apoios europeus é precisamente o setor da agricultura. É provavelmente o setor económico que mais tem beneficiado do apoio ao longo dos anos, ao longo das várias décadas de existência da União Europeia. Agora, o que também não é aceitável é o discurso que se faz em relação ao estado da agricultura naqueles países. Eu conheço esses países todos, visitei‑os várias vezes. Nesses países não vigora a lei da selva. São democracias, são democracias com Estados de direito e são democracias cada vez mais preocupadas em acompanhar as grandes agendas nas questões do combate às alterações climáticas, à desflorestação, etc. Também não façamos tão mau juízo dos países …

    (a Presidente retira a palavra ao orador)

     
       

     

      Mireia Borrás Pabón (PfE). – Señora presidenta, señor comisario, vamos a decirles la verdad a los europeos. Ustedes no quieren agricultura, ustedes no quieren ganadería, ustedes no quieren pesca. Por eso, primero asfixian al sector primario con su tiranía verde y ahora vienen a rematarles con este Acuerdo con el Mercosur, un pacto que inundará Europa con carne hormonada, soja transgénica y otros productos que no estarán sometidos a ninguno de los estándares sanitarios y medioambientales que exigen a nuestros productores europeos.

    ¿Y cómo compite, señor comisario, un ganadero europeo que soporta el 15 % de costes regulatorios frente a una carne hormonada de Brasil que no cumple con ninguno de estos requisitos? Pues no compite, señor comisario, se arruina, y eso es precisamente lo que ustedes quieren. España ha perdido más de 70 000 explotaciones agrarias en la última década. Europa, más de cinco millones. Veo que no les parece suficiente. ¿Y saben qué es lo más indignante? Que vengan aquí a hablarnos de sostenibilidad, mientras destruyen el medio rural de los europeos; que nos hablen de competitividad, mientras condenan a nuestro sector primario a la ruina.

    Este Acuerdo es un chollo para las grandes multinacionales y una sentencia de muerte para la producción familiar, para el medio ambiente y, sobre todo, para la seguridad alimentaria de los europeos. Mientras el Partido Popular y el Partido Socialista lo aplauden, nosotros decimos alto y claro que no vamos a ser el vertedero agrícola de sus intereses globalistas.

    (La oradora acepta responder a una pregunta formulada con arreglo al procedimiento de la «tarjeta azul»)

     
       



     

      Veronika Vrecionová (ECR). – Paní předsedající, pane komisaři, já rozumím obavám zemědělců ze snížení cel, které přinese obchodní dohoda s Mercosurem, a proto s nimi musíme intenzivně jednat a hledat pro ně přijatelná řešení.

    Jsem ale hluboce přesvědčena, že volný obchod přináší zdravou konkurenci, snižuje ceny pro spotřebitele, vede k inovacím a investicím. Evropským firmám i zemědělcům nabízí dohoda nová stabilní odbytiště, přístup ke strategickým surovinám i levnější dovoz komodit, které neumíme sami vypěstovat. Dohoda navíc obsahuje evropské standardy pro bezpečnost potravin i kontrolní mechanismy. Dohoda s Mercosurem je také šancí pro evropské firmy v době, kdy hrozí obchodní válka s USA, kdy Putin svou agresí zablokoval obchod s Ruskem a Čína je bezpečnostně problematickým partnerem. Proto má dohoda mou podporu.

     
       

     

      Barry Cowen (Renew). – Madam President, Commissioner, colleagues, we face a new global reality today, with countries retreating from trade and turning to protectionism. Amidst this shift, it’s natural for the EU to seek new trading partners. In doing so, however, we must continue to uphold our principles by ensuring a level playing field.

    As it stands, the Mercosur deal lacks key guarantees and imposes demands on Europe’s farmers not matched by Mercosur nations. On the whole, for example, Ireland’s agricultural industry has three strategic goals, all with EU competences: extending the nitrates derogation, an increased CAP budget and stopping a Mercosur deal that farmers believe threatens beef exports.

    If the Commission were to provide meaningful assurances around the Mercosur deal and firm commitments on the derogations in the next CAP, I believe farmers’ views could shift. Our country, for example, presently enjoys an EUR 800 million trade surplus with Mercosur nations.

    This deal has the potential to bring about further opportunities, but good politics is ultimately about compromise. Good politics! And the question now is whether the Commission will prove its political astuteness by strengthening the deal and providing strategic assurances on the CAP and the derogation – or not!

     
       




     

      Lídia Pereira (PPE). – Senhora Presidente, tarifas é o assunto do momento. Fiat, Volkswagen, Renault estão entre as dez marcas mais vendidas no Mercosul. Pagam taxas de 35 %, tanto quanto a nossa indústria da moda, e os nossos vinhos, mundialmente reconhecidos, 27 %. Reduzir ou eliminar tarifas não será uma boa notícia. As terras raras que estes países têm e que nós precisamos para a transição energética? Devem ter reparado que o sistema elétrico do Báltico foi integrado na rede europeia há três dias. O investimento na nossa indústria de defesa? Queremos lançar satélites de baixa órbita, queremos usar caças Eurofighter ou Super Rafale em vez dos F-35 americanos? Queremos que o sistema de defesa SAMP/T Mamba seja uma alternativa ao Patriot? Pois é, mas o Brasil processa 89 % do nióbio a nível mundial e a Argentina, 11 % do lítio. Será que podemos mesmo deitar fora um acordo com o Mercosul? Não, não podemos.

    (A oradora aceita responder a várias perguntas «cartão azul»)

     
       

     

      Isabella Tovaglieri (PfE), domanda “cartellino blu”. – Onorevole Pereira, Lei ha citato delle case automobilistiche europee che, grazie a questo trattato, potrebbero finalmente vendere le loro auto in Sudamerica. Ma a Lei sfugge che oggi, grazie alle miopi politiche europee, queste aziende non vendono più un’auto in Europa. Stellantis nel 2024 ha registrato il -36 % di vendite di auto in Europa; 300 000 auto vendute: numeri da anni ’50. E questo perché, se nel 2025 non vengono eliminate le sanzioni, queste case automobilistiche, per rispettare i target, sa che cosa stanno già facendo? Stanno diminuendo la produzione di auto tradizionali. L’alternativa è acquistare certificati verdi da case che producono auto fuori dall’Europa. Quindi forse questi dazi anziché metterli, anzi…

    (La Presidente toglie la parola all’oratrice)

     
       



     

      Lídia Pereira (PPE), Resposta segundo o procedimento «cartão azul». – Senhora Deputada, agradeço a pergunta, apesar de ter vindo mesmo à última hora. Como deve saber, ou pelo menos eu espero que saiba, porque de facto há muita desinformação que vem da sua bancada, há quotas previstas para a importação de produtos agrícolas, há mecanismos de controlo sanitário. E, contas feitas, a quantidade de carne a importar corresponde a cerca de um bife de vaca e a um peito de frango por cada europeu. Portanto, eu não estaria tão preocupada, porque já falámos e já ouvimos o Senhor Comissário relativamente às garantias e às salvaguardas que estão previstas no acordo para o setor agrícola. Temos de perceber que estamos a falar de geopolítica, e estarmos completamente cerrados nas nossas fronteiras vai ter consequências para o crescimento económico da União Europeia.

     
       



     

      Eric Sargiacomo (S&D). – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, beaucoup de choses ont été dites. Je vais me concentrer sur les conditions de la réciprocité et, question centrale, d’un juste échange, tant pour un aspect de concurrence déloyale que sur le plan de la santé publique, de la sauvegarde environnementale ou encore des droits sociaux.

    En matière de sécurité sanitaire, si nous interdisons des produits sanitaires en Europe parce qu’ils sont CMR – cancérigènes, mutagènes, reprotoxiques – avérés par la science, alors il est de notre devoir de faire de cette interdiction une obligation absolue. Car la garantie de la santé est d’ordre public, ici et là-bas. Elle doit s’imposer à tout décideur, à tout traité, à tout accord. Cette exigence doit entraîner l’obligation de conformité des produits que nous importons, au-delà des contrôles douaniers aléatoires ou de limites maximales de résidus de pesticides, dont nous connaissons tous les failles.

    Ces produits doivent faire l’objet d’un véritable certificat de conformité délivré de façon indépendante, selon un cahier des charges établi par l’Union européenne. En l’absence d’une telle garantie, l’Europe engagera sa responsabilité pour mise en danger de la vie d’autrui, ici et là-bas. La confiance n’exclut pas le contrôle. Pour l’instant, les conditions de la confiance ne sont pas là, même pour un milliard hypothétique.

     
       

       

    PRESIDE: ESTEBAN GONZÁLEZ PONS
    Vicepresidente

     
       

     

      Gilles Pennelle (PfE). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, je voudrais vous parler d’un éleveur de poulets breton qui s’appelle Patrick.

    Il travaille longuement toute la journée et, le soir, il consacre de nombreuses heures sur son ordinateur à gérer le tsunami de vos normes: les 160 pages de règles que l’Union européenne a imposées à la filière volaille. Il a vu ses coûts de production augmenter, ses revenus s’effondrer.

    Il apprend un jour que Pedro, éleveur de poulets brésilien, va pouvoir vendre ses poulets chez lui, à des prix bradés. Il apprend que Pedro, lui, n’a pas de normes, ne respecte pas le bien-être animal, utilise même des produits phytosanitaires pour son maïs, alors que Patrick ne le peut pas, et que Pedro utilise des antibiotiques de croissance. Il n’a pas été écouté par la Commission.

    Alors, Patrick m’a demandé de vous poser une question, Monsieur le Commissaire: «Quels intérêts servez-vous pour m’imposer une telle injustice?» Il a même ajouté: «Vous direz au commissaire européen que je ne crois plus en son Europe.»

     
       



     

      Marta Wcisło (PPE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Panie Komisarzu! Umowa handlowa między Unią Europejską a Mercosurem przygotowana w tajemnicy przed rolnikami to nie szansa – mówię to z bólem – a wyrok na europejskie rolnictwo. Mercosur to czarna gradowa chmura, która zniszczy mikro, małe rodzinne gospodarstwa rolne już dziś z trudem stawiające czoła nieuczciwemu handlowi z krajów spoza Unii Europejskiej.

    Polski rynek za poprzedniej władzy zalały już produkty rolne niskiej jakości spoza Unii, takie jak zboże techniczne. Taki mamy wschodni Mercosur, Szanowni Państwo. Dodatkowo polscy rolnicy są obłożeni najbardziej rygorystycznymi restrykcjami. Wprowadzanie zatem na nasze rynki takich produktów jak zboże, mięso, tytoń i cukier z krajów Mercosur o niskiej jakości i cenie zabije polskie i europejskie rolnictwo, zagraża bezpieczeństwu żywnościowemu i zdrowotnemu.

    Szanowni Państwo, apeluję i proszę w imieniu polskich i europejskich rolników o solidarność całej wspólnoty w ochronie rynku rolnego, zdrowia konsumentów i bezpieczeństwa żywnościowego. Mówimy stanowcze „Nie!” produktom niskiej jakości, mówimy stanowcze „Nie!” niebezpiecznej umowie …

    (Przewodniczący odebrał mówczyni głos)

     
       

     

      Javier Moreno Sánchez (S&D). – Señor presidente, señor comisario, señorías, tras la patada que ha dado Trump al tablero comercial mundial es aún más evidente que tenemos que reforzar los lazos económicos y políticos con los países del Mercosur, con los que compartimos, además, valores, principios, intereses y cultura. Son y deben seguir siendo nuestros aliados y nunca el chivo expiatorio de las contradicciones de los populistas, como fue en su día el CETA.

    Este Acuerdo ofrece inmensas oportunidades a los agricultores y responde a sus preocupaciones con largos períodos transitorios, con seguridad y con ayudas a los sectores y productos sensibles. Abre un mercado de doscientos sesenta millones de consumidores a nuestras empresas y, especialmente, a nuestras pymes. Diversifica nuestro acceso a las materias primas críticas y abre los mercados públicos a nuestras empresas. Por último, ofrece garantías medioambientales, sociales y sanitarias que ahora no existen en el comercio entre los dos bloques.

    Por todo ello, los socialistas españoles creemos que es imprescindible aprobar este Acuerdo.

     
       


     

      Oihane Agirregoitia Martínez (Renew). – Señor presidente, señor comisario, Europa lleva más de veinte años negociando este Acuerdo y eso deja en evidencia la complejidad y el esfuerzo extra que necesita en materia de transparencia y de trabajo con los sectores. Parece que vamos a tener beneficios para automoción, maquinaría, herramientas, aeronáutica, servicios avanzados a la industria, productores de vino, lácteos, quesos. Pero también tenemos a parte de una sociedad que está preocupada y a un sector primario que arrastra, además, problemas derivados de la última reforma de la PAC.

    Hablemos claro: uso de hormonas, fitosanitarios y cumplimiento del Acuerdo de París, para garantizar un mercado justo, tienen que estar encima de la mesa. Y necesitamos claridad en torno a productos protegidos, productos cuya apertura va a ser gradual en cuanto al mercado y seguimiento que se va a hacer del impacto e incumplimientos que supondrían el fin del Acuerdo, así como medidas compensatorias y salvaguardas.

    Hay que trabajar todos estos meses que tenemos por delante, con mesas mixtas de trabajo y con el sector, para que, cuando ese Acuerdo llegue a este Parlamento y toque votarlo, podamos hacerlo en consecuencia y esto no sea una guerra entre sectores, sino un espacio de oportunidades colectivas y sociales equilibradas.

     
       

     

      Juan Ignacio Zoido Álvarez (PPE). – Señor presidente, en los Estados Unidos, aranceles; en China, competencia desleal; y, en Rusia, sencillamente la guerra. Este es el balance de las relaciones comerciales a las que nos enfrentamos actualmente. Para Europa el comercio siempre ha sido una herramienta económica, pero Trump, Xi Jinping y Putin lo han convertido en un arma política y con ello están poniendo en riesgo nuestra competitividad, nuestra prosperidad e, incluso, nuestra seguridad.

    Por eso, necesitamos alternativas, necesitamos urgentemente nuevos mercados y el Mercosur supone una oportunidad para impulsar a nuestros exportadores y diversificar nuestras cadenas de suministro.

    Pero no podemos cometer los mismos errores del pasado e ignorar las necesidades de nuestros agricultores y nuestros ganaderos. Tenemos la responsabilidad de darles garantías. Por eso, me parece buena noticia que el Acuerdo cuente con salvaguardas y medidas de reciprocidad sólida para proteger nuestro sector primario. Y todavía más importante es que la Comisión apueste esta legislatura por la reducción de la burocracia verde. Comercio, sí; simplificación, también.

     
       

     

      Dario Nardella (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signor Commissario, è indubbio che il nuovo quadro geopolitico che nasce dalle elezioni americane e l’influenza sempre crescente cinese sul Sud America impongono all’Europa un cambio di schema.

    Dobbiamo rafforzare il nostro impegno su tutti i mercati internazionali, giocare una leadership commerciale. L’Europa vive di export: il 30 % del GDP del nostro continente è legato all’esportazione, e questo vale ancor di più per un paese come l’Italia, il mio paese.

    Per questo il Mercosur, in linea di principio, è uno strumento utile, soprattutto per i settori industriali, come la chimica, le auto, le macchine. Tuttavia, Commissario, possono esserci problemi seri per l’agricoltura.

    Allora ci sono condizioni che la Commissione deve seguire. Primo: la reciprocità. Secondo: controlli con una dogana europea. Terzo: risorse per la promozione, perché non si può tagliare la PAC e poi promuovere il Mercosur. Quarto: questa compensazione di un miliardo di euro ci sarà o no? Quinto: il rispetto degli standard ambientali.

    Un accordo importante deve diventare un buon accordo.

     
       

     

      Ton Diepeveen (PfE). – Voorzitter, de overeenkomst tussen de EU en Mercosur biedt kansen, maar brengt ook vooral risico’s met zich mee. Onze boeren worden uitgeknepen en geconfronteerd met strenge regels, terwijl goedkope import uit Zuid-Amerika zonder problemen binnenkomt.

    Wat de voedselveiligheid betreft, blijkt uit het rapport van de Commissie dat Brazilië gebruik maakt van verboden groeihormonen. Toch blijft de Commissie beweren dat alles onder controle is. Dit vormt een gevaar voor de consument en is een dolksteek in de rug van onze boeren. Wat krijgen wij hiervoor terug? In Nederland een schamele 0,03 % economische groei, terwijl onze veehouders voor de bus worden gegooid.

    Als klap op de vuurpijl pompt Brussel ook 1,8 miljard EUR belastinggeld in Mercosur, waarvan een deel naar boeren in Brazilië gaat, terwijl onze eigen boeren in de kou staan. Er is geen gelijk speelveld, geen eerlijke handel, maar wel nog meer bureaucratie en import uit landen die lak hebben aan onze regels. Dit is waanzin. Schrap dit akkoord. Schroef de Green Deal terug, zodat onze boeren eindelijk uit dit moeras van klimaatwaanzin kunnen ontsnappen.

     
       

     

      Ana Vasconcelos (Renew). – Mr President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, let us be clear about what’s really at stake with the Mercosur agreement. It’s not just Europe’s economic future. It’s our international credibility after stalling this deal for more than 20 years. It’s about where we stand in a world where the global balance of powers is shifting and Europe is struggling to defend its interests.

    Some warn of threats to our industry and farmers. They’re missing the crucial point. Our economy doesn’t struggle because of international competition. It struggles under the weight of excessive regulatory burdens.

    This agreement cuts tariffs on key European exports while maintaining environmental standards. It gives small and medium-sized enterprises, the backbone of our economy, access to new opportunities in a market of nearly 300 million consumers. Yet some prefer to walk away because of fair competition. Here’s a real threat: not competition, but risk aversion; not trade, but excessive bureaucracy. We burden our businesses with excessive regulations, and then we wonder why we struggle globally.

    While we hesitate, China is acting fast. It has already replaced Europe as South America’s primary trading partner. The path to European competitiveness isn’t through isolation, it’s through strategic engagement.

     
       

     

      Salvatore De Meo (PPE). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, l’accordo commerciale Mercosur con i paesi dell’America latina, pur rappresentando un’opportunità strategica, perché mira a rafforzare la competitività europea, diversificando le catene di approvvigionamento e riducendo la dipendenza da altri mercati, presenta però alcuni rischi e criticità che, soprattutto per il settore agroalimentare, meritano la nostra attenzione prima di procedere alla sua definitiva approvazione.

    Le nostre aziende agricole rispettano standard elevatissimi in termini di sicurezza, qualità, sostenibilità ambientale e benessere animale, a differenza di quelle dei paesi Mercosur. A fronte di ciò, dobbiamo prevedere controlli rigorosi per assicurare reciprocità nelle importazioni, prevenire concorrenza sleale a garanzia dei nostri agricoltori e dei nostri consumatori, così come dobbiamo rafforzare gli strumenti di tutela dei prodotti europei di indicazione geografica.

    Un’Europa competitiva non si costruisce solo con l’apertura dei mercati, ma anche con la tutela delle proprie aziende e delle proprie eccellenze. Questo accordo potrà definirsi equo se saremo in grado di garantire nuove opportunità, senza però sacrificare la nostra sicurezza e la nostra identità alimentare e soprattutto il futuro delle nostre imprese.

     
       

     

      Leire Pajín (S&D). – Señor presidente, se ha dicho que el Acuerdo con el Mercosur es muy relevante en términos comerciales, pero es sobre todo muy relevante en términos geopolíticos. Llevamos meses hablando de la necesidad de una autonomía estratégica de la Unión Europea. ¿Y con quién nos vamos a aliar si no es con una región como América Latina, con la que compartimos valores, con la que hemos defendido en el ámbito multilateral el Acuerdo de París o la Agenda 2030?

    Y, por supuesto, es importante que en este debate hablemos de lo que realmente contiene este Acuerdo, porque claro que somos sensibles a los elementos ambientales. Por eso, conviene decir que este Acuerdo incluye compromisos vinculantes para la protección de los bosques y de la naturaleza, que son fundamentales.

    También somos sensibles —como no puede ser de otra manera— a los elementos sociales. Por eso, es importante dejar bien claro que este Acuerdo también recuerda de forma muy clara los derechos laborales, la igualdad de género o los derechos de los pueblos indígenas y de los pequeños productores de aquí y de allí.

    Y somos también sensibles a los sectores agrícolas —los cítricos, por ejemplo—, pero queremos decirles que este Acuerdo recoge cláusulas y tenemos herramientas como el observatorio europeo o, por supuesto, las cláusulas de salvaguardia, que vamos a utilizar para defender un buen Acuerdo para los intereses de nuestros agricultores aquí y allí.

     
       




       

    Solicitudes incidentales de uso de la palabra («catch the eye»)

     
       


     

      Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis (S&D). – Mr President, dear Commissioner, colleagues, I heard a lot of misinformation and lies when we were speaking about sanitary and phytosanitary standards. Colleagues, European sanitary and phytosanitary standards are not negotiable!

    The EU has very stringent standards to protect human, animal and plant health, and any product sold in the EU must comply with the European Union standards. I have been Commissioner for food safety and health, I know very well that it is to remain unrelated and unaltered regardless of a trade agreement.

    EU animal, plant and health and food safety import controls are very strict, and we can control all third countries. It doesn’t matter which agreement it is.

    I welcome this Mercosur agreement because I was involved in 2019, of course Paris Agreement and trade and sustainable development inclusion is very well done, and we need to go forward and see it.

     
       


     

      Majdouline Sbai (Verts/ALE). – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, Monsieur le Commissaire, connaissez-vous l’œstradiol 17? C’est une hormone stéroïdienne produite par les follicules ovariens et le placenta. Elle a été synthétisée pour devenir une hormone de croissance, dans l’élevage, pour faire grossir et grandir les animaux. En 2013, il a été reconnu que les résidus de cette hormone de synthèse sont retrouvés dans notre corps, dans nos eaux de surface. C’est donc pour cela que, dans sa grande sagesse, notre institution a interdit son utilisation et l’importation de la viande en contenant.

    L’œstradiol 17 favorise les cancers, en particulier le cancer du sein. C’est même la première cause de cancers chez les non-fumeuses. Le mois dernier, la Commission européenne nous a présenté un rapport indiquant que, premièrement, les pays du Mercosur utilisaient massivement l’œstradiol et, deuxièmement, les contrôles pharmacologiques y étaient défaillants.

    Alors comment, en important 90 000 tonnes de viande du Mercosur, allez-vous nous garantir notre santé? Allez-vous aussi proposer un fonds de compensation? Mes chers collègues, Monsieur le Commissaire, il n’existe pas, pour les femmes, de solution de remplacement. Il n’existe pas de solution de remplacement pour les enfants des mères endeuillées.

     
       

     

      João Oliveira (The Left). – Senhor Presidente, o acordo do Mercosul é bom e mau. É um acordo bom para as multinacionais do agronegócio, mas é um acordo mau para os pequenos e médios agricultores e para os consumidores. É um acordo bom para os grandes grupos industriais das potências da União Europeia que têm agora abertos os mercados da América Latina, mas é mau para os restantes países, que continuarão a não ter condições de desenvolver a sua produção industrial. O acordo do Mercosul é bom para os grandes grupos do setor dos serviços que têm agora aberto o mercado da contratação pública na América Latina. Mas é mau, em geral, para as micro, pequenas e médias empresas, para os pequenos e médios agricultores, para todos aqueles que, produzindo de acordo com regras e práticas tradicionais, se verão confrontados com uma concorrência desfavorável com a inundação dos mercados de produtos a mais baixo custos, porque produzidos em condições diferentes daquelas que lhes são impostas. Se este acordo é bom e mau, é óbvio que é bom para uma minoria e mau para uma imensa maioria. E é por isso que a Comissão não quer que os Estados façam o seu escrutínio nacional e está a procurar dividir o acordo em dois para impedir esse escrutínio. Essa é uma opção com a qual não concordamos e que não aceitaremos.

     
       


     

      Hélder Sousa Silva (PPE). – Senhor Presidente, Senhor Comissário, o acordo com o Mercosul é um acordo justo, um acordo equilibrado e um bom acordo do ponto de vista geopolítico, económico e social. Não restam dúvidas que para a indústria é um bom acordo e que temos de incluir garantias do ponto de vista do setor agrícola. Estão previstas garantias adicionais, nesta última versão do acordo, que passam por: fases graduais de implementação, quotas, máximas e salvaguardas, em especial para a carne bovina, subvenções e apoio financeiro aos eventuais agricultores afetados, proteção para mais de 350 produtos europeus, condicionamento à entrada de produtos do Mercosul que não cumpram as regras ambientais e sanitárias, e respeito pelo Acordo de Paris e pelo combate ao desmatamento ilegal. Excelente trabalho feito pela Comissão Europeia. Já demorámos 20 anos a chegar aqui. Parem de mentiras, parem e vamos acelerar e assinar este acordo.

     
       

     

      Cristina Maestre (S&D). – Señor presidente, las preguntas que nos tenemos que hacer son: ¿queremos ser una potencia fuerte o aislarnos en un mundo competitivo? ¿Queremos fortalecer nuestra industria —que invierte más de 340 000 millones de euros— o regalarle el mercado a China, a la India o a los Estados Unidos? ¿Queremos que nuestros agricultores sigan pagando tasas del 28 %, del 35 %, o incluso más, o abrir un mercado libre de aranceles?

    La ultraderecha está en un laberinto nocivo para la Unión Europea: apoya los aranceles de Trump, pero a la vez no quiere apoyar un comercio abierto con Latinoamérica. Yo creo que esto es un sindiós y tendrán que explicarlo también al tejido productivo.

    Dicho esto, claro que tenemos que ser exigentes y garantistas con los sectores más sensibles, claro que sí. Por eso, yo le pido a la Comisión Europea que dé certidumbres y también transparencia por el bien de nuestros agricultores. Hay que fortalecer las medidas de salvaguardia para los sectores sensibles. Pedimos más controles en fronteras, para que se cumplan los contingentes establecidos, proteger la liberación parcial de esos productos sensibles, claro que sí, y, por supuesto, que nos diga de dónde va a salir ese fondo de compensación y si va a ser lo suficientemente fuerte, por si hubiera que hacer uso de ello.

     
       


     

      Λευτέρης Νικολάου-Αλαβάνος (NI). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, αυτές τις μέρες οι αγρότες στην Ελλάδα δίνουν διαρκή και δίκαιο αγώνα για την παραμονή στη γη τους, που γίνεται αφόρητη από την ευρωενωσιακή ΚΓΠ, το τσάκισμα του εισοδήματος από την κυβέρνηση, τις εξευτελιστικές τιμές στους μεγαλέμπορους, την ανύπαρκτη προστασία από καταστροφές, την υποστελέχωση κρατικών υπηρεσιών που είναι αποτέλεσμα της δημοσιονομικής σταθερότητας της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης.

    Επιπλέον, δυσκολεύουν περαιτέρω την κατάσταση οι διακρατικές συμφωνίες τύπου Mercosur που θα αυξήσουν τις αθρόες εισαγωγές αγροτικών προϊόντων, τις ελληνοποιήσεις που πλήττουν το εισόδημα των παραγωγών. Κόντρα στην κυβερνητική πολιτική, κόντρα στις μειωμένες απαιτήσεις που καλλιεργεί η συμπολιτευόμενη αντιπολίτευση, οι βιοπαλαιστές αγρότες παλεύουν για την επιβίωσή τους διεκδικώντας μείωση του κόστους παραγωγής με κρατική παρέμβαση, αφορολόγητο πετρέλαιο στην αντλία, μείωση της τιμής του ρεύματος στα 7 λεπτά, 100% αποζημιώσεις, εγγυημένες τιμές πώλησης των προϊόντων τους που να εξασφαλίζουν το εισόδημά τους, πλήρη στελέχωση κρατικών, γεωπονικών και κτηνιατρικών υπηρεσιών.

     
       


     

      Daniel Buda (PPE). – Domnule președinte, stimați colegi, dezbaterea privind acordul Mercosur stârnește multe emoții și ridică întrebări la care încă nu s-au oferit răspunsuri clare. Realitatea este însă că, în timp ce fermierii europeni sunt supuși celor mai stricte norme de mediu, în alte părți ale lumii aceste reguli pur și simplu nu există. Europa are datoria să-și protejeze fermierii și să le ofere garanții solide pentru a-și putea continua activitatea. Aceștia nu trebuie să fie sacrificați pe altarul neputinței noastre de a le oferi certitudini într-o lume atât de incertă, generată de inflație, secetă, inundații sau războiul din Ucraina.

    Ei nu cer privilegii sau tratament preferențial. Cer doar dreptul de a concura în mod corect. Compensațiile provizionate a fi acordate fermierilor trebuie să fie dublate de relaxarea condițiilor de producție în agricultură, domnule comisar, iar acordul trebuie să fie echitabil, să creeze oportunități reale de comerț și să nu distrugă agricultura europeană. Este datoria noastră de a găsi cele mai bune soluții atât pentru fermierii europeni, dar și pentru consumatori.

     
       

     

      Jean-Marc Germain (S&D). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, chers collègues, les dernières négociations ont-elles permis d’améliorer le projet d’accord commercial entre l’Europe et le Mercosur? La réponse est oui, mais aucun des efforts que nous pourrions faire pour continuer à l’améliorer ne changera ce fait: un accord de libre-échange, c’est parfois un mieux pour le consommateur, des secteurs gagnants, mais c’est toujours une kyrielle de perdants, dont aucun fonds de compensation ne répare jamais les vies brisées et les territoires déstabilisés.

    Un accord de libre-échange, c’est une perte de souveraineté, comme viennent de nous le rappeler les décisions de Trump. Quand le temps des avantages réciproques s’estompe, vient le temps du chantage, auquel il est bien difficile de résister quand la dépendance à l’autre s’est installée. Le doux commerce, en réalité, n’existe pas.

    Le libre-échange, c’est certes plus de liberté individuelle de commercer, mais moins de liberté collective, cette liberté de choisir, en Europe, d’être un continent qui met l’humain d’abord et pose la préservation du vivant comme un impératif. Alors oui pour un partenariat avec les pays du Mercosur, mais il existe 1 000 autres voies de coopération.

     
       



     

      Marko Vešligaj (S&D). – Poštovani predsjedavajući, kad raspravljamo o ovome sporazumu o MERCOSUR-u trebamo uzeti u obzir i specifičnosti manjih zemalja, kao što je Hrvatska, u kojoj kostur poljoprivrede čine zapravo mali poljoprivrednici i oni će biti najviše pogođeni ovim sporazumom – razni sektori, od stočarstva, ratarstva, peradarstva, pa i vinarstva, gdje sam svjestan toga da se otvara jedno veliko tržište, prvenstveno za vinarsku industriju velikih zemalja, dakle tržište MERCOSUR-a. Međutim, ono što mene brine jest mogućnost da ćemo biti preplavljeni jeftinim vinima upitne kvalitete iz Južne Amerike i na taj način – i u kombinaciji s onim s čime se suočava danas vinarski sektor, a to su, podsjetit ću vas, bolesti vinove loze, da Europska komisija opet najavljuje sheme grubbing up-a, odnosno krčenja vinograda – može stvoriti brojne opasnosti za vinarski sektor u manjim zemljama kao što je Hrvatska, ponavljam, koja nema problema s prekomjernom proizvodnjom, gdje mali vinari čine temelj te proizvodnje i koja želi štititi i razvijati svoje autohtone sorte.

     
       

     

      Seán Kelly (PPE). – A Uachtaráin, míle buíochas as ucht an t-urlár a thabhairt dúinn uilig. Mar a dúirt tú, tá an díospóireacht seo an-tábhachtach.

    There are those who are against Mercosur, but they are against everything. But there are also many speakers here this morning who are pro-trade but say they cannot support Mercosur in its current form. That would reflect the position of the new Irish Government – made up of a coalition of Renew and EPP – and I think it needs to be addressed very strongly by the Commission.

    There are issues like deforestation, sustainability, production standards – especially in Brazil – and then the effect, especially on beef farmers, who feel that they will be decimated if Mercosur goes ahead. So the Commission has a job to do to convince them otherwise, give them proper compensation, if that is needed, and also look at a package that might include other issues that they are concerned about, especially the reform of the CAP, etcetera.

    Commissioner Šefčovič, you did a great job in relation to Brexit. Now is the chance for you to step up here. I am very confident you will!

     
       

       

    (Fin de las intervenciones con arreglo al procedimiento de solicitud incidental de uso de la palabra («catch the eye»))

     
       

     

      Maroš Šefčovič, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members of the European Parliament, I was privileged to attend three very politically charged, very politically dynamic debates this week. And I want to thank many of you for highlighting that, in this geopolitical era, the free trade agreement with Mercosur, as Mr Lange has underlined, will greatly contribute to our social welfare state, it will create new jobs and open new opportunities for all sectors of our economy, including for our farmers and for our agri‑food sectors. Moreover, it’s also good for the environment and sustainability.

    Let me underline that, in all aspects, we are much better off with the agreement than without it. This agreement binds the Mercosur countries to strong commitments on the fight against deforestation, and it gives us an important platform for cooperation on our climate ambition.

    On top of this, the overall benefit of this agreement is also good for our farmers and agricultural community. As some of you know, I consulted widely with farmers, with small farmers, family farmers, organic farmers and also big farmers as well. And two weeks ago, I was with many of you, together with the Commissioner for Agriculture, Mr Hansen, in the discussion on this precise issue in the Agriculture Committee of this House.

    I do all this because I have the utmost respect for our farmers, and I have the utmost respect for the debate we have in this House. And I know how crucial a role our farmers are playing in the area of our food security and our food sovereignty and, of course, for the welfare of our society.

    Honourable Members, I was surprised that Ms Aubry asked me how did I dare to come here to defend this agreement? I came because you invited me. And I will always be here when you invite me, because I respect this House, I respect democratic debate and, despite all the charged debate we had here today, I am proud of this agreement. And I believe that, through discussion, through explaining, through presenting facts and figures, we can convince the majority, most of you, that we indeed are doing the right job.

    In this debate, we unfortunately didn’t cover the fact that this agreement is actually the biggest free trade agreement the EU ever concluded. Just for your information, this FTA is four times bigger than our free trade agreement with Japan. We also overlooked the important signal we are sending out in this difficult time where the trade barriers are being erected again – and we discussed it on Tuesday – and also in the time where we are losing our privileged relationship with countries so close to us historically, culturally, economically, like the countries of Mercosur, to China.

    Unfortunately, we didn’t mention, at all, the strategic importance of the supply of critical raw materials and opportunities these deals open for our businesses and the need to diversify our economic relations. The debate almost completely focused on agriculture, so let’s look at this again.

    As you know, the EU is an agri‑food export superpower. Last year, our farmers exported products of the value of EUR 228 billion, and our farmers and our agri‑food exports have a trade surplus of EUR 70 billion. EUR 70 billion! Can you imagine how our farmers would do without these export opportunities? Do you believe that we would be able to be so strong in exports if the large network of our FTAs would not open these new markets for all of them, big farmers, small farmers, our agri‑food sector?

    Into Mercosur itself, our farmers are already now exporting more than EUR 3.2 billion of products, and they managed to do it with import duties which are up to 35 % more than they should be and without any protection for our GIs. And this agreement is going to eliminate these import duties. It’s going to protect our GIs, so there will be no imitation of our famous cheeses, our wines and spirits. And I believe that this would greatly improve export opportunities for our farmers.

    Mr Cowen and Mr Kelly have been asking and highlighting the importance of strategic discussion on agriculture, and the Commission is absolutely prepared for this. Commissioner Hansen is working on the new strategic vision on agriculture, and I can tell you that we do our utmost to look into all possible ways how to lower reporting obligations for our farmers, how to cut the red tape for our farmers, so the farmer whom one of the honourable Members was referring to as ‘Patrick’ would have an easier life.

    But I’m also convinced that this debate we have right now, for the benefit of Patrick and all other farmers, should be based on true facts and figures. And I want to be very clear that the food products in the European Union being domestically produced or imported must comply with the EU sanitary and phytosanitary rules, including the EU’s strict policies on GMOs, and the Commission conducts regular audits in third countries and works closely with the Member States’ authorities that perform official controls and enforcement activities on imported food to ensure that non-compliant products cannot enter the EU market.

    The Member States, of course, are looking in great detail into this agreement and are also carrying out their own audits and their own studies. And there were quite a few honourable Members from Ireland who intervened in this debate, and therefore I think that they should also look at the study which was commissioned by the Irish Government. It was done by the Independent Economic and Sustainability Impact Assessment on Ireland and the Mercosur agreement. This independent study forecast an increase in Ireland’s exports to Mercosur by 17 % and an increase of imports of 12 %. It will increase manufacturing export of Ireland by 1.4 billion and agri‑food exports by 10 to 20 million.

    We will be very happy from the Commission’s side to have this discussion with every single Member State, because we have the figures, we have a convincing argument and we are open for this open, frank debate which would truly be based on the facts.

    I would also kindly ask you not to spread information which is simply not true. And I totally agree with Ms Pereira who was calling for this. No import of hormone beef. No chlorinated chicken will ever be imported to the European Union. Mr Andriukaitis was working on that for five years and he was absolutely crystal clear on that. The problem Ms Sbai was referring to was spotted and immediately resolved. This type of beef has never entered the EU market and never will. We do inspections regularly and we also control at the import.

    On the so-called non‑violation complaint instrument – which I explained many times, but I’m happy to do again – it’s not new. It’s fully compatible on the WTO framework. And this instrument is only forward‑looking and addresses effects that could not be foreseeable at the time of the conclusion. So it doesn’t concern the CBAM. It doesn’t concern any of the any of the laws, any of the acquis which are valid right now, which already entered into force. And I’m sure that Ms Bricmont knows about it. So under no circumstances is our regulatory freedom affected, nor will it be. So let’s not use this argument any more.

    To conclude, Mr President, honourable Members, I would like to thank you for this debate, and I’m ready to continue the discussion with you, with the farmers and with all stakeholders. At the same time, I believe that we would advance our debate and do better service to our citizens, to our farmers if we respect true facts, if we speak about real figures, and if we stay true to what was really agreed and not repeat in every debate the things which are simply not true.

     
       

     

      President. – Thank you, Commissioner. I am sorry for being so strict with time, and I insist that this debate should have had much more time.

    The debate is closed.

     

    4. Threats to EU sovereignty through strategic dependencies in communication infrastructure (debate)


     

      Glenn Micallef, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members of the European Parliament, dear colleagues, I want to first and foremost welcome this exchange today. Our mission is to improve Europe’s tech sovereignty, security and democracy in an increasingly volatile geopolitical situation.

    A short glance at the news from Europe and beyond is enough to show how significant a task this is. Our own backyard, the Baltic Sea, experiences security challenges and hybrid attacks, including to the security and resilience of critical submarine infrastructures. This kind of threat offers an example of the pressing need to improve our preparedness.

    Europe has put in place a robust legal framework to protect its critical infrastructure against physical and hybrid security threats. But today, the transposition and implementation of the critical entities’ resilience and the network and information security tool directives are still slow. We continue to support Member States and call on them to transpose both directives as soon as possible.

    Moreover, the 2024 recommendation on secure and resilient submarine cable infrastructures provides a set of recommended actions at national and EU level aimed at improving submarine cable security and resilience. The European Union is also making substantial investments in cable infrastructures through the Connecting Europe Facility. Since 2021, over EUR 420 million has been allocated to 50 projects and more.

    Looking ahead, we also earmarked another EUR 542 million, for a total investment of nearly EUR 1 billion, and the Commission is considering further measures not only to boost investment, but also to increase the security and resilience of these infrastructures.

    The security of 5G and next-generation networks, the backbone of our economy, remains very high on the European Union’s agenda, but the current implementation by Member States of the 5G cybersecurity toolbox is still not satisfactory. New capacities have to be provided by existing or new actors to fill gaps left by high-risk vendors in the supply chains. The Commission will urgently explore ways to speed up its enforcement and implementation.

    A particularly sensitive domain is that of critical communications used by public security and safety authorities, civil protection or medical emergency responders. We need to ensure that they cannot be interfered with, disrupted or compromised via components and devices from non-trusted third country suppliers. This is why increasing our strategic autonomy is one of the key objectives of the European critical communication system, which will connect the communication networks of first responders in all Member States and Schengen countries by 2030.

    But the challenge is even broader than that. Europe must remain competitive and must have the technologies it needs in order to secure its digital infrastructure. We must close our innovation gap with global partners. Future applications, such as automated driving or telemedicine will run on advanced networks that look increasingly like a computing continuum, ranging from chips and high-speed processors to connectivity, cloud, edge, software, quantum technologies and AI. This is why we need to enhance and better coordinate research efforts and multidisciplinary cooperation, as well as why we need to improve access to finance by EU actors, including by coordinating public and private investments.

    To reach this goal, the 2024 white paper on digital infrastructure needs envisaged the creation of a connected collaborative computing network to set up end-to-end integrated infrastructures and platforms for telco cloud and edge.

    Colleagues, this debate is also an excellent opportunity to update you on the IRIS2 satellite constellation, a beacon of the EU’s commitment to deliver secure, resilient and sovereign connectivity, demonstrating the recent but high ambition of the European Union in the field of secure satellite connectivity with precursor governmental services provided by the GOVSATCOM programme.

    IRIS2 was launched in 2023, paving the way for an operational state-of-the-art connectivity system. Thanks to this EU-owned infrastructure capability, enabling also commercial services based on private sector investments, the European Union will be able to maintain its competitive edge and shield its sovereignty.

    Work has been ongoing on this since last December, with the signing of the concession contract with industry to develop the constellation and start the industrial supply chain in view of a timely delivery of the system. Full IRIS2 operational services are expected by 2030. This means that Member States, close partners and EU institutions will benefit from a broad set of reliable and secure applications, such as border and maritime surveillance, crisis management, critical infrastructure protection, and various security and defence operations.

    There are, of course, competing non-EU solutions in the market. We remain, however, convinced that Europeans prefer guaranteed access to reliable connectivity without critical third-party dependencies, and as IRIS2 comes onto the scene, this will be a crucial selling point to all Member States as well as businesses.

    The incidents that have become an all too frequent reality of heightened geopolitical tensions highlight the importance of such sovereign solutions. IRIS2 will also integrate the European quantum communication infrastructure. This pan-European initiative will help to strengthen the protection of our governmental institutions, their data centres, hospitals, energy grids and more.

    Moreover, we are also supporting the development of quantum technologies to ensure that critical components use EU technologies. EuroQCI will help to counter the threat that quantum computers will pose to current encryption methods, but it will not be enough on its own. It will be complemented by our initiatives to advance and deploy post-quantum cryptography in the European Union. Last year, we issued the recommendation to coordinate the transition to PQC for public administrations and other critical infrastructures in the European Union.

    Finally, let me stress that Europe can only respond to today’s challenges by acting together with our partners, especially with NATO. In a hybrid threat environment, close civilian and military cooperation is and remains essential. I can assure you that the European Commission is steadfast in its commitment to foster a secure, resilient, but also innovative digital environment, and we continue to count on your support in building this future together.

     
       

     

      Jörgen Warborn, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, Commissioner, the strength of our Union is in its openness, the ability to trade, to innovate and to compete globally. However, in today’s reality, Europe’s communication infrastructure is heavily reliant on global actors, and Europe must be in a position where no country or individual company can dictate our digital future.

    I believe in a strong and resilient Europe, one that competes globally without excessive state interventions, but through strategic interventions, free markets and international cooperation. By that way, individuals and businesses can choose between multiple actors and alternatives.

    To go forward in this situation, I think the Union must do a lot of things, but let me mention three of them.

    Firstly, we need to encourage private investments in new communication infrastructure, not through subsidies or state control, but through reducing red tape and creating smart incentives.

    Secondly, we need to deepen our partnership with trusted partners to ensure openness works in Europe’s favour rather than making us dependent.

    Lastly, as the Commissioner started his intervention with, we need to safeguard Europe’s connectivity by taking coordinated action to protect submarine cables. This state terrorism has to end and we have to work together, coordinatedly, to make that sure – we have to reinforce our cable security, our repair capabilities, but also invest in the expansion of new submarine cables to enhance our redundancy and ensure resilience in our communication infrastructure.

     
       


     

      Csaba Dömötör, a PfE képviselőcsoport nevében. – Tisztelt Elnök Úr! Európa lemaradása a digitális iparágak terén egyre látványosabb és hozzáteszem egyre zavaróbb. Ez szuverenitási kérdés és stratégiai cél, hogy ezt a lemaradást leküzdjük.

    A digitális színtérnek azonban van egy másik fontos terepe, ez pedig a véleményszabadság. Miközben Amerikában elzavarják a Facebookos cenzorokat, az uniós intézmények azon törik a fejüket, hogy tovább erősítsék a cinikus módon tényellenőrzésnek nevezett rendszert. Mindezt a DSA-rendelet köntösében. Növelik az ezen ügyködő bürokráciát, és a Facebook után most már az X-et és a TikTokot is célba vették.

    Tudjuk, hogy miért van ez. Egyre nagyobb a szakadék az itteni politikai elit szándékai és a választók akarata között. Erre az itteni többség és a Bizottság nem irányváltással válaszol, hanem azzal, hogy el akarja hallgattatni a kritikus hangokat.

    Ez nem fog menni. A digitális szuverenitás nem csupán technológiák kérdése, hanem a szabadságé is. Nincsen szuverenitás szabad véleménynyilvánítás nélkül. Legyenek benne biztosak, hogy a patrióták minden eszközzel küzdenek majd a cenzúra ellen.

     
       

     

      Piotr Müller, w imieniu grupy ECR. – Panie Przewodniczący! Szanowni Państwo! Do budowania niezależności infrastrukturalnej, w tym niezależności technologicznej, potrzebne są środki finansowe. Unia Europejska powinna zdecydować, na co te środki z własnego budżetu chce przeznaczać. Są trzy takie duże polityki, które w tym samym czasie prowadzimy: jest to polityka bezpieczeństwa, w tym bezpieczeństwa technologicznego, polityka społeczna, która pozwala żyć obywatelom na odpowiednio wysokim poziomie, i niestety polityka Zielonego Ładu, która powoduje, że te koszty życia się zwiększają oraz że generowane są różnego rodzaju wydatki w tej polityce.

    Jeżeli chcemy być faktycznie niezależni technologicznie, to powinniśmy przeznaczać dodatkowe środki finansowe na ten obszar. Ale żeby to było możliwe, musimy zrezygnować z jednej z tych trzech polityk, które wymieniłem, i powinniśmy zrezygnować z polityki Zielonego Ładu, która w tej chwili ogranicza rozwój i niezależność Europy. Druga rzecz, powinniśmy przestać obrażać się na swoich partnerów technologicznych z różnych kontynentów na świecie i z nimi współpracować po to, aby również w Europie powstawały odpowiednie technologie.

     
       

     

      Michał Kobosko, on behalf of the Renew Group. – Mr President, Commissioner, let me start with thanking you, on behalf of the Renew Europe Group, for the Commission’s immediate reaction to the security threats related to the Baltic submarine cables and the ongoing work to increase security of our critical infrastructure. We also need to look for more synergies between digital and energy networks, while working on detection, prevention and repairing of the undersea infrastructure that is nowadays, especially in the Baltic Sea, under constant and real threat.

    Going above sea level, I can strongly encourage the Commission to do the utmost to invest in the European critical communication infrastructure. Europe cannot allow itself to be dependent on third countries when it comes to comes to strategic elements of communication infrastructure.

    So I welcome the IRIS2 planned constellation, with its 290 satellites. It is a huge step forward for Europe and we should appreciate it. But we should also keep in mind that it won’t be enough. We will need to do much more beyond 2030.

    In order to achieve Europe’s tech sovereignty, we need to have everyone on board. All Member States need to join the efforts, instead of making constant deals to secure military and government communications with third-country providers, which can put EU security in jeopardy.

    Prime Minister Meloni, please join us, and let’s keep Europe great and secure together. Do not waste the money of Italian taxpayers on senseless deals with global oligarchs.

     
       



     

      Sergey Lagodinsky (Verts/ALE). – Thank you very much. As every morning during the past weeks, we are waking up to a new reality. Now, it’s the biggest push against Europe’s security interests by Trump. But frankly, we had known it all along. In this marriage, we have over-relied on one partner. In strategic communications, it’s not even a country: it’s one unelected, unaccountable man, driven by personal whims. Today, Musk can decide if, at a time of war, we can continue talking to each other, or not.

    Our biggest strategic risk on this side of a potential frontline of a future war is communication failure. Low-Earth orbit satellites revolutionise global communication in times of crisis, but their infrastructure is in the hands of a few private non-Europeans: Starlink today, Amazon or OneWeb tomorrow. So this is not the way to go.

    IRIS² will only be valid and will be functioning in 2030. It is good that the US Space Act is part of a Commission working programme. We have seen this. But we need clear strategic goals: equitable division of use of space; common standards for compatibility of systems; enforced cybersecurity, which closes the gaps of NIS 2; massive investment in efficient launchers, in reusable satellites, in an independent space supply chain. It is not about science fiction; it is about our survival!

     
       

     

      Pernando Barrena Arza, en nombre del Grupo The Left. – Señor presidente, señor comisario, reducir la dependencia estratégica en el ámbito de las infraestructuras críticas de comunicación es crucial para avanzar con paso decidido en el concepto de soberanía europea. Un sistema de telecomunicaciones tecnológicamente soberano y seguro y de obediencia europea es una herramienta imprescindible no solo en el ámbito de las infraestructuras críticas de comunicación, sino en todas las infraestructuras de comunicación en general. Europa no puede estar a merced de grandes compañías que representan intereses geopolíticos ajenos a los europeos.

    En estos momentos otras potencias y particularmente los Estados Unidos están utilizando su posición avanzada en este tema como herramienta de hard power, que, como todos sabemos, no se limita únicamente a la amenaza del poder militar, sino también a la presión económica y tecnológica.

    Que los Estados europeos sean dependientes de Starlink, como acaba de hacer Italia, es un desastre porque deja un ámbito tan delicado como es el de las comunicaciones críticas en manos de una visión del mundo que solo piensa en cómo segar la hierba bajo los pies a Europa y dejarla sin opciones en el concierto internacional.

    Apostar por la soberanía de Europa exige disponer de medios soberanos y asegurarnos de que el despliegue de tecnología necesario compense su huella de carbono y permita también el acceso del público a las redes de forma universal.

     
       

     

      Sarah Knafo, au nom du groupe ESN. – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, nous sommes devant deux grands mouvements historiques: l’un est technologique, l’intelligence artificielle, l’autre est politique, le vent de liberté qui souffle sur l’Occident. Or, nos règlements, comme le règlement sur les services numériques, le règlement sur les marchés numériques et le règlement MiCA contre le bitcoin, sont à contretemps de ces mouvements. Vous renvoyez au monde une image à la fois technosceptique et liberticide de notre continent.

    Si vous ne voyez le progrès technique que comme une menace, alors l’innovation se fera sans l’Europe et même contre l’Europe. Faisons les choses dans l’ordre. L’innovation doit précéder sa régulation. Sans innovation, nous n’aurons ni prospérité ni souveraineté. Sans innovation, nous aurons toujours des Emmanuel Macron pour offrir nos données de santé sur un plateau à Microsoft.

    Nous ne voulons plus d’un système absurde où la puissance publique saupoudre nos entreprises de subventions tout en les accablant des taxes les plus élevées du monde et tout en offrant nos marchés publics les plus stratégiques à des entreprises américaines.

    Montrons à notre jeunesse qu’elle n’a pas besoin de partir aux États-Unis ou en Asie pour écrire l’histoire. Nous voulons de la liberté, de l’énergie, des marchés, moins d’impôts, des capitaux et des cerveaux. Osons la liberté! Ayons confiance dans le génie des nations européennes.

     
       

     

      Lena Düpont (PPE). – Herr Präsident! Herr Kommissar! Kommunikation ist nicht nur ein zutiefst menschliches Bedürfnis mit gesellschaftlicher Wirkung. Kommunikationsfähigkeit in Krisenzeiten ist wesentlich für die Aufrechterhaltung staatlicher und gesellschaftlicher Ordnung. Dafür braucht es verlässliche Strukturen und Mittel. Das gilt im Kontext nationaler Sicherheit ebenso wie im europäischen. Informations- und Kommunikationsflüsse gewährleisten zu können, Lagebilder herzustellen und Führungsfähigkeit bereitstellen zu können, hat entscheidenden Einfluss auf den Verlauf unterschiedlicher Szenarien und auf unsere Fähigkeit, sie zu bewältigen.

    Der Niinistö-Bericht zur Preparedness Union schreibt uns nicht ohne Grund viele Dinge ins Stammbuch, unter anderem auch den beschleunigten Roll-out eines sicheren, autonomen, interoperablen Systems für Kommunikation und Informationsaustausch; die Beschleunigung und den Ausbau des European Critical Communication System auf der zivilen und der militärischen Seite; die Abhängigkeiten in Lieferketten zu vermeiden; Forschung, Entwicklung, Produktion sicherheitsrelevanter Produkte in Europa; Komponenten und Dienstleistungen so attraktiv zu machen, dass wir sie nutzen können.

    Preparedness, liebe Kollegen, braucht einen umfassenden Ansatz, der aus den üblichen Silos auch ein Stück weit rausgeht. Deswegen werden ITRE, SEDE, LIBE, IMCO, TRAN, INTA, SANT – wir alle werden unseren Beitrag leisten müssen. Und deswegen schließe ich vielleicht mit der, neben der Priorisierung von Haushaltsmitteln, wichtigsten Forderung von Niinistö: Sicherheitsvorbehalte und Auswirkungsüberprüfung in allen Gesetzgebungsverfahren, die wir hier im Haus haben.

     
       

     

      Alex Agius Saliba (S&D). – Sur President, l-infrastruttura diġitali saret importanti daqs l-infrastruttura tradizzjonali bħall-pontijiet u t-toroq tagħna. U jiena li ġej minn Malta, Stat Membru żgħir, gżira, nagħraf aktar l-importanza ta’ din l-infrastruttura, speċjalment għall-cables tal-internet taħt il-baħar, li huma daqstant kruċjali għall-funzjonament tal-ħajja taċ-ċittadini tagħna u tal-infrastruttura kritika f’kull Stat Membru.

    U allura naħseb wasal iż-żmien sabiex l-esperiment li għamilna bit-twaqqif tal-aġenzija ENISA, li tara li jkollna koordinament fejn tidħol iċ-ċibersigurtà, cybersecurity, tkun estiża wkoll għal din l-infrastruttura kritika billi jew titwaqqaf aġenzija separata, jew inkella l-ENISA tingħata aktar u aktar kompetenza sabiex naraw li jkollna aktar koordinazzjoni, aktar protezzjoni, fejn tidħol din l-infrastruttura.

    Barra minn hekk, għandna bżonn inkomplu nsaħħu r-reżiljenza u għalhekk, li hu Digital Sovereignty Fund għandu jitwaqqaf mill-aktar fis possibbli.

     
       


     

      Ondřej Krutílek (ECR). – Vážený pane předsedající, vážený pane komisaři, bez infrastruktury, která bude bezpečná, nebudou fungovat digitální technologie, na kterých závisí naše ekonomika a společnost. Jsem rád, že Česká republika je v této oblasti průkopníkem. Tzv. Pražské návrhy na budování 5G sítí z roku 2019 předcházely souboru 5G Toolbox v následujícím roce.

    5G Toolbox je třeba důsledně aplikovat napříč celou Evropskou unií, ale musíme také dále snižovat strategickou závislost na zemích, které nejsou našimi důvěryhodnými partnery. Potřebujeme mít v EU regulatorní prostředí, které bude usnadňovat život našim firmám. Musíme více podpořit výzkum a vývoj a taky nám chybí funkční systém certifikace kybernetické bezpečnosti. A v téhle souvislosti, pane komisaři, ptal jsem se na to i na výboru, stále ještě od vás nemáme hodnotící zprávu týkající se aktu o kybernetické bezpečnosti. Tak ji prosím dodejte.

     
       

     

      Bart Groothuis (Renew). – Mr President, dear Commissioner, the main takeaway from Georgia Meloni’s close manoeuvres with Elon Musk and his company, Starlink, is that it sends a clear signal to Europe. The European alternative to Starlink – ‘IRIS square’, not ‘IRIS two’, Commissioner – must be accelerated. Europe should work harder and faster.

    Sure, like many colleagues have said, for Italy there are clear and imminent dangers if Elon Musk encrypts and handles government communications. Italy can easily become a signals intelligence colony of the United States. It’s true that Italy is not supporting Europe’s commitment to technological leadership, to security and to self-determination, as you said, Commissioner, and I agree. But the biggest problem is, of course, our own lack of ambition with the IRIS2 programme.

    If Europe does not rally behind IRIS2 and the GOVSATCOM programme and accelerate its own progress, the future of European sovereignty in space communication will be decided by Elon Musk. So feel the heat: finish IRIS2 four years earlier than planned, move fast and build things!

     
       

     

      David Cormand (Verts/ALE). – Monsieur le Président, Mesdames et Messieurs, mes chers collègues, l’Europe est pieds et poings liés: 92 % de nos données sont stockées à l’étranger, nos infrastructures livrées aux GAFAM et aux fournisseurs chinois. Et que fait l’Europe? Elle parle de souveraineté, mais en réalité elle se soumet. L’extrême droite se dit patriote, mais laisse l’Europe devenir un territoire vassalisé, incapable de protéger ses citoyens et ses entreprises face aux lois extraterritoriales américaines et à la dépendance à l’égard des fournisseurs chinois.

    Pendant ce temps, le numérique avale 10 % de l’électricité mondiale et la tendance explose. Et que fait-on? On laisse les GAFAM dicter leurs règles pendant que Bruxelles dérégule, retire des lois et plie face aux lobbys. À force de reculer, elle abandonne la bataille sans même l’avoir livrée.

    Il est temps de dire stop! L’Europe doit investir dans ses propres réseaux, développer un cloud souverain, sécuriser ses infrastructures et imposer des règles strictes, à l’image de nos valeurs démocratiques. Car une Europe qui dépend, c’est une Europe qui subit, et une Europe qui subit, c’est une Europe qui s’efface. Nous devons reprendre le contrôle. Pas demain, pas plus tard, maintenant.

     
       




     

      Bruno Gonçalves (S&D). – Senhor Presidente, Caros Colegas, há cinco anos, com a pandemia, ficou claro que não podemos depender da China para bens de saúde. Dissemos que aprenderíamos com o erro. Depois, há três anos, foi a vez de perceber que depender da Rússia para energia barata era também um erro. Voltámos a dizer que aprenderíamos. E hoje, apesar de Trump nos ameaçar quase diariamente, há quem queira depender mais dos Estados Unidos da América, seja para armamento, energia ou plataformas digitais. Se a Europa quer menos vulnerabilidade, é agora que devemos evitá‑la. A nova infraestrutura de comunicações, desde cabos submarinos à rede 5G, é fundamental para a nossa autonomia e deve ser construída pelos europeus. A criação de novas redes sociais e de informação é também crucial para a nossa soberania. Por isso, em vez de aprendermos com os velhos erros, evitemos cometê‑los.

     
       

     

      Aleksandar Nikolic (PfE). – Monsieur le Président, on l’a vu à Mayotte, où la France s’est tournée vers le réseau américain Starlink de Musk. L’accès à Internet par satellite est un véritable enjeu de souveraineté. En ce sens, Iris2 est un pas dans la bonne direction, mais ce n’est qu’un petit pas, au moment où les Américains font des bonds de géant.

    D’abord sur le nombre de satellites déployés: 290 prévus côté européen, contre 7 000 prévus côté américain. Ensuite, concernant le calendrier, nous prévoyons au mieux un lancement en 2030, alors que la constellation Starlink compte déjà 6 300 satellites en orbite basse.

    Ce n’est pas un problème de budget: 10,6 milliards d’euros prévus, cela nous permet de rivaliser avec les budgets quasi équivalents de SpaceX et d’Amazon. Mais il faut voir comment on l’utilise, ce budget. Lancer un satellite européen coûterait 35 millions d’euros. Pour ce prix, les Américains peuvent en lancer 200. Et, pendant que nous blablatons, eux le font.

    Pour résumer, nos satellites, aussi technologiques soient-ils, seront lancés trop tard et pour trop cher. Nous avons les cerveaux, les technologies et les budgets. Finalement, le problème c’est vous. Vivement qu’on vous remplace!

     
       

     

      Elena Donazzan (ECR). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signor Commissario, abbiamo un tema, riguarda i bisogni e il tempo. I bisogni sono evidenti, è un bisogno di sicurezza ora, immediato. E quello del tempo è che non abbiamo tempo.

    IRIS2 resta un programma di grande rilevanza e va sostenuto in ogni condizione, ma non è pronto. Sarà pronto nel 2030, secondo le previsioni, ma sappiamo che le previsioni spesso vanno oltre.

    Ma il tema del bisogno è evidente e in tante occasioni qui ne abbiamo trattato. La preoccupazione – e rispondo ai colleghi di Renew, che sembrano essere così interessati a ciò che accade in Italia – è esattamente questa: l’Italia e il governo Meloni hanno ben chiaro che cosa significa avere bisogni di sicurezza per l’Italia, per l’Europa, per le imprese italiane ed europee.

    E, dall’altra, quello che accade rispetto alla tempistica: noi siamo aperti a ogni confronto, con al centro sempre la sovranità e l’indipendenza, in questo tema così delicato che è quello della sicurezza delle comunicazioni.

     
       


     

      Seán Kelly (PPE).A Uachtaráin, a Choimisnéir agus a chairde, the security and resilience of our digital networks are more vital now than ever, and the European Union’s ability to reduce these dependencies is under close scrutiny. I have raised the issue of Ireland’s vital role in global communication infrastructure before. Ireland’s waters serve as the gateway for over 75 % of the northern hemispheres undersea cables, making us a strategic hub for transatlantic data traffic. This makes us uniquely vulnerable to disruptions in this infrastructure.

    We cannot underestimate the importance of safeguarding these undersea cables, which are essential not just for Ireland’s connectivity, but for the economic stability and security of the entire EU. The protection of our communication infrastructure is not just a national issue; it is a European one. We cannot afford to be over-reliant on external providers, particularly in such an uncertain geopolitical climate. We need a coordinated EU approach to ensure the security of our undersea cables and to invest in the resilience of our satellite infrastructure.

    I welcome the Commission’s commitment to investing EUR 865 million to improve digital connectivity, including quantum communication networks and undersea cables. But as we implement the Commission’s work plan for 2025, we must prioritise the protection of these strategic assets.

    Bímis ar an airdeall, níl aon am le cailliúint, go raibh maith agat a Uachtaráin.

     
       

     

      Giorgio Gori (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signor Commissario, tra i ritardi tecnologici accumulati dall’Europa spicca quello delle infrastrutture di comunicazione satellitare.

    Se tutto va bene, i 290 satelliti della costellazione IRIS2 saranno disponibili nel 2030. Nel frattempo, gli oltre 6 000 satelliti Starlink già in orbita e altri 30 000 in via di autorizzazione sono un dato di fatto. Il gap competitivo è macroscopico e va colmato.

    Si possono immaginare nel frattempo soluzioni ponte, però con due chiare condizioni. La prima è relativa alla protezione e sicurezza dei dati di comunicazione, che devono rimanere in capo agli Stati membri. La seconda è che ogni accordo industriale sia iscritto in una cornice istituzionale, che coinvolga la dimensione europea.

    È urgente un piano di investimento europeo che combini politiche industriali, di difesa, investimenti in ricerca, oltre che un maggiore coordinamento della spesa pubblica. La debolezza strutturale in questo settore ci rende vulnerabili e dipendenti e mette a rischio la sovranità tecnologica e democratica dell’Unione europea.

     
       

     

      Ивайло Вълчев (ECR). – Г-н Председател, г-н Комисар, години наред отсъстваше стратегическият поглед за технологическото развитие на Съюза. И едва сега, когато глобалната политика се промени и конкурентите ни започнаха да предприемат радикални политики в областта на търговията, Европейската комисия се сети, че съществуват такива стратегически зависимости, които застрашават сигурността и конкурентоспособността на европейските икономики. Комисар Виркунен го каза — 42% от 5G комуникациите минават през т. нар. високорискови доставчици, разбирайте през Китай, защото основните оператори са китайски — Huawei и ZTE. В същото време изостава Европейският съюз и в сателитната свързаност. Там водещи са САЩ и Starlink. Разбирам, че отговорът на Комисията за всички предизвикателства и проблеми е създаването на нови регулации. Обаче аз смятам, че за да гарантираме сигурността, конкурентоспособността и суверенитета на Европейския съюз, е нужно да изграждаме инфраструктура, капацитет, диверсификация на доставчиците и търсене на надеждни партньори.

     
       

     

      Tomáš Zdechovský (PPE). – Pane předsedající, když jde o naší bezpečnost, Evropa nemůže být závislá na cizí zemi. Je přeci naprosto hloupé, pokud některé členské státy chtějí používat pro utajenou vládní komunikaci Starlink. Přitom Evropa má řešení. Máme tady náš GOVSATCOM a IRIS2, což jsou spolehlivé platformy, které nejsou ohrožovány cizími zájmy a máme skrze ně nezávislost a autonomii, která nebude ohrožovat nás uvnitř členských států.

    Dámy a pánové, je naprosto nezbytné, aby Evropská unie urychlila nasazení GOVSATCOM a IRIS2 a nabídla členským státům bezpečnou alternativu. Všechny evropské bezpečnostní složky, včetně agentury Frontex, musí povinně využívat Galileo a GOVSATCOM pro šifrovanou komunikaci.

    A za třetí, masivně musíme podpořit členské státy, aby investovaly do evropské infrastruktury místo spoléhání na neevropské dodavatele. Naše bezpečnost nesmí být v rukou cizích firem, které nám mohou jediným tlačítkem naši komunikaci vypnout.

     
       

     

      Lina Gálvez (S&D). – Señor presidente, estamos debatiendo mucho esta semana sobre la reordenación del orden mundial y la necesidad de garantizar la autonomía estratégica tecnológica para la Unión Europea, para la supervivencia de nuestras democracias y, en definitiva, del propio proyecto europeo y debemos conseguirla para garantizar realmente el desarrollo de nuestra propia inteligencia artificial, la resiliencia económica y, como digo, el propio proyecto europeo.

    El potencial acuerdo del Gobierno de Italia con Starlink —el servicio de comunicaciones por satélite de Elon Musk— es paradigmático y debemos saber que la conexión entre la política, los negocios y las amistades no es inocua y tiene implicaciones muy directas en sectores estratégicos de nuestra economía y en nuestra seguridad, en nuestras libertades de toda Europa, no solo de Italia.

    Por eso, debemos acelerar y financiar proyectos como el Iris2, porque, frente a actores divisorios, lo que necesitamos es más Europa y más democracia.

     
       


     

      Paulius Saudargas (PPE). – Mr President, dear colleagues, it is a textbook reality that when an unfriendly state prepares for military aggression, it begins with disinformation, cyber‑attacks and disruption of communication infrastructure. This strategy has been evident for decades and we have witnessed it when Russia attacked Ukraine.

    The same tactics to disrupt communication networks are being observed in various parts of the European Union itself – for example, the recent undersea cable sabotage in the Baltic Sea. Our sovereignty is only as strong as our resilience, including the resilience of our strategic infrastructure.

    Information is power, and the ability to control and protect our communication networks is a fundamental pillar of security. Yet the EU remains dangerously exposed to external dependencies in this domain.

    Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia recently disconnected from the BRELL electricity grid. For years, the Baltic states relied on an energy system that could be manipulated externally. For years, we invested in infrastructure to finally break free.

    This example must serve as a broader lesson for the EU. We must extend this thinking to our communication networks, ensuring that they remain secure, autonomous and resilient against external threats.

    A Europe that cannot safeguard its own communications infrastructure is a Europe at risk.

     
       

     

      Tsvetelina Penkova (S&D). – Mr President, dear colleagues, recent events have proven once again that technology is power. The digital infrastructure, such as submarine cables, 5G networks, satellites and AI, are critical for our economy, security, health care and daily lives. And yet, almost 50 % of 5G communications rely on foreign communication infrastructure. Dependency on non-EU providers limits our autonomy and exposes us to risks that are beyond our control.

    We must increase the investment in EU technology. Prioritising secure and EU home-grown technology will safeguard us, strengthen our cybersecurity, drive innovation and guarantee long-term competitiveness. The time to act is now. True sovereignty can only be achieved by investing and ensuring that the EU tech sector can survive and remain competitive in this global digital race.

     
       

     

      Eszter Lakos (PPE). – Tisztelt Elnök Úr! A kommunikációs infrastruktúráink rendszere biztosítja a modern társadalom működéséhez szükséges feltételeket, ezért ellenőrzése és védelme stratégiai jelentőségű.

    A kommunikációs infrastruktúrák jó része külső szereplőktől függ, ami súlyos biztonsági és gazdasági kockázatokat rejt magában. Gondoljunk csak bele. Az 5G-hálózataink, a felhőszolgáltatásaink jelentős része nem európai kézben van. Ez nem csupán technológiai függőség, hanem egyben biztonsági kérdés is.

    Amikor kritikus adataink külső szervereken utaznak, amikor stratégiai döntéseink más hatalmak infrastruktúráján keresztül születnek, valójában feladjuk a szuverenitásunk egy részét. Éppen ezért a külső befolyás csökkentésére van szükség.

    Az EU-nak sürgősen cselekednie kell. Be kell fektetnünk saját technológiai megoldásainkba. Fejlesztenünk kell az európai alternatívákat, és meg kell erősítenünk a kibervédelmünket. Csak így biztosíthatjuk, hogy Európa továbbra is független, erős és versenyképes szereplő maradjon a világpolitika színpadán. Kezünkbe kell vennünk a digitális jövőnk irányítását, vagy elfogadjuk, hogy mások írják számunkra a szabályokat. Az idő pedig sürget.

     
       

     

      José Cepeda (S&D). – Señor presidente, señorías, Europa ¿está o no está en guerra? Yo creo que estamos en guerra. Estamos en una guerra híbrida y, por primera vez en muchísimas décadas, no somos lo suficientemente conscientes de la situación que estamos atravesando. Tenemos que invertir en nuestra seguridad y en nuestra defensa, en nuestras infraestructuras críticas de telecomunicaciones.

    Y para ser realmente soberanos solamente tenemos que hacer dos cosas: invertir de una forma importante en tecnología, pero no en cualquier tecnología, en nuestro desarrollo tecnológico, e invertir también en una mayor cooperación de nuestros sistemas de inteligencia, para precisamente proteger de una forma eficiente todas las infraestructuras críticas de telecomunicaciones. En este caso hay numerosísimos trabajos que desarrollan institutos de investigación, como por ejemplo Max Planck; tenemos que esforzarnos para que se visualicen mucho más. Y tenemos que generar nuestros propios recursos si realmente queremos ser soberanos y protegernos de lo que nos está hoy invadiendo de una forma directa.

     
       


     

      Brando Benifei (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, il dibattito su Starlink in Italia ci ha posto un doppio interrogativo: possiamo affidarci per comunicazioni del governo e degli apparati di intelligence e di difesa ad aziende fondate e guidate da chi oggi pubblicamente supporta forze filo-Putin e anti-UE, con l’uso di potenti mezzi di comunicazione e di risorse illimitate? E, qualora adottassimo sistemi come Starlink, possiamo rischiare che il governo americano ne interrompa le funzionalità, come è accaduto in una occasione in Ucraina?

    Io credo serva equilibrio e approfondimento. Vale per l’Italia, che ho usato come esempio, e vale per l’Europa. Non possiamo precluderci nessuna soluzione tecnologica, ma quando si tratta della sicurezza nazionale ed europea dobbiamo essere certi di mantenere il controllo e la riservatezza necessaria.

    In ogni caso, dobbiamo portare avanti i nostri progetti. L’Unione ha già lanciato il progetto IRIS2 per una connettività satellitare sicura. È in ritardo questo progetto. La Commissione deve impegnarsi a realizzarlo più velocemente insieme agli Stati membri.

    E poi le crescenti tensioni geopolitiche. La dipendenza da fornitori esterni per infrastrutture cruciali è un tema non solo rispetto ai satelliti, ma anche per i cavi sottomarini, le tecnologie mobili. Si mette a rischio, se non si lavora su questo, l’autonomia strategica dell’Europa.

    Dobbiamo fare di più, adesso e insieme. Non perdiamo altro tempo, perché ne va della nostra libertà.

     
       



       

    (Se suspende la sesión durante unos instantes)

     
       

       

    IN THE CHAIR: VICTOR NEGRESCU
    Vice-President

     

    5. Resumption of the sitting

       

    (The sitting resumed at 12:30)

     
       


     

      Jean-Paul Garraud (PfE). – Monsieur le Président, l’article 10 de notre règlement intérieur exige des députés qu’ils préservent la dignité du Parlement, et l’article 17 dispose que les députés sont responsables des actes de leurs assistants.

    Ces règles ont été piétinées hier soir. Sous la direction et en présence de Mme Manon Aubry, présidente de groupe, un attroupement de députés et d’assistants français d’extrême gauche ont tenté d’empêcher la tenue d’une conférence ici même, au Parlement européen, en vociférant des injures et des slogans diffamatoires à l’entrée de la salle de conférence.

    Nous demandons que des sanctions soient prises. Ce sont des violations inacceptables de notre règlement intérieur. Nous n’allons pas nous laisser intimider par des apprentis révolutionnaires islamo-gauchistes et antisémites.

    Ces actes sont graves. Il vous faut, Monsieur le Président, Madame la Présidente Metsola, prendre des sanctions et éviter ainsi les prochaines actions que ces gens-là préparent. C’est votre responsabilité, Madame la Présidente du Parlement européen. Nous attendons les mesures que vous prendrez pour préserver l’exercice de la démocratie.

     
       

     

      Manon Aubry (The Left). – Monsieur le Président, l’événement qui était organisé hier par le groupe ESN portait sur la remigration. La remigration, c’est la déportation de personnes qui sont européennes en dehors de l’Union européenne.

    Monsieur Garraud, en prenant la défense de cet événement, vous montrez le vrai visage de l’extrême droite, qui est celui aujourd’hui d’un projet raciste et xénophobe.

    Alors oui, Monsieur Garraud, nous avons protesté pacifiquement. Oui, Monsieur Garraud, vous nous trouverez à chaque fois – à chaque fois! – sur votre chemin. À chaque fois que vous organiserez des événements racistes dans les locaux de notre Parlement européen, vous nous trouverez ici pour protester, parce que le racisme n’a pas sa place, ni ici au sein du Parlement européen, ni à l’extérieur.

     
       


     

      Thijs Reuten (S&D). – Mr President, thank you for your patience, and thank you, colleagues. On behalf of my group – and I hope many more – I would like to ask our President to convey our deepest concerns about yesterday’s statements by President Trump and his government. We all want peace for Ukraine, but the terms and conditions emerging are bad for Ukraine, bad for Europe and bad for the rules-based order. Just good for Putin!

    The EU and other European allies are not part of the discussion. That is unacceptable and risky. An emergency Council meeting before the weekend should be on the table, ensuring a united message to our US friends that we are not going to do it like this.

    Not about Ukraine, without Ukraine; not about Europe, without Europe!

    (Applause)

     

    6. Voting time

     

      President. – This being said, based on the recommendations of the services we will move directly to the vote.

     

     

      President. – The next vote is on the repression by the Ortega‑Murillo regime in Nicaragua, targeting human rights defenders, political opponents and religious communities in particular (see minutes, item 6.2).

     

     

      President. – The next vote is on the continuing detention and risk of the death penalty for individuals in Nigeria charged with blasphemy, notably the case of Yahaya Sharif-Aminu (see minutes, item 6.3).

     

     

      President. – The next vote is on the further deterioration of the political situation in Georgia (see minutes, item 6.4).

     


       

    (The vote closed)

     
       

       

    (The sitting was suspended at 12:47)

     
       

       

    IN THE CHAIR: CHRISTEL SCHALDEMOSE
    Vice-President

     

    7. Resumption of the sitting

       

    (The sitting resumed at 15:01)

     

    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? No. The minutes are approved.

     

    9. Cross-border recognition of civil status documents of same-sex couples and their children within the territory of the EU (debate)


     

      Glenn Micallef, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, I would like to thank you for proposing a debate on the recognition of civil status documents of same‑sex couples and their children within the Union.

    Families, in particular rainbow families, can currently face difficulties in having their marriage or partnership or the parenthood of their children recognised in another Member State, for example, when they move to another Member State or returned to their Member State of origin. The recognition in a Member State of civil status documents on marriage, partnerships and parenthood issued in another Member State is at the basis of the right to free movement and an essential element of the construction of a Union of equality.

    The Court of Justice ruled in its 2018 judgment in the Coman case that already today Union law on free movement requires Member States to recognise, for certain purposes, civil status documents on marriage or partnerships issued in another Member State, irrespective of the sex of the spouses or partners.

    This recognition obligation aims to enable Union citizens and their spouses or partners, including same‑sex couples, to benefit from rights under Union law, such as the right to travel to or take up residence in another Member State, or to be treated equally in a host Member State in respect of all matters within the scope of the Treaty, even if that host Member State does not provide for same‑sex marriage or same‑sex partnerships. But let me be clear: this does not require Member States to provide, in their national law, for the institution of same‑sex marriage.

    Similarly, the Court of Justice confirmed in its 2021 judgment in the VMA case that the Member States are already required under Union law free movement to recognise a civil status document on the parenthood of a child issued in another Member State. This recognition obligation aims to enable all children and their parents, including children with same‑sex parents, to benefit from their rights under Union law, such as the right to travel to or take up residence in another Member State, and in their right to travel documentation even if the host Member State does not allow parenthood by same‑sex couples.

    The Commission considered that the protection of children’s rights in cross‑border situations should be extended, and in 2022, it adopted a proposal for a regulation that would require Member States to recognise civil status documents on parenthood issued in another Member State for all purposes.

    The regulation would require Member States to recognise parenthood to enable all children to also benefit from their rights under national law, such as the right to inherit from either parent in another Member State, the right to receive financial support from either parent in another Member State, or the right to be represented by either parent in another Member State on matters such as their schooling and health. This recognition obligation would apply irrespective of how that child was conceived or born, and irrespective of the child’s type of family, therefore also applying to children with same‑sex parents.

    The proposal would facilitate the recognition of parenthood by harmonising the Member States’ rules on private international law, that is, rules that determine which Member State’s court would be competent to establish parenthood in cross‑border cases, which national law would apply to establish parenthood in cross‑border cases, and how judgments and public documents on parenthood issued in one Member State should be recognised in another Member State.

    The proposal also provides for the creation of a European certificate on parenthood – a certificate that children or their parents could use to prove children’s parenthood in another Member State.

    As the proposal concerns rights going beyond rights for which recognition is already granted under Union law, the proposal had to be adopted under the Union’s competence to adopt measures on family law with cross‑border implications, pursuant to Article 81(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

    Such measures must be adopted by the Council by a unanimous vote, after having consulted Parliament. Parliament gave a large support to the proposal in December 2023. In the Council, the Member States are discussing the proposal’s provisions constructively, and progress is gradually being made.

     
       

     

      Seán Kelly, thar ceann an Ghrúpa PPE. – Go raibh maith agat a Uachtaráin agus go raibh maith agat a Choimisinéir, aontaím leat sa mhéid a dúirt tú.

    We are faced with a very important question. Should same sex couples and their children receive the same recognition and protection of their civil status across all EU Member States? The answer is clear: yes.

    This is about ensuring equality and fairness for all families across Europe. This is not a question of ideology, but simply a question of fundamental human rights.

    The European Union is founded on the principles of equality, dignity and freedom. When a same-sex couple legally marries in one Member State, or when their child is legally recognised as theirs, that legal status should not dissolve at a border. A family is a family, whether they live in Dublin, Warsaw, Madrid or Budapest.

    Yet today, many same-sex couples and their children find themselves in legal limbo simply because they move between Member States. A child recognised as the legal offspring of two parents in one country may suddenly find themselves without legal guardianship in another. This is not just an inconvenience. It is a violation of their rights, creating insecurity, fear and unnecessary suffering. Worse still, this legal uncertainty directly infringes on one of the fundamental pillars of the EU: the right to free movement.

    What freedom is there if crossing a border can strip away a person’s legal relationship with their child? No EU citizen should have to choose between their right to live and work anywhere in the Union and the legal security of their family. Yet that is precisely the choice some families are forced to make.

    This Parliament has a duty to defend all families. EU law must guarantee that civil status documents – marriages, partnerships, birth certificates – are recognised across borders, regardless of the gender of the parents or spouses.

    The European Court of Justice has already affirmed that all EU citizens, including same sex families, must be able to move freely without discrimination. Now we need our legislation to reflect this. We must ensure that legal rights are already granted by one country, are not stripped away by another. This is about legal certainty, respect for human dignity and the freedom of movement that is the heart of the of the European project.

    Families should not have to fear crossing a border. Children should not lose their legal parents overnight. We have a responsibility to ensure that love, commitment and parental care are recognised and respected no matter where in the EU they exist. Let us choose the path of equality, dignity and fundamental rights.

    Tugaimis, agus seasaimis suas dár gclann i ngach áit san Aontas agus aitheantas a thabhairt dóibh i ngach aon Bhallstát.

     
       

     

      Krzysztof Śmiszek, w imieniu grupy S&D. – Pani Przewodnicząca! Zasada wzajemnego uznawania dokumentów między państwami członkowskimi. Zasada wzajemnego zaufania. Zasada równości bez względu na orientację seksualną. Zasada swobodnego przepływu osób. Zasada zakazu dyskryminacji. To są podstawy funkcjonowania Unii Europejskiej.

    Dzisiaj powiem Państwu o sytuacjach, prawdziwych sytuacjach, w których te zasady w Unii Europejskiej nie obowiązują. Prawo Unii Europejskiej nie obowiązuje, jeżeli po spędzeniu 15 pięknych lat ze swoim partnerem w Polsce, umiera on we Włoszech i musisz sprowadzić jego ciało do kraju, jak w przypadku Polaków – Krzysztofa i Łukasza. Te zasady nie istnieją kiedy zawierasz związek małżeński z miłością swojego życia w Danii albo w Portugalii. W Polsce ten związek nie ma żadnego znaczenia. Twoja miłość w świetle prawa nie istnieje, tak jak miłość polskiej pisarki Renaty i jej partnerki. Tak jak miłość aktywistów Dawida i Jakuba. Tysiące polskich, słowackich czy rumuńskich par jednopłciowych zawiera związki małżeńskie i wychowuje dzieci w Niemczech, w Portugalii, Holandii, Szwecji czy Hiszpanii. Kiedy podróżują do Polski, Bułgarii czy Słowacji, ich związki małżeńskie już nie istnieją i ich rodzicielstwo w świetle prawa zostaje odrzucone. Ich życia są unieważnione. Stają się niewidzialni. Stają się dla siebie obcymi osobami.

    Podstawą Unii Europejskiej jest wolność poruszania się po jej terytorium. W jaki sposób ta wolność jest respektowana, jeżeli w jednym kraju jestem mężem i ojcem, a w drugim nikim. Jeżeli odbiera się mi moją tożsamość, moją miłość i moją rodzinę w momencie, kiedy wsiadam do pociągu w Berlinie, a wysiadam we Wrocławiu czy Warszawie. Artykuł 21 Karty Praw Podstawowych zakazuje dyskryminacji ze względu na orientację seksualną. Czy na pewno tak jest w Unii Europejskiej? Panie Komisarzu, czas zakończyć tę jawną dyskryminację. Czas na działanie Unii Europejskiej i Komisji Europejskiej.

     
       

     

      Paolo Inselvini, a nome del gruppo ECR. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signor Commissario, i bambini, la parte più fragile, coloro che hanno bisogno di protezione più di tutti, devono avere la priorità. Questo in generale, ma anche e soprattutto per il dibattito odierno. Siamo tutti d’accordo, credo e spero, su questo aspetto.

    E allora perché qualcuno vuole sacrificare i diritti dei più piccoli sull’altare dell’ideologia? Perché si vuole esaudire a tutti i costi i desideri, più o meno legittimi, degli adulti? I bambini hanno il diritto ad avere un padre e una madre. Non perché lo decidiamo noi, brutti e cattivi, non perché lo decide uno Stato, ma perché così è, senza alcuna possibilità di smentita.

    Avere dei bambini, invece, non è un diritto. Avere dei figli non è un diritto che può essere esaudito a tutti i costi. Questo semplicemente, perché le persone non sono delle cose.

    Ecco perché mi sorge un dubbio. Evidentemente, la discussione di oggi è fatta per ingannare. È un inganno: un inganno da parte di chi vuole legittimare la barbara pratica dell’utero in affitto, ossia la mercificazione della donna, dei bambini e della vita.

    E se questo è il vostro obiettivo, bene, sappiate che ci troverete pronti alle barricate. Saremo l’argine che fermerà la vostra furiosa marea ideologica. Non smetteremo mai di ribadirlo: i bambini possono nascere solo da un padre e una madre, solo da un uomo e da una donna. Ed è assurdo dover sempre ricordare ciò che è ovvio. Ma se ci costringerete, noi lo riaffermeremo ogni giorno con coraggio. Non arretreremo un centimetro nella difesa della famiglia, della donna e dei bambini.

     
       

     

      Fabienne Keller, au nom du groupe Renew. – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire Micallef, chers collègues, la montée de l’extrême droite en Europe représente une menace grandissante pour tout le monde, et plus particulièrement pour la communauté LGBTI. En témoigne la récente mesure du gouvernement Meloni, qui vise à annuler les enregistrements des actes d’état civil des enfants des couples de même sexe. En Italie, plus de 20 000 enfants élevés par des couples de même sexe sont ainsi menacés par la remise en cause de leur filiation légale.

    Aujourd’hui, dans l’Union européenne, ce sont plus de 2 millions d’enfants qui pourraient faire face à une situation dans laquelle ce lien avec leurs parents n’est pas reconnu. Il est donc urgent d’agir maintenant, d’autant plus que, Monsieur le Commissaire, la solution, nous l’avons déjà trouvée, vous l’avez rappelé.

    La Commission européenne a proposé, il y a deux ans déjà, un règlement pour harmoniser cette reconnaissance et introduire un certificat européen. Cette reconnaissance ne permettrait pas simplement de mettre fin à l’incertitude, mais elle offrirait également une garantie réelle de protection des droits et l’égalité pour les familles.

    Alors, chers collègues, qu’attendons-nous pour la mettre en œuvre? Avec mon groupe Renew Europe, nous portons haut et fort les valeurs européennes d’égalité. J’appelle donc les États membres à faire avancer cette proposition, essentielle pour la sécurité juridique pour tous, pour l’égalité, pour la protection des enfants dans l’Union européenne. Nous devons cela à tous les enfants européens.

     
       

     

      Kim Van Sparrentak, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, dear colleagues, this summer I am getting married and I honestly can’t wait to call my beautiful fiancée my wife. I can’t wait to celebrate with all our friends and family and use our legal rights to be recognised as partners for life.

    And two weeks later, one of my best friends is also getting married and I know he is as excited as me to tie the knot with his girlfriend. But the sad reality is that within our union of equality, my friend and I aren’t equal, because there are still Member States that disavow a marriage between me and my girlfriend. They are allowed to prevent us from accessing our social security or our claims to residency and they can disregard the other if we have to make unthinkable medical choices. They are still allowed to hinder us in our right to free movement. Some marriage certificates are apparently more meaningful than others.

    And this is definitely not about me. It is about baby Sara, who is a toddler by now, and her mums, who have been fighting for their child not to grow up stateless. This is about Adrian Coman, whose partner was prevented from living with him in his home country of Romania. It is about Arian Mirzarafie-Ahi not having to fight for the legal gender recognition he already obtained, especially when the possibilities are limited and dehumanising.

    The courts are clear: freedom of movement means that if you are a parent in one country, you are a parent in every country. If you are a spouse in one country, you are a spouse in every country. If you obtain legal gender recognition in one country, you obtain legal gender recognition in every country.

    Commission, I’m looking forward to you putting this into law and I’m especially looking forward to seeing that happen within the new LGBTIQ equality strategy.

     
       

     

      Siegbert Frank Droese, im Namen der ESN-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin! Verehrte Kollegen! Ich wundere mich schon, dass wir heute die Tagesordnung nicht geändert haben. Sie haben es wahrscheinlich mitbekommen: Ein Weltereignis von Weltrang hat sich gestern ereignet. Die Präsidenten Trump und Putin werden einen Friedensprozess in Gang setzen, was die Ukraine betrifft. Die Kommission, das Parlament, die EU spielen dabei keine Rolle. Da hätte ich mir ehrlich gesagt gewünscht, dass wir heute über dieses Thema reden. Nun ist es so. Wir reden jetzt heute über das Problem gleichgeschlechtlicher Paare.

    Die Kommission propagiert jeden Tag pausenlos ihre EU-Werte und will sie möglichst global durchsetzen. Was für eine Vermessenheit! Dass dadurch Abkommen verhindert werden, oft die Wirtschaft der EU Schaden nimmt, ist der Kommission dabei vollkommen egal. Dabei scheint die Kommission nicht zu interessieren, dass die Mehrheit der Länder auf der Welt andere Werte als diese EU hat. Dies gilt insbesondere für den Bereich Familie. Sechs Länder haben nicht der Idee von gleichgeschlechtlichen Ehen zugestimmt, darunter Bulgarien, Rumänien und Polen. Diese Länder haben andere Traditionen. Warum kann man das nicht respektieren? Diese EU macht doch immer Reklame für Einheit in Vielfalt. Gilt das normale und traditionelle Familienbild aus Mutter, Vater, Kindern, das in Europa seit Anbeginn der Zeit herrscht, nicht als schützenswerter Teil einer Vielfalt? Warum werden hier Länder wie Rumänien bedroht, die ihre Verfassung verändern müssen? Das finden wir übergriffig, das ist widerlich, das ist abzulehnen.

    Um es klar zu sagen: Niemand soll diskriminiert werden. Es soll aber auch niemand bevorzugt werden. Gleichbehandlung für jedermann. Diese EU will nun grenzüberschreitend, dass alle privaten Lebensformen überall in der EU anerkannt werden. Nein, das soll jedes Land selbst entscheiden. Das ist eine nationale Aufgabe der Mitgliedsländer. Diese EU, solange sie noch besteht, soll sich auf ihre Kernkompetenzen, wenn sie die denn hat, konzentrieren und sich nicht in das Privatleben der Bürger einmischen. Wir respektieren das Privatleben aller Bürger. Wir stehen aber auch für Familie aus Mutter, Vater, Kindern.

    Die Souveränität einer Nation heißt auch Souveränität in den Familienfragen und Respekt vor Privatangelegenheiten seiner Bürger. Und von dieser Stelle aus möchte ich meinen Landsleuten zurufen: Wenn Sie Freiheit, Frieden und Souveränität große Beachtung schenken, haben Sie nächste Woche am Sonntag die Gelegenheit. Wir sagen dazu: Von den Alpen bis zur See wählen alle AfD. Oder in einfacher Sprache: Sei schlau, wähl blau!

     
       


     

      Lucia Yar (Renew). – Dnes tu stojím s víziou Európy, ktorá je spravodlivá, láskavá a verná svojim spoločným hodnotám, pán predrečník. Európy postavenej na tolerancii, kde o vzťahu dvoch dospelých ľudí rozhodujú ich city, ich vzájomné city, a nie povolenia politikov, kde každé dieťa, bez ohľadu na orientáciu alebo pohlavie svojich rodičov, má právo na stabilitu, bezpečie a rodinu. Verím v Európsku úniu, ktorá spája, nie rozdeľuje. Takú, ktorá nedovolí, aby prekročenie hranice znamenalo stratu rodiča. Aj Európsky súdny dvor, už sme o tom počuli, tvrdí, že ak je právny vzťah uznaný v jednej krajine, musí ho rešpektovať aj iná krajina. Kvôli princípu spravodlivosti a ochrany tých najzraniteľnejších, to je ten dôvod. A predsa, napríklad u nás na Slovensku, vidíme opak. Populistické vlády predkladajú návrhy, ktoré práva rodín nerozširujú, ale ich obmedzujú, zraňujú ich. My ale máme naviac. Vyberme si cestu, ktorá je cestou rešpektu. A skúsme aj v tejto dobe povedať jasné áno spravodlivosti. Postavme sa za Európu, v ktorej každé dieťa, každá rodina a každý človek má svoje bezpečné miesto.

     
       

     

      Rasmus Andresen (Verts/ALE). – Frau Präsidentin! Ich möchte, dass alle Europäerinnen und Europäer die gleichen Rechte haben, unabhängig davon, wo sie leben und wen sie lieben.

    Niemand hat Hass und Hetze verdient; alle haben Respekt und gleiche Rechte verdient. Es ist doch absurd, dass Menschen sich in der EU zwar frei bewegen können, aber sie selbst und ihre Familien nicht überall anerkannt werden. Es hat in der Vergangenheit mehrere Fälle gegeben, wo gleichgeschlechtliche Paare ihre Rechte vor Gericht einklagen mussten. Zwei polnische Frauen, die in Wien ein Kind bekommen haben, aber zu Hause damit nicht anerkannt wurden. Homosexuelle Männer, die nach ihrem Umzug in einen anderen EU-Mitgliedstaat ihre Ehe nicht anerkannt bekommen haben.

    Es ist untragbar, dass gleichgeschlechtliche Paare in der Europäischen Union 2025 immer noch diskriminiert werden. Es ist unsere Pflicht, die Grundrechte von allen EU-Bürgerinnen und -Bürgern zu schützen. Dafür brauchen wir europäische Gesetze, mit denen die Freiheit der Menschen geschützt und Regenbogenfamilien EU-weit anerkannt werden. Gegen Staaten wie Rumänien, die das systematisch untergraben, muss die EU-Kommission mit Sanktionen vorgehen.

    Ich möchte Sie auch ganz herzlich auffordern, hier nicht nachzulassen, sondern nachzulegen, auch wenn die politische Stimmung in einigen Mitgliedstaaten vielleicht kompliziert ist. Aber Sie haben hier gemeinsam mit uns eine Verantwortung. Der müssen Sie gerecht werden.

     
       

     

      Robert Biedroń (S&D). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Jutro Walentynki, 14 lutego. Niestety nie wszyscy w tej Unii Równości będą mogli świętować to święto. Nadal mamy w Unii Europejskiej obywateli lepszego i gorszego sortu. Nadal mamy w Unii Europejskiej rodziny, które nie mają równych praw. Nadal mamy 2 miliony dzieci w Unii Europejskiej, które nie są objęte ochroną. Europejski certyfikat rodzicielstwa chce to zmienić, to dobry kierunek i dlatego dziwię się, naprawdę dziwię się prawicy, że z taką nienawiścią podchodzi do czegoś, co Wy zawsze popieraliście – ochrony rodziny i ochrony dzieci. Przecież tu chodzi o bezpieczeństwo tego dziecka. Chodzi o to, że kiedy jego rodzice znajdują się w sytuacji, która nie jest uregulowana prawnie, to by dziecko po prostu najnormalniej w świecie było bezpieczne. Nic więcej i nic mniej.

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

     
       

     

      Bogdan Rzońca (ECR), pytanie zadane przez podniesienie niebieskiej kartki. – Mam pytanie do Pana Posła. Nie rozumiem tego lamentu, który tutaj Pan Poseł przedstawia wraz ze swoim partnerem. Od ponad roku rządzicie państwo w Polsce – Pana formacja z Donaldem Tuskiem. Rządzicie w Polsce od 14 miesięcy. Macie większość, możecie tak zmienić prawo w Polsce, jak chcecie i nie umiecie tego zrobić. No i powiedzcie dlaczego?

    Poza tym, Panie Pośle, Unia Europejska jest organizacją prawną – artykuł 5 Traktatu o Unii Europejskiej mówi bardzo wyraźnie, że kompetencje nieprzyznane innym są kompetencjami krajowymi. Więc także tu macie większość w tym Parlamencie, możecie robić, co chcecie i nie robicie tego. Więc krótko mówiąc, ja jestem za prawem naturalnym, mam trochę inne zdanie niz Pan, ale niech Pan nie ma pretensji do Kaczyńskiego, do Prawicy o to, że jesteście mniejszością, bo jesteście …

    (Przewodnicząca odebrała mówcy głos)

     
       

     

      Robert Biedroń (S&D), odpowiedź na pytanie zadane przez podniesienie niebieskiej kartki. – Ja chciałem podziękować panu posłowi, że on tak pełen emocji podchodzi do tej sprawy i tutaj podpowiada, jak to zmienić. Proszę się przyłączyć. Ja myślę, że tutaj warto, żebyśmy wszyscy ponad podziałami chronili każdego obywatela i każdą obywatelkę. Jeśli chodzi o prawo unijne, Panie Pośle, to warto doczytać – Europejski Trybunał Sprawiedliwości wydawał wyroki w tej sprawie. Brak takiej regulacji to nie tylko jest pogwałcenie traktatów, ale pogwałcenie także podstawowych praw człowieka. Dlatego, Panie Komisarzu, dziękuję za tę inicjatywę, którą, jak rozumiem, pan Rzońca będzie popierał.

     
       

     

      Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis (S&D). – Madam President, Commissioner, of course, no child should be discriminated against because of the way they were born or the type of family they were born into. It is crucial. It is enshrined in the Lisbon Treaty, Article 2. Please read this article. We are all obliged to fulfil the requirements of human rights. All.

    It’s not a question of religion. Those who are mentioning Christianity, please read the Bible. Abraham and his first son and, of course, Saint Mary’s story. It would be good to listen and to understand about what you are speaking. Of course, you know that all families, including rainbow families, should have the same rights in the EU. This includes, for instance, the right to maintenance and schooling, education and others.

    But it is a pity we see that such a trend is growing, especially in those countries where the far right are trying to violate human rights. Of course, the parenthood regulation is still blocked in the Council. It is also a shame that the Council still, until now, has no chance to solve this problem. It is our duty to implement all human rights.

     
       

       

    Catch-the-eye procedure

     
       

     

      Margarita de la Pisa Carrión (PfE). – Señora presidente, señorías, el Derecho de familia es competencia de los Estados miembros. La Declaración de los Derechos del Niño es clara: todo niño tiene un padre y una madre y tiene derecho a conocerlos y a ser cuidado por ellos en la medida de lo posible. Los vínculos naturales entre padres e hijos deben ser respetados, pues trascienden la propia existencia: ¿quién soy?; ¿de dónde vengo?; el inicio de nuestra vida en el vientre materno; el vínculo con nuestros padres… Otras formas de paternidad interfieren en esta realidad y exponen al niño y a las personas implicadas no solo a graves dilemas éticos y legales, sino también a situaciones donde se agrede su propia dignidad.

    Garantizar la seguridad jurídica de las familias es legítimo; sin embargo, vemos cómo este principio está siendo instrumentalizado para dar una nueva forma a las relaciones entre padres e hijos transformándolas en contractuales, a veces incluso en mercantiles, como es la gestación subrogada. El ser humano deja de ser tratado como un sujeto de derechos y pasa a considerarse un objeto de transacción, un bien de consumo, a través de la explotación de las mujeres, causando un doloroso desgarro con el hijo y normalizando la ruptura de los lazos naturales.

    La difícil situación en la que se puedan encontrar estos niños debe ser resuelta caso a caso a nivel nacional, no por un mecanismo general europeo como es el certificado de filiación: esto alentaría estas prácticas exponiendo a más personas a esta…

    (la presidenta retira la palabra a la oradora)

     
       

       

    (End of catch-the-eye procedure)

     
       

     

      Glenn Micallef, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, the gender-neutral right to free movement is a cornerstone of our citizens’ Union. The gender-neutral Union family law, the right to love and the right to be loved is an essential block to build a union of equality.

    By requiring or facilitating the recognition of civil status documents, including for same sex couples, Union law on free movement and Union family law aim to protect the rights of couples and also of children in cross-border situations, without leaving behind any spouse or partner due to their sexual orientation and without leaving behind any child because of the way in which he was conceived or born, or because she has the same sex parents.

    In facilitating the recognition of civil status documents also for same sex families, Union law does not interfere with the Member States’ substantive family law, such as their rules on the definition of family or their rules on surrogacy, which fall within the competence of Member States.

    However, with the recognition of civil status documents for all spouses or partners and for all children, Union law will ensure that same sex couples and their children can benefit from all their rights in any Member State.

     
       

     

      President. – Thank you very much, Commissioner. The debate is closed.

     

    10. Explanations of votes

     

      President. – The next item is the explanation of votes.

     

    10.1. Further deterioration of the political situation in Georgia (RC-B10-0106/2025)



     

      Ondřej Dostál (NI). – Paní předsedající, vážení voliči, mám čtyři důvody, proč jsem dnes hlasoval proti rezoluci o Gruzii. Důvod první, Evropský parlament by se měl věnovat potížím Evropy, ne usnesením o cizích zemích. Je to neuctivé a neužitečné. Oni mají své problémy, my máme dost vlastních. Důvod druhý, kritika gruzínských voleb je dezinformace. Zásadní výhrady proti nim neměla ani mise OSCE, ani mise Evropského parlamentu. Gruzínci si jasně zvolili Gruzínský sen. Evropský parlament nemá žádnou pravomoc určovat, kdo bude v Gruzii premiérem či prezidentem. Důvod třetí, rezoluce vyzývá k puči a k financování nepokojů z peněz evropských občanů. Vyzývá, abychom se dopustili stejného zahraničního vměšování, které tady soustavně kritizujeme. Exprezidentce Zurabišviliové skončil mandát. Nechť odejde. Exprezident Saakašvili byl v řádném procesu trestně odsouzen za zneužití moci. Nechť svůj trest vykoná. Důvod čtvrtý, politika, kterou rezoluce Gruzii vnucuje, by jí připravila podobný osud, jaký stihl Ukrajinu. Gruzie tu není proto, aby dělala pěšáka Západu v boji s Ruskem. Tímto se Gruzii omlouvám za pokus o destabilizaci ze strany Parlamentu. Přeji jí rozumnou vládu, mír a prosperitu.

     

    10.2. Escalation of violence in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (RC-B10-0102/2025)


     

      Seán Kelly (PPE). – Maith thú a Uachtaráin arís, bhí mé an-sásta, cosúil le mo ghrúpa an EPP, vótáil ar son na tuarascála seo.

    The ongoing violence in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo is both heartbreaking and unjustifiable. The escalation of conflict, including the occupation of Goma by M23 forces, has led to severe violations of human rights, including the use of sexual violence as a weapon of war and recruitment of child soldiers. These actions are not only a violation of international law, but are also catastrophic for innocent civilians caught in the crossfire.

    The resolution calls for concrete actions to bring peace to the region, including imposing sanctions, halting arms transfers and demanding that Rwanda ceases its support for M23.

    I believe this resolution sends a clear message that we will not tolerate further human suffering and that we stand in solidarity with the people of the DRC in their fight for peace and justice.

    Sin a bhfuil uaimse a Uachtaráin, míle buíochas agus go dté tú slán abhaile.

     

    11. Approval of the minutes of the sitting and forwarding of texts adopted

     

      President. – The minutes of this sitting will be submitted to Parliament for its approval at the beginning of the next sitting. If there are no objections, I will forward the resolutions adopted at today’s sitting to the persons and bodies named in the resolutions.

     

    12. Dates of forthcoming sittings

     

      President. – The next part‑session will take place from 10 to 13 March 2025, in Strasbourg.

     

    13. Closure of the sitting

       

    (The sitting closed at 15:40)

     

    14. Adjournment of the session

     

      President. – The session of the European Parliament is adjourned.

     

    MIL OSI Europe News