This criminal illegal alien faces federal charges including attempted murder of a federal officer and assault of a federal officer with infliction of bodily injury
WASHINGTON – Today, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced the arrest of Gabriel Hurtado-Cariaco, a criminal illegal alien and Tren de Aragua gang member who violently attacked a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) special agent and an FBI special agent.
“This Venezuelan national is a criminal illegal alien and Tren de Aragua gang member who violently attacked an ICE and FBI agent and has been charged with attempted murder,” said Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin.“Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident. Our ICE agents are facing a 500% increase surge in assaults against them. Our brave law enforcement puts their lives on the line every day to arrest terrorists, gang members, and other violent criminals that the previous administration released into American communities. Secretary Noem has been clear: anyone who assaults an ICE law enforcement officer will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”
On June 18, ICE Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) in Omaha led an operation to arrest Gabriel Hurtado-Cariaco, a known Tren de Aragua terrorist, in Bellevue, Nebraska. As ICE and their law enforcement partners attempted to take him into custody, Hurtado-Cariaco launched a brutal and premeditated assault on an ICE HSI special agent.
During the attack, the illegal alien threw the ICE agent to the ground, slammed her head into the pavement, ripped off her body armor, and made repeated and physical violent contact. The agent sustained serious injuries to her head and arm and was immediately transported to the University of Nebraska Medical Center for treatment. The agent has since been released from the hospital and is recovering at home. Hurtado-Cariaco also assaulted an FBI agent during the incident.
Following the attack, Hurtado-Cariaco fled the scene but was apprehended approximately an hour later in the immediate area by ICE and coordinated law enforcement teams.
The Department of Justice charged Gabriel Hurtado-Cariaco—an illegal alien from Venezuela—with attempted murder of a federal officer and assault of a federal officer with infliction of bodily injury.
Hurtado-Cariaco entered the U.S. illegally in 2023—and Border Patrol removed him. In 2024—under the Biden administration—he re-entered the U.S. illegally and was released into the country with a notice to appear.
This criminal illegal alien faces federal charges including attempted murder of a federal officer and assault of a federal officer with infliction of bodily injury
WASHINGTON – Today, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced the arrest of Gabriel Hurtado-Cariaco, a criminal illegal alien and Tren de Aragua gang member who violently attacked a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) special agent and an FBI special agent.
“This Venezuelan national is a criminal illegal alien and Tren de Aragua gang member who violently attacked an ICE and FBI agent and has been charged with attempted murder,” said Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin.“Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident. Our ICE agents are facing a 500% increase surge in assaults against them. Our brave law enforcement puts their lives on the line every day to arrest terrorists, gang members, and other violent criminals that the previous administration released into American communities. Secretary Noem has been clear: anyone who assaults an ICE law enforcement officer will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”
On June 18, ICE Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) in Omaha led an operation to arrest Gabriel Hurtado-Cariaco, a known Tren de Aragua terrorist, in Bellevue, Nebraska. As ICE and their law enforcement partners attempted to take him into custody, Hurtado-Cariaco launched a brutal and premeditated assault on an ICE HSI special agent.
During the attack, the illegal alien threw the ICE agent to the ground, slammed her head into the pavement, ripped off her body armor, and made repeated and physical violent contact. The agent sustained serious injuries to her head and arm and was immediately transported to the University of Nebraska Medical Center for treatment. The agent has since been released from the hospital and is recovering at home. Hurtado-Cariaco also assaulted an FBI agent during the incident.
Following the attack, Hurtado-Cariaco fled the scene but was apprehended approximately an hour later in the immediate area by ICE and coordinated law enforcement teams.
The Department of Justice charged Gabriel Hurtado-Cariaco—an illegal alien from Venezuela—with attempted murder of a federal officer and assault of a federal officer with infliction of bodily injury.
Hurtado-Cariaco entered the U.S. illegally in 2023—and Border Patrol removed him. In 2024—under the Biden administration—he re-entered the U.S. illegally and was released into the country with a notice to appear.
Police are appealing for information after an unattended tin dinghy was found drifting off Kawau Bay this morning.
At this stage, we have no reports of any missing people that would appear to relate, however, we are wanting to confirm the dinghy’s owner is safe.
Police urge anyone who recognises the dinghy or has failed to return home from fishing on Kawau Bay today to contact Police using the 105 reporting line, quote event number P062933786.
LAS CRUCES, N.M. – Today, U.S. Representative Gabe Vasquez (NM-02) joined conservation advocates, local leaders, and community members at the Organ Mountains–Desert Peaks National Monument (OMDP) to rally against renewed efforts to sell off federal public lands. The event featured a press conference and community hike, highlighting the cultural, economic, and environmental importance of public lands to southern New Mexico.
The event comes amidst a revived push by Senate Republicans to advance one of the most extreme public land sell-off proposals in recent history of over 3.3 million acres. While these provisions were blocked in the House thanks to Rep. Vasquez’s leadership in the bipartisan Public Lands Caucus, they have resurfaced in the Senate’s version of the budget reconciliation bill, reigniting concern across the West.
WATCH: REP. VASQUEZ DELIVERS REMARKS AT PROTECT PUBLIC LANDS PRESS CONFERENCE
“Standing here at Organ Mountains–Desert Peaks, I’m reminded that what’s at stake isn’t just this monument—it’s the future of millions of acres of public lands across New Mexico and the West that could be sold off because of Republican proposals in Congress,” said Vasquez. “These lands are part of our identity. They support local jobs, protect sacred Tribal sites, and give our kids a chance to connect with the outdoors. Our public lands are not for sale. Period.”
“There are a number of reasons why keeping OMDP intact and untouched is so important. Not only are conservation and preservation instrumental in this argument, but in Las Cruces, our community has embraced this monument because of the hiking and camping, the outdoor recreation opportunities, and so much more,” said Carrie Hamblen, CEO and President of the Las Cruces Green Chamber of Commerce and New Mexico State Senator. “Our local businesses rely on the tourism that brings visitors into our stores and restaurants and creates a memorable experience for all to enjoy. Our monument isn’t for sale, and our community has proven to this administration that it should be left alone.”
“Our community in Southern New Mexico understands that our landscape brings us together. These lands hold so much more than what can be extracted or profited from them. They hold our stories, they are homes to essential wildlife, they improve the health of our communities,” said Patrick Nolan, Executive Director of Friends of Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks. “The value of our lands cannot be summed up by what can be extracted from them. We hope Congress, with the help of Representative Vasquez, understands that the value of our lands cannot be summed up by what can be extracted from them. That these lands hold value as they are protected and conserved for generations to come.”
“New Mexico Wild and our thousands of members object in the strongest possible terms to any attempts to shrink, eliminate, or remove protections for Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks or any other national monument. These monuments were created as a result of local communities working for years to protect these one of a kind places,” said Mark Allison, Executive Director of New Mexico Wild. “Nearly 90% of New Mexicans — people of all political persuasions — support keeping our monuments intact. They are not merely lines on a map but critical ecological havens, sacred cultural sites, and irreplaceable natural treasures that help define our identity. Public lands are the backdrop to our state’s outdoor heritage and way of life. Plans to sell off our children’s inheritance to benefit connected billionaires is a theft of historic proportions and should make all Americans ashamed and outraged.”
“To New Mexicans public lands aren’t some line item on a budget spreadsheet. Public lands are our lifeblood. Wild, public places and the wild things that inhabit those places are integral to the culture, traditions and lifestyle of countless people across the West,” said Jesse Duebel, Executive Director of the New Mexico Wildlife Federation. “Public lands are not just about outdoor recreation and all the health and economic benefits associated with that. These places house our identity. It’s where we go to obtain our food, the firewood to heat our homes, and the solace we need to overcome the challenges of modern society. Public lands are our gym, our church and our grocery store. In short, our public lands are not for sale, they are in our DNA.”
“The broad scheme to sell off our public lands, national heritage, and outdoor access to the wealthy and well-connected will block access to regular Americans for hiking, camping, hunting, and fishing. It also willfully ignores or disrespects the Indigenous, Hispano, and local communities who rely on these lands for cultural, spiritual, economic, and recreational reasons, said Romir Lahiri, Associate Program Director for Conservation Lands Foundation. “These lands are part of what makes New Mexico so special. New Mexico’s national monuments, including Organ Mountains–Desert Peaks and Río Grande del Norte, exist because the people demanded it. From local business owners and family campers to mountain guides and outdoor adventurers, the majority—regardless of political affiliation—want these treasured natural places protected and accessible for generations to come.”
“Our public lands are living landscapes. Any effort to weaken their protections threaten the health, heritage, and well-being of their connected communities and stand in direct opposition to the voices of New Mexicans. Despite overwhelming support for our public lands, the Trump Administration is systematically degrading the laws and agencies that manage these irreplaceable places and jeopardizing the legal duty to engage meaningfully with Tribal leadership,” said Maude Dinan, New Mexico Program Manager for the National Parks Conservation Association.“Prioritizing oil and gas drilling or mining, erasing national monuments, or transferring public lands to states is short-sighted and will cause irrevocable harm to our landscapes and people.”
Earlier this year, Vasquez launched the bipartisan Public Lands Caucus alongside Rep. Ryan Zinke (R-MT-01) to bring together lawmakers from both parties who support the protection of public lands. The caucus has quickly become a driving force behind efforts to conserve our public lands and fight for the outdoor recreation economy.
In addition to fighting against this latest effort to sell public lands in order to pay for tax breaks for billionaires, Vasquez alsojoined a letterearlier this year to the administration urging the Department of Interior to leave OMDP intact, highlighting its significant landscapes, cultural resources and economic impact.
As the reconciliation package and other efforts to sell off public lands move forward, Vasquez pledged to continue building bipartisan support for protecting public lands for future generations.
Source: United States Senator for Mississippi Roger Wicker
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senators Roger Wicker, R-Miss., and Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., introduced the Reauthorization of Integrated Coastal and Ocean Observation System Act. The bill would reauthorize the Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS) for the next five years, maintaining its current funding level at $56 million annually. Additionally, the bill would bring continued support for ocean monitoring efforts that improve coastal communities, fisheries, and maritime industries.
“IOOS is critical to keeping the Gulf Coast a great place to live, work, and raise a family. Reauthorizing this funding would continue the necessary ocean monitoring resources and improve our understanding of needs along the coast. This legislation would help secure U.S. leadership in ocean science and increase economic development. I look forward to seeing the continued success of this program and how it benefits our growing and vibrant maritime economy,” said Senator Wicker.
“Everyone from ship captains to shellfish farmers rely on the weather forecasts, navigational safety alerts, and ocean acidification monitoring provided by the Integrated Ocean Observing System. Our bill would reauthorize the program so it can keep supplying life-saving information that coastal communities need,” said Senator Cantwell.
“?Observations from our oceans and Great Lakes are vital to supporting a strong maritime economy, ensuring public safety, and safeguarding national security. The authorization of the Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS) affirms the critical need for ocean data to improve weather forecasting, enhance navigational safety, strengthen coastal resilience, and much more. IOOS establishes a strong public-private partnership that efficiently serves a wide range of users—across sectors, applications, and regions—by delivering the reliable, actionable information they depend on.” said Kristen Yarincik, IOOS Association Executive Director.
“The Gulf Coast—home to nearly 15 million people—anchors a robust maritime economy where commercial activity and offshore energy development intersect with naval operations and tourism. This dynamic region, however, is also highly vulnerable to hurricanes, flooding, and harmful algal blooms, all of which pose serious threats to both economic resilience and the well-being of coastal communities. The Gulf of America Coastal Ocean Observing System (GCOOS), along with the ten other regional systems that make up the national Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS), plays a critical role in enhancing disaster forecasting and preparedness, supporting safe navigation, aiding U.S. Coast Guard search and rescue missions, and informing daily decisions that keep our coasts safe and economically vibrant. The importance of this bill cannot be overstated—for the Gulf region and for the nation as a whole,” said Jorge Brenner, Executive Director of the Gulf of America Coastal Ocean Observing System (GCOOS).
“For twenty years, NANOOS has provided reliable data, tools, and forecasts to support the safety and livelihoods of residents in Washington and Oregon. NANOOS delivers actionable information tailored to local needs, whether that is helping ship operators navigate safely, enabling shellfish growers to remain competitive, identifying safe tsunami evacuation routes for communities, or assisting state and tribal managers in protecting public health from harmful algal blooms without disrupting coastal economies. This trusted relationship is possible because the U.S. supports the Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS), which sustains cost-effective, federally certified regional partnerships like NANOOS across the country,” said Jan Newton, Executive Director of the Northwest Association of Networked Ocean Observing System (NANOOS).
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Juan Ciscomani (Arizona)
“Red tape should not stop our veterans from accessing care when and where they need it”
WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Congressman Juan Ciscomani reintroduced a bipartisan effort that would ensure that veterans living in rural communities have permanent, cross-state access to certified healthcare providers for their required disability claim exams.
“Allowing certified healthcare providers to perform required disability exams across state lines has proven to be successful in expediting veterans’ claims, especially for those living in rural communities where access to care may be limited,” said Ciscomani, who represents nearly 80,000 veterans in southeastern Arizona. “Red tape should not stop our veterans from accessing care when and where they need it, which is why I am proud to lead this bipartisan effort to ensure veterans can receive care where they need, whether that means crossing state lines or crossing the street.”
In 2020, the Johnny Isakson and David P. Roe, M.D. Veterans Health Care and Benefits Improvement Act was signed into law, allowing certain exam providers to temporarily practice across state lines. However, this authority is currently only available to physician assistants, nurse practitioners, audiologists, and psychologists, and expires in January 2026.
Ciscomani’s bill, the Rural Veterans’ Improved Access to Benefits Act (H.R. 3951) would make this authority permanent and expand the categories of providers who can perform cross-state disability exams to increase access to care. The bill would also require the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to establish a mechanism for providers to submit evidence that a veteran brings with them to the examination to the VA, a process which is currently not in place.
Ciscomani is joined by Reps. Don Davis (D-NC) and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-WA) in this effort.
“Accessible compensation and pension examinations are critical for helping veterans obtain their disability benefits. Congress must act to eliminate long wait times, particularly in areas lacking licensed providers,” said Davis. “The Rural Veterans’ Improved Access to Benefits Act is a vital step forward, significantly enhancing our capacity to serve veterans, especially those in rural communities.”
“Veterans bravely served our nation – but the unfortunate reality is that it can be hard to access examinations or VA specialists in many communities,” said Gluesenkamp Perez. “Our VET MEDS Act was signed into law to extend improved access to VA-certified examiners in rural communities – and this bipartisan bill will make those changes permanent, while making it less difficult for veterans to submit evidence to the VA that substantiates their benefits claims.”
Company Announcement Lipari Foods of Warren, MI, is recalling its 14-ounce packages of JLM Branded “Dark Chocolate Nonpareils” food treats because they may contain undeclared milk. People who have allergies to milk run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products. The recalled “Dark Chocolate Nonpareils” were distributed nationwide in retail stores. The product comes in a 14-ounce, clear plastic tub marked with lot # 28202501A, 29202501A, 23202504A, 14202505A, 15202505A, and 03202506A on the bottom label. No illnesses have been reported to date to Lipari Foods in connection with this problem. The recall was initiated after being notified by Weaver Nut Company that they were recalling their “Dark Chocolate Nonpareils” due to possible undeclared milk. It was discovered that the potential milk-containing product was distributed in packaging that did not reveal the presence of milk. Consumers who have purchased the 14-ounce packages of “Dark Chocolate Nonpareils” are urged to return them to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact Lipari Foods at (586) 447-3500 ext:9720. About Lipari Foods Lipari Foods was founded in 1963 by Jim Lipari, who began his career delivering unique products from the back of his Buick station wagon. Today Lipari Foods is a leading independent “perimeter of the store” distributor, delivering a wide range of quality international specialty, bakery, dairy, deli, packaging, seafood, meat, grocery, foodservice, confectionery and convenience food and beverage products to 16,000+ customers across 32 states.
The first months of any administration are often dedicated to setting the tone of what constituents can expect for the next four years. For Trump’s second term, that message is clear: let it all burn.
Drastic agency cuts, reckless executive orders, and blatant industry giveaways promise devastating immediate and long-term consequences for our oceans, our climate, and our communities.
Dismantling climate defense
NOAA, the nation’s premier science agency for understanding, monitoring, and protecting our oceans, atmosphere, and climate, plays an essential role in safeguarding ecosystems and communities. Its data, forecasts, scientific expertise, and stewardship also support major sectors like tourism, transportation, food, and retail that rely on NOAA’s services to operate safely, efficiently, and sustainably.
Yet the Trump Administration has moved aggressively to gut NOAA’s capacity–firing scientists, defunding critical research, and shutting down its extreme weather database, a vital tool that has tracked the financial toll of climate disasters since the 1980s. These cuts come as extreme weather events are becoming more intense and frequent. In 2024 alone, Americans faced at least $182.7 billion in damages from 27 weather and climate disasters. Undermining NOAA’s ability to forecast threats, inform the American and global public, and support disaster response endangers lives while ensuring greater loss and damage, higher costs, and deep suffering as the climate crisis accelerates.
Among NOAA Fisheries’ vital programs is the Seafood Import Monitoring Program (SIMP), the nation’s primary line of defense against seafood linked to fraud,forced labor, and environmental harm. With more than 80% of the seafood consumed in the U.S. imported and the global seafood supply chain riddled with these problems, SIMP plays a crucial role in ensuring the integrity of what ends up on American plates. Cuts to NOAA directly harm domestic fisheries as well, which rely on the agency to provide weather and pollution alerts.
These efforts have been further supported by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Department of Labor’s Bureau of International Labor Affairs (ILAB), whose programs help combat child labor, forced labor, and human trafficking around the world.
So while Americans have made it clear that they want to know where their food comes from and to trust that it is safe, ethical, and sustainable, the Trump administration is undermining the very systems that deliver these safeguards. By weakening SIMP and cancelling $500 million in ILAB grants, it is putting seafood workers at greater risk of abuse and exploitation, and exposing Americans to products tainted by these harms.
Endangering ocean futures
While more countries move towards a ban, moratorium, or pause on deep sea mining, the Trump Administration is charging in the opposite direction– reviving a cold war-era law, the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act, to launch an unnecessary industry that threatens irreversible harm to fragile ecosystems we are only beginning to understand.
Trump’s executive order “Unleashing America’s Offshore Critical Minerals and Resources” directs federal agencies to fast-track permits for seabed mining in both U.S. and international waters. Widely condemned as environmentally reckless and politically explosive, the move is a direct attempt to sidestep the International Seabed Authority (ISA)—the UN body charged with protecting the deep ocean as the “common heritage of humankind.” In doing so, it threatens to unravel global cooperation, weaken environmental oversight, and set a dangerous precedent for the exploitation of one of Earth’s last untouched frontiers. The order, while lining up another ‘get richer scheme’ for the billionaire broligarchy, also ignores calls from over 35 countries for a moratorium, disregards the voices of Pacific Island communities, and pushes forward despite overwhelming ecological, legal, and moral objections.
The push is further reinforced by a pair of sweeping executive orders that aim to bulldoze environmental safeguards in the name of “energy dominance.” One declares a so-called “national energy emergency,” suspending key regulatory safeguards under bedrock environmental laws like the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Endangered Species Act, and the Clean Water Act.
Together, these orders will not just fast-tack deep sea mining but also accelerate offshore drilling, fracking infrastructure, and fossil fuel exports. This isn’t just deregulation—it’s a declaration of open season on the ocean.
All this comes as cobalt and nickel prices are plummeting, further undermining the already shaky economic case for mining the seafloor. Meanwhile, safer, cleaner, and more cost-effective alternatives, such as mineral recycling and domestic refining efforts, many of which are backed by the U.S. Department of Defense, are gaining momentum. But instead of investing in these sustainable solutions, the White House is reaching into the past to gamble with the future of our oceans and our planet.
‘Unleashing’ America’s fishing industry into collapse
At the same time, the earlier-mentioned cuts to NOAA will also hurt domestic fishing by leaving fishers without vital scientific insight needed for planning and responding to changing ocean conditions. This approach paves the way for overfishing and fishery collapse–again, directly contradicting the Trump Administration’s stated goal of supporting American fishing communities.
Scientists agree that protecting at least 30% of the world’s oceans by 2030 is essential to help marine ecosystems recover and thrive. When fish populations collapse, so do fishing jobs and fishing communities. Yet with these actions, the Trump Administration is again steering the US in the wrong direction—sidelining science, sustainability, and long-term economic resilience by jeopardizing the entire industry and the coastal communities it supports.
At the same time, the Administration issued yet another executive order, accompanied by a 36-page report, aimed at “bringing America back” to plastic straws. So, while more Americans struggle to make ends meet, they can be sure of one thing: there will be plenty of microplastics to go around.
Plastics are not just a pollution problem; they are a public health crisis. Over 3,200 chemicals in plastics have been linked to a host of serious health conditions, including cancer, hormone disruption, reproductive problems, metabolic changes, obesity, premature births, neurological disorders, and learning disabilities. Toxic chemicals in plastic already cost Americans nearly $250 billion in healthcare expenses each year.
And that burden is not shared equally. BIPOC and low-income communities face disproportionate exposure to pollution from plastic production, disposal, and incineration infrastructure, which are often located in or near their communities. These facilities poison the air, the water, and their bodies. While oil and gas companies rake in record profits and their billionaire CEO’s grow richer, these communities and working families across America are left paying the price.
Voters across the political spectrum – Democrats and Republicans alike– support strong action to reduce plastic pollution and protect public health. Yet, without pause at the staggering irony, the Trump Administration is slashing Medicaid, gutting personnel and budget from the Department of Health and Human Services, and increasing our exposure to toxic plastic— all while touting a “Make America Healthy Again” agenda. But even in an era of “alternative facts” and the attempted erasure of diversity, equity, and inclusion, the truth is impossible to ignore. There is nothing left to sacrifice.
Time to resist
While the pace and scale of recent changes can seem overwhelming, it is worth remembering that part of this administration’s strategy is to flood the zone and try to get ahead of legal challenges and other obstacles to their agenda. The Trump Administration, like the “tech bros” who fell in line behind the President, is moving fast and breaking things. But there is growing resistance to their actions. In the last few weeks, especially, the number of new and successful legal challenges has been growing, with some law firms and academic institutions pushing back against the administration’s demands. This includes EarthJustice, Greenpeace, and allies in a joint litigation against Trump’s attempt to continue offshore drilling.
Meanwhile, millions of Americans—across generations, faiths, races, genders, and political ideologies—have been hitting the streets to defend their human rights, their environment, and their democracy. These peaceful protests have made one thing clear: We will not be silenced. We won’t back down. We won’t stop defending our communities in the face of government corruption and corporate greed.
Headline: FEMA Authorizes Funds to Fight Upper Applegate Road Fire in Oregon
FEMA Authorizes Funds to Fight Upper Applegate Road Fire in Oregon
BOTHELL, Wash
– The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) authorized the use of federal funds to help with firefighting costs for the Upper Applegate Road Fire burning in Jackson County, Oregon
The state of Oregon’s request for a declaration under FEMA’s Fire Management Assistance Grant (FMAG) program was approved by FEMA Region 10 Acting Administrator Vincent J
Maykovich on Wednesday, June 18, 2025 at 8:49 p
m
PT
He determined that the Upper Applegate Road Fire threatened to cause such destruction as would constitute a major disaster
This is the third FMAG declaration in 2025 to help fight Oregon wildfires
At the time of the state’s request, the wildfire threatened homes in and around the communities of Upper Applegate, Ruch, and Buncom
The fire was also threatening communication infrastructure, electric utilities, trail and campground recreation sites, watershed, fishing and spawning sites, environmental resources, and cultural resources
FMAGs make funding available to pay up to 75 percent of a state’s eligible firefighting costs for fires that threaten to become major disasters
Eligible items can include expenses for field camps, equipment use, materials, supplies and mobilization and demobilization activities attributed to fighting the fire
These grants do not provide assistance to individual home or business owners and do not cover other infrastructure damage caused by the fire
In response to the High Court’s preliminary issues trial ruling today that Shell can be held responsible for its oil spills in the Niger Delta, Isa Sanusi, Amnesty International Nigeria’s Director, said:
“It is welcome news that despite Shell’s best efforts to use this trial to evade responsibility the High Court has ruled it can be held liable for the oil spills and leaks it has failed to clean up – regardless of how long ago they happened or whether they were caused by theft by others from Shell’s poorly maintained pipelines.
“The judgement is an important step towards justice for communities in the Niger Delta. It is a vital opportunity to make Shell pay for the devastating pollution it has caused on the Ogale and Bille lands, and to require it to clean up its toxic mess thoroughly caused by nearly 70-years-worth of oil leaks and spills, and properly compensate the Ogale and Bille communities before it leaves the region.”
Toxic legacy
More than 13,500 Ogale and Bille residents in the Niger Delta have filed claims against Shell over the past decade demanding the company clean up oil spills that they say have wrecked their livelihoods and caused widespread devastation to the local environment. They can’t fish anymore because their water sources, including their wells for drinking water, are poisoned and the land is contaminated which has killed plant life, meaning communities can no longer farm.
For nearly 70 years Shell’s oil spills and leaks due to poorly maintained pipelines, wells and inadequate clean-up attempts that have ravaged the health and livelihoods of many of the 30 million people living in the Niger Delta – most of whom live in poverty. Shell plc is domiciled in London and should be legally responsible for the environmental failures of its subsidiary company, the Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Friday inaugurated and laid the foundation stone of multiple development projects worth over ₹18,600 crore in Bhubaneswar, Odisha, commemorating the completion of one year of the state’s first BJP-led government. The projects span critical sectors such as drinking water, irrigation, agriculture, health infrastructure, rural roads and bridges, highways, and a new railway line.
Addressing a state-level event marking the anniversary, PM Modi hailed June 20 as a historic day, celebrating not just a government’s milestone but the embodiment of good governance focused on public service and trust. He congratulated Chief Minister Mohan Charan Majhi and his team for their work, which he said has injected fresh momentum into Odisha’s development.
Describing Odisha as a “shining star” of India’s cultural heritage, PM Modi highlighted the state’s historical contribution to Indian civilization. He noted that the combination of development and preservation of heritage has become the cornerstone of India’s growth, with Odisha playing an increasingly vital role.
Coinciding with preparations for the Rath Yatra of Lord Jagannath, the Prime Minister said that spiritual reverence and development are progressing hand in hand. He praised the state government’s prompt action in opening all four gates of the Jagannath Temple and initiating access to the Ratna Bhandar, underscoring the act as a respectful gesture toward millions of devotees. PM Modi also revealed that he declined an invitation from the US President to visit the United States post the G7 Summit in Canada, opting instead to be present in Odisha on this spiritually significant day.
In a sharp critique of previous governments, PM Modi said that earlier models of governance lacked transparency and development was often delayed, obstructed, or derailed. Contrasting that with the BJP’s approach, he stated that the past decade has seen states like Assam and Tripura—formerly riddled with instability and neglect—undergo social and economic transformation. He added that Odisha, too, had long struggled with corruption, poor infrastructure, and neglected rural areas, but is now on a promising developmental path.
The Prime Minister emphasized the strength of a dual model of governance where both Union and state governments work in synergy. Citing the health sector, he noted that nearly 3 crore people in Odisha now benefit from the combined coverage of the Ayushman Bharat and Gopabandhu Jan Arogya Yojanas, making free treatment accessible even outside the state. Similarly, over 23 lakh senior citizens are now eligible for free treatment up to ₹5 lakh under the Pradhan Mantri Vaya Vandana Yojana.
For farmers, he stated that Odisha’s agricultural community now receives dual benefits under both central and state schemes, including improved procurement prices for paddy. Earlier, many central government initiatives failed to reach the state’s population, but the current administration has ensured their successful implementation across various sectors.
A key focus of PM Modi’s address was the empowerment of Odisha’s tribal population. He lamented that for decades, tribal communities were politically exploited, marginalized, and trapped in cycles of poverty and violence. He noted that in 2014, over 125 tribal-majority districts in the country were affected by Naxal violence, a number that has now dropped to fewer than 20. He credited this to strict action against violence and development initiatives in tribal regions.
PM Modi outlined two major national schemes dedicated to tribal development. The Dharati Aaba Janjatiya Gram Utkarsh Abhiyan is bringing infrastructure and services to over 60,000 tribal villages nationwide, including the construction of 40 residential schools in 11 districts of Odisha. The second, the PM Janman Yojana, inspired by Odisha and guided by President Droupadi Murmu, targets the particularly vulnerable tribal groups (PVTGs), funding development across remote tribal hamlets.
The Prime Minister also highlighted the government’s attention to Odisha’s fishing communities. For the first time, fishermen are benefiting from the Kisan Credit Card facility under the PM Matsya Sampada Yojana. Additionally, a special ₹25,000 crore central fund will support coastal communities and youth entrepreneurship in the state.
Calling this the era of Purvoday, PM Modi said Eastern India will power 21st-century India’s growth. He pointed to rapid industrial expansion from Paradip to Jharsuguda and large-scale infrastructure investments to boost Odisha’s mineral and port-led economy. Mega projects like a dual-feed cracker unit in Paradip, an oil storage facility in Chandikhole, and an LNG terminal in Gopalpur are turning Odisha into a future petrochemical hub. He noted that nearly ₹1.5 lakh crore has already been invested in these sectors.
PM Modi emphasized the government’s long-term vision beyond five-year targets. He mentioned that a special “Vision 2036” plan has been drafted, marking 100 years of Odisha as India’s first linguistic state, alongside “Vision 2047” for India’s centenary of independence. He expressed confidence in the youth of Odisha to achieve these ambitious goals.
Among the key announcements made during the event, the Prime Minister flagged off new train services connecting Boudh district to the national railway network for the first time and launched 100 electric buses under the CRUT urban transport system. He also released the Odisha Vision Document and launched the ‘Baraputra Aitihya Gram Yojana’ to preserve the heritage of iconic Odia personalities through living memorials.
Modi also honored several women achievers from Odisha, celebrating more than 16.5 lakh “Lakhpati Didis” as symbols of prosperity and self-reliance.
The event was attended by the Governor of Odisha, Hari Babu Kambhampati, Chief Minister Mohan Charan Majhi, Union Ministers Jual Oram, Dharmendra Pradhan, and other dignitaries.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Christian van Nieuwerburgh, Professor of Coaching and Positive Psychology, RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences
Are you losing faith in humanity because of everything that is going on right now? If so, that is no surprise. Our habit of “doomscrolling” convinces us that people are inherently self-centred and uncaring.
Psychologists have been interested in the darker side of human personality for decades. The so-called dark triad of Machiavellianism, narcissism and sociopathy have attracted intense scrutiny. People high in these darker traits tend to be manipulative, self-centred and lacking in empathy.
Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox.Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.
In response to this, American psychologist Scott Barry Kaufman and his colleagues have highlighted positive aspects of humanity with their research into the “light triad”.
The light triad emphasises the positive aspects of human nature – Kantianism (treating people as inherently valuable rather than as means to an end), humanism and faith in humanity. Those who score high on the light triad see the inherent value in others, believe in human goodness and treat people with dignity and respect.
In his blog for Scientific American, Kaufman argues that these positive aspects of personality are “just as worthy of research attention and cultivation in a society that sometimes forgets that not only is there goodness in the world, but there is also goodness in each of us”.
(Anyone curious about where they fall on the light triad scale can find out for free online by completing a questionnaire.)
By taking a balanced view of personality, we remind ourselves of the breadth of possibility within each of us. Human beings are capable of performing wonderful, heartwarming acts of kindness, just as they are capable of acts of selfishness and cruelty.
We all have traits from both the dark and light triads. When we’re at our best, we’re sociable, positive, supportive and forgiving. Human nature isn’t black and white. Embracing this complexity can help us to be more compassionate to ourselves and others.
With all the challenges we face today, it’s easy to feel overwhelmed and lose sight of our shared humanity. But it is especially now that we should avoid that. Let’s remember the potential for kindness, altruism and compassion that exists within all of us. Here are five simple ways to boost our hopefulness.
Engage in small acts of kindness
Try simple everyday gestures such as letting someone go ahead of you in line, allowing a car to merge in traffic or simply offering a warm smile. These small acts of kindness can brighten someone’s day, boost your mood and encourage others who witness them.
Show compassion
Compassion is crucial. Start by being gentle with yourself. Practise self-compassion by going easy on yourself during tough moments. Extend that same compassion to others. Remember that everyone is always in the middle of something. A bit of patience, a few kind words or a genuine acknowledgement can make a big difference.
Spread positivity
Instead of sharing negative news in your WhatsApp groups, make a conscious effort to highlight positive and uplifting stories from within your network or community. Share articles or videos that inspire hope and celebrate human kindness. By spreading positivity, you can play your part in counterbalancing our negativity bias and create a more hopeful narrative about the world we live in.
Listen intentionally
In a world full of distractions, offering someone your full, undivided attention can be a powerful act. Take the time to really listen to others, making them feel seen, valued and heard.
By being present in your conversations and engaging in “radical listening”, you not only strengthen your connection with the other person but also create a more humanising environment.
As human beings, we thrive through social connections. Get involved by participating in community events. Join a litter-picking group, offer to volunteer at the local school, get involved in charity fundraisers or even set up a casual coffee morning. These activities will help you feel more connected while reinforcing the idea that we all belong to something bigger and can make a difference together.
Every positive action and enriching conversation counts. By doing these small things, you will be playing your part in reigniting hope in our shared humanity. It starts with each of us choosing to be compassionate, listening radically and seeing the good in others.
Christian van Nieuwerburgh 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.
A cold shower might not be the best strategy to cool down.Ollyy/ Shutterstock
When the weather warms up, many of us use a nice cold shower to help us cool down. But while this might feel like relief, it might actually not be helping the body cool off at all.
Our body’s optimal temperature is around 37°C. This temperatures ensures our body systems can function properly. But when the core gets too hot the temperature regulating centre of the brain starts sending nervous signals out to the blood vessels and muscles in or near the skin – telling them to start activating their cooling mechanisms.
If our core stays at high temperature for too long (around 39-40°C), this can lead to organ damage. So to ensure our temperature stays optimal, the body uses multiple techniques to cool itself down.
For instance, the body radiates heat into the surrounding environment by electromagnetic (thermal) radiation. Approximately 60% of our body heat is lost this way.
Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox.Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.
Sweating is another mechanism the body uses. Around 22% of our body heat is lost this way. But when the air temperature around us exceeds our body temperature, sweating becomes the dominant mechanism for reducing core temperature. Any remaining body heat is then lost through a mixture of convection into the air or liquid the body may be in contact with and conduction into solid objects that the body may be in contact with.
To support these mechanisms, our blood vessels change diameter. The ones closest to the skin dilate (widen) to allow more blood into them so they can get close to the relatively cooler surface of the skin.
The body then works to circulate the blood so that heat from inside the body can be moved to the periphery to cool off. Similarly on our skin, the hairs remain flat to allow air next to the body to cool and be replaced, helping to dissipate heat.
Cold shower?
Of course, when the weather gets really hot outside, these mechanisms just don’t feel like they cut it.
Although diving into a cold bath or shower straight after being out in the heat might feel nice on your skin, it isn’t doing what is needed to reduce the core temperature of the body. It might also be risky for some people.
When exposed to cold, the blood vessels near to the skin constrict – reducing the blood flow into these areas.
So in the context of cooling the body down, jumping into a cold shower does the opposite of what needs to happen, as less blood is now flowing to the surface of the skin. This will hold the heat in and around your organs instead of getting rid of it. Basically, you’re tricking your body that it doesn’t need to cool down, but actually needs to conserve heat.
And, depending on how cold your water is, sudden exposure could even trigger dangerous consequences for some people.
Exposure to water that is 15°C can trigger the cold shock response. This causes the blood vessels in the skin (those in contact with the cold water) to constrict rapidly. This increases blood pressure as the heart is now pumping against increased resistance.
Thankfully, these events are rare – and probably won’t happen if you’re just taking a cold shower or bath in your home. But you might want to skip the cold plunge or avoid taking an ice bath on a hot day for this reason.
Hot showers are also a bad idea on a warm day. Although it’s sometimes said that a hot shower helps the body cool down faster, this unfortunately isn’t true. Water that is warmer than the body is going to transfer energy in the form of heat into the body. This again prevents the body getting rid of heat – potentially increasing its core temperature.
On a hot day, a tepid or lukewarm bath or shower is the way to go, evidence suggests 26-27°C is most effective. This helps bring blood to the surface to cool, without being cold enough to cause the body to think it needs to conserve its heat.
Another reason to skip a cold shower on a hot day is that it might not help you get clean.
When we get hot, we sweat – and this sweat mixes with sebum, another skin product and the bacteria on our skin, which produces body odour. Cold water has been shown to be less effective at removing and breaking down sebum and other detritus on the skin, compared to warmer water, which means body odour will persist.
Cold water also causes the skin to tighten. This might potentially trap sebum and dirt within the pores. This can lead to blackheads, whiteheads and acne. But warm or lukewarm water can help dissolve and loosen material in the pores.
As you plan your escape and recovery from the heat this week, a lukewarm or cool shower or bath, rather than a cold shower, is a safer and more effective choice. This will allow your body to dissipate heat away from your core without harm.
Equally, if you do feel the need to go cooler, do it gradually so you aren’t shocking the body’s automatic temperature regulation system into action. Turning the temperature down gradually if you want to go cold, or slowly placing a limb in at a time can help with this process.
Adam Taylor 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.
Operation rising lion has been a concerted effort by the Israel Defense Forces to degrade Iran’s nuclear programme. Launched on June 13, the operation has targeted key nuclear installations, logistical hubs and Iranian nuclear scientists, key intelligence and military personal.
Israel has justified the attack by claiming that Iran was on a verge of a “breakout” in its nuclear programme. This means it would be able to break out of its commitments under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which it ratified in 1970.
This contradicts the threat assessment briefing delivered by the director of US national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, on March 25 when she said: “Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorised the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003.”
But whatever the veracity of claim and counter claim, Israel has been able to combine precise intelligence with the effective suppression of Iran’s air defence network. This has enabled the Israeli air force to inflict extensive damage on the uranium enrichment facility at Natanz and the heavy water plant at Arak, as well as associated research facilities in Tehran.
Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox.Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.
The attacks have also destroyed two-thirds of Iran’s ballistic missile launchers, according to the latest Israeli estimates. In response, Iran has fired salvoes of ballistic missiles at Israel, some of which have penetrated the much-vaunted Iron Dome missile defence system, due to the sheer number of missiles launched.
But despite causing between 20 and 30 civilian casualties in Israel (compared to more than 600 in Iran), and despite the fear of attack among much of Israel’s population, little strategic damage appears to have been inflicted.
Within three days of launching operation rising lion, Israel claimed complete aerial supremacy over Iran. But despite this, the key enrichment facility at Fordow, close to the ancient religious city of Qom has proved impervious to Israel’s existing military capabilities.
The facility is buried hundreds of metres inside a mountain and designed to survive a full scale aerial bombardment. All reports are that besides some limited damage to the ground-level entrance and ventilation shafts, Israeli attacks on the site have failed to affects its operational capacity.
Only the US, with 30,000lb GBU-57 massive ordnance penetrator bomb caried by the B-2 stealth bomber is reckoned to have the capability to inflict lasting damage on these underground nuclear facilities. Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyhu, has appealed to the US president, Donald Trump, for help in destroying these nuclear assets. Trump has said he is still considering his decision.
Operation many ways
US help is clearly Netanyahu’s main option for neutralising these underground plants. But don’t rule out a ground attack by Israeli special forces. A template for how Israel might deal with Fordow was revealed last year.
Launched on September 8 2024, operation many ways destroyed an underground missile facility that the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps had built into a mountainside in the Masyaf area of Syria, just west of Hama and around 125 miles north of the disputed Golan Heights. This facility was responsible for producing sophisticated surface-to-surface missiles for use by Hezbollah as well as by the regime of Bashar al-Asad, Iran’s ally.
After months of surveillance, 200 soldiers from the Shaldag (Kingfisher) special forces unit of the Israeli Air Force were helicoptered to the site under the cover of a series of diversionary airstrikes. The surprise attack quickly overwhelmed defensive forces and used around 600kg of explosives to destroy the underground facility. The unit also collected a considerable amount of intelligence documents which they transferred back to Israel. There were no Israeli casualties.
Greater risk
Would Israel risk a similar operation against Fordow? The risks undoubtedly are far greater. The operation would have to be carried out at a much longer range – the enrichment facility is more than 1,000kms from Israel.
Such an operation would need to involve far more troops than operation many ways. And the operational requirement to ensure sufficient air-to-air refuelling capacity for the air force’s heavy lift “Yasur” helicopters would add a layer of logistical complexity.
But the IDF’s ability to innovate around the use of longer-range C130 transport aircraft that can land in rough areas should not be underestimated. They showed this as long ago as 1976 when mounting the famous hostage rescue mission at Entebbe in Uganda.
Also on the plus side for Israel is its air superiority. The country is also a leader in electronic counter warfare measures which would allow it to blind or jam Iranian communications.
But while the Iranian armed forces have suffered heavy blows, the ground defences around Fordow will still be formidable. To gain access to and destroy the centrifuges widely believed to be at Fordow with sufficient explosives runs the risks of heavy casualties on all sides. So the calculation Israel’s military planners would have to make is the strategic gain relative to the cost in blood.
Yet given Fordow has long been recognised by Israel as the jewel in Iran’s nuclear crown this too might be another gamble Netanyahu is willing to take in a war that, whatever its outcome, is already reshaping much of the Middle East.
Clive Jones 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.
As Midwinter Day approaches in Antarctica – the longest and darkest day of the year – those spending the winter on the frozen continent will follow a tradition dating back more than a century to the earliest days of Antarctic exploration: They will celebrate having made it through the growing darkness and into a time when they know the Sun is on its way back.
The desolate and isolated environment of Antarctica can be hard on its inhabitants. As a historian of Antarctica, the events at SANAE IV represent a continuation of perceptions – and realities – that Antarctic environments can trigger deeply disturbing behavior and even drive people to madness.
The very earliest examples of Antarctic literature depict the continent affecting both mind and body. In 1797, for instance, more than two decades before the continent was first sighted by Europeans, the English poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge wrote “The Rime of the Ancient Mariner.” It tells a tale of a ship blown by storms into an endless maze of Antarctic ice, which they escape by following an albatross. For unexplained reasons, one man killed the albatross and faced a lifetime’s torment for doing so.
In 1838, Edgar Allan Poe published the story of “Arthur Gordon Pym of Nantucket,” who journeyed into the Southern Ocean. Even before arriving in Antarctica, the tale involves mutiny, cannibalism and a ship crewed by dead men. As the story ends, Pym and two others drift southward, encountering an enormous, apparently endless cataract of mist that parts before their boat, revealing a large ghostly figure.
The 1982 John Carpenter film “The Thing” also involves these themes, when men trapped at an Antarctic research station are being hunted by an alien that perfectly impersonates the base members it has killed. Paranoia and anxiety abound, with team members frantically radioing for help, and men imprisoned, left outside or even killed for the sake of the others.
A trailer for the 1982 film ‘The Thing,’ set at an Antarctic research station.
Real tales
These stories of Antarctic “madness” have some basis in history. A long-told anecdote in modern Antarctic circles is of a man who stabbed, perhaps fatally, a colleague over a game of chess at Russia’s Vostok station in 1959.
In 2017, staff at South Africa’s sub-Antarctic Marion Island station reported that a team member smashed up a colleague’s room with an ax over a romantic relationship.
Mental health
Concerns over mental health in Antarctica go much further back. In the so-called “Heroic Age” of Antarctic exploration, from about 1897 to about 1922, expedition leaders prioritized the mental health of the men on their expeditions. They knew their crews would be trapped inside with the same small group for months on end, in darkness and extreme cold.
American physician Frederick Cook, who accompanied the 1898-1899 Belgica expedition, the first group known to spend the winter within the Antarctic Circle, wrote in helpless terms of being “doomed” to the “mercy” of natural forces, and of his worries about the “unknowable cold and its soul-depressing effects” in the winter darkness. In his 2021 book about that expedition, writer Julian Sancton called the ship the “Madhouse at the End of the Earth.”
“When at all seriously afflicted,” Cook wrote, “the men felt that they would surely die” and exhibited a “spirit of abject hopelessness.”
And in the words of Australian physicist Louis Bernacchi, a member of the 1898-1900 Southern Cross expedition, “There is something particularly mystical and uncanny in the effect of the grey atmosphere of an Antarctic night, through whose uncertain medium the cold white landscape looms as impalpable as the frontiers of a demon world.”
Footage from 1913 shows the force of the wind at Cape Denison, which has been called ‘the home of the blizzard.’
A traumatic trip
A few years later, the Australasian Antarctic Expedition, which ran from 1911 to 1914, experienced several major tragedies, including two deaths during an exploring trip that left expedition leader Douglas Mawson starving and alone amid deeply crevassed terrain. The 100-mile walk to relative safety took him a month.
A lesser-known set of events on that same expedition involved wireless-telegraph operator Sidney Jeffryes, who arrived in Antarctica in 1913 on a resupply ship. Cape Denison, the expedition’s base, had some of the most severe environmental conditions anyone had encountered on the continent, including winds estimated at over 160 miles an hour.
Jeffryes, the only man in the crew who could operate the radio telegraph, began exhibiting signs of paranoia. He transmitted messages back to Australia saying that he was the only sane man in the group and claiming the others were plotting to kill him.
In Mawson’s account of the expedition, he blamed the conditions, writing:
Mawson hoped that the coming of spring and the possibility of outdoor exercise would help, but it did not. Shortly after his return to Australia in February 1914, Jeffryes was found wandering in the Australian bush and institutionalized. For many years, his role in Antarctic exploration was ignored, seeming a blot or embarrassment on the masculine ideal of Antarctic explorers.
Unfortunately, the general widespread focus on Antarctica as a place that causes disturbing behavior makes it easy to gloss over larger and more systemic problems.
As humans look to live in other extreme environments, such as space, Antarctica represents not only a cooperative international scientific community but also a place where, cut off from society as a whole, human behavior changes. The celebrations of Midwinter Day honor survival in a place of wonder that is also a place of horror, where the greatest threat is not what is outside, but what is inside your mind.
Daniella McCahey 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.
As Midwinter Day approaches in Antarctica – the longest and darkest day of the year – those spending the winter on the frozen continent will follow a tradition dating back more than a century to the earliest days of Antarctic exploration: They will celebrate having made it through the growing darkness and into a time when they know the Sun is on its way back.
The desolate and isolated environment of Antarctica can be hard on its inhabitants. As a historian of Antarctica, the events at SANAE IV represent a continuation of perceptions – and realities – that Antarctic environments can trigger deeply disturbing behavior and even drive people to madness.
The very earliest examples of Antarctic literature depict the continent affecting both mind and body. In 1797, for instance, more than two decades before the continent was first sighted by Europeans, the English poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge wrote “The Rime of the Ancient Mariner.” It tells a tale of a ship blown by storms into an endless maze of Antarctic ice, which they escape by following an albatross. For unexplained reasons, one man killed the albatross and faced a lifetime’s torment for doing so.
In 1838, Edgar Allan Poe published the story of “Arthur Gordon Pym of Nantucket,” who journeyed into the Southern Ocean. Even before arriving in Antarctica, the tale involves mutiny, cannibalism and a ship crewed by dead men. As the story ends, Pym and two others drift southward, encountering an enormous, apparently endless cataract of mist that parts before their boat, revealing a large ghostly figure.
The 1982 John Carpenter film “The Thing” also involves these themes, when men trapped at an Antarctic research station are being hunted by an alien that perfectly impersonates the base members it has killed. Paranoia and anxiety abound, with team members frantically radioing for help, and men imprisoned, left outside or even killed for the sake of the others.
A trailer for the 1982 film ‘The Thing,’ set at an Antarctic research station.
Real tales
These stories of Antarctic “madness” have some basis in history. A long-told anecdote in modern Antarctic circles is of a man who stabbed, perhaps fatally, a colleague over a game of chess at Russia’s Vostok station in 1959.
In 2017, staff at South Africa’s sub-Antarctic Marion Island station reported that a team member smashed up a colleague’s room with an ax over a romantic relationship.
Mental health
Concerns over mental health in Antarctica go much further back. In the so-called “Heroic Age” of Antarctic exploration, from about 1897 to about 1922, expedition leaders prioritized the mental health of the men on their expeditions. They knew their crews would be trapped inside with the same small group for months on end, in darkness and extreme cold.
American physician Frederick Cook, who accompanied the 1898-1899 Belgica expedition, the first group known to spend the winter within the Antarctic Circle, wrote in helpless terms of being “doomed” to the “mercy” of natural forces, and of his worries about the “unknowable cold and its soul-depressing effects” in the winter darkness. In his 2021 book about that expedition, writer Julian Sancton called the ship the “Madhouse at the End of the Earth.”
“When at all seriously afflicted,” Cook wrote, “the men felt that they would surely die” and exhibited a “spirit of abject hopelessness.”
And in the words of Australian physicist Louis Bernacchi, a member of the 1898-1900 Southern Cross expedition, “There is something particularly mystical and uncanny in the effect of the grey atmosphere of an Antarctic night, through whose uncertain medium the cold white landscape looms as impalpable as the frontiers of a demon world.”
Footage from 1913 shows the force of the wind at Cape Denison, which has been called ‘the home of the blizzard.’
A traumatic trip
A few years later, the Australasian Antarctic Expedition, which ran from 1911 to 1914, experienced several major tragedies, including two deaths during an exploring trip that left expedition leader Douglas Mawson starving and alone amid deeply crevassed terrain. The 100-mile walk to relative safety took him a month.
A lesser-known set of events on that same expedition involved wireless-telegraph operator Sidney Jeffryes, who arrived in Antarctica in 1913 on a resupply ship. Cape Denison, the expedition’s base, had some of the most severe environmental conditions anyone had encountered on the continent, including winds estimated at over 160 miles an hour.
Jeffryes, the only man in the crew who could operate the radio telegraph, began exhibiting signs of paranoia. He transmitted messages back to Australia saying that he was the only sane man in the group and claiming the others were plotting to kill him.
In Mawson’s account of the expedition, he blamed the conditions, writing:
Mawson hoped that the coming of spring and the possibility of outdoor exercise would help, but it did not. Shortly after his return to Australia in February 1914, Jeffryes was found wandering in the Australian bush and institutionalized. For many years, his role in Antarctic exploration was ignored, seeming a blot or embarrassment on the masculine ideal of Antarctic explorers.
Unfortunately, the general widespread focus on Antarctica as a place that causes disturbing behavior makes it easy to gloss over larger and more systemic problems.
As humans look to live in other extreme environments, such as space, Antarctica represents not only a cooperative international scientific community but also a place where, cut off from society as a whole, human behavior changes. The celebrations of Midwinter Day honor survival in a place of wonder that is also a place of horror, where the greatest threat is not what is outside, but what is inside your mind.
Daniella McCahey 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.
2. Institutional and political implications of the EU enlargement process and global challenges (debate)
Ekaterina Zaharieva,Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, the global balance of power is shifting rapidly, challenging our democratic values and institutions. Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine is a stark reminder of the importance of enlargement. Now, more than ever, a larger and stronger EU is a strategic imperative. It is clearly in the EU’s interests. Both the EU and future Member States should be ready at the time of accession.
In March last year, the Commission therefore adopted a first communication of the pre‑enlargement policy reviews covering four strands: values, policies, budget and governance. That communication was our contribution to the discussion that led to the adoption by EU leaders of a roadmap for future work on enlargement and reform in June 2024.
In July last year, President von der Leyen announced that the new college will present the pre‑enlargement policy reviews focusing on individual sectors such as the rule of law, the single market, food security, defence and security, climate and energy, and migration, as well as social, economic and territorial cohesion more broadly.
As announced in our work programme for 2025, the Commission is currently carrying out in-depth policy reviews in view of future enlargement. Allow me to make a few comments without prejudging the outcome of the reviews, in particular on institutional reform.
Mr President, honourable Members, I am aware that the question of institutional reform and treaty change has been key to Parliament in particular during the last legislature. In November 2023, this House adopted a resolution with proposals for amendments of the treaties. As President von der Leyen stated in her political guidelines, we need treaty change where it can improve our Union. So in order to prepare the Union for enlargement, we need to examine all options, starting with using the full potential of the current treaties.
We first need to focus on what can already be done under the current treaties. In that regard, the Commission believes we need to extend the use of qualified majority voting in the Council in some areas, moving away from unanimity. This could in particular mean activating so-called passerelle clauses. The position of the Commission is well known: if the Union wants to play its role quickly, efficiently and therefore strategically, we need we need to decrease the number of decisions where unanimity is needed. But we also need to acknowledge the sensitivities among Member States on this topic. We have to discuss the question of unanimity with the objective of finding a way to address Member States’ legitimate concerns.
We remain committed to engage in a constructive dialogue with both Parliament and the Council on these important matters. The Commission welcomes the ongoing reflections on these issues in the AFCO Committee, and in particular, the upcoming report on the institutional consequences of the EU enlargement negotiations.
Željana Zovko,u ime kluba PPE. – Poštovani predsjedavajući, u posljednja dva desetljeća Europska unija suočila se s nizom kriza: od financijske krize 2008., preko migrantske krize 2015., do pandemije COVID-a te rata u Ukrajini. Unatoč svemu, Europska unija je iz tih izazova izašla izgubivši samo jednu članicu, ali sačuvala je jedinstvo svojih temeljnih vrijednosti.
Kao posljednja zemlja koja je pristupila Europskoj uniji, Hrvatska itekako dobro zna koliko je vrijedilo prolaziti kroz nužne reforme i ispunjavati kriterije za punopravno članstvo te na kraju, u ključnim trenucima imati zaštitu i sigurnost koju članstvo u Europskoj uniji donosi.
S jedne strane imamo zemlje Istočnog partnerstva koje zbog svojih demokratskih težnji plaćaju visoku cijenu životima svojih građana zbog autoritativnih režima u susjedstvu. S druge strane, zemlje zapadnog Balkana koje su već prošle kroz ratna razaranja, a danas su žrtve birokratske inertnosti Europske unije i neriješenih povijesnih nesuglasica koje usporavaju njihovu integraciju i potkopavaju njihovu institucionalnu obnovu.
Poštovane kolege, naš najveći izazov danas je nedostatak vizije. Vizije koja će Uniju vratiti njezinim izvorištima – ideji mira i sigurnosti, ne samo unutar Europske unije već i na njezinim granicama. Ako zemlje kandidatkinje ostavimo u rukama onih koji žele razgraditi Europu izvana i iznutra, mir i sigurnost više neće imati tko braniti. Naš ego mora odstupiti pred zajedničkom odgovornošću u odnosima stare i nove Europe.
Često se postavlja pitanje je li moguće proširenje bez produbljenja. Ta dilema je apsurdna. Nijedan čovjek nije otok, kako je rekao engleski pjesnik John Donne. Tako ni jedna zemlja ne može sama. Od samih početaka europskog kontinenta stvarale su se unije s ciljem zaštite građana. Najuspješniji projekt u toj povijesti upravo je Europska unija, koja je kroz proces proširenja postala najpoželjnije mjesto za življenje. Kao što se naš mir brani na ukrajinskoj granici, tako se i naša sigurnost čuva na granicama zapadnog Balkana.
Ovo nije mjesto na kojem odlučujemo tko je više, a tko manje privilegiran da bude Europljanin. Ovo je mjesto na kojem odlučujemo što mi možemo učiniti za Europsku uniju kako bi ostala kao projekt mira, solidarnosti i pomirenja.
Kathleen Van Brempt,on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, Commissioner, EU enlargement – when it’s done right – is a game changer. It brings peace, prosperity, strength across Europe. And today, with Russia tightening its grip in the Western Balkans and Eastern Partnership countries, the stakes are even higher.
The momentum is real and we cannot afford to make the same mistakes we made in the past. So no shortcuts on our values. The rule of law, independent courts, freedom of speech, freedom of media, fundamental rights, democracy: they are non-negotiable. Even now – especially now – if a candidate country slides back on these values, we must act.
When Serbia’s President shows up at Putin’s parade, while silencing democracy back home, the EU must respond. No more appeasement! Our credibility is on the line, and so is Serbia’s future.
And at the same time – as you mentioned, Commissioner – we need to reform ourselves. We can’t demand from others when we ignore it ourselves. We need stronger tools to address democratic backsliding in the EU itself.
And let’s be honest: enlargement means readiness on our side, too. As candidate countries prepare, so must we, by reforming our institutions in parallel, updating the EU budget, making it fit for a bigger Union and, yes, moving beyond unanimity, as you mentioned.
Dear Commissioner, people also need to see the benefits of enlargement – both in the EU and in the candidate and future Member States. So let’s act: speed up access to the single market, give candidate countries observer seats in the EU institutions and let them be part of the project as they work towards full membership.
And I would like you to convey the message to the Commissioner for Enlargement that she has the backing of the S&D Group to do all that in the coming months and years.
Kinga Gál,a PfE képviselőcsoport nevében. – Tisztelt Elnök Úr! A Patrióták nem támogatják a bővítéspolitika geopolitikai érdekek szerinti gyorsítását. Ez hitelteleníti az Uniót a térség azon országainak szemében, mint a Nyugat-Balkán országai, amelyek évek óta kitartóan dolgoznak a tagság feltételeinek teljesítésén.
Nem ez az első eset, hogy az Unió politikai iránytűje rossz irányba fordul, figyelmen kívül hagyva az európai polgárok valós érdekeit. Például szükséges lenne, hogy a Bizottság haladéktalanul készítsen egy átfogó hatástanulmányt Ukrajna esetleges csatlakozásának várható következményeiről. Ukrajna semmilyen csatlakozási kritériumnak nem felel meg. Egy háború sújtotta országról beszélünk, így a gyorsított csatlakozásával a háborút is importálnánk. Elégtelen például a nemzeti kisebbségi jogok helyzete. Az ukrán munkaerő beáramlása veszélyezteti a munkahelyeket, az agrártermékek tömeges beáradása és az agrártámogatások elvesztése pedig a gazdák megélhetését. Aránytalanul nagymértékben vonnának el kohéziós forrásokat más tagállamoktól.
Az emberek feje felett nem születhetnek meg elhamarkodott döntések. Ezért kezdeményeztünk Magyarországon, Európában egyedülálló módon véleménynyilvánító népszavazást erről. Nem engedjük, hogy a kierőltetett ukrán uniós tagság árát a magyar emberek fizessék meg, mint ahogy azt sem engedhetjük meg, hogy újabb lopakodó hatáskörelvonással csorbuljon a szuverenitásunk. A bővítéspolitikában csak egyhangúsággal lehet döntéseket hozni, nem pedig a tagállamokat megkerülve, politikai alapon. Ez a tagállamok és az egész Unió alapvető érdeke.
Alberico Gambino,a nome del gruppo ECR. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signora Commissaria, l’allargamento dell’Unione europea è una delle grandi sfide geopolitiche e politiche del nostro tempo. Non riguarda solo i paesi candidati. Riguarda il futuro dell’Europa stessa e la sua capacità di essere protagonista nello scenario globale, di difendere i suoi interessi e garantire stabilità.
L’Italia ha sempre sostenuto con convinzione il cammino europeo dei Balcani occidentali e degli altri paesi candidati. Ma è giusto che questo percorso sia serio, graduale, basato su impegni concreti e su un’autentica volontà di avvicinamento ai valori e agli standard europei. Perché chi chiede di entrare nell’Unione deve dimostrare di voler essere parte integrante di una comunità politica, non solo economica.
In questo processo strumenti come Twinning, TAIEX e il Fondo INCE, che l’Italia finanzia interamente, hanno un ruolo fondamentale. Progetti reali che aiutano questi paesi a costruire amministrazioni solide, capaci ed efficienti.
Ma l’allargamento è anche una questione strategica, vista la situazione geopolitica che viviamo, piena di instabilità e di minacce ibride. Rafforzare i legami con i paesi del vicinato è anche un modo per rendere più sicura e resiliente l’Unione europea.
L’Italia continuerà a contribuire con determinazione a questo percorso comune. In questo scenario è l’intera Europa che deve riaffermare il proprio ruolo da protagonista, promuovendo un allargamento che sia realmente utile, credibile e sostenibile.
Sandro Gozi,au nom du groupe Renew. – Monsieur le Président, chaque jour on fait le constat d’une Union pas assez efficace, pas assez puissante et pas assez démocratique. Ceci est d’autant plus vrai face aux défis de l’unification continentale et du nouveau désordre mondial. Comment pouvons-nous convaincre nos citoyens et nous-mêmes que tout d’un coup, l’Europe peut survivre à ces nouveaux défis sans résoudre les anciens problèmes?
Nous avons besoin d’une Union plus efficace, avec moins de veto et plus de vote à la majorité, d’une Union plus puissante, avec plus de ressources pour une véritable Europe de la défense et des investissements. D’une Union plus démocratique avec une nouvelle loi électorale. Si les réformes sont nécessaires à 27, elles le deviennent encore plus dans une Union à 30, 32 ou davantage de pays. Il n’y a jamais eu un élargissement dans l’histoire de l’Union européenne qui n’a pas été précédé par des réformes institutionnelles et des réformes des traités.
Donc, je dis à la Commission: plus de courage, plus de courage. Soyez explicites, vous savez bien que la réforme des traités est nécessaire. Assumez vos responsabilités et, ensemble, réformons l’Union pour unifier l’Europe.
Daniel Freund,im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Zwischen Trumps AmericaFirst und Putins Angriffen auf Zivilisten in der Ukraine – es zeigt doch: Wir brauchen ein stärkeres Europa. Bei allen großen Fragen unserer Zeit, ob nun beim Kampf gegen den Klimawandel, dafür zu sorgen, dass auch die größten Konzerne ihren fairen Anteil an Steuern zahlen, und leider ja auch wieder bei der Frage, für die die Europäische Union mal gegründet wurde – die Frage von Stabilität, von Frieden, von Freiheit, von Demokratie auf diesem Kontinent –, bei all diesen Fragen können wir wenig bis gar nichts machen ohne eine starke Europäische Union. Kleinstaaterei ist ein Sicherheitsrisiko. Nur gemeinsam sind wir stark. Wir können auch den Verteidigungshaushalt von Estland oder Litauen verdoppeln, wir können ihn verdreifachen – es wird Putin nicht abschrecken.
Was Putin abschrecken wird, ist, wenn wir in Europa stärker zusammenarbeiten – auch in Verteidigungsfragen. Und vor allen Dingen, wenn wir ein paar grundsätzliche Konstruktionsfehler der Europäischen Union endlich angehen. Die Einstimmigkeit abzuschaffen, die ist doch das größte Geschenk an Putin: Er muss nur einen einzigen von 27 Staats- und Regierungschefs bestechen, erpressen, irgendwie auf seine Seite ziehen.
Wir müssen endlich bei der Demokratie Fortschritte machen. Denn wenn die Demokratie von außen und von innen angegriffen wird, dann müssen wir doch in der Europäischen Union damit reagieren, dass wir die EU demokratischer machen, dass wir endlich ein Initiativrecht bekommen für dieses Europäische Parlament, dass wir endlich wirkliche Europawahlen bekommen, dass wir endlich sehen können, was die Regierungen im Rat eigentlich genau machen, wo stimmen sie zu, wo lehnen sie ab. Und für all diese Fragen braucht es am Ende Vertragsänderungen, und das wollen die Bürgerinnen und Bürger; die Zustimmungswerte für die Europäische Union sind so hoch, wie wir sie noch nie gesehen haben in der Geschichte der Europäischen Union. Lassen Sie uns diesen Moment nutzen!
Das Europäische Parlament hat ja bereits Vorschläge gemacht. Wir wollen die Verträge ändern. Und wenn wir es am Ende ernst meinen mit unserem Versprechen an die Ukraine, an den Balkan, an die Länder, die in die Europäische Union wollen, wenn wir dieses Versprechen ernst meinen, dann müssen wir die Verträge ändern. Und es ist der Rat, der blockiert, der heute nicht mal hier zu dieser Debatte auftaucht, Sonntagsreden hält, am Ende aber nicht das liefert, was die Bürgerinnen und Bürger wollen. Das müssen wir angehen.
Anthony Smith,au nom du groupe The Left. – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, Madame la Commissaire, l’élargissement ne sera un succès que s’il est au service des peuples et de l’amélioration des conditions de vie, et non uniquement vu comme un outil géopolitique au service de votre logique bloc contre bloc, logique guerrière qui est à des années-lumière des aspirations des peuples d’Europe. La clé du succès de l’élargissement sera d’abord conditionnée par une Europe plus démocratique, avec des institutions au service des citoyens et non un marché au service des industriels.
Mais, disons le d’emblée, votre Union européenne peut aujourd’hui se résumer à un ensemble de moyens permettant une concurrence libre et non faussée au service d’une vision impérialiste. Notre Europe, celle que nous défendons, porte un projet de paix, de partage des richesses, de démocratie, d’accueil et d’humanité. À l’heure où les extrêmes droites arbitrent les décisions de notre institution, nous ne pouvons que constater les régressions de toutes parts, acclamées par les conservateurs et par les libéraux.
Voilà l’Europe que vous proposez aux peuples de notre continent, celle de la catastrophe climatique et de la pauvreté généralisée, celle de la corruption et des discriminations, bref, une union à l’image d’Orbán et de Nawrocki. L’accueil de nouveaux États doit se faire autour d’un socle commun ambitieux de droits sociaux dans lequel la démocratie sociale, et notamment la négociation collective, doivent jouer tout leur rôle. Sinon, c’est l’exploitation des travailleurs, la course au moins‑disant social et environnemental qui s’imposera.
Cela exige que les aides de préadhésion servent aussi à construire cette Europe du commun, avec des institutions fortes, transparentes, intègres, des inspections efficaces, des systèmes judiciaires indépendants. L’élargissement doit être un levier de construction d’un continent plus juste, où les droits sociaux et les contre-pouvoirs démocratiques soient la règle, qui rejette la concurrence généralisée, le dumping social, la corruption. En un mot, pas d’élargissement sans projet social ambitieux.
Ewa Zajączkowska-Hernik,w imieniu grupy ESN. – Panie Przewodniczący! Szanowni Państwo! Ostatnie rozszerzenie Unii Europejskiej miało miejsce w 2013 r., gdy do Wspólnoty dołączyła Chorwacja. W kolejce do wejścia w tym momencie czeka 10 państw. Tylko pytanie: do czego jest ta kolejka? Od 2015 r. Unia Europejska pogrąża się w coraz większym kryzysie. To wtedy najeźdźcy napływali masowo do Europy, niszcząc bezpieczeństwo wewnętrzne Grecji i Włoch w nieodwracalny sposób. To była pierwsza fala uderzeniowa multikulti. Fala, której skutki odczuwamy do dziś.
Od tego momentu Unia Europejska ma twarz Junckera, który pijany wychodził na międzynarodowe konferencje. Ma twarz Timmermansa, który zaciekle atakował Polskę i Węgry i bardzo agresywnie forsował szkodliwą, niebezpieczną, zieloną politykę. Unia Europejska ma twarz korupcji, autorytarnego zamordyzmu, moralnego zepsucia, lobbingu zagranicznego, niebezpieczeństwa, głupoty i nakrętek przymocowanych do plastikowych butelek. Unia Europejska ma twarz Ursuli von der Leyen, która nie nadąża za światowymi zmianami i pcha Europę ku samozagładzie.
To nie jest ta sama Unia Europejska, do której Polska wchodziła w 2004 r. Wchodziliśmy na konkretnych zasadach, które dziś leżą w koszu, zastąpione autorytaryzmem i lewacką agendą. Dziś Unia Europejska przestaje być dobrym miejscem do życia. I pytanie: czy do takiej struktury rzeczywiście jakieś państwo chce wejść i powinno wejść? Najpierw trzeba Unię Europejską naprawić.
Musimy wrócić do naszego DNA, do wspólnoty suwerennych państw narodowych. Cywilizacja życia musi wygrać z cywilizacją śmierci. Musimy ochronić nasze rodziny, nasze bezpieczeństwo i nasze granice. W przeciwnym razie po prostu nie będzie do czego wchodzić. I tyle.
Rasa Juknevičienė (PPE). – Mr President, I’ll start with a Ursula von der Leyen quote: ‘EU enlargement is an investment in our collective security’. I completely agree. A bit late, but very true words.
One of the reasons why Putin started this war is the grey areas of insecurity in Europe. If we had had such an understanding and decisions, at least immediately after the annexation of Crimea, there is a high probability that Ukraine would not be attacked today.
Not too late. We have that chance. It is necessary to seek consensus in our societies that enlargement is as important for the future of the EU as defence. In essence, enlargement is an integral part of our defence union. The unification of the European continent on the basis of democracies is in our own interests. Either a larger, secure, strong EU or Russia and China closer to our borders.
Such an understanding requires leaders in each Member State. That’s why I end my speech with a James Freeman Clark quote: ‘A politician thinks of the next election, a statesman of the next generation’. At least, let’s think about both, about the elections and about the next generations.
(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question)
Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – Señor presidente, señora comisaria, hace escasas fechas, el 12 de junio, se cumplieron cuarenta años de la adhesión de España y Portugal a las entonces Comunidades Europeas.
Esto muestra con claridad el éxito de la política de ampliación, ¿verdad? Porque supuso no solamente un impulso a reformas políticas y a la modernización económica, sino también, y sobre todo, a la estabilización de las democracias en los dos países ibéricos, que contribuyeron desde su adhesión a mejorar la construcción europea.
De modo que la política de cohesión debe muchísimo a España y Portugal. El refuerzo de la política agrícola y también la ciudadanía y el programa Erasmus tienen, por tanto, una deuda clara con esta adhesión.
Pero, cuarenta años después, la Unión Europea creció. ¡Vaya si creció! Llegamos a ser veintiocho, y ahora somos veintisiete. Pero hay, al menos en estos momentos, candidatos en la lista de espera hasta sumar treinta y cinco.
Y lo primero que hace falta es un ejercicio de realismo, no engañarse con placebos. Es una hipocresía que Turquía continúe formalmente en la lista de espera como país candidato, cuando es evidente que hace tiempo que abandonó toda expectativa y se ha cualificado como un actor regional por sí mismo.
Pero hay otros países candidatos a los que hay que exigir, por supuesto, la adhesión a los valores europeos: artículo 2 del Tratado; esa idea europea de democracia que incluye pluralismo, que incluye pluralismo informativo, que incluye independencia judicial y estrategias contra la corrupción.
Y, por eso, la adhesión tiene que ser muy exigente. Pero, para empezar, tiene que ser exigente para la propia Unión Europea. Y esto exige, si queremos ser treinta y cinco, cambiar los métodos de decisión. Porque, si el contraste entre nuestros objetivos y ambiciones proclamados y nuestro método de decisión disfuncional e impracticable es insoportable a veintisiete, ¿cómo será a treinta y cinco?
Lo pone de manifiesto Hungría: cuando hace falta unanimidad, Hungría es el missing link, el eslabón fallido de la cadena, y obliga a todos los demás a formar una coalition of the willing para hacer lo que Hungría veta.
Por tanto, es imprescindible un ejercicio de seriedad para que esa reforma institucional sea previa a toda ampliación de la construcción europea. Esa es la exigencia.
António Tânger Corrêa (PfE). – Senhor Presidente, Senhora Comissária, caros colegas, o alargamento é estrategicamente essencial para a União Europeia.
Nós falamos por nós próprios e por aquilo que Portugal ganhou em aderir à União Europeia, e queremos que os outros países candidatos também ganhem quando aderirem à União Europeia. Mas essa adesão tem de ser feita no estrito cumprimento dos critérios de Copenhaga e nos timings exatamente iguais uns aos outros. Não deve haver primeiras e segundas velocidades, não deve haver filhos e enteados nessa adesão, por um lado.
Por outro lado, é preciso que nós arrumemos a casa –– a nossa casa europeia –– porque a nossa casa europeia, como qualquer outra casa, precisa de manutenção, e essa manutenção não tem sido feita. Essa manutenção é absolutamente necessária, antes de qualquer alargamento.
Temos de rever os Tratados, temos de rever a nossa própria União e os princípios e valores pelos quais nos regemos, pois muitos anos se passaram desde o início deste grande projeto que é a União Europeia, e o mundo mudou. O mundo global mudou.
Estrategicamente, temos outros desafios que não tínhamos nessa altura, e é preciso enfrentar esses desafios de uma forma mais moderna, mais proativa e, principalmente, de uma forma mais eficaz e ativa para nós próprios europeus.
Portanto, queria deixar aqui esta mensagem e dizer sim ao alargamento, mas a um alargamento à medida do século XXI e não a um alargamento à medida do século XX.
Ивайло Вълчев (ECR). – Г-н Зиле, г-жо Захариева, ще започна с един цитат от г-жа Марта Кос. Тя наскоро заяви, че Македония е цитирам „тъжна приказка“. Тя забрави обаче да спомене, че на Балканите ние имаме една поговорка: „Каквото си направиш сам и Господ не може да ти го направи“.
Ситуацията, в която се намира Скопие в момента, е резултат единствено и само на техните собствени действия или по-право – бездействия. Днес Скопие можеше да бъде рамо до рамо с Тирана и Подгорица, можеха да бъдат здраво стъпили на своя европейски път. Не го направиха, защото в крайна сметка не искат. Няма отстъпки, които биха довели до това те да изпълнят своите вече поети ангажименти. Ето защо аз бих помолил госпожа Кос следващия път да попита правителството в Скопие директно: „Искате ли да бъдете част от Европейския съюз или не?“ Защото отговорът е прост: ако искате, просто изпълнете своите ангажименти. България вече направи компромиси и няма да отстъпи и на йота от тях, защото няма причина да вярва, че официално Скопие ще промени политиката си и говора си на омраза спрямо българите и България.
Последните събития – присъдата срещу Любчо Георгиевски и тежкото състояние на македонските българи, са най добрата илюстрация за това защо искахме допълнителните условия от Скопие в преговорната рамка.
Thomas Waitz (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, Madam Commissioner, in times of rising authoritarianism, in times where we see brutal warfare in our immediate neighbourhood on European soil, if we European states want to defend our way of life, the rule of law, democracy, human rights, we have to stand together and we have to speak with a united voice. And yes, for this, we need to rethink whether majority voting in terms of foreign policy should not be the next step for reforms.
But we also have to see that most of these countries that are seeking accession are making great progress. And we have two candidate states that have a realistic chance to join this European Union until 2028: clearly Montenegro and maybe – if they keep the ambition – Albania. I want to say these are two countries that have been reliable partners, that have been sharing our CFSP, so foreign policy, standpoints. They have shown their commitment to the European Union and they have a realistic chance to come as 28th and 29th members into the European Union.
Yes, we need reforms of the Treaty, but we also need a signal to the region that enlargement is possible based on merits, based on the rule of law, but that we’re acting in terms of enlargement and we’re not kicking the can down the road when it comes to reforms. So, let’s keep the door open for Montenegro and Albania. The region needs this signal.
Li Andersson (The Left). – Arvoisa puhemies, oikeistolaiset voimat tekevät tällä hetkellä parhaansa muuttaakseen EU:n sellaiseksi, mitä se huonoimmillaan voi olla: vain markkinoiden ja suuryritysten unioniksi. Mutta Itä-Euroopassa ja Balkanilla monet katsovat meitä kuitenkin toisesta syystä. He hakevat turvallisuutta poliittisesta yhteistyöstä. He haluavat vahvaa suojaa oikeusvaltioperiaatteelle, ihmisoikeuksille ja riittäville ympäristövaatimuksille.
Putinin autoritaarisuuden voimistuessa ihmiset ovat valmiita lähtemään kaduille puolustamaan oikeuttaan valita, vapauttaan ja eurooppalaisia arvoja, ja siksi laajentuminen on nyt niin tärkeä kysymys.
Kysymys on myös Ukrainasta. Jos ja kun ukrainalaiset haluavat liittyä EU:hun, meidän on oltava valmiina toivottamaan heidät tervetulleeksi. Samalla meidän tulee varmistaa, että jäsenyyskriteerit täyttyvät. Me tarvitsemme avointa keskustelua laajentumisen tuomista muutoksista unionin päätöksentekoon ja budjettiin.
Mutta aiempien laajentumisprosessien virheistä pitää myös oppia. Tarvitsemme parempia välineitä ja yhteisiä digitaalisia järjestelmiä rajatylittävän työvoiman hyväksikäytön torjumiseksi. Kun otetaan huomioon, kuinka kauan sisämarkkinoilla on ollut vapaata liikkuvuutta, on käsittämätöntä, ettemme ole edistyneet tämän pidemmälle tämän ongelman ratkaisussa.
Thomas Geisel (NI). – Herr Präsident, Frau Kommissarin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Die Erweiterungsdiskussion schadet der Europäischen Union vor allem deshalb, weil sie unehrlich ist. Sie ist unehrlich, weil sie politisch motiviert ist. Über eine EU‑Mitgliedschaft der Ukraine beispielsweise würden wir ohne den russischen Angriffskrieg gar nicht diskutieren, denn sie würde das Ende der gemeinsamen Agrarpolitik bedeuten – das will niemand, und deswegen wird es dazu auch nicht kommen.
Die Diskussion ist auch unehrlich, weil wir sie uns nicht leisten können. Kein Mitgliedstaat wird bereit sein, seinen Beitrag zum EU‑Haushalt zu erhöhen oder auf Leistungen der Union zu verzichten. Wie auch, wenn 5 % der nationalen Etats für Verteidigungsausgaben ausgegeben werden sollen!
Und sie ist drittens unehrlich, weil sie in Wahrheit keiner will, nicht einmal die Menschen in den Beitrittskandidatenländern. Schauen Sie sich doch nur die letzten Wahlergebnisse in Georgien und Moldawien an!
Die Wachstumsschmerzen der Europäischen Union sind schon heute unverkennbar. Noch mehr Mitgliedsländer sind keine geeignete Therapie – im Gegenteil, dadurch werden sie weiter verschlimmert.
Lukas Mandl (PPE). – Mr President, Commissioner, colleagues, we need a Europe with more strength to the outside and more freedom to the inside. And at the moment, we are experiencing an era when the European Commission contributes a lot to a Europe with more freedom to the inside: deregulation, simplification, competitiveness – that’s what we were thriving for for a long time and what’s happening now.
But we also need a Europe with more strength to the outside for the sake of European values, for the sake of the interests of the Europeans of this generation and of generations to come, and that means fostering the enlargement process.
We have to be aware of the fact that the so-called ‘methodologies’ of accession to the European Union just haven’t worked. They haven’t worked for many years. I remember at the beginning of the last mandate, here, we were more or less obliged to define a new methodology for the enlargement process. Did it help? No, not at all.
While many European countries, nearly all of them, want to be part of the integrated Europe, of the European Union, the best shape our continent ever had in history, while this is the case on one side, on the other side, we are reluctant and stuck in bureaucracy, in so-called ‘methodologies’, when it comes to enlargement. We need a more holistic and a more visionary approach here.
(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question)
Petras Gražulis (ESN),pakėlus mėlynąją kortelę pateiktas klausimas. – Gerbiamas pirmininke, pranešėjau, aš jau gal ketvirtą kartą klausiu ir negaunu atsakymo. Europos Parlamentas ir Europos Komisija labai myli Ukrainą ir nėra dienos, kad nepriimtume kokios nors rezoliucijos dėl meilės Ukrainai. Tačiau prezidentas Zelenskis neprašo rezoliucijų, prašo narystės Europos Sąjungoje. Kas kaltas, kad po šiai dienai nėra priimta Ukraina į Europos Sąjungą – Putinas, Trumpas, Ukraina ar Europos Sąjunga? Ir pasakykit, galų gale, kada nuo žodžių prieisite prie realių darbų?
Кристиан Вигенин (S&D). – Г-жо Комисар, разширяването е не само исторически ангажимент, но и стратегически приоритет. То е инвестиция в сигурността, стабилността и просперитета на целия континент. Разширяването на Съюза обаче поставя пред нас и редица институционални предизвикателства: по-сложни механизми за взимане на решения, необходимост от адаптиране на бюджета и засилване на демократичната легитимност. В този контекст често се предлага премахването на принципа на единодушие като универсално решение. Но нека бъдем честни, това няма да отстрани най-съществения проблем –липсата на достатъчно доверие между страните членки. Договорите и сега предлагат редица инструменти като засилено сътрудничество, конструктивно въздържане, които можем да използваме. Те дават възможност да се премине към решение с квалифицирано мнозинство по всеки въпрос, стига това да се реши с единодушие.
Промяната на договорите е сложен и бавен процес без гаранции за крайния резултат. Затова трябва да използваме максимално сегашната правна рамка, иначе има риск да отслабим Европейския съюз и да блокираме процеса на разширяване за неопределено време.
Като представител на България – една от последните присъединили се държави, искам ясно да подчертая: отговорността, в случая, е двустранна. Кандидатките за членство също трябва да си свършат работата и да предприемат необходимите промени, за да прилагат европейските стандарти във всяка една сфера. Само така процесът ще запази подкрепата на гражданите, което е най-важно, както в страните кандидатки, така и в държавите членки, за да постигнем заедно едно демократично, солидарно и добро бъдеще за всеки един европеец.
Anders Vistisen (PfE). – Mr President, before we open the door to yet another massive EU enlargement, let’s take a sober look at the facts. We are talking about eight candidate countries with a combined population of more than 90 million people, and at extra cost for the European taxpayers of above EUR 75 billion.
And all the countries are below EU standards in all key areas. Take corruption: according to Transparency International, these countries rank among the worst in Europe. Bosnia and Herzegovina is at 108th place, lower than countries like Algeria or Zambia. Ukraine and Serbia share 104th place, and Albania ranks 98th. By comparison, Denmark is number one!
In terms of median income, these countries are light years behind: Ukraine has an average monthly salary of only EUR 380, Moldova EUR 330, and even the most developed, Montenegro, has an average below EUR 800.
Opening the single market to these countries will only lead to massive social dumping and welfare tourism in Europe.
Cristian Terheş (ECR). – Domnule președinte, stimați colegi, proiectul european a fost vizionar, inițiat de lideri creștini practicanți după Al Doilea Război Mondial. Ei au visat la o comunitate de state suverane unite prin libertatea circulației bunurilor, persoanelor, serviciilor și capitalului, o unire care să aducă prin prosperitatea tuturor, pacea ‑ și au reușit. De la șase state vest-europene fondatoare, această comunitate, începută în 1951, a tot crescut, iar cu fiecare extindere toate statele membre și-au consolidat stabilitatea, solidaritatea și bunăstarea.
Din păcate, cortina de fier și ocupația sovietică a estului Europei au blocat peste 200 de milioane de europeni în afara acestui spațiu al libertății și prosperității. A fost nevoie să cadă comunismul și să treacă aproape 50 de ani de la înființare, pentru ca fostele state comuniste captive să înceapă să facă parte din această comunitate. Astăzi, integrarea Republicii Moldova, Ucrainei și a Balcanilor de Vest este pasul firesc al unui proiect politico-economic care a demonstrat că unitatea aduce forță și crește prosperitatea tuturor statelor membre.
Reinier Van Lanschot (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, dear colleagues, what could the EU look like in 2030? A new European Union from Greenland in the Atlantic to Ukraine in the Black Sea, a new Union with more countries. For the countries joining, it means new opportunities, new freedoms and new responsibilities – 35 countries collaborating together. But we know the EU is already dysfunctional.
There’s only one solution: reform, treaty reform. Let’s create a Europe 2.0 with a European Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, free from the oppressive veto, a Europe that speaks with one voice. This could become a reality by enlarging and reforming the Union – in other words, a new Europe that is bigger and better. Parliament voted for treaty reform already, but the Council refuses to act. They are not even present at this debate, only thinking about the next election, not thinking about the next generation.
Alexander Sell (ESN). – Herr Präsident! Deutschland ist pleite. Die Rentenversicherung ist pleite, Kranken- und Pflegeversicherung – pleite, Arbeitslosenversicherung – pleite. Wir Deutschen zahlen mit die höchsten Steuern weltweit, 1000 Milliarden Euro im Jahr, und trotzdem fehlt es an allen Ecken und Enden. Brücken und Straßen verfallen, Schulen sind marode, über 7 Millionen Rentner haben weniger als 1000 Euro im Monat, Wohneigentum gibt es kaum. Gleichzeitig zahlen wir auch den höchsten Beitrag zur EU, mit weitem Abstand, fast 30 Milliarden Euro im Jahr, obwohl wir laut Europäischer Zentralbank eines der ärmsten Länder Europas sind.
Aber statt die deutschen Steuerzahler zu entlasten, wollen Sie uns immer neue Lasten aufbürden. Moldawien, Albanien oder die Ukraine sollen jetzt Mitglied in der Europäischen Union werden, weil sich Frau von der Leyen mehr Gewicht auf der weltpolitischen Bühne erhofft. Das wird nicht funktionieren; wir Deutschen werden uns nicht länger ausplündern lassen. Wir werden Ihrem Größenwahnsinn den Geldhahn abdrehen. Darauf können Sie sich verlassen, denn dafür wird meine Partei gewählt. Sagen Sie bitte Ihrer Kommissionspräsidentin: Wer untergehen soll, der wird vorher hochmütig, und Hochmut kommt vor dem Fall.
Luis-Vicențiu Lazarus (NI). – Domnule președinte, doamnă comisară, stimați colegi, ieri au fost bătuți preoți la Cernăuți, în Ucraina, preoți ortodocși ai comunității românești. Anul trecut, mitropolitul Longhin Jar a fost bătut și este târât prin procese fictive de ani de zile. Minoritatea românească a fost întotdeauna oropsită în Ucraina. Eu acum nu înțeleg, statele acestea care urmează să adere la Uniunea Europeană nu trebuie să respecte drepturile minorităților? Tot timpul vorbim de minoritățile LGBT, dar nu vorbim de o minoritate atât de importantă, ca cea românească, de peste jumătate de milion de oameni din Ucraina.
Au inventat încă și o limbă moldovenească. Nu există o limbă moldovenească, după cum nu există o republică moldovenească. Moldova este o regiune din România. Faptul că există o Republică Moldova, asta se întâmplă doar pentru că un bolșevic și cu un nazist au făcut un Pact Ribbentrop-Molotov și un Dictat de la Viena acum 85 de ani și pentru România acest pact nu este încă denunțat. Așa că, să nu fiu prost înțeles, eu sunt de acord ca Moldova să adere și am votat în acest sens la Uniunea Europeană, dar totuși, nu era mai simplu să se unească cu România? Era mult mai simplu, mă gândesc.
Karlo Ressler (PPE). – Poštovani predsjedavajući, kolegice i kolege, ruski utjecaj, kineske investicije i protueuropski regionalni akteri koji ne dijele naše europske vrijednosti jačaju svoju prisutnost upravo ondje gdje Europa oklijeva. Vjerodostojnost europske politike proširenja gradi se upravo kroz čvršće partnerstvo s državama i akterima koji dijele težnju prema zajedničkoj budućnosti, ali isto tako i čvršćim politikama prema onima koji podrivaju Europu i koji podrivaju europske vrijednosti.
U tom kontekstu, plan rasta za zapadni Balkan svakako predstavlja priliku za dublju integraciju i konkretne promjene, no bez jasne političke poruke, bez jasne težnje i traženja jasnog opredjeljenja, ostat će tek okvir bez sadržaja.
Sjeverna Makedonija, država koja unatoč višestrukim preporukama Komisije još uvijek čeka početak pregovora, primjer je političke nepravde koja također potkopava vjeru u europski projekt. U Bosni i Hercegovini iscrpljuju se separatističke poruke, separatističke politike s jedne strane, ali isto tako nerealne unitarističke ambicije s druge. Crna Gora bori se za svoju europsku i prozapadnu orijentaciju.
Naivno i u ovoj raspravi zvuče iluzije da će preglasavanje unutar Europske unije dovesti do većeg jedinstva. To nije moguće, to je kontraproduktivno ne samo za manje i srednje velike države članice nego isto tako i za cijelu Europu. Zbog toga moramo biti jasni, moramo biti prisutni, ali isto tako moramo zajedno raditi na uvažavanju svih stajališta.
(Govornik je pristao odgovoriti na pitanje postavljeno podizanjem plave kartice.)
Petras Gražulis (ESN),pakėlus mėlynąją kortelę pateiktas klausimas. – Gerbiamas Pirmininke. Aš jūsų, kolegos iš EPP partijos, klausiau, kada priimsite Ukrainą į Europos Sąjungą. Jis atsakė, kad reakcingas mano klausimas. O tų rezoliucijų, kaip ir minėjau, Ukrainos prezidentas Zelenskis, kurias mes kasdien priiminėjame, kaip mylime Ukrainą, neprašo. Tai gal jūs galite tada viešai visiems pasakyti, kad jūs nežadate priimti Ukrainos į Europos Sąjungą? Ir kas tai trukdo? Ar tai ne tokia veidmainystė, kada viena kalbam, o visiškai veiksmai yra kitokie? Tik rezoliucijomis mes mylim… (posėdžio pirmininkas iš kalbėtojo atima žodį)
Karlo Ressler (PPE),odgovor na pitanje postavljeno podizanjem plave kartice. – Ne čini mi se dobronamjernim, zapravo, vaše pitanje. Ono što svakako možemo reći je da i Ukrajina, koja se bori i za svoju opstojnost, ali koja se bori tj. njezin narod i za europske vrijednosti, ima ambiciju ući u Europsku uniju. Kada i kako će se to dogoditi nije jednostavno odgovoriti, neće se u svakom slučaju dogoditi preko noći.
Međutim, ono što postoji kao ambicija mislim da treba poštivati i s naše strane da moramo napraviti reda i kod politike proširenja. I u tom smislu, državi koja je sada u ratnom stanju trebamo učiniti sve da joj pomognemo, a nadamo se da će jednoga dana naši kolege ovdje dolaziti i iz Ukrajine.
Tonino Picula (S&D). – Poštovani predsjedavajući, geopolitička situacija u svijetu je dobar argument u korist nastavka politike proširenja. Međutim, to ne znači da treba odstupati od „kopenhaških kriterija”, upravo suprotno – treba ih dosljedno provoditi u praksi.
Europska unija treba pružati podršku samo stvarnim, a ne fiktivnim reformama, i odmah pozitivno reagirati kada se kriteriji ispune.
Premda je proširenje opet strateški prioritet Europske unije, gotovo transakcijski se dugo odnosila prema ovoj politici, vođena pogrešnim uvjerenjem da će europskim novcem riješiti sve unutarnje probleme država kandidata.
Tako na liste strateški važnih projekata stavljamo one koje građani ne podržavaju ili preporučujemo zatvaranje poglavlja o javnoj nabavi neposredno nakon sklapanja ugovora s trećom zemljom koji se izuzima od tih pravila.
Inzistiranje na vladavini prava i europskim vrijednostima, ali usklađenom geopolitičkom orijentacijom, moraju biti temelji za nastavak politike proširenja.
Ako se politika proširenja provodi na taj način, interna reforma institucija Europske unije ne bi trebala biti ni prepreka ni alibi za odgađanje novog proširenja Europske unije.
Tomislav Sokol (PPE),pitanje koje je podizanjem plave kartice postavio. – Gospodine Picula, često se govori da je novo proširenje nemoguće bez institucionalnih reformi koje bi, između ostalog, značile ukidanje prava jednoglasnosti u Vijeću, dakle ukidanje prava veta za male države članice.
Vi ste mnogo puta govorili o toj temi, ali znamo da postoje različiti pogledi na samo to pitanje. Recimo, predsjednik Republike Hrvatske Zoran Milanović je rekao da oni koji su za ukidanje prava veta čine veleizdaju ili nešto u tom smislu.
Možete li mi Vi ovdje reći, jeste li Vi za ukidanje prava veta za male države članice, nešto što ide protivno njihovim nacionalnim interesima, ili ste za to da male države uspiju zaštititi svoja prava i dalje u Europskoj uniji? Hvala lijepa.
Marjan Šarec (Renew). – Gospod predsednik, širitev Evropske unije danes ni več samo birokratski postopek, Je ključni geopolitični korak, ki pomeni utrjevanje stabilnosti, varnosti in demokratičnih vrednot Evropske unije.
Države, ki že dokazujejo evropsko zavezanost, potrebujejo jasna sporočila in spodbudne korake iz Bruslja. Obljuba članstva v Evropski uniji mora biti resnična in zanesljiva. Sicer tudi sistem postavljanja zahtev ne deluje.
Poznamo primere držav kandidatk, ki so sledile pomembnim reformam, nato pa obtičale v vmesnem prostoru. Severna Makedonija je kričeč primer.
Medtem pa drugi akterji krepijo svoj vpliv in alternativne poti, ki lahko ogrozijo stabilnost in dragocene vrednote Evropske unije. Tiste vrednote, ki jih prepogosto jemljemo za samoumevne. To moramo znova in znova sporočati tudi evropskim državljankam in državljanom.
Skupna prihodnost z državami kandidatkami pomeni močnejšo, varnejšo in bolj enotno Evropo.
Marc Botenga (The Left). – Monsieur le Président, Madame la Commissaire, quand je vous entends parler de l’élargissement de l’Union européenne, ça a l’air chouette comme idée, mais je trouve que vous passez un peu vite sur les conséquences réelles que cela peut avoir sur les travailleurs. Parce que le salaire minimum en Ukraine n’arrive pas à 200 euros, je pense, en Moldavie, ça dépasse un peu les 300 euros.
Dans le contexte des règles actuelles du marché européen, qui ne garantit même pas qu’aujourd’hui un travailleur qui va travailler dans un autre État membre ait droit aux mêmes règles de protection, à la même sécurité sociale qu’un autre, que va-t-il se passer dans le cadre d’un élargissement? Tout simplement que des entreprises – d’ailleurs, il y a pas mal de sociétés «boîtes aux lettres», comme on les appelle – vont en profiter pour faire baisser, pour faire empirer les conditions de travail des travailleurs un peu partout en Europe.
Et ça, ça serait l’impact concret en Europe, aujourd’hui, d’un élargissement pour les travailleurs. Ne cachez pas ça, ne faites pas des rêves de grandeur sur combien l’Europe sera jolie à 200 États. C’est pas ça, ce que vivent les travailleurs. Les travailleurs veulent aujourd’hui que vous changiez cette Europe; non plus de la concurrence, mais de la coopération, de la sécurité sociale.
Tomislav Sokol (PPE). – Poštovani predsjedavajući, povjerenice, kolegice i kolege, u izmijenjenim geopolitičkim okolnostima proširenje Europske unije je ponovno postalo aktualno. Međutim, jasno treba reći da se proces proširenja treba promatrati za svaku državu zasebno i temeljiti se isključivo na sposobnostima države kandidatkinje da usvoji europske standarde.
Nažalost, po tom pitanju ne da ne vidimo napredak, nego, nažalost, uglavnom vidimo nazadovanje. Srbija je i dalje apsolutno najveći destabilizacijski faktor u jugoistočnoj Europi. Hegemonistička politika koju vodi Beograd ugrožava neovisnost i suverenost okolnih država te je jasno da ovakvoj Srbiji nije mjesto u Europskoj uniji.
Nadalje, Bosna i Hercegovina razapeta je između bošnjačkog unitarizma i srpskog separatizma. U toj državi Hrvati su jedini narod koji istinski, bez fige u džepu gleda prema Europskoj uniji i zapadu.
Crna Gora i Albanija, pak, najdalje su odmakle na europskom putu, s time da je Crna Gora ipak spremnija za zaključenje pregovora, iako je pred njom još uvijek puno posla.
Međutim, ono što je važno reći je da proširenje Europske unije nema apsolutno nikakve veze s ukidanjem jednoglasnosti odlučivanja. Tvrdnja da je proširenje nemoguće bez ukidanja prava veta je naprosto netočna. 2004., kada je pravo veta bilo puno raširenije, dogodilo se najveće proširenje Europske unije u povijesti.
Ukidanje prava veta i uvođenje preglasavanja negiralo bi temeljne dimenzije nacionalnog suvereniteta, povećalo podjele u Europskoj uniji te ugrozilo sam njezin opstanak. U konačnici, ako netko smatra da proširenjem uvodimo trojanskog konja u Uniju, onda do takvog proširenja vjerojatno ne treba niti doći. Europa mora ostati zajednica slobodnih suverenih naroda, a ne zajednica u kojoj veliki odlučuju umjesto malih.
Francisco Assis (S&D). – Senhor Presidente, Senhor Comissário, o processo de alargamento é intrínseco ao projeto europeu e até ao próprio espírito europeu que subjaz a esse projeto.
Não foram só os países que foram entrando que beneficiaram das vantagens da integração europeia; os próprios países fundadores beneficiaram, desde logo, dessa vantagem.
Basta olhar para o caso alemão: foi a sua integração nas instituições europeias que permitiu a sua reinserção na comunidade internacional após o tenebroso período nazi.
Trata-se, afinal, de acolher agora no seio da UE novos países e novos povos. O novo alargamento que temos agora no horizonte deve inspirar-se no mesmo espírito de partilha e fraternidade. Mas dificilmente poderemos acomodar novos membros com a mesma arquitetura institucional e o mesmo acervo tratadístico.
O problema é que andamos a navegar as águas tumultuosas dos últimos anos –– o Brexit, a pandemia, a crise energética, a invasão da Ucrânia –– com uma carta de marear desenhada há quase 15 anos para um clima previsível e pacificado.
Nesse sentido, quero aqui recordar o pedido formal feito por esta Casa em 2022, e pela primeira vez na sua história, apelando ao Conselho para iniciar uma convenção para a revisão dos Tratados, em linha com as conclusões da Conferência sobre o Futuro da Europa. Esse pedido tem sido menosprezado pelo Conselho.
Está, provavelmente, na hora de este Parlamento ser mais ouvido pelo Conselho Europeu.
Marieke Ehlers (PfE). – Voorzitter, opnieuw klinkt de roep om méér Europese Unie. Meer landen, meer bureaucratie, maar minder inspraak voor de landen die deze Unie hebben opgebouwd. De eurocraten bestempelen uitbreiding als een noodzaak en zien het vetorecht als een hinderpaal. Terwijl het systeem kraakt in zijn voegen, stormt Brussel vooruit, alsof uitbreiding een morele plicht is en geen politieke keuze.
De EU verder uitbreiden is als het toelaten van passagiers op een zinkend schip. Wat ons te wachten staat, is een versnelde weg richting een transferunie, omdat nieuwe lidstaten vrijwel zonder uitzondering netto-ontvanger zullen zijn. En wie draait op voor de kosten? Nettobetalers zoals Nederland.
Als we dan ook nog het vetorecht afschaffen, creëren we een systeem waarin nettobetalers steeds meer betalen, maar steeds minder te zeggen hebben. Dit is niet het Europa waar wij voor gekozen hebben. Het is de hoogste tijd dat we het roer terugpakken, vóór onze belangen definitief overboord gaan.
Małgorzata Gosiewska (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Rozszerzenie Unii Europejskiej o nowe państwa, takie jak Ukraina, jest uzasadnione z punktu widzenia geopolitycznego. Niesie jednak za sobą poważne konsekwencje gospodarcze, szczególnie dla takich krajów jak Polska. Już teraz obserwujemy wpływ rosnącej konkurencji ze strony Ukrainy w kluczowych sektorach, takich jak transport drogowy czy rolnictwo.
W odpowiedzi na rosyjską agresję Unia Europejska w 2022 r. zliberalizowała dostęp Ukrainy do jednolitego rynku, całkowicie znosząc cła i kontyngenty oraz rezygnując z systemu licencji w transporcie drogowym. Działania te, oficjalnie motywowane solidarnością, wywołały istotne napięcia społeczne w państwach członkowskich. Największymi beneficjentami tych działań okazały się potężne agroholdingi, w tym te kontrolowane przez międzynarodowy kapitał.
Twierdziliście, że troszczycie się o ukraińskich rolników, że to wyraz solidarności z walczącym krajem. W rzeczywistości było to wsparcie dla międzynarodowych graczy w umacnianiu ich pozycji na rynku europejskim kosztem naszych rolników, kosztem naszych przetwórców. Nie na tym polega solidarność międzynarodowa. Nie tak powinien przebiegać proces rozszerzania Unii Europejskiej.
Илхан Кючюк (Renew). – Г-жо Комисар, от началото на дебата се опитвам да разбера за какво не е този дебат: не е „за“ или „против“ за политиката по разширяване, не е за Украйна, за Турция, не и за готовността на страните членки да бъдат част от Европейския съюз. То е за нещо друго: за институционалната и политическата подготвеност на Европейския съюз да приеме нови страни членки.
Нека заедно да си зададем този въпрос и тук не гледам крайното ляво или крайното дясно, политическият център, който трябва да донесе необходимите реформи за бъдещето на Европейския съюз. Можем ли при тази институционална подредба да си позволим 35 държави в рамките на Европейския съюз? Отговорът е „не“. Погледнете само дебата, който тече в момента за Многогодишната финансова рамка. Искаме старите приоритети, искаме нови приоритети и на всичкото отгоре трябва да вземем решение в един Съюз с 35 държави в едно обозримо бъдеще. Как е възможно това?
Погледнете санкционната политика на Европейския съюз. Колко пъти ние се проваляме в идеята си да имаме еднопосочно послание към нас в Европейския съюз и към тези, които искат да се присъединят към нас? И да ми кажете, че това е демократично? Орбан постоянно да ни изнудва за нещо. Не го приемаме. Трябва да има реформа …
(Председателят отнема думата на оратора)
Sebastian Everding (The Left). – Herr Präsident, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Wenn wir über EU‑Erweiterungsstrategien reden, dann müssen wir viel mehr über den Umwelt‑, Klima‑ und auch den Tierschutz sprechen. Es ist schockierend, dass in vielen Berichten zu Kandidatenländern diese Themen nur am Rande oder, wie im Falle des Tierschutzes, gar nicht erwähnt werden. Selbstverständlich müssen alle Kandidatenländer Kriterien in Bezug auf Rechtsstaatlichkeit, Korruptionsbekämpfung usw. erfüllen, aber es ist inakzeptabel, dass in Ländern wie der Türkei, Albanien, dem Kosovo, Moldau, Serbien oder auch Bosnien streunende Hunde und Katzen brutal getötet werden. Es gibt einen chronischen Mangel an Tierheimen, keine Maßnahmen zur Populationskontrolle wie Kastrationsprogramme und keine Aufklärungs‑ und Sensibilisierungskampagnen für die Bevölkerung.
Darüber hinaus dürfen Abfallwirtschaft und Umweltschutz bei Beitrittskandidaten nicht vernachlässigt werden. Profit darf dort niemals vor der Umwelt stehen, wie es im Fall des Lithiumabbaus im Jadar‑Tal in Serbien oder beim Bau des Flughafens in einem Naturschutzgebiet in der Vjosa-Narta in Albanien der Fall ist. Wir müssen diesen Ländern eine klare Botschaft vermitteln, dass Tierschutz- und Umweltschutzstandards ebenso wichtig sind. Diesen Stellenwert sollten sie auch hier im Parlament bekommen.
Андрей Ковачев (PPE). – Г-жо Комисар, пред лицето на нарастващата заплаха от Русия и усилващото се влияние на Китай, интеграция на страните кандидат членки в нашия Съюз е наложителна като стратегическа инвестиция в обединена и силна Европа. В този исторически момент разширяването на Европейския съюз е един от най-силните ни външнополитически инструменти. Но ако този инструмент не се използва внимателно, ако правим компромиси със собствените си принципи и ценности, ще подкопаем бъдещето си, като се опитваме да изградим нещо единно, а в същото време внесем повече разединение в Европейския съюз.
И тук бих искал да се спра на актуалния пример с Република Северна Македония. За съжаление, манипулативното интерпретиране от страна на министър-председателя г-н Мицковски на проектотекстове на този Парламент води до повече напрежение и повече разединение, освен че поставя в неудобно положение докладчиците.
Г-н Мицковски, в проектотекстовете, които явно Вие имате, никъде Европейският парламент не сертифицира многовековна идентичност или език. Това не е институт по история или академия на науките. Затова пък има международноправни договори и това е договорът между България, където има платформа, това е мултидисциплинарната академична комисия, където тези две решения трябва да бъдат взети от специалистите. Затова призовавам: вместо да инвестираме толкова много време и енергия – дипломатична и финансова в лобизъм и борба, да се концентрираме в изпълнение на преговорната рамка, започване на преговори, договорите между двете страни и разбира се, взаимно уважение между нас.
Тук не мога да не кажа и крещящия например за присъдата срещу Любчо Георгиевски, един македонски българин, който беше осъден на първа инстанция само за това, че във Фейсбук поста си беше цитирал историческа личност и истината за нашата обща история.
Thijs Reuten (S&D). – Mr President, Commissioner, colleagues, if enlargement is the EU’s strongest geopolitical tool, we must urgently make it credible again.
History shows enlargement works only when domestic reformers see real rewards and when backsliding carries consequences, when citizens feel tangible benefits, and when EU institutions and Member States speak with one voice – clearly, consistently and honestly, to reinforce local ownership.
Instead, what we see is shifting goalposts, appeasement and double standards, especially on Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, North Macedonia, Kosovo and Georgia. This Parliament has sounded the alarm again and again. Reforms cannot succeed without deep democratic transformation. And yet, too often, the EU enables autocrats, excuses kleptocrats and ignores those fighting for the rule of law.
Citizens are not blind. They won’t wait forever. Enlargement processes have a shelf life and we are close to the expiry date. And meanwhile, Russia and China are more than happy to fill the vacuum we are leaving.
So let’s be honest, with ourselves and our partners. We need a hard look at what has worked, what has not and what needs fixing. And we need to show enlargement is real by ensuring that at least two countries can join the Union before 2030.
Let enlargement become the transformative force it was meant to be, fulfilling the promise of a united Europe as we started working on over 75 years ago.
Csaba Dömötör (PfE). – Tisztelt Elnök Úr! Úgy beszélnek itt az ukrán bővítésről, mintha már eldöntött tény lenne. Gyorsított eljárást akarnak, és a bővítési biztos azt is elmondta, hogy a Bizottságnál ezer ember dolgozik ezen. Ráadásul, amint ma is hallhattuk, ki akarják iktatni a tagállami vétó lehetőségét. Igazán demokratikus, mondhatom.
Egyvalamiről azonban nem beszélnek. A gazdasági következményekről.
Az itteni Költségvetési Bizottságnak vannak számításai, amelyek szerint a kohéziós források 24%-kal, az agrártámogatások pedig 15%-kal csökkennének a mostani tagországokban.
Azután történne ez, hogy Európa elköltött 150 milliárd eurót a háborúra.
Miért gondolják azt itt, hogy az európai emberek minden pénzügyi terhet elbírnak? Ki fog a szemükbe nézni és bevallani, hogy milyen terhekkel járna mindez?
Magyarországon már több mint kétmillióan vettek részt az ukrán tagságról szóló szavazáson. Mi megkérdeztük, hogy mit gondolnak a bővítésről azok, akik a számlát állják.
A választól egy kicsit félve teszem fel a kérdést: Önök meg merik ezt tenni?
Claudiu-Richard Târziu (ECR). – Domnule președinte, stimați colegi, extinderea Uniunii Europene este un proiect cu implicații strategice și istorice profunde. Avem datoria să sprijinim aspirațiile europene ale unui stat precum Republica Moldova, care împărtășește cu România aceeași limbă și cultură, și destin istoric.
Din punctul nostru de vedere, ajutorul acordat Moldovei în procesul de integrare este mai mult decât un obiectiv de politică externă, este o datorie față de identitatea și dreptul istoric al națiunii române. Dar tocmai pentru că ne pasă atât de mult, trebuie să spunem adevărul: Uniunea Europeană nu este astăzi pregătită instituțional pentru o extindere masivă. Fără o reformă reală a mecanismelor decizionale, a alocării bugetare, fără un control democratic real, riscăm să transformăm extinderea într-o nouă amenințare pentru stabilitatea Uniunii.
Așadar, susținem extinderea, dar cerem o reformă serioasă și o consolidare a proceselor decizionale în structurile Uniunii, respect pentru suveranitatea statelor membre și o viziune clară asupra viitorului european.
Petras Auštrevičius (Renew). – Mr President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, history has shown us the value of European unification and the importance of preparing EU institutions to address emerging challenges. Although managing a union of 30 or more members may seem challenging, these are the same concerns we had 20 years ago, prior to the big bang enlargement.
However, improving the EU’s institutional functioning and political processes cannot be postponed or made dependent on enlargement, budgeting or other issues.
Colleagues, I find today’s debate, with the extreme focus on enlargement only, a bit misleading. It’s too narrow. Let’s look broader, face all the challenges we have. We must look into a long, be ready to face any future challenges to the security and prosperity of our citizens in the long term, when our bold actions will bear fruit, and seize the opportunity to improve the efficiency of EU decision-making and policy implementation. So let’s look at the broader picture.
Seán Kelly (PPE). – A Uachtaráin agus a Choimisinéir, tá sé tábhachtach dóchas a thabhairt do thíortha a bhfuil ag teastáil uathu teacht isteach san Aontas, because enlargement is one of the EU’s greatest achievements. It has extended peace, democracy and shared prosperity across Europe, making it stronger, more united and better equipped to face global challenges. Ireland has always backed enlargement, but on principle. Accession must be earned: each candidate must meet our agreed standards in the rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights. That remains essential.
The strategic case is clearer than ever. Russia’s war in Ukraine shows that peace in Europe cannot be assumed. Bringing in countries like Ukraine and Moldova, and the Western Balkans, once ready, serves both their interests and ours. It strengthens our security, economy and global influence. We cannot let radical voices hijack this debate with fearmongering about migration or budgets. That distorts the truth.
Past enlargements reduced poverty, grew trade and created new opportunities, including for Ireland, which has been transformed and modernised since we joined in 1973. Conversely, the United Kingdom has suffered greatly since it left the European Union a few years ago. The path ahead must be rigorous, but the door must stay open.
Míle buíochas á Uachtaráin, agus go n-éirí libh. Maith thú.
Marc Angel (S&D). – Mr President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, every single enlargement of our Union has been a major success story, and enlargement has now become a geopolitical necessity to protect ourselves and our neighbours against interference from autocratic regimes.
It is important and good that enlargement is, again, high on the agenda. War on our continent, the rise of fascism, the shift in transatlantic relations – all this reminds us that enlargement is in our own strategic interest.
There will be no shortcuts on EU values and fundamental principles. Accession to the EU must always remain a merit-based process and, therefore, as EU institutions and Member States, we must support the candidate countries.
We also have homework to do: institutional and financial reforms are needed to absorb new members. Our Union is barely functioning at the current state with 27, so what about 30, 32 or 35? We need to change our way of working so that every citizen, every worker, every business and society as a whole can continue to benefit from our European project.
So let’s have the courage to adopt targeted treaty changes, move away from unanimity, deepen the social dimension of our Union and strengthen the union of equality, and we must live up to our promises to citizens and to the candidate countries.
Pascale Piera (PfE). – Monsieur le Président, l’élargissement de l’Union européenne devait être un catalyseur de progrès, nous promettait Ursula von der Leyen. Qui peut encore le croire?
Si l’élargissement de l’Union européenne est un catalyseur, c’est celui de la dilapidation de l’argent public. Des milliards dont on perd la trace, alors qu’on enjoint aux peuples européens de se serrer la ceinture. Une note du Conseil européen chiffre le coût de cet élargissement à la somme de 264 milliards d’euros sur sept ans.
Si l’élargissement de l’Union européenne est un catalyseur, c’est celui de l’instabilité et de l’insécurité pour nos concitoyens avec les gangs venus de pays qui ne respectent pas nos lois. Ne soyons pas dupes.
L’élargissement, et notamment celui à l’Ukraine, est enfin le catalyseur de la destruction de notre agriculture. En cas d’adhésion, l’Ukraine deviendrait le premier bénéficiaire de la politique agricole commune, avec 10 à 12 milliards d’euros d’aides par an, c’est 20 % du budget de la PAC.
Cette concurrence si déloyale, venue de pays qui ne respectent ni nos normes environnementales ni nos normes sociales, c’est un crime organisé contre notre agriculture et nous n’accepterons pas cela.
Mario Mantovani (ECR). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signor Commissario, l’allargamento dell’Unione europea è un processo di grande rilevanza strategica, che va affrontato con realismo e con rigore, soprattutto alla luce delle crescenti sfide economiche e geopolitiche.
L’ingresso di nuovi Stati membri comporta senza dubbio opportunità per promuovere e consolidare quei valori di democrazia e di libertà propri di questa Unione, ma anche opportunità di crescita ed espansione dei mercati e rafforzamento del proprio peso politico europeo.
In quest’ottica occorre una revisione delle politiche comuni, affinché non diventino strumenti di ridistribuzione di inefficienza, ma leve per innovazione, produttività e sviluppo dell’occupazione.
È altresì essenziale una governance economica, che garantisca condizioni eque di concorrenza del mercato interno e garantisca la tutela degli investimenti comunitari che faremo in quei paesi.
In conclusione, un allargamento non governato indebolisce, un allargamento accompagnato da riforme aiuta l’Unione europea.
PRESIDE: ESTEBAN GONZÁLEZ PONS Vicepresidente
Mika Aaltola (PPE). – Arvoisa puhemies, arvoisat kollegat, Eurooppa on uhattuna. Vapautemme on vaakalaudalla. Laajentuminen ei ole hyväntekeväisyyttä. Se on kylmää, kovaa, strategista harkintaa.
Vahvan Ukrainan tuominen joukkoomme on suoraan meidän turvallisuutemme tae. Venäjän uhka vaanii porteillamme odottaen otollista hetkeä. Suomi tietää tämän historiansa kautta. Meillä on puolet EU:n ja Naton Venäjä-rajasta. Suomi on se valli, jonka on kestettävä, tai kansojen vapaus on vaakalaudalla. Samoin on Ukrainan laita. Yhtenäisyys on voimaa. Integroimalla Ukrainan lähetämme Putinille selkeän viestin: emme anna periksi, emme pelkää.
Muistakaamme Winston Churchilliä, jonka muistoksi täällä on rakennus nimettynä. Hän ymmärsi integraation geopoliittisen syvän ytimen: padota idän uhkaa ja torjua totalitarismin vaaroja. Meidän on ymmärrettävä, että EU ei ole pelkkä rauhanprojekti, vaan ytimessä on pelote, jonka pitää ylläpitää rauhaa. Epäröinnin aika on ohi. Meidän on toimittava – tarvittaessa myös ilman Yhdysvaltoja.
Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis (S&D). – Gerbiamas posėdžio pirmininke, gerbiama komisare, kolegos. Europos Sąjunga trūkčioja vietoje. Pasauliniai iššūkiai ir Europos Sąjungos piliečiai reikalauja stipresnės ir veiksmingesnės Europos ir veiksmų. Europos Parlamentas dar 2023 m. pateikė konkrečius pasiūlymus Europos Vadovų Tarybai su rekomendacijomis, atsižvelgdamas ir į piliečių, ir į Konferencijos dėl ateities siūlymus, ir į Rusijos karą prieš Ukrainą. Ukrainos pergalės laidas yra jos narystė Europos Sąjungoje – šimtu procentų. Vadovų Tarybai perduoti pasiūlymai reikalauja veiksmų iš jos pusės. Komisijos Pirmininkės, Draghi, Lettos pranešimuose yra pasakyta, kad sutarčių keitimas yra būtinas viskam – ir investicijoms, ir taip toliau. Europoje yra tik dvi rūšys valstybių – mažos ir tos, kurios nesupranta, kad jos yra mažos. Ir čia nacionalistai ir patriotai nesupranta šito ir patys kalba niekus tam, kad Europos Sąjungą atvestų į dar didesnę krizę. Todėl mums reikia žengti abu žingsnius – ir sutarčių keitimą, ir plėtrą, sinchronizuoti, daryti pagal kriterijus. Ir tik toks kelias sustiprins Europos Sąjungą kaip pasaulinį žaidėją.
(Kalbėtojas sutiko atsakyti į mėlynosios kortelės klausimą)
Siegbert Frank Droese (ESN),Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“. – Herr Kollege, danke, dass Sie die Frage annehmen! Ich weiß nicht, aus welchem Land Sie kommen, aber ich komme aus dem größten Mitgliedsland, dem stärksten Mitgliedsland der EU, und ich stelle nicht fest, dass die Bürger meines Landes in der Mehrheit mehr EU wollen. Also das zur Einordnung.
Sie haben gesprochen vom Sieg der Ukraine, und der Sieg der Ukraine hängt von deren Mitgliedschaft in der EU ab. Ist Ihnen eigentlich bewusst, dass Sie dort eines der größten korrupten Regimes derzeit an der Regierung haben, die zusammen mit Bandera, also mit ehemaligen Faschistenverehrern, die Regierung bilden? Wollen Sie wirklich dieses Land um den Preis dieser Gemeinschaft in die …
(Der Präsident entzieht dem Redner das Wort.)
Marie Dauchy (PfE). – Monsieur le Président, qui oserait dire que l’Union européenne est une institution qui fonctionne? Aucune crise, qu’elle soit migratoire, sanitaire ou économique, n’a été résolue par le secours de l’Union. Pire encore, sur le pacte vert, sur la montée de l’islamisme ou sur les délocalisations, vous n’avez été qu’un accélérateur du chaos.
Comme l’URSS à la fin de sa vie qui pensait résoudre les problèmes du communisme par plus de communisme, vous persistez à croire que l’Union réglera les échecs de l’Union et vous vous acharnez à nous imposer votre modèle que le peuple refuse. Vous voulez encore élargir cette machine folle à des pays comme la Turquie ou la Moldavie, qui ne partagent ni notre culture ni nos intérêts.
Ce que les Français attendent, ce n’est pas plus d’intégration, c’est plus de protection. Et ce que l’histoire retiendra, c’est que votre idéologie aura détruit l’idée européenne bien plus sûrement que tous vos adversaires réunis.
Hildegard Bentele (PPE). – Sehr geehrter Herr Präsident, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Die Erweiterung der Europäischen Union ist kein Selbstzweck, sie ist ein strategisches Angebot für Frieden, Demokratie, Rechtsstaatlichkeit und wirtschaftliche Entwicklung. Am Beginn von Beitrittsverhandlungen steht eine erste, einladende politische Entscheidung der EU, sie sind aber kein technokratischer Automatismus; sie beruhen auf klaren Bedingungen und auf politischem Willen. Wenn es dabei auch um Geopolitik gehen sollte, dürfen wir uns nicht hinter den einzelnen Verhandlungskapiteln verstecken.
Gerade auf dem Westbalkan ist Vertrauen ein knappes Gut. Wenn wir es verspielen, gefährden wir die europäische Perspektive dieser Region. Das Beispiel Serbien zeigt, wie schwierig das Gleichgewicht ist. Einerseits steht der Kurs der serbischen Führung zu Russland und zum Kosovo in direktem Widerspruch zu unseren europäischen Werten, andererseits sprechen geostrategische Überlegungen dafür, Serbien enger an Europa zu binden, etwa als potenziellen Partner im Bereich kritischer Rohstoffe. Doch gerade in diesem sensiblen Sektor sind funktionierende, unabhängige Institutionen sowie das Vertrauen und die Unterstützung der Bevölkerung für das Gelingen gemeinsamer Projekte entscheidend.
Die EU sollte hier sehr viel entschiedener auftreten. Sie könnte in den Augen der Bevölkerung viel an Ansehen gewinnen, wenn sie denn über den Hebel des Beitrittsprozesses ganz klar auf Korruptionsbekämpfung, Pressefreiheit und Rechtsstaatlichkeit dringen würde, die ja auch für eine echte, gesunde wirtschaftliche Entwicklung und damit für die Zukunftsfähigkeit des Landes entscheidend sind. Wir müssen Handlungsbereitschaft, Glaubwürdigkeit und strategische Verlässlichkeit zeigen – nur dann werden wir als der Partner wahrgenommen, der wir sein wollen und sein müssen.
(Die Rednerin ist damit einverstanden, auf eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“ zu antworten.)
Siegbert Frank Droese (ESN),Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“. – Frau Kollegin, vielen Dank! Sie sprachen vom Frieden in der EU. Ich nehme das im Barbarossa-, also im Verteidigungsausschuss, ganz anders wahr: Dort wird in regelmäßiger Einheit von Kriegstüchtigkeit, Kriegsfähigkeit gesprochen. Ihr Parteichef und unser Bundeskanzler sprach davon, dass aktuell Israel die Drecksarbeit für uns mache. Wie passt denn das zusammen, einmal die Rhetorik Krieg, Aufrüstung, Kriegstüchtigkeit und das Friedensgesäusel, was Sie gerade hier präsentieren? Wie passt das zusammen?
Nicola Zingaretti (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, l’Europa è l’unico processo della storia che ha unito 450 milioni di persone, non perché costrette, ma perché convinte, contro le guerre, senza violenza, ma proponendo la forza della democrazia. Passare da 6 a 27 Stati ha rappresentato uno straordinario processo che ha garantito pace, prosperità e benessere.
L’Europa dunque ci è servita ad arrivare fino a qui, ma la sua crescita senza riforme e un salto in avanti nell’integrazione rappresenta un rischio per la sua stessa esistenza. Quindi bene continuare ad aprirsi, ma è fondamentale rilanciare i suoi valori, un’identità comune europea e darsi regole nuove per essere più efficaci: riforma del diritto di veto, politica estera e di difesa davvero comuni, nuove risorse proprie destinate a investimenti per il nostro sistema produttivo e modello sociale e quindi riforme verso gli Stati Uniti d’Europa.
L’Europa non è una cappa, come dicono i nazionalisti, è lo scudo che ci ha permesso di esistere da persone libere. Ma ora, per non tradire la sua storia, deve cambiare ed andare avanti. E se non si vuole andare avanti in 27, con cooperazioni rafforzate, cominciamo con chi ci sta a cambiare questa Europa.
Alexandre Varaut (PfE). – Monsieur le Président, l’Union européenne aime à croire qu’elle incarne le sens de l’histoire et qu’il ne peut pas en être autrement. La gifle du Brexit, qui démentait cette prétention de la manière la plus nette, l’a un temps sonnée, mais l’étrange illusion a repris. Elle s’est même aggravée, comme le prouve le débat de ce matin, qui associe l’élargissement de l’Union aux défis mondiaux. Cette association est une plaisanterie. Qui peut croire que l’Union européenne cherche à s’émanciper de la tutelle américaine?
Lorsque les États-Unis ont menacé de s’emparer par la force du Groenland, l’Union européenne n’a rien fait, sinon acheter tout de suite davantage d’armes aux Américains en pensant les amadouer. Et même si l’Union européenne s’émancipait, il ne faut pas que ce soit pour devenir elle-même un bloc qui écraserait les peuples et les nations qui la composent.
À ce messianisme politique et à cette boulimie impuissante, nous opposons un pragmatisme qui s’appuie sur la raison. Les peuples européens sont une famille que rapprochent des liens civilisationnels naturels. Poursuivre l’intégration ne sera envisageable qu’une fois le cadre intégrateur lui-même redressé. Réparons l’Europe d’abord, voyons le reste après.
Davor Ivo Stier (PPE). – Poštovani predsjedavajući, uspjeh proširenja ovisi o četiri ključna čimbenika: političkoj volji država članica, volji kandidata, apsorpcijskom kapacitetu Unije i administrativnom kapacitetu kandidata. Situacija je tu različita i zato pristup mora ostati individualan.
U slučaju Ukrajine suočavamo se s problemom donošenja odluka u Vijeću, a njezino članstvo vjerojatno traži i prilagodbu nekih europskih politika poput poljoprivredne. No, EU bi strateški pogriješio ako ne bi uočio da unatoč ratu, Ukrajina pokazuje kapacitet za EU reforme i svaki dan na bojištu pokazuje privrženost europskoj ideji.
Moldova također pokazuje snažnu političku volju, dok je proces s Gruzijom morao biti zaustavljen zbog potpunog nedostatka političke volje vlasti.
Kod Srbije problem je također u političkoj volji, no u ovom slučaju bilo bi kontraproduktivno zaustaviti pregovore. Ali moramo biti svjesni da sama Srbija zasad ne želi ispuniti ključne kriterije, posebice u vanjskoj politici i u području vladavine prava. Stoga, umjesto grandioznih izjava i nerealnih očekivanja i kasnijih frustracija, puno je bolje prihvatiti realnost da je Srbija država koja se ne želi svrstati s Europskom unijom, a tu ni opozicija ne nudi jasnu alternativu. I stoga, na temelju te realnosti moramo pragmatično oblikovati naše odnose.
No, EU mora istovremeno više učiniti da takva nesvrstana politika Beograda ne utječe negativno na BiH, Crnu Goru, Kosovo i Sjevernu Makedoniju i na njihov europski put.
Na kraju, važno je nastaviti s novim tempom pregovora s Albanijom. Ona postaje lider u procesu i tu treba inzistirati na kriterijima, ali ostati ambiciozan za završetak pregovora u ovom mandatu.
Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D). – Pirmininke, pone komisare, kolegos. Mano šalies Lietuvos prisijungimas prie Europos Sąjungos prieš dvidešimt vienerius metus išgelbėjo šalį nuo Ukrainos likimo. Mes tapome stipresni tiek ekonomiškai, tiek politiškai bei labiau atsparūs išorės grėsmėms. To paties tikisi ir Ukraina, Moldova, Balkanų šalys. Taipogi plėtra yra reikalinga ir Europos Sąjungai. Todėl Europos Sąjunga privalo būti pasirengusi plėtrai, kaip ir tos šalys, kurios siekia narystės. Tačiau plėtra tikrai nebus įmanoma be sutarčių keitimo, be išsamių institucinių reformų. Matome, kad dabar jau yra sudėtinga Taryboje greitai priimti sprendimus. Kai kurie sprendimai yra vilkinami, kai kurios valstybės naudojasi veto teise vien dėl savo siaurų interesų, ir tai tikrai neprisideda prie Europos Sąjungos gebėjimo laiku ir veiksmingai reaguoti bei prisitaikyti prie pokyčių. Kad išliktume reikšmingi politiniame žemėlapyje, privalome keistis patys, keisti savo institucijas ir užtikrinti greitą ir veiksmingą sprendimų priėmimą.
Liudas Mažylis (PPE). – Pirmininke, komisare, kolegos. Svarstydami įstrigusios plėtros šiandieninę būklę, turime sau atsakyti – ar yra politinė valia plėtrai. Kai ji būdavo, tai ir institucinės problemos išsispręsdavo. Sakome, kad šiandien europinių institucijų veiklą trikdo viena valstybė narė ar netgi vienas politikas, ir daro tai sistemiškai, o mes nerandame teisinių būdų tam įveikti. Bet, kita vertus, tai liudytų apie „beveik konsensusą“. Panašiai būta daugelį kartų: ir de Golio sukelta tuščios kėdės krizė, ir Danijos išlygos Mastrichto sutarčiai, ir Konstitucijos Europai sustojęs ratifikavimas, ir poros valstybių užsispyrimas neatsitraukti nuo QMV pagal Nicos sutartį. O triumfuodavo daugumos sutarimas.
Per tai visa ligšiolinė plėtros istorija beveik išimtinai – sėkmės istorija. Europa kaskart tapdavo ir stipresnė, ir labiau integruota. Struktūriniai fondai, sanglauda – tasai pozityvas radosi kaip tik per plėtros iššūkius.
Be abejo, būtų idealu iš anksto eksplicitiškai sutarti dėl palankiausios institucinės sąrangos, bet prisiminkime ratifikavimo trikdžius, ypač, kai, nepaisant oficialios valstybės pozicijos, ji būdavo paneigiama referendumais. Man tikrai skaudu, kad tiesioginės išmokos Lietuvos ūkininkams per mažos, bet tokia gi ir būna derybų dėl narystės kaina.
Dėl institucinės sąrangos diskutuokime, bet netrukdykime brandinti politinę valią plėtrai.
Łukasz Kohut (PPE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Kto stoi w miejscu, ten się cofa. Dlatego Europa musi ruszyć z kopyta! Prawdziwym celem Unii na 2035 rok powinien być konkret, czyli przyłączenie Islandii i Norwegii do Unii – oczywiście, jeżeli społeczeństwa tych krajów będą za.
Europa potrzebuje nowego, mocnego impulsu. Unia powinna pokazać, że jest atrakcyjna nie tylko dla biedniejszych, ale także dla zamożnych krajów. Bo rozszerzenie to nie tylko Wschód i Południe – dalsza integracja to powinna być przede wszystkim Północ.
To Północ jest kluczowa dla bezpieczeństwa Europy. Norwegia to żelazny sojusznik z NATO, z którym łączą nas nie tylko wspólne wartości, ale także wspólne zagrożenie – agresywna Rosja.
Flagi NATO-wskie w Sztokholmie i w Helsinkach to był czarny sen Putina, który się ziścił. Warto być konsekwentnym. Pora, żeby kolejny sen o europejskich flagach w Oslo i w Reykjaviku się spełnił. To jest możliwe.
Solicitudes incidentales de uso de la palabra («catch the eye»)
Sunčana Glavak (PPE). – Poštovani predsjedavajući, kolegice i kolege, proširenje Europske unije nije samo tehnički proces, to je duboka politička odluka s dalekosežnim posljedicama. U vremenu kada se Europa suočava s ratom na istoku, pritiscima s juga i rastućim globalnim rivalstvima, proširenje je i ulaganje u sigurnost.
Hrvatska je najmlađa članica Europske unije, ali ima i posebnu odgovornost da bude most između Unije i naših susjeda. U Bosni i Hercegovini, primjerice, i Crnoj Gori žive aktivne hrvatske zajednice koje nisu samo most identiteta već i most povjerenja. Njihova integracija, pravna i kulturna vidljivost moraju ostati dio europske agende.
Ako proširenje ne napreduje, prostor neće ostati prazan i ispunit će ga drugi koji nemaju interes za demokraciju, već za utjecaj. Zato moramo ubrzati integracijske procese, ali uz jasna pravila, institucionalnu sigurnost i političku volju.
Ako želimo da Europa ostane globalni akter, a ne birokratski projekt, proširenje mora biti strateški prioritet, ali uz paralelnu reformu institucija i jačanje unutarnje kohezije. Jer ako se ne širimo, to znači da stagniramo, a stagnacija u geopolitici znači povlačenje. Europa se ne smije povući.
Viktória Ferenc (PfE). – Tisztelt Elnök Úr! Pontosan egy éve megkezdődtek a csatlakozási tárgyalások Ukrajnával, és a magyar diplomácia sikere nyomán a Nyugat-Ukrajnában élő kárpátaljai magyar közösség védelmében megfogalmazott tizenegy pontból álló javaslatainkat beépítették az általános csatlakozási tárgyalási keretbe. Ezzel a kárpátaljai magyarság jogainak védelme hivatalosan is Ukrajna csatlakozási folyamatának részévé vált.
Csalódottan látjuk azonban, hogy az elmúlt 365 nap során nem történt érdemi előrelépés ebben a kérdésben, csupán látszatintézkedések történtek. A nemzeti kisebbségek jogainak védelmére irányuló cselekvési tervet ugyan elfogadta a kijevi vezetés, azonban diszkriminatív módon a kárpátaljai magyar közösség legnagyobb érdekvédelmi szervezetét nem vonták be a tárgyalásokba. Így Önök, kollégáim, amikor az európai uniós vezetők, politikusok szemet hunynak Ukrajna nemzeti kisebbségeit érintő kirakatintézkedései fölött, sőt támogatják azokat, veszélybe sodorják az uniós intézmények hitelességét, és valójában Önök saját maguk akadályozzák Ukrajna valódi demokratizálását.
Lukas Sieper (NI). – Mr President, dear people of Europe, it really drives me crazy when some people here in this debate say that the EU was never able to fix the big problems of our time, when it’s the same people that, when we ask for a strong and robust financial mandate for the European Union, say no. When we asked to unify the European Union’s competences on cross-border challenges, they say no. So the same people that sabotage the constant updating of this Union now claim that this Union is not able to solve anything and therefore should not be extended.
The second thing that drives me crazy every time I hear it is when they say, ‘Oh, we cannot do this enlargement because it will cost us money’, and they throw around these big numbers. I’m a jurist; I do not come from the economy, but what I understand is that you have to invest if you want to grow your business. And investing in enlargement is investing in the future of Europe, of the European Union.
(Fin de las intervenciones con arreglo al procedimiento de solicitud incidental de uso de la palabra («catch the eye»))
Ekaterina Zaharieva,Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, thank you for this debate, and comments certainly confirmed the importance and necessity to reflect on how to prepare the Union for enlargement.
And I also think that this debate confirmed that most of you support enlargement, and it shows that an enlarged Union will be a stronger and more efficient Union.
But to do so, we should really reflect on how we prepare our Union for environment. As I mentioned in my introduction, actually, later this year, the Commission will present the communication on pre-enlargement policy review. And we are always ready to debate with this House, how best to ensure that the Unions remains able to take decisions fast, swiftly, efficiently in benefits of our citizens.
So once again, thanks for this debate, it was really very, very needed, and we are going to present the pre-enlargement policy review later this year.
President. – Thank you very much, Commissioner.
The debate is closed.
3. The United Kingdom accession to the Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters (debate)
Ilhan Kyuchyuk,author. – Mr President, Madam Commissioner, dear colleagues, on 27 June 2024, the United Kingdom signed and ratified the Convention of 2 July 2019 on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in civil or commercial matters, known as the Judgments Convention, which has also been signed by Uruguay, Israel, Costa Rica, Russia, the United States and Ukraine. The Judgments Convention entered into force on 1 September 2023, one year after the first two parties deposited their instruments of ratification.
In accordance with Article 29(2) of the Judgments Convention, the EU can notify the depositary, before 27 June 2025, that the ratification by the UK does not have the effect of establishing treaty relations between the United Kingdom and the European Union. If no such notification is issued – that is, if the EU tacitly accepts the UK’s accession – the Judgments Convention will begin to apply between the two parties on 1 July 2025.
Parliament understands that the Commission’s assessment of the UK’s accession is positive and that the Commission would be in favour of tacitly accepting it. However, the significance of private international law rules for EU citizens in this particular area also has a political and legal impact, not only on the area of judicial cooperation but also beyond, bearing in mind the relevance of relations between the UK and the European Union in a volatile international context.
With respect for each EU institution’s prerogatives and Parliament’s consistent position, a statement would allow the Commission to tacitly accept the UK’s accession to the Judgments Convention on the EU’s behalf, under the relevant provisions of that Convention.
Given the deadline laid down in the Judgments Convention, the need for the EU institutions to act without delay to ascertain the EU’s acceptance of the UK’s accession to the Convention, and Parliament’s intention to make an appropriate statement in this regard, could the Commission confirm its assessment of the UK’s accession to the Convention?
Secondly, Madam Zaharieva, having regard to the commitments made here in November 2024 by Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič with regard to third countries’ accession to conventions and respect for Article 218(6) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, what concrete steps does the Commission intend to take in future to ensure that Parliament’s prerogatives relating to third countries’ accession to the Judgments Convention are always fully and formally respected under the Treaties, and what timetable does it envisage for taking these steps?
Ekaterina Zaharieva,Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, thank you for this debate on the accession of the United Kingdom to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters.
In its written assessment of the United Kingdom’s certification of the Judgments Convention, which the Commission transmitted to the Committee of Legal Affairs of the European Parliament and to the Council, the Commission concluded that the UK has systematic capability to apply the Judgments Convention and to deal satisfactorily with individual problematic cases.
The Commission therefore sees no obstacle for the European Union to establish Treaty relations with the United Kingdom based on the Judgments Convention.
As regards the procedure to be followed when a third country joins the Judgments Convention, this issue was discussed during the process leading to the EU accession to the Judgments Convention with the European Parliament consent and on several occasions after that. The Judgments Convention is based on the principle of the acceptance of accession by other contracting parties, and only envisages an objection procedure in exceptional cases.
The Commission therefore takes the view that formal decisions under Article 218 of the Treaty are required only where the EU intends to object to the establishment of such Treaty relations. This approach is in line with the need to implement the EU obligations under international law in good faith.
At the same time, the Commission is committed to consulting Parliament and to take its views into account in full compliance with the Treaties and, notably, the duty of sincere cooperation. This is why, when deciding whether to propose an objection decision, we committed to consistently inform the Parliament of each intended accession of a third country to the Judgments Convention, taking full account of the views expressed by this House.
I therefore look forward to the Parliament’s views in the debate today.
Axel Voss,im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Es ist mir eine große Freude, unter Ihrer Aufsicht heute hier auch entsprechend vortragen zu können. Frau Kommissarin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen, lassen Sie mich eines bitte klarstellen: Es geht hier nicht nur um die Bereitschaft des Vereinigten Königreiches, dem Übereinkommen über Gerichtsstandsvereinbarungen beizutreten; wir sind uns, glaube ich, alle darüber einig, dass Großbritannien dazu in der Lage ist. Die eigentliche Frage ist, wie die Kommission mit dem Beitritt von Drittstaaten umgeht und ob sie die Rolle des Parlaments entsprechend respektiert.
Die schriftliche Bewertung, die wir erhalten haben, folgt nicht dem Verfahren gemäß Artikel 218 Absatz 6 AEUV. Es gibt keinen Vorschlag an den Rat, kein Ersuchen um die Zustimmung des Parlaments, lediglich eine Informationsnotiz. Das mag der derzeitigen Praxis durchaus entsprechen, aber ist eben nicht wirklich geltendes Recht. Und der Gerichtshof hatte ja bereits schon einmal klargestellt: Selbst eine sogenannte Nichtbeanstandung stellt ein internationales Abkommen dar. Also, das Parlament muss einbezogen werden, und das ist keine freiwillige Entscheidung.
Deshalb hat der Rechtsausschuss eine Anfrage zur mündlichen Beantwortung mit der Entschließung eingebracht, um die Kommission aufzufordern, ihren rechtlichen Ansatz zu bestätigen, und sie daran zu erinnern, dass Gesetzgebungsbefugnisse des Parlaments in diesem Bereich auch nicht umgangen werden sollten. Wir unterstützen natürlich den Beitritt des Vereinigten Königreiches, aber diese Unterstützung darf eben nicht zulasten eines ordnungsgemäßen Verfahrens gehen.
Ana Catarina Mendes,em nome do Grupo S&D. – Senhor Presidente, Senhora Comissária, caros colegas, julgo que a Cimeira, de 19 de Maio de 2025, entre a União Europeia e o Reino Unido marca uma nova etapa das nossas relações após o Brexit de reforço da nossa cooperação em diversas áreas.
Seja o reforço na área da segurança e da juventude, que deve ser mesmo feito, seja o reforço no domínio da política de defesa e segurança –– sabemos como o contexto internacional o exige ––, seja o reforço das históricas relações com o Reino Unido.
Assim, desse ponto de vista, e da parte do S&D, queria deixar aqui um sublinhado de congratulação pelo êxito desta cimeira, mas também pelo regresso às boas relações de cooperação, de solidariedade e de vizinhança, se quisermos, com o Reino Unido.
É nesse quadro que se insere esta vontade expressa do Reino Unido de aderir à Convenção de Haia, que também quero aqui, em nome do S&D, saudar. Aquilo que se espera, como o colega anterior aqui disse, é saber qual é a posição da Comissão e se a Comissão, tão brevemente quanto possível, aceita esta vontade expressa e confirma com brevidade a sua avaliação favorável da aceitação da adesão do Reino Unido à Convenção de Haia.
No entanto, como o colega anterior também disse, Senhora Comissária, é preciso que as relações institucionais sejam respeitadas; o artigo 218.º, parágrafo seis, estabelece muito claramente que este Parlamento tem também um papel a desempenhar neste contexto, não apenas para aplaudir, não apenas para saudar, mas sobretudo para estar empenhado e comprometido no reforço desta relação.
Por isso, Senhora Comissária, a minha intervenção visa solicitar que a boa cooperação institucional continue a existir e que não se ignore o papel extraordinário que o Parlamento Europeu também pode ter na ratificação desta Convenção por parte do Reino Unido, a qual, volto a dizer, saúdo com grande alegria.
Dainius Žalimas,on behalf of the Renew Group. – Mr President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, we cannot defend the rule of law externally, failing to follow it in our own decision-making. The third country’s accession to the Judgements Convention is a test of our compliance with the EU Constitution, the founding Treaties. The EU acceded to the Judgements Convention with Parliament’s consent. Indeed, the consent to be bound by international agreements is a typical function of a democratic parliament. This consent has to be required also when the convention’s scope – including scope of application – is changed, for example by the accession of third countries.
However, as in the case of Ukraine’s accession, we are again confronted with the Commission’s refusal to recognise this inherent function of the Parliament as provided by the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. In this way, the Commission undermines the principle of representative democracy, including institutional balance and accountability to EU citizens. The Commission, as a guardian of the Treaties, must fully respect them without improvisation beyond its mandate.
Therefore, with today’s oral question and resolution, we not only support the accession of the UK, but we also are defending our parliamentary prerogatives and the rule of law.
Ville Niinistö,on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, today we welcome a step forward for Justice Beyond Borders. The UK’s accession to the Hague Convention is not just good news, it’s a win for legal certainty for businesses, families and individuals on both sides of the Channel.
But let’s be clear: this debate is not about the UK today. It is about us, about our role as Parliament in shaping how the EU builds binding legal ties with the rest of the world.
We believe in the rule of law. We believe that judgments recognised across borders must be rooted in fairness, due process and human rights. And we also believe that the European Parliament must have a say when those decisions impact millions of Europeans. The Commission should take the legal role of the co-legislators properly into account in this ratification process.
That’s why we are here today, to make sure our democratic role isn’t sidelined, to ensure that Parliament’s voice is heard, respected and empowered. Let’s build bridges, yes, but let’s build them strong, transparent and with full democratic oversight, because Europe works best when it works together.
Mary Khan,im Namen der ESN-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Dieser Antrag zeigt, wie internationale Zusammenarbeit auch ohne Brüsseler Bevormundung funktionieren kann. Großbritannien ist nicht mehr Teil der EU. Das haben wir der Geduld und Durchsetzungsfähigkeit eines freien Volkes zu verdanken; darauf können die Briten auch stolz sein. Und dennoch gelingt es, auf Augenhöhe Rechtssicherheit zu schaffen.
Ein souveräner Staat, ein völkerrechtlicher Vertrag, klare Regeln, ganz ohne milliardenteuren Beamtenapparat, ohne Ideologie – genau das ist unser Weg. Wir müssen die europäische Zusammenarbeit auf das Wesentliche reduzieren: Binnenmarkt, Schutz der Außengrenzen und freiwillige bilaterale Verträge zwischen souveränen Nationalstaaten.
Stattdessen erleben wir eine EU, die sich zu einem politischen Superstaat aufbläht, der Milliarden kostet und sich immer tiefer in nationale Entscheidungen einmischt. Wir stimmen zu, weil es zeigt, wie echte Partnerschaft aussieht: rechtsstaatlich, freiwillig und souverän.
(Se suspende la sesión a las 11:16 horas).
VORSITZ: KATARINA BARLEY Vizepräsidentin
4. Resumption of the sitting
(Die Sitzung wird um 12:00 Uhr wieder aufgenommen.)
5. Voting time
Die Präsidentin. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Abstimmungsstunde.
Die Präsidentin. – Die folgende Abstimmung betrifft die Medienfreiheit in Georgien, insbesondere den Fall von Msia Amaghlobeli (siehe Punkt 5.1 des Protokolls).
Die Präsidentin. – Die folgende Abstimmung betrifft den Fall von Ahmadreza Djalali in Iran (siehe Punkt 5.2 des Protokolls).
– Vor der Abstimmung über Änderungsantrag 3:
Matthieu Valet (PfE). – Madame la Présidente, mes chers collègues, en tant que coordinateur du groupe des Patriotes pour l’Europe au sein de la sous-commission des droits de l’homme, je propose d’ajouter un amendement oral à la résolution sur le Mali, dont le texte, à notre sens, ne dénonce pas avec suffisamment de clarté le terrorisme islamiste. Cet amendement vise ainsi à rendre hommage et à honorer le sang versé de nos 58 soldats français, ainsi que celui de nos partenaires européens tombés dans la lutte contre les terroristes islamistes au Mali et pour la liberté que nous défendons tous ici au sein de ce Parlement.
Je propose donc la formulation suivante: «considérant que l’Union européenne et plusieurs États membres ont déployé des efforts et perdu des vies dans la lutte contre le djihadisme, à la demande des anciennes autorités maliennes, dont 58 soldats français, cinq soldats néerlandais, deux soldats allemands, un soldat espagnol et un soldat portugais». Je vous remercie. Cela sera un signal fort pour nos soldats qui, souvent si jeunes, s’engagent pour nos libertés et tombent pour défendre des démocraties.
(Das Parlament lehnt es ab, den mündlichen Änderungsantrag zur Abstimmung zu stellen.)
5.4. Welfare of dogs and cats and their traceability (A10-0104/2025 – Veronika Vrecionová) (vote)
– Nach der Abstimmung:
(Das Parlament billigt den Antrag auf Rücküberweisung an den Ausschuss.)
5.5. Electricity grids: the backbone of the EU energy system (A10-0091/2025 – Anna Stürgkh) (vote)
Die Präsidentin. – Die folgende Abstimmung betrifft Stromnetze als Rückgrat des Energiesystems der EU (siehe Punkt 5.5 des Protokolls).
Die Präsidentin. – Die folgende Abstimmung betrifft den Deal für eine saubere Industrie (siehe Punkt 5.6 des Protokolls).
5.7. The United Kingdom accession to the Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters (B10-0273/2025) (vote)
(Damit ist die Abstimmungsstunde geschlossen)
(Die Sitzung wird um 12:34 Uhr unterbrochen.)
6. Resumption of the sitting
(Die Sitzung wird um 15.01 Uhr wieder aufgenommen.)
7. Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting
Die Präsidentin. – Das Protokoll der gestrigen Sitzung und die angenommenen Texte sind verfügbar.
Gibt es Einwände dagegen? Das ist nicht der Fall.
Das Protokoll ist somit genehmigt.
8. Protecting bees: advancing the EU’s New Deal for Pollinators (debate)
Ekaterina Zaharieva,Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, pollination is a free but invaluable service that insects provide. Without it, our food security, our livelihoods and nature would be threatened.
Yet, pollinator populations have dramatically declined in the recent decades. Populations of 1 in 3 bee, butterfly and hoverflies species are collapsing. Many species are on the verge of extinction. This has a direct impact on the productivity and competitiveness of the EU’s agriculture sector and on our food security.
As highlighted in the EU 2020 biodiversity strategy, in the EU pollinators initiative and in the EU biodiversity strategy for 2030, we need to take urgent action to restore pollinator populations. To step up efforts and reverse this decline of pollinators, we reinforced two years ago the EU pollinators initiative by revising its action plan. We have also enshrined a target to reverse the decline of pollinators by 2030 in the Nature Restoration Regulation.
Together, those efforts constitute the new deal for pollinators – our response to society’s demand to take decisive action. This demand was manifested in the European citizens’ initiative ‘Save bees and farmers’. This House has been a strong and vocal advocate of the EU pollinator agenda. I thank you for that and for the opportunity to update you today on the progress in the implementation of the new deal for pollinators.
We are currently implementing more than 40 actions through the revised EU pollinators initiative. These actions aim to mitigate the drivers of pollinator decline, generate knowledge, foster Member States’ actions and mobilise society.
Agriculture is the essential sector. It depends on pollinators the most, and at the same time it exerts the highest pressure on them. That is why we have been working closely with Member States to increase support for pollinator‑friendly farming under the common agricultural policy.
We want to support farmers to restore nature and pollinator populations, including through the development of nature credits and through enhanced farm advisory services. We are working on strengthening the pesticide authorisation process to increase protection of pollinators from the use of pesticides. We are also supporting Member States in reducing the risk in use of pesticide by increasing the uptake of integrated pest management and availability of low-risk plant protection products.
EU sales of pesticides in 2023 were at the lowest level since the start of Eurostat data series in 2011. Still, the work is not over. Despite our efforts, pesticide use remains a major driver of pollinator decline. We count on your continued support for strict regulatory framework on pesticides. Meanwhile, we have substantially improved our understanding of pollinator decline through comprehensive assessment of pollinator species and the European ‘red list’ and thanks to numerous projects launched through Horizon Europe.
We are currently preparing a delegated act on pollinator monitoring, as required under the Nature Restoration Regulation. I call on Parliament and Member States to support a robust scientific monitoring method. Good data will enable smart and well-guided investment in the restoration of pollinators and ecosystems, yielding substantial savings in the long term.
In addition, the preparatory action for the European Biodiversity Observation Coordination Centre, initiated by Parliament will help Member States implement a monitoring system for pollinators.
To conclude, a word on our outreach efforts. We have built a strong and dedicated community of experts from Member States, authorities and stakeholder organisations through our working group on pollinators. We also continue to strongly support citizens’ engagement, especially youth engagement in actions for pollinators.
Youth is our future and the future needs pollinators. That is why in the coming months we will launch the Young Citizens Assembly on Pollinators, the European Fund for Youth Action on Pollinators and ‘buzzing schools’. This is part of the pilot project initiated by the European Parliament. I thank you for your support and the overall commitment to the EU’s action on pollinators.
Tomislav Sokol,u ime kluba PPE. – Poštovana predsjedavajuća, povjerenice, kolegice i kolege, Europska komisija je 2023. predstavila novi plan za oprašivače s ključnim ciljem preokrenuti alarmantan pad broja divljih kukaca oprašivača u Europi. Ova mjera nije samo ekološka, ona je duboko strateška. Bez oprašivača nema ni sigurnosti hrane ni zdravog okoliša. Podržavam ovu inicijativu i naglašavam važnost zaštite prirodnih staništa i poticanja biološke raznolikosti.
Međutim, novi plan za oprašivače mora ići ruku pod ruku sa strategijom za europske pčelare koji svakodnevno vode borbu s nelojalnom konkurencijom, uvoznicima patvorenog i nekvalitetnog meda iz trećih zemalja, a tu su podaci porazni. Naime, prema istraživanjima, gotovo svaka druga staklenka meda na europskom tržištu sadrži krivotvoreni med. Naši pčelari koji proizvode kvalitetan prirodni med ne mogu konkurirati damping cijenama, nedefiniranim standardima i lažnim deklaracijama.
Zato smo u prošlom mandatu izmjenom Direktive o medu uspjeli zabraniti zavaravajuće označavanje mješavina meda i uvesti obvezu navođenja točnog postotka i zemlju porijekla svake komponente mješavine meda. To je velik korak za transparentnost i zaštitu potrošača, ali i za opstanak naših pčelara.
Međutim, ne smijemo stati na tome. Moramo koristiti trgovinske i carinske mehanizme, pojačati kontrole na granicama, uvesti strože nadzore uvoza i zatražiti uključivanje interesa pčelara u trgovinske sporazume s trećim državama.
Također, novi plan za oprašivače neće biti djelotvoran bez borbe protiv upotrebe štetnih pesticida i novih genskih tehnika kojima ne smijemo dozvoliti da naruše sigurnost hrane i zdravlje potrošača. Zato je ključno poticati lokalnu proizvodnju hrane i prirodan uzgoj.
S tim u vezi, treba već sada analizirati učinke strategije „od polja do stola”, za koju sam bio izvjestitelj Kluba EPP-a u odboru IMCO, i predložiti njezinu nadopunu u svjetlu izazova s kojima se pčelari susreću. Kolegice i kolege, zaštitimo pčele, ali i interese naših pčelara.
Günther Sidl,im Namen der S&D-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, geschätzte Frau Kommissarin! Es ist höchste Zeit, dass wir hier im Europäischen Parlament wieder über die Bienen reden, denn die Biene ist eine der nützlichsten und wichtigsten Tierarten, die es gibt, und braucht unseren besonderen Schutz. Aber genau den hat sie derzeit leider nicht – im Gegenteil. Die Probleme, denen die Bienen gegenüberstehen, werden immer größer. Die milden Winter befördern das Milbenwachstum und damit die Krankheitsübertragung auf die Bienen, was alleine dieses Jahr zu immensen Verlusten geführt hat; Verlustraten von 30 % sind keine Seltenheit. Aber selbst die Bienenvölker, die den Winter überstehen, haben keine rosigen Aussichten, denn sie müssen sich ihre Nahrung zwischen immer größeren Monokulturen und pestizidbelasteten Pflanzen suchen. Kurz gesagt: So kann es nicht weitergehen!
Wir brauchen endlich ein ernsthaftes Programm zum Schutz der Bienen. Ich bin froh, dass die EU‑Kommission dieses Thema aufgreift, aber ich hoffe, Sie verstehen, dass ich skeptisch bin. Denn bis jetzt war die Kommission nicht die große Beschützerin der Bienen, sonst hätte sie nicht ein ums andere Mal den Einsatz von Pestiziden wie Glyphosat zugelassen, sonst hätten Sie schon längst mit der Praxis der Notfallzulassungen für problematische Mittel aufgeräumt. Ich verstehe, dass Landwirte Ertragssicherheit brauchen, aber wenn wir das nur mit Mitteln erreichen, die den Bienen schaden, hat am Ende niemand etwas davon.
Wir müssen endlich allen klarmachen, und es muss uns allen klar sein, dass Pestizide nicht die alleinige Lösung sind, sondern ein gravierendes Problem. Ein Problem, das sich überall festsetzt – in Böden, in Gewässern, in unserem Trinkwasser und letztlich auch in unserem Körper, und genau da haben Umweltgifte und Ewigkeitschemikalien nichts zu suchen. Suchen wir endlich nach einer Lösung, die allen hilft: der Natur, den Bienen und damit auch uns.
Wir brauchen endlich eine europäische Forschungsstrategie für wirksame und ökologische Pestizidalternativen. Nur damit geben wir der Landwirtschaft neue Instrumente in die Hand, mit denen sie nachhaltig und ertragssicher arbeiten kann. Packen wir das Problem an den Wurzeln und geben wir unserer Umwelt eine echte Chance, sich zu erholen!
Valérie Deloge,au nom du groupe PfE. – Madame la Présidente, Madame la Commissaire, chers collègues, la Commission européenne présente aujourd’hui un nouveau pacte pour les pollinisateurs. Le constat est partagé par tous. Les abeilles, les syrphes, les papillons disparaissent à un rythme inquiétant. Ce déclin fragilise notre agriculture, notre souveraineté alimentaire et la biodiversité en Europe. Mais à y regarder de plus près, ce texte reflète surtout les travers habituels de la technocratie bruxelloise: des objectifs déconnectés des réalités agricoles, une avalanche de directives et un transfert toujours plus massif de responsabilités des États membres vers l’Union européenne.
On demande aux agriculteurs français de renoncer à certains traitements, d’intégrer des bandes fleuries, de diversifier leurs cultures et c’est une bonne chose si on les accompagne. Mais pendant ce temps, on continue d’importer sans vergogne des produits agricoles venus de pays qui utilisent des substances interdites chez nous. Où est la cohérence? Où est la justice?
Soyons clairs protéger les pollinisateurs, c’est aussi défendre l’avenir de notre agriculture. Il ne s’agit pas de choisir entre les abeilles et les agriculteurs, mais de sortir de cette logique de punition et d’hypocrisie. La pollution qui menace les insectes pollinisateurs ne vient pas uniquement des champs. Elle vient aussi de l’air que nous respirons, des polluants persistants, des microplastiques, des métaux lourds et d’un effet cocktail de substances chimiques dont l’Union européenne ne mesure pas encore sérieusement les interactions. Ce sont autant de facteurs qui affaiblissent les insectes, mais aussi la santé humaine.
Et là, le texte de la Commission reste timide. Il traite longuement des pesticides, mais presque rien n’est dit sur l’impact des grandes zones industrielles, de la pollution de l’air ou de la charge chimique globale. Or, les agriculteurs ne doivent pas devenir les boucs émissaires d’un système de production mondialisé qui échappe à tout contrôle. Il est temps de changer votre logiciel, inspirez-vous des États membres qui sont les plus vertueux en la matière, comme la France. Oubliez votre vision vision en silo et réfléchissez plutôt à une approche globale sur les polluants invisibles.
Au delà des produits phytosanitaires, c’est toute la question de la qualité de notre air qui doit se poser. Soutenez les agriculteurs qui ont déjà pris conscience du problème et œuvrez déjà à protéger les habitats des pollinisateurs. Encouragez la recherche sur les alternatives aux intrants chimiques pour ne pas que nos agriculteurs se retrouvent privés de solutions. Il est temps de défendre à la fois nos agriculteurs et la biodiversité avec des politiques réalistes, cohérentes et souveraines.
Thomas Waitz,on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, Commissioner, yes, indeed, our pollinators are declining. And why is it so? It was just mentioned by the far right: it’s because of chemical pollution, because of pesticides. Well, the Commission came up with the so-called Sustainable Use Directive to reduce pesticides. But do you remember why it failed? It was very much on the right side of the House that the Sustainable Use Directive was actually killed here in the House. Yes, it was you guys. This would have been one of the main measures that we would have needed to take to reduce the decline of pollinators.
And it’s not just honeybees – I’m a beekeeper and a farmer at the same time – it’s also about wild pollinators. The Commission – under the rule of simplification – has reduced the fallow land that we need for wild pollinators. Is there real support for organic farming? Because this is the way of farming that safeguards natural pollinators, wild pollinators and our bees as well.
Is there real support for beekeepers in the European Union? Well, let’s see the new CAP proposal. We need real support for beekeepers because, due to climate crisis and pesticides, it’s harder and harder to keep a beekeeper’s business going. I can say that from my very own experience. But I’m ready to work on this, and I’m happy to contribute if there are concrete proposals to safeguard wild pollinators and bees.
Sebastian Everding,im Namen der Fraktion The Left. – Frau Präsidentin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Honigbienen haben für die Biodiversität keinerlei Relevanz. Auch wenn uns Schulbücher und Medien oftmals ein anderes Bild vermitteln und die meisten Menschen beim Wort Biene direkt an die Honigbiene denken: Diese ist nicht bedroht; allein in Deutschland sind rund 100 000 Imker um sie bemüht. Auf der anderen Seite steht die Hälfte der 561 Wildbienenarten als vom Aussterben bedroht auf der Roten Liste. Reden wir über Bestäuber, dann müssen wir schwerpunktmäßig über Wildbienen, über Wespen, Schmetterlinge und Fliegen reden. Honigbienen können diese maximal ergänzen, aber niemals ersetzen. Wenn sich Unternehmen Honigbienen aufs Dach stellen, ist das mehr Greenwashing als ein Beitrag zum Artenschutz.
Viele Menschen haben die Problematik erkannt und möchten Insekten helfen. Sie kaufen gutgläubig sogenannte Insektenhotels, gefüllt mit Holzwolle, mit Tannenzapfen, mit Baumrinde, weil dies Natürlichkeit vermittelt. Aber diese sind ganz oft ein Fall für den Biomüll, werden nicht angenommen und können im schlimmsten Fall sogar Insekten schaden. Hier müssen ganz dringend nachvollziehbare Siegel für die Orientierung geschaffen werden.
Vergesst Biene Maja, kümmert Euch um die Gehörnte Mauerbiene, die Dunkelfransige Hosenbiene, schafft Lebensräume und Blühstreifen und verbietet Pestizide wie Glyphosat!
Marcin Sypniewski,w imieniu grupy ESN. – Pani Przewodnicząca! Szanowni Państwo! Nie wiem, czy widzieli państwo komedię „Człowiek kontra pszczoła” z Rowanem Atkinsonem w roli głównej. Tam główny bohater, goniąc jedną pszczołę, demoluje cały dom. A dzisiaj jednak to nie pszczoła przeszkadza człowiekowi, a człowiek, a konkretnie również unijna polityka, przeszkadza pszczołom. Pszczoła nie ma swojego biura w Brukseli. Nie zatrudnia żadnego lobbysty. Nie pisze sprawozdań i nie czeka na kolejną dyrektywę, na kolejny plan, kolejny ład. Ona po prostu żyje, zapyla i robi to, co umie najlepiej – wspiera naturę i daje ludziom zdrową żywność.
Tymczasem w Unii tworzymy pakty, strategie, zielone łady, konsultacje, a zapominamy, że najlepszym sojusznikiem pszczoły nie jest żaden biurokrata, tylko po prostu pszczelarz i rolnik – ten, który wie, że bez zapylaczy nie będzie żadnych plonów. Chcecie ratować pszczoły, to przestańcie w końcu szkodzić rolnikom. Przestańcie wspierać konkurencję spoza Unii. Nie zamęczajcie ich kolejnymi regulacjami, zakazami i sprawozdawczością. Przestańcie karać ich za to, że chcą produkować żywność, a nie wypełniać arkusze Excela. Pszczoły potrzebują ciszy, spokoju, równowagi w krajobrazie, a nie chaosu legislacyjnego. Potrzebują lasów, łąk, pasiek, nie – Zielonego Ładu, który niszczy to, co miał chronić. Nie powielajmy scenariusza z filmu, w którym człowiek niszczy wszystko, żeby pozbyć się jednej pszczoły. Chrońmy naturę razem z tymi, którzy ją naprawdę rozumieją – z rolnikami i pszczelarzami.
Liudas Mažylis (PPE). – Pirmininke, komisare, kolegos. Noriu pacituoti, ką šioje tribūnoje kalbėjau dėl apdulkintojų 2019 m. gruodžio 17 d.: „biologinės įvairovės nykimo prevencija turi būti grindžiama mokslu ir ambicingais, bet įvykdomais tikslais“. Taip pat griežtai siūliau Bee Guidance atnaujinimą ir jog naujoms augalų apsaugos priemonėms būtų vykdomi chroninio toksiškumo tyrimai. Tiriamas poveikis ne tik bitėms, bet ir kitiems apdulkintojams.
Per tą laiką priimtas New Deal for Pollinators, atnaujintas Bee Guidance, o 2023-iaisiais Reglamentas dėl gamtos atkūrimo suteikė apdulkintojams – tarp jų ir bitėms – teisinį apsaugos statusą. Tai reikšmingas žingsnis, kuris įpareigoja valstybes nares stebėti jų populiacijas pagal standartizuotą metodiką; iki 2030 m. turi būti sustabdytas apdulkintojų nykimas, vėliau – užtikrintas jų tvarus gausėjimas. Svarbus klausimas – Europos raudonasis sąrašas bitėms. Jis turi būti atnaujintas ir atspindėti dabartines rūšių būklės tendencijas. Be kita ko, minėtam tikslui grėsmę kelia invazinės rūšys. Tokios rūšies kaip Azijos vapsva viena kolonija per sezoną gali sunaikinti iki 90 tūkstančių apdulkintojų. Tad jau būtų laikas imtis atitinkamų veiksmų, grįstų rizikos vertinimu. Pesticidų atveju žiediniai bandymai vienišėms bitėms yra žingsnis pirmyn, tačiau vis dar trūksta ilgalaikių tyrimų kolonijų lygmeniu. Subletaliniai ir chroniniai poveikiai, deja, tebelieka neįvertinti. O juk tik visapusiški tyrimai suteiks galimybę priimti mokslu pagrįstus sprendimus. Teigiamai vertinu tai, kad duomenų bazės apie bites tampa vis plačiau prieinamos ir vis dėlto jos turi būti ne tik atviros, bet ir išsamios, nuolat atnaujinamos bei integruotos į sprendimų priėmimą – tiek sudarant Europos raudonąjį bičių sąrašą, tiek planuojant buveinių atkūrimą. Pasikartosiu, kad tik remdamiesi patikimais moksliniais duomenimis galime pasiekti savo tikslų ir sustabdyti bičių nykimą.
Maria Noichl (S&D). – Frau Präsidentin, liebe Frau Kommissarin, liebe Kolleginnen, liebe Kollegen! Ja, die Kommission ist derzeit unterwegs mit einem Banner „Bienenschutz″; dieses Banner „Bienenschutz“ soll ganz oben stehen. Es ist aber wichtig zu sagen, dass die jüngsten Vorschläge der Kommission zur europäischen Agrarpolitik genau im Gegensatz stehen. Bienenpolitik wird nicht in Ihrem Ausschuss oder in Ihrer Kommission gemacht, sondern Bienenpolitik – die echte Bienenpolitik – wird im Agrarausschuss gemacht. Wenn im Agrarausschuss weiterhin Deregulierung voranschreitet, wenn im Agrarausschuss weiterhin die Bestäuber-, die Biodiversitätsstrategie und andere Dinge, aber auch die Naturwiederherstellungsrichtlinie an die Wand gefahren werden – denn die wird momentan massiv angegriffen im Agrarausschuss –, wenn die Vereinfachungspakete keine Vereinfachungspakete, sondern Bienenangriffspakete sind, dann merken wir, dass der Agrarausschuss der Ausschuss ist, der für die Bienengesundheit zu sorgen hat.
Wir alle wissen, dass die Hauptursache für den Rückgang der Bienen die landwirtschaftliche Intensivhaltung ist. Wir alle wissen, dass die Aufgabe der extensiven landwirtschaftlichen Systeme ein Problem ist, dass der Klimawandel, aber auch die invasiven Arten, die Urbanisierung und die Intensivierung der Forstwirtschaft alles Gründe sind. Diesen Gründen wird man nur zuvorkommen.
Man wird die Bienen nicht mit kleinen Bienen‑Hotspots, sondern nur mit einer flächendeckenden, guten, nachhaltigen Landwirtschaft in ganz Europa unterstützen können. Deswegen: Bienenpolitik ist Landwirtschaftspolitik, Landwirtschaftspolitik ist Bienenpolitik. Ein großes Banner oben drüber hilft uns nichts, wir brauchen es jeden Tag.
Tilly Metz (Verts/ALE). – Frau Präsidentin! Der Schutz von Bienen und anderen Bestäubern muss eine Priorität für die EU sein. 78 % der heimischen Pflanzenarten und 84 % der Nutzpflanzen sind entweder teilweise oder vollständig auf Insekten zur Bestäubung angewiesen, aber wenn wir so weitermachen wie bisher, fördern wir den dramatischen Rückgang von bestäubenden Wildinsekten massiv. Die öffentliche Meinung ist eindeutig. Mit der erfolgreichen Europäischen Bürgerinitiative Save bees and farmers fordern Bürgerinnen und Bürger eine bienenfreundliche Landwirtschaft, frei von giftigen Pestiziden, nicht nur der Bienen wegen, sondern wegen der Zukunft von Landwirtinnen und Landwirten, die auf ein funktionierendes Ökosystem angewiesen sind.
Klimawandel, der Verlust und die Verschlechterung der Lebensräume, massive Auswirkungen von Pestiziden auf die Umwelt, auf unsere Gesundheit – das sind alles Phänomene, die mit konservativen Politiken und Handlungsunwilligkeit nicht angegangen werden können. Wir brauchen einen zukunftsgerichteten EU‑Pakt für Bestäuber, eine gemeinsame Agrarpolitik, die für Landwirtinnen und Landwirte und die Umwelt funktioniert, und klare Vorschriften zur Pestizidreduzierung.
Valentina Palmisano (The Left). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, le api, oltre ad essere preziosi impollinatori, sono sentinelle della salute ambientale. Quando spariscono è l’intero ecosistema a lanciare un grido d’allarme. Oggi quel grido è fortissimo. A novembre 2023 questo Parlamento ha accolto con favore il nuovo patto europeo per gli impollinatori e oggi dobbiamo dare seguito a quell’impegno.
Le principali minacce degli impollinatori sono ben conosciute: l’agricoltura intensiva, l’uso dei pesticidi, la perdita di habitat, così come sono conosciute anche le misure per contrastarle. Serve solo il coraggio politico di applicarle con coerenza e in tempi rapidi. Dobbiamo incentivare pratiche agricole amiche delle api, rafforzare la tutela degli apicoltori nella PAC, limitare l’uso di pesticidi, salvaguardare gli impollinatori selvatici, rafforzare il programma LIFE, che già oggi finanzia degli strumenti efficaci per proteggere gli habitat e le biodiversità.
Ci sono anche esperienze urbane da valorizzare, ad esempio il progetto UrBees, nato a Torino, dimostra che le api possono aiutarci a monitorare l’ambiente e a costruire comunità più consapevoli.
Ecco, proteggere gli impollinatori significa proteggere l’equilibrio tra natura, agricoltura e salute pubblica. È una responsabilità che ci riguarda tutti. Oggi abbiamo gli strumenti e il dovere per agire.
Anja Arndt (ESN). – Frau Präsidentin! Der neue Deal für Bestäuber ist der nächste zentralistische Irrsinn aus Brüssel. Dieselbe Kommission, die Landwirte mit Auflagen überschüttet, vernichtet mit ihrer eigenen Energiewende selbst massenhaft Insekten. Jedes Windrad tötet jedes Jahr 40 Millionen Insekten, und wir haben in der Europäischen Union 280 000 Windräder. Unsere Windkraftanlagen töten also jedes Jahr hochgerechnet 9 Billionen Insekten. Bevor Brüssel neue Vorschriften erlässt, sollte die Kommission ihre eigenen Fehler kritisch aufarbeiten.
Der neue Deal für Bestäuber ist nichts anderes als ein weiteres Bürokratiemonster, das nationale Kompetenzen ignoriert und Landwirte drangsaliert. Statt echter Hilfe soll ein teures, EU‑weites Überwachungssystem eingeführt werden, ohne praktischen Nutzen für Insekten. Gleichzeitig will man die Pestizideinsätze einfach mal pauschal halbieren, und das wurde hier schon angesprochen, dass das letztes Jahr zum Glück abgewendet wurde. Ohne Rücksicht auf die Landwirte soll das geschehen, regionale Unterschiede sollen nicht berücksichtigt werden oder die Ernährungssicherheit unserer Bürger.
So etwas muss gestoppt werden. Deutschland braucht deshalb die AfD, und Europa braucht die ESN.
(Die Rednerin lehnt eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“ von Lukas Sieper ab.)
Pär Holmgren (Verts/ALE). – Fru talman! Här står jag, klockan är ganska exakt halv fyra på torsdagseftermiddagen. Jag är näst sista talaren i den sista debatten i Strasbourg den här veckan, om något så extremt viktigt som bin och pollinering.
Det är verkligen pollinering och andra liknande ekosystemtjänster som är helt avgörande för vår matförsörjning, för att vi ska kunna arbeta med klimatanpassning och faktiskt också för att vi ska kunna lindra effekterna av själva den globala uppvärmningen i sig.
Men de allra flesta av mina kollegor är på väg hem. Många sitter säkert redan på sina flygplan på väg till sina hemländer. En torsdag eftermiddag som det här så blir det för mig, och säkert för många andra gröna, mer övertydligt än vanligt, att det är i princip inga andra av mina kollegor som bryr sig om de här helt grundläggande, viktiga existentiella frågorna: klimat, biologisk mångfald, pollinering, ekosystemtjänster.
Vi måste se till att försörja och försvara dem så att vi faktiskt har ett fungerande samhälle även i framtiden.
Younous Omarjee (The Left). – Madame la Présidente, Madame la commissaire, elles ne parlent pas, mais sans elles, le monde se tairait. Et pourtant, déjà les abeilles meurent massivement et leur bourdonnement s’épuise dans le vacarme de nos pesticides et d’un choix d’un modèle agricole productiviste et intensif dont nous savons aujourd’hui qu’il faut tourner la page. Chaque ruche qui se vide, c’est un champ qui s’épuise. Une fleur qui ne fructifie pas et, en totalité, une promesse de vie qui s’évanouit. Les abeilles tissent en vol l’équilibre du vivant, des couleurs et des saisons aussi.
J’appelle donc la Commission européenne à ne pas céder au sabordage du Pacte vert européen et à bannir les substances les plus dangereuses et à soutenir les pratiques agroécologiques. Il est tout à fait vital que les insectes demeurent, il est vital d’interdire ce qui les tue, d’aimer et de protéger ce qui permet la vie.
Spontane Wortmeldungen
Alexander Jungbluth (ESN). – Sehr geehrte Frau Präsidentin, danke für das erhaltene Wort! Ich möchte mich ganz kurz auf Herrn Waitz beziehen. Herr Waitz hat ja eben angedeutet, dass irgendwie die Rechten schuld seien, dass die Bienen sterben; belegt haben Sie das Ganze irgendwie nicht. Deshalb möchte ich Ihnen einmal etwas belegen, nämlich, es gibt ja eine Studie des Zentrums für Luft‑ und Raumfahrttechnik (DLR), geschrieben von Herrn Dr. Franz Trieb, und Herr Dr. Franz Trieb hat in dieser Studie festgestellt, dass im Jahr durchschnittlich etwa 1200 Tonnen Insekten durch Windräder sterben. Wir sprechen hier von Milliarden von Insekten, die jährlich durch Windräder sterben. Insofern möchte ich an dieser Stelle einmal feststellen: Grüne Politik ist eben nicht nur für die Wirtschaft tödlich, sondern eben leider auch für Bienen.
Lukas Sieper (NI). – Frau Präsidentin, liebe Menschen Europas! Ich persönlich finde in diesem Europäischen Parlament immer die Debatten am interessantesten, wo sich eigentlich alle einig sind, wo aber auch gleichzeitig der allergrößte Unsinn erzählt wird. Alle sind sich hier einig, dass die Bienen gerettet werden müssen, auf die eine oder die andere Art. Manche sagen, die Landwirtschaft ist schuld, andere sagen, die Pestizide sind schuld.
Frau Kommissarin, ich möchte Ihnen ganz kurz sagen: Das, was ich am besten finde an dem Vorschlag, den Sie da machen, ist die urbane Begrünung. Denn das ist ja der Lebensraum, aus dem wir die Tiere quasi komplett vertrieben haben, und wenn wir da wieder ein bisschen mehr Grün in die Städte holen – das ist nicht nur für die mentale Gesundheit der Menschen gut, das ist auch für die Natur gut. Also möchte ich, da sich eigentlich alle einig sind, das Haus hier dazu aufrufen, ein bisschen mehr diese ideologischen Grabenkämpfe sein zu lassen.
Das Witzigste, was ich gehört habe, der größte Schuss ist das mit den Windrädern. Es ist wirklich so dermaßen bescheuert zu sagen, Windräder sind böse, weil dadurch Tiere sterben. Rechnen Sie doch mal durch, wenn Sie so gerne mit Zahlen um sich schmeißen, wie viele Tiere sterben, wenn der Klimawandel einmal so richtig reinknallt bei uns! Dann ist nämlich gar nichts mehr mit der Biodiversität. Also, stehen wir zusammen, halten wir uns an die Ratio! Schönes Wochenende!
Bogdan Rzońca (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Nie jestem ani skrajnym prawicowcem, ani skrajnym lewicowcem. Jestem zwyczajnie konserwatystą. Konserwatyści mają spokojne spojrzenie na to wszystko, co dzieje się wokół nas. Bardzo lubimy mądrych rolników, mądrych pszczelarzy, mądrych naukowców, tych, którzy są także praktykami, którzy potrafią wnosić swoje doświadczenie do oceny każdej sytuacji.
I tu chcę zwrócić uwagę Państwa na wielką niekonsekwencję Unii Europejskiej. Mianowicie, jeśli dzisiaj otwieramy w Unii Europejskiej rynek na produkty z Ameryki Południowej, to pamiętajmy, że tam są karczowane lasy, tam są niszczone łąki, gdzie właśnie są siedliska zapylaczy. I tam będą ginąć te zapylacze. Tam będzie przyrost pestycydów. A my będziemy mówić, że mamy żywność z Ameryki Południowej w ramach umowy z Merkosurem. To jest wielki błąd i myślę, że wszystkie środowiska też na to powinny zwrócić uwagę. Słuchajmy mądrych rolników, mądrych pszczelarzy. Życie będzie lepsze.
(Ende der spontanen Wortmeldungen)
Ekaterina Zaharieva,Member of the Commission. – Frau Präsidentin, dear Members of the Parliament, thank you once again for your continuous commitment to advance the implementation of the new deal of pollinators.
It’s really a game changer, this new deal, and we are at a crucial moment of its implementation. I think we need to keep the momentum, ensuring that the Member States and the stakeholders continue implementing the actions that we agreed. We are not there yet, unfortunately: 2030 is not far away and we have a long way to go to stop – and ultimately reverse – the decline of pollinators in the EU.
Societal expectations are high: the European Citizens’ Initiative ‘Save bees and farmers’ – which gathered more than 1 million statements of support – has sent us a clear message, which is: ‘act now, act decisively’.
The Commission is committed to meet those expectations, and for that, we need your support.
Die Präsidentin. – Die Aussprache ist geschlossen.
9. Oral explanations of vote (Rule 201)
Die Präsidentin. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgen die Erklärungen zur Abstimmung.
9.1. Electricity grids: the backbone of the EU energy system (A10-0091/2025 – Anna Stürgkh)
Sebastian Tynkkynen (ECR). – Arvoisa puhemies, toimivat sähköverkot pitävät Euroopan turvallisena. Ilman niitä huoltovarmuutemme ja resilienssimme romahtaisivat. Rajatylittävällä sähkönjakelulla on tässä myös tärkeä rooli. Toimivuudesta vastaavat kuitenkin aina jäsenvaltiot itse – jäsenvaltiot, jotka vieläpä osaavat hoitaa jakelunsa esimerkillisen loistokkaasti.
Fingridin tilastojen mukaan kantaverkkojen luotettavuusaste Suomessa oli viime vuonna 99,9995 prosenttia – päätähuimaavan hieno luku. Olisiko se ollut näin korkea, jos sähköverkoista olisikin vastanneet virkamiehet Brysselissä eikä Suomen olosuhteet parhaiten tuntevat kotimaiset toimijat? Ei varmasti, sanon minä.
Kaikkein parasta Euroopan huoltovarmuudelle on antaa jäsenvaltioiden hoitaa asiansa ja tehdä sellaista kansainvälistä yhteistyötä, mistä kaikki osapuolet varmasti hyötyvät. Tämän vuoksi päätin äänestää esitystä vastaan, sillä vaikka siirtäisimmekin sähköä kauas, tulee päätäntävallan säilyä lähellä.
Cristian Terheş (ECR). – Doamnă președintă, stimați colegi, m-am abținut la votul privind rezoluția Clean Industrial Deal pentru că, deși conține câteva idei aparent bune, nu abordează cauza reală a scumpirii energiei în UE. Sub lozinci înșelătoare precum „energie verde”, „regenerabilă” sau „decarbonizare”, se ascund politici ideologice care au transformat Europa în regiunea cu cea mai scumpă energie din lume. Așa zisa decarbonizare accelerată s-a făcut, în fapt, prin închiderea accelerată a capacităților tradiționale de producție energetică pe bază de cărbune sau gaz, ce nu au fost înlocuite cu surse stabile, sustenabile și accesibile de energie.
Energia solară sau eoliană, pretins curată, se produce intermitent. Ce să facă europenii însă când nu e soare sau când nu bate vântul? Mai grav, s-au respins amendamente în acest raport care recunoșteau energia nucleară drept curată. După ce Germania și-a închis centralele atomice, acum importă energie din Franța, produsă în centrale atomice. Aceasta nu e tranziție verde, ci o sinucidere economică a Europei, asistată politic și birocratic de la Bruxelles.
Sub pretextul „verdelui”, distrugeți competitivitatea Europei pe altarul unei iluzii de sorginte marxistă, care a împins și condamnat deja milioane de europeni la sărăcie. Opriți această nebunie utopică înainte să fie prea târziu!
Sebastian Tynkkynen (ECR). – Arvoisa puhemies, tänään meillä oli pitkä lista äänestettävänä erilaisia tarkistuksia Clean Industrial Deal -päätöslauselmaan ja jouduin pettymään. Olisin odottanut, että tämä olisi ollut paljon kunnianhimoisempi teollisuuden hyväksi ja teollisuuden palauttamiseksi Eurooppaan.
Viime kaudella puhuttiin Green Dealistä. Huomattiin, että siinä mentiin pikkaisen väärään suuntaan nimenomaan teollisuuden näkökulmasta, ja tällä kaudella nyt sitten ollaan puhuttu tästä Clean Industrial Dealistä. Mutta tässä päätöslauselmassa, jota käsiteltiin tänään ja josta äänestettiin, oli niin paljon – kuten harmikseni jouduin huomaamaan – vihreätä agendaa, vääränlaista ideologista agendaa, ei markkinaehtoista säätelyä, että valitettavasti jouduin tulemaan siihen johtopäätökseen, että en voi tämän paperin puolesta äänestää. Ehkä ensi kaudella me voimme saada päätöslauselman nimeltään pelkästään Industrial Deal.
10. Explanations of votes in writing (Rule 201)
(Schriftliche Erklärungen zur Abstimmung werden auf die den Mitgliedern vorbehaltenen Seiten auf der Website des Parlaments aufgenommen.)
11. Approval of the minutes of the sitting and forwarding of texts adopted
Die Präsidentin. – Das Protokoll dieser Sitzung wird dem Parlament zu Beginn der nächsten Sitzung zur Genehmigung vorgelegt.
Wenn es keine Einwände gibt, werde ich die in der heutigen Sitzung angenommenen Entschließungen den in diesen Entschließungen genannten Personen und Gremien übermitteln.
12. Dates of the next part-session
Die Präsidentin. – Die nächste Tagung findet vom 7. bis zum 10. Juli 2025 in Straßburg statt.
13. Closure of the sitting
(Die Sitzung wird um 15.41 Uhr geschlossen.)
14. Adjournment of the session
Die Präsidentin. – Ich erkläre die Sitzungsperiode des Europäischen Parlaments für unterbrochen.
1. The European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund (EMFAF) supports the small-scale fleet by offering support at up to 100% of their investment costs. This includes diversifying activities to support income, like fishing tourism, modernising vessels, mitigating impacts from climate change, invasive species and costs due to exceptional events, or enhancing fishers’ skills and income possibilities through training. The Commission works with Greece to ensure the Greek EMFAF programme meets sector-specific needs, with the Greek Managing Authority being responsible for allocating funding to projects that align with national priorities, including those in the context of the question.
2. The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) allows measures to be adapted to regional needs with the involvement of stakeholders within Advisory Councils such as the Mediterranean Advisory Council. Multiannual Plans adopted through the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM) provide targeted measures to fisheries in the region and the Mediterranean Regulation[1] addresses the unique characteristics and requirements of the small traditional fishing fleets. The Commission works at GFCM level to ensure that the specificities of small-scale fisheries, as outlined in the Regional Plan of Action for Small-Scale Fisheries in the Mediterranean and the Black Sea, are taken into consideration. The Commission is currently evaluating the CFP Regulation[2]. The results, expected in early 2026, will be instrumental in the future development of the policy and regulatory framework, including of small-scale fisheries. In this context, the Commission plans organising an implementation dialogue on small-scale coastal fisheries in November.
[1] Council Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006 of 21 December 2006 concerning management measures for the sustainable exploitation of fishery resources in the Mediterranean Sea, amending Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1626/94.
[2] Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1954/2003 and (EC) No 1224/2009 and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2371/2002 and (EC) No 639/2004 and Council Decision 2004/585/EC.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Friday inaugurated and laid the foundation stone for development projects worth more than ₹5,200 crore in Siwan, Bihar, asserting that the initiatives would help shape a brighter and more prosperous future for the State.
Addressing a large public gathering, the Prime Minister invoked the sacred presence of Sohgara Dham and offered salutations to Baba Mahendra Nath, Baba Hans Nath, Maa Thawe Bhawani and Maa Ambika Bhawani. He paid homage to the nation’s first President, Dr. Rajendra Prasad and Loknayak Jayaprakash Narayan, recalling their contributions to the nation and to Bihar’s legacy.
Calling Siwan “a land of inspiration in India’s freedom struggle,” PM Modi said, “This soil has empowered the country’s democracy and strengthened the Constitution. It gave us Dr. Rajendra Prasad, who not only played a key role in drafting the Constitution but also shaped the direction of modern India.” He also remembered the social reformer Braj Kishore Prasad for his work in the upliftment of women.
The Prime Minister said the new development projects reflect the continued efforts of the Central and State governments to realise the dreams of these great leaders. “Today, projects worth thousands of crores are being inaugurated and their foundation stones are being laid from this very platform,” he said, adding that the initiatives would benefit districts such as Siwan, Sasaram, Buxar, Motihari, Bettiah and Arrah. “These projects will ease the lives of the poor, the deprived, Dalits, Mahadalits, backward and extremely backward classes,” he said.
PM Modi, who returned on Thursday from a three nation tour Cyprus, Canada, and Croatia, spoke of India’s growing recognition on the global stage. “Leaders of the world’s most developed nations are astonished at the pace of India’s progress. They believe that India is soon going to become the world’s third-largest economy. I am confident that Bihar will play a crucial role in this transformation,” he said.
He praised the people of Bihar for overcoming what he described as an era of lawlessness and misgovernance. “Today’s youth in Bihar only hear stories about how things were two decades ago. They don’t fully realise the extent of damage caused by earlier regimes. Bihar, which once led India in education, culture and development, had unfortunately become a symbol of forced migration,” he said.
Emphasising the pride and resilience of the people, the Prime Minister said, “For every Bihari, self-respect is paramount. My Bihari brothers and sisters do not bow down in difficult times. They fight and succeed. But the previous governments inflicted deep wounds on that pride. Through their corruption, they turned poverty into Bihar’s misfortune.”
PM Modi appreciated the current government, under the leadership of Chief Minister Nitish Kumar, for bringing Bihar back on the path of development. “In the last 10–11 years, more than 55,000 kilometres of rural roads have been built. Over 1.5 crore households have received electricity connections and another 1.5 crore have been connected to piped water supply. More than 45,000 Common Service Centres have been established across Bihar, and new startups are coming up even in small towns,” he said.
Source: Africa Press Organisation – English (2) – Report:
Download logo
In the heart of Boa Vista, a neighbourhood in Angola’s capital, Luanda, 48-year-old mother of three Maria Teresa da Silva is joining other community members to spread awareness of the ongoing cholera outbreak. When the first cases were reported in her community in mid-January 2025, she joined a group of concerned women eager to contribute to the response.
With support from local authorities, they began educating neighbours, distributing hygiene products and promoting cholera prevention practices. “We live in a community,” she says. “We must find time and support each other to protect our health and save lives.”
Community involvement in this low-income urban neighbourhood has helped to curb the outbreak: no new cholera cases have been reported for four consecutive weeks, since 19 May.
“At first, many families didn’t seek health services. Lack of information was the biggest challenge,” says the municipal administrator of Ingombota, Mika Kaquesse. Local authorities organized 800 community awareness sessions, built water tanks, distributed hygiene products and implemented sanitation sensitization campaigns.
“We know that prevention is key in cholera control ‒ clean water, sanitation and information,” says Dr Genoveva Mafu, clinical coordinator at the Boa Vista cholera treatment centre. “It was frightening at first, but teamwork and partner support made all the difference.”
The Ministry of Health in Angola, with support from World Health Organization (WHO), has trained more than 8000 community mobilizers to support the response and around 4450 community leaders in early detection, oral rehydration solution preparation and household water treatment.
Health authorities have conducted sensitization campaigns with community and religious leaders, community listening sessions, and engaged with multiple sectors such as environment, fisheries, water and energy, youth and the military to ensure a coordinated and culturally appropriate response. This has resulted in more than 8 million people reached with messages on cholera prevention.
“Community-based activities have increased public trust in health services and strengthened local epidemiological surveillance,” says Mateus Mariano Miguel, president of the Boa Vista Residents Committee. “The community responded massively. We continue working, even without new cases, because we know prevention must never stop.”
Health authorities have also trained 1000 health workers and activated almost 140 surveillance teams conducting case management, active case finding, and infection prevention and control. Nationwide, 166 rapid response teams have been deployed and 180 cholera treatment centres have been established to manage and treat cases.
In just over five months, Angola has recorded over 26 000 cases and nearly 750 deaths. This marks the worst cholera outbreak in the country in almost two decades. Thanks to a multisectoral and multipronged approach, the past two weeks have shown encouraging trends. As of 14 June 2025, the number of new weekly cases has dropped to 826 – the lowest levels since March. Weekly deaths have decreased to the lowest levels since January and the weekly case fatality rate has declined to 1.5% from a high of 8.8% in January 2025.
“While the situation remains serious, these improvements demonstrate the impact of the ongoing response and provide hope that the outbreak can be brought under control soon. We must continue to reinforce collaboration because when communities are empowered and engaged, lives can be saved and dignity restored,” says Dr Indrajit Hazarika, WHO Representative in Angola.
Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
BEIJING, June 20 (Xinhua) — China Coast Guard (CCG) spokesman Liu Dejun on Thursday warned the Philippines that any attempt to encroach on China’s territorial sovereignty is doomed to fail.
The BOC took action against the recent illegal activities of Philippine vessels in the South China Sea in accordance with the law and professional standards of conduct according to the situation, Liu Dejun said.
From Sunday to Wednesday, the Philippines sent several vessels to conduct illegal operations in waters adjacent to the Nansha Islands, including Banyue Reef and Jianzhang Reef, in the South China Sea, he said.
“Philippine vessels have repeatedly committed illegal violations and provocations under the pretext of ‘protecting fisheries’, undermining peace and stability in the South China Sea,” he stressed.
He stressed that China has indisputable sovereignty over the Nansha Islands, including Banyue and Jianzhang Reefs, and the adjacent waters.
According to Liu Dejun, the BOC will continue to conduct regular law enforcement operations in waters under China’s jurisdiction to protect China’s national sovereignty and maritime rights and interests. -0-
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
A China Coast Guard (CCG) spokesperson on Thursday warned the Philippines that any attempts to infringe upon China’s territorial sovereignty are futile.
The CCG has taken measures against the recent illegal activities of Philippine vessels in the South China Sea in accordance with the law and the professional code of conduct, said Liu Dejun, the CCG spokesperson.
From Sunday to Wednesday, the Philippines dispatched multiple vessels to carry out illegal operations near Banyue Jiao and Jianzhang Jiao of the Nansha Islands in the South China Sea, according to Liu.
“The Philippine vessels have repeatedly engaged in illegal infringement and provocations under the pretext of ‘fishery protection,’ undermining peace and stability in the South China Sea,” he said.
He emphasized that China has indisputable sovereignty over the Nansha Islands, including Banyue Jiao and Jianzhang Jiao, as well as their adjacent waters.
The CCG will continue conducting regular law enforcement operations in the waters under China’s jurisdiction to safeguard China’s national sovereignty and maritime rights, Liu said.
Source: People’s Republic of China – Ministry of National Defense
BEIJING, June 19 (Xinhua) — A China Coast Guard (CCG) spokesperson on Thursday warned the Philippines that any attempts to infringe upon China’s territorial sovereignty are futile.
The CCG has taken measures against the recent illegal activities of Philippine vessels in the South China Sea in accordance with the law and the professional code of conduct, said Liu Dejun, the CCG spokesperson.
From Sunday to Wednesday, the Philippines dispatched multiple vessels to carry out illegal operations near Banyue Jiao and Jianzhang Jiao of the Nansha Islands in the South China Sea, according to Liu.
“The Philippine vessels have repeatedly engaged in illegal infringement and provocations under the pretext of ‘fishery protection,’ undermining peace and stability in the South China Sea,” he said.
He emphasized that China has indisputable sovereignty over the Nansha Islands, including Banyue Jiao and Jianzhang Jiao, as well as their adjacent waters.
The CCG will continue conducting regular law enforcement operations in the waters under China’s jurisdiction to safeguard China’s national sovereignty and maritime rights, Liu said.
Source: Northern Territory Police and Fire Services
Many new cafes, restaurants and bars have opened recently in Canberra.
This story includes a list of new eateries to try in Canberra.
New year, new restaurants.
Whether you are after a new brunch spot or your next date night location, there is something new for everyone.
You can find Canberra’s first dedicated acai spot just outside of Westfield Woden.
Build your own acai bowl by choosing from a list of delicious toppings. They also have loaded waffles, shakes, and chocolate covered strawberries.
A new Mediterranean restaurant and wine bar is now open in Weston Creek.
Menu highlights include the carbonara arancini, lamb shoulder ragu, and pistachio crème brûlée.
This new Italian-inspired bar is the newest addition to Verity Lane.
Enjoy an Aperol Spritz with antipasti or your pasta of choice.
This new café is serving up Japanese-inspired desserts after dark.
Menu items include Shibuya Toast, bingsu, and matcha cheesecake.
Get your late-night sweet treat until 10:30pm, Thursday to Saturday nights.
You no longer need to visit Sydney to grab ButterBoy cookies. You can now buy these mouth-watering cookies at Red Brick.
Flavours include snickerdoodle, banoffee and Nutella. They also have gluten free options.
This new family-run café has a large menu full of authentic Turkish dishes.
Enjoy breakfast dishes such as meneme, or the kebabs and gozleme. Sweet tooths can enjoy desserts like baklava, while sipping on Turkish coffee and tea.
The owners of Champi in Kingston have opened a new venue in Phillip.
Champi Express is serving up southeast Asian breakfast and lunch dishes.
Clover dining blends classic Italian dishes with Japanese flavours and cooking techniques.
The restaurant offers breakfast, lunch and dinner. Some of their innovative dishes include the oyster mushroom sandwich, wagyu sirloin with sesame seeds and burnt garlic, and miso black cod.
This new Italian wine bar is serving up cured meats and cheeses, craft beer and great wine.
You can also book in for a wine tasting or grab a take-away charcuterie box.
This new café is serving up delicious breakfast and lunch, Monday to Friday.
Start your day with classic brunch options like a bacon and egg burger and eggs benedict or try something new like kimchi fried ramen with bacon and egg.
Verity Lane’s newest addition specialises in authentic Japanese and Korean katsu dishes.
Choose from classic options such as chicken, pork, and fish katsu, as well as vegetarian alternatives.
This new London-inspired modern café offers breakfast and lunch options, as well as an exclusive range of European luxury sweets, and ‘London Blend’ coffee.
This new restaurant on City Walk is serving up delicious Chinese dishes.
They do great lunch specials and happy hour.
You can now find authentic Vietnamese on Marcus Clarke Street in the City.
Try traditional Vietnamese dishes such as pho, chicken rice, banh mi and cơm tấm, in a cosy and elegant setting.
This new Malaysian restaurant is now open at Capital Food Market.
It’s open Wednesday to Sunday for lunch and dinner.
Check out The Peacemaker Saloon for a taste of America’s wild west.
Indulge in hearty southwestern food such as smoked brisket and pork ribs, wings and mac ‘n cheese. There’s also an extensive cocktail and whiskey list.
This new southside spot is serving up coffee, protein shakes, smoothies, breakfast items, burgers and wraps.
A second location has opened for Pronto, with the first over in Queanbeyan.
This authentic Italian restaurant is the perfect spot to gather and share food with family and friends, with their large party menu.
Their Neapolitan pizza is a must-try, made from a 300-year-old recipe, as well as any of their regional Italian pastas.
Shaw Estate has a new restaurant in Murrumbateman.
The estate’s new dining space has a neutral and modern interior and a Mediterranean-inspired menu. Enjoy Italian dishes made with local and seasonal ingredients.
After building some buzz in 2024 with pop-ups at local venues such as Terra, Sunny now has their own food truck and will be popping up at events across Canberra.
Keep an eye on their socials to find out where you can grab one of their delicious smash burgers and hand-cut fries.
Located at the former site of Bellucci’s, this new pub is bringing a fun new energy to southside.
Whether you want to watch sport, catch up with friends or have a great pub feed, this spot has something for all Canberrans.
This new pub on southside opened in late April.
Enjoy tap beer, cocktails or mocktails with traditional pub food including schnitzels, burgers wings and more.
They do happy hour every day and have great lunch specials.
Located on the former site of Lonsdale Street Roasters, this multi-level venue is bringing good vibes to Braddon.
Uptown has a bakery and bar downstairs, and a bistro upstairs.
They offer European- based cuisine with a modern Australian twist, freshly baked sweet treats, coffee, cocktails and a great selection of wines.
You can find this Korean and Asian-inspired café on Lonsdale Street.
Menu items include crab scrambled egg, Korean fried chicken burger and smashed avocado with yuzu.
Located in the Eat Street precinct in Dickson, Zaiqah is serving up traditional Pakistani food.
Coming soon
This beloved Canberra burger joint is coming to Belco!
Keep an eye out on their channels for the opening date.
Masala Kitchen is a modern Indian cuisine restaurant opening soon in Braddon.
The chef behind Pizza Artigiana and food truck Hem & Co, Chef Hem, is opening a new venue on Marcus Clarke Street that will serve Roman-style pizza slices.
Read more like this:
Get ACT news and events delivered straight to your inbox, sign up to our email newsletter:
When I was eight years old, on a Saturday night before surf lifesaving training, my dad put on the film Jaws and it changed my life forever.
Unlike the generations of filmgoers who were afraid of sharks and going into the water during its initial release in 1975, I fell in love with the water and sharks.
Steven Spielberg’s film was the first summer blockbuster, received Academy Awards for sound, editing and music, and became the first film to earn US$100 million at the United States box office.
It was only the third film for the 28-year-old Steven Spielberg, and his second theatrical release (his first film, Duel, was made for TV), and success arrived only after much trouble.
Jaws was only the second feature film for Spielberg, pictured here on set. Photo by Sunset Boulevard/Corbis via Getty Image
A marketed behemoth
Chief of Police Martin Brody (Roy Scheider) has recently moved from New York City to Amity Island with his wife, Ellen (Lorriane Gary), and their two children. As the small town prepares for its crucial 4th of July celebrations, a series of shark attacks threatens the festivities – and the town’s summer economy.
Mayor Larry Vaughan (Murray Hamilton) insists on keeping the beaches open for “summer dollars”. When the shark strikes again, local fisherman Quint (Robert Shaw) is hired to hunt it down. Brody and visiting marine biologist Matt Hooper (Richard Dreyfuss) insist on joining the expedition to save the island.
The film was advertised as a suspense and horror monster movie. In what director Spielberg described as a marketing “blitzkrieg” campaign, Jaws, was released in the summer – peak swimming season.
Universal Pictures made sure every household knew about the film. There were multiple TV spots, a cover on Time Magazine, talk show appearances from cast and crew, and a wave of merchandise. It was the most money the company had ever spent on a film’s pre-release marketing.
The first American film released in more than 400 theatres at once, Jaws found its audience with overwhelmingly positive reviews and word of mouth – because Jaws was also extremely well made.
Wrangling the shark
Peter Benchley was hired to adapt his novel, but another screenwriter, Carl Gottlieb, was brought in to redraft Benchley’s more serious narrative and provide comic relief.
Jaws was initially planned for 55 days of shooting, but ballooned to 159 days and $8 million over budget. The main reason: the shark.
Apart from one scene using real underwater shark footage from Australians Ron and Valerie Taylor, the shark was mechanical. There were three sharks made for the film, all nicknamed “Bruce” after Spielberg’s lawyer.
Martha’s Vineyard in Massachusetts depicted the fictional Amity Island, and much of the second half was shot in water.
Much of the second half of the film was shot on the water. Photo by Universal Studios/Courtesy of Getty Images
The mechanical shark sank … a lot. No wonder Spielberg named the temperamental and unreliable shark after his lawyer.
With the lack of a functioning shark, Spielberg made the artistic decision – echoing Alfred Hitchcock – to suggest the shark’s presence rather than show it outright in the film’s first half.
Spielberg even quotes Hitchcock’s Vertigo shot (a dolly zoom) in the scene when Brody realises a shark attack is unfolding under his watch.
Even without appearing onscreen, the shark has an overwhelming presence and effect on the audience, thanks to John Williams’ music: most of the film’s cues are associated with the shark.
Tension onscreen
One of my favourite moments in the film is in the aftermath of an attack on the young Alex Kintner (and poor dog Pippet!). Brody is slapped in the face by the mother of the slain Alex – but this is followed by a cute and wholesome encounter between Chief Brody and his son Sean.
As a father, Brody’s failure to prevent the attack on Alex reflects his loss of authority to capitalism. The water is the island’s summer revenue, and the hungry shark swims in it.
The film could have seen an early shark attack and immediately launched a shark hunt. However, the shark doesn’t appear much at all for a monster movie due to its malfunctioning. This worked in the film’s favour.
Instead, the film relied on good writing and strong performances to heighten the tension and build anticipation for the rare moments the shark has onscreen.
A lot of the film’s success comes from the dynamic and well-written trio of Brody, Hooper and Quint. In the final act set at sea with just the three leads on a boat surrounded by the shark, they needed to deliver – and they did, arguably stealing the movie from the shark.
Possibly the most famous scene in the entire film comes when the shark is fully revealed for the first time. Startled by its size, Brody backs into the cabin and delivers an improvised line: “you’re gonna need a bigger boat”.
Dreyfuss and Shaw famously didn’t get along in real life. You can see that tension play out onscreen. It arguably enhances their performances.
Still, one of the most iconic moments comes when Dreyfuss’s Hooper is left speechless by Quint’s USS Indianapolis monologue, describing being in the water with sharks after the warship was torpedoed.
The monologue was scripted, but Shaw improvised much of it.
A cinema classic
Jaws is now a cinema classic.
It launched Spielberg’s illustrious career, scared an entire generation from going into the water, and also inspired a new generation of marine activists – such as myself – who love sharks and the ocean.
I hope you’ll join me in revisiting Amity Island one more time to watch this timeless film that, apart from its mechanical shark, completely works.
Will Jeffery 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.
When I was eight years old, on a Saturday night before surf lifesaving training, my dad put on the film Jaws and it changed my life forever.
Unlike the generations of filmgoers who were afraid of sharks and going into the water during its initial release in 1975, I fell in love with the water and sharks.
Steven Spielberg’s film was the first summer blockbuster, received Academy Awards for sound, editing and music, and became the first film to earn US$100 million at the United States box office.
It was only the third film for the 28-year-old Steven Spielberg, and his second theatrical release (his first film, Duel, was made for TV), and success arrived only after much trouble.
Jaws was only the second feature film for Spielberg, pictured here on set. Photo by Sunset Boulevard/Corbis via Getty Image
A marketed behemoth
Chief of Police Martin Brody (Roy Scheider) has recently moved from New York City to Amity Island with his wife, Ellen (Lorriane Gary), and their two children. As the small town prepares for its crucial 4th of July celebrations, a series of shark attacks threatens the festivities – and the town’s summer economy.
Mayor Larry Vaughan (Murray Hamilton) insists on keeping the beaches open for “summer dollars”. When the shark strikes again, local fisherman Quint (Robert Shaw) is hired to hunt it down. Brody and visiting marine biologist Matt Hooper (Richard Dreyfuss) insist on joining the expedition to save the island.
The film was advertised as a suspense and horror monster movie. In what director Spielberg described as a marketing “blitzkrieg” campaign, Jaws, was released in the summer – peak swimming season.
Universal Pictures made sure every household knew about the film. There were multiple TV spots, a cover on Time Magazine, talk show appearances from cast and crew, and a wave of merchandise. It was the most money the company had ever spent on a film’s pre-release marketing.
The first American film released in more than 400 theatres at once, Jaws found its audience with overwhelmingly positive reviews and word of mouth – because Jaws was also extremely well made.
Wrangling the shark
Peter Benchley was hired to adapt his novel, but another screenwriter, Carl Gottlieb, was brought in to redraft Benchley’s more serious narrative and provide comic relief.
Jaws was initially planned for 55 days of shooting, but ballooned to 159 days and $8 million over budget. The main reason: the shark.
Apart from one scene using real underwater shark footage from Australians Ron and Valerie Taylor, the shark was mechanical. There were three sharks made for the film, all nicknamed “Bruce” after Spielberg’s lawyer.
Martha’s Vineyard in Massachusetts depicted the fictional Amity Island, and much of the second half was shot in water.
Much of the second half of the film was shot on the water. Photo by Universal Studios/Courtesy of Getty Images
The mechanical shark sank … a lot. No wonder Spielberg named the temperamental and unreliable shark after his lawyer.
With the lack of a functioning shark, Spielberg made the artistic decision – echoing Alfred Hitchcock – to suggest the shark’s presence rather than show it outright in the film’s first half.
Spielberg even quotes Hitchcock’s Vertigo shot (a dolly zoom) in the scene when Brody realises a shark attack is unfolding under his watch.
Even without appearing onscreen, the shark has an overwhelming presence and effect on the audience, thanks to John Williams’ music: most of the film’s cues are associated with the shark.
Tension onscreen
One of my favourite moments in the film is in the aftermath of an attack on the young Alex Kintner (and poor dog Pippet!). Brody is slapped in the face by the mother of the slain Alex – but this is followed by a cute and wholesome encounter between Chief Brody and his son Sean.
As a father, Brody’s failure to prevent the attack on Alex reflects his loss of authority to capitalism. The water is the island’s summer revenue, and the hungry shark swims in it.
The film could have seen an early shark attack and immediately launched a shark hunt. However, the shark doesn’t appear much at all for a monster movie due to its malfunctioning. This worked in the film’s favour.
Instead, the film relied on good writing and strong performances to heighten the tension and build anticipation for the rare moments the shark has onscreen.
A lot of the film’s success comes from the dynamic and well-written trio of Brody, Hooper and Quint. In the final act set at sea with just the three leads on a boat surrounded by the shark, they needed to deliver – and they did, arguably stealing the movie from the shark.
Possibly the most famous scene in the entire film comes when the shark is fully revealed for the first time. Startled by its size, Brody backs into the cabin and delivers an improvised line: “you’re gonna need a bigger boat”.
Dreyfuss and Shaw famously didn’t get along in real life. You can see that tension play out onscreen. It arguably enhances their performances.
Still, one of the most iconic moments comes when Dreyfuss’s Hooper is left speechless by Quint’s USS Indianapolis monologue, describing being in the water with sharks after the warship was torpedoed.
The monologue was scripted, but Shaw improvised much of it.
A cinema classic
Jaws is now a cinema classic.
It launched Spielberg’s illustrious career, scared an entire generation from going into the water, and also inspired a new generation of marine activists – such as myself – who love sharks and the ocean.
I hope you’ll join me in revisiting Amity Island one more time to watch this timeless film that, apart from its mechanical shark, completely works.
Will Jeffery 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.
When a renewable energy developer announces a new project, there’s one big question mark – how will nearby communities react?
Community pushback has scuttled many renewables projects. Sometimes, communities are angry landowners hosting infrastructure will be paid, but neighbours and those further afield may not.
As a result, renewable projects often involve schemes where the developer gives funding or resources to local community initiatives.
Australia has dozens of these schemes, with many more to come as the clean energy transition accelerates. The Clean Energy Council estimates developers contribute about A$1,050 to communities for every megawatt of wind and about $850 for solar.
Renewable developers usually structure community-benefit schemes in one of three ways:
community funds, where a developer offers a one-time or ongoing payment for local infrastructure such as roads, services or community projects
in-kind benefits, such as investment in local sports fields or tourism initiatives
local ownership models, such as offering community members preferential access to shares in the company or a community co-ownership model of the project.
In Australia, a number of community schemes are already established or planned.
More are on their way. The Queensland government has introduced laws which require wind and solar farm developers enter into community benefit agreements.
Worldwide, offshore wind farms have for many years involved community benefit sharing. Australia is very likely to follow suit as this industry emerges.
Developers will sometimes set up more targeted neighbour payment schemes where funding is given to nearby landowners.
What are they for?
There are three reasons why benefit sharing can be a good idea overall. They are:
1. Impact on locals: solar farms take up large areas of land, while wind farms on land or sea draw the eye and can compete with other uses of the space. Community benefit schemes can help counterbalance these impacts.
2. Benefits are centralised: solar, wind and battery developments generate significant economic value. But this is largely captured by the developer. Benefit schemes can make residents feel the deal is fairer.
3. Acceptance: change of any kind is often hard. Offering incentives to towns and communities can make the change easier.
Payments to communities hosting renewable projects can look like bribes if not done carefully. myphotobank.com.au/Shutterstock
Straying into bribery?
The definition of a bribe is a benefit which influences or intends to influence a person to violate their role-based obligations. Offering money to a police officer to avoid losing your licence would count as a bribe.
Community benefit sharing isn’t a bribe in a strict legal sense. But the payments can resemble bribes if they influence community members to accept the new development. Improving community acceptance is often a central goal of such schemes.
The accusation is common. In the United Kingdom, researchers observe these schemes are regularly seen:
as an attempt by local developers to ‘bribe’ local communities to ‘buy’ support for their wind farm development.
Community members may decry a scheme as a “paltry bribe” or “shut up candy”. Some insist their “principles are not for sale”.
you don’t just turn up in a community and say, don’t worry, we’ll buy you a new rugby pitch […] because it really does look like you’re trying to buy them off.
But do local communities have obligations which accepting a renewables project might violate?
As part of a democracy, residents have civic obligations to make public-spirited decisions, evaluating policies and developments based not on self-interest but in a principled way.
This is why it’s illegal to pay someone to vote for a particular candidate in an election, for instance.
Offering money for community initiatives isn’t intrinsically wrong. As a community objector to a wind farm proposal put it:
Of course it is a relevant planning consideration if a wind power company is offering to pour significant sums of money into a community for the life of a wind farm […] Why should that not be recognised as a good thing?
But any economic boon to a town must be considered alongside other important concerns, rather than wiping them away.
If these schemes operate by influencing citizens to ignore their civic duties, that’s intrinsically wrong. Worse still, it risks a backlash from offended community members.
In the worst cases, benefit sharing operates as a pay-off, where uneasy communities are given money to reduce their resistance.
Offshore wind farm developers overseas often set up community benefit schemes. Tupungato/Shutterstock
Achieving fairness, avoiding bribery
The solutions are straightfoward: design these schemes strategically so they are fair and avoid eroding civic obligations. Here are four aims:
1. Minimise self-interest. Schemes should avoid large up-front payments and focus on in-kind benefits.
2. Respect the community. Employ and contract local staff, keep the community informed and respond transparently to complaints.
3. Encourage community involvement. Big renewable projects should stack up on energy, environmental, economic and community grounds. Robust and genuine community consultation should be used when designing any benefit scheme.
4. Ensure integrity. Development and implementation of any scheme should be genuine, transparent and accountable.
Getting it right
As climate change intensifies, Australia’s clean energy transition has a clear moral urgency. But this cannot be done by steamrolling local residents or buying them off with cash for community projects.
When community benefit schemes are sensibly designed with local input, it will boost both climate action and civic legitimacy.
Hugh Breakey receives funding from the Blue Economy CRC. This research was funded through the project ‘Pre-conditions for the Development of Offshore Wind Energy in Australia’ by the Blue Economy Cooperative Research Centre.
Charles Sampford receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Professional Services Council and the Blue Economy CRC.
Larelle Bossi 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.
When a renewable energy developer announces a new project, there’s one big question mark – how will nearby communities react?
Community pushback has scuttled many renewables projects. Sometimes, communities are angry landowners hosting infrastructure will be paid, but neighbours and those further afield may not.
As a result, renewable projects often involve schemes where the developer gives funding or resources to local community initiatives.
Australia has dozens of these schemes, with many more to come as the clean energy transition accelerates. The Clean Energy Council estimates developers contribute about A$1,050 to communities for every megawatt of wind and about $850 for solar.
Renewable developers usually structure community-benefit schemes in one of three ways:
community funds, where a developer offers a one-time or ongoing payment for local infrastructure such as roads, services or community projects
in-kind benefits, such as investment in local sports fields or tourism initiatives
local ownership models, such as offering community members preferential access to shares in the company or a community co-ownership model of the project.
In Australia, a number of community schemes are already established or planned.
More are on their way. The Queensland government has introduced laws which require wind and solar farm developers enter into community benefit agreements.
Worldwide, offshore wind farms have for many years involved community benefit sharing. Australia is very likely to follow suit as this industry emerges.
Developers will sometimes set up more targeted neighbour payment schemes where funding is given to nearby landowners.
What are they for?
There are three reasons why benefit sharing can be a good idea overall. They are:
1. Impact on locals: solar farms take up large areas of land, while wind farms on land or sea draw the eye and can compete with other uses of the space. Community benefit schemes can help counterbalance these impacts.
2. Benefits are centralised: solar, wind and battery developments generate significant economic value. But this is largely captured by the developer. Benefit schemes can make residents feel the deal is fairer.
3. Acceptance: change of any kind is often hard. Offering incentives to towns and communities can make the change easier.
Payments to communities hosting renewable projects can look like bribes if not done carefully. myphotobank.com.au/Shutterstock
Straying into bribery?
The definition of a bribe is a benefit which influences or intends to influence a person to violate their role-based obligations. Offering money to a police officer to avoid losing your licence would count as a bribe.
Community benefit sharing isn’t a bribe in a strict legal sense. But the payments can resemble bribes if they influence community members to accept the new development. Improving community acceptance is often a central goal of such schemes.
The accusation is common. In the United Kingdom, researchers observe these schemes are regularly seen:
as an attempt by local developers to ‘bribe’ local communities to ‘buy’ support for their wind farm development.
Community members may decry a scheme as a “paltry bribe” or “shut up candy”. Some insist their “principles are not for sale”.
you don’t just turn up in a community and say, don’t worry, we’ll buy you a new rugby pitch […] because it really does look like you’re trying to buy them off.
But do local communities have obligations which accepting a renewables project might violate?
As part of a democracy, residents have civic obligations to make public-spirited decisions, evaluating policies and developments based not on self-interest but in a principled way.
This is why it’s illegal to pay someone to vote for a particular candidate in an election, for instance.
Offering money for community initiatives isn’t intrinsically wrong. As a community objector to a wind farm proposal put it:
Of course it is a relevant planning consideration if a wind power company is offering to pour significant sums of money into a community for the life of a wind farm […] Why should that not be recognised as a good thing?
But any economic boon to a town must be considered alongside other important concerns, rather than wiping them away.
If these schemes operate by influencing citizens to ignore their civic duties, that’s intrinsically wrong. Worse still, it risks a backlash from offended community members.
In the worst cases, benefit sharing operates as a pay-off, where uneasy communities are given money to reduce their resistance.
Offshore wind farm developers overseas often set up community benefit schemes. Tupungato/Shutterstock
Achieving fairness, avoiding bribery
The solutions are straightfoward: design these schemes strategically so they are fair and avoid eroding civic obligations. Here are four aims:
1. Minimise self-interest. Schemes should avoid large up-front payments and focus on in-kind benefits.
2. Respect the community. Employ and contract local staff, keep the community informed and respond transparently to complaints.
3. Encourage community involvement. Big renewable projects should stack up on energy, environmental, economic and community grounds. Robust and genuine community consultation should be used when designing any benefit scheme.
4. Ensure integrity. Development and implementation of any scheme should be genuine, transparent and accountable.
Getting it right
As climate change intensifies, Australia’s clean energy transition has a clear moral urgency. But this cannot be done by steamrolling local residents or buying them off with cash for community projects.
When community benefit schemes are sensibly designed with local input, it will boost both climate action and civic legitimacy.
Hugh Breakey receives funding from the Blue Economy CRC. This research was funded through the project ‘Pre-conditions for the Development of Offshore Wind Energy in Australia’ by the Blue Economy Cooperative Research Centre.
Charles Sampford receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Professional Services Council and the Blue Economy CRC.
Larelle Bossi 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.
The Maldives expressed interest in joining an Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) during the third EU-Maldives Senior Officials’ Meeting (SOM) in 2022.
The Maldives’ objective in joining an EPA is to benefit from duty-free, quota-free access to the EU market, especially for their main export product (tuna), which they lost after their graduation from the Generalised System of Preferences in 2015.
At the fourth EU-Maldives SOM in 2023, the Maldives stressed their interest in joining the Samoa Agreement. This agreement provides a legal framework for EU relations with countries of Africa, Caribbean and Pacific, including a possibility of concluding with them economic partnership agreements. On 1 July 2024, the Maldives signed the Samoa Agreement.
In subsequent meetings with representatives of the government of the Maldives the Commission provided a non-paper outlining the steps required to join the EPA between the EU and the five Eastern and Southern African (ESA5) countries, the most relevant one given the Maldives’ geographical position.
To proceed, the Maldives need to (i) sign the Samoa Agreement (completed in 2024); (ii) join the ESA group in the Organisation of African, Caribbean, and Pacific States (status unclear); and (iii) submit a formal request to join the EU-ESA5 EPA and table a market access offer to the Commission.
An accession to the EPA would eventually require a joint EU-ESA5 decision in line with the EPA’s procedures.
Despite all the explanation provided by the Commission, to date, the Maldives have neither submitted a formal request to join the EPA nor tabled a market access offer. These steps are needed before a provisional timeline for the Maldives’ potential accession to the EU-ESA5 EPA can be established.
