Resoconto integrale delle discussioni

Martedì 21 ottobre 2025 - Strasburgo

9. Conseguenze istituzionali dei negoziati sull'allargamento dell'UE (discussione)

  President. – The next item is the report by Sandro Gozi, on behalf of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, on institutional consequences of the EU enlargement negotiations (2025/2041(INI)) (A10-0177/2025).

  Sandro Gozi, rapporteur. – Mr President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, first of all, I want to thank all the shadow rapporteurs for their constructive work and commitment throughout this process, and notably the intensive and good work on the compromise amendments. I also want to record the useful exchanges and cooperation with the AFET and SEDE committees.

This report starts from a simple conviction: the real question today is not whether the European Union should enlarge, but how to ensure that enlargement strengthens our Union. The cost of inaction would be too high. Reform is no longer a choice; it is a necessity. Continental unification and reform must go hand in hand.

Every enlargement in our history has been preceded by an internal reform. The Treaty of Nice prepared the 2004 enlargement to Central and Eastern Europe. The Treaty of Lisbon then made it possible to integrate Croatia and to equip the Union with institutions which should have been fit for 28 Member States. And today, once again, if we want to welcome new countries, we must adapt our Union to this new dimension. We must reform the Union to unify Europe.

This report shows the way forward in a very pragmatic way. It offers a clear direction for a Union that acts faster and speaks with one voice. It turns the priorities set out in this very Chamber in September, in the State of the Union address, into concrete proposals.

Our objectives are three-fold. First of all, efficiency – by extending qualified majority voting to more areas so we can move beyond paralysis and take decisions more quickly. Power and resources – by reforming the EU budget, as we already decided together last May, so that Europe has the means to act. And democracy – by strengthening the powers of the European Parliament.

But I want to be very clear on one point, to clarify to some colleagues. Our report proposes the use of qualified majority voting only for intermediate stages of the enlargement process: 150 cases of decisions on technical and sectoral methods that cannot continue to be dependent on veto. But we maintain unanimity when it truly matters: for decisions to open negotiations, to close them, and to approve a new Member State. These are historic and sovereign decisions, and they must remain unanimous. We must all agree to accept a new member of the club. We are not therefore taking power away from the Member States; we are giving Europe the capacity to act.

The text also calls for making full use of current Treaty flexibilities, pursuing targeted Treaty changes on issues such as rule of law, and advancing differentiated integration among willing Member States. In this sense, defence could be a great example. Tools such as Permanent Structured Cooperation allow willing Member States to move forward in the field of security and defence. We need, colleagues, a Europe of free political will. Those who want to move ahead faster must be allowed to do so without obliging the others to make the same choice.

Throughout the drafting process, we worked constructively across political groups to build a balanced and ambitious text. The spirit of cooperation gives me hope that the report will receive broad support in plenary, sending a strong signal of unity and determination to move Europe forward in view of the Commission's pre-enlargement strategy and in view of the discussion in the European Council.

I also want, Mr President, to stress the importance of dialogue with national parliaments. They have participated in our work. They have contributed to the whole process. They have presented amendments, and some of their amendments have reached our report. Why? Because we think that this debate must not be confined to Brussels. It must live and breathe in all capitals and in our societies.

So, there are unavoidable changes and unavoidable reforms. If we really want a strong and more united Europe, we must do our homework.

  Marta Kos, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, dear honourable Members, I would like to thank the rapporteur Sandro Gozi and all the shadow rapporteurs for this report. We take good note of all the points in this report, which covers a wide array of recommendations on enlargement, institutional reforms and the budget, of course.

Now, more than ever, enlargement and a larger and stronger European Union – I agree with you Sandro – is a strategic imperative. The EU must widen as it deepens.

As you very well know, President von der Leyen's Political Guidelines 2024-2029 stressed that enlargement must be used as a catalyst for progress in terms of the EU's capacity to act, its policies and its spending programmes.

This report is very timely. The Commission adopted a first communication on the pre-enlargement policy reviews in March 2024, covering four strands: values, policy, budget and governance. The Commission plans to adopt the policy reviews on 4 November, and what we have announced in the Political Guidelines of President von der Leyen and in the Commission work programme for 2025. So the date is now known.

The policy reviews should help to set out a clear path for advancing on the parallel tracks of enlargement and EU reforms. A few weeks ago, and from this very place during the State of the Union speech, President von der Leyen stated, and I quote, 'We need to move to qualified majority in some areas, for example in foreign policy. It is time to break free from the shackles of unanimity'.

The position of the Commission is long standing, consistent and well known. Unanimity no longer makes sense if the Union wants to play its role quickly, effectively and therefore strategically, especially in the geopolitical situation today.

The Commission will focus on what can already be done under the current Treaties and on those areas where a broad consensus is emerging. We share the view, also expressed in the report, that it is key to use the tools available under the current Treaty. For example, one element already outlined in the Commission's communication from 24 March, which is also addressed in Mr Gozi's report, is the activation of the passerelle clauses.

Next to governance, the policy reviews will also cover strands on sectoral policies, values and budget. They should be seen as an important next step within the broader EU reform agenda, with several related already delivered, or planned around or after the reviews.

We look forward to continuing discussions with you, honourable Members, once it is adopted – meaning on 4 November there will be an enlargement package and, at the same time, this report. I am looking forward to hearing your views now.

  Sebastião Bugalho, em nome do Grupo PPE. – Senhor Presidente, Senhora Comissária Kos, esta é a primeira vez nesta legislatura que o Parlamento toma a iniciativa sobre o alargamento.

É um sinal que o façamos começando por falar no que temos de mudar enquanto União e não apenas no que têm de mudar os que querem fazer parte dela. O debate sobre a adesão de novos Estados‑Membros resume‑se a duas questões: se vai acontecer e se deve acontecer. A nossa resposta, enquanto partido, é clara: sim a ambas.

O alargamento não só vai acontecer, como já está a acontecer hoje, e não só vai reforçar a União Europeia no futuro, como já é um contributo chave para o nosso desenvolvimento.

Na segurança, quando aprofundamos a integração gradual dos países candidatos, não são só os países candidatos que ficam mais seguros, é a União como um todo que fica menos vulnerável. Não é por acaso que os incluímos no Livro Branco para a defesa e na estratégia de segurança interna. Mais alargamento também é mais segurança. Quando integramos os países da adesão no mercado interno, não é só a sua economia que ganha oportunidades, é a União como um todo que ganha competitividade. Mais alargamento também é mais economia.

Madam Commissioner, in our journey towards an ever-closer Union, the courage to reform, including – not imposing – is adamant. In the last year, few have done it with such grace and commitment as you did. At the beginning of this term, integration required 150 unanimous decisions. If we want enlargement to be taken seriously by our partners, we need to do something about it within ourselves.

In 2029, besides an Enlargement Commissioner, we can also have an enlarged Europe and a stronger one, too. For those who have visited the candidate countries, it is clear today: for them, enlargement is no more than an act of faith. They believed in it, but they don't think they'll ever see it. Tomorrow, we also vote on that, on showing every European that, yes, they can be citizens of this Union, too.

  Marc Angel, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, all EU enlargements were not just a success story – enlargement is a beacon of hope, a testament to what we can achieve when we stand strong together. Past enlargements have transformed our continent, bringing peace, prosperity and stability to millions. A new wave of enlargement is now a necessity, but with new members joining, we face real institutional challenges that demand bold actions.

At the current stage, to be able to absorb new members, we must move away from the paralysis of unanimity in the Council, because Europe cannot afford to be held hostage by a single veto. We should fully utilise the flexibilities already offered by our current Treaties to act faster and to act smarter. But this is not enough. We need the courage to adopt targeted Treaty changes and reflect the ambitions of our citizens of a Union ready for the future. The Council must not shy away from this conversation, and I regret its absence here today. Silencing the debate on Treaty change is not an act of caution, but a dangerous retreat from responsibility.

Dear colleagues, the time to act is now. Let's move beyond paralysis and division, ignite the spirit of solidarity and justice and build a stronger Europe. I thank the rapporteur, Sandro Gozi, for his excellent work, and we must work hard together, because we must, before the end of this mandate, make sure that those candidate countries who advanced quickly, who are doing many efforts, become members of this European Union.

  Marieke Ehlers, namens de PfE-Fractie. – Voorzitter, volgens sommigen is de uitbreiding van de Europese Unie een doel op zich. Voor hen is de ever closer Union per definitie ook een ever expanding Union, een groot wereldrijk dat voortdurend macht, dominantie en invloed moet vergroten om relevant te blijven. De PVV en de Fractie Patriotten voor Europa zien dat echter anders. De EU heeft duidelijke politieke, culturele en natuurlijke grenzen.

Want een ever expanding Union betekent ongetwijfeld ook meer netto-ontvangers en een steeds kleinere groep nettobetalers. Deze herverdelingsmachine verzwakt de EU als geheel, maar ook de afzonderlijke lidstaten. Brussel geeft een feestje en de Nederlandse burger mag opdraaien voor de kosten.

We mogen dus wel steeds meer betalen, maar als het van de eurofielen afhangt, hebben we ook steeds minder te zeggen. Want volgens dit verslag zou een Unie van dertig of meer lidstaten politiek vastlopen als elke lidstaat zijn vetorecht zou behouden, en daarom willen ze het vetorecht afschaffen.

Uitbreiding is geen vooruitgang als het ten koste gaat van doeltreffendheid, soevereiniteit en het gezond verstand. We moeten stoppen met het verzamelen van lidstaten alsof ze postzegels zijn. Zowel bij migratie, Europese regelgeving en uitbreiding van de Unie geldt hetzelfde principe: genoeg is genoeg en less is more.

  Charlie Weimers, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, Commissioner, Swedish voters did not elect me to give away their votes to Brussels. Yet that is exactly what this report proposes; removing national veto powers and centralising decision-making far from the people.

Here is why: can you explain to Swedish voters why we should grant EU membership to a country that hosts terrorists, fuels organised crime and drives migration into Europe. Can you convince them that EU citizenship should be handed to 85 million Muslims? Can you persuade Swedish taxpayers that they must pay even more into Brussels? Of course not – that is why you want to take away Sweden's sovereignty. I was sent here to defend Swedish democracy, not to dismantle it, and that is why I vote no. Sweden first – always.

  Charles Goerens, au nom du groupe Renew. – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, l'Europe, telle une voiture, dispose d'un frein et d'un moteur. Pour lui permettre de suivre sa voie, nous avons intérêt à ce que ces deux fonctions soient conduites avec prévoyance et détermination. Sandro Gozi nous a évoqué le prix du non-fonctionnement et du recours excessif au frein. Maintenant, le propriétaire de la voiture Europe s'apprête à augmenter d'un tiers le nombre de ses passagers.

Quiconque a une faible idée de ce qui se passe dans le monde en 2025 doit admettre que ladite voiture ne répond plus aux attentes d'une Europe puissance. Elle doit donc passer au garage, non pas pour l'aider à mieux ralentir, car nombreux sont ceux qui veulent freiner des quatre fers, mais si nous voulons atteindre le régime de croisière, nous devrions doper son moteur. Les garagistes Letta et Draghi nous ont fait savoir que, si nous laissons inchangé le fonctionnement de la voiture Europe, très bientôt, la Chine et les États-Unis ne nous verraient déjà plus dans leur rétroviseur.

  Reinier Van Lanschot, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, dear colleagues, I've been to Montenegro, Georgia, Albania, Moldova and Ukraine. For the people there, the EU is freedom, prosperity and democracy. For them, the EU equals hope.

New countries joining is also good for our economy and for our security, and some of these countries are reforming incredibly fast. But the EU itself has stayed still.

Colleagues, the EU is the biggest diplomatic achievement in history, but does not work well enough today. Good ideas are blocked. We live in a 'vetocracy'. We can't wait to welcome new members, but enlargement has always happened with big changes to how we work together.

The EU at the moment has two big problems. Firstly, a lack of action. Secondly, a lack of democratic legitimacy. Let's fix that. Let's give the EU the power to act, and citizens the power to decide how the EU should act.

Europeans don't want to live in the ruins of a vetocracy. We want to live in a house of a united European democracy – a house where we can welcome new countries and where we can all say, 'We are Europe'.

  Anthony Smith, au nom du groupe The Left. – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, Madame la Commissaire, nous le disons devant cet hémicycle, 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 logiques guerrières qui sont à des années-lumières des aspirations des peuples d'Europe.

Mais votre Union européenne se résume, dans les faits, à un ensemble de moyens permettant une concurrence libre et non faussée, au service de la prédation des grands groupes capitalistes et d'une vision politique impérialiste. Un modèle dans lequel la question sociale est encore et toujours absente.

Pourtant, l'accueil de nouveaux États devrait se concevoir et se réaliser autour d'un socle commun ambitieux de droits sociaux et de garanties collectives pour les travailleuses et les travailleurs: négociations collectives, hausse massive des salaires et des congés payés, renforcement des législations sociales, notamment en matière de respect de la santé et de la sécurité au travail, des moyens renforcés pour les inspections du travail, égalité réelle entre les femmes et les hommes au travail.

Autant dire que nous ne cessons de nous éloigner de cet objectif, comme en atteste le cours réactionnaire de la Commission européenne et de ses relais au sein du Parlement, qui s'apprêtent à enterrer le devoir de vigilance des multinationales. Accueillir de nouveaux États devrait aussi permettre de protéger la mobilité des travailleurs en mettant fin au statut du travail détaché, pour que les travailleurs bénéficient de l'intégralité des droits sociaux du pays où ils sont employés.

Voilà un moyen de mettre fin aux pratiques de dumping social comme fiscal, qui détruisent la vie de millions de salariés et de leurs familles. L'élargissement devrait être un levier de construction d'un continent plus juste, où les droits sociaux et les contre-pouvoirs démocratiques soient la règle, et qui rejette la concurrence généralisée, le dumping et la corruption. Ce n'est pas le sens du rapport qui nous est aujourd'hui proposé.

  Станислав Стоянов, от името на групата ESN. – Г-н Председател, разширяването на Европейския съюз е правен и политически процес. Превръщането му в геополитически инструмент подкопава самия Договор за Европейския съюз, а премахването на правото на вето на практика би го превърнало във втори Съветски съюз. Европейският съюз трябва да се разширява според ясни критерии, а не по удобство.

Реформа е необходима, но с нея не бива да се прибързва – още по-малко да се използва като прикритие за авторитаризъм или федерализация. Подобна реформа не беше извършвана преди разширяванията към Централна и Източна Европа. Напротив, самите страни кандидатки се реформираха с цената на огромни лишения. Тя трябва да бъде обмислена много внимателно, съхранявайки суверенитета и правото на вето.

Правото на вето в Съвета на Европейския съюз явно е пречка за управляващия бюрократичен елит. Призовава се за неговото премахване. Това би превърнало партньорството между страните членки в принуда. Никакво единство няма да се постигне, а господство над несъгласните.

Този подход вече води до абсурдни резултати: Северна Македония, която все още не е член на Европейския съюз, открито се застъпва за гласуване с квалифицирано мнозинство в Съвета. Това е опит за заобикаляне на ангажиментите, поети от Скопие през 2022 година към целия Европейски съюз. Реформа е необходима, но тя трябва да бъде обект на сериозен анализ и не с цената на суверенитета на страните членки. Ще повторя още веднъж – без право на вето Европейският съюз се превръща в Съветски съюз.

  Sven Simon (PPE). – Mr President, Commissioner, Europe once again stands at a historic crossroads and, colleague Stoyanov, of course the decision has a geopolitical meaning and, we all know, colleagues, such windows of opportunity open and they also close again. Too often we have opened them only to close them half-heartedly afterwards, and each time the disappointment in the Western Balkans has grown. This is about our credibility, our stability and our ability to act in an increasingly dangerous world.

When Europe hesitates, others fill the vacuum, but not with our values, rather with their interests. Enlargement is not an act of idealism. It is an act of European self-assertion, yet a Union that grows without institutional renewal grows into its own incapacity to act. We need structures that make decisions possible, and institutions can be elected and unelected. Because the ability to act without democratic legitimacy would be a pyrrhic victory.

Colleagues, we need more federal mechanisms in key policy areas where no Member State can act alone, but we also know the appetite for treaty change is limited in many capitals, if not all. That is why we must proceed wisely, step by step, with concrete reforms that create the ability to act without breaching centralism in Brussels. Those who want a larger Union tomorrow must have the courage to renew it today, and must seize this historic window before it is too late.

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

  Reinier Van Lanschot (Verts/ALE), blue-card question. – Thank you, I'm very happy to hear you say that you want to increase democratic legitimacy, that you also want to create a possibility for Europeans to elect a government – or what exactly should they elect and how can we also unelect them? I hear you talk about the goals you want to achieve with these reforms, but what would these reforms look like exactly for you to make that happen and achieve that goal of more democratic legitimacy?

  Sven Simon (PPE), blue-card answer. – Yes, indeed, thank you very much for this question. I think that a mistake in the construction of the institutional setting with the Lisbon Treaty is that we have a political union, fortunately, now, and the problem here is that the European elections do not have any effect on the composition of the Commission – that should be changed. At the moment, national governments nominate a commissioner. Okay – the European Parliament can vote or not vote for the European Commission president, but we should have a government in certain policy fields with federal structures, which can be voted in and voted out of office. This is my concrete proposal. Thank you.

  Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – La historia de la Unión Europea es la historia de su crecimiento, de sus ampliaciones y —por tanto— es un hecho que la ampliación ha hecho a la Unión Europea más fuerte y —además— muestra que todavía está viva. Muestra que, a pesar de sus crisis, de sus parálisis y —a veces— de su impotencia, continúa siendo un polo de atracción por su combinación virtuosa de derechos, libertades, corrección de desequilibrios y oportunidades de prosperidad.

Pero para que la ampliación siga teniendo esa capacidad motriz, es imprescindible que se atiendan las lecciones de este informe de la Comisión Constitucional.

Primera lección: los costes de la no ampliación son insoportables porque la Unión Europea entra en contradicción consigo misma. Para que la ampliación sea coherente, es imprescindible también que se produzcan reformas institucionales al tiempo que supera la dinámica de vetos cruzados y, por supuesto, la exigencia de unanimidades.

La segunda lección es que es imprescindible que se utilicen las pasarelas y las cooperaciones reforzadas.

La tercera es que seamos capaces de elegir aquellas reformas de los Tratados que resulten imprescindibles para acoger a nuevos miembros. La clave está en las modificaciones específicas, no en una reforma indiscriminada ni en entrar en la batidora de una gran convención que haga perder el control de la situación.

Hay que saber elegir cuáles son exactamente los mensajes porque es imprescindible que la Unión Europea siga aportando recursos propios, reforme el marco financiero plurianual y —sobre todo— refuerce su compromiso con el Estado de Derecho, la democracia y los derechos fundamentales de modo que ninguna nueva ampliación deteriore —que ya lo hemos visto— el estándar europeo de respeto al Estado de Derecho, a la democracia, a los derechos fundamentales, a la promoción del pluralismo y a la protección de minorías.

  Ernő Schaller-Baross (PfE). – Elnök Úr! Az Unióhoz való csatlakozás nem politikai alkuk kérdése, hanem világos, átlátható feltételek mentén történik. Minden egyes tagjelölt országnak ugyanazokat a szabályokat kell teljesítenie. Nem lehet országokat összekapcsolni, csomagban kezelni és politikai nyomásgyakorlásokkal átnyomni döntéseket. Az Európai Unió bővítése nem ideológiai játszótér, hanem súlyos külpolitikai és stratégiai döntés, amely mindannyiunk közös jövőjét érinti. Éppen ezért világosan ki kell mondani: külügyi kérdésekben az egyhangúság az alap, és ezen nem kell, sőt nem is szabad változtatnunk. Ez a tagállamok szuverenitásának utolsó igazi garanciája.

  Gheorghe Piperea (ECR). – Domnule președinte, înainte de a ne gândi la o extindere a Uniunii Europene, este cazul să rezolvăm propriile probleme ale Uniunii, care devine treptat una centralizată, de tip sovietic, de neinvidiat. Corupția a invadat Uniunea, libertatea de opinie și de alegere a devenit subiect de fractură a relației cu Statele Unite ale Americii, căci nu mai este o valoare comună a Vestului.

Devenim o alianță militaristă care-și propune să concureze cu NATO și un spațiu al sărăcirii, al inegalității economice și al învechirii tehnologice. Temele marginale ale birocrației Uniunii Europene, cum ar fi identitatea de gen sau schimbarea climatică, ecranează adevăratele probleme ale Uniunii. Iată una: consumatorii europeni sunt victime ale dezinformării, zilnic, și ale agresivității comerciale, dar Uniunea Europeană aruncă resurse în gaura neagră a scutului democratic european pentru a-și proteja politrucii și aparatul birocratic neales de nimeni.

Nu mai avem o carte de vizită onorabilă, cum ne-am putea permite să le solicităm statelor terțe care acceptă ideea de a adera cândva la Uniunea Europeană să își facă temele în privința valorilor libertății, în privința valorilor onestității în privința valorilor stabilității? Eu zic să ne facem mai întâi curat în propria ogradă, înainte de a ne pregăti să primim alți colocatari.

  Joachim Streit (Renew). – Herr Präsident, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Ich danke Sandro Gozi für seinen wirklich hervorragenden Bericht und darf folgende Anmerkungen hinzufügen: Die Idee, ein Initiativrecht für uns Abgeordnete einzuführen, für das Europäische Parlament, ist unabdingbar. Denn nur das macht das freie Mandat eines Abgeordneten aus, dass er auch selbst Dinge verändern kann, wo er erkennt, dass Gesetze schlecht laufen. Das heißt, wir müssen das Recht haben, Gesetze aufzuheben oder selbst eigene einzubringen.

Für mich wichtig als ehemaliger Landrat und Bürgermeister: das Konnexitätsprinzip – wer bestellt, muss auch bezahlen. Das sage ich auch als Mitglied des Haushaltsausschusses. Und wenn die EU Gesetze erlässt, die vor Ort, in den Gemeinden, in den Städten Geld kosten, dann muss man auch dieses Geld den Gemeinden mitgeben.

Und der dritte Punkt: Einstimmigkeitsprinzip. Es kann nicht sein, dass Regierungschefs wie Orbán uns mit dem Einstimmigkeitsprinzip am Ring in der Arena herumführen und sich dann ihre Stimme auch noch mit Geld abkaufen lassen. Deshalb ist es ganz, ganz wichtig, dass wir hier zum Mehrheitsprinzip kommen, mit Ausnahme der EU-Erweiterung: Dann sollten alle Mitgliedstaaten zustimmen.

  Vladimir Prebilič (Verts/ALE). – Gospod predsednik! Če mislimo resno z naslednjo širitvijo, moramo našim partnerjem omogočiti aktivno sodelovanje v tem procesu. Kot nacionalni zakonodajalci morajo prevzeti odgovornost za implementacijo evropskega pravnega reda v državah kandidatkah.

To pomeni, da moramo že danes v tem parlamentu našim kolegicam in kolegom z Zahodnega Balkana omogočiti status opazovalcev. Četudi z majhnimi koraki, je prav odpirati tudi dele našega enotnega trga. Samo dvig blagostanja v državah kandidatkah bo dokaz, da Evropska unija vanje verjame.

Seveda se strinjamo, da ne smemo spuščati več novih Orbanov v Evropsko unijo, ne moremo pa ostati rigidni v postopku širitve. Do leta 2030 mora Zahodni Balkan sedeti z nami za isto mizo, tudi če sprva brez polnih glasovalnih pravic.

Poglejte, kaj je prinesla širitev za srednjo in vzhodno Evropo. Evropa ni oslabela, postala je močnejša. Širitev ni tveganje, je dokončanje naše Unije. Pokažimo, da smo pripravljeni ne le odgovoriti o prihodnosti, ampak da jo tudi soustvarjamo.

  Hans Neuhoff (ESN). – Herr Präsident, Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Wer die EU zu einem Zentralstaat machen möchte, der sollte das den Unionsbürgern auch so sagen. Wer die Hand an das Einstimmigkeitsprinzip legt – und genau das tut der vorliegende Bericht –, legt die Hand an die Souveränität der Mitgliedstaaten. Sie behaupten, dass nach Artikel 49 ein Übergang zur Beschlussfassung mit qualifizierter Mehrheit auch ohne Änderung der Verträge möglich sei. Hier sollen wir offenbar übertölpelt werden, denn Passerelle steht in Artikel 48 Absatz 7 und gilt nicht für die Bestimmungen über Mitgliedschaft und Beitritt nach Artikel 49 EUV.

Sie schlagen vor, die Einstimmigkeit bei Verfahren zum Schutz der EU-Werte abzuschaffen und den Gerichtshof zur Schiedsstelle für Verstöße zu machen – ausgerechnet den Gerichtshof, den Verfechter von Unionsmacht par excellence. Mit solchen Forderungen soll nicht Demokratie befördert, sondern das Abstrafen von Staaten leicht gemacht werden.

Kolleginnen und Kollegen, die EU ist bereits überdehnt und leidet an den lähmenden Folgen dieser Überdehnung. Hören Sie auf damit, Beitrittsverhandlungen zum Vorwand für die Aushöhlung staatlicher Souveränität zu machen. Beherrschen Sie Ihren Erweiterungstrieb und kehren Sie zurück zur Ursprungsidee einer Zweckgemeinschaft, in der kein Mitglied gegen seine grundlegenden Interessen überstimmt werden kann.

  Fidias Panayiotou (NI). – Mr President, the European Union is becoming bigger, and I think, in general, this is good news. In a world with big powers like United States, China, Russia and India, our small European countries must stay united to survive, develop and compete. But, of course, more countries joining the EU will mean slower decision-making.

Let's be honest, our bureaucracy and decision-making are huge and slow, so that we can't take decisions as fast as other world powers. Even our 27 leaders cannot manage to agree on important topics. How will we manage when we are 30 or 40 countries in the EU?

I believe that for the EU not to become even slower, we first need to reform it from the inside, but before more countries join the club. So this way we'll be able to compete and stay relevant in the most important battles, such as artificial intelligence. Thank you so much, I love you all.

  Loránt Vincze (PPE). – Mr President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, as someone coming from central and eastern Europe, I can say with conviction that enlargement is not only a policy, but a promise fulfilled. EU integration transformed my country. It brought prosperity, democracy and, yes, a lot of common challenges to face. Today, we must ensure that the next wave of enlargement brings the same success, for both the candidates and the Union itself.

That is why I believe we should approach the next enlargement with confidence, not fear. Experience shows that we do not need a fundamental change of our institutional system. What we need is the political will to make existing mechanisms work better, to simplify, not to reinvent. Of course, decision-making can be improved, but efficiency cannot come at the expense of democracy. Smaller and medium-sized Member States, those at Europe's geographic and cultural frontiers, must continue to have a meaningful voice. The European Union is strong precisely because it balances unity with diversity, efficiency with equality.

On behalf of the EPP Group, I thank all those involved in the preparation of this report. Its content shows us that it is possible to adapt the institutions and their processes to new realities. To put it bluntly, when there is a positive decision on new countries joining the EU, the Treaty and our institutions are ready to work on them. We need to focus on what has always made enlargement a success: merit, fairness and respect among partners.

  Gabriele Bischoff (S&D). – Herr Präsident, Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Das ist doch mal eine interessante Debatte, die sich wirklich auf das Fundament Europas konzentriert: Erweiterung und Vertiefung der Europäischen Union. Und wir konnten in dieser Debatte sehen, dass die gesamte Rechte – von EKR bis nach ganz rechts – das Fundament dieser Europäischen Union zerstören will. Und wir versuchen – und da danke ich dem Berichterstatter und allen Schattenberichterstattern –, wir versuchen wirklich, gemeinsam in der Mitte dieses Hauses deutlich zu machen, dass sich die EU natürlich auch reformieren muss, wenn sie die Mitgliedstaaten aufnehmen will, denen sie es lange versprochen hat und die wirklich enorme Anstrengungen unternehmen, um auch bereit zu sein für die Erweiterung.

Genauso muss die Europäische Union sich reformieren und bereit sein. Ob sie nun die Spielräume in den Verträgen nutzt oder Vertragsänderungen macht – ohne diese Veränderungen wird die Europäische Union in der Bedeutungslosigkeit verschwinden. Denn wir werden entweder stärker, mehr und handlungsfähiger, oder wir werden in der globalisierten Welt keine Rolle mehr spielen.

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

  Rihards Kols (ECR), blue-card question. – Madam Bischoff, some of your words were really deeply insulting. You referred to the ECR as fundamentally destroying the foundations of the EU. Could you please elaborate on this loud statement and give concrete examples of where the ECR is shattering the fundamental principles of the EU? Concrete – not just some Polish sentences – concrete cases!

  Gabriele Bischoff (S&D), blue-card answer. – You just need to listen to your speakers that spoke about the European Union as the Soviet Union here, etc. If Europe is not able to reform and is not able to enlarge here – this is the foundation of our Union we are talking about.

If you have a different opinion, please convince me that there are also ECR colleagues that have a different position and are standing in the middle of the House. I would appreciate that.

  Fabrice Leggeri (PfE). – Monsieur le Président, les discussions d'élargissement menées avec l'Ukraine, la Moldavie, la Géorgie, les pays des Balkans occidentaux et la Turquie traduisent une fuite en avant de la Commission européenne. Toutes n'en sont pas au même stade, certaines sont à l'arrêt, d'autres suspendues au respect de critères que beaucoup ne remplissent pas. Mais tous ces élargissements, s'ils devaient aboutir, bouleverseraient en profondeur l'équilibre politique, en particulier au Conseil, mais aussi institutionnel et budgétaire de l'Union européenne.

Accueillir des pays fragiles sur le plan économique ou institutionnel, c'est redistribuer les sièges, revoir les règles de vote et alourdir considérablement la charge des États contributeurs, au second rang desquels la France, qui injecte 23 milliards d'euros au budget européen en 2025.

Derrière cet élargissement, présenté comme une nécessité morale, la Commission poursuit un objectif politique: centraliser le pouvoir, affaiblir la voix des nations et diluer leur souveraineté dans un ensemble sans légitimité populaire. Or, comme l'écrivait Stefan Zweig, quand les peuples cessent de croire à leur propre destin, d'autres décident à leur place. C'est cela que nous refusons. L'élargissement ne doit pas se faire au prix de la souveraineté.

  Ивайло Вълчев (ECR). – Г-н Председател, г-жо Комисар, да, въпросът за разширяването на Европейския съюз е крайъгълен за Европа, но аз не мога да се съглася с това, че това разширяване трябва да се случи на всяка цена и най-вече с промяна на правилото за единодушие в Съвета или иначе казано – с отмяна на така нареченото вето.

Преди няколко дни г-жа Фон дер Лайен посети държавите от Западните Балкани и за пореден път заяви подкрепата на Европейския съюз за региона. Няколко неща направиха впечатление обаче. Например в Сърбия г-н Вучич насочи темата за сътрудничество в посока компенсиране на Сърбия заради американските санкции срещу петролната компания NIS, чийто мажоритарен собственик е руската Газпром, а премиерът на Северна Македония г-н Мицкоски от своя страна за пореден път сам постави под въпрос европейската интеграция на своята страна заради вписването на българската общност в Конституцията. Също в Македония президентът г-жа Силяновска – Давкова пък заговори за „креативен подход“ към поетите ангажименти, което е един много хубав балкански начин да се каже „заобикаляне на ангажиментите“.

Аз истински вярвам, че интеграцията на Западните Балкани и помирението на това „буре с барут“ ще бъде от огромна полза за Европейския съюз във всеки един смисъл. Но за да се случи, това трябва да бъде при ясни правила, спазване на копенхагенските критерии, а не чрез неясно тълкуване на Договора за Европейския съюз и заобикаляне на съществуващите правила, каквито предложения виждаме, маскирани под термина „институционални реформи“ и съдържащи се в настоящия доклад.

  Petras Auštrevičius (Renew). – Mr President, Commissioner, colleagues, significant geopolitical shifts and security threats in Europe and around the world must be harnessed to unify Europe, strengthen the European project and bolster the European Union's standing as a geopolitical actor.

Our shared vision for Europe encompasses political unity, securing of the continent, economic growth and a competitive single market. This requires a willingness and readiness to enlarge, and the determination to implement internal EU reforms.

Europe can no longer afford to delay making the necessary decisions. We must identify the optimal time to implement needed internal reforms, so that, by integrating new members, we can collectively become stronger and more effective.

This year must see the start of accession negotiations with Ukraine and the Republic of Moldova, turning our promises into action. This will practically illustrate our response to building a secure and united Europe.

  Daniel Freund (Verts/ALE). – Herr Präsident, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Die europäische Einigung, die Europäische Union ist eine unfassbare Erfolgsgeschichte. Und ich glaube, dass sie vor allen Dingen auf zwei Prinzipien beruht: einer immer engeren Union – der weiteren Integration –, aber eben auch der Erweiterung – dass Länder, die noch vor Kurzem unter Diktatur, unter Sowjetherrschaft gelebt haben, jetzt als starke Demokratien hier Teil dieses Europäischen Parlaments, der europäischen Institutionen sind.

Diesen Weg, den wollen wir weiter beschreiten, denn er macht uns stärker, er macht uns reicher, er macht uns alle gemeinsam demokratischer. Dass wir Konflikte heute hier und in Brüssel in Verhandlungen und eben nicht mehr im Schützengraben klären – was für ein Erfolg!

Und wenn ich mir angucke, was die CDU, was die Konservativen dazu noch vor wenigen Jahren gesagt haben: Wir wollen die europäische Einigung nicht nur festhalten, wir wollen voran auf dem Weg zum europäischen Bundesstaat. Und jetzt sagt Friedrich Merz: Ich habe nie zu denen gehört, die das Wort der Vereinigten Staaten von Europa wollten, und ich habe selbst dazu beigetragen, dass es aus der Programmatik der CDU gestrichen wurde. Wie sollen wir so weiter Europa stark machen? Das ist der falsche Weg. Wir müssen in der demokratischen, proeuropäischen Mitte für Vertragsänderungen, für ein engeres Europa kämpfen.

  Jan-Peter Warnke (NI). – Herr Präsident, Frau Kommissarin! Zunächst möchte ich Herrn Gozi für seinen Bericht danken. Der Bericht analysiert den verfassungsmäßigen Status der EU und zieht dann Schlussfolgerungen für die Struktur im Falle einer Erweiterung auf mehr als 30 Mitglieder.

Während ich diese Analyse teile, habe ich doch Bedenken hinsichtlich des Kurses der EU und der vorgeschlagenen Verfassungsänderungen. Der Bericht offenbart die schwere Verfassungskrise, in der sich die EU schon jetzt befindet. Denn eine Verfassung ist ja nie wirklich zustande gekommen. Wir handeln jetzt nach mühselig verhandelten Lissabon-Verträgen.

Wir müssen unsere Bürger fragen, wie viel Nationalstaat wir behalten und abgeben wollen. Und über Friedensfähigkeit oder Kriegstüchtigkeit müssen die Bürger in einem Alter bis 35 Jahre entscheiden, denn sie verbluten auf den künftigen Schlachtfeldern und sind meistens nicht in diesem Parlament vertreten. Einer europäischen Rüstungsindustrie stimme ich zu, wenn diese sich in gesellschaftlichem Eigentum befindet und sich einer Kontrolle dieser unterzieht.

Ich denke, im gegenwärtigen Zustand ist die EU nicht erweiterungsfähig.

  Salvatore De Meo (PPE). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signora Commissaria, l'allargamento dell'Unione oggi è un impegno storico ed un investimento strategico nel futuro del nostro continente. È una scelta di responsabilità verso i paesi che guardano all'Europa come una casa di libertà e democrazia ma, allo stesso tempo, è anche una sfida che impone all'Unione di essere in grado di decidere, di agire e di difendere i propri valori e interessi nel mondo.

È chiaro che un'Unione più grande non può continuare a funzionare con regole pensate per un'Europa a 27: serve un processo decisionale all'altezza delle sfide di oggi, un processo più rapido e più trasparente, capace di rispondere ai cittadini superando quei meccanismi che oggi limitano la nostra azione.

Questa relazione va di pari passo con la risoluzione del Parlamento del novembre 2023, dove è stato detto chiaramente: è tempo di riformare i trattati e di superare quelle regole che, troppo spesso, hanno paralizzato le decisioni europee e privato l'Unione della capacità di reagire alle crisi in tempi rapidi.

Forse è arrivato il momento che anche il Consiglio, purtroppo oggi assente, prenda atto di questa decisione e apra una fase costituente. La stessa Presidente von der Leyen, nel suo discorso sullo stato dell'Unione, ha sottolineato l'urgenza di superare l'unanimità in alcune questioni. Serve un'Unione forte con un Parlamento dotato di piena iniziativa legislativa e con competenze rafforzate nelle politiche strategiche.

L'Europa deve rafforzare la sua autorevolezza e credibilità. C'è bisogno di una sola figura per la Commissione e per il Consiglio, una sola direzione politica. Solo così potremo avere un'unione coerente e determinata. Facciamo dell'allargamento l'occasione per ritrovare il coraggio di riformare i trattati, per un'Europa più coesa e capace di contare davvero sulla scena internazionale.

  Thijs Reuten (S&D). – Mr President, dear colleagues, 15 to 20 years – that's how long some accession countries are in the waiting room. Citizens in and outside the EU become sceptical about our intentions.

We need to restore the credibility of enlargement. It's a geopolitical necessity and it makes our Union stronger. It does not mean abandoning merit-based processes. It means we should invest efforts where it's merited.

We also need to change our paralysis by design. Hence I welcome the proposal of António Costa: interim benchmarks should not require unanimity. Thank you for your strong stance.

Yes, we need reforms. But even without new members, we must adapt to new realities and move towards a more federalist Union, at a minimum on foreign affairs and defence.

Let's not use our flaws as an excuse not to live up to the promise of European unification and building that stronger Union.

  Juan Carlos Girauta Vidal (PfE). – Señor presidente, no nos preocupa tanto la ampliación como los procedimientos de paulatino borrado de la soberanía con que quieren llevarla a cabo.

Primero nos dicen que quieren más Europa. Luego descubrimos que eso significa menos soberanía, menos voz y menos libertad para las naciones. Lo llaman eficiencia, pero en realidad es miedo. Ustedes tienen miedo a los Gobiernos que no aceptan su agenda, miedo a los partidos patriotas que crecen en toda Europa y devuelven el poder a las naciones.

Maquillan este golpe a la independencia de las naciones —única base de soberanía, única base de legitimidad— intentando nuevos foros como el Ágora Europa, una especie de teatro participativo donde los ciudadanos podrán hablar. ¿Cuántos se reunirán? ¿Trescientos millones? ¿Cuatrocientos millones? Parece que se han olvidado de que la verdadera ágora ya existe: se llaman elecciones.

Hay ventajas de la unanimidad que quisiera destacar: con la unanimidad se evita que una mayoría circunstancial imponga su voluntad a todos. Es la última garantía de respeto a nuestra soberanía.

  Γεάδης Γεάδη (ECR). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, δεν είναι απαραίτητες μόνο οι θεσμικές και δημοσιονομικές μεταρρυθμίσεις για τη διεύρυνση, όπως αναφέρει η πρόταση ψηφίσματος. Ζωτικής σημασίας είναι και η ευθυγράμμιση με την Κοινή Εξωτερική Πολιτική και Πολιτική Ασφάλειας της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης. Επίσης, προβληματική και επικίνδυνη είναι και η προσπάθεια για κατάργηση της ομοφωνίας και η μετάβαση στην αρχή της πλειοψηφίας.

Δηλαδή, κυρία Επίτροπε, αν η Τουρκία εξυπηρετεί τα στρατηγικά και οικονομικά συμφέροντα της πλειοψηφίας των ευρωπαϊκών κρατών, επιτρέπεται να συνεχίσει να εργαλειοποιεί το μεταναστευτικό και να εξοπλίζει τρομοκρατικές οργανώσεις όπως το ISIS και η Χαμάς, να απειλεί με πόλεμο την Ελλάδα, τους Κούρδους και το Ισραήλ, να κατέχει παράνομα την Κύπρο και να μη συνεργάζεται για τους αγνοούμενους, να εμποδίζει έργα κοινού ευρωπαϊκού ενδιαφέροντος, όπως κάνει με τον Great Sea Interconnector (GSI) και τον EastMed; Η διεύρυνση δεν είναι δικαιολογία για να θυσιάζουμε τις αρχές, τις αξίες και την ασφάλειά μας. Απέναντι στην Ευρώπη των συμφερόντων ορθώνουμε την Ευρώπη της αλληλεγγύης.

  Dan Barna (Renew). – Domnule președinte, dacă există o misiune fundamentală pentru Uniunea Europeană, aceasta este unificarea continentului nostru. Dar pentru a primi noi membri trebuie mai întâi să ne facem ordine în propria casă, să facem renovare așa cum e necesar în orice casă după niște zeci de ani.

Nu putem construi viitorul Europei cu uneltele trecutului. O uniune extinsă cu peste 30 de state membre pur și simplu nu își poate permite să fie paralizată de dreptul de veto al unui singur guvern, iar procesul de extindere nu poate cere unanimitate la fiecare pas tehnic. Costul lipsei de acțiune este prea mare și prea riscant.

De aceea, prin acest raport pentru care îl felicit pe colegul Sandro Gozi, propunem o cale către o Uniune Europeană mai eficientă, mai democratică și mai puternică, una capabilă să acționeze mai rapid, să vorbească pe o singură voce și să-și capaciteze cetățenii.

Extinderea necesită reformă din partea statelor candidate precum Moldova, Ucraina sau statele din Balcanii de Vest, dar și din partea noastră. Prin reformarea instituțiilor și procedurilor Uniunii ne pregătim pentru provocările și oportunitățile secolului XXI.

  Tineke Strik (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, thank you, Commissioner, for being here. The foundation of our common project is the shared commitment to values, democracy and the rule of law. The requirements to become an EU Member State are high; we are asking candidate countries to implement significant changes, and rightfully so.

But we have to do our homework ourselves as well. We cannot allow enlargement to be obstructed by individual Member States just because of bilateral conflicts or interests. So it is crucial to remove national vetoes of all the internal steps towards enlargement, as Council President Costa also proposed. But we should also actively support candidate countries during the accession process by supporting their reform agenda on government level, but also by stepping up our support to civil society, free media and other actors promoting the enlargement agenda, sometimes against the atmosphere that is in their countries. So we should reward those countries meeting demands and punish those backsliding. If we are serious about renewed commitment to enlargement, please let us show it.

  Εμμανουήλ Κεφαλογιάννης (PPE). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, κυρίες και κύριοι συνάδελφοι, η κατάργηση της ομοφωνίας δεν μπορεί να υιοθετηθεί σε δύο περιπτώσεις: στην αναθεώρηση των Συνθηκών και στην εισδοχή νέων μελών. Για τη χώρα μου, την Ελλάδα, όσο η Τουρκία εξακολουθεί να έχει στο τραπέζι το casus belli, δηλαδή την απειλή πολέμου εναντίον της Ελλάδος, όσο η Τουρκία εξακολουθεί να αμφισβητεί τα κυριαρχικά δικαιώματα της Ελλάδος και την κυριαρχία των ελληνικών νησιών μέσω της θεωρίας των γκρίζων ζωνών στο Αιγαίο, η Ελλάδα δεν πρόκειται να συναινέσει για να ενταχθεί η Τουρκία στο πρόγραμμα SAFE για την ευρωπαϊκή άμυνα. Όσο η Τουρκία κατέχει το 40% της Κυπριακής Δημοκρατίας, μιας χώρας πλήρους μέλους της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, όσο η Τουρκία παραβιάζει το διεθνές δίκαιο και τη Σύμβαση των Ηνωμένων Εθνών για το Δίκαιο της Θάλασσας με το ψευδοτουρκολιβυκό μνημόνιο, η Ελλάδα δεν πρόκειται να αποδεχθεί την κατάργηση του βέτο για την εισδοχή νέων μελών και την αναθεώρηση των συνθηκών.

  Vasile Dîncu (S&D). – Domnule președinte, stimați colegi, raportul dlui Sandro Gozi este un exemplu de proiect rațional și curajos în același timp. Uniunea Europeană cu adevărat se află în fața unui moment decisiv. Extinderea a fost privită ca o promisiune politică, dar este un test al capacității noastre instituționale. Dacă vrem o Uniune mai mare, trebuie o Uniune mai eficientă.

Raportul nostru arată clar: fără reforme, extinderea riscă să blocheze mecanismele decizionale și să slăbească încrederea cetățenilor. Trebuie să ajustăm votul în Consiliu, să consolidăm rolul Parlamentului și să pregătim o Comisie adaptată unei Uniuni de peste 30 de state.

O Uniune extinsă trebuie să rămână capabilă să decidă rapid, să protejeze valorile democratice și să acționeze unitar pe scena globală. Extinderea și reforma trebuie să meargă împreună. Numai așa vom avea o Europă mai puternică și mai credibilă.

  Ondřej Knotek (PfE). – Pane předsedající, to je šílenost, co předvádíte. Opět chcete oslabit členské státy a posílit Brusel. Podmiňovat přijetí například balkánských států zrušením práva veta je čistá zoufalost. Zrušit právo veta totiž znamená odevzdat se většině a často také bruselským technokratům často zcela mimo realitu. A já věřím spolu s Patrioty, že kdyby bylo v minulosti více práva veta, tak bychom dnes v Evropské unii chodili po bezpečnějších ulicích, v některých státech by neprobíhala plíživá islamizace Evropy, evropský průmysl by nestagnoval a nehrozila by tady například cenzura na sociálních sítích. Takže vám něco povím, ať si to všichni zapamatují. Hnutí ANO a Patrioti pro Evropu nikdy nepodpoří zrušení práva veta.

  Adrian-George Axinia (ECR). – Domnule președinte, raportul Gozi ar trebui predat la cursurile de logică din întreaga Europă. Este exemplul perfect de premise corecte și concluzii halucinante, care nu au cum să decurgă din asumpțiile inițiale.

În loc să discute despre cum să facem să ajutăm statele candidate să îndeplinească mai repede condițiile pentru aderarea la UE, raportul recomandă niște aberații, ca de exemplu eliminarea veto-urilor statelor membre, ceea ce echivalează cu dorința unui sistem autocratic. O a doua aberație: să-i dăm Ursulei von der Leyen libertate totală să se ocupe de achiziția de tehnică militară, probabil pe același sistem cum s-a ocupat și de vaccinuri și, nu în ultimul rând, să stabilească majoritatea din Parlamentul European cum arată regulile electorale din statele membre, eventual să interzică și partide.

Eu, ca europarlamentar român, susțin extinderea Uniunii Europene. Sunt state care au început acest proces, au făcut reforme și sacrificii și merită să fie alături de noi. Nu sunt de acord să existe cuplaje, așa cum se întâmplă cu Ucraina și Republica Moldova. Cred că fiecare stat trebuie evaluat individual, abordarea fiind mai eficientă decât una pe valuri. Asta cred că ar ajuta Republica Moldova, care este pregătită și dornică.

IN THE CHAIR: JAVI LÓPEZ
Vice-President

  Илхан Кючюк (Renew). – Г-н Председател, г-жо Кос, в свят, в който определено липсват идеи за бъдещето, този доклад идва в правилния момент, защото докладът на г-н Гоци дава отговор на много сложния въпрос – как да направим и двете: и да се разшири Европейският съюз – нещо, от което имаме необходимост, и в същото време да направим необходимите реформи, за да може Европейският съюз да отговаря на очакванията на собствените си граждани не в 20‑ти век, а в 21‑ви век.

Предстоят много важни дебати за бъдещето на общата селскостопанска политика и за многогодишната финансова рамка. Не е възможно в рамките на този политически инструментариум, с който разполагаме, ние да се разширим и в същото време да бъдем адекватни на тези политики, които трябва безспорно да се реформират.

Така че приветствам идеите за по-ефективен Съюз, за един Съюз, който работи по-бързо, за един Съюз, който е по-силен, и за един Съюз, който е отговорен пред собствените си граждани.

Време е за сериозни реформи, но е време и за разширяване. Европейският съюз трябва да покаже политически ръст, че е готов да бъде на висотата на тези очаквания.

  Željana Zovko (PPE). – Dear President, Madam Commissioner, Russian aggression against Ukraine, as well as the end of the wars in the western Balkans, has made us aware that the only true tool for bringing peace and security to the borders of the European Union is the enlargement process.

The western Balkan countries have been dragged through the labyrinth of bureaucratic procedures of the European Union and the philosophy of whether we can accept more countries in our EU family or whether we must first change the rules of decision making. So this report goes along this line as well, dear Mr Gozi, although I really appreciate your role in bringing Croatia to the table as well at a time when no one wanted to discuss these issue. But it's not the time to discuss treaty changes.

Countries that have rejected the hegemonic approach of the big brothers in the unions of the past, those who escaped Russian hegemony in the Soviet Union, or Serbian dominance in former Yugoslavia, will never accept being placed in an unequal position in the decision-making process of further enlargement. That's the philosophy of further enlargement – we all have to be equal. The countries that are entering this Union are entering under the condition that they will be equal. So it's not about mercy, it's about the honesty to admit whether or not we want the further enlargement process.

  Brando Benifei (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, l'allargamento dell'Unione europea è una precisa scelta politica.

Oggi i processi di adesione hanno ripreso slancio ma se vogliamo accogliere nuovi membri non possiamo solamente aggiungere delle sedie al tavolo: prima di allargarsi, l'Unione ha bisogno di riforme istituzionali profonde per un processo decisionale più efficace, semplificato e mirato. Bisogna andare di pari passo.

Anche il rapporto Draghi, spesso evocato in queste aule, lo dice chiaramente: serve modificare i trattati per superare il vincolo dell'unanimità. E se non si può farlo subito, usiamo strumenti che già abbiamo, come le clausole passerella e le cooperazioni rafforzate. Ma dico di più: chi è pronto a fare di più insieme, lo faccia, senza paura di un'integrazione differenziata.

Serve un lavoro serio, perché ogni nuovo ingresso non diluisca l'unità dell'Europa ma la renda più unita, più forte, più vicina ai suoi cittadini. Possiamo farcela, lavorando insieme con impegno e determinazione.

  António Tânger Corrêa (PfE). – Senhor Presidente, Senhora Comissária, nós somos a favor do alargamento, obviamente, principalmente naquilo que se relaciona com os países dos Balcãs Ocidentais, porque há um buraco negro, que está ali no meio da Europa, que é fundamental preencher.

No entanto, o alargamento não deve ser um pretexto para destruir a unanimidade, esmagar os países pequenos ou diluir a soberania.

E, já agora, queria dizer‑vos: cuidado com as declarações do Sr. António Costa, porque ele destruiu Portugal e eventualmente poderá vir a destruir a União Europeia também.

Neste caso, concretamente, nós afirmamos sempre a precedência dos Estados sobre Bruxelas. E mais, não são as instituições que estão desatualizadas, é a burocracia que complica a vida das instituições em Bruxelas. São os burocratas a mais, a burocracia a mais, e não a parte política, que prejudicam as instituições europeias. É a máquina burocrática, esse monstro que foi criado ao longo dos anos.

  Ondřej Krutílek (ECR). – Pane předsedající, paní komisařko, rozšíření není jenom náš vnitřní problém, ale má i geopolitický rozměr. Aktuálně se mluví o Ukrajině, o Moldavsku, ale v čekárně je již docela dlouho i západní Balkán. Pokud nyní zabředneme do nekonečných debat o tom, co bychom měli v EU udělat a vnitřně změnit, tak nám uteče to, co je podstatné. Vzpomeňme si na roky debat o evropské ústavě, o Lisabonské smlouvě. Úplně jsme prohospodařili nějakých šest let. Mezitím země, které mají o přistoupení zájem, mohou ten zájem ztratit. A zároveň se i Evropská unie může sesypat zevnitř, protože pokud budeme ve federalizaci příliš tlačit na pilu, tak některé státy budou chtít ven tak, jak se to stalo v případě Velké Británie. A to je myslím scénář, který si nikdo z nás nepřeje.

  Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis (S&D). – Gerbiamas posėdžio pirmininke, gerbiama komisare, gerbiamas pranešėjau. Ačiū, puikus raportas. Savalaikis. Mes vėluojame – jau praeitais metais reikėjo pradėti diskusijas apie tai, kaip turim paruošti Europos Sąjungos institucijas ir valstybes nares plėtrai ir tuo pačiu pagerinti... (posėdžio pirmininkas nutraukė kalbėtoją) Aš norėjau dar kartą padėkoti pranešėjui ir Komisijai, Komisiją paraginti, kad mes kuo greičiau pradėtume plačias diskusijas apie būtinybę keisti sutartis, apie būtinybę pereiti nuo vienbalsiškumo daugelyje sričių prie kvalifikuotos balsų daugumos. Yra išimčių, kurios neabejotinai gali likti, bet šiaip pagrindinė taisyklė būtų perėjimas prie kvalifikuotos balsų daugumos, gali būti ir prie super kvalifikuotos – čia diskusijų reikalas. Be galo svarbu atstatyti stebėtojų statusą šalims kandidatėms, ypač Ukrainai. Ukraina jau dabar gali mums padėti tiek gynybos, tiek transporto, tiek energetikos srityje ir būti stebėtoja, gauti stebėtojos statusą. Būtina peržiūrėti tą vieno procento BVP lubų principą. Jis pasenęs, neatlaiko kritikos. Būtina turėti savo nuosavus Europos Sąjungos išteklius ir autonomišką Europos Sąjungos biudžetą. Plėtra yra mūsų pagrindinis dalykas taikai, saugumui ir ekonominiam bei pilietinių teisių išplėtimui.

  Csaba Dömötör (PfE). – Elnök Úr! Végre itt van egy vita, amelyen a bővítés következményeiről eshet szó. Azért kell ezt megbecsülnünk, mert az elmúlt hónapokban az Európai Bizottság úgy haladt előre turbó tempóban az ukrán bővítéssel, hogy az alapvető kérdésekre sem adtak választ. Például: hogyan érinti az EU biztonságát az, hogy egy háborúban álló országgal bővülne? Vagy hogyan kellene átalakítani vajon a támogatási rendszereket? Miért kell 20%-kal csökkenteni az agrártámogatásokat, hogy azt a bővítési és a háborús politikára költsék?

Vagy például abba bele se megyek, hogy a biztos asszony szerint teljesen rendben vannak a kisebbségi jogok Ukrajnában, miközben ennek az ellenkezője igaz, a nyelvhasználati jogokat korlátozzák. Most ezekre a kérdésekre nincsen válasz, és társadalmi egyeztetés sincs. Ehelyett mi van? Az, hogy ki akarják iktatni a kétkedő hangokat, át akarják írni az egyhangú döntéshozatalt, hogy ne kelljen figyelembe venni azokat az országokat, amelyeknek fenntartásaik vannak. Ez a jogállamiság és minden olyan demokratikus érték arculcsapása, amelyre itt, ebben a házban mindig hivatkoznak. Önök a tűzzel játszanak!

  Rihards Kols (ECR). – Mr President, dear colleagues, imagine being Moldovan: reforming, resisting Russian pressure and watching the door to the EU stay shut. Or being Ukrainian: bleeding on the battlefield for European values while the Union debates 'absorption capacity'.

Many in this Chamber do not remember what EU accession actually means. I do. I remember Latvia's path clearly – it was demanding. We reformed, we adapted, we compromised, because there was a goal within reach. And because it was credible, it was empowering. We believed in Europe because Europe honoured its word.

That is what is now at stake, not just institutional capacity, but the very credibility of the Union's work. A candidate country can do everything right and still be blocked, not because of its failures, but because of ours. If institutional reform is needed, then do it – not to delay enlargement, but to enable it. Reforms should serve enlargement, not the other way around. Enlargement isn't about sending a message, it's about shaping reality.

  Kristian Vigenin (S&D). – Mr President, Commissioner, colleagues, this report reminds us that Europe has both the responsibility and the capacity to continue its enlargement with those partners who have already met the criteria.

Enlargement and institutional reform must advance together – not as competing goals, but as mutually reinforcing processes. The prospect of EU membership remains one of the strongest engines for transformation, stability and reconciliation across our continent.

Completing the Union towards the south-eastern and eastern edges is therefore not only a matter of geography, but of fulfilling the European project's promise of unity and stability.

Our Union's institutions are already capable of welcoming the enlargement frontrunners, provided we continue to strengthen their efficiency, transparency and legitimacy.

The ongoing reflection on institutional reform is not a precondition to enlargement, but a necessary preparation, ensuring that, when new members join, our decision-making remains effective and our values intact.

Europe's strength lies in its ability to adapt without hesitation and expand without division. Let us therefore move forward with confidence.

  Alexandre Varaut (PfE). – Monsieur le Président, il est très fréquent, au sein de l'Union européenne, de voter des rapports dont le titre est séduisant, mais dont le contenu l'est moins. Aujourd'hui, nous débattons des changements que provoquerait, dans le fonctionnement des institutions, l'entrée de nouveaux pays dans l'Union européenne.

Le Rassemblement national s'oppose à l'élargissement systématique. Il s'y oppose d'autant plus que les dix pays candidats souffrent d'importantes carences de développement économique, de culture démocratique et de stabilité politique. Le rapport, d'ailleurs, en fait lui-même l'aveu. Cependant, nous pouvions, à titre d'hypothèse, chercher à imaginer quelles seraient les conséquences de l'adhésion de ces pays sur le fonctionnement de l'Union.

Ce n'est malheureusement pas ce que fait ce rapport, qui considère l'adhésion de ces pays comme une certitude et qui se consacre, dès lors, pour l'essentiel, à identifier comment l'Union européenne peut en tirer prétexte pour accaparer toute une série de nouvelles compétences. Tout y passe: l'Europe de la défense, fin de l'unanimité des États au Conseil, ressources propres européennes, c'est-à-dire impôt européen, et bien sûr révision des traités vers encore plus de fédéralisme, presque dans le meilleur des cas, et pourquoi pas un État unique?

L'élargissement n'est ici que le cheval de Troie de l'autoritarisme européen. Nous espérions que les leçons des élections européennes de 2024 auraient été tirées. Il semble que l'Union européenne veuille rester aveugle, ne pas entendre la rupture voulue par les peuples. Le Rassemblement national, désormais plébiscité, portera leur voix.

(L'orateur accepte une question carton bleu)

  Matej Tonin (PPE), vprašanje, postavljeno z dvigom modrega kartončka. – Gospod predsednik!

Pred enaindvajsetimi leti se je zgodila velika širitev, katere del je bila tudi Slovenija. In lansko leto so bili narejeni izračuni, kdo je najbolj pridobil s širitvijo Evropske unije, upoštevaje vse obstoječe stare članice, pa tudi tiste nove. In Francija je bila med tremi tistimi državami, ki je s širitvijo najbolj pridobila. Torej, zanima me, zakaj vi nasprotujete nečemu, kar je za Francijo dobro, ker ji prinaša ogromno ekonomskih benefitov.

  Alexandre Varaut (PfE), réponse carton bleu. – Cher collègue, peut-être n'avons-nous pas la même opinion de ce qui est bon pour la France. Et peut-être suis-je mieux placé que vous pour juger de mon pays.

La France est un contributeur net important de l'Union européenne. Nous y mettons beaucoup plus d'argent que nous en recevons. Si nous faisons rentrer de nouveaux pays, il est évident que cela va être encore plus important. Et si par malheur on y faisait rentrer encore l'Ukraine, alors ça serait la dernière manière de piétiner le cadavre de l'agriculture française. Vous savez que nous sommes très attachés à notre agriculture. La PAC est déjà en recul. Avec l'entrée de l'Ukraine, ça serait vraiment la fin de nos agriculteurs. Voilà, donc nous sommes sceptiques.

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Sunčana Glavak (PPE). – Poštovani predsjedavajući, poštovana povjerenice, kolegice i kolege, proširenje Europske unije nije tek administrativni proces niti skup tehničkih poglavlja, to je politički čin, izraz naše vizije i naše odgovornosti, ali i odgovornosti država članica koje bi željele pristupiti Europskoj uniji.

U vremenu kada se granice u Europi ponovno crtaju, kada autokracije propituju njezine vrijednosti, proširenje je odgovor, a ne rizik, ali to može biti uspjeh samo ako Unija ostaje vjerodostojna i sposobna odlučivati, uz poštivanje načela ravnopravnosti. U isto vrijeme moramo čuvati ono što Europu čini jedinstvenom, ravnotežu između velikih i malih članica, novih i starih članica. Naša poruka mora biti jasna: proširenje da, reforme da, ali Europa ravnopravnih članica mora ostati srce Unije. Moramo biti sposobni reagirati brzo, to je točno, ali brzina ne smije zamijeniti odgovornost.

Postoje mehanizmi koji omogućuju napredak bez gubitka ravnoteže: premošćujuće klauzule, strukturirane suradnje i konstruktivna suzdržanost. Ne ukidanje prava veta.

  Sebastian Tynkkynen (ECR). – Mr President, Russian troops have been halted on Ukrainian soil. They have not stopped because they were following orders from Putin. They have stopped because brave Ukrainian soldiers – with the support of the West – have forced them to stop. If he had his way, Putin would continue his march all the way through Ukraine.

Behind Ukraine lies Moldova – Putin's next target. Russia is already conducting aggressive propaganda and other forms of interference in Moldova. Does this sound familiar? Ukraine faced the same onslaught before Russian tanks rolled in. Why? Because Putin wants a more Russian Europe.

We can prevent this by supporting countries like Moldova on their European path. I want to see a more European Europe – Europe without Russian propaganda, without Russian interference and without Russian tanks.

  Michał Kobosko (Renew). – Panie Przewodniczący! Chcę serdecznie podziękować panu Sandro Goziemu za świetnie wykonaną pracę przy tym sprawozdaniu. Pragnę również zwrócić uwagę na jeden z argumentów, który podnosi to sprawozdanie − to, że po napaści Rosji na Ukrainę powinniśmy przyspieszyć prace nad rozszerzeniem Unii Europejskiej i że w Europie jest coraz mniej miejsca na szarą strefę. Europa jest coraz bardziej czarno-biała. Musimy na to zwrócić uwagę.

Chcę podziękować pani komisarz Kos za jej ciężką pracę, determinację i kreatywność w tym procesie, byśmy jak najszybciej przeszli od słów do czynów, jeśli chodzi o faktyczne rozszerzenie Unii. Chcę wykorzystać obecność pani komisarz, żeby poprosić ją o komentarz do doniesień medialnych o tym, że Komisja Europejska miałaby rozpatrywać taki scenariusz, w którym zostanie ograniczone prawo głosu nowych krajów członkowskich przystępujących do Unii Europejskiej. Czy jest rzeczywiście taki scenariusz i czy trzeba to traktować jako alternatywę wobec zmiany traktatów europejskich?

  Karlo Ressler (PPE). – Poštovani predsjedavajući, povjerenice Kos, kolegice i kolege, proširenje je strateški prioritet Europske unije i traži prilagodbe, prije svega kandidatkinja, a do neke mjere i Europske unije.

Međutim, samo manji dio strateških ključnih državnih odluka donosi se jednoglasnošću na europskoj razini. Da, to nije uvijek jednostavno, da, neki to, nažalost, i brutalno zlorabe, ali naivni su argumenti i iluzije da bi preglasavanje drugih, manjih i srednje velikih država članica donijelo više jedinstva. Upravo suprotno. Mislim da je poprilično jasno predvidjeti da bi to dovelo do još većeg gubitka povjerenja među državama članicama, a onda i problema u provedbi, za sve, cijelu Europsku uniju.

Zbog toga vjerujemo u Europu u kojoj se ključne strateške odluke grade, a ne nameću, u Europu u kojoj se gradi povjerenje između država članica, u kojoj će postojati i još veća učinkovitost jer je moguće poboljšati način donošenja odluka, ali isto tako gdje će prava svih država članica biti zaštićena.

  Liudas Mažylis (PPE). – Dėkoju, pirmininke, komisare, kolegos. Yra valstybių, kurios šiandien ne prašo malonės, o demonstruoja ryžtą ir pasirengimą jungtis prie mūsų Bendrijos. Jos juda pirmyn, nes tiki Europa, kurioje plėtra grindžiama nuopelnais ir aiškiais rezultatais. Juk jau seniai reikėjo pasiųsti žinią, kad plėtra nėra įšaldytas procesas, o gyvas politinis įsipareigojimas. Laikas keisti naratyvą ir nuo kalbų apie „neplėtrą“ pereiti prie derybinių klasterių ir įrodyti, kad plėtra iš tikrųjų vyksta. Štai Moldova eilinį kartą įveikė nuožmią rusišką propagandą. Ar 2029-aisiais vėl sakysime jiems – „atlaikykite dar vienerius egzistencinius rinkimus“? Ir Moldova nėra vienintelė, visiškai pribrendusi pilnai narystei. Europos projekto tęsinys neįmanomas be geografinės plėtros de facto. Užsibrėžkime konkretų plėtros tikslą ir siekime jo.

  Michał Szczerba (PPE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Polityka rozszerzenia to niezwykle ważne narzędzie konsolidacji, promowania pokoju, ale również praworządności. Bałkany Zachodnie, Mołdawia, Ukraina chcą potwierdzenia naszych deklaracji w czynach. Zróbmy ten pierwszy krok. Czarnogóra jest gotowa. To będzie sygnał, że rozszerzenie jest żywym procesem, a instytucje europejskie są na nie gotowe.

Rozszerzenie ma też wymiar bezpieczeństwa. Ukraina jest kandydatem, który realnie włącza się we wspólne projekty obronne. Ukraina będzie w instrumencie SAFE, ale również będzie w instrumencie EDIP. Wczoraj komisje Parlamentu zatwierdziły wynik negocjacji wraz ze specjalnym instrumentem wsparcia dla Ukrainy.

Osobnej debaty wymagają strategiczne partnerstwa Unii Europejskiej. Już niedługo będzie ku temu okazja. Mój raport dla Komisji Bezpieczeństwa i Obrony jest gotowy. 5 listopada odbędzie się wysłuchanie publiczne w tej sprawie. Czas na odważne decyzje.

  Tomislav Sokol (PPE). – Poštovani predsjedavajući, proširenje godinama nije bilo prioritet Europske unije.

Zbog takvog stava dopustili smo da strane sile povećaju svoj utjecaj na području jugoistočne Europe, primarno zahvaljujući dvoličnoj, destabilizirajućoj politici Vučićeve Srbije. Zbog rata u Ukrajini proširenje je ponovno postalo bitno i zato sada o njemu raspravljamo ovdje. U svakom slučaju, svaku državu mora se ocjenjivati individualno i prema zaslugama. Nema ulaska u Europsku uniju preko reda. Što se same Unije tiče, bilo kakvo ukidanje prava veta država članica u donošenju odluka u procesu proširenja apsolutno ne dolazi u obzir. Primanje novih članica strateško je pitanje o kojemu mora postojati konsenzus i nepojmljivo je da se o tome odlučuje glasanjem većine. Budući da će na kraju procesa svakako biti potrebna jednoglasnost, nasilno otvaranje i zatvaranje pregovaračkih poglavlja preglasavanjem protiv volje pojedinih država članica nikako nema smisla.

Male zemlje poput Hrvatske neće dopustiti da ih se zbog nečijih viših geopolitičkih interesa natjera da prihvate u EU zemlje poput Srbije koje ne ispunjavaju minimalne uvjete da budu dio europske obitelji.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – A Uachtaráin, I've always been in favour of enlargement. I think when you join a club, you shouldn't close the door behind you, lock it and keep everyone else out. My country has benefited hugely from joining the European Union way back in 1973.

Then, of course, we had Brexit. I always felt that the best answer to Brexit is enlargement, and there are many countries that want to join the European Union rather than leave it. But joining also has responsibilities, and I think that is one of the key aspects that we need to emphasise – learning from the obnoxious behaviour of Viktor Orbán in Hungary, utilising the benefits of the European Union, then making himself popular at home by criticising everything the European Union does and voting against anything the European Union wants.

So Ursula von der Leyen is right when she says we need to shake off the shackles of unanimity. This is something we should do on a gradual basis – not in everything, because there will be some areas that will be very sensitive for Member States, but certainly you cannot have a situation where Orbán has abused the situation. So we need to look at that.

  Matej Tonin (PPE). – Gospod predsednik! Kakšne so posledice širitve za obstoječe članice in za nove? Pozitivne v vsakem primeru in je resnično neverjetno, koliko časa se porabi za razpravo o tem, kakšne bodo posledice. Vsekakor pozitivne.

Nove članice dobijo seveda dodatna sredstva, ker lahko okrepijo svoj razvoj, ampak obstoječe članice pa dobijo predvsem nove trge, kjer lahko prodajajo svoje odlične proizvode. In ekonomske analize so pokazale, da po širitvi leta 2004, ko se je Evropski uniji pridružilo deset novih članic, so v neto izplenu največ pridobile obstoječe starejše članice.

Tako da argumenti francoskega poslanca, kako je Francija neto plačnica in da je to slabo za Francijo, enostavno ne zdržijo, ker zaradi širitve je Francija in vse starejše članice predvsem pridobila. Pridobila več kot vse nove članice. Širitev je pozitivna.

(End of catch-the-eye procedure)

  Marta Kos, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, dear Members of the European Parliament, thank you for all your contributions. I have taken good note of your remarks.

Looking ahead, it is really important to keep in mind that a lot of work is still to come. Yes, we should enlarge, but we should also reform. Difficult discussions will take place and they are likely to drag on for a long time. But, we must not lose sight of our main goal. As Mr Gozi's report states, EU enlargement is a long-term geostrategic investment which will benefit all of our citizens. In President Von der Leyen's words, 'only a united – and a reunited – Europe can be an independent Europe', but this Europe should be stronger and also more effective.

Once we give a candidate country the status of candidate, it is our responsibility to help them on the way. It is also about our credibility: that once they come to the end, we will be able to take them in. I have heard from two or three of you saying that enlargement for many candidate countries is hope. Indeed, hope is very important, but it's not enough. But it can play a decisive role as a motivator when the countries have to do the reforms, and this takes time – it's not happening from today to tomorrow.

I have heard that we are following the geopolitical needs. No, we are not. If we would have done this, then we would take all the candidate countries into the European Union tomorrow. But we are not doing this. It is on a merit-based principle, meaning that we have clear criteria and sometimes we demand more from our candidate countries than we demand from the Member States.

After the adoption of the upcoming communication, the Commission will continue to engage with this Parliament and the Council and closely follow all developments. I will continue, dear Sandro, to be online with you to discuss this very important topic.

When I say that it is a merit-based principle: among the candidate countries, sometimes, when we are in a good mood, we say that only the merit-based principle can lead us to a marriage-based unity at the end.

To the question of dear Michał Kobosko: the Commission is aware of the informal suggestions for the voting rights for new Member States from some countries, but we haven't discussed this yet at all in the Commission.

My wish for all of us is that we go on with the enlargement process as a very important – or the most successful – foreign policy, as well as that we also follow and really, really keep our European Union strong for the future. There are many, many challenges, and we will only be able to answer those challenges if we really stick to the principles and if we stay united. For me, this is one of the most important issues we should follow in all the debates which are in front of us.

Thank you, Sandro, for your contribution. Thank you all for all the contributions.

  Sandro Gozi, rapporteur. – Mr President, Commissioner Kos, thank you, and thank you all, because I think that this debate made things very clear. I mean, there is the extreme right which is against everything: 'We don't need to reform because we are against enlargement'. It's fine, it's not madness, but at least it's a clear position.

Then there are those who haven't read the report properly, because I heard that there are Greek delegations and delegations from Cyprus, from different groups, who say, 'We cannot accept that we lose the unanimity vote to decide whether Türkiye should become a member or not'. You don't lose it – you don't lose it. Because what we say in the report is that to start the negotiation, to assess the country and to decide whether a country must become a member, we keep unanimity. I would like to emphasise this again for the Cypriot and Greek delegation of different groups, and also for our Croat friends: you don't want Serbia in the European Union, you can keep unanimity, but during the enlargement process, we cannot be exposed to 150 vetoes on technical or sectoral issues.

We want to accelerate, that is the first point that I wanted to explain, the second is that it is clear, several colleagues said, it is a question of credibility. Colleagues, if we want to unify the continent, we must reform the Union, because we perfectly know, if we are in good faith, that without reforming the Union, without using the flexibility in the Treaty, without some targeted Treaty reform on the rule of law, for example, the Union is already hampered today and it will not work with the enlargement. So either we are lying to the Ukrainians, we are lying to the Western Balkans and we say, 'Of course we want you in the European family,' but in the meantime we don't prepare the house, so it is a lie, or we are serious about enlargement.

If we are serious about enlargement, we must do our homework as we ask the candidate country to do their homework. Because the consequence – last point, Mr President – is exactly what Michał Kobosko raised. There are Member States that, instead of tackling the issue of reform, they say, we create two leagues: league one, the current Member States, and league two, the second league. So the new members will not have voting rights until when? Until we have done what we have to do today.

We have to prepare the Union to become more efficient, to become more powerful and to become more democratic. And we must do it because we owed it to our citizens, and we must do it because also we must be serious and credible when we say that we want to unify the continent.

And to the colleague of the extreme right, I would like to recall that the European project, since the very beginning, was meant to unify the continent. Only at the beginning there was the Berlin Wall, there was a dictatorship in Spain and Portugal, and this is why we started with six Member States. But since the very beginning, it was a project for all the citizens of our continent, and we must make it happen.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow, 22 October 2025.