- há 5 minutos
Debate sobre o discurso de Ursula von der Leyen em The Ring
Após o discurso de Ursula von der Leyen, segue-se o debate: Li Andersson e Lukas Mandl desmontam as palavras da presidente da Comissão Europeia numa edição especial de The Ring
LEIA MAIS : http://pt.euronews.com/2026/09/22/debate-sobre-o-discurso-de-ursula-von-der-leyen-em-the-ring
Subscreva, euronews está disponível em 12 línguas.
Após o discurso de Ursula von der Leyen, segue-se o debate: Li Andersson e Lukas Mandl desmontam as palavras da presidente da Comissão Europeia numa edição especial de The Ring
LEIA MAIS : http://pt.euronews.com/2026/09/22/debate-sobre-o-discurso-de-ursula-von-der-leyen-em-the-ring
Subscreva, euronews está disponível em 12 línguas.
Categoria
🗞
NotíciasTranscrição
00:08Olá e bem-vindo ao The Ring, Euronews's weekly debate show,
00:12broadcasting live from the European Parliament in Strasbourg.
00:16Eu estou Stefan Grobe.
00:17No The Ring, debaters go face-to-face
00:19sobre alguns dos maiores politicos que enfrentam a União Europeia.
00:23E hoje, nós queremos deconstruir a Dose-la-Von-de-Lein
00:27State of the European Union address,
00:29one of the biggest events on the EU's annual political calendar.
00:33Let's take a look at Europe's challenges
00:36and the EU Commission President's answers.
00:41Europe is facing a world of war,
00:43geopolitical rivalry and economic pressure.
00:46And the European Commission Chief Ursula von der Leyen
00:49has set out her answer.
00:51A stronger, more independent Europe
00:53that can stand on its own feet.
00:55From Ukraine and European defence
00:57to migration, China, AI
01:00and the future of Europe's economy,
01:02her State of the Union address
01:03has laid out an ambitious agenda
01:05that also includes making Canada
01:07an associate EU member.
01:09But how much of this can actually be delivered?
01:12And what will it be for Europe's citizens?
01:15What is von der Leyen's vision for the continent?
01:17Her biggest promises
01:18and the political battles that lie ahead.
01:23A lot to unpack here for our contenders.
01:27And here they are.
01:28Lee Andersen, a Finnish MEP from the Left Group.
01:32The former Finnish Minister of Education,
01:34she is a member of the Delegation for Relations with the United States
01:38and chairs the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs
01:41in the European Parliament.
01:43She says,
01:43While von der Leyen is worried over climate heating,
01:46the Commission is deliberately slowing the pace in cutting emissions.
01:50The EU is moving in the wrong direction regarding its climate policies
01:54and we cannot only focus on adaptation.
01:56The number one concern of Europeans at the moment
01:59is the cost of living crisis.
02:01We need more ambition to tackle higher rents,
02:04energy costs and strengthen working conditions.
02:07Lukas Mandel, an Austrian MEP from the European People's Party.
02:11In the European Parliament,
02:13he sits in the Committees on Development,
02:15Legal Affairs and Civil Liberties,
02:18Justice and Home Affairs.
02:20Regarding the political direction of Ursula von der Leyen's Commission,
02:23he says,
02:24Leadership means doing the right things.
02:27Management means doing things right.
02:29The President is slowly closing the gap towards leadership.
02:35So, let me welcome to the ring Lee Anderson and Lukas Mandel.
02:39Great to have you here.
02:41Thanks for coming.
02:42Now, the aim of the ring is to offer our viewers
02:45a glimpse at European Parliament debates,
02:47so you should feel right at home.
02:50Are you ready?
02:51Yes.
02:52Ready when you are.
02:53All right.
02:54Now, I like this.
02:55Was this, the speech by Ursula von der Leyen,
02:58a vision for Europe or a shopping list of promises?
03:03Lee, I want to start with you.
03:05I think this was more of a shopping list, actually.
03:07I don't agree with Ursula von der Leyen on all her policies,
03:10but I think she has had stronger speeches than this one.
03:13So, I did not really see or hear the big vision for Europe.
03:17I think she went through a lot of initiatives.
03:19Many of them were actually not new.
03:21I would say that the biggest surprises
03:23was in the area of defense cooperation,
03:26the Article 4 for the European Union,
03:28and, of course, also this new initiative for Canada.
03:30But otherwise, I also missed more on the climate ambition
03:34and the cost of living crisis.
03:35Okay.
03:35Lucas, was this a great speech, or did she play it safe?
03:38Your question was whether it was visionary.
03:40I think I always advocated for more vision, more leadership.
03:44There is still room for improvement,
03:46but different to Lee Anderson,
03:49I think there were weaker speeches in the past than this one.
03:51So, this speech was an improvement, as I said,
03:54from management, which was always good with Ursula von der Leyen,
03:56a good manager, towards leadership,
03:58which is actually expected from a commission's president.
04:01What, above all, should Europeans remember
04:04of this speech in the future?
04:07I think this speech will be remembered
04:10by the fact that we had the Prime Minister of Canada
04:13in the room listening,
04:15and she did not once mention the US
04:17during the entire speech.
04:18So, I think, in a way, it was a signal
04:20of how Europe is trying to position itself
04:22in this new geopolitical situation.
04:25And I do also hope that Ursula will take some inspiration
04:28from the Prime Minister of Canada,
04:30because I think Canada, in a way,
04:31has been stronger and more clear
04:33in where they stand,
04:34and also standing against certain policies
04:37and attempts to push down from Donald Trump.
04:41So, Mark Carney was in the room,
04:43Donald Trump was not,
04:44but he might have been the elephant in the room.
04:49She didn't mention him.
04:51Was this because she didn't want to get into this?
04:54She didn't want to provoke him?
04:55I agree with Leanderson that these are two points
04:58that will be remembered.
05:00Mark Carney in the room,
05:01and actually, also the matter of fact
05:04that the US is our strongest ally on the planet still,
05:07even under this US administration,
05:09which causes a lot of struggle,
05:10was not mentioned.
05:11But, positively speaking,
05:12I mean, despite these factors
05:15that are due to the trouble the world is in,
05:17the security dimension,
05:19the economic dimension,
05:20will absolutely remain remembered, I would say.
05:25The Security Council for Europe
05:27is an excellent idea.
05:29When it comes to the economy,
05:30the investment union,
05:31which is extremely urgently needed.
05:34We have seven times smaller growth than the US.
05:37We have 12 times smaller growth than China.
05:40And we have had that for every year,
05:43annually since the pandemic.
05:44You mentioned the economic security.
05:46The economic problems.
05:47And one big thing is,
05:48and I go back to Trump,
05:50is, of course, the tariff situation.
05:52No word on this.
05:54Why?
05:56Well, as I said,
05:57I think it's also her way
05:58of making a very clear standpoint.
06:01The fact that she did not mention the US,
06:03not the tariffs, not anything else.
06:05Talked about her own priorities.
06:06But since Mark Karnin was in the room,
06:09we know that Canada has had a much,
06:11I would say,
06:12like stronger policy
06:13against the US administration
06:14when it comes to defending their own interests
06:16against Trump's tariff threats.
06:19So maybe that was not an issue
06:20she wanted to touch upon for this reason.
06:22She knows that the agreement
06:24between the EU and the Trump administration
06:26got a lot of criticism,
06:27also within the European Parliament,
06:29for not being favorable enough for Europe.
06:32So on the defense and security part,
06:34yes, there were initiatives.
06:35On technology, there was not.
06:37There was not anything in this speech
06:40that would mean, like,
06:41increasing our digital sovereignty
06:42or how she's going to take that project further.
06:45And my biggest criticism is,
06:48even though Ursula rightly mentioned
06:50that we paid 90 billion euros more
06:53for importing the same amount of fossil energy
06:56after the Strait of Hormuz closed,
06:59what her commission is doing at the moment
07:01is actually weakening
07:03the European climate policies,
07:06the emissions trading system,
07:07which are built to ensure
07:09that we get rid of this fossil energy dependency,
07:12which is extremely expensive
07:14for our economies,
07:15for businesses and for customers.
07:17This global political powerhouse,
07:19does Europe have the political will
07:22for this and the money?
07:25Absolutely.
07:25I mean, this is the strength of Europe.
07:27We have the political will more
07:28than any other part of the world
07:29when it comes to the environment,
07:31which we very much care for.
07:32No other part of the world
07:34would be so committed
07:35to tackling the crisis of climate change.
07:39No other part of the world
07:40had to be so committed
07:42to get rid of Russian gas, for example,
07:44after the attack of Putin-Russia
07:46against Ukraine
07:46and with hybrid means and measures
07:48against all of us.
07:49I highly appreciate that
07:50Lee Anderson, my colleague in the left group,
07:53is standing with Ukraine,
07:54not with Russia like others do
07:55with the left group of the European Parliament.
07:57This is absolutely appreciable.
07:59So, and Europe is still economically strong.
08:02We were in decline.
08:03We have slower economy
08:05and smaller growth rates
08:07since the pandemic annually,
08:08as I have mentioned before.
08:09But we still have the chance we can take,
08:12but we only take the chance
08:13if we make investments possible.
08:15And then everything is possible,
08:16including overcoming the energy prices peak,
08:19which is absolutely a problem
08:21for the economy too,
08:22and including tackling
08:23and the environmental problem.
08:25But the problem is,
08:26if you look at the climate policies,
08:29for example,
08:29even though the EU has been
08:31a global leader
08:32when it comes to setting
08:33ambitious climate targets,
08:35when we look at our energy system,
08:37we actually see that
08:38of advanced economies,
08:40Europe is one that imports
08:41actually the most of its energy.
08:43So we have a high energy dependency rate,
08:46especially if you compare it
08:47to China or the US, for example.
08:50And during the last years,
08:52even after we have cut dependency
08:53on Russian fossil fuels,
08:55which is the right thing to do,
08:57we are using more money
08:58to import fossil energy
09:00than what we are using
09:01for clean energy
09:02in the European Union.
09:04And this makes no sense,
09:06as was already said,
09:08no sense from the point of view
09:09of our economies
09:09or from protecting people
09:11against the price shocks,
09:13which we, of course,
09:14also should be one
09:15of our core priorities
09:16in a situation
09:17where a lot of Europeans
09:18are struggling
09:19with the cost of living crisis.
09:21Lucas, your comment.
09:22Europeans are struggling
09:23with the cost of living crisis
09:24and European businesses
09:25are struggling
09:26with the energy prices.
09:27This is why it's not
09:29the wrong thing to do,
09:30it's the right thing to do,
09:31of course,
09:31to do what's necessary
09:33to have the energy
09:33we need today for today,
09:35the energy for tomorrow,
09:36we will need tomorrow.
09:38At the same time,
09:38we have to develop
09:39sustainable energy sources
09:41and decrease our dependencies,
09:44which is absolutely right,
09:45but the one thing
09:46goes together with the other.
09:47We can stop the economy
09:48for a year or two
09:49or even longer
09:50and then restart
09:51because then Europe
09:52will be destroyed.
09:53So we have to do both
09:53at the same time.
09:54All right,
09:54let me stop you right here.
09:57We can go on.
09:59We're just getting warmed up,
10:01as you've seen.
10:01Now it's time for gloves off.
10:08Now, we want viewers
10:09to get a real flavor
10:11of the European Parliament Chamber
10:12where members ask
10:14each other questions.
10:15So let's get started
10:16and, Lukas, you begin.
10:18Lee Andersson,
10:19I already said
10:21I highly appreciate
10:21your stance
10:22when it comes to
10:24defending ourselves
10:25against the Putin-Russian threat.
10:27I have also mentioned
10:28the economy.
10:29So my question is,
10:30do you support
10:31a stronger capital market union,
10:33a savings and investments union,
10:34as the president has outlined,
10:35or do you have any other strategy
10:37to overcome the economic crisis?
10:39So it depends
10:41on what we will do
10:42and what she will propose
10:43because I, for example,
10:45do not support proposals
10:47that would mean deregulation,
10:50for example,
10:50of the banking sector
10:51or of the financial sector
10:53because even though 2008
10:55may seem like a long time ago,
10:58I think we should have learned
10:59some important lesson
11:00from that financial crisis,
11:01also when it comes to
11:02regulating the financial markets
11:04and the banks.
11:05So whatever is done,
11:07I think it should not be done
11:09in a way
11:10where we kind of forget
11:11the important lessons
11:12we should have learned then
11:13because at some point
11:14we will have a new bubble
11:15in the financial markets
11:17and we will be faced
11:18with the same kind of problems
11:19unless we make sure
11:20that we have sufficient rules
11:22in place.
11:24When it comes to the economy
11:25at large,
11:26one reason that I am focusing
11:28a lot of energy
11:29is that the fact that Europe
11:31is so fossil fuel dependent
11:32and imports a lot of energy,
11:34it really is a problem
11:35for our competitiveness.
11:37So we've seen countries
11:38that have managed
11:39to invest a lot in renewables
11:40such as my own country, Finland.
11:42It has also kept
11:43electricity prices down
11:46for companies
11:47and for customers.
11:48So there's so much to win
11:50by doing more
11:52in reducing
11:53the fossil fuel dependency.
11:55It's a win
11:56for the environment,
11:56of course.
11:57It's a win
11:58for the economy,
11:59but it's also a win
12:00from the social point of view
12:01because energy prices
12:04and gas,
12:05specifically natural gas,
12:07was one of the main reasons
12:08for the inflation
12:10after the 2022 energy crisis,
12:12for example.
12:12And I'm afraid
12:13we're going to see
12:14a similar situation
12:15this winter.
12:16Okay, clear answer.
12:17And now your question
12:18to your opponent.
12:20So I feel like
12:21I talk a lot about energy,
12:23as you heard.
12:24I think one of our main priorities
12:26should be to reduce
12:28fossil fuel dependency.
12:30This summer,
12:32the Commission proposed
12:33to weaken
12:34the emission trading system
12:35of the European Union,
12:37meaning that we would
12:37slower down the pace
12:39of cutting emissions
12:40and also hand out
12:42free fossil fuel allowances,
12:44meaning financial support
12:46to businesses
12:47that use fossil energy
12:48longer.
12:49Many businesses
12:50in Finland
12:51are super critical
12:52of this.
12:53And the question...
12:54They have invested
12:54in decarbonization.
12:56They don't want
12:56this to change.
12:57Your group,
12:59EPP,
12:59has demanded
13:00to weaken
13:01the ETS system.
13:03How is that
13:03compatible
13:04with making good
13:06decisions
13:07for companies
13:08and economies?
13:10That's connected,
13:10even,
13:11because the best
13:11decisions for economies
13:13is allowing economies
13:14and businesses
13:15to do their business.
13:18And we have
13:18the situation,
13:19as I have mentioned
13:20before,
13:21that Europe
13:21is not an island.
13:22Europe is dependent
13:22on other parts
13:23of the world.
13:24We reduce dependencies
13:24of various kinds,
13:26especially the critical ones.
13:27but if others
13:29have much lower
13:30energy prices,
13:31we cannot allow
13:31for our businesses
13:32to have extra costs
13:33only created politically.
13:35And this is why
13:36we have to reduce
13:37fossil fuels.
13:38I totally agree
13:38with that.
13:39But at the same time,
13:40from day to day,
13:41we need our businesses
13:42to win.
13:44Also,
13:44you care for the
13:45social welfare system.
13:46I care for the
13:47social welfare system.
13:48Ronald Reagan
13:49has once stated,
13:49he was president
13:50of the United States,
13:51a good one,
13:51by the way,
13:52and he said
13:53the best social program
13:54is a job.
13:55And who creates jobs?
13:56It's businesses,
13:57it's the economy.
13:58So if you want
13:59to keep up
13:59a proper social security system,
14:01if you want to keep up
14:02also the state security systems
14:04for people who need it,
14:06we have to keep up
14:07strong businesses.
14:07And this is why
14:08we cannot isolate Europe.
14:09We have to rather
14:10convince other parts
14:11of the world
14:12to also tackle climate change.
14:13We have to convince
14:14other parts of the world
14:15to join our pathway
14:17towards a climate change,
14:21aware humanity.
14:22And we are far away
14:22from that.
14:23We need global
14:25geopolitical gravity.
14:26We need the global outreach
14:28and we will only have it
14:29with two factors.
14:30If we are economically strong
14:31and if we are militarily strong,
14:33meaning capable
14:34to defend ourselves,
14:35then we will be listened to
14:37and then we can,
14:38let's say,
14:39positively share our view
14:40on climate change
14:41with other parts
14:42of the world.
14:43Quick reaction?
14:43Yes.
14:44So I still think
14:45that the problem is
14:46now we are making decisions
14:47that favor
14:48one group of companies
14:50at the expense of others.
14:52So it's not about
14:53like making things better
14:54for companies or not,
14:55but the weakening
14:57the price signals
14:58in the ETS system
14:59actually benefits
15:00the companies
15:01who have not invested
15:02in decarbonization
15:03at the benefits
15:04of those who have not,
15:06who have.
15:07And I don't think,
15:08I mean,
15:08for if you want to do
15:10business friendly policies
15:12that at the same time
15:13aim at reducing
15:14these critical dependencies,
15:16then you should not support
15:17weakening the emissions
15:19trading system,
15:20which is a market-based
15:21mechanism designed
15:22to make sure
15:24that the price signal
15:25will steer private actors
15:27to invest
15:27in decarbonization.
15:29Also from the point of view
15:31of convincing
15:32other parts of the world
15:33about the reason
15:35why we need to have
15:36ambitious climate policies,
15:38how does it look
15:39when Europe
15:40is actually changing direction
15:42on the climate policies,
15:44when we are signaling
15:46that we are slowing down
15:47the pace,
15:48we are backing down
15:49when it comes
15:50to the green transition,
15:51we're changing a lot
15:52of the legislation
15:53from last mandate.
15:54The signal this sends
15:55to the world
15:56is that Europe
15:56does not believe
15:57in this project.
15:57Rightly so.
15:58And we were
15:58in the wrong pathway
15:59in the last mandate.
16:00We took a lot
16:01of wrong decisions.
16:02We made Europe
16:02isolated from other
16:03parts of the world
16:04with the supply chain
16:05doors, for example.
16:06We actually politically
16:08had wrong majorities
16:09also in this very parliament,
16:11different to this mandate
16:12when it comes
16:13to the economy,
16:14when it comes
16:14to the opportunities
16:15for Europeans.
16:16And what's important
16:17to understand
16:18is it's not only
16:19the household,
16:20like your household,
16:21my household,
16:22where we see
16:23increasing energy prices.
16:24It's a dependency
16:26of major parts
16:27of our economy
16:27of energy prices.
16:29And here we might
16:29have a different view
16:30on things.
16:31Lower energy prices
16:32or let's say
16:33moderate energy prices,
16:34which are still higher
16:35than in the US
16:36or in China,
16:37are something
16:38the whole economy
16:39benefits from
16:40and each business
16:41benefits from.
16:42And this is not
16:43a choice.
16:44This is not
16:45to be discussed.
16:46This is something
16:46absolutely necessary
16:47to existentially
16:48keep up
16:49the European economy
16:51when it comes
16:51to AI and data centers,
16:52not even to mention
16:53what energy they need.
16:54For this lively round,
16:56we have heard
16:57the views from our guests.
16:58Now it's time
16:59to hear from
17:00another voice.
17:06That voice is,
17:07of course,
17:08Ursula von der Leyen
17:09herself.
17:10Take a listen.
17:11The Commission
17:12is proposing
17:13the Kids Act.
17:15In sum,
17:17no social media
17:19under the age
17:20of 13,
17:21no personal account
17:23under the age
17:24of 15.
17:26I am aware
17:26that many perceive
17:27the power of big tech
17:28as overwhelming
17:30and impossible
17:31to roll back.
17:32I disagree.
17:33We do not have
17:34to accept
17:35addictive features.
17:36we do not have
17:38to accept
17:38children being drawn
17:39into ever more
17:40extreme content.
17:42We do not have
17:43to accept
17:43that girls
17:44have their photos
17:45used for AI
17:47generated
17:48sexualized images.
17:51so is it time
17:52for Brussels
17:53to tell parents
17:54rather than parents
17:55deciding themselves
17:57what age
17:58children should
17:59be allowed
17:59online?
18:01Lukas,
18:01I'm going to start
18:01with you.
18:02Parents always have
18:03the first say
18:03and this should be
18:05addressed.
18:05Parents have
18:06at the same time
18:07the freedom
18:08and the responsibility
18:09in the education
18:10of children.
18:10Secondly,
18:11it's not new
18:12that politics
18:12is creating
18:14means and measures
18:15in order to save
18:16children from
18:16harmful content.
18:17imagine it
18:18maybe it sounds
18:18ironic today
18:19that in cinemas
18:21in each country
18:21I'm sure in Finland
18:22too,
18:22in Austria as well
18:23we have commissions
18:24for cinemas
18:26which judge
18:27what age
18:28would be the right
18:29age to begin
18:30from for this
18:31or that movie
18:32broadcasted in the
18:33cinemas
18:34and if we imagine
18:35what children
18:36today see on
18:36TikTok, Instagram
18:37and in other channels
18:38then we have
18:40a huge problem
18:41not only for
18:42society also
18:43not only for
18:44politics when it
18:45comes to extremism
18:46also that
18:46also for mental
18:47health of these
18:48very children
18:49so we have
18:50responsibility
18:51we also save
18:52children from
18:53alcohol,
18:54from nicotine
18:54I'm a little confused
18:54are you supporting
18:55her initiative?
18:57Absolutely
18:57my home country
18:58was even earlier
18:59but I'm happy
19:00to have a European
19:01approach because
19:02Europe is one
19:03totally on this
19:03yeah so
19:04I need to know
19:06more about
19:06what she will
19:07propose
19:07I've been quite
19:08critical of this
19:09idea of having
19:10an age limit
19:10because I think
19:11the problem is
19:12that it kind of
19:12takes focus away
19:13from the responsibility
19:14of the tech giants
19:15I mean they are
19:16the ones that
19:17need to change
19:18how their
19:19platforms work
19:21but as far as
19:22I understand
19:23they are trying
19:23actually to find
19:24a balance here
19:25by allowing
19:26also then
19:27younger
19:28kids to use
19:29social media
19:30through their
19:31guardians accounts
19:32and I think
19:33the most
19:34actually important
19:34thing that she
19:35said was that
19:36she is willing
19:36to put forward
19:37legislation
19:39aimed at
19:40forcing these
19:41tech giants
19:42changing
19:43the way
19:44that the
19:45algorithms
19:45work
19:46on the
19:46social media
19:47platforms
19:47for kids
19:48that is
19:49important
19:49because that
19:50is something
19:50that no
19:51single parent
19:51can do
19:52I'm going to
19:52throw something
19:53out there
19:53and please
19:54come up
19:55with short
19:55answers
19:56I'm interested
19:56in your
19:57thinking here
19:58we know
19:58that kids
19:59spend more
20:00and more
20:00time in
20:01front of
20:01screens
20:01two and a
20:03half hours
20:03per day
20:04on average
20:04yet
20:05the time
20:06they spent
20:08reading
20:08a book
20:09goes down
20:10and down
20:10and down
20:11and down
20:11what is
20:11what is
20:12wrong
20:12what have
20:13we missed
20:13and how
20:14can we
20:14reverse
20:15that trend
20:15Lukas
20:16I think
20:16it's not
20:17about
20:17reversal
20:17it's about
20:18a proper
20:18future
20:19development
20:19we have
20:20seen
20:20what it
20:20causes
20:21it's highly
20:22addictive
20:22we have
20:22not yet
20:23added that
20:23before
20:24of course
20:24the platforms
20:25have a big
20:25responsibility
20:26I agree
20:26with my
20:27colleague
20:27here
20:27and it's
20:29actually
20:29the example
20:30it's not
20:30only kids
20:31who are spending
20:31so much
20:31time on
20:32the smartphones
20:33and not
20:34only there
20:34but in
20:35the social
20:35media apps
20:36and even
20:36worse
20:36sometimes
20:37in messenger
20:37services
20:38providing
20:38a lot of
20:39conspiracy theories
20:40and harmful
20:41content
20:41it's about
20:42mental health
20:42it's about
20:43a good example
20:44we have to
20:44provide
20:45but it's also
20:45of course
20:46about means
20:46and measures
20:47to protect
20:47children
20:48like we do
20:48with arco
20:49nicotine
20:49and other
20:49substances
20:51Lee your
20:52thoughts
20:53briefly
20:53the challenge
20:54is that
20:55it's not
20:55only kids
20:56who read
20:58less books
20:58it's everybody
20:59I mean
21:00look at
21:00the adults
21:01look how
21:02we are behaving
21:03so if we
21:04want to
21:04change this
21:05I think
21:05you need
21:05an all
21:06of society
21:06approach
21:07because the
21:07kids will
21:08not start
21:08taking up
21:09books
21:09if their
21:10parents are
21:10still on
21:10their phones
21:12so we
21:13would need
21:13to have
21:14like a more
21:14broad discussion
21:15I think
21:15of course
21:15schools are
21:16really important
21:16that you
21:17read books
21:18in schools
21:18and you
21:19focus a lot
21:19on literacy
21:20but this
21:21is then
21:21something
21:21that would
21:22have to
21:22involve
21:23also parents
21:24and adults
21:24this is
21:25obviously
21:25a task
21:25for all
21:26of us
21:27now
21:27it's time
21:28for our
21:29fourth round
21:34at this
21:35point
21:35let's take
21:35a look
21:36at how
21:36Europe
21:36citizens
21:37follow the
21:38current debates
21:38and what
21:39their thinking
21:39is
21:40in other
21:40words
21:41what does
21:41Europe mean
21:42to Europeans
21:43today
21:44just this
21:45week
21:45the European
21:46Council on
21:46Foreign Relations
21:47published a
21:47survey that
21:48offers some
21:49eye-opening
21:50clues
21:51for example
21:5268%
21:53of Europeans
21:54describe
21:55Europe's
21:55current situation
21:56in terms of
21:57general
21:58deterioration
21:59or loss
22:00of normality
22:0112%
22:03speak of it
22:04as an
22:05awakening
22:05and renewal
22:06speaking of
22:08Europe
22:08and 30%
22:09one third
22:11mention
22:11Europe's
22:12hypocrisy
22:13and its
22:14failure
22:15to stand
22:15its ground
22:16when confronted
22:17by powerful
22:18actors
22:18now
22:19you're both
22:19members of
22:20the European
22:20Parliament
22:21when you hear
22:21such statements
22:23and such
22:24findings
22:24and such
22:25figures
22:25what do you
22:27feel
22:27are you worried
22:29I'm in
22:30politics
22:30because I
22:31want to
22:31change
22:31things
22:32for the
22:32better
22:32I
22:32very much
22:33understand
22:34the majority
22:34in your
22:36polls
22:36actually
22:37there is
22:37a loss
22:38of normality
22:38nobody
22:38can disagree
22:39with that
22:40for many
22:40years already
22:41and nearly
22:41every day
22:42something
22:42happens
22:42that feels
22:44for somebody
22:45at least
22:46above a
22:46specific age
22:47as a loss
22:48of normality
22:48I would not
22:49call it
22:50deterioration
22:51what's happening
22:51because we
22:52dynamically
22:53can adapt
22:54this is
22:54something
22:55Europe is
22:55very good
22:55in
22:56but of course
22:57we have to
22:57change
22:58systems
22:58also
22:58something
22:59the president
22:59addressed
23:00in her
23:00State of the
23:00Union
23:01speech
23:01today
23:01and the
23:02renewal
23:03which is
23:03seen by 12%
23:04I think
23:05in your
23:05polls
23:05which we
23:06have just
23:07seen now
23:07the renewal
23:08is not yet
23:08here
23:09we have to
23:09work on
23:09that renewal
23:10we need
23:10more leadership
23:11and more
23:11confidence
23:12in our
23:12societies
23:13and this
23:13feeling
23:14of lack
23:14of normality
23:15this feeling
23:15of deterioration
23:16is also
23:17fueling
23:18extremism
23:18to the left
23:19to the right
23:20extremism
23:20of all kinds
23:21intolerance
23:22in our
23:22societies
23:22this is
23:23what I'm
23:23most concerned
23:24of
23:24intolerance
23:25is relevant
23:26for politics
23:26but for
23:27society
23:27in general
23:29in daily
23:29behavior
23:30of people
23:30in interaction
23:31of people
23:31we should
23:32provide each
23:33other with
23:33more resonance
23:34and personal
23:34encounter
23:35among citizens
23:35I like the
23:36lack of
23:37confidence
23:38idea
23:38because this
23:39is obviously
23:40the larger
23:40theme here
23:41deep rooted
23:42lack of
23:43confidence
23:43and that's
23:44why we have
23:44the election
23:45results
23:46that we have
23:47right now
23:47what are your
23:48thoughts
23:48Lee?
23:49I agree
23:51both
23:51I agree
23:52actually with
23:53the analysis
23:53on loss
23:54of normality
23:54I mean
23:55that is
23:56something
23:56I guess
23:56we all
23:57share
23:57looking at
23:58what is
23:58going on
23:58in the world
23:59we have
23:59all this
23:59multiple
24:00crisis
24:00we have
24:01changing
24:02power relations
24:02globally
24:03it means
24:04a lot of
24:04things are
24:05moving
24:05and so
24:06the old
24:06kind of
24:07truths
24:07and the
24:07old
24:08guidebooks
24:08for how
24:09to act
24:09are no
24:10longer
24:10occurring
24:10but I
24:11also
24:11agree
24:12with
24:12the
24:12ones
24:12who
24:13criticize
24:13this
24:13hypocrisy
24:15because
24:16I think
24:16that a lot
24:17of people
24:17feel at
24:18this moment
24:19when we're
24:19seeing this
24:20authoritarian
24:21like right-wing
24:23extremist
24:23ideology
24:24of I would
24:25say both
24:25Vladimir Putin
24:26and Donald
24:27Trump
24:27I think
24:27they're
24:28actually
24:28very united
24:28in their
24:29worldview
24:29and ideology
24:32really would
24:32like for
24:33Europe to
24:34step up
24:34so both
24:36to have
24:36a very
24:37ambitious
24:37program
24:37for our
24:38sovereignty
24:39so we
24:39would not
24:40be dependent
24:40on any
24:41kind of
24:41authoritarian
24:42actor
24:43but also
24:44in a more
24:45like value
24:45and policy
24:46oriented way
24:47like for us
24:48to be really
24:49a consequent
24:51defender of
24:52international law
24:52and human rights
24:53which unfortunately
24:54the European Union
24:55has not been
24:56to stand our
24:57ground against
24:58Donald Trump's
24:59administration
24:59I think people
25:01miss also
25:02this aspect
25:03of the European
25:05okay now it's
25:06time to move
25:07on to our
25:07fifth and
25:08final round
25:12and as
25:13always we're
25:14doing something
25:14different I'm
25:15going to ask
25:16you a set
25:16of questions
25:17and you can
25:17only answer
25:18with a yes
25:19or no
25:20okay this
25:20has to be
25:21a quick
25:21round because
25:22we are
25:22already
25:24way ahead
25:26was also
25:27von der
25:27line promising
25:28more than
25:29the EU
25:29can actually
25:30deliver
25:31leadership
25:32means to
25:32also draw
25:33a vision
25:33on the wall
25:34so the answer
25:34is yes
25:35but that's
25:35not a bad
25:36thing
25:36okay
25:37yes
25:37yes
25:38okay
25:40is von der
25:41line's
25:41coalition
25:41becoming
25:42too broad
25:42to deliver
25:43real
25:44political
25:44change
25:46no
25:47not at all
25:48there is
25:49a parliament
25:50with good
25:51majorities
25:51as we have
25:52seen in this
25:52mandate
25:52and we will
25:53use it
25:53for the economy
25:54and for the
25:54security
25:54okay
25:54can Europe
25:57realistically
25:58spend more
25:59on defense
25:59technology
26:00ukraine
26:00housing
26:01etc
26:01all of this
26:02at the same
26:03time
26:05with an
26:06increased
26:06budget
26:07yes
26:07the one
26:09goes together
26:09with the
26:10other
26:10if the
26:10economy
26:11is good
26:11we can
26:11spend
26:11in housing
26:12and this
26:12is why
26:13we have
26:13to get
26:13the economy
26:14moving
26:15forward
26:15should the
26:16EU
26:16borrow
26:16jointly
26:17again
26:17to
26:18finance
26:18european
26:19investment
26:20absolutely
26:21I think
26:22on resources
26:22also euro
26:23bonds
26:23and especially
26:24the investments
26:25unit
26:25when it
26:25comes to
26:25the
26:26savings
26:26that are
26:26there
26:27in europe
26:27is extremely
26:27important
26:28I think
26:29own resources
26:30should have
26:30first priority
26:31but I'm not
26:31against joint
26:32borrowing
26:32if needed
26:33okay
26:34should Canada
26:35become a
26:35member of
26:36the EU
26:38now I have
26:39you
26:41I mean
26:42personally
26:42yes or no
26:43so I will
26:44not say no
26:45I have nothing
26:45against Canada
26:46really
26:46at some point
26:47sure
26:48but
26:48there are
26:50other countries
26:51that we need
26:52to focus on
26:53first
26:53very short
26:55yes or no
26:55Canada
26:55yes
26:56okay good
26:57and that
26:58final answer
26:58brings us
26:59to the end
26:59of this
27:00live edition
27:01a very
27:01lively
27:02of the
27:03ring
27:03thanks again
27:03to Lee
27:04Andersson
27:05and Lucas
27:05Mandel
27:06for a fascinating
27:07conversation
27:07here from the
27:08European Parliament
27:09thanks to our
27:10audience at
27:11home
27:11if you like
27:12you can send
27:13us your
27:13comments
27:14to the
27:15ring
27:15at
27:15euronews.com
27:16we'd love
27:17to have
27:17your feedback
27:17that's it
27:18for today
27:19I'm
27:19Stefan Grobe
27:20see you
27:20soon
27:21on
27:21Euronews
27:22you
Comentários