A Conversation With European Parliament President Roberta Metsola

President of the European Parliament Roberta Metsola examines the state of transatlantic relations, the evolving dynamics of the U.S.-EU partnership in the context of an increasingly unpredictable world, and the imperative for renewed transatlantic cooperation in addressing shared geopolitical challenges and upholding democratic values.

HARTLEY: Welcome to today’s Council on Foreign Relations meeting with Roberta Metsola, president of the European Parliament. I’m Jane Hartley, most recently U.S. ambassador to the United Kingdom, and in the Obama administration U.S. ambassador to France. And I will be presiding over today’s discussion.

It’s a real pleasure to welcome back to the United States the president of the United—of the European Parliament, Roberta Metsola. This is President Metsola’s third visit to the U.S. in just three months, an impressive pace that reflects not only her personal commitment but also the European Parliament’s deep investment in strengthening the transatlantic bond. She’s here in New York today to speak about the vital importance of a strong transatlantic economic partnership, a message she just shared with the European-American Chamber of Commerce this morning and will continue her meetings with Wall Street leaders this afternoon.

At a time of constantly changing geopolitics and ongoing wars on the European continent and its neighborhood, President Metsola is here leading discussions about how Europe and the United States can cooperate better to tackle common foreign, security, and trade challenges, to the benefit of all our citizens. We’ll have the opportunity to delve deeper on these issues with President Metsola in the coming hour. And President Metsola is the youngest person ever elected to lead the European Parliament. She’s a passionate advocate for democracy, for European unity, and for a transatlantic relationship that delivers for our economies, for our security, and for our shared values. We’re joined today by CFR members attending in person in New York, all of you, and this event is being livestreamed. So now I’d like to welcome President Metsola to the podium to give opening remarks before we get into our conversation. Thank you. (Applause.)

METSOLA: I thank you very much, Madam Ambassador. Good morning to you all. It’s truly a pleasure to be—to be here. Thank you to the Council on Foreign Relations for having me today and for continuing to support again, and as always, open and informed debate. The European Parliament is deeply committed to strengthening the transatlantic bond. And I wanted to start with this, because this is mostly the question I’m asked whenever I come to the U.S. We share a history. Our common values have shaped the globe. And the outlook for the future must remain in lockstep with each other.

This is a statement that I would not have had to make not so long ago. It was a given. We took it for granted, something so obvious that it barely needed mentioning. But the world has changed. Things we took for granted are under question. Truths that we thought to be self-evident are up for discussion. The signs are there. And we must be ready to face this head on. Now, around the world we will keep seeing strongmen being pitted against strong elections. We see solid institutions viewed as a hindrance, rather than a virtue. Multilateralism and cooperation painted as weakness, instead of the strength we know them to be.

So the way that has guided the West and our transatlantic relationship for the last eight years is shifting. And we absolutely cannot bury our heads in the sand. On the contrary, we must stand up and show the value of democracy to deliver tangible change for people who feel disengaged, disenfranchised, and disappointed in politics. And that’s part of the role of the European Parliament, whom I lead in today’s world. It is the same issue facing your Congress. It is a challenge we understand, and one that we are determined to meet. Because the truth is, more people live in countries where they can’t choose their leaders than in countries where they can. And today, only a quarter of the world’s population lives in a democracy, the lowest in half a century. That’s the reality.

After the fall of the Berlin Wall we thought that liberal democracy had won. Maybe we were too confident, too complacent. We thought democracy no longer needed to be defended and that history had somehow moved on. Most importantly, I think we stopped teaching people with the urgency that it required. But when Russian tanks rolled into sovereign, independent Ukraine on the twenty-fourth of February 2022, that illusion was shattered. It became existential. We were reminded, brutally, that peace can never be taken for granted. That if we don’t stand up for our way of life then others will step in, offering a very different vision based on a very different set of values. That day, for us, changed everything. And Europe and the United States responded as one.

But if the twenty-fourth of February was a moment of unity, it was also a very big wake-up call. For too long Europe had relied on others for its own security, on America. That is changing. Since 2021, EU defense spending is up by more than 30 percent. Almost all of EU NATO members now meet the target of 2 percent of GDP, and many have already gone beyond it. Just last week, NATO defense ministers agreed to work towards 5 percent of GDP overall, with 3.5 percent on core defense spending and 1.5 percent on infrastructure and resilience. We regularly ask Europeans across all twenty-seven countries what they think, right? Where are we going? Where do they think we should do more? Where do you think we should do less? What are their challenges?

Today, in the last census, the last survey we conducted, the result was stark. Two-thirds of Europeans want the European Union to play a greater role in protecting them. And at the European Parliament, we are responding by driving joint defense procurement, by investing in industrial capacity, and by cutting red tape. Not to duplicate NATO but to reinforce it, because we know that a stronger Europe means a stronger alliance. Of course, security today is more than about just weapons. It is about disinformation. It is about foreign interference, and the deliberate erosion of trust. And that is part of our daily reality today. Disinformation is one of the most serious threats that we face. It chips away at confidence in our institutions. It deepens divisions. And it’s getting smarter. So we have no choice but to get smarter too. And that’s why the work of organizations like the Council on Foreign Relations matters. Not just to shape debate, but to cut through the noise, to challenge our assumptions.

But politics, of course, cannot only be about managing threats. It also has to offer hope—hope for those still living under oppression who look to the European Union and to the United States as symbols of freedom. The European Parliament has always been the voice of those who believe in Europe’s power to change lives. Now it was never about making everyone the same, but it was about creating opportunity and a shared sense of belonging. And we come together in believing that it is that same spirit that must guide us now. We have proudly stood for humanity, but sometimes our efforts haven’t always come through in the way that we would have liked. That’s true for many politicians in Europe, in the United States, and around the world, particularly when we look at the Middle East post October 7.

It is easy to understand the feelings of helplessness, of anger, of grief, and pain felt by so many. Their horror is real. And we absolutely cannot allow the gap to grow between the answers that they demand and the solutions that politics can offer. It is not always to explain the small, sometimes painful steps we take to save lives, that we are the number-one provider of humanitarian aid, that the European Union through our EU Border Assistance Mission, EUBAM, was critical to supporting the last ceasefire and getting so many sick and wounded children out of Gaza.

And we need to speak more clearly about what we can do to find a way forward, about the urgency of getting more aid into Gaza and ensuring its distribution, about the hostages, including EU nationals, still being held by Hamas. About the role of Iran, about rising antisemitism everywhere, about the new generations of extremism that we see. About what happens the day after, reconstruction and the need to support legitimate leadership while disbanding Hamas and offering security to Israel. Peace is not an abstract concept. It is something we are asked a lot. What do you mean by peace? What do you think when you use the word “peace”? Sometimes, in a way, that does not lead to peace. It only works if it’s more attractive than war.

And we must show people that peace is not only possible, but that it’s desirable. The best driver against radicalization is hope. So for us, a two-state solution that gives that perspective is the way forward. It is what the European Parliament has called for. We understand that Hamas can never be a part of that. They offer only bloodshed, not solutions. And that is why we have always been careful not to equate the terror of Hamas with all Palestinians. As president of the European Parliament, I went to Kfar Aza, one of the kibbutzim that was under harsh attack and lost so many of its residents. I went to the Nova Festival place, when bodies were still on the ground. I entered Gaza with our aid trucks as we pushed for more. I’ve sat down with Israelis in Jerusalem and Palestinians in Ramallah. I’ve cried with hostages that were released and hugged relatives of those who could not be released. I hugged teenagers who saw their homes destroyed and their friends killed.

And there are those who want to find solutions. And I’m proud to count the European Parliament among them. And we will always be a place of dialog that brings people together. And we’re ready to play that role again now. The answers we need are not in Facebook likes or in retweets, but in hard work, in dialog, in diplomacy. Even then we may fail, but if there is even one chance that our efforts could help, even a remote one, it would be a dereliction of duty not to try. And I’m in politics for this reason, to take those chances. I was in Ohio two weeks ago, in Dayton, to mark thirty years since the Dayton Accords. A reminder of what Europe and America can achieve when we lead together, when people do take chances.

But being there also brought something into focus, the growing gap between people and politics. Many have lost faith. They want change. And when mainstream politics fails to offer answers, people start to look elsewhere. That disillusionment isn’t unique to the United States. It’s growing across Europe too. We just had the one-year mark today and tomorrow of last year’s European elections, where we all got elected to the European Parliament, 720 of us. In those elections, what we call the political center held, but only just. Voters are restless. And they’re right to be. It’s our job to show that democracy works, not just on election day, not just in principle, but in practice.

And that means delivering, especially for young people. They didn’t live through the Cold War. They’re not asking abstract questions. They’re asking very concrete ones about their future. Can I find a job? Can I afford a home? Can I build a life? And if our political system does not offer credible answers, real ones, deliverable ones to those simple questions, then no speech will convince them that democracy is the answer. And that’s why, in conclusion, I would wrap it by saying that this transatlantic bond that we have, that we treasure, that we cherish, that we’ve believed in blindly all these years, matters more than ever. Because, yes, we are the world’s two largest economies, fully integrated, interdependent.

But more than that, we are two parts of a single democratic community shaped by common sacrifices, rooted in shared values and committed to building a better future. When we lead together, we change the course of history. And we can do it again now. Thank you. (Applause.)

HARLEY: Wonderful. Thank you so much for those inspiring remarks. I’m going to drill down on a few of the subjects that you’ve already raised. First, Ukraine. The war in Ukraine has shifted perceptions across Europe, as you said. What lessons has the EU drawn from this war about its own security? And how are you, in the European Parliament, ensuring continued practical support for Ukraine on the road to peace? But also, reconstruction, my view very important, and EU accession, which is also very important? And how do recent elections and others in the future affect this unity? And particularly I want to mention the Polish election.

METSOLA: All right. So I think the twenty-fourth of February 2022 will be a date that none of us will forget. Waking up to the harsh reality of something we thought would not happen, hoped would not happen. Very little idea about how we would handle it. But make no mistake, a brutal understanding, one, that we were in some countries almost fully dependent on Russian gas, and were absolutely not ready, from a military point of view, to figure out that this was in our neighborhood, on our doorstep.

Now, of course, when things like that happen, a wake-up call means that you either do nothing or you do a lot. And there was no doubt—and I was impressed by the majorities that there were in the European Parliament. It was almost unanimous to say two things. One, that Ukraine should be a member of the European Union. First thing we said. One week after, the first of March we said. Some others who said, oh, it’s too early. Don’t say that. We’re, like, we’re convinced. Two is that if we abandon countries that are being invaded in our neighborhood, then what could happen to the other countries? Our Baltic colleagues told us, we told you so and you never listened.

We went faster in diversifying our energy mix. We realized we had barriers to trade for movement of military infrastructure, equipment, even helmets from one country to another, licensing, et cetera. But what we were mostly impressed by is the resilience of the Ukrainians, that we still see today, and that we would not be doing our job or not taking our responsibility if we do not stand by them. That meant that since then, as I said, we have increased by 30 percent our defense expenditure. Is it enough? We know now—we are being told we understand and we say it, this will be a crucial part of the NATO summit in a few weeks, is that we need to do more. But that it also means that we need to stay united.

So I would never have thought that we would be in a position of unanimity. In other words, all twenty-seven countries coming together, also, by extension, having a closer relationship with the U.K. over the past couple of years, that we would have the possibility to have unanimity—in other words, every single member state saying yes for seventeen packages of sanctions. We did that together with the U.S. There is preparation for the 18^th. Was it always easy? Of course not. But that also showed that we can be unanimous.

You asked about specific situations on the ground. Most of the help, solidarity, absorption of seven million refugees at the beginning of the war in the neighboring countries, took place not because of the leaders of those countries but because of the citizens. We have Ukrainian communities in all our countries that are very well connected and very vocal. And they put us to shame when we were not doing enough. And you could tell that election by election leaders were choosing to express tangible solidarity with Ukraine, which would also mean that electorally they did well.

The situation is complicated now. But what we’ve done is that rather than let this discussion be, let’s say, taken over by the extremist fringes, that would be Euro skeptic, traditionally, very intolerant, et cetera, is that we’ve made it easier for us to increase defense spending, be clear on Ukraine, while not taking away from expenditure in other areas.

With Poland, one would need to see. The person around the table taking the political decisions, as I just said, is the prime minister, who is a very good friend of Ukraine. We’re also very happy with the outcome in the election—of the elections in Romania. And we have a couple of very important elections coming ahead, Hungary being one of them. But also, very vocal Ukrainian supporters that have also been elected. So recent elections in Germany, Chancellor Merz was here last week, incredibly vocal and clear, and Portugal, just to give you some examples.

HARTLEY: Just one follow up. As countries look to increase their defense spending from 2 to 3 to even 5 percent, it sounds like you’re saying that there is public support for that. Because it was interesting, when I was in the U.K. and they did produce a very strong defense strategic plan under Secretary Healey, but huge amounts of fiscal pressure where, you know, what are they going to spend on? Fixing the NHS or an increased defense budget? So far, they’re, you know, holding quite firm. But what do you see in other countries? Just one quick follow up, also. We’ve learned a lot from the Ukraine war. We’ve learned a lot about how wars are fought. Wars will not be fought how they’ve been fought in the past, but how they’ve just been fought, including this recent drone attack, which was, in my view, pretty impressive. (Laughs.) How does that change as you’re looking at these defense budgets?

METSOLA: Well, first of all, we’ve taken decisions for the deficit triggers not to be triggered when expenditure is used for defense. We needed to do that because we need to convince our populations that that expenditure is not going to be taken away from health and education. Is it always successful? No. Is it utilized by parties in opposition to place pressure on government? Yes. The worst would be if we didn’t explain it, or if we gave the impression that if you are a supporter of peace that means that you do not invest. And we’re not succeeding in that in many countries. You know, you can see that there is a push for peace to be redefined as essentially capitulation.

The second thing is that we have realized, and this is clear, and also in the way our companies are adapting, technology companies, also to remain competitive, also to be on the path to economic growth—which we need to continue to be on the path of economic growth otherwise we will not manage to continue to support countries that are under pressure. But also, that brings into the conversation we have with our U.S. counterparts in order to see where we go in this economic relationship, in which we are so interdependent, one way or another. So we can talk about numbers and deficits, et cetera. But at the end of the day, we’re the number-one largest trading partners.

Second thing is that if we manage to go on the path of economic growth, then our defense expenditure can be diversified by investing in our new and emerging technologies. Could be lenses, could be artificial intelligence, could be building of drones, the fraction of a cost of what traditional military equipment is. But we’re also focusing a lot on cyber because if we—and I mentioned disinformation—but if we look at where the threats really are, when a country can be taken down with a blackout, then if you’re not prepared to defend yourself against that, then we’re much more vulnerable than we think we are. And it’s not traditional warfare in the way we know it. So in that case, we’re going to be the ones also. And we’ve been pushing that as a parliament, because that also makes it more acceptable in a number of member states, because everybody understands that servers need to be protected. And that also comes into the defense expenditure, and how its explained.

HARTLEY: Let me go a little further on the economic relationship between the EU and the U.S. You said it is critical. I agree. I also agree that the economic and fiscal situation in many of these countries is difficult right now. So how do you see the trade talks playing out? And what impact do you think they will have? And any sense of a timeline?

METSOLA: (Laughs.) Well, we have a due date. (Laughter.)

HARTLEY: They don’t tell us. We don’t know either.

METSOLA: Dates move. (Laughter.) I need to remain optimistic. I have to say this. I mean, there’s no alternative to the strong transatlantic bond. Now we speak to our colleagues. I have regular—I’m in regular contact with Congress. My counterpart is Mike Johnson. We discuss as to who has the more difficult parliament to run. Think he’s winning on that. (Laughs.) With my—I have eight political groups, but we sometimes find ourselves with votes that are 330 votes on one side, 330 votes on another side. And it really goes down to the wire on many issues, some emotional, some less emotional.

We have in total, if you look at this relationship, it supports sixteen million jobs across the Atlantic. And I think we owe it to ourselves to try our best to make sure that those are protected, I would be honest and self-confident. Honest in understanding that we have underspent. We have relied on the United States for defense. We’ve always thought we could geopolitically outsource our problems. Harsh reality. Not what happened. The Russian invasion needs to be dealt with. Have we done enough? No. It’s also self-inflicted. We are over-bureaucratic. We have twenty-seven different ways of defense systems, and instruments, and equipment. And therefore, we could be smoother, more agile, et cetera.

At the same time, we’ve not been clear enough—and that’s where our self-confidence should come—as to the fact that, you know, outside North America we are the largest consumer of most U.S. goods. Two, that we are a continent with a huge possibility to grow economically, in terms of personal purchasing power. That is recognized by U.S. companies that invest in Europe, but also by EU, European companies, that have been here for decades. That self-confidence and that honesty needs to come in lockstep with the services deficit. In other words, that when you put goods and services together the big trade deficit almost shrinks to a few billion. We need to be able to say it.

But with understanding that we can improve, that we could do things better. And perhaps—I’m a big believer in person-to-person relationships. You know, at the end of the day we’re not emotional, when we keep calm, then I think we can reach some sort of deal by July. The NATO summit will be important for any side meetings that need to take place just before the European Council, where we will set our position. I am very encouraged by the positive outcome of meetings, such as with the president of France, the prime minister of Italy, Chancellor Merz of Germany last week. I am optimistic when I see that. I’m confident that these are individuals that have been able to present the case, and that that will not—let’s say, that will make it easier for us not to go down a protectionist race to the bottom, where everyone will lose.

HARTLEY: Your point on services is important. The U.K. has been using that argument for quite a while now.

METSOLA: Yeah. We were too late in putting it forward.

HARTLEY: Very important. One thing. You talked a lot in your remarks about democracy. So how is the European Parliament, and you, using its global network of parliamentary partners to counter disinformation and malign influence? And what role do transatlantic ties play in that? Because, you know, it’s key for all of us, in my view, to protect democratic systems worldwide.

METSOLA: So we have—we have a longstanding partnership with Congress in this regard. And we have found also the ability to align on certain statements when it came to Iran in the past, Venezuela, protection of minorities. And we’ve been really good at that. It could be better, of course. We could talk more. And we have a five-year term, Congress has a two-year term. So, you know, there is a different pace. We value—so, as a parliament, we value our role in supporting parliamentary democracies everywhere. And we have a very good system of helping countries, especially close to us, western Balkans, Moldova, Ukraine, in aligning their systems with ours.

So to give you an example. Klaus Welle, in the audience, he was secretary-general of the European Parliament until a couple of years ago, where we essentially took over the security of the Verkhovna Rada, the Ukrainian parliament, to make sure that they continued to operate in a time of war. We were also working with alignment of legislation. We monitor elections. We’re very vocal. We make sure that opposition parties are protected, minorities are protected, religious minorities, et cetera, are protected. We can do it in a way more than other institutions because we’re 720 politicians, essentially.

And we really value—we’re very present in Latin America. We’re quite present in the Middle East and in the gulf. Less present in Asia. It’s more complicated there. But our focus will be on the small countries—Moldova being a particular focus of ours—where the influence and the potential Russian interference that could switch an election is extremely high. Moldova is a small country, so it does not require a lot of effort, but if we look away we lose it.

HARTLEY: Thank you very much. I think our time may be up. I have one more question, but I think I’m going to cede it because I think now I’d like to invite everybody to join our conversation with their questions. And a reminder for everybody, this is on the record.

Q: Thank you. My name is Lucy Komisar. I’m a journalist.

I’m from a Jewish family. My grandparents came to this country over a hundred years ago, separately, from Eastern Europe and Russia. My question is how you can talk about values and humanity when you are supporting Israel’s genocide of Palestinians, on its way to killing two million Palestinians? When you talk about Hamas hostages, you don’t mention thousands of Palestinians that are hostage in Israeli prisons with no charges. Israelis sometimes brag about torturing some of them—anal rape with pipes. How can you talk about giving food to Gaza when you are supporting Israel, which is carrying out the deliberate starvation of Gaza? How can anybody take seriously your claim to support values and humanity?

METSOLA: Shall we collect?

HARTLEY: Why don’t we take another one and then we’ll do two, and then we’ll move on. Yes.

Q: Thank you. Chris Isham with CT Group.

Question about hybrid warfare. Would you say it’s accurate to say that Europe is currently under attack in various forms? You mentioned disinformation, but mostly thinking about sabotage, the cutting of undersea fiber optic links, and various explosions that have occurred in different European countries. Do you see that threat escalating? Is there any question that Russia is behind it? And what is the response from the EU to these attacks?

HARTLEY: Why don’t we do two and then we’ll move on to do two more.

METSOLA: Yeah, yeah. Of course. Of course.

Thank you. Thank you for the question. Thank you for the—for the openness. And thank you for giving me the possibility to expand on what I said, and what we’ve done. So we were the first ones to call for an immediate ceasefire. Where I come from, a country that is very close to the region, I have visited Israel and the West Bank multiple times. And I have been, you know, in situations where we were the ones who said, look, a two-state solution is the only way forward how we can do it. I believe also in dialog. So I’m in constant contact with the authorities of both countries, where we—I give you just one example—at the moment there is a flotilla that has just arrived. There is a member of the European Parliament on that boat that I have been speaking constantly to ensure her safety and her security.

We fund the EU Border Assistance Mission. It hasn’t been so easy. I visited it during the ceasefire. Now it’s harder. Because we needed to make sure of two things, that the humanitarian aid that we were actually voting for—so we’re the ones who actually pay for it, make sure it’s sent, via our national governments but also, from the EU level, gets into whoever needs it most. There is also, besides the immediate and dire humanitarian aid, a lot of help that needs to be given to the sick people. So we have an operation whereby sick children are taken out in order for them to be provided, to give you one example, with chemotherapy. We sometimes manage bring them into Israel, sometimes manage to bring them into Egypt.

The situation is, make no mistake, catastrophic. And it needs to end. And the bombing needs to end. And the killing needs to stop. And the European Parliament has been extremely vocal on this. We have been clear, sometimes with, you know, opposing views coming at us, because we have been so clear. But when we say we’re on the side of humanity, just like we spoke on the seventh of October, we will be on the side of humanity today.

On hybrid warfare, we have sort of seen different types of hybrid warfare. I give you one example. We’ve seen moves of pushbacks, or, how do you call them, persons being pushed into the European Union by third countries who want to destabilize, and abuse of the most vulnerable people on the planet in the context of a very complicated migration flow. And that was new to us. You know, we saw it through Belarus, for example, being pushed into Lithuania and Poland. We see it similarly through Russia into Finland.

Undersea cables, it is sometimes very difficult. First of all, sometimes we don’t find out early enough. We have a very difficult situation with the so-called shadow fleets in the Baltic Sea and in the Mediterranean Sea, where we do not know how and whether our sanctions against Russia are working, because we are also vulnerable by some loopholes. Thirdly, when it comes to particularly the Baltic Sea, the cooperation between the Baltic countries and the Nordics—so Finland and Sweden and Denmark—is extremely good. Their security services are interoperable. Their intelligence. We rely as well on the U.K., and in the U.S., on this.

But the reality is that these attacks, even if they are isolated, they are increasing, because it is in those countries that do not elect their leaders interest for us not to exist anymore. And that has put the countries on high alert. It is also what propelled Finland and Sweden to join NATO, something that we would not have thought possible. But also making sure that we have a system whereby when we talk about democracy shield, when we talk about interoperable information and intelligence services, we’re better equipped to react quickly. My wish is that there was better integration of Europol and Interpol. This is quite a discussion we’ve had for a long time. When the U.K. left the European Union, I was worried that we would lose the intelligence side of information, but that didn’t happen. And therefore, in this new world where the attacks are very harsh and come in all sorts of forms, our preparedness needs to be better. We are improving, but we could be better.

Q: Hi. My name is Hall.

I just want to highlight, there’s another transatlantic relationship you have to manage. And that is between Canada and Europe. So I was hoping to get your perspective on, you know, given how Canada is lately—at least some parts of Canada—are thinking to be closer to Europe, how do you—what’s your perspective philosophy of managing that relationship, vis-à-vis balancing your existing relationship with the United States?

METSOLA: Well, we say, welcome—(laughter)—to anybody who wants to come closer to Europe.

HARTLEY: It’s a good start.

METSOLA: Prime Minister Harper will be in Europe in a couple of weeks. And then, actually, Prime Minister Carney will be there in a couple of weeks. And we will meet him. He will come to the NATO summit. And then we are trying to get him to do a swing by the parliament, actually. We had a very good and open conversation with Prime Minister Trudeau throughout his time in government. And also, because Canada has the G-7 presidency now, that means that there is going to be a lot of meetings and collaboration, even at parliament level. So myself with my counterpart, the speaker.

From an economic perspective, we find ourselves in a situation where a lot of the goods that get to Canada go via the U.S. So the tariffs could hit that route. But our European companies are ready to, if necessary, have direct trade with Canada. I would also like the trade agreement to finally be ratified by all national parliaments. There’s one thing we’ve learned, is that we’re slow on trade. It takes us a decade to adopt a trade agreement. That’s why MERCOSUR is in our focus now. And we’re examining the possibility of going further with India and some of the gulf states. If anything, what is happening has triggered the possibility for us to go, you know, faster. And Canada would be a model for us to do that, with Prime Minister Carney.

Q: Hi. This is Manoj Singh. I’m in banking.

We live by the numbers. So I’ll have a question for you about numbers. You painted a rather pessimistic picture about just a quarter of the world’s population living under democracies. And as I look at the eight billion people and start adding up some of the countries, I think it’s more like half. You start with 340 million Americans, 450 European Union, 1.4 billion in India, before we count Japan, Australia, Canada, and a whole host of Asia and the Americas which are democracies. Why do you consider only one quarter to be democracies?

METSOLA: Well, the point that I wanted to make is that what we are seeing—and we can, of course, discuss the details and the specificities of the numbers—is that access to elections is becoming weaker and weaker. Where I come from, in the Mediterranean, the countries that used to have free and open and fair elections are sliding. And therefore, those would go into numbers of what would be or not be. Thirdly, where we see countries which have elections that are not considered to be open and fair. And there, we need to be clear in saying, look, do not exclude people from having the possibility to choose their leaders. We can expand it as well.

We have a big debate in Europe of people who live in countries for a long time and don’t have access to vote. And therefore, don’t—they don’t have the possibility to choose the leaders that essentially run their lives. It’s quite sensitive, because you have countries that say, OK, even if you were born here you will not be given the right to vote. But we would argue not to allow or find a situation where people cannot vote anywhere. And that is specific to each country. We have another regression that we see, also in the European Union—so we’re not—we’re not pointing fingers at other countries—where there is a sort of a deliberate sort of attempt for some people in your communities not to vote, and not to give them the possibility. And there, we’re very worried.

We’re making sure—that’s why we have people on the ground—that you get to polling booth, that you’re given the possibility to choose. But if not, we will need to, you know, work also with international institutions in order to make sure that those elections are fair and that bring you to vote. So that was the context within which we said that the picture is getting weaker, in a way, because we see it around us.

HARTLEY: You’re then. OK.

Q: Mark Hetfield, president of HIAS, which is the Jewish community’s refugee agency.

Europe’s response, which you already spoke about, to the Ukrainian displacement was astonishing, in a good way. Europe’s performance in terms of refugee resettlement has been less impressive, but we were very excited thirteen months ago when you signed the new EU regulation on refugee resettlement—providing a framework for refugee resettlement and humanitarian admissions. Now that the U.S. has pretty much completely left the scene when it comes to leadership in the refugee resettlement area, where do you see Europe going?

METSOLA: Want to take another one?

HARTLEY: Yes. One right there.

Q: Hello, President Metsola. Thank you for being here today. And, of course, thank you for all of your accomplishments.

Climate-related matters are obviously a top priority for much of the world. I feel like it’s my responsibility to say CFR’s Climate Realism Initiative is doing some great work on this. Currently what is—what are you doing with the European Parliament in holding member states accountable to the commitments on this issue? Thank you.

METSOLA: So on refugees, I mean, you know, I mentioned before the—when sometimes results in the parliament and majorities are so tight, and they’re mostly tight when it comes to immigration, for different reasons—ideological, emotional, national. That if you come from a country that is particularly challenged then those people who live in that country think that they’re being left alone. We’ve been very slow on integration. We do not have a proper system of solidarity, as we call it, so, in other words, possibility to move from one country to another once you’ve been given asylum.

The pact—we call it the Pact of Migration, that we adopted in April last year, if we had to vote for it today it would not pass with the form with which it was. Why? Because we made a balance between asylum, on the one hand, and security. And that balance might not find itself in the current majority. So it was important for us to push it through before the election so that we send a message to countries that we’re serious about having a policy that is fair with those who are in need of protection, that is firm with those who are not, and that was harsh with those who traffic the most vulnerable people on the planet into our continent.

Now, the situation is, of course, more global. We used to rely on the U.S., and having sort of global agreements on refugees protection, some people being given protection and being brought here directly. Europe does not have that system. You know, you come to the border and then your asylum application is processed, et cetera. My one concern is that we look away from the largest refugee camps in the world, where you have millions of people who depend on development assistance and USAID. Have had—have been within—under the auspices of the U.N. for decades.

And I’m worried about that now, for two reasons. One, what will happen to those millions of refugees with nowhere to go? Largest ever amount of displaced people in history. And, two, there are a number of European countries that have progressively decreased their investment in overseas development aid, for different reasons—political formations, budgetary cuts, inflation, et cetera. We have a particular situation in Sudan. So there is a lot of aid going in there, but it’s a drop in what is needed. So Europe will step up, but with a realization that governments will need to balance what they need to do. So you have countries who tell us, we’re investing everything in security now.

And this, in a way, will link to the second question on climate. So five years ago—so the last election—six years ago now—the last election we had to the European Parliament the number one top concern for all countries was climate. Today, it is still the number-one concern in many countries, especially for the younger generation, but it’s also with security as an equal. So we have a choice. We have—and we’re very ambitious in this regard. We’re coming close to the ten-year anniversary of the Paris accords. We’ve adopted the emissions trading system for maritime, for aviation. We’re still trying to make Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism a success. We’re trying to find what we call own resources, where the EU can actually make its own funds to help pay back some of the debts. And then we’re also making sure that the targets by different member states are met.

We’re also being told at the same time by our companies that they’re overwhelmed by regulation. And that what could be potentially absorbed by a very large industrial corporation is impossible to do for a small business. Europe is built on the small businesses. And we have been told that some of our regulation, first of all, is unimplementable. It is also unfeasible, and will lead to them closing down. So we’re trying to seek that very delicate and fine balance in looking at some of the files that we adopted, such as sustainability reporting or due diligence, adopted quite broadly by the parliament last mandate. But now we are being asked by governments either to pause or even to roll back completely.

The parliament will not be on that side. However, there is call for ambition and realism, in a way, where challenges are so high and so immediate that the risk is that our climate goals lose focus. But as a parliament, we won’t do that. And we will push the governments into making sure we’re on track. So there is an ocean summit today, right now, at the moment, taking place in France. I have fifteen of my members there. We will be very present at the COP. We would like to make sure that in November when we celebrate ten years of the Paris accords, that we remind what we aimed at, and that the targets are met. Not all countries can do it, but some countries can. And they should.

MS. HARTLEY: So I think it is 12:00. And since the Council prides itself on running its meetings on time, I think now is the end of this terrific conversation. And I think we should all give President Metsola a round of applause. (Applause.)

(END)

This is an uncorrected transcript.