Written by Clare Ferguson and Katarzyna Sochacka.
The key moments of the November II 2025 plenary session included the adoption of the 2026 EU budget and a debate on the EU position on the proposed plan and EU engagement towards a just and lasting peace for Ukraine. Members also debated statements on the EU response to Russian and Belarusian violations of EU airspace and infrastructure sabotage and on tackling China’s export restrictions. Members debated Parliament’s statement marking the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women and exchanged views with the Commission on the outcome of the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Brazil (COP30). Further debates were held on the Democracy Shield, the digital package, sustainable aviation and maritime fuel, citizens’ right to make cash payments, and fishing opportunities for 2026. Debates were also held on the 30th anniversary of the Barcelona Process marking its development into today’s Pact for the Mediterranean, the war in Sudan, and the political situation in Myanmar.
2026 EU budgetParliament’s negotiators reached a provisional agreement on next year’s budget on 15 November, which reflects Parliament’s priorities, particularly increased funding for competitiveness, research and defence initiatives. The budget for the year sets commitment appropriations at €192.77 billion and payments at €190.1 billion. Following the Council’s approval, Members considered and adopted the agreed text. The vote on the 2026 EU budget concludes the budgetary procedure for 2026, and enabled Parliament’s President to sign the budget into law immediately.
European defence industry programme (EDIP)Seeking to strengthen Europe’s defence industry, and guarantee reliable access to defence equipment when needed, Members debated and adopted a provisional agreement reached with the Council on the European defence industry programme (EDIP). The negotiators succeeded in maintaining the €1.5 billion budget for 2025 to 2027, including €300 million to support Ukraine. The agreement on EDIP also sets a 35 % limit on non-EU components, and excludes suppliers who pose a risk to EU security, a key Parliament priority.
Defence of democracy packageMembers debated and adopted two reports from the Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO) on new lobbying rules, including a proposed directive setting harmonised transparency requirements, as part of a package aimed at tackling covert foreign influence. The vote sets Parliament’s position for negotiations on addressing third-country interference in democratic processes.
Stronger role for Europol to fight migrant smuggling and human traffickingMigrant smugglers are responsible for over 90 % of irregular external EU border crossings. And migrants smuggled this way are at higher risk of falling victim to trafficking in human beings. Members debated and adopted an agreement reached with the Council on a proposal to strengthen Europol’s role in combating migrant smuggling and trafficking. The agreement would establish a permanent European Centre against Migrant Smuggling within Europol. It also introduces greater information-sharing in immigration operations and strengthens biometric data processing capabilities through additional staff and funding.
InvestEUMembers debated and adopted an agreement reached between the Committees on Budgets (BUDG) and Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON) negotiators and the Council to amend and simplify the InvestEU Regulation. The changes would mobilise a further €55 billion in investment through InvestEU, the EU’s public-private risk-sharing instrument, supporting greater competitiveness and innovation.
Toy safety regulationParliament adopted an interinstitutional agreement at second reading on the proposed new toy safety regulation. Following negotiations between the co-legislators, the revised proposal strengthens customs checks on imported toys and requires that safety assessments of digitally connected toys consider risks to children, including their mental health. It also bans additional harmful chemicals in toys.
EU strategy and cooperation in the ArcticCompetition between global powers for influence in the Arctic region is contributing to a growing sense of instability. Members debated and adopted a report from Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs (AFET), calling for a security-oriented strategy in the Arctic. The report recommends deeper partnerships with Arctic countries – and supports future EU enlargement prospects and increased EU funding for the region.
Digital safety for minorsParliament debated and adopted an IMCO report, recommending measures to address the growing problem of children bypassing uneven age-verification in the EU to access adult content online. The own-initiative report on digital safety for minors warns of the risks of addiction, mental health problems and exposure to illegal content, and calls for stronger enforcement of the Digital Services Act (DSA), for the expected digital fairness act to close legislative gaps in online child safety, and for an EU-wide digital age limit.
European disabilities strategyPeople with disabilities still face disadvantages in income, access to jobs, inclusive education, housing and healthcare. Parliament debated and adopted a report from the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, aimed at addressing these disadvantages in the remaining years of the European disability strategy. The report also highlights the situation of women and girls with disabilities, who face multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination and violence.
Subsidiarity, proportionality and the role of national parliaments in the EUThe principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, which ensure the EU only acts where appropriate and where national governments cannot, is fundamental to the EU legislative process. Members adopted a report from the Committee on Constitutional Affairs (AFCO) calling for improved definition and application of subsidiarity and proportionality and extending the deadline for national parliaments in the Member States to engage in the EU legislative process.
Read this ‘at a glance note’ on ‘Plenary round-up – November II 2025‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.
Written by Astrid Worum and Ralf Drachenberg.
After ‘constructive discussions’ in Geneva on 23 November between representatives of the US, Ukraine, France, Germany and the UK to ‘update and refine’ the 28-point Russia–Ukraine peace plan proposed by US President Donald Trump, the President of the European Council, António Costa, called an informal meeting of EU leaders to take stock of the latest developments. The aim was to draw on the ‘new momentum for peace negotiations’ by carrying out ‘additional work’ on major issues left unresolved. EU leaders stressed that the solution should be just and lasting, and expressed their readiness to support the process by working closely with Ukraine, the US and NATO. While reiterating their commitment to provide Ukraine with all the diplomatic, military, economic and financial support it needs, they also insisted that issues concerning the EU directly, such as sanctions and immobilised assets, required an EU decision and its full involvement.
GeneralSince the COVID crisis, videoconferences have become a useful tool for EU leaders to convene at short notice to discuss urgent developments, and were used most recently in February and August 2025). However, for this meeting about half of the EU leaders were physically present in the same location, Luanda (Angola), while the other half were connected remotely, making it the first fully hybrid European Council meeting.
The meeting was a ‘meeting of the 27 EU leaders with the President of the European Commission’ and did not include the President of the European Parliament, Roberta Metsola, as is often the case when EU Heads of State or Government meet in the videoconference format. However, Costa briefed the European Parliament’s Conference of Presidents (Parliament’s President and political group leaders) on the discussions at the informal EU leaders’ meeting, as he had done on 10 November for the 23 October 2025 European Council meeting.
Background US 28-point Russia-Ukraine peace planThe US 28-point Russia-Ukraine peace plan leaked on 20 November – which the White House claimed was the result of a month of work between US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US special envoy Steve Witkoff, ‘along with input from both Ukrainians and Russians’ – is considered by many observers to be too favourable to Russia. On the sidelines of the G20 summit in Johannesburg, 12 leaders – from Canada, France, Germany, Japan, the UK, Finland, Ireland, Italy, Norway, Poland, Spain and the Netherlands – as well as the European Council and Commission Presidents, adopted a statement expressing support for the ‘US efforts to bring peace in Ukraine’, but also concern at certain aspects of the draft. The statement notably underlines that ‘the initial draft of the 28-point plan includes important elements that will be essential for a just and lasting peace’, but that this ‘draft is a basis, which will require additional work’.
Concerns mainly relate to four points: i) territorial concessions; ii) limitation of Ukrainian military capacities; iii) sanctions and post-war reparations; and iv) NATO-related provisions.
Firstly, the statement recalls the principle that borders cannot be changed by force, representing a rebuke to the 28-point plan, which envisages significant territorial concessions from Ukraine to Russia, notably Donetsk.
Secondly, the proposal to limit Ukraine’s armed forces to 600 000 personnel ‘would leave Ukraine vulnerable to future attack’. EU leaders have only recently reiterated that ‘a Ukraine that is capable of defending itself effectively is seen as an integral part of any future security guarantees’; the provisions of the US plan are vague on security guarantees from the US and other Western allies – a point which Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has repeatedly demanded as a condition for peace.
Thirdly, the statement stresses that ‘elements relating to the EU and NATO would need the consent’ of their respective members. Thus, the proposals cannot prejudice decisions relating to EU sanctions and the use of immobilised Russian assets, which are largely held in Europe, notably by Euroclear, and which EU leaders are considering using for Ukraine’s reconstruction. Even if the details are vague, the US plan seeks to unblock immobilised assets and place them into two investment funds, one for Ukraine and the other for Russia. The US would benefit economically from both funds, while the EU would be called on to pay €100 billion for Ukraine’s reconstruction.
Fourthly, the US plan includes a ban on NATO membership for Ukraine, which is a matter for consensus between NATO members – not a decision for third parties, such as Russia – and for which there is no precedent. In that context, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz expressed scepticism that an agreement could be reached on the US plan in time for the deadline set by President Trump, and also rejected the re-integration of Russia into the G8, stating that ‘among the six current G7 members who are not the US, there is no willingness to readmit Russia’. Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez called for a revision of the plan, stressing that ‘Ukrainians and Europeans must feel fully represented in any peace plan’, which affects the entire European security architecture.
Even if President Trump later said that the US 28-point plan was not ‘his final offer’, considerable pressure was put on Ukraine to accept the plan by Thanksgiving – 27 November. In a video address, President Zelenskyy told the Ukrainian people that ‘Ukraine may find itself facing a very difficult choice: Either loss of dignity, or the risk of losing a key partner. Either a difficult 28 points, or an extremely difficult winter.’ Russia indicated that the US plan was a potential basis for a peace agreement, and warned that, if Ukraine were to turn it down, Russian forces would advance further.
European counter-proposalIn that context, a group of countries led by France, Germany and the UK submitted a counter- proposal. While taking the US plan as a basis, it amends the draft on key points: i) the timing of territorial discussions, with a ceasefire to be reached first and the current front line to be set as the basis for any future discussions on territory; ii) on security guarantees, the counter-proposal envisages a NATO Article 5-like US security guarantee for Ukraine; iii) regarding Ukrainian sovereignty (which implies the right to choose alliances and make choices on its armed forces), the language on restrictions to NATO membership are softened and the number of personnel increased to 800 000 in peacetime; and iv) references to territorial concessions and recognition of occupation are removed, with European allies strongly rejecting the idea that Ukraine should be required to give up land by force. Russia, whose core demands were included in the US plan, rejected the counter-proposal.
Geneva meeting on 23 NovemberThe Geneva meeting on 23 November, which gathered together national security advisers from the US and Ukraine, as well as France, Germany and the UK, drew up an ‘updated and refined peace plan’. The heads of cabinet of the European Commission and European Council presidents, Bjoern Seibert and Pedro Lourtie, also attended. After the meeting, Secretary of State Rubio praised the ‘tremendous amount of progress’ made in Geneva. Having spoken with Zelenskyy ahead of the EU leaders’ summit, Finnish President Alexander Stubb described the Geneva negotiations as a ‘step forward’, but cautioned that ‘major issues remain to be resolved’, adding that decisions falling under the EU or NATO’s remit would be discussed ‘in a separate track’.
The informal meeting of EU leaders on 24 NovemberEmphasising the ‘new momentum for peace negotiations’, President Costa convened a special meeting of EU leaders on the sidelines of the EU-Africa Summit in Luanda, Angola, to take stock of the latest developments. The purpose was to discuss the state of play as well as ‘major issues, which still remain to be resolved’, to develop the peace plan into a sustainable solution. The meeting took place in a hybrid format, with 15 EU leaders attending in person, including Chancellor Merz, the Irish Taoiseach, Micheál Martin, the prime ministers of Croatia, Andrej Plenković, Poland, Donald Tusk, Slovakia, Robert Fico, and Spain, Pedro Sánchez, and Presidents Costa and von der Leyen, while other EU leaders joined by videoconference. Since the meeting was an informal one, no conclusions were adopted, but Costa and von der Leyen held a joint press conference afterwards outlining the main discussion points.
In his report after the meeting, Costa stressed that ‘peace cannot be a temporary truce, it must be a lasting solution’. Thus, while commending ‘the efforts of Presidents Zelenskyy and Trump and their teams’ and welcoming the ‘progress achieved [in Geneva] on several issues’, EU leaders underlined that ‘some issues remain to be resolved’.
EU leaders conveyed two central messages. Firstly, ‘the issues that concern directly the EU, such as sanctions, enlargement or immobilised assets, require the full involvement and decision by the EU’. Thus, certain points included in the draft peace plan cannot be decided by third parties in a peace treaty, but will need to be discussed in a separate framework. At the same time, they expressed their readiness to support the process by working closely with Ukraine, the US and NATO. Secondly, EU leaders reiterated the EU’s commitment to providing ‘President Zelenskyy with all the support he needs’ – diplomatic, military, economic and, in particular, financial support. On the latter point, Costa recalled the commitment made at the 23 October meeting, stressing that ‘we will [deliver] at the December European Council’, and said that ‘Ukraine has chosen Europe, and Europe will stand by Ukraine’. Lithuanian President Gitanas Nausėdastressed the ‘need for the EU to actively participate in the discussions on the future of Ukraine, and also to keep pressuring Russia – the only side responsible for this unjust war’.
EU leaders also set three ‘core principles’ outlined by von der Leyen regarding the substance of a future peace deal, which is also ‘about the security of the entire [European] continent, now and in the future’. Firstly, Ukraine’s territory and sovereignty must be respected. Secondly, only Ukraine as a sovereign country can make decisions regarding its armed forces, and the choice of their destiny is in their own hands. Thirdly, Europe is central to Ukraine’s future. As Romanian President Nicușor Dan emphasised at the EU-27 meeting, ‘there is a direct link between the security of Ukraine and that of the Republic of Moldova and the region as a whole, and the current peace talks need to take this aspect into consideration’. Likewise, Bulgarian Prime Minister Rosen Jeliazkov emphasised that ‘the security of Ukraine is essential for EU security – close coordination between the US, the EU and Ukraine, and reliable long-term guarantees for Ukraine’s future, are key’.
Mirroring the principles set by EU leaders, in their joint statement on the same day, the chairs of the foreign affairs committees of 20 European countries’ parliaments emphasised that a just and lasting peace cannot be achieved by yielding to the aggressor; instead, it must be grounded in international law and respect Ukraine’s territorial integrity, independence, and sovereignty. On 26 November, the European Parliament held a debate on the proposed plan and the EU’s engagement for a just and lasting peace for Ukraine, with von der Leyen outlining again the core principles of the EU’s position in favour of a sustainable peace. These principles – together with the full involvement of EU and NATO members on decisions concerning them – also reflect the main lines set in the statement adopted by G20 and European partners, as well as the amendments made in the counter-proposal to the 28-point plan. They also served as a ‘solid basis’ for the 25 November videoconference call of leaders of the countries comprising the ‘Coalition of the Willing’ supporting Ukraine, whose co-chairs, French President Emmanuel Macron and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, issued a strong statement after the meeting.
Read this briefing on ‘Outcome of the informal EU leaders’ meeting of 24 November 2025‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.
Citizens called on the European Union to take action to ensure the release and safe return of Europeans detained by Israel for their participation in the Gaza-bound Global Sumud Flotilla. Many citizens wrote to the President of the European Parliament on this subject from October 2025 onwards. They asked her to take the necessary action to guarantee that European citizens are protected and receive full consular assistance.
We replied to citizens who took the time to write to the President:
EnglishThe European Parliament has been closely monitoring the situation and has been in contact with the relevant national authorities. However, the responsibility to provide consular assistance to citizens of the European Union (EU) lies with individual EU countries.
Opening the Parliament’s sitting on 6 October 2025, President Metsola spoke of the need to ‘finally bring about an end to the intergenerational cycle of bloodshed, terror and violence’ in the Middle East.
The President welcomed the agreement on the first phase of the Gaza peace deal and called for the deal to now be respected and implemented.
The protection and wellbeing of Members of the European Parliament, anywhere in the world, is and will always be of the utmost priority for this Parliament. Please see the Parliament Spokesperson’s June statement on this.
The European Parliament adopted a resolution in September 2025 on the situation in Gaza. Moreover, on 7 October 2025, the European Parliament held a debate on the EU’s role in supporting the recent peace efforts for Gaza and a two-state solution.
FrenchLe Parlement européen suit la situation de près et est en contact avec les autorités nationales compétentes. Toutefois, la responsabilité de fournir une assistance consulaire aux citoyens de l’Union européenne incombe aux différents États membres.
Lors de l’ouverture de la séance du Parlement le 6 octobre 2025, la Présidente Roberta Metsola a souligné la nécessité d’«enfin mettre un terme au cycle intergénérationnel d’effusions de sang, de terreur et de violence» au Moyen-Orient.
La Présidente a accueilli favorablement l’accord sur la première phase du plan de paix pour Gaza et a demandé son respect et sa mise en œuvre.
La protection et le bien-être des députés au Parlement européen, partout dans le monde, sont et seront toujours la priorité absolue de ce Parlement. Veuillez consulter la déclaration de la porte-parole du Parlement à ce sujet.
Le Parlement européen a adopté en septembre 2025 une résolution sur la situation à Gaza. En outre, le 7 octobre 2025, il a tenu un débat sur le rôle de l’UE dans le soutien aux efforts de paix en faveur de Gaza et une solution fondée sur la coexistence de deux États.
BackgroundCitizens often send messages to the President of the European Parliament expressing their views and/or requesting action. The Citizens’ Enquiries Unit (AskEP) within the European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS) replies to these messages, which may sometimes be identical as part of wider public campaigns.
In the morning of 2 December, the Committee on Foreign Affairs (AFET) and the Special Committee on the European Democracy Shield (EUDS) will hold a joint public hearing and discuss ways to effectively counter disinformation and FIMI in the Western Balkans, strengthen its democratic institutions, build public trust, and focus on the role the EU can play in this process.