Press Briefings: What does the Parliament expect from SOTEU?
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
Offset
Transcript offset
Export
Live capture
Versions of this video
Transcripts may differ slightly from one version to another.
OTHER European Parliament
Christian Mangold
If you look at the issues, security, defense, industrial capacity, secure jobs, innovation, protecting the most vulnerable in the digitalized world, climate change, not only about CO2 emissions, but also how we are prepared for the impact of climate change, all these issues, we need to answer ourselves also how we finance our priorities. And new priorities, new challenges also necessitate a new financing if they have to be tackled at the European level. And that's why I'm very happy that for the first session, I hope they will come now soon, we have our lead negotiators from the European Parliament on the next long-term budget, José Manuel Fernandes and Siegfried Mureșan. This afternoon, we will hear from key members, chairs, and rapporteurs what they and the Parliament expect of tomorrow's address, what needs to be done to tackle the current challenges, and what needs to be done to tackle future challenges and to be prepared. I hope that you get some insight in this press seminar, some context to be able to follow and understand tomorrow the debate in a more informed way.
I would like to thank the services, Rafa and all the colleagues in DG COMM who have been working so hard to organize this seminar and all other activities in this week, and I would like to thank you for your participation and interest.
Raffaella De Marte
Okay, now I am in the embarrassing situation that we rushed into the start and the members are not there. So, do you have any general question on the State of the Union, even if I know that many of you attended this morning this more, let's say, generalistic briefing? But do you have questions on the debate tomorrow, the format, the different aspects that we can explain, let's say, from the institutional point of view, not the content, because this is not our role? Any curiosity? Or you are all super well prepared.
Okay, let's see where people come from. What is, I saw a big Polish delegation. Can we see where are the Polish journalists? In there. Okay, okay.
The other big countries, Germans, are they in already? Okay, scattered around. Italians? Small group. What else?
The Spanish? But I think the Spanish have a parallel program today. They will come a bit later.
And then Greece, I recognize you. Greece. I don't know the others.
Malta.
Raffaella De Marte
Malta. Where are the Maltese? Okay. Only one Maltese? Ah, okay.
I saw the Latvian colleague, so there must be Latvian journalists. Okay. So we have basically all the... ah, and the two nationalities here, Romanians. There we are. Yeah, there are.
Hi, Mrs. Tavares. We were so much on time that we had time to ask the journalists where they come from. And we... I can confirm we are from all over Europe, so really a transnational briefing. Very welcome. Thanks, Christian, for your words.
So we go straight to your theme because we also know that you have other commitments later. We have a very strong sense of urgency for these negotiations on the multiannual financial framework. You must be extremely busy, both of you.
So thanks for being with us. And as we were saying, our Director General was saying, this financial framework is a bit the backbone of all the policies that the EU is going to develop in the coming years, and so a red thread that accompanies all the discussion in our afternoon and of course also the State of the Union tomorrow. So I would like to welcome Siegfried Mureșan from the EPP Group, the European People's Party, from Romania, and Carla Tavares from the Socialists and Democrats from Portugal. Thank you again. And yeah, I mean, this next long-term budget is a key negotiation in the autumn.
Can you let us know where do we stand, why is the Parliament so, let's say, keen on having this file completed by the end of the year, and what is your ambition to reach an agreement with the Member States in the coming months? Mr. Mureșan.
Carla Tavares
Thank you very much.
Good afternoon, everyone. Really thank you very much for coming to Strasbourg in what I believe will be a very important week, with the speech of the President of the European Commission really outlining the priorities of the Union for the next year. And we're sure also with the address of the Prime Minister of Canada confirming that when dictators cooperate more, liberal democracies have to cooperate even more. And I truly believe that we will find a way between the European Union and Canada to intensify ties. We share so much in terms of economic ties, trade, security.
Canada is a NATO member, and in terms of defending European values. So in that sense, you came for a very interesting week. Of course, if one says that something is important in Europe, something is a priority, then it needs to give the tools to the European Union to address that priority. And it is clear that security, defense, and competitiveness are the new priorities of the European Union. We have to do more to protect our citizens, to provide food security, energy security, to protect our borders, to tackle instrumentalized illegal migration, to protect our cyberspace.
So we have to do more on security, defense. We have to do more on competitiveness. And if we expect Europe to do this, we have to give the tools to the European Union, and one essential tool is the budget of the European Union. We have started work on the budget of the Union for the next seven years.
The budget is always decided in seven year terms because beneficiaries of EU funds need predictability and because the budget cannot just be you know a short-term crisis reaction mechanism. We have to set objectives in the longer term and then allocate money so that we reach those objectives. Last year, the European Commission made its proposal on the EU budget for the next seven years and now it is up to the European Parliament and to the Council which includes the 27 member states to agree on this budget. By the way, all that we say I think we're on the record so you can use and quote. So the European Commission made a proposal.
And now we the Parliament and the Council have to work on that proposal. The European Commission bless you has put forward a budget of 1.15% of the GNI of member states. So 1.15% of the GNI of member states for the next seven years. The current budget in these seven years is 1.14% of the GNI of member states. So the Commission has presented a budget which is same in size as the current budget under the circumstance that we have to do more on security defense competitiveness.
And so this is why we as a Parliament looked at the proposal of the Commission. We think that these new priorities, security, defense and competitiveness, deserve to be supported. But we think that doing it at the expense of the traditional priorities, cutting the funding to what used to be important in the budget, the cohesion policy, which is the main investment tool, and the common agricultural policy, which provides food security, rural development, millions of jobs in the agricultural sector, is the wrong way. So this is why if we want Europe to do more, if we want to focus on new priorities and continue doing what was useful so far, then of course a moderate increase of the budget is needed. This has to be moderate because, you know, member states at national level also have deficits, they cannot contribute more into the EU budget.
This is why the European Parliament proposes a 10% increase of the budget in comparison to the Commission's proposal. The situation is the following: the European Parliament has already adopted its position, its mandate for negotiations in April of this year. And right now we are waiting for the Council, for the 27 member states, to agree on their position as well so we can start negotiations with them.
And it's hard for us to understand why, if 705 members of the European Parliament could agree, why 27 prime ministers, heads of state and government cannot agree. So we believe it's high time that they also come to a common position and then to a negotiation with with Parliament. Because the budget has to enter in force on the 1st of January 2028, and we should reach our agreements in Brussels as soon as possible so that subsequently the money is ready, subsequently secondary legislation is being adopted, member states, beneficiaries at national, local level, but also the private sector can prepare for the absorption of funds. This being said, we have a position, we wait for the Council's position. We see some divisions in Council, particularly we see some net contributing member states wanting to wanting Europe to do more, but wanting in parallel to cut the budget of the Union significantly.
And we think that would not be advisable because if we cut the Union's budget, the problems around us on security, defense, competitiveness will not disappear. We will just be ill-equipped to tackle them. So then member states will have to allocate resources at national level, which will be a bit more more expensive. So we think that this debate, you know, "I want my contribution to be as small as possible to the EU budget" is exactly what led to Brexit and this should not be, we should learn from others' mistakes.
We should not repeat others' mistakes ourselves because, yes, it's better to learn from other, other people's mistakes. This being said, the EU budget is, as I said, very limited in comparison to national budgets and it's not growing. Last figure from my side, the budgets of the 27 member states of the Union in absolute terms have grown by 68% in the last seven years. 68% the budgets of member states at national level. So when some of the member states are complaining that in the next MFF their contribution to the Union is supposed to increase a bit as well, we have to take into account how much their budgets have increased in absolute terms because there was economic growth, because indeed there was inflation as well, which leads to an increase of the budgets in absolute terms.
So what we cannot accept is, you know, budgets at national level increasing and the EU budget staying the same at absolute level because that is an erosion and that means that we're not consistent. It means that we expect Europe to do more, but we don't provide the tools to the Union and then, you know, Europe will not be able to deliver and it will disappoint.
I will stop here, but then if there are questions more specific, we will be happy to discuss after Carla's statement as well.
Raffaella De Marte
Thank you. And as I said, Mrs. Tavares will speak in Portuguese, so you can hear in English or French, and you can ask your questions in Portuguese in case there are. Or in English. And I think also we have Italian passive, so if you want to ask questions as well.
Siegfried Mureşan
Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you to be here with us again, neste que é um momento absolutamente, como o Siegfried já partilhou, absolutamente essencial para o próximo quadro financeiro plurianual. Amanhã é o dia da discussão do Estado da União e, portanto, esperamos também que a Presidente da Comissão possa abordar os próximos passos financeiros. Desculpem.
No seguimento do que o meu colega Siegfried já partilhou, voltar aqui a um tema que neste momento parece essencial para conseguirmos ter um acordo até ao final do ano de 2026. E falamos naturalmente da importância que tem a abordagem dos recursos próprios comuns, um tema que nos parece absolutamente crucial que haja um entendimento ao nível da Comissão e do Conselho para que seja possível termos um pacote de recursos que permita responder à ambição que a Europa, os europeus e o próximo quadro financeiro exige. Sabemos que temos a política tradicional, o Siegfried já o referiu e muito bem. Sabemos também que temos novos desafios comuns, como as áreas da competitividade, da segurança e da defesa. Sabemos também aquelas frases feitas, mas que não deixam de corresponder à realidade, que é impossível fazer mais com menos.
Sabemos que os Estados-membros não têm condições para contribuir mais para este orçamento da União e, portanto, restam-nos dois caminhos: ou reduzir naturalmente a ambição europeia e o investimento europeu, ou encontrar novos caminhos para financiar a ambição europeia e as necessidades que temos de responder aos desafios que temos pela frente neste quadro temporal 28-34. A Comissão teve oportunidade, quando apresentou a proposta, de colocar à discussão um pacote de recursos próprios que todos conhecemos naturalmente: o CORE, o ETS, o tabaco, o CBAM.
O próprio Parlamento, quando apresentou em abril o interim report, adicionou a essa proposta novos recursos próprios, três novos recursos próprios. As propostas surgem, mas entendemos e interpretamos que será muito difícil ter um quadro financeiro com ambição se não tivermos recursos próprios em cima da mesa e novos recursos comuns. Tivemos a oportunidade de estar a semana passada, a semana passada, na outra semana, no GAC informal em Dublin, onde tivemos a oportunidade também, e é importante para o Parlamento, de ouvir os ministros e participar na reunião informal. Tivemos a semana passada na Finlândia, foi um momento também importante para o Parlamento e para os dois correlatores, uma vez que tivemos a visitar regiões de zonas de fronteira com a Rússia e, portanto, percebendo bem o quanto é importante também que o próximo orçamento europeu olhe, em particular, para essas regiões e para essas zonas, atendendo à conjuntura geopolítica que se vive neste momento. E, portanto, este é tempo de, tal como o Parlamento tem o seu mandato, a Comissão, o Conselho também ter o mandato que permita, em conjunto, avançarmos neste desafio que é ter o próximo quadro financeiro.
O tempo vai passando. O objetivo do Parlamento é contribuir e ter condições para se pronunciar sobre a proposta que esperemos seja, naturalmente, um consentimento até ao final do ano de 2026. Mas para isso é preciso, de facto, fazer um caminho e evoluir ao nível do Conselho neste dossiê dos recursos próprios. E, portanto, neste momento, é o trabalho que o Parlamento também está a desenvolver com os colegas que estão a trabalhar no dossiê dos recursos próprios, cientes que sem um tamanho do próximo orçamento necessário não vai ser possível, naturalmente, conseguirmos acomodar a ambição que é preciso ter. E num Parlamento que também precisamos de construir os nossos consensos e o nosso caminho.
E é isso que temos feito no último ano e meio e é isso que pretendemos continuar a fazer no próximo mês.
E que também não é se a Comissão, se o Conselho tem os seus desafios, o Parlamento também os tem. E portanto é importante que relativamente aos recursos próprios em particular tenhamos rapidamente algum caminho em conjunto para que não sejamos confrontados com a absoluta necessidade de reduzir na coesão ou na agricultura ou na competitividade ou na defesa ou até numa área que é muito menos falada e que se prende com a ajuda externa no momento em que sabemos que os Estados Unidos vão ocupando o seu espaço mundial e que também não é desejável que no MFF em particular na ajuda externa a própria União Europeia desapareça daquele que é, desapareça financeiramente no seu apoio naquele que é também o contexto geoestratégico mundial. E da minha parte era só, muito obrigada.
Thanks. I think we can open straight. I'm sorry for those journalists who didn't manage to sit. Now we are victims of our success. The floor to the room.
Of course we have plenty of questions but it's your turn now. Yes, the lady there in the back, please introduce yourself and the media you work for.
Sorana Horșia
Thank you. My name is Sorana Horșia, I'm from Gândul from Romania.
My question is, if the Parliament's proposal for own resources doesn't get the support it needs, would it be more likely to convince MEPs to support increasing countries' contributions or cutting budget from programs like Erasmus or Agora EU? Thank you.
Carla Tavares
So look, we have to do more in the next years and there's only three ways to do it. Either member states pay much more into the EU budget, which they so far signaled they are not ready to do, or we make, so either, so we have to do more. Either we say that we do more and we really do more, for which member states have to contribute more, or we pretend that we do more, but in reality we cut the budget, which would be a mistake. It would not solve our problems, it would weaken Europe, it would create disappointments, it would be wrong and the Parliament will not accept deep cuts to the EU budget. Or the third way is to introduce own European sources of revenue in addition to the national contributions.
The advantage of this is that the funding of the EU budget would be predictable in a long term. We would not depend on political quarrels of heads of state and government every seven years on agreeing how much they are ready, when, under which circumstances to pay into Europe. It would be predictable, it's European, it's transparent. This is why we favor own European sources of revenues.
And this allows us to fund what has to be funded without increasing the contribution of member states. The European Commission has put forward some ideas. We as European Parliament have three ideas by ourselves. A digital levy, so an own resource based on the global largest technological giants. Then secondly, an own resource based on profits made with cryptocurrency transactions.
And thirdly, an own resource based on online gaming and gambling. Out of these three, it's clear that the first one, the digital levy, is numerically the more significant one and easier also to collect. So the choice that we have to face is the following. Either we ask the world technological giants, which partly belong to some of the richest persons on earth, to contribute a bit for their access to 400 million European consumers, or we will face a need to reduce the budget. And I think it would be wrong to cut, you know, funding to our security, to Erasmus, to our civil society, to NGOs, to farmers, to researchers, to students.
It would be wrong to cut money for what matters to Europe just to allow Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Zuckerberg a free access to our single market. This is why the European Parliament will strongly advocate for the introduction of this digital levy, not in a radical way, in a, you know, in a moderate, in a gradual manner and proportionate with, you know, the importance that the European single market has for these technological giants. They're making a lot of money in the European market and it's time for them to contribute a bit as well to the European budget for this.
Raffaella De Marte
Thank you. I see... shall we take three, so because I know Mr. Mureșan has to leave, so one, two, three, and then we do another round.
Balázs Márton
Thank you, Balázs Márton from Telex. I have a question regarding own resources and Eastern member states, because currently these GNI-based, mostly GNI-based payments ensure that the income is from high-income member states and not from poorer ones.
So tinkering with this system may propose some risks for these Eastern Member States to have their contributions increased. So what was the opinion of your colleagues from Eastern Member States and from Council Member States about these own resources?
Speaker 10
Hello, because I'm a French journalist for Ouest-France, I have to say my question in French, if it's okay. Bonjour, une question sur les ressources propres. On sait qu'au moment du grand emprunt européen, il y a eu des ressources propres qui étaient prévues, mais qui n'ont pas rapporté autant que ce qu'on avait espéré. S'il y a des nouvelles ressources propres qui sont annoncées demain, comment s'assurer qu'elles vont bien rapporter autant que ce qui va être annoncé ?
Ismini Balale
Well, my name is Ismini Balale, I'm from Greek media outlet, it's called News 24/7. Well, Greece is still recovering from the economic crisis, but right now we are facing with new challenges like the high cost, the energy cost, the climate disaster. Will the next EU budget actually provide additional tools for countries facing multiple crises? Thank you.
Siegfried Mureşan
Thank you, thank you so much for the question that you put on the table. I will answer in Portuguese. Quando nós conversamos e discutimos e pomos em cima da mesa a questão dos recursos próprios, é também com as preocupações que referenciou relativamente aos países ao Eastern Border e, naturalmente, com a preocupação que essas realidades também estejam vertidas naquilo que vai ser o próximo quadro financeiro plurianual. A questão dos recursos próprios é neste momento, de facto, a grande questão e a essencial questão. Colocavam: bom, temos que apoiar, naturalmente, os países e as comunidades relativamente à crise nas áreas da eletricidade e outras.
Bom, isso não se faz sem orçamento, ou isso faz-se também essencialmente com uma solidariedade entre os Estados-membros e com um próximo quadro financeiro capaz, previsível e capaz e dotado financeiramente para responder a todos estes desafios.
Mas os orçamentos da União Europeia são um bocadinho como os orçamentos municipais, orçamentos nacionais, portanto, os Estados-membros têm que contribuir para que seja possível termos todas as respostas necessárias. Não havendo essa possibilidade e também por aquilo que está a referir, temos que olhar para outras formas de financiar a ambição. E os recursos próprios, de facto, novos recursos comuns são neste momento o caminho mais fácil para que o próximo orçamento esteja em condições de responder a todos estes desafios, aos antigos e aos novos desafios que temos neste momento em cima da mesa e os que colocou são naturalmente também muitíssimo pertinentes. A pergunta francesa, eu peço desculpa, mas vou deixar também para o Siegfried porque não percebi tudo e, portanto, é mais fácil.
Carla Tavares
Yeah, thank you very much. Look, your question basically is important because we are seeing that the preoccupation of every Prime Minister is to pay as little as possible into the EU budget and to benefit as much as possible, and we think that doesn't make Europe stronger. And this is exactly why we need own resources because for the time being in the Council every debate about the European Council, every debate about the European budget is not a European debate, but it is a sum of 27 diverging national debates and national priorities. And we need a budget which is sufficient and capable of allowing the Union to address the common challenges. So the question "will my country pay a bit more?" is a false friend.
The real question needs to be, how do we together create a budget which is sufficient, which is addressing the common challenges and which is helping all of the 27 member states of the Union. Carla Tavares and me, we were in Finland at the end of the last week. We saw at the border with the Russian Federation how Finnish authorities are protecting that border and are keeping Europe safe against illegal instrumentalized migration. Each of the member states has specific needs and Europe can help. And these challenges on security, we are much better equipped to tackle together than member states individually.
So, and if we don't create own resources, then the budget will be too small and then every member state will lose because then we will not have enough resources. This is why own resources at the end of the day will make us all stronger, as also does every component of the budget, cohesion policy. You know, if a highway with cohesion funds is being built in Hungary, of course the Hungarian citizens and companies are benefiting the most. But it is also the German car manufacturer in Hungary who can export its cars faster, quicker, cheaper to the whole European markets.
It's also the Romanian tourists traveling through Hungary to the rest of Europe. So what we're doing here in Europe benefits all of us and we should stop believing that, you know, if we do something it's to the benefit of one and to the detriment of others. In most of the cases it's to the benefit of all. With regards to Greece and to the new challenges, so the budget proposal for the next seven years and the European Parliament's position foresees more resources for civil protection, for crisis prevention. The budget will also be more flexible so that the European Union has a capacity to react because in the next seven years unexpected developments will occur, things which none of us can anticipate.
So the budget needs to have some flexibility for cases of natural disasters, so earthquakes, bushfires, floods, the effects of climate change. But of course, the Union will also invest in preventing, in prevention, also in the area of water management linked to agriculture so that we can be better prepared for, you know, the effects of changed climate which we are seeing and they are becoming permanent.
Okay. There was a lady, okay, let's do from the back to coming more in front. Please.
Simone Branno
Yes, Simone Branno from Staffetta Quotidiana from Italy. You talked about own resources to finance the MFF. Some member states, including Italy, have asked to the Commission to introduce a taxation on windfall profits of energy industries. What you think about this solution? It will be a good solution to tax oil energy industry to finance the EU budget?
Thank you.
Caroline de Camaret
Yes, to follow up with this question, Caroline de Camaret de France 24. Bonjour Monsieur Mureşan et Madame Tavares. Est-ce qu'on peut, can we be a little bit more specific about the red lines of each country because you're saying that the Council is blocking the own resources, but which taxation they don't like? I mean, by state, it's very important to know what which are the red lines of each states and which state, which states are blocking most.
That's a first point. And the second point would be, of course, what do you expect from tomorrow's speech on the State of the Union concerning the budget? That's very important.
Raffaella De Marte
Thank you. I was hinting at the man behind, and then there is also the woman, so I have to take four. Sorry. But be quick.
Pablo Heichel
Oui, merci. Je vais poser la question en français. Pablo Heichel, je suis journaliste à la Gazette des communes. Où en êtes-vous sur la flexibilité, notamment dans les plans de partenariat nationaux et régionaux ? J'ai interrogé quelques eurodéputés français, ils considèrent que la proposition du Conseil avec le fonds Frankenstein ferait de la Commission un mini-FMI qui pourrait négocier avec les États membres dans le dos du Parlement européen.
En plus, les collectivités locales craignent de perdre la main au profit du gouvernement central, sans doute pas partout, mais il n'y a pas qu'en France. Est-ce que le mandat du Parlement européen pour le MFF est prêt à accepter la nouvelle architecture ou vous voulez qu'il y ait des enveloppes ciblées à l'intérieur des plans par pays ? Quelle part de flexibilité êtes-vous prêts à accepter ?
Emmanuel Strosser
Bonjour, Emmanuel Strosser, aussi en français de pour Bruxelles 2. Une question, vous avez évoqué la Finlande où vous vous êtes rendu. C'est un des pays les plus durs en termes de discipline budgétaire et en rejet du de la proposition de la Commission. Est-ce que vous avez senti une évolution possible ? Merci.
Carla Tavares
Okay, quickly from my side. Firstly, the European Commission has proposed some own resources. We are seeing opposition to the initial proposals of the Commission from several member states. This is why, in order to make sure that there will be a package of own resources, we believe alternatives are needed. We as a Parliament made three proposals and we are open to discuss any other potential sources of revenue, any other own resources.
This is why ideas from Italy are welcomed, as are ideas from other member states as well. So now is the time to agree that own resources are needed. This is what we expect from the European Council in October. So we expect from the European Council October to agree that own resources are unavoidable and then to focus on which ones. The question should not yes or no to own resources, but the question should be yes and now we focus on which ones we need and the Italian contribution is useful to the to the debates.
We are, you know, not spokespersons of member states, so which member state has which red lines in terms of own resources, they should tell you and pretty much they have spoken publicly about this. From the President of the Commission, we expect a commitment, we expect a clear line with regards to the priorities of the Union. And when it comes to the MFF, we expect her to say that, you know, we can only fulfill those priorities and make it happen if the budget is sufficient. And we expect a commitment from the President and from the Commission to progress fast with the negotiations on the budget and, you know, for a budget which is suitable and sufficient. And we expect also that the Commission continues to support own resources.
Now, you know, when you are asking about the position of member states on own resources, traditionally Prime Ministers and Ministers of Finance, they have preferred to tax themselves nationally and to decide themselves politically every seven years how much, under which circumstances and when they pay to the European Union.
But now we have more challenges, the fiscal space of many member states is limited and we have to pay back NextGenerationEU, the corona fund. This is why own resources are unavoidable, this is why we see now a bit more support, I mean more support and more dynamics there. As with regards to our visit to Finland, we have understood what the expectations of the Finnish government are and particularly that eastern border regions need specific support and we are going to try to make that happen. We are going to try to understand the needs of every member state because the budget has to correspond to the needs on the ground. Now if Finland is more flexible, this is something they will have to tell you.
And quickly on the NRPPs, National Regional Partnership Plans, we believe that cohesion, agriculture need clear, predictable funding within those National Regional Partnership Plans. We think that lack of predictability would weaken these European policies. We think cohesion, agriculture are important and funding should be predictable within those National Regional Partnership Plans.
Siegfried Mureşan
You were fast, ah! Foi também muito rápido e só para terminar e voltando àquilo que continuamos a achar que neste momento é o tema, é um tema importante e um desafio essencial que temos todos em cima da mesa, Parlamento, Comissão e Conselho, e que tem que ver com os novos recursos ou recursos próprios comuns. Nunca nenhum Estado-membro ficará satisfeito se vai rever em todas as propostas da Comissão ou noutras propostas que venham dos Estados-membros ou nas propostas do Parlamento.
Mas é preciso olhar para um cabaz, para um conjunto de recursos próprios equilibrado que consiga construir os equilíbrios necessários no Conselho Europeu para que naturalmente seja possível suportar o próximo quadro financeiro. Porque se isso não acontecer, o que estaremos aqui a conversar num próximo momento com vocês é o que é que reduziu e porque é que reduziu e porque é que temos menos disponibilidade financeira para investimento no próximo quadro financeiro, na competitividade, na segurança e na defesa, e porque é que temos menos condições e porque é que os números são menores na área da coesão, por exemplo, da agricultura. E é isso que ninguém quer que aconteça, é isso que o Parlamento não quer que aconteça. Não existirá seguramente uma solução que agrade a todos, mas é obrigação de todos neste momento encontrar recursos para conseguir suportar a ambição europeia. Muito obrigado.
Raffaella De Marte
Thank you very much. This is the beginning of the marathon. Thanks for keeping the time and good luck for the negotiations and of course count on us. Thank you. Hello.
I sit here so that I welcome you. I'm very glad to welcome for this second panel our next speakers on defense, security and foreign interference, Mr. Roberts Zīle, Vice-President of the European Parliament.
Here you are. Nice to see you. Nice to see you. How are you doing? And Mr. Petras Auštrevičius, member of Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Petras, is anything still left to be said after you said some? I think, I think more, more. We are just at the beginning. Very good. So thanks a lot everybody, please retake your seats so that we can go straight to the next panel.
As I said, on defense, security and foreign interference, we feel a sense of urgency in these fields. We feel that the European Union is under threat and we would like to discuss with you these threats and the responses from the European Commission and of course also from the European Union as a whole. Is it enough? Are we on the right way? Is this sense of urgency felt around Europe everywhere or not sufficiently?
So Mr. Zīle from the Conservative and Reformists group from Latvia, you are Vice-President, you are also member of TRAN, Transport Committee, and in this capacity you were co-rapporteur together with Mr. Auštrevičius on military mobility. We would like to hear a bit on your proposals on this. And Mr. Auštrevičius, you are from Lithuania and you are from the Renew group, member of Foreign Affairs, Security and also on the EU Democracy Shield, which was today finalized their work with a proposal, a report from the Parliament. So we would also like to hear. And of course your countries are both very exposed to this hybrid warfare, not only hybrid because in Lithuania last night, not later than last night, we had a real drone attack with explosive found in the drone.
So my question for both of you: is Europe doing enough and what do you expect from tomorrow's Commission State of the Union address?
Roberts Zīle
Yes, thank you. It's an honor to be in a full audience here, so thank you for interest, of course. Well, to understand what will be in a President of the Commission speech tomorrow, we have to look also back one year back, so what was done in defense and security issues.
And this is my introductory words, as I checked a bit with my office how we can evaluate. So it was, of course, you remember a year ago, it was several points. The key was the defense readiness roadmap 2030 and European Defense Semester. And then was some key under this was Eastern Flank Watch initiative. There was also issues like European drone defense initiative, European air shield, and European space shield.
So where we are with this all this issue? And for us with Petras it's very important, as you were in introductory words already moderator Madame de Marte already said, that we are coming from the area where it's where it's actually I we in Baltics we don't like to call hybrid war no more. It's too late to call it hybrid.
It's a real, real war. It's maybe not full-scale war like in Ukraine, of course, with such, but drones are coming not only today or yesterday. In Lithuania, in summer, the eastern part of Latvia was several times with, they didn't sleep for a night because the drones are arriving time to time, almost every week. And 50 kilometers from Russian and Belarusian borders, there was always possibility very high. And that's mean also for school kids and others, it's mean school is closed.
Those who had arrangement to doctors in the capital Riga, for example, it's 200 kilometers away, the trains were cancelled, so and they didn't go to doctors and things like that. So it's really going on. That's why I'm not sure that, and I don't really be very happy if President of the Commission announce five initiatives more tomorrow. I hope it will be not the right direction. If we just very quickly, I don't have a lot of time to say, but for example, Eastern Flank Watch.
It's a good initiative which sounds okay, but where we are currently, there was some indirect information that perhaps we will receive from 60 million for this initiative to cooperate on better level from the Commission. It's currently somewhere in Coreper level. So, but what is 60 million if we say some unofficially calculations from the member states on this initiative would go across 100 billion euros.
It doesn't mean everything should be done from the common pots of European budget, but at least there should be clear indication how we can reach those those figures more or less in the medium term. Otherwise the Eastern Flank watch will not really work so much. Then of course with the drones defense initiative, it's good. So, but as we are still trying to target the drones who are maybe sometimes even Ukrainian origin drones who are just redirected by Russian forces to to east to west, meaning Lithuania or Latvia, when they are traveling to Saint Petersburg level. But it's mean if we are trying to hit them by aviation with a very expensive means, it's not a solution for the drone defense initiative should be much more strong and air shields.
I am also can say that on European air shield, it's sometimes people thinks that it would be kind of how to say, in air some some drone shield which is permanent. It's will not like that. If you look in Ukraine, every week, almost every second week technology changed and they are developing every time.
So it would be permanent work which would be costly, but which allow us to fight against possible attacks with a much less expensive means. Otherwise we will not survive. So on military mobility, what you already touched, I had a great honor to work with initiative report with Petras last year and I think it was right direction on political level what Parliament approved with a big majority. And then I, from the last year, end of last year, I am working with Commission regulation draft on military mobility together with colleague from EPP Šerba. Currently we are in negotiations on a base of two committees' mandate, TRAN Committee and SEDE Committee, negotiating with Council.
During Irish presidency, we have opening shadow in July and now we are going on with a lot of technical meetings. This regulation on military mobility doesn't create so-called financial matters. So it was not speaking about the investment in railway sector or in ports or in roads. It was on rolling stocks. It was about the so-called low-hanging fruits.
So meaning that we have a such a big bureaucracy on military convoy if they need to go from Rotterdam port, for example, to Latvia, Lithuania, it will takes months because of bureaucracy only. I'm not speaking about the technical difficulties like obstacles, like not enough strong bridges or not enough rolling stocks or not enough pressure on the axis of the railway line some places which is too little for the heavy traffic on railroad. So, but even on low-hanging fruits mean remove all the each member state have a custom clearing for military convoy. Each member state have a rules and some kind of forms which are different in each member state to allow to military convoy to move a cargo, freight, which sometimes is in dangerous freight, and also for the military personnel. This procedures is in any if you crossing any member state is own rules.
And regulation is aimed to to remove those obstacles. We will see how we succeed. Aim is to finish this this year during Irish presidency. If we succeed, then Parliament will vote, I guess, in best case scenario somewhere early next year and Council as well. So it would be quick solution.
If not then then we will continue. But time is running and at least less expensive obstacles for the military needs for military mobility this time should be removed as as soon as possible. Leaving sometimes member states interests on some particular management of the security and defense issues which is according the treaties it's a member state issue. So but we have to give up like in NATO framework also for for this European Union framework you have to give up some sovereignty part in a common interest. Thank you.
Petras Auštrevičius
Thank you. Thank you for invitation and good afternoon to everybody. If to look from 25 to 26 during a year from previous von der Leyen's statement. You remember many things readiness and some suggestions were made some indications were proposed. During the last year in terms in on agenda of security and defense I think the overall European Union moved pretty well.
Especially what comes to budgetary allocations political understanding and some new instruments being created as you know. I mean EDIP and and more strengthening European defense base cooperation SAFE instrument 150. It's it's not linear kind of development.
It's shooting, shooting up and making something out of the box. Never before the European Union moved, I would say, so quickly and in a coordinated way. What remains to be done? Now we have a lot of new instruments, we have a lot of financial allocations. Now it's a moment of transformation.
Budgetary allocations must become real defense capacities or investments into the security and defense which must satisfy expectations of Europeans. As you know, by all polls, public polls, security and defense remains among three major expectations and needs for Europeans. And I have to admit, if to look horizontally, military threats didn't decrease over the year. Unfortunately, I have to tell you that from more hybrid threats we came to the stage of more direct threats. As it rightly said, tonight we had an incident of a drone flying from Belarus to the Lithuanian airspace.
It took for us a bit of time.
It was shot down by air policing mission. Italy is in charge for the time of being. They did a good job. Drone was down some 60 kilometers from the border. It's too far away.
It had to be done maybe some 5, 10 or immediately after crossing the border. Yes, it had a substance of the explosives, so meaning it's been military, not kind of pilot project or whatever. And we have more and more threats on the European soil, Leipzig airport and more to be mentioned. And I don't see any decrease. Why is that?
Because we are all part of the, so to say, target of the Russian military aggression against Ukraine. You like it or not, but Europe is seen as a part of this kind of the opposition from the Russian side. Whatever we say, whatever we do, I mean, we seen increasingly as those who support Ukraine and must be punished and must be, you know, paying a high price for this.
And that's a tendency. How far the Russian side and its allies will go, because they have allies, they have rather effective, supportive allies, to mention Iran, China, Belarus, other countries like North Korea. They look sometimes financially less capable, but you know, in those autocratic regimes money go in a different way. It's, it's not about big money. It's willingness to translate even small amount of money into something very targeted.
And those allies are really efficient in this regard. Why it is a high momentum? Because the Russian side is not ready for any negotiations. They want to make negotiations on the battlefield, meaning grabbing more territories, pushing Ukraine to the edge, especially in winter conditions. And now it's a decisive moment for Europe.
If we step back, if we show kind of signs of, you know, panic, misunderstanding, nothing will benefit from it.
I know which side will benefit out of this. And if you look to the political developments on the EU side, unfortunately, again, we see a rise of the radical right and left, who are very much in agreement. Let's, you know, satisfy some demands of Russia. I mean, let's be, you know, more kind of conciliatory. Let's be more understanding the Russian side.
And I guess this is the fifth column, sorry to say, I call things as they are, well supported, well kind of inflicted on our side with great coordination from one center as Kremlin is. So that's why we have to have full instrumentarium. That's why I fully appreciate report on FEME, on kind of democratic shield. We have to decode the information in full. We have to have a full complex of instrumentarium on our side how to handle and how to meet those challenges.
On hybrid threats, again, I recommend you to go a bit through that report.
Good analysis is made, but of course I'm not speaking just about hybrid, I speak about something what Europeans really need. And I want to advocate in full force, the sooner the better, the more complex the better, adoption of the 22nd sanctions package. Unfortunately, there are some setbacks, I mean in negotiations, which again not necessarily reflect a situation in need. But we have to go this way. This is the least expensive, I have to emphasize, least expensive way to deter Russia.
Russian economy is rather down, but we have to be consistent in this regard. I mean, let's come with something more that Russian economy will not sustain itself in bringing war on our territories. And finally, there is no national solution. There is no national solution for European security and defense. Times are over.
We are in one space, we are in one information space, we are in security space.
So that's why the European Union must look forward, not just increasing this cooperation among itself. By the way, one figure to emphasize, from 24 to 25, the aggregate defense budgets of European member states increased by 100 billion. 100 billion, huge increase, as I said, but it still has to be translated into capacities, into something more. And we have to cooperate with partners. I wish I mean we had a better understanding and kind of cooperation with the USA, but let's not, you know, stop at this.
Canada is a good partner. We have to find ways how to provide each other with more kind of guarantees and cooperation advantages. And I don't see it as a final list. I mean, we have to go further and further. And finally, we have to learn, not just to read, not just to quote, but we have to learn and translate our knowledge into our practice of Ukraine.
We are far from catching up, far from catching up with Ukrainian experience, sorry to say. I simply encourage each and every EU member state government, get advisors from Ukraine.
Those retired, sometimes wounded, but of golden experience coming from Ukraine. The sooner they are next to us and telling us very frank and very simple things, the better we will be prepared. We are not to, you know, be on offense. Best instrument for the European Union to increase itself, it's enlargement, not military aggression. Okay?
We have a great instrument. But now we have to secure our borders and lives of our citizens. That's it.
Okay, thanks for this very comprehensive intro and I am sure we will get questions from this very transnational audience we have today in different parts of Europe. Yes. Shall we take three in a row? Are you okay?
Sure.
Okay. So, you back and then, yes, please.
Jonathan Keane
Thank you.
Jonathan Keane from The Currency in Ireland. Just on military mobility, I recall MEPs had floated the idea of a compensation fund or a solidarity pool for the private sector or infrastructure operators that were out of pocket from for providing military use, but that's not wasn't in the Commission proposal. What is the status of that or has it been dropped?
Thank you. There was the lady here. Yeah.
Speaker 26
You can hear me now? Okay. What do you expect tomorrow from the Commission, from von der Leyen?
Good. On the other side of the room, I didn't look before. No. Okay, let's go for these two in the first place. You want to start, Mr. Zīle?
Roberts Zīle
Yes, thank you. About the military mobility, this compensation fund what we put in in a Parliament's position, there is written about the compensation for the involved stakeholders in transport sector in case of emergency, emergency regime.
So in a Commission proposal there was no like that, but after speaking with many of the combined transport and other infrastructure managers of railway and stakeholders like that, we found that it will not fly without a kind of compensation. Do we can leave it currently everything on member state level, like it is actually currently most cases Poland is paying for kind of compensation for the undertakings, railway and so for the freight, because most of the freight as we know is coming just from crossing one state, meaning coming by air or by the sea to Polish ports and then going through to Ukraine. This is example so that private transport company which would be glad to participate in military thing, they are currently avoiding cross-border EU member state cross-border cargo for military needs because they cannot deliver because of this bureaucracy. So but for compensation fund we don't know how we'll finish with the Council, so but our idea is of course we don't believe that it will be quickly possible to find sources somewhere in the EU budget, I don't believe it will be the case, but at least on the member state level there should be some kind of compensation, otherwise we are in situation where military freight will not be delivered in the most fastest time.
As Commissioner Kubilius in one of the press said that according the plans of, for example, of NATO, it's, I don't think it's a very big military secret, so that in case of needs, according those plans, you have to move in 10 days 100,000 military personnel through Europe. And if it will not be done with compensation, without compensation, it doesn't mean... Solidarity pool is a bit different issue. There is a lot of rolling stocks, for example, in railway sector and also trucks on the roads, who could be used for the military needs. But there is a question that member states are not so happy, and that's why we see it in a Council position, to allocate in a solidarity pool, which is a Commission proposal, we support in the Parliament.
But the substance is, the devil is in the details, as always, how much member states would like to put and companies in this solidarity pool, because perhaps they think there will be no compensation, there somebody will use our rolling stocks and without compensation, why we have to put it in a solidarity pool? This is a bit different issue, not only about directly about money, but more about sources. But we expect then you will start and I will finish.
Petras Auštrevičius
There will... I expect, by the way, fewer novelties in terms of security and defense. We have enough of initiatives. As I said, I mean, we developed and established many absolutely effective instruments. What we need: enforcement, enforcement, enforcement.
That's it. I hope, I mean, some good statistics will be presented, hopefully optimistic one, what comes especially of cooperation and coordination our national efforts. Each and every member state still lags behind, well behind, in public procurement, buying together, producing together, designing together. I mean, we're still learning in this regard. I mean, there are invisible and very high walls, borders, in terms of EU defense market in in EU.
I mean, as long as we play 27, so we are regarded as 27 one by one. But I said, I mean, it's not there is no national solution. There is union solution and probably partnership solution with other countries, third countries, which might assist and contribute in this regard. I expect unconditional, I emphasize, unconditional support for Ukraine. More support is needed.
War is very expensive, we know it. Just for your knowledge, in July 26, civilian casualties accounted 437 lives in Ukraine. Children, women, men, civilian. I am not talking about militaries. Militaries times more.
I mean, and this is the highest number from 2022. What does it mean? Escalation is on, alright? We have to come with unconditional support, unconditional support meaning enough of money. Where money will come from?
If you look at the table, Member States support, national support for Ukraine, it comes down from 3.5% to GDP to 0.1 and less. Solidarity? It's a joke. Misunderstanding? Could be.
But I don't see enough of common reading of military threats, okay?
So once, once this chance will be lost to come together on this major issue, because look, we can speak about economy, we can speak about migration and others, but military threats and security is number one. I mean, will be no flowers, I mean, no dancing, nothing, I mean, if we, if people really will be in a stage of this kind of, you know, threat. Panic is the worst thing which should come to Europe, because with panic will be no economic development, believe me. And finally, I expect really something to be said about further steps on Defense Union. No Defense Union, I mean, again, we will go to kind of national capitals' projected decisions.
But enforcement, enforcement, enforcement, and I hope good, good facts, arguments will be presented.
Okay, good. We have one on the back, one here, and I think this will be the, and one there. So we take these last three. Lady, man, man. Thank you.
Viliya Kvedaraite
Viliya Kvedaraite, Radio FM99, Lithuania. You are talking about drones in both countries, Baltic countries, not only, we are not the, it's also happens in Romania, etc.
Do you feel that defense is the same important in the whole Europe? And what do you think, what is the, which the main objective now, Europe's objective in Ukraine? What is the main task? Not to lose or...
Guillaume Amorett
Thank you very much, Guillaume Amorett from rufreporter.de. I have a questions, a question regarding your statement and your position on this, on this question. Coming from a country neighboring the conflict as such, do you have the feeling that you're left alone by other member states or politicians from like Western, West, Western Europe, let's say?
Marcin Antosiewicz
Doesn't work. Okay. Marcin Klomzelok, Polish Public Television. I have a question for Mr. Oštrevičius, so labas vakaras.
Congratulations because your country is better than Poland in GDP spent for military, so it's great progress. But I have a question actually not about military, but about misinformation, because it's a great threat for our countries. And what European Union, what European Parliament can do with this very serious threat, because next year we will have election in elections in many countries and it will be great problem for all of us.
Speaker 34
Thank you for touching this aspect. Maybe Mr. Oštrevičius first and then we give the conclusion to Mr. Zīle.
Petras Auštrevičius
Okay. I'll be short. Starting from misinformation. Dziękuję panu. So that's a good sign of good neighborhood.
I mean, we do understand each other and the more we spend together, the better it will be. On misinformation, you know, it's already present. We will be never anymore too in the bed. Never. Will be misinformation next to us.
Okay?
So whatever it takes, I mean, any public events and so on and so forth. But I hope this center for, as it calls, the European Center for Democratic Resilience, it will become functionable. Maybe many of you might contribute and learn from this center. I hope, I mean, many journalists will go and will learn a lot of good things how to resist and debunk, finally debunk those news. But I don't think we will ever kill a beast of disinformation.
And since some countries around Europe has a task to challenge us. Because once again, so we are faced with pressure from non-democracies. They have no commitments whatsoever. I mean, for Putin, last week, last week, Russian casualties exceeded 1,500,000, officially reported by Ukraine. You see any public debate in the Russian media, society?
If any European soldier is killed, imagine what kind of debate and reflections we would have.
See the difference? Millions don't count. And that, sorry to say, beast, I mean, he will sacrifice a whole nation for his absolutely ridiculous plans. So, but to again, we have to find ways to penetrate even rather closed Russian society if we are so smart and could. But anyway, on disinformation, we will have kind of marathon next to each other and let's see only for best and most effective means.
I don't think we have a feeling of being left alone. Maybe sometimes not fully understood. And we're not in panic mode. You know, we've been talking about Russia being autocratic and dangerous country for 20 years. Then we've been alone, I can tell you.
You didn't see probably, I mean, pro memorias from diplomatic meetings when Baltics were called warmongers, I mean, those who panic, oh la la la la, and not allowing free flow of Nord Stream gas and so on and so forth. Then we've been alone. Not now. Not now. I think cooperation is well picking up, okay?
Wow.
And we are a reliable partner in this regard. What Ukraine needs, needs the most, cooperation in producing weapons, sorry to say. They need a lot. Air defense never promised and never delivered, by the way, by Europe. Best gift, final phrase from me, for National Day of Independence of Ukraine was brought by the British Prime Minister.
Huh? Shadow missiles. Not EU. Taurus remains in storage room safely for itself. But it's unfortunate what Europeans, you know, promise and don't bring.
So let's do like British did. So that would be the best gift for Ukraine's independence and lives of Ukrainians. Thank you.
Roberts Zīle
Yeah, first on just to add what Ukraine needs from you and what we in Parliament can initiate, as much as we cannot make a legal decision, to bring Ukraine in EU as a full member as soon as possible.
That is a political aim what we have to keep it. It was not majority perhaps in member states level so and maybe not majority in the Parliament. But we will all other anything in the interests of current EU so for the strengthening what already Petras said and I indicated so we need to be serious against the enemy. And Ukraine like we are not has a best knowledge in Europe so currently and I guess also in the modern military field to my not I am economist by profession not military expert they are the best in Europe so even if they don't have a nuclear power like some of EU member state has. So the second point about conflict in Ukraine you said and how well that of course we can fully understand that and there is a social thinking studies do you really think seriously about the war in Europe and so and as you are farther from Moscow or Ukraine border so you are more peaceful.
So that's why I'm we are not dreamers so we fully understand.
But for those high-level politicians who are pretty far, thousands of kilometers away from Russian border, they have to understand that if Europe will lose some part of citizens, European Union will lose part of citizens and territory, that's mean, and they said the geopolitical substance of European Union and those capitals who are far away from the border, they are losing. Who will care in Washington or some other places for the leaders who cannot save European Union and their citizens? And there is no gain for this one. So it was really touching everybody, whatever how far you are from the, as you said, conflict area. It's not conflict, it's war.
It's Russian aggression in Ukraine. It's not a conflict between Ukraine and Russia, so Ukraine didn't attack Russia. And the last point about this issues what we expect and also about, Petra said about this foreign interference. We have elections in Latvia in three weeks' time.
So we already experienced every day almost information. We had attacks on our electronical election system, so and we made resilience much stronger. We recently had in August huge storm actually. So and we had without electricity several three days even, it was not possible to repair. We noticed our mistakes in creation of transmission system for energy sector where we are mainly aimed to just to connect the new solar or new wind farms, but we are not decentralized and didn't create a decentralized system which could be fixed very quickly.
So and this Ukraine also can help so with their experience how to do this resilience, it needs for critical infrastructure. And about also what has to be done on EU level and member state level, I think most of those resilience issues should be done on member state level. Let's be honest, that's why we have also SAFE program which is borrowing of the member states from EU. We cannot expect that on new MFF we will get huge amount of money because it's 1% of GNI of all European. Most of the taxpayers' money sits in the coffers of state treasuries of the member states and regional powers as well.
So it's not the issue, but what we can do in EU level, understand, I don't remember the exact figures, but if there is a 100,000 issues issued for Russians during last year. We in Baltics, we stopped to do it since the war started.
We are not issuing any Russian visas for Russian citizens who are, some of them are former military or current military who are coming to European Union soil and moving through the Schengen area. This is one of the examples what should be done on EU level, not on member state level, because it doesn't make sense because they can travel everywhere, including they're coming to Latvia, Lithuania, sometimes maybe on purpose. Thank you very much.
Raffaella De Marte
Thanks to you, thanks Vice-President, thanks Mr. Sinkevičius. It was short, but I think full of input and food for thought for tomorrow. Thanks a lot. Yes, we change topic completely. Yeah, it's a marathon.
It's like a house of cards. Sorry for the rush, but we need to move to the other panel because we are running already five minutes late. So I'm very glad to welcome on the podium Ms. Li Andersson from the Left group and chair of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs from Finland, and on my right, Mrs. Irene Tinagli from the Socialist and Democrat group from Italy and chair of the special committee on housing and the housing crisis in the European Union.
Thank you very much. We have talked about security and defense just before you, but as security and defense have been a steadily arising concern for European citizens, as much as it is cost of living, inflation, rising prices, and how the European Union can tackle these issues. And actually, half of European citizens say they are concerned by this, and it was the highest concern in the last Eurobarometer just before the summer. So, this is the topic we want to speak with you, and of course with a special zoom on the housing crisis. But let's start with Mrs. Andersson.
Thank you for coming, thank you for being with us. We know that social security is mainly a national competence. Yet citizens expect from Europe that we have a common policy and somehow minimum standards for European citizens in this field. How do you assess the balance of the European Commission, and what do you expect from tomorrow's speech from Mrs. von der Leyen? What can we do more?
Li Andersson
All right, thank you very much. I assume you have all had a long and busy day, but I do have to say that it's not the first time I experience this, that after the defense conversation, when we move over to social policy, the room kind of empties out. But I do have to say, just to start, I come from Finland, a country with a 1,344-kilometer-long border with Russia. And I always say that in Finland also the security thinking in the country has always started with the understanding that all security is based on every member of society feeling that they have something to protect. And that brings us to the social policies.
So I'm very happy to be here with you today. And as the moderator also stated, I think the Europeans have actually sent a very clear message to decision-makers in the European Union. In several surveys, as well as in the latest Eurobarometer, cost of living and rising prices is the number one priority for European citizens that they want the European Parliament to focus on.
Other top priorities for citizens were public health, poverty and social exclusion. So I think it's also from the point of view of the legitimacy of the European project extremely important that we do not ignore the very clear messages from the Europeans and the fact that many Europeans are struggling with both the affordability and the housing crisis, really affecting the everyday life and their opportunities to make ends meet. Also looking at the broader context, we already have joint goals to which the member states have already committed, for example regarding poverty reduction. And the way it looks now, the European Union is about to fail reaching its own targets set, for example, with regards to reducing the number of people at risk of social exclusion and poverty for 2030. In my committee, we've also been quite concerned about several of the omnibus proposals from the Commission in this mandate, which also have gone beyond simplification.
I think simplification is something no decision maker can disagree upon. We want our legislation to be implemented properly.
But when you go beyond that, you enter a field where you talk about deregulation, and we have some examples also of these proposals with clear negative repercussions for the social acquis. And we also have concerns regarding the next MFF and the ongoing discussions on cuts to the EU budget. As already in the Commission proposal, there is proposals to cut the social funding in the next MFF, as well as to change the way in which social funding is categorized. So you would have a broader definition of what falls under social spending. So we think, of course, that social cohesion in this time that we live in, social policies should remain a cornerstone of the EU.
If you look at the treaties, it's actually very clear it's been part of the European project and the mandate of the European Union since it starts. A few key points from my committee that we're also expecting to be or hopefully addressed in the speech tomorrow. Firstly, we are working to maintain a strong standalone European Social Fund.
So we are working really hard in the Parliament at the moment to secure the right type of architecture for strong social funding in the next MFF, as we need those kinds of instruments. We do not legislate on social security in the European Union, but therefore actually the funding and the funding instruments is the key tool through which European Union can support member states when it comes to, for example, addressing issues that have to do with social exclusion, unemployment, or food insecurity. We're also very pleased that the Commission today has adopted the Fair Labor Mobility package, which is the first big social legislative package of this mandate. So it's also our first opportunity to create real tangible results in improving working conditions in the European Union. My committee has especially been asking for a proposal on a European Social Security Pass, meaning that when workers move from one country to another, all documents regarding their social security would be digitally transferred from one place to another.
And we are also very happy to see a proposal of a strengthened European Labour Authority, as the kind of, how do you say, the free movement of workers is one of the positive aspects of the European Union for many, but it has also created problems when it comes to enforcement of working conditions and rights of workers. And these are problems that we also need to have better tools to address.
I also want to mention public procurement. We will work closely with IMCO, the Internal Market Committee on this, as we are also seeking to strengthen the social clauses to make it possible to use this legislation to also strengthen working conditions. And our most important and last priority I will mention is the Quality Jobs Act, which is expected to be presented in December. This will be the flagship employment legislative initiative of this Commission and of this mandate. And there are a lot of expectations in my committee.
We want to see strong provisions on the use of algorithms and AI in working life for all workers, so applicable in all sectors. We also expect to see provisions that address risks of long subcontracting chains and the use of labour intermediaries from the points of view of workers' rights. We have also called for legislation regarding the right to disconnect, and we will soon also see if we get an equally strong call for more legislation regarding psychosocial risks. I do have to say that in the past few weeks we've heard some quite worrying signals regarding the Quality Jobs Act.
There is a lot of pushback, especially when it comes to new provisions on AI and algorithmic management. So we, like my main core message is that we think it is essential to keep a high level of ambition when it comes to AI and algorithms at the workplace, subcontracting chains, psychosocial health and the right to disconnect. As we also see it as the way in which the European Union shows to people that yes, we hear, we see, we understand your concerns, and we also have the capability, the capacity and the political will to make improvements that really affect the everyday life of Europeans. Thanks.
Raffaella De Marte
Thanks a lot, Mrs. Anderson. And now coming to Mrs. Tinagli, this challenge of the housing crisis has been steady in the past years. The Commission has presented an affordable housing plan. You have also come with our own proposal as European Parliament, and recently the legislative initiative on short-term rentals. What is your assessment of these initiatives and what is to be done yet?
Irene Tinagli
Thank you very much. Of course, as Lee also stressed, housing has become one of the priorities, probably the priority for European citizens. We know the prices both for purchase and for rentals in all the main European cities. In some of them, this is becoming an issue not only of social inequalities but even of economic competitiveness. Firms and companies, also public-owned companies, cannot find and retain workers.
There are thousands, sometimes, of teachers, nurses, drivers that are not capable of affording a rent in the places where they are supposed to provide the essential services for the functioning of the city. So I was very happy that the European Union responded by setting up the special committee in the Parliament, by giving the portfolio to Commissioner Jorgensen, but also by the actions that the European Commission has undertaken in this year, considering that housing policies remain in the strict term a competence of the national member states.
But we have shown that there are several things that can and should be done at the European level. So we started also with the revision of the state aid rules to allow national and regional governments to act and support more strongly social and affordable housing. We have undertaken a review of the cohesion funds in the current cohesion funds programs to double the investments in housing, in affordable housing. Many countries have taken advantage of this opportunity. We've seen now the Affordable Housing Act with the regulation on short-term rentals, and this was also something that at the beginning of our work most people believed it would not be possible for the European Commission to get to have the courage to step up and give some clear indicators and guidelines and a framework to allow mayors and competent authorities to intervene to regulate the short-term rentals where they are creating the biggest problems in terms of access to houses.
So now there are of course other things that need to be done.
So my assessment is it's a positive one of what we have achieved, giving that this is also the first time that the European Union is addressing the housing crisis. We've seen many national governments responding to our political pressure and putting forward national housing plans. So I think this is also an important result to make sure that the European Union also helps the national member states to have guidelines and the right pressure to intervene. Now we expect the European Commission to deliver, to work on other pieces of the strategic plan on housing that entails the service construction act simplification, the launch of a coordinated European platform for the investments, also to attract private investments and redirect them towards social and affordable housing.
And I know that the European Commission is also working on a study on the financialization of the housing market and the speculation to be able to understand those drivers, what role have had and what we could do to mitigate the negative impact and spillovers. Of course, if I have to look at the work that we have done, there's also been a strong request from all the MEPs in our committee to have a dedicated funds to support housing investments in the future because we know that housing requires a lot of investments, long-term investments to be able to plan and to support local administrations. I know that now the discussion is on the MFF and in this house, but I also know that it will be a very tough negotiation between the Parliament and the Council. So I hope that tomorrow there will be also a call to the member states, to the Council, to all the colleagues negotiating on the MFF to not forget what is the priority of the European citizens and what our mayors and local administrators need to be capable of responding in a concrete way to the request for more social and affordable housing. Thanks.
And as we said in the beginning, the Multiannual Financial Framework is coming back basically in all the discussions we are having as the backbone of the means that are needed. In the room? Yes, we can start there, man and then girl.
Fabien Escalona
Oui, Fabien Escalona de Mediapart en français. J'avais une question sur un sujet que vous n'aviez pas évoqué mais qui est dans les tuyaux, je crois, c'est celui du 28ème régime pour les entreprises européennes. Et je voulais savoir quelle était votre position sur les risques éventuels que ça faisait peser sur les droits sociaux individuels ou collectifs et comment, en tant que parlementaires, vous vous positionnez sur ce sujet.
Li Andersson
Yes, thank you very much. So there has been a lot of discussion in my committee regarding the 28th regime and we also just adopted an opinion to JURI committee. So also based on the opinion you can see what types of proposals to changes the employment committee has voted in favor of. We do see risks for workers' protection in this proposal and I think in my committee there's also been questions regarding the need for this type of legislation in the end.
Like, is this really something member states or companies are interested in? There are some immediate risks which has to do with, for example, workers' representation in companies. Because based on the proposals for the 28th regime, you can basically choose, when you choose which country you register in, you will then adapt that country's rules on employer representation in company, for example, in boards. So that kind of opens up the possibility for forum shopping for companies to not register in countries where they have a high level, ambition level when it comes to representation, and instead then register somewhere where you might not have any type of legislation in this regard. Then there are other more indirect risks that has to do with, for example, enforcement.
The fact that the 28th regime was said to be something needed for innovative companies and startups, but the way the proposal is designed, it is actually open for any type of company form.
And already we have in member states also officials that are warning about problems with regards to enforcement, with combating tax fraud, problems such as these if you have this system with a very quick setup of a company anywhere in Europe, so not abiding by the national rules in this regard. So we really hope the JURI committee, which is the lead committee on the 28th regime, will make changes to this proposal to ensure that the 28th regime does not lead to a weakening of workers' rights and a weakening of the social acquis.
Irene Tinagli
I think it's very important to find this balance. And I think that the concerns need to be taken into consideration in terms of not weakening workers' rights and not making sure that this creates arbitrage, like social rights arbitrage within the Union. But coming also from the ECON committee perspective, I know how important it is to find ways to overcome the fragmentation in certain legislations concerning insolvency, you know, capital markets. So I think if this could be an instrument, a tool that has been proposed to better integrate our single market, in my opinion it is welcome, but has to be targeted to achieve that result, reducing fragmentation and giving a better instrument for the single market, not as a way to do, you know, arbitrage and weaken and dumping and social dumping.
But I think we can find a way to do that.
Thank you. Here in front, yes, please.
Ismini Balale
Well, hello, my name is Ismini Balali from News 24/7, it's a Greek online outlet. Well, I think that many Europeans believe that owning a house is impossible nowadays. Should affordable housing become a permanent priority for you, and what are you waiting from the President of the Commission to deliver tomorrow regarding with this?
Irene Tinagli
No, I think the objective is for the housing emergencies not to be a permanent emergency. So, the objective is to address it in a way that we can go over and go back to a situation where it is not a crisis anymore. So, what I expect is a renewed and strong commitment on the side of von der Leyen, of the European Commission, to keep push on the pieces of the strategy that was laid out in December '25, which in some parts have already been addressed, in others don't.
So we are also waiting for the final date of the of the housing summit, the housing alliance. So rather than becoming a permanent crisis, we would like to see permanent tools to avoid this to be a crisis. So this could be tools in terms of governance, in terms of coordination between European and national governments, in terms of economic and financial resources and instruments to allow member states and and local authorities to do the investments that they need. These are the kinds of things that we need, permanent tools to make sure that it will not become a permanent crisis.
Raffaella De Marte
Thanks. I suggest, okay, we have three. Let's take the three men, do you agree we take them together? Okay.
Jonathan Keane
It's Jonathan Keane from The Currency in Ireland. Just my question's for Li Anderson just on the Quality Jobs Act. You mentioned earlier worrying signals about algorithms and AI. Can you expand on that exactly? What are these worrying signals?
Is it coming from the Commission side or among member states? What what are those signals exactly?
Marcin Antosiewicz
Okay. Marcin Antosiewicz, Polish Public Television.
I have a question about the budget, but also about the situation with digital tax. Because I heard yesterday one of the very important person in the European Commission and this person said, we cannot do it because we don't want to, you know, put in danger our relationship with the United States. So, you know, Trump can offend your Prime Minister or do anything and we are afraid. We are looking for money. We discuss about the cuttings in the budget and in the same time we can take the money from big companies and we don't do it because we don't want to offend some guy from America.
Raffaella De Marte
So this is in the framework of the MFF, of the financial framework. Okay, thank you. And the last one we take there.
Balázs Márton
Thank you. Balázs Márton from Hungarian news portal telex.hu. And I have a question regarding the recovery fund. How well do you see or how much relevance does it have on housing and social affairs? And how do you see that during the negotiations of the new MFF, how these areas are going to be funded?
Will it be enough?
Li Andersson
I can start if it's okay. So on the Quality Jobs Act, I mean, there is no secret that there is a pushback and a pressure against the EU when it comes to our digital acquis. And what we are hearing is that there is also a pushback against new rules on AI and algorithmic management. So what the Employment Committee has been working for is to have a similar set of rules regarding algorithmic management and use of data as was already incorporated in the Platform Work Directive in last mandate. It's maybe a less known part of that legislation, but it actually contains some very, very important and also new provisions regarding workers' rights when it comes to their data and when it comes to use of certain algorithmic systems in the platform economy.
But that directive is restricted to people working in the platform economy.
So we had a research report done for the employment committee which looked at the existing legal acquis in the European Union, the GDPR, the AI Act, and the platform work directive. And what they also stated is that there is a kind of legislative gap when it comes to the labor market. And this is exactly what we would like to address in one directive. So not having bits and pieces of labor market relevant legislation in the AI Act, in the GDPR and so on, but to bring it all together and have provisions that would apply to all workers. Because algorithmic management is not only used in the platform economy.
I mean, this type of technology is used in different sectors of the labor market, much more in the US than in Europe, but we are coming after them in the same direction. So this is one key demand for the employment committee when it comes to the Quality Jobs Act. And what we are worried about is that this general pushback against the digital acquis and specifically against new provisions in this regard also will affect the Quality Jobs Act and the content of that. On the budget, we haven't dealt with the own resources because that is not the employment committee remit.
But of course, I would say in general, we hope that the overall architecture and size of the budget would be of a kind that would also ensure sufficient social funding. The more pressure on cuts to the budget, the more at least I am afraid it will make an already quite bad situation even worse. So we need to have a dedicated instrument, we need to have proper criteria for what is to be counted as social spending, but we also need to make sure that we have a sufficient budget for these causes. Because as I said, the EU does not legislate on social security that much, this is kind of the main tools that we have to use to support member states and citizens.
Yeah, no, I mean, as regarding the MFF and housing, I think that we will need to negotiate some room for maneuver in both the pillars, on the competitiveness fund, where we also have achieved to reintroduce the social infrastructure window, also that is currently in InvestEU and that would risk to be eliminated.
Irene Tinagli
We need to make sure that we have the tool and the channels to be able to finance and support investments in housing also through the competitiveness fund, because as I said, it is also a competitiveness issue. And at the same time, but there are negotiations right now in this week, so I don't want to, you know, but also in the NRPP, I think it's very important to make sure that there is a dedicated part of that, of those resources to housing, to make sure that it will not be overlooked, because we know that this is a priority everywhere and we need to have resources dedicated to that. Regarding, and then of course the problem is always the same, the resources are scarce, are not increasing, are always the same, priorities are increasing and nobody wants to give up on anything. And we need to make sure that we find new ways to strengthen our budget and to make it capable of meeting the expectations of the citizens and the challenges we have to face. And on this respect, I am also disappointed by certain debates on new resources, especially, you know, also the ongoing debate that we see also in the Council on the digital tax, let's wait the midterm in the US.
Raffaella De Marte
Thank you, Mrs. Tinagli, thank you to you both. I see our next speakers are already there, so I would like to thank you deeply and I wish you good State of the Union debate tomorrow and good continuation of the sessions. Thank you. Okay. So I said it was a marathon, so we go on, we change topic, please stay focused, don't leave.
We are very glad to have here with us Mrs. Anna Cavazzini from Germany and chair of the Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee from the Greens and Aura Salla that is rapporteur of the digital omnibus, she was, from the EPP, from the European People's Party from Finland.
And with you, we will deal with another very important priority for the EU and also expected to be an important point of the State of the Union debate tomorrow, which is tech sovereignty, digital space, and safety in this digital space. We have mentioned it in the MFF because, of course, of the possibility to levy digital taxes as one of the own resources that the Parliament is proposing. Then, of course, the control of the algorithm, we just heard, on the job market. And then, of course, we mentioned it in the security and defense panel when it comes to disinformation and misinformation. So it's a dimension that touches upon a lot of issues.
In these days, also, the bosses of the AI sector calling for slowing down. Probably the EU Act at the EU level sounds now interesting also on the other side of the Atlantic. So what is your take in this situation? What do you expect from the Commission? What has been already delivered and you feel it's in the good direction, and what you expect that can be done in this second half of the mandate?
There is still time, but there is urgency as well. What is your... I know, yes, I know Ms. Salla has to leave, so we start with you because you are attending the plenary debate.
Yeah, thank you so much. I'm also rapporteur, main rapporteur on the Defense Omnibus, so I need to go debate it there soon. So thank you for letting me start. Indeed, so I'm the main negotiator what comes to Digital Omnibus, the GDPR, cookies, which we all like or hate, Data Act, and cybersecurity.
Aura Salla
But I have a bigger goal here as a politician. You all know, or some of you may know, that I went to the dark side, so I worked for Mark Zuckerberg and before that I spent six years in the Commission. And why I'm here standing, doing everything my utmost to build Europe's tech sovereignty is that I know too much, and I cannot say how much I know, but you can be assured that I do my utmost to work on tech sovereignty from different angles. And here I am working on tech stack. I want to have, I want to see full European stack built.
It will take a decade, but we need to start already yesterday. What it requires? It requires data, data, data, capital, capital, capital. And those are the two things that Europe is lacking and two things that the US is ahead of us. And it will be super difficult to catch.
That's why we should not replicate what they are doing, we need to do it better. What we actually have here? We have talent on very high quality chips in Netherlands and in Finland, in the country I come from.
So we have some bargaining tools there that we could use. Of course Taiwan is our, one of our closest partner. So this all comes back to this big global race that we are seeing what comes to technology. US and China leading and Europe focusing on regulation. I said this already twelve years ago that I disagreed on most of the digital files that came from the Commission.
Why? Because I didn't, I never believed that you will catch big tech with these legislations. And here we are, we never catched big tech, but what we catched was our own companies. The US companies, they have a free market, they have a free also international market. We don't have a free market for our own companies.
So come here and deal with this mayhem of regulation and try to build European tech. Not easy. So we need, we need chips. And we also need of course software, we need cyber, we need cloud. Europe has cloud and cyber, I would claim.
I just met with Mistral. We have excellent companies, Deutsche Telekom. In Finland we have Verda, we have WithSecure. You could build your own stack if you start with Linux, which is an open source model. You build on that, you take Deutsche Telekom, Mistral and so on.
Okay, but good luck with interoperability and portability and your nerves. Because if you take Microsoft, it's like badly boiled spaghetti. It all comes together, right? You will get everything in one package.
It's a terrible technology, but at least you don't have to work with interoperability. But everything comes from the United States. And thanks to the Cloud Act, anytime the US authorities can use kill switch. We have seen this already in Europe, it's not hypothetical threat, it's a fact. And country I know the best, Finnish public sector would be down less than in one hour if Trump decides to use kill switch.
Would he use that? Do you want to try? I don't want to try. He's threatening a sovereign country in Europe, why wouldn't he use kill switch? So I think we are just naive and stupid that we don't already understand that we need to start choosing European technology because it will never scale.
It will never scale if we don't even believe in it. So European public sector should start using European tech. And sorry our IT guys, but you need to also find solutions for this interoperability. Build on Linux and take European cloud and let's work on chips. I know how expensive it is, I'm not naive.
We need coalitions of Germany, France, many of the countries. I think Anna can convince her government and I will try to convince mine. We don't have that much money, but we need also France to be in this coalition that we could one day have our own chips factories. That's why we need also Capital Markets Union. We need this also venture capitals wanting to invest in Europe.
But at this stage where our global politics is, we need to act now. And I'm doing my utmost here. I'm happy to answer any questions that this timing of plenary allows. Normally it goes further away.
But Anna maybe just okay, no, no, no, Mrs. Cavazzini and or maybe we open what you can say a bit more. So maybe okay, let's see if there are questions. Also what I wanted to conclude with this, your expectations of course about the State of the Union, but maybe first if there are questions.
State of the Union, State of the Union, why I gave this speech is that I'm expecting from von der Leyen tomorrow independence, independence.
Aura Salla
She needs to take a stand on this European tech stack because it's all about security and it's all about having European data in Europe for European companies, for our European consumers. Our defense, which I'm going to talk in 20 minutes in plenary, requires data. Our manufacturers, our industry, our companies, they need data, European data. I just spoke with Max Schrems and Schrems III will happen for sure. Meta lost already Schrems I and Schrems II, they will for sure lose Schrems III.
We have this privacy shield that we negotiated with Joe Biden and von der Leyen. Sorry guys, it's already like when you're looking at what Trump did in Washington, so we don't have our omnibus there sorry now I'm all about omnibus. We don't have our redress mechanism in place there anymore to request our data. So we need to stop this free flow of data from the EU to US and we need to put price on our data and start treating our data same way we are treating our other raw materials, lithium, cobalt. It's more than platinum nowadays and we are just giving it for free to the United States.
And they are developing these services in the United States and then they are selling it back to us with a high price. So we are facilitating them data centers with cheap electricity and climate in Finland. Then they are moving our data that they collect freely to the United States, developing their services and selling it back to us, Microsoft, Google, Meta, Apple. So how stupid and naive we continue to be on this one. So what I'm expecting tomorrow from von der Leyen is that she will take a stand on independence because it's overarching topic what comes to security, defense and competitiveness of the EU.
Thank you very much. So I propose that you do also an introductory statement so that we can go through the questions.
Anna Cavazzini
Good afternoon, very happy to meet all of you. Yeah, my name is Anna Cavazzini, I'm a German MEP from the Greens and I chair the Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee. And I could not agree more with my colleague Aura on the tech independence and also on the question of data, but I fundamentally disagree on the digital regulation.
And probably I can come a little bit from the debate we are having in my committee and also one of the big expectations not only me as a Green, but my entire committee actually has from tomorrow, from the speech of von der Leyen. That is the mental health problems young children are facing because they are addicted to social media. They are scrolling, they do endless scrolling, they get stuck on addictive designs. And we are expecting, and of course everyone knows already that the law is already also in the pipeline, will probably be announced on Thursday, that Ursula von der Leyen will suggest something on the protection of children online. And I think this is very important and this is also what my committee has asked for because there's huge problems.
If you are a parent, if you talk to parents, you know what I'm speaking about. But what is very important for me as a Green is that the Commission is also preparing for two years the Digital Fairness Act because of course social media can be very addictive and problematic for young children, but let's admit it, also to all of us. And that's why for me it is very important that the Commission not only comes forward with a Kids Act, but also with a strong Digital Fairness Act because I also want everyone of us protected online. I also want consumers being better protected in the digital world and there we clearly have a still a gap. For example, when it comes to, yeah, addictive design, but also influencer marketing or the famous cancellation button where you, you know, online you're getting dragged into signing something super fast, a subscription, but then you need like 500 clicks to unsubscribe.
So that's why I hope there will not only be a focus on kids, but on everyone. This is one of my expectations.
The second expectation is, yeah, just a little anecdote. We had not the Pope, but a representative of the Pope yesterday in my committee. And he spoke about, and you probably also have seen, the encyclica of the Pope. Not that I'm personally a Catholic, not at all. But of course these ethical questions are super interesting and are discussions are like really, you know, blowing up even in the US on what is the future of AI.
Can we make sure that we will have still human-centric AI in the future and not algorithms deciding on our lives, on, you know, who gets health insurance or on who gets asylum. And yeah, not only the Pope, but a lot of developers themselves, experts, scholars are calling even for, you know, a pause on on development of AI. But what I want to see say is that we have a very strong AI Act. We have actually a tool in at hand in the European Union to make sure that our AI still is human-centric, that we don't give control out of hand, that the systemic risks are addressed. So I want Ursula von der Leyen, I expect Ursula von der Leyen to also, you know, address the implementation of the AI Act and a strong implementation and a strong signal to our consumers, the citizens of Europe, that, yeah, European AI is safe.
And of course, I also agree, we need investment. We are lacking behind. But what also Aura said, I think it cannot be the model of just copying what the US is doing and having ever bigger data centers, having ever, that actually cause a lot of protests in the US right now because of environmental destruction, because of electricity prices, but that we have different AI models in Europe that work on the European model, are probably a little bit smaller but are safe, and that can be, I think, the big, like, market gap that we are also filling as European Union. Yeah, and these, I would say, are from the digital point of view, the big expectations for tomorrow. There is, of course, already a lot of, this is my last sentence, consumer point, like, laws in the pipeline that are really important, for example, making sure that we can also catch the big e-commerce platforms when they don't comply with our product standards, for example, having a better European-wide enforcement.
The Product Act is coming, the CPC reform is coming, but this is already in the pipeline. But of course, for my committee, this is also one of the priorities, how we can make sure that if we shop online, that our toys or cosmetics that we buy or like textiles we buy abide to the very high European standards we have, luckily, but are at the moment very much undermined by big, I don't say a country, but big non-European platforms. Thank you.
Thank you very much. So I suggest the first questions for Mrs. Cavazzini, who will have to leave in a few minutes.
Levin Fries
Yes, hello, Levin Fries from Danish Politiken. You make a very clear point on data sovereignty, but and this is also the argument of tripling the data centers in the EU as the Commission has proposed within the next five to seven years. At the same time, there's a skepticism towards these data centers, as Anna also mentioned, and not just from people living next to them, but also from researchers and academics who say, why are we building data centers that are, with all the well-known challenges, that only American tech companies can afford to rent? So my question is, do you think only European companies or researchers should use these thousands of new data centers, and how would you ensure this?
Let's take three.
Robert Treichler
Robert Treichler from Austria Profile magazine. Just when I got in, you said we need the Capital Markets Union, and we've heard this for 15, 20 years. What's been happening, and why would we get it now?
Speaker 47
Hello, I'm from the Greek journalist, I'm a journalist from the for the Greek paper To Vima. Sorry, I'm quite tired. But anyway, you said you worked for Mark Zuckerberg. Why did you leave? Thank you.
Okay, Mrs. Salla.
Aura Salla
Great questions. First of all, the problem with data centers is that these hyperscalers are also investing and building them. It's not only that they are renting them. And I don't think this is right. In Finland, Google just announced like 13 billion of investment to data centers, and we are stupid enough to take this.
We are securing our land for this, our electricity, we have built nuclear power what, 20 decades, and now we are giving it to these hyperscalers.
Like, I don't think there is any point in that. Yes, absolutely, we should secure our data. Of course we need data centers, as you as you see, like you even say, researchers, our own companies. For sure we need data centers for European companies, for European researchers. Why are we facilitating these to the hyperscalers?
Why? Because if you are looking at the news in Texas or in many of the states, like different states, they are they don't want these data centers on their back backyard. That's why they are coming to Europe to do this. It's like colonialism again. So how naive are we here?
But I also understand, I come from a 20 kilometers from a Russian border from small city. And unemployment numbers are skyrocketing in Finland, or maybe not skyrocketing, but still, it's worrying. And then these hyperscalers come with investments to these small towns and they promise jobs. It's really difficult for these towns and cities or rural areas to say no, right? That's why it needs to be the EU who says like, you know, no, or the Finnish government or Danish government who understands the bigger picture and strategy there.
This is the problem that we are facing right now, I think. Yeah, the Capital Markets Union will not happen. I have heard so many speeches and I have written so many speeches about about Capital Markets Union.
It's not in the competence. I mean, if you ask from Macron or Petteri Orpo or the Irish Prime Minister, are you really going to open Danish pension funds for lethal weapons we are producing in Romania? Oh no, no, no, you don't touch our pension funds. Where our money is in pension funds in national member states, and it's under national laws, right? Insolvency rules.
Do you want to harmonize in Austria insolvency laws according to the Finnish model? I don't think so. Or you ask that from Macron or Germany, what will be the insolvency rules, right? Or harmonization of our taxation. Those are the things that are in the competence of member states, and I don't see them moving.
So I don't believe in Capital Markets Union if there will not be a huge crisis that will push it forward, like financial crisis, and I hope not. But the thing is that somehow we need to build venture capital funds that take more riskier venture capital funds that can invest let's say 10, 15 years of risk capital, and that's what we are lacking because we are still leaning on bank loans in Europe. Will it happen with the EU push? I don't know yet, but this needs to be somehow fixed, and I think we need a huge crisis that member states, head of states will finally understand this and stop giving these speeches and act on these insolvency or pension funds.
I got elected to the Finnish Parliament. My dream was always be an MEP, believe it or not. I ran three times. In Finland it's only a personal vote, so it's very difficult to actually get elected. So I ran 2014, I went to the Commission, I ran 2019.
I got headhunted. And I remember when the headhunter called me, will I be leading the EU affairs and the office in Brussels for Facebook? I said, oh, over my dead body, because Cambridge Analytica just happened. And then I had a talk, the final round with Nick Clegg. And Nick told me, Aura, you have been criticizing us and the way we do things now from the Commission.
It's easy to criticize six years from there. Come here and do it better yourself. And I asked, why are you in that company? He said, because I would love to be a vice president or the prime minister of the UK, but it's not available for me and I try to change this world to be better. It was a good point.
And I think we actually did right things for three years, 20 to 23. But when I saw my old boss standing next to Trump, I'm so done. And I will not release a book about my time there because I don't have money to pay for that company.
But I'm using my knowledge with all my power to fight on Europe's tech sovereignty. So I hope that tells you the story.
Thank you.
Anna Cavazzini
Thank you, so definitely write a book. Probably I can come in also on the questions on the capital market union. I don't know if I would see it so pessimistically because I have the feeling there is at the moment a huge push on the internal market and also the capital market union, as you know, is in the single market roadmap that all heads of states agreed on. And of course, we see the problem of internal market integration in this file very openly because everyone is always wanting the internal market. Everyone is in every Sunday speech saying the EU needs a properly better functioning, more integrated internal market.
But as Aura said, if it then comes to giving up some of the national competences, then the member states are not doing it. And I see it in so many files and that's why I'm also sometimes a little bit angry at the member states because they always say, ah yeah, it's the EU is not integrated, the internal market is not happening and that's the Parliament's fault. And sorry, it's not the Parliament's fault. I think we have here much more far-reaching positions vis-à-vis the member states. So, but I think the pressure is right now really there.
And very quickly on the data centers, the Commission, as you know, had planned also a specific law on it. It kind of didn't come, but I hope it will still come. And I think it's important to have certain conditions on EU level, for example, saying that the data centers should also have benefit-sharing agreements with the local communities. The local communities need to get money also from having the data center there, and also, for example, on some obligations they have to do, for example, taking care of the infrastructure. They cannot leave it to the taxpayers.
So I hope something will happen.
And also, of course, for me, very important on green electricity, because yeah, if they use, I don't know, coal-fired electricity and you know the electricity use, we're going to accelerate the climate crisis even more, and this cannot happen.
Okay, we have time for a last round if there are questions in the room. Ah, sorry. Please, go ahead.
Ansis Bogustovs
Yes, my name is Ansis Bogustovs. I have a question on semiconductors. We have this kind of upcoming agreement on a free trade with India, which is like three times bigger country than Europe. You were mentioning our kind of good friends, Netherlands and Finland, but actually in Taiwan.
But India is pushing very much to become a superheroes of semiconductors on chips. Should we like include this clausula that there are friends and not friends, since India is a country actually which is selling some armament to Russians as well, not only to European Union. So this comes like a mutual interest of somehow show a little bit of these values you are referring to. Should we do it because it's the European Parliament's job in the nearest plenaries to sign the treaty with India or to, how you say, to certify it. Thanks.
Thanks. So let's take, yes, exactly. Please.
Jonathan Keane
Jonathan Keane from The Currency in Ireland. My question's for Anna just on the Digital Fairness Act. I guess on the consumer protection side of it, can you expand a little more on what you want the act to accomplish on that front and what that might look like from an enforcement point of view? Are we looking at a situation where national consumer protection authorities would maybe relinquish some authority to say the Commission on enforcement on that?
Okay. So let's start with the first question on conductors and then this one.
Aura Salla
Yeah, with the semiconductors, Taiwan of course is the most crucial player there, goes without saying.
And I don't think if my assistant will appreciate this, I will say it anyway. We have a, we have a problem with one China policy there. I'm sorry, but we need to support one democratic country there, Taiwan, not only because of semiconductors, but what they are actually doing. So I mean, and, and protect them and strengthen our ties with Taiwan as much as we can. I think this is super important when it comes to research, when it comes to anything, like as I said, we have photonics, we have many of high quality chips that are, we have the talent here in Europe, so it's a reciprocity that we have there.
With many countries we don't have reciprocity, but with Taiwan we actually have. So, so yeah, with India, I'm actually in this friends group of India and, but seeing them welcoming Putin there, I mean, if we really have these values that we say, yeah, voilà, so this needs to be addressed. I'm sorry, but this needs to be addressed. Coming from Finland, I mean, this is for me a problem, even though I understand that we do and we will do close cooperation with India in many fields, right?
But then among the friends, you need to also address these difficult questions for sure. Yeah. Thank you.
Anna Cavazzini
Thank you so much for the question. So the Digital Fairness Act, as I briefly mentioned at the beginning, has should have the goal, I think, to close some of the loopholes that are still there, especially when it comes to consumer protection online. I mean, we know, of course, from the offline world that also there consumers are individual persons, the corporations are huge, and often it's very hard to balance this power. So for me, good consumer protection is just balancing out the power imbalance between the companies and the individuals. And in the online world, because also the development, the technological development is so fast, we did not, you know, keep up our consumer standards and we did not adapt them entirely to the online world.
And this is what the Digital Fairness Act should do. And of course, of course, this is always the worry, will we kind of duplicate the DSA or something like absolutely not. For me and also the Commission says it, everyone in my committee says it, we want a strong DFA, but of course only filling the gaps, the loopholes that are there, not having additional layers and confusion.
And for me the most important point is really the addictive designs. And if you look for example at the Meta US court settlement, you have all probably read it or like at least read the summary of it. It is also quite crazy that even in the US where you don't have apparently any tech regulation, where you don't have a debate on the problem of tech, it's getting bigger and bigger. I was just in Washington like three or four months ago and I met so many Congress people from both camps actually who said like what are you doing on addictive design? So I think there is a growing movement, a growing discussion that we have to tackle it.
We also want that the Commission comes up with a kind of regulation of influencer marketing because of a lot of stuff you are being dragged to buy is also via influencers and in some countries you don't even have to, you know, make it transparent that you're an influencer. So I think there a clear regulation is helpful, even some of the influencers are asking for it to have a better legal clarity. A very big problem consumers are bringing to us is dynamic pricing. And I think we will not fully solve the problem of you buy a world soccer ticket for $5,000, this we will not be able to solve unfortunately.
But what we can solve is also that, for example, you click on something and then the algorithm remembers also your preferences and according to your preferences, products you like are 10 times more expensive than, you know, if like you look for it. So regulate dynamic pricing and also as I mentioned, I think the cancellation button is something very, very practical. We have it already in some parts of our consumer law. Even the mayor of New York has now introduced a cancellation button because the problem of consumers is really getting out of these 500 online subscriptions that you also dragged into. Ah, you have like five months for free or two months for free, but then you have to click like 50 times to get out of it.
This should be made easier for consumers. And this is what I or what we expect. Ah, and on the enforcement, it's not so clear yet. I mean, you have we have different enforcement realities, as you know. I am personally a little bit more fan of European-wide enforcement because or like mixed, but I also have the feeling especially with big online platforms, it's almost too difficult for like smaller consumer organizations on regional level or something.
Ah, okay, so you got you got news. Okay, okay, good.
Raffaella De Marte
If the room doesn't have questions, I do have one because it's, well, you mentioned it just now, but there is still this issue of the implementation of the Digital Services Act and the Digital Markets Act. Are you, I mean, the Parliament is really kind of oversighting the operation that the Commission is undertaking. Are you satisfied with the way that the two big pillars of our digital space regulation are being implemented and enforced?
Aura Salla
Yeah, definitely not, but I'm also not really convinced how they were written. Not at all. Because with the Digital Markets Act, this kind of ex-ante regulation, it has never really worked and it's expensive, and if you see how Apple will fight until the end of this. So, I think the biggest problem we have is actually that in the Commission you have a bunch of civil servants who have never worked in private sector.
And if you are trying to tackle a model of big tech you need to understand the mentality and how big tech actually works. So I think they're just playing around to be honest. And with Digital Services Act also like what Meta is doing, I mean come on, like you can provide the information that they provide information they want to provide, right? Enforcement in different member states, I think in Finland we have a couple of people working on that, in Lithuania I heard two, in Luxembourg maybe more, two more. I mean enforcement is very, very difficult.
And the way it's written it's so vague that come on you cannot really tackle the things that it's supposed to tackle there. So per se I'm not against that you know we should have rules but then it needs to be rules that can be enforced and actually tackles the problem there. That's why I'm actually imposing this kind of a digital tax definitely to our own resources for EU budget and that kind of a digital tax that actually matters. Because these sanctions that the Commission is posing it's nothing, it's peanuts for these companies. So it doesn't matter, it's cost of doing business.
So you need to have a proper digital tax if you're operating in this market. It needs to be in the trade rules that it's a tax for data or tariff for data or then it needs to be a direct digital tax that actually matters. So this is something how I would actually like change this. But at least let's enforce what we have.
Anna Cavazzini
Yes, I mean the Parliament has criticized several times that enforcement of the DSA and the DMA is too weak. So there I completely agree. But I think you could use both legislations more effectively. And of course to also tell the full story it is already working. The DMA has already brought some changes to the platforms, to the applications.
For example, more little app providers have now access, easier access to the app store and so on and so on. There's more interoperability. So it is concrete improvements in the Digital Markets Act. But of course, it's reliant on also, yeah, the Commission enforcing it and having a lot of exchange with the platforms. It's very long and then the fines are very low.
But of course, this is to the discretion of the Commission. The Commission could be tougher. They could put higher fines. They could also have more like systemic risk investigations where, for example, yeah, algorithms have an influence on also democracy, on elections and so on and so on. But the Commission is always very shy to implement it because also there's so much pressure from the other side of the Atlantic.
So the Parliament is often asking the Commission in different resolutions, in plenary debates, to be tougher. And we just, for example, also sent a letter with several MEPs from I think all the groups to Ursula von der Leyen in looking also at the Meta settlement in the US and having similar level of penalties also here, because we could do it, but we're not doing it. And we need definitely more action.
Raffaella De Marte
Perfect. I think this was also a point that it was useful to touch upon in this overview.
Thanks a lot, Mrs. Cavazzini. Ms. Salla just left, we knew that she stayed more than we expected. So thanks for your intro, it will certainly be useful to have key reading points of the State of the Union tomorrow. Thanks. And I would like to now come to our last panel, the one on competitiveness and the transition.
So I'm very glad to welcome Mr. Budka, Mr. Borys Budka, who is the chair of the Committee on Industry and Research and Energy in the Parliament. And you come from the European People's Party from Poland. The other member in this panel is not yet there because he has to speak in the plenary for the plenary. So I would suggest we start with you. If we can say one thing about competitiveness is that it has been the number one priority in this legislative term, in this first half of the mandate.
I learned thanks from this very useful paper today that half of the initiatives launched by the Commission in these two years and a half are under the umbrella of competitiveness and sustainable prosperity. So it's very interesting to hear from the Parliament point of view how do we manage to combine this competitiveness and this new turn of the EU with the ecological transition, with sustainability. We will hear also from Mr. Maran, but let's start with you. Do you think that, I mean, is it necessary to lower the Green Deal ambition or these two things can go hand in hand? Do you expect more of, let's say, reduction of Green Deal in the coming months or do you expect tomorrow also from the State of the Union a change of direction?
What is your and your committee, of course, perspective and your expectations also for the State of the Union tomorrow?
Thanks a lot.
Raffaella De Marte
Please, I think we have Polish if you wish to speak in Polish, as it's up to you, but we have Polish passive. So you can speak in Polish, but as you prefer. English is also very good.
Borys Budka
Okay, so let's try in English. Thanks a lot for the invitation.
It's pleasure for me to meet with experts and people who try to describe what we are doing in the European Parliament. Yes, I'm quite sure, to be a bit ironic, that if we had any competition in producing regulations, we will be the best on the world. So I'm quite sure. But to be honest, I'd like to start with my expectation from tomorrow's State of the Union. So I expect just two words: industrial realism.
This is what I would like to hear from the President of European Commission. I'm quite sure that Europe is the best place on this planet to live, and I've got no doubt about it. But we are also phenomenal at writing strategic documents and setting ambitious targets. We have the Draghi report, we've got the Letta report, we've got regulations with grand titles.
And yet, as we sit here, European industry pays two to three times more for electricity than its American competitors. So first, a real answer on the price of energy. No innovation policy compensates for this gap. No subsidy compensates for it. Electricity cannot be a premium good in Europe.
If it remains a luxury, our economies will not electrify and our industries will relocate. We cannot preach mass electrification to a manufacturer, for instance, in Timișoara, while charging them carbon costs that leave no capital to build the transition. Across the Union, ETS costs account for roughly 11% of the average industrial electricity price. But for instance, in my country, Poland, they can reach up to 50%. I do not want another action plan.
I want a reform of the market and of the emission trading system that supports industrial transformation instead of exporting it. And I want honesty about ETS 2. If the bill lands on households and small companies before a real alternative exists, we will lose public support for the entire climate policy and there will be far-right politicians answering your questions next time in next mandate. Second, to achieve technological sovereignty we need bold legislation. We all agree we want a genuine industry made in Europe, but industrial capacity cannot be ordered on Amazon overnight.
I'm glad to share this floor with Chair Canfin and he will I think that he will be the second voice on the on the ENVI committee because our two committees have to work hand in hand to answer the hard question honestly. When we adopted the climate targets in 2019 and 2020, Made in Europe was barely in the footnotes.
We bought Chinese equipment, often not only because it was cheaper, but also because there was no alternative on the shelf. Replacing those supply chains will cost capital, it will cost time, and yes, it will cost some regulatory burden of its own. Are we willing to own that truth? Third, a union that works for all of its members, and you may take it as a Central European observation. Two decades of membership produced a country that grew more than three times faster than Germany and nearly three times faster than the Union as a whole.
I'm speaking about Poland. On energy, we diversified supply, built an LNG terminal and Baltic Pipe, built the interconnectors, and when Putin turned energy into a weapon, our system did not collapse. That is not a boast. It's evidence that this can be done with the right investment in offshore wind, modern nuclear, both large-scale and SMRs, through a public-private joint venture, grids and flexible gas as a backup.
On the eastern flank of NATO, we cannot afford blackouts. For, and it now it will not be very polite, but it will be very honest. For too long, politicians on the old Union treated us like poor cousins knocking at the door. The reality is we are no longer knocking. We are the ones keeping the house standing.
When a region of 100 million Europeans is left off groups like the Rhine Club, it is not an insult to us, it's a strategic blindness on their part. So strategically, we must redefine what security means on the continent. Coming from a country that borders Russia, I can tell you that security does not start at the border. It starts with a resilient industrial base. It starts with a young engineer from Silesia University of Technology who can imagine her or his future in a local dual-use startup instead of emigrating.
Closing a steel mill or a refinery is far easier than reopening one.
Reopening one is far easier than training the people who could work there. No level of defense spending buys that back quickly. A divided Europe will not compete with anyone. A well-founded Europe with a strong local industrial base and qualified people will. We need an engine running on all cylinders across the whole continent.
So to sum up: cheaper energy, the regulatory courage to build technological sovereignty, and a union that works for all its members. That is what I will be listening for in President von der Leyen's address. And thank you.
Raffaella De Marte
Thanks to you, very complete. Let's see in the room if there are first questions, otherwise I have a couple of them.
Well, I wanted to ask you about the tension about the two committees, but on this we wait for Mr. Maran to come with us. Maybe you mentioned it, the Draghi report, the Letta report. Are we on the right track or it's just, I mean, you were quite frank that you have the feeling that we have a lot of blah blah on this. But are these reports showing the way and are we implementing in the right way?
Borys Budka
Yeah, but we are two years after Draghi report, yes? And I can observe any special law that we finished in this mandate. So it's a pity, but in fact we must be honest. We've got a lot of strategic documents, but we need in fact to support industry. Or sometimes it's even better not to do anything instead of producing another law that will be complained by industry for instance.
I'm from the industry committee, so this is why I'm also speaking on behalf of the industry. Because if we want to achieve for instance climate goal, we need to have strong industry. Because without a strong industry, without strong European economy, it is not possible to achieve our goals. So in my opinion, we forgot in the past, we forgot about the business. We forgot about the economy.
We want, we produced a lot of documents, a lot of European law, but unfortunately, we, in fact, we closed a lot of companies, we also exported a lot of industry outside of Europe.
Conrad KRAMER
Oh, thank you, Konrad Kramer from the Austrian daily Kurier. Very simple question: if you want more and cheaper electricity, where would it come from?
Borys Budka
It's obvious that the cheaper electricity, it is from sun, from wind, and in some countries from nuclear. Why? Because we don't have a unique pattern for all the Europe. It is not possible to compare the Spain, for instance, to my country.
We need in Poland, in Germany, in Czech and Slovakia, in the central countries, we need in our electricity mix, we need also nuclear because we can't rely only on renewables. But what is important and for me it is obvious that we do need a common energy market in Europe. It is a solution. Now we deal with a lot of national interests. So this is why, for instance, we can observe the block in interconnector between Spain and Germany because, of course, we've got separated energy markets.
So this is why because France wants to sell its own energy from nuclear, which is a bit higher than cheaper in Spain. So also this is why there is a problem with interconnector. But in fact, the final solution for cheaper electricity in Europe is the common market for all countries.
So we can observe it in this, it was much easier, the roaming, but you remember the the prices of of telecoms before we in fact got rid of the roaming. So it is not it is not possible to compare it directly, but in without the common European energy market, we can suffer on on blackouts and also we will observe the competition between countries.
Conrad KRAMER
A very short follow-up, because the most recent report from the Court of Auditors said two things. The only thing we did was rely on now Norwegian and US gas, not on Russian gas, and what we didn't do is build the grid, which is the basis, the foundation of the common energy market. So why that, if we all know what the solution would be?
Borys Budka
Yeah, but I completely agree. We we replaced Russian gas to the American LNG and Norwegian one.
But for instance, in countries like the central countries, it is not possible to have only renewables in the mix, because we need gas or coal, but fortunately we are trying to get rid of coal, but till we don't have the nuclear in our mix, it is not possible rely only on renewables. Because in our base, we need or gas just to support the system, or coal to support, or nuclear. Only for instance in Poland, in Novembers, it is quite possible that we don't have wind and we don't have solar for producing. So this is why we need either nuclear or gas. Gas we should in finally, the gas should be only the minimum, as minimum as possible in the energy mix, or if we have the common market, then we can replace the gas for instance the solar renewables from the southern countries.
But the same situation is for instance in Italy, yes? They don't, it is not enough the renewables, so they base on the gas, yes?
Yes, they they do not have the the nuclear. Yes, and the problem in Germany, when they decided some years ago to close nuclear plants, now also they reopen some coal plants just to stabilize the system. So so without this, it is not possible to and it blocks also the electrification, yeah, because of the the costs.
Raffaella De Marte
Thank you. I propose to give the floor to Mr. Maran first so that we then do a last round of questions from your side. Welcome, thanks for being with us. Mr. Maran is the chair of the Environment Committee from Socialists and Democrats group from Italy that's just mentioned. We discussed with Mr. Budka the competitiveness issue, industrial policy, and of course the impact of all this business situation on Europe.
With you, I would like to take it from the other side. We had the worst summer in terms of heatwaves, we had forest fires, inundations, and so on and so forth, apart from of course the energy crisis that we all are familiar with and we were discussing just now. Is the European response at the height of this situation? What do you expect from tomorrow? What can we do more?
Are we on the right track? And of course it's not only an European problem, but what is our role?
Pierfrancesco Maran
Thank you, Raffaele, and good afternoon everybody. As you said, the climate challenge has not disappeared because we talk less about it, and we saw it this summer. Some people want to deny it exists, but we do not and we cannot. Every year we see more clearly the cost of extreme heat, floods, droughts, and wildfires. In one week alone, we had more than 10,000 excess deaths across Europe, and in two countries, Spain and France, we saw 300,000 people displaced, that is something that didn't happen till the end of the Second World War.
The effects are visible to everyone, and this is why Europe must therefore continue to lead the fight against climate change. Decarbonization and competitiveness should not be seen as two competing goals. They are not, on my point of view.
The green transition must make Europe companies stronger, Europe more autonomous and our society must resilient. It was also what was Boy saying before, we can't be dependent for long term about gas and some materials we don't have in Europe. That is why the Green Deal and this green approach should be an economical approach, otherwise it doesn't help us. So we have to protect climate and create conditions for Europe industry to lead the transition. I think Europe is strong enough to bring together these two goals, not only one.
This is why tomorrow's State of the Union debate is a key moment. But it's not only the State of the Union moment, but I would mention, Raffaella, also that is two years since the Draghi report was published. And it's something I expect Ursula von der Leyen will talk about. I was and remain a strong supporter of that report, but according to one estimate, only 16% of the Draghi report recommendations have been fully implemented. This is a problem.
So what do I expect now and from tomorrow? It's, I want to be very clear, it's time to act. I make you some example.
We talked a lot about cars, which kind of models, etc., but last year it was proposed an affordable European electric car. We want to create conditions to have it by our industries. So we said it, let's do it. Even Boris was talking about we need the European energy grids. We have to move energy from our country to another.
This is what we expect to European Union, also for the Commission. We talked about it in the last two years, now it's time to do it. And also about clean and innovative technologies, we talked about European batteries. I'm very involved in the autonomous vehicle projects. It's something Europe can still have a leadership role.
And so now we expect from the Commission no more acts, rules, but we need action to create the change. And last issue, because the coming year is also the year of the budget. Let's go back to Draghi reports.
He said that we need more or less 800 billions a year of additional investment only for the green transition. We are really far from this result. And when we talk about transition and to support our economy and our companies, we know that money matter. And when we saw Asian and we saw American, they have private and public funds in a larger way than European companies. So we know what Europe needs now.
We know how much investment we require and we know that there is a gap with the other continents. What is missing now is the execution and to work together not like a 27 states but as a European Union. And I think it's what I would expect from the speech of Ursula von der Leyen tomorrow and from the work we can do together as a pro-Europe majority that we have different positions on many things, but we trust we have to enforce our Europe.
Raffaella De Marte
Thank you.
I think that as you said, there is this sense of urgency that was quite clear from all the speeches, even those before you, and also this need of unity and togetherness in order to go ahead. So both of you have mentioned this in different tonalities. I think we give back the floor to the room. There was one hand raised there. So go ahead, please.
Introduce yourself.
Simone Branno
Hi, Simone Pranno from Staffetta Quotidiana from Italy. Two questions, one for each. For Mr. Buțca, you talked about the high energy prices, which are a big problem, and you talk about installation of more PV plants, wind, nuclear and so on, and also interconnectors. But this is so in the long term. In the short term, what can we do?
Before, you also talked about ETS. When the Commission proposed the revision of ETS, there was a debate in the sense of to suspend ETS in this crisis, in this energy crisis. If we suspend ETS, we will have in the short term lower energy prices.
What you think about this? Just, I'm from Italy and our business association, Confindustria, asked for a temporary suspension of ETS. And for Mr. Maran, about the revision of emission for cars. I know that Mr. Salini made some amendments to the proposal. What are your expectations for this file, when you want to close the discussion, and what do you expect from this?
Thank you.
Pierfrancesco Maran
Well, about the Salini report on automotive. To be honest, we started with very far position among EPP and Socialist.
I'm optimistic first because otherwise I don't we wouldn't do politics, but also on the fact that at the end we will find an acceptable compromise for both sides. There's a point I would focus and highlight. Maybe we can change the not 100%, 90%, etc., but something that is for sure that anyway electric vehicles will be the most part of the new vehicles in 2030-35. That is why we have to push in this direction anyway, even if there are some other kind of vehicles around. But 90%, 75%, anyway, it's where we should stay as an industry.
And we have to get ready. So we both come from Italy, so we don't have the infrastructure, sufficient infrastructure at the moment. So we have to get ready for this evolution and to get our industry ready because we want not only electric car, but European electric cars. At the end I think we will find an agreement.
Borys Budka
Yeah, thanks. Mila grazie. But to be honest, there is the one of the proposal is to what you mentioned, but in fact, the Commission is going in the proper way, the proposal of this free certificates. Yes, we insist on Commission to increase the amount up to 800 million. Maybe this will be and changing the trajectory.
There are very technical issues of this, but in our opinion, the revision of ETS should be deeper than in first the proposal. But we are also together we voted on some regulations connected to ETS, but I'm optimistic, not very optimistic, but optimistic that we will find a compromise among also the member states, because there is the on the one hand, there is a proposal of Commission's proposal, on the other hand, there is also the Council and different point of views of the member states. But in my opinion, the this first mistake, because ETS, it's we can't blame ETS for everything.
This is a very good tool for financing energy transition, but in fact, it treats every country in the same way and doesn't take into account the system, for instance, the geographical differences between countries and specifics. But I think that it is not possible to get rid of the ETS. We expect to maybe not cancel, but to stop the clock for the ETS the second. But for the ETS one, let's call it, we should work with Commission on the more free certificates and changing the some technical aspects. And maybe this is also acceptable also for Italian industry, because as I understand, the problem in Italy is also because you don't have enough renewables and you for many years you've been producing energy from the gas.
So now it's really expensive, yes?
Borys Budka
And I remember the Italian energy mix in the beginning of, maybe in the middle of last century, it was the energy was produced from the water. There was something incredible, yeah.
So so it was it was the in the beginning of Italy. Now we we can observe but the gas is the the problem and also you as I remember you've got referendum on the nuclear just one year before after Chernobyl, yes also it was it was the the problem in Italy.
Raffaella De Marte
Is there any still issue in the room? Yes, on the in the back. Can you introduce yourself please?
Kieran Walsh
Kieran Walsh, Munster Express newspaper, Ireland. In Ireland we have the most expensive electricity. And it's kind of there are a lot of factors. There would be taxation, there'd be high pension costs for retired workers, lots of factors and it's very hard to solve it.
The the there is of course the each member state has its own the taxation and I understand also the the the problem of of energy prices also is connected to taxation, but this is unfortunately or unfortunately this is not not possible to regulate it on the European level the taxation, but also in
Pierfrancesco Maran
It was also one of the indication from the Commission some months ago when the prices go high, the fact that member states can adapt their taxation to energy. Of course it's complicated because it's part of the budget. Something we are also facing about ETS, maybe you mentioned before, is also where the money go because at the moment we have a rule that say that every euro earned by ETS should be invested in renewables or to help industries in the transition. But at the moment we know that more or less 9% if I'm not wrong go in this direction and the rest go to the national budget.
And this is a problem because this was not the purpose of the ETS. That is something probably we will find a common position among our political groups to ask for more for the member state because we need to support the transition even with investment connected with ETS.
Raffaella De Marte
Okay thanks. I think that we have really solved all the issues. I think as a conclusion the fact that the Parliament feels this sense of urgency and that is what is a bit the message that will be conveyed by you to the European Commission. Of course it's also the member states and the fact that we should act together and give ourselves the means to be more competitive and more resilient and more prepared in these turbulent times. Thanks to all.
Just for the heroic journalists to stay until the end I have a few things to remember. We are moving to La Rotonde for the reception with President Metsola at seven. The time just to gather all of you and move together. We have the web streaming of all this seminar so you can get back the quotes and all the links that were there. Also the press kit is online and there is a QR code in the room that you can scan.
And please tomorrow when you want to attend the debate from the tribune, come well before nine because there will be really a lot of people and to accommodate all of you we need a bit of time. Thanks a lot, thanks to our members and have a nice evening everybody and see you tomorrow.
Bonjour à toutes et à tous. Bienvenue pour ce briefing de presse sur le discours sur l'état de l'Union. Nous avons le plaisir d'accueillir aujourd'hui les porte-paroles des groupes politiques du Parlement européen. Ils vont nous présenter les attentes de leurs groupes respectifs pour le discours de la présidente von der Leyen qui aura lieu demain matin à Strasbourg. Chaque porte-parole aura deux minutes pour s'exprimer, puis nous passerons aux questions-réponses.
Nous commençons avec le groupe PPE.
Merci beaucoup.
Fabienne Keller
Voilà, mesdames et messieurs, bienvenue chez vous, dans votre, dans notre maison commune au Parlement européen.
Au nom de mes collègues que je vois là, Marc Angel, Isabel Wiseler-Lima, Charles Goerens et Madame Trautmann en tant qu'ancienne, voilà, élue du Parlement européen, je voudrais vous accueillir toutes et tous très chaleureusement. Je voudrais saluer les acteurs qui ont rendu cette projection possible. Je salue Fanny Klipfel, directrice d'Ici Grand Est. Je salue l'arrivée de Gabrielle Rosner-Bloch, notre conseillère régionale. Je salue Yannis Metzinger, Christian Metzinger et Donato Rotunno, les producteurs.
Où sont-ils ? Ils sont là, voilà, les voilà. Je salue Hervé Moritz, adjoint à la maire de Strasbourg en charge de l'Europe. Je suis très heureuse de vous accueillir pour cette avant-première de ce documentaire qui porte sur la bataille du siège et où vous allez découvrir les coulisses de la présence du siège du Parlement européen à Strasbourg, son affirmation. Mais je voudrais vous dire que, j'ose le dire, que ce documentaire relate une période où le siège était très attaqué.
On pourrait dire que la situation est un peu apaisée actuellement, même s'il faut toujours être mobilisé et vigilant, comme j'ai eu l'occasion de le dire récemment dans notre quotidien régional préféré. La construction du bâtiment Simone Veil, l'engagement du Parlement à augmenter ses effectifs à Strasbourg, a permis le fait qu'il y ait des activités régulières, des conférences qui sont sans cesse plus nombreuses, permettent de conforter la place et le rôle, la mission de Strasbourg. Ce sont des bons signaux, mais rien n'est jamais acquis. Donc la mobilisation, la vigilance de chacun est utile et je crois qu'on est nombreux à partager la conviction que Strasbourg a un message à faire connaître. Strasbourg n'est pas un lieu unique, mais c'est une proue, c'est une ville parmi d'autres villes dans une Europe polycentrique qui a tant souffert des guerres, des changements de nationalité, de cette tension entre les peuples européens que l'Europe a permis de surmonter.
La paix désormais installée en Europe, mais qui est remise en cause à nos frontières en Ukraine.
Nous sommes tous fiers de cette de cette mission particulière de Strasbourg, capitale européenne qui a un message particulier. Et c'est dans cet esprit que je suis mobilisée en tant que questeur au bureau du Parlement où avec Marc et hier avec Isabelle, nous portons la mission particulière de Strasbourg et de Luxembourg puisque nous sommes deux villes jumelles. C'est dans cet esprit donc que je suis très heureuse de vous accueillir tous et sans plus tarder de passer la parole à l'oratrice suivante, Madame Trautmann.
Catherine Trautmann
Merci beaucoup chère Fabienne Keller de nous accueillir ici dans cette salle. Merci aussi à ceux qui ont porté la réalisation du film et l'ont écrit. Je pense à Yannis, à Donato. Je me permets de dire les prénoms parce que finalement quand on passe un peu quelques heures avec ces messieurs, on peut trouver une certaine complicité. Je voudrais saluer Seerigofilm et la production, vous saluer aussi chère Madame parce que c'est important d'avoir le soutien de France Télévisions et de France Télévisions en région.
Et je salue aussi Gabriel Rosner-Bloch qui représente la région. Nous sommes heureux, je crois la région comme nous, d'avoir mobilisé nos fonds pour Strasbourg.
Ça a été au travers du contrat triennal, comme quoi il est utile aussi de l'avoir. On est en train de finir les discussions dans un contexte, comme vous l'imaginez, un peu tendu sur le plan financier. Mais enfin, il faut toujours avoir aussi le soutien de l'État et bien sûr, nous l'espérons, la présence du Président de la République pour signer ce contrat, ce prochain contrat. Ici, vous êtes dans ce bâtiment qui va être un peu le sujet du film. Un bâtiment qui a été pour moi finalement beaucoup de... qui signifie beaucoup de nuits d'insomnie, beaucoup de soucis, beaucoup de plaisir, beaucoup de découvertes, beaucoup de problèmes dans différentes occasions.
Il y aura dans ce film évidemment quelques récits. Je vous rassure, il n'y a pas tout. Donc si on veut faire Le Siège du Parlement 2, il y aura encore des choses parce que j'ai quelques archives. Voilà.
En tout cas, c'est toujours une aventure et je voudrais vraiment dire que ce qui m'a plu dans ce travail, c'est de pouvoir avoir à la fois la possibilité de démontrer comment nous sommes trois villes capitales européennes, mais comment chacune d'entre nous, Bruxelles, Luxembourg et Strasbourg, apporte sa part. Ça a été pourtant la bataille avec Bruxelles et l'alliance avec Luxembourg, je dois le dire. Et cette bataille a été homérique. Aujourd'hui, Fabienne Keller le disait, c'est beaucoup plus calme et tant mieux parce que nous avons besoin d'un Parlement européen qui s'affirme, qui affirme son indépendance, sa puissance, sa force et son autorité. Et j'ai toujours pensé que c'était à Strasbourg qu'il pouvait le faire puisque nous ne sommes pas une capitale d'État.
Nous n'avons pas cette ambiguïté qui verrait siéger des parlementaires nationaux dans une ville qui est capitale parlementaire européenne. Par contre, et je terminerai sur ce point, nous sommes en face du Conseil de l'Europe, autre assemblée, autre taille de l'Europe, autre dimension en quelque sorte. Mais tous les regards, et si vous regardez les bâtiments, enfin surtout celui-ci, vous comprendrez que ce qui constitue la proue du triangle que forment le Parlement européen et le Conseil de l'Europe, c'est la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme. Dans le triangle démocratique, la base et en même temps le but, l'objectif, c'est vraiment faire progresser les droits humains, se fonder sur l'état de droit.
C'est ce que ce Parlement fait et enrichit par son travail. Et c'est intéressant aussi de montrer justement les lieux, de montrer aussi, et je salue les membres du Parlement européen ici présents, saluer aussi ce travail qui est souvent modeste, peu connu.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.