Luděk NIEDERMAYER

Policy topics Luděk NIEDERMAYER is active on

What Luděk NIEDERMAYER has said (49)

• 2026-07-15 “Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Chair of AMLA, for being here. We should thank you for providing us pretty well with the information and the progress, and congratulations with the current achievement. I have two questions. The first one, you said that next year, you will focus on selecting the directly supervised entities. Could you put a little bit more light on what are the essential points of this? Also, could you illustrate what change it will represent for the supervised entities, directly supervised entities? Because we believe that they will benefit from a more coherent approach from the point of view of a supervisor in that important field. The second, a slightly different topic. We had recently here in the Parliament an exchange about the frauds in the housing market. I know that in our past debates, you very often mentioned that the sector related to real estate is one of the most risky, and we can see a lot of anecdotal evidence that this is the problem. So I wonder if we can expect a little bit of progress in this area that is highly, not only economically, but also socially sensitive. Thank you.”
  Anti-money laundering regulation
• 2026-07-09 “(10:50:24 - 10:52:32): Thank you very much, madam chair. The commission proposal for creation of 20 eight's regime is 1 of the most, visible, important, and possibly impactful proposals that we have got on the table in this term. It would make single market much stronger, and it will provide start ups and scale ups with the better framework how to keep their activity within the EU because this is very substantial problem. We have in Europe excellent education. We are rich in ideas and innovations. We have entrepreneurship. But, unfortunately, most of the companies, when they are starting to take off and are on the way to the success, they are leaving our market. Commission proposal that is now discussed in the URI is 1st step towards creation such a regime. Digitalization is very, very good because this will provide companies with simplified environment, and key components is the clarity in the regime of employees' share. This is very good proposal, and I just call our house and the council to not vote rate down, make it stronger, and pass it quickly. But this is far not enough for the for the, especially, scale ups to stay in the Europe. Better tax regime that will simplify life, especially for the companies operating across the across more member states, the clarity of the taxation, avoidance of the taxation, good regime for r and d expenditures, and and many other other aspects are very important for they being able to stay at our market. So that's why we will ask today the house to vote for the proposal that will allow all of this. We we opt for CCCTB to simplify the life of the companies operating across across the the market. We call for reducing the risk of double taxation, create uncertainty, and deal with the expenditures. This is the way how to create genuine market for success of start ups in Europe to allow them to flourish, but also allow European investors to invest safely in these companies and not to go abroad. I hope we will we will succeed in that, and I hope commission will come with more modules that will make this regime more usable and richer. Thank you.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• 2026-07-02 “(10:43:52 - 10:44:49): Thank you very much, and thank you, madam Marancier, for being here. Let me ask 1 question on the banking package. If I can interpret the statements of you and ECB, it seems that you believe that current capital level of the banks is adequate because we are living in risky environment. But 1 of the goal of the banking package is to simplify substantially. But you know that complications in the banking regulation are always very often the results of different tweaks, different special treatment, or provisions that are allowing some banks to, to have lower capital requirement. So how to settle this problem? Because if we simplify and remove these special treatments, the capital requirement will will go up. But if you believe that capital requirement is more or less adequate, you basically wants to, broadly speaking, keep a verity. So how how demanding, how complicated can be this exercise?”
  Financial regulation
• 2026-06-25 “So why don't we combine the reverse charge and the digitalization and all together? It will work pretty well, but it sounds a little bit a little bit unclear to me. So I wonder to which extent you believe that digitalization is still how to how to deal with the situation. So for example, obligatory e-invoicing for all the VAT transactions across the across the EU, digitalization of customs, for example, in the customs area matching between the orders and the the packages that will actually that could to some extent reduce the understating of the costs. If this is the main sail of the direction of the sail, or if we need to combine much more different measures, how to reduce the the fraud. But then I would like to see what are the 3 or 5 most important, because for me, it seems to me that digitalization, combined with much quicker use of the data, much stronger cooperation between the member states is something that can deliver. But I was really, I must say, a bit confused after hearing the presentation in the morning.”
  VAT harmonisation
• 2026-06-25 “Thank you, Mr. President, and thanks for a very good presentation. I guess there was quite a lot of urgency in that, and it was not so much different compared to when we start to deal with this issue. And I'm here already ten years and I'm somehow associated with CPP text agenda. So one concern is that it seems that urgency is still very high. But to be concrete, what was interesting that in the morning we were discussing EPA's study on the use of reverse charge. And it was interesting comparison with what you say, because basically the study says, you know, this is a good tool. Member states are very happy about it. This is significantly reducing the the tax fraud. But at the same time, they were not able to provide the data. So one can have a hypothesis. While in the case when VAT is fully applied, we know that fraud has happened in the case of reverse charges is closer to sales tax. We don't know that fraud has happened and it makes the tax administrations pretty, pretty happy or more happier, I would say. So my question basically is because conclusion of the study is that okay.”
  VAT harmonisation
• 2026-06-24 “Thank you very much, Irene, for inviting, Econ Committee representative. And more importantly, thank you very much for organizing this event. I speak here as an Econ vice chair, but also as an AML file reporter. And I would like to begin by stressing that money laundering in the real estate sector is a major concern. By investing the proceeds of criminal activities in property, organized crime is able to integrate illicit wealth into the legal economy while securing safe and very often quite a profitable asset. It is not only financial crime. It is a direct threat to the integrity of our economy and our society and democracy. And we should mention, I should mention also that for ordinary people, this is one of the most visible and most dangerous crimes that they can see. The consequences are profound. That money distorts the real estate market. It artificially drives up prices, reduces supplies of the housing available to citizens, and diverts investments away from the real housing needs. Properties remain empty, and if rented, they are rented very often for pretty high prices. Luxury development flourishes while affordable housing becomes scarce. And capital flows don't go where it's needed, but where the criminal proceeds can be concealed most effectively. Beyond this market distortion, part of this involves also organized crime. It fuels corruption. And very often, the corruption, the proceeds are invested into real estate market if not real estate is part of the corruption process. So it undermines the democratic governments. The scale of the problem is probably immense. As referred to EPRS report issued published in 2019 as well as super machine risk assessment on money laundering issued by European Commission. They both confirm the magnitude of the problem. We are talking about billions of euro, billions of euro that are laundered. Those reports recall that real estate sector is both highly attractive and particularly vulnerable for criminal abuse. It is attractive because it allows criminals to launder a vast amount of the money quickly through various techniques and enable them to enjoy relatively safe assets that sometimes generate substantial revenues from the renting. And we also should not forget that very often real estate proceeds are treated very favorably from the tax point of view as the benefit. They also benefit from the safe investments, assets that is historically very often increasing the value. It is vulnerable sectors because there are many ways how to hide the criminal origin of the funds when real estates are purchased. Cash transactions remain a classic method, but increasingly sophisticated schemes relying on shell companies, different companies, the straw men to hide the true beneficial owners are used in practice very much. At the same time, the controls carried out by the banks, notaries, and the real estate professionals may be limited, may be fragmented, and insufficient, or limited governments also played a role. And the result is SVRC, VC, and also the citizens can see that. This is precisely why European parliament worked hard on the anti money laundering package in 2024. We have strengthened the control to be applied by intermediaries both in the financial and nonfinancial sector, and we reduce the risk posed by cash. Competent authorities will have access to information on property ownership and prices. We also tackle the issue of the shell companies by making sure that beneficial owners of companies and trust are registered in the central registries, accessible to competent authorities, intermediaries, and those with legitimate interest. Crucially, these obligations apply especially to the companies established in the third countries when they acquire their real estate in EU because we know that this option is very, very often used recently. I hope these measures will lead to improvement. Probably, they'll not solve all the issues, but it will get us on the way to improve. So I hope that, so, actually, I would rather say I wish the discussion will continue because the crime associated with the real estate market is very dangerous, and it's linked with other forms of crime. So it's timely. It's good time to have this discussion, and we must continue in our work. Thank you.”
  Anti-money laundering regulation
• 2026-06-23 “Thank you, madam chair, and thank you, for great presentations. It seems to me based on them and also based on the hearing, yesterday that the monetary action by ECB and other central bank is well based and data depending, approach into the future decisions is also fully justified. It also seems to me that the current market situation is consistent with the moderate impact. But let me ask on 1 thing that really worries me. When the crisis started, it was it was considered as a huge shock for the supply of oil, natural gas, and other, other important raw materials. And there were a lot of estimations that unless the the crisis will last only for a few weeks, there will be huge impact on prices and on supply. But instead, the crisis is much longer, you know, much, much longer, And still, the prices were kept at reasonably, at reasonably good good level. Now, even if you don't know if the traffic is fully restored and what will continue in weeks to come, there is major turnaround in the in the prices. And, again, this is good for the for the moderate or or, small impact on the economy, but it's still a little bit puzzling. So my question is, what was the mistake in these assumptions that the impact will be much longer, much, much deeper? The 2nd, what was the role of release of strategic reserve by big countries? And the 3rd, how easy it would be under current circumstances to replenish them.”
  ECB monetary policy
• 2026-06-22 “Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you, Madam President, for being with us again. So first, thank you for clarity and transparency with which you explain your monetary action. I guess it's well justified. And I also share your view that we must very carefully follow the data and being able to react appropriately, because the level of uncertainty is really, really huge. I want to look a little bit more, more into the future and ask you how you see the medium term perspective of EU economy, especially from the point of view of the growth. Obviously, better global conditions would be good for us, but this is something that is hard to achieve. But we have still a lot of things in our hand. This is so-called famous Draghi report and so on. So I wonder your assessment how at which areas you think that we are sufficiently progressing and where we should do much more. And and secondly, what would be the impact on the monetary policy in the future if we succeed in this agenda?”
  ECB monetary policy
• 2026-06-17 “(10:39:48 – 10:41:09): Thank you very much. Let me just, react on 3 points on the the council agenda. 1st of all, on Russian aggression. Ukraine is, showing strength on the battlefield every day, but it wouldn't be possible without continuation of our economic, politic, and military support. And we must be going, not only because it's right things, but as it was said by our, our, chairman, relationship with Ukraine is not liability. This is assets for us, and we must act accordingly. The 2nd on enlargement, just keep going. What we were doing so far is not enough. We must conclude negotiation with some Balkan countries that are prepared for the membership and work out a plan how to develop quickly much stronger relationship with others that, for strategic reasons, need to join. Last not least, on competitiveness. 1 Europe, 1 market is a great plan, but we must deliver. Deliver only not on small 1 small things, but especially on large things like the electricity market, banking union, and so on. But at the same time, leaders should understand that it's up to them to improve the market by removing the obstacles that were created on the member states level. Unless we do it, this agenda will not be complete and will not deliver. Thank you very much.”
  EU enlargement
• 2026-06-15 “01:57 – 18:03:11): Thank you very much, mister chair. Economic dependency is more expensive than ever and more risky than ever. It doesn't matter if we are talking about the goods, energies, services, or, the materials and energies. So political direction is clear. We need to, reduce it. It is the same as the economic necessity. So let me just say 2 comments. The 1st, we should recognize that each in each sector is different. In some, we can reduce the demands for imports. For example, replace the gas and and oil by the electricity. In others, we can diversify to reduce the risks. In some areas, we should encourage creation of EU EU demand, while in others, we can create the the supply side by demanding EU goods, for example, in the defense. So this is my 1st remark. And the 2nd is we should never forget about keeping the competition at the market and the boost for the innovations. If we lose it, the way to more independence will get more expensive. Thank you. Thank you very much, dear colleague.”
  Sourcing of critical raw materials
• 2025-10-31 “E-004285/2025 Answer given by Mr Hoekstra on behalf of the European Commission The Commission assesses annually 1 the progress made by Member States towards their targets under the Effort Sharing Regulation 2 , and can request corrective action plans if progress is not sufficient. The Commission maintains regular contacts with Member States to support and help them in meeting their 2030 targets. If the compliance checks foreseen in 2027 and 2032 reveal that a Member State has exceeded the limit set for any year, taking into account the use of flexibilities, the quantity of emissions in excess is multiplied by 1.08 and the result will be added to the emissions of the subsequent year. If in 2032 it is found that the limit set for 2030 is exceeded, despite the available flexibilities, the general framework provided for in the treaties will apply. The Commission will be entitled to initiate a formal infringement procedure, potentially leading to the case being brought before the Court of Justice of the European Union, which could ultimately result in financial penalties being applied to the Member State at stake. The initial step would be for the Commission to send the Member State in question a letter of formal notice. There is no general predetermined time frame for the initiation of the infringement procedures or their duration. The Commission has no plans to propose a legislative amendment to the Effort Sharing Regulation foreseeing financial penalties or pricing for excess emissions for individual countries failing to meet the Effort Sharing Regulation. 1 In its annual Climate Action Progress Report. 2 Regulation (EU) 2018/842 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 on binding annual greenhouse gas emission reductions by Member States from 2021 to 2030 contributing to climate action to meet commitments under the Paris Agreement and amending Regulation (EU) No 525/2013 (OJ L 156, 19.6.2018, p. 26); ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2018/842/2023-05-16.”
  Climate efforts
• 2025-02-03 “E-000442/2025 Answer given by Mr Hoekstra on behalf of the European Commission 1. While financial institutions are subject to some common EU rules, in particular in the regulatory field, indirect taxation of insurance transactions, apart from the place of taxation, has not yet been harmonised at EU level. Some Member States do not subject insurance transactions to any form of indirect taxation while the majority apply special taxes and other forms of contribution to insurance transactions, including surcharges intended for compensation bodies. The structure and rates of such taxes and contributions vary considerably between the Member States in which they are applied 1 . Pending subsequent harmonisation 2 , the tax rules provided for by the Member State in which the risk is situated or by the Member State in which the commitment continue to apply. The Commission is engaged in preparatory work to identify solutions to barriers to integration, cross-border operations and digitalisation and innovation stemming from the current tax framework for the financial sector. 2. The Commission is currently preparing a report on the application of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast). The report will present the first general assessment of the application of the Regulation after the recast in 2012. The report looks, among others, into the matters relating to the rules on jurisdiction over insurance contracts. Based on the findings of the report, the Commission will consider whether any further steps are necessary, including the possible amendment of the current rules on jurisdiction in insurance matters. 1 Recital 87 of Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II), OJ L 335, 17/12/2009, p. 1–155. 2 Article 157 of Directive 2009/138/EC.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation · EU competences on taxation
• 2025-01-24 “E-000321/2025 Answer given by Ms Albuquerque on behalf of the European Commission Article 18 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union prohibits discrimination on grounds of nationality within the scope of application of the Treaties. Sectorial EU legislation may additionally include specific provisions to prevent discrimination. In the area of consumer credits, the Consumer Credit Directive 1 obliges Member States to ensure that the conditions for being granted credit do not discriminate against consumers on the grounds of nationality or place of residence. Article 15 of the Payment Accounts Directive 2 prohibits banks from discriminating against consumers, on grounds such as nationality or place of residence, as regards access to bank accounts. However, different documents may be required from consumers for compliance with other EU legislation, for instance Anti-Money Laundering (AML) rules. The AML Directive 3 requires obliged entities 4 to adopt a risk-based approach, granting discretion on the measures applied to mitigate customer, geographic and other risks. Discriminatory practices would however run counter to the spirit of the Directive 5 . Should the alleged discrimination result from national transposing measures and their implementation, note that Member States must act within the limits of EU law and comply with general principles of EU law, including non-discrimination 6 . Regarding telecommunications activities, the European Electronic Communications Code 7 , includes a non-discrimination provision for reasons related to end-users’ nationality or place of residence or of establishment 8 . Customers may consider directing their concerns to national authorities responsible for 1 OJ L, 2023/2225, 30.10.2023. 2 Directive 2014/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 on the comparability of fees related to payment accounts, payment account switching and access to payment accounts with basic features Text with EEA relevance, OJ L 257, 28.8.2014, p. 214–246. 3 OJ L 141, 5.6.2015, p. 73–117. 4 The obliged entities that are subject to Directive (EU) 2015/849 are listed in Article 2 of that Directive. 5 Please refer to recitals (65) and (66). Recital (66) emphasizes that Member States must 'ensure that this Directive is implemented, as regards risk assessments in the context of customer due diligence, without discrimination’. 6 Judgment of 17 November 2022, SIA ‘Rodl & Partner’, C‑562/20, paragraph 49. 7 Directive (EU) 2018/1972 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 establishing the European Electronic Communications Code (Recast), OJ L 321, 17.12.2018, p. 36–214. 8 Article 99 of the European Electronic Communications Code (EECC), states that ‘providers of electronic communications networks or services shall not apply any different requirements or general conditions of access to, or use of, networks or services to end-users, for reasons related to the end-user’s nationality, place of residence or place of establishment, unless such different treatment is objectively justified’. Such ‘objectively justifiable differences in costs and risks’ (as explained in Recital (256) of the EECC) could, for example, be linked to the provision of services at the end-user’s location or refer to a situation where services are denied for reasons of public security.”
  EU restrictions on unfair commercial practices · Privacy & digital economy
• 2024-11-18 “P-002560/2024 Answer given by Mr Hoekstra on behalf of the European Commission E-commerce is an important issue with multiple dimensions. The Commission has recently adopted a communication as to provide a comprehensive EU toolbox for safe and sustainable e-commerce 1 . The value added tax (VAT) e-commerce package, in force since July 2021, has introduced a ‘deemed supplier’ rule for electronic interfaces 2 , according to which the marketplaces are responsible for collecting and remitting the VAT due on these supplies made by underlying suppliers. The deemed supplier rule applies regardless of whether the underlying supplier is a large or small EU-based e-shop (in cases of the distance sale of imported goods with a value not exceeding EUR 150), or a non-EU established e-shop (for the same type of distance sales as well as for supplies of goods within the EU to consumers). As such, it reduces the compliance burden for small sellers, streamlines the otherwise applicable VAT obligations of thousands of underlying sellers to a limited number of marketplaces and enhances national authorities’ oversight and control possibilities. Under the VAT in the Digital Age proposal 3 , Member States will have more detailed data to conduct effective audits. Once the customs reform will be implemented, data availability will further increase with the new EU Customs Data Hub, boosting. the control capacities of Member States. Currently, marketplaces or any other trader can opt to register for the One-Stop Shop simplification schemes 4 to mitigate the need for multiple VAT registrations across the EU. These simplifications remain voluntary for traders, including for deemed suppliers. Member States use the Eurofisc 5 , a network of anti-fraud experts, to coordinate VAT control activities. As from January 2024, Eurofisc has access to data from payment service providers 6 to cross-check the reporting of e-commerce operators with payment data on cross-border transactions and identify potential VAT fraud. Control of VAT compliance practices is however the competence and responsibility of Member States. The Commission has no access to the type of information requested. 1 https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/e-commerce-communication-comprehensive-eu-toolbox-safeand-sustainable-e-commerce 2 See Art. 14a of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax as introduced by Council Directive (EU) 2017/2455 of 5 December 2017 amending Directive 2006/112/EC and Directive 2009/132/EC as regards certain value added tax obligations for supplies of services and distance sales of goods (OJ L 348 29.12.2017, p. 7). 3 https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/taxation/vat/vat-digital-age-vida_en 4 https://vat-one-stop-shop.ec.europa.eu/one-stop-shop_en 5 https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/taxation/vat/vat-and-administrative-cooperation/eurofisc_en 6 https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/taxation/vat/fight-against-vat-fraud/tackling-vat-fraud-e-commercecesop_en”
  VAT harmonisation · EU competences on taxation
• “I just three things. The first negotiate with the EU to try to reduce our harm. The second promote the single market that will make our economy stronger. And the third, develop the trade relationship with other countries through trade agreements. This is the way which I would propose.”
  Free trade agreements (FTAs)
• “And the second question that is also somehow associated to last intervention is that, as we know, actually quite a lot of member states have the problem with the budget balance. They are running unsustainable deficits. And in some countries, like my, it's not because of expenditure overshoot, overshoot, but because because the political decision there was to cut the taxes much more that it would be reflected by the decline of the of the expenditures. You know, and it seems to me that we are now facing kind of tax populism, that basically non-government is willing to do anything with the taxes, but they are hoping to cut the taxes and increase the revenues. So there is clearly the deficit bias. So I wonder to which extent there should not be focus on not just the fixing some things in the text framework, but rather to really significantly reset the tax regime in order, first of all, to at least better close the, the, the, the fiscal gap and at the same time to focus on the taxes that are more easier to collect and that are less subject to possible possible tax avoidance or tax evasion. Thank you.”
  EU fiscal rules and oversight of national budgets
• “Thank you. I will be very quick. It was morning, full of surprises for me. What I heard here, I must say. Let me thank Madame Ros for her presentation. But I have one question. A very concrete simple for Professor Mosconi. I was really surprised to see on your last chart that you compare the fiscal fiscal impact of reduction of 1% smokers to 50% transfer from smoking to alternative products. So I wonder what leads you to comparing that 1% to 50%? And also, I wonder to which extent how you measure and assess, quantify the risk that certain implicit support for alternative products that was clear from your presentation will create a new addicted among those who are non-smokers. Thank you.”
  Electronic cigarettes
• “Thank you, Madam Chair. And it's great to have you here again. Madam president, I share your view that the inflation outlook is good and I would congratulate ECB for doing a good job. But I will look at other parts of the equation because the growth is also relevant not for the economy but also for the inflation. And here I appreciate your strong clear comments, uh, enforcing importance of the single market development. But there is also the other part of the equation, and this is growth in individual member states. And looking at the data shows that there are big divergences. Some economists are systematically doing well. Some are doing very poorly, and it doesn't seem to me that it's cyclical. It should be structure. And also the the divisive point is not how rich is the economy, because some rich are doing well and some poor are doing poorly. So I wonder to which extent you think that it's very essential that the member States will also introduce the growth enhancing reform, and without that, there will not be prosperity of EU as such.”
  ECB monetary policy
• “Mr. Niedermayer thank you, Mr. President. Dear colleagues. Us tariff policy is just wrong, not only for all the world, but also for US firms and businesses. This will be the people and firms of us who will pay most of 100 billion of of tariffs if they are actually collected, but we are not here to set the US policy. We are rightly debating our response. And here I am very glad that I can endorse the plan of the Commission, and I would just encourage the Commission to keep trying up to the last minute and find the best solution. I guess the first part of the plan is obviously an effort to minimize or avoid the tariffs, and to keep or even extend the fair and free trade with the EU. Us. If you ask me if it is likely, I do not know. So that is why we should have the plan B that is proportionate. Secondly, we should extend where possible, trade with the with the third country and also coordinate on possible responses. But the most important and most effective way is to deepen and complete the single market. There is no excuse for not doing that because this will give the prosperity and stability of the European economy. Thank you.”
  EU-US trade relations
• “Thank you. Donald Trump has pushed the US trade policy almost 100 years back. Indeed, in the 40s, the US tariffs fell to 10% and then continue declining to to Pre-trump 2 to 3%. Now they are heading steeply, steeply up. On top of that, we have that incredible unpredictability. The first who will suffer will be US citizens, US households who will pay more for the goods and have lower availability of the goods. But the global economy will suffer too, and obviously our businesses will suffer. But let's face the reality. This is where we stand. I am glad to see here that the Commission has strong support from the Council and majority of Parliament to find the best possible possible solution. I hope we will reach it, but we must be ready also for the other result. At the same time, extending the network of our partnership, but mainly promoting the single market and remove the barriers. That's the way how to eliminate negative impacts of white House policy. Thank you.”
  EU-US trade relations
• “Thank you very much mister chair let me go back to one very old fashioned risk and I appreciate your work you you made the stress test but I will focus on the fiscal risks because we know that the situation is not fantastic within the EU that's not surprising given the macroeconomic circumstances as well as as need to increase the the investment but still at the same time it's hard to see quick improvement in some countries the situation fiscal situation is difficult and the political situation is not supporting necessary correction. So I wonder to which extent you see that current spreads that are still relatively small comparing to some historical episode in past are reflecting this and to which past extent there could be the scenario under which there will be substantial widening even if not the more complicated availability for some governments for necessary funds and what could be the consequences for financial stability thank you.”
  EU fiscal rules and oversight of national budgets
• “Thank you very much. And thank you, Commissioner, for very open but pretty, pretty depressing outlook in the topic. So I have one positive and one less positive question. The first one, if you can imagine that there will be sufficiently robust tax regime within the 28th regime, at least for start ups and scale ups, because I do not think that without having at least certain kind of tax provisions, this will really be the regime. This will be just fine tuning and improving of the situation, but not something that will create a deeper market of these firms. And the second, you know, I am still frustrated about not as a rapporteur only, but this is clear win to win proposal. So so I wonder if this is not and this is this is linked also to general question if we should not really seek for small majority if some people are blocking that. I understand that if you feel that like 20 out of 27 do not want it, that it is not possible. But if there would be at least partial agreement on that, this would sooner or later drag the others in because they would like to have their companies in competitive disadvantage. So I do not think that the proposals that are from the tax point of view, this is marginal proposal from economic point of view. This is good proposal. So I do not think that this one is, is good to to to give it up. Thank you.”
  EU competences on taxation
• “Thank you very much, madam. High unjustified tariffs do not make economies stronger. It does not make economy more competitive. It does not solve the fiscal problem. It was proved many, many times. But obviously Donald Trump is right. He can take this way if he wants. We as Europeans must stay united and negotiate in our interest and also to protect multilateralism. At the same time, we should clearly understand what cards we have in our hands. It is true that Europe has a big surplus in trade in goods, but US firms have big surplus in trading of services. At the same time, US firms, especially large digital firms, are using EU single market with very free access to generate huge profits. So we should understand what cards we have in our hands. And they are not weak. We should negotiate with the US as with our friends, our allies. But when we get into hard negotiations, we should understand that we have a good position to defend our interests and also to fight for the liberalism, the multi trade relationships, in order to help the global economy to be stronger.”
  EU-US trade relations
• “Thank you, Mr. President. Dear colleagues. Start of the year unfortunately reminded more Hollywood movies than the world we want to live in. It does not mean that challenges for us, both external and internal, are different external challenges. I mean, especially Ukraine are even more pressing because unfortunately, rhetorics of the white House very often is very close to something that wants Mr. Putin here. And that means that our call for clear and strong support for Ukraine is still the same. But I expect council mostly to react on new challenges. I am talking about Greenland. I am talking about the tariffs and I am talking about the peace Committee. The president wants to introduce these are not isolated events. If everything fits together, it is good to listen to Mark Carney, the governor of the central Bank and Prime Minister of Canada, and his speech in in Davos. This is the word that we are in and this is the word that he displayed describe using the words of Vaclav Havel. So that is why I called for the council. Be clear and bold on the support of Denmark and Greenland. Be united, make Europe stronger. Partner with the countries like the country of Mr.. Mr. Carney. We together need to build a stronger Europe Europe that is fit for the world of today. Thank you.”
  Russia-Ukraine conflict (10th term)
• “Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you, Mr. Cipollone, for being here. You are working on very important project. I guess this is the right project at the right time. And I wish they are quicker. You address some of my questions already. I am glad that you are aware of that interplay between private and public sector, and this is important to keep the competition. And the second referring to question of my colleague navarrette. It would be good if at one stage you can provide us that comparison of scheme models for for current cards and intended model for the, for the digital euro, because this will elevate some questions. But my my question is other. As a former central banker I know how expensive is handling of the cash on the side of the central bank and on the side of the private sector, and it's not discussed about it. So I wonder what kind of savings for the economy and for the ECB you expect if digital euro will take part of existing stock of money in circulation? And I'm intentionally saying some part because I fully agree with you that cash shouldn't be eliminated.”
  Digital euro
• “I thought that the other groups would speak. But anyway, it's great to have you here, Dominic. I also intend to ask about the completion of the banking union. But let's be, let's be. Let's go into more details. Are there some things that you are missing in the instruments available for dealing with the banking crisis within the EU framework? And if you are missing something, what is it? And also I would like to ask about the international dimension, because I know that you are following the developments in the important financial markets in Europe that are not in the EU. Obviously, that America is just something where we can take inspiration or where you can see that the countries are moving roughly the same direction. Uh, so that's it.”
  European Banking Union
• “(16:00:12 – 16:01:44): The 1st 1 is actually on you know, even even though we hasn't haven't finished this part, but I would like to know about some future prospects for the Euro Area, especially in the area of the wholesale digital euro. And also potentially using digital euro for, I don't know, defining stablecoins and other things. So how is this perimeter looking right now? And the 2nd 1, which has already been mentioned by colleagues, is a communication. Because even in this house, sometimes we have to answer the the same questions 5 or 6 times in a row. And I know that partially this is because also the some of the citizens do not understand exactly what does the digital euro mean compared to a digital card payment with their own cards. So I also wanted to know whether is there any plan? You you mentioned some of it, but also together with the industry, together with consumer organizations to explain the people, the devils which are in the details of the digital euro?”
  Digital euro
• “Yes, indeed. So let me again speak on behalf of Madam Neruda. It is still not here that the Budget Committee strongly believe that, especially given the many challenges in the EU is currently facing, any new EU policy must be supported by new financial means and fresh resources. The committee underlines that the creation of the harmonised corporate income tax framework. Such a benefit would help reinforce the sustainability and Predictability of union budget. It would also contribute to assuring the viability of repaying of the debt incurred under the next generation EU instrument. More specifically, the Budget Committee views buffet seen as an evolution of the Common consolidated corporate tax base, as a potential new owned resources. In this sense, we recall Parliament's long standing commitment to adopting own resources package with remains on the table. Therefore, the committee believes that benefits should include a clear provision highlighting the importance of new owned resources. However, we must also raise a concern. The current timeline for buffet covering the council negotiation, entry into the force, the transition period and the review stretches well into the 2030s. This would make it difficult to align with the roadmap and the repayment schedule for next generation EU programme. Thank you.”
  Own EU resources
• “And on the fiscal side, because you also had experience in your past life removing such a high structural deficit, as we can see not only in western part of Europe but also in central Europe where some countries are probably around four percent of GDP, this is kind of challenging way. Obviously, you can reduce this deficit the way the Greeks did it for very high social price, but how difficult it would be to get it into order? And if it's not in order, what could be the consequences for growth and stability of EU if countries will be stuck with very high structural deficit?”
  EU fiscal rules and oversight of national budgets
• “Thank you, Mr. President. On March 12th, tomorrow, Czech Republic will mark the 27th anniversary of joining the NATO. This was a huge step for Czech Republic. On the way to democratic Europe. Unfortunately, many Europeans have understood membership as an umbrella under which someone else look after our security and defence. This was a big mistake. The big mistake that has got us into current, very difficult situation. We cannot change the past but we are making the future. It is not enough if the Member States will adjust properly. Increase the defense expenditures. There is a clear role for our joint Europe to be played. First of all, the article 42.7 on collective defense clause in the European treaties must be real, and we must make sure that this is a credible commitment of the Member States to help each other. On top of that, we should build part of our defence together. It is more effective, cheaper and it will deliver quickly. This is the way to our more secured and safe future. Thank you.”
  EU competences on defence
• “Thank you, Madam Chair. To sum up, we have a will to go forward. We have an urgency. We have a plan. But I still think that sometimes we are rather in the area of slogans instead of real, concrete proposals that would deliver. So let me ask just two concrete questions. Do you have a timeline for 28th regime? Because this is one of the most important proposals that I can see. And do you think there is willingness of the council to go forward? And the second, do you will you go back to the council with Debra proposal and try to convince the members that they will get it through? Because this is something that will definitely strengthen the equity market across the EU.”
  EU competences on taxation
• “(11:24:50 – 11:26:27): Thank you very much, madam chair. This debate confirms that majority of the house understood that the Draghi and Letta was right. The single market is the assets that can assure the stability and prosperity of European Union. I am pleased to see 1 Europe, 1 market proposal from the commission as the very comprehensive plan how to reach substantial improvement, improvement that we really badly need. But this is just the plan. In order to make it real, we need to attack 3 areas of the problem at the same time. First of all, unfinished part of the single market. This is what Leta put in his report. I'm talking especially about the banking union, capital market union, better and deeper single energy market, and so on. The second fragmentation of the single market caused by gold gold plating. I guess we should go more for for the regulation instead of directives and remove these obstacles. And the third, and this is very important, are the barriers that are created on the member states level by different national regulations. The first 2 areas are within our limit, and we need good proposals from the commission agreement here and support from the council. The third is entirely up to the up to the capitalists. I believe we can we can deliver, and we must deliver. The alternative is clear. This is what Draghi described. This is slow agony, and this is what we don't want to bring for the Europeans. Thank you. Thank you very much, mister Niedermeyer. The next speaker is Evelyn Wiegler. Thank you, Shun. Thank”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• “(17:28:13 – 17:31:13): Thank you very much, madam chair, and thanks, Sarah Porter, for a very good description of the file that I, to a great extent, really share. This is about disclosure, about usability to allow investors to make good judgment about how to select between the optional financial products. And that also brings a little bit of a trick because one cannot say if less is more or more is less because we are here creating the transparency space, not trying to influence the behavior of the firms or changing the financial products. I guess one aim of this review is really to improve usability to make it more simple, but still providing good information. I guess we want to tackle the greenwashing because it was unfortunately shown that the regulation was misused for kind of greenwashing. And there is also a fair amount of simplification that we very much welcome. I also fully share with the report assessment that the commission did very good work. It took time, but it was worth it because there was extensive consultation with experts, with financial industry. And I always heard a very high assessment, a very high appreciation of the work made by the commission. Nevertheless, as we always believe, it can be improved. We are still in the process of finalizing our amendment. I guess the deadline is tomorrow, but we still have some things that we are looking at. Obviously, in the center of that is the issue of data quality and the estimates. I guess the commission made a fair amount to deal with that. We are still looking at the issues. We will not be enthusiastic about reverting some of the commission proposal for the simplification because we believe it's done pretty well, and it's proportionate. We assume that this is the start of the work and some other legislation like benchmark legislation will be later on aligned. But the biggest question probably that is on the table is the transitional category. And that means the question to which extent this should be a category that will encourage firms to speed up the transition to more sustainable operations or if it's a reward for those who are pretty much progressing in transition. And this is not that one is good and one is bad. This is a matter of choice that will probably be in the center of discussion even in parliament, but I know that this is in the center of discussion of the council. But I understand that with the report and team, there will be a very good spirit of cooperation, and I believe we will preserve good parts of the commission proposal. And we'll try to make it a little bit better and create good conditions for working in Trilog. So I really look forward. Thank you.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU · EU approach to sustainability criteria in private investments
• “Thank you very much. Madam president, this debate confirms that the majority of the House understood that Draghi and Letta was right. The single market is the asset that can assure the stability and prosperity of European Union. I am pleased to see one Europe, one market proposal from the Commission as the very comprehensive plan on how to reach substantial improvement, improvement that we really badly need. But this is just the plan. In order to make it real. We need to attack three areas of the problem at the same time. First of all, the unfinished part of the single market. This is what to put in his report. I am talking especially about the banking union, Capital Markets Union, a better and deeper single energy market, and so on. The second fragmentation of the single market caused by gold plating. I guess we should go more for for the regulation instead of directives and remove these obstacles. And the third, and this is very important, are the barriers that are created on the member states level by different national regulations. The first two areas are within our remit, and we need good proposals from the Commission agreement here and support from the Council. The third is entirely up to the up to the capitals. I believe we can we can deliver and we must deliver. The alternative is clear. This is what Draghi described. This is slow agony. And this is what we do not want to bring for the Europeans. Thank you.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• “Thank you, Mr. President. Us administration's view on the situation of Europe and its future should not lead to our anger. It should lead to our reflection and action. Obviously, the council is the right way to start with that. So let me just give three suggestions. First of all, Russian money should be those who finance the Ukraine. It is economically and morally right. So I call the council to find an agreement while taking the legitimate request of the Belgian government into account. The second EU needs stronger defence. I guess the clear is absolutely right and we need to join the investment in some area. I believe that some part of our defence, like electronic defence, like the missile defence and drones, should be built together and I believe that financing that together is the right thing. So I hope that the council will find the courage to look after our defence, the right and the most effective way. Last and least, I do not want to. I do not want to go into the details about our competitiveness, about our economic sovereignty. That will be probably part of geopolitical debate at the Council. I just want to say that instead of trying to do what we could do, we should aim for what we should do. And it is the difference. And only addressing the real things, the big things, the single market and competitiveness. Our delay in implementing technologies like artificial intelligence will lead to a bright future for Europe. Thank you.”
  Defence spending
• “Thank you. I'm sorry to be late because I had some some media thing, but. But I'm glad to see you. See you again. And I have just basically two questions that I guess partially you talk about it. One, the one if you are confirmed, what are the challenges you see you see ahead. We are in a situation of geopolitical changes or the volatility, where there is much less enthusiasm about rules based system alignment of the regulation and so on. So this is one of the factors. The second thing in the EU and you can see that in discussion in this House there is an effort to simplify the regulation for the businesses. So I wonder how you see that the work in next year's can be a little bit different than it was before that. And the second question is related to something that you also mentioned, that multi-stakeholder structure that basically request makes make very big demands for, for Africa representatives to be able to weight against each other the interest of the different interest group. Would you see that this would be more difficult? Would you see that it would be easier or more difficult to align this kind of political, uh, trend of effort, of simplifying the regulation and to make the regulation to be less obstacle for the competitiveness of European firms.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “(16:12:46 – 16:16:40): Thanks. I will be brief because I will probably repeat a lot of things that Ludo said. So first of all, thanks him, and thanks to the other shadows for good cooperation. I believe this is both economically and politically very good proposal, economically because it address the issue that we need to address politically because it can demonstrate that we can move forward. Commission proposal is also, in my view, behind the expectation. It's addressing the legal dimension, need for digitalization, digitization doesn't create market. And market is market for especially scale up is what we need because this is only way how to secure for them financing and increase the chance that they will stay in Europe. So we need single rules. And single rules are not created by simplification and digitalization, but by creating the single rules. We should especially focus on the companies that are operating cross border. And as I said, I guess scale ups are the most important targets. And, obviously, realistically speaking, we should focus only on certain part of the operations that are politically feasible and not try to focus on something that is politically unrealistic. This is for me perfectly okay. So within this, tax area is 1 of the most important, especially, I mean, corporate taxation. And, that's why we believe that this, the commission proposal should be as soon as possible accompanied by different modules that will address this issue, and tax probably should be 1 of the first 1. And we agreed, and I believe we have the majority for some principles that are important. So it should be limited only to certain companies not to create the risk that the national corporate environment will be undermined. We believe that limited duration can be fair because, not to grant kind of unfair advantage over the other businesses in later scale. I guess it's perfectly okay to agree that in some politics sensitive areas, especially labor taxation, this should not be covered in this model because this would mean a very substantive impact on the national tax policies. And I strongly believe that the most effective way is to focus only on CCCTB logic because this is simple, transparent, avoid risk of tax avoiding and so on. It's simple to cooperate. As we know that it will be politically challenging to reach the agreement, in the report, we suggest that we open the doors for our enhanced cooperation on different opt in system because to improve the competitive position of the Europe, it would be enough if, let's say, 10, 15 countries to opt in because this will create substantive market. And, frankly, those that who will not join will be, I believe, in disadvantage, but this could be their choice. So, our view is that this is in a report, so that's why we should try to be as inclusive as possible to reach the broad agreement where possible. But as Rudolf said, and this is where I finish, the dividing line is that some people believe that simplification and digitalization is enough. I believe that, no, that we need to create a single market. And create a single market should mean that there will be single rules according to which the France will be able to cooperate simple way on cross border basis, on the predictable basis, and this is the way how to create the market that we currently don't have and puts outgrowth on break. Thank you.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation · EU competences on taxation
• “(16:11:56 – 16:12:45): Thank you, madam chair, and thank you, mister Cipollana, to be again with us. So let me start with, thanking my colleagues because I believe that, that work on digital euro is on the track. So let me ask you, because you need you believe you know that parliament wants to see the project to be started, latest early 29. What can go wrong? Because this is highly demanding IT technological projects that can get difficulties. So what are any of you bottlenecks? And the 2nd, let me continue with Ludo other question on wholesale, Digital Euro that is completely different animal. So what concrete steps will take place? And what's the interplay between possibly tokenized assets and existing target that is RTGS system based on the central bank money? Thank you.”
  Digital euro
• “And thank you for your reply to my question. And I I'm pretty pleased with the performance of banking sector. But let me go back to my question, because my question basically was if you believe that there is a strong case for us being from time to time gold plating international standards, or isn't it time to rather go to base? And basically after we we are the major force that is setting this international agreement that we will not go beyond them.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• “Thank you, Madam Chair. And thanks, Dominik, for for being here. You know, it's still too early for celebration of Cmdi. So let's hope where we get. But I still have to say that I am very grateful not only to my colleagues, but especially Polish negotiators that made amazing work not to work with us, but work with the council. It was the most tricky part of the exercise, but let's assume that we are in that world. And I have two questions. The first is that modernisation, simplification, you talk about it and this is a big topic. We also, as Madam Chair said, talk about it in the US. I wonder to which extent people understand that, that overcomplexity of the of the existing regulation is also a result of the effort to make it clear, targeted and effective, because there is a trade off between how simple and transparent the regulation is and how well targeted is. That means that it properly reflects the risks and properly assign the capital level. So to which extent there is a risk that in order to make it simple, we will actually make it make it more costly.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks, Commissioner, for for quite clear description of the situation. Just to have a short question to save the time. Let me ask you how you see the different impacts on different member states, because last year we have seen substantial heterogeneity in the economic growth. Some countries were doing pretty, pretty well. I guess around ten, 12 countries reached the growth above 2%, but quite a few below 1%. And one can assume that also impact of potentially higher oil and gas prices will not be spread equally. Some countries rely on supply that is now disrupted. As you as you mentioned, some of them have higher exposure to to fossil fuels. So how big variation of the impacts. We can we would likely see if the situation persists. Yes. Thank you for this question. So the scenario analysis or simulations I was outlining, uh, those are done at the aggregate level. So we do not have those scenario analysis. Member state by member state. But as I was mentioning, uh, next month we will be presenting the autumn economic forecast where we will have exactly this member state by member state assessment as as well. So we'll be able to see the, uh, much more detailed picture. And in a sense also that may help guide our thinking about the necessary policy responses as well.”
  Climate efforts
• “Thank you very much, Madam President. And let me start by congratulating our Bulgarian colleagues. Like. Like my friend Dolores. I envy them to have courage to take the right decision. And I'm saying that as a Czech that unfortunately, my country doesn't have discouraged so far. But talking about about our debate, I would say that this is a little bit half empty glass situation. I will talk about three issues only in one of them. I guess we are on the on the very right track. The very right track is concerning the, the, uh, foreign diplomatic policies or foreign trade policies because here, I must say, I have great respect for for the work of the Commission. And I hope we will have courage as the Parliament to take the right decision and go forward with that, because this is something that will strengthen our economy in other areas. It is not not so positive. In defence, we should have more courage to work together, because only by purchasing together, by coordinating, we will be able to improve our ability to defend ourselves. Effective way and the same for the competitiveness. We know that the key for the competitiveness is strengthening of the single market. Remove the barriers. But we I don't see the progress on the member states level, because these are member states that build the barriers that are slowing down our economy. And why don't they start to raise who is quicker in removing these barriers? This would make Europe stronger and this is what we need. Thank you.”
  EU competences on defence
• “Thank you, Madam Chair. Let me start in reacting to what was said here. And I firmly believe that simplification and modernization are important topics, but building the single market is the way how to make Europe stable and prosperous. And we should not forget that in doing so, we have to sacrifice 27 different treatments of different goods and services, create one rules and give up these that are created by the Member States through gold plating or other measures. And I hope the Council will talk and more and more about it. Otherwise, I like especially two topics from the from the council meeting. The first is drones on drones. We have to team up together. First of all, to be technologically on high level and secondly, to better protect our soil, our infrastructure and our citizens. And the second very important thing is the euro. I am very happy that the leaders are underwriting the goal to to conclude, banking unions promote capital markets union. I just hope that in these matters we will move from words to real results, and we will do it quickly. Thank you.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• “Thank you very much, Peter and all. I have just one question concerning the 2050, because I am surprised that the commission is happy to keep non-co2. Clean vehicles in the operation in 2050. So I wonder who will pay the cost of. Of actually withdrawing CO2 from the air because the cost will be sustainable. And even if we use sustainable biofuels, sustainable is not the same as zero emissions. Thanks.”
  Powertrain choice: EV-only pathway vs. equal support for hybrids, e-fuels, H2
• “Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you for being being here. And I must say, I fully endorse your principles in the report. And also I must say that I share your view on the banking union. I have two relatively simple questions. The first, if you are somehow promising that you will simplify and clean the framework, how quickly we can see some some results of that. And the second is when we are discussing with our partners, like us and the others, on the international principles like Basel three, they are they are not questioning the the implementation. They are a little bit pushing that further. And at the same time they insist that they will not do gold plating. And you know that traditionally we always do gold plating. So don't you think that there is a time to say that if we agree on international standards, we will just implement them and not go beyond or or we will continue with the way how we did it.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• “Thank you chair. I will try to be quick. Or for Mr. Cipollone or for Mr. Bergen. There are a lot of good arguments for digital euro. There are some concerns, but I, I have not heard the kind of economic assessment because we know that only that not only banknotes and coins are kind of old fashioned, but it's extremely expensive to handle it. And when I was in the central bank, I was trying to find some figures and I never found it. So I wonder if you know what would be the economic benefit if some people will decide instead of old fashioned banknotes and coins, decide to use sister that mean that mean digital euro. Still the central bank money, but obviously much, much more efficient.”
  Digital euro
• “Thank you very much. Um, I would have probably two questions. First of all, thanks for presentation, but they were not terribly encouraging, I must say. So I first probably would like to turn to our text, Director Benjamin, because, you know, there are at least three areas of the text debates. The first is kind of simplification of of the existing rules, like VAT, for example. And as we have seen an EP's progress report, there is only progress a certain area, but in other areas it's seen as the biggest obstacle. We also had some offensive idea to to modernize or harmonize some framework. I spent two years working on on actually proposal, but this was completely killed by the council. The council even didn't want to talk about it. And concerning the second presentation, you know, I must say that there is nothing that is more difficult than simplification. So it's easy to say, you know, we need to simplify the rules. And rules are awfully complex, but the simplification is the least simple things. So I wonder to which extent, especially Benjamin, but also the others. You think at which areas we can make some progress that will deliver and not deliver in 20 years, but deliver quickly.”
  Conditions to access EU budget
• “So thank you, chairman, for being here. I was expecting a little bit more detailed presentation, I must say, because this was quite a general. So I will also react a little bit kind of general work. So first of all, thank you for your work. And we should admit that we they are in quite a special time, and not only because of transition. Transition in our fiscal framework, but because of so many things are going on. And they are. There are sometimes pretty worrying. One of the worrying thing is that the fiscal sustainability question have got a little bit of the screen. It's not considered as a pressing topic and it's neglected somehow. And I guess this is one of the sources of the risk, because if there is not enough public awareness, then the, the, the things can stay as they are. And the fact that things stay as they are doesn't mean that something is not changing, because just keeping status quo can lead to actually increasing the fiscal sustainability that will backfire in the future with much more stronger intensity. So I see some risks that are emerging. Some are in a situation of my country that until recently was the country with very low debt and with very limited fiscal problems, and some of them are of the general nature. And I would be pleased if you would comment on that. So the first concern is, and I already mention it, is that it seems that in some countries, clearly unsustainable fiscal situation is considered as a status quo. Status quo? That is hard to change. Sorry. Running out of time. Okay, I will be very quick. The second is that the national framework can be easily watered down because it is based only on the on the domestic laws that are easy to change. And this is the problem. And the third one that countries that are not under risk of sustainability can easily, under the current framework, get to unsustainable situation if they are below 60 and 3%. So I would like to hear your comments.Thank you,”
  EU fiscal rules and oversight of national budgets
• “So let me try another one and I will wait for your economic forecast very anxiously, but you mentioned that you have some principles on how the member states should react to current energy crisis. You mentioned it should be temporary. It should be targeted and it should be in line with the economic framework. So I'm sure you are monitoring what member states are doing. So to which extent they are complying with that. Because in a letter of Commissioner Aaronson, there is mentioning of the principles proposed by International Energy Agency that are aimed to reduce the consumption of the petrol and diesel. Are member States implementing this? I don't see that the cutting the the consumption tax is targeted measure, you know. So so how do you see the member states complying with the recommendation by the commission?”
  Energy (green transition)