Jonás FERNÁNDEZ

Policy topics Jonás FERNÁNDEZ is active on

What Jonás FERNÁNDEZ has said (45)

• 2026-06-15 “@CHAIR (17:36:31 – 17:37:48): Good afternoon, president, commissioner. The truth is that this is the right moment to hold this debate, And we really need to hold it because there is no better way of ensuring the strategic independence of our economy than consolidating the single market. We're talking about the tariffs, the shadow hidden tariffs that we still face. 40 something percent for trading goods, over a 100% for some services. These are estimates from the European Central Bank and the IMF. We need to foster our industry. We need to build European champions, but that's not gonna happen if we don't have an efficient and effective single market. So commission, that's why you face a major challenge. We want appropriate, industrial policies in steel cars. You've done a bit on that. But really to be successful, we need to consolidate the single market.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• 2024-10-30 “E-002352/2024 Answer given by Ms Albuquerque on behalf of the European Commission The EU has adopted a wide range of restrictive measures (‘sanctions’) on Russia, including far-reaching trade restrictions in several economic sectors, and specific financial measures against Russian individuals and entities. As the Honourable Member is aware, these sanctions are adopted under the EU’s common foreign and security policy and are intended to limit Russia’s ability to conduct and finance its war of aggression. The import restrictions imposed on iron and steel are one of the most stringent sets of sectoral sanctions applicable to Russia, with most having entered into force in March 2022. All imports of steel into the EU of Russian origin are now under restrictive measures. Two specific types of semi-finished products are not fully banned, but subject to a quantitative limit (quota) that will last until September 2028, with gradual declining volumes, to allow EU re-rollers of steel to find adequate alternatives in a global market characterised by limited available alternative supplies. The quotas of the products referred to by the Honourable Member were adopted by Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP 1 and given effect into EU law by Council Regulation (EU) 833/2014 2 . According to these acts, the import value quotas are managed by the Commission and the Member States in accordance with the management system for tariff-rate quotas provided for in Articles 49 to 54 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 3 . EU sanctions are kept under regular review; their adoption is decided solely by the Council of the European Union and requires the unanimous approval of all Member States. 1 See article 4i (4), (5) and (5a) of Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia's actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine ( OJ L 229, 31.7.2014, p. 13–17); https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32014D0512 2 See Article 3g(4),(5) and (5a) of Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia's actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ L 229, 31.7.2014); https://eurlex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32014R0833 3 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 of 24 November 2015 laying down detailed rules for implementing certain provisions of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the Union Customs Code (OJ L 343, 29.12.2015, p. 558); https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32015R2447”
  EU-Russia relations (from March 2022)
• 2024-10-30 “P-002319/2024 Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission 1. Investment projects are not eligible for eco-schemes, as eco-schemes consist of payments to active farmers per hectare of land. 2. The project or part of it may be eligible for support from the Spanish Common Agricultural Policy Strategic Plan 2023-2027 under the following two interventions: Support for investments in processing/marketing and LEADER. The LIFE programme supports projects aiming at achieving environmental and climate action objectives in line with related legislation and policies and seems not relevant for this project. As concerns NextGenerationEU funding, the current Spanish Recovery and Resilience Plan does not envisage investments aligned with this project. The European Regional Development Fund programme for Asturias 2021-2027 can support business investment projects in small and medium-sized enterprises 1 . 3. The prohibition of double funding requires that the same costs are not financed twice by the EU budget. However, if cumulative funding is allowed for each of the EU funds concerned, different parts or costs of the same project can be financed by different EU funds. 1 Intermediate body: https://www.asturias.es/ast/web/asturias/detalle//categories/572410?refererPlid=217084&p_r_p_categoryId=572410&_com_liferay_asset_categories_navigation _web_portlet_AssetCategoriesNavigationPortlet_articleId=1605912&articleId=1605912&title=Programa%20Fo ndo%20Europeo%20de%20Desarrollo%20Regional%20(FEDER)%20de%20Asturias%2020212027&redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.asturias.es%2Fast%2Fweb%2Fasturias%2Fgeneral%2F%2Fcategories%2F572410%3FrefererPlid%3D217084%26p_r_p_categoryId%3D572410 Managing body: https://www.idepa.es/agencia_sekuens”
  Cohesion and rural funding
• “Thank you very much, chair. I'll be speaking in Spanish. Welcome. It's a pleasure to welcome you to this committee once again, in order to analyze the resolution framework and the work that your institution does. I have two questions. The first one is linked to Bulgaria joining the euro area on the 1st of January, 2026. I understand that you've been working on their integration for a while, and that you've also been looking at Bulgarian banks and resolution issues. So I'd like a little bit more information on this if that's okay. And my second question is on the trialogue agreement in relation to MDI. You refer to the Cmdb agreement. And I was wondering if you could elaborate on the pros and cons of the agreement. You said that you think that it's on the right track. Uh, many of us believe that it is on the right track, but it's not. But perhaps we can debate whether we have been moving in the right direction or not. Thank you.”
  European Banking Union
• “Thank you very much, chair. And welcome from me to to you, Vice President. It's a great pleasure and privilege to have you here to have this exchange of views. Although we don't have very much time. First of all, I'd like to ask you about proportionality My colleague has already raised that. Some sectors, industry and some stakeholders otherwise are concerned about the proportionality. And talk about a small banking box. So I wonder whether you could expand on that for us. From my perspective, the definition of small and non-complex institutions or entities is to some extent a quantitative limit, but it does imply constraints, and they are very real in the context of the banking union. The biggest entities of the member states cannot obviously be designated small. So could you tell me how you envisage us progressing in the banking union with this state of affairs? We obviously need to have an effective banking union which protects savings and deposits, which facilitates liquidity and capital management and creates greater liquidity. And it clearly can't be subject to political interests or political bias.”
  European Banking Union
• “Thank you, thank you. No talking on the. On the permanent. The backstop. The review of the treaty of the ESM that we are waiting for a long time. It's just a question. Maybe listening to you now. I don't know if it will be easier to let SRB issue that than waiting for the revision of the ESM.”
  European Banking Union
• “Good afternoon. Thank you very much, Madam President. Commissioner. It's incredible, isn't it, to think that the Brexit referendum was over ten years ago now, and it had such a negative impact on the present day for the people of the UK, and it created a few problems for the EU as well. We regret that decision by the UK, although of course we respect it and I believe we now have a good report. I'd like to thank the rapporteurs for the work which has gone into it. This divorce meant going our separate ways in terms of legislation as well, and it's in our interests. It's in everyone's interests to ensure that certain activities can continue, that Brits can continue doing certain things in Europe, vice versa. This is true of certain areas of trade where we need equivalence regimes. Otherwise we could see a race to the bottom in regulatory terms, the non-banking financial sector is a key area. Money market funds in the UK. Close cooperation on combating money laundering is another good example. It's probably the best year yet since Brexit.”
  EU-Switzerland relations
• “Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I'll be speaking Spanish. Good afternoon. As my colleague Lüdecke said, and as you mentioned after this debate, will be holding the vote on the Cmdi agreement, a complicated and difficult agreement. It took time to hammer it out, and it is a step in the right direction. Although we would have liked to take more steps in the right direction. But we do have a relatively stable framework that provides legal certainty, and it's in the hands of the SRB when it comes to management. Now I'd like to talk about the The competitiveness report for the banking sector that the European Commission has to present next year. In the last Parliament, when we negotiated this and the PSD, we included this report in order to be able to analyse the situation pertaining to the banking union. We wanted to be able to analyse the problems that were still there. You touched upon this. You talked about the fact that there are problems because we have an incomplete banking union. So I'd like to know whether the SRB is going to take part in the reflection process that will feed into the Commission's work, and what recommendations could be included in this report that will then lead to specific legislative proposals? Thank you.”
  European Banking Union
• “Good afternoon. I'll be speaking Spanish. Well, first of all, I'd like to welcome you to this House, to this committee, which is also yours, because you worked here for a very long time, as you said yourself. And it's a pleasure to see you again. Um, I'd like to also thank you for all your work over the last few years. I have no doubt that you're going to continue working in this area for many years to come. Now, I have a comment and a question. I think that there's a broad consensus, and you referred to it on the cost of bureaucracy, on administrative costs, on the administrative costs and the burden on economic activity. The question is that some of us might think that the real bureaucratic problem isn't so much European regulation other than national regulation. National regulation explains why we're having problems consolidating the single market. The IMF believes that there are implicit tariffs, shadow tariffs, if you like, within the single market, and the estimate is a little bit over 40% for goods and 110% for the services market. And I think that that is the real administrative cost that has to be removed so we can boost the competitiveness of the European economy. And I think we're not doing a lot. We're doing less than we should be in any case. So that was my comment. And now here comes the question. You referred to reporting, in other words, the work that you do. And that dovetails with the work that the EU is doing because it's linked to the sustainability indicators that you referred to as well. There is a overlapping of regulation. If you look at the regulations that went through in the previous parliament. So we have this simplification debate. We have the omnibus that we're looking at and the proposals to remove a big quantity of private operators from the scope. This means that we might not have enough data, the data that we need to feed into this transition. So I'm wondering whether the work that you're doing, the reporting, the indicators that you produce could actually lead to problems when it comes to overhauling legislation.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• “The dance hall for group inclusion now applies when one company holds at least 50% of another. Accounts must follow an EU accepted accounting standards. Dividends and capital gains are 95% excluded. If ownership excess 10% interest on loyalty deductions may be limited and control foreign company rules based on the added have been incorporated. Depreciation is applied by asset type with exclusions. Accelerated depreciation is available for green social and security related investments under certain conditions. Chapter three allocation formula benefit aggregate tax results across group members. For now, it uses a transitional allocation based on past taxable results. Some political groups have already proposed moving to formulary apportionment apportionment using tangible factors like sales, labor and assets. However, the exact formula remains under negotiation. The Commission will continue monitoring developments and may propose updates as needed. Chapter four and five is still under discussion. Chapter four simplified approach to transfer pricing compliance and five administration and procedures and six final provisions are still under active Tiff discussion. We are working closely with all parties involved to strike the right balance and reflect the wide range of amendments received. The aim is to ensure that the final rules are clear, fair and workable for all stakeholders. Final thoughts. Buffett is more than a tax reform. It is a strategic instrument to enhance EU economic capabilities in the global economy by simplifying tax rules, ensuring fair contributions from large corporations, and reducing harmful fragmentation. It will strengthen the single market. The time has come to move from 27 national systems to a coherent European framework to foster investment, uphold our economic sovereignty and make our tax system fit for the future. Let us size this opportunity. Thank you so much.”
  EU competences on taxation
• “In 2020, the European Commission decided that we would have 800 billions next generation EU to relaunch the economy. We've seen the results. Most of the loans went to the RF, and the report now takes stock in positive terms of that. I don't know whether this is deliberate lying or blindness or a bit of both, but I'd like to recall the facts which really run counter to your propaganda. Firstly, there was no parliamentary scrutiny worthy of the name when it came to this historic figure. Nearly 800 billions, which was put together with a lack of professionalism in terms of the structure and financial management, which we think is very serious. It's no surprise that since the beginning, the RF has been outside the usual budget procedure. The funding was based on pooled debt, which was taken on urgently, without democratic debate, a weight on taxpayers for years to come. 15 to 20% of the European budget each year in terms of the size of it. And then we're looking at new own resources, new taxes, increasing contributions from member states, which we would categorically reject. As regards the outcome, it's zero over all. Only 31% of the objectives have been reached, and over €300 billion have been spent without any guarantee of proper use. The public prosecutor has opened many inquiries for fraud and looking at large amounts of financial damage. Our group has tabled 80% of amendments to this dossier in plenary, and we hope that people will look at the public vote on the amendments. History will judge your conduct. We can't turn a blind eye to this. We need full transparency on the use of funds.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Hello. Good morning. Thank you. Thank you chair. Uh, the the MEP of my group who is in charge of directly on taxonomy. Cannot attend to this meeting. But in any case my group from from eco side have some comments. Yeah. And and I think that we have to share our views. Yeah. So I think it's important to have regular updates on the ongoing work on taxonomy. Our group has expressed concerns on recent delegated acts when it comes to this file. These concerns have been both on the content and also on the legality of the delegated. That we have seen the attempted weakening of standards and deadlines through the back door. However, our group remains committed to a genuine simplification of the use of the taxonomy for companies. Indeed, reports have shown that there are still challenges in the taxonomy uptake, especially when it comes to alignment. How are, however, concerns that the changes that are currently proposed will not improve the usability of the criteria for companies and financial institutions? The 2026 draft delegated acts cross-references to a wide range of new legislations, and we are not sure whether they really bring simplification, especially for smaller companies, as they will have to check all underlying articles on national transposition. On the other hand, to our concerns, the trend of that of this draft delegated act is that the standards are weakened and deadlines are extended. So we would like to see another balance in which standards are upheld and usability is improved. So this is a word of caution against weakening the standards agreed by legislators because it does very little for usability of the framework and undermines its credibility. We ask the Commission to reflect on that. Thank you so much.”
  Green Taxonomy
• “Thank you very much, Madam Chair. In the eight, when we went from the 18th century to the 19th century, the western countries set up their central banks. And the reason they did it was to issue public money, because the previous model that was based on private cash was very volatile, led to speculation and led to repeated bank crises. Since then, we've had had different monetary systems. But the issuance of money has been based on public money and cash from central banks and private money through commercial banks, through deposits and other savings tools. So the world has changed a lot, a lot, and it has changed a lot, even in the last three years since the commission put this proposal forward. Money is being transformed through digital mechanisms. In fact, cash accounts for a very small percentage of the overall volume of money. It's mostly private money and digital money. So I think a debate on digital euro is about how we can make sure that a percentage of money can remain public money, public digital money. And this doesn't appear in the report. Mathias Eck.”
  Digital euro
• “Good afternoon. Thank you very much. President. Commissioner. Firstly, I'd like to thank the rapporteur for their work over the past couple of months. There's been months of debate and discussion, and we've been able to come up with a reasonable text which has been agreed on by the pro-European groups in this House. It includes an analysis of the banking union. Now, I think that's the end of the good news, because we need to be aware of the fact that we have been trying to negotiate Edith, for over ten years. We had a text from the last term from our committee, but we don't know what's going on with the council. Now there's the resolution mechanism as well, and we have a text from the council which is diametrically opposed to the Commission's original proposal. It doesn't meet the aims that we've set ourselves trying to make it a European system. Uh, either we take the banking union seriously or we. Well, we can't just keep wasting time with it.”
  European Banking Union
• “Thank you. Chair. Since we seem to have a little time left, I'd like to ask a second question. I didn't have time for previously. And the second question is this. The report focuses on the simplification of the capital structures and has implications for the structures of capital holdings and the instruments which are required to achieve and maintain the requisite capital levels. The These supervisors are numerous, those which define these capital levels in, for example, the case of macro prudential supervision, there are a number of different supervisors involved, but there also is no common framework governing these supervisors. They're not regulated by any shared or common framework. The report is suggesting that there could be a macro forum and that there could this could contribute to having an appropriate structure, but my feeling is that we might require a higher level of harmonisation, and we might need to have a greater measure of integration for that actually to work. We have certain levels of buffers in place. We have certain requirements applying to different sizes of banks. I wonder how you think we can best take this forward.”
  European Banking Union
• “Madam president, madam commissioner. Well we try to stay positive and it's not always that easy. We've spent too many years already talking about the banking union, the capital markets union. During this parliament, the Savings and Investment Union has been the top of the agenda and we still believe in it. This report, and I'd like to thank the rapporteur and all the shadows, shows that there is a broad consensus in this Parliament. It's not unanimity, but there's a broad consensus in favour of strengthening and deepening capital markets in order to complete the banking union. And I also know that it's high on the Commission's agenda. I would like this report to serve, to strengthen our conviction, to get to this banking union, to get the banking oversight done. And this package of capital markets measures. I'd just like to encourage you in that direction and anything that you need, I'm here for you.”
  European Banking Union
• “Thank you. Chair. Welcome, president. I'll be speaking Spanish. It's true that in the coming days, we'll know the Commission's proposal to move forward in the consolidation of the capital markets. And that's all well and good. But over the past few weeks, I've seen in some of your public statements that you have been very vociferous about going forward more quickly in other sectors linked to the single market. Competitiveness means greater single market. Your main goal and your institution is to look after inflation and and improving the single market would help with inflation. So what answer can you give to these demands of having more of a single market, because some of us don't quite agree with them?”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• “Yes. Yes. No, no. I think that all of us agree that in the current framework, the Commission has more discretionary power. This is one of the elements that there was in the negotiation of the fiscal rules. And we thought how we could improve the accountability of this power in the Commission's hands. My question is related to the first one is about the implementation of the national escape clause related with defence investments. Many members have adopted this escape clause. The European Commission let them to to apply that, but sooner or later these expenditures will increase the debt. In any case, and apart from the analysis of the European Commission, the markets will internalize the real level of that. So I don't know, what do you think of this matter? And my second question is, you said that you were not directly or somewhat involved in the exercise to to analyze the medium term fiscal structural balance. But there is another element very relevant for us that is the debt sustainability analysis. This is another element that was in the negotiation because we didn't know properly how the European Commission will elaborate these kind of exercises. And I would like to know what do you think the the debt sustainability analysis. Thank you so much.”
  EU fiscal rules and oversight of national budgets
• “(17:06:50 – 17:10:17): First and foremost, I'd like to thank and commend the rapporteur for the draft report. That has been raised for discussion here today and also last week in Strasbourg during the shadows meeting. There are different nuances and different points of emphasis between the different groups. That said, I think we do share a certain number of opinions. And, almost all of them have been included in the draft report. And I think through amendments, we can fine tune those aspects as well as with the different meetings and discussions that we'll be holding. So in that vein, I firmly believe after having listened to the re rapporteur and all the other shadows last week, I am sure that we'll be able to reach an agreement. Putting our heads together and working through these different nuances that we do still have in certain areas. Personally speaking and on behalf of S and D, we welcome crypto assets as an opportunity to improve efficiency on capital markets, financial markets to promote new lower cost services as well as to facilitate transparency on the market. And above all, I'd like to say that digital assets will allow us to address the fragmented markets that we're really suffering from in Europe. We spoke about the fragmentation of capital markets earlier in the hearing. And digital assets could serve as a catalyst to move towards this consolidated single market for the capital markets. But with all of these pros in mind, there are cons as well. There are some caveats. As the rapporteur announced as well, there are strategic deficiencies and there are some gaps in these services. There might be, problems relating to money laundering. And so I think we're all aware that in the world today, there are things happening outside of our supervisory powers. There are things happening in in the dark pools, and it's important for us as legislators to improve that framework and to boost transparency. And I think we can achieve a good report if we work through all of these different things. We're basing our work on good international cooperation. We're facing global markets where certain jurisdictions don't want to cooperate on this point, but Europe must place great emphasis on cooperation. And then on my car and multi issuance, I think the legal framework is is clear, and the ECB agrees there. I would opt for not requiring new legal frameworks that like my EPP colleague suggested, but we do need to really bear in mind the ECB's opinion on this, and then they have made their opinion known in different publications recently. But as I say, over the next few weeks, I'm sure we can, strike an agreement on in the spirit of cooperation. We do have different nuances in our perspectives, but I'm sure we can reach a common ground. Thank you.”
  Regulation of crypto
• “Thank you very much. Chair. I'll speak Spanish. This is an interesting debate. It's a really serious debate, looking at the challenges facing us and the problems of security and defence that we're aware of. But I'm a bit stunned by the whole debate because there is this feeling of urgency. We need to respond quickly, but I don't think there's a sensible ordering of priorities. Let me explain. It seems the commission started work with a simplification package, which is fine, but there's nothing about the capacity to reduce the administrative burden of national barriers in the work programme and the competitiveness compass. I see an absence of vitality, of commitment with the single market. It's there, we're talking about it, but I don't really see real decisive momentum when it comes to facing the challenges, because if we want to increase competitiveness, if we want to cut administrative Burdens. The single market is the answer to a large extent, and I think the Commission wants to engage in industrial policy. We're going to be hearing about the industrial deal next week. But without financial instruments for common industrial policy, there's a risk of greater fragmentation of the single market. And let me conclude, if we look at defence, the same situations, we need to spend more, invest more. We're going to incentivise member states to invest more. But there's no coordination mechanism. And without that prices will go up, there'll be supply issues, and we won't manage to meet the objective set that we're supposedly pursuing. So there seems to be a lack of vitality in the single market. The banking union, the capital market union, there aren't really proposals to reduce national barriers. So I just wanted to flag up those points. Thank you.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• “(11:34:41 – 11:36:30): Thank you. Thank you so much, sir. As you said, our Sandeep Sado cannot attend this meeting. So I'm going to read the paper that she wrote me. President chair, reporter colleagues. The amendments tabled by the reporter and the shadow reporters from the far right will remove the horizontal principles from the commission proposal: climate tracking, social objectives, gender equality, and do no significant harm criterion. These are not bureaucratic constraints or ideological impositions. They are the tools that ensure the European budget remains current with the union's priorities. Removing them is not a technical adjustment. It is a political choice, and we shall be clear about what that choice means. The do no significant harm principle, in particular, has become a target for some groups in this parliament. Yet all it asks is that European public money does not actively fund activities that harm the environment. That is not a revolution. It's basic consistency.”
  EU policy on sustainability criteria in public funding
• “Good afternoon. Thank you very much, chair. It's very much a pleasure to have these guests here this afternoon. My question is for Mr. Séjourné, VP of the Commission, and I might have a question as well on the capital markets union for Mrs. Albuquerque. I'd like to welcome the information that we've been provided with on the action plan for steel. This is essential for the continent and for areas where such as the Asturias region in Spain, which is specialized in steel production. And this is one of the subjects which. Well, I'm still waiting to see exactly what's going to happen. I'm worried about Cbam revision in the communication or the statement you're talking about reducing loopholes, but we might be opening one up with the omnibus. And when it comes to energy prices, well, we really need to do something. There's two things.”
  Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM)
• “Thank you very much, chair. Two comments for the Commission on the Cbam. First of all, I would like to thank the Commission for introducing it in the competitive compass today, but rather there was no proposal on it. From. We did put some things forward last week. However, when we're looking at simplifying the cbam, there are a few things where we that could reduce its efficiency. And so we're wondering how you can improve the simplification of it. Now we do also need to look at the verification in this legislature as the Commission was suggesting. But however, we are concerned that we could introduce this reform in the omnibus regulation at the end of February. We need to have a look at all of this and how it relates to exports. But having a look at this and reviewing it might be a big mistake. So I think we really need to have a look at this in an ad hoc legislative.”
  Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM)
• “Thank you. Chair. I will be speaking in Spanish. Let me start by thanking the rapporteur, Mr. Falcone, for his work. I think that it is a very good initial draft report. Analysing the opinions of this committee. And the opinions in the draft report. So the initial report which has been drafted by the rapporteur. I think that it covers the concerns, the opinions, the assessments of many of us. Therefore. I think that we can feel heard in this initial report. At any rate, as shadow rapporteur for s d, We believe that it is timely to add some. Comments here, because the agreement with Andorra in San Marino, especially the agreement with Andorra, which has a local financial sector, which is quite significant. Well, we thought that it was worth identifying some nuances in the report, enhancing some areas, and that's really what we've tried to do with our amendments. We wanted to strengthen those areas that are not strictly linked to EU policies, such as anti-money laundering, the AML framework that was adopted last legislature. But this clearly strengthens the European policies. And we wanted to strengthen the report in that regard, but also in terms of the functioning of the single market, in terms of financial services, and that falls within the remit of our committee, but also within the remit of sectorial specialisation, especially when it comes to the Andorran economy. Now, I said that we have tabled some amendments to strengthen and to underpin some of the issues that the rapporteur had actually introduced into his original report, and I'm convinced that we will reach an agreement very swiftly, and I think that we will be able to get the report over the finishing line and that this will be useful for the official report as well. Thank you.”
  Anti-money laundering regulation
• “Yes, sir.Thank you very much, chair. Just a very brief comment. Um, I wanted to particularly express thanks for the efforts of the rapporteur to reach an agreement in these weeks. All of us who participated in this negotiation saw how their positions were very far removed from each other initially, and the rapporteur was able to guide us towards compromises which were accepted by basically all groups in writing. And therefore, I would like to ask the EPP to seek to withdraw their last minute. Position, and that here we go with what was agreed on and that had the support of. Ecr, my group and many groups are what we agreed on and out of the time frame. The EPP sought a change, a specific change to a compromise. But that's a break with the way we've been working. Now we don't have any time, but I would ask the EPP to reconsider their position and that we come back to ex compromise, which was tabled. I would like to thank the rapporteur for the efforts that we supported, and I think we still have a margin to change that and vote on these compromises. Thank you.”
  Transparency requirements of EU institutions
• “Thank you. President. Vice president. I cannot start my speech this afternoon here in Strasbourg without reminding you of what the vice president said recently. She told she said this to the socialist group. We'd like to thank her for the work she's done, the efforts she's undertaken to take an important decision, a decision. Which in lots of ways enables us to counter some of the rumours and threats which have been coming across the Atlantic regarding the European Union's capacity to carry out its own regulatory sovereignty. That's one of the important aspects of this decision. So leaving aside some of the details which we do need to discuss with the United States and other countries, it's important that the citizens of Europe be able to live in a safe and secure Cure environment with the certainty that EU institutions, in this case the European Commission, implement the laws adopted by the European Parliament. So, over and beyond the question of courage and the need to implement our laws and enforce our laws, we continue to face many risks when it comes to freedom of expression on our continent. We face risks when it comes to the pluralism of online debate, in particular in the world of social media. And so we're not talking here about violations of competitive rules. We're actually talking here in the European Parliament are about our ability to freely debate and to bring an end to some of the biased and disruptive debates which we see on certain social media.”
  Disinformation & online freedoms
• “Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I'll be speaking Spanish. Good afternoon. As my colleague Ludwig said, and as you mentioned after this debate, will be holding the vote on the C.m.d. Agreement. A complicated and difficult agreement. It took time to hammer it out and it is a step in the right direction. Although we would have liked to take more steps in the right direction. But we do have a relatively stable framework that provides legal certainty, and it's in the hands of the SRB when it comes to management. Now, I'd like to talk about the competitiveness report for the banking sector that the European Commission has to present next year. In the last Parliament, when we negotiated this SR and the PSD, we included this report in order to be able to analyse the situation pertaining to the banking union. We wanted to be able to analyse the problems that were still there. You touched upon this. You talked about the fact that there are problems because we have an incomplete banking union. So I'd like to know whether the SRB is going to take part in the reflection process that will feed into the Commission's work. And what recommendations could be included in this report that will then lead to specific legislative proposals? Thank you.”
  European Banking Union
• “Well good day. According to the IMF and the Central European Central Bank. Europeans, we are inflicting upon us a shadow tariffs and we're and that involves 40 to 70% of costs. And they're beyond that 100 or 110% for the services market. So behind these restrictions, uh, the single market in Europe, uh, it's not the Green Pact, it's not ETS, it's not regulations of other sorts. These are norms, regulations which affect us all across the board. So we have fragmentation, regulatory fragmentation, which impedes and keeps us divided and keeps the market fragmented. And that's why I would like to indeed what Antonio Costa said, inviting member states to come together to discuss this. I think it's a wonderful idea. A year and a half with the commission, we've had a discussion about how to simplify the market. It's absolutely necessary to understand that what's been done up until now has been very, very marginal as far as affecting or improving the competitiveness of the European market. So indeed, we have to move together in this newfangled fashion. Thank you.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• “Thank you very much. I'll speak Spanish. First of all, I'd like to thank all three speakers for this high quality debate. As Markus Ferber said, it's been extremely interesting, probably because we focus the discussion on a central issue, improving the international position of the EU and this whole issue of safe assets, something that we've been talking about all afternoon behind the European safe asset. We also need collateral resources for the omission of this debt, and there are various options. We can issue European debt. Pass this on to the states via liquidity, as we did with some of next generation or the ESM or the investment damp issuing a debt for development by the member states. I don't like that type of European debt. It makes it difficult to see what's happening in terms of expenditure. Brussels. Could give instructions, issue debt, but then not know what's happening with it. And that applies to next generation. But the other part of new generation debt is through European programs. European projects to issue this. European debt to finance European public goods. Where there is no moral hazard. Um, that's what we need to aim at. We have to have own resources. The question that the Commission has raised relates to own resources. I'd like to ask you how you see this. The European safe assets. How can we not only defend them but go further? How are we going to amortize?”
  Own EU resources
• “Thank you. Chair. Good afternoon and welcome, Minister. In 2016 Ukraine. Today, the duty of freedom loving people of Europe is to save Brussels from becoming sovietized. More recently, you insisted on on this idea and you said you. You said that the doctrines of the ideology that devastated the East after the Second World War are now coming back from the West. So my first question is, given that you are today in Brussels, do you think that these ideas are in this, in this committee? And second, your government has repeatedly blocked military aid for Ukraine. By the way, a country who is suffered for sure. The Soviet attitude that we saw in the in the past. Do you think that with this experience, this committee can trust on you, as in the in the role to to be the presidency of the Council? Do you think that there is the minimum trust among us to to negotiate in trialogues the reports that we need to fulfill? Thank you so much.”
  Russia-Ukraine conflict (10th term)
• “Thank you, Mrs. Walter, for your report. And also, congratulations to the Commissioner and for your full support to the decisions when it comes to implementing the digital reaction. To legislative acts when it comes to competition. There are a couple of messages I'd like to send to the commission. First of all, we know that the commission is working on the revision of the mergers framework legislation. We need companies which are larger on the internal market. But in order to achieve this particular mission, then I think we have to pull down some of the obstacles that we have in the internal market which prevent the commission of services considering the relevant market in certain circumstances, to be the European market. If the relevant market is only the national market, the domestic market, it's going to be difficult for us to facilitate a certain operations for certain companies and make progress. State aid we need more aid, but I think we need a more innovative system, which will allow companies to be able to count on similar support, regardless of where they are.”
  State Aid · EU Competition policy
• “Thank you very much. Welcome, Commissioner. I'll be speaking Spanish. I'll be brief. I have a comment and a question. I agree when you say that we have to reduce administrative costs and that we have to improve regulatory simplification when it comes to financial operations in financial transactions in Europe now, the highest administrative costs and the most regulatory problems and complexity stem from the fact that we don't have a genuine single market. So when it comes to streamlining, we should be focusing on getting rid of national barriers that are stopping us from consolidating the single market. Over the next few days, the Commission will be unveiling on the the package on Supervision and Integration of Markets. And our message is we hope it will be an ambitious proposal. I truly hope that it will get rid of the obstacles that are impeding us from consolidating the single market. I really hope that the package will be ambitious so that we can flesh it out further here in the European Parliament, in a way. And let us also hope that the Council won't throw a spanner in the works. Now, a question on the banking union. In the work programme, there is no mention of the communication that the commission is supposed to unveil in 2026 on the banking union and capital markets. So my question is, when will we get the communication of the banking union that could help us either get rid of or streamline other legislation?”
  European Banking Union
• “Thank you. Thank you so much, sir. As you said, the rapporteur cannot attend to this meeting this afternoon. And she asked me to read this. This note that she wrote. So before a business in Europe framework for income taxation is a bold and necessary step towards a simpler and more coherent corporate tax system in the EU. Today's rules are too complex, fragmented and open to loopholes, undermining both tax fairness and healthy Unhealthy competition within the single market. To build a truly integrated European economy. We need a common tax framework that ensures fair revenues distribution, reduce obstacles on level and levels the playing field for businesses operating across borders. That is precisely what Buffett sets out to do. Indeed, the proposal tackles fragmentation and complexity by one. Closing loopholes and carving avoidance. Second, replacing national passwords with unified rules. And finally, promoting fair competition across member states. An harmonised corporate tax base will strengthen the single market, support sustainability, public finance, and reduce tax motivated distortions. We are now deep in negotiations, carefully considering the wide range of amendments from political groups. Here is a chapter by chapter. Overview of the key points under discussion. Chapter one. General provisions. Bare feet will remain mandatory for multinational groups with an annual turnover above €750 million. Making it optional will allow aggressive transfer pricing plastics to persist and create loopholes for smaller companies. Participation remains optional. We have also introduced the concept of significant economic presence, a key step in modernising tax rules. All provisions are aligned with the OECD's BEPs agreement and specifically the pillar two directive. Chapter two the determination of preliminary tax results. Benefits tax base is derived from financial accounting net income adjusted according to the fine rules. Only business related expenses are deductible following amendments from other groups.”
  EU competences on taxation
• “Yes. Good afternoon. Thank you very much. I'll speak Spanish firstly, as the rapporteurs did. I would like to thank the Court of Auditors for this report on the functioning of Efsi during these two first years. And I have a direct question to the rapporteur, because at the end of the presentation, we were told that there were six recommendations, but I don't think we heard what the recommendations were from the person reporting, so I'd be grateful if we could have a bit more detail on what those recommendations were. And then a second question, which has to do with investor, you and the current negotiations on Investeu. The negotiations for FC were 2015. And since that time we have increased the windows for funding new things. We had a major reform in the last legislative period, establishing four windows. Then we had a new one for step. It looks like there might be a new one for defense. So I'm wondering to what extent this increase in the number of financing windows in this instrument might help to improve the fulfillment of the investment objectives? Or is it the case that having more windows could cause problems in terms of the complexity of management. Thank you.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Thank you. Thank you, Chair Ryan. I am sure that Evelyn will take properly the comments that the groups have done during this session, and I hope that the negotiation team will work hard to to find a landing zone and Bring the report to this committee to be voted. Thank you so much. 6. Appointment of the Chair of the Financial Reporting Board of the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG)”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Good morning. Thank you. Chair. I'll be speaking Spanish. First and foremost, I'd like to thank you for being here to speak to the committee on this topic. We have been working on this for months and years, but actually the committee has been unable to do the proper legislative work needed. The commission proposed a text more than two years ago, so it's time to get down to it. So I'd like to express my disappointment at the delay in the work that's been done here. And I'd like to offer my apologies to you for that delay. I would like to ask you about the timetable of the euro, because in principle, in October, the ECB was thinking of moving on to the next step, the next phase. So I'd like to understand what state the negotiations are in council. What is the progress there? What do you think? And then what framework will the ECB acting under over the next few months? Because it's quite likely that we won't have the legal framework approved by then.”
  ECB monetary policy
• “(16:45:30 – 16:47:46): I will try to capture all of this. So first of all, I just wanted to clarify that, this point of being, on the 1 hand, responsible for direct supervision and, on the other hand, being responsible for enhancing supervisory convergence amongst the national supervisors is something which we already combine in our current mandates. And indeed, we've done peer reviews where we've included both ESMA direct supervision and national supervision and had peer review teams, were composed of ESMA staff and national competent authorities to make sure we have all those who are not involved in the actual supervision on the ground to independently judge whether the supervision is good, whether it is done at ESMA level or an NCA level. Similarly, I think opinions and things like that will no longer be needed if it is actually ESMA deciding because it will be a collective European decisions. The opinions are there to ensure that actually there is a common view on what the national authority at the moment is deciding and whether other supervisors might have a different view, and therefore, we have not consistent outcomes potentially. So that's on on that point. Then coming to the point on we have, at the moment, indeed, luckily, quite a lot of investor inflow into the European Union markets. That, to my mind, is more driven by the current geopolitical environment. But the key is that European capital markets, on the whole remain clearly not as attractive as, for example, the European, The US capital markets for foreign investors. And I think it is about making them more attractive because you can really operate in a single market in Europe that we need to address. At the moment, if you want to invest, you invest in an instrument in 1 market, then you have to clear and settle that in that particular silo, then you want to invest in a different. So you really that is difficult, particularly for outside investors to deal with. And even for European investors, that can be a real disadvantage.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• “I have a question regarding what Stephanie definitely said. And in this case, what happens with creators in in the media? I don't know if the commission is analysing these ideas of dominion and abusive practices carried out by Big Tech, particularly creators in different media. Thank you.”
  EU rules on digital competition
• “Thank you. President. Vice president. Council. There is no better strategy for increasing competitiveness and growth in the European economy than bolstering our single market. The latter report, the Drudge Report or the debates in this House and outside this House for too long have been focused on eliminating barriers in the internal market and consolidating Europe in the form of one market. The Vice President spoke about the road map that was presented in September. We've seen five months go by and we're still waiting. I hope over the next few weeks we will have the agenda that the. The Commission decided to start by consolidating the Capital Markets Banking Union and the Capital Markets Union are feted by the Socialists and Democrats. And this is because we need to give more power to European supervisors. We need more ambition, and we hope that our colleagues here in this House will be supporting us in this endeavour. Thank you.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• “President. Vice president of the Commission. I think there are three key points I would like to underscore in this debate. The first is about the debate surrounding administrative burden and simplification. My group is prepared to negotiate the omnibus regulation and see how we can whittle down regulations. But I think that what the Commission is overlooking and so are other colleagues, is the real problem at the heart of the administrative burden, and that's the national barriers that are hampering the smooth workings of the internal market. So there's we have our work cut out for us. I'd like to ask the commission to look at these national rules, because in the Competitiveness Compass, I didn't see any or enough about the single market. We need a single market act. We need to look at banks, telecoms. If we want to have an industrial policy and overhaul our competitiveness policy, we need more clarity on figures and funding. So I'm sure we'll be able to talk about this later.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• “Thank you. President. Commissioner. Vice president of the EIB. I'd like to congratulate Francisco Assis for doing an excellent job on this report. And I think the report reflects the reality of what the bank has done, which is a very good job over the last few years and getting more modern and stepping up the pace of investment. But I think there are a couple of areas where it could do more. One provide support to regions in energy transition. The just transition Some mechanism does include some channels for action through pillar two or pillar three, where the EIB could do more to provide financing to the public and private sectors. And I think there's a lot of scope for improvement there, too. And this is a broad plea to S and D two. We need to do more, uh, for social housing. I say this on behalf of SD2. That's a problem. Uh, Europe wide.”
  EU policy on urban development
• “Thank you. Chair. Welcome. Welcome, Minister. I have one message, one question and one reflection. Yeah. First, the message is related to the trialogues on CND. Yeah, I know that the negotiations are not easy, but I would like to share with you that the position of this Parliament, as you know, was the result of a broad agreement in this, in this committee. And we are strong to defend our tests and we hope to to have an agreement as soon as possible. My question is related with the digital euro. Yeah, I would like to to know more what you are doing in the, in the council to to have a position. We are working also in this house but I don't know if in the council you are in the position to have a final text at the end of your presidency or no. The debate, the doubts. I would like to to know more on this, on this matter. And finally, my reflection is about the necessity to invest in defence that you that you said before the Commission has proposed. I do not know formally or informally that maybe we could use the escape clause or the flexibility that we have in the current in the current rules. But honestly, I don't see how we will be able to reduce public debt that, by the way, they are so high in some member states, in many member states, and the necessity to invest more in defense. Yeah. So I don't know if the possibility to to have or to think about common borrowing tool to to finance defense. But at the end of the day it's a European public good is on the table of the of the Council. Thank you so much.”
  Defence spending
• “Thank you. President. Commissioner. President. It's a pleasure to have this conversation. And I think we should thank the rapporteur, um, Johan, for the work he's done. It's helped us to reach an agreement on some rather thorny issues, monetary policy and ECB management. Uh, it's something that we should, um, welcome. We've managed to, um, get stick to our objectives. We've managed to, um, ensure that, um, things are slightly better than before Putin's invasion of Ukraine. And I think that in general, monetary policy has been very positive. But what's happening on the other side of the Atlantic, I think, can be an opportunity for Europeans. First of all, when it comes to independence of the ECB, all colleagues have referred to this. I think we need to be focusing on and the market needs this. The need for Europe to offer an alternative. One that will allow us to occupy the space that it seems that the Americans are leaving. So we need more single market, more banking union. And that's something that I think we should really focus on in all of our conversations.”
  European Banking Union · EU Single Market harmonisation
• “Thank you very much. I'll speak in Spanish. I do feel that I think you'll get broad support in this committee, uh, in order to improve competitiveness, uh, and the conditions for undertakings in Europe. And I think we also have to discuss how we can improve this competitiveness beyond this agenda. Of course, there's simplification reference has been made to that by Marcos. But the real issues of efficiency in European economy, uh, I think it's basically strengthening the single market. And of course the capital market union within the remit of asthma. And in this spirit, I'd like to add an additional question to that of my colleague. To what extent or or rather, to what extent, what sort of conditions exist as far as contributing to the bolstering of the single market and capital markets as well? And what can we expect from the Commission proposal? Or to what extent do you feel that this may contribute playing a relevant role as far as improving the integration of capital markets within the European Union? Thank you.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• “And last week we reached an agreement that was going to be supported by a vast majority of the committee. However, last Friday, the negotiating team got a message from the EPP shadow asking for a change in one of the compromises. And yet, only a few days ago, this shadow rapporteur, the EPP shadow rapporteur, had confirmed the overall compromises. So we had backed these compromises, and a wide majority of the political groups back then backed them. So it was very unfortunate that we got a message asking for us to tweak one of the compromises after that overall agreement. We don't think that is the right way of going about this. My political group would like to say that this seems to be happening quite regularly. You have shadow meetings where we reach agreements, and then once we've clinched the deal, the EPP backtracks afterwards. And this has happened one time too many. So that's why we decided we weren't going to give any ground. I think that you've got to honour your promises. I think you've got to make sure that you honour what you've agreed to in writing. So if there is an agreement on a compromise, then the EPP cannot ask us to change the text and tweak it here and there, regardless of whether the wording will be better or not. So my political group has decided not to back this alternative compromise. If if in the vote, this alternative compromise goes through, then we're going to have to vote against because we just cannot take this any longer. We cannot have the EPP change its mind at the 11th hour. Thank you very much.”
  Transparency requirements of EU institutions