Jörgen WARBORN

Policy topics Jörgen WARBORN is active on

What Jörgen WARBORN has said (80)

• 2026-06-16 “(15:07:04 – 15:07:59): Thank you, commissioner. Yes. I think it is really important that we follow through from this house as well. And I was the rapporteur for the 1st omnibus, and there we actually cut more cost than the commission did. So we, we did increase in that sense, the the cost cutting for businesses. You say that, what you are doing now is more than 1 in 2 out. So I'd like to ask you, what do you aim for? Is it 1 in 3 out or 1 in 5 out? What can we know about the the mandate as such these 5 years? What is your aim? And finally, could we also have it done and calculated on the total regulatory burden, not only on the administrative burden because, of course, that is what counts for businesses. Thank you very much. Prego, please commissioner for, 2 minutes. And I I ask all of you to stay in the strict in the time and thank you for what you did just now. Thank”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• 2026-06-16 “Thank you very much. You mentioned open source, and, I like open source very much. But I also like closed source or proprietary software. Ultimately, think it is a business decision that the entrepreneurs, the European entrepreneurs should take themselves. But why are you pushing so much for incentivizing open source? Wouldn't that limit the European businesses to make their choice and that limitation might actually hamper the competition of European businesses and European prosperity?”
  Intellectual property rights (IPR)
• 2026-06-16 “(15:03:17 – 15:04:26): Thank you, president, commissioner. Both, you and I, we agree that, European businesses should spend, their time on, their customers, on innovation, and on creating jobs, not on paperwork. I'd like to ask you a question on the 1 in, 2 out principle, because that is just about that, that you deduct €2 for every euro that is added with legislation, which is added on the cost of SMEs, not least. And this is, of course, from EPP something that we promised our voters, in the election campaign, and we have been pushing for that. And happily, we now have a majority in this chamber because we voted for it together. And that's why I'd like to ask you, commissioner, when the commission will follow this elected house and work according to the 1 in, 2 out principle.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• 2026-06-16 “Thank you very much. You mentioned open source, and I like open source very much. But I also like closed source or proprietary software. Ultimately, I think it is a business decision that the entrepreneurs, the European entrepreneurs should take themselves. But why are you pushing so much for incentivizing open source? Wouldn't that limit the European businesses to make their choice? And that limitation might actually hamper the competition of European businesses and European prosperity.”
  Promotion of open-source softwares
• 2026-06-15 “Thank you, president, commissioner. The deal that would struck almost a year ago, it is not perfect. Let us be honest about that. But this is the best deal we can get at the moment, and we urgently need it. Businesses urgently need it. This is not being pro Trump or not. This is about being pro European businesses and for more stability in the relationship, the trade relationship that matters to every worker and every consumer. For more than a year, European companies have asked for 1 thing, clarity on the Transatlantic trade relationship. And with this vote, the EU delivers on its part of the deal. We avoid the trade deal, and we give the industry more predictability to invest and to grow and to create jobs. The agreement now has strong safeguard that holds The United States committed. Approving this file will let us move forward so that we can even deeper the trade relationship with The US. Europe wins when Europe trades. So let's vote yes to this deal.”
  EU-US trade relations
• 2026-03-06 “E-000938/2026 Answer given by Mr Dombrovskis on behalf of the European Commission The Commission introduced the ‘one-in, one-out’ mechanism in 2022 to simplify and reduce administrative burdens for businesses 1 . In 2025, the Commission strengthened its efforts, going hand in hand with facilitating implementation and enforcement. The Commission has set a very ambitious target of reducing administrative burdens for companies by at least 25%, and by at least 35% for small and medium-sized enterprises. This target goes much beyond savings that could be achieved with the ‘one in, two out’ approach. During 2025, the Commission tabled Omnibus and other Simplification Proposals, which – if approved by the co-legislators, could deliver at least EUR 15 billion savings in recurring administrative costs 2 . This is the net result of EUR 15.25 billion in cost savings and EUR 247 million in additional costs. This result is already now significantly more ambitious than any level of savings that would result from a ‘one-in, two out’ approach. The Commission has a comprehensive agenda for regulatory efficiency and is stepping up its simplification efforts. Implementation dialogues and reality checks are helping to identify undue complexities and simplification avenues. An Action Plan on Regulatory Deep Cleaning, recently announced by the President of the Commission, will further address overlaps, duplications, inefficiencies and redundancies, as well as foster the consolidation of legislation in fragmented areas. 1 The results can be found on the website: https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-making-process/betterregulation/simplification-and-implementation/simplification/one-one-out-approach_en. 2 https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-making-process/better-regulation/simplification-andimplementation/simplification_en.”
  EU political integration
• 2025-04-01 “E-001327/2025 Answer given by Mr Šefčovič on behalf of the European Commission The Commission is pursuing consultations with Ukraine to review the reciprocal tariff liberalisation under the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement 1 in accordance with Article 29 of that Agreement. This review will lead to a well-balanced solution that will allow for reciprocal trade between the EU and Ukraine in agricultural goods, while at the same time protecting EU farmers and addressing interests flagged by some Member States and Members of the European Parliament. Furthermore, the Commission is proposing that the negotiated solution would also include a safeguard clause that would be triggered to prevent any adverse impacts of trade flows on the EU market, including one Member State. The Commission is working in view of having an outcome in place in time to provide a smooth transition after the expiry of the Autonomous Trade Measures (ATMs) Regulation 2 . If this is not achievable, the above-mentioned Association Agreement will provide a bridging solution. The Commission does not intend to propose the prolongation of the current ATMs Regulation. 1 http://data.europa.eu/eli/agree_internation/2014/295/oj. 2 OJ L, 2024/1392, 29.5.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1392/oj.”
  Russia-Ukraine conflict (10th term) · Agricultural trade: Ukraine imports
• 2024-12-17 “E-002988/2024 Answer given by Mr Dombrovskis on behalf of the European Commission As expressed in the Political Guidelines for 2024-2029 1 , the Commission has a clear focus on making business easier and faster in Europe. This focus is underlined by the ambitious goal to reduce reporting obligations by at least 25% - and 35% for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). In this, the Commission has taken a pragmatic approach, focusing first on delivering measures with high burden reduction potential in areas stakeholders find most problematic. Moreover, as announced in the Competitiveness Compass, the Commission will apply these targets to a baseline of existing administrative costs, thus a more ambitious target than reduction reporting burden. Since reporting burden is a subset of all administrative burden, this reduction targets will in fact refer to the costs of all administrative burden, not only reporting. The statistical office of the EU has approximated the overall administrative burden baseline up to EUR 150 billion. The measures taken will be reflected in the Commission’s annual reporting cycle and will communicate on the quantification of measures contributing to the targets. These efforts will only be effective if Member States and co-legislators avoid adding unnecessary burdens to the Commission proposals and impact assess substantial amendments they make. For this reason, the Commission will propose to renew the interinstitutional agreement on simplification and better law making. Burden reduction is a shared commitment of the new Commission. Working with the Commissioner for implementation and simplification, each College Member will stress-test their share of EU acquis and contribute to reducing administrative burden, including reporting obligations by at least 25% and 35% for SMEs. To address the most pressing concerns, including for SMEs, the Commission will engage in a more direct manner with stakeholders in implementation dialogues and reality checks, reaching directly to practitioners. A new, reinforced SME and competitiveness check will be implemented, to help avoid unnecessary burdens. 1 https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/e6cd4328-673c-4e7a-8683f63ffb2cf648_en?filename=Political%20Guidelines%202024-2029_EN.pdf”
  Simplification measures (political compass) · Overall simplification of regulation in the EU (free access)
• 2024-09-24 “P-001792/2024 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Šefčovič on behalf of the European Commission The Commission has proposed 1 a 12-month phasing-in period for the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) 2 to allow Member States, partner countries and private stakeholders more time to prepare. If this extension is approved by the European Parliament and the Council, the obligations laid down therein will apply from 30 December 2025 for medium and large companies, and from 30 June 2026 for micro and small enterprises. The extra time aims to ensure a smooth and effective start. The Commission stands behind the EUDR, which was adopted by the co-legislators with overwhelming majorities both in the European Parliament and in the Council and which is a key initiative to address the primary causes of global deforestation and forest degradation driving biodiversity loss and climate change. The EUDR is an environmental measure which was developed in compliance with EU’s international commitments and which addresses issues of highest public concern with a vast majority of almost 1.2 million stakeholders consulted (with second largest number of responses) supporting an ambitious approach including mandatory due diligence. The proposed extension does not compromise the objectives or the substance of the regulation. Additionally, the Commission has published a new guidance document, the third edition of the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) 3 and a Strategic Framework for International Cooperation Engagement 4 . These documents provide clarification on the application of the rules and promote a pragmatic and consistent interpretation of the regulation. The Commission is committed to implementing the EUDR in a spirit of partnership, transparency, and open dialogue with all stakeholders and partner countries. 1 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_5009 2 Regulation (EU) 2023/1115 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 May 2023 on the making available on the Union market and the export from the Union of certain commodities and products associated with deforestation and forest degradation and repealing Regulation (EU) No 995/2010, OJ L 150, 9.6.2023, p. 206–247. 3 https://circabc.europa.eu/ui/group/34861680-e799-4d7c-bbad-da83c45da458/library/e126f816-844b-41a989ef-cb2a33b6aa56/details?download=true 4 https://green-business.ec.europa.eu/publications/communication-commission-strategic-frameworkinternational-cooperation-engagement-deforestation_en”
  Energy (green transition)
• “Yes, if I may, one one additional question. Um, so there is no there seems to be no demand. Uh, the only demand is there because it's driven by political targets. The only way to create demand is to have more money from the taxpayer. That drives the demand. Still, we are trying to secure the supply. The political target that was mentioned is one of them at least, was the EU maritime regulation. And if I recall correctly, there was a percentage of rfmos that we had to fill there. But there is also a possibility for a revision if we could not meet the supply, and it seems like we will not be able to meet the supply when I. That's what I hear. So are we already starting a discussion of revising the fuel EU maritime?”
  Decarbonisation of maritime transport
• “Uh plurilateral. That would be interesting. Chairman said initially that we you shouldn't discuss us today. Uh, and of course we will discuss us later on. But there is one thing that I'd like to highlight. Um, speaking of FTAs, um, because of course, in our agreement, there is a reference to a further process of opening market and investments. And this, of course, is key in order to make sure that the deal is WTO compatible. And I'd like to know how I mean, I have hard to see that the US would like to engage in an in a negotiation of a free trade agreement. Maybe you see that in the commission. And please explain it to me. In that case, um, UAE, you mentioned UAE. Um, maybe you can expand a little bit on on that where we are on those on that and my final question, Mr. Chairman, is on the bi European initiative that has been, of course, mentioned in the state of the Union speech as well. And I think it sounds very good because we would like to support European businesses. Of course we do. But I'd like to understand whether the Commission is on this when it comes to the fact that if we start to buying European only, that means that our trading partners will do the same, and that means that we will have less trade in the world. The way I see it. So it sounds good, but I'm not really sure in the long run that it will be good. So how do you think in the commission on this one? Thank you.”
  "Buy European" provisions
• “(10:12:10 – 10:15:31): Thank you, chair. I'll be happy to report back, on our missions, to, to France and especially on second day, which I chaired. Here, our delegation traveled to the Provence Alcotassure region to engage with stakeholders in 1 of Europe's key industrial and energy hubs. At the Marseille Port Complex, we met with a wide range of industrial actors, including CMA CGM Group, ArcelorMittal Mediterraney Energy and ODF Group. These exchanges illustrated the scale of the transformation required to decarbonize energy intensive industries and the need to do it smartly in a cost efficient and technological neutral way in order for the industries to remain globally competitive. We also visited the Jupiter Mill, where they convert wind power into hydrogen to go into the gas pipeline network. This is a very good example of how hydrogen technologies can enable the transition to low carbon energy systems. In Marseille, we met with the regional council of Provencal Cotassure, where discussion highlighted the important role of regional authorities in supporting industrial transformation and infrastructure development. On the third day, the mission concluded in, in Qedarache with visits to ITER and the CEA, showcasing Europe's long term commitment to research and innovation in the next generation energy technologies. This, I think, really was the highlight of the mission to see the fantastic technological advancements happening in nuclear energy, both in fission and fusion. ITER brings together top notch researchers and experts from around the world. Their work will contribute to the EU's upcoming fusion strategy, helping position Europe at the forefront of global fusion development and accelerating the path towards commercial fusion energy in EU. As a former mayor in Sweden's number 1 nuclear power municipality, I'm, of course, strongly convinced about the need for much new much more nuclear energy in Europe so that we can switch away from fossil imports and become carbon neutral while not depending on the forces of weather. When we combine nuclear and renewables, we'll have clean, affordable, and reliant homegrown energy. And it was really nice to see the progress they are making in the nuclear field. The visit served as a strong example of what Europe needs more of, if we are serious about combining competitiveness with decarbonization. Clean, secure, and reliable energy, including nuclears and SMRs, supported by the right mix of industrial demand, infrastructure, research, and technological expertise. In my home country, Sweden, we are currently laying the groundwork now for a new generation of nuclear power.”
  Nuclear energy
• “Yes. If I if I may have a short follow up on, on the open source because I think this is really, really important. And, and there might be things that I don't understand when it comes to the open source. Um, and I'm in no way against open source, but I'm not either against proprietary software. And if we are going to build a strong European base with software, I guess that also means that some companies would like to do the research and invest the money and do it with a proprietary software way. Um, so I don't I think it is important that we don't, that we don't see them as, as one option, and it's only the open source. That would be the European answer, because then I think that will mean that we can exclude a lot of companies that would like to invest in their IP, have their proprietary software, and that is their business model. So as politicians, wouldn't it be better that we do not choose one or the other, but rather stay open for both?”
  Promotion of open-source softwares
• “Brent. Um, and thank you, Mr. Jorgensen, for, um, for explaining the position from the commission. Um, I listened very carefully when you spoke about the justifications of this, and you had four points to justify this proposal, and I actually lacked one point. And that is the fact that we have we have war on our continent. Um, and we need us as our ally. And that wasn't expressed. And I think actually it is important to express it, because that also ties into the discussion on WTO compatibility. There are possibilities, of course, to have exemptions. Um, and that would make this deal compatible with the WTO. So could we have some clarification from the Commission why you don't justify it like this? Um, because I think that will help us very much. Also, maybe to express what a lot of colleagues have said, we are not really happy with this deal, but I think the alternative will be worse. And that's why I think, of course we will not rubber stamp it, not from up there, but we will have to amend it. But at the end of the day, all of us have to in a sense, see, this is not the deal we would like, but maybe the alternative is worse. Thank you.”
  EU-US trade relations
• “Yes. Thank you very much, chair. Exactly. Mika Aaltola could not be here. So let me read up his his statement and questions. Um, first I would like to thank the College of Commissioners for their important visit to India at a time of serious geopolitical challenges. Strengthening EU India relations is not just an economic necessity, but a strategic imperative. A deeper partnership will enhance resilience, diversify Diversified trade and create new opportunities for both sides. The EU India Free Trade Agreement is a cornerstone of this partnership. However, for it to be to truly deliver, it must be commercially meaningful and this requires substantial tariff reductions, particularly in key sectors, and greater regulatory transparency to create a predictable and fair business environment for both sides. At the same time, both sides, both sides must remain pragmatic. Negotiations should focus on solutions, not obstacles, and respect the timelines set by president von der Leyen and Prime Minister Modi. Delays weaken trust and momentum, making it harder to reach an ambitious outcome. And with this, Mika Aaltola has two questions and I think the commission already has touched upon them. But let me read them out nevertheless. How can we ensure that India makes a real commitment on tariff reductions and regulatory alignment. And second of all, given the timeline set by von der Leyen and Moodie, how will we maintain momentum and avoid unnecessary delays? Thank you.”
  Free trade agreements (FTAs)
• “Thank you. Madam president. Commissioner. On the 24th of February, 2022, the world changed. Russia's illegal and heinous war of aggression against Ukraine didn't just threaten Ukraine, but the whole of Europe. So let us be crystal clear. Ukraine's security is Europe's security. So we've increased sanctions against Russia. We have increased provision of weapons to Ukraine. We've increased humanitarian support. We've increased financial support. And we are standing side by side with Ukraine since day one. But in all honesty, as long as we continue to import Russian gas, we are continuing to finance Putin's war machine. And that is untenable. That's not a responsible and it's not compatible with our support with Ukraine. Hence, it is good that today we're taking this decision once and for all to phase out Russian gas completely Because for every penny that goes to the import of Russian gas is a penny that is going to finance the war on European territory. But now, now we are finishing that. Long live Ukraine. Long live Europe!”
  EU-Russia relations (from March 2022)
• “Thank you, chair, and thank you to the author of this very comprehensive study. It is an an very important contributions to the essential debate that we are having, namely, how euro can how Europe can strengthen its technological base in a more geopolitical, uncertain world. Um, we we have some similarities to when we were dealing with the Italy report on tech sovereignty. I was the EPP negotiator on that file. Um, and I think the study here, it walks us through the vulnerabilities we, we now are facing, because it is, of course, true that Europe relies on non-EU providers across the digital stack. And it is clear that we have some homework to do in relationship to this. But I would urge my colleagues to have some perspective, because of course, overdependency is a risk of itself. However, interdependency has also been a key source to European strength and to economic growth. Europe has never built its prosperity through isolation. It was built through openness to trade and competitiveness. I want to take Sweden, which is my home country, as an as an example, Sweden has many globally competitive companies, especially in fintech, in music streaming and AI such as Spotify, Klarna and Loveable. These are the champions that we often talk about and they did not grow from massive public spending. Rather from the opposite. So when we talk about technological sovereignty, we should be careful not to equal that to protectionism.”
  EU digital & tech sovereignty
• “Thank you. Vice-president. Minister. Commissioner. Colleagues. We find ourselves at historic crossroads, not just in terms of economic policy, but also in the broader context of global geopolitics. Trade tension, of course, is nothing new. But today, in an era of deep globalization and tightly interlinked supply chains, the consequences are more far reaching than ever. We have seen this clearly in the past months, when Trump's erratic trade measures triggered volatility across financial markets. The EU response, especially in the face of the unjustified trade measures from a long standing ally, will be remembered. Our approach must strike a careful balance, preserving the principle of trust, respect and transatlantic cooperation, while also shielding European citizens and industries from economic harm. I therefore call on the Commission to act decisively within their 90 days. Retaliatory pause. The current pause from the Trump administration is de facto a 25% tariff on EU steel, aluminium and automobiles and a 10% tariff on almost all other goods. The Commission's decision to hold off on immediate retaliation is wise. De-escalation creates a space for dialogue. But let us be clear inaction cannot become our policy. Within these 90 days, we must prepare a strong and measured and unified response, and at the same time, we must do three things to to strategically position Europe, and that is strengthen the single market, negotiate and ratify more free trade agreements, not least Mercosur and the Mexico one, and then reasserting leadership within WTO because we need the rules based international system when there is unpredictable in the world. Thank you.”
  EU-US trade relations
• “Thank you. You, uh. You said that the agreement will destroy the farmers. That is absolutely not true. Look back at the CETA agreement, which was actually beneficial for the farmers, even though a lot of people said that it will destroy the farmers. The commission has on the other side made a very good job. They have trqs, they have safeguards, and they have a compensation package. How can you say that it will destroy farmers when it is? We recognize that there are sensitive products, but that's why the commission has worked with this. This will help the farmers. It is beneficial for the wine sector for. This is a question for a lot of businesses.”
  Trade relations with Mercosur
• “Thank you. Yeah, I must say I very much welcome this deadline. I understand that from the commission side that is negotiating it. It is a tough deadline, but I think it is very good that we put pressure on the situation. I mean, given this geopolitical Critical situation that we are in with the tariffs hurt by tariffs from not least from Trump administration, we need to push forward with other free trade agreements. We already now have a very weak growth figures in Europe. So having a deal with India, I'm sure will help us in the long run. And as it was said here, we need to readjust the way we do free trade agreements. And I think that is very true. Actually, India is not New Zealand and we cannot expect New Zealand. It will. It would never work, I guess, with with India and especially now when we have a tight deadline. So and for for the parliament I guess it's up to the TSD chapters which will be very sensitive issues for us. But I think we should show some realism in this and in a sense grab what we can. It is possible it is positive that we see that there are some progress in this area. And of course, the commission should push for it. But if we do not get all the way to to New Zealand or to to to the agreements, we've had other agreements, I think we should still work to conclude it. And of course, the Commission has to work with the council and not least with the monitoring group, because I guess Christophe Keen might not be able to say everything in this room, but we have to do it in, in the monitoring group, in camera so that we understand this process better and that if Parliament really involving itself with this. Thank you.”
  Free trade agreements (FTAs)
• “Thank you. Chair. Dear colleagues, first of all, I'd like to thank all the chairs, uh, rapporteurs, for all your engagement throughout this process and for supporting the ambitious timeline that we need to follow due to the stop the clock process on this omnibus. This compromise delivers simplification. It creates a better condition for European businesses and ultimately, more and better jobs in Europe By now providing predictability for companies. We ensure they can plan, invest and innovate, supporting both growth and sustainability. And therefore, of course, it is crucial that the European Parliament now shows a strong backing for this. And therefore, I urge you all to support these compromises. Thank you very much.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Madam president, there are a lot of sectors here in the single market where to this very day? Sorry. I'll start again, shall I? I'll start again. There are a lot of sectors in the single market where the single market is just a principle on paper, just lip service. But it's really not at all what we experience every day. The services sector, for instance, 5000 protected job titles still to this very day. And they are regulated differently in different countries. You need to apply. Then you have a scrutiny. You have to wait. You have to have it certified, and then you need a stamp, a seal at the end of it all. So in practice, we don't really have freedom of movement when it comes to services. Integration in the single market is now plateauing. The commission is measuring the most important obstacles and setting them out. But we've only seen a tiny bit of progress these last few years. Now, what about the Council of Ministers? They talk a lot about the single market, but in practice the member states still overinterpret. They still enforce administrative hurdles that actually prevent people from free entrepreneurship. As for the commission, you know, there are some no brainers and you try to go for those the low hanging fruit, so to speak, like digitalisation of processes also, you know, that's all well and good, but it means that member states are absolutely opposed to any of that. And then there are other member states still who try to introduce even more complicated hurdles. Now member states have to be on board. You have to stop talking. You have to start delivering, delivering a genuine single market. And here in the European Parliament, we're ready. We're ready to see one Europe, one single market. That would be good for companies. It would be good for our societies and it would be jobs and welfare for the whole of Europe. Thank you.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• “Yes. Thank you chair. Exactly I'm replacing Sandra and let me read up her statement. Dear colleagues, today we are meeting to discuss the state of play regarding the review of the EU Ukraine Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area, especially as the autonomous trade measures for Ukraine is set to expire on June 5th. For more than three years, Ukraine has been performing a heroic, heroic double act defending the security and prosperity of all of Europe while also making remarkable reform progress necessary for European integration. A strong, free and democratic Ukraine is in the EU's core interest, and we must have a clear road map for defending this interest. Today we must not lose sight of what is at stake. Our support and solidarity are irreplaceable as Ukraine continues to defend itself from aggression. The trade facilitated by the ATMs has been a lifeline for the Ukrainian economy during these incredibly challenging times. We have all agreed that Ukraine will be part of the EU and this path is irreversible. Yet as Ukraine moves closer, it is crucial that we plan ahead and take a proactive approach to developing our trade relationship. We we recognise the concerns that have been raised, especially from farmers and people in the EU border areas, about how past trade rules have affected them. The limitation, introduced last year on sensitive goods reflect our commitment to listening and responding to these concerns. At the same time, there has often been a discrepancy between political rhetoric and economic reality in terms of actual statistical impact of imports. This information has further contributed to this loss of trust. Furthermore, in the previous years, the urgency of the situation did not always allow for a complete and thorough evaluation of the data. Let's use this review as an opportunity.”
  Agricultural trade: Ukraine imports
• “Thank you, Mr. President. Commissioner, my key message today is that this is a good first step. But it is not enough. We have to continue to work with the suggestion. And this is really important for the competitiveness of Europe. We have been falling behind. We have been falling behind a lot of other great economic powers around the world. And we have to change this situation. And there is a lot of things that we need to change. But one of the most important part is to cut the red tape. This is important for all the companies, but it is most important for the small and medium sized enterprises. And I it was a colleague that mentioned the think small first principle. I think that is really important. That is a good solution. We have to do that. And this can be done in the negotiations about this file. These files as well. To continue with the think small first principle. And the multinationals was mentioned like they are bad guys. No they are good guys. They are providing jobs and economy and growth to Europeans. That is also important. It is good that we do a reality check on this package, on this issue and on this issue, on the taxonomy, on the cbam. We need that reality check. So let's work with it. But we need to move this forward. This is a good first step, but we need to continue to cut red tape. It has been speaking about deregulation, about simplification, about cutting red tape. It does not matter which word you use. You have to cut the cost for businesses. That is how you get back to growth.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Yes. Thank you, Brent, and thank you to the commission for the presentation. It seems to me that, uh, um, given the fact that it was mentioned in the beginning that 50% of the demand will be imported by 2030. The problem we seem to have, if I understood it correctly, is to secure the supply. And if we are securing the supply, we of course, have our, uh, FTAs and our MoUs, um, that we could pursue in this direction. Uh, where are we in that? How well does the MoUs and Ftis cover the percentage that we need to reach by 2030? And to reach the entire goal that we need to do. Which countries do we need to negotiate with? Is that among the countries that we are already negotiating with? My second question is on the WTO issues, if I understood it correctly. We are, in a sense, competing with Japan and South Korea as the other big importers. Why do we need to push this in the WTO if we are competing with them? Isn't it better to do it by free trade agreements? That would be my question. Thank you.”
  Free trade agreements (FTAs)
• “When this on my view, is it's misinformation. So how will the commission Communicate this more clearly on the ongoing trade negotiations. We also understand that they are, in some cases are sticking points in the TSD chapters. How do we ensure that we do not block the deals because of these sticking blocks? Maybe in some instances from the commission we have been too too stringent and means that we have prolonged the negotiations. It was mentioned that you have these negotiations, of course, with Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, and you mentioned a few others where we might be successful. But there is also the situation with India, and I am of the view, given the geopolitics in the world, that we have to push forward within negotiations with India, and if that means that we will not have the full TSD chapters that we are used to, then we should still push forward with the negotiations with India in this geopolitical terms because we will gain something, maybe not everything, but we will gain something and that is what is needed in this situation. Thank you very much.”
  Free trade agreements (FTAs)
• “Thank you. Chairs. Let me I'll try to be as brief as possible. Let me first thank the commission for their hard work. Not only the commissioner but the entire commission that has been working with this and also say that I very much welcome the development. I have one question and that regards. The youth. Experience scheme. This, we know has been problematic for our partners.”
  EU volunteering programs
• “But at the same time that we build back on on competitiveness. That's the hard work that we have to do in Yuri and the hard work that you have to do in Intel, of course. And together I hope that we can have a good report at the end, the balance report, just to mention something on the timetable. You mentioned it. Share it is a a very it will be a pressed schedule for all of us. And the reason for this is, of course, stop the clock that we agreed upon. That's why we need to vote on this in plenary in October 2nd. And the timetable is set for that, so that we have time for trialogues, and so that we can give businesses predictability so that they can plan ahead for what we agree upon. Finally, two questions. On to the commission. First of all, when it comes to the Due Diligence Act, we also, of course, have the forced labor regulation, which is in a sense parallel to the CS triple D. Why didn't you include it in the omnibus or will you consider this for the future? And my second question is in the CSR and in the Rs triple D, there are two different scopes for simplification and clarification for businesses. Wouldn't it be better with with one scope? Thank you.”
  Due diligence in supply chains (environmental and human rights)
• “Thank you very much for that question. I think we can work with issues regarding sustainability and climate change. They are important. But I also see and this is important for the Greens as well, to see that we have a problem with the competitiveness. And that's why it's so important to open up these files, that's so important, so good that the commission comes up with the first omnibus omnibus package to change this. This is not enough though. We have to continue. We have to cut red tape even more than in these proposals. And for all the political groups that would like to do that, I am sure that the EPP will work together with you to cut the red tape, to increase the growth, to come back to competitiveness. That is what we can do. And then we get the resources also to focus on the green issues.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Yes. Thank you. Chair. It's it's good that you are an optimist. Uh, and I think that the secretary general, uh, said something in a line that I'm done with being a pessimist. Uh, and that kind of spirit is, uh, is very much needed. Did. Um, I think the trade system is very, very stressed. Um, I hope we will be able to do progress in, uh, in Cameroon and up until Cameroon. Uh, there are, of course, a lot of things that is working with WTO, and there are some things that are not working. It's very important to preserve the things that are working. And of course, starting to see if we can fix the problem that is not working. I personally, I hope that we will be able to have some real progress, uh, in Cameroon. But to me, it seems like it's more likely that we will kind of have an agreement at best in Cameroon or what we should continue to negotiate a kind of a plan of what we can continue to negotiate up until the next, uh, ministerial, the MC 15, where we could have real progress. I think that is, um, the realistic outcome. I would love it to be better and faster and more improvements because we need it. But we also must face the fact that there are big members that is not, uh, playing uh, according to the rules and practices that we are used to on the, on the, um, panels that we have, uh, and that, uh, our chair, uh, Lang also chaired together with our friends from the United Arab Emirates, uh, Marwan, um, we had a, a parliamentarian from Angola together with a, an entrepreneur and former former trade minister from Liberia and myself.”
  EU-Cameroon relations
• “Thank you very much. And thank you for this report. A very interesting report, I have to say. And and important, uh, I am all for a very strong, um, IP Regime. We know that companies that invest in IP, they they grow faster, their competitiveness is stronger, and they create good paying jobs for Europeans. So of course we have to defend the IP rights of European companies. I think my main question to, uh, to the Commission is to get a grasp more of what will we do now? So now with this report, we have a good sense of where the problem is, but I'd like to do more in detail. How can we how can we work in making sure that, uh, it doesn't look as bad next year and the year after that? More in particular, it is interesting to to to see that both when it comes to priority two and priority three countries. Several of the countries, of course, are um, are, uh, FTA agreements that we have recently signed or are in the process of negotiating. So one of the question is how do you see that? For example, we have, of course, Argentina and Brazil here.”
  Intellectual property rights (IPR)
• “And, uh, the following. Uh. Switzerland is a trusted, like minded and strategic partner of the European Union with deeply integrated economies and highly interconnected markets. Our cooperation goes far beyond trade. Together, we are strong advocates of a rules based multilateral trading system, particularly within the WTO, at a time when the system is increasingly under pressure. We are also facing shared geopolitical and economic challenges, from Russia's aggression against Ukraine to economic security risks and unfair competition from non-market economies. This makes our partnership not only valuable but necessary. The modernised EU Switzerland package provides provides a stable, forward looking and comprehensive framework that reflects the reality of our deep integration and adopts it to today's challenges. I would also like to underline that we were recently in an inter committee mission into Bern, where we held extensive discussions with Swiss authorities, parliamentarians and stakeholders. These exchanges clearly confirmed that there is strong support on the Swiss side to move forward with this package. This gives us additional confidence that this agreement is not only technically sound, but also politically timely and mutually supported by reducing technical barriers and aligning standards in key sectors, including medical devices and agri food. The agreement will facilitate trade, strengthen supply chains and enhance legal certainty for businesses. Importantly, it also delivers tangible benefits for citizens, ensuring clearer and more consistent rules for people living, working and studying across our borders. The EU accounts for over 50% of Switzerland's total trade investment. Ties are equally strong, with EU companies representing over two thirds of FDI in Switzerland. At this crucial, crucial moment, this agreement represents the right step forward to deepen our relationship with trusted partners, deepening relationship with Switzerland, strengthen our economic resilience, our supply chain security, and our shared commitment to a rules based global order. For all these reasons, as rapporteur, I clearly support this agreement. The Committee on International Trade, therefore, calls on the Committee on Foreign Affairs to recommend approval of this package with which consolidates, deepens and expands our bilateral relations with Switzerland.”
  EU-Switzerland relations
• “Thank you, Mr. President. Minister, Commissioner, we are indeed living in very uncertain times. We have a war on our continent and unfortunately, we still need us for security reasons. Therefore, I think it would be very irresponsible to also enter into a trade war with the US at this time. This deal is not perfect. I don't particularly like the outcome of this deal, but I think the most responsible thing to do at this moment is to go through with the deal and then continue to negotiate. I know there are groups or MEPs in this chamber that would like to escalate the situation and then continue to negotiate. I do not think that will have the best outcomes for Europeans. So it is not a perfect deal, but it is a deal that we have on the table and we have security reasons for adopting the deal. We have to change it a bit, though. Of course we are not voting on the deal as such. We will be voting on the two legislative proposals that the commissioner mentioned, and we will certainly have to amend it in order to make sure, not least that it is fully compatible with WTO rules. And I have mentioned several times in this chamber and to the Commission that I am not certain it does. I am rather quite certain that it does not. But I think, colleagues, we in this House, we could fix that by amending the legislation. Meantime, we also, of course, have to continue to negotiate and not least ratify the agreements we have on the table. The Mercosur agreement is really important for us at this point on stage, when we have problems doing business in one part of the world, the US. Now then we have to open business in other parts of the world. Mercosur is one. Mexico is another. Indonesia, India, Thailand, Malaysia, Philippines, Australia. There is a lot of possibilities, and I think possibilities and possibilities to negotiate is better now than ever. So I urge you, colleagues, please do not create this trade war with Trump. We do not need it. We need security in Europe and we need these deals. Thank you.”
  EU-US trade relations
• “Thank you. Thank you chair. Thank you. Bernd. Um, I can only echo what you said. It was, uh, not a very good outcome, uh, at the end of the ministerial. Uh, but of course, let's start with the PCB. I think the outcome document was an excellent outcome document. Uh, and we work together with that. So I'd like to thank all, all colleagues and, and advisors and the Secretariat as well, of course, for helping us in achieving this. We had the Parliament's resolution as a basis for our discussion, and I think the discussions went very well. But nevertheless, even though we had the possibility to present it to Director General Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, um, it, uh, it didn't materialize. Uh, at the end of the, of the ministerial. Um, and that is a big disappointment, of course. Um, when it comes to all the meetings we had during the, uh, the days in Yaoundé, I think, uh, you know, it's always very fluid when you are at the ministerials because it's last minute changes and, and, and, uh, those countries that we meet, it's, uh, well, we have to be a lot of very flexible, let's say it like that, but we manage to have a lot of different bilaterals and of course, to discuss not only WTO issues, but also our bilateral Negotiations that we have done. So. Thank you very much for that. I think it was very helpful and very, very good with the very flexible. Oh. Yeah. You have to be very flexible. That's true. Um, yeah, I think of course we will come back to the discussion, uh, on the more on the policy issues on the next point of the agenda together with the commission. So I think I stopped there.”
  EU-Cameroon relations
• “Thank you, chair. And let me also say on the US part, since I didn't speak on my I speak on behalf of of another member of the EPP, I'd like to give you full support to find a negotiated solution with the US, because I'm absolutely sure that tariffs hurt us on on both sides. I would like to pose a more general question on the on the trade agenda. As such, on on the fact that I'd like to ask to have a multilateral, open and rules based trade. But now we have tariffs from the US side. We have subsidies from from China. You mentioned yourselves that we have free trade in our DNA, but I also hear from the commission and from else party, and from member states and from members in the Parliament talks about by European, about sovereignty, about autonomy. And these are conflicting issues. I think it is getting a bit protective, I think, and this will hurt our GDP and our growth. So we have to change a narrative here. And I think the commission is probably fighting within different DGS. How will we change the narrative so that we come back to a multilateral, rules based open trade?”
  EU-US trade relations
• “Thank you chair. And thank you, Commissioner, Zivkovic for your introduction. And let me start off by congratulating you on, on all the all the active negotiations that you both have concluded in the, in the Commission and also our ongoing. It looks really promising and more promising than from a from a very long time. Maybe to say something on the Mercosur agreement since you mentioned it as well. And I mean, there have been a lot of call for provisional application. Epp, of course, supports this. We know that business and business organization supports it. There are also other political groups that support it here. We know that the Mercosur countries are moving fast on this issue, and council have given its clearance. So I can only send the message that I hope that it will be professionally, provisionally applied as soon as possible because especially as you said, it is very important that we now get all the wins and the benefits and the growth that we need with this agreement. We have fought hard for it during many years of negotiation and now businesses need it and it's also needed for good paying jobs in Europe. I'd like to also take the opportunity to bring up the WTO issue, and not least, the most favored nation principle.”
  Trade relations with Mercosur
• “Thank you, Madam President. Minister, Commissioner. It is evident that we are living in an increasingly unpredictable and uncertain trade area. While whilst China is using subsidies to boost their businesses, US is using tariffs to support their. The EU is sadly only one of the few global actors that really are playing by the international rules based order. Today, the EU now must stand united in our approach towards the Trump trade policy. Fragmentation will only weaken our process. We will and we have very well developed trade defence toolbox and it is ready to be used, but only after diplomacy and negotiation has failed because the US is a close ally. It is a traditional partner of ours. It is a strategic, strategic friend and we need to work together with them. Tit for tat trade war. It will not benefit us. Most importantly, when we answer to the US threats, we have to do it in a WTO compatible manner. Because if we don't. Don't. This will only increase the insecurity for European businesses and citizens. Whilst China and the US are playing by their own rules at the moment, we need to have even more strategic partners around the world. We need to continue with the Mercosur countries. We need to continue the negotiations with India. We need to finalise the modernised trade with Mexico and speed up the process with Indonesia. Trade. Trump is now closing in, the US is closing inwards and we in Europe we must look outwards. Thank you very much.”
  EU-US trade relations
• “Thank you. Chair. And as you said, it's important that we move swiftly and smoothly in order to adhere to the decision on stop the clock and make sure that, uh, companies can have some predictability and, uh, clear understanding on how they should proceed as well. Let me start maybe to put this in a bit of context, because the way I see it, this is about European competitiveness. And we have really fallen behind the past couple of like five, 15 years or so. Our growth numbers, Birds, um, is much worse than, um, the competitors around the world. Of course, China is growing much faster than us. India. Vietnam, Australia. But not only in Asia, but also in, uh, for example, South America with Brazil and Argentina and us, they are all competing, outcompeting us when it comes to growth. And we, of course, has to we have to change the situation here in Europe in order to make sure that we come back to growth, come back to creating jobs and creating long term prosperity for European businesses, and not least, the citizens. And here we have several issues we have to deal with. And reducing the regulatory burden is indeed one of the most important issues. Therefore, I very much welcome the Commission's proposal because this will cut costs for businesses and that is what matters here.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Thank you. Chair. Um, from my part, I welcome the commission's proposal. I think it is a good step in the right direction. However, speaking about reducing costs, I think it is important that we all, when we work on this file, that we see how we can simplify even further, because the background, which has been mentioned by several, is that Europe is losing when it comes to competitiveness, when it comes to growth, when it comes to creating jobs. And we have to do a lot of things in order to get get back on track. And simplification is one of the things that we have to work hard with. And that's why I'd like to join forces with all the political groups that would like to see how we can go even further than the Commission in order to build, uh, build back the competitiveness of European businesses. Um, we can call it simplification or deregulation or cutting red tape. It doesn't really matter for me, as long as we cut the cost for businesses, because that's what I think is important here. Uh, at the same time, I think it is important to mention that, of course, I support the sustainability goals. So, uh, and that's why it's so it will be hard work to balance, uh, all these issues to, to make sure that we reach our sustainability goals, our climate goals.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Yes. If I if I may have a short follow up on, on the open source because I think this is really, really important. And, and there might be things that I don't understand when it comes to the open source. Um, and I'm in no way against open source, but I'm not either against proprietary software. And if we are going to build a strong European base with software, I guess that also means that some companies would like to do the research and invest the money and do it with a proprietary software way. Um, so I don't I think it is important that we don't, that we don't see them as, as one option, and it's only the open source. That would be the European answer, because then I think that will mean that we can exclude a lot of companies that would like to invest in their IP, have their proprietary software, and that is their business model. So as politicians, wouldn't it be better that we do not choose one or the other, but rather stay open for both?”
  Promotion of open-source softwares
• “We have presented a list when it comes to tariffs on their sides, but if I recall it correctly, Japan is going in another direction. Uh, did we get any good information that we could use in our relationship with the US as well? My second question is on the Non-price criteria that you mentioned. I didn't really get the context here because this is what we usually talk about when it comes to public procurement and so on. But then you also spoke about CRM and strategic tech in relationship to this. So maybe expand a bit so that I understand this better. And lastly, a comment on the Cbam and Green Deal concerns that they raise. And as you said, and I really appreciate that you mentioned it from the commission that this is brought up. But I think we should um, we shouldn't be too. Um, Well, we should really reflect on what our international partners say to us and not only say, yeah, they come with this every time, because the reason why they come this every time is that it is it is still very troublesome for them. We have tried to explain it in all our delegations, in all our meetings in WTO, and I'm sure the ambassadors around the world is trying to do the same. But still this comes up. And I think this is something that we have to reflect upon ourselves as well for the future, so that we can continue to be a good partners to countries around the world and make sure that we have more free trade agreements and more partners and more trade. Thank you.”
  Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM)
• “Thank you, chair, and thank you to the author of this very comprehensive study. It is an an very important contributions to the essential debate that we are having, namely, how euro can how Europe can strengthen its technological base in a more geopolitical, uncertain world. Um, we we have some similarities to when we were dealing with the Italy report on tech sovereignty. I was the EPP negotiator on that file. Um, and I think the study here, it walks us through the vulnerabilities we, we now are facing, because it is, of course, true that Europe relies on non-EU providers across the digital stack. And it is clear that we have some homework to do in relationship to this. But I would urge my colleagues to have some perspective, because of course, overdependency is a risk of itself. However, interdependency has also been a key source to European strength and to economic growth. Europe has never built its prosperity through isolation. It was built through openness to trade and competitiveness. I want to take Sweden, which is my home country, as an as an example, Sweden has many globally competitive companies, especially in fintech, in music streaming and AI such as Spotify, Klarna and Loveable. These are the champions that we often talk about and they did not grow from massive public spending. Rather from the opposite. So when we talk about technological sovereignty, we should be careful not to equal that to protectionism.”
  EU digital & tech sovereignty
• “Thank you chair, and congratulations to you and to the negotiating team. Um, this has been said before. This is not the perfect deal, but this is the best deal on the table. And I'm quite surprised by some of the group's, um, Listening to some of the groups because the alternative. If you as groups or individuals choose to not support this deal, the alternative is a trade war. It's a trade war with all the implications that that will have on European workers and on European businesses in a time where we really need more growth, more businesses, more trade. I think some might be more driven by being anti-Trump than being pro-European. And this will show in the vote at the same time. Chair, you said regarding the sunset clause that the alternative after the sunset clause is the MFN deal or an FTA. And that's the message I'd like to send to the Commission as well. It says in the Turnberry deal that we will continue to work on our trade and investment relationship with the US and increase that. So the commission, of course, need to start that dialogue right away to make sure that we have a much better outcome the next time. Thank you.”
  EU-US trade relations
• “(10:56:13 – 10:57:58): I'll start again, shall I? I'll start again. There are a lot of sectors in the single market where the single market is just a principle on paper, just lip service, but it's really not at all what we experience every day. The services sector, for instance, 5,000 protected job titles still to this very day, and they are regulated differently in different countries. You need to apply, then you have a scrutiny. You have to wait. You have to have it certified, and then you need a stamp, a seal at the end of it all. So in practice, we don't really have freedom of movement when it comes to services. Integration in the single market is now plateauing. The commission is measuring the most important obstacles and setting them out, but we've only seen tiny bit of progress these these last few years. Now what about the council of ministers? They talk a lot about the single market, but in practice, the member states still over interpret. They still enforce administrative hurdles that actually prevent people from free entrepreneurship. As for the commission, you know, there are some no brainers and you try to go for those, the low hanging fruit, so to speak, like digitalization of processes. Also, You know, that's all well and good, but it means that member states are absolutely opposed to any of that. And then there are other member states still who try to introduce even more complicated hurdles. Now member states have to be on board. You have to stop talking. You have to start delivering delivering a genuine single market. And here in the European Parliament, we're ready. We're ready to see 1 Europe, 1 single market that would be good for companies. It would be good for our societies, and it would be jobs and welfare for the whole of Europe. Thank you. Thank”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• “Thank you, Mr. President. Commissioner, Europe's success has always depended on its export opportunities, from coal and steel to today's global leadership in agri food and manufacturing. Openness has made Europe prosperous and it will remain the path to our success. Turning inward could never be the answer. But when major players refuse to play by the rules. And when every available instrument has been exhausted. There are cases where action becomes necessary, and steel is one of those cases. I am happy that the agreement before us now provides greater flexibility for our downstream industries, because we cannot protect one part of the supply chain while harming another. Europe's competitiveness depends not only on steel producers, but also steel users that rely on affordable and reliable inputs. I regret that we could not find a better solution for Ukraine. I urge the commission to pursue generous quotas so that Ukraine can continue to trade and maintain economic resilience, in line with our continuing support for Ukraine. Finally, at a time when major economies are turning to industrial policy and protectionism, Europe must remain careful not to undermine the very principles that built our prosperity, competitive advantage, open markets and free trade. These principles lower costs, raise living standards and help deliver the products we need for a green and digital transition. Thank you.”
  Free trade agreements (FTAs)
• “Thank you, chair. And thank you, Minister, for your, uh, for your presentation. Your your presidency really begins in sharp contrast. We have the threats of US tariffs on one hand and actually the threat of, of European sovereignty. Uh, but then also very good news with the, uh, with today with the, with the free trade agreements with, with India. Um, and uh, of course, the Parliament has today also adopted the GSP and the Mercosur safeguard. So, uh, some problematic issues and, uh, some good news at the same time. Against this backdrop, I have a few questions, uh, to you, first of all, on the transatlantic trade, as you mentioned, we have the two proposals on the, on the table, on, on the Parliament's desk. And, uh, we from EPP would like to move forward as swiftly as possible and, uh, and hopefully, uh, vote on this already in, in February in plenary. Um, how will you work to, to restore the transatlantic trade? Uh, what is your strategy for this then? On, on Mercosur? Um, uh, as you mentioned, this is very beneficial for businesses. We would like them to have the possibility to to get those benefits as soon as possible. Uh, from EPP, we are for a provisional application of this. How can you help us make sure that these agreements, uh, as soon as possible, uh, is put into force, then we have, of course, ratification of more free trade agreements. Um, how will you prioritize and accelerate the smooth ratification of them? We have India and Indonesia, but also more negotiations with the UAE, with the Philippines and with a few with a few more. And finally, on MC 14, you mentioned WTO yourself. What would be your main priorities in this very problematic time for for world trade and WTO? Thank you.”
  Free trade agreements (FTAs)
• “Sovereignty should be about choice, resilience and competitiveness. And if we want to lead in technology and of course we we do want to do that, we must focus on the fundamentals. That is deepening and completing the single market, creating the Real savings and investments union, catalyzing more private investment in R&D, heavily simplifying our regulation and dramatically reduce administrative burden and then build stronger partnership with like minded countries to diversify and become less dependent. Um, I have a few questions to the authors. I try to rush since I see that my time is is gone. Um, first of all, how do you distinguish between harmful dependency that we have in some cases and mutual beneficial interdependency in a global digital world? And second of all, several recommendations that you have points towards a more protectionist approach, like by European and localization. How do you assess the risk that these measures will increase the cost of European businesses, citizens and authorities? And third and last question. The report highlights Europe's digital trade deficit. And we have, as you know, quite recently concluded digital trade agreements with Singapore and South Korea. And we have some of our free trade agreements that include digital chapters. How do you see that benefiting our competitiveness? Thank you.”
  EU digital & tech sovereignty
• “We have a number of meetings planned for September. Mainly in September. There will be a lot of meetings, in fact. My objective is to remain to, to to stick to the timetable that is set and that is to have a vote in the committee on the 13th of October and in plenary during October 2nd session and then the trialogue before the end of the year. But that will, of course, take a lot of flexibility and hard work from from all parties here. There are certainly differences in the in the different opinion amendments. For instance, we've seen amendments calling for a rejection of the omnibus as such. And we have also had repeals of the core legislation like CCSD and CSS triple D. So it kind of a wide spectrum of opinions here. But importantly, I would say all groups, including those that have proposed uh, full deletion, um, have also tabled very constructive amendments across the text. So I think with that, there is a willing to engage and to negotiate and to be constructive from from most of the groups. And I welcome that very much. As I've said before, my priority is to cut costs for businesses and where possibly to take it further than what the commission's proposal has done, because we need to reduce the administrative burden without, of course, losing losing sites of effective and proportionate sustainability rules.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “This is, of course, more parts to this report. Where will be put forward our own EPP amendments and personal amendments from from MEPs. And for my part, this includes energy, where we strongly advocate for technical neutrality, including nuclear energy and the development of Smrs. We will push on simplification and reducing regulatory burden where we will propose the one in, two out principle. As the rapporteur mentioned, and that this should apply to all digital legislation and regulation. And we welcome the digital package from the Commission, but also pushes for a digital omnibus to cover more legislation and expanding the use of regulatory sandboxes. And Mr. Chairman, if I can only end that, we also emphasise the need to expand our international partnership through technical and trade councils and advance the digital trade agreements to ensure that no tariffs are imposed on data. And finally, we see that none of this can happen without investments. We must ensure that market driven investments led by capital, private capital competition and innovation will drive Europe's digital transformation. Thank you very much for me.”
  EU rules on digital competition
• “First of all, I'd like to thank the rapporteur for her draft. The EP, together with mainly two other groups, has, during the last couple of weeks, had a collaborative effort to draft common amendments to present in several fields to this own initiative report. The reason for this is that we would like to make sure towards our voters that we get the best content in this report possible. The goal has been to achieve a balanced report that can secure a majority in the Parliament. Throughout this process, the focus has remained on substance, ensuring the content reflects a well-founded and pragmatic approach. Too often, sovereignty is misused as a justification for protectionism. But in my view, true technological sovereignty is not about isolation. It's about empowering citizens and businesses by expanding their choices, as well as giving them the tools to innovate, grow and thrive in this rapidly evolving digital landscape. It means ensuring that Europe remains open for business as an attractive, open and competitive hub for investments, while at the same time safeguarding our most critical technologies. The fields where we will put together common amendments will be on fiber optic networks, on 5G and six G developments, satellites and spectrums. We will also cover high performance computing, semiconductors, cloud services, AI leadership and quantum technologies and data centers, as well as submarine cables, cybersecurity and 5G security.”
  EU digital & tech sovereignty
• “Thank you. Chair. And many thanks for this timely and valuable report. It comes as a at a crucial moment as sensitivities around agriculture and international trade continues to grow. The core message is clear trade ultimately benefits the agricultural sector. Preferential trade agreements help build resilience, reduce price volatility and open up substantial export opportunities. It's worth underlining that the EU is a net exporter of agricultural products, holding 12.5% of the global market share. As an exporter, compared to 8.5% as an importer. Of course, this does not mean that we should overlook the needs of this sensitive sectors. However, as the study highlights, even imports may pose challenges to specific EU products. And they can they can contribute to overall agricultural productivity and competitiveness. That said, it is clear that many European farmers face struggles today to compete with certain international partners, largely due to different, different differing standards and regulatory requirements in production methods. In this context, and based on the findings in this study, I would like to highlight a few of the priorities. First of all, the respect for international partners sovereignty. Here, I think it is important that we avoid imposing EU rules on others and instead advocate for the development of stronger, shared international standards that promote the cooperation without regulatory overreach. The report here talks about the three sisters and that the EU should make more influence in these organisations. The second point is the real burden here really lies in the complexity of the EU's own regulatory environment. And as you said, chair, today, the omnibus on agriculture will be presented. And I think that will be an important step to help and to facilitate for farmers across Europe. So the solution is not to close ourselves off or halt trade negotiations. On the contrary, protectionism and regulatory overreach risk damaging the various supply chain we aim to protect. Such an approach can create a perception of discrimination among our trading partners and make EU agriculture less competitive and even jeopardising our food security. Thank you.”
  Free trade agreements (FTAs)
• “You had an op ed in Financial Times earlier this year, and it created some turbulence of what the commission really means when it comes to the MFN. So maybe I'd like to give you the opportunity to clear out some of the issues and what, what you're really aiming for here. And then turning to industrial policy, we have heard about the proposed Industrial Accelerator Act, which of course, clearly is an ambitious effort to reinforce Europe's industrial base. But I must admit to have some concerns regarding elements related to the European sourcing, public procurement preferences and local content requirements here. My question is, how do we make sure that we find the right balance between, of course, strengthening Europe's industry industrial capacity, but also maintaining our openness? Our agenda has been openness and rules based trade and making sure that we have that competition, that investment from other partners. And why should we switch our agenda now? It seems like we are adopting the agenda that some of our trading partners is doing, and I don't think we need to do that. Let's stay on track. Let's stay open for business and and for for more free trade agreements and more more diversification. Thank you.”
  "Buy European" provisions
• “Some of the some main issues are already emerging. First of all, when it comes to CSS triple D, we have the article eight and that is where we have the discussion on tier one versus a full risk based approach. There are a lot of diverging amendments here. Also making it possible, I think, to find a balanced and a good outcome at the end. The scope is there has been a lot of amendments in this scope and in in CSS we see everything from 250 employees as the threshold up actually to ten thousands of employees. And when it comes to the CSS Tripoli, it's from 1000. Once again Over. Up. Over 10,000 employees and 2 billion in turnover, actually. Excuse me. Other areas that we see diverging issues is on the climate transition plans, how to deal with them, the SME shield and the value chain limitations, the level of harmonisation and on civil liability. But as I've said, despite a wide range of views, I'm kind of confident that we can bridge the gaps. And I look very much forward to work with all of you for the next couple of months to deliver a deal. We will indeed need a lot of hard work, and our next shadow meeting will be on the 2nd of September. Thank you chair.”
  Due diligence in supply chains (environmental and human rights)
• “Yes. One follow up. Um, or maybe two. Uh, how is it possible that we have. Not yet a yet. A month after understood on which bases the US has chosen the different member states. I mean, I do understand that the commission, the the administration is not all of them are not confirmed. But still, you must have had the possibility from the commission side to engage with the US, not least before the the Trump administration took office, because there was a week there and it's been another three weeks where still the administration is there. The, the I mean, the staff is there and you should it should be possible to understand the reason by their how they choose basically. And the second just to get confirmation because I think the left had a question on the ACI. Um, because as we approached approach the the date the 15th of May, I guess we have to find a more we have to have to prepare. It's very good if we can have a diplomatic and negotiable solution to this. But we have to, of course, prepare for doing something else a bit more harsh. Is the commission doing that? Thank you.”
  EU-US relations
• “Thank you, chair, and many thanks to the commission and to the for for this presentation. We understand clearly from this report that our free trade agreements can have significant benefits on environmental and climate action in our partner countries. They serve as a platform for the exchange of information and best practices on environmental policies, as well as regulatory cooperation, and especially bringing awareness to the EU autonomous measures, which I think is very important. And it was of course, mentioned as well in the presentation, giving our partners a skeptical, skeptical approach to to these discussions, not least on the WTO level. More so, these agreements enhance the exchange of environmental goods, and this is very positive. But how can we go further here? Are there any other ways to increase the market liberalization on environmental goods through the FTAs, through taking down existing trade barriers and or improving harmonization? The report mentions barriers to trade in the WTO Environmental Goods Agreement, and maybe the Commission could expand on how we can revive these negotiations. This report also clearly demonstrates the benefits of free trade agreements, and I think it's really important that we communicate this better, because there is a growing narrative on how trade is bad for the environment.”
  Free trade agreements (FTAs)
• “Thank you. Chair. Um, this Parliament has several times in resolutions, um, mentioned how important WTO is and how we back the rules based multilateral trading system. And in these very turbulent times, we need the rules based system that creates the certainty that businesses need going to the US. I was quite optimistic because there were discussions and we exchanged views or offers from the Commission and from the US administration. But honestly, being there turned me into a bit of a pessimist. And I say that on the issue on the baseline tariffs, because I got convinced that it seems like the US will not back down from the 10% baseline. Will it be 10% to 2030, 40, 50? Well, that seems to depend on how much we give from the European Union in other issues, how much we buy on certain goods, the SPS or the digital issues, or all the rest that seems to be online or in the discussions. And to me, to coming back to the rules based system to the WTO, a baseline of 10% will, as I said, not be compatible with the WTO rules. So my question. Well, we don't have any to ask the question, but maybe the commission listens. Um, why should we accept a 10% baseline that would uh, uh, and also, uh, maybe give in on some of the other issues and then in the process go against the WTO rules, which we so much need at this moment. That's why I'm pessimistic, because I cannot see myself in a situation where I would, uh, uh, vote yes for a deal that is incompatible with the WTO. Um, I think, um, the commission has to assure us that the deal that they make. And I hope there will be negotiable solutions because we don't want the tariffs. We want to come back to some normal situations again. But, uh, the commission really has to assure us that anything we do will be within the limits of the WTO rules. And I think it might even be worth some short term pain in order to get the long term gain, uh, by, uh, by keeping the rules based international system.”
  EU-US trade relations
• “Thank you, Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to open today's hearing on a topic that is fundamental to the success and the competitiveness of European businesses, efficient reporting requirements. Because the reporting requirements, of course, are an important tool for transparency, for sustainability and accountability. But they must be smart, proportionate and targeted. Otherwise, they risk becoming an obstacle rather than a tool for reaching their intended objective. Over the past decade, we have seen an increase in the new rules and obligation placed on companies in the name of sustainability, due diligence and social responsibility. These aims are all very noble and I support them. But we must be honest. The regulatory burden has become too hard, and especially for small and medium-sized enterprises. European businesses face a lot of overlapping, as we just heard, and sometimes contradictory reporting frameworks. From the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Director, to the Due Diligence Directive, to ESG disclosures, taxonomies and beyond. Companies are being asked to spend more and more time on paperwork and less time on what they do best. Innovating, producing, creating jobs and generating value. And this, in the long run, will not be sustainable. We are losing out on our competitive edge in Europe at a time when the global competition is fiercer than ever. European firms are already facing higher energy prices, rising input costs and uncertain global supply chains. And adding layer upon layer on reporting obligation only weakens their ability to compete. Not just with each other, but with global players who do not face the same burdens. And therefore, I would say it's very good news that the European Commission has already acknowledged this and has pledged to report, to reduce the reporting burden by 25% overall and by at least 35% for SMEs. And with this first Omnibus Simplification Package being a very good step in the right direction. I hope today's hearing will provide us with a lot of constructive and evidence-based discussions on how we can better align the intention of our reporting frameworks with the need of the real economy. We need these, we need the voices of businesses, of civil society, regulators and legislators to work together. Not to lower our standards, but to implement them in a way that empowers rather than overburdens. And with that, I give the floor back to you, Mr Chairman.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “And then also the SM shield. We have to make sure that the SM shield actually will work for SMEs. I do support the Commission's proposals when it comes to limiting the due diligence to tier one, and I also support the Commission's proposal on civil liability. These are some of my initial proposals on how we can reduce the regulatory burden, how we can, um, increase growth and create jobs and long term European prosperity. But now I very much looking forward to to listen to colleagues, how you see this and how you if you have found new ways of, uh, decreasing the cost for businesses and making sure that we make it as simple as possible so that companies can start growing much more and eventually outcompete us. India, China and the rest of the countries I mentioned because it is not given, uh, it is not a given that Europe should fall behind. It is in our possibility to change the situation, to give the best possible business climate so that we can create good paying jobs for the future. Thank you very much.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Thank you very much, chair. And thank you to all colleagues that took the floor. This will be an interesting, uh, report and interesting negotiations. I have to say, trying to, uh, find good compromises for European businesses and citizens. Um, I think I've been very transparent where I come from and what I would like to achieve with this, and that is to make sure that we continue to increase the competitiveness of European businesses, not least, uh, SMEs. Um, I do acknowledge, of course, that there are core objectives, uh, with the pieces of legislation and uh, we of course have to take them into consideration. And there is no one in this room that would, uh, uh, would like to, uh, see a situation that is not beneficial for, uh, human rights issues and, uh, for the situation, uh, when it comes to solving the climate issue, I totally I totally agree with all that, but what we have to do is, of course, the reality check and make sure that we are not, uh, making it too problematic for companies to provide good paying jobs for us. So this will be this will be an interesting discussion. This is also, um, first time I think I hear China as a very good example, uh, for how we should shape our legislation. I'm joking a bit, but I will, of course, look into the China situation. Uh, and I think, uh, I think it is important to look internationally of what we can do in order to improve European legislation. So of course we should look into that one as well. I do appreciate extra colleagues that have mentioned, especially different ideas of how we can continue to to cut the red tape. So let's continue with that and let's make sure that we all constructive political groups work together to find the best possible solution. My report has the deadline in the beginning of of June, and we, of course, in this committee will continue to discuss it further. Thank you very much.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Thank you, Madam President. Commissioner, I would like to use the beginning of my speech to paint a picture of the EU reality on the global stage, because five years ago the UK left the European Union. A month later, Covid 19, the pandemic broke out in Europe. And three years ago, Russia invaded full scale illegally. Ukraine. And at the same time, the European energy prices reach record levels. And this also, of course, created inflation for European citizens. A month ago, Trump was inaugurated in the US administration. All at the same time, when China is systematically disregarding the multilateral trade order and the BRICs is growing. Never before has the EU and its citizens and businesses been faced with so much uncertainty and unpredictability. Unpredictability as now most evidently seen last Monday when Trump increased the tariffs on steel on aluminium to 25%. I have stood at this podium more times than I can remember to talk about the importance of the Mercosur deal. If there would ever be a moment to conclude the deal that would create the biggest free trade zone in the world, it would be now. We need it now because it will provide opportunities for businesses and citizens. It will enhance our energy security. It will create a channel of diplomatic and economic relationships with one of the biggest players in the world. And it will demonstrate that the EU is a global, relevant player that stands for an open, rules based geopolitical order. Let us do it. Let us conclude. Let us finalise the negotiation. It is beneficial for all. Thanks.”
  Trade relations with Mercosur
• “Yes. Thank you very much. I have some similar questions, but I'd like to put it like this. So on steel, it's it's pretty clear that it's not aligned with our agreement. The Turnberry agreement, it's over 15%. And we are, of course, now in trilogue negotiations. But it's clear that from the Parliament has expressed clearly that if it is not in line with the Turnberry Agreement, and it cannot. The tariff reductions that the EU is doing cannot happen before it is in line with the Turnberry deal, meaning it has to be capped at 15% and it's not capped at 15% here. So it's of course good that the administrative burden for calculating the value is taken down. But at the same time, before it was calculated on part of it, and now it's calculated on the entire value, which means that the actual tariff is of course going up. So this signals very clearly that it's not in line with the Turnberry deal. Um, so my question, of course, will be to I understand that the Commission now is analyzing this, but it's I mean, what is there to analyze? Um, for me, it's totally clear. And now the discussion has to be with the US administration to sort that out. So we have it capped at 15% over to forma because then of course I think here it's capped. We are within the deal. No problem. We can we can go ahead and we can uh, if it was only up to forma, uh, we're not totally happy about it, but it's still within the deal, and we have to respect that. But what happens if we cannot sort out the steel issue? Then I guess the US will say then we don't have a deal with the EU. And then I guess that will mean that we will have 100% on the tariffs on forma. So my question to the Commission how are this interplayed. And how do you negotiate both these issues. Thanks.”
  EU-US trade relations
• “Thank you, chair, and thank you to the author of this very comprehensive study. It is an an very important contributions to the essential debate that we are having, namely, how euro can how Europe can strengthen its technological base in a more geopolitical, uncertain world. Um, we we have some similarities to when we were dealing with the Italy report on tech sovereignty. I was the EPP negotiator on that file. Um, and I think the study here, it walks us through the vulnerabilities we, we now are facing, because it is, of course, true that Europe relies on non-EU providers across the digital stack. And it is clear that we have some homework to do in relationship to this. But I would urge my colleagues to have some perspective, because of course, overdependency is a risk of itself. However, interdependency has also been a key source to European strength and to economic growth. Europe has never built its prosperity through isolation. It was built through openness to trade and competitiveness. I want to take Sweden, which is my home country, as an as an example, Sweden has many globally competitive companies, especially in fintech, in music streaming and AI such as Spotify, Klarna and Loveable. These are the champions that we often talk about and they did not grow from massive public spending. Rather from the opposite. So when we talk about technological sovereignty, we should be careful not to equal that to protectionism.”
  EU digital & tech sovereignty
• “Sovereignty should be about choice, resilience and competitiveness. And if we want to lead in technology and of course we we do want to do that, we must focus on the fundamentals. That is deepening and completing the single market, creating the Real savings and investments union, catalyzing more private investment in R&D, heavily simplifying our regulation and dramatically reduce administrative burden and then build stronger partnership with like minded countries to diversify and become less dependent. Um, I have a few questions to the authors. I try to rush since I see that my time is is gone. Um, first of all, how do you distinguish between harmful dependency that we have in some cases and mutual beneficial interdependency in a global digital world? And second of all, several recommendations that you have points towards a more protectionist approach, like by European and localization. How do you assess the risk that these measures will increase the cost of European businesses, citizens and authorities? And third and last question. The report highlights Europe's digital trade deficit. And we have, as you know, quite recently concluded digital trade agreements with Singapore and South Korea. And we have some of our free trade agreements that include digital chapters. How do you see that benefiting our competitiveness? Thank you.”
  EU digital & tech sovereignty
• “Thank you. Chair. I'm taking the floor. Um, for the EPP rapporteur Jonski, um, and, uh, he says the following. The Clean Trade and Investment Partnership represents a strategic shift in the EU trade policy, aiming for a faster, more flexible and more targeted cooperation with key partners in clean energy supply chain and investments. As the EPP Group, we welcome the launch of the negotiations. We support the Commission's approach to explore alternative forms of agreement with partner countries that are tailor made and specific, and sector specific. This enables us to focus on areas of mutual interest, in particular critical raw materials, clean energy and clean technology, while avoiding the lengthy process of negotiating comprehensive trade agreements. While we share concerns regarding the European European Parliament's level of involvement. We trust the Commission to assess the most effective approach to achieving the best possible outcomes. We also welcome the renewal of our partnership with South South Africa, with whom relations has been quite tense in the recent years. We hope this will pave the way for a broader strengthening of our engagement with the region as a whole, notably through the exploration of new partnerships such as Sustainable Investment Facilitation Agreements. And let me y that also add questions from my own. Since you mentioned you also work on trade and investment barriers. I would like to know, is there any chance we can involve South Africa in the discussion on the e-commerce moratorium in these negotiations as well? Thank you.”
  Free trade agreements (FTAs)
• “(17:54:24 – 17:56:12): Thank you, mister president, commissioner. Europe's success has always dependent on its export opportunities. From coal and steel to today's global leadership in agri food and manufacturing, openness has made Europe prosperous, and it will remain the path to our success. Turning inward could never be the answer. But when major players refuse to play by the rules and when every available instrument has been exhausted, there are cases where action becomes necessary, and steel is 1 of those cases. I'm happy that the agreement before us now provides greater flexibility for our downstream industries because we cannot protect 1 part of the supply chain, while harming another. Europe's competitiveness depends not only on steel producers, but also steel users that rely on affordable and reliable inputs. I regret that we could not find a better solution for Ukraine. I urge the commission to pursue generous quotas so that Ukraine can continue to trade and maintain economic resilience in line with our continued support for Ukraine. Finally, at a time when major economies are turning to industrial policy and protectionism, Europe must remain careful not to undermine the very principles that built our prosperity, competitive advantage, open markets, and free trade. These principles lower cost, raise living standards, and help deliver the products we need for a green and digital transition. Thank you. Thank you very much, dear colleague, senior assist.”
  Free trade agreements (FTAs)
• “Thank you. Chair. I do apologize for being a bit late. I had an engagement in another committee, and it is a bit unfortunate, since this is a very important and dear issue to me. When I entered the room I hear that we are the free traders and I am one of them. I think free trade is very good. I think that increases the possibility to trade and to create prosperity. And of course, our free trade agreements that the Commission negotiates and including this one is is taking is taking care of a lot of sensitive issues, not least the agriculture issues, that, of course, is important in this argument as well. But when I enter the room, I hear that we, the free trade traders, we are not interested in hearing the negative voices. And that's why I wanted to take the floor, because I think that is not a correct statement, to be honest. Um, I have followed, I think all of the monitoring groups on the Mercosur side, and the rapporteur has been very interested in having all the voices heard in that group. And even though I came late to this, uh, uh, public hearing, I guess that we have had some, uh, negative and some positive voices on the podium as well, so. Well, this is emotional. This is an important agreement for a lot of us. But let's, uh, let's stick to the facts and, and, uh, make sure that we base our agreements on the factual issues and not make up histories.”
  Trade relations with Mercosur
• “The European Commission must provide us with a timely proposal for the future of this trade relationship. We also need to ensure that the European Parliament's relevant committees have enough time for full discussion and review. Our commitment to Ukraine is rock solid, but of course we want to make a decision grounded in fact and data. That means we need a full analysis of trade over recent years, both before and during the ATM. What was important, where it went in the EU, how it affected markets, especially in sensitive areas, and how prices changed globally and how different sectors were affected. And that's uh, that's from uh, from Sandra Kalniete. And if I may, only 15 seconds chair a question of my own, because I heard from the commission about a smooth transition, and I have to agree that I'm quite disappointed of where we are in a in a sense of a timetable. We should have started these discussions and negotiation, and we should have been finalising everything by now, actually, so that this as we are closing the 5th of June. But then with the implementing act of the Trqs, I got two. I didn't really understand and would like to have the clarification from the commission. I think you said first that the TRC will be there until the Dcfta comes into force, but you also said that the Trqs will be there up until the 31st of December. What happens if the Dcfta is not finalised by the 31st of December? Um, and then of course, let me agree with our standing rapporteur as well that it is a pity that we are now changing the tariffs for Ukraine's when they need it the most. Thank you.”
  Agricultural trade: Ukraine imports
• “Yes. If I if I may have a short follow up on, on the open source because I think this is really, really important. And, and there might be things that I don't understand when it comes to the open source. Um, and I'm in no way against open source, but I'm not either against proprietary software. And if we are going to build a strong European base with software, I guess that also means that some companies would like to do the research and invest the money and do it with a proprietary software way. Um, so I don't I think it is important that we don't, that we don't see them as, as one option, and it's only the open source. That would be the European answer, because then I think that will mean that we can exclude a lot of companies that would like to invest in their IP, have their proprietary software, and that is their business model. So as politicians, wouldn't it be better that we do not choose one or the other, but rather stay open for both?”
  Promotion of open-source softwares
• “Thank you, Chair. I'd like to bring up the international trade perspective and especially the union origin or the Made in Europe issue. I agree with a lot of analysis that have been said here about where Europe is when it comes to the market situation. But the fact is that the rest of the world is bigger than the European market. We might not like it, but that's the reality. And if we, as some want, would like to exclude our free trading partners or our WTO partners, that will at the end limit our markets because, of course, our partners will do countermeasures. So, it will diminish our markets. It will diminish our possibilities to grow and to create good paying jobs for workers and to see businesses flourish in Europe. And with that, I have two questions to the commissioner. Are there even any legal basis if we want to exclude our free trade partners and the GPI partners? Are there any legal basis to do so? I do not want to do it, but I see that there are others want to do it. But I don't think there are legal basis. And second question, if we, even though, would like to do it, what do you think from the Commission would be the countermeasures from those trading partners of ours? Thank you.”
  Free trade agreements (FTAs)
• “Thank you, chair. And thank you, Commissioner. Um, let me first say. That I very much welcome your message and the work on reducing the regulatory burden. I think it is really important for European competitiveness. Uh, so well done so far. I do notice also that the Commission has been speaking about reporting, cutting the reporting by 25 or 35 for SMEs. And now he's talking about the not only reporting but but administrative burden. I welcome that very much. But I would also like to see that we start working on the entire cost for regulatory burden. There is more than administrative burden. So maybe a comment if you are thinking along those lines. Then you mentioned, um, about the impact assessment, uh, or some kind of tools in the Parliament to facilitate when we do amendments here. Maybe you can expand about that. And I think that is a message to all of us. We need to be careful about our amendments as well. My final question is on the omnibus packages. There is, as I see it, three omnibus packages. And then you also say that there is a digital and a farmers, uh, solution, but you're not calling them omnibus. Is that a what is the difference here? What what are you what are you trying to trying to achieve? ** Ilhan KYUCHYUK @Chair: Okay. Follow up questions, Mr. Parsi? One minute please.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Yes. Thank you. Let me read out a statement. She says the following. During the visit to Bern, we held meetings with key Swiss partners from the Swiss Parliament, the government, business and industry focusing on the future of EU Switzerland relations and in particular the ratification of bilateral three package. A clear and consistent message was broad recognition of the importance of this agreement, as well as an understanding that there is no viable alternative framework for EU Swiss EU Swiss relations while certain political challenges remain, including opposition from parts of the political spectrum. There is overall awareness that timely ratification is essential from the European Parliament side. We have been very clear in expressing our strong support for the ratification process. We see this agreement as a crucial step towards ensuring legal certainty, stability and Unpredictability for businesses and citizens on both sides. Discussions also highlighted the importance of reducing technical barriers to trade, ensuring a level playing field and strengthening economic security in an increasingly complex global environment, particularly in the light of global trade dynamics. In this context, stability and predictability of partnerships of partnerships are becoming strategic priorities. The visit confirmed a shared commitment to advancing the bilateral relationship and successfully concluding the ratification process of the bilateral free trade agreement.”
  EU-Switzerland relations
• “Thank you. Chair. Um. Thank you. Chair. I had some problems with the microphone, but now it's on. Um, I you know, I don't think tariffs benefits, uh, anyone. Uh, and therefore, I very much welcome the commission's level headed, uh, strategy here and response. I think that is a good way. Um, as the last speaker said, maybe we should be more confrontational, confrontational. But at this time, I think it is good strategy to wait for these 90 days. The list that the commission presented last week is a good step in the right direction. If and that, of course, the intention is to push the Trump administration to the negotiation table. And I think that is important. It is also important, of course, to ratify the Mercosur agreement, the Mexico agreement, and to push further with the negotiations on India. And then, of course, we have to double down on research and innovation and strengthen the single market, as Christiane said. That is the reason why we can be so confident in our negotiations with the US. The single market is our basis for this, and we should, of course, deepen and broaden it and and make it a very prosperous place for Europeans as well. Thank you very much.”
  EU-US trade relations
• “Mr. Chair, and many thanks for this overview. Mr. Commissioner, I. I do welcome all the trade deals, large and small, that help us to bring down the barriers and create business opportunities. I also appreciate the efforts to make the Clean Trade and Investment partnership faster, more flexible and more effective in their implementation. Increased cooperation on energy and technology is essential today, and I hope this sector specific approach drives credible results. However, I would like to better understand the foundation of the CTI piece. Will they include binding commitments, commitments, and if not, what tangible impacts can we expect from them? Could they complement existing free trade agreements or perhaps serve as a stepping stone towards more comprehensive, comprehensive trade agreements. On a more general note. The Clean Industrial Deal. Outlines a wide range of initiatives aimed at increasing clean energy supply. I've noticed a somewhat by European approach in these in several of these projects. And more broadly in EU industrial policy, from export restrictions to European preferences in public procurement. Some of these measures seem protectionist in nature. How can we and I think you touched upon this in your first intervention. How can we balance such measures while remaining an open and free trade union? I wasn't totally assured reassured by your statement on this, and I think we need very much to push on the open agenda here. The report also points out that the Commission plans to address overcapacity by strengthening international and multilateral cooperation. And I strongly welcome this approach, as I believe international collaboration is the best way to manage trade imbalances and disruptions. That said, do you see a risk that increasing reliance on protectionist tools such as localisation requirements could compromise our trade relations with third countries and our commitments under WTO?”
  Free trade agreements (FTAs)
• “Thank you, Mr. President. Madam Minister and Commissioner. First of all, I would like to thank you for your tireless work of trying to find a negotiated solution. We certainly need it because we need to de-escalate the situation with the US. It is. It is a very, very important market for the European Union. It creates a lot of jobs, both here in Europe, but also, of course, in the US. Approximately 20% of our market goes to the United States. And that also means that 80% of our trade goes elsewhere. Were creating probably even more jobs. And I would like to speak particularly on the WTO rules and the compatibility with the potential deals on the WTO rules, because the rest of the world, the 80% of the market, they rely on the WTO rules. And I fear I am not sure, but I would like to make sure that the Commission is certified, that if we make a deal with the United States, that it does not break the any rules in the WTO, because then we might solve one problem, but we create others. And I think that is of the most important part right now, because the world is when it comes to trade, is not really predictable at the moment. And I think even do we if we do a deal with the US, it will probably not be predictable for quite some time. And therefore the world trading system, the Multilateral rules based trading system. That is the predictability we have. And we as the Europeans, we have to defend it. But I also agree, of course. Meantime, since there is a lot of unpredictability, we also have to diversify. So ratifying the Mercosur agreement, the Mexico agreement, the India negotiating India and Indonesia is also important. But once again, thank you to the Commission for your hard work. Let us hope that we can find a negotiated solutions for the benefit of businesses and citizens across Europe. Thank you.”
  EU-US trade relations
• “Cutting costs to add to the past 15 years of very weak growth numbers in Europe, we now have a geopolitical turbulence creating by the trade situation. That makes the problem even further even more problematic for Europe. And therefore we have to look into the proposal from the commission and, and cut cost, cut cost even more. So how could we do this? How could we cut costs even more? And how can we increase European competitiveness? Well, that is what I'm looking into with this report. And I will give you some ideas of what I will investigate. Um, it will not be too much detail at this level, but let me give you some headlines. First of all, I think we should align the scope between the different proposals in the omnibus and we should align it at a higher threshold. Second of all, I think we should align the terminology using the chain of activities world word wordings instead of the value chain, because that is giving more clarity for businesses. I think we should do a reality check when it comes to the climate transition plans. I think we should look into further expand the full harmonization clause. I think we should check the if it is possible to do a total subsidiarity exemption, and I think we should have a clearer language when it comes to article eight, which deals with identifying and assessing actual and potential Shall adverse impacts.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “(16:05:54 – 16:08:17): Thank you chair and thank you to both of you that presented this very interesting report and very very timely of helpful since we are now preparing for MC-fourteen as it says WTO is very important and the EU should take a leadership role within WTO it shows the economic importance and the importance of the MFN principle not least to small and medium sized enterprises and that businesses in general need more predictability and that is of course more important now than ever maybe so all in all a very good report I have two questions that I would like to ask first you do a what should I call it a case study on the by European issue and since that is very timely as well and a lot of us in the parliament is discussing that at the moment it would be interesting to hear a bit more in-depth how you view this issue because you if I understand you say that there are some policy space for us for a bio European policy but at the same time there are clear violations with the GPA agreement or the governmental procurement agreements and especially when it comes to local content requirements so maybe if we can have some clarification on that issue and my final question is on the MFN issue itself and you say that there is a possibility to adjust the rights and obligations followed with the MFN followed by a level one yes regarding the MFN which of course we are listening to the commission also stating but couldn't this issue question the very predictability that we are now seeking and how would we be able to change the MFN principle or the rights and obligation without making any violation to the predictability that would be my questions”
  "Buy European" provisions
• “Selena could not be here. So let me read out her statement and questions. Dear Commissioner, the task ahead of you and president von der Leyen is certainly not an easy one. I welcome your prompt reaction to the unjustified tariff that took place on March 12th. Protecting our businesses and consumers must remain our top priority. However, we cannot allow our transatlantic partnership to suffer, especially in these voluntary, volatile times. Nato allies must stand together not only for security, but also for the protection of our shared economic interests against growing global competitiveness competitors, especially China. Just as we found common ground in past negotiations such as the lobster deal during the first term, we must now intensify, identify areas where we can demonstrate flexibility without jeopardising our key industries. At a recent AmCham panel I attended, American representatives stated that the US is clear with their demands. The US annually published report on tariff and non-tariff trade barriers. Yet these reports have remained largely unchanged for years. This presents an opportunity for us to assess where the expect more actions from us, and to identify areas where making concessions would pose minimal risk to our economy. Ultimately, the cost of a few strategic concessions is far smaller than the damage caused by tariffs, which will directly impact our businesses, jobs, consumers, jobs and consumers by driving up prices and disrupting trade. Two first questions how do you assess the potential impact on the announced EU countermeasures? Can you share the European Commission's long term strategy to prevent further escalation and manage future trade disputes. Thank you.”
  EU-US trade relations
• “I'll be very short and first, thanking the rapporteur, because I think this is a very interesting, uh, idea. Of course. Um, there are two questions I have. And first of all, on the, uh, stock options, because one of the Values of the stock options. And now I speak from my experience, from the Swedish situation, and it might be very different in different member states, but of course it is. It is the taxation that is one of the big issues here. Um, and maybe if you if we don't have that part, it would, it will not be as interesting. Um, I also think that it might be worth to rethink, um, having the same, if I understand you correct the same stock options for all the employees, because recruiting talents might be meaning that you would like to prioritize in a certain way. My, my second and last question is on the equity like debt as well. Um, why not work with more? Um, yeah, clean shares, so to speak, as, as the way forward as well. Thank you.”
  Priorities of taxation policy in the EU
• “Yes we have. It's quite obvious we have not always agreed with the United States on everything, but historically, of course, we have maintained a respectful and a meaningful dialogue. However, of course, the 30% threat during this weekend is not a serious negotiation tactic at all. This will jeopardize people's savings, livelihoods, and future plans in a profound way. I still support the Commission in postponing or continuing rather to negotiate until the 1st of August. I think that is wise. But of course, we also have to in parallel, plan for smart, effective and meaningful retaliation. We have now sought to de-escalate in all the situations that we could. But inaction cannot become our policy. And therefore, I think we it is good that the second list is now prepared so that, if necessary, we can retaliate as soon as possible. It is, of course, also good that we now have a conclusion of the political agreement with Indonesia, and we need to continue to push Mercosur or Mexico, our Southeast Asian partners, further, India and so on. Because when one market seems to close, we have to open new one. You mentioned four points, four ways of of going ahead. I'd like to add a fifth one. And that is the WTO point because we have MC 14 coming up next years, and we need to have some kind of predictability at these very turbulent times. And WTO, of course, provides for that. And therefore we need to push for more W2 reform together with other members. And my question builds on that. I only have one question. Um, and that is a few weeks ago, the commission, uh, publicly denied rumours that the commission would accept a 10% baseline tariff. Would you say that this is still the position from the Commission?”
  EU-US trade relations
• “Thank you chair. Thank you for, um for your summary. I think it was very, very accurate. Thank you also to the Secretariat for a very, very good mission and program that you put together. Um, it's it's pretty clear that both EU businesses in the Mercosur country, as well as, uh, the companies from the four countries are, uh, are very supportive. They, they see the benefits of this. Um, it's also clear that there is some frustration, uh, about the time it has taken to negotiate it and that they would like to go ahead and finalize everything. The Chinese influence is, uh, was a backdrop, uh, in our discussion. That is clear. Um, and I think it is important that Europe stays in very close relationship with the Mercosur countries. And of course, this agreement will will help both, uh, from a business point of view, creating good jobs and prosperity for both Europeans and South Americans, but also the geopolitical context. With China on one end and with, of course, the problematic situation with the US, on the other hand. So, um, yeah, it was a very good question. Thank you. Thank you all for participating in this. Um, that's that's it for me. Thank you.”
  Trade relations with Mercosur