Karlo RESSLER

Policy topics Karlo RESSLER is active on

What Karlo RESSLER has said (25)

• 2026-07-14 “(18:10:58 - 18:16:31): Thank you very much. Thank you to all the shadows and colleagues, for the input today. I was listening carefully, and, I think that, really, we have a quite constructive, engagement so far both in our discussions in, this kind of format, but also through many different, bilateral and different, exchanges over the past weeks. And, I mean, we all understand what is the complexity of this task. We all understand how big is this number of the amendments. And I think that this also demonstrates in a way the importance that all the political groups, attach to this file. So, as reporters, our objective from the beginning was to try to put forward a solid, political, starting point, for for our work. And I believe that, hearing also you, that this draft report already, reflects many, of the priorities that were expressed today across different committees, while, naturally, there is still, much room for further discussions where political groups see this need. I've heard, the the the calculations by Damian, and I can definitely ensure you that in the end, we will, definitely spend and invest more than 80 hours, in the coming weeks to really try to have this this solution. This will be happening through many different formats and preparations. But allow me, please, now, without going into detail on many of the points that you have raised, at least try to express and highlight what we see as some kind of the key building blocks, of our common work. So I would start with, our 1st priority, which is preserving policy certainty through a clear, ring fenced allocations. This was mentioned by many of the colleagues, and this follows directly from the political guidance already adopted with the, MFF, interim report. And our proposal, therefore, safeguards dedicated envelopes for cohesion policy, for common agricultural policy, including both the pillar 1 and pillar 2, as well as envelopes for pozet, for fisheries, and, obviously, as it was proposed by the commission also for the home affairs funds. We have sought, to provide a greater territorial balance by also specifying allocations in, article 10 across different categories of regions, including less developed transition and more developed regions as well as outermost and northern sparsely populated regions. And in order to reinforce this kind of, territorial cohesion, we also proposed appropriate safety nets, for regions changing categories, in the current MFF and in the, new programming period preventing preventing abrupt, reductions in this sense. The 2nd point is, that we will definitely have to find a way in which we will build the national plans, that are truly responsive to the needs from of the EU, of the regions, of the member states, and final beneficiaries. And in that sense, we, I think, all recognize the need for a greater flexibility, but at the same time, excessive flexibility also risks, undermining long term planning and predictability. And with this in mind, we proposed, this idea of extending the b commitment rule from n plus 1 to n plus 3. And I've heard, some of those, opinions and thinking also, today from you as well. Thirdly, the 3rd area concerns strengthening the role of the European Parliament. This was 1 of the, topics that was mentioned today as well. And given the strategic importance of the National Legitinal Partnership plans, we believe that the parliament should definitely exercise meaningful, democratic scrutiny, especially over their approval. This is why we propose that the plans are adopted through the delegated decks rather than the council implementing decisions, and we consider this, this is definitely an important institutional questions. To try to conclude, I think that these are some of the central, political choices around which should structure our discussions in the next weeks. We are continuing already, tomorrow. Of course, these are not the only issues that we have on the table. We have, as we have mentioned, more than 7,000 amendments, and, we'll have to, take a closer look into every each 1 of them. I think that there is no amendment, of the text of the regulation, which is in the end prevented from, deeper consideration. And I think that, for that it's quite clear that each political groups, will have to also try to focus and prioritize, the the amendments. And in then sense, we are ready to discuss all proposals constructively. And, as I have already said in the beginning, our objective now is to move, from only identifying differences to really, towards identifying, landing zones and exact wordings for these a bit more than, 80 articles. So thank you once again, and looking forward to the, good cooperation in the coming weeks.”
  Cohesion and rural funding
• 2026-07-14 “(16:35:02 - 16:38:03): Thank you very much. Let's, try to be as effective as possible. So I think that it's quite clear already now that the regulation, will shape, almost half of the next, multi annual, financial framework. And it is also, arguably 1 of the or perhaps the most, politically delicate file of the next, MFF. The parliament has expressed, reservations regarding the governments from the beginning, and, now our task is to really, address them concretely and constructively, what we consider to be, the main shortcomings of the regulation as it is now and as it was proposed a year ago by the commission. We now have the responsibility to strengthen the regulation and deliver a work, framework that can really, work in practice, as you said, that is balanced, but that is also, workable. So, you all know and you mentioned it also that we're working on this, in almost, unprecedented framework of 3, different committees, but also politically very sensitive file. And given the scale of, all these challenges, preparing the parliament's position has been a particularly, demanding exercise. And in this context, I would really like to, underline, really constructive cooperation between the 3, committees, also, among the the corruptors and our respective teams. And I think that it will be, even more important that we continue like this, in the weeks and months ahead. Since the publication of the proposal, 1 year ago, we have worked, quite strongly on this and published our draft report that now serves as basis for the parliament's negotiations. And the goal is, as you know, to reach the position of the parliament by the end of, this year. It will be important to speak with, political groups to understand the the the amendments now. There is a huge number of them, and, they were bit they were put forward, and now we are trying to digest them all. And in the way in the end to have ultimately a credible common agreement. And with almost, more than 7,000, amendments, this will definitely be a true challenge. So, in this regard, I think that the exchange today can definitely be useful to better understand the political sensitivities, the political positions, and red lines of different political groups. We are working also in this, formats of the shadow operators in the 3 committees, but also focusing within, each of our responsibilities and working together on this. So, there are many different perspectives behind the proposals. Let's hear them now in the next 2 hours or so, and I'm looking, forward to hearing the contributions, but also to continuing our work immediately. Thank you.”
  Size of EU budget
• 2026-07-09 “(11:41:57 - 11:43:08): Chair, commissioner, colleagues, without innovations, without new investments, and without a genuine single market, Europe is a sleeping giant. We have a lot of potential, but we are very slow in a world that doesn't wait for us. This is why this proposal about a single European framework for the development of companies is 1 of the most important proposals of this term. We need, to have a stable legal framework. The fact that the company can be opened in 48 hours, a unique forms and, doing business in Europe without for 27 different hurdles. This will improve business, environment, and this will remove administrative fragmentation and all the barriers. The price of fragmentation today is huge. This, is higher than the highest, taxes. You're actually, customs duties. Europe has the talent and the capital, and we cannot allow our companies to, move elsewhere.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• 2026-07-06 “Dear commissioner, dear bank vice president, colleagues, last year, the EIB mobilized record funds more than ever, and we really congratulate them on that. At the same time, Europe should decide that is invest more in its economic competitiveness and resilience. We are competing with economies that invest more than invest more aggressively and that are more focused in team of strategic priorities. This is why the role of the AIB is especially important and strong where the market cannot respond quickly enough. DIB have to continue supporting small enterprises that are the backbone of European economy and a precondition for our long term competitiveness. This includes startups and scale ups as well. Investment in new strategic priorities in defense and security, in energy, in new technologies is no longer only a question of development. It's also becoming a question of the survival of Europe as we know it today. Capital can and has to reach good projects more quickly. In global competition, often it's not important how much we invest, but how quickly we invest. That is why we have to simplify the procedure for authorizing finance, of course, with the necessary safeguard mechanisms. That is why we continue to expect transparency in the EIB work in order for investment to be in line with the real needs of citizens and with the changes in the EU economy. By achieving all these goals, we are creating the preconditions for a stronger industrial base and for keeping more knowledge, capital and innovation in Europe. Thank you.”
  EU industrial funding (mechanism level: EU-pooled vs nationally-financed)
• “(10:37:15 – 10:42:57): Thank you very much, Chairs, dear colleagues. It is a pleasure to be here today, together with my co-rapporteurs, Elsie and Andre, and present our draft report on the regulation that, as we all know, will shape almost half of the European budget, but also for the regulation, which is one of the most consequential, but also most complex files of the next financial framework. I don't even need to say it is also politically most delicate. The Commission proposal introduces a new logic, a more integrated delivery model, a stronger link between financing and performance, and the new architecture for national planning. And such a change can theoretically bring simplification and flexibility, but only if it is really matched by strong governance, clear budgetary safeguards, democratic accountability, and sound financial management. As you know, the Parliament expressed clear reservations regarding the governance from the beginning. We have been criticizing the proposal, and our objective now is to address what we consider to be its main shortcomings. We now have this responsibility to strengthen the regulation and deliver a framework that can truly work in practice. Given the scale of these challenges, preparing the position has been quite a demanding task also of this combination of 3 different committees, as you all know. And I would really like to thank, in this context, Andre and Elsie for really a constructive and close collaboration as well as to the old colleagues, Budj AGRI teams, who were involved in this first step. So let me now try to briefly walk you through the main logic and key elements of the report. The first area concerns governance and partnership, and we have introduced a new horizontal partnership principle to ensure the meaningful involvement of regional and local authorities throughout the planning and implementation process. Another important area is ensuring an adequate Parliament's role in the governance of the plans, and we therefore propose that the plans be approved through a delegated act rather than a Council implementing decisions. In addition, regarding the EU facility, we removed the proposed budget cushion, introduced a dedicated allocation for sustainable urban development, and reinforced Parliament's role as a budgetary authority by relying on the reserve lines and transfers rather than Commission financing decisions. Secondly, we focus on preserving policy certainty through ring-fenced allocations, also in line with the Parliament's position on the interim MFF report. With secure dedicated envelopes for cohesion policy, for the common agricultural policy, including both pillar 1 and pillar 2, and as well as envelopes for POSE, fisheries, and home affairs policies. We further specify allocation across different categories of regions from less developed, transition, and more developed regions, but also for outermost and northern sparsely populated regions. To strengthen territorial cohesion, and I'm sure that Andre will tell you more about this, we have also introduced the safety net for transition regions and more developed regions that have changed categories in order to prevent abrupt reductions in support during the programming periods. In addition, we propose also an 11% earmarking for urban development strategies. Third priority is flexibility. We propose moving from an n plus 1 to n plus 3, the commitment rule, in order to improve absorption rates and provide greater predictability for beneficiaries. At the same time, flexibility for crisis situations is maintained, but it is more targeted. So the annual flexibility amount is limited to 5% to each program envelope. And for CAP, this would apply only to pillar 2 and be solely used for crisis payments to farmers. We have also strengthened implementation capacity by increasing prefinancing from 10 to 15%. And for member states with eastern border regions, they would benefit from a 20% prefinancing rate. Finally, as you know, provisions dealing specifically with CAP, with common market organizations, and the common fisheries policies have been transferred to the relevant sectorial legislation. We think that this makes sense, especially because it's a similar situation in the Council. And we think that now, we should stop with this and try to really focus on the same negotiating basis with the Council.”
  EU cohesion/structural-fund architecture: consolidation vs ring-fenced separate funds
• “Thank you. Chair, Commissioner. Colleagues. If we want to finance security, competitiveness and the energy transition and today, this is no longer an issue of wanting. It is an issue of preserving the Europe that we know. Then the Union has to have adequate and stable financing resources. It is important to seriously talk about good financial resources, including the own resources from online gambling and betting. This is a sector that is extremely digital cross border and that makes a big revenues thanks to the single market. It is therefore legitimate to see whether a part of those revenues can be directed to help finance our common priorities. This will help reduce the pressure on national contributions on the European economy and on our citizens. This is extremely important today when we are facing big challenges, when the European budget has to find a solution to pay off its common debt debt. This proposal therefore needs careful and serious consideration. I want to thank the European Commission, but we have to be careful of and think of the whole package. We have to think of justice, of the fact that this has to be implemented. New own resources needs to be viewed as part of the solution, as part of the response by the European Union. Who needs to be financially responsible?”
  Own EU resources
• “Thank you, Mr. Chair. Dear Executive Vice President, Commissioner Seraphin and Hansen, dear colleagues, thank you for joining us as we begin the real legislative work on the regulation proposal. That definitely marks the most significant shift in the use of European funds to date, and thus also one of the politically most relevant and strategically, as we have already seen, most sensitive elements of the new MFF through a make or break point. The Parliament has already voiced our concerns. The Commission has already proposed changes to the regulation, including the rural target of 10% as it was mentioned, and now the official work starts to begin with. No matter how innovative the financial instruments may be, the fact that eco can be only spent once remains less than 800 billion is allocated to heading one. Just 45% of the post 2027 MMF, compared to 65% in the current framework, marking a clear reduction for cohesion and agriculture to foundational principles and pillars of the European project. Furthermore, it would be logical from our point of view to exclude new repayments from the first pillar envelope and instead reinforce the strategic pillars most relied upon by citizens as well. Secondly, national plans. They may appear strategic, but without clear and consistent benchmarks or added European value, they risk producing fragmentation, confusion and funding unpredictability for end users who would be forced to compete for resources. The proposal seeks to merge economic reform funding with territorial development combining two fundamentally different systems into a single model without adjustments and clarifications, and this will inevitably pose implementation challenges on the ground if we do not try to change it during the negotiations. This also includes a misalignment with the multiannual cycles of territorial investments, and the persistence of some key shortcomings that have been seen already in the RF.”
  Cohesion and rural funding
• “Chair. Thank you also for the presentations to the members of the European Court of Auditors for presenting the opinion this report. In my view, really offers a sober and valuable assessment of what is without any doubt, to become one of the the most important reform of the next multiannual financial framework, especially with this proposal to shift to a single national plans that will bring together an unprecedented range range of EU priorities. And in this sense while the Commission argues that this integration may enhance coherence or synergies, the report shows that it also blends policy areas with not only very different policy objectives, but also very different time frames and delivery logics as well. In practical terms, it merges regional investment planning with country specific economic instruments and macroeconomic guidance, and then this increases the risk of trade offs between territorial development needs on one side and EU level ambitions, making multi-level governance, partnership and territorial logic indispensable safeguards. So in this sense, my question to the members would be how could the instrument, the institutional design of the instrument, avoid a situation where deferring intervention logics really compete with one another inside a single plan? Secondly, this is on the horizontal consistency across member states. We've seen it with the RF as well where the where the implementation is quite uneven and where member states are expected to address all European policies Yet their financial capacities are limited and very significantly. Defining what constitutes an adequate contribution therefore becomes also very important element. And my second question, therefore, is which safeguards could help ensure equal treatment of Member States when a commission is assessing milestones, targets, indicators, contributions despite very different national contexts.”
  EU cohesion/structural-fund architecture: consolidation vs ring-fenced separate funds
• “Thank you, Mr. Chair. Dear colleagues, dear Co-rapporteurs, let me also thank you really for this interim report for definitely a new chapter in in the negotiation cycle for the MFF ahead of the really important here. And let me try to focus on two main points. The first one concerning the overall size of the budget, which will definitely be central because I think that it is quite clear, at least in this House, that Europe cannot deliver security, competitiveness and geopolitical stability on a budget that is stuck at close to 1% of GNP, and also regardless of all the creativity in the proposals that one Europe can only be spent once. Especially also in the context of around €25 billion per year, that must go to the repaying of the next generation EU. At the same time, I think that also with this report, we should be cautious also in establishing new, for instance, mainstreaming targets, but also in terms of the volume. So if we argue for higher funding, I think that it would it should always be justified, serious, responsible and never really ideological. Second point is on the radically restructure architecture, we will have enough space for debates and for the real work. But I think that this new idea of consolidation of more than 50 programmes, and with strong idea of the national and regional partnership plans, can only work with really clear rules, with accountability and predictability, because otherwise we risk ending up with 27 different, uh, patchwork models and not with a European added value of the budget. And that is what we would try to achieve. So thank you once again, Zigfried, for this interim report, which is a great basis for our upcoming work in the next months.”
  Size of EU budget
• “Commissioner. Dear colleagues, I can see this proposal of the Commission as a first concrete sign that the voice of the Parliament is being heard and our concerns are taken seriously this time. Preserving the identity of the Common Agricultural Policy. Protecting the amounts for more developed regions and regions in transition, and minimum of 10% for rural areas. These are not only technical details. This is a clear indication of the direction in which we should continue going. That is the direction in which even development, food production and decent life in rural areas to remain an integral part of the European story and not only a historical footnote in the budget. Of course, we should also focus on competitiveness and security at the same time. We shouldn't fool ourselves. There are still many conceptual flaws and unclear points, including the role of the Parliament and regions in shaping national plans, linking the objectives of the European Semester to investment might sound logical, but intertwining the logic of economic reforms with balanced territorial development obviously carries serious risks. This will all be subject to discussion in the negotiations, and now we should start working seriously.”
  Agricultural funding
• “It's been a year since the publication of the Drudge Report. Once again, this report stressed that while China and the USA are dictating the rules of the new industrial revolution, Europe remains a passive observer and the European competitiveness is lagging behind because of that. So the report itself it was more than diagnostics. It was an invitation to take concrete steps in order to make sure that Europe. Becomes. Yet again, a strong and ambitious. This report lists all reforms and investments that can help the European Union to become strong and continue growing. Simplifying regulations and decreasing administrative burden, which is something that cannot be avoided if we want to achieve progress unless we have a strategy that accompanies this vision. This is just going to remain a pretty text without any follow up. We need to have financial instruments for scaling up.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Mr. Commissioner, dear colleagues, here we are in this perhaps a late night debate on the annual budget for the next year, and the hour may be late, but the topic definitely deserves our full attention since we are discussing the priorities that go much beyond this chamber. And all this in times of global uncertainty, but also growing competition in the world where the EU needs a budget that also can meet citizens expectations, and not only for the next year, but also for the MFF that we are discussing these days as well. The main idea of the Parliament here is to restore the 1.3 billion for key programmes cut by the Council, compared with the Commission's draft budget. We cannot accept the cuts that would weaken the union's strategic objectives, and we need strong investment in research, in energy and transport connectivity, as well as in small and medium sized enterprises who are the backbone of the European economy. In the context of security challenges, we must also ensure additional resources for internal and external security. The discussions have maybe been long and at times also difficult. Also in the Parliament, but also within our groups. But they have in the end led us to a fair and balanced compromise. In that sense, I really congratulate to both of the rapporteurs, to Andre, to Matias, and I really invite you to support the outcome, support the outcome, because with tomorrow's vote, we enter the final stage of negotiations with the council, a crucial step towards reaching a balanced agreement. And I hope that in this and in the continued engagement with the Commission, we can count on the support of the colleagues. Thank you.”
  Size of EU budget
• “Thank you very much. Thank you. Dear Executive Vice president. As you said, the RF has entered its final stretch with all the reforms to be completed quite soon. Yet the volume of work remaining is also quite considerable in several member states. Even more milestones will be needed to be delivered this year only in 2026 than in all previous years combined. And obviously, this all comes during a moment when we are also trying to draw lessons for the next Multiannual Financial framework, and especially for the performance based national and regional partnership plans. In this context, we will be in Croatia next week. Uh, Monica has mentioned it. I will be leading the RF mission in Zagreb in order to gain that experience and also best practices directly on the ground. But in this sense, I mean, we see that the implementation performance Varies dramatically between member states and that some are above 80% of milestones completed, while others remain below 40%, and if such gaps persist. Also under the future NRP is the union risks, quite diverging implementation speeds across key policy areas, which would also undermine the ideas and the objectives of the RF. So in that sense, what does the Commission intends to do to make sure all Member States deliver on their RF milestones in set timeline? And then secondly, I mean, you mentioned it to some extent as well. The RF has shown some clear deficiencies. And as we enter the, uh, the the phase of the also MFF negotiations, our task is to embed these learned lessons to truly deliver a more strategic framework. And in this context, what do you see from the Commission as the weakest links that you would also like to improve, and that you think that can be improved through the NPS?”
  Conditions to access EU budget
• “Or the very idea about the targeted extension for 18 months that would be applied only to those projects that that can objectively be finished in time. This idea should be supported. Authored European funds may or may not become. Something that will be used on one hand, sometimes without efficiency and not used at all completely. And that is what we are witnessing right now. Or if even worse, if they are used very speedily and inefficiently. That is why I support 18 months.”
  Conditions to access EU budget
• “Madam president. Dear colleagues, European citizens nowadays feel growing costs of living. Our companies especially small and medium companies have problems being competitive. They have problems with excessive regulation. The implementation of the drug report is thus at the very core of the vitality of Europe, at the very core of European survival in the world that is ever more complex. Without strong economy, we cannot respond to all the geopolitical problems around us. The first problem is excessive deregulation regulation, which has real consequences for investment. And this is why we need simplification. We also need to complete single market. It is still not integrated enough to be completely free, and to enable a level playing field for all. Europe cannot allow itself to be weak. It cannot allow itself not to be competitive. So this year we need to do as much as possible.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Thank you Commissioner. Many questions have been opened. Not much has been presented, but even this limited amount really shows that it will be very much difficult to get the required 361. But let me get to the my questions. The MFF has clearly demonstrated that it has been a big mistake to include volatile and unpredictable interest costs inside the budget headings. Now the idea is to repeat the same mistake. If you can perhaps clarify at this point. And secondly, if national plans become a central delivery tool in the next MFF, how does the Commission plan to ensure proper involvement of the European Parliament? But not only this. How do you really ensure to apply other lessons learned from the IRF experience? Thank you.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Chair. Thank you also for the presentations to the members of the European Court of Auditors for presenting the opinion this report. In my view, really offers a sober and valuable assessment of what is without any doubt, to become one of the the most important reform of the next multiannual financial framework, especially with this proposal to shift to a single national plans that will bring together an unprecedented range range of EU priorities. And in this sense while the Commission argues that this integration may enhance coherence or synergies, the report shows that it also blends policy areas with not only very different policy objectives, but also very different time frames and delivery logics as well. In practical terms, it merges regional investment planning with country specific economic instruments and macroeconomic guidance, and then this increases the risk of trade offs between territorial development needs on one side and EU level ambitions, making multi-level governance, partnership and territorial logic indispensable safeguards. So in this sense, my question to the members would be how could the instrument, the institutional design of the instrument, avoid a situation where deferring intervention logics really compete with one another inside a single plan? Secondly, this is on the horizontal consistency across member states. We've seen it with the RF as well where the where the implementation is quite uneven and where member states are expected to address all European policies Yet their financial capacities are limited and very significantly. Defining what constitutes an adequate contribution therefore becomes also very important element. And my second question, therefore, is which safeguards could help ensure equal treatment of Member States when a commission is assessing milestones, targets, indicators, contributions despite very different national contexts.”
  Conditions to access EU budget
• “Yes, there are many disadvantages and challenges. However, the RF has shown to be a historical response to the actual test of European solidarity. We have prevented a far deeper economic fragmentation of Member States, and this joint instrument enabled unprecedented investments and brought with it specific and concrete reforms. At the same time, added value and the actual effect of the instrument will only be revealed after some time. Many projects are still under way and some of them will evil even remain unfinished? The main question is not how much money will be managed to use, but how. Will every euro be used smartly and in long term? That is why I think that we should also take a look at the proposal to extend the time period for 18 months, which would enable to those projects which have not been finished, to be finished in time and with appropriate finances. We would prevent the situation in which some money will be unused, or even worse, money used speedily and inefficiently. Croatia is one among most successful countries in the use of these funds, and I think that this is a very important thing to bear in mind. This is the mechanism that helps Croatia and everybody else, and we should take that into account.”
  Conditions to access EU budget
• “Mr. Vice president, Mr.. Commissioner, dear colleagues, at the moment when Europe faces growing global pressure, we needed a budget that strengthens our strategic direction. And I think that we can proudly say that we delivered one thanks to our lead negotiator, Andrei Galitsky. Thanks to Matias Nimetz and the entire conciliation team, Parliament secured an agreement that restores 1.3 billion cuts by governments. And I think that it is also safe to say that the agreement reflects Parliament's priorities, first of all, targeted strategic investments that strengthen Europe's resilience and competitiveness. In practical terms, this meant that we secured 362 million in top ups for programmes that deliver real added value, from Horizon Europe to CF Transport and Energy to civil protection support from four SMEs ESF plus to strengthen skills and employment, Erasmus+ and EU for health. At a time of heightened security pressures, Parliament ensured stronger resources for Frontex, Europol, military mobility and border management and visa instruments. Dear colleagues, I think that it is quite clear that in any case this is not and has not been a budget of celebration. But it is definitely a budget of direction for the union in the next year and the budget that keeps Europe moving forward. Thank you to everyone who has delivered. Thank you.”
  Size of EU budget
• “Thirdly, today's report also points to financial structural tangents that should not be underestimated. First of all, flexibility. We believe that in general terms this is welcome, but the combination of 25% of flexibility and crisis related relocations may reduce predictability for long term investments. And, moreover, the extensive reliance on the EU budget headroom as a guarantee for the new 150 billion loan facility. Catalyst Europe raises also concerns about the foreseeability of national contributions. So how do we strike the right balance between flexibility and predictability? And what is the point beyond which flexibility really begins to undermine the strategic dimension of of the act? And lastly, if you allow me, chair, is on the simplification and on the final question, and I see this tension between the attempts to simplify, at least for the commission, but also then for the Member States, for those who are using the funds, the more precise and standardised the milestones and assessment criteria become, the greater also transparency becomes. There is also less room for member states to adjust to regional specificities or crisis circumstances. And in that sense, based on on the whole findings I see that the Court of Auditors does not really believe that this reform is mature enough to adopt it as proposed. But, which elements would require, in your opinion, more structural refinement before becoming the backbone of the next MFF?”
  Conditions to access EU budget
• “Thank you for the presentation and for the study. I think that it's quite clear that for us for the Parliament as it stands the MFF proposal basically fall short of what Europe needs and it asks us to do the impossible while repaying 25 billion euros of the NGU debt annually but also while addressing growing demands in competitiveness and security. I think that you did a good good study and that the overview is interesting but I would just like to focus on a few details. So on the national plans although it may sound strategic if every member states a pool in pools in in its own direction without clear and consistent benchmarks or added European value and exactly this is the problem now with the ARRF and I thought that this should be also the lessons learned included in the this proposal. Then we have serious risks of fragmentation but also of this becoming more patchwork rather than a real policy and I don't see that we are really solving this with with this proposal. Then at the same time weakening agriculture and cohesion the cornerstone of the union will is strongly definitely undermining the proposal and at the same time sidelining of the Parliament and the lack of clarity in governance structure and procedures seriously adds to this concern. You have been focused a lot on this annual budgetary procedure which could be a possibility of making up to this sidelining but how it is not completely clear and it's not only for heading one and heading two for heading three as well and I think that in the end we would need more something more than vague hope and unfortunately in the legal text this is not something that is quite visible. Thank you.”
  Size of EU budget
• “Thank you, commissioners, for the discussion in these late hours. I will come back to one of the core issues as I see it. And this is, in essence, something that the Commission has also reiterated numerous times, and that is that the implementation of the RF is not just about the money, that it goes much beyond this, and that it should have tangible structural changes in the member states and on the European level as well. So in this context and in the context of the expected added value in years to come, um, I would say that on the assessment of how successful we are in these areas. And Commissioner Dombrovskis just just mentioned some of them, such as, for instance, productivity of the European Union or dealing with the real structural problems on the assessment of this, the overall evaluation of the really unprecedented instrument should be made in the end. So would you say, perhaps from your perspective, from your point of view, that we are overly focusing on the quantitative measurements, on absorption capacities, on Passages on absorption rates, when instead, I mean, this is a good layer, but we should focus also on the substance on and in essence, how satisfied are you with the possibilities to really assess?”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Thirdly, today's report also points to financial structural tangents that should not be underestimated. First of all, flexibility. We believe that in general terms this is welcome, but the combination of 25% of flexibility and crisis related relocations may reduce predictability for long term investments. And, moreover, the extensive reliance on the EU budget headroom as a guarantee for the new 150 billion loan facility. Catalyst Europe raises also concerns about the foreseeability of national contributions. So how do we strike the right balance between flexibility and predictability? And what is the point beyond which flexibility really begins to undermine the strategic dimension of of the act? And lastly, if you allow me, chair, is on the simplification and on the final question, and I see this tension between the attempts to simplify, at least for the commission, but also then for the Member States, for those who are using the funds, the more precise and standardised the milestones and assessment criteria become, the greater also transparency becomes. There is also less room for member states to adjust to regional specificities or crisis circumstances. And in that sense, based on on the whole findings I see that the Court of Auditors does not really believe that this reform is mature enough to adopt it as proposed. But, which elements would require, in your opinion, more structural refinement before becoming the backbone of the next MFF?”
  Conditions to access EU budget
• “In that sense, how does the Commission assess the potentially high transition costs for national and regional authorities responsible for shared management, especially in this context of problems of conflicting, conflicting logics that are obviously, um, existing? Thirdly, flexibility. Obviously, if well designed, it should enable member states to respond to shocks and to new priorities without jeopardizing stable financing of the priorities. And to this end, the Commission has proposed the EU Facility Instrument. However, from our point of view, 25% of national allocations is quite a significant margin, which also raises a logical question how will the Commission ensure that such a level of flexibility does not come at the expense of core European projects, nor lead to short termism in spending? Finally, the procedures must be generally simplified. Yes, in theory, simplification and consolidation can bring greater efficiency with less administration. But it must not only be simplification for the Commission's internal procedures as it now seems, but also a real simplification for end users. And finally, dear commissioners, I think that we all fully recognize the complexity of this whole exercise. The constraints involved that obviously exist, and the shared responsibility to ensure that this new model can, in the end, really work in practice. This will guide our work in the months ahead, obviously in close coordination with the MMF Co-rapporteurs. And I only can say that I really hope that we can, in the end, together shape a framework that on one side modernizes the EU long term budget, but making by making it more efficient, but also ensures balanced development of all European regions, adequate role for Parliament and real simplifications simplification for the users. Thank you.”
  Conditions to access EU budget
• “Commissioner. Dear colleagues, we expect a proposal in a weeks time. This will show whether Europe has the strength to act as a serious union. The challenges and the stakes are high and the ball is in the air with the commission. The position of the European Parliament is clear. It is well known what we expect in Croatia. As in most other member states, European funds are a key investment strategy. This is why it is key that in the cohesion strategy, local and regional levels remain. Central European funds should not be a sum of national plans which are under centralized control of the European Commission. We need new own sources, but this should not be a new burden for the companies, the citizens or the people. One of the main criteria is to reduce bureaucracy for the end users.”
  EU cohesion/structural-fund architecture: consolidation vs ring-fenced separate funds