Damian BOESELAGER

Policy topics Damian BOESELAGER is active on

What Damian BOESELAGER has said (66)

• 2026-06-15 “(17:41:32 – 17:42:51): Vice president and colleagues, not every explosion makes a loud boom. But last Friday, I could definitely feel the earth tremble because last Friday, Trump actually pressed a red red button. He issued his export control directive to stop anthropic giving access to its best AI models to Europeans. And colleagues, this is a huge middle finger towards Europe, and it tells us 2 very important things. 1st, Trump can and will cut us out out of AI's foundation models if he feels like it, which could, by the way, kill 99% of our AI industry right now, which builds on them. And 2nd, and much more fundamentally, Trump has the red button for almost all aspects of our lives. He can stop us from paying because we're dependent on Visa and Mastercard. He can stop us from using our phones because we're dependent on Google and Apple from messaging friends, WhatsApp, or even getting treatments at hospitals or booking trains because of Amazon Web Services. Colleagues, let's be courageous. Invite Anthropic to move to Europe and build our own foundation models, and let's not sign a trade deal that makes us dependent. Thank you. Thank you.”
  Artificial Intelligence · EU digital & tech sovereignty
• “At least I think we should underline the need of uniting, follow the money auditing or basically project based auditing with performance based auditing. I think that's also clear. We want to, I mean, we'll add some wording on the green bond. I think that's important that we underline that there were some positive experiences to be built on, but maybe expanded. And I think we want to outline some positive elements such as that we decided not to spend on recurring spending, but just non-recurring spending, which I think was also So ensuring the additionality and the long term effect of our European funds. Um, and I think it's also important to underline, again, that we need a unified rule of law conditionality, because it's really good that we had rule of law conditionality in the RF. But maybe in combination with all the other rule of law conditionality, I think there is some improvement to go. Um, and we will add something on the fast repayment via our own resources. And we look forward to the more technical negotiations on this file. Thank you.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “(11:33:04 – 11:34:22): Okay. On behalf of Thomas Bergada, who can sadly not be with us, we are voting this afternoon in Econ on the opinion. And, we also there look very much at the sound economic governance framework and trying to make sure that investments deliver real added value and are supported by fair and socially balanced reforms. To do that, we need to, have greater first clarity on the conditionality, the link between the national plans, and how the country specific recommendations under the European semester will guide the design of national plans must be better defined. All stakeholders should have a clear understanding of how compliance will affect access to funding. Second, we need to address the democratic gap in both the design and monitoring of these plans. Local and regional authorities as well as other relevant stakeholders must be properly involved in decisions that affect them and the expertise must be included. Third, a key issue is the proposed macroeconomic conditionality and the possibility of suspending payments. Here, we must ensure a clearly defined framework based on the system of checks and balances and predefined proportionality in the application of the tool. Overall, there is a, let's say, compromise that supports citizens, strengthens strengthens the economy, and contributes to a stronger union, and, we will hope that the ideas will be taken up in the lead committees as well. Thank you.”
  European Semester (social dimension)
• “Thank you very much for the report. I'm going to be brief. But by way of introduction, I'd like to thank the Court of Auditors for the work done to support our work. And explicitly, the many men and women who work in the agencies day in, day out. We have an important job here in the Parliament, but we keep talking about the possible improvements and so on and so forth. But we shouldn't forget that every single day men and women go to work to further the work of the European Union. I'm glad that we have this focus on cyber security while having a broad outline of the situation as well. But alongside focusing on the green objectives, we need to look at the working conditions, how attractive the jobs are for women. How can we structure the agencies in such a way that we don't just have men of a certain age group working there? How can we have agencies which are attractive to all the people who should work there. I think this is something we need to discuss, but I'll leave it at that.”
  Gender roles, equality and inclusion
• “Thank you so much, the Commissioner. Thanks for being here. It's a big milestone to always do these interinstitutional dialogues and that you are fulfilling and maybe just very quickly to ask on the current fulfillment. So do you think that the ground component will be, uh, you know, fully empty by the end of the RF or how much of the ground component will still be open? I think that's just to get maybe a quick idea on this. And then I want to build a bit on what you've been saying about the next MFF and the learnings from the RF. Um, first, on the, uh, ex-ante and ex-post auditing, do you feel that there has been a like a like some learnings have been transferred into the pillar one? And on the final beneficiaries, do you think there is some learnings that are being transferred into the pillar one? Um, and then because you said this, I think half an hour ago, um, do you think there should be like a fallback clause in the, in the pillar one performance metrics so that you cannot go back on reforms that you had committed to and implemented under the RF. And then on the new debt program, which you've just mentioned. Um. Is it correct that then it would just be codecision? Uh, that could trigger the new debt program or what kind of procedure would. Because I don't think you need an own resources decision again, to to start it just to understand a bit on the on the new debt program, if it would be easier to trigger it than the last, uh, RF, for example, or the yuri, to be precise. And I think that's it. Thank you. Maybe. Any other learnings? You still feel that they have been good? Well transferred.”
  Conditions to access EU budget
• “Thank you, chair. I think we are all very much aware in this committee of the economic situation that Europe is currently in. And I think we really should learn when we look, for example, at Canada, how they are currently trying to do trade agreements with a lot of different geographies, but also trying to unite the internal market. The business world is, I think, a good proposal in this direction because we have a lot of costs. Actually, hidden costs for companies currently because of, let's say, non Europe or at least not a fully harmonized market. And I do believe that the European business wallet can help here also, especially in conglomeration with the EU ink proposal to make it a bit easier for businesses to work across the union, especially when it comes to our administration. What our priorities look like is that we do want a very fast take up of the wallets and a fast rollout, so we would be very much in favor of speeding up the process as much as possible. We also believe that it should work with the existing systems. So I think that's a very good point to make sure that basically we do not punish those member states, which were fast in digitizing, but we take that into the system and don't build parallel systems.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• “Thank you Commissioner. I have to agree with my colleagues that I think, and also with you, that we have a lack of space capabilities on many fronts. I mean, two weeks ago, I went and looked at an innovative space company, and I asked them how they got their satellite up, and they said, we paid the €2 million for for space because the next best option would be ten times more expensive. So this is the reality where we stand when it comes to the the launch facilities. And then on the other side, when it comes to what kind of services can citizens and also companies and also the governments and militaries get in Europe. It is absolutely clear that American services are of a much higher quality, and we have seen the relevance in defence, for example, in Ukraine. So now you're proposing and I'm very happy that you're proposing a law and really putting, you know, a focus on space, also on debris and other elements. But in the end, you're proposing a law that regulates access to the single market in Europe and try to basically change a bit the industry. By that, I mean, can that really fulfill the promise of delivering innovation for space companies in Europe? If you put these additional rules in place, and how can we make sure that in the future, for example, telecommunication and geolocation, we have the capabilities in Europe that actually work? I mean, this law doesn't seem to be fully able to to achieve that goal.”
  EU competences on space policy
• “There seems to be unhappiness about the debate. I just wanted to ask you the same question that I asked Mr. Benifet, what do you think about these new AI tools that are basically a mix of image generating AI and social media like vibes? And there are others where basically your whole feed is generated by AI. There's no more, let's say, actual video content. Do you see that there are increased risks for fake news?”
  Transparency and oversight of AI-generated content
• “Commissioner. Or as it should be, dear Minister of the United States of Europe. Please thank your boss for her unwavering support for Ukraine. It's absolutely clear we need to make Russia pay for the mass murdering that they're doing in Ukraine. The fact that Trump does not support this is another sign that the transatlantic relationship is really drowning in the transatlantic. But for Europe and for Ukraine to be able to defend itself in the next wave of Russian aggression and to deal with the next president, we need to do more fundamental changes. We are still playing chess on a chessboard that others put the flame thrower to. We need to make more fundamental changes. Commissioner, it's time to really change the rules. And that means we need to imagine a new European Union, a United States of Europe, where we have a real government that can defend our interests, where we are not just transferring some funds to national ministries of defense, but where we open the treaties. And it is up to the European Council to take Parliament's position and open the treaties. You just need 14 countries. You can vote this weekend or tomorrow and make it a reality. We need a new European Union now. Thank you.”
  EU political integration
• “First of all, excuse me for the just on time arrival. Normally I would love to have listened to the full debate, but my team took a very good note. It was not possible otherwise. I first of all want to thank the rapporteur for coming forward with the report. I think this is a huge improvement to past EPP rapporteurs. And I think it's amazing that we can actually, you know, now work on the basis of a text. I think that is commendable. And I think it's also good that you put your ideas on the table, even if they might diverge quite heavily from, I think, what some of the groups I hear have mentioned, and that also is my group's interest. I think, first of all if I had the choice, I would have switched it around. I would first of all, introduce the digital euro and its online capability, which for me really is the core answer to the idea of prevailing and preserving sovereignty in the European Union when it comes to payment systems. I think this is really like the core choice. If all the payments are moving into the digital world, which they are, I think we need to have that option of using a sovereign public payment system, and that comes with certain complexities. And that's why I think we should also be open to try to reduce them as much as possible. But I don't think we can move away from the core principle that the digital euro proposal has in itself, which is to actually allow for sovereign digital payments. And then, you know, they come all the other questions that we can solve later on. But I think this is really the Underlaid public sovereign payment system is is what we need as an answer to the current context. And in the in the order of what we want to achieve, I think this is really the core of the matter.”
  Digital euro
• “We talk about the single market for years. We hear from the council, we hear from the commission. The single market is so important. It will help so many of us. But then, let's be honest, if we want a single market, this means that we will change the Ministry of Finance position in Germany right now. There is nothing stopping stopping the German Chancellor and the German SPD to actually do the steps that are necessary. It's all national protectionism, and if we want this to change, we need to be honest with ourselves. Or we say we don't want the single market, but I'm a bit fed up with this single market talk. If we don't do the steps that are necessary.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• “The good thing is, I'm in all three committees, I think so I can speak on all of them. No. Thanks a lot for the introduction. I think just have a general understanding question and excuse my ignorance here. I see when I look at the project list that some projects are still under appraisal, so I was just wondering what that meant. If there's still projects under appraisal. And then in terms of like the focus of the program, I see projects from university funding to harbours to airports. I was just wondering whether you think that the program was targeted enough. And then I would like to mirror the question that the S&D colleague asked about the market failure. Is there any understanding of which projects would not have been financed by the private sector if the public money wasn't available, and if there was any large divergence in the interest rates provided by the EIB versus the private sector and what the divergence was? The next question would be on startup share. I see a lot of large company names and I was just wondering. Maybe I overlooked it. If you had any idea on SMEs and startups, shares of the Efsi programme. And then as a more general philosophical question, maybe especially to the Court of Auditors, if you compare instruments like loan guarantees, loans, equity via funds of funds, investment equity via direct investment desk and procurement, what kind of learnings do you think we can draw for the next MFF and the Competitiveness Fund? Thank you.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Colleagues. Tomorrow, our European athletes will continue to rock the Winter Olympics, while Macron and Meloni and co will sit down to think about how we can have more world champions in our industry. But without tough choices. This is pretty much the same as putting me in very shiny tights and giving me great skates to compete in figure skating. It's not going to work. Dear colleagues, if we want European champions, we need to start to invest in talent early. That means we need procurement, pension funds and savings to reach the stars of tomorrow and not the stars of yesterday. If we want more European champions, we have to invite the best talent of the world to come here, and we have to coach them to get job opportunities for them. If we want more world champions, we need the mother of all single market programs, real and radical changes that get rid of all interstate hurdles in Europe. Because, colleagues, while I very much look forward to the EU ink, it's not going to solve all the growth hurdles our champions have when hiring talent, selling their products and services across European borders. Colleagues, there's one last cheat that we can do, which is to count all our medals together in Europe, and then we are the world champions. So I really hope that our leaders sit together to also unite the United States of Europe. Thank you.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• “Thank you. Chair. Colleagues Europe has the talent, the creativity and the drive. But very often our innovators can't scale in Europe. And that's because they can't find the funds to grow here. So what can we do? First, we need to unlock more private money for growth by completing the capital Markets union and the banking union, and to give basically access to to cheaper finance to SMEs and scale ups. But we also need to turn the savings via, for example, savings investments account into innovation finance. And that can also happen if we allow large institutional investors to invest more in venture capital. And I think that's something that we really need to look at, and we need to allow our companies to enlist in stock exchanges in Europe more easily. Second, I think the regulatory environment can be improved for small innovators specifically. And the 28th regime that looks at insolvency Solvency regulation and stock option rules and also tax rules could be a good start, but we should not forget that we need to also harmonise our rules in general, not just at the 28th regime on the side. And thirdly, and finally, I think it's really important that we use our public money in the right ways. We should never try to crowd out private investment. We should make sure that we don't focus too much on actual equity by public money, but that we use the public money to via, for example, the EIB and the EIF to crowd in private capital and not replace it. We should also look at inclusive ecosystem. So how can we bring in more female founders but also youth founders? And how can we potentially build more local innovation hubs in rural areas so that we don't only have a city innovation, but also rural innovation as well? Um, colleagues, I think we can really use this mandate also, as our colleague from renew has said, to make sure that we have more access to finance so that we can use the great talent and drive that we have in our union to innovate better. Thank you very much.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• “And since there is no green badge I think I'll also take that role, if I may. Um, I'll be very quick. I mean, I many questions have been asked in the same direction on like what's going on right now and what can we learn from the future just on the first part of what's going on right now? I mean, I did hear from multiple countries that certain reforms are taking out of the national recovery and resilience plans right now, this fall and have been taken out. And so I just want to ask very simply, was there any reform deleted out of a National Recovery and Resilience plan A and B, was then there some form of reduction of the grants which are connected to these plans or not? Um, and just as a bracket, I mean, a performance based instrument is not successful if all the money is disbursed. But if the performance is reached, and if not, all the money is disbursed because certain performance, like milestones and targets were not achieved, that's completely fine. I think that shows that the tool works because you have actually withheld the cash because the performance wasn't there. So I just want to counter this narrative that we need to get to absorptions of too high of a degree.”
  Conditions to access EU budget
• “Thank you. President. Vice president. Colleagues. Europe is like a football team where every player plays on a different court under different rules, and then we wonder why we lose globally. And of course, we nod our heads when our coach tells us to maybe train a bit more together. But I wonder if everyone here agrees. The council, the commission, the parliament. We need a single court. We need a single market. Why isn't it happening? And the truth is that some of us would actually lose if we face internally 40% of goods and 40 and 100% tariffs for services. If we lose €1 trillion or 5% of GDP per year, if we lose all our start ups to go to the US. There is a reason for it. And the answer is that some of us would lose because competition on the same court will hurt some of us. It will cost jobs even if it will create even more. It will mean that some incumbents will go bankrupt. Even if more successful companies will be created. When Friedrich Merz is blocking the banking union, he is doing it for the Sparkassen and Raiffeisen banks. When Emmanuel Macron blocks the idea of opening procurement, he is doing it for a local defense and national defense industries. And when Giorgia Meloni stops the single market for services, it's because she's protecting Italian lawyers, notaries and others. So, colleagues, let's just be honest, if we protect national monopolies, we will lose out on the global and on the international stage. The price for competitiveness is that we are honest and we take the bitter pill of stopping national rules. Thank you so much.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• “Yes. First of all, thank you to the rapporteur for the presentation of the priorities also and to the shadows. And I'm still in the listening phase with the industry. So I think there's a lot of things still to learn, but maybe generally I think we can differentiate between factors that affect all new innovators. And yeah, I think I mean they go into research, market deployment, um, capital access. You have mentioned some compliance, internal market harmonization, maybe also data usage. And and I think we just need to understand a bit in this specific industry, what are the ones that we should underline beyond what has to be done anyways to increase competitiveness and innovation capabilities. And I do have a couple of questions at this point. I think that maybe the commission can also comment on if they if they comment on later. And the first one is there was apparently a 2001 strategy for biotech already in the European Union. And I just want to understand why many of these points that seem to be relevant now haven't been done until now, or what has been done. Maybe there can be an explanation, a bit about what happened since then. And then there is a question of the definition of biotech. I think there's still uncertainty what exactly that is and how we can, you know, really have a strategy for that sector. And and then maybe, yeah, like a question on the fragmentation across member state legislation, especially in this often very regulated field. Do you think that the EMA, Efsa and Echa should be granted more power over the national agencies? How can we really push for harmonization? I think these would be the questions I have. Thank you.”
  EU policy on ethical standards in biotechnology applications
• “But we also don't want to have a situation where we cannot follow the money to the actual builds of each project, or we have where we have misuse and projects that are designated as funded by the European Union. So this is something I think, where I would like to move to the next stage. And this is something maybe we can also in the Budget Committee have and the budgetary control committee, longer discussions in detail of how we can marry these two things without constantly running in circles. And I just want to underline one thing, which is that, of course, we cannot go even into a stage where we are worse than the RF, so that now the proposal is that money is disbursed based on milestones and targets, without a prior check of whether they have actually been achieved. I think that is for sure not going to be the way we can go. So I think just my very concrete question to all the stakeholders and commission is can you make a more concrete proposal of how we can basically follow the money to the final project while not losing the performance based approach? Thank you.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Now it works. So first of all, I think the large group here shows that maybe we didn't do ourselves a favor with abolishing exclusive competences for some committees, but that's an internal comment on our rules of procedure. Second I have to say that I very much feel repeated. I think, Monica, you also see that to the dance that we had in the RF working group over the last years since we discussed the RF, because of course, there are two philosophies. One is we follow the outcomes and we look at milestones and targets, is the performance based idea. And we really don't care too much how much things cost. In the end, we don't follow the euros. We just look if milestones and targets have been achieved. And the other one is the cost based approach where we basically follow the taxpayers money until the end. And I have to say, I'm a bit frustrated that we are still at this philosophical, fundamental discussion and not at a solution stage where we can actually see how we can marry the two because they have both their merit. Of course, we want to focus on outcomes and we want to incentivize that. Countries are using the money more efficiently and then can maybe reuse the money differently.”
  EU fiscal rules and oversight of national budgets
• “And then, um, on the future, I just wonder now that we've seen that the negotiations really go in between the the commission and the individual member states. Wouldn't you also say it makes sense that if we have national plans in the future, that the Parliament gets a vote on the plans on block, so not individually on the plans, but if we have, for example, in the future, the assessment of the commission of the 27 plans in the beginning, that then there is one vote for the European Parliament to ensure that there is basically public visibility and And transparency on what's in the plants before they are finally adopted by the member states. Because what we can see is that the council has not stopped a single plant because they don't want to stop each other's money flowing. So doesn't it make sense that we have a check by the Parliament in between, where we can see whether the plants are really in line? And wouldn't it help the Commission in its negotiations with the individual member states on the plants? Thank you.”
  Transparency requirements of EU institutions
• “Surprisingly, I agree with my colleague on many aspects and I quickly want to thank you also for the proposal. But three things to note. First, we failed to make Russia pay with the frozen assets. Second, not all countries stand behind this proposal, which is a shame and should have real consequences for these countries. And third, we are again in a last minute procedure. And so my question would be, I mean, when we negotiated the Ukraine facility, did we already know that there would be more funds needed? And are we now in a situation where we can create stability for Ukraine and also for us? And will you make sure that in the future we have codecision and not, you know, last minute procedures which will sideline Parliament? And can you maybe elaborate on this last proposal that we heard from the press? About 800 billion that are being prepared, reconstruction proposal of some sort. And can you make sure that this will at least go through Parliament? Thank you.”
  Russia-Ukraine conflict (10th term)
• “But we also don't want to have a situation where we cannot follow the money to the actual builds of each project, or we have where we have misuse and projects that are designated as funded by the European Union. So this is something I think, where I would like to move to the next stage. And this is something maybe we can also in the Budget Committee have and the budgetary control committee, longer discussions in detail of how we can marry these two things without constantly running in circles. And I just want to underline one thing, which is that, of course, we cannot go even into a stage where we are worse than the RF, so that now the proposal is that money is disbursed based on milestones and targets, without a prior check of whether they have actually been achieved. I think that is for sure not going to be the way we can go. So I think just my very concrete question to all the stakeholders and commission is can you make a more concrete proposal of how we can basically follow the money to the final project while not losing the performance based approach? Thank you.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Thank you. President. Commissioner. Over the last 50 years, the US listed 200 companies with a market value of more than €10 billion. In Europe, we listed 14. These companies are not just any companies. They are the companies that shape the way we live, how we communicate, how we shop, and how we entertain ourselves. And I see in this work programme that we again differentiate between competitiveness, industry and then on the other side, start ups and scale ups. I think that's a fundamental mistake. We have to think our competitiveness, our industry from those who innovate, from the start ups and scale ups, and then we can be able to compete. Let me look at the program from that perspective. First, compliance. It's great that we have the 28th regime, the EU Inc as a proposal in there. But when I look at harmonization of of our rules in Europe, there is too little simplification. Must mean harmonization. Second, when I look at capital, it's great that we look at the securitization again. But I wonder where is this proposal on venture capital that you have been proposing in the past? I can't see it. We need money to go into the future industries there, there as well. And then third talent, access to talent. I'm sorry, but there is too little when it comes to activation of the female workforce. When I look at the internal migration in Europe, it's impossible to hire someone across the continent without having tax issues. Why is it not possible to go there? And lastly, on talent migration, the debate we have here in this House but across Europe on migration is too negative. We need to attract all these smart people from the Silicon Valley that are now looking for a new home. Thank you.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• “I apologize for the delay. I will blame it on the German pilots who are currently striking. So excuse me for for being late in that regard. Um. I'm very happy that we have the chance to discuss the IOPs directive now, and I'm very much looking forward to your views on the matter. I think we had a very good exchange of views or more a hearing last week, where we learned from the experts on the matter to really understand where the current situation is and what we can improve. I also made it clear in that, um, meeting already that I think we have a pension crisis when we look at the situation in many member states. It is clear that the younger generation will not be able to benefit from the system if we just rely on pillar one. And therefore, I think it's very timely that we also look at pillar two and pillar three. I mean, in Germany, for example, we know that 80% of workers are currently fully dependent on pillar one. And it's clear that this is not going to hold with the current demographics. And so I think it's important that we look at how we can make IOPs and perhaps successful. And the question that I want to ask you in this exchange of views is a bit what is success for you? What are the drivers of success in the AIOps review? And there are different, let's say, candidates for it.”
  EU policy on aging workforce and pensions
• “Like, excuse me that I asked this, but I, I simply wanted to touch upon what you mentioned. And now you said simplification is the only thing that we must do for the internal market. What about harmonization? What would be your concrete proposal as far as harmonization in the European Union? What are the next steps that ought to be taken in order to simplify the internal market?”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• “But apparently I have two slots. So I have the budget and the econ had. So excuse me, I don't think I'll use the full time for both slots, but just to have some lenience on the time. So first of all, I just want to say that I strongly disagree with my colleague from Reno. I do think that the RAF was a huge success to stabilize the economy also in times of crisis, especially also with a strong perspective on the eurozone. But to my questions, I just want to understand correctly that I that from your briefing, you are basically saying that once the funds are transferred to Investeu, for example, by a member state, then the milestone or the target is fulfilled for these funds. Just to understand that if that is actually what you have been saying. And the second question would be, given that there will be no technical or any other extension, how much of the funds do you think will be still unspent at the end of the period? The third point, just specifically on on Romania, given that there is the excessive deficit procedure. Do you think any RF funds are going to be affected by that? Will the European Commission decide to suspend some of these funds? And the fourth one, um, goes a bit in the direction of my colleague as well, is just in the design of the future MFF. I just read that there's a German paper saying that, you know, um, the performance based part should be basically cohesion. So we should bind cohesion funds to the fulfillment of reform milestones and targets. And but we also still have this issue of outcome based, um, auditing for the, uh, as it was done with the RF or following the money on the project level auditing. So I was just wondering whether you had advanced your thinking on performance based auditing for the future MFF. Thank you so much.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “I mean, if you want, you can add your recommendation to the commission. In your answer to my second question. Um, it is about the the question of, um, the payment sovereignty, where we, I think, have a mutual understanding that maybe it's good to have a digital euro and one of the shadows and some others have already spoken about it. But, um, I think we have a common understanding on the payment sovereignty issue and the advantages of the euro on that side. I was just wondering when it comes to stablecoins, once mica is correctly applied, do you really believe that the digital euro is solving additional issues also in relation to stablecoins? Or do you think this is more like something that has to be governed by Amica? Um, that would be my question.”
  Digital euro
• “I think we need to also look on how visa procedures are being implemented at the moment. There's huge issues in the implementation and the deadlines of visa applications, and I think it's not working. Cross-border hiring within the EU is a nightmare. If you want to hire someone who you want to even give stock options potentially for from another member state, it's almost impossible. And the costs are insane. So I'm wondering like, why are we not doing something there? Female workforce participation also a topic that sadly in a lot of conservative governments at the moment, is completely overlooked in its effect for innovation. And then I'm very happy, but that we have, you know, the idea of potentially having the 28th regime and working on this, but it's actually not harmonisation. It's creating a priority regime. So what are we going to do in terms of services and product and, you know, registration in different member states to really make it one internal market that allows startups to scale. A lot of the scaling funds that I talk to say like, I'm not investing in Europe because scaling is too difficult. So what are we going to do to actually focus on our core competence of making the internal market really one market and not have these barriers when it comes to registration of products and services? Thank you.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• “Yes. Thanks a lot, chair. And thanks a lot to the European Court of Auditors for this. Um, interesting report. Actually, um, I have to admit that I did not read the full report yet, but I the summary and some things and also the presentation is very interesting. Um, we know that the F was launched in really extraordinary circumstances and it created massive expectations. And I think that we like now also learn about, uh, maybe some of the expectations were a little bit too high. Um, of course, it's good to make the promise that our reforms would be structural, transformative, aligned with country specific recommendations and everything. And I wonder a little bit if, um, yeah. For example, um, the word reform in all of the like. Yeah. If it fits to what is happening, um, on the ground in all the cases when it's maybe just more kind of a milestone On the way to somewhere. That's one of the questions I have. If we are not creating too high expectations with some of the reforms, it's maybe not a real reform. And which does not mean that, of course, in the end, the reforms should should deliver somehow. Um, I think that, um, maybe in the end, um, yeah, it's it's also, of course, interesting what happens in the future. As you said, it's not that easy to measure the outcomes.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “I think we all like simplification. When life is simple, it's nice. And I have to say that the current proposal here and what we voted on and what we will vote on is not really a simplification. Sadly, I think there's a lot of money coming back and we are using it, and I think that's very good because Investeu is a great program, but to change the definition of SMEs and take the ownership criteria out is, for me, not simplification. It just means that companies that previously weren't SMEs can suddenly be classified as SMEs. So I don't think that's a great idea. We should have a simple definition that is the same across all our legislation, and shouldn't be changing the definition in every file just because we think it's a good idea. So I think now it's done. We all agree with it. We will vote for it. But I think for the next MFF, it is really important that we have one SME definition across all files and that we make sure that investeu the future, which is the European Competitiveness Fund, can actually be used for investing also in innovation. And that means maybe we need an SME and a startup quota also in the European Competitiveness Fund to make sure that the window doesn't just vanish. Thank you very much.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Thank you. Chair. Mr. Cipollone, we have talked about many different elements of the digital euro in past exchanges, but also today, and I just wanted to maybe focus on one that we haven't talked so much about, which is the situation of small shop owners, like the local cafe or bakery where you maybe got your coffee this morning. We know that the payments are dominated by Visa and Mastercard, who dictate very high fees for them. And I mean, there are numbers that show that small businesses end up paying 3 to 4 times more than big corporates for transactions. And if they would refuse Visa and Mastercard, they would lose out on sales quite heavily. So we know that regulation hasn't really improved the situation, that capping fees didn't really work. So I just wanted to maybe ask a bit of a provocative question as the current Digital Europe proposal doesn't really, you know, focus on that and focus more on the renumeration for banks. And the provocative question would be like, did you ever consider making the digital euro completely cost free for merchants, since it is a public infrastructure and what are the considerations that would follow such an idea?”
  Digital euro
• “Dear colleagues, dear Commissioner, dear president, after Trump's Liberation Day terrorists, we saw that in a really unusual market response. We saw that both US treasuries and the dollar fell in the face of the erratic behavior of Donald Trump. So if there was ever a time for a Hamiltonian moment, it is definitely today where we can issue common debt. This is not the MFF is not only about the future budget, but it's also a once in a lifetime and once in a decade opportunity to anchor investor trust. So we are currently stuck between a decreasing budget from 2 trillion with the RAF and the MFF back to almost only 1 trillion. While our challenges are increasing and all of you have mentioned some of these challenges like competitiveness and innovation, but we have a chance now to basically come forward forward with a permanent EU level bond where we create a deep, liquid, euro denominated safe asset that will allow us to be on par with the US treasuries and go into the investments that we need for our European Union. Now, let's seize this moment. Let's use this Hamiltonian moment to issue common European debt. Thank you so much.”
  Own EU resources
• “Thank you chair. Thank you also for the colleagues for this discussion on the European Semester. I very much look forward to this work, because I think what we saw during the RF is that the overarching fiscal architecture of the EU is evolving, and I think we will see with the new MFF that the rule of country specific Recommendations might still be underlined as it was in the RF, and that therefore we need to look at a couple of elements of how to deal with the CSRs. The first one is Democratic oversight. I think both in the involvement of the development of the country specific recommendations. Specifically, we need to make sure that Parliament is sufficiently heard, but also when it comes to compliance and accountability, it can't be that some member states very much follow the CSRs and others who often ask for specific reform recommendations, such as Germany, don't do that at all. And we had a situation where the country specific recommendations under the RF were not followed by the German government. And currently we have a situation where the 4 to 7 year plan is not being set up in a way by the German government due to the current situation. So Germany is just an example.”
  EU fiscal rules and oversight of national budgets
• “Colleagues, imagine a little boy, Omar, who was born to Palestinian parents in Jordan. When Omar turned 15, he emigrated to the US, where he arrived with a very basic level of English. Now, for some in this room, this triggers an almost instinctive negative reaction in your minds. Omar doesn't just arrive as Omar, but is a dangerous threat to our primarily white Christian culture. Just last week, actually, German Chancellor met dangerously connected deportations with the idea of improvement of the image of our cities. Omar, it is implied, doesn't belong next to our cathedrals and half timbered houses. And of course, if you go further to the right, the AfD openly flirts with the idea of remigration the unconstitutional idea of explicitly kicking out 25% of Germans out of our country. President, in your plans, your work program, we can sadly see how much of this negative discourse has also made it here on the European level. We don't see a single positive, comprehensive proposal for labor labour migration and we really need it. Our businesses need it on all skill levels. So, president, we need your loud voice to speak the truth about migration. There is no competitiveness without international talent. 15 year old immigrant Omar turned into 60 year old Professor Omar Yagi, one of the six Nobel Prize laureates from the US this year, half of whom, by the way, were immigrants. Will you, president, finally stand up for the real stories of the millions of immigrants in Europe, and for those who still need to join us every year to make us competitive? Will you ensure that the motto United in Diversity is true for the Philippines, but also of the Omar, for the Omar's in this country and in this union? Thank you.”
  Legal migration
• “Yes. Two very precise questions. First, will the MFF see a separate space program, or will this be part of a competitiveness fund? And second, um, how do you see the future of European telecommunication via space?”
  EU competences on space policy
• “Yes. Thank you for the presentation of the strategy. I have to say that similar to my colleagues, I see the challenge also as Draghi defined it. I mean, we have a huge venture capital gap. When we look at the US over the last 50 years, the US registered 200 companies listed and with a market value of more than €10 billion. I think 14. So we have 10 trillion in savings. But to be honest, you say, look, the ambition is very high, but there will be no one single tool to solve this gap that we see. But even if I add all your tools together, I don't really see how this is going to make the big shift. I mean, you have some issues on securitization. You want to change a bit the prudential rules, and then maybe do something on venture capital and use or improve these tools that currently nobody uses like Pep. So I'm really asking myself, what kind of concrete measures will you take to tackle the national fragmentation when it comes to tax and other rules that cross that really stop cross-border flow of capital? What are you going to do to really boost growth funds, which seem to be a huge lack in Europe? How will you make it more attractive to European companies to do their IPO in Europe, rather than on the New York Stock Exchange? I mean, these are all big questions that don't really see answered in your strategy. Thank you.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• “Um, now, um, maybe I would also ask them, like the commission first question to the commission, um, how will you ensure that milestones and targets in the second half of the implementation actually reflect, um, these findings, but also, um, substance, especially for labor rights and social inclusion? Um, I also have a question to the European Court of Auditors. Of course, you highlighted in the report that gender equality was addressed in only 10% of the reforms. And, um, yeah. What do you think? What more could be done to ensure that the social rights, not only gender, but also fair wages, inclusion, um, aren't just broad principles but also embedded in this, um, reform design. And the question to both institutions, um, how do you see the findings influencing the upcoming and also the future programming of the EU in the field of the labour market? Um, I think that's to close my intervention, um, that we should read the findings of this special report also as a kind of wake up call, because I think it's a good report, but not the best findings, so to say, And we should treat it also as a wake up call as we approach the second half of the implementation. So I think very important findings, but also some tasks for us and the Commission especially, and the member states to do.”
  European Semester (social dimension)
• “I didn't expect such a formal yes. Dear Mr. Shim, you talked about the battery infrastructure and I was just wondering. It seems that we are ten years behind in our technology when it comes to batteries and previous industrial policy cases, for example, with Northvolt didn't seem to work so well. So what's your idea of how to make Europe competitive when it comes to batteries? Thank you.”
  Sustainability of batteries regulation
• “And the second one is that we should really abstain from 100% grants. So I think to have some form of a co-financing of the different entities is necessary to make sure that we balance, um, the EU financial support, and also that we use EU money to really leverage the highest form of investments. And I think an important part is also that the defence industry currently is not lacking financial, uh, you know, capacity, especially if you look at share prices or also the willingness of banks to provide loans. So we should really also see where do we see the the need and how can we make sure that we focus on innovation also in this field. And it also needs to be clear that this is a short term solution. And and we need to more in the long term medium term we need fresh money. And I think it's absolutely clear that in the context of the next MFF, we have have to have a serious discussion about how we can actually make the Connecting Europe facility work, how we can ensure that horizon has sufficient funds. Um, because this is all defence related and relevant and I think, uh, we can support and, and we look forward to the compromises that will be found. But, um, I think it's important to underline the need that this can only be a short term solution. Thank you.”
  Defence spending
• “Thank you. Dear Commissioner, you should not have caved to Trump's bullying. You should not have stripped the digital tax just because of the looming Us-eu trade deal. Let's be clear a fair tax on Big Tech should not be a negotiation chip in any trade negotiation. Nobody likes to pay taxes, but employees pay them and small business owners pay their fair share as well. Why? Because they understand that we need them to afford our pensions, subsidised trains and for high quality healthcare systems. But tech giants don't pay their fair share. In general, they pay around 9% of taxes in Europe, while traditional businesses pay 23%. So since they are creative, we should be creative as well. How about first we introduce an Amazon tax, a tax that is basically put on every product sold on large online platforms to equal the competition with local shops. How about second? Social media tax? We could make meta, YouTube and TikTok pay for every user that they have in Europe, for example €1 per user. And third, how about a network usage tax so that big tech actually pay for the networks and the infrastructure that they use. Commissioner every company that profits from Europe should also profit Europe. Thank you very much.”
  EU taxation policy (political compass)
• “I think we just need to make sure that overall we have accountability when it comes to that. The next point is on the question of sufficient spending. I think here we realize that, you know, it's very good to have budgetary deficit rules and to, you know, look at the overall stability of a member state. But we also need to understand that very needed investment gaps need to be filled, and that non-recurring spending is sufficient in member states to allow for infrastructure investments and to allow for the transition that we need. The whether you call it clean or green and digital dual transition that we have to do, and we believe that there is a lot to be done there. And of course, then we also need to look at practices that are not sustainable, like the subsidies of fossil fuels and other elements that are not in line with the Green Deal objectives, where we, I think, need to work a bit further. So we very much look forward to this work, but I think we should generally keep in mind that we need a functioning, overarching fiscal architecture, including a new budget. And yeah, a good coupling, a good methodology for coupling reforms and investments. Thank you.”
  EU fiscal rules and oversight of national budgets
• “Colleagues, there is only one and only one priority at the moment. And that is to establish European independence. Every action we take now, every law we adopt, has to establish this independence, military independence, democratic independence and economic independence. And, Commissioner, it is therefore a major failure of your Commission that we do not see a fundamental harmonisation of the single market. Right now. What we see is little bits and pieces, but we really miss a proposal that makes it super easy for companies to scale across the continent, to hire people across the continent and to sell their goods and services. And of course, we are in favour of the EU, but it establishes a 28th regime. It doesn't abolish the national regimes that we currently have. One thing I want to echo from the roadshow on the 28th regime on the EU is that we did over the past months in Helsinki, in Paris, in Berlin and in Amsterdam, and that is that European innovators want a solution fast. They are not thinking about years, they are thinking about weeks. And so maybe we should consider having a fast speed boat regulation that is limited but really delivers. Now and then we can discuss labour law, tax law and insolvency law in a bigger package. Thank you so much.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• “Thank you. I give the floor to myself and I have a couple of questions. The first one is if you steal €60 and you have to then pay three, is that really a fair, you know, fine. And you adopted the fine for the online and technology breach basically on €3 billion I think a couple of months ago. And people said it was in no relation to the 60 billion in profit that was taken at that time by breaking competition rules. So do you think that our fines are high enough? Then I have a couple of questions on different markets and how you think about them. I understand that ChatGPT has a market share of around 71%. I think went down from around 80 something. So and again, we have a market here where it's completely free of for use mostly. And how do you see the concentration of power in the large language models area then. I mean data storage, we are aware of the concentration issues, but there is now because and we discussed this yesterday with the Executive Vice president Virkkunen a retraction of the Data Governance Act. We are taking away the unbundling provisions that basically said the data intermediaries need to not be connected to any other of the services, such as data storage. So I was just wondering if you have looked into data intermediary markets and then a more philosophical question on state aid and competition policy. I feel that the more our European economy is under pressure, the more countries feel like asking for state exemptions on a range of different issues, whereas the real solution would be the Common Market, as you've said. So I was wondering whether we shouldn't, you know, more forcefully apply state aid rules, but then on the other side, also complete the single market. Thank you.”
  EU Competition policy
• “Yes. Thank you. Chair. Hello, colleagues. I'm speaking on behalf of my colleague, Maria Ohisalo. So I'll read out her statement. First, we must acknowledge the rapid adoption and various opportunities of AI also in the financial sector. However, the draft report paints an overly optimistic picture by highlighting opportunities while downplaying significant risks. Contrary to the draft's assertion that AI uses marginal, we see an increasing deployment of AI in high risk financial applications, with serious implications for market stability, consumer protection, and fairness. Second, the current regulatory framework is inadequate. We see loopholes, loopholes both in sector specific laws and within the AI act itself. Moreover, the growing environmental impact of AI technologies and the absence of a clear civil liability regime for AI caused harm remain unaddressed. Challenges. Therefore, our amendments call on the Commission to broaden the scope of high risk AI applications in financial services. I have to slow down. Therefore, our amendments call on the Commission to broaden the scope of high risk AI applications in financial services. Under annex three of the AI act, we also urge the Commission to propose a dedicated AI liability directive to establish clear civil liability rules for damages caused by AI systems in this sector. Finally, we ask for a comprehensive assessment of existing financial legislation to ensure it aligns with AI related risks and obligations, including when new or revised laws are necessary. We must harness AI's potential without compromising financial stability, consumer rights and sustainability. Thank you.”
  Financial regulation
• “The New World Order or the Old World Order is dead. We have heard this this week from the Commission president, and it is true. And that means that prosperity is something completely different now. Prosperity of individuals means resilience, and democracy and prosperity of the European continent means that we can stand up to blackmailing. And this is where the European Semester comes in. We can do a lot on the European level to harmonise our internal market, and actually we are not doing enough. We can do a lot to simplify our laws and we are doing something there. But we also need to understand that on the national level, a lot of reforms are not being done that are necessary to ensure the prosperity of our continent and of our individuals, that is, pension schemes that are also sustainable for the next generations, that is making tax schemes work so that women can actually also work without being disincentivized from doing it if they are in a partnership. There's a lot of stuff that we need to do, and we need the Parliament to have a voice on this European semester so that in the future we have these national reforms and that the national governments actually do them. Thank you very much.”
  European Semester (social dimension)
• “It sounded very nice that you said, you know, we need to build strategic autonomy, but I didn't really understand what you meant. So do you think that if Trump forces us to potentially open some of our regulations, that we should go ahead and do it because we are dependent when it comes to security? Or how would you go about because it seems that we are currently in a situation where we're not resilient, where we're not sovereign, and where our social media is completely biased.”
  EU-US relations
• “(10:44:26 – 10:45:14): Honesty. We talk about the single market for years. Yeah. We hear from the council. We hear from the commission. The single market is so important. It will help so many of us. But then let's let's be honest. If we want a single market, this means that we will change the ministry of finance position in Germany right now. There's nothing stopping stopping the German chancellor and the German SPD to actually do the steps that are necessary. It's all national protectionism. And if we want this to change, we need to be honest with ourselves, or we say we don't want the single market. But I'm a bit fed up with this single market talk if we don't do the steps that are necessary. Okay. Thank you. No. No. No. Is it a follow-up? No. No. No. It's not possible. Okay. Thank you. The next speaker, honorable Doreschal.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• “(11:30:05 – 11:33:00): Perfect. And then also, in following that, speak on behalf of the Econ Committee opinion, if that's okay. But first, as the budget shadow, colleagues, it's always very interesting to sit in this large round and hear all the different perspectives that the different groups have about what's important in these funds, but also the different committees. And it reminds me a bit of the time when we were negotiating the RF when we all had different priorities on competitiveness, employment and so on. And then what happened once the file was closed and adopted is that the negotiation between the commission and the member states was completely exclusive and without us involved. And so it just reminds me of the fact, again, that whatever we want in this law, we need to make it logical and, we need to make it possible to actually check whether these things are being done in the plans. And I think, just as a maybe more horizontal point of our right as a parliament over the budget, we need to make sure that this law actually makes sense. And what does it mean? It means that in article 2 and the European objectives, in article 3, the specific objectives, which is a super long Christmas tree of things, we understand how they actually need to be implemented and that we enforce that the European Commission needs to assess them and that we understand how this will be assessed. It also means that we understand what what happens if milestones and targets are not achieved. So a lot of people say, you know, there shouldn't be a suspension of payments. So what is then the effect of milestones and targets not being achieved? We also need to understand how auditing can work if it's performance based and not cost based in a way that it actually informs future costing exercises. So there's a lot of stuff which is more about the logic of the law that we need to make clear because otherwise, the ambiguity in the law will be used by the European Commission, especially against the smaller member states. And I tell you this from a perspective of someone who's from a larger member state, ambiguity is power of the commission versus smaller member states and less versus larger member states. And I am on fair treatment of of all regions of all member states no matter where they are, and that means we need to be very clear what the criteria are and what happens if they're not fulfilled. And I just want this, want to say this because I think it's actually the only way we can enable, fulfilling our priorities. What are our priorities as the green group? We want the life fund to be more clearly defined also in the level 1. We want just transition regions to be, fully represented as well again as they were in the past, MFF. And, of course, for us, it's super important, this has also been mentioned, to have the horizontal criteria and horizontal conditionality for rule of law of fundamental rights, but also for the regional involvement fully there and the link to the performance regulation fully in place as well. So this is, from my perspective, is the budget shadow. Is it okay if I directly speak as the econ opinion giving committee on behalf of, Thomas Bergada? Otherwise, I will wait.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “For right here. Um. The president. Thanks a lot. Let me go back to the stablecoins interventions. As you know, we deliberately, explicitly rejected the creation of an equivalence regime for foreign stablecoin issuers and crypto providers in the Mica regulation. And because we saw considerable risk when it comes to stability criteria. And since then, as you have also said, there have been recent developments, for example, with the Trump administration, fast tracking of the genius act and the executive order and so on. Um, and now we hear that there could actually be a way that US stablecoins could obtain full market access via the backdoor of fungibility and the multi issuance schemes, together with EU based companies, especially if the Commission interprets Mica like that. And so I was just wondering, president, how do you assess the implications of permitting or not stablecoins via these multi issuance with third country issuers in Europe. And and what would that mean for the requirements that we set out in the regulation. And what would you recommend to the European Commission therefore. And then I have a follow up later.”
  Regulation of crypto
• “So I think in Poland your party was governing for some time, but it doesn't happen often. But for Germany, I do agree with you. We even had a liberal finance minister, a liberal party which is supposedly helping the economy, who did not really advance on the savings and investment unit and the Capital Markets union. So I think it's really high time that the new German government stands up for a better European perspective on capital markets union, because we really need to tear down these fences between the different countries in order to have the innovation boost that we really need. Thank you so much.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• “Colleagues, if I wanted to go viral today, it would be very easy. I would just fabricate a little fake scandal with the people here in the first row. I would throw in some Soros, some Trump, some Elon Musk children, and suddenly maybe I make it very aggressive or I make it very vengeful, hateful, and suddenly we would go viral. And then you would say, ah, yeah, but people don't believe it. You know, they wouldn't believe that kind of stuff that Damien is making up. But then it doesn't really matter, does it? Because the damage is already done. The truth is destroyed. People start to distrust what they see online. And now we could say, yeah, but we have the Digital Services Act, and that's true. But in its core, the Digital Services Act is a consumer protection instrument. It is not a democracy protection instrument. And that's why I would ask you, executive Vice-President, to think about the Digital Democracy Act, an act that takes our rules that we have around elections, for example, with posters and transfers them into the digital digital age that checks for political bias, that looks at these algorithms and makes sure that our content is not randomly accelerated. Thank you so much.”
  Disinformation & online freedoms
• “Dear Mr. Costa. Yes, dear Mr. Costa. This is the house of European citizens. And the European citizens I talked to are pissed. They are very, very angry. They're angry at Trump for attacking Europe. They are proud of Europe. They like our culture. They like our values. But they are also very, very disappointed with the 27 national leaders. So the one message that I have from European citizens to your club of 27 national leaders is do the right thing and abolish yourself. Understand that there is no one with a format and the leadership to bring Europe forward in these difficult times in this new world order. So there is one task that you have on Thursday, which is abolish yourself and make sure we have a united European foreign policy, a United States of Europe that is able to act and lead in these times. Thank you.”
  EU political integration
• “Yes, absolutely. Thank you very much. I have two rather short questions. The first one is in regards to Italy. We just heard that before December or in December. Italy just cut back the budget earmarked for the energy communities by 60%. And this created a bit of an uncertainty for the applicants. And we were just wondering whether this was also part of the plan changes or how this can create investor certainty predictability. If these retroactive cuts are being done. And then the second question is a more personal one, whether going forward in the MFF and specifically in the NRP, you would prefer having these extensive late night meetings or whether you want to give Parliament just the real power to vote on individual plans so that you don't have to sit here. But we have more hard power instead of soft power.”
  Energy transition (state support)
• “Yes. I'm always amazed how in the European Parliament, you know, we can work across factions and we can even support each other in statements. So this is a statement from Anouk from burger. Thank you. Chair. I would like to thank Mr. Eller and his team for their work on this report. Incentivising defence related investments is, of course, incredibly important, especially these days, and looking critically at our own existing legislation with that in mind. Equally so, even better, it is when it does not cost the EU extra money, which I was happy to see was the conclusion of this clear and concise report. I strongly believe that investments in defence related technologies can contribute also to regional innovation and capacity. So I will table a few amendments to have that more prominent in the text. But other than that, I see very little reason why we won't be able to reach a swift and broad consensus. Thank you. So this was the intervention of Mrs. Bamberger. So I would now come to my own intervention. And first, also, thanks a lot for the draft report, Mr. Eller. And I think it's very good that we have the farm proposal on the table and to use untapped resources. I think that makes a lot of sense also for dual use purposes. And we definitely need to increase our defense capabilities. And I think there are two things that are important for us. First, to also preserve long term investments in the areas of that were intended originally by the programs to really make sure that we only use the unused funds and not deprioritized long term investments in the other fields that, you know, show the original intent of such programs.”
  Defence spending
• “The New World Order or the Old World Order is dead. We have heard this this week from the Commission president, and it is true. And that means that prosperity is something completely different now. Prosperity of individuals means resilience, and democracy and prosperity of the European continent means that we can stand up to blackmailing. And this is where the European Semester comes in. We can do a lot on the European level to harmonise our internal market, and actually we are not doing enough. We can do a lot to simplify our laws and we are doing something there. But we also need to understand that on the national level, a lot of reforms are not being done that are necessary to ensure the prosperity of our continent and of our individuals, that is, pension schemes that are also sustainable for the next generations, that is making tax schemes work so that women can actually also work without being disincentivized from doing it if they are in a partnership. There's a lot of stuff that we need to do, and we need the Parliament to have a voice on this European semester so that in the future we have these national reforms and that the national governments actually do them. Thank you very much.”
  European Semester (social dimension)
• “Now it works. So first of all, I think the large group here shows that maybe we didn't do ourselves a favor with abolishing exclusive competences for some committees, but that's an internal comment on our rules of procedure. Second I have to say that I very much feel repeated. I think, Monica, you also see that to the dance that we had in the RF working group over the last years since we discussed the RF, because of course, there are two philosophies. One is we follow the outcomes and we look at milestones and targets, is the performance based idea. And we really don't care too much how much things cost. In the end, we don't follow the euros. We just look if milestones and targets have been achieved. And the other one is the cost based approach where we basically follow the taxpayers money until the end. And I have to say, I'm a bit frustrated that we are still at this philosophical, fundamental discussion and not at a solution stage where we can actually see how we can marry the two because they have both their merit. Of course, we want to focus on outcomes and we want to incentivize that. Countries are using the money more efficiently and then can maybe reuse the money differently.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Allow me a broader comment. I think we talked about this topic very calmly, but I do believe in many countries we're in a pension emergency. Actually, if you look at the current situation of one fourth of, for example, of the German budget being needed to subsidize the pay as you go pillar, I think we're really in a very dire situation right now, and it's going to get much, much worse over the next years, and I don't really see how we can cover this with pillar one only. And I therefore believe that pillar two and also pillar three are quite important. And this is the context in which we're operating. So let me ask a couple of rather concrete questions maybe to Mr. Hughes. We are missing the impact investment and impact assessment. And therefore I'm wondering a bit like what do you think is really like the biggest level, the biggest change in the AIOps directive proposed by the European Commission? And also, do you think it would have made sense to look at the technical technical requirements and the solvency margin and maybe to, um, Mr. Juncker and Mrs. Smart, we are discussing constantly also the need to invest more into innovation capital. I mean, we mentioned what exact changes do you need in addition, or do you see in addition to what the commission has proposed, um, in order to enable that? So what are current blockers for more better results, basically for beneficiaries, but also for the innovation capital side. So I mean, just very precisely article 19 on the investment rules. Um, of course it says that assets shall be still predominantly invested in regulated markets Mtfs and ETFs. Are there additional changes in the investment rules that you think are necessary? Should we look at the solvency margin? What are real changes that can improve um beneficiaries outcomes. I'll leave it at these three people. Thank you.”
  EU policy on aging workforce and pensions
• “I also, as I understand history, I think Mr. Faber was also involved in allowing me to have this position as rapporteur. So thank you very much for for. So what do I say? Um, I think the big question mark is in many people's faces when looking at this review, I think, and this is maybe to the commission, an impact assessment would have helped to make it a bit clearer. Um what is happening and why this is happening and what the effect of the different proposals are. I think at least from my perspective, I would still stay with the fact that it's not a highly political question because we do agree on the goals. I think nobody wants to destroy functioning national systems. Everybody would like to increase the uptake. At least I have heard no one who doesn't believe that this is a decent goal and there's a bit of unclarity whether the. Let's say change of rules that has been proposed is going to increase the uptake. And I think there's a bit of a question mark on whether consolidation in itself is something that rules should force or enforce. Um, and I think there's a bit of clarity on what kind of governance changes and supervision changes are helpful. Of course, I have the benefit of the doubt that, um, the commission has really thought about their proposals. Uh, you know, very carefully. And we will look in our rapporteur's draft very carefully and for example, the prudent person principle and other ways to increase the uptake and, and to improve that our role as a legislator to improve the regulation as proposed. And we will take it very carefully. And we take all your points into consideration. Thank you so much.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Yeah. Just a quick frustration about the savings and investments union I feel that, you know everybody is saying the world is falling apart. We need to be stronger in Europe. We need to do more. And then we look at the proposal of the European Commission and especially also what the member states do. And it's a joke compared to what we would need. So I was just wondering if you had new ideas of how we can push the Savings and Investment Union to be a real exercise? Thank you.”
  European Banking Union
• “We want to make sure that the data localisation requirements are fully there in order to make sure that basic cybersecurity is safeguarded. And we do very much care about the principle of equivalence. So if we want to have digital procedures and this is the idea of the digital wallet, then they should not be undermined by certain industries interests to keep some procedures in person. And I think this is very important for us that the that there are no exemptions to the use of digital wallets to replace currently. Um, let's say more manual or in paper formats that we currently have. So, um, I do think that that a rollout to all communes, even local communities is necessary in order to have the full advantage of the business wallet. And that's something that we also want to ensure that we can think about a staged approach, maybe when it comes to smaller communes or local municipalities. But in the end, it should be clear that all across Europe you are able to sign digitally with all authorities involved. Thank you.”
  Electronic identity
• “Yes, that was clear enough, I think. I really also enjoy the conversations. That's not what I meant. I think what we need in addition, maybe is an actual power to vote on national plans on block. But we can discuss this then in the trilogues.”
  EU political integration
• “So I also want to thank the rapporteurs also. Thank you chairs and for the work. I think it's the right approach to not get too political on this report. I think we will have our political fights on the MFF. So when it is forward looking, I think it matters a bit more what we will decide there. And therefore I would keep it a bit more technical, but maybe a couple of points. And first, on the European priorities, I think it's very good that we really underlined in the trilogue negotiations that the money has to be spent according to European political priorities, but I think we did fail a bit when it comes to a European container. So cross-border projects are financed by the EU directly. I think that's something to mention. Um, some of the other elements we will amend have been mentioned by the colleagues, such as democratic oversight. I think we want to underline again the fiscal stabilization mechanism that the RF had. As I have said before, the big RSP. So the eurozone budget had to be revoked in order for the RF to come forward. And therefore, I think in the future, we also need to consider a bit what our fiscal stabilization tools will look like that can react to unemployment and GDP development in the different member states of the fiscal, of, of the currency union.”
  EU fiscal rules and oversight of national budgets
• “Commissioner. Minister. Colleagues, I'm very happy that the chair of the Defence Committee actually reminded us of the fact that Trump is currently using public funds to extend the white House with a soul, and I think it shows us that we have to maybe use this defense committee, that we have to also defend ourselves, defend ourselves against extravagance. I've been asked by the Econ committee to step in for a colleague to talk about the econ priorities. It is very clear that we believe also in our current situation, fiscal stability is of primary importance, and therefore it is good that we have a large European budget. And we should also consider this for the future. And that, of course, competitiveness is of importance. And if you actually look at how Canada is reacting to the US trade tariffs at the moment, you can see that they're really trying to strengthen the internal market. And I think that's something where we can also get much better in deepening the internal market in general and especially especially with the 28th regime. As a last point, looking forward to the next MFF, I think it's important that we maintain the importance of the annual budgetary procedure and that we ensure the rights of this House as a budgetary authority. Thank you so much.”
  Size of EU budget
• “Mr. Benifei you are an expert of AI? And so I wanted to ask you, what do you think about the recent developments of social media that is fully powered by AI, by allowing customers to completely generate if you want fake content, what do you think about it? And second, as a transatlantic that you are also, I think, a big fan of what would you say? How can we react to the how can we react to the current situation that there's pressure, anti-democratic pressure also from the US? Thank you.”
  Transparency and oversight of AI-generated content
• “(10:42:00 – 10:43:51): Thank you, president, vice president, colleagues. Europe is like a football team where every player plays on a different court under different rules, and then we wonder why we lose globally. And, of course, we nod our heads when our coach Dragi tells us to maybe train a bit more together. But I wonder if everyone here agrees, the council, the commission, the parliament, we need a single court. We need a single market. Why isn't it happening? And the truth is that some of us would actually lose. If we face internally 40% of goods and 40 and a 100% tariffs for, services, if we lose €1,000,000,000,000 or 5% of GDP per year, if we lose all our Kuta startups to go to The US, there is a reason for it. And the answer is that some of us would lose because competition on the same court will hurt some of us. It will cost jobs even if it will create even more. It will mean that some incumbents will go bankrupt even if more successful companies will be created. When Friedrich Mertz is blocking the banking union, he's doing it for the Sparkas and the Raiffeisenbanks. When Emmanuel Macron blocks the idea of opening procurement, he's doing it for local defense and national defense industries. And when Georgia Maloney stops the single market for services, it's because she's protecting Italian lawyers, notaries, and others. So, colleagues, let's just be honest. If we protect national monopolies, we will lose out on the global and on the international stage. The price for competitiveness is that we are honest and we take the bitter pill of stopping national rules. Thank you so much. Sorry. You have a blue card from mister Sieper. It's okay for you? Of course. Okay. Please.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• “Dystopia of my own. Let's imagine you wake up tomorrow morning and you try to go to the bakery and buy a croissant, and suddenly it doesn't work. Visa and Mastercard are down, and with them, two thirds of all payments in the EU. Then you are slightly annoyed and hungry and you go to your office and to boot your computer, and then suddenly your Microsoft Outlook doesn't work anymore. Then you try to text your boss and say, this doesn't work, I need to text them. And then suddenly WhatsApp doesn't work anymore. And then you want to check at least your files and you see your cloud files are all gone. Now, you might think this is crazy dystopia, but it is actually just a teeny little executive order. So an executive order from your friend, a way of actually happening. And this is the dystopia we are facing. We have to build real sovereignty in Europe, not fake sovereignty that you are proclaiming and really try to make sure that our payments work in the future, which is why we need the digital euro. We need the sovereignty of our innovators, which is why we need digital markets, and we need to make sure that we can debate freely and in a sovereign space in our digital world. This is the Digital Services Act. So let's make sure that we stand up for sovereignty, for European sovereignty with a strong European regulation in the relevant fields. Thank you so much.”
  EU digital & tech sovereignty