Ville NIINISTÖ

Policy topics Ville NIINISTÖ is active on

What Ville NIINISTÖ has said (45)

• 2026-02-18 “E-000690/2026 Answer given by Ms Šuica on behalf of the European Commission The EU is not a member of the Board of Peace. There are serious doubts about a number of elements in the charter of the Board of Peace related to its scope, its governance and its compatibility with the UN Charter. The EU is ready to work together with the US on the implementation of the comprehensive Peace Plan for Gaza, with a Board of Peace carrying out its mission as a transitional administration, in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 2803 1 . The EU is actively engaging with the US and the new Gaza governance structures on how to jointly reach this objective. As an observer, the Commissioner for the Mediterranean participated in the Board of Peace meeting in Washington DC. Her participation focused on the discussions related to Gaza and its recovery and reconstruction. The Commissioner attended alongside representatives of at least half of EU Member States, as well as other European partners and regional actors. The EU is committed to ensure coordination and complementarity between the EU and broader international efforts. The Commission’s meetings with interlocutors, such as the Tony Blair Institute, are part of its standard and wide engagement with key stakeholders contributing to a peace process in the region. The EU does not have any ongoing projects with the Tony Blair Institute. 1 https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/4093207?v=pdf.”
  EU-US relations · Relations with Israel - Palestine
• 2025-02-10 “E-000602/2025 Answer given by Ms Albuquerque on behalf of the European Commission To counter the shadow fleet, the EU has power to designate vessels subject to a port access ban and a ban on provision of services. 153 vessels have so far been designated 1 . In addition, the 16th sanctions package adopted on 24 February 2025 2 enables the EU to designate individuals and entities that own or operate shadow fleet vessels. EU restrictive measures against Russia have restricted the sale by EU operators of oil tankers. Sales to Russia or for end-use in Russia are prohibited (with a derogation possible) while sales to third countries are subject to a notification 3 . As part of the recently adopted EU Action Plan on Cable Security 4 , the High Representative and the Commission indicated the need to reinforce the Union’s actions against the shadow fleet, with the view to enhance capacities to reduce its impact. In particular, it calls on working with partners to align the listings of prohibited vessels and on further outreaching to flag and port states to increase accountability and responsibility. It calls also on making best use of the existing sanctions regimes to enhance the capacity to ‘hold malicious actors accountable’. In addition to the sanctions framework, the use of commercial vessels to undertake so-called hybrid activities may also fall under the maritime safety and where relevant criminal enforcement frameworks. Concerning suspicious maritime activities including shadow fleet operations, relevant measures can be taken such as inspection, detention and interdiction of vessels. Concerning criminal wrongdoing relating to the violation and circumvention of EU restrictive measures, Directive (EU) 2024/1226 5 will ensure common basic standards for penalties in all EU Member States, closing existing legal loopholes. 1 Annex XLII of Council Regulation (EU) 833/2014: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:02014R0833-20250225 2 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_585 3 Article 3q of Regulation n°833/2014. 4 JOIN(2025) 9 final: https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/factpages/joint-communication-strengthen-securityand-resilience-submarine-cables 5 Directive (EU) 2024/1226 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 April 2024 on the definition of criminal offences and penalties for the violation of Union restrictive measures and amending Directive (EU), 2018/1673 OJ L, 2024/1226, 29.4.2024.”
  EU-Russia relations (from March 2022) · EU policy on screening foreign investment in strategic sectors and critical infrastructure
• “Thank you, chair. And thank you, dear Director General, obviously the Greens agree with much of what you have been saying. And I would also like to remind you and colleagues that if we look at electricity prices and affordable energy, the prices are lowest in EU markets, that highest share of renewables, and also a lot of focus on energy efficiency. So I think we still need to remind ourselves that productivity is highest in these investments currently, and we need to hasten them in all of Europe and obviously electrification included as well. But then I would like to focus on a more problematic issue. Obviously, we also disagree on some things, and you were just recently visiting the US and also meeting fossil fuel lobbyists and US officials. And I'm wondering about this LNG plan that you have. Obviously, replacing dependency on Russian LNG with another source of LNG is not very, very long term viable strategy. And so current geopolitical. Context. It's very problematic. Also, even if it comes from the US, there are economic risks also, and it may postpone the investments to alternative alternatives in the EU markets, like heat pumps, for example. So how do you see what is the Commission plan to reconcile this approach with the goal of reducing dependency on third country gas suppliers? And what is the possible potential commitment from the commission side to investing in foreign LNG exports infrastructure in exchange for long term contracts? If we look at the 2040 climate targets. I mean, reducing 90% of emissions and energy sector should be more or less carbon neutral by 2040. There isn't room much for gas any more fossil gas in European markets. So how do you see that that this long term goal is not undermined by any, any, uh, LNG, uh, long term contracts with countries even like the US. And how do you see the role of the European Parliament and the democratic institutions and the legislative bodies in this work? Thank you.”
  EU approach to energy security (home-made vs import sources)
• “Madam president, China's export restrictions on critical raw materials and clean tech inputs are part of a broader pattern of state driven market distortion and strategic dependency creation. We also need to address China's state subsidized overcapacity in green technologies and steel production, which creates unfair competition for European industry. So the EU must respond through a very diverse policy principled de-risking focused on recycling, substitution, ecodesign circular economy and reducing reliance on Chinese choke points such as magnets, semiconductors, batteries and clean tech supply chains. We also need to strengthen the EU's green industrial capacity with a sustainable and rules based framework. We are not just talking about tariffs, but also promoting competition by investing in green steel and increasing green mandates in public investment to increase the demand of green and recycled steel. We need to also strengthen the EU's economic security and establish a robust outbound investment screening mechanism. It is clear that European industry can win if we do it properly, but we also have to make sure that we are investing in the future, not just protectionism.”
  Trade relations with China · Chinese clean tech competition: trade barriers and investment caps vs. open market
• “Thank you chair. Thank you Commissioner, and thank you colleagues as well. I think this has been a very good discussion where it shows that the Parliament has a strong majority to support a strong and robust legislation to get rid of dependency on Russian gas. But also look at this more broadly that we make sure that this this legislation cannot be circumvented. And I think it's important to say that we as core operators, also take on board the discussion here. And also during this week, you can make the amendments to make sure that we can look at all the possible loopholes and try to make sure that they are they are stopped in the proposal, including long term contracts for storage, transit and also making sure that the force majeure is is implemented well, that there are no exemptions that are against this principle. And I would also like to say that it's important that the Commission also sees that that compromise with Council making sure that every member state is on board is maybe not the only thing here in the equation. It's also important to have this legislation be as strong as possible. And I think also the national diversification plans are important, as many members said. So we will also look at making sure that they are in line with our climate, uh, approach as well. So that's important to take note as well. And finally, we will work as co-rapporteurs to make sure that the timeline is swift in September so that the Parliament makes sure that this legislation will be passed in due time and as strong as possible. Thank you very much.”
  EU approach to energy security (home-made vs import sources)
• “Missions are one of Horizon Europe's most innovative elements, also including the role of regions and cities. But without predictable funding, they risk becoming empty labels. Fourthly, we need a more predictable and participatory programming process. The research and innovation community must be structurally involved in shaping priorities. We would also be open to limiting the number of work programmes over the period to improve stability and planning security. And fifth. Finally, we will push for a clearer objectives on interdisciplinarity, stronger synergies with national instruments, and a firm continuation of gender equality requirements in line with current practice. Obviously, it's also important, especially in pillar three, to see the linkage with private funding here as well. In short, as the name suggests, Horizon Europe must serve Europe's long term interests, not only competitiveness narrowly defined. And this also applies to pillar two, that we have to make sure that pillar two is still based on the approach to increase the quality of the research and innovation, and not not jeopardising this approach by the close linkage with the ECF. We look forward to working constructively with colleagues to strengthen this programme, and I think the European Parliament has long been an advocate for a very strong horizon Europe, with a strong legal background to support the researchers themselves. And I think we have a very good common understanding in this room to work on, on, on this basis. Thank you very much. And I look forward to good cooperation.”
  Research priorities within the EU
• “Mr. President, thank you. The vast majority of this Parliament has been very impressive in its support for this this trilogue outcome. And I think we have a clear vision. We want to go towards European energy independence, which is good for our competitiveness, good for our economy, good for our geopolitical security and good for climate. And I would like to address a few concerns raised by some, which I think are futile. It is not patriotic to rely on Russian fossil fuel imports, and it is not cheap to rely on Russian fuel fossil fuel imports. If we look at what Russia has done in the last 25 years, when Putin has been in power, there has been continuous manipulation of prices in the European markets, its divide and rule. And we see what happened in the autumn of 2021. We were not prepared in that. And in many member states, the consequences are felt after after the gas prices went up was due to being too dependent on Russian fossil fuels. But in 2021, in autumn, Russian Gazprom actually they have been allowed to own a lot of storages in Europe, like in Germany. They emptied the storages and prices went up already half a year before the war.”
  EU approach to energy security (home-made vs import sources)
• “Mr. president, Commissioner, Europe's energy debate has recently focused much on industry and infrastructure. These things matter, but the energy transition will ultimately succeed or fail with our citizens. So that is why the citizens energy package is an important shift, which we Greens have expected and which we also applaud. If we want public support for the transition transition people must not only pay the costs, they must also receive the benefits. Today, millions of Europeans still struggle with energy bills, and yet households producing their own solar energy can save up to 260 to €550 per year, and participation in energy communities can increase these savings to almost €1,000 a year. Our energy policy is not only climate policy, it is also affordability policy. It is inclusiveness and it is also resilience. Distributed energy is very smart in these geopolitical times. So now we must make sure that we can deliver this package really to help Europeans in the energy transition and also to lower the costs. Thank you. **Nicolae ȘTEFĂNUȚĂ @Chair: Gunther, Mr. Martin Gunther is next.”
  Energy (green transition)
• “Thank you, chair, and thank you to our dear friends from the energy community for their views on the progress on these topics. Um, when it comes to energy affordability and renewables, I think from the post aspect, it's important that we have further integration of the European electricity markets, and obviously that inevitably passes through more cross-border trade as well. So in the current MFF, the EU has started financing projects of mutual interest with the neighbourhood and as Greens, we have always asked to dedicate more resources, especially when it comes to cross-border electricity projects with Ukraine. So this is something we would like to see more in the future. Then more focused on the renewables. Obviously, renewables are not only our key out of a costly and risky dependence on fossil fuels, but they have also proved to be the most cost effective and sustainable transition pathway for our economies. The unprecedented decrease in generation costs and increase in renewable capacity deployed have allowed some of our economies to register lower energy costs, even at times of volatile fossil fuel prices. Then, from a viewpoint of resilience and security in our energy systems, a system based on renewables and also modern mobile renewables is also very resilient when it comes to the different crises.”
  EU energy infrastructure integration
• “Mr. President. Commissioner. Putin relies on energy money and he has continued to rely on purchasing. Financing his war machine with money he gets from fossil fuels. Thank you to the commission that we finally have clarity. We finally have legislative means to get away from Russian energy. And we are very happy that, um, nuclear fuels have also been mentioned. It is essential to realise that energy has been a geopolitical tool during the whole 21st century, and it uses this as a way of extortion And and it makes other countries dependent on Russian energy. And with this proposal, the Commission and the European Parliament can ensure that we will no longer give Putin power. And this means that Europe can finally begin to move towards sustainable forms of energy.”
  EU approach to energy security (home-made vs import sources)
• “Mr. president for Russia and for Putin the export of fossil fuels has never been about trade for Russia. It is about power control extortion and coercion. In short, about geopolitics. We are now finally ready in Europe to forever untie ourselves from this dependency. That is why this legislation to ban Russian gas imports, and also the parliament's resolution to ban oil imports is historic. In 2004, we were still importing fossil fuels from Russia to the value of €22 billion income that Russia uses to feed its war economy and its atrocious war on Ukraine. This is unacceptable. We must use sanctions to stop Russia's war, but we also must go beyond sanctions. The European Parliament has adopted a position that not only bans Russian gas and oil imports, but it also does it with strict timetables, strict enforcement and closing of all loopholes and without exemptions. Targeting also the shadow fleet and other efforts of circumvention by Russia. This is timely and this is super important. At the same time, we need to build the future as we quit the past. We need to build a sustainable European energy system based on renewables, energy efficiency, electrification and other Another clean European solutions. This is also about competitiveness. It is about climate action and it is about protecting democracy against the fossil dictators. We need to convince the Council in the Trilogues to have the same ambition to quit Russian fossil fuels once and for all.”
  EU-Russia relations (from March 2022)
• “And if we are not competitive in those environmental steel markets, that's the future of our industries. So when we talk about how we can support our industries and their productivity at the European level, we have to make sure that these incentives to invest into the carbon free solutions are there, that there are solutions that make sure that when we do the competitiveness fund, that it goes actually to the lead markets and not to solutions that actually stall change. We can't throw public money around to everybody if they don't change anything. We can't throw around public money if it doesn't add productivity. So we have to be very under the competitive edge on this discussion. And that's why we have to be clear that there shouldn't be any public support for continuing reliance on fossil fuel and gas. It's coming from outside of Europe. It's bad for our resilience. It's bad for our independence, and it's bad for the competitiveness of those companies. So let's invest into the grid's renewables and electrification to support our energy intensive industries. Thank you.”
  Energy transition (state support)
• “But we are also getting a statement from the commission that they will propose a similar ban on Russian fossil oil imports. And beyond that, member states need to do a diversification plan, which needs to be in line with our energy commitments and targets as well. This means that we should look also beyond gas. We have to import LNG from other countries in the short term, and we have partners that we can do that with, but we should not bind ourselves to long term LNG imports from any country. We should find ourselves to long term independence in energy by investing heavily in renewable energy, energy efficiency and other clean sources. And this is the big chance for Europe. Here we can look strategically beyond dependency on any external country. And we can look at building European competitiveness, address climate change and improve our security at the same time. So I think it is important that the Commission continues with this in mind when they go into the implementation of this ban. A few more words on the actual concrete outcome of the of the Trilogues. I have to say, I think the outcome is something that Parliament has been pushing for for a number of years, since the start of the Russian full scale aggression and war in Ukraine in the spring 2022.”
  EU approach to energy security (home-made vs import sources)
• “Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the experts. I have two questions in areas that colleagues have already mentioned, but I would like you to also dig a bit deeper and be more concrete. So first question on the launches, and then second on the orbital economy and creating a more self-sustaining European market. So on the launches, obviously current geography and physics also constrain European launches. And from French Guyana, mainland EU offers limited options for low-latitude or open-water launches, and also from a technological standpoint, in particular regarding next-generation vehicle design, propulsion systems, launch infrastructure, and autonomous flight safety systems. To what extent do you foresee that developments over the next decade will sufficiently mitigate the risk and enable reliable small and heavy-lift launches from additional EU territories, and if where? Could you tell us which specific innovations would be critical to achieving the requisite safety thresholds for regulatory approval in new locations? And do you also see a role for precision vertical landings, mobile nautical platforms, or other advanced range safety systems? Then a bit more on the space market and more kind of like self-sustaining European space manufacturing service sector that also delivers maximal return to EU citizens. Obviously the concept of an orbital economy falls squarely within the EU's competence under space exploitation. As industry representatives, where would you identify the highest impact societal benefits that could justify continued public investments? And furthermore, what targeted regulatory measures or incentives, such as procurement guarantees, public-private partnership frameworks, or harmonized standards for component interoperability, would you recommend in order to catalyze this self-sustaining European space manufacturing service sector in order to make sure that it, you know, as a market it works as well as possible and brings us maximal returns and increases the role of Europe in space? Thank you.”
  EU competences on space policy
• “Madam president for Russia. Export of fossil fuels has never been about trade. It has been about manipulation, extortion and control. And today we are discussing a historic achievement and outcome in the trilogues, the EU is taking China's steps towards a new era free of Russian gas and oil, never again dependency on Russia on fossil fuels. And Russia can never again use fossil fuels exports as a weapon against Europe. The path to this day has been has been long and it has been difficult. But we have to remember it is a historic outcome that we are here. The EU has never banned a trade on such commodities with any country before, so this goes beyond what is happening currently in Ukraine. We are helping Ukraine in the sense that we are stopping funding the Russian war machine, but we are also looking beyond that. We are making sure that Russia can not use export of fossil fuels to Europe to divide ourselves. It has also been about control and trying to make Europe weaker, trying to divide and rule us. So therefore, it is important that we take a step, a broader step with this trilogue outcome towards energy independence. I think it is important that Parliament's position on this file were well reflected in the outcome. So Parliament wanted not just an export ban or import ban on Russian fossil gas is to be put in place.”
  EU approach to energy security (home-made vs import sources)
• “Thank Mr. President, obviously the Americans are having or taking a big risk for their own economy as well. I mean, the world economic order is very much based on on the American interest built after the Second World War and, and the service sector that they have in the digital sector especially, they are benefiting a lot from from free trade and they are jeopardising that. But if we look at what what's the logic, if there is any logic behind the Trump economic advisers on what they're trying to achieve. It seems that they want to devalue the the value of dollar. And and they want to get more investments into their industries. Have we from the European side thought about the long term consequences of this and how we can promote the competitiveness of European industry if Trump continues with this policy? And then secondly, um, obviously the the Chinese are considering also counter actions against the American tariffs. They have their negotiations, but there is also a risk of of price dumping towards Europe. Have we seen any of this happening from from the Chinese products to the European markets that would affect the European industries negatively. And then thirdly, if we look at the spending in in research and development, the Americans are Chinese, are spending almost double as much as we are in comparison to GDP. So if we are looking at how we can increase the competitiveness, obviously this should mean that also when there is a risk of of leakage from from the US due to the universities being being handled very brutally by, by the Trump administration, that there is a chance here also to, to get more quality research in Europe. So that is also an answer we should look at, not just the reciprocal tariff discussions. So have you thought about that? Thank you.”
  EU-US trade relations
• “And even in Ukraine, in the current situation with the war of aggression from from Russian side. We should be supporting Ukraine in developing also mobile renewable systems that can be used to produce heating and electricity in situations like this. So I think there's a lot to be done. Also promoting renewables in resilience context. Then when it comes to also the objective now to integrate more renewables into energy system, it's important that we unlock the benefits to businesses and citizens and reduce the risk of curtailment. To do so, we need to combine first the uptake of market instruments like renewable power purchase agreements. Second, the upgrade of our grid infrastructure, especially at distribution level. And thirdly, above all, a drastic increase in smart flexibility services. So solutions like storage and demand response are necessary for the highly efficient and renewables based energy system that we are all striving for. So as greens, we support very much the countries of the energy community to progressively Civilly align their policies with the union's energy acquis. And I would also like to important to stress the importance of energy infrastructure planning, where we should cooperate more in this regard in the future. Thank you.”
  Energy (green transition)
• “Thank you, Chair. Thank you also for the presentation from Mr. Aschbacher. I would like you to be a bit more concrete on the role of the EU, how we can improve the role of the EU in space, and obviously there is also this bit of a problematic relationship. It also can be a positive relationship, but for example, the ISA budget for a multi-annual ISA budget, it decided before the MFF for EU, so we would also, you know, in MFF it would be important also to highlight the importance of space, so how we can tackle this problem that the ISA budget is decided before MFF, so that we can also give you some push from the MFF negotiations. And then on the US role, obviously this is a problem for EU as well, because recent proposals for reduced US federal funding to NASA and associated partnerships may have downstream effects on ISA programs and transatlantic cooperation in general. In this evolving financial landscape, how can the EU step in and together with ISA strategically leverage this moment to assume greater leadership in flagship exploration missions and also accelerate steps towards full autonomous capabilities? Could you please suggest potential key areas where EU-driven investment and policy action could most effectively fill the funding gap, strengthen Europe's industrial base and ensure continuity of critical exploration projects? Thank you very much.”
  EU competences on space policy
• “Thank you very much. Chair and rapporteur. Um, I speak on behalf of Willy, who is the shadow from the Greens, but, uh, cannot make it now. Um, so we're happy that the UK and the EU are staying in course for their ambitious transition to net zero economies. And we celebrate the closure of the last coal plant in the UK in September last year, as the beginning of a new era, as the draft report. As the draft opinion mentions, the EU and the UK should reinforce their cooperation in promoting energy efficiency and renewables, especially for onshore and for offshore wind and related electricity infrastructure, and in enhancing security of supply within the current geopolitical instabilities. The EU, the UK and all like minded countries should build a common front in keeping the ambition of the Paris Agreement and continue the global energy transition. The opinion underlines the EU's need for a more assertive industrial strategy, but further reinforcing further strengthening is needed. We must ensure that industrial policy goes beyond competitiveness and is firmly embedded within the EU's broader goals of sustainability, security and technological sovereignty. This includes alignment with legislation legislation such as the Net-zero Industry Act, the Critical Raw Materials Act and the European European Chips Act. The report rightly highlights persistent coordination challenges at both national and EU level. To address these, we should consider stronger governance mechanisms, including potentially coordination, coordination, coordinating authority or structured interinstitutional platform to oversee the implementation of industrial policy, particularly in cross-cutting areas such as energy, digital markets and strategic supply chains. Thank you very much.”
  Energy (green transition)
• “Thank you, chair. And thank you, rapporteur. I'll also be delivering the message from our, uh, shadow rapporteur. That is Mr. Stefan Nauta. So I'm here as a post office first. I would like to thank the rapporteur for the constructive approach and the fruitful discussions we've had so far. I hope we can continue in this spirit as we move forward with the work on this file, and provide a strong opinion to budge that our group can also support. The MFF is key to demonstrating our political will in the face of global challenges. As we look at this new MFF, we must address the competitiveness challenge by investing in research and innovation and tackle the bottlenecks in our energy and digital systems. We appreciate that the draft opinion already provides a number of important inputs, for example, on leveraging the potential of private spending towards the goal of 3% of GDP in ROI, on investing in renewables and energy efficiency, and in developing a European stack of digital technologies for the next MFF to deliver the green transition and directly benefit our industry and citizens. We think two main aspects should be reinforced. First, we must address the root causes. Our dependence on fossil fuels and fossil fuel subsidies in 2023. €93 billion went to fossil fuels. And these are mostly imported to Europe. And they are also mostly expensive. Also, in the energy market, that's too much. And the union and its member states have repeatedly committed to phasing out these subsidies. We will free up funds to boost energy security, accelerate the clean energy transition and reduce the deficit to the benefits of European companies and competitiveness. So we count on Commissioner Hoekstra to stand by his commitment and make the next MFF fossil subsidy free. Empowering citizens is a crucial element of this process, as well, as they have the potential to invest up to €176 billion by 2030 through community led energy projects. So we must simplify access to EU financing for these projects, and we want to propose establishing a dedicated EU investment fund for energy communities. That's all from our side. Thank you very much.”
  Energy transition (state support)
• “Full scale onslaught on Ukraine. So we knew that Putin is actually planning something huge, and he manipulated us in order to make Europe weak, that we would not support Ukraine. But on this, Putin was wrong. He could not manipulate us. We were in support of Ukraine, and we realized that we can never again allow them to have that power over us. Secondly, the prices of energy and electricity in Europe are lowest. That is the highest share of clean energy, renewable energy and domestic energy sources. Look at the Nordic energy market. I would very much like the German far right to also learn about how market economics works. Being reliant on single import from an unreliable source that manipulates the prices is not good for the economy. Now we are exiting that dependence and we have to create energy independence where we are also producing vast majority of the energy production chain ourselves. Bring added value to our economy and it is good for our competitiveness. So that is the future of Europe. It is free. It is free of Russian extortion and it is good for European citizens. Thank you all.”
  EU approach to energy security (home-made vs import sources)
• “Um, dear chair, if I may also, um, join in thanking all the staff, uh, for for great work on this. The technical work was really long. Uh, so, so so our technical staff, the secretariat, have really done a huge job to set the table in a way that the politicians could agree. And I also would like to thank all the shadows and my dear Co-rapporteur Ines, who I will miss shortly after this, because we have been cooperating so much almost daily. So, so it's it's been a pleasure. But I will also answer shortly to Mr. Tamburrano. I find it, to be honest, disgraceful that a member of the European Parliament is trying to use climate arguments to continue dependency on fossil fuels from Russia. The Parliament's position on these negotiations were very clear. We also achieved, and I understand you haven't had a chance to know what the outcome is, but we achieved also diversification plan for all member states to diversify away from Russian fossil fuels. And it includes that it should be in line with the EU energy framework. So member states need to look at energy efficiency, energy efficiency, renewables and domestic energy sovereignty. There will be LNG coming from other sources. I see that that's a better option than supporting the authoritarian regime and imperialism of Russia. It's weird to me that some members of European Parliament can think differently on this, but you have your your, uh, freedom of speech. The majority of the Parliament is very strongly behind getting rid of fossil fuels from Russia, but also promoting the climate goals. And that is also what the parliament achieved in this negotiated outcome. Thank you.”
  EU approach to energy security (home-made vs import sources)
• “The impact of these exemptions is not assessed, and we should have a uniformed approach in the Union vis a vis Russian energy. So we should eliminate all Russian gas without delay or loopholes. Similarly, deleting the second part of article seven, which presumes Russian origin, unless importers prove otherwise for gas transiting Russia, is something we should consider. The reality is that Russia does not permit gas transit through its territory. Even if such transit arrangement existed, they would pose a serious security risk by leaving control over infrastructure in Russian hands. And this provision could become a backdoor for de facto Russian gas imports and should therefore be considered to be removed. And finally, the article 15, which would allow the Commission to temporarily suspend key provisions of the regulation in case of sudden and significant developments. This risk contradicting the regulations purpose. Reliance on Russian gas cannot be a full cap back. It is the very source of our energy security risk. The phase out must be clear, legally robust and irreversible. Finally, I would also like to add my colleagues like my co-rapporteur. This is a trade measure to stop manipulation of the European energy markets. But this is also something that is important to support democracy and freedom in Europe. And the Ukrainians who are fighting for their own lives and their own national sovereignty. We must act decisively to protect our economy and security from external energy manipulation, and I look forward to working with the Co-rapporteur and all the shadows to strengthen this legislation and secure a safer, sustainable energy future for Europe. Thank you.”
  EU approach to energy security (home-made vs import sources)
• “Thank you. So good. Good morning, dear chair. Dear colleagues, um, it's a good start for the handling of this important files, because I concur with many of the things and remarks made by my colleagues and especially rapporteurs Ala and Repossi. And I'll start with, in general with positive remarks on the on the proposal itself. The Greens have been pushing for a long time to to increase the role of research and innovation at the heart of EU policy. And we welcome the Commission's proposals, an ambitious budget for Horizon Europe. This is important because we have to also look at the perspective we are not discussing, how we divide research funding within Europe, but how we raise the level of research compared globally with our competitors. And that also leads me to my next point, which is that we also should strongly and will support strongly the focus on excellence, The success of the framework program rests on a strong and independent pillar one, and we will work to preserve a balance between basic and applied research. There has to be a high level of fundamental research for future innovation research to be materialized. However, we also see several issues that require clarification and political direction compared to the current horizon Europe Fp10 proudly preserves the architecture of the program, but with significantly less detail. This shifts considerable discretion to the implementation phase and concentrates actual power in the hands of the Commission. At the same time, the proposal lacks a structured strategic planning process involving stakeholders, so a formal program of this scale and importance that is not acceptable.”
  EU research funding
• “The European Parliament stands firm since 2014 after the illegal annexation of Crimea. The European Parliament has frozen any contacts with Russian state actors. And that is the correct thing to do. Russia has violated international law within Europe, within our neighborhood, and they are threatening also EU members by different hybrid attacks. We cannot tolerate that to happen, and there is no point of negotiating or discussing with a partner that uses every move from our side to move to their direction, to enforce their propaganda, to work more against us. So the only thing where we need Putin to talk is to give up his war on Ukraine and the Ukrainians that need to do the talking.”
  EU-Russia relations (from March 2022)
• “Thank you chair. Thank you, Commissioner, for the report. And obviously we look forward to hear more positive developments in this field. But what I would like to know more about today is how the debate around European resilience is impacting the interoperability debate. The Interoperable Europe Act was enacted in a different context. It took a soft approach because everyone assessed that we had time to increase interoperability. However, today, the public administrations in member states are interoperable by lock in instead of being interoperable by design. We have structural dependencies that are also vulnerabilities, and there is often lack of a European alternative. What is the Commission doing to adapt to the current situation and enhance cross-border resilience through interoperability? Given that cross-border cooperation and collaboration are key assets of the European Union, how are you encouraging the Member States today to accelerate cooperation and ensure results that support resilience, in particular the public sector's resilience? Thank you.”
  Interoperability requirements for digital platforms
• “And where does industrial competitiveness come from? It comes from productivity. And where does productivity come from? Well, it comes from increasing the added value of our production chains and from technological leadership. I think it is important that the commission stops this kind of like paradoxical view that at the same time, the Commission does say that the 90% climate target is important. We are decarbonising our economy. We are going forward in combining the green and the competitive angles of our future. They need to be seen together. But there is still also this other underlying discussion whether we actually should have less focus on greening our economies. And we should really be clear on that. That means that we have less competitive future. Investing in green technologies, in lead markets, in R and I is what Europe needs to do more. When we do more investments in renewable and energy efficiency, we get industrial production that's more competitive in the global market. That has an increasing demand. So we have to make sure that we support the taxonomy, for example, to get more investment into Europe and not create confusion by the omnibus discussion. Thank you.”
  Climate efforts
• “Thank you. Chair. Dear colleagues. Commissioner. It's a true honour to present to you jointly with my colleague, Mrs. Barnett, at this draft report on the regulation for phasing out Russian natural gas imports. I think this is a vital piece of legislation, and I want to also commend the Commission for presenting it to us and being here today. This proposal reflects a firm conviction that the European Union must not remain dependent on an unreliable external energy supplier. Russia has consistently demonstrated that it treats energy not as a fair commodity, but as a tool of geopolitical manipulation. We in Europe saw it already in the autumn of 2021, well ahead of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, that the gas prices and gas storage of Europe were manipulated. So we cannot trust Russia as a trade partner in energy. They have done this also previously in the past. The European Parliament has long supported a permanent ban on Russian gas imports through formal legislation. And this proposal finally does just that. So when the commissioner said that this is what the Parliament asks, we also now must deliver on that urgent EU bite. Action is needed to reduce our dependence on Russian fossil fuels. Jointly with the rapporteur, we agreed that the Parliament also should consider strengthening the proposal. So I will also go through some of these ideas. We think that the Parliament should consider to shorten the deadline for phasing out Russian gas imports by at least one year to 1st of January, 2027. Starting in 2025, global LNG supply is expected to increase, with around 200 bcm of new capacity by 2028, five times the EU former imports of Russian gas meanwhile, EU gas demand is on a steady downward trend.”
  EU approach to energy security (home-made vs import sources)
• “(11:29:36 – 11:31:30): Thank you, chair. Thank you, colleagues. I'm also surprised by the direction taken by the draft opinion of the rapporteur because this is not a technical exercise. The performance regulation is actually a way to make sure that the MFF is supporting the values of the pro European majority and the majority that will vote for the MFF and the majority that will work, on the basis of of that of the the MFF. And, we can't get rid of the the the standards and and the measurements that make sure that our values are reflecting reflected in how the spending is being done during the MFF period. So this is a tool to make sure that every euro spent under the MFF supports our long time goals and that Aldo heard a lot, about simplification also from the EPP. This is actually the time and place to do it. Having 1 performance regulation is a lot easier, to to implement than having loads of different, regulations on the horizontal targets in different, regulations separately in in in the negotiations. I understand that in the current geopolitical context, some of our political priorities may have shifted more towards security and competitiveness, but we cannot forget that advancing the clean transitional equality is also necessary to strengthen Europe's resilience. These targets go hand in hand, so we have to make sure that when we spend money, all of these targets are promoted. From the green side, we will put forward amendments for a stronger climate and environment contribution from the MFF, full compliance with the Do No Significant Harm principle and a clear requirement to exclude fossil fuel financing that are necessary to boost Europe's competitiveness and decarbonization. Overall, I see that this is the direction that will support Europe's role in the world in making sure that our values are reflected in the European development. So I hope we can move into this direction into negotiations. Thank you very much.”
  EU policy on sustainability criteria in public funding
• “Chair. Thank you. Commissioner. Um, obviously, competitiveness in the European single market is important, but we just have to, uh, agree and find a maturity on on how to achieve that competitiveness and how to increase that. And, uh, and the fourth omnibus proposal introduces this new category of small mid caps, which is around 38,000 companies that will benefit from regulatory exemptions. Um, this is presented as a simplification, uh, exercise, but it also creates some risks. So I would like to go through those if you can answer those risks as well. There is a risk of fragmenting the regulatory framework, weakening essential safeguards and also weakening the predictability of the market in investing into socially and environmentally sustainable investments. So if I just try to kind of like put it shortly, the previous commission in previous mandate had this philosophy with due diligence. The regulation. Uh. So sorry. Deforestation regulation and and, uh, different ESG regulation to increase the standards also outside of Europe and then increase the standards also in Europe with similar legislation here. And now you are looking at exemptions for quite a large amount of companies in the European market from these these requirements that are basically ESG requirements. Uh, and if you call that competitiveness, it's also a bit illogical. So if you can also answer a bit more that I think the problems that Mid-caps face in their growth are also different than just administrative.”
  Due diligence in supply chains (environmental and human rights)
• “This means only a small portion of Russian gas would need replacement by alternative suppliers, setting 1st of January 2027 as the end date is both feasible and well timed. And if there is political will in the Member states, we can truly achieve it With with good results. We also believe that the regulation should be looked at from the viewpoint of oil as well. Like my co-rapporteur said, this is also something we would like you to answer. How we should look at the prohibition of imports of oil as well, including refined petroleum products, directly or indirectly from the Russian Federation. Shouldn't they be considered also with the same deadline? This is essential to fully cut off one of the Kremlin's main revenue streams. While national diversification plans help. Binding legal provisions are needed to ensure a complete phaseout of all Russian fossil fuels. We also expect the Commission to come forward on the proposal on nuclear fuel from Russia as well later on. Maybe the commissioner will also expand on that. Then we go. Rapporteurs also agreed that the proposal should be strong and robust. Legally, it's important that the first measure for companies is true and holding also in courts. From this viewpoint, it's important that we look at also the exemptions and and proposals within the within the articles that may weaken this legal analysis. And I would like also you to comment on that from this viewpoint. Article four and paragraph two, which allows derogations for landlocked countries, is something we should look at.”
  Fossil fuels
• “Thank you, chair, and thank you for the presentation of the report to the rapporteur and the shadows. And also a pleasure to talk after Madam Kulmuni, who was raising the right questions here coming from Finland. I sometimes wonder in this debate that people are talking about energy intensive industries future, and then they talk about how to make sure that they don't need to change anything. We are not going to be competitive with that kind of a policy. It's not about regulation. It's not about regulatory burden. It's about productivity. And how do we increase productivity of the energy intensive industries that we create more clean energy for them for a cheap price. And if you look at the Nordic market, we have achieved the lowest electricity prices in Europe, and it's not with subsidies for fossil fuels. It's by reinforcing the investments in the renewables to create the electricity and making sure that industries have access to that. All the public support goes to lead markets and the best available solutions and technologies and investments to make sure that they are competitive in the higher end market of their products. Uh, the Finnish and Swedish steel industry companies have said to me very clearly that there will be no steel industry in the Nordics if we are not creating carbon free steel or carbon neutral steel first in the world.”
  Energy (green transition)
• “Thank you chair. Thank you Commissioner. And we also welcome the outcome of this summit. We think it's an important step forward in forging a new close cooperation with, with UK and especially the security and defence Partnership is promising. Obviously we want to see also details in further work with the with the Parliament on how the UK companies can participate in EU joint defence procurement programmes and how the UK side will also finance the participation. And for us, it's important also to to emphasize the importance of support to Ukraine in this context, and I would like to also in my other role as the chair of Russia delegation, to also say that thanks to you that you have included to support Ukraine more broadly in this statement, and especially that you are both saying the UK and the EU side, that you are committed to ensuring full accountability for war crimes and other serious crimes committed in connection with Russia's war of aggression, including by the establishment of a special tribunal for the crime of aggression against Ukraine. I think it's very important that we give all support to Council of Europe to achieve this, this tribunal very soon, and we need the UK side on this firmly also supporting, supporting that. Finally, I would also like you to answer a bit more broadly on the extent of the UK Youth Experience scheme and and what kind of exchanges, how long term exchanges would include. And obviously we would very much welcome also extension to tertiary education and students. This is very important for EU students, including me personally who spent one year in Erasmus exchange in London, and I wouldn't be here with the knowledge I have today without that experience. Thank you.”
  EU-UK relations
• “We are in favour of increasing simplification, and we are in favour of increasing a bottom up approach in favour of the applicants. But we do not favour approach where the role of the co-legislators is weakened and more emphasis is put on the commission because we do not know where that leads when it comes to the role of the applicants themselves. So the law itself has to has to make clear how the program is guided going forward. Our group will focus on five priorities. The first one we need to strengthen research on climate, environment and biodiversity. These are central to Europe's resilience and preparedness. This means broadening the scope of global societal challenges and increasing the budget dedicated to society. And I think Mr. Repaci referred to these kind of issues while focusing also on the role of societal sciences in making sure that we can implement the innovations in our public and our societies more broadly. Secondly, we must reinforce basic research. This includes strengthening pillar one, increasing the visibility of fundamental research into program objectives and safeguarding the autonomy of the European Research Council, which also have been mentioned by many colleagues. Scientific science cannot become subordinate to short term industrial priorities because that would be endangering the long term industrial priorities as well, because science is the basis of innovation, and also we do not know what innovations can come if we do not do the fundamental research first. The third point, we strongly support the continuation of the five EU missions with a clear and dedicated budget.”
  Research priorities within the EU
• “So there is no transit gas coming through Russian pipelines from other dubiously other countries that are that is in essence Russian. And there is no circumvention to through third countries to refining. And so all gas must be, without exception, required. The companies must be required to submit transparent information on the origin of their imports and also on the exemptions. I understand that on the council side, you are keen on making sure that as many member States support the proposal as possible, but at the same time, we want this to be robust also to make sure that the companies have a proper first measure in place. So we want to minimize exemptions that now have no sound legal basis. And also the emergency brake on article 15 is problematic from that viewpoint. So if you can also comment a bit about the content and also the link to the national diversification plans and the need to also go forward with our climate climate plans, because in the long term it's smart to invest in European grids, electrification, renewables, clean energy in Europe to get rid of the dependency from Russian gas and not replace it with long term, uh, dependency from gas from somewhere else. Thank you very much.”
  EU approach to energy security (home-made vs import sources)
• “Thank you, Chair. I would also like to ask on the legal mechanisms and how they would work in practice to ensure more sustainability in space and also global implementation. So Article 189 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union provides that the union may act to coordinate member states' efforts in the exploration and exploitation of space. In light of the growing challenges of orbital debris, space traffic management, and the environmental sustainability beyond Earth's atmosphere, and also knowing the challenges that you just underlined, could you, as esteemed legal scholars, propose a workable, concrete legal mechanism or instrument, either via a new regulation or an international or intergovernmental agreement, that would enable the EU to exercise its treaty mandate at a truly global level? We need to ensure both compliance and enforcement of the sustainability and safety standards worldwide. So could you please envisage how such a mechanism would interact with existing fora, such as the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, and also how it might address jurisdictional gaps in space traffic management? Thank you very much.”
  EU competences on space policy
• “But if you look at all the peer reviews and all the reviews of research programs that I've seen nationally or at European level, research funding is most effective to achieve also competitiveness and societal outcomes when it's as independent as possible, when it's as much based as as also scientists peer reviews and scrutinizing. So the more the politicians go into, you know, directing how you use that money, that usually we get less competitiveness. I mean, just look at the fundamental research that's behind the practical solutions like internet and Wi-Fi or GPS. They were based on fundamental research where the researcher didn't know that there is an application afterwards. So we have to keep the focus on having a standalone program. But what we need to do is to build better bridges with the rest of the investments we need to do in industrial productivity and to scale ups and startups. That bridge is your job to sell to the rest of the commission. We don't want to take away the standalone program, but we want to build those bridges, and then we need to do something about scaling up private investment on R&D in Europe. This is an area where we are lagging behind the US and other regions. And if Horizon Europe and the Next Framework program can be a better catalyst of also increasing private funding for research, we can actually achieve the 3% target that we have or even go for a 4% target some of the member states are aiming for already. Thank you.”
  Research priorities within the EU
• “Thank you chair. And thank you, Commissioner, for good cooperation in so far and hopefully also in the future. I'm here. Yeah. So I was also part of the negotiations on the report that we accepted this morning. And I find those recommendations that we make in that report quite important for the Commission to also read into and also take into account how you deliver Horizon Europe, but also the next framework program. I think there's a good balance of continuing with the focus on making sure that research program is based on excellence, that it's based on. Solving the big societal challenges we have. So there is an understanding of how research and innovation should be also directed to solve Europe's big future problems when it comes to competitiveness, but also climate, environment and, and and biodiversity loss, for example. But at the same time, we focused a lot on increasing self-governance and bottom up approach in the goals themselves. And I think it's important that we hear that plea from the researchers and innovators that they want to be more active, also themselves proposing good ideas and not all the good ideas lie in the commission. So it would be good to take this balance into account. Um, at the same time, the Parliament has been very clear. And also in this report we are very clear that we are adamantly, uh, calling for an independent standalone program in FP ten. And I would also like to state that usually politicians who have very little to do with research want to take all the research money for some kind of a bigger pot, and then they think that they can, you know, use that money more efficiently.”
  EU research funding
• “Thank you chair. Thank you Commissioner. Let's go back to the basics. So when we talk about industrial competitiveness it mainly comes from productivity. And if you look at the increase of productivity in Europe it's been lagging behind. But it's not because of our climate goals. But but our climate goals are also way of, of increasing productivity. So mainly I would like to kind of like address the ambivalence in the compass that you have. You have a lot of good proposals and you have the 2040 climate neutrality target also included here. And the 2050 climate neutrality target. But still, we will need more to actually make sure that we are in investing into new technological leadership, lead markets and creation of of, uh, carbon neutral, uh, society. And this will give us a competitive edge if the competitors, what the Chinese and the Americans are doing. They are investing in AI, digitalization and industrial competitiveness through new energy solutions and clean energy. So I would like to just address this, that I hope you also agree with me that the omnibus and the simplification cannot be lowering environmental ambition. But it's also about actually making sure that there is more investment in Europe in achieving environmental goals and achieving climate neutrality.”
  Climate efforts
• “Madam President, Putin and Russia use every inch of conciliation from the international community as a weapon to claim legitimacy for their lies and their brutal violations of international law. This cannot be tolerated. There cannot be any normalisation or even talking with Russia, as long as they are not ready to take responsibility for their war crimes and stop their brutal war on Ukraine. We cannot be naive in Europe or we are played as fools. Being weak is fuel for Putin's war. Sports or cultural events are for Russia. One key tool for achieving international legitimacy and spreading propaganda. It is not about innocent individuals participating. It is about state sponsored participation under the Russian flag and corruption promoting the power of Putin's regime. Every Russian athlete in Russia is forced to support the regime. Many willingly and many financed by the state and spreading its lies. Putin has a long history of playing with sports propaganda, and we cannot allow it to have any room. We must stand strong in support of Ukraine, and the pressure must be where it should be. On stopping Putin's brutal war.”
  EU-Russia relations (from March 2022)
• “And how can we make sure that these mid-cap, uh, proposal, the omnibus proposal, is not weakening the long term goals of environmental and social sustainability in the market, because a lot of companies also are creating their growth philosophies from, from uh, also their increased ESG responsibilities. And that creates may create problems for some companies that are focusing on this aspect. And the predictability of the investments gets weaker. Some examples. Obviously, the GDPR but also due diligence into regulation is is areas where consistent enforcement is crucial. So is this going to create problems with enforcement. And then also the Ecodesign regulation. It potentially opens up major loopholes uh by excluding companies here. And then finally also you answered this a bit bit already. But if you can also answer that the EU will still have an SME policy. This is just an additional step. Intermediate step. So so you will not abolish SME policy because the really small companies are the ones that still need a major EU support in regulatory approach. And if you know these companies that are three times bigger than SMEs get the same benefits. It also can create competitive problems for the small SMEs. So if you can answer to these questions, thank you.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Thank you. Chair. Thank you. Executive Vice President. And on behalf of our green group, we would also like to thank the Commission for the roadmap on repowering EU to exit final Russian gas and oil. Obviously that is that is something that we have been wishing for a long time. And now it's time to push it forward. So I'm happy. And we support the commission in coming with robust legislation as soon as possible to to have this plan ready and up and running. Uh, obviously we will also need investments into renewables and energy efficiency and the grids to, to achieve, uh, European energy transition, uh, by implementing this, this roadmap. And from that viewpoint, I'm also a bit wondering why some of my colleagues seem to be from another planet. So if you look at the prices in European electricity markets, they are lowest in the regions that have most renewables and most energy efficiency. That is the Nordic market. But we still need to even in the Nordics. We need to still do more investments. But if you look at the Confederation of Finnish Industries on clean transition, they say that €8.5 billion of investments are going to be finalised in 2025, and there is a data window of €300 billion of investments.”
  Energy (green transition)
• “Thank you. Okay. Thank you for the clarification. Um, but there are also other challenges that the small midcaps face that are not addressed here. So I would like you to focus a bit more on those as well, such as talent shortages and supply chain fragility. So is the commission looking at also answering these kind of issues? And then on the more kind of like positive measures, which I think we can fullheartedly support the digital conformity certificates and the digital product passport. So how we can make sure that the digitalization of the single market can support also the small midcaps. And what we are looking at from the green side is that the commission, you know, holds Hold steady on on climate action and ESG in understanding that European companies can get competitiveness from, you know, showing that they create sustainable growth, that this is a growth pattern that will be more circular and uses resources more, more wisely. We will need less external resources from outside of Europe. And we combine the approach of, of lessening, uh, lessening the, the administrative burden on small midcaps, but still still keeping the vision of where to invest, where the growth is. And also digitalisation is a big part of that. So how you can push forward the small midcaps can digitalize and create growth through that. Thank you.”
  Product passport
• “Uh, 30th of September, 2027. So, uh, this is, uh, earlier, over three months earlier than the original proposals and on LNG a full year earlier, which is reflects the Parliament's proposal. We also got a strengthened EU wide enforcement sanctions to make sure that this can't be circumvented. A number of other improved positions to avoid circumvention and loopholes. We strengthened article 15 on the emergency brake. And we also got, which is very significant, that fossil fuels, more broadly than just gas are included in a ban, not with this regulation. But the Commission came forward with a statement that they are preparing a legislative proposal in the beginning of 2026 on banning Russian fossil fuels imports to the European Union as soon as possible, at the latest, by the end of 2027. So overall, we can be happy with the outcome. This is a good day for all Europeans. Good day for our energy sovereignty and a bad day for Russia and Mr. Putin.”
  EU approach to energy security (home-made vs import sources)
• “Madam president, let's not sugarcoat it. China isn't just restricting exports. It is testing Europe's weakness. Seven rare earth elements and one loud message. We control your clean tech. This is not about trade. This is geopolitical blackmail with magnets. The EU imports 98% of its rare earth magnets from China. That's not a supply chain. That's a stranglehold. We cannot walk into the EU China summit begging for exemptions. That's not strength. That's surrender. We cannot be quiet about China's support to the Russian economy, and we cannot be quiet about the deterioration of human rights in China. Therefore, our response to blackmail must be bold. Resilience. Circularity. Autonomy. We need to stop chasing virgin materials and start valuing what we already have. Recycle more. Waste less. Design better. Permanent magnets must be built to last and to be reused. Let us stop being naive. China has done this before. Weaponized rare earths in 2010. Now they are doing it again. So that means that we in Europe must de-risk seriously secure strategic stocks and force risk assessments. Plan like it's already a crisis because it already is. We have the tools and we have the laws. Now we need the political courage. And when we source materials from the global South, we must build on true partnerships. No extraction without consent. No transition built on exploitation. Let us not trade our climate future for cheap Magnets. Let us build a circular, just and sovereign Europe. Thank you.”
  EU-China relations