Roman HAIDER

Policy topics Roman HAIDER is active on

What Roman HAIDER has said (30)

• 2025-05-21 “E-002021/2025 Answer given by Ms Lahbib on behalf of the European Commission In 2020, the Commission adopted its first-ever LGBTIQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, nonbinary, intersex and queer) Equality Strategy 2020–2025 1 . The strategy led to the implementation of several measures, including key legislative proposals, as outlined in its implementation report. It enabled support for civil society working on LGBTIQ rights, in particular via the Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values programme, led to the creation of the LGBTIQ Equality Subgroup 2 , with 12 Member States having adopted their own national strategies, and raised awareness about LGBTIQ equality. In addition, the EU protects and promotes the human rights of LGBTIQ persons in its external action, in line with the 2020-2024 EU Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy 3 (extended until 2027) and the Council Conclusions on EU priorities in United Nation’s Human Rights Fora 2025 4 . The Commission can procure services from external contractors to implement activities that support its policies, in line with the EU Financial Regulation. Procurement award and selection criteria are set by the authorising officer and are defined in the tender documents in accordance with the principles of transparency, equal treatment, non-discrimination, broadest possible competition and sound financial management. A contract is awarded to the most economically advantageous tender, provided that the tenderer can access the procurement market, meets eligibility, and selection requirements and is not subject to EU restrictive measures. This also applies to the relevant initiatives of the LGBTIQ Equality Strategy 20202025. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52020DC0698&qid=1750258623647, 12 November 2020, COM(2020) 698 final. 2 The Subgroup was set up in May 2021 under the High-Level Group on Non-discrimination, Equality and Diversity to enhance implementation of the LGBTIQ strategy. The Subgroup is composed of governmental experts, to support and monitor progress on LGBTIQ equality in the Member States. 3 eu_action_plan_on_human_rights_and_democracy_2020-2024.pdf. 4 https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-5638-2025-INIT/en/pdf.”
  LGBTIQ+
• 2025-03-13 “E-001085/2025 Answer given by Mr Hoekstra On behalf of the European Commission The CO 2 emission standards for cars and vans Regulation 1 sets average fleet emission reduction targets, driving a gradual transition towards zero-emission mobility, and giving time to the industry to adapt. As strongly requested by the industry, the Regulation provides the option for manufacturers that may not be able to comply with the targets on their own, to pool with other manufacturers. Pooling is not mandatory under the Regulation, but is one option as part of manufacturers’ compliance strategy. When an agreement to form a pool is signed by the manufacturers involved, the appointed pool manager has to notify the Commission thereof. The pooling agreements are private contracts between manufacturers and the Commission services are not informed about the detailed contents of those contracts, nor of any related financial arrangements. The list of the pools established and their members is published each year by the Commission in the annual monitoring Decisions adopted under the Regulation. In the past few years, most of the pools solely consisted of connected undertakings (‘closed’ pools). The Regulation does not, however, require manufacturers to report the specific place of production of individual vehicles put on the EU market. In the Industrial Action Plan for the European automotive sector 2 , the Commission sets out concrete measures to help secure global competitiveness of the European automotive industry and maintain a strong European production base. The Plan notably highlights the need for a cost-competitive domestic battery cell production and supply chain and indicates that European content requirements on battery cells and components in electric vehicles sold in the EU are to be addressed in upcoming legislation. 1 http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2019/631/2024-01-01. 2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52025DC0095.”
  Road transport environmental policy · Vehicle content rules: mandatory EU components vs. open global sourcing for carmakers
• “Colleagues, thank you much indeed. All of the technical teams have been able to do their work, in peace and quiet, and thank you for how the, negotiations have been gone. That'll lead to a quality proposal. So it's more technical than political. Luckily, this time, we didn't have too many disagreements. For my group, well, we've had bitter experience, lessons learned from previous years, and that needs to flow into the new CF. We tabled a few amendments as the Patriots, as other groups have as well. And I think this is the main point. We need a clear plan b if individual member states if individual member states, still refuse to, implement these tentee rules, especially when it comes to these, Trans European corridors. I think there are some countries that are blockaded, and the experiences from the past, I think, are very clear. So I'm very happy that in this committee, we've been able to cooperate constructively. The aim is very clear. I think we all can sign up to it. We need to better, connect Europe and make it, economically stronger, and that's why we need a network.”
  EU transport infrastructure integration
• “Thank you. Well, let me say it absolutely clearly. This ban on, um, combustion cars as of 2035 is the most ridiculous decision taken by the EU and its entire history. It's going to have hugely negative consequences for the whole of Europe. At one blow, the EU has pretty much drawn the carpet away under the feet of the European automobile. Industry. Huge numbers of jobs have been lost in Germany alone. Um, loss of profits and jobs. And that is the result of this ridiculous ban. The turnover in electrical cars is stagnating in Europe. No wonder they're expensive to, to construct and to use. And this forced lack of mobility really is limiting our citizens. And finally, there is a possibility of putting an end to this utter madness in a few months time. Um, just a few months ago, Manfred Weber of the EPP said, months ago, I promised to Europeans that, um, we're going to get rid with the combustions. But last month, uh, the EPP once again was together with the left wing fanatics. Uh, and to speed this up once again. So that's what the words and the promises of EPP are worth. Um, basically, um, we're supposed to assist people by their acts rather than their words. So the EPP can turn around as well. Vote with us, the Patriots, against this ban on combustion engines. And then we can start to take you seriously again, because otherwise, basically you're just going to be there to create majorities for the fanatics on the left.”
  Road transport environmental policy
• “So 12 year long years. The EU You has not introduced new passenger air passenger rights. And now suddenly we have this particular regulation, which actually creates a worse situation than before. Rather than three hours of delay, it's now four hours to receive any sort of compensation. Backstepping in other words, for consumers, for passengers, for their protection, what can. It's a terrible deal, of course, between the European Union Commission and the airline industry. The airline industry will make billions as far as savings with this lower compensation which is provided and and also sustainable air fuel. Aircraft fuel is more expensive and it isn't even effective at all. And of course it has huge costs for the for the industry, for passengers, for everybody. And now we have this particular declaration From the airline industry, which presents everything in a wonderful fashion, which doesn't correspond to any reality whatsoever, whatsoever. So I do think that this whole thing is very embarrassing, Commissioner. And I and of course, all of this is supported by madam von der Leyen. This, uh, trumpeted New Green Deal, scandalous in nature, which will be paid for by European consumers, by all the citizens, men and women of this continent.”
  Decarbonisation of aviation sector
• “Mr. president the EU wants to. Increase the use of these fuels in the airline sector. So when we look at it to other types of energy we're going to see energy requirements increase. We need to use all new sources of um of resources. Now the plan for 2.3 billion in the next few years for mobility could be, um, a solution. But we need to look at the issue of technological, uh, interoperability and openness, which do not have an ideological view. But the problematic, uh, issue is the way that the commission is going about this. And rather than making these fuels the cheaper we need to make fossil fuels more expensive so that we can have, for example, CO2 trading. But this is the wrong way of looking at things. It's the wrong way. Um, it's just a question of, uh, we need to provide incentives rather than penalties, and it's absolutely unrealistic. This reduction of 90% by 2050 from. So this is not going to be achieved. If we look at maritime shipping, we'll see that's going to increase over coming years. And air transport will also increase significantly over coming years. So how will this actually be achieved. Need to have a realistic, uh, aims. We need to use open technology. We need to have a reasonable way forward rather than focusing on trying to achieve utopia.”
  Decarbonisation of aviation sector
• “And that would be dramatic. And we know that there is a big member state here in the European Union with many, many neighboring states, and that's why it's important for us to deal with coordination, making sure that borders can be crossed effectively and well. So we look at past experience and we learn from that. And from that point of view, we need to enter a bit of a reservation. Sf should be used for targeted purposes. You know we don't just need a lot of carrots. We need also a stick, I think, to make sure that this is done correctly and properly. You know, just goodwill will not suffice, I'm afraid. I don't think that that will be sufficient as a basis. So these would be my comments based on the lessons that we've learned over the last few years, which have been quite tough to swallow. Now, fortunately, we're not that far removed from one another in terms of our position. So I look forward to future positive discussions on this within committee. And I very much hope that we'll be able to create something good for Europe going forward. Thank you.”
  Enlargement of Schengen area
• “Thank you. Chair. Honourable Minister, I listened carefully and I also went through the presidency programme with great care. And sadly, I cannot refrain from expressing some disappointment. Granted, you represent a great, well-functioning country, and I would like Europe to become more like Denmark in several political areas. However, sadly, it seems that in matters more dear to this committee. To my committee, you are stuck in the past. A past where a great majority danced around the green agenda that turns out to become a green disaster. Our economy is already on its last legs due to the Green Deal ideology, and unfortunately, it seems you want to continue these self-destructive policies. Simply putting nice sounding adjectives in front of every measure will not change reality. All the green jobs are out here, but just outside Europe. We need an affordable and competitive transport industry. Otherwise everyone will lose out. You know it, I know it, and you know that. We know that you know it. Granted, the files you have on your agenda have mostly been written and proposed during the last, let's say, crazy years. So there is not much you can do. But as coordinator of Patriots, I kindly ask you to consider a more Scandinavian approach during your presidency. You know, Scandinavian less is more in design and everywhere. And sometimes less is indeed more. Closing files just for the sake of closing those files will do more harm than good. Europe needs time to breathe, not another flurry of poorly thought out green policies. Thank you.”
  Energy (green transition)
• “How would you describe the results of Cop 30 forwards? Apart from travel expenses? Nothing. So I'm actually quite happy about that myself. What was the result of the last climate conference? €300 billion a year paid by industry streets. And if we as Europeans pay a big chunk of this, whereas the Americans might wisely abandon the whole system. So we continue to spend the money of Europeans. And that's pretty much the only objective of this climate conference is to, uh, drag as much money as possible out of European citizens. So the cost of a hotel room in Berlin was between, uh, was over €3,000 a night. You can imagine how much money was spent. The main achievement of the conference was to build a new motorway through the tropical rainforest. Hundreds of thousands of hectares were chopped down. That's what climate. That's what environmental protection looks like in the hands of the climate activists. That seems to me pretty much the only result. I hope it will be the last such conference. **Nicolae ȘTEFĂNUȚĂ @Co-Chair: Next is Mr. Thomas Bohinski.”
  Climate efforts
• “Well, the EU emissions system needs to be get get rid of because emissions trading is the most stupid measure in the history of the Union because competitiveness of our economy is really distorted everywhere. It just makes production more expensive. Emission trade destroys jobs, and it is also the biggest gift to all our competitors China, the United States and everywhere else. And I don't know why the climate supporters don't understand this. You know, the climate apocalypse has been gotten rid of in other countries. And, you know, I think we need to go back to common sense. So all these useless climate laws should be thrown out of the window, and emissions trading should be the very first one to go out of the window.”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “(10:28:38 – 10:31:21): Thank you, Thank you, madam chair. The European car industry is 1 of the key pillars of our economy. €350,000,000,000 is worth per year, and we're talking about 30,000,000 jobs. Millions of families depend on this industry. But from mister von der Leyen, it's basically 7% of all workers in the EU. That's what von der Leyen has said. And in the European semester published today, it's there as well. In the car industry, 600,000 jobs are on the line. Why? Chinesecom competition and, moving away from combustion engines. Now this is the last opportunity to protect our industry before it's done away with it. It's it moves to to China bit by bit. I think it's going the right direction, this, proposal, but it's too less, too narrow. Speaking to, constituents I hear from the EPP, well, back then in 2024, you know, I would say, well, why has this, proposal not done what we wanted back then? We're basically, bowing down to China, to NGOs, to the greens. That's what the industry has to do. Biofuels, 10%, that's not gonna change anything. No. When it comes to green stable percentages there. If we really care about the environment, why not have a green material in batteries? You know, make sure there's no child labor, but it's all hypocrisy. And therefore, what we would like, the patriots, we need to change the trajectory. That's what we said before the election or what we're saying now. 5 points. We need to delete the de facto ban on combustion, engines. Secondly, we need to move to the well to wheel method for real neutral, technology. We need to move away from excess compensation credits because that puts us at disadvantage when it comes to Chinese and American industry. Fourth, monitoring just takes too much time collating data. And fifth, do away with the very high penalties. We need to strengthen our industry, not strangle it. And, Philippe, p, I agree with you. Reading your, electoral program, you know, we have to implement what we've said promised to constituents before the election. Thank you.”
  Chinese clean tech competition: trade barriers and investment caps vs. open market
• “So what are we actually talking about here? This point is only on the agenda to meet the socialist need to have more rules and more money. The money of other people. Their interest is well known for that. But we have to repair what's happening with individual transport first and foremost. Um. But what's happening with the air? Passengers, car drivers, everything's more expensive, more rules. But nothing's improving. Nothing's getting better. There's no progress that the apparently the EU is supposed to be bringing to its passengers. Even trams in Brussels, um, run in the same way as they do at me in my home. But that's not up to the EU. It's national competence. Public transport should be regulated where it happens. Certainly not a back room in the EU, in the European Commission. So hands off. Um, and let's not build up further European democracy. That's enough. This demand for subsidies, more subsidies, more and more rules, that's brought us where we are right now. So please just stop it.”
  EU funding for transportation
• “On the strict emission standards and the ban on the internal combustion engine, we're really not helping the situation. How are we meant to compete with this? And then having penalty payments of at least €15 billion being imposed, if you think that's what's saving the European car industry, when these penalty payments are just displaced to a few years later, then I'm sorry, you're not going to expect help from this package. Those who are going to get help from this package, that's the Chinese. And if the EU sticks to the Green Deal, it's just going to go downhill. We're talking about a billion of value creation, a third of investments for RTD, 14 million jobs. That's what we're looking at at the moment in Europe. And with this ideological approach that's become a kind of cult this meta zero emission policy. You're destroying that industry commissioner with the Green Deal. Stop with the Green Deal. We don't need any desperate savings plans because our industry will be able to save itself.”
  Road transport environmental policy
• “Well, the core of this report is very clear. The EU needs more money for the energy transition, for defence. And where is all that money going to come from? Well, it's going to come from people's savings, new taxes, common debt and more centralisation. The Green Deal is a huge flop. The energy transition has failed. And just look at energy prices and what that's done to our economy. Well we've heard about the next generation EU. Well that breaks the treaties. And it's going to burden future generations with huge debt. Citizens and companies are groaning under the burden of taxes. And now this is basically calling for more of the same. This is a centralised power that's gone out of control. Citizens are wondering if the if the people in Brussels have any idea what's going on. And no. Is the answer.”
  Own EU resources
• “For one minute? Well, I wouldn't have even thought that the commission could be so cynical. They're saying that as people are buying too few electric vehicles, they have to be forced to do so. The commission sees that people prefer to drive diesel and petrol cars. And yet they're going to make small electric vehicles the new standard. The commission is trying to force us to drive around in little EVs. The Chinese are stealing our markets. Not in the EU mini format with proper cars. What the Commission is doing here is nothing but creating a state controlled economy, which means shortages of everything in a new sort of green disguise. You are sacrificing our car industry. You are betraying the interests of Europe. You, a commissioner, should take this house seriously. You are the one who is ignoring the will of our citizens, who are jeopardizing our prosperity, and who are breaking your own electoral promises. We patriots for Europe will fight. Every single proposal of this package.”
  Road transport environmental policy
• “The European industry is in an existential crisis and it's the EU's own responsibility. It's this insane Green Deal policy, crazy energy policies and absolutely pointless bureaucracy, which is simply destroying the fundaments of the union and society. Therefore, in a situation such as this. Yes, indeed, you think the EU should be for a 180 degree volte face. You need to save industry. You need to save the EU. So you would think that that's what the Commission would do, but it isn't. It's just carrying on with another plethora of it's crazy legislation, Another omnibus worse than before. And the worst thing is that they know exactly what they're doing. They know what the Green Deal is. They know that the Green Deal is destroying our economy. They know that they've been barking up the wrong tree for the last five years, but they don't want to lose face. And so they're just carrying on with gay abandon as before, out of sheer and utter vanity. There is no proper economic foundation for the future for our young people here. This omnibus is absolutely far too little and far too late. Thank you.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Lagarde, you said that monetary policy is in a good place. Who? For whom? For whom is it? In a good place. There are millions of citizens who have lost purchasing power, and they've had to stomach that month by month, inflation has gone up to 15% for certain products. And you said. Well, you have held these people hostage with your loose monetary policy. It's not balanced. Families have had to choose between heating or eating. That's not a success story. It's a disaster. This is not directional policy. The direction is high levels of debt and lead. The people who are saving the savers. Capital markets union, banking union, digital euro, strategic independence. Lots of term terms there, but just more power and more centralization for the ECB. Let me say it clearly. We need a stable currency, not a policy that lets citizens freeze. And just saying that everything's in a good place.”
  ECB monetary policy
• “Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, this proposal is really underestimated, and I think it's clear how desperate the commission's climate plan has become. Obviously, companies, whatever you're talking about, taxi, rental companies, SMEs, construction companies, for all of them, you want to have a regulation saying what sort of engine they have to buy. Nothing to do with the geography or the economic reality, has nothing to do with a free market economy. This is the planned economy. And what's particularly worrying is that the commission is just so cowardly to implement itself. Member states have to. They have to implement and make sure their companies implement this. The commission saying that they just want electric only. This is the root of the problem. It's basically a state based obligation, and it's an attack on economic freedom. So we're gonna be using money we don't have. We're gonna be losing jobs, and we're going to be pushing Europe into a communist dictatorship. China, that's the only country where fuels for batteries are monitored. But with this regulation, Europe voluntarily is becoming a Chinese addict of Chinese batteries. In the best situation, it's naive, but realistically, it's suicide. The state shouldn't decide which technology companies should be using. It should be the market deciding that, looking at competitiveness and what that company needs. Commission has said they're going to go back to technology neutrality. We know that's not the case. This is the planned economy, and therefore, we reject it fully.”
  Corporate fleet electrification: binding zero-emission quotas vs. voluntary approach
• “Uh, thank you, commissioners, for your concise presentation. Uh, bearing in mind the broader political debate on the MFF, I can only congratulate our Transport commissioner for getting CF to the table in its current form. My main concern, however, is how we will make the best possible use of the funds and get the most out of every euro invested in infrastructure. My fear is that we will pour substantial amounts of European taxpayers money into railway infrastructure without generating genuine European added value, as member states remain hesitant, to put it mildly, about opening their markets. Spending European money on infrastructure that cannot be used by all Europeans misses the point entirely. So I would therefore like to know how you will ensure that EU funds for rail infrastructure in, let's say, Germany, Poland, Croatia, Slovenia and so on also benefit companies from other European countries. Is the Commission prepared to link access to the single market for all our companies to the allocation of infrastructure funding? And lastly, what is your benchmark against which key performance indicators do you plan to measure the success of CEF?”
  EU transport infrastructure integration
• “Commissioner colleagues here in the EU Parliament, everyone wants to put us on a war footing. But five years ago you wanted to replace heavy duty vehicles with bicycles. So now I want to look at the EPP and I want to look to the S&D. Look, the EU was originally founded as a union to generate prosperity and ensure peace. And if you're going to do that, you have to have effective infrastructure. That's the DNA of the EU. But instead you are focusing on a utopia. You're just focusing on green issues, on climate issues. For years, you have been trying to get rid of the combustion engine for Austria and for all of Central Europe. That won't be helpful. So we need to do things in the EU which provide added value for citizens, more than providing three fee sums to climate NGOs provided by DNV under life. That is a waste of money. Now, as a speaker for my group, I want to stress the following. Stability and certainty of planning for infrastructure operators are important. We shouldn't sacrifice that stability just for the political favor of the day.”
  Road transport environmental policy
• “Thank you very much, chairman. The report before us is a good basis, a solid basis for future discussions. There are a lot of amendments that I can also agree to in terms of the content. The Connecting Europe facility, and of course, the fact that it needs to remain a European instrument. That's all fine. However, there are concerns shared by some of our colleagues, which I would also agree with. For instance, the work plans of the European coordinators when it comes to corridors. That's one issue. I understand the objective, but it would appear that we're using European taxpayers money in order to support certain networks, interoperable ones like the IRS or indeed the large corridors. Now, I have to say, this shouldn't then lead to some kind of problems at national level. And that's why I would support the amendment that suggests that the European Commission can only decide on these plans once we've got the implementing acts. Once we've got all the facts, once we've got all the data, we need clarity and we need to be able to exert pressure where needs be. What I'm missing here is a plan B, really a clear plan B? For instance, if there were to be individual member states that decided to decided to make a constructive contribution to some of these efforts, such as great transnational corridors, you know, it could actually lead to misallocation of these resources and means.”
  EU transport infrastructure integration
• “Yes. Thank you. Chair. I will speak in German. Thank you for the. Informative presentation with der neuen Ordnung ist die Rolle der coordinator werden und das Aufgaben auch Ausgewertet massif. Ziel ist es die Stellung ist auch noch ein zu halten sie. Auch einen Neuen Corridor im Jahr 2014 und eine Frage richtet sich daher an Herrn Marianne Marinescu, wie werden sie die Erfahrungen aus den anderen corridors nutzen die Stellung des corridors zu arbeiten, sie den ersten und der Kommission an implementing acts vielleicht für die kritischen nazionale überschreiten abschnitt und lasst sich verhindern, dass der West Balkan Corridor im f3 wird und zum Schluss ich freue mich sehr sie hier im dran wieder zu sehen.”
  EU transport infrastructure integration
• “Secretary general. The commission is calling it a plan for competitiveness. And I think it's more a plan for insolvency. And it could really undermine everything that's made Europe strong. It's not about climate protection. It's a declaration of a fight with industry, jobs and our prosperity. 90% fewer emissions by 2040 is what you say you want. And what is that going to achieve for the climate? Can you tell us? No, you can't. And even your own impact assessments doesn't give us a figure. Why is that? It's because the effect on the climate will be zero. But the impact on us will be serious. And what remains then? We have a green fantasy world, a Europe full of empty factories, abandoned city centres, shut down factories where we once had production. We will have dead bureaucracy. And in the meantime, the US is focusing on cheaper energy on its national strengths. China is developing new coal power stations, India is growing, but Europe just pays. And deindustrialization itself. It's not a strategy. It is a capitulation. And we won't play along with this. And I would also ask you, how many degrees will the global climate call by if Europe destroys its industry? And how do you want to explain to people that their jobs, their energy supply and their standard of living is to be lost for the purpose of a goal that won't achieve anything globally, will drag the continent into poverty and insignificance.”
  Climate efforts
• “Thank you. Thank you chair. I will speak in German. So that. To make sure that I'm not misunderstood. Um. The this whole debate is reminiscent of the smoker non smoker discussion 10 or 12 years ago. I'm also reminded of the alcohol debate, which comes back periodically. Now, I don't drink energy drinks. Indeed, I won't even touch a can of it. Can of it. And I have three kids, none of whom, thank God, has ever had any problematic consumption habits with these energy drinks. But I'm a little bit concerned by the fact that this discussion is only talking about bans. Efsa has said that the ingredients are safe and moderate. Caffeine intake is not a problem even for young people. But what we're talking about here is taking the problematic behaviour of a small group and then banning the sub, the drinks for the entire group. Now, as a liberal thinker, that's something that I've always spoken out against and something that I would reject. My question then is, wouldn't it be better to organize the market, to push for more responsibility rather than banning things and therefore taking the decision away from people? We're just reacting to a small group. We would be treating different caffeine sources differently. I mean, tea and coffee are actually the main. And Coke are the main sources of caffeine. Um, and here we're aiming at regulation for a very small niche product.”
  EU measures on lifestyle-related behaviours (smoking, drinking, eating, etc.)
• “Thank you. Sorry. Okay. I'm speaking on behalf of Mr. Vanucci, who had to stay in Italy today due to the elections in Tuscany. With our amendments, Mr. Vanucci seeks to strengthen the European Union's strategic vision on military mobility and, more broadly, on continental security. The crisis surrounding us compels us to move beyond one directional approach, focused exclusively on the eastern flank, and to build a strategic balance that also gives equal urgency to the wider Mediterranean. The war in Ukraine has understandably drawn much of our attention towards the East. Yet we must not allow this to make us blind to another reality, equally serious and deeply structural, that of our southern front. The Mediterranean, North Africa, Sahel and the Levant today represent an area of complex instability where hybrid threats, migratory pressures, jihadist terrorism, transnational crime and geopolitical interference by external actors are increasingly interwoven. The response to these challenges cannot be purely military, says Mr. Vannacci. It must be infrastructural, integrated and dual in nature. We therefore propose strengthening investments in dual use infrastructures, civilian and military, capable of serving both defence and economic development. Ports, airports, railways, bridges, energy and digital networks must become strategic assets of the union. A series of mobility, security and growth. Mediterranean is already a vital corridor for Europe's energy security. Gas pipelines, regasification terminals, LNG hubs and submarine cables from the form the lifeblood of a Europe that seeks to be autonomous and resilient. These infrastructures must be protected, integrated within the Ten-t network and fully reflected in the Union's common defence Defense planning. Only in this way can geopolitical and economic security advance together without contradiction. The first to stop at time.”
  EU competences on defence
• “Thanks, Madam Chair. As always, when it's a longer time, I intend to speak. I will speak in German. I was reading this accompanying letter from the commission with a great deal of attention. And I want to be very clear here. Dg move doesn't seem to know our own legislation here, saying that we could extend these periods until Till 2031 to create legal certainty. Well that's paradoxical. This random extension that the Commission seems to want now is preventing legal certainty and the existing legal certainty. It's very simple. At the moment in law, it says that no tolls will end in 2025. And that was something that was, uh, negotiated. Uh, through the EPP and other like minded groups. In the commission's proposal, it doesn't say so from the 1st of January 2026. The member states have the right to. To remove 75% of the toll from the, um, zero emission vehicles. That's no trifling matter. 75%. Um, and these totals are make up to a third of the operating costs of heavy goods vehicles. And if there were to be another exemption, that would be changed. Then the question arises, well, why would this not apply to vehicles under 12 tons? Uh, in Austria and Germany? Where the tolls um system is being expanded to, uh, more minor roads as well. So why for only, um electric and hydrogen vehicles. So the timing of the proposal really is questionable. I'm an optimist, and I would assume that president von der Lion is trying to get away from this promise of a technologically neutral solution for, uh, cars and for heavy goods vehicles. But what we have now really contradicts the concept of technological neutrality.”
  Road transport environmental policy
• “The commission has discovered that there's a housing crisis, even though the EU doesn't have any powers in housing. It's up to the member states. The Commission wants to solve this problem nonetheless. Commissioner, I have a tip for you. Speak to the. Those responsible in the Member States. I can help you. I can set up a meeting with the person responsible in my federal state, and we can tell you why there is a housing crisis. The emission certificates, trading energy and which has made energy expensive and. And which means that heating costs will get even more expensive from 2028. The energy efficiency direction, the eco design direction, all these Green Deal legislation which drives up housing costs. The EU and in particular the Commission are the problem and not the solution. Stop your damaging and crazy green disaster policy. Then the housing. Problem will be dealt with very quickly and swiftly.”
  EU housing policy
• “Ladies and gentlemen, I'll be very clear. The climate target of 90% greenhouse gas emissions reduction by 2040 is not ambitious. It's an attack on our lifestyle by the Commission. We will lose jobs, companies will emigrate. People will struggle with bills. Who decided that it wasn't the farmers or the workers or the people that decided this. It's an unelected, bureaucratic bubble that Have decided, under the influence of some international green NGOs, to set this target. That seems to be more important to them than the daily problems that we encounter in our Member States. Hundreds of rules and regulations and. About CO2 molecules, but nothing done about uninhibited mass migration. Um, uh, mass rapes and, um, uh, attacks by aggressive political Islam? No, all that counts is that good green feeling, um, uh, created by bureaucrats in their ivory tower. This is arrogance. This is weakening Europe. Ursula von der Leyen is destroying prosperity and creating depravation. She is putting citizens in chains. We need a Europe of hope, of opportunity, of freedom. Not this green socialism that is destroying Europe. So my appeal is directed not to the commission under this leadership is a hopeless case, but my appeal is to the heads of state and government. Tell Ursula von der Leyen that enough is enough. Reject this madness. Speak up for the Europe that you inherited from your predecessors, for freedom.”
  Climate efforts
• “Cbam is a load of rubbish. Emissions trading is rubbish. Pricing CO2 is rubbish. It's unique in the world. And the whole world is laughing about this daft project. It makes energy more expensive. It makes manufactured products more expensive. It makes people's lives more expensive. And now Cbam is going to make imports more expensive as well. And at the same time, it's a huge problem for trade agreements. You see the problems we're having in negotiating with India. The only people who profit from all of this, and that's the EU Commission. Because you're increasing your own tax income. So it's a new tariff, it's a new tax. And it goes straight into the Brussels Commission budget. And everybody else is paying consumers, industry, exporters. But the most important thing is that the commission gets its pocket money. Cbam consumer burden. At maximum burden. Burden on the consumer.”
  Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM)
• “I'll keep it brief. Don't worry. Council and Parliament have clearly established a clearly stipulated that the CO2 distinction in the tunnel system can be replaced if another instrument, such as some trading system for emissions, can be adopted instead. So what we're doing is not providing legal certainty because each member state can decide as it sees fit. There should be no direct or indirect double taxation. That was very clear. But with this time limit. The reason behind that was to prevent double taxation. And I'll spare you the recitals. Uh, recital 24 and quoting that that was adopted and recital 27 as well. Where we the commission we mandated the commission. The commission would have to present an amendment if for some trading system were to come into place. So conclusion. This proposal from the Commission contradicts your duty to prevent double taxation. And it's a direct contradiction of the concept of technological neutrality as listed in the Commission Action plan. It doesn't create legal certainty. On the contrary. It's up to the member states if they apply the exemption or not. And this offsetting of tolls by 75%. It's actually adding to the the, um, red tape with more questions. And a revision would only come in 2027 a review. So for some years we would have double taxation. And that's something we do not want. Which is why this is against the legislators will. And that's for those reasons is why we reject this proposal and the urgency procedure as well. Thank you very much.”
  Road transport environmental policy