Matthias ECKE

Member of the European Parliament · Germany · S&D · Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands

Policy topics Matthias ECKE is active on

Digital euroTrade relations with ChinaSourcing of critical raw materials

What Matthias ECKE has said (58)

2025-07-01 “PE776.120v01-00 EN P-002678/2025 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Virkkunen on behalf of the European Commission As regards the trade relationship between the EU and the United States (US), the EU’s priority is to find a negotiated solution with the US. The Commission is engaging intensively with the US both at technical and political level to try and achieve an agreement that reflects the interests of European businesses, workers, and consumers. While the contours of such agreement are yet to be agreed with the US, throughout these negotiations, the EU has been clear with the US that changes to existing EU legislation, including the Digital Markets Act (DMA), are not on the table. The EU-US trade negotiations have no bearing on the obligation of the Commission to ensure effective gatekeeper compliance with the DMA. 1 The Commission is implementing the DMA, under the control of the EU courts, in a neutral, robust and evidence-based manner, relying on all instruments provided under the DMA. The Commission's enforcement action is informed by the Digital Markets Advisory Committee, representing the Member States. Apart from that, a common committee as suggested in the article is neither provided under the DMA nor being set up. It is the gatekeepers’ responsibility to ensure that their services, including new artificial intelligence (AI)-based services, comply with the DMA. As part of its broader assessment of AI-related topics under the DMA, the Commission is also looking into Alphabet’s use of AI summaries at the top of its search engine results page (SERP). Moreover, the preliminary findings sent to Alphabet on 19 March 2025, which related to Google Search’s favouring of Alphabet’s own services, set out certain principles that Alphabet should abide by concerning the ranking of current and future services on the SERP. 2 These principles could also apply to AI Overviews. 1 https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/index_en. 2 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_81.”
EU rules on digital competition
2025-01-29 “P-000402/2025 Answer given by Mr Hoekstra on behalf of the European Commission The procedure for the Commission’s annual assessment of the CO 2 emission performance of car and van manufacturers, including their compliance with the emission targets set out in Regulation (EU) 2019/631 1 , is outlined in Articles 7 and 9 of that Regulation and in Chapter 2 of Regulation (EU) 2021/392 2 . The Commission calculates the average CO 2 emissions and CO 2 emission targets for each manufacturer based on the vehicle registration data, which Member States submit to the European Environment Agency each year by 28 February, in respect of the preceding calendar year. The Commission shares those provisional findings with the manufacturers, who then have three months to notify any errors. Subsequently, the Commission is required to adopt a Decision setting out the final CO 2 emission performance of all cars and vans manufacturers for the monitoring year concerned, by 31 October of the following year. That Decision is notified to the manufacturers and published in the Official Journal. Manufacturers not meeting their CO 2 emissions target in a given calendar year are obliged to pay an excess emissions premium, which is calculated following the formula set out in Article 8(2) of Regulation (EU) 2019/631 and using the data set out in the Commission Decision on the CO 2 emission performance for that year. The premium amounts to EUR 95 multiplied by the excess emissions (number of g/km by which the target was exceeded) and by the number of newly registered vehicles of the manufacturer in that calendar year. Manufacturers that are due to pay a premium receive a ‘Letter of advice of recovery’ and have the opportunity to raise any comment. After that period, the Commission issues a debit note, payable by the manufacturer within 45 days after receipt. 1 Regulation (EU) 2019/631 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 setting CO 2 emission performance standards for new passenger cars and for new light commercial vehicles, and repealing Regulations (EC) No 443/2009 and (EU) No 510/2011 (OJ L 111, 25.4.2019, p. 13). 2 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/392 of 4 March 2021 on the monitoring and reporting of data relating to CO 2 emissions from passenger cars and light commercial vehicles pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2019/631 of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Commission Implementing Regulations (EU) No 1014/2010, (EU) No 293/2012, (EU) 2017/1152 and (EU) 2017/1153 (OJ L 77, 5.3.2021, p. 8).”
Road transport environmental policy
“(16:02:48 – 16:03:58): Thank you Chair, thank you also to all the experts. I think this is still an extremely interesting debate that we have here because I think everyone is clear about what the objectives of the ECF are but given the limited resources we have still even if it's a new policy instrument but we still have the limited resources on the central your level and how can we best achieve it. I was wondering what your position is on a more sectoral basis and we discussed the pros and cons of more clear budget lines and more clear working programs. On the other hand we also need to bear in mind the administrative context so every of these working programs will to some degree be related to a unit within the European administration that handles them and that needs to have some expertise on the subject area on sector. So what do you think about a more detailed sectoral approach, working programs that combine Horizon and the ECF on the level of let's say a specific technology sector?”
EU research funding
“Thank you very much, chairman and director general. It would have been good to see more colleagues here today. But many people are listening to the new presentation of the presentation of the MFF in the Budget Committee. Because we have an increasing digital world and this is key, we need to improve our digital sovereignty. And when it comes to cloud computing and AI, we are significantly behind the United States. Now, obviously this affects our dependence as well, but there are many opportunities. If you look at areas such as quantum computing, we really have set out a good path there. I would like to know what the question says about Euro stacks, where there is the potential for support and public procurement to support European companies when allowing them to scale up. Could a Euro stack act be an option? In order to deal with this and to focus on strategic investment and clear conditions? The other thing is the implementation of existing regulations every week. A European Digital Act, or digital regulation, is a subject of disputes and also horse trading with the United States. We and the. We have the act as well. And those regulations ensure, um certainty for investors. Can we be guaranteed that the Commission will be focusing on this? Thank you.”
EU digital & tech sovereignty
“Thank you chair. Thank you. Dear Executive Vice President, Virkkunen, for joining us in this important debate debate today. And we totally support the general idea to say that we should not lower our standards, but lowering our compliance costs. But to be honest, if I see the omnibus proposals in a digital package, they are not just technical cleanups. And I think the changes proposed especially to GDPR, but also to e-privacy rules and AI rules, they really fundamentally lower our fundamental rights protection and open the door to large scale personal data processing. And this is the business model of like us, hyperscalers, big tech and not so much of European SMEs. So I have two questions. I wonder, first, how will you prevent kind of like a double reality where the US big tech hyperscalers can make use of this new deregulated, loosened rules and increase their profits and their business model even more, while our digital SMEs do not have the capacity to scale and are even more left behind. And the other thing I think that people really want to know, what role did the US government and their connection to the big American tech companies play in this legislation? Because there's a lot of criticism around a lot of speculations. I think it would be now the time for you to make clear which role a US government played in that. Thank you.”
GDPR
“Thank you chair. Thank you. Executive Vice President uh for like proposing this important, uh, regulation. And uh, I want to, uh, welcome the ambition that the commission has on the DNA. I know that some reservations exist with the member states. Some even wanted a directive instead of a regulation. And, uh, but but I think it's the right way to go to have a common set of rules and also integrating existing legislation. So I think it's also a contribution to the simplification that we all want on regulatory terms. At the same time, I also welcome that the commission sticks to the ex-ante regulation, because what we want is to deepen the single market, to make cross-border investment easier, but not to create local monopolies, because I think competition is good for investment and also for consumer protection. I have a few questions on on some of the issues that are important to me and my political family. One is the interconnection network fees. How will the commission, um, prevent that, this voluntary cooperation or dispute settlement mechanisms in the area of interconnection from evolving that into a de facto network access or fee system, which could disadvantage consumers and also endanger net neutrality. Also, on net neutrality, some recitals are missing that uh, would in practice, according to to some consumer organizations weaken net neutrality and they could undermine CEO case law and the barrier guidelines. So how can you ensure that the net neutrality is not weakened and the last one is on regulatory and competition. So why should the Commission itself take a stronger role in the interpretation and enforcement, and the role of the independent national regulators in Berec could potentially be weakened with a lack of independence of Berwick? How can you avoid that?”
Senders-pay
“And it's good to see you again. And we had already talked about the impact also of aviation, the impact of fishing. And I like also to think creatively. It's like, if I got you right and you were advocating for Parliament should pressure commission to withdraw? Um, did you did you make up your mind also in your organization, discussions with others? What what else could be a possibility? I mean, some are talking about could aviation and fishing, um, taxation like which something which is uh, based on transport issues could that may be something that could be directed into a new own resource. So to take it away from like national perspective. So is this something that we could take out and include in the MFF negotiations? I mean, just to to be a bit more creative, because I think we come to a point where the council has been unable to move forward anyway. Um, and we cannot accept the status quo because it's not aligned to our climate goals. It's not effective taxation. It's it's creating a very harmful tax incentives. Uh, and I think we cannot go on like this. And as a parliament, I think, colleagues, we really need to see how we go on with our opinion on the ETD, because if the council is not moving forward, we can either push for an ambitious one or we can look for a different solution. Thank you.”
Own EU resources
“President. Winning the global tech race is not just about speed, it is about direction. Technology needs a purpose. It is not a purpose in itself. We must be competitive, yes, but we must also define where we are heading. Europe's path should not be a simple replication of the Hyperscaler tech giant model, relying on proprietary software and monopolistic structures. Instead, we must embrace open source, federated and decentralized approaches that ensure healthy competition and innovation. Our digital transformation must be built on a solid foundation of human rights, privacy and data protection. This is why I support the vision of a Eurostat, a European technology stack that secures our sovereignty and strengthens our position in the global tech race. I expect the European Commission to take a strong stance, proposing public procurement rules to prioritise those suppliers that align with our European values. We need substantial private and public investments in data centers, networks, chips, cloud services and software and we also need a capital markets union providing the financial backbone for Europe's digital future. The global tech race is ours to win, but only if we stay true to our values and ambition. Thank you.”
EU digital & tech sovereignty
“Thank you very much. Madam Minister, for coming to today's meeting and for presenting the very ambitious Danish presidency. I have a slightly different view to my colleagues. We have lots of regulation ahead of us, and the Digital Digital Fairness Act is very significant about protecting minors. But then there's the also Digital Networks Act because digital connectivity is very important. You talked about digital regulations. There's a concern that there will be proposals which. Will go into question some of our systems in Europe, especially when it comes about mergers and finding big champions. And we can see there that consumer rights could be put under pressure. Could you. Say that even in an early stage that there will be no changes to the regulations which protect consumers. Thank you.”
“Let me give some details first. The proposed changes to transition periods, combined with a kind of wake mid-term review clauses. They could allow extensions without any clear end date. And this is deeply problematic, I think not just for environmental reasons, but because also businesses rely on a stable and predictable legal framework. So uncertainty, I think, is toxic for investments. Second, several amendments convert previously optional exemptions to mandatory ones for a broad range of energy uses. This could tie the hands of member states and force them to subsidise technologies that are not future proof. And third, the possible introduction of a maximum tax rate is not only novelty. I think it could also be dangerous because capping rates would reduce member states flexibility and directly contradict the directives, climate and fiscal objectives. No such ceilings appear in the Council's discussions so far, and frankly, I think we should refrain from such methods. Anyway, I think I fully share the rapporteur's sense of urgency. We need the reform as soon as possible. It's about credibility to modernize the ET, to go on a more, not on an outdated fossil fuel based subsidy, but based on energy content. And I think with an open fact based dialogue and a shared sense of responsibility, we can find a path forward. I'm really looking forward to the discussions.”
Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
“Thank you chair. Thank you, Commissioner, for joining us today. And of course, uh, you sense a certain frustration about, um, the withdrawal of all these, um, proposals that would be helpful to minimize market fragmentation that we have in Europe. So specifically in the financial sector, um, we continue to have persistent tax fragmentation because of the value added tax exemption and all these, I think 90 or so national taxes that were made up kind of compensate for that. And this continues to hamper our cross-border activity and in the financial sector. And given the fact that we now have like, uh, competitiveness, uh, special summit, I mean, the member states push for more integration for deeper single market. Uh, I really see a window of opportunity there. And I also welcome the study that you have commissioned, the tax that has has mandated to see how the problem is shaped and how we can solve it. So what is your idea to move forward with that? I mean, we've drawn the FTT proposal because of lack of support, but it also came from another era like how do you what is your picture of the general financial sector taxation.”
VAT harmonisation
“Yes. Thank you. Mr.. Ushakov sends his apologies and asked me to step in. The rapporteur, dear chair, um, this is a very good drafted. Addresses a number of important issues and the Connecting Europe facility is. Of course, a somewhat particular case. Unlike many other programs. It's. Budgetary nomenklatura has not been reduced, although admittedly. It already is relatively limited, and this is something that we should dive in. Uh, in the negotiations. So in particular, the proposed regulation introduces a sub. Objective on renewable energy within the energy strand and in our view is indeed. This should also be clearly reflected in the budgetary nomenklatura. Furthermore, we should consider structuring the three programmes of connecting Europe facility. As budgetary chapters rather than articles. In order to ensure a stronger budgetary oversight and to limit excessive flexibility at the disposal of the commission, something we know from all the files. From the perspective of the S&D Group, we believe that any potential top up to the programme, following the ongoing negotiations on the MFF interim revision should primarily reinforce the energy and transport strands at the same time. We consider that the level proposed by the Commission for Military Mobility is already appropriate and does not require further increases. In addition, it is clearly within the remit of our Committee on Budgets to ensure that programmes are implemented in full respect of the principles set out in article 33, paragraph two of the Financial Regulation. That is, again the do no significant harm principle gender equality, social conditionality and these elements are closely linked to the performance framework, and they should therefore be adequately reflected in our budgetary scrutiny and assessment of the single files. So finally, I would also like to underline that the current target of 70% of climate contribution expenditure under CF UN appears rather conservative. It is kind of the same amount that under the current financial period already is in place, and that should be duly taken into account. So once again, thanks to the Rapporteur and Mr. Ushakov, and our group is looking forward to working on this important file.”
EU energy infrastructure integration
“Thank you. Chair. Um, thanks to your colleagues for this exchange today. Uh, because we are talking about one of the union's greatest success stories, which is cohesion policy. Since its inception, it has been the main instrument to reduce regional disparities, support lagging regions, and deliver tangible results in Europe for European citizens. So I think that cohesion policy, we think that cohesion policy must be funded and remain at the heart of the next multiannual financial framework. This budgetary assessment is fully aligned with the positions expressed in this House in the MFF interim report, which I think is clear, and a report adopted by an absolute majority last week in Strasbourg, which calls for cohesion policy to remain a distinct policy with a dedicated and robust ring fenced budget in the next MFF.”
Cohesion and rural funding
“Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. The European Commission's proposal, which they published today, is I think is a balanced proposal. Obviously, threshold for fleets are in line with what we already knew. They now set out clear guidelines, including more flexibility. Such flexibility can be useful. We find ourselves in a difficult situation, or at least the European car industry is. We need to secure jobs. We need to ensure that we get a long term approach in saving jobs. In the long term. The most valuable part of electric vehicles is, of course, in the battery, and that's the future of the industry. So I think today's proposal should lead to good results, good results, which can be supported by the center of this house, a shed. A pragmatic solution which will enable us to look to the future. The future is electric. We have to promote demands. We have to increase charging facilities, and we need to secure good jobs here in Europe.”
EV charging infrastructure
“Commissioner Sejeuner now we are scratching our heads rightly throughout Europe about our foreign trade relations but we haven't actually yet got a completed single market and we're looking at you know sending a package to another member stage I mean you've got all the postage costs for example you know same applies online as well so it's not genuinely a single market yet. It is the jewel in our crown because it has helped us to create growth prosperity and jobs so we need to look at the other EU states and look at the US federal states and look at all the gaps in our system and where the potential lies. So let's not just look at goods and services because you've got capital innovation which also flow across borders and so you need to make sure that you know you can get capital as easily as you can from New York. So we need political courage to tear down these barriers when it comes to supervision and when there are tax discrepancies and we also need member states to pull together because they all talk about harmonization but we need to look at deepening the single market and we're prepared to roll up our sleeves and do just that here in the European Parliament blue card no.”
EU Single Market harmonisation
“Thank you chair. Thank you to all the speakers. I mean, this is a really broad field that we're discussing today and it's would would require an extensive discussion I think. But our fields have one thing in common we are in the EU. We must place a greater emphasis on our digital sovereignty in this area, and we need our own solutions with open standards and in accordance with European rules. Otherwise, let me mention a few key points. I think the plan to gigafactories are a strong sign that Europe really wants to be at the forefront of AI and and in Yulik, we can also see how great the demand for SMEs startup and research for such offerings is, for example, and also in other places. Um, I very much hope that we can secure the necessary funding so that Europe gets at least five such factories. Ideally, I think they should probably be equipped with European chips, and not exclusively those from Nvidia. Um, second thing is about European cloud policy. I think in particular the plant, cloud and AI development. It must also address the dependence on US big tech, as you rightly mentioned.”
EU digital & tech sovereignty
“Thank you. Chair. I try to speak in English because I'm not so much focused on domestic policies here. Commissioner Dombrovskis, maybe let me start with the new structure of the semester, because overall, the new format has clear strengths, and the new European macroeconomic report is reducing duplication provides a clearer narrative of the Commission's strategic priorities. But on the other hand, concentrating the core analytical work in a single document had also narrowed the focus compared to the previous cycles. Key issues such as wage dynamic, job quality, regional disparities and distributional effects are no longer analysed in dedicated chapters. They only briefly mentioned across the report. So my first question is how will you assure the European Semester continues to provide a comprehensive and balanced assessment across all relevant policy areas under the new structure? Furthermore, the new structure approach reduces transparency in my point of view, by shifting key assessments into a bilateral process between the Commission and the Member States, such as the medium fiscal term structural plans. It has become harder to trace how conclusions are reached and to ensure consistent treatments across all countries. Also, for this Parliament, it has been harder. This expands the commission's discretionary power, which is especially concerning as semester priorities will really shape funding access in the next MFF. So my question is, what mechanisms will the Commission put in place to ensure that this process remains transparent, balanced, and resistant to political and methodological biases? And the third one is paying me to both Executive Vice President and Commissioner Dombrovskis, that the report identifies housing as a growing macroeconomic risk, which I think is a very good analysis because the recent price growth can no longer be explained by household borrowing alone, but increasingly also reflects speculative investments and the financialization of housing that diverts capital from productive investment. So my question is how do you intend to translate this analysis of housing market risk into concrete policy actions in the semester and beyond? Thank you.”
European Semester (social dimension)
“Thank you. Chair. Hello, Miss Fiona. I wish you a happy New Year. And we are glad that now the commission came up with the proposal for the automotive package on the omnibus. Let me state that it's a good idea that we have now this new category of small cars. I think it needs to be attractive to the customers, which, of course also means that we cannot lower any security requirements, uh, whatever. But it can be a good preferential treatment of these cars on Euro seven. Let me say that when we designed Euro seven, we expected the complete phase out of combustion cars by 2035. So if we, uh, like mainstream or streamlined the standards, which should be kept in mind that we still have a good protection level, even given the fact that we will have combustion engines by 2035. But I would like to focus on the battery booster. To be honest, I was a bit disappointed that we only got a communication on the booster. Given the fact that all the other elements of the automotive package were more substantial, and the scope that is proposed is respectable, but I think it's not ambitious enough. 1.5 billion in loans. It is a step. But given that, for example, Canada wanted to subsidize a battery plant by up to 9 billion over ten years, it seems pretty modest. So, um, let me just understand correctly, the battery booster provides interest free, performance based loans in a costly ramp up phase. So I understand you will support, um, with capital expenditure, uh, or do you, as demanded also by the battery companies want to support them with operational expenditure. Can you clarify that? Maybe.”
Road transport environmental policy
“(17:20:15 – 17:20:46): Luop? Yes. Just just 1 question about you said you bring together, the demand side with the supply side. What? So how binding is that? So what does it actually mean? Do we talk about, like, legal requirements, about quotas, about maybe the requirement to have a a second source from within the union if they use a supplier from from outside of the union, or is it more like, kind of a marketplace where they, pool demand, and exchange demand and supply?”
Sourcing of critical raw materials
“Uh, and I think the examples that you named are really frightening for us, and we can learn from the mistakes, like initiatives like Gaia-x, which aimed to achieve cloud sovereignty. They face considerable problems competing national ideas, unnecessary bureaucracy maybe, and also a lack of scalability. And that all hampered progress. What we need is to create an ecosystem that prioritizes data protection, security and autonomy while also ensuring the European cloud services are in demand. So my basic question on that is, what do we expect from a European AI and cloud act on ensuring that. And last one on the European quantum Act that we also that one also must contribute to our technological sovereignty. And for this to succeed, we must reduce fragmentation. I think that is the main point and promote the scaling of market ready applications. So European research is a global leader, but we must facilitate the transition to commercial application and industrial use. And I imagine that we will reduce Democracy and also improve the integration in the horizon programs.”
EU digital & tech sovereignty
“Thank you. And thank you to the Commission for their presentation. I think it's absolutely clear that the commission is basically following the right strategy. We shouldn't lose our nerve in negotiations with the US. And at the same time we're looking at countermeasures. One point that's very important to me on this is that if you have a look at the moment, we have all of these political debates in the European Union, and all of them now are being looked at from through a lens of are these countermeasures to the US, everything that is being debated as a controversy here in the EP Digital Services Act, or the issue of company management or leadership. If you bring all of this together and say, well, look, we can't sort out our own affairs because the US are going to see that as confrontation and that's not what we want. I think we really need to get away from this mental position. We're working together. We've agreed positions. We should implement the Digital Services Act, the Digital Markets Act. The issue of preventing, um, the issues within the pillar two OECD. We shouldn't throw all of that away and say we want to have better negotiations with the U.S., and that's the key. So we need to talk about negotiating policy, but we shouldn't give up on our own values. Thank you.”
EU-US trade relations
“Yes, thank you very much, Madam Chair. We've been having here quite a we've been listening with a great deal of seriousness to this. And if I see that, we see that there is a contradictory criteria about how to protect the that there is no guarantee for the financial interests of the European Union, we can see that there's unequal fostering as well throughout different countries. We've seen what's been said to our colleague geyser. There's a whole deal of instruments already where there's so many Discretionary space that you can talk about a certain whimsical nature to this. And really, from the Commission, you don't understand what are the conditions in which European funds will be dispersed. And so when I listen to what's been said here today in this committee meeting, there's so much criticism coming from different political families, different political groups, different committees. At the end of the day, we can't allow this to actually be implemented because it's clear that when we see this, independent organizations such as ICA is expressing this criticism that the commission must respond to that and come up with a more practical, more transparent system than these national plans that they have been fostering up until now.”
Conditions to access EU budget
“And I also remind of the mission letter of Commissioner Hoekstra, where he was really tasked from commission president with developing a solution, a coherent tax framework for the EU's financial sector and the industry itself. The European Banking Federation points to inefficiencies, to hidden costs and to fragmentation under the current system. And this for me, it also confirms that this debate is already underway and the Commission's recent consultation on the banking and banking sector competitiveness. This is something that I think we all are looking forward to, to the outcome of that. It really highlights the urgency of that debate, because that is part of what our competitiveness is, is impeded by. So Europe faces major long term investment needs. That's another debate. And that one depends on a deep and integrated financial markets. It not only depends on tax revenues. This is something that we might on some degree agree or disagree on here in the parliament. But it also depends on integrated financial markets because Europeans save enough. But because of the fragmentation of our financial industry, much of the capital leaves the EU in finances projects elsewhere than in the EU. So I deliberately focused this report on a clear problem analysis rather than prescribing a single solution. The Commission study is still ongoing, and rightly so.”
EU competences on taxation
“Thank you. President. Commissioner. Just imagine that we were to reinvent our fiscal system. No one would come up with the idea that a work would be taxed more than the dividends of the the rich, but that is exactly what our fiscal system is doing. That's how it's characterized. So it's no surprise that a growing percentage of wealth is a result of ownership or property rather than work. And that is a fundamental problem within our fiscal system. 3/5 of wealth goes to those who are in work. It changes. But I think the quota in terms of wages is sinking and assets or equity is on the increase. And of course, you notice that in your pocket in an economy where property or ownership grows faster than wages. That's a basic promise of the social market economy that is not fulfilled and that leads to crises. We see the states millionaires, billionaires, Elon Musk, who earns $4,500 per second. Just imagine that per second, $4,500. But not only there in the USA. Here in Europe, the number of billionaires has increased and their wealth has increased far greater than income from labor. So I think we need to revise our fiscal system, but I think we also need to create growth within the EU.”
Wealth taxation
“Yeah. Thank you chair. Thank you to the rapporteur. I'm looking forward to a good cooperation, and I think it's important that the budgetary assessment for both Horizon Framework and A specific regulations are consistent and aligned with each other. This is something that a lot of colleagues already stressed, and that for that reason, I would also like to endorse some of the points that our shadow rapporteur for the framework programme, Mohammed Rahim, has just highlighted. Um, the term in terms of the granularity of the budget nomenclature in order to allow the budgetary authority to scrutinise and readjust the programme in the course of the annual budgetary procedure, as well as the alignment with the financial regulations. So these are the most important points. The Commission has proposed a close linkage between the ECF and the horizon, and this is in principle welcomed, provided we ensure a seamless support from basic research through a market readiness, through the entire journey, through the technology readiness levels. From an R&D perspective, however, it is important that we maintain horizon as an independent program and do not subordinated to the principle of competitiveness. This is something that is dear to our heart, and it's very important to ensure it in all levels of negotiations. For the present budgetary assessment. It is important in this regard that governance structures are in place, which operate separately from the industrial and security policy coordination mechanism within the ECF. The independence of the European Innovation Council, the European Research Council and their current form must be preserved. This is a point that we should also include in our budgetary assessment, because it has a direct impact on the allocation of EU funds. So it is a budgetary matter, of course. In this context, I support the rapporteur in underlining the importance of a predictable and stable allocations for the EC and the ERC accordingly. We should not only advocate maintaining the current status quo of the budgetary nomenclatura, but also work towards a clearer structure within the budget. And in this spirit, I'm looking forward to the negotiations on the budgetary assessment.”
EU research funding
“Yeah. Thank you, chair. And thank you, Mr. Murray. Mr. mishmash and Mr. Weber for your very interesting presentation. I'm a bit shocked at what you said about the situation of the security and cyber security in your offices. So I think it's something that we have to discuss with our colleagues again, on the budget issue. And because I think you're doing an extremely important work for European consumers, for internal market, and we are like in the up run up for the for the DNA. And I can only agree with your presentations, I couldn't more because new regulation must not jeopardize the interests of consumers. And we have a discussion. You know that about that. We need bigger European champions on telecommunications. And while I think it's not really well, the interest of our consumers are not entirely well served if we just have more concentration. So but I think that we all agree that the expansion of the fibre optics must proceed more rapidly. Even though you said we are not in such a bad situation. The new rules for competition must always strive to not lose sight of our primary objective. And for me, this is not a great European champions or promote consolidation in the telecommunications market, but the overriding priorities at EU level to guarantee a fast internet at fair prices for people also in rural areas.”
“Yeah. Thank you. Chair. Thank you, colleagues, for for your contributions. I understand from the, from the groups that that did contribute now to, to this debate that the analysis is, is shared that we have a different that we have a difficult problem with the financial sector, taxation being fragmented in the way it is, and that we also should build a common understanding around that fact. And also tasked the commission with a solution. I understand that different political groups have different ideas on how to come up with the next steps in order to remedy the difficulties that we have. And is the sector undertaxed? Is the sector maybe not Undertaxed is what kind of tax competition? What kind of alignment do we need? I think this is comes down also to a kind of a classical debate we have in this committee. But I'm glad to hear that everyone is here in a spirit of compromise, to to develop a common understanding on the challenges ahead, and that we will make a meaningful contribution, as the European Parliament, to the debate on how the taxation of the financial sector is going to develop in the near future. Thank you very much.”
Taxation of financial transactions
“Thank you. Thank you chair. Thank you commissioners. I agree with a lot of what has been said already. No centralisation, no merging of regional social and agricultural policy that we need real decision making power for the regional authorities and also strong budgetary control. But I would highlight some other things that have not been highlighted yet. First, transition regions. Transition regions really need also earmarked funding because otherwise they risk being marginalised and national priority making and being set back. Second, we need a real strong autonomous budget line for the European Social Fund. We need a real European social fund as a standalone program, and we reject replacing it with a weak earmarking and NPS and 14% are not enough. And the third one is that we really regret that the Just Transition Fund is missing out of the MFF proposal of the commission, because it's really helpful for that region, and it must be adequately compensated. Last thing, specific question to Commissioner Serafin. How do you want to add the European Council decision on the Ukraine loan, the interest payments in the proposal, will it be in the heading that is responsible for that? Or will there be an updated proposal? How do you want to deal with that?”
Cohesion and rural funding
“Yeah. Thank you. We've heard about the difficult phase for the automobile industry and the focus on mobility. Um, things aren't moving. Perhaps as quickly as we thought they would. Um, these are things that need to be need to be taken into account, especially when commission looks at fleet threshold and the automotive action plan. Obviously, at a juncture like this, we need to be able to ask how we can get decarbonisation going. Those who say, um, that it's just a conspiracy that Greta Thunberg thought up to try and decarbonise is not something that we can reasonably take on board. Um, others look at the ETS and ask how, um, people with lower incomes can afford, uh, vehicles. So we need to think how we can ensure that jobs are safe not just three years, but ten years driving demand, social leasing chips and software that come from Europe. And obviously we need to boost battery production in Europe. And that is something that we are very much willing to support.”
Road transport environmental policy
“Thank you chair. Thank you Pasquale. Well, dear colleagues let me begin by why this report was prepared and why it is maybe particularly timely. To put it frankly, the EU's framework for the financial sector has developed in a fragmented and largely uncoordinated manner. For me, that became more and more clear. The more we we had this debate and we more we talked to stakeholders and regulators and so on. A central driver for this fragmentation is the VAT exemption for financial services. It was introduced decades ago, maybe for technical reasons that might have been reasonable back then, but today are no longer necessary in themselves. Yet this exemption remains at the core of our system, and it creates a structural policy gap which member states have tried to fill through around 90 national sector specific taxes. 90. It's hard to believe, but it's true. So the result is a framework that reinforces distortions, that discourages scale and makes it really difficult to have a cross-border activity in the sector. And ultimately, it undermines the development of a fully integrated European capital market. And it undermines the savings and investment unions that I think all of us, or at least most of us, are striving for. So the Commission's launch of a comprehensive study, we talked about that already on reforming the assumptions show that the problem is widely recognized.”
VAT harmonisation
“Madam president, Commissioner, colleagues, we have three initiative reports on the future of cohesion policy. But perhaps we could have spared ourselves the work. What has this really achieved? We talk about simplification, but it seems the commission is pretty much abolishing cohesion policy, as we know. What is the point of having this just transition fund when this fund, the JTF, is being phased out in the next MFF? I went to a conference in my region on the GTF. There were a lot of projects that were being proposed. Research for example. Great, I say, but it's going to be phased out. This is something which is important in Europe. We can't leave people alone. We want growing regions, climate neutrality, uh, economic growth. But all of these promises, uh, seem to be broken. We want to have a cohesion policy where regions are at the center rather than with capitals. Thank you.”
Cohesion and rural funding
“We need to create inclusive growth which will profit those who are in employment. And that will mean that they will have a greater share of our prosperity. And allow me now to dwell on two points. One is what about extreme wealth and democracy? What's the link between the two? I think we're seeing that in particular in the USA, but to a greater extent in the USA. Extreme wealth leads to accumulation of political power. And of course, millionaires are having an impact on our legislation. I think we have to be able to discuss how we see the future, but much of that is in the hands of billionaires who are defending their own position with all the means available to them. So I think when we discuss the future budget, I think it's important that we ensure that it responds sensitively to inequality. We're talking about reorganizing sort of social funds closer links with the competitive fund. But I think we have to keep an eye on growing inequalities within the EU, and we need to tackle that.”
Wealth taxation
“Thank you, chair. And thank you for this excellent presentation. The study that that helps us a lot in our discussions, um, on how to advance an sovereignty on tech and especially software. Uh, I think the study was giving some new insight, but also compiling some of the information that we already got from other sources, because it is by now, I think, well known that we are very much dependent on mostly American big tech on a lot of levels of our tech stack. Um, so I think the debate that we have is less about isolation. I think we are really far from from that. It is just about how to reduce our dependencies on critical layers. Um, and this is also how I understand the policy proposals in your report. Um, I want to ask especially about the possibility of a sovereign tech fund. That was something that was mentioned in your report. And that is also something that some of our member states already have, uh, in their national, uh, build ups. And we have a sovereign tech agency in my home country in Germany, which supports software and, um, maintaining of software language models.”
EU digital & tech sovereignty
“Heck yeah. Thank you. Chair. Um, thank you for the presentation and for the very interesting insights you shared here with us. Uh, because I think this is definitely an overlooked aspect that we really lose. Um, yeah, we lose benefits for the common good. In the European Union, because of the unrealized, uh, taxes that that stem from non coordination. And these are fiscal. But I think it's also fine that you mentioned these are also economic losses because of inefficiencies. Um, and uh the first thing to tackle uh, in my point of view is that we really need comprehensive tax bases in a lot of respects. I mean, we are having this debate already for a long time for for corporate taxes. Um, I'm just looking to Evelyn Regner, who is working on that for a long time for corporate tax bases and others. But I think it's it's important that we have comprehensive tax bases, um, on crypto. Um, I think it's also a question of financial market stability because if there's a relative um, yeah. Well, a relative relative privilege in taxation for crypto assets vis a vis other form of portfolio investments, I think that the crypto market might be, inflated artificially, which also poses a threat to our prudential network. One thing I would like to ask is because we are now also discussing the initiative report on financial market taxation, is we see that because of the lack of value added tax application of most of the financial services, there also is a very different regimes in the European member states on how financial market taxes are applied, what kind of exemption and options are used for the VAT problem. And so would you consider that this is also a part of our taxation system, that one could apply the method that you used for a non Europe cost of non Europe in the field of taxation. Could that also be applied for taxation of capital income but also the financial sector in general. And do you have any idea if to what degree we have unrealized gains there.”
EU competences on taxation
“Yeah. Thank you so much Margaret. And. Thanks for this very insightful presentation, which I think is very timely because we. It helps us to structure like a really difficult and also fragmented debate that we are in. In the moment. One of the key issues you addressed is fragmentation of tax systems because. Of the VAT exemption. Member states have also introduced a range of compensatory measures, which also lead to a patchwork of national rules that distort, um, yeah, distort our internal market. So we end up with a very fragmented systems. And we discussed it also in our. Among the shadows from from the initiative report also in this committee already. And it became clear in the last week it increasingly became clear also how technical and complex the issue is. We will have a commission study upcoming, and I'm having more and more the feeling that this one is essential for our understanding, not only because it will include the perspective of industry stakeholders, which in a moment is a bit absent from our debates, unfortunately, but we also need to have a bit of a broader evidence in order to make really based decisions about such complex issues. For example, to what extent do lower prices for like mortgages? Insurances that come with less fragmentation compensate consumers for a higher taxes than might be passed on them? And at the same time, to what extent do businesses benefit from such a new regime. So this is why I'm contemplating, and we have to discuss this in a moment. That is probably a bit premature to move forward with the report, unless we have a bit more of a common ground from, from the study of the Commission.”
VAT harmonisation
“We need a solid analytical basis before the debate. Concrete remedies. It's a complete it's a complex debate. And not all. There's not like a quick fix for that. It goes on for years and for decades. The range of potential solutions goes well beyond the scope of this small report. I'm aware that some colleagues might wish to broaden the scope of this report, and that is understandable. But I would strongly argue for this focused approach that I presented. There is parallel with parallel work underway, and we already concluded a report on on corporate taxation, digital assets, and in particular the dedicated tax simplification report that is led by our colleague Michael Taylor. So we see that that there's a lot of things going on here. And not all of this is supposed to be in this report. If we attempt to address everything, we will probably weaken the outcome. So the aim of this report is, to put it in a nutshell, to establish a shared understanding of why the current VAT framework no longer works and further analysis and commission action is needed. And I would really look forward to the exchange with the shadow rapporteurs, with the colleagues here in the Commission on how we can evolve around that analysis and how we can move forward. Thank you very much.”
VAT harmonisation
“But what I'm interested in here also is what what, on the one hand, what other options, except for like comprehensive VAT reform, um, do you think we can realistically have in order to reduce the fragmentation we have on the internal market? On the one hand, and on the other hand, I was wondering about the remarks you made on the financial transaction tax, because initially we all started this debate about being that it has a regulatory purpose and creates revenue, like as a second kind of objective. And now we have macroprudential reforms. We have more stable financial sector than before the financial market crisis. So, um, you said that the that. The financial transaction tax, if properly coordinated on EU level, could contribute significantly also to public finances. And we also see that the new German government, uh, maybe a bit surprisingly, is also putting forward the idea to take another step on the EU level. So what would you think? How could a new attempt for the FTT on European level look like? And maybe also given the technical challenges we have in financial markets over the last like ten, 15 years, is maybe the assessment, um, that it does not contribute to stabilization of the financial markets. Is it still valid or do we have to re assess it in the chain, like when we have more and more technically AI based transactions?”
Taxation of financial transactions
“Thank you. President. Commissioner. Colleagues, our taxation system no longer works. In the past, you had a solution whereby if a company was more profitable, they paid more taxes. But now actually those who are the most successful take no responsibility. You know, we had a real nadir with Amazon. Amazon actually getting money back from the EU at some point rather than paying taxation. Nobody can understand that. So we're talking about a 10% rate, whereas normal corporations 20%. And some years ago bigger corporations would pay 30% by way of a comparison. So this is a slap in the face for the citizens of Europe, the people in Europe, Amazon, Google, meta if they hardly pay any tax at all. We're all losers in this game. And the fact that we need to talk about a digital tax here in Europe today, you know, it's because we've got Donald Trump, we've got the US administration that are boycotting the OECD agreement. We could have found other solutions. But anyway, here in the European Union, we can't just stand by and be dependent on Donald Trump or on the US administration. And that's why it's absolutely right for us to say, yes, we need to put forward our own proposal. If we can't make any headway with the OECD, we're going to do something about this, and we're not going to let the tech bros, the tech oligarchs or Trump stop us from doing that. They're not going to stop us from doing anything. It's for us to decide in Europe if we want a digital tax, and we want to make sure that there's a fair contribution made by these platforms going forward. Thank you.”
EU taxation policy (political compass)
“Yeah. Thank you. Chair. Thank you, colleagues, for for your contributions. I understand from the, from the groups that that did contribute now to, to this debate that the analysis is, is shared that we have a different that we have a difficult problem with the financial sector, taxation being fragmented in the way it is, and that we also should build a common understanding around that fact. And also tasked the commission with a solution. I understand that different political groups have different ideas on how to come up with the next steps in order to remedy the difficulties that we have. And is the sector undertaxed? Is the sector maybe not Undertaxed is what kind of tax competition? What kind of alignment do we need? I think this is comes down also to a kind of a classical debate we have in this committee. But I'm glad to hear that everyone is here in a spirit of compromise, to to develop a common understanding on the challenges ahead, and that we will make a meaningful contribution, as the European Parliament, to the debate on how the taxation of the financial sector is going to develop in the near future. Thank you very much.”
EU competences on taxation
“Thank you. President. Minister. Commissioner. Honourable members in Freiberg. In Saxony, we have Freiberg compound materials making. Semiconductors. And we rely on imports from China. We are dealing with shortages and rising prices. Just one example. China has no problem using our demand for raw materials as a weapon against us. This is a key concern for sovereignty. We need to gradually ensure greater independence. The raw materials markets are highly concentrated. They are part of Technological and economic power. It is about sovereignty. In our current world order, and we need to take action. We need to push forward our ambitious initiatives. The Critical Raw Materials Act, for example. We need partnerships. And, Commissioner, I expect the Commission to really drive forward the circular economy. Thank you.”
Trade relations with China
“Thank you chair. Thank you, Commissioner, for being here with us and discussing all these pressing issues. I will not touch upon what has been said already on the international things, but I would discuss another topic in your mission letter. It says that you will identify innovative solutions for coherent text framework on the US financial sector, which is, I think, an interesting task to do and given, well, all these current discussions you have, you might not have found too much time to make up innovative solutions yet. But what do you consider to be the greatest challenges we have in taxing our financial sector in the EU? So what will your work focus upon in the next months on that?”
Priorities of taxation policy in the EU
“It should not be driven by broader competitiveness objectives. Furthermore, digitalisation remains a key priority, but the persistent fragmentation of IT systems poses challenges. It is important to ensure that entities involved in the development, deployment and the use of IT systems and digital tools under these programmes retain full control over critical infrastructure and data. Stressing the importance of relying on the use of open standards, ensuring transparency of software components and safeguarding against strategic dependencies on third country providers. So when we talk about digital sovereignty, this, dear colleagues, is one of the programs that we really need. It's highly sensitive, maybe more sensitive than most of the other programs. Last but not least, as said, we consider that it's within the remit of the committee to ensure the programs are fully aligned with the principles laid down in article 33.2 of the Financial Regulation, giving their link to the performance framework as well. We take note that the Commission proposal. Um, the Smcp does not appear to take gender mainstreaming into account without a clear justification on this regard, and I believe this aspect can be further addressed in the upcoming negotiations, and our amendments will surely seek to address these considerations. Based on that, I'm really looking forward to the discussion. Thank you.”
EU digital & tech sovereignty
“Thank you. Chair. Thank you. Dear Mr. Von, dear rapporteur, let me start by thanking you for reintroducing the this important file, because I think the Energy Taxation Directive is like the only part of the fit for 55 package that has not really progressed. And after years of paralysis, this draft gives us a chance to finally restart the negotiations and this alone is a significant step forward. This topic could not be more relevant according to the latest Eurobarometer. Both energy supply and climate change rank among the top ten issues for European citizens, and they feel it that we have to progress on these issues. As social democrats, we want an energy tax system that is fair, that is climate aligned, that is free from broad and targeted fossil fuel exemptions, and that is supportive of a level playing field for clean European industries, a fair carbon pricing. We distort. With fair carbon pricing, we refrain from distorting competitions and from weakening European competitiveness. I welcome that the rapporteur has picked up some of the key elements from the last mandate. For example, introduced introduction of tax exemptions or reductions for electricity from own production under power purchasing agreements or also an obligation for the Commission to inform the Parliament about the state of play before adopting a delegated act. I think it's a matter of transparency and trust. That said, there also remain some considerable differences.”
EU taxation policy (political compass)
“Thank you. Madam president, Vice president, colleagues, now, yes, we read on our mobile phones what's going on with Trump. And we might be quite entertained when if I. But if our digital infrastructure doesn't work, we won't be able to enjoy that. So this, uh. Uh, DNA, this digital Networks Act is so vital to the future of our industry. Um, it's a good idea that we have this regulation proposal because we do need to have, you know, for the investors, we have to have a certain amount of certainty, uh, in order for setting up our networks. Um, but I would like to focus on three things. Neutrality must be preserved. Uh, this is not negotiable. And we mustn't have concentrations which will lead to increased prices. And thirdly, we need a very independent authority to supervise all of this. But I'm hopeful that this will all be manageable and this will help us in the future.”
EU policy on accessibility of digital infrastructure
“(17:16:18 – 17:17:54): Thank you, chair. Commissioner Wilkunen. So this is Europe's Digital Independence Day, is it? We are really looking forward, to this presentation and everyone was quite excited. And what we have now on the table, I think, is an comprehensive approach, cloud, semiconductors, open source. And I appreciate also that open source strategy is part of that entire approach. But now it will be up for the upcoming debate and discussions here in the parliament, it will be important to really ensure effective demand because I fully share the analysis that, Chipset 1 was a supply side measure largely, and it was like partly successful by the 20%. It was not successful, but it did, support some of very important investments. But now we want demand side. I understand that part of that is that you want to link European produced AI chips, to to our semiconductor system. So my question would be how, would you, yeah, how would you generate that? How would you finance it? I've read from an open foundry for advanced silicon manufacturing, capabilities. So given the enormous investment that we need, is this partly public private funding? Should the European budget be be part of that? And my second question is about the crisis mechanism because I understand, that there might be situations securing where the commission is intervening in the supply chain decisions of companies in Europe. So how would you, like, select the risk prone sectors, and how would that mechanism work? What does it mean for the industry concerned? Thank you.”
EU digital & tech sovereignty
“Madam president, the car industry is an important industry in Europe, a backbone for creating prosperity. And in a crisis. We need to recognise this. And it's good that the commission is dealing with this in this action plan. Um, it's not in a crisis because of the Green Deal, but it's in a crisis because it has been asleep to lots of innovation going on within the sector, which is why we need to have regulatory stability. 2035 needs to be kept as the end date for Ice engines. The commission has set the right path. Um, but we need more. We need to try and boost demand. Um, Electromobility is more expensive than combustion engines at the moment. That will change with the ETS, but until then, we need some kind of a boost. And I think that's missing in the commission plan. We need social leasing. Premier support for the European car industry. Thank you.”
Road transport environmental policy
“Thank you, chair. And thank you for this excellent presentation. The study that that helps us a lot in our discussions, um, on how to advance an sovereignty on tech and especially software. Uh, I think the study was giving some new insight, but also compiling some of the information that we already got from other sources, because it is by now, I think, well known that we are very much dependent on mostly American big tech on a lot of levels of our tech stack. Um, so I think the debate that we have is less about isolation. I think we are really far from from that. It is just about how to reduce our dependencies on critical layers. Um, and this is also how I understand the policy proposals in your report. Um, I want to ask especially about the possibility of a sovereign tech fund. That was something that was mentioned in your report. And that is also something that some of our member states already have, uh, in their national, uh, build ups. And we have a sovereign tech agency in my home country in Germany, which supports software and, um, maintaining of software language models.”
EU digital & tech sovereignty
“Yeah. Thank you. Well thank you everybody for being here today. I'm really delighted we can discuss this topic. Some of the newly appointed rapporteur for the initiative report on taxation of the US financial sector. This is a good opportunity to start our discussion. Will we have all of our colleagues in the next months? And of course, we need to discuss the contribution of the sector, the revenue we can gain in the sector, but also questions of economic efficiency and of preventing profit shifting. So my first question would go to the you mentioned the national efforts in Italy and France that they did not really exert meaningful adverse economic effects, if I remember correctly. Um, well, when we had this discussion ten, 15 years ago, I think the expectation was quite different. The commission came to the conclusion that the FTT would have significant negative economic effects. Of course, they were probably assuming a different framework, a different structure, but still the discrepancy is striking. So can you tell me more maybe about why these effects did not occur? Um, if you have any idea about that and why the commission was maybe wrong at that time. And to Roberta, I would like to understand your position better if I got it correctly. Your concerns regarding the FTT primarily focuses on preventing further fragmentation. I mean, if we have more fragmentation with national taxes, I think that's a valid point, especially in the light of the capital markets union objective. But the original intent behind the FTT was well indeed to prevent such fragmentation. Now we have examples in several member states that what lessons can be drawn from that, since we apparently do not have such negative impacts. And on the other hand, what alternative measures would you propose to create, like regulatory incentives that would discourage speculative and high frequency trading? I mean, this is next to the question of revenue. The main purpose of such a tax. So we have already discussed. So this kind of trading does undermine market stability. Um what what kind of alternatives would you would you propose?”
Taxation of financial transactions
“Uh, our position, uh, basically, I don't think the rapporteurs in the room and I think I'm the only shadow. So, uh, I think there could be also a little bit more ambition from the Parliament side. Um, but on on content, um, I think that it became very clear that we need more harmonised rules and that we have. We are now confronted with like perverse incentives and also with a patchwork. And coming back to what Mariella said, that businesses need legal certainty and they also need, um, clear investment, uh, like for their investment strategies. They need to know what the taxonomy is and where, where like where the voyage is going to. Yeah, so to speak. So what what would you say? How damaging is the current patchwork that we face with, with ETD and uh, where you see that investments in future technologies will increasingly bypass those countries whose governments are not actively, uh, whose governments actively resist climate aligned taxation because this is what, what could happen. So, um, what else beyond ETD alignment could could you imagine would be a way forward for businesses to, uh, to have investment certainty. So then I want to go to Andreas. Rüdiger. Um, you also, I think you've shown impressive figures about, uh, the quite limited impact of it compared to the ets2 that is in front of us. Um, but still, we we have a structural incoherence also with the tax system.”
Green Taxonomy
“Thank you. President, colleagues. Commissioner. Well, I can't find any better technology than electric cars irrespective of climate protection. It's the best strategy. And we've always got this discussion about, uh, combustion engines being counterproductive. It's not me that said that. It was the head of Audi that said that. And let me tell you what I want. I want, uh, European car manufacturers to be able to compete on global markets. We need to have job stability in the long term and production. And so we need to have greater and more competitive electromobility, um, that can help us move towards climate neutrality as well. But I'm going to look at other things as well. Strengthening demand, social leasing, this type of thing. Um, cheaper, um, electricity, better provision. We have to look at the alternatives. Of course decarbonisation is some people want can be achieved through ETS pushing prices upwards constantly. But that's cynical. It means that some people can afford cars, others can't. And um, well, the climate change deniers, all of these people, maybe they're ignorant, but that's totally crazy. And so let's come back to reason and let's help our industry. Thank you.”
Road transport environmental policy
“Yes. Thank you chair. Thank you for the presentations. Um, I understand that the core proposal has some distributive impacts on the member states, but given that we are the European Parliament and we not necessarily have to reflect the thinking of the council, I wonder if we have, um, some more information about the, um, about the companies concerned because, um, if I see it correctly, the companies that are within the scope, they make their turnover and their profits in several are countries regardless of their tax residency. And if the commission really collects these lump sums directly from the companies, it's not going through the member states envelope. So, um, after all, I mean, it's a single market levy, not a member states contribution, even though there are several national aspects of that. So do we have an overview about which companies are really affected? What is the list of the biggest affected companies, and could you provide that maybe with Miss Jalilova? Um, and the other question is, how could we redesign it in a way that it works as a levy and not a tax? Yeah, because we've seen that, um, the threshold 100,000, it applies to really different scopes of company turnovers. So is it possible to have more steps within and without having it as a, as a percentage of the turnover? Uh, all things considered, I think core needs to be, uh, needs to be analyzed and maybe amended the proposal. But in general, it seems plausible as a single market level levy. And the second thing is to, um, thank you also for broadening the criteria that we need to apply for, uh, plausible resources. Um, if you look on the entire proposals that are on the table, which one of the proposed, um, has really the biggest added value at EU level, and also from an economic and from revenue point of view, what is the most important one we should put forward?”
Own EU resources
“Yes. Thank you. Chair. Thank you very much. Just to explain, a lot of us had to leave because we had votes in the industry committee, which a lot of us are also members. So was not meant to be disrespectful. But I know from your presentations, from what our assistants told us about what we've been speaking. So let me just elaborate on 1 or 2 issues. The first one is that I think Mr. Fernandes and also Mr. Sosa, you mentioned the the problem of distortions coming from environmental taxes. And we discussed this a lot now. But maybe can you name like a few positive examples from, from your experience, like which kind of tax reform really work to balance the benefits of tax incentives. Also to incentivize green transition like balance it in a proper way without increasing their downsides. And another question may be directed to miss Miss Corbin on bridging Technologies. You mentioned their potential, but like from a taxation perspective, how would you differentiate between like a transition technology that really goes with the disruptors, these kind of, um, uh, these kind of necessities that we have in the decarbonization challenge with bridging technologies that only have like four. Well, the question is how to treat them. Yeah. How to treat them differentially, treat them aggressively or what. What is your suggestion on that.”
Priorities of taxation policy in the EU
“Thank you. I have to say that I'm pretty sceptical about the thought that the EU institutions would wait for the private sector to act. I don't think that this would have been a solution to anything, so that we wouldn't do anything. Before the private sector acts, it's essential to reform the EU economy. It's very important that our capital markets function better. And I think that the digital euro is part of this reform work. And since this has been on the table of the Parliament for long, it's good to launch the discussion now. But I would want to score a goal quickly now, not stand and wait for the private sector to do or not to do something. Thank you.”
Digital euro
“We need a solid analytical basis before the debate. Concrete remedies. It's a complete it's a complex debate. And not all. There's not like a quick fix for that. It goes on for years and for decades. The range of potential solutions goes well beyond the scope of this small report. I'm aware that some colleagues might wish to broaden the scope of this report, and that is understandable. But I would strongly argue for this focused approach that I presented. There is parallel with parallel work underway, and we already concluded a report on on corporate taxation, digital assets, and in particular the dedicated tax simplification report that is led by our colleague Michael Taylor. So we see that that there's a lot of things going on here. And not all of this is supposed to be in this report. If we attempt to address everything, we will probably weaken the outcome. So the aim of this report is, to put it in a nutshell, to establish a shared understanding of why the current VAT framework no longer works and further analysis and commission action is needed. And I would really look forward to the exchange with the shadow rapporteurs, with the colleagues here in the Commission on how we can evolve around that analysis and how we can move forward. Thank you very much.”
VAT harmonisation
“Thank you chair. Thank you Pasquale. Well, dear colleagues let me begin by why this report was prepared and why it is maybe particularly timely. To put it frankly, the EU's framework for the financial sector has developed in a fragmented and largely uncoordinated manner. For me, that became more and more clear. The more we we had this debate and we more we talked to stakeholders and regulators and so on. A central driver for this fragmentation is the VAT exemption for financial services. It was introduced decades ago, maybe for technical reasons that might have been reasonable back then, but today are no longer necessary in themselves. Yet this exemption remains at the core of our system, and it creates a structural policy gap which member states have tried to fill through around 90 national sector specific taxes. 90. It's hard to believe, but it's true. So the result is a framework that reinforces distortions, that discourages scale and makes it really difficult to have a cross-border activity in the sector. And ultimately, it undermines the development of a fully integrated European capital market. And it undermines the savings and investment unions that I think all of us, or at least most of us, are striving for. So the Commission's launch of a comprehensive study, we talked about that already on reforming the assumptions show that the problem is widely recognized.”
VAT harmonisation
“Yeah. Thank you. It's an interesting topic. So maybe you can you can listen and talk about that later. Um, I'm therefore calling for a ring fenced allocations for the European Regional Development Fund, the Cohesion Fund and interact respectively. I also consider that in order to preserve the identity of cohesion policy and respect the treaties, the specific objects of the eRDF Cohesion Fund and Interreg respectively, should be clearly defined in a specific regulation establishing these instruments based on their separate ring fenced envelopes, and that these programmes should be provided with a dedicated budget lines. I therefore consider it important for the lead committee to coordinate its amendments with the committee to ensure that there is no contradiction with the regulation, so we really need to make sure what is in the regulation, what is in the specific fund regulation. And I think the cohesion policy can only be served if we have the objectives and the budget lines ring fenced in the specific regulation. I am also taking this opportunity to highlight some important aspects of governance, including the need to ensure the full involvement of regional and local authorities in the design, the monitoring and the implementation of funds. It's not only implementation, it's also design and monitoring based on shared management, on multi-level governance and on partnership. These are the principles that have made cohesion policy a success for decades. I'm making this point because this is, of course, in line with the lead committee's request so far to ensure that the union's funding for cohesion marked per category of regions, all three regional categories need earmarked funding. In conclusion, I call on colleagues to support, in a collaborative spirit this budgetary assessment and send a strong signal that cohesion policy must remain a distinct, well funded and democratically accountable policy in the next MFF. Thank you.”
Cohesion and rural funding
“Yes, thank you very much, Madam Chair. We've been having here quite a we've been listening with a great deal of seriousness to this. And if I see that, we see that there is a contradictory criteria about how to protect the that there is no guarantee for the financial interests of the European Union, we can see that there's unequal fostering as well throughout different countries. We've seen what's been said to our colleague geyser. There's a whole deal of instruments already where there's so many Discretionary space that you can talk about a certain whimsical nature to this. And really, from the Commission, you don't understand what are the conditions in which European funds will be dispersed. And so when I listen to what's been said here today in this committee meeting, there's so much criticism coming from different political families, different political groups, different committees. At the end of the day, we can't allow this to actually be implemented because it's clear that when we see this, independent organizations such as ICA is expressing this criticism that the commission must respond to that and come up with a more practical, more transparent system than these national plans that they have been fostering up until now.”
Conditions to access EU budget
“Thank you. Chair. Thanks for ECB and Commissioner. The people who asked today. And we heard already that some of our colleagues from the Eurosceptic groups, they see the digital era of some sort of a dystopian super money that will will be everywhere. But I'd rather I rather I'm concerned that from the from the user side, we really need to, uh, kind of phase it in. And so my question to Mr. Chip alone would be, um, since the ECB is not known as an app developer, I think when you consider the user experience, how can you make a digital euro, uh, really intuitive, easy to access. And that brings some advantage in daily life of people, because only then it will be accepted. And then, uh, from for the commission, we already talked about the question to what degree the digital euro can co-exist with private sector initiatives with which we have heard of that. There are that they are now accelerating. They haven't done so in recent years, and now they seem to be upset a bit. And they, they well increase their, their force. But in the end, even though we say we both can coexist, they may end up competing for like margins for investments for the same users. And, and some merchants also feel that they have made double investments. So how can we prevent this from like how can you prevent the digital euro from kind of crowding out private sector initiative, when we probably would need both, given the fact that they are European based and strengthen our sovereignty?”
Digital euro

See Matthias ECKE's full profile and positions on Atlas →