Vladimir PREBILIČ

Policy topics Vladimir PREBILIČ is active on

What Vladimir PREBILIČ has said (20)

• 2026-03-11 “Answer given by Ms Kos on behalf of the European Commission 4.6.2026 Written question The Commission took note of the adoption of the law on Internal Affairs and the National Security Agency law in Montenegro. The Commission had assessed the two laws and finds that their data protection provisions are not yet fully aligned with the EU acquis, particularly the General Data Protection Regulation [1] and the Law Enforcement Directive [2] . These laws require legal adjustments to align fully with the EU acquis on personal data protection. Montenegro is working on reviewing its legal framework on data protection in line with the EU acquis and as a first step has prepared a new draft law on Personal Data Protection. The Commission stands ready to assist Montenegro with its comprehensive data protection reform aimed to be finalised by the closure of accession negotiations. In the context of Montenegro’s accession, the Commission will closely monitor implementation of these laws and expects Montenegro to ensure merit-based police recruitments and strong procedural safeguards, and that any dismissals are justified and provide for access to full legal recourse. Comprehensive and inclusive reforms are essential not only for the country’s accession to the EU but for reinforcing public trust in Montenegro’s institutions. [1] Regulation (EU) 2016/679: ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/oj. [2] Directive (EU) 2016/680: ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2016/680/oj.”
  Surveillance equipment & spyware · EU Supervision of the Rule of Law
• 2025-07-15 “P-002895/2025 Answer given by Mr Jørgensen on behalf of the European Commission The Commission shares the Honourable Member’s concerns about the housing situation in the EU. The high overburden rate indeed shows the seriousness of the situation, especially for young people. The Commission has indeed appointed for the first time a Commissioner for Energy and Housing and has established a Task Force for Housing to support him coordinate the different strands of work. The Commission will support Member States and local authorities to address structural drivers of the housing crisis and unlocking public and private investment for affordable and sustainable housing. The Commission will put forward a European Affordable Housing Plan. To develop the Plan, the Commission is extensively consulting stakeholders with a particular focus on young people. The Commission welcomes in this regard the contribution of several Youth organisations to its call for evidence. A large public consultation is also open until 17 October 2025 1 . The Commission strongly invites experts, citizens and young people themselves across the EU to contribute. The definition of affordable housing varies strongly across Member States. The Commission will look into this matter in the development of the Affordable Housing Plan and in the ongoing revision of State aid rules on services of general economic interest. The Commission will continue to strengthen its contribution to mitigating the housing crisis, including for youth, in its future actions. 1 Public consultation on the European affordable housing plan (https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/betterregulation/have-your-say/initiatives/14670-European-affordable-housing-plan/public-consultation_en) (open until 17 October 2025).”
  EU housing policy · EU engagement with youth
• 2025-03-04 “E-000913/2025 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission On 14 November 2024, the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP), following a re-examination procedure, adopted a positive opinion, recommending the granting of a marketing authorisation for the medicinal product Leqembi, for the treatment of early Alzheimer’s disease in a restricted population of patients. It is for use in people who have only one or no copy of the ApoE4 gene and who have amyloid beta plaques in the brain. Based on the CHMP opinion, the Commission prepared a draft decision which was submitted for written consultation of the Member States in the Standing Committee on Medicinal Products for Human Use 1 . During this consultation, some Member States raised scientific questions, prompting the request for a plenary meeting, which was held on 24 January 2025. Following the meeting, the Commission consulted the CHMP on those scientific questions. The CHMP considered this request and concluded on 27 February 2025 that its November 2024 opinion recommending the marketing authorisation of Leqembi did not need to be updated. Following the response from the CHMP, the Commission consulted the Member States on the draft Commission decision to authorise Leqembi. No qualified majority in favour of the decision was reached at the meetings of the Standing Committee on 21 March 2025 2 and of the Appeal Committee on 7 April 2025 3 . According to the procedures laid down in the legislation 4 and based on the EMA opinion, on 15 April 2025, the Commission adopted the decision to authorise Leqembi, which is published on the Union Register for Medicinal products 5 . 1 https://health.ec.europa.eu/document/download/ba9e5b07-00d8-4e68-b5390c9ac7c3c0f3_en?filename=2011_09_13_human.pdf 2 https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/comitology-register/screen/documents/106397/1/consult?lang=en 3 https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/comitology-register/screen/documents/106785/1/consult?lang=en 4 Articles 5 and 6 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32011R0182 5 Union Register of medicinal products https://ec.europa.eu/health/documents/communityregister/html/h1891.htm”
  Pharmaceuticals regulation in EU
• 2025-02-13 “P-000686/2025 Answer given by Ms Kos on behalf of the European Commission The Commission is aware of reports of alleged illegal use of spyware against civil society representatives and journalists in Serbia. Any attempt to illegally access the data and communication of citizens in general and of civil society activists/representatives and journalists in particular is unacceptable, if confirmed. The European Media Freedom Act generally forbids the use of intrusive surveillance software to get information from journalists and strictly limits any exceptional use. In the EU, the investigation of such issues is the responsibility of each Member State and the Commission expects national authorities to thoroughly examine any such allegations to restore citizen’s trust. These principles also apply to Serbia, a candidate country which has committed to align with the EU acquis and European standards and values. As underlined in 2024 Enlargement Package 1 , civil society organisations in Serbia operate in a difficult environment and Serbia is expected to ensure a truly enabling environment for civil society and media. The Commission supports Serbia in implementing the EU-accession related reforms, which include also better migration management, border protection and fight against organised crime. In this context, IT equipment, drones, registration equipment for migration management, and other technical solutions have been provided. The Commission is not aware that these tools would be used for a different purpose than intended. They are essential for combatting serious and organised crime in line with Serbian legislation and European and international standards. The Commission will continue to closely monitor developments Serbia and continue raising these issues with the authorities. 1 https://enlargement.ec.europa.eu/2024-communication-eu-enlargement-policy_en”
  EU relations with Western Balkans · EU-Serbia relations · Disinformation & online freedoms
• 2024-12-09 “E-002830/2024 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission 1. The competent national authority shall ensure that landfills comply with the strict requirements of the Landfill Directive 1 . A permit may not be given unless the characteristics of the site, or the corrective measures to be taken, indicate that the landfill does not pose a serious environmental risk 2 . The location of the landfill must take into consideration distance to residential and recreation areas, waterways, water bodies, the existence of groundwater, coastal water, and the geological and hydrogeological conditions in the area 3 . During the landfill’s operation and after-care, water control, leachate management, protection of soil, groundwater and surface water shall be ensured 4 . The competent national authority shall inspect the site to ensure that it complies with the permit 5 . Control and monitoring shall be made according to detailed provisions 6 . 2. Polluters shall take preventive and remedial action in accordance with the Environmental Liability Directive 7 with regard to significant damage or imminent threat thereof they have caused. Member States have the primary responsibility to monitor the application of EU law, ensure the required process and take necessary enforcement steps. In its role as guardian of the Treaties, the Commission monitors the situation and may decide to take appropriate action. The Commission aims to swiftly follow up on systemic issues involving the application of EU law. However, individual cases such as this are better dealt with at national level, using the available remedies, including judicial ones. In these cases, it is up to the national courts to apply and enforce rights under EU law 8 . 1 As defined by Article 2(g) of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, OJ L 182, 16.7.1999, p. 1–19, amended by Directive (EU) 2018/850 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018, OJ L 150, 14.6.2018, p. 100–108. 2 Annex I, Section 1.2 and Article 8 of the Landfill Directive. 3 Annex I, Section 1.1 of the Landfill Directive. 4 Annex I, Sections 2-3 of the Landfill Directive. 5 E.g. Articles 8 and 13 of the Landfill Directive. 6 Articles 12-13 and Annex III of the Landfill Directive. 7 Directive 2004/35/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage, OJ L 143, 30.4.2004, p. 56–75. 8 As set out in the Communication of 19 January 2017 (EU law: Better results through better application C/2016/8600, OJ C 18, 19.1.2017, p. 10–20) and in the Communication of 13 October 2022 (COM(2022) 518 final - Enforcing EU law for a Europe that delivers).”
  Energy (green transition)
• 2024-11-13 “E-002516/2024 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission As expressed in its replies to written questions E-000209/2024 1 and E-000343/2024 2 , the Commission sets out a series of measures to address honey adulteration at EU level. EU import certificates were reinforced with an authenticity requirement for exporting countries 3 . Article 13 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/2292 4 also made the import of honey possible only from listed establishments. Directive (EU) 2024/1438 5 introduced a mandatory indication of origin for honey blends and new provisions on traceability and authenticity. The Commission has also been entrusted with the task of adopting, by 14 June 2028, implementing acts laying down the methods of analysis to detect adulterated honey. Technical work is in progress to that end. The Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 6 and the Official Controls Regulation (EU) 2017/625 7 mandate that each Member State sets up its own system of penalties to address incompliances. This approach allows for flexibility while penalties must remain effective, proportionate, and dissuasive. Under the Slovenian Common Agricultural Policy Strategic Plan for the period 2023-2027, over EUR 6.4 million (public expenditure) have been earmarked to support beekeepers, including small and medium sized beekeepers. These interventions include support for research, education, training, knowledge transfer, investments and actions to improve 1 https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/-ASW_EN.html 2 https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/-ASW_EN.html 3 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/36 of 11 January 2022 amending Annex III to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2235 as regards model certificates for the entry into the Union of consignments of certain live aquatic animals and products of animal origin: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2022/36/oj 4 Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/2292 of 6 September 2022 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2017/625 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to requirements for the entry into the Union of consignments of food-producing animals and certain goods intended for human consumption: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_del/2022/2292/oj 5 Directive (EU) 2024/1438 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2024 amending Council Directives 2001/110/EC relating to honey, 2001/112/EC relating to fruit juices and certain similar products intended for human consumption, 2001/113/EC relating to fruit jams, jellies and marmalades and sweetened chestnut purée intended for human consumption, and 2001/114/EC relating to certain partly or wholly dehydrated preserved milk for human consumption: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1438/oj 6 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2002/178/oj 7 Regulation (EU) 2017/625 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2017 on official controls and other official activities performed to ensure the application of food and feed law, rules on animal health and welfare, plant health and plant protection products, amending Regulations (EC) No 999/2001, (EC) No 396/2005, (EC) No 1069/2009, (EC) No 1107/2009, (EU) No 1151/2012, (EU) No 652/2014, (EU) 2016/429 and (EU) 2016/2031 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Council Regulations (EC) No 1/2005 and (EC) No 1099/2009 and Council Directives 98/58/EC, 1999/74/EC, 2007/43/EC, 2008/119/EC and 2008/120/EC, and repealing Regulations (EC) No 854/2004 and (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Council Directives 89/608/EEC, 89/662/EEC, 90/425/EEC, 91/496/EEC, 96/23/EC, 96/93/EC and 97/78/EC and Council Decision 92/438/EEC (Official Controls Regulation): http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2017/625/oj”
  Import of agri-food products in the EU · Food labelling harmonisation at EU level
• 2024-10-08 “E-001992/2024 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Fitto on behalf of the European Commission 1. The Commission has consistently pointed to the fact that the EU Solidarity Fund (EUSF) is underfunded to address the increasing number of climate related disasters. This is why it proposed its substantial reinforcement in the mid-term revision of the Multiannual Financial Framework 1 . The budgetary authority decided to increase the Solidarity and Emergency Aid Reserve by EUR 1.5 billion for the years 2024-2027. The EUSF 2 now has an annual budget of EUR 1 016 million 3 (in 2018 prices). Given the need to complement this support in post-disaster situations, the Commission adopted proposals on 21 October 2024 to enable the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund Plus and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development to provide liquidity to ease the budgetary pressure in response to natural disasters 4 . To support cooperation, the Union Civil Protection Mechanism is currently financing ten dedicated disaster Prevention and Preparedness cross-border projects 5 to increase interoperability and coordination among Member States. In addition, early warning systems are shared with Member States and the Emergency Coordination Response Centre facilitated any request for assistance. 2. Under the 2021-2027 period, Cohesion Policy is contributing with EUR 14 billion to promote climate change adaptation and disaster risk prevention and resilience, on the basis of ecosystem-based approaches. Cohesion Policy funding can cover prevention and preparedness measures, prioritising nature-based solutions. Moreover, in this current period, the application of the ‘do no significant harm’ principle and climate proofing contribute to a ‘build back better’ approach and to enhance the resilience of EU-funded infrastructure. 1 Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2024/765 of 29 February 2024 amending Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2093 laying down the multiannual financial framework for the years 2021 to 2027. 2 Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 of 11 November 2002 establishing the European Union Solidarity Fund (OJ L 311, 14.11.2002, p. 3) as amended by Regulation (EU) No 661/2014 of the European Parliament and the Council of 15 May 2014 (OJ L 189, 27.6.2014, p. 143) and by Regulation (EU) 2020/461 of the European Parliament and the Council of 30 March 2020 (OJ L 99, 31.3.2020, p. 9). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:32002R2012 3 EUR 1 144.1 million in 2024 prices. 4 RESTORE - Regional Emergency Support to Reconstruction amending Regulation (EU) 2021/1058 and Regulation (EU) 2021/1057; COM (2024) 496 final. 5 https://civil-protection-knowledge-network.europa.eu/projects/preparedness-in-civil-protection-and-marinepollution”
  Energy (green transition)
• “Thank you very much. Now we need to be protecting regional identities, and that's the subject of this initiative. But we have a more important subject to discuss. Mrs. von der Leyen wants to cut down cohesion policy funds. Now, cohesion policy is one of the great success stories of the EU. It reduces inequalities. It ensures economic cohesion. So how can we talk about a Europe of solidarity when some children in our regions have no access to the internet? Are the regions where children can enjoy all of the advantages of the internet age? This is what cohesion is about equal opportunities for everyone, no matter where they live. If this money is going to be redirected, I think this would be a major mistake. These resources are a promise. They are a promise that no region will fall behind. We need more resources, not less. And we need more cooperation in the regions and between countries, because they know the needs on the ground better than anyone else.”
  Cohesion and rural funding
• “Ladies and gentlemen, let me conclude with a word of thanks to everyone, to shadow rapporteurs, to my colleagues from the Committee, from the Secretariat and to multiple partners, from the regions, from civil society who have contributed their ideas and amendment proposals. This was a joint effort and together we have done a great job. But today is just the beginning. We have two more battles, at least before us. Firstly, simplification. We must not allow cohesion to drown in bureaucracy. Municipalities. Small companies. Mid-size companies. Organizations. In civil society, everyone has to have access to funds without fear of drowning in forms and audits. Cohesion is meant to empower, not drown out. And that is why partnership is the key word. We have to include local communities, social partners and other local actors in every stage of planning and implementation. Without them, cohesion loses on legitimacy. Our second battle is the Multiannual Financial framework that will decide whether cohesion will remain the backbone of solidarity in the EU, or whether it will be hollowed out by fund reductions. And. Redirections. This is crucial. Without a strong budget for cohesion, there will be no convergence, there will be no balanced growth, and at the end of it all, there will be no trust in the European Union. Hence, when voting about this report, you are not voting only about simplification. You're also voting in favour of maintaining an untouchable cohesion policy as such. Thus, you are sending a clear message to the Council and the Commission that the next financial framework will not allow for any weakening of cohesion policy. Cohesion is a promise of the European Union to its citizens, and that is why this promise must be kept. Thank you.”
  Cohesion and rural funding
• “Well, first of all, thank you very much. Miss Miranda cannot be with us today, but I will. I was given a few points that I would like to share with you. First of all, we appreciate, uh, you and your team for the effort that you do. We believe that we are going to have a good negotiations. We also appreciate the inclusion of gender equality coefficients, but we want to see gender mainstreaming as well as climate actions also clearly in annex one. Cohesion policy is about regions and cities, not simply member States as was stated before me. This is why we consider crucial to include the regional dimension also in within the performance framework. The regional dimension isn't only about the region spending money. It is also about tracking how well or not they spend it. We welcome the initial inclusion by the rapporteur. The proposed new platform for monitoring the implementation of funds, called like single gateway, is a very good idea. It should include publicly available tracking of funding implementation. Also, the regional level, not only at the national level, we're still concerned. We are still concerned with the gender architecture of the performance framework. We have the impression that focus is mainly on results rather than impact. Cohesion policy or policy in gender. In gender cannot be a ticking the box exercise. We are talking about thinking about public money and people's lives.”
  Gender roles, equality and inclusion
• “Thank you very much. I will speak in Slovenian language.Distinguished colleagues. As a professor, I know first hand what transformative power science has. If it is open and cooperative together based on intellectual dignity. At the times when academic freedom is threatened in USA and elsewhere with the facts are politicized and academicians silence, we have to be a beacon for those seeking freedom, truth and not control those who want cooperation and not censorship. We want to open a Erasmus+ to India and Africa and set up new partnerships with third countries. These are not just open programmes of exchange, but also an escape for those in from Harvard and Columbia. We have to accept the best from all over the world. If you believe in the freedom of thought, then choose Europe for science.”
  Governance of academic priorities within the EU
• “Thank you very much. And allow me to address you on behalf of my colleague Vladimir Ilyich, on our standing rapporteur on India, who couldn't be here today. We are living through a moment of unprecedented geo political instability in such times. The European Union must be seen for what it is a reliable, predictable, principled partner. India is central to that effort, and our engagement with India is now clearly at the top of the EU agenda. The intensity of high level visits on both directions proves it. This is strategic positioning, which is very much needed for both the EU and India. India holds enormous potential for European industry and trade As we diversify our supply chains and de-risk from overdependence on China, we need credible alternatives. The EU India Free Trade Agreement should become a flagship example of that strategy in action. Dedication, resilience and partnership between democracies. Yes, the agreement is not as ambitious as many of us would have liked. In particular, binding commitments on labour rights and meaningful civil society involvement remain limited. But it is a first step and first step matter in geopolitics. At the same time, the EPP must remain clear there are serious human rights concerns in India the situation of minorities, the protection of women, the treatment of non-hindu religious communities. We cannot turn a blind eye and must speak clearly and honestly to our Indian counterparts on these elements. To my firm, belief is that engagement does not mean compromise on fundamentals. India must be strong among Europe's key partners for the 21st century. But if we want this partnership to be truly strategic, it must be built on trust, mutual respect and clear European redlines and fundamental and human rights. Finally, the upcoming visit to India is an important opportunity to show that our partnership is not just strategic on paper, but operational in reality. Europe should go to India united, confident and clear about its interests and its values. Thank you.”
  EU-India relations
• “(11:27:54 – 11:29:05): Distinguished colleagues, today, I will be talking about trust. The European Union has less and less trust in itself. Why? The answer is simple. Europe is not keeping the promises it makes. It does not do what is necessary for citizens. The single market is 1 such example. Even though we have been hearing about promises for years, the European companies are daily facing 27 different legislations, endless bureaucratic processes and delays that block investments. Europe is making promises, but Asia is speeding up and The US is aggressively investing. The companies do not expect any favorable or preferential treatments, but they do expect stable, predictable conditions for doing business in Europe. We need a digital system for SMEs at the EU level. We have to have common rules, 1 portal for reporting, and mutual recognition in all member states. Ladies and gentlemen, we can regain trust in the EU only by achieving tangible results, just by talking about it. The moment is now. Thank you. Next speaker is Jaak Madison.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• “Distinguished colleagues, today I will be talking about trust. The European Union has less and less trust in itself. Why? The answer is simple. Europe is not keeping the promises it makes. It does not do what is necessary for citizens. The single market is one such example. Even though we have been hearing about promises for years, the European companies are daily facing 27 different legislations, endless bureaucratic processes and delays that block investments. Europe is making promises, but Asia is speeding up and the U.S. is aggressively investing. The companies do not expect any favorable or preferential treatments, but they do expect stable, predictable conditions for doing business in Europe. We need a digital system for SMEs at the EU level, we have to have common rules. One portal for reporting and mutual recognition in all member states. Ladies and gentlemen, we can regain trust in the EU only by achieving tangible results, not just by talking about it. The moment is now. Thank you.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• “The EU, CPM is a mechanism for solving crises. But let's look at why we have crises and disasters. We have climate change that we have to address, and we have to look at the causes, not the symptoms of these crises. We support the mechanism. It's a good instrument and we hope that EU resilience will be. Bolstered and that the life of EU citizens will become easier as a result. But let me underline the following. Interoperability must be improved, particularly when it comes to rescue and. We need this to happen within 72 hours. Capacity for rescue have to be reinforced because my impression is that there are differences between member states, and that's not enough operability. We have to work on cross-border interoperability and improve it across borders. Security information to citizens need to be improved. People have to know how they should react in a crisis, for example.”
  EU law enforcement cooperation in criminal matters
• “Ladies and gentlemen. The true risk for the future of the European Union lies within. Individual regions are twice as developed as others. And there's a growing conviction that we have a first class and second class of Europeans. The mutuality principle, where everyone helps one another is the basis of the cohesion policy. So considering using this funding not for regional development but for defense, means that the less developed will pay for the security of the better developed. This is inadmissible. The procedures today are too complicated to put it. In other words, if the players in the field start playing football and the second half time they have to start playing basketball and then end up with water polo, that's how quickly the rules change when it comes to the cohesion policy. Instead of what we have today, we need reliability, we need security, and we need to give our voice to those who face the challenges every day. And that's the people. That's the Europe that we all deserve.”
  Cohesion and rural funding
• “Thank you very much for this report. Um, before we I continue with some questions, I would like to emphasise the essence and importance of cohesion funds. Today we take this for granted, and maybe it's too much for granted, but I would really be appreciating if you can give, let's say, assessment of so-called value for money. These resources are the only resources that are decreasing the differences within the European Union. And you would know that European citizens of European Union are the most afraid of non-equality across European Union. So maybe from your perspective, what is really the most important added value? Because we have to emphasize this more and more in order to keep the funds, or even maybe to fight for more funds for the cohesion. This is number one. The next thing is, you said yourself, there are basically nine member countries who are confronted with great problems when we implementing the cohesion funds on the ground. My question is what could be done not only to point at the countries who are not delivering, but how can we help them? How can we empower them that they could deliver more efficiently and according with the law? Nobody is here to, let's say, undermine the oversight of the funds being implemented. However, we would also like to help the member countries and authorities that less and less error will happen, will happen on the ground. The third thing is what could be done to, let's say, cut the red tape. We all know that there are many, many cases when countries, authorities, local and regional authorities decide not to fight or not to get EU cohesion funds because of a very complex procedure while implementing. So is there any way to cut the red tape or let's say to simplify the access to the funds? And of course, I have to I have to emphasize we may of course point the countries and point the, the the municipalities, but I strongly believe that we should build the trust also within the authorities. It's not only that they are only guilty ones, but also they could be needing help for doing a better job. So I would really help if you can provide me some answers to this. Thank you very much.”
  Cohesion and rural funding
• “Mr. president, Commissioner, dear colleagues, allow me to begin with a very straightforward question. Will we finally destroy cohesion policy? Because the cohesion project is under threat. We're not just discussing technicalities. Today we're talking about the future of European solidarity. My repeat my report seeks the simplification of this policy at a time where the Commission is preparing the next multiannual financial framework. And we must be clear, we've had debates about budgetary discipline, about conditionality. But behind all of this lurks a major danger. Cohesion policy is threatened. This is not just a budgetary heading. This is Europe's assurance that no region, no community, no citizen will be left behind. This is the proof that the EU is not just a single market, but also a community of solidarity where people have the same opportunities for development. And yet we are approaching the next MFF and there are dangerous ideas being mooted reducing cohesion funds, centralisation, A redeployment of funding towards the arms industry. Let's be clear. A reduction of cohesion funds will lead to more inequality. This leads to a Europe, a two speed Europe. My report is not just concerned with procedures and information systems. It's a political statement. Cohesion must be protected, simplified and strengthened. Simplification does not just mean reducing red tape. It's a question of survival. Mayors are tearing their hair out over cohesion policy. It's incredibly complicated to make applications for cohesion funding. It leads to delays. Cohesion should strengthen the regions and not exhaust them.”
  Cohesion and rural funding
• “Colleagues. The new strategic agenda for the European Union and India is based on a vision of a partnership, given the role of India in the region. We are seeing India, of course, as a big democracy, a major and growing global economy. And so the European Union can't afford to exclude India. We need India in the field of energy and innovation. As rapporteur for India, I call for the negotiations to be wrapped up by the end of this year. We can focus on energy and renewable energy and together we can Try to ensure that we have renewable energy for households and businesses alike. At a time when we need to build a stable future, we find ourselves at a situation where we need concrete actions and a new path forward.”
  EU-India relations
• “Thank you very much. My name is Vladimir from Slovenia. Thank you very much for your presentation. But nevertheless I will have two options. Two questions basically regarding the what was said before. The first one goes in the way how we will spend the money, because there was a lot of debate within the European Union that we should spend this money on European defense production, not. United States productivity. So do we have here an agreement how much, where and so on. Because, you know, again, we were you know explained especially I'm coordinator in in Reggie. So it was a sacrifice certain amount of money for something that should revive also our European economy. So how is this going to be developed. And the second one is in the way of so-called security literacy across European continent. Of course we can enhance the budget. We can give four, five, six, 7%. But at the end of the day, we would need to have support of constituency of the people that we all represent. I'm not sure that they understand the essence of security one and the second one. Regardless how many weapons we were going to buy, we would need soldiers as well. I do not detect willingness for Europeans to take part in this kind of endeavor. So what is your standpoint on that? Thank you very much.”
  Defence spending