Pierre PIMPIE

Policy topics Pierre PIMPIE is active on

What Pierre PIMPIE has said (35)

• 2026-06-15 “37:57 – 17:39:02): Colleagues, the EU has done everything possible to sap its economic independence of every strength that it had. This is happening across the board in terms of energy, nuclear, and more widely. It has all been sacrificed on the altar of Russian guys Russian gas and an obsession with that. And this is something which runs quite counter to the green dogmas that you constantly adduce, which are bringing us to the verge of bankruptcy. This is true also in terms of what you were doing vis a vis China. We need to invest for new industries in critical raw materials. But there's too much of a focus on quantity rather than quality, and we have to protect our industry and our agriculture. It is important that we that we prioritize French aircraft as opposed to the American ones.”
  "Buy European" provisions
• 2025-10-16 “E-003413/2025 E-004082/2025 Answer given by Ms Albuquerque on behalf of the European Commission The Commission is aware of the issue of debanking. Credit institutions, like other economic operators, have in principle the freedom to decide with whom they want to enter into a contract or maintain a business relationship. Yet, the Payment Services Directive (PSD) 1 provides certain rules for the termination of payment accounts 2 . To ensure financial inclusion, the Payment Accounts Directive (PAD) 3 provides all EU consumers the right to a payment account with basic features (PABF) and sets out only a limited number of reasons, such as that the opening of the account would lead to an infringement of anti-money laundering rules, which can justify the refusal for opening a PABF. Unilateral closure of a PABF by the bank is also only allowed for limited reasons 4 . A ‘reputational risk’ for the bank or ideological beliefs of the consumer cannot as such justify the closure or refusal to open a PABF. In order to tackle instances of debanking and following the European Banking Authority (EBA)’s opinion on the scale and impact of de-risking in the EU, the EBA has issued guidelines for credit institutions to facilitate access to financial services and tackle unwarranted de-risking 5 . The new Anti-Money Laundering/Countering the Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT) framework applying from July 2027 requires institutions that decide to terminate a business relationship to keep records of the grounds for such a decision. This will allow supervisors to assess whether institutions have appropriately calibrated their customer due diligence practices. Furthermore, AML supervisors will be required to cooperate with financial supervisors responsible for the PSD and the PAD to reduce de-risking practices. 1 Article 55 of Directive (EU) 2015/2366 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on payment services in the internal market, amending Directives 2002/65/EC, 2009/110/EC and 2013/36/EU and Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, and repealing Directive 2007/64/EC (Text with EEA relevance) OJ L 337, 23.12.2015. 2 In particular, payment service providers are only able to terminate payment accounts if this is provided in a contract and are obliged to give at least a 2- month notice to the client. Moreover, Member States’ laws and regulations governing the rights of the parties to declare the contract unenforceable or void are applicable. 3 Directive 2014/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 on the comparability of fees related to payment accounts, payment account switching and access to payment accounts with basic features Text with EEA relevance. 4 This includes for example that the consumer is no longer legally resident in the EU or has used the account for illegal purposes. 5 https://www.eba.europa.eu/sites/default/files/document_library/Publications/Guidelines/2023/1054144/Guidelin es%20on%20MLTF%20risk%20management%20and%20access%20to%20financial%20services.pdf.”
  Anti-money laundering regulation · Financial regulation
• 2024-11-22 “E-002634/2024 Answer given by Mr Dombrovskis on behalf of the European Commission The Commission proposal on a digital euro 1 takes the possible impact on financial stability and individual freedoms very seriously and proposes effective safeguards. The proposal aims to preserve financial stability in normal and crisis times. The digital euro is envisaged primarily as a means of payment rather than a store of value. Accordingly, the European Central Bank (ECB) would be required to develop tools to limit the digital euro’s store of value function, i.e. via limits on individual digital euro holdings, which the ECB could adapt over time to evolving circumstances. These holding limits together with the zero interest rates and the payment function without actual holdings in digital euro (so called reverse waterfall mechanism) would limit the shift of commercial bank deposits to digital euro and thus mitigate the risk of bank disintermediation, protecting financial stability and the provision of credit by commercial banks. The proposal also clearly and transparently limits and frames the processing of personal data related to the digital euro. This ensures full respect of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) 2 , including the principles of data minimization and purpose limitation 3 . A user would be identified in line with EU anti-money laundering and counter terrorist financing rules 4 . The ECB would not have access to a user’s identity. The pseudonymisation foreseen in the proposal aims to ensure that users cannot be identifiable based on data patterns. The proposal ensures that neither the ECB nor payment service providers would have access to data related to offline transactions as these would be settled directly between users. Offline transactions would therefore give users a level of privacy comparable to cash. 1 COM/2023/369 final. 2 OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 1–88. 3 Member State data protection authorities established under the GDPR will be responsible for the supervision of processing of personal data related to the digital euro as well as under the European Union Data Protection Regulation (OJ L 295, 21.11.2018, p. 39–98). 4 https://finance.ec.europa.eu/financial-crime/anti-money-laundering-and-countering-financing-terrorism-eulevel_en”
  Financial regulation · Anti-money laundering regulation · Digital euro
• 2024-10-08 “E-001988/2024 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Dombrovskis on behalf of the European Commission As for all major trade negotiations, the Commission requested a Sustainable Impact Assessment 1 – an independent report that assesses the economic, social, environmental and human rights impacts of the agreement. According to the report, the agreement will have a positive impact on the economies of both the EU and the Mercosur countries, raising wages and contributing to a reduction in inequalities. At the same time, the impact on sensitive agrifood sectors in the EU would be limited. The EU agri-food sector is very competitive on the global stage. The EU-Mercosur agreement has the potential to create new opportunities for European producers, with increased exports of high value-added products, such as dairy and wines. The agreement will also contribute to secure the availability of valuable inputs for the EU agri-food, thereby improving our food sovereignty. For sensitive EU agriculture products, the EU negotiated limited concessions in the form of tariff rate quotas that represent a small fraction of EU consumption. These partial openings will be introduced in stages to allow the sectors to adjust. They will be coupled with safeguard clauses to protect the EU market in case of serious injury caused by Mercosur imports. The Commission believes that these mechanisms will ensure that there will not be market imbalances in sensitive sectors. Should these nevertheless materialise, the Commission stands ready to intervene; experience of recent years has shown that the Commission has the necessary policy tools to do so effectively, when the situation so requires. In addition, the agreement contains a chapter on competition policy, which bounds the parties to maintain level playing field for companies on both sides. 1 Sustainability Impact Assessments: https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/analysis-and-assessment/sustainabilityimpact-assessments_en”
  Trade relations with Mercosur · Import of agri-food products in the EU
• “Thank you very much. I'll be speaking French. Tax in the European member states is evolving, and the context is intense economic competition. At the same time, we've got increasing budgetary pressures. So there are two points I wanted to raise. First of all, the future directive on, uh, excise taxes for tobacco manufacturers and the tax on large transnational companies, first of all, on the excise taxes, the companies in the sector need more visibility. Commissioner, could you clarify for us what is the timetable that you that the Commission is planning for this reform? Secondly, I'm not going to repeat the comments we've heard. On the worldwide minimum tax rules. That question has already been asked by. Previous speakers. But what I wanted to know from you is where are we at when it comes to the planned directive on transfer pricing? Transfer pricing is a vector for abuse and fraud. The draft directive is being blocked by some EU member states. I think the Netherlands is one of those countries. Is this not a major problem that we do not have more harmonised regulation of transfer pricing? Transfer pricing allows our large companies to avoid the tax that they should be paying in our country, given the turnover that they realise in our countries.”
  EU competences on taxation
• “I'll be speaking in French again. I think that we must do our utmost to make things easier, and to serve people so that work can be dealt with in the most simple manner, especially when it comes to cross-border work. It would seem. That providing more simple processes would be what we're aiming at, but we add more layers of rules. Now to make things simpler. Which is the intention. Now, are we going to end up making the rules uniform? But is that not running counter to the sovereignty of states in each of their own specificities? Including when it comes to tax matters? So. How would you do things? So that we could really move towards real simplification without adding layers of standards, rules, costs. And also to ensure that member states don't lose their tax sovereignty.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “We've got a significant delay, but it seems as though we've finally taken stock of the damage caused by the legislation. By omnibus one. Their initial attempts to dismantle the burden on businesses. But what we need is a true simplification. In the form of deregulation. So what we need to do is repeal Both CSS, 3D and CSS. I fail to understand why I was still debating the details. Despite the fact that we're already seeing the disastrous effects they're having. However, we have proposed amendments with a view to doing away with the two directives. If it's not possible to repeal them, we should try to ramp up the ambition regarding the omnibus package. We have to extend the exemption threshold regarding the reporting Requirements to 10,000 businesses between 5 and €10 billion. And extend it until 2041. Then we need a voluntary approach when it comes to taxonomy, and we should have a derogation from reporting for businesses that are only partially covered by taxonomy. Then, when it comes to CSS 3D, we should limit the requirements when it comes to identification and devaluation of negative impacts to first level business partners and give NGOs the possibility to contribute to reporting. Then on CSD. Srs reports should be reduced to a bare minimum, and the standards for voluntary reporting should be reduced to the international minimum to ensure fair competition for European businesses internationally. We can't be sacrificing our businesses in the name of the green religion. I was speaking on behalf of my colleague theory.”
  Due diligence in supply chains (environmental and human rights)
• “I would like to thank you for being here. And I'd like to speak French. The French tax services should be able to report TVA crime. But they say that the struggle against VAT crime is not one of their priorities. So I agree with you that we should go further to protect taxpayers money and guarantee the integrity of our tax systems. Since the creation of the European Public Prosecutor's Office, it seems that your results have shown the effectiveness of reinforced judicial cooperation. However, the fraudsters are very inventive and the EPPO and Eurofisc well, do they have the tools in their hands to move from a reactive approach to a fraud prevention approach? We are faced with increasingly sophisticated transnational criminal organizations. So how can we improve coordination between the prosecutor's office Eurofisc and the National authorities. What do you think of cooperation with the French authorities in particular, and what legislative or regulatory reform would be required to make your activities even more effective? If I still have time, I'd just like to finish with one point. When the fraudsters are identified but leave EU territory. Do we have any means of getting hold of them to put them behind bars and recover the lost money? Do third countries cooperate? And if not, can we put some pressure on? Anyway, that's all I had to say. Thank you.”
  EU law enforcement cooperation in criminal matters
• “Dear colleagues, resilience, sovereignty and inclusivity. We hear these words bandied about like slogans all the time. But this if there is an instrument that actually represents all of these virtues, it is cash. Cash is resilience. It is the only means of payment that always works without electricity, without a network connection, without intermediaries and sovereignty as well. Cash as central bank tender does not depend on any private providers or on any digital infrastructure which is vulnerable to attack or which is based outside our territory. And cash is inclusive for the elderly, for the most vulnerable, for those whose bank accounts have been suspended for no apparent reason. Defending cash is not refusing progress. It's defending freedom.”
  Means of payment (cash vs digital)
• “(16:19:42 – 16:22:15): Thank you to the rapporteur for their work, the rapporteurs. And our discussions were quite convivial. Although, certainly, the fragmentation of the market is a problem for companies. This is an issue when it comes to scale up. There's too many costs. And when they try to expand beyond their own market. But this 20 eighth regime might be useful as long as there is a factor of simplification. In the text, it goes further. We don't need to limit ourselves to procedural simplification to limb limiting ourselves to digital limization or legal simplify digital simplification or legal simplification. What we need to talk about is a real streamlined fiscal system tax system at the EU level. That would be the logical way to do it. Tax, however, should be a national member state matter. Tax incentives, social contributions, and the way you classify revenues should not be redefined indirectly by this report. Of course, we'd we'd have taken note of some progress. The text reminds us that it is optional. The fact that this is optional, the fact that you have some safeguards, and the competent”
  EU competences on taxation
• “So you have told us about the fragmentation. And of the trade plan of the industrial strategy of the union. Now, this union industrial strategy seems to go along with a tendency towards deindustrialization. And full scale. And full scale decarbonization. And to give you an example, the commission has just imposed the Mercosur agreement upon us. And the press is saying that France has shown staunch opposition to this agreement. Now, this agreement does jeopardise some agri food sectors, but we have provided a additional protocol to remedy that situation. But most likely you will impose a treaty. That is unequal, unfair. So how can you pretend to not see. The grim results that this agreement will have on the agricultural sectors of our regions. Secondly, heavy industries will. Will not survive the clean industrial deal. So under the banner of energy independence, which which is of course necessary. But chemicals, cement are being forced to not cause emissions. And so you would force them to therefore completely stop production. So I will leave it there because I've run out of time. But. How will the Commission protect European industry? History. When we're seeing increasing unfair competition from abroad. Thank you.”
  Trade relations with Mercosur
• “Thank you for. I'll be speaking French. First of all, I'd like to know whether we know what the cost will be for setting all of this up, because there are going to be expenses. It's linked to infrastructure, and the private banks need to get everything going. So I'm wondering whether you've calculated the cost for this, whether you have a figure. You also said this would be a kind of shelter haven. If there is a crisis, do you not think that private bank accounts will be empty? There'll be a run on these accounts. And don't you think there'll be a problem with these accounts? And then you said something about all this being capped, there being a ceiling. Who's going to set? This is going to be flexible. Who's going to be responsible for deciding Siding this. And if we have private platforms such as Wipro. And will we be forcing private banks to be involved in this kind of thing? I hope this is okay.”
  Digital euro
• “(16:35:30 – 16:38:00): in French once again. So once again, I'd like to thank the rapporteur for this serious piece of work. Taxation of companies is a key factor for competitiveness, and we support the objective to combat tax avoidance and abusive practice, but this fight should not be to the detriment of European companies. The report quite rightly flags up a major problem, which is the very incomplete implementation of pillar 2. On a global level, the EU applies strict and complex rules, which are very restrictive, whereas other economies offer more favorable regimes, and that runs counter to the interests of our companies who are faced with competition from the rest of the world. Nonetheless, obviously, we cannot be blind to the abuses facing our tax systems. So there's a very difficult path to tread to strike the right balance. Our group has three priorities for this report: defending European competitiveness, combating tax abuses, and preserving the competence of member states. So that's it from me for now. Once again, I'd like to thank the rapporteur for this work. Thank you.”
  Priorities of taxation policy in the EU
• “Colleagues, colleagues, I see that you are stuck on an essential question regarding competitiveness, which is the basis for competitiveness, which are simple, predictable regulations, judicious taxes, low cost and reliable energy sources, and the defence of our strategic sectors such as nuclear, energy and defence. But you're quite mistaken in your approach with the Green Deal, which Promotes wind and solar energy, which is not profitable. You don't invest in European valuable companies and do not apply the same rules as you apply within Europe, beyond Europe, and in doing so, you throttle our business sector. For example, the automotive industry is being destroyed by your delight in electric cars. It's as if we have to run a race with our hands tied behind our back. You ask our sprinters to wear leaden clogs, and in doing so, your approach is killing Europe.”
  Energy (green transition)
• “Dear colleagues, quality jobs is not something you can decree by order. Quality jobs are the result of investment and predictability. Foreseeability. We therefore need wisdom and constancy when it comes to our environmental standards and also social and tax rules. Furthermore, this requires making sure that energy choices are shielded from green dogma. And the apprentice sorcerers of the EU companies should become free again, and it is up to the States to ensure that their sovereign powers are recouped, regained in order to allow security to prevail. Sacrificing nuclear energy. By doing that, the European Union undermined any chance of competitiveness. So rather than imposing uniform rules on us, the European Union would be better advised to respect our freedoms. Thank you.”
  Climate efforts
• “Dear colleagues. The Recovery and Resilience Facility represents hundreds of billions of euros. I recall that this was instituted to overcome the health crisis. This provisional facility has remained. And we are now criticizing its efficiency, transparency and control. The Court of Auditors has revealed shortcomings. I am, however, seeing that some of you would like to Who retain this facility without any Democratic checks on the debt incurred or real progress on the projects financed. And the maneuvers used are always the same. Use crises to transfer competences to the EU and then make this transfer of power irreversible. Who will be responsible for EU debt? Failed states such as France. States that cannot control their debt will no longer be able to leave the EU. The speaker is being interrupted.”
  EU political integration
• “I certainly endorse what's being said. What I observe is that the way we approach things has been fully taken on board. The exchanges admittedly seem very good on this topic. I think that the outcome, the final outcome. Aligns with everything that was said. We will vote in favour of this report. We are certainly very vigilant concerning sovereignty aspects, whether we're talking about fiscal sovereignty or other forms of sovereignty. I think we will need measures in place to simplify things. I think we've got some way there. Without that contradicting the principles of sovereignty, which are very close to our hearts. I think this is a very good job of work. It's very credible effort. And I'd like to salute the efforts that have been made in this direction by the rapporteur. Thank you.”
  EU political integration
• “Colleagues. Exchanges between the US and the EU are vital, but they must work on the basis of reciprocity. The United States is standing up for its markets and its businesses. In the United States, social and fiscal and environmental constraints are weaker. The cost of energy is also more affordable, but it's quite the opposite over here. We have stricter standards. Costs are higher and these things are imposed on our businesses, so we are under the burden of our own regulations. The United States are not responsible for what we say. We are the people who have brought forward the Green Deal lobby. We prefer tax madness. And then with nuclear, we are causing ourselves problems. But then we have non economically viable wind power and it's not the US which will defend our industry and sovereignty. It's down to us to do that and we ought to fight for it.”
  EU-US trade relations
• “Colleagues, if we must. Inequalities. That doesn't mean that we should go for e.g. panaceas that have always failed. Too much social support undermines the spirit of effort and financing. Insecurity simply grows it. This is a mathematical reality. Only growth can diminish inequalities. This means wise and constant fiscal rules, a training system geared to needs energy resources in abundance at a low cost, States that guarantee security and order migratory flows which are substantially restricted. Borders that do not stop but filter Imported products meeting the same standards as those that you. Are requiring of our businesses. But that's not all. The root of the mind and civilization must be pursued again. The EU must not be subjugated, not just to China and the US, but also to green dogma, techno structures or abstract structures. And I would add your rejection of cultural identities. Reread Max Weber. Your EU has been stripped and made soulless and is an empty shell. You'll never make up these material shortcomings without the freedom of people and of men. That means summoning up history and breathing fresh life into the sovereignty of nation states. I commend you to abandon this submission and to see that inequalities will be scrapped through freedom.”
  EU fiscal rules and oversight of national budgets
• “(10:37:32 – 10:38:44): Dear colleagues, quality jobs is not something you can decree by order. Quality jobs are the result of investment and predictability, foreseeability. We therefore need wisdom and constancy when it comes to our environmental standards and also social and tax rules. Furthermore, this requires making sure that energy choices are shielded from green dogma and the apprentice sorcerers of the EU. Companies should become free again, and it is up to the states to ensure that their sovereign powers are recoup regained in order to allow security to prevail. Sacrificing nuclear energy, by doing that, the European Union undermined any chance of competitiveness. So rather than imposing uniform rules on us, the European Union would be better advised to respect our freedoms. Thank you. This is. Thank”
  Nuclear energy
• “Just one more thing. I see what you're saying. You're highlighting that this is a problem. Indeed. We're seeing these aging populations in our countries, but if people are having children, it could also be tied in with trust—whether or not they're having to, with trust they have and social support, etcetera. So it doesn't have to be others; it's a choice we're making. It's not just a financial choice; it's also a philosophical one, and that might be what's somewhat hard to swallow. We're not thinking, or we shouldn't be thinking, just within a financial framework.”
  EU strategy on population growth
• “I'll be speaking French. Dear colleagues, the report that we're currently looking at. As a point of departure has a statement which is that there is tax fragmentation in Europe. And that that leads to complexity affects the competitiveness of our companies, in particular the small companies, and is also a brake on the free circulation of workers and capital. It is therefore legitimate that we try and better coordinate our policies and improve interoperability between tax systems, and in doing so, also try and reduce the administrative burden. But this coordination cannot lead to a uniform and centralised take on matters, which is why our amendments focus on the need to have a flexible approach which can be tailored to the diverse national tax and economic systems in place, and the diversity of those various models. It is not to be seen as an obstacle, but as a great benefit. And tax is a legitimate adjustment instrument available to member states, and that includes strategic areas. And we've also tried to strengthen the part on simplification. The simplification of rules needs to be based on effective and proportionate and interoperable digital tools, without throwing up any new constraints or without curtailing the capacity of administrations and companies alike. So we need to look at the burden that is generated by existing legislation. There's the DAC, the second pillar. And we need to also look at the cumulative effect of new initiatives. I would also add the anti-tax avoidance directive to it. Then a balance needs to be struck between being firm and legal certainty in dealing with unfair practices. Legal optimisation goes hand in glove with fraud and the ability of member states to impose taxes. We also need to concentrate on specific results, so we need to try and improve competitiveness, facilitate the words of our taxpayers. But of course, the balance at national level needs to be respected, and the role of Parliament is not to call for further centralisation, but to identify which levers could be used to improve tax co-ordination with without making budgetary sovereignty weaker. And we are happy to contribute to this efforts and would admit that this first draft is very good indeed.”
  EU competences on taxation
• “Thank you. There are two subjects I'd like to raise with you regarding what the professor said. Professor Moscon, in the impact assessments carried out by you. You consider that the increase in the price of tobacco may lead to inflation equivalent to 0.55%. Now, what is possible in tangible Terms to deal with that threat. That would apply not only to individual consumers of tobacco, but to households in general. Miss Pelzer's, a question for you. The directive suggests that over the long term, there's going to be harmonization of of taxation for all nicotine products. Do you think that the failure to take into account the level of toxicity will send out the wrong messages to consumers, and will not encourage them to switch to products with a lower degree of risk? Thank you very much.”
  Smoking regulation
• “(15:27:47 – 15:28:08): I would like to thank the experts for being here today. I have a few points I'd like to raise. First of all, the study shows that reverse charge could greatly reduce fraud in the sectors that it covers,”
  VAT harmonisation
• “(15:29:07 – 15:29:54): and electronic register VAT registration are going to make it easier and more and what's going to make transactions more visible, but it's going to be a gradual rollout. So when will it be possible to think that these to deem these digital tools to be where they need to will be operational? At what point will they will at what point will they actually be operational enough to reduce the need for reverse charge for those high risk sectors? Thank you.”
  VAT harmonisation
• “Colleagues dear colleagues, I hope you are aware that, uh, you should really be sitting here and examining your conscience. The European Union is the air of the world with the lowest rate of economic growth. There are so many goods that are exempt from tax rules that environment rules. But there are lots of rules being imposed on our companies. You invest in intermittent energies which are not at all More profitable. You are deciding to renounce fossil fuel mines. You prefer to have a windmill rather than a nuclear power station. You can see the misery of the world piling up and ignore it. Now we see that Europe is at the mercy of the United States. Who's going to be imposing 10% tariffs? So what is the Cyprus presidency going to do in the face of this situation? Probably nothing. It's the people who will suffer.”
  Energy (green transition)
• “I'll be speaking French. It seems that you want to prioritize the climate objectives. At. The expense of the competitiveness of Europe's companies. And the expense of purchasing power at the same time. The U.S. and China are defending their industries and strengthening their sovereignty. So how can you justify your position which is strongly anti nuclear, and you're applying binding policies that impose limits and risk further weakening our industries. It would will further increase the phenomenon of delocalization and further weaken our entrepreneur class, which is already suffering a lot. Thank you.”
  Energy (green transition)
• “I will take the floor in French. I'm speaking on behalf of my colleague. Jermanova. Now, in this proposal on be fit, we can see that efforts have been made to increase tax transparency. And we understand that this would mean. Reducing transfers of profits towards low tax regions. This is also about simplifying tax Matters. For large multinationals. At the same time, we are concerned by the fact that this shared formula among member states will affect the tax income of the Member states. Tax on company income is a significant source of income for the member states, and any change to the method of calculation of that must be approached with caution in full respect of the national tax priorities. And let me underscore here that the Member states are sovereign when it comes to how they handle their tax regimes. Furthermore, we highlight the optional nature of bfit, at least when it comes to cross-border companies under the turnover threshold put forward. A flexible approach would therefore lead to a better assessment of the impact and would avoid any imbalances amongst Member States. Thank you.”
  EU competences on taxation
• “Colleagues, members, we will vote against this report because it's pushing us towards a union of saving and investment, which will take budget and economic sovereignty away from us. It's suggesting investments without us having any control on the projects or the budget incentives put in place. It's this report is pleading for European loans, so we'll be taking on risk that belongs to other people. It's calling for new own resources. So new taxes that go with that. This is a federalist List proposal. If we want more investment and confidence, then I call on you to. Look towards efficient energy sources such as nuclear and budget restrictions.”
  Own EU resources
• “Well, do I have to repeat it all again? What I wanted to say briefly is that yes, we've got a principle of companies not paying double taxation. But in the name of that principle. We've got a number of abuses involving transfer pricing. And at the end of the day, the large corporations end up paying very little tax. Either in the country where they operate or where they have their permanent establishment or their subsidiaries. Is. So at the end of the day, shouldn't we try and resolve the problem by getting rid of the use of transfer pricing and allow countries to have full tax sovereignty? That way, every large corporation would end up paying the tax where they carry out their business. If we want to make things easier and fairer. Without actually getting rid of the principle of transfer pricing, what could we do? Could we have a flat rate? What could we do to ensure that companies actually end up paying their tax where they make their profits? And how can we get past this very slow progress we've seen on tax justice?”
  EU competences on taxation
• “Just observe what I note. Is that it seems that the US are going to withdraw from the second pillar of the agreement. And when I listened to your remarks, I get the impression that the progress in favor of tax justice is very slow. There is a principle by which companies cannot pay. Double taxation. But on the basis of this principle of double taxation. There are issues involving transfer pricing and large corporations. At the end of the day, pay very little tax.”
  Tax Havens
• “I will speak in French. Firstly, I welcome this report. And the way it's been prepared. I would like to specify. That this week the European Union cannot be the solution to everything. And these solutions should not be the prelude to. Leading to integration fiscally and in terms of taxation. Of course, there needs to be oversight of the banking sector, but it should not be done at the cost of greater centralization. There must be some oversight. Non banking financial entities. And there must be oversight over crypto assets. But this should not be done at the cost of regulation. Which is excessive. I support the efforts towards greater. And digital sovereignty. Without this necessarily involving. A digital euro. But rather using private platforms. Indeed, I think the sector is a somewhat fragile. But one of the reasons is that Europeans are not investing sufficiently in Europe, and this requires trust. So that is something we can contribute to rather than resorting to cumbersome processes.”
  Digital euro
• “I just wanted to make one point. The fact that. Products are imported into Europe that do not meet the same requirements as apply in Europe. We're talking about so social standards, fiscal standards. So we have products entering our continent at very low prices. So. Will future agreements take into account this risk, which is a threat to our own products? Obviously, they're going to be less competitive. They're going to be more expensive because they have to meet relatively high standards. Especially they have to meet high social standards, which are very close to my heart. So will future agreements take into account this risks of undercutting our own? Producers and manufacturers.”
  Free trade agreements (FTAs)
• “Colleagues. Yes, tax fragmentation is a brake on competitiveness. What that means is that we need to reduce compliance costs and clarify rules. But it's not a good answer to force harmonization or pursue unlimited extension of the Union's powers. Taxation is the prerogative of states. So we support flexible coordination based on the respect of the diversity of tax regimes. Simplification and digitalisation should remain viable and proportionate. If we continue abusing the process of optimization, we will fail to give states sufficient flexibility to alter their rates according to their needs. The report from my colleague takes into account our red lines on the risks linked to the 28th regime, and we will remain alert. That.”
  EU competences on taxation
• “The I'll be speaking in French. Now, you've just reminded us of all of the various virtues of the system you're proposing. But. Aren't these virtues precisely the problems that the project could cause? We have to remember there's a risk that the accounts in private banks could be emptied as a result. Now you're reassuring us with the idea of a ceiling that it would be possible. To have a ceiling. But who will set it? We don't really have an idea of what that ceiling might be. I understand that it would be flexible. Would it be the ECB that's going to be adjusting that ceiling? But whether you have a high ceiling or a low ceiling, that will have quite a strong impact on the amount of money that will be on private bank accounts. Isn't it not a problem that we don't really have control over the ceiling? It's a question of sovereignty. Of course, it's not simply a question of the ECB. What about voters and democratic legitimacy? Are we not voting for a blank check and do not risk losing Democratic control?”
  Digital euro