Jean-Marc GERMAIN

Policy topics Jean-Marc GERMAIN is active on

What Jean-Marc GERMAIN has said (80)

• 2026-07-14 “(10:04:36 - 10:11:07): Well, I'd like to start by thanking all 3 commissioners for being with us. You've obviously done your homework because you've given us a lot of information. Thank you also for the work that you've been putting in. I'd like to start with a positive comment to stress the fact that it's no coincidence that issues related to the rule of law are covered by article 2 of the treaties. And that's the reason why this meeting that we have and these instruments introduced by the EU are absolutely crucial. The fact that we here today are holding this meeting to see how the situation is evolving in Hungary, and that's a really important point. I also welcome the wave of reforms underway in Hungary. It's actually quite spectacular and shows that basically, we are right to believe in our instruments. It shows the clout they have, and it shows our vigilance also in ensuring that the next MFF shouldn't water down these instruments. Now there are 3 comments I would like to make, which at the same time are questions. Firstly, maybe you could give us a little more information about the timetable for the reforms to still be introduced. I'm thinking in particular of questions of asylum and migration and respect for LGBTQI plus persons and other progress that needs to be made in respect of the rights of the family in all its forms, the independence of the judiciary and respect for civil society. My second question slash comment would be to call for more information about the way in which the commission services are not only going to ensure that the laws are passed, but also that they're actually implemented. And the various regulations and circulars that needed to be brought in to ensure implementation and respect for the rule of law? And thirdly, how can we ensure that these reforms will remain over time? And what will happen and how if some of them were we were to see backtracking on some of them. There's a further question which has already been raised, but we need it was something mentioned that we need some further detail. Commissioner Serafin was talking about funds still frozen under the CPR. The cutoff date 2026. And my more specific question was, well, for the RRF, the milestones are defined in common between the European institutions. But for CPR, it's a whole which allows these funds to be unblocked or not. And so all the necessary reforms need to be have implemented. So what about the perspective for that 6 point, however many, million to be unblocked? Thank you. Thank you, says the chair. Well, this is a good moment to just mention the fact that please, we have to respect speaking time. Our next speaker now is Monica Hallmeyer. Thank you. Okay. I'm going to be speaking German. Firstly, well, I think it's quite remarkable what the new Hungarian government has got underway in such a brief period of time because think about how little time it's been, whether it's because of the integration authorities, integrity authorities, autonomy for universities, financial transparency, and further transparency measures and conflict of interest, the public data registry, means for public funds. Really, it's quite impressive what's happened in such a brief period of time. There are 2 questions I would like to ask. One, I would like to ask the commissioners if they could give us some insight, because there's one question that's long existed. It's to do with this situation with Chinese companies investing in Hungary. And we've heard that labor protection measures and normal labor rules are not being respected. So that is infringement of the rules of the internal market and would affect Hungarian workers as well. Because, obviously, if you're working up to 16 days a week, 7 16 hours a day, 7 days a week, obviously, that's something very different to the European legislation and Hungarian workers are not involved. Maybe it could be Chinese migratory workers, and that would lead to an imbalance within the EU. And it's bad for the Hungarians, whoever's working in Hungary. On the internal market rules now, secondly, I would be interested to hear about the various regulations affecting companies taking away their ownership and property to what extent these are going to be removed, whether they're going to be specific fees or penalties, particularly in terms of provisions on production, how you're supposed to produce, whether you can establish prices. There's a whole series of measures established in decrease, which sometimes came into being overnight. And I'd be interested to hear what the approach is going to be on them. Thank you.”
  Rule of law in Hungary
• 2026-07-07 “(11:57:15 - 11:58:16): Prime minister, at the time where you are presiding over the multi annual financial framework budget, we want to send a clear message to you. We cannot build competitiveness by sacrificing solidarity or by leaving an unlivable planet to our, children. By sheltering each other, that's how we'll survive, I think the Irish proverb goes. The by using other funds to fund the competitiveness fund, that's not something the European parliament will agree to. And I can see the temptations to kill the DNSH or or others to, feast on the collateral damage. We're living through a terrible heat wave, and your presidency needs to focus on us working, you know, in a united face on a united basis with a responsibility to the environment. Thank you. Dear”
  EU industrial funding (mechanism level: EU-pooled vs nationally-financed)
• 2026-06-22 “This leads to the three. Question two first are for Professor Martin, and the first is, what do you see as the most effective and realistic measures Parliament could pursue in the short term to strengthen oversight and democratic accountability for these instruments? Second question for you, professor, would be would concern partner country development. How can the EU ensure that these partnerships support local value addition, industrialization and quality jobs in partner countries, rather than being perceived primarily as instruments to secure European access to critical resources. And then third set of questions to the Commission would be a first and concerning the proposal of the report. Would you be agree to publish all Ctap and PRM roadmaps? Are you. Do you agree to establish standard performance indicators for each Ctap and Memorandum of Understanding? Would you agree? Also the proposal to include financial Commission directly in the text rather than through parallel arrangements? Are you ready to develop a pathway towards more binding commitments where appropriate? And last are you ready to extend the FTE single entry point complaints mechanisms to CT, IPS and more? Thank you very much.”
  EU policy on African region
• 2026-06-22 “Thank you chair. I'm going to take the floor on behalf of our coordinator benefit, who unfortunately could not be there with us today. First, of course, he wanted. And I also want to thank warmly, Professor Maurer, for this excellent and highly relevant studies. And I will also ask a couple of questions to the Commission before the Commission will take the floor. So two comments and three questions. First, from Sandy perspective, we recognize the value of this new instrument in a rapidly evolving geopolitical environment. The EU the EU needs flexible tools to strengthen supply chains, support green transition, and deepen cooperation with strategic partners. Second, and however it was emphasized in the studies, flexibility cannot come at the expense of accountability. The study rightly outlined that the city and the CRM. Memorandum of Understanding increasingly shape our external economic relations while remaining outside the level of democratic scrutiny that Parliament exercise of a binding trade agreement. Equally concerned is the lack of clear obligation monitoring, monitoring mechanisms and measurable outcomes, which make it difficult to assess whether these partnerships are delivering for both EU and our partner countries. So we need to.”
  Due diligence in supply chains (environmental and human rights)
• 2026-06-17 “(10:33:36 – 10:34:41): Missus Michelle Le Pen, mister Bardella, your colleague, said recently that France had to reduce its contribution to the EU budget to decrease it twofold. I presume you agree with him. So my question is straightforward. Where do you want the cuts? European defense, the digital sector space, investing in clean tech, the CAP. The French and the Europeans have the right to know. Thank you.”
  Size of EU budget
• 2026-06-17 “(10:01:22 – 10:02:35): Ladies and gentlemen, Putin is bombing the cathedrals of Kiev, and Franco-German hunting meat is being buried. And we have plants closing down because there isn't enough European funds, and Trump is blocking our access. And Europe is in turmoil because of economic dependence. The European Parliament has to put forward a new MFF to defend the space, clean tech, and making sure that these are priorities, without sacrificing social issues. But member states are sitting there looking at the council, and they all want budget cuts. This is terrible. The European Council has to stop this kind of approach, and we've got to make sure that we have proper negotiations and have a discussion that will let us break the stalemate on own resources because that will help us fund the future of Europe as a continent that will prosper. Thank you.”
  Own EU resources
• 2025-09-30 “E-003796/2025 Answer given by Mr Dombrovskis on behalf of the European Commission In its Communication ‘NextGenerationEU – The road to 2026’ 1 , the Commission has encouraged Member States to explore all available options to safeguard their grant envelope under the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF), while ensuring that the supported reforms and investments continue to deliver on EU priorities and comply with the requirements of the RRF Regulation 2 . The Communication outlined a number of options, such as the use of financial instruments, equity injections in national promotional banks and institutions, as well as voluntary contributions to EU Satellite programmes or to other projects serving digital priorities. Voluntary national contributions from the RRF to the future European Defence Industry Programme (EDIP) can also be an option that helps to address the urgent needs to strengthen military capabilities and increase the defence readiness of the EU. The Commission has therefore encouraged the co-legislators to introduce a provision to allow for such contributions during the EDIP trilogues. Such contribution would be in line with the objective of the RRF to increase the level of the EU’s crisis preparedness and enable a quick and effective EU response in the event of major emergencies. Similar to contributions to the Member State compartments under the InvestEU Programme, such voluntary contributions to EDIP would constitute the investment under the RRF, to be achieved by 31 August 2026 in line with the deadline set in the RRF legal framework. The supported projects would be identified through the EDIP work programmes and under the governance of that instrument. The Commission is working with Member States to ensure a smooth and successful closure of the RRF. 1 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council, NextGenerationEU - The road to 2026, COM(2025) 310 final/2. 2 Regulation (EU) 2021/241 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 February 2021 establishing the Recovery and Resilience Facility, OJ L 57, 18.2.2021, p. 17.”
  Defence spending · EU industrial funding
• 2025-04-24 “E-001647/2025 Answer given by Mr Síkela on behalf of the European Commission The Commission proposal for termination of the Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA) with Liberia is based on a decade of dialogue and close monitoring through joint EU-Liberia management structures and five independent audits. These assessments consistently found deep-rooted issues in Liberia’s implementation of the VPA, especially the lack of a functional Legality Assurance System, weak institutional capacity, and limited law enforcement. While the Boakai administration has renewed efforts to advance the VPA – reactivating joint committees, imposing a moratorium on carbon concessions, and resuming logging revenue payments – these steps have not addressed the deep-rooted structural and implementation issues. As a result, the limited likelihood of Forest Law Enforcement Governance Trade licenses combined with low timber trade flows, reduce the relevance of the VPA. The Commission has explained the reasons behind this proposal, notably at the Joint Implementation Committee meeting in November 2024 1 . The termination of the VPA and the possible transition to a Forest Partnership (FP) open the door to a new phase of cooperation which will support Liberia in aligning with the EU Deforestation Regulation 2 and advancing broader forest governance reforms through more flexible support mechanisms. The governance structures under the FPs build on those under the VPA, with participation of all stakeholders, including civil society. The EU Council and the European Parliament exercise scrutiny and provide consent on the conclusion and termination of VPAs. Whilst FPs are a more flexible agreement, they also require scrutiny. 1 https://loggingoff.info/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/EU-GoL2024-AideMemoire-12thVPA-JIC-28-Nov-24NoAnnexes.pdf. 2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32023R1115.”
  EU policy on African region · EU-Cameroon relations
• 2025-02-04 “E-000474/2025 Reply As regards the first question asked by the Honourable Members, the Council is working towards and deliberating on the introduction of new own resources, based on the various Commission proposals, in line with the 2020 Interinstitutional Agreement and its Roadmap towards the introduction of new own resources. The Council is committed to the regular dialogue between the institutions to take stock of progress. As regards the second question asked by the Honourable Members, the Commission proposals on the table still need careful assessment. It is the Commission’s prerogative to present any additional new proposals in this regard.”
  Own EU resources
• 2025-02-04 “E-000475/2025 Answer given by Mr Serafin on behalf of the European Commission In the Interinstitutional Agreement of 16 December 2020, the European Parliament, the Council 1 and the Commission agreed on a roadmap towards the introduction of new own resources. The Commission has fulfilled its commitments: a comprehensive package on the next generation of own resources was presented in 2021 and adjusted in 2023 2 , ahead of schedule. In February 2025 the Commission called on the Council to resume work on the issue of new own resources as a matter of urgency 3 . The proposal for the next multiannual financial framework will build on a broad consultation, with input at political, institutional and stakeholder level, alongside with active citizens’ involvement. Given that the EU has to adequately finance EU priorities and respond to unexpected challenges while many Member States are facing fiscal constraint, and the reimbursements of the NextGenerationEU loans is due to start soon, the status quo is not an option. Strengthened and modernised revenues, notably via new own resources, are required to ensure sufficient and sustainable financing for the common priorities. The Commission stands ready to facilitate Council discussions. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32020Q1222(01) 2 https://commission.europa.eu/publications/own-resources-legal-texts_en 3 https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/6d47acb4-9206-4d0f-8f9b3b10cad7b1ed_en?filename=Communication%20on%20the%20road%20to%20the%20next%20MFF_en.pd”
  Size of EU budget · Own EU resources
• “45:28 – 16:48:57): Madam standing rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, dear colleagues, the decisions in front of us are challenging. Our group, the S and D, completely supports the idea of tearing down trade barriers to support Ukraine. Moreover, we support more direct help loans granted to Ukraine and particularly the most recent one, ninety billion euros. We're hoping that will be unlocked as soon as possible. We do have ongoing concerns. We want to make sure that Europe can support the war effort made by Ukraine. I'm sure you're aware that it is the very future of the Ukrainian freedom that is at play and we need to make sure that measures we take do not cause market distortions. That's why we supported both those measures that help to boost Ukraine's exports and why we support this renewed DCFTA. We think this is fair. It contains safeguard clauses for those countries that are most heavily impacted and those countries that have imposed unilateral import bans from products coming from Ukraine, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia. And now this agreement is on the table. We think it is fair and therefore these import bans should be lifted by Hungary, Poland and Slovakia given that these European measures have been introduced. But once again, we must always ensure that we strike the right balance and that is a question directed to the commission, the right balance between these direct support measures, the ninety billion euro loan which is blocked at the moment and the reconstruction loan as well as on the other ensuring that international trade can bolster economic activity in Ukraine. And if this isn't possible, we should find other ways to do that. We want to be able to support Ukraine via international trade. So those were a couple of thoughts I wanted to share on behalf of our group. We welcome the new trade agreements and we think Hungary, Poland and Slovakia should lift their unilateral import bans and we need to keep an eye on protecting our European producers. It's important for them and it's important to increase acceptance of the work we're doing to support Ukraine and it's very bid to exceed to the EU. Thank you.”
  Agricultural trade: Ukraine imports
• “Ladies and gentlemen, the outbreak of an infection on a cruise ship, alarming symptoms, deaths, and hunt for contact cases. The rapid arrival of the hunter virus gave all of us the impression we're about to relive the COVID nightmare. That pandemic showed us how badly prepared Europe was, lacking organization dependent on China for masks, medicine, vaccines. So the European said, never again. We set up the EU for health program to fund the future European response to health threats. Now, however, the commission shows as a short memory, it has put forward a budgetary proposal which simply does away with that program. Fortunately, the parliament said no and insisted that the appropriations be reinstated. However, there is a lack of a legal basis in the sent and only the European Commission can reestablish that legal base. So the ball's in your court, commissioner. I do hope that hantavirus as well as the emerging epidemic will act as a booster to your memory so that you come forward with the proposals we need. The president interrupts.”
  EU competences on health (internal-competence axis, sharpened)
• “Yes, thank you very much for the excellent report that table? Maybe. Of course we will table some some amendments, but I think we are on the same page. Maybe, maybe we we we should, uh, because as you very well know, the most disappointing things about the building of European defence is that there is too little money for really European defence and maybe, uh, compared to to what is forecast to, to, to be on the table as far as the, the overall money is concerned. So maybe, maybe and I will make some suggestions. We can, uh say that member states and the commission should, should increase their efforts to, uh, at least put more money on the the European Defence Industry programme with a be there for Europe itself or for Ukraine. But I know that you support also the, the the idea. But really it's important that in the end we can show that the Europe of different is starting in the coming years. Thank you very much.”
  Defence spending
• “Thank you very much. First of all, I would like to say I'm a bit shocked by the fact that you said to us that, uh, that you've done the best as possible. You've made actually a political choice, and it needs to be accepted as such. But there was another choice which was to impose equivalent tariffs Because and this would be my second comment. We've got a trade balance area that is noncooperative in nature. We need to take that into account. A model in which the, uh, we don't the optimum tariff are not zero tariffs, but rather ones that are equal between two partners. Two issues that I'd like to ask, first of all, how will Europe be acting to try to find a balance once again with the exchanges of service, for example, the tax on digital services, for example? Uh, that's quite outrageous there. And how can Europe as well? Because when we're talking about this non-cooperative tariff, we have to learn to cooperate and buy more in Europe. How is the commission going to, uh, take account the lack of all of these different, uh, episodes? Yeah. Thank you very much. Chairperson and director general. I, I actually am leaving this meeting more concerned than I was, than I began. Because to be able to lead the construction of a new rule based trade, then of course, credibility is actually essential.”
  EU-US trade relations
• “Yes. Maybe one. Thank you very much for the clear explanation about EDP and maybe one additional question that was not answered about fishery agreements, because we know that this this committee is also in charge of checking if what we decide here doesn't have a negative impact on other policy procedures by other committee of the House. And the question was the additional catches may have an impact on the sensitive balance of the fishery in the sector. So do you have any assessment of what could be or whether the the the the impact on the fish fish resource has been evaluated before agreeing to these additional catches and paying for them.”
  Environmental regulation of fisheries
• “Commissioner. Colleagues. Have the latest negotiations improved? The EU Mercosur agreement. Well, the answer to that is yes. But no effort that we make to continue to improve the agreement will change the fact that a free trade agreement is sometimes good for consumers and some sectors, but there's always a whole series of losers, and no compensation fund will be able to make up for that. A free trade agreement is a loss of sovereignty, and we've seen that in Trump's decisions. When the benefits do not are not on your side, then you end up suffering blackmail. Free trade agreement means more freedom to trade, but less collective freedom to choose. In Europe, we put people first. So and that will be in be in danger. So yes, we want a partnership with Mercosur, but there are many other ways of doing it than this agreement.”
  Trade relations with Mercosur
• “Thank you very much. Thank you. Colleagues, I too would like to thank the commission for this proposal. The S&D Group obviously reserves its position until further debate and more in-depth analysis that we'll be carrying out. We can, however, share the fundamental direction laid out. We agree with the efforts being made by the Commission and the goals laid out to avoid any risk of carbon leakage, and in particular, given. Legislation about part of the value chain, in particular regarding steel and aluminum. We also welcome efforts that are proposed to avoid any kind of attempt at escaping the sebum regulation, and we also feel that it's key. To improve the technical aspects for truly allocating the CO2 emissions for electricity, and to commit to decarbonization for the electricity or the use of electricity in the manufacturing process. In my remaining time, I would like to put two questions to you. The first is on the timetable for the text. And the second, and in fact there will be three in total. That's on the link between this timetable and that of the elimination of free quotas. Because as you yourself stressed that the two go hand in hand. And that's important for our trade partners. And thirdly. What consultations have you held? You talked about the industrial sector, but the unions, consumers, environmental associations are all concerned by this. And what sort of feedback have you had about the proposal you're making? Thank you.”
  Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM)
• “Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I won't keep you long just to say a few words from the original perspective. And being the director for audit, I will have to react to a number of things I heard. First of all, on the current, on the complexity. We heard from all stakeholders the need to to reduce that complexity. But it's true that by by definition, these different objectives are very varied. And having either 400 programmes, as we have currently for cohesion or a big NRP, you have to cover to adapt to local contexts, priorities, unforeseen challenges and of course all the EU, EU priorities. So there will be elements of continuity from current programmes, including for regional programmes, which can be reflected in different chapters of this common National regional plan, which is which is proposed. And we see also that the key features of cohesion policy are being preserved under these national regional plans, with the elements of governance, multi-layered governance which has been reinforced, and the direct role of regions working with the regions on the assurance and accountability. I can only confirm to the court that, of course, in a system of shared management, we need to work closely with the Member States, indeed to give guidance on what is expected from all levels. But the regulation foresees a good balance between the obligations of the Member States to audit the systems, to audit the milestones, to audit the protection, to ensure the protection of financial interests, and to ensure legality and regularity of expenditure. And yes, this this is crucial and this is part of the of the system. The point is that compared to today, where every single euro which is found to be irregular has an impact on EU payments. Under this model, we will distinguish there will be an obligation for the member state to follow up all these issues. And yes, this is heavy, but this is the price also of of accountability. But if the member state takes that action.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Thank you chair I'm going to speak in French. First of all, thank you to our two commissioners for their commitment, the speed of the reaction. The position of our group is clear. The money needs to get to Ukraine, whatever the means. But that brings me on to my second point. Our group is quite demanding, um, when it comes to keeping the frozen Russian assets on the table in case there's changes in one of the countries that blocked that, we think it's essential that in the end, Russia is the one that, uh, pays. Secondly. Something that's already been touched on is the issue of interest. The commission has suggested that the, uh, interest on this money would be paid outside of the MFF, uh, by the member states. So that wouldn't touch on European policies or affect European policies. That seems to be absolutely essential. We do not want this to be, uh, to the detriment of, uh, social protections or the everyday lives of European citizens, or to have this risk losing the support of the European people in this way. So I wonder what are the latest discussions in Council on this? And I'll conclude on this point. If it is done within the MFF and it means cuts to European policies. Uh, if there's no room for manoeuvre there, then, uh, I think that will potentially also be the same in the next MFF. Were you talking about potentially, uh, 20 billion there? So it'd be interesting to know what is happening in the council.”
  Russia-Ukraine conflict (10th term)
• “Thank you. Chair. Commissioners, I have two questions for you, and I'm going to speak in French. So the first question is about the mechanism that you started with, Oedipe. And it will be member states who will commit to the oedipe. And even though after 2026, it's going to be a matter of what's eligible for recovery and resilience. So they're going to be able to use money that wasn't used for that aim. So my question here is not you've always said that that kind of mechanism would require a revision of the interinstitutional agreement and therefore unanimity. But then you are expressing the legal position. Why couldn't you just say if you have member states who invest in. Factories who are using clean energy? And then you also mentioned the investment in the EU arms program. Then I have a question about the reforms and the milestones and the targets. In the new draft regulation on the national regional plans, it says that reform needs to be maintained for at least five years so that there aren't any requests for reimbursement. Is this a practice that you're going to apply to the ARP as well? Are the rules written down? Could you perhaps expand on that point as well? What would you do if a member state meets a target, Beats a target. Would they then have to beat it backwards? If I could put it that way?”
  Conditions to access EU budget
• “Thank you. Chair. Thank you for the commission, for the presentation. The rapporteur would like to raise two questions. First question to the commission is, can you already say or giving some illustrative examples of how and for which type of action such monies will be used to implement the Ukraine plans and align Ukraine with EU acquis in views of the accession. Can we make progress despite the ongoing war? The second question is about the administrative saving, and it is to relay some concern about the reasons for for which these amounts become available on the administrative line. First reason raised in the report is to slow recruitment of support staff. So the question of the rapporteur is why was that? Why is the onboarding, as you call it, so tenuous? And is it finally back on track? And second reason raised by the explanatory notes is the security situation in Kyiv. We had to pull back some colleagues to work in Brussels instead of Ukraine. And the question is will it slowdown or impair the quality of our cooperation with Ukraine. Thank you very much.”
  EU enlargement
• “Yes, thank you very much. I will speak in French if you allow me. I'd like to begin with a few quick replies, as it's been an interesting debate. It's clear to see the split between the extreme right of this house, even if sometimes they don't accept that description. And the pro-European parties that wish to see the rule of law applied throughout the EU. But can I just pick up on 1 or 2 things? Mr. Deutsch said. He said we don't expect we don't accept your moral superiority. You cannot dictate to us how we should live. But that is not at all what this is about. We are talking about systematic attacks against all balancing powers of checks and balances, the freedom of the press, the freedom of the judiciary, the freedom of association, civil society. We are simply calling for the respect of rule of law in this regard. And this is actually a key element of being a member of the EU. Respect for the rule of law. We are not in any way trying to dictate to the people of Hungary or Poland how they should live their lives, but we simply call on them to respect the conditions that were necessary to be respected to join the EU. And I am grateful to Mr. Koerner for what he said. We will have a debate as to whether we should change the regulation or not.”
  EU Supervision of the Rule of Law
• “Mr. Chairman. Colleagues. Commissioner. Well, the moment with the pro-European groups, we've agreed for powerful instruments for the building of the European, uh, Union. I'd like to really pay tribute to the two rapporteurs, Mrs. Tavares and Mr. EPP and renew. And the socialists want us to go beyond the 1% ceiling for financing the European Union. We call for new resources in the budget. And we also feel that the European approach is a viable approach to. Face up to European crises. And together we do not want to accept this terrible project. Which wants European funds to be related to national reforms imposed by Brussels. That would not contribute to anything. I think that the whole idea of Europe will be vanishing. We can't respond to urgencies, reimburse the Covid debt and not increase European resources for the budget. You've got a clear reply by the European Parliament to this dilemma, and we need to have a change of scale in the European budget. And I say this also on behalf of the S&D Group. You have, uh, worked on this European approach and be aware that we are a determined we will not be in favour of a budget which doesn't allow us to build a European defense, which is powerful enough not to depend on the United States. And we will not approve a budget which will not fund the investment fatigue galvanization of our economies, which are the key for the success of the Green Deal without social burden. And we will not agree to a budget which sacrifices the social cohesion and will not protect agriculture and the European employees, especially for research and innovation and businesses. We need a dialogue. We will be happy for this dialogue, but we also want to have as much clarity as possible. Thank you.”
  Size of EU budget · Own EU resources
• “(11:36:05 – 11:37:15): Climate objectives. This could be a political choice or a political decision, but we can't be blind to the fact that we can resolve matters. Today, we can and have to measure. We have to monitor the performance of our funds. And it's not just through simplification that we're going to be simplifying the lives of SMEs. If we don't have the same framework, the same performance assessment framework, we have to start from scratch each time with new criteria. So let's not make the mistake today of not using the performance regulation so that in 3 years, we need an omnibus to have a general framework to assess our global performance. So, yes, we do need some simplification and transparency, and that is essential. Thanks a lot. And, now, as I mentioned, before, I will be I will give the floor to the rep.”
  Conditions to access EU budget
• “Thank you. Chair. Um, we are used to have, um, files about this. The, the the use of this fund. And in that case, the company concerned is a two parent company. Uh, that was, uh, put in bankruptcy in February 2025. So, of course, the report will, uh, give the consent of the parliaments on the fact that this company and the workers of this company should be eligible to the EGF funds. The amount would be, if it is agreed, of 101 million and A euro um, corresponding to 85% of the 101,000,900 amount, uh, dedicated to the possibility for the people of the company to find, uh, or to to increase their opportunity to find a new job. Uh, the report will regret that, uh, as we've been used for. Unfortunately, uh, there is a long time before the ask of the Belgium Authority, which was, uh, 28th of August, 2025, and the assessment of the commission that we received on the 21st of January, 2026.”
  European Globalisation Adjustment Fund
• “Thank you very much. And in my turn, I will. I wish you had a good summer break and wish the best for president to recover from his accident. Maybe I will go straight to the point and to the main conclusion of the Report. Up first was the question of whether the regulations should be revised. And our conclusion, together with Monika Hohlmeier. And at least we do not call for revision of the regulation because we think it's too early, uh, to, to to go into that revision. However, however, we believe that some aspects of the application and a lot of aspects of the application should be improved to enhance the effectiveness of the regulation, which could be achieved by revising the the implementing the implementing guidelines. First and second, uh tries to, uh, adjust the annex of the Interinstitutional Agreements. 2022 ones which deals with with budgetary, uh, methods. First of all, there is a clear need for more consistency between the conditionality regimes and other instruments in the rule of law toolbox. And in practice, it's not always clear how conditionality regulation interacts with horizontal enabling conditions and with the RF super milestones. This results in an inconsistent action. Action. Attention should be also put so that frozen appropriations should not, under no circumstance, be relocated or reshuffled in case no remedial measures are taken. And this is something the Commission must be vigilant about.”
  EU Supervision of the Rule of Law
• “No, just just just to say that it's democracy to answer to my colleague. We decided so the commission is doing what we decided and which is a good thing.”
  EU political integration
• “Honourable members, we are at a key juncture with the upcoming Multiannual Financial Framework. We need to define Europe for the next ten years. We expect a visionary initiative, a focus on a Europe of defence, justice, environmental compliance or digital fairness. We don't want an empty budget. Let's be clear we will never accept eradication of the European Social Fund. If Ursula von der Leyen's Europe is to destroy Jacques Delors legacy, then don't count on us. We need the competitiveness fund, but it cannot be to the detriment of environmental and social concerns. We will not accept an observed rule where reform is required to receive funding. We need to ensure that our principles are protected.”
  Size of EU budget
• “So can sustainability still be guaranteed with the additional catches of various fishes? Third question does it mean that the increase of the appropriation for additional or unforeseen catches lead to a reduction of appropriation for other planned activities? Shall I go to deck? Yes, both of them. So as far as deck 21 is concerned Victor Negrescu would also have the following question. First, as the surplus existed due to less staff recruitment than initially anticipated at the start of the year. Can the Commission clarify what are the reasons for this? Second question regarding the reinforcement, can you explain how the additional €2.5 million can still be committed this year under the European Defence Research line, and which type of measure could be supported it? Third question as to the lines that are decreased, are they typical end of year availabilities that could no longer be used? Can such surpluses be avoided? Would why would they occur on some but not other administrative support lines? Fourth and last question on concerning the administrative reserve. Is it correct that it has now been Be emptied, which criteria must be fulfilled in order in order to use this line? And if it is called administrative reserve, why is it transfers to an operational line? That's it for the question of my fellow colleague, Victor. Thank you. Any other MEP wanting to take the floor? Madame Furet.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “So thorough, so that we would know all about any extension of this provision to workers who haven't yet been displaced or just at risk, and have a few specific questions. Um, uh, without going too long, sir. How will the Commission ensure that there is a proper geographical balance in the usage of the funds? I have, since I've been a member, uh, heard of situations where some countries are using the funds much more than others. Is it a question of access to information? Is it administrative? Uh, competence? Or secondly, you're proposing to provide 100% or to request that there be national co-funding to match the European co-funding? Would that be an obstacle for some countries and for small businesses to access the funds? Thirdly, if enterprises go into liquidation after receiving the pre funding, what measures are being taken to protect the European public funds or to ensure that the workers would get the money without it being captured by the preferential creditors? Creditors with preference over the EU and what would happen? Thirdly, if there was a mobilisation that didn't happen, but a Mobilisation of funds that hadn't happened, but that the funds made available were approved by the Parliament. Could they be those funds being made available elsewhere, or would that require the intervention of the Parliament? And I think those questions need to be answered before we decide on what to do with this proposal of the commission. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.”
  European Globalisation Adjustment Fund
• “(09:20:05 – 09:24:47): you very much indeed, chair. Thank you for inviting me to your meeting today. It's an important opportunity for me, and I think I could speak on behalf of Nicolas Epps as well, my co reporter for the Cont Committee. Perhaps a few comments to kick off, but I'm really here to hear the different views from your committee and to hear any possible amendments that might be tabled. But together with my colleague, we decided to push back the calendar and the timetable for our draft report because we think it's crucial for our initial proposal to build on suggestions from the different parliamentary committees. You know, it's a it's a horizontal report. We've got 10 committees who will be submitting opinions, and a third of the European funds will be attributed via the via the Cohesion Fund and its policies. So your opinion, this committee is of particular importance, and we have to ensure that our work here is of the highest quality. Next, my group, and I think beyond my own group, believe that the national and regional plans should be established on a multilevel basis with equal weighting between regions and local authorities who will be handing out the funds. We don't really want a patchwork of different plans submitted by different local or regional or national funds, which are then cobbled together by member states to meet the union's objectives. If you agree with this framework, which will give more power to towns and regions than they have now, then when looking at the performance indicators, so we have to ensure that this approach is reflected therein. The indicators have to be fit for any possible situation for different regions, whether they are remote, rural, island. And that's why we have drawn up the new calendar, which I'll run through briefly. Our draft report will be presented on the September 7. Then we have a deadline for amendments on the September 29. So the September 7, we will have already taken on board a number of the key contributions and on performance, which is the main horizontal aspect of the regulation. We believe that the opinions of the committees where they have their own regulation envy on ecology, then gender equality, the FAM committee, and for, social and employment, conditions, that's ample. We will have already got their, vision of the horizontal issues with the specific indicators as well, and their views are absolutely crucial. So, yes, we have pushed back the dates, but we hope to be able to present the report in plenary in October, the beginning of November. That's our plan. We hope to stick to timing. And then in December, we'll have the texts voted on by the parliament as a whole. Then the reporters and the 2 MFF co reporters will have a global mandate for the figures, for the architecture and for the legislative and regulatory breakdown between the different committees. That's what we've been doing, how we've been organizing our work and main areas of concern. The amendments or compromise amendments, which will be made are crucial for the drafting of our report. Thank you very much.”
  Cohesion and rural funding
• “Madam president, Commissioner, colleagues in Europe, tens of thousands of our fellow citizens and their children cannot properly warm their homes. They can't get healthcare. They can't pay for their meals. They suffer social isolation. This is a brutal reality. And it's shameful in a continent as rich as our own. Poverty is not fate. It's created by people. And it's vanquished by people as well. That's why I salute this report. Moving towards eradicating poverty in Europe by 2035, together with my group, the S&D. We will be fighting hard for a European social fund that is 30% increased in the next MFF and these funds also have to have be sufficient 20 billion for the child guarantee and money available for social exclusion and the homeless, etc. we need a specific fund for housing of €100 billion. That is the route we should be pursuing. Thank you very much.”
  EU expenditure on social policy
• “Commissioner, colleagues, not one, but two wars are threatening Europe in these dangerous times, and we have huge responsibility. So how can we tolerate what we've just heard from the EPP railing against the European budget. This. Proposal with the last minute amendments on migrants and the last. And the amendment on. Against universal access to abortion rights, which was a. Through the My voice, my choice collective. Just a few hours ago, we were. We were celebrating International Women's Day. Colleagues, you know very well that these amendments are unacceptable for the S and D. We will oppose them if you vote for them. The whole text will fall. So siding with the far right doesn't really bring Europe to the right. It just makes Europe crumble. So I call you to be reasonable, call on you to be reasonable, to withdraw the amendments. There's too much at stake here. Don't play with fire. Thank you.”
  Gender roles, equality and inclusion
• “Thank you. Jean-marc. Chairman. President. Colleagues. It's always helpful to talk, Commissioner. But the time has now come to make decisions. The Commission's silence has lasted too long. What does Trump want? He says himself. Firstly, money with the 10% that already applies to the tariffs. Now looking at 5 billion up to 25 a month. And this money is not something he'll give up on. And then the second objective of Trump is clear. We have businesses selling to the US. He wants them to relocate to the US. That's the greatest risk for Europe, not just losing our jobs to exports, but also that the products of our businesses for European markets would now be made in the US and re-import it back to Europe. And that is not something that we can accept at any cost. So what the EU should be doing is simple. We should be guaranteeing neutrality regardless of Trump's decisions. If it's 10%, then we impose 10% of it's 25%. We impose 25. We shouldn't be weak. And there's not about a trade spiral. We just want trade justice. And the lesson that we need to learn is that a trade partner can also change into a trade adversary. And that's what's going on. Thank you. Thank you very much. The next speaker is Francisco Jose Milkman.”
  EU-US trade relations
• “And you, I think, can do the math. Commissioner Hansen. But the math that you carry out made Commissioner Fitto frown because the math does not add up. And that is why we are asking for 90 billion more. Moreover, we can see that there is competition that is playing out with the European Social Fund. The third element, and you mentioned it, I think in brief, Commissioner Fitto article 22 must be bolstered such that we have not just a regional checked, but also a subsidiarity clause, a regional subsidiarity clause. And I shall conclude on this, Madam Chair. For my group this has not been raised yet this this evening. We do not believe that it is timely to have macro conditionality, and that is the reason why we are asking for the deletion of articles 67 and 68 that would establish a suspension of funds for regions or for farming, for issues that are not at all related to these funds. And we think that this could be negative or even dangerous for Europeans to get on board with the European project. Thank you.”
  Cohesion and rural funding
• “(10:56:27 – 10:59:56): Thank you, Chairman, Colleagues. I'd like to start by congratulating the rapporteurs on the work that they have done. And the first thing to say is that many of the amendments that have been tabled are along the right lines. However, my first comment would be that there is still much to be done in terms of achieving our main objective, and that is to translate what we have agreed on as regards to interim report into amendments to the NRPP and also to the relevant files and regulations linked to it. The second point that I would make is that I think we're going to have to reach agreement swiftly on a subsidiarity clause for our internal work, by which I mean that anything that can be done on the CAP file in the agri committee should be done there. And that should reflect what we say on the NRPPs. The a colleague said to me quite rightly that if over the years to come, there may be amendments to the CAP. We want to avoid having to revise the CAP and the NRPPs. Then there's a third point when it comes to the translation of the interim report. The key thing to say is that we have plans, strategic plans, plans that might apply if there's a failure to respect commitments, rule of law, and so on as regards certain funds. But then we also have this unique single fund, which we reject, and that idea of returning to separate funds is not in the text, and we will be tabling amendments along that line, i.e., specific objectives, earmarked funding, and perhaps the most complex issue. How do we distribute the monies between the 27 member states in each fund? Because there wouldn't be a single form of distribution, but there'd need to be additional distribution keys. And we think that it's really on the thematic files that that distribution will have to be made. We'll have to decide on that. We'll also be looking at macroeconomic conditionality. We are still not persuaded after many reports from the European Court of Auditors on these targets and milestones in terms of how helpful or feasible they might be. So at the very least, we think that the objectives laid down should be in line with the competencies of regions and local authorities where they are involved. And disregard conditionalities linked to the Maastricht criteria, the treaties already set out that conditionality. So there's no question of increasing the penalties there. We will be vigilant on that. And I think that Nicholas Herbst, who is working with me on this text, will be looking at the horizontal principles to do with performance. And then we have a lot of work to do. And I'll close on this, Chairman. We have a lot of work to do on the Copernican revolution that the Commission wants shifting from cost-based payments to payments based on activity indicators, something which we do not think is especially helpful. Thank you.”
  Agricultural funding
• “So we regret that it's it's been five months later, while, of course, the needs for the workers started, uh, to, to to to be raised as soon as the company has been put in in bankruptcy. Bankruptcy. Uh, but as far as the Parliament is concerned, and we can see that we are rapid because we are discussing these files. Only a couple of days after we received the assessment from the commission. The report also has a certain number of comments on the fact, first, of the condition of the bankruptcy, because it is related by, uh, the partly related by the fact that the brand Tupperware was asked to be paid by the American parent corporation, and it proved to be unbearable by the Belgian, uh, local, uh, um, companies. And we also, as we wish to do in that report, emphasize the fact that focus should be particular goes to low skilled workers. Because in Belgium, as in many European countries, the most proven that they have much more difficulty to find a new job. So, so this, uh, of course, uh, uh, the Parliament can express the fact that we, we need the money should be prioritized to those workers. Thank you very much.”
  European Globalisation Adjustment Fund
• “So, first of all, my thanks to the Court of Auditors for this excellent report they've given us, which, unfortunately shows us that the more we look into the air, then we see what an administrative nightmare there can be. And I could summarize that by saying that when you just try to put two feet into one shoe, you're just going to end up hitting your face against the floor. And I think that's what we're seeing happening right here. And what I can remember here, from what I understand from your report, and I would like you to elaborate, perhaps on these details is that we it it seems that it is is it more complex or more simple for the commission. For the Commission, it's only one shoe. But for the rest of us, for everyone else We're trying to put two feet into one shoe. So you could tell us a bit more about what you saw are the additional complexities that are for the beneficiaries and member states that you've seen. A second element that I came up in your report, and that has to do with performance as well, is that you've you express quite some criticism about the ability to maintain certain social objectives.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Yes, I will speak in French. Merci beaucoup. Thank you very much for your presentation. I have two questions to ask you. First. You compared the upcoming MFF, or at least the proposal from the Commission as it is now, and you compare that with the RF, but not with the way that cohesion funds, social funds and the Cap were allocated. So my question is what is your opinion? Of the impact of the renationalisation foreseen in the Commission's proposal. Regarding the risk of fraud that might arise. We've seen and you mentioned this in your analysis of the RF. We've seen that centralisation meant that we didn't know who the final users were. We just knew who the intermediaries were. And therefore, as you said, you had trouble in tracing the proper use of these funds. So this renationalisation, might it constitute a risk in terms of making legal certainty more difficult, making it harder to evaluate and trace the funds? My second question has to do with the implementation of conditionality and rule of law. You mentioned it briefly in one of your slides. This new tool, how will it strengthen or otherwise? Conditionality and an issue which is eating away at us in terms of a report that we're expecting regarding conditionality linked to rule of law? How can we avoid a situation where through blackmail against unanimous decisions? In those circumstances, how can we make sure that the rule of law is respected in Europe through the suspension of certain funds? What sort of rules could be established to make sure that the negotiations are carried out properly? Thank you.”
  EU Supervision of the Rule of Law
• “Thank you. Chair. No problem. As on behalf of Matthias Nemeth, I would like to say that the S&D Group is going to support the project because we think that from an economic and sustainability point of view. The project makes sense and is consistent with the Commission's long term real estate policy that we share. The consolidation of three existing buildings into the renovating lone building represents a strategic step towards a more efficient and modern working environment for the Commission. Nevertheless, uh, I would ask two questions on behalf of my colleague. First, uh, and for the record, because we received a written answer, but first, in cooperation with the current premises, the new building will offer less space per workstation and significantly fewer parking spaces. How does the Commission plan to adapt operationally to this change, particularly if staffing levels remain stable. And second question from the shadow rapporteur is to note that the new premises will include private residential units. This seems rather unusual for a commission occupied building. Are there any precedents for this in current building portfolio, and what measures are foreseen to manage the potential implications in terms of security, both physically and cyber? Thank you very much.”
  Budget for EU politicians
• “Yes. Thank you. Chair. Just to say that we're going to support this, uh, implementation, and we think that the reports are quite well documented. And, of course, uh, differently for the previous speaker. We are very attached that the Europe is represented all over the world. And indeed, we are maybe worried that the representation, uh, is decreasing. But, uh, just one one thing that should be useful in the report is that we have systematically the size of the, uh, the the representation of the building that we are we're trying to be on, on the the price by square meters because it's a useful reference to assess if it's expensive or not, and it's an additional information on top of the number of years to be more favorable than, than or range. So and it's not the case in two of the files. Thank you very much.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Thank you chairman. Thank you, Commissioner, for your initial responses. I've got a whole series of additional questions here, and I hope you'll be able to give us some specific and precise responses now. First of all, we never really talk about needs. We never really told about what the Ukrainian budget actually needs. So could you tell us, uh, what the forecast budget for 2027 is with and without military expenditure in terms of expenditure? What are expected from outside, because that'll help us understand why we have the needs are 15 billion per six month period. Now a second question. It's a bit technical, but it relates to everything that's being being said. Now the mechanism that's envisaged, are we envisaging cutting programs or not? The way in which you presented it was that we were going to use our margins of flexibility without cutting programs firstly, and then we use the flexibility instrument, which is outside the MFF. Now that's what I understood. But during the debate, it didn't seem as clear as I thought it was. And then this leads me to another question, which relates to the fact that, uh, there's a link between, uh, the Ukraine loans and the EU URI, uh, Cascade, because that would mean that programs would have to be cut at the end of the day.”
  Russia-Ukraine conflict (10th term)
• “Thank you. Chair. And I take the opportunity to congratulate you to become the chair of Afcons. And. And I'm happy to have Niclas Herbst as a rapporteur on this file. Um, maybe the first thing that I would like to say when you listen to the Court of Auditors and then to the commission, you say us as a parliament, we would like to know where is the truth and to know the truth. We would like to have more precise answers from the commission, because the Court of Auditors, for example, says the EU added value is not defined. I'm not sure you answered this first remark of the Court of Auditors, but of course it's really important because the whole purpose of the of the thing is to measure the, the, the, the added value. So what's on it's first question for the Commission, would you precisely reference to to that. Second is about simplification commission say it's it's simply it's it's a lot of simplification. If I take your number, it's divided by five from 5000 to 900. And Court of Auditors says it's simplification for the Commission and maybe for the member states at the national level, but for local authorities and final users. It's complicated complication.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “So we need to know where is the truth. And we need to go a little bit in the data and the details. Sorry. Then a performance. So, um, we we need also to have a clear answer on why there are not, uh, results, uh, indicators on 25% of the, of the, of the programs because it's reality. So and in many cases that we should look, uh, one by one, we don't see exactly why. So we need also an answer. I'm not saying that the commission is right or the Court of Auditors, but since there is no contradictory procedures with an answer of the commission, it would be the case in a real audit. Then we need to have two days. Or even if you cannot do it by written an answer to to to that question. Then as far as, um, uh uh, the risk of overstatement, there was an example given where the 100%, uh uh, which seems to be overstated by the Court of Auditors. Maybe you can also answer to that precise example. Um, on behalf of the of the Court of Auditors, we would need, if it exists, a whole bunch of examples that you you have, because we will, of course, as parliaments to have a statement on that.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “And, uh, last but not least, um, um, I would add, add a couple of, of, of, of things even if I'm short of time. Sorry for, for that. But uh, um, first, uh, Was that I think we didn't have an agreement with my co-rapporteur, but that the whole exercise has to be useful for decision not only to check if we are late on such and such objective, but what is the consequence of being late on on on the target? And my question here would be for the Court of Auditors. Do you think that the process would be useful to correct any unbalanced. And and I would end with another question which is not raised for now, but for, for for us it would be important to follow some objective like a European affordable housing plans or Ocean Pact. And there is no tool in the performance framework to, to, to to track if those objectives are fulfilled. So do you think like the tools that we have in France, like Jean Jean budget Dedicated annex for those objectives should be relevant. Thank you very much again for your presence, which is very important today.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “So, first of all, my thanks to the Court of Auditors for this excellent report they've given us, which, unfortunately shows us that the more we look into the air, then we see what an administrative nightmare there can be. And I could summarize that by saying that when you just try to put two feet into one shoe, you're just going to end up hitting your face against the floor. And I think that's what we're seeing happening right here. And what I can remember here, from what I understand from your report, and I would like you to elaborate, perhaps on these details is that we it it seems that it is is it more complex or more simple for the commission. For the Commission, it's only one shoe. But for the rest of us, for everyone else We're trying to put two feet into one shoe. So you could tell us a bit more about what you saw are the additional complexities that are for the beneficiaries and member states that you've seen. A second element that I came up in your report, and that has to do with performance as well, is that you've you express quite some criticism about the ability to maintain certain social objectives.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “And, uh, last but not least, um, um, I would add, add a couple of, of, of, of things even if I'm short of time. Sorry for, for that. But uh, um, first, uh, Was that I think we didn't have an agreement with my co-rapporteur, but that the whole exercise has to be useful for decision not only to check if we are late on such and such objective, but what is the consequence of being late on on on the target? And my question here would be for the Court of Auditors. Do you think that the process would be useful to correct any unbalanced. And and I would end with another question which is not raised for now, but for, for for us it would be important to follow some objective like a European affordable housing plans or Ocean Pact. And there is no tool in the performance framework to, to, to to track if those objectives are fulfilled. So do you think like the tools that we have in France, like Jean Jean budget Dedicated annex for those objectives should be relevant. Thank you very much again for your presence, which is very important today.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “We need to define are we simply are we simply talking about the integrity of the budget? Although of course. We want the mechanism to be as wide ranging as possible. So it is related. It should be things that have budgetary implications. But there are other things such as voting rights, um, which are important as well, need to be protected. Uh, anyway, another point where they leave it up to Monika Hohlmeier to respond. But there's the whole question of the blackmail used by Hungary related to completely unrelated matters, such as freezing Russian assets used with regard to this mechanism. So I think the member states right of veto on decisions have to be taken by unanimity, should be perhaps called into question. We're not talking about suspending all voting rights. Um. I mean, the Hungarian people are still full members of the EU, even if voting rights are suspended. But, uh, certainly we have to talk about, uh, effectiveness, transparency and, uh, defining what we mean by smart conditionality. So we want this to be as broad as possible, but we certainly don't want to, um, make this mechanism inapplicable. Couple. So that's my first response to the points raised, and I'll follow the debate closely of course, until the final report is adopted.”
  EU Supervision of the Rule of Law
• “Thank you very much for those responses. Perhaps I was a bit distracted, but I didn't hear a response to what happens if a company goes into administration. And is European money protected from other creditors? Is there a tool? For when it comes to employees?”
  European Deposit Insurance Scheme
• “Then you can expect to have some amendments tabled by the two co-rapporteurs in, uh, to take the consequences of the new elements. And we still are waiting some, um, studies that the committee ordered, for example, as regards as smart conditionalities are concerned. Concern. So there will be some, uh, complements to the reports. As a conclusion, I want to thank, uh, Monika Hohlmeier for the good cooperation. Many thanks for you. Uh, even if there was some tough, tough circumstances, uh. Uh, well, maybe it's a black hat for the people chairing the committee. I don't expect you for you, Nicholas, but, uh, and then, of course, for the staff of the secretariat and our teams, which, uh, for me, draft an excellent report. And I hope, dear colleagues, that, uh, you will also have the possibility to include your your inputs. It's really important report. And and I hope for a good collaboration until the vote in the Parliament. Thank you very much.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Thank you. Chair, quite briefly. First, uh, about the core, since I understand that there is a lot of discussion about that. Uh, do you have an assessment whether this is a tax or a levy, because there is a a juridical assessment from the Commission. That is clear. There is no need for national parliaments to endorse this one. But for the council, they say that they have a theoretical analysis, but it's not finalized. So did you did you look at at this topic? Because I guess there is a link also on whether it's lump sum or proportional tax. And second is to to push the idea of my colleagues. And if, if, as we understand, there are problems with those thresholds, there are ways of improvement without falling into the tax category. Uh, last question would be, uh, to, to push the, the question of, of Mr. Lewandowski, uh, related to the acceptability not only one by one, but also as, as as a package. Um, can you, can you can you you maybe develop a little bit on, on on that topic and, and more precisely, uh, there is um, well, a contradiction between two principles. One is that normally taxes should go to the general budget and not being affected. But we know that for acceptability, for example, of a tobacco tax, if you say this tobacco tax will go to finance, clean and affordable energy and everybody will be in favour, even countries that are strongly against. But if you separate them, it becomes difficult. So would be the affectation of taxes, a solution for the package to be acceptable by the Member States and their citizens. Thank you very much.”
  EU competences on taxation
• “You said that even if there is a 14% objective, for example, in reality, the way that it's calculated leads us to it losing all objective meaning because the criteria used to make the calculation will introduce too many different components that are not actually part of social spending. Third thing I wanted to talk about, I'm not sure if it's brought up in your report, but could you also talk a little bit about the how constitutional or constitutionally valid is the for the proposal. If we think about the European constitutions, we see that certain legal concerns first about the fact that the Single Fund is not actually foreseen in the treaties. The treaties talk about three different funds. Second, about the sanctions that have to do with the Maastricht criteria. Are there any specific provisions there? And if we add a suspension for the agriculture and Cohesion funds, and I would include my comments to the Commission as well, is that the report talks about the weak of the respect of the rule of law, or the tools used to respect rule of law. Could you talk a little bit more about that aspect as well, please?”
  Conditions to access EU budget
• “So we are very clear that if we ask our agencies or or. Bodies of the European institutions of new tasks, they be a newly founded. And we work and we fight for it, but also we, we we acknowledge that they make some efforts and we encourage them to to go on with this common efforts. Finally wanted also and I do it in his behalf to thank the EPP delegation, to thank his colleague Andre. They spent a lot of time together to to try to convince all the stakeholders. And also he wanted to to thank the shadow rapporteur for the collaboration, constructive spirit and support during this negotiation and of course, all the staff of the committee, our own staff, staff and the staff of all the groups involved. And as a conclusion, he wants it to say to our committee that by working together and staying united, we were able to deliver on important issues and strengthen our institutions that are playing and very important institutional role for Europe. Thank you on his behalf. Thank you. We do the shadow rapporteur, Mr. Wolski, please.”
  EU political integration
• “So they are part of fully part of the Union. And third, further, as the chair of the mission said, it was a really interesting to to see how the with with the visit of the of the Patriot group of defense who is building some, some light defense, uh, vehicles uh with arm and that it seems that there is like a separation between the defense that that is, uh, made with common industry, with northern countries and Germany and the rest with France and other other countries. So one one challenge is to have a really common, uh, European industry defense and not that kind of separation between some groups that are working together, but not with the others. So that was a very interesting mission, and I would like to thank the the Secretariat for the excellent preparation that was for, as far as I'm concerned, my mission. So congratulations and I hope all those missions will be as useful as this one was for us. And I shall conclude also to thank for, uh, from whom I get the idea to go to Latvia, because I think it's very important for us, coming from different groups to to see the same realities and to take the good decision for the future of Europe and taking into account that kind of border region. Thank you very much.”
  EU competences on defence
• “So we need to know where is the truth. And we need to go a little bit in the data and the details. Sorry. Then a performance. So, um, we we need also to have a clear answer on why there are not, uh, results, uh, indicators on 25% of the, of the, of the programs because it's reality. So and in many cases that we should look, uh, one by one, we don't see exactly why. So we need also an answer. I'm not saying that the commission is right or the Court of Auditors, but since there is no contradictory procedures with an answer of the commission, it would be the case in a real audit. Then we need to have two days. Or even if you cannot do it by written an answer to to to that question. Then as far as, um, uh uh, the risk of overstatement, there was an example given where the 100%, uh uh, which seems to be overstated by the Court of Auditors. Maybe you can also answer to that precise example. Um, on behalf of the of the Court of Auditors, we would need, if it exists, a whole bunch of examples that you you have, because we will, of course, as parliaments to have a statement on that.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Uh, I am going to speak in French, um, today. Well. First off, thank you to the Commission for the explanations. As you might imagine, we in the Parliament are not particularly happy about giving up one of our prerogatives. And we take a lot of convincing there. We understand the need to lighten the administrative burden if they are, if it's redundant, and to bring in something new. We also know that it's one of the rare dispositions where the maintenance but the individual case of enterprises. But before I became a member, it was the case that this was submitted to the Parliament for scrutiny. And the reason was an important one. I was important for parliamentarians that workers affected by globalisation have this measure to support them. So of some concern, and about us being having this prerogative taken away, and if we accept it, we really have to be constantly informed on time and to ensure that the if the regulation goes off and in the wrong direction, then we have to perhaps backtrack and add. A very important criterion for us will be the speed with which the funds are made available to enterprises, because that might save the jobs. A second concern, then, is the fact that aid for enterprises for dismissals when they haven't taken place yet entails risk because it facilitates dismissals and make them less expensive for businesses with European funds. And if that's the case, you can imagine how that would damage the image of Europe in the eyes of those who were the victims and their families and public opinion. So we would ask that extreme vigilance be exercised to avoid any windfalls with European funds, and that the reporting be very.”
  European Globalisation Adjustment Fund
• “Thank you chair. Rather similar comments from my side. There are several areas in which the report is insufficient. The granularity of the information provided It does not always allow one to fully perceive the extent to which the support instrument has been used. The Commission loves bandying the term performance around, but in fact the cherry on the cake is that the hardest thing to see is the extent to which this has actually been useful in terms of implementing reforms as advocated in the European Semester recommendations. So. Following on from this general observation that there is a lack of information in the report, my question would be what would be your assessment of the European Semester recommendations, which have indeed been successfully implemented thanks to the technical support instrument. Can you give us an example? Can you give us some quantitative information on that? And similar questions to the EPP on the next. If I had understood that it was two thirds of EU funds that were going to be subject to macroeconomic conditionality henceforth. So as the next MFF is prepared, what do you think will be necessary both in qualitative and quantitative terms, in terms of the kind of TSC we're going to need, if the Commission's kind of ideas for national and regional plans are to see the light of day. What else will member states need to do in order to ensure that the kind of reforms of Suspensive character is included in national plans are implemented?”
  Conditions to access EU budget
• “I will speak in French. First of all, thank you to everyone for your presentations. And also thank you for this collective effort that you have undertaken to document the budgetary impact of gender and on gender equality, two aspects of progress. This was stated first by the presentation by the OECD that progress is really so taking the input to the outcomes, as you put it. And I think between the two, there's also an important step, and I think this was stated by others, by me, the qualitative to the quantitative, they are never I could never say that there's four 7747, 47 billion in EU budget that serves for gender equality, because we can see that that is a far too broad. But if it has an extremely important impact on reducing the deficit, and then also we need to prioritize. I can't remember which presentation it was, but you gave an overarching summary, which is excellent, but we need to really set it in line with our objective of gender equality. So reducing salary inequality. And that's where I think we should really be placing our efforts. So three questions. The first to the OECD representative when it comes to your presentation of the intellectual frame that you have, what are your specific recommendations that you would make for our way of progressing and for our budgets and areas for improvement, the second would would be for DG budge. What is your reaction to the OECD's presentation and what steps do you think could be taken? And then the last question that would really go to all. What progress can we make in terms of budgetary assessment ex-ante or even outside of just budget assessment, but in terms of the impact of the various measures that have been taken, now we have the budgetary assessment on each measure that is taken by the EU. Could we have an assessment, a gender assessment, and what type of procedure could be used, and how could that integrate the quantitative and the result aspects and not just the qualitative aspects? Thank you.”
  Gender roles, equality and inclusion
• “Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Chair. And I would like to thank you. To thank the the president of the the chair of the of the mission who chaired very efficiently. And I can tell that we share almost nothing for the conclusion that he raised from the mission. And I should emphasize a couple of them. First, there is an urgent need to protect As a border between Latvia and Russia, which is a border of the Union. And to give the figures that was striking for us is that all? No more than 10% of the border is covered by protection against, uh, an eventual invasion by tanks, which means that they have a need to buy some concrete blocks high enough to stop the tanks. And they are not. They are only able to do it around the main roads and not more than that. The cost is €3 billion, and they took €3,000,300 million from, from the budget to to finance this. So there is urgent need and maybe the need of a tool, uh, specifically dedicated to protect the border for defense purpose. Migration is another topic, but there is a specific defense issue. Second is that there is an economic issue related to the war in Ukraine, and the threat from the Russian troops is that nobody is investing anymore in the border regions, such as the region of Latgale, that we were able to visit. So there is a second need is that those regions should be your priorities for at least the next cohesion funds, but if possible, before, before it's because the the economic crisis has also political consequences, because people that we were able to to meet feel kind of little been abandoned by the European Union and not considered that they are border countries.”
  Defence spending
• “Honourable members, today in this chamber, we have taken a historic decision on the next annual EU budget. Let's sum it up as follows. Let's build a future without decimating solidarity policies that are the beating heart of our European Union. This is an unprecedented step, the most sweeping change since the Delors years. The Parliament has never come forward with such a wide ranging proposal to better equip the European Union to grapple with future challenges, we now need to engage in debate with member states. I don't know what you would say about the new sectors open. What about defence space, crypto, housing? Those are key challenges. And of course we need own resources to tackle those challenges. We seem to have a black blockade. And so under the leadership of Sandra Gomes, we in the Parliament have come forward with fresh proposals such as the Online gambling Tax and Digital services levy. So a decision lies ahead. We need to decide on own resources. We need to decide whether we will take action here. Thank you.”
  Own EU resources
• “Mr. Commissioner, colleagues, this budget, with all its constraints, is still a good budget. Then we were about to have a €1.3 billion budget. Instead, we have these new funds for research for transport, youth, health and the green transition as well as humanitarian aid. I'd like to thank my colleague Mathias Nemec, but also Andre Zaleski. Dear Andris, Andres, thank you very much for defending the s and priorities, which were also the priorities of renew and the Greens as strongly as you did the priorities of your own group. Then you really did the job justice, and you then represented the pro-European groups against the against all of the requirements of the far right and against everything that was coming from big business with S and G renew and the Greens. We have tried to find the very best way to find a middle path for those groups which are faithful to European principles, but that also want to defend the general European interest. You have done the job justice and that has done us all good. And that has meant that we have been able to move away from all of the problems that we had with corporate social responsibility. We have shown that we can work together. So EPP colleagues, stay on the right side. Thank you.”
  EU-Russia relations (from March 2022)
• “Thank you. Chair. I will speak in French. Thank you very much, Mr. Commissioner, for being here. And to your colleague as well. We see quite a lot of you. I have three questions for you. The first is about reforms. Have you come up with a list of the different types of reforms? I have to say that, um, since the start, I've, uh, found it quite hard to follow how to link these, uh, funds being released and linking that to reforms, I Reforms. I think Spain and Belgium are interesting examples. So how can you start a public aid system? Because that's what it is on conditions that are not very well defined or very different. So that's my question. But um, as a preface, I was saying, is there a typology of different, uh, reforms? There are, uh, 140 projects that have been completed, over 160 past. So that would suggest that there are 140 different reforms that have been made. My second question, the Commission's communication would suggest that, uh, you're looking for other options than those put forward by our two co-rapporteurs in their own initiative opinion, rather than finding lots of different solutions to try to consume these funds from the facility. Facility? Uh, instead of that, you are just giving 18 months grace to the mature projects. Why do that? Last question on the edit program that I'm a rapporteur on for the finance Committee, I'd like you to elaborate on the option of using our funds for edit. The legislation will come into force in mid August or September. So I read in your communication that you just need a commitment to put to so many millions into a deep for it to be considered, uh, a well grounded, uh, use of RF. So if you could explain the provisions you've made.”
  Conditions to access EU budget
• “Commissioner, Europe is finally shouldering the fact that the single market only makes sense if we have fair rules, which are respected by everybody. For years, the steel market has been wide open to a wide competition, and this threat to our market, because of massively subsidized product production, particularly from China. In order to meet this threat, we're going to reduce the quota of cheap steels by half, and we're going to double the non-quota steel from 25 to 50%. And this is the end of innocence as far as we're concerned when it comes to free trade. It means that we can guarantee sovereignty in a strategic sector. We can protect our work. We can protect our our knowledge, and we can become a leader when it comes to decarbonized steel. We now need to extend the same procedure to other products, and it's only going to be efficient if this goes hand in hand, not in the reduction of social costs, but a Law for European preference so that we can invest in decarbonisation. The. The new budget does not meet this target. It does not allow us to invest in these. Essential sectors. We must do something about this so that we can protect the climate, jobs and our sovereignty. And let me finally say, we must finally be. Involved, not with free trade, but with fair trade. Thank you.”
  Chinese clean tech competition: trade barriers and investment caps vs. open market
• “Thank you. Chair. On behalf of Victor Negra. I too would like to make a few comments on this. First of all, to support the defense efforts that have been proposed by the European Commission and all that that entails, but also to draw attention to the dangers that can be involved. As the preceding speaker said, even if the effect is neutral on the budget. Clearly there will be a budget transfers made given all the options offered to member states to reuse EU funds to support defence spending. So there is a risk that the cohesion policy could be undermined. Um, whether this be regional or social cohesion, Uh, money may be redirected from necessary investments, which are just as a priority, just as much a priority as defense. I mean, there's the, uh, low carbon transition, um, the green transition, uh, adapting our economy to, to, uh, the digital transition. So I think we have to be watchful, as the rapporteur rightly says, we do agree to open this door. Yeah. Both the lead committee and the budget committee. I accept this, but only, uh. You know, with regard to the option of front loading in the next MFF. But another important point that we note. Is, is a risk of the initial ambition, um, Not being reached. So. The overall objective is going to be to build up a 27 national defense capabilities. And of course, we all know that the EU starts are massively rearming. This will represent a risk to cohesion and subsistence and peace in Europe. So the priority for the EU. Must be to support a European, uh capacity and European technologies. Uh, you know, as the Defence Industry Fund has done. So the. The envelope of €1.5 billion adopted by the council can only be a cause of concern to us, but to. Having said this, we will support this report. That's what I wanted to say on behalf of Victor Negra.”
  Defence spending
• “You said that even if there is a 14% objective, for example, in reality, the way that it's calculated leads us to it losing all objective meaning because the criteria used to make the calculation will introduce too many different components that are not actually part of social spending. Third thing I wanted to talk about, I'm not sure if it's brought up in your report, but could you also talk a little bit about the how constitutional or constitutionally valid is the for the proposal. If we think about the European constitutions, we see that certain legal concerns first about the fact that the Single Fund is not actually foreseen in the treaties. The treaties talk about three different funds. Second, about the sanctions that have to do with the Maastricht criteria. Are there any specific provisions there? And if we add a suspension for the agriculture and Cohesion funds, and I would include my comments to the Commission as well, is that the report talks about the weak of the respect of the rule of law, or the tools used to respect rule of law. Could you talk a little bit more about that aspect as well, please?”
  EU Supervision of the Rule of Law
• “Thank you very much. I will make the comment in French. Uh, merci, Monsieur directeur. Thank you very much to the Deputy Director general for presenting this fifth annual report on the screening of foreign direct investment. I am speaking on behalf of my colleague, Raphael Glucksmann, who unfortunately wasn't able to be here today. So he sends his apologies. Now, he wanted to highlight a particular point in the report and then to make some comments. Now there is a general slowing down of foreign direct investment that I think reflects the current geopolitical climate. We see tensions, uncertainty and high costs of borrowing. Mr. Glucksmann, also, I wanted to make the point, as you have done yourself, Deputy Director General, the good news, uh, that we have seen progress with this new mechanism. 20, uh, some member states have this, uh, filtering mechanism together with, um, uh, Cyprus, who adopted this in 2025. This screening mechanism has been used increasingly, at least 21 member states notified uh, once. Uh. So this mechanism clearly has been used and is becoming increasingly efficient. And then also good news. The revision means we can help counter the fragmentation of national legislation. That is an obstacle to cooperation between the member States, and hopefully we can have a more common understanding of the risks within the EU. Now, in more concern on the more concerning side, looking at some of the figures that have come out of the report with regards to Europe, a significant share and more significant, I think, when it comes to other international competitors, uh, we have a lot in terms of retail competition. And then when we look at the industrial side of things. There are concerns with regards to, uh, other continents, uh, and uh, often it can be insensitive sectors or linked to critical technologies as well.”
  EU policy on screening foreign investment in strategic sectors and critical infrastructure
• “Madam president, colleagues, the Israel Iran ceasefire is a relief, but we should not take our eyes off the Middle East. Look at what's happening in Gaza with civilian deaths. It must stop. Destruction must stop. Netanyahu s war must stop. We need peace. Commissioner. The EU's silence, the EU institutions silence must stop bloody repression in Iran. Following the conflict, three opposition activists have been hanged. There's a French citizen of 18 years disappeared, possibly taken hostage. There are 20 or so European hostages currently in detention and the situation has got worse. I was talking to the families yesterday and the day before, talking to to the families, the two prisoners who are being kept in inhumane circumstances. Their location is unknown. There's psychological threat over them of the death penalty. Amnesty international is also saying that there is a risk of imminent execution of the Swedish national being held with them. So I call on the EU executive to use all possible levers to achieve the immediate release of European hostages in Iran.”
  EU-Iran relations
• “Well, I have a number of questions, both for the Court of Justice and for the Commission. First of all, on the most important question is the impact the Court of Auditors report tells us that we don't know how to measure the impact ex post. The work was generally pretty well done in dealing with the different files. It was to. Uh, but but however it says that there's no ex post assessment. I think it's a bit annoying to see this figure that €1 creates 16. Well, it's suggested we create this magic money. €1 of guarantee. Well, we're talking about 500 billion. The report talks about €800 billion euros. I mean, it suggests that this is just magic money that falls off the back of a truck. I mean, the point eight of the Court of Auditors report is essential. There has to be an assessment based on the work of experts and not simply the kind of response we've seen from the commission, which is that we're going to carry out inquiries and ask people who received the funds. No, we need economic studies that try to assess what would have happened with the if these funds had not been in place and counterfactual. So there are some questions that I would follow up with. What are the market failures and underinvestment problems that were addressed by the funds? And then in the area of social investment, health and education and social housing in particular, do you have some figures? And then thirdly, could you give us a breakdown Of the regions that requested most or least funds, or used the funds least or most. And finally, what are the ideas and lessons that you can draw from your assessment for the next MFF and for the next competitiveness fund that everyone is now talking about really for?”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Mr. president Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. We are managing the planet to pass it on to our children and grandchildren. And our moral obligation is to do that for our children. We have to fight against global warming. It is probably one of the most challenging and greatest achievements we can get to with the carbon border adjustment tax is a wise way of moving forward. It is a good idea because it protects our economies and our jobs by avoiding unfair competition from countries that do not have the same high standards as we have. Today, we are carrying out a smart adjustment to this by trying to free up 90% of the companies, mostly SMEs, and yet still covering 99% of the emissions. To achieve this, this plan against global heating has to be a fair and just one. Having taxes in place, but with social adjustments to balance out. Otherwise we will be in trouble. So in the next budget, we need to look at all of the means and resources to make sure that people can shift from internal combustion engines to cars that are electric, and to have heat pumps instead of their other boilers. It's the most important thing we can do.”
  Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM)
• “We have to have that discussion. And the other point that was raised, which is key. It is absolutely vital for the European Parliament to play a full role in this mechanism. I wasn't in the preceding Parliament, but everything that has been told me about the difficulty of getting explanations as to why the commission was dragging its feet, why decisions were taken in one direction or another. Um. Are indeed cause for concern. And to Rasmus Nordqvist. We didn't discuss this much with Monica, but in the report we do talk about the relationship between the rule of law and the application of other mechanisms in the toolbox. And the report says that the Commission should indicate in its rule of law report what aspects it might refer to. Or activate when financial measures are taken. And we also call for a technical. Meeting with the Commission on the. Involvement of conditionality. Conditionality included in national plans. Um. In our report, we are making it clear we don't necessarily want this mechanism to just always be the last resort. We simply want it to, to apply, uh, Alongside other tools. And then to Mr. Geisel. We look forward to your amendments. And to the Libe representative. We didn't mention it in our presentations, but it does say in the report what we are trying to protect.”
  EU Supervision of the Rule of Law
• “Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I won't keep you long just to say a few words from the original perspective. And being the director for audit, I will have to react to a number of things I heard. First of all, on the current, on the complexity. We heard from all stakeholders the need to to reduce that complexity. But it's true that by by definition, these different objectives are very varied. And having either 400 programmes, as we have currently for cohesion or a big NRP, you have to cover to adapt to local contexts, priorities, unforeseen challenges and of course all the EU, EU priorities. So there will be elements of continuity from current programmes, including for regional programmes, which can be reflected in different chapters of this common National regional plan, which is which is proposed. And we see also that the key features of cohesion policy are being preserved under these national regional plans, with the elements of governance, multi-layered governance which has been reinforced, and the direct role of regions working with the regions on the assurance and accountability. I can only confirm to the court that, of course, in a system of shared management, we need to work closely with the Member States, indeed to give guidance on what is expected from all levels. But the regulation foresees a good balance between the obligations of the Member States to audit the systems, to audit the milestones, to audit the protection, to ensure the protection of financial interests, and to ensure legality and regularity of expenditure. And yes, this this is crucial and this is part of the of the system. The point is that compared to today, where every single euro which is found to be irregular has an impact on EU payments. Under this model, we will distinguish there will be an obligation for the member state to follow up all these issues. And yes, this is heavy, but this is the price also of of accountability. But if the member state takes that action.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Colleagues, some of you haven't understood the absence of Ursula von der Leyen in the Socialist. We understand that this work programme has been put up, put together without us. We signed for a Europe of peace, people and planet three P's mate Europe. Great for peace, people and the planet. We haven't signed up for a programme is about deregulation, deregulation and deregulation. The omnibus omnibus of deregulation, all with all the budgets which are conditioned to reforms as you called, which actually is deregulation, competitiveness compass is actually deregulation. What majority do you think you can have for this programme. Because we won't give our consent for an agenda of deregulation. Deregulation that is, strengthening the strongest and weakening the weaker. Without consent, there will be no agenda. As you know, we have to come back to the road map originally, and we are ready to do that. Thank you very much, Commissioner.”
  EU political integration
• “Thank you. I will be speaking French. Thank you very much to both co-rapporteurs for this very good interim agreement of interim report. Now, as for the size of the budget, we as socialists aimed to be able to put this make it the same as the previous MFF. We wanted the Cap and the ESF pretty much on the same level. The 4 billion you mentioned should allow this. This is our parliament position as long as it is voted on in May. But if we could have a discussion based on that with council, it would be very important. I would even say that this is a red line. Uh, we will not, uh, build the Europe of tomorrow by destroying what we've done today. The secondly, we would like to increase pillar one, all three pillars competitiveness as well as the global Europe. And this was one of the main points of the Commission's proposal. The EU should increase their influence in third countries. And uh, the support Which would replace or try to compensate for certain American commitments. And this would be a big financial aid package, which would add to the €550 billion of common borrowing, uh, to try to, uh, help solve certain crises, uh, through credits at a European level. We have to help member states in crisis. And so I'd like to congratulate you for these aspects. There's some aspects that we'd like to explore as socialists, for example, that pillar one funds should be clearly separated out and detailed with specific figures. And we need to look at the, uh, cross-cutting conditions as Socialist. We have problems with the idea of macro conditionality in cross-compliance. Uh, you really didn't explore this sufficiently as far as we're concerned. Did I use my time? Did I run out of time? Well, anyway, we will be submitting some amendments, but congratulations for this excellent starting point. We do hope that Parliament will be able to walk alongside you to make sure that these figures will guide our negotiations with Council in the coming months.”
  Size of EU budget
• “Dear colleagues, Madam Commissioner, you of course know that the S&D Group sets great store by cohesion policy. It's a very soul of Europe and we will continue to go into battle in defence of it in negotiations for the MFF. But of course we have to rise to new challenges, but allowing Hungary to benefit, to now use the resources that were frozen for its failure to respect the rule of law is quite shocking. We have seen now efforts to. Tackle NGOs and journalists, and we're also seeing bans on demonstrations, as we saw in the case of the pride marches. And that is why I want to call on you to make sure that you resist any attempts to change the. The program. We do not want a single euro of the funds to be redirected towards Hungary, whilst it continues to ride roughshod over our fundamental principles. Europe must stand united when it comes to ensuring that the rule of law is respected within one of its member States.”
  Rule of law in Hungary
• “Thank you, chair, and thank you for the two co-rapporteurs, for the open minded approach that you have for the next step, because I think it's really important. Second, as a general comment, I will emphasize that we have to consider the whole process as iterative, one step by step. You had the first kind of agreement by tabling your report with a 1.4% of GNI, including repayment of, uh, of of of a next generation EU on 1.8% of NI, including all the new loans possibility that have that are proposed by the Commission and maintaining your proposal. So we think that of course we we would have expect more to be in line with the European priorities that we have to to face and that are increasing each and every day. But we consider that it could be a first agreement that we could work on, but it doesn't mean that we don't have to see what our colleagues are going to agree upon in the opinions committee. And then maybe if necessary, to, to, to, to to be open minded also on what they are going to to propose further. Of course, we took our responsibilities as a group to be able to put all our priorities. In your first agreement on the overall size, that could be a landing zone for the group that are going to support the MFF. But of course, it's without any prejudice of what is going to happen in the opinion giving. And we also expect from both of you and all of us to to be very receptive to what would come from the opinion giving committee as far as S&D priority is concerned.”
  Size of EU budget
• “Thank you very much, chair, and thank you for inviting us together with my fellow rapporteurs from the committee. And of course, I've been hearing carefully what you just say. And I may say that all the hearings that for now we we've been pursuing, say, more or less the same thing. While performance is an interesting framework, but not for us. More or less, that's what we hear. And also they have some ask of, of, of exception for all, all the fees for. We are very puzzled with what the Commission wants to do with a regulation that doesn't fit for any or little of the fields that we have to, to, to, to take into account. Maybe just to, to make a couple of comments. First, together with Nicolas, we decided to have a bottom up approach. So we will, of course, take into account carefully your draft report and of course, the work of the shadow, the final report with the with the amendments, because as you say in your report. What we want is this regulation to be relevant, to be useful for action. And if the indicators are not, then it will not be the case. So more or less, I don't know if we in the end decide to have a dedicated annex or framework for global Europe, but at least we will take you and your correct indicators on what you think is useful and what you would have put in your dedicated regulation for global Europe.”
  EU foreign policy approach
• “Thank you very much for the presentation. And thank you also for mentioning Philippe Aguillon, the new Nobel Prize winner. He's an economist colleague of mine, and he won that together with another Canadian economist who I also had the opportunity to work with when I was a young economist. And the third is Duch, says, the chair. And also for referring to this very important work. Because it really gets to the heart of the innovation process. So, yes, um, you referred to the Nobel Prize, but also the work that they have spent their lives doing is also very important, particularly at the moment when we're thinking about, I don't like the phrase competitiveness, but ensuring economic strength and sovereignty for the EU. I wanted to ask about research that's being done in terms of the green and energy transitions. These are also key areas. Yes, we do need to make savings and to be quite sober in our behaviours, but it's clear that any economies that can be made should be, particularly in the short term. So I'm just wondering how what percentage of the research projects that you fund are on the environmental transition and what kind of perspectives do you see there?”
  Research priorities within the EU
• “Yes. I will speak in France. Well. Apologies, but I'm going to get right to the point because I've only got a minute. But I'm sure you'll have understood from what others have said, that we reject the budget. We're going to fight for changes, and, uh, we'll have the majority. Well, what are we going to change? We want to change the philosophy. I'm not going to go back over all of these ideas here. It's a destructive idea of having this a single check here, and you're going to get rid of three quarters of what represents Europe, because you've got the 200 trillion on the one hand. And then it's um, going to be less on the other side because you've got a kind of blackmailing, um, as you go through because you've got Romania, for example, where you want to cut, um, the cohesion funds because there's the excessive deficit, but that's going to apply to other countries as well. Now, what I want to say is that when we reject this today, is that, well, the only new thing today was this slide here. And it says there's not going to be €1 more over the next seven years for the next budget because it was 1.3%, and it's going to be 1.15%. And then that means there is no priority. There's no way to do more for defense and more for competitiveness without having a negative impact on, um, social aspects and the environment. So that's why we reject this.”
  Size of EU budget
• “Um, in the in the midterm revision of the cohesion and the ESF plus, we already emphasized on that. In addition, democratic scrutiny is an important issue when it comes to the transparent implementation of the rule of law regime. As rapporteurs, we deplore the lack of timely and sufficient information sharing with the Parliament of the past five years. We do propose concrete measures to reinforce European Parliament's role, such as quarterly structures, dialogues. The set up of secured communication channels and inclusion of a dedicated annex. As I said in the Interinstitutional Agreements. These measures should be implemented quite easily. Uh, rule of law is one of the cornerstones cornerstone of article two of the treaty, and we believe that there is a merit in exploring how strengthening the EU budget against the EU's core values. The EU budget is not neutral to breaches of democracy and fundamental rights. The report also recalls the importance of protecting financial beneficiaries so-called smart smart conditionality as stipulated in the conditionality regulation, and as long as it doesn't dilute the application of the regulation itself. Step forward could be could be made in this direction. The regulation obliges affected member States to fulfil their obligations towards the beneficiary. But we have seen that this obligation is not sufficiently respected. What the report still needs to address because for various reasons, one is that we have a short place to put all the recommendations, and other is that there is a new elements, and the most important of them is that the Commission has releases a new MFF, and it includes some insight on the conditionality mechanism and the new conditionality introduced in the national plans.”
  EU Supervision of the Rule of Law
• “(18:08:04 – 18:10:06): Colleagues, commissioner, Europe is finally shouldering the fact that the single market only makes sense if we have fair rules which are respected by everybody. For years, the steel market has been wide open to a wild competition and this threat to our market because of massively subsidized product production, particularly from China. In order to meet this threat, we're going to reduce the quota of cheap steels by half, and we're going to double the non quota steel from 25% to 50%. This is the end of innocence as far as we're concerned when it comes to free trade. It means that we can guarantee sovereignty in a strategic sector. We can protect our work. We can protect our knowledge, and we can become a leader when it comes to decarbonized steel. We now need to extend the same procedure to other products, And it's only going to be efficient if this goes hand in hand, not in the reduction of social costs, but though for European preference so that we can invest in decarbonization. The new budget does not meet this target. It does not allow us to invest in these essential sectors. We must do something about this so that we can protect the climate, the jobs and our sovereignty. And let me finally say, we must finally be involved not with free trade but with fair trade. Thank you, Mr. Didier.”
  Trade relations with China