Tobias CREMER

Policy topics Tobias CREMER is active on

What Tobias CREMER has said (22)

• “Putin is a desperate man. In 2022, he invaded Ukraine thinking he could conquer it in three days. Over 1500 days later, he is still failing to call Putin's battlefield progress sluggish would be an insult to his luck, because his luck set out from the Russian border in 2022, it would by now have traversed not just all of Ukraine and Slovakia, but reached Vienna a couple of weeks ago. Meanwhile, Putin has become the greatest butcher of his own people since Joseph Stalin, sending over 1000 young Russians into the meat grinder every single day. And in his desperation, he has transformed a once proud Russian nation into something akin to a terrorist regime a state that abducts children, tortures civilians and directs its bombs less against military targets than against homes and hospitals colleagues. This is no longer conventional warfare. This is a criminal campaign, and like any criminal campaign, it must be brought to justice. That is why we need the Special Tribunal for Russia's Crime of Aggression and the International Claims Commission for Ukraine, where Putin chooses desperate barbarism. Europe must choose justice. Thank you.”
  Russia-Ukraine conflict (10th term)
• “Thank you also very much from our side for for coming here today and for the effort as a whole. I think we all very much appreciate the situation your country is in right now and especially today after the last weekend where some movement has been made. And I'm very, very glad that the European leaders have been very clear that, uh, to come towards peace, towards the real peace is only from a position of strength. Working with Ukraine and the strength of Ukraine, as you've mentioned, is not just a matter of military strength, but it is really that of a resilient society, a society where the justice system works, the rule of law works, but also where the social systems work. Um, and I'm very glad that you have been showing that it is possible to really stick to these European principles, not even during war effort, but especially during war effort, trying to show that this is really what makes our society strong. The question I have is, um, where you see, um, the main sources of or the main barriers coming from to what extent these are, um, if you put it in relation, the traditional sources of corruption that many societies still have, or to what extent you might also actually see very, um, targeted attempts, maybe through Russian disinformation, hybrid warfare, etc., that even really try to create corruption or try to to undermine the legitimacy of your your justice systems and how you handle that concretely. Thank you.”
  Foreign interference in Europe
• “Colleagues, for too long, we have treated defense as somebody else's problem. Kept it outside of European integration, allowed for fragmentation, weakness and dependency. Today we are paying the price politically when we are not at the negotiating table, but on the menu militarily, when it's not just Ukraine, but our own soldiers waiting for equipment that arrives too little and too late. And financially when fragmented procurement means that we are paying 32 high prices at times when European families are struggling to make ends meet. This is unacceptable and it is unworthy of the second biggest economy in the world. Europe deserves better. So let's finally stop talking and start acting by creating a real European Defence Union where we have the power to protect our way of life, where we pool procurement and spend not just more but better on defense, where we create a true single market of defense, where we have maximum security at maximum value for money, and we democratize our decision making so that single veto players cannot stop security for all. Today, Europe still faces a choice between independence and irrelevance. Let's choose independence before it's too late. Thank you.”
  EU competences on defence
• “So these things that we really want to achieve and rather that is actually possible. Um, my second question is, um, related once again to harmonization and perhaps a little bit, um, less, uh, strictly VAT related. But it's also on, on, on norms and especially NATO norms. Uh, one of the big issues we have is that we actually have clear norms in NATO, but that these norms are not enforced because NATO can't do that. Um, the EU, in theory could enforce norms, um, but doesn't have access to the NATO norms because we don't have a cooperation agreement. Um, and I'd just be intrigued in your assessment whether such a cooperation agreement would be possible would actually be a game changer. And what needs to be done to go in that direction? From all three speakers, including, um. Mrs.. I'd be very much intrigued with how your recommendation would be, whether we should implement that and what the consequences would be in order to save taxpayer money and ensure that we actually get bang for the buck. Thank you.”
  Relations with NATO
• “An assertive China and an increasingly erratic American ally. Europeans and Canadians know full well that we can only safeguard our interests in security, whether it be in the Arctic, in Ukraine with regards to climate change or in Greenland. By standing together and by deepening our cooperation. So it is high time for this close strategic alignment to be translated into a deeper Euro Canadian alliance. It is high time to put meat on the bone of the commitments made last year at the Eu-canada summit. And it is hard time for this Parliament to take a clear position with the first report in over a decade, laying out the road map of where we want this partnership to go. It's a road map on security, where at a time of growing conflict and threats of annexation, Canada and Europe must uphold the most fundamental principle that no country, no country has the right to invade or annex its neighbor. But we are also clear eyed and recognize that in this new world order, our ambitions must be matched by our capabilities. That is why this report strongly welcomes Canada's participation as the only non-European country in the Safe program, and we support its further integration into the European defence, technological and industrial base. Second, this report is a roadmap on multilateralism. Europe and Canada remain committed to defending international institutions such as the UN, the ICC and the WTO. Not out of idealism, but we know it is in the interests of our people. But we also recognize that these institutions need reform. And this is why this report urges Europe and Canada to take the lead in these reforms.”
  EU-US relations
• “And fifth, and finally, we call for a Europe for a comprehensive EU NATO cooperation agreement, one that allows common norms in NATO standards to be effectively integrated and enforced by EU law. Because honestly, what's even the point of having common standards if we cannot properly enforce them? If several European countries proudly coordinate to make sure they are sending the same sort of tanks or artillery to Ukraine, only then to notice that one country's model often cannot even properly use the ammunition of another country's system of the same type. Colleagues fragmentation is inefficient. It is expensive. But on today's battlefield we see that can even be deadly. Colleagues, this is exactly why this initiative report and a genuine European common market of defence are so urgently needed today. And our objective here is simple to build a competitive European defence ecosystem where every euro invested delivers maximum innovation, maximum security and maximum value for money. Colleagues in this new World order of great power politics, Europe has a choice. We can cling to old habits, keep our defence of the single market, remain for granted and continue to pay more for less, while others shape our future. Or we can act, recognise our strengths, unleash the power of the single market and turn Europe's economic power into real security and strategic autonomy. For that, we need a single market of defence and we need it now. Thank you.”
  EU competences on defence
• “And today we are paying the price for this. We are paying the price politically when we are not at the negotiating table, but on the menu, we are paying the price militarily. And it's not just Ukraine, but our own soldiers who are waiting for equipment that arrives too little and too late, and we are paying the price financially when we are paying up to 32 high prices. At times when families in Europe are struggling to make ends meet. Colleagues, this is unacceptable and it is unworthy of our great continent. Europe deserves better and that is exactly what this initiative report seeks to deliver. It presents a coherent and ambitious roadmap towards a genuine European single market of defence, and it does so in five very concrete steps. First, we commit to making the buy European approach to the new standard in defence procurement, because European taxpayer money should primarily strengthen European industry, create European jobs and build European capabilities. Second, we call for a thorough revision of the procurement directive. We want to tailor it to today's defence realities and rapid innovation cycles, because our rules must enable and not hinder joint projects and technological leadership. Thirdly, we need mutual recognition of certifications and security clearance, as well as finally, the removal of all unnecessary barriers to intra-eu transfers because it's simply absurd. If a civilian lorry can easily cross borders. But the same lorry, painted in camouflage and used by our troops cannot. And fourth, we propose a dedicated joint funding device for innovative technologies because Europe's best ideas need to be able to scale up and to deliver real capabilities, but they need to be able to do so without making themselves dependent on non-European investors.”
  EU competences on defence
• “2026 is barely two months old. And yet, even in these few weeks, Europe has already been caught off guard several times. First, we were helpless bystanders during Donald Trump's attack on Venezuela. Then we were caught off guard by America's threats to annex Greenland. At the same time, we continue to be kept out of the loop during the so-called peace negotiations between Russia, Ukraine and the US. And now on Iran, we appear once again to be without leverage. As Trump's war continues to escalate across the region, these conflicts are directly affecting the prosperity and the safety of our citizens. So why has Europe, the world's second largest economy, not been able to bring its way to bear here? Why are decisions being made about Europe without Europe? Part of the answer is our own cumbersome decision making process, and that is abused by people like Viktor Orban. That can only hope will come to an end soon. But I fear that there is also a deeper and more structural reason, namely that whether we like it or not, we now live in a world where our ability to deter our enemies, to defend ourselves and to back up our ambitions with capabilities matter. But it is precisely in this domain of hard power that Europe continues to punch below its weight. And why not? Because we don't have the potential. We have the economic muscles, we have the engineers, we have the ideas. But when it comes to defense, we have for too long foregone the power of European integration. We have kept it out of the single market, and we have instead allowed for fragmentation, for weakness and for dependency.”
  EU competences on defence
• “In a world of great power rivalry, the countries in between have a choice to compete with each other for favour or combine to create a third path with real impact. Colleagues. These were the words that Mark Carney used to give us perhaps the clearest description yet of the challenge that Europe is facing today. And Carney is right. The international order is in rupture. War has returned to our continent and is showing its ugly face around the world. Long standing assumptions about free trade, collective security and international law are being tested, as they haven't been in decades. But Europe still has a choice. And today, right here on this floor and tomorrow during the vote, we have a unique opportunity to respond to our Canadian friends by saying it clearly and loudly that when faced with the choice between simply lamenting the fading of an old order or acting together to shape a better one, Europe chooses action. We choose action for our citizens and our values, and we choose action not alone, but together with our partners Canada chief among them aujourd'hui la Canada today.”
  EU foreign policy approach
• “Thank you very much, Commissioner. Thank you, Andreas, and thank you for all of those who have really, very clearly and pragmatically contributed to this report, because this report is beyond and should be beyond ideology. The first post-war president of the SPD in Germany once said that politics begins with the recognition of reality. Unfortunately, I think some in this House live in a parallel reality, whether it be a reality where it is just the EU or Europe is the source of all evil, or on the far right where it all goes under the tunes of Radio Moscow. We see very clearly the threats we are facing right now from Russia, but also from other actors. We need to be able to defend ourselves. And if you don't believe me, trust our citizens. 80% of European citizens are saying they want more defense common in Europe. Let's deliver. Let's do what they want. 80%. It's clear if you don't believe us, believe them. And I'm very glad that we have Andrius Kubilius as a commissioner who listens to citizens and not to those on the far left and the far right who live in parallel universes. Thank you very much.”
  EU competences on defence
• “2026 is barely two months old. And yet, even in these few weeks, Europe has already been caught off guard several times. First, we were helpless bystanders during Donald Trump's attack on Venezuela. Then we were caught off guard by America's threats to annex Greenland. At the same time, we continue to be kept out of the loop during the so-called peace negotiations between Russia, Ukraine and the US. And now on Iran, we appear once again to be without leverage as Trump's war continues to escalate across the region, these conflicts are directly affecting the prosperity and the safety of our citizens. So why has Europe, the world's second largest economy, not been able to bring its weight to bear here? Why are decisions being made about Europe without Europe? Part of the answer is our own cumbersome decision making process on the photography that is abused by people like Viktor Orban, that can only hope will come to an end soon. But I fear that there is also a deeper and more structural reason, namely that whether we like it or not, we now live in a world where our ability to deter our enemies, to defend ourselves and to back up our ambitions with capabilities matter. But it is precisely in this domain of hard power that Europe continues to punch below its weight. And why not? Because we don't have the potential. We have the economic muscles, we have the engineers, we have the ideas. But when it comes to defense, we have for too long foregone the power of European integration. We have kept it out of the single market, and we have instead allowed for fragmentation, for weakness and for dependency.”
  EU competences on defence
• “Thank you. Commissioner. Commissioner, I am, first of all, very glad about your comments about the Common Market of defense. I think we are very much aligned that I'm looking forward to your communication on that. But my question is really also on article 42 seven that you just mentioned, I think you're absolutely right. Europeans expect the European Union to provide for their defense, especially given the erratic behavior in the white House. But so far we haven't seen much progress on that operationalization. So I would really like to ask you, how far are we on that and what what are the barriers on that at the moment? And the second question I have is like, I also just came back from the United States. We see the problems the American industry has in producing missile air defense missiles. And where are we actually in Europe on increasing our production? We had the European Sky shield initiative. We had also a couple of years ago, and we had the same problem with artillery, a lack of artillery ammunition. Can we have something similar right now on air defense, like a European initiative on ramping up production, but also coordinating our purchase and our procurement of these air missiles, especially with regard to Ukraine, because they cannot wait and neither can we. And we need that production now, and we need it on a European level. Thank you very much.”
  Defence spending
• “(09:15:55 – 09:17:12): Thank you Mr Denk. Thank you so much also for all the work that you're doing on the and I think very necessary work on the coordination of procurement. We know that we are paying a price at the moment, a premium because we are not coordinating our procurement. We do it alone, we do it separately. I think the Ministry report once referenced numbers of up to thirty percent too high prices that we pay as a premium as a result of that. These are old numbers. I'd just be intrigued whether you can actually put a number or an estimate on how much we're actually saving or what the potential of saving would be according to your calculations given the work of coordination that you are currently doing. That would be the one side on the supply side and on the demand side and I would also have a question for you on the supply side where you see the biggest barriers there to actual on the one hand we have bigger bigger contracts but on the defense actually defense industry actually being able to deliver. We are talking at the moment in this committee a lot about the common market of defense and I'd like to hear your views on that in how far you can also contribute from EDA to actually pushing for common norms and standard certification. And last point also on the cooperation with NATO that we may be able to push further for NATO standards in EU procurement. Thank you very much.”
  EU competences on defence
• “(16:58:40 – 17:00:07): Thank you. It has been mentioned, agrification to prevent buying alcohol or to buy tobacco, I heard the commission as well say. Thank you for bringing that metaphor. I think what we're talking about here, mostly social media and interpersonal communication services, is really different from tobacco. Tobacco and alcohol don't allow you and don't enable you to exercise your fundamental rights unlike digital platforms. However bad these platforms are, we can make them better instead of banning people or tailoring forcibly some features. I prefer the metaphor of cycling. Cycling is dangerous. Cycling on the road is dangerous. We don't ban children and young people from cycling on the public road. What we do, we adapt the code the the the road code. We adapt the environment. We build cycling lanes so that they can they and adults can cycle safely. And and we also take besides these collective political measure, we also take measures aimed at individuals. We teach them. We educate them to not speak to trainers, to we we give them the right tools, lights, helmets, jackets. In the end, we enable them to exercise their freedom of movement to the scale of the town. But we don't Thank you. Thank you, mister. This is not again a new presentation. Please, mister Corvette, your final remarks.”
  Safety features & content control for child protection online
• “Yes, thank you very much. Also, all three speakers for your for your interventions, which are very, very fascinating. And raise a couple of, I think, quite, quite important questions precisely of how we can really use some of the levers we have, not just in spending money, but also really and I'm glad to hear some of the findings, um, not just on how to spend money, but also how to set the regulatory regulatory framework to make sure that private capital can do its job in its context and not just taxpayer money. Um, my questions in this context are one, um, that is, we just talked about the differentiation between commodities, complex weapon systems in VAT exemptions. I'd just be intrigued if you could actually technically explain us a bit more how you can have such differentiation, if at the same time, we want to have harmonisation between VAT Vet regimes. If you could just tell us a little bit more, and maybe also if you have data on that, how how that works, and if there is some sort of possibility to do that differentiation, whether it might also be possible to really focus on differentiation that rewards, for instance, greater collaboration, collaboration, collaboration, interoperability, interchangeability.”
  VAT harmonisation
• “Thank you very much, Commissioner. Thank you, Andreas. And thank you for all of those who have really, very clearly and pragmatically contributed to this report, because this report is beyond and should be beyond ideology. The first post-war president of the SPD in Germany once said that politics begins with the recognition of reality. Unfortunately, I think some in this House live in a parallel reality, whether it be a reality where it is just the EU or Europe is the source of all evil, or on the far right where it all goes under the tunes of Radio Moscow. We see very clearly the threats we are facing right now from Russia, but also from other actors. We need to be able to defend ourselves. And if you don't believe me, trust our citizens. 80% of European citizens are saying they want more defense common in Europe. Let's deliver. Let's do what they want. 80%. It's clear if you don't believe us, believe them. And I'm very glad that we have Andrius Kubilius as a commissioner who listens to citizens and not to those on the far left and the far right who live in parallel universes. Thank you very much.”
  EU competences on defence
• “Thank you very much. And thank you, Minister. I'm very glad that you are here. And I'm very glad to have heard your your proposals. And I actually think this Danish presidency can be a really important chance for the European project, and especially when it comes to defence. Not only because of the correct things that colleagues have said about Ukraine and the market, but also because Denmark has been one of the examples of really bringing together a very strong posture on defence, but also a very strong posture on social cohesion and social security. And as we are seeing that Putin is not only threatening our societies militarily, but that he is really trying with this hybrid warfare to attack our social cohesion to to use social divisions. I'd be very, very intrigued what your proposals are of bringing these two together, of really understanding security and resilience collectively and holistically, and what you think you can bring in there, especially from a from a Danish perspective in strengthening our resilience in this respect and bringing these two together, not as opposites but as two sides of one and the same model. And I have a very short second question. Um, that is somewhat related. That is really we see one of the problems in our inefficiency of procurement is that we have clear standards on NATO, and we have a clear standard enactments in the EU. But the two can't work together because there's no sharing of these standards. There's no classified information sharing. And I'd be intrigued what your proposals are, whether you have any plans of coming to a co-operation agreement between NATO and the EU to really increase efficiencies when it comes to setting norms and and interoperability between our systems. Thank you.”
  Relations with NATO
• “Dear colleagues, dear Commissioner, dear Marta, thank you, all of you for this very positive debate. Sometimes transatlantic relations can seem complicated, can seem tricky, and even a little bit uncomfortable. This transatlantic relationship does not. It is straightforward. It is clear it is in our interest to cooperate. And I think all the all the rapporteurs who have really shown qualities that the Canadians have shown us as well, that is courage, that is clarity. And that is also the ability to see the bigger picture. Colleagues, let us understand in what situation we are in. In this report, we can make clear that Europe has understood the challenge we are facing, and we can show the same courage as the Canadians have done in this moment of rupture. And if some colleagues, like Mr. Tenkanen, think that is far left rhetoric to seize this moment, I recommend first actually read the report. And second, if you are still unhappy, talk to your rapporteur who supported this very clearly at ECR, because there are some people, even in your party, that understand the necessity in this moment to cooperate with Canada. Thank you.”
  EU-US relations
• “(09:15:55 – 09:17:12): Thank you Mr Denk. Thank you so much also for all the work that you're doing on the and I think very necessary work on the coordination of procurement. We know that we are paying a price at the moment, a premium because we are not coordinating our procurement. We do it alone, we do it separately. I think the Ministry report once referenced numbers of up to thirty percent too high prices that we pay as a premium as a result of that. These are old numbers. I'd just be intrigued whether you can actually put a number or an estimate on how much we're actually saving or what the potential of saving would be according to your calculations given the work of coordination that you are currently doing. That would be the one side on the supply side and on the demand side and I would also have a question for you on the supply side where you see the biggest barriers there to actual on the one hand we have bigger bigger contracts but on the defense actually defense industry actually being able to deliver. We are talking at the moment in this committee a lot about the common market of defense and I'd like to hear your views on that in how far you can also contribute from EDA to actually pushing for common norms and standard certification. And last point also on the cooperation with NATO that we may be able to push further for NATO standards in EU procurement. Thank you very much.”
  "Buy European" provisions
• “Build alliances and coalitions to address the most urgent collective action problems we have, like AI, cybersecurity or climate change that no single great power can address alone. Third, this is a roadmap on trade, while others declare trade wars, practice short sighted protectionism and weaponize supply chains. Europe and Canada must choose open, fair and diversified trade. This means completing the ratification of CETA, and it also means exploring deeper integration of critical supply chains from raw materials to energy. And finally, the roadmap for our societies. Because where others retreat behind walls and embrace fearful isolationism, Europe and Canada stand tall and take pride in the attractiveness and openness of our societies and therefore, through Horizon Europe, Erasmus+ and other labour mobility Initiatives. We bring Canadians and Europeans even closer together because we know that alliances work best when it's not just governments cooperating, but people. Colleagues, I began with a quote from Prime Minister Khan. So let me end with another. We know the old order is not coming back. We shouldn't mourn it. Nostalgia is not a strategy, but we believe that from the fractures we can build something better, stronger and more just. Colleagues, Europe and Canada have a historic opportunity to lead that effort right now. So let us see that by voting for this report and by inviting Prime Minister Khan to this floor so we can discuss together to take the Euro Canadian Alliance to a new level. Because let's be honest, if we can't deepen our cooperation with Canada right now, with whom can we thank you.”
  EU-US relations
• “In a world of great power rivalry, the countries in between have a choice to compete with each other for favour or combine to create a third path with real impact. Colleagues. These were the words that Mark Carney used to give us perhaps the clearest description yet of the challenge that Europe is facing today. And Carney is right. The international order is in rupture. War has returned to our continent and is showing its ugly face around the world. Long standing assumptions about free trade, collective security and international law are being tested, as they haven't been in decades. But Europe still has a choice. And today, right here on this floor and tomorrow during the vote, we have a unique opportunity to respond to our Canadian friends by saying it clearly and loudly that when faced with the choice between simply lamenting the fading of an old order or acting together to shape a better one, Europe chooses action. We choose action for our citizens and our values, and we choose action not alone, but together with our partners Canada chief among them aujourd'hui la Canada today.”
  EU foreign policy approach
• “And fifth, and finally, we call for a Europe for a comprehensive EU NATO cooperation agreement, one that allows common norms in NATO standards to be effectively integrated and enforced by EU law. Because honestly, what's even the point of having common standards if we cannot properly enforce them? If several European countries proudly coordinate to make sure they are sending the same sort of tanks or artillery to Ukraine, only then to notice that one country's model often cannot even properly use the ammunition of another country's system of the same type. Colleagues fragmentation is inefficient. It is expensive. But on today's battlefield we see that it can even be deadly. Colleagues, this is exactly why this initiative report and a genuine European Common Market of Defence are so urgently needed today, and the objective here is simple to build a competitive European defence ecosystem where every euro invested delivers maximum innovation, maximum security and maximum value for money. Colleagues in this new World order of great power politics, Europe has a choice. We can cling to old habits, keep our defence of the single market, remain fragmented and continue to pay more for less while others shape our future. Or we can act, recognise our strengths, unleash the power of the single market and turn Europe's economic power into real security and strategic autonomy. For that, we need a single market of defence and we need it now. Thank you.”
  EU competences on defence