Thomas GEISEL

What Thomas GEISEL has said (29)

• “President. Commissioner. Colleagues. We are three quarters of the way through the RF period, and it is therefore time to take stock and the results are quite pitiful. To date, just about half of the funds made available have actually been taken up by member States, and there is reason to doubt whether the funds are being spent correctly. Now we are to provide more flexibility. I think we ought not to go along with this. Let us not forget, the facility was from the outset quite an audacious power grab by the commission. The Covid crisis was just the justification, but in reality, this was about evading the Parliament's budget control, with hundreds of billions of euros of pooled debt to bring member states policies into line with the commission. Once it was all about the Green Deal, and now it's all about rearming Europe. Not all member states will let themselves be bought off, and that is reassuring. We, as members of Parliament should not be led by what miss von der Leyen is saying on this. Thank you.”
  EU political integration
• “Mr. president, Commissioner, colleagues, it's already been pointed out several times that Ursula von der Leyen and Donald Trump's customs deal is unbalanced and seriously harms European interests. What's worse, I think, is that the president of the Commission has made promises that are not only absurd in terms of content, but she can't keep them if she promises to the US president that the EU will buy €750 billion of oil and gas from America over the next three years, that would mean that we would be fully dependent on expensive, fracked American LNG gas. But she wasn't able to promise this anyway because it doesn't come from the EU budget. And I can't see European energy companies being stupid enough to only buy American gas in this respect. Breach of contracts is a foregone conclusion and Donald Trump will use it to blackmail us again. Miss von der Leyen, please stand down. You're not fit for the job.”
  EU-US trade relations
• “President. Colleagues, I don't exactly know how this energy, uh, package is actually going to be presented. I mean, the entire energy policy is turned into a monster and energy costs are basically going up. What we need is safe, costly, cheap energy and also sustainable energy. So we can't possibly have Brussels and some kind of planning commission to decide the rules. We need to look at the available energy, except rather than excluding certain um suppliers by sanctions and especially in the case of, uh, uh, gas. So we need to really look into this more carefully for climate. We don't need a bureaucratic green deal. We need mechanisms to be implemented to make sure that those who generate CO2 should pay the bill. Thank you.”
  EU approach to energy security (home-made vs import sources)
• “I think I was the last person to ask the floor. But anyway, the big difference, I think, between the draft for the MFF, uh, is that it does offer a great deal more flexibility. First of all, that you can move items, move appropriations between headings and between different years. But I would say that the greatest degree of flexibility, the Flexibility. The biggest novelty when it comes to flexibility are the so-called regional and national partnership plans. Now, they ultimately mean that the specific prerequisites under which money can flow between the Commission and the member states has to be negotiated. Now, this was on a programme based budgeting system previously, whereby the provisions were set according to legal. Rules where the Parliament was involved. Now the Commission is going to get an awful lot of money and on the basis of fairly so the member States are getting involved on the basis of rather vague, uh, arrangements which are talked about in Parliament, but is actually the commission that sets the details for it. That I think is a huge power shift to the benefit of the Commission. And ultimately it takes away power from the Parliament.”
  Conditions to access EU budget
• “Thank you, Mr. Jurgensen. You correctly pointed out that gas, um, will play a role as we move towards decarbonisation for several years, if not decades now. But there's certainly an external dependency as well. That's probably easier to accept. Uh, if the sources, uh, Are safe. Russia was an important source in the past. I was rather surprised that in the resolution that we were discussing under previous in the agenda, that there was a concern that in the case of an agreement to end the crisis in Ukraine, maybe they would establish the links with Russia and Russia again. There I would see that as an opportunity, really, because I think that the more the more resources we have available to us, the lower the prices will be. And so that takes me on to my very specific question. Um, how specific is this strategy, um, for um, or what are the preconditions for us to, um, include Um Russian supply in the portfolio in particular gas. Again thank you.”
  EU approach to energy security (home-made vs import sources)
• “Thank you, Madam Chair. I will speak German, and this is. The issue that we're discussing today. Is that the scope of certain programs, which are financed by the European budget, should be extended to military and defence uses. Now, first of all, in, as I read the treaties, this is not in line with the basic treaties. I'd like to refer to article 41 two. And I think that this is a section which specifically provides for expenditure, which serve a defence purposes and military purposes and shouldn't be within the scope of the EU. So I should also like to refer to the fact that it is totally unnecessary and exaggerated to move forward with this regulation. Let me remind you that yesterday we had the NATO meeting most European members and members of NATO, and they committed themselves to devoting 5% of their GDP to defence. So this means if we are looking at the EU, that in the future, a contribution of approximately €900 billion will be spent EU wide on defence. And this is a very important amount, and I don't think that this other contribution could be really something we can agree with. I think it is unacceptable. I think that the EU budget should be spent properly. If we don't actually call on certain funds for certain programmes, then we see that there are surpluses possibly. And then it may be that the rules under which the resources can be called upon are perhaps too bureaucratic, and that instead of just being used up for using up sake, they should be paid back to member states.”
  EU competences on defence
• “Thank you Commissioner. Thank you Commissioner. You're quite right. The commission's budget needs urgent reform. However, I don't believe that next generation Europe and national and regional partnership plans can be the blueprint to follow. The current Recovery and Resilience Facility was a type of enabling act to allow the Commission to enter into deals with Member States Force through the Green Deal, and use the lure of money to interfere in Member state policy. This is under democratic because the Commission does not have democratic legitimacy, it is forcing it will on democratically elected governments. Moreover, parliamentary right of scrutiny is being eroded. Take a leaf out of Helmut Schmidt's book. His first government statement talked about continuity and consolidation. In Europe. We have a single market. It's not. The EU is not a supranational government or an ideological vanity project. Thank you.”
  EU political integration
• “Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I would just like to also express my thanks to the auditors, and I think this report makes it quite clear what the commission is presenting in the MFF. Is actually a complete change of this partnership that's done or what's been done up until in the in the past, and the way that the taxpayers money is being used. In the past, taxpayer money was used on programs whose rules and conditions were actually determined by this parliament, by the European policy maker, as well as by the Council. But in the future, we see that this money is going to be disbursed based on deals that the European Commission will be arranging or negotiating with member states, and there could be different results in different member states. There's one concern that I've got as well. That is not actually mentioned in the report, which is the role at the member states. I think that the role of the member states, well, since the commission is going to have control of that money, then when these different milestones and targets are formulated in a rather vague way, then they could use this golden carrot in front of the member states in order to control what makes their actions they are making where see that they will be reduced down to being a mere role of the one who disbursed the funds. We in the Parliament. And we can't restrict our role in the Parliament down only to that. I would like to ask whether or not you see there is any possibility when in in this bureaucratic procedure could be simplified in some way without actually seeing that the bureaucracy actually increases over time.”
  Conditions to access EU budget
• “President. Colleagues, I don't exactly know how this energy, uh, package is actually going to be presented. I mean, the entire energy policy is turned into a monster and energy costs are basically going up. What we need is safe, costly, cheap energy and also sustainable energy. So we can't possibly have Brussels and some kind of planning commission to decide the rules. We need to look at the available energy, except rather than excluding certain um suppliers by sanctions and especially in the case of, uh, uh, gas. So we need to really look into this more carefully for climate. We don't need a bureaucratic green deal. We need mechanisms to be implemented to make sure that those who generate CO2 should pay the bill. Thank you. **Nicolae ȘTEFĂNUȚĂ @Chair: Mrs. Dexter is next.”
  EU approach to electricity market and prices
• “Yeah I'm gonna speak German Helene thank You so I think you repeated in your presentation as to the role of the European Parliament if the Commission's plans were implemented and I think the question is entirely justified if I look at what's being proposed here especially in terms of the national regional partnership plans it seems like an empowerment rule that the Commission will be empowering itself to deal with the to make deals with the regions of the member states which would then would serve vaguely formulated European objectives but I don't see what the role of the European Parliament would be in this ultimately. If you look at all the flexibilities that the European Commission will be granting itself now that the existing procedure isn't efficient is clear but the we have to look at perhaps it wouldn't be better to say that Europe should limit itself to a stronger regulatory competence but without more money being spent.”
  EU political integration
• “Colleagues. President. The war in Ukraine has cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of people and destroyed large areas of the country. But it's now trying to destroy. It's about to destroy Europe. If we want to end the war, if the US president wants to end the war, to get rich on natural resources of Ukraine, as promised to him by Zelensky, the EU is running up a debt in order to help Ukraine to buy weapons to the tune of about €60 billion. So the EU will be left to foot the bill because any hope of Russian reparations is ridiculous. Wishful thinking. Once again, the winner is Donald Donald Trump. Since a lot of the money will end up in the US arms industry. And this is happening at a time when the American president is threatening EU member states and vilifying Europe as a continent in decline. Europe must focus now on itself. It's up to Europe to end a war on its own continent, to overcome the divisions in Europe and seek cooperation once again with a country that is the largest in size and population, largest country in Europe.”
  Russia-Ukraine conflict (10th term)
• “Thank you. Chair. Thank you for the presentation. I'd like to second the question from Miss Nagyova from the Czech Republic. The issue with the MMF, when you look, we've also got these new regional, um, and national partnership plans which have been floated as an idea under the new MMF. And these are very policy oriented, like the, um, current RF. You know, back in Germany, I was a local politician and things were supposed to be done at local level. You were supposed to make money available to achieve certain local goals. So it wasn't necessarily a cost based approach. It was about achieving the goals. So when I look at the commission with its new approach, with this current approach, is the commission really going to check and carry out controls if it achieves its goals? So I think it's going to be difficult for you. You know, from what I've heard from your presentation, you find it difficult to access the data you need to do your job. It's difficult for you to get that data. And the commission doesn't seem to be very interested, and the commission will be less and less interested. If it seems as if the political goals set out are being achieved.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Madam president. Minister. Commissioner. Dear colleagues. In line with the Commission's plan and the expectations of the majority, at least of this House post 2027, considerable resources will continue to go to Ukraine for weapons and for reconstruction after this terrible war, which should be careful. However, Europe should not become the paymaster when others, the US in particular, are engaged in lucrative business contract between Ukraine and the US. At the end of April means that President Trump is hoping to do $350 billion worth of deals in raw materials and infrastructure contracts. That is more than double that they have provided to the country so far. High time, therefore, that Europe made clear to President Zelensky that he cannot expect all our assistance for nothing, but rather than the expectation of a fair partnership. And so instead of banging on about our unwavering support. Miss van der Leyen should represent the interests of Europe, where resources are so very scarce.”
  Russia-Ukraine conflict (10th term)
• “Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I would just like to also express my thanks to the auditors, and I think this report makes it quite clear what the commission is presenting in the MFF. Is actually a complete change of this partnership that's done or what's been done up until in the in the past, and the way that the taxpayers money is being used. In the past, taxpayer money was used on programs whose rules and conditions were actually determined by this parliament, by the European policy maker, as well as by the Council. But in the future, we see that this money is going to be disbursed based on deals that the European Commission will be arranging or negotiating with member states, and there could be different results in different member states. There's one concern that I've got as well. That is not actually mentioned in the report, which is the role at the member states. I think that the role of the member states, well, since the commission is going to have control of that money, then when these different milestones and targets are formulated in a rather vague way, then they could use this golden carrot in front of the member states in order to control what makes their actions they are making where see that they will be reduced down to being a mere role of the one who disbursed the funds. We in the Parliament. And we can't restrict our role in the Parliament down only to that. I would like to ask whether or not you see there is any possibility when in in this bureaucratic procedure could be simplified in some way without actually seeing that the bureaucracy actually increases over time.”
  Conditions to access EU budget
• “President. Commissioner, honourable members, in 2025, the turnover was almost €130 billion in European online gambling and betting markets. Business is booming and has moved. Online service providers are often located in low tax countries such as Malta, and gambling is not without risk. It is known to be addictive. 5 to 6 million people in Europe are addicted to gambling, and so it is a good idea to tax this business should it become a new own resource for the EU budget. That's a different matter entirely. There are not really any own resources per se A. Because tax raising powers are member state competence alone and e wide tax to benefit the EU budget would not be possible without unanimity in the Council, and if it were raised, it could be put to better use. Rather than giving this money to miss von der Leyen's commission, it would be far better to tackle tax havens and ensure proper control of digital companies.”
  Own EU resources
• “Madam president, Commissioner, dear colleagues, I would like to quote what Karl Valentin said. Hopefully it won't get as bad as it already is. And that's what I thought of when I heard that Mrs. von der Leyen had announced an unprecedented reduction of red tape with the competitiveness compass, there's no mention of the fact that it was precisely Mrs. von der Leyen's commission that spent the last five years building up an unprecedented increase in bureaucracy. Her party colleague Friedrich Merz actually counted 13,500 rules and regulations have been can be chalked up to this Commission president. Most of these regulations have been termed a piffling nonsense by Mr. Mates. And now this commission is supposed to get rid of all of this. This is really setting a thief to catch a thief. Thief? Anyone who believes that this can happen, um, would expect precisely the parties that have run Germany's economy into the ground after the last 20 years. We'll bring it forward again. I don't think so.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Thank you. Chair. I don't want to use this discussion to raise a domestic policy issues from member states. I'm rather surprised that. The apparent majority in this committee or these committees and the majority in parliament has no qualms about giving the commission full powers. To withhold funds to countries when there is evidence of breaches of the rule of law. Let's remember that this was adopted. That the budget was adopted by Parliament. And if if funds are not being spent as Parliament wished, the money should really? Well, the power should go back to the to the Parliament. I don't think Funds that have been authorized for the budget by the members of Parliament, or not to be withheld without the Parliament having scrutiny first. And there are indications that the Commission themselves do not always respect the rule of law principles so scrupulously can I point out that the president of the Commission. Has still not revealed information connected with vaccine procurement, despite being required to do so by legal orders, and. It is possible. That the information the sms's have been destroyed. That would be obstruction of justice. That would be destruction of evidence. So that certainly has got nothing to do with the principle of respect, of the rule of law. So I think it is important that we as Parliament have a duty to watch over respect for the rule of law, and we should not leave it purely up to the commission.”
  EU Supervision of the Rule of Law
• “Thank you chair. Thank you, Commissioner, for your explanations. There is, of course, one elephant in the room. I mean, there are currently peace negotiations underway in Abu Dhabi and to my knowledge, reparation payments of the Russians are not on the agenda. I would just want to know, I mean, is there any contingency planning on the side of the Commission what were to happen if these negotiations were to be successful, say now or say in a year from now with regard to the debt service and the repayment of this €90 billion loan? Thank you.”
  Russia-Ukraine conflict (10th term)
• “Thank you. Colleagues. The impression that you could have is that we should celebrate. That. We've managed to get a little bit more money out of the council for this budget, but this is really a success for the Parliament. It's not in citizens interests, and we're representing them. Of course, if more money comes from and to Brussels, and then it cannot be spent in a transparent fashion by the region, it doesn't mean more for the parliament. It weakens the Parliament's role. So I think this should be a warning sign to us. It's not about the same standards or improving living conditions in the European Union, but about less control. And grabbing more powers. And I think we're doing a Europe a great disservice in this fashion.”
  Size of EU budget
• “Yes. I'd also like to thank the Court of Auditors for the report. Well, I also reached the conclusion that this program was pretty inefficient. You could put it that way. On the one hand, you've got large amounts of resources that didn't actually get through to the intended recipients. And it's. Secondly, it's clear that we don't have any idea how much crowding out took place. I mean, was there additionality? Was this money that made projects possible that otherwise would not have happened? So the key issue. Which has been pointed out by previous speakers, is that if Investeu is the successor program, what conclusions can we draw? Can we now say that the shortcomings identified by the Court of Auditors in Efsi have now been avoided in Investeu? Well, that question is primarily for the Commission, the EIB and the EIF.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Myself. Well, I was still listening to the earphones. Well, thank you very much. Also again, thank you very much for two really interesting presentations. I have one question to Mr. Tamaki's presentation. You have identified a very significant potential of tax revenue for B2C e-commerce. I guess you're talking about taxing the Amazons of this world. And I think this is very, very sensible proposition. I just doubt whether it would be fair if the revenue of such a tax goes to the EU budget. I think it should rather go to the budget of the communities, because, I mean, what e-commerce, what the Amazons of this world do they use local streets. They use local infrastructure. They outcompete local stores, local businesses that usually pay local taxes. So I think it would be fair if what we should do if we tax the Amazons, the revenue should go to the local communities and not to the EU budget.”
  Own EU resources
• “President. Commissioner. No longer here. Dear colleagues, why do we want to keep giving the commission more and more money as the Parliament? It is our task to provide oversight over the Commission and to keep them in check. It is our task to make sure that the Commission doesn't exceed its competences. And it's also our task to make sure that the Commission is not given any management competences and budgetary means in areas where those tasks could be done in a more transparent, efficient and democratic way. At the level of the member states, the provinces or its municipalities. The Commission's draft for the MFF should be a warning to us all. What Mrs. von der Leyen seeks to do is to dominate through bureaucracy, by governing member States, through golden reigns, and therefore pushing through the reform agenda. We are to agree to this in the Parliament, to these resources. Apart from that, we have nothing to say. Dear colleagues, all I can do is suggest that we do not play along. And we shouldn't be the Commission's idiots.”
  Size of EU budget
• “Thank you very much, chairman. I would also like to thank the rapporteurs in particular. Carla Tavares has hinted, I believe, to the fact that this draft MFF as proposed by the Commission Means a relatively clear shift of power away from this Parliament to the Commission, in particular when it comes to the so-called national and regional partnership plans. Similarly to what we have already experienced with the Recovery and Resilience Facility, it will be the commission that negotiates the deals with the member states, and the Parliament will have very little, if anything, to say when it comes to how the money will be spent and how the use of these funds will be controlled. For these reasons, I. For this reason, I do not understand why the rapporteurs and probably the majority in this committee would like to give even more money to the Commission. It is true a common market, in line with the values and aspirations of Europe, is still far from being completed. But this requires primarily common rules that primarily this Parliament should set. It does not require more money for Mrs. von der Leyen's bureaucracy in Brussels. Rather, the opposite experience shows that most of the money is being spent more transparently, more efficiently, and perhaps more democratically on the level of the member states, its provinces and local communities. Thank you.”
  Size of EU budget
• “That is a domestic problem. It is also part of, as a result of the decision taken in the European Union to phase out internal combustion engines. We need to look at the measures already in place, local job search tools and centres to make life easier for workers. Let go in such situations. What we need is swift support. Cut back on the red tape, and I wonder whether this approach going via Brussels bureaucracy and red tape first is the best approach. So I would like to express full solidarity with the workers let go. But I really wonder whether this is the best tool to use to help them out.”
  European Globalisation Adjustment Fund
• “Madam president, colleagues. It's always true that a botched job is a botched job. I think most of us are now aware of the fact that the ice ban was a stupid decision. But instead of simply correcting that error, now we are in danger of bureaucratic overkill. There is an industrial action plan from the commission, and there are a few exceptions from the combustion engine ban for e-fuels, perhaps also biofuels for range extenders and certain plug in hybrids. Perhaps a general exemption for combustion engine cars made with green steel. And there'll be new emission limits for corporate company car fleets. That's a grandiose employment programme for Miss von der Leyen's commission. But the decline of the European car industry is not going to be stopped in this way. Climate friendly technologies are not developed by overzealous bureaucrats in Brussels, but by smart engineers and engineers don't need even more rules and regulations. They need simple and reliable framework conditions on the basis of which they can make sensible plans.”
  Road transport environmental policy
• “(12:06:51 – 12:06:55): You, chair. I will speak in German. As missus Vunderlein presented the MFF, presentation, she said it was gonna be a paradigm shift from a program based to policy based budget, and she should have said that a rule based budget will be replaced by a deal based budget because I think these NRPs will essentially address the the this will turn the the the the fundamental components of our budget policy into essentially a creation of deals among different players. And this says heading national and regional partnership plans. It says Europe social model and quality of life with the subsidiarity principle that has nothing to do with it anymore. And having control of the funds by the parliament, this is expressly not foreseen. It's not even possible to see that that that funds are paid for specific actions, but rather for the achievement of specific targets and milestone stones. I think it really marginalizes the role of the parliament, and I think it makes it possible for the commission to simply go significantly beyond their own competence.”
  EU political integration
• “Mr. president, Commissioner, colleagues, the decision by the European Commission to phase out all European Russian gas by 2027 is a very stupid decision. Firstly, because we will be dependent on natural gas for decades to come. The new German economy minister has announced the construction of at least 20 new gas fired power plants, and secondly, the alternatives are less attractive. Iran, Qatar, Azerbaijan are possible suppliers, but are they really preferred suppliers than Russia? And we need to. Well, we're getting rid of the devil and just welcoming Beelzebub. Well, what about fracking gas from the USA? Well, that's catastrophic in, um, in climate terms. And it will cost us twice as much as it would cost in the US. And thirdly, this won't allow us to achieve energy sovereignty in Europe. And and the Commission wants to see a diversified gas supply portfolio. Now we need to keep Russian gas in the mix. If we want to put an end to this war in Ukraine someday. Thank you very much.”
  EU approach to energy security (home-made vs import sources)
• “Madam chair, colleagues, of course we can have a wish list, but Europe will only be supplied with renewable, renewable energy. And then, of course, we have storage with green hydrogen in case of no sunshine. That is definitely an illusion. We need energy today if we want to keep our industry competitive and many years we will continue using gas because we don't have any gas sources ourselves and therefore we depend on imports. This dependency is even smaller if you have enough pipelines and LNG terminals. So to that extent, if you affect the import pipelines, this is going to have an effect on European energy and industry. And this will include continue raising the price. So the fracking gas from the United States, from uh, through Qatar is something that goes within against its interests. And because of the situation in the Ukraine as well, I well. I think we should not use that source.”
  EU approach to energy security (home-made vs import sources)
• “Thank you. If I correctly understood, what happens is that the TS effectively provides consultancy services, not actual investment support. And the member states are not putting money into the project. I would like to know who the ultimate beneficiary of the funds is and how much money are recipients receiving? €900 million is a lot of money over the course of the medium term financing framework we've heard about. And so I would like to know who the final beneficiaries are. I wonder whether this is not a perverse type of incentive for the consultancies themselves to develop proposals, put them forward to member states and see if the member states will sign up to them. They don't have to. Member states don't have to invest anything in themselves. And since the follow up is so weak, there may be very little traceability. And it may be that member states, which weren't actually terribly interested in getting involved, will simply be able to be involved without any traceability and accountability. Thank you.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget