Alexander JUNGBLUTH

Policy topics Alexander JUNGBLUTH is active on

What Alexander JUNGBLUTH has said (52)

• 2026-06-17 “(09:51:50 – 09:53:06): President, no one can grow without democratic control. If we look at the next MFF, that is what they want. There will be growth, but with more flexibility, but there won't be much democratic control. This will shrink. And there will be new taxes introduced called own resources. And it's good that the council is pushing back. There is some resistance. Even the German federal chancellor is showing resistance. We mustn't introduce these own resources at the current scale. Mister Weber, you said it's good to have freedom and democracy development throughout Europe. Let me remind you of something. There were, there have been, there are going to be elections in Saxony. The AFD has over 40% in the polls, and you will expect that result, am sure.”
  Own EU resources
• 2026-06-16 “(11:53:49 – 11:54:52): It's interesting how difficult it is for this particular house to to look at this particular agreement of Friday in a positive light. It is a way in the direction of peace. So why is it so difficult for you to look at this particular agreement positively? We have to ask ourselves what sort of influence do we have? The protagonist, the EU, what sort of influence can we have in all of this? The question the answer to that question is 0. No influence over The United States. No influence over Iran. No influence over anybody. So we have to admit that what we have here is a major debate on this particular issue. But, actually, on the international stage, the European Union has no effect and no influence whatsoever. Thank you.”
  EU foreign policy approach
• 2026-01-27 “P-000302/2026 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Mînzatu on behalf of the European Commission Information on the number of European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) beneficiaries who reintegrated in the labour market, broken down by year, sector, enterprise and Member State is provided in the annex to this reply. Of the 129 726 workers who participated in EGF co-financed measures (i.e. EGF beneficiaries), 68 494 (53%) attended training.”
  European Globalisation Adjustment Fund
• 2026-01-27 “E-000307/2026 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Mînzatu on behalf of the European Commission 1. The methodology and criteria used for the selection of operations - according to Article 110 2(a) of the Common Provisions Regulation 1 - was examined and approved by the monitoring committee - where the Commission was represented. The project’s content was to reach out to unemployed/inactive young people under the age of 25 who are not in education or training and to help them gain access to adequate activation, qualification and employment opportunities. Particular attention was paid to young people who have not yet received any support services provided under the German Social Code book (SGB) II and III. 2. The Commission measures the impact of a given European Social Fund (ESF) programme by using indicators (output/result) on the programme level and not at project level. In general, successful participation in such measures occurs when participants remain in the projects until the end of the planned measure or start some work or training. 3. The ESF in Germany is implemented under shared management rules. The tasks to be carried out by the programme authorities in Rhineland-Palatinate are based on Regulations (EU) No 1303/2013 and 1304/2013 as well as on other implementing regulations. The Member States bear the responsibility for selecting the projects (in line with the approved methodology and criteria used for the selection of operations). This includes the implementation entrusted to agencies and bodies at state and local level. The ‘Youth scout’ funding approach was discontinued on 30 June 2022, to avoid duplication of funding, as a comparable measure was introduced in section 16h of the Social Code Book II (SGBII) and gradually expanded nationwide. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2013/1303/oj/eng.”
  Funding for vocational training · EU expenditure on social policy · Youth employment & training
• 2026-01-27 “E-000306/2026 Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission 1. One of the key principles of LEADER 1 approach is the local partnerships where the local action groups design the strategies and implement the operations. The responsibility for project selection and its assessment lies with the Member State and in particular with the LEADER local action group in the area, in line with their local development strategy, and the priorities defined by the local communities therein. The project selection criteria are defined in the strategy and contain not only economic but also social and environmental criteria. The Managing Authority (regional or national) may also set the eligibility conditions. The bottomup approach and local decision-making are a defining characteristic of LEADER and contributes to its success. The Commission is not involved in the project selection. 2. LEADER is implemented under shared management. The Commission does not evaluate each individual project before selection or assess its impact after the completion and does not collect such information on individual projects. Evaluations are done at the level of local development strategies and programmes. The Commission evaluates the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) instruments including LEADER, at the EU level. 3. LEADER can finance a broad range of actions for local development in line with the strategies developed by local communities in a participative manner. Projects of local recreational value are not excluded from eligibility at the EU level. Typically, LEADER provides a grant for investment but does not continue subsiding the operations, not least due to its limited budgets. 1 https://eu-cap-network.ec.europa.eu/networking/leader_en.”
  Cohesion and rural funding
• 2026-01-27 “E-000305/2026 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Mînzatu on behalf of the European Commission 1. The success of European Social Fund Plus (ESF+) measures is assessed by output and result indicators stipulated in the ESF+ programme. To measure the impact a postimplementation assessment is conducted by the Member State/Bundesland authority in line with the shared management principle. The Managing Authority of Rhineland-Palatinate also publishes annual Implementation and Evaluation Reports 1 . 2. The Monitoring Committee for a given programme under the Common Provisions Regulation (CPR) 2 approves the methodology and criteria used for the selection of operations, including any changes thereto according to Article 40 2(a) of the CPR. The Member States bear the responsibility for selecting the projects (in line with the approved methodology and selection criteria) for controlling and auditing them. 3. The ESF+ support for a given programme is defined in the programme document negotiated between the Member State/Bundesland and the Commission - and approved by the latter. There, the concrete and verifiable European added value is described at programme and not at project level. During its preparation, the funding needs are identified in a socioeconomic analysis provided by the Member State/Bundesland. 1 https://esf.rlp.de/esf-programm/monitoring-evaluation. 2 Regulation (EU) 2021/1060 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund Plus, the Cohesion Fund, the Just Transition Fund and the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund and financial rules for those and for the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund, the Internal Security Fund and the Instrument for Financial Support for Border Management and Visa Policy - https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/1060.”
  Youth employment & training · Funding for vocational training
• 2026-01-27 “E-000304/2026 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Mînzatu on behalf of the European Commission 1. The Commission measures the impact of a European Social Fund (ESF) programme by using indicators (output/result) on the programme level and not at project level. The national authorities have used CO06 ‘young people under 25 years of age’ as the output and CVR2 ‘participants who gained a qualification upon leaving (COVID 19)’ as the result indicator for this project. 2. The ESF support for a given programme such as Rhineland-Palatinate is defined in the programme document. Each programme document entails a chapter on how to exclude double funding and/or overlaps with other funds at European and national levels. The Commission has currently no indication or prove of misuse of ESF funds in Rhineland-Palatinate. As the Honourable Member will be aware, any case of suspected misuse should be immediately brought to the attention of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) or the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO). 3. The Commission is actively supporting and encouraging the evaluation of active market policies, when supported by EU financing also in the coordination of national employment policies. Although the ESF funding is very limited in Germany compared to the national means, the ESF generates a European added value through co-financing innovative projects which might be used as a best practice at national level, not replacing but instead complementing national structures.”
  Youth employment & training · Funding for vocational training
• 2026-01-02 “E-000002/2026 Answer given by Mr McGrath on behalf of the European Commission The Financial Support to Third Parties provided for in the Financial Regulation 1 allows, if expressly foreseen in the grant agreement, the beneficiaries to provide financial support to entities that are not part to the grant agreement. This is possible if done in line with the provisions of the Financial Regulation. The DigiRise project does not foresee this possibility to redistribute funding. The DigiRise project is funded through an action grant, whereby funding is provided to implement the project described in the agreement. The costs of implementing the action are set out in a budget that is part of the grant agreement. The grant is paid to the beneficiaries only if the action is implemented in line with the agreement, if the foreseen activities are implemented and the deliverables approved by the Commission. Funding cannot be used for other purposes that the ones listed in the grant agreement. The general objective of the Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values (CERV) 2 funding programme adopted by the EU Member States in the Council and by the European Parliament is to protect and promote rights and values as enshrined in the Treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Funding is provided in full transparency and in line with the Financial Regulation after a highly competitive process following open calls published on the Funding and Tender portal. Proposals are evaluated against award criteria such as quality and relevance in order to make sure that they implement the objectives of the funding programme. 1 Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2024/2509 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2024 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (recast) ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/2509/oj. 2 Regulation (EU) 2021/692 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 April 2021 establishing the Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Programme and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1381/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Regulation (EU) No 390/2014 ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/692/oj.”
  Regulation of NGOs in Europe · Transparency requirements of EU institutions
• 2025-11-04 “E-004326/2025 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Fitto on behalf of the European Commission 1. Under shared management, the selection of individual European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) 1 operations is the responsibility of the Managing Authority. The Commission’s role is to ensure that operations comply with the programme’s objectives and applicable regulations. According to available information, the project carried the communication and advisory activities foreseen and fully met its objectives. 2. The project aimed to inform towns and companies about alternative modes of transport as well as to support citizens in taking up electric mobility. The various activities (including advisory service, public events and dialogues) contributed to several initiatives, including the extension of the electric vehicle fleet and the implementation of the ‘Sonne Tanken’ project in Altenkirchen, the development of e-carsharing in Neuwied and the significant expansion of the charging infrastructure in Rhineland-Palatinate. 3. Applicable rules require that ERDF-funded projects are selected based on clear selection criteria and have clear objectives contributing to the programme’s objectives, proportionate budgets and verifiable outputs and, where applicable, measurable results. Managing authorities perform administrative and on-the-spot checks while the Commission ensures programme monitoring and carries out audits. Where verifications reveal that activities are not implemented as approved, the Commission may request corrective measures, including financial corrections. 1 European Regional Development Fund https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/funding/erdf_en.”
  Cohesion and rural funding
• 2025-11-04 “E-004327/2025 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Fitto on behalf of the European Commission 1. Under shared management, the selection of individual European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) 1 operations is the responsibility of the Managing Authority. The Commission’s role is to ensure that operations comply with the programme’s objectives and applicable regulations. The project, which has been in operation since 2009, fully met its objectives and remains economically viable to this date. 2. Since its creation, the project has attracted around 2 million visitors (between 100 000 and 140 000 annually) and generated some EUR 100 million in additional tourism revenues for the region. In addition, during the same period, several new accommodation and gastronomy establishments were opened, thereby contributing to job creation in the establishments themselves and among the services and good providers. The ERDF-funded project therefore successfully contributed to promoting tourism and economic development in the region. 3. Applicable rules require that ERDF-funded projects are selected based on clear selection criteria and have clear objectives contributing to the programme’s objectives, proportionate budgets and verifiable outputs and, where applicable, measurable results. Managing authorities perform administrative and on-the-spot checks while the Commission ensures programme monitoring and carries out audits. Where verifications reveal that activities are not implemented as approved, the Commission may request corrective measures, including financial corrections. 1 European Regional Development Fund https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/funding/erdf_en.”
  Cohesion and rural funding · EU strategy for tourism development
• 2025-11-04 “E-004323/2025 Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission The Commission emphasizes the ‘shared management’ principle in EU funding programs, where national Managing Authorities play a crucial role in design, implementation, monitoring, reporting, financial management, control, and evaluation of programs. In Rheinland-Pfalz, the Ministry of Economy, Transport, Agriculture and Viticulture acts as the Managing Authority, providing information on project selection, implementation, and funding. Selection criteria, as per Article 49 of Regulation (EU) No. 1305/2013 1 , were applied with input from a Monitoring Committee, ensuring fair applicant treatment and resource optimization aligned with EU rural development priorities. As per Article 111 of Regulation (EU) No. 1306/2013 2 , Members States must publish beneficiary names, payment amounts, and measure descriptions for transparency. European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) beneficiaries must follow information and communication guidelines in Annex III, Part I, of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 808/2014 3 , including displaying the Union emblem, referencing EAFRD support, and detailing projects. Since the project beneficiary the Honourable Member refers to was a regional public entity, additional rules may apply. The Managing Authority evaluates Rural Development Programme implementation to assess the EAFRD support's contribution to rural development objectives, with an ex-post evaluation due by 31 December 2026. For project specifics, please contact the Rheinland-Pfalz Rural Development Programme's Managing Authority 4 . 1 Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005. 2 Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008. 3 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 808/2014 of 17 July 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD). 4 Ministerium für Wirtschaft, Verkehr, Landwirtschaft und Weinbau des Landes Rheinland-Pfalz (https://mwvlw.rlp.de/)”
  Agricultural funding · Nature protection and restoration in the EU
• 2025-11-04 “E-004324/2025 Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission 1. LEADER is implemented in accordance with the shared management approach between the Member State and the Commission. One of the key principles of LEADER approach is the local partnerships where strategies are designed, and operations are implemented by the local action groups. The responsibility for project selection and its assessment lies with the Member State and in particular with the LEADER local action group in the area, in line with their local development strategy, and the priorities defined by the local communities therein. The project selection criteria are defined in the strategy and contain not only economic but also social and environmental criteria. The bottom-up approach and local decision-making is a defining characteristic of LEADER and contributes to its success. The Commission is not involved in the project selection. 2. The Commission does not evaluate each individual project. Evaluations are done at the level of local development strategies and programmes. Commission evaluates at EU level the relevance of Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) instruments including LEADER. 3. LEADER programmes can finance a variety of projects as defined in a bottom-up manner in local development strategies. This includes pilot actions and local innovations. The conditions for durability of investments financed from the CAP 2023-27 are defined by the Member States.”
  Cohesion and rural funding
• 2025-11-04 “E-004325/2025 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Mînzatu on behalf of the European Commission The Commission confirms that the project ‘M.Punkt RLP – Mach’ Dein Dorf’ was cofinanced from the European Social Fund (ESF) programme Rhineland-Palatinate between 2009 and 2013. 1. The ESF in Germany is implemented in one national and several regional programmes (e.g. Rhineland-Palatinate) and it is managed under shared management rules. Member States are responsibile for selecting the projects (e.g. assessing the proportionality of a given project, trustworthiness of the beneficiaries) and controlling and auditing them. 2. The ESF support for the project ‘M.Punkt RLP – Mach’ Dein Dorf’ ended in 2013. Since 2014 the project has been receiving national funding from the Ministry of the Interior and Sport of Rhineland-Palatinate. 3. The Commission measures the impact of an ESF programme by using indicators (output/result), without looking specifically at project level. However, to measure the impact of a given ESF project (e.g. labour market integration) an assessment is carried out postimplementation. Such an assessment is within the scope of authority of the Member State based on the shared management principle.”
  Cohesion and rural funding
• 2025-10-01 “E-003801/2025 Answer given by Mr Micallef on behalf of the European Commission Since 2014, over 72 000 organisations participated in projects that addressed, as one of their objectives, the Erasmus+ programme priority ‘Participation in democratic life, common values and civic engagement’. Organisations from more than 122 countries have participated in these projects. The large majority of these projects fostered learning mobility of individuals and cooperation among organisations and institutions in all EU Members States and six countries associated to the programme. The programme continues to play an essential role in raising awareness of shared EU values and has had a positive impact in supporting participation in democratic life and civic engagement. Stakeholder feedback was positive on programme's role in promoting democratic values: 88% of respondents to the public consultation agreed that the programme performed well in promoting common EU values and strengthened European identity, and 75% confirmed the programme’s performance regarding fostering active citizenship and participation in democratic life 1 . The general objective of the Erasmus+ programme, set in Article 3 of its Regulation 2 , includes strengthening European identity and active citizenship. While the concept of European identity is complex and shaped by many factors 3 , it is often understood as a sense of belonging, rooted in shared values, history, and ongoing cultural and political dialogue, while complementing local, regional, and national identities. 1 https://erasmus-plus.ec.europa.eu/resources-and-tools/data-evaluations-statistics/evaluation. 2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/817/oj/eng. 3 https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/585921/IPOL_STU(2017)585921_EN.pdf.”
  EU engagement with citizens · EU engagement with youth
• 2025-07-02 “E-002713/2025 Answer given by Mr McGrath on behalf of the European Commission The Commission is committed to upholding the EU’s fundamental values of democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights enshrined in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) across the EU and is monitoring developments at national level, including through the annual Rule of Law Reports 1 . The Commission, however, does not have a general power to examine how an individual case relating to a national political party is addressed by a Member State. It is for national competent authorities and courts to ensure compliance with relevant national legal framework. Member States also remain responsible for safeguarding their national security. Their intelligence services collect and analyse information on threats related to national security in accordance with national law. 1 https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/upholding-rulelaw/rule-law/annual-rule-law-cycle_en.”
  Rule of law and democracy in the EU (political compass)
• 2025-05-20 “E-002012/2025 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission The requirement of tethered caps and lids is part of the Single-Use Plastics Directive (SUPD) 1 , which aims to lessen environmental and health impacts caused by unsustainable plastic use. In line with the Better Regulation rules 2 , a comprehensive assessment was done before adopting 3 the SUPD, based on a study conducted by external experts 4 . SUP beverage container caps and lids were among the most littered items on EU beaches, found more than twice as often as the containers. By combining the tethering requirement with mandatory separate collection targets for SUP beverage bottles, as per Article 9, littering is expected to decrease significantly. Member States provide data on beach litter via the Marine Strategic Framework Directive 5 , which the Joint Research Centre (JRC) analyses for trends. A recent JRC report 6 shows that marine SUP litter on EU beaches decreased by 40%. As the tethering requirement entered into force less than a year ago, since 3 July 2024, continuous monitoring is needed first, before a scientifically sound assessment of its impact can be conducted. The Commission is aware of the data reported by Håll Sverige Rent regarding an increase in littered caps on the Swedish west coast. While taking such observations seriously, it cannot independently verify this specific claim at this stage. Local spikes may be caused by multiple factors, e.g. changes in consumer behaviour, local waste management or increased monitoring efforts, and do not in themselves indicate a failure of the tethering requirement. The Commission will evaluate the SUPD by 3 July 2027, based on available evidence to determine if its measures have been effective. 1 Directive (EU) 2019/904 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019 on the reduction of the impact of certain plastic products on the environment, OJ L 155, 12.6.2019, p. 1–19. 2 https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-making-process/better-regulation_en. 3 Summary of SUPD Impact Assessment: https://circabc.europa.eu/ui/group/6e9b7f79-da96-4a53-956fe8f62c9d7fed/library/466e246b-cfa3-4b3e-a3c7-fe78bb53ee0a/details?download=true. 4 Supporting study - Assessment of measures to reduce marine litter from single use plastics: https://circabc.europa.eu/ui/group/6e9b7f79-da96-4a53-956f-e8f62c9d7fed/library/10fe4f5e-45cb-46048e8a-247d8d76f1f5/details?download=true. 5 https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/research-area/environment/oceans-and-seas/eu-marine-strategyframework-directive_en. 6 https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/jrc-news-and-updates/marine-litter-eu-coastline-down-almost-onethird-2025-02-04_en.”
  Circular economy · EU policy towards plastics
• 2025-05-14 “E-001924/2025 Answer given by Mr Micallef on behalf of the European Commission Article 3 of the Regulation 1 on the Erasmus+ programme objectives includes the strengthening of European identity and active citizenship. Since 2014, around 50 000 projects with this objective were funded (EUR 3.79 billion). The Erasmus+ annual report 2 2023 indicates that 82% of participants in mobility activities declare that they feel more European. The interim evaluation of the 2021-2027 European Solidarity Corps found that the programme greatly strengthened participants’ sense of European identity, with volunteers reporting a 71% increase in their sense of belonging. Participants declared that they became more tolerant towards the values and behaviour of others (84%) and capable of cooperating with people from different backgrounds or in specific situations such as disability (89%). The Creative Europe Programme, the European Capitals of Culture and European Heritage label (EHL) are meant to actively reinforce shared cultural identity and feelings of belonging. The Commission also awards the EUR 1.5 million Melina Mercouri Prize to selected European Capitals of Culture and the EHL BUREAU (EUR 3 million for the 2023-2026 period) for the EHL community. The evaluations’ results will be available in the second half of 2025. The Commission supports cooperation with civil society organisations and non-governmental organisations in the field of education and training to foster their active involvement in the implementation of policy reforms and the Erasmus+ programme. 1 Regulation (EU) 2021/817 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2021 establishing Erasmus+: the Union Programme for education and training, youth and sport and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1288/2013 (Text with EEA relevance), OJ L 189, 28.5.2021, pp. 1–33. 2 https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/884d8a20-ac87-11ef-acb1-01aa75ed71a1/language-en.”
  Focus of EU policy on education (shaping workers vs citizens) · EU and national cultural identities
• 2025-03-05 “E-000928/2025 Answer given by Mr Serafin on behalf of the European Commission The Commission currently does not possess any information regarding the ‘63 George Soroslinked NGOs’ mentioned by the Honourable Member. As for any funding awarded to entities, reference is being made to the publicly accessible Financial Transparency System (FTS) 1 where information is available on beneficiaries of funding from the EU budget implemented directly by the Commission and other EU bodies such as executive agencies. The Commission received United States Agency for International Development (USAID) funding as a contribution through external assigned revenues for the following projects: - Under the European Development Fund, USD 7 million (EUR 6.52 million) in 2016-2017 for the project TZ/FED/2016/023-851, ‘EU Support programme to the South Agriculture Growth Corridor of Tanzania (SAGCOT) Initiative’; - Under the EU General Budget, USD 9.5 million (EUR 8.5 million) in 2016, for the project ENERGY/2014/37651, ‘GPGC – Delivering access to modern, affordable and sustainable energy/renewable energy to 6 million people’. In well-functioning democracies, transparent and accountable representation of interests is a fundamental and legitimate activity. Ensuring transparency about these activities and entities involved is essential for maintaining both EU citizens’ trust in the democratic process and decision-makers’ ability to exercise their responsibilities. In 2023, the Commission introduced the Defence of Democracy package 2 which includes a legislative proposal designed to improve transparency and democratic accountability of interest representation activities on behalf of third countries seeking to influence policies, decision making and the democratic space. This proposal is currently under discussion by the co-legislators. 1 https://ec.europa.eu/budget/financial-transparency-system/index.html ; the annual publications are based on Article 38 of the Financial Regulation (OJ L 2024/2509, 26.9.2024, p. 1–239), and in accordance with the third paragraph of the article, information on recipients is not disclosed in specific cases outlined therein. 2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52023DC0630.”
  Foreign interference in Europe · EU-US relations
• 2025-01-14 “P-000108/2025 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Virkkunen on behalf of the European Commission Referring to the interview mentioned by the Honourable Member, no Commission official was instructed to follow the conversation live.”
  Transparency requirements of EU institutions
• 2024-12-12 “P-002899/2024 Answer given by Mr Brunner on behalf of the European Commission The EU continues to work closely with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to ensure that returns to Syria are voluntary, safe and dignified, and with other United Nations partners to help create the conditions inside Syria for people to return. The UNHCR latest position on returns to Syria stressed that ‘in view of the many challenges facing Syria’s population, including a large-scale humanitarian crisis, continued high levels of internal displacement and widespread destruction and damage of homes and critical infrastructure, […] for the time being UNHCR is not promoting large-scale voluntary repatriation to Syria’ 1 . In accordance with EU law, beneficiaries of international protection have a right to stay and reside in the Member State that granted protection. For this reason, they are not subject to return in accordance with Directive 2008/115/EC 2 . 1 UNHCR position on returns to the Syrian Arab Republic, December 2024, https://reliefweb.int/report/syrianarab-republic/unhcr-position-returns-syrian-arab-republic-december-2024-enarrukobg 2 Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals, OJ L 348, 24.12.2008, p. 98–107.”
  Asylum & border control
• 2024-10-22 “P-002212/2024 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Vestager on behalf of the European Commission Freedom of expression and information are pillars of democracy and protected under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights 1 . The Digital Services Act (DSA) 2 aims to ensure that fundamental rights of users are protected online. The DSA defines platforms’ responsibilities and mechanisms to mitigate risks, preventing over-removal of lawful content. 1. Under the DSA, the status of trusted flagger is awarded by national digital services coordinators. To obtain such status, the applicant must demonstrate that it meets the conditions of expertise, competence, independence, diligence, accuracy and objectivity as set out by the DSA. The DSA also allows the suspension and revocation of the trusted flagger status, should the entity no longer meet those conditions. 2. The DSA requires providers of online platforms to assess notices of potentially illegal content submitted by trusted flaggers, within their area of expertise, with priority and without undue delay. That provision does not cover lawful, but potentially harmful, content. Other entities and individuals can also notify potentially illegal content under Article 16 of the DSA. Notified content is not automatically removed. The providers of the services would process those notices and take subsequent decisions. 3. The Commission is required to evaluate the DSA by 17 November 2027, and report to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee. The report will inter alia address the impact on the respect for the right to freedom of expression and information. 1 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, OJ C 326, 26.10.2012, p. 391–407. 2 Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 October 2022 on a Single Market For Digital Services and amending Directive 2000/31/EC (Digital Services Act), OJ L 277, 27.10.2022, p. 1–102.”
  Disinformation & online freedoms · Digital platforms liability for harmful and illegal content
• 2024-09-03 “P-001603/2024 P-001607/2024 Answer given by Vice-President Jourová on behalf of the European Commission The Commission does not comment on specific individual cases falling within Member States’ competence. If they consider that national measures infringe their rights, citizens and businesses can resort to the competent national authorities. Safeguarding media freedom and pluralism, as enshrined in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights 1 , has been at the heart of the Commission’s efforts to uphold democracy and the rule of law in the EU. The European Media Freedom Act (EMFA) 2 sets out a reinforced framework for media service providers. Article 4(1) of the EMFA, which will apply as of 8 February 2025, establishes that media service providers shall have the right to exercise their economic activities freely in the internal market, subject only to restrictions in line with EU law. Recital 16 clarifies that such restrictions may derive from measures applied by national public authorities in compliance with EU law. The EMFA also introduces a targeted set of rules requiring Member States to respect the editorial freedom and independence of media service providers and to refrain from interfering in core aspects of their activities, such as editorial decisions, journalistic sources, and communications. Nonetheless, the EMFA also provides for derogations which allow Member States to take such measures when certain substantial and procedural conditions are fulfilled. As part of its annual Rule of Law Report 3 , the Commission assesses the situation regarding media freedom and pluralism in all Member States, including Germany. The chapter on Germany describes the well-established federal legal framework guaranteeing media freedom and pluralism, based on multiple levels of safeguards and oversight 4 . 1 https://commission.europa.eu/aid-development-cooperation-fundamental-rights/your-rights-eu/eu-charterfundamental-rights_en 2 https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/new-push-europeandemocracy/protecting-democracy/european-media-freedom-act_en 3 https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/27db4143-58b4-4b61-a021a215940e19d0_en?filename=1_1_58120_communication_rol_en.pdf 4 https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/3d1a2f80-5989-4364-a9e6d925d4a1c900_en?filename=16_1_58059_coun_chap_germany_en.pdf”
  EU support for traditional (non-digital) media · Disinformation & online freedoms
• “Thank you very much. A very quick question. Currently we have to adapt the the projects. But, but. As far as I understand. There may not be checked checks on changes to projects. This begs the question what happens with funding in the medium term? Now the necessary funds could be reduced. Thank you.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Thank you. We've said on a number of occasions that the majority of the groups are very critical about the flexibilization measures and whether they can be carried out, and we continue to be of the view that it is the principles of budgetary clarity and budgetary veracity that should carry the day, and there should be behind the shaping of the mechanisms we need to know, at the end of the day, what the appropriations are to be used for in clear terms. I've also got questions. When it comes to the flexibility instrument, and also with regard to the special reserves, it would appear that there can be appropriations outside of the MBF reserve or outside the MBF. So I think it's important that transparency be brought to bear there basically when it comes to flexibility. This is something which the majority of this room are critical of. There is a lack of control and scrutiny by this House. So on the one hand, there needs to be greater flexibility for your measures, but at a later stage is also going to be a situation arising where the control measures, the scrutiny measures for this House, are reduced. And that means that we'll lose two possibilities for this House to intervene and for two reasons. Therefore, it is a problem.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Up there. Whether it's the DSA or the AI act. Um. Both are being used under the pretext of imposing extra controls. Now it's the new chat instrument which is going to record everything we say and write. Every citizen is a suspect. The rule of law, which we constantly speak about in this House, is being turned into its shadow side. And that's what the EU is actually seeking to achieve, not the rule of law, but totalitarianism. And that's why this is a discussion which is so crucial where every citizen is a suspect, where every freedom is sacrificed. This is something we should fundamentally reject.”
  Surveillance equipment & spyware
• “Madam president, Mr. Serafin, first of all, there are a couple of points that I'd like to contradict very strongly. We were hearing about people being in agreement about the restructuring of this budget, and it said again and again that, you know, the crises are being put under control, but we have a whole raft of instruments that are in place already for this type of contingency in crisis. I don't see the need for more of these. But what we do agree on is that we need more money to do more things, because we keep blowing up this budget more and more, and it's all about 1% of our own AI being our own resources threshold. And that's to be raised. And as patriots, we totally reject this increasing the budget and the financing. This is about the, uh, involving the citizens and making them suffer as well. They have to foot the bill for this. And we don't want this. Instead of just increasing this budget, we have to save. It's possible to save, for example, these left wing NGOs who are represented here in this House. Interruption from the chair.”
  Size of EU budget
• “Thank you very much, Madam President. Too little investment in the EU is perhaps because the framework for our. And the conditions for our economy are too bad, too much regulation, too much red tape and anti-industrial industry environment. And the EU is responsible for this. And hear people say that we need to be more creative. We have to admit that this EU is not creative because creativity in the EU means more regulations. And that's precisely what we don't need. What we need is fewer measures from the EU, because that will strengthen our economy, and a stronger economy will be the basis for more investment. Thank you.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Thank you. Chairman. Commissioner. I'm quite pleased by today's debate. Most people here are looking to increase the EU budget. We want a sleek, streamlined budget. You're all looking for more and more. Now, Commissioner, the chaos. Chaos we've seen today demonstrates how little agreement there is within the Commission and between Commission and Council. No one knows where these funds are going to come from, and I think that is good news. Now, you didn't give us any detailed figures because you probably didn't have reasonable figures available. You gave us a few percentages, but I can't tell whether this is actually feasible in practice, whether this is sufficient funding to cover needs in coming years. Now, what do you want to change when it comes to own resources and tax? You talked about tax on electric waste and tobacco. If those are our major goals to raise funds, well, I'm quite optimistic that this won't work out. But I do wonder why you have picked those two particular industries. Are you looking for sectors that are unpopular amongst the general public? They don't have major lobbying behind them so people won't bat an eyelid if you look to tax tobacco and electronic waste.”
  Own EU resources
• “Madam president, the core mission of the European Commission is to coordinate economic policy. The report that has been presented is now going beyond to talk about structural reform and beyond financial supervision. It's going to be linking into social policy to name just one area. Now, these encroaching on national policy really goes well beyond the commission's um, responsibilities. Anyone who considers themselves to be guardian of the treaty must be scrupulously respect the boundaries set out by the treaties. For example, in the budget, um, member states are asked to take on new policies. And what we're seeing here is this slippery slope towards centralisation that is not provided for. So yes, cooperation, but no diktats from Brussels on economic policy making.”
  EU political integration
• “Thank you very much for giving me the floor. I would like to echo all the thanks for the draft report, but unfortunately I cannot do so. But because I don't think it's worth the paper it's written on and listening to the debate, one thing is clear we need to ensure that we agree on some fundamental rules. But all we're talking about really is Hungary. We don't really want to create a mechanism that makes any sense. We just want to create a mechanism that can be used to. Hungary or any other member state that doesn't toe the EU line. And if this remains the case, mechanisms like the confidentiality mechanism ought not to be extended. They ought to be abolished. And we've scarcely discussed the report itself. But there are some rather absurd things in there. They're taking paragraph 11. Paragraph 11 would prefer certain measures to be taken against breaches. Should be taken on the basis of reports from civil society organisations. I think it's very interesting. As an MEP, you're saying that any old dubious NGO can produce evidence to to say that conditionality is being breached. Um, but that's not the most absurd thing in the report. Most of the nonsense is at the end. So can I just quote paras 49 or 50? 49 says that the commission should increase its investigative capacity by having a roster of specialised experts that can Assess alleged breaches against the rule of law. So we're going to appoint dubious people whose sole responsibility will be to analyze breaches of law. So you're going to have in readiness, um, uh, a whole panel of people that will be, you know, ready to gang up on Hungary. And a particularly fine example, uh, at the end of the report that I'd like to quote is.”
  EU Supervision of the Rule of Law
• “That's not right. Just picking on specific sectors. Pick on them because you think they are unpopular and there'll be less pushback. So why did you pick those two particular sectors. Moving on now you talked about the cry of the crisis mechanism, some 400 billion to be made available in close cooperation with the European Council. I'd like to know more about how the voting will work there. We are cautious. We. Would note that the Commission has rejected Parliament's role here. And I think the idea that announcements are made to the press before Parliament, I think it is a joke what is happening here. I want the commission to produce a report in coming days, give us detailed figures, the type of mid-term financial planning you're dealing with. This type of announcement doesn't help us. We don't have any sort of basis for sensible, rational debate. Did we need this meeting? This show here today? We don't have anything tangible or detailed to get to grips with the substantive debate. It really is appalling what we see here today.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Madam chair, the EU and its allies have been inciting people uh, to, uh, all sorts of things for years. And at last, people have realized that words are not deeds. Donald Trump is now using a different language to the one that we have used different, uh, to our elites. He is honest in what he says, honest with his voters. We just heard from Manu who said, uh, we, uh, have, uh, laughed at Donald Trump's incompetence for a long time. And I'm saying, how can you show such disrespect to the president of the United States? If you do so, how can you be surprised that the United States doesn't want anything to do with our EU coalition anymore? So now we have to look at how we behave with Donald Trump and together with him in the Atlantic Alliance. I think that the times of a left wing liberal politics is past. At long last, we need as Europe to have a foreign policy which can work for us all. We need to create new principles and we need to orient ourselves to a new reality. Thank you very much.”
  Relations with NATO
• “Vice president thousands of citizens have said, turn to the members of the EP in the recent weeks, and their demand is no digital euro and their right digital currency is not project. In fact, it's just an instrument of control, the control. The Commission wants to say that this will give us security from US and Chinese interests. However, that means we can trace every single beer you drink with your friends. They we want cash. We want freedom. We want direct and independent of lack of electricity. So if you if you pay with cash, you have the power over your own purse. It would be democratic if citizens could vote in a referendum about the introduction of a digital euro. However, there's a fear of the false result, so the EU would never allow that. For that reason, we demand to have the right to use cash and have this anchored in our national constitutions.”
  Digital euro · Means of payment (cash vs digital)
• “Well, we reject EU debt or that new level, and you can't regard that separately. You need to look at the debt taken on by the EU and the member States individually and from our side. It is a fundamental concern that debt funded programmes within the EU should not be taking place.”
  Own EU resources
• “Thank you. From a budgetary point of view, I'd like to echo what my colleague has just said. About what happens if we. Don't guarantee this loan with Russian frozen funds. And if the loan is not paid back, who will end up paying? Who will go guarantor? And so I suggest that if the Ukraine doesn't pay that back, it will then be paid by European money. But if Russian money. But if Russian money is not used, then the question remains about who will pay. And that needs to be planned for. Beyond that, in the Ukraine, as I understand from an investor's point of view, there's a problem with regard to a making creating a legal framework so that the Ukraine. So Ukraine could be more attractive. I'd like to hear what you have to say about that. I'd also like to. In the past. Interesting use of money was made in the Ukraine, and I'd like to know what monitoring procedures will be put in place so that the EU can ensure that the money is spent wisely. Thank you.”
  EU-Ukraine relations
• “Today's debate has seen a lot of talk about big companies. But if we're talking about competitiveness, I would like to also focus on focus on SMEs. I come from a place that has a lot of agriculture, winemaking, a lot of small family companies. And when you talk to them about what their main problem is, they say it's overregulation. These small family companies say that they need to spend huge amounts of labour, and just overcoming all of the reforms they need to fill in the bureaucratic burden has been created by the EU. And the second thing they always say is that we have different conditions. For example, in winemaking there are a lot stricter than our competitors outside the EU, and that's a real competitive disadvantage. So SMEs. In wine and agriculture need deregulation in order to improve competitiveness. And that needs to be the main concern of the EU.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Yeah. Thank you for allowing this question. I think it's become quite clear during the debate that the left are preparing arguments for us on the basis of NGOs, that there are going to be these mass flows, these mass movements, and that a lot of people could be streaming to Europe. We know, of course, that this has negative consequences for the people of Europe. So I'd like to ask you from the EPP what you think about this. Would you go along with this or would you make sure that Europe is turned into a fortress?”
  Asylum & border control
• “For Madam President, the principle of subsidiarity is being abused here. And let me explain to you why this principle is important on an EU level, which says that the EU can only raise resources in some areas which have to fall within their exclusive competences. So when the political goals of member states cannot be reached alone, I am convinced that the Commission's proposal does not help or support member states. Rather, it uses their own resources and erodes the autonomy of individual countries. The ability to raise funds here has to fall to national governments because they are aware of their own internal problems and can manage them better. Think about our hospitals, our schools, our local neighborhoods. They are aware of what is at stake and how to resolve their problems. Who knows the situation better than the regions themselves? But the Commission thinks otherwise. They have decided to target a. Betting and gambling. Now, this is bad in itself, but it gets worse that they want to remove important resources from national budgets. In order to tackle legal gambling with enormous risks for consumer protection. Thank you.”
  Own EU resources
• “Mr. president, what does the funding of photovoltaic panels have to do with property owners in the south of Europe or Covid? Nothing. But in fact, measures like this have been. Implemented, funded under the IRF, which was supposed to be about Covid. 100% funding for climate or for banks. All sorts of nonsense with regards to German taxpayers money, with billions of euros set aside for it, up to €750 billion is what the EU can take on as debt for liable for all member states. Covid has been used as a pretext for the establishment of pooled debt. The EU is creating precedence which for things which are supposed to be one off events. But then we tend to have a permanent mechanism set up. And it's not just in the Draghi report where there has been a request to have long term permanent debt taken on and elsewhere, too.”
  Own EU resources
• “For president. The new MFF is not a budget, it's an instrument of power. The Commission presents a €2 billion structure that's going to tie millions and billions to conditions that it wants to dictate. So €2 trillion is being seen by this Parliament as too low. And then you have this lively discussion on own resources, which is to say taxes. So citizens are being asked to cough up for these megalomaniac power trips. And then you've got this very catchy sounding, environmentally friendly budgeting. And so you have environmental conditionality. We know where that's heading. It's overregulation. Too much red tape being imposed by people who have no idea about farming. And that's being opposed to on farmers. So farming is going to have to take yet another hit in the European Union. And so when Mr. Weber talks about farming and the hard blow that farmers will have to suffer from the MFF as well as Mercosur, the agreement with Mercosur, and here again, the European Union is to blame.”
  Own EU resources · Size of EU budget
• “So from the setters just Alexander here so I'll give him the floor. Thank you sir. I will try to be brief too. A few points of interest in me have been addressed. I would like to know why we have this approach. In principle I agree at one point in a crisis situation it's important that it is alongside the existing crisis mechanisms we are in a position to release funds quickly but in the medium to long term projects I don't see why there's any need for these loans with the local authorities should be able to do so so I don't think you need EU funds there. I'd like to hear your response to that. You also talked about the greater flexibilization in the budget in recent months we felt a problem of getting information too late and not enough information. We and the Parliament that's a criticism that's shared by all groups here and there's a big danger that their flexibility of the budget could mean that budgetary control be it the plenary and the Parliament would be even more difficult. I'd be interested in your response as to the balance between flexibilization and budgetary control on our part. As regards competitiveness it was mentioned here that taxes on business is the flip side of competitiveness and we don't buy 100 million euros next year taxes that would affect lot of industrial enterprises and at the moment talking about a critical sector we have big problems in Germany and France with the car industry for example and I'd like to know how you would look at the burden on the business through this.”
  Size of EU budget
• “That there should be incentives for whistleblowers. So you want to create some sort of, uh, culture of denunciation? Uh. So you seem to want to create some sort of state of surveillance and people denounce one another. Um, so I would have thought there were plenty of references you could have made to Germany in this report. And let me just quote an incident from the recent past. In August of this year, the human rights situation in Germany has got worse, according to the US Foreign Ministry's um, report on on the rule of law, freedom of expression faces restrictions in Germany. That's what the ministry says. And, uh. This is not a democracy. This is a tyranny. According to, um, Marco Rubio. Uh, so, um, as I say, uh, freedom of expression is restricted in Germany. And also we could talk about the abuse of the intelligence services to spy on citizens and the, uh, mass, uh, withdrawal of the right to stand for elections. This has been copied by the French, actually, who've got who are so afraid of democracy that they have made it impossible for Marine Le Pen to stand for election. The courts are being used to. Ensure. That. Well, there is no neutral jurisdiction possible anymore because of the way that judges are nominated and so on. This is the path that Germany is also going down now. So to be perfectly honest, if. I, as a member of the German CDU, was responsible for such conditions prevailing in Germany, I would not dare to draft such a report. And to be so, uh, point the finger at Hungary.”
  Rule of law in Hungary
• “President. What we've been presented with here as a vision of Europe through the MFF is almost a farce. The vision here for the EU budget is nothing more than an extra burden for citizens. I mean, where are you living? We must reject a financial framework in which we have anything going over 1% of GNP. The budget should be shrunk and not constantly increased. Of course, we have trouble when we look at financing because nobody's really paying for this. That seems to be the idea. Own resources. More money from member states. It's not all that simple. Do we really want more EU red tape? Whilst people in Germany and other countries are struggling through a recession, do we really want to make these people pay more? Because when you talk about own resources, that's what you're talking about. Additional burden for citizens. Even though in Germany we're already paying an incredible tax burden. Who's going to complain when this money has to be found? In the past, the Germans have been silly enough to say, yeah, we'll spend more to for the EU, but I think that's going to be more difficult in the future. You might have been able to persuade, uh, Mertz and the CSU, but they are unable to form a government. So it's a good thing that they can't give away more German money to the EU.”
  Size of EU budget
• “Colleague I believe the regulation is just a one step of many that this House is undertaking in order to abolish cash. And this is the big problem. And for that reason, we're going to defend it. Thank you.”
  Means of payment (cash vs digital)
• “I will speak in German. On behalf of the ESN. Let me say that this is a blueprint for whatever we say. Whatever we talk about, we always hear that the budget needs to be increased. But I, as the ESN representative, think that €40 billion is, uh, is, uh, is fine. I don't think we need to increase the budget. Many are calling for an increase of the budget, but we think it's a good budget. We as the budgetary committee should push for budgetary discipline. We shouldn't always, on every occasion, say that we need to spend more. We have to ask ourselves a question, have we got enough. And I would say that, yes, we do have enough budget here. Then there's the issue of conditionality, which has been raised on various occasions, and we see that critically. We're very concerned. There are so called rule of law mechanisms, so called rule of law mechanisms have been introduced in order to divert attention or to divert. We know what's happened in Hungary. It's a way of exerting political pressure. There's no justified reason to cut off funds. It's just being done because it can be done. And then if this is done using a rule of law mechanism, well then look at the left wing, um, organ or organs and organizations that are present in, um, in universities, particularly in France, in Sciences-po, in Lyon and the organizations there. There was a left wing radical organization that was organized. And this ultimately led to the death of a right wing activist. If we are serious about rule of law mechanism, then we should look at left wing violence and left wing extremism at universities and use that as a criterion. That doesn't happen. And we can see that you are just using the rule of law mechanism to silence those whose views you don't agree with.”
  EU Supervision of the Rule of Law · Size of EU budget
• “President. More centralism and being more self-serving. What we have here is the quintessence of what's been going wrong with the European Union for years, because there's just one vision that they're following more and more and more. More competences for Brussels, more regulation for our businesses, more national responsibilities and more money from our taxpayers pockets. This budget compromise is actually so overloaded that it's not going to really have any effect. There's horizon, Erasmus+, Creative Europe, Life or Rescue. All of these projects have now been bolstered, but there's a lot of criticism of these different sectors. They don't really have any added value for member states. And at the same time, new budgets, budgets are being added. For Moldova, this is going to then create new institutions, strengthen new stakeholders. This structural trend that we're seeing just means enlarging all of these different, uh, jobs that the EU has to do. Then there's going to be a lot of extra income coming in the traditional own resources, but also all kinds of fines. And that's all going to be going into the EU's coffers, not to member states. That's going to then create new instruments, the flexibility instrument or Yuri. That's still going to be used to then expand the budget. What's missing here is a focus on efficiency, on building up reserves and in limiting our expenditure. We are seeing a trend here towards a more expensive and more invasive budget. This is something we reject. Also, we're very unhappy with the way that this has happened in terms of the process and all of the disagreements between Parliament, council and commission. This means that our our wish lists are always going in different directions. I'm hoping that in the coming years there will be more governments from the from the right wing, and they will then make sure that we don't have these kind of lazy compromises anymore.”
  Size of EU budget
• “The internet governance forum. The internet for information on the. Internet is supposed to protect people from influences. The EU is standing for censure because our different opinions are called hate speech in the EU. If we want a free internet, then we have above all, Uh, ensure that we get protection from the way in which the EU is tackling this.”
  Disinformation & online freedoms
• “Thank you. Madam president, thank you for giving me the floor. I just wanted to respond to what Mr. White said earlier on. He said that it was the right wingers who were responsible for the deaths of bees. Well, it doesn't make much sense to me. There's a study. Written by Doctor Franz Tribe, and he stated in his study that on average, around 2000 tons of insects are killed by wind turbines. So annually, millions of tons are killed by wind turbines. Green Politics is not only deadly for the economy, but it's also deadly for bees.”
  Energy (green transition)
• “Thank you. I also thank the rapporteur. This is an important program which we welcome. Let me just clarify a few points. And this has been mentioned by colleagues. But we don't think there is a need to increase the budget under the MFF. We've already had an increasing of funds or a top up. We are generally positive about this initiative, but given that the funds are increasing. Let me link to what colleagues have said. We need to have measurable data. If we invest more money, then it is vital that after a certain period of time, we can ascertain the effectiveness of the use of these funds. Then we should potentially address a question. Has a lot of the funding been lost to bureaucracy or not? If you look at research institutes, admittedly the budget has been increased, but often that leads to more bureaucracy for the people working in the institutes. That's something we want to improve. It's very important That we measure the success of the programs once they've happened.”
  EU research funding
• “Madam president, the core mission of the European Commission is to coordinate economic policy. The report that has been presented is now going beyond to talk about structural reform and beyond financial supervision. It's going to be linking into social policy to name just one area. Now, these encroaching on national policy really goes well beyond the commission's um, responsibilities. Anyone who considers themselves to be guardian of the treaty must be scrupulously respect the boundaries set out by the treaties. For example, in the budget, um, member states are asked to take on new policies. And what we're seeing here is this slippery slope towards centralisation that is not provided for. So yes, cooperation, but no diktats from Brussels on economic policy making.”
  EU political integration
• “If we look at the outcome of the council, it really is a bad dream. Let me give you three examples. First of all, accession of Ukraine. Now we go on on about pursuing negotiations. But Ukraine fulfills absolutely none of the preconditions for becoming a member of the European Union. It doesn't have a proper democratic system. Number one. Second point, economic measures. Council talks a lot about reestablishing competitiveness and that we should have single market integration. But what are we doing instead of that? Well, overregulation. We're even regulating markets that don't even exist yet. So we're throttling them at birth. Thirdly, European Union 2030. What's the reality? Well, on the energy policy front, we have a Green Deal which has led to us having the highest prices in Europe. And many member states of the Council of Europe are struggling. Everything the council does. Undermines people's lives and the economy.”
  EU-Ukraine relations
• “Thank you very much. Our position on own resources is that. We reject this increase. It has been said that there are big problems when it comes to finding agreement in the council. So it looks very difficult and we're happy to see that. I would like to address a few things to give you a different perspective. The corporate program was mentioned many times and the interest representations in Germany industry has warned against this. They've said that that it makes things difficult for industry and that the same in many cases it would be just the wrong signal. It would be an additional burden. Perhaps you could say something on that. Secondly, and this is something which we think is interesting, a digital tax Irrespective of the fact that we reject a digital tax of any type at a European level, it would be the best idea. All these little things, sugar, taxes or being these things like that is peanuts. If you want to do something really big. It would be a digital tax. Recently I had a meeting, and the Quintus element of this is that it isn't possible to implement this at the European level. I'd like to know why you think why you're even considering this at the moment.”
  Own EU resources