Sandra GÓMEZ LÓPEZ

Policy topics Sandra GÓMEZ LÓPEZ is active on

What Sandra GÓMEZ LÓPEZ has said (56)

• 2026-06-15 “Thank you, president. Allow me to start by commending my colleague, mister Langer. Thank you so much for all the hard work during this whole process. You know, to begin with, we had something very unbalanced in terms of tariffs, the Trump administration, which is disregarding international standards, but also disregarding its historic alliance with Europe. It's, you know, of course, a matter of common agreement that a trade war with The United States Of America would not serve anyone's interests. Therefore, instead of accepting the agreement as it stands, we have been fighting hard to introduce provisions, safeguard clauses in order to protect our companies and to protect Europe's interests, financial interests. In this European Parliament, we have played our role. 2026, December 31, you know, we know that unfortunately well, we know that for steel and aluminum, 15% tariffs. And if that were still to be the case, we could actually suspend the agreement if it were to go any further. Therefore, Europe will not accept this kind of pressure. We're going to work hard in order to support our industry, and we shall stand firm. Thank you.”
  EU-US trade relations
• 2026-02-25 “E-000779/2026 Answer given by Mr Dombrovskis on behalf of the European Commission The Commission assesses the fulfilment of milestones and targets under the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) 1 against the specific requirements defined in the Council Implementing Decision approving each national Recovery and Resilience Plan. The same methodology is applied when assessing milestones and targets related to low-emission zones, thereby verifying whether the elements required, such as the completion of physical investments or the adoption and entry into force of enabling legislation, have been achieved. Where the defined requirements are met, the milestone or target may be considered satisfactorily fulfilled, irrespective of progress on other milestones or targets linked to the same reform or investment. RRF funds are only released following the satisfactory fulfilment of the relevant milestones and targets by the Member States. Article 24(6) of the RRF Regulation 2 provides for a full or partial suspension of the financial contribution where the Commission assesses that the milestones and targets have not been satisfactorily fulfilled. Member States are responsible for ensuring that measures under the RRF are implemented in compliance with applicable EU and national law, including environmental legislation. 1 https://commission.europa.eu/funding-tenders/find-funding/eu-funding-programmes/recovery-and-resiliencefacility_en. 2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/241/oj/eng.”
  Road transport environmental policy · Air quality policy
• 2025-10-22 “P-004151/2025 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Fitto on behalf of the European Commission Regional Emergency Support to Reconstruction (RESTORE 1 ) allows Member States affected by climate-related disasters to repair damaged infrastructure and equipment, provide food and basic material assistance, and temporarily support healthcare measures and short-time work schemes. To enable a swift response, up to 10% of the European Regional Development Fund 2 and the European Social Fund Plus 3 for the 2021–2027 programming period can be redirected to deliver on these objectives. A pre-financing rate of 25% helps Member States accelerate support to those affected. Member States can also benefit from a 95% co-financing rate for measures that help them recover from climate-related disasters. 19 cohesion policy programmes from five Member States have reallocated EUR 1.8 billion of cohesion policy funds to RESTORE 4 , resulting in EUR 455.9 million pre-financing. A further EUR 120 million in programme allocations to RESTORE is in the pipeline 5 and expected to be adopted in the coming months. To date, support under RESTORE includes water and transport infrastructure, flood and land management, energy efficiency in public buildings, as well as healthcare, education and social inclusion facilities. This variety reflects how RESTORE addresses both urgent recovery needs and longer-term resilience following natural disasters. 1 Regulation (EU) 2024/3236 amending Regulations (EU) 2021/1057 and (EU) 2021/1058 as regards Regional Emergency Support to Reconstruction (RESTORE). 2 Regulation (EU) 2021/1058 on the European Regional Development Fund and on the Cohesion Fund. 3 Regulation (EU) 2021/1057 establishing the European Social Fund Plus (ESF+). 4 ES EUR 829 million, FR EUR 320 million, IT EUR 35 million, PL EUR 605 million, RO EUR 34 million. 5 ES EUR 27 million, PT EUR 92 million.”
  Cohesion and rural funding
• 2025-03-13 “E-001087/2025 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Fitto on behalf of the European Commission 1. In January 2025, the Spanish authorities submitted an application for financial assistance from the EU Solidarity Fund 1 . The Commission’s assessment confirmed that the application is eligible and an advance of EUR 100 million to help kick-start recovery operations has been paid 2 . Next, it will determine the amount of the assistance, within the limits of the available financial resources, and submit a proposal to the European Parliament and the Council for approval which takes at least 6 weeks. 2. In December 2024, the Commission-proposed amendment to the European Regional Development Fund/Cohesion Fund Regulation and the European Social Fund+ Regulation (Regional Emergency Support to Reconstruction (RESTORE)) 3 was adopted, which allows national, regional and local authorities to quickly mobilise Cohesion Policy funds to respond to disasters. RESTORE funds disaster reconstruction, prevention and the mitigation of socioeconomic impacts 4 . The Commission is yet to receive a request from Spain to redirect funds. 3. The European Climate Law 5 mandates Member States to ensure progress in enhancing adaptive capacity, strengthening resilience and reducing vulnerability to climate change. Member States are required to adopt and implement national adaptation strategies and plans and consider the particular vulnerability of relevant sectors. The Commission also announced 6 a European Climate Adaptation Plan to further support Member States in preparedness and resilience planning. The Commission will also ensure that all relevant EU programmes contribute to climate resilience 7 . For instance, Member States are encouraged to reprogram their Cohesion Policy programmes towards climate adaptation, particularly in high-risk regions. 1 Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 of 11 November 2002 establishing the European Union Solidarity Fund (OJ L 311, 14.11.2002, p. 3) as amended by Regulation (EU) No 661/2014 of the European Parliament and the Council of 15 May 2014 (OJ L 189, 27.6.2014, p. 143) and by Regulation (EU) 2020/461 of the European Parliament and the Council of 30 March 2020 (OJ L 99, 31.3.2020, p. 9). 2 The EU Solidarity Fund may cover part of the costs for emergency and recovery operations incurred by public authorities. This includes, for example, the recovery of essential infrastructure, provision of temporary accommodation to the population, cleaning-up operations, and protection of cultural heritage. 3 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:L_202403236 4 Measures under the RESTORE priorities will benefit from an increased maximum co-financing rate of 95%, along with an additional pre-financing rate of 25%. 5 Regulation (EU) 2021/1119 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 2021 establishing the framework for achieving climate neutrality and amending Regulations (EC) No 401/2009 and (EU) 2018/1999 (′European Climate Law′) (OJ L 243, 9.7.2021, pp. 1—17). 6 https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/e6cd4328-673c-4e7a-8683f63ffb2cf648_en?filename=Political%20Guidelines%202024-2029_EN.pdf 7 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52024DC0091”
  Cohesion and rural funding
• “Thank you. Chair. SeThe first speaker was talking about multiple contributions. And I have a number of concerns about this because it was presented as a member state's contribution rather than, uh, an amount from the single market. And we need to remember that these companies invoice and receive income in different countries independent of their fiscal domicile. Now, when it comes to the issue of groups. Well, of course, all of the legal persons that are part of a particular business pay a tax on companies as legal persons. Now, from the proposal or the explanation we received from the Commissioner? Well, I didn't really understand it the same way as the speaker was presenting it, and that's why I wanted to ask about that. And secondly, for the second rapporteur, I wanted to express thanks for that report because I think it really extended the criteria considerably and analysed the advantages and extended the political vision for all for each of the own resources. And along these lines, I think we perhaps we could be told out of this proposal. Where is there the greatest added value for the EU? Which resources should we invest in? Thank you.”
  Own EU resources
• “Thank you. I'm going to speak in Spanish. Thank you very much. First of all, I would like to add a couple of comments to what we've heard from my colleagues. I that we need more transparency when it comes to us being able to carry out a better analysis of the proposal, because we have received contradictory information over the past few days. But if we focus on the information that you, Commissioner, have given us this afternoon, then on behalf of the political group, we would like to give a positive analysis when it comes to the UN resources proposal. We feel that this is a diversified proposal, especially linking up to the values of the European Union, health, a sustainability, etc. but at the same time, it is true that you cannot do more with the same amount. So we feel that we should have had a more ambitious proposal. We know that the proposal was adopted in 2023. The ETS two and a repeat. And this did have support budgetary support from the European Parliament recently. And that has been left out. Not included in the package. We also feel that we cannot agree with the fact that one idea that we had a strong idea, which had support from the commission, has also been dropped, and that is the digital tax. This is something that is working very well in those member states that are already implementing a digital tax. And since the US has left pillar one of the OECD, we feel now would have been the right time to implement this digital tax. From our political group, we would like to stick to the line that the commission Do take a look at and assess this particular tax.”
  Own EU resources
• “Take into account that there will be an adjustment to salaries, increasing salaries at the end of 2026 when it comes to the Spac renovation. We know that this will be done via a loan, but we wanted to ask you if you could say what the profile is for repaying that loan in the long term. And also mopping up. Will this be enough in the upcoming years to deal with this? Now on the political groups 22 and now. Oh, I'm sorry. Just very briefly then, two quick questions on the political groups. They're proposing a 0% reduction. So the 0% proposal, which is actually a reduction, this Parliament created a committee on the Democratic strategy, Democracy Shield. We believe that supporting foundations can help us to defend democratic values. Last question. Participation of APAs in missions year after year in the plenary. This is approved. We need to resolve this question in specific cases when there is no advisor or no other form of support for MEPs, we need to be able to have the APAs able to attend the missions as the statute recognizes. Thank you.”
  Budget for EU politicians
• “I'd like to thank the rapporteurs for their efforts. Their contributions to this conference. At least my group found it very interesting indeed. Firstly, because it set out for us how an initiative, an idea that we've stood up for for several years for joint debt has been addressed. We take the conclusions from this conference that that should happen very clearly and then possible future own resources. The ideas here have been set out. These are some of the ones that we'd considered. These are ideas that we can take on board for the debate, that the Commission will begin with its proposal, and we, as a group, will add to it with our own ideas to enrich it.”
  Own EU resources
• “I listen very carefully to the colleagues who spoke before me. They all have their priorities defense, competitiveness, agriculture and even from the far right. The issue of migration came. But I think indeed a European a Europe which is competitive needs more investment, it needs a better budget, and it has to guarantee housing and our climate needs more financing. So this particular financial framework ought to take all this into consideration. It ought to be very ambitious for own resources to deal with all of these challenges. Let's get rid of that hypocrisy, and let's ask for more and let's give more as well. We have to unblock those funds that are necessary to deal with these challenges. We have to have a common debt approach, and everything has to be in line with the very fundamental principles and values of the European Union.”
  Own EU resources
• “Thank you. President. Commissioner. Well, Europe and its families are faced with a very complex situation. Climate crisis, crisis in the housing sector, increasing inequality, loss of lack of competitiveness and a war. And we are being, uh, we are supposed to respond firmly focused on the individuals. But the council's proposal is a proposal of cuts. Why? Why? Because there is no money. There are not enough resources. And that is a clear sign of the fact that if in 2026, we can't make ends meet, we can't possibly keep the same financial framework up to 34. It's outrageous. We need to be more ambitious and we need to support the increase in the financial framework. And I'd like to ask you to vote in favour of our amendment that women on maternity leave can vote online, because some women have to come to this Parliament with their new born baby to vote, and that has to stop. Thank you.”
  Gender roles, equality and inclusion
• “Thank you chair. I'm going to speak in Spanish. Thank you to the Vice President and the Secretary General for your presentations. I'd like to Start by mentioning something that the general is quite familiar with. This is an ambitious proposal. When it comes to the non statutory expenditure, 89%, and we will need to be able to focus on these to ensure that the budget is okay. Now if we look at what happened in the budget last year, we're going to tighten our belts to ensure that everything can fit into the budget. Now, when it comes to specific questions on statutory expenditure, there are a few questions which um have which we've noticed. Do you know the um bureau decided to um for certain expenditure, but we've seen an increase in the, in the draft budget at the same time. The, the per diems were also restricted to. To change the per diems for parliamentary systems based on the modifications to salaries. But there's a contradiction here because for the first time, the European Parliament and the Secretary General is presenting a reduction of this proposal compared to 2026. Now, of course, it's our duty to remind you that these are statutory forms of expenditure. They need to be planned and they must also contain contingencies if they are not enough.”
  Budget for EU politicians
• “Thank you very much, Commissioner. Well, I too would echo this idea that this part of the MFF should be placed in the spotlight in our debates. In the first part of our encounter, many colleagues took the floor and they wanted to talk about their own priorities, their own proposals. But we didn't really think about what's going to pay for all of this. Where's the money going to come from? Because it would appear that the council, among others, is not willing to discuss that, when actually it's absolutely crucial. We're thinking about how we want to spend the money that we have, but actually we should also be thinking about whether we're going to have enough money to cover the various issues. And in addition, with the introduction of next generation EU, the Council agreed that important steps forward had to be made to broaden the scope of the package. But as things stand today, we are aware that there is a great deal of reluctance within the council on that. So we would like to hear your honest opinion on that. What are your thoughts on the Council's reaction to the Commission proposal? As to our group, well, we are delighted with the proposal that's been put forward by the commission. We understand that we need to be bold and we need to ensure that in this way, we are creating new opportunities to have a truly ambitious MFF.”
  Own EU resources
• “First, you talked about specific tools. Could you say a bit more about the specific tools that are available to us, or whether we could participate in a program to support child soldiers when they're being reintegrated into society? This was referred to by other speakers. Reintegrated then into society after participating in armed conflict. And then we heard from the representative of Warchild. This is we're talking about the Multiannual Financial Framework. I'm participating in the work on that. And so I'd like to understand more about what we could do to include measures in the Multiannual financial framework. Do you have any comments on that? I was interested to hear what you said about the fact that there are children who are victims of recruitment and are being treated as terrorists. And then the High Representative also referred to something which struck me. I wonder whether there are some legal arguments about that. You mentioned something very important about the revision of crimes against humanity and whether recruitment of child soldiers could be included as a specific crime. Could you say something about that, please? Thank you.”
  EU competences on human rights
• “Thank you. Chair. I'm going to speak on behalf of Nacho Sanchez. Amor. Gracias, president. Thank you very much. I'd like to focus on the trade agreement between the European Union and India. It was a key date for both sides facing different facing similar challenges at this complex time. In geopolitical terms. We welcome, on behalf of the group this association with India, which is clearly a key partner for us. However, of course, we will be looking at the detail of the text itself. The Council and Commission must put sustainable development and human rights in the heart of the text, not as an annex or now the agreement a new relations. When it comes to security connectivity, um, mustn't ask those key priorities for the European Union. The free trade agreement will generate prosperity on both sides. That is true. But it mustn't come at the expense of a robust chapter on sustainable trade and sustainable development. The text must reflect the Paris Agreement, the binding clauses on fundamental principles of the ILO and empowering women and gender equality are very good news indeed. But the socialists will be checking very closely how much of the sustainable trade commitments are truly binding. Now, even though we are feeling the geopolitical pressure, we cannot sacrifice European values and principles in this regard. So just some questions now for the European Commission. Has it been possible to include a clause on human rights and sustainable development as part of the body of the agreement as key parts of the agreement, with clear consequences for what would happen in the case of a violation of labour law. And secondly, when it comes to the €500 million that were being allocated to India in the IndyCar programme, whether those are going to be going to decarbonisation and have they been worked into the agreement as a whole, or are they still kept separate? Thank you.”
  Free trade agreements (FTAs)
• “Thank you. Chair I'm going to speak in Spanish. Okay. First of all, I'd like to express my thanks to everyone in the working group for the efforts put into preparing this proposal. Although after examining the text, generally speaking, my group does agree and feel that it is consistent with our positions. We would like to support the discourse that was made with respect to, first of all, the fact that we need to give More and better supervisory power to the European Parliament. That's fundamental. Secondly, we need to apply the principles of the rule of law in the narrowest way possible when it comes to external financing. And this way we can attain transparency and proper use of public funds. And then, of course, the necessary separation of funds from pre-accession and funds and general financing for Ukraine and other countries. Also, of course, we would also like to present a number of amendments that strengthen two ideas which are fundamental to us. First of all, all you have to do is look at the terrible images of the people who live in Gaza. This is why we would like to propose a Ukraine type facility instrument to help with reconstruction and bring dignity back to all those people who are suffering from the total destruction of Gaza. And secondly, we feel that it is also fundamental that humanitarian aid counts, as with its own single specific budget line, and that it is clearly differentiated because otherwise, ultimately, humanitarian aid funds will end up being reassigned to other pillars, and we would then not be able to ensure that it's protected. So we will be presenting these amendments soon. And of course, our group is available to continue working with the team in all political groups. Thank you so much.”
  Relations with Israel - Palestine
• “Okay. Well, on behalf of the rapporteur, thank you very much for that information on those adjustments to the wages. But we understand that the savings coming from this should come into effect in 2025, before the end of the year. And as was already said yesterday in the trilogue, the rapporteur can accept the approach that has been put forward and integrate that impact of the salary adjustment for 2023, in the three, that would lead to an additional margin of 75 million, or rather a reduction of 75 million in needs for the single margin instrument. So the Commission might clarify whether these 75 million is that the total sum of all of the actions that have been carried out? How are you going to manage the rest of the institutions? How are those institutions going to manage this change by the end of the year. And what impact will that have on the budget? Is it true that the interprofessional minimum wage will be higher? And that means that in 2027 we will have more funds for urine? And this is something that I think the commission already touched on. But just to check, we just want to check on the role of the Parliament. Will we be approving the council's position? Is that correct? The council will carry out the necessary amendments in terms of the figures, and then the Parliament will have to sign off on that for the approval and adoption of the draft amending budget. Is that correct? Thank you.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “And here I want to touch on the last slide which which concluded her comments, which said more debt equals a safer debt. I'd like to ask about that. Because I think that's interesting, but I think I need more information about how that might work. And of course, how would we benefit in the European institutions by having joint debt? That's interesting. And what would happen with what you were saying about having standing debt or permanent debt? Because this would mean we would have a lot of ongoing interest payments. And in the end, perhaps that wouldn't wouldn't that be the same level of spending? So we'd have to look at that. You've said that the debt of the US is 30 times what we have in absolute terms, but it could be useful for us then when it comes to trying to trying to attract long term investors. It could be useful for us to look at increasing debt. And lastly, Mr. Pinker, thank you for your comments. Perhaps I could ask you to develop a couple of points a bit more. You talked about the structural factors to do with what's involved in own resources. What are the factors which you think are blocking progress on that point? And on the same point, you also talked about a kind of wealth tax. The what do you think about whether or not that's actually feasible? We are very interested in that in my group, uh, as we are with taxes on large scale companies. Thank you.”
  Own EU resources
• “It's so important that these own resources provide some autonomy and the council needs to promote to approve them. But then we have to come up with other ideas. I, together with my colleague, have spoken about introducing a digital levy. A digital levy could be an interesting, um, un resource. And we as a group have put forward other ideas which can be assessed together. There was a recent workshop which was held and I want to thank the panelists and speakers there. So those speakers put forward new potential ideas when we, uh, have the debate with the commission about this matter. And then we also shouldn't forget the fact that we have taken on joint debt. The world is increasingly complex and beset with challenges. What we've been saying over recent months is that we need to have transparency on the two mechanisms on Catalyst Europe and the crisis mechanism. We want greater transparency for those two mechanisms. Uh, in terms of their structure and their rollout, I want to thank everyone. I want to thank the rapporteurs. I want to thank those who aren't here today. I want to thank all of those from the political groups. And we hope in the coming weeks that we will reach a joint agreement. Just pointing out that this isn't a report on own resources. Of course it's on the MFF.”
  Own EU resources
• “Thank you. Chair I'm going to speak in Spanish. Firstly, I would like to thank the speakers for their comments this morning because I think that this can help us to focus the debate on what interests us most in the European Parliament, talking about what Mr. Davis said. To begin with, I would like to ask about something which came up several times in the presentation, Which is to do with own resources being a kind of opportunity cost for the member states. The reality, though, is that the ETS and Cbam and so on. If they weren't own resources, well, they wouldn't really exist. So if the member states want to have a common project, they would have to increase their contribution from GNI. So perhaps you could go into that a little more, that idea of the opportunity cost. And then. Perhaps you could. Also draw the link with one of your slides which said that any own resources the commission proposals would take money away from the member states. But the ETS and the Cbam, when the broader sense bring in fresh money and increase the competitiveness of our companies. So perhaps you could say something on that as well. Then I think we need to bear in mind the synergies to be generated from economies of scale. So here, common spending, it is not an opportunity cost really. If we draw things together and put them in different and put them together in different sections of the budget, then I think that's a that generates synergy when it comes to defence, for example, that could be a useful thing to do.”
  Own EU resources
• “Europe cannot believe that it's going to lead the Green Deal or common policies, if we depend on a funding model from the past century. The challenges of the 21st century aren't going to be met with funds, the level of funds from the 20th century. We need to be much more ambitious. We also need a new own resources, which are truly European. They need to give us the independence and also social justice. Therefore, we need to move forward with proposal on own resources that they've had for 2023. We need to have a debate on, um, new joint debt, because when we have common challenges, for example, the pandemic, the only viable response is common responses. We can't allow certain policies to jeopardise our capability in areas such as defence or housing. Europe can't keep improvising. We need to give the EU the measures, the rather the, the funds that it needs. There is no sovereignty without funds, without or without sovereignty, there will be no union.”
  Own EU resources
• “Thank you, Chair. The Recovery and resilience facility was not just a response to the Covid crisis. It was a more ambitious response in terms of European solidarity. The most. Since the creation of the euro. So it's a difference between Europe of austerity and the Europe of strategic investment. Um. I can guarantee you that, uh, on the ground, this has provided impetus for the urban transformation of our territory and economic resilience in one of the worst economic crisis we've experienced in Europe. So I can tell you firsthand that this is a clear, resounding success. And that is why these 18 months are so important for a small local administrations like mine. We're worried about debt, and there is a clear solution in order to have a new own resources. Says, well, that is what we need in order to deal with future challenges. Thank you.”
  Own EU resources
• “We are seeing increasing amounts of information pointing to the fact that young people from Africa are being recruited through deception to fight this illegal war of Russia against Ukraine. This is a serious case of human trafficking and exploitation, exploiting human vulnerabilities and poverty to feed this illegal war. They're using people from difficult contexts as cannon fodder and flaunting, flaunting international law and human rights law. The old order no longer serves us, and the socialists cannot accept this, because this is becoming a world of no rules. If we accept this or look the other way in real cases such as this, well, then we're saying that human rights and international law is an abstract idea. We need to denounce what's happening in Africa, in Ukraine, against Russia, just like we do in Gaza or Iran. Faced with the US and Israel, we have to denounce any attacks on human dignity, regardless of where they happen. We need to be consistent. We hope that other political groups will, too.”
  EU-Russia relations (from March 2022)
• “Thank you. And thank you, chair. I'm going to speak in Spanish. First of all, I'd like to thank the people who are with us for putting together this hearing, which we have high hopes for, because we're aware that we are facing an exceptional scenario with new challenges, new priorities, which of course, require a much more ambitious financial framework than what we have here on the table. And also, we're aware that this is taking place at a time in which national budgets are under a great deal of pressure, and this is where own resources are going to play a fundamental role, because they need to be part of the solution. They should enable the EU to fund its priorities independently without Exacerbating pressure on national budgets or on European citizens. But at the same time, we need to be clear without additional income from other sources, any increase in expenditure will automatically lead to greater national contributions because own resources based on GNP Is continues to be the main source of income and the point of departure of the EU's budget. And therefore, it is absolutely necessary that we be creative and we open the doors to new ideas that enable us to be more independent.”
  Own EU resources
• “Thank you chair. I'm going to speak in Spanish. Thank you to the Vice President and the Secretary General for your presentations. I'd like to Start by mentioning something that the general is quite familiar with. This is an ambitious proposal. When it comes to the non statutory expenditure, 89%, and we will need to be able to focus on these to ensure that the budget is okay. Now if we look at what happened in the budget last year, we're going to tighten our belts to ensure that everything can fit into the budget. Now, when it comes to specific questions on statutory expenditure, there are a few questions which um have which we've noticed. Do you know the um bureau decided to um for certain expenditure, but we've seen an increase in the, in the draft budget at the same time. The, the per diems were also restricted to. To change the per diems for parliamentary systems based on the modifications to salaries. But there's a contradiction here because for the first time, the European Parliament and the Secretary General is presenting a reduction of this proposal compared to 2026. Now, of course, it's our duty to remind you that these are statutory forms of expenditure. They need to be planned and they must also contain contingencies if they are not enough.”
  Budget for EU politicians
• “Thank you. Chair. I'm going to speak in Spanish. First of all, I would like to thank our colleague, Mr. Nerudova, for the close cooperation that we have had when it comes to this budgetary proposal. So from the side of our group, we are largely in agreement with the draft that is being presented. We would like to say, first of all, that the initiative of having a harmonised framework on corporation tax is something that is important for establishing this new own resource. We'd also like to recall the Interinstitutional Agreement, and to reaffirm the position that this new own resource will provide more sources of income for the EU budget. It means more financial autonomy, which is what my group would like to see. I do have a question to the commission In terms of revenue, if they could perhaps give us the latest projections or calculations that they have. So some up to date information. If there's anything new to report in terms of the negotiations with pillar one of the OECD, the situation with the US, what is the current state of play there? And then as we are talking about this particular topic, we would like to know what other types of resources are being considered from the commission side. With the approval of the MFF. It's clear that there is a will to move forward. It's hard to have negotiations on future budgets if we don't have real progress in terms of own resources. So genuine new own resources. So a very clear question. What is the commission doing in this area. Are they working on new proposals, new types of resources? Is this something that will be published? A new own resource a new list of proposals. This would be useful in the context of the MFF. Thank you.”
  Own EU resources
• “Thank you. Chair. I speak in Spanish. Gracias. Thank you very much to all of the presenters here today for your excellent opinion, I would like to make a comment. My idea wasn't to debate, but when it comes to gender equality in the development of our countries and our cities, we need to develop our cities and our countries with the perspective of everyone, not just women. Citizens need to be able to be connected from where people live and where people work and when. We have not enough investment in public transport, not enough in lighting the streets correctly. That is really a lack. I think, of a focus on gender equality that the presenters are putting forth here, and that's been included in the report. There are many cities indeed in our countries where that is a matter of gender equality, where we can make improvements, and the EU has a historic commitment to equality and to gender integration. But we know that there is much that remains to be done. Now, when we talk about gender perspectives, we can't just finance projects. We're doing that, of course, but also really understanding the impact of what these budget decisions have. And I think there's a lot that we could be still doing there.”
  Gender roles, equality and inclusion
• “The definitions in the directive should be more specific, so that they can be correctly implemented, and all member states should transpose them. We need that obligation to follow the rules set out by the directive. Very clearly having those taken into account in order to implement this resource in a truly viable manner. We also have to take account of the inspections issue. Those inspections have to be exhaustive, but they also have to meet the objective of improving and cooperation with Member States for the implementation of this directive and seek constant harmonisation with other countries. We would also like to flag the fact that we should have adequate human and administrative resources to be able to meet the requirements on waste and recycling in the GMB and also in DG Eurostat. So we need people who are going to help to ensure that all member states can actually meet the requirements, and we have to ensure that this own resource is correctly calculated and correctly applied. To conclude. There are certain doubts about whether about the. Approach here. But we would Like maybe to have some kind of proof when it's available. If this means has really helped us to improve recycling, reuse, or reduction in the use of plastic so that we can analyze whether there really is a relationship or a causal link between this resource and the use of plastics by member States. Thank you.”
  Own resources (plastics)
• “Thank you very much. This report should have been an exercise in institutional responsibility, transparency, good governance, you know, making sure that that happens within the EU institutions. We did our job. You know, we did what we said we would do, and we voted for the compromise positions in the petitions committee. But as so often happens in that committee, the EPP, instead of actually supporting the work that had been done, collectively, opened the door to the far right with its ideology, which, by the way, is now repeated in all the different committees in the same way. And they have nothing whatsoever to do with the work done by the institution of the ombudsperson. So what's the outcome? What's the result? The result is that we have before us a report where the actual author had to step back. That's what happened. Like I said, our political group did what it said it would do. Mrs. Nino, you know that our group is responsible and we want to meet our institutional obligations. The responsibility now lies with the People's Party. I'm afraid they have to resolve the problem because they created the problem in the first place. You know, turning this over to the extreme right to say they're not going to vote for the report because of their position, etc.. I think it's time to return to a pro-European stance and common sense.”
  Transparency requirements of EU institutions
• “Thank you. Chair. Colleagues. The amendments to the carbon Border adjustment mechanism is aimed at simplifying administrative burden on our European companies, who import goods that are subject to cbam and from the budget. Standpoint, we think that the reduction in administrative burden will be rather limited. We will be saving about 20 million. But of course, this is only potential because you have to remember that this is a known resource that depends on the agreement on the majority of countries in council, so it's likely to get blocked. So I would like to use my speaking time to ask for this to be opened up and to go back to the agreement that was made in 2023. We need to have a genuine new own resources because we want to see more policies for housing, for competitiveness, for the defence and how we are going to pay for all that if we don't have new own resources. Thank you.”
  Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM)
• “Thank you. Well, first of all, I'd like to thank the four DGs for coming here and talking us through their budget proposals in some detail. But we do still have some questions for DGs. Finn's first of all, we still have some concerns about the budget for staff, particularly APA's members. Assistance. For the first time, we're not covering all the expenses that we would normally be entitled to for our teams, and there's a significant reduction of €15 million. So we've always done it a certain way. And there are certain expectations. What would actually happen if we were to stick with that system and continue. Allocating this expenditure. What would the consequences be overall? What deficit would there be? Looking at the inflation rate and the predictions for the future. There is an increase in allowances for general expenditure and for 2027 we have certain concerns about those allowances. Last year, there was a proposal to keep the financing level for groups, parties and political foundations. There's a 0% that we've had for several years now, but with inflation and the real costs, we're talking about a reduction in real terms. So now we're seeing interference in democracy. That makes it ever more important to provide support for the work of foundations, because we need to uphold our democratic values.”
  Budget for EU politicians
• “You asked for our opinion on this. And it is our view that this could be an interesting proposal. Nonetheless, we do have some doubts about this, having looked at it more in depth. Companies with a higher turnover pay less than companies that have lower turnover. There is an inequality there and we would like that to be clarified. If you would. Now as to the ETS. The legislation on ETS one is already in force. But we would like you to explain why you decided to do away completely with ETS two instead of finding perhaps a combination or a balance of both resources. Has the study been carried out on the impact of this resource in protecting the climate in future? On to Cbam. Now we'd like some more details on hypothetical scenarios for the calculation. And I don't want to speak too much at length, so could the Commission give us information on the council position with regard to reducing customs costs? That's going to go up in the conversations that we've had. We have heard that there is a bit of discontent around that, for obvious reasons, and that's going to have a significant impact on the MFF as well. And I think I will leave things there. Thank you.”
  Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM)
• “Take into account that there will be an adjustment to salaries, increasing salaries at the end of 2026 when it comes to the Spac renovation. We know that this will be done via a loan, but we wanted to ask you if you could say what the profile is for repaying that loan in the long term. And also mopping up. Will this be enough in the upcoming years to deal with this? Now on the political groups 22 and now. Oh, I'm sorry. Just very briefly then, two quick questions on the political groups. They're proposing a 0% reduction. So the 0% proposal, which is actually a reduction, this Parliament created a committee on the Democratic strategy, Democracy Shield. We believe that supporting foundations can help us to defend democratic values. Last question. Participation of APAs in missions year after year in the plenary. This is approved. We need to resolve this question in specific cases when there is no advisor or no other form of support for MEPs, we need to be able to have the APAs able to attend the missions as the statute recognizes. Thank you.”
  Budget for EU politicians
• “But we also need to bear in mind that any new own resources also need to be efficient, just and sustainable. We can't just have any old solution and also income that is stable and It's predictable. Over and above. Solely financing the EU's budget. As I was saying before, the new resources must strengthen resilience and be fully aligned with our political objectives and ensure that the generation of income and development of policies go hand in hand, and that therefore play a positive role in the lives of European citizens. And of course, we also welcome the proposal that the Commission made, bearing in mind the reiterated demands by Parliament that we want new ideas, new genuine own resources, but we also want to go a step further. And hence this hearing enables us to take a look at whether we can take further steps and also table new ideas, in addition to examining, of course, in detail the proposals that have already been put forward by the Commission. So thank you very much to the rapporteurs for this meeting. And of course, this will contribute continue to to contribute to the debate.”
  Own EU resources
• “First of all, thank you to everyone for their presentations and for everything you do. Protecting children. Today it's 35 years since the convention was signed. And yet we have to ask ourselves, are things better than they were 35 years ago? Millions of children continue to grapple with major challenges. The challenges are nutrition. Poverty. Exploitation. Forced displacement, lack of rights, lack of education and sanitation. Then there's also climate crises, political crises, climate change, and everyone's affected by that. But particularly the most vulnerable, i.e. children, boys and girls. And there are more and more threats. So global heating means that many parts of the planet are becoming more and more inhabitable. The digital revolution is uncontrolled and there are many risks for childhood. Children may have less privacy and children may be exposed to cyber bullying and sexual harassment online. And we also hear from war victims that international law is being trampled upon. And those who are most affected are children. Children are being assassinated. Children are losing their family members. Children can't go to school anymore because they don't have a school. They don't have houses. They live in squalid conditions. So what are we as the EU doing in in light of this situation and what war can we do? I'm also a member of the budget committee. And there we don't want any cuts. No, we want more funding for international cooperation projects and anything on the defence of human rights. Humanitarian aid is no minor issue. And actually, we need to have more money going to international development, not less.”
  EU Development & Humanitarian Aid
• “So perhaps you could develop your thinking to do with a legal basis where there would be a tax on deficits, uh, for, a defense budget. And so how would that work exactly? Or would it be based on a decision to spend more or less at the national level? Because this is a new idea for me, and I would like to know more about it. Rounding off on what Mr. Davos said, you you talked about the administrative complexity of some of this. And I'd like to know if there is a tax system in the world which can bring in 150 to €300 million per year with what the, the way that the European Union does. We have advisory committees. We've got different uh, uh, ministries in the different member states. I think it's probably a fairly efficient system. In fact, I wonder if there's a better one, uh, elsewhere in the world. Moving on now to the second speaker. Uh, Miss Christie. I would like to thank her for her comments and ask her if she or what she thinks the ideal level of debt for the European Union might be from a point of view of the markets.”
  EU fiscal rules and oversight of national budgets
• “So I have some comments to read out. We were talking about flood risk plans. I'm from the Valencia region, and as you know, that was one of the regions worst affected by a major flood last year, partly because of a geographical location. It was you know, it's highly likely that this kind of phenomenon will become more serious and more frequent in the future. So of course, we have to be prepared. Part of the funds, of course, are intended to repair damaged caused by disasters, but we don't have sufficient resources and plans to prevent things reaching the scale of a disaster that we've seen recently. People are rebuilding in vulnerable areas, flood prone areas. And so we think that some of the funds available are doomed to be wasted. Because that damage will recur. In which case, of course, the money is not being used as well as it should be. So I have a question with regard to recommendations and plans and proposals to become more resilient, to be better prepared against the risk of flooding of the kind that we have seen last October in my region.”
  Cohesion and rural funding
• “Thank you chair. I'm I'm going to speak in Spanish. First and foremost we would like to say thank you for the report from the Court of Auditors and the presence here to introduce it to us and explain it. And we've already heard this said, but I'd like to stress the fact that of the value of this resource for us, because it's an green own resource. In other words, not only does it aim at generating revenue for the European budget, but it's also linked to one of the objectives of the of EU policy. Um, when we are trying to reduce the impact of of plastic production. So now this own resource. Uh, if it works correctly, we hopefully it would reduce the production of non-recycled plastics so we'd have less, uh, revenue from this, obviously. But I mean, that's the main aim, and it's what we hope will happen. And we have to bear this in mind when we're looking at it. It's not just a fiscal tool. It's also a political tool which will help us to implement the parameters of the Waste Framework Directive. So. I'm looking to focus on the implementation issues for this own resource. And as we've heard from the Co-rapporteur, I would also like to stress certain aspects. First and foremost the data we need for implementation. It's already been shown that there could be divergences between them. We need comparable parameters, and here the court has shown various areas of improvement which would need to be taken into account.”
  Own resources (plastics)
• “In fact, we would take things a little further than that. So I want to start by touching on the digital tax. Why did the Commission decide to leave this to one side, when most of the groups agreed on having that introduced in the proposal, a proposal that I feel would have the backing of the majority of the Parliament and which, without a doubt would be a very attractive source of funding. And further to this, have you thought about taking that further? You talked about new ideas and new proposals linking back to the union's values and principles, like taking care of health. But debates have also been held on a new own resource, which would be linked back to, for instance, high sugar products and how that ties into health. Is this a kind of proposal that could be put on the table? Same goes for alcohol. That might be an interesting way forward as well. And then still in the field of health or mental health, uh, online gaming, online gambling, these are proposals That could be considered. And we think that this should be discussed within the commission, because there is time to discuss that now on core.”
  Own EU resources
• “Thank you. I'm going to speak in Spanish. There's a question which I think could be interesting when it comes to the idea of introducing digital identity and age checking. I think it's important because we are setting limits on the moment at which minors can enter into the digital world, but what happens when that is dependent upon parents. What happens when the parents. From very from the very beginning, give their baby a screen, an iPad, a YouTube, and we can see how children are one, two, three years old are much better at us than navigating a social network. And it works in a way social networks do problems of dopamine peaking, language problems, relationships. So these could be described as symptoms of autism. So when it comes to discussing this idea of how and what limits to set when it comes to allowing them onto social networks, I think we need to remember that needs to go hand in hand with awareness raising campaigns. Which warn against introducing children to social networks too early. I think we're all aware that we shouldn't give our children too much sugar. Nor allow them to drink alcohol. Now, it used to be that we'd give them a bit of rum whenever they had toothache. Now we've understood that that's not wise, and we're in the same position here. There are scientific studies that have clearly demonstrated that there is an impact on cerebral development of children who excessively use screens, and that is as damaging for their personality development. So I think the commission should be doing more in terms of raising awareness and carrying out campaigns that will affect the actions of parents. Thank you.”
  Safety features & content control for child protection online
• “So we demand, first of all, that the Commission respects the fact that the Parliament is also an arm of the budget authority, and that. The Commission keep us better informed as to what intends to do with the new instrument. There's also a philosophical question which the first speaker raised, which I think is also important. Protection of human rights is not something which can be secondary in relation to our strategic or economic interests. That's something else which we have to talk about. We need a public debate where we have to make it clear that the European Union can't step back in certain regions of the world. The human rights, the European Union should be a beacon when it comes to human rights. And the fact is, the rapporteur seems to be calling for more pragmatism when it comes to the choices we make. So that for the two first speakers in particular, I'd like to ask you about that. What we are suggesting is that we try to reinstate certain budgetary lines, specific lines for human rights and humanitarian protection. I would like to ask you what you think about that. So what do you think about reinstating those lines as they were in the previous MFF, or should we have a geographical approach? And I'd also like to hear what the commission representative has to say about this. And I think that most groups in the Parliament agree with what I've just been suggesting. That's it. Thank you.”
  EU foreign policy approach
• “Thank you. Chair, I'm going to speak in Spanish to. Thank you Commissioner. I won't repeat the vast majority of the remarks that have been made here today. I have a specific question on the crisis loan mechanism. It's a lot of money, and that's not going to be subject to the usual rules. But we feel that there is actually a lack of scrutiny on the way that money is spent here within the Parliament. Our view is that it would be more effective and indeed more democratic, to put forward a proposal for a regulation. Setting out a crisis instrument via the ordinary legislative procedure. If we do things that way, we will be able to agree beforehand on the specific type of situations that debt can be triggered. And in this way, we will guarantee legal certainty, predictability, and most importantly, the conditions that will be relevant there to ensure that there are safeguards and that there is scrutiny. Following on from the experience of the Recovery and Resilience Facility, we feel that it's better to do things this way. It's more logical to have a better idea of how this fund is going to be spent. Experience has shown that when and when a crisis hits, there's simply not enough time to deliberate and to discuss things in depth and in terms of the role of the Parliament, in terms of the citizens, it makes more sense to go with the ordinary legislative procedure on this one. Thank you.”
  Conditions to access EU budget
• “We need to be clear that the Turnberry Agreement is signed by Trump. And von der Leyen was extremely unbalanced, and it is even more unbalanced now given the context. The US has acted in an unfair manner with threats and pressure. They've also threatened Spain. This is not a cooperation between allies. This is coercion. And that's why today we're not going to give a blank check to this. What we're going to do is set limits. We say this quite clearly. Europe will only comply when the US complies with Europe. And if it doesn't, then we'll suspend the agreement because we're not going to accept a framework when our workers, businesses and our sovereignty is subordinated to the chaos that is the Trump administration. So we need to say extremely clearly, Europe will not negotiate under pressure. Europe will not accept threats, and Europe will not renounce the defense of its interests. We support this mandate because it strengthens the Parliament's position. But let's be clear about one point. Without reciprocity, without respect, without guarantees, there will be no agreement. Thank you very much.”
  EU-US trade relations
• “Thank you very much. Thank you all for your very interesting presentations on this. So as far as my group is concerned, I must say that we are worried and we do share with the concerns voiced by share the concerns voiced by the two first speakers about the impact of this on the human rights instrument. The fact is, we have to make it clear to the Commission that concerns you voiced are shared here in the European Parliament by most groups. This week will be voting on amendments to the MFF. Put forward by the Affect Committee and the. They will be calling on the Commission to reinstate funding for specific human rights um lines. It's important that we speak with a single voice regarding the issues put forward by the Commission. The vast majority of groups are in favour of restating reinstating funding for that pillar and for the specific lines, not only for human rights but also for humanitarian aid, where funding is also being diluted. There have been calls for greater flexibility, and this is an opinion which has been voiced in many committees in many areas of the European Union's work. However, the fact is. This has also been extended to human rights protection. So there are calls for flexibility. But what for? We have flexibility when it comes to funds for competitiveness or industry. How can you have flexibility when it comes to human rights? So the fact is that certain programs, resources, programs for human rights protection. Might in fact disappear. And there's a lack of transparency. And the various different political groups have agreed that there is an objective lack of transparency with the new regulation.”
  EU competences on human rights
• “Thank you. Chair. I'm going to speak in Spanish. First of all, thank you to all my colleagues from the political groups and for the amendments on own resources. Let me also say I'm grateful for the good work with the rapporteurs. Thank you to both of you. It's been easy to work with you. Obviously we're waiting and we're going to analyze all of the amendments and that will help us to set priorities. But I just want to give some initial comments. For us, it is so important that we have an ambitious MFF. There needs to be enough of the MFF to encompass new priorities without forgetting our old traditional priorities. And I think we see eye to eye on that as political groups. So it's very important to focus on the size of the MFF. But there are two burning issues here. One is on resources which will give us sufficient autonomy. Let me remind you a bit about own resources. So it's not just a real, um, this is not an own resources report. It's an MFF report. So we haven't gone into the ins and outs in reaction to the Commission proposal on own resources, which we do support. No. We thought it was better to be strategic and look at the €70. Which is what we need to deal with future challenges. And so what the commission has put forward on this issue is just a bare minimum. But we also want to put forward new ideas.”
  Own EU resources · Size of EU budget
• “Thank you. President. Yesterday, Trump threatened Europe once again with reopening the trade war because we sanctioned Google Uncle, Big tech and American big tech company blocking legitimate competitiveness of European people that use it. And this looking at warehousing where big bosses of platforms dine with Trump whilst uh, complaining that they are, uh, submitting to Europe's interests. So the digital tax isn't just, uh, tax justice, it's to do with European sovereignty, democratic dignity. It's saying to Trump that he can, uh, dress the table and serve dinner to millionaires, whereas Europeans, all we care about is when they get up from the table, they need to pay the bill. Thank you.”
  EU-US trade relations
• “Thank you. Chair. Sorry. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, let's get started. Well, we've had a look at the report and I'd just like to highlight the main points here. We are pleased to see the increase in €2 billion for the year, for the Regional Development Fund, and indeed for the cap within the framework of the general transfer this year. That's a positive sign for the implementation of the programme. Things are moving forward after that somewhat slow start in the initial period in 2021. We also wish to underscore that the reinforcement of the structural funds and the cap is key to keep supporting agriculture and to promote sustainable rural development. We would like to see swifter implementation for the. We would like to to see overall swift implementation. At the same time, we are pleased to see that the strategic technology platform was up and running more swiftly than initially thought. Additional funds have been channelled into that and we hope that the take up will be effective. We note that advances have been made when it comes to the Sustainable Fisheries section, and we see to the role of the budgetary authority that will be working while the relevant inputs come in. At the same time, there has been a drop in effective payments on customs supervision. But we note with satisfaction the savings in the technical support instrument.”
  Cohesion and rural funding
• “Spanish. Well, first of all, I'd like to thank the three speakers for their magnificent presentations. And I'd like to start with a question. It seems a very simple one, but it's actually very complex. The High Representative has said how over the last few years there's been an increase in the number of cases. The number of cases of direct and indirect victims, And I've read that there could be up to 25%. That's up to 41,000 children who have been recruited. 23,000 who may have been the victim of torture and physical abuse. The reality is that in this report, there is a significant increase. And so that's why the question I'm going to ask is complex, not simple. What is happening here? Why is the situation so bad here? Bearing in mind that armed conflicts are increasing in number and in degree of violence. So why are we failing? What could be done better? Not only the international community, but specifically the European Union. And here I'd like to ask some more specific questions. The High Representative talked in the report about the fact that there had been cases of child soldiers in Colombia recently. And the Colombia has signed the convention. So what could be done about that? I'd also like to ask the representative of the union about two things.”
  EU competences on human rights
• “So we need an increase. Every year there's a provision for APAs. Being able to go on mission in certain circumstances. The rules of procedure does provide for parliamentary assistance to provide assistance in certain circumstances. So we would like that to continue to be covered. Dgs. Ytech. This is a priority for our group. We see cyber security as absolutely vital. That is a historic priority for the European Parliament. Nonetheless. We could perhaps rethink, be more ambitious and raise investment levels since we have DGs here. I just wanted to briefly mention improving management of emails. There. There's a lot of spamming. Uh, and, uh, email isn't very manageable. We keep getting bombarded with messages. So I think in terms of our day to day work that could be made more efficient in operational terms. One very specific point to round off, could you give us a figure? For Parliament's presence on X, because with all these bots and all these infringements of EU rules by X, and given the hostility of that platform and its owner towards the EU, shouldn't we be reassessing the cost benefit analysis of the European Parliament being on X? Shouldn't we get off X? Thanks.”
  Cybersecurity investments for critical infrastructure
• “So first of all, as regards the. Digital box, after all the difficulty as relations with the United States. Or perhaps there could be an examination of the direct consequence in the EU of the use of this tax. And one thing that I think is very interesting is that the most hard hit businesses are the ones that do online commerce. So I was wondering whether we couldn't pinpoint the digital platforms, social networks that don't generate products that just carry out trade using personal data, which and on addictions that have an impact on mental health, that don't affect labor. But I think it would be useful to try to refocus the digital tax and target this type of platform rather than online trade, which in the majority of cases actually produce real goods and services. And with respect to the last speaker, I would like to say thank you for putting ideas on the table, which are of interest to our group over the last few years. And if I may, I would like to introduce a new idea for your consideration. If you feel it's appropriate to have a discussion on speculative attacks on speculative investment in real estate markets, not for use of homes, but rather investment funds that take advantage of the single market that are distorting the housing market by purchasing homes, expelling people, citizens who live in our cities. And perhaps if there could be a tax that would expressly target speculative real estate purchases, and then along the lines that you're considering something positive or something to be considered during the discussion. Thank you.”
  EU taxation policy (political compass)
• “Thank you Commissioner. Today, we're not talking about balancing the MFF with more own resources. Today. We are saying that own resources have to meet the criteria of social justice and European sovereignty. And the European Parliament's proposal of including online betting as own resource is going in the right direction. It's an activity that creates no real value. It doesn't make us better or more competitiveness, rather the opposite. People are making money off the vulnerability of young, precarious people. And if we use the same business model well, we could also look at social media or speculation in the form of cryptocurrency. And there is an invisible thread through all of this. And that is addiction. We're facing business models that are designed to monetize our time, to capture the attention of young people and to use up their savings. They have created a system that not only manipulates vulnerability, it creates it, it feeds it, and it turns it into a profitable business model. And when this model creates such huge social costs in the form of the mental health of young people, Then Europe's response cannot be inaction or looking the other way. Commissioner. Often it seems that Europe is paralyzed by its through its fear of Trump. And we know very well that some significant resources, such as the digital tax, have been kept in a drawer because of fear of American tech companies. But the solution can never be asking more effort of our companies or of our families. The solution has to be requiring those who make money from our single market to contribute more, and who don't give us anything positive in exchange. So this proposals should be included in the proposal for own resources. And there should be specific taxation on cryptocurrency as well. There's been an addiction industry, which is a machine to turn the vulnerability of our young people into economic profits. Our goal should be to control this, to get them to pay for the damage they create, and to look out for the future of our youth.”
  Own EU resources
• “One good example when it comes to climate. Yes, there are quantifiable objectives. But when we talk about gender equality, we don't have those. And therefore, my question would be as follows in the upcoming debate on the MFF in the near future, should we have specific figured objectives in gender equality? And do you think that would be enough? And also, there are many discussions about linking these objectives to conditionality. So should there be budget conditionality linked to the article 12 fundamental values that includes equality. How could we draft something like that where there is a conditionality in terms of gender equality to budget? And when it comes to the figures here, what we can see is that there aren't enough indicators in our programmes. So what could we do to improve that? The data that we have, legislatively speaking, how could we improve understanding in terms of the data? And it's true that the Commission cannot fully understand if all programmes. Are positive for gender equality in the same way that we would for climate. So can we introduce a no, um, a clause that states that there's no harm done along gender equality lines like we have for climate. Thank you.”
  Gender roles, equality and inclusion
• “Thank you president. Now our group strongly supports the report on the EIB for its 2024 work. It speaks of a Europe that invests with responsibility for climate to fight climate change. When you hear what's being said by the far right and others, we can tell that it's actually going in the right direction. Now, Nadia Calvino has really marked a turning point under her leadership. It's moved from a purely financial perspective to becoming a true engine of social cohesion. Let's talk about housing. More than €8.7 billion have been invested in. Housing and urban regeneration. The EIB is responding to the housing crisis. However, we need more. We need more ambition, more investment and more cooperation with local authorities because access to housing cannot be a privilege. It is a right and the EIB should help make it possible. Thank you. Thank you.”
  EU policy on urban development
• “Uncertainty is on the rise in Europe, not just because of the wars, but because of the new challenges we faced. For example, the rising frequency of natural disasters that we see in my own region in Valencia as well. Obviously, these problems will not be resolved only by the annual budget, but if we have sufficient resources, we will be able to take action where it's needed. And against this backdrop of uncertainty and risks, external risks, our group wants a budget that will generate prosperity for citizens, that generates job opportunities and strengthens our security without leaving anyone behind. So our priorities are social investment, affordable housing, defending European values, implementation of the European Green Deal, and defense cooperation and security cooperation, but most importantly, a stronger role for Europe on the global stage. All of that is very important because it's going to set the scene for the next MFF.”
  Size of EU budget
• “We've received many, many petitions from concerned parents about the use of social media among their daughters and sons. We've talked about the content they access. We've heard about overexposure in terms of time abuse. Uh. Um, social media, how it affects their personal development, uh, cyberbullying, dopamine, uh, sexualized content. But there is one thing that I don't think has been said and has not been brought into the debate, which I think we should also, because we're talking about all this and how we look at regulating the use of social media and internet, uh, for our children. I'll slow down a little bit. Um, how we regulate or also limit when parents, adults use use their children to create content on the internet. That's something that we also need to be talking about here. Because quite honestly, I am horrified when little boys and girls, even babies, are used for viral Challenges, uh, to hurt them. To scare them, uh, even violence against them. I'm horrified to see, I mean, how we sometimes expose our children in ways that can be picked up by, uh, pedophile rings. You know, they might use AI to dot to those images because there is overexposure. There are certain parents who have made their working lives and their home lives involving putting their kids on the internet. Look at the Truman Show. This was, uh, seen to be an amazing out there movie, what, 20 years ago? But now there are these. Mums that virtually have, you know, the moment they're giving birth is on film, and these kids are just being exposed on the internet from the moment they come out into the world. That's something we need to talk about. The use of children by parents to gain to, to, to create online content to an agreement.”
  Safety features & content control for child protection online
• “We take note, too, of lower absorption of payments within the Ukraine instrument, and we do acknowledge that some loans will be able to be extended to the following year. And we would call for the investment to continue. As to the union's decentralised agency. We see that there are a range of technical adjustments in their contributions. We note with satisfaction the optimisation of resources in the framework of operational programmes such as life or the single market programme. But in some cases there are loans that are not being taken up due to delays in the procurement or new legislative initiatives. So once again, we would underscore our steadfast support for the new anti-money laundering body, and we would like the related operational tasks to proceed more swiftly. There has been income, too, from fines and penalties, and that can lead to a drop in national contributions based on GNI. We take note of the inclusion of €1.3 billion from the excess of traditional resources. And at the same time, we do have some doubts about the frequent updates throughout the year of the customs duties income. The deadline to table amendments to this report is the 7th of November. Thank you.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “President. Commissioner. During the coming years, Europe's cohesion, security and competitiveness will be at stake. And the Mediterranean Corridor needs to be part of the response to future challenges. It's not just any old infrastructure here. We're talking about connecting the South with the rest of Europe. Here we're talking about strategic autonomy, military mobility and economic resilience. But we mustn't forget that parts of the Mediterranean corridor still need to be established. I mean, we're moving forward in a determined manner in Spain. But France has postponed the connection between Montpellier and Perpignan until 2034, and that puts the corridor at risk and also puts at risk rail interoperability with the rest of Europe. Renfe has not been allowed to get involved as well, so that makes things more difficult. As the commission knows, investing in our networks can generate thousands, if not millions of jobs and half and millions of €500 million euros. But this can only happen if member states stand together and comply with their responsibilities. So we need more political will and more resources for the Mediterranean Corridor. Thank you.”
  EU transport infrastructure integration