Mireia BORRÁS PABÓN

Policy topics Mireia BORRÁS PABÓN is active on

What Mireia BORRÁS PABÓN has said (59)

• 2026-03-10 “Answer given by Mr Šefčovič on behalf of the European Commission 4.5.2026 Written question The information portal of the Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development (DG AGRI) [1] is based on data transmitted by the EU Member States to the Commission via the Customs Surveillance system [2] . The data in the Customs Surveillance system are generated in real time once transmitted by the national customs authorities. Official European statistics on imports of all goods are published by Eurostat [3] . These statistics are published with a delay of 1.5 months after the reference month. The Commission has opened infringement cases against Member States that have failed to comply with the reporting obligations related to the Customs Surveillance system [4] . In addition, the Commission is working together with the authorities of the Member States to ensure that missing datasets are completed and transmitted to the Commission as soon as possible. It should be noted that this technical issue is not related to the international framework of the EU-Morocco Association Agreement. Through an analysis of official data made available by relevant national authorities, the Commission regularly monitors the market of fruit and vegetables. The Commission also conducts consultations of experts in the dedicated tomatoes market observatory, including on the import of products into the EU market. [1] https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/DashboardTaxud/TaxudWeeklyImport.html. [2] https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/online-services/online-services-and-databases-customs/surveillance-system_en. [3] https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/bookmark/6929f9ba-01b4-4dd2-b03e-f14b4a9ee3dc?lang=en&createdAt=2026-04-13T13:21:25Z. [4] https://ec.europa.eu/implementing-eu-law/search-infringement-decisions/?langCode=EN: List of cases opened in relation to SURV 3: INFR(2025)2059; INFR(2025)2058; INFR(2025)2058; INFR(2025)2057; INFR(2025)2056; INFR(2025)2055; INFR(2025)2054; INFR(2025)2014; INFR(2025)2013; INFR(2025)2012; INFR(2025)2011; INFR(2025)2010; INFR(2025)2009; INFR(2025)2007.”
  Import of agri-food products in the EU
• 2025-12-03 “E-004804/2025 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission The Commission would like to refer the Honourable Member to the answers to Parliamentary Questions P-004688/2025 1 , E-000029/2026 2 , and P-004548/2025/rev.1 3 , which outlines the robust framework for lumpy skin disease (LSD) control established by EU legislation 4 , aligned with the World Organisation for Animal Health standards and supported by European Food Safety Authority assessments 5 . As explained therein, EU legislation provides for surveillance and containment measures, including emergency protective vaccination, ensures the effectiveness and proportionality of control measures, and foresees support from the Union vaccine bank as well as financial assistance and compensation. Those replies also clarify that vaccination is an important complementary tool but does not replace stamping-out once an outbreak is confirmed. Immediate culling of affected outbreak establishment remains essential to prevent further spread and ensure swift eradication. The current framework provides a solid legal basis and regulatory certainty for the livestock sector for the management and containment of the disease. The Commission continuously considers the latest scientific information and field experience when updating these rules. 1 Spread of lumpy skin disease (LSD): https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-10-2025004688_EN.html. 2 Management of lumpy skin disease: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-10-2026000029_EN.html. 3 Lumpy skin disease outbreak in Catalonia – EU preparedness and vaccine availability: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/P-10-2025-004548_EN.html. 4 Regulation (EU) 2016/429 (‘Animal Health Law’), Commission Delegated Regulations (EU) 2020/687 and (EU) 2023/361. 5 https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7121.”
  Animal diseases prevention and management in the EU
• 2025-11-19 “E-004616/2025 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Séjourné on behalf of the European Commission The Commission based its proposal on the opinion of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) and its Committee for Risks assessment (RAC) and Committee for Socio-Economic Analysis (SEAC). SEAC performed a full analysis of the socio-economic impacts of the restriction, taking into account the stakeholders views and information submitted through two public consultations. SEAC considered the survey among hunters indicating a possible 25 % drop in hunting but also observed that experience from past regulatory national measures on lead ammunition does not indicate a sustained decline of hunting activities. Concerning the costs of the restriction for hunters, SEAC concluded that the proposed restriction can be considered proportionate, based on cost-effectiveness analysis and costbenefit considerations. Discussions with the Member States in the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) Committee on the proposed restriction are ongoing, including on the most appropriate duration for transitional periods, in order to strike a careful balance between minimising impacts on hunters and businesses and limiting lead emissions. To address Member States’ and stakeholders’ concerns, the Commission has proposed to extend the transitional period for using centrefire bullets of calibre equal or greater than 5.6 millimetres for hunting to five years, and that of centrefire bullets of calibre smaller than 5.6 millimetres and all rimfire bullets to 15 years. Discussions with Member States in the REACH Committee, including on the length of the transitional periods, are expected to continue in 2026.”
  Chemicals regulation
• 2025-06-25 “E-002548/2025 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission The Commission is aware of the serious problems that the species Rugulopteryx okamurae is causing in various coastal areas of Andalucía, elsewhere in Spain and increasingly in other EU Member States. As regards potential uses of this alga, Article 9 of the Invasive Alien Species Regulation 1 would not be the appropriate Article, since authorisations under this Article may be granted, upon request from the Member States and in exceptional cases of compelling public interest, usually to establishments that are already carrying out commercial activities, typically with live specimens. The Article relevant to potential commercialisation of this species would be Article 19(2) of the Regulation, which states that ‘The commercial use of already established invasive alien species may be temporarily allowed as part of the management measures aimed at their eradication, population control or containment, under strict justification and provided that all appropriate controls are in place to avoid any further spread’. Such management measures may be taken by the Member States and must respect the provisions of Article 19 of the Regulation and any relevant national legislation, but they are not subject to authorisation from the Commission. For more information on the national/regional measures implemented or planned, also as regards commercialisation of Rugulopteryx okamurae, the Commission refers the Honourable Member to the competent authorities in the Member State. 1 Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 on the prevention and management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species, OJ L 317, 4.11.2014, p. 35– 55.”
  EU ocean policy · Circular economy
• 2025-06-25 “E-002549/2025 Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission The Commission is closely monitoring the situation on the sugar market, which is stabilising after prices dropped following the record high prices of the two previous marketing years. Regarding plant health, the Commission will present a proposal to simplify rules and streamline procedures of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 1 end of 2025, to accelerate the placing on the market of sustainable plant protection products. This would help crops for which the portfolio of active substances has been shrinking due to the implementation of that Regulation’s protection goals for human health and the environment. As announced in the Vision for Agriculture and Food, the availability of alternative substances will be carefully considered before deciding on any further ban unless the substance is presenting a threat to human health or the environment. The Commission aims to maintain the existing safety net measures under the Common Market Organisation for market crises. Member States also have the possibility, through their Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) Strategic Plans, to support tools for managing risks. In its recent proposal 2 the Commission made the use of such tools simpler. On the review of the EU-Ukraine Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area, an agreement in principle has been reached between the Parties and was announced on 30 June 2025 3 . In this context, the volume of the current sugar tariff-rate quota of 20 070 tonnes should be increased to 100 000 tonnes. This represents an 80% decrease compared to sugar imports from Ukraine in 2023. The market access is conditional on Ukraine’s alignment to the EU agricultural production standards by 2028. The agreement includes also a robust safeguard mechanism to protect EU markets. 1 Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, OJ L 309, 24.11.2009, p. 1. 2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:fa7c3535-3189-11f0-8a4401aa75ed71a1.0001.02/DOC_1&format=PDF. 3 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_1672.”
  EU policy on pesticides
• 2025-06-25 “E-002546/2025 Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission The reduction of cereal acreage in Spain over the last 20 years reflects broader trends across the EU partly explained by a shift towards more oilseed crops. Despite the difficulties posed by recurrent droughts in Spain, the outlook for the current season is very positive, with crop production well above historical levels. Yet, Spain will remain a major cereal importer due to its traditional deficit and the rapid growth of its pigmeat sector, which has increased by about 40% over the last 10 years. Given higher domestic production this season the Commission anticipates lower imports, notably of soft wheat from Ukraine. Moreover, as per the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area (DCFTA) agreement reached in principle, as announced on 30 June 2025 1 , the revised volumes of the tariff rate quotas for imports of maize, wheat and barley from Ukraine will be limited to 1 000 000, 1 300 000 and 450 000 tonnes respectively, far below imports of these products in 2023 and 2024. This market access is conditional on Ukraine’s alignment to the EU agricultural production standards by 2028. The agreement includes also a robust safeguard mechanism to protect EU markets. While global and EU cereal prices are currently relatively low, they remain roughly 10% higher than during the same period in 2020. The Commission is actively monitoring the market, as well as trends in farmers’ operating costs and gross margins. As things stand, the analysis of the Commission services indicates that there is no significant disturbance warranting the activation of additional measures. Moreover, the Common Agricultural Policy, in particular through its income support measures, provides stability to farmers’ income. The Commission remains fully committed to supporting EU farmers. 1 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/api/files/document/print/en/ip_25_1672/IP_25_1672_EN.pdf.”
  Direct payments to farmers (pillar 1)
• 2025-06-25 “E-002547/2025 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission Based on available information, the la Vega de Mestanza plant would serve, among others, Alhaurín el Grande, one of the agglomerations covered by an infringement case 1 for which Spain is paying fines for failing to comply with the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive 2 . The Commission, which attaches high importance to ensuring implementation of EU law, lacks information to ascertain whether or not this project complies with EU law. National courts play a key role in enforcing Union law in individual cases of possible bad application 3 . The planning and permitting of large 4 urban wastewater treatment plants must be subject to an assessment 5 of significant effects, including on biodiversity, water, land and soil. The risk of accidents or disasters and vulnerability to climate change including extreme weather events must also be assessed. Moreover, local climatic conditions as well as seasonal variation in wastewater must be considered when designing treatment plants 6 . In addition, flood risk management plans 7 should consider a flood risk 8 assessment and be considered in spatial and land-use planning including the building of such plants. The Commission is aware that ‘land take’ is an environmental challenge 9 and a concern for the farming community. The Commission will launch an EU Observatory on Farmland 10 to enhance transparency in land use, as well as loss of agricultural land. Member States should also consider the land take hierarchy put forward in the EU Soil Strategy for 2030 11 and contribute to achieve the EU policy objective of ‘no net land take’ by 2050. 1 INFR(2004)2031. https://ec.europa.eu/atwork/applying-eu-law/infringementsproceedings/infringement_decisions/?lang_code=en&langCode=EN&version=v1&typeOfSearch=byCase&page =14&size=10&order=ascending&sortColumns=memberState&infringementType=BAD&activeCase=true; Judgment of 14.04.2011 of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU Case) C-343/10: https://eurlex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62010CJ0343 and judgment of 25.07.2018 of the CJEU- Case C-205/17: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&num=C-205/17&td=ALL. 2 Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment, OJ L 135, 30.5.1991, p. 40–52. 3 As set out in Communication from the Commission ‘EU Law: Better Results through Better Application’C(2016)8600 final. 4 With a capacity exceeding 150 000 population equivalent. 5 Pursuant to Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, OJ L 26, 28.1.2012, p. 1–21, as amended by Directive 2014/52/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014, OJ L 124, 25.4.2014, p. 1–18. 6 Article 10 of Council Directive of 21 May 1991 concerning urban wastewater treatment (91/271/EEC). 7 Directive 2007/60/EC of 23 October 2007 on the assessment and management of flood risks, OJ L 288, 6.11.2007. 8 https://discomap.eea.europa.eu/floodsviewer/?page=Page. 9 https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/analysis/maps-and-charts/land-take-during-2018-by?activeTab=570bee2d-131648cf-adde-4b640f92119b. 10 Vision for Agriculture and Food: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52025DC0075. 11 https://environment.ec.europa.eu/publications/eu-soil-strategy-2030_en.”
  EU policy on water management
• 2024-12-10 “E-002845/2024 Answer given by Mr Kadis on behalf of the European Commission The Western Mediterranean management plan 1 (MAP) aims to secure a sustainable and profitable future for the sector relying on healthy fish stocks. The Commission has worked with all stakeholders to implement gradually the MAP since its adoption by the co-legislators in 2019. While the fishing opportunities adopted by the Council have gradually reduced trawling effort since 2020, numerous flexibilities alleviated the reduction, such as additional fishing days granted by the compensation mechanism. Moreover, European financial assistance is available to those fishers who opt in. The Commission proposal for the 2025 fishing opportunities was based on the best available scientific advice provided by the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries 2 (STECF) and extended the compensation mechanism. Taking all available data and models into account, the STECF advice shows that several stocks are outside of safe biological limits and drastic catch reductions are needed for stocks to recover. For 2025, the Council decided to keep the reductions proposed by the Commission, while expanding the compensation mechanism. The socio-economic specificities of the Western Mediterranean fisheries were considered during the negotiations of the MAP, and the co-legislators agreed to postpone the achievement of sustainable fisheries to 2025 3 . The Commission has worked based on STECF socio-economic analyses that conclude how ambitious management measures will rapidly pay off with healthier stocks and increased sector profitability. In 2024, the Commission had extensive discussions with all stakeholders. The Commission will continue working with Member States, scientists 4 and the fishing sector for the implementation of the MAP. 1 Regulation (EU) 2019/1022 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 establishing a multiannual plan for the fisheries exploiting demersal stocks in the western Mediterranean Sea and amending Regulation (EU) No 508/2014. OJ L 172, 26.6.2019, p. 1–17. 2 STECF Expert Working Group EWG 24-10 (https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/d/stecf/tors_ewg_24-10) and STECF Expert Working Group EWG 24-12 (https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/d/stecf/ewg_2412_tor_westmed_fisheries-management). 3 A 5 year derogation compared to other sea basins, for which the legal requirement to achieve sustainable fisheries had to be achieved by 2020 at the latest. 4 providing the latest data and models available.”
  Environmental regulation of fisheries
• 2024-11-18 “E-002563/2024 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission 1. Since Regulation (EU) 2017/625 of the European Parliament and of the Council on official controls on the agri-food chain 1 does not define what constitutes a ‘serious disruption’ of a Member State’s control system, the Commission uses a wide range of evidence on the implementation of Union legislation by Member States to evaluate their official control systems. Such evidence includes the reports of the Commission’s audits, data from information technology (IT) systems managed by the Commission and from Member States’ annual reports, and information related to financial support for actions carried out by Member States. So far, a serious disruption has only been found in the specific situation of the COVID-19 pandemic 2 . 2. Consignments entering the Union from non-EU countries are subject to a robust system of official controls based on harmonised EU legislation, notably Regulation (EU) 2017/625, which aims to ensure that only safe commodities may enter the EU. In cases of identified ‘trade risks’, a number of effective measures are available which include intensified official controls at entry into the Union for products of animal origin 3 , the imposition of treatments to ensure the absence of health risks, sampling and testing and controls performed by the country of origin, emergency measures including the suspension of entry of commodities 4 and the de-listing of non-EU countries’ establishments, regions or of whole non-EU countries, so that import of concerned agri-food products is to be restricted. 1 http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2017/625/oj 2 No longer in force, date of end of validity: 01/09/2021: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2020/466/oj 3 http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2019/1873/oj 4 Example: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2022/478/oj”
  GMOs
• 2024-11-15 “E-002553/2024 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission Food safety for European consumers is a top priority for the Commission. Food products placed on the EU market must comply with very stringent standards. This applies equally to goods imported or produced in the EU. The use of the active substance sodium arsenite has never been approved in the EU. According to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 1 , the maximum residue levels (MRLs) for this substance are set at 0.01 mg/kg (the lowest level that can be measured by analytical laboratories) for all food and feed products, including wine. Wine containing measurable levels of sodium arsenite cannot be imported into the EU. These levels remain unaltered regardless of trade agreements concluded by the EU. According to Regulation (EU) 2017/625 2 Member States must carry out official controls and enforcement activities at all stages of production, including at the import stage, to ensure that only products in compliance with the applicable legislation are placed on the market. However, the Commission recognises the importance of continuous improvement in monitoring and enforcement mechanisms. In response to evolving risks and challenges, the Commission is committed to enhancing the rigor of its audits and checks, working closely with Member States to ensure a robust enforcement framework. Where food of non-animal origin from third countries poses a contamination risk, the Commission may take measures through Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1793 3 which may include checks at border control posts at harmonised frequencies. Although wine from third countries is currently not subject to such measures, the Commission remains vigilant and ready to intensify oversight and adapt its strategies to ensure the highest level of consumer safety. 1 http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2005/396/oj 2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2017/625/oj 3 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2019/1793/oj”
  GMOs
• 2024-11-07 “P-002462/2024 Answer given by Ms Lahbib on behalf of the European Commission In the context of the devastating floods in eastern Spain, Spain proactively requested the activation of the EU Copernicus satellite mapping system 1 on 29 October 2024 and over 80 satellite maps have been produced. Spain also activated the EU Civil Protection Mechanism 2 on 8 November 2024 and several other Member States offered support in that framework. The Commission also deployed two liaison officers. Spain can also apply for a financial contribution from the EU Solidarity Fund 3 . If and when adopted by co-legislators, Spain may also benefit from the flexibilities proposed under the cohesion policy framework in the framework of the recent legislative proposal on the Regional Emergency Support to Reconstruction 4 . Within the European Social Fund Plus 5 , flexibilities are proposed to provide immediate support for food and basic assistance, access to healthcare and financing of short-time work schemes. Support may be provided from other EU funding instruments, such as those under the common agricultural policy 6 including the mobilisation of the Agricultural Reserve or under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development 7 for which the recent legislative proposal 8 also provides additional liquidity support to farmers, forest holders and small and medium-sized enterprises affected by natural disasters, still to be implemented under the Rural Development Programmes 2014 - 2022. The recovery and resilience plan of Spain can also be modified in line with the procedures of the Recovery and Resilience Facility 9 to introduce measures covering reconstruction efforts. It is the prerogative of the Member State concerned to decide whether and when to request EU assistance. 1 https://emergency.copernicus.eu/mapping/#zoom=2&lat=13.56036&lon=33.82273&layers=0BT00 2 https://civil-protection-humanitarian-aid.ec.europa.eu/what/civil-protection/eu-civil-protection-mechanism_en 3 https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/funding/solidarity-fund_en 4 Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council RESTORE – Regional Emergency Support to Reconstruction amending Regulation (EU) 2021/1058 and Regulation (EU) 2021/1057, COM(2024) 496 final. 5 https://european-social-fund-plus.ec.europa.eu/en 6 https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/common-agricultural-policy_en 7 https://commission.europa.eu/funding-tenders/find-funding/eu-funding-programmes/european-agriculturalfund-rural-development-eafrd_en 8 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM%3A2024%3A495%3AFIN 9 https://commission.europa.eu/business-economy-euro/economic-recovery/recovery-and-resilience-facility_en”
  EU policy on victims' compensation rights
• 2024-11-06 “E-002435/2024 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission The EU legislation on the protection of animals during transport 1 is being revised to align it with the latest scientific evidence, to broaden its scope, to make its enforcement easier and ultimately, to ensure a higher level of animal welfare. The process of preparing the Commission proposal has been supported by scientific opinions developed by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) 23456 that always considers the related animal health, public health, and welfare risks. Various social, economic, and environmental considerations were taken into account by the Commission in its impact assessment on the proposal 7 . In particular, the Commission looked into the potential impact of the proposed measures on food security and other related elements, including affordability of food for end consumers. For this purpose, the Commission asked the Joint Research Centre to prepare the ‘Modelling of policy options to support the impact assessment accompanying the revision of the EU legislation on the welfare of animals during transport’ 8 . The modelling includes an analysis of the impacts of the changes in food prices resulting from the proposed measures on food affordability in the EU. As the modelling shows, the proposed measures will only have an insignificant impact on the quantities of animal-based products produced, traded and consumed, and on consumer prices. Food affordability will therefore not be substantially impacted. EU and global food security will not be affected. 1 Protection of animals during transport https://food.ec.europa.eu/animals/animal-welfare/eu-animal-welfarelegislation/animal-welfare-during-transport_en 2 Welfare of pigs during transport https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7445 3 Welfare of equidae during transport https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7444 4 Welfare of cattle during transport https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7442 5 Welfare of domestic birds and rabbits transported in containers https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7441 6 Welfare of small ruminants during transport https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7404 7 Impact assessment https://food.ec.europa.eu/document/download/e4e762eb-bdd5-4540-baa515d5c0badb21_en?filename=aw_in-transit_swd_2023-401_ia-report_prt-1.pdf 8 Modelling of policy options to support the impact assessment accompanying the revision of the EU legislation on the welfare of animals during transport https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/b9c3c05d94e1-11ee-b164-01aa75ed71a1/language-en”
  EU requirements on animal welfare for farmers
• 2024-10-17 “E-002144/2024 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission The novel food legislation 1 has been designed to support innovation and aims to address possible safety concerns in a number of innovative food or food production techniques, including for lab-grown meat. Such products can eventually be placed on the EU market only after an authorisation has been granted by the Commission following a thorough pre-market safety assessment by the European Food Safety Authority. The novel food legislation also foresees that other legitimate factors relevant to the application under consideration may be taken into account for the authorisation. Moreover, the acquis of the EU food law, when relevant, would apply to these products. Regarding the relevant research activities funded under the Horizon Europe programme, the project FEASTS 2 (Fostering European cellular Agriculture for Sustainable Transition Solutions) started in December 2023 and will end in November 2026. It involves 35 Partners from 36 Countries with a multi stakeholders engagement including farmers and consumers. The drivers of this project are animal welfare, environmental sustainability and food safety and security, putting consumers at the centre. The Commission continues to follow the development of lab-grown protein products. 1 Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 of 25 November 2015 on novel foods. OJ L327, 11.12.2015, p. 1. 2 Fostering European cellular Agriculture for Sustainable Transition Solutions - FEASTS: https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/101136749”
  GMOs
• 2024-10-15 “E-002072/2024 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission The Commission’s draft Regulations 1 referred to by the Honourable Member aimed at better protecting EU consumers as they lower the vast majority of maximum residue levels (MRLs) in line with the EU rules on the setting of MRLs 2 and with the scientific advice from the European Food Safety Authority. Decisions on the setting of MRLs are taken with the objectives of protecting consumers from residues in food and facilitating the functioning of the internal market and international trade. The same MRLs apply for domestic production and imports. Decisions on active substances to be approved for use in Plant Protection Products (PPPs) in the EU are based on a comprehensive scientific assessment considering effects on human health and the environment, in accordance with the criteria set in the PPPs Regulation 3 . Accordingly, it is possible that a substance may not be approved in the EU (and hence may not be available to EU farmers) while MRLs may still be established for that substance that are safe for consumers, allowing for the import of food or feed products. The Directive on the sustainable use of pesticides 4 remains in force and the Commission will be looking at ways to further improve the implementation of the Directive or assess new legislative initiatives, in dialogue with the Member States and other stakeholders, and based on the recommendation of the Strategic Dialogue on the future of EU Agriculture. 1 Draft Commission Regulation amending Annexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for cyproconazole and spirodiclofen in or on certain products; and Draft Commission Regulation amending Annexes II, III and V to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for benomyl, carbendazim and thiophanate‐methyl in or on certain products. 2 Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 February 2005 on maximum residue levels of pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal origin and amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC OJ L 70, 16.3.2005, p. 1–16. 3 Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC OJ L 309, 24.11.2009, p. 1–50. 4 Directive 2009/128/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing a framework for Community action to achieve the sustainable use of pesticides OJ L 309, 24.11.2009, p. 71–86.”
  GMOs
• 2024-09-24 “E-001806/2024 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Šefčovič on behalf of the European Commission 1. The Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) is responsible for providing legally binding interpretation of EU law and ensuring that it is applied consistently across all Member States. It is therefore not for the Commission to comment on specific rulings of the CJEU. However, the Commission is committed to providing support to national authorities in implementing the relevant legislation and court rulings. 2. The Commission acknowledges the concerns of livestock farmers and the need to strike a balance between preserving large carnivores and addressing these concerns. The Commission has continuously encouraged and facilitated dialogue and cooperation among stakeholders on coexistence with large carnivores; issued guidance offering information and advice on how to address conflicts between human activities and strictly protected species, including the wolf; and has provided support through the available financial instruments 1 , including with investment and interventions funded within the Common Agricultural Policy Strategic Plans 2 . Furthermore, in December 2023, the Commission published a comprehensive study on the wolf in the EU 3 addressing the specific issue of predation on livestock and the available tools for national authorities and stakeholders to take appropriate preventive and reactive measures. On that basis, the Commission proposed a Council decision to change the wolf's protection status under the Bern Convention 4 , which was adopted by the Council on 26 September 2024. This Decision has been submitted to the Bern Convention and will be discussed in December 2024. 1 https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/nature-and-biodiversity/habitats-directive/large-carnivores_en 2 https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/cap-my-country/cap-strategic-plans_en 3 https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/5d017e4e-9efc-11ee-b164-01aa75ed71a1/language-en 4 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_23_6752”
  Large Carnivores
• 2024-09-05 “E-001639/2024 Answer given by Ms Kyriakides on behalf of the European Commission The Commission invests in plant health research and innovation, with EUR 189 million allocated over the past four years through Horizon Europe 1 , and keeps it as a priority in the next work programmes under Cluster 6 ‘Food, Bioeconomy, Natural Resources, Agriculture and Environment’ 2 of Horizon Europe 3 . At present, there is no project relating to the Scirtothrips aurantii. A call for proposals for projects related to regulated pests has recently closed and is currently under evaluation 4 . Both Spain and Portugal apply eradication measures for Scirtothrips aurantii. Regulation (EU) 2021/690 5 allows them to request co-financing for eradication measures. When eradication is no longer possible, Member States request for containment measures, which should be adopted by an Implementing Regulation. To date, the Commission has not received such request from Spain or Portugal. As regards the import of citrus fruit, cold treatment has been added to the EU requirements as a measure to guarantee freedom from Thaumatotibia leucotreta in oranges. The EU follows a risk-based approach as regards protective measures against pests. To date there is not sufficient evidence to support an extension of that measure to other citrus fruits for other Union quarantine pests. Regulation (EU) 2022/2389 6 on frequency rates prescribes 100% identity and physical checks at import for citrus fruits, except for those referred to Annex I of that Regulation. The number of non-compliances at import is a criterion for deciding the frequency rates. As regards controls at origin, the Commission has carried out audits 7 in many third countries that the EU imports citrus fruits from, including South Africa, Zimbabwe, Brazil, Argentina, Israel and Tunisia. 1 https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/document/e8a5772e-9fca-4583-a81b-649729068f1e_en 2 https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/funding/funding-opportunities/funding-programmes-and-opencalls/horizon-europe/cluster-6-food-bioeconomy-natural-resources-agriculture-and-environment_en 3 https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/funding/funding-opportunities/funding-programmes-and-opencalls/horizon-europe/strategic-plan_en 4 https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/opportunities/topic-details/horizon-cl62024-farm2fork-02-4-two-stage 5 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/690/oj 6 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32022R2389&qid=1695292904290 7 https://ec.europa.eu/food/audits-analysis/audit-report”
  GMOs
• “Thank you. President. This report confirms once again what Vox has been saying for years. Millions of Europeans have been put at risk with an energy transition, which is highly ideological and and technically unviable. This is automatically leading to failures, quite simply because we've abandoned synchronous power sources such as nuclear. Replacing them with asynchronous sources. We have abandoned our energy sovereignty and sacrifice on the altar of energy sovereignty. We saw what happens on the 28th of April in Spain. We had a massive blackout. At least ten people died during that blackout. And I would like to send my condolences to the families. And this led to losses of more than €6 billion. So up until now, the European the Spanish parliament has refused to recognize responsibility. We've also talked about the fact that the minister responsible for the energy disaster in Spain has now become a European Commissioner. Mr. Ribera, so you once again, your ideology has led to another failure. Thank you very much.”
  Nuclear energy
• “Thank you. I believe you're from the Socialist Party. What party do you represent? Well, I don't even know what party you represent. But in any case, maybe you misunderstood me. Or maybe there was a problem with this. But I did mention two major points in this regulation. On the one hand, the fight against unfair commercial practices on the part of the big businesses. But I also talked about improved cooperation in order to fight against the abuses which end up affecting the weakest link in the chain. Those are the farmers in many countries. So I don't know if it was a problem with the interpretation, but it is actually something that I mentioned. I think really the only ones who are using others as a tool for their ends are the those behind the bipartisan support which are doing this. Thank you.”
  EU restrictions on unfair commercial practices
• “Thank you. President. Commissioner. Well, let's tell Europeans the truth. You don't want agriculture. You don't want cattle breeding. You don't want fisheries. Firstly, you came along with your green tyranny and now you're looking to finish. Farmer's off with the Mercosur agreement. We're now going to see GMO products and all sorts of illegal pharmaceuticals. And none of these products are in line with European standards. I mean, how are we going to compete our more expensive, higher quality beef with cheaper and poor quality South American beef? I mean, we have lost in Spain thousands of farmers over recent years. Europe has lost 5 million. You don't think that's enough? And I'm not sure what's worse. You're talking about sustainability while destroying our rural areas, or you talking about competitiveness while condemning our farming sector to destruction. This is a death sentence for Sentence for small farmers, for the environment and also for Europeans. Food security. The EPP and the socialists are applauding this agreement, but we are saying loud and clear, we are not going to sacrifice agriculture to your globalist ambitions. Thank you.”
  Trade relations with Mercosur
• “Thank you very much, chair. Ladies and gentlemen, this proposal for the Standing Committee to basically change its name and give it for additional functions and turn it into a standing expert standing expert committee will. For us, this is just simply an instrument at the service of the institutions and ideological ideas that don't really have much to do with the true interests of the forestry sector. Instead of adding additional unnecessary functions to useless committees, we should look at the real problems facing the forestry sector, for example, the active management and sustainable management of forests, which is fundamental to avoid fires, to promote sustainability and to promote rural development. But no, what we're doing here is creating more bureaucracy and impossible standards to achieve. For example, the regulation on forestry that's a clear example that just asks means that a farmer has to justify exactly what their cows have have eaten in the past five years. It's not just ridiculous, but it puts into question the viability of the sector and shows the total disconnect between politicians and the reality. So for that reason, ladies and gentlemen, we should not support this proposal. We do not need any more committees at the service of eco terrorist aims. And we and the idea of keeping a register of what a cow has eaten. We need to respect the people who work in our in our countryside. Thank you very much.”
  Management of EU forests
• “Sir. The only duty that, uh, Europe has imposed on itself is the Green Deal. This is a burden on all our farmers. And this is what's really damaging our farms. It's not Trump. Trump is protecting his producers, his national businesses and his people, which is what Europe should be doing. We are shooting ourselves in the foot and leaving our primary sector, our farmers as well, without protection. Thank you.”
  Agriculture (green)
• “Thank you. President. They knew, ladies and gentlemen, since 2021, they knew that this part of the green European deal would be disproportionate on our SMEs. The Commission itself recognized this in its impact assessment. It said that Cbam would penalise especially SMEs. And even so, it was approved. They moved on while the European industrial fabric unravelled. Now too late and too poorly as they do it for every plenary session, they're trying to patch up this disaster with exceptions and derogations. But the problem is the bureaucratic monster that has been created with carbon certificates and emissions calculations. Sanctions. While other countries, such as China and the U.S. are laughing at us. And worse still, they are dedicated to supporting their industries and citizens. The Cbam, just like the rest of the Green Deal, is a trap. It is a bureaucratic trap and a machine to ruin employment and to deindustrialise Europe. We do not want thresholds, we don't want companies and we don't want transitions. What we want is industrialization. We want jobs. We want economic freedom. And we want the commission to stop playing with all Europeans out of their offices. Thank you.”
  Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM)
• “Thank you very much, chair. Perhaps this is a bit too often that the commission comes here to defend something that is indefensible. We saw this recently with Mercosur, and today we're seeing this with Mercosur. I think let's just very clearly talk to Europeans what this agreement is about. Now the commission is saying that we need this agreement with Mercosur desperately because the European economy is suffering, especially its industrial sector cannot continue to survive. Why is this? Because years of the Green Deal, overregulation, etc. has reduced production in Europe as compared to other parts of the world. And to compensate this damage, now we are talking about using agriculture and European food as a bargaining chip. So, ladies and gentlemen, from the Commission, you and of course, the big parties the EPP and the S&D are trying to sell this as a major opportunity for the wine sector, the dairy sector, for example. You know very well that when it comes to the raw materials sectors, they are very vulnerable sectors, and they are taking to the streets to say that this agreement is not something they are in agreement with, and they need real guarantees because we have a European model that is based on family farming. They have the strict standards they have to comply with, and they cannot compete with mega farms in Brazil or Argentina, where the rules are much more lax when it comes to traceability, emissions, labour costs, animal welfare, pesticides, etc. but basically the safeguards are there. Laughable really. They do not protect the most exposed sectors like ethanol, honey, maize, beef, just to name a few.”
  Trade relations with Mercosur
• “Thank you chair. Dear Minister, dear colleagues, my colleague Nico cannot be here today due to political arrangements, so I'm going to speak on her behalf. Dear Mr. Keravnos, with the EU having issued large volumes of common debt under the next Generation EU, the Safe instrument and the €19 billion Macro Financial Assistance loan to Ukraine, the servicing costs are rising. Do we know how much this burden is now and how much it will evolve during the coming years? Is the Cyprus presidency considering this interest burden in its work on the file of economic governance? And the last question is, how does the presidency intend to manage the growing interest burden on the EU budget? And can you clarify whether member States should expect additional requests for national contributions, new own resources or expenditure cuts elsewhere to finance this cost? Thank you so much.”
  EU fiscal rules and oversight of national budgets
• “Commissioner. It's been almost a year since you and miss von der Leyen promised that this would be a term of office of dialogue with farmers, that after years of regulatory suffocation, the countryside would once again be heard. But the reality is quite different. Skyrocketing skyrocketing production costs, plummeting prices and trade agreements such as Mercosur threatening to wipe out entire sectors. All we had left was the cap. But now even that is gone. The commission signed its death warrant in June with a cut of more than 22%, quite an achievement for the coalition of conservatives and socialists who govern in Brussels. We've told you countless times that we will support all measures that benefit our primary production sector, those that promote its dismantling. No. Therefore, we do support written and transparent contracts to give more security and bargaining power to those who need it most. Yes, we do support the revision of long term contracts so that no farmer sells below cost. Yes, we do support strengthening cooperatives and producer organisations so that they can negotiate with the best conditions. And of course, we support more incentives for young people because without generational renewal, There is no future for the European countryside. What we will not do is simply rubber stamp your policy of rectification. After seeing that your eco fanatical policies and your Green Deal only lead to misery, abandonment and de-population. The simplification of the cap must be real and total. So to conclude, uh, Commissioner, give the countryside back. The three words that Brussels has forgotten productivity, profitability and competitiveness.”
  Direct payments to farmers (pillar 1)
• “(11:13:11 – 11:15:51): Thank you very much, chairman. In our group, we have been concerned from the outset that diluting the CAP into a single fund would be a historic error. And today, we have the proof before us, nearly 500 amendments, dozens of dispositions which have had to be gone back on over the CAP regulation and the draft report, which far from correcting the problem, confirms that the initial commission proposal was very problematic. So we were right. And we're looking at how we can deal with competencies and definitions the CAP regulation. None of this should have been taken out of the regulation in the first place. We're talking about institutional architecture, but the reality is that our farmers are facing a much more concerning reality on the ground. In Spain, €10,000,000,000 would be lost compared to the current framework, and the additional billions that the commission is now promising very loudly as if that were to be a solution. I'm not a guarantee at all. There's just a conditional possibility. It depends on the political will of each national government. And in Spain, with Pedro Sanchez, you might imagine, and with the government which is so blighted by corruption, we think that that money would be more likely to get into the pockets of some socialist friend of Pedro Sanchez rather than any farmer. So you are claiming to change a common agricultural policy into what's going to be a battle between different ministries and different regions, and all that will succeed in is further weakening the CAP. The budget is losing certainty, but the obligations continue to increase obligations on farmers, more paperwork, more indicators, more conditionality, and more green deal. So ladies and gentlemen, the CAP has 1 single purpose, and that is set out in article 39 of the treaty has been for decades. And it's not about form filling or meeting ideological objectives. It's just 1 objective, and that is to produce food. The principles are clear, increasing agricultural production, guaranteeing a fair income for farmers, and ensuring that we have food supply for Europeans. And this is why we have our red lines. It must be respected. A clear budget for agriculture, an autonomous CAP with its own regulation, and real simplification which returns competitiveness to that sector. And finally, I would like, given the volume and complexity of this reform, to ask formally for an extension of the deadline for tabling amendments and have a transitional period because messing about with a CAP is not an institutional innovation. It is very imprudent. You're playing with our food sovereignty in Europe. Thank you.”
  Agricultural funding
• “The clean industrial deal is again something from the Commission that's legislating with its ideological dogma, the strategic compass. All of this is just a confession of its failure. We've seen industry fall from 36% to 15% because you have just imposed your ideology, your regulation, higher energy costs, barriers to investment. And now you're talking about 480 billion that can be unlocked. But it's for an industry that you have distort. What you have done here cannot compensate the hyper regulation. We hear from the socialists from the popular group who have imposed this radical green agenda. This is a consequence of their own policies forcing an electric car, banning combustion engines. It just shows what you have done. It doesn't make sense to talk about reducing emissions. We're simply exporting those emissions. If we really want to reindustrialize Europe, what we need is energy, real access to raw materials and freedom to innovate. Without the bureaucrats in Brussels deciding what sectors can do that or not. Otherwise, your compass will simply show the exit road for the few industries we have left. Thank you.”
  Energy (green transition)
• “Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, today we're talking about your annual jamboree of environmental policy, the Cop 30 gala, red carpet, sorry green carpet, bombastic speeches and hundreds of private jets so that everyone can get back home fighting resolutely against climate change. But if this is disgraceful, what's even more disgraceful is that you're saying that you've compensated 130,000 tonnes of CO2 that you admitted yourselves. This is the same as 80,000 European cars driving around for a whole year. But this a show just to say to a worker who's driving to work that they shouldn't be doing so. Say that a farmer shouldn't be producing food. And obviously we have the greens and the Spanish PPE and continue asking for more climate commission or a treaty of non-proliferation of fossil fuels. Whilst the European Commission themselves recognised that 70% of primary energy in Europe comes from fossil fuels. So we should be banning what is actually sustaining Europe. While obviously only you could think of this comes from yourselves in your climate metaverse, maybe this will work, but in reality is something else. So stay on your green carpet and we will defend those who are producing our nations and sustaining our nations. **Nicolae ȘTEFĂNUȚĂ @Co-Chair: Yes. 181. Okay.”
  Climate efforts
• “Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I'll be speaking Spanish. Thank you very much. Commissioner, as you know, the European economy has been growing at a rate of less than 1% with a stagnated growth and private investment which has not recovered. We have weak growth, constant inflation and clear loss of competitiveness. And if you compare this with the United States or Asia, things are very different. Europe is being left behind. Now, given that, my question is, what specific measures does the Commission plan to take to reactivate investment and productivity without continuing to penalize producers with more costs, more regulation, and more uncertainty? My second question, regulatory simplification. Yes, of course, we are seeing many omnibus packages, but the reality on the ground is very different. We could see 4% of companies SMEs turnover turnover that could be linked to complying with regulations. When are we going to see a proper, measurable and effective reduction in regulation, which will lead to a reduction in costs for SMEs? And thirdly, on the recovery mechanism, only 30% of our funds are going to the private sector, but 50% of companies say that they haven't seen any impact of these funds in their business. Does the commission think that this is insufficient given the fact. That this is happening? Will this be rectified in order to have a better impact on the real economy? Thank you.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Thank you. President. We're discussing the WTO conference at a time where, in this hemicycle, we've heard people saying that we want to defend fair trade on clear rules based on clear rules. But these rules are worthless if they're always being applied against Europe and not to defend Europe. And it's quite scandalous that the S&D Group and the EPP Group have asked the provisional application of Mercosur to be discussed here in this chamber. They're talking about fair trade and they're always talking about fair trade, but they're imposing a trade agreement that nobody's voted for. They're opening the door to third countries to bring in their goods and their products in unfair conditions. So those who say that they're championing, championing free trade, I'd just like to say this is not free trade. This is unfair competition. And unfair competition leads to more pressure on prices. It stifles household bills. And it's not good for the European Union. We've already seen this with previous agreements. We'll see it with Mercosur. So those who want free and fair trade will start off by looking at those who respect the rules, i.e. our farmers. Thank you.”
  Trade relations with Mercosur
• “Thank you, Mr. Gonzalez Casares. You said renewables had nothing to do with the blackout. Not sure you're being entirely honest with us there. I think you're being rather irresponsible because 71% of energy production on that day was coming from renewables, 58% was solar. Asynchronous sources that did not have any ability to stabilize the grid when the frequency dipped. That's not saying that it's a government report saying that that there was no synchronous, robust system to ensure stability of the grid. So the problem is not renewables. The problem is imposing renewables at all costs, without any plan, without any backup and without a grid that will bear that imposition. Your ideology and your ideology, ideology based energy policy rather than common sense, is what led to the grid collapsing.”
  EU approach to electricity market and prices
• “Ladies and gentlemen, members. Commissioner, what was the first lesson that we learned from the pandemic? Without farmers? No food, without food, no Know Europe and therefore farmers when they needed us the most. Five years afterwards, the Commission is thanking them by cutting the cap. There will be interests for a European fund. And yes, von der Leyen is tightening the belt. But what is happening? What we can see is that there is a political force in this hemicycle that is not giving in to green lobbies. We will fight for every livestock farmer and every farm farmer from Vox. We are going to be supporting a strong cap that will be aligned with inflation. That is free of the Green Deal, one that is useful, productive, fair and one that is fair to those who feed Europeans. Because Those who say the future will be green or it won't be, there will not be a future. And I would say the future stands with our farmers.”
  Direct payments to farmers (pillar 1)
• “Thank you very much. Thank you very much, commissioners. I'll be very clear. The A reality is that watering down the cap in a single megafund means that rural areas will become a source of money for other agendas. You'll be dismantling the cap, and therefore you'll be taking away the support of thousands of farmers and livestock breeders that get up to make sure that we have food on our table. And then tomorrow in Strasbourg, they'll take to the streets to ask for help. Because of the regulatory fanaticism of this commission, and because the Morocco or Mercosur agreements will have a deal with them, a terrible blow. And you wouldn't tolerate what is actually going to happen now. These farmers and breeders had one hope and that was the cap. But now you're going to sacrifice that in order to plug the gaps, in order to mask debt and in order to deal with the damage wrought by the Green Deal. Now, commissioners, you talked about potential extra money, but the truth is that we don't even know how these funds are going to be shared out among member states. Are there any criteria on the table? And also, this funding depends on the political will of governments. So my question to you is, do you really think that the EU member states with stagnant economies and deficits, more than 3% and public debt that is often more than 100% of GDP, do you really think that these member states are going to put more money on the table to save, or to plug the gap due to your cuts? I can assure you this is not going to happen. Farmers income and the income of those living in rural areas cannot depend on the government in power, nor on what Mrs. von der Leyen is doing. This isn't a political game. This is the basis for social stability and food security in Europe. Get rid of the ideological rubbish in the Green Deal. Start with that. Make sure you have a robust budget and that our farmers and breeders have fair competition. Thank you.”
  Agricultural funding
• “(17:52:49 – 17:55:07): Ladies and gentlemen, today we're debating a package that affects practically the entire agro food framework, directives and regulations that affect directly how we produce our food. And we should say this clearly, this regulation is the refutable proof that the system wasn't working. Europe has spent years, withdrawing tools from farmers. We've gone from some 1,000 active substance to only 400 or so currently, and these are tools that our farmers use so that they can be more competitive and deal with plagues and pests. Europe has been withdrawing all of these little by little. Costs have been increasing. Plagues have been increasing, and the solutions have taken more than 10 years to reach the field. That is problems are arriving quickly, solutions slowly. Meanwhile, we continue to import products from abroad, for example, medical soda that don't comply with any of our rules and regulations, opening the door to all kinds of problems. This package isn't the panacea. It's not going to change from, 1 day to the next, the lives of our farmers. But it does open a window for opportunities, so that we can recover a minimum of competitiveness. We know that currently a new conventional active substance can take some 10 years from research to arrival on the market, but I'd like to ask the commission how it plans to deal specifically with timelines and reduce those and ensure speedier access for our farmers to these tools. And, also, the proposal appears to place more emphasis on mutual recognition such as to improve the availability availability of PPPs for member states. But how does the commission provide for this functioning in practice? And then for directives and, the case of drones that have been referred to, we've got a clear example here how technology makes it possible to apply treatments with far greater precision using avant garde technology, reducing a loss of product. But, nevertheless, we continue to be trapped in regulatory frameworks that are obsolete. So the question is, is the commission going to produce a clear ambitious road map on a European level to improve the use of drones for PPP application? Thank you very much.”
  EU policy on pesticides
• “Yeah. Thank you. President. I'm going to speak in Spanish. Ladies and gentlemen, as people have been saying, this agreement is an affront to EU justice and as an attack on the intelligence of European people. We all know that this agreement does not comply with the ruling handed down in 2024. It makes fun of it. It was crystal clear when it annulled the agreement with Morocco because it had been applied illegally. Despite that, the commissioner has come back to the negotiating table Behind closed doors. Behind the backs of the Parliament. And then they're coming here to apologize for not asking for our opinion and not consulting us because there wasn't enough time. Of course, they did this on purpose so that there wasn't enough time. And this is completely unacceptable. It shows an unacceptable lack of transparency. And they've come here to show us an agreement that completely contradicts the ruling handed down by the Court of Justice of the European Union. Commission representatives. During the first four months of this year, Morocco exported 30% more than last year. Talking about fruit and vegetable exports to Spain in the same period, Spanish exports to Europe are have been dropping suddenly. So this agreement is making our farmers suffer. It's being tolerated by I Brussels, but you are welcoming it with this agreement. So I have some questions for you. Some of this has already been mentioned, but I think it's important to emphasize these points. Labeling labels need to say Western Western Sahara, or they shouldn't mention any areas or towns. They need to say Western Sahara, Western Sahara. Are you going to confirm that that will be the case, that the labels will say Western Sahara? Second point transparency and timeline. We need to know what the approval process will look like and what the timeline is following on from this agreement. Thank you.”
  Trade relations with Morocco
• “(15:00:20 – 15:02:11): Thank you very much, madam chair. Missus Ribera, you're here with us this afternoon responsible for a clean, fair and competitive transition. The drug you report from the European Commission shows that high energy costs are destroying European competitiveness. So my question is, how can you come here saying that you defend competitiveness when you are the main person behind closing down nuclear power plants in Spain that provides clean energy and affordable energy? And it's not just Vox saying it. It's missus Vunderlaian, your boss, who said that just a while ago. She said that shifting away from nuclear power was a strategic error and millions have been poured into nuclear power to breathe new life into it. So how are we going? So how can it be that Spain is the only country decommissioning nuclear power plants because of you? Are you going to speak to Sarah Aggrinsen, your predecessor, to put an end to this. Otherwise, Almaraz will be the 1st European nuclear power plant being closed down for political and ideological reasons, and that's down to you. The European Commission wants transparency, accountability, and responsibility when it comes to the use of EU funds. But you are part of a government that is has had so many scandals that have grabbed the headlines for such a long time. Do you think that your role as VP in the commission reinforces Citizens Trust, or do you think that there are 2 Europes? 1 Europe that is accountable and 1 for commissioners. Thank you.”
  Nuclear energy
• “Thank you chair. Yesterday, thousands of farmers protested in Madrid in a historic march in order to express their rejection in the face of these trade deals that are destroying our countryside, such as the one with Morocco, which could be even more ruinous If you see what's happening with Mercosur, with all of its safeguard clauses, which are simply a fraud. Having heard what Mr. Crespo said of the EPP, let me just say thank you for confirming that the clauses that you voted in favor of for Morocco are even worse. Going back to yesterday's protest. Do you know what the general feeling is amongst our farmers and livestock raisers? It's fury. It's desperation, it's hopelessness because of this bipartisan chamber, which is crushing them and turning its backs on them. Because of the years of the Green Deal and hyper regulation, our farmers cannot stand anymore. We really need to support them to fight against unfair practices and improve the ability to prosecute abuses, which always end up affecting the weakest link in the chain. We need to have a community approach, mirror clauses and real controls on the borders, because otherwise it's not a food chain. It's a chain to ruin. Thank you.”
  Trade relations with Mercosur
• “Commissioner. Thank you. Thank you for being here today. It's quite brave on your part, because I think deep down, it's difficult for you to defend this. What if you're in Galicia and you are producing cattle? What if you're somewhere else producing olives? It doesn't matter what kind of farmer you are. You've been abandoned by Brussels above and beyond the numbers. We're seeing the biggest cut to cap funds ever. This is an inexplicable. How can you cut the cap? Particularly now. When? Year. For years it hasn't gone up in line with inflation. So what you're doing is only 7,080% of the previous cap. So it's shameful. And a final question. Commissioner, what about food security? Doesn't that matter to the European Commission? It doesn't seem like you care at all about the food food sovereignty resource.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Thank you for your presentation. The commission's presentation is not an achievement. It recognises failure of a farm policy that was hijacked by the Green Deal ideology. We have seen absurd red tape and checks required of farmers bearing no resemblance to reality on the ground. We welcome, of course, the simplification, but it was long overdue. We have seen ruination regions decimated before Brussels deigned to take action. We should never have seen this type of complication imposed on farmers. We in Patriots welcome the action taken. We are concerned about the digital requirements on our farmers. We would like to also ensure that we have legislative stability for our farmers, and that we support European food sovereignty. We reject any further requirements imposed on us. Thank you.”
  Agriculture (green)
• “Thank you chair. Thank you Commissioner. The commission has spoken a lot about fair prices, but we know that we can't have fair prices without fair competition. And you said that it's very difficult to define what fair competition is. Well, I think it's not so difficult because if we see what the commission is doing by imposing limits on the use of fertilizers or phytosanitary measures, or using radical ecological measures that cost our farmers more, or investing in watering, uh, plants Plant in Morocco and importing goods from countries that don't meet all of the requirements that we impose on our farmers. Well, that's not fair competition, you'll agree. And while this happens, imports from Morocco and South America are increasing by 30% a year with much lower prices. And they are dumping into our markets. For example, in Spain, our citrus producers in Valencia have seen a 40% drop in prices because of this unfair competition, while their costs keep rising. So two very quick questions. First, I know that you are concerned about generational replacement. How are you going to ensure that innovation, competitiveness and competitiveness are once again at the basis of European projects? And secondly, when are you going to have a true deregulation and simplification process that will do away with red tape? Thank you.”
  Import of agri-food products in the EU
• “Thank you. President. Commissioner. A year ago, a lot of us here in this chamber warned you that it would be a problem if we had tariffs. And that is something that tariffs on energy products. And that is something that we have seen. Now it's farmers that are having problems when they want to use fertilizers. They are having to pay 70% more than they had to two years ago. It's not just the war that's the problem here and external challenges. It's the fact that Europe has decided to offload its energy burden onto its industry. All of those charges now, because of tariffs, the European producer is paying 15 times more than before, and they're still expected to sell their products at the same price. You talk about climate policy, I call it we call it then industrial suicide. But it seems now we have this plan which has arrived late, and it hasn't really dealt with the problems which are penalizing production. At the moment. Europe is losing the ability to feed itself and you are responsible.”
  Use of fertilisers
• “Gracias. Thank you very much, Commissioner. The wine sector is the very backbone of backbone of many localities and families in Europe, and therefore, it surprises me The the way that some people talk about wine, some 3 million jobs depend on the wine sector, and 130 billion is contributed to our economy every year, 0.8% of GDP. This is the reality of Europe. Europe. Europeans who get up very early in the morning, who work extremely hard, who keep our rural environment alive, and therefore we need to recognise that this is an integral part of our culture and our identity, part of our very DNA in Europe and as Europeans. But there have been many campaigns, harassment campaigns by lobbies and pressure groups and activists at national level and otherwise trying to undermine the sector. Global demand and global consumption is growing, and indeed, we find that the consumption levels and demand is at the lowest level since 1960 60, which is, of course a threat to our industry, which has existed for centuries. We therefore welcome this package. We recognise that it is important for us to take action which will support this sector, and it is therefore indeed vital that green harvesting is provided for, and that there is more flexibility for crisis distillation measures. But we must not give up either, because this is a crisis which the sector is facing. Yes, but it must not become structural. Therefore, we need additional funding, we need more promotional funding and we need to be able to develop our export markets. And we also need to educate our young people about the value of wine as part of our culture and our heritage. Thank you.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Chair. Ladies and gentlemen, I thank the rapporteur for his work. I want to focus on the hypocrisy in this report. You talk about promoting something, but you're destroying it. It's good to promote European products, but at the same time you're attacking the producers. There have been more than 680 promotion campaigns with EU tax money. At the same time, you're suffocating producers with the Green Deal, with more bureaucracy, more costs and more restrictions. The fact is, you're wasting EU money. And if that weren't enough, some of you are criminalising key sectors such as meat and wine with your stigma. And with the alarming labels that you put on wine. So you're talking about promoting our products. Yet the reality is that our products are increasingly less competitive due to your ideological regulation caused by the Green Deal. You're talking about opening markets up to third countries. That's what the p, p and the s d r do. Those parts of the world don't comply with our requirements, and that punishes our producers. More than 40% of farms have had to shut up shop over the last 20 years. We in Foxton in the Patriots are saying stop destroying, otherwise there will be nothing left to left to promote in the future.”
  Agriculture (green)
• “Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And thank you also to the rapporteur. Thank you very much for this report. Let me start by saying a few words about competitiveness in Europe. I mean, it's a bit of a, you know, a mystical thing. It's not a question of lack of funds. I think it's because we don't have a proper regulatory framework. It's dysfunctional. The standards are absurd. There's a lot of red tape and all of this is strangling or asphyxiating our sector, I'm afraid. You know, trying to regulate everything and everyone. It's ridiculous. So we're talking about competitiveness here in Europe. You know, it's almost like a bad joke, quite honestly. What about energy? What about costs? You know, what about the standards? If you look at all of these aspects, I'm afraid it's impossible for us to actually meet these requirements. Parliament Commission. Why is it then that so many holdings have to, you know, close shop because of their problems that they have encountered? So this is why we need to remember that these holdings play such an important role for our economies. We therefore need to look at our sovereignty, our food sovereignty. That should be our priority in this debate. So we're in favor of shoring up farming, the role of farming. We want to have specific earmarked provisions for this. And we also think that this ECF should deal with important issues such as water or indeed digitalisation. Europe should be able to produce its own food to protect its territories and reduce dependence on the outside world. You know, competitiveness is not just a question of sharing out funds. Competitiveness is also a matter of being able to produce properly under the right circumstances. And for that we need to remove climate ideology, which is actually very harmful. We also need to remove red tape, which is just strangling us all. And we need to make sure that this sector is actually one that creates jobs and wealth for Europe as a whole.”
  Agriculture (green)
• “(17:16:02 – 17:18:01): Well, as you know, madam chair, in the plenary in Strasbourg when the fertilization plan was presented, thousands of farmers were demonstrating in front of the parliament to speak out against a reality that no one here, I think, would deny. That is that producing in Europe is increasingly expensive and less viable, and that's exactly what this plan isn't going to solve. High costs, European industry, which is increasingly uncompetitive, and this green pact, which is supposed to guarantee food security. Well, I do applaud, however, the fact that this plan recognizes that the fertilizer crisis is indeed a threat to European food security. The problem is that this plan has come after years of mistaken decisions, and it is aimed at partly solving some of the issues without addressing the causes. CBAM and all of the other issues that you've mentioned here, some people who voted in favor. Whilst those continue to exist, energy prices are going to continue to penalize European production, so we're going to continue to depend on third countries to feed Europe. Since 2020, the price of fertilizers has increased exponentially, and you intend to, the commission intends to impose a further environmental and energy burden on our producers, although people can't meet those. In other words, the commission recognizes that the patient is ill but continues to administer part of the treatment which actually made them ill in the first place. Does that make sense to you? It certainly doesn't to us. What does make sense is ensuring that we have to make our farms viable, and we have to protect Europe's possibility to feed itself. In other words, our food sovereignty. Thank you.”
  Use of fertilisers
• “Thank you. President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. In the commission, climate has become a religion because. Every time there is a heat wave here. Uh, we've seen this, uh, in Spain for the last 20 years, uh, 3000 people died. And, uh, we see that heat waves are not the apocalypse that you want to portray them as. They're nothing new. It's something that we've seen across time with different intensities and frequencies. However, what is new now is not the climate, as I said, but the Green Deal, which has started since 2019, in this demonic green deal. You tried to prohibit, uh, a number of different areas, and the, um, diesel car has become the enemy of everything. And what we're seeing in Spain is that, uh, this is affecting everyone. A third of, uh, of the fires produced in fine were lit on purpose. Um, but we're seeing that this is not taken into account in your, um, fanatical environmental policies. Um, what we're seeing the consequences of all of your policies is that your policies don't make sense. The speaker's microphone has been cut.”
  Climate efforts
• “Thank you very much, Madam President. Ladies and gentlemen, today in this cycle we're talking about certainty in the business environment. For European businesses, the certainty is that only four of the ten 100 biggest tech companies in the world are European. The certainty that the average income has increased twofold in or more than twice as much in the US as in Europe since 2000. This gap can be explained by one thing productivity. What has been destroying European productivity and competitiveness? Bureaucracy, regulation, interventionism, and the ideal ideological effects of the Green Deal. In other words, Brussels. Even though in the US they've approved a 3500 rules in three years, here we've had 13,000. We have hyper regulation. It's a direct barrier for investment. And what is this house's response to these damaging effects? More Brussels, more regulation, because through it's one Europe, one market regulation, what they're asking for is the same as always more centralisation, more control, more of what's brought us to this point. Already we have been applying the same medicine for 20 years and it's the wrong medicine. European workers and businesses don't need the commission to tell them how they can hire, how they can invest, produce or compete. What they need is legal certainty, affordable energy, less red tape and freedom to innovate. The only thing that companies needs from Brussels is to for them to take their foot off their neck.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Thank you very much, Madam Chair. So, first of all, I would note that what's happening more and more is that we have to really drag the commission in in order to get information on this agreement with Morocco. The Commission and Council seem to be deciding on the provisional application of these trade agreements between the EU and other partners, and they don't even inform the Parliament. Here we're talking about Morocco. But look at what happened with Mercosur. You know, at the end of the day, an agreement here, an agreement there, more or less. Either way, this parliament is being usurped, if you like. You know, we have our own powers when it comes to fiscal matters, when it comes to trade agreements, all of that. You're riding roughshod over and you're trying to avoid circumvent us. We're talking about, you know, six months, I now think. I think now, since the request for provisional application of this agreement with Morocco by the commission, six months have gone by. And basically during that time, there was no Democratic input. And we've also seen the influx of agricultural produce. And the European Parliament did not have a word to say about it. You were talking about, you know, really big volumes, thousands and thousands of kilograms of agricultural produce. We don't know the exact amount because nobody's telling us. So basically a blackout in terms of democracy, I'm afraid, during that whole period and also information blackout in addition to that, it's impossible for us to know exactly the the volume of tomatoes arriving on our markets.”
  Transparency requirements of EU institutions
• “(11:37:07 – 11:39:07): You very much, madam president. Ladies and gentlemen, today in this hemicycle, we're talking about certainty in the business environment for European businesses. The certainty is that only 4 of the 10 100 biggest tech companies in the world are European. The certainty that the average income has increased twi twofold in or more than twice as much in The US as in Europe since 2000. This gap can be explained by 1 thing, productivity. What has been destroying European productivity and competitiveness? Bureaucracy, regulation, interventionism, and the ideal ideological effects of the Green Deal. In other words, Brussels. Even though in The US, we've they've approved 3,500 rules in 3 years. Here, we've had 13,000. We have hyper regulation. It's a direct barrier for investment. And what is this house's response to these damaging effects? More Brussels, more regulation. Because through its 1 Europe, 1 market regulation, what they're asking for is the same as always, more centralization, more control, more of what's brought us to this point already. We have been applying the same medicine for 20 years, and it's the wrong medicine. European workers and businesses don't need the commission to tell them how they can hire, how they can invest, produce, or compete. What they need is legal certainty, affordable energy, less red tape, and freedom to innovate. The only thing that companies needs from Brussels is to for them to take their foot off their neck. The next speaker is Paolo Kunia. President,”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Thank you very much, president. Ladies and gentlemen, you know what a steak and a Tesla have in common? Well, for a lot of citizens now, they are too expensive. 65% increase in beef prices. So we hear everyone today complaining about food prices and these poor families that can't fill up their fridges. But nobody admits responsibility with the Green deal that they have promoted. That is what is responsible for this brutal increase in prices because of increased energy prices. You also didn't vote against measures to mitigate, uh, tariffs or fertilisers, which have massively increased in price as well. And that's only going to get worse and affect our food prices. This is your responsibility. You're playing at saving the planet, but it leaves, uh, our fields empty and our fridges as well. Thank you.”
  Agriculture (green)
• “Thank you for your question, Mr. Nardella. Well, you said that we don't have any proposals, but we are constantly making proposals to deal with all of the problems that our farmers are facing. First of all, getting rid of the CO2 penalties, getting rid of sebum, because these are costs which, as you've said, producers have to bear, which I don't know whether you are listening to me, but they have to pay 15 times more. What producers have to pay outside of the European Union. If you think that's competition and free competition, then perhaps you need to look at that again. How can they compete freely when they're subject to all of those costs? And we have to get rid of the Green Deal. That is our proposal, and I think it's very clear.”
  Agriculture (green)
• “Thank you chair. Thank you, Commissioner, for your work and your commitment to our primary sector. As you know, animal diseases have become one of the greatest threats to our livestock breeders. We've got these various diseases, including lumpy skin disease, and they're leading to major losses, which is really threatening our whole rural sector. We all agree that we need to preserve our animal health systems, but Brussels is kind of trapped in this rigid, bureaucratic, inefficient model. But the sector is calling for more focus on prevention and vaccination and not so much in eradication. Is the commission considering reserving animal regulations to change our approach more to prevention and vaccination? And you mentioned as well, will there be a legislative proposal for 2027 on this issue? If so, could you give us more information about the scope of it. Finally, respecting with respect to sanitary products, we ban some key products. And beyond the audits that we're going to have, will there be a reform of the market to contend with unfair competition?”
  Animal diseases prevention and management in the EU
• “Thank you. Chair. Commissioner. Thank you very much for your presentation. But we can only repeat as patriots that your proposal for the cap is unacceptable. Specifically for Spain, this would be 22% budget. So €1,500 billion left for farmers. This single fund and the disappearance of the rural supports, which is unacceptable for us. But we are surprised that you are presenting this policy as an opportunity for farmers with production costs that have skyrocketed and production, which is a held back by these fanatic, uh, rules being set by your commission. This cut is a fatal blow for thousands of farmers around Europe. But this. But. But the problem goes beyond numbers. What you are proposing is the disintegration of the cap as we know it, and opening the door to unfair competition within Europe, because the EPP and the S&D is not satisfied with this unfair competition from third countries, as we have in Mercosur. But they also want to generate an inequality within Europe, because by diluting the cap into national plans, you'll have different standards across Europe. So Spanish farmers will be competing on an equal footing not only with Brazil and Argentina, but also with countries in Europe that have lower standards and greater funding. So the Cap is meant to guarantee stable markets and stable income and food security. But the commission wants to reduce these principles and trade them off against their ridiculous Green pact and so on. And then next July will be, uh, 6th of July will be remembered as the day that the EPP and the Sadf signed the death certificate for European farming.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Thank you very much. President members. Today, the commission is stating that they are going to simplify the cap, but let's look at what this will look like in practice. They are recognizing late and badly that they have strangled European farming. This is not a success. It is proof that the European Union has made mistakes year on year, and those in the field have suffered and with their killer green policy. So for producers, nothing has changed. The Cap maintains the environmental demands and cuts to the payments. It gives a blank check to Sanchez's government, which is an enemy to farmers. That is going to ruin farming. Let's look at Galicia in just a decade. One half. One half of the dairy farms that produce 40% of Spanish milk have disappeared, and Spanish farms close on a daily basis that have been completely snuffed out by the cap. So, Commissioner, the farms in Europe are not looking for a mere cosmetic changes. What they should do, commission, is be courageous. You never are able to do it. This simplification is a huge deception.”
  Direct payments to farmers (pillar 1)
• “So I didn't really understand what your question was, but given your reflection to say that we are a party of consistency and coherence, we don't want to stop you flying. We want to make sure everyone can fly, or use the transport to those who are trying to remove these rights from the working class is you. You go in business class and and then you say other people shouldn't be travelling as well, but you want to use your electric cars which have been built in China as well, and, and produce more CO2. So you shouldn't be trying to teach us about consistency and obviously flooding. You mentioned this is very easy for the left to to blame climate change, rather than blaming those policies which actually brought us to this situation, which led to this extreme weather events becoming more frequent because you didn't want to do anything about this. **Nicolae ȘTEFĂNUȚĂ @Co-Chair: You said at the time, thank you colleagues. I now close the catch the eye. I will favour the people who have participated in the debate for Blue Card. We continue with Guillaume Peltier.”
  Climate efforts
• “Thank you, Madam President. Commissioner. Energy intensive industries support jobs for thousands of families in my country. Spain, in Austria, Galicia, they're at the heart of our productive economy. But their survival is at risk. Why? Because of the ideological approach of the Green Deal. Which means that we are paying double what the US pays and four times what the what China pays for electricity. Being competitive is all very well from offices in Brussels, but we have to ensure that industry survives without being threatened with closure. You promise a green Europe. What you're leading to is a grey Europe poorer, more dependent, more vulnerable. And you're calling something a transition, which clearly is the demolition of our industry. What we need, Commissioner, is to revise and derogate rather than just to touch up the current plans. We have to get rid of the impossible to achieve emissions goals you've set. We have to do away with this speculation in CO2 trade. We have to defend energy and industry in Europe. Thank you.”
  Energy (green transition)
• “Thank you, Madam President. Commissioner. While we've been here, we've been drawing up documents regarding resilient water infrastructure. Our citizens want water infrastructure, which protects them. None of the amendments put forward by Vauxhall or the Patriots were accepted. None of them. They were all rejected. There was a clear rejection of any effort to refer to water infrastructure as an important element in preventing floods. Reinforcing reservoirs. Canals to divert water. In the meantime, water is either running short or causing floods, as we've seen in Valencia. People seem to suggest that climate change is the only problem. However, we do have historical records which prove this isn't true. The real responsibility lies in the hands of politicians. Those were the people who didn't build the infrastructure necessary to enable us to manage, protect and provide the the the technicians failed to do their job while the citizens paid the price. You hear in the European Parliament blame farmers for their water consumption. You can encourage countries to increase the price of water. You introduce gender criteria when it comes to water decisions when it comes to the 2030 agenda. The new Green Deal or other nature protection programs, we should be placing the needs of our citizens ahead of such programs. We will continue to fight for the infrastructure which Spain and Europe needs. Thanks to our efforts, we've managed to help clean up rivers. While you are talking about ideological solutions, we are looking for practical solutions.”
  EU policy on infrastructure for preventing climate-related disasters (floods, droughts, extreme weather etc.)
• “Now it should be on. Thank you. Thank you very much indeed. Well, we've all heard the opinion of the European Court of Auditors, and that has confirmed what we've been saying for a long time in our group and in Vox that these new nrhps don't simplify anything. Quite the contrary, putting everything under the same umbrella, agriculture, fisheries, defence, cohesion is something that's going to weaken control and then leave the way open to arbitrary policies. This is something that will be very damaging and is irresponsible with the fact that we don't have indicators means that we can't see the benefits, that we won't be able to audit what's going on, and we won't be able to see how the money is being spent. This is going to then change the relationship between the commission and member states, but it's not going to change things for the beneficiaries. It means for them a lot more red tape, a lot more uncertainty, and much less transparency. In our group, we can see that this totalitarian commission doesn't want to change its proposal at all, but we will be in our group putting forward our proposals and defending this in all the possible media, saying that the Cap needs to keep its singularity, predictability and its identity. For instance, this 865 billion, which is going to be in ring fencing Sing for the sea is something that we can't allow. Then member state governments to use. We have this socialist government with Pedro Sanchez. And we don't want all of this money to fall into his corrupt hands. Then there are various elements of the cap in the NRP, but we can't then see their specificity. Finally, we need to have governance and comparable indicators, which can be audited so that people aren't able to paper over the results. This is something that needs to be done for the cap or we'll be out on the street. Thank you very much. Shabba.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Also, when it comes to Almeria, for instance, in Spain, tomato production has gone down by 30%, more than 30%. But imports from Morocco have continued to increase and increase consistently. So we're talking about an association agreement with Morocco. You know, I would turn to the commission and say be careful. You're negotiating an agreement with Morocco in record time in order to basically, I think, disregard a ruling by the EU. Look at the text of the ruling. You know, we listen to the Commission representative. It's supposed to say Western Sahara. It's not supposed to mention a region within the Sahara area. It's supposed to say Western Sahara. That is what the ruling says quite clearly. So, you know, we need to be careful about labelling. We need to make sure that this agreement really falls in line with our legal framework and with our legal requirements. So also we need to look towards council. We need to make sure that the European Parliament has an opportunity to speak to the content of this agreement. So information, statistics, etc. we need all of this information. Now, let me put four questions very quickly and I will conclude after that. I want to make sure that responsibilities are not avoided, so to speak, circumvented first of all. It's a question of timing. Thank you.”
  Trade relations with Morocco