Raúl DE LA HOZ QUINTANO

Policy topics Raúl DE LA HOZ QUINTANO is active on

What Raúl DE LA HOZ QUINTANO has said (29)

• 2026-06-17 “(14:39:35 – 14:41:34): Thank you, president, commissioner. Let's not repeat the mistakes that we made in the past. Electrification is not and can never be an end in and of itself, and cannot mean that we just have to put new burdens on customers, on consumers, and businesses. It should be a tool, just 1 more tool to help us, not just achieve decarbonization of our economy, but also to boost our competitiveness. And to achieve these 2 goals, we think that the electrification plan has to be on 3 pillars. 1st of all, affordable energy. The electricity that consumers and businesses are paying for today can't go up in price and can't be more expensive than our competitors. That means that we have to invest in the grid, invest in infrastructure, better connections, and, of course, an electricity market, which will encourage affordable clean production. Secondly, we need simplified and much quicker procedures. Energy infrastructure in Europe can't take 2 or 3 years to build. We need more streamlined, more simple, quicker tools. But at the same time, we can't reduce environmental standards. And then technical neutrality and energy sovereignty. We need to have an affordable, stable supply, and that's not something that we can do only through renewables. We have to incorporate nuclear energy. It's not a question of ideology. It's just being realistic. It's a question of economy and energy. In order to be successful with this plan, we believe that we have to focus not just on consuming more electricity, but also consuming electricity in a more efficient way, produce it in Europe at more affordable prices. Thank you. Next speaker on behalf of the S and D group colleague, Mohamed Shahim.”
  EU approach to electricity market and prices
• 2025-01-21 “E-000236/2025 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Mînzatu on behalf of the European Commission Transposition of directives into national legal orders is essential to ensure that citizens in Member States enjoy the rights conferred upon them by the directives, including workers’ rights. In this case, the failure by Spain to transpose Directive (EU) 2019/1152 1 in time means that Spain lacks a set of measures to confer on workers the rights enshrined under this Directive. These are, among others, the right to be informed in writing on their basic working conditions at the start of their employment relationship and a number of minimum working conditions requirements (such as maximum duration of the probationary period, right to parallel employment or the right to have minimum predictability at work). For this reason, in September 2022, the Commission opened an infringement proceeding against Spain 2 for failing to communicate national transposition measures, by addressing a letter of formal notice to the Spanish authorities. In June 2023, the Commission further adopted a reasoned opinion against Spain. The Commission is currently in a dialogue with the Spanish authorities concerning the state of transposition of the Directive into Spanish legislation. A decision on the next step in the procedure will be taken in due course. 1 OJ L 186, 11.7.2019, p. 105–121, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2019/1152/oj/eng 2 https://ec.europa.eu/atwork/applying-eu-law/infringementsproceedings/infringement_decisions/?lang_code=en&langCode=EN&version=v1&typeOfSearch=byCase&refId =INFR(2022)0354&page=1&size=10&order=desc&sortColumns=refId&activeCase=true”
  EU policy on permanent and fixed-term employment · EU regulation on worker representation in company decisions
• “Yes. Thank you. I will speak in Spanish in just one minute. But I introduce something new. The definition and scope of made in Europe. We want our industrial base to be competitiveness, to be competitive. It's absolutely vital. It's in the automotive package, but it's not in detail. We don't have a legal definition. Logically, even more important, objective, verifiable criteria which will be applied in order to define what is made in Europe, particularly when it comes to small electric vehicles. The Act has been postponed until the 25th of February. It was going to be presented today, so presumably a delay in presentation of that definition that could go into implementing acts or comitology. So my question are you going to be making a commission proposal for a clear definition of made in Europe with the criteria, with participation of this Parliament in that drawing up of a definition?”
  "Buy European" provisions
• “Thank you president. Well, here we are once again stating the obvious, saying yes, we want more competitiveness. Yes, we want decarbonization, which means we need to You cut out all of this red tape that's stifling our businesses. I'll give you an example. In Spain, a clean energy project will take up to ten years to get its permit. Ten years of paperwork queuing up, sending in papers. And that means you're not decarbonising. You're not generating wealth in the meantime. This is not on, as others have said. We need to deregulate and simplify, but we also need to stop distrusting our companies. Give our companies a break. That's the way to have simple, agile approaches to production. The industrial accelerator was recently presented. This is a significant step forwards in terms of simplifying, permitting and accelerating industrial permitting through the single. Stop shop. But we also need to ensure that public administrations in general are all capable of getting involved in this process. We need to ensure that we're helping competitiveness. We're helping cut the red tape, and we're helping to simplify and accelerate the procedure. But that will mean that all public administrations have to be affected by that. Otherwise we'll fail once again.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Thank you very much, Vice President. And good afternoon. Firstly, I'd like to express my support for your initial idea about the competitiveness fund. We think it can bring the. Principle of competitiveness and turn it into real results. We think. It's going to unify some of the programmes and areas of funding, but also it's going to simplify management and that will benefit recipients, industrial industries and sectors. Two questions about the competitiveness funds. Firstly, we think it's pointless to talk about Competitiveness, and at the same time, the Commission is planning to have a tax on turnover for European industry. Secondly, we don't want this fund to be used as an excuse to justify cuts to the cap or cuts to the cohesion funds. Lastly, I have two requests. Please guarantee that the Competition Fund will respect the technological neutrality principle. And secondly, please let us know that this will reach everybody, especially SMEs, and that it will really walk the talk about equal opportunities. Thank you.”
  EU industrial funding
• “Thank you. President. Commissioner. The wildfire season has unfortunately started already in Tarragona and near Marseilles. This is a threat and a tragedy in human, financial and environmental terms. A threat that grows from year to year. The European Union has bolstered funding for efforts to fight wildfires. But our efficiency has been less than satisfactory. We need more coordination and we need more of a focus on prevention. Competence for managing forest lies with member states, but the European Union can improve Of coordination to ensure that our efforts are more effective. Very often that the efforts are financed by the European Union, and we need better coordination of long term prevention and planning. We need genuine investment to improve local capabilities to improve their firefighting capacity. That is extremely important. We need active management of the different scrubland around Europe. We need to fight effectively against wildfires. We also need to ensure a more dynamic rural area. Thank you.”
  Management of EU forests
• “Thank you. Thank you very much. The Belgium summit leads to conclusion that many don't want to listen to. Realism prevailed. Apart from passionate speeches and the symbolism of holding the summit in the Amazon. The main goal, which was to phase out fossil fuels, was not achieved. This agreement wasn't achieved. We understand there's a problem, but there are no plans, no tools, no deadlines, and all we have are general statements. But the summit did start showing that, uh, a dogmatic approach and scare mongering is on its way out. We're starting to be more realistic. We acknowledge the fact that the climate transition will be tricky and it will have an equal impact. It's about climate, technological neutrality, diversification of energy sources. This is the approach. And the EU has to lead this approach. Uh, but we mustn't think that Belgium was a failure. It was a turning point in climate policy. So we have now shifted from rhetoric to having our feet firmly on the ground. It's not because we're not climate aware. And actually that's not the problem. It's just that we're not delivering results. But if we want results, we have to stop being dogmatic and focus on pragmatic solutions that are feasible, that are viable, that are proportionate and that are socially acceptable acceptable. If we move away from a dogmatic approach, then we will achieve the goals that we all want to achieve here in this. **Nicolae ȘTEFĂNUȚĂ @Co-Chair: Mr. Guy from Mr. Drew's Sigebert SMEs blue card.”
  Fossil fuels
• “Thank you. Thank you very much. And thank you to all the persons that have been speaking here. As It's possible. I would like to speak in Spanish. Housing. Has to be looked at in respect of rule of law as well, and has to balance two rights. One is access to housing and one is the fundamental right to access to private property. And we're seeing that this balance is often offset when it comes to, uh, uh, a lack of, uh, legal security or when it comes to property owners rights or squatting as well. In Spain, we have problems with shortage of housing on the market and also very high costs of housing. However, there's also a lot of empty housing across the EU. Around 15% of housing across the EU is empty. And in Spain it's 4.1% 4 million empty houses. If some of these empty houses were put on the market, this of course, would ease access to housing and should bring houses down. Well, why aren't they on the market? Well, because of illegal occupation and also because of slow, uh, judicial, uh, procedures and uh, guaranteeing, uh, property owners rights. So first of all, we have to ensure access to housing for, uh, young people and remove obstacles that exist at the moment. We need to have a proper policy to fight illegal occupation and ensure that we have more streamlined, um, legislation to guarantee rights. Also, uh, to guarantee. That rights are guaranteed for both tenants and landlords. But also ensuring that we penalise those who act in bad faith. It's possible to respect the law and to help the most vulnerable through promoting public housing. To conclude, we can't, uh. Um, we can't blame landlords for things that should be the responsibility of authorities when it comes to public housing. We need to have respect for public policy and those that respect the rule of law. So we need to public housing and to help owners, um, to ensure that they can bring currently empty houses onto the market. And that will help to ensure access and to bring down the cost of housing, which at the moment is too high, particularly for young people.”
  EU housing policy
• “Thank you, Madam President. Good morning. Tomorrow, another appointment for the heads of state and government in Europe, where they will certainly Reiterate the diagnosis of the European economic situation, which was already set out in the Draghi report, and shortly tomorrow they will agree on objectives and we'll be talking about competitiveness as we have this morning. But let's not delude ourselves. The challenge today is the same as we had at the beginning of this mandate, which is transforming rhetoric into concrete, clear, necessary and firm action. And clearly. The words of the president of the Commission this morning are something I totally agree with. Diversification. Simplification. Innovation. Investment. Single market integration. Completely agree. But today we know that simplification should cease to be something we pay lip service to, but something that we actually do. Uh, the reduction of red tape must finally get to companies who are not yet seeing it. We need to deepen the single market even further, and we know the role that we have to give to innovation. We know this, so let's do it. Let's really do it. Let's commit ourselves with energy, determination and ambition in order to try to act using all of the legal mechanisms at our disposal, including reinforced cooperation and leaving aside the ideological prejudices of certain which are simply holding us back. So we need determination, ambition and flexibility before it is too late. Thank you.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Thank you very much, chair. And thank you to the speaker. I agree with the objectives that she set out, that also the objective of the Parliament and especially the EP. We believe we need to adapt EU energy costs and take advantage of all of all energy sources. So we support the progress being made, made in the clean industrial deal and the objectives. Although we would have liked them to be more ambitious, I'd like to bring up a question with regard to the role of nuclear energy in the development of of the policies announced. We're seeing that there are many governments that are planning new investments in nuclear energy. Nine countries specifically, 11 are planning new projects and ten that are planning to build Smrs. And the clean industrial deal is incentivizing nuclear energy. Uh, does this very generically, but there's nothing concrete. And in the affordable Energy plan, uh, this focuses on SMEs smrs and the importance of public procurement that I'd like to bring up. My question is, could you explain more in more detail on the role that nuclear energy is going to have in this clean energy investment strategy? And how is the Commission going to work with states to develop infrastructure and maintain and develop nuclear power plants? And, uh. For the countries that, uh, are closing their nuclear power plants. Uh, what's, uh how is the commission going to convince them to rethink this, uh, in accordance with these objectives. Thank you very much.”
  Nuclear energy
• “Next speaker is Mr. Dallas for one minute. Thank you. President. Vice president. Since the start of this mandate, we have asked for measures that would help us to effectively promote competitiveness. We've talked about the need to harmonize and make our legislation more flexible in the way which is presented last week. Unlike other legislative packages, this is an ambitious proposal to be more flexible and more ambitious, and this is legislation that affects companies in the digital sphere. It also has the virtue of providing tools for achieving the objectives reducing red tape, simplifying the current legislative framework. And this response to concerns that we share with European industry. Currently, the digital world is too complex. There is a great deal of uncertainty. And this harms our competitiveness. This logically means that we're putting the brakes on innovation. Digitalization should be a competitive advantage, never an administrative burden for companies. Thank you.”
  EU rules on digital competition
• “Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll be speaking in Spanish. Some of us had been Racing for a long time that there was a need for ambitious reform. When it comes to competitiveness, and we've been asking for such packages for a long time. Simplification, modernization, etc.. So what we needed to make EU digital regulation more competitiveness. Now, digitalization is something that should be a competitive advantage and never an administrative burden, and we should recognize it. In some cases, EU digital legislation is or amounts to extra burden, especially for SMEs. So from the point of view of SMEs who need air oxygen, they need more space to develop. Well, we'll pay close attention to what this will this package will imply in terms of reducing administrative costs and burden. Promoting responsible innovation and of course, something that's of major concern to us cooperation in terms of. The normative competence of the EU. And that's something that's had a very negative impact until now. Now there's some misunderstanding or prejudice concerning the package, and some people see some ghost risks there when it comes to risks posed to fundamental rights and especially privacy. We don't think there are such risks, Madam Commissioner. We're quite happy when you speak very clearly about this as you've done today. So I wanted to ask you. If you could tell us with the same clarity. That in no way will this package mean a decrease in the controls and supervision of data. Thank you.”
  Privacy & digital economy
• “Thank you very much. So tomorrow the first of the omnibus reforms will be approved. This is a necessary step and something that needs to be done urgently. It will allow us to. It allows us to focus our industrial policy on competitiveness. It will also allow us to simplify, clarify and make our rules more flexible. Without it, we won't. Without doing this, we won't be able to grow. It would also free up businesses from. From administrative burden. This is done with one aim in mind. This is a vital aim which should be the basis of everything we do in this area. All our decisions need to be useful so that our businesses can grow and can create wealth, and also create employment. Only with that in mind will we achieve competitiveness as the Cbam reform is set out. We are sure that it will allow us to ensure that we can be effective in reducing emissions, and also allow us to reduce the administrative burden on major importing businesses. At the same time, we will be removing unnecessary obstacles for small, smaller importers that 180 importers are going to be taken off the requirements for requirements. So we're talking here about maintaining the effectiveness of the model that we have. We have a model which is good for our business. It's the path forward for our business. It's what we've been calling for. And we need to be clear about this. It will lead us to success. It will make our economy competitive. Competitive. If we move forward and we learn from the errors that we've made in the past. Thank you very much.”
  Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM)
• “Thank you very much indeed. Well, now we're talking about the future of cars, and the game has already started. It's about maintaining or destroying one of the flagships of the European economy and millions of jobs as well. And we know already that we are not going to win if we go full out for full electrification by 2035. We will only win if we are able to guarantee competitiveness in the sector, both before and after that year, 2035. And to do that, we have to play three cards correctly the card of pragmatism, of time and of dialogue, pragmatism to recognise that there is no one single technological solution to reduce emissions. We've seen the failure of electric vehicles in Europe, but we have to look at the decarbonization process and say, see that that has to be economically sustainable and technologically possible and open. The second card is the time card. This process cannot be abruptly imposed. We need more flexibility. Industry. The market as well need time and certainty, time to be able to introduce the model and the certainty of being able to support the investments. So we're not asking to delay the deadlines, but it's important that this process has to be regulated and orderly. And lastly, dialogue, dialogue with companies, the sector and of course with the workers dialogue as a bridge between climate ambitions and the reality of our industry transition towards decarbonised mobility can't be won with either positions, time or technology, but through the intelligence of correctly using those three cards.”
  Road transport environmental policy
• “Thank you very much, Madam President. Good evening. This automotive package. Brings back some realism, common sense and clear eyed approaches following the kind of absurdity that we heard previously. The future of the automotive sector is not a dilemma between protecting the climate and protecting the car industry. Rather, we have to make climate objectives compatible with our aim of maintaining competitiveness. The current industry used to be one of our leading industries. We need to combat emissions without creating massive job losses in such an important sector. So yes, mistakes were made in the past. It was a mistake to think that industry could take anything, that you could impose technological solutions from the world of politics without taking account of economic realities that brought the sector to the edge of collapse. Now citizens are finally back at the center. There's something in it for citizens, for workers, for the automotive industry, and there's something in it for those of us who still believe in competitiveness. So this announcement of the automotive package shows that those like the prime minister of my country, who think that everything has to be sacrificed at the altar of an absurd climate agenda, have been proved wrong. And now Europe is back in the driving seat.”
  Road transport environmental policy
• “Thank you. Chairman. Mr. Vice President, the year 2025 was one more year in which the Commission has not dealt with. One of the major problems that the European Union suffers from and will suffer more in future. That's depopulation. We had an opportunity to introduce in the mid term review of the cohesion policies, a fight against population as a specific goal, but we lost that opportunity. We know that one of your initiatives has included this in the MFF as a goal to support, uh. The right to remain in these territories that are least favored. Uh, I'm happy that we've had a strategy, uh, introduced to promote this, but as you know, for this to be effective, the fighting against depopulation, we need measures, uh, specific measures and financing, also specific financing. We want to make sure that this strategy is not diluted in the national strategy. So that's not going to be a guarantee to achieve our goals. That's why we're asking for a specific strategy targeted. To guaranteeing this right to remain and fight against de-population with a specific delineation of population according to size and population with specific cofinancing measures, and that we don't want to leave the determining of the amounts in the hands of the national governments.”
  Cohesion and rural funding
• “Thank you. Thank you very much. I will speak in Spanish. Thank you. I think it was again for the debate, especially since this is a very important moment for the automotive industry and in general for European industry in general. I think everyone in this House is. Awaiting eagerly the upcoming automotive package, which amongst other topics, will include the revision of the emissions regulation text that I think we can all agree, should set the new rhythm for the competitiveness in the automotive sector. Also, many in this House are trust that this proposal will have a realistic approach and won't simply set up a realistic goals. And of course it should include Technology neutrality. I think there's a majority in this House saying that we can only accept a proposal that effectively combines environmental and goals with the economic viability of the sector. And I say that as a Spaniard, where the automotive industry is a flagship part of our economy. And we look at it not in terms of the climate, but rather in terms of the future of the sector and of the high number of jobs that our country depends on. This is why we stress that we will only be able to accept a change in the emissions regulation. Which, along with the recent Council of Europe 2040 goals, should. Do away with simply measuring what comes out of the exhaust pipes and look at the entire life cycle of the vehicle. Unfortunately, this won't be enough. The future framework of the industry should also focus on creating favorable situations to thrive and innovate. In Europe, we need administrative simplification, regulatory simplification and look at the entire supply chain. We have a lot of homework to do. We have very high expectations and hopefully the work will we carry out will actually ensure that the current crisis that the automotive industry is facing won't continue. And this is what we'd like to ask Mr. Niklas. Could you ensure that the Commission will integrate in its upcoming automotive proposal the principle of technology Neutrality, just like the European Council included it in his 2040 goals.”
  Road transport environmental policy
• “Now what? In the competitive compass in the industrial deal, there are subjects that aren't fully developed in the automation plan. We had indeed expected and hoped for more there. We want to try to find a solution to the issue of the fines and the batteries, and we would have liked to have seen further development of the principle of neutrality in the clean industrial deal. And also the. Reproduction of internal combustion engines. We want to make sure that there are fair conditions so that industry can compete. We shouldn't favor one technology over another, and we think that it should be the market and the market users who have the opportunity to choose. Even if we know that the future will be electric. So from the EP then and I'm concluding here, we think that we absolutely need to correct the combustion engine models and then modify the model for vehicle emissions. This is something that could be looked at in the revision that's mentioned in the auto motion plan. And. The actions to be taken by the Commission in this area in the future. Thank you.”
  Road transport environmental policy
• “Thank you president. Good afternoon Commissioner. We all agree Europe does need to speed up the adoption of clean technology. Moreover, this is essential if we are to achieve one of the objectives we test ourselves during this period a competitive industry, energy independence, climate, technology and so on. However, we need to go beyond good intentions and the right words. As you said, we need to adopt a pragmatic approach. We have to be determined and above all, we need to set ourselves ambitions. Above all, we have to leave behind us. There's old dogmatic cliches, ideological, stale ideas which have proved to be so damaging in the past. Moreover, we have to say that clearly, and we have to act on that basis. The energy transition in Europe is impossible without nuclear power. If we really do want to reach energy sovereignty in Europe, we need nuclear energy. If we do really want to ensure that we have affordable energy prices in the European Union, we need nuclear energy. This is why it's so important that we ensure that nuclear energy be put on an equal footing with renewable energy. It's important that all those provisions, contrary to nuclear power, disappear from EU legislation. We have the example of Germany, the great mistake which Germany made. But the fact that they corrected course afterwards. We note that 12 governments recently wrote to the European Commission. Asking them to step up their game when it comes to developing nuclear energy. Moreover, by the government, the president interrupts. The president interrupts again.”
  Nuclear energy
• “Europe is withdrawing from climate policies. What we have now is a golden opportunity for Europe to pick up the slack that the US has left. We need to be able to play our cards right, something we haven't always done in the past. We need to be careful to balance industry and environment. We've seen what happens in the past. We don't want to affect our competitiveness. The good news, though, is that the Commission has the willingness to act, to take on board mistakes made in the past, and to correct those to change the direction of our industrial policy. And that is important. These objectives of competitiveness are something we will only be able to achieve if we really take into account, um, a coordinated industrial and green policy, and not to subordinate industrial policy to green policy. So that is our clean industrial deal. It is a clean deal rather than a Green deal, and it is an industrial deal. I think that is a good first step, only a first step, but a good, solid first step based on its principles. I would have liked it to be a little more ambitious. We'll have to see when the legislation is developed for this deal, and to see if we've really learnt from the past, and we're really going to give fresh impetus to industry in the EU. You need to be determined to show courage and to act rapidly. There is not a minute to lose. Thank you very much.”
  Climate efforts
• “Now thank you. Thank you chair. Well the subcontracting chains are the an essential part of our economy. They're a legitimate tool. Legitimate, which makes it possible for companies to innovate, to compete. And it's a tool that also supports a large number millions of jobs across the European Union. Now, if this works according to the law, it is efficient. It provides stability and job opportunities in many different sectors. The objective could never be that you limit subcontracting through a directive. What you need to do is you need to implement this properly. You need to be efficient in the use of state legislation which already exists and is already in force. You need to look at the places where there are true risks without imposing imposing further burdens on companies, companies that are already dealing with their commitments. And they need to have legal certainty. And what they certainly don't need are any automatic obligations which are going to penalize their legitimate business. So protect workers does not mean that you're going to demonize the intermediaries. You need to legislate responsibly. You need to protect the labor rules, but also fight for the competitiveness of companies and preserve a labor market which creates quality jobs, also through subcontracting. Thank you.”
  EU policy on employment subcontracting
• “you very much, and good morning, everyone. This is a very important debate, and the proposal is even more important. We're talking about regulations that will impact most purchased vehicles in the EU. Let's start with a basic premise. We all have the same aim. It's essential to step up innovation for our European fleet, decreasing emissions due to road transport. But let's tackle the question. Let's be realistic. Let's not commit the errors of the past. It's not simply about setting targets with percentages and hoping that companies will react. We've already seen what happens when we do that. Corporate fleets are not homogenous. There are huge differences not only between states, but also between business model sectors, infrastructure availability, corporate needs, market needs, market conditions, they're all different all across the EU in various sectors. And hence, the EPP will not, in any case, accept a proposal that does not guarantee that this transition is done based upon respect and the principle of technological neutrality. It also needs to be economically affordable for companies. And, of course, it needs to contribute to strengthening the competitiveness of our industry. The challenge indeed is not simply trying to increase the number of e-vehicles at any cost. Rather, we need to set the stage for innovation, acceptable infrastructure, access to funding, appropriate technology, a secondhand market that allows us to expand these benefits to everyone. And this doesn't depend on the commission. This depends on states. So from our point of view, rather than focusing on specific percentages or approaches that should apply to all, we should focus on breaking down barriers that make it harder to have low emission vehicles adopted by companies. And finally, by way of conclusion, we need to ensure that climate aims are compatible with the competitiveness of our businesses and the needs of our users. Thank you.”
  Corporate fleet electrification: binding zero-emission quotas vs. voluntary approach
• “Thank you very much. As far as I know, the German government and all the political parties that are part of EPP are in favour of technological neutrality. Diversifying energy sources and so on. And that includes Germany too. ****Sakis ARNAOUTOGLOU: Honourable members. I heard the far right say something unbelievable today. They said that since we can't do anything and we can't solve the problem of temperature going up, and since we have so many bottles from Indonesia and so on, then we don't need to do anything about it. Now to the far right. I'd like to say the following. What do you do at home? Do you not protect your own family? Do you not protect your children? The planet is our home, and it sounds like you don't want to wear a safety belt. And you don't want your children to wear a safety belt because you don't want to protect them. And we know exactly who is going to come out worse off. The person wearing the safety belt or the person not wearing it. So I just don't understand your attitude. I'm sorry. Cop 30, in Belgium has just confirmed something we've known for a long time. The world is progressing at a snail's pace. We're not tackling the climate crisis quickly enough, and the EU has to acknowledge the mistakes it's making. You have to understand that we have to work quickly so that you don't feel guilty in the future, and you're quite young, so you'll realise the consequences during your lifetime. We have to act now. We cannot waste any more time. **Nicolae ȘTEFĂNUȚĂ @Co-Chair: Mr.. Juncker.”
  Climate efforts
• “Thank you. President. Dear colleagues. Online streaming of sports events is not a minor problem. It's cross-border issue. It's a massive issue and it's perfectly organized. Now faced with this, the EU does not have a combined response, but we have 27 national responses, which are uneven an ineffective and completely insufficient. Now the question would be, can we put an end to this? And the answer is yes. We do have a number of tools which are showing themselves to be effective in certain states with dynamic injunctions. This is something which works extremely effectively and which could be made compulsory by the European Commission. The Commission, which up to now has only made recommendations on these implementation to Member States. Now this is a legal vacuum, and the different approaches by member States means that pirates move to the countries that have lower levels of implementation. So the Commission, as soon as possible, needs to set up a common legal framework with proportionate, effective measures to protect people's values. They need to have one single response to put an end to online piracy of sporting events. This is not a question of a lack of technology. Right now, it's a lack of political will. And we are calling for the commission to do something about this.”
  Broadcasting of sports events
• “Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Commissioner. Thank you for acting quickly. Thank you for listening to the sector before you adopt decisions. And thank you also for recording importance to the automotive sector. Finally, we need to recognize first and foremost that this plan constitutes a significant step forward because it provides solution to some of the immediate problems in the sector. Sectors fines. But we need to be honest, it doesn't go far enough in our view. Technological neutrality should be more than a slogan. It is an absolute need. We cannot face the future if we don't have innovation and technology on board to allowing us to decarbonize. We need to be much more open in technological terms. We need to be more realistic, and going purely for electrification will lead to outsourcing. Decarbonisation is an objective, of course, but we shouldn't fall into a trap which prevents us from engaging in industrial development. So less dogma, more innovation, less limitation, more incentive.”
  Road transport environmental policy
• “So a new opportunity, a new opportunity to once again focus on those various targets in order to, uh, in order so that the European Union can be a leader on this particular front. Major objectives, ambitious ambitions at the global level as well, and commitment. We need commitment, however, that goes hand in hand with real policy, the policy of decarbonisation. Why? Because once again, the same thing is going to happen. Well, I don't think we're realistic. We have these objectives, but we don't take into consideration the reverberations for businesses, for individuals, for society, and whether it's feasible for the economy. Because we're not listening. We're not listening to industry. We're adopting measures, uh, turning our back on industry altogether, not listening to what they have to say. We saw this in the automobile sector. What's happened And what's taking place right now there in that particular sector. Well, we didn't learn anything from the mistakes made. We've heard about new, ambitious objectives to increase the rhythm and the speed of decarbonisation for to 2035, 2040, when we're very, very far from achieving those particular 2030 objectives. And I do ask myself, isn't this hypocritical climate hypocrisy as well? We have it's it's not necessary to move further with more and more objectives and targets. What's important is to make possible real objectives which go hand in hand with the needs of industry and our societies as well. We have to help industry. We have to create systems that are compatible so that we are competitive in the future. We don't want to subordinate, uh, industrial policy to economic policy as well. Let's learn from the errors of the past. Thank you.”
  Climate efforts
• “Thank you very much, Vice President. This morning, I was at a hearing, and, um, it's really good to listen to you, because we can see that it's you who is really leading the area of competitiveness in industrial issues. And we've known for a long time now that. We really need to work a lot on this subject area. So I'm very pleased to see that you are working to ensure that industrial policies are compatible with environmental policies, so that they can go hand in hand with the objective of competitiveness. It's a principle that I share. And you said that we want to uphold the decarbonisation objectives while at the same time strengthening industry. And that is exactly what we see in the documents that have been presented by the Commission. Now, it is true that we would have liked, and we have said this publicly, to have more ambition as regards the development. And the documents to be able to prove that we are in favour of this. But we are very much in agreement with the clear steps that you are taking, and you are acting exactly how we would hope.”
  Energy (green transition)
• “Thank you, Madam President. Commissioner. We began this term saying that this would be the term of focusing on competitiveness. This is all building on what was set out in the report. We were all clear that in order to to really achieve competitiveness, we needed to move beyond headlines and slogans. We said that we needed specific actions, uh, structural actions and clear strategies to be implemented quickly. That was the aim. And that's what we're doing now. For example, we have the omnibus package to reduce the administrative burden for businesses. That's the direction we should continue to follow. That's what all our initiatives should be focused on. We support the spirit of this initiative. We're fully aware of the need to strengthen social dialogue. Clearly, we would like to thank the rapporteur for the work that's gone into this, but we do need to be careful. We need to make sure that the initiatives which are being set out here do not lead to increased costs, increased bureaucracy or more ambiguity for businesses. Europe needs social dialogue. Absolutely. Europe needs to protect the rights of workers. Absolutely. To Europe also needs realism and balance. We need strong businesses which have the capacity to innovate, invest and create jobs. And we need to make sure that we're not limiting their competitiveness. We believe that we can move forward in a framework that protects workers rights. We think this should always be compatible with the reduction of burden of bureaucratic burden for businesses. Thank you very much.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Thank you. President. Good morning Commissioner. You emphasized that nuclear power is key key here, not less. Not least for supplies of energy and the cost of energy. In line with that, the majority of EU member states are planning new investments in nuclear energy, or at least extending the useful life of their power plants. Only one country has a government going the other way, planning to close nuclear power stations on its territory, and that is Spain. It's not doing it for technical reasons or security. They're doing it solely because of ideological radicalism. And Mrs. Ribeiro is pushing this in Spain. And the Amaranth Almaraz Power Station will close immediately in 2027, generating 7% of the energy consumed in our country. And this will have an economic impact. And on jobs and of course, in the price of electricity bills paid in our country, so that while in Europe there is a debate starting up about bringing down energy costs in our country, we are clearly saying renewables, yes, nuclear power? No. But it's impossible to make progress like that. It is not at all the right time for energy, dogma and ideology. It's a time to be economically pragmatic. If we don't understand that, it's impossible that we can take on board the concept of competitiveness. Thank you.”
  Nuclear energy