Dick ERIXON

Policy topics Dick ERIXON is active on

What Dick ERIXON has said (38)

• 2026-03-08 “Answer given by Ms Zaharieva on behalf of the European Commission 2.6.2026 Written question The Scaleup Europe Fund is designed as a market-based instrument to support the scaling of innovative European companies, while mobilising substantial private investment. The EU contribution to the Scaleup Europe Fund is foreseen as EUR 1 billion, drawn from the European Innovation Council component of Pillar III of Horizon Europe (HE) [1] under the current Multiannual Financial Framework, with the target to attract EUR 4 billion from private investors (of which approximately EUR 2 billion has already been indicated by the group of private founding investors) [2] . The selected private fund manager is expected to raise the remaining capital to reach the target size of EUR 5 billion. The Fund will invest high-growth scale-ups in strategic sectors, such as AI, quantum, semiconductors, robotics, energy, space, and biotechnologies/medical technologies, with selection criteria stemming from the HE Programme. The detailed investment strategy will be agreed by all founding investors, including the Commission, with the selected fund manager. Gender equality and climate considerations will be addressed in line with applicable EU legal and policy frameworks but do not constitute HE selection criteria. While the investment guidelines, agreed with all founding investors, will ensure that the Commission policy objectives are reflected in the overall mandate and investment strategy, all investment decisions will be taken by the independent private fund manager according to market standards, thus avoiding any political involvement in individual investment decisions. This ensures independent, market-based, investment decision-making, that will target Europe’s scale-up financing needs. [1] https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/funding/funding-opportunities/funding-programmes-and-open-calls/horizon-europe_en. [2] Novo Holdings, Export and Investment Fund of Denmark, CriteriaCaixa, Santander/Mouro Capital, Fondazione Compagnia di San Paolo/Intesa Sanpaolo/Fondazione Cariplo, Dutch pension fund ABP (with APG as Asset Manager, and Allianz).”
  EU policy on sustainability criteria in public funding · EU Competition policy · EU industrial funding
• 2025-09-26 “E-003745/2025 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Virkkunen on behalf of the European Commission The Commission recognises the need to foster innovation and encourage investment in artificial intelligence (AI) in Europe. Therefore, the AI Act 1 aims to promote innovation and the uptake of AI, while ensuring a high level of protection of health, safety and fundamental rights, including democracy and the rule of law. The AI Act is designed as a future-proof regulation that is fit for the rapid pace of technological development, as well as the potential changes in the use of AI systems and emerging risks. In order to ensure that the rules remain relevant and effective, the AI Act foresees regular evaluation and review of the AI Act by the Commission. Even before specific provisions apply, such as the rules for high-risk AI systems, the Commission is tasked, under Article 112(1) AI Act, to assess the need for amendment of the list of high-risk AI systems set out in Annex III every year. The Commission is currently working on the first report under this provision. As part of the Commission’s simplification agenda, the Commission is analysing the EU’s digital rulebook to see if it fully delivers on its objectives, which will lead to the Digital Omnibus. The AI Act is part of this analysis. In order to foster AI innovation, the Commission adopted, on 9 April 2025, the AI Continent Action Plan 2 . Complementing the Plan, the Commission published, on 8 October 2025, its overarching Apply AI Strategy 3 that aims to foster the adoption and integration of AI in 10 key European industries and the public sector. The Apply AI Strategy encourages an AI first policy where AI is considered as a potential solution whenever organisations make strategic or policy decisions, taking into careful consideration the benefits and the risks of the technology. 1 Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024. https://eurlex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj/eng. 2 https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/ai-continent-action-plan. 3 https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/apply-ai.”
  Artificial Intelligence
• 2025-07-14 “E-002868/2025 Answer given by Mr Serafin on behalf of the European Commission The Commission is committed to transparency in its activities, applying strict rules concerning interest representation and publishing information on all meetings held with interest representatives. This applies regardless of whether the interest representatives are from the EU or from a third country, and irrespective of where the meeting is held. As of 1 January 2025, these transparency rules also apply to all Commission staff with management functions 1 . To protect the EU’s international relations, meetings with representatives of public authorities of third countries, including their diplomatic missions and embassies, or intergovernmental organisations are not covered by these rules, with transparency maintained through press releases and social media where possible. Article 163 of the Financial Regulation 2 provides for the principle of transparency which must be respected throughout all phases of the process. Contacts with tenderers are allowed exceptionally in the circumstances provided by Article 172, also considering the type of procurement procedure. These contacts must always take place in writing and all records of them must be kept in the procurement file. Records of the meetings and contacts with tenderers in a procurement procedure are subject to the rules on access to documents. As a general rule, the date of the meeting is accessible after the signature of contract, however the minutes of the meeting and other content related information may be refused if they fall under the exceptions provided in art. 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 3 . The content of tenders or specific offers of a tenderer benefit from a presumption of non-accessibility for a period of five years, but they can be protected even longer with additional specific justification. NGO funding contracts, like other funding contracts, are not public documents. The Commission has provided access to the European Parliament in full compliance with the applicable legal framework 4 . 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L_202403081. and https://eurlex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L_202403082. 2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/2509/oj/eng. 3 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2001/1049/oj/eng. 4 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:304:0047:0062:EN:PDF.”
  Transparency requirements for interest groups · Transparency requirements of EU institutions
• 2025-06-16 “E-002425/2025 Answer given by Mr Serafin on behalf of the European Commission The proposal for an Interinstitutional agreement (IIA) between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission 1 governs the cooperation between the institutions on budgetary matters. The European Parliament will continue to play its important role by giving consent to the multiannual financial framework (MFF) regulation 2 , an opinion on the Own Resources Decision 3 and co-legislate in all the sectoral basic acts. As proposed in the IIA, before the adoption of the draft budget by the Commission, a budgetary trilogue shall be convened to discuss the funding priorities for the budget of the coming financial year, taking into account the EU’s policy priorities identified by the Institutions in relevant documents. This budgetary trilogue aims to inform the budgetary procedure and explore how the priorities can best be reflected in the next budget. The activation of an exceptional and temporary crisis mechanism to provide additional loans to Member States in case of a large crisis will be decided by the Council by means of a Council regulation adopted in accordance with the procedure set out in the fourth paragraph of Article 311 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union having obtained the consent of the European Parliament 4 . The Commission's proposal is based on EU budget programmes evaluations (mid-term and ex post), impact assessments, reports and documents from other EU institutions such as the European Parliament and the European Court of Auditors. The Commission also actively engaged with stakeholders in the process of the initiative, notably through dedicated events, such as the citizens’ panel on the new European budget 5 and a dedicated open public consultation 6 . This reflects the Commission's commitment to a transparent and open process. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52025PC0572. 2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:0d5ded06-639d-11f0-bf4e01aa75ed71a1.0001.02/DOC_1&format=PDF. 3 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=COM:2025:574:FIN. 4 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:C:2008:115:FULL. 5 https://citizens.ec.europa.eu/european-citizens-panels/european-citizens-panel-new-european-budget_en. 6 https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/14525-EU-s-next-long-term-budgetMFF-EU-funding-for-the-single-market-and-cooperation-between-national-authorities/public-consultation_en.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget · Size of EU budget
• 2025-06-16 “E-002426/2025 Answer given by Mr Serafin on behalf of the European Commission The EU budget must be able to rely on a solid audit and control strategy, including close cooperation between the Commission and the European Court of Auditors (ECA), to ensure that EU funds are spent in accordance with applicable rules. The proposed management, control, and audit framework for the next multiannual financial framework 1 is designed to provide strong assurance that funds are spent for their intended purposes and respect legality and regularity, by building on the lessons learned from the implementation of EU programmes and on the ECA recommendations. The National and Regional Partnership plans proposal 2 includes a clear set of key requirements for national management, control and audit systems, to be assessed in the approval process of the plans and monitored throughout implementation, including the allocation of sufficient resources to the relevant national authorities. In line with the single audit principle, where appropriate, the Commission will rely on controls carried out by the Member States and will complement them by its own controls, focused on the systems put in place by the Member States to ensure the rigorous protection of the financial interests of the EU. The Commission’s proposal to simplify and harmonise rules - notably by reducing the fragmentation of funds and clarifying payment requirements for objective-based delivery models - are expected to lower error rates and reduce risks of diverging interpretation. The Commission acknowledges the key role ECA plays in ensuring accountability, transparency, and the efficient use of EU resources, however, decisions on ECA’s resources remain with the budgetary authority. 1 https://commission.europa.eu/publications/multiannual-financial-framework_en. 2 https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/eu-budget/long-term-eu-budget/eu-budget-20282034_en#legal-documents.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• 2025-04-02 “E-001356/2025 Answer given by Mr McGrath on behalf of the European Commission The European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) is independent from the Commission. The Commission is not involved in the administrative inquiry concerning the European Prosecutor from Bulgaria, nor in the vetting or the assessment of the asset disclosure requirements of the members of the EPPO, for which the EPPO is responsible in accordance with the relevant rules and procedures. The Commission is evaluating the implementation and impact of Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 (‘EPPO Regulation’) 1 , as well as the effectiveness and efficiency of the EPPO and its working practices. The evaluation report is due in 2026. In this context, the Commission will also assess whether the existing measures to strengthen integrity checks, transparency and asset verification for EPPO staff are sufficient. The cooperation between the EPPO and national authorities will be covered by the same evaluation. In addition, the Commission has been receiving from the EPPO, since 2023 and on an annual basis, a contribution on the cooperation between the national authorities and the EPPO in the context of the annual Rule of Law Cycle. This information will feed into the evaluation of the EPPO Regulation and the EPPO’s effectiveness, efficiency and working practices. 1 Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 of 12 October 2017 implementing enhanced cooperation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (‘the EPPO’), OJ L 283, 31.10.2017, p. 1–71.”
  EU law enforcement cooperation in criminal matters · Transparency requirements of EU institutions
• 2025-03-11 “E-001041/2025 Answer given by Mr Dombrovskis on behalf of the European Commission The Commission would like to recall its public reply to Special Report 9/2025 1 . In line with the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) Regulation 2 , payments to the Member States are solely based on the satisfactory fulfilment of milestones and targets 3 . While the primary responsibility to ensure compliance with EU and national law, including compliance with public procurement and State aid rules lies with the Member States 4 , the Commission put in place an effective control system which is fully in line with the RRF Regulation as agreed by the co-legislators. The Commission carries out regular audits in all Member States to ensure they comply with these obligations. When the Commission has identified a serious deficiency in national control systems, and the Member State has failed to address it, the Commission has taken corrective action. While the RRF Regulation allows Member States to make use of existing national budget management systems, they must comply with both EU and national law. If a Member State fails to correct a serious RRF-related irregularity (i.e. fraud, corruption or conflict of interest), or seriously breaches its obligations under the Financing Agreement, the Commission can and will apply corrections and recover funds. Following previous recommendations from the European Court of Auditors and the European Parliament, the Commission has strengthened further its audit strategy in 2023 and extended the scope of its audit work to systematically check Member States' compliance with public procurement and State aid rules, including the effectiveness of these checks. Based on this extended audit work, and considering all controls conducted and information available, the Commission maintains that it had reasonable assurance for the payments done in 2023. 1 https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECAReplies/COM-Replies-SR-2025-09/COM-Replies-SR-2025-09_EN.pdf 2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32021R0241 3 RRF Regulation, Article 24. 4 RRF Regulation, Article 22(1).”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget · Conditions to access EU budget
• 2025-02-26 “E-000846/2025 Answer given by Mr Serafin on behalf of the European Commission The Honourable Member refers to the request made by the Committee on Budgetary Control (CONT) on reviewing contracts awarded by Commission, in the framework of the annual discharge procedure. The Commission is committed to a smooth discharge process, which ensures democratic oversight of the implementation of the EU budget in compliance with the regulatory requirements and sound financial management principles. In line with Article 319(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 1 and Article 267(3) of the Financial Regulation (FR) 2 , the Commission shall submit to the European Parliament any information the latter deems necessary in the context of the discharge procedure for the financial year concerned. In the context of the ongoing discharge procedure for year 2023, on 8 October 2024, the CONT committee requested the transmission of 31 grant agreements. Afterwards, on 4 February 2025, CONT made another request – to receive lists of all grant agreements concluded between selected Commission departments and all beneficiaries, which were in force in 2023. The CONT committee then selected a sample of 28 agreements for further review, based on these lists. The Commission provided all requested information, within the time limits set by the CONT committee, not only under the current discharge procedure, but also in January 2024, under the previous legislature. This transmission was not subject to budgetary constraints and was in line with the provisions of the Annex II to the Framework Agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the Commission 3 . Annex II obliges both institutions to ensure the adequate protection of personal data, or data relevant to business secrecy or commercial interests contained in the agreements. The Commission is not obliged to publish its grant agreements, as they do not fall under the scope of Article 38 of the FR 4 . In light of the above, Commission considers that it has duly fulfilled its responsibility in the context of the discharge procedure, and it will continue the constructive cooperation in this regard. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:12012E/TXT 2 Regulation 2024/2509 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union; ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/2509/oj 3 http://data.europa.eu/eli/agree_interinstit/2010/1120/oj 4 https://commission.europa.eu/publications/eu-financial-regulation_en”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• 2024-10-22 “E-002204/2024 Answer given by Mr Dombrovskis on behalf of the European Commission The Commission has a clear focus on competitiveness and making business easier and faster in Europe, without undermining the EU’s high standards. Several tools contribute to this aim. The ‘one in, one out’ approach offsets administrative costs. It acts as a ‘cost brake’ and ensures their consistent downward trend at the level of Commission proposals. The Commission also set the goal to reduce reporting burden by 25%, accelerating the burden reduction dynamics. It tabled 41 initial proposals in its 2024 work programme 1 , with additional measures taken since and included in rationalisation plans for 2024 and after. The President of the Commission made simplification a key priority for the next College. Each Commissioner, working with the Commissioner for implementation and simplification and the Vice-president for Prosperity and Industry, will stress test the acquis and make proposals to eliminate overlaps, contradictions and be digitally compatible. They will contribute to reducing reporting obligations by at least 25% - and for small and medium-sized enterprises at least 35%. Each Commissioner will also hold implementation dialogues with stakeholders at least twice per year to identify simplification priorities and present annual progress reports with actions to better enforce, implement and simplify. This framework ensures effective monitoring of administrative costs and savings, based on Commission proposals. Each impact assessment includes estimates of all compliance costs whenever data are available. The Commission is further finalising its work on the estimation of the overall administrative burden due to EU legislation. The Commission aims to cooperate also with the European Parliament and the Council to ensure burden reduction is effective in the final legislation. This could be done by each institution assessing the impact of significant amendments based on a simple and clear methodology. 1 https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/79628203-f1b5-450d-9d6c0a2f5374a9dc_en?filename=COM_2023_638_1_EN.pdf”
  Simplification measures (political compass) · Overall simplification of regulation in the EU (free access)
• 2024-10-15 “E-002084/2024 Answer given by Mr Dombrovskis on behalf of the European Commission Well-designed EU rules simplify life for citizens and businesses, especially small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), including in areas where they replace the patchwork of 27 national frameworks with a single set of rules. The Commission’s aim is burden reduction and simplification without undermining its policy goals. This will ensure that doing business will be easier and faster in Europe and also facilitate innovation. The Commission committed in 2023 to reduce reporting burdens by 25% and tabled already a first set of 41 proposals in its work programme for 2024, covering many areas 1 , such as posting of workers, customs code, transport, statistics and sustainability reporting. It also carried out a call for evidence 2 , which received about 200 contributions from stakeholders highlighting areas of particular concern and rationalisation ideas. These areas are aligned with the sectors depicted in Mr Draghi’s report as being under international competition 3 . It is in these areas, where the Commission will first prioritise its efforts. Looking forward, the President of the Commission made implementation and simplification key political priorities for the new College. Each Commissioner will hold implementation dialogues with stakeholders at least twice per year to identify simplification priorities. Working with the Commissioner for implementation and simplification, they will stress-test the acquis and table proposals to eliminate overlaps, contradictions and be fully digitally compatible, while maintaining high standards. This will contribute to reducing reporting obligations by at least 25% - and for SMEs by at least 35%. Moreover, each impact assessment includes estimates of all compliance costs whenever data are available. The Commission is further finalising its work on the estimation of the overall administrative burden due to EU legislation. 1 See 2024 Commission Work Programme: https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/812f6e9c-15da4913-8fd2-aea6c26674c0_en?filename=COM_2023_638_1_annexes_EN.pdf 2 https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13990-Administrative-burdenrationalisation-of-reporting-requirements_en 3 Energy, critical raw material, digitalisation and innovation technologies, high speed/capacity broadband networks, computing and AI, semi-conductors, energy-intensive industry, clean tech, automotive, defense, space, pharma, transport.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU (free access) · EU Single Market harmonisation
• 2024-10-08 “– Herr talman! Överstatliga socialistfonder skapar perversa incitament. De som inte sköter beredskapen belönas. De som gjort sitt jobb får betala. Naturkatastrofer är tragedier, och det är inte värdigt att de utnyttjas som ursäkt för ökad ekonomisk omfördelning inom EU. Att låta andra betala, till exempel om holländarna skulle sluta underhålla sin vall mot havet vore lika orimligt som om Sverige skulle kräva kompensation av Sydeuropa för våra kalla vintrar. Självfallet kan länder hjälpa varandra. Som när våra skogar brann och Polens brandförsvar kom till undsättning. Det var frivillig och äkta solidaritet. Ansvar för civil beredskap ska förbli nationell. Det är ingen överstatlig fråga och kostnaderna ska inte dumpas på skötsamma länder. Sverigedemokraterna röstar nej till skadliga bidrag, inte bara för Sveriges, utan för hela Europas, väl.”
• 2024-09-04 “E-001617/2024 Answer given by Ms Šuica on behalf of the European Commission Following the European Council Conclusions on the Middle East of 27 June 2024 1 , the EU is working toward a multi-year programme aiming to stabilise the fiscal situation of the Palestinian Authority as it undertakes reforms and builds institutional capacities. This is an essential element for advancing towards a two-state solution and peace in the Middle East. In this context, short-term emergency financial support to the Palestinian Authority amounting to EUR 400 million is being implemented. The first two tranches, totaling EUR 272.5 million, were disbursed in July and September 2024 based on the progress made by the Palestinian Authority against the agreed milestones. The review 2 of the EU financial assistance for Palestine 3 has shown that the Commission’s controls and existing safeguards work well. No evidence has been found that EU funds have been diverted for unintended purposes. Moreover, given the current context, the Commission has identified further mitigating measures to strengthen the application of those safeguard measures currently in place such as the inclusion of the relevant anti-incitement contractual clauses in all new contracts, monitoring their strict application and enlarging the scope of the monitoring of beneficiaries, including through third-party monitoring. The release of the EU’s assistance is managed by the Commission in a manner consistent with the key principles of sound financial management. The Mécanisme Palestino-européen de Gestion de l’Aide Socio-économique (PEGASE mechanism) will continue to ensure that grants’ payments reach the intended beneficiaries in a highly secured and controlled way. 1 https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/qa3lblga/euco-conclusions-27062024-en.pdf 2 C(2023) 8300 final, https://neighbourhood-enlargement.ec.europa.eu/system/files/202311/Communication%20to%20the%20Commission%20on%20the%20review%20of%20ongoing%20financial%20assist ance%20for%20Palestine.pdf 3 This designation shall not be construed as recognition of a State of Palestine and is without prejudice to the individual positions of the EU Member States on this issue.”
  Conditions to access EU humanitarian aid · Relations with Israel - Palestine
• “The digitalization currently offers big benefits. But we do need to pay attention here. We need to think about the economy. And we need to strengthen this regulation, which boosts certain rules concerning companies and which also cover jobs and future opportunities. So we need to think about digital approach, because there could be an expansionist policy when it comes to this monetary policy, and that could be a threat to economic stability. We also have a digital identity, and that should be an instrument that could be used to support citizens on a daily basis in everything that they do. But it could also be a threat as well. We could see freedoms sacrificed here in terms of this digitalisation. Growth could be slowed down. So it's all about integrity and it's an issue of freedom for the players and the market. That's what we need to think about in the future.”
  Electronic identity
• “Thank you. Well, I think that the economic management of the Commission has failed in a number of different areas, and we can't actually simply overlook this. We've seen the number of errors or the error rate increase quite considerably to 5.6%, sometimes reaching 9.2%. We can't actually allow that. When you think of the high amounts of money that this is actually leading to, it leads to financial insecurity within the EU. And even more of a concern is the European Court of Auditors should have scrutiny over this. And this undermines the general public's faith in what's going on and the responsibility that the European Union should assume. We also need to understand that there are dangers looming. There's a risk that member states are actually indirectly supporting Islamic fundamentalists. We need stronger measures in place to make sure that European taxpayers aren't funding activities that go contrary to our values and security. The message must be clear the commission needs to step up controls. It needs to ensure that oversight is in place and make sure that there isn't any, um, cutting corners. That's what the citizens deserve. Thank you.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “The Parliament's budget proposal highlights how removed from reality we are, the council, Commission and Parliament to bargain over billions with a growing deficit. The where some MEPs who held an opposing view. There were colleagues who criticized the whole exercise, felt that this was a bad deal for taxpayers. And then what emerged at the end? We saw billions or millions added for support programs. That is not fair for European taxpayers and widens the gulf between the institutions and European citizens. For Sweden Democrats, we want to ensure respect for taxpayers responsible use of funds. Thank you.”
  Size of EU budget
• “. Thank you. I think we would have to raise our heads and make sure that we see the context that we find ourselves in. Neil Niall Ferguson, the historian, Uh, talked about, uh, uh, the war, uh, point zero China, the United States. It's all about technology and natural resources and territories. And obviously trade together with tariffs is just one element of this whole crisis. I think what our task is looking up the gallery, our task is to make sure that we can achieve the lowest tariffs as possible. And this holds true for both sides. The EU has higher tariffs compared to the US. And so I think we have to obviously enter into negotiations, uh, um, on an equal footing and make sure that we come up with a common denominator. Do we want to be on the side of the Americans or the Chinese?”
  EU-US trade relations
• “I'd like to speak Swedish. That's easier. The Court of Auditors made a report and an assessment of the cap 2023 to 2027. That the plan. Even if this plan is greener than the previous.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Regional or local. Thank you so much. Well, housing is a national, regional and local responsibility. That is why Europeans shouldn't really get involved. Europe is clearly has very different real estate markets from one country to the other, depending on where we are. If we're in Barcelona or Berlin, well, it's got nothing to do with what you may find in the rural areas. So the housing crisis is, um, a problem because of many different phenomenon in 2008 it had in the United States. They had started to do ambitious, ambitious work, similar. But. There have been consequences. And people have been hit, especially because of what the politicians have decided. We need to deregulate. We need to have make sure that member states can run their housing policies. Thank you.”
  EU policy on urban development
• “Thank you. Uh, from the European Court of Auditors report 421. We learn that out of over €109 billion allocated to promoting the business environment in the EU under the RF, only one third of completed reforms delivers significant results. So I want to ask, does the Commission take those results into account, and will it revise spending on similar programs that have not delivered expected results in the past? And what specific steps will you take in this regard to increase the added value of EU public money spending? Thank you.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Thank you. I am stunned. I am stunned to see that the Social Democrats want to undermine the century long social model. This has worked for a long time. You want to intervene in the relationship between business owners and workers? Subcontractors are a key part of the employment market in our country. This is about the economy. We want a competitive Europe. And in this very difficult context, we don't want to overburden companies with more red tape because most companies do things properly, some don't. That's true. And they need to be pursued. But we shouldn't punish companies that do things properly because they create competitiveness and growth.”
  EU regulation on worker representation in company decisions
• “Thank you. I would like to thank the rapporteur, Monika Hohlmeier, for her thorough work on this draft report. It is right to address the serious failures in procurement at the European Union Agency of Cyber Security, where contracts were launched without proper financing and the critical control gaps at the European Institute of Innovation and Technology, where Olaf has recommended recovering millions of euros. However, while we check the books, we are missing the bigger picture. Those agencies manage the total budget of over 4.1 billion will be. We need to systematically need a systematic way to see the actual impact they have on citizens life, not just check that they follow the rules. As noted in ECA Special Report 22 2020, agencies report on their activities, but their actual contribution to EU policy is not clearly measured or explained to the public. This report is a strong step toward our goal, but it function more as a list of suggestions for specific agencies rather than the systematic overhaul we need to ensure every euro is spent wisely. Thank you.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Well, previous centuries you saw censorship and fines against newspapers if they actually spoke out against the power of the state. But today it's digital media that are subject to the same kind of repression by the power by the state. Now, of course, are we talking about freedom of opinion? No. I think there is a pretense to defend democracy and that and use that pretext to silence difference of opinion. We need to have counterarguments. We need to have debates. We need to have counterarguments and debates. That is the way forward. It's not a question of silencing those who don't feel the same way as you do. Therefore, Commissioner, let us not continue down this track. It's repression. It's basically making the European people very passive. That is not the way to go.”
  Disinformation & online freedoms
• “On the topic of NGOs. I think within the neighbourhood and ward headings, the European Court of Auditors found that the budget support payments were not affected by material errors, unlike all other forms of external aids. And the court also notes cases where NGOs implementing EU funds projects appropriate account. Accounting system and clear audit trails, making it difficult to trace and verify expenditure. Given those findings, why does the Commission continue to channel the majority of external aid through actors that consistently show material error rates? While budget support represents only about 15% of expenditure, and what factors prevent the strategic shift toward those more reliable and auditable mechanisms? Thank you. And you can put it on.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “This debate on digitalization is being characterized by two opposite perspectives. On the one hand, there's control rules and censorship. On the other hand, defending freedom, openness and development. We should have learnt that when politics starts getting involved in technological development, then the power to innovate is restricted. The detailed rule making means that Europe is lagging behind everybody else. In order to be competitive, we have to defend digital freedom, all freedoms in fact, and not rule ourselves into oblivion.”
  EU rules on digital competition
• “Thank you president. The. Imagination appears to know no bounds when it comes to inventing new taxes and levies in the European Union. We hear about crypto currencies, electro waste, new real estate taxes, a levy on oil companies, luxury Goods such as sports cars. Or. Financial transaction taxes. Digital advertising. And now we have a new proposal a levy on online gambling and betting. We should be allowing people and companies freedom of choice instead of inventing new taxes and placing greater burdens on citizens. As everyone knows, this will harm our competitiveness. Now you. Would you accept a blue card from Victor Negrescu?”
  EU taxation policy (political compass)
• “Do you remember the Lisbon strategy from back in 2000? The EU was to become the most competitive and most dynamic knowledge based society in the world. 25 years down the road, we can note that not only do the Lisbon strategy fail, but also a whole raft of uh, festively proclaimed uh strategies have failed to. Now we've seen the success of the Successor, the Competitiveness Compass. It's faced with the same problems that the previous five commissions have put forward. We want to have an increase in competitiveness. So it does some things right, but it underscores harmonization, subsidy policies, more climate regulation that invariably will lead to more bureaucracy, waste of money and top down management that stifles innovation, innovation and competitiveness. We can't work this way. We're going to have to deregulate instead.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Let me. Well, it's very simple to be generous with money that doesn't really belong to you. And if you look at this report for the 2026 budget, well, it's quite unbelievable as to the way in which this money is being spent. All of this is going at the cost of the taxpayer and this is not acceptable. It has been said that the council wants a more. But surely some of these cuts can be improved or can be included. The European Union needs to go back to its core tasks for European cooperation, and that basically means security, free trade and competitiveness. And that should not disappear. Let us focus on the core tasks of the European Union so that Europe can go forward. Thank you. **Younous OMARJEE @Co-ChairThank you very much. Next speaker. Monsieur.”
  Size of EU budget
• “Freedom of expression means that you, you know, you advance an argument against your opponent. I know that throughout history there have always been lies. There's always been distortion. There's all sorts of crap in and debate. It has been the case throughout history, but if you have democracy, if you have freedom of expression, then what you're fighting for is an open debate by taking on the debate, bringing it on, bringing forward arguments to counter the arguments of your opponent, and then people can make up their own minds and decide what is truth, what is right. But don't try and silence those who disagree with you because that is the wrong way to go. Thank you.”
  Disinformation & online freedoms
• “Thank you. The Court of Auditors report on Joint Undertakings for 2024 examines financial regularity. Whether you follow the budgetary rules, whether you spend money correctly, and whether partners contributed. But the report does not evaluate whether the programs are achieving their objectives. Ica has already identified this systematic problem. For example, the auditors write, results of EU funded AI projects are not systematically monitored. Without such a matrix, we cannot assess whether we are getting value for money. So my two questions are do the joint undertakings plan to introduce a common framework for measuring programmes performance Movements and impacts through Parliament, and taxpayers can see concrete results of the resources spent. And when will the European Parliament receive a report that says not just where the money was spent according to EU financial rules, but whether money delivers those specific results for the European citizens? Thank you.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Thank you very much. I'd like. An answer for a written question that I sent in. Now when with regards to simplification and having faster, more flexible methods to manage different projects, for several weeks now, I have been an end user myself in Gothenburg in Sweden. So I was able to have an overview, an overview of these European projects and how they were managed and how the funds have been managed. So I was a first hand user of these European funds. In Gothenburg. They felt that it was Difficult to use these funds and each new project, there were new issues, new problems that arose. And what surprised me was that these questions weren't addressed to the commission, but they were rather directed more towards the Swedish state, towards Stockholm, so that they could get answers to their problems. They wanted to know how these projects were going to help innovation and industry. These meant that there were very tricky conversations, because we don't always know how innovation is going to pan out. So I think it's important to have good control so that we know how this money is being used, of course, but we also need to make sure that the end users of these funds. Know how to best use these funds that are made available to them. Thank you.”
  Conditions to access EU budget
• “In the Swedish Democrats, we have been warning about the unsustainable budget policy of the EU for some time. More and more loans have been taken out. We warned about the corona, the Covid fund. Billions are disappearing. There's swindles. There are irregularities. And now the budget is being expanded further. More and more power is being given to the commission and the member states are losing power. That's what the Commission wants. The Commission is now suggesting that the next MFF cost even more money. Restrictions should be circumvented and we should no longer limit ourselves to the 1% limit. We should say no, no and no again. The long term budget should be coming down. We want responsibility to go back to the member states. The EU should not be trying to do so much. The EU should do the core activities. Yes, but it has to be more efficiency that will be serving people.”
  Size of EU budget
• “These guidelines for the budget 2027 require increased expenditure across the board. They're pushing for new higher taxes, new income. This includes red tape including green activism and gender perspective, which is doing this. And this is without any kind of holding back on entering into new costs or meaningful priorities, because the frugal position is glaring in its absence. What we see, what we need to see is more focused, more disciplined budget that will bring added value in a genuine fashion and respect the net contributors, because this isn't happening as it is. If you try and prioritise everything, the brutal truth is you end up not prioritizing anything. Thank you.”
  Size of EU budget
• “The most we need to remember that at the beginning of this year, it was the European Union that actually had higher tariffs vis a vis the USA for cars or for agricultural products. Important areas. Now, the new US administration responded to that, of course, reacted to that with its own form of protectionism. And under these circumstances, as far as I'm concerned, what this means is that we need to basically praise the Commission, praise them for having reached an agreement with the USA. There is now a deal with the USA, even though I personally would have preferred to see 0% tariffs both ways. Both sides. The Commission should not stoop low should not actually act childishly vis a vis the Europe, the United States of America. And it did not do so. You know, trade is far too important. We want to maintain our prestige and therefore let us continue to work towards lower tariffs. But let's also be realistic and let's take responsibility for actions. Thank you.”
  EU-US trade relations
• “What is positive about this implementing report is that it notes the warnings issued by the Court of Auditors that an economy of subsidies brings with it enormous administrative burdens. A number of colleagues have in this debate, from the left to the right of the spectrum, pointed to the serious deficiencies of the Covid fund, the RF. It risks weakening productive entrepreneurs who strengthen Europe's competitiveness and instead benefits non-productive, subsidized projects that weaken competitiveness. The learnings to draw from the RF is that we should not be dealing in loans and EU taxes, which leads us to the opposite of what we want a planned economy colossus that stifles development and Europe deserves better.”
  Own EU resources
• “Thank you. Our shadow rapporteur, Mr. Sturdza, couldn't be here, so I will read his comments. As ECR shadow rapporteur, I broadly share the views that this discharge require our careful consideration, because our responsibility in committee is to ensure that our criticisms are targeted, evidence based, and Also strengthens the Parliament's role as a credible discharge authority. Therefore, my amendments will focus on what I see as the key red lines. First, the Recovery and Resilience Facility. The repeated qualified opinions of the Court of Auditors, combined with the persistence gaps in information on final beneficiaries, are not technical details. They are fundamental accountability failures in a facility of considerable scale. And the Parliament is right to insist on legal clarity and verification data, and I intend to reinforce this focus. Second, transparency and access to documents. The issues raised by the Pfizer SMEs case go far beyond one single episode. It shows a modus operandi of the commission. They expose exposed structural weaknesses in record keeping and occasionally weak transparency standards that directly affect budgetary control. Third, and more generally, transparency must be applied consistently across all instruments and all beneficiaries. Effective scrutiny requires equal standards and not double standards. Otherwise, trust in the discharge process itself is undermined. Looking forward for our upcoming collaboration on this file. Thank you.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “direct payments do not, are not, do not have a lot of faults. And we can also see that there are administrative problems, but we see that the eco schemes are specifically shaped to deliver environmental benefits. The eco schemes are specifically designed to deliver results, but the error rate is higher there. At the same time, the efficiency of the eco schemes is questions the efficiency in reaching the climate goals. So what specific measures will the Commission take to make sure that we use climate money in a more efficient way in the cap? Well, the Commission look into the possibility of redistributing resources. We have eco schemes that are not performing very well today. Could means be redistributed Distributed to other systems with lower error rates and with more measurable climate effects.”
  Direct payments to farmers (pillar 1)
• “Thank you. The Budget Commissioner Serafin has admitted that EU funds to lobbying in Member of Parliament was inappropriate. And the scrutiny group on new contracts has started the investigation into how extensive this has been. So my question is, what corrective financial measures has the Commission taken regarding grants that funded inappropriate lobbying, including recovering of this such of funds? Thank you.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “They're not reaching the goals in the environment ambitions. And we also see in that 2024. This. We see a sharp contrast in the error rates and.”
  Climate efforts