Daniel CASPARY

Policy topics Daniel CASPARY is active on

What Daniel CASPARY has said (11)

• 2026-07-14 “(11:13:49 - 11:16:04): you very much, gentlemen. Good morning, everybody. I think it is important that we keep a watching eye on steel because although the negotiations are over, there's still the issue of the annexes. As I've seen since January 2027, the commission will continue to monitor the situation. But time the clock is ticking for our steel sector. It's facing real difficulties, and it's losing productive capacity under the pressure from of 3rd country imports. We can't compete on prices or on quantities. We're always going to come out losing. We can look at the idea of quality and decarbonizing steel. And they are we are at the forefront. These are assets which need to be protected. Without European steel production, though, we won't be competitive and we won't manage to relaunch our industrial economy. The negotiations have, of course, are also helped by the Industrial Accelerator Act, but we still need to look at the annexes of the negotiations. And I hope that by December of this year, we'll have all the data necessary to face up to the industrial crisis. We need to move, as quickly as possible without making any mistakes. From the beginning of January, we need to be able to protect steel using the annexes and therefore the derived products. The different associations in the steel sector want immediate responses, not protectionism, but legitimate protection of our industrial economic assets. We need to be, constructive, and we have been, and that has allowed us to achieve a result with the negotiations, although there are some issues still to be dealt with. Answers in January, I think, will show whether, these months, have been enough to protect sensitive sectors. And it's therefore important for the commission to deal with this issue immediately and think about what it intends to do in the longer term too.”
  Free trade agreements (FTAs)
• 2025-07-30 “E-003135/2025 Answer given by Ms Albuquerque on behalf of the European Commission The request refers to the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA)’s guidelines which aim to ensure a harmonized application of certain aspects of the suitability requirements (updated in April 2023) and the appropriateness requirements (updated in April 2022) foreseen by Directive 2014/65/EU on markets in financial instruments (MiFID II) 1 . These requirements have been in application since January 2018. MiFID requires investment firms to assess their clients’ knowledge and experience in the investment field relevant to the specific type of product or services recommended, offered or demanded. This implies in particular that firms must assess their clients’ understanding of the risks and features of the financial instruments they will invest into. The ESMA guidelines emphasize flexibility in methods (e.g., digital questionnaires, client discussions) but stresses the need to test actual knowledge, as many retail clients overestimate their understanding or do not appreciate properly how products may behave under different circumstances. Investments firms are thus required to apply proportionate yet robust procedures to ensure the protection of retail investors in accordance with EU law. The rules governing the distribution of investment products to clients, including avenues for simplification, are the object of ongoing legislative negotiations in the context of the retail investment strategy. Where appropriate, the ESMA guidelines will be updated to reflect the outcome of those negotiations. 1 OJ L 173, 12.6.2014, pp. 349–496.”
  Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID)
• “Chairman. Dear colleagues, let me start off by thanking Israel for their courageous action and making the world a safer place with the latest developments in Iran. Secondly, then thank you very much for. Making sure that they have functioning self control mechanisms in place as the only democracy in the Middle East. And I very much regret that some of the previous speakers have not mentioned the hostages and Hamas's actions against aid in the region and the abuse of UN funds, and that being diverted towards terrorist activities. And that that hasn't been mentioned now over the given the developments over the past few days, I think we do need to talk to the Israelis and do also make sure that they minimize collateral damage so that there's pressure on Israel, but in a friendly way. But there is no such genocide occurring in Gaza. So please stop peddling those lies. And. I can't imagine there being a situation whereby we, as the EPP group, would agree to penalties being handed down or the agreement being suspended. We need to intensify our efforts to enter into dialogue, bring pressure to bear on Hamas. Iran has now been weakened, and I hope that other terrorist groups will now stop their attacks on Israel. And then hopefully we can then make a contribution as the EU towards peace in the region so that they can all coexist peacefully. And Israel has already entered into certain agreements with countries on that score.”
  Relations with Israel - Palestine
• “Six points. Is the WTO engagement here? We introduce calls for renewed efforts at the WTO level to extend the agreement on governmental procurement to more countries, particularly major global players like China. We call on the Commission and the member states to update the agreement on governmental on government procurement by including relevant conditions such as an inflation adjustment mechanism. And the seventh and last point is support for SMEs. Here we emphasize simplifying selection criteria and creating a digital database for pre-qualified SMEs. This in order to streamline their participation in the public Procurement. We support that the EU public procurement framework should ensure equitable access for SMEs and local businesses through simplified procedures and the division of contracts into smaller lots. This to prevent dominance by large entities and to also, as we highlight, foster competitiveness by facilitating access of third countries companies to the union. By addressing these seven key issues and implementing the recommended actions, I am confident that this opinion, in close cooperation with our Imco colleagues, can enhance the EU's public procurement framework, promote fair competition and strengthen its position in international trade. I'm looking forward to the discussions with Inter colleagues in the coming weeks. 125 amendments were tabled to this report on public procurement and we are analyzing them right now. Our first shadow meeting is going to take place tomorrow, and the first technical meeting will be on Wednesday. We plan to vote on the draft opinion in Inter on the 14th to 15th of May.”
  "Buy European" provisions
• “Mr.. Thank you very much for that question. If we look at the picture in the Rose garden where the president had the table with all of those tariffs, we can see that it's not only us who are going to be hit, it's going to be basically everyone across the world that he's going to be attacking. He's questioning everything. And so that's why I would be talking to people from other countries and show that we are willing as well, if we want to remain firm. And then secondly, we also need to implement what we're saying. Webhook is someone I'd like to respond to. Look at the impact on France. Well, why doesn't she say, for example, that the French farmers have an export surplus? So the French, um, farmers, if they didn't actually have all of those exports, they would have many, many more problems. So that's why we need to remain firm. We shouldn't let ourselves be divided, and we shouldn't just do things on our own national level. The commission really needs to be courageous during this tough time.”
  EU-US trade relations
• “Thank you. I have a number of questions I'd like to ask the commission after the new agreement has been negotiated and after everything, to my knowledge, has been taken into account that led us to exit the previous treaty. What would be against us as the EU acceding to a changed agreement? And for member states who've Uh, for whatever reason, uh, what would justify them rejoining? And if we rejoined a new agreement? Would we need the agreement that already exists that we're now talking about, or would it just disappear? Thank you.”
  EU political integration
• “Dear colleagues, today we're not just talking about the agreement, but we're talking about the safeguard mechanisms. And I'd like to say that thank the commission for what they've actually put forward. I think that there's a number of concerns that have been raised in the agricultural sector that are addressed here, and I think that those farmers who are going to be impacted by the agreement are going to be given support through the safeguard provisions. But I think that we're not talking about the whole truth, because when we hear from some of the people, we only hear about the negative impact of the agreement that could could actually arise. So we haven't yet spoken about the producers of high quality European produce and how they can benefit from the agreement. We have only 300 geographical indications which have been secured through secured the position of our producers in the Latin America, which enable them, our producers, to market their goods. We also see opportunities for other products like I'm thinking about olive oil producers, wine producers or chocolate manufacturers, people who develop, uh, who produce processed milk products. I think that it's very that's a very positive. So I'd say that when we're talking about the safeguards, safeguards, the safeguards, we shouldn't only talk about the negative side, but also remember the positive sides through the agreement. Yes, indeed. Everyone knows exactly what that message is coming from. Xander.”
  Trade relations with Mercosur
• “We are focusing on sectors relevant to public security and order, such as financial services, medicine and media. Rather than considering arbitrary sectors and avoid screening, that is too broad. My favorite example is dog food. I would like to thank the Commission for its help and support in bringing this forward. In that context, we are aiming for minimise administrative hurdles, including streamlining deadlines and harmonising streaming mechanisms across the European Union. During the negotiations, we managed to establish a good package and I strongly advocate that we reach a successful conclusion in the trilogue next week. I would therefore sincerely ask the Member States in the Council to be willing to compromise and to show some flexibility. Our goal is clear we want an open Europe that remains attractive to investment, but also a strong shield for our strategic sectors. And together, we must ensure that our markets are free, but our interests are protected. And therefore, my question is to you, do you see any further loopholes that should be tackled either in this or in the next evaluation?”
  EU policy on screening foreign investment in strategic sectors and critical infrastructure
• “First of all, I'd like to stress that I very much valued the fact that we don't have any countermeasures in place yet, and we haven't jumped the gun here, and I think. Putting in place something later will create greater damage in the US than going for it straight away. So I welcome that. Now, in the countermeasures that you are preparing commission, could you very much focus on the fact that we really shouldn't be placing any pressure on our consumers and companies? You know, once our manufacturers have had an opportunity to change their supply chains, we could put in place matters 2 or 3 years later. It's clear that the European economy will have to reset, but we shouldn't go for a big bang and sort of go for headlines in the paper saying, well, the EU has now issued these measures, you know, and similar to what the US have put in place. No, I think we need to take our time to prepare matters properly. And that will create less damage because if you put in place duties and tariffs, it will harm everyone. And we should make sure that the harm to us is as little as possible.”
  EU-US trade relations
• “I am proud that over the past few weeks that the European Commission has been dealing with this pressure from the states, there have been responding very quickly. They weren't just taking certain kind of action. They, until now, has just let these attacks go and they're still negotiating. Now, what I was shocked by is that the US is destroying a system that it basically has been building up. So this means that the first task here, Commissioner, is for us to look at agreements with other countries, with Mercosur, India, Indonesia. We need to conclude those. And that would show that we want the rest of the world to remain stable. We don't want to America, just to push through with what it's doing. We want to ensure that there is stability in the global trade. And then secondly, I want us to be stable. And I can't understand what some colleagues have been saying here. We want to remain firm. We are, in terms of the economy, at least as big as the US. And when it comes to other platforms as well, if we work with them, then we are significantly bigger. So we need to be brave enough not to just give in. And if we do that, then we will get some good agreements over the next few days. That's going to be in our interest. We need to stand together and not let ourselves be divided. And at the end of the day, we are the ones who are going to be winning.”
  EU-US trade relations
• “Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Mr.. Thank you for your presentation. From our perspective, this presentation comes at the right time as we are in the final rounds of negotiations on the regulation on the screening of foreign investments in the European Union. Despite its limitations, which must be improved in further reviews, this regulation is an important and successful instrument to protect public security and order in the European Union. And therefore, as EPP, we are supporting this instrument and believe that it is a successful step in the right direction. Given the increasing economic challenges Europe faces from other political players, we have to continuously make sure to secure our European market and ensure strategic autonomy. From the outset, we made it clear that Europe needs a system that defends its strategic interests without losing its openness to investment. However, this mechanism is of crucial importance as targeted foreign investments are increasingly used as a lever for geopolitical influence not only by companies but also by states with strategic interests. Therefore, we are currently negotiating the review of the FDI regulation and are focusing on closing remaining loopholes. During our negotiations, we have also attempted to give the Commission more power in the screening process to strengthen the European dimension of the instrument, but we are facing stiff resistance from the Council.”
  EU policy on screening foreign investment in strategic sectors and critical infrastructure