Pascal CANFIN

Policy topics Pascal CANFIN is active on

What Pascal CANFIN has said (49)

• 2026-06-17 “Dear colleagues, today we can provide new tools for our farmers and the renew Group supports these new tools. In the past, we supported nature based solutions because we should not oppose ecology and against technology. Farmers need both. We need to give them all the tools that they can use to be able to fight climate change, to adapt to climate change, and to reduce the use of chemicals and to reduce water stress. Energy gives them another tool, and that's what it's focused on. We've created a European model for this. The European Parliament has significantly improved the Commission's original proposal. In this we have created a European model for energy. Some people will say otherwise, but we're not just importing the Brazilian or US models for energy. We've created a sovereign model for energy which will serve our farmers. It will increase their livelihoods, improve their livelihoods and our sovereignty.”
  Agriculture (green)
• 2026-06-17 “(10:14:46 – 10:15:57): Colleagues, commissioner. Last year, for the first time, all European countries had a commercial deficit with China, even Germany. For the first time last year, we imported more Chinese cars, more machinery and tools than we exported. No European economy, including Germany, is protected from the Chinese tsunami, which is arriving and which is eroding, which is destroying our industrial fabric. We must protect ourselves, and we must invest in innovation. China's market share is growing. Why? Because of subsidies, because of unfair trading practices, but also, let's admit it, because they have invested more than we have in recent years. We have to win on two fronts. One on the investment front and on the level playing field and on protection. I think things are changing in Germany, which will allow things to change. And I want the commission to take an offensive stance on these matters.”
  Chinese clean tech competition: trade barriers and investment caps vs. open market
• “I was waiting for my reading notes because I will talk on behalf of Michel Vizic, the Renew negotiator, so I will read elements coming from him. So the CITES has had successes but we have noted that elsewhere progress remains minimal or even non-existent, threatening the populations. Unless measures are properly enforced, including by suspension of trade, and unless illegal trade is deterred and demand reduction strategies are not put in place, we may continue to see declines in populations. For the listing proposals, we express strong support for proposals submitted by the EU, in particular as regards eels, sharks and rays. The CITES strategic vision for 2030 envisages that by 2030 all international trade in wild fauna and flora is legal and sustainable, consistent with the long-term conservation of species and thereby contributing to halting biodiversity loss. We are very far from this vision. Delivery of the CITES strategic vision can only be improved through stepping up the enforcement efforts, including by using the environmental crimes directive. Environmental crime, of which wildlife crime is a subset, is now the third largest criminal activity in the world. Renew will be amending the draft resolution to this end, with the aim of CITES in mind and recognising that species of flora and fauna are an irreplaceable part of the natural systems and must be protected for this and the generations to come. Thank you, Chair.”
  Environmental crimes and justice
• “The second question is related to UDR, but it was already raised by SMD. So I do not elaborate more, but it is one of the main concerns that we have to stick. We stick to the agreed timeline and we do not have in a couple of months the exact same, uh, repetition of what we had last year And the last, uh, comment, uh, is on, uh, what happened with the life thing? I mean, I was very surprised. Uh, you had a deal with EP yourself, and in the very last committee we had last week in Strasbourg, then we it is a good thing that we, uh, oppose the, uh, objection on life by one vote. Narrow majority, but still a majority, including because some EPP members did not want to join this illiberal call. Very good. But what was the nature of the deal you had with EPP? Because I think it's very surprising. You are a commissioner not. And you are an EP commissioner for sure. No problem. It's your full right. But I mean, it's very, uh, unfair from a democratic perspective that you have a deal with your own group. Nobody knows about it. We discover it. And actually, it blew up, but nobody knew what was in this deal. So I think from a democratic perspective, more transparency is needed here.”
  Transparency requirements of EU institutions
• “Yes, I will make my interpretation in French. Thank you very much. I'd like to come back to what Alexandra said at the beginning. All the studies are showing, Alexandra, that three or four degrees more is much less impact than GDP of a world that actually moves towards the two-degree transition. So if you hadn't gotten that information, then I could send it all to you. Just read the report that's given by the UN. It's actually the opposite. It's the cost of inaction that is something that we cannot accept economically. So my question right now has to do with what I've understood said by court and what I didn't hear being said. What I heard, which I think is absolutely fundamental, is that COP-30 is going to be the first global test for multilateralism led by an emerging country, Brazil. The alliance between Brazil and the EU is absolutely basic to make sure that this COP is successful. So what's the concrete dialogue strategy being engaged with President Lula and Brazil in this respect? In exchange of you this morning, you said a sentence about that. Could we know, please, more about that? And something else that you said, I'll say it in English. We work with a view to submitting our NDC in good time ahead of COP-30 resolution. So – or you took JGPT and then you say, well, say something that doesn't mean anything. So, please, could you elaborate more on what your –”
  Climate efforts
• “Thank you. So, uh, as, uh, it was said before, uh, by Tomas, we have, uh, the pure extreme right project, which is, uh, climate denial, science denial, uh, obscurantism and not acting in the interest of Europe and the interest of people. Some of you refer to inflation. What is the core of the inflation which was faced by all European citizens? The core of that is not at all green technologies. The core of that is our dependency to oil and gas. And what we had is a rise in oil and gas prices that was reflected all over our economy because of our dependency on Russia, because our dependency on shale gas from the US, maybe tomorrow. So that's exactly the core of what we have to change. And that's exactly the core of going for electrification. So, Sacha Vondra, you are pushing for nuclear National Front rally in France is pushing for nuclear, but is at the same time opposing the electrification of the economy. So it's completely stupid because you are opposing, for instance, the electrification of cars when you are asking for more nuclear, but call it a nuclear car. If you want to sell an electric car, call it in France a nuclear car and it will be fine for you, I hope. So please, let's stay rational, including from an economic perspective. We have so many studies, Sacha, so many studies demonstrating that the cost of inaction for us is way higher on our GDP than the cost of action. So even if you don't care about climate action, even if you don't care about the environment, please care about people. Care about our jobs, about our future. Thank you.”
  Energy (green transition)
• “Thank you. President. Commissioner. Colleagues. Now, what is creating a competitiveness problem for our businesses? Not the price of carbon, but the price of energy, the price of gas and petrol. And when I hear from the representative of the Maloney government here in the European Parliament criticizing the ETS, when Italy finds itself with considerable problems related to its competitiveness and its industry, well, this is because Italy and European countries who are importing the largest amounts of gas to create electricity. This is the root of the problem. This is what has created the Italian problem. It's got nothing to do with the ETS. When Mr. Bellamy and Mr. Bardella criticized the ETS, when it is a tool designed to increase electrification that is designed to support the increase of nuclear energy in France, well, it's complete nonsense. What we should do is continue along our path to decarbonization, because that is what will allow us to lower prices, to decrease our dependence on fossil fuels. This is important for our businesses, for our sovereignty, and for our freedom. Let's not change it now.”
  Energy (green transition)
• “Thank you Minister. It's very good that we have you in the driving seat in the Council for this very important negotiation for the 2040 target. I would like to say on behalf of the renew Group that we, of course, are disappointed by the outcome of the bidding where the Patriots here have the report, but we will do everything we can with the pro-European groups to handle this file up to the end, to be able to negotiate with you the 2040 target before Belem. And I hope that the EPP and Lidia Pereira will join her forces precisely to get there on time. So we will, uh. You can count on us, uh, to make sure that we first, we do not disconnect the 2035 and the 2040 target. Second, that we are able to negotiate in a very time timely or short time period. Uh, the, uh, 24 target with the trilogue with you. Uh, of course, in parallel with your discussion in the council. The second element is about, uh, the the nature of the discussion you have had, uh, so far, uh, with your first meeting last week in Denmark.”
  Climate efforts
• “Thank you. Madam president. Commissioner, on behalf of the French delegation of renew, I wanted to express our support for the Commission's automotive plan in all its dimensions. First of all, demand support. You've put a lot of public and private funding into supply. Now we need to support demand. Secondly, made in Europe is very important. And now in an automotive plan, we're seeing this very clear point for the first time, which is saying that all EU funds should go to people producing in Europe, whether they're producing cars or the entire value chain, subcontractors and batteries. And we need to ensure that we're providing support to battery producers on European territory. We also need to keep the cap that we've put in place so far, and we need to do what we said we were going to do, which is act quickly to change penalties in 2025, to act in a targeted, stable and rapid way. I hope all groups in the European Parliament will have the wisdom to support this proposal.”
  "Buy European" provisions
• “Yes. Thank you. Commissioner. As you can see, renew is the largest group in the room. In order to support your action. And also because we care a lot about the topic of today. Uh, it has been said a couple of times already, but I want to insist on the fact that we are in a new sequence with the war in the Middle East, and it's a new game changer, and it's all about building a freedom deal. So if for some, the Green Deal is a word they can't support, a freedom deal could be the way forward to bring to bring all together the pro-European forces, to build this agenda where you have electrification. It's very striking that you get no question on cars, as if the topic had disappeared just because now there is a massive change, a massive change in the public opinion now, the share of EVs is in some countries higher than what it should be in order to reach the 2030 and 35 target. So this massive move demonstrates that the the people are there now because they have understood that it is a freedom deal. It's good for the purchasing power. It's good for sovereignty. It's good for all of us. My question is on ETS. As Peter said and as Mohamed said, we need to make sure that it is an investment friendly tool. So what is your plan to make it more investment friendly? Regarding, for instance, not only the money for member states but the innovation fund. I mean, you, you you have this the power to design differently. The innovation fund. We have room for manoeuvre. What would be the concrete proposal you could make?”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “Thank you. And sorry I was outside on the omnibus vote. Um, so, uh, we will have more time, uh, in a couple of minutes to discuss this issue in detail on the 20th regime, but first, on the legal basis. Uh, what? We really need to try, uh, the best possible solution, uh, in order to avoid unanimity. Then if it's possible to go for a regulation without unanimity, that's fine. If the alternative without unanimity is a directive with full harmonization, harmonization, that's fine as well. I mean, the key element is to avoid unanimity, because otherwise we take too much risk for this regulation to be just watered down or just postpone and delayed and forgotten. So that's the first element. We are flexible. As long as it does not require unanimity, then, um, we will have again and I will stop there to discuss more in details in the upcoming shadows. Elements. You the rapporteur, Rene, you put on the table like the board, the governance with unions and so on because that's to my view, exactly the the trap into which we should unfold. Because if we start trying to solve all the issues like capital requirements or the governance in the board through this new status, we will probably never learn neither, because I understand your point that in Germany you have the unions or the representative of of employees at the board level. In many other countries, it's not the case. So, uh, we will never it will never fly if we try to harmonise this issue through the 20th regime. So I think we clearly need to identify where is the added value of having an harmonised and hopefully exactly similar 20th regime everywhere in Europe and where we should keep. We should park issues and we should keep them for the national compromises.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• “So we need to have short term impact. That's exactly the spirit of what you are designing and full support here. Then on the last comment is about the stock options. Uh, when you look at the top three priorities, the top three expectations from start ups and scale ups for this regulation, it is about stock options all the time, all the time. And we know that it matters a lot when it comes to having a good, uh, human resources to attract talents and to have, uh, harmonized, uh, policies here. So let's do so. And I think there is a way forward where for the stock options we have on one side the legal treatment and the other side the tax regime. So let's work on the legal treatment. Let's not discuss the tax rate because the tax rate will be unanimity and blah blah blah. And I will not contradict myself here. But we have space to harmonise the legal treatment, the time, a lot of things to bring real added value to this European status. Then we will around a beer or glass of champagne, we will discuss the name we will give to your to your baby.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• “President. I would like to speak in particular to our EPP representatives who are sitting just in front of me. I'd like to make it clear to them that, in fact, it's you who've got the choice. We can all move quickly together in this process of simplification Without falling into the excesses we've just heard from right wing and extreme right groups. You have the choice. We in renew are willing to go very fast working on the basis of the commission proposal. We can discuss the details, but when it comes to finding a balance, for example, with CSR, that's part of the omnibus package. We can't. It's true that there are deferrals, postponements, but we do actually maintain some very important points such as double materiality. So you have another choice is to not negotiate with us, but to negotiate with the extreme right. If you go down that road, you will then undermine any hope we might have have to maintain confidence in the von der Leyen majority. We need the von der Leyen majority. You need the von der Leyen majority so as to face this crisis, this political crisis. Europe needs this more than ever. You won't do this by working with the extreme right, by working with those who've just reminded us that the worst possible thing which could happen to the steel sector is CSR, because we all know they're good friends on the extreme right, including Donald Trump will be imposing tariffs on steel. So you've got a choice. Either you make a smart choice and work with us, or you get out your chainsaw and work with the extreme right.”
  Von der Leyen
• “Madam president, I would like to thank the rapporteur. I'm a negotiator in Zhuhai and so I'm following this file very closely. I just want to talk about the politics of this all, and then I'll go into three elements of substance. The first political matter is that this is the first omnibus package. This first omnibus package will set the rules. Will we have a simplification process which is pro European, or will the EPP side with the extreme right as part of the Venezuela coalition? Because it depends on what the EPP does. Choice A or choice B, the outcomes will be very different depending on which choice is made. We in renew are very much in favour of simplification when it comes to audits, when it comes to business secrecy, when it comes to holdings. There's a great deal that we can, we think can be done. We've even put forward simplification amendments on taxonomy, on CapEx and other other entities. So we're definitely willing to enter into simplification so that we have, um, more effective rules that can be implemented more easily. What's clear is that we don't want to completely undo the text and unravel them. If we change the thresholds without an impact analysis and without business even asking for it, and if ultimately very little of the European economy is covered, then basically we're just unraveling this text. We're not just amending it. So there's a political choice here. And if we look at the amendments that have been maintained thus far.”
  EU political integration
• “Perfect. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Chair. Thank you to the panelists. Uh, so my question is close to, uh, the previous one, which I think was not really answered. Uh, so, uh, it's not on pillar one, but it's on pillar two. Uh, and I must say that, uh, a panelist said that, uh, uncertainty is never good for business. Absolutely right. But we are not the one creating uncertainty. On the contrary, what we would like to is to have a stable as Europeans, a stable, uh, implementation of the agreement we found. So, uh, and in that context, uh, I would like to ask, uh, to the panelists and maybe mainly targeting, uh, the OCD, OCD director and also, if I'm not mistaken, Mr. Rangel from the commission. Uh, what are the options for the EU, uh, in the context of the negotiation, to stick to, uh, pillar two because we agreed on it. And it's not because one party being the US decides to withdraw. That's the whole thing should fall. I mean, otherwise the Paris Agreement should fall and the W.H.O. should fall, and so on and so on. So obviously, uh, we have a global role here to stick together with the countries having, uh, as it was said by Mr. Angel, having agreed at the legislative level to implement pillar two. So what are the options we have, uh, and what could be, uh, what is the nature of the discussion that you anticipate at the OECD level, but also at the, at the EU level? Uh, to make sure that we have solutions to stick to the full implementation of pillar two even without the US, because precisely Utpa principle is made and designed for that purpose. That if one party fails to agree or to implement well, the others will continue because it's their benefits to do it. So we decided to have this smart utpa system and it's the right moment to use it. So again, what are our options with the mindset of keeping it stable and implemented? Thank you.”
  EU-US trade relations
• “Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, times have changed. We live in a completely different world. From the one in which the architects of the ETS Planet Dare project. Whatever we think of ETS, there is one thing we must agree on. And it's the fundamental reform. Conservatives are often criticised for their reluctance to embrace change. Today it is the left part of this House which wants to defend the ETS at all costs. The revision of ETS must set a significantly lower pace of transformation, prevent price volatility of allowances to prevent high energy Bills, substantially extend free allowances for businesses and revise their benchmarks because without doing this, the hundreds of thousands of jobs are at risk. Dear colleagues, dear Peter Lisa, sentiments aside, reform is unavoidable. If we do nothing, it has become will become just the gravedigger of the European economy and we will continue to feed the Chinese monster that I do not want.”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “President, Vice President of the European Commission, we welcome the competitiveness compass unveiled by the European Commission because it doesn't pit competitiveness against the Green Deal and decarbonisation. On the contrary, it tackles both at the same time. We have ideological battles. But there's one figure that we should all bear in mind. Last year, we Europeans spent €550 billion to buy gas and oil, and at the same time, the US earned €150 billion by selling that. So we're talking about a difference of €600 billion. So that's 2.5 trillion in over a few years. So we're talking about €2.5 trillion in difference over the last few years. The only way to bridge this gap is to decarbonize, to electrify, to move towards energy efficiency and green energy. Basically, we have to do what you want us to do on the basis of the clean industrial deal, which we are waiting for impatiently.”
  Energy (green transition)
• “Thank you, Chair, and allow me to speak French. Thank you very much, Ralph Horter. I'd just like to remind you that we – I fully agree with everything that's just been said. There are more startups in Europe than in the U.S., but the question is when it comes to scaling up, do we want to limit the 28th regime just to innovative companies, or do we want to say that of course it is innovative companies who will benefit from it most, but is this something that we want to build in a way that we're restricting it just to them from the outset? I think that's a question we need to ask. Also maybe the main criterion here is whether the single European market is important to the company in question or not. Now if I'm a baker or a craftsman working purely in a local market, the 28th regime isn't going to be interesting to me at all. If, however, I'm a company that has a growth model, that has a business model, that is looking to have a consumer base that would be growing rapidly because maybe I'm working in software and I'm able to sell my services very quickly on different markets, well there then yes, the 28th regime would be absolutely key because the added value of the single market will be important to me. So I think the best criterion to choose here is not the sector or industry. It's not whether something is innovative or not, although of course I agree with you, we're going to be spending a year talking about what's innovative and what's not if that's what we decide. Really at the core what we need to ask is whether a company's business model will be moving it to grow within the internal market or whether it really is more focused on a regional or local market and that a company could be very happy at that level for years and years. So I think that's the first question we need to ask, the first choice that we need to make. A second thing we need to consider, and this is something that Mr. Montalvany said a moment ago, is that we need to learn the lessons from the failed effort of 2004 and try and come up with a solution that doesn't lead these companies that we're talking about to have to completely change their status at a national level so that they can then gain access to the benefits of the 28th regime because if we do that then probably we'll be creating some sort of a micro-niche of companies that are willing to give up on their German or Swedish or French nature in order to move into this 100% European system instead and this of course would have a lot of different costs, it would be hard to reach unanimity and it would be bound to failure. It's a bit of a vicious circle which is what I think we saw in 2004 and that's precisely what we want to avoid now. So I think if we can all agree on those fundamentals then we're already somewhere, that's very important. So the question we really need to ask is what sort of added benefit or privilege or advantage can we offer a company that would be moving into the 28th regime based on the regime that already exists in Italy or Sweden or Germany which those are not going to be harmonized, you're quite right, we wouldn't need a year for that, we would need decades if not more and we might never reach harmonization of the national systems. So we need to ask and think about the different benefits that might arise from this. I think it's already coming up in our initial exchange here, do we want to have for instance some sort of default recognition in all member states of a company that has received this authorization in its country of origin, so if it's been authorized in France or in Germany or Italy then de facto it will be authorized elsewhere. Of course it always leaves us open to the possibility of having it rejected but by default at least the acceptance would be there. Another important consideration for startups that are looking to scale up, are looking to be innovative, although of course we're not just limiting it to innovation but that is a big part of it, is the ability to ensure stock options can be provided to the first employees, those taking the biggest risk at the beginning and that would be harmonized across Europe. So this would just be some initial points of departure that would make me think that there's a way forward here that would allow us to be credible, sensible, in a legislative own initiative opinion. As you very well said, this is a legislative own initiative opinion, we're not doing this just for the fun of it, we really are trying to influence the work of the Commission. Let me just conclude by talking about the timetable for a moment. You said this first report will already be a form of consensus between all of us, I think that's very important because it will allow us to have an influential document at the right time at the Commission and so I'm very pleased to see that you've chosen that method of working.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• “(15:09:32 – 15:14:49): Okay. We do it this way. So first of all, this proposal of what we called, last term, an export rebate, is I think why I I hope so, widely shared, in this parliament that, we need to find a solution for exports in order to offset the price of carbon for companies being put at risk of being less competitive on export markets. So the SIBAM was designed initially for the level playing field between the import and the domestic production. Here, we are talking about how can we make sure that it is also true for domestic productions when exporting on third markets third countries' markets. And there is a proposal from the commission, which is before we go for potentially something different in the review of the ATS, something that could short term fix the problem for those companies being most at risk of being less competitive. So I welcome the proposal. But of course, I would like to improve it in some directions. The first 1 is that I think we need to stick to the initial idea. The initial idea is to cover the part of the production which is exported. And based on this, having some sort of mechanism like this fund to offset the potential negative impact, but only for the part of the production which is exported. So my report make it more clear. So the scope of what could be covered by the compensation within this fund is more limited in my report because it's only on the part of the production which is exported because I think it is more clear and more legitimate as well. But in parallel, I extend the scope, for downstream operators. In the steel industry, in other industries, there are strong requests to have a mechanism such a mechanism like the fund, not only for the raw material, but also for the more downstream and transform products. And I think, for instance, for SMEs, it's important to have more products being covered by the scope of the fund. So a scope which is on 1 side more focused on exports, on another side broader when it comes to the type of products which is covered. The third, main message is I think we could have a tool found which is more agile. In the proposed draft by the commission, it's only the reimbursement expected in 2029. I think there is no reason to wait for so long, and we could have, 2 waves, 2 cycle of payment instead of 1. It sounds a bit technical, but actually for some SMEs and so on, on top of this, if we extend the scope of the products concerned that more SMEs are concerned, it doesn't make sense to wait for 3 years, '27, '28, '29 before even 4 years with this year, '26 before being reimbursed. So I suggest 2 cycles instead of 1. And the last 1, 1 of the most sensitive discussion around this fund is the issue of fertilizers. I think that it could make sense to have farmers in the grain sector being covered by this fund. I'm not advocating for farmers being in the ETS, for farmer being in the CBAM, of course. I'm advocating for farmers, again, the grain sector, wheat notably, being covered by the fund. Why? Because when you produce wheat in Europe, you use a lot of fertilizers, and there is, of course, a huge impact on the price because of the CBAM. And when you export, your competitor does not have to pay CBAM, of course, on the Sun market. So that's why our domestic production starts being at risk in terms of competitiveness. And who is the main competitor? Russia. So I don't think why we should give this present to Russia to overcompete our domestic production on export markets mainly in the real life, mainly in Middle East, Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia and the Gulf countries. We should be able to have this level playing field here. So that's why I put some farming production within the scope of the fund. I stop there. And, of course, thank you for your cooperation in the upcoming negotiations.”
  Carbon leakage support
• “The objectives. The first one is to install this level playing field very short, very timely very effectively. And in your proposal, it takes time. Why? It does take time because you made a contractual approach. It's only if you do things even only if you decarbonize, blah, blah, blah, blah. Then you can get the money back, which I think at the same time. Interesting, because then it means that it's some sort of contract, but it takes time. So then it comes too late. So that's why we need to find the right approach in order not to have this offsetting. I would say for maybe for everybody, but to have it effective for those who deserves to have it effective. And I think here we can improve the proposal. A second remark is about 20 article 27 A, which is the mechanism to stop potentially the cbam for some sectors. I must say that I'm very skeptical because it will create uncertainty. Radical uncertainty. That, of course, will jeopardize the effectiveness of the tool and the investment associated to decarbonisation. So I'm quite skeptical about it. And my third and last remark will be on the fertilizers issue. It has been very, very sensitive. And I would like, so I must say that I'm not on the same line that some countries like mine are asking for pulling out of the scope of sebum fertilizers. I think they have to be in if we are serious with decarbonisation of the sector and with investment in this green fertilizers industry.”
  Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM)
• “Thank you very much. Madam president. Commissioner. We're still hearing rhetoric from the far right. It would appear to indicate all the woes of the automotive sector due to the 2035 deadline. But what about the Chinese competition? What's happening to jobs is not happening because of electrification. It's because of China's arrival in a new market. So we need to have more local production. We need more made in Europe to protect our industry, protect jobs on our territory against massive, unfair competition. And I note for the first time in a climate text, you have tried to articulate the aims of climate neutrality, which you maintain with a certain degree of limited flexibility. And for the first time, we're looking at local protection. Small electric vehicles built in Europe will have added value. This will help manufacturers to create more jobs in the European automotive industry. So we're reconciling climate and industrial policy and Renew will be supporting this proposal.”
  Chinese clean tech competition: trade barriers and investment caps vs. open market · "Buy European" provisions
• “Good evening, and thank you, Commissioner, for being with us tonight. So contrary to ECR, renew is strongly supportive of the 90% because we consider, as you said, that it is not only a climate issue and a climate agenda, but also a competitiveness agenda because we can have the technologies we need precisely where we will never have oil and gas, contrary to what was said by Alexander. So that's why going greener is going more sovereign. Of course, there are conditions for success and that's where we need to be careful. So that's why the first question is close to the one suggested by Peter. Liza, you referred to the 90%. And please confirm that you are working on the 90% and don't confirm, I hope the interpretation by Alexandre Vondra of your silence on the 90%. But of course, if we need to find majorities, we need to find majorities. Otherwise it's just a 90% in the air, but not in political reality. So that's why we didn't renew. We are, even if we do not have still a group position, we are ready to look at flexibilities, but we need to make sure that it is consistent and it does not jeopardize the integrity of the system. So and notably the ETS. So please could you elaborate a bit more on what you have in mind, or at least what you are working on? My last question is you said we are on track to reach the 55% and a couple of weeks ago we have. We had a hearing with quotes from the DG. He said exactly the same thing And I must say that I'm a bit surprised, which would be, of course, very good news. But I'm a bit surprised because the last document we have from the commission, going back to late 24 last year is saying the opposite, that we are not on track yet to reach the -55. So if there is something new that would, uh, convince us that we are on track to reach to 55, then of course it is important that we have it in mind and then you can share it officially.”
  Climate efforts
• “Thank you, chair. And as we have only one speaking slot, I will, as Mohammed just did, cover the two files. And I would like to thank as well, Mohammed, for the start of a very good cooperation, because we have the feeling, both of us, that we should deal with this issue as an integrated issue, even if, legally speaking, we are talking about two files, but they are deeply interconnected. So I have a few remarks and questions focusing maybe less on very technical elements, but more on on the political vision first. Starting with the Decarbonisation Fund, I must say that we have been asking for an export mechanism to offset the cost of sebum from the very beginning of the very first debate of sebum like four years ago. At that time we were the only one as Parliament to ask for it. Council refused in the trilogue Commission was against. Now it's finally on the table. And it's good that we have this legal proposal, because I think it's fair to say that sebum works from four to have level playing field for imports. It's been designed for this, but we need to take into account the impact on exports because that would be otherwise completely counterproductive. So we really need to make sure that it is effective. And that's why I will look at it as the rapporteur on this topic with the trying to find the right balance. Maybe you found the right balance. Maybe we can improve this balance between two competing, I would say, elements.”
  Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM)
• “Way lower than the 1000 companies threshold. So sorry, 1000 employees. Threshold. So it seems that we are now looking at backwards when China is. Fortunately or unfortunately looking forward and that we will lose our leadership here. So let's not be ideological. Let's look at things, how it works on the ground and the materiality works. And it's very much, very much at the core of the CSR. The second element is the audit. Unless I'm wrong, nobody touched this issue, including Mr. Rapporteur. And I think that we should look at it also to go even to go to provide companies even more simplification here in the auditing uh, ecosystem and regulation, because uh, we have heard so many companies, so many companies, big ones, medium small ones, complaining about the way the auditing was done and the audit service was provided. I'm sure that we have possibilities to go even further than what the commission did without losing the the essence of csld that we have harmonised and robust data. The third point with is the civil liability on due diligence. Uh, we had before the omnibus, we had harmonisation of civil liability. And this all the countries may have different civil liabilities, but they had to have a regime of civil liability. Today, this, uh, single market approach just disappeared.”
  Due diligence in supply chains (environmental and human rights)
• “Thank you, Mr. President, because we are going to talk about the future of farming, I'll start by saying something about the simplification proposal which we will see on Wednesday. It will change the existing CAP and it will have an impact on any proposal that's in the pipeline. But this is not just mere simplification. It is deregulation. It is getting rid of standards. i.e. you can't spray pesticides three metres from a watercourse. I think that's a good rule. It means you have standardised rule. It means you protect biodiversity in very sensitive areas. So this rule on pesticides was introduced in the 2021 CAP and now it could disappear in just 48 hours. So some countries which have this rule will continue to apply it but will see an undoing of the internal market. So it means that European farmers will be pitted against each other instead of moving towards greater convergence of farmers. I'm struck that the extreme right want to re-nationalise the CAP. And Miss Andrieu, you are pitting European farmers against each other instead of providing structure to the internal market and instead of establishing mirror clauses and instead of establishing a playing field. So on Wednesday we will not have simplification. We will have deregulation. So I have a few comments. Perhaps we can provide for some compromise in this report. The first thing I'd like to point out. You reference an IPCC report but it's not a very trustworthy report. If we apply the Green Deal and I apply the pesticide rules there could be a change, there could be a drop in production. But we're doing lots of other things such as biological control which is an alternative to pesticides. We're also developing NGTs, precision farming and the list goes on and on. So all of that means that we can introduce the Green Deal without having negative growth, without driving down production. And I believe the opposite of what you're saying. We talk to farmers and we say to farmers, what is going to affect your yields the most? What threatens your income the most? What do farmers respond to that question? They say it's extreme weather events. It might be too much water, it might be a lack of water, it might be frost. So if we want to ensure food security, if we want to keep yields high, if we want to have food sovereignty then we need to deal with climate breakdown and its fallout. But you're fighting against that. That's everything you fight against in the so-called Patriots Group, in your National Rally Party. You are doing away with all the rules which would help us to withstand climate shock. You are leading the way. You are fighting this charge against European food sovereignty. But what we need is a CAP that takes climate threats on board so that we can protect our sovereignty. If you turn to farmers in the north of Italy who produce rice, they say there is no more water. Without water, no rice. Go to Spain, they produce olives. There is no more rain in Andalusia. And that means their olive yields have fallen by 30%. That's degrowth. If you turn to farmers in the south-east, in France, in Perpignan, where there hasn't been a single drop of rain for years, what's causing their yields to drop? It's climate shock, not the Green Deal. I therefore truly hope that we can reach some compromises. But I want what we do to be based on facts, not your ideology. You also talk about generational renewal. We're all in favour of new people getting into the sector. But why is it so difficult to be a new farmer, setting up in the sector? Why is it so tough to be a farmer who's starting out? Because access to land is increasingly tough. Basically, it's impossible to get access to land because farm sizes have got bigger. That means you have to have a lot of initial capital just to break into the sector. And that means large swathes of the farming population can't set up shop. And even new people can't get into the sector either. And why is land so expensive? Because the CAP doesn't have capping. You did talk about capping. So the bigger you are, the more aid you get. And the more aid you get, the more likely you are to have money to invest. And it goes on and on. It's a circle. It's a cycle. And that stops generational renewal. That's exactly the system that you advocate for. So end your hypocrisy. Support a CAP reform to make it fairer, so that we can help the farmers who need it the most. Those are my comments. I have one final comment. There will be more to come, and I will be tabling amendments on behalf of Renew. I want to talk about the contra-cyclical nature of the CAP. At the moment, we have subsidies and aid, but it doesn't take the economic situation into account. You may have a good year. You may have high prices. You may have a bad year. You may have low prices. Whatever the situation, you get aid. So in some years, farmers don't get enough aid, and so farmers go and take to the streets. And then there are other years when farmers get too much support, and they don't really need what they're being given. And you'll probably know farmers who say, I got thousands of euros from the CAP this year, but I didn't need it, because wheat prices were so high. So this is a rigid system. It is not contra-cyclical. So sometimes there is not enough money in the system, and sometimes it's pure wastage. We want there to be a link between the level of aid, and that is needed. So a link between level of aid and the economic situation, the situation on the market. Because some years it will be a good year. Sometimes it will be a bad year. It may depend on the sector. It may depend on what's happening naturally. So we need a smarter and more resilient CAP if we are going to meet the challenges we are facing.”
  EU policy on pesticides
• “Thank you. Chair. Um, I'm very much in line with what our beloved rapporteur on Cbam said minutes ago, meaning that, uh, first, we have a good proposal of smart simplification. And. Okay, we could have thought about some elements two years ago. You're right. But I think we were the first in the world to design cbam and some elements. We missed them collectively commission, council and Parliament like on de minimis. We couldn't know, uh, at the starting point that the de minimis was actually too low. So we used what we have and it was the legal de minimis. So now we have a fact based approach. And as a group renew will be The supportive of this. Now, the point is that we shouldn't use this review, this targeted review, to start discussing on the other legitimate debates on cbam that will come later, extension, treatment of exports and so on and so on, because otherwise we will never make it. We just will never make it, or we will kill predictability and stability. And that would be the opposite of simplification. So that's why my proposal, as we knew, is first we will be supportive of the proposal from the commission. But we would like to go beyond and having a joint commitment with all the groups willing to do so, to very swiftly say on a written basis that we will support this proposal and we will not support or table any amendments beyond the scope of what is open, because otherwise for the next months it will create instability. So that's what renew is putting on the table. And I hope that at least S&D and EPP and others of course, are welcome could commit to so that we can very swiftly and easily provide predictability to all the sectors concerned by this targeted review.”
  Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM)
• “So if you could elaborate a bit more on what is the level of price you foresee to create an appetite and a real incentive to have more carbon removals within the ETS? And the second question is related to your recommendation number eight, where, uh, so you propose a sort of extended emitter responsibility like based on the EPR schemes. But, uh, when we have an EPR scheme, we it's precisely instead of having a price, unless I'm wrong. So if we have an EPR scheme on a water pollution or then they have to repair something, it's because there is no price beforehand. So here what you are suggesting, if I'm not mistaken. But that's the core of my question. You are suggesting to have both first a price, then a scheme to have the responsibility to repair, meaning to remove. So how do you articulate the two? If my understanding is correct, uh, because they paid, I mean, the companies would have paid once. So are you suggesting that they pay twice? And if not, what do you suggest?”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “So then, whether you operate in Hungary or in Sweden or in France or in Italy or in Spain or in Germany, you will have 27 different regimes, which is the exact opposite, the exact opposite of simplification and the exact opposite of single market approach. So how come can we discuss for one hour with Stéphane Séjourné of Simplification and Single market? And the minute after endorsing 27 different regimes when it comes to civil liability, which is, of course, at the heart of the due diligence process. So we will push as a group for more harmonisation here. Is it the exact same thing that we did last time? I don't know, but with the spirit of more harmonisation and at the end of the day, more simplification and the last point and will be on the SME shield. It's very important for us that we strike the right balance between the two sides, I would say, of the value chain. The rapporteur, you said that you want to reduce cost, fine. But what is cost? Less cost for one part of the value chain could be an extra cost for another part of the value chain. Because if we have double materiality for large corporates and 90%, that's the figure I have.”
  Due diligence in supply chains (environmental and human rights)
• “Thank you very much, ladies and gentleman. Commissioner. Few Europeans know this, but we create more start ups in Europe than in the US. It's just that they don't tend to develop sufficiently in Europe, so we don't have a problem of innovation. We have a problem of growth of that innovation. And why is that? Well, once you've found a solution somewhere in Europe, in France and Germany and Italy and Lithuania, well, to then get it through the whole of the internal market, it's a nightmare. It's a nightmare. Because every time you need to re-establish legal structures that meet rules which differ from one country to another, and that's why the 28th regime is absolutely essential. It's a tool that finally will allow us to tap the full potential of our single market to develop businesses here, not in the US, and to prevent technological transfer and savoir faire. Know how from Europe to elsewhere, like the States, when we have rather sensitive relations. Commissioner, you've got everything in your hands. Now you have the wherewithal. Please pick up on this own initiative legislative report, and you will see the light of the 28th regime in a few months.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• “Yes. Thank you. So, uh, full support to, uh, what uh, the rapporteur said, uh, on, uh, the, uh, legal approach. Uh, I think it's important that we make sure we go up to the very end. And it's a bit weird to have the ECR group asking for a fiscal, uh, European fiscal policies. But at the end of the day, you know the examples you gave. Usually it starts from the commission and it never ends up. And that's exactly what we want to avoid. So let's be as ambitious as possible in the field of what is not dealt with at unanimity like stock options. I will get back to that. But let's not take the risk to have a veto right from one member state that will kill the whole thing. So that's why I think the maximum harmonisation you propose is a potentially good compromise. If ever we have the possibility to have a political deal in the council, or strong signals that we could avoid the trap of unanimity. And of course, that would be even better. But let's not take that risk if we do not have certainty, because we will end up nowhere. Second, I mean, we We shouldn't fall into the trap. Which is exactly what you didn't. Uh, to, uh, have a new regime that will be taken by nobody, or it will take decades to have impact.”
  EU competences on taxation
• “And the last question in on the value chain approach. I know you did something very, very interesting in Denmark, putting together not only the farming community but the whole value chain with the, uh, the processing industry, with the retailers and so on. Uh, how do you plan to use your presidency to bring this value chain approach into the European debate? Because, again, we are going to focus the cap only on farmers. But when you look at the economic reality, the farmers are one part of the larger value chain, and they are completely dependent on the contract they sign. So if we do not have a value chain approach, we will fail. We will fail again on new new generations. We will fail again on transition. We will fail again on income guarantee. Because all of that is interdependent on the value chain approach. So how what is your concrete plan to transfer your knowledge, your approach from Denmark, which is very good to the European level?”
  EU policy on farmer–buyer relations in the agri-food supply chain
• “Honourable vice president, Executive vice president of the Commission. Honourable colleagues. Well, Renew is in full support for you with your pact for a clean industry because it supports the request for decarbonising 100 million more on the table and produce in Europe and funding for innovation. But I'd like to say that you've really highlighted something which is extremely important for renew. There is no competitiveness without decarbonisation and there and the other way around as well. And that is the very core of your pact, of your agreement of your deal. And I'd like to tell the colleagues from the extreme right. They're patriots. They're sovereignists. When you permanently support fossil fuels, which we are importing up to 100%, you are going to be supporting Russia and tomorrow the United States of Trump, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kazakhstan, Algeria, those are the countries that are funding terrorists, that are funding the war in Ukraine and radical Islam. Islam. So fight your fighting against this industrial, clean industrial deal. You are not patriots. You are not sovereignists either. Thank you.”
  Energy (green transition)
• “Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to the experts. It was a very interesting thoughtful thought session. I would like maybe to spot only two elements. Of course, theoretically, I would have hundreds of questions, but I will focus on two, Mr. Chair. Be reassured. The first one is on the fact that I have the impression sometimes that we discuss as if we would be in a world where we would have CSRD or nothing, or, I mean, you have now ESSB, you have the national declination of ISSB, like in China very recently approved, but you have also data providers, Julien normally mentioned Bloomberg's or S&P, but there are others, all non-Europeans. So at the end of the day, it's not CSRD or a world without data, it's who is going to provide the data under which format, with which sovereignty behind, which control and so on and so on. So that's why my question, maybe directly to Business Europe representative, is that you are representing the large corporates, so even without CSRD, you would be facing a lot of data requirements. So how could we design CSRD precisely to avoid you to have this burden, not from Europe, but all the data proxy provider? The second question is more on the value chain and on the SME element. I'm very worried about how are we going to find the right balance between the need to have a cap in the value chain to protect SMEs for too burdensome questions, and at the same time making sure that if we have this cap in the value chain, we do not create legal uncertainty for large corporates that will be requested by their pension fund stakeholder to request a lot of data and so on, by CSRD to report on a lot of data, but then when they go to the suppliers, the suppliers will say, well, cap in the value chain. So you can't ask. You are not allowed to ask, it's forbidden to ask. Wow, for the legal department of this large corporate, good luck. So how can we strike the right balance between these two good objectives is for me something which is very, very important in the context of the negotiations we just started.”
  Sustainable corporate governance
• “Thank you. So thank you to the rapporteur, uh, for the opening of the debate. So and for starting sharing a few headlines, as you said. First, I will start with the political majority. I mean, we we voted last month in Strasbourg, uh, with a wide majority, but starting with the central majority, uh, the, uh, stop the clock. Uh, my group is absolutely determined to keep this central majority precisely to preserve the rationale behind Csld and CSS, css, triple D, and I can hear that you do not seem both of you on the same page as we as today. I hope, I hope, that we will be able to converge precisely because otherwise the alternative majority, just when we listen ECR and Patriots is just to kill the whole text, which is of course a possible alternative for EP, but it's not something that you will join in any case. So, uh, clearly we want to be, uh, constructive and working to find a central majority here, which is, of course, the key element. Then to look at the content on the top priority. Regarding the substance, I would start with double materiality regarding CSD. Uh, it's very striking that today, today China announced that they will go for full double materiality with the scope way lower.”
  EU policy on brain drain
• “(15:29:02 – 15:33:43): Yes. Thank you. So I would like as well to thank the rapporteur who is the right person at the right place as well. So we will play that game continuously and and happy to to continue, of course. So but just focusing on 3 issues in the few minutes I have. The first 1 is what you said on the predictability. I mean, we need to have this tool as a predictable tool. So if we have a mechanism like Article 27 in order that could allow the commission to unplug the tool, it will create instability and predictability at the roots. So that's why I am with you in order to change the system. But at the same time, we need to have a mechanism to be able to deal with the urgent situation. So we will think about it based on the various proposals. Second, the extension. You said yourself that you are not proposing CN code extensions. I think that we need to go further than what the commission did to extend the scope, not for the sake of extending the scope, but because, for 1 example, the commission assessment is based on a carbon price, which is not realistic if you put yourself in 4, 5 years, 6 years' time. Unless we, crash a lot of climate policies, by the way, at the same time. So this is not your intention. This is not my intention. So we need to make the assessment of which are the CN codes that are the more relevant to be covered with a carbon price, which is higher than the 1 taken as an assumption by the commission. And then it leads to more CN code being covered. So that's why I table amendments to extend the scope to more CNCOTs. The second important element is the anti asset conversion measure. And here, it's about the default value. I must say that I'm convinced by those saying that we need to go beyond the commission proposal and to start with a a default value based on the the country mix. Otherwise, frankly speaking, let's talk 1 obvious example, which which is China. We will always face always face, secondvention, and CBAM will not be effective against, climate dumping. But at the same time, and that's why this issue is complicated, at the same time, we need to be able to reward companies really investing in green technologies and green energy mix, and there is no reason to penalize them with CBAM if they really invest. So that's why my amendments will try to strike a balance between these 2 objectives. Not easy, but I think the proposal of the commission is not robust enough to make sure that at least with China, we take it seriously. And we need to avoid circumvention from China. The third 1 is about an issue which is not so far, I would say, identified, which I think it's a pity, is the competition we are creating with the extension of SIBAM to downstream products between online platforms located in The EU and online platforms like Le Temu or Xin on China from China. If you extend the scope of SIBAM, let's say, to washing machine or or dryers. And then if you buy a washing machine from SIBAM, you do not pay the SIBAM. If you buy a washing machine from a European website, you pay the SIBAM because the European website has imported more than 50 tons for the whole year, but not because you are the importer, then it's completely unfair. And, it's not at all covered by the commission, proposal. So I think we need to make sure that there is a level playing field exactly as we did for the reform of the customs, where we introduced this level playing field. So I suggest we copy paste this reform, which was agreed a couple of weeks ago into this CBAM regulation. Because, the last thing we should do with this regulation is to give, again, another advantage, competitive advantage to, to TEMU or Amazon or or others. Thank you. I stop there. And, of course, I will be more than happy to start the negotiation with the the negotiating team.”
  Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM)
• “Yes, thank you very much. Thank you. Chairman. Vice president. Dear Stefan, before I put a question to you, I'd just like to remind the coordinator from the Patriots for Europe Group who in her comments that her. Group actually voted against the piece of legislation she referred to. So it's also somewhat contradictory. The you referred to the 20 to a specific regime in your introduction. If we want to encourage start ups, then obviously they have to be able to develop on the single market, and we're doing work within the European Parliament, within the committee, and we need to give our viewpoint on how we can be ambitious on this 28th regime, because obviously if you have a startup developing in Europe, the second market is the United States, and we have to be able to make the most of all the opportunities provided by the single market. I know there's a lot of reticent reticence, brakes, etc. projection within the Commission and the member states, but I would like to hear from you that you would be willing to support an ambitious proposal, which does break up somewhat all these rules on the 28th regime.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• “So or you took ChatGPT and then you say, well, say something that doesn't mean anything. So please could you could you elaborate more on what your plan. What's your plan to deliver on time? The 2035 NDC for Europe. Of course it's related to the 2040. So what's the timeline and renew? Uh, it's absolutely not on the position of ECR. And we need this target. We need this 90% target. We are open to discuss flexibilities, but we need this target to give predictability to our companies also because it is our economic interest, not only because it is our values.”
  Climate efforts
• “Thank you much, madam chair. Dear colleagues, it really is quite tiring. It's annoying. It really is listening to so many colleagues who are just living in the past. Let me just give you two points, and I would invite you all to go and buy a European electric vehicle, German if you want. There are lots of good ones. And you'll see that going to Strasbourg in this sort of car, it's really easy. There's no problem whatsoever. You just need to have a bit of vision, ambition, and use the industry excellence industry we have in Europe. I have two things for you, ambition and coherence. Ambition, the role of this proposal is, first and foremost, to support our industry. So that is the objective. That is the aim. We signed this for 90% reduction emissions throughout 2040. We know that the automotive industry represents a significant part of that. There are solutions in this industry, electrification amongst others. So if we slow down I mean, please just tell me, what is the other sector we're gonna decarbonize? Housing industry, we know that that's gonna be a bit more difficult to decarbonize, and we don't have the technology, which is stronger as we have in the car industry. So let's take this low hanging fruit, and let's move forward where we already have technology available. We do need to have a clear pathway, so that the first movers aren't penalized. Those hybrid vehicles aren't the solution. That's what some people are saying, but we need consistency between our different pieces of legislation. We need coherence in definition of what a zero emission vehicle is, what made in Europe means. And for the rest, we just need to be consistent. You know, we are here to decarbonize, and we can't forever just subsidize vehicles, combustion engine vehicles that are going in the wrong direction. We might have leave a bit of time, but the aim, consistency, that is the most important thing. We do need coordination when it comes to the aims, the objectives. I understand that it isn't it shouldn't just depend on the GDP. We need to look at aims which are reasonable and that look at the reality of each member state. Thank you.”
  Road transport environmental policy
• “Could you share with us what would be, to your view, the key elements, uh, after the first round of discussions, uh, so that we can also have, uh, discussions, uh, to go fast because we cannot afford, if we are serious with the timing, we cannot afford to have one. One negotiation in the Parliament and one negotiation in the Council. We need to go. Actually, to start negotiating altogether, to be able to land very soon regarding the flexibilities within the climate law. So, as you know, Renew is absolutely open to discuss flexibilities. Uh, but of course, we want to have robust flexibilities and robust means that, for instance, it cannot be within the ETS. It has to, uh, be negotiated by the commission itself and not having 27 parallel negotiations. So what's your plan to land on flexibilities? Because I think they are needed to be able to strike a deal, but making sure that at the end of the day, it is robust and it does not jeopardise the credibility of the whole climate law. Thank you.”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Vice President, for your very strong words on the link between independence, freedom, sovereignty and decarbonisation, there's no opposition amongst them. On the contrary, electrification is the only way of getting hold of our own destiny. Again, given the external shocks, whether it's linked to certain value chains or critical critical materials or fossil fuels. So my question is, first and foremost on the role that you want to play in the future electrification plan, which will arrive in a few weeks time, and which will be the first time post Mideast war where the European Commission can truly pick up the gauntlet on electrification, both for political and geopolitical issues. I know you're not directly in charge of this. It's DG ener, and I also know that the European Commission could, uh. Settle for a new target setting, uh, exercise setting, mid-term objectives. Uh, fine. Uh, where we're going to again, uh, divide on whether this is binding, not binding, whether it's nuclear and non-nuclear, etc. honestly speaking, there's no interest in that at all. What's important, and I think what's important in your portfolio, in your responsibilities, is to think in the opposite direction. That is to think about, uh, the positives. Electrification is not theory. It's reality specific, uh, specifically what we deploy in terms of the supply, nuclear networks, energy efficiency, etc., as well as on the demand side with electrification, mobility, industrial heat, etc.. I mean, electrification is very concrete. It's not theory. So what is your view of a successful, uh, plan proposed by the commission in a few weeks time.”
  Energy (green transition)
• “Good morning. Commissioner. Uh, just to as a follow up of what Silvia Sardone from the Patriots said that it's always surprising to me. It shouldn't be, for sure, but it's always surprising to me how the Patriots are always teaming up with the US narrative, attacking the European regulation exactly as Trump did last night, calling us to dismantle all the non price barriers. And that's exactly the core of Cbam. That's exactly the core of what we have been doing in this Parliament, precisely to have a level playing field. So Sandra, Chardonnay should be part of the of the groups Patriots for Europe but Patriots for the US. So, uh, I have a few questions. The first one, uh, Commissioner, is related to what you just announced that you want to reduce by 30% the number of implementing acts and delegated acts. Okay. Why not? But if we decided in the trilogue negotiations, including with the commission, to have this implementing act and this delegated acts, it's not for the purpose of, uh, Having delegated acts or implementing Dax. Okay, it's to implement for real decisions that we made to, uh, change behaviors or rules or whatever. So how could you articulate a bit more what's your plan and how you intend to reduce this number and still to deliver on the objectives? Because, again, these acts were not here by chance. They were there to implement things.”
  Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM)
• “Dear colleagues, I apologize if I could be here, and I'd like to thank my colleague who was accepted to read my intervention. So I wanted to thank our rapporteur for his very serious work and his excellent work at a legal level as well. This is only the beginning. The most important thing is to have a text that has a strong message for Council and the Commission, in order to guarantee a fair remuneration for cultural content and media content, while we make it possible to continue with the development of AI. This is just a first step in order to have a licensing market that will work, that is dynamic and which helps our creators and also our AI suppliers. Now, on the other points that will be discussed tomorrow during the meeting of the shadows, I wish to remind you that I am in favor of a financial contribution as the rapporteur proposes. This is for the AI suppliers. They have to remunerate creators and content creators. When the content is used for training, they have to obtain the property of their contact and they must have the possibility of refusing certain uses. I'm skeptical of an opt out register. I think we need a voluntary licensing model. It can be bilateral or collective. Thank you very much.”
  Artificial Intelligence
• “Welcome, Commissioner. So as said already, welcome again on this topic. Unfortunately, um, so, as you know, uh, renew was not in favor of reopening the legislation. Exactly. For the reasons, uh, referred to by other groups that, of course, once you reopen, then you reopen everything, even if your proposal is targeted. And that's why we said that we could support this proposal, even if we were not willing to have this proposal, we could support this proposal because it is targeted. Uh, and also because it's actually starts for real in real life, the test and learn period. So I think when I listen to all the criticisms or the challenges raised by the colleagues. I think I have other arguments saying, for instance, NGOs in Austria had worked worked with forest owners, and they, uh, got to the conclusion that it took four minutes, four minutes to comply with Ayodhya. Four minutes. So, I mean, just stop booking a train ticket if you consider that four minutes is too much. Okay, so it's it's already very limited. Then you will say no, it's not true. Okay, okay, fine. But let's start. Let's start the implementation of this regulation with a real grace period. And my question to you is how could we make sure that we have a real grace period? Maybe we could extend the grace period over the next six months to one year. We have a real grace period. We test and learn. Nothing could happen for farmers, for forest owners, for companies. Small big ones. Nothing could happen from a legal perspective, from a financial perspective. But we have a real transition period. We test and learn. And if you're right, if you are right, then we adjust because it happens that we already have a review clause foreseen next year. So if we could easily think of we create this grace and transitional period, we start. We see if the IT system crashes or does not crash. We see how it works, and then we make the adjustments based on facts, based on facts. And I think that would be the smoothest way forward, knowing that a lot of businesses are already ready to start now.”
  Management of EU forests
• “These amendments do not reflect the. The renew group line. Perhaps some of these amendments are from renew, but they don't reflect our group line. So if we're going to have a negotiation, it must be based on another foundation. To conclude, we have to ask ourselves what we're talking about here. What are we going for? Strategically, there's two things we want. One, we want to be on the same page. We want all European companies to have the same grammar so that they can speak the same language when it comes to extra financial issues. Today, there are different definitions for a Swedish investor who wants to invest in Spain. And the Spanish company will give him various criteria on Sustainability, but these won't be the same sustainability criteria as in Sweden, which makes it difficult. You're not talking the same language. And then the investor goes back to his board in Sweden and he's telling his, uh, colleagues about Spanish legislation. But it's for this very reason that we've created taxonomy and CSD so that we're all talking the same language. So if you want to simplify that language, fine. There are some examples where we are willing to to work with you. But let's not nip this in the bud. Let's. You know. Let's not carry out false simplification which makes things more complicated in real life. Now let me link this to the capital unions market. We cannot promote the CMU and savings and investments, and at the same time destroy everything that relates to a level playing field on extra financial matters, because the aim is to ensure that we can have capital flows going more easily from one member state to the next because we've got common rules. So, Madam Chair, I'm very much in favour of this being dealt with as part of a pro European majority where we simplify but we don't gut the text. Now, I've given you all a lot of time, but we can't exaggerate. We need to have a fair approach.”
  EU approach to sustainability criteria in private investments
• “Thank you. I'm going to speak in French. Good morning, Teresa Ribera. I'd like to ask you three questions about subjects which are common in the Commission at the moment. Firstly, the rules for investments that will be excluded from the Stability Pact on the basis of a decision that was taken by heads of state and proposed by miss von der Leyen. This will be for defense investment, a part of our vulnerability. Vulnerability comes from energy insecurity. Defence is not just about tanks and missiles, it's also cyber and energy. And depending on imports. So what are you going to do to ensure that a number of strategic investments to secure our energy independence can be included in these new budget rules? The second question is about the battery industry. Last week there was a piece of bad news with Volkswagen A going bust and we need to create this value chain in Europe. We cannot continue to rely on the Chinese, the Koreans or the Japanese. So what do you support when it comes to the internal discussions in the commission? When it comes to the question of, should we provide direct support to build batteries in Europe and to support the European battery companies? The third question is the 2040 climate targets. At one point it was part of the clean industrial deal. Then it disappeared. So in the first part of 2025, well, the first quarter is almost over. Could you tell us that the 2040 climate target with the necessary flexibility, will this be included by the end of this quarter?”
  Defence spending
• “Yes. Thank you. Chair. Good afternoon Commissioner. So, uh, starting with the s question, uh, I think it's important that you clarify this because I heard as well the Whigs and not the Whig. Then I would like to support you on what you said about simplification. A new group is fully supportive of the simplification line, starting with the SME issue and starting with CSD, for instance. But we heard as well that from the very beginning, the line of the commission, and it is the balance that was the basis for the support to the president of the Commission, which is simplification but not deregulation. And that's exactly what we would like to hear now from you. Is that what you want in this House is to build on the majority that elected and supported and voted in favour of the current Commission and the Commission president. So, uh, that's why we would like to have a clear message from you that it is what you intend to do. And that's, of course, should be reflected in your proposal. Then on Kswd, one of the key elements that would be to our, our view as a as renew make the difference between simplification that we support and deregulation that we don't support is the double materiality element. If you ease the process for SMEs, it's fine. If you have a cap in the value chain for SMEs, it's absolutely fine if you put as a way to integrate more the international standard and it's absolutely fine. But if you give in on what is the essence of kswd, which is the double materiality, then you just deregulate and you empty and weaken the text. So I would like to have a clear answer on your vision test. ** Ilhan KYUCHYUK @Chair: Thank you, Mr. Canva for the green group. Sergey Lagodinsky, the coordinator.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Yes. Thank you. Chair. Uh. Good afternoon. Uh, professor. Uh, first, uh, I just recall that we as, uh, the European Parliament pushed a lot in the negotiation of the climate law to have this advisory board, uh, living. And, uh, it's a real pity that we don't have any any member of patriots, any member of ECR groups to ask or at least to listen to listen to what you what science has to say in a time where we have so much, uh, anti-science, uh, push from the U.S.. I mean, being science based is key in the EU, and you can count on renew to remain forever science based in our political choices. Now back to my two questions. The first one is regarding the potential integration of removals in the ETS. So we are aware of the pros and cons and the limitations and the the firewalls. I would say that we have we might have to make to avoid what you said, meaning less reductions, but you didn't elaborate at all on the price. That would make sense to have a business case for these removals, because if we have a very different price for for the removals business case and for the reduction business case, and we are in the same market, then you can create some sort of trouble here.”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “You might have different figures to be checked, but 90% of the suppliers of the large corporates in Europe are covered by CSR are under 1000 employees. 90%. And if we apply something that will be a cap in the value chain, the SME shield on 90% of the suppliers, then the large corporates cannot get the data they need. Then to comply with the double materiality, then I don't know how they will proceed. And then we create a shield on one side of the value chain. But we create an absolutely mess for the other side of the value chain. So that's why we need to find the right balance between the two. To protect unnecessarily from the SMEs. From unnecessary burden. Absolutely right. And we saw in the past large corporates just transferring too many data requirements to SMEs. So we need to stop that. But at the same time we need to create an environment that is legally, legally, sound and sound. Also in practice for the large corporates where we ask for double materiality. So I would say that that our four top priorities, it's not. As for you Mr. Rapporteur, it was more the headlines and it's not exclusive of other issues, but that are probably the top priorities we will be after.”
  Due diligence in supply chains (environmental and human rights)
• “Yeah. Thank you. Chair. Um, well, first I would like to, uh, uh, support the timeline, uh, proposed by by the rapporteur. We need to go fast. We know what is at stake, and it's important that we can deliver this new simplification. But small simplification before the end of this year. Um, second, uh, it's interesting. And I will start with where, uh, on a ended. It's interesting to see that in, uh, opinion giving committees we managed with the exception of econ, we managed to find a majority with the pro-European groups, which I think is very positive and gives us, uh, the direction of travel to find a way to find here a deal, uh, under, uh, the van der majority format. Uh, it has always been and it will always be the line of renewal. So that's why I think in this committee in January, where we have the lead. It's good that we can, uh, get inspired by, uh, for instance, the NV position on the transition plan or the inter position on, uh, the termination of contracts. Uh, or also, uh, the econ position on the taxonomy, because on this specific element, I think there is a wider support than the final final text, uh, which was voted uh from the EP to the, the extreme right.”
  Conditions to access EU budget