Enikő GYŐRI

Policy topics Enikő GYŐRI is active on

What Enikő GYŐRI has said (77)

• 2026-06-16 “18:44 – 15:19:07): I didn’t get, an answer as to when the SME filter will be used. And the fact that you repeat the goal several times doesn't mean that it will be achieved. We need to move much more quickly. So I'd like to ask you, are you happy with the speed that we're currently going at? Thank you.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• 2026-06-16 “(15:15:02 – 15:16:22): You've promised a lot, 25% for SMEs, 35% is actually the administrative burden that you promised. We've heard a few different ideas, but in reality, we've seen very little progress. We are seeing the innovative companies escaping to America, and we're seeing a progress in Asia as well. We've seen 10 omnibus packages, but they really are not, miracles. They are not producing quick change. But and we've also seen the EPP, has seen that, they are actually hampering the situation. We're not seeing a significant improvement in this situation. More than 60% of companies are seeing the administrative burden as the key obstacle to investment, and that is what the state of the situation is. So my question is, when are you going to find true solutions rather than these cosmetic solutions? Are you going to use the SME filters so that we do not see legislation which is not right for SMEs? Thank you.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• 2025-11-10 “E-004443/2025 Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission Grapevine flavescence dorée phytoplasma is regulated as a Union quarantine pest listed in Annex II of Commission Implementing Regulation 2019/2072 1 . In the areas of the EU where the pest is present, eradication campaigns have to be carried out in the vineyards. Furthermore, certain parts of the Union territory are under containment, as eradication is not possible, with specific EU measures in place 2 . Therefore, the Commission is aware of the specific problems the pest can cause in Member States and the difficult fight against it once it is detected. On 4 December 2025, the co-legislators have reached a political agreement on the ‘wine package’ (Commission proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulations (EU) No 1308/2013 3 , (EU) 2021/2115 4 and (EU) No 251/2014 5 as regards certain market rules and sectoral support measures in the wine sector and for aromatised wine products (COM(2025) 137 final 6 ), which includes a provision to provide support to collective actions for monitoring, diagnostic, training, communication and research to prevent the spread of highly infectious pests, with Union financial assistance covering up to 100% of the eligible expenditure. Once in force, the new rules will allow Member States to add this new type of intervention in their strategic plan so that stakeholders can make use of the new possibilities offered. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2019/2072/oj/eng. 2 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1630 of 21 September 2022 establishing measures for the containment of Grapevine flavescence dorée phytoplasma within certain demarcated areas: https://eurlex.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2022/1630/oj/eng. 3 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32013R1308&qid=1764315599918. 4 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32021R2115&qid=1764315643439. 5 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32014R0251&qid=1764315675872. 6 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52025PC0137.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Thank you very much, Commissioner. Now I feel obliged to react to. To the reaction to what you spoke, uh, to your response to madam. I'll speak in Hungarian. The situation is the following. The European Union will have serious problems when the citizens and enterprises have the feeling that that it's only specific companies and specific undertakings that will benefit. Now you are the one of the guarantors, if you like, of the internal market and the rules that apply have to apply for all, uh, the Benjamin The report was drafted before you were commissioner, but for me, it's absolutely imperative for the rules to be adhered to. All rules be adhered to across the board by all and specific in specific Member States. The Commission conducts investigations in other countries. Not and this is not the way things are to be. We can't have double standards. The rules of the internal market have to be applicable for all, and the Commission ought. Not turn a blind eye when a particular country to its liking does not adhere to the rules. Thank you.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• “Thank you, Madam Commissioner. It's nice to have you here in our committee again. In two days, we're going to celebrate the first anniversary of the Budapest Declaration, where heads of state and government at the highest level, committed to a more competitive and more growth friendly Europe, including the Savings and Investment Union. I am not happy with our performance over the last year, but it's not just me. Mr. Draghi has also said that only 11% of his recommendations have been applied. How do you evaluate the performance of the last 12 months? Why have you not done more? You said, and I'm quoting you, that the investment and savings Union should work for all member states, irrespective of their size, their capital markets and economic situation. We are really we are really anxious about the news we are receiving about supervision. We are worried about the Patriots group because we think in terms of convergence, interoperability and cooperating capital markets. What are the guarantees that less developed capital markets are also going to be well off?”
  European Banking Union
• “09:50 – 17:11:16): You are getting personal, Karin, to tell a member state to behave. So you're very rude. So please don't use this word in the case of my member state, my country. Okay? So don't do that. You can have your opinion but to tell a member state to behave, cash machine, most of our EU funds are blocked. What are you talking about? I'm talking about trade policy here. I'm talking about the Commission responsibilities and there is a huge difference between being a member state and being a candidate country. And I want to be sure that the Commission, which is the guardian of the treaties, serves the member states, serves the European farmers and represents the interest, even my member state's interest. You don't have to like our views but still the construction is that we are inside, we are a member state, we have our own interest and you have to understand that we can have diverging interest and our interest very often are ignored and neglected. And I want free treatment by the Commission, by you all, even to Hungary and to the eastern part of the European Union. No double standards. We will never agree to that. Thank you.”
  Rule of law in Hungary
• “Thank you. You mentioned in your introduction the non-bank financial intermediaries, and there was already a question. But let me ask the same in another context. We see that these nbfis, including money market funds and the private market funds, are becoming increasingly interconnected with traditional banks, which may amplify the transmission of shocks across the financial system. Given this growing interconnectedness, what concrete steps does the propose to improve transparency, monitoring and macroprudential oversight of these nbfis? Thank you.”
  Financial regulation
• “Thank you so much, Commissioner. I will save you from repeating the figures that have been mentioned by my colleague, but also other colleagues. But my worries grow and my worries have been growing for all these meetings we have been attending already for the 19th occasion. My colleague has just mentioned the May report, which recognises that the RF suffers from several weaknesses in terms of performance, accountability and transparency, and that it is not clear what citizens actually get for their money. So isn't that high time to declare to have some auto criticism and declare that the RF proved to be inefficient? Um, and if we look ahead, we see that, well, in the first in the coming months, the commission will have to cope with 4800 milestones and targets, that you will have to give a green light to all those reforms. Will you have the capacity to do that and will not be to the detriment of quality and transparency in, um, your assessments? Um, my second subject is concerning defence. Well, now we have a safe. We have the rearm, and we have now. We have been invited by the commission to redirect unused RRF funds to defense. Do we know at all how much demand is there on the market, which we are ready to cover from three different financial sources? Um, does it mean that we give up the double transition financing? I mean, digital and green because you are inviting us to cover defence. Meanwhile, our main worry and main problem is the lack of competitiveness. So do we know what we are doing? Thank you.”
  Defence spending
• “Thank you so much. Sorry for coming late but I was voting in the committee. Commissioners. Commissioner Dombrovskis in the commission communication on the 2026 European Semester autumn package. You explicitly says that the 2026 CSRs will work as a bridge for the next MFF, and I find this extremely worrisome, especially considering that the findings of a new study say that the 2026 CSRS represented a shift to a more comprehensive set of CSRs, roughly doubling in number compared to the previous cycle. It means nothing else than that the Commission puts more and more expectations vis a vis member states in the form of this country. Specific recommendations and conditions, the disbursement of EU funds to the implementation. How does the Commission intend to safeguard the Member States competences? How will you respect those when you are coming up with CSRs, even in in issues where you have no competences and which are strictly member States competences? The Commission Discretionary power is or should be limited. And I don't understand how you imagine this bridging exercise. Furthermore, the same EPR study highlights the fact that in 2024, the annual progress in the implementation of CSR has reverted to low levels and that and to low so low as it was registered before the Covid pandemic. Based on these findings, aren't you worried that having this worsening implementation you will put into risk the implementation of the MFF and even the disbursement of the funds? So I really am lost. How you are planning to have this bridging exercise when the RF are experiences are far from being good. Concerning milestones and reforms implementation. Thank you so much.”
  EU fiscal rules and oversight of national budgets
• “Okay. No problem. So it was about the financial transaction tax. This idea has been brought back in this House in the context of as a new or potential own resource. And I wanted to ask your opinion about whether it's a timely issue, whether it would be good, because I have very strong doubts what impact it would have in the plan of the Savings and Investment Union.”
  Own EU resources
• “Thank you. Thank you Ben. I'm very sorry that the commission is not represented here at political level, because I think it's a highly sensitive political issue we are addressing now. And I'm very sorry for the representative of the Commission, because they are, of course, acting under instruction. Um, well, it's a backdoor deal. No question about it. Some details we have got last week. We had more information this morning at the technical briefing and more information thanks to colleagues here. But still, it was something stroke behind the backs of the member states, this House, and most importantly, our farmers. Um, so it's something very serious. Let me highlight just four aspects. And from these four aspects, my four questions come first. Was there any impact assessment made when you came up with this proposal towards Ukraine? Because my suggestion is that there was no impact assessment and we have had no impact assessment when the ATM was launched. And our experience, especially our farmers experience in the neighbouring countries, is extremely bitter. So I don't see any guarantee that the situation will be different this time. The main problem is that here the commission is mixing up solidarity with trade. And my feeling is that the commission is representing more Kiev's interest than the European farmers interest.”
  Agricultural trade: Ukraine imports
• “I think that is a major political faux pas. It's an error. It's a mistake. And there are other ways around for the commission. It has the authorization to do this. We would like to ask commission not to use these workarounds, because that will upset the decent cooperation between the institutions laid down in the treaties. My second comment on the agreement with the US, our companies, sooner or later will need legal certainty. They will need to know what they will be facing. I understand there is a sense of urgency that the commission is facing what? We should see the figures. We should see the numbers. We don't know what the numbers tell us. We don't know what percentages of tariffs will be on anything, any product. And I would like to ask the Commissioner to fight for Europe, including your vice commissioners and in some other issues. I feel the commission is trying to be acting more rationally and is giving up on some issues that have been causing undue delays, and this seems to be a more pragmatic issue. Thank you for that. And please confirm that trading policy from now will be about trading and less about green and other agendas that are not part of the trade policy of the EU because you have to create opportunities for our companies for new.”
  EU competences on foreign affairs
• “(10:59:35 – 11:01:19): Honorable members of the European Parliament, we've said this time and time again, the single market is 1 of the greatest achievements of the EU, and yet we still don't use it to its full potential. For 20 years now, the European Commission, Brussels, has been unable to resolve 60% of the problems flagged by European companies. European companies are leaving in their droves for The United States. They prefer to be quoted on the US stock exchange where they get easier access to financing. Indeed, they're investing billions billions in The USA because they get a better yield. What's Brussels doing? Brussels instead is seeking to centralize supervision of capital markets, circumventing the member states' legal systems. That's not simplification. Also, we've noticed with the services directive or indeed the mobility package that the commission has sacrificed the markets of Central And Eastern Europe by distorting the market, and that's unacceptable. The member states should have equal conditions, a level playing field. And thirdly, when it comes to capital and innovation, we can't concentrate everything in the economies of the Western Part Of Europe. And yet, in its current iteration, the competitiveness fund of the upcoming budget does precisely that. And finally, of course, if we really want to help European companies and industry, we need to reduce energy prices. We need more pragmatism. We don't need green ideology. We need to have simpler and fewer rules. We need to remove internal obstacles. That should be our direction of travel. And that is precisely, in fact, what the Budapest competitiveness declaration called for, and that would also be the recipe advocated by the patriots. The single market can only be successful in that way, and that's the only way of contributing to our competitiveness and to the well-being of our citizens. Mister”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Colleagues, This report carries all of the features of a failed left wing policy. It concedes that Europe has policy with competitiveness and that competition is no longer a buzzword, but it fails to recognise the key problem. Those on the left are incapable of understanding. Without that, without a fundamental shift in approach, we will continue to go downhill. So you stay with your poisonous green policies and as a result, services and goods become more expensive. Economic growth fails to appear and the world is turning its back on Europe. Taking care of its own interests with low cost energy and other advantages to attract investment. And this is something that the Commission needs to recognise and act. Competition policy needs to ensure that there are. There's a level playing field in a single market and ensure that Europe can compete on the global stages stage with member states, not against them. We need a flexible rules and then we'll get economic growth.”
  EU Competition policy
• “49:23 – 16:53:41): Colleagues, I think you need to refresh your memories because here you are demonizing Hungary. You're talking about Hungary as if it were the devil. Now I need to clarify a few things. For nine years now we've had a free trade agreement with Ukraine but agricultural products were consistently protected and there wasn't free trade on those products. Then we saw the war and the decision to have zero percent tariffs for Ukrainian goods without any restrictions on quantity. I'd like to show you what the result of that has been. If we look at what's happened in Hungary in twenty two, we saw this grain increase. It was fifty seven times what it had been in the previous year. Fifty seven times more products came in from Ukraine. So please do look at those figures. It caused serious market disruptions in the European Union and the commission despite our requests didn't take action. We were therefore forced to introduce unilateral protection measures. The commission confused solidarity with trade policy and they didn't focus on the interests of EU farmers. Then in May twenty twenty three the ATM was introduced by the commission, for example on wheat imports but that ended in September because it wasn't actually extended. So we were forced to introduce our own measures for twenty five different product types. And then we saw the renewal of the DCFTA that was a little bit worse than under the ATMs which had an automatic system that stopped and the TRQs were increased significantly, for example six times for honey, sorry sugar six times but eggs and wheat as well. We saw significant quantities coming in. Now Mr. Delver highlighted some figures. I do understand those but we don't know what the figures would be if we didn't have protection measures from these three individual member states. And then if we add Mercosur onto this, we're seeing green measures which are being imposed on farmers and then from twenty twenty eight there's going to be lower agricultural funds from the CAP for farmers. So despite all of our requests why hasn't the commission ever produced an impact assessment about all of this? Even Copa-Cogeca asked for an impact assessment with the Green Deal and we never got one. Another thing, transit through Hungary has never been blocked. So when it came to transporting grain we never blocked transport through Hungary in transit but we do check that it does not enter our domestic market. So I'll be concluding now. The commission is not a partner for European and Hungarian farmers. It's not protecting them. We want them to represent the interest of European farmers in our interest because otherwise you will not have enough European food on your tables. And the last sentence for Miss Karlspro, Ukraine is defending itself and this is a noble goal and it demands our solidarity but Europe is not protecting Ukraine. Ukraine is defending itself, it's fighting for itself.”
  Agricultural trade: Ukraine imports
• “So I would say yes to the bank's activities. However, I shall say no to the Parliament report on this matter. I would be saying this to the EIB representative if they were here, but I just want to guard you against something. Please do not yield to the pressure exerted by my comrades or colleagues in the House from the left. Unfortunately, even in this report, we can feel that pressure. They talk about conditionality in terms of investments. They talk about a human rights code of conduct, and they even talk about maybe, you know, teaching or lecturing third countries in this regard when it comes to democracy. Well, quite frankly, thank you. But no thank you. This is not a question of simplification. It's a question of ideological ideology. And I've never heard of a bank that would be successful on the basis of that kind of approach. It's not a solution. Therefore, we need to make sure that any authorizations for loans are based on market demands, that we have equal treatment and certainly not political requirements. I think it is important to also address this comment to the Hungarian opposition. Thank you.”
  EU policy on sustainability criteria in public funding
• “Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam. Dear Bruna. Welcome. Um, yeah, you were with us a year ago, and we very much like your approach to the issue and how you were planning to respect the equal treatment of Member states and recognizing the they competencies. And in this regard, could you tell us what concrete steps you took in the last one year to establish decent cooperation with Member States? And if you manage, because you were speaking in a positive tone on the European banking authorities approach towards the member states, whether you were, um, applying a kind of model close to that one. My second question concerning is, and you also mentioned the decreasing compliance costs for businesses, which is of vital importance. What kind of concrete steps you have taken in the last one year for the in favour of that which would contribute to Europe's competitiveness? And finally, my last question is concerning the recruitment process because you have to recruit staff. We know that to build up entirely the agency. How are you planning to strike the proper balance between having the geographical balance and at the same time, having the best experts and the highest level of skills and professionalism in your staff? Thank you so much.”
  Discharge of EU institutions and agencies
• “Members, a year ago, Draghi gave us a seriously grave diagnosis. Low productivity, high energy prices, red tape, too little investment and fragmented capital markets. And no innovation. With the Budapest Declaration, this was filed and they continued with their existing policy. It's not going to be enough that the wars in Ukraine stop. It's not just a tragedy for those people, but it's also a weight on the European economy. We're paying more for energy than China and the US as well. But the commission is punishing countries that want to cheap energy. We're buying expensive LNG. Now the left is spending money that we don't have, hoping that the money will come in somewhere else. Some people want to earn money first and then spend it. These are the differences between the world powers and the European Union. We are not adjusting. The European Union is not adjusting to the new world order. And what do we do? The communists, the EPP. More debt, they say, for the next generation to pay new taxes in the EU in 2028, 20% of the budget will go to pay scheduled debts. The capital markets are trying to force them where to invest. That's going to lead to debt. Companies failing. So I say no to all this now.”
  EU fiscal rules and oversight of national budgets
• “Thank you so much. Sorry for not being here on time, but I'm playing a simultaneous game in Inter, so that's why I just came now. So in light of the the global economic uncertainties, geopolitical tensions and weak European competitiveness, I think what we would need is simple, business friendly and competitive tax environment which respects the member States competences. Unfortunately, this report goes to the opposite direction. While the left, as usual in this House, would like to regulate, we would like to liberate business and the BeFit must ensure maximum consistency and alignment with the OECD Global Minimum Tax Agreement with pillar two. Ignoring that need for consistency would create overlapping tax obligations, legal uncertainty and disproportionate burden for businesses. So what we have to do first is to find out what to do. Now with pillar two, that we know that the US is even exempted by the G7 from from it and how we move forward. I'm also particularly concerned about another aspect of the report, which would lower the revenue threshold from 70, 750 million to 40 million after the transitional period. This would bring many more companies under scope, breaking alignment with pillar two and creating even more complex tax environment and significant burdens for companies, even for the smaller ones. The benefit should respect member states tax sovereignty, for example, introducing minimum penalty rate in the draft, as the draft report is saying, is violating member states competences. Furthermore, the new allocation rule based on tangible factors proposed by the rapporteur might result in disadvantages situation for summer for smaller member states. So all in all, let us take the time, the necessary time for aligning buffet buffet properly with global standards and ensure it's truly simplifies rather than complicates the EU tax landscape. And it respects the member States sovereignty. I'm replacing Mr. Pompey. He will be more than happy to negotiate with all the shadows and the rapporteur along these lines. Thank you so much.”
  EU competences on taxation
• “Mr. Commissioner. Mr. chair, thank you for being here. These are not simple times. We are living not. It's not business as usual in trade policy either. Let me start with Mercosur. This is something that has been causing us a lot of headaches. The commission, if they had acted differently five years ago or six years ago, then the situation would be very different. However, we are where we are. It's a fact. Now, I would like to ask the Commission to be the guardian of the treaties, not only in theory but also in practice. And the treaties tell us how international agreements must be strengthened. Fortified. The Commission should negotiate based on the mandate it received from the Council, and the member States accept that with a qualified majority, and that the European Parliament must reinforce the agreement. And I would like to ask, and with all due respect, that this is something the European Commission should comply with as the guardian of the treaties. And if this European Parliament, with a majority, requests a legal position from the European Court, than the Commission should wait for the result of that procedure. That is the minimum in any decent legal community. That's how you should act. Now there are interesting things in commission. The Cyprus presidency did not put to the vote. Already prepared position proposal because some member states exerted pressure on them, and even though there was an agreement in council, the case did not go forward.”
  Trade relations with Mercosur
• “Thank you so much. Uh, welcome to this reduced format coordinator's meeting. Um, gaining from your experience as executive director, um, Um, where would you draw the line between deeper EU level integration and the preservation of member States competences, especially in light of the Commission's upcoming market integration and supervision package? What kind of safeguards would you apply to improve the functioning of the EU capital markets, but to avoid centralisation of power, especially to the expense of member states? So this is a very difficult exercise. I'm aware you have gained a lot of experience in your present role. So how what how do you see it, how you have seen it in the last couple of years? And what is your how would you like to see it to happen for in the coming years? Thank you.”
  EU political integration
• “Thank you. Yeah. My second question would be that certain experts also warn that elevated valuations in certain risky asset classes, combined with possible repricing in sovereign and corporate bond markets, including tariff sensitive firms, could lead to sharp corrections that could threaten financial stability in. In light of that, how does the Eccb assess the readiness of EU banks and non-banking institutions to absorb those corrections? And thus the Eccb believe current capital and liquidity buffers are sufficient to contain a potential contagion triggered by a bond market or asset valuation shock. Thank you.”
  Financial regulation
• “Thank you so much, Minister. I would like to ask you to go back to the 9th January, where a very important meeting took place. Namely, it was a two meeting where the decision on the Mercosur agreement was taken by qualified majority. And originally, as far as I know, there was a plan to decide on another issue on a declaration, and the declaration would have said that the Council wants the commission to wait till ratification before implement starting the implementation of the Interim Trade Agreement of the Interim Trade, part of the Mercosur agreement. And somehow, among mysterious circumstances, this declaration was taken off the agenda. I really would like to understand what happened because that was a declaration designed, shaped, worded during the autumn in the council and as far as I know, maybe they are just bad intentions, gossips that you were under pressure and that's why you decided not to go for a vote on that. By this, this Parliament is left without. Well, at least in limbo concerning its democratic right of control. Because according to the treaties, for such an important international agreement, this House has to ratify it first. And then it's that someone the implementation has started. So now, last week we voted in favor of sending this agreement to the European Court for an opinion, but it's still not sure whether the Commission will wait. Having that declaration, it would have been sure, it would have been a clear instruction by you and the Council. That commission cannot start the Interim implementation. So what happened, Minister? And how can you make sure that this House can have the rights, enjoy the rights concerning this agreement, which are assigned to it by the founding treaties of the Union. Thank you so much.”
  Trade relations with Mercosur
• “We have been negotiating. I mean, our government have been negotiating for years. And what we have seen is the following Commission requests have become overlapping with the conditionality mechanism, which means that the you are widening the scope. Second, very often Commission Didn't answer for months to certain proposals by the Hungarian side, which meant a clear playing with time. Thirdly, the commission has been coming up with newer and newer requests, again widening the scope force coming with requests which have never been asked from anyone else, just from us. And fifth, a clear double standard. Remember what happened in Poland? They presented a one and a half page action plan after the elections, which was immediately accepted, money earned. In our case, we even adopted certain changes to our legislation. The commission said, let's wait for a track record. I mean, isn't that a clear sign of double standard? So the question is, now that the Commission wants to get inspiration from RF for the MFF, what are the guarantees that it will not be repeated? And how are you planning to build back the confidence? Thank you so much.”
  EU Supervision of the Rule of Law
• “Well dear colleague, I think you have not understand what I said. You supported the commission. Your political group supported this position, that the European Commission came forward. Every single Hungarian citizen and every single Hungarian family would lose out with this. And the Commission is not giving the money that Hungary should receive already. Now, we have agreed on this. And then there came an order from above saying, no, no, you cannot agree with the Hungarians. And this is taking decisions and giving money to those who we like. And this is what ruins the union.”
  Rule of law in Hungary
• “Thank you so much Minister. Welcome. Two questions. The first one, well you mentioned in quite general terms the importance of competitiveness and productivity but I would like you to be much more specific because we had the Budapest agenda which was a kind of road map how to implement the recommendations of the Draghi report and last week at the conference we just learned the figure eleven percent of all the three hundred eighty three recommendations have been implemented so far, which is a very very very low figure. So what are you planning to do that at least what was laid down in the best declaration is implemented? My second question is concerning the country specific recommendations and how to reconcile it with ownership because one of the aims of the economic governance reforms last year was to have more national ownership but Commission very often goes for recommendations which are out of their competence but still making recommendations which somehow become obligatory like in our case fuel subsidies have to be phased out. That would immediately result in three times more utility cost for the Hungarian households. So how do you expect to have more national ownership at the same time having that kind of country specific recommendations? What will be the attitude of the Danish Presidency in that issue? Thank you so much.”
  EU fiscal rules and oversight of national budgets
• “Colleagues. China is an important component in our global supply chains. It's an important trade partner and we really depend on that country. But when it comes to rare earths, we depend on them even more. Our green transition can't work without China. We need to think about what kind of relationship we want to build with China. America wants to have some kind of dialogue, and this is the approach we should take as well. In terms of economic interests, we here are in this great tug of war. And we need to make sure that we're not restricted in such a way that we suffer major economic damage. Mr.. And the Chinese minister in October met and discussed the The situation, and they have achieved a situation where nexperia exports are not going to be blocked anymore. If we take this approach, we can reach an agreement without having to wage any ideological battles, but we can achieve our European values. Anyway, I hope that the Commission can then continue these discussions.”
  EU-China relations
• “Thank you so much, Madam Chair. Well, let me play a bit with the figures because there are a lot of figures have been said. So this is the 20th RF dialogue occasion. Five years have passed since the peak of Covid. Five years. So if we speak about RF, one thing is. Sure, it was not at all something quick. So it was it hasn't brought a quick relief to Europe, to the European economies. Uh, more than 75% of RF life time Lifetime has elapsed, 37 of the milestones and targets have been assessed as fulfilled. 56% of the money we have just heard this figure have been dispersed so far, and in the next Multiannual Financial framework, around 20% of the budget will go for reimbursing the EU debt. I have very serious doubts that on the basis of all these figures, it is a good model for the forthcoming MFF. I would like to get your view on that. Second commission is very strict on the deadlines. You were very clear on that, but I was quite pleased to hear some flexibility on your side concerning the staging and other tactics and operations, because money should be saved, and the member states are negotiating renegotiating plans, revising plans with you, which is which is fine. Um, as I see it, more, and even EPP Research Service says that it's more about finding alternatives that may be easier and faster implementable than, uh, achieve that. All the measures, uh, are fulfilled. I wouldn't mind getting your view on that. And finally, um, I have heard that certain member states have started money saving operations by increasing capitals of the national development banks. Would that be feasible? Could the commission show some flexibility towards that? Because that would be another way of saving money. Thank you so much.”
  Conditions to access EU budget
• “Thank you so much. It's I think it's a very good news. It's a way forward towards a trade diversification. I have just one concrete question concerning the dispute settlement. Even our colleague from Sandy has mentioned it because in my country, Hungary had certain sensitivities in this dispute settlement, because we have a quite many bilateral investment protection agreements. And as far as I know, Indonesia was not very keen to going to to the Investment court system. So. But what's the situation? How will you cover it and what's what's the way forward? Because we really would like to have our investments secured there. Thank you so much.”
  EU policy on labour exploitation in global supply chains
• “Hansen. I don't know, maybe partly today because the aim is to regain back the confidence of our farmers and we will not be able to do more on the trade issues on Mercosur. I'm in favor of more connectivity, more commercial agreements. Our farmers need it. Remember, with CETA, everyone was so much afraid of and it was really beneficial for our farmers. But first, let's regain back their confidence. Let's build back this confidence by the simplification and to see on what we can deliver. Concerning the international standards, I have no illusions we will not be able to impose our standards on the entire world. It's a bad policy. It will never work. But what we can deliver, besides the simplification, is, as the report rightly says, on traceability and controls. We should invest more on that. And should we have a better traceability and controls, then we can prove if something is wrong, and then we can ask our partners to deliver on that. So no Europe fortress closing in. No connectivity because that would not serve our farmers interests, but appreciating and understanding the request. Deliver on simplification, traceability and controls. Thank you.”
  Trade relations with Mercosur
• “Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Director General, thanks for being here. And I have always very much appreciated your extremely professional work and even from your presentation, your devotion to the cause of Europe is crystal clear. So I don't have any problem with that. But I do have a serious problem with the president of the commission who made this deal, and that the commission is not represented here today at political level. Madame von der Leyen is delegating the political responsibility, responsibility to you, which is unheard and unacceptable. And now I will switch to. Europe.”
  Von der Leyen
• “And over the weekend we witnessed a theatrical performance by several MEPs and the commission. Great promises to farmers negotiations. And then the result a big nothing. This is what this great coalition, which includes the party and the Democratic Coalition, managed to achieve. Let's look at the fact the total amount of the MFF does not change. Farmers will not receive any more money. The Cap resources would be would be reduced by nearly 20% and all merged together into a common fund. The creation of the so-called rural objective does not compensate for the loss of the second pillar of the cap. Where would the money go to Ukraine? And loan repayment and conditionality would remain so that we could just they could just distribute money as they please. Now there are written and unwritten rules of the budgetary procedure you are trampling on them, and the role of the European Council would be reduced, although the Council represents the sovereignty of the Member States, and all this to eliminate the possibility of a veto. All this without a treaty amendment. This would be the path towards a United States of Europe. I think the Commission should submit a new proposal that respects the treaties, the prerogatives of the Member States, competitiveness and the interests of the farmers. Von der Leyen, the proposal is only good for fishermen. Thank you.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Dear colleagues, it is very positive that ten years after Brexit, we see the Eu-uk relations becoming stronger. This is in the interest of all of us because it makes Europe stronger. But there are a few problematic points in this report. It wants to speak about absolutely everything. It speaks about becoming independent from Russian energy as a positive step. This is not good. Dear colleagues, you cannot heat your homes with sanctions. You need to take into account current geopolitical realities. It's also positive that youngsters would be involved in Erasmus+ in the same time as Horizon and Erasmus+. Hungary was excluded. You cannot discriminate against EU citizens. Plus we do not support the financing of the war in Ukraine. We need to focus on peace. It is a shame that such points are included in this report. It would have been nicer to have a report without ideological sides, and that would have served closer ties.”
  EU-Russia relations (from March 2022)
• “And thank you so much. Thank you for being here. And well, my group's main course at the moment is competitiveness of course. And at the same time we are very keen on preserving our national sovereignty. And how do you expect how do you does your respective authority ensure that its supervisory guidance, technical standards and other tools fully respect the division of competences between the EU and the Member States, particularly in the areas where primary supervisory responsibility remains at national level. This question goes to Madame Ros in the context of the Commission's upcoming market integration and super package, which is of extreme delicacy for, for, for us, that what kind of safeguards would you apply to improve the functioning of the EU capital market, but avoid over centralisation of powers, especially at the expense of member states? And if you could also elaborate a bit on the on the simplification. I was pleased to hear from Mr. Champa that he would like to speak about it in the context of efficiency. I couldn't agree with more with that respect. So how? Whether you could explain or or or just mention certain examples where you are working for this simplification, because I know that all, all our institutions could, could improve a bit less or fewer rules, better implementation without any change of in the power game. Thank you so much.”
  EU Single Market harmonisation
• “Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me start by saying that I'm very pleased that finally we could get down to business concerning simplification. It was high time and I very much hope that we can deliver, because expectations are very high vis a vis these promises made by the Commission, and hopefully we will do that. My second introductory remark is that we should not lose sight of what we are doing. The aim is simplification. It is not to reorganise the investeu and change the context. Change the windows, change. Change everything which not which doesn't go to the direction of simplification. So I think it's really very, very important. Of course I look forward to working together with the Co-rapporteurs, and I consider the report a good starting point for finding a compromise. I welcome that the report is calling for non-legislative measures by the Commission to go further with simplification. I also agree that advisory activities can provide significant help, especially for SMEs. Therefore, we propose to establish automatic eligibility for support from the Investeu Advisory Hub for all projects with a total cost of less than €5 million. Furthermore, we propose that implementing partners should also take into account the principle of proportionality and adapt documentary requirements to the administrative capacity of the SMEs.”
  Conditions to access EU budget
• “My colleagues, the European Union has turned itself inside out and become a prisoner of war psychosis. The president of the commission and even the secretary general of NATO openly proclaim that we are at war with Russia. This legislation is another step in this war warmongering madness aimed at making it impossible to import Russian natural gas into the EU. You are killing the secure and affordable energy supply of two member states to protect the perceived interest of a third country. I would like to quietly note that Hungary supplies 51% of Ukraine's electricity needs. What's more, you are doing this through legal trickery. You are presenting the ban as a trade policy tool, thereby circumventing unanimous decision making. You are therefore trampling on the obligation of solidarity and loyal cooperation as well as the rule of law. In other words, you are destroying the European Union. You are openly threatening those member states that refuse to fall into line, and they could suffer the same fate as Hungary. You are saying even Belgium in doing so, this is blackmailing. Please take note. You will not be able to bring Hungary to its knees with this. This is a very dangerous game that you are playing because you are going to destroy the European Union. Thank you.”
  EU-Russia relations (from March 2022)
• “Dear colleagues. In these turbulent times, we need to keep a strategic calm. Rather than rushing to do anything, we need to coolly assess what European interests are. Obviously, a trade war damages the interests of our citizens, our companies, industry and has effects on our supply chain. It increases prices and puts pressure on our companies and obviously in. We have tried to correct this course too late. I think we have moved too far away from the rules that we should have been following on just who does what in Brussels and national governments. Now we need to be open to innovative solutions. We're negotiating with businessmen. We have to negotiate as businessmen. We need to put our house in order. Obviously, we need clearer, simpler, less rules. And we need to bring an end to the five years of ideological defence that we've had. Instead, we need to defend the single market and farmers so that the EU can remain open to all. And as such, we can recover our competitiveness and we can once again be serious actors on the international scene.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Colleagues, the EU India relations harbor significant yet untapped potentials in terms of geopolitics, economics. And therefore, I welcome that this month there will be an EU India summit. And I'd like to see a last dash to complete the free trade agreement. Until then, with the fourth biggest economy of the world, it's a major chance. Would be a shame to miss it. We expect the Commission to endorse European interests and to negotiate hard for the best possible conditions for our sectors, including the automotive sector. Pragmatism is also important. We shouldn't expect a trade partner to agree with us in every everything just to make a deal. The Commission should learn from previous failures and get rid of ideology because instead of blocks, we need connections. This is the only way to come to terms with powers in the world and strengthen the positions of the economy in Europe.”
  Free trade agreements (FTAs)
• “Ladies and gentlemen, dear members. When I see the commission's latest strategy, I'm reminded of a meme which depicts the EU as a rainbow colored plug in tank. The driver of which is reading a rule book. Then I was reminded of the fact that we already had a strategy full of objectives. It was called the Lisbon Strategy, and then nothing came of it. Then we want it to be the most competitive region in the world, and now we want it to be the most circular. Meanwhile, industrial production fell by 0.8% in December. This is the result of the misguided economic policies of recent years. The clean industry strategy will not bring change either. It is a relabeled Green Deal. The commission wants 40% of the ingredients for clean technology products to be produced in the EU today. Solar panels and wind turbines are almost exclusively produced in China. So I ask how realistic this is. Has a feasibility study been done? We need measures that will help European industry and people in the short term, for example, an immediate reduction in energy prices. Instead, Brussels is continuing its campaign against cuts in energy prices and wants to phase out subsidies for fossil energy projects. Patriots will not give in to blackmail. We do not want ideology based economic policies.”
  Energy (green transition)
• “Bienvenido Vice President, I have two questions, uh, which reflect the worries of my my group. I very much understand that you would like to strike a proper balance between less regulatory burden and get rid of superfluous reporting obligations, etc., which would mean more competitiveness, but at the same time remain resilient. And I agree with that on one of the recommendations in the report proposes a shift from directives to directly applicable regulations in order to reduce heterogeneity. What concrete approach would you take to reflect and preserve important national specificities, such as differences in banking models, market structures, and legal traditions? If the ECB advocates shifting key provisions from directives to regulations. And my second question, the ECB also recommends to review and potentially harmonise certain national supervisory powers, such as relating to mergers, outsourcing, asset transfers, etc. in your view, what should be the appropriate limit to such harmonisation? And how could the ECB ensure that any move towards greater alignment of supervisory powers does not weaken the effectiveness of supervision that relies on national legal frameworks, market structures and established accountability at member state level. Thank you so much.”
  European Banking Union
• “Thank you so much. Well, timings are very unfortunate in this house because my question would have been addressed to Commissioner Dombrovskis because it goes more to his portfolio. But unfortunately, I have no other choice than to ask Commissioner. Vice president Fitto, thank you for your presentation. And, well, what we see. Figures from end of January, 66% of grants and 77% of flows have been already have been so far disbursed. But if we didn't have that loan component reduction, the figure would have been only much lower. So what we see now that certain member states, and I suppose, together with the Commission, are in a strong face saving exercise, reducing the loan component. And by that having a kind of massage exercise and improving the figures, which seems to me quite artificial and but I understand that the Commission has a clear intention to save the money together with those member States who get these funds at all. My question is, uh, that as we are seeing this process, are you sure that this is what we can model the next MFF upon? So can it be serious that the RR will be a role model for the forthcoming Multiannual Financial Framework? Having this huge exercise, all the money modeled on something where we have Maciej exercises for not losing a lot of funds. And my second question is, um, concerning, uh, my country, Hungary, which of course you know very well that is not enjoying our funds. And several commissioners in the president, including said that well, until Hungary is not behaving according to their norms, there will be no funds for Hungary, which is very far from the original purpose of conditionality. Milestones and reform expectations. Is it fair, in your opinion, if Hungarians are deprived of our. And is it fair? But Hungary still pays into the EU budget for disbursing for for having the interest rate. So we are contributing but getting nothing. How can you say that? It's a fair exercise and no discriminative exercise. Thank you so much.”
  Conditions to access EU budget
• “Honourable members of the European Parliament, we've said this time and time again. The single market is one of the greatest achievements of the EU, and yet we still don't use it to its full potential. For 20 years now, the European Commission, Brussels has been unable to resolve 60% of the problems flagged by European companies. European companies are leaving in their droves for the United States. They prefer to be quoted on the US Stock Exchange, where they get easier access to financing. Indeed, they're investing billions, billions in the USA because they get a better yield. What's Brussels doing? Brussels instead is seeking to centralise supervision of capital markets, circumventing the member states legal systems. That's not simplification. Also, we've noticed with the Services Directive or indeed the mobility package, that the Commission has sacrificed the markets of Central and Eastern Europe by distorting the market, and that's unacceptable. The member states should have equal conditions, a level playing field. And thirdly, when it comes to capital and innovation, we can't concentrate everything in the economies of the western part of Europe. And yet, in its current iteration, the Competitiveness Fund of the upcoming budget does precisely that. And finally, of course, if we really want to help European companies and industry, we need to reduce energy prices. We need more pragmatism. We don't need green ideology. We need to have simpler and fewer rules. We need to remove internal obstacles that should be our direction of travel. And that is precisely, in fact, what the Budapest Competitiveness Declaration called for. And that would also be the recipe advocated by the Patriots. The single market can only be successful in that way, and that's the only way of contributing to our competitiveness and to the well-being of our citizens.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Ladies and gentlemen, MEPs. The European Semester was established in 2011 during the Hungarian Presidency with the aim of Coordinating the economic processes of the member States and ensuring financial discipline. Unfortunately, due to Brussels continuous maximization of its powers, the instrument is now a shadow of its former self and interferes heavily in internal affairs of member states. It would shape social policy policy. Abolish utility price reductions. These are just a few of the country specific recommendations. This is life threatening for Hungary. With war raging in our neighbourhood and in the Middle East and Ukraine imposing an oil blockade on us as a sort of political blackmail. The Parliament's report goes even further. It clearly states that the semester would be not used not only for economic coordination, but also to achieve sustainability goals, create social justice and coordinate climate policy. This ideological economic policy is destroying Europeans competitiveness, Europe's competitiveness. And what most serious is that when assessing the macroeconomic situation of the Union. The text is silent on the burden of war raging, raging in our neighborhood. The cost of supporting Ukraine, the transition away from cheap Russian energy, or the interest burden of the joint loans taken out by Brussels. If we don't talk about it, then there is no problem. You are living in an alternative reality and pursuing a policy of burying your heads in the sand. Yet the interest payments on the 90 billion loan, €90 billion loan to Ukraine alone will cost European taxpayers 3 billion a year. It's unpleasant for you to say this, isn't it? It's no coincidence that the report calls for the introduction of new European level taxes, because you know very well that there is no such thing as a free lunch. We, the Patriots, say a resounding no to all of this. We do not want to burden our grandchildren with debt or with the introduction of European taxes or left wing ideology based policies. Thank you.”
  European Semester (social dimension)
• “Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm very pleased that quite many colleagues are around us and the coordinators meeting my group, the Patriots, which is the third largest group of this house, was excluded from obtaining any report concerning the four important MFF files, despite being fully entitled under the existing rules and numerical balance that should guide this House. But we know very well that this House is not guided by by the rules and what is happening and what has happened at that coordinators meeting is an arbitrary interpretation of the rules. Because to use this escape vast majority rule, it is impossible. If we want to be democratic in this House and to ignore the attribution. The points, I think, really reflect how this House should not work when rightful political representation is denied, the credibility of this institution is at stake and raises fundamental questions about democratic integrity of our internal processes. So we cannot preach transparency and fairness to this, to the outside world, to any member state, while tolerating practices that contradict those very principles.”
  Transparency requirements of EU institutions
• “Thank you. Honourable members. In order for the European economy to recover and to improve its competitiveness, it is essential that we establish connections with as many countries as possible. Connectivity can make us stronger. To achieve this, however, we must give up the ideological struggle of dividing the world into good and bad and only trading with the good. The new geopolitical situation also requires us to recalibrate our relations with China. Let us finally accept that they will never be a democratic, constitutional state in our sense of the term, and that we will never agree on everything. Nevertheless, we can still trade with them on the basis of mutual benefits. This relaunch should be the task of the EU-China summit at the end of July. We need to realize that fruitful cooperation is not only possible with like minded political systems. The US, which has declared China its main enemy, has already been able to reach agreement with Asia's superpower on certain issues. Let us be capable of doing the same. Let us reduce dependence dependent stand on more than one leg. And of course, let us be not naive. Let us make China interested in relations with us. Let us look at what's good for European companies and what creates jobs. Negotiations can only be conducted in the language of mutual respect. Thank you.”
  EU-China relations
• “The net monthly amount for children per child increases with the number of children in the family. We also have a new scheme introduced in 2020, where mothers with four or more children are exempted from paying any personal income tax throughout their career. And the newest measure, which will enter into force on 1st October this year, that mothers with three children are exempted from paying any personal income tax. Those are below the 30 years, but we will have the scheme for young mothers applied also for mothers above 30. With the increase of years, uh, as our budget allows. Of course, all these measures are quite expensive. We already are spending for that and also for the family housing subsidy. The program which exists, has been existing since 2015. We are spending more than 5% of our GDP, which is a lot, I know, but on what else the government should spend if not on improving the living conditions of families. Today in Hungary. Um, it's not necessarily in the number of verses, because if you have low, lower number of mothers in fertility, uh, then you don't really have from one year to the other. But I think this is an investment for the future, which none of us, none of our countries can avoid. My second remark goes on another issue on the housing impact of migration, where because many, uh, of those migrants who arrived to to the member states, uh, so we have no EU citizenship, uh, are benefiting from the social housing schemes in the member states, which does create inequalities.”
  EU strategy on population growth
• “Ladies and gentlemen, every day, €4 billion worth of goods changed hands between the United States and the European Union. This clearly demonstrates how vital a balanced partnership based on mutual respect is with them. However, last summer, Ursula von der Leyen struck a humiliating bargain with the US. She provided proof that Europe is weak and susceptible to blackmail. A deeply unequal agreement was reached, which is far from being a mutual benefits, where we previously paid 2 to 3% customs duties on our exports, we will now pay 15% while the US brings in its industrial products duty free. Why exactly did the Commission enter into this humiliating, humiliating deal so that America would continue to support Ukraine? Donald Trump represented America's interest. America First wife on deadline, represented Ukraine's Ukraine first, rather than that of European citizens and businesses. Since then, of course, the US has pulled out of financing Ukraine. Now only Europe continues to pour money into a hopeless war. At this point, only damage control remains because European companies need predictability, predictability and a reduction in tensions. The Commission should finally pull itself together and learn from the American president how to effectively stand up. Thank you. **Elisabetta GUALMINI Trump. We've been patient in front of your erratic and despotic behavior. We've been patient. When you started the war without knowing how to finish it. We've been patient. When you use the trade policy as a weapon to take revenge and threaten countries and peoples who simply annoy you. We've been patient when you called us free riders and parasites, and we've been patient when your VP told us that in Europe, democracy is failing. What? Come on. But now, of course, we cannot cut trade relationships with the United States. And we must provide certainty to our companies and citizens. So we have to move forward with the agreement on duties. But let me be really clear. We have suspended it twice. We are not afraid to suspend it again. The clauses and conditions are stronger. The suspension clause, the sunset clause, the safeguard on imports and the sunrise clause. We are passionate Europeans. We Europeans. We are passionate pro-europe politicians. We will be vigilant. We will never be idiotic servants of an autocratic leader. Thank you.”
  EU-US trade relations
• “Gracias. Bienvenida. I will speak in English. Don't worry. Um, my question will be about the General Block Exemption Regulation. You. You mentioned it in your intervention. I just had the 2023 23, 69% of all Non-crisis stated measures were implemented under that framework. And if I'm not mistaken, you mentioned the last year figure, which was even higher 90%. So this growing reliance illustrates how essential it is that the framework is efficient, predictable, and administratively manageable. Stakeholder feedback also underscores that notification related requirements remain lengthy, complex, and resource intensive for companies and national authorities. So in that context, I would like to ask three questions. First, which concrete simplification measures the Commission intends to introduce based on the evidence and comments gathered during this year's public consultation. Second, which elements of the current GB procedure have been identified as the heaviest burdens such as reporting obligations, documentation requirements, complex eligibility conditions or interpretative uncertainties. And finally, how the Commission plans. How does the Commission plan to streamline these processes, for example, through clearer definitions, reduce reducing information demands, more standardised templates or improved digital toolbox while still ensuring legal certainty? Level playing field and preventing misapplication risks. So as you see, we would like to go towards simplification, maintaining legal certainty and making life easier for business players. Thank you so much. Thank you.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Ladies and gentlemen, MEPs. The European Semester was established in 2011 during the Hungarian Presidency with the aim of Coordinating the economic processes of the member States and ensuring financial discipline. Unfortunately, due to Brussels continuous maximization of its powers, the instrument is now a shadow of its former self and interferes heavily in internal affairs of member states. It would shape social policy policy. Abolish utility price reductions. These are just a few of the country specific recommendations. This is life threatening for Hungary. With war raging in our neighbourhood and in the Middle East and Ukraine imposing an oil blockade on us as a sort of political blackmail. The Parliament's report goes even further. It clearly states that the semester would be not used not only for economic coordination, but also to achieve sustainability goals, create social justice and coordinate climate policy. This ideological economic policy is destroying Europeans competitiveness, Europe's competitiveness. And what most serious is that when assessing the macroeconomic situation of the Union. The text is silent on the burden of war raging, raging in our neighborhood. The cost of supporting Ukraine, the transition away from cheap Russian energy, or the interest burden of the joint loans taken out by Brussels. If we don't talk about it, then there is no problem. You are living in an alternative reality and pursuing a policy of burying your heads in the sand. Yet the interest payments on the 90 billion loan, €90 billion loan to Ukraine alone will cost European taxpayers 3 billion a year. It's unpleasant for you to say this, isn't it? It's no coincidence that the report calls for the introduction of new European level taxes, because you know very well that there is no such thing as a free lunch. We, the Patriots, say a resounding no to all of this. We do not want to burden our grandchildren with debt or with the introduction of European taxes or left wing ideology based policies. Thank you.”
  European Semester (social dimension)
• “So we have to be very rational on on that. We have to concentrate on cutting red tape, not to put additional burden on companies shoulders. Thirdly, a more attractive and better functioning capital market has to provide equal opportunities for all Member States. This is what I'm strongly missing from the report. Regardless the size and the development of the capital market. Fourthly, regarding supervision, sometimes the draft text speaks about convergence. In other places it speaks about harmonisation, including supervision. Well, I think we should build on synergies between the national institutional frameworks and to make use of the diversity of the capital markets and dismantle obstacles that are currently hindering the cross-border flows of investments and not to strive for harmonization. Um, on the idea of empowering the European authorities to levy fees from market participants, I don't think it's a good idea. And finally, we have just discussed the taxation issues. Um, well, I understand that in a broader interpretation you can speak about taxation, but the more we want to speak about taxation in the text, the less convergence among political groups we're going to have. So I think, well, we are strictly against tax harmonisation. And the text sometimes says that admits that it's a national competence. And in the same sense it goes on with tax harmonisation, which is a clear red line for my group. Thank you so much.”
  EU competences on taxation
• “Thank you, Vice President. Commissioner, um, I think you will agree with me that the proof of efficiency of any program is if the conditions are met, the money is unmarked and the hoped targets are achieved. Well, in our case, some figures have been said. We are a bit over the 50% of urn marking the money and the figure concerning milestones, as far as I remember, has not been mentioned. 37% of milestones have been achieved. So no time and no opportunity for any complacency. Um, and you are saving the money exercise, which is good. I hope you will be equally equally flexible towards each and every member state. And what are the guarantees that this money saving exercise and flexibility will will be impartial on your side? This is my first question. My second question goes to Commissioner Dombrovskis, as he has been in office and dealing with RF even during the previous mandate. And I have to share with you, Commissioner, that I find it extremely bitter, this experience with the with the RF coming from Hungary. And let me tell you why I have five reasons for that.”
  Conditions to access EU budget
• “Okay thank you very much. Well my conclusion from all the presentation and the situation that has evolved is that the European Union doesn't really need external enemies. We are here, we are the greatest enemy for ourselves. So we represent the major risk for our own competitiveness. It sounds like a joke but it's not a joke, it's terribly serious. So I don't have to quote Mister Draghi, some of you have done it. So we have maneuvered with the Commission and the lead to us into an impossible situation because we wanted to save the world, we wanted to be the champions of tax fairness. Now we have a beautiful Pillar Two directly implemented inside the EU and the others are not coming with us, especially in the not one overseas and our companies now get into an even more difficult situation. So instead of improving business environment it has already been set, we created further difficulties for them. Why don't we change our minds? Why don't we want to be the champions of healthy tax competition in the good sense? Why don't we try to attract companies by offering excellent simplified and low tax schemes because maybe that would work? I thought I know all the problems profit shifting on this but it's a clear failure what we have done so far. The second, the original agreement was to have Pillar One plus Pillar Two at the same time. What happened? We are nowhere with Pillar One, only with Pillar Two again it's impossible. So I would just very much hope that we will not create further difficulties for ourselves. Mister Rang has said at the beginning that actually the Commission doesn't really have plans to modify the directive but this year is the year of the omnibus legislations one two three four two thousand nine hundred twenty six. Couldn't we have maybe one on taxation? Thank you so much. **Kira Marie Peter-Hansen (Denmark, Greens/EFA) @Chair: Thank you Eniko. I look around it was less directed to one but maybe on the tax omnibus we can start and then the people raise their hand.”
  EU competences on taxation
• “Thank you, Madam President. Welcome back. Let me ask you about two very timely issues. The first one is the Capital Market Markets Union. I think we all agree that a competitive and well-functioning EU capital market is essential for supporting investments and growth. However, the experience of the 2008 financial crisis remains a critical reminder of how excessive risk taking, insufficient capital requirements and complex securitisation structures can undermine financial stability with far reaching consequences. In this regard, how does the ECB assess the risk related to the reduction of certain capital requirements in the Commission's current securitisation package? And based on this assessment, do you think that the Commission proposal found the right balance between loosening and financial stability, or there is still room for further lowering capital requirements and by this helping a bit the growth? And my second question would be on the financial transaction tax, which has been brought back. It's in the air in this House. And even as a new potential own resource of the EU budget, how do you think this idea is compatible with the plan of the Savings and Investment Union, and what kind of impact it would have on this plan? Thank you so much.”
  Financial regulation
• “It is also important to have an ambitious reduction of reporting obligations of the implementing partners. Therefore, we propose further simplification to the Commission's original proposal and do not support the extensions as it is laid down in the draft report. We neither support to add further criteria to the SME definition. I don't think we we should touch that in this report. In addition, first time SME applicants should be able to benefit from a right to correct non-material errors within a reasonable period before any definitive rejection. It is also necessary to increase the guarantees provided under the SME policy window by at least 50% of the additional €2.5 billion guarantees introduced by this omnibus two. Such an increase should ensure that SMEs receive the financial support needed to overcome the serious challenges, to grow, and to contribute to the EU's economic competitiveness. And finally, we find it is important we find it important to instruct the Commission to evaluate the real effects of this simplification measures. We are about to adopt and put forward further proposals if needed. Thank you.”
  Conditions to access EU budget
• “Thank you very much. Well, good morning, dear Commission, it's good to see you have woken up because previously, um, greening, uh, resulted in 5000 new pieces of legislation for companies. And from the EPP to the communists, the whole house supported all this. And then now the same political groups are asking for simplification. Ridiculous. Omnibus one and two. They come late and they are not enough. Practically, it's just cosmetics. Uh, trying to repair some cracks. We did tell you that the direction was wrong. You damaged Europe. You are against Europe. Well, the proposal tries to achieve simplification, but it is not ambitious enough. We need more than these. Than these window dressing. We need to check what the problems are on the regulatory side. What hinders companies in getting resources, innovating and working, focusing on their work instead of writing reports and dealing with paperwork. You don't touch taxonomy. You are practically working on an ideological basis. You keep to green ideology, which will overcome competitiveness again. Of course, companies would have access to more resources. For example, if you, for political reasons, didn't stop paying the resources that my country is entitled to. We should work together for prosperity. But unfortunately, you are undermining prosperity to European companies deserve more. We need a company friendly change and that's why that's what we are working for. We patriots. Thank you.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Thank you. After a long Period, we are finally seeing a breakthrough. We have concluded this file. The left wing in this house has done everything within its power to drag their heels. They have sought to increase administrative red tape. We in the Patriots have not allowed them to win out. We have struck a compromise that will truly make life easier for companies. The invest EU Guarantee Fund will be bolstered by 2.9 billion. And advisory companies will receive more funding. We have increased threefold the threshold values, and we have succeeded in removing the green ideological driven requirements from the text. And large companies can no longer raid funds designed for SMEs. We in the Patriots believe in simplification and Europe's competitiveness. That is the way forward. It is a long path, but we will hold our ground. Thank you.”
  Conditions to access EU budget
• “Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner, welcome. And I don't find this picture very sad. No, on the opposite, I'm very pleased. And I applaud the this really finally pragmatic approach by by the Commission. And you are using the words I wanted to use. This is a kind of reality check. I don't experience that very often from from the commission. So I really welcome that that new approach. Um, concerning the motivations for the withdrawal, is it included in these motivations that maybe you realize that in some cases you went beyond, uh, the commission mandate? Because taxation we know very well is mostly a national competence. So was there any self-critique behind this or it's just seeing that there is no progress. So that's why it's better to give up and abandon certain issues. Um, and my second question would be, um, on on the future, what comes next? Are you planning to rectify in other issues? I'm specifically interested in two issues. The first one would be the new Energy Taxation Directive, which slows, which moves very slowly. And are you considering putting forward alternative proposals? And the second one is that this, um, the VAT proposal directive. Sorry. Uh, does the commission plan this year, uh, to extend the application period of the provisions of the VAT directive that is set to expire at the end of this year, which allows member states to apply the reverse charge mechanism to certain goods and services? Or what are your plans? And if there is anything else and any kind of omnibus on, uh, making another reality check concerning commission proposals. Thank you so much.”
  EU competences on taxation
• “It really is shameful for Europe to see what's happening. The commission really actually ended up applauding the whole affair. You wouldn't normally be happy about these sorts of things. So we can see now that in the sixth year of the von der Leyen Commission that Europe has been weakened and can be pressured. Apparently, the von der Leyen finds Ukraine more important than the EU and its citizens. And it's been said that it's not a question of trade, it's a question of security and Ukraine in this deal. And as you yourself said, this was a political package so that we could continue to help our eastern partners. And that is what the president, vice president of the commission sold. Apparently, we're just going to sell out to the United States. And we saw that this left coalition. Did not bear fruit. And that ideology is being brought into economic and trade policy. As a result, we're no longer competitive. This sort of trade partner is not going to take these sorts of matters into account. And we see what's happened. This is something that you're trying to sell as a success on the political level. But it's not. So what about the LNG purchases that the commission has not had a mandate for? What can be done there? And what about the compensation the commission will have to pay to the industries that are losing out? For instance, European wine sector. Thank you.”
  Agricultural trade: Ukraine imports
• “Honourable members this agreement is an agreement that really proves how vulnerable we are in the EU. Since 2008, we have been heading downwards, I'm afraid. And we also know that in terms of the Draghi report, we've only been able to complete a fraction of it. So don't be surprised. Don't be surprised if on the international stage the EU is being held in little regard. The Commission has been clear this was a political deal to make sure that we could have continued finance for Ukraine. So, in other words, for Mrs. von der Leyen, Ukraine is more important than her own citizens, her own companies. I cannot applaud this. We're talking about exports. We used to pay like 2%, 3%. Now we're talking about 15% tariffs. I cannot support this. This is not an agreement based on reciprocity. Far from it. In addition to that, something that we haven't talked about yet is how the commission intends to provide compensation for different sectors, such as the wine sector in the EU. You know, we're actually really handing something over to the USA energy, etc.. I think that actually July the 27th will go down in history as a date when Europe was faced with a very negative, negative deal. Thank you.”
  EU-US trade relations
• “Thank you so much. I have my own doubts whether risk are very much related to reporting obligations and greening, and whether green investments have been better off than any other investment that my reading is is not the same. My second question concerning another aspect of your interview is on on your words on Qmv, which was quite the the qualified majority voting of the same interview, because you in general abstain from making political declarations because your priority, as you have just said, is price stability. And I was quite, quite shocked that you said you were speaking against the veto, saying that it should not no longer be allowed to stand in the way of the collective interest of the other 26 member states. Meanwhile, veto is for strategic and sovereignty issues, a legal way of decision making in the European Union under the treaties. I could forward even Charles Michel, who was arguing in favour of maintaining the veto, because saying that if you don't forge first a unity, you just impose something on a member state. You will never create unity. So I would like to understand why you changed and were coming out. Something of a strong political statement and whether it is related to price stability at all. Thank you.”
  EU political integration
• “Thank you so much. I won't speak Spanish this time. A window of opportunity what we have. Because we know a lot of negative things happening in the area and hopefully it will bring a relief. So I think it's a window of opportunity and will bring relief to the people living on both sides of the border. So let's hope that the situation will improve there. The devil is always in the details. Thank you for for telling us a lot of those details. But of course we have to see the legal text and I will join in with my my question on on the ratification obligations. It cannot be an EU only because of the subjects it covers. So I really would like to know more in specific the legal format, your plans and the ratification obligations. And it brings a lot of responsibility as well. It's not just a window of opportunity. We must ensure that no one can enter the EU's territory without checks. This agreement cannot serve as an entry ticket for illegal migrants. And the same goes to goods. The EU customs rules must be respected. You covered it. So I hope even in practice it will work. So let's hope that everything has been decided will be implemented and the checks will be real and clear and strict, because in no way it can undermine Schengen or the customs union. And we have the strong phenomenon of gambling in Gibraltar. You mentioned the money laundering, but gambling is always a dirty money. So do you have do you foresee any specific rules on, on on that? Uh, and the same goes to the checks of smuggling. Uh, how do you think this political deal will, will, um, uh, will be brings relief on that. Thank you so much.”
  Asylum & border control
• “Let me start by saying that. Thank you for convening this hearing. Taxation and housing according to the treaties are and will remain a competence of member states. So in that spirit, we have to look at these issues, but I think the EU has a facilitator role and shall remain an advisory and limited, have a limited impact, but still important. I strongly believe in in the importance and the usefulness of a good exchange of practices. And in my interpretation, this is what we are doing now, as we had some good examples from our speakers. Uh, and in that context, let me mention some measures that I think are very useful for helping families to improve their living conditions. In in my home member state in Hungary, uh, Hungary's family support system is our flagship. Actually, uh, especially the family tax benefit, which we introduced in 2011, by which a majority of families with three or more children do not have to pay any personal income tax, um, in order to allow the full use of the tax relief for the low income groups, the tax relief may be deducted from the Social Security contribution payments as well.”
  EU competences on social policies
• “Ladies and gentlemen, a competitive tax environment is essential for putting the European economy on a growth path and improving our global competitiveness. Unfortunately, the von der Leyen led commission continues to ignore the interests of European citizens and businesses. Um, it is playing the role of a voluntary saviour of the world. That is why we welcome all simplification proposals in this report that aim to create a competitive tax environment. However, uh, the left in this House and the Commission continue to push the toxic green ideology that is destroying the EU economy. And this is also reflected in the report. It advocates excessive climate targets and would like to dictate on ideological grounds. What constitutes a good or a bad investment? This is a matter for the member states and not for Brussels. The report also continues to call for a strong commitment to implementing global minimum tax rules, even though the international landscape has changed. Brussels was too quick to adopt a global minimum tax rules, while with the agreement of the G7, large US companies will be subject to much more favourable US rules. Tech giants are getting away with not paying taxes and negotiations have stalled. There is no first or second pillar is compulsory. This puts European companies at a disadvantage. Brussels has shot itself in the foot again. It should be a champion of tax cuts, not taxation. But the Commission is attacking countries that are reducing taxes. It is the union that does its best to undermine its own competitiveness. It is high time that the union concentrate on its own interests, Sir, like the rest of the world, we patriots want to see radical change in this area.”
  EU competences on taxation
• “Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, before talking about the reforming of the Dcfta, I think we really have to evaluate the ATM regime that has just expired here. You know very well that only the third ATM was. That brought some results. When we several call with several colleagues we have been asking for. And this was when the commission finally realized that there are certain agricultural products that are sensitive for the EU. And most importantly, not every member state is hit the same way by the extensive Ukrainian agricultural exports. The automatic safeguard mechanism, which was introduced only by the third ATM, was activated literally within two months for five out of seven products. So it means that all our worries were really justified. If we had included wheat under the automatic safeguards, I'm sure it would have been activated too. Here I would like to ask the commission about the figures because I don't have the figures. This shows that the concerns of the neighboring member states were valid. Solid and well-funded. Well, I hope that during the article 29 revision with the. The Commission takes into consideration the lessons learned and it will defend the European interest. So don't mix up trade with war. Don't mix up trade measures with empathy and solidarity. And I hope that this House will also show solidarity not only towards Ukraine, but also towards the farmers of the Central and Eastern European countries. These are certain products, like wheat, that cause huge market disturbances if not treated properly. And finally, compliance with EU production standards and rules is a key. I was pleased to hear that the Commission takes it seriously because we must protect not only farmers, but also our consumers, and food that's on the table has to be safe for consumption. Thank you so much.”
  Agricultural trade: Ukraine imports
• “Thank you. Chair. Thank you. I'm going to speak my mother tongue. Welcome, Minister. I'm happy to see you here in the European Parliament. Unfortunately, the econ committee has delayed your invitation by a number of weeks. And there are a number of files where we could have made much more progress, where we could have started work earlier. We could have made more progress, which hasn't happened because Parliament was, uh, using delaying tactics instead of actually getting down to work. We don't have time to lose, but the left seems to be thinking differently. I'm going to ask you about competitiveness, which is one of the key issues. We are losing our competitiveness. People fear this. We can see the energy injury price is soaring, inflation soaring and European businesses low productivity, overregulation, lack of innovation. And if you look at overregulation, 850 new rules were adopted total in total 5000 pages of EU law. The 25% or promised 35% cut reduction in red tape has not happened. So therefore, I am happy that you are focusing on increasing boosting competitiveness. Mr. Minister, how can the Hungarian Presidency contribute to reducing red tape and thereby improving our competitiveness? Question number two the Budapest Declaration, recently adopted at the summit. What are what what steps are going to follow up to that The declaration. And question number three. The vida. I think it is a great success that you have managed to come to an agreement on this, and this is going to be in trialogue. What is this going to mean in terms of, uh, for Hungary, for European businesses?”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Madam, sorry for missing the previous meeting with you, but it's economic security is one thing and aviation insecurity is another thing. So sorry about it. I have three questions to you in the context of trying to boost competitiveness. We know that for that we would need a stronger European capital market supported by a competitive banking sector. So my first question is another aspect of the capital requirement issue. We know the situation very well that most probably in the US they will not follow. And how do you conceive this, how the ECB would balance the need for financial stability with the urgency of boosting a globally competitive European banking sector? So what to do if the situation remains as it is at the moment? My second question concerning financial stability is on the whole host banking issue, which coming from central for someone coming from Central Europe is a vital issue. Even when member states were big. Foreign banks are present through the subsidiaries. In light of future reforms. Do you support that? Home Bank should ensure stability of the affiliates, even in host countries, by holding sufficient level of capital and liquidity in the subsidiaries, because we have very bad experiences with that. And my last question would be on the Adis, we know that risk mutualization can encourage fiscal irresponsibility in certain member states. What kind of guarantees can the ECB provide to ensure that the Adis will not burden taxpayers in some countries because of the wrongdoing of others? Thank you so much. Thank you.”
  European Banking Union
• “Yes. Thank you. Because Madame was really very harsh and very seriously attacking my my country, Hungary and including Hungarian MEP. So I have to answer and clarify just the facts. Just the facts. So how the story started in January, the Druzhba pipeline was injured by the Russians and repaired. So oil supplies delivery could have started. But Ukraine is not doing it. And let me quote that Ukraine for Ukraine it is not optional. They have legal obligation to supply. I'm quoting the EU Ukraine Association Agreement is article 276, paragraph one, subparagraph B one. Each party shall ensure the transmission system operators take the necessary measures to restore the normal operation of such transmit or transport, which has been accidentally interrupted, reduced or stopped. There is a clear legal obligation. What? We are fleeing the Commission for weeks now to mediate and to ask Ukraine to fulfil its international obligations. So you forgot. You forget how the entire story started and the Commission is not doing it. That's our problem. Somehow we had to react because the consequences in Hungary would be extremely difficult. Soaring energy prices even more risking not Europe, as you were saying, risking our own people. So somehow we had to react to this, to this injustice, into this illegal, illegal action by Ukraine. So please do not forget how the story started. Thank you.”
  EU approach to energy security (home-made vs import sources)
• “Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Well, our socialist colleague has just welcomed the creative way in imposing sanctions. I would rather warn you all what our Director General Roger has just said: whatever we do has to have a sound legal basis. That's the key. We cannot afford doing things which do not respect our own international law and, I would also add, our highest level political commitments. Because let me quote what was adopted by our heads of state and government in spring 2022 in Versailles: that whatever we do with the sanction has to respect and take into account national circumstances and member state choices of the energy mix. Because, dear colleagues, please be rational and use your cool head. Energy security is not just a political question; it's a physical question. It is determined by geographical position, interconnection capacity of tubes, and prices. So this is a national competence as far as EU regulations are concerned. Circumventing sanctions, as some do—and this is why the EU started to import much more LNG than before—because it is circumventing sanctions, and I don't think that's the way forward. But let's have sanctions which work.”
  EU-Russia relations (from March 2022)
• “Thank you. Um, first of all, I'm pleased that we have finally this debate. And last week I was really surprised by the EP's move. It was like a coup to avoid a decent debate in this committee. So I'm very pleased that finally it didn't happen. And we have debate. Second, while this measure goes to the right direction, but it's far from being enough. As drafted, it fails to protect our agriculture and ignores the vulnerability of smaller markets. The commission text says safeguards can only be triggered if there is serious injury to the union's economy. In practice, this means that even if an entire agricultural sector in a member state collapses, Brussels may still do nothing. And this is unacceptable. Our farmers are suffering is not a statistical noise. It's a European reality. So the Mercosur agreement already puts on European farmers a lot of shoulders and puts them into disadvantageous situation. And this safeguard mechanism doesn't fix that imbalance. It offers no real guarantees and no real protection to those who feed Europe on a daily basis. Europe cannot be strong if it lets its smallest markets fall. We need a safeguard that protects all member states, not just the big ones. Our farmers deserve equal protection. So my amendment goes to that direction. And I also would like to add what I would like to add to the recital on the SPS checks, because I think my strongly convinced that our present checks are far from being enough. So we should have much more checks, not just very rare and random checks at the borders to see what we let in. Thank you so much.”
  Trade relations with Mercosur
• “Thank you so much. Mr. chairman, I'm very pleased to have this debate because finally, we can discuss it in a very rational way. And what I would like to remind you, and adding to what has been said, is the massive demonstrations of our farmers a bit more than a year ago, and they do that when they are really fed up with us, with us legislators. And we're going to have similar demonstrations next week concerning the Ukrainian situation. I was already alarmed by that. And they do that when they are desperate and they think they are not listened to. And the commission and this Parliament was ignoring our farmers request concerning Ukraine. And there were political decisions without any economic and any agricultural policy rationale in the decisions so far. What I would like to remind you what the farmers ask for a year and a year ago they were asking for fair prices. They were asking for reciprocity, and they were asking for massive simplification. What we have to look at is what what is on which we can deliver, and we can deliver on simplification. That must be our number one priority. I look forward to the draft coming out from Mr.”
  Agricultural trade: Ukraine imports
• “Yes. Thank you so much. So I'm presenting our views on behalf of Mr. Pepe, who cannot attend this meeting. So the Patriots agree with the main findings of this report. The European economic environment is becoming increasingly unstable. Geopolitical tensions, the fragmentation of value chains, the speculative behaviour of certain non-bank actors call for increased vigilance. We therefore welcome the rapporteur's efforts to identify these risks, particularly those related to the nbfis and the drift towards decentralised finance. However, we should be cautious with the direction certain proposals of the report take. Financial stability must not become a pretext for increasing for increased centralization of economic and fiscal policies. Therefore, I would like to express reservations about those aspects of the Draghi and later reports which suggest fiscal pooling and integration of European financial markets that go well beyond useful cooperation, beyond supervision. We must address the root causes of the current vulnerabilities. Dependence on external markets undercapitalization of our SMEs overregulation. Strengthening European resilience also requires a reorientation of investment towards strategic sectors, real financial autonomy and finance that serves the real economy, not the other way around. We therefore would be vigilant with regard to further amendments, ensuring that financial stability does not become a Trojan horse for standardisation or a brake on the freedom of action of Member States. Thank you so much.”
  EU fiscal rules and oversight of national budgets
• “Thank you so much, Madam Chair. Well, we are here almost in the same circle than we were to the shadow meeting just a few minutes ago. So let me start by saying that I very much hope that this Parliament will be in the height to promote an agreement. We know that it's high time that we make significant progress with the the Capital Market Union or Savings and Investments Union, and Council seems to be ready for that. So we have to really take the momentum for that. We need a real uh uh uh, how should I say synchrony in this Parliament? And I hope, uh, our amendments will be better treated than they seem to be treated at the at the moment, because then we would have to we would have a better chance to have a good text at the end up here. I would. Going into the details, we are convinced that linking the savings to investments have to be strictly market driven, based on market needs, and must not be steered by politics or ideology. So we should not fall into that trap and it should be market oriented and the entire exercise, if it's not market driven, it will fail. So I think all political forces should bear that in, in, in mind. Um, and if we don't do that, the market will punish us and the entire EU will will collapse. Secondly, the large amount of highly technical burdens on an often contradictory, uh, regulations, together with the one size fits all policy approach as well as centralization efforts are the main reasons why we haven't been able to be successful with the capital market union.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Thank you. I will speak in Hungarian to start with. Dear commissioners, this awful war has been dragging on for the past four years and the Union has mobilized huge resources. After so much time, we need to ask the question. Whether the strategy followed so far has brought us closer to peace. And unfortunately, the answer is no. And we cannot help asking the question whether we need to continue this particular strategy. So, Commissioner Dombrovskis, let's add up the numbers. The EU has spent over €200 billion on Ukraine, and by size, that's largely equivalent to a full year's years budget in the EU. Added to that is the 90 billion EU loan, and from the next seven years budget, 366 billion approximately is meant to be spent on Ukraine. That's about 20% of the next MFF. And that's not all. Yesterday, Ukraine's welfare plan came out, according to which another €800 billion would be spent towards reconstruction in Ukraine and also toward military expenses. Mario Draghi, just to give you an idea of the scales, that's as much as it would take to restore Europe's competitiveness. So the overall MFF size is exceeded by this even without the repayment of the loan. So we are spending so much, um, leading to nowhere. So what is the legitimacy behind that? And in this House, we cannot have a debate on what's going on with this money and whether Ukraine can account for that. Another two minutes. I'd like to have another two minutes. I have two minutes altogether.”
  Russia-Ukraine conflict (10th term)
• “Thank you so much. I just would like to add certain aspects and would like you to elaborate on certain aspects. The first one that my colleague has just mentioned, as he was mentioning this figure, €503 billion as that was overestimated, so that how much investment the the Efsi programme, the Efsi AFC fund has mobilized due to methodological problems as we are finishing certain programs and pretty soon we will start working with the the new plan, a new project for the forthcoming Multiannual Financial Framework. It's highly important to be able to calculate relatively well concerning how much we can expect that an investment can mobilise. So could you elaborate a bit on these methodological problems and what kind of lessons we can learn for the future? And the second it was actually Mr.. Christoforou advanced my my question because I have this very nice map from, from the report concerning the geographical imbalances. And I understand, of course, that here we see the, the the amounts in absolute figures and not the percentages. You have just said that if we look at from a percentage point of view, then it's more more balanced still. For me, it still has a message that most of the money went to the three big member states, especially. You mentioned 49% of the innovation and infrastructure window three. Italy, Spain and France. Still, I would like to have all funds more, more balanced if we have a chance on that, because I don't think the tendency is very healthy and wise coming from the eastern flank from of the European Union. Thank you.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm speaking on behalf of George Martin, who is working as an election observer in in Honduras. So thank you for the work to the Co-rapporteurs. And we agree that to include the the safeguards to ensure that the framework of small and mid caps doesn't affect the funding opportunities available for SMEs is extremely important. So what guides us is our small think small first principle. And finally we see it put into practice. And I think the entire, uh, draft goes to good direction because it's an important puzzle in this simplification process. Uh, but I really do have dilemma is the, the, the, the definition of SMEs in, in, in the report. Well, uh, compared to the commission proposal, uh, in the council, a higher thresholds was was agreed on the employees and I think it would give more opportunities for small and mid caps to to fit into this category and to have a more courageous simplification. So my question to the Co-rapporteurs is why they are pushing for the Commission proposal version. Thank you. Only 750.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Colleagues, there is a work programme containing 32 points. But what is missing is what the union really needs for 2026. And that is €60 billion for Ukraine. So this is not in keeping with reality. Uh, you know, the commission can't achieve competitiveness or economic growth without a piece. And that's why these proposals are a drop in the ocean, which is why the commission should be supporting initiatives. Such as Mr. Trump's initiative or Hungary's initiative, which seeks to bring the war to an end. Ursula von der Leyen is paying the price for being put in office by the left. Uh, you know, forcing through green and social measures and Brussels should not be getting involved. And we, the Patriots, uh, expect the commission really to do something for competitiveness.”
  Russia-Ukraine conflict (10th term)
• “Second, look at the quotas. Honey would increase. The figure was set the new increase, but not from the baseline. Six times more money can come in with the. With this new quota system. Sugar will be increased by 500%. Poultry and eggs substantial increases in the queues. And this sends an unmistakable negative political signal to the countries on the eastern flank because they do not matter. Commission is ignoring them as if they were ignored when the ATM was launched. So are the commission using these countries as the guinea pig? Again. Further, I go further. A production standards took by 2028. So quotas right now. And we expect Ukraine to to deliver on the EU standards much later. Is it equal playing field. Level playing field. Safeguard measures. Just 1 or 2 more sentences. Mr. chairman. Safeguard measures. They seem to be completely toothless. We insist on automatically applicable regional safeguards. That's the only way how we could afford invasion from Ukraine. And lastly, how does the Commission planning to compensate our farmers because they will be the losers of this agreement. Thanks a lot.”
  Agricultural trade: Ukraine imports