What Paul spoke about.

Mr President, I think this debate shows that we had a great team in the European Parliament finding broad support in a European Parliament. I’m glad for that, though the contributions by Mike Wallace and Patrick Breyer also show that we need to strike the balance between privacy and financial integrity. But I think that we did that, and it’s enshrined in this House and in the work of the Commission. President, at the end of this debate I would like to also mark the end of my ten years in the European Parliament. I feel privileged to have worked at the heart of a cross-border democracy that is unique in the world, and that stands for the values of liberty, equality and fraternity. I expect the new Members of the European Parliament to defend democracy and to uphold these values, and I wish them the very best in trying to do that. This Parliament is like a big city to me, where people come from all directions, from different backgrounds, with different beliefs and different opinions, and yet find a way to work and to live together. It’s been a privilege and a pleasure to work with many, many of you over those ten years, to my colleagues, assistants, Commissioners, Commission staff, drivers, interpreters and to many, many others and of course to my great team. I would like to say from the bottom of my heart, thank you, duizend maal dank, tot ziens.

Mr President, dear Commissioner and her team, dear colleagues, today marks a pivotal moment in our collective efforts to fight dirty money and bolster financial integrity in the European economy. As we stand on the brink of voting on a groundbreaking legislative package, I am humbled and proud to have been part of the negotiations that have led us to this pivotal moment. I want to thank dear co-rapporteurs Luděk Niedermayer, Eva Poptcheva, Emil Radev, Eero Heinäluoma and Damien Carême. The scandals that tarnished our financial systems in recent years – think of Danske Bank to the Cyprus Confidential files – served as stark reminders for the negotiators to act decisively and move forward. And yet we had to witness another scandal of incredible scale when Putin invaded Ukraine and Russian oligarchs massively flew and drove their private jets, sports cars and super yachts outside the EU. This added up to the already existing urgent need – often voiced by the European Parliament – to address the fragmented and poorly coordinated national rules that have allowed nefarious actors to exploit regulatory gaps and evade detection. It is a pivotal moment for two reasons. First, the package is more European, more coordinated than ever before and this is needed since national borders do not deter, but even help criminals and terrorists. The new authority is a strong symbol for European coordination, but also the first AML regulation underlines this approach. Second, the package is more targeted than before. Parliament’s efforts have paid off: the registration of high-value assets like cars, boats and planes; the single access point for real estate and land; the vigilance for high net-worth, high-risk individuals and so on. As proud as we are of this result, we must recognise, as Luděk Niedermayer emphasised already, that the fight against money laundering is ongoing and ever evolving. There is still work to do. First, on access to the BO register: the directive lays down the principles for access requiring easy access for those with a legitimate interest and introducing mutual recognition. Yet the current situation is chaotic at best and hampers access for journalists, researchers and NGOs. Their access needs to be restored as soon as possible and I call on the Member States to restore access as soon as. Get it done, now! Don’t wait for the legislation! Second, in Parliament I have worked intensively on fighting both tax evasion and money laundering. I have always found it very confusing that despite all the similarities – similar constructions, similar actors – there are two different silos of institutions and legislations. This is confusing but also ineffective. So I call on the Commission to eradicate the barriers between the two silos and have a more integrated approach. The Commission can start with ensuring the exchange of data and information among the institutions, like FIUs and tax administrations. In the modern economy, data and information are becoming more and more important and this holds especially for the fight against tax evasion and money laundering. Please Commission, get started. As we prepare to cast our votes, let us do so with the knowledge that we are enacting meaningful change this week, not just for ourselves, but for future generations of Europeans. Let us stand firm in our resolve to uphold the values of transparency, integrity and justice that lie at these proposals but also at the heart of the European Union.

Mr President, Madam Commissioner, this year, half of the world population goes to the ballot box, including in June the European elections. It is however not just politicians and political parties campaigning: systems of automated bots and factories of trolls are already there to engage. Ready to ‘flood the zone with shit’ as Steve Bannon put it. Those trolls are trying to manipulate the public debate and tilt it towards the preference of their – often foreign – clients. That is why Parliament insisted on strictly limiting all targeting of political advertisements just before elections and outside of elections. Only this will break the death loop of personal data, commercial algorithms, and destructive disinformation. The trilogue agreement we vote on this week is a step forward. Yet it falls short of protecting our democracy and securing fair elections. Mere transparency is simply not good enough.

Mr President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, today’s discussion precedes a vote on an important bill, which could be a good starting point for future data sharing frameworks. Europe’s internal borders do not stop criminals, but our internal borders pose big hurdles to our police forces when coordinating with their peers. The Prüm II router will increase efficiency of cooperation and this is very, very welcome. No longer will law enforcement agencies have to contact each of their 26 peers individually. Of course, cooperation in the form of sharing sensitive data cross-border must be limited to what is strictly necessary and must respect fundamental rights of data subjects. That is why I am happy with the achieved trilogue result. It strikes the right delicate balance between law enforcement needs and the protection of fundamental rights. Among other things, we oblige ex-ante data impact assessment by national data protection authorities before the connection of national databases to the Prüm router. And this addresses the issue of corrupted databases with biometric data of innocent people like we have seen in France and Slovenia. We have agreed on mandatory human intervention by biometric experts before sharing of biometric data, ensuring no automated exchange is possible, and we require continuous monitoring of false positives and adequate measures to address them. This is essential in our fight in addressing the problems that may occur with real time facial recognition in the public space. Our dedication to fundamental rights, protection and accountability of law enforcement forces is evident in this agreement. I would like to express my deep appreciation to the rapporteur, Paolo Ansell, to the shadow, Fabienne Keller – she’s there – and her teams, and of course the S&D teams. The tireless efforts have been instrumental in shaping this outcome. I call upon you, colleagues, to lend your support to the trilogue agreement, embracing this framework as a good starting point for future endeavours.

Madam President, disinformation is a serious threat to the European elections. And Big Tech facilitates it. It not only disseminates disinfo, but also amplifies it through content-recommender algorithms. The algorithms make it a small step from following conservative news to conspiracy theories, and are vulnerable to foreign interference from pro-Kremlin actors. Already, this House called on Commissioners Verstager and Breton to support the Irish regulator that wants to turn off profiling by these algorithms by default. I am happy to hear whether Commissioner Breton supports the Irish regulator. Today I am forced to take it a step further. In the absence of the political ads framework, I asked the Commission to trigger Article 36 of the DSA, the crisis response mechanism, during the elections. Will the Commission temporarily halt content-recommender systems which profile individuals to prevent amplification of disinformation? Act now to preserve the integrity of our democratic elections.

Mr President, let me start by saying that fund managers are better informed on the funds than their supervisors and their investors, and they use this advantage to hide risk from supervisors and to extract high fees from investors. For example, retail investors pay 40% more in fees than professional investors. The fees in some European countries are more than twice those in the UK. This is what economists call rent—seeking, and rent—seeking stands in the way of the CMU – the deeper, integrated capital markets that are instrumental for economic growth and risk—sharing in Europe. I am glad that ESMA is empowered to report on undue costs and to act against misleading fund names. However, I’m not as glad as I could have been with a more ambitious approach, weighting partly in the retail package, and that would have been to stop—rent seeking, protect investors, bring down the fees and support the European capital markets. My last words of thanks are for the rapporteur: you’ve done excellent work in bringing forward the Parliament’s position. Thank you for that.

Madam President, which parent would let their kids walk unsupervised along a busy highway? But in fact, we all do. We let our kids walk around the busiest highway in the world, the internet. Every day our kids use online services where predators, often disguised as other kids, scout for vulnerable potential victims with numerous examples of sextortion and child sexual abuse. It has become very clear that for our children, the internet is sometimes a dangerous place. And this is why we need online age verification. But to be clear, not in any form, but privacy protected. And that is certainly possible. Zero knowledge proof protocols allow for selective disclosure of attributes. It's a simple question: Are you older than x? That’s all, with a simple verified answer. The highway of the internet has been built and our children will use it and will have to use it. So let’s install the safety barriers, so that our kids can enjoy the online world without getting hit hard.

Mr President, thank you, Commissioner, let me start by saying that financial markets are driven by data. Data are crucial for financial investments, so we have a whole industry of auditors, controllers, accountants, checks, double checks – and we need that, if it’s not only about financial return, if we want to take care of people and planets, we need data also on ESG. Otherwise, we cannot change the investment decision. Otherwise, we cannot put people and planets also at the heart of the investment decision and give an equal place to profit. So sustainable finances need data, and that is why the implementation of the CSRD is so important – it provides the data for the investors to work with. So we need a good implementation. And of course, this debate shows, this is a work in progress. I’ve said that many times. We are building the sustainable finance framework and we have done five years now and we have the next five years to come. And it’s a massive job done in a short period of time. Thanks also to the very good cooperation with Parliament, Council and the Commission. But, we still have a lot to do and I appreciate, especially the Commission, by looking forward, we need to make the EU GBS attractive – especially because it’s voluntary. But let’s also say what the next step is. We have reached a milestone, I agree with you, Commissioner, but we are also looking ahead for the next milestone. And I would like to remind also the Parliament that the one advice from the ECB from the start was: ‘Don’t make it voluntary, make it mandatory’. And with the reason that it becomes more transparent and everyone has to show what the investment is about. If it’s not just the financial return, it’s also people and planet. Everyone has to show what’s in what’s in the obligation. So we need to move forward. And one opportunity is also their sustainability-linked bonds, which I think are an interesting instrument to finance transition. But then again, it’s also called the greenwashing machine. So we see new developments in the markets. Let’s make sure that this market develops so that transparency, trust and transition are at the heart and this also holds for the new instruments, because every product must be clear. There must be a market-wide principle: if you say that you’re green, you have to show that you’re green. That is important. And that is what we’re trying to do here. This is a milestone. I’m looking forward to the next.

Madam President, Commissioner, good that you’re here. The green bonds are a European success story. Out of USD 500 billion of green bonds issued last year, 50% came from Europe – or actually, I should talk about EUR 500 billion, because in a world dominated by the dollar, sustainable finance is a euro stronghold. And it should stay this way, to ensure that sustainable finance – the finance of the future – stays here. But for that, investor worries on green bonds should be addressed. Is the money really spent on green projects? Will the promises be kept? Do green ones truly finance a company’s transition, or are they a smokescreen to conceal business as usual? That is where the European green bonds regulation comes in. It brings three ‘T’s: transparency, trust and transition to the green bond market. And let me talk about each of them in turn. Transparency is brought by creating a new gold standard for green bonds: the European green bond – fully transparent on taxonomy and on spending of revenue. The regulation also brings transparency to the market as a whole by providing templates that bonds should use when they are serious about being green, even when they cannot fulfil the hard requirements of the gold standard taxonomy yet. Hard requirements are needed, though, to create trust in the market – the second ‘T’. European green bonds should be spent on taxonomy-aligned projects. There are some exemptions for development aid where it’s difficult to prove taxonomy alignment or for activities for which criteria do not exist yet. But by and large, investors can trust that their money is spent well and that trust will be strengthened by external reviewers, independent parties, regulated by ESMA and subject to strict conflict of interest rules, who evaluate and check each and every bond. I think all green bond issuers around the world would benefit from using their services. And lastly, and importantly, the regulation puts transition plans centre stage because doing a green thing doesn’t make you green. Shell can raise money from a wind farm, but without a clear plan on how it will exit oil, showing off this green project is greenwashing – pure and simple as that. That is why the Parliament has obliged all issuers of European green bonds to show how bonds aid their transition. And I would like to thank my shadow rapporteurs, Christophe Hansen, Gilles Boyer, Bas Eickhout – who can’t be here today – and, of course, their assistants for all their excellent work and cooperation, and as well as the Swedish Presidency and the Commission for their excellent work and cooperation. With transparency, trust and transition plans, we have strengthened Europe’s green bond markets and protected Europe’s leadership in sustainable finance. Then one last remark, because to stay world leading, we have to keep moving. We cannot sit back and relax, expecting the required green investments will fall from the sky. This is why the recent change in language from the Commission sometimes worries me because transparency on ESG is not an administrative burden. It’s a fundament on which our sustainable economy is built. And if the Commission can no longer explain this, can no longer talk about the ‘why’ of sustainable finance, but only about the cost of data collection, there is a problem and the transition comes at risk. And Ms McGuinness, I am looking forward, as I always have, to working with you to ensure that the Commission does all it can until the election to continue explaining the ‘why’ and to maintain the EU’s leading role in promoting sustainable financial markets.

Mr President, dear Commissioner, transparency is key in the fight against tax avoidance and evasion. Transparency is key in restoring and maintaining public trust in the fairness of tax contribution. And regrettably, not all Member States share the need for transparency and trust. Then again, some Member States do, and do more, and have the ambition to raise the bar. And why not? Even more and more corporates are voluntarily embracing the ambitious GRI template as a way to engage with their stakeholders and as part of their corporate responsibility. But resistance comes from an unexpected corner, and now I turn to my right: Commissioner, why discourage ambition? Indeed, you are going against the trends. Why? After a long fight, public country—by—country reporting came to pass. That is a major step forward. Let us not take a step back from it. We should not burden the front runners with the mediocrity of others. Let’s applaud the Member States that go the extra mile.

Madam President, Commissioner, change needs money and for the biggest change since the Industrial Revolution we need a lot of it – EUR 1 trillion by 2030. Governments can fund part of it, but we need the private sector too. The Commission, including EPP Commissioners have done great work mobilising this, with a definition of sustainability and disclosures for financial products. But one key aspect is still missing: data. Without companies disclosing their impact on people and the planet, investors cannot take this impact into account. A new law was meant to get this data flowing, but right—wing pressure made the Commission backtrack. They gave corporates a get—out—of—jail—free card called materiality assessments. Companies can decide themselves whether something is worth disclosing, and if they don’t, no questions are asked. So I ask the Commission not to undermine sustainable finance, not to undermine the legacy of Ms McGuinness and Mr Dombrovskis and to get corporate reporting going!

Mr President, a whopping majority in the European Parliament, 99.7% – it’s a North Korean number – voted in favour of the ‘Unshell’ proposal: an unprecedented united stance against harmful tax practices through shell companies. And it shows that tackling tax avoidance and tax evasion is not – I repeat, – a controversial issue. Indeed, it’s part of our social contract that everyone needs to pay a fair share, especially the very rich and the big corporates. Yet the near unanimity falls on deaf ears. The Council walls seem impenetrable for the clear political signal from the European Parliament. I’m glad to hear that the Spanish EU Council Presidency is willing to prioritise the ‘Unshell’ Directive. Let’s put it high on the Agenda of the Finance Minister meetings, and, I urge you, live—stream that session, because we demand to witness first—hand why the prospect of gaining EUR 60 billion in revenue fails to prompt swift action from the Minister. So don’t hide behind walls, Council, let us rise together to fight tax avoidance and evasion.

Mr President, Commissioner, the 5% richest Europeans own 40% of our wealth. That 5%, that's not you and me. These are the Europeans who are getting richer while sleeping, while millions of others remain working poor. They feel inflation, they feel austerity. Not that 5%. They put their money into e.g. companies and letterbox companies and their assets are hardly taxed. This is the world as it is now. But that's not how the world should be. That's not the way the world has to be. We can spare the workers – and that is the middle class – with a tax on the richest, a progressive wealth tax on wealth from 2 million euros. This will provide EUR 100 billion to invest in green, to ensure that our economy works again, for the middle class that works. And to wake up the sleeping rich.

Mr President, nothing but good about the dead. Silvio Berlusconi has done a lot to promote tax avoidance. Corruption, forgery, money laundering and tax fraud are just a few behaviors that he managed to bring to the attention of the public. He can be placed on an impressive list of royals, celebrities and criminals from the Pandora Papers. The Pandora Papers were the largest in a series of revelations that showed an international web of tax constructions with the aim of hiding the wealthy's possessions and thereby avoiding taxes. While the baker on the corner is spending money on energy costs, the richest in the world are baking in the sun. The Pandora Papers were the biggest revelation in history in the field of taxation, but had no consequences. President von der Leyen and Prime Minister Rutte travel with billions to Tunisia to stop refugees, but do nothing about the billions that flee to tax havens. How can we accept this? The anger of the people clearly does not resonate with the Member States. Letterbox firms are a major part of the problem, but a law restricting their role is blocked. Furthermore, the proposal to tackle shady tax advisers even before it is published encounters opposition. At the same time, EU countries continue to overlook tax havens. We need to break open the backrooms where Commissioner Gentiloni's initiatives are falling apart. If countries are unwilling to tackle tax avoidance, we must say this out loud and publicly. Niels Fuglsang's report offers solutions by taxing the richest, correcting inequality and restoring justice. In short, there is no lack of solutions to put an end to tax avoidance, but simply a lack of political will to resolve this issue together. Today is Silvio Berlusconi's funeral. Let it also be the funeral of tax avoidance.

(NL) Mr President, who looks outside – the longest period without rain ever, the Atlantic Ocean at record heat – and thinks: Yeah, I want more of this? Apparently, there are some in this house who think so, because investments are badly needed – €500 billion a year for our climate and environmental goals alone. But attempts to mobilize that money, private and public, the taxonomy, the nature restoration law, a ban on gasoline engines are weakened or blocked by the right. For example, we remain stuck in an outdated model where pigs live on top of each other in gigastalls and farmers barely make ends meet. Where the car industry wasted money on diesel investments and fraudulent software and is now losing its market to electric cars from the US and China. Where Shell, the oil company, pampers shareholders with additional dividends, and cancels investments in sustainability. Is this an attractive investment climate? Profit at the expense of people and the environment? I have a different vision. We lead investments in the right direction and invest in our economy, but certainly in our people and in our planet. We put the transition first. So not the dead end of oil and gas drilling, but the highway to sustainability for all companies: small and medium-sized enterprises, industrial or agricultural. In a good European investment climate, all companies that want and can make the transition have access to money. Fortunately, the Commission is working on this with recommendations today, this week, to finance that transition. Because sustainable investing, sustainable investment is not about being green, but about becoming green. We're on the right track. But instead of helping to build this structure, my Christian-Democratic colleagues are putting their heels in the sand. My advice to them is: Stop pursuing an inward-looking opposition policy and look outside. Do you want a healthy European economy, a Europe that also has nature, jobs and food for our children? Then help us make Europe a place to invest in a sustainable future.

Mr President, Fitbit watches, Instagram stories and Giphy poisons have all not been conceived, but have been taken over by bigtech. London has reversed Facebook's takeover of Giphy, but Brussels hasn't stood in the way of bigtech. Where were you, Commissioner Vestager? Tech giants like Google and Facebook do not increase their power by innovating, but by aggressively buying up potential competitors. In this report, Parliament therefore calls for action to be taken against the aggressive buying practices of tech giants, especially when data is at stake. We must take as a starting point that this cannot be justified and act against the concentration of data, and in particular personal data. It is difficult to understand that the Commission still considers this irrelevant in the case of mergers and acquisitions in 2023. Only in this way can we prevent new cases such as Giphy and Fitbit and make bigtech less powerful and more competitive. And now I switch to English, because one last remark, Commissioner. There has been a study commissioned by the Commission on the digital advertising market. It shows all the problems we have seen in other reports: Huge concentration of market power by big tech leading to high margins on digital advertising, roughly 50 cents in every euro, much to the detriment of SMEs, much to the detriment of traditional media. So my question to you is this – we’re nearing the end of the mandate. Will be your legacy to introduce a digital advertising bill? I hope you will confirm.

President, “Research proves: GRAAIFLATION exists ...’. It is certainly not a habit of me to quote a headline of GeenStijl, but it bites. And this – it is also not a habit – is also true, because companies cause the majority of inflation. Profit margins are at a post-war high. The right thinks it's normal. If companies increase prices, it is market forces. But if employees ask for more salary, then a warning from the bank president Klaas Knot follows. Sure, inflation has to go down and that requires a step in the right direction, but especially from companies. So do not address employees, but companies that increase their margins and if necessary confront them with higher wage demands and higher income taxes, because only with interest rate hikes can inflation not be combated in a fair way. So let's be clear: grazing doesn't pass, end the grazing inflation.

The internet is not safe for children. It's like leaving kids alone in a city center on a busy Saturday afternoon. Anything can happen. And one of the forms that make the internet so unsafe is cyberbullying, but I also see sextortion – the extortion of another with intimate images – as part of that. It is high time to break this trend of cyberbullying, sextortion and other forms of virtual violence. And that can also be done in different ways. First, we need a European centre against child abuse that online service providers – it has already been mentioned: the large platforms – the best examples of how to make their services safer for children. If necessary, this should be done: Safety by Design. Secondly, there should be better opportunities to report forms of bullying and also seek help: the helpline. And finally, I agree with Jeroen Lenaers: It must also be punishable, so that the police can also take action. Mr President, it is our duty to make the internet safer for our children as soon as possible.

Mr President, the European Union has debt and a debt. You'll get rid of them. And that sounds logical, that makes sense, but not for the European Member States, because to pay off the European corona debts, extra income is needed. Possibilities to: a carbon tax, a contribution from the largest companies benefiting most from the internal market, or a share of national taxes on the highest assets. For the time being, however, it is a priority for the Member States in all languages nie/nein/non, the Netherlands. Markets are tense. Will the money come back? It is costing the EU more and more to borrow. The call to finance ministers, Prime Minister Sigrid Kaag, is therefore very clear: repay the loans, provide enough European income to meet our obligations.

Mr President, bad money drives out good. This law – Gresham’s law – is empirical, yet the European Central Bank believes otherwise: that good money, digital euro backed by the ECB, will drive out bad money backed by unstable private banks. And as a result, the ECB wants to impose restrictions to limit how much one can hold – up to EUR 3 000 – and where, with private actors. To be clear, the digital euro makes absolute sense in a digitalised economy, no doubt. It’s also important to maintain monetary sovereignty to prevent private currencies – bad money like Libra – from taking over. Yet I have strong doubts about the restrictions. First because the digital euro should be viable, and why use something you can hardly hold? And second, a digital euro should compete with bank deposits, encouraging banks, for example, to let consumers benefit from recent interest rate hikes. And of course this raises worries about bank funding, no doubt. But the digital euro doesn’t introduce these problems. It merely highlights the fluidity of deposits in a digital age. And the Silicon Valley Bank was merely its first victim. So I fully understand the ECB’s wish to prioritise stability initially, but the restrictions should weaken over time, exactly as the Bank of England proposes. Dear colleagues, this debate is important. The digital euro is a political project, indeed, not a technocratic one. And so the project of the digital euro needs political backing. So let the Commission put all the options on the table to have a real political debate on the digital euro.

Mr President, Commissioner, colleagues. In 1637, the Netherlands went crazy over tulips. They didn’t know what to use them for, but people believed that their price would go up. Then the bubble burst, savings evaporated and investors were left in ruins. That was 1637, but the similarities with crypto are stark. Nobody knows what to use them for, but they are the next hot thing. Then again, tulips are at least pretty. Crypto, on the other hand, not only defaults on the investor, it also pollutes the climate. With the laws we passed today, this week, Europe will make crypto better, but our work is far from done. With regulations for crypto companies, we raise the bar, make the market more transparent and protect consumers. However, when one of the biggest crypto companies on Earth, FTX, appears to be rotten to its core, I ask myself if it will be enough. With rules against money laundering, we managed to set obligations to detect illicit transfers. Yet unhosted wallets still loom in the dark and can escape the eye of the law. Moreover, it’s incomprehensible that the crypto sector is still excluded from climate change policy. It pollutes more than Belgium, and the question is for what? Today, crypto is an empty and dirty promise with many risks. Then again, the tulip once seemed the same. Now they are part of our culture, the Dutch culture at least. With today’s rules, perhaps crypto will achieve the same thing one day.

Madam President, Commissioner, President Lagarde, the rise in interest rates is at best a necessary evil, but for the banking sector it is a time of fortune. With the higher interest rates, on their reserves, they are raking in profits. It’s about EUR 92 billion this year alone. Professor Paul De Grauwe concludes that this is an unnecessary subsidy of private banks from public money. There are ways to stop this – and I’m happy to hear that from you, President Lagarde – but, until then, make sure that these profits don’t come for free. Instead of sending the unnecessary subsidy to shareholders, the extra profits should go into green investments and to keeping extra capital to prepare for climate change risks. So, Madam Lagarde, use these profits to forge ahead in the greening of the financial sector, as the annual report suggests, ask for extra capital from polluting banks and stop accepting brown assets as collateral. Because if we don’t act now, I know to who the banks will turn when the time gets hot and tough!

Mr President, you have heard the position eloquently put by Jonás Fernández, and that is all true, but I would like to make a critical remark as well. Financial markets, and probably politicians too, frequently suffer from the same illness: short—sightedness. We don’t look ten or 20 years ahead, but only two or three. And this means we forego long term growth to get a quick win. And I’m reminded of this especially now while discussing the Regulation for European Long-Term Investment Funds. These funds are meant to incentivise a long-term view and increase investments to firms and projects that need time to grow. But they have struggled so far, right. Interest for financial markets from investors has been limited, because they care about the quick win. And ELTIFs by themselves will not square the circle of short-termism in the financial markets. Luckily enough, they are helped by the EU’s sustainable finance agenda. Like a pair of glasses, the taxonomy and disclosure regulations can counter short-sightedness. They help to clarify the important long-term sustainability risks faced by the funds and they provide direction of travel for the long term. It’s therefore unfortunate that an ELTIF update did so little to take these elements on board. If I invest in a long-term fund I expect to care about the long-term risks, such as climate risks, and work towards the long-term climate transition. And sadly, this will not be true. Instead, the regulation creates an environmentally sustainable ELTIF. This way, all green aspects have been grouped together and put in a new standard that I suspect will not gather much interest and will not be used. It’s a problem of short-sightedness. Put the green bit in a far corner and you can’t see it anymore. Still, I would like to thank the shadow rapporteur, Elisabetta Gualmini, for the good cooperation on this file and for the successful damage control. Sadly, on this file, the vision needed to really ingrain the long-termism in the financial markets was short in supply.

Madam President, first, our spouses, our parents, our children, and we ourselves are politically exposed persons and banks already apply enhanced due diligence on every single one of us. They check sources of our financial wealth for illicit activities. 17 years after we have obliged banks to do this, we still don't do it ourselves. Now, the good thing is, of course, that in a December resolution Parliament calls for mandatory declarations of MEPs assets at the start and at the end of the mandate. It's time to introduce this. Just like in Romania. Second, we need to be alert for shady, dubious lobby methods. The launch of lobby leaks hotline by several cross-party MEPs and NGOs aims to get early signals of these opaque methods. It's just two examples. Just two examples where others do what the European Parliament fails to do. That is frustrating. Yes, it's time for action. Time for transparency and public oversight. Time to restore trust. It's time to step up to the plate, hit the ball and very hard.

Madam President, sex traffickers, corrupt officials, fraudulent businessmen – the common denominator: they own property in the United Arab Emirates. Not only does the UAE host criminal EU citizens, they also host sanctioned Russians. In Dubai, Russians are among the largest group of foreign real estate investors or barefaced money launderers – it’s ‘Moscow on the Gulf’. The Emirates do not comply with international agreements. They rank eighth in a financial secrecy index. So it’s no surprise that, in early 2022, the international FATF grey-listed the Emirates. Ever since, the S&D Group has been calling on the Commission to mirror this and we were happy to see that the Commission did, rightfully proposing the list to include the Emirates. But the Council delays; it’s more than a year gone. Trying to avoid a confrontation? I hope not. But this is undermining the sanctions against Russia. This gives exactly the wrong signal. We cannot be complacent in the fight against dirty money – not then and certainly not now.