Speeches

Mr President, Commissioner, the European economy certainly needs more private investment, but also more public investment to meet the challenges of the industrial future in the context, of course, of the energy transition. But let me focus my speech - these few seconds I can talk to you directly - on the fact that we cannot pretend to respond to US initiatives by leaving only the financial capacity for public support to states. Because, certainly, in that case, by trying to respond to the United States, we can call into question the integrity and cohesion of the single market, one of the European Union's great assets. In this regard, I also dare to suggest to the European Commission that we do not relax the control of State aid that we carry out over the Member States until we are clear about what it is like, how it is financed and how much we will have in the sovereign wealth fund. Because only through Community support would that response and that industrial policy make sense.

Mr President, Commissioner, it is right to come to a debate in this Parliament with an agreement with the Council based on the European Commission's proposal, which certainly has to help address those transitions that the European economy has ahead of it: the digital transition and the green transition. It also has to cover the need for long-term investment; Europe suffers from still limited investment to meet the challenges ahead, and private investment is certainly needed to tackle that path. My group had some doubts about the proposal and some amendments during the negotiation process, because, undoubtedly, sharing the objective of channelling savers' investment into long-term projects, we did not want this text, this reform, to mean deregulation by the back way or to reduce controls, requirements, which on these or other products we have to discuss and which are on the table in the framework of the capital markets union. Undoubtedly, there have been attempts to reduce regulation, to reduce the protection of retail consumers. However, as I say, I believe that the final text is balanced and allows for adequate protection fundamentally for retail investors who decide to steer their savings towards these products. My group is also pleased to have extended control over those countries where these products can be invested, not only by incorporating the blacklisted countries of the European Union in the fight against money laundering, but also to those countries in Annex 1 of non-cooperative jurisdictions. I think it is a good step that also helps in the fight against money laundering and the illicit tax behaviour of third jurisdictions. And, undoubtedly, perhaps the weakest part of the text has been the chapter on sustainability, which we hope and hope will be reinforced in this future revision, if we really want this instrument to be useful in advancing the green transition as well.

Mr President, Madam Vice-President, the battle against circumvention, against tax fraud, against tax havens, is a battle that we have to win and it is true that in recent times we are having some good news. The OECD agreement to set that minimum corporate tax rate at 15% is a great initiative that we have to put in place now, after blockades and blockades by some countries or others, and there is an important agenda in this area. But we also have to recognize that, while the prosecution of tax fraud by multinationals is advancing reasonably, we are not making progress in the fraud of the great wealth of family wealth that these shell societies use to evade taxes. This directive presented by the Commission is a step in the right direction and this Parliament supports it and supports it and we ask from here or demand the Council and, especially, some governments, which have been blocking these and other initiatives in the Council, to finally follow the support of the European Parliament and the Commission.

Madam President, Commissioner, we are certainly going through difficult times. The economic and social effects on the whole European continent of Putin's war in Ukraine are present. And they are also present in the difficulties to make ends meet and in the difficulties to pay the energy costs or the food costs of our citizens. And I think the Commission has worked well. We welcome the agreement on the REPowerEU plan and welcome the social contributions on the energy sector, but we also see Member States responding with different measures, with little order, with little organisation, with almost everyone looking for particular solutions. In some cases it recalls the first months of the impact of the pandemic, when governments were trying to resolve but a Community response was lacking. It is important that the review of State aid is well controlled by the Commission. We run the risk of putting the single market at stake and we need an instrument, such as SURE, to harmonise policies in the face of this energy crisis in the European Union and, indeed, to speed up the reform of the electricity market.

Madam President, Commissioner, the debate we are having today undoubtedly marks a before and after in the design of the European Union, just as it was marked by the decision to issue the debt of the Next Generation EU, undoubtedly looking for the fringes or spaces that the Treaties allowed us. And I would like to congratulate the Commission on its debt strategy, which is applauded by our creditors, by the markets. But I would like to insist or incentivise the European Commission a little more when it comes to clarifying the map in order to have the own resources needed to repay the debt. We already know that the digital tax that we had predictably will not be approved. We need to look for additional resources. We have that agreement to set a minimum corporate tax of 15% which could well give us the opportunity to introduce a tax for those who benefit from the internal market, the single market. And I think we need more ambition, more work and more commitment from the European Commission to fully clarify the own resources framework.

Mr President, Commissioner, the debate we are having today, which we repeat every year, is undoubtedly relevant, interesting and aligns the interests of the European Parliament and, with it, the representation of citizens. But it is also true that in these debates we always miss the structural changes that we must undertake in the Union budget and, especially, after having issued hundreds of millions of euros in debt. A debt that we have to repay in the coming years. And, here, the debate on budgets is linked to the discussion on own resources. Some own resources are on the way: There are legislative initiatives, hopefully in trilogue briefly, to lift that financing that allows us to amortize the debt. But there are others that are still pending. Some of them are: the digital rate, which is in the air after the OECD agreements; the need to review some form of taxation in the single market, linked to the OECD agreement; and, perhaps, also the solidarity contributions from the energy sector that we have approved, which we have promoted through this Commission and the Council, and which we should, in some way, help to consolidate in the Community budget.

Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, prices are still high, electricity and gas bills are still very high and the European Central Bank is raising rates, and will continue to do so. And I think it is important for the political authorities - the Commission, the Council and Parliament - to agree that we cannot leave inflation alone in the hands of the European Central Bank, because in that situation the rates would rise so much that we would certainly have a hard time. And if we do not leave responsibility to the ECB alone, what can we do? I believe that, in the energy field, there is still a lot to do. I think we welcome the Commission's announcements, but the capacity to consolidate the European energy market is still pending. We have a lot to do there. In addition, we need funding to help families and households, and the Commission's own political action. And I believe that the solidarity contribution that the Commission has proposed could well help to fund a European instrument that would, of course, reduce the problems within the single market.

Mr President, Commissioner, I believe that, first of all, it is appropriate for us to be able to focus the debate well, and this is not a debate on whether or not we need to invest in gas or nuclear energy. In politics it is important, very important, to differentiate the instruments from the objectives, and I think we are confusing both, because the taxonomy, the Taxonomy Regulation, was born to create a European framework, but also, with an international vocation, to define what is and what is not green. And, undoubtedly, introducing gas and nuclear energy in that framework, by the way, against the criteria of the technicians of the Platform on Sustainable Finance, means, as I say, introducing a stone that reduces the credibility of our regulation, which reduces the ability of our regulation to be an international standard. And, as I say, this does not prejudge the need or not to invest in gas or nuclear energy, but to clarify and name things for what they really are. And, therefore, I think it is necessary to reject this delegated act.

Madam President, Commission, Council, this is a key European legislature for the future of the Union. In just three years we have faced the Brexit crisis, then we face the fight against the COVID pandemic and at the moment we are facing a war on the European Union's own border that also threatens liberal democracy on our continent. But liberal democracy has also been under attack from within the Union for years by some governments. And that is why this Parliament and these EU institutions not only introduced democratic conditionality into the regulation to launch the national recovery and resilience plans, but also adopted a specific regulation to make the receipt of aid conditional on the requirements of the rule of law. And these crises, these critical moments that we have experienced in these years, join this, the present situation with the Polish Government. Russia's invasion of Ukraine has changed a lot in the European Union and it seems that some things may be changing in Poland as well. But now the European Commission and the Union have to be stronger than ever, stronger than we have been in recent years, because only from the firmness of our own democratic values will we get those illiberal temptations of some governments within the European Union to rectify, and rectify respecting the European Union.

Madam President, Commissioner, first of all, I would particularly like to thank the negotiating team for the resolution that we are voting on tomorrow, and especially the lead rapporteur, Aurore Lalucq, for having achieved a very broad consensus in this institution to support the European Commission's proposal and, without a doubt, to increase pressure on some country in the Council that seems to be blocking the final decision of the Member States. This proposal confirms, in my opinion, a reorientation of global policies, of the global debate, of the dominant thinking, of the last decades, which during all these years has insisted on reducing taxes, on attracting investment through dilution, fragmentation, of the power of the States, of the public administrations, to fix taxes and redistribute income: This proposal breaks that dominant thinking and needs a broad consensus, unanimous support, as we will see tomorrow from this Parliament. We also need the Polish Government to stop blocking the adoption of this directive in the Council. Even if the additional proposal is necessary to implement the other pillar of that agreement in the OECD, this cannot be an obstacle to the adoption of this directive in the Council already, and I trust that the support of this Parliament will serve to support the Commission and finally convince Poland.

Mr President, Commission, Council, I would like to start this debate by congratulating the European Commission on the new package it presented this morning and certainly on the leadership's work in decision-making to help Ukraine and block Putin's intentions. I believe that this work must be acknowledged and we hope that the Council will continue to maintain the unity that we have seen in recent months and that some deviations or some proposals will not find support and that we will be able to minimize those chances of deviation within the Council. The debate on the effects on the European Union is a complex debate, because it certainly has social aspects, as discussed above. We have to take in those millions of refugees who have arrived in Europe. In addition, there are also economic consequences that are not easy to deal with, with high inflation and difficult growth forecasts. In any case, this spirit of consensus that I see in this Parliament, taking into account that the vast majority of the measures so far are being taken by the Member States, contrasts with some Congresses, with some national parliaments, such as that of my country, where the right seems not to want to support the government at this difficult time. We need monetary policy not to respond in an accelerated manner to this growth in inflation. The bulk of the price deviation is food and energy, unlike what happens in the United States, for example. It would also be good to reconsider the role of the Recovery and Resilience Facility, the possibility of extending or generating new instruments similar to the Facility to respond economically in a solidarity-based manner, while the sanctions themselves are also taken together.

Madam President, Commissioner, first of all, and given the broad support for the proposal for a regulation on a pilot scheme to develop digital infrastructure, I would like to congratulate all the rapporteurs and most especially Eva Kaili, the shadow rapporteur for my group. And I would also like to take advantage of this debate – while we welcome that broad agreement for this proposal for a regulation – to regret that there was no similar agreement for the adoption of the MICA Regulation just a few days ago in the ECON Committee and that, in addition, that committee, or the right in that committee, has blocked the debate in plenary on the MICA Regulation, because that regulation required, in our opinion, a clear debate in this Parliament, especially at this time and after hearing the previous debate on the effects of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Because those technologies, those digital currencies, have brutal energy consumption; These technologies are being used to launder capital, to launder capital movements. And I hope that in the trilogue both requirements can be incorporated into the negotiation between Parliament and the Council.

Mr President, Commissioner, the truth is that it is difficult to talk about anything other than the war in Ukraine, especially after seeing the images this afternoon of that bombed mother and child hospital. But let's try. First of all, I would like to congratulate Pedro Marques on this good report which, in some way, unites or insists on a certain reorientation of the tax debate that we are observing worldwide. A few months ago we welcomed the agreement in the OECD and we also welcomed the Commission's proposal to put Pillar 2 of that agreement into operation and we hope that we will have a proposal quickly also for Pillar 1. This report complements these international agreements and also highlights the need to go further in other areas, in today's case in the payment of taxes as it is due to dividends or withholdings where there are options for tax avoidance and evasion that we have known and that we undoubtedly need to close absolutely in the European Union. I regret that, in this debate, as almost always, the Council does not accompany us. We have been fighting for years for the Council to adopt measures in tax areas and for that unanimity, which is demanded in some way, to be revised, and revised quickly. That is why I am surprised, and I have to say it, that those who call for solidarity now for the countries hosting refugees, come here and talk again about all these stories, that they do not want to know anything about European management, about taxes, as we have heard in this debate. Well, congratulations, Pedro. I hope that the Commission will take note and I hope that the Council will act quickly.

Madam President, Commission, Council, the truth is that we are facing a debate at a delicate time, at a time that we certainly did not contemplate a few weeks ago, when we were negotiating the report that is being adopted today - a robust report, a consistent report - and I would like to thank Irene Tinagli for her work in these weeks to reach a large majority in this House. In any case, Putin's war is already the central issue, as well as the possible economic and social effects of this war, of course, on Ukraine in the first place, but also on the whole of Europe. And I think it has similarities and differences with the crisis that it seemed that we were overcoming a few months ago derived from the effect of COVID. Undoubtedly, we have good examples of the response to the COVID crisis: We were able to respond to that crisis with the construction of European public goods, we were able to jointly manage the purchase of vaccines, the investment in R&D to develop those vaccines and also the policy of supporting the recovery with the New Generation EU and, undoubtedly, with the support also of the European Central Bank. And in this crisis, the crisis in Ukraine, European public goods are also at stake, the security of Europeans – in the first place – the independence and autonomy of our continent. But it is also true that there are some differences. Probably the biggest difference is that we are facing a slowdown in the economy, predictably a new recession, with very high inflation rates. And this, in some way, substantially changes the frame of reference where we must put forward the Community's responses. There is no doubt that in the short term there is no other way than to maintain the escape clause of the Stability Pact. But we also need to think clearly about how we can jointly respond to that investment to accelerate energy independence, which is slightly different from what we have done with the New Generation EU.

Madam President, more than three years ago I accompanied a group of Asturian workers to the judicial hearing they had in Rotterdam for the announcement of the closure of a plant in Asturias and also in Galicia (in the case of Asturias, with more than 250 workers). Since then, to the present, everything has happened: fraudulent sales, new owners without any kind of industrial program, lifting of goods... A process that is in the hands of the Audiencia Nacional in Spain. It has been a long agony and in these already difficult moments, where there seems to be no way out, I want to show from this Parliament the support, the affection, the closeness to those 250 families of Asturians. And also to hope that Europe, which cares about workers ("the Europe that protects") will also find ways to help and support these workers.

Madam President, Commissioner, Madam President of the ECB. We discussed this report at an opportune time and I would, of course, like to congratulate Mr Papadimoulis and the other shadow rapporteurs, especially Mr Costas Mavridesa, on this report, and, like them, I hope that this House will approve it as adopted by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. Just a few minutes ago we celebrated the 20th anniversary of the euro. Twenty years of success where a new generation of Europeans has become accustomed to living with a currency, with a common currency, with the single currency, but also twenty years where there has been some error in the management of monetary policy. In my view, one such mistake was made in April 2011, when the ECB President, then Trichet, decided to raise interest rates, allegedly to avoid possible second-round effects. I think this example is timely and necessary at the moment, when we see prices rising and, as the President of the ECB has said, on fundamentals, mainly due to the price of energy or bottlenecks in the production structure and in the rhythms of recovery. I hope that we have that mistake very much in mind to continue accompanying the recovery in the coming months.

Madam President, Commission, Council, we are already at that moment when we can assess the functioning and implementation of this new instrument, an instrument that had to be negotiated very quickly in the autumn of last year, and which is undoubtedly bearing timely fruits and fruits necessary to help in the recovery process. Today we knew the scoreboard. A few hours ago, before we started this debate, we were able to enter that website. And the plans of countries that are well-targeted and well-designed are being approved and are receiving funding. I think it's a success. A success that we have to take care of, that we have to protect, because the Commission opened, also a few weeks ago, the debate on the future of tax rules. Undoubtedly, this debate on fiscal rules is directly related to the possibility of maintaining this debt issuance in a structural way in the European Union, an absolutely central instrument for this crisis and for future crises, which we hope will take a long time to come.

Mr President, first of all I would, of course, like to thank the rapporteurs for their work on this directive, and especially Ibán García Del Blanco and Evelyn Regner, who have worked very hard and well to get this agreement. I would also like to vindicate the role of Parliament, because this directive has been blocked for many years in the Council, where some governments did not want any kind of publicity, where governments that usually block any progress on tax matters, any progress on transparency, as I say, have been blocking this directive for years. I believe that Parliament's work, the constant work of the rapporteurs and shadow rapporteurs in this report, must be vindicated on this occasion in order to finish unblocking a key directive that will allow us to have real-time information on the profits and taxes that large companies pay and do not pay in Europe and that also joins the agreement to fix that minimum corporate tax rate of 15%, that international agreement that allows us to have a much more solidary and much more sustainable tax framework.

Madam President, Commissioner, first of all, I would like to thank and congratulate Danuta Hübner, Costas Mavrides and the other shadow rapporteurs for negotiating a much-needed report on the Banking Union. As necessary as it is essential after the blockages that we saw in recent months in the Council, in the Eurogroup, that they have been unable even to put black on white a road map, a road, a guide for the coming years. And, therefore, for Parliament to have a position - perhaps not as bold as some of us would like on some points, but a clear position of defence, of insisting on the need to boost the banking union - I think is a very important symptom of the responsibility of this House and also of the support that this House is giving to the European Commission to advance the banking union. But, this being true, it is also true that we cannot blame only the Eurogroup or the Council for the difficulties, because - as has already been said here - we have been paralysed for years in the negotiation of European deposit insurance and it is a paralysis for which we are undoubtedly responsible, some more than others. But I would also like to take advantage of this session to vindicate, to ask, to call on those who are hindering that negotiation to open the door. Because we're in a complicated situation. It is true that we have passed this crisis without banking crises, thanks, on the other hand, to the capital requirements, to the Basel regulation, which we need to strengthen in the coming months, but it is true that the institutional framework of our banking sector remains unstable. And we expect the Commission to present a new crisis management framework in the coming months. There are things to do there. The report, I think, points very clearly to what we have to deal with and we hope that the Commission will do so. But it is also important to recognise that, for the Commission to continue, this Parliament has to support, and this report on the banking union supports, but we need to deal with deposit insurance now.

Mr President, Commissioner, the truth is that at the moment, in the implementation and development of the Recovery and Resilience Facility, we must congratulate ourselves on how this instrument has been working so far, on how we managed to close an agreement at the end of last year between the Council and Parliament and on how the Commission has been deploying an instrument that is working well, that is allowing the issuance of this Next Generation EU debt at very low rates, with great support from the financial sector and with a plan evaluation and monitoring procedure that is working reasonably well. But it is true that, as has been said in other speeches, in at least two countries we are still facing serious problems. I think it has also been a very good idea for this Parliament to introduce democratic conditionality into the Recovery and Resilience Facility Regulation and not just to be on the lookout for the implementation of the specific democratic conditionality regulation, which was negotiated, incidentally, at the same time, because that regulation is sadly standing still waiting for the opinion of the Court of Justice of the European Union, with a more than debatable decision. But, in any event, that conditionality of that regulation is enabling the Governments of Poland and Hungary to take their place. I would like to ask the Commission to keep this up, to keep up the pressure. We see some positive symptoms in some of these governments. Let's hope to confirm them. And this instrument will certainly help us not only to finance the recovery, but also to enforce the principles of the rule of law throughout the Union.

Mr President, Commissioner, I cannot greet the President of the Council because he is not taking part in this debate, he did not want to take part in this debate. And the truth is that – as we said before – this discussion on the Code of Conduct Group comes, finally, at a really delicate moment after the knowledge of Pandora's papers. And the truth is that one does not just understand the reduction of the countries that are part of that list of tax havens, nor does one just understand how we can present ourselves to public opinion with that list of countries that is clearly unpresentable. Let's say it directly. And I think that at this point, and after years of turning this issue around, all I hope for, all I ask the Commission is not to resubmit a list that the Council then retouches, empty and absolutely nuances - as I said - by removing countries from it. Next time, Commissioner, come to Parliament and tell us that the Council is complicating the presentation of that list, because we certainly make a fool of ourselves and the Council goes rositas, because people think that the Commission and Parliament are the ones who draw up that list, when it is some governments that end up blocking it and doing unpresentable things.

Madam President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, the truth is that I am in this debate deeply ashamed. And ashamed because we have been repeating debates similar to this for years and we are not able to put the necessary measures to avoid it. I appreciate and support the tremendous effort of the Commission and Commissioner Gentiloni in the progress he has made in the fight against money laundering, on the road to harmonising a minimum corporate tax rate, which seems to be progressing reasonably well. But it's not enough. It's obviously not enough. And every day that we wake up with news similar to that of the Pandora papers, we should, I don't know if to reflect, because I believe that everything is already reflected, but to really get to work. And, in my opinion, our friends in the Council have a lot to do. Because many of the initiatives supported by this Parliament and proposed by the Commission end up being blocked in the Council. And we will talk later, in the next debate, about the list of tax havens. But it's really embarrassing that the same week we know about Pandora's papers a list of tax havens is made public that is not presentable. And I know that the Commission is aware that this list cannot work like this. What surprises me is that at some point the Commission will not tell the Council that enough is enough, that it cannot be that the list of tax havens will always end up blocked and cut by the Council. Finally, we have reached the moment of truth and the Council – you and the other governments – must take responsibility once and for all.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I wanted to start this brief speech by congratulating, of course, Sven Giegold on this report, all the rapporteurs and, especially, also my colleague Evelyn Regner. We are certainly dealing with a typical situation in the Community institutions, in which, in those areas where we do not have direct powers, we push, demand and, moreover, regulate in the field of tax cooperation between the Member States, and the States do not respond. I believe that this report points to the current problems. Put your finger where it should be placed: on top of those governments of states that do not even share information. I would also like to end by asking the Members of the Group of the People's Party and the Renew Group to maintain the agreement reached on this report in committee - in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs - and to somehow avoid initial considerations, which go against, on the other hand, the work of the institutions themselves in that very important negotiation that we are having in the OECD to set global tax minima.

Mr President, Commissioner, every day we read, we see, new news about the present effects of climate change: floods this summer, fires, unusual weather effects, which remind us of the need to act and to act now. I believe that the package presented by the Commission is very well targeted and we need to somehow exemplify to the public that these adverse effects of climate change - which is not something future, is not something that is going to happen in the indeterminate future, but is already happening - have an answer in the package. I believe that for this we need to strengthen at least two initiatives: the Border Adjustment Mechanism cannot, in my opinion, be in the testing phase for two years; We need to accelerate it to show that this transition is just. And for that transition to be just, we also need to strengthen the Social Fund for Climate Change.

Madam President, Commissioner, first of all, I would like to congratulate Margarida Marques and all the shadow rapporteurs of this Parliament who have negotiated and agreed on an important, very relevant and also timely document; a document that undoubtedly recognizes that we cannot return to the fiscal rules of the current Stability Pact, of the , of the tax governance treaty ... Because, certainly, when we finish, when we finally see the end of this crisis, the levels of public debt will be so high that to try to reduce them to 60%, at the rate that the current rules impose of one-twentieth each year, it is really impossible and we must recognize it. We cannot pretend to move at that speed when the crisis is over. And I believe that this report recognises this evidence and also takes advantage of the current moment, when we are not implementing the Stability and Growth Pact, to bring forward a reform of those rules; reforms that should, first and foremost, improve the investment capacity of public administrations. We have ahead of us the climate transition, the digital transition and the improvement of social conditions to reduce the poverty and inequality that this crisis is creating. And we also need to give our fiscal policies as a whole a greater degree of countercyclical capacity. We had seen it in past crises and we see it in the current one. With the current rules we cannot do countercyclical policy and that is why the Stability Pact has been put out of circulation for a while, but, above all, why we have agreed to the creation of the Next Generation EU, an instrument to finance investment collectively. And I think the future of Next Generation EU is very much intertwined with the debate on tax rules, because you can't understand what rules we are going to apply to states to implement countercyclical policies if we don't reflect on the future of Next Generation EU. And the proposal for this report, led by Margarida Marques and the other rapporteurs, is timely, it aims to make individualized analyses of debt sustainability, with a monitoring instrument, and I hope that the Commission and the Council will listen to this report, read it and start that much-needed debate for European citizens.