Speeches

Mr President! The fact that I have finally dealt with the question of how to relieve small and medium-sized enterprises in the last year of the European Commission's term of office is highly welcome, and it is long overdue. The headlines proclaimed by the Commission may sound as if the Commission had finally heard the signs of the times. But if you look at the proposals in detail, it quickly becomes clear that we are dealing with airlocks rather than with real help. What has been proposed? A new regulation against late payment. If we hurry, maybe we can get it to go into effect 2025/2026 times. A proposal for less tax bureaucracy in the internal market, which would actually be helpful but will most likely never be implemented, because I hear from the Council today that they do not want to touch it at all. However, we need a unanimous decision by the Member States so that something like this can come into force at all. And the promise to finally appoint a SME representative, which we as the European Parliament have been calling for for years, comes quite late. Because, I said it, the Commission's term of office is coming to an end. Most of the legislative proposals are on the table, have been adopted, are in the process of being implemented. What else is the SME representative supposed to do? The proposals are simply too few. You're late. The middle class is already drowning in a rage of bureaucracy. And very large waves such as supply chain law, non-financial reporting obligations, are still coming to them. The Commission should have done something here, but unfortunately it has jumped too short.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, I am a little surprised by the debate we have, because we should actually say thank you to the Commission for thinking about the uniform implementation of European law in the Member States. I do not praise the Commission often, but I have to do it today. Yes, that's what it's all about. They have worked out very clearly why it makes sense that we do not have different implementations here in 27 Member States, because the companies we want to address are characterised by the fact that they are multinational in more than one Member State, i.e. in more than one Member State, and therefore do not want to be confronted with 27 regulations. Let me tell you one thing very clearly: It's a naive notion to think that just because you're making tax data public means you're taking a penny more in taxes. We have had public country-by-country reporting in the banking sector for many years. Has anything changed? No. We only know that those who have always paid their taxes correctly will continue to pay their taxes correctly. It is not important that the public has the tax data, it is important that the tax authorities have the data. We have long since decided that this is already in force. We will now also look at how we can intensify the cooperation of the tax authorities. That's crucial. They set the tax burden at the end. They ensure that every company makes its fair contribution to the community. That's what we should focus on. That's why I can only say: Dear Commission, I would be delighted if you would also ensure, in other areas, that: gold-plating It does not happen that companies are not additionally burdened by incorrect or too far-reaching national implementation, but that we focus on the fact that what has been set at European level contributes to ensuring that we do not unduly burden our companies.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, In view of today's debate on taxing the rich, I would like to clear up two myths. Firstly: The Member States of the European Union do not have a revenue problem. And secondly: There is also no reason for an even more progressive tax system. Total tax revenue has risen steadily over the last decade. On average, tax revenue in the European Union now exceeds 40% of gross domestic product. In some Member States, we are already approaching the 50% threshold – without social security systems, only taxes. That is, almost every second euro earned goes to the state. So we certainly do not have a revenue problem in the Member States, probably rather a spending problem. There is still a curve that has risen much more than tax revenue. That's government spending, and that's where the problem actually comes from. The second myth that is really being put forward here in the class struggle is the statement that a more progressive tax system with even higher tax rates would create more justice. Let me just give you a few figures: The contribution of the top 10% of taxpayers – the rich and the super-rich – now pays 50% of tax revenue, and the top 50% of taxpayers pay more than 90% of tax revenue. That is, the rich who want to tax you already pay the most taxes today and thus make their corresponding contribution. These are the top performers in our society, who are already being ripped off by the treasury anyway. So please: A good tax system is not characterized by the highest possible tax rates, but by simplicity, predictability, the right incentives for work, value creation and innovation. We will not achieve this by only turning the control screw upwards at all times.

Madam President, Commissioner, President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen! Europe has a lot ahead of it in the next few years. We need companies that are willing to invest. Because we have to say goodbye to a credo here in the house: Public authorities will not alone be able to generate the large volume of investment that is necessary. States can provide start-up financing, they can provide guarantees, but they will not - if I may mention the number of the European Investment Bank here - be able to provide EUR 350 billion per year only in investments. What we need, on the other hand, is to really accept the demands that our time brings. We do not need demand policy instruments as we have done in the past; We need a new supply policy. This includes: Stopping new regulatory burdens, reducing bureaucracy and reporting obligations, speeding up permitting procedures, completing the single market and an industrial policy that strengthens our competitiveness. We need to make sure that investors around the world believe in Europe and invest in Europe. Today they make a bow around us. In 2000, with the Lisbon Strategy, the European Union set itself the goal of becoming the most competitive and dynamic economy in the world. Today, we are a long way from that, and this unfortunately means that investment is being diverted from Europe. We should remember this strategy again.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, The European Commission, as the supreme guardian of competition law, has made an astonishing U-turn in recent months. While the Commission's work to ensure a level playing field in the internal market has so far been characterised by a healthy scepticism against excessive subsidies and subsidies, this now seems to have become the means of choice to achieve any policy objective. Following the COVID aid framework and the aid framework to overcome the energy crisis, there is now an aid framework in response to the US . In addition, there are other legal acts such as the , which are not unproblematic under competition law rules. What was once the absolute exception now becomes the norm. What is the competition law response to the Inflation Reduction Act Unfortunately, as far as the Commission is concerned, it is misleading that we could win a subsidy race with the United States of America and that therefore only the floodgates in the Member States would have to be opened for additional subsidies. This misguided competition policy stems from a misdiagnosis of the problem, namely the belief that the key building block for our competitiveness in Europe would be to close the subsidy gap with the US. A one-time subsidy program, no matter how generous, does not solve the problems. The problems go deeper and need to be addressed more fundamentally. There are many other ways to also improve our competitiveness – cutting red tape, education, to name just two keywords. Our problem today is too little foreign investment in the European Union and not too few subsidies. You should focus more on this.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Having a single currency inevitably means that all members of this monetary union must take responsibility for the stability of the single currency. This includes, first and foremost, a responsible fiscal policy. This is the idea behind the Stability and Growth Pact: One bears responsibility not only for one's own budget, but for the common currency. If we take a critical look at the existing rules, however, we must note that the set of rules did not work well. Many Member States did not respect the deficit limits even in good times. The national debt has continued to rise, even before the pandemic, before the terrible Russian war of aggression. I fully agree with the analysis that we need a reform of the regulatory framework. But what the reform must be like – I think there are still big differences. We have three problems with the Stability and Growth Pact. Firstly: Fiscal consolidation has always been put on the back burner. Secondly: The Commission has allowed far too much flexibility. And thirdly: The Commission has not enforced the rules boldly enough, because it has never been aware of the sanction possibilities – I say it again: Never before! – made use of. The Commission's three solutions are now: more time, more flexibility and even weaker sanctions. With all due respect, this is not the right solution. To be clear: The Stability and Growth Pact never had a flexibility problem, but an application problem and a credibility problem. What the Commission has now presented will not help to properly address these problems. We still have a lot of work to do in the legislative process. This is my last criticism that you give us so little time. After all, it was clear that the Stability and Growth Pact would come back into force on 1 January next year. That you give us so little time to give this intensive advice is not fair.

Mr President, Commissioner, President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen! The European Central Bank has been carrying out extensive preparatory work and feasibility studies on the digital euro for several years now. Although the Governing Council's decision on principle is still officially pending, we should already assume that the central bank wants to push this project further. The European Central Bank has had the pros and cons of various design options in recent months – so how should it really be designed? – discussed and presented the reflections both in their progress reports and in exchange with the European Parliament. Although we have gained a better insight into some of these options, these design options, the European Central Bank, but also the European Commission, which is now working on a legal basis for a digital euro, have not yet answered a key question in a credible way, namely: What is the added value of the digital euro for users? Or to put it another way: What can I do with a digital euro that I cannot do with today's payment options? So, what is the business model of the digital euro? As long as this question is not answered, there will be a lot of skepticism about a digital euro. The central bank's public consultation also shows where it comes from. Most citizens want a high level of privacy in payments. There are reasonable doubts that a digital euro can meet these goals to the same extent as cash. Therefore, it must also be clear: Cash will not be replaced, cash must continue to exist and the digital euro can at most complement it. The ECB should also leave no doubt about this. To be clear: I have no problem with a digital euro if we know what it is for. But as long as this question is not answered, there is great skepticism among us. If there is a clear vision, then many questions, Commissioner, answer themselves, because the design also answers the regulatory questions. Therefore, please first answer the question of ‘what’ and then the question of ‘how’.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, The markets for crypto assets are not for the faint of heart. In recent years, we have seen not only extreme volatility, but also market manipulation, scams and – let me be clear – catastrophic risk management. The bankruptcy of the crypto exchange FTX is just one of the many examples of this. Regardless of what you get from crypto assets However, we must attest that these markets enjoy a certain popularity. And precisely because many people want to use these markets despite all the turbulence, it is important that we, as a Parliament, ensure that market abuse is prevented, that minimum standards for consumer protection are introduced, that convertibility, interchangeability is also guaranteed and that certain market information is available. This is exactly what we are doing with the Markets Regulation. crypto assets. We set clear rules of the game and transfer elements that have proven themselves in the securities sector to the crypto world. In doing so, we are choosing a different, predictable approach, unlike other jurisdictions on this globe. This creates legal certainty for providers, and this creates legal certainty for users. This makes the European Union a pioneer in the field of crypto regulation. That is why we fully support this proposal.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner! First of all, a heartfelt thank you for your clear words and the description of what is currently taking place in the banks in America. The background is complex. They are due to individual factors, but we also have to deal with the question. It is also relevant to us in Europe. One of the main triggers for the bankruptcy of Silicon Valley Bank was a veritable flood of liquidity. This liquidity did not seem to be reasonable. The central banks, including the European Central Bank, have contributed significantly to this flood of money. That's why we have to deal with it. The central banks have not only created a liquidity overhang, but of course they now also have the task of fighting the inflation they helped create, and that is another cause. I want to make this very clear. I think the interest rate steps are right, including those taken by the ECB. I hope that further interest rate steps will be decided. But, of course, there are side effects, and banks need to prepare accordingly. The second aspect for the assessment of the incidents is how international standards for banking regulation are implemented in the US and in the European Union. I am very grateful to you, Commissioner, for pointing this out. As far as the Basel rules are concerned, even the smallest bank in Europe is as obliged as the largest bank to comply with them – a huge difference from the USA. What we have done in terms of facilitation has been explicit for banks that do not operate cross-border, that have a simple business model, and we have not exempted them from supervisory duties, we have only exempted them from reporting obligations. That's a big difference. Therefore, we should not reflexively adopt or demand new regulations, but we should keep our system safe, shield it from influences from the United States. Then we are on the right track.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! Europe is facing enormous challenges in the coming months. The European economy is on the verge of recession. Many Member States are heavily indebted. Inflation is reaching record levels, financing costs are rising, and at the same time enormous efforts are needed to transform our economy. Effective coordination of European economic policy is therefore more urgent than ever. The European Semester is, in principle, the right instrument for this. We must also acknowledge that the semester has not been particularly effective in the past. As the EPP Group pointed out ten years ago: You have to repair the roof when the sun is shining before the next storm comes up. Unfortunately, this opportunity was missed. Even then, it was foreseeable that the enormous debt level in many Member States and the lack of competitiveness would become a problem at the latest when interest rates rose again and refinancing costs skyrocketed. However, many Member States have not used the good years for fiscal consolidation, but have accumulated further debt, mostly only for consumption expenditure. They did not do anything for competitiveness, but delayed structural reforms. For us as the EPP, this means that we want to focus even more on the core of the semester this year, even with a view to the upcoming reform of economic governance: responsible fiscal policies and measures to strengthen competitiveness.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, Last weekend, two U.S. banks, Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank, were placed under the management of the U.S. deposit protection fund FDIC. This is the biggest bank failure since the financial crisis 15 years ago. Although there were very specific and individual backgrounds in both cases, the trigger is also relevant for European banks, namely the rapid increase in interest rates and the high liquidity in the market. This raises a number of questions for us as well: To what extent are European depositors and installations affected? Are there risks to financial stability that go beyond the individual case? And to what extent are European banks exposed to similar risks? That is why I would be very happy if the House would support the fact that we are reacting very timely here in order to send a clear message to our citizens, to help remove uncertainty and to be able to provide information.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen! The European Commission believes that its new industrial strategy has found a response to the Inflation Reduction Act. If the European Commission's communication is indeed the answer, then I must say: Not very creative. In principle, the new strategy is based only on two ideas: On the one hand, the Commission is shifting the essential elements of its work programme under new headings, i.e. we have old wine in new tubes – no more. But if you just change the headlines, but nothing about the content, then that's not the answer. And the Commission's second idea, unfortunately, is also the well-known one, namely to solve or combat all problems with spending money, whether it be new subsidy programmes or - as some are planning to do - new debt-financed special pots. Both are not going to get us any further. What we really need are less red tape, lower energy costs, well-trained professionals. That would be the right answer.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, The European Union has had a money laundering problem for years. There are estimates that the volume of suspicious transactions within Europe amounts to a three-digit billion. This is partly an imported problem. Indeed, it is clear: Our defense against money laundering and terrorist financing is only as strong as the weakest link in the entire chain. That is why it is right that we take a very close look at third countries with obvious deficits. That is precisely why we co-initiated the list of high-risk third countries as the European Parliament, and of course it must remain up-to-date, there is no question about that. The truth is, however, that we also have a major task ahead of us in the area of money laundering within the European Union. In the Member State I know best, we have a special anti-money laundering unit based at customs, which is pushing a huge mountain of unresolved suspicions ahead of it. We are talking about over 50,000 unresolved suspected cases. If only every hundredth suspected case is really a money laundering or terrorist financing problem, then of course it is clear: A lot goes through the rags here if it is not properly processed. So before we make a scandal here now, because the Council needs once a month longer – we sometimes need that too – we should focus on the fact that the Council does not remove any country from the list. Then we are on the right track.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, The European economy is facing enormous challenges. In the short term, of course, it is the high energy costs and the interrupted supply chains, in the long term, the transformation to a carbon-free economic model. We would have had enough to do in Europe without the US anti-inflation law. That is why we cannot accept it if, by means of high subsidies and a Buy-AmericanThe clause will undermine the foundations of our European economy. What can we do? I think we all agree that we can't use a trade war right now. That is why a negotiated solution should be sought as soon as possible, Madam Vice-President. However, we should not rule out a WTO lawsuit or punitive tariffs. All options must also be brought to the table. But one thing is clear: The answer to the US anti-inflation law cannot be a new EU sovereignty fund. What is so innocent is nothing more than a new debt pot, even if the Commission may see it differently. New debts do not make us more sovereign.

Mr President, Mr Council representative, dear Mr Executive Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen! It is not the first time since the outbreak of the terrible war in Ukraine that we are dealing with the question: What are the consequences we draw from this? And we hear a lot about what we want to do. But so far little has been done. When we analyze soberly what to do, the first thing to do is to: How to create more offer? We have a high demand, but a reduced supply. And when I listen to what was said today, you have a lot in mind. We've been hearing this for half a year. But to this day nothing has been done. I am aware of a Green Paper from the European Commission in 2000, where consideration has already been given to creating a purchasing community for energy supplies. This has been blocked by the Council for 20 years – now the need is suddenly there. Now something's coming. Today you are working in the Commission on the work programme for the coming year. When I look at what priorities there are to address the current problems, I find nothing. On the contrary: further bureaucratic burdens, no relief for businesses, no relief for citizens. You're doing the wrong things, and what you're doing is making you way too late. This is not a reasonable policy.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen! The European Union is home to 25 million small and medium-sized enterprises, representing 99% of all businesses, creating 100 million jobs, decentralised value chains and apprenticeships for the young generation. In short: Small and medium-sized enterprises are the backbone of our European economy. Whether as a start-up, as a micro-entrepreneur, as a cross-generational family business, SMEs are the engine for innovation, for specialisation, for growth and, as in my constituency, home to many so-called hidden champions. But it is precisely the backbone of our economy, the middle class, that has to fight hard: Financial crisis, coronavirus crisis, climate crisis, energy crisis, cost of living crisis, staff shortage, inflation – just to name a few. For stability and growth from this crisis, our small and medium-sized enterprises are the key to success, as the President of the Commission underlined yesterday. In the same vein, a relief package has been announced, including a tax reform. But we don't need flowery headlines and announcements. We need noticeable relief and solutions, as our companies are now coming over the winter in the short term. To be clear: A corporate tax reform does not help SMEs in Europe at all. Most of them are not subject to corporate tax. The 2020 SME Strategy has had no impact – more bureaucracy instead of relief, more planned economy instead of market economy. No SME envoy, the one-in-one-out principle, is trampled on. This is a terrible record. The green transformation, the way out of the crisis, is only possible with our SMEs. Please act now!

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! The situation is described by many colleagues: We are facing horrendous prices that are putting a massive strain on private households and driving companies to ruin. What does the answer look like? I am telling you quite frankly, Commissioner, that we do not need to manage shortages, we need to rectify them. And I'm surprised: For more than 20 years, I have been reading the Commission's Green Papers and Action Programmes, which say that Europe's purchasing power should be pooled. When, if not now, is the time to pool buyer power and, as the European Union, look at world markets to see what is available? It is not enough to go to Qatar, like the German energy minister, to make a buckling and come home without a supply contract, because it does not fit into the concept of entering into 20-year supply contracts for ideological reasons. We really need solutions that help right now. They will not eliminate the problems permanently with market interventions, but rather cause greater chaos. That is why I warn against working here with short-term measures – over-profit taxes, market design interventions and the like. We do not want to bring about the blackout ourselves, but we should prevent it together.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, First of all, it sounds very charming: Someone makes exuberant profits, and you should actually be able to tax them away. And then I wonder: Who actually defines what an exuberant profit is? Is there an exuberant winner of the year? If I take the last company in Germany that has made exuberant profits, then BioNTech, a company that has provided a vaccine that was initially available in a monopoly, and has thus made great profits. The consequence is that the city of Mainz today is debt-free, which it has never been in its history. The consequence is that the state of Rhineland-Palatinate suddenly has tax revenues that it has never had in the past. And this shows: Even without windfall profit taxation Our tax system works. Those who make profits pay higher taxes. And that is why I have a certain access problem, because, on the other hand, I am also confronted with the question – and, Commissioner, you have pointed out that: If we urgently need investment now, then we must also enable companies to have the means to invest. We have a shortage of supply as demand expands. That this leads to rising prices – at least someone who deals with a market economy understands this. Perhaps we have a problem understanding the market economy. But the truth is: We must ensure that we come to improvements and changes on the supply side. This is why we need investment. But if we take away the profits of the companies that are supposed to invest so that they cannot invest them, should the public sector do it again? Well, I just want to ask: Does it even fit together? And when I look at a big gas supplier in my country, he doesn't have the problem of Windfall profits He does, but He does. big losses. So it is not so easy that you suddenly make huge profits because it is just so in the market, but it is very different from company to company. That is why we need sensible tax systems that really tax profits correctly. This includes the OECD Minimum TaxThis includes other measures and not additional taxes.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, Today's discussion is about the correct classification of gas and nuclear energy. And I believe that we would do well, as our rapporteur has already said, to recall the very aim of the taxonomy. On the basis of scientific facts, we wanted to create a transparency standard that would make it easier for market participants to make investment decisions in sustainable investments. If we measure the delegated act on the table against this standard, we can only conclude that this delegated act does not meet this requirement. There are two reasons for this, which are closely related. Firstly: I believe that it cannot be disputed that this delegated act was compiled not on the basis of scientific criteria, but on the basis of political criteria. The Commission has carefully considered how to combine the two elements of gas and nuclear energy, which have nothing to do with each other, in such a way that they neutralise each other. It has nothing to do with science, it's politics. Secondly: The Commission has presented a standard that may be acceptable for a critical mass of Member States, but not for a critical mass of market participants. To be clear: Investors who want to make green investments do not want to finance gas-fired power plants or nuclear power plants. Therefore, such a taxonomy cannot work. So we have a standard that has not been devised according to scientific criteria and that is of no use to market participants, and that is why I will reject it.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. We are setting high standards for joining the eurozone for good reasons, because we have unfortunately seen in the past what difficulties the eurozone can face if a Member State gets into economic difficulties. Croatia has taken this high hurdle with flying colours. The government of Andrej Plenković has made considerable progress towards the eurozone in a very difficult environment in recent years. If we look at the relevant economic indicators, it is clear that Croatia is better off in many areas than many established members of the eurozone. That should make us think, because the Community's goal of preserving the stability of the single currency should unite us. It is true that every member of the eurozone has co-responsibility for the community as a whole. This also gives rise to a responsibility for a responsible fiscal policy. I am pleased and can say for the EPP that we support Croatia's 20th anniversary. Member of the eurozone, and hope that other Member States will take an example of Croatia's economic and budgetary policies.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. The agreement reached on the Digital Markets Act sets new standards for how our digital economy of the future should work. It is about clear rules of the game, legal certainty and fairness. It cannot be that a handful of companies determine what is offered, at what price and who has access to these platforms. This not only discriminates against many market participants, it also incapacitates the consumer. This is at the expense of prices, selection and innovation. Now that's over! With the restriction of the market dominance of Internet giants such as Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon and Co., their monopoly position is significantly limited. A look at the online booking market in tourism shows that there are massive problems in this industry as well. For us in the Committee on Transport and Tourism, it was therefore of particular interest to reverse and eliminate market distortions by platform operators at the expense of the many small providers. With the agreement reached, the exploitation to the detriment of small and medium-sized providers is now clearly put off. In short: The digital marketplace of the future will be fairer for operators, SMEs and consumers.

Madam President, Madam President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen! The dispute over the recovery and resilience plans of Hungary and Poland has been dragging on for more than a year now. And unlike Hungary, we have to acknowledge that Poland has taken some big steps towards us in recent weeks. This should also be recognised and exemplary for Hungary. Nevertheless, I must say clearly that the behaviour of the European Commission is somewhat janus-headed. First it always says: The Polish plan will only get the green light if all the requirements in the area of the rule of law are fully met. This has always been mentioned as a non-negotiable precondition for the release of the Polish plan. Now Poland has made progress, but of course it has not yet overcome all the problems. The Commission has nevertheless waved through the Polish plan. But she still doesn't trust the roast, otherwise she wouldn't emphasize that no money will flow until all the conditions are met. The immovable preconditions for release have now become milestones and targets within the plan, so the target has already shifted once. Of course, it is now important that the target mark does not shift a second time. Especially when it comes to the rule of law, there is no flexibility. The Commission seems to want to work with carrot and whip, but only lure with the carrot and then forget the whip is not a strategy. We have already seen this with other plans, that there is a lot of carrot and little whip here. I can only appeal to you to look very closely and not release the money until all the conditions have been met.

Madam President, Mr Timmermans, ladies and gentlemen! I must honestly admit: For the EPP Group, I was somewhat surprised when this item was requested by the left side of the House. Why? Because we in Parliament are not yet ready to say: It's just the Council. The Council may also take a decision only after the European Parliament has delivered its opinion. If I look at the draft report, sorry if I openly address it: Do we want to achieve what we have long called for, which we have already welcomed in many resolutions – namely that the OECD has agreed on a truly global standard – do we want to implement it, or do we want to tackle it again right away? Do we want to endanger our international credibility and thus endanger future tax treaties? I think that is extremely worrying if this Parliament - at least from what has been written so far - thinks that you can still pack on it, pack on it, pack on it. No, we should now implement what the Commission has said and be credible, including in the international arena. But of course I also wonder, Commissioner: Why did this have to be proposed in two parts? It is interesting that there is criticism in the Council precisely because they say: We don't know what's in the other part. It would have been right that now the lighter part is not proposed, and the heavier part is pushed a bit ahead, so that a short-term success can be achieved for elections that are to be held in a short time. It would have been good if the Commission had proposed the entire OECD package at once, so that we could give serious advice in Parliament and in the Council as a whole. That is why I say quite frankly: This debate is not necessary. It would have been better if we had used the hour today to work on Mrs Lalucq's report or to ask the Commission to finally come up with the second part.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, First of all, I am pleased that we in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs have succeeded in agreeing on a common text – although unfortunately it was not allowed to be presented here, which I find somewhat surprising. This has not always been possible in the past. That being said, I would like to talk about a central point. The Gretchen question that always haunts us as EPP is: What is the European Semester? It is the central instrument for the coordination of economic policies. This means: The European Semester is about setting the right course for a stable fiscal policy and a competitive economy. It is about fiscal policy and economic policy. This focus has become even more important in light of the new geopolitical situation, as pointed out by the Executive Vice-President. We are now openly talking about open strategic autonomy. It is also crucial that we have an efficient and competitive industrial base, which in case of doubt also guarantees us this independence. In other words, I can only ask the Commission now to review a whole series of legislative proposals and existing legislation to ensure that this responsibility is met. This also means independence from financial markets. We have to be careful not to turn ourselves over to the financial markets – and in the end the financial markets decide whether they will still lend to governments, and not us here in the European Parliament. That is why I want to say quite clearly: We reject all the motions of the Left Group. There aren't that many of this group either. I must honestly say that I have seldom read so much unreason in one place as in these amendments. This weakens Europe and puts us in the hands of the capital markets. This means that we are not in a position to meet the challenges. The EPP will support everything we have agreed with each other, but will reject all the Left's proposals.

Madam President, Mr Vice-President, Mr Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen! The idea of the Recovery and Resilience Facility was to give Member States a way out of the COVID-19 crisis. This should both pave the way for long-term growth for the next generation and create real European added value. The President of the Commission has assured us that the European Parliament will play a crucial role in this process, not only in legislation but also in implementation. Unfortunately, the reality is a bit different. The Commission is working more quietly on the national plans, especially when the President can hand over a cheque. If you look in detail at what these checks are issued for, then you almost understand this lack of transparency. Spain is the first Member State to receive a real first disbursement from the Recovery Fund after pre-financing. For this, Spain has had to work through 52 milestones and is now receiving 10 billion euros. However, if you take a closer look at the milestones, it becomes clear that most of the targets were already achieved before Spain even submitted its application. So what happened here? Obviously, projects that were already planned and in the process of being implemented were simply re-declared and invoiced to the European taxpayer. This cannot be in the spirit of the inventor. The idea of the Recovery Fund was to provide additional impetus and not simply to replace national programmes. Please change your cooperation with us, dear Commission, otherwise it will fail miserably.