Speeches

To be one step more specific, an idea or an orientation in the paper that I found particularly interesting was introducing the relationship, or emphasizing the relationship, between the macroeconomic imbalance procedure and the fiscal rules. Here I am wondering to what extent expenditure that might be necessary to overcome macroeconomic imbalances has to be part of the expenditure rule or is taken outside the scope of the expenditure rule, because it is necessary that we get an equilibrium between the macroeconomic imbalances amongst the Member States.

Let me please, first, take this opportunity to congratulate Commissioner Paolo Gentiloni on his birthday, being here with us in the room. Congratulations, happy birthday. Now, to my question, I very much welcome the orientations that were presented by the Commission, coming up with a lot of good proposals, solving rules that are obviously not fit for purpose. And in particular this idea that we get an expenditure rule that has a corridor now between a debt reduction path and a 3 % deficit upper threshold. And in between we have open expenditure and that’s much better than the currently medium-term budgetary objective. What I am wondering is, given the discussion that we’ve already had here on investment, is this corridor that is getting, of course, smaller and smaller the higher a country is indebted, irrespective of its individual path, is this sufficient given the need to mitigate the crisis and the expenses for the green transition ? And, having that in mind – I am referring also to the question that Irene Tinagli was asking on the 2015 flexibility communication, which was on the investment and structural reform clause – is it the intention of the European Commission to also look at expenditure beyond this expenditure rules, so the investment in the structural reform clause, and to allow further public investment that is then dedicated to the green transition under the preventive arm of the Stability and Growth Pact?

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! Where the market fails, where companies do not prove that they can regulate themselves, that is, get a grip on themselves, there we have to, the state has to regulate. You, the company, had enough time. That's why today is a good day. 40% of the seats on supervisory boards must be female, one third of all board members. This is a milestone. Young women now know that they are not overlooked in their performance, that performance is worth it. And this is the message I want to give here to the sharp right. The fish stinks from the head. That young women are overlooked is because management is completely male, and therefore the crucial step is to overcome male society and reach human society. Thanks to Lara Wolters, thanks to Evelyn Regner for her work at this point. But this milestone is a milestone and not the endpoint: Women hold even more leadership positions than 40% and one third. That's why companies now have a second chance to ensure real equality and bring reality together with these quotas.

Madam President, Commissioner! Markets are not God-given, but they are legal constructs that we, as legislators, can shape, but also reshape. Markets serve not only to maximise profits, but above all the people on them – as entrepreneurs, as workers, as consumers worldwide. Investors play a particularly important role in shaping markets. You have the money that others need. They have a leverage effect that we can and must take responsibility for achieving human rights, protecting the environment and combating climate change. Money should go to the right activities. That's why taxonomy, that's why disclosure is mandatory for financial service providers, that's why sustainability reporting of companies is now available, so that investors know where to invest safely, so that the result is also sustainable. However: Disclosure is not enough. It must be acted upon. In addition to disclosure, we therefore now need the obligation to act in the EU Supply Chain Act, especially for financial companies, and not only before they have made an investment.

Madam President, Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, dear Alex! German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said the following in his Prague speech: When we talk about the supply of raw materials, we are thinking above all of the countries of origin far away from Europe. Raw materials have long been here in Europe, in cables and plugs, as they are on the table here with colleague Alex. Chancellor Scholz said that we need a true European circular economy. He spoke of a strategic update of the single market. This is exactly what the uniform charger is all about. Let's put all these unnecessary cables away for recycling, so that they come back into the internal market as valuable raw materials! This shows how good policies work for our single market: Not a misunderstood competition that leaves everything to the market, but clear guidelines. We need uniform standards and rules for all those who are sustainable because they are consistently geared towards the recycling of necessary raw materials.

Mr President, Mr Vice-President, dear colleagues, better law-making is a nice idea. We all share this view. That requires courage, deliberations, transparency and accountability. These goals of better law-making are undermined by the involvement of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board. This Board can stop legislative proposals internally up to the need to be overruled by the College of Commissioners. It has vetoed more than 40% of first-round impact assessment reports in recent years. It managed, by its double veto, to meaningfully water down the Commission proposal for a directive on corporate sustainability due diligence, as shown by an insightful report of the Corporate Europe Observatory. This report shows evidence of massive one-sided lobbying of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board, which led to a narrowing-down of the scope and of the Director’s duties. We can discuss all these issues politically, but the place for these discussions and for these decisions to change the ambitious legislative process is here in the European Parliament, because we are elected by the citizens and accountable to them.

Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, Digital markets are disrupted. We have companies here who write the rules of the markets they dominate, whose access they control. Their services have become so important to people that they sell their proverbial souls to use these networks, these services. The soul in digital markets is our data. to collect, organize and from this precise profiles of us, the users; This is the source of the omnipotent position of these companies. Our previous swords, competition law and data protection law, have proven dull. In the Netherlands, for example, Apple would rather pay fines on a regular basis than change its business model. Therefore, it was necessary and right for us to DMA finally to provide instruments with which we can use data octopuses and unbridled Big techCompanies can control. Two achievements of DMA I want to highlight. First, messenger services must open up and allow messaging with customers of other messenger services. As a result, end-users can finally actually exercise their right to vote and choose the service that best protects their rights without actually being forced to choose only the service where everyone else is. Parents no longer have to sell their soul if they want to be part of the primary school parenting app. Secondly, the Commission has the right to adopt so-called structural measures if companies repeatedly fail to comply with our rules. It may prohibit them from buying up competitors and, in the worst case, ordering the dismantling of an undertaking. These are punishments that hurt and thus the behavior of the Big techCompanies will change. These innovations should also inspire the Commission to revise competition law and merger control. This creates the DMA The foundation for recovering digital markets and becoming a real game changer. For my group, I would like to dedicate this success to my predecessor Evelyne Gebhardt, who sits at the top of our visitors' stands today and who is responsible for DMA improved during the parliamentary procedure.

Dear Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Competition law is Europe's sharpest weapon for enforcing our rules of the game for markets. Economic power must not be in the hands of less, but markets must be democratized in which everyone can participate. This means more than promoting consumer welfare. Citizens expect markets to respect their privacy, protect their data, combat climate change and ensure sustainability. These findings mean that consumer welfare has become the sole objective of competition policy and that the price of a product is included in the moth box as a dominant factor in anti-competitive behaviour. Data does not have a price tag. The Digital Markets Act Goes in the right direction here. Competition law should now be inspired by him and recognise data protection and climate protection as competition problems. I also call for a reform of merger law, which gives the authorities the opportunity to smash anti-competitive companies. In this way, we make our exemplary competition law future-proof, so that it democratizes markets and protects citizens!

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen! A new word has found its way into the political language, a German word that expresses untranslatedly that everything is under political scrutiny: A turning point in time. A turning point is also in the relationship between the EU and China. China continues to avoid the full condemnation of Russian war crimes and relativizes the war of aggression in violation of international law. China opens its markets to Russian companies and becomes a war profiteer. The EU must not stick to China's dual strategy of blinking to the right and turning to the left. We must therefore reduce dependence on China's technologies and adopt and implement the Chips Act more quickly. We need to tackle human rights violations and environmental damage in supply chains. We need to dig the water away from China's strategy of taking the lead in global standard-setting with its own, effective and democratically legitimized standardization strategy. Turning point means that we need to become strategically autonomous from authoritarian states in our supply chains that are trampling on our values.