What Aura spoke about.

Madam President, the debate over EU access to advanced AI is part of a deeper problem: our systemic dependence on non-EU hardware and software. There is clearly a lot of product hype in AI right now, but one thing should be clear to us: European tech sovereignty cannot only be a long-term aspiration – it needs clear action now. Sovereignty does not mean isolation. We must engage with like-minded international partners to make a genuine global consensus on advanced AI. We clearly need an alliance of values to start with, yet we cannot lead globally if we bring nothing to the table. Building our own capabilities is a matter of survival and resilience, as well as security and competitiveness. This House has high expectations on the tech sovereignty package coming later this month, as well as the public procurement initiative coming in July. It must deliver at least three concrete actions: first, new procurement rules that prioritise European sovereign tech solutions; second, easing smartly our regulatory burden for scaling critical technologies; third, a focus on concrete actions, on harmonisation of our single market and, of course, on our capital markets union. Let's stop reacting in panic and only acting when a crisis hits us, and focus on concrete actions – spelling out the fact that we need to put our European companies first, and make sure that we only do business with US tech companies based on reciprocity, not on dangerous dependencies.

Madam President, the Digital Networks Act has been debated, often with conflicting expectations. I am happy to see that the Commission has chosen a pragmatic approach, leaving fair share and dividing merger control proposals out. On spectrum, the direction is right. Poorly designed auctions, short licence durations and fragmented national approaches have drained capital that should be invested in secure, high-quality networks. By improving predictability, we can unlock investments for 5G and future 6G. The same applies to satellites. EU-level authorisation is strategically important when European services are to scale, and we want to reduce dependencies. Combined with the new Cybersecurity Act on high-risk vendors, this strengthens Europe's security and resilience. I do not think the Space Act is a wise choice for Europe, and this framework helps us to push European alternatives. Reinforcing the single market through passporting is welcome, but it can also add new obligations and this must be avoided. Finally, I remain sceptical about the conciliation mechanism. I do not think this is needed. We should address the US-platform dependencies through possible tariffs, procurement, cybersecurity rules and forthcoming cloud legislation. As it is an economic, security and sovereignty issue, first and foremost.

Madam President, I fully support the proposal we saw today on the Cybersecurity Act, aiming to simplify our overlapping and complex cybersecurity regulation and focusing on reducing dangerous dependencies on high-risk vendors coming outside of Europe. The risk is obvious with China, their state power and big tech companies are interlinked. Huawei and TikTok are frankly dangerous. China is helping Putin in Ukraine. Right now, we also see a risk coming from our long-term ally threatening a sovereign European country, and we must be prepared to act if necessary. Let's keep in mind that the US tech companies can use their kill switch at any time in Europe. The rules for high-risk vendors in our most strategic sectors must be clear and enforceable, not just guidance or best practices. Parliament must keep this proposal strong, as the Council will try to weaken it, because some countries still want the cheapest options and avoid changes. This is exactly what happened with the 5G toolbox and why it failed in the first place. We must simply start using European tech when it comes to our critical infrastructure, cybersecurity vendors, cloud services and software solutions. And yes, finding European alternatives and making server interoperability can be more expensive and challenging in the short term, but there will not be long-term European security if we don't start clearly defining and choosing European tech today.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it has been a great honour to be the chief negotiator on such a positive legislative project that simplifies reporting and mobilises more private sector funding for energy, technology and overall security projects. In practice, we are responding to the challenges highlighted by both Draghi, Letta and President Niinistö, which the European Union is facing today. The whole idea is therefore that EU money is used as a loan guarantee and no direct subsidies are given because the water collected does not remain in the mine. Even from Finnish companies, Swappie received EUR 17 million in loans for projects that promote the circular economy, and Keliber received EUR 150 million in loans for a project that uses lithium to electrify traffic. We are talking about really big sums. It is not necessary to put your own house as a pledge, but the EU will put the euro as a loan guarantee and leverage a significant amount of risk finance from the private sector over a long period of time. This will stimulate innovative projects in Europe. This is also a good example for us in the negotiations on the future EU budget, which specifically uses loan guarantees rather than direct subsidies. The next step is for us to change the mandate of the European Investment Bank so that it can also lend the lethal armaments that Europe so desperately needs at the moment. And we are building a similar InvestEU programme to rebuild Ukraine.

Mr President, when the EU delivers something positive it hardly hits the news. But today I hope it will. Why? Because Europe desperately needs growth, and one important factor is to speed up the flow of risk financing. Here we deliver. I do believe that EU subsidies have their place, but I strongly believe that we need much more EU loan guarantees, and I know that InvestEU will deliver what it promises. It will accelerate investments and help private capital fund innovative companies. Here, the InvestEU loan guarantee programme is the best possible risk-sharing tool. It has proven to us that it even brings back profit. This is why Parliament wanted to strengthen this programme ever more, to focus more on key areas like security, tech and sustainable energy. We delivered in record time with my co-rapporteur Irene Tinagli, who I want to thank, and also all shadow rapporteurs sitting here this evening, the co-legislator and the Commission. Together with the Council and the Commission, we agreed on EUR 2.9 billion in additional guarantees for InvestEU and simplified reporting for SMEs remarkably. With these results, we enable an additional amount of more than EUR 55 billion in private investment across Europe. So, today, my message to European companies is clear: there is risk financing available for you; please use it. Now you will ask me how to do that. It's simple. The EU puts in EUR 1 and a quality stamp that this project, this company is worth investing in. The private sector then steps in, and the leverage raised from private capital has been even 17-18 times. This is a smart way of using EU money. The loan is easy to get from your local bank all over Europe. Just ask about the InvestEU loan guarantee programme, and if you are looking for tens of millions of euros, go to the European Investment Bank's website. We even added more money to advisory service so it's easier and faster for you to apply. You do not have to deal with Brussels. You do not have to fill in extra forms. The bank handles the process quickly. For SMEs, we have removed most reporting obligations. So now it is completely up to you. Europe needs fast and sustainable growth, and our duty in this House is to enable market conditions, ease up on regulation and make sure private capital flows seamlessly across Europe. For me, this sets a great example also for the next EU budget negotiations. Let's keep expanding use of the InvestEU model. The EU needs less subsidies and bureaucracy, and more loan guarantees from the EU to enable private investment for our security and for our growth.

Mr President, Europe has the talent to lead in AI and deep tech, but we don't have the market. The digital omnibus is a first test of whether Europe can finally become a place where our companies can scale and train their AI models, not just be regulated. Stopping the clock on the AI Act was welcomed by everyone seeking clarity on rules. Simplifying procedures, decreasing overlapping regulations, and fixing cookie rules can strengthen protection by making obligations clearer and enforcement more consistent. And no, this is not about being soft on big tech. It is about giving our companies a level playing field. At the same time, we must find ways to set clear conditions when our data is taken and commercialised by third country companies and have a proper digital tax for them using our market. If we want real tech sovereignty, we must finally put our companies first by creating an enabling market, putting European solutions first in public procurement, and finding ways to push American and Chinese companies into doing equal trade with us, not misusing our market.

Mr President, today, only 39 % of Europeans trust the media. When traditional newsrooms are starved of revenue, a vacuum opens for disinformation, propaganda and anti-democratic narratives. Geopolitics is tough for Europe right now; caught between Kremlin propaganda and an unpredictable transatlantic partner. We must be able to sustain quality, independent journalism in Europe and this will not happen with small fines, public subsidies or by building public entities. It needs business models that work in the digital age. We must enable our companies to have a fair, competitive environment to realistically push back on big American and Chinese companies. We do not get European alternatives without easing up on regulation for European business. These fines for Google and others are just the cost of doing business for them. We need proper digital taxation for third-country companies, harmonise the EU market for real this time, and put our own companies first when choosing critical technology.

Madam President, the European Commission's AI strategy launched today is yet again repeating the same problems without offering any solutions. It focuses on building apps for farmers, handing public money, and it speaks about simplification and sovereignty but at the same time will propose new regulations on digital fairness. Real digital sovereignty means having the capacity to scale and option to choose European critical technology. For this, our companies need to be able to take a risk. Now, we have a maze of regulation, we do not have a harmonised market and we are lacking risk capital. We must address the real problems we are facing with Chinese and US companies, and stop handing data to them for free. We must put European companies first in our public procurement. Yes, you need to make an effort to choose European cloud software and cyber where we can do that. Let us choose Scaleway, EZ and OnlyOffice. We must hold the Commission accountable that they will not propose any new regulation and stop thinking 'deregulation' is a bad word – it is a necessity in the name of European sovereignty.

Mr President, this year's Internet Governance Forum will test Europe's credibility. We say we defend open internet, while Russia and China push the opposite: state control and surveillance by design. And yet, the Danish Presidency and even our Commissioners are supporting this horrific CSAM proposal that points Europe in the same direction. Introducing scanning to our private messaging services, using by default 'the best possible technology', is not saving our children from pornography. The opposite: this is a gift for criminals and authoritarian leaders. There are no backdoors on encrypted services just for 'good people'. The door is open or closed for everyone. And no, you cannot write a law saying 'when technology is ready'. One plus one will never be three. Let me be very clear: it will be no to scanners for our messaging services, no to breaking encryption and no to chat control. That is how we protect our children: credibility, open internet and security.

Mr President, as the Niinistö Report outlined clearly, the EU must get its act together with a comprehensive security approach, and we need to back this up with money. Given the urgency of the war in Europe, we must focus on defence investments, as well as in innovation, research and high tech. We must ensure that there is enough reasonably priced energy and keep fighting the climate crisis. If we fail to stop Putin and our globe becomes unliveable due to climate change, we won't have to worry about anything else. The next budget must cut red tape, actively support completing the single market and ensure sufficient resources to enforce EU legislation like tackling illegal imports from countries like China. The EU and its budget should focus on the biggest challenges facing us and add value to the whole continent, with excellence-based cross-border investments, not with fragmented local policies and national envelopes.

Mr President, the affordable energy action plan has a market-based approach, but execution is the key. We must accelerate investment, cut red tape and ensure that competition – not subsidies – drives our transition. Europe cannot afford to slip into state-driven energy markets. Overreliance on government planning will drive investment elsewhere and hidden subsidies would distort price signals. As the Nordic model shows, a market-based, diverse and clean energy mix lowers energy costs. And yes, nuclear power is one of the key elements in this mix. Europe can do the same: scale renewables, strengthen our grids and develop long-term contract models. We must invest in grids. But this is not a cost; it is a down payment on lower energy bills, cheaper transport and industrial competitiveness. So, let's be clear: free markets, competition and private investments must lead our energy transition.

Madam President, the Clean Industrial Deal is not only about sustainability goals; it is about Europe's security and competitiveness. It's about resilience. A strong and sustainable industrial base means scaling up our economy and strengthening our defence industry. Without this, we keep being dependent on others. Let's be clear: we needed to get rid of Russian fossil fuels yesterday. An industry that can't be produced at home can't defend the home. Europe's supply chains for critical raw materials must be secured. We must utilise our key resources better and expand circularity. When it comes to regulation, we must finally build the single European energy market, supported by a free market economy, and ensure that our companies can keep up in the global competition. Weak industry means weak defence. Let us choose to scale up our sustainable industry for our autonomy, a strong economy and strong defence.

Madam President, the only winner from US export restrictions towards its allies is China. Restricting the supply of AI chips to Europe can stifle innovation we need. Of course, if the restrictions are directly towards only some EU countries, moving chips around the EU is not a problem for us. We Europeans will stick together. Nevertheless, we need short-term and long-term solutions. Let's also keep in mind that this is a two-way street. The US needs our manufacturing and the EU remains an important trade partner even to Trump. Our transatlantic partnership remains vital to navigating the geopolitics of today. So let's make a deal that works on both sides of the Atlantic. We should retain and strengthen the TTC, invest jointly in R&D, diversify our supply chains and secure better services and a healthier transatlantic tech ecosystem. However, we should also not be naive and must consider how prepared the EU is for escalating trade conflicts. I am worried about the EU's Chips Act in practice. What we need is a long-term vision for the EU's chip sector and less national fragmentation, excellence-based approach to funding and investment, right infrastructure and skilled workforce, and put effort into green manufacturing and a plan that works in practice for quantum chip production. Because no matter who is sitting in the White House now or in the future, we need to put Europe's security and competitiveness first.

Mr President, let's face it. Russia is testing us in the Baltic Sea. Europe needs short-term and long-term actions to protect our critical infrastructure. We need more effective sanctions against intentional sabotage, actors that flag and host fleet vessels, and investigations to identify and sanction also shadow vessels' ultimate beneficial owners. The EU and NATO should utilise AI-driven tools to detect suspicious activities near undersea infrastructure and have a strong enough presence in the Baltic Sea. Baltic Sea Member States should also have the right to inspect the cargo and documentation of vessels in their waters to discover the cargo's origin and destinations. In the long run, we need a unified regulatory framework for cable protection, reduced reliance on Chinese companies, develop advanced technologies for cable protection, monitoring and repair, and strengthen cooperation among Member States, NATO and our global allies.

The Chinese law is clear: if the Chinese government requests access to data from a Chinese company, it must do so. And we have to be very concerned about this. We have a data contract with the Yankees. We do not have it with China, and we cannot trust the Chinese authorities. That's why TikTok poses a completely different security threat than any other social media platform.

Mr President, TikTok is a danger to European democracy and security. Every user of this Chinese platform should understand that the second you log in to TikTok, you start giving your behavioural data to the Chinese Communist Party's propaganda machine for them to develop their services. When you click that cat video on TikTok or scroll to see your favourite influencer's page, you help terrorist countries like Russia to have a more impactful and more harmful tool to spread their disinformation, the concrete results of which we now see in Romania. For years we have been super worried about data flows to US companies developing their social media platforms with European data. At the same time our kids and my fellow colleagues in this House are giving free access to their data to help the Chinese regime and Putin. We have a data transfer agreement with the US. We don't have an agreement with China and I think it is realistic to say that we will never have. The EU's digital regulation is powerless in addressing the comprehensive security threat TikTok is posing. We must stop being naive, allowing such a platform open to Russian exploitation to undermine our democracy. We should ban TikTok in Europe until we can ensure it cannot be weaponised to distort democracy and spread Russian propaganda.

Madam President, yes, the Commission's autumn forecast shows a slight uptick in our economic outlook. But the challenges in the horizon are rising: protectionism, escalating geopolitical tensions led by Putin and Trump, and the crisis situation in the Middle East. Our economic stability and growth rely on open markets and rule-based ambitious trade. We need to ensure European companies have the ability to grow in an enabling home market. We need to act fast, finalise trade agreements, diversify supply chains, strengthen alliance on data use with the US, build rapidly one single entry point for our companies entering the EU market, harmonise and speed up our licensing processes, especially when it comes to the food sector, and make sure we have enough risk capital for our companies to grow and that there is a skilful workforce for them. The clock is ticking, Europe. We must act fast and lead, not react and follow.

Mr President, I come from south-eastern Finland, a stone's throw from the Russian border. Right now, the EU's border regions deserve special strategic attention, as they are at the forefront of supporting Europe's overall security. It is essential to strengthen border security and economic vitality based on sustainable growth. On the EU's eastern border, the identification and specialisation of regional strengths is a necessity. Subsidies are water carried into a well if they do not promote sustainable growth and leverage private – genuinely profitable – investments. Investing in infrastructure and directing funding to universities and growing companies are sensible investments. The strong innovation ecosystem of LUT University in Lappeenranta lays the foundation for the sustainable growth of the entire sub-region and the EU. An innovation focus is essential: hydrogen economy, clean water and energy solutions and the development of small-scale nuclear reactors – to name a few specific areas. Increasing the vitality of the EU's border regions strengthens Europe's overall security and is an investment in which the Union should be involved.

Mr President, Europe, we are losing this game. We need to stop giving big speeches on Europe's competitiveness and wanting to have European digital champions if we suffocate them with regulation at the same time. Regulatory burden, uncertainty and lack of capital to grow are among the reasons for companies to leave the EU. We must enable and not restrict use of data. We are losing our best and most promising companies to more agile markets. Finnish innovative start-up Solar Foods is struggling to launch their products here due to our heavy approval processes. Dutch digital champion Booking.com slams the EU over dumb regulation. We must streamline, cut and simplify, and remember that the devil is in the details. We need to hold the new Commission accountable and make sure they don't propose any new regulations in the field of digital. With concrete actions, we need to make the EU a place where innovation thrives and not dies under the paperwork.

Mr President, as far as we can see, a lot of ongoing work to enforce the DSA is progressing well and shows a serious commitment to protecting and empowering users online, by requiring platforms to assess, mitigate and act against their systemic risks and to provide the right content moderation tools to do so, as well as clear information to users on possible misbehaviour. This shows that the DSA can work well, but that is only the case when things are done correctly. This is not a tool for preventing something that might be said. Nothing should endanger freedom of speech. Politicising the enforcement of the DSA is an incredibly dangerous thing to do. The DSA is designed to uphold the rights of millions of Europeans by addressing systemic risks. It is not a tool for censorship, and abusing it in this manner will defeat the purpose of the law. Instead, the Commission needs to keep working to fine-tune enforcement so it works as uniformly and efficiently as possible in all Member States. This has to be evidence-based and process-focused. In this House, we are closely following the impact of the law and whether we need to review some of its elements in the future.