Speeches

Madam President, Commissioner, ECON has only very limited responsibility in this file, and we focus our work on avoiding fragmentation of the market, keeping the level playing field and promoting the financial tools apart of subsidies. Nevertheless, this file has very far-reaching economic consequences. Transformation of the economy to low emission and sustainable use of resources requires a lot of changes, and certainly includes transformation costs. Only in the case that at the same time we mobilise new investments, on balance we will achieve the stronger economy at the end. So, the competitiveness of the supply side that is the goal of this file is very, very important, but at the same time we should also consider that measures used by some of our competitors, notably the US in Inflation Reduction Act, that are focusing on strengthening the demand side should be considered too. Maybe they will serve as a valuable contribution to our efforts, support and promote the necessary transformation of our economy.

Mr President, let me just comment a little bit on the programme of Presidency presented here. First, obviously there must be discussion on the brutal attack on Israel and we must speak with one voice, not only against Hamas terrorism, but also make a plan for days to come. On Ukraine, it was rightly said that support must continue: winter is coming and this is important to speed up humanitarian support. But let me share the frustration that we are not able to move in the problem of frozen assets even after many, many debates, so progress is badly needed. On the economy, we also should not forget that winter represents a stern challenge for us, and I hope that the Council will reflect on that. It would be good if the Council emphasised that some dossiers have to be finished, like the fiscal rules, and this is of very high importance for us. Also we need a discussion on the Green Deal, on how to make sure that the Green Deal works. It is up to Member States to take the necessary measures and this is very important for the future of Europe.

Madam President, in my comments I want to focus on the economy. It took a big part of your speech – a very good speech – and I guess this is a big, if not central, issue. We are not facing a problem of high unemployment; we are facing different problems, with low income and big uncertainty. And this must be addressed. I guess it’s fair to say that the European economy is lagging behind the best in many fields. We have to do something with that, in spite of the fact that we are doing well in some others. I guess it is the right time to call someone like Mario Draghi, who is best suited to do a really good analysis of our competitive situation, and Member States and politicians must listen to him and act. It’s almost late. Concerning the initiatives, I can appreciate what you said. Wind energy – key for cheap and available energy. Red tape for SMEs – this is absolutely essential because they are costing us the growth and they are the prosperity. And as well, the other topics that you have mentioned are very important, for example, promoting fair trade and not allowing the others to be undermined through unfair subsidies. So I hope we will act and we will act quickly, because time is running out.

Mr President, dear colleagues, just a few minutes ago we talked about SMEs being backbone of the economy, and we still have to say that the middle class should be backbone of our society. But these days, the middle class is under pressure, under economic pressure and under risk. High fiscal deficit, high debt: this all increases the risk that the middle class will be taxed more. Changes in the economy are putting a lot of well-paid jobs under jeopardy. At the same time, inflation is bad for middle class. It is eating into income. It is reducing saving and pushing up the cost of real estate. That is especially bad for the middle class. Here, especially in the European Parliament, we made a big effort to protect the most vulnerable low-income people from changes in the economy and different risks. It’s much more difficult to come up with something like that for the middle class. Nevertheless, keeping the government expenditures under control, collecting taxes better, reducing the tax evasion and finding a way how to tax better high income is the only way how to protect middle-income people from increase of taxation. Making economy work, assuring stable economic growth is the way how to create the jobs, including the jobs that are well-paid that are good for people to shift to the middle class. So, we are the same topic as always. If we make our economy work, the middle class will benefit. If not, there are no shortcuts.

Mr President, dear colleagues, I guess the case for clear and strong support of Ukraine is absolutely obvious. Those who say different are wrong and they are putting our security and the security of the world in jeopardy. So that I am pleased to see that the Council wants to react and extend the support for Ukraine as needed. I appreciate also the note in the Council conclusion about strengthening the legal framework for the sanctions as well as paying more attention to the needs of displaced people and the countries that are hosting them. Still, I guess more things can be done. Let me now echo what was said here a few minutes ago. I’m talking about hundreds of billions of frozen money by the Russian state. This should be money that should be used first to cover the costs of the Russian aggression in Ukraine. I know that it’s not easy, but it’s not impossible. And I am a little bit frustrated that we are not moving forward. There are also small things during the plenary. We have heard discussion about Olympic Games. I guess it’s obvious it’s not an EU decision on who is in the Olympic Games, but we should have a clear position and we should make a big effort to avoid that something totally unacceptable will happen in the Olympic Games, like that people that are openly supporting the killing of innocent Ukrainian people will joining the games. Also, last but not least, economy should be on our spotlight, but this is probably for a different debate.

Madam President, I firmly believe that competitiveness, growth and investments must go back to the top of our agenda. We have good stories to tell, but not only good ones. Starting with the good: during COVID, we proved that we have top world-class research and we are able to deliver. On a climate front, we created, I guess, the most transparent framework for decarbonisation of the economy that should help firms to form their investment strategies. Also, a lot of European countries are on the very top of the competitive rankings. Still, it’s not enough at all. We are not using sufficiently the potential of the single market. Our policies are fragmented. We don’t use the EU budget to motivate EU policies because the EU budget is basically nationalised. We have too much red tape, not only on EU level and on the Member State level and we are not progressing. Last but not least, it seems that we are losing ground in some research and our education is not always up to the level. During the energy crisis we proved that we can deliver very quickly, very effectively, in an innovative way. We should make it the norm. We should also understand that in most cases it is not the regulation and public money that makes the growth. This is private money and this is where we should be focusing. I guess we must do better and we must deliver, not just have a debate, the policies and the papers, but the real actions that trigger the change. We need the change.

Mr President, dear colleagues, first on migration: I highly value the ability of the ministers to find the agreement on solidarity that is respecting the will of as many Member States as possible. I guess this is a good result, but obviously it is not the end. We still have to work on this issue. We have to work on the return policy. We have to work on making sure that people that can stay quickly get the right to stay. But I hope that the spirit of cooperation and solidarity will stay. Secondly, we must keep momentum on our response to the Russian aggression in Ukraine, especially, I guess, on three points. The first is to keep clear evidence of the crimes and the damages caused by Russia. The second, as soon as possible, is to distribute at least part of the seized funds to Ukraine to cover at least some costs of the Russian aggression. And last but not least, we must keep focusing on the third countries that may be overcoming the sanctions and may be providing Russia with military support. Last, not least, and it was already mentioned here, we should focus more on competitiveness. I guess the net-zero industry is a good step, but I wonder if we should not take a more comprehensive approach of at looking how far we are, where we are, to make sure that Europe and its economies will stay competitive or will enhance its competition on the global economy.

Mr President, some countries, in budget policy, even under current complicated rules, are doing well; some are not. Without any doubt, their people will pay the price because the consolidation of excessive debt is expensive. Fiscal rules can easily spill over and can affect the economy of all the EU. So, as a consequence, we should avoid countries getting into fiscal crisis. The Commission proposal is overdue but, we should say, better late than never. By chance, it is consistent with the EPP view that was expressed in the report that was approved by a big majority of the plenary. The expenditure rule is more straightforward and it provides guidance even in the short run. And this is very, very important. I guess we should put this proposal quickly into life without creating loopholes by unnecessary exemptions. The priority expenditures of the governments must be financed first and not last, and we should consider if some EU priorities should not be financed directly through the EU budget. This House has clearly agreed that we should not leave the climate debt to be paid by our kids. The same must be true for the debt created or expressed by money through bad fiscal policy because this is how responsible politics should work.

Mr President, opening statement of High Representative and Commission President sum up well where is our relationship with China. It’s not easy listening and nice one. We have unbalanced economic relationship. We are depending on China raw materials, technologies and products. There are concerns about security, especially in the case of Taiwan, and in the world of global politics, especially after Russian attack on Ukraine. We know that China is not playing on our favour. To correct current disequilibrium that was built over the decades by wrong policies we need to act now, and anyway, it will take many years to change it. To do it we need a consistent, clear and transparent EU policy that is not undermined by short—term interests of some Member States. I hope this debate will help us to get to that soon, as we badly need it.

Madam President, I am grateful that we are talking about the economy after some time because it is a very important topic, so let me make two takes. The first, I don’t believe that the economy should be run by subsidies or by state aid. This should be used very carefully and we are in stage that we are considering we should not forget that the driving force should be competition and competitiveness, together with transparent and simple rules. The second, we should not forget when comparing with the US that we pay a high cost for our policy being fragmented. Where the US is taking one policy that is valid across the EU, we have very often 20 different fragmented policies. The second points I want to remind us that we are struggling with very high inflation, and high inflation is boosted by expansionary fiscal policy. We should more discuss about correction of the fiscal policy and about introduction of much more better fiscal rules across the EU.

Madam President, dear colleagues, dear guests, let me contribute to this debate by adding some economic points that I consider important. So, first and foremost, high inflation is evil. It increases the cost. It reduces the value of savings. We should support ECB and national central banks in getting inflation under control. Fiscal policy should not undermine this support. Second, fiscal policy should be targeted to the most vulnerable and firms most affected. In order to deliver this result, it should not undermine the disinflationary policy. Data showing that only a small fraction of the support is targeted are not good. On energies, two factors should be carefully considered. First of all, subsidies to energy prices should not undermine our main goal; our main goal is to provide security of supply to our households and the firms. If we reduce price too much, there is a risk that we will run out of the gas. The second, we should not undermine fair competition on the single market. The single market is the most precious economic asset of the European Union, and we must make sure that it functions properly. I believe we can manage this bad crisis caused by Vladimir Putin. It should not lead to a deep recession. It should not hit the most vulnerable badly. To reach this result, the policies must be implemented in a smart and targeted way, and should not undermine each other and also should not undermine significant risks that we are avoiding.

Madam President, let me start on Ukraine. I fully share the statements of the Commission President: acts of Russia are acts of terror. Our reaction must be to show more commitment to all fronts to the fight of Ukrainians. At the same time, I believe it’s time to formalise more our plans on how to support Ukraine reconstruction. We can go farther. We can appoint people, set up the structure and start work and do it now. On energy, I believe we need more cooperation among the Member States. Energy plans that are based on subsidising the cost of energy to a mere fraction of the market price can undermine energy security, can create big political tensions, and at the same time can undermine the functionality of the market. These plans are not the way forward. We need more cooperation on this and sustainable economic support for our households and businesses.

Mr President, dear colleagues, inflation is a big threat. When putting together fiscal support for the economy we should have in mind that if it leads to fiscal expansion, this inflation will be more difficult or more costly. And the highest cost for inflation is always paid by the people. So that’s why redirecting of existing money and using new resources like windfall tax is a must. The second: energy savings are still in the centre. Issuer energy savings and quick build—up of new clean, effective resources is the best way how to reduce the risk and reduce the costs. Last but not least, we should not forget about keeping single market functioning. We should rethink if more stringent or at least coordinated state-led rules are not the best way to promote efficiency of the single market and avoid disruptions. Last but not least, we shouldn’t forget that Putin’s policy is likely leading to world global recession. If it happens, we shouldn’t forget that the highest price is paid by the least developed countries.

Mr President, dear colleagues, dear guests, it was great to see such a strong sense of unity here of all, except of a very, very few. I guess it’s clear what should be our reaction to escalation of the situation and increase of the risks. First, this is political support, at least as strong as was shown today, this morning. The second, economic support, I mean, economic sanctions and as well, obviously the financial support of Ukraine. We also should not forget the humanitarian part of the problem. There are millions of people in Ukraine that have lost their homes and they can suffer in winter, and they count on our support. I also very much appreciate statements of the Commission on the energy. Very good proposals from the Commission can help us to avoid huge economic risks this winter and later, this is very important, and also keep the social stability that is needed for continuation of current right course of our policy.

Madam President, Mr Vice-President, Prime Minister, from my point of view, your speech was an excellent start to the Czech Presidency and I hope that this will continue. I very much appreciate your call for the creation and maintenance of unity and the search for compromise, because that is what the European Union stands for, as we know. I very much appreciate the references to Václav Havel both from you and from the President of the European Commission, and I think that the motto "Europe as a task" is very well chosen. So let me remind you of three tasks that I consider to be crucial. The first thing you talked about is to maintain a clear, comprehensible and tough position on Russia's unjustifiable aggression in Ukraine and to be prepared to stop gas supplies, which is a huge task. I see the second task for our Presidency in completing as many trilogues as possible, especially on the most important dossiers. Our companies, our citizens need to be sure what our goals are and what our policies are. In particular, the completion of the key files in the ‘Fit for 55’ area is, in my view, a task for our Presidency and I hope that you will succeed in it. Thirdly, in order to succeed in everything, we must, as you mentioned, be able to listen to each other and seek the right compromises. I can assure you that this is how Parliament works. At the same time, we should not forget that we must explain these compromises to our citizens, explain why these solutions are good not only for Czech citizens, for Estonians, Finns, Germans and Austrians, and for all Europeans. This is the only way to maintain the necessary support for the European Union and, at the same time, to achieve our objectives at the least cost. I wish you every success.

Mr President, Commissioner, guests, dear colleagues, the OECD agreement was a great success. It was a political success that was concluded by the underwriting of the agreement. Now we are turning this political success into economic success. And here I firmly believe that whether we implement or not implement agreement is decisive for the future of this very, very important agreement. And this is also of potential benefit for us, not only globally. So that’s why the EU bears enormous responsibility in starting the implementation of this very important agreement. The EU is a very democratic society based on the rules, and it’s right that within these rules there is unanimity principle. But I believe that the unanimity principle that brings strong power to the states must be balanced by the responsibility. So that’s why I call on the Member States to use this right in a responsible way. In this case, if they will not be responsible, I guess it’s time to find an alternative way.

Madam President, dear Vice—President, dear colleagues, the EU effort to protect the environment and climate has already lasted for decades. Increasing climate risks, global agreements on one hand, and technological improvement of development on the other hand, requires urgently speeding up our effort. I guess this is entirely logical and this is right. So from the Green Deal, we have got to climate law as a binding commitment for us and to implement this commitment Fit for 55. We went through very intense debate about all the packages and now it’s time to vote. From my perspective, there are two goals. The first is that we must make sure that Fit for 55 is fit for 55, not fit for 50, not fit for 48, but for 55. That is, for me, the first objective. The second, also very important, is to guide the economy and society through transition in such a way that there will be the highest added value possible for the citizens and for businesses, and that those that are vulnerable will be protected as well as possible. I hope we will deliver this result in the vote this week and, more importantly, that this will be the result of the trilogue.

Madam President, what we are debating today is, I believe, badly needed progress on the global level to address tax avoidance, tax evasion and unfair tax competition. In my view, it is a great success that more than 100 countries have signed up to this agreement. My dear colleague Ms Lalucq said that this is an historical agreement, and I tend to agree. As is clear, this is not an EU proposal, it is the implementation of a global agreement. I firmly believe that the approach taken by the Commission, to avoid gold-plating and efforts to improve the text, was the right one and it has my full support. I am also glad that after the debate that Ms Lalucq has described, we are presenting to the Plenary a text that simply confirms that we support this global agreement, and we believe we should move forward. And I must express gratitude to our rapporteurs’ team that we were able, after some discussion, to get to this stage. The European Parliament only provides the opinion. It is a matter for the Council to agree, but I guess it’s very important what kind of message we send to the Council and also to the Europeans. I hope that the message will be first an urgent call for the Council to go forward without hesitation, to approve and start to implement the agreement; secondly, I believe it should be a signal of the great appreciation of Europeans that there is an ability to find a global agreement on such an important topic; and last not least, I believe it should be an urgent call on other countries to go forward and implement this. I hope Parliament will provide this signal tomorrow, with a very strong majority. Once more, let me say thank you for the good cooperation with the other rapporteurs.

Mr President, dear colleagues, dear guests, the cruel, illegal and irresponsible attack of Putin’s Russia on Ukraine has killed so far thousands of people, brought full—scale war to Europe and destroyed the remaining naive trust in a rule—based relationship with Russia. Economic and social implications are only part of this, as Esther de Lange mentioned in her speech. But this is the part that shouldn’t be neglected. We are dealing with a difficult combination of high inflation that will be boosted by the war. The implication for some Member States of high inflows of refugees, as well as disruption for businesses for firms that had ties with Russia or Ukraine. Lack of public confidence is only completing the picture. Most of the economic forecasts are still assuming a very moderate impact on economic growth, in the magnitude just slightly above 1%. This is something that we can deal with, but these assumptions are based on the condition that there is no disruption of energy supply to Europe. We should also have in mind that the impact is not equally spread. Anyway, we must take some policy action. This should be fact—based, but should be effective and quick. First, we must get ready for an interruption of the gas supply. Everyday Moscow can decide to cut the supply. Better preparation means that the damaging costs will be lower. Secondly, I guess it’s economically rational to react with domestic, social and economic policy, especially on high energy prices. But at the same time, instead of building a permanent support mechanism, we should speed up the introduction of renewables and energy efficiency. We must make sure that we reduce the red tape and any other measures that are slowing down the economy. More economic growth means also lower unemployment and smaller problems of the fiscal policy. Last not least, we must redirect EU funds to deal with the current challenges and use the resources that we have effectively.

Madam President, let me be very short. Maybe it’s time to speak less and act more. So let me ask the Council first to drastically reduce or eliminate the cash flow to Russia for purchasing gas and oil. Second, to take measures that will minimise the negative impact across the EU of these steps. Last not least, in order to support millions of Ukrainian refugees, to use as much as possible of EU money to assist the countries that are welcoming these millions of people.

Mr President, let me start by saying that I have just come back from the meeting outside supporting Ukraine, and I am sure that the minds of many of us are with the people suffering as a result of the attack of Russia on Ukrainian territory. But in spite of that, we have to work. By the vote in this plenary, we will conclude the work that has lasted for more than a year. With my colleagues, we had many expert meetings and we received a very good report from the European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS). This was about how to formulate the recommendations, how to improve the EU dimension of tax policy, how to improve the collection of taxes due, to reduce the cost of compliance and also uncertainty for taxpayers, and to better use the technology of the 21st century. The result is the report with a recommendation to the Commission on fair and simple taxation supporting the recovery. It refers to the Commission Action Plan and the 25 initiatives in the area of VAT, business and individual taxation. The report also contains a reflection of the Commission’s work, including the more recent communication of business taxation and the work done by the OECD. The war in Ukraine has, in my view, increased the urgency of this topic. There will be consequences of the war on the EU economy as well as on the global economy. Surging energy prices are one of the most visible consequences. The growth of the EU economy will be negatively affected, and I believe that there will be a justified case for some well targeted and efficient fiscal interventions. Both these facts – the slowing down of economic growth and fiscal intervention – will lead to a higher fiscal deficit. In combination with the impact of the COVID crisis, countries will end up with higher debt, fiscal deficit and the urgent need to put their fiscal houses in order. Usually, the measures should concern both sides of the budget, but instead of increasing taxes it would be much better to properly collect the taxes that are due. Also, by reducing the cost of compliance, companies will be left with more money to invest, to grow and to promote economic growth. While tax policy is mostly in the hands of the Member States, there is also a strong EU dimension. A significant part of tax fraud or tax evasion has a cross-border dimension, and the high cost of tax compliance is a reality, especially for SMEs doing business in the single market. I believe that the European Parliament should play its part in pushing legislators to reduce the risks and cost to honest taxpayers as well, and fight to prevent tax evasion, tax avoidance and tax fraud. Digitalisation can help greatly. During our work on the report it became clear that some Member States are lagging behind. There is an increasing risk that the development of a digital system would not go hand in hand with the creation of standards simplifying tax compliance in the single market. This risk is rising. That is why we call for the creation of a single standard and development of a digital mechanism for tax compliance, doing so early enough before countries start to create their own, incompatible standards. I mentioned the SMEs that are the foundation of our economy. Instead of talking about support, we should, among other things, focus on ensuring that they do not pay huge amounts of money just to ensure tax compliance when they operate in the single market. We also ask the Commission to consider the introduction of a unique pan-European income tax regime for small enterprises and start—ups. We also want to address the issue concerning the uncertainty of tax residence. We know that the VAT gap is large and, according to experts, it will become even higher after COVID. We propose a number of ways to reduce this gap. It is also essential to simplify procedure. That’s why we recommend the Commission moves forward the adoption of the single EU VAT registration process and the single EU VAT number by 2023, and to consider standards for an online reporting obligation, especially in cross-border trade. In the report, we also look at business taxation communication, and we very much welcome it. For example, we would like to support it through the introduction of a single and harmonised corporate income tax return form to support the BEFIT framework. Furthermore, we call for the debt-equity bias to be addressed. Obviously, we support the OECD initiative too. We also echo the previous Commission presentation statement concerning Article 116 in order to promote the change needed. I believe that this is a good list of initiatives and I was delighted to see that, at the ECON vote, there was very wide support. It was reached by very good, open—minded cooperation among all the rapporteurs, and I want to thank them for that. Last but not least, the possibility to consult with the Commission was of great help. Let me also thank our support staff, our assistants and the group employees. Let me conclude here and wish that the improvement of EU tax policy will play an important role in allowing fiscal policy to address unprecedented challenges in the consolidation phase later on, as well as in promoting the recovery that will hopefully come in the near future, not just here but also, I hope, in Ukraine. Finally, I would ask you to please support our report.

Mr President, last year we made a big mistake. We allowed Russia to squeeze our gas market. Most likely, the mistake was a consequence of naivety vis-à-vis Putin’s Russia, but also the belief of the Member States that they have the right to choose their energy mix allows a lack of cooperation and almost no coordination. We paid a high price and European risk management failed because we didn’t even interpret the data well at the end of last year. Today, we are facing a much larger problem. Putin’s war in Ukraine is killing thousands of innocent people, and we must do everything to stop it. At the same time, as a consequence, we are facing the problem we are talking about today as we are facing the energy price crisis. I am quite glad that the Commission has presented its communication today. I guess it’s a good one, but we must get it from paper to reality. I am also sad that some people, including the top politicians from some Member States, instead of speeding up the necessary measures, are scaring people. I guess this is not the right way. I believe we can, and we will, manage this crisis and, after all, the EU will get stronger, with a better energy union. We will become safer and we will secure affordable energy. But we must act. We must act now and together.

Madam President, the Commission President rightly said that this conflict was about democracy, about values and about freedom. And she’s right. But also in such a conflict, diplomacy plays a very important role. It seems to me that it was the rather clear position of NATO, the first stance of US diplomacy and efforts of some European politicians that turned the situation to the better. EU foreign policy didn’t play a sufficient role. I guess this is another wake up call for us. We need such a foreign policy that would work and that would be recognised. European countries also should invest more in the military. We cannot afford to be again the free rider of NATO. Also, we must be much better prepared for conflicts with countries that are an important supplier of energy, like Russia. Not ex—post evaluation, but ex—ante assessment of the risk and sufficient guard, how to protect our people and how to protect our economy. We shouldn’t fool ourselves. Despite easing the pressure, Russia is still sponsoring war in East Ukraine. Millions of Ukrainians are suffering, and we have troubles to find the right way to help them and also protect our interest. At the same time, I believe that the politics of Mr Putin are getting more aggressive and less predictable. We, again, should not be naive. Suffering by his country wouldn’t change his mind, because it doesn’t affect his well—being. Only very bold sanctions can have an impact. So the next time, we must be much more better prepared than this time.

Mr President, energy union, in my view, is one of the most important and functional policies of the European Union. We are step by step introducing efficient rules for market functioning and reducing the threat linked to energy imports. But we must look into the future. So what would be on my agenda? First of all, we must keep developing and enforcing the rules promoting market efficiency, for everyone, everywhere. Secondly, natural gas will play a very important role in the future. To reduce the risk of the market volatility that we have seen just weeks ago, we must develop better storage and especially better management of this storage. So we need better rules for that. A better network for transition of electricity is important and necessary for better use of renewable sources of energy. As we know, some renewable energy sources are the cheapest sources of electricity for the time being. That is how the investment and energy union can contribute to more extensive use of these resources and, at the same time, decarbonisation and also lower prices for energy for households and firms within the EU. I hope the energy union will deliver all these goals.

Mr President, this agreement shows the ability of more than 130 countries to agree. Having signatures below such a complicated technical agreement in a politically sensitive area shows that we can agree, and now I guess without any delay we should implement. This agreement doesn’t mean that we solved most of the tax issues in the European Union. I can name a huge tax gap, especially in the VAT area; high compliance costs especially for our SMEs; complication for firms that want to be active in the European single market. This is the list of our troubles. I wonder, if 130 countries can agree under the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) framework – and now I am turning to you, Mr Logar – why can 27 countries not agree under the EU framework and solve at least some of the very important tax problems within our Union. Thank you very much. I hope we will also move forward.