Speeches

Mr President, Madam Vice-President, I cannot begin this speech this afternoon here in Strasbourg without taking up the last words of Vice-President Ribera and without thanking the Socialist Group for the work, tenacity and effort to make an important decision; A decision that, in a way, also comes to discuss some of the rumors and threats that came to us from the other side of the Atlantic about the European ability to exercise its regulatory sovereignty. I believe that, apart from other issues that are being negotiated and that have to be discussed with the United States and with other countries, it is important that, with this decision, European citizens are certain and have the certainty that the European institutions - and, in this case, the Commission - enforce the laws that this Parliament passes and that, in this case, the last legislature passed. But beyond the courage and the need to implement our laws, in our continent we continue to see risks on freedom of expression and on the plurality of public debate, especially in digital networks. It is important that this fine not only remains a fine for concrete competitive behaviour, but also, in Parliament, that we are aware of the need to protect the ability and freedom to discuss and debate and to put an end to the captive and twisted debates that we see on some social networks.

Madam President, Commissioner, the truth is that one tries to maintain optimism, positive spirit, and sometimes it is not so simple. We have been talking for too many years about the Banking Union, the Capital Markets Union and, in this legislature, that Union of Savings and Investments. And the truth is that we still believe in it. And this report - and I would like to congratulate the rapporteur and all the shadow rapporteurs - shows that, in this Parliament, there is a broad consensus - not unanimous, but a broad consensus - to strengthen and improve the depth of the capital markets, to end the banking union at once, and I know that that is also on the Commission's agenda and I just want this report to somehow serve to redouble efforts, to redouble the commitment, so that we have a functioning banking union. We await the proposal to revise the supervisory framework in the banking union, which has to be a step forward in the Europeanisation of banking supervision as well and, of course, that package of capital markets proposals. Strength, encouragement and optimism for all, which – at least I – think I need.

Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Vice-President of the European Investment Bank, I believe that the report - and I would like to congratulate Francisco Assis on his good work on it - reflects the effort that the Bank has been making mainly in recent years, since Nadia Calviño has been President, to modernise and accelerate its pace of investment, but I wanted to limit my intervention to two points where I believe that the bank has to do something else. On the one hand, the European Investment Bank should support regions in energy transition, and the Just Transition Mechanism provides avenues for the EIB to act in those territories through Pillar 2 and Pillar 3, providing financing to the public and private sectors. I think we need to improve a lot there. My second comment – and this is a broad request from the S&D Group – is on the Bank’s efforts in social housing: I know that the Bank is working on that, but the effort has yet to be very substantial, because the problem runs throughout Europe.

Madam President, Commissioner, it is a pleasure to discuss at this moment the evaluation and implementation of the Recovery and Resilience Facility, which, as has been said previously, has been a key piece to jointly overcome, all Europeans united, the harsh crisis of COVID-19. Perhaps I can add two notes on what has been said: it is important that we spend well, it is important to speed up implementation, as the Commissioner said, but we need to find a solution by next summer. I understand that it is difficult to review the own resources decision referred to by the Commissioner, but in June 2026 we need to be able to continue funding projects that are already underway and I believe that there is broad agreement in this Parliament to request such an 18-month extension, which would facilitate legislative reform. There is a majority in this House for that legislative reform. Finally, today the President of the ECB writes in the Financial Times in favour of maintaining a risk-free asset in Europe. We need RRF for the future.

Madam President, Commissioner, first of all, I would certainly like to thank the rapporteur very much for his work in these months, a few months of discussion and debate in which we have been able to come up with a reasonable text, a text agreed between the pro-European forces that makes an analysis of the situation of the banking union. Now, the positive news I think ends there, because the banking union is languishing, and I think we have to be aware of this situation. We have been negotiating deposit insurance for more than ten years. We got a text in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs last parliamentary term, but we know nothing about the Council. We are negotiating in trilogues the revision of the resolution framework, where we find a Council with a text that moves diametrically away from the Commission's initial proposal, which does not meet the objectives that we all share - or that we in this House share - of trying to Europeanise resolution systems. Finally, if we do not continue, we must be aware that we either take the banking union seriously or we cannot continue wasting our time.

Madam President, I would like to congratulate MEP Wolters on this report and, of course, the Vice-President. My full support for the decisions on the implementation of the Digital Markets Act and the fines recently adopted by the Commission. It's a good way. I believe that, in terms of competition, I would like to convey two messages to the Commission very quickly: The first is that we know that the Commission is working on the review of the merger framework. We need larger companies in the European market, but I believe that, in order to be able to undertake that mission, we need to remove the obstacles that we have in the European market and that prevent the Commission services from considering the European market as the reference market in such operations. If the relevant market is domestic, we will not be able to grow companies, and I see a difficult way to facilitate these operations without making significant progress in consolidating the single market. The second concerns State aid: We need more aid, but we need an innovative system that allows companies, regardless of which state they are in, to have similar support.

Madam President, first of all, I extend my solidarity, support and affection to the mining family of Asturias and León. Coal mining has been the history of Asturias and has accompanied steel, which has been and continues to be the present and hopefully the future of our region. That is why I would like, secondly, to congratulate the Commission on first of all assuming the need to offer a future to this sector, a horizon. And I want to thank this report that orders the measures that we have to take, but that, in addition to ordering, it needs to already implement. We cannot delay in debates and discussions. I have to say that the revision of the CBAM, which the Commission has proposed within the framework of the omnibus package, raises serious doubts for me, because it opens up avenues or may open up avenues for disintermediation of the tariff. I welcome the activity to strengthen the safeguarding of steel, because we need to protect ourselves from imports of cheap steels and brown steels. The price of energy is key. And I believe it is necessary to re-emphasise the improvement of energy interconnections in order to strengthen the single energy market.

Madam President, Commissioner, an initial note to try to gain some optimism: The forecast for the European economy is that we will grow by 1% this year. It is little, but the United States faces a fall in activity in this first quarter of the year of more than 2.5%. So we already know what we should not do and we need to focus on what we do know and what the Commission is proposing with this report: this road map which I believe is welcomed by the majority in this House. In any case, I would like to make two points about the Clean Industry Pact, which I think - as I say - is correct and timely. The first is the need to improve funding mechanisms. If we are going to do industrial policy in Europe, we cannot do it in such a way that funding is decentralised. This creates a serious risk for the single market. I think we need to think about how to finance it. And, secondly, and being from Asturias, we expect on March 19 that Action Plan for steel, so necessary for territories like mine.

Mr President, Mr Vice-President, I believe that in this debate there are at least three points that I would like to highlight. The first concerns the debate on administrative burdens and simplification. My group is prepared to negotiate the omnibus package and negotiate how we can simplify European rules. But I believe that the real problem of administrative costs, which is none other than national barriers, which continue to impede the proper functioning of the single market, is being left out of the focus of the Commission and many of the honourable Members. And here there is an immense space for work and I would like to ask the Commission to broaden the focus, to look at those national regulations, because, in addition, in the report on the Competitiveness Compass I miss a greater vitality of the bet of the single market. We need a new Single Act, we need a determined impulse to consolidate capital markets, banks, energy, telecommunications... if we want to make industrial policy, if we want to make competition policy or review it. And we miss, obviously, in the end a little more clarity about the numbers, about the funding. But we'll have a lot more to talk about.

Mr President, Commissioner, Madam President, it is a pleasure to have you here and to take advantage of this debate that we have every year not only to discuss the details of the report that we are voting on tomorrow, but also to talk about monetary policy and the activity of the European Central Bank. And I believe that, in view of the indicators, the estimates, the data that we know, there is still room to reduce interest rates, and we believe that we must go there because growth rates are also very much off in the European Union as a whole. But believe me, in that margin to reduce interest rates there is a remarkable uncertainty, as you mentioned previously, and it is none other than the new government of Donald Trump in the United States and the tariff war that we seem to have started. I think it's important to be blunt: I think it is important that Europe strengthens its strategic autonomy and responds strongly, and there are instruments to do so that may not collide with the objective of price stability, and there are many. But, speaking of strategic autonomy, I would also like to say to the Commission and the ECB that my group, the Socialists and Democrats Group, is ready to negotiate the digital euro and we hope to make progress in the coming months, and that, moreover, if we want to improve strategic autonomy, we have to ensure the security of our European banking system. And when other jurisdictions like the U.S. seem to delay sine die With the implementation of Basel, I believe that in Europe we need to start talking about revising the equivalence regimes of US banks: We cannot share a race to reduce regulation in supervision.

Madam President, Commissioner, without a doubt, I think we could all agree on the need for such international standards for the crypto market. That is how I understood the Commission's words, appealing to the need to set these minimum standards. But certainly, looking at what we are seeing on the other side of the Atlantic, I think we should start reconsidering the good intentions and start working more to protect Europe, at a time when Donald Trump and even his wife are issuing their own currency - as my colleague Markus Ferber said - in the days before taking office, showing little respect, in my opinion, for institutionality itself. We should get the message in Europe, and I think the message we need to get is that we can't count on the U.S. Administration for years to come to any kind of minimal agreement on cryptocurrencies. Therefore, instead of appealing to the good intentions in which we have been committed for years, we should have a much more assertive position and be aware that this scenario will be almost impossible and that, therefore, we have to apply the MiCA Regulation - of course, the MiCA Regulation must be applied - but we also have to protect our financial sector, our banks and our insurance against possible impacts of financial instability derived from crypto beyond Europe. And we must also accelerate the negotiation to have a digital euro in Europe that allows us to offer our own response to the needs, apparently, of some investors.

Madam President, Commissioner, Mr Letta, it is a pleasure to have you here at a time when we are beginning to define the priorities of this mandate and, no doubt, accelerating the integration of the single market - especially in the area of services, where we still have significant problems, as you have stated in your report - is absolutely necessary. But you will allow me to tell you that what has caught my attention most in the report is the demand to avoid the flight of European savings to other jurisdictions. Because some of us in this House have been asking for years to reduce the current account surpluses of some countries - current account surpluses that, in some cases, reach double digits in relation to the GDP of those countries - and certainly in the debates we had here in these years, no one or very few were following me. And I think it is important that, now that we are asking for savings to be invested in Europe, we are able to explain to the House that what we are asking for is more domestic demand and reducing the current account surpluses that are stifling the growth of the European Union.

Mr President, Commission, it is always an honour to speak in this House and especially in debates such as the current one after a term of office. I wanted to thank the Commission as a whole. We have made a very remarkable effort to improve the fairness of tax systems. And, without a doubt, international agreements, such as the one reached within the framework of the OECD to put a minimum tax on large corporations, were significant steps in the need to improve tax justice. Because for decades we have accepted a downward competition in the taxation of national tax schemes that has undermined not only the progressivity of tax systems, but also their sufficiency, putting in jeopardy in many cases the sustainability and strength of the welfare state. And, after the issuance of debt that we have had to assume in the last crises, with the social challenges we face, it is necessary to recover the progressivity and sufficiency of the tax system. And it's okay that internationally, in institutions such as the G20, this debate moves forward with a commitment from Europe.

Mr President, Commissioner, it is certainly a pity that Commissioner Vestager has not been able to be with us in this debate, although I am obviously very grateful for her presence, because I wanted - and I think all of us here should - to thank her and the Commission as a whole for the work and effort of these years, and especially in this case that has allowed us to put a point and apart in this type of agreement that some States make with multinationals. We have worked hard in this last legislature to harmonize the tax of large companies, we have had to implement in Europe the OECD agreement to have a minimum rate and we should move quickly also in that pillar 1. I believe that judgments like this, which force a large multinational that has been evading or using tax avoidance strategies to tax the profits of the whole of Europe in Ireland, is, in my opinion, a point and apart. That is 13 billion that we have recovered for the citizens, for the European workers. And this is the way forward for the future Commission.

Madam President, we are undoubtedly debating this report at an important moment in which we must decide on the future lines, the lines of work, of this mandate that is beginning. And I would like to highlight two important issues in the report. Firstly, it is important to recognise the problems we continue to have in mind in order to consolidate the single market: We still don't have a capital market, we still don't have a full banking union. The report talks about the need to boost the energy union to also help reduce electricity prices or the union of telecommunications markets in the industrial sector. There is an industrial policy agenda linked to this single market and there is also a strong need for public investment capacity at European level. The pandemic crisis we managed to overcome quickly, much faster than previous crises, thanks to Next Generation EU. The Union needs a permanent instrument of public investment to help us revitalise the competitiveness of the European Union and ensure a future for our continent.

Mr President, first of all, I am grateful for this discussion in which we discussed the Basel III Agreement, but we also discussed the evolution of the banking union. I have finished my first speech by saying that we can be reasonably satisfied as a Parliament with the work done in this legislature. But we certainly cannot be complacent, because the challenges are still facing us and because the banking union is still not complete. With regard to the implementation of the Basel Agreement – and following the Commissioner’s explanations – it is true that what lies ahead is an important effort. There is a lot of level II regulation that we need to develop, and I would like to refer to the obvious need to implement these rules in time on 1 January next year as they are approved in this Regulation and in this Directive. When we talk about competitiveness and use competitiveness to demand in some cases fewer regulations, we are invoking an objective in a wrong way, because if we are really convinced that with this regulation we improve the safety of banks, we are really raising the competitiveness of the European banking sector and of the real economy as a whole, because there is nothing worse for competitiveness than banking crises such as those we have suffered in the years of the financial crises. Therefore, it is necessary to implement the Basel Agreement in time regardless of what other jurisdictions do, because that increases the competitiveness of the European economy. Allow me to dismiss this mandate by thanking in particular the shadow rapporteurs who have accompanied me in this negotiation: Othmar Karas, Gilles Boyer, Johan, Ville. Together we created a good negotiating environment with the Commission. I thank the Commissioner for her work and, of course, I am very happy to participate in this discussion at this part-session. I want to dismiss in some way also our dear Vice President Pedro Silva. Thank you very much for everything, Pedro. Well nothing, thank you very much and to continue with the debates.

Mr President, Commissioner, I was going to say Council, but there is no one there anymore; They're gone, sadly. And I think they've done well to leave, or that they've left has an explanation. And the explanation is that this Parliament has managed in recent weeks to finish the mandate by approving important legislative dossiers linked to the progress of the banking union and agreements in which the Council has been unable to weave pacts between themselves to this day. Last week, we voted in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs - thank you very much, Vice-President Karas - on the proposal to have European deposit insurance. And this morning, the plenary approved its negotiating position to review all bank crisis management. Both legislative reports are key and we have no Council position yet. And it seems that the Council does not want to listen to us. Anyway, they're bad. In any case, today we have also discussed the implementation of the review of the prudential framework for banks. We already have an agreement here with the Council and the Commission. I would like to thank all the shadow rapporteurs and our technical teams, who have accompanied the negotiation for - we could say - long years. I believe that, from Parliament's point of view, we can be reasonably satisfied with both our initial position and the final agreement with the Council. This Parliament wanted to implement the views of the Basel Committee as closely as possible to its recommendations. We believed and believe that some banks that use internal models to calibrate their capital requirements needed better instruments to improve their solvency. We have reached that agreement to set a minimum capital requirement for those banks that use internal models. In addition, we have accompanied it with transitional measures to allow the European economy to move closer to the much-needed regulatory and prudential standards. I also wanted to highlight that we have moved even faster than the Basel Committee recommended in the area of internalizing climate risks. We used to discuss the effects of climate change, and I think it's fair to recognize that we need to take more steps to look at how those climate risks can impact bank balance sheets. We have done something in this proposal and we will have to do more in the future. We have also introduced in European legislation a prudential treatment for exposures to crypto-assets in the case of bank balance sheets. We have also made progress in improving the governance of banks, the selection processes, the appointment of board members, the key positions of banks... And, as I say, I believe that we can conclude a great agreement that will accompany a vote this afternoon, where I believe that this broad majority will be reflected in this House. I am happy and satisfied with this progress in improving the solvency of banks in Europe and in the banking union. We would have liked to go a little further in this area to facilitate the location of liquidity and capital in the banking union as a whole, but we will do so in the next legislature. Of course, as I say, it is a timely and necessary debate, because this morning's vote to review the banking crisis management framework and last week's on European deposit insurance allow this Parliament to run for the next European elections with all - I repeat, all - duties fulfilled.

Mr President, Commission, it is a pleasure to conclude this mandate with this vote and this debate because in this legislature we have experienced – as both Commissioners recalled – difficult times: the pandemic or the start of Putin's war in Ukraine. Both challenges required flexibility from a fiscal point of view and that we take time to allow a response that would sustain activity in these difficult times. But it's also true that we can't go on without rules sine die; We need to have rules that guide fiscal policies. I welcome, first of all, the broad consensus to reject the previous rules that forced austericide after the financial crisis of just over a decade ago, and that the consensus to reject those rules would lead to a new agreement towards a smooth debt reduction according to the situation of each state. I am confident that this will be the case and that this Parliament will closely monitor the implementation of these rules in the next parliamentary term.

Mr President, Commissioners, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, we are debating this Semester report at a key moment in this mandate because it coincides with the discussions on the review of the economic governance of the Union, and I wanted to congratulate, first of all, the rapporteur, René Repasi, on the work he has done to achieve these commitments. We have certainly solved some problems and we have before us a process of balanced and moderate fiscal consolidation. But there are substantive problems that, as the report rightly says, are yet to be resolved. And the investment effort that the European Union has to make is extraordinary. The green transition, the digital transition or social efforts need a European Pillar that can help co-finance these efforts and guarantee us a Union with growth, prosperity, but also equality and social balance. And for that, the review of NextGenerationEU or the maintenance of the unemployment insurance that Nicolas Schmit led in this mandate are essential.

Mr President, Commissioner, President Calviño, first of all, I would like to congratulate you on the recent election to lead the Union's main financial and growth-promoting institution. And excuse also some veleities of national politics that end up reaching too many places, where they should not. I have little to add to the summary of the priorities for this new stage of the EIB. I believe that in the report that we adopted in the European Parliament there is a clear identification of the need to make progress in that support against climate change and the digital transition, and I very much liked the reference - also important for this House - to the cooperation that the Bank has to do, including in financing social housing or social activities that also help improve cohesion. But really, the big challenge, regardless of the different priorities, is investment in the European Union. We have just concluded a tax rules agreement - a good agreement - but Europe needs more funding and also needs it at EU level and the European Investment Bank is called to be a key player in that transition.

Mr President, Commissioner, this is an important debate at a necessary moment. A debate to approve, to discuss the multiannual financial framework, the Union budget, but also a debate to reflect on the need to promote a European industrial policy. The STEP Platform is a first step. The European Parliament has certainly made tremendous efforts. We have negotiated loyally with the Council, even though the Council - let us be clear - has been blatantly swift in its negotiations with the European Parliament. These days we knew the opinion of Mario Draghi working on that report on the competitiveness of the European Union, demanding more funding. Understanding that even if we have reached an agreement on the tax rules governing the budgets of the Member States we need much more private, but also public funding. Much more funding to address the green transition, the digital transition, societal challenges, challenges also in the field of defence, and I think we should be clear in this debate between us. Even with all our efforts, we still do not have the necessary funding to respond to these challenges at European level. The STEP Platform has been a good proposal. The European Parliament has negotiated, as I say, with loyalty, even though the Council's agreement dramatically reduced the already small contribution proposed by the Commission and substantially increased by the European Parliament. It is a first step, there is a European framework to define strategic projects, but with the fiscal rules that we have agreed and having, by the way, funding available from Next Generation EU that has not yet been requested by the States, we should reflect on how to answer that question that Mario Draghi was asking us these days: how to improve the budget allocation of the European Union?

Mr President, Commissioner, first of all, I wanted to start my brief speech by congratulating Parliament's rapporteur, Isabel Benjumea, on her great work and, of course, the shadow rapporteurs who have collaborated, such as Paul Tang on behalf of the S&D Group, because it is an important project - as has been said - to advance this capital markets union. Yesterday we talked about the Immediate Payments Regulation, a very simple regulation to explain to all citizens, because who has not made a bank transfer? Explaining the directives we are reviewing today is somewhat more complicated. But I would simply like to inform European citizens that with this revision of two directives we intend to improve the management of savings throughout Europe, consolidate European savings so that they can be allocated to the real economy, to facilitate non-bank financing as well - as has been said - and of course improve control, information to small investors, to retail investors, who need supervision and control to know how to operate in the markets. We therefore welcome this progress, already in the final part of the legislature. And let us hope that the Capital Markets Union will advance even further in the next legislature.