Speeches

Mr President, High Representative, colleagues, last week the US endorsed a €57 billion military support package for Ukraine. Even Winston Churchill knew it. “You can always count on the Americans to do the right thing — after they have exhausted all the other options.” I repeat my call: we also need to do everything possible from Europe – and that is more than we do today – to support Ukraine in that fight for freedom and against the Russian aggression. As far as Russian assets are concerned, I proposed months ago that they be used as collateral for a long-term and substantial loan to Ukraine. That's not confiscation. Let Russia pay for Ukraine's support. By the way, this morning Putin made it clear that this is a sensitive issue. I would say: That's good. Make no mistake: In Ukraine, it is about much more than just the war on the ground. China, Iran and North Korea actively support Putin's aggression, financially, economically and militarily. If Putin won, it would be a great but disastrous victory for the world's leading dictatorships. We must do everything we can to prevent that.

Mr President, Commissioner, colleagues, the objective of fiscal rules is to pursue sound public finances for the benefit of our society and our economy. They must ensure that future generations are not burdened with the consequences of over-indebtedness. Moreover, and this is often forgotten today, a monetary union simply cannot survive without fiscal discipline. The new fiscal rules that are now in place offer flexibility so that important investments, for example in infrastructure and defence, can continue. At the same time, they also impose discipline, but this will only happen if the Commission is prepared to raise the bar behind the door if necessary. I'm afraid that's not going to happen enough. One must be able to intervene in a credible and effective way if the budget of a Member State is derailed, as is very clearly the case today, for example, in my home country of Belgium. Opting for more debt building at European level is an irresponsible way forward. Now that more and more Member States are at the end of their Latin budgets and debt, the debt economy is entering a new and dangerous phase. That's irresponsible. If countries do not have sufficient fiscal capacity, the answer is not debt-building at European level, but a well-thought-out clean-up, coupled with growth-enhancing reforms. Take Ireland: 12 years ago, 120% debt-to-GDP, now 40%. How? By more or less balancing the budget, reforming it and stimulating growth. It's that simple.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, next year’s budget layout, and by extension all subsequent ones, including the multiannual framework, are in fact in need of a paradigm shift. We are dragging ourselves from format to revision, when it is abundantly clear that the current budgetary framework is no longer fit to respond to the many real challenges facing the European Union today. We're just not ready for it on a budget. A paradigm shift in spending is necessary, a shift away from what I call subsidy mania – covering everything with government-driven subsidies – towards actively stimulating the private sector, so that future-oriented investments get all the opportunities, without being squandered by governments and bureaucracy. In budgetary terms, the European Union is still too committed to the priorities of the past, such as cohesion policy in particular, which, as a result, put a heavy burden on the future. That slows us down and we have to change that.

Mr President, Minister, Commissioner, the European Semester is the cycle through which economic and fiscal policies must be aligned, prosperity and growth must be sustained, and our competitiveness must be safeguarded. Those are the big goals. So let's make the right decisions. Starting with the protection and strengthening of the Single Market. Moreover, this single market can be made much more effective, provided that the rules are adapted and simplified. In order to grow the many innovative start-ups that we do have, it is necessary to complete the Capital Markets Union. There we have a real competitive disadvantage vis-à-vis the US, and we must vigorously refrain from unfair competition from outside the EU. And Last but not least: We must dare to move away from subsidy mania. That avalanche of government-driven subsidies is suffocating, not to mention fraud and misuse of funds. Give the private sector the incentives and space to get started with innovative investments.

Mr President, Commissioner, Council Presidency, this revision of the MFF proved to be the most feasible solution. For Ukraine, by the way, our support does not come a day too early and, unfortunately, much more support will be needed to defend the country and ourselves. I deeply regret that this revision also entails a serious reduction in support for the successful Horizon Europe programme. There are undoubtedly other categories of expenditure within the EU where savings should be more relevant. Whether or not to invest decisively in the future will be a determining factor for the European Union. Leading research, development and innovation is the best guarantee of growth and jobs for the future – and the best guarantee of a realistic sustainable transition. Unlike other expenditure, the European level can make an important contribution to this. Colleagues, this review was the highest achievable, but at the same time a missed opportunity. Circumstances require a different approach: structural reforms in the budget. As long as we don't, we will be dragging ourselves from one revision to another or from a proliferation of budgets.

Mr President, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the fight against inflation has not yet been fought. Bringing this struggle to a successful conclusion is the most important contribution the ECB can make to solving the many challenges we face today. And there are quite a few. So I call on you to resist the lobbying of the financial markets, and also of politics, to start overturning the interest rate turmoil now. In this, and indeed more generally, the ECB must absolutely maintain its independence. It is crucial for the future. Financial markets need to learn that there are limits to debt-based financial constructions. The creation of real added value must become the body motto of financial constructions and innovations. Political authorities, to which I count all of us in this House, must themselves take responsibility for budgetary reorganisations which are indeed necessary. To seek solace in monetary flexibility, so to speak, as a solution to budget and debt problems, is to abdicate, is to flee from responsibility. We can and should expect – even demand – the ECB to assume its social responsibility in accordance with its statutes. Politicians should also do that and stop running away in cheap excuses.

Mr President, President, ladies and gentlemen, in the midst of very turbulent geopolitical and economic conditions, the European Central Bank has performed its main task of restoring price stability within the euro area well over the past year. Mrs. Lagarde, you and your team deserve all the credit for that. It remains regrettable that the tightening of monetary policy was not started before, but thanks to more restrictive monetary policy, the inflation beast has now almost rebounded. Moreover, the strong recession predicted by many as a result of this monetary tightening is not expected for the time being. But the recent decline in inflation should not be seen as an end point. The so-called headline inflation While it does go back towards the 2% target, core inflation remains stubbornly higher. An important role in this divergence between these two inflation rates is played by inflation – price increases – in the services sectors, a point that continues to require due attention, as does wage cost developments within the euro area. But the last mile the path towards re-establishing adequate price stability within the euro area – as you and other ECB policymakers have recently emphasised – has not yet been followed. The call to speed up interest rate cuts is therefore at odds with the concern to bring inflation levels back to 2% and keep them there. We are still a long way from a situation in which consumers, producers and investors automatically take low inflation back into their decisions. In the policy considerations that central banks have to make, there are short-term elements – I have just mentioned two: services inflation and wage cost developments – but also long-term trade-offs. We cannot ignore the structural changes that have taken place in recent years in the global economic landscape. Until a few years ago, the stable geopolitical environment, globalisation of production processes and technological progress contributed to a very flexible supply structure of our economies. In this way, shocks in demand could be cushioned without significant inflation. That technological progress is still there, but we have seen very profound changes in terms of geopolitical stability and also in terms of globalisation. Take also the impact of the pandemic on the so-called international supply chains, and you get a different picture of the supply side of the economy, which has become a lot less flexible and which can therefore also respond to changes in demand a lot less purely with output changes. Price increases therefore seem to be becoming more frequent and also more persistent. It does not make the task of central bankers any easier, but the consistent fulfilment of the task of keeping inflation low remains of paramount importance if we are to achieve the necessary growth and strategic investments. Drawing lessons from the past, two considerations seem important to me. First, on monetary policy: Avoid asymmetry. Central banks took immediate action in the past when financial commotion and/or economic downturn persisted. All too often, the deceleration of this accommodative monetary policy has been slow and hesitant. Secondly: Perhaps more modesty. One: focus on the main mission – price stability – and rather leave other important societal objectives to the appropriate institutions in this area. Two: Disconnect from the model focus. The predictive power of the econometric models used was and remains staggeringly weak. These models, preferably adjusted, keep their usefulness, certainly, but put them aside for the ultimate decision-making process.

Presidents, colleagues, the European Council reached an agreement to mobilise additional support for Ukraine through the adjustment of the MFF. That's a very good thing. But let us be immediately clear: That $50 billion won't be enough. Ukraine's non-military budgetary needs amount to at least 3 billion per month. If the EU and the US each cover half of those needs – as agreed – our share will be at least 5 billion a year short. And we all know what the maps are today in the US regarding additional support for Ukraine. We will therefore have to continue to evaluate this support in the future and look into the possibility of additional financing mechanisms, for example through Russian assets. I am not at all in favour of confiscating those assets – about 200 billion – without further ado, but I am in favour of using them as collateral for a rolling credit of again about 150 billion for Ukraine. The proceeds of that 200 billion can then be used to finance the interest on that credit. This has the advantage that Ukraine can count on stable and sustainable financial support. Bovendien creëer je zo ook een incentive For Mr. Putin to stop atrocity and violence. Both for the aid package that is now before us and for any future initiatives, I also call for thorough monitoring of the use of the funds. Despite the situation Ukraine is in today, we cannot be naïve about it. All these measures should also encourage us to look more broadly. It is not enough to put out fires over and over again. We need to invest more in defence across Europe. Not by imposing additional taxes, but by shifting priorities in spending.

Mr President, colleagues, Minister, budgetary rules sometimes sound abstract, but they are absolutely necessary for the discipline that a monetary union requires. In recent years, budgets have been created at European level to solve various problems and legislation has been adopted that will cost a lot of money. However, the world around us has also changed drastically in recent years. Europe does not live in a geopolitical bubble. It has been hard waking up in that area and we have been naive at that point for far too long. All this means that we need to think carefully about how we will spend the precious tax money. Significant shifts in spending are required if we are to continue to play any significant geopolitical role. Budget deficits must be reduced, unbridled debt accumulation must be stopped. Those who oppose it are not only laying a time bomb under future prosperity, but also under the survival of monetary union. “Whatever it takes” also clearly has its limits in terms of monetary policy. Economic growth is crucial for healthy budgets in these challenging times. Without growth there is only static redistribution and that will further sharpen the social relations, which are already quite tense on many points today. Please stop making these pleas. degrowth. Finally, the flows of state aid within the European Union are also problematic. Hundreds of millions in subsidies for German and French industry, while the position of the smaller Member States is simply ignored. This is unfair competition and unfair competition undermines the single market, which is one of the foundations of the European Union.

Mr President, colleagues, State Secretary, Commissioner, all speakers have now taken the floor. I thank them for their input and for this debate. The 2024 budget is, as has been said many times, the best possible under the current difficult circumstances. But of course she would look completely different if we could start from a white leaf. The events around us force us to make adjustments. Our Member States are seriously adjusting their priorities and rightly so, and we will have to do the same. That is why I would like to call for this exercise to start now without taboos and to look at what we are good at with the Union, where we can offer added value, what we want and can do together, what our strengths are and also what our Member States are good at. We must not be afraid to abandon old habits and reconsider spending in a serious, even drastic way. In terms of budget, the European Union is still too committed to policy options from the past that lay a major mortgage on the future. In any case, it cannot continue as we are doing now. The EU budget is too tied to long-term planning that new initiatives cannot match and where we cannot sufficiently meet the expectations of our citizens. I fear that the European recovery plan in response to the COVID pandemic will not become a blueprint for a new, better way of conducting policy. Much more is needed to make our economies more resilient. In doing so, we must encourage, enthuse and support our citizens and businesses to take the initiative themselves. And we do not solve that by imposing all kinds of grand plans from above. Our citizens, our taxpayers expect us to manage their money like a good family man. In doing so, they look first and foremost at us, their representatives. That is why I am concerned that many of the initiatives taken in response to changing events give rise to ad hoc structures over and over again, where control and supervision cannot always be carried out in an adequate manner. This is a problem that the European Court of Auditors is also raising more and more. I hope that we can get more clarity on this in the near future. I would also like to thank the rapporteurs and all the staff. Reaching an agreement every year is a piece of cake that many people from different institutions, including the Presidency, work on with dedication.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the agreement on the 2024 budget is a good agreement. It is a good deal in difficult and uncertain times. It provides the best solution for both the Council and the Parliament within the limits of the current budgetary framework. The adjustments made by the Council and the Parliament to the Commission's proposal during the conciliation meet the current challenges. Let's not forget: These challenges are very real. Two wars are raging at our external borders at this very moment. Therefore, additional resources for humanitarian aid have been extensively provided. We also provided additional funding for Erasmus+, the Transport Infrastructure Investment Programme (CEF Transport) and the Horizon research and development programme. These are meaningful programmes, with proven Union-wide added value. There are also a number of smaller increases. I refer, for example, to the additional sums for the fight against anti-Semitism, which unfortunately resurfaces in our cities. The co-rapporteurs will of course explain the agreement in more detail. The budget for next year is set out in the current Multiannual Financial Framework, which was prepared after COVID but before the Russian aggression against Ukraine. In the meantime, everyone is waiting for a revision that should give more scope to – in the interest of all our citizens – give the EU the necessary scope for the rest of the period of this MFF, i.e. until the end of 2027. We are therefore looking forward to the negotiations in the Council. Parliament has done its homework. It is in the Council that the matter stops and we hope that this will change soon. Following agreement on that revision, the 2024 budget will be adjusted. As the European Union, we must show that we can act efficiently and quickly. I am therefore counting on the implementation of the adjustments in early spring 2024.

Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Murphy, colleagues, the annual report of the European Court of Auditors has once again shown that the quality of spending is again declining. As a Parliament, we should also be grateful for the work that the Court of Auditors is doing. It can and must inspire each of us to better shape Parliament's scrutiny task. Year after year, the rate of expenditure irregularities continues to increase. The main area of risk appears to be cohesion policy. I find it very worrying that the number of so-called ‘high-risk’ expenditure now accounts for 66% of the expenditure audited. The creation of gigantic vehicles, separate from the budget, threatens to further reinforce this trend. But above all, especially here in this House, we must finally dare to fundamentally question the nature of all existing expenditure. Because in addition to cases of misuse or manifest fraud, there is of course also a problem of quality and efficiency of spending.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this report on the 2024 budget is in the good hands of the rapporteurs, who have done and are still doing what they can, taking into account the necessary mid-term MFF revision launched by the Commission. With all the commotion and uncertainty that besieges us today, a serious budget for 2024 is hardly possible without setting out the broad lines in that MFF revision. European citizens expect strong action on several pressing issues. The world at the Union's borders has been on fire for a number of years now and the Commission is still dragging its feet when it comes to the security of those borders. Something that some countries – not to mention Finland and Poland – have now started on their own. But that should be a European priority. We must also stop this gratuitous policy of announcement, which is all too often disappointing. In this way, we lose the trust of the people. A key task debate is required with a focus on the future of the Union instead of a focus on the past, and of course more explicitly taking into account the aspirations of the citizens. Finally, this: The EU provided over EUR 300 million in support to the Palestinian territories in 2022. From now on, more than is currently the case, it must be tightly checked that no euro cent falls into the lap of Hamas. Hamas is a jihadist orchestra conducted by Iranian fanatics who want the destruction of a state, in this case Israel. The fate of the ordinary Palestinian population is of no importance to them.

Mr President, Commissioner, colleagues, since February 2022, Ukraine has been fighting a war against an evil power that threatens our Western values in every way. There is no doubt that Ukraine deserves our unconditional support in this fight against barbarism and for freedom. Our commitment initially translates into support for the military, and it has also become clear that we, as the European Union, need to reconsider our defence spending thoroughly. But, of course, we also ask for a great responsibility towards Ukrainian society. The EU wants and will play an important role in Ukraine’s recovery, reconstruction and modernisation. Our commitment is inscribed in stone, but as chairman of the Committee on Budgets, I also call for proper control of the use of resources. We must not be blind to the fact that the country is still – and unfortunately – very prone to corruption. There is indeed a framework for audit and control, as well as an audit committee. I also call for increased transparency and also for sufficient democratic control by this Parliament.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, inflation is an insidious but deadly poison. When not fought decisively and consistently, inflation undermines job creation, investment and growth. Finally, as history has shown, severe social and political destabilisation follows, not least because it is precisely the least well-off who suffer the most from price increases. Three points about the recent evolution: 1) The ECB took action too late. At the end of 2021, it was clear that inflation would not be transient. And yet they waited until July 2022 to take action. 2) The ECB then consistently implemented interest rate hikes to prevent the oil slick of inflation from continuing to expand. 3) Now that that policy has an effect and inflation is indeed falling again, there should not be direct victory. Reducing the policy already in place would be totally irresponsible. Finally, this: the independence of the central bank must be and remain set in stone.

Minister, Commissioner, President, a thorough overhaul of the multiannual financial framework is required. This budgetary framework for the period 2021–2027 is no longer adapted to today’s needs and challenges, let alone those of tomorrow. With the succession of the pandemic, the energy crisis and the war in Ukraine, budgetary vehicles were created over and over again, which are separate from the regular budget and therefore also excluded from normal democratic, parliamentary control. Lack of serious, consistent controls opens the door wide to improper use of funds, or even worse. Colleagues, that is a real problem. The fact that this evolution passes almost silently is at least as worrying. I will continue to point this out in this hemisphere. With the revision of the MFF, it is high time that there is more clarity, with respect for Parliament and with respect for the principle of subsidiarity. But we also need to be realistic. On the one hand, the Member States cannot continue to ask the EU to do more and more with more or less the same means, but on the other hand, the European authorities, with this Parliament in the lead, must not continue to reject a serious review of all expenditure. The aim should be to continuously test and increase the efficiency of the resources used, in order to create not only fiscal but also fiscal financial space. The layout of the budget today is too much of a grabberton, with something for everyone. I call for both revenue and expenditure to be scrutinised seriously and consistently with the necessary sense of responsibility.

Mr President, Commissioner, the Critical Raw Materials Act is a comprehensive and welcome package of measures to ensure the EU’s access to those critical raw materials – essential throughout the EU’s geopolitical approach. The demand for these raw materials is increasing and we are far too dependent on imports. Moreover, greening and industry can go hand in hand perfectly in the development of components that are necessary for the sustainable transition. Our own industry can be further expanded and thus also play a greater role on an international level. Please let us not fall into the trap of protectionism, but pursue open strategic autonomy. Two elements are really crucial to achieving the objectives. One: focusing on research, development and innovation, including in this sector. The progress that can be achieved in this respect determines our independence and our place in the world. Two: limiting permitting procedures, not only on paper, but also in practice. There should be no discussion about the fact that the public interest must always prevail in this area.

Mr President, Commissioner, State Secretary, colleagues, the rapporteurs have already gone into some detail on the different parts of the budget for the coming year and have given you an assessment of the Council’s position. Of course, the design of the 2024 budget cannot be separated from the need to break open the current multiannual financial framework and to adapt that existing framework to the changed environment. Parliament is ready to get to work. I therefore call on the Council not to delay or delay the discussion. There really is no time to lose. It is the second ‘war budget’ in a row and it is an understatement to say that our common challenges have changed structurally, especially through, of course, again that greatly changed geopolitical context. It is certainly time for more control, particularly by this Parliament, over the sizeable financial vehicles that have been created outside the budget. Colleagues, also for our citizens and businesses, the challenges are very real. The increase in longevity weighs heavily on the citizen, and companies and the self-employed face great uncertainties. What the European Union needs to do right now is to ensure stability across policies, from political considerations to protecting purchasing power to attracting and retaining investment. We can certainly do better in this area. An uncertain context has been created, not least by imposing unachievable targets, for example with the Green Deal, or by locking ourselves into dogmas and taboos, for example, preventing nuclear energy from getting the place it deserves in a sustainable and solid energy mix. Finally, ladies and gentlemen, I would also like to make a few comments on the fiscal union, which has suddenly regained its interest in recent days and weeks. As former ECB President Draghi pointed out last week, the fiscal situation of the various Member States is very different. There are countries that are close to balance in their budgets and there are countries, including Belgium, that carry large structural deficits with them. Those who are calling today for a fiscal union should be aware that this is guaranteed to lead to huge political tensions and discussions within the EU. I doubt whether we need an extra field of tension at the moment. At the moment, our society, our citizens and our businesses would benefit more from stability and security than from a new adventure. First, let's finish the works that have already begun, instead of continuing to pile up new desire dreams.

Madam President, as Chair of the Budget Committee, I would propose a statement in the resolution to make clear that the draft decision on the composition of the European Parliament is without prejudice to the prerogatives of the European Parliament and the Council in the annual budgetary procedure, and that recital 5 of that draft decision concerns matters that do not fall within the scope of the European Council’s competences under Article 15(1) and the legal basis of Article 14(2). It is for the European Parliament and the Council alone to decide on the content of the Union’s budget in accordance with the procedures laid down in Article 314 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

Mr President, Commissioner, the sustainable transition and the reduction of carbon emissions are a necessity. Extreme positions or approaches, let alone dogmas – from any side – do not help to achieve those objectives. The policy around the Green Deal focuses too much on ideology. We must dare to ask ourselves more often what is being achieved with this and whether more regulation is needed to meet the new challenges. This debate has been begging for a realistic approach from the very beginning. A data- and science-based transition that can sustain and even strengthen our prosperity and purchasing power. No sky-high ambitions that deter investors, companies and society and create uncertainty. Realism. It is important to work with all stakeholders, including industry, to ensure a business and investment environment that rewards innovation without drowning in regulation. And all this in a realistic way with a feasible timing.

Mr President, ensuring an attractive investment climate is one of the core tasks in which the EU can make a difference. The return on investment for citizens and businesses, but also for the Union as a whole, is many times greater than what can be achieved with fragmented subsidies and outdated programmes. High investment risk is inherent in innovation. Governments can reduce this risk by facilitating access to finance. That is why the Capital Markets Union is essential at the moment. Another important incentive for investors is clear but lean regulation and reduction of administrative costs. These things cost the government nothing. The EU can and should do better in this area. Those who say innovation and investment automatically end up with the sustainable transition. If this transition is thoughtfully and realistically addressed, it can and will attract massive investments. Towering, blind ideological climate ambitions, on the other hand, achieve the opposite. Instability and uncertainty inhibit investment and innovation. I have recently noticed that some Members of the Commission have actually been aware of this. However, this understanding should be inspired not only by the upcoming elections, but also by the general interest of the EU and its Member States.

Mr President, one of the greatest achievements of the EU is the internal market, which is based on the principle of free competition. The single market has brought growth and prosperity. However, some seem to turn their backs on this success formula. Governments should be given more freedom to grant state aid to companies. This not only favours large Member States with deep pockets, but also exacerbates persistently high inflation. Moreover, the final results of such a dirigism are often rather disappointing. The creeping changes from original, clear objectives – the so-called ‘mission creep’ – are a particularly bad development in economic policy. Monetary policy is designed to safeguard price stability, not to pursue climate policy or promote biodiversity. The same applies to competition policy, which aims to ensure fair market forces for the benefit of consumers. In order to be able to conduct policy efficiently, we need to put an end to the ongoing mission creep.

Mr President, Commissioner, I have a message for the friends on the left of the political spectrum who criticise the ECB's interest rate policy as harsh and antisocial. That message is that the ECB should have acted even more decisively and quickly, because inflation is the most unjust and discriminatory tax there is. It affects the least well-off in our society the hardest. People and families who are at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder feel the burden of the shopping cart becoming more expensive proportionally the most. It is therefore in the interest of all of us, and not least of the least well-off, that the inflation train be stopped. But monetaryly on the brakes and fiscally clinging to significant deficits will put us in the sausage of all worlds Inflation that is out of control, economic growth that is declining, jobs that are disappearing, and continued financial instability.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the current budgetary rules are simple and clear. Government debt should not exceed, or should not exceed, 60 % of GDP and budget deficits should be limited to 3 %. Thirty years after the adoption of these principles, the average debt ratio in the EU is 85% and the average budget deficit is 3.6%. In the Eurozone, these figures are even higher. And in its latest forecast, the IMF hardly foresees any improvement in this, even towards 2028. Moreover, a Member State which fails to comply with the rules has never been sanctioned by the Commission, especially in the case of larger Member States. The financial markets did this by charging higher interest rates. Commission proposes new fiscal rules with a debt reduction programme à la tête du client: each Member State negotiates its deleveraging. Any reform – or adjustment – will ultimately stand or fall with the proverbial stick behind the door and its application. And in both cases, the Commission's new proposals do not really provide for far-reaching things. This is the only way to keep government leaders in the loop. There is a real need to reduce budget deficits and debt, also in order to win the fight against inflation, to prevent further financial instability and, ultimately, to keep monetary union together.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, on the current debate, I would first like to emphasise that the repayment of the recovery plan is independent of the repayment capacity. Member States have implemented sufficient guarantees through the Own Resources Decision to ensure the repayment of the one-off loan operation. I think it is appropriate to emphasize this. Furthermore, it is true that the Member States have shown openness in the search for own resources. But the introduction of new resources will not take the wind out of the Member States’ ‘for what needs to be done’ logic. I think that's a wishing dream. In each Member State, calculations are made on an ongoing basis for all areas of expenditure, but also for taxpayers' ability to pay. Member States will continue to count and check the cost of the EU budget for their citizens. This is normal. In our Union, the Member States bear the responsibility for tax jurisdiction. I personally oppose the introduction of new European taxes, because they can be called "resources" in jargon, they are and remain taxes. This competence does not exist for the EU and there is no public support. The tax burden across the European Union is already very high. Taxes undermine our growth potential, which we very much need, and ultimately they also destroy jobs. Taking a look at the expenses seems to me to be a useful exercise in this context. At the same time, we are looking forward to the Commission's proposal to revise the current financial framework. This is bursting at the seams and does not meet tomorrow's needs or the expectations of our citizens. As Commissioner Hahn himself has repeatedly pointed out, the EU budget is limited, so we must use it where the difference can be made, where the EU has real added value.