Debate contributions by Markus FERBER

Madam President, Russian billions are frozen in European vaults, while houses, schools and hospitals are destroyed every day in Ukraine. Leaving the funds unused would be morally wrong. Russia started this war. Russia must stand up for the consequences of its actions. But we should also not act rashly when using the funds. I would rather imagine that we take this money as security, as a guarantee, in order to provide Ukraine with appropriate funds through a construction, a construction bank, whatever. This would significantly mitigate the financial risks and would mean the same form of assistance to Ukraine. Ukraine needs our support, but we also need a solution that is economically viable and sustainable in the long term. I still have my doubts about the current proposal. It would be better for the Commission to go back to the drawing board and think things through cleanly so that there is no risk of billions for the European taxpayer in the end.

Madam President, Madam President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen! The Commission's new work programme has a very ambitious title: “Europe’s moment of independence”. But we also have to live up to this title. We are in a period of economic uncertainty, and that is why we now need a programme that focuses on growth, competitiveness and investment. If you say that Europe should once again become an attractive location for entrepreneurs and businesses, then this must also be apparent in the proposals. There are some positive elements: focus on the internal market. Here we really have a treasure to raise. But we also have to trust something. We must also dare to do something, even if the Member States may resist. We just attended the annual meeting of the International Monetary Fund with a delegation from the Economic Committee. We were given a mirror: Your single market is not a single market. We really have to get there. We have to be ambitious. But we also need to see that we are competitive in the economic sphere, but also in the financial and banking spheres. That's why I would have been happy if a financial bus would also be placed on this route of buses, so that we can achieve something here with simpler rules. This does not mean deregulation, but simplification, which makes things easier – then we are on the right track. 2026 should be the year in which we in Europe are going from a rule-maker to an enabler. We have to make much more possible and not always try to regulate everything. If we can do this together, Europe will really have a good future.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Our tax rules date back to a time when economic activity had to be attached to factory halls, warehouses, office buildings. Today, however, values are created in data streams, on platforms, in digital business models, and this must of course also be reflected in our tax law. We need a modern definition of the tax permanent establishment, which can no longer consist only of buildings, brick or mortar. The principle is clear and, I believe, fair. Profits must be taxed where value creation takes place. Digital corporations can no longer evade responsibility by shifting profits to low-tax countries while generating their revenues in the middle of the European single market. And the single market is also the key word. A patchwork of national digital taxes will not take us any further. Only a single European approach can ensure fairness and legal certainty in the internal market, while ensuring that all companies have to play by the same rules. We should not allow ourselves to be deterred by the resistance from the United States. It is a matter of our own sovereignty that Europe makes its own decisions when it comes to tax justice in the digital world. Our citizens rightly expect the digital giants to make their fair contribution as well. That is why, Commissioner, we need a new start for a European digital tax.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, Europe is at a crossroads. The Draghi report clearly shows: If we want to secure our competitiveness, our innovative strength, our prosperity, then we need significantly more investment in Europe. The capital is there. European households save above average in international comparison. But this money is mostly unproductive in bank accounts, or, even worse, it flows into the United States of America as a means of investment. In doing so, we finance innovation and jobs on the other side of the Atlantic, while our own companies too often fall by the wayside. This is where we have to start. We finally need a real Capital Markets Union that channel and channel citizens' savings into productive European investments. Banks alone cannot handle this task. We need deeper, more integrated capital markets that Venture capitalmore efficiently mobilise bonds, equities and pension funds. The compass is clear: Market-based solutions, risk-based regulation and competitiveness as the leitmotifs. Financial markets must be attractive and accessible – for savers, for investors, for start-ups, for SMEs. We do not need overregulation and unnecessary bureaucracy, complicated reporting requirements. If we can do this, then we are on the right track and can ensure that we offer adequate solutions in a world that is not waiting for us.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, The European Investment Bank has been a reliable partner in the implementation of the European Union's policy objectives for decades. Their role has grown steadily in recent years. Today, the EIB is no longer just a traditional support bank for infrastructure projects, but a strategic actor that finances an ever wider range of European priorities – the transition to a climate-neutral economy, digitalisation, investment in affordable housing and, last but not least, strengthening our security and defence industry. However, greater responsibility must also go hand in hand with greater accountability. The current governance model of the European Investment Bank has remained essentially unchanged since its inception, although the scope, complexity and political nature of the projects have changed significantly. Now is the time to take a close look at this situation. Risk control, oversight of strategic decisions and democratic legitimacy by this Parliament need to be strengthened. That is why we are calling for more transparency, better involvement and a structured dialogue with the Investment Bank. An interinstitutional agreement between the EIB and the European Parliament would be urgently needed. And one more thing belongs to the truth: If we, as a European policy, take more and more responsibility for the EIB, then we must also equip it accordingly. I hope that the Member States will be able to do the same.

Madam President, Three hours of flight delays are annoying, and if you follow the airlines' recommendations that you have to be at the airport two hours before departure, you may have spent up to five hours at the airport without really getting closer to your destination. But it gets even more annoying if you don't even get compensation for it. European passenger rights are a role model worldwide. They also urge airlines to ensure and improve their punctuality. A deterioration of this threshold, from when compensation is payable, from three to four hours, as the Council has unfortunately decided, amounts to an admission of the poor operating situation of some airlines. The goal of the aviation industry must be to be on time and to ensure that travelers reach their destination. It cannot be the case that 85% of all air passengers should no longer receive compensation in the future. As the European Parliament, we will oppose with all our strength the reduction of consumer rights that the Commission and the Council are pushing for. You have established three hours as a guideline. They like to represent the airlines in the Council, we represent the passengers.

Madam President, Mr Executive Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen! The report on the implementation of the Recovery and Resilience Facility paints a very sobering picture. A large number of milestones remain incomplete, delays are accumulating, the promised transparency is missing, and the economic added value is unclear. The European Court of Auditors’ special reports have again and again revealed blatant design errors in this allegedly ‘performance-based’ financial architecture: unclear definition of performance criteria, lack of comprehensibility of expenditure and increased risk of double funding due to overlaps with other European Union programmes. Instead of clear accounting of actual expenditure, there is an opaque payment system that is difficult to understand. This lacks reliable controls and it remains unclear whether the funds actually arrive where they would have been needed. The limited transparency raises legitimate doubts about the efficiency and responsible handling of our taxpayers' funds. Given these shortcomings, the Recovery Fund cannot serve as a blueprint for future EU programmes, nor does it make sense to extend it. In addition, there is the sword of Damocles of the still unresolved refinancing. The new own resources once promised – the Council is not even present here – are not yet in place four years later. The repayment of the debt will burden the future budgets of the European Union and limit the European Union's ability to act. This should actually also show the latter that new debts are not a solution to the problems in Europe.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen! The Digital Single Market is under pressure. Recent enforcement actions against large tech companies, such as the proceedings against Apple and Meta in the context of the Digital Markets ActThey clearly show that our rules are working, but they also show that they are urgently needed. Digital markets follow different logics than traditional markets. Network effects, data power, platform dependencies make fair competition more difficult. Because of these characteristics, digital markets tend towards monopolies. Small and medium-sized enterprises are being supplanted and innovation is being hampered. Competition policy must therefore act differently in the digital space. It must be faster and more assertive, always with one goal: Competition not only on paper, but in reality, in the digital space. As Europeans, we stand for an open market with fair competition, where performance and innovation prevail, not the right of the strongest. And for the Commission, as the highest competition authority in Europe, this means: Put the Digital Markets Act with determination. Ensure clarity and legal certainty. Do not allow loopholes. This includes, in particular, that the Directorate-General for Competition is also equipped in such a way that it can fulfil this task. Years of procedures in the digital world do not fit together. I hope that we can make significant improvements here.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, Europe is facing major challenges. High investments must be made in defence, in digitization, for climate protection. At the same time, we have geopolitical tensions that are weighing on our economy, and public coffers are largely empty. That's why the activation of private capital is becoming more and more important, and I think this is the right time to address this issue. We need a deeper integration of European capital markets. If we want a strong European economy, we also need strong European capital markets. It must not be the case that European companies prefer to go to New York for share purchases. It cannot be that European companies, when raising money on the capital market, prefer to go to London, and that for European savers the most attractive offers are also on the other side of the Atlantic. Creating a true Savings and Investment Union is not only crucial to securing our prosperity, it is also a geostrategic issue. The need for deeper integration of European capital markets should therefore be clear to everyone; Nevertheless, we have been on the spot for ten years. The problems are well known: Harmonise tax systems, advance insolvency law, better coordinated European financial supervision, to name just a few keywords. We have no lack of knowledge, we have a lack of action, and it is those who are not there – the Member States – who have so far slowed everything down: Each initiative has been blocked by the Member States. It is sad to see that even today none of the Member States is here in the plenary of the European Parliament. The Commission has given a real impetus. We are ready to support that – I hope the Council will too.

Mr President! Russia has brought untold suffering to Ukraine with its brutal war of aggression. At the same time, frozen Russian assets worth around EUR 200 billion in the European Union are only stored by the central bank alone. It is simply a matter of justice that this money is used to support Ukraine. The polluter pays principle applies: Those who cause destruction must also pay for the elimination of the consequences. The use of these assets would send a clear signal: Aggression does not pay off. Of course, legal issues must be carefully considered, but we must not hide behind bureaucratic hurdles while the people of Ukraine are fighting for their lives. The use of frozen Russian assets is an exceptional situation. Indeed, if the hurdle is to start an illegal war of aggression in order to confiscate state assets, the bar hangs very high, and the markets are also able to understand that. The normal investor does not have to deal with these contingencies, we do not harm Europe.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, The European Semester is the key instrument for economic policy coordination. This year, the challenges are particularly great. Not only do we still have very high growth rates in the European Union, but we also have to cope with rising defence spending – all this in the context of already very high public debt. This shows once again how important it is to have fiscal leeway in the event of a crisis. As the EPP Group, we pointed out years ago: You have to repair the roof when the sun is shining. And what happened? The sun shone, we had good economic years, and in many Member States the roof was not repaired. And now there is a lack of room for manoeuvre that is necessary to shoulder these challenges as well. In the meantime, we have reached a dangerous point: high public debt, high deficits, high interest rates, high future spending in the defence sector, low growth prospects due to a lack of competitiveness. This is the situation as it stands at the moment, so the situation is serious. For the Semester, this means that we need to focus much more on the core of the European Semester – a responsible fiscal policy and measures that sustainably strengthen the competitiveness of the European Union and the Member States. I believe that we have achieved this well in the report of the Economic and Monetary Committee; I would be happy if the Employment Committee could do that at some point.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, We have to be honest, just by fulfilling reporting obligations, by filling in forms, nothing has yet been achieved in the fight against climate change or for occupational safety and health in developing countries. Directives such as those on sustainability reporting or the European Supply Chain Due Diligence Act are tools at best, but not a solution. We really have to ask ourselves whether these aids achieve what a majority here in the House once created them for against my vote. With regard to the Sustainability Reporting Directive and the Supply Chain Due Diligence Act, the answer is actually clear: In today's form, they are not a helpful tool to achieve the goals. They are unnecessarily complicated, they create high bureaucratic burdens, they only create jobs for consultants and lawyers, but they do not create competitiveness. It is therefore correct that the European Commission has now proposed targeted adjustments. The proposals are going in the right direction, but I would have liked a little more ambition, Commissioner. Especially in the area of taxonomy, you only want to solve everything at level two with delegated acts. I believe that the mother of all problems is the taxonomy, and here I expect further proposals from the Commission. At this point, too, we still have to clear up clearly.

Mr President! Mr Executive Vice-President! Mr President-in-Office of the Council! Ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen! With the compass for a competitive EU, the European Commission has given a signal for a U-turn and a new priority setting. This new focus is of course very welcome, but it is also bitterly necessary. The Commission has therefore recognised the signs of the times. But we already have to ask ourselves whether the compass also points the right way. A compass should provide orientation. It is also because the compass for a competitive EU lacks a clear line beyond the headline. The Communication lists dozens of individual measures. However, it remains unclear: Where does the Commission actually want to go? Here there is a real danger that, as so often, we get lost in the small and lose sight of the big paths. And whether it is the right strategy to pick out a few industrial sectors and leave out all the other areas where we can generate economic growth, especially in the area of services, I do not know if this is the right way forward. It is not just a matter of making a lot of industrial policy and little regulatory policy, but, I believe, we need to address a few fundamental questions. The high level of energy prices, to which we must give an answer as Europeans. The difficulties in completing the Capital Markets Union, the strengthening of the services sector, to give just a few examples, in addition to the completion of the internal market, dear Mr Executive Vice-President, where you are responsible. These are the issues that are at the top of the priority list. Then we are on the right track. To put it in a nutshell: Competitiveness is right, is necessary, is the reason to be able to operate successfully at all. We have to get these homebaseTo make the single market so strong that we can, of course, achieve competitiveness in other markets around the world. We should do this together. This is the right compass to use.

Mr President! Commissioner. Madam President, dear Christine Lagarde! In the past, the annual report on the European Central Bank has often been a hard work. And sometimes, in difficult negotiations, the clear line has also been lost. This time it's different. I would also like to express my sincere thanks on behalf of our negotiator Marco Falcone, the rapporteur and the entire negotiating team. The report gives a clear commitment to the objective of price stability, which should always be the fixed star of action for the ECB. This is followed by core principles such as monetary dominance and market neutrality. The aspect of market neutrality is of particular importance to us as the EPP Group. For us, it is crucial that the European Central Bank does not distort competition and market mechanisms in its monetary policy decisions. This may not please everyone here in this House, because some people like to use the ECB for political goals. But that's not their job. In the interests of fair competition and an efficient allocation of capital, we should therefore resist the temptation. That is why the principle of market neutrality is so crucial. I am pleased that this time we have finally found a text that hopefully takes all sides into account accordingly. In addition to monetary policy, we also dealt with the digital euro. While proposals are on the table here, these proposals leave many questions unanswered. And we have to find answers to these questions in the legislative process. We should not make any preliminary determinations in this annual report either. But this also applies to the European Central Bank, which has to accept that the legislator is currently the master of the procedure and not the European Central Bank. This is not just a monetary policy decision, but a political decision of great importance. We should discuss this calmly here in this House. I really ask you to read this passage very intensively, to give it to your deputy, who is particularly involved here. Then we are on the right track.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen! Various cryptocurrencies, especially Bitcoin, have climbed record prices in recent days. The reason is clear: The new administration in the United States took office this week, and it will be much more crypto-friendly than its predecessor. The new US president is even talking about building a strategic Bitcoin reserve and wanting to make the US the crypto mecca of the world. The fact that Donald Trump is serious can also be seen in the fact that he himself has his own Meme coin He is one who has only one goal: To increase his wealth a little. I don't think investors will get any of this. Regardless of how you stand on cryptocurrencies, this development underscores a fundamental problem: Although cryptocurrencies are a global phenomenon, we do not have an international regulatory framework. A change of government in the USA therefore leads very quickly to the fact that the market situation is changing rapidly and because consumer protection, also for European investors, is getting massively under the wheels. In other parts of the financial market, from the banking sector to clearing, we have agreed on international standards for good reasons. We don't have them in the crypto sector so far, and that's taking revenge now. In the European Union, we are at the forefront of the world with the Markets in Crypto Assets Regulation, MiCAR. We have created a credible set of rules in the EU that puts a stop to wild west growth, as in the US, while at the same time creating predictability and predictability for all market participants. So there is already a blueprint for international minimum standards. That is why, Commissioner, we should make use of this blueprint and work towards international solutions. That this is not easy is clear. But if we don't start, we'll never make it.

Dear Mr. Colleague, we have to deal with one question very fundamentally: What connects us here at the European level? They are shared historical and cultural experiences, as I would define them, and that is what we should focus on. We will not be successful if we divide against each other, but we will only be successful if we work together. I look forward to your initiatives.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. Yesterday, the new US administration came into office, and if Donald Trump makes only a fraction of his announcements true, then the wind for Europe will very quickly become much harsher. Trump has promised to cut taxes, cut bureaucracy, deregulate. This should not mean that we are now in a downward competition. But we must be clear that this measure will significantly increase the competitiveness of American companies. And that means: If we don't want to fall behind, we have to react. This must mean for us: take the issue of cutting red tape seriously, impose a burden moratorium, reduce reporting obligations, reduce energy costs, advance the single market, finally implement the Capital Markets Union. The motto must be to become strong and competitive ourselves, so that we can also survive in a sharper location competition. And that is in our hands, and we should commit ourselves to that.

Mr President! Commissioner! Ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen! The European Union has set itself a very ambitious goal to decarbonise the economy, summarised under the Green Deal. The promise, which has always been formulated by the Greens, that Europe will thus be the pioneer of the Clean techwould become an economy; also the German chancellor, who philosophised that we would get growth rates as we did at the time of the economic miracle, i.e. up to 8% – everything did not happen. Warnings that the decarbonisation of our economy will not be self-sufficient and that we must also pay attention to aspects such as competitiveness have been blown up. What happened? We are not at 8 or 9 % growth, we are in recession in the EU at 0.9 and in Germany in the second year – and the forecasts for next year are no better. This shows: Basically something went wrong. The Green Deal is not yet a deal for our companies, but above all a burden. That's why we have to ask ourselves: What was wrong in the last legislature? What impact do the Green Deal measures have on our companies, on SMEs, on jobs in Europe? And these questions must not go unanswered: Can our companies afford the rising costs of energy and production if they have to compete with competitors from China or the USA at the same time, if products come to us from countries that do nothing for climate protection? We have always been strong when we have focused on innovation and competitiveness – we should do that again. It does not mean, to be clear, to question the climate targets, but it is very clearly about: Which way can we go? Is there perhaps a smarter, less bureaucratic way to achieve these goals? That is what we should focus on, and that is where we are waiting for the Commission's proposals.

Mr President, Commissioner! The listing of a country as a high-risk country in the field of money laundering leads to a warning to financial market participants that there is a high risk of money laundering in transactions in that country and therefore additional due diligence requirements must be applied. With Russia, the situation is clear and as clear as it could possibly be. The country is waging an illegal war of aggression in Ukraine, funding terrorism in other countries, and there are massive attempts to circumvent the sanctions we have imposed. Even before the war of aggression, there were major problems with corruption, organised crime, the obfuscation of financial flows and poor cooperation. That's why Russia belongs on every blacklist we can find, and of course on money laundering. The fact that the Financial Action Task Force does not succeed at international level is not because the facts are not known, but because the BRICS countries have taken a blockade position here. But, as we have always pointed out in Parliament, there is also a European list, and our expectation is that we will not only copy what has been added to the list at the FATF, but that the Commission will carry out its own analyses and assessment. We do not have any BRICS countries in the European Union. We can really decide on the matter, and that is why there is only one measure that we welcome here as the EPP: The European Commission should present a proposal to classify Russia as a high-risk country as soon as possible.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen! When you talk to companies, big or small, and ask about the big problems they are facing, the answer is always the same: The biggest problem for competitiveness is excessive bureaucracy. This ranges from unnecessarily long approval processes and reporting obligations, which have been completely out of control, to regulations that are hostile to the single market; I would just like to mention the A1 certificate for the secondment of employees. Excessive bureaucracy is one of the decisive factors for the fact that we in Europe have lost so much competitiveness in recent years. I hope that the European Commission's new priorities for this legislative term, namely strengthening competitiveness, will be implemented and will not only be reflected in the mandate letters, as we have just heard. How can this be achieved? I would like to mention three processes. Firstly: We need a burden moratorium. It makes no sense to invent new rules again if we want to abolish old ones. We have to take a break, otherwise we'll have a fight against windmills. Secondly: We need a clear inventory, that is to say, not every dossier in its silo, but most of the time the problems arise that different Directorates-General demand similar things on similar topics and know nothing about each other. And in the third place, the actual dismantling, a streamlining and consolidation of the legal body, the targeted elimination of particularly problematic requirements. This is the path we as the EPP want, and I hope that there is broad support here, together with the new Commission.