Debate contributions by Jörgen WARBORN

Madam President, in accordance with Rule 60(4) of the Rules of Procedure, I propose that this matter will be referred back to the Committee on Legal Affairs for interinstitutional negotiations.

Madam President, I am speaking on behalf of a united EPP. We made an agreement with S&D and Renew, both on content, but also on the fact that we should have a committee mandate. This committee mandate is important because we need to stick to the timetable – meaning that we go into trilogue already on Friday – so that we can deliver clarity for European businesses. Because, outside this Hemicycle, we have millions of businesses – small businesses, medium-sized ones, farmers, innovative scale-ups, large corporations – and they need clarity in order to deliver both sustainability and competitiveness, growth and good-paying jobs for Europeans. So I urge colleagues, not least in S&D and Renew, to vote yes to the committee mandates.

Thank you for accepting the blue card. Well, you said that you don't want to initiate a trade war, and let's say, it is difficult times for Europe and the situation is not pleasant for any one of us. But you also say that you would like to use the ACI – the 'trade bazooka'. Isn't that as close as you would come to respond? That will lead to a trade war. And don't you think that that will make it even harder to negotiate a better deal after you initiate the ACI? And still we know that the Member States, they do not have any appetite for this.

Mr President, Minister, Commissioner, we are indeed living in very uncertain times. We have war on our continent and, unfortunately, we still need the US for security reasons. Therefore, I think it would be very irresponsible to also enter into a trade war with the US at this time. This deal is not perfect. I do not particularly like the outcome of this deal, but I think the most responsible thing to do at this moment is to go through with the deal and then continue to negotiate. I know there are groups or MEPs in this Chamber that would like to escalate the situation and then continue to negotiate. I do not think that will have the best outcomes for Europeans. So it is not a perfect deal, but it is the deal that we have on the table, and we have security reasons for adopting the deal. We have to change it a bit, though. Of course we are not voting on the deal as such. We will be voting on the two legislative proposals that the Commissioner mentioned, and we will certainly have to amend it in order to make sure, not least, that it is fully compatible with WTO rules. And I have mentioned several times in this Chamber and to the Commission that I am not certain it does. I am rather quite certain that it does not. But I think, colleagues, that we, in this House, could fix that by amending the legislation. In the meantime, we also, of course, have to continue to negotiate and, not least, ratify the agreements we have on the table. The Mercosur Agreement is really important from us at this point of stage. When we have problems doing business in one part of the world ‑ the US right now ‑ then we have to open business in other parts of the world. Mercosur is one. Mexico is another. Indonesia. India. Thailand. Malaysia. Philippines. Australia. There is a lot of possibilities, and I think possibilities to negotiate are better now than ever. So I urge you, colleagues, please do not create this trade war with Trump. We do not need it. We need security in Europe and we need these deals.

Mr President, Madam Minister, Commissioner Šefčovič, first of all, thank you for your tireless work of trying to find a negotiated solution. We certainly need it because we need to de-escalate the situation with the US. It is a very, very important market for the European Union. It creates a lot of jobs, both here in Europe, but also, of course, in the US. Approximately 20 % of our market goes to the United States. And that also means that 80 % of our trade goes elsewhere, creating probably even more jobs. I'd like to speak particularly on the WTO rules and the compatibility with the potential deals on the WTO rules, because the rest of the world – 80 % of the market – relies on the WTO rules. I'm not sure, but I'd like to make sure that the Commission is certified that, if we make a deal with the United States, it doesn't break the any rules in the WTO, because then we might solve one problem, but we create others. I think that is the most important part right now, because the world, when it comes to trade, is not really predictable at the moment. I think that even if we do a deal with the US, it will probably not be predictable for quite some time. Therefore, the world trading system – the multilateral rules-based trading system – is the predictability we have and we, as Europeans, have to defend it. But I also agree, of course, in the meantime, since there is a lot of unpredictability, we also have to diversify. So ratifying the Mercosur agreement, the Mexico agreement, negotiating India and Indonesia is also important. Once again, thank you to the Commission for your hard work. Let us hope that we can find a negotiated solution for the benefit of businesses and citizens across Europe.

Mr President, Minister, Commissioner, colleagues, we find ourselves at a historic crossroads, not just in terms of economic policy, but also in the broader context of global geopolitics. Trade tension, of course, is nothing new. But today, in an era of deep globalisation and tightly interlinked supply chains, the consequences are more far-reaching than ever. We have seen this clearly in the past months, when Trump's erratic trade measures triggered volatility across financial markets. The EU's response, especially in the face of the unjustified trade measures from a long-standing ally, will be remembered. Our approach must strike a careful balance, preserving the principle of trust, respect and transatlantic cooperation, while also shielding European citizens and industries from economic harm. I therefore call on the Commission to act decisively within their 90-day retaliatory pause. The current pause from the Trump administration is de facto a 25 % tariff on EU steel, aluminium and automobiles and a 10 % tariff on almost all other goods. The Commission's decision to hold off on immediate retaliation is wise; de-escalation creates a space for dialogue. But let us be clear: inaction cannot become our policy. Within these 90 days, we must prepare a strong and measured and unified response. At the same time, we must do three things to strategically position Europe: strengthen the single market, negotiate and ratify more free trade agreements, not least Mercosur and the one with Mexico, and reassert leadership within WTO, because we need the rules-based international system when there is unpredictability in the world.

Madam President, we, the EPP, will vote against this proposal from the Left. And the reason is that it is not only about the tariffs on cars at the moment. As you are aware, on Wednesday, Trump will announce even further tariffs on other products. And the Commission is, of course, expected to present its countermeasures in mid-April. The most important aspect for us now is to respond to this trade conflict with President Trump in a unified way. However, we are still not in a position that we have clarity, and therefore we think we should have a broader debate on this topic for the May plenary, and that would give us time to analyse the situation fully, not least on the tariffs introduced this week, but also on the EU responses. That is why we would like to vote no for this proposal from the Left.

Thank you very much for that question. I think we can work with issues regarding sustainability and climate change. They are important. But I also see – and this is important for the Greens as well to see – that we have a problem with the competitiveness. That is why it's so important to open up these files. That's so good that the Commission comes up with the first Omnibus package to change this. This is not enough, though. We have to continue. We have to cut red tape even more than in these proposals. And for all the political groups that would like to do that, I am sure that EPP will work together with you to cut the red tape, to increase the growth, to come back to competitiveness. That is what we can do. And then we get the resources also to focus on the green issues.

Madam President, Commissioner, my key message today is that this is a good first step. But it is not enough. We have to continue to work with this suggestion and this is really important for the competitiveness of Europe. We have been falling behind. We have been falling behind a lot of other great economic powers around the world and we have to change this situation. And there is a lot of things that we need to change. But one of the most important parts is to cut red tape. This is important for all companies, but it is most important for the small and medium-sized enterprises. It was a colleague that mentioned the 'Think Small First' principle – I think that is really important. That is a good solution. We have to do that. And this can be done in the negotiation about these files as well, to continue with the 'Think Small First' principle. Multinationals were mentioned like they are bad guys – no, they are good guys. They are providing jobs and economy and growth to Europeans. That is also important. It is good that we do a reality check on this package, on the CSDDD, on the CSRD, on the taxonomy act, on the CBAM. We need that reality check. So let's work with it, but we need to move this forward. This is a good first step but we need to continue to cut red tape. It's been speaking about 'deregulation', about 'simplification', about 'cutting red tape' – it doesn't matter which word you use, you have to cut the cost for businesses. That's how you get back to growth.

Mr President, Commissioner, the strength of our Union is in its openness, the ability to trade, to innovate and to compete globally. However, in today's reality, Europe's communication infrastructure is heavily reliant on global actors, and Europe must be in a position where no country or individual company can dictate our digital future. I believe in a strong and resilient Europe, one that competes globally without excessive state interventions, but through strategic interventions, free markets and international cooperation. By that way, individuals and businesses can choose between multiple actors and alternatives. To go forward in this situation, I think the Union must do a lot of things, but let me mention three of them. Firstly, we need to encourage private investments in new communication infrastructure, not through subsidies or state control, but through reducing red tape and creating smart incentives. Secondly, we need to deepen our partnership with trusted partners to ensure openness works in Europe's favour rather than making us dependent. Lastly, as the Commissioner started his intervention with, we need to safeguard Europe's connectivity by taking coordinated action to protect submarine cables. This state terrorism has to end and we have to work together, coordinatedly, to make that sure – we have to reinforce our cable security, our repair capabilities, but also invest in the expansion of new submarine cables to enhance our redundancy and ensure resilience in our communication infrastructure.

You said that the agreement will destroy the farmers. That is absolutely not true. Look back and see the agreement, which was actually beneficial for the farmers, even though a lot of people said that it would destroy the farmers. The Commission has, on the other side, done a very good job. They have TRQs, they have safeguards, and they have a compensation package. How can you say that it will destroy farmers? We recognise that there are sensitive products, but that's why the Commission has worked with us. This will help the farmers. It is beneficial for the wine sector, for cheese, for a lot of businesses.

Madam President, Commissioner, I would like to use the beginning of my speech to paint a picture of the EU reality on the global stage. Because five years ago, the UK left the European Union. A month later – COVID‑19 – the pandemic broke out in Europe. And three years ago, Russia launched a full‑scale illegal invasion of Ukraine. And at the same time, European energy prices reached record levels, and this also, of course, created inflation for European citizens. A month ago, Trump was inaugurated in the US administration. All this at the same time when China is systematically disregarding the multilateral trade order, and the BRICs is growing. Never before has the EU and its citizens and businesses been faced with so much uncertainty and unpredictability as now, most evidently seen last Monday, when Trump increased the tariffs on steel and aluminium to 25 %. I have stood at this podium more times than I can remember to talk about the importance of the Mercosur deal. If there would ever be a moment to conclude the deal that would create the biggest free trade zone in the world, it would be now. We need it now because it will provide opportunities for businesses and citizens. It will enhance our energy security. It will create a channel of diplomatic and economic relationships with one of the biggest players in the world, and it will demonstrate that the EU is a global, relevant player that stands for an open, rules‑based geopolitical order. Let's do it. Let's conclude. Let's finalise the negotiation. It is beneficial for all.

Madam President, Minister, Commissioner, it is evident that we are living in an increasingly unpredictable and uncertain trade area. Whilst China is using subsidies to boost their businesses, US is using tariffs to support theirs. The EU is, sadly, only one of the few global actors that really are playing by the international rules-based order today. The EU now must stand united in our approach towards the Trump trade policy. Fragmentation will only weaken our process. We have a very well developed trade defence toolbox and it is ready to be used, but only after diplomacy and negotiation have failed – because the US is a close ally, it is a traditional partner of us, it is a strategic friend and we need to work together with them. A tit-for-tat trade war will not benefit us. Most importantly, when we answer to the US threats, we have to do it in a WTO-compatible manner because if we don't, this will only increase the insecurity for European businesses and citizens. Whilst China and the US are playing by their own rules at the moment, we need to have even more strategic partners around the world. We need to continue with the Mercosur countries. We need to continue the negotiations with India. We need to finalise the modernised trade with Mexico and speed up the process with Indonesia. Trump is now closing inwards, the US is closing inwards and we in Europe we must look outwards.

Madam President, I would like to thank you for your Thank you, Commissioner. I realise that this is the last time I can address you as Commissioner. Thank you for your great work during this time. It has been mentioned before that Europe has a competitiveness problem, and it certainly is. It is, of course, sad that this is the case, but it is also good that there are so many who say that we share the same opinion and that we must do something to tackle Europe's competitiveness. In order to solve the challenge of Europe's growth, we need to do a number of things. One of the most important things is to ensure that we improve access to capital. When I meet small business owners, almost everyone says it's one of their biggest problems. That is why we need to create a European ISK, an investment savings account, which creates incentives for Europeans to invest in the stock market. It would be good for them, because it would increase their economic opportunities, but above all it would also be good for small businesses, so that they can continue to expand, employ more and create wealth throughout Europe.

Mr President, as you said, the the headline for this debate is 'U-turn on EU bureaucracy: the need to axe unnecessary burden and reporting to unleash competitiveness and innovation'. And I couldn't agree more. That is a really important topic that we indeed need to to discuss. But reducing regulatory burden is not a goal in itself, not even competitiveness is a goal in itself, because at the end of the day, it is creating a prosperous Europe that is the goal. And when it comes to creating a prosperous Europe and when it comes to creating competitiveness, we are having a problem. If I look back 15 years and look at growth numbers, we can see how Europe is falling behind. We are falling behind almost all economic powers around the world. So we need to change this. And this change will probably not be easy, and this change will entail a lot of different actions. One of them – I would say one of the most important, of course – is reducing regulatory burden. It is important for all businesses, but especially for small and medium-sized enterprises. And now I think we can all agree that we have a window of opportunity, because now we have the Letta report, we have the Draghi report, and we have a commitment from the Commission to work with reduced regulatory burden. I'd like to start by thanking the Commission for the 'one in, one out' principle. And as you know, colleagues, the 'one in, one out' principle is where the Commission agrees or commits itself to reducing the same amount of burden as it adds. You calculate the cost of a regulation, and then the Commission says, 'This cost will be offset by other measures.' And that, of course, is fantastic, because that means that the Commission has understood that we have to stop this excessive burden for the businesses. But – but – 'one in, one out' means the status quo. That doesn't mean reducing the regulatory burden, it stays about the same. It will keep the same and we need to do more. We need to do more. And that's why I'm also positive, and I'd like to thank the Commission for this goal of reducing the reporting by 25 %. That is very good. But it's not enough, because reporting is such a small part of the entire regulatory burden that is faced by our businesses. And therefore, EPP is now suggesting – not only suggesting, it's in our manifesto for this election – to push for 'one in, two out', because reducing regulatory burden with 'one in, two out' will actually decrease the cost for businesses, increase our competitiveness and increase European prosperity. We also say that all the proposals from the Commission should have an impact assessment. This is important in general, but it is also important because in the impact assessment you calculate the cost – the 'ins', so to speak. And therefore, from the EPP Group, we have a very, very clear message: if the Commission comes up with a proposal that has no impact assessment, the EPP will veto them. We will send them back. We won't deal with issues that have not had a proper, full impact assessment that is approved by the Regulatory Scrutiny Board. This is the way how we create a prosperous Europe. I look very much forward to this debate today.

Madam President, yes, the ECJ ruling, it came only last Friday. Therefore, the EPP will reject this proposals from The Left. We think it is too early to have a debate in plenary. Instead, this issue should be assessed and analysed at the PESH Committee, in the AGRI Committee and in the INTA Committee. So no need for for a debate in plenary at this moment.