Debate contributions by Katri KULMUNI

Mr President, last year, Russian gas was purchased in the European Union for a total of around EUR 15 billion, according to Eurostat. This money has gone to Russia's fossil energy and to support their war economy. Europe has reduced Russian gas and oil compared to the baseline situation before the war in Ukraine, but until a few years ago it was from Russia that the most oil and natural gas came here, fortunately this is no longer the case. This year's forecast for gas imports from the European Union is limited to a few countries and amounts to 13%. At the same time, however, it has also been possible to reduce total gas consumption by almost one fifth over the past two years, which is exceptionally fine. I am pleased that Parliament has a firm and broad position on the fact that no new gas agreements will be concluded next year, that from 2027 no gas molecules will come here from Russia. And I hope that the Commission and the Council will also support Parliament's broad position, which has now been supported by a large number of Europeans.

Mr President, a century ago, even Finnish newspapers advertised ivory luxury items. The world has changed indeed, and a more effective ban on ivory trade and all other measures to prevent illegal wildlife trade deserve our support. The importance of the issue is emphasised by the fact that this Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, is indeed the largest global wildlife conservation agreement between 185 countries. It is a completely different matter when it comes to legally hunted animals and their commercial exploitation. Decision-making concerning them must be as local as possible, but this proposal does not apply to them. There is still a lot of work to be done against the illegal wildlife trade. And regarding this, the European Union has a significant role to play globally.

Mr President, there are 32 million SMEs in Europe, i.e. about 99% of all businesses in the European Union. Tax rules and tax fragmentation, of course, have an impact on the business environment and European competitiveness, but at the same time taxation is largely a national competence and must continue to be so. However, it is of paramount importance that tax rules are simplified and that regulatory and administrative burdens are reduced. For example, the digitalisation of tax administration offers excellent opportunities to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy. The use of digital tools will make it easier for companies, especially SMEs, to find out about complex tax provisions. I do not believe that it will increase crime, but, on the contrary, it will reduce it when we have better opportunities to monitor taxes extensively digitally. It is good that the EU is actively working to increase the digitalisation of both businesses and taxation.

Mr President, one may ask why antisemitism needs to be addressed separately, not just as part of other forms of racism. However, the history of antisemitism is unique. It rises repeatedly, during different eras, among different cultures and religions. After the Holocaust, Europeans said: 'never again'. But once again, Jewish people are afraid for their safety. Synagogue-guarding has had to be increased. Some youths have said that the Star of David necklace is better to be hidden in certain public places. But this didn't begin with the Holocaust: persecutions, pogroms, the Inquisition. Antisemitism is not just one ugly page in the European history book; unfortunately, it is repeated in every chapter. This has to be taken seriously, and all the people – and the governments – of Europe must raise their voices against it. The history and development of Europe is strongly based on Judeo-Christian values. Jewish history is part of our history, and there shouldn't be any place for antisemitism on this continent.

Mr President, the taxation of large digital platforms is being developed internationally to match the growth of the large digital economy. The aim here is to find ways to tax the activities of companies that would be located in countries where they do not have a physical presence. The OECD and the G20 are working to establish tax standards for digital businesses and to ensure that they pay appropriate taxes in the countries where their revenues are generated, rather than shifting revenues to tax havens. The EU must also promote the taxation of large digital platforms in many ways, of course through global agreements on taxation, but also through national tax practices on digital services, and promote digitalisation more generally, while strengthening digital sovereignty and also standardising this area. As this is cross-border, the solutions must also be international in terms of taxes. It goes without saying that we must act where users and consumers are located, regardless of the physical presence of the company. This is also, in fact, one of the few ways in which the EU can currently play hard against the USA, as they do for us.

Mr President, the chemical industry is a sector of great strategic importance. At the moment, however, the situation in our legislation is that companies that comply with strict chemicals legislation do not necessarily always get the commercial benefit that the legislator had planned, and those companies that do not comply with this legislation and run past the system, i.e. which the authorities cannot see, do. This legislation must therefore also be examined. There's been a lot of talk here about eternity chemicals, PFASs. It is very important that environmental quality standards already exist for 24 key compounds. In fact, there are about 10,000 different combinations of PFAS perpetual chemicals, and unfortunately we are not able to measure them all in the same way from an administrative or environmental point of view. However, it is very important that the Commission should be able to focus on the most effective of them all and remove them from our environment. And because this legislation is so central and causes problems for people and the environment, it must be examined very carefully so that it can also be monitored by the authorities in order to protect us.

Mr President, there are 350 million payment cards in use in the euro area. They make more than 12 billion payments and 6 billion cash withdrawals per year. 13 of the 20 euro area countries use only international schemes for card payments. Although there is at least one national payment card scheme in each euro area country, cards can only be used outside the country of issuance if they are combined with a Visa or MasterCard feature. In other words, these two US companies dominate our credit card market in a sovereign manner. The EU is striving to increase its self-sufficiency. We also need self-sufficiency in payment card systems and payment systems. President Trump has already demonstrated in his customs speeches how unpredictable a partner the US has unfortunately become for the EU. The digital euro should be developed ahead of this security aspect, rather than technocratically and costlylyly as it is at the moment.

Mr President, the simplification of CBAM is a welcome example of a concrete legislative simplification, putting things into perspective and safeguarding the EU's competitiveness, while at the same time 99 % of the climate action remains protected, so this is a balanced and a welcomed proposal. However, for the future to come, while the Commissioner is also here, I have two concerns. Free emission allowances will phase out starting already next year. What will be the instrument replacing it? Because it is an absolute necessity to have some sort of an export instrument for the European industry, and unfortunately time is running while it's already May. Despite the simplification, we must ensure that no one is able to exploit it on false grounds. We must be vigilant and monitor closely that no company starts to split their importation into pieces under 50 tonnes in order to circumvent the CBAM. And hopefully the forthcoming legislation is simple enough and simplified already so that it could be put in place at once.

Mr President, the next multiannual financial framework is, of course, difficult to negotiate, as always. The biggest expenditure items in the future budget will undoubtedly be both agriculture and regional development. There are many spending needs – defence, security, green digital transition, research, innovation – to name but a few. What I am concerned about, on the other hand, is the issue of new joint debt arrangements. Ladies and gentlemen, I come from Finland, which has the longest eastern border with Russia, so I know very well where the security threats in Europe come from – via Russia – and we need European defence efforts. At the same time, we must also take care of our budget at a sustainable level. Unfortunately, we do not yet know what even the interest on the previous joint debt will be paid, not just the repayment of capital, but the interest. So it is fair to say it here, too, that we must also take care of our financial balance while taking these new and important measures, because if we do not have common defence solutions and the economy is bad, then that does not sound like a very good option either.

Mr President, many here have criticised the high energy prices across Europe. Of course, this is sometimes quite correct criticism when it comes to the price of fossil energy. But when it comes to electricity, we have the two northernmost Member States in the Union, Finland and Sweden, which have succeeded in making the price of electricity under an almost carbon-neutral electricity system, which is currently the case, for example, in the United States. And it is based specifically on carbon neutrality and renewable energy. And electricity is, of course, a key issue, not only at the heart of its previous steel debate, but also at the heart of European industrial policy, if we want to make this change towards a carbon-neutral industry. So the answer is not to go down in history, but to increase investment in our own energy sector, which is independent and cannot be influenced by anything but Europe alone.

Mr President, if we wish honestly to be self‑sufficient and independent in security, then defence isn't enough. The only way to be really self‑sufficient, independent and strategically autonomous is to also be independent when it comes to local food and energy production. While the EU doesn't pose significant fossil fuels, the only way to truly secure our backs is by strong independent defence, an independent and renewable energy sector and local food production. And I hope that there are no forces here that wish to return to fossil energy, for as long as you rely on fossil‑based energy solutions, one cannot be truly self‑sufficient. Hopefully, not a single country wishes to be relying on Russian gas, but not only on Russian gas – the lifeline network with any other fossil energy producer is not promoting our European self‑sufficiency neither. So if you're going to be cold or dependent on imported food or armoury, as long you can be oppressed. And that is not the way forward for Europeans; the way forward is with strong defence, renewable energy and local food production.

Madam President, colleagues, the EU's largest greenhouse gas emissions come from energy production. To genuinely cut these emissions, we must take the adoption and development of nuclear energy and renewable energy sources seriously. Nuclear energy is crucial, balancing power alongside renewable energy sources. One of the biggest issues with the transition to electrification is the huge need for pure electricity. The Nordics, with great water and windmill possibilities are on good track with this, but how are we going to get a sufficient amount of pure electricity to the hydrogen possibilities, or how will we make the grid infrastructure be sufficient? I truly hope for action on these basics of our electricity system, alongside fusion development, because as long as these basics are unsolved, I still doubt that we can go so far as presented today with fusion energy.

Mr President, esteemed colleagues, this year has been the warmest on record. The Paris Agreement is in real danger, as mentioned here several times already. As the northernmost MEP, I surely do my best to save the winters for the coming generations too. We've been living through an era of acute crisis throughout the 2020s, so signs of impact of climate change are continuously emerging across the globe. In order to prevent climate change from evolving into another acute and costly crisis, we need to take more actions. One of the largest sources of emissions in the EU is energy production. I believe more effective climate policies can be achieved through incentives rather than prohibitions. We cannot only impose bans, because if there isn't enough sufficient and generally affordable renewable energy alternatives, at the same time when we introduce the bans the resistance will be only further thrilling populist movements. So let's be wise with the actions: best technologies, best possible timing, best results to truly cut.

Mr President, the fight against climate change is extremely important and it only makes sense that we should always act as sustainably and in balance with nature as possible when it comes to natural resources. Moderation is probably a good guideline. Unfortunately, however, in the last period, Europe did so on the basis of the green transition, which is an important issue, including, unfortunately, bad legislation. An issue of such importance should not be the subject of failed legislation, because, at worst, it happens, as we have seen on our continent and also heard in this debate, that with poor legislation, populist forces, even if they deny climate change as a whole, are gaining power. It certainly does not contribute to our common goal of getting rid of fossil fuels. And the more we rely on fossil fuels, the more money we drain from Europe and the worse our security of supply, self-sufficiency and security will be.

Mr President, thank you to President Niinistö for his report on improving Europe's crisis preparedness. I dare to say that history and geography have taught us Finns to prepare for many kinds of crisis conditions, and traditionally, both as families and as a nation, they have always wanted to prepare for a bad day, as the saying goes. An example in Finland is the Act on Security of Supply and, as part of central government, the National Emergency Supply Agency. It takes care of the planning and operational operation of the country's security of supply, first and foremost through comprehensive security, covering medicines, food, energy and regional contingency plans together with local authorities. It is important that Europeans understand the holistic nature of security. It's not just military. We need to strengthen our critical infrastructure and improve Europe's independence in all areas of society so that, in the event of unexpected crises, we are finally better prepared. The report provides excellent tools for this.

Mr President, bureaucracy paralyses competitiveness in the EU and weakens us in the global market. According to the Draghi's report, over 60 % of the enterprises in the EU consider the regulation an obstacle to investments, and over half of the small and medium-sized enterprises consider regulation and administrative burden to be their biggest challenge. We have lagged behind the United States in this matter, and if we don't deregulate, the split will evolve. For example, in the field of technology, only four of the world's 50 largest technology companies are European. Usually, the governments and even the Commission always want less bureaucracy. But then nothing happens. Quite the contrary. I believe it is more a question of culture and a way of doing things. Do we offer the businesses a possibility to prosper or do we regulate them out of business?

Mr President, the cornerstone of the welfare state is the very widely accepted progressive taxation. You pay taxes and receive high-quality public services in return, which you can also seek to decide on democratically in public duties. It is very important that taxation continues to be a national competence. But there is a huge need for international cooperation in tax evasion, exchange of information and the large-scale collection of taxes in general. Taxes are also very important in terms of inequality in society. In particular, economic, social or regional inequalities between people and regions also create a basis for the growth of various extremist movements. That is why tax policy must also take care of the overall integrity of society, and for that it works very well when used smartly. A sound tax policy will generate economic growth that can even out harmful inequalities. Above all, our continent needs prosperous, sustainable economic growth. A bad tax policy prevents it, a good one makes it possible.