Speeches

Madam President, Commissioner, the next EU-India summit is a historic opportunity and takes place at a decisive moment for Europe and the world. It is historic because it confirms strategic cooperation with India; it is historic because it is an opportunity for us to conclude a free trade agreement with a strategic partner of ours more than 20 years ago; it is historic because it allows the Union to solidify its presence in a key and future region. Despite external, and even internal, criticism, the reality is that the European Union continues to move forward with actions rather than mere words. We cannot, therefore, diminish the economic and political significance of this summit. India will soon be the world's third largest economy. It is a central player in Asia and a country with which the European Union must build a strong, balanced and lasting partnership. This EU-India trade agreement is an opportunity to strengthen our value chains, promote investment and give European companies access to the Indian market, creating quality jobs and sustainable growth for both sides. This summit is historic because it is an opportunity to take our partnership with India beyond trade. It is important to include in your conclusions areas such as the Commissioner has already mentioned: global security and governance, human rights, including a firm stance against the Russian aggression in Ukraine and the Russian circumvention of sanctions. Finally, the next EU-India summit must deliver concrete results and have a clear future political orientation, with shared interests and bringing together the interests of Europe and Asia, two continents with a future.

Madam President, Mr President, Commissioner, I would like to start by welcoming the Cypriot Presidency and, of course, to wish it every success, by telling it that this Parliament is committed to concluding, in 2026, the negotiations on the next multiannual financial framework, which we know is essential for the Europe we want to be in the next decade. A financial framework that we want to be ambitious, financed with genuine new own resources, equipped with instruments fit for the Union to act and respond immediately in unforeseen situations and able to strengthen our strategic autonomy. Competitiveness, security and defence are of course a priority for the Union today. But cohesion policy, the common agricultural policy, the European Social Fund are also at the heart of the European project: transform solidarity into concrete investment, reduce disparities and ensure that no one is left behind. And without solidarity we know that there is no common future. We naturally want to start substantive negotiations for a multiannual budget that puts people at the heart of the Union's decisions and choices. We are confident that the Cypriot presidency will put the financial framework and own resources at the centre of the political agenda for the next six months and together we will be able to achieve commitments commensurate with the challenges we face, for a strong European Union with strong commitments and objectives, prepared to act collectively.

Madam President, Commissioner, the next meeting of the European Council is also synonymous with the multiannual financial framework. I want to say that this Parliament is deeply committed and committed to concluding the negotiations by the end of 2026. We know that the financial framework is not just a budgetary exercise, it is a political choice about the Europe we want. We want substantive negotiations for a multi-annual budget that puts people at the heart of the European Union's decisions and choices. To this end, this Commission proposal is not yet sufficient. We need an ambitious financial framework, with genuine adequate own resources and tools to enable the Union to act and respond immediately in unforeseen situations, and to strengthen Europe's strategic autonomy. We need to continue to strengthen the role of the regions in a logic of proximity, bringing the Union into the daily lives of citizens. Cohesion policy remains the heart and soul of the European project. It turns solidarity into concrete investment, reduces disparities and ensures that no one is left behind. Without solidarity there is no common future for our Union.

Mr President, Commissioner, Minister, let me, of course, first of all welcome my fellow rapporteurs on this dossier for the work they have done and the cooperation they have been able to establish in this Parliament, including with the Commission. The approval of the agreement for the Union’s annual budget for 2026 is an important political signal of commitment, especially in the current context, where the European Union needs to be strong and united. On the external action side, let me highlight the final agreement that strengthens support for the world's most disadvantaged regions, either through development support or through humanitarian aid. A reinforcement of €35 million in the budget line that will support Palestinian refugees will be essential to support construction efforts in Gaza and the wider region, ensure access to healthcare and education, and promote regional stability. The additional reinforcement of EUR 35 million for humanitarian aid also ensures capacities to be able to respond to and support the most disadvantaged regions in the face of growing geopolitical instability, worsening global humanitarian crises and climate change emergencies. Budgets are made up of choices. Our 2026 budget is on the right side of history. It maintains the European Union as a credible and present partner in development and supports the regions and peoples most exposed to conflicts and natural disasters, so that Europe can fully fulfil its role as a global actor.

Thank you very much, dear colleague, for your question. In my opinion, as co-rapporteur of this process, the climate and all these challenges that Europe faces are clearly identified not only in Parliament's report, as we had the opportunity in May to discuss in our Parliament in Strasbourg, but also in what is the presentation of the Commission's proposal. And the work that we all now have to do together, in this Parliament in particular and in our committees, is to contribute to improving the proposal that we have on the table at the moment. But issues that are decisive for the European Union, such as climate issues, are a concern and were a concern of this Parliament and are also a concern of the Commission.

Madam President, Commissioner, Minister, Parliament has, over time, taken a clear and constructive stance since the proposal for this multiannual financial framework was presented. Allow me, Madam President, to make a few points. The size of this financial framework does not seem to us to be sufficient to meet the Union's multiple needs from 2028. We want and need a Financial Framework adjusted to the real needs for cohesion, for the involvement of regions, agriculture, competitiveness, defence; we want to define European competitiveness in line with European values, promote social rights and environmental sustainability. We stress that the architecture of the Financial Framework is not adequate to meet the needs of the Union: our budget should be simpler, more transparent, with a sufficiently detailed budget nomenclature for the budgetary authority to take meaningful decisions. With the phasing out of NextGenerationEU and the FRR, there will be an immediate and significant investment gap and I can only recall Mr Draghi’s recommendations: the creation of a European safe asset to complement the next Multiannual Financial Framework. We need the ability to invest in what really matters to people. In the last few days, we have, in my opinion, taken significant steps. We are, Madam President, believe me, committed to working together with the Commission, but, as you will understand, we will not, of course, give up our role in building a fairer Europe prepared for all present and future challenges.

Mr President, Commissioner and President of the European Court of Auditors, the annual report of the Court of Auditors is always an opportunity to assess what we have done and what we can improve in the future in terms of the Union's budget. From this year’s report, I highlight as positive the Court’s recognition that the 2024 accounts present a fair and true view of the Union’s financial position, despite the reservations that still exist. There is a reduction in the level of error in spending, and this must be the way forward for European budgets to make them more efficient and transparent, and we hope that it will be a way forward. We have taken note of the Court's various recommendations to improve the Union's budgetary control and reduce irregularities, and we expect the Member States and the Commission to implement them. However, the most common errors, such as irregularities in projects and ineligible costs, but also non-compliance with public procurement rules, need to be corrected. For the Recovery and Resilience Facility – and given its relevance as a basis for the national and regional plans proposed by the Commission for the next multiannual financial framework – the cases identified by the Court where milestones and targets linked to payments have not been satisfactorily fulfilled, as well as problems with double funding, should be noted. I would also stress, once again, that this methodology proposed by the Commission for national and regional plans poses enormous difficulties for audit and budgetary control, also resulting in a lack of transparency with regard to the final beneficiaries, a subject that is widely discussed in our Committee on Budgetary Control. The report brings us some lessons and recommendations that will be useful for the future, now that we are, as has already been said, preparing the next multiannual financial framework post-2027. We naturally want the next financial framework to be sound in terms of the efficiency of the use of European funds and, of course, to have the maximum and greatest impact on the lives of our fellow citizens.

Mr President, Commissioner, Minister, first of all, allow me to welcome this budget proposal, as well as the work done by the two rapporteurs, in a particularly difficult context of economic and geopolitical uncertainty. We know that the fiscal space we have is limited, but we know that the challenges we face are almost unlimited. So we have to make choices. The first choice is to know where we want to go in terms of budget. We need a budget for 2026 that is credible, ambitious, flexible and people-centred. All the challenges we face today, from Ukraine to climate, from competitiveness to democracy, have a direct impact on the lives of Europeans and need funding. Europeans expect lasting responses from all of us, not simple reactions to external humours. Another choice is the European Union's commitment to its values. And let me welcome the fact that this 2026 budget has increased funding to support Palestinian refugees and, in particular, UNRWA. Gaza must be rebuilt from scratch, and the Union must be present in this support from the first minute. This is our commitment. Budgets are not just numbers, they are also commitments to our principles and our values.

Mr President, Commissioner, the New Union-India Strategic Agenda is an important step towards strengthening cooperation between the world's two largest democracies in areas such as trade, technology and defence. In a world where international alliances are being challenged and redefined, closer cooperation with India is a priority not only in economic terms, but also an absolute geopolitical necessity. We underline the commitment to conclude the long-awaited Free Trade Agreement, which will enable the Union to diversify its supply chains, strengthen our strategic autonomy and increase our presence in the Indo-Pacific, a key region for the European Union’s economic and security future. The potential for future cooperation that opens up with this new agenda and the future free trade agreement is important for the European Union. New Delhi is a key player in the dialogue with various regions that will allow the European Union's trade and technology partners, in addition to the United States and China, to be diversified. But this partnership between India and the European Union must be based on common values. Economic relations will only be sustainable in the long term if they are based on commitments to human rights, labour rights and climate action. For socialists, for S&D, the partnerships we sign abroad must follow the values we stand for within this House of the European Union.

Madam President, Commissioner Serafin, Minister, the approach of one national plan per Member State for shared management programmes is not an option for this European Parliament. This is clear from our own-initiative report. We will not accept a new multiannual financial framework without an independent, autonomous and strong European social fund. Article 162 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union defines the objectives and measures related to social policy and underlines that the European Social Fund is the main instrument for strengthening the social dimension of the Union. The European Social Fund should therefore be safeguarded. We will not accept weakening cohesion policy and its objectives and criteria. Cohesion policy should remain the main decentralised and long-term investment policy of the Union, a cohesion policy that remains focused on convergence, that reduces disparities between regions, with a specific scheme for the outermost regions and that maintains current levels of funding. Only in this way can we strengthen the competitiveness and resilience of the European Union.

Mr President, Commissioner Albuquerque, in a context of high uncertainty, increasing challenges and pressure on national budgets, the European Investment Bank is playing an increasingly decisive role in the Union's strategic future and, in particular, in the next budget for 2020-2027. To fulfil this important role, Parliament has recently given the green light to its new statutes and future strategy, allowing it to continue to ensure and strengthen its credibility with investors and Europeans, acting as a bench of European priorities and preserving its rating Triple A. But more needs to be done. In housing, we need to step up ambition with a new strategy for the middle class and young people. Externally, we need to continue to support Ukraine and expand Global Gateway projects. In the twin transition, the EIB will need to remain the climate bank and invest more in digital. In terms of competitiveness, we call for a renewed focus on startups and on SMEs to promote their internal growth and prevent them from escaping outside the European Union. In conclusion, we recognise and support the need to invest more in defence. But the EIB cannot be held hostage to a single policy strategy. Europe's future challenges will only be overcome with a strong and forward-looking European Investment Bank.

Mr President, Commissioner, I would like to witness here today Montenegro's commitment to membership of the European Union, which we met at the mission of the Committee on Budgets at the end of May, when we went to Montenegro for a number of fruitful meetings. Montenegro’s regional leadership position in the EU accession process in 2028 has been key and aligned with the support of Montenegrin citizens and most political actors. The path is made by walking. The reforms adopted must be implemented effectively and consistently to ensure genuine progress and full alignment with European Union legislation. Strengthening the functioning and coordination between state institutions is essential to achieve political stability and promote the country’s progress in implementing key Union-related reforms. In particular, as has already been said, electoral, judicial reforms and the fight against organised crime and corruption. Finally, it is important to note Montenegro's economic growth, stressing the importance of measures to reduce the government deficit and debt. But these deficit-reducing measures must not hinder greater public investment in the education system and in areas essential for the social, economic and sustainable development of civil society. I sincerely hope, as do other colleagues, that during this parliamentary term it will be possible to welcome Montenegro into our European Union.

Madam President, Commissioner, we cannot be in this debate without highlighting once again the stabilising effect that the Recovery and Resilience Facility has had on Member States at a time of great uncertainty. It mitigated the negative economic and social consequences and supported governments, promoting economic, social recovery and competitiveness, strengthening resilience and innovation, and supporting the green and digital transitions with the concern to leave no one behind. This mechanism also prevented further fragmentation of the internal market and a deepening of macroeconomic divergence in promoting social and territorial cohesion. However, not everything was perfect and there is room for improvement. The absence of a proper audit of the RRF and the lack of transparency on the 100 largest final beneficiaries, introduced at the request of this Parliament, is symptomatic of this. The lists of the largest final beneficiaries in each Member State should be regularly updated and made public. We need to know the beneficial owners to whom the support actually arrives. Finally, weaknesses in national reporting and control mechanisms should be noted, partly due to the complexity of internal audit and control procedures, which creates uncertainty in the Member States and an undesirable overload of administrative procedures that exacerbates implementation difficulties. We therefore need assurance on the proper functioning of Member States’ control systems; we need to check the compliance of RRF-funded investment projects with EU and national standards. Finally, Commissioner, allow me to take up a challenge here too: we need to find all possible ways to prolong the implementation of the RRF for projects that have already started and are ongoing. We cannot give up; It is not too late to continue on this path.

Mr President, Commissioner, the Socialists and Democrats argue that, although discharge is a political process, the decision to grant or refuse discharge to an institution remains factual and anchored in the fundamental principles and laws of the European Union. However, horizontally, in several discharges, issues that are not linked to these institutions have been brought into the scope of the various discharges. We cannot fail to underline the recurrence of the NGO reference in the context of allegations that the Commission engaged in lobbying in parallel through the disbursement of European Union funding. For our part, we do not subscribe to disinformation campaigns on funding NGO advocacy from the Union budget and targeting civil society. We seek to focus the debate around the current legal structure, European Union funding for advocacy for NGOs and, on the other hand, to demonstrate that these organisations should not be the only target for scrutiny by the Committee on Budgetary Control. The Committee on Budgetary Control has a duty to address all recipients of European Union funding, without exception, namely companies that also receive European Union funding for advocacy. On the other hand, we are factual about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, seeking to maintain the European Union's vital humanitarian support to the Palestinian civilian population through UNRWA. The debate on funding should continue in the European Commission discharge and not in the European External Action Service. Finally, I would stress the need for greater cooperation on the part of the Council so that its accounts can be transparent and subject to democratic scrutiny, like the other institutions.

Mr President, Commissioner, first of all, I would also like to thank all my fellow Members for their contributions and to reinforce two or three messages that we consider essential. Firstly – and none of us have any doubts – the European Union is a peace project, a peace and prosperity project that needs economic strength and defence credibility to go hand in hand. We need more investment in security and defence. We need investments that drive technological advances and benefit European industry beyond the military sector. We need investments that connect sectors and infrastructure, knowledge centres, regions and local communities, for the benefit of a more cohesive and competitive Union that leaves no one behind and no region forgotten. And the necessary investments must be covered by genuine own resources of the Union budget. Own resources that did not exist or would not be possible without the European Union, mechanisms that no single Member State can implement alone. Parliament also wants joint loans to be possible in the event of acute crises or in the case of defence, and we must have mechanisms in place that can be triggered with the European Parliament fully involved as legislator and budgetary authority. We hope that today will be the first of many discussions on this issue. We are and remain committed to working towards a budget that is up to the challenges after 2027. I must stress the close cooperation with my colleague, the co-rapporteur Siegfried Mureșan, with the shadow rapporteurs, in particular the Greens and Renew, and also with the various committees. At every moment, I think we have been able to value, in the first place, what really brings us together as Europeans, honouring the European project.

Mr President, Commissioner Serafin, European citizens expect more from the Union today, and we will agree for the most part that we need more ambition. We know that the Commission is considering major reforms to the budget. Let us be clear: Parliament considers that a reform is essential, and we cannot be content to protect the current multiannual financial framework, because it is not fit for purpose. The message for the next Multiannual Financial Framework is clear: reform of the financial framework and reorientation of common spending, yes, more simplification and more flexibility, yes, but not a one-size-fits-all approach, with a carte blanche for the Commission. The political, economic and social context is not the same now as it was in 2017. It is fair to say that the current context is not the same as when we started our work in October 2024. In particular, the decision of the US administration to backtrack on its global post-war role and to change the global economic order requires the European Union to rethink its own role and rethink how common spending from the EU budget can help to redirect European spending. The global and geopolitical order is changing, with war on our doorstep, global instability, a succession of devastating natural disasters, pressure on the European economy and social model, increased security and defence demands and the need to boost the green and digital transitions. We need to find our own way in the European Union, to achieve more security and to be more competitive and more resilient in a way that is consistent with what the European Union stands for. And at a time when people's concerns focus on their economic situation, wages, quality jobs, the twin transitions, we cannot fail to address these concerns through the European budget. Part of this discussion goes clearly through how much we think should be invested through the Union budget. Our vision is that the needs are clearly greater, and we need to be bold in spending more where common expenses make the most sense. The Union must be more competitive. This is not only the right path – it is the only path to a stronger Union. But being competitive means creating not only more economic resilience, but also more social and territorial cohesion. Competitiveness needs strong investment in education, research, innovation and skills to ensure that the prosperity achieved is shared by all, to ensure that our values and our social model are protected, that the values that are at the heart of our European project continue to be protected. In the view of the European Parliament, this is not done through a Competitiveness Fund that only brings together important existing programmes. No – the Competitiveness Fund should be additional and fill gaps that are now widely diagnosed in our European economy. On the national plans, Parliament does not know exactly what the Commission wants. We agree that linking all Union funding to investment in Union priorities is a good thing, but who sets those priorities and how it will be of vital importance. We can, of course, learn from the Recovery and Resilience Facility, but we also know that the Recovery and Resilience Facility has failed in terms of the involvement of regional and local authorities and has not sufficiently supported cross-border investment, which is a real added value of the European Union. We also know that we want a shared management model, multilevel and with the principles of partnership at the centre. Only with people and regions at the heart of the European budget can we deepen the social, economic and territorial cohesion of the Union.

Cross-border policies are absolutely essential if we are to strengthen cohesion between the 27 Member States. Moreover, in the proposal for the multiannual financial framework, which is currently under discussion and receiving the contributions of the various committees, we have had the opportunity, in one of its paragraphs, to mention just that: the connection between the territories. Deepening the cross-border dimension and strengthening its links is absolutely essential for strengthening the Union, particularly in areas such as mobility and the case of our territories, which are of great concern to us.

Mr President, Minister, Commissioner, cohesion policy has historically been an essential axis for the implementation of the European Union's priorities. It is cohesion policy that brings the European Union to the fore and keeps Europe close and visible to its citizens. It's the biggest proximity policy we have. But for its success, it needs stability and predictability. We know that European priorities can change rapidly. We have seen this in the past with COVID or the energy crisis. We now have new and urgent priorities, such as defence or European competitiveness, for which large amounts of money and investment are needed. In times of urgency, all Union policies must be called upon to contribute to the new priorities. Cohesion policy will, as it has always done, play its part in aligning with the new requirements and defence spending cannot come at the expense of social and environmental spending, nor can it lead to a reduction in cohesion policy funding, which has proven its worth over time. It is the Member States who know the terrain and their needs and must decide how to manage their financial envelopes and how to link them to national priorities. We cannot empty cohesion policy by decree or with blind cuts.

Mr President, Commissioner, with the reality we are experiencing today, it is undeniable and undelayable to promote more investments in our common security and defence. We must ensure that the Union is prepared to face all kinds of threats, from hybrid to conventional, by establishing strong deterrence, reducing our dependencies and strengthening our autonomy. But any idea of trying to choose between investments in security and defence, or social cohesion, or cohesion, would result in a certain defeat on both fronts. Any investment strategy must be comprehensive, it must address both our vulnerabilities in military capabilities and those in our social fabric. These are strategic decisions for the Union and its future. This means that the European Parliament should not be excluded from the decision-making processes with regard to the spending programmes underlying the choices made for the European Union. ReArm’s recent proposal includes new joint loans based on Article 122 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union – and we can only regret the use, again, of this article, which excludes Parliament from the decision. The European Parliament is the only institution with legislative, budgetary and supervisory powers, with democratic legitimacy conferred by the direct election of its members. We are here to decide for the benefit of European citizens.

Madam President, Commissioner, the approval of this instrument of reform and growth demonstrates the European Union's strong support for Moldova in the challenging geopolitical context in which we find ourselves. There is no doubt that the co-rapporteurs and this Parliament are committed to building this mechanism. In this process, it has become clear that, when urgently called upon to give its opinion, the European Parliament is able to respond by making European solidarity its priority. And as a co-decision maker, a budgetary authority, it lives up to its Treaty responsibilities – and will no doubt continue to do so in every case. Parliament also made important adjustments to this mechanism, notably by increasing the pre-financing rate from 7% to 18% and by changing the subsidy component from 16% to 20.5%. We also advocate for greater administrative capacity in Moldova, so we have more funding dedicated to strengthening its institutions. Finally, Parliament also has enhanced oversight, in a dialogue between Parliament and the Commission, to review progress in the implementation of this mechanism. It is clear our commitment to the Moldovan people and our commitment to Moldova's path towards membership of the European Union.

Madam President, Mr Vice-President, Minister, Russia's war against Ukraine has significantly affected the regions of the Union with the greatest geographical proximity and strong economic ties with Russia, Belarus and Ukraine. A sharp reduction in investment, a reduction in trade flows, a reduction in economic activity have led to job losses, an increase in unemployment and a deterioration in the social economic conditions of citizens in these regions. The war also brought a high number of refugees which created additional pressure on local integration systems. The European Union is a union of solidarity, a union of solidarity with all, and the Union budget must be able to respond to the challenges of the Union. We cannot repeat mistakes of the past, as we did with the countries of southern Europe, where solidarity did not guide the intervention of the European Union. Support for these regions is essential. And we do not know, neither of us knows, whether in the future the challenges can remain these or will be others. Commissioner, we need a robust, flexible and people-centred next multiannual financial framework for the Union, able to support these regions in the perspective of cohesion, able to respond to the challenges that arise.

Mr President, Commissioner, Minister, the Compass for Competitiveness offers us an ambitious path and objectives. But having ambitious goals is not enough, it takes political will to implement them, it takes a strong and broad commitment to finance them. The capital market union, which is essential for attracting private investment, cannot be the fate of the Banking Union, which has been incomplete for more than ten years. Easing fiscal rules or broadening the definition of defence spending are important but ancillary measures. Securing all public investment in the next MFF is not an option. Without substantial additional funding, we will not be able to make Europe more competitive. The Draghi report indicates an annual investment gap of up to $700 billion, potentially increasing due to the cost of inaction. We need a combined strategy for public and private investments. A permanent investment instrument is therefore essential, as is, Commissioner, a reliable, robust and flexible multiannual financial framework for the implementation of the Union's policies.

Mr President, Madam President Lagarde, Commissioner Maria Luís Albuquerque, in the article you signed two weeks ago in the Financial Times with President von der Leyen, you assured her that you are ready to do everything necessary to bring Europe back. This was the attitude that saved the euro in 2010 and averted a financial crisis during COVID. In these crises, the ECB was able to support the general policies of the Union, as written in its secondary mandate. We must give up dogmas. We cannot fight inflation blindly or let market neutrality be a principle written in stone. We need action and results. For example, to have closer coordination of the monetary and fiscal policy of the Union or to use the secondary mandate to be more ambitious in monetary policies and instruments. The current climate of uncertainty in the United States also opens an opportunity for us to strengthen the international promotion of the euro as a credible alternative to the dollar and move faster on the digital euro. As you say in your article in the Financial Times, in which I see myself, there is a lot at stake. We can no longer waste our strength with self-imposed disadvantages.

Mr President, Commissioner, the Budapest Declaration is a step in the right direction and in the commitment to the future financing of the European Union's priorities. But the new competitiveness pact now needs to go from words to deeds, from intentions to policies, from ambition to investments. We need the Commission to come forward with a proposal for the post-2027 Multiannual Financial Framework that is simpler, more flexible, more effective and better able to respond to the challenges we face and the objectives we pursue. We urgently need to implement the Capital Markets Union to mobilise key investment to support our small and medium-sized enterprises and businesses. startups compete on a global scale. And we need the European Investment Bank to adopt a comprehensive and mobilising role for public investment. But these three axes are not enough. As the Declaration rightly states, we need new instruments and new own resources. We expect the new Commission to build on the success of Next Generation EU and the SURE and to present in this mandate a long-requested permanent fiscal capacity in this Parliament. A fiscal capacity that allows the European Union to finance strategic sectors in such a way that we have an innovative, resilient and sustainable Europe that asserts and strengthens its position in the global context.