Speeches

Madam President, thank you very much. The social networks in our Member States are, of course, absolutely fundamental in order to provide security for the many people, but I think the oral question that was asked is wrong. It assumes that there would be stronger protection if centralisation were to take place and if the European Union were to determine more and more of the regulatory frameworks. That's not true. Here I have a letter from the Swedish major trade unions, who are critical of the proposals to introduce a statutory minimum wage. In Sweden and the Nordic countries, we have a partnership agreement between employers and employees, which formulates the wage conditions in the market. It has been an extremely successful model and we should not abandon it. We must protect the Nordic model of collective bargaining and we must reject binding legislation from the EU.

Mr President, thank you very much. The European Parliament's draft budget clearly shows how far we are from reality. When the Member States in the Council cut a billion euros because the economy is on its knees, growth is lousy and deficits are running, then Members of this House are running in the opposite direction, demanding that the whole amount be restored. It doesn't stop there. In addition, colleagues here are demanding more money for programmes that the EU's own Court of Auditors has already criticised for lack of transparency and questionable value for taxpayers. To top it off, they want to add an additional billions to aid outside the region. It is not responsible, and it is not solidarity with European taxpayers. It is a waste that only widens the gap between the EU and its citizens. For Democrats, the election is easy. We will stand up for restraint and respect for taxpayers. More people in this house should do that.

Mr President, thank you very much. I would also like to thank the European Court of Auditors for this solid annual report. It is extremely important to remove it, and I would like to thank the Commission for underlining that it will work hard to reduce the level of error, which is still far too high. However, I would like to mention something that I find remarkable about the recommendations, and that is that the audit has not been able to ensure full access to documents, financial documents – to check how the costs have been incurred and how they have been used. This applies, on the one hand, to international organisations, where the Court has been calling for clearer rules for international organisations to provide input for the audit for five years. If this documentation is not received quickly enough, the Commission will simply have to withhold the money from non-compliant organisations. Another side of it is, as mentioned by several speakers here as well, the final beneficiaries of the coronavirus fund (Recovery and Resilience Facility). There are no conditions for this to be declared and therefore there can be no audit opinion on the regularity of the costs. It is also something that is extremely remarkable, that it is not possible to document fully here. This methodology is not allowed to enter into the next multi-year budget that is sometimes discussed. We must keep track of how the money is spent, the Court of Auditors must be able to audit it. Another end point here is that the Court also shows that there is a need to have control over when investing in infrastructure projects, that there are sufficient funds for maintenance and operation going forward. I think this is an extremely important part that should be included in the decision-making process.

Mr President, thank you very much. It's easy to be generous with other people's money. This report on the 2026 budget is shameless in its waste. Advocating for new sources of income that slap taxpayers, that is not acceptable. The report disapproves of the Council cutting back, saving some of the Commission's proposal. But here can be cut down more, in the frugal spirit. Instead of building air castles, Europe should return to what is at the heart of this cooperation, of European cooperation. It is security, free trade and competitiveness. This can't get away. We must return to the core task of getting Europe back on its feet and ensuring that Europe does not fall behind.

Mr President, thank you very much. This debate on digitalisation is marked by two opposing perspectives. One side wants to control, regulate and censor, the other side protects freedom, openness and development. We should have learned that when policy interferes with technological development, the capacity to innovate is limited. Detailed governance and regulatory approaches are lagging Europe behind. If Europe is to become competitive, we need to safeguard digital freedom – yes, all freedoms – and not regulate ourselves apart and together.

Mr President, thank you very much. We must remember that at the beginning of the year it was the EU that had higher tariffs on the US in important areas such as cars and agricultural products. This has prompted the new US administration to react with its own protectionism. At this point, this means for me that it will be necessary to praise the Commission for agreeing an agreement with the US, even though I personally would have rather seen zero: zero – tariffs on both sides. The Commission did not sink into childish attacks on the United States demanding retaliatory tariffs on whiskey, jeans and Harley Davidson. Our trade relations are far too important for prestigious posing. Let us continue to work for reduced tariffs with responsible realism.

Mr President, thank you very much. The historian Niall Ferguson speaks of a Cold War 2.0, i.e. a major global contradiction, especially between the United States and China. It is about technology, about natural resources and about territories. In this, too, trade and tariffs are a quarrel that has arisen in this. We are more of a spectator on that part, and I think our task is to ensure that we get as low tariffs as possible and in both directions. Europe has had higher tariffs on the United States in certain areas than the United States has had on Europe, so we should not be so superior in that we would be in favour of free trade more than the United States. It is important to find the common denominator and choose whether we are on the side of the West or whether we are on the side of China.

Mr President, thank you very much. Digitalisation in our time has enormous advantages, but when the EU claps into this area, there is reason to be vigilant. Instead of boosting the economy, the EU's Digital Markets Act (DMA) penalises companies that create jobs and force lucrative technology development to flee Europe. Then there are the plans for the digital euro. It risks promoting expansionary monetary policy, which would erode financial stability. The idea of digital identities also has significant downsides. They can become tools for tracking citizens every step of the way and destroying privacy. Instead of approaching a digital dystopia where freedom is sacrificed and growth hampered, the EU should advocate digitalisation, protect individual privacy and free market innovators. That's how we create the future.

Madam President, thank you very much. The good thing about this implementation report is that it takes note of the Court's warnings that the grant economy entails significant administrative burdens. Several members in this debate today, from left to right, have pointed out the major shortcomings that the Corona Fund RRF entails. It risks weakening productive entrepreneurs that strengthen competitiveness in Europe and favouring unproductive grant projects that impair competitiveness. The lesson of the RRF is that we should not devote ourselves to loans and EU taxes. It leads to the opposite of what we wish for all of us. This leads to a planned economic colossus that stifles development. Europe is worth better.

Madam President, thank you very much. As far as the European Court of Auditors is concerned, it is interesting to hear that no one has proposed savings on this activity. We have very different political views in this House, but I think it is a strength that we agree that the European Court of Auditors is doing an excellent job. A reflection: The ECA budget represents less than one-tenth of the EU budget. That is a very small sum for the work and strength that it entails for the Union to have an audit that does proper work and reveals the problems that exist. 0.1% should be increased so that we can have even better reports and even more reviews on the activities that the European Union is doing. Then perhaps we could even be a little more in agreement on what the Union is doing, if we know that these are reasonable projects and that they are being carried out in a good and efficient way. So I think we should think hard about whether the European Court of Auditors should not have a much larger budget in order to be able to do more audit work for the Union.

Mr President, thank you very much. As rapporteur for this proposal, I would first like to underline the importance of the work of the European Court of Auditors. The ECA plays a unique role within the Union. The ECA carries out independent audits of the Union’s substantial spending and, through its work, reinforces the lack of democratic legitimacy that the EU suffers from, by providing increased transparency and accountability. For 2023, the Court’s budget amounted to around 175 million euro, representing an increase of just under 8 %. I consider this to be a very small increase given that the ECA’s work has expanded and now also includes the multi-billion-dollar coronavirus fund to be audited. In view of the increased need for auditing following the significant increase in the volume of resources through the Coronavirus Fund, the ECA’s cost increases may be seen as too small to carry out an effective audit. The Corona Fund was a response to a crisis, but crises must never be an excuse for lax controls. We must therefore be vigilant so that external factors do not obscure the visibility of potential internal control weaknesses. Several years ago, the Court of Auditors warned that the level of error in EU budgets is increasing significantly. In 2023, the auditors’ error rate increased to 5,6 %. These amounts are now enormous. Particularly with regard to the disbursements of the coronavirus fund, widespread fraud can be observed. According to the Court, it is simply not possible to follow the money to see where it has gone. Weaknesses in control systems and the very low level of on-the-spot checks are used by national authorities, companies and organisations to seize EU money. It is fraudulent towards taxpayers to allow this abuse to continue. Billions of dollars are spent wrongly every year. I therefore welcome the fact that, in the report, a unanimous Committee on Budgetary Control calls for a further increase in the scrutiny carried out under the heading: European public administrationnotes with concern that 30 % of the transactions analysed were affected by error; The wide-ranging errors signal the need to step up efforts to identify and combat fraud and irregularities. This is why, among other things, it is of the utmost importance that the Court of Auditors has full access to tools that can help their efforts. The ECA should have access to the Commission’s and Member States’ databases on fraud cases linked to EU funding. The Commission grants the ECA access only to certain modules of FENIX, the database that monitors the expenditure of the coronavirus fund. The Commission also fails to ensure that the information in the modules is updated quickly enough. It cannot be the case that institutions responsible for scrutinising Union funds are forced to work with incomplete or outdated information. The Commission should therefore provide the Court of Auditors with full and unhindered access to the modules in Fenix without delay. It is important to bear in mind that resources spent on auditing the EU's grant stream reveal misuse and save large amounts of money. I thank you for the cooperation in committee on this report. I hope that the groups in this Parliament can agree to support the important work of the European Court of Auditors.

Madam President, thank you very much. On the part of the Sweden Democrats, we have long been sounding the alarm about the EU's unsustainable budgetary policy, about the problems with joint borrowing and about the corona fund, the RRF. We warn that increased budgets lead to misinvestment and that billions are lost through fraud and irregularities. The Commission, on the other hand, is pushing for an increase in the budget and power at the expense of the nations. The report we are now discussing fits in with the wishes of the Commission. It insists that the next long-term budget be given increased resources. The historic restriction that the budget does not exceed 1% of GNI is to be waived. To this we should say no, no, no. The long-term budget must be reduced and responsibility returned to the Member States. The EU must stop signalling goodness. Through economy, the EU can carry out its core tasks with greater cost-effectiveness for the benefit of all.

Mr President, I would like to thank you. Unemployment is too high. Social networks are inadequate. There is a significant shortage of affordable housing. Healthcare needs to be strengthened." Much of what my colleagues have said here today can be agreed with. But these are not competences for the EU, but for national and local democratic bodies that are closer to citizens' everyday lives. We in the EU need to focus on strengthening competitiveness and reducing the regulatory burden. Only by boosting growth and creating better conditions for business can resources be created that can strengthen our social institutions and make life easier for those in difficulty across Europe.

Mr President, thank you very much. Extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures. She speaks of bold and decisive actions, yet the Commission is unable to do just that: focus. It continues to speak in terms of ‘more of everything’. To be truly bold, Europe must have the courage to make it a priority. A number of previously set ambitions must be prioritized down or scrapped. The big question is whether green climate goals should be allowed to delay military and security policy goals, for example through high energy costs. What does the Commission put first? The geopolitical situation requires clear language. We can't have both. It leads to neither. Freedom or green, that is the question.

Women's rights are, of course, something that is very important to address here. But I wonder why you do not mention what exists and spreads very much in Europe now, with the destructive women's culture that Islamist fundamentalists are trying to implement with oppression of honor and other things. Isn't that a very big and essential part to deal with when it comes to women's rights in Europe?

Mr President, I would like to thank you. Do you remember the Lisbon Strategy of 2000? The EU would become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world. Twenty-five years later, we can see that not only the Lisbon Strategy, but a series of other solemnly proclaimed treaties, have failed. The EU lagged behind and lost momentum. The competitiveness compass now proposed is filled with the same contradictions that five previous Commissions have expressed. On the one hand, simplifying the rules. That is right and it increases freedom, innovation and competitiveness. On the other hand, however, there is an emphasis on harmonisation, support policies and more climate regulation. This inevitably leads to more bureaucracy, waste and top-down governance that stifles innovation and competitiveness. We can't go on like this. Instead, we must act by deregulating.

Mr President, I would like to thank you. In the United States, Doge, the Department of Government Efficiency, has in a short time made big headlines when exposing waste in government administration. An initiative such as Doge is needed in the EU. Someone who questions priorities in current budgets and allocation of resources. The European Court of Auditors and others are doing a good job of mapping how resources are used within the framework of existing decisions. But already here the level of error is increasing and that is worrying. We need someone who does more than just auditing. We need someone who questions existing legislation from a strictly streamlining perspective. Do the funds and regulatory frameworks benefit or harm competitiveness in Europe? On the one hand is anyone who wants more money for good purposes. This needs to be balanced by a counterforce. We need a task force, like the American Doge's Mavericks, that exposes waste and inefficiency. A force that drives real change.

Madam President, I would like to thank you for your It is a serious misuse of taxpayers’ money when NGOs use contributions from the Commission’s LIFE programme to influence us parliamentarians on green issues. Following the revelation, the Commission, as Commissioner Serafin has now also said here, has changed the rules so that they are not allowed to use this money in direct influence. But it still means that there are opportunities for indirect influence through workshops and other activities. I would like to ask the centre-right Group of the European People's Party (EPP) whether this revelation is not an excellent reason to abandon, in future budgets, the EUR 2 billion spent on climate activism under the LIFE programme, in order to use these resources instead for urgent measures such as strengthening the EU's external borders and Frontex.

Mr President, thank you very much. The American people have chosen a new political direction. This will have positive consequences for us in Europe. Europe is finally forced to strengthen its competitiveness, green utopias must be reconsidered. There's an important sobriety waiting. The United States will deregulate the state apparatus, take control of borders and protect the interests of taxpayers. This means that we in Europe need to tighten up. We need less of planned economy, less of regulatory hysteria and an end to wok and gender confusion. Let us begin an era of common sense with the United States.

Madam President, thank you very much. All dictatorships in history have curtailed freedom of expression with motive to prevent disinformation, to prevent lies. Therefore, DSA is a tragic act that plays with fire. Instead, I would like to safeguard our European Enlightenment tradition and I could quote Voltaire: "I dislike what you say, but am prepared to die for your right to say what you think." It is a fundamental principle that is much deeper than a single piece of legislation, a fundamental value. Those who challenge our Western values, we shall meet them in open debate. I find it strange that so many in this House do not seem to believe in our values, but we must censor, stop and hinder. I am convinced that we will win every debate with Russia, China and all other dictatorships that seek to undermine our values. We will take them into open debate, not by trying to use their methods. It is absolutely essential that we protect our freedom of expression instead of chasing control.

Mr President, I would like to thank you. This discussion frightens me. In the last 20 years, nothing has strengthened democracy, made it broader, more accessible, than the internet and social platforms. Many tens, hundreds of millions of people have been able to express themselves in these media that have not been heard before, that have not had their voice heard, that have been able to participate in the public debate. It is an enormous step forward that the internet and social media have contributed to strengthening democracy. But here in this House you hear from the old ruling parties that it is poison, that it is brainwashing, that it lowers democracy. To me, this sounds like a medieval Inquisition that hunts heretics. Ordinary people should shut up. It's up to the ruling elite to decide. We can't have that. We need to protect and defend social media.