Speeches

I am grateful for your question. I have said that the coherence between the General Data Protection Regulation, which was done more than ten years ago, together with the treatment of data – that are not only the new oil, but like sunshine for the digital economy – is needed. We don't want to break anything down, but we want to achieve full coherence between AI and the digital services sector, but also the GDPR. Maybe it looks to you like something minor, but it can have very deep impact on digital businesses. I think we should look at that to make sure that they can do with one rule all the rules that we have done.

Mr President, Executive Vice-President, I think I am well known in this House for respecting the rules – especially the speaking rules – so I will stay within my time frame. But I would like to say, colleagues, we want to deliver. We want to make sure that European companies can compete at worldwide level. For sure, they have to respect our rules – as all other companies in Europe as well. But our rulebook, unfortunately, because it comes from different times and from different legislatures, is not really streamlined. There should be no misunderstanding: we want our rules to be respected, but we want rules that are coherent. I am very grateful to our colleague Mr Lagodinsky who says that he is here in a spirit of cooperation, because we want to cooperate on serious rules that can be respected by everyone. I have to tell you: on Monday, I was in a very good startup in my constituency in the Black Forest. These people – a doctorate in physics from Heidelberg University – is able to balance AI concerns, fast-track computing with concerns of data protection as well as data privacy. These people are not stupid. They know exactly what we are talking about and they need coherence. I want to thank you as well Executive Vice-President Henna Virkkunen. I think this package should bring coherence. All those that are looking forward to bring coherence to help our companies are welcome in this process of negotiations.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! Today we are talking about something that should deeply concern us all – the uncontrolled sale of illegal and dangerous products through large online platforms. These include, as in the case of today's discussion, childish-looking dolls, weapons and other clearly illegal goods and content. These products, ladies and gentlemen, are not only clearly contrary to European law, they are an attack on our values, on the protection of our children and also on the safety of our citizens. That is why it is absolutely right that the European Commission, dear Henna Virkkunen, points out that it has been negotiating with the very large online platform Shein since February 2025 and has asked the platform to provide information on the sale of illegal products. A further investigation followed in May. But all these cases, ladies and gentlemen, all these cases are not isolated cases. We see the same pattern in many platforms. That is why we expect the European Commission not only to negotiate, but to act. The Digital Services Act has created legal bases in a number of articles. Article 74 allows the European Commission to impose fines. Article 9 creates the possibility of the threat that dangerous products must be removed. All these legal possibilities that the legislator has created must now be applied, because it will not be a good thing in the long run that we only explain to the citizens what is not possible. Citizens must feel that Europe is protecting them, that Europe is acting. That's why we need action!

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! Precisely because we want companies from Germany and France or wherever in Europe to be able to supply all cities in Europe with uniform products, we need uniform standards. For Europe to grow digitally and sustainably, we also need to strengthen the technical foundation. Standardisation remains one of the central pillars and it benefits precisely those companies that may be facing difficult economic times because it gives them access to the entire European single market and thus allows them to sell much more products with one production facility than usual. That's why it's just the other way around as just described. The standardization benefits the individual companies because the synergy effects become greater. We see it in other parts of the world: A patchwork of contradictory norms does not use, but harms. This is why Europe, with its unified system, must continue to maintain reliability, clarity and trust in the future. With the CE marking, you can buy a product – whether in Freiburg, Florence or wherever, in Finland – that must deliver all clearly identifiable technical standards and thus create trust – from the consumer, but of course also from the sellers. This is exactly what the single market is all about, and this is one of the great locational advantages that we have in Europe. That is why with the new legal framework for products, so that we can survive in the digital and sustainable age, we need initiatives that strengthen this very European idea of the single market.

Mr President, Vice-President Ribera, ladies and gentlemen! We had to wait four years for the penalty that the Commission has just carried out to be imposed. And during this period, many small and medium-sized publishers in the European Union have faced serious difficulties because they have largely lost the core business they need to publish contributions, articles and opinions, namely the advertising industry. It doesn't take us too far to ask who made what mistake. But one thing is clear, and that is why the decision is right, Madam Vice-President: A dominant position in such an important area is simply unacceptable for European democracy, for the diversity of 27 Member States. That is why, on behalf of the EPP Group, I would like to thank you for the decision and believe that the proposal that structural measures must also be based on it is the right way to push the decision in the right direction. Nevertheless, ladies and gentlemen, it is of course the case that, in connection with the decision on Adtech There are a number of other questions on Google that we also need to address. The first, as you mentioned, is a contribution by the European Union to ensuring media diversity in Europe. Secondly, of course, there is also the question of how we will be able to combat further developments in other areas of dominant positions in the digital sector more quickly in the future, so that we do not have to wait another four years. That is why, at this point, Vice-President Ribera, I would like to point out once again that we urgently need to deal with the newly existing AI bots, the entire issue of artificial intelligence, at an early stage, so that we do not run the same risk in terms of free competition here as we do, for example, in the area of: Adtech have experienced. Europe must act now to secure the future of the digital sector in Europe in an open way.

Thank you so much colleague van Lanschot – a brilliant question, and I am sure that you have been already exchanging with your colleague from the Social Democrats who is sitting next to you who is also in government with us. I think we can rely on the Parliament's position that is very clear and has very clearly said that we do not believe that this proposal is the way forward, because Briefgeheimnis, the secrecy of private writing in the past has been a concept that we have been defending together, and we will also uphold it in the future, in the digital future. However, I also think that we share here all together that the protection of children in digital terms is a real challenge that we have to take very seriously and therefore we have to strike the right balance. The secrecy of personal information has to be kept, but at the same time, authorities have to have the power to investigate seriously.

Madam President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen! The debate on European digital policy shows that sometimes we don't know exactly what we can be proud of and what we need to look at in a self-critical way. I believe that the basic principle of the social market economy, which allows open markets and access to new technologies for many players, is the right way to go – even in the 21st century. And we should have the courage to critically reject studies that are presented with rare arguments in Brussels. I believe that we have tried to find the right balance between the interests of the individual and the interests of the whole, both in the Digital Markets Act and in the Digital Services Act. And, of course, we have included the diversity of Europe between 27 Member States. That's why we can confidently defend our laws at this point. And it has often been said in the debate that many of our colleagues attach great importance to the fact that we also do so in an international environment. But of course, the laws we have adopted always have to go with the times. That is why, Madam Vice-President Virkkunen, I would like to make it very clear: We passed these laws two years ago, but digital development has continued. We need for cloud, we need for artificial intelligence now a designation as core platform service – not next year, but in 2025, because otherwise we will not get the advantage of open markets that we wanted to achieve with these laws. That would be a pity, because Europe is slow in many places. In places where we are fast, we should not lose this advantage. I therefore hope that today's debate has opened our eyes to all of us and that we will move forward with self-confidence over the coming months in this argument.

Madam President, first of all, Minister, let me tell you that I think you did a very good job this morning of reminding us that if we announce that we want to change the law, then we also have to deliver on it. I cannot hide from you that I am myself a bit frustrated that this takes too much time. You're absolutely right. If you don't like it, it's announced. We have to find majorities and we have to go for it. I take this initiative very positively. Thank you so much for this. Now, turning to the point that this discussion this morning is about, I would like to thank Commissioner Séjourné and I would like to point out that on a lot of issues, it is very complicated to show what practically the single market means. I think that this is all the time a bit the problem of our discussion: it's very general and we have to try to make it very precise. So, the example – and I am very grateful, Commissioner, that you have come forward with that proposal – concretely, it means that if you transfer a worker from one country in the European Union to another one, that this can be done easily. We don't want to deregulate, but we want to make it easy. He has to go for an A1 form and, at the same time, his employer has to make an employment declaration on two different forms on two different systems. In 27 Member States, every time a different way. That's not feasible. This takes too much time. It's pure bureaucracy and we should look for a system where we can merge both declarations into one so that this goes much faster. Secondly, we have also been speaking about customs. We know that at the moment we are invaded by millions of packages per day from the Far East and no control is happening. We are discussing about it since months – since years, I would like to say – and also here we have to go for action. Our single market merits a uniform control at its borders to make sure that no country can offer privileged access to specific goods that are dangerous. Finally, I would like to say, colleagues, that the International Monetary Fund may have gone a bit strongly and maybe also a bit in the wrong direction, but that some services have a barrier in the European Union of 110 % means that, in the end, more than double of the price has to be paid just for a service coming from another country. It's a delicate question, but we have to work on it and we are looking forward to your roadmap.

Madam President, Commissioner! First of all, thank you to the rapporteur and our shadow rapporteur Henrik Dahl for an excellent work. I believe that we have come to a relatively unanimous agreement on what the broad lines must be in the context of our committee. This is very positive, thank you for making it possible. But – this is my first point: The Single Market is not only made in the Single Market Committee. Today we are voting on unfair trade practices in the agricultural sector. Our colleagues in the agricultural sector understand things a little differently, perhaps even a little wrongly. And our goal must be to ensure that the internal market is applied cleanly in all areas of law. The colleague Van Lanschot made a good point with his Nike speech: Just do it. I am very grateful to him. We must ensure that we get a majority not only here, but also in the Council of Ministers, so that what has been declared a positive message for years is finally implemented. And we're having a hard time. And that is why I am already saying, Commissioner: I don't really see it as a 28. Regimes of 27 Member States are accepted. I have doubts; I believe that at the end of every country wants to work on the settlement from a sovereignty point of view, and that is why the solution will be that we get the countries to push them to a certain extent to create common rules in the areas currently covered by the 28th European Council. regime is addressed. Secondly, I would like to address Mr Dibrani. It's just a fairy tale that it's all about deregulation. That's not the goal. I have understood this very well, Mr Colleague: They want simplification; We want that too. Let's sit together! Let's talk about the fact that the Omnibus I is finally accepted! There are solutions that are not deregulation, but simplification.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! As far as public procurement law is concerned, we are in a situation like 2014 except that we have had a colleague in every sectoral report since 2014 who did not find a compromise and then said: Then we simply introduce an additional provision under public procurement law! This has led in part to conflicting procurement rules. That is why the Commission has to converge a little bit on what this Parliament has done over the last five years. First of all, my request: If we now agree on rules, then these rules should also apply, notwithstanding specific sectoral rules such as the creation of e-mobility. Secondly: What we want to achieve is to make investment as easy as possible, in line with the internal market. I come from a border region. It must therefore be possible for the Lord Mayor of Freiburg to advertise services that can then also be provided from France or, in my case, from Switzerland. This must be the aim of public procurement law – not the last detail of what some might wish to regulate here. Thirdly, I would like to give an example from my region: In the Karlsruhe area, a large administrative building was to be built of wood. There is a similar building in Australia. The Karlsruhers have decided to commission the Austrian company. They wanted to build it, but then they said – and it wasn’t about the lowest price: The building standards in Germany are different, we cannot comply with them. We built this in Austria according to Austrian standards, that's for sure, but that's not how we can transfer it, so we don't make an offer. That is to say, the internal market is sometimes troubled not by price alone, but by various national building codes, and, Commissioner: That is why it is essential that we also tackle these issues if we really want to establish the internal market in public procurement law.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! First of all, I would like to congratulate my colleague Salvatore De Meo on this excellent report. I believe that all the important issues relating to e-commerce in the European single market are really being discussed in depth here. This is important because the numbers are: 4.6 billion micro consignments below the duty-free limit of 150 euros were imported into the European Union from all over the world last year. Shockingly, 91% of these shipments come from a single third country, equivalent to 12 million parcels per day. The fact that these deliveries are also privileged by post and thus subject to costs other than European products makes things difficult. That is why I do not want to lament too much about the problems we have in the short speaking time that I have left anyway. The Commissioner has already described it and the report puts it on record. It is about what we can do to adequately protect the European single market, consumers, but also the companies operating here, and to create a new framework. We therefore propose that, in the context of the new European Customs Code, a so-called handling fee – to create a handling fee – which will bring about significant changes, especially for such micro-packages, which, of course, are subject to particular difficulties in the control by customs authorities and market surveillance authorities. I hope that we can achieve a handling fee Introduce a total of 4 euros per package and thus achieve a hedging effect. Better controls for more security!

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! The internal energy market is at the heart of one of the networked elements of the European internal market. That is why we are doing well to ensure, with Mrs Stürgkh's report, that we are investing in this single market in order to achieve greater resilience, as we saw it a few weeks ago in Spain: If a country does not have enough connectors with the other countries of the single market, we risk a blackout. We can avoid this relatively easily by building more connectors, by further stabilising the internal market, in this case the internal electricity market, and by adding more interconnectors. This is an issue that we have been discussing for years; Commissioner Oettinger has already promoted this during his time in the European Parliament. But we have not succeeded in convincing the Member States that it is not only a good idea, but that we must also implement it, that the electrical grids of the Backbone The European energy system – the title of the report – is that it is simply about investment. If we look at how we stand in global competition, then we can show this quite simply: Industrial enterprises in the United States pay between 6 cents and 9 cents per kilowatt hour, in China even less; In Germany and Europe, the average electricity price is over 20 cents. This will not work in the long run. That is why it is good and right that this report should re-examine the point. We need to invest accordingly in the European internal energy market and networks if we are to achieve the resilience and competitiveness of the European economy.

Mr President, Commissioner, congratulations on this strategy. Mr President! Monsieur le Commissaire, félicitations pour cette stratégie. The Single Market Strategy follows directly on from the reports by Mr Draghi and Mr Letta. It shows a new self-confidence of the European single market, the European Union. In other words, if we implement the Single Market Strategy, we can simply create new growth through closer cooperation. This new growth, ladies and gentlemen, is what we need. This is because the remaining barriers may be very easy to overcome if it is possible to achieve the necessary unity in the Council – with the Member States – and here in the House, to create the necessary majorities. The barriers we have in the single market today – as the strategy clearly points out – may be higher than the US tariffs currently in place, which are expected to be 20%. That is, we have it in our own hands to improve things. But for this we need a series of courageous steps to make these so-called Terrible tento overcome the single market strategy. What is the biggest danger? The first danger is that we are all talking about the Draghi report, but no one in the Council is really willing to jump over their own shadow and create common rules instead of blindly defending their own national rules. Another danger is that the Commission may not be initiating enough infringement procedures. We just talked about Hungary. The requirements for retail trade in Hungary are not compatible with the internal market. There would already be something to do, for example, but certainly also in all the other 26 Member States. And thirdly, it is certainly worth mentioning the fact that, of course, in Parliament, too, we now have to create the necessary majorities in the middle in order to achieve the proposals that really reach into all sectors. The EPP Group is ready to do so. We want the European single market to create new growth. We need new growth in Europe if we are to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement on climate change, but also if we are to succeed in global trade. I therefore hope that this strategy will now be taken seriously under the Polish Presidency in Berlin and Paris, but also in Italy and Spain. And we understand that we – the Member States, Parliament and the Commission – can only implement them together.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! Every year there is a new single market strategy, and the new one often contains exactly what was included in the old one. In this respect, Commissioner, I am pleased that you have taken up some refreshing new points of analysis in your analysis of the European Single Market for goods and services. However, the problem remains the same as you described it: A lot of European legislation is lost in its spirit in the Member States. That is why it will be crucial that the Member States, especially the big ones such as Germany and France, live up to their responsibilities. And the second is that we must not make it too easy for ourselves to lament the tariffs imposed by the Americans here in the European Parliament – which may mean 10 per cent more obstacles – but at the same time forget about the 40 per cent that we ourselves have still not cleared away within the European market. This is why it is hard work to use the Single Market Strategy to try to find concrete points of reference for simplification. You have already addressed the posting of workers, which is a major problem, especially in border regions, with a proposal. We must do everything we can to ensure that all Member States are involved, otherwise the proposal will not have the desired effect. We need to reassess European customs policy because, of course, if we want to combat the tsunami of the many small packages from the Far East, we could take much more effective action against Temu and Shein with a single customs organisation. But, Commissioner, together with your colleague in charge of customs, we have been working on this for over 15 years. And the Member States have faced difficulties every time there has been a need for more unification. The third is: Of course, it is popular to make demands in the digital space now. But the core, where we can generate new growth in Europe quite easily, remains the classic single market for goods and services. That's why we have to get there. That's why I hope your strategy shows us new ways.

Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen! First of all, I would like to thank the rapporteur for the good cooperation on the annual report on competition policy. This annual report is special this year because its geopolitical context makes it special. Globally, jointly developed rules are being challenged, artificial intelligence systems are questioning established certainties, and even in some Western states, unpredictability and uncertainty are becoming a principle. However, we are not afraid of this in Europe, because we are sure: This creates new opportunities for Europe. A reliable competition policy, Madam Vice-President, benefits consumers worldwide, and innovation can emerge where markets are not blocked by dominant players. The nervousness in the markets puts Europe in the role of a net winner, because many talented employees and other investments are coming to Europe these days because they appreciate the strength and stability of our institutions. The Competition Report therefore rightly points out that competition law must also meet the growing complexity of global competition. Improving the competitiveness of the European Union is a policy task at national and European level. Because we want to secure Europe's place in global competition. For this, we need courage and at the same time investment incentives for new technologies. The enforcement of competition law, on the other hand, is the task of the EU Commission as an authority that must continue to enforce robust rules of the game for fair competition, especially in the digital environment. That is why the recent attacks on the DMA, on the Digital Markets Act, are a danger that we must face together with a very convincing and convincing application of our common law.

Mr President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen! If we take the facts as a basis, the first 100 days of the new Commission have shown that Ursula von der Leyen and her 26 colleagues are taking responsibility in a world that has become more difficult. We have with the project ReArm Europe showed that we can put European interests at the centre and at the same time be responsible for our own security in the future. With the new migration package, we have shown that we can ensure that decent treatment of refugees who have a right to it remains possible in the future, but at the same time that we avoid overburdening Europe. And for the third time in 100 days, we have also seen a clear message for less bureaucracy and more competition. This, too, is a strong signal based on the Draghi report, which has clearly stated: Europe needs to make better use of its own resources, staff and financial resources if we want to generate economic growth again in the coming years – what we need to do if we want to get through in a global world of the 21st century and if we want to achieve other goals, such as social balance and green climate protection. That is why I believe – even if we leave aside all the rubbish that has already been mentioned in this debate: We are on the right track, and the EPP Group will stand with the European Commission if we continue with courage.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, First of all, I would like to congratulate the European Commission, because I believe that by proposing this summary of a whole series of amendments it is heading in the right direction. Because one thing is clear: European companies face global competition, and this global competition is about bringing talent to companies and focusing on innovation and production. This must of course be sustainable, but in the end these are mainly local decisions in the companies that play a role in this, and that is why we must focus on helping the companies to follow this path accordingly. The fact that there is so much criticism here in this Parliament, Commissioner, actually shows that you have found a relatively good middle ground, which in the end can also be able to hold a majority. I believe that in some places we simply need examples that show that what has been put forward here in part by Social Democrats and Greens is somewhat out of place. Because it's not about deregulating in a broad style. It is about leaving the responsibility to the local companies, who all have to declare themselves compliant with the legal situation, but will not have to report on this in detail every year in the future. This is an important step forward, which contributes a lot to simplification, which also contributes a lot to the confidence of companies back in the market. And bureaucracy means nothing more than administrative burden. The law does not mean that non-compliant action will be accepted in the future, but it means that compliance does not need to be additionally reported – other countries in the world are doing the same. That is why we should now continue to follow the path that Mario Draghi has clearly set out in his report consistently and swiftly focus on its implementation. This will allow Europe to become competitive again.

Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar, Ratspräsidentschaftsvertreter, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, first of all, I think the most important point for the compass for competitiveness is that France and Germany, their governments, have more or less aligned themselves to work together, to lighten the burden of bureaucracy. Without this cooperation between France and Germany, nothing can be lightened. For this reason, I would like to thank you personally for this. The second point that I want to make, colleagues, is that a compass is a general exercise, so I won't go into the details, but there can be no doubt that this proposal that the European Commission has made gives a clear direction that the European Union wants to have an economy that can compete at global level. And we know that we have to change a lot to achieve this. This does not call into question green policies, but it makes it necessary for us to look, first and foremost, again, at our own competitiveness. This can be done in different ways. First of all by focusing on the laws that we are making and on useful and less useful measures. I'm really grateful to the European Commission for having worked hard on tearing down measures that were definitely not useful. I won't go into the details. I would just like to comment that I think the focus on getting rid of 25% of bureaucracy is a bit small because we don't know what the overall assessment should be. We should fight to get rid of all measures that we don't need in Europe.

Madam President, Commissioner, Mr Representative of the Council! First of all, thank you for making it clear here this morning – both the Council and the Commission – that the Digital Services Act applies, that it applies today, that it applies tomorrow and that it will apply the day after tomorrow and that we will apply it. Secondly, Commissioner, I would like to thank you – also on behalf of the EPP Group – for prioritising the application of the Digital Services Act, in particular its legally secure application, over the speed that we may be asking for at the moment. As an EPP Group, it is important to us that the decisions taken on the basis of the Digital Services Act are ultimately legally secure and can stand trial. As we are trying out a new format of speakers this morning, Madam President, I would just like to briefly recapitulate – if the normal viewer, when the Internal Market Committee prepared the law in 2022, might not have followed all the details – a few key points that have guided the content of the Digital Services Act. The aim was precisely to ensure freedom of expression even in the digital age and at the same time to preserve the protection of the general right to privacy of all citizens in the European Union. Of the problems, both social media platforms as well as television and newspapers are amplifiers in public discourse. They manage to attract attention. While yesterday's newspaper ends up in the trash, the post on the platform remains up-to-date, even if it contains an insult, even if it contains terrorist content. That is why the approach to social media platforms is a bit more complicated for the legislator if we want the democratic discourse to remain fair there as well. That is why, not only since the DSA, but also with the control of the European Commission, platforms have to enforce rules that have been in force in Europe for much longer than digital platforms exist. They have to meet higher requirements than the newspapers had to, possibly because they disappeared in the trash the next day. But this is done to enforce freedom of expression. We regret to note that, unlike traditional media, social media has proven in recent years that they are not as strict in enforcing freedom of expression as they should be under the law. Each country has its own laws. I speak German, so I come across a case of Renate Künast. The European Court of Justice has already ruled in 2019 that in order to enforce personality rights, online platforms must ensure manually that false contributions are not disseminated there. The platforms have refused to implement these measures accordingly. In the end, they also tried in court to really implement this enforcement of the protection of the general right of personality. That is why we want the European Commission to carry out all these procedures, which have just been mentioned, until the end, with the aim of enforcing freedom of expression in Europe in 27 different national publics with 27 different detailed rules that affect the rules there, so that we in Europe can continue to say in the future: Democracy thrives on democrats, and freedom of expression thrives on plurality.

Mr President! Madam Vice-President! Dear colleagues! The Member States of the European Union have jointly signed the Paris Climate Agreement with the objective of a two percent agreement for 2050 - that is our goal. Along the way, the Draghi report has identified clear weaknesses in our positioning so far. We will have two million fewer workers each year to help achieve these goals. Secondly, we do not have endless resources that we will be able to use. And that's why it's important to finally be honest about how we use the resources we have at our disposal as effectively as possible. And it is not enough just to talk about the future, about the choice of the good. This is about actually weighing up how we can achieve an outcome that enables us to achieve these goals economically, because prosperity in Europe is also important to people. This will not be possible with regulations from Brussels, with bureaucracy from Berlin, certainly not with regulations such as the heating law, which the police should send to the cellars, but it is about motivating people to take over their part – and this will be a difficult task for the European Commission. And that's why I believe that the principle must be: Climate protection needs competitiveness. But we can do that.

Madam President, Commissioners, colleagues, we are observing since a while some sort of interference of foreign social media platforms in the European Union. In the case of Romania, colleagues, the Constitutional Court of Romania has taken a decision that is surely based on facts, and I can only congratulate the court of having taken the decision. This morning, the European Commission has taken the decision to investigate, against TikTok, in which way their algorithms have influenced the behaviour and the displaying of information during the campaign in Romania. I also would like to thank you for this. We don't know yet the result, but we know that there is a risk of algorithms that drive information not in the manner that normal people would allow it to happen, that normal people would expect it to do, but, for the money behind, they drive the algorithms in a very special way. We know in a free market economy you can drive the money, your decisions. That's allowed. But what is not allowed – and it is not news with the DSA – is that the money drives also democracy, or that there is at least a risk that your money can drive democracy. For that reason, we have to be very clear: freedom of speech is a principle in the European Union, but freedom of speech is not what these social media platforms do with the information that triggers content that creates more tension in societies at the detriment of normal content. Therefore, we look forward to the results of your investigation.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! Mario Draghi has written us on almost 400 pages here with his report the weaknesses of the EU legislation in the logbook. But, contrary to what the honourable Member claims, it does not come to the conclusion that what we have done is all wrong, but we have put wrong incentives in the internal market as far as the skills gap is concerned. And for this we did not actually need his report, because it was already obvious during many company visits that we simply exaggerated the reporting obligations. Not every desirable objective requires a reporting obligation. The example is familiar from my constituency: A small and medium-sized company, because it is a supplier to a large company, has to fulfil 1 600 reporting obligations within the framework of the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)Directive. Of course, this is about the fact that the three new employees that this company has to look for a long time before they can be hired are not in production, but when filling out the reporting obligations. At the same time, the large audit firm must also recruit two new employees to review these reporting requirements in order to prepare the annual accounts – this is simply a misallocation. We must get to the point – and preferably in the first 100 days of the new Commission – that the entrepreneur takes a blank sheet of paper and writes on it: I have understood and read the rules and stick with my name. The French say this lu et approuvé. This would reduce bureaucracy, simplify matters and make life more pleasant for many entrepreneurs, with the aim of increasing the prosperity of European citizens; And we can do that.