Debate contributions by Lara WOLTERS

Madam President, in today's world, Europe is strongest when it acts together, and we must ensure companies can harness the power of European integration. Removing internal barriers, creating a reliable regulatory environment and enabling skill is what the EU should be doing at this time, but let us be clear: a 28th Regime is not inherently good or bad. Its value depends entirely on how it is designed and what political choices we make. Crucially, the choice must be made to protect workers and ensure that this new forum does not open loopholes. I very much welcome the attention paid to this by my colleague René Repasi and expect the European Commission to do the same. I also welcome the report's innovative approach, from allowing easier and digital incorporation to safeguards against killer acquisitions and room for innovative ownership and governance models, including stewardship. The message to the European Commission is clear: take this report both as inspiration and warning. Only a well-designed proposal, ambitious in its approach but cautious in its execution, will be a win‑win.

Madam President, ExxonMobil is bullying Europe into submission. A new investigation shows the enormous lengths that ExxonMobil has gone to, to kill our new rules on corporate responsibility. Now, this is not surprising. We know that for ExxonMobil, profit counts and not the environment or human rights, but what is surprising is that almost all of its wishes were granted by the European Commission. Now, I teach my children that it's a bad idea to give in to bullies because they will come back for more, but here we've got the head of the European Commission kissing the ring of the bully. There was no time, supposedly, to consult on any of this with the NGOs or with the trade unions, but there was time to listen to Exxon, to listen to other corporations about what European rules they want to see go through the shredder next. This is insanity. Europe's laws should serve the public interest. Our future is not determined by ExxonMobil and it shocks me that I even need to be making that point here.

Madam President, Commissioner, as we conclude this debate, it's clear that in the face of global economic turbulence, we can't be passive. We need to commit to robust enforcement of our competition laws and stand firm against attempts to undermine them. Over the past months, the Trump administration has fundamentally disrupted the global order, and Europe must now respond with conviction. Tariffs were imposed on long-time allies, even on uninhabited islands. Tax agreements were undermined and harmful tax competition stimulated. Threats have been sent our way on enforcing laws that aim to protect our citizens online. Colleagues have said it today: Europe must stand firm and it must stand united. Concretely, that means that the Digital Markets Act must be enforced fully and without compromise. The DMA is not a bargaining chip, neither is it conditional, and I commend Ms Ribera for acting accordingly. We must also remain resolute in supporting the OECD international tax agreements on Pillar Two, and we can't allow harmful international tax competition to make its comeback. While we must assert those ideas on the global stage, we need to also look inward. We need to invest in areas like housing, affordable homes and the revision of state aid rules accordingly. We need to ensure that the Clean Industrial State Aid Framework enables Europe to lead in clean technology and ensure that no one is left behind. Lastly, we must deepen market integration, address internal barriers and create a Europe that is stronger together – flexible where necessary and firm where it matters most. Let us continue to work, united in our commitment to fairness, sustainability, the rule of law and innovation.

Mr President, Executive Vice-President Ribera, dear colleagues, in a world that's changing at breakneck speed, this is a time of protecting Europe – through European defence, for one, but in the day to day, also through rules that protect the things that Europe holds dear. Competition rules are key in doing that: to shield citizens from price hikes and exploitative abuses; to defend the interests of workers when mergers take place; to protect farmers from concentrations in the food industry; to defend our small, innovative businesses from killer acquisitions; to protect the single market from distortive state aid, for instance, where it benefits companies that contribute to tax avoidance or environmental degradation. Now, of course, we should not be naive. The international economic order is under pressure, and competition policy enforcement does not take place in a void. The global context matters. That's why we welcome the report by Mario Draghi, which looks for ways to stimulate innovation and competitiveness, also when it comes to enforcing or changing competition policy. We must adapt our economy to be more dynamic, to foster jobs and well-being, and to keep support for the twin transitions of digitalisation and sustainability. We must adapt our market also. A recent IMF report estimates that barriers in our internal market act as a substantial, self-imposed tariff on goods and services. Some argue that we should therefore slash European rules in a Trump-like manner, or that more mergers are necessary. I think our focus should rather be on deepening market integration, getting our enforcement priorities straight, and adapting to new forms of harmful conduct that are emerging. Lastly, just as we must stand united in the face of global competition, we must stand united in investing in our common European future, rather than entering into a subsidy race that would benefit some Member States and their citizens over others. All in all, we need to be flexible where we can and rigid where we must; flexible in responding to global challenges, but rigid when it comes to enforcement and achieving the goals of our competition policy – defending our consumers, our markets and ultimately our values.

Mr Tobé, you say that you're ready to work with us and yet you didn't appoint people from the EPP for a long time to talk to us. Then, after we talked together, you made statements in Politico that made it clear that you would only work with us if it suited you. So, that's a difficult basis to start from. But when it comes to what we could actually do to simplify, there's many things that we could be discussing reasonably, but there hasn't been time for that because of a PR stunt from the European Commission that insists on proposing things within the first 100 days. I don't think there's any necessity to rush things like that and, therefore, we're now faced with proposals that are misguided. I think it's a little bit like saying that if you're driving on the motorway, cars will be able to drive faster without speed limits. That's certainly true, but you're also going to have collisions.

Mr President, the European Commission promised us a simplification of EU rules for companies without compromising on the landmark green ambitions of the last mandate. What's not to like, you would think? After all, with the current economic backdrop, efforts to simplify, digitise, streamline, those are to be welcomed and we as a Group could certainly see room for doing that. But I will tell you what's not to like and that this is not the simplification of EU rules. This is the simplification of a debate. It's an oversimplification of a debate and it's a harmful one. What we're presented here with is removing liability from a law that says to check and address things like child labour and deforestation. Now, clearly that's not simplification, that's obstructing justice. That's purposefully making things harder for the victims of wrongdoing and NGOs. That's making a mockery of EU law, essentially. Liability is not just there for the sake of it. It's there to guarantee fairness and a level playing field between cowboy companies and companies that give a damn. Also, asking companies to only check their direct suppliers, that's pointless box-ticking for companies. You're asking them to look at places where there's no issues and no risks, and you're giving them a blank cheque to ignore risks that are further down their supply chain. Another example: banning companies from requesting information from companies of less than 1 000 employees. That will just mean that their reporting is going to be inaccurate, incomplete and very difficult to comply. And now we talk about red tape. Make no mistake, this is regulatory schizophrenia that's going to end up increasing compliance costs. Companies have already invested in sustainability and now the Commission is pulling the rug from underneath their feet. I think this is the kind of nonsense that can only be come up with when people go on what must be an ideological crusade, and that at breakneck speed, refusing to consider real evidence or with a public consultation. Truly, the European Commission should be ashamed of this proposal. It claims that this is the middle ground, that it's a sensible proposal that is sorely needed, but it is an extreme proposal, let's be clear on that. It radically slashes human rights and environmental standards, and it actually makes things more complicated. And what's more, this is a dishonest reading of what the Draghi report has called for. No company is leaving the EU because of sustainability reporting. Could things be improved? Yes, of course, let's have a sensible conversation about that. But there's no company that risks bankruptcy unless we tell them that it's okay to have children make their products. This House now has a responsibility to get things back on track, to deliver actual simplification. Unfortunately, the EPP has already been mind-blowingly open about their willingness to work here with the extreme right, and that's not even plan B for the EPP, it seems that's plan A. The Commission has been absolutely fine to present its proposal under these circumstances. They knew that this couldn't gain a pro-European majority in this form, but it went ahead anyway. It's time to call this out for what it is. It's an extreme proposal. It's blatantly misguided and it's backed by the fossil fuel industry and the far right.

Madam President, Europe has a duty of care, and that is to provide its citizens now and in the future with the things that we value: freedom, prosperity, inclusion and a healthy environment. To achieve that, we need huge investments, more decisive industrial policies and new ways of pooling European money. But these things require political vision, and it would seem there is no appetite for that in this Commission anymore. What we get instead is a panicked bonfire of red tape. Never mind that in the long run, the EU sustainability laws lead to more resilience, operational effectiveness, access to capital and reduced dependencies. Never mind that wild regulatory flip-flopping is not helpful for business. No. Because what's trending now in Brussels and in Washington is the short term. Europe should be the continent that takes the long view. A place with sound companies and quality products. That's our competitive advantage. The green culture war that has come to Europe must be seen for what it really is, and that is self-sabotage.

Mr President, some colleagues here talk about competitiveness when what they want is deregulation. They say they want Europe to catch up with other blocs, and to do that, we must axe unnecessary burdens. Now, axing anything is not the answer. I think if we're lagging behind, it's because of decades of low investment and a failure to go all in on sustainability, like others have done, primarily by centre-right governments. And instead of some accountability here, those same political groups are saying that the real problem here is EU bureaucracy, that rules on sustainability have gone too far, as if competitiveness and sustainability can't go hand in hand. The vast majority of our companies know that to survive in tomorrow's economy, they must become sustainable. What they need is a level playing field, quality data to base their decisions on, and legal certainty. And how are we helping them now? Well, we're not. This debate organised by the centre right, co-sponsored by the far right, creates uncertainty. What does a company do if we make a law here and then months later, we place a question mark over it, does it start to prepare or does it wait? I hear many here talking about compliance costs, and I urge them to think of the compliance costs of political flip-flopping as well.

Mr President, it is much easier to make money with money than with just honest work. And right-wing and populist governments are fine with that. Everywhere in the world we see politicians who claim to stand behind ordinary working people, and then cut back on healthcare, education and public transport, or hand out tax cuts to the rich and shareholders as a kind of reverse Robin Hood. It has to stop. Growing inequality is gnawing at our societies, at solidarity. Prosperity and well-being must reach everyone. That's how a society thrives. You would think that a global tax on the very rich is a matter of common sense, of honesty. The reality is that countries compete with each other at the lowest tax rate for the wealthiest. That is why I am now so pleased with this initiative of the G20, which, of course, Europe must support. All major changes start with one first step and this initiative is that first step.