Whilst (CRE/ADR) found the Polish presidency’s desire to replace sanctions with incentives in many areas, such as carbon emissions and agriculture, to be an interesting initiative, he said he was disturbed by “a programme still marked by head-on opposition to Russia, while at the same time the Americans are now emphasising negotiation. This divergence is going to create problems for us.” While pro-Europeans have a good image of Donald Tusk, the right-wing MEP believes that “the situation in Poland is much less good than it is generally presented. Donald Tusk came to power promising to restore the rule of law in Poland. On the ground, we are a long way from that. I think the deterioration of the political situation and the human rights situation in Poland is worrying.” It’s a unanimous criticism from the populist and hard-right groups in the European Parliament.
When it comes to deregulation, however, Kartheiser applauds with both hands. “Europe suffers from excessive bureaucracy. I’m on the industry committee and everyone who comes to see us complains about it. And they’re absolutely right. The fight against European bureaucracy must be a reality.”
A profession of faith for Europe.
For (Renew/DP), Tusk delivered “a very determined speech. He showed great courage and clear-sightedness, and his analysis of the situation was very lucid. It was a profession of faith for Europe.” For the Liberal MEP, Europe has everything it needs to take its defence and its future into its own hands. If he had to express one regret, it would be that the issue of enlargement, and by extension that of institutional reform, was not addressed.
For Goerens, the call for deregulation is “common sense.” “Regulation is not necessarily good because it is complicated to implement.” Deregulation first, but not if we are to lose sight of the aims for which the regulations were made. “The objectives must not be lost sight of. It’s on the means that we need to focus the simplification effort.” Goerens will be supporting Donald Tusk, “a driving force behind European integration at the moment.”
Strategic autonomy is a vital emergency.
(EPP/CSV) appreciated “a speech essentially based on security.” “We have to stop being naive and understand that we no longer have a choice. We have to invest in our defence. This is essential if we want to secure our democracy and our way of life. We can no longer be content with having intentions, we have to act. Strategic autonomy is a vital emergency.”
As for the call for deregulation, Wiseler-Lima prefers to talk about clearing the brush. “We’re here to make rules for living together. That’s the role of the legislator. But perhaps we have a tendency to pile these rules on top of each other. When we reach a point where the rules start to prevent us from functioning normally, or when we can't find our way around them, we need to clean things up a bit. We need to make things clearer and more applicable. Everyone agrees on this point. But there’s a fine line between simplification and deregulation.”
Deregulation is essential to strengthen our competitiveness.
For Martine Kemp (EPP/CSV), Tusk has “inspired a palpable optimism, not only for the Polish presidency, but also for the future of the European Union, after the previous presidency of the Council. He has demonstrated that he is a true European, committed to highlighting the strengths of the Union. Faced with the current challenges, he has positioned his presidency in a pro-European, pragmatic and constructive approach. The far right has attacked him because of his commitment to Europe, above all because he seeks concrete solutions rather than giving in to the siren calls of populism, which is characterised by rhetoric without effective action.”
The EPP MEP also supports the desire for deregulation, “which is essential for strengthening our economic competitiveness, meeting energy challenges, encouraging innovation in Europe and effectively combating global warming. We have the opportunity to create a majority within the European Parliament to put in place a measured but essential deregulation, after six months of the Hungarian presidency during which we have not seen any real progress on the issues that have the greatest impact on our citizens.” As far as the Green Deal is concerned, she says she is in favour of “adjustments.”
It’s a speech that raises a lot of hopes.
For MEP (Greens/EFA/déi Gréng), the speech by Tusk, “a true European,” “raises a lot of hopes.” While she agrees on many issues, she is now waiting for action.
She regrets that on security, Tusk has given priority to internal and external aspects at the expense of other aspects, such as food, energy and health security. “For our group, security goes hand in hand with environmental protection. It can’t be any other way.” Returning to the military aspect, she argues in favour of greater consultation, cooperation and interoperability between European countries. Or even specialisation between countries as part of an integrated defence industrial policy.
On deregulation, Metz regrets a simplistic, even populist approach. “At the European level, we regulate to protect consumers and to harmonise rules and make them interoperable. By regulating, the European Rail Agency has reduced 14,000 national rules to 800 European rules. We need to simplify, not deregulate.” And she also intends to defend the Green Deal. “You have to know what you want! We know that a resilient economy is one that is based on sustainability.”
Many people believe that deregulation automatically means greater competitiveness.
(S&D/LSAP) appreciated a speech that sought “to inspire confidence, to show that Europe is strong if it believes in itself, and to emphasise that the EU must take its destiny into its own hands. [Tusk’s] speech, which was very pro-European, clearly raised the challenges facing Europe and emphasised the need to find common European solutions, highlighting the fact that we can only succeed if we are united.”
However, the security aspect of the speech bothered him. “It risks leading to certain debates being conducted in a one-dimensional way. For example, I didn’t like the fact that he treated migration almost exclusively from a security point of view. Certain subjects such as the social dimension and the environment were missing from his speech.” Angel was equally uncomfortable with the comments on deregulation. “It seems to me that many people believe that deregulation automatically means greater competitiveness. In my opinion, this is a false equation. The notion of competitiveness is much broader and must incorporate other elements, such as the environment, the social aspect and sustainability. Of course we need to simplify administration and cut red tape. But, in my view, this must not call into question our regulations, which are designed to protect our workers, our consumers and the environment. I am therefore sceptical about this desire to deregulate everything, because such an approach will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the lives of Europeans.” He is also concerned about the potential threat to the Green Deal, which he believes must be implemented in full.
This article was originally published in .