9th parliamentary term Alfred SANT

There are relatively wide differences of views in this Parliament about the direction of economic policy. So, discussions within the European semester process tend to settle around compromises based on a common—denominator approach. This is vitiating whatever value—added the Parliament could bring to the semester process. The situation is carried over from year to year.
Additionally this year, the discussion has been overshadowed by ongoing discussions on the Economic Governance Review that will qualify the political discourse on this process for the coming years. From the socialist side, the importance of the social dimension in the European Semester needs to be further emphasised, as has repeatedly been done over the years, coupled to the call for more public and private investment in the economy. Results obtained remain disappointing.
Current rules allow, indeed encourage, governments to treat investment as the residual within their budgeting arrangements that can be adjusted downwards in order to satisfy SGP requirements. Meanwhile, growing disparities are being recorded in the standards of living of Europeans, from North to South and from West to East, while in most national contexts, social inequalities are on the rise. On both fronts, the contribution of this House has hardly been inspiring.

I voted in favour of the 2025 budget guidelines because of the general approach it takes towards major priorities supported by the progressive side of the European Parliament, including support for societal cohesion, the green deal, and the digitalisation of the EU economy.
It also embraces the idea of the EU budget as a European investment tool in line with the role of major EU funding programmes, such as InvestEU and the Recovery and Resilience Facility.
Furthermore, I fully support the Parliament’s position on the continuation of EU aid to Palestine, and in this regard, funding for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). This position is not only important from a financial aspect, but it also provides a clear political message in the context of the War in Gaza. In this respect, Parliament should well consider cutting any EU financing collaboration with Israel.
Finally, I must emphasise my total reservations on EU funding dedicated to defence. The EU budget should not serve to fund defence capabilities or weapons. This contradicts the neutrality status of some of its Member States as well as the idea of the EU project as a peace project.

This proposal seeks to rationalise and simplify reporting requirements in the internal market – particularly the financial services sector, and the InvestEU programme – thereby reducing administrative burdens without compromising policy goals. The initiative aligns with the Commission’s emphasis, in current administrative jargon, on achieving objectives at ‘minimum cost, ensuring efficiency and facilitating evidence-informed policy-making’.
The significance of reporting requirements in enforcing legislation is accepted, but as new regulations have been introduced, disproportionate burdens have been imposed, especially on smaller enterprises. The proposal aims to streamline reporting obligations by reducing duplication and enhancing data exchange between authorities, which is still deficient. Coupled with safeguards for data protection and business confidentiality, it is a step towards a more streamlined and effective regulatory framework.
I voted for the proposal. Overall, it presents a balanced, proactive approach to regulatory reform. It is also a sad comment on the state of the Capital Markets Union, with special reference to financial services. Progress is incremental and conditioned by too many provisos. These lead to the administrative complications that proposals like this seek to revisit and lighten. Sometimes the process amounts to running on the spot – at best, a game of two steps forward, one step back.