Jörgen Warborn
Member of the European Parliament · PPE · SE
“Madam President, Commissioner, I would like to start to congratulate you and the Commission for bringing this agreement forward. I will fully support it and I am actually very impressed by the Commission and the pace with which you now deliver new free trade agreements.”
“Thank you, Commissioner, yes, I think it is really important that we follow through from this House as well. I was the rapporteur for the first omnibus, and there we actually cut more costs than the Commission did. So we did increase in that sense the cost-cutting for businesses.”
“Commissioner, both you and I agree that European businesses should spend their time on their customers, on innovation and on creating jobs – not on paperwork.”
“So 'one in, one out' would mean being stable in terms of administrative burden: not adding to it, but also not reducing. So aiming for 25 % reduction of administrative burden and 35 % reduction for SMEs goes substantially beyond it.”
“During 2025, the Commission tabled proposals estimated to cut EUR 15 billion of administrative costs per year, and that is a net result of EUR 15.25 billion of cost savings and EUR 247 million on additional costs, meaning that these savings arising from existing stock of administrative burden are already significantly larger than the net…”
“And there have been also certain papers produced by the Danish and Cypriot presidencies of the Council looking at what they call 'the cost of legislation' when we can have this kind of more holistic view, also looking at the adjustment costs.”
The complete record
Every one of 32 lines we hold for Jörgen Warborn, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account.
“So, I call on the Commission to continue to modernise other existing trade agreements. We need to ensure that European companies can benefit from the growth taking place beyond our borders. 2-0250-0000”
“Madam President, Commissioner, I would like to start to congratulate you and the Commission for bringing this agreement forward. I will fully support it and I am actually very impressed by the Commission and the pace with which you now deliver new free trade agreements. It is important to mention also that the trade policy of the European Union is not only about new free trade agreements, it is also about modernising the ones we have. The modernised agreement with Mexico has been in play for 26 years, I think, and now, the update of it will bring new possibilities for European businesses, new opportunities for European farmers. It will strengthen the cooperation on critical raw materials. It will simplify the rules for SMEs and it will improve the access for public procurement and provide stronger protection for intellectual properties.”
“And there have been also certain papers produced by the Danish and Cypriot presidencies of the Council looking at what they call 'the cost of legislation' when we can have this kind of more holistic view, also looking at the adjustment costs. For purposes of simplification, we are focusing on administrative burden because the adjustment costs, more often than not, imply also changes in policies or changes in policies' targets, in a sense something that goes beyond strictly the simplification exercise. 2-0302-0000”
“So 'one in, one out' would mean being stable in terms of administrative burden: not adding to it, but also not reducing. So aiming for 25 % reduction of administrative burden and 35 % reduction for SMEs goes substantially beyond it. I'll use this 2025 example: if we have EUR 15 billion reductions, which is a result of EUR 15.25 savings and EUR 247 million increases, 'one in, two out' in the same would translate to EUR 500 million decreases. EUR 15 billion is obviously substantially much more, so that's why we're saying that with this 25 % burden reduction, we are going beyond this approach. But we are measuring it differently; we are measuring it based on existing burden. Obviously there are also other ways to look at the cost, not only administrative burden.”
“Thank you, Commissioner, yes, I think it is really important that we follow through from this House as well. I was the rapporteur for the first omnibus, and there we actually cut more costs than the Commission did. So we did increase in that sense the cost-cutting for businesses. You say that what you are doing now is more than 'one in, two out', so I would like to ask you, what do you aim for? Is it 'one in, three out' or 'one in, five out'? What can we know about the mandate as such, these five years? What is your aim? And finally, could we also have it done and calculated on the total regulatory burden, not only on the administrative burden? Because of course, that is what counts for businesses. 2-0301-0000 Valdis Dombrovskis, Member of the Commission. – On this, what I'm saying, in a sense we are following a different approach.”
“And then we can pursue 'one in, two out' or aim for a 25 % burden reduction, or pursue other approaches – we will not arrive at meaningful burden reduction. So it is very important that what we are putting on the table in terms of ambition for simplification is actually followed through in the legislative process. 2-0300-0000”
“During 2025, the Commission tabled proposals estimated to cut EUR 15 billion of administrative costs per year, and that is a net result of EUR 15.25 billion of cost savings and EUR 247 million on additional costs, meaning that these savings arising from existing stock of administrative burden are already significantly larger than the net reductions would typically result from 'one in, two out' approach if you look solely at new regulatory costs. However, what I wanted to emphasise in this regard is also the necessity to follow it through by the co‑legislators. Of the 10 omnibus proposals we note that on a number of omnibus proposals in the legislative process the ambition for simplification is actually substantially watered down.”
“– Madam President, honourable Members, so first, on this 'one in, two out' question, the Commission introduced the 'one in, one out' mechanism to simplify and reduce administrative burdens for businesses in 2022. In 2025, we strengthened our efforts further and also introduced ambitious targets to reduce administrative burdens by at least 25 % for all companies, and by 35 % for SMEs. In terms of magnitude of cost savings, this goes beyond what would be typically achieved using this 'one in, two out' approach.”
“Commissioner, both you and I agree that European businesses should spend their time on their customers, on innovation and on creating jobs – not on paperwork. I would like to ask you a question on the 'one in, two out' principle, because that is just about that: you deduct two euros for every euro that is added with legislation, which is added on the costs of SMEs, not least. This is, of course, from EPP, something that we promised our voters in the election campaign. We have been pushing for that, and happily, we now have a majority in this Chamber because we voted for it together. And that is why I would like to ask you, Commissioner, when the Commission will follow this elected House and work according to the 'one in, two out' principle. 2-0299-0000 Valdis Dombrovskis, Member of the Commission.”
“Madam President, well, since I was mentioned, I thought it was good to respond, and we would like to have more debate, so let me respond. I think due to the fact that AI is developing so fast, then that is the proof that it will be impossible to keep up with the legislation, with a horizontal legislation. And that is why I think it is much better, if we have a problem with discrimination, that we update the law on discrimination. If we have a problem with product safety, then we update product safety law. That is how we can make sure that we regulate it properly without limiting innovation, productivity and all the good stuff that comes with artificial intelligence. 1-0169-0000”
“If we do that, we can come back to innovation. We can come back to growth, to creating jobs and more prosperity. 1-0164-0000”
“Madam President, first of all, I would like to congratulate our colleagues who have been working on this file, not least Arba Kokalari and Axel Voss – I have seen how hard you have been working. This is a good step in the right direction. This is about simplification and, of course, that is why I will vote 'yes' to this. But at the same time, I would like to send a clear message to the Commission. I would like you to restart the work entirely when it comes to the AI Act, because now you have regulated or we have regulated, horizontally, the technology. And I think that is the wrong way to go ahead. It will be much better if we regulate the problems that arise with artificial intelligence, and the porno pictures are one example of that. Discrimination could be another. So instead of regulating the technology, regulate the problems we have.”
“Approving this file will let us move forward so that we can even deepen the trade relationship with the US. Europe wins when Europe trades, so let's vote yes to this deal. 1-0105-0000”
“Mr President, Commissioner, the deal that was struck almost a year ago is not perfect. Let's be honest about that. But this is the best deal we can get at the moment and we urgently need it – businesses urgently need it. This is not about being pro‑Trump or not. This is about being pro‑European businesses and for more stability in the trade relationship that matters to every worker and every consumer. For more than a year, European companies have asked for one thing: clarity on the transatlantic trade relationship. And with this vote, the EU delivers on its part of the deal. We avoid a trade deal and we give the industry more predictability to invest, to grow and to create jobs. The agreement now has a strong safeguard that holds the United States committed.”
“They have different business models. They work differently. That's why, if we do any regulation, we have to take every different company into play. We have this 'think small' principle in the European Union when we do our legislation. That means that we have to cater for not least the smallest ones, and I'm afraid that if we have too hard regulation on this area then we will not have European publishers there, and that will be at the loss, of course, of the businesses but also of the consumers. 4-0055-0000”
“So, we need to have both in mind and not only one of the of the issues, and that is how we build a strong European gaming industry and a strong community for the users. 4-0052-0000 Tiemo Wölken (S&D), blue-card question. – Thank you very much for your speech. I simply have one question: by arguing that they don't want it, what do you tell European publishers like CD Projekt Red who actively support this initiative? So, I think there are many publishers in Europe who know that they built a community and they do not want to disappoint them, and they know that they need customers happy. So, what do you tell publishers from Europe by not fully supporting this initiative? 4-0053-0000 Jörgen Warborn (PPE), blue-card answer. – I think you're absolutely right on this, and the thing is that all publishers are not the same.”
“But of course, when we legislate our market for our consumers, we don't just apply that legislation to European companies; we can apply it to whatever companies want to operate in our market. So, given that reality, would you then change your opinion or be open to making sure that consumer protection can go hand in hand with supporting European video game industries? 4-0050-0000 Jörgen Warborn (PPE), blue-card answer. – Yes, absolutely. That's, I think, what I said as well. We need to have transparency, so that the consumers know what they buy, and in some cases I think that is not very clear today. But at the same time, it is a growing industry that is important for Europe. I think without the publishers, without the developers, there will be no engagement from the consumers.”
“Forcing companies to keep games running indefinitely or hand over the server code might be a solution, but it's not the simple solution in every in every situation. In many cases, it is technically or financially impossible and legally problematic, and it would hit the smaller companies and studios hardest. What we should do instead is three things: better transparency for consumers upfront, fair notice before the games goes offline, and thirdly, a better condition for European developers to grow, compete and keep gamers engaged. (The speaker agreed to take several blue-card questions) 4-0049-0000 Catarina Vieira (Verts/ALE), blue-card question. – Colleague Warborn, I can agree with a lot of what you said, but you also spoke about the importance of defending the video game industry in Europe. I can very much agree with that.”
“Madam President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, almost 1.3 million people across Europe have signed this initiative, and I think that's a signal we need to take seriously. But taking it seriously also means that we have to ask the right questions. And the right question is not only, how do we protect consumers? And do not take me wrong, because that is one of the important questions. But the right question is also, how do we build a stronger European game industry? Because right now, Europe is competing against giants in the US and in Asia. And if we respond to this initiative with an unworkable solution, we do not help consumers. We help our competitors. Video games are complex creative works built on licensed content, online infrastructure and third-party arrangements.”
“Det pratas om den inre marknaden, men i praktiken fortsätter medlemsstaterna med gold-plating, övertolkning och administrativa gränshinder som hindrar den fria företagsamheten. Till och med när kommissionen försöker med det mest uppenbara, no-brainern och de lägst hängande frukterna. Ja, att förenkla och digitalisera processerna med utpostering av arbetstagare. Då tvärvägrar flera medlemsstater, medan andra kommer med nya förslag som gör det ännu krångligare än det redan är. Nu måste medlemsländerna komma in i matchen, släppa prestigen, sluta snacka och leverera på löftena om en inre marknad. Vi i parlamentet, vi är redo att förenkla på allvar. Vi vill se ett Europa, en marknad. Det är bra för företagen. Det är bra för samhällsekonomin. Det ger jobb och välstånd till Europa. 3-0067-0000”
“Fru talman! I väldigt många sektorer på den inre marknaden, så fortfarande så är det förlåt, jag börjar om från början. I väldigt många sektorer är den inre marknaden fortfarande bara principer på ett papper, men långt ifrån den verklighet man upplever i vardagen. I tjänstesektorn, där finns fortfarande fler än 5000 skyddade yrkestitlar och de här regleras på olika sätt i olika länder. Det ska ansökas, det ska granskas, det ska väntas, det ska certifieras och det ska stämplas. I praktiken så gäller alltså inte den fria rörligheten på tjänsteområdet. Integrationen på den inre marknaden, den har nått en platå. Och när kommissionen mäter de viktigaste handelshindren, då ser vi knappt ett enda spår av framsteg under de senaste åren. Ett sådant underbetyg till ministerrådet.”
“AI can also strengthen logistics, improve monitoring of supply chains, and contribute to smarter regulatory cooperation between countries. That is why this report is so important. It addresses both the opportunities and the challenges that artificial intelligence brings to international trade. But one thing we must be clear about: this report repeatedly highlights AI built on open source in a way that risks favouring one model over others. And here we must be careful. It is not the role of politicians to pick technological winners. Open source has many strengths. Proprietary models also have significant strengths. Both contribute to European innovation, investments and technological development. 2-0546-0000”
“Mr President, artificial intelligence will play a significant role in international trade, facilitating the exchange of goods and services across borders and playing a huge role in improving the competitiveness of the European Union. It will simplify customs procedures, automate our administration and help companies navigate different regulatory systems faster and at lower costs. This will particularly benefit small and medium‑sized businesses that too often refrain from exporting, because the processes are simply too complex and too expensive. Today, only 600 000 SMEs out of 25 million export beyond EU borders. With the help of AI, their opportunities to export can improve significantly and can unlock major economic gains for the EU.”
“I regret that we could not find a better solution for Ukraine. I urge the Commission to pursue generous quotas so that Ukraine can continue to trade and maintain economic resilience, in line with our continuing support for Ukraine. Finally, at a time when major economies are turning to industrial policy and protectionism, Europe must remain careful not to undermine the very principles that built our prosperity: competitive advantage, open markets and free trade. These principles lower costs, raise living standards and help deliver the products we need for a green and digital transition. 1-0067-0000”
“Mr President, Commissioner, Europe's success has always depended on its export opportunities. From coal and steel to today's global leadership in agri-food and manufacturing, openness has made Europe prosperous. And it will remain the path to our success. Turning inward could never be the answer. But when major players refuse to play by the rules and when every available instrument has been exhausted, there are cases where action becomes necessary and steel is one of those cases. I am happy that the agreement before us now provides greater flexibility for our downstream industries, because we cannot protect one part of the supply chain while harming another. Europe's competitiveness depends not only on steel producers, but also steel users that rely on affordable and reliable inputs.”
“För varje krona som går till importen av rysk gas är en krona som går till att finansiera kriget på europeisk mark. Men nu, nu är det slut med det. Länge leve Ukraina! Länge leve Europa! 2-0020-0000”
“Fru talman! Kommissionsledamot! Den 24 februari 2022 förändrades världen. Rysslands illegala och vidriga anfallskrig mot Ukraina är ett hot inte bara mot Ukraina utan mot hela Europa. Så låt oss vara tydliga: Ukrainas säkerhet är Europas säkerhet. Vi har utökat sanktionerna mot Ryssland. Vi har ökat leveranserna av vapen till Ukraina. Vi har ökat det humanitära stödet. Vi har ökat det finansiella stödet. Vi har stått sida vid sida med Ukraina sedan dag ett. Men i ärlighetens namn, så länge vi fortsätter att importera den ryska gasen fortsätter vi att finansiera Putins krigsmaskin. Det är inte hållbart. Det är inte ansvarsfullt. Det är inte förenligt med vårt stöd till Ukraina. Därför är det bra att vi i dag tar det här beslutet en gång för alla och fasar ut den ryska gasen helt och hållet.”
“Madam President, we, the EPP, will vote against this proposal from the Left. And the reason is that it is not only about the tariffs on cars at the moment. As you are aware, on Wednesday, Trump will announce even further tariffs on other products. And the Commission is, of course, expected to present its countermeasures in mid-April. The most important aspect for us now is to respond to this trade conflict with President Trump in a unified way. However, we are still not in a position that we have clarity, and therefore we think we should have a broader debate on this topic for the May plenary, and that would give us time to analyse the situation fully, not least on the tariffs introduced this week, but also on the EU responses. That is why we would like to vote no for this proposal from the Left. 1-0034-0000”
“That's so good that the Commission comes up with the first Omnibus package to change this. This is not enough, though. We have to continue. We have to cut red tape even more than in these proposals. And for all the political groups that would like to do that, I am sure that EPP will work together with you to cut the red tape, to increase the growth, to come back to competitiveness. That is what we can do. And then we get the resources also to focus on the green issues. 1-0125-0000”
“(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question) 1-0123-0000 Kira Marie Peter-Hansen (Verts/ALE), blue-card question. – As a fellow Scandinavian, dear colleague, I would like to ask you if you recognise that a green economy is a strong economy, and that the green transition and competitiveness go hand in hand? And why EPP could support the taxonomy, the CSRD, the CSDDD as a way to fulfil our transition goals, but now want to roll it back? 1-0124-0000 Jörgen Warborn (PPE), blue-card answer. – Thank you very much for that question. I think we can work with issues regarding sustainability and climate change. They are important. But I also see – and this is important for the Greens as well to see – that we have a problem with the competitiveness. That is why it's so important to open up these files.”
“And this can be done in the negotiation about these files as well, to continue with the 'Think Small First' principle. Multinationals were mentioned like they are bad guys – no, they are good guys. They are providing jobs and economy and growth to Europeans. That is also important. It is good that we do a reality check on this package, on the CSDDD, on the CSRD, on the taxonomy act, on the CBAM. We need that reality check. So let's work with it, but we need to move this forward. This is a good first step but we need to continue to cut red tape. It's been speaking about 'deregulation', about 'simplification', about 'cutting red tape' – it doesn't matter which word you use, you have to cut the cost for businesses. That's how you get back to growth.”
“Madam President, Commissioner, my key message today is that this is a good first step. But it is not enough. We have to continue to work with this suggestion and this is really important for the competitiveness of Europe. We have been falling behind. We have been falling behind a lot of other great economic powers around the world and we have to change this situation. And there is a lot of things that we need to change. But one of the most important parts is to cut red tape. This is important for all companies, but it is most important for the small and medium-sized enterprises. It was a colleague that mentioned the 'Think Small First' principle – I think that is really important. That is a good solution. We have to do that.”