Lara Wolters
Member of the European Parliament · S&D · NL
“Madam President, what should 'better regulation' mean? I think what it should mean is quality proposals from the European Commission that have been widely consulted on with trade unions, NGOs, businesses and experts – all those that deserve to be heard.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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. (The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question) 1-0092-0000 Tomas Tobé (PPE), blue-card question. – Thank you, colleague Wolters, for your intervention.”
The complete record
Every one of 15 lines we hold for Lara Wolters, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account.
“But what I fear we are doing here is doubling down on a recipe that is not going to work. It won't deliver for citizens, and regulatory deep cleaning might sound nice, but it is not going to help us in the long term. 2-0269-0000”
“Madam President, what should 'better regulation' mean? I think what it should mean is quality proposals from the European Commission that have been widely consulted on with trade unions, NGOs, businesses and experts – all those that deserve to be heard. What it should be is things delivered in time frames that make sense – not with an artificial sense of urgency to suit any political mood. What 'better regulation' should be is the streamlining of rules – not the slashing of rules just because national leaders lack real leadership. But what we're getting instead this term is something that has been called 'maladministration' by the European Ombudsman: a European Commission that's become highly politicised and that wants to simplify. Sure, that's not a bad idea.”
“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. 1-0072-0000”
“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.”
“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. 1-0182-0000”
“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.”
“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. 1-0094-0000”
“1-0093-0000 Lara Wolters (S&D), blue-card answer. – 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.”
“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. (The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question) 1-0092-0000 Tomas Tobé (PPE), blue-card question. – Thank you, colleague Wolters, for your intervention. I understand that S&D is not welcoming this proposal, but I think it is extremely important for our competitiveness and that we understand that we need also to grow our European economy. That is actually also good for sustainability and for our climate goals – we have the most ambitious climate policy on our continent. And my question is – to S&D – you ask to work with us, we are ready to work with everybody here. But the question is, what is S&D actually ready to change in the current proposals? What is it?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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. 3-0295-0000”
“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.”