On the downside, it must be noted that we still haven't completed the Banking Union, and we have also failed to take the necessary steps to significantly advance Capital Markets Union. Fragmentation remains a major problem for the internal market.

Capital Markets Union. Capital Markets Union. Capital Markets Union. This topic will remain at the top of the financial policy agenda. Given the financing needs we have, and the fact that there is so much private capital available that can contribute, we must push forward with CMU.

The building blocks are well known. Harmonisation of insolvency law is planned but far from complete. The Economic Affairs (ECON) Committee has already set out its position, under my leadership, with a broad majority. However, the Legal Affairs Committee has unfortunately not delivered yet. However, this is only a first step anyway. We haven't even touched some of the the sacred cows of insolvency law yet.

In addition, I would note catchphrases repeatedly used by finance ministers – creating a cross-border savings product, reviving the securitisation market – these are important and urgent. Also, strengthening financial market supervision by granting more powers to the European Securities and Markets Authority. ESMA is doing a good job. Where it is involved in supervision, it has built up trust. And it is this trust that investors, who operate cross-border, seek.

Yes. I believe it is particularly important that we intensify our focus on start-up and risk financing. We can only establish Europe's competitiveness through innovation. But we do not have the fiscal strength of the United States, and cannot keep up with the support provided by the US, amongst other things via the Inflation Reduction Act. Therefore, we must contribute in a different way to ensure that we, in the spirit of Schumpeter, have the next creative destruction companies in Europe. This requires a lot to happen both at universities and in research funding. But something also needs to happen in the transition from innovation to market readiness.

I am convinced that much more is possible already at the initial stage, i.e., in financing start-ups. But I share the assessment that the major gap lies particularly in financing the scaling of business models. And by the way, even if we succeed in scaling up, what is created as a result is still relatively small in global competition. And then there is the risk that it will be immediately acquired by US big tech companies - killer acquisitions.

Here, competition law is called upon to protect companies. In addition, we must consider a special form of corporate law that protects start-ups by preventing killer acquisitions, and at the same time helps provide private capital to ensure that the idea does not leave the creator. Control over innovation must not be lost. This needs to be balanced. The goal is access to capital without loss of control. We need to consider forms of corporate law that mobilise capital without the need to relinquish control of the company.

I was responsible for the Legal Affairs Committee report on multiple vote share structures, and proposed expanding the concept of multiple voting shares. The discussion also encompasses topics such as what is known in Germany as „Gesellschaft mit gebundenem Vermögen“ (company with tied assets) and asset locks, which cover some of the assets of the company. There must be a way to ensure that assets remain tied up in a company, at least temporarily, while being usable for investments.