Speeches

Mr President, dear colleagues, dear Commissioner, congratulations once again with your good proposal to phase out Russian gas, and congratulations to the political groups here in the European Parliament for having been able to keep their heads cool and their hearts warm, and negotiate an agreement that has wide support. I think this is worth noticing in a time where it seems that politics is becoming more and more polarised, that we are not able to agree on many things. But this – this we have been able to agree on from left to right, that it is wrong to keep on financing Mr Putin's war, that it is wrong to give Russia an instrument that they can use to put pressure on us, that it is wrong to to spend more on Russian gas than we have spent on helping Ukraine. It is a great day for us that finally this will come to an end. I think this is about time and congratulations to Europe.

I think when it comes to the vote today, it was mainly the extremes on the right and the left that voted the proposal down. Unfortunately, it was a secret ballot so we could not see who voted. We didn't ask for this secret ballot. When it comes to the climate change proposal, there are lots of good people in the EPP. I work with them. I think you can be a reliable partner and ask you to be one. We support the 90 % in the S&D Group, and I hope you will work with us to do the same thing, because we would sure like to work with you.

Madam President, dear colleagues, dear Commissioner, I want to congratulate you on the proposal on reducing greenhouse gases by 90 % in 2040. I think it's the right proposal. I think it's a sound proposal. And I think it is important, when we go to the COP meeting, that the European Union delivers ambition also to move other countries. We are struggling in the European Parliament to get your proposal through. I am leading the negotiations in the ITRE Committee, and as you can hear, Commissioner, there are lots of groups in this Parliament that either don't believe in climate change or don't think it's important that the Europeans should act. So we need to work together with those that can – the S&D, the Greens, Renew, and hopefully the EPP. Actually, we're struggling with the EPP right now, so I hope that, EPP – your group – will come together and support your proposal. We want to work and we need it. The European Union needs it. The climate needs it, and we need it for the COP meeting. So good luck to all of us.

Mr President! I often hear the argument that countries should decide their own tax policy and that the EU should not interfere in it. In fact, I fully agree that we ourselves must decide our tax policy on a country-by-country basis. But is that really what is happening today? Is this what happens if those who earn the most can just move their wealth to a tax haven and avoid paying taxes? Is this what happens if the big multinationals can shift their profits to countries where the tax rate is less than 1 percent? In my own country, Denmark, we have a corporate tax rate of 22 percent, but Apple doesn't care, Google doesn't care, Facebook doesn't care. They are all shifting profits to tax havens where the tax rate is less than one percent, which is why we no longer have sovereignty over our tax policy. I think we should do away with that. In 1990, more than 10 European countries had a wealth tax. Today, only one European country has a wealth tax. In 1990, the average corporate tax rate in the EU was 35 percent. Today, it is approaching 21%. Is it because all the countries and all the citizens of the European Union have suddenly agreed that we should not tax the richest anymore? It is a pity for them, now it must stop with the fire taxation. Or is it because the countries have been pushed into a race against each other, towards the bottom in terms of competing for who can lower the tax as much as possible? I think the latter, unfortunately, and I think it is a policy that everyone loses, the community loses, our schools and our hospitals and our care for the elderly, which must be financed by tax dollars, loses. That is why I welcome this report and I am glad that we support the corporate tax agreement of at least 15%, which has been concluded internationally and which it is important for the European Union to support. I would like to thank the rapporteur, I think it is an excellent piece of work. Let us support this report.

Madam President! A lot of people in Europe live a good life, and therefore there are also many who would like to come and visit us and experience our culture and history. And I can understand that. Most come with an honest relationship, but there are also some who take advantage of the loopholes to enter the EU and undermine our common project and commit crime. That's why I support making a deal. The one we are discussing today, where we are tightening the rules on visa freedom, because we must be able to say no when those who want to exploit the loopholes are using these rules in a completely wrong way. Visa freedom is not a right. It is an expression of trust that must be earned and also managed with responsibility. It will not work when, for example, Russian oligarchs or Iranian or Chinese citizens buy a golden visa in a third country and exploit the loopholes to enter the EU in that way. Nor is it acceptable for visa-free travel to be used as a back door to obtain asylum, let alone for visa-free travel to be used for money laundering, sanctions evasion, espionage or hybrid activities. And that's why I think: Let us protect the honest traveller, but let us make it clear that abuse is not acceptable. Freedom goes hand in hand with responsibility, and failure to do so must have consequences. So let us support the visa agreement here today.

Mr. President! 95%! 95% is the number that guides my thoughts when I think of green technology, for 95% of the solar panels that are being set up in Europe today, they are produced in China. It was a technology that was developed in Europe and where we had an industry 15 years ago, 10 years ago. We almost don't have that anymore. Production is now in China. For me, there is no doubt that green technologies are the technologies of the future. That's what we have to compete on. This is what must create jobs and development and cheap energy. But there is no doubt that we are under pressure. We're in a race. We are in fierce competition with other parts of the world, China and the United States, who are pushing us on a number of these technologies. That's why we need to put all our resources behind our wind turbines, our batteries, our energy-efficient technologies and also our solar panels. If we are to compete – we must – because we need to get rid of CO2One, and we need to get ahead in the competition.

Madam President! Commissioner, please! Madam Minister! Dear colleagues! China is an important partner for Europe, an important trading partner and also a partner for solving some of the major challenges such as the climate crisis. At the same time, however, we must realise that we have pursued a naïve China policy in which we have become dependent on the great empire in the middle. We have sold critical infrastructure and Greece has sold its largest port to China, Athens port, Piraeus. We have become dependent on critical raw materials, rare earths from China. We have made ourselves dependent on their technology for the green transition. 95% of the solar cells installed in Europe today come from China. We need to be independent. That must be what our China policy is. Should we not shake hands with each other that we do not sell critical infrastructure to China in the future, that we keep it in Europe, and that we do what we can to make ourselves independent when it comes to critical technology. That would be a good start.

Mr President, dear colleagues, we are not at war, but we are not living in a time of peace either. I think it's safe to say that, in our lifetimes, we are seeing the greatest threats that we have ever seen with Putin and his war in Ukraine. And who will be next if we do not stand together and invest in our common defence? Many countries, including my own, Denmark, have not invested sufficiently if we look at the past decades. We have let down our defence system and we have not realised how important it is for our security that we are able to defend ourselves here in Europe and not rely on other forces. We are changing that. We are investing massively in Denmark. We are investing massively in other countries as well. But we have to realise that there are huge differences when you look at how much money that we, in the European Union, spend on defence, and we need to change that. So I urge you, colleagues, go to your governments. Tell them to invest. Tell them that we need a decision in The Hague that we invest in our common defence. Let's do it, and let's do it now.

Mr President, dear Commissioner, honourable colleagues, dear Minister, we need to stop the import of Russian gas as soon as possible. That's why I think that 6 May, the day the Commission put forward the proposal on the phasing‑out of Russian gas, was a good day. I hope that we can name it our 'Independence Day', 'European Independence Day' in the future, because we need to follow up on this in the European Parliament as co-legislators. We need to adopt the necessary measures. I think it's clearly necessary, because Russia has been waging an illegal war for more than three years now – a war that's breaking all international justice, all international law, and which is costing hundreds of thousands of people their lives. We've supported Ukraine. We've supported them with a lot of money, we have supported them by sanctioning Russia, and that has been necessary. That's been the only right thing to do. But it has not been enough, because, at the same time, we've been buying so much Russian gas that actually the amount we've been paying for this gas is larger than what we've been giving to Ukraine. That's sad; that's a scandal that needs to stop, and that's why we need to adopt the necessary measures. We need to support the Commission's plan. We need to do this as fast as possible. I'm happy to hear the EPP and the representative of the Council, the Polish Presidency, support the plan which has been given on the table here.

Mr President! In the last mandate, we have adopted a number of climate laws to strengthen the green transition, to reduce CO2emissions. We can be proud of that. We in the EU must lead the green transition. We need to make demands on our businesses and our economy. But at the same time, we will not accept that our companies are being outcompeted by companies from other parts of the world, where there are no climate requirements and where there are no taxes on CO2 emissions.2. That is why I think that the CBAM climate tariff is a very good idea, because we are making sure that there is fair competition. The same requirements apply to imported products as to our own. But it is clear that we must do this in as simple a way as possible. We should not overburden our companies, which is why I think the Commission's proposal to reduce the burden on the vast majority of companies, but keep 99% of the impact, is a good idea. I think we should support it. Let us vote in favour of this proposal.

Madam President! Dear colleagues! It is paradoxical how climate change, which is increasingly being denied, has the consequence that the Arctic, including Greenland, has become the subject of international interest on an unprecedented scale. It is as if we have forgotten that the backdrop to the entire discussion about the Arctic is the consequences of the climate collapse that we are moving closer to. But instead of discussing it, we find ourselves having to discuss issues that should be self-evident, about territorial integrity and self-determination. But let me make it clear in this regard: The future of Greenland is determined by the Greenlandic population. punctuation. We in the EU must fully support this. We do, and that is why it is my message here today that the EU and Greenland are looking forward to close cooperation. I know that we already cooperate on many points when it comes to trade, fisheries, education, the green transition, and there is every reason to strengthen that cooperation in the future. We support the Greenlanders. We look forward to a strong cooperation between the EU and Greenland.

Madam President! Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. There was a time not so many years ago when it was said that we did not need heavy industry, steel, cement and other types of heavy industry in Europe. We could just outsource it to other parts of the world, and then they could produce it for us. It was a big mistake. We have seen how jobs have disappeared from Europe, how our production of steel, for example, has fallen. We need steel production. We need the heavy industry in Europe when we have to make our wind turbines, when we have to make our military equipment, when we have to make our infrastructure. We need to make it green, and that's why I say: Let us support the plan put forward by the Commission to promote this industry. But let us make sure that the toasts that are currently being delivered become reality. Let us ensure faster permits for industry, the expansion of infrastructure, and that we use our funds, our money, to support this. I support this, and I hope that a majority in the European Parliament will support it. Thank you for the word.

I just need to understand the position of the Patriots for Europe. You criticise the policy of the European Union trying to become independent of Russian gas? Is your solution that we should just keep on importing Russian gas? Or what is your position besides the criticism that you come with?

Mr. President! 163 billion dollars. This is how much money we spent in the EU last year on importing Russian energy. That's $2 billion more than we used to support Ukraine. It is hard to look at, and therefore the Russian gas must be phased out as soon as possible. It has already gone too slowly, but it is clear that we should not replace one addiction with another. There is no point in replacing Russian dependence with dependence on Saudi Arabia or Qatar or the United States, for that matter, when it comes to gas and oil. That is why I think the Commissioner's plan is right. A very good idea of what we need to do: more renewable energy, more energy efficiency. We must become independent, we must have our own energy in Europe. It was the German Vice Chancellor who, when the war broke out, called renewable energy freedom energy. I believe that this still holds true, and I believe that it is the plan put forward by the Commissioner that we must support.

Mr. President! Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. For over 3 years, Ukraine has struggled to defend its country from an illegal and unprovoked invasion. For over three years, Ukraine has fought against tyranny and for freedom, and the hero Zelenskyy has stood up to the dictator and aggressor, Putin, and in the European Union we have stood behind him, supported him, and we will continue to do so. It is a huge injustice that has been committed and is being committed - an assault of dimensions. And from the EU side, we have supported Ukraine with over DKK 100 billion, and more is on the way. But in addition, there is also the large amount of money that is in Europe in the form of frozen Russian activities - over 15 hundred billion kroner. Some of the money comes from oligarchs, but the vast majority comes from the Russian regime directly. Putin is destroying a country. He has to pay for that, and that is why I think it is time for us to deal with this, if not to use the frozen activities to rebuild Ukraine. Putin has to pay. They are not the people of Ukraine. Let's get it started.

Mr President. Dear Commission, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues. 2024 was the warmest year ever recorded. Climate change is not a distant future. They are here now and we are seeing the consequences of human loss, destruction, flooding, migrants having to flee and move for millions. It is very frightening, and it is paradoxical, that at the same time we see how politicians - now Trump in his inaugural speech - completely neglect the problem. We see how large groups in this House who are speaking today are talking as if there is no problem and that the CO22 It's a good thing because it's natural. Yes, it is natural, but not in the amounts it comes in now. We have to act. And the good news is that by acting on this, we are also doing something to increase our security, because more renewable energy can free us from Putin's gas, and we are also doing something good for our competitiveness, for example with energy efficiency that can increase our competitiveness in relation to our companies. So let's act. Let's do it now.

Madam President, Commissioner Várhelyi, thank you for being here today and engaging in a serious debate with us on how to improve animal welfare standards in Europe. Actually, you're the first European commissioner to have 'animal welfare' in your title. That comes with a lot of responsibility, and I'm not going to lie to you – if you fail to deliver, it would be a huge disappointment because we face an animal welfare crisis and we need to improve things. I am very happy to hear your words on the phasing out of cages, I think it would be a great improvement and I think your words are clear that you will come with this proposal. But I would also like to ask you, Mr Várhelyi, the other proposals that are outstanding on animal welfare labelling, on kept animals and on animals at the time of slaughter – will you put forward these proposals and when will you do so? If you put them forward, you can count on our support – we will work to support you and we will work to get these proposals through. I look forward to the cooperation.

Madam President! More than one in ten Europeans were unable to keep their homes warm last winter. In some countries, one in five people froze. That is well over forty million people in the European Union. This year it is expected that winter will be even colder than last year. It is totally unacceptable that we are in a situation where so many people will have to freeze and cannot afford to keep their house warm. And we have to do more than we do now. The way out of this crisis is to speed up even more renewable energy and energy efficiency so that we can become independent of expensive gas that we import from outside. I would like to take this opportunity, as I think this is one of the last times we are debating with Commissioner Simson down here in the Chamber, to thank the Commissioner for their work on this particular agenda. I think that is what is needed, and I think that we need to speed up even more. So let us build on what we have achieved together and move forward in that direction. I believe that Commissioner Dan Jørgensen will continue to do so. So thank you for that and thank you for the cooperation.

Mr President! Ladies and gentlemen! Over the past year, we have passed very important legislation in this House. Legislation on how to promote the green transition. Renewable energy targets, how much do we need? Energy efficiency targets. Legislation to transform the industry into green. But all this can only be done if we have the necessary skilled labour. If we have enough skilled people who can set up the wind turbines, electricians who can power our electric cars. Mechanics who can repair our cars, and blacksmiths who can weld our pumps. That is why we need a skilled workforce. We need all the manpower we can think of to develop new innovative technologies. And I'm happy to see that Mario Draghi focuses on just that in his report. That's what we need to invest in together. Now's the time.

Mr President! We can continue to pretend that individual countries decide for themselves on their tax levels and their tax revenues. But if the reality is that the biggest companies can just move their profits to another country if they are dissatisfied. And the very richest people in our society can transfer their wealth to a tax haven if they don't want to pay taxes. So, who is really in charge? After all, they are the ones who have the most, rather than democracy, and that is why I support Brazil's proposal in the G20 to introduce an international wealth tax of two per cent, which will hit the richest $3,000 billionaires and will be able to generate an income of $200 billion each year. I would urge you, ladies and gentlemen of the European Union, to take the lead and help support this proposal. It should not be the case that it is the richest who decide the tax policy. It has to be democracy. It is up to us to decide the tax policy.

(Start of speech off mic) ... an ever greater threat to democratic countries and societies. Since 2020, two-thirds of all wealth generated globally has flowed into the pockets of the top one percent – two-thirds of all wealth created. Meanwhile, extreme poverty is on the rise for the first time in 25 years. For too long, we have been told that rising inequality was just a fact, just a part of globalisation, a force of nature as immutable as gravity. But let me be clear: that idea is wrong. Inequality has been created and augmented by political decisions, and can be dealt with through political decisions. And that is why I warmly welcome Brazil's leadership in this year's G20 summit. I see that a bold proposal has emerged on an international wealth tax on billionaires, a tax which could would influence merely 3 000 individuals, but create up to USD 250 billion annually. I backed this proposal, as do major countries. Let's get on with it. Let's have a wealth tax and fight inequality.

Madam President, dear colleagues, dear Commissioner, for over two years, our courageous Ukrainian brothers and sisters have been fighting an existential war against a tyrant, Russia. No doubt that we are doing the right thing in the European Union by supporting our brothers and sisters, and we need to do whatever we can. But despite the good intentions, we are not doing nearly enough. Our approach must fundamentally change. We need to shift our perspective from talking about how Ukraine should not lose the war to actually talking about how Ukraine can win the war. We must recognise that academic debates and theoretical discussions are doing little to aid the thousands of Ukrainians who are fighting and dying for their country. We need to scale up our support and, frankly, some Member States also need to increase the military spending and help to Ukraine. Furthermore, I urge Member States and NATO allies to shift to make sure that the restrictions do not apply to Ukraine when we talk about how they can use our weapons. How can we expect Ukraine to defend itself from missiles launched from positions they are forbidden to strike back at? Let's do this. Let's give a full scale support to Ukraine. Slava Ukraini!

Mr President! How greedy are you allowed to be? Two years ago, energy prices were pounding upwards, and states had to give heat cheques and hold their hands under those hit hardest. Then there were others who made the money. One of them was the Klesch Group, which owns refineries in Denmark and Germany. The company has now sued the Danish and German governments for an exorbitant sum of billions, because the company believes that it has been taxed unfairly in an exceptional situation. With the energy charter in hand, Klesch Group wants the money back. It just has to stop. The Energy Charter Treaty has become a tool for fossil companies to protect their dirty business and extract money from treasuries. We need to stop fossil fuel companies using the charter in this way. That is why the Charter should be over. All EU countries should step out and the EU as a bloc should now step out and say no to the Energy Charter. This is only a step in the right direction, and it is only good.

The speaker talks about that we should avoid distortions of the internal market and red tape, and I get the impression that the speaker sees new animal welfare legislation as something which is just bureaucratic and creates red tape and distorts the internal market. Doesn’t the speaker realise that we have actually hundreds of millions of animals suffering in cages that we need to get rid of, and that has nothing to do with red tape or bureaucracy or distortions of the internal market?