Speeches

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?

Mr President! Commissioner. Honourable colleagues. I'm sorry to be here today. I am sorry that we have to have this debate today, because the point is that we should have had animal welfare legislation already on the table. Four years ago - in 2020 - the Commission promised Parliament and the public that we should have animal welfare legislation. That promise has been broken. It is a clear breach of promise that the Commission is going through when it has not presented what it has promised. While we wait, the animals suffer. We are talking about 300 million animals that live most of their lives in small cages. We are talking about hundreds of millions of animals that are routinely mutilated, namely male chicks that are grinded or gassed because they cannot be used to lay eggs. We are talking about six billion so-called turbo chickens. Chickens that are bred to grow so fast that their organs can't withstand it that they can't walk. This is pure animal cruelty. Dear friends, we are writing 2024. We can't see ourselves in the mirror in the way we produce these animals. These animals deserve a policy. They deserve a plan. They deserve a bill. There is no legislative proposal on the table, despite the Commission's promises. That is to say, there is a bill, because we know that it is in the drawer. We know that it is clear, and that is why I call on the Commission: Keep your promises! Come up with that bill. Let's get it on the table. And if you do not come up with it today, then we must at least expect the Commission to present a concrete timetable for when we will get the new animal welfare law! We can't model for this anymore. Let's put the bill on the table.

Madam President! Yes, it is very interesting, Anders Vistisen, with your criticism of things not being taken seriously and your criticism of the EU and everyone else. We know that song from you. But what is your own suggestion on how to improve things here?

Madam President! I think it's strange that every time we discuss wolves, it's going to be about gunpowder and bullets. It will be about how to shoot as many wolves as possible, and I think we have to hold on to the fact that in the last half century, that is, the last 50 years, there is not a single deadly attack by a wolf on a human being. Wolves are not life-threatening, so we should not exaggerate danger or dramatize the wolf. It is clear that there are farmers who have problems with wolves attacking their herds. We have to take that seriously. But we know, and indeed in my own country, Denmark, that we have problems with it, I fully recognise that, but at the same time we know that wolf-stained fences, one is something that works. In my own country, Denmark, there has not been a single attack on herds behind wolf-stained fences. Then we should not be betting on it - on using EU agricultural subsidies to put up a fence that works, rather than shooting at the wolves.

Madam President! In less than two years’ time, the homes of Aarhus, Denmark’s second largest city, will feel the heat from the earth’s interior, because a project is currently underway that will supply geothermal energy to the Aarhusians – 20 per cent of the Aarhusians, 36 000 households – in a few years’ time, and it will be the largest geothermal project in the EU. It's a good idea, and we need more of that kind of project, because it's renewable energy. It is stable energy, and it is energy that can help us get rid of the last parts of Putin's gas that the EU is still importing. So that's why: Let's get more projects like the ones in Aarhus. Let's get them across the EU. I hope that a geothermal strategy can help in this, and I therefore hope that the Commission will take note of our recommendation and come up with such a strategy for geothermal energy. We need that so that we can get more green heat for the benefit of the climate, to the detriment of Putin.

Mr. President! Mr Borrell. Honourable colleagues. Do you remember the time after the financial crisis when Greece sold its largest port, Piraeus, to China? If not, do you remember earlier this year when the Port of Hamburg - parts of the Port of Hamburg - was sold to China? That's just how capitalism works, isn't it? Someone wants to sell something. Somebody wants to buy something. You make a deal. Critical infrastructure. It's not a big deal. As Milton Friedman, the Nobel Prize economist, said: “The business of business is business”. Don't mix politics and business. But we can see today how China is using its economic power to put pressure on the countries that depend on China - with which China is trading - and therefore we have to realize that Milton Friedman was wrong. We were wrong. The whole of Europe was wrong. We can make mistakes, but the fact that we have become so dependent on China is a big one. We need to get out of this. Let's change course. Let us make sure that we do not get into the clutches of China, and let us reduce dependence. Let's not sell our critical infrastructure to China in the future.

Mr President, for too long we’ve been naively believing in globalisation without asking critical questions. We thought we could get the goods that we needed from wherever we needed. It didn’t matter who we became dependent on as long as we could make a good deal. In the meantime, China has accelerated its industrial transformation and has monopolised a lot of the critical raw materials that we need, and we are indeed very dependent on China today. In fact, 98 % of the rare earths that we need for our digital and green economy comes from China. They are being processed in China, and 60 % of global lithium is being processed in China. So today we are dependent on a regime with whom we don’t share values. It’s about time we exited this situation. I think this Critical Raw Materials Act is a good step in the right direction. I’m especially happy to see the benchmark of recycling of raw materials of 25 % by 2030, and that Europe should process 40 % of its annual needs of raw material itself in 2013. Let’s get rid of the dependency. Let’s do it now.

Mr President! Ladies and gentlemen, we are here again. The new leak we are discussing today clearly shows that when we are talking about tax havens, when we are talking about money laundering, the arrow is not only pointing out to distant states in the Pacific. Then the arrow points most strongly towards ourselves here in the European Union. Because the leak we have seen now shows how the financial sector in Cyprus is helping Russian oligarchs. Helping arms dealers. Helps an oil company owned by the Syrian regime to hide, to hide their money. I am sorry to say that, colleagues, but it is clear that hypocrisy is driving down the walls of this building and of the European Union in general. Because we all agree that tax havens must be combated, yet we leave ourselves in many places around the EU. Luxembourg is one of the world's largest tax havens. Ireland is unsolidaristic when it dumps corporate taxes to attract large companies, and now we have also uncovered how Cyprus, with its lax rules in the financial sector and their almost non-existent controls, facilitates tax havens, facilitates money laundering. It just can't keep going. We're going to have to take action. Let us live up to our own standards. Let us put the countries, the EU countries, that act as tax havens on our blacklist of tax havens. It's time to act.

Mr. President! We are drowning in rubbish and rubbish. And it only goes one way, and unfortunately it's upwards. Since 2009, the amount of waste in Europe has increased by 20%. Dear friends, I'm tired of plastic lying in nature and in the water. I think a lot of people are tired of that. And in Aarhus, in Denmark, you are also tired of it, and therefore you have started a scheme where you have recycled cups instead of takeaway cups. When you get a cup at a restaurant in Aarhus, you set up some mortgage containers where you can deliver this cup and get the mortgage back. This ensures that these cups are not just thrown out and float in nature. If Aarhus can do it, then we can do it all over Europe. Therefore, let's get a law that phases out single-use plastics. Let's do something good for both people and nature and let's drop the exceptions that the plastic lobby really wants us to introduce. Let's get the plastic out and let's get nature and the environment in.

Madam President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, today China produces more than 80% of the global solar panels. China has invested more than EUR 46 billion during the last decade. That is more than ten times what we can manage here in Europe. We used to be in the lead in this sector. That has certainly changed, and now we risk that the same destiny will occur to our wind industry. We’ve seen investments in wind turbines drop dramatically, and we’re actually seeing a new low in investment for wind turbines. So, it’s time that we change the course. It’s time that we plan our way ahead. It’s time for a European industrial strategy, and this act is part of the answer. As part of it, it’s important that we have sustainability criteria for when we have auctions and public procurement, so that we complement the price criteria. We need to reward the projects that are in line with our climate targets, our environmental targets and our values. So, let’s get behind our cleantech industry. Let’s stay there and let us support a green and competitive Europe. That is the way forward that will benefit the green transition and the European autonomy.

Mr President, gas imports from Russia have declined. Total Russian gas imports fell from 155 billion m³ in 2021 to between 40 and 45 billion m³ in 2023. Is that an enormous achievement or is it a tragedy? On the one hand, we managed to decline rapidly the imports of Russian gas. On the other hand, we are still paying EUR 2 billion every month to Mr Putin to buy his fossil fuels. If you look at it that way, well, I think it’s a tragedy. When I read the state of the energy union report, I also see that we are not on track. Member States are not doing enough to meet our goals for 2030 when it comes to reducing CO2 by 55%. So I have an idea for all of us: why don’t we step up the climate efforts – more renewable energy, more energy efficiency – and in the same way we reduce our gas imports, our fossil imports from Russia. We can do the two things at the same time. So let’s get started.

Mr President! Ladies and gentlemen! Dear Commissioner, We all know it's wrong to lie. Most of us learn it as little children, but not all lies are as bad as others. Some lies are harmless, such as: You get square eyes from watching too much television. Other lies can be dangerous. Other lies can help smash our planet right in front of us, like when companies want us to think they're green or sustainable, even if they're not, because it makes us buy their products, invest in their stocks, eat their lies. I am talking here about "green washing", which is unfortunately far too widespread in our society. With these new rules for a common green bond label, we are doing away with green washing. We make some common rules that if you as a company use this green bond label in the EU, then you can be sure that there is actually something about the talk. It's important. That's good. We must support this, because some lies are so dangerous that we do not have to condone them.

Madam President! Dear Commissioner, dear colleagues! Do you know the story of the shepherd boy Peter, who jokingly shouts: The wolf is coming, even if it's a lie. As you may know, the story ends tragically, because when the wolf comes one day, Peter is left to himself and the wolf. Unfortunately, it seems that some colleagues – including President von der Leyen – have misunderstood the moral of history, which is that it is dangerous to incite fear for no reason. And that is what the President of the Commission is doing when she claims that the wolf population is potentially a danger to humans. In her own country, Germany, the wolf has been since 2000. There is no example of wolves attacking humans. So we shouldn't incite fear. We should rather help those farmers who actually have problems with their populations being attacked by wolves. They need help getting a wolf fence, and this can be financed by the EU. Incidentally, it is already possible to shoot wolves, which are problem wolves that come back in relation to the farmer's crew. So let's not incite gunfire, but let's help the farmers.

Mr President! Everyone I've heard speaking at this lectern today says: Listen to me! We will fight shell companies. We cannot tolerate some rich people hiding their fortunes in shell companies. We have to have a law that does away with this system. We have seen in Panama Papers, in Paradise Papers and most recently in Pandora Papers, these huge tax haven leaks that have existed in recent years, and how some rich people store outrageous sums in shell companies offshore. It is actually a leading researcher who says that up to 7.6 thousand billion dollars are saved in these kinds of constructions. Therefore, we must have a law that does away with shell companies. The European Commission has proposed this. We support them with an overwhelming majority in this house. There are a few Member States that are blocking this from happening. It has to stop. Therefore, dear Member States, adopt the law to fight shell companies.

Madam President! Ladies and gentlemen, we need microchips in virtually all the technology we surround ourselves with. We saw during the coronavirus crisis how we can get into trouble very quickly if we cannot access microchips. We saw this in a small town in West Jutland, Denmark, where I come from. The town is called Struer, and in Struer there is a startup company, which was told that there was 99 weeks waiting for microchips. The chips that are absolutely crucial for the alarm piece that the company invented and invested in. In the same city, the old illustrious company B&O also had problems. B&O makes audio and hi-fi systems, and they use microchips in all their products. For both companies, this is their livelihood. If they can't access microchips, then they might as well shut down and they were in serious trouble, and therefore we have to realize that it's not going to be completely dependent on foreign powers when it comes to microchips. We must have our own production and be self-sufficient here in Europe, and that is why I support this regulation on chips. Let us vote for it!

Madam President, dear colleagues, dear Commissioner, today we stand on the shoulders of more than 1.4 million European citizens who have signed the Citizens’ Initiative and demand that we treat animals in a more respectful and a more decent way. There is a broad consensus, even among politicians, that animals are sentient beings. Unfortunately, the current legislation does not reflect that obvious fact. The use of animals in cosmetics and in other chemical tests is an example of just that. Even though – as the Commissioner states – we have explicit legislation saying that we cannot use animals, banning animal tests when we talk about cosmetics, we still see it happening today. According to the Commission’s own research, we have the number of animals being used for scientific purposes stagnating at 7.4 million animals per year. That’s not good enough. We need to use the alternatives. They exist. Therefore, I would like to ask the Commissioner: can we expect that the Commission finally commits to a coordinated plan to accelerate the transition to non—animal science?

Mr President, dear colleagues, dear Commissioner, I think this debate has been fruitful and it shows that we are in this House very much aware that we need to act and we need to act now. These legislative proposals that are on the table – I hope they will get a majority, all of them, because we need certainly stronger rules to deliver on our climate ambitions and our energy independence ambitions. Some of you have talked about whether this Energy Efficiency Directive is binding, to which degree it is binding. Well, for the first time, we have an Energy Efficiency Directive which is binding for the EU as a whole. Previous directives on energy efficiency have not been binding. They have been indicative. Also for Member States individually, they will have to deliver on these measures that are in the Directive. They will have to make plans and show how they can increase energy efficiency and reduce energy consumption. We have actually, in this Directive, given the Commission, the tools to, if Member States do not act, if they are falling behind and they are not showing how they will catch up on energy savings, then the Commission has the mandate to infringe them and to take them to court. I think this is an important part of the Directive. We don’t wish for anyone to be taken to court, but we wish and mean that this Directive needs to be implemented. Everybody, all the Member States need to take it serious. They need to increase the energy efficiency, and if they do not, well, there can be legal consequences. I think that is important because we have seen that in previous efforts have not been sufficient. Actually, we are not delivering on our ambitions as it is right now. So we need to take more actions, and I think I am convinced that this Directive will lead to exactly that point.

Madam President, dear colleagues, over the last couple of years, remarkable changes in Europe’s energy system have taken place. Our dependency on Russian natural gas has fallen significantly. In just four months, from August to November 2020, natural gas consumption fell by 20 % compared to the same period the year before. Three Member States even managed to reduce natural gas consumption by more than 40 %. This was something that experts said could not be done. We proved them wrong. We did it. And, friends, now we need to do it again because the energy crisis is not over, the climate crisis is certainly not over and we are looking at hard times ahead, when we look at the climate but also if we just look a couple of years ahead when it comes to our energy system – the prices might rise again, hitting the most vulnerable people in our society. That is why we need to make some structural changes. We need to make sure that our energy system is efficient. And that is what we set out to do in this directive. I think we have proven here in Europe that we have been able to react swiftly when it comes to our energy system, and we need to prove that one more time. This Energy Efficiency Directive that we have agreed on – the broad majority in the European Parliament, the main groups of the European Parliament – sets out for some significant changes in our energy system. First of all, we agree that we need to reduce energy consumption by 11.7 % in 2030. That is a big challenge, but it can be done if we make sure to insulate our homes, make sure to roll out more district heating and make sure that we use the excess heat which is created from factories and data centres that use much electricity but also create a lot of heat, which is now often being wasted, we need to use that heat in our district heating systems to make sure that it will be benefiting consumers and not wasted. In this directive, we set a yearly energy savings obligation standing at 0.8 %, going towards 1.9 % each year. That means the Member States will have to do an effort to save 1.9 % of their energy consumption each year. It’s a huge effort that this requires, but we can make it happen and we need to make it happen. We set out in this directive to have a 3 % renovation rate of public buildings, so 3 % of the public buildings need to be renovated to become nearly zero-emission buildings every year. We make sure that we prioritise the people who suffer from energy poverty and we strengthen the energy-efficiency-first principle, which means that when you do make an energy project, you have to make the analysis to see can this actually be solved by increasing energy efficiency instead of increasing energy consumption and building more energy. We also say that municipalities with more than 45 000 people living in them have to make heating and cooling plans to analyse where can we have district heating, where do we need heat pumps and how can we make that as efficient as possible? We set a whole lot of targets and a whole lot of effort is being required by this directive. This will not come easily. It will not be achieved with business as usual. But we know that we can make it happen and we need to make it happen for the climate and for our energy security. This directive will be good for the climate and bad for Mr. Putin. I would like to thank the groups in the European Parliament, in particular. Ms Weiss, Mr Danti and Ms Paulus, who negotiated and secured a broad majority. Let’s make it happen, let’s vote for the Energy Efficiency Directive and let’s do this.

Madam President, Commissioner, colleagues, thank you. I think we had a fruitful debate today. I think it shows that, of course, we have ideological differences in this House. We are from the left to the right, and we might disagree on how the tax levels should be. Should the tax be higher or lower? We disagree, probably. But I think it also shows the debate today that we agree that no matter what the decision will be on how the tax level should be, we must agree that it should be the same rules for everybody. The tax rules that democracy decides should apply to everybody. And as it has been said from this floor today, that’s not the case today. We have seen in the Pandora Papers that we have two systems. We have two sets of rules, one for the 99 % of those who go to work and pay their taxes, and one for the top 1 % who are able to use offshore accounts, hire tax advisers, hire lawyers that help them create shell companies and fake trusts so that they can avoid paying their taxes. And that is basically what we need to do away with. As Udo Bullmann, the DEVE rapporteur, said, this is something which harms, in particular, the developing countries, those who are poorest, those who have less than the rest, they are not the ones who are benefiting. They’re the ones who are being harmed. And those on the top are the ones who are benefiting. So why are we not doing more? Mr Botenga asked. We cannot just complain. We need to act. I think he is absolutely right. And I think in this report we have a number of proposals. We have discussed them here today. So let us just agree that we have talked sufficiently. Now it is time to act and to do away with these tax schemes.

Madam President, colleagues, dear Commissioner, thank you for being here today, and I look forward to this hopefully fruitful debate on a very important issue, namely the Pandora Papers and the lessons learned from the Pandora Papers. So the obvious question is what have we learned from the Pandora Papers? Well, the way I see it, we have learned that some people simply refuse to play by the rules, some people at the very top of our society when it comes to wealth and fortune. Colleagues, I have to ask you, did anyone on this floor count on the extent to which this system is rigged? Absolutely rigged. If you look at the Pandora Papers, well you have two systems, not one system but two systems, one applying to the 99 % of people going to work every day, contributing to society, paying their fair share of taxes and another system applying to the top 1 %, those who can, if they wish to, refuse to pay their taxes, refuse to contribute to society because they hire tax advisers to create offshore shell companies and fake trusts where they hide their wealth and hide their fortunes so they don’t contribute and they don’t pay taxes. That has to change. That is what we see in the Pandora Papers that these two systems of rules are applying, that the system is basically rigged. That is why we have proposed, in this report that we are voting on tomorrow, a number of proposals on how to fix the system. And I hope that we can stand together. I am very proud of the result that we achieved in the committee, where not a single member voted against these proposals. It was a broad majority from left to right, agreeing that we need to do more, and we need some new rules to fix this system. I would like to highlight three basic proposals that we have. We have a lot of proposals, but among those are, well, one, we need to look at the possibility of having a minimum tax on capital gains. We know that those who have capital gains, those who have stocks, those who have real estate, those who have other forms of capital and earn money from that, that is the people at the very top of our society. And they should also contribute. And they are not always doing that, according to the Pandora Papers, these are the people who are moving this kind of wealth, this kind of capital offshore in shell companies and avoiding contributing. That is why we need a minimum level of capital gains. We need to look at that. We need to have that analysis to see if that’s feasible, because that would be something which would make sure that no country would have 0 % tax on capital gains. Second, we need to look at the advisory companies, the audit companies that make this show go on. Those who advice on how you can create shell companies and move fortunes overseas. Those companies are often both audit companies and financial advisers, and obviously that’s a conflict of interest. If you first give financial advice on how you can move wealth offshore and then next you ordered the companies or the person’s accounts, you’re not going to find any trouble because you have a conflict of interest, so we propose in this report to separate the audit departments from the financial advice departments. Third, we need to look at the shell companies and have rules against empty shell companies. That has been proposed by the European Commission, that is being negotiated here in Parliament, we have agreed that we should have these rules, but in the Council among the Member States, they are stuck, they cannot agree on it and we urge the Council to continue the work and agree on rules that will ban the shell companies. That’s what we want in the European Parliament. I look forward to this debate. We have a lot of proposals and I look forward to hearing from you what we can do and what we have learned from the Pandora Papers.

I would like to ask the speaker whether he is familiar with the methods that exist in order to determine whether the sex of a chick is male or female. They already exist and can be used and will not cost more, neither for the producer nor for the consumer. Thus, is the speaker aware of these methods?

Madam President! Commissioner! Honourable colleagues! I wrote two speeches today. They're similar. On one, there are a few spelling mistakes and maybe a few passages that are not suitable for this room, so I curl it up and throw it out. We wouldn't do the same with animals, would we? What if we did it? It would be barbaric for us, curling animals together, to kill them because we think they had a mistake in one way or another. But, dear friends, that's exactly what we're doing, and it's terrible to think about. There are 330 million male chicks killed in the EU every year. Either by gassing them or by putting them in a meat crusher because they have the mistake of having the wrong gender. They're male chickens, and we can't use them for anything. It's barbaric. Honestly. What does that say about us? What does that say about our values? What does that say about our ethical compass? Nothing very good for me to see, and that's why it should stop. That is why we should have a ban on this at European level. The Commissioner mentioned two reasons why consideration should be given to refraining from such a ban. One of them was cultural justification. The culture of the Member States should be respected. I don't see any point in that. Well, what kind of culture is it that says that you have to do a lot of killing of male chicks every year? It's not a culture I can support. The second was for economic reasons. And there it is that it is absurd that, in fact, this will probably not cost us anything. At least not that much. There are methods today to determine whether the chicken is male or female before hatching the chicken, so let's use those methods. It's not necessarily more expensive, but that would prevent us from doing this barbaric massacre of the rooster chickens. So let's use those methods, and that's why I want to say: Commissioner, would you not give me a good reason why we should not ban the mass killing of newly hatched male chicks in Europe? I don't see any reason, and that doesn't suggest you can either. So let's get that ban, and let's get it now!

Mr President! Today we are discussing a ban on trade in shark fins. We are doing this on the basis of a citizens' proposal in which more than 1.1 million people have signed up. ‘Finning’, as it is called, is a brutal practice where sharks are caught and their fins are cut off and then dumped at the bottom of the sea because you only need – you only want – you are only interested in their fins, which can be sold at an expensive price. It's animal cruelty to the utmost power. It doesn't belong anywhere. Fortunately, finning is banned in the EU, but many fins are sold, including on the European market. We should put an end to this, and that is why I support a ban on trade in these fins. I am one of the people who signed the bill. There are some colleagues who say that it will be of no use to stop the trade. They're wrong. Of course it will be useful. The European Union is a major market for these Finns, which is why we should stop trading. By doing so, we can also put an end to this terrible practice.

Mr President! Imagine this: As we fight to shut down coal-fired power plants and replace our gasoline cars with electric ones – yes, with a fingertip, the US President is putting two million polluting gasoline cars on the streets and opening 76 new coal-fired power plants. Will we accept it? Will we not approach our American friends and protest against such a policy that would so obscure the Paris Agreement that both parties have signed up to? I think we will protest, and that is why we should also raise this issue with the Americans, because what the Americans are doing is equivalent to sending millions of polluting cars onto the streets and opening up lots of new coal-fired power stations. According to President Biden's own administration, the Willow project in Alaska will generate so much oil that it is equivalent to having two million new petrol cars on the streets. It will produce so much extra CO2 over the next 30 years that it is equivalent to 76 coal-fired power plants. We are in the midst of a climate catastrophe! Far too far to approve new oil drilling. The International Energy Agency has made it clear in black and white: We have plenty of oil! We don't need any more oil projects. What we need is more green energy, less CO2 emissions – not more oil drilling! I have to ask: What are we doing here? The Arctic is warming four times faster than the rest of the world. The vulnerable nature of the Arctic is being harmed! Indigenous peoples' habitats are being destroyed. This is not going to be good for getting more oil here and now. It is a project that will not benefit in terms of independence in relations with Russia. This will only benefit the oil industry. We should stop that. It is our clear duty to send a signal to the United States. This can't go on. The Willow Project must be stopped! President Biden, roll the Willow Project back and stick to your climate pledges!

Mr President! While China has become increasingly autocratic in recent years, we in Europe have become increasingly dependent on China. We've seen how crucial raw materials for our industry come from China, and we've seen how critical infrastructure lands in Chinese hands. I am thinking, for example, of China's acquisition of Greece's largest port, Piraeus, and China's current plans to buy into the Port of Hamburg. It is time to stop this development. Enough must be enough. I have two suggestions. Firstly, we in the European Union must adopt a common definition of what counts as critical infrastructure and give each other a handshake that we do not sell it to foreign powers. Secondly, we should repatriate industries that are vital to our society. I am thinking, for example, of mining, but also of production in the green sector, for example. It is time for the EU to take a more critical role vis-à-vis China. We must be vigilant about our values, and we must realise that freedom requires independence.