Speeches

Madam President! European energy planning has proved to be a disaster with fatal consequences for the ordinary European, the ordinary Dane. The green forces in this House have spent all their energy on combating efficient green energy such as nuclear power. Yes, we have seen this week that Germany closed its last nuclear reactors after green pressure. It has created a much greater dependence on Russian gas, Russian oil. Absolutely naive, totally flawed, but unfortunately a policy that was mainstream in this house until quite recently. If we really wanted the green transition to benefit future generations, our children, our grandchildren, then technology is the way forward. Denmark is a leading country when it comes to wind energy. But the fact is that all the wind energy we are planning in the North Sea is not of great help without efficient energy storage, without "Power-to-X" technologies, without everything we lack today. So the solution to the green crisis is not the fantasies of the left to go back to living standards, to become more dependent on despots and dictators. No, the solution is what has always saved the Western world: new innovation, new technology and more research.

But the paradox is that if legislation could have solved this, it would have solved it. Discrimination on the basis of gender is prohibited. This legislation has been in the EU as in Denmark for many years. So if we could solve this by sitting in this House and passing new legislation that just adds more bureaucracy, why was it not solved 20, 30 and 40 years ago? I can only refer to the fact that one of the largest Danish trade unions, HK, has investigated the issue and came to the conclusion that there is a pay gap, but cannot clearly define how one wants to solve it, and therefore I do not believe that the bureaucratic path is the way forward. You do, and that is the difference between whether you are a European federalist or whether you believe in the nation states' ability to handle these areas best.

Mr President! We see time and time again, when we in this House try to throw ourselves into good cases to solve problems, that it ends up in a paternalistic over-bureaucracy, which will impose a large amount of costs on companies, but where the result in terms of higher equality and closing the gap between men's and women's pay is highly questionable. And that is why it is tragic when the European Union throws itself into matters that are best managed and safeguarded in the nation states. At the same time, when you as a Dane stand here, it is deeply worrying to see how the EU repeatedly moves into the area of social rights in the area of employment, where we in Denmark have a Danish model that has proven far superior to what you want in this house. That is to say, politicians and legislators must find ways of solving the problems of the labour market rather than the social partners, workers and employers. But if you want to look at a country where there is great equality between the sexes, where there are high wages and where there are orderly conditions in the labour market, then you should probably look to Denmark, where we do not regulate this kind of thing with law and bureaucracy, but with sensible agreements. (The speaker agreed to answer a blue card entry)

Mr President! Unfortunately, it is nearing tragicomic to witness the debates that we have year after year about illegal migration to Europe. In 2016, the EU clearly showed that the seriousness of the situation could not be overcome. The seriousness that led to tens of thousands of irregular migrants fleeing all the way up through Europe. And what happened in the meantime? Very little. Last year alone, more than 300,000 came to Europe illegally. More than half of those seeking asylum are rejected. But they also know, when they see the statistics from the EU, that the chance of being sent home – even with a refusal of asylum – is negligible. That is why, unfortunately, it is a big mistake to talk here about European solutions to the asylum problem, because Europe has failed. All that works is to allow the Member States to continue to maintain their national border controls and to work towards a truly solidarity-based solution. A push-back model, like the one we know from Australia, where we do not keep giving people false hopes that you can illegally come to Europe and settle, but actually take effective action against human trafficking and the crime that it entails.

Mr. President! The European Union in general and this House in particular, the European Parliament, have had an incredibly unfortunate hand when it comes to foreign policy. I have witnessed dozens of debates in this House that have promoted the import of Russian gas over the security interests of Europeans, that have had an incredibly naive approach to dictatorships such as Russia and China, and that have spent far too much of their energy on foreign policy to differentiate themselves from the United States and, incidentally, to be very anti-American in the whole approach to foreign policy. Even today with the war in Ukraine, leading European countries, such as France and Germany, will continue to be reluctant, for example, to supply tanks that Ukrainians are very much looking for. That is why it is absolutely insane to hear that the answer to Europe's foreign policy challenges is to give the European Union and the European Parliament more power. The answer is to let the nation states coordinate the best possible defence of our security through NATO and with a strong US backing.