Speeches

Madam President, colleagues, how many political advertisements of different political groups do you see in your timeline daily? In fact, I’ve counted and all the ads on my Instagram account came from just three political parties, while in the Netherlands we have at least 20. So why is that? In a proper functioning democracy, the voter decides. So no tracking. The voter decides on what data to share for political ads, but also limited to no targeting. Indeed, it is segmentation with different messages to different groups of voters that give ample opportunities for manipulation and for polarisation, based sometimes on the most sensitive personal data such as religion, ethnic background and age. Those ads can sow division and hate. So, that is why we need finally to make political ads subject to strict data protection, in order to avoid another Cambridge Analytica, to prevent another Trump campaign targeting black voters and to ensure that, indeed, the voter decides.

Madam President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues that have found a way of transport to home without the buses leaving this early this afternoon. It’s good that you’re here to address the issue, among others, of greenwashing. If you buy a television and get a microwave, you would be upset. I would be upset. But you have a whole range of options to take on a fraudulent salesman. But if I invest in green but I get brown, I have no leg to stand on. The research by the major European news outlets shows that Europeans are being sold microwaves as televisions – on a large scale. Some 50% of the greenest funds in Europe actually invest in brown. And the Commission, they are sitting on their hands – not literally, but... The investigation showed very clearly breaches of law. They showed green funds investing in coal companies or in chemical companies operating in China likely with forced labour. This is simply not green, and selling them as such runs counter to the sustainable finance disclosure regulations and these funds should be punished. But the investigation also shows uncertainty. Funds are trying to do good, but facing fake legal standards and unclear social expectations. What about a fossil fuel company that has serious plans to turn around its business or a green bond that only partly finances green investments? Being green is not necessarily black and white, so here the Commission must step in. And the Commission has always stepped in in previous years. I remember when the Commission launched the sustainable finance action plan in 2018 they were entering uncharted territories. The Commission went where no regulator went before. To end short—termism in the financial markets, that is a daunting task. But the Commission took it on and they took it on with verve, creating a disclosure regime for asset managers, building a common taxonomy to define green, creating green benchmarks. And after these corporate disclosures, green bonds, due diligence, it’s on the table. And I commend the Commission for this ambition. But that ambition was then, and I’m worried now, because it seems, despite all the talk about Europeans’ resilience, the Commission itself has surprisingly little of it. If you’re the first at something, it’s normal that things don’t go as planned, that there’ll be unintended consequences, growing pains and people will complain. Yes, they will. But every complaint is an encouragement in this case to do something new, to take the next step. So take any feedback arising from the revelations of greenwashing not as a setback, but as an invitation, an encouragement to move forward. Because by letting national supervisors fill the gap in a sustainable finance framework, barriers are being constructed in Europe. And when it comes to setting standards for deep green Article 9 funds, that means what’s green in France is now green in Germany. What we see is a capital market with green fragmentation, and if Parliament is taking all action, it can already, we are serious about greenwashing and we show it. We want ESMA to develop rules for misleading fund names to ensure green funds are actually green. We want transparency for the entire green bond market so that the Green Bonds Regulation actually does what it set out to do: fight greenwashing. But in Europe, we are a team. The Parliament cannot score without the Commission’s assist. So I want a stronger determination to fight greenwashing from Berlaymont, and in disclosure and regulation, minimum standards for Article 9 funds are essential, as the revelations we are discussing today show. And in the green bond market, it is important to regulate the worst performers to address greenwashing, not just to create a new gold standard for the best in class. And for the Taxonomy Regulation, it must be extended from climate to environment and social, and last but not least, the taxonomy must have a renewed focus on transition. Because it’s one thing to be green; it’s another thing to become clean. And most of the activities in Europe are still not green. Most of the corporates are still not green. So we need to finance a transition to become green and we can use a taxonomy for that. And with all these measures, we can build a common European language for all parts of sustainability and meet the expectations we once set for ourselves to end short—termism and to give the financial sector a renewed licence to operate. In short, Commission and dear colleagues, what we see here, we have different ways to fight greenwash. The tools to address greenwashing are already on the table. We know what we have to do. Or what we could do. The question is only when. And this is the question to the Commission: when will you step up to the plate and the practice of greenwashing that we see now that has been revealed by the major European news outlets?

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, yes, I speak in Dutch today. Tax evaders and letterbox companies, they are almost synonymous. It is therefore good that we get the dust comb through companies and clean up European businesses by removing mailboxes. Letterboxes contribute nothing, but nothing, to the economy and exist only to avoid taxation. And in the latter they are successful, too successful. Every year, around EUR 60 billion disappears into the hands of letterbox companies. That is a huge amount, an amount that we can no longer spend on caring for our parents, the education of our children or much-needed purchasing power. This law is the first of its kind worldwide. It is European in its scope and that is good. As a result, companies can no longer make a profit by setting up fake companies on the Amsterdam Zuidas, the Luxembourg Kirchberg, or anywhere in Europe. There is no escape anymore. I would like to thank Lídia Pereira and the other negotiators for their good cooperation. This has led to a good proposal. This proposal deserves to be introduced quickly. I would like to join in Lídia Pereira's appeal to ministers and countries: Do not delay the great cleaning of our economy any longer. However, we as MEPs call for a thorough approach and for the dust comb to be removed from all corners of the room. The letterbox firms in the financial sector should also be scrutinised. This is the chance to make tax avoidance a major blow, to finally deliver blue tax envelopes where they belong: to the letterbox companies of the richest on earth and of the largest companies in the world. Don't let that chance run.

Madam President, it is collective action that is essential to face the challenges of our time. Together, we stand. Divided, we fall. The war in the Ukraine, extremely high energy prices, the impact of the pandemic, the consequences of climate change – what we needed and what we need is collective action to protect people and small businesses from the disruptive effects of these challenges on normal life. What we need is a strong government. What we don’t need is austerity. Europeans have lived through austerity before and they say not again. But be realistic: a strong government needs solid funding. And this holds especially true in times of inflation. Budgetary deficits only contribute to inflation. The IMF, the ECB and a bunch of other economists all say it’s taxation, stupid. Indeed, we need to break with the taboo of taxation. No, do not raise taxes on labour. But yes, do raise taxes on profits, wealth and pollution. Level the playing field between capital and labour, between workers and investors. Wealth in Europe is wildly undertaxed. However, it’s better to let money work than to work yourself. Colleagues, let’s their four stand together, allow for a strong government, break with the taboo on taxation. The need in our era of high energy prices is compensation for the many, taxation for the few.

Mr President, rising energy prices are hitting many people hard. In addition to losers, there are winners. Energy companies across Europe are making an additional €200 billion in profits. 200 billion because of the war in Ukraine, because of the extreme price increases. The day Russia invaded Ukraine, the energy companies had a winning fate in their hands. But is it fair that they accept their fate while Europeans are in the cold? Or is their gain just an opportunity to ease the pain of others? A tax on unforeseen profits – windfall profits – is the honest answer to this crisis. The Commission wants it, the International Energy Agency wants it, and five Member States – with left-wing and right-wing governments – have already introduced it. So my message to those left behind is: What are you waiting for? Choose a fair Europe and introduce a chance profit tax.

Mr President, a full debate on a delegated act does not happen every day, but this issue goes to the heart of who we are. Are we still serious about defending our planet? Serious about advocating energy independence in a geopolitical world? Serious about building a sustainable Europe for all citizens? By labelling gas and nuclear as green we answer these questions with a clear and resounding ‘no’. Voting for gas turns Europe from a climate front runner into a climate laggard, as even Russia and China don’t call it green, and for good reason: there’s no place for fossil gas if you want to stop global warming. But Europe’s reasons to turn away from gas are stronger still, because our addiction means dependence, dependence on dictatorial dealers like Putin or a Saudi Prince. And is this the message that we, defenders of our planet and advocates for independence, want to give? And one can sort of understand those who favour nuclear. Yes, it will be a future source of energy, but no, your country will not benefit from labelling it green. It doesn’t work for all Europeans, only for a few. Because Macron’s backroom deal is a deal written for France. So is it a surprise that it’s just about only France that can fulfil the requirement, the requirement of a permanent storage for nuclear waste by 2050? The bottom line is this act takes green funding away from the countries that need it most and puts it in the pockets of Macron. So, dear colleagues, do not support this deal that favours just a few, and be true to this institution that looks for European solutions to our problems for all European citizens.

Mr President, the Digital Services Act and the Digital Markets Act will rewrite the rules of the internet. I would like to thank our dear colleagues Andreas Schwab and Christel Schaldemose for taking on the job of finding the compromises, and its compromises are a giant leap forward. But no thanks to the shadow lobbying of the big tech. Some of you may have read last week a piece in The Guardian. It explains that in response to your initiative of the Tracking-Free Ads Coalition, Brussels saw a surge of small and medium-sized enterprises taking up the job of lobbying. However, they pretended to represent small and medium business enterprises, but they were, in effect, representing big tech. They were funded by big tech, representing the interests of big tech companies. Now, it is clearly a shame that democratically chosen representatives in the European Parliament are being manipulated in covert ways and with dirty tricks. Dear colleagues, organisations that are not listed in the EU Transparency Register or that are not honest about their members and their funding should not be allowed to lobby the European Parliament. I call on the colleagues to ban big tech shadow lobbying and, of course, last but not least, vote for the DSA and the DMA.

Mr President, I could almost hear the screams when, after significant work by the Commission and by the French Presidency, a last-minute blockade was erected yet again. But pointing fingers is easy but doesn’t really work. Yes, Orbán torpedoed a European minimum tax, harming his own citizens for his own narrow gain. But let’s be frank, and I hate to say this, but this is also the Commission’s doing. If you look in a mirror you will be reminded of Dorian Gray, whose pact with the Devil also didn’t pay off. Because if you put the rule of law up for grabs once, you will be pressured to do so again and again. So let’s stop the endless bargaining game and look for a path that cannot be blocked. We can isolate Orbán and implement this deal. Europe can still escape the Faustian fate with long overdue majority voting or with enhanced cooperation. Let’s get this deal done.

Madam President, Commissioner, after years of hard work and an international agreement, a minimum tax is right before our eyes, but we cannot grasp it yet. Because just when solidarity is key, the Polish Government blocks us, blocks us from earning EUR 60 billion extra each and every year. Because Morawiecki doesn’t care about Europe; he doesn’t care about ending tax avoidance by multinationals; he doesn’t even care about his citizens who will gain EUR 2 billion each year from a minimum tax. He only cares about his competences and his power, and he uses his veto in a desperate attempt to get free rein from Brussels – exchanging his ‘yes’ for a minimum tax for us turning a blind eye while he dismisses judges that don’t follow his course and his will. This is not how the EU works. We don’t bargain with our values. Morawiecki, your citizens want a minimum tax; your most important allies, including the US, want a minimum tax; and this Parliament wants a minimum tax. Thank you, Aurore Lalucq, for a great and excellent report. Let’s get on with the job.

Mr President, as someone said, this debate is scheduled at the end of today’s plenary agenda – the graveyard shift – not because of the wonderful contributions by all the speakers, but because this debate revolves around one of the most difficult questions we face again and again in this Parliament, a question that is relevant to all citizens and thus to all parliamentarians: what is the right balance between protecting fundamental rights and the public interest? In the Netherlands, we have seen an awful example of where this balance tipped over. Central to the child benefit scandal was a blacklist of potential fraudsters that turned innocent citizens into defenceless victims through the abuse of data. Indeed there is a thin line between risk—based objective investigations and unfair prosecutions and trials. To prevent us from crossing this thin line, we need safeguards. We need effective redress methods, independent audits and strict data retention periods. Of course, let me be clear, cooperation of law enforcement agencies across national borders is inevitable to be effective against international crime. There’s no doubt about that. However, the provisional agreement we are discussing lacks the safeguards that I’ve been looking for and, at the same time, also opens the door to real—time biometric recognition. The agreement may very well cross the thin line between risk—based investigations and unfair prosecution. It should worry parliamentarians, and most certainly EU citizens.

Mr President, Uber in Amsterdam, Nike in Hilversum, Pfizer in Capelle aan den IJssel. Yes, it’s a list of multinationals in the Netherlands, but it’s also a list of multinationals in the Netherlands that shift profits and cheat us out of billions. It points to a fundamental flaw at the heart of Europe, and the flaw is that when we removed the borders within Europe, we forgot to put up a common European border with the rest of the world. And the results: profits flow to the country where they can leave the European Union untaxed. This is why Nike books its European profits in the Netherlands and pays it out tax-free to offshore subsidiaries in the form of royalties, amassing USD 12.2 billion. Pfizer channels dividends to the US to avoid taxes on over EUR 10 billion. Uber uses a 16 billion internal loan to channel all EU profits to tax havens in Singapore in the form of interest. And the list goes on. Its interest, royalties and dividends, and it can find its way out of the EU tax free. And if one country raises its rates, there’s always another country to let them out. But there is an obvious solution and I’m glad to see it. It is a common EU withholding tax. With this, we can finally complete the Schengen of capital and combine free movement within the EU with common borders with the outside world. This is part and parcel of any future tax reform. And I want to warmly congratulate the rapporteur, my colleague Pedro Marques, and the shadows for finding a broad majority and a clear signal from this Parliament. It’s literally worth billions.

Mr President, when preparing this debate, I thought, what a mess the VAT is. And I was last year approached by a small business owner, she organises one-off events across Europe and she faces a different nightmare every time. Endless forms in German or in Spanish, piles of documents to send around and high consultancy costs. For a one-off event in Rome, this amounted to EUR 11 000, 10% of her profits, and this I dare to say is the single biggest barrier to the EU’s internal market. And at the same time, the mess enables fraud. Some EUR 50 billion, we know or is estimated, is lost each year due to cross-border VAT fraud. So we need to tackle also this crisis, this VAT crisis head on. And I congratulate Luděk Niedermayer and other shadows for drafting a report that does just that. His proposals can unleash a boost of economic activities for SMEs and tackle the outbursts of fraud in VAT. And there’s more contributions in this report, but let me single out one, which I hold dear, and that is the EU Tax Observatory. What we need in order to have an informed policy debate is fact-based independent research. This is what we’re lacking. The EU Tax Observatory can help there, so we need to make it permanent. To come back to where I started and President I will be quick – I want to tell the conference organiser that a problem will be addressed with this report. I am more confident in doing so.

Mr President, I would like to start by thanking the rapporteur, Sophia in’t Veld, and the other shadow rapporteurs for this report. It is not the first time that the European Parliament has expressed itself strongly, but it is now expressing itself at a very timely moment. A relevant moment, because right now Ukrainians have to leave their homes to seek security in the European Union and some rich Russians have already made it easy. With a second nationality they are already safe in Europe, because apparently everything is for sale here, including citizenship. And citizenship stands for the idea of commonality, of mutual solidarity, especially in the event of an emergency. This idea is far removed and is at odds with the motives of wealthy investors, criminals and corrupt kleptocrats. They are here for their money, for their ability, to protect their body and well. That's the only reason they're here. Parliament therefore rightly calls for the sale of European citizenship and European principles to be stopped. Even if we could have gone further – no, we actually had to go. Residence permits are also not for the highest bidder. The call for income from the sale of residence permits to the EU is not appropriate. The EU should not want that blood money either. I agree with Mr Reynders. It would only legitimize it, and it shouldn't be. Hence the simple message: EU citizenship for those who need us. Fearful refugees over rich Russians.

–President, today ShareAction announced that the major European banks have invested some €50 billion in oil and gas extraction. What do they think? Science is very clear: In order to achieve the Paris goals, oil and gas extraction must end. And we want to achieve those goals! So oil and gas extraction must be stopped, either through a CO2 price or through regulation. That's a billion-dollar streak for investors. But banks continue to make these bets because they think: ‘I win with a head, you lose with a coin.’ Because if banks get into trouble, the taxpayer will run for it. The ECB can intervene, with mandatory transition plans for banks, with additional capital requirements for these destructive bets. With twenty years of euro, the thoughts go back to “Whatever it takes” by Mario Draghi. So, Mrs Lagarde, the question for you is: “Are you also willing to do everything in your power to steer us through this climate crisis of destructive betting?”

Mr President, there is a great deal at stake today, witness perhaps the largest lobbying operation Brussels has ever seen. Google, Facebook and others have spent millions, including in the form of advertisements in newspapers, to harass us. And yet there is a proposal that drastically restricts the power, the market power of the tech conglomerates. It's a triple. First, the proposal cuts into tracking and targeting – the disastrous practice of collecting and using as much data as possible. It is a massive violation of our privacy and it is accompanied by wrath by the sale of fuss and even anger. Think fake news and conspiracy theories. And it is at the expense of the traditional media and, Commissioner Margrethe Vestager, at the expense of small and medium-sized enterprises. For every euro spent on advertising, more than 50 cents disappear into the pockets of Google and Facebook. Cut out the middleman! After that, there should be a ban on tracking ads Come on. Today's proposal is a strong start. Secondly, this proposal cannot break up companies, but it can break them open. Interoperability is the key word to break the power of tech conglomerates. We need competition and everyone can now communicate from Signal to WhatsApp. Thirdly, we need to put an end to aggressive acquisitions by requiring more information about each acquisition so that we can safeguard competition. This week we are making a change to take the internet out of the hands of the tech conglomerates and make it ours again.

Transparency can work wonders. She exposes what cannot be explained and shows what else can and should be done. Transparency, however, cannot come only from whistleblowers and investigative journalists, as was the case with the Panama Papers and the Pandora Papers. The law we are discussing today is welcome. After all, it offers radical structural transparency with regard to companies: where they do business, where they make a profit and whether or not they pay taxes – country by country. For example, you can see at a glance which countries are being squandered and which companies are using dark, shady structures. Thanks to this law, we are one big step closer to a fair economy. This is partly due to the Social Democrats. My thanks go in particular to my colleagues Evelyn Regner and Ibán García Del Blanco, but also to the Portuguese Government, for making this law possible and a reality. We may have had to add water to the wine, but this only motivates us to continue to fight for a fair economy.

Mr President, there’s no doubt that the global tax deal is historic, and not just because even Ireland accepted it. For the first time in history, it allows a country to tax profits without the physical presence of a company on their territory and to ensure a global minimum effective tax rate. The Social Democrats have been, for a long time, strong and vocal supporters of this principle. So yes, it’s a historic deal. Is it a final deal? Let’s hope not. Let it be the first of many deals, because I share the concerns: the minimum of 15% is still too low, certainly when compared to what the EU citizens pay on their income. Physical presence is still too important, and the Pandora Papers shows that it’s still too easy to hide profits and wealth. So I see the deal as a boost in our lasting effort to fight tax avoidance and to make everyone pay their fair share. This deal is historic, but the work needs to continue.

Mr President, Commissioner, the European money laundering rules are still as leaky as a basket. The European Court of Auditors knows it, Parliament knows it and since the Pandora Papers, the whole world knows it. But I am still here with good hope, because the requirements for a strong approach are clear: transparency on the owners of letterbox firms, including those located outside the EU, increased resources for the Financial Intelligence Units, a strong European authority with resources and a clear mandate to close the gaps. Tomorrow, the European Parliament will take a decision on this. And in the coming months we can help achieve these demands and wishes. The Commission's new legislative proposals against money laundering are a good step and with the current momentum, which I believe I can see in this Chamber, a much stricter approach is within reach. And that is badly needed to close all leaks. Financial crime should not pay off.

Madam President, I would like to thank Danuta Hübner and the shadows for an excellent report. Ik zal doorgaan in het Nederlands, want ik wil graag toch een punt maken dat voor verdere discussie van belang blijft, want na de financiële crisis zeiden we: dit nooit meer. We wilden niet meer opdraaien voor de riskante weddenschappen van bankiers, bankiers die het risico namen met het idee “bij kop win ik en bij munt verlies jij”. En toch laten we dat opnieuw gebeuren. Banken nemen wederom buitensporige risico's omdat ze weten dat ze ermee wegkomen. Ze nemen risico's, dit keer niet alleen met ons geld, maar ook met onze planeet. Banken investeren volop in fossiele brandstoffen en laten ons het puin ruimen. En als het puin geruimd is en een transitie geslaagd is, dan zullen hun investeringen opeens niets meer waard blijken. En dan mogen wij de rekening oppakken en wederom omvallende banken steunen. De regels van de bankenunie moeten worden herschreven met als uitgangspunt: stabiliteit en duurzaamheid zijn twee kanten van dezelfde medaille. Speciaal voor mijnheer Annemans.

Mr President, I must say, I’m fed up. I’m fed up because less than 48 hours after the Pandora Papers came out, the Council showed that it wants to change absolutely nothing. Removing the Seychelles from the EU list of tax havens, although it is prominent in the Pandora Papers, and Anguilla, with its 0% tax rate, is a disgrace. The fact that this decision was taken in tax haven Luxembourg only shows how far Europe still has to go. Frankly, the Council made the EU look like a fool. We have already discussed this extensively in the previous debate: the purgatory between the upper and the lower world where politicians, bankers and criminals come together to hide their identity and dodge taxes. We all know it’s wrong, if not illegal. So the question is: what to do? I am pleased to say that a big part of the solution is here. Parliament has already called for a reform of the EU list of tax havens. That would have saved us much embarrassment this week. We now call for the reform of the Code of Conduct Group, and I thank our rapporteur, Aurore Lalucq, and the shadows for bringing this good report to Parliament. Parliament wants to bring the discussions in the Code of Conduct Group into the open to make them transparent, so that citizens can hold their representatives to account. We want to extend the discussions to personal income tax, as competition for the global elite intensifies by the day. We also want to ban measures allowing companies to pay less tax than the internationally agreed minimum of 15%, so that all pay their fair share. Good proposals have been ignored before; look what this has brought us. Please, avoid the embarrassment, end tax avoidance. We need these reforms.

Mr President, yesterday the finance ministers decided not to expand the blacklist of tax havens, but to limit it. The Seychelles, one of the star players of Panama, Paradise and Pandora Papers, have been removed. And that is exactly what the ministers are doing in the week in which the Pandora Papers show that with great ease and on a large scale celebrities, criminals, politicians and scammers are hiding their belongings, money laundering and tax evasion. Ministers are doing this at the wrong time. The Pandora Papers give every reason to change the sails, to opt for a sharp approach. It is an insult to all people who want everyone to pay fair taxes and crime not to pay. And they are by far the most people. And the finance ministers are abandoning them. That is not allowed, and it is not necessary, because there is an effective approach. Create a real blacklist of tax havens, outside the EU, but also within the EU. Put the knife in the letterbox companies – I look forward to the Commission's proposal with interest. Introduce a levy on the outgoing cash flows at the border so that it does not pay to bring the money away. So the ministers do not have to sneak away like a thief in the night because their decision cannot be explained. We expect politicians to take a sharp action against money laundering and tax avoidance. I expect that, and many expect that with me.

Madam President, what is it that they are hiding? That’s what I think when I hear the rapporteur and the shadows say that they didn’t get from the Council the relevant documents and data; and that is needed to fulfil our democratic duty to assess the implementation of the EU rules on administrative cooperation and on taxation. The stance of the Council is unacceptable. It underlines a fundamental democratic deficit in a fundamental part of government taxation. Behind closed doors decisions are being taken that affect all of us and no parliament, national or European, is able to exercise democratic scrutiny. Transparency and accountability are part of the democratic process, and it’s only admirable that the rapporteur Sven Giegold and his team of shadows still have drafted an insightful report. Its conclusions – lack of exchange of information, auditing tools and control mechanisms – are shared by the European Court of Auditors and I trust that the Council will take good note of this report and that the Commissioner will push for the implementation of its recommendations.