Debate contributions by Sander SMIT

Mr President, rapporteur, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Convention on Biological Diversity is an important step in the protection of marine biodiversity beyond national borders. No one disputes the need for this, but if we are to transpose this treaty into European law, we must do so with legal care and with respect for our fishermen and food security. The high seas are not only a nature reserve, but also a source of food. Pelagic fisheries deliver sustainably and with knowledge of nature. Our fishermen know how to preserve biodiversity and at the same time harvest responsibly. That is why I remain afraid of an uneven playing field if Member States make different protection proposals for areas. The Commission should act in cooperation with Member States and fishermen. Don't roll over it. Subsidiarity. Let's not forget about innovation either. New selective fishing techniques can contribute to better ecosystem management. Protect the sea, yes, but also preserve the humanity that has been eating and living sustainably from it for generations.

Colleague, you said that this MFF proposal strengthens the European future and social character, but in the meantime there is a considerable cut in agricultural support for family farms and in the fisheries fund, also in this revised proposal. How can you claim that this MFF will then contribute to the vulnerable in the EU, if it is so permanently short-lived for farmers and fishermen, and thus does not pay sufficient attention to our food security?

Mr President, Commissioner, today we commemorate the horrors of 7 October 2023: 1 200 innocent Israelis massacred. A bloody pogrom by Hamas. Those who thought anti-Semitism and pogroms were a thing of the past were deceived. After the terrorist act, the old poison was given new oxygen. Blood lies and dehumanisation of Jewish fellow citizens resounded on European streets and media outlets. An attack on a synagogue in Manchester, a gardener who refuses to work for Jews, exclusion from competitions, a Jewish hunt in Amsterdam and today my party leader, Caroline van der Plas, cannot speak at the University of Nijmegen because of extremists who threaten politicians who stand up for Jewish citizens, so-called Zionists. (NL) Mr President, there are political parties here that consciously sympathise with the Muslim Brotherhood on the waves of indignation about war, but in reality revitalise the old anti-Semitism, packaged as anti-Zionism. Who shouts about genocide by Zionists, potentially feeds the blood lie. That is not solidarity, but the poison for social peace. That's why we have to draw boundaries. A yellow line: Let the Israeli hostages go. A red line: Rejection of all anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism does not begin with a pogrom, but with words, with looking away. Let us not remain silent, but stand firm like the people who formed a protective circle around a besieged synagogue in Munich. No more anti-Semitic hatred in our street, no more silence in this house, no more anti-Semitism is not yesterday. Never again is now.

Of course I have read the document, and we should not make international law into a political instrument, as you do, because, as you know, we have seen acts, as I have said: food deliveries, evacuation of Gazan children through Eilat to Italy. That's what Israel is doing as well. And genocide requires genocidal intent to be proven. So you think that evacuating Palestinian children to Italy for treatment can be reconciled with having a genocidal intent? Then you make a laugh, then you are really insulting the victims of real genocides like the Armenian Genocide and the Shoah.

This is the typical left-wing extremist discourse. If a few scientists launch a claim, that is not yet a scientific consensus. There is no international consensus, there is no ruling of the International Court of Justice on this. And again, why don't you talk about Sudan? I do not hear anyone talking about the 150 000 deaths in Sudan, the 11 million displaced people and the 26 million people in acute need of food. To you it seems: No Jews, no news.

Mr President, high representative, Commissioner, colleagues, war is horrific. War crimes against journalists, mosques, churches and aid workers are unacceptable. Yet a ruthless counter-guerrilla against terrorists who abuse civilians as human shields does not yet make genocide. We must not erode international law. Where is your proof of genocidal intent? Israel supplies food and has sick children evacuated through Eilat. Anyone who continues to shout genocide is guilty of blood libel and filthy anti-Semitism. Such rhetoric, fueled by the Muslim Brotherhood, sets our streets and society on fire. Hamas, which carried out a bloody pogrom on October 7, deliberately called this war on Gaza. Their plan: Killing civilians for political gain. And you reward them with the premature recognition of Palestine. The EU should embrace the Arab League’s peace plans: Hamas must be eliminated and disarmed, surrender and release all hostages. Reconstruction of Gaza must take place without expulsion of civilians. Let's learn from the Emirates and build peace.

Mr President, the suicide bombing of the Mar Elias Antiochian Orthodox Church in Damascus killing 25 innocent worshippers and wounding over 60 is a vile act of terror which must be condemned with the strongest possible words. Religious minorities in Syria – Syriac, Aramean, Armenian, Chaldean Christians, Alawites and Yazidis – face increasing violence and existential threats to their ancient identity and heritage, including the Aramaic language and culture as preserved in places like Maaloula, are vanishing before our eyes. Let us not forget, the See of Antioch and the biblical city of Damascus are among Christianity's first cradles. Let me be very clear: there must be no more EU funds for the new Islamist‑led Syrian transitional authorities without firm guarantees for the full protection of Christians and all religious and ethnic minorities. And yes, the lifted sanctions can be reinstated in case of non‑compliance, as rightly secured by the Dutch Government. Freedom of religion is non-negotiable. The Mar Elias bloodbath should be a wake‑up call to stop our silence. Save the minorities of Syria!

Mr President, Commissioner, it is not only the ocean that is at a crossroads: The same is true of our fisheries. The Ocean Pact should recognise fisheries and aquaculture as cornerstones of the blue economy. These sectors are essential for food security, food sovereignty and the resilience of the European Union. We must ensure that fishing is not further displaced by offshore wind energy. Fair maritime spatial planning is crucial to maintain access to traditional fishing grounds. Sufficient funding for innovation and modernisation of ships is essential for energy-efficient, low-emission vessels and the sustainable transition to AI-supported and selective fishing gear in a technology-neutral manner. I would like to inform my colleagues about this. Also for modern ships of family companies of more than 24 meters. Good words alone are not enough. We need concrete action to ensure that our fishermen survive in our coastal regions, of which they are the beating social and societal heart.

Water is life. Freshwater storage and flood prevention are indispensable. But nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium are also vital as building blocks of plants. Europe depends on imports from mining and CO2-intensive production. Farmers want to use these nutrients more sparingly; they want to improve crop uptake and prevent further leaching by closing cycles. However, the current strategy for water resilience mentions filtering techniques and recovery from urban wastewater, but leaves natural animal manure undiscussed, while this pure brown gold offers much more opportunities. Colleagues, therefore support the proposals of the Committee on Agriculture, embrace animal manure and green fertilizer substitutes to prevent leaching, CO2 capturing in grassland, producing biogas for sustainable energy independence and unnecessary CO2-avoid emissions. The EU has been refusing to recognise RENURE for too long. Colleagues, we show the shared interests of farmers, citizens, water quality and climate. We have brown gold in our hands.

Mr President, Commissioner, 110 years ago the Armenian genocide took place. 1.5 million Armenians were murdered because of their identity and faith. Also Arameans, Pontic Greeks, Chaldeans. This is not a completed past tense. Even today, Christians, Alawites, Yazidis and other minorities in the Middle East are being expelled and massacred. In Nagorno-Karabakh, as in recent years, Armenian Christian heritage is still being systematically destroyed. After 1915, the world was silent. Perpetrators remained unpunished and new genocides followed. Right, here in Europe too. "Never again" is an assignment, not a slogan. The EU must protect minorities and condemn persecution more actively. This starts with recognition of the genocide by all Member States and by Turkey. Without recognition there is no justice, without justice there is no peace and no reconciliation. "Never again" is now.

Mr President, Commissioner, thousands of alawites have been murdered by jihadist militias linked to the new rulers in Syria. Women and children have been driven into the mountains. Whole families have been massacred, including Christians. Yet the European Union is inviting this new Syrian regime on Monday as if nothing had happened. That, like the European foreign diplomatic service's press statement last weekend, is outrageous. While we invite those responsible, Russia can present itself as a humanitarian shelter at its Khmeimim military base. This is a morally bankrupt policy. A new flow of refugees is imminent. As long as the Islamist rulers in Damascus do not stop this sectarian and genocidal violence against non-Sunnis and do not punish perpetrators, no sanctions should be lifted, nor donations made. Europe must not engage in cynical politics that sacrifices Alawites, Shiites, Armenians, Aramean Christians, Kurds, Druze and Yazidis.

Mr President, Commissioner, the Commission is finally acknowledging the problems of our ailing industry. However, the Clean Industrial Deal should not become a clean out deal for our industry. Highly innovative plans, but without pragmatic solutions in these unconventional times. A 90% CO2-A 2040 reduction target of €1 600 billion per year is not green growth, it is economic self-destruction. European energy prices will not fall in this way, but will rise further. Europe's industrial backbone, of our family businesses is bent under bureaucratic and price ballast. Mr President, technology neutrality. The combustion engine deserves restoration. It is time for a fundamental review of the Green Deal. It is not the reality that needs to adapt to Brussels, but Brussels needs to adapt to the changed reality.

Mr President, Europe is finally regaining some control over its borders. Stricter return options and the option of deportation centres outside the EU are steps in the right direction. But let's be honest: This is just the beginning. It still deserves tightening up. What we need is a decisive and effective return system that does not slow down, but actually ensures return. This means better cooperation with countries of origin. Anyone who refuses to cooperate on return should feel that in their wallet. Mandatory recognition of return decisions by all EU countries. This should not be a no-obligation, but should be a hard deal. Legally unambiguous regulation of asylum reception in safe third countries. That debate has been going on for too long, while other countries are showing that it works. Commissioner, I wish you every success. Setting boundaries is essential to maintaining support.

Mr President, it is positive that the Commission is finally slowly recognizing that the Green Deal has pushed us through some elements, that there has been too much regulatory burden and that our competitiveness is suffering from this. But let us not forget that this proposal can only be a first step. It has just been emphasised by other colleagues that we need to move forward. We'll have to reconsider. We need a revision of the Nature Restoration Regulation and not only of the CSRD, but also of other legislation that hinders our farmers, gardeners, fishermen, but above all our SMEs. I therefore call on the Commission to show greater ambition in the coming period. This is a very good proposal, but it does not go far enough. You are on a better path. As we say in the Netherlands: Better half-turned than completely lost. I wish you every success.

Mrs. Strolenberg, we need to reconsider. I just said: EUR 1 570 billion in expenditure for a modelled temperature reduction of 0.00135 degrees. Farmers do not notice such a difference.

Mr President, Commissioner, the United States has withdrawn from the Paris Agreement. In the meantime, the European Commission wants an interim CO2setting a 90% target for 2040, an ideological air castle. As of 2030, no less than EUR 1 570 billion in expenditure will be needed each year, almost 10% of our European GDP for a temperature reduction of 0.00135 degrees. Who bears the burden? Farmers, citizens and businesses. The Green Deal always turns out not to be a deal. The rigid adherence to suffocating green laws, such as the absurd ban on the combustion engine, undermines our European competitiveness and inhibits innovation. Instead of learning lessons, politicians are sitting here giving lessons to the US government. As the U.S. grows, so does our competitiveness. Europe regulates artificial intelligence. The US and China are building companies that are changing the world. Europe makes green rules, they make billions of companies. We have to adjust ourselves, not just cosmetic postponement, but a fundamental revision.

Mr. Gerbrandy, you were just talking about threats and a lack of realism. I think that there are major threats from the fact that some parties, including yours, do not want to go back on the wrong path. Those who need a compass for competitiveness have lost their way. How are you going to sell that we will have to spend 1570 billion euros per year from 2030 on the CO2‐to meet the 2040 target and reduce emissions by 90%? How are you going to explain that, as a liberal party? You're in front of the taxpayer, aren't you? You only put more pressure and regulatory burden on the taxpayer.

Mr Everding, I'm here, up here. You have just spoken out again against factory farming, as you call it – and wrongly! Do you know that your policy of expelling farmers from Europe and our increasingly sustainable livestock farming are contributing to deforestation elsewhere in the world? People continue to eat animal protein. So how do you actually do holistic politics? Or is it actually Not-In-my-backyard-Policy – NIMBY? Because that's not sustainability, what you're proposing here.

Mr President, it appears that the European Commission has spent years with taxpayers' money on environmental activists. Through secret subsidy clauses, a green lobby had to influence the European Parliament to support Mr Timmermans' Green Deal. The bottom stone must be turned upside down in this green lobby scandal. Parliament's democratic legislative process may have been unduly influenced by the previous Commission through subsidy clauses, with taxpayers' money. In a democracy, it is unacceptable for the executive power to influence and manipulate the controlling power. Do we – the Commission believes – believe in the separation of powers, the ‘trias politica’? There has been a lot of talk about the rule of law. So let us respect them and get to the bottom of this scandal and tackle it.

Ms Mendes, do you agree that we do not debate on financing of NGOs as such, but about the integrity of EU laws made in this House by this House? That executive power has been financing lobbyism towards us as a controlling power? Do you know what the trias politica means?

Mr Diepeveen, I fully endorse your point. Many polarising statements have been made, including by your group. We're always catching each other's fleas. Can we solve this problem by reaching out and working together on innovative solutions, including the concept of safe third countries, to counter this type of illegal migration and human smuggling?

I just wanted to ask Mr Waitz whether he distances himself from the extreme utterances made this morning and allegations about Musk being a Nazi and using a Nazi salute, because that's not helping the US‑EU alliance either. And that does not help to bring down the tone of the debate. So how does Mr Waitz see this? Because he's making new allegations against many oligarchs, against political groups. But shouldn't we try to avoid such extreme allegations, which are also fake news? In fact, the ADL just this morning refuted these claims.