Speeches

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, criticism of the digital euro is growing from all sides. That is also very understandable. For what problem does this new concept actually offer a solution? Is there a problem? In any case, it is clear that the ECB will have a huge dominant position with this digital euro. For example, it could set negative interest rates. It could even make the euro programmable, in other words set up in such a way that you can only spend your money on things that the government finds acceptable. My question to the Commission is: How do you actually look at that? Do you see these risks too? And what about the safeguarding of privacy? It should be borne in mind that the recent analysis carried out by the ECON commission shows that there is no market for the digital euro at all. I would say: Let's take the objections seriously and stop this project. The risks and uncertainties are simply too great.

Mr President, Mr High Representative, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it has of course been known for some time that China is a dictatorship where human rights are being violated en masse. In the meantime, the situation in China is certainly not improving, and we are also noticing this in Europe. China intimidates and threatens journalists and engages in large-scale espionage activities. And what about China's aggressive attitude towards Taiwan? The stupidest thing we can do now is to let ourselves play against each other as a Western world. Unfortunately, President Macron fell into this trap by stepping away from the US on Taiwan. Very unwise. Transatlantic cooperation is much needed, but also investments to reduce our dependence on China, as well as clear agreements on protecting our vital infrastructure. Finally, a specific question to the Commissioner: When will the new EU Envoy for Freedom of Religion travel to Beijing? He will have enough to discuss.

Mr President, Fit for 55 has good and bad sides. I still have a lot of hesitation about the level of ambition. I foresee that we will soon come to the conclusion in 2030 that we have set an unachievable binding goal in the legislation. So from a legal point of view, we are totally stuck. We are already seeing that our energy network is approaching its limits. As far as ETS is concerned, it is positive that there will be an ever lower emission ceiling for industry. This is simply necessary for the proper functioning of the system. The advantage of the ETS system is also that companies have the opportunity to shape the transition as cost-efficiently as possible. Aviation and maritime transport will now also be covered by the ETS, which is also a good thing. That you can fly from Amsterdam to Paris or London for a while, is actually no longer of this time. I am pleased that the built environment is now largely outside the ETS. This is not the time to further increase household energy bills. I would have preferred to keep the built environment completely out of ETS. By adding the commercial buildings, a door is opened that we should have left closed. Making buildings more sustainable is something that we can leave to the Member States themselves. Climate policy is needed, but with an eye for the citizen and feasibility.

Mr President, Commissioner Sinkevičius recently sent a letter to the Netherlands which caused a great stir. In this letter on nitrogen policy, the Commissioner seeks to impose on Dutch farmers and our entire economy targets and dates that are not enshrined in European legislation. This is, of course, highly questionable from an institutional point of view. The Commission has to monitor compliance with legislation adopted here by co-legislators, Parliament and Council, for example with the Habitats Directive. But it cannot add its own agenda. In this case, she does. As the ECR Group, we therefore believe that the Commission should come forward with a text and explanation on this, and we therefore propose that our oral question, the oral question, be put on the agenda.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the citizens’ initiative entitled ‘Save bees and farmers’ rightly draws attention to the importance of pollinators for agriculture and horticulture. More than a third of our food crops depend on pollination by honeybees and wild bees. When plant protection products are used, their effects on insects must therefore be carefully considered. This requires a clear authorisation framework and accelerated authorisation of low-risk products. However, the total phase-out of synthetic pesticides by 2035, as advocated by the citizens' initiative, seems to me to be an unrealistic prospect for the future. Plant protection products will have to remain available at all times in order to be able to intervene in the event of imminent diseases and pests. A mix of measures is needed: integrated pest management; investing in new varieties, robust crops and healthy soils and precision farming. But I am also thinking of further stimulating beautiful initiatives on the farmyard, such as the creation of flower margins and the creation of nesting places for insects. Mr President, only with such an integrated approach can we save both farmers and provide consumers with sufficient healthy and safe food on a permanent basis.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as one of the oldest countries in the world, Armenia has a very rich history. With a population formed by Christianity. But also a population that suffers. After all, the conflict around Nagorno-Karabakh is drawing deep marks. The Armenians there are made life almost impossible. They live there in complete isolation, especially now that the only access to the area is blocked by Azerbaijan. And the Russian so-called peacekeeping force, she stands by and looks at it. Mr President, we can no longer stand idly by. The extension of the European Monitoring Mission is a first good step. It is now important that this mission also has access to the Azerbaijani side of the border. I call on Azerbaijan to lift the blockade of the Lachin corridor immediately. And at the same time, Mr President, I stress the importance of a peaceful political settlement of the conflict. The EU can play an important mediating role in this.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this week we are voting on ‘Fit for 55’, but fit for purpose is by no means the package that is currently before us. Transitions take time. For truly sustainable policies, the goals must therefore be realistic, and unfortunately they are not in what is currently happening. I have called for more flexibility and greater commitment to cost-efficiency. There has been a little more flexibility between the Effort Sharing Regulation and the ETS, but in my opinion it is far from enough. Meanwhile, everything is getting more expensive and more expensive and our competitiveness is severely affected, resulting in an increasingly loud call for a further relaxation of State aid rules to compensate. That cannot be the solution, especially if we see that the willingness to help sectors varies greatly between Member States and that the relaxation of State aid rules will therefore seriously undermine the level playing field within the EU. Mr President, let us recognise in good time that our competitiveness is of strategic importance. Moving production abroad really does not improve the environment. It is also unwise to become even more dependent on imports. So let's make sure that made in Europe remains affordable.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, slavery sounds like something from a distant past, but it is alive and kicking. I'm talking about modern slavery called prostitution. I find it incomprehensible that countries have come to regard this as a normal profession. Rethinking is really needed here, but also more efforts by the EU to combat trafficking in human beings. Criminalisation by the Member States of prostitution visits in accordance with the Swedish model could also certainly help. Unfortunately, the rapporteurs do not or hardly touch upon this issue. I think that's a missed opportunity. They expect a lot from the accession of the Union to the Istanbul Convention. I have my doubts about that, especially because the treaty contains provisions that are downright debatable, for example on the division of roles between men and women, and on gender. I therefore propose that we focus on tackling the real abuses. This is more effective than imposing a treaty on countries that they rightly object to in principle.

Mr President, the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh is getting worse by the day. Shortages of food and medicine, power outages, food rationing, all due to the ongoing blockade of the Laçın corridor by so-called environmental activists. The fact that Azerbaijan is behind this in the meantime is obvious. Recently, Azerbaijan carried out attacks on sovereign Armenian territory. All this has to stop. Now that it is abundantly clear that Russia is no longer maintaining the 2020 truce, we must take our responsibility by sending more European observers to the area, putting more pressure on the Baku government and actively pushing for de-escalation and the start of peace talks, with clear guarantees for the rights and security of the Armenian people in Nagorno-Karabakh. Neither the Caucasus nor the EU would benefit from new clashes in the region.

Mr President, Prime Minister, one of your priorities is to conclude a new agreement with the ACP countries. However, more and more representatives from those countries are deeply concerned about this deal. In particular, because of the provisions on sexual and reproductive rights that can be understood as an obligation to legalise abortion. Many ACP countries attach great importance to the protection of unborn life. Please, give them the space to keep doing that. My appeal to you is: Do not impose on them the secular morality that wants to end life even before it is born. Life is too valuable for that. In fact, life is a gift from God. I would also ask for your support for the newly appointed envoy for religious freedom. In order to be able to provide sufficient support to this envoy and to ensure sufficient support staff, it is important that we give him a solid and extensive budget.

Mr President, Commissioner, colleagues, peace around Jerusalem, between Israel and the Palestinians: Would it ever happen? And if so, how? The EU thinks it has known for decades: through a two-state solution based on pre-1967 borders. But how realistic is that? There have been no serious peace talks for years. Gaza is under the rule of a terrorist organization, the West Bank under that of an Authority that has long lost its democratic legitimacy. And in the meantime, the question is becoming more pressing. The European Union has already given billions of euros in subsidies, but in the meantime there is no shadow of a viable Palestinian state. Can it actually come? Even in view of the fact that there is no single contiguous area. Mr President, what does that mean for our position? I really think we need to take a step back. It is not for the European Union to dictate to Israel and the Palestinians what the outcome of their necessary peace negotiations should be. This does not necessarily have to be a two-state solution. I would say, let's focus on promoting an environment where there is room for conversation, an environment of mutual respect. Is it really too much to ask in this regard, Commissioner, to make subsidies to the Palestinian Authority conditional, whereby we want to see firm guarantees that our money will not end up with terrorist organisations and will not be used for textbooks that glorify violence? I would like a response to that point. Peace in the Middle East. Would it ever happen? The Abraham Accords between Israel and a growing number of Arab countries show that it is possible. But above all, I do not give up on courage because I encounter surprising vistas in the Bible. If we pray for peace in Jerusalem, it is a prayer of hope.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, today we are talking about the importance of a strong and resilient rural area. A long-term perspective for farmers is much needed. The report highlights a worrying development, namely the growing urban-rural divide. However, I see another gap, namely the gap between policymakers and farmers. Government policies that are sometimes miles away from reality. We saw a clear expression of this in my own country, in the Netherlands, with massive peasant demonstrations and reverse flags. The policy of the Dutch government puts the future of thousands of farms at risk, with all the consequences that this entails, also for the quality of life in the countryside. How do we fix this? Looking to the future, I see a lot in the rapporteur's proposal to subject new rules to a rural test. This can prevent new crisis situations due to ill-considered policies. Around the nitrogen crisis in the Netherlands, I see only one solution: returning to wrong policy choices from the past and working with farmers to find solutions. What is needed is a long-term perspective and certainty. Certainty that the farm, which has often been passed down from generation to generation, can continue to exist. Security to be able to make investments that are necessary for a sustainable future. Because one thing is certain: As long as there are farmers, there is food and there is also life in the countryside. Let's see the value of it in time.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, nothing is more annoying than having to work with outdated legislation. And that's exactly what's going on around the wolf. Thirty years ago it was designated a protected species because it was about to disappear. But the situation is completely different now. There are now over 21,000 wolves in Europe. With all its consequences. Also in my country, the Netherlands, as in Drenthe, we see sheep, calves and ponies ripped open almost daily. If we do nothing, we will look at an empty country in ten years' time. No farmer dares to leave his cattle outside. Is that what we want? Or a countryside full of high fences that clever wolves manage to bypass? Let's face reality. Active management is inevitable. So far, the European Commission has always said that governments should only apply for or grant an exemption. This is a detour and not a solution. It is time to lower the strict protection of the wolf and the Habitats Directive. The wolf is no longer included in Annex 4 and as long as this is not regulated, I call on the Member States to make active use of the derogation in Article 16, so that problem wolves can still be tackled. Because doing nothing is not an option.

Mr President, the Chinese investments in the port of Hamburg have pushed us to the facts. President Xi's aggressive investment agenda with one goal: Become the most powerful country in the world. It puts Europe in a particularly dependent and therefore vulnerable position. Europe thus becomes a wingewest of China, a totalitarian state where human rights such as religious freedom are violated. The concentration of power at the recent party congress of the Communist Party promises little good in that respect. We therefore need to act now: No longer allow us to be separated by China; stop Chinese acquisitions of our vital infrastructure, such as agricultural land; We are much more critical of our raw materials. A North Sea full of windmills that run on Chinese super magnets is not an attractive idea for me.

Mr President, while the world is on fire and farmers are watching their farms go up in smoke, the Commission is presenting a very disappointing communication. She is looking for fertilizer in Oman, Turkmenistan and Qatar, while the solution is largely just in the EU: RENURE, nutrients from animal manure that we can recycle ourselves into high-quality, renewable fertilizers. Despite all the fine words, the Commission is once again ignoring this solution. The footnotes in the text do not lie: If the conditions applied by the Commission do not change, fertiliser substitutes will not get off the ground in many parts of the EU. Give circularity a real chance. Ensure that the announced action plan for integrated nutrient management effectively provides space for fertilizer substitutes. At the moment, there is nothing more to offer than an empty shell.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Court’s recent findings on EU spending do not give a rosy picture. An error rate of 3% is of course far too high. However, I am most concerned about the Coronavirus Response Fund, a fund that does not require any accountability for the actual costs incurred. It is only directed at sometimes very vague objectives. And even if these have not been achieved, payment is still made, notes the Court of Auditors. Moreover, there is no clear methodology for measuring performance. And where does the money actually end up? It seems that society should not know this, because the final beneficiaries are not made public. This really has to be different! Let's make it more transparent! In the case of agricultural funds, each final beneficiary shall be published. Why don't we do that with the corona help fund? In my opinion, performance monitoring also needs to be improved. After all, it is about taxpayers' money, and we have to be careful about that.

Madam President, dear colleagues, I think we all agree that the fight against anti—Semitism must remain a top priority in the EU, but also in our external policy. And I think it’s important to underline today the crucial role of education in this respect. Therefore, I would like to propose as an oral amendment to add the following text to paragraph 54: ‘Calls on the Commission to ensure that the resources for the Southern Neighbourhood are not being used for schoolbooks that do not adhere to the UNESCO standards of peace, co—existence, tolerance and mutual respect’.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is crazy to say that next year the European Union will again be willing to pay many millions for problematic Palestinian textbooks – books that glorify terrorism, incite hatred and rampant violence and anti-Semitism. The Commission is making it all happen. She has recently completely reopened the money tap towards the Palestinian Authority and does not impose any conditions on the textbooks. I find that incomprehensible. Combating antisemitism should be a top priority, including in our external policies. Now that the Commission is failing, we as a Parliament must take our responsibility. As ECR Group, we therefore propose to put EUR 30 million in the reserve and not release the money until the problems with the textbooks have been solved. I therefore call on you to reject Amendment No 823 by the Committee on Budgets and to support our Amendment No 415. Let's promote peace and stop hate speech.

Mr President, Commissioner, colleagues, fertilisers are crucial for our food supply. Without nutrients there is no growth and therefore no harvest. Now that the prices for fertilizer are escalating, action must be taken. Not only is the future of many companies at stake, but global food production is also at stake. However, an important solution is available. I am referring to the reuse of nutrients through animal manure and processed manure. The RENURE products based on processed manure meet strict criteria and should therefore be immediately recognised as fertilizer substitutes. The European Parliament made a very clear call on this in its March resolution. Does the Commission know how strategic our food production is, as well as the raw materials needed for it? We are now seeing the problems of being dependent on third countries for our energy supply. We must ensure that we do not also become dependent on imports from third countries for our fertilisers and food supplies. I therefore urge the Commission to allow these fertilizer substitutes immediately. This also fits very well in the pursuit of a circular economy. In addition, everything should be aimed at keeping the production of fertilizer in Europe affordable.

Mr President, it is good that we in the European Parliament are also paying attention to the supplement affair, because what has happened is, of course, scandalous. The government must be a shield of the weak, but the government – the Dutch government – did exactly the opposite. Citizens were put in serious financial trouble, discriminated against. Children were taken out of the house. And the misery continues. As far as I am concerned, the purpose of this debate is above all to show other countries how not to do it, and above all to contribute to raising awareness. Awareness of how it can also go very easily, very wrongly, fundamentally wrong with government bodies. The government must be reliable, and that requires a lasting investment from all of us.

The bullet has finally come through the church! There will be clear legislation for a universal charger. We have indeed had to wait a very long time for that. It really took the Commission a very long time to fulfil the European Parliament's wish. For example, I am thinking very specifically of Mr Manders' amendment of 2009. Certainly a part of the business community was not initially in favour because of self-interest. However, it should be noted that the voluntary initiatives did not lead to the desired result. By standardising the charger, we ensure ease of use for consumers, reduce electronic waste and tackle market fragmentation in the European Union. That is why it is so important that we, as the European Parliament, say yes today to the outcome of the trilogue. Equal standards are essential for the proper functioning of the internal market. This is an important added value for European cooperation, and the directive on a universal charger for electronic devices is a very good example of this!

Mr President, Commissioner, Minister, I have only one request this evening, to the Commissioner: Keep your promise. I have it here in black and white: a letter from Ms von der Leyen. A year ago she wrote to me – I will leave a copy with you –: “Dear Representative Ruissen, the reappointment of the EU Envoy for Religious Freedom has my full attention.” But a third year followed, in fact without an EU envoy. The absence of this reappointment is the reason for this debate, you understand. You are not only disappointing me and many colleagues here in this house, you are leaving millions of oppressed believers out in the cold! Persecution of faith is very much alive and even increasing: Blasphemy laws in Pakistan, anti-conversion laws in India, re-education camps in China, massacres in Nigeria. Today, 360 million Christians in 50 countries face very severe to extreme forms of persecution. All this should not be left untouched. I ask you: Is the EU a community of values or just words? My call is therefore: Name that envoy, who appeals to governments around the world for freedom of belief. Provide sufficient manpower and budget. Do what you promise!

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, human rights are based on key themes such as ‘human dignity’ and ‘equal opportunities’. However, the conversation about it is increasingly defined and narrowed down to ‘me, me and me’. For example, they say: ‘I decide for myself whether or not to terminate a pregnancy, and no one, but no one, should restrict me in that freedom.’ In the meantime, we risk forgetting that we are people with a mission. Created to take care of the other. Because I'm asking you: What is worthy of ending unborn life? And where do you see the equal opportunities of fighting for the life of a premature baby in one hospital and aborting a child in the clinic a few blocks away? Mr President, we are on our way to elevating the right to self-determination above all else at the expense of the most vulnerable, and that is a narrow, slippery path.

Mr President, for those who love to travel, it is of course most pleasant to spend another week in Strasbourg. Strasbourg, the city that symbolizes the peace between France and Germany. Strasbourg, the city that recalls important church reformers such as Bucer and Calvin. That's great, isn't it? The opposite is the case! Our monthly move is a total idiocy. No other parliament in the world does this. Pure waste of money. In addition, we have just talked about energy savings. This is a great opportunity to lead by example. Mr President, I propose that we let the Council know that we are going to close one of our branches, that we ask the Council to amend the Treaty if necessary, and that we also ask one of the Heads of State to come out at our next meeting. Or, of course, we can also appeal to the Commissioner, because closing one of our branches will also contribute enormously to reducing our CO2 emissions.