Debate contributions by Mohammed CHAHIM

Mr President, with today's decision, we are asked to add flexibility for the 2025 target for the European automotive sector. There is no secret that my group has not been particularly fond of this proposal, but it is an urgent proposal. Tariffs on European cars, tariffs on steel, energy extortion from autocratic states: we cannot sit around and wait. That's why today I'm calling on all my colleagues to agree on the urgency procedure today. We're only doing this because we recognise the legitimate fears and the uncertainty that many European automotive workers are facing today. Unfortunately, they are the ones who will suffer from the failures of their bosses to recognise the sign of the times. It also means that this is a one‑off measure, because if we do not want to lose the race in the long run, European manufacturers must see this as their final warning, and finally push for smaller, more affordable electric vehicles to come into the market before they are pushed out of it instead.

Madam President, the steel produced in Ijmuiden, Lulea and Donawitz is not just for Dutch, Swedish or Austrian cars, or the Austrian market. It moves in German cars, it sails in French ships and it travels in Italian trains. It even forms our beautiful five cent coins and, of course, Dutch bikes. We're all connected in Europe, and Europe thrives on a strong steel and metal industry. The European Commission's plan for the industry is a good step forward, but in my opinion, sometimes a bit too isolated. We still treat each plan as if it stands alone. But industry does not work in vacuums – we need coordination – and neither should this action plan. We need a broader vision by maximising synergies between sectors and creating lead markets – green lead markets. Green steel is costly, but with a strong green lead market, it becomes an investment, not a risk. Imagine European cars built on green steel. Imagine European windmills built on green steel. These prospects we can realise here. Let's forge them together.

Madam President, for me, cohesion policy is not only about economic growth, it's about building a strong social Europe that works for all, where prosperity is shared and no one is excluded. The social or the Cohesion Fund is also one of the few connectivities we have with regions and cities. While we grant them direct access to European funds, we give Europe a social face. So now is not the time to cut funds that give Europe the social face. The S&D is eager to discuss the Commission's idea to improve the absorption levels of the funds, especially to reach the underrepresented regions, but that does not mean that we can reallocate unspent cohesion funds unconditionally. Cohesion policies are an answer to inequality both between Member States and within Member States, including my own, where bus stops disappear, libraries close, and as said, many other social projects are financed through the social fund. We cannot let this go without a good debate, without conditionality. It's very important, at the end of the day, that this fund that gives access to European funds for millions of citizens should stand, and we should improve the accessibility and not only shift funds to other targets. For me, that's very important from an S&D perspective.

Mr President, every solar panel we place, every windmill we build, every heat pump we install weakens Vladimir Putin's war machine and should be seen as an act of resistance, because last year we imported Russian fossil fuels worth billions of euros. The sooner we step away, the better. Relying on fossil fuels, on imports from abroad only prolongs price shocks, the blackmail and the uncertainty. We have seen it. One tweet from Trump, one incident in the Middle East, one natural disaster and the price rockets. With renewable energy and the energy independence we achieve, we protect ourselves from this uncertainty, so households no longer have to deal with gas price shocks and rising prices in the supermarkets. And we can finally benefit from cheap, reliable energy. We have every reason to phase out Russian gas. The sooner the better.

Madam President, we all have strong feelings when it comes to the car industry, we all have the same nostalgic feelings. But I must say that nostalgia is good, but not if it lets you stick in the past. Not if it blocks innovation, not if it blocks change. Today, I feel like I'm in the boardroom of Nokia when the iPhone was just released. The touch screen, the ability to browse on the internet and play music – it was revolutionary. The response of Nokia was to try to make the keyboard phone more attractive instead of responding to innovation – and we all know how that story ended. Because by allowing carmakers to not fulfil the mid-term goal it's like telling Nokia to keep on producing the keyboard phone. It will not cut it for our industry. And with these plans, with these delays to switch to zero-emission vehicles in Europe, I only see two winners: the companies that are lagging behind, that are only looking at short-term gains, and China, who already leads the EV market and sees the competition sabotaging itself. Because with this delay, we also delay the second-hand market, which is very important to the access of electric vehicles. We need to create the conditions for EV cars to thrive within Europe. We need to push for an electric corporate fleet, introduce social leasing to make EVs accessible for all Europeans. And while we are talking about range extenders and debate on flexibilities of penalties of companies that made more than 100 billion in profits in the last few years, China invests in solid-state batteries with a range of more than 1 500 kilometres. This could not be our answer to plan for a successful response to these developments. And just like Nokia, it's the lack of innovation that threatens our future, not the goals we've set eight years ago.

Mr President, green industrial policy is all about creating demand. Demand for green products such as electric cars and, for example, recycled plastic. Because when we create demand, companies will innovate and invest. And that is how we can make a difference in Europe. Without demand there is no development and therefore no growth. We have to create that question ourselves. Governments, local, national and European, must lead by example by purchasing green, by purchasing European and also by tendering. We need to use public support in a smart and targeted way, so that products such as hydrogen, heat pumps, but also batteries have a conclusive business case and are therefore affordable, so that companies can scale up and reduce their production costs. That also requires choices. Choose where we want to excel and where we want to maintain our leading position. It also calls for decisions that strengthen our autonomy, and for strategic partnerships that are necessary for this. Outside Europe, we are not standing still. A country like China is investing heavily in tomorrow's champions. Let's do the same.

Mr President, I remember on this day, exactly four years ago, the Parliament adopted a resolution on WTO compatibility of CBAM. I remember my colleague Yannick Jadot from the Greens that did an extraordinary job. And that was quite some consensus here in the room. The same holds, actually, for the ambition that we had as Commission and Parliament. The Green Deal and the European climate law, those were more than just policies. They formed our vision for a sustainable, innovative and strong Europe. We made a promise to industry, to businesses and to workers, who believed and worked on this vision, that if you innovate, if you invest in green technologies, if you are committed to decarbonise, we will have your back. With stable and predictable legislation, we will help you invest, grow and provide secure jobs that we all need. And now we are here today. I challenge everyone in this room to explain to me how creating simplification helps us form a robust response to China and other global players. I fear that this so-called vision of competitiveness and simplification is not enough, and it distracts us from the real solutions we need, like a market creation for green and digital European technologies. And I cannot stress this enough. Market creation, not deregulation, market creation, not deregulation. That's what we need. That's what we need to create jobs, to grow our economy and really become competitive. By simplification, we somehow believe that the investments that we need will pop up, that they will magically appear. As we say in Dutch, costs always come before the profits. It doesn't mean that there are no rules that we can simplify, but emphasising only on this, only on simplification, will not do the job. And while we focus on this, while we create more uncertainty and step away from our regulatory stability, the world invests in clean tech. China's economy today, its growth is more than 40 % attributed to green investments, and we are failing ourselves to meet the targets that we set, whether it's for cars or whether it's, for example, when it comes to hydrogen for REPowerEU, our strategy to become less dependence on autocrats outside Europe. I really believe that that is how we could improve our competitiveness, by reaching these targets, by investing in green technologies, by becoming less dependent on energy coming from outside Europe. We have to create this through regulatory stability. We have to create this by growing these sectors within our market. Mazzucato, the famous economist, states that in transitions we should not distinguish between winners and losers, but between those who are willing and those who are not. And I fear that we listen to much to companies that are not willing to change and do not see a future in Europe. And by listening to them, we are ignoring innovative companies that can become future tech leaders. Those companies can use a push. We can use a push by creating a green market so that they can have a foot on the ground. That's the question today. Are we supporting them or are we ignoring them? And with that, not creating competitiveness in Europe.

Madam President, when the US hesitates, China accelerates. We learned that before. When Trump pulled out of the Paris Agreement in 2017, he allowed China to become a global leader in sustainable technology. Today it's the world's top producer of renewable energy. Their economy is booming, and more than 40 % of their economic growth comes directly from their solar panels, the windmills, their heat pumps and their electric vehicles. Just as the US is in a position to take the lead in the green economy thanks to the Inflation Reduction Act, Trump again does China a favour. He tries to stop record‑breaking green growth in the US and to look for old sources of energy for the old technology. While we hear 'oil', 'fracking' and 'tariffs', China focuses on solar batteries and EVs. That should say enough. The US was just in time for the green transition, but Trump will make America late again.

Mr President, perhaps this is the problem with the Christian Democrats in this Parliament. They think we can suddenly become much more profitable by removing some rules here and there. They think that if we allow all member states to operate individually, we can make a fist against geopolitical forces such as China and the United States. I really do not understand that we do not see the need to strengthen value chains across borders. You can try to save the car industry in Germany, but if you do not strengthen the metal industry in the Netherlands, you will not achieve the desired result. As regards greening and our industrial competitiveness – our competitiveness compass – the direction is clear. But do we have the right resources to follow that course? Will we mobilise enough European money to support businesses in investing in green technologies? Will we make decisions that create markets for products that may be too expensive now? Will we ask companies that benefit from tax advantages for leased cars, for example, to opt for European products, such as electric cars made in Europe? And if they also buy green steel, which is produced in Europe, then we create a situation that is advantageous for everyone. Changing rules is not enough. We need to create a bold fund that can actually help green our industry. If we realise that, I have great confidence in the future of our European industry.

Mr President, we have come to a time when reality is subordinate to ideology. You have to scratch your head when you see that the right has a greater focus on oil than Saudi Arabia, which is currently building the largest hydrogen plant in the world. Even there one sees that fossil fuel is a dead end. While China produces the most renewable energy and owes more than 40% of its economic growth to solar panels, windmills, heat pumps and electric cars, the right wants to compete primarily with fossil fuels. I don't understand. Renewing our economy means sticking to the Green Deal and helping our industry. If you don't understand that, you've missed the proverbial boat, maybe even the entire fleet. Right and extreme right prefer to leave our competitiveness to the whims of Putin, Trump or Mohammad bin Salman. They pretend to stand up for our citizens, but they weaken our economy and the European position.

Madam President, the sky was the limit with the Green Deal. People spoke of the 'Brussels effect' – we were inspiring people, we led by example in the global climate agenda. I fondly remember President von der Leyen talking about our 'man on the moon' moment. Are we now aborting the mission and reversing all our achievements? Because landing on the moon is a very complicated matter – we cannot cut rules, deregulate, simplify and think we will achieve the mission. Somehow, by cutting and simplifying, we think we will have so much savings that we bridge the gap of EUR 700 billion that Draghi talks about. Without means, without protecting our social and environmental conditions, the real European way of life, we are throwing away the child with the bathwater and we will never reach the moon. Simplifications? Yes. Deregulation? No. To reshape our industry, we need to go beyond simplification, we need new, fresh money, we need investments, a new budget. Focused? Fine – but only reallocation will not make us more resilient and increase our competitiveness. So, Mr Lenaers, yes, we do not want only changes by commas and dots – we want a strong MFF. We want our own resources, we want a new steel and metal plan, especially after tariffs that are presented by Trump. We need a competitiveness fund. We need to set our priorities – I don't want to see a race to the bottom when we can reach to the top. We've got to shoot for the stars – we have to show ambition again, to show Europeans that we work for them, to combat global warming and leave no one behind. That's how we secure our place in the world, and the world needs a strong Europe.

Mr President, when the Commission orders something to be done towards parliamentarians, we have to get to the bottom of it. To the right of this house I want to say that in a pluralistic society you make sure that there are different sounds to be heard, even if something is said that you do not like. This is how it is in a democracy. This is especially true for civil society organisations. The hypocrisy that I observe here... If you look at the LIFE programme, there are plenty of transport and pesticide organisations that receive funding when they have taken a position that the Commission is not happy with. The same agreements have been made with these organisations, so that we can check and know somewhat what happens to the taxpayer's money. It would be outrageous if only large, wealthy multinationals could walk down the door here and influence us, without any transparency. I can randomly choose numbers and see if you have filled in your transparency register online and with whom you have spoken. To the left of this field it is better to the right. Our constituents have the right to know with whom, where and what we are talking about. This is part of a democracy; People don't censor.

Mr. President, we don't correct for the speed limit of the speed differences and languages. Maybe we should. But I will speak Dutch. (NL) Mr President, America is, believe it or not, fortunately more than just Trump. A few years ago, when America left the Paris Agreement, companies and many states decided to continue with it. Trump's will, however, seems increasingly law; Too many people are blind, even here. We have an interest in a strong relationship with the US and that interest must continue to guide us. But "America first" does not mean that Europe is "second". At most if we serve the interests of Trump and his tech giants. Trump's reckless policies bring uncertainty. Will there be tariffs? Is there still demand for our products? Can our customers still do business in the US? Do we share our resources or are we going to fight for them? In any case, the price tags on our shelves will rise due to Trump's tariff tumult, and inflation will rise. I hope it's not too bad, but there's reason enough to be less dependent and unite more than ever. That is the answer to Trump, because "America first" cannot and should not mean that the rest of us will choke.

It's always funny: We need to tackle climate change, but with less bureaucracy. That's very important. Let me make a small prediction: I really don't think it's the last time we're debating the hottest year ever. Climate change is a fact. Looking away is dangerous and actually just stupid. It is dangerous for our vulnerable communities, for people who live near rivers, on the coast or in wooded areas. Just look at the fires in the US. Look at the floods and forest fires in Europe during the past year. Our farmers are losing more and more crops because of heavy rainfall or because of enormous drought. The urgency to address this problem does not seem to exist. There is a need for less bureaucracy. I recently came across a brilliant speech by physicist Carl Sagan. He told me how much America spent on defense during the Cold War. That was $13 trillion. A number with twelve zeros, a bizarrely large amount. At the same time, no one wondered if it was right. That amount corresponds to 25 trillion euros today, or a quarter of what we all earn. And that while there was only a small chance that the Russians would intervene. Yet we thought it was right, because we had to protect ourselves from the Soviet. Just as we need to protect ourselves from Putin today. With a fraction of that amount, i.e. about 2% to 3% of what we all earn, we could tackle climate change. The problem is getting worse. The difference is that climate change is a silent killer, which you can't just track with satellites or with espionage. But we can see the consequences of that. We think that this will not affect us until there is another disaster and there are many speeches stating that we should never let this happen again; We have to stop it. The best time to intervene was yesterday. The best moment is now, today.

Mr President, not far from my house is the old Philips factory, the company that owes its growth to the rise of the light bulb. The success of Philips shows that embracing innovation creates growth, jobs and new inventions, new innovation. The light bulb that Philips has brought so much success was not invented by making a candle more efficient. Why do we still have that tunnel vision in Europe when it comes to our car industry? We're desperately sticking to an old technology. We're desperately holding on to that candle. Instead of investing in electric car value chains, we looked at smaller engines that are more efficient, and see what happens. China and the US are committed to that light bulb, because sticking to the old technology does not protect our jobs and certainly does not create new jobs. The problem is the market, which is created by green legislation, by a level playing field. This is how you create demand and growth. So my question today is: When does that light come on to you? When will we see that light?

Mr President, in the past we only knew this from the campsite in southern Europe: Use the water sparingly in the summer. Now it is almost every summer also in the Netherlands hit. Four countries now suffer more from water stress, as it is called, an annual shortage of water. Four European countries and I'm really afraid that number is only going to increase. It's hard to guess why. What I am also concerned about is the rising PFAs value in our rivers due to chemical waste. When do we actually come up with a PFA ban? Why do we always put the interests of polluting companies above those of people, above our health? Companies that get a carte blanche, while our water companies have to invest more to clean up their mess. Eventually, there comes a time when it's too late. Farmers are already struggling with drought and microplastics have already become part of our daily diet, in addition to the healthy portion of pesticides and PFAs. Mr President, how long is this going to take?

Mr President, I am so glad that we have an ombudsman in Europe! Especially when we are dealing with governments that push the boundaries of the rule of law, knowingly set people apart and do not take our freedoms and rights for granted. Fortunately, we have the ‘Ombudsman’ institution that protects us and at the same time can hold up a mirror to us. An example of this is migration, where the debate is getting fiercer and fiercer. You would almost forget that it's about people and that those people just have rights. Rightly so, in recent years, the Ombudsman reported on Frontex and the European Border Police and called on them to better protect the fundamental rights of migrants. That is why we need an ombudsman. Someone who is independent of public opinion and keeps an eye on what really counts: human rights, transparency and above all a fair government. I really hope that we will give that institute even more value and dignity. Because it is important to have an independent person who stands up for people and holds up a mirror to us from time to time.

Mr President, Cooking or firing? For example, I would like to translate the title of the debate into good Dutch. Last year, one in ten Europeans were in favour of that choice. Energy prices today are three times higher than they were three years ago. And unfortunately, energy poverty has become a concept. And it's not just energy prices that are higher. Also the groceries, a house, whether you buy or rent it, but also a day out: Life has become more expensive. While the number of people in energy poverty has more than doubled in recent years, the wealth of the 1% richest has grown. They were able to add more than 30 %. How crooked do we want it to be? While many are faced with the choice between cooking and firingThis group can stay Dining and Benefiting, because they pay relatively less tax than the rest. And why is this tax so difficult to discuss for the very rich? Where is the political will? How fair is this? Rising energy prices are not due to green energy, as some here claim. Rather the opposite: It's because of fossil fuels, which not only drive up prices, but also make us dependent on autocrats. There is a route to lower prices. We must fully invest in our independence, become self-sufficient, be independent and share the burden more fairly. Helping people make their homes more sustainable and providing cheap transport from A to B. This is the only way to ensure a fair transition and make energy poverty a concept of the past.

Madam President, let me first and foremost, from this stand, offer my condolences to the families and the loved ones of those affected by this climate disaster in Valencia. The horrific scenes and the testimonies from victims are deeply unsettling and leave a lasting impression on many people, also in the Netherlands. I wish my Spanish colleagues in this House and those affected by this disaster a lot of strength during these hard times. I really don't understand how misusing that disaster for a political gain here in Brussels helps remember these victims. My apologies for saying that. The images of Valencia make us realise how vulnerable we are, vulnerable for extreme weather conditions and vulnerable for the future, where they are only set to increase. Adaptation and mitigation need to be an undeniable part of our response. Decarbonisation, as soon as possible, is the only durable emergency plan for the many disasters that will await us. The cost of inaction outweighs the costs of action by all standards, especially when it comes to human lives, and that should be the debate today. We are also very vulnerable in another way, in the way in which eagerly promoted conspiracy theories, just in the few hours and days after the disaster, is irresponsible and undermined efforts to truly help and prevent. Cynically attempting quick and cheap political wins over such a strategy says a lot about your character. Giving people false impressions and false hope only serves to distract from the right response, the only long-lasting response, which is to stop our contribution to global warming.

Mr President, in the region and in the city, you often get to know the EU, Europe, for the first time. Usually unnoticed. What does European cooperation do for you? As Johan Cruyff once said: “You won’t see it until you know it.” Budgets, funds and subsidy jars don't tell people that much. What is done with the money, of course. I think of the cycle path between Tilburg and Turnhout, on which many people cross the border every day for work, study or family visits. Or to the job coaches in Rotterdam who help students find a permanent job and are therefore crucial for that city. But I am also thinking of a wind farm in Flevoland that provides four hundred thousand households with green electricity. These are all examples of projects that have been made possible by Europe, by the EU. Projects in the city, in the region, close to your home. You'll notice. You can see what Europe is doing for you. While some in this Parliament want to turn off the money tap, we want more attention for the city and the region. The cities know what is needed in the neighborhoods, in the neighborhoods and in our streets. The region ensures that people in the villages are also heard. They know what it takes to make our plans, which we make here, a success. And they are indispensable for the execution. That is why we need more budget and not less. I really don't understand the movements of some in this Parliament. The cities and regions give Europe a face and you won't see it until you know it.

It is very difficult to blame a law that has not yet been fully implemented. We can all start a joint project, just as we have done in the past, to strengthen our economy together. That has a price. You have to invest before you can be competitive again. That's what we've done in the past. Consider, for example, how we have entered into competition with Boeing with Airbus. I believe in European joint projects, which we must therefore jointly finance. In this way, Europe will be competitive again and will be able to stand with two fists in the world. I believe we can do this in Europe.

Mr President, Mr Letta is quite clear in his analysis, as was Mr Draghi shortly afterwards. It is really about something, namely how can we strengthen our internal market? How can we strengthen the unity of Europe? How do we ensure that we have strong competition within Europe, but especially with the rest of the world? And this is based on a level playing field, on innovation and on greening? Simply put, there are two currents in Europe: on the one hand, the conservative right, which ignores developments outside the EU, is blind to the massive green investments in the US and looks away from the modernisation of the Chinese economy; on the other hand, a movement that wants to catch up with these developments by working together more – and not less – on a European scale, investing in green technologies and not staring blindly, as Draghi said, at our partly outdated industry. The choice is simple. Do we opt for modernisation and greening and therefore for progress? Or do we opt for nostalgia and stagnation?

Mr President, our automotive industry is facing a serious challenge. I think that's even an understatement. China is outpacing us in every way. Chinese electric cars are significantly cheaper. And to put it bluntly, they simply have taken the lead in this technology. And this technology, however you look at it, will define the future of the European automotive industry. That's what we should discuss today. We need to look at solutions, how to help the industry, but companies and colleagues here in this House that are lobbying for delays and rolling back legislation are only thinking of the short-term gains and not about the future for workers and, more importantly, European consumers. And how does this delay help the sector beyond 2025? I have no idea. The real solution lies in maintaining ambition and intensifying cooperation. We need to make the electric car competitive again. We need flagship projects to enable this, for example, by investing in the European battery industry, in joint undertakings, we can secure quality jobs, support local economies and reduce our dependencies on external powers. By pooling resources and talents, we can achieve this result that will benefit every European. Let us meet this challenge, not only to remain competitive, but to build a Europe that leads with fairness, sustainability and cooperation. Nostalgia is nice and beautiful, but not when it blocks progress.

Madam President, dear colleagues. First and foremost, my heart goes out to all those affected by the recent floods. I think we have a profound responsibility to enhance the preparedness for such events. And today, unfortunately, we are not talking about the flood of the century, but about the century of floods. Climate adaptation is not a Plan B anymore. It's no longer enough – however crucial – to only mitigate for climate change. You must now also learn to live with the consequences which are here and now, and which hit the most vulnerable European citizens and regions the hardest: regions where we can expect probably more of these types of extreme weather events. I think a European climate adaptation strategy, a mechanism to improve the resilience, to be able to cope better with extreme weather, is necessary. We have to look at infrastructure, at buildings and at the financial means to compensate. We cannot leave these people behind. We cannot leave these farmers behind. We cannot afford to have these debates annually in response to disasters. It's time to take decisive action. We must prevent such strategies and take our preparedness seriously. Only then we can build a resilient Europe that really can cope with the effects of climate change.