Speeches

Mr President, Commissioner, the EU has known the SGP since 1997. These are fiscal rules to ensure that EU countries do not spend too much money and do not incur too much debt. That's important. The housekeeping book needs to be in order. Too many Member States spend too much money and are over-indebted. Too much is never good. New rules, as proposed by the Commission, will – I am afraid – not change that. There will always be situations that make it tempting for politicians to borrow again and spend even more money. Moreover, this irresponsible behaviour of officials and politicians remains without any consequences. The EU imposes laws and regulations on banks and businesses, but the EU itself is fooling around with rules. And so the Stability and Growth Pact, as the SGP is called in full, remains a paper tiger. The only way to deal with debt: make the responsible heads of government personally accountable. Practise what you preach.

Mr President, Commissioner, we can therefore make our voices heard in Europe with the European Citizens' Initiative. The citizens' initiative is a special and necessary democratic instrument. In the Netherlands, confidence in politics is low. The government is responsible for a long series of scandals and the neglect of the real problems in our country, as well as the threat to biodiversity and the position of farmers and food security. Supported by a million Europeans in 11 countries, this seventh successful European Citizens' Initiative calls for bees to be saved, not forgetting farmers. It definitely has my support. It is a balanced initiative that concerns the well-being of bees, biodiversity, farmers and the health of all of us. This must affect us from left to right. Biodiversity is complex. It requires a careful approach and a thorough understanding. It will be a challenge for the Commission to come up with an appropriate response. It is government for advanced in the public interest. Long live the citizens' initiative!

Mr President, Commissioner, no matter how sympathetic, this is exactly one of those projects where people say: “What the hell are they doing in Brussels? Aren't there more important issues?’ Developing an EU cycling strategy to double cycling transport? It sounds nice, but it's about EU interference, with building regulations, municipal budgets and democratic decision-making processes. It would be laughable if it were not so contrary to the principle of subsidiarity. Because that states that what can be regulated at local level must also be regulated at local level. And you can. Without interference from the EU, we have developed a beautiful cycling infrastructure in the Netherlands. This can be done anywhere in Europe. There are enough funds. If this proposal goes ahead, it means, for example – forcibly from Brussels – that local cycle paths and bicycle parking spaces must be constructed and built and secured, while there is actually a need for childcare. Money can only be spent once. It is a good democratic principle that its own citizens decide in their own city or municipality what it is spent on. Brussels just doesn't get involved.

Mr President, Mrs Lagarde, should the ECB take into account the possibility of euro area countries wishing to leave the euro? A few months ago, I asked you whether the ECB has a roadmap for managing the exit of highly indebted euro area countries that are no longer able to pay interest. You replied in the negative, stating that the ECB does not have a roadmap for this. Meanwhile, the situation has changed and votes are also rising in the rich north to leave the euro. In the Netherlands, a former minister of Economic and Financial Affairs recently stated that leaving the euro should no longer be a taboo for the Netherlands. The risks of inflation and unsustainable debt and stability risks are too great. The extreme low interest rate policy has led to inflated house prices and stock markets, and an explosion of debt. The ECB does not keep interest rates low to support the economy, but to limit the interest burden of debt, especially for the southern countries. Citizens of all euro area countries have the right to vote in favour of leaving the euro. I would therefore like to ask you to have an exit scenario ready in addition to a retained course.

Madam President, every eight days in the Netherlands a woman or girl is murdered by her partner or ex-partner. Every eight days. A few years ago, this was every ten days. So the problem has aggravated. But that is not what this debate is about. This debate is about the EU joining the Istanbul Convention, not about improving the protection of women in the EU. And that's what it should be about. The Convention seems to be an instrument to draw attention to the insecurity of women. That's good, because it's a serious problem. But is the instrument also the solution? I dare to doubt that. The figures show that women's insecurity is on the rise, and we need to address that. Looking in the direction we want to go: zero feminicide in the EU. Zero! Everyone in the EU has a responsibility to do so, in particular the Heads of State or Government of the Member States. I call on them to make active policies to ensure the safety of women. I hope from the bottom of my heart – and I actually just demand it – that in a few years' time we will be able to establish that women in the EU are safe. Because that's what it's all about.

Mr President, the money that the EU has provided has been received from taxpayers through the Member States in order to do sensible things with it. EU Member States are responsible for the lawful spending of EU funds and therefore also for the fight against fraud. I believe that it is important to prevent fraud. This is more important than trying afterwards to bring the culprits to justice, with all the difficulties of burden of proof and subsequent appeals. I strongly advocate more transparency instead of more reporting. It should be possible for all EU citizens to see exactly what EU budgets are intended for, how, where and by whom they are spent. In short, I am in favour of completely rethinking the fight against fraud and modernising it. If all citizens in Europe can see on a single map where and for what purpose resources are spent, we will ensure much more control over spending without an extreme increase in reporting obligations and staff. The technology is ready. It's time for action now!

Mr President, Vice-President, Commissioner, the European Investment Bank (EIB) provides governments and businesses with more than EUR 60 billion in soft loans every year. The aim is to unify the European market and contribute to EU objectives. I would like to highlight two things. The rapporteur calls for the focus to be shifted to SMEs, but in principle the EIB was not set up for this purpose. Private banks are currently struggling to lend to SMEs due to European anti-money laundering rules, which make lending costly and complicated. The problem needs to be addressed at the source. Secondly, and therefore in addition, I would ask for the imbalance in credit to be remedied. Overall, 42% of loans were granted to three countries: Italy, France and Spain. The geographical distribution of lending should be more balanced in the future. We can tackle these problems at once by asking the EIB to do what it was set up to do, such as by financing an HSL network in Europe. This contributes to all EU objectives, sustainability, etc., and ensures balanced lending that benefits all.

Mr President, Commissioner, if it isn’t broken, don’t fix it – this should be the important guideline for EU institutions to cope with the risk of overregulation. The rapporteur has made a balanced report about consumer protection in the gaming industry. There is no real problem but she demands more regulation. She states explicitly that the existing consumer protection regulation is a strong basis for people who play games, especially children. The gaming industry itself made a classification system and a code of conduct that helps parents choose the right games for their children and industry to act responsibly. The current rules are sufficient to protect our children. The weak link in the system is the inability of our Member States to enforce rules. It makes no sense to make more rules if the current ones pose a serious challenge for our law enforcement. The EU is a law-making factory, but in this case it would be wise to restrain ourselves and let the sector take its responsibility and parents do the guidance. If we take away responsibility by regulating everything and everyone, we lose the fundamentals of a stable society.

I'm here to stop the plethora of laws and regulations, among other things. I know from good examples from America, for example, that it is quite possible to achieve your goals without an abundance of laws and regulations, but that requires innovation. I am in favor of a world that is safe. I am against human trafficking, I am against forced labour and I am a strong supporter of human rights. But I'm not a believer with regard to laws and regulations.

Mr President, can we use laws and regulations to create the ideal world? Many MEPs seem to think so. The European Union wants to use laws and regulations to control the world through anti-money laundering legislation, sustainability requirements such as the CSDDD and gender provisions. Putting the world in your hand with a torrent of laws and regulations is impossible and also dangerous. Everyone knows that with more political interference with business, the boundaries between public and private are disappearing. Increased administrative burden. More management and control. Less freedom. Less prosperity. An irreversible process that leads to impoverishment. Can we create an ideal world with laws and regulations? Seneca didn't think so. He said: the road through regulations is long, the road through examples is short and purposeful. (The speaker accepted a "blue card" response)

Mr President, Europe's dependence on Russia for energy supply is a problem that should not be solved with panic football, but with proper analysis. The high energy prices resulting from liberalisation and speculation, as well as the rejection of nuclear energy, make our dependence on Russia intolerable. However, the EU blames itself for this. These issues are the result of EU policies. The EU is abusing this energy crisis, which it has itself caused, in order to expand its political power in an unprecedented way. Parliament stands by and looks at it. The Commission is borrowing billions on the capital market for the economic recovery after the COVID-19 pandemic and now wants to spend that money on other matters, in order to cushion the consequences of its own mismanagement. It also degrades the governments of the Member States into implementing organisations. I therefore advise everyone who opposes the expansion of the EU's power to vote against tomorrow.

Mr President, Commissioner, some problems resolve themselves, and some things require attention and action. Good governance depends on being able to distinguish between the two. Political objections to the accession of Albania, Montenegro, North Macedonia and Serbia to the Union are disappearing under pressure from Putin’s misconduct. Additional demands proposed by Mr Borrell are unwise. It leads to unnecessary delays and we cannot afford that. How can Serbia comply with EU foreign and security policy, if it does not exist at all? What foreign policy is Mr Borrell talking about? That of the Commission, that of Germany, that of Hungary or perhaps even that of Poland? As the political hurdles are taken, legal and administrative hurdles appear on the horizon. The Commission is rapidly adopting new legislation for the Green Deal and the fight against crises, making it difficult for candidate countries to implement all laws and regulations before accession. It is therefore important that we speed up. A lot of transition agreements will have to be made and that will lead to complexity and hassle. That is why I would like to ask the Members ... (The President interrupted the speaker) approach with due attention and haste ... (The Chair took the floor)

Mr President, I have infinite respect for the women and men in Iran who stand up against a criminal regime. It takes courage. That makes me quiet. It takes little courage to stand here and express my horror at the regime in Iran. In Europe, I can dress how I want and I can speak out about what I want. The protesters in Iran are putting their lives at risk in the hope of a better future, a future that is safe and free. This is the primary responsibility of every government. The demonstrators deserve our unconditional support, not only as we face the horrific death of Mahsa Amini, but as long as it is necessary, as long as the criminal regime of the ayatollahs in Iran is in power. To the women in Iran and, moreover, to all the women in the world who stand up against oppression, I want to say: “I see you, I hear you, I admire you and I am by your side.”

Mr President, voters, pay attention! Under the guise of strengthening democracy, European parties will soon be able to count on more money from the European Union. That is the Commission's proposal. With this money they can set up campaigns in all European Member States, and with this the relations in the Member States are completely removed from their context. Even worse: a so-called ‘uncontrollable, independent body’ will assess whether a political party is allowed to participate in the democratic process, on the basis of vague criteria. And so it can happen that the European Socialist Party is campaigning in a Member State, while, for example, the ECR party is being banned from participating in the democratic process. Under the guise of transparency, full control is introduced over all political parties. Transparency is in principle to be welcomed, but control by a politically operating body is absolutely not! Legislation should primarily serve the interests of citizens and democracy, and not – as is currently the case – the vested interests of the Commission, MEPs and Eurocrats.

Mr President, Commissioner, I am concerned about the abuse of power. I am concerned about respect for human rights, but I am also concerned about the political abuse of human rights. This report on fundamental rights in the EU erodes the principle, because it is political and goes far beyond fundamental rights. It's a pamphlet, with unproven claims and suspicion. It is a report unworthy of the EU. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is the foundation of the international system for the protection of human and fundamental rights in the EU. By distinguishing between certain subgroups, such as LGBTQ and Roma, we weaken the principle of non-discrimination. By including general abuses about the misery that people inflict on each other, we water down the foundation. A report on fundamental rights should transcend political boundaries and authority and remind governments of the duty to respect the fundamental rights of all individuals. It must be factual, complete and correct, and unfortunately this report is not.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the costly, disruptive relocation circus here is a result of European laws and regulations. People in Europe don't understand it at all. In the Netherlands alone, billions are spent annually on legislation to combat money laundering. It doesn't work for a meter and the customers suffer. It is now almost impossible to open a bank account – a consequence of European laws and regulations. And people suffer from it. The key question here is: How is it that politicians make laws and regulations that are useless, costly, and cause major problems? A sound cost-benefit analysis is never carried out when Europe decides on laws and regulations. The people of Europe have a screaming need for tangible results, for investments for the future. Think of the high-speed train and networks in Europe. That's good for people! There are plenty of laws and regulations. We need to do things that really benefit people.

Mr President, there will always be people who are fooling around. If there is a motive and there is an opportunity, then many simply cannot resist the temptation. Especially because it is of great hope and the view that it is very easy to steal from the EU. In 2020, fraud was reported for a total of EUR 371 million. This is serious money. And these were just the reported cases. With a consistent policy, we can assume a doubling of this amount per year in the future. Together with the unreported fraud, we then talk about billions per year. The fight against fraud within the EU must therefore be improved. Now this is mainly instrumental with many rules and procedures and focused on detection and prosecution of the culprits. More efforts should be made by the Commission to prevent fraud, and this can be done through transparency. The technology is there for that. It's just a matter of doing. I would like all EU spending to be digitally visible, so that everyone can see where EU money is spent, for what purpose, which parties are involved and at what stage the project is at. We are all entitled to it and it lowers the so-called cost of control. After all, it is not just about the EU's financial interests, it is about the financial interests of all of us.

Mr President, why are we still having this discussion? The Council decided to start negotiations in 2020. Why are they not getting things done, like they promised the people of the West Balkan countries? The EU is founded on the promise of peace. Offering all of the Western Balkan countries, especially Macedonia, membership of the EU contributes to peace in Europe. We don’t want to give Russia any chance to destabilise the political situation in these countries. But our actions, or rather the lack of action, point in the opposite direction. Political stability in the Western Balkans is important for humanitarian, economic and political reasons. It makes sense to act accordingly. To make it complete, let’s make serious work of visa liberalisation for the people of Kosovo. They are in need of that as well. The Council has to act now!

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, critics often accuse the EU of being impractical and slow and of giving preferential treatment to powerful countries and large companies. That is often justified. Brussels bureaucrats often turn their ears to the lobbies of vested interests. That is why more and more people are moving away from the EU. This Directive seems to be an exception. It is now easier for transport companies to hire trucks across the border and this is sometimes necessary in the case of peak loads and/or in the case of unreasonable equipment. I say emphatically seems, because on closer examination it appears that there is again a limitation in the adjustments. This restriction benefits large transport operators and is unnecessary, cumbersome and complex. In short, it's a shame, but it's a missed opportunity.

Mr President, Commissioner, discrimination on the basis of sex, colour or any other ground has been prohibited by law for years, and this has been enshrined in many treaties and legislation. And it is an important principle that I fully endorse. Now it is important that everyone puts the principle of non-discrimination into practice, because this makes our society so much more valuable. Sport, education and culture can make a difference. It is important that our youth understand what discrimination is and why it is so disastrous for a healthy society. Sport teaches you to deal with each other in an honest way, not to point to the other, but to work together and treat each other with respect, because that is what it is all about. A open mind, a great heart and knowledge of each other's cultural background are essential for developing self-knowledge, a good sense of humor and a tolerant attitude to life. To tackle discrimination, laws and rules are a start, but only a change in our behaviour – the behaviour of all of us – makes the difference.

Mr President, in these times of international tension, it is important to maintain unity within Europe, but the Left – led by Macron – wants to include abortion in European fundamental rights, because an extension of fundamental rights means an extension of Brussels' powers. We clearly disagree here in the European Parliament. Abortion law is a national competence. The situation has grown culturally, religiously and historically and has been enshrined in national legislation through a democratic process. The wide divergence of legislation within the EU, which allows abortion for up to 24 weeks in some countries and completely prohibits abortion in some countries, makes it impossible to settle this matter at central level without accidents. Because European legislation is the result of endless negotiations and compromises, and the outcome of such a process is uncertain. How will Maltese and Polish people respond to liberalisation, or Dutch and Swedish people to the restriction of their right to abortion? Should this issue really be dealt with at European level? What will be the reactions if suddenly a European, essentially arbitrary norm for a politically sensitive subject is pushed down the throats of Europeans? Let's treat each other carefully and cherish the good internal relationships. A divided Europe does not create anything.

Mr President, Serbia is becoming a Chinese colony with Chinese factories and Chinese working conditions. Serbia also has strategic raw materials and is therefore important for the EU. With the Dutch government and, more importantly, the French government holding back the accession of Serbia and the other states in the Western Balkans, China has every opportunity to give itself a strategic position in Europe. China is the source of human rights violations in Europe. But we must also take the strategic and economic aspects into account in our position on the admission of the Western Balkan states. The situation in the Western Balkans poses a major and urgent threat to Europe’s economy and political stability as a result of the EU’s disregard for it. This can even lead to war and large refugee flows. That is why I call on the European Commission and the European Council to take action and start the accession process of the Western Balkan states as soon as possible.

Mr President, before the EU imposes new requirements, it needs to deliver, too. That is how relations work. They require mutual understanding and respect. Kosovo has been an independent country since 2008. It has since then been recognised by the United States. However, in the EU, certain Member States have still not recognised Kosovo for petty, nationalistic reasons. I fully agree with the rapporteur. Depriving Western Balkan countries of an EU perspective will worsen the situation concerning organised crime. It gives Russia and China the opportunity to further destabilise the region. The situation in the Western Balkan poses a big and urgent threat to the stability of Europe. It can cause a new refugee crisis and even war. I therefore call on the European Commission and European Council to act responsibly and decisively, and take action now and start with the EU accession of Western Balkan states.

Mr President, the EU Court of Auditors has, for the second time in a row, rejected EU spending. In 2.7% of cases, the budget was demonstrably not well spent, which is more than the accounting rules allow. The EU is itself responsible for the poor control of expenditure. The rules on EU subsidies are too complex and a source of error. Recommendations on this point are not sufficiently followed up. Now we are about to spend almost twice as much money as the EU, and that means even more risk of error and fraud, also because a series of new conditions are set for subsidies. That only makes the case more complex. We are moving in the wrong direction for the sake of control and I urge you to fully commit to structural simplification of laws and regulations. In doing so, I ask the European Commission to accompany the growth of the EU budget with an appropriate budget for the Court of Auditors. Keep it as simple as possible!

Madam President, thank you almost everybody here and especially the European Commission for being brave enough to create a huge paradigm shift. The CAP will evolve from a top-down, prescriptive, administrative process to a bottom-up, horizontally-controlled framework, and this is great news. Good people don’t like to be told what to do, and we need good farmers to produce healthy food in huge quantities in a responsible way. We have to stay as far away as possible as we can from rules and regulations that create an administrative burden so big that we lose the good farmers we have. If we pester farmers with a policy framework that is tight and strict, farmers will go elsewhere looking for a better job. Professional farmers that produce in a healthy stimulating environment produce good and healthy food. This healthy environment is our responsibility. It is an environment with fewer controls, less rules and regulations and more space for professional farmers to take on responsibility and act accordingly.