Speeches

Mr President, in 1990 36% of the world's population was still living in extreme poverty. Less than 30 years later, this number had fallen to 9%. How did we manage that? Economic growth. Economic growth is the driving force in the fight against poverty. How do we ensure economic growth? Low burden for citizens and businesses. Cut red tape and avoid reckless spending. Deregulate and strengthen the free market and ensure price stability. You don't have to be a rocket scientist. If we see where poverty has fallen, it is precisely in the Asian and African countries that got these things in order and integrated them into the global free market economy. The questions we need to ask ourselves are: Why is the EU moving away from this? Why are we listening to the call of socialist sirens whose results we know lead measurably to more poverty? In order to combat poverty, we should not focus on redistribution, outgrowth or climate funds. The proven best way to fight poverty, but also to improve climate, biodiversity and air quality, is to increase prosperity. Where there is free trade, there is freedom and opportunity for all. It is our best export product and the best chance of a better life for everyone.

Mr President, behind the scenes, the Eurofederalists are busy amending the European treaties in order to work towards a United States of Europe. But do people at home want this? We asked the renowned I&O Research. And what turns out? Only 20% of Dutch people want more powers for the EU. If you don't believe this research by I&O, a study by Ipsos this month shows that only 12% are in favour of it. Dutch people do not want EU taxes, want countries to financially keep their own pants, decide for themselves from which countries they allow asylum seekers and certainly do not want a digital euro. The Dutch, by a large majority, want the common market as it once worked so well under the EEC. The EU must be about our economic security, NATO must be about military security and the member states themselves must be about their sovereignty. The federalists may not want to hear these figures, but it is the democratic reality.

Mr President, the EU must focus on the core tasks and do so better. This includes the conclusion of new trade agreements. Fair free trade increases our prosperity, creates jobs and provides a wider range of products. Unfortunately, the EU wants to get a better grip on the internal affairs of our potential trading partners through free trade agreements, with all kinds of additional requirements, such as climate and social rights. It is these issues that are often at the heart of the negotiations. That is also why some Latin American countries characterized the imminent agreement between the EU and Mercosur as neo-colonialism. It's time for realism. The European Union is not an NGO. Trade agreements should be about free trade. Let our trade with other countries be one based on equality and respect for sovereignty. If we do not, we will lose more and more influence, trade and therefore also prosperity.

Mr President, please introduce yourself: We're bringing someone from 200 years ago to our time. What would this person find? That we have destroyed his or her beautiful natural world? Or would this person be surprised at our modern society with heating, cooling, clean water, clean air, food and electricity for everyone? 200 years after the industrial revolution, the climate is changing. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased and this accelerates warming. Believe me, I wanted the earth to have a thermostat knob and alternative fuels to lead us to a lovely life in a green Utopia. Mr President, we are not saying that you should not do anything about climate policy. At the same time, it has to be realistic. Dogmatic pursuit of arbitrary goals such as climate neutrality by 2050 is counterproductive. The belief in the feasibility of the economy, society and climate is too great. This is reflected in this report, which states that the issuance of common green bonds will contribute to a climate-neutral, sustainable, energy-efficient, resource-efficient, circular and fair economy. Irrespective of which projects should be classified as ‘green’ and who may decide to do so, it is questionable whether they are profitable and remain profitable. There is no need to issue green bonds separately. We need to get rid of this kind of centralistic thinking. It will lead to bureaucracy and regulatory fervor and stop real innovation and progress.

Mr President, the European Commission is demanding 3.2 billion from the Netherlands. The war in Ukraine, inflation and rising interest costs are taking a big bite out of the Brussels budget. However, instead of cutting cohesion funds, development cooperation, subsidy socialism for friendly NGOs and the growing jungle of expensive consultants and civil servants, the Commission wants more money again. In the Netherlands, the Budget Space Study Group recently issued a call for savings of €17 billion a year. Meanwhile, Brussels and Mrs von der Leyen remain silent. Once again, the hand is held up to the capitals. Commissioner-designate Wopke Hoekstra even apologized today because he did not want to pump more Dutch prosperity to Brussels in the past. The Dutch Government’s response to these begging dogs can only be ‘no’. Brussels can find austerity an ugly word, it is bitter necessity.

Madam President, the Common Market is the geopolitical asset of the European Union, and it needs to be protected from trade bullies. That is why we need this anti-coercion instrument so we can defend ourselves against coercion from third countries. Let it be clear, the intention of this instrument is not to start trade wars, but serves first and foremost as a deterrent. I would like to underline the decision-making process, as this is a very important point for the ECR Group. When coercion occurs, the decision to trigger this instrument will be made by the Member States. They are in the driving seat, as it should be. With this instrument, we can show that the EU works perfectly in an intergovernmental way. Let this decision-making process be a model for future trade policy and for the EU as a whole. Let me conclude by thanking the teams of the Council, the Commission and Parliament – in particular our rapporteur, Bernd Langer. The negotiations were not easy, but we ended up with a good text.

Mr President, the purchasing power of Europeans is under pressure. The recent Eurobarometer shows that more than half of Europeans feel that their purchasing power has decreased over the past three years. These are terrifyingly high percentages. This decline in purchasing power has a clearly identifiable cause: the sharply increased prices, i.e. inflation. No, it's not just because of the terrible war in Ukraine. The policy consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic and the rolling money press have also contributed to this, as have the ill-considered, far too rapid energy transition, which is driving energy prices up sharply. Security of existence has become a political buzzword. But if we want to do something about this, we have to cut taxes. And that is possible, by cutting government spending and reducing the regulatory burden. The same applies to the European Commission. More reckless spending is oil on the inflation fire. Why don't you tighten your belt yourself, Commissioner? After all, the bill ends up with our taxpayers.

Mr President, the EU's track record on democracy is difficult. A well-known example is that the results of the referendums on the European Constitution were ignored. But the Conference on the Future of Europe also fell short. Unsuspecting citizens were sent by biased experts to a predetermined outcome. And now my colleagues are abusing that outcome in order to argue against the right of veto for Member States, in favour of treaty changes, as well as voting rights for migrants – a theme that our colleague Guy Verhofstadt undoubtedly has fond memories of. This report repeats the well-known Sinterklaas list of the dragging Eurofederalists. But let me help you out of your dream. There is no European demos. The people do not want a treaty change, because most citizens do not want more power to Brussels, just less. Let the EU focus on where it does add value: free trade. And stop with those fairy tales about a United States of Europe.

Mr President, as 19th-century English politician Richard Cobden once said: “Free trade has the same effect on the moral world as gravity has on the universe: he brings people together, overthrows the contradictions between races, religions and languages and unites us in peace.” History teaches us: Where there is free trade, there is prosperity. Where protectionism comes, tensions and conflicts arise. After years of increased free trade and prosperity, the world seems to be increasingly divided into protectionist blocs. The Biden government has Inflation Reduction Act an economy of subsidies and tax advantages for everything that is supposedly green. This should not be at the expense of our prosperity. The US expects us to stop exporting top technology to China. At the same time, the US does not spare us with regard to the consequences of the Inflation Reduction Act. Shared policy objectives should be based on a joint effort with a level playing field. This is incompatible with trade barriers and discrimination. To meet the challenges of the 21st century, we need to reach out to like-minded partners. That is why we support the Commission's ambition to conclude a comprehensive critical raw materials treaty, preferably at a joint EU-US summit in October. Above all, we must not go into a cramp and give a protectionist response ourselves. Let's look at our state aid rules to ensure a level playing field. A state-run economy does not work. In addition, we must opt for new trade agreements, reduce the regulatory burden and put our common market back at the heart of EU policy. Free trade is both a moral and an economic doctrine, a force of poverty reduction, conflict resolution and increased prosperity. Let us therefore resist the false prophecy of protectionism and embrace free trade again.

President. Inflation is entrenched in the economy and that is life-threatening. The inflation rate may have fallen in the past year, but inflation is not gone. It still eats from people's wallets at home every day. Prices are not going down. Falling inflation only means that prices are rising less quickly. In two years, the cost of living has increased by more than 15%. Oil prices are already skyrocketing and labour costs are rising at a record rate. Mr President, everyone suddenly has a mouth full of livelihood security. If we want to guarantee it, but more importantly to increase prosperity, we must first combat inflation. This means that the European Central Bank must continue the interest rate hikes and governments must go on a diet. We also call on the European Commission to cut its own budget and not to settle the bill with our taxpayers.

Mr President, every year we miss out on some EUR 20 billion in tax revenues from P.O. Box companies operating in the EU. The Netherlands is one of the countries that contribute to the presence of these paper companies that contribute little to nothing to the economy. It is a source of lost tax revenue. Legitimate companies such as our SMEs pay their fair share of taxes and have to comply with increasingly stringent laws and regulations, mainly from Brussels. While large companies can easily handle those laws and regulations and benefit from loopholes. Of the EUR 20 billion that we are now missing, we could achieve great things. Tax reliefs for citizens and businesses, for example. We therefore welcome this directive. It will reduce the fragmentation of the common market and improve the functioning of the free market.

Mr President, ‘Tax the rich to pay for the welfare of the rest’, is the common cry here. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. But is it? The fact is that global inequality is decreasing. Yes, the rich get richer, but the poor also get richer, and faster. Why is that? By the free market, in contrast to socialist, protectionist regimes where one divides not wealth but poverty. Compare Colombia to Venezuela, for example. It's always the same story. But the strong shoulders must also bear the heavy burdens. This also happens in the Netherlands. For example, the richest 30% pay 82% of tax revenues. The left therefore has the plan for a CEO tax in the Netherlands, but the proceeds are only 600 million euros of the more than 100 billion in income taxes. It is always the same story with proponents of more taxes: Don’t tax you, don’t tax me; Tax the guy behind the tree.

Mr President, when a cabinet falls, it is often seen as bad news. It would mean political instability and stagnation. With the fall of the Rutte IV cabinet, the situation is different. Under the leadership of Minister of Finance Sigrid Kaag, an incomprehensible EU strategy for the Netherlands was deployed. The Netherlands wasted its strong position as a financially frugal country. Instead of supporting Germany for strict fiscal rules, the Dutch government withdrew with Spain. Debt could be reduced flexibly. The government also wanted to agree to EDIS, a European deposit guarantee scheme that allows Dutch people to guarantee southern European savings. Rutte and Kaag were at the forefront of abolishing the right of veto in the European Council. Mr President, the Dutch Government has fallen, and that is good news. Because if these EU plans had been implemented, we would be stuck with them forever. Elections are coming. We can turn the tide now.

Mr President, when we tell a country how to ensure economic growth, we say the following: low burden on citizens and businesses, cut red tape and avoid reckless spending, deregulate and strengthen the free market, and ensure price stability. Point. That's it. Why? Why don't we do that ourselves here, here in Europe? The Commission and our governments are mainly concerned with peripheral issues such as corporate social responsibility, climate and natural laws and unnecessary debates on gender and woke. People at home are seeing their wages evaporate due to inflation, and a dogmatic climate agenda is destroying our investment climate – a kind of ‘green planned economy’. It's simple: less spending, less taxing, less regulation and price stability means more investment in Europe, thus economic growth. It is a pity that this Commission continues to do the opposite.

Mr President, Brussels will soon be introducing new European taxes. Why? Because NextGenerationEU, the so-called corona recovery fund, has to be paid. Why was this fund needed again? Because the EU needs to grow. Why does the EU need to grow? Because the enormous budgets for bureaucracy, climate and the funds for southern Europe must not be reduced. And why not? Because the EU has to shrink differently. And why can't we? Because then the EU loses power. But due to the high interest rates, it has become even more expensive for the EU to borrow. More money needs to go to Brussels. And guess who it's picked up from? People at home, of course. This is why new taxes are introduced. The billions of NextGenerationEU have not even been raised, let alone spent. Time to quit the fund before it's too late.

Mr. President, appointment is appointment. At the end of the 1990s, Member States made the rules for sound public finances under the Stability and Growth Pact. The European Commission now wants to relax these rules. It wants more spending on climate, more flexible debt repayment and abolishes fines for violations. The German finance minister, Christian Lindner, threw a bomb under the proposal and he is right about that. The Dutch government should support him in this, but Minister Kaag dives away and even called the statements of her German colleague ‘worrisome’. Mr President, sound public finances are a precondition for sustainable economic growth. The Dutch know what it takes to meet the strict conditions of the European fiscal rules. And now the Commissioner is going to tell the Dutch that the rules of the game are changing, that all our reforms and austerity could have been a little more flexible? The proposed rules punish the ant and reward the cricket. How long will coalition parties VVD and CDA accept this? A Dutch government should never agree to this!

Mr President, it is Europe Day tomorrow and thus a year ago that the Conference on the Future of Europe came to an end. 800 citizens came here in Strasbourg to discuss what the EU is and what it should be, and neither cost nor effort was spared. We received a roaring speech from President Macron and, of course, from conference chairman Guy Verhofstadt, who expressed his European federalist dream. But we haven't heard much from that conference since then, and that's fine with us. The conference was a total flop. Citizens were sent and guided by pre-selected experts to arrive at the inevitable conclusion: Guy Verhofstadt's election program. The only question that remains is how much the entire conference actually cost. There is still no clear answer to both my written questions and to questions from journalists. We are again asking written questions and calling on Parliament, the Commission and the Council to clarify.

Mr President, three years ago, EU federalists saw their chance to finally create joint European debts. Under the heading ‘NextGenerationEU’, EUR 800 billion will be transferred to the next generation. But making debts costs money. The rise in interest rates leads to more expensive debt financing. And as always, this Parliament says: “This should not come at the expense of other EU programmes and funds.” So this house is asking for more money again. If the costs increase, you have to cut, and that means setting priorities and spending less money. Mr President, many are talking about more own resources for the EU. But these are not own resources, these are EU taxes. Taxes are paid by people at home. It is therefore high time that the EU puts its feet on the ground. Because like the people at home, we can only spend one euro once.

Mr President, when Bitcoin was introduced 14 years ago, it revolutionised the world of finance. It was the world’s first decentralised digital payments infrastructure. The underlying technology of Bitcoin still promises an endless potential of economic opportunity and freedom. And isn’t it ironic that we are now talking about a centralised database controlled by government institutions? Why do we need a digital euro? We are already working on instant payments and digitalisation of finance. Now, I was told that we need this so we can compete with China. Well, back in the day we would counter communist China with policies of rollback or containment, not by copying it. Yet the European institutions press ahead and invest into a project with no added value, leaving many citizens worried about their privacy and lack of democratic control by national parliaments. The digital euro is a solution looking for a problem, and for now would be best left on ice.

Mr President, for the EU, the Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) Regulation is a game-changer. Until now, crypto companies in the EU had to turn to every national regulator if they wanted to serve the EU market. If a company is now granted a MiCA license in one country, it will also be able to offer the same service throughout the common market. With the MiCA Regulation in force, non-regulated companies from outside the EU will no longer be able to proactively recruit EU consumers. The FTX debacle of deception and mismanagement showed that this is a much-needed step. We believe that crypto-assets can make an innovative contribution to our economy. The EU must therefore be an attractive place where start-ups can flourish. Mr President, let us continue with legislation that recognises that the digital transition must be accompanied by freedom of opportunity. I congratulate the rapporteurs on the results achieved.

Inflation affects us all. According to the International Monetary Fund, the economic outlook is therefore anything but rosy. It warns against long-term low economic growth. I hate to say I told you so, but I told you so. Reckless public spending, COVID-19, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and ill-considered climate policies have put us in trouble. We have been warning for years about stagflation, the nightmare scenario of high inflation and low economic growth. Meanwhile, the European Central Bank continued to buy up sovereign debt, keep interest rates low and print money. Not price stability, but keeping the euro area together became the goal. Mr President, what should we do? Cut back on bureaucracy, cut subsidies and focus on a smaller government and, above all, a smaller EU. Avoid increasing the burden on our citizens. A better future is ahead of us. I really believe that. But we must want to see them.

Mr President, I feel that it is necessary to counterbalance the pessimism that prevails in this House. The position of the woman is doing quite well. In education, women have not only overtaken men, they have overtaken them. This is reflected in almost the entire EU. Today, around 70% of women in medicine and dentistry are women. In secondary education, 65% of staff are women, while in primary education, 88% are women. We even see that inequality has been partially reversed. Men are on average less educated, score less well at school, start an internship less often, get fired more often and are then less likely to get a new job. Mr President, inequality is unfortunately a persistent phenomenon and we as a society must work together on it, for example by regulating better childcare. But that is up to the Member States themselves to decide. More regulation, more bureaucracy from Brussels, will not help.

Mr President, the American Inflation Reduction Act is a contradiction in terms. The law encourages reckless public spending and creates barriers to trade and, contrary to what the name suggests, it will keep inflation high. The EU is now taking countermeasures. For example, the Commission is introducing a significant relaxation of EU state aid rules: the Green Deal Industrial Plan. As is often the case with the von der Leyen Commission: big words with an expensive price tag, because this is paid for by the people at home. In recent years, our policymakers have locked up the economy and given everyone free money. As a result, we have high inflation. Instead of fighting inflation, the Commission is blowing green bubbles. There is no free money. If the European Commission continues to spend recklessly, it will take a gamble that always ends in tears.

Mr President, the fall of Silicon Valley Bank is the result of the reckless behaviour of policymakers and central bankers. The low interest rate policy and free money took irresponsible risks. As a result, money ended up in the wrong places. This is also the cause of high inflation. Central banks therefore had to raise interest rates quickly, leaving banks that took irresponsible risks in trouble. Taxpayers should not pay for this. We can only hope that Europe will be protected. In any case, what we should not do is stop the interest rate hikes. We must continue to control inflation, the thief of the common man. So: Continue with interest rate hikes, continue building banks' capital buffers, and finally implement reforms and deleveraging. Mr President, tackling inflation rarely involves a soft landing. Let us hope that a domino effect will be spared us.

Mr President, the Windsor Framework is a new chapter in the EU’s relations with the United Kingdom. Through the green lane goods can be freely traded across the Irish Sea and we avoid a hard border. Northern Ireland can again levy the same tax as the rest of the United Kingdom and we will not see any more reports about empty shelves. The question that arises is why it all took so long. Why did the EU agree to a deal that von der Leyen said would never be possible? It shows that even the biggest EU federalists have finally accepted the result of the 2016 referendum. The UK is our ally, not a rebellious province. After all, who would object to a better relationship with our closest neighbour and most important trading partner? Let this be the start of a deep collaboration with the UK, from defence procurement and scientific research to equivalence in financial services. A good neighbor is better than a distant friend.