Speeches

The Netherlands will go to the polls on Wednesday. On Wednesday we will take stock of 12 years of Prime Minister Rutte. People at home are wondering: Am I better off now than I was 12 years ago? Is the Netherlands a better place? Does the Netherlands want to continue with uncontrolled immigration, tax increases, a higher energy bill, increasing debt and suffocating EU rules? Then the choice is clear. Or does the Netherlands really think it should be different? A stop to illegal immigration, lower costs, low inflation, a smaller government and less interference from Brussels. Does the Netherlands opt for more of the same or for a policy that works? On Wednesday, the Dutch can send their province, the country and the EU in a different direction: Realistically on the right.

President Lagarde, inflation rose to 5% in 2021. We warned time and time again that everything is getting more expensive and that savings and pensions are evaporating. To keep Southern Europe's debt affordable, the ECB kept interest rates negative for as long as possible and continued to buy up sovereign debt. Mrs. Lagarde, you did nothing against inflation. In fact, you threw oil on the fire and said inflation was temporary. When inflation rose above 10% in 2022, the ECB started raising interest rates. However, this happened too late and too slowly. Nibud advises Dutch people to keep fifteen thousand euros in savings. Of those fifteen thousand euros, almost a fifth has evaporated since 2021. Although inflation is currently falling, 8.5 % is still too high. The path of interest rate hikes should not be tempered, but accelerated until the 2% inflation target is reached. Interest rates must rise and Southern European debt must fall.

Mr President, the European Common Market has shown that free peoples and free countries can work together, freely and voluntarily, in areas of trade and economic development to improve the lives of our citizens. Tomorrow is an important day that will mark a new milestone for that Common Market – a new building block for a genuine capital markets Union. European long-term investment funds, ELTIFs, provide a stable and predictable source of financing for long-term projects. I am talking about investments in transport, energy, telecoms infrastructure, bridges, tunnels, electricity transmission lines, gas storage facilities, power plants and fibre optic cables, but also social infrastructure, such as hospitals, retirement homes and social housing. All of these are examples of projects that are the direct beneficiaries of the ELTIF reform, and hundreds of billions of euros can now flow into these objectives. ELTIFs promote economic growth and job creation by financing small and medium-sized businesses, which are a vital source of innovation and employment, but which too often struggle to access the financing they need in order to grow. Over the past month, the European Parliament’s Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has taken ambitious efforts to improve ELTIFs. We delivered on this reform within record time. When I took on the role of ELTIF rapporteur at the end of 2021, there were only 51 ELTIFs, and the total net size of the segment was only about EUR 2 billion. Today, we already have 84 ELTIFs, with the total net size exceeding EUR 7.5 billion. This already demonstrates the market’s confidence in our reforms. Now, I would like to address the sustainable ELTIFs and green investments, and I would like to recall that ELTIFs are already subject to the Sustainable Financial Disclosure Regulation, and the new ELTIF Regulation makes that explicitly clear. It has now been clarified that ELTIFs may also invest in green bonds. However, the requirement to only invest in SFDR-compliant products was rejected because it would unduly narrow the universe of eligible assets. Creating an extra category of sustainable ELTIFs will be weighed up during the evaluation mandated by the accelerated review clause only two years after the entry of the revised ELTIF regulation into force. Finally, the creation of sustainable ELTIFs was deemed untimely and unwarranted at this stage, given the economic and legal assessment. Mr President, I conclude that the ELTIF reform has shown that the Common Market is open to financial innovation by building a stronger capital markets union. We jointly stand for the interests of our small and medium—sized businesses, jobs, investors and, ultimately, the prosperity and interest of our people.

Mr President, tomorrow, I hope and trust the European Parliament will vote for the regulatory reform of the European long—term investments funds, commonly known as ELTIFs. The European Parliament has been working on the ELTIF reform for over a year now and, as rapporteur, I am delighted that the result of the negotiations is a reason for celebration: celebration for our common efforts and joint success, celebration for Europe’s economy, for small and medium—sized businesses, for job creation and, ultimately, celebration for investors and our citizens. Introduced in 2015, ELTIFs were an important building block for the Capital Markets Union to diversify funding of the economy. However, ELTIFs failed to take off successfully; too much red tape and stringent regulations restricted the true potential of the ELTIF framework. We addressed this underdevelopment of the ELTIF regime. Excitingly, we are now hearing from EU asset managers and investor representatives that there is much appetite for new ELTIFs. As a result, this fund segment will grow by tens and, hopefully, hundreds of billions of euros over the next 3 to 5 years and ultimately be invested in the real economy. Let me briefly summarise the five most important achievements of this ELTIF reform. First, we have broadened the scope of the investment universe. We ensured that long—term investments can be channelled to more diverse uses and projects: real estate, infrastructure projects, SMEs, listed companies, equity and debt instruments, loans, and specific asset classes such as securitisations. On balance, we have broadened the investment choices of retail investors and made financial products more accessible. Up to this day, this was mostly reserved for institutional investors and privileged high—net—worth individuals. Second, we have allowed ELTIFs to pursue a broader international investment mandate and, very importantly, enabled broad fund—to—fund investment strategies, which must be combined with an effective look—through approach. Third, we have allowed ELTIFs to become more concentrated and permitted more structuring and co-investment flexibility, as well as using higher but still safe levels of borrowing. Fourth, we have allowed ELTIFs not only to be closed—ended, but also to pursue redemptions before the end—of—life cycle. This creates flexibility in terms of both open—endedness and evergreen structures. As an optional feature, we have allowed ELTIFs to put in place the liquidity—matching mechanism. All these features should clearly benefit ELTIF investors. Fifth, and finally, we have put in place a strong framework for the protection of retail investors and reinforced it with a suitability assessment that is mandatory for all retail investors. This safeguard is essential to prevent mis—selling and to ensure that retail investors can only invest in ELTIFs suitable for them. The co-legislators went further and introduced an extra requirement for express investor consent, as well as an investor alert to bring to the attention of retail investors the potential risk of investing. On balance, we delivered a solid and comprehensive reform. We must now carefully monitor the uptake of this fund segment and ensure that the reform delivers on its objectives. I call on market participants to ensure that the new ELTIFs are of high quality and designed with the interests of investors in mind. Let me conclude by thanking the shadow rapporteurs, the ECON Chair, and the colleagues in the European Parliament who have worked on, or otherwise contributed to, this reform. I also want to thank and recognise the work of the Council, particularly the French and Czech presidencies. Lastly, I thank the European Commission for its proposal, which was a strong starting point and should be an inspiration for future initiatives.

Mr President, since 2019, citizens have been experiencing the climate agenda of Commissioner Frans Timmermans, the European Green Deal: an agenda of carbon taxes and increasingly stringent climate and environmental laws that stifle farmers and citizens. In the Netherlands, a red-green syndicate has now emerged that is of the opinion that this does not go far enough. This syndicate advocates even more taxes, bureaucracy, laws and rules. Prime Minister Rutte rightly warns against this left-wing cloud. However, it was Prime Minister Rutte who wanted to have Commissioner Timmermans at the European climate post in 2019 and regarded his appointment as an important milestone. Brussels is often ahead of national politics. Don't let this happen in the next month. It is time for a realistic right-wing correction. It's time for a change.

Mr President, on the night of 20 to 21 July 2020, French President Macron’s plane was running hot at Brussels airport. Negotiations on the European Covid-19 Emergency Fund are over. Prime Minister Mark Rutte said no. The Netherlands refuses to pay for an EU recovery plan. But then it happens! The phone of European Council President Charles Michel rings. It's Prime Minister Rutte. On the orders of his D66 deputy prime minister Sigrid Kaag, he still wants to negotiate. Result: over EUR 800 billion of common EU debt on account of the AAA guarantee of the Netherlands. Today Macron is begging again, this time for a green industrial fund. Again Mark Rutte says no. But who still believes him? Mr President, it really has to be different. Member States and governments must assume their own responsibilities. The Dutch taxpayer cannot continue to do that for them. For JA21, it's no, and it's still no.

Mr President, the statements of CEO Peter Berdowski of the successful Dutch company Boskalis hit the Netherlands like a bomb. Far-reaching laws and regulations make it increasingly difficult for companies such as Boskalis to do business and they threaten to leave. Well, it is mainly the Netherlands that once again suffers from its guideland gland, by implementing the Corporate Social Responsibility Act faster and stricter, but the source of the bureaucracy is here: the EU. Time and again, the Commission is inventing new laws, new rules, new bureaucratic structures that make entrepreneurship more difficult, in all sorts of areas: financial, IT, corporate social responsibility, sanctions, environment, climate... Companies are going crazy with the reports for compliance and audits. We call on the Commission and national governments to: moderately, reduce the regulatory burden on companies and focus on reforms, because with the current policy we are destroying our business environment. This affects the common market and will cost us dearly.

Mr President, social media enriches our lives in many ways. People are more connected than ever. However, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Algorithms that make us see funny cats, shallow celebrities, pie-eating contests, mediocre influencers and fake news. While at the same time Chinese children see educational videos, science experiments and successful patriots. Colleagues we need to talk about TikTok owned by a Chinese company. The Chinese version is very different than the one in the West. We should be highly concerned about the addictive algorithms of TikTok. They are profiling our children, risking to undermine our society in the long run. It almost looks like psychological warfare. It’s time we take a critical look at our social media landscape with national security in the back of our minds. Because who needs the Chinese People’s Liberation Army when we are destroying ourselves from within?

Mr President, establishing rules to prevent the misuse of shell entities for tax purposes is something that most people will agree on is a good thing. Shell entities operating out of Europe are demonstrated to cost the tax authorities roughly EUR 20 billion per year. In addition to the financial costs, when we talk about the misuse of shell entities, we target a wide range of economic and organised crimes. The challenge for legislators is to ensure that our work here does not interfere with the proper functioning of business and market practices. So, I’m glad to see this positive report and look forward to seeing the cost savings and crime reduction it will bring to Member States and our taxpayers. Congratulations to the rapporteur and thanks to my colleagues on a straightforward negotiating procedure.

Mr President, in the 1950s and 1960s, German-American political scientist Ernst Bernhard Haas wrote about European integration. He predicted that limited economic cooperation would result in ever-increasing integration, not only in trade, but also in politics, social life and our cultures. This theory, supported by EU federalists, had intergovernmentalism as its counterpart. Inter-Governmentalists are not against the EU, but for a strong common market, while Member States retain their sovereignty. With the celebration of 30 years of successful common market, it is time to revitalise those intergovernmental European ideals. We see Eurorealist parties, such as ours, emerging and multiplying. We see that people want it: flexible European cooperation in a slimmed-down, smaller EU. As President Charles de Gaulle once said: We want a Europe of fatherlands, not a Europe of bureaucrats.

Mr President, when I first started in the European Parliament, a prominent former Member of this House advised me: “Traditions are there to be broken.” You can imagine that I was somewhat disappointed when I saw the title of this debate. In line with the tradition of this Parliament, we are again talking about ‘scaling up’ the multiannual financial framework. EU spending is always on the rise. Always. Similarly, in this report, where financial coverage consists of levying ‘own resources’, read ‘EU taxes’, while it is the national parliaments that deal with the taxes they collect from their citizens. There are traditions to be broken. How nice would it be if we were to agree on ‘shrinking’? To quote President Reagan: “Our debt is not too high because we have not taxed enough. We are over-indebted because we spent too much.”

Mr President, many here say that vetoes should disappear because they create a so—called ‘gridlock’ in EU decision making. May I remind you that the Member States created the EU, not the other way around? Moreover, it is only logical and legitimate that Member States are and remain in the driving seat. The problem is not the veto. The problem is that you believe it is possible to make one-size-fits all policies for 450 million people living in 27 vastly different countries. Your problem is that Member States choose to do what is best for their people and not merely submit to an EU decree. That problem, federalist colleagues, is called sovereignty. Mr Verhofstadt, we do not live in a new age of empires. Member States are not provinces of a European empire. They are sovereign democracies, members of an intergovernmental organisation called the EU.

Mr President, the cost of living is skyrocketing. Inflation has become widespread in the economy. Higher wages and benefits are now being demanded here. To pay for that, many are here shouting: "Let's save the little man by taxing companies!" You still do not know that corporate tax is ultimately paid by the customer, at the cash register – a kind of hidden sales tax. Additional public support, such as a price cap, is also a disastrous solution. This only arouses demand, which keeps prices high. Let the energy market do its job and finally invest in additional supply of reliable and affordable energy. Where can the EU and its Member States help? Cut into your own meat. Choose a smaller government, a smaller EU. Because more EU is not the solution to our problems, but rather the cause of our problems.

Mr President, the European Parliament building in Brussels has a stability problem and is sinking – literally – into the swamp. The renovation plans were presented last week. A megalomaniac structure made of glass and steel must pull Parliament out of the swamp and give it more allure. Costs: easily EUR 1 billion. Mr President, we are now in Strasbourg, the official seat of the European Parliament, in a state-of-the-art parliament building, fully equipped. It is only used 48 days a year. The rest of the year it's empty here. As if the relocation circus of EUR 200 million per year is not enough, the European Parliament therefore wants to spend an additional EUR 1 billion on a building 450 kilometres away. Mr President, this makes no sense, which is why my proposal: permanently move the European Parliament to Strasbourg. Save billions in taxpayers' money and donate the Brussels buildings back to the swamp.

Thank you for these questions, and I will try to answer them and I will try to condense them into one answer. The example I gave on medicine, I think it clearly shows that it is possible for women to choose a career and to make a career in a specific type of environment they would like to seek to make their career. But if you look at quotas, if you look at the rationale or the ideas behind quotas, it says we need more female ideas because women bring other ideas. But then the question I’m asking is: what are female ideas? Isn’t this a very contradicting way? And isn’t this a very contradicting thing to say? I mean, I’m all for diversity of ideas, but that should be based on character, not on sex, race or ethnicity. So I think that’s the bottom line.

Madam President, coming from the financial sector, one of the companies I worked for was looking for a female director. And after a long and proactive recruitment procedure they couldn’t find a candidate. And it wasn’t just the board. The company proactively recruited women. Still, men remained overrepresented. More than three quarters of companies in the financial sector are actively trying to attract female talent. But 64% of them do not see any progress in the number of female applicants. When we compare this to other sectors, for example medicine, we see women on the rise without quotas. In the Netherlands, approximately 66% of all doctors and 55% of specialist doctors will soon be women. Women achieve excellence in their chosen careers. We should recognise that there are gender-specific preferences to specific types of work. Let us give individuals and businesses the freedom to decide what they want and what works best for themselves. (The speaker agreed to respond to two blue-card speeches)

Mr President, how much power should the European Union have? When does it end and when do we say: Enough? Since the founding of the Union, many in Parliament have been striving for more EU. Power and budgets have only increased, even after Brexit. We want a smaller, different EU. What does that mean? The starting point should be that the Member States make the EU, not the other way around. Many of the EU's activities need to be reversed. In other words: Many things can be lifted today. A European foreign policy, crisis management, development cooperation, gender policy or issues such as culture and neighbourhood are all things that are not necessary for a successful common market. The EU must confine itself to its core task. That'll make everyone better.

Mr President, we have always opposed the so-called Coronavirus Recovery Fund, also known as NextGenerationEU. However, thanks to Prime Minister Rutte, the door was opened to common European debt, with the ‘Triple A’ guarantee from the Netherlands of course. However, it now appears that the feasibility, affordability and transparency of the fund are insufficient. The report shows that the Commission has not yet developed a methodology to evaluate the promised reforms of the recipient Member States. Moreover, the Commission does not have sufficient visibility of the national internal control systems. How, then, can the Commission verify that the money has been spent efficiently? The European Ombudsman expressed her concerns and the European Court of Auditors came up with a laundry list of areas for improvement. The platform for investigative journalism Follow the Money has revealed that the Commission refuses to release documents, making it more difficult to control the billions lent. NextGenerationEU is a mistake and own resources are undesirable. Let this be a one-time thing.

Mr President, we cannot control the rest of our economic problems until we have inflation under control. This requires less government, less bureaucracy, less debt and less money printing. However, the Commission's plans bear witness to the opposite: more regulation, more debt and more EU. These are precisely the causes of the problems we are facing today. Citizens are faced with a very simple choice in terms of their economic future: continue with the current, failed policy or take the path of common sense? We stand for an ambitious, comprehensive programme with less government, less EU, lower burdens for businesses and citizens, space for innovation and growth in innovative areas, i.e. the free market. As President Reagan once said, we have a better life ahead of us. But only if we look ahead.

Mr President, “When the music stops, liquidity becomes complicated. But as long as the music is playing, you have to get up and dance. And we're still dancing.” These are the words of Chuck Prince, CEO of Citigroup, in 2007, just before the financial crisis. Today we are back on the dance floor. The people at home look at us to estimate what the music will do in a week, a month, a year. But if I listen to my colleagues today, I hear more of the same: more reckless spending, more European debt sharing, more ill-considered climate policy, more regulation, more government, more EU. What many colleagues mention today is not the solution, but rather the problem. We are on the verge of a global recession. It's time to get rid of the addiction to free money, subsidies and government intervention. The music has stopped, the party is over.

Mr President, freedom of speech is precious. Without it, democracy would not exist. With social media, the marketplace of ideas has been enhanced in an unprecedented way. However, this comes with responsibility. Disinformation and fake news are a threat to the freedom of speech. There is a difference between information and affirmation. We can debate about differences of opinion, and in many cases there are different sides to a story. But there is a difference between facts and opinions. It is not because we have strong convictions that we should resort to disinformation, or worse, start believing in conspiracy theories. Freedom of speech is a cornerstone of Western civilisation. Let us use it wisely and responsibly.

Mr President, the European Parliament regularly talks about the functioning of the rule of law. According to self-proclaimed EU convert and VVD Prime Minister Mark Rutte, the EU is not only a market, but also a community of values. The prime minister is therefore often at the forefront with his criticism of Poland and Hungary. But today it's about his rule of law, about the Netherlands, about the allowance affair. We at JA21 congratulate D66 as the governing party and the Labour Party as the responsible former governing party for daring to address their own administrators and fellow party members on their responsibility in the European Parliament. The supplement affair is a disgrace in the history of the Dutch rule of law. In a kafkaesque way, Dutch families have been financially destroyed by their own tax authorities. And the worst part is: This was already noted in 2017 within the Tax and Customs Administration. And after long denial, it became clear that top officials at the ministry had known about these abuses for a long time. Instead of opting for openness, the Dutch government chose to cover up this case. Prime Minister Rutte likes to take the measure of other EU Member States on the functioning of their rule of law. Instead of seeing the splinter in the eye of other countries, he should look at the beam in his own eye.

Mr President, last week the European Central Bank finally raised interest rates to combat soaring inflation. Too little, too late. In the meantime, people – not only the poorest but also the middle class – have to choose: A hot shower or a hot meal. Life has become priceless. Four months ago, I stood here and warned against stagflation, the deadly combination of price rises and a stagnating economy. And now? We're in the perfect storm. Today's problems are the result of past political choices. Too low interest rates, too high debt, too high taxes and too large a government, combined with an irresponsible climate and energy policy. Political choices with disastrous consequences. The European Commission and the European Central Bank can no longer hide from their responsibilities.

Mr President! For people at home, life becomes priceless. Inflation is at its highest level in decades. The electricity bill, the gasoline price, diesel, gas and a full shopping cart in the supermarket: It's all getting more and more expensive. There are two reasons for this. The first is energy policy failure. By stubbornly adhering to utopian climate goals and ill-considered sanctions, energy prices are now going through the roof. The second cause is financial policy – the responsibility of our policymakers and central bankers. By massively buying up debt and incentivising exorbitant spending, such as NextGenerationEU, and the lack of reforms in certain Member States, we are reaping the inflation they have sown today. Now, what should we do for the people at home? Save the billions on those unachievable climate goals and keep energy affordable and accessible. The EU and governments need to shrink. Cut your own meat, carry out reforms and reduce the burden on citizens. This is what people expect from politics. That's what we have to do.

Madam President, we’ve become accustomed to the EU’s regular condemnation of the State of Israel for allowing Jews to reside in the West Bank. The European Commission claims that this is based on international law. If that is so, why hasn’t the EU ever called any other people’s residential activities in occupied territories an international crime? We are aware that there are many territories that the EU deems ‘occupied’ around the world, even in Europe. Yet people move in and out of these territories all the time. However, the EU only talks about illegal settlers in relation to Israeli Jews. The truth is that the EU chooses to focus on one conflict over the other. It condemns certain actions of one particular state and turns a blind eye to other examples. We call on the Commission to either use international law consistently or refrain from using legal language entirely.