Debate contributions by Anna STROLENBERG

Mr President, kidnappings on the streets, people being dragged from their homes and their cars, and innocent protesters being shot dead by masked men with absolute immunity: this is migration policy today in America. We are here in Europe and we have not yet sunk this deep, but I am worried that we're moving towards that direction. It's always harsher, tougher, stronger. Let's be honest: we have this debate today because centre-right parties want to show that they are tough and deliver – because they are afraid that their colleagues on the right, these far‑right, polarising preachers, might win next elections. I don't want them to win either, but I ask you, how much humanity do we have to sacrifice for you to win elections? We agreed on a migration pact, we have a solidarity system, but now we see that European countries are so focused on their own interest that we went back to 1985 and installed borders. This fight on migration makes Europe weak, divided and hostile. I don't want us to become like the United States of America. I want us to be better, like the united states of Europe. But then we have to change. If we cannot let go of small politics and solve migration issues, what hope do we have of dealing with Trump, Putin, or climate change? To always talk crisis is exciting, but we must go to the boring stuff – implement what we have, so we can finally move on.

Madam President, farmers are taking to the streets in Brussels once again because Brussels fails to deliver. Taking away bureaucracy is good, but there is such a hyper-focus on simplification that I fear we will fail them once again. Farmers ask for fair income and good contracts. And what do they get? Political theatre such as a veggie burger ban. Farmers don't need culture wars – they need bargaining powers. Farmers ask for stable rules. And what do they get? Yearly derogations, last-minute exemptions and constant policy U-turns. They don't need uncertainty; they need long-term perspective. And young farmers ask for a future. And what do they get? Still no real reform on land access and no tailored financing. They need a dedicated budget and financial support for sustainable business models. Reform should be about fair markets, stable rules and real generational renewal. Let's deliver.

Madam President, more biodiversity in our countryside, fewer chemicals in our food and water, and safer work environments for all European farmers – this could be our future. A pesticide-free Europe, one where biological control agents take the place of chemical pesticides. They give the same food security, but with far fewer risks. Over the last few months, we have worked on a report with several proposals to speed up the process for biocontrol solutions to enter the market. And this is highly needed: for our farmers who are keen to work with it, for our climate because they are more sustainable, and for our health because they are safer to use. Biocontrols are a European success story. Imagine proteins that protect crops against fungal diseases or bacteria that fight harmful insects. We in Europe are world leaders in innovation in this field, but without having fitting and facilitating laws, we in Europe will be the first to develop them, but the last to use them. And there is a reason for this, because the current legal framework is designed for conventional chemical pesticides, and biocontrol solutions are fundamentally different and they need to have a tailored process. Currently, it can take up to ten years before a product enters the market. Imagine what kind of work that is for an innovative start-up; you have to attract capital for over a decade. Meanwhile, in countries such as the US and Brazil, it only takes a few years for someone to bring these new products onto the market. So not having the right, tailored approach is a massive missed opportunity for our farmers, businesses, climate and health. Now, we can change this. We came up with a report with several proposals, and in the joint ENVI/AGRI Committee we had a 90 % majority. And this shows you how united we are in this effort. One of the demands is that we want a standalone legislation or regulation dedicated to biocontrols. But there is a lot that we can do in the meantime: we can create a new path for biocontrol in existing legislation, establish a priority lane with dedicated funding, we can collaborate better between institutions and with companies, and we can share information better with farmers to make sure we have a better uptake of these products. And of course, the need remains for a robust, science-based risk assessment to make sure these products are safe to use. There is, however, one thing I want to be clear about: we wrote this report, and we solely discuss biocontrol solutions, and we're not discussing conventional chemical pesticides. So the report is in no way an excuse to open up laws on conventional pesticides. Making biological control solutions a priority is our best shot to reduce our dependency on conventional pesticides. So, I would like to directly address the Commission: let's focus on the future and not go back to solutions and discussions of the past. I want to end by thanking my co-rapporteur – Alexander Bernhuber from the EPP – we had a great collaboration, and I also want to thank all the other advisers. And I think we have shown that despite political differences, we can work on a better future for our farmers and a better future for our food system.

Looking at cyberbullying, it is a real problem here, and one of the main issues is that there is no harmonised definition, so every country looks at it differently. That makes it very easy for platforms to get out of it: 'We don't classify this as bullying or violence against women, so we won't tackle it.' Also, looking at the fact that content moderation is something that platforms do not feel the need to do anymore is problematic. So instead of what is happening here, looking at what women should and should not do, I think we should really look into this, the responsibility of these platforms, and make sure they are held accountable.

I will answer your question, but I have to say, what I noticed is that all the debates at this moment come from parties that are very conservative, and they are claiming that women are victims of choices they make themselves, victims of migrants. Although if we look at what the problem is, there are so many more problems: the rape of women, issues within their private households. So the problems that you are talking about are not the real problems that we have to tackle. Surrogacy, of course, is a delicate issue and we have to be careful with it. But I do think people should have the freedom to go for it if we are really careful with it.

Madam President, a YouTube channel where AI-generated women beg for their lives before being shot in the head, a Facebook group where men share intimate videos of their partners, and deepfake pornography of female politicians and journalists. This is all real, and it's all chilling, and the list is much, much longer. We are all shocked when we hear this, but then after a while, the urgency fades and a political response fails. Just this week, the Commission presented its annual work programme, and there is nothing on a legislative proposal for gender equality. Meanwhile, when we're scrolling online and on social media, it looks like we're going backwards. I would say let's take women's safety seriously, also online. We need a European definition of cyberviolence against women. We need stronger content moderation, and we must hold platforms accountable, because they do have a responsibility. I wish I could say I wish that women would feel as safe online as offline in the real world, but the line between offline and online does not exist. They reinforce each other and we must fight both.

Mr President, am I less of a human? I have fewer places in the world where I can walk safely. If I love someone, I accept that I also fear them. Even my body is never fully my own. This comes with being a woman. And yet people tell me, 'Slow down. This rise in women hatred will pass. And then you can take your final steps to equality. Just wait.' Just wait? 1 in 3 women experience sexual or physical violence – 1 in 3 – so there is no time to wait. We must take concrete actions. This declaration is a good step, but we can do more. So I have two suggestions: first, let us come up with a European approach to end femicide, not just a national approach; second, let us establish a harmonised definition of cyber violence against women, because if we cannot agree what cyber violence is, we cannot fight it. Pretty words are not enough because every day we delay equality, we deny equality.

Jessika Van Leeuwen, maybe you did not listen to your colleague on your left that brought this up in her contribution here – she made it one of the most important points of these files. What I see is that it is used as a cultural debate although we know that consumers are not confused about the fact of whether a burger is plant‑based or if it is meat. We see that farmers and also meat producers like Rügenwalder Mühle, Aldi and Lidl are saying that this ban is not useful. It is a false promise to farmers. So, let's not waste any more time on this.

Mr President, this speech is a waste of everybody's time, because we are talking about burgers. We're talking about banning the word 'burger' if it's made of plant protein instead of animal protein. But I wonder: what if the burger is made of 51 % animal protein? What if it's 50:50? What if it's not made in the region of Hamburg? We could have spent this time debating the fact that our planet is on fire, the fact that we have a brutal war on our borders, and that our societies are getting angrier and more divided. And instead, when Europeans look at their leaders, what do they see? They see us discussing burgers. Why is this? It's because the meat lobby is trying to weaken its innovative food competitors. It's trying to weaken farmers, also livestock farmers transitioning to more plant-based products. And my colleagues in the EPP are happy to do the dirty work, instead of actually helping farmers. Because if you want to help farmers, give them stronger contracts, give them a better income, let's help them innovate. Let's give them the support they need to adapt to the climate crisis that is devastating their harvests. Our farmers are too important to be left in the past. So I'm asking all my colleagues: stop talking about burgers and start working on the issues that matter.

Madam President, ending mass migration to protect our women and children is the title of this debate, chosen by my colleagues on the far right. Colleagues, you can do better than this: every opportunity you get to dehumanise migrants, you take it again and again and again, and now you're even exploiting the murder of a Dutch woman for your own political agenda. It is true: women do get murdered, but not by migrants – mostly by their partners, ex-partners or men close to them. The only thing you do is to spread fear. I have a different fear. In my country, the Netherlands, calls to domestic violence hotlines are at a record high, and every eight days a woman does get murdered. So if you are truly worried about women, then do what you have failed to do before: fight with us. I would say: build shelters for women, educate men, invest in prevention, train agents at recognising abuse and call all countries to sign the Istanbul Convention. Colleagues, we will not dehumanise. We will organise to end femicide.

Madam President, close your eyes and picture a farmer. What do you see? Maybe an old man farming in an old way. Or maybe an angry protester driving a tractor. Well, open your eyes. I have visited many young farmers, and I want to tell you what I've seen. I saw green innovators with cutting‑edge technology working on the agriculture of the future. And they had a message for Brussels. They said, 'Give us what we need to build the sustainable agriculture of the future. Give us better access to land and credit. Make it less risky to experiment with new and green ways of farming, such as with different protein crops. And set clear and consistent sustainability goals.' If we want to grow the farmers of the future, we must plant the seeds right now. And Commissioner, your budget can do so.

Mr President, more bombs, more dead, more children starving, burned and buried. The suffering we once called 'unbelievable' is now streamed, live, into our phones, into our minds. And while the war in Iran gets headlines, peace in Gaza remains as far away as ever. How can we pressure the Israeli Government if we give them preferential access to our markets? How can we condemn their attacks on Palestinians while we provide them with weapons? How is it possible that Netanyahu is still not facing any consequences although investigation after investigation shows that we are watching a genocide unfold. Last Sunday, I marched for peace. I joined hundreds of thousands of people – people demanding an end to the suffering. Europeans are calling for peace, but Europe can only be heard if we speak with one voice. We must end the Association Agreement. We must enforce a weapons embargo, and we need to sanction those accused of war crimes.

Madam President, the plan to attract scientists to Europe is called Choose Europe. But what does it mean to choose Europe? It means to choose academic freedom, to choose a continent that still believes in climate change – and thank God for that – it means to choose diversity being a strength instead of a weakness. Choosing Europe also means long and difficult visa procedures. It also means having your diplomas recognised in one country, but not in the other. To choose Europe means to talk about researchers and professors that we want, but sometimes forgetting about the nurses, truckers and caregivers that we need. Choose Europe also means that sometimes we don't use our full workforce potential because refugees and women don't always find a job. I want the best talent to come to Europe, but I also want the best for talent in Europe, and I believe we can do both if we invest in the people here and if we see labour migration as an opportunity. So why don't we train the people in Ljubljana but also look for them in Lagos? Why don't we help women in Düsseldorf to find a job, but also look for them in Delhi? Why don't we pay our professors and teachers in Saint-Étienne a fair wage, but also look for them in San Francisco? I would say, let's not ask why people would choose Europe, but let's ask ourselves, how can we make Europe the destination of choice for all talent?

Mr President, 'never again' are words often spoken, but difficult to uphold. We are here amongst Europeans and we all have different war traumas, be it Nazism, Fascism, Communism or colonialism. These stories make us who we are, and these histories also put a great responsibility upon us to act when we see that freedom is taken away from others. We are not doing that enough, Europe is not doing it enough. We are too silent about Netanyahu's war crimes in Gaza. We are too timid in supporting Ukraine in defeating Russian imperialism. We can do so much more, and I am proud that I can stand here and be critical, because this freedom is a luxury for some. I am proud that I am European, and that we managed to turn our history into the biggest peace project there is. But I would be even prouder if we managed to live up to our responsibility and to show actions that speak louder than these words. Let's live up to our responsibility, and let's remember that 'never again' is not a prayer to the past, but a promise to the future.

Madam President, a society that silences academics is a society in decline. A society that censors research on climate change and gender is a society in decline. Academic freedom is not a privilege; it's a condition to do your job. So, to all European leaders, to the European Commission, I have a message. We can feel sorry for all those academics in the US, or we can provide them with something better: a place where research is valued, a place where academic freedom is protected. Attracting this talent is in our own interest. If not, we will become a society – a continent – of the past. We will become the backseat drivers. So we need this talent. Today I read Europe needs to revive its hunger to attract talent, and this is true. We have to revive our hunger to become the frontrunners in research and innovation. So let's triple our research budgets, let's create easy visas for those researchers, and let's take away hurdles for start-ups. Let's make Europe the home for academic freedom where all talent counts.

Mr President, Commissioner, the Netherlands is a country of food innovation and also a country of yoghurt‑lovers for breakfast. And I want to talk about both, because I visited a farm a while ago of two young farmers coming from a long line of dairy farmers, and they saw the inefficiency of giving soy to cows, and they radically changed their business model. By now, they are producing their own soy and creating their own yoghurt. Since recently, you can find their products in one of the biggest supermarkets in the Netherlands. This is the innovation that we need in Europe. This is a success story. Commissioner, in your vision, you highlight our dependency on importing proteins. If you want to change this, we have to stimulate the creation of alternative proteins. And I think we can do it. It can create more options for consumers, more new opportunities for income for farmers, and more climate resilience. If your proposed plan has concrete goals and concrete policy proposals, your plan can become a success story as well.

Mr Smit, you say that we spend too much money on climate policy, but who are the people on the front line who experience the effect of climate policy? Those are the farmers. They experience the drought and failed harvests first. These are very big effects. What do you say to those who experience the effects? Shouldn't we spend money on that?

Mr President, last year, the UN reported that it would take around 300 years before we reach gender equality. That would mean that I will never experience it. If I have a daughter, she won't experience it. Her daughter neither. It will mean that only my great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-granddaughter would experience gender equality, and I think that's ridiculous. We can change this. We stop in this way – three things that we can do. First, let's invest in training and education for our women and girls so they can become the future leaders of the green and digital transition. Second, let's invest in women's health, because women are too often misdiagnosed, and we should make sure that they have access to sexual and reproductive health rights. Three: let's fight gender‑based violence both offline and online. Social media platforms should take their responsibilities. We can only do so if we have the support of civil society organisations, so they should receive sufficient funding. Commissioner, I count on your support.

Mr President, dear colleagues, I want to talk about a too often neglected group of farm workers: migrant workers. At least 2.4 million migrants work tirelessly to put the fruits and vegetables of Europe on our tables. Although a lot of farmers that I have talked to take good care of their people, research shows from Oxfam and the University of Comillas that many problems still occur. Migrant workers face systemic violation of both labour and human rights. They are paid below minimum wage. They are subjected to unsafe conditions, like being exposed to pesticides, and they often live in squalor. Women are especially vulnerable, earning less than men and sometimes enduring sexual harassment and violence. Exploitation spans across Europe, from Sweden to Spain. What can we do within Europe? We must enforce the directive on corporate social responsibility and we need to implement a stronger conditionality in the Common Agricultural Policy. This way, we can ensure that every worker is treated with the fairness and respect that they deserve.

Mr President, the freedom fighters of the 21st century are women. Take Moldovan President Maia Sandu and Georgia's president Salome Zourabichvili. Both leaders stand strong despite Russian disinformation attacks against them. And listen to the women of Afghanistan who refuse to be silent, risking imprisonment, violence and even death. Around the world, women are challenging authoritarian regimes and fighting for democracy. However, female leaders, journalists and activists, they face attacks based on their gender. And in Moldova, this information was used to undermine the presidency, the leadership of President Sandu, claiming she is too weak to lead and protect her country. These gendered attacks are often spread by pro-Kremlin actors. They argue that feminism oppresses men and destroys families. It is used to convince citizens to reject a Western European future, and to pull countries back into Russia's influence. This information against female politicians has become a weapon used to destroy the democratic process, and combating this is not just a women's issue, it is a fight for democracy itself. This fight requires action both online and offline. Social media platforms need to take responsibility, and we must protect and support all those female freedom fighters standing up for democracy.

Mr President, 98 % of the deepfake videos nowadays are pornographic videos and 99 % target women. Online gender‑based violence is rapidly expanding, so if we talk about gender‑based violence, we sadly must talk about online gender‑based violence as well. But there are things we can do to change this. First of all, we must hold tech companies and social media platforms accountable. We need stronger content moderation. We need to make sure that when complaints are filed, we need transparency on how they are treated, and we need to rebalance the freedom of speech and avoiding harm. And I feel strongly about this because I don't want Musk to decide what is appropriate behaviour and what is not. But legislation alone is not enough. Online violence reflects deeper societal misogyny, sexism. Without tackling these problems, we will only apply temporary fixes for a systemic problem. Lastly, I want to address the men in the room. I have three colleagues that I want to thank because they stood up for the women, but in general, we miss your voices. You need to stand with us to fight this fight because it is a problem for all of us.

I heard several times our colleagues here addressing that migrants are the problem of violence against women. Although we know, so often all the research shows, that violence is often caused by the people close to us. The European Institute for Gender Equality shows that 70 to 80 % of all the violence against women is caused by someone close to us. And also the case in France, the Pelicot case, shows this again. So how do you explain your logic in this?

I think there are two things we have to do. First, you have to make sure that asylum seekers always can enter here if they are in need of protection. So you need to have procedures for them to come. If we're going to make our borders tougher, people will find other routes; people that are in need. And it's going to only be more dangerous. We're going to push people in the hands of smugglers. On the other hand, we can work on more labour migration. All the visa procedures, everything we do on labour migration is so divided. So if we first harmonise that, then we can actually see how we can attract talent and make sure that people integrate well.

Mr President, this morning, Viktor Orbán addressed this Parliament and he said that we should stop migration because it causes violence against women, homophobia and anti-Semitism. My colleagues here on the right applauded him loudly. Honestly, it makes me sick to hear even more applause, and it makes me sick to hear the way that we talk about migrants nowadays, because Member States are so caught up in a race to make our borders tougher, with more surveillance, more detention centres and talk about opt‑outs. But instead, we should not ignore the fact that more people are dying. Last year was the deadliest year on record for migrants, with nearly 8 600 deaths. Pushbacks and human rights violations are at our border and they are becoming a routine also under Frontex's watch. Yes, we do have challenges, but making our borders more lethal won't help us solve them. Let's work on harmonised border management, legal pathways and a fair and efficient asylum procedure.