Debate contributions by Per CLAUSEN

Mr. President! When you hear the debate here today and think about who the EPP is aiming to make a majority with in this Chamber in the future, it is no wonder that there is not much to toast to when we look at the EU's role at the COP30 climate conference. It is true that the EU supported the phasing out of fossil fuels, but it did so as some of the last. And why were we so defensive on the issue of funding? Indeed, I think one thing is clear when it comes to COP30 when it comes to climate, so the EU did not lead the way as it should have done. This is due to many things, including the fact that the European Commission was so hesitant about our climate goals that they actually broke the EU's own climate law. Then you can say: Could the outcome of COP30 have been worse than it was? Yeah, I guess it could. But it could also have been much better. And if we, if the EU, were aware of our responsibilities, we could very well have gone much further than we did. The European Union has a role to play here, but we do not play it, and that is because of ourselves.

Madam President! When I hear great powers from China, the United States, Russia and the European Union talk about the Arctic, I often get a special feeling. That I've been taken back in time. Back to a time when colonial masters, including my own country, saw the world as a buffet to take care of. Many still see the Arctic as a vast, unhistorical and man-made area where you can simply usurp resources or land. But the reality is not like that. The Arctic is a complex area inhabited by a lot of people, including various indigenous peoples. People who have the right to decide their own future - even if, for example, Trump thinks that you can buy or invade a new country. Threats to the Arctic are numerous: military build-up, reckless exploitation of natural resources, environmental disasters and climate change. Dear friends, the colonial era is over, and that means supporting the people of the Arctic's right to decide for themselves their future.

Madam President! Five years ago, the elections in Belarus were stolen. It happened again this year. I do not recognise either of the two results, because the elections were by no means free. Belarus is not a free country, but a brutal dictatorship. A dictatorship that imprisons activists and journalists, democracy activists and trade unionists. Recently, the Lukashenka regime set some political prisoners free, and it is a good day every time innocent prisoners escape. But we must not be naive and believe that everything is now in order, because it is not. We have seen it before in Belarus – how the regime frees some political prisoners for the sake of public relations, but then prisons even more. That is why we must not relax the sanctions either; they must, on the contrary, make us effective. Because the regime in Belarus is still illegitimate and oppressive, and repression should never be rewarded.

Mr. President! We need to get better at analysing, classifying and phasing out harmful chemicals, and the proposals we have for discussion here do not solve the many problems we have with chemicals that harm people and the environment, but they are a step in the right direction, and that is why I will support them. One of the things we need is to better estimate how much people in the EU are exposed to hazardous chemicals. This is something that must be done by systematic data collection from several sources, and we get a tool for that here. The different EU agencies will also be able to use the same data. Finally, there is an increased focus on phasing out animal testing. Something that has been needed for a long time. And I rarely say anything like that about an EU proposal. However, I must say that I look forward to voting in favour of this proposal.

Madam President! When aviation and critical infrastructure in several EU countries have been disrupted by unidentified drones and cyberattacks, it shows one thing for me: The EU and my own country, Denmark, are not ready to face the real threats we face. There are several reasons for this. One of them is that the focus has been more on competitiveness and deregulation and blind armament than on solving the real problems. Indeed, Europe is currently facing three major threats, all of which are attacking our security. It is the climate crisis, it is growing social inequality and poverty that undermine our cohesion, and then it is threats and hybrid attacks from foreign powers. And if we are honest, it means last and not least the threat from Russia, but also the United States, which of course threatens Denmark and Greenland. And here it is important to be clear. The so-called drone wall may sound smart, but it is hardly the solution. We can see how drones can come from anywhere and do not respect walls or borders. The solution is also not to buy more expensive American fighter jets and missiles. Instead, we need stronger civil defence, stronger air defence and the protection of our critical infrastructure, and to stop once and for all the shadow fleet that is most likely used to launch some of the drones that have caused us so many problems.

Madam President! Dear President of the Commission, You have some skilled speech writers, but how I wish that there had been just half as much effort to ensure a concrete content behind the nice words. For the State of the Union – what you were supposed to talk about today – it has a lot of things to change. And no matter how much you wish, good words are not enough! Floods do not solve the climate crisis or bypass the coal-black politics you and the right are increasingly fighting for. Nor do they do anything for the millions of Europeans at risk of poverty, those who cannot afford food or medicine for them or their children. Similarly, it is hard to imagine that the thugs who plague the world at the moment, whether we are talking about Putin, Trump or Netanyahu, are deterred by words. We are facing major challenges. Why do you keep not acting on it?

Mr President! It has been several years since we really started talking about changing the EU's outdated public procurement rules. Back then, what we talked about most was that it was about ensuring fair conditions for wage earners, ensuring that public money goes to secure good jobs and support the green transition. Unfortunately, much of the debate and discussion this time around has come to be about how to make everything easier without looking at the conditions of wage-earners and the green transition. It is important that this does not happen, because we need a strong tool for the EU's 10,000 public entities so that they know clearly what requirements they can impose and how when they put things out to tender. They must be able to empower companies, including many SMEs, that comply with laws and enter into collective agreements, and ensure fair working conditions. It must be possible to exclude fraudsters and companies hiding in tax havens from bidding for public tasks. And that's what's going to drive my vote tomorrow.

Madam President! It was with great pleasure that I read that in June Siarhei Tsikhanovsky and 13 other political refugees were released in Belarus, freed from sentences they should never have had. Released to a society still oppressed with iron hands by the dictator Lukashenka. The 14 were released, but there are still more than 1100 political prisoners in Belarusian prisons. People who should never have been behind bars. That is why we must also be clear in our message to the Lukashenka regime. All political prisoners must be released and respect for democracy, freedom of expression, the right to join a trade union and also for the rights that one has as a worker must be introduced. Before that happens, the EU should not even consider relaxing measures against the dictatorial regime in Belarus. Believing that Lukashenka would respect democracy is like believing that Putin or Netanyahu respects international law.

Madam President! When I hear the Commission talking about chemistry policy, I do not know whether it is the anger or the frustration that dominates me. At least that is what I am hearing, and what is becoming increasingly clear is that the concern for people and the environment for health and nature is not just slipping into the background, but disappearing. Instead, the mantra is that it should be made easier for companies. And that is probably also why we are still waiting for the REACH reform that should have come years ago, which was then about protecting people and the environment better, but which is now about making it easier to run a chemical business. And that is probably also why we have not seen the EU take proper action against things like PFAS, despite the fact that we have been discussing it for decades. It is the opposite of due diligence, it is pure irresponsibility. This means that future generations will have to pay the price for our failures. And the longer we wait to trade, the higher that price will be. It's just everything, too bad.

Madam President! It might be tempting to give an election speech targeted at the Danes, but I will actually focus on the programme presented by the Danish Presidency. There is plenty to criticize: it's too little, it's too bad, and there's too much copy/paste. I think that is the best description of the priorities. If you look at the priorities that have emerged, this is an uncritical Commission, as the Conservative President of the European Commission has already said. I understand the EPP's enthusiasm. But where are the real ambitions to tackle the climate crisis? Where is the targeted action against cross-border social dumping that we see time and time again? Where is the response for the weakest and most vulnerable in Europe? Where is the real effort against PFAS and the chemistry that pollutes both humans, animals and the environment? And perhaps not least, why can't we speak out clearly and unambiguously to Donald Trump in the United States? Why should we continue to depend on the United States? And can you answer me why respect for international law is not at the heart of the Danish EU Presidency? Because yes, the EU must support Ukraine, the EU must say clearly to the dictator Putin, so far we are 100% in agreement. But shouldn't we do the same to the war criminal Netanyahu, who rules Israel? Shouldn't we do that to Saudi Arabia, Qatar or other dictatorships that oppress the people? It is now – to put it in good North Jutland – disappointing. The good news is that it is still possible to rectify the lack of ambition. The bad thing is that I doubt that you will, but if you will, we in the Left Group would like to help you. And as you know, Mette, you can always count on me and us when you do the right thing. It's only when you do the wrong thing that it goes wrong. Now get into the game! In the Left Group, we believe that both Denmark and the EU deserve better than this.

Mr President! It should be so good. We needed an agreement that ensured good jobs and workers' rights, and that European industry could strengthen its competitiveness by leading the green transition. To be honest, we have to say that's not what we've got. It sets out a policy which is more impure than it is pure, and it is also an agreement which is by no means a good agreement for the millions of workers who are actually affected by it. So to avoid false marketing, it should be renamed what it is; an impure proclamation of an outdated policy at the expense of people and the environment. I can only say that I and the Left Group are voting 'no', and we all think we should do that too, because Europe needs something more than an agreement that does not live up to its name and that harms people and the environment.

Madam President! Unfortunately, there is nothing new or surprising in the extreme right supporting genocide. However, I would still like to be disappointed that it does not receive a clear response from the EU leadership. Why is it that we are watching quietly while innocent children in Gaza are paying the price? And when I say it that way, it is because, in reality, the European Union has not put any pressure on Israel. It's not that you can't come up with methods. Yesterday we saw how the Commission proposed a stop to Russian gas, so that one could escape the veto of individual countries. This can also be done in relation to Israel, if you want, and so I have to ask, 'Why is it that the EU will do nothing to stop the genocide in Gaza?' How many more innocent people have to die before the EU wakes up?

Madam President! As we sit here, innocent Palestinians die and Palestinians are displaced from Gaza and the West Bank. Not because of a natural disaster, but because of the deliberate actions of the Israeli government. We are talking about population displacement, we are talking about genocide, and while this is happening, what is the EU doing? Yeah, we'll talk, and we'll check. It's just not going to work! When we look at the Netanyahu regime’s lack of respect for international law – let alone human life – we need to act. And we know what to do: We must stop selling arms to Israel. We must suspend the EU's association agreement with Israel. It cannot take many seconds to find out that Israel is not complying with the agreement as it is now. We must impose sanctions on those responsible. If the war crimes, the persecution, the killings we are seeing now are not enough for us to act, what will it take?

Madam President! It should be clear that Greenland's future must be determined by the Greenlanders themselves. Not by Denmark, not by the United States, not by anyone else. The colonial period is – or at least should be – over. This is something I think is important to say today. Especially when we see Trump threatening to take over Greenland, regardless of what the citizens themselves think. He threatens both economic pressure and military power to take over an entire people, and therefore we must do what we do in Danish: We have to call a spade a spade! Donald Trump and his entire regime of accomplices are a threat, a threat to our economy. They are a threat to the climate and they are a threat to the international legal order. In this situation, it is absolutely necessary that the EU clearly rejects the threats coming from Trump and demonstrates its willingness to engage in binding cooperation with Greenland under the conditions set by Greenland. Words are not enough to take action.

Mr President! Here we are again. Once again, we are seeing an attempt to water down necessary climate legislation. This will penalise companies that have invested in electric cars and weaken confidence in EU policy. If you constantly dilute and postpone the green initiatives, why should you invest in meeting the requirements? But even worse, we are once again trying to rush it through without the possibility of a proper debate or scrutiny. That's too bad! We are talking about EU legislation that a majority in the European Parliament as well as EU countries agreed on as late as 2023. I know that right now there is a competition going on about how quickly we can run away from our own promises that the EU must lead the green transition. But we do not need others to participate in that race to the bottom. So, ladies and gentlemen, say no to watering down our already tenuous climate legislation and say no to rushing through something so important.

Madam President! As one of the negotiators on the issue of energy-intensive industries, I must admit that I am disappointed and the disappointment has not diminished after listening to today's debate. To quote an old Danish song: It's supposed to be so good, and it's actually bad. We could have used this work and this debate to look ahead and put real, fair and ambitious green transition above cheap populist right-wing speeches. We could have done what was done in my hometown of Aalborg, where today we can see that the vast majority of industrial jobs are part of the green transition. So it is the green transition that creates employment. But no, instead, we insist on using outdated solutions, questionable solutions, and it's really hard to talk about the industrial workers who are at the forefront of the green transition and the needs and interests they have. What we see in what has been presented is a continued focus on outdated technology and forms of energy and without visions for change. The focus is on nuclear power, CO2 storage and continued use of gas instead of electrification, new well-known technologies and renewable energy. And if we continue along the path outlined here, which the right wing will make even worse, it will damage our competitiveness, our security of supply and the workers of the European Union - and then the proposal does not envisage the democratisation of the energy sector that we know is needed. This is simply too short-sighted. So I just want to say that it should be so good. We can do better.

Madam President! When I read the Commission's Clean Industrial Deal, I was both happy and sad. After all, the 2040 target was not rolled back. Sadly, because we are still focusing on outdated forms of energy such as nuclear power and gas. It is a pity that the real problems behind high electricity prices in Europe are not being tackled. Sad, because the Commission's deregulation agenda clearly stands in the way of the real green and social changes we need. And then I have to admit that I'm left behind and most of all angry and frustrated. For the fact that it did not become as bad as feared is probably not enough for us to rejoice. Europe needs what the Commission is not proposing: real climate action, green and climate-friendly policy and a socially just transition that can improve Europe’s competitiveness. So I think the proposal needs a revision. I need to get it back to the drawing board.

Mr. President! In Turkey, elected officials are being dismissed and arrested again. Erdogan would rather hide his own skin than help his own people and give them democratic rights. Anyone who dares to think freely or criticize him, he sees as enemies - it's from those who fought Islamic State, like the Kurds in Syria, to school teachers, mayors - everyone is called terrorists or separatists. As long as he has access to the European market and our financial support, he will continue to do so. Ladies and gentlemen, we shall soon have Erdogan for debate every second time we are here. Now it has to stop. His actions must have clear consequences on the part of the European Union. We treat him as what he is. A petty autocracy with a fragile ego. We must impose travel bans and targeted sanctions on him and his lackeys. Erdogan is the enemy of democracy. Let's say it loud and clear.

It is true that energy prices in the countries of the European Union are far too high, and we need to do something about that. However, we do not do this by maintaining dependence on coal and oil and gas. We do this by stepping up our efforts to ensure the green transition and more affordable renewable energy. That's the first thing I want to say. The second thing I want to say is that the fact that energy prices are higher in the European Union does not change the fact that the reality is that it is the United States that has problems with its competitiveness vis-à-vis the European Union. That's why some of your friends, Trump, are going to impose a series of customs duties on European goods.

Mr President! Firstly, the EU does not have a poor competitiveness vis-à-vis the United States. On the contrary. It is the United States that will impose tariffs, and therefore there is no reason whatsoever to imitate the United States. Secondly, the competitiveness compass of the European Commission will certainly lead us in the wrong direction. It calls for a comprehensive deregulation that reduces the protection of people, nature, the environment and the climate. And that is probably also why the European trade union movement and the European climate, environmental and nature organisations are protesting. But we can also listen to economists and companies who say that the way to improve competitiveness does not lead to better competitiveness, deregulation does not lead to better competitiveness. Rolling back agreed progress means uncertainty that is detrimental to the company's ability to plan, and it means slowing down investment in innovation and development to the detriment of the competitiveness of companies. And instead, we're going to have a race to the bottom that's really hurting all of us.

Mr President! Belarus's despotic leader, Alexander Lukashenko, is preparing on Sunday to once again steal an election. For about 30 years he has been harshly governing Belarus, and although there have been several elections, no one has been free or fair, and on Sunday it will be a repeat. We saw in 2020 how opposition, civil society and the press - all who dared to oppose him - risk ending up as political prisoners. It is therefore important that we support the opposition in Belarus. It is about supporting those who fight for workers' rights, those who fight for free trade unions. These are things that are massively suppressed. It is also about women's and LGBT+ rights, which are being suppressed, as they do everywhere the extreme right holds power. It is also important to support this fight. We must grant asylum to those deserters who come from Belarus because they fear becoming part of Russia's war against Ukraine. In short. We've said a lot of things. Now is the time for action.

Mr President! In the Baltic Sea, we are now witnessing an increasing number of badly concealed acts of sabotage against our underwater infrastructure. Acts of sabotage, all indications of which are carried out by Russia's shadow fleet. We must respond to this, and I cannot help but ask: When do we start taking this seriously and dropping the velvet gloves? When do we do what we have repeatedly called for: Puts a lot of pressure on the flag states that Russia uses and uses all the possibilities we actually have to limit the shadow fleet. For every day the shadow fleet sails, it adds large sums of money to Putin's war machine. Money that goes to death, destruction and oppression. And every day it puts both the environment and infrastructure at risk. When is that enough? We shouldn't bow our necks to Trump or Putin. Now let's say stop and let's do it effectively.

Madam President! What do we do when the world's most powerful man threatens an EU country with economic pressure because he wants to annex a country and its people? What do we do when the same man says he won't refuse to use military means? And what do we do when the leader of the world's most powerful country thinks that you can seriously buy or sell an entire country and its people? When you look at the official reaction of the European Union, when you look at what the Commission and the Council of Ministers are saying today, nothing. There are countries like France and Germany that have backed up, but the EU seems to be silent, and that is what we see here in the European Parliament. There is no desire to mention Trump's threats against Denmark and Greenland in the paper for the debate today. No willingness to adopt anything that sends a clear signal. So I'd like to ask you all this question. Do you think silence is the way forward? Wouldn't it be better to have a strong consensus on defending the Greenlanders' right to decide their own future? And would it not be better if we both said clearly against the United States, but also said that we were prepared to make the necessary agreements with Greenland, which means that the Greenlanders themselves will have much better opportunities to determine their own future.

Mr President! The right to strike and the right to collective bargaining are essential fundamental freedoms in the labour market. Unfortunately, they are threatened by reactionary forces from the far right in Europe. They are also threatened by wealthy people like Musk and Bezos, who want to do business in the EU but do not want to play by the rules that apply here. That's why I want to praise the brave Swedish workers who stand up to the world's richest man, Tesla's owner, who hates trade unions. And Amazon workers strike again and again. As politicians, we must learn from their courage and remember that we can do something to help them. We can guarantee their right to strike and to collective bargaining. And we can ensure that public procurement money only goes to those who treat their employees well. As they say in English; No to exploitation, yes to unionisation.