Debate contributions by Henrik DAHL

Mr President! As a Danish politician, it is a special experience to stand here in the European Parliament and discuss migration. It feels like a journey to the nineteenth century. For many years, Denmark has been the subject of harsh criticism for having a realistic approach to migration, but today, fortunately, more and more countries are moving in the same direction as us. This is because migration is the most explosive issue in European politics. That is why voters are turning their backs on the old power parties. That is why we are moving towards a new world order. There will always be details to discuss, but the broad lines of a migration policy should be clear. You are welcome at the EU's external border if you have your papers in order. If you don't, you have nothing to do here. You are welcome to apply for asylum if you are politically persecuted. However, an asylum application should never in itself be enough to be admitted into the EU. If you commit a crime and are expelled by a judge, you must actually travel to the country of which you are a national. This is not something that activist judges, far from the responsibility of the electorate, have to reverse. These are the principles that Denmark has insisted on. Often with strong resistance. But that's why we have no right-wing extremism in Denmark. They are no longer controversial. They are becoming necessary. That is why I call on the European Union to make them its main principles.

Mr President! Thank you for the word. I think I speak on behalf of almost all Danes when I say that we are deeply grateful for the support that these days comes from the European Parliament and from the EU institutions in defending the sovereignty of Greenland and Denmark. So let me be clear: Thank you from the heart to everyone who supports Denmark and Greenland in a difficult time. It is a matter of far more than two small countries' sovereignty over - and here we might as well be honest - the demands of a superpower. It is about the principles of cooperation and mutual respect between states that Europe has learned the need for at a very high price. As early as 1795, Immanuel Kant described the principles, but it took two world wars before Europe really understood that Kant was right. Lasting peace requires cooperation and respect, not power politics. The challenge we face today is that a majority of voters in the United States have elected a government that is not satisfied with the world order that emerged after 1945. The Americans have the right to do so, but Europe has the same right to refuse to impose on its own continent a legal order that we do not want. It takes resources, but first and foremost it takes will to stand firm on the principles we believe in. Therefore, when you support Greenland and Denmark today, you also support yourself. Experience has taught us that alternatives to Kant's principles always end in tragedy. It is not easy to choose the principled path, but history shows that the easy solutions in the short term always become the most expensive in the long term.

Madam President! It is only good that we in the European Parliament are now putting action behind the words and starting the work of removing unnecessary bureaucracy and strengthening competitiveness. We all agree that this is the way to a stronger Europe. That is why it is crucial that the good intentions not only continue to talk, but that we also succeed in creating better conditions in real life for our businesses and citizens in all Member States. For too long, the EU has been stifling them with unnecessary rules and bureaucracy that harm more than it benefits. De-bureaucratisation is growth, jobs and a stronger EU. That is why our report had a clear objective. We wanted to set an ambitious European agenda on how to create better and simpler regulation, because it is the most important means of strengthening the single market and reducing the many burdens on business. Unfortunately, it was clear early in the negotiations that not everyone in the European Parliament is willing to do what it takes to put action behind the words. Negotiations, to be diplomatic, have been difficult. In particular, S&D has blocked us from making an ambitious agreement. They have not only crossed the line when it comes to concrete proposals. They have even objected to the explicit use by the European Parliament of what they seem to perceive as blatant terms such as simplification and omnibus. Thin coffee is of course also coffee, which is why we accept that S&D has forced the working group to offer the European Parliament a rather thin cup of coffee today. But when the statistics for the slack numbers with growth come out, everyone should send a friendly thought in the direction of S&D. Always full of suggestions for more public spending. Never take any action that boosts profits. But we must not stop here, ladies and gentlemen, we must continue the fight for smarter rules, less bureaucracy and a more competitive Europe.

Madam President! Ladies and gentlemen! Dear Prime Minister! Welcome to the European Parliament and Strasbourg and thank you for a good and important speech. We don't need experiments. We need the unification of our common values, freedom, reason and popular rule. And I think the priorities of the Danish Presidency reflect exactly the seriousness and responsibility that is needed. The Danish Prime Minister is known for being able to say things clearly when the situation and seriousness demands it. And I hope our Prime Minister will use that ability in a crucial matter: Ukraine. The truth is that Europe has failed Ukraine in the past. In 2008, Germany and France refused to offer Ukraine a way into NATO for the sake of Russia. This has had major consequences. Today, Europe is backing Ukraine in words, but action is still lacking. In Denmark, we support about 2% of GDP. Germany, France, Italy and Spain give much less. If everyone supported like Denmark, Ukraine would have won over Russia a long time ago. I therefore call on the Prime Minister to speak clearly with those countries that have not yet understood the seriousness.

Madam President! Dear High Representative, ladies and gentlemen. The rules-based international order cannot be opposed when elected to the European Parliament. For the EU is the epitome of what should be understood by the rules-based international order. But it is also necessary to approach the concept of critical reflection. Is it possible to be a member of the WTO without complying with the rules? China is living proof of that. Can you be a member of the UN Security Council without representing the UN Charter? Russia is living proof of that. Can you be a member of the UN Human Rights Council without respecting human rights yourself? Yes, there are a large number of regimes in the Middle East that are wandering evidence of this, and all those examples show one thing: We must be careful not to think that most of the world is spun into a rules-based world order, because without enforcement and thus without consequences when you violate the rules, the concept of the rules-based world order quickly comes to resemble an ideology. It is something we profess, more than it is a reality that has consequences in the real world. Let me give you another example: If any country in the world that was not a member of NATO threatened to violate Denmark's sovereignty, Denmark would first activate NATO's Article 4. If it came as far as an actual violation, Denmark would activate NATO's Article 5. We cannot do so well if it is the United States that threatens to violate Denmark's sovereignty, because it is also the United States that is the guarantor of NATO's Article 5. A controversial but true dictum is that the sovereign is the master of the state of emergency. And I'm afraid that's true. We have a rules-based world order until the moment when the strongest party decides that we do not.

I come from a country that is at full speed on the green transition, where we have good minimum wages, where we have good social systems, maternity, for example. This indicates that in the country I come from, we have done our own homework. That is not the task of the European Union. It is political homework that must be done in the national parliaments, and that is what I am trying to say, thank you.

Mr President! Ladies and gentlemen! Across Europe, the EU is facing criticism from a growing right wing. A right wing that has chosen to align itself with Putin's views in many cases and sees the EU as an institution that steals national competences. But the hard right is all too often created by the middle parties, either because they do too little as in the immigration field, or because they do too much as in the social field, among other things. Many voters feel that the EU has exceeded its powers, and not infrequently so, unfortunately, it is something I agree with. Let me give some examples: EU maternity legislation, time registration legislation and minimum wage legislation. All the things I have mentioned, they contribute to creating a bourgeois/centre-right Euroscepticism, because voters, among other things myself, believe that these are some measures that should not be adopted here in the Chamber. Why should the EU interfere in how maternity leave is organised, how time registration is done in companies and what exactly is to be earned per hour? We must recognise that such sensitive legislation must be adopted as close to the citizen as possible. The EU has plenty to deal with with international conflicts and problems, rather than interfering in how, for example, each family distributes its maternity leave. This makes no one happy for the European Union, and I believe that it increases the bourgeois resistance to the European Union, which we absolutely do not need.

Mr President! Hybrid war is not a future phenomenon, a risk we can talk about, it is a reality. Every day we are subjected to hybrid attacks of various kinds: Russian aircraft in our airspace, GPS signals jammed, or sabotage of our critical infrastructure such as cables in the Baltic Sea. But the hybrid war has also shifted to our phones. Russia and China systematically spread misinformation online with the aim of creating divisions among the Western population. A divided West is not a threat to a united enemy. On the left, they will probably propose new big legislative packages to prevent and stop disinformation with more rules and more state. But here, I think, you have to put cold water in the blood. During the last mandate, a large amount of new legislation was adopted precisely against disinformation. Here I would call for the old rules to be given a chance first, instead of coming up with completely new rules. Because you have a hammer, your problems don't necessarily turn into nails, and because you can make new rules, you may not have to.

Mr. President. Chinese online platforms such as Temu and Sheen are pushing the European market with products that are, firstly, vertically illegal and, secondly, dangerous. Firstly, these products pose a risk to consumers, but they are also a direct threat to the internal market. Temu systematically undermines the rules we have built to protect European citizens. Those rules comply with European companies, unlike Temu. When Temu exploits regulatory loopholes, they gain an unfair competitive advantage, which they use to outperform European companies. The EU has created a robust set of rules for consumer safety, but without effective enforcement those rules are worthless. We must not tolerate Chinese platforms systematically breaking the rules and undermining European companies. It is therefore time to take up the fight against those who abuse the system, harm consumers and wage some kind of economic war against Europe. Europe must be strong, and that is why Europe must sanction Chinese companies that deliberately break the rules.