Speeches

Mr President, we know that climate change worsens the biodiversity threat, and we have the Kunming Biodiversity Framework to actually prevent the loss of biodiversity. So these two factors need to be fed into CITES in the future, in a science-based approach when judging the species. And I hope you could go in front of this. My second point is the better enforcement that the Council and the Commission already highlighted. This needs more resources. This really needs resources also under the upcoming MFF, and we need special targeted resources for online crime, better engagement of OLAF on an EU base to search the cases, also when it comes to transit. Last but not least, on traceability: trophy hunting is one dangerous factor in wildlife crime. It catches in the wild the breed. So I just appeal to the Commission to put in force the ban on trophy hunting and any trophies to be transited through the EU or to be taken to the EU. The EU needs to lead in ambition.

Mr President, ten per cent of women of childbearing age suffer from endometriosis, a very painful and everyday life-threatening lifelong condition. It is also a major cause of infertility. It's under-examined, under-diagnosed, and under-treated. I hope that this debate will indeed serve as a wake-up call to what kind of gender health gap we have. Women go to the doctor more often, are more half-fit and become less well-treated because their symptoms or illnesses are not so well understood. Men, on the other hand, often go to the doctor too late and too little, and the result is just as bad, naturally for them. So it is not a question of who is being treated, we must treat both men and women, European people, well. I therefore hope that this will serve as an alarm clock for the Commission and that the Commission will then also prepare an entire women's health programme, which will draw attention to the need for further research into the various diseases, treatments, diagnostics, training of doctors and raising public awareness, as well as research into medicinal products, in which women are clearly under-represented. These problems will not be solved by the Member States alone. We need a common European will, and I believe that the Commission will also find this.

Mr President, the Hungarian Pride marchers rose up to defend the rule of law, law and order, and human rights. They defended not only the rights of sexual minorities, but the rights of all minorities, women's rights and human rights. This is important to remember at a time when these values are historically under threat. We must all stand up and demand the implementation of these basic principles. I hope that the Commission, together with the Member States, will ensure that the rule of law and total non-discrimination in the form of an anti-discrimination directive are finally put into effect.

Prime Minister, you said that we need a Europe that has the capacity to act and not just to react. All the luck and courage to move forward with that goal in the Council, because that is what we need at the moment. Europe will never be surprised again. We need a Union of readiness based on a broad concept of security – whether it is about fighting pandemics, the adequacy of medicines, the sufficiency and quality of food, the adequate fight against climate change that is falling into our arms and raising the level of ambition, or whether it is about preparedness for military insecurity or other types of attacks around us. We need a broad concept of security which, as you said, also takes social security into account. Because, with the erosion of democracy and the rise of extremism, our capacity to act is also paralysed, and it can actually be the worst threat that could happen to us. We must have the ability to turn problems into challenges and challenges into opportunities, and that is what the Investment Union is all about: how we transform our economy and industry into green, competitive, ICT-enabled and sustainable in the long term, socially and economically productive. And this is what we have the ability to do in Europe, the best we can globally. Let's grab it with two hands. Moving the money towards efficient competitive production, increasing national wealth and taking care of Europe.

Mr President, we were just talking here about the catastrophic climate change that is falling into our arms and the need to react to it. Most of it comes as a result of economic activity. During the last session, we talked about human rights, mistreatment of workers and women's rights, especially in clothing factories, for example. Most of it is solved in economic activity. An increasing number of European companies want to be responsible and are responsible. But the longer our supply chains are and the more complex different products are transported into our everyday consumption processes, the more difficult it is to transparently see what these impacts are and whether sustainable solutions have been built for animals, people, the environment and the future as a whole. That is why I ask and wonder very much about the Council's position. Why do we not want to support those companies that are responsible? Why don't we give them a chance to tell us about good work? Why do we not make public procurement a priority? Why do we not give them priority in consumer choice? What is so difficult about it that the Council has not been able to adopt the already stripped-down and compromised directive on corporate responsibility? I would like to say "shame on you". I know that the Belgian Presidency has tried its best, so the accusation is not against it, but against the whole Council and the Member States for this behaviour. And I hope this will change.

Mr President, first of all, I would like to thank you and congratulate the Commission for this excellent activity. Poverty is, of course, exclusion from adequate financial resources, but it is much, much more. It is exclusion from education, it is exclusion from proper work, it is exclusion from necessary healthy diets, from health care, and it is exclusion from our societies and decision making. Combating poverty is extremely important, because poverty – understood in the larger context – is a violation against human rights. So yes, we do have a moral duty to work to implement the SDGs and to fight against poverty. But we do have a self-interest to do that also, because we cannot sustain civilised civilisation with increasing poverty and separation between different groups of people. We cannot solve environmental problems and we cannot implement Green Deal. We cannot build our societies with all the full intellectual capacity and the work capacity, what the people would have. Just to put it very boldly: we cannot build our human world and we cannot solve any of our problems without tackling poverty. And as you, Commissioner, said, yes, we do have the money, we hopefully do have the will and we do have the means and equal proportional taxation global wide and combating tax evasion is an important part of that. Let me conclude by saying, as it states in the UN building, ‘We do have the resources for everybody’s needs, but not even for single person’s greed’.

Mr President, there is no peace without human rights. There is no rule of law without human rights. And there is no justice and justice system without human rights. There is not economic prosperity, development or well-being of the people. So this is the reason why we need to be worried about the fact how the situation of human rights have lately deteriorated all over the world and yes, indeed, here in the European Union as well. So this is the time when we need to unite and responsibly act on law-based solutions to enforce human rights. What they can be –just to pick up a couple of examples as wishes for the Commission – one is the humanitarian visas, what Heidi Hautala was mentioning. Another one is due diligence regulations for companies. And the third one is – that I hope that the Commission will start exploring – when ecocide constitutes a genocide and is a crime against humanity and how this is breaching human right for the clean environment and by that matter, environmental rights are part of human rights.

–Mr President, I am just wondering how history will see us and how history will judge us with this Gaza crisis. The EU is losing very fast its moral grounds and moral leadership in the global scene. So we are just justifying a genocide in front of us. We justify war crimes because even the war has the rules how to act. We justify an Israeli invasion for a long time before this crisis. How could we close our eyes? And with the UNRWA, as said, there have been claims, but all people and organisations are innocent as long as not proven different. And none of these claims so far has been proven to be right. Then what about if we would talk about Ukraine and Russia like we talk with the Palestinian-Israeli war and crisis? How would that sound? And, dear colleagues, Commission, how would it sound if we would start talking about the Palestinian crisis like the Ukrainian war?

Mr President, (start of speech off mic) ... This is a very important part of the legislation what we are dealing with – because the environmental crime is the fourth biggest crime and among the most profitable ones. It is ruthless. It is not caring about people or the environment, and it is cross-border. So this is the first time we have a proper set of regulation that actually deals with those countries that have been safe havens for the perpetrators. We need a set of coherent rules and procedures in the EU. We need better police, more resources and competence on prosecution and on the courts, and last but not least, we need to set the criteria of ecocide as a part of environmental crimes.

Mr President, first of all I would like to thank the Commission for putting this proposal forward. But I would have hoped, as we can hear from the ENVI comments, that the ambition level would have been higher, knowing that a major load of the chemicals, both hazardous for the environment and hazardous for human health, are a big part of detergents and surfactants. So I hope that this review will come soon. The good part of this regulation is the possibility for bio-based products, which we actually know are much more effective, also to combat antimicrobial resistance in hospitals. So this would be the way we should proceed, and in the long run ban all harmful substances and toxic substances, as well as phosphates, in detergents.

Madam President, I could actually start with the same words as I did with the hate speech. The hate against the Muslim and Jewish minorities. The targets for the next UN Women Conference here, too. So, it is the bigger issue with the totalitarianism and negative developments in our societies in the EU that I think that we should tackle really seriously. And then what are the tools? Of course, the tools are very much in all the groups the same. It is zero tolerance for any kind of hate speech, legally binding rules – both in digital media and in real life – for this boiling effect of insulting people because of their backgrounds. We need to back up the people, the diversity and stop the hate speech as long as we can. The next steps are two things. First of all – I am campaigning and very great supporter – we really would need to ban conversion therapies in Europe. They are against human rights, they are against dignity and they are against everything that we know about medicine and the good physical care of people. We would need to have better compulsory education about the issue and we would need to have special social and medical streams and services for LGBTIQ people. They are getting older, they need their own elderly people’s care, their own medical care centres and issues like that.

Mr President, globally, we have three priorities at the moment in gender and women’s rights. Firstly, we have had very good progress, but backlash through the growing populism and totalitarianism is threatening women’s rights. It’s increasing hate speech, it’s increasing attitudes limiting women’s personal rights, democratic rights, sexual and reproductive rights, and their rights in the work life. So the whole set of strengthening legally and globally and in all Member States, the right-based approach is the first priority and zero tolerance of hatred towards the gender of women in any forms. Second priority is, of course, the integration of women and gender aspects in all parts of the policies. And this, again, is this old-fashioned discussion about quotas – quotas in business life, quotas in public life and quotas in decision-making. And this is something that I hope that the EU could step up in the global sphere in its talks. And last but not least is, of course, the poverty issue. Issues like pay transparency can work when we are actually dealing with the fact that women are not either getting the same salary for the same work, not to talk about for the same value of the work. And by tackling the pay transparencies, we can tackle the poverty in one part and with the social security on the other part.

Mr President, I hope we have learned enough from the experience of the Second World War that our morals are strong enough and our systems strong enough to combat hate speech and ensure zero tolerance for hate speech that either hides behind different religious ideas, abuses them, or uses ethnic or other backgrounds of groups of people as grounds for hatred and discrimination. In this respect, we are on the slow-moving path of right-wing extremism, nationalism and, in many respects, totalitarianism. This is the famous eleventh moment when, as a community, whatever our political or national background, we must awaken and rise above this and stand up for humanity, democracy, the fundamental values of the EU and a viable life in the future. I would therefore like to conclude by thanking the Commissioner for his very good speech and for his determination in dealing with these issues.

Mr President, human rights and fundamental rights now need, perhaps more than for many decades, a defender within the European Union, as can be deduced from some of the speeches that have been made here. Human rights and fundamental rights are the cornerstone of the EU Treaties and of all EU action, the hard lesson we learned after the Second World War. They are the central, if not the central, principle of the rule of law and, in order to implement it, we need stronger powers, competences for both the Commission and, after all, a broader understanding of human and fundamental rights, both in terms of women's rights and in terms of social and economic rights. I hope that together we can move in this direction. We must behave in a civilised manner if we want civilisation, which includes human and fundamental rights.

Madam President, I wholeheartedly ask all of the Members of the European Parliament to vote in favour of this directive. It is the update of equality bodies legislation based on the new steps that we have in regulations concerning equality, like pay transparency. It is mostly technical, but the most important part is ensuring the independence of these actors from external influence. Without implementation, any good thoughts and regulations are just empty words. It is very saddening and telling that this is used as a weapon in false premises for populist policies because, for example, these audit structures do exist according to national legislation, and there was strong unity in both committees to support this change.

Mr President, violence against women remains the most widespread, under-reported and under-reported violence in the world. It is outrageous that in the 2020s we still have to fight for women to have full immunity and the right to a non-violent life in societies. It is outrageous that we have to debate this same issue within the European Union as well. As we are now ratifying the Istanbul Convention, which, through the directive, prohibits all violence against women, albeit in a rather limited form, it has been deeply confusing that we have had to confuse with the Council whether rape – the most typical form of violence against women – is included in this directive or not. I believe that this grievance deserves the attention of all European women and men and the realisation that it is not always the Member State that defends the interests of its citizens the most. Often this is the European Parliament and the Commission in their own actions. Women are people. That is why women also have rights and human rights, and women's rights are therefore part of human rights. This means that women have the right to freedom from physical violence, psychological violence, but also structural violence, such as the lack of services or the denial of sexual and reproductive health rights. The European Union must be the leading force in the lead teams for the complete elimination of violence against women, both internally and externally.

Mr President, I would like to thank both the Commission and the Council for their very clear and positive statements. At the Finnish border, the situation is calm and under control from the perspective of border control and human rights. We have had good cooperation with Europol, Frontex, the Commission and the Council, but it is not just the external border of Finland, but the longest external border of the EU with Russia. That is why we need a united, strong policy. We need more resources for Europol and Frontex. We need a clear framework and a legitimate mandate for hybrid influence. We need a new policy to stop the instrumentalisation of people. We need a common European intelligence service and a uniform policy on refugees and immigration. Hybrid influencing seeks to destroy Western values and the fundamental values of the EU. It is therefore essential that, while we take better and stronger care of our own borders, we take care of international agreements, human rights and the rule of law. Otherwise, we're as bad as the evildoers. This includes a genuine and effective opportunity to apply for asylum, international protection and either to receive it or to return it. This mechanism is used by Finland. So let's take care of our core values and take care of our borders. These are not contradictory, but mutually supportive tools.

Mr President, the European Union was set up to improve people's well-being, not to promote the interests of the Member States or powerful lobbyists. That is why we need stronger powers in the areas of health, welfare and social policy, and to ensure sufficient resources also in the areas of taxation and tax avoidance. This also means that we need to move to a normal decision-making system in all the major policy areas of the Union, and then also to normal qualified majority voting in the Council. This is also necessary because enlargement is impossible without reforming our decision-making system. Knowing how difficult this reform among Member States is, one option to consider could be that the necessary reforms are carried out within the Eurogroup on the basis of the principle that all those who wish to join it can join later.

Mr President, thank you to those who took the initiative and to the signatories for the strength with which public opinion is expressed. Turkistarhaus is unethical, making unnecessary and impractical luxury goods for Russian and Chinese citizens. It spreads diseases such as avian influenza, exploits food that could be further processed for human consumption, processes animals into sick and nauseous animals, causes pain and suffering throughout their short lives in a cage, and unethically and cruelly ends their lives. So it's time to move on. Hopefully, firstly, the Commission will ban fur farming, promote a ban on cage farming and also take forward the long-awaited animal welfare framework legislation, which is also included in the Commission's work programme. Tomorrow will be better, thanks to the activity of the citizens. Now it is our turn and our duty.

Mr President, first of all I would like to thank the Commission for the fact that this proposal on green bonds has been made and it is also particularly important that it is compatible with the taxonomy and then evolved in the same direction with the taxonomy. As far as the level of hope is concerned, of course, we should all have green public and private bonds, and not greenness as a special value, which is then rewarded. There may still be some political distance to this, but I believe that both the rapporteur and we in this House have this as a key objective. And by then, in exactly the same way that we treat climate and environmental risk as part of the risk of private investment, we must also treat distortive fossil subsidy money trends in public funding on a risk-based basis and reduce this funding and, in the longer term, put an end to it. But in the meantime, I wish the best success for green bonds. I hope that already in the next parliamentary term their level of ambition can be raised and also the systemic approach that takes into account all factors affecting the environment more broadly, especially biodiversity.

Mr President, first of all I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on an excellent report and on raising an important issue. The vast majority of public transport users, whether buses, railways, trams or other services, are women. The vast majority of short-distance walks are undertaken by women and, in fact, the vast majority of cyclists are still women. Most people who use a private car are men. You may also ask: which of these two options is more environmentally friendly, which is more conducive to human health and social justice? And that is why, both the committee and myself, have often called for: gender budgeting including gender impact assessments in budgeting. Together with the environmental and social impact assessment, it clearly shows that we should invest significantly more in public transport, where women are the majority of users, with the exception of air transport. We should also invest heavily in the European rail network so that we can stop flights of less than two hours. And we should correct the budget distortions that favour private car use, both through road investment and car subsidies. And yes, we also need more women to do this as decision-makers, designers, logistics professionals and community planners.

Madam President, Israel has broken its commitments on the United Nations. It has broken the international law, it has committed a severe long-term occupation and it has committed close to war crimes. And all this is fact, and it is stated by the United Nations authorities. So this is not a matter of opinion. What do you think it would look like if we would act in the same way with Ukraine and Russia in crisis, intensifying our cooperation with Russia, reminding about the corruption and other problems we probably can find in Ukraine and giving our financial resources to the Russians? We need to get rid of double standards. We need to act according to our principles, law and order, and we need to get these things straight.

... We all know that if we do not act both on the climate change, and especially on biodiversity, the cost is going to be at least tenfold to our economies and farmers. I am just asking: who should compensate and out of which money we are going to compensate the nature destruction?

Madam President, Commissioner, European Union treaties state that animals are ‘sentient beings’ and the duty of the European Union is to look after their welfare and to protect them. This obligation and the acknowledgment of ‘sentient beings’ are the guidelines we should have and bear in mind when we are treating animals as production animals for food products. We know that billions of male chickens and ducklings are being inhumanely slaughtered after birth every year throughout the EU by smashing them, by gasification or other equally brutal methodologies which we certainly wouldn’t approve for pigs or cows or, for that matter, cats or dogs if they happened to be the wrong sex. This is wrong. This is unethical. And this is a huge waste of protein. With quite marginal extra cost, we could already scan through the eggs and decide to consume the eggs of male chickens instead of destroying chicklets just after they are born. Or we could raise them and use them as an animal protein, being young chicklets. There is no reason why we would not stop this inhumane process. Madam President, this isn’t the only question. After we solve this one, we need to go back to the goats where almost the same procedure is in place. I hope that the Commission gives a due answer to this question: in what timeframe are you going to prohibit chick and duckling killing in the EU?

Mr President, saving the planet is not an easy task. We Scandinavians complain about biodiversity, saving our forests and using them sustainably. Farmers complain about changing our common agricultural policy to be biodiversity friendly and toxic-free. Now with the oceans it is the same complaint. But dear Commissioner, please do not stop trying to prevent our self-destructive behaviour. Because if no one does it, soon there is no forests, no fish in the sea. And that is the point when our economy is going to fall and we all know that. We are just like addicts, not willing to change our behaviour. And the last question is: seriously, do you think that this is going to work on a voluntary basis in cooperation with the Member States? What are the examples of the CITES biodiversity protection for over 40 years? Climate protection on voluntary basis by member states. We do need regulatory action I think, please brave up on this question as well.