Debate contributions by Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY

Mr President, High‑Commissioner, President Costa, dear colleagues, in 2016, we were taken by surprise by Trump's actions and we even smirked and laughed about his incompetence. 10 years on and we are taken by surprise again, and this time the smirking and laughing is happening on the other side of the Atlantic. While we struggle to respond to Trump's threats and attacks, the US scoffs at our inability to act. As the US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent yesterday formulated it, and I quote: 'my guess is Europe's next move will be to form a working group.' And the US is right to laugh at our weaknesses. Appeasement of Trump is clearly not working. Trump, like most authoritarian leaders, responds to strength. To be an equal partner, the EU needs to be stronger, more united. I very much appreciated the speeches of President Costa and President von der Leyen earlier today, but something important is missing, With today's EU, Bessent is right. We desperately need a more federal Europe to really stand up against other powers in this world. The current structure is insufficient and additional intergovernmental initiatives will not make Europe stronger. So, dear Member States, President Costa, walk the talk. Make Europe strong as most of you are advocating. Let it speak with one European voice, let it defend itself with one European army and let's get rid of national vetoes. This House showed the way in our 2023 resolution. Now it is up to the Council and the Commission to pick this up and to do so urgently. We cannot afford to wait. And if not all 27 Member States are on board, let's move on with 26, 25 or even 24 if necessary. We simply have no time to waste.

Madam President, Commissioner, Minister, dear colleagues, after the Munich Security Conference and the grilling of President Zelenskyy in the Oval Office, it is now with the publication of the National Security Strategy more than clear that Europe is on its own and should act accordingly, institutionally and economically and on security. And this week in Berlin, a selection of European leaders showed that unity and urgent action is needed, including the UK and Norway. But this now must be translated to the European Council. Let us start by supporting Ukraine with agreeing on the frozen Russian assets. This issue has been discussed on European Council level 15 times, at least, since the start of the war, and this European Council cannot come to an end without a final decision. And I ask you to assure us that you will not conclude the meeting without an agreement on a proper Ukraine reparation loan. And secondly, this unity and urgency should also be shown regarding our economic and societal strength. Europe is by far the best place in the world to live. Nowhere one can find our unique level of individual freedom, democracy, protection and well-being. Let us be proud and build upon it. Today's hostile world forces us to use our strength more rigorously, and a no-brainer is cutting rules and, no, the biggest problem are not European rules but national protective rules are the biggest barriers currently in place. The IMF and the European Investment Bank estimate the costs of these additional national rules are equivalent to 45 % tariffs on goods, and even more than 100 % on services. How can we stand up against China and the US and many others if we keep fighting each other? So put this prominently on the agenda of the European Council. Stop national protectionism within the EU and start working towards European strength.

Madam President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, this debate is not about climate policy. It is about the economy and about physical laws, because the electric motor converts 95 % of the energy to movement and the combustion engine only 30 %. That is why the future is electric. Its technology is simply superior in energy terms and in cost terms. So to save the European car industry, we have one single challenge: how to become competitive in the global electric car market. It is certainly not by spreading our investments between EV and hybrids and combustion engines, or on biofuels. Then we will really experience what slow agony looks like. When passenger cars replaced the horse and carriage, we did not invest in cars that could also be pulled by horses. No, we understood that the new technology was superior. So let's not fool ourselves: hybrids and biofuels are not making our industry more competitive. Only a full focus, private and public ...

Madam President, Mr Commissioner, dear colleagues, InvestEU is an example of the best the EU can do. Every euro that we allocate to InvestEU generates an additional EUR 15 of investment in key strategic priorities for the Union, and this investment omnibus is expected to generate over EUR 50 billion in additional public and private investments. When a programme is as successful as InvestEU, you should make it as easy as possible for small businesses to participate, and I am glad that we managed to cut back on unnecessary administrative burden while maintaining accountability. Taxpayers will be sure that their money is working in the most efficient way towards key objectives, such as transitioning to a cleaner economy, creating greener jobs and tackling the climate crisis. This is what citizens want, this is what citizens need and it is what the EU can provide.

Madam President, I refer to Rule 44: 'Access to documents and provision of information to Parliament', and it refers to Wednesday's vote on the deforestation regulation. When the European Commission came forward with its so-called IT problems on 23 September, I asked through the formal procedures for more information on these written questions, but also access to documents. So far I haven't got any reply from the Commission, although several deadlines have expired since then. If we take our work legislatively and democratically seriously, it is very difficult to vote on such an important legislative file without proper information. So I would like to ask you, Madam President, if you can demand from the Commission those documents well before the vote – I would say before tomorrow evening – in order to make a proper judgement here in this House.

Madam President, Commissioner, let me start by thanking President von der Leyen for her strong words on the necessity of decarbonising our economy – as she said, it is crucial for our competitiveness. But today, I would like to focus on Ukraine. Last month's European Council discussed the use of the frozen Russian assets for Ukraine, but, since that meeting, Russian troops have closed in on Pokrovsk and are taking it as we speak, bringing Russia one step closer to control over Donbas. Ukraine is losing ground while national leaders here bicker over who foots the bill. Belgium does not feel reassured if it releases the frozen assets, and I understand that, but it is crucial that our finance ministers solve this problem tomorrow. Ukraine needs money right now – direct financial aid is the cheapest and quickest way of stopping Putin. Let's face it, while we worry about legal consequences, Ukraine is worried about losing Donbas, losing its freedom. In addition to this, how is it possible that Russia keeps its economy running with our money? Why are we still allowing Russia to make a profit on third-country export, or by sending its shadow fleet across the globe? Ban the shadow fleet, sanction these third countries, give the frozen assets to Ukraine. It is our indecision, our inaction, our fear of legal repercussions that is keeping Russia in the war and Ukraine fighting for its survival.

Mr President, thank you, Commissioner, dear colleagues, tomorrow's vote on the 2040 climate target is one of the most important of this mandate, and rightly so, because climate change is one of the biggest threats to humanity. Already we are faced with unbearable heatwaves, droughts, forest fires and floods, and these events will only be more extreme and devastating in the years to come. But also for our economy, it is crucial to decarbonise. Why spend EUR 400 billion annually on the import of fossil fuels when we can produce our own clean energy for a fraction of that price? Why continue to use old fossil-based technology while our competitors develop better, cleaner and cheaper alternatives? Dear colleagues, tomorrow's vote is extremely important for Europe, but also for the world. The world needs an ambitious, active, leading EU. So, support this 2040 compromise and send Commissioner Hoekstra with a strong mandate to COP30.

Mr President, President Murphy, Commissioner, dear colleagues, this year's annual report is not just another audit document to tick off, it's a political compass, and it shows us how European taxpayers' money is being spent and, more importantly, whether it truly delivers value for our citizens. And this year, it carries even more weight because we are entering the negotiations for the next MFF. And the choices we make now will define Europe's priorities for the years to come. If there's one thing clear, it's that we cannot repeat the mistakes of the RRF, many colleagues already said that. Simply throwing money on the table without proper direction or safeguards is not strategy. Funding must be targeted, protected and aligned with our common goals. Our already tiny European budget is far too precious to become a blank cheque for our Member States.

Madam President, Madam Minister, Commissioner, colleagues, security, prosperity and climate action. The European Council agenda focuses on the big challenges facing Europe right now. Indeed, we cannot take chances with Putin, nor can we gamble with the living standards of future generations. Uncomfortable risks that need addressing. But there's just one 100 % risk here, and that's climate change. It's 100 % sure that it's coming for us and for our European way of life – not tomorrow, but today. Floods, heatwaves, droughts, crop failures, broken lives. Today, not tomorrow. Six years ago, President von der Leyen presented the Green Deal and a new model for growth and prosperity. A model to stop importing EUR 450 billion worth of fossil fuels each year. A model that chooses to buy European cars in the future instead of Chinese. A model that leads the world in clean technology. A model that needs, and I quote President von der Leyen, 'relentless focus and effort'. That is what we need from this week's European Council: relentless focus and effort at the single 100 % threat that we're facing – climate change. Strong leadership means looking ahead and leading people to a better future, having the courage to take difficult decisions – principles that too often yield to political convenience. Therefore I call upon our heads of state to do what scientists advise us to do: adopt ambitious climate policies, including the necessary social and industrial policies. But this House should also look at itself. As directly elected politicians with a clear mandate from Europeans who rely on us, we also have to show the necessary courage and responsibility. Our European citizens deserve it, our planet demands it and our economy needs it.

Madam President, colleagues, 2035 is ten years from now and we will be three US presidents further, and obviously we still have President von der Leyen sitting here. But if you look ten years forward, it is also very valuable to look ten years back as well. In 2015, the best selling electric vehicle was the European Renault Zoe with a range of 100 km. Today's EV world is incomparable to that of 2015, and the 2035 EV world will be equally incomparable to today's. President von der Leyen said in her State of the Union speech that 'the future is electric,' and I fully agree. The big question is: will this electric future be European or Chinese? I want it to be European – no, it needs to be European. Therefore the title of this debate should have been 'how do we make our electric future European'? What does the car industry need from us to make the transition successful, and what should they do themselves? In history, better technologies have always replaced the worse. Whether you like it or not. In the 18th century, the Luddites were convinced they could stop progress by destroying automated machinery in the textile industry. Obviously, they couldn't. Let us not be the 21st century Luddites trying to destroy the European car industry. Let us do what made Europe great: embrace new technology and develop it in such a way that we lead the world.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, today marks the pitch black day of 7 October 2023. A day that started sunny and cheerful, but ended with the death of 1,200 innocent Israelis. Since that day, it has been a war for two years, resulting in many tens of thousands, mostly innocent Palestinian deaths. While I endorse Israel's right to self-defense, Netanyahu's response is utterly disproportionate and illegitimate. Now there is a plan for peace. A plan with a lot of hooks and eyes. However, for the first time in two years, it gives a glimmer of hope. A glimmer of hope that the rain of bombs will stop. A glimmer of hope that the remaining hostages will finally be released. Europe has hardly been visibly involved, but must now insist that an agreement be concluded with the Palestinians and not only with the Palestinians. No peace can be achieved without the active participation of the Palestinians. Only then will there be a prospect of a two-state solution.

Madam President, dear Commissioners, dear colleagues, Europe is not condemned to weakness – far from it. Time and again, Europe has proven to be our best chance. When our people were trapped by a deadly pandemic, it was Europe that produced the vaccines that saved millions. When Russia invaded Ukraine, it was Europe that stood tall, united under the Ukrainian flag. And when the climate crisis threatened our children's future, it was Europe again that set the most ambitious green agenda in the world. And we can rise to these challenges, too. We have the engineers, the scientists, the soldiers, the farmers, the entrepreneurs. We have the ideas, the values, the creativity. What we lack is not capacity. What we need is confidence to act together. Imagine what this Union can be: a continent that runs on its own clean energy and builds technology others can only dream of; a Europe that speaks with one voice and fights with one army. It can be done if only our Member States could be less afraid to choose compromise over debilitating consensus, to choose unity over their own individual agendas. Yes, colleagues, we have a very crucial choice ahead of us and let's choose to unite. Let's follow President von der Leyen's speech for unity, as she called it. And to Mr Weber and Ms García Pérez, unity is not looking for differences. Our European citizens need a strong pro-European coalition. Let's take our responsibility and show that we can make Europe together.

Madam President, Mr Razza, I listened carefully to you, and I think we all agree that we have to fight forest fires. But something else is that we have the responsibility to avoid a further increase in forest fires, and one of the most important reasons for this increase is climate change. Whether you like it or not, it is there and it's causing the enormous increase in forest fires. What are you doing? You're a powerful man, because you're a Member of the European Parliament. You decide on climate policy. What do you do to help avoid further forest fires in Europe and the rest of the world?

Madam President, Madam Commissioner, obviously full support for your policy of preparedness Union. And it's obvious, like other colleagues have said, that we have to work closely together on these droughts and forest fires. And if you imagine that, even in April, in a country like the Netherlands, we already had forest fires – it says something. But let's face it, the best way to deal with these crises is to prevent them. It's climate change that causes droughts, forest fires and floods, and it's threatening our livelihoods, our food security and even our lives. So, colleagues, let's invest in climate mitigation, in the 90 % emission reduction in 2040 and in a sustainable agricultural system. Today we voted and we made EUR 280 million available to assist several Member States with the effects of the floods of the last couple of months. I hope that those parties who are voting against any climate change action have very, very deep pockets, because in a few years' time, we won't need EUR 280 million, we will need billions of euros; in 10-15 years' time, we will need tens of billions of euros. And I count on you to pay that check.

Madam President, dear colleagues, it is almost 10 years since the most successful diplomatic achievement against climate change: the Paris climate agreement. Finally, the world was going to jointly tackle the greatest threat to mankind: climate change. And the European Union played a crucial and decisive role in this success through diplomacy, by contributing to global climate funds but, above all, by leading by example. The ambitious targets the EU set for itself gave us the credibility to steer the world towards global climate action. This year's COP30 in Belém is a very crucial one for keeping up the hope of halting climate change. And the circumstances are difficult, with the exit of the United States. Therefore, it is as important as ever that the EU can play a leading role. To do so, we need the 2040 target in time, in time to again lead by example. The proposal to amend the European Climate Law was only tabled last week, which is very, very late, and to make the deadline, a swift adoption is necessary. At the same time, we need a proper democratic debate, and the only way to achieve that is by using the urgent procedure, according to Rule 170(5). This allows for debate, amendments and opinions, and votes at committee and plenary level, which I would call a proper democratic procedure. So I urge you to support this request. Your vote is incredibly important. And if you push the button, do not think of internal Parliament or even internal group politics. Think about the future victims of floods, droughts, forest fires and heatwaves. The world desperately needs a strong leading European Union in the fight against climate change. You, dear colleagues, can achieve that by voting in favour of this request.

Madam President, Mr Commissioner, dear colleagues, do we need an ambitious climate target in 2040 of at least 90 %? And the answer is clearly yes. And if you're not convinced, ask the relatives of the victims of the Valencia floods. Ask those farmers who are out of business because the crops do not grow any more on their dried-out land. Ask people who lost literally everything except their lives due to forest fires. Or ask Slovenia, where the floods of August 2023 alone already cost them roughly 10 % of GDP. 'Yes, but our economy', I hear colleagues on the right saying. Yes, what about the economy? Increased climate change might cost us up to 34 % of our economic output, while keeping the rise below two degrees will cost us just 1 to 2 % of global GDP. So tell me, what makes more sense economically? Fighting climate change is not a leftist ideological agenda. It's the harsh reality we're faced with. It's the harsh consequence of our own behaviour, and it's our responsibility to all the people represented in this House to save them from these consequences. So yes, it makes absolutely sense to set an ambitious 90 % target in 2040, but it's also important to do so in time – in time for the Paris Agreement process, in time for a strong EU position at the upcoming COP30. So, I urge the EPP to support the urgent procedure, because that is the only way to be in time in this House, partly due to the late proposal from the Commission, but please don't endanger the Paris Agreement process and vote in favour of the urgent procedure this week.

Mr President, High Representative, the people of Gaza are on the brink of starvation. Families are fleeing continuously to safe zones where they know they will not be safe. Starving families, desperate for food, are camping out near distribution points, hoping to get a food parcel. But instead of getting aid, they are facing gunfire from Israeli forces. The EU must finally recognise this situation and, in the very least, suspend the association agreement we have with Israel. Netanyahu has very effectively shifted the world's attention away from Gaza to Iran. Please do not fall into this trap. Please do not let Mr Netanyahu dictate the terms of our debate. The public opinion in Europe is shifting, and this is the moment for Council to step up and support in more than just words the people of Gaza. Please take action against these horrific, dehumanising crimes. And let us remember, colleagues, the words expressed by King Abdullah this morning: 'When the global response is silence, we normalise the suffering of the innocent'.

Mr President, the enormous importance of the oceans for both man and nature is now clear, thanks to science, and now also for the general public thanks to the beautiful film. Ocean by David Attenborough. But despite this insane importance, a lot goes wrong. Take the Baltic Sea, where we have dead zones, where huge amounts of pesticides, Russian chemicals, you name it, are entire areas where nothing lives at all. Townet fishing, which degrades the bottom – the nurseries of the sea. In the Netherlands, trawling is still permitted even in 70% of protected areas. I am pleased that the European Commission wants to put deep-sea mining on hold. I am very much in favour of this and I hope that we can continue to do so internationally. And finally: We all have to work together. Nature has given us a very beautiful gift, namely the ability to recover. Nowhere is the recovery capacity as great as in the oceans, so when we act, we see instantaneous effect.

Mr President, in a democracy, the right to grant discharge is one of the most powerful and important parliamentary instruments. It is the moment where, especially here in Europe, the only directly elected institute controls hundreds of billions of euros in expenses. And this very important parliamentary role asks also a very high level of responsibility and integrity of our own house. And exactly that was lacking this year. The totally unfounded attacks on green NGOs was really unworthy of our House. And in its answers to my written question, the European Commission very clearly stated that it did not instruct – nor require – NGOs to lobby members of this House, and even after receiving these answers, the right-wing parties in this House continued their attacks. So my appeal to them is, please stop with these unfounded attacks and bring responsibility and integrity back to this House.

Mr President, this week we will most probably vote in a large majority in favour of more flexibility for our European car industry to comply with the CO2 standards, and the Renew Group supports this amendment. However, this is not something to be cheerful about. It is a clear sign of the competitive weakness of our car industry. We all knew years ago that the future car would be electric – for technical reasons, for energy reasons, and for climate reasons. And although our industry tried to make this switch, it did so reluctantly. Our national governments were equally reluctant to develop the right policies to facilitate this historic and revolutionary transition. This flexibility does buy time for our industry. However, let it be a lesson for both industry and our governments: if we want to continue driving European cars in the future, we should step up our game. Industry should, by finally fully embracing the electric revolution and stopping undermining public policies; and government should, by facilitating the electric transition. This should be a joint public-private effort. And I call upon industry and the European Commission to work on that.

Mr President, it is fantastic news that an agreement has been reached in Rome. This is not only good news for the financing of nature, but also a victory for multilateralism in this age of polarization and nationalism. However, it does mean that we now have to take our own responsibility as the European Union, especially with regard to the low-hanging fruit around the financing of nature and biodiversity. To begin with, we could stop the 30 to 50 billion euros of nature-destroying subsidies that we distribute annually in Europe. After all, there is no point in investing money in recovery if we spend billions of euros on destruction at the same time. As part of the Montreal-Kunming Global Biodiversity Framework, we agreed to map these subsidies by 2025 and then phase them out. My question to the Commission is therefore: when can we expect this overview and when will an action plan be adopted to finally deal with these nature-destroying subsidies?

Madam President, Mr Costa, thank you for being here. You haven't long been Chair or President of the European Council, but long enough to know that its ways must change. Your members – government leaders – concluded once again under your leadership that we must have a European Union which is climate neutral, competitive, a military power, a foreign policy actor, even the guardian of the oceans. And that's all fine and well, and I couldn't agree more, and many agree with these words. It's just that your members go home and then do nothing. While Europeans have never wanted more Europe, they are far from meeting the moment. The customers want a Michelin star dinner, but the European Council delivers thin porridge. It has been two months since Trump, and no sovereignty has been shared to defend our territory. It's been six months since Draghi, and no economic or democratic reforms were carried out. It has been 11 months since Letta, and no jealously guarded national powers were pulled. Mr Costa, grab history by the scruff of the neck, wake up your members and stop talking, but start doing.

Mr President, Commissioner, the European car industry is in a perfect storm. The market in China has collapsed, while the largest profits were made there. The Chinese and Tesla have a technological edge. They simply make better and cheaper cars. The European incentives are being phased out, the charging infrastructure is lagging behind, the European battery factory has just gone bankrupt and now the US levies are on top of that. The basic problem is that the European car industry has switched to electric vehicles far too late. We all know that sticking to outdated technology for too long is an industrial mortal sin. Experts expect electric cars to be cheaper to buy and use by 2028 than cars with an internal combustion engine. That is why we must now work together, public and private, to ensure that Europe produces better and cheaper electric cars as soon as possible, on the basis of an agreement between the Commission and industry. This should be a comprehensive agreement, involving investment and innovation. The industry must then stop slowing down, as they are now trying to delay the proposals behind the Commission's back. If we do not accelerate towards electric vehicles now, in a few years' time the light will be switched off in really every European car factory.

Mr President, Madam Commissioner, Minister, dear colleagues, the European Semester is at the heart of what the EU is all about: mutual trust. United in diversity, we have to trust that we work towards our mutual goals, delivering on the necessary change to give Europe an independent, sustainable, secure, economically stable future. That doesn't happen on its own, it requires hard work. In a family, you correct each other. In a European family, you give country-specific recommendations – sorry, it is what it is. Every country has its peculiarities that make no economic sense, but that are politically hard to shake. The Semester is the time to encourage difficult reforms, and the Council needs to stop its lacklustre attitude, its silent non-intervention agreement to addressing long term reforms in each Member State. My appeal to you, colleagues, is to join me in this quest to find mechanisms to foster the growth of our ever closer economic union.

Well, for me, it's absolutely clear that Europe not at all wants to tear down the transatlantic alliance. It seems to be a unilateral decision now from the US to at least make it much weaker than it is. If Article 5 is under pressure and it's not a total guarantee, then NATO is not as strong as it should be. It's a deterrence. It's not an aggressive force. And yes, we have to rebuild our European defence industry. That's absolutely clear. We have to be able to build up our own military and not buying it somewhere else.