Speeches

Mr President! Today, you are ashamed of being Danish, of having a government and a prime minister who try to silence and confuse the Danes when it comes to the real intentions behind the EU's defence policy. But here you are liberatingly honest. It is openly said here that this is about the creation of a real European army. That it is about an attack on countries' veto rights in foreign and defence policy. That it is about creating a real EU foreign policy. All of this is misguided nonsense. It will only create more disagreement, more instability in Europe, on the continent. But at least you're honest that that's the ambition. In Denmark, we are having a bogus debate, trying to distinguish between what is the ambition here, namely that the European Union should become a real superstate, a United States of Europe with its own foreign policy, with its own security policy, with its own defence, while claiming that it still pays tribute to the ideal of the nation state in my home country. So at least I can thank you for being honest, even though the policy is consistently miserable.

Mr President! How dare you not be embarrassed just a little! To sit here and teach the whole world about democracy and human rights, while at no time dare to look inward. Towards an EU that bit by bit eats up national democracy, national self-determination, with a Commission that no European has voted for, that conspires with you to take fundamental rights – not to Europeans – but from Europeans. When you talk to international tech giants about restricting Europeans' freedom of expression, about banning speech you don't like, you're not much better than the autocracies you condemn here today. When one openly talks about wanting to ban parties that stand up to one in five votes in the Member States, then one is out of sync with reality. And when we fight every day, every hour, every minute to keep out the voices – outside parliamentary influence – with which you disagree, you cannot talk about a true democracy. Then you can only talk about a bunch of frightened bureaucrats in Brussels who dare not face the verdict of the people. But I can reassure you that when Election Day comes on June 9, voters will probably do it for you and correct your lack of understanding of what democracy and what human rights really are.

After all, thousands of millions do not live in Palestine, Margrethe. But the evidence against UNRWA is neither new nor isolated. We have individuals who have participated in terrorist attacks. We have terror tunnels under UNRWA headquarters and we have a long tradition of inciting hatred, violence and Islamism, including in school books. It is not an organization that I think is worthy of the UN. Even though the United Nations is now a criminal assembly, where dictatorial states vote down the Western democratic world order. It is not something I like, but UNRWA is, after all, something worse than what we see from the UN General Assembly in New York.

Mr President! Your tax dollars should not be used to finance Islamic terrorism. It should be that simple. Unfortunately, it is not that simple here in the EU. In 2023 alone, UNRWA, the UN-funded refugee organisation in Palestine, received more than 600 million tax dollars. An organisation we know today had employees who not only paid tribute to Hamas' terrorist attacks on Israel, but even participated in it. In a broader sense, all the support we have given to Palestinian society has only led to more radicalism, more support for terrorist organisations such as Hamas and an opportunity to free up funds to prepare, to plan, to train the terrorist attack we saw on 7 October, and a number of other activities that have only contributed to peace and instability in the region. So it's time to say stop. Stop Danish and European tax dollars going to finance the terror mill that has created fire and fire in the Middle East for more than two human ages. We have to say: Enough is enough! Tax dollars should not be used for this purpose. Therefore, any support that can go in any way to finance terrorism must be stopped and stopped, not just temporarily, but forever. (The speaker agreed to answer a blue card question)

Mr. President! You have a nice rhetoric here that if you are afraid of the state of democracy, then you should look to the right wing. But the truth is someone else. If you want to see who is taking money from the Islamic regime in Qatar, you need to look at the Social Democrats and Socialists. If you look at who is helping Russian intelligence, you have to look at the Green Group. So your perception of reality must actually crumble when you are confronted with reality. But of course denial lives here in the House and with denial lives your fight against freedom of speech. Freedom of expression, which is the very foundation of democracy, suffers from the delusion that voters must be protected from certain expressions, that certain attitudes are dangerous. You want to use exactly the same methods as the despots. You want to push the big social media, Facebook, X and so on, to limit views. Being a Eurosceptic is simply misinformation. It is misinformation to be critical of mass immigration. This is the policy you are pursuing. You do not want a democratic debate because you are afraid of it. You'll hit it with a ban. You want to hit it with obligations to limit certain political positions, and so you put yourself in the same box as Putin, like China, like the despots in the Middle East. If one does not believe that democracy is strong enough for opinions to be broken, then it disappears. And if you're so afraid of losing the debate, you don't belong in politics. That's the doctrine here: You are anti-democrats when you fight freedom of speech.

Mr President! Look it in the eyes. Your climate fuss has gone overboard. On the streets from Paris to Berlin, from Rome to Warsaw, farmers, workers and pensioners protest against the grotesque climate policy being pursued in this House, in the Commission and in the Council. A costly policy which means that large sections of the European middle class today have lost all hope that their economic future looks better to their children than the one they have experienced themselves. In this House we have a large majority against the left, which wants to completely ban nuclear power in the European energy mix. Two steps back towards greater dependence on Putin's gas and oil. This is what has been done in Germany. And what has been the consequence? It wasn't green. It hasn't been cheap. It would have been stupid and expensive. And in the same way, we see time and time again in this house that you think you should sit and choose what kind of small technology your lobbyists have just given you money for you to promote, instead of making a market-based green transition. Instead of making a green transition, we in Europe are developing the technologies to make the world green, and not just taxing our industry and our business out of the continent. Will you not be happy until the day we are left impoverished and poor, while a coal-fired power plant is still being built a week in China? Yes, you believe it when you hear the speeches in this House.

Mr. President! The mixing of economic aid for Ukraine’s war effort and Ukrainian membership of the EU is deeply damaging. The truth is that we do not want to discuss the consequences of Ukrainian EU membership, but I do not want to participate in the silence and denial. If Ukraine joins the EU, it will mean more Eastern crime, more social dumping, more welfare tourism. For Denmark alone, the economic cost will be 26 billion in each budget period, which corresponds to 5-6 of the so-called super hospitals. And therefore, dear friends, Ukrainian membership of the European Union is a cultural and economic disaster for our cooperation. If we want to help the Ukrainians, it must be with weapons help now and here! Arms aid, which Denmark has provided to a far greater extent than most of the Member States represented in this House, and arms aid, which suffers a decisive demographic breakdown when it is confused with Ukrainian membership of the Union.

Madam President! China is our generation's greatest threat to Europe, to freedom, to democracy. It is a terrible dictatorship that, in addition to mistreating its own citizens, also poses a threat to its neighbours. But beyond that, many rogue states from Russia to North Korea and Iran are keeping alive, structurally challenging both our security and our democracy. Yet it is as if we in Europe are sleeping a thorn rose sleep when it comes to the challenges from China. Just as five or six years ago you could see the vast majority of members of this house talking about Russia as a potential ally and trading partner - yes, the Danish Prime Minister even invited President Putin on draft beer in Tivoli - today you see China with too much optimism and too little understanding of the threat it poses. If we really were to have preventive diplomacy, we would have to have a strong, uniform voice against the Chinese dictatorship and the influence they exert in our world.

Mr President! We're under attack. The terrible anti-human ideology, Islamism, has attacked us in the West, in Israel and here in Europe. The truth is that this is not an Israeli problem. We have seen terrorist attacks against Denmark, against Belgium, against Germany, against Sweden - all prompted by Hamas and their allies. We have seen that this cannot be isolated into a geopolitical conflict, but is the struggle of Islamism against freedom. Islamism is a terrible ideology. It hates different thinkers and believers. It hates women. They hate sexual minorities. It contradicts everything that defines Europe. Our love for democracy, our love for freedom. Therefore, the truth is that we only get peace for this ideology the day the Islamists love their own children more than they hate us, and unfortunately that day is not in sight. Therefore, the fight must continue.

Mr President! Taxation of fires and bureaucracy. That is obviously the answer, if you ask this House, the European Parliament, how we solve the challenge of the green transition. But you forget that every time the EU comes up with a new bureaucratic system and wants it rolled out on businesses in all EU countries, there is only one place where the bill can end, and that is with consumers. And you would have thought that you would have learned this after the inflationary crisis in Europe has taken over completely. You have not been able to manage your economy in the same way as other Western countries in the world. The answer is again from here: Let's put more burdens on business. Let us propose new taxes on ordinary European consumers. Consumers, because it is obviously the only way to see when you are European in relation to the green transition. The truth is that you are going so far ahead of the world community that all you are doing is regulating and taxing jobs, prosperity and growth out of Europe to the rest of the world. It is incredible how little thoughtful the green policy is in the EU. If you really want to save the world, if you really believe that green transition is a necessity, then the only way we can really change anything is through innovation, through market forces and through the fact that we stop thinking that we can 'pick the winner' here in the European Parliament. The truth is that things are not going very well.

Mr. President! $26 billion. This is what Denmark alone has contributed to military assistance to Ukraine. In other words, it is three times as much as France, Italy and Spain have supplied together. Dear colleagues, you are a joke. The EU is a joke. The truth is, if it weren't for U.S. military aid, Ukraine would have been out of this war a long, long time ago. The truth is that what you can find out, it's toasts, it's bragging, it's in other words; fine platitudes, great promises you make in this Chamber, but when it comes to action, you become tame. You jump up like a lion and fall down like a lamb. The truth is that if Ukraine is to have any chance in this war, it will not be with your help. Because when you can't even match little Denmark and the 6 million taxpayers who live there, you will never match Russia. Look it in the eye.

Madam President! Here we are again. Once again, more money has been demanded for emergency aid, for humanitarian work. Despite the fact that Danish taxpayers and European taxpayers have paid for generations without seeing an improvement. The worst thing is that a large part of this money must be channelled through so-called NGOs, associations which claim that they have nothing to do with countries, but for the most part get the most of their financial opportunities and their budgets from precisely the nation states, while they often have a radicalized and left-wing ideology that they are trying to squeeze down on the conflicts. We see this at the moment in the conflict in Gaza, where a number of NGOs from Médecins Sans Frontières to International Cooperation and the Red Cross are trying to shove an ideological interpretation of the war down the throats of the very same taxpayers who are forced to fund their work. Whether you agree with them or not. If you want to be an NGO, say no to the state's money, try to fundraise them yourself, and see how many people agree with your messages.

Madam President! When we look at this legal cooperation, it is regrettable that it is so hassle-free to get third-party countries in. With our opt-out, Denmark has a special status as a third country, and sometimes in the EU it seems as if people would rather be kept out instead of fighting organised crime together. To fight what happens when international gangs, international criminal organizations, the mafia try to destroy, corrupt our countries. That is why we would just like to call on the European Parliament, the Commission and the Council to make these programmes much more open, not only to European countries, but also to police authorities in other countries. We must recognise that, unfortunately, crime has become an international phenomenon. But it doesn't stop at the national border. Nor does it stop at an EU border. It only stops if there is cooperation between well-functioning countries, and that is what we are asking for.

Madam President! After all, every time we talk about improving the security of the European Union, talk about improving our cooperation when it comes to fighting crime, the answer is always from this House: Greater European integration. Instead of cooperating as voluntary member states, as independent nation states, the solution must always be found in an ever closer cooperation with a supranational construction. It is simply incomprehensible, when we look at how well-functioning police cooperation such as Interpol is, where there is intergovernmental cooperation, that the European Union does not understand that instead of constantly increasing integration, the answer could also be to motivate the national authorities to use cooperation more. When you look at Europol's database, for example, Denmark is one of the countries that extracts the most data, even though we are not part of the supranational construction. So instead of getting more EU, try to use what is.

It is fun to bring the Danish reservations into the debate, precisely because the Danish reservations are given in the Treaty, precisely because the Danish people voted no to the Maastricht Treaty, and thus one had to give Denmark the reservations. We want to keep the reservations, and I actually said verbatim in my speech that it is the same individuals in this Chamber who criticise Hungary, but want Moldova. It's simply not related. The level in Hungary is higher.

Mr President! Fifteen years after the great eastward enlargement, we are here again. We are in a situation where a large majority in this House, the European Commission, the President of the Council, wants a major enlargement to the east. Has anyone learned from the past? Has anyone learned from the chaos brought about by the eastward enlargement, precisely because the agreed rules of the game were not adhered to? We have seen a wave of social dumping. We have seen a wave of organised crime. Yes, even today – 15 years after our last major enlargement – a number of Member States still do not have access to Schengen, still do not have access to the euro because they are not yet ready. And in this situation, there is talk of enlarging the European Union to include up to 55 million new inhabitants, all coming from countries that are even poorer and in an even worse state on the rule of law than Poland and Hungary, which this House loves to criticise. So when does hypocrisy stop? The same people in this house who, at every plenary session, want attacks on the Polish government, want attacks on the Hungarian government, now stand and say: Let's take in more of that kind of government. It's not hard to see when you look at corruption, when you look at LGBT rights, when you look at all the parameters you usually care about where these countries are located. Yet you stand and bid them in with open arms, and I'm just saying: You also have to take responsibility for the consequences. (The speaker agreed to answer a blue card question)

Mr President! China is a threat, but China has been a threat ever since the communist takeover. The Chinese Communist dictatorship has stood for crimes against humanity on a scale that fully bears comparison with Stalin's Russia and Hitler's Germany. Yet we have not seen a strong condemnation by Europe of China's communist form of government. It is very worrying that what has allowed China to grow strong in relation to the economic power that has now become a military power has been a completely laissez-faire approach on the part of Europe. This is an approach that has repeatedly given way to the Chinese dictatorship. Yes, even in this Chamber we have people sitting who, throughout the Cold War, defended communism and still today have not recognised the extent of the crimes that Communist China has endured over time. So if we are to have a showdown, if we are to save Hong Kong, it requires first and foremost a tough showdown with China. But I do not believe that the will is there, because the European Union and Europe have been failing on that agenda for decades.

Mr President! This debate is always very emotional, and I don’t think there is anyone in this chamber – at least I hope not – who thinks that any civilian death is not too much of a death. If it can be avoided, it must be avoided. But the rhetoric is a bit silly. For example, when the UN Secretary-General states that "we are witnessing the greatest loss of civilians. It is completely without parallel. This is unprecedented in my time as Secretary-General." Let us remind each other and him that while he has been Secretary-General, the conflict in Syria is still ongoing. 500 000 dead. The conflict in Yemen has not been resolved, 377 000 dead. Afghanistan, 100 076 dead. Dafur 300 000 died, Iraq 400 000 died and Congo over 660 000 people died. There is a striking difference between when Muslims kill Muslims, when Arabs kill Arabs, and when Israelis try to fight Hamas. In relation to the rhetoric we hear in this House, in relation to the rhetoric we hear from the United Nations. Let us just remember that when you ask the Palestinians both in Gaza and in the West Bank if they supported the terrorist attack on 8 October, three out of four respond that they do. Israel has a right to defend itself. We have a right to fight Islamic terrorism, and we have to do so until the battle is won.

Madam President! Hypocrisy is driving down the walls when you praise yourself in this Chamber with your strong efforts against the Russian occupation in Ukraine. Let's remember the prehistory. After Russia took Crimea, who wanted to sell aircraft carriers to Putin? France did that. President Macron. Who wanted to get more Russian gas and dismantle its own nuclear power? Germany did that. Chancellor Merkel. There is no evidence that the EU is good at handling foreign policy issues. And the sanctions that we have voted on here today only expose the hypocrisy, because we have refused to take a stand against the Russian economy, where it hurt us. We are still importing Russian gas. We have plenty of loopholes in the sanctions, which is why we also see that the Russian economy is still working here, just two years after the start of the war, because the EU does not dare to take the stand because it likes to talk big words and airy principles. But when it comes down to reality, you are left with the wrong foreign policy and with a toothless 'approach'. That is what we can expect when we give the European Union power in foreign affairs.

The questioner is well aware of the Danish People's Party's attitude towards anti-Semitism. We have always stood 100% with Israel, and we fight it wherever we see it. Even when the Red-Green Alliance has given direct support to one of the organisations behind the terrorist attack through public funding. This has been acknowledged in the Danish debate. It was said that it was a mistake to have spent Danish tax dollars on an Islamic terrorist organization. But a simple google search by Jyllands-Posten showed these people training for terrorist attacks. That, I think, is disgraceful. I think the Red-Green Alliance should take responsibility for this both here in the European Parliament and in Denmark.

Madam President! Fucking die, you fucking jew-tamp! We'll hit you tonight. It was the words that met a Danish young Jewess when she returned to her home. Hagekors was scratched in the windows. Her front door had been broken. The conflict between Israel and the terrorist organisation Hamas has also hit Europe. In Denmark alone, we see an increase in anti-Semitic attacks of 2300 percent since the terrorist attack on 7 October. This is a direct consequence of the Muslim mass immigration and the worldview that has been brought to Europe. We see demonstrations everywhere on the continent shouting the slogan of Hamas; “Palestine, from river to the sea”. They call for jihad in the streets of Copenhagen. They cry out for the Jews. Many people don't want to face this reality. Therefore, many are also busy explaining it away as a small segment of the Muslims living in Europe. But we just have to say that when prominent figures like football player Nadia Nadim, pop singer Islam B, and Århus City Councillor Rabih Azad-Ahmad all explain and spread fake news about the conflict and deny that Hamas is a terrorist organization, that is not an isolated problem. Unfortunately, anti-Semitism has not been stronger in Europe since the Second World War, and mass immigration is to blame. (The speaker agreed to answer a blue card question)

Madam President! Then we stand here again, for God knows when, discussing your and the Commission's wet dream of a United States of Europe with a common foreign policy. It is approaching the tragicomic when you look at the "track record" that the EU has when it comes to foreign policy. I understand that our Minister for Foreign Affairs had to spend five times the allowed speaking time just to try to explain what he means in the field of foreign affairs. Let's look at the big things. Let's look at Israel, Hamas. In four days, the Commission had four different positions on the response to the terrorist attack. Everything from suspending aid to Palestine to tripling it in the end. We have an EU that has done more than anyone in the West to stay close to the terrorist state of Iran. We have a European Union that, year after year, allows hundreds of thousands, indeed up to a million illegal migrants, to enter our societies. And we have a European Union which, on the great geopolitical scene, after Russia had entered and annexed Crimea, after Russia had entered Georgia, nevertheless increased our dependence on Russian gas. While the world was on fire, while Russia was an aggressor, the EU's response was: Let's do more with them. Let's make Nord Stream 2, Nord Stream 1 wasn't enough. The truth is that the EU is not fit for foreign policy. The EU is fit for what it is designed to do: a free trade area. Now leave foreign policy to those who have their hands on the hob. To those who can find out, to the nation states.

Mr. President! The Schengen system has collapsed! Visa is being sold out of the back door by criminal officials from Poland, Malta and probably elsewhere. We have seen that more than 1 million illegal migrants came last year. We expect the same this year. This week we witnessed again, again, a terrorist attack by one of these illegal migrants. A person who should never have been in Europe. A person whose asylum status has been withdrawn or denied. But someone who is nevertheless allowed to walk freely among European citizens spread his Islamist propaganda and kill unspoken citizens. We are not talking about an isolated case, but we are talking about a system in which four out of five rejected asylum seekers are not sent back to their country of origin, but are allowed to stay here in Europe. Schengen only helps the criminal smugglers. The Islamists who want to destroy our society and the mass immigration that destroys us with crime, social and economic burdens. Let's get out of Schengen. Let's get our border controls back.

Mr President! European migration policy is a disaster. Year after year, hundreds of thousands of illegal migrants arrive in Europe. Completely uncontrollable. Just two simple facts: By 2050, there will be one billion more people in Africa. A poll shows that between 18-24 year olds, 50% want to migrate to Europe. In other words, migratory pressure is a permanent state of affairs. What is the EU’s response? Nothing. Let's give migrants more rights. Let's open up for more legal migration from Africa and Asia. For God's sake, let us do everything we can to make agreements with undemocratic dictatorships that blackmail us. The only realistic thing. The only right answer to the migration challenge is a permanent model where a migrant needs to know that if you come to Europe illegally, you will never get in. You will be rejected and placed in asylum camps in third countries. It is effective, it is dignified, it prevents criminal networks and it prevents illegal migration. That's the solution. But no one in this house, no one in the Commission. No one in the Council is serious about it.

Mr. President! The borderless Europe has been a disaster. A disaster that has hit ordinary people, Danes, Europeans hard. With a real slaraffenland. A gift for organised criminals, smugglers and illegal migrants. The scandal we are dealing with today, in which up to 250,000 - a quarter of a million - visas have been issued illegally to the entire Schengen zone, comes in a string of other scandals in which we have seen Malta and Cyprus accused of exactly the same thing: selling out of our common security for wretched mammons, allowing illegal migrants to come to Europe, gaining access to our entire continent completely unchecked just because one has received a little bribery in Africa or Asia, by a low-ranking diplomat. What is Europe doing about the problem? Yes, the Commission stands by Schengen cooperation. The majority in this House will fight border control by any means, while any sensible government, any sensible nation-state will say: Let us reintroduce pragmatic permanent border controls so that we do not have to get on the weakest link in Europe, so that we do not have to give the keys to our front door to people who are bribed for a few thousand euros, but so that each country individually can create security, prosperity and progress for our citizens. This is true European solidarity. Let's get the border control back.