Speeches

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me speak about the Nature Restoration Act. Article 14 of that proposal requires farmers to withdraw 10% of their agricultural land from production. For Flanders, this rises to almost 15%. That is 172 000 hectares of fertile land at EUR 100 000 per hectare in my region. Calculate that for yourself. This law does not take into account the densely populated context of Flanders and that is why we do not support with CD&V any policy that reduces food production, that causes a nitrogen crisis XXL in our country, and that ultimately puts the farmer's keel in Flanders at risk. The European Commission has made no effort to assess the impact of this legislation. Less profitability, more uncertainty for the farmer, and at the end of the trip even fewer farmers who want to start. You must do the homework again, dear European Commission, so that you can come to the same conclusion that we have long established on the ground. Farmers really want to make the green transition, but only on the condition that there is predictable, stimulating and achievable legislation.

Mr President, Commissioner, colleagues, businesses – and I am thinking in particular of SMEs – are at the heart of our transition to a more sustainable economic model. But as a consumer, it is particularly difficult today to estimate which companies are making that transition in a true way. As a consumer, you do not always have the necessary information to make a sustainable and environmentally conscious choice. However, consumers have the right to know how long a product should last or what the possible recovery options are. By properly informing the consumer and protecting them from misleading information, the consumer can make the choice that suits him best and thus also lead the market in a certain direction. And, ladies and gentlemen, the world is not standing still. It is therefore important that the list of unfair commercial practices is indeed supplemented. Vague environmental claims, deliberately built-in obsolescence and unsubstantiated sustainability scores should really be a thing of the past. This also increases the level playing field between our companies. This proposal rightly puts consumers first, colleagues, but to end where I started: We must not forget the companies in this whole story. I therefore expect clear guidelines from you, Commissioner, so that the implementation of these regulations can proceed as smoothly as possible. This is the only way that this proposal can win—win are for consumers and businesses who want to move forward in this green transition.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I find it resolutely positive that citizens can participate in setting our agenda, because citizens' initiatives force us to debate each other, and that can be an incentive to make policy. Democratic renewal with clear potential. But at the same time, the instrument proves that it is our duty as policy-makers to draw up legislation with a sense of reality afterwards, putting different interests in the balance. Citizens' initiatives can launch ambitious proposals. We need to take into account its effects on our nature, on our food production, on the socio-economic well-being of our farmers – and actually the broader picture. I miss a bit of nuance in today's debate. The Commission's figures on pesticides are clear. The use and risk of chemical pesticides decreases every year. For example, if we zoom in on a country like Belgium, we note clear progress compared to the years 2015-2017. First of all, let us continue to work with farmers on a feasible and realistic pathway to further reduce the negative effects of pesticide use. Let's also look at less harmful, but also affordable alternatives and exploit the potential of new genetic engineering. Finally, for pollinators, let us look beyond the mere use of pesticides. For example, if we want to protect pollinators, we must also look at the impact of the Asian hornet, which is becoming more and more of a challenge for our farmers.

Yeah, short follow-up. This is perhaps – indeed – not specifically about the issue of Eastern Congo, but rather about whether the US and the European Union are actively working on reforming the UN, where it is exactly needed, for example in peacekeeping in areas where it is not happening today.

The question to the High Representative was if, in the transatlantic dialogue with the United States, you have discussed the topic of Eastern Congo, which is a dramatic situation, or where dramatic events are unfolding?

Mr High Representative, welcome to this Question Time on the transatlantic partnership. Multilateralism and international law should be very high on the transatlantic agenda and, of course, the authority and functioning of the UN should be safeguarded by reforms that the transatlantic partners should be the engine of. But where the UN is structurally inadequate, for example in terms of peacekeeping in certain regions of the world, we as transatlantic partners must not continue to stand by, as a defaulting international community. A poignant example of this, Mr High Representative, is Eastern Congo, where the situation for the local population has become completely dramatic and hopeless because of violence, and where we, as the European Union, but also as transatlantic partners, must have the ambition to do more and not fail. Hence my question to you, Mr High Representative: Is the situation in eastern Congo the subject of consultations and cooperation with the United States and are initiatives being considered in this regard?

–President, Commissioner, colleagues, we must not underestimate the reality of how many farmers work and live today. We are talking here today about the extreme prices for fertilizer. For many of us, this is just a file like any other. But at farmers' kitchen tables, this is about much more. For some, this is about the energy bill of the family or the cost of the studies of the children. For others even about the survival of their company and their passion. In the past few weeks I have talked to many farmers during speaking evenings. When I drive home in the evening, I realise again and again that many people are rightly and truly losing their courage. Because of the current market situation, indeed, but certainly also because of the many legislation that comes to them. Young people don't get in the stiel anymore. Parents advise their children not to become farmers, with all the consequences for our European food production, both in the short and long term. Let us therefore work towards a policy that is indeed ambitious in terms of climate and biodiversity, but which is based on science and has an eye for its feasibility at the farmer's, on the field and in the barn. It is not just about the farmers, their families or their mental well-being, which is indeed deeply in the red. It's about what we all want on our plate today, but also tomorrow and the day after tomorrow. And yes, RENURE is an example of something that can help both the climate and biodiversity, while at the same time supporting farmers. So, Commissioner, please work on it.

Mr President, Commissioner, colleagues, transparency and clear rules will now clarify who sponsors political ads, why users see them, and give more access to data for investigative journalism. Last month, Flemish researchers showed that political parties in my country spend record amounts on advertisements on social media and are therefore by far the frontrunner in the European Union. With the agreement we are voting on tomorrow, we can put an end to the era in which social media platforms collect vast amounts of voter data unsolicited – and often unwittingly among users – to allow voting behaviour to be influenced, or worse, to pit groups of people against each other. Political advertisements aimed at minors or based on sensitive data really do not belong in the European Union. I am convinced that this will be an important step forward to better protect our democracies in the run-up to all elections in 2024. Local, regional, national and European.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the operational priorities of the Global Gateway initiative for this year have been set. The necessary budget is available and the institutional framework and management have become workable in the meantime. Let's be honest, it took time to roll out the strategy, but it now seems to have gone well in terms of implementation. We welcome this, but above all we want the focus to remain on this strategy, in word and deed. I mean that there is political support, but that it is now important to raise awareness and mobilize all shareholders on a permanent basis, to keep all the institutions involved connected at European level and to keep the Member States actively involved in the private sector. This Union connectivity and investment strategy is a particularly ambitious and very important undertaking with, moreover, a pronounced geopolitical character. We rightly want to be a strong player on a global level. Well, then we also need the right instruments for that. This is why we need to invest in this strategy with all possible means. Just as we want to become more strategically independent from third countries, we also make ourselves stronger by working more and better with partners and allies. The paradox is interesting, but it teaches us above all that the Global Gateway initiative is an essential part of our common foreign policy ultimately, including the security aspects. I therefore expressly wish the strategy to take into account challenges related to systemic rivalries on a global scale and, of course, to Russia's war against Ukraine in particular. I am thinking first and foremost of the countries of the Western Balkans and of our partners in the eastern and southern border regions.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, last month saw the largest counter-terrorism operation in German history. More than 50 suspects were investigated over the planned armed attack on the Reichstag, the heart of German parliamentary democracy. It is reminiscent of what we have read and read in our history books about 1933, when the Reichstag also burned and the Nazis took power. It also evokes memories of the storming of the Capitol and the parallels with the storming of government buildings in Brazil in recent weeks are also not far away. They have one thing in common. It shows how much our democracy is under pressure. In recent years, the shadowy far-right Reichsbürger organization has proliferated enormously. But political volatility, malicious foreign interference and rising online disinformation around us have also proliferated. It ensures that the world in which we live is characterized by uncertainty, vulnerability and unpredictability and that we are reminded more often than we wish that democracy is not an acquired matter, that for some political violence is really a real option. A worrying evolution, indeed. Any form of extremism on the political spectrum is equally bad. Left and right, offline and online. The protection of our constitutional democracies is paramount, as is our support for close and better cooperation between intelligence services, police and justice, both at national and European level, in order to prevent Europe from being threatened by destabilisation inside and out.

Mr President, I too have listened with great attention and interest to all the speeches in this debate and they have made it very clear that an ambitious European security and defence policy may not be able to convince everyone here, but that there is more than enough political support in this hemisphere. Just as there is support from the other European institutions. In my opinion, the debate has shown some controversy here and there, but it has certainly also shown consensus and strengthened my conviction that we really can do more and better in the field of European defence. We are also working hard on that. Not only the High Representative, but also colleagues have referred to the Strategic Compass, which we have really used in the right way, in the right place and at the right time, and which is actually a very effective policy tool. But many colleagues have already said: The ultimate test for all of us is of course the war in Ukraine and that has been said many times here today. Many of our ambitions will be measured precisely by how we continue to deal with this confrontation. Together, of course, with the new element of hybrid threats that are part of the Russian aggression, but actually also go beyond that Russian aggression. Think of how we sometimes talk about China's growing assertiveness. I conclude with four conclusions – assignments, as it were, for all of us. First of all, if we are ambitious and want to remain ambitious in the future in order to reduce our dependence on third countries, then we must always keep an eye on cooperation with allies. Secondly, we need to invest in our capacities and coordinate our efforts as Europeans together, even if that means making budgetary efforts for Member States to do so. Thirdly, as Europeans, we must keep our unity together and our solidarity with partners and allies – as I said – and fourthly, finally, we must, above all, be committed to implementing everything we plan and decide with each other. Thank you for this debate and I look forward to the vote tomorrow.

Mr President, Vice-President and High Representative, ladies and gentlemen, last year was a special year in the field of security and defence policy. A year in which the Russian aggression against Ukraine literally and figuratively knew no borders. A year in which geopolitics was back from actually never having gone away. A year of growing strategic and even systemic rivalries. A year in which we learned what it can mean to literally have to fight for the values for which we stand and which we hold so highly: democracy and the rule of law, fundamental rights and freedoms, international law and multilateralism. But also a year of progress to safeguard the security of our citizens in addition to prosperity. A year of realizing that we need to do much more for our safety. A year in which the sense of European cooperation is very easy to understand, because the need for it is felt much more. A year of firm steps towards a stronger, own and therefore less dependent European defence, with more coherence and cooperation between Member States. More solidarity also with partners in our neighbouring regions, and more solidarity also with our trusted allies. A year of aggression and war-stricken, but also of ambitions that really have ground under their feet. I believe that this report reflects all these ambitions in a pragmatic, realistic and therefore credible and effective way. For obvious reasons, it focuses on ubiquitous and intrusive challenges and threats we face, with – of course – the war in Ukraine and all the consequences that come with it. It also draws attention to the multiplicity and intensity of hybrid threats and the need for multifaceted resilience, not just in the military field. It focuses on the continuous updating and, of course, on the full implementation of the adopted Strategic Compass. It focuses on strengthening our defence capabilities, eliminating overlaps and gaps between the different Member States, but also, for example, between the Union and NATO, and addressing an immense need for interoperability. The report underlines the importance of adequate financial resources and the fulfilment of budgetary commitments. It calls for the strengthening of defence through even more and even better cooperation within NATO, but also through far-reaching cooperation and investment in our multilateral and bilateral relations, such as the UN and the United Kingdom. It nurtures our commitment to a security and defence policy at the level of a credible regional and global actor that can really make a difference in addressing threats, problems and conflicts. It calls for a more efficient infrastructure and architecture for a more effective security and defence policy, with, of course, the operationalisation of the Rapid Deployment Capacity and upgrading our missions and operations as policy instruments on the ground. Finally, Last but not least, promotes security and defence policies supported by a realisation of potential and added value at European level, by less dependence on third parties, by more flexible and faster decision-making for greater efficiency, and by stronger democratic legitimacy based on a more active role of this European Parliament. I look forward to the debate this afternoon and I would like to thank my fellow shadow rapporteurs for their very good cooperation and, of course, all of them. staff who contributed to the drafting of this report.

Mr President, Commissioner, you spoke about fertilisers and indeed: I look forward to your action plan on integrated nutrient management and whether there will be room for RENURE products there. But I asked you very specifically about the timing of your European protein strategy. I was hoping to get an answer from you.

Mr President, Commissioner, thank you for being here, because everyone who says inflation says energy prices right away. But we certainly have to dare to talk about food prices – you mentioned it yourself. Now, how food prices have risen, we can indeed look at the symptoms, but we must certainly also dare to look at the root causes. Food prices and inflation are, I think, mainly concerned with fertilisers and animal feed. Prices that absolutely swing out of the pan today. We know: for both animal feed and fertiliser, we are very much dependent on imports from third countries, from non-EU countries. The Heads of State or Government said in a Versailles declaration that we must become more independent of those third countries for our imports. It has even called for a European protein strategy to be put forward. My question is therefore to you: Has the Commission already worked on that European protein strategy and, if so, when can we expect that proposal from you?

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, a few months ago we succeeded in making the world of online platforms a lot safer for consumers, and certainly for minors, with the Digital Services Act. Today, I note that this protection is still insufficient in the European gaming industry. The so-called in-game purchases, or indeed the loot boxes that were already widely cited here today, are often misleading and in certain cases even tend to aggressive market practices. In this way, our children and young people are tempted to make ill-considered payments in a non-transparent and manipulative way, without their knowing it. However, the gaming industry is an important digital player. Good for innovation above all, but also for jobs and economic prosperity in the EU. Commissioner, with this report we ask you to work with the industry on consumer protection without excessive patronage. Let us be clear about this, but with sufficient protection for the minors in particular.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am a child from the 1990s who grew up with the internal market as we know it today: almost 500 million consumers, immense mobility between European Member States and no more border controls. My region, West Flanders in Belgium, has grown thanks to the European single market. Suddenly it became possible to trade goods in neighbouring countries and elsewhere in the EU without many obstacles. In particular, the trade in agri-food products has not failed us. It is not for nothing that we are called the vegetable garden of Europe today. This is because of the internal market. We are immensely proud of this, as many know the internal market best from the food on our plates. Ladies and gentlemen, we must not rest on our laurels now. It is our duty to keep the single market as clean as possible in the future. I am convinced that it is and will remain the glue for our cooperation as Europeans in the future. This also proves our approach after every crisis. For example, with the rise of big tech, we are deepening our Digital Single Market, our Health Union since the pandemic, and now our Energy and our Defence Unions top of mind. So, in this 30th anniversary, let us realise more than ever that the internal market is the foundation of our peaceful European cooperation, but above all it boosts the creation of prosperity and is a lever to strengthen the Union's position in the world.

Mr President, Commissioner, media freedom and pluralism are at the heart of our European values. No journalist should be allowed to die or be harmed because of his press card. Because journalists create transparency. Because they give us access to a public good, namely information. Their work is essential to our democracy. More than ever, their protection is also paramount, because unfortunately, attacks on the media have increased in recent years. In 2022, 67 journalists worldwide died, compared to 47 journalists the year before, according to the International Federation of Journalists. Ukraine is clearly the most dangerous country for journalists in 2022, with 12 journalists killed. The clear erosion of safe environments that prevent media from doing their work freely is also a cause for concern. The number of physical, legal and online threats and attacks against media professionals continues to increase steadily. We also see that women journalists, journalists belonging to minority groups, or journalists reporting on equality issues remain particularly vulnerable to threats and attacks. It is our collective responsibility to defend free media, to rectify violations of media freedom and to take decisive measures to make Europe truly safer for journalists.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, the two-state solution remains a first-order objective for which the Union must continue to work proactively, in the interests of Israel and the Palestinians and of the entire region. In doing so, we should pay more attention to the regional aspect and the external factors that influence negotiations on a viable and sustainable two-state solution, and in particular Iran's role as a regional power. We criticise this country – including sanctions – for its repression of demonstrators, its disregard for human rights, its executions, the hostage-taking of European citizens, military supplies to and cooperation with Russia, the ambitions of a nuclear-weapon state, and so on. Also specifically with regard to the Middle East peace process, Iran plays a role that goes completely against everything that we as Europeans are trying to preserve the feasibility of a two-state solution. Iran is using conscious and focused influence in the region in a way that makes this peace process even more difficult. We must not ignore this in our actions towards Iran, and we could ask ourselves whether Tehran's part in the stalemate around the peace process should not also be raised in the negotiations on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, insofar as this agreement can be revived.

Mr President, we have fought hard for legislation that protects the European budget from corruption, because corruption is rampant in certain Member States. For example, the situation in Hungary in recent years under the rule of Orbán went from bad to worse. In September, Parliament ruled that Hungary could no longer be considered a fully-fledged democracy and that all European funds for Hungary should be frozen. Hungary agreed and put forward 17 measures to fight corruption. However, this is not enough. There is currently insufficient evidence to conclude that there are no longer any risks to our European budget. It would therefore be a historic mistake if the Commission decided to send European money back to Hungary, directly into the pockets of Orbán and his entourage. This is a test for the conditionality mechanism.

Thank you, Mr Vice-President, also for this reply. I am pleased to see that we are actively moving towards allies to work together on this. We expect the third joint EU-NATO statement later this year. Can I assume that all of this will be included in this statement?

Mr Vice-President, it is a good thing that this debate is on the agenda of our plenary session this week in Strasbourg. Indeed, for too long we have been blind to the protection, the necessary protection, of our critical infrastructure. It is only when accidents happen that we realize how bad it really is with our ability to do so. I think – frankly – that protecting our critical infrastructure in Europe will be one of the biggest challenges within our common security and defence policy in the years to come. For that protection of the critical structure, I hope that together we all look to partners, to allies, to tackle that challenge together. My question to you, Mr Vice-President, is therefore how you see cooperation with NATO in meeting the challenge of protecting critical infrastructure. So, how can our EU-NATO cooperation help address these challenges?

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is estimated that Flemish farmers have a record turnover of EUR 7.2 billion this year. But unfortunately, they see that extra turnover going completely into smoke due to exceptionally high invoices for feed, energy and indeed fertilizer. Limited availability and record prices will not only drive production costs to unprecedented heights, but will also lead to lower crop yields. However, part of the solution is literally up for grabs. We must not focus solely on chemical fertilisers and must dare to use fertilisers of animal origin as an alternative. Innovation already allows us to close the mineral cycle on farms. Let's face that reality. Let us act accordingly as legislators. I would therefore like once again to call on the Commission to take the RENURE criteria seriously and to come forward with a proposal as a matter of urgency. The Joint Research Center study in 2020 was clear, it was very clear that this would benefit more circular businesses and a more effective use of resources in agriculture. For the summer, 19 MEPs from the EPP, Renew, S&D and ECR groups sent a letter to you, Commissioner. Not including this proposal in the EU fertiliser strategy would be a guilty omission on the part of farmers in times of crisis.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I would like to address the specific protracted conflict in Ethiopia, which is also a major player in the Horn of Africa. Recently, there was a striking report from the Ethiopian Ministry of Education about a donation to the Ethiopian army. This has raised questions about cooperation projects between educational institutions of our European Member States, on the one hand, and Ethiopia, on the other, from a concern that the resources of these projects would not only benefit education, but might also feed the conflict. The projects we support are useful and necessary, and that is undeniable. But that is precisely why, as a Union with the right mechanisms in our partnership with the Horn, we must continue to closely monitor the responsible use of resources for all cooperation projects in which the Union and its Member States are involved.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Parliament is actually repeating what the Council and the Commission have already said. The values on which the European Union is founded are being violated by Hungary. And we know the list of breaches of the Hungarian rule of law: - the limitation of judicial independence, - the disruptive effect of the electoral system, - corruption, conflict of interest, - the restriction of freedom of expression, academic freedom, the rights of the LGBTI community and other minorities. Today, the message from this European Parliament to the European Commission needs to be clear once again. As long as Hungary continues to undermine the rule of law, the European Commission cannot and must not distribute money. It is not for the European Commission to bind now, to show leniency or to start negotiations. On the contrary, the European Parliament demands that the bar remains high for Hungary. Every move announced by Budapest must be followed by deeds. Only if there is concrete and verifiable progress can we talk about the release of European funds. We have repeated this several times. This is about the credibility of the European Commission. This is about the credibility of the principles on which this European Union is founded. This is about our belief in the rule of law.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let us take a moment to look at the focus that this report rightly places on the Global Gateway strategy. Connectivity, both digital and infrastructural, is an essential aspect in addressing the challenges we face globally. Our Southern Neighbourhood partners have a crucial role to play in this. It also encourages them to engage in regional integration, which will hopefully also benefit peace and stability. Of course, opportunities offered to the economy and society of our southern partner countries also offer opportunities for our own European private sector to remain competitive, while ensuring the highest standards. By the way, both the European Union and its southern neighbours have a strong interest in better relations, which makes the Global Gateway much more than just a connectivity and investment strategy.