What Tom spoke about.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union’s climate policy is downright disastrous. With the ETS, Europe is artificially making energy more expensive than in the rest of the world. That system punishes those who work, those who undertake and even those who simply want to heat their home. While China, India and the United States protect their industries, the European Union is chasing our way with ETS1, climate fines, bureaucracy and priceless energy prices. As if that wasn't enough, ETS2 now imposes additional climate taxes on our families. This means hundreds of euros of additional climate tax per family per year, while people are already struggling to pay their energy bills. The European Commission simply does not know the lives of ordinary people. She is engaged in obsolete climate madness, not the daily reality of ordinary people. Just get rid of these climate taxes. Europe needs affordable energy and a common sense policy.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the von der Leyen Commission censors social media and tries to influence elections. These are the conclusions of the U.S. House of Representatives' report, which was published in February this year. We have been asking for a debate on this issue since February. This has been denied twice. We requested hearings in three parliamentary committees. This too was brutally denied. We asked several parliamentary questions. To date, no answer has been given. Why is the European Parliament so afraid of debate? Why does Parliament refuse to hold the Commission to account? What does Ursula von der Leyen have to hide? After all, the evidence is open and exposed on the table. The U.S. House of Representatives subpoenaed the big tech companies under oath. In addition, black and white internal mails and documents emerged, as well as meetings behind closed doors that the public apparently was not allowed to know about. For years, the Commission has systematically pressured social media companies to censor completely legal opinions. What opinions should disappear? The Commission drew up a list, literally a handbook for tech companies, on what needed to be censored. What was in there? I quote: "populist rhetoric, anti-EU content, anti-migrant sentiment, anti-LGBTQ content". Translation: road criticism of mass migration, road criticism of climate madness, road criticism of gender ideology, road criticism of the European Union itself. TikTok alone censored more than 45,000 messages for the European elections. Moreover, the Commission actively intervened in at least 12 elections, in Slovakia, the Netherlands, France, Ireland, Romania and even the 2024 European elections. There was always the same pattern. The Commission brings platforms together, draws up so-called guidelines and determines which content is considered a risk. And what turns out to be a risk? In the Slovak elections, reports were censored such as – and I quote – ‘there are only two genders’. It seems dangerous for this Commission to simply tell the truth. The real question is: Why are we so afraid of other opinions? Because apparently the people can only have the freedom to agree with the rulers. After all, people are voting en masse for a different migration policy, for climate realism, affordability, family values and the restoration of normality. Rather than listening to the will of the people, the Commission is hiding behind a wall of censorship, afraid and anxious to listen to what citizens really think about policy. This Commission is totally derailed. Even former Council President Charles Michel recently warned against it. I quote: "everyone knows and has seen how the Commission wants to gain more power and intervene in cases that do not even fall under its responsibility". The centralisation of power in the Commission is a danger to European democracy. This case, ladies and gentlemen, proves it.

Madam President, I have a point of order referring to Rule 164 of the Rules of Procedure. The European Commission is censoring legal speech criticising mass migration, gender ideology or the European Union itself in order to manipulate elections in Europe. These are the documented conclusions of an official report by the US House Committee. Censoring legal speech is a clear violation of our fundamental rights. Election interference is a clear breach of the separation of powers. And now Parliament is being denied a vote on whether to debate these findings or not. What are they trying to hide? We must hold the Commission accountable. That is the duty of this Parliament. If Parliament can no longer vote or debate, what, then, is the use of this European Parliament?

Mr President, colleagues, stop immigration and start remigration: That is the heart of the matter here. Europe is in an existential crisis. Our unique civilization is in danger of being wiped out. For years it sounded "Wir kopen das". For years there was a naïve welcome culture. For years we looked away from the terrible reality that that superdiversity is not so super at all, but for many ordinary people a true multicultural nightmare. For years, warnings were ignored, the truth denied, and the electorate in particular was despised when it called for a democratic cry for help and a change of policy. Three million illegal immigrants, ten million asylum seekers, thirty million migrants: You have flooded our home countries with your open borders policy. Deliberate and organized. The time for useless debate is over. The time for action has come. Migration should not be managed any better. Policy must fundamentally change. Anyone who comes to Europe illegally must return. Whoever commits criminal acts here must go back. Those who come only to benefit from our social security must return. Whoever adheres to a radical Islam that despises our way of life must return. We must not only stop immigration, but also start remigration.

Mr Lagodinsky, I really do not understand where you want to go, because my whole point is precisely that the veto should protect smaller Member States. That is the lesson of history that we have learned, unfortunately on the axis of World War II, so that large Member States cannot trample the small ones and impose their imperialist policies. That's the point I'm making here.

You quote, Mr Lagodinsky, interesting facts, a reality that we agree on. The Baltic States and Poland are part of the European Union and it is therefore necessary under the law of the Treaty that my country, and therefore also my voters and my party, show solidarity with these countries. Just as we are bound by treaty obligations in the NATO context. However, we honour those obligations. It is also a reality that Ukraine is not a member, neither of the European Union nor of NATO, and we therefore have no treaty obligation towards the country. Having said that, it is of course also true that there is a moral obligation, or rather a form of goodwill, to support the Ukrainian people, whatever my party in my country has done with the reception of many war refugees.

Mr. Sieper, I think we just have a very fundamental difference in understanding reality. You apparently believe in liberal moralism, from which the world functions and works on the basis of moral principles. I don't believe that at all. I follow another school, the realistic school, which determines that the world functions on the basis of interests. And in those conflicts of interest with each other, I try as best I can to preserve and restore peace in Europe.

Mr Sieper, you must, of course, answer to your own constituents, just as I must. The preschool story told here may be a bedtime story for small children, but it simply doesn't match reality. There are two major risks, one of which is the financial stability of the euro area and the credibility of the Western financial and banking system. The other risk is who will carry it. And apparently there is no willingness to show solidarity in the European Union to bear this risk and those risks are simply passed on to a small country like Belgium. And I simply cannot allow this as a representative of my constituents and their interests.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Europe has completely lost its way and the reason for this is unfortunately the European Union. What once started as a cooperation for prosperity and peace has become a belligerent monster that is completely derailing. European cooperation had to ensure that smaller Member States could no longer be trampled on by large countries. That is the lesson of history and that is why the right of veto of each Member State is so fundamental. It is the guarantee of freedom. That is no longer respected. Legal manipulation circumvents normal decision-making. Respect for the European treaties has given way to brutal power politics, because they want to be able to go to war at all costs. But apparently they don't want to pay for it themselves. But what if those Russian assets will inevitably run out? In addition, what will solve the next hundreds of billions that the previous ones couldn't? The cynicism of the European Union's war-hitters is downright repugnant. Instead, they want to carry out the biggest bank robbery in history and burden the Belgian population – my citizens – with all the risks involved, without us actually having anything to say about it. Those who want to support Ukraine can do so freely, with their own money and on their own responsibility.

Mr President, the European Commission claims that it wants to protect our democracy. But the so-called European shield for democracy is not at all about protecting our democracy, but about protecting itself, against the will of the people. After all, the people must have no other opinion than to agree to their agenda of climate madness, mass migration and endless wars. The European shield of democracy is nothing more than a Ministry of Truth that wants to determine what is the only truth and which can no longer be doubted. With an approved regimepers and a network of fact-checkers who determine what is still allowed and what opinions are supposedly dangerous. In a real democracy, there are no dangerous opinions at all. In a true democracy, freedom of expression and freedom of the press are not a risk, but the foundation. Let's be clear: If there is any danger to our democracy, it does not come from outside at all, but from this European Commission itself.

Mr President, colleagues, the Digital Services Act and the Artificial Intelligence Act are being proposed as laws to protect our European digital sovereignty. But in reality, that legislation does not protect us from external dominance at all; It builds a wall against freedom within. They talk about freedom, but they mean control. They talk about transparency, but they mean submission. They speak of truth, but they mean obedience. This is not the protection of our democracy, but the entrenchment of those in power behind censorship, to protect themselves against the will of the people. If we allow that, then that citizen will soon be able to say everything, except what he really thinks. However, this does not change the truth or reality. No lie is strong enough to defeat the truth. No wall is strong enough to hold freedom. Ultimately, citizens will inevitably demand their freedom.

I just have to quote the President of the European Council, Mr Costa, who said last week that this trade agreement – which is clearly unbalanced – is being negotiated, because of the focus on the war in Ukraine, the endless swamp in which this Commission wants to drag us. That is why I think we need to adopt a different strategy, one that leads to peace and a strong Europe.

Mr President, the situation in Europe is dramatic and the policy of this Commission is disastrous. Our farmers are hit hard by unfair competition. Our companies are being squandered by overregulation. Our families suffer from the skyrocketing energy costs. Our women and daughters are the first victims of illegal mass migration. But for Mrs. von der Leyen there is apparently no dirt in the air. This worldly elite does not know the lives of ordinary people. But no matter how powerful they may seem, they cannot continue to deny reality. The totally unbalanced trade agreement with the United States shows the whole world how weak, dependent and submissive the European Union is. This Commission has no strategy, no plan and no solutions. That is why we need to radically change course: No mass migration, no Green Deal and not a European sale. We nationalists can take care of that.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, where could homosexuals actually walk the streets the safest? Is it in Molenbeek or is it in Budapest? Yet we do not see any European parliamentarians parading around in Molenbeek. Where we also never see them showing virtue is in Riyadh, Tehran or Islamabad. This hypocrisy proves that it is not about equal rights for homosexuals at all, but about promoting a gender ideology. That seems to have become the state religion of this European Union, with dogmas that cannot be doubted. With rituals, flags, as we just saw, and pastors to let the herd run in step. With courts to criminalize any contradiction. This is a liberal sharia that wants to impose totalitarian unity thinking and deprive the Member States of the right to make their own choices. Let everyone live as he or she wants. Stop imposing that gender ideology that denies the natural reality that there are only men and women and not 116 different so-called genders at all. As this parliament debates ideological absurdities, we are flooded with illegal migration, Europe is deindustrialising and the world is on fire. The European Union would be more concerned with what is important to our citizens: security, peace and prosperity.

Mr President, the European Union's strategy against Russian aggression is totally failing. Mrs von der Leyen claimed that sanctions would bring Russia to its economic knees. That didn't happen. Mrs von der Leyen claimed to be beating Russia with arms deliveries. That didn't happen. Mrs von der Leyen claimed to isolate Russia diplomatically. That didn't happen either. What has happened is that we have become dependent on radical Islamic regimes for our energy supply. In Moscow, Washington and Beijing, decisions are now being made over our heads. The United States is closing a mineral deal with Ukraine in front of us and at the same time the bill for this terrible war is increasingly being sent to Europe. How can we not receive it? Mrs von der Leyen and the European Union committed themselves to whatever it takes. But what will solve the next EUR 350 billion in aid, which the previous EUR 350 billion could not solve? The European Union has become the prisoner of its own strategy. This does not lead to peace and security, but ultimately makes us march to the trenches ourselves. To avoid this, we need to change our strategy. Therefore, we must support any diplomatic effort to end this war and give a future to the courageous Ukrainian people.

Mr President, the European Union is totally failing in its migration policy. Our boundaries are wide open. Illegal migration therefore continues to increase, while return procedures are inefficient, slow and lax. Only one in five of those asylum seekers is actually sent back. At the same time, the countries of origin receive billions from the European Union, but refuse to take back their illegal immigrants. This policy is absurd, naive and unsustainable. What Europe needs is a massive return strategy, mandatory readmission by the countries of origin, large-scale evictions and an end to the abuse of appeal procedures. Countries that do not take back their illegal immigrants must also bear the consequences. No money, no visas, no trade. Europe must finally dare to opt for a decisive remigration policy that protects our borders, our prosperity and our security. Unfortunately, that is not the intention of the European Union.

Mr President, with the Green Deal, the European Union introduced climate regulations, climate commitments and climate taxes. This would make Europe the economy of the future and at the same time save the world. However, this dogmatic climate policy is causing Europe to be overtaken globally by the United States and China, which are not interested in any of these measures. While Europe bans plastic straws and attaches caps to bottles, China stuns the world with artificial intelligence and energy prices in the United States are two to three times cheaper. Since even the Commission can no longer ignore reality, the Competitiveness Compass is now being proposed. At least now we recognize the problem. But what is the Commission's solution? Even more Green Deal, where billion-dollar subsidies are used to sustain a failing and downright disastrous policy. No matter how much the bureaucrats in the Soviet Union at the time devised regulations, drew up plans and wrote reports, the planned economy did not work. Similarly, the Green Deal's climate communism simply won't work. Not through regulation and subsidies, but through entrepreneurship and innovation, we build the economy of the future. We therefore call for the complete abolition of the Green Deal and a return to the politics of common sense. This is a first and necessary step towards restoring our competitiveness.

You may be surprised, colleague, but a truth that must be protected by censorship has a name. That's a lie. This is a truth that cannot stand. When you talk about foreign actors or tech platforms influencing elections, I can only say: Let the market of free ideas flourish. Let a thousand flowers bloom, as Mao said – perhaps one of your inspirators to reach this conclusion. And then I just think that we need to have confidence in the opinion of our citizens. Let the debate be held. Let everyone say their opinion and everyone also have the right to receive a different opinion. Because that's not what's being talked about: shadow bending. Secretly preventing messages from being received is a daily practice on social media. I think we should stop it.

Mr President, the European Union likes to lecture the whole world on human rights and democracy, but in reality it has itself become a model of censorship and totalitarian control. With the Digital Services Act, they claim to protect social media from so-called disinformation and hate speech, but in reality they want to protect those in power from the democratic protest of their citizens. When Elon Musk did an interview with Alice Weidel of the Alternative für Deutschland, the European Union called in as many as 150 officials to check whether anything might have been said wrong. Former European Commissioner Thierry Breton took it a step further. If the elections in Germany do not produce the desired result, then, he stated, they could simply cancel them with the Digital Services Act, as happened earlier in Romania. What they call hate speech is actually just contradiction. What they call disinformation is actually just having a different opinion. And the rulers clearly do not want that, because they always want to stay in power, regardless of what the citizen thinks about their insane policy. Free speech is not a favour of the European Union, but a fundamental right, which we must not allow to be taken away.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Syria urgently needs its doctors and engineers who have come to Europe in recent years. After all, asylum law should never be a migration channel leading to permanent residence. It is and will remain a temporary measure for people in need. This includes a clear agreement to return home as soon as the situation has been cleared up. For Syrian asylum seekers, that moment has now arrived. The new Syrian government itself is also asking for those asylum seekers to return. After all, they are necessary to rebuild their country. Tens of thousands of refugees who were received in the region of origin are also doing so and are already returning spontaneously. However, those who came to Europe are less likely to do the same because of our social systems. These asylum seekers need to understand their role in the reconstruction of Syria. It's essential. Return is not just our expectation. Above all, it is their moral duty. That is why we must immediately suspend all pending asylum applications, family reunifications and naturalisation procedures. We must prepare and support the existing asylum seekers for their return. Remigration is mandatory, expected and necessary. No discussions, no excuses, no exceptions.

Mr President, the voter's signal was very clear. Our people want more purchasing power and less migration. But that political elite, they just continue to act as if nothing happened at all. The von der Leyen Commission is therefore simply more of the same. More migration and more climate madness. This Commission has not only completely detached itself from the people, but also from reality. After all, the rest of the world is not going along with that Green Deal, that open border policy or that crazy war rhetoric of Ursula von der Leyen. This Commission is therefore already a thing of the past before it is even started. Because everywhere the people choose a different way: those of peace, those of prosperity and those of common sense. This is the path of the nationalists. That is why we are the first of tomorrow and why this von der Leyen Commission is the last of yesterday.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the American people have elected and won. The massive vote for Donald Trump is a historic victory of the people over the elite. It is the victory of nationalism over globalism. The Americans have taken back their country. However, we are not Americans, but Flemings and Europeans. Our interests are not necessarily the same as theirs. But we too must opt for the policy of common sense. Therefore, stop the climate madness of the Green Deal that destroys our purchasing power and opt for climate realism. Stop this open border policy that leads to insecurity and depopulation. Finally close our borders and send those illegals back. Stop censorship on social media and restore our civil rights and freedoms. In Europe, too, our people must come first again. Make Europe great again!

Mr President, during this debate, another hundred and thirty asylum seekers will be arriving in Europe. Every hour of every day of every month. More than 3,000 asylum seekers a day, and half of them are asylum fraudsters. They abuse the right of asylum to migrate and four out of five of these fortune seekers do not return at all. During the debate, 50 illegal immigrants will be added to Europe. The European Union observes, debates, contemplates, palaverts and deliberates, but refuses to take action. However, the solution is obvious. We must actively track down and return illegal immigrants. Countries that do not want to take back their illegal immigrants should no longer receive a euro in development aid. We can boycott them economically, impose visa sanctions and stop financial flows until they cooperate. The European Union can prove its added value here. Why doesn't that actually happen?