Speeches

Madam President, as a proud mother of four, I welcome the Council agreement to allow proxy voting for Members of the European Parliament during the final stage of pregnancy and early motherhood. This is a practical and proportionate solution for a very specific situation when mothers can no longer travel for medical reasons, yet remain fully committed to their mandate. It sends an important signal to women across Europe who wish to serve in public office that motherhood should not be an obstacle to democratic participation. At the same time, it is a strictly limited amendment. It must not be interpreted as opening the door to wider reforms of electoral law, or to any generalisation of proxy voting beyond these circumstances. The Patriots for Europe remain fully committed to supporting families. Balancing public service and family life is never simple, but today's agreement makes that balance more achievable.

Mr President, the European Commission is carrying out a frontal attack on freedom of expression. Who says there are only two genders is immediately canceled because of hate speech. Anyone who criticizes the green madness spreads disinformation. Anyone who wants to return illegal migrants is guilty of pushbacks. Our privacy must also be destroyed. Via Chatcontrol 2.0, Ursula von der Leyen wants to shamelessly read along with WhatsApp messages. Then you should be lucky that you are not a Jew, gay or woman. For years of mass immigration has made Europe life-threatening for these people. Jewish schools now look like heavily protected forts. Jewish fellow citizens hide their kippah under a cap for fear of blows. Women are intimidated on the streets and gay people no longer dare to walk hand in hand in their own cities. We import people from cultures where Jew-hatred is infused, where women are second-class citizens and where homosexuality is punishable by death. We import hate and the consequences are disastrous. But instead of focusing on the real issues, this meaningless report deals with gender ideology, Islamophobia, the colonial past and disinformation. And that while there is a screaming lack of action where it really matters: Protecting our borders and ensuring the safety of our people. Why don't we do that? Why is this Parliament in solidarity with migrants and never with our own citizens?

Madam President, Commissioner, let me be absolutely clear from the outset: rape is a horrific crime. It must be unequivocally condemned, and victims deserve justice, protection and the utmost respect. But the proposal we are discussing here today is not the answer, and harmonisation at EU level is certainly not the answer. Of course consent must be central, but reducing it to a constant, contract‑like requirement drags everyday human interaction into legal territory that would unsettle even the most seasoned law professor. It moves away from assessing coercion, intent and context, and towards a cold, abstract model that is detached from the realities and the beauty of human interaction. Human relationships do not unfold through formalised steps or legal checklists. They are based on mutual understanding, signals, emotions and trust. If the law disregards this reality, it risks criminalising ambiguity rather than targeting real abuse. We all want better protection for victims, but murky standards do not strengthen justice – they weaken it. Colleagues, we must combat rape decisively, but we must do so with laws that are clear, enforceable and grounded in real life, not with ideological proposals that disregard Member State competences, risk unintended consequences and ignore the realities of human interaction.

Madam President, on behalf of the Patriots, I request adding to the agenda a Council and Commission statement on the so‑called One Europe, One Market joint declaration that was signed last week. What has been agreed by the three institutions is not a simple declaration. It is a roadmap with political direction, legislative priorities and timelines. The place to decide on such matters is here in the Hemicycle. That is the democratic way. Parliament's position must be anchored in plenary and that step is missing here. If Parliament is to be associated with this roadmap, it must first form its position openly and transparently. Otherwise, we set a precedent where Parliament is pre‑committed elsewhere and only informed afterwards. That does not solve Europe's problems. It amplifies them. For these reasons, we request that this item be placed on the plenary agenda, to be concluded with resolution and to be voted this session.

It just proves my point that you think the rules apply to us, but not to you. You did not ask me a question. You do not deserve an answer, but I'm happy to have given you your 30 seconds of speaking time. Have a nice evening.

Commissioner, for years we have been told that migration is an inevitable natural phenomenon. As if policy is useless and borders are just lines on a world map. Meanwhile, the consequences of mass migration are piling up, the economic and cultural damage is huge and our citizens are paying the bill. That is not solidarity, that is administrative recklessness. European migration policy has fundamentally failed. While the influx remains high, return fails in four out of five cases. This is what a return procedure looks like in practice: After years of proceedings with the help of his lawyer, a foreign national is told that he must leave. But there is no longer a passport, because that is somewhere on the bottom of the Mediterranean Sea. The country of origin refuses to cooperate. Diplomatic letters follow, months pass. Eventually, there will be a travel document. A flight is booked, but on board the resistance begins, with biting, spitting, and screaming. He is taken off the plane and another attempt is made. But activists, tipped off by the lawyer, are also on that flight. The chaos is so great that the pilot refuses to leave and everything starts again. This is no exception. This is the rule, because the real bankruptcy is in the return. Those who take return seriously must limit the possibility of endless litigation. We need to expand detention possibilities, make an entry ban the rule and force third countries to comply with their international obligations. If not, the following will automatically apply: no trade benefits, no visa regimes, no development aid and no exceptions. We must stop handing out gifts to countries that are deliberately sabotaging our return policy. Control is not restored with good intentions, but with clear choices and with the realization that migration is not a force of nature.

Mr President, while the Commission is talking about strategic autonomy and territorial integrity, the Presidency of the Council is held by a Member State that has been partially occupied by a NATO ally for more than 50 years. This occupation has so far had no impact on Turkey's NATO membership and it is formally still a candidate country for EU membership. Whoever takes the measure of territorial integrity from others can no longer ignore this. Credibility requires consequence. At the same time, Turkey also plays an active role in destabilising the region, thereby contributing to new migration flows towards Europe. The motto of the Cyprus Presidency is: "An autonomous Europe, open to the world". In recent years, however, we have been too open. The result is a society that is under severe pressure. Under this Presidency, effective border protection and a strict and enforceable Return Regulation should therefore be pursued. After all, anyone who wants to be open to the world must first be able to set boundaries.

Mr President, colleagues, we live in some of the most tolerant, open and free societies the world has ever known. Societies built on equality between men and women, on the freedom to love whom we choose, on the freedom to speak freely and on the absolute rejection of antisemitism. And yet, in the name of this tolerance, we have invited intolerance. This is the real discrimination we should be addressing, not some vague, outdated, resuscitated directive that undermines our sovereignty and only paves the way for even more judicial activism. Because the truth is simple: we welcomed people into our countries without demanding that they respect the values that we hold dear. The result is that the very discrimination we fought once so hard to eliminate has returned to our streets openly and violently. This is not diversity. This is failure. Failure to protect our citizens and failure to defend our democracies. When Christmas markets in Germany must be guarded by concrete barriers, when New Year's Eve celebrations in Paris are cancelled, when Jewish people are once again threatened on the streets of Europe, something has gone profoundly wrong. When people are afraid to celebrate their traditions, speak freely or live openly, our tolerance has been exploited. Our compassion must never come at the expense of our civilisation. If we refuse to defend our values, we will lose them.

Thank you very much, Mr Brandstätter. I have never denied that disinformation and foreign interference is a serious threat to our democracies. What I am concerned about is that the policy that the Commission is proposing will do nothing to fight Russian or Chinese interference into societies, and it will only target our own citizens – and that we have to avoid at every cost.

Mr President, Commissioner, two weeks ago, the European Commission launched the attack on our freedom of expression. With this proposal for a so-called European shield for democracy, they want, among other things, to combat disinformation. No one knows what disinformation is. Certainly not the Commission itself. If a word can mean anything, a government can abuse it for anything. Questions about climate or immigration policy: disinformation. Criticism of Islam: disinformation. Doubts about von der Leyen as Commission President: disinformation. Now the Commission is also putting forward a European centre for Democratic Resilience. It's outright Orwellian, because here we see the contours of a Ministry of Truth, complete with the tools to silence media and punish citizens for their opinions. Maybe it's a good idea to let Orwell know. 1984 It was written as a warning and not as a manual. That is why I would like to give the Commissioner a copy today.

Madam President, female representatives have a democratic duty to represent their voters in this Parliament. The goal of this amendment is simple: to ensure that female representatives can continue to exercise their mandate, even during pregnancy and childbirth. However, for the Patriots for Europe, it is important to stress that this is not an open invitation to broaden the scope of the electoral law or to engage in ideological debates about gender or parental roles. The liberals and the Greens demanded that their arrangement be extended to all parents, either because they believe it is not only women who can become pregnant and give birth, or because they think that fathers spending three nights on a camping bed in hospital is somehow to be compared with the situation of women giving birth. I would therefore like to explicitly thank the rapporteur and the Socialist Group for siding with the pragmatism of the right-wing majority in this Parliament without woke nonsense, but out of respect for women and mothers...

Mr President, Commissioner, the European electorate has been promised: Hold on, because the migration pact is coming and that will solve all migration problems, but what does it show? Member States hardly agree on the distribution of asylum seekers. The Commission now says to the Dutch: “You will have new neighbours, but we will not tell you how many, because we will keep these figures a secret for a while.” Countries such as Poland and Hungary are no longer participating. That is quite right, because we must stop hoping for paper agreements that are not already feasible. We must stop pretending that mass migration is desirable. Illegal migration from non-Western countries costs billions. We don't have to divide it better, we have to stop it. We have to act on that too. We need to make it less attractive for migrants to come to Europe. And those who are not allowed to stay here must leave, quickly and effectively. That's not a tough policy, that's fair policy.

Madam President, referring to Rules 40 and 132 of the Rules of Procedure, I would like to start by thanking the Chair of the AFCO Committee for a very timely and relevant discussion on the rule of law this week. However, we as the Patriots are concerned about the political insinuations of the President of the Court of Justice of the European Union during his keynote address. It was evident to all present that Mr Lenaers expressed political views, perhaps subtly, but unmistakably so. Let us be clear: political statements by a Court President are unacceptable. They raise serious doubts regarding the respect for the rule of law and for the separation of powers. It also feeds into the idea that the Court is political in its functioning. In any Member State governed by the rule of law, such conduct would warrant a call for resignation. This Parliament must make clear its disapproval. His conduct damages not only the independence of the judiciary, but also the public's perception of that independence.

Mr President, the work programme of the Commission is called 'Europe's independence moment'. A more apt description would be 'Operation more bureaucracy in fancy wrapping paper', because nothing says freedom like being buried under a mountain of new rules dressed up as simplification. The Commission promises 'new ambition' for Europe – you promise to cut red tape and then you wrap us in even more of it. But people have had enough of pacts, visions, plans, shields and reports. This endless cycle of document production is the very definition of competence creep – the steady expansion of EU control without accountability or measurable results. This culture of paperwork can be found in almost every sphere of EU influence. The truth is that the EU never simplifies – it multiplies. It multiplies rules and regulations until progress grinds to a complete halt. The people of Europe do not need more bureaucratic window dressing or another glossy brochure. What they need is real deregulation and simplification. Fewer obstacles for entrepreneurs, simpler rules for citizens and the freedom to compete and create. Because people act on incentives and Brussels keeps offering the wrong ones. The dream of the EU federalists has become the worst nightmare of ordinary people, and it is time to wake up.

Mr President, according to some, enlargement of the European Union is an end in itself. For them is the ever closer Union By definition, a ever expanding Union, a large global empire that must constantly increase power, dominance and influence in order to remain relevant. However, the PVV and the Patriots for Europe Group see this differently. The EU has clear political, cultural and natural boundaries. Because one ever expanding Union undoubtedly also means more net recipients and an ever smaller group of net contributors. This redistributive machine weakens the EU as a whole, but also the individual Member States. Brussels is throwing a party and the Dutch citizen is allowed to pay for the costs. So we can pay more and more, but if it depends on the europhiles, we also have less and less to say. Because, according to this report, a Union of 30 or more Member States would be politically stuck if each Member State retained its right of veto, and therefore they want to abolish the right of veto. Enlargement is not progress at the expense of effectiveness, sovereignty and common sense. We must stop collecting Member States as if they were stamps. The same principle applies to migration, European regulation and enlargement of the Union: Enough is enough and Less is more.

Mr President, Commissioner, today is exactly two years ago: The largest Jewish hunt since the Holocaust. And two years later, innocent people are still being held hostage in Gaza. The fact that this has continued is a disgrace to our civilization. Here in Europe we see the same hatred. We saw it in Amsterdam, in Brussels, in Paris and last week in Manchester. There is hardly a Jewish school or synagogue to be found that does not need to be heavily secured. How is it possible that this is the reality for many parents and children in Europe, 80 years after the Shoah? I can tell you: this antisemitism is partly the result of decades of mass migration from Islamic countries where children learn from an early age that women are inferior, that gays should be thrown off roofs and that Jews are pigs. It is naive to think that these beliefs suddenly disappear with the acquisition of a residence permit. Let there be no doubt about it: Those who commit anti-Semitic violence have no place in Europe. Today, on this loaded date, I would like to end – for the umpteenth time and hopefully now also for the last time – with the call: “Bring them home. Now. ’

Mr President, Commissioner, the European Union presents itself as the moral compass of the world. But before our eyes, scandal is unfolding after scandal within the EU. Consider how the Commission, led by Timmermans, used taxpayers’ money to pay NGOs that proclaimed the Commission’s climate agenda. Consider the Commission’s refusal to disclose Von der Leyen’s Pfizer SMS. Think of Qatargate, where bags of money were found among left-wing MEPs. Always the same pattern: No transparency, no accountability. Then you would expect that we, as a Parliament, would take responsibility for finding this out to the bottom. But time and time again proposals such as those of the Patriots To set up a committee of inquiry, voted down. Not only by the left, but also with the support of the EPP. Protecting our democracy requires courage. The courage to act against outside interference. But above all, the courage to look in the mirror.

Mr President, the state of our Union can be summed up in one word: untenable. Instead of tackling the real problems, they are tinkering with bottle caps and paper straws at the Commission. Our citizens are not asking for more, they are asking for less. Fewer rules, less interference and, above all, less migration. Without effective returns, any migration policy is worthless. Those who do not have the right to stay must actually leave. That is the absolute minimum. And then the multi-year budget of no less than EUR 2 trillion. While families have to turn every euro around, Brussels sprinkles money as if it were confetti on a carnival parade. That is irresponsible and completely detached from reality. Mr President, the Dutch want their money back, and rightly so. Mrs von der Leyen, you are calling for more money, more EU and more patronage. But our citizens want less, less, less. And that's where our mission lies. (The speaker refused to address "blue card" questions by Hilde Vautmans and Raquel García Hermida-Van der Walle.)

Madam President, the rules are clear: Rule 169 clearly states that a debate can only be rejected by a four fifths majority. The left has been complaining since Friday about this debate. They should have raised it in the CoP. They didn't. They know they do not have a four fifths majority to have it removed from the agenda, and now they raised three separate points of order to still try and captivate the debate. That is not acceptable. We have chosen a factual title for this debate and, therefore, on behalf of the Patriots, we insist that this debate takes place. Colleagues, the feelings of the left neither define democracy nor can they change reality. Democracy is not the monopoly of the left.

Madam President, colleagues, the Council conclusions are clear. We need to do everything in our power to improve cooperation on returns. But the current proposal is silent on the external dimension. And this is more than a missed opportunity. It is a strategic mistake. Without securing cooperation by third countries through visa, trade and aid conditionality, any return system will fail. Now, many here, of course, want exactly that ‑ failure, because they do not want illegal migrants to be returned. But let me remind you that there is a working right-wing majority in this House, and it is working for our citizens, and now it needs to work for returns. If the EPP sides with the left on this, they will end up with a regulation that is weaker than their own Commissioner's proposal. And now is not the time for weak compromises. It's time to take a chainsaw to the bureaucracy and inaction that have paralysed our return system for years, and this is only possible with the help of the Patriots.

Mr President, once again there is a call for more European Union. More countries, more bureaucracy, but less participation for the countries that have built this Union. The Eurocrats see enlargement as a necessity and see the right of veto as an obstacle. As the system cracks at its joints, Brussels rushes forward, as if enlargement is a moral duty and not a political choice. Enlarging the EU further is like allowing passengers on a sinking ship. What awaits us is an accelerated path towards a transfer union, as new Member States will be net recipients almost without exception. And who pays for the costs? Net contributors such as the Netherlands. If we also abolish the right of veto, we will create a system in which net contributors pay more and more, but have less and less to say. This is not the Europe we have chosen. It is high time that we take back the helm, before our interests finally go overboard.