Speeches

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.

Mr President, the Spanish general's pardon for as many as half a million illegal migrants is not a domestic issue. It is a disaster for the whole of the Union. Anyone who is granted a right of residence in one Member State today will be able to go anywhere in the Union tomorrow. And that's not an opinion. That's not an interpretation. This is how Schengen works. And we knew that. People on this side of the room have been warning about this for years. And you said that we exaggerated, that open borders were a moral duty, that Schengen would be strengthened by trust. But the unilateral legalisation of 500,000 people illegally present in Europe is not a humanitarian nuance. It's a break, a break with agreements, but worse, a break with common sense. Schengen was never meant to be a license. It was based on a strict agreement: internal openness in exchange for tough protection of the external border. But this agreement has been violated for years, because this is not an incident, but a pattern. And now these agreements are being openly blown up. No longer secretly, but loudly with a press release. The migration pact promised discipline, but discipline without enforcement is not a policy. It's fiction. What we are seeing now is a system collapsing under its own gullibility. Open borders do not work in a Europe that refuses to take external borders seriously.

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.

Mr President, Commissioner, the rule of law is the foundation of our democracies. But what does the term actually mean? Rule of law, Rule of law, l’état de droit — Every country does this differently, and that's fine. United in diversityDo you remember? However, the Commission uses its own understanding of what the rule of law should mean. And she also uses this view as a stick to beat with. Selective, but mostly political. Take Poland as an example: criticised for years for alleged breaches of the rule of law. And now, since the change of power, those worries would have suddenly disappeared. It's like magic. You can say anything about the rule of law, except when it comes to the EU itself. And that's exactly what it should be about. Take the Timmermans scandal. Billions of euros went to green NGOs to sue businesses and pressure parliamentarians. A blatant violation of the separation of powers, but virtually nothing is said about it. We have to ask ourselves: Is the Commission protecting or undermining the rule of law? Who guards the guardians?

Mr President, a year and a half ago, Yuval Raphael survived the massacre of Hamas at the Supernova music festival. It didn't matter much whether this young woman was either horribly murdered or still trapped in a dark tunnel in Gaza. Last week she was on the Eurovision stage. A strong woman who sang an inspiring song of hope. Despite weeks of negative campaigning against her and Israel, Yuval finished in second place. Not because of the jury, but because of the audience, the people at home. Because the elite always follow an agenda, in this case an anti-Israel agenda. But the results don't lie. The people spoke. The support for Israel is far greater than some would have us believe. Eurovision shows the growing gap in Europe. A noisy minority versus a silent majority. In this Parliament, too, it is time for us to start listening to the people again instead of the elite.

Madam President, on Wednesday last week, the Court of Justice ruled that the European Commission failed to provide sufficient justification for withholding communications between President von der Leyen and the CEO of Pfizer. The Commission has since made it abundantly clear that it has no intention of actually releasing said information. Instead, it will focus on improving its justification for refusal. This demonstrates a troubling reality, namely that the Commission has little interest in improving transparency. Its support for the proposed interinstitutional ethics body appears to be about keeping up appearances rather than facilitating meaningful reform. In recent years, the EU has been shaken by repeated corruption scandals. That is why we, the Patriots, have called for the establishment of a parliamentary inquiry committee on transparency and accountability. In light of the Court's ruling and the persistent lack of transparency on behalf of the Commission, we believe that it is imperative to hold an honest and open debate about this matter.

President. Millions of people have paid the highest price for our freedom. Most of us do not know what war is and let us all hope that we will never find out. Nie wieder ist jetzt! This is not a wish, but a promise. A promise that anti-Semitism would never again gain a foothold in Europe. And yet Jew-hatred is on the rise again. Not in uniform, but in slogans. Synagogues that need to be protected, children who drop off a kippah out of fear. At the end of last year, a frenzied crowd actively went in search of Jews in the inner city of Amsterdam. Last month, a Jewish bakery in this city, in Strasbourg, was attacked and vandalized. Let us use this eighty-year anniversary to reflect on this. Look at the streets of our European cities and ask yourself: Are we living up to our promise?