Speeches

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?

Mr President, Commissioner, rising food prices are making it impossible for more and more citizens to make ends meet. But these sky-high food prices are not a natural phenomenon. They are the result of a toxic cocktail of overregulation, green daydreaming and Brussels patronage. The results of last year's European elections almost suffocated the Eurocrats. matcha latte with fair oat milk. And then they found a sham solution. First they presented the Draghi report and then the EU Competitiveness Compass. Here's a rule less, there's a form abolished. But this is far from enough, because the Green Deal hangs around the neck of our farmers and threatens our food security, because Brussels has decided that farmers should no longer be farmers, but climate bookkeepers in rubber boots. The energy transition is driving up energy costs. While the elite imports its Japanese matcha, the working citizen eats expensive dry bread. It is therefore high time that the Commission acknowledged that the current policy is unsustainable and that a real change of direction is needed. There is a right-wing majority in this House. All you have to do is show the courage to work with the Patriots for Europe, because only with us can Europe protect the purchasing power of its citizens. My message is clear. Remove the urge to regulate, free the farmers and stop the climatic madness, because food is not a luxury product.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are living in a time when threats come not only from the outside, but also from the inside. Safety is more than a strategy. It guarantees the right to feel at home in your own country, in your own city and in your own street. The U.S. Vice President is right: Any security strategy, whether internal or external, will only succeed if we know not only what we are protecting against, but also what we are protecting against. It is at this point that we have lost our way. We have lost our social cohesion, the warmth of good neighbourliness, the confidence to leave your door open and still feel safe. The feeling of caring for each other has slowly faded and it is time we find it again. Because I want to live again in a country where my children can play outside safely, where they grow up in a society that protects them, guides them and makes them proud of who they are. Without that foundation, we can still devise so many political or security strategies, they remain doomed to fail.

Mr President, I would also like to thank the Commissioner for presenting the new Return Regulation. This proposal does not come a moment too early and I am cautiously positive. The migration policy of recent years has been a real disaster and the Return Directive in force is no exception, as the current policy does not ensure return and it is a goldmine for asylum lawyers. Half a million people in the EU receive a deportation order every year, but the failing EU policies ensure that more than 80% of illegal immigrants are not deported. It has become a totally out of control guest party. They're tearing down the living room and the parents refuse to pick them up. Anyone who is illegally present here must leave immediately. That's not radical, that's just common sense. The migration pact is presented as a kind of panacea to solve the asylum crisis. But we can adopt ten more migration pacts here – if return rates do not rise sharply, mopping will remain open with the crane open. That is why we need a robust return policy. Honest to migrants, but above all honest to our own citizens. I want automatic sanctions for countries that do not take back their nationals. No readmission means no development aid, no visa arrangements and no other privileges. For too long, Europe has been the mad Henkie of the world. We also need to simplify our internal procedures. Those who have been rejected must leave and must not go on indefinitely. We must ensure that rejected asylum seekers can also be sent to other countries and so-called 'return hubs' outside the EU. As shadow rapporteur for the PfE Group, I am determined to work constructively with the other groups. Without the PfE Group, there is no majority in favour of a strict return policy and left-wing mismanagement continues and goes from bad to worse. Let us work towards legislation that is effective and puts the security of our citizens at one place.

I think it's a very naive argument to think what we're doing in Africa and the rest of the developing world is actually helping them at the moment. We do not see significant improvements because of the projects of the EU. We spend billions and billions of dollars buying them blenders for schools where they don't have electricity, funding transgender craziness in developing countries. We are not preventing them from migrating. We are not helping them. It has the opposite effect.

Mr President, Commissioner, the reorganisation of the US government by President Trump and Elon Musk is a nightmare for the left-liberal elite. They're finally cutting back on one of their favorite projects, USAID. But our citizens also have nightmares, because they can no longer make ends meet, partly because of the EU policy that has been imposed on them in recent years. Expensive and short-sighted projects for which they have to pay. Development aid is one of these terrible hobby projects, because the taxes of poor people in rich countries are used to fill the pockets of rich people in poor countries. We should welcome the Musk approach in Brussels with open arms, as billions of euros are also wasted in the EU. Trump's policy reminds us that putting the taxpayer first is not radical. It's just common sense. Trump puts Americans first. It is high time we brought our citizens back together.

Mr President, the Netherlands is jam-packed. The roads, the public transport, the schools, the housing market, our concern: It's busy everywhere and everything gets stuck. The country is bursting at the seams. Nevertheless, the Commission wants to tackle labour shortages and ageing populations by attracting more migrants. This is not only short-sighted, but simply absurd. After all, migrants are also ageing and migration is putting enormous pressure on our welfare state. Importing labour does not solve anything and only makes us dependent on external population growth. This is not a strategy, but a pitfall; A kind of pyramid scheme played at the expense of our welfare state, our security and our culture. So the solution lies not in bringing in more migrants, but in strengthening our own society by protecting our prosperity and borders and investing in innovation.

Mr President, migration is again on the agenda of the European Council. And today, on the so-called Day of the Migrant, I have to conclude that there are no real solutions. The EU's unwillingness or inability to deal effectively with uncontrolled migration to our beautiful countries has led many of us to feel like strangers in our own villages and cities. The EU acts as if migration is inevitable. That's bullshit. Effective and realistic measures are possible and it is not as complicated as we are often told. We are now showing this in the Netherlands. We decide who can stay in our countries and who has to leave. We don't need migration. What we do need is a pro-family policy. We need to ensure that our own population has a stable base. Like a house and a good income. So people can start a family. And we need to convince our children that technical skills are at least as valuable, if not more valuable, than academic skills. I refuse to accept that in Europe we would be dependent on doctors, pharmacists or astronauts from Afghanistan, Yemen or Malawi. I refuse to accept that uncontrolled migration is an inevitable force that we cannot do anything about. And I refuse to accept that our children become foreigners in their own country.

Madam President, the hearings of Commissioners‑designate have veered into the troubling territory of politicisation. Instead of concentrating on qualifications and vision, they are increasingly influenced by partisan rivalries and secret political deals. This not only undermines the integrity of the process, but also the trust of our citizens and the very principles of democracy we seek to uphold. Member States have the exclusive right to nominate Commissioners. The European Parliament's oversight role is vital, but cannot negate the role of the Member States. To allow bias against certain national governments to influence our decisions is to betray the trust of the European people. We must also address the glaring lack of transparency. Postponing evaluation meetings, holding closed‑door sessions and excluding key stakeholders from the process flies in the face of our commitment to accountability and transparency. We must commit to a Europe where the sovereignty of Member States is respected, and where transparency and accountability are non‑negotiable. The future of Europe demands nothing less.

Mr President, Commissioner, the European Union's migration policy has for too long put the rights of migrants first, while the safety and rights of European citizens have been shamelessly neglected. Last week wrote The Welt that the much-acclaimed migration pact is far from sufficient. It will not lead to a significant reduction in the number of migrants in Europe. An EU top diplomat said aptly: "This is clear to all of us." Only by limiting the influx and promoting the return of illegal migrants can Member States fulfil their constitutional obligations, namely to guarantee housing, healthcare, education and the safety of their citizens. The migration debate has changed drastically since the European elections thanks to our voters. We trust that the Commission will embrace these winds of change for the strictest possible asylum and migration policy. This includes, among other things, modernising the Refugee Convention, the possibility of opting out on asylum and migration, a strict Return Directive, identifying safe third countries and reducing the pull factors for migrants. Together with other European countries, the Netherlands will work hard to drastically limit migration to Europe, because a change of course is needed. It's now or never.

Mr President, the Netherlands has long been known as one of the most tolerant countries in the world. And yet we cannot ignore the fact that anti-Semitism has also increased in our country in recent years. When we talk about the growing religious intolerance in Europe, we must dare to name the facts as they are. This intolerance does not come from Christians, Jews or Hindus. We do not see images from France, Germany or the Netherlands of Christians chasing infidels with knives. The problem seems to focus mainly on one specific religion. Supporters of radical Islam target non-Muslims, Christians, women, homosexuals, and Jews in particular. Anti-Jewish statements are the order of the day. There are parts of our cities where gay couples do not dare to walk hand in hand across the street. Women are intimidated in their own neighborhoods. The problem is growing day by day, mainly due to the influx of radical Muslim migrants who do not or hardly integrate. Does the Commission agree that if refugees or other migrants are guilty of anti-Semitic statements or violence, this should have consequences for their residence or the possibility of naturalisation? In any case, the answer is clear to me: There is no place for hate preachers!

Mr President, Commissioner, the strength of a country lies in its ability to protect its citizens. It starts with guarding the borders. The right to determine who may enter the territory of a state is the cornerstone of sovereignty. But this sovereignty is under pressure because the European external borders are as leaky as a basket and once inside, Schengen is eagerly used. The migration crisis, caused by years of maladministration, must be brought to an end and the only real solution is to drastically limit the influx. In short: Close the borders. My question to the Commission is therefore as follows: “When will the Commission finally invest in strengthening our external borders and creating physical barriers?” Because instead of protecting the external borders and ensuring the security of our citizens, the Commission prefers to focus on creating more legal migration routes. That does not solve the problem, but rather exacerbates it. We can no longer allow our citizens to face housing shortages, cultural conflicts, terrorist attacks and rising crime rates. It is our responsibility to ensure that our citizens feel safe in their own country. And if the EU is not willing or able to solve this problem, we will do it ourselves at national level.

Mr President, first Mannheim, now Solingen. Nine years ago, Angela Merkel said: "Wir kopen das", and She set the boundaries Open to millions of fortune seekers. We are now experiencing the consequences of this, not only in Germany, but throughout Europe. Think of Samuel Paty, who was beheaded four years ago by a Chechen refugee, and the Swedish football supporters who were shot last year in Brussels by a Tunisian who was staying in the country illegally. Thousands of people were trapped in a football stadium for hours, including my own husband and children. There are dozens of examples. Does the Commission take responsibility for Islamic terrorism and anti-Semitism in Europe, which are the result of a lax migration policy? It has to be different. It's got to be better. The influx must be reduced immediately and drastically and we must focus on an efficient return policy. The Netherlands will lead the way in Europe to ensure that asylum seekers who have been denied asylum actually return. There's another way. It could be better.