Speeches

Mr President, from day one, the N-VA of this Commission asked for a much greater commitment to competitiveness. Unfortunately, our industrial activity is dropping further away. No European digital company is in the top 15 worldwide. There is insufficient productivity. We are far too dependent on China, partly because of far too few new trade agreements. And the regulatory burden has become even more suffocating. Investment permits are long overdue. The single market is still not complete, which means that we are missing 12% growth. And this while the relaxations of state aid rules undermine the level playing field. So there is a lot of work to be done. Within 100 days of the start of the new Commission, there must be a comprehensive new industrial plan of action and this must be done in a smart way. This cannot be done by burdening the next generations – my children, my grandchildren – with new debts. This is not allowed with new EU taxes. This should be done through a sensible shift in the budget towards more R&D, more innovation, more commitment to security, more commitment to cross-border infrastructure. Above all, the EU must create a great deal of prosperity and protect our economy, our people, our freedoms.

Mr President, Commissioner, Minister, corporate social responsibility is an ethical duty. No forced labour, no child labour, no environmental violations, no corruption. But we absolutely do not want a stranglehold around the neck of our companies. SMEs do not have the means to scrutinise and control the entire chain. The proposal has improved under pressure from other Member States, but Prime Minister De Croo's latest proposal is still unacceptable. Instead of promoting a level playing field, legal liability and competitiveness, you come back with a battery of rules, costs and charges. Explain that to our manufacturing industry. Our SMEs are already failing under the regulatory burden. According to Graydon's analysis, 30% of our companies are seriously threatened by the reporting obligations of the ESG Directive. Prime Minister De Croo also received warnings from foreign companies that they have serious doubts about investing with us. It's very cynical to have a industrial deal come, while you fire new heavy rules, reporting and sanctions on our SMEs behind the scenes. On the other hand, we want to preserve our industry and our jobs in the EU.

Mr President, first of all I would like to congratulate the Commission and the rapporteurs. This free trade agreement with partner country Chile brings good news at the last minute. It is very important for several reasons. In these difficult times, we do not leave geopolitics to China. This treaty strengthens our open strategic autonomy on critical raw materials and reaffirms our belief in free, rules-based trade in these times of deglobalisation and fragmentation. Self-sufficiency is neither desirable nor feasible. There is a separate chapter for the benefit of our SMEs, and the impact on agricultural production will be marginal. This treaty is a lever for improving working conditions, for sustainability and for the fight against climate change. And, of course, it will promote imports and exports, with the creation – for both partners – of many jobs. Eurostat figures also confirm that trade in goods and services is growing relatively faster than the general European economy. Finally, Commissioner: The EU will have to step up. We need more trade agreements as an engine of prosperity and stability in these troubled times.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Green Deal should have been accompanied from the outset by a European Pact for Prosperity and Jobs. That didn't happen. As a result, we are losing industry. As a result, companies are moving to the United States and we are hopelessly dependent on China for the much-needed materials for the green and digital transitions. In addition, the Commission abandoned the level playing field for State aid, causing Flanders to lose jobs and investments, for example. What needs to be done? Well, we must complete the internal market. Secondly, there must be a drastic shift in the European budget towards cross-border investments and high-innovative investments. Instead of burying companies under rules, we need to offer citizens and businesses a hopeful and legally certain perspective.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the EU Treaty provides that farmers have the right to a fair standard of living. Well, this policy is failing. The farmer is entitled to a good price for his good goods. But our farmer with a family business has no market power. He is alone in the food chain in front of big players. The Commission must therefore very quickly implement guidelines in competition law to allow farmers to agree and unite to help determine the price. Remember that the necessary sustainable transition cannot be achieved without economic sustainability. This Commission has issued a mass of rules in violation of proportionality. We ask for impact assessments to be carried out at regional and local level, as the Treaty also stipulates. Conclusion: Give the farmer a decent income. Make fair, proportional rules.

Good morning Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Prime Minister, you are now also calling for a . You are calling for our competitiveness to be strengthened. You have obviously listened very carefully to what the N-VA has been proposing for years. But you are not acting on that, Prime Minister, and I hope that the EU will have a better policy than your disastrous Belgian policy. The top priority must be to complete our internal market. This represents a growth of 12%. But you made the worst of it happen. You have fragmented the internal market. The level playing field for state aid has been lifted to the detriment of the economy of the small Member States, to the detriment of our growth and prosperity. On top of that, large Member States only allow products from their own countries in their retail trade, again to the detriment of our economy, of our jobs, of our prosperity. And in line with your liberal vision, you are calling for more EU taxes. The EU does not need more resources. The EU needs thorough reform. There needs to be a budgetary shift towards more resources for innovation, for infrastructure, for the green and digital transitions, for security, for migration policy. Open strategic autonomy must be the answer to the ongoing deglobalisation. But it is precisely your government that is holding back new trade agreements, which are a means of doing so. You are also contributing to a flood of new rules. The EU is always producing new rules and this strangles our competitiveness. Permits must be granted much faster, not only to cleantech and chips technology, but to all companies, to all governments. Finally: Our security has long been threatened again. You must make it a top priority to arrange more resources and more weapons for support to Ukraine. There is a lot of work on the shelf. We will follow your presidency closely and very critically.

Mr President, we fully support this regulation on critical raw materials. It is more than necessary to achieve the green and digital transitions, to strengthen the competitiveness of our companies, to be less dependent on the rest of the world – especially China – and thus to strengthen our open strategic autonomy. We are in a period of deglobalization. Already now, the tense trade relationship between the United States and China is leading to a curtailment of exports of critical minerals from China, which has a dominant position. We therefore fully support the Critical Raw Materials Club and we call for more trade agreements to include a chapter on mineral raw materials and, especially in the short term, an agreement with the United States on critical raw materials needed for the production of batteries for electric cars. My congratulations to the rapporteur.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, finally a second trade agreement with Vietnam, congratulating the Commissioner and his staff and the rapporteur. Only a second agreement means that this is not a legislature to be proud of. However, trade agreements bring growth and prosperity. They diversify our supply lines, bring stability and also bring peoples together. It should be primarily about trade, i.e. increasing market access, removing barriers to trade, lowering tariffs. Secondly, trade agreements serve as a lever for working conditions, for human rights, for sustainability, for climate objectives. The EU must be pragmatic and act as a partner and not dictate with the finger lifted what should and should be threatened with sanctions. China is much more pragmatic, reasoning geopolitically, and is now active in many places in Africa and South America. So let this symbolic agreement with New Zealand be a trigger for the new trade agreements that have been in the waiting room for a long time.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this Commission does not have a competitiveness agenda. Together with the Green Deal, there should have been an industrial plan for growth and prosperity. Meanwhile, the United States took a huge lead. It is only after the Inflation Reduction Act that the Commission came forward with this proposal for a Net-Zero Industry Act, which by definition only covers part of our industry. The rest of the industry has to do without expedited procedures and without aid. On the positive side, the realisation that we need nuclear energy for our decarbonisation and for energy security seems to be growing at last in this Parliament. However, it is not acceptable for public procurement to give a weighting of at least 30%, not only to the environment, but also to social sustainability and the vague notion of resilience. This will lead to a deterioration of our internal market, this will lead to protectionism, this is contrary to our open strategic autonomy. At least 30%, without a ceiling, combined with the extremely vague criterion of resilience. Finally: We cannot support Parliament's position as it stands today, clearly even without an impact analysis.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this Commission wanted to be a geopolitical Commission. We see that. Four years later, our High Representative is asking China to recognise the EU as a geopolitical player. This is quite humiliating, I thought. You're not asking, you're acting like a geopolitical actor. The balance after four years is negative. Watertight sanctions against Russia are waiting. After years of dumping, an investigation is only now being initiated into the Chinese car industry. It was this Parliament that had to call for action against unfair competition from Chinese fisheries. After four years, only one trade agreement has been ratified. Geopolitics is the EU a dwarf that does not command awe. The summit of Granada brought no view for Armenia. Nor did the Union succeed in bringing Serbia and Kosovo to the table. The Union's first response to Hamas's terrorist attack on Israel was a pure cacaphony. The EU must cast off its geopolitical shyness, take responsibility for its own outer ring, and at the same time be a global player in peace, stability and trade. The EU must define by unanimity a foreign strategic vision in order to decide, act and impose sanctions within that framework by qualified majority. The EU should not empire They are, but urgently need to work on a defence cooperation, inextricably linked to NATO. Now that the world is on fire, we need a rapid intervention force more than ever. And just as the EU brought peace to this continent, the EU must also be an actor of peace and stability worldwide.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, innovation is not a luxury. Innovation is a necessity and we need to excel at it, because our global competitiveness is under severe pressure. This STEP could be a step in the right direction. The intention is good, but the effect is not. Not applying the highest standards, levelling, is bad for innovation, is bad for the most innovative federal states, is bad for the best projects and also has a distortive effect on the market. So stop investing in expensive initiatives on an ad hoc basis. On the contrary, make a change. A change in the budget, a budget of the 21st century. More research and development. More innovation.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am a staunch supporter of fair, rules-based trade. Free trade creates jobs and prosperity, but also competitive challenges, which in turn lead to innovation. Free trade also brings people and peoples together and that requires the removal of trade barriers. But it is precisely on this point that the EU falls short. There are not enough new trade agreements. During this parliamentary term, Parliament approved one new trade agreement. The EU must therefore be more activist, but also more pragmatic and more geopolitical. Trade agreements are a lever for human rights, a lever for working conditions, a lever for climate objectives, and so on. But threatening sanctions is at odds with partnership and also counterproductive. Trade agreements make us stronger by diversifying supply chains and forcing us to be competitive. And here's the shoe pinching. The EU has no adequate response to China's dominance over rare earths, to China's unfair trade practices, or to China's Inflation Reduction Act of the United States. This EU does not have a forward-looking budget, imposes enormous regulatory burdens and makes the plans a pain for public and private investment. On top of this is the distortion of competition caused by the revision of the State aid rules. In addition to delocalization to the United States, we now also have delocalization internally in our internal market. It has to be different, ladies and gentlemen: more trade agreements, a shift in the budget towards research, development and innovation, a level playing field in our internal market, more space for our industry to experiment and finally less regulatory burden and faster permitting processes.

Commissioner, you must indeed respect the deadlines, but there is also a speedy procedure. I ask you to apply this fast-track procedure to avoid drama and I also ask you to speak clearly and clearly at the EU-China summit. Fair trade? – Yes. Dumping? – No.

Mr President, Commissioner, the Commission's approach seems to me to be the right one. Not decoupling from China, but reducing the risks. No protectionism, but open strategic autonomy and above all fair trade based on a level playing field. And that's where the shoe pinches. I know of thriving Flemish companies with hundreds of employees threatened by dumping practices by China. Mass imports of products at dumped prices. The Commission must act decisively and, above all, more quickly. The ordinary procedure takes one to one and a half years. Well, in this period, those companies are going to break down and hundreds of people are going to be on the streets. My question is therefore what you are going to do to avoid such tragedies and to act decisively, but above all much faster, against those dumping practices.

Mr President, we must indeed complete and protect our internal market, our greatest asset. And so it cannot be that in times of crisis the Member States will close the borders as they did at the beginning of the pandemic. And so a European framework that protects the functioning of the internal market in times of crisis is a good plan. But what is on the table here, colleagues, Commissioner, goes much, much further. This goes the way of a state-run economy with far-reaching interventionist measures in the hands of the European Commission. Require companies to: to carry out priority orders from the Commission; and providing business sensitive information, These are measures, Commissioner, which belong in a planned economy. This can also have very negative consequences for our image as an investment region and as a reliable trading partner. The Commission should confine itself to protecting the freedoms of the internal market.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, from a trade perspective, we cannot dream of full self-sufficiency, let alone protectionism. European industry is far too intertwined with the rest of the world for this. On the contrary, the EU must focus on its strengths by also creating an ecosystem with global players that we have, such as IMEC in Leuven and ASML in the Netherlands. A nice application of this, Commissioner, is the EU-Flanders co-financing of EUR 1.5 billion to further strengthen IMEC's global leadership in Leuven on the smallest and most powerful semiconductors. I support the call in the new regulation to deepen international cooperation and also build mutual partnerships. This allows us to ensure continuity in the supply of chips, also in future crisis situations.

Mr President, colleagues, Commissioner, integrity and good governance must be an absolute policy priority. In this regard, I call from the outset for even greater transparency and, secondly, for the rules on conflicts of interest to be tightened up. Disclosure of conflicts of interest is not sufficient. In some cases, a member must completely refrain from intervening, from amending, from voting, as happens in the private sector in a board of directors. In addition, it is my experience as a member of the Advisory Committee on the Conduct of Members that this Parliament itself must have the necessary means of investigation and enforcement. On the other hand, an interinstitutional body is undesirable in view of the separation of powers. As a matter of principle, it is unacceptable for a parliament to allow an institution with members of the executive to determine with external parties the minimum rules that parliamentarians must comply with. We share the same values, but we set the rules. I shudder at the idea that, as some groups want, this would be a first step towards an external body judging MEPs. For me, the Freedom of Speech holy.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the farmer likes to be the guardian of nature, but he must have the means to pay the enormous costs of the green transition. Well, he doesn't have those resources. The EU's income support policy is failing. Many farmers live in poverty. The farmer must get money for his goods. The common agricultural policy aims to ensure a fair standard of living for farmers, but competition policy does not take this into account. The Commission must change this. Secondly, the farmer must be given legal certainty. Flanders does not want a nature restoration law that makes investments and the future of the farmer totally uncertain. Here, too, the Commission must be much more proportionate in view of the considerable differences in spatial planning and population density between the Member States and the Länder.

Mr President, ‘Let China sleep, because if China wakes up, the earth will shake’, Napoleon warned 200 years ago. Now, today, China is a giant, economically and militarily. Moreover, China is a master strategist who imposes himself worldwide. However, decoupling China is not a good thing. The EU must continue to embrace multilateralism and trade. Moreover, colleagues, our shift towards renewable energy is collapsing like a pudding without rare earth materials, for which China is strategically close to incontournable made it. We have to de-risking. We need to reduce the risks: through smart, open strategic autonomy; by rapidly diversifying our supply lines with important trade agreements; by not naively leaving critical infrastructure and strategic investments to China. It is disastrous to give the impression that Taiwan is a matter for the US and China, at risk of being left alone to support Ukraine. We must not let the transatlantic partnership play its part. My group therefore calls for unity in our policy towards China.

Presidents, colleagues, after years of political hostility, unrest and violence, the Good Friday Agreement has for 25 years provided a period of peace and democracy, democracy as a means to achieve political objectives. What followed was stability with power sharing between once sworn enemies. However, Brexit brought back unrest and tensions. At all costs, it was necessary to prevent the Good Friday Agreement from being undermined. After long and protracted discussions, the Windsor Agreement finally reached a good settlement on the Northern Ireland Protocol. Thanks to all parties involved, including our negotiators, who, 25 years later – again – were able to jump over their own shadow. Political will and responsible leadership of the Good Friday Agreement negotiators gave an entire generation the opportunity to grow up in peace and prosperity, the essence of what the EU has meant to us for 75 years. My group sincerely hopes that, in the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement, as a precious legacy of reconciliation, all parties involved will take advantage of the new Windsor Agreement: as a starting point that once again offers opportunities for citizens and businesses to build a prosperous future in Northern Ireland, as an impetus for the re-functioning of democratic institutions in Northern Ireland; and as the pivotal moment for a renewed positive cooperation between the UK and the EU, and that in – hopefully – many more areas than is currently the case.

Mr President, I have heard many good intentions, but we have been hearing them since 2000. With the Lisbon Strategy, we would be the largest competitive knowledge-based economy in the world in 2010, then postponed with Barroso to 2020. Same with the Commission-Juncker. And now a new beginning. We have been asking for years: Take the right measures. Complete the internal market, strengthen trade agreements, speed up licensing, reduce regulatory burdens, and focus much more on research and development. And, Commissioner and Mr President, I would like to ask: Don't try to copy China, bet on next-generation technology for batteries, for solar panels, for windmills. Then we will take the lead worldwide.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we are very pleased that there is finally a workable agreement for the Northern Ireland Protocol – with a small caveat, albeit, for the Stormont emergency brake. All thanks go to Commissioner Šefčovič, who acted patiently, flexibly and pragmatically throughout the process. Colleagues, this agreement can be a pivotal moment. Either the British bill to remove EU regulations is going in the wrong direction, or we are coming to a renewed cooperation in many areas with the pragmatic Prime Minister Sunak. I am thinking of Horizon Europe. I am thinking of energy, migration, climate and defence. Furthermore, a sustainable cooperation for a blue economy in and around the North Sea. And finally, my fellow Members: an EU-US/UK trilateral partnership in the Trade and Technology Council. In short, a new interpretation of an old alliance.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I wholeheartedly support the objectives of the Data Act and congratulate the rapporteur who, together with many, has made sensitive improvements to the proposal. The EU absolutely needs a competitive data market. Our backlog vis-à-vis the United States and China is dramatic. Sharing data is crucial for innovation and growth, for our competitiveness, for our prosperity. But, ladies and gentlemen, allow me to say that there are still a number of work points, a number of concerns, to be addressed in terms of legal certainty for our companies, the protection of their trade secrets and intellectual property. The possibility for governments to demand private data must be very, very strictly limited, delineated, limited. The door for improper use must absolutely close.

Mr President, the answer to the IRA must not be protectionist and must not undermine the internal market by relaxing State aid rules to the detriment of workers and businesses in small Member States. Nor should the answer be a sovereignty fund with new debts and new taxes. The answer should be smart: faster authorisation of all investments, less suffocating rules and more structural reforms, a shift in the budget towards more research, development and innovation, and the long-awaited completion of the internal market. These measures will not cost anything, but they will help us to achieve greater competitiveness and prosperity.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I was a member of three parliaments before entering this house. Well, none of these parliaments has as many integrity rules as this European Parliament. Rightly so. Noblesse oblige. And it could be even better. We need to tighten our rules and be even more transparent. But remember, this will not stop criminals. Criminal activities are not reported and happen under the waterline. However, in our justified outrage at ‘Qatargate’, we must not throw fundamental achievements overboard. An interinstitutional body composed of external parties, also referred to by the European Commission, is contrary to the separation of powers. The Commission and Parliament must, of course, apply the same basic ethical principles, but there are different rules for Members of Parliament than for those of the executive. What's more, there has long been a struggle for tri-power doctrine, for an independent parliament, not controlled by the monarch. The opposite must be true, colleagues. Parliament should control the executive. And our freedom of expression is guaranteed by the Treaty. We cannot be subjected to an external investigation as a result of an opinion or a vote cast in the exercise of our function. We are, of course, subject to our internal disciplinary sanctions in accordance with our Rules of Procedure. But parliamentary irresponsibility does not tolerate any external control. A Member must be able to speak freely in the performance of his or her duties. This is not a personal privilege of ours, but a guarantee of the independence of Parliament and its Members. The executive must in no way be directly or indirectly involved in the assessment of our freedom of expression. So, ladies and gentlemen, yes to strengthening our internal advisory committee, which should be given more powers. But, I swear to you, no external assessment.