Speeches

Mr President, I would say that the report we are discussing here is not bad at all - by the standards of this Parliament. Thanks for that, but it's still just words. And what we need in this tense situation – probably the worst security situation I have ever remembered – we need to be able to act, we need to be able to spend 2% on defence, every country in Europe, almost nobody does it. We must be able to send troops to protect the eastern part of NATO. We must be able to stand up for Ukraine as a free and sovereign country, and we must also be able to agree that if Russia crosses the red lines, we will disconnect it from that SWIFT. We can't even agree on that. So we must not be in a situation where bastards make fun of us, but have respect for us, and we can only do that by actions, not by talking about European architecture. Oh, thank you.

Madam President, Theodore Roosevelt once famously said you speak softly but keep a hammer in your hand, and our problem is that occasionally we are behaving otherwise. We have nice speeches, yes, we should support Ukraine independence, we should support their right to decide about their future. We also rightly criticise Putin and his aggressive behaviour, but we do nothing to deter him from action. This is our problem. We should be able to deploy strategic weapons in the Eastern theatre. We should be able to declare sanctions that would hurt him, not sanctions which produce just his laugh. But our problem is that occasionally we are rather putting our heads right into Putin’s throat, with our increasing dependence on Russian gas, with our inability to support nuclear energy. This is our problem and until we change that, nothing will happen.

Mr President, the House of Representatives, one thank you and one warning. Thank you – we have finally made a commitment to end deforestation soon. We have remedied what this House ruined 15 years ago, when, in the name of biofuels, we encouraged all countries to start cutting down forests. Now we've finally made it right. And one warning – we came to Glasgow as the European Union with Fit for 55, but where is China, where is India, where is Australia, where is Russia? Where is the United States of America? Where are the billions of dollars to develop infrastructure, highways, railways? And we come with belt tightening. But I think of those who are fifty-five years old or older and do not live in a rich country like Holland, but in the poorer ones and are about to make the biggest energy price increase in history and do not know how to deal with it. Let's think about them, please.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, we have a consensus on the cause. Lukashenko is behind this, the villain with his cynical hybrid warfare playing into Putin's head. But that's talk, it's hard to find a match for actions. Unfortunately, the solution is not naive humanism, albeit well-meaning, which some here recommend. We're just sticking our heads in the noose of those bastards. Ladies and gentlemen, Lithuanians, Poles, Latvians are fighting for us here too, and we have a duty to help them in this struggle for border control. The European Union is supposed to help them with money to improve border protection. If we can help Turkey, why can't we help Poland? We as Member States are also supposed to offer assistance by sending police officers, by sending soldiers so that Poles, Latvians, Lithuanians are not alone in protecting the borders.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we have two options for what will happen in Glasgow in relation to the EU. Either we show that our EU policy is relevant, it can serve as a model, or we laugh at others. I am afraid that the adoption of this resolution, which we are discussing here, will lead to the second option: We'll be laughing. Once again, my colleagues have broken loose and included in the text a number of issues that go far beyond the Council's position. Do you really mean to remove support for all fossil fuels, including natural gas, as soon as possible? Where is your assessment of the impact on the inclusion of climate neutrality among the constitutional obligations of the Member States? If we are serious about decarbonisation, we must define a credible timetable and not draw up a wish list without any basis in reality, especially if we are to get developing countries on our side, which will find it more difficult to implement the Paris Agreement than we do. Vote against.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I would like to thank our colleague Charlie Weimers, because he has prepared a report for which we do not have to be ashamed this time. Taiwan has shown us the way many times. The last time during the coronavirus crisis and I think it can again. We all know the challenges we've been facing in the semiconductor market lately. The automotive industry is practically in ruins. I am deeply convinced that it is far more profitable for us to establish and deepen industrial, economic and scientific-technical cooperation with a democratically minded partner than to be dependent on resources from authoritarian countries. Let us show that we are proud partners of the people of Taiwan, and let us not let continental China destroy it, as it did with Hong Kong. China's aggression undermines stability and peace not only in the Southeast Asian region, but throughout the world, and we have to do something about it. Taiwan is the correct answer.