Speeches

Today, the European Parliament voted on a framework for a European Digital Identity (eID). I voted against this report. While a European Digital Identity Wallet may seem easy at first glance, it has major drawbacks and uncertainties. The online use of a European digital identity document poses major challenges to the protection of user privacy. In addition, I have great concerns about the application possibilities of the eID, especially when it comes to processing sensitive data such as that of online payments. Where does this stop, I wonder. For example, can one in the future only pay with a digital euro with the digital wallet? The European Commission has alluded to this. This would lead to mass surveillance that I am not waiting for. I am therefore absolutely not convinced that the eID is safe and ethical in practice. The Dutch citizen is not waiting for a European digital wallet, because a well-functioning DigiD system already exists in the Netherlands. As far as I am concerned, the eID is therefore undesirable.

Mr President, it is a good thing that there is currently a revaluation of livestock farming. After all, livestock farming makes an important contribution to the essential protein sources in our food, and is a crucial pillar of a circular food system. Our sectors are at the forefront of sustainability and efficiency, using the latest innovations for animal welfare and the environment. The point, however, is that regulations are increasingly standing in the way of further sustainability. I therefore call for: 1) More room for circularity. A revision of the Nitrates Directive is needed to improve the use of livestock manure. 2) Ample job for further innovation. Research budgets must be adequately and earmarked for innovation in agriculture. And these innovations must actually be able to be applied to the farmyard. 3) A level playing field. No unfair competition from imports produced at lower standards.

Budgeting means making choices, and we have to make them. But we cannot, of course, reduce the fisheries budget by 67%, as the Commission proposes. That would not do justice to the challenges faced by fisheries. Funding is needed for fleet modernisation, for innovative fishing gear, but also for generational renewal. As rapporteur on behalf of the Committee on Fisheries, I am therefore pleased that the Committee on Budgets has largely adopted our opinion. In doing so, we are repairing the Commission proposal and calling for an earmarked budget for fisheries of EUR 6.5 billion, and a budget of EUR 1.5 billion for international fisheries policy. In addition to this, I would like to inform the rapporteurs that we are also looking at support possibilities for fisheries from the EU Facility and also from the European Competitiveness Fund. We all know how important fishing is for our food security. In order to make fishing future-proof, investment is needed, and it simply requires sufficient budget.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, pumping as much money into the economy as quickly as possible with as little supervision and control as possible. In this way, the EU tackled the coronavirus crisis, resulting in huge debts and interest payments and a lot of fraud. According to the EPPO, €5 billion in fraud has already been committed with money from the Coronavirus Recovery Fund. Colleagues, I would just like to say: So it goes wrong when ill-considered decisions are made at the front. It also shows that the fight against fraud is not only a matter of strengthening investigative services, information exchange and risk analysis, but that we also need to ensure good arrangements at the front, i.e. preventively. Schemes that are not susceptible to fraud. We also need to make firm agreements on transparency and accountability of the legality of spending. If we do not do that, the fight against fraud will continue to mop up with the tap open. That is what the debacle around the corona recovery fund has taught us.

Mr President, the call for a ban on conversion therapies raises major questions, first of all, the EU does not have competence in this area. That is the only reason why we must reject this request. But the scope of the whole proposal is also very dubious. Coercion or ill-treatment are already prohibited by law. It is therefore clear that the scope of this proposal goes far beyond that. We must see it especially against the backdrop of woke thinking, that everyone chooses their own gender, that doubt about gender would be very good and that the aid worker should primarily feed that doubt. Pastoral conversations that are not directly affirmative or encouraging do not seem to fit into that story. They are seen as annoying jammers that should be banned. That is the idea behind this whole proposal. One thing I know for sure: we don't help young people who are struggling with their identity.

Madam President, I can agree because then I think we have more time and we can prepare ourselves better for the debate. So I can agree with that proposal.

Mr President, it does not stop, and it goes from bad to worse. I mean the long series of attacks on the Jewish community – the President already mentioned them – such as recently at a synagogue in Liège, a synagogue in Rotterdam, a Jewish school in Amsterdam and ambulances from a Jewish volunteer organisation in London. Where does this end? Yes, even today we show solidarity with the Jewish community and say no to anti-Semitism. But words are not enough. We need to act. What the EU is doing now is mainly combating symptoms. It is high time to address the root causes of growing anti-Semitism. Consider, for example, the influence of radical Islam. That is why we propose to add to the agenda a statement by the Council and the Commission on the need to combat antisemitism and protect Jewish life in Europe following the recent attacks on the Jewish community in the Netherlands and Belgium. The need to combat antisemitism and protect Jewish life in Europe following the recent attacks against the Jewish community in the Netherlands and Belgium.

Mr President, you are bringing the joyful message of the Gospel, the message of peace and reconciliation through Jesus Christ. Then you are considered a danger to the state and you do not enter the country anymore. That is the harsh reality for many missionaries who have Turkey as their field of work. Similarly for the American-Dutch preacher James Bultema, who left for Turkey in 1990, founded a church there, but was expelled from the country last year without mercy. Such bad practices must not go unnoticed, especially now that the EU is re-establishing ties with Turkey. Our resolution is crystal clear on this. We expect the Turkish government to stop obstructing churches. If Turkey is to renew the customs union, it will at least have to show that it takes religious freedom seriously and wants to give space for the proclamation of the biblical message.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the persecution of Jimmy Lai, whose only crime is his commitment to freedom of the press, symbolises the drastic curtailment of freedom in Hong Kong, which has been under increasing pressure since the national security law entered into force there: legislation that paralyses civil society, silences opposition members and erodes fundamental freedoms. It is time for Europe to make it clear that the ongoing repression has consequences. I therefore call for targeted sanctions against the Hong Kong Supreme Leader and all officials responsible for these human rights violations. In addition, the European Union must critically review Hong Kong's special trade status as long as the rule of law and fundamental freedoms are not restored. Freedom is not a privilege, but a right. And that right deserves protection, even in Hong Kong.

Like you, I see the need and the desirability of a trade agreement with India. At the same time, we also know that there are concerns about human rights in India. I am thinking, for example, of the position of religious minorities and Christians and the fact that there are anti-conversion laws in India. My question to you is: Do you agree with me that we should use this agreement to also demand firm guarantees from India, for example that the country will better protect Christians?

Mr President, the human rights situation in the world is crying. I think we'll soon agree on that tonight. But the question is: What can we do about it? Military intervention, as Trump recently did in Nigeria, is not really obvious. But what is? I have three concrete recommendations for the Commission and for the High Representative: 1. Be more assertive in trade agreements. For example, in the case of India, do not settle for a non-committal human rights dialogue, but demand firm guarantees about repealing anti-conversion laws and addressing Hindu extremists; 2. also bring more focus into the policy. Stop promoting abortion. This is not a human right at all. Focus on violations of real human rights. Think about Christian persecution. Finally, appoint the EU Envoy for Freedom of Religion; 3. also look at human rights violations in Europe. Exploitation in prostitution, for example. We really need to tackle human trafficking much harder.

Mr President, kidnapped by heavily armed groups. Untraceable. It'll just be your kid. This is not an incident, but the daily reality in Nigeria. The attack on the Christian St Mary school symbolizes the structural violence that plagues northern and central Nigeria. Christian schools and communities are repeatedly targeted by kidnappings and attacks by armed groups. That some of the children have been released is good news, but there are still a lot of questions. Why have no arrests been made yet and why have the affected communities been informed so late? Mr President, let us put maximum pressure on the Nigerian authorities to stop the violence. And I ask the Commissioner: Do you see opportunities, for example, for diplomatic sanctions against negligent drivers? And let us face the fact that we are dealing with terrorist Islamic violence against Christians. And finally, after 13 months, let us appoint that EU envoy for religious freedom. Commission, what are you waiting for?

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, if we want to preserve agriculture in Europe, the regulatory burden on farmers will have to be drastically reduced. The simplification package we are voting on this week is a step in the right direction. This will increase the scope for Member States to adapt or suspend rules in the event of unforeseen circumstances. Member States may also grant compensation for the conditionality requirements in peat meadow areas, or GAEC 2. I call on the Member States to make use of this possibility without delay. However, to actually alleviate the regulatory burden on all farmyards, this package is not enough. More is needed. In order to really reduce the regulatory burden, it is necessary to revise the many outdated European directives, such as the Nitrates Directive, the Habitats Directive and the Water Framework Directive. I therefore call on the Commission to work swiftly on this and to come forward with proposals for amendments quickly.