Speeches

Mr President, Commissioner, in two weeks' time it will be Christmas. Let's look at God's intervention in history. He sent His Son to this dark world – this dark world in need – to provide light and salvation. As churches across Europe prepare for this, Commissioner Dalli and her officials were working to remove Christmas from the vocabulary. The inclusive language they advocate apparently excludes God. Inclusiveness has nothing to do with it. Rather, it tends toward censorship, advising Christian officials to stop talking about the deepest thing that drives them. Because of all the justified fuss, your colleague has now withdrawn the relevant guideline. Let it be an important lesson. Europe was formed by Christianity. Whoever squanders that inheritance, cuts through the branch on which he sits. This is why I call: Return to the Christian roots of Europe. Only then will Europe have a real future. I wish you a merry Christmas.

Mr President, now that the dust from COP26 has settled, we are taking stock today, and I will limit myself to three comments. One, it is a good thing that we as the EU want to be at the forefront, but if we are too far ahead of the troops, we are competing ourselves out of the market. Two, the EU cannot do this alone. Countries with a lot of polluting industries, such as China and India, must also contribute. Global cooperation is crucial. The fact that we are now going to apply the emissions trading system globally is an important step in this respect. Three, phasing out fossil fuels is needed. That is the transition we are in, but caution is required in this regard, also in view of the current energy crisis. We should not shut down energy sources until we have new ones. Alternative energy sources such as nuclear energy and blue hydrogen must also be taken seriously.

Mr President, the Ministerial Conference is a good opportunity to give a new impetus to the World Trade Organization, including as regards the dispute settlement system, because an open multilateral trading system with fair rules of the game is in everyone's interest, certainly also in the interest of Europe. I shall confine myself to fishing and the debate on fisheries subsidies. International agreements on subsidies can certainly contribute to a global level playing field, such as in the fight against illegal fishing and overcapacity. But it cannot be that our fishermen go head-to-head by calling into question the support for fleet renewal. We must also not put the tax exemption on fuel on the line. That would be irresponsible with the high fuel prices now. In the short and medium term, we still need fossil fuels, especially in fisheries. The WTO is very valuable to us, but so is the concern for modern, profitable fishing.

Mr President, if we take our food security seriously, our farmers deserve great respect, appreciation and support. After all, it is they who, day after day, take care of our food supply and our countryside according to the highest standards in the world. This requires a balanced policy in which sustainability and commitment to competing companies go hand in hand. Mr President, what is and remains before us is a compromise, but it is a compromise that deserves support. It deserves support because we have been able to reduce the unrealistic ambitions of the Commission to realistic proportions. It deserves support because we have found a good balance between income support and targeted remuneration, see the eco-schemes. And it also deserves support because Member States can now do more for young farmers. However, much will depend on Member States' implementation. After all, they have more freedom of choice. And that's good, because this way they can better take into account the local circumstances. But it is important that we continue to ensure a level playing field. This could be called into question if, for example, choices about the transfer between the two pillars diverge considerably between the Member States, or if Member States impose all kinds of additional national requirements. I therefore ask the Commission, when reviewing the strategic plans, to look not only at the environmental but also at the economic impact. As regards ‘farm to fork’, we all know that impact assessments have not yet been carried out, and the targets are not yet set in legislation. Therefore, they cannot be used as a yardstick in the assessment of the strategic plans. That would be very premature. I therefore urge the Commission once again to respect the agreements on this matter. It remains for me to thank the rapporteur, Peter Jahr, very much for his enormous efforts, and also to thank the shadow rapporteurs for the very pleasant cooperation on this dossier.

Mr President, I would also like to draw attention to the fact that we are still waiting for the new EU envoy for religious freedom, because we have, de facto, been holding the vacancy for two years now. We cannot count the four months that Christos Stylianides held this position. Those four months were more like a summer internship, in which he did not even get into work. President von der Leyen recently wrote to me that the reappointment of the EU Envoy has received her full attention. Beautiful words, but I notice very little of them in practice. The Commission is able to set up a health service of hundreds of staff within a few weeks, but the appointment of a single EU envoy, that only lasts and that only lasts ... My urgent appeal to the Commission is therefore: Take a look around you, and see how worldwide the persecution of faith is increasing, come quickly with an EU envoy, really quickly, and provide substantial official support!

Mr President, Commissioner, a milestone: I would like to mention Mr Weimers' report before us. For the first time in its history, the European Union has adopted a report on EU-Taiwan relations. As a democratic rule of law with respect for human rights, as an important trading partner in a strategic, important region and with an innovative society, Taiwan is a shining example for the region. But there is always the intimidating and provocative long arm of Beijing, which threatens peace and stability in the region. The present report by Mr Weimers is much needed. Taiwan deserves international support. This means that we must work towards a bilateral investment agreement. The EU should also be more active in advocating for Taiwan to be admitted as an observer to international organisations such as the World Trade Organisation and the World Health Organisation, in particular in the interest of the Taiwanese people themselves.

Mr President, tomorrow we will all have to confess colour: do we embrace the overambitious ‘Farm to Fork’ targets, while there is no impact assessment at all and while more and more signs of green are jumping on orange? Indeed, several studies warn of a sharp drop in production, an increase in consumer prices, increasing dependence on imports and only very limited environmental gains. Or do we, as a Parliament, take ourselves seriously and call the Commission, which seems to be blind to all the warning signs, to order? That's the issue. It's time to pull the emergency brake by not giving the green light now for the unachievable top-down targets being proposed. And, Commissioner, one more time: why did you and your colleagues not inform us about the first warning signals from your own services during the recent negotiations on the Common Agricultural Policy? I am referring to the JRC report, which was actually completed in January. We have no choice but to take this very seriously. After all, this is about our food security.

Mr President, what is currently happening in Myanmar is terrible and unacceptable. The opposition is being eliminated. Christian leaders are murdered or disappear behind bars. Churches are set on fire. Rohingyas have to flee for their lives. Today, our resolution sends a strong signal. The government in Myanmar must be stopped. In this context, I call on the Council to make even more active use of the targeted sanctions instrument, particularly towards leaders who play a key role in the repression of religious minorities. We can't do that alone. The international community must join forces and certainly also call Russia and China to order, because in the end it is they who, with their arms supplies, help to maintain the terrible situation in Myanmar.

Mr President, I would also like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Vautmans, for her excellent report. I agree with her that we need to be very clear tonight. As long as China continues to violate human rights, imprison Uyghurs, persecute Christians and destroy democracy in Hong Kong, there can be no question of an investment agreement with the EU. China should also not think that the problems can be solved by simply lifting the sanctions and adjusting them in the margins. No, really fundamental adjustments are needed, especially in terms of the protection of Christians and other religious minorities. What does not help – and I look at the representative of the Commission – is that the EU Envoy for Freedom of Religion, Christos Stylianides, leaves after four months. Of course, this is never the case with much-needed diplomacy in this area. My question to the Commission is therefore very specific: Can you guarantee that there will soon be a full-fledged successor who is willing to commit himself for a long time and with heart and soul for those who are being persecuted?

Mr President, Commissioner, with the raid on Apple Daily, China has reached a new low in the breakdown of democracy in Hong Kong. The opposition had already been silenced, and now also the last free active newspaper. All this must not be left without consequences. As long as China continues to violate human rights in Hong Kong, in Xinjiang, anywhere, there can be no sign of the investment agreement. Nor, as far as I am concerned, of the technical preparations for this agreement. Can the Commissioner reassure me on this point? The use of Magnitsky sanctions against Carrie Lam and others is also urgently needed. Mr President, what about the European Parliament’s call, made in the 2019 discharge report, for Chinese-made cameras to be removed from the European Parliament? Why hasn't that been implemented yet? Improve the world, start with yourself.

Mr President, Commissioner, disruptions to the natural balance in the waters around Antarctica cannot possibly leave us cold. As the EU, we share responsibility for the proper management of international waters, including those around the South Pole, also in the light of the Madrid Protocol. Measures are needed to protect vulnerable species such as penguins and whales, based on the best available scientific data and not on randomly chosen and unsubstantiated round numbers. However, something strange is going on with the resolution before us. You would expect that it would only be about Antarctica, but that turns out not to be the case. Once again, this resolution deals with the Commission's biodiversity strategy and zooms in on European waters, while we all know that impact assessments have still not been carried out and it is therefore very premature to take objectives from the biodiversity strategy as a starting point, both for our own policy in the European Union and for the approach in international waters. In this context, I would also like to stress the importance of customisation. It is not possible to apply the same approach to all waters. What is desirable and possible in the Southern Ocean may not be possible and desirable in the EU. Moreover, what do all these plans mean for the fisherman? Certainly in combination with all other spatial claims, the 30% target for our European waters seems to me to be really overstated. If the EU wants to be a global leader, let us set realistic and well-founded targets, including at the Kunming Biodiversity Conference later this year. Protected maritime areas can play a role in protecting biodiversity, but they should not become an end in themselves.

Mr President, Minister, it is clear that we must work together to denounce human rights violations worldwide. Whether it is the persecution of faith, modern slavery or the erosion of democracy, we cannot and must not look away! The Magnitsky Act is an important addition to our toolbox in this regard. However, the abolition of the unanimity rule advocated by many in this House is not the right way forward. The EU Treaty simply does not allow for this. Moreover, it is not necessary at all. Indeed, it is also possible to impose sanctions against companies and individuals in countries such as Russia, Belarus and China by consensus, as practice teaches. The abolition of the unanimity rule is, above all, highly undesirable. Then the big Member States will be the service and small Member States will be sidelined. Foreign policy is just too important for that! Consensus provides support. And that is precisely what is crucial for this to be a powerful instrument.