What Rob spoke about.

Mr President, if you call the electronic patient file in the Netherlands, a lot of people know that. Many people were concerned that their most intimate medical records would end up on the streets. And the Senate – the ‘First Chamber’ in the Netherlands – agreed with these people. In 2010, thirteen years ago, our Senate voted to stop its introduction. Instead, the National Switch Point has now been introduced. This is a complete opt-in system: Your data will only be exchanged if you give permission for this yourself. Now the EU wants to introduce a variant of the electronic health record. I don't think that's a good idea. IT and government, that often goes wrong. And the further the government cedes to the people, the more often it goes wrong. In the case of the EU, one leak in one Member State could cause the data of a few hundred million people to end up in the wrong hands. And given the increasing cybercrime, this is certainly not an imaginary danger. In short, I am against the creation of the European Health Data Space. Thank you very much.

Mr President, I have heard it a few times today, the illusion of the left-wing populists here to take away the business model of the smugglers by persecuting them. From low risk, high return we are going to make high risk, low return. Look at the fight against drugs and how successful it has become. There is no market in the world where as much money is made as in the cocaine trade. The higher the risk, the higher the price, the higher the profit. I am in favour of detecting and rescuing migrants on the NGO boats, but saving them and wanting to save them does not automatically mean that we have to give them the crossing to Europe. We don't have that obligation. Let us focus more on agreements with the countries of their origin and return to them. Very humane and no one can be serious about that. As long as this entry into Europe is rewarded legally, illegally, with or without an asylum procedure, people will come by boat and people will die in the Mediterranean.

Mr President, there is a tidal wave coming at Europe. Artificial intelligence can and probably will also be the biggest revolution of this century. Our way of life will change completely. For me, the first priority – and we all agree on this here – is to remain a free society in which people’s fundamental rights are also safe. I always look very critically at legislation from the European Union. I'm usually against it, but I support this bill. It protects our rights and if we do not want that tidal wave to wash away our free society, we must also take action. I am against biometric systems for identification in public spaces. In real time, but also afterwards. The European Commission and the Council want the latter option ‘exceptionally’, they say. But exceptions always open doors and I'm against that. First it is about terrorists or about children who are missing, serious crime and then also about other suspects. Before you know it, we're all step by step under surveillance of an AI system. I call on all of you not to agree to this. That tidal wave is coming towards Europe and we cannot turn the direction of the water, but we can build a dike to protect our people. Let's do that.

Mr President, Commissioner, colleagues, the ‘Head of Directorate for the Protection of State Secrets in the Press’, as it was called in the Soviet Union. ‘The Central Propaganda Department’ is what it is called in China. And with the so-called EU DisinfoLab, we also have our Ministry of Truth, which determines what people are allowed to say. How far does the EU go in its crusade against dissent? At the beginning of last year, the EU banned the Russian TV channel Russia Today and now here the foreign influence in elections is under scrutiny. I do know a few examples, such as that of a Dutch ICT entrepreneur who donated more than EUR 1 million to the Grünen a few years ago in the German elections. Or that of an American philanthropist who donated EUR 20 000 to Volt and donated more than EUR 200 000 to the pre-campaign at the Ukraine referendum in the Netherlands. Is the EU going after this too? I'm not expecting it. And then the conclusion is: This is not really about democracy, but about restricting freedom of expression. This has never been a good idea, nor is it now.

Mr President, it is spring again and mass immigration is reaching record after record again. We all agree on that, from left to right. The asylum system is broken. It is time for a fundamentally different policy. And the goal is clear: There should be much less migration to Europe. We only allow immigrants who are of added value to our society. We provide emergency assistance in third countries. Applying for external asylum is perfectly possible: Look at Denmark. What do we need for this? Only three cases. First of all, effective border protection, and I have said this many times here: Let fortress Europe become a reality. Frontex must stop bringing boats to Europe with people: They have to go back to where they came from. The external borders must be closed and we will no longer reward illegal entry with an asylum application. Then people will stop to undertake that life-threatening crossing. Secondly, an effective return policy. Agreements with third countries are needed. And those who do not accept returnees, get no money, no visas, et cetera. There is much more to be done to force those countries to take back their own nationals. If the goal remains to return only... (The President interrupted the speaker) ... to do it voluntarily, then it becomes very difficult. Thirdly, an effective asylum procedure from third countries ... (The President withdrew the floor)

Mr President, this debate has a very nice title: “The need for European solidarity in saving lives in the Mediterranean, in particular in Italy”. There, as already mentioned, the government has declared a state of emergency a few times. The influx of illegal immigrants has been unsustainable for a long time. It will be an annual ritual. As soon as spring comes, the southern European coast begins to be flooded. There are already more than 31,000 in Italy this year. The Netherlands is also struggling with unsustainable mass immigration. Last year, asylum reception in the Netherlands cost more than EUR 1.5 billion. Solidarity with these countries is indeed needed. I do not think that this should be done by making immigration even more attractive, legalising or encouraging it, nor by allowing more boats to come. But we need a radical change, a radically different policy. Ban the NGO boats and allow asylum applications from third countries. Anyone who comes to Europe without permission will be sent back and will not enter it again. Then the boats won't come. Then those people also have no reason to enter Europe illegally and then no more people will die in the Mediterranean.

Mr President, we are talking here tonight about the fundamental lies that underlie this debate. The title of the debate is: ‘on the criminalisation of humanitarian aid, including search and rescue’. The suggestion made here is that migrants from Africa are shipwrecked and should not be helped. But that is of course not the case. Many migrants deliberately enter rickety boats, often even without a motor. They know that with these boats they could never reach Europe. What they do know is that they will be picked up. They will therefore only go to water to be dragged out of the coast if they know that the smuggling boats of the NGOs are within reach to pick them up. Both parties are abusing a law that is meant to help people at sea in need. This is not aid, it is organized human trafficking. To this end, these NGOs are paid generously by donors and also by the European states. The rule of law, which is very often mentioned here, is also undermined in this way by all subsidies to NGOs that misuse this law to facilitate illegal migration. As far as I'm concerned, we're putting an end to this.

Mr President, Commissioner, Council, ‘If you have no borders, you have no country.’ This was said by former US President Trump, and he was right. Schengen – as has just been said – can only survive if the EU’s external borders are strictly guarded, if the walls of Fort Europe are not cracked. But right now, illegal immigration is reaching record after record. The smuggling NGOs are bringing tens of thousands of illegal immigrants to Europe. The EU allows it all to happen in the name of humanity. It is therefore only logical that countries should reintroduce border controls. It is also good that the judge has now recognised that these border controls are also legal, even if they last longer than six months. But let's not forget the underlying problems. First of all, even today, the sabotage of the protection of the EU’s external border by a left-liberal majority here. Secondly, the perpetually tolerated smuggling of human beings. Thirdly, non-compliance with the Dublin Agreement. It is time for us to end industrial smuggling, to finally comply with Dublin, and to protect our borders much more firmly. Let Fort Europe become a reality.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, today we are talking about the report on fundamental rights in the European Union. The years 2020-2021. And I am sure that for everyone who lived in Europe in those two years, it should be very clear which topics should definitely be in it. And I'll name four here. First of all, dot on one, the introduction of a QR code. In doing so, the European government has made institutional discrimination possible. Millions of citizens were denied access to essential parts of society thanks to that QR code. Perhaps something about the months-long lockdowns for everyone, with Austria making vaccines mandatory and wanting to lock up and fine refusers at home? Or maybe something about Italy, that workers wanted to take their jobs if people didn't get vaccinated? And I can go on like that for a while. But it's pretty incredible, because this whole 46-page document doesn't mention these things. I counted some words. ‘QR code’ appears zero times, ‘lockdown’ three times, ‘vaccine’ is mentioned once – and then in the context of anti-vaccine propaganda. And what is included in the report? Where are the centres of gravity? Well, that's what my predecessors mentioned here. ‘Roma’ is mentioned 38 times, ‘lhbti’ 39 times, and also today the winner is ‘gender’. There is no report out here – so to speak – in the European Parliament, where the word ‘gender’ does not appear a few times on every page. Is this a report or is it a money laundering operation to mask the gross violations of the past two years? I think it's the fantasy report that George Orwell could laugh at. Anyone who votes in favour of this report is – I think – partly responsible for the falsification of history.

... from Europol. To date, Member States have entered the data on the suspects in the Schengen Information System. If you all agree with this proposal, you give Europol the right to enter data itself, even for people who have never been convicted. That is another step closer to a federal EU police force. I have exactly the same objections to this as to many other federal agencies: far from the citizen, not transparent and unaccountable. The European Data Protection Supervisor concluded in January that Europol had illegally stored data on non-suspects for many years. Instead of stopping it, they are now asking you and me to extend their powers to whitewash this behavior. This is not an EU we want. The Commission has always been very vocal about the . Are these EU agencies above the law? As far as I'm concerned, not. I am counting on you, ladies and gentlemen, to vote this proposal down.

Mr President, the European energy tax ETS was introduced in 2015 to make fossil-generated energy artificially more expensive than green energy. This was done at a time when a cubic meter of gas cost about a fifth of the current rate. In 2018, this ETS tax was increased. And today we are debating the extension of the increase in this ETS tax. We do this at a time when the term ‘energy poverty’ is fast becoming the word of the year. How is it possible that we still have this proposal on the agenda at all, when millions of households are already barely able to pay for their energy, not only because of high energy prices, but also because of record inflation due to a failing ECB policy? We must not only reverse the previous increase in the energy tax, but we must abolish that entire tax. The current rates are already astronomical without tax. Every tax on energy is perverse. I hope that everyone who votes for this extension will explain this at home to people who see their energy bills tripled or to people who lose their jobs at a company that has to close its doors because it can no longer afford the energy.

Mr President, thank you to the rapporteur for this report. When talking about the circular economy, the Farm to Fork Strategy or the Green Deal in this Parliament, the targets often cannot be high enough. I think it is important to have a realistic policy. Policies that promote rather than undermine food security. Policies that allow my constituents to pay their energy bills and also have money left over at the end of the month. Citizen-centred policies rather than the bureaucratic plans of the European Union. I often have to vote against bills. Proposals that do not make people's lives better, but are much more expensive. Today, however, it is different. The report under discussion today is about the sustainability of batteries, among other things, and I intend to vote in favour of that bill. Not because I think the climate transition is necessary. In fact, I think it is an exercise that is going to cost European citizens a lot of money and hit our economies very hard. But if the EU wants that transition if necessary, at least don't let it cause additional environmental damage in other parts of the world. And in no case should the transition be brought about by child labour. For these reasons, I will vote in favour of the bill.

Mr President, this report condemns the reintroduction of internal border controls in the Schengen area. Member States have temporarily closed their borders more than 260 times since 2015: 12 times as many as in the previous eight years. Of course, COVID-19 has been the main reason for this, but terrorism and acute illegal immigration flows have also played a role. A country without borders is not a country. A sovereign state decides who is allowed to cross the border and who is not. At present, Member States are only allowed to introduce temporary border controls in very specific cases and under very strict conditions. The Schengen Borders Code needs to be adapted to the needs of the Member States and to the reality of 2021 and subsequent years: a world in which new illegal migration flows can and will emerge in a very short time and in which the terrorist threat can change in the blink of an eye. Let us give the Member States the space they need to protect their citizens and manage their borders as they see fit. Let's stop enforcing a 1985 paper reality that is clearly out of date.