Speeches

Madam President, a single mother from the Dutch region Twente is taking classes to finally realise her dream to start at the police academy. In Zadar, a coastal town in Croatia, a secondary school has been equipped with computers and tablets. And in Prague, victims of sexual violence have been able to receive support in a newly-built shelter since last year. The mother, the student and the victims have all been helped by European funding. Across Europe, there's a surge in applications for new projects. In the Netherlands, hundreds of thousands of people have participated in EU-funded employment and skill initiatives. And I think it's bad that the European Commission wants to cut this. Irresponsible, in my opinion, and inappropriate. If this happens, we sideline the most vulnerable, the most needed. We need to invest in industry. We need to invest in energy. We need to invest in defence. But the European Social Fund is the main European instrument to invest in people. And if we cut the ESF out of the budget, you hit Europe at its heart. And what will remain is a Europe without a soul.

Mr President, research shows that almost all Dutch people have too much PFAS in their blood. I am afraid that is also the case for many Europeans. Last year I did such a test myself and the results were worrying. Because if you say chemistry, then you say PFAS, then you say pesticides and microplastics. Two-thirds of Dutch citizens want the government to come up with stricter legislation. I hope that the Commission will really listen and not, as it does today, come up with a report or a proposal to remove reporting obligations from, for example, make-up companies. In fact, the Commission is making it even easier to use toxic substances. Do you really believe that's what people want? Profit at the expense of health? If we want to help the chemical sector in Europe, we have to get rid of our energy dependence. What companies really run into is a full electricity grid. Investments in the grid, that is what the industry demands. A European Chemicals Investment Agenda for greening. Access to green molecules. Because chemistry can also be hydrogen, biodegradable plastic or chemical recycling. All crucial for our industrial future. Some loose ideas on paper, a staple through it, that's not what we call an action plan. We're not gonna make it. An action plan, without the necessary investments, is for the chemical sector what an empty test tube is for a researcher: You can keep looking at it, but nothing happens.

Mr President, when the new Philips was looking for a new home base at the end of the 19th century, they ended up in Helmond. A city, my city, with a lot of economic activity. The innovative Philips was eager to sell their light bulbs from Helmond. However, there was a problem: The established companies in Helmond did not like Philips. They convinced the city council that such a newcomer would only cause unrest. They promised security, employment and did not want change. What about Philips? He left for Eindhoven. Almost eighty years later, the city council received a harsh reality check. The industry in Helmond had largely left, while Philips in Eindhoven continued to grow and expand. To combat the unemployment crisis in Helmond, the city council asked Philips to open a factory in Helmond. What about the dominant industry of the past? There's very little left of that. They left the city and a lot of Helmonders behind. Unfortunately, Helmond had missed the boat and there is nothing more speculative than thinking that the big players of today will be back in fifty years. History proves that time and time again. So let us as Europe avoid that mistake, so that not years later we still have to do everything we can to bring the companies here. You can now. By focusing on the future and not on certain or some interests. This means a lower energy bill, no longer keeping the doors open for fossil fuels, better investment capacity, but above all a look to the future. A look forward.

Mr President, our energy market can be much more European. The price differences are large and the capacity is not the same everywhere. I dream of a Europe with improved connectivity between the power grids of different countries, where, for example, wind energy from the North Sea can be used in Spain and we can cook in winter on solar energy from Portugal. Our power grid is full, full. This means more risk of breakdowns, but also that people from Utrecht, Gelderland and Flevoland, for example, sometimes have to wait until 2030 before new homes can be built and connected to the grid. And what about all those companies and people who are eager to invest in sustainability? Who wants to invest in solar panels or charging stations? Nothing is more frustrating and demotivating than hearing that it's just full. If we take these problems seriously, we must ensure that the electricity grid is not an obstacle, but an accelerator. We can do that together today.

Mr President, last year the EU imported 23 billion euros worth of Russian energy. That's more than we're spending on support for Ukraine. Anyone can see how crooked that is. We can't wait until 2027 to stop Russian oil and gas. Billions of dollars continue to flow to Russia every year, while European and Ukrainian security demands that we stop now. Because with every windmill and solar panel, Putin's war greenhouse shrinks. Commissioner, we can do more today. Reduce the maximum price of Russian oil to $45 per barrel, including all additional costs, including transportation. Do the same for LNG: a price cap and an import quota. Because every euro that doesn't go to Putin is a euro for peace and a euro that we get out of his war greenhouse. As the European Commission, take on an international leadership role through the G7 to get this done this week. Because all Europeans and all Ukrainians ask only one thing: peace. So stop oil and gas from Russia today.

Mr President, it's good to be here, let me first start by thanking the political groups, the EPP, the Greens and Renew, together with the S&D, who supported the swift adoption of the Parliament position on the CBAM simplification. I also want to compliment the Commission for their strong commitment to CBAM and to making it more effective, because this is a textbook example of what simplification can and should be: technical changes that safeguard our goals and improve the effectiveness of the instrument. The opposition against CBAM is, for me, totally not understandable, because for years our producers are paying the CO2 price while their foreign competitors get a free ride into our internal market. We all want a level playing field. So, our message is clear: you're welcome to sell your products on the European market, but you need to decarbonise or you need to pay for your pollution. CBAM, in itself, is already a success. We were pioneering in 2019, but many have followed us. They have introduced or are considering their own ETS. The Chinese, the Canadians, the Turks, the Japanese, the South Koreans, the Moroccans, even the Kazakhs have their own ETS and the list is longer. It shows that when the EU leads, others follow. And that is what European citizens and companies are demanding. And that is something that we should be proud of – that I am proud of. Again, CBAM is already a success, whether you like it or not. And if I look at the so-called nationalists here in this parliament, defending the interest of the big global multinationals above their own small, medium-sized European interests, businesses, I can tell you a little secret. There is a way to circumvent CBAM. If I was a populist, I would tell you: it's very simple, it's called 'buy European'.

Mr President, over the past few months, we've witnessed what some journalists have called the 'Trumpisation' of the EPP. EPP members have been actively tearing down structures of our civil society, and, let me be clear, this has been a deliberate strategy from day one and we've witnessed it also today. EPP members are claiming that they have seen secret contracts, and that these contracts show that the Commission gives money to environmental NGOs on the condition that they lobby the Parliament. When we ask them about these contracts, they don't share them with us. They become very vague and confusing. Even the EPP's own Commissioner has fuelled the confusion. At the beginning of April, the Commissioner stated that the LIFE programme finances so-called undue lobbying. Exactly two weeks later he refuted it, admitting that the Commission did not instruct NGOs to lobby members of Parliament. So the only thing I'm seeing now is an EPP that didn't know what they got themselves into, including the damage to the credibility of the European institutions. However, I must also take a moment to recognise the brave voices still within the EPP. In a world where more and more people in power are seeking to dismantle our democratic checks and balances, I commend those who continue to uphold our democratic values and refuse to bow to internal pressure, especially when they get money from other organisations. Today, we social democrats say enough is enough.

Mr President, with today's decision, we are asked to add flexibility for the 2025 target for the European automotive sector. There is no secret that my group has not been particularly fond of this proposal, but it is an urgent proposal. Tariffs on European cars, tariffs on steel, energy extortion from autocratic states: we cannot sit around and wait. That's why today I'm calling on all my colleagues to agree on the urgency procedure today. We're only doing this because we recognise the legitimate fears and the uncertainty that many European automotive workers are facing today. Unfortunately, they are the ones who will suffer from the failures of their bosses to recognise the sign of the times. It also means that this is a one‑off measure, because if we do not want to lose the race in the long run, European manufacturers must see this as their final warning, and finally push for smaller, more affordable electric vehicles to come into the market before they are pushed out of it instead.

Madam President, the steel produced in Ijmuiden, Lulea and Donawitz is not just for Dutch, Swedish or Austrian cars, or the Austrian market. It moves in German cars, it sails in French ships and it travels in Italian trains. It even forms our beautiful five cent coins and, of course, Dutch bikes. We're all connected in Europe, and Europe thrives on a strong steel and metal industry. The European Commission's plan for the industry is a good step forward, but in my opinion, sometimes a bit too isolated. We still treat each plan as if it stands alone. But industry does not work in vacuums – we need coordination – and neither should this action plan. We need a broader vision by maximising synergies between sectors and creating lead markets – green lead markets. Green steel is costly, but with a strong green lead market, it becomes an investment, not a risk. Imagine European cars built on green steel. Imagine European windmills built on green steel. These prospects we can realise here. Let's forge them together.

Madam President, for me, cohesion policy is not only about economic growth, it's about building a strong social Europe that works for all, where prosperity is shared and no one is excluded. The social or the Cohesion Fund is also one of the few connectivities we have with regions and cities. While we grant them direct access to European funds, we give Europe a social face. So now is not the time to cut funds that give Europe the social face. The S&D is eager to discuss the Commission's idea to improve the absorption levels of the funds, especially to reach the underrepresented regions, but that does not mean that we can reallocate unspent cohesion funds unconditionally. Cohesion policies are an answer to inequality both between Member States and within Member States, including my own, where bus stops disappear, libraries close, and as said, many other social projects are financed through the social fund. We cannot let this go without a good debate, without conditionality. It's very important, at the end of the day, that this fund that gives access to European funds for millions of citizens should stand, and we should improve the accessibility and not only shift funds to other targets. For me, that's very important from an S&D perspective.

Mr President, every solar panel we place, every windmill we build, every heat pump we install weakens Vladimir Putin's war machine and should be seen as an act of resistance, because last year we imported Russian fossil fuels worth billions of euros. The sooner we step away, the better. Relying on fossil fuels, on imports from abroad only prolongs price shocks, the blackmail and the uncertainty. We have seen it. One tweet from Trump, one incident in the Middle East, one natural disaster and the price rockets. With renewable energy and the energy independence we achieve, we protect ourselves from this uncertainty, so households no longer have to deal with gas price shocks and rising prices in the supermarkets. And we can finally benefit from cheap, reliable energy. We have every reason to phase out Russian gas. The sooner the better.

Madam President, we all have strong feelings when it comes to the car industry, we all have the same nostalgic feelings. But I must say that nostalgia is good, but not if it lets you stick in the past. Not if it blocks innovation, not if it blocks change. Today, I feel like I'm in the boardroom of Nokia when the iPhone was just released. The touch screen, the ability to browse on the internet and play music – it was revolutionary. The response of Nokia was to try to make the keyboard phone more attractive instead of responding to innovation – and we all know how that story ended. Because by allowing carmakers to not fulfil the mid-term goal it's like telling Nokia to keep on producing the keyboard phone. It will not cut it for our industry. And with these plans, with these delays to switch to zero-emission vehicles in Europe, I only see two winners: the companies that are lagging behind, that are only looking at short-term gains, and China, who already leads the EV market and sees the competition sabotaging itself. Because with this delay, we also delay the second-hand market, which is very important to the access of electric vehicles. We need to create the conditions for EV cars to thrive within Europe. We need to push for an electric corporate fleet, introduce social leasing to make EVs accessible for all Europeans. And while we are talking about range extenders and debate on flexibilities of penalties of companies that made more than 100 billion in profits in the last few years, China invests in solid-state batteries with a range of more than 1 500 kilometres. This could not be our answer to plan for a successful response to these developments. And just like Nokia, it's the lack of innovation that threatens our future, not the goals we've set eight years ago.

Mr President, green industrial policy is all about creating demand. Demand for green products such as electric cars and, for example, recycled plastic. Because when we create demand, companies will innovate and invest. And that is how we can make a difference in Europe. Without demand there is no development and therefore no growth. We have to create that question ourselves. Governments, local, national and European, must lead by example by purchasing green, by purchasing European and also by tendering. We need to use public support in a smart and targeted way, so that products such as hydrogen, heat pumps, but also batteries have a conclusive business case and are therefore affordable, so that companies can scale up and reduce their production costs. That also requires choices. Choose where we want to excel and where we want to maintain our leading position. It also calls for decisions that strengthen our autonomy, and for strategic partnerships that are necessary for this. Outside Europe, we are not standing still. A country like China is investing heavily in tomorrow's champions. Let's do the same.

Mr President, I remember on this day, exactly four years ago, the Parliament adopted a resolution on WTO compatibility of CBAM. I remember my colleague Yannick Jadot from the Greens that did an extraordinary job. And that was quite some consensus here in the room. The same holds, actually, for the ambition that we had as Commission and Parliament. The Green Deal and the European climate law, those were more than just policies. They formed our vision for a sustainable, innovative and strong Europe. We made a promise to industry, to businesses and to workers, who believed and worked on this vision, that if you innovate, if you invest in green technologies, if you are committed to decarbonise, we will have your back. With stable and predictable legislation, we will help you invest, grow and provide secure jobs that we all need. And now we are here today. I challenge everyone in this room to explain to me how creating simplification helps us form a robust response to China and other global players. I fear that this so-called vision of competitiveness and simplification is not enough, and it distracts us from the real solutions we need, like a market creation for green and digital European technologies. And I cannot stress this enough. Market creation, not deregulation, market creation, not deregulation. That's what we need. That's what we need to create jobs, to grow our economy and really become competitive. By simplification, we somehow believe that the investments that we need will pop up, that they will magically appear. As we say in Dutch, costs always come before the profits. It doesn't mean that there are no rules that we can simplify, but emphasising only on this, only on simplification, will not do the job. And while we focus on this, while we create more uncertainty and step away from our regulatory stability, the world invests in clean tech. China's economy today, its growth is more than 40 % attributed to green investments, and we are failing ourselves to meet the targets that we set, whether it's for cars or whether it's, for example, when it comes to hydrogen for REPowerEU, our strategy to become less dependence on autocrats outside Europe. I really believe that that is how we could improve our competitiveness, by reaching these targets, by investing in green technologies, by becoming less dependent on energy coming from outside Europe. We have to create this through regulatory stability. We have to create this by growing these sectors within our market. Mazzucato, the famous economist, states that in transitions we should not distinguish between winners and losers, but between those who are willing and those who are not. And I fear that we listen to much to companies that are not willing to change and do not see a future in Europe. And by listening to them, we are ignoring innovative companies that can become future tech leaders. Those companies can use a push. We can use a push by creating a green market so that they can have a foot on the ground. That's the question today. Are we supporting them or are we ignoring them? And with that, not creating competitiveness in Europe.

Madam President, when the US hesitates, China accelerates. We learned that before. When Trump pulled out of the Paris Agreement in 2017, he allowed China to become a global leader in sustainable technology. Today it's the world's top producer of renewable energy. Their economy is booming, and more than 40 % of their economic growth comes directly from their solar panels, the windmills, their heat pumps and their electric vehicles. Just as the US is in a position to take the lead in the green economy thanks to the Inflation Reduction Act, Trump again does China a favour. He tries to stop record‑breaking green growth in the US and to look for old sources of energy for the old technology. While we hear 'oil', 'fracking' and 'tariffs', China focuses on solar batteries and EVs. That should say enough. The US was just in time for the green transition, but Trump will make America late again.

Mr President, perhaps this is the problem with the Christian Democrats in this Parliament. They think we can suddenly become much more profitable by removing some rules here and there. They think that if we allow all member states to operate individually, we can make a fist against geopolitical forces such as China and the United States. I really do not understand that we do not see the need to strengthen value chains across borders. You can try to save the car industry in Germany, but if you do not strengthen the metal industry in the Netherlands, you will not achieve the desired result. As regards greening and our industrial competitiveness – our competitiveness compass – the direction is clear. But do we have the right resources to follow that course? Will we mobilise enough European money to support businesses in investing in green technologies? Will we make decisions that create markets for products that may be too expensive now? Will we ask companies that benefit from tax advantages for leased cars, for example, to opt for European products, such as electric cars made in Europe? And if they also buy green steel, which is produced in Europe, then we create a situation that is advantageous for everyone. Changing rules is not enough. We need to create a bold fund that can actually help green our industry. If we realise that, I have great confidence in the future of our European industry.

Mr President, we have come to a time when reality is subordinate to ideology. You have to scratch your head when you see that the right has a greater focus on oil than Saudi Arabia, which is currently building the largest hydrogen plant in the world. Even there one sees that fossil fuel is a dead end. While China produces the most renewable energy and owes more than 40% of its economic growth to solar panels, windmills, heat pumps and electric cars, the right wants to compete primarily with fossil fuels. I don't understand. Renewing our economy means sticking to the Green Deal and helping our industry. If you don't understand that, you've missed the proverbial boat, maybe even the entire fleet. Right and extreme right prefer to leave our competitiveness to the whims of Putin, Trump or Mohammad bin Salman. They pretend to stand up for our citizens, but they weaken our economy and the European position.

Madam President, the sky was the limit with the Green Deal. People spoke of the 'Brussels effect' – we were inspiring people, we led by example in the global climate agenda. I fondly remember President von der Leyen talking about our 'man on the moon' moment. Are we now aborting the mission and reversing all our achievements? Because landing on the moon is a very complicated matter – we cannot cut rules, deregulate, simplify and think we will achieve the mission. Somehow, by cutting and simplifying, we think we will have so much savings that we bridge the gap of EUR 700 billion that Draghi talks about. Without means, without protecting our social and environmental conditions, the real European way of life, we are throwing away the child with the bathwater and we will never reach the moon. Simplifications? Yes. Deregulation? No. To reshape our industry, we need to go beyond simplification, we need new, fresh money, we need investments, a new budget. Focused? Fine – but only reallocation will not make us more resilient and increase our competitiveness. So, Mr Lenaers, yes, we do not want only changes by commas and dots – we want a strong MFF. We want our own resources, we want a new steel and metal plan, especially after tariffs that are presented by Trump. We need a competitiveness fund. We need to set our priorities – I don't want to see a race to the bottom when we can reach to the top. We've got to shoot for the stars – we have to show ambition again, to show Europeans that we work for them, to combat global warming and leave no one behind. That's how we secure our place in the world, and the world needs a strong Europe.

Mr President, when the Commission orders something to be done towards parliamentarians, we have to get to the bottom of it. To the right of this house I want to say that in a pluralistic society you make sure that there are different sounds to be heard, even if something is said that you do not like. This is how it is in a democracy. This is especially true for civil society organisations. The hypocrisy that I observe here... If you look at the LIFE programme, there are plenty of transport and pesticide organisations that receive funding when they have taken a position that the Commission is not happy with. The same agreements have been made with these organisations, so that we can check and know somewhat what happens to the taxpayer's money. It would be outrageous if only large, wealthy multinationals could walk down the door here and influence us, without any transparency. I can randomly choose numbers and see if you have filled in your transparency register online and with whom you have spoken. To the left of this field it is better to the right. Our constituents have the right to know with whom, where and what we are talking about. This is part of a democracy; People don't censor.

Mr. President, we don't correct for the speed limit of the speed differences and languages. Maybe we should. But I will speak Dutch. (NL) Mr President, America is, believe it or not, fortunately more than just Trump. A few years ago, when America left the Paris Agreement, companies and many states decided to continue with it. Trump's will, however, seems increasingly law; Too many people are blind, even here. We have an interest in a strong relationship with the US and that interest must continue to guide us. But "America first" does not mean that Europe is "second". At most if we serve the interests of Trump and his tech giants. Trump's reckless policies bring uncertainty. Will there be tariffs? Is there still demand for our products? Can our customers still do business in the US? Do we share our resources or are we going to fight for them? In any case, the price tags on our shelves will rise due to Trump's tariff tumult, and inflation will rise. I hope it's not too bad, but there's reason enough to be less dependent and unite more than ever. That is the answer to Trump, because "America first" cannot and should not mean that the rest of us will choke.

It's always funny: We need to tackle climate change, but with less bureaucracy. That's very important. Let me make a small prediction: I really don't think it's the last time we're debating the hottest year ever. Climate change is a fact. Looking away is dangerous and actually just stupid. It is dangerous for our vulnerable communities, for people who live near rivers, on the coast or in wooded areas. Just look at the fires in the US. Look at the floods and forest fires in Europe during the past year. Our farmers are losing more and more crops because of heavy rainfall or because of enormous drought. The urgency to address this problem does not seem to exist. There is a need for less bureaucracy. I recently came across a brilliant speech by physicist Carl Sagan. He told me how much America spent on defense during the Cold War. That was $13 trillion. A number with twelve zeros, a bizarrely large amount. At the same time, no one wondered if it was right. That amount corresponds to 25 trillion euros today, or a quarter of what we all earn. And that while there was only a small chance that the Russians would intervene. Yet we thought it was right, because we had to protect ourselves from the Soviet. Just as we need to protect ourselves from Putin today. With a fraction of that amount, i.e. about 2% to 3% of what we all earn, we could tackle climate change. The problem is getting worse. The difference is that climate change is a silent killer, which you can't just track with satellites or with espionage. But we can see the consequences of that. We think that this will not affect us until there is another disaster and there are many speeches stating that we should never let this happen again; We have to stop it. The best time to intervene was yesterday. The best moment is now, today.

Mr President, not far from my house is the old Philips factory, the company that owes its growth to the rise of the light bulb. The success of Philips shows that embracing innovation creates growth, jobs and new inventions, new innovation. The light bulb that Philips has brought so much success was not invented by making a candle more efficient. Why do we still have that tunnel vision in Europe when it comes to our car industry? We're desperately sticking to an old technology. We're desperately holding on to that candle. Instead of investing in electric car value chains, we looked at smaller engines that are more efficient, and see what happens. China and the US are committed to that light bulb, because sticking to the old technology does not protect our jobs and certainly does not create new jobs. The problem is the market, which is created by green legislation, by a level playing field. This is how you create demand and growth. So my question today is: When does that light come on to you? When will we see that light?

Mr President, in the past we only knew this from the campsite in southern Europe: Use the water sparingly in the summer. Now it is almost every summer also in the Netherlands hit. Four countries now suffer more from water stress, as it is called, an annual shortage of water. Four European countries and I'm really afraid that number is only going to increase. It's hard to guess why. What I am also concerned about is the rising PFAs value in our rivers due to chemical waste. When do we actually come up with a PFA ban? Why do we always put the interests of polluting companies above those of people, above our health? Companies that get a carte blanche, while our water companies have to invest more to clean up their mess. Eventually, there comes a time when it's too late. Farmers are already struggling with drought and microplastics have already become part of our daily diet, in addition to the healthy portion of pesticides and PFAs. Mr President, how long is this going to take?

Mr President, I am so glad that we have an ombudsman in Europe! Especially when we are dealing with governments that push the boundaries of the rule of law, knowingly set people apart and do not take our freedoms and rights for granted. Fortunately, we have the ‘Ombudsman’ institution that protects us and at the same time can hold up a mirror to us. An example of this is migration, where the debate is getting fiercer and fiercer. You would almost forget that it's about people and that those people just have rights. Rightly so, in recent years, the Ombudsman reported on Frontex and the European Border Police and called on them to better protect the fundamental rights of migrants. That is why we need an ombudsman. Someone who is independent of public opinion and keeps an eye on what really counts: human rights, transparency and above all a fair government. I really hope that we will give that institute even more value and dignity. Because it is important to have an independent person who stands up for people and holds up a mirror to us from time to time.

Mr President, Cooking or firing? For example, I would like to translate the title of the debate into good Dutch. Last year, one in ten Europeans were in favour of that choice. Energy prices today are three times higher than they were three years ago. And unfortunately, energy poverty has become a concept. And it's not just energy prices that are higher. Also the groceries, a house, whether you buy or rent it, but also a day out: Life has become more expensive. While the number of people in energy poverty has more than doubled in recent years, the wealth of the 1% richest has grown. They were able to add more than 30 %. How crooked do we want it to be? While many are faced with the choice between cooking and firingThis group can stay Dining and Benefiting, because they pay relatively less tax than the rest. And why is this tax so difficult to discuss for the very rich? Where is the political will? How fair is this? Rising energy prices are not due to green energy, as some here claim. Rather the opposite: It's because of fossil fuels, which not only drive up prices, but also make us dependent on autocrats. There is a route to lower prices. We must fully invest in our independence, become self-sufficient, be independent and share the burden more fairly. Helping people make their homes more sustainable and providing cheap transport from A to B. This is the only way to ensure a fair transition and make energy poverty a concept of the past.