Speeches

Mr President, Commissioner, every year there is a great deal of progress being reported on the Balkan countries, but there is no question of accession. How could that be? We have standards, the Copenhagen criteria, but we do not have clear standards. And so the Balkan countries remain in the waiting room. Should the Balkan countries all score tens on all components or should there also be insufficients in the list of components to be assessed? Perhaps, and this is just one thought, we should review the accession criteria. Maybe we replace them or supplement them with an impact analysis. After all, the impact of large countries such as Turkey or Ukraine is much greater than that of countries such as Albania. These countries are not comparable in terms of risk. A country with three million inhabitants should not have to meet the same standards on the Copenhagen criteria as a country with thirty million inhabitants. I'm just saying that. I am also concerned about the additional support that the European Commission intends to provide to the Western Balkan countries. I cannot avoid the impression that part of this support is given to compensate for the long stay in the EU waiting room. But large sums of money can corrupt and, in addition, internal tensions can boil to a boiling point with large capital injections with no clear purpose. To support the Western Balkan countries financially, preferably in the form of infrastructural and tangible projects, so that it is clear to everyone what the money is spent on and so that it is spent usefully and not – as in the past – on megalomaniac images or other useless things. Finally, I note that a swift accession of the Balkan countries will contribute to peace and prosperity in the EU and beyond.

Mr President, I would like to talk about the RRF tonight. It is a bag of money looking for a destination — 750 billion. Immediately at the start of the recovery and resilience plan, I warned that this could go completely wrong. And I wasn't the only one. The Court of Auditors also warned. A $600 million fraud case has already been uncovered. That's faster than I even expected. And the Court of Auditors states that there is much more fraud to come. That's indigestible to people who work hard and pay taxes. The lack of transparency and accountability and, of course, such fraud cases undermine our society and trust in the EU. The Commission, but also Parliament and the Council facilitate theft. This should never have happened and it should not have happened again. The damage is great. How are we gonna fix this? I honestly don't know.

Mr President, thank you very much, Mr Engerer, because your point is exactly what I wanted to make. Human smuggling is human smuggling and no matter why you do it, it's booming business and it's criminal. Whether it's about smuggling refugees, smuggling for adoption or prostitution or forced marriages, criminals make millions and that's wrong. A crossing of the Mediterranean Sea costs an average of 10 000 euros and on a boat there are an average of 500 people. Count out your profits: 5 million sales per boat. You can't just do something about that. But we have to do something about it. And what happens now? Actually, nothing. We'll make it even easier for smugglers to get out of the dance, though. Applying for a residence status should be done for everyone outside the borders of the EU. At embassies, as close as possible to the place of departure. Only when the procedure has been successfully completed can one travel safely. This way you tackle the business case of people smugglers and you have to focus on that. As long as we continue to allow the crossing of the EU border without valid papers, this celebration will continue.

Mr President, thank you for your explanation. I am adjusting my speech a bit to that, because this report is of course based on 2021 figures. I understand that a lot is already happening to improve the situation. Although I also consider that Ms In ’t Veld, who has been around for years, has had bad experiences with the situation as it is. The Commission must therefore come a long way. I hope this is given absolute priority. Why? An example: Ursula von der Leyen already indicated at the World Economic Forum in Davos that the risk of fake information is one of the most important risks we have to deal with today. If you want to counter fake information, you have to make sure that your transparency is in order. Because if you don't handle that well and people have to wait for documents to be made public, then people who want to spread fake news get it far too easy. So I hope, taking that into account, that this will be given sufficient priority (The President interrupted the speaker) in the election year.

I take the difficult question. I have implemented this type of legislation myself. You have unjustly roared Mr. Hoogeveen and barked a little from the height. You thought he gave the wrong answer. He didn't. Because what should you do with the Corporate Due Diligence Directive? You need to implement risk assessments. You have to monitor. Yes, you have to. This means that you have to do a very large implementation process. A bit similar to the implementation of Basel risk management systems at banks. And that takes a lot of time and a lot of energy. And you always see that the bad guys don't care. You accuse me of not wanting to take action against child labour. That's exactly what I want, and that's why I don't want to...

Mr President, let me start by saying that I am not at all sorry that the European directive on corporate due diligence is on hold. They woke up happily in Germany, France and Italy. This law is costly and causes a lot of extra administration and legal uncertainty, while it is very questionable whether the human rights situation or the climate is improving. Often the pressure and all the extra work rests on companies that really want to do well. And the crooks will be fine, even with this legislation. In short: it is a deterioration of the business environment in Europe, with no convincing benefits. What also amazes me is that, now that the democratic process is taking its course and some people do not like the outcome here, there is criticism of the process. Agreements of the EU institutions should be submitted to national parliaments. That is the rule and it is not for nothing that this is so. This is important for the support. It also helps to prevent accidents and bad legislation, as is the case here. It is important that the democratic process is respected and true democrats accept a democratic... (The President withdrew the floor) (The speaker agreed to reply to a "blue card")

Madam President, Commissioner, is this climate risk assessment report a call to action? First, let me say I’m happy that the EU made a small beginning with a risk assessment. But I’m worried about all the essential elements that are missing. This is a risk identification report rather than a risk assessment. It’s very high-level, very top-down, like the way the EU is organised. It is far too generic to be a basis for sound policies. And yet the simple fact that it is discussed today creates a dynamic of its own, which creates risk instead of containing it. This risk assessment has to be embedded in a risk-management framework so we’ll be able to choose the right strategy and policies to contain the risk we are facing. With any type of risk the key question is whether to avoid, transfer, mitigate or accept the risk we are facing. And this question needs an answer before we jump into the action mode. So no, this report should not be a call to action: begrijpen voor wij ingrijpen.

Mr President, why are more than 50,000 people homeless in the Netherlands? There are too few affordable homes. It's as simple as that. In the Netherlands, homelessness is a problem of care. For the homeless, shelter is often long-term shelter and no one has ever improved from long-term shelter. What is the solution? Affordable housing for all – not just the homeless – and specific measures. In the Netherlands, this means ending the modern slavery of underpaid EU immigrants who become homeless as soon as they lose their jobs, encouraging cohabitation and not cutting the benefits of cohabiting pensionados and people on welfare, and encouraging social housing. Give investors space and focus, set a target, oblige member states to reduce the number of homeless by 5%, so that we can quickly tackle this solvable problem. This is how we do it with CO2. This is also possible with homelessness.

Mr President, political prisoners in Evin Prison in Iran are on hunger strike against the death penalty every Tuesday. They hear our message from the European Parliament. What is this message? The regime in Iran constantly violates human rights and democracy, and the Iranian people have the right to seek change through any legitimate form of resistance. The EU need to support this resistance. How? By blacklisting the IRGC, the regime’s instrument of oppression. The regime recently executed Mohammad Ghobadlou, a courageous young Iranian man. Let us not forget Maryam Akbari Monfared, a mother of three who has been serving 15 years in prison and who was recently charged for three more years. I have to stop here because the list is too long. We all know the Iranian regime is the worst in the world. Over 870 executions were carried out in 2023 to silence the opposition. When is the EU speaking up?

Mr President, ‘you may have a pistol, but I have a bazooka.’ Is this a line of a Western movie? No, it’s from an article in the Financial Times about the EU plans to undermine the Hungarian economy for political purposes. ‘The EU will sabotage Hungary’s economy if Budapest blocks fresh aid to Ukraine. In a document drawn up by EU officials and seen by the Financial Times, Brussels has outlined a strategy to explicitly target Hungary’s economic weaknesses, imperil its currency and drive a collapse in investor confidence in a bid to hurt jobs and growth if Budapest refuses to lift its veto against the aid to Kyiv. This is Europe telling Viktor Orbán, ‘you may have a pistol, but we have the bazooka.’’ I demand an explanation of the President of the Council, Mr Michel. Does the Council understand that this kind of Wild West behaviour is a danger to EU financial stability? The EU cannot afford a strategy of financial vandalism. So, I ask a written statement of Mr Michel in which he explains his Hungary games.

Mr President, today we are discussing the report of the Ombudsman's annual report. Let me start by congratulating the Ombudsman, Mrs Emily O’Reilly, on her fine report. It provides a concise and clear overview of how and with what results the Ombudsman operated in 2022. It is result-oriented and based on trust, as she herself puts it so clearly. In particular, I appreciate its commitment to digitalising and making transparent and accessible the accountability of RRF spending. Every European should be able to see at the touch of a button what the EU's money is spent on. It creates trust and a bond. A start has been made, but it still needs to be much more detailed and much more complete. I hope and trust that Ms O’Reilly will continue to monitor this project and its progress. Fortunately, the number of complaints about Parliament is disproportionate to the sheer volume of complaints about the Commission. Nevertheless, I think it is good that Parliament should focus on the complaints about itself in the future, so that we can learn from our mistakes.

Mr President, what a thrill. A year after Qatargate, we still don't know what happened. Is there corruption? We don't know. The investigation has not been completed and the facts are lost. The European Parliament's response to this scandal is typical of its way of operating. Without knowing the facts and understanding the matter, the European Parliament has taken action. A vice-president has been removed from office on the basis of rumours. Measures to prevent corruption have been hastily drafted and adopted without understanding the case in question and the structural integrity risk that exists in the European Parliament has not been addressed. Every rule of law has major financial consequences and therefore every vote is worth money. And a lot of votes are worth a lot more money. This problem requires a professional approach. But now, first of all, the Qatargate investigation must be completed. This also means that the JURI Committee should deal with requests for hearings of data subjects with the greatest possible urgency. The bottom stone must be above. Whatever it takes.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the ECB’s interest rate and monetary policy cuts have led to inflation and an unprecedented rise in house prices in the EU. This mainly affects start-ups, i.e. young people. For many people, buying a home is the beginning of a financially secure future. The fact that this is now out of reach of many young people is also a threat to the stability and future of Europe. With the increase in interest rates by the ECB, a decline in house prices has started, but in the Netherlands, combined with national policies, this causes a decline in supply. I cannot avoid the impression that our national government and also the EU are acting without much understanding of the problems they think they are solving. It is with mixed feelings that I am here. Yes, 17 % of the EU population is between 15 and 29 years old. And yes, a third of them live in poverty. But is the government the right authority to solve this or will it only aggravate the problems? In the worst case scenario, the thorny financial position of young people in Europe will be politically abused by the EU and its politicians for political profiling and concentration of power in Brussels. We must ensure that this does not happen, but that young people are put at the centre and enabled to take responsibility for their own lives and futures through training and work.

Mr President, this is the second time that I have called attention in the European Parliament to the surcharge scandal in the Netherlands. In the event of a suspected fraud, tens of thousands of parents were labelled and registered as fraudsters without the intervention of the court. The parents affected by the derailed detection device lost their jobs, their homes, their businesses. Thousands of children have been removed from their homes. Some parents have fled abroad with children. There have even been cases of suicide. All those affected live in a nightmare and waking up turns out not to be possible. The Dutch government has confessed its guilt, but this scandal has been kept under wraps for years. She has made mistakes in drafting the laws, in complying with them, and is still not in the process of compensating for all the damage she has caused to citizens. The worst is: It seems impossible for the same Dutch government to learn from its mistakes. In fact, such a scandal is now taking place again and I see the future bleak. The system is failing and the citizens are suffering and the administrators are completely insensitive to the suffering they cause. In the meantime, those responsible are already looking for a new, beautiful international job. I hold my heart for what they go there... (The President withdrew the floor)

Madam President, the message we have to focus on today is that the Iranian regime is the undeniable epicentre of regional instability and chaos. It is known that the head of the snake lies in Tehran, and we must cut ties with the mullahs in Iran. With the current crisis happening in the Middle East, the one benefiting and sowing this chaos is sitting in Tehran. While the people of Iran are demanding change and unbearable numbers are being executed on a daily basis in Iran, the regime is taking advantage of what is happening today. The future of the Middle East – and, indeed, global stability – is directly linked to Iran. A free, democratic and progressive Iranian republic can act as a catalyst fostering regional peace and cooperation. So the global community must renew and enhance its support for the Iranian people’s aspirations, and ensure that their quest for freedom and justice is not in vain.

Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, thank you for this good proposal. Ladies and gentlemen, as you know, in the European Union we have a set of directives and regulations that support our digital economy. Full harmonisation, pre-contractual information, the right of dissolution and digital justice are all crucial aspects and are well addressed here. Fortunately, we have been able to adjust a number of practical matters in our consultations and the proposal is now also workable. It's fine, but when is it ready? Ladies and gentlemen, we must keep it simple and limited. All players in the market benefit from rest on the rules front. Communication experts tell us that it is not about more, but about better information. I feel that too little attention has been paid to this in this review, and I regret that. But let us not forget that full harmonisation is an ongoing process and that we must continue to strive for less regulation, more clarity and understandable laws. Keep it simple, is my motto.

Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Tang, may I congratulate you? This is a good proposal. There have always been green bonds. At least for as long as I've worked in the financial industry. It is very good that we now have a quality mark, so that everyone knows what they are buying and so that companies and parties who want to get money from the market know where they stand. If the flag covers the load, it ensures that there is less hassle, less consultation and fewer controls. This will also reduce costs. Whether or not you want to invest in green bonds is always a free decision for every investor. Whether or not you want to withdraw money from the market under the banner of a green investment is also a free decision. So I can only welcome this arrangement and I myself am very pleased with it. Because then I think: Yes, this is what the European Union is meant to do, and it helps.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am here to draw attention to a long-standing conflict that is still far from being resolved: the Kosovo-Serbia conflict. A conflict that has lasted too long and confronts us with the need for dialogue, understanding and respect for sovereignty. In the heart of Europe, two decades after the end of the violent conflict, the wounds are still not healed. The time has come to look forward and not into the past. I believe in the power of dialogue, in which both parties recognise and respect each other. This should be facilitated by the EU, with impartial mediators who recognise and respect the interests of both parties. We must not forget that there are people behind political conflicts. People who deserve to live in peace, free from fear and insecurity. Let us work for a future in which Kosovo and Serbia can coexist, in peace and with mutual respect within an EU framework. A future in which the inhabitants of both countries are no longer defined by past conflicts, but by their hopes and ambitions for the future.

(NL) Mr President, women in Ukraine are suffering from the senseless war that Putin has started, which I must first say from the heart. I hope for rapid peace negotiations so that more pointless bloodshed can be prevented. I wanted to start with that first. Now I start with my story. Now we are talking about the position of women in transport, as travellers, as employees or as managers. This position is not equal to that of men. It is logical to correct this inequality through research into causes, targeted policy and action. It is already illegal to discriminate against women. There is no need for a separate policy. We just have to enforce the laws we have. General principles for the design of policies, infrastructure and timetables can improve the position of all passengers and then we can omit the studies and specific targets that perpetuate discrimination. The money that we save with this, we must immediately spend on concrete improvements. This is the direction of transport in Europe.

Mr President, as soon as there is a problem somewhere that politicians interfere with, huppakee, another bucket of rules is coming. But this is not a problem of a lack of rules. This is a lack of enforcement. In the eyes of ordinary people, the European Parliament is a corrupt organisation with corrupt parliamentarians. And that's because some MPs are just corrupt too. And that is extremely annoying, because it radiates to all of us. Corruption is of all times and unfortunately it is very common. Some people are very sensitive to large sums of money, which is extremely bad for the European Parliament and extremely dangerous for democracy. Because if the man in the street thinks that parliamentarians do not comply with the law, why should he do it himself? Registers and more investigative powers are not necessary at all, because they already exist. Unfortunately, a good risk analysis does not yet exist. Where's that one? Before an analysis has been made, we are again here with measures. And that's not the right order. That's panic football! Because where a lot of money goes, there will always be a high risk of fraud and corruption. And that means we have to be alert to this 24/7. Members of Parliament are vulnerable. What we need are integrity trainings to raise MEPs’ awareness of the risks they face, so that they know what actions lead to possible blackmail and a situation they face against their will and thanks. Thank you very much and I wish you all the best.

Mr President, dear Commissioner, the EU is the birthplace of democracy, and democracy only functions well if there is trust. Transparency is the cornerstone of trust. That is why I would like to thank the rapporteur, Ms Incir, because her report is very important. Why is it so difficult to operate in a transparent way? The key factor is organisation. If you organise your work, there is less need to hide, but you need a safe working environment as well. And so it starts with the tone at the top, especially in a bureaucratic hierarchy. It’s the top that sets the example. Is the EU’s top management up to the challenge? Unfortunately not, according to this report. If we want to show the world how good we are, we sure as hell need to get our act together. We need less complexity and more simplicity. We need a state—of—the—art document management system. That is the first step. But I repeat: it all starts with the tone at the top.

Mr President, Mr Reynders, Mrs Roswall, a stable Europe has the future and that is why I am calling for more investment in digital infrastructure, high-speed lines and energy transport systems, because infrastructure is the engine of the economy. Provide sufficient capital, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises. It must pay to work, save and invest. Reduce the tax and regulatory burden. The Commission must exercise self-control. Crisis management has now become the norm. A flood of rules follows each other at a rapid pace. The IRA and China are not Europe’s biggest threat. It is the EU itself that is shooting itself in the foot. The flood of rules puts everyone at a cost and creates a society of mistrust. We have to stay away from that mistrust. Mutual differences can be a source of inspiration and knowledge. Investors lure you not with a flood of rules, but with a long-term vision where not panic football is the norm, but rational policy.

Mr President, I would like to draw your attention to the following: Last Wednesday, 31 May, victims of the Dutch government demonstrated before Parliament in Brussels. They wanted an investigation into the pay-as-you-go affair. More than 30 000 parents who were found to have an error in applying for a grant in a complex system were wrongly dismissed as fraudsters. Attention has already been drawn to this in Parliament. The Dutch government demanded the subsidy back and thus put thousands of parents in difficulty. They lost their jobs, their homes, sometimes their businesses. Thousands of children have been removed from their homes. Some parents even fled abroad with the children because of this case. There have even been cases of suicide. All those affected have lived in a nightmare where waking up seemed impossible. The Dutch government has confessed its guilt, but only after this scandal has been kept under wraps for years. The government knew she was wrong, but left the victims in ignorance. Few people in Europe are aware of this tragedy. The actions of the Dutch government violate all European treaties and agreements that determine the protection of human rights. It is not often that the Dutch government is called in to the EU for a human rights issue, but it is entirely appropriate in this matter.

Madam President, I thank Ms Vestager. And thank you, Mr Novakov, for bringing to our attention the challenges of large transport infrastructure projects in the EU. Mr Novakov asked the Commission to focus on results like cross-border projects for connectivity and economic growth in Europe. He asked the Commission to avoid risks like double funding due to lack of coordination between the EU instruments. And he asked for targeting tangible outcomes. I am deeply worried. The lack of ability for absorbing huge funds within extreme short periods makes me, well, panic a little bit. The impact of inflation — do we take it into account with project management? I hope so. I tried to get a connection to the standard risk-management sites from the European Commission, but they didn’t appear. We have to be realistic. We need sound risk management in the design, building and construction phases of projects. This report reads as a big red flag. As a risk manager, it scares the hell out of me. I repeat, transparency is key in project control and countering risk ... (the President cut off the speaker)

Mr President, Commissioner, Europe needs more direct democracy. Or, Democracy is the heart of Europe. It is the best of all forms of government. It is the basis of a peaceful society. Democracy is under pressure worldwide. Also here in Europe. The main threat does not come from the right or the left. The main threat to democracy comes from vested interests. Because when you have the power, it's hard to share the power. Political parties are an instrument of power, sometimes binding between voters and policymakers, but more often an undesirable obstacle to citizens demanding control. Thanks to the citizens' initiative, citizens with one million signatures can put the European Commission directly to work with a desire that lives in society. And they did. More than one million citizens are concerned about how sharks are being fished for shark fin soup. They want to stop this fishing. Political parties should have shown colour here and drafted a resolution so that voters and the Commission know what Parliament's position is. We need to listen much better to what is going on in society and act accordingly. For a democratic Europe and a peaceful future.