Speeches

President, in 2012 the Rutte II cabinet took office in the Netherlands. There was surprise abroad, because how could a prime minister who made the election promise to respect European budgetary standards be re-elected? $16 billion has been cut and increased. The AOW age was increased faster, the mortgage interest deduction limited. Excise duties on fuel have resulted in the highest prices in the EU. The labour market, care, education, every sector was affected, but the Dutch were told ‘after the sour, it comes sweet, because it has to come from Europe’. And what did we see last week, when the ECB indicated that it would raise interest rates by just 25 basis points? Member States in financial difficulties. Can anyone explain this to the Dutch? How is it possible that debt in southern Europe has risen further? How can this be justified against the Dutch? Something is brewing in the Netherlands, a sense of injustice. If you're not careful, Europe's self-proclaimed frontrunner turns into a head-faster.

Mr President, NextGenerationEU, also known as the Corona Recovery Fund, is a homemade cigar for the Netherlands. The core of the fund is the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) and since it was set up in response to the coronavirus crisis, it would be thought that this money would benefit healthcare, research and disease control. But what is included in the national recovery plans? France receives EUR 41 billion and uses the money to provide financial support to companies. There are also tax benefits for the French. Italy gets €69 billion and uses it to isolate homes and build high-speed internet. And the Netherlands? We get 4.6 billion, to spend on some offshore wind turbines and a disastrous investment like nitrogen reduction, conditioned by limiting the mortgage interest deduction and the self-employed deduction. The ERF is not a corona fund. It is a redistributive fund and a prelude to a transfer union, and a high price that the Dutch pay for European solidarity.

Mr President, this Parliament might be a federal fantasyland, but the world out there is not. According to some colleagues, we need to call for a convention so they can change the Treaties. But why? After the Conference on the Future of Europe, it was claimed that we needed to listen to the citizens. Well, in that respect, please let me give you some results on how the Dutch feel about the EU. Getting rid of veto power? Against. A European asylum policy? Against. Transnational voting lists? Nobody cares. And European taxes? Only one in ten thinks this is a good idea. President, when I meet citizens and I speak with them about the EU and the future of the EU, they talk about a strong common market that works for them. So let that be our focus instead of wasting our time on the ideas of overambitious federalists.

Mr President, we have been warning about the loss of purchasing power for more than a year now. In the meantime, we have been overtaken by reality. And that is not only because of Putin and also not because of the disruption in supply chains. It is the reality of excessive public spending, a war on fossil fuels, regulatory pressure on companies and the printing of money by the European Central Bank. These are the roots of the problems of high inflation. But what does the EU do? More of the same: a Green Deal with more rules, more taxes, the Corona Recovery Fund – an expensively paid cigar out of its own box – which the Netherlands is throwing away in terms of nitrogen emission reduction and offshore wind energy. Car taxes, CO2 levies and the ATT are on top of that for the Dutch. Mr President, a purchasing power trap requires less taxes, less rules, less government and less EU. Instead, progressive Europe is waging a war against the free market, a war against our savers, pensioners and young people. This policy must stop.

Mr President, on 9 May the Conference on the Future of Europe concluded with a final event in Strasbourg. No expense was spared, children danced through Parliament. The presidents were very satisfied, as were the carefully selected citizens. We received roaring speeches from President Macron and of course Guy Verhofstadt, who expressed their European federalist dreams. Nothing new under the sun. However, those who surprised me were Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, the person responsible for implementing the Treaties. She made the following statement: Yes, change the Treaties if need be. The European Commission has the task of monitoring the Treaties. It is not her job to step on the slippery political ice to increase her own power. Mrs von der Leyen may like to speak loudly, but political statements about Treaty changes are not part of her remit and are not appropriate. We, as the European Parliament, have a duty to scrutinise the Commission and the Commission. Let us point this out to her.

Mr President, we are in favour of fair taxation and, as far as possible, a level playing field. At the same time, we are also in favour of an internal market with sufficient competition. This also means tax competition. At a time when our citizens are hit hard by rising prices, additional burdens on companies are not the right answer, because who will pay extra business taxes? Employees, as evidenced by research by the IMF, consumers and shareholders. Additional costs are also extra bureaucratic rules, which unfortunately we are already world champions in the EU. This directive means that large companies have to pay additional lawyers, lawyers, accountants and consultancy firms. Governments will also have to adopt a new army of bureaucrats. The water always runs to the sea. It is a strange idea that countries that already grant tax advantages to their companies will find no other way to grant advantages to multinationals. In particular, this proposal will have many undesirable side-effects. Let's reconsider.

Madam President, I thank Mr Boeselager for his explanation on how to dare more democracy. Now we have conducted a poll in the Netherlands, an independent poll amongst 2 400 people. And we conducted the poll on the recommendations of the Conference on the Future of Europe. Only 23% were in favour of transnational lists. 63% of the Dutch people were against European taxes, and 55% are not in favour of a European asylum policy. Just to give some examples. Now, to give you a sense of that, it was representative. There was some slight majority in favour of more European climate policy. So you can have that. Are you willing to conduct the same poll in your home country?

Madam President, as strong believers in democracy, we are always open to new initiatives to engage the citizens. The Conference on the Future of Europe was an interesting experiment; however, used to legitimise a predetermined outcome. The ideas on a digital platform barely used, the representatives of the national citizens panels, outspoken views in favour of EU integration. Eight hundred randomly selected citizens, steered and guided by experts – experts appointed by the Common Secretariats who didn’t hide their own views. Don’t take my word for it. Ask Professor David van Reybrouck, a renowned expert on citizen participation. He called the conference ‘amateuristic and not representative’. Looking at the recommendations, we see a federalist wish list, an excuse to trigger a convention, to transform the EU into a centralised federal union. Transnational lists, a European migration policy, EU taxes, you name it. It’s all there. But based on what legitimate grounds? I appeal to you my colleagues, because I spoke to many of you during the conference from the left to the friends of the EPP, even to colleagues from Renew. You know, this conference has no legitimacy, and I know many of you think as I do. There is always a time and place to discuss the future of the EU; but this conference has failed. Reject the conclusions and reject the call for a new European Convention.

Mr President, for the people at home, everything has been getting more expensive for quite some time. We have been warning about inflation for some time now. Brussels and Frankfurt said it was all good. When inflation continued to rise, it was said that this was only temporary; The prices would rise for a while, but this was nothing to be awake about. As inflation breaks one record after another, the finger is pointed at another culprit: Putin. He obviously plays a role, but we as politicians must also dare to be honest. The causes of inflation were sown a long time ago, but we have been behind the facts for too long. Interest rates should have been raised much earlier. Public spending, for example under NextGenerationEU, has thrown oil on the fire and threatens to create a new scenario: stagflation. Economic growth is declining and inflation continues to rise. We know how to dispel this stagflation, but are our policymakers and the Central Bank capable of making the right choices?

Mr President, every five years the electorate does not warm up very much to the European elections. To change that, the Spitzenkandidaten system has been imposed on us since 2014, under which pan-European lead candidates pull through the EU and campaign. They debate with each other and chatter, but it does not come to a real connection with the citizen. The only interest there is comes from the inward-looking EU bubble. We often hear that the gap between citizens and politics needs to be narrowed. Your answer is: Let's make the gap even bigger. That is why we are now looking at transnational electoral lists, yet another desperate search for a European demos. We presented the proposal to the Dutch and published it today. I advise you to do the same. Only 23 percent of Dutch people are enthusiastic about this idea. Since you yourself cannot come to the understanding, I will say it for you: People don't want this. People have no interest in Euro-nationalist politics. If we are to establish a strong link between voters and elected representatives, we must minimise the distance between them. This incomprehensible proposal does the opposite.

Mr President, in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, stories about its leaders are often told in epic biblical proportions. The ‘eternal president’ Kim Il Sung and his sons not only fulfil the role of political leader to the Korean people, but also of liberator, saviour, reformer, spiritual guide and even Saint Nicholas. This is the reason why religion is almost non—existent in North Korea and why remaining religious minorities are persecuted. For the North Korean state, religion is a rival and a threat to its Juche ideology. The sanctions on North Korea, while justified under international law, have also increasingly isolated the people. One could ask the question whether a ban on fisheries, for example, helps or worsens the situation in the country. Let us not forget that the common folk of North Korea never asked for their government, nor should they be the ones punished for their government’s actions.

Mr President, the Conference on the Future of Europe was set up to involve citizens in the EU. Panels would allow citizens from each EU country to express their views on the EU. However, the selected citizens are guided from the outset by pre-appointed experts towards one possible outcome: More power for the EU. The outcome of the panels can therefore be guessed: there must be a new European constitution, European taxes and a single European asylum policy. But who has heard of this conference? Where is the social debate? Where is the media attention? It's almost as if the conference never took place! And that is dangerous, because governments like the Dutch say they want to follow the recommendations of the Conference. The future of Europe is determined by elections. So let us present the outcome of this Conference to the citizens in a referendum.

Mr President, today we are talking about the global minimum tax, the so-called ‘Pillar Two model rules’. A noble aspiration, but there are practical objections. When our citizens are hit hard by rising prices, an additional burden on businesses is not the right answer. Who will pay extra business taxes? According to a study by the IMF, employees are the main beneficiaries of corporate taxes. It explains 45 to 75 percent of their lower wages. Important in times of high inflation. In addition, bureaucracy undermines competitiveness. Unfortunately, we also excel in that in the EU. This proposal extends this even further. The proposal means that large companies will have to keep additional accounts. This will particularly appeal to lawyers, accountants and consultancy firms. Finance ministries will also have to adopt new bureaucrats, because these complex rules need to be interpreted. Given the bureaucratic reputation of certain Member States, this is a major challenge. Finally, it is a strange idea that countries that have to increase their taxes will find no other way to grant benefits to multinationals. The global minimum tax is a solution in search of a problem. Most countries already have a way to ensure that everyone pays their taxes properly. In addition, it remains to be seen whether other countries such as the United States will ever implement it. Mr President, let us reconsider this proposal, because we are not going to solve the problems of taxation in a digital and globalised world.

Mr President, the European Central Bank is increasingly in the political seat. Inflation breaks record after record, but the ECB seems obsessed with a politically biased agenda of ‘climate change risks’. Last week, ECB Executive Director Isabel Schnabel spoke about a new era of inflation: ‘climate inflation’, ‘fossil flatie’ and ‘green flatie’. Meanwhile, citizens are paying the price: groceries are becoming more expensive and a litre of petrol is already above two euros in many countries. An unsustainable situation, especially now that economic growth is stagnating. Inflation is ultimately the result of a central bank policy, and a central bank can only work if it is politically independent. The ECB is accountable to the European Parliament, but I hardly hear anyone about this in this House. The ECB must return to its mandate. That is price stability. And for that, we need a strong currency in the hands of an apolitical central bank.

Madam President, the use of distributed ledger technology (DLT) can be a tremendous ally in the quest for a stronger capital markets union. The current regulatory framework is not sufficiently equipped to deal with the increasing digitalisation of the financial sector. Well-targeted derogations from existing legislation should allow our capital markets to take advantage of the opportunities offered by this technology. We welcome the creation of a testing ground for the use of digital ledger technology in this field, with the potential for countless innovations. DLT offers, for example, the opportunity to reimagine clearing and settlement in a true, borderless 24—7 operating environment, providing access to securities and cash pools to facilitate real—time settlements, delivering at near—100% settlement rates. With the vote on the DLT pilot regime tomorrow, we are taking a quantum leap towards the much—needed further digitalisation of our capital markets. Therefore, I congratulate the rapporteur and Parliament’s negotiating team for a job well done.

Mr. President, James Madison, the father of the U.S. Constitution and later president, once said: ‘The power to tax people is essential to the existence of the national government.’ Indeed, ‘national government’. Paying taxes is a necessary evil. If you ever want to stand in a short line, stand in line with the people who feel they pay too little tax. But it is necessary to pay for public services and to finance a social safety net for the most vulnerable. Paying taxes connects the citizen to the government. The European Union is not a public authority: not a national government, not a federal government, not even a supranational government. The European Union is an international organisation to which countries have transferred certain powers under the guise of the common market. Taxation is the competence of national governments. It is good that the EU's role in the field of taxation is limited. Only a coordinating role is given if the common market is at stake. But the EU is overconfident and is systematically trying to gain powers. And we see that again today in a resolution that at first sight is quite noble, namely to tackle tax avoidance and to speed up tax dispute resolution. Unfortunately, as is often the case in this house, a kind of Christmas tree is filled with dream wishes. Harmonisation of the criteria for tax residence is unacceptable as it affects the freedom of Member States in tax matters. In addition, there are also suggestions to circumvent the unanimity rule in tax matters. The resolution also seeks to return to legislative proposals that have long been rejected in the Council, such as a definitive European VAT system. For these reasons, we will not support this proposal.

Mr President, over the past two years we have faced unprecedented challenges. The pandemic left our economy unbalanced, leading to huge inflation. The future requires us to pursue sensible economic policies: reforms, sustainable public debt, and Member States complying with the commitments made. Although this is addressed in the European Semester, we lack a plan to address people's problems at home. The projections indicate that Member States’ economies will return to pre-pandemic levels by the end of this year. But the world has changed and the forecasts are outdated. The war in Ukraine will further increase inflation and increase energy prices. If we want to become independent from Russian gas, it is important that we abandon the European Green Deal. With wind and solar power, we're not going to make it. With investments in European gas, modern coal-fired power plants and nuclear energy, we must start now, because people at home pay the price and their understanding is not infinite.

Mr President, EU federalists are abusing the war in Ukraine, this terrible war, for their own agenda. They want to "reform" the EU as soon as possible, create a geopolitical European Commission and abolish the Member States' right of veto. But how has the Commission been doing in recent days? We saw an overambitious Borrell who thought he could deliver fighter jets, an impulsive Von der Leyen who wanted to deliver weapons under the EU flag and gave EU membership free of charge – something Moldova and Georgia now naturally want too. The war in Ukraine shows that the European Commission is not the solution to these problems. The European Commission is the problém. EU federalists always say that the European Council is indecisive, but over the last ten days we have seen European unity. Member States unanimously condemned the Russian attack and quickly imposed sanctions. The future of the EU remains intergovernmental. When it comes to really important matters, the Member States come together. Let's keep it that way.

Mr President, in view of the situation in Iran, the resolution condemning the death penalty in Iran is a sympathetic resolution that we support. Why, however, has the European Parliament decided to speak out on this issue? Indeed, yesterday, Parliament adopted a report on the implementation of the European Union’s Common Foreign and Security Policy, calling for the relaunch of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on Iran, better known as the ‘Iran Deal’. Moreover, the resolution is difficult to reconcile with the previous signals issued by the European Commission: Josep Borrell called Iran’s Foreign Minister three days ago about the renewal of the Iran Deal and Enrique Mora represented the EU at last year’s inauguration of Iranian President Raisi, nicknamed the ‘Basher of Tehran’. What kind of message does this send with regard to sanctions, human rights and, consequently, the death penalty in Iran?

Madam President, I fear a collective laziness is creeping into this House. It is now almost two years since the European Parliament was subject to COVID restrictions. We understood the situation, however, we now see COVID on the decline, Member States getting rid of restrictions and many colleagues in national parliaments fully back to work. Not the European Parliament, where some colleagues even say, ‘I want to keep remote voting and hybrid debates’. Madam President, a parliament is more than voting and reading out statements in front of a screen. It is about debate, about meeting our colleagues and our voters in Parliament, face to face. That is something you cannot do from the couch in your living room. According to my book, you either show up to work or you don’t. Most people in this parliament show up every day: the cleaners, the ushers, security guards and the people working in restaurants. Do you think they can say, ‘from now on, I will work remotely’? They cannot. Nor can we. So, President Metsola, I call on you: let’s get back to work.

Mr President, when we started the euro 20 years ago, it was promised that the euro would be a strong and reliable currency, guaranteed by a robust Stability and Growth Pact. This is no longer the case. The euro area has become a quarrel zone – the sparse North versus the spiny South. The European Central Bank, meanwhile, has the objective of price stability, but is increasingly operating politically. While inflation is hitting the euro area and the debt of certain Member States is taking on unsustainable proportions, the ECB is mainly concerned with climate change risks, while I believe that this task lies with insurers, credit rating agencies and consultancies. In the Netherlands, inflation stood at 6.4 % in December. House prices that are not themselves inflationary increased by 20% last year – a bubble that is on the verge of bursting! Mrs Lagarde, I understand that you work for the entire eurozone. But for the Dutch, the savers, pensioners, young people this no longer works. I urge you not to forget them.

Mr President, Kazakhstan is a country on a geopolitical tightrope. The Russian Federation and China on the one hand, the West on the other. After the end of the Cold War, Kazakhstan inherited the world’s fourth-largest nuclear weapons arsenal. It denuclearised and is now mainly reliant on Russia for its security. On the other hand, the EU has grown to become Kazakhstan’s largest trading partner, and it is one of our major energy suppliers. May Kazakhstan be a lesson: a strong hike in energy prices fuels protests against the government, and we need to think strategically and look out for the interests of the EU and its citizens. An extra hike in energy prices is something our citizens cannot afford. As the EU, we need to benefit from a stable and reliable Kazakhstan. In that respect, sanctions or meddling in the domestic affairs of Kazakhstan will only come back to haunt us.

Mr President, as European Conservatives, we believe national sovereignty resides in the people. In that respect, we believe the natural resources of a country are the sovereign property of its people, and they are not for others to exploit. In the past, this has led to the disruption of the African continent through the rough diamond market. The trade in these conflict diamonds, or ‘blood diamonds’, has funded civil war, illegitimate political aims, and forced labour, also among children. Since the beginning of the 2000s, an international cooperation of over 80 countries called the ‘Kimberley Process Certification Scheme’ has been in place to keep the global market free from these blood diamonds. However, we are not there yet. The Kimberley Process is narrow, with only one country under embargo. But even this embargo does not stop these blood diamonds from illegally crossing the borders and being sold in European stores. Therefore, we support a revision of the current definition of conflict diamonds in order to include the social and environmental conflict-related dimensions of diamond production. We underline the positive role for the private sector in cooperation with the public one. Hence, we welcome the commitment by the World Diamond Council to the Kimberley Process. Job creation and income from mining communities is dependent on a stable, transparent and responsible supply chain.

Mr President, we are between hammer and anvil. Inflation raises the prices of energy, food and houses. Savers don't get a penny of interest anymore. The European Commission and the European Central Bank tell us that inflation is temporary. But what is the uncomfortable truth? The EU is totally stuck. Governments, and the European Commission in particular, are spending money like water. With the NextGenerationEU fund, the Commission is incurring an additional €800 billion in debt. We know that this policy is causing inflation to run rampant. We also know that if we tighten monetary policy and raise interest rates, the debt-laden countries will go bankrupt. It's time for countries and their spineless politicians who refuse to reform their economies to take responsibility and stick to the rules. Because we will never agree to a common European debt.

Mr President, the pay gap exists, let that be clear. The unadjusted pay gap arises, among other things, because women work more part-time, have sector-specific interests and because men work more overtime. After this correction, a small percentage remains for which we have no explanation. Possibly discrimination. We condemn discrimination in all its forms, including on grounds of sex. And we are not so naive as to deny the existence of these problems. We would also like to point out that a top-down approach from the EU is neither realistic nor desirable. Every country in the EU has its own cultural traditions. In my country, the Netherlands, for example, it is easy to see how fathers take their children to school by bike. Something that may seem very strange in another Member State. We believe in individual freedom. Everyone is free to organize his or her life as they choose. A feminist super government from Brussels should not impose that. So, despite the good intentions of my colleagues, we cannot vote in favour of this report. It is not the EU's mandate to set standards for national labour law or family law, or to put pressure on Member States to sign international conventions. We must strive for equality of opportunity, not absolute equality. A raised finger from Brussels can be missed as a toothache.