What Michiel spoke about.

Mr President, the European Union is becoming a second-class trading power. Our trade deficit with China is increasing. Our economic freedoms are under pressure and we praise ourselves with unachievable climate goals. In the days when our continent was still an industrial world power, we determined the rules and the playing field. Together with our American allies, we told how countries in the world should do business. But where the West saw free trade as a win-win situation, China sees this as a weapon to bait us. The trade relationship with China has become asymmetrical and there is no longer a level playing field. We face the Chinese dream that transcends generations. This is reflected in the plans of the European Commission, which is going to the 12th Ministerial Conference on behalf of the EU. The Commission restricts our free trade with increasingly strict climate rules and climate taxes and wants to link the UN Sustainable Development Goals, a kind of cosmopolitan wish list, to it. These barriers have little impact on the climate, but they increase the costs for our businesses and are paid for by people at home. We call on the Commission, on the eve of MC12, not to embark on a climate Christmas tree of overregulation and bureaucratic obstacles, but to commit to the core task: Fair free trade.

Madam President, two years ago, the world was informed that COVID-19 had been newly discovered and was making people very sick in the city of Wuhan in China. In the meantime, the entire world is still suffering under the pandemic, causing the deaths of over five million people. But how did this virus come into the world? The only thing we really know is that it originated in Wuhan. The next question is, and there are indications for this, is whether it was caused by an accidental lab leak in the Wuhan Institute of Virology, where we know they were conducting this type of research, including gain of function. Colleagues, if we want to avoid a new pandemic, we need to evaluate. However, the European Commission refuses to investigate the origins of COVID-19, so it is up to the Parliament to stand up. Therefore, I call on all groups to support the ECR proposal to establish a special committee on the origins of COVID-19 and the EU funding of the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Mr President, when the People's Republic of China joined the World Trade Organisation in 2001, it was intended that trade would increase and that China would gradually become a liberal market democracy. However, this has turned out differently than expected. China chooses its own course and combines state capitalism with a highly assertive trade policy. The recent EU-US Trade and Technology Council meeting in Pittsburgh, at which the EU and the United States demonstrated that they can meet the technological challenges of the 21st century and that they can best address them at transatlantic level, was therefore of great importance. To protect our prosperity and way of life, the technological edge of the West must be preserved. For example, the Netherlands is at the top of the global semiconductor market, which is a geopolitical advantage. The current problems in the supply chain must therefore be solved. Strategic, transatlantic cooperation also means that our companies cannot simply share such technologies with countries pursuing other political interests. Let Pittsburgh therefore be the start of closer transatlantic cooperation, with which other like-minded countries can join.

Mr President, the weekly shopping, the refuelling of the car, the energy bill, the purchase of a home and in the Netherlands soon also the purchase of Sinterklaasca sauce; These are all issues with which many people go to bed every day and get up again. Everything is getting more expensive. Inflation hasn't been this high in decades. It is said that this is due to the corona crisis and that this is temporary. But is that true? The free money has been sloshing against the plinths in Brussels and Frankfurt for years. But where does that money end up? The answer is: a very expensive Green Deal, too large a bureaucratic government and the support of countries that cannot stop their own pants. We take a dollar, pump it full of steroids and call this a sustainable investment. People at home pay the price. It is time for the EU to focus on the real needs and needs of the people who elected this Parliament, rather than on vague vistas.

Mr President, at the end of the 1950s and 1960s, German-American political scientist Ernst Bernard Haas wrote about European integration. He wrote that the established nation-state would withdraw completely. He predicted that gradually, little by little, officials, interest groups and large commercial companies within states would see it in their interest to pursue political and economic integration at a higher, supranational level. By means of a spill-over effect, limited cooperation in some economic areas would ultimately lead to ever greater integration, not only at the economic level, but also in politics, social life and our cultures. And that is what we see happening today with the European Union, where voluntary cooperation with democratic legitimacy has given way to a bureaucratic layer of management in Brussels that will increasingly control more aspects of our lives. A top-down structure that strives for further harmonisation, merging and centralisation. A legislature that legislates on the basis of working groups composed of technocrats, lobbyists, multinationals and NGOs. The Union livers and the Shells, but also the philanthropists of this world, no longer look to national politics for their interests, but to the European Commission, which further excludes national democracy, small and medium-sized enterprises pay the price and the population loses its activity and sense of community. What we are seeing today is another step in that direction – the proposal to create a single market for philanthropy. What is wrong with the common market? And isn't there anyone here who wonders who asked for this? Where does this idea come from? And whose interests are served here? Ours, the ordinary people, at least not. We are not against the European Union and as a trading country, my country, the Netherlands, benefits greatly from a strong common market. These advantages benefit all countries and countries can retain a great deal of their sovereignty. But the people of Berlaymont are overconfident and systematically ignore the wishes of the people. They know what's going on among people, but they really don't understand it. We must therefore offer a counterbalance. We do not want an EU that is run by all kinds of managers. We want a lean and flexible cooperation with a focus on free trade, and that does not require a bureaucratic philanthropy market. This is the only way we can prevent our countries from slipping into saying 'yes' and 'amen', leaving the citizens out of their own lives.

Mr President, we support the strengthening of mechanisms for better tax governance and the fight against tax fraud and evasion. However, there are still many countries, from the Fiji Islands to Panama, that do not have cooperative jurisdictions for tax purposes. So what is the point of the proposed global code of conduct? The following about the proposed global tax rate of 15 percent: Taxation is a national competence and tax competition is part of it. The Tax Foundation has shown that corporate tax is mainly borne by employees and consumers. Up to 70% of the tax burden falls on labour. When the US lowered the tax rate, it was arguably beneficial for investment, jobs and wages. The global minimum corporate tax is not so much about ending tax competition between countries, but rather about ending competition between the wishes of progressives and reality.

Mr President, although there are valuable aspects in the annual report on the Banking Union, and in particular in the area of supervision, we also have serious criticism. For example, the text supports the bank’s self-assessment of climate change risks. Since when does climate belong to the monetary mandate of a central bank, let alone the banking sector? We fear that rücksichtslos allocating green money will lead to green bubbles. We're already blowing enough bubbles, like in the housing market. But the most striking concern is that there is no mention of inflation risks and the delay of necessary reforms in some Member States. Instead, a common European Deposit Guarantee Scheme (EDIS) remains high on the agenda. We are against this. Each Member State is responsible for its own DGS. The Netherlands has saved its own banks and is not obliged to take on the risks of banks in other Member States. In short, there are too many problems for us to support this annual report.

Mr President, the relations between the United States and the countries of Europe are under threat, and this is because we have an EU that no longer knows its place in the geopolitical arena. We have a European Commission seeking what it calls ‘strategic autonomy’. We have a Commission President who recently proclaimed her empire, stating European military forces would be part of the solution, undermining our NATO alliance and the transatlantic partnership. We have a Commission that speaks on behalf of France when they, not us, they lose a submarine deal, compromising the relations of all EU Member States. And we have a European Parliament that believes, according to this report, should have an opinion on internal US affairs such as gun control, the US border wall, police violence, etc. When will the EU recognise it as part of the problem, not the solution?

Mr President, today we are talking about improving the exchange of tax information in the common market. Of course, we encourage cooperation to fight tax fraud and tax evasion as long as there is no unnecessary bureaucracy for business. However, this debate is another typical example where European federalist types go beyond their limits with their amendments. For example, they deplore tax regimes in certain Member States, even ask for infringement proceedings and want to delete the principle whereby Parliament recognises that taxation is a national competence. I will help these colleagues. According to the Treaties, taxation is a competence of the Member States, so what you suggest in your amendments cannot be done at all. So shoemaker, stick to your reading and concentrate on the things that are possible. Direct taxation is a core competence of and between Member States. Let's keep it that way.

Madam President, as the late US President, John Tyler, once said, ‘wealth can only be accumulated by the earnings of industry and the savings of frugality.’ It is the bedrock on which our societies were built. But it seems today that these principles no longer hold any value. After the 2008 financial crisis and the 2010 European debt crisis, we made a promise to ourselves: from now on, things would be different. Fast forward to 2021, and the most important questions on the minds of our policymakers and central bankers seems to be: when can we all go shopping again? So we find ourselves in a situation where interest rates are cut to zero and government debt is exploding. Saving for a rainy day becomes unprofitable, pensions evaporate and housing prices are skyrocketing. Our policymakers do not care. For them, it’s about the short—term gain. We need to spend, we need to borrow and we need to speculate. And why reform our economies? They’ve just set up a Next Generation EU programme for Member States who have trouble financing their deficits. The so—called required reforms are a mushy concept. It is a fund which indeed should be called ‘next generation’, since they are the ones paying for it. I call it ‘Debt Generation EU’. For the ones paying attention it is as clear as a bell: we are borrowing to the hilt; we are over—leveraging capital; and we’re avoiding painful, but necessary, choices. It is a bankrupt business model and it is high time we start reconsidering it.

Mr President, today we are talking about the foreign influence of the democratic process. And rightly so. It makes our democracies vulnerable. However, how does the EU influence the democratic process in the Member States themselves? For example, structural support for pro-EU think tanks. Take the Jacques Delors Institute. This will receive EUR 350 000 per year. European Movement International: EUR 400 000 per year. The European Policy Centre: EUR 250 000 per year. The latter two had ‘citizens’ representatives’ present at the Conference on the Future of Europe plenary session. So, what about influencing one's own democratic process? To what extent is the EU directing this itself? To sum up, let us indeed be vigilant about foreign influences, but also remain critical of the EU's own policies.