What Michiel spoke about.

Mr President, Europe is fast becoming a second-class economy. Our debts are rising, our regulatory and tax burden is a nightmare. In the days of the free market, with Europe as the leading industrial player, politics gave citizens and businesses the freedom to: the freedom to do business, to trade and, yes, to make money. Today, Brussels politics is taking away that freedom. The European Commission consists of 27 Commissioners, including 50 different departments with 32 000 officials. And what do they do all day? They churn one suffocating regulation and green directive after another. Our top industrial companies are being chased off the continent to make way for a ‘green’ industrial policy, outlined on the Brussels polder table. The result? Our competitiveness is deteriorating and our influence on the world stage is decreasing. More free trade and deregulation – in the absence of a better word – are good. Good for our prosperity, good for our jobs, available products and access to raw materials. Let that freedom return after June 6th.

Mr President, this is it: our last plenary session in Strasbourg. The European elections are coming. On June 6th we go to the polls and change hangs in the air. Our parents and grandparents once signed for a common market, but secretly got a dominant political Union with flags, national anthems, common debts and now even towards their own army, when the voters never asked for it or voted for it. It is therefore not surprising that the European elections in the Netherlands traditionally have the lowest turnout. In the meantime, one wonders: What's the point, anyway? But history teaches us one thing: Political cooperation such as the European Union will not survive if it continues to move in the same direction. They have to change, adapt or die out. The time has now come in Europe. The flow of power from the Member States to Brussels must be reversed. We need to let power and resources flow back. Back from Brussels to the Member States and, more importantly, back to the Dutch.

Madam President, I would like to congratulate both rapporteurs on the work done and the results obtained. We support and share the commitment to combat forced labour. On these forced-labour ban rules, however, we have a few of our concerns. First, the absence of an impact assessment remains a crucial point. Despite good intentions, it is essential to assess whether its costs are justified and reasonable. The partial report delivered in a few years does not suffice. Second, we have doubts on the impact on our small and medium-sized businesses. Although guidelines will be provided, the lack of a centralised national contact point may leave entrepreneurs uncertain about how to implement this regulation. Our third concern is the fact that the door for remediation remains open. While the reasons are understandable, we doubt its feasibility. Which brings me to my overall concern, and again, we believe this is sensible legislation, but our overall concern, dear Commissioner, is that we, as the European Union, are overregulating. The European Union faces grave competition. So we also need to start focusing on a competitive business climate. We hear promises from the Commission about a ‘one in, one out’ principle, better regulation, adequate impact assessments. But the reality simply does not match up. Again, while this legislation is sensible, we also ask the Commission to practise what it preaches. So we also need to start focusing on deregulation.

Mr President, the drums of war are thundering again. As the war in Ukraine continues, fewer and fewer European politicians can keep a cool head. For example, the President of the European Council, Charles Michel, like the French and Italian European Commissioners, wants to switch to a real war economy, financed with common EU debt on the account of the Dutch, of course. But what exactly does a war economy mean? A war economy means that the entire European economy, i.e. everything and everyone, is adapted to serve military interests. That is very far-reaching, especially since we are not formally at war at all. If countries want to support Ukraine economically and with arms supplies, we are all for it. But advocating for our economy to be fully war-oriented, we see today only in North Korea under the Sōn’gun policy and, yes, in Russia. Geopolitics requires well-considered decisions and people who keep thinking for themselves. But with today's hysterical politicians, I fear the worst.

Well, as a former accountant and consultant, I am happy to answer that question, as there is a new branch in the accounting industry: That's the branch. And for that branch, companies are going to look at how they report on their value chain. And the way in which they report is then passed on to the SMEs, to the suppliers. In the end, these are the merits... (Call) Google "CS Triple D" agree! Google this! The first two pages of ‘CS Triple D’ are the large consulting, accountancy and law firms. You think you are advocating for a better world, but in the end you are in the pocket of the big business, not SMEs.

Mr President, Europe is becoming a second-class economy. Global economic competition is fierce and fierce. Instead of improving Europe's business and business environment, the EU is pricing itself out of the market with stifling regulation. The European Directive on Corporate Due Diligence (CS Triple D) adds to this. This directive supposedly aims to make the economy more sustainable, but in reality imposes rules and costly reporting obligations on companies. The real winners of this directive — and I am particularly looking at the left side of Parliament — are large consultancy, accounting and law firms. The losers: our companies, employees and their customers, who have to bear additional costs. The question we have to ask ourselves is: Do we want a competitive market economy? Or do we want a bureaucratic, corporatist system? The Member States that are trying to block the directive deserve all the support. If we are to remain prosperous and competitive in the future, this must go to the trash. Stop CS Triple D! (The speaker agreed to answer a blue card question)

Mr President, in 2019, when Ursula von der Leyen begged the European Parliament to vote for her Commission presidency, she promised better regulation for businesses. She even promised a ‘one in, one out’ principle: For every new EU law, one had to come out first. Five years later, big companies are leaving us. The manufacturing industry is collapsing and almost a third of the rules are hardly feasible for our SMEs, which increasingly have to hire expensive consultants to be able to comply with regulations at all. This is driving up the already huge cost of regulatory burden, and we want the best social security in Europe, most climate rules. If companies make a little too much profit, they are dirty. First and foremost, they need to improve the world. If you promise something, you also have to be paid for it. Von der Leyen promised a better investment climate and fewer rules, but only more rules were added. It's time to take care of her policy in June.

Mr President, how the European digital identity came about is an affront to democracy. A majority motion was adopted in the Dutch Parliament in December 2022, calling on State Secretary for Digitalisation Van Huffelen not to agree to the Council conclusions on the European digital identity. This entails serious risks, such as the central storage of data and techniques used in an unsafe manner. Van Huffelen ignored this and still voted for it. The Dutch government has therefore agreed to a European law to which the House of Representatives has explicitly said no. If national parliaments are ignored in the EU, why are they still there? The people who have to decide on this are the Dutch voters through our democratic mechanisms and procedures. If we are not prepared to do so, we might as well close our national parliaments and turn them into a museum.

President, Ursula von der Leyen, the Brussels kibble pilot, wants a second term as President of the European Commission. Wherever ‘VDL’ – as it is affectionately referred to here – came, misery arose: at the German Defence Ministry, and now also after five years in the European Commission. It brought us NextGenerationEU, an expensive and unnecessary Corona Recovery Fund for which the Netherlands guarantees €47 billion, slow and shadowy vaccine procurement whose texts to Pfizer's boss have still not been released, the disastrous Green Deal for which all of Europe is now taking to the streets, and even open external borders, relaxed fiscal rules for southern Europe and less free trade. No track record to be proud of. Mr President, Ms von der Leyen is a fanatical EU federalist who does not sufficiently realise that she is not an empress, but president of a secretariat. Time to stop their policy.

Mr President, President Lagarde, since the late 2000s, the European Central Bank has been trying to play God by printing money as the bread came from heaven. President Lagarde, the core objective of your ECB is price stability, but your institution deals with everything: saving high-debt countries, buying bad loans, climate change and a digital euro that no one has asked for. But the major economic challenges facing the population – inflation, housing, high public debt, low economic growth – are largely rooted in Frankfurt. Core inflation is going down but still not under control, and the lost purchasing power of recent years will never get people back. President Lagarde, it's important that you limit yourself to your core task. It's time to put the beast back in the cage. Only then can the ECB regain people's trust.

Mr President, it is high time we made a distinction between climate change and climate policy. Yes, we see global temperatures rising and yes, human behavior is accelerating this. But the current climate policy is a complete hoax. If you really want to do something about climate change, we are now starting to build nuclear power plants, focusing on market-oriented innovation and climate adaptation, and we are now ending those arbitrary net-zero targets that lead us to a centrally planned economy based on subsidy and debt. This is watermelon policy: green on the outside, red on the inside. I don't blame the left-wing parties. After all, this has been their agenda for decades. But it is centre politicians like you, Mr Hoekstra, who make this possible every time. You may also see the protests outside. The voter will present the bill in June.

Mr President, last week, Europe – and Brussels in particular – was awakened by angry farmers. Why are they so angry? That's because the EU is constantly overloading them with more and more rules. The Commission—Von der Leyen promised less regulatory burden, but does the opposite. Friday is an important day, because then Member States will decide whether to give the green light to the so-called due diligence directive, a directive that supposedly has to make the economy even more sustainable, but in reality imposes a barrage of rules and reporting obligations on companies. The winners of this guideline are the large consultancy and law firms. The peanuts are the entrepreneur and the customers, who are charged extra costs. No company needs new bureaucratic burdens. It is to be hoped that the Member States will refer this matter to the trash on Friday. Otherwise, I assure you, the farmers will not be alone.

Madam President, I thank you, Commissioner McGuinness and all the colleagues who have contributed to this very important debate. As I’ve already highlighted, the best feature of the Instant Payments Regulation for citizens is that it takes the EU closer to frictionless payments. This Regulation is important for Europe’s strategy to encourage European innovation, and we do this by making credit transfers cheaper for citizens and merchants. This Regulation features rolling deadlines for Eurozone and non-Eurozone payment service providers to be able to receive and send instant payments. The first of these deadlines, that of payment service providers being able to receive instant payments in the Eurozone, will come into force already nine months from the entry of force of this Regulation, so we can expect instant payments will be a feature of the Eurozone before the end of 2024. Non-Eurozone Member States, understandably, need some extra time, and as someone who believes that the EU should be a flexible organisation, I was glad to support this as a rapporteur. Now, Madam President, if you would allow me, as this mandate is coming to an end, it makes one contemplate on what we have achieved, what difference did we make for the people. The EU is often perceived as this distant organisation to the people; often that’s probably true. With this file, it’s really the fundamental motivation of why I entered into politics; and that is to improve lives directly for the people, for our businesses, for our competitiveness. I’m very proud of the work that we, as the Parliament, as a team and as an interinstitutional team have done on the file. I look forward to seeing the effects of our joint efforts come to fruition.

Madam President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, let me first thank the Commission for its excellent initiative. That was the basis for the work done by the Parliament and the Council. With the agreement on instant payments, we deliver on an opportunity to do something that people and businesses truly care about. They will be able to transfer money within 10 seconds at any time of the day, including outside business hours, not only within the same country, but also to another EU Member State. This is not about some abstract plumbing of the financial system, or super-technical capital requirements for banks or insurance companies, or fine-tuning of the European statistical system; instead, this is something very concrete, and something that Europeans truly care about in their daily lives. Ask yourself: have you ever wondered why a package from an online retailer reaches you faster than a payment from a friend from another EU Member State? Why can we send emails all over the world in a split second, but a payment from Belgium to Latvia still takes two to three business days? Madam President, our payments transaction system is based on a system from the 1980s. With the Instant Payments Regulation, we finally enter the 21st century. I would like to highlight four important aspects. First, convenience: 10 seconds for each transaction. Some EU countries, such as the Netherlands or Spain, already have their own national instant payment scheme, but this will now become a reality across Europe. Good for citizens and companies who can send and receive their money faster. Second, security: the IBAN name check – as some banks are already using in my country, the Netherlands – is now introduced across Europe, making transactions more secure than ever. Third, we make our markets less dependent on foreign companies for both online and card payments. Fourth, openness and innovation: fintechs will also gain access to the payments infrastructure, but even market vendors will be able, in theory, to set up their own QR system for receiving instant payments. No more high costs to rent a payment terminal in order to be connected to the payment infrastructure. It is high time that instant payments become a reality: for European citizens, as they will enjoy smoother payment options; for European businesses, as they will face lower costs; and for European payment services, as they will become more and more competitive. I enthusiastically welcome the trilogue agreement, which clearly shows the ambition that Europe needs. Ambition on scope, for example, by the inclusion of payment institutions and electronic money institutions, as insisted by the Parliament. This should enhance innovation. Ambition on fees, most notably by requiring that charges for instant payments may not be higher than charges for traditional, non-instant payments. Such affordability is the key to realising the maximum benefits for consumers. And last but not least, ambition on the entry into force of this regulation; the Parliament negotiating team has successfully negotiated implementation deadlines in the very near future. Let me conclude by thanking the Commission – Commissioner McGuinness – for an excellent proposal, and the Spanish Presidency and my colleagues, shadow rapporteurs, for the constructive collaboration during our negotiations.

Mr President, more free trade means more and better jobs in Europe. But the EU is becoming less and less of a free trade bloc and more and more of a selfish, self-centered, protectionist bloc. Take climate policy. That would be a global problem that we would have to solve globally. But the EU is putting forward a green European industrial policy and carbon border taxes. This does not create the jobs of the future. For example, with import tariffs on cheap solar panels from Asia, you may support a small proportion of employment among European manufacturers, but it also makes panels more expensive, which means fewer people are taking them away, there is less work for installers and we therefore have to throw suitcases with taxpayers' money in subsidies against them. Mr President, if we drop trade barriers and buy cheaply, that does not undermine European employment. On the contrary, it gives our people more purchasing power and creates entirely new industries here in Europe. Free trade makes us the richest continent on earth. Let that happen again.

Mr President, serving the public interest is a great honour. Unfortunately, not everyone in Brussels shares that same belief. The President of the European Council, Charles Michel, will lead the European elections in June. However, its mandate, which is the Union's main function, runs until November. But for Mr Michel it is not a problem, he simply leaves earlier. With this decision, he is not only looking at himself, but also at the European Council and the Member States that elected him. Let there be no misunderstanding about this: We are witnessing flat opportunism here. As president, he has made little impression, so for fear of unemployment, Michel is already ahead of the next Brussels job. This doesn't do the trust any good. These are the moments when voters ask themselves: What's the point of all this? There is nothing wrong with ambition, but with Charles Michel the personal interest clearly takes precedence over the public interest.

Houses are unaffordable for young people. Food prices continue to rise. It is important to look at the root cause: policy of central banks. This has driven inflation. This has caused the housing market to collapse. Add to that an ill-considered energy transition, uncontrolled migration, rising protectionism and increasing regulatory pressure, and you have the toxic cocktail we are now in. The solutions of the left, such as free money, raising the minimum wage and nationalizing the housing market, will only make the problems worse. We have to tackle the problem at the root. The ECB's policy should focus on price stability, not on saving high-debt countries and the climate. Taxes for low- and middle-income earners should be reduced. So governments and the EU need to spend less money, not more. We need to focus on free trade so that we can buy more and cheaper products. We need to close our borders to illegal immigration. That's what needs to be done. That's what we're gonna do.

Mr President, on 6 October, there was a cease-fire between Israel and Hamas. On 7 October, Hamas decided to break it with a barbaric attack against peaceful civilians, including Europeans. Immediately, we saw the rise of bothsidesism and the victim of this brutal attack, the State of Israel, became the accused – also by some in this House. The accusations are coloniser, apartheid, state, war criminals, just to name a few. Let’s talk facts. Since 1947, up to five times a Palestinian state was offered but rejected by the Palestinians. In 2005, Israel unilaterally left Gaza for the Palestinians. Doesn’t sound like a coloniser. In Israel, 20 % of the population is Arab. They enjoy civil rights and protection under the rule of law. Doesn’t sound like an apartheid state. Before their precision strikes, the IDF spreads leaflets and sends messages to prevent casualties, making it one of the most moral armies in the world. Doesn’t sound like war criminals. Hamas, on the other hand, is a terrorist organisation with explicit genocidal motivations against the Jewish people. They hide underneath hospitals and schools. They keep spreading anti-Semitism through their propaganda, because they know, they know that useful idiots will go along with it. Chair, there is no alternative. Hamas must be eliminated. We should support Israel now more than ever.

Mr President, the world is moving into the ‘blocisation’ of geopolitics. We see the war in Ukraine, tensions between the United States and the People’s Republic of China rising, and the attack of Hamas on Israel. It all exposes a deep rift between liberal democracies, on the one hand, and authoritarian and theocratic regimes, on the other. Consequently, protectionism is on the rise, and a decline in global free trade would hurt our open economies and endanger security and prosperity. As EU, we need to protect our economic interests. We should strengthen the economic ties with like-minded partners. And this puts Taiwan, as a democratic and economic partner, at the forefront. As a vital player in global supply chains, Taiwan safeguards our concrete economic interests. At the same time, we should not misuse our economic relations with Taiwan to aggravate the tensions with the People’s Republic of China. We should refrain from a Cold War mentality. In the end, our strongest deterrent against war and conflict is free trade, interdependency and economic growth for all.

Mr President, few people are warm before the European elections. Across the Union, only half of the voters turn up. In the Netherlands barely 40%. I hear colleagues say that this turnout must be increased. But with the proposals in this report, that will not work. Since 2014, you have been pushing the spitzenkandidaten system: pan-European lead candidates who are unfamiliar travel across the EU and debate with each other. The population is not interested at all. The only enthusiasts are here: That's you. Nevertheless, the rapporteurs want to push through this system by imposing campaigns and manifestos for pan-European political parties, for example. The more EU we impose, the more the European people will be interested in us, that seems to be the idea here. The reverse is true. If we want to strengthen the link between voters and elected representatives, we must reduce the distance as much as possible. So leave the European elections as much as possible to national parties and national politicians.

Mr President, EU businesses are increasingly suffocated by a barrage of laws and regulations. Entrepreneurship is becoming increasingly difficult. In the banking sector, which still provides 80 % of corporate loans to SMEs, 20 % of employees are currently engaged in compliance. To clarify, in the Netherlands there are twice as many compliance officers than district agents. The EU provides 90% of the regulatory burden for our SMEs. Financial audits, risk management, privacy legislation. In addition, there are all kinds of reporting obligations such as on working conditions, on climate, on gender equality ... the list does not stop. Recently I made a tour of typical Dutch companies. A cheesemaker from North Holland told me that he spends EUR 50 000 a year on auditors and consultants. For my colleagues on the left: That's one less employee in the workplace. Colleagues, since you are all playing with your phone, please google Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive or, as we know it here, CSDDD. What do you see? Right: all large consultancy and law firms. You make sure they benefit. Not the entrepreneur, not the employee. Mrs von der Leyen promised us less regulatory burden, but as is often the case, it remained empty promises. Entrepreneurs are losing confidence and hope. That's at the expense of all of us.

The Netherlands is in a housing crisis. Middle-class people and especially young people can no longer buy a home. Twelve years ago, the same house cost half as much as it does today. Project developers did not lose their homes on the paving stones. The house buyer was king. What happened in that short period of time? Now a lot of people have been added by too much immigration and too few homes have been built. But what is the root cause? For that we really have to point to Frankfurt, Brussels and The Hague. They made everyone addicted to free money and let the housing market run wild. Because that is exactly what happens when you buy up debt en masse for more than ten years and keep interest rates negative. People at home are literally paying the price. They can go to the polls on Wednesday. Present the account to those responsible for this.

Madam President, the European Union does not need to be enlarged; it is big enough as it is. As happened too many times. President von der Leyen created a PR moment for herself while overstepping her mandate and bypassing the Member States. Madam President, in my country, the Netherlands, there is no appetite for further EU expansion. We already pay the highest amount of EU contributions per capita and an enlargement will only increase this burden. The Commission tells us that if we don’t expand, these countries would turn to Russia and China. But the only reason this would happen is because we keep making empty promises. We do not need to fully integrate these countries into the EU in order to improve economic or diplomatic relations. The only European integration this enlargement will cause is disintegration.

Mr President, the communications of the EU on the atrocities committed by Hamas were a mess. President von der Leyen, as she has done on multiple occasions, overstretched her mandate. While I personally commend her support for Israel, she bypassed the leaders of the Member States. Representative Borrell did the same, and I would like to add that his position on this one is very, very sketchy. Apparently, it is difficult to even stand up for Israel with one voice. According to my book, if you stand for the rule of law, democracy and freedom, you support Israel unconditionally. The communication failure by the Commission shows again that a common European foreign policy is a fiction, a paper tiger, a dud. Why? Because there is not one EU foreign policy. Please stop acting like there is one, and defund the External Action Service immediately.

Mr President, the call for more funds is echoing again in the plenary. Good EU tradition is once again being demanded for more money. After the superfluous NextGenerationEU of more than EUR 800 billion and the unforeseen increased interest costs, which were not budgeted, new funds need to be created again. It can't go on. In our view, the call for new own resources, a code word for EU taxes, is not the way forward for this House. If your money is short, prudent financial policy is necessary for a healthy state economy. We propose that we cut our own meat, such as agricultural subsidies or social cohesion funds. All expenditure, including climate projects, must fall within the already excessively large existing multiannual budget. Since the turn of the century, the Netherlands has been the highest net contributor per capita to the EU. It's been enough. It's time to put the ring to the ring.