Speeches

Madam President, last year I saw the future of the countryside through the eyes of a Dutch farmer named Noortje. And Noortje is not just a farmer; she's a pioneer. Alongside taking care of her cows, she grows chickpeas, she restores nature on her land, supports pollinator research and hosts a day-care facility – right on her land. Her farm is the perfect example – perfect blueprint – for diversification, sustainability and a place for social connection. Women like Noortje are the heartbeat of a vibrant countryside. They are the ones turning abstract contracts like rural development into living, breathing reality. And yet, for far too many, this path remains an exhausting uphill battle. What these women need is clear: recognition of the often-unpaid extra work they do on farms; access to land ownership and finance and decision-making power; access to good quality childcare, healthcare and schools. We cannot talk about vibrant rural areas while leaving the women who build them to struggle alone, and I urge the Commission to take up these tasks and deliver for our women. Because when rural women succeed, our entire society prospers.

Madam President, billions to create addictive and inescapable online worlds; pennies to deal with the fallout of it. Tech companies have spent fortunes tweaking algorithms, targeting even more younger users and creating the most eye‑catching online worlds. But the moment their users are there, they are on their own. Unrestricted cyberbullying? 'Nothing to do with me', says Zuckerberg. Or a harassment epidemic? 'Sounds like a you problem', Musk would say. The result is serious: deepfakes, sexual abuse, grooming and online widespread violence. This violence affects everyone, but women are targeted most, especially young girls, politicians, journalists. Women are actively pushed out of the public debate, afraid of being abused. And these problems are not accidental. They are built into the system. Algorithms boost what polarises and sexualises, and it amplifies what shocks. We must hold these platforms to account. It's them who must take the lead in bringing this harassment epidemic to an end.

Mr President, I should like to thank everyone for your input, and I'm happy to realise that there is a broad majority in the centre that I can work with. But a lot of people have shouted at me today, at us, and there were a lot of allegations made today. Apparently, I have never loved my homeland, I am in the hand of Islam, I don't care about Christians, I don't care about children or women, I want to do away with free speech, I give teddy bears to asylum seekers – which is actually a nice idea! I have counted the times that ECR, PfE and ESN have talked about migration, and it was in every speech: migration, migration, migration. I don't know if you are joining the wrong debate, because this is a debate about fundamental rights, and not about migration. But if this is really the way you want to address fundamental rights, then I tell you this: you are missing the point, because fundamental rights is not a buffet where you can pick from a bit of this or that. No. You either fight for all or you don't fight at all. There has also been some reasonable criticism, and that is specifically about the protection of protesters who stand up for the people in Gaza. I understand, and I also had wished that this was part of the result after the negotiations. To the Commission, thank you for taking this seriously. It is great to hear you're committed to making hate speech an EU crime, although there's maybe not a majority in the Council and it's difficult. I am happy to hear you want to look into different ways, and I'm especially curious to hear how you want to fight for the protection of women and children online. So, colleagues, tomorrow we have the votes. I hope that despite political differences we can be united over fundamental rights and make a clear statement saying that fundamental rights are non-negotiable.

Mr President, 'Love thy neighbour', 'I am because we are', 'All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights' – whether it comes from the Bible, Ubuntu or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, our shared humanity is an obvious truth. And when we call the shared humanity 'fundamental rights', we build a home for all Europeans to live in. But now, there are some who want to destroy this home. They say, 'this home is not for him because he came from a different country', or 'this home is not for her because she's a woman', 'this home is not for them because they love the wrong way' or 'not for them because they pray to the wrong gods'. And eventually, this home is so picked apart and divided that even those who destroyed it will themselves have nowhere to live. Are we going to sit here and bargain over people's rights – who gets to have more and who deserves less? Or can we live up to the best versions of ourselves and say, 'these fundamental rights are non-negotiable'? And now is the moment to do so, because around the world, the best of us no longer stand up for these rights. And the Trumpian worst of us are declaring that whole civilisations can be destroyed, that the only human right that is sacred is the one of the strong to oppress the weak. We in Europe must show that another way is possible. Because sadly, everywhere we look we see that hate is rising again. We see it in rising racism. The antisemitism we had wished was long dead returned with attacks outside Jewish schools and synagogues in the Netherlands. Far too many Jewish people are afraid to wear a kippah or to wear a necklace with the Star of David around their necks – and this is unacceptable. Alongside this old prejudice, a new one – Islamophobia – is also becoming mainstream. And I mention these two together because too often people seem to think that to fight one is to neglect the other. But if you think you have to choose, you are missing the point. To combat racism means that everyone must feel and be safe. We also see a backlash against the emancipation of women, and this is nothing new. It is as old as witch trials, but it has taken on new and disturbing forms. It takes place on social media, with misogyny transformed into entertainment; or in anonymous chat rooms, where men share rape tips with one another – all supercharged by tech companies whose only fundamental right is profit. And while we in Europe often pride ourselves on record on LGBTQ+ rights, this progress is not equally distributed and is often under threat. There is much to protect and much still to be accomplished, and an easy first step would be to listen to European citizens and finally ban conversion therapy. Civil society is under attack. People who speak up for the voices are being blamed and even criminalised. Are we really at a point where giving a cup of tea to someone who is thirsty is illegal, or where saving a person from drowning is a crime? The people who do good should be praised and not punished. So to the European Commission as protector of the Treaties, and to every Member State that signed the Charter of Fundamental Rights: you cannot pick and choose who to defend, whose rights to defend. Live up to your obligations. Eighty years ago, we turned our shared history – bloody and devastating – into the world's biggest peace project: an accomplishment all of us – left, right; progressives, conservatives – can be proud of. I would like to thank my shadow rapporteurs for working together with me on this, for showing that this is not about left or right, because this is not a political debate, because fundamental rights are non-negotiable.

Well, this is a new level! When we are talking about rape, putting the blame on women themselves, to make radical feminism to blame for rape happening. That is crazy. But I hear your issue – you have a problem with the definition. Well, let's talk about the definition. Right now we have talked about it, we have seen an investigation of CNN talking about this 'rape academy'. What happened after? It was husbands raping their women, their partners. What happened after? The police could not prosecute these men because they did not know whether these women were asleep or not. Same happened with Gisèle Pelicot: men got away with it because they didn't know she couldn't give her consent. Don't you think that this definition is failing?

Madam President, do you want to be a mother and still earn good money? I hope you're good at TikTok, because right now it's 'mumfluencers' who are the only women who get rich after being a mum just for being a mum. If you're a mother today, your income will decline by 8 % compared to a woman who does not have children. This is what we call the 'motherhood penalty'. But for the dads in the room, don't worry: you'll most likely get your nice 5 % 'daddy bonus'. You think that European countries are taking steps to deal with this: wrong. The Dutch Government, my Government, plans to reduce leave benefits for parents with middle and higher incomes. This will lead to more men to avoid taking parental leave, it will have negative effects on the division of care work at home and, as a result, expand the gender pay gap. I am proud that we here have worked on this report to close the gender pay gap. But it is no use advancing in Europe only to retreat in individual countries. Colleagues, tomorrow is our vote and we can do better.

Mr President, thousands and thousands killed in Iran. Tens of thousands in prison, fearing execution or rape, which does happen. Are you shocked by the rising numbers or do you just feel numb? We owe it to the people of Iran to see the stories behind the statistics – the nurses helping wounded people and getting arrested, the mothers paying prisons not for the freedom of their daughters, but just to get their dead bodies back. Your voice and my voice calling for change is a small thing. But while the people in Iran are oppressed, we can do no less. We must seize the assets of the IRGC and we must provide visas for those seeking asylum. And we must support those who refuse to be silent, those who demand a free and democratic future decided by the Iranians. A regime that kills thousands is statistics. But for Europe to just save a single life is the least we can do. To support people, not regimes, is our duty.

Mr President, Italy blocks rescues at sea while bringing in half a million foreign workers. Greece stops asylum applications while recruiting thousands of workers. And the Netherlands says, 'Our country is full', while employers fear that there is a labour shortage. Politicians love to put the negative sides of migration centre stage. And also I cannot believe what I heard – some of the accusations that were made tonight. Anyways, and in the meantime, they stay silent about the people that keep our economy running. The truth is, Europe is ageing. In the upcoming 20 years, one of the big resources that we will compete for is workers. Politicians should tell the truth. We need people. We need migrants. We need workers. We need builders, teachers, nurses. Saying our economy can function without migration is a lie, and saying that it will be easy if we have migrants is also not realistic. So what should we do? I heard very few proposals. It's to help migrants integrate and find jobs and to simplify visa procedures. Please, colleagues, stop the hypocrisy. Act like adults and have an open debate.

Mr President, the online world is not safe for young people, so I want to thank the Commission for taking action. But digital safety is not a gender-neutral issue. Girls are targeted more: 99 % of deepfakes target women. We need more education, especially for young boys. They need to learn that online culture can normalise abuse; how deepfakes or the sharing of intimate videos can cause permanent damage, depression, self-harm or even suicide. We need to curb the power of tech giants like the AI pornographer-in-chief, Elon Musk. They have proved time and time again that they will not change a single line of code if it costs them a single euro of profit. Today, a petition was launched calling for a ban on 'nudify' apps, and I ask you all to sign it – because when someone asks AI to remove the clothes of a woman, of a child, this is a crime. Because online abuse is abuse. So let's ban these tools and make the internet a safe place for everyone.

Mr President, I grew up being a strong believer in international law, but now I see this might have been an idle hope. We live in a Trumpian world where only power seems to matter. We used to abide by international law, but only when the US wanted it. These times are scary, but let me be clear: we don't have to stand by and watch. I want to address our prime ministers and presidents directly: you want Europe to be strong, but you don't show the courage to make it happen. You want a bit more collaboration, but you won't risk your political position to make real reform happen. You want just enough change for Europe to survive, but not enough for Europe to succeed. As you are gathering in a castle in Brussels this week, I urge you to walk the road to European independence. Get rid of the veto and speak with one voice, be the leader in upholding human rights and find new allies who want the same. Be ambitious and build a United States of Europe.

Mr President, kidnappings on the streets, people being dragged from their homes and their cars, and innocent protesters being shot dead by masked men with absolute immunity: this is migration policy today in America. We are here in Europe and we have not yet sunk this deep, but I am worried that we're moving towards that direction. It's always harsher, tougher, stronger. Let's be honest: we have this debate today because centre-right parties want to show that they are tough and deliver – because they are afraid that their colleagues on the right, these far‑right, polarising preachers, might win next elections. I don't want them to win either, but I ask you, how much humanity do we have to sacrifice for you to win elections? We agreed on a migration pact, we have a solidarity system, but now we see that European countries are so focused on their own interest that we went back to 1985 and installed borders. This fight on migration makes Europe weak, divided and hostile. I don't want us to become like the United States of America. I want us to be better, like the united states of Europe. But then we have to change. If we cannot let go of small politics and solve migration issues, what hope do we have of dealing with Trump, Putin, or climate change? To always talk crisis is exciting, but we must go to the boring stuff – implement what we have, so we can finally move on.

Madam President, farmers are taking to the streets in Brussels once again because Brussels fails to deliver. Taking away bureaucracy is good, but there is such a hyper-focus on simplification that I fear we will fail them once again. Farmers ask for fair income and good contracts. And what do they get? Political theatre such as a veggie burger ban. Farmers don't need culture wars – they need bargaining powers. Farmers ask for stable rules. And what do they get? Yearly derogations, last-minute exemptions and constant policy U-turns. They don't need uncertainty; they need long-term perspective. And young farmers ask for a future. And what do they get? Still no real reform on land access and no tailored financing. They need a dedicated budget and financial support for sustainable business models. Reform should be about fair markets, stable rules and real generational renewal. Let's deliver.

Madam President, more biodiversity in our countryside, fewer chemicals in our food and water, and safer work environments for all European farmers – this could be our future. A pesticide-free Europe, one where biological control agents take the place of chemical pesticides. They give the same food security, but with far fewer risks. Over the last few months, we have worked on a report with several proposals to speed up the process for biocontrol solutions to enter the market. And this is highly needed: for our farmers who are keen to work with it, for our climate because they are more sustainable, and for our health because they are safer to use. Biocontrols are a European success story. Imagine proteins that protect crops against fungal diseases or bacteria that fight harmful insects. We in Europe are world leaders in innovation in this field, but without having fitting and facilitating laws, we in Europe will be the first to develop them, but the last to use them. And there is a reason for this, because the current legal framework is designed for conventional chemical pesticides, and biocontrol solutions are fundamentally different and they need to have a tailored process. Currently, it can take up to ten years before a product enters the market. Imagine what kind of work that is for an innovative start-up; you have to attract capital for over a decade. Meanwhile, in countries such as the US and Brazil, it only takes a few years for someone to bring these new products onto the market. So not having the right, tailored approach is a massive missed opportunity for our farmers, businesses, climate and health. Now, we can change this. We came up with a report with several proposals, and in the joint ENVI/AGRI Committee we had a 90 % majority. And this shows you how united we are in this effort. One of the demands is that we want a standalone legislation or regulation dedicated to biocontrols. But there is a lot that we can do in the meantime: we can create a new path for biocontrol in existing legislation, establish a priority lane with dedicated funding, we can collaborate better between institutions and with companies, and we can share information better with farmers to make sure we have a better uptake of these products. And of course, the need remains for a robust, science-based risk assessment to make sure these products are safe to use. There is, however, one thing I want to be clear about: we wrote this report, and we solely discuss biocontrol solutions, and we're not discussing conventional chemical pesticides. So the report is in no way an excuse to open up laws on conventional pesticides. Making biological control solutions a priority is our best shot to reduce our dependency on conventional pesticides. So, I would like to directly address the Commission: let's focus on the future and not go back to solutions and discussions of the past. I want to end by thanking my co-rapporteur – Alexander Bernhuber from the EPP – we had a great collaboration, and I also want to thank all the other advisers. And I think we have shown that despite political differences, we can work on a better future for our farmers and a better future for our food system.

Looking at cyberbullying, it is a real problem here, and one of the main issues is that there is no harmonised definition, so every country looks at it differently. That makes it very easy for platforms to get out of it: 'We don't classify this as bullying or violence against women, so we won't tackle it.' Also, looking at the fact that content moderation is something that platforms do not feel the need to do anymore is problematic. So instead of what is happening here, looking at what women should and should not do, I think we should really look into this, the responsibility of these platforms, and make sure they are held accountable.

I will answer your question, but I have to say, what I noticed is that all the debates at this moment come from parties that are very conservative, and they are claiming that women are victims of choices they make themselves, victims of migrants. Although if we look at what the problem is, there are so many more problems: the rape of women, issues within their private households. So the problems that you are talking about are not the real problems that we have to tackle. Surrogacy, of course, is a delicate issue and we have to be careful with it. But I do think people should have the freedom to go for it if we are really careful with it.

Madam President, a YouTube channel where AI-generated women beg for their lives before being shot in the head, a Facebook group where men share intimate videos of their partners, and deepfake pornography of female politicians and journalists. This is all real, and it's all chilling, and the list is much, much longer. We are all shocked when we hear this, but then after a while, the urgency fades and a political response fails. Just this week, the Commission presented its annual work programme, and there is nothing on a legislative proposal for gender equality. Meanwhile, when we're scrolling online and on social media, it looks like we're going backwards. I would say let's take women's safety seriously, also online. We need a European definition of cyberviolence against women. We need stronger content moderation, and we must hold platforms accountable, because they do have a responsibility. I wish I could say I wish that women would feel as safe online as offline in the real world, but the line between offline and online does not exist. They reinforce each other and we must fight both.

Mr President, am I less of a human? I have fewer places in the world where I can walk safely. If I love someone, I accept that I also fear them. Even my body is never fully my own. This comes with being a woman. And yet people tell me, 'Slow down. This rise in women hatred will pass. And then you can take your final steps to equality. Just wait.' Just wait? 1 in 3 women experience sexual or physical violence – 1 in 3 – so there is no time to wait. We must take concrete actions. This declaration is a good step, but we can do more. So I have two suggestions: first, let us come up with a European approach to end femicide, not just a national approach; second, let us establish a harmonised definition of cyber violence against women, because if we cannot agree what cyber violence is, we cannot fight it. Pretty words are not enough because every day we delay equality, we deny equality.

Jessika Van Leeuwen, maybe you did not listen to your colleague on your left that brought this up in her contribution here – she made it one of the most important points of these files. What I see is that it is used as a cultural debate although we know that consumers are not confused about the fact of whether a burger is plant‑based or if it is meat. We see that farmers and also meat producers like Rügenwalder Mühle, Aldi and Lidl are saying that this ban is not useful. It is a false promise to farmers. So, let's not waste any more time on this.

Mr President, this speech is a waste of everybody's time, because we are talking about burgers. We're talking about banning the word 'burger' if it's made of plant protein instead of animal protein. But I wonder: what if the burger is made of 51 % animal protein? What if it's 50:50? What if it's not made in the region of Hamburg? We could have spent this time debating the fact that our planet is on fire, the fact that we have a brutal war on our borders, and that our societies are getting angrier and more divided. And instead, when Europeans look at their leaders, what do they see? They see us discussing burgers. Why is this? It's because the meat lobby is trying to weaken its innovative food competitors. It's trying to weaken farmers, also livestock farmers transitioning to more plant-based products. And my colleagues in the EPP are happy to do the dirty work, instead of actually helping farmers. Because if you want to help farmers, give them stronger contracts, give them a better income, let's help them innovate. Let's give them the support they need to adapt to the climate crisis that is devastating their harvests. Our farmers are too important to be left in the past. So I'm asking all my colleagues: stop talking about burgers and start working on the issues that matter.

Madam President, ending mass migration to protect our women and children is the title of this debate, chosen by my colleagues on the far right. Colleagues, you can do better than this: every opportunity you get to dehumanise migrants, you take it again and again and again, and now you're even exploiting the murder of a Dutch woman for your own political agenda. It is true: women do get murdered, but not by migrants – mostly by their partners, ex-partners or men close to them. The only thing you do is to spread fear. I have a different fear. In my country, the Netherlands, calls to domestic violence hotlines are at a record high, and every eight days a woman does get murdered. So if you are truly worried about women, then do what you have failed to do before: fight with us. I would say: build shelters for women, educate men, invest in prevention, train agents at recognising abuse and call all countries to sign the Istanbul Convention. Colleagues, we will not dehumanise. We will organise to end femicide.

Madam President, close your eyes and picture a farmer. What do you see? Maybe an old man farming in an old way. Or maybe an angry protester driving a tractor. Well, open your eyes. I have visited many young farmers, and I want to tell you what I've seen. I saw green innovators with cutting‑edge technology working on the agriculture of the future. And they had a message for Brussels. They said, 'Give us what we need to build the sustainable agriculture of the future. Give us better access to land and credit. Make it less risky to experiment with new and green ways of farming, such as with different protein crops. And set clear and consistent sustainability goals.' If we want to grow the farmers of the future, we must plant the seeds right now. And Commissioner, your budget can do so.

Mr President, more bombs, more dead, more children starving, burned and buried. The suffering we once called 'unbelievable' is now streamed, live, into our phones, into our minds. And while the war in Iran gets headlines, peace in Gaza remains as far away as ever. How can we pressure the Israeli Government if we give them preferential access to our markets? How can we condemn their attacks on Palestinians while we provide them with weapons? How is it possible that Netanyahu is still not facing any consequences although investigation after investigation shows that we are watching a genocide unfold. Last Sunday, I marched for peace. I joined hundreds of thousands of people – people demanding an end to the suffering. Europeans are calling for peace, but Europe can only be heard if we speak with one voice. We must end the Association Agreement. We must enforce a weapons embargo, and we need to sanction those accused of war crimes.

Madam President, the plan to attract scientists to Europe is called Choose Europe. But what does it mean to choose Europe? It means to choose academic freedom, to choose a continent that still believes in climate change – and thank God for that – it means to choose diversity being a strength instead of a weakness. Choosing Europe also means long and difficult visa procedures. It also means having your diplomas recognised in one country, but not in the other. To choose Europe means to talk about researchers and professors that we want, but sometimes forgetting about the nurses, truckers and caregivers that we need. Choose Europe also means that sometimes we don't use our full workforce potential because refugees and women don't always find a job. I want the best talent to come to Europe, but I also want the best for talent in Europe, and I believe we can do both if we invest in the people here and if we see labour migration as an opportunity. So why don't we train the people in Ljubljana but also look for them in Lagos? Why don't we help women in Düsseldorf to find a job, but also look for them in Delhi? Why don't we pay our professors and teachers in Saint-Étienne a fair wage, but also look for them in San Francisco? I would say, let's not ask why people would choose Europe, but let's ask ourselves, how can we make Europe the destination of choice for all talent?

Mr President, 'never again' are words often spoken, but difficult to uphold. We are here amongst Europeans and we all have different war traumas, be it Nazism, Fascism, Communism or colonialism. These stories make us who we are, and these histories also put a great responsibility upon us to act when we see that freedom is taken away from others. We are not doing that enough, Europe is not doing it enough. We are too silent about Netanyahu's war crimes in Gaza. We are too timid in supporting Ukraine in defeating Russian imperialism. We can do so much more, and I am proud that I can stand here and be critical, because this freedom is a luxury for some. I am proud that I am European, and that we managed to turn our history into the biggest peace project there is. But I would be even prouder if we managed to live up to our responsibility and to show actions that speak louder than these words. Let's live up to our responsibility, and let's remember that 'never again' is not a prayer to the past, but a promise to the future.