What Rachel spoke about.

Mr President, throughout Europe, and certainly in the Netherlands, there is a screaming shortage of housing. More and more people are seeing a roof over their heads turn from a right into a luxury. That is unacceptable. The EU has no competence in the field of public housing and should continue to do so. What the Commission should do, however, is to analyse which European laws and regulations unnecessarily slow down or even make housing in the Member States impossible. Think of environmental and procurement rules, nitrogen guidelines and other Brussels bureaucracy that secures construction projects. These rules must be simplified, deregulated and even abolished. At the same time, the continued influx of asylum seekers is putting additional pressure on the housing market. As long as that power does not stop, the housing shortage continues to grow. We call on the Commission to take its responsibility. Investigate which Brussels rules hinder our construction and make room for national solutions. Because a roof over your head is not a luxury, it is a basic right.

Mr President, let me start with a question of principle: What European soldier is really willing to die for the EU and a flag and institution with which most citizens hardly feel connected? Our soldiers swear allegiance to the Netherlands, not to Brussels. It is precisely for this reason that military cooperation must remain a competence of NATO, where sovereign states cooperate on the basis of equality and where collective defence is central. The EU should limit itself to economic cooperation and strengthening the European defence industry. It should not take a shortcut to an EU army or establish an additional EU budget, but merely support national defence and thus strengthen NATO. We must respect the national veto on defence, leave the military command with NATO and ensure that the EU does not turn into a political and military superstate for which no Dutch soldier is willing to die.

Mr President, Commissioner, the Green Deal, Fit for 55, the ETS, the Net-Zero Industry Act: rule by rule and one even stricter than the other. The EU is creating a swamp of legal uncertainty that our companies are stuck in. And meanwhile, we see the US deregulating and China is fully supporting its companies. Here in Europe, we are champions of stacking rules without properly examining in advance whether these rules are feasible, feasible and affordable in practice. In the context of ‘better late than never’, we support the call for an impact assessment, which should also take into account the effects on employment, the economy and competitiveness. We are here to make policies that benefit our citizens and businesses. That is why it is time for the EU to learn from its mistakes, to stop imposing rules based on ideals, to listen to the sectors themselves and to act on the basis of facts. This is the only way to ensure a strong business environment and not leave our businesses and citizens in the cold.