What Per spoke about.

Madam President! I share the view that it is regrettable and sad that the Azerbaijani Parliament has decided to cut off relations with the European Parliament. But we also need to look at what the explanation is and deal with it. Apparently, they don't like criticism when they violate fundamental rights. When you look at the rule of law and freedom of the press, you have to accept that you are subject to criticism. And when you treat prisoners of war and hostages in violation of all international law, you also have to accept criticism. And when you do not want to recognise that the people of Nagorno-Karabakh have the right to their own language and culture – what we say they have – then you have to accept that you are exposed to criticism. And when it comes to human rights and international law, it is good for the European Parliament to say clearly what we are in favour of. Someone mentioned double standards. I agree that we would like the European Parliament to always do so when it comes to violations of human rights and international law. However, having double standards should not be replaced by having no standards. We may not be able to find out exactly what the outcome was when we withdrew from cooperation and also from the Euronest Parliamentary Assembly, but that is, of course, their choice. We have not asked them to leave, they have left themselves, and therefore they are of course welcome back. And I think that would be wise, also because this is probably something that affects Azerbaijan and their people more than it affects us. Avoiding dialogue and debate is rarely a good idea. What we should try to remember is that this is not the first time that we have seen the regime in Azerbaijan take such steps. About 10 years ago, in 2015, they did something similar. At the time, it was also the allegations of human rights violations and corruption around the ruling family that made them dissatisfied. This is despite the fact that respect for fundamental rights was, in fact, written into several of the agreements the EU has with Azerbaijan. We have agreements where these things are written in, and therefore it is probably natural enough that we follow up on them. It may well be said that some of the formulations are so vague that it also gives rise to debate about how they should be understood. But that debate is important, and it is important to us, and it is important to them. At that time, it took about a year for relations to be re-established, and that is perhaps also why we can hope that it can be changed again. But I think – and I would like to emphasise this – that it is regrettable, because it is rarely a good thing to cut off dialogue or limit parliamentary work. Especially with people with whom you have partnerships. Nevertheless, I think it is important to say that one of the things that this shows is that it underlines the need for us to be independent of oil and gas imports. It may be that we are replacing Russia with Azerbaijan and other countries, but there is still dependence on countries and regimes on which we do not want to depend, and we must get out of that. And then I also see that even if there are angry reactions, it must not lead to us relaxing the criticism of Azerbaijan when it is justified. The easiest way to avoid criticism for violating human rights is to respect them. And I think it would be really good if Azerbaijan decided to do that. Because if they did, they were also free from criticism, and then maybe we could have a dialogue about some of the challenges we face together. Thank you.

Madam President! Here we are again with an action plan published by the European Commission a few minutes before the debate. It's hard not to get the idea that you're not very excited about giving us the opportunity to read things in depth before we discuss it. There are indications that this is the tactic the Commission prefers to use. And I just want to say that it doesn't smell much better than the fertilizer we're discussing here. But the plan also smells because it does not seem to tackle Europe's long-term dependence on imported environmentally harmful chemical fertilisers or to put the protection of our environment first. Instead, it's more of the same. In fact, I think it's like treating an alcoholic with cheaper alcohol instead of rehab. We know how to make sustainable alternatives. The Commission itself has some suggestions for that. Why don't we get these alternatives on the ground instead of continuing to do more of the same? In fact, I think we need an action plan for the transformation of European agriculture instead of this action plan.

Madam President! The fact is that indigenous peoples are one of our greatest hopes when it comes to safeguarding future biodiversity. This is also the case when we talk about future biotechnology research, about everything from medicine to resistant crops. Therefore, it is also incredible how little respect we still show for the indigenous peoples, and how unwillingly large, often Western, companies are to compensate them when these companies make billions on the basis of the knowledge the indigenous peoples have acquired over generations or the plants they have identified or refined. Unfortunately, as Danes, I know far too much about how little European states have often had and still have for indigenous peoples. We also have a boring history in Denmark when it comes to relations with Greenland and the indigenous peoples there. It is a picture that repeats itself every time the interests of indigenous peoples are overlooked in international politics. And that's exactly what we're seeing with the Cali Foundation volunteer. It does not manage to collect the necessary money, and this is because rich companies do not want to contribute enough to indigenous peoples. And they do not, even if their economic gains depend on the indigenous peoples and their land. Therefore, the EU should work much more clearly for a mechanism that ensures mandatory contributions from companies. Otherwise, the Cali Foundation ends up being nothing more than greenwashing.

Madam President! Armenia faces major challenges. One of them is the many refugees from the war in Azerbaijan. Another is that the country is being squeezed by Russia. But one of them is also the state of democracy, and democracy is also under pressure within Armenia. These are problems whose solution requires active action in Armenia, but also help and support from us. And for us to see, of course, Armenia must have the opportunity to be a member of the European Union if they want to and if they are able to meet the requirements that are required in order to become a member of the European Union. But if we are honest, there are problems that need to be solved. Problems that damage the state of democracy. Just take on the big challenges of corruption that still exist. Just as in practice there is a lack of protection and respect for the basic rights of LGBTQ people. The same applies to respect for trade unions or labour rights. Strengthening Armenia's democracy requires addressing these challenges.

Madam President! We stand here because the Conservative EPP Group will discuss and challenge an agreement that can ensure a sound treatment of industrial wastewater. An agreement that they themselves have helped to conclude and vote for, and an agreement that ensures that the big companies that pollute the most have to pay for it - instead of it being the citizens, the taxpayers. I have found that the industry is dissatisfied that they have to take this responsibility. However, I would like to ask three questions that I basically think are more important than the question raised by the EPP. First of all: Why are you actively working to undermine an agreement that you yourself have helped negotiate and conclude and which you voted in favour of? Why do you think that all taxpayers should contribute to paying the extra bill that comes from a very few, very clearly identified industries, which are industries that, you know, have a very large profit? Or is it that you think we should treat wastewater less to the detriment of the environment and human health? I think these are the relevant questions to which we should have an answer.

Madam President! Today we talk a lot about the principled Europe, but when we look out into the world, it seems like a joke, because we preach one thing but do the opposite. The conclusions of the last Council meeting under Denmark's EU Presidency talk about how to support a peaceful and inclusive transition in Syria. But what we are witnessing in Syria right now is anything but peaceful or inclusive. We see young Kurdish women thrown out of tall buildings. We see violent atrocities and what may well be an ethnic cleansing. We see ISIS fighters being unleashed. And the EU’s response is thin statements, while continuing to pay the Syrian regime – the regime behind what is happening. Why are we afraid to put our foot down and demand that it stop? We should do this if we believe in our principles.

Mr President! It has been great to hear the many strong speeches against Trump's completely unacceptable threats, threats to individual countries, to the EU and not least threats to Greenland. I'm incredibly happy that there may finally be a willingness to speak out against the bully Trump - both in words and in deeds. Because we must admit that quite a few have for a very long time been willing to come up with the most absurd things to apologize or please Trump, daddy Trump, as someone who came to call him, and therefore I want to process the famous words from the German priest Martin Niemöller: First they came for the migrants and the trans people, but we didn't say anything because we are neither migrants nor trans people. Then Trump attacked Venezuela, and we said nothing, because we are not Venezuelans. Now he's going after Greenland and Europe, and now we've finally woken up, and that's good, because if we don't say no, who will be left to oppose him the next time he makes some crazy demand for Panama, Canada or something else? But we have to say nothing but fine words in this case against a criminal, and this is a criminal, a man who violates all international law and also a number of American laws. In the face of a criminal bully like Trump, we must use the economic muscles that we actually have - the trade bazooka, at least, is a clear element. There are other things, too, because the EU and Europe are actually financially strong enough to match the US, so he can just come on, that Trump.

Mr. President! When you hear the debate here today and think about who the EPP is aiming to make a majority with in this Chamber in the future, it is no wonder that there is not much to toast to when we look at the EU's role at the COP30 climate conference. It is true that the EU supported the phasing out of fossil fuels, but it did so as some of the last. And why were we so defensive on the issue of funding? Indeed, I think one thing is clear when it comes to COP30 when it comes to climate, so the EU did not lead the way as it should have done. This is due to many things, including the fact that the European Commission was so hesitant about our climate goals that they actually broke the EU's own climate law. Then you can say: Could the outcome of COP30 have been worse than it was? Yeah, I guess it could. But it could also have been much better. And if we, if the EU, were aware of our responsibilities, we could very well have gone much further than we did. The European Union has a role to play here, but we do not play it, and that is because of ourselves.

Madam President! When I hear great powers from China, the United States, Russia and the European Union talk about the Arctic, I often get a special feeling. That I've been taken back in time. Back to a time when colonial masters, including my own country, saw the world as a buffet to take care of. Many still see the Arctic as a vast, unhistorical and man-made area where you can simply usurp resources or land. But the reality is not like that. The Arctic is a complex area inhabited by a lot of people, including various indigenous peoples. People who have the right to decide their own future - even if, for example, Trump thinks that you can buy or invade a new country. Threats to the Arctic are numerous: military build-up, reckless exploitation of natural resources, environmental disasters and climate change. Dear friends, the colonial era is over, and that means supporting the people of the Arctic's right to decide for themselves their future.

Madam President! Five years ago, the elections in Belarus were stolen. It happened again this year. I do not recognise either of the two results, because the elections were by no means free. Belarus is not a free country, but a brutal dictatorship. A dictatorship that imprisons activists and journalists, democracy activists and trade unionists. Recently, the Lukashenka regime set some political prisoners free, and it is a good day every time innocent prisoners escape. But we must not be naive and believe that everything is now in order, because it is not. We have seen it before in Belarus – how the regime frees some political prisoners for the sake of public relations, but then prisons even more. That is why we must not relax the sanctions either; they must, on the contrary, make us effective. Because the regime in Belarus is still illegitimate and oppressive, and repression should never be rewarded.

Mr. President! We need to get better at analysing, classifying and phasing out harmful chemicals, and the proposals we have for discussion here do not solve the many problems we have with chemicals that harm people and the environment, but they are a step in the right direction, and that is why I will support them. One of the things we need is to better estimate how much people in the EU are exposed to hazardous chemicals. This is something that must be done by systematic data collection from several sources, and we get a tool for that here. The different EU agencies will also be able to use the same data. Finally, there is an increased focus on phasing out animal testing. Something that has been needed for a long time. And I rarely say anything like that about an EU proposal. However, I must say that I look forward to voting in favour of this proposal.

Madam President! When aviation and critical infrastructure in several EU countries have been disrupted by unidentified drones and cyberattacks, it shows one thing for me: The EU and my own country, Denmark, are not ready to face the real threats we face. There are several reasons for this. One of them is that the focus has been more on competitiveness and deregulation and blind armament than on solving the real problems. Indeed, Europe is currently facing three major threats, all of which are attacking our security. It is the climate crisis, it is growing social inequality and poverty that undermine our cohesion, and then it is threats and hybrid attacks from foreign powers. And if we are honest, it means last and not least the threat from Russia, but also the United States, which of course threatens Denmark and Greenland. And here it is important to be clear. The so-called drone wall may sound smart, but it is hardly the solution. We can see how drones can come from anywhere and do not respect walls or borders. The solution is also not to buy more expensive American fighter jets and missiles. Instead, we need stronger civil defence, stronger air defence and the protection of our critical infrastructure, and to stop once and for all the shadow fleet that is most likely used to launch some of the drones that have caused us so many problems.

Madam President! Dear President of the Commission, You have some skilled speech writers, but how I wish that there had been just half as much effort to ensure a concrete content behind the nice words. For the State of the Union – what you were supposed to talk about today – it has a lot of things to change. And no matter how much you wish, good words are not enough! Floods do not solve the climate crisis or bypass the coal-black politics you and the right are increasingly fighting for. Nor do they do anything for the millions of Europeans at risk of poverty, those who cannot afford food or medicine for them or their children. Similarly, it is hard to imagine that the thugs who plague the world at the moment, whether we are talking about Putin, Trump or Netanyahu, are deterred by words. We are facing major challenges. Why do you keep not acting on it?

Mr President! It has been several years since we really started talking about changing the EU's outdated public procurement rules. Back then, what we talked about most was that it was about ensuring fair conditions for wage earners, ensuring that public money goes to secure good jobs and support the green transition. Unfortunately, much of the debate and discussion this time around has come to be about how to make everything easier without looking at the conditions of wage-earners and the green transition. It is important that this does not happen, because we need a strong tool for the EU's 10,000 public entities so that they know clearly what requirements they can impose and how when they put things out to tender. They must be able to empower companies, including many SMEs, that comply with laws and enter into collective agreements, and ensure fair working conditions. It must be possible to exclude fraudsters and companies hiding in tax havens from bidding for public tasks. And that's what's going to drive my vote tomorrow.

Madam President! It was with great pleasure that I read that in June Siarhei Tsikhanovsky and 13 other political refugees were released in Belarus, freed from sentences they should never have had. Released to a society still oppressed with iron hands by the dictator Lukashenka. The 14 were released, but there are still more than 1100 political prisoners in Belarusian prisons. People who should never have been behind bars. That is why we must also be clear in our message to the Lukashenka regime. All political prisoners must be released and respect for democracy, freedom of expression, the right to join a trade union and also for the rights that one has as a worker must be introduced. Before that happens, the EU should not even consider relaxing measures against the dictatorial regime in Belarus. Believing that Lukashenka would respect democracy is like believing that Putin or Netanyahu respects international law.

Madam President! When I hear the Commission talking about chemistry policy, I do not know whether it is the anger or the frustration that dominates me. At least that is what I am hearing, and what is becoming increasingly clear is that the concern for people and the environment for health and nature is not just slipping into the background, but disappearing. Instead, the mantra is that it should be made easier for companies. And that is probably also why we are still waiting for the REACH reform that should have come years ago, which was then about protecting people and the environment better, but which is now about making it easier to run a chemical business. And that is probably also why we have not seen the EU take proper action against things like PFAS, despite the fact that we have been discussing it for decades. It is the opposite of due diligence, it is pure irresponsibility. This means that future generations will have to pay the price for our failures. And the longer we wait to trade, the higher that price will be. It's just everything, too bad.

Madam President! It might be tempting to give an election speech targeted at the Danes, but I will actually focus on the programme presented by the Danish Presidency. There is plenty to criticize: it's too little, it's too bad, and there's too much copy/paste. I think that is the best description of the priorities. If you look at the priorities that have emerged, this is an uncritical Commission, as the Conservative President of the European Commission has already said. I understand the EPP's enthusiasm. But where are the real ambitions to tackle the climate crisis? Where is the targeted action against cross-border social dumping that we see time and time again? Where is the response for the weakest and most vulnerable in Europe? Where is the real effort against PFAS and the chemistry that pollutes both humans, animals and the environment? And perhaps not least, why can't we speak out clearly and unambiguously to Donald Trump in the United States? Why should we continue to depend on the United States? And can you answer me why respect for international law is not at the heart of the Danish EU Presidency? Because yes, the EU must support Ukraine, the EU must say clearly to the dictator Putin, so far we are 100% in agreement. But shouldn't we do the same to the war criminal Netanyahu, who rules Israel? Shouldn't we do that to Saudi Arabia, Qatar or other dictatorships that oppress the people? It is now – to put it in good North Jutland – disappointing. The good news is that it is still possible to rectify the lack of ambition. The bad thing is that I doubt that you will, but if you will, we in the Left Group would like to help you. And as you know, Mette, you can always count on me and us when you do the right thing. It's only when you do the wrong thing that it goes wrong. Now get into the game! In the Left Group, we believe that both Denmark and the EU deserve better than this.

Mr President! It should be so good. We needed an agreement that ensured good jobs and workers' rights, and that European industry could strengthen its competitiveness by leading the green transition. To be honest, we have to say that's not what we've got. It sets out a policy which is more impure than it is pure, and it is also an agreement which is by no means a good agreement for the millions of workers who are actually affected by it. So to avoid false marketing, it should be renamed what it is; an impure proclamation of an outdated policy at the expense of people and the environment. I can only say that I and the Left Group are voting 'no', and we all think we should do that too, because Europe needs something more than an agreement that does not live up to its name and that harms people and the environment.

Madam President! Unfortunately, there is nothing new or surprising in the extreme right supporting genocide. However, I would still like to be disappointed that it does not receive a clear response from the EU leadership. Why is it that we are watching quietly while innocent children in Gaza are paying the price? And when I say it that way, it is because, in reality, the European Union has not put any pressure on Israel. It's not that you can't come up with methods. Yesterday we saw how the Commission proposed a stop to Russian gas, so that one could escape the veto of individual countries. This can also be done in relation to Israel, if you want, and so I have to ask, 'Why is it that the EU will do nothing to stop the genocide in Gaza?' How many more innocent people have to die before the EU wakes up?