Speeches

Madam President! As we sit here, innocent Palestinians die and Palestinians are displaced from Gaza and the West Bank. Not because of a natural disaster, but because of the deliberate actions of the Israeli government. We are talking about population displacement, we are talking about genocide, and while this is happening, what is the EU doing? Yeah, we'll talk, and we'll check. It's just not going to work! When we look at the Netanyahu regime’s lack of respect for international law – let alone human life – we need to act. And we know what to do: We must stop selling arms to Israel. We must suspend the EU's association agreement with Israel. It cannot take many seconds to find out that Israel is not complying with the agreement as it is now. We must impose sanctions on those responsible. If the war crimes, the persecution, the killings we are seeing now are not enough for us to act, what will it take?

Madam President! It should be clear that Greenland's future must be determined by the Greenlanders themselves. Not by Denmark, not by the United States, not by anyone else. The colonial period is – or at least should be – over. This is something I think is important to say today. Especially when we see Trump threatening to take over Greenland, regardless of what the citizens themselves think. He threatens both economic pressure and military power to take over an entire people, and therefore we must do what we do in Danish: We have to call a spade a spade! Donald Trump and his entire regime of accomplices are a threat, a threat to our economy. They are a threat to the climate and they are a threat to the international legal order. In this situation, it is absolutely necessary that the EU clearly rejects the threats coming from Trump and demonstrates its willingness to engage in binding cooperation with Greenland under the conditions set by Greenland. Words are not enough to take action.

Mr President! Here we are again. Once again, we are seeing an attempt to water down necessary climate legislation. This will penalise companies that have invested in electric cars and weaken confidence in EU policy. If you constantly dilute and postpone the green initiatives, why should you invest in meeting the requirements? But even worse, we are once again trying to rush it through without the possibility of a proper debate or scrutiny. That's too bad! We are talking about EU legislation that a majority in the European Parliament as well as EU countries agreed on as late as 2023. I know that right now there is a competition going on about how quickly we can run away from our own promises that the EU must lead the green transition. But we do not need others to participate in that race to the bottom. So, ladies and gentlemen, say no to watering down our already tenuous climate legislation and say no to rushing through something so important.

Madam President! As one of the negotiators on the issue of energy-intensive industries, I must admit that I am disappointed and the disappointment has not diminished after listening to today's debate. To quote an old Danish song: It's supposed to be so good, and it's actually bad. We could have used this work and this debate to look ahead and put real, fair and ambitious green transition above cheap populist right-wing speeches. We could have done what was done in my hometown of Aalborg, where today we can see that the vast majority of industrial jobs are part of the green transition. So it is the green transition that creates employment. But no, instead, we insist on using outdated solutions, questionable solutions, and it's really hard to talk about the industrial workers who are at the forefront of the green transition and the needs and interests they have. What we see in what has been presented is a continued focus on outdated technology and forms of energy and without visions for change. The focus is on nuclear power, CO2 storage and continued use of gas instead of electrification, new well-known technologies and renewable energy. And if we continue along the path outlined here, which the right wing will make even worse, it will damage our competitiveness, our security of supply and the workers of the European Union - and then the proposal does not envisage the democratisation of the energy sector that we know is needed. This is simply too short-sighted. So I just want to say that it should be so good. We can do better.

Madam President! When I read the Commission's Clean Industrial Deal, I was both happy and sad. After all, the 2040 target was not rolled back. Sadly, because we are still focusing on outdated forms of energy such as nuclear power and gas. It is a pity that the real problems behind high electricity prices in Europe are not being tackled. Sad, because the Commission's deregulation agenda clearly stands in the way of the real green and social changes we need. And then I have to admit that I'm left behind and most of all angry and frustrated. For the fact that it did not become as bad as feared is probably not enough for us to rejoice. Europe needs what the Commission is not proposing: real climate action, green and climate-friendly policy and a socially just transition that can improve Europe’s competitiveness. So I think the proposal needs a revision. I need to get it back to the drawing board.

Mr. President! In Turkey, elected officials are being dismissed and arrested again. Erdogan would rather hide his own skin than help his own people and give them democratic rights. Anyone who dares to think freely or criticize him, he sees as enemies - it's from those who fought Islamic State, like the Kurds in Syria, to school teachers, mayors - everyone is called terrorists or separatists. As long as he has access to the European market and our financial support, he will continue to do so. Ladies and gentlemen, we shall soon have Erdogan for debate every second time we are here. Now it has to stop. His actions must have clear consequences on the part of the European Union. We treat him as what he is. A petty autocracy with a fragile ego. We must impose travel bans and targeted sanctions on him and his lackeys. Erdogan is the enemy of democracy. Let's say it loud and clear.

It is true that energy prices in the countries of the European Union are far too high, and we need to do something about that. However, we do not do this by maintaining dependence on coal and oil and gas. We do this by stepping up our efforts to ensure the green transition and more affordable renewable energy. That's the first thing I want to say. The second thing I want to say is that the fact that energy prices are higher in the European Union does not change the fact that the reality is that it is the United States that has problems with its competitiveness vis-à-vis the European Union. That's why some of your friends, Trump, are going to impose a series of customs duties on European goods.

Mr President! Firstly, the EU does not have a poor competitiveness vis-à-vis the United States. On the contrary. It is the United States that will impose tariffs, and therefore there is no reason whatsoever to imitate the United States. Secondly, the competitiveness compass of the European Commission will certainly lead us in the wrong direction. It calls for a comprehensive deregulation that reduces the protection of people, nature, the environment and the climate. And that is probably also why the European trade union movement and the European climate, environmental and nature organisations are protesting. But we can also listen to economists and companies who say that the way to improve competitiveness does not lead to better competitiveness, deregulation does not lead to better competitiveness. Rolling back agreed progress means uncertainty that is detrimental to the company's ability to plan, and it means slowing down investment in innovation and development to the detriment of the competitiveness of companies. And instead, we're going to have a race to the bottom that's really hurting all of us.

Mr President! Belarus's despotic leader, Alexander Lukashenko, is preparing on Sunday to once again steal an election. For about 30 years he has been harshly governing Belarus, and although there have been several elections, no one has been free or fair, and on Sunday it will be a repeat. We saw in 2020 how opposition, civil society and the press - all who dared to oppose him - risk ending up as political prisoners. It is therefore important that we support the opposition in Belarus. It is about supporting those who fight for workers' rights, those who fight for free trade unions. These are things that are massively suppressed. It is also about women's and LGBT+ rights, which are being suppressed, as they do everywhere the extreme right holds power. It is also important to support this fight. We must grant asylum to those deserters who come from Belarus because they fear becoming part of Russia's war against Ukraine. In short. We've said a lot of things. Now is the time for action.

Mr President! In the Baltic Sea, we are now witnessing an increasing number of badly concealed acts of sabotage against our underwater infrastructure. Acts of sabotage, all indications of which are carried out by Russia's shadow fleet. We must respond to this, and I cannot help but ask: When do we start taking this seriously and dropping the velvet gloves? When do we do what we have repeatedly called for: Puts a lot of pressure on the flag states that Russia uses and uses all the possibilities we actually have to limit the shadow fleet. For every day the shadow fleet sails, it adds large sums of money to Putin's war machine. Money that goes to death, destruction and oppression. And every day it puts both the environment and infrastructure at risk. When is that enough? We shouldn't bow our necks to Trump or Putin. Now let's say stop and let's do it effectively.

Madam President! What do we do when the world's most powerful man threatens an EU country with economic pressure because he wants to annex a country and its people? What do we do when the same man says he won't refuse to use military means? And what do we do when the leader of the world's most powerful country thinks that you can seriously buy or sell an entire country and its people? When you look at the official reaction of the European Union, when you look at what the Commission and the Council of Ministers are saying today, nothing. There are countries like France and Germany that have backed up, but the EU seems to be silent, and that is what we see here in the European Parliament. There is no desire to mention Trump's threats against Denmark and Greenland in the paper for the debate today. No willingness to adopt anything that sends a clear signal. So I'd like to ask you all this question. Do you think silence is the way forward? Wouldn't it be better to have a strong consensus on defending the Greenlanders' right to decide their own future? And would it not be better if we both said clearly against the United States, but also said that we were prepared to make the necessary agreements with Greenland, which means that the Greenlanders themselves will have much better opportunities to determine their own future.

Mr President! The right to strike and the right to collective bargaining are essential fundamental freedoms in the labour market. Unfortunately, they are threatened by reactionary forces from the far right in Europe. They are also threatened by wealthy people like Musk and Bezos, who want to do business in the EU but do not want to play by the rules that apply here. That's why I want to praise the brave Swedish workers who stand up to the world's richest man, Tesla's owner, who hates trade unions. And Amazon workers strike again and again. As politicians, we must learn from their courage and remember that we can do something to help them. We can guarantee their right to strike and to collective bargaining. And we can ensure that public procurement money only goes to those who treat their employees well. As they say in English; No to exploitation, yes to unionisation.

Madam President! Sudan, where violence and rape are used as weapons of war against women and girls, is a terrible stain on humanity. Reports of gang rape, sexual slavery and violence inflicted on civilians are deeply disturbing. This is not just a violation of human dignity. It is a war crime and a crime against humanity. Women's bodies become battlefields where cultural and political, but not least economic power games and battles for resources and commodities are played out. But we must also remember that women in Sudan are not just victims. They are also opponents and survivors. We have a responsibility to support them in their resistance in this terrible war. We must ensure that no weapons or money are given to those responsible for the crimes. We must use every diplomatic, economic and legal tool to pressure Sudan's warring factions and end this grotesque violence.

Madam President! Clean drinking water should be a fundamental right, but that right is threatened by chemicals such as pesticides and PFAS. In my own country, Denmark, 50 percent of drinking water wells now contain too high levels of chemicals, and that is a figure that only seems to be rising. The Danish government, like the rest of the EU, has failed when it comes to protecting the right to clean drinking water for future generations. For decades, environmental organizations and experts have been warning about the consequences of pesticides and PFAS. Nevertheless, the EU has failed to regulate the high consumption of hazardous substances by businesses and agriculture. Not least for this reason, it is crucial that the forthcoming revision of the chemicals regulation REACH takes problems with chemicals in our drinking water seriously and does not again fall for the companies' lobby tricks. It is crucial that we ensure a ban on PFAS not only in consumer products, but also in professional products. And then we need to ensure that companies are given the responsibility to prove the safety of chemicals before they reach the market. We must prioritise health and the environment over the short-term economic interests of industry. Only with clear rules and a PFAS ban can we ensure clean drinking water for future generations.

Madam President! One of the biggest and most persistent threats to our marine areas – protected or not – is water quality. Far too many places we see that the ecological status of marine areas is not only bad, it is also deteriorating all the time. It doesn't have to be that way. This is a development we know how to address. But it requires that we dare to address the causes. It is the pollution that comes from industrialised agricultural production, the chemical industry. It is the use of fishing gear that destroys the seabed. And here, unfortunately, the courage to act is often lacking. This applies even when it is clear that marine biodiversity is deteriorating year after year. One of the places where courage is lacking is in my own home country, Denmark. Here, the government speaks loudly about the aquatic environment, but at the same time refuses to implement the Water Framework Directive in the right way, or for that matter to take action against agricultural discharges of pesticides and nitrogen or the pollution caused by chemical chemical companies in Denmark, one of which even produces pesticides that are illegal to use in EU countries. Our gardens are literally gasping for the weather. Fish, marine animals and plants disappear if the EU and its Member States do not understand that our seas need serious first aid.

Mr. President! It should be the case that taking a train was fast, cheap and easy, so that we could get from one European city to another by train instead of often being pushed into taking planes. Imagine if I could go from my city in northern Jutland to Brussels by train without taking up to 20 hours. That would be a huge step forward. This requires that we are willing to invest in better rails, that we are willing to spend money on making rail transport cheaper, securing passenger rights and making it easier to buy tickets. But it also requires us to stop allowing air traffic to benefit from not having to pay taxes, so that in reality we favour the most environmentally harmful mode of transport. Instead, we must of course prioritize creating better rail traffic for the benefit of the environment, climate and social conditions.

Madam President! Day after day, week after week, Putin's shadow fleet smuggles oil en masse through our waters. This is happening in unsafe, dangerous and uninsured ships, so Putin is circumventing EU sanctions and putting our marine environment at risk. The truth is that so far we have not taken effective action, and that inaction must stop now. That is why we on the left wanted to put this on the agenda and also to have an opinion adopted at a later stage, because we need to act and act now. Every penny we deprive Putin and his cronies of their covert oil smuggling is money that cannot be spent on Russian weapons against Ukraine. It brings us closer to peace. And everyone should be able to support that. So, ladies and gentlemen, dear Commission and dear Member States, protect our environment, protect the civilians of Ukraine, take action against the shadow fleet. There's nothing to wait for.

Madam President! When I hear about religious intolerance, I feel really bad. For we have long seen how intolerance harms both groups and individuals. We have seen how growing groups are fighting for the right to be intolerant. Intolerant of people with a different sexuality, with different values, a darker skin color, a different religion or with something completely fifth. And it gives me nightmares to listen to how black forces on Europe's right are increasingly using religion as an excuse for their intolerance and as a tool to spread it. And we should not believe that we are immune to religious intolerance. You can just take a look at the United States to see how it goes. Here, religious intolerance is used to suppress the right to abortion, which means that women die or become disabled because they are forced to choose illegal methods. We also see how religious intolerance is used to prevent people from loving the one they want and restrict their right to choose sexual orientation. You can also see it in Europe. Just look at a country like Georgia, which, with new and intolerant legislation, is stepping in the footsteps of Putin's Russia. Or think of Orban, who is increasingly also using religious intolerance as a tool for his power. It is clear to me that there is only one way forward. We must fight religious intolerance wherever we encounter it and whatever it is based on. The only thing we should be intolerant of is intolerance.

Mr President! The tragedy in Sudan is not least unbearable, because it is not more than five years since there was actually a momentum for democracy in Sudan. The people took to the streets to demand a future of democracy and human rights. It was lost on the floor. It also did so because the EU failed the Sudanese people. At the time, there was no willingness to support the people in their rebellion against the rulers. There was also no will to create international pressure for the people's desire for democracy. And now the people of Sudan are plunged into a terrible civil war. About 160,000 people died in the Civil War. More than five million people have been displaced. The civilian population lacks access to food, water and medical care. Human rights organisations have been able to document ethnic cleansing, torture, sexual violence and crimes against humanity. These are war crimes to which no human being should be subjected, and I think it is important to emphasise that the European Union must not abandon the people of Sudan again. We must do everything we can to create a ceasefire, an opportunity for democratic development. It is about strengthening and extending the arms embargo and imposing the necessary sanctions. We must send a signal to the civilian population that says clearly: We see you, we see your loss, we see your suffering. And we won't let you down again.

Mr. President! Although the case is about Paul Watson, it's not, for me, about whether you like the kind of activism he has or not. It's not about Watson. That is the principle of the matter, and we must insist on the fact that it is Japan which has violated international law here by whaling in violation of international treaties. Japan is the main criminal in this case. And if you hand over Paul Watson, it will be another example of us punishing those who protest/action against attacks on animal welfare, nature and the environment more severely than those who are guilty of these attacks. This is both untenable and unfair. And then there is the particular fact that the legal system in Japan has been subjected to very harsh criticism by both the UN and organizations such as Human Rights Watch, which says that it is almost impossible to be acquitted in Japan, which also has the death penalty. So for me to see, there is no doubt. The case should be simple: Under no circumstances should Paul Watson be extradited to Japan.

When we talk about organised crime, I think we should remember that it is a threat to the lives and health of many citizens, but it takes many forms and deals with many things, including some of what we have not talked about so much today. For example, the well-organised labour crime, where employers break health and safety rules, underpay and cheat in taxes, and where it often turns out that these groups are closely linked to organised crime. And make no mistake, colleagues. This is a problem in the south as well as in the north, as we were most recently reminded of in Denmark with the TV documentary ‘The Black Swan’. Here, undercover journalism lifted a bit of the veil on how cynical and systematic exploitation takes place on a daily basis. And it is an exploitation that some of the right's good friends in the so-called nice part of business are involved in along with criminal gangs, lawyers and lawyers with evil ethics. Together they criminally organize ways of exploiting and exploiting vulnerable workers. Sometimes by underpaying them, sometimes by gambling with their lives and mobility, and it is always with a clear common denominator: The pursuit of short-term profit at the expense of others. I completely agree with others. Many of the speakers have said that we are taking much tougher action against organised crime. But we also need to look at the link between work crime, breaches of health and safety regulations, tax fraud, underpayment of employees, what is happening there, and criminal environments. So the fight against organised crime is also about ensuring decent conditions for wage-earners.