Speeches

We live in a challenging time where political dialogue and debate are at risk of being silenced. Civil society organisations and NGOs are crucial contributors to our common know‑how, our cohesion and our lawmaking. Without civil society, public policy will end up being dominated solely by the interests of multinational corporations. Let me give you one example: PFAS. If we only listened to industry that has money and even receives EU funds as well, and some even have politicians on their payroll, nobody would be aware of the destructive consequences PFAS have on us, our health and our nature. No, it's only because of independent researchers, independent journalists and a vibrant civil society that we know this. Despite all this, we see that the right has been fighting civil society organisations and NGOs for years, and is now openly trying to silence critical voices of regulations and beyond. So I have here a very clear message to those on the right side in this House who still believe in democracy: this is not about green NGOs, this is about democracy. If we only allow NGOs that do not criticise us to receive funds, that would be an insult to democracy and to political participation. Any healthy democracy must enable a level playing field where the voices of businesses, civil society and citizens are being heard.

Mr President, I was both surprised and really concerned when I saw the topic line of today's debate. Good impact assessments on the Green Deal were already carefully done and reviewed. So what new assessment could we draw today that regulatory action to tackle environmental degradation and growing greenhouse-gas emissions is even more pressing today than it was yesterday? These policies are precisely what we need to build a more competitive and resource-efficient European economy. So the main conclusion of this debate today is that the far right here in the Parliament are prepared to do European self-sabotage. The only thing we will achieve by questioning the Green Deal today is to weaken the regulatory certainty that is precisely what businesses actually need. So all in all it's plainly irresponsible, politically. This is about our future. It's about our planet, and it is about our competitiveness.

Madam President, I would like to raise a point of order under Rule 10(4) in the Rules of Procedure, which clearly states that Members shall not resort to offensive language. More specifically, it concerns a debate we had last time we met here in Strasbourg on recent legislation targeting LGBTQI people, where certain Members of this House from the extreme right used both foul and defamatory language. I will always defend the right of my opponent to disagree with me, but expect at the same time everybody in this House to do so respectfully and without the need to defame others in words or actions. As an LGBTQI person myself, I'm used to hate speech, I'm used to brushing it off and moving on. But this debate stayed with me and I find it sad, worrying and unacceptable, in a debate concerning often young and vulnerable LGBTQI people and the protection of rule of law and a discrimination-free Union, that people in this House have used the language they did. So I do hope, Madam President, that you will look into the matter and take action. (Applause)

Mr President, yes, plastic is everywhere, as we've heard many speakers before me saying. I mean, it's in the supermarket, our homes, look in your bags – it's everywhere. We even wear it. And then sometimes we feel good because we see it's recycled, but much too often it's downcycled and therefore it ends up again in landfills and in the oceans. What is so important with this treaty and with the negotiations from the EU side is that we follow the High Ambition Coalition and actually put a high reduction target on production of new plastic. Because we can talk about recycling, but if we continue with the use we have right now, we are in a deep mess. And yes, we should be willing to find compromise with people, but we shouldn't be compromised in this question. I mean, we owe it to the coming generations, to nature, the animals and the oceans to actually stand firm on this and also to be a first mover, not only wait for the others.

Madam President, I don't know if I'm more sad or angry about this debate today. Yes, perhaps indeed it's 'sad'. Sad to see that we are actually discussing rights, fundamental rights. I mean, I'm soon turning 50 – I know you can't see it, but I am! – and in my lifetime I didn't think I would live to see rights be turned back in Europe as we see right now. Fundamental rights for people to live as who they are. That's what we are seeing right now in Bulgaria, in Hungary, in Italy, and that's what we have to be aware of here in the Union. We must insist on full implementation of European judgement from the Court all over Europe. We have to really monitor and be after the Member States who are not following these rules. We also have to look into what this is about. You talk about families, you talk about kids, but as the former speaker said, if there is no education in schools about what people are, how people live, that is what actually turns against these kids. That's why we see the well-being of LGBTQI kids so low. That is why we see higher rates of suicide among LGBTQI people. So this is about protecting people living in Europe, millions of people, and not just discriminating as we see from over there.

Mr President, this year we have witnessed devastating floods in Central Europe, wildfires in Greece and most recently, human catastrophe in Spain – all driven by climate change. Climate change is no longer a distant future scenario. It is here. It's tangible, it's costly, and it's dangerous. Climate change has entered a new and more critical phase, but the way we talk about it remains the same. And the poor outcome of this year's COP29 is clear proof of that. The Global North bears an historical responsibility for the crisis we are facing. This was acknowledged in Article 9 of the Paris Agreement. And yet, the Global North has shown itself to be unwilling and unprepared to honour its commitments by failing to provide necessary funding. We are creating policies that are totally disconnected from reality. Instead, we must make reality the foundation of our political decisions. I am sorry, we actually decided on 1.5 and we already breached this.

Mr President, dear Commissioners, dear Council, any budget discussion is actually a discussion about whether we are trying to adjust reality to the budget in front of us, or should we try and adjust the budget to this reality we are facing? I have an example. For as long as I've been following EU budget negotiations – first in the national parliament and now here in the European Parliament – it's a clear case when it comes to humanitarian aid: we are looking at an attempt to actually adjust the reality to the budget. In the short time I've been here, we already amended the budgets for 2024 numerous times, adding more money to the field. We have several armed conflicts in the world. We see climate crises attacking the poorest people in the world, and still we don't see a humanitarian budget actually answering these questions. So my recommendation for the future is clear: we must be better at adjusting the budget to the reality, and not the other way around.

Mr President, today, I want to emphasise the fundamental principle of fair trial. Japan is demanding the extradition of environmental activist Paul Watson following his arrest in Greenland. The same Japan which has repeatedly ignored international laws on whaling. Now, the focus must be on Watson’s legal rights. I am deeply concerned that Denmark may extradite Paul Watson on too weak of a basis. Do you think that Watson will receive a fair trial in Japan, when their motives for silencing him are so evident? I don’t think so. Of course, we must ensure that our support reflects international law, but we must also protect those who fight for endangered animals and our environment. If we don’t stand up for the whales, and for the legal rights of environmental activists, who will?

Mr President! It's a bit funny with the title of today's debate, which is about extreme weather, as that's just what the new normal weather is. Therefore, the discussion should not be about what we do in the short term, but how we actually act. Action that actually works also in the future. It is about making climate adaptation that is nature-based. It is about how we can transform an overly industrialised animal-based agriculture into a much more plant-based one. And then it is about how it is that we adapt all our programmes, our budgets in the European Union to this reality. Why is it that, unfortunately, we see that no proper money has been set aside for nature-based solutions? And why is it that the CAP has not properly addressed the new reality in which we live?