Speeches

The next item is the debate on five motions for resolutions on the conviction and imminent sentencing of Jimmy Lai in Hong Kong (2026/2573(RSP)).

The next item is the debate on six motions for resolutions on the case of Joseph Figueira Martin in the Central African Republic (2026/2572(RSP)).

The next item is the joint debate on: – the report by David McAllister, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, on the implementation of the common foreign and security policy – annual report 2025 (2025/2164(INI)) (A10-0253/2025); and. – the report by Thijs Reuten, on behalf of the Committee on Security and Defence, on the implementation of the common security and defence policy – annual report 2025 (2025/2165(INI)) (A10-0265/2025).

Mr President! This is about people. Real people in Greenland and in the rest of the Kingdom of Denmark, who right now are genuinely concerned, for both their future and for the life they know. Threats, leaked text messages, ridicule of actions you have even asked for. That's not how you behave towards your allies. So, President Trump, let me put it directly: Whatever you threaten, Greenland is not for sale. Sovereignty is not a commodity. International law is not a bargaining card. Our limit has been reached. I stood here a year ago and said that the United States was still our closest ally. I have to admit I was wrong. Europe is Europe's closest ally and we should not put up with threats. Europe has tools, powerful tools to respond if needed. And it works when we use them in the community. I and the rest of the Kingdom of Denmark are grateful for the clear support we have received from our European friends here in the House and from the other EU institutions. That support matters. It shows that European values are strong, that respect and justice and solidarity are not just empty words. As pressure grows, Europe chooses unity. When someone tests our limits, we stand firm. Greenland is not alone. The Kingdom of Denmark is not alone. Europe stands with us and thank you so much.

Madam President! I've used Grok, and I think that Grok and AI can do something, for example, when it comes to fact-checking, but when Grok is used, and AI is used, to create sex videos and images without consent, it's not innovation. It is not freedom of speech. This is digital abuse. And the EU has the rules, as we have heard. We have a digital rulebook, and we should have used it now. This is the case: AI GDPR. We need to enforce the rules so this can't happen. Analyses show that more than half of the images generated by Grok contain people with very little clothing, and the vast majority of them are women. Musk claims that it is fascist censorship when we want to do something about this, but for me it is quite common protection of women and children. It's not about the technology. It's about dignity and it's about putting people before profit, which is why enforcement is crucial. Let's get started.

Mr President! Dear Commissioner, dear Minister. It is not time for us to question our support for Ukraine. Ukraine has been a full-scale war for more than 1300 days, and in reality it is 4000 days if we go back to the annexation of Crimea. The Ukrainians are not asking for our pity. They are asking for our action. Let us show now at the forthcoming Council meeting that we are able to resolve the question of funding. The fact of the matter is that Ukraine is our bulwark. They are the ones who ensure that there is peace in Europe. If they lose the war to the Russians, it'll hit us, too. We have an obligation to do something. That is why I am also pleased that we are finally phasing out Russian gas in Europe. Because with what we've bought, we've actually helped fund the war. I hope that in a few days' time this will be resolved at the Council meeting. So this is what it's all about. The Ukrainians are asking us to act while helping us to maintain peace in Europe.

Colleagues, the thing is, we have a lot of people who wanted to speak, so you really have to respect the speaking time. Otherwise, it's not fair to the others, I have to say.

Well, there have been more than one of us chairing this debate. We have had nine blue cards, and that is more than we normally have. So we have been trying to include as many people as possible. I do apologise and I know it's frustrating. It is a very important topic for many of us, but that's how it is.

I just want to say, Mr López Aguilar, what I'm doing is ... (In response to comments from Mr López Aguilar) Yes, but before I give you that, let me say that what I've tried is that I cannot give speaking time for everyone. We don't have time for that. I have chosen on the basis of different, objective criteria. I do apologise, but you have to respect my decision. But if you have a point of order – and you have to be able to quote a paragraph, a rule – then I will give you the floor.

We will now continue with the debate on the Commission statement on the presentation of the European Affordable Housing Plan (2025/3003(RSP)).

I have an announcement. You probably received a communication about it. With the consensus of the political groups, I wish to put to the House the following proposal for a change to the agenda. The following two debates this afternoon will be swapped: the Commission statement on the presentation of the EU Cardiovascular Health Plan will be taken as the second point, and the Commission statement on the presentation of the automotive package will be taken as the third point. If there are no objections, this change is approved.

The next item is the debate on the report by Thijs Reuten and Nina Carberry on the implementation of the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement (2024/2108(INI)) (A10-0226/2025).

Mr Braun, I have to let you know that you have to respect the other colleagues and their right to speak in the Chamber without you shouting. Please respect the rules.

Mr President, thank you very much to all of you here today for participating in this debate about this very important own-initiative report. First and foremost, I will say that I heard no one say that the internet is safe for kids today. So I think we all agree that it is not a very safe space, and therefore we need to do something. We might differentiate about what we need to do, some of you say that it is up to the parents to make sure that their kids are safe online, others of us believe that that task is too big for parents, for individual parents, when they're up against big, big, big tech companies and their algorithms. Therefore, I want to say to all of you who share that idea, let's see what we can do. We will not take away the responsibility from parents, but we need to help them, making sure that their kids are safe. And it is possible also to have an age limit and some kind of age-assurance mechanisms that are privacy-preserving, that are robust and that are accurate, and that is what we need. No one says that it is a quick fix, that it is a silver bullet, but we believe that we need to do more than we are doing today. Therefore, I also want to say a big thanks to the Commission, and Commissioner McGrath and Executive Vice-President Virkkunen for being here today, but also for your remarks that even though we have a lot of good laws in place, that more needs to be done, we need to close the loopholes. But I could also say that the more, faster and better you're enforcing the existing rules, the smaller the loopholes are. So that's also a signal to you, please do whatever you can already today to help our kids to be safe and let's together work and do more, because we need to do more, because today our kids are not safe when they're online.

Madam President, dear colleagues, dear Executive Vice-President Virkkunen, we are in the middle of an experiment. An experiment where American and Chinese tech giants have unlimited access to the attention of our children and young people, for hours every single day, almost entirely without oversight. No one in this Chamber can ignore the impact that screens have on our children and young people. Here are some facts: we know that almost 80 % of minors look at their phone hourly, almost 50 % of them do it constantly. These services are highly addictive and carefully engineered to keep attention. Algorithms and endless data collection track every behaviour, making it almost impossible to put down the phone. How are the children rewarded for staying online? Well, a hit of dopamine. The price for putting down the phone? Emptiness and anxiety. And what do our children see online? In Denmark, 50 % of young people report seeing violent and offensive content. They can end up in rabbit holes, seeing murder, violence, suicide and self-injury. And if it's not violent content, it's commercials – 50 % of content viewed online is commercial. The platforms are becoming an ever-increasing commercial environment for our minors. Who is behind this experiment? Well, pick your favourite villain. For some, it's Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg. For others, it's the Communist Party in Beijing and their tech proxies at TikTok. And the children? Well, at least in Denmark, they say: 'help us.' In Denmark, almost 70 % report that they want to spend less time on social media. And the parents? The message I hear from parents is the same: 'we need support, we need your help.' Because no parent and no child can stand alone against the raw forces of these algorithmic systems. Only we politicians have the power to end this experiment. I'm proud of this Parliament that we can stand together in protecting our minors online. I want to thank the brilliant shadow rapporteurs working on this file. Thank you for taking responsibility, thank you for standing on the side of parents and children. I hope the rest of you will join us in supporting this report. Remember also, many Member States are taking actions. Some are introducing age limits on social media, others are removing phones from classrooms. The Commission is also paying attention. I am pleased to see President von der Leyen's expert group on this issue. The European Parliament cannot, and should not, be silent on this topic, and therefore this report is important and it has been built through broad cooperation across almost all political groups. The report follows a clear logic: it must be safer for children and young people to use online services, also on social media, and services should not be accessible for children under 16 years unless the parents have given consent. I know that the age limit will dominate headlines, but colleagues, this report is so much more than that. Let me give you a few examples: we want legislation requiring age-appropriate design and safety by design; we want a ban on loot boxes and other forms of randomised manipulative content; and we also want a ban on engagement-based recommender algorithms and the most harmful addictive design practices. Together with the strong enforcement of the Digital Services Act, these measures will raise the level of protection for children dramatically. And with this report, we finally draw a line. We are saying clearly to the platforms: 'your services are not designed for children, and the experiment ends here.' I look very much forward to hear the debate, and thank you very much for the attention, and especially thanks for the cooperation so far.