Speeches

Mr President, on 19 August in the Netherlands, Lisa, 17 years old, was brutally murdered. A suspect was arrested at an asylum seekers' centre. A young life snatched away, a family broken. This is more than a personal tragedy. This affects our sense of security and the foundations of our society. But it is precisely in such moments of great sadness and deep emotion that we must beware of overly political reflexes. From the far right, a framing sounds that sows fear and reduces migration to a threat to our women and children. And with that, you play people against each other without offering real solutions. At the same time, on the left-hand side, migration is too often perceived as a mere act of solidarity. As if there should be no limits to reception, housing or integration. As if the capacity of our society is unlimited. It too easily overrides the concerns of many citizens. We take safety and carrying capacity seriously, but at the same time remain true to that human dignity. We want fast and fair procedures and an integration policy that really works. Those who seek security in Europe must also respect that security. And those who cause insecurity must immediately bear the consequences. Yes, we have a mission to better protect our women and children. If women don't feel safe on our streets, we as a society lose the core of our freedom. We cannot reduce migration to fear alone, nor can we look away from where security is at stake.

... a strong and competitive Europe and we extend an open hand to all pro-European forces to do it together, but we need more than nice words, we need actions to deliver for our citizens.

Well, I was interrupted, Madam President. Do you choose a Europe that properly manages migration, protects our border, or do you keep dragging your feet on the proposals that have already been put on the table by this Commission?

Madam President, President von der Leyen, thank you for setting out your clear vision today and also for reminding us that also in this House, sometimes, we are so busy with debating the small print that the world is writing a new chapter without us, and Europe simply cannot afford this. At a time of war on our continent, of increased global competition, we need to respond with unity and with responsibility. And yes, only the pro-European democratic forces in this House can achieve this together. But for all the attacks from the Socialists, the Liberals and the Greens today on this issue, we are still waiting for a real commitment on delivering in this agenda, and for us, this is the autumn of truth. Do you choose a competitive Europe, cutting red tape and driving innovation, or do you choose a Europe drowning in bureaucracy and trade war, putting at risk the livelihoods of millions of people? Do you choose a Europe ... (The President cut off the speaker)

No, I will use a little bit less, Madam President. The EPP Group will not support this urgent procedure. I would also say – listening to some of the colleagues – let's also keep it a little bit realistic. We're not voting today on the climate law. We're voting on which procedure we are going to use. I think it's interesting to hear from colleague Wölken about, indeed, the use of urgent procedures, because it was the S&D Group that was complaining about this, describing it as bypassing the normal democratic processes of this House, and we can only do it when we have proper justification. For us, this justification is not here today. The Commission proposal by Commissioner Hoekstra from the EPP has been on the table for one week. We will work on it, we will assess it, we will try to improve it. The Council is working on it at the same time and we want to work alongside the Council in a parallel process. We don't want undue delays, we don't want blockages; we just want to work on this proposal with the normal proceedings of this House.

Mr President, so the EPP is against this request to adjourn the vote on Bulgaria's adoption of the euro. Let's also be frank about what this is really about: Ms Laykova is not interested in the Rules of Procedure or some fantasy allegations on conflict of competence, especially coming from a shadow rapporteur with the same nationality on the same file. What this is really about is that Ms Laykova and her friends in the ESN Group would rather have Bulgaria join the rouble than the euro. So, all the correct procedures have been followed. This House is ready to vote, so let's do so.

Mr President, so the EPP is against this request to adjourn the vote on Bulgaria's adoption of the euro. Let's also be frank about what this is really about: Ms Laykova is not interested in the Rules of Procedure or some fantasy allegations on conflict of competence, especially coming from a shadow rapporteur with the same nationality on the same file. What this is really about is that Ms Laykova and her friends in the ESN Group would rather have Bulgaria join the rouble than the euro. So, all the correct procedures have been followed. This House is ready to vote, so let's do so.

Madam President, Commissioner, colleagues, dear Prime Minister, welcome. You have big shoes to fill after the success of the Polish Presidency, but the EPP is ready to cooperate with your Presidency at a crucial time for our European Union. While it's no secret that we do not belong to the same political family, I am happy to see a socialist leader here responsible, pragmatic and ready to engage. Perhaps in that sense, the Danish Presidency could be a good bridge-building Presidency. Because for the EPP, this is not about politics. It is about content. We particularly support the focus on three essential pillars. On defence, our message is clear: Europe is at a turning point. Russian aggression continues and the world is becoming more dangerous. We need to strengthen our defence industry, invest in capabilities and deepen cooperation with our allies, especially in support of Ukraine. The EPP stands firmly behind this, just like we stand firmly behind Denmark on the issue of Greenland. On competitiveness, colleagues, let's be honest. While other global players race ahead, Europe risks suffocating under its own regulation. We need to make it easier to do business, to innovate, to grow, to compete, especially for our SMEs and family businesses. We need less ideology and more common sense, and this will also be our focus during your Presidency. Finally, on migration, the EPP has long called for a fair, firm and effective system. We must tackle illegal migration, protect our external borders, combat trafficking networks, and ensure that those in genuine need are supported, while returning those who are not. Prime Minister, your priorities are closely aligned with those from the European Commission. We need less moral posturing and more real solutions. On this issue, you will find in the EPP a partner you can work with and rely on, and we rely on you as well to engage and convince your colleagues – also in this European Parliament, also those from your own political family, because, as you might have noticed, that part of the Chamber forgot to applaud that specific section of your speech. President, we stand ready to work with the Danish Presidency to make Europe stronger, safer and more competitive.

Madam President, Commissioner, colleagues, dear Prime Minister, welcome. You have big shoes to fill after the success of the Polish Presidency, but the EPP is ready to cooperate with your Presidency at a crucial time for our European Union. While it's no secret that we do not belong to the same political family, I am happy to see a socialist leader here responsible, pragmatic and ready to engage. Perhaps in that sense, the Danish Presidency could be a good bridge-building Presidency. Because for the EPP, this is not about politics. It is about content. We particularly support the focus on three essential pillars. On defence, our message is clear: Europe is at a turning point. Russian aggression continues and the world is becoming more dangerous. We need to strengthen our defence industry, invest in capabilities and deepen cooperation with our allies, especially in support of Ukraine. The EPP stands firmly behind this, just like we stand firmly behind Denmark on the issue of Greenland. On competitiveness, colleagues, let's be honest. While other global players race ahead, Europe risks suffocating under its own regulation. We need to make it easier to do business, to innovate, to grow, to compete, especially for our SMEs and family businesses. We need less ideology and more common sense, and this will also be our focus during your Presidency. Finally, on migration, the EPP has long called for a fair, firm and effective system. We must tackle illegal migration, protect our external borders, combat trafficking networks, and ensure that those in genuine need are supported, while returning those who are not. Prime Minister, your priorities are closely aligned with those from the European Commission. We need less moral posturing and more real solutions. On this issue, you will find in the EPP a partner you can work with and rely on, and we rely on you as well to engage and convince your colleagues – also in this European Parliament, also those from your own political family, because, as you might have noticed, that part of the Chamber forgot to applaud that specific section of your speech. President, we stand ready to work with the Danish Presidency to make Europe stronger, safer and more competitive.

Yes, thank you, Madam president, just to ask you, according to Rule 60(4) of the Rules of Procedure, to refer the file back to the committee to start interinstitutional negotiations.

Madam President, thank you to all colleagues participating in the debate today. Thank you to all the colleagues, the shadows from the other groups, the colleagues from the FEMM Committee, for the work throughout this whole procedure so far. It has come to this point today where we will vote, I hope, with the same overwhelming majority as we already did at the committee level to protect our children even better. Thanks also to the Commission for the proposal they have done, but also for the commitment and the endorsement of the Parliament's position today. Of course, as we see in many of these debates, a lot of colleagues show up to take our responsibility as lawmakers, to provide for good laws for the protection of our children; and then there are some who show up simply for polarisation and politicisation, only for the benefit of their own echo chambers. But I would like to say to the first group, let's stick together. Let's do this in a constructive way. Let's make this law a reality as soon as possible. I would also like to ask to be very precise when we're speaking about this legislation. I heard some colleagues complaining about the concept of consent in this legislation, saying that children can never give consent for sexual relations, and of course, this is true. But we also have to realise that the age of sexual consent in many Member States is not the same as the age of adulthood. Specifically for this group of minors, it is absolutely important that we have a clear definition of consent – that we have a clear rule, as the Commissioner already said, that freezing or not saying anything can never be understood as consent, specifically because we need to protect also this group of children. So, thank you all very much. I count on your support in the vote today. I count on your support in the negotiations with the Member States to make sure that the level of ambition that we have here in this Parliament today is at least matched also on the Council side. Like I said as a conclusion to my first introduction here, protecting children is not a choice – it is our deepest and most profound responsibility. Let's live up to that responsibility together.

Thank you, Mr Vistisen. First of all, a small correction: this legislation does not create a new centre. The centre is already there through the regulation, which is still under negotiation. But regardless of that, the centre is there to make research, to help victims, to have reporting. What power does this centre have in your mind that would interfere with the Member States' own responsibility to protect children? Because simply there is none.

Madam President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, I know it's customary to always thank the shadows and colleagues for the great work we've done together, but I would like to say this time I really mean it from the bottom of my heart. I think we had an excellent cooperation from left to right, leading to a unanimous adoption of this report in the LIBE Committee. It is a huge, huge step in further protecting our children in Europe, which is so important. Personally, a couple of years ago, I met a father whose child – a little girl – was abused. In the investigation they discovered that the abuser had made use of a so-called 'paedo manual': an instruction book on how to win the trust of children, how to abuse and exploit them, and how to get away with it. Hundreds of pages of sickening, horrific, disgusting content. The worst of it was that this book, as such, was not even banned in any country of the European Union. This father started a fight. He managed to get it banned in the Netherlands, in Germany and Belgium. Today, in this Parliament, we take a huge step in getting this type of books banned throughout the whole of Europe. So I would like to thank Marcel Jeninga and his Stichting Strijd Tegen Misbruik for his fight. He's with us here today in the plenary Chamber. Thank you very much; we will keep joining your fight. But this is not the only thing that we do with this legislation. One of the things that is most concerning for us all is the huge increase of the use of artificial intelligence when it comes to generating child sexual abuse material. Based on the statistics of NCMEC, there is an increase of over 1 000 % in the last year alone. With this legislation, we criminalise AI-generated child sexual abuse material in the same way that we do with real child sexual abuse material, because these models have to train on real material. From AI-generated child sexual abuse material, it's only a very small step to abusing children in real life. It needs to stop, just like we need to stop other technological developments when it comes to abusing children, like live streaming, when people in Europe are sitting behind their laptops or their screens, while children thousands of miles away from here are being abused in front of a camera because those people here in Europe pay for it. We need to adapt our legislative framework to be able to fight those people. A third important element is the statute of limitations. One very specific thing about victims of child sexual abuse is that very often they are only ready much later in life to come forward and to file charges against the perpetrators, and I would like to thank the very brave men and women I met from the Brave Movement and their testimonies on how it is for victims of child sexual abuse to become a victim, to realise that you are a victim and to have the courage to file charges against your abuser. Many times, like I said, it takes a long time. In many Member States we see that by the time victims are ready to file these charges, the justice system says 'I'm sorry, but the deadline has run out'. There cannot be a deadline for justice when it comes to child sexual abuse, and this is also one of the key innovations in this legislation – we will make sure that victims of child sexual abuse will get justice, can get justice, and we will support them on that way. There are many other measures when it comes to the clear definition of consent, when it comes to a child-centred approach on investigations and victim support, when it comes to more cooperation between different authorities and the renewed focus on prevention. This is an ambitious file, I know, but can you ever be ambitious enough when it comes to protecting our children? I think the need is there. I've already mentioned the data from NCMEC: in 2010, there were about 1 million reports of child sexual abuse online; in 2023, we are talking about 36 million. In 13 years, we went from 1 million to 36 million. This is only the crimes that are being reported. The need for action is there. I thank the Commission for the proposal. I think it was a very good start. I thank all the colleagues for making this proposal even more ambitious, leading to this unanimous vote from left to right in the LIBE Committee to show this ambition. What I would like to ask is also for the Member States in the Council to step up and match our ambition to make sure that together we can protect children. Protecting children is not a choice. It is perhaps our deepest and most profound responsibility. Let's live up to that responsibility together.

Mr President, Madam Executive Vice-President, imagine for a moment that someone is reading every message you've ever sent. Somebody is watching every video you've ever watched, listening into your private conversations with your children, your doctor, your partner. And this isn't fiction. It's happening also today. Also in Europe. Spyware like Pegasus doesn't just intercept data, it invades our dignity. And yes, there can be, of course, exceptional circumstances where it can be used by authorities to fight terrorism, to fight serious organised crime. But what we've learned in this Parliament after speaking to over 200 people, numerous fact finding missions and several elaborate studies is that, also in the EU, it is abused by certain Member States to spy on opposition colleagues, to spy on journalists, and to spy on activists. And it requires a strong response because this is not only about national security, it is also about protecting the rule of law and the EU and the European Commission. It has a role. It has competences when it comes to protecting the rule of law. Even better, we have a responsibility to do so. And we also know what to do because our recommendations were very clear. Set up effective a democratic and judicial oversight mechanism, as well as provide citizens with access to legal remedies, regulate the trade in and the use of spyware based on the conditions that we have formulated together here, make sure that the invocation of national security is indeed always subject to independent review and oversight, and several more recommendations. They're all there. What we need is action. And this is where I am a little bit disappointed in the European Commission. Two years ago, the Commission, in its response to our investigation, said that they were exploring the possibility of a non-legislative initiative. Now, this doesn't sound very ambitious in itself, but still you managed to overpromise and under deliver. Sadly, I have to conclude that the previous Commission did not do its job in this regard. So I'm really counting on you also, Executive Vice-President Virkkunen, to make a difference here. I welcome your clear condemnation today, and I agree with you that further work is needed. So let's get to action. Let's do this further work and let's protect all of our citizens from abuse.

Mr President, Madam Executive Vice-President, imagine for a moment that someone is reading every message you've ever sent. Somebody is watching every video you've ever watched, listening into your private conversations with your children, your doctor, your partner. And this isn't fiction. It's happening also today. Also in Europe. Spyware like Pegasus doesn't just intercept data, it invades our dignity. And yes, there can be, of course, exceptional circumstances where it can be used by authorities to fight terrorism, to fight serious organised crime. But what we've learned in this Parliament after speaking to over 200 people, numerous fact finding missions and several elaborate studies is that, also in the EU, it is abused by certain Member States to spy on opposition colleagues, to spy on journalists, and to spy on activists. And it requires a strong response because this is not only about national security, it is also about protecting the rule of law and the EU and the European Commission. It has a role. It has competences when it comes to protecting the rule of law. Even better, we have a responsibility to do so. And we also know what to do because our recommendations were very clear. Set up effective a democratic and judicial oversight mechanism, as well as provide citizens with access to legal remedies, regulate the trade in and the use of spyware based on the conditions that we have formulated together here, make sure that the invocation of national security is indeed always subject to independent review and oversight, and several more recommendations. They're all there. What we need is action. And this is where I am a little bit disappointed in the European Commission. Two years ago, the Commission, in its response to our investigation, said that they were exploring the possibility of a non-legislative initiative. Now, this doesn't sound very ambitious in itself, but still you managed to overpromise and under deliver. Sadly, I have to conclude that the previous Commission did not do its job in this regard. So I'm really counting on you also, Executive Vice-President Virkkunen, to make a difference here. I welcome your clear condemnation today, and I agree with you that further work is needed. So let's get to action. Let's do this further work and let's protect all of our citizens from abuse.

I think the colleague fails to understand that today's debate is about Hungary and not about Germany. The big difference between Germany and Hungary is that Germany at this moment has a functioning rule of law with independent institutions free from political control. I would like to invite you to try and help us to achieve the same in Hungary.

Madam President, dear colleagues, we are here today not to simply debate a single piece of legislation, but to recognise a pattern: a deliberate and escalating erosion of democratic norms in Hungary. The recently proposed transparency law was not an isolated development, it is part of a wider strategy that actually reflects something new and hopeful in a way, because for the first time in over a decade, Viktor Orbán is facing a democratic opposition that is both capable and credible – a real threat to his hold on power. His response is not competition or dialogue; it is repression. The draft law claims to defend national sovereignty. In reality, it undermines the democratic foundations it pretends to protect. It gives Orbán allies in the Sovereignty Protection Office sweeping powers, operating in opacity and without judicial oversight – an institutional black box designed to intimidate, surveil and silence dissent. We have seen signs of this approach before: the stigmatisation of civil society, the capture of the media, the hollowing out of independent institutions. But this is a further step, one that signals Orbán's desperation to criminalise opposition instead of just suppressing and marginalising it. Let us be clear, this is not about sovereignty. This is about control, and it is about survival – survival of a regime increasingly anxious about losing the support of its people. After years of echoing and enabling the Kremlin, Orbán is now copying its playbook more directly. This law is not only undemocratic, it is un-European. The European Union must respond with clarity and resolve. We must ensure that democratic rights in Hungary are not just theoretical, but fully exercisable – freely, fairly and without fear. This is not just a Hungarian matter; it is a European one. Because if we fail to act when democracy is tested, we invite others to do the same. Let us stand with the Hungarian people, not just in words, but in action.

Mr President, the EPP stands for a Europe that protects its citizens. You cannot have freedom or prosperity without security. And Europeans overwhelmingly agree with this. Over two thirds of European citizens support a stronger EU role in security. They also see security as the main area where the EU should act. And with the launch of today's strategy, the European Commission puts security at the core of its agenda, and rightly so. Criminal networks operate across borders. So must our response. Better cooperation and enforcement. Effective communication between Member States. Transforming Europol into an operational agency alongside stronger mandates for Eurojust and Frontex. All of this is vital to addressing security challenges. Let me highlight some specific ones. A society that cannot protect its children is a society that has no future, and yet we see child sexual abuse increasing. We need to really step up our fight to protect our children. Some proposals are already on the table and we need to adopt them ASAP. In border regions, like my own, criminals exploit borders to continue their crimes. Strengthening administrative cooperation next to law enforcement and judicial cooperation is necessary and will ensure that criminals will no longer hide behind borders. And thirdly, strengthening the fight against migrant smuggling and human traffickers by criminal gangs, who often are also involved in other crimes, is an absolute priority. To conclude, the Commission has taken a key step to safeguard our citizens, but words alone won't do. We need decisive, ambitious action and you can count on the EPP.

Madam President, dear Commissioner, dear Minister, yesterday marked the 100th day since the second von der Leyen Commission took office. As the President of the Commission said herself last Sunday, the 1 December 2024 now feels like a lifetime ago. Of course, we knew that the world was not going to remain the same, that change was coming, but the scope, the speed and intensity of global developments have really been unprecedented. In unprecedented times, Europe needs leadership and strong leadership – I can say after these first 100 days – is what we get from this Commission, leadership on making Europe competitive again. With the Draghi report as the foundation, this Commission has put competitiveness at the heart of its mission, not by making incremental changes here and there, but by presenting real game changers like the Competitiveness Compass and the Clean Industrial Deal. We are looking forward to working on these concrete proposals, because it's clear that we can no longer afford business as usual. That was the message of the voters in the election, and it's the message that has been clearly heard by the Commission. For the first time since I can remember, we don't only have beautiful words about the need to reduce bureaucracy and red tape, we actually have the first concrete proposals on the table to slash the disproportional bureaucratic burden for our SMEs and industries. It's a promising start to what President von der Leyen has called the unprecedented simplification to unleash opportunities, innovation and growth, and you can count on our support. We have also seen this leadership on keeping Europe secure and taking responsibility for our neighbourhood. The unwavering support for Ukraine has rightfully intensified in these past months, and ReArm Europe is a historic step on the way to a Europe that will finally be able to defend itself, allowing us to take our future into our own hands again. After years of beautiful words on European defence investment and cooperation, we now have concrete actions and concrete, ambitious proposals on the table. We disagree on the procedure used, but on the substance, you have our full support and we welcome the ambition shown. This ambition now needs to be translated into concrete, immediate and tangible European action and European projects. Leadership, ambition and concrete action are perhaps the best words to characterise these first 100 days. We saw it this morning, on the 101st day, with a strong but proportional response to the unjustified US tariffs. We saw it yesterday when the Commission presented the new Return Regulation, a missing piece in the puzzle to really manage migration in the EU. After this Parliament had been discussing the previous proposal for over six years, the Commission shows that it can deliver in 100 days. This brings me to my final point. The European Commission, or its President, does not have the same executive powers as, for instance, a US President. So next we are discussing the first 100 days of the European Commission, and we should ask ourselves the same question. I am also specifically asking this to our Platform colleagues from S&D and Renew. Have we truly understood the monumental global changes, and are we ready to deliver with the same speed and ambition? What can this Parliament achieve in the next 100 days? Can we swiftly conclude the Omnibus package? Can we agree on the Return Regulation? Can we finalise the work on the European Defence Industrial Strategy. The European Commission has delivered in these first 100 days. She has heard the message that voters delivered in the polling station and has understood that we live in unprecedented times that need unprecedented measures. This Parliament now needs to mirror that ambition and determination and get to work as well. There are roughly 18 100‑day periods in a five‑year mandate. The first is gone now, so we still have 17 to work. Let's get to work. The bar is set high and you can count on our support.

Mr President, Europe is a safe haven for people fleeing war and persecution. And it has to stay that way. But that is only possible if we are also clear to the people who are not allowed to stay, people who are safe in their own country. At present, only 20% of asylum seekers who have been expelled return to their country of origin. Hundreds of thousands of people a year ignore our laws and regulations and remain ordinary. That gnaws at our sense of justice and it comes at the expense of support in society to help the people who really need our help. Without effective returns, no European asylum policy will be sustainable and it is therefore crucial that the Commission now comes forward with this ambitious proposal. I am pleased that Commissioner Brunner has listened to our call and is already presenting this new Return Regulation in the first 100 days of this Commission. In doing so, we are today clearly demonstrating that it is one of the most important priorities of this mandate and that we have heard the message from the electorate. This message is also reflected in the content of this proposal: a single European system to avoid endless accumulation of procedures; stricter rules to enforce cooperation with procedures; clear rules on forced return and a no-nonsense policy against those posing a security risk; more tools to prevent people from disappearing into illegality. And yes, also innovative solutions such as return. Fortunately, all of this is now on the table and this Parliament now has an important responsibility to deliver. We can't argue endlessly for another six years. We need to get to work.