What Gerben-Jan spoke about.

Mr President, I just want to make a point of order. We have a topical debate. This hall is totally empty. Even the one who initiated the debate is not here to listen to the Commission. This is not only offensive to a Commissioner, but also to this institution, the European Parliament. This is not a place like a press room, where you have your statement for cameras and then you leave. This is a political arena for political debate. So my question – and that's why it's a point of order – is: could you please ask the President to address this at the Conference of Presidents? Because, in this way, this is not working.

Madam President, since I fundamentally believe that these kind of debates should allow for blue cards, I'll react to a few of my colleagues. First of all, Mr Procaccini, who already left, he called climate policy being ideological, but spending more than EUR 500 billion annually on fossil fuels, is that ideological or factual? And that Member States who have the lowest investments in clean energy, that they are now the most vulnerable to high energy prices? Is that ideological or factual? And that Italy by far spends the lowest amount of ETS revenues on climate action, is that ideological or factual? We all know the answer, and it's no wonder that Italy is in trouble. And then Mr Bardella, who always talks about French independence. French people paid EUR 1 000 a year in 2024 on fossil fuels, and if we follow his way, he will increase the dependence on France. The real ideologists are sitting over there, but their ideology is fossil fuels, its high energy costs and full dependence.

Mr President, I too am basing myself on Rule 10 of our Rules of Procedure. Last week, among other things, in Loosdrecht, in the Netherlands, it was again shown how strong and unfortunately also dangerous words can be from politicians. Violence has been used in protests against asylum seekers' centres, against asylum seekers themselves and their escorts, and also against the police and the fire brigade. Also during debates in this house, asylum seekers are portrayed as criminals and rapists and people are called to oppose the reception of refugees. Unfortunately, the Netherlands has again shown how this political subject can be derailed, partly fueled by political debates, partly by debates in this house. That is why, Mr President, I would like to call on you to be very careful that debates do not go beyond our own limits of humanity and reason.

Mr President, energy is the most essential building block of our economy. When energy prices go up, people suffer, businesses suffer. Why? Because we do not control our own energy prices. Others do. Events do. The good news is we have already insulated ourselves from the worst shocks, quite literally, with all the homes we have insulated – boring but important work. And because we are generating more home-grown sustainable green energy than during previous energy crises – but not enough. We will have bigger problems than strictly necessary, because some in this House have worked tirelessly to slow down and break down the Green Deal, and this is on you. But I say, let the past be the past and focus on one thing to restore our citizens' faith in Europe's energy policies, to rebuild our grid and to renew our promise of a strong and independent Europe.

Madam President, let me start by thanking the Court of Auditors, the Commission and the Council for this debate. But most of all, my colleagues here in this House, not so many are left, but still, I want to thank them. And I'm honestly grateful for their very strong words on transparency, the need for transparency, the need to protect public money, and also the important need to be accountable. But most of these words were not focused on our own institution, the European Parliament. Most of all, they were critical towards either the Commission or the Council, the agencies or other institutions. And I would call upon all my colleagues: let's apply the same values, the same principles that we apparently feel so strongly about. Let them also apply to our own House, the European Parliament. And let me focus on three things that we can vote on because they are reflected in amendments tabled. First of all, the accountability of political groups and parties: this is extremely important, not only in financial terms, but also so that they comply with Article 2 of the Treaty, which is the basis of democracy and rule of law – something that is reflected in an amendment. Secondly, we must be as strict against fraud in our own institution as when it occurs somewhere else in the European institutions. Let's do that in the same sense. Thirdly, and finally, take also account of our own spending as MEPs. The general expenditure allowance is EUR 5 000 a month and it's totally unaccountable. This is also about transparency. This is also about guaranteeing the importance of spending of public money. And this is also about accountability.

Mr President, colleagues, Commissioner, this discharge procedure is perhaps the most important parliamentary tool that we have. And you see it attracts huge crowds also in this plenary. It's where this House exercises genuine democratic power and it makes the EU institutions accountable to the EU citizens. I had the honour of reporting on Parliament's discharge, and it concerns a huge sum – in 2024, EUR 2.83 billion of public money – and that alone should emphasise the importance. But what makes this discharge truly unique is that it's Parliament controlling itself, and that is why we must be extra rigorous, extra demanding, not as a formality, but because we owe it to the citizens whose taxes we are spending. And therefore, my report is, on some aspects, critical. But I'll start with the good news: a majority in this House will support discharge being granted. But we also have to mention the stain on this year's discharge and the most serious finding of the report: within our House, substantial fraud cases involving political groups have come to light. I've named them in my report not to point fingers for the sake of it, but because accountability requires me to be transparent in my report. These cases are now being handled by OLAF. We cannot draw conclusions today, but we expect to be informed by the Bureau as soon as results are available. And we expect the relevant disciplinary consequences to follow, including that those found guilty should make sure that funds are being returned. In connection to this, and more broadly, as a matter of upholding the values on which this Parliament stands, I've also filed a plenary amendment calling on the Authority for European Political Parties and European Political Foundations to assess whether one far‑right party in this Parliament still meets the conditions to receive European funding. Because one of the core obligations of a recognised European party is a commitment to Article 2 of the Treaties, and that obligation is not negotiable, neither for its leadership nor for its member organisations. Beyond fraud, we have a second problem not of a criminal sort, but one that I have to mention: a lack of financial accountability. The Ombudsman has called it what it is – maladministration – and rightly so. There are budgetary lines in this institution, where Members receive up to EUR 5 000 a month with zero accountability: no receipts, no proof, no verification whatsoever that the money is spent for its intended purpose. Colleagues, this is simply unacceptable in any form of public administration, let alone here. And I call on this House: let us fix this. It is not complicated. It's a minimal effort. And it's the very least we owe to transparency. Finally, I want to address something else, and that's the problem of parliamentary discipline in our own House. I have a problem that I do not have the hard data to prove the trend, but it's a problem, and I come to that. Within this House… No, wait one second. I see it and we all see it: the committee rooms that should be full are not. And for too many of us, an Instagram video or a distant mission has become a higher priority than the legislative work happening in this building, and I want to capture this in my full report to show, with data, how participation has evolved over time. But the data do not exist. We do not track it, we do not measure it, and that must change. That is why I am calling in this discharge for the data to be collected and made available. I am calling directly on the Bureau and on the President to take responsibility for making that happen.

Madam President, I refer to Rule 44 that is about Parliament's right to the access of documents. This is about the fact that the European Commission most probably will publish a report later this week on the simplification of the deforestation law, the EUDR. We all know that the EUDR was postponed with one year due to IT problems. I requested five months ago certain documents. I am waiting now for five months for one sentence being disclosed and I am still waiting for documents that prove the fact that there are IT problems. I would like to ask you, Madam President, to ask the Commission to provide these documents before Thursday this week, which is when this new proposal of the Commission will most probably be published.

This will be a repeat of moves, Mr. Smith. The only thing that really helps is what was in the Green Deal – but you do not take it seriously – namely energy efficiency. Energy saving is the most important thing to prevent this type of shock. As long as the European Union remains so dependent on fossil fuels coming from outside Europe, no emergency measure will structurally help. So join me, finally embrace the Green Deal and then we will work together on a much cheaper energy price, also for the fishermen.

Thank you for this question, especially since it comes from someone whose party was in the cabinet in the past period, so a cabinet that has only been in office for four weeks is not responsible for empty gas stocks. That is the previous cabinet, in which your party was in, and it makes no sense at all to take all kinds of compensatory measures at the pump now. As you know, the rich benefit the most. It is time for very targeted measures and the only real solution is to move even more urgently to renewable energy. For take Spain, that country is now much better armed against these rising energy prices than many other countries in Europe.

Madam President, President Costa, Commissioner, the world today requires Europe to develop into something it is not yet – develop into a political giant, develop into a military force and develop into the most innovative economy with high tech and very low energy prices. Development – for that, we look at our heads of state. The European Council shall, and I quote the Treaty on European Union, 'provide the Union with the necessary impetus for its development.' This responsibility is not met. National, short-term interests damage European strength, corrupt national governments, frustrate decision-making and countries that fall behind economically ask the EU to weaken its standards, pulling it down. That is not development. That is paralysis. President Costa, please pick up the current challenge. Work with those Member States that want a stronger, more united Europe and make Europe develop into what is so badly needed.

Madam President, I'll try to speak Irish. No, without joking, Commissioner, dear jointly, I actually wanted to say this in Dutch. If you drive through the Dutch Zeeland, you sometimes imagine yourself in Scandinavia. There are very nice wooden, colored houses as proofs of European solidarity. European solidarity of 1953. After the flood disaster in 1953, with 1,800 victims in the Netherlands, Scandinavian countries and Austria sent that help. I wish all the South ‑ European countries that are now affected by this flood once again that European solidarity, because it is extremely important. But let's not just send help afterwards. Let us also try to prevent these disasters and increase our resilience. This can be achieved by adopting a strict climate policy. That is what we are voting on today, I say to that side of Parliament. But also, like the Netherlands in 1953, by really starting with European Delta Works, increasing resilience and arming us against climate change that is indeed coming our way.

Mr President, High‑Commissioner, President Costa, dear colleagues, in 2016, we were taken by surprise by Trump's actions and we even smirked and laughed about his incompetence. 10 years on and we are taken by surprise again, and this time the smirking and laughing is happening on the other side of the Atlantic. While we struggle to respond to Trump's threats and attacks, the US scoffs at our inability to act. As the US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent yesterday formulated it, and I quote: 'my guess is Europe's next move will be to form a working group.' And the US is right to laugh at our weaknesses. Appeasement of Trump is clearly not working. Trump, like most authoritarian leaders, responds to strength. To be an equal partner, the EU needs to be stronger, more united. I very much appreciated the speeches of President Costa and President von der Leyen earlier today, but something important is missing, With today's EU, Bessent is right. We desperately need a more federal Europe to really stand up against other powers in this world. The current structure is insufficient and additional intergovernmental initiatives will not make Europe stronger. So, dear Member States, President Costa, walk the talk. Make Europe strong as most of you are advocating. Let it speak with one European voice, let it defend itself with one European army and let's get rid of national vetoes. This House showed the way in our 2023 resolution. Now it is up to the Council and the Commission to pick this up and to do so urgently. We cannot afford to wait. And if not all 27 Member States are on board, let's move on with 26, 25 or even 24 if necessary. We simply have no time to waste.

Madam President, Commissioner, Minister, dear colleagues, after the Munich Security Conference and the grilling of President Zelenskyy in the Oval Office, it is now with the publication of the National Security Strategy more than clear that Europe is on its own and should act accordingly, institutionally and economically and on security. And this week in Berlin, a selection of European leaders showed that unity and urgent action is needed, including the UK and Norway. But this now must be translated to the European Council. Let us start by supporting Ukraine with agreeing on the frozen Russian assets. This issue has been discussed on European Council level 15 times, at least, since the start of the war, and this European Council cannot come to an end without a final decision. And I ask you to assure us that you will not conclude the meeting without an agreement on a proper Ukraine reparation loan. And secondly, this unity and urgency should also be shown regarding our economic and societal strength. Europe is by far the best place in the world to live. Nowhere one can find our unique level of individual freedom, democracy, protection and well-being. Let us be proud and build upon it. Today's hostile world forces us to use our strength more rigorously, and a no-brainer is cutting rules and, no, the biggest problem are not European rules but national protective rules are the biggest barriers currently in place. The IMF and the European Investment Bank estimate the costs of these additional national rules are equivalent to 45 % tariffs on goods, and even more than 100 % on services. How can we stand up against China and the US and many others if we keep fighting each other? So put this prominently on the agenda of the European Council. Stop national protectionism within the EU and start working towards European strength.

Madam President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, this debate is not about climate policy. It is about the economy and about physical laws, because the electric motor converts 95 % of the energy to movement and the combustion engine only 30 %. That is why the future is electric. Its technology is simply superior in energy terms and in cost terms. So to save the European car industry, we have one single challenge: how to become competitive in the global electric car market. It is certainly not by spreading our investments between EV and hybrids and combustion engines, or on biofuels. Then we will really experience what slow agony looks like. When passenger cars replaced the horse and carriage, we did not invest in cars that could also be pulled by horses. No, we understood that the new technology was superior. So let's not fool ourselves: hybrids and biofuels are not making our industry more competitive. Only a full focus, private and public ...

Madam President, Mr Commissioner, dear colleagues, InvestEU is an example of the best the EU can do. Every euro that we allocate to InvestEU generates an additional EUR 15 of investment in key strategic priorities for the Union, and this investment omnibus is expected to generate over EUR 50 billion in additional public and private investments. When a programme is as successful as InvestEU, you should make it as easy as possible for small businesses to participate, and I am glad that we managed to cut back on unnecessary administrative burden while maintaining accountability. Taxpayers will be sure that their money is working in the most efficient way towards key objectives, such as transitioning to a cleaner economy, creating greener jobs and tackling the climate crisis. This is what citizens want, this is what citizens need and it is what the EU can provide.

Madam President, I refer to Rule 44: 'Access to documents and provision of information to Parliament', and it refers to Wednesday's vote on the deforestation regulation. When the European Commission came forward with its so-called IT problems on 23 September, I asked through the formal procedures for more information on these written questions, but also access to documents. So far I haven't got any reply from the Commission, although several deadlines have expired since then. If we take our work legislatively and democratically seriously, it is very difficult to vote on such an important legislative file without proper information. So I would like to ask you, Madam President, if you can demand from the Commission those documents well before the vote – I would say before tomorrow evening – in order to make a proper judgement here in this House.

Madam President, Commissioner, let me start by thanking President von der Leyen for her strong words on the necessity of decarbonising our economy – as she said, it is crucial for our competitiveness. But today, I would like to focus on Ukraine. Last month's European Council discussed the use of the frozen Russian assets for Ukraine, but, since that meeting, Russian troops have closed in on Pokrovsk and are taking it as we speak, bringing Russia one step closer to control over Donbas. Ukraine is losing ground while national leaders here bicker over who foots the bill. Belgium does not feel reassured if it releases the frozen assets, and I understand that, but it is crucial that our finance ministers solve this problem tomorrow. Ukraine needs money right now – direct financial aid is the cheapest and quickest way of stopping Putin. Let's face it, while we worry about legal consequences, Ukraine is worried about losing Donbas, losing its freedom. In addition to this, how is it possible that Russia keeps its economy running with our money? Why are we still allowing Russia to make a profit on third-country export, or by sending its shadow fleet across the globe? Ban the shadow fleet, sanction these third countries, give the frozen assets to Ukraine. It is our indecision, our inaction, our fear of legal repercussions that is keeping Russia in the war and Ukraine fighting for its survival.

Mr President, thank you, Commissioner, dear colleagues, tomorrow's vote on the 2040 climate target is one of the most important of this mandate, and rightly so, because climate change is one of the biggest threats to humanity. Already we are faced with unbearable heatwaves, droughts, forest fires and floods, and these events will only be more extreme and devastating in the years to come. But also for our economy, it is crucial to decarbonise. Why spend EUR 400 billion annually on the import of fossil fuels when we can produce our own clean energy for a fraction of that price? Why continue to use old fossil-based technology while our competitors develop better, cleaner and cheaper alternatives? Dear colleagues, tomorrow's vote is extremely important for Europe, but also for the world. The world needs an ambitious, active, leading EU. So, support this 2040 compromise and send Commissioner Hoekstra with a strong mandate to COP30.

Mr President, President Murphy, Commissioner, dear colleagues, this year's annual report is not just another audit document to tick off, it's a political compass, and it shows us how European taxpayers' money is being spent and, more importantly, whether it truly delivers value for our citizens. And this year, it carries even more weight because we are entering the negotiations for the next MFF. And the choices we make now will define Europe's priorities for the years to come. If there's one thing clear, it's that we cannot repeat the mistakes of the RRF, many colleagues already said that. Simply throwing money on the table without proper direction or safeguards is not strategy. Funding must be targeted, protected and aligned with our common goals. Our already tiny European budget is far too precious to become a blank cheque for our Member States.

Madam President, Madam Minister, Commissioner, colleagues, security, prosperity and climate action. The European Council agenda focuses on the big challenges facing Europe right now. Indeed, we cannot take chances with Putin, nor can we gamble with the living standards of future generations. Uncomfortable risks that need addressing. But there's just one 100 % risk here, and that's climate change. It's 100 % sure that it's coming for us and for our European way of life – not tomorrow, but today. Floods, heatwaves, droughts, crop failures, broken lives. Today, not tomorrow. Six years ago, President von der Leyen presented the Green Deal and a new model for growth and prosperity. A model to stop importing EUR 450 billion worth of fossil fuels each year. A model that chooses to buy European cars in the future instead of Chinese. A model that leads the world in clean technology. A model that needs, and I quote President von der Leyen, 'relentless focus and effort'. That is what we need from this week's European Council: relentless focus and effort at the single 100 % threat that we're facing – climate change. Strong leadership means looking ahead and leading people to a better future, having the courage to take difficult decisions – principles that too often yield to political convenience. Therefore I call upon our heads of state to do what scientists advise us to do: adopt ambitious climate policies, including the necessary social and industrial policies. But this House should also look at itself. As directly elected politicians with a clear mandate from Europeans who rely on us, we also have to show the necessary courage and responsibility. Our European citizens deserve it, our planet demands it and our economy needs it.

Madam President, colleagues, 2035 is ten years from now and we will be three US presidents further, and obviously we still have President von der Leyen sitting here. But if you look ten years forward, it is also very valuable to look ten years back as well. In 2015, the best selling electric vehicle was the European Renault Zoe with a range of 100 km. Today's EV world is incomparable to that of 2015, and the 2035 EV world will be equally incomparable to today's. President von der Leyen said in her State of the Union speech that 'the future is electric,' and I fully agree. The big question is: will this electric future be European or Chinese? I want it to be European – no, it needs to be European. Therefore the title of this debate should have been 'how do we make our electric future European'? What does the car industry need from us to make the transition successful, and what should they do themselves? In history, better technologies have always replaced the worse. Whether you like it or not. In the 18th century, the Luddites were convinced they could stop progress by destroying automated machinery in the textile industry. Obviously, they couldn't. Let us not be the 21st century Luddites trying to destroy the European car industry. Let us do what made Europe great: embrace new technology and develop it in such a way that we lead the world.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, today marks the pitch black day of 7 October 2023. A day that started sunny and cheerful, but ended with the death of 1,200 innocent Israelis. Since that day, it has been a war for two years, resulting in many tens of thousands, mostly innocent Palestinian deaths. While I endorse Israel's right to self-defense, Netanyahu's response is utterly disproportionate and illegitimate. Now there is a plan for peace. A plan with a lot of hooks and eyes. However, for the first time in two years, it gives a glimmer of hope. A glimmer of hope that the rain of bombs will stop. A glimmer of hope that the remaining hostages will finally be released. Europe has hardly been visibly involved, but must now insist that an agreement be concluded with the Palestinians and not only with the Palestinians. No peace can be achieved without the active participation of the Palestinians. Only then will there be a prospect of a two-state solution.

Madam President, dear Commissioners, dear colleagues, Europe is not condemned to weakness – far from it. Time and again, Europe has proven to be our best chance. When our people were trapped by a deadly pandemic, it was Europe that produced the vaccines that saved millions. When Russia invaded Ukraine, it was Europe that stood tall, united under the Ukrainian flag. And when the climate crisis threatened our children's future, it was Europe again that set the most ambitious green agenda in the world. And we can rise to these challenges, too. We have the engineers, the scientists, the soldiers, the farmers, the entrepreneurs. We have the ideas, the values, the creativity. What we lack is not capacity. What we need is confidence to act together. Imagine what this Union can be: a continent that runs on its own clean energy and builds technology others can only dream of; a Europe that speaks with one voice and fights with one army. It can be done if only our Member States could be less afraid to choose compromise over debilitating consensus, to choose unity over their own individual agendas. Yes, colleagues, we have a very crucial choice ahead of us and let's choose to unite. Let's follow President von der Leyen's speech for unity, as she called it. And to Mr Weber and Ms García Pérez, unity is not looking for differences. Our European citizens need a strong pro-European coalition. Let's take our responsibility and show that we can make Europe together.

Madam President, Mr Razza, I listened carefully to you, and I think we all agree that we have to fight forest fires. But something else is that we have the responsibility to avoid a further increase in forest fires, and one of the most important reasons for this increase is climate change. Whether you like it or not, it is there and it's causing the enormous increase in forest fires. What are you doing? You're a powerful man, because you're a Member of the European Parliament. You decide on climate policy. What do you do to help avoid further forest fires in Europe and the rest of the world?

Madam President, Madam Commissioner, obviously full support for your policy of preparedness Union. And it's obvious, like other colleagues have said, that we have to work closely together on these droughts and forest fires. And if you imagine that, even in April, in a country like the Netherlands, we already had forest fires – it says something. But let's face it, the best way to deal with these crises is to prevent them. It's climate change that causes droughts, forest fires and floods, and it's threatening our livelihoods, our food security and even our lives. So, colleagues, let's invest in climate mitigation, in the 90 % emission reduction in 2040 and in a sustainable agricultural system. Today we voted and we made EUR 280 million available to assist several Member States with the effects of the floods of the last couple of months. I hope that those parties who are voting against any climate change action have very, very deep pockets, because in a few years' time, we won't need EUR 280 million, we will need billions of euros; in 10-15 years' time, we will need tens of billions of euros. And I count on you to pay that check.