Speeches

Madam President, dear colleagues, it is almost 10 years since the most successful diplomatic achievement against climate change: the Paris climate agreement. Finally, the world was going to jointly tackle the greatest threat to mankind: climate change. And the European Union played a crucial and decisive role in this success through diplomacy, by contributing to global climate funds but, above all, by leading by example. The ambitious targets the EU set for itself gave us the credibility to steer the world towards global climate action. This year's COP30 in Belém is a very crucial one for keeping up the hope of halting climate change. And the circumstances are difficult, with the exit of the United States. Therefore, it is as important as ever that the EU can play a leading role. To do so, we need the 2040 target in time, in time to again lead by example. The proposal to amend the European Climate Law was only tabled last week, which is very, very late, and to make the deadline, a swift adoption is necessary. At the same time, we need a proper democratic debate, and the only way to achieve that is by using the urgent procedure, according to Rule 170(5). This allows for debate, amendments and opinions, and votes at committee and plenary level, which I would call a proper democratic procedure. So I urge you to support this request. Your vote is incredibly important. And if you push the button, do not think of internal Parliament or even internal group politics. Think about the future victims of floods, droughts, forest fires and heatwaves. The world desperately needs a strong leading European Union in the fight against climate change. You, dear colleagues, can achieve that by voting in favour of this request.

Madam President, Mr Commissioner, dear colleagues, do we need an ambitious climate target in 2040 of at least 90 %? And the answer is clearly yes. And if you're not convinced, ask the relatives of the victims of the Valencia floods. Ask those farmers who are out of business because the crops do not grow any more on their dried-out land. Ask people who lost literally everything except their lives due to forest fires. Or ask Slovenia, where the floods of August 2023 alone already cost them roughly 10 % of GDP. 'Yes, but our economy', I hear colleagues on the right saying. Yes, what about the economy? Increased climate change might cost us up to 34 % of our economic output, while keeping the rise below two degrees will cost us just 1 to 2 % of global GDP. So tell me, what makes more sense economically? Fighting climate change is not a leftist ideological agenda. It's the harsh reality we're faced with. It's the harsh consequence of our own behaviour, and it's our responsibility to all the people represented in this House to save them from these consequences. So yes, it makes absolutely sense to set an ambitious 90 % target in 2040, but it's also important to do so in time – in time for the Paris Agreement process, in time for a strong EU position at the upcoming COP30. So, I urge the EPP to support the urgent procedure, because that is the only way to be in time in this House, partly due to the late proposal from the Commission, but please don't endanger the Paris Agreement process and vote in favour of the urgent procedure this week.

Madam President, Mr Commissioner, dear colleagues, do we need an ambitious climate target in 2040 of at least 90 %? And the answer is clearly yes. And if you're not convinced, ask the relatives of the victims of the Valencia floods. Ask those farmers who are out of business because the crops do not grow any more on their dried-out land. Ask people who lost literally everything except their lives due to forest fires. Or ask Slovenia, where the floods of August 2023 alone already cost them roughly 10 % of GDP. 'Yes, but our economy', I hear colleagues on the right saying. Yes, what about the economy? Increased climate change might cost us up to 34 % of our economic output, while keeping the rise below two degrees will cost us just 1 to 2 % of global GDP. So tell me, what makes more sense economically? Fighting climate change is not a leftist ideological agenda. It's the harsh reality we're faced with. It's the harsh consequence of our own behaviour, and it's our responsibility to all the people represented in this House to save them from these consequences. So yes, it makes absolutely sense to set an ambitious 90 % target in 2040, but it's also important to do so in time – in time for the Paris Agreement process, in time for a strong EU position at the upcoming COP30. So, I urge the EPP to support the urgent procedure, because that is the only way to be in time in this House, partly due to the late proposal from the Commission, but please don't endanger the Paris Agreement process and vote in favour of the urgent procedure this week.

Mr President, High Representative, the people of Gaza are on the brink of starvation. Families are fleeing continuously to safe zones where they know they will not be safe. Starving families, desperate for food, are camping out near distribution points, hoping to get a food parcel. But instead of getting aid, they are facing gunfire from Israeli forces. The EU must finally recognise this situation and, in the very least, suspend the association agreement we have with Israel. Netanyahu has very effectively shifted the world's attention away from Gaza to Iran. Please do not fall into this trap. Please do not let Mr Netanyahu dictate the terms of our debate. The public opinion in Europe is shifting, and this is the moment for Council to step up and support in more than just words the people of Gaza. Please take action against these horrific, dehumanising crimes. And let us remember, colleagues, the words expressed by King Abdullah this morning: 'When the global response is silence, we normalise the suffering of the innocent'.

Mr President, the enormous importance of the oceans for both man and nature is now clear, thanks to science, and now also for the general public thanks to the beautiful film. Ocean by David Attenborough. But despite this insane importance, a lot goes wrong. Take the Baltic Sea, where we have dead zones, where huge amounts of pesticides, Russian chemicals, you name it, are entire areas where nothing lives at all. Townet fishing, which degrades the bottom – the nurseries of the sea. In the Netherlands, trawling is still permitted even in 70% of protected areas. I am pleased that the European Commission wants to put deep-sea mining on hold. I am very much in favour of this and I hope that we can continue to do so internationally. And finally: We all have to work together. Nature has given us a very beautiful gift, namely the ability to recover. Nowhere is the recovery capacity as great as in the oceans, so when we act, we see instantaneous effect.

Mr President, in a democracy, the right to grant discharge is one of the most powerful and important parliamentary instruments. It is the moment where, especially here in Europe, the only directly elected institute controls hundreds of billions of euros in expenses. And this very important parliamentary role asks also a very high level of responsibility and integrity of our own house. And exactly that was lacking this year. The totally unfounded attacks on green NGOs was really unworthy of our House. And in its answers to my written question, the European Commission very clearly stated that it did not instruct – nor require – NGOs to lobby members of this House, and even after receiving these answers, the right-wing parties in this House continued their attacks. So my appeal to them is, please stop with these unfounded attacks and bring responsibility and integrity back to this House.

Mr President, this week we will most probably vote in a large majority in favour of more flexibility for our European car industry to comply with the CO2 standards, and the Renew Group supports this amendment. However, this is not something to be cheerful about. It is a clear sign of the competitive weakness of our car industry. We all knew years ago that the future car would be electric – for technical reasons, for energy reasons, and for climate reasons. And although our industry tried to make this switch, it did so reluctantly. Our national governments were equally reluctant to develop the right policies to facilitate this historic and revolutionary transition. This flexibility does buy time for our industry. However, let it be a lesson for both industry and our governments: if we want to continue driving European cars in the future, we should step up our game. Industry should, by finally fully embracing the electric revolution and stopping undermining public policies; and government should, by facilitating the electric transition. This should be a joint public-private effort. And I call upon industry and the European Commission to work on that.

Mr President, it is fantastic news that an agreement has been reached in Rome. This is not only good news for the financing of nature, but also a victory for multilateralism in this age of polarization and nationalism. However, it does mean that we now have to take our own responsibility as the European Union, especially with regard to the low-hanging fruit around the financing of nature and biodiversity. To begin with, we could stop the 30 to 50 billion euros of nature-destroying subsidies that we distribute annually in Europe. After all, there is no point in investing money in recovery if we spend billions of euros on destruction at the same time. As part of the Montreal-Kunming Global Biodiversity Framework, we agreed to map these subsidies by 2025 and then phase them out. My question to the Commission is therefore: when can we expect this overview and when will an action plan be adopted to finally deal with these nature-destroying subsidies?

Madam President, Mr Costa, thank you for being here. You haven't long been Chair or President of the European Council, but long enough to know that its ways must change. Your members – government leaders – concluded once again under your leadership that we must have a European Union which is climate neutral, competitive, a military power, a foreign policy actor, even the guardian of the oceans. And that's all fine and well, and I couldn't agree more, and many agree with these words. It's just that your members go home and then do nothing. While Europeans have never wanted more Europe, they are far from meeting the moment. The customers want a Michelin star dinner, but the European Council delivers thin porridge. It has been two months since Trump, and no sovereignty has been shared to defend our territory. It's been six months since Draghi, and no economic or democratic reforms were carried out. It has been 11 months since Letta, and no jealously guarded national powers were pulled. Mr Costa, grab history by the scruff of the neck, wake up your members and stop talking, but start doing.

Mr President, Commissioner, the European car industry is in a perfect storm. The market in China has collapsed, while the largest profits were made there. The Chinese and Tesla have a technological edge. They simply make better and cheaper cars. The European incentives are being phased out, the charging infrastructure is lagging behind, the European battery factory has just gone bankrupt and now the US levies are on top of that. The basic problem is that the European car industry has switched to electric vehicles far too late. We all know that sticking to outdated technology for too long is an industrial mortal sin. Experts expect electric cars to be cheaper to buy and use by 2028 than cars with an internal combustion engine. That is why we must now work together, public and private, to ensure that Europe produces better and cheaper electric cars as soon as possible, on the basis of an agreement between the Commission and industry. This should be a comprehensive agreement, involving investment and innovation. The industry must then stop slowing down, as they are now trying to delay the proposals behind the Commission's back. If we do not accelerate towards electric vehicles now, in a few years' time the light will be switched off in really every European car factory.

Mr President, Madam Commissioner, Minister, dear colleagues, the European Semester is at the heart of what the EU is all about: mutual trust. United in diversity, we have to trust that we work towards our mutual goals, delivering on the necessary change to give Europe an independent, sustainable, secure, economically stable future. That doesn't happen on its own, it requires hard work. In a family, you correct each other. In a European family, you give country-specific recommendations – sorry, it is what it is. Every country has its peculiarities that make no economic sense, but that are politically hard to shake. The Semester is the time to encourage difficult reforms, and the Council needs to stop its lacklustre attitude, its silent non-intervention agreement to addressing long term reforms in each Member State. My appeal to you, colleagues, is to join me in this quest to find mechanisms to foster the growth of our ever closer economic union.

Well, for me, it's absolutely clear that Europe not at all wants to tear down the transatlantic alliance. It seems to be a unilateral decision now from the US to at least make it much weaker than it is. If Article 5 is under pressure and it's not a total guarantee, then NATO is not as strong as it should be. It's a deterrence. It's not an aggressive force. And yes, we have to rebuild our European defence industry. That's absolutely clear. We have to be able to build up our own military and not buying it somewhere else.

Madam President, Commissioner, Minister, Yes, we can!, Nous pouvons!, Wir schaffen das! After every major geopolitical shock in our young history, we have responded with the courage to share our sovereignties. After 1945, we stopped the cycle of European civil war by merging our resources and our political destinies. And after 1989, we healed a divided nation, created a single citizenship, and proceeded to reunite a continent with parts that were caught behind the Iron Curtain. And now, in 2025, Europeans are asking us to respond to the shock unfolding before our eyes. The rupture of the transatlantic alliance in the face of war on our continent. I believe we know what to do and how to do it. We can support Ukraine and its defence against Russian aggression. To replace the US, the EU would thus have to spend only another 0.12 % of its GDP. We can build up a European defence industry worthy of the world's envy. We already have the technology. Now it's just a matter of investment and long-term contracts. We can jolt our economy into unprecedented growth and build up the euro as an alternative to the dollar as a global reserve currency. It's a matter of breaking down jealously guarded national barriers, investing massively in our universities, issuing common European debt and opening up trade with all those countries looking for new leadership in the West. And finally, we can build a European army in order to achieve lasting peace. We need a European Defence Force to secure and defend our continent, enabled by commonly procured European capabilities and led by a European commander. The only thing standing in our way is a giant Orbán shaped elephant in the room. But that too we can fix. We in the Parliament can provide ideas and political pressure. After that, Mr Costa and Mrs von der Leyen, the fate of Europe is in your capable hands. And remember. Yes, we can!

Mr. Smith, this question does not surprise me. If anyone goes astray in this House, it's you. Like me, you live in a country most of which is below sea level. What do you think it will cost if the sea level rises further? How much do you think we need to invest to keep our land below sea level safe? It's thousands, if not millions, of what it costs to create a cleaner and liveable world through the Green Deal and all our good policies. After all, we all want that, because that makes Europe the best place in the world to live.

Mr President, Europe is undoubtedly the best place in the world to live. Nowhere in the world do we have a higher level of freedom, democracy, prosperity and well-being. The ‘European way of life’ is so important that we even had a special Commissioner for it. But we must make a strong effort to maintain this position, because we are under threat. We are threatened from the inside by nationalism and from the outside by geopolitical and economic threats, scarcity and high energy prices. The Commission's work programme focuses on the right issues: the Single Market Strategy, the goal of reducing CO by 90% by 20402 the development of a European defence industry and the simplification of rules. But all this calls for a stronger, more centralised Europe, with a much higher budget and more revenue of its own. We have to work on that. Not unimportant, in fact, perhaps most importantly: Member States will have to move in this direction in unison. That is why I am so disappointed that there will be no treaty changes. A "more powerful, simpler and faster Europe" will only be possible if we abolish the vetoes in the Council. But Parliament will also have to follow this agenda. This is only possible with a strong pro-European coalition in the middle. When I listen to this debate, I see once again that neither the far right nor the far left offer solutions to Europe's problems. We can't go back to the past. When I hear a colleague of the ECR say that we have to go back to coal, I realize that even Donald Trump no longer dares to suggest that we should go that way.

Mr President, as I have often done, I have listened with astonishment to Mr Stöteler's gibberish. You do not want a stronger, more powerful, more centralised Europe. If we look at defence power, we see that Europe spends 2.5 times more on defence than Russia. Yet we are unable to stand up to Russia because we are not acting together. What is your answer to this?

Madam President, I have a point of order because if I read the Work Programme, it says, 'This Commission will strengthen its relationship with the Parliament and the Council, ensuring transparency, accountability and improved communication and information flows.' Nevertheless, we only receive one hour before this debate the Work Programme and, I have nothing against Commissioner Šefčovič, but why isn't the President of the Commission here presenting her Work Programme and defending it in front of Parliament? So I hope you can convey this message to the Commission, please.

Madam President, I'm afraid I have to say that this was not a very good debate, and the reason for that is that we simply do not have the relevant information to have this debate. Nobody has seen the contracts that we're discussing. We don't know whether these are only dealing with green NGOs, or NGOs in other fields, or civil society in other fields. We simply do not have the information. The Commissioner did mention that there is some smoke. My proposal is that we get these documents as a parliament, and we discuss them in the Budgetary Control Committee. That is the first statement or question to the Commissioner. Otherwise, we are discussing something that we do not have any knowledge about. My second question is – I understand that the Court of Auditors is going into this matter in a much broader way: how do we deal with the financing of NGOs? My proposal would be that, again, we prolong this debate after we have received this investigation by the Court of Auditors, and we do not have these kind of debates without the proper documentation available to all MEPs.

Mr Gotink is wide-ranging and I would like to thank him for that. I think he is curious if more organizations get money in this way, through some kind of contract. I am surprised that in the media he has focused solely on environmental and nature organisations, even though he does not know whether this funding is limited to that. This gives the issue a certain coloration. Is Mr Gotink fundamentally opposed to this type of financing? Many organisations are also being financed, and we are all very pleased that they are able to do their job, for example, the 'Dignified Recovery' organisation, which is committed to the interests of the victims of the 'surcharge affair', a case which has also been financed with public money.

Madam President, colleagues, we Europeans are extremely fortunate because Europe is by far the best place to live in the entire world. Nowhere on our planet do people find our incredibly high level of welfare, well-being, freedom and democracy. This is all thanks to the European integration after the Second World War. But we must not be naive, our self-created paradise on this planet is under threat, militarily, economically, politically and morally. And there's just one right answer to these multiple threats: unite, unite, unite! A united European defence, a united economic policy in line with Draghi's recommendations, a united foreign policy without vetoes, and a united response to the immoral politics of Donald Trump.

Mr President, Commissioner, I demand a much higher priority by both the Commission and the Member States. We simply have no time to waste. For three reasons: first of all, this shadow fleet is a floating environmental disaster – we've seen it in the Black Sea, and a new big oil spill was only recently just avoided in Germany; secondly, the shadow fleet is undermining the sanctions and financing Putin's war; and thirdly, they are a danger for our security – our energy and it cables are targets for Putin, and while we are very busy mapping our sea cables, Putin is at the same time destroying them. So I have a few very concrete questions. Why are we not entering every ship, like Finland has done, that we suspect might be part of the shadow fleet? Why have we only managed to identify 79 tankers? So I urgently call on the EU, the Member States, the coastal guards: make this your first and foremost priority.

Mr President, thank you for your pronunciation of my name. Dear colleagues, since we were installed in July last year, we've had a debate every single month on the devastating effects of climate change – about flooding in Central Europe, about flooding in France, in Sicily, Valencia – and rightly so, because climate change is not something of the future anymore. It strikes now and every year it strikes harder, creating more damage, causing more casualties. 2023 and 2024 have been the hottest years in history and, even more disturbing, much hotter than predicted. Scientists now say that we will pass the 1.5-degree ceiling in 2030. So all responsible groups in this House are still standing by the Paris Agreement. Then act accordingly. I challenge the EPP and ECR, if you take Paris seriously, we have to clean our transport sector, our industry and agriculture. Stop denying science and stop undermining the Green Deal, but join Renew to fight climate change and, at the same time, strengthen our economy.

Thank you, Ms Pereira, for the sense of urgency that you described about climate change. But at the same time, it is your group that is undermining the Green Deal by trying to get rid of the Deforestation Law, by trying to get rid of the phasing out of the combustion engine. So how can you justify this high urgency that you're describing to fight climate change and, at the same time, being a member of a group that is deliberately undermining the Green Deal plus climate policy?

Mr President, we humans consider ourselves superior to all other life on earth, and especially to intelligence. But that intelligent human is the only species that completely destroys its own environment and thus jeopardizes its own survival. So much for homo sapiens. Yesterday, the United Nations Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services released a three-year report. And the results are startling. One: Biodiversity is declining everywhere, at all levels, from global to local. Two: half of total global GDP, $50 trillion - that is trillion in English – is medium to highly dependent on nature. And three: The unpaid cost to nature of our economic activities is estimated at $10 to $25 trillion per year. It is clear that this is untenable. So let's also show our high intelligence in this area as a human being and make sure that the preservation of our nature really becomes a top priority. And not only in words on a night like this, but especially in deeds when it really comes down to it.

Mr President, dear colleagues, our economy moves in waves – waves named after Nikolai Kondratiev. And every 40 to 60 years, the economy changes dramatically thanks to new technology, like the steam engine in 1800, electrical engineering in 1900, and the information technology in the 90s of the previous century. With every Kondratiev wave, fast movers will win and slow movers will lose, and those who resist change are among the biggest losers. Currently, we are in a green tech wave. All over the world, clean tech is changing the economy drastically. China is its champion, spending more on clean tech than the rest of the world combined. Europe cannot stay behind. for economic reasons. And that is the Green Deal – the new growth model to be on top of the latest economic developments. Electric vehicles are the perfect example. They are replacing the combustion engine like cars replaced horses and carriages. So if you are not interested in saving our planet by greening our economy, please do so for saving our economy.