Speeches

Mr President, Europe must invest and show courage to remain relevant in the world. However, that is easier said than done, because we are far behind in several areas. The U.S. economy has grown 30% more in recent years than the European one, and the latest technology today comes from China. We stand practically still and are overtaken left and right. This mandate should be about strengthening our competitiveness and our economy. The good news is that the EIB is playing a positive role in this by investing in industry, modernisation, the deployment of clean technology, microchips and artificial intelligence. We all know what to do, and it's about actually doing it. Big steps are needed when it comes to our energy network and to get our energy independence down. The skyrocketing energy prices are pushing our industry as well as the incomes of our households like a concrete block. We need to strengthen our defence industry and invest in it. Because if we do not make the drones ourselves, they are made somewhere else and we are dependent on an external party. It is clear: We need huge investments. The EIB has the space to do so. At the same time, I also share the view of colleagues that a larger mandate should include more money, but also more control and a stronger role of this Parliament, to also monitor what is happening in the EIB.

Mr President, colleagues, Spain's democratic decay has been ignored by the EU for too long. For the first time in EU history, a sitting general prosecutor is being sent to trial for leaking confidential information to damage the opposition and to protect the Prime Minister's narrative. After ignoring the Constitution to stay in power, we see now that Sanchez is also ready to undermine the foundation of our liberal democracies, namely the separation of powers. This is alarming because this is not just a judicial error, but a deliberate political strategy to undermine the independence of the judiciary. The reality is that the Spanish Prime Minister embodies a new type of threat to the rule of law, Commissioner, one that is pro-European, progressive and liberal, but against the rule of law. Instead of confrontation, we see smiles and selfies with the EU. But behind the cover of Spanish domestic politics, we see democratic decay. The European Commission should not be fooled by this pro-European façade, and treat this with the same seriousness as other rule of law breaches. Dear Commissioner, no double standards.

Mr President, come back with me to the year 2020, a year in which a battle was fought over taking out joint loans, or eurobonds. Some Member States, such as the Netherlands, were concerned about this. We had concerns about building a very large debt mountain, but also about whether the reforms would actually deliver results. We're five years away now, and we can settle the bill. Honestly, it doesn't look good. The European Court of Auditors was destructive. It is unclear what taxpayers will get back for their money. We do not know where it ends up, what the results are or what the added value is for Europe. What European citizens do get in return is a very large mountain of debt. The Netherlands, for example, can receive up to 5 billion euros from the fund. Until 2058, the Netherlands will pay more than 35 billion euros. This debt mountain will therefore continue to weigh on European and national budgets for a long time to come. The fair story is that this will also have to be at the expense of European spending and that this cannot be met with new European income. The Coronavirus Recovery Fund and its poor implementation undermine trust in Europe, as this is not how you deal with citizens’ taxpayers’ money. As far as Eurobonds are concerned, I would like to say: Once, but never again.

Mr President, Europe must become more competitive. We want our businesses to grow and invest here. They are the basis of our livelihood. But this sticks to words if we don't overcome two gigantic challenges. Because why is it easier for a start-up to move from Amsterdam to San Diego instead of, for example, from Amsterdam to Milan? There's a huge problem there. Businesses cannot grow here unless we deepen the internal market. We need more than the omnibus packages to power Europe's growth engine. Because differences in rules are equivalent to an internal rate of 45% on goods and up to 110% on services. So we can do something about that ourselves. A second challenge is to stop unfair competition and abuse of power in our market. Large companies use their size and our personal data to shape the market. The European fines take them up for sale. The adjustments we enforce are relatively small and that is exactly their business model. I wholeheartedly support the Commission in addressing these companies, but the situation now is that unfair competition has become almost normal on the market, both for services and for goods. We enforce rules for our entrepreneurs and our companies, but if you come from outside Europe, you're almost free to play. And that's a huge problem that we have to work much harder on. So, Commissioner, tackle unfair competition and deepen the internal market as if it were 1986.

Mr President, first of all let me thank especially my colleagues working on the agencies discharge in the Budgetary Control Committee. It was I think a very collegial process and I think we worked a lot on content, and we were very patient to hear all the agencies and to look into their issues. For me, there are two points that I would like to raise, and I am happy that we could also pick them up in the report going forward. One is dependency on external consultancies: the feedback from the agencies is actually quite shocking that many of them could not perform their core functions and responsibilities without the help of external parties. In a world of cyber dependencies and threats, I think we should look into that with a bit more of a systematic approach to see how we can protect these agencies and make them a bit more autonomous. Secondly, there is the issue of the possibility of looking at overlaps of mandates and of functions. We have many agencies, we have many different structures that often work on the same kind of topics. I think we can do better and I think we can be more focused. We already mentioned, of course, the anti-fraud architecture this morning, but there are other areas that merit a critical review as well. Lastly, of course, the discharge we will not grant for the agency on Malta due to a very serious OLAF report. I'm happy that we could table an amendment together with the Greens, The Left, the ECR and Renew. Unfortunately, the colleagues of the S&D are not on the amendment, which I regret, because I think that when very serious allegations are on the table – and which they are regarding this agency – it doesn't matter which party is in government in the Member State, it is a matter of controlling and of holding them to account.

Mr President, I am here on behalf of the Committee on Budgetary Control, and this is exceptionally a committee that does not cost so much money, but has to make money. I think this is a special situation. However, there is still some work to be done and every MFF offers opportunities for improvement in spending in the Member States and how we can strengthen this Parliament to control spending. We have often talked about transparency and access to certain expenditure information on other topics. I think there is still room for improvement. We cannot repeat the mistakes we made in the corona recovery fund. You know how important end-users are to the Committee on Budgetary Control and this Parliament. Finally, we are now reviewing the anti-fraud structure. I think we can also take important steps towards greater efficiency and lower costs there.

Mr President, I am very concerned. Low economic growth, an escalating trade conflict. The economic outlook is bleak. A real test for the new rules. And now we in the EU are mainly talking about more spending on defence and how we are going to pay for it. And believe me, I am the first to say that Europe must pay for its own security. That will be a task of decades, not years. At the same time, we have a number of countries with a shockingly high public debt and a lot of pressure on the financeability of that debt. It does not matter to these countries if expenditure is excluded. Financial markets look at real risks, not the paper reality of a Stability and Growth Pact. This requires, above all, responsibility on the part of the Member States and strong supervision on the part of the European Commission. That's what I'm really calling for. If we continue to increase debt and deficits, we will soon run into a wall. Then the ReArm plan threatens to become a financial kamikaze plan. A new debt crisis is not unthinkable. Each euro should be spent effectively with a clear added value. That means more cooperation on defence, making plans together, but not immediately making debts together. I therefore call on the Commission to be strict about this. Work on debt and sustainability, avoid a deeper crisis and do not burden our children with unaffordable debt, which is the only way to ensure lasting and stable livelihoods.

Mr President, we are at a turning point in Europe. Old friends are turning their backs on us and old enemies are getting stronger. Especially if Europe takes the lead in the field of climate, for example, other continents no longer follow us. We're not "market makers" anymore. Especially to the colleagues of the S&D I would like to say that the world has really changed. We're not in charge anymore. The strength of our economy and the competitiveness of our businesses are now essential to protect us and stay relevant in the world. And that's not going well. The past mandate this House was a mass producer of more laws and regulations, with more complexity: Taxonomy, CSRD and CSDDD are very good examples of this. It is significant that legislation is now being amended that has not even entered into force. If we do not spare our companies and especially SMEs, they can forget their position on the world market. This has already happened with the steel, chemical and cement sectors. We need to simplify in order to remain competitive. But let's also start by simply trusting our companies and expecting them to do their job well. Research shows that regulatory complexity is one of the main reasons for entrepreneurs to stop their activities. That is why this first Omnibus is a step in the right direction. I'm hoping for a whole series of Omnibuses. Our opposition to regulatory complexity must be long-lasting and persistent, at all levels. This is necessary for our livelihood and to restore the confidence of entrepreneurs in the European project.

Mr President, Trump continues the line of previous US presidents. It is ‘America First’ and that is not Trump’s own. The Inflation Reduction Act has also enticed companies from Europe, to the United States, with all kinds of tax advantages. They opt for re-industrialisation and purchasing power recovery. We have also started this in Europe; we must continue with this, to the benefit of European industry and livelihoods. The US is our most important partner in the world, but of course we cannot leave unreasonable and unfair actions unanswered. That's why we have to be smart. Far-reaching, sector-wide counter-tariffs are risky and can harm our own economy. Especially if it escalates into a trade war. We have to prevent that. Our citizens and businesses are flourishing thanks to international trade, which is essential for our well-being, our livelihoods and our growth. The most important thing is that we really work on our competitiveness. We need to make ourselves more resilient. Lower the regulatory burden, invest in the economy and strengthen our industry.

Mr President, President, Commissioner, in recent years, people across Europe have lost purchasing power due to unprecedented inflation. Covid, the Russian invasion, it is all cutting very hard, in savings, pensions and in general livelihood security. People notice this every day because of the high energy prices and the food prices. Inflation in the eurozone is persistent. At the same time, I see a European economy that is unsustainable due to a lack of innovation and a surplus of detailed legislation. You already mentioned it: the barriers in the internal market are still far too great. Think of the territorial supply restrictions that make our groceries too expensive in supermarkets every day. In addition, there is ageing. How will we finance healthcare costs and pensions in the coming years, especially in countries where pensions are paid from the current budget? How sustainable is that in the long term? And to top it all off, we have Trump on the verge of unleashing an insane trade war that could make the daily lives of hundreds of millions of people more expensive. Those are just ordinary Trump taxes. In this cocktail of uncertainty, the ECB has a key role to play in curbing inflation and creating the conditions for stable economic growth. This is their original mandate. I would therefore like to call on the ECB and also the Commission to adhere to that original mandate. I would also like to congratulate Mr van Brug on the sound report she has written on this subject.

I am not opposed in principle to the funding of civil society. After all, Christian democracy is also made up of civil society. So stop framing and don't turn us against the NGOs. The first NGOs in Europe were Christian-Democratic NGOs. I am in favour of them getting money, but not that they then lobby for the European Commission's proposals. This undermines what we do. We are talking about LIFE today because we have information about it. We need to get information on the rest, which we don't know anything about yet.

Madam President, I thought we were just getting going, so it was starting to get fun. But I am a bit shocked simply by the framing and sticking to it on your side. We are every time saying: this is about the integrity of the system, not about banning NGOs, getting rid of their funding. The work of the Budget Control Committee, and dear Commissioner, I'm happy you are here, has proven that there is a system of financing, what I would call a kind of a 'shadow lobby'. And that's not a good way to go. I have big problems with it, because it undermines the separation of powers, and it undermines the trust in the system and what we do here. So from the Commission we need transparency: give more people access to what is in these agreements. I'm sure that if all of you would read those documents, I'm sure that we could have a different kind of debate. And also, we need to know, is this is an incident restricted to LIFE? There were other topics mentioned. Where is the rest? Is this a practice that has evolved over time and simply gotten a bit out of hand? What is exactly happening here? We need to know. And lastly, we've seen it with the Nature Restoration Law last time, Commission officials were working on the communication campaigns of a network of lobbyists that were funded by the Commission. Is that still happening today?

You're framing this very much as an attack on NGOs, and many of you have done that. Could it possibly enter into the debate that we're actually trying to protect also the integrity of the way laws are made in Europe? That it would reinforce the trust people would have in these laws if we would not have this phenomenon of a kind of shadow lobby that is financed by the European Commission? This is in fact what we are talking about today. And could you please give us a reflection on that? Because we're not attacking NGOs. We're not trying to ban their money, as you are saying. Not at all. We're trying to make sure that the laws we produce here can be trusted and can have an integrity to them. So please react to that.

Mr Leggeri, you said some very serious things about the decision of the highest court in Romania and that it was somehow baseless. Do you think Romania is a state where the rule of law exists? Do you believe in the institutions of this European Member State? Because it appears that you actually don't. And instead of implying it, maybe you should say it explicitly in this House.

Mr President, dear Commissioner, the geopolitical symbolism of Romania's presidential election could not be greater: an ambitious European nation thrown into an unprecedented democratic crisis by a tech platform and totalitarian regimes from outside the EU. After letting the fire rage online for weeks, TikTok finally reacted. But when the fire started, they did nothing, despite having election protocols and almost 100 Romanian language moderators. I welcome the investigation by the Commission, and I commend the involvement of the Irish supervisor, who has a significant responsibility for all of Europe in enforcing the DSA. However, dear Commissioner, the DSA cannot only be a reactive instrument. By the time the ECJ confirms that TikTok has in fact breached EU law, the online world will have radically changed already. Europe's naivety and slowness is our biggest weakness and the greatest threat to the livelihoods of our citizens. At best, the platforms pursue profits with addictive designs, especially targeted at our children. At worst, they're used by foreign powers to attack our freedoms and democratic institutions. This is simply an unacceptable status quo. We must enforce a technological level playing field and force platforms to integrate similar speed limits for content. Just as we regulate car engines, we should regulate algorithms. If we don't, our laws, our institutions and democratic culture will be replaced by them.

Mr President, the figures on energy poverty in Europe are shocking and also unacceptable. In 2022, more than six hundred thousand households in the Netherlands hardly dared to turn on the stove. One in ten Europeans – we have heard it many times in this debate – feel first-hand how energy prices are driving up housing costs and becoming unsustainable. It is a choice between a warm home and other basic needs. And the government is abandoning entrepreneurs because of a lack of grid capacity. These uncertainties are not only an obstacle to the energy transition, but also undermine our trust in the government. This means that we must once again offer households and entrepreneurs more energy security. We need to do this by investing in innovative solutions for a reliable energy infrastructure and building energy-efficient homes, with more home-grown energy. We need to put households' livelihoods at the centre and ensure an energy transition that is affordable and keeps our society together.

Mr President, proper spending by the Union is necessary to ensure the confidence of our citizens, so that they know that their taxpayers' money is well spent. This trust comes on foot and goes on horseback. This applies to all levels of government, but certainly to the European ones, who are further away from the European citizen and who also make relatively little expenditure that really directly affects the lives of citizens. Logical too. Member States together spend €8 300 billion per year. The European budget amounted to €239 billion in 2023, if we add it all up. The Court of Auditors deserves to be congratulated on this year's report. It's crystal clear: It's not going well and it's probably getting worse. There are far more errors in spending than the year before. Member States are having great difficulty spending the available money at all, while they are now spending the available corona money under steam and boiling water as the recovery instrument expires in two years. One of the lessons I draw is that the Commission structurally underestimates risks and costs and overestimates the absorption capacity of Member States. This causes a lot of problems. Even now, we still do not have a repayment plan for Europe's debts, which pose a major risk to the bankability of the future. The new social contract is very concerned about this. We therefore want to see a better and even tighter control of expenditure. There must be a repayment plan for these debts and more realism in fiscal policy. Commission, stop denying it and take these problems seriously.

Mr President, Europe has a China problem, because we are flooded with billions of cheap packages. If you stack these packages and put them together, you can almost – I think – build a new Chinese wall. This wall symbolises an export model that will affect all possible sectors of the European economy. It is a model that can offer prices that are hundreds of percent below our price levels. The items that do not like, are not returned but stay here and the costs are for us. Every entrepreneur knows: There is no level playing field with China and yet we are playing on the same field. The short-term consumer benefit will work against us if our small and medium-sized enterprises can no longer compete and jobs are lost. This means that we need to strengthen our control capacity of customs and inspections. A review of the European customs rules, which we are going to work on in the coming period, must therefore be carried out quickly. We therefore urge the Hungarian Presidency to speed up its work. After we have withdrawn the VAT exemption in 2021, the exemption for import tariffs below 150 euros must also be removed and preferably as soon as possible. This customs review is only a small part of the answer to the question of how our relationship with China should be. The Commissioner also mentioned the DSA and consumer law and their importance. That is why we call on the next Commission to act ambitiously and decisively to prevent Europe from really dump store of the world.

Madam President, Mr Commissioner, first of all, Commissioner, I want to thank you for your work in the past years on this important topic. Dialogue is the key to understanding. At the same time, one of the headlines of the past five years was to protect this European way of life: to protect, identify, understand in broad terms who we are, what we are actually protecting. This might be naive, but in this big, complex and contradictory world, if we sometimes forget who we are, we have more trouble to protect what we have. What we need to do is to become less tolerant with intolerance for our values: rule of law, democracy, separation of state and church, equality between men and women. Things that are not even said anymore or repeated, but they have formed the foundations of who we are. If we look at hate speech, hate crimes and the increase of religious intolerance also against any minority – whether it is Jews, Christians or Muslims – I think what we first of all must do is continue this work, intensify it, and not forget that the European way of life will be for all of us, and the last thing we lose when Europe is no longer what it once was.

Mr President, Commissioner, from articles by The Welt and Le Journal du Dimanche It appears that the European Commission has warm ties with the University of Gaziantep in Turkey. For example, the university would have received 2.5 tons and can also participate in the beautiful Solidarity Corps that we have. You will think that this is a model university, a university where the European way of life is protected. Nothing could be further from the truth. The rector of the university supports the terrorist organization Hamas, glorifies terrorism and calls for violence against Israel. I can't understand how this program ever got any money. And I also think it is very important for the Commission to examine how it was possible for this contract to have started at all. I didn't hear anything about it from the commissioner in his first term. I hope to hear what exactly is going on in the second parliamentary term. Especially since journalists have been asking questions about the details of this case for two weeks and have not received an answer. Commissioner, the robust framework you mentioned has failed. We need to make sure that this framework works next time and prevent even the slightest bit of money from ending up with this kind of organization.

Mr President, Vice-President, if you cannot leave your parental home to start another life, to live together, to marry, to have children, because homes are unaffordable or unattainable, then you lose confidence in the future. This is exactly what is happening to hundreds of thousands of young people and families in Europe: They are losing confidence in the future. They are also losing confidence in democracy and even in the EU. What does this policy do for us, you ask? Housing is not an EU competence, but it is a shared experience of many people in Europe. It is a shared suffering of the lower and middle classes in Europe. New Social Contract, my party, has made this a spearhead in the Netherlands because it is essential for the livelihood security of people who are under severe pressure. And not only in the Netherlands, but also in other European countries. First of all, there is an urgent need for a revival of housing. We need to build more homes. I will therefore work constructively with the committee and with the new Commissioner for Housing to tackle this problem. How can we achieve this? We have to fight the bureaucracy. It is a European disease that is stifling our economy. Licensing procedures, tendering procedures ... They are made impossible by a complexity that the average investor, but also governments, simply can no longer see through. Secondly, the freeing up of investments by housing corporations so that they can also invest in the middle segment, and the revision of European regulations. Mr President, let us give hope back to the next generations before they become a lost generation.

Mr President, almost ten years ago, Apple CEO Tim Cook called the Commission's decision on state aid total political nonsense. “Total political crap’, he called it. I think that Commissioner Vestager – unfortunately she is not here today – could not wish for a better farewell gift, because after the ups and downs she has seen at the Court in recent years, she ends at least at a high point. So what some call political nonsense is exactly what we had to do. At a time when even the largest European countries are too small to negotiate at the same level with the largest companies in the world, we in Europe need to ensure that we have strong competition authorities and that we also tackle state aid to safeguard public goods and livelihoods in Europe. And not only in Europe, because if anyone benefits from a more coordinated approach to aggressive tax regimes, they are developing countries. The bottom line is that we need to tackle and avoid the unfair race to the bottom of taxes and regulatory competition between countries and especially within the EU. In the week in which the Draghi report was presented here, the real question is: Do we want companies to come to Europe because we have the lowest taxes or because we have the best employees? Is it because we have the best political climate? Or the best regulation? That's what's wrong with it. This ruling is a clear warning to anyone who is tempted by a state-aid-driven economic revival of Europe. Be careful what you hope for.

Mr President, as a new Member of this Parliament, it is an honour to speak for the first time on this very subject, on the horrific fate of women and girls in Afghanistan. Depriving women of their voices is the essence of evil. It goes against everything we believe in, and I struggle to conceive of a worse violation of a person's dignity. 21 million women have to disappear from the streets. I can't help but feel deep sympathy for all the young girls who are not allowed to go to school in Afghanistan. The Members who have today blamed America and Europe for this deeply disappoint me, because they also ignore the sacrifices made by - among others also Dutch - soldiers for freedom in Afghanistan. We must never close our eyes to this religious intolerance, whether it is radical Islam or any radical form of religion, because it does not care about national borders. Here in Europe, too, women's rights are under pressure, girls have to be completely covered up on the street, girls are married off or killed because they want to be free. Let us fight this virus of misogyny and help women, here in Europe and certainly in Afghanistan.