Bart Groothuis
Member of the European Parliament · Renew · NL
“U zegt ook: daarvoor moeten we eigenlijk veel verder gaan dan de vereenvoudigingsagenda die we nu op een aantal punten hebben. Kunt u daar nog wat meer over zeggen? Want wat ons betreft, is het niet een strijd tussen belangen over milieubescherming aan de ene kant en onze digitale soevereiniteit aan de andere.”
“Real demand comes from the market, and right now, building and training European large language models with the most advanced AI chips is currently effectively impossible within the EU, at least if you intend to follow laws and rules like the Copyright Directive or the GDPR. So, here is the stunt. Here is the moonshot.”
“Mr President, dear Commissioner, sometimes it takes a political stunt to get things moving. Kennedy's moonshot speech, of course, the creation of Airbus – bold declarations that precede the reality they eventually created. So did the first European Chips Act.”
“De grote vraag in Europa naar geavanceerde chips en naar technologie komt alleen maar voort uit het bouwen van een eigen Large Language Model. Zolang wij niet dereguleren, krijgen we dat niet van de grond.”
“Mr President, Commissioner, Minister, in the past 24 hours, the Islamic regime has put mines in the Strait of Hormuz. Oil, gas and electricity prices will spike even higher for our citizens and for our industry. Europe has about 100 minesweepers and minehunters. The United States owns only four.”
“And secondly, deploy naval escorts to ensure the physical security of crews and vessels. And thirdly, let the markets know that Europe stands behind continued navigation by providing clear coordination with ship powers, insurance and energy companies.”
The complete record
Every one of 26 lines we hold for Bart Groothuis, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account.
“De grote vraag in Europa naar geavanceerde chips en naar technologie komt alleen maar voort uit het bouwen van een eigen Large Language Model. Zolang wij niet dereguleren, krijgen we dat niet van de grond. En dit pakket technologische soevereiniteit is een goede eerste aanzet, maar dit is bij lange na niet wat er moet gebeuren om de echte vraag van de grond te krijgen. Dat is mijn pleidooi en ik hoop dat ik de steun van de collega’s daarvoor krijg. 2-0026-0000”
“U zegt ook: daarvoor moeten we eigenlijk veel verder gaan dan de vereenvoudigingsagenda die we nu op een aantal punten hebben. Kunt u daar nog wat meer over zeggen? Want wat ons betreft, is het niet een strijd tussen belangen over milieubescherming aan de ene kant en onze digitale soevereiniteit aan de andere. Het gaat over temporaliteit: gaan we nu investeren, nu bouwen, zodat we straks ook beter kunnen beschermen? Hoe ziet u dat? 2-0025-0000 Bart Groothuis (Renew), “blauwe kaart”-antwoord. – Kijk, het bouwen van neurale netwerken verhoudt zich niet met de AVG. Die vereist doelbinding. Je weet van tevoren niet hoe je een redenering opbouwt namens een ander persoon. De AVG moet dus worden aangepast. De auteursrechtenrichtlijn verhindert het bouwen van een Large Language Model.”
“Real demand comes from the market, and right now, building and training European large language models with the most advanced AI chips is currently effectively impossible within the EU, at least if you intend to follow laws and rules like the Copyright Directive or the GDPR. So, here is the stunt. Here is the moonshot. Here is the Airbus moment of our time. Clear the runway for European AI to grow on European soil and get things moving. Deregulate. (The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question) 2-0024-0000 Dirk Gotink (PPE), “blauwe kaart”-vraag. – Meneer Groothuis, u zegt terecht dat er een “moonshot”‑moment nodig is, dat er heel veel gebouwd moet gaan worden. Niet alleen wat de utilities betreft — gewoon de hardware — maar ook de software.”
“Mr President, dear Commissioner, sometimes it takes a political stunt to get things moving. Kennedy's moonshot speech, of course, the creation of Airbus – bold declarations that precede the reality they eventually created. So did the first European Chips Act. It was ambitious, but it did not get things moving yet because it forgot to address the demand. Who was going to buy those advanced chips? I am glad the new Cloud and AI Development Act nudges European governments away from American cloud providers and towards European alternatives, but this at least puts some demand at the table. But real demand, colleagues, does not come from governments.”
“And secondly, deploy naval escorts to ensure the physical security of crews and vessels. And thirdly, let the markets know that Europe stands behind continued navigation by providing clear coordination with ship powers, insurance and energy companies. Whether you think this is Europe's war or not, its consequences are – so deal with a strategic reality. 3-0094-0000”
“Mr President, Commissioner, Minister, in the past 24 hours, the Islamic regime has put mines in the Strait of Hormuz. Oil, gas and electricity prices will spike even higher for our citizens and for our industry. Europe has about 100 minesweepers and minehunters. The United States owns only four. Our navies have practised for such a scenario for decades. So do what needs to be done to secure freedom of movement and freedom of navigation. But a military mission will not suffice to get ships sailing. Insurance companies should issue insurances for transport, and they are not. So Europe should take three steps. First, establish an EU shipping risk pool, where insurances continue to be provided by companies as a standard coverage, and the EU will act as a public backstop for extreme losses.”
“– I agree, but another way to help them could be to, for example, protect western Ukrainian skies with European air forces so that Ukraine has more protection and more capacity to focus on the front line and for fighting off the Russians. What do you think about that idea? 2-0261-0000 Bart Groothuis (Renew), blue-card reaction. – Let's be very short. It should have happened a long time ago. 2-0262-0000”
“– There's only one answer, Mr Van Lanschot. It's how we won against the communists in the 90s. It is that they feel they can't win in the long term. We have to put forward long‑term investments to support Ukraine, so that Putin realises he can never win. It's the only way. The only way to help them. Like your colleague Mr Sinkevičius rightfully said, putting forward humanitarian aid is fine, it's good and we needed to do it. And I very much applaud the Commission on what it's doing to put forward power generators. But the real way to help Ukraine is to put forward long‑range striking missiles. 2-0260-0000 Reinier Van Lanschot (Verts/ALE), blue-card reaction.”
“Why is Germany busy blocking the long‑range Taurus missiles to Ukraine? And why couldn't Spain, Italy and other southern European nations finally step up? So EUR 90 billion tomorrow? Brilliant. But we have busy times ahead. (The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question) 2-0258-0000 Reinier Van Lanschot (Verts/ALE), blue-card question. – Mr Groothuis, I know you as a strong supporter for Ukraine and your call for stop with being complacent and us needing to be more busy with ourselves, it appeals to me. I also share your frustration towards some of the countries who put petty politics before support for Ukraine. But my question to you is, if we look at ourselves and we want to be busy with ourselves, what other steps can we take to make sure that Ukraine wins? 2-0259-0000 Bart Groothuis (Renew), blue-card answer.”
“Mr President, while everyone was busy with Venezuela and Greenland, Kyiv has reached a tipping point. More than 500 000 people left the city and energy supplies are down in the midst of winter. So stop being complacent about what we already have achieved for Ukraine. The only thing that matters is whether it's enough. We were also busy with NATO Secretary-General Rutte, who said we need the US for our defences. Fine to debate it, but the best way to prevent that from happening in the first place is, of course, to prevent Russia from winning in Ukraine. Maybe it's time to be very busy ourselves – to do what is necessary. And we are. Because tomorrow we vote to support Ukraine with over EUR 90 billion. Brilliant. But why is France busy blocking Ukraine to buy long‑range Storm Shadow missiles from the UK? Petty politics!”
“So I have to ask the Commissioner: are we really breaking our dependency this week or are we just changing suppliers? Europe cannot afford to keep swimming in circles. Ban Chinese vendors from our critical infrastructure. Build European and also invest in a nuclear European grid backbone. 2-0100-0000”
“Mr President, dear Commissioner, this week, Europe votes to stop buying Russian gas. No more weaponisation of energy dependencies – good. But in doing so, we're behaving like a goldfish. A goldfish swims around its bowl, forgets where it's been, and it starts all over again. In our European fishbowl, we are rightfully electrifying our continents. But 80 % of residential grid batteries in Europe are Chinese. The Chinese are dumping wind turbines on our market. A total of 80 % of Europe's new solar PV inverters are Chinese, and so is their software. Service availability for Europe can be manipulated from Beijing fast, at their time of choosing, and it can be done at a massive scale – from dependency on one autocrat to another.”
“Madam President, dear Commissioner, when China stopped delivering critical raw earth materials to Japan in 2010, Japan wisely reduced Chinese dependencies within years. When the United States was confronted with similar restrictions half a year ago, they acted with speed and ruthlessness, co-financing new mines in Brazil, long-term offtake agreements across Asia, EUR 8 billion of investment in Australian mines, tariffs to undermine dumping from China. It created several new long-term viable business cases within half a year. And the EU? No tangible results. Not because we're in any better position than Japan or the United States – Europe faces the same intentional and brutal coercion from Chinese-controlled rare earths.”
“Commissioner, your excellent team in Brussels should become a lean, mean fighting machine. We need to reform faster than markets around us are closing. Reform starts here at home and you have our support in doing so. 3-0296-0000”
“Mr President, Commissioner, Council, as markets outside Europe are increasingly closing for our entrepreneurs, I would like to ask the Commission to open up new markets for our businesses, to finish new trade deals fast. But trade negotiations with the Gulf region have dragged on for 34 years; India, 18 years; Latin America, 26 years and counting; Malaysia, 15 years, etc. It's too slow for this geopolitical storm. The problem is that by overloading trade agreements with additional demands on human rights, environmental or political conditions, we are stopping crucial trade deals from ever reaching the finish line. As an extra result, ratification is too slow. And let's just stop the translation of each concept trade agreement into 24 different languages. It's used as an excuse for delay.”
“Some here suggest we strike a deal: drop tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles in exchange for the withdrawal of Beijing's retaliatory measures. That's appeasement – it won't work. Feeding the beast won't pacify it. Some here argue that European Member States should go for themselves and defend their own industries without the backing of the EU. Don't! It will only invite more coercion in the years to come. I argue differently: economic leverage is there in Europe, at least theoretically, if we use it. So, use every tool in the EU economic toolbox: close markets if necessary, impose export controls, sanction Chinese banks fuelling Moscow's war of aggression. Leverage what we have, or we don't have leverage at all. Commissioner, act with strength for European sovereignty and industrial survival, and above all, don't encourage more coercion.”
“Madam President, Commissioner, Europe faces dual coercion: from US tariffs, yes, but far more dangerously from China's strategic chokehold on rare earth exports. Gallium, germanium – critical elements – are already no longer reaching our industries. Colleagues, remember that no guided missile can be produced without gallium. It's important because the Chinese Foreign Minister told High Representative Kallas that Russia may not lose the war, but also because our economic and our industrial survival is at stake. And as President von der Leyen rightly said, this is about dominance, about building dependency and about state-organised blackmail. Some here still claim this is just collateral damage in the US-China rivalry. It's not. It's about showing where the power is.”
“Our political assessment is exactly that, Commissioner. There are no quick fixes, but there are alternatives also from Europe, and, above all, there is a need for a path out of these unacceptable dependencies. And it's up to you and the Commission to lead us the way out of it. 3-0384-0000”
“Madam President, dear Commissioner, Portugal and Spain's meltdown of the electricity grid in April happened because 2.5 GW fell off the electricity grid in capacity. Chinese company Huawei alone controls a solar inverter capacity in Europe of more than 100 GW. Six Chinese vendors collectively hold more than 200 GW of inverter capacity across Europe. That is more than enough to destabilise the entire European grid, and it can be done from Beijing remotely, silently and devastatingly fast. Why are we allowing this vulnerability to grow? We already took action in 2021 on risky vendors in telecommunication infrastructure. And now it's time we do the same for our energy infrastructure. Now, it's time we have a binding grid security toolbox that bans risky vendors from our critical infrastructure.”
“But what is not yet in today's reports, and what should be, is the acknowledgement that the United States also competed with Russia in Africa, in the Global South, between its intelligence services, in space, on military bases, etc. Europe should now take on that effort too or the autocratic order will grow. So I urge you to vote in favour of the defence report I had the honour of co-negotiating, but this is merely the beginning. 2-0175-0000”
“Madam President, colleagues, dear Vice-President/High Representative, the biggest victim of the past months of Trump being in office is, of course, Russia. For the past 108 years, generations of Russians have been told that everything wrong in Russian society is to blame on the United States. It's the fault of the Americans. But now that Russia has gloriously won the second Cold War and increasingly has an ally in Washington, Russia needs a new enemy. And you and I, dear Commissioner, know what enemy that's going to be. It will be Europe. So we need to rebuild deterrence comparable to NATO's deterrence in the 1980s, re-arm Europe, not individually but collectively with the friends we have in Norway, the United Kingdom and even Canada.”
“So the solution when it comes to a solid security architecture should, therefore, also include the UK, Norway, Turkey, Iceland, even Canada in a European security council – of which nothing has been mentioned. The industrial policy in the white paper should follow this security architecture. I ask you to take this on board, dear Commissioner, and get it right this time. 2-0413-0000”
“Mr President, Commissioner, having heard the President of the Commission and the President of the Council this morning, and you, dear Commissioner, just now, I worry that we got it wrong, at least partially. It's not about rearming individual countries, as in the Cold War. That would be insufficient, as it does not deter our adversaries. It is about collective rearming into an alliance which is able to compete with the deterrence that NATO had in the 1980s. That is the task. For Europe, this requires delivering strategic enablers to operate on a divisional level, Commissioner, and the majority of those enablers are currently being paid for and operated by the US, which is still our ally. But Europe needs to develop or buy such enablers ourselves now. Secondly, continental Europe is much bigger than the European Union.”
“If Europe does not rally behind IRIS2 and the GOVSATCOM programme and accelerate its own progress, the future of European sovereignty in space communication will be decided by Elon Musk. So feel the heat: finish IRIS2 four years earlier than planned, move fast and build things! 4-0139-0000”
“Mr President, dear Commissioner, the main takeaway from Georgia Meloni's close manoeuvres with Elon Musk and his company, Starlink, is that it sends a clear signal to Europe. The European alternative to Starlink – 'IRIS square', not 'IRIS two', Commissioner – must be accelerated. Europe should work harder and faster. Sure, like many colleagues have said, for Italy there are clear and imminent dangers if Elon Musk encrypts and handles government communications. Italy can easily become a signals intelligence colony of the United States. It's true that Italy is not supporting Europe's commitment to technological leadership, to security and to self-determination, as you said, Commissioner, and I agree. But the biggest problem is, of course, our own lack of ambition with the IRIS2 programme.”
“Madam President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, promoting one political party during an election while suppressing others, or even rolling out the red carpet for Russian disinformation campaigns on a Chinese platform, it reminds Europe of its darkest hours. Yet it has happened in Romania. And it's happening in Germany. So no doubt what needs to be done: uphold and enforce the law. But if that means that over TikTok, China would limit our access to critical raw materials, or the US would limit its support for to NATO, the nature of the game is changing. So then there can be only one response: to create European alternatives for social media platforms. But all of that will be unnecessary – unnecessary – if you, Commissioner, uphold the law and enforce it in the rules-based order we have. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.”