Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy
Member of the European Parliament · Renew · NL
“Look at the facts and save Europe from its fossil fuel addiction. (The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question) 3-0029-0000 Sander Smit (ECR), “blauwe kaart”-vraag. – Meneer Gerbrandy, u spreekt hier over Europees, over de Green Deal.”
“Madam President, the European economy will experience long-lasting damage from the Hormuz crisis, and that's a fact. When fossil fuel is expensive, European industry suffers deeply – that is also a fact. When sea levels rise, my country, the Netherlands, must build expensive infrastructure or it will drown – also a fact.”
“3-0030-0000 Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy (Renew), “blauwe kaart”-antwoord. – Heerlijk altijd die nationale politiek in het Europees Parlement. Voedselzekerheid: wellicht heeft u onlangs ook het rapport gelezen waarin staat dat Nederland een importeur is van voedsel.”
“So, colleagues, we have a responsibility here; we need to face this risk and ask the question: is it worth sticking to national interests above European unity? And my answer is to go with European unity. Let's use that strength – it's the only way towards independence.”
“Mr President, colleagues, what do high energy prices, Chinese clean tech, US weapons and digital services, and critical raw materials have in common? Well, they all add up to European dependency. And let's be honest, we are dependent on others, otherwise we would not be having this debate.”
“– Well, thank you very much for that question. I think the most important message of Draghi regarding energy is that we should become independent and produce our own energy, and that, per definition, is clean energy.”
The complete record
Every one of 66 lines we hold for Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 2.
“Czy Pan dopuszcza taką sytuację, że będziemy z tych pieniędzy kupować najnowsze technologie zbrojeniowe w Stanach Zjednoczonych? 2-0046-0000 Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy (Renew), blue-card answer. – 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. 2-0047-0000”
“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! (The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question) 2-0045-0000 Bogdan Rzońca (ECR), pytanie zadane przez podniesienie niebieskiej kartki. – Chciałem Pana dopytać, ponieważ bardzo uważnie słuchałem Pana wypowiedzi. Co Pan miał na uwadze, mówiąc, że więzi transatlantyckie zostały zerwane? Kto zerwał te więzi? Kto zrywa? Ewentualnie kto jest winny zerwaniu tych więzi transatlantyckich? I druga rzecz: gdy już uzbieramy te pieniądze, załóżmy, że one będą.”
“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.”
“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.”
“U staat toch voor de belastingbetaler? U levert de belastingbetaler alleen nog maar meer druk en regeldruk op. 3-0052-0000 Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy (Renew), “blauwe kaart”-antwoord. – Meneer Smit, deze vraag verbaast me niet. Als er iemand dwaalt in dit parlement, bent u het wel. U woont, net als ik, in een land waarvan het grootste deel zich onder de zeespiegel bevindt. Wat denkt u dat het kost als de zeespiegel verder stijgt? Hoeveel denkt u dat wij moeten investeren om ons land onder de zeespiegel veilig te houden? Het duizend-, zo niet het miljoenvoudige van wat het kost om via de Green Deal en al ons goede beleid te zorgen voor een schonere en leefbaardere wereld. Dat willen we tenslotte allemaal, want dat maakt Europa de beste plek op de wereld om te leven. 3-0053-0000”
“Als ik een collega van de ECR hoor zeggen dat we terug moeten naar kolen, besef ik dat zelfs Donald Trump niet meer durft te suggereren dat we die kant op moeten gaan. (De spreker stemt ermee in om te antwoorden op een “blauwe kaart”-vraag) 3-0051-0000 Sander Smit (PPE), “blauwe kaart”-vraag. – Meneer Gerbrandy, u sprak net over bedreigingen en een gebrek aan realisme. Ik denk dat er grote bedreigingen uitgaan van het feit dat sommige partijen, waaronder de uwe, niet terug willen komen op de ingeslagen dwaalweg. Wie een kompas nodig heeft voor concurrentievermogen, die was de weg kwijt. Hoe gaat u het verkopen dat we vanaf 2030 1570 miljard euro per jaar moeten gaan uitgeven om het CO2‑doel voor 2040 te halen en de uitstoot met negentig procent terug te dringen? Hoe gaat u dat uitleggen, als liberale partij?”
“Maar dit alles vraagt om een sterker, centralistischer Europa, met een veel hogere begroting en meer eigen inkomsten. Daar moeten we aan werken. Niet onbelangrijk, sterker nog, misschien wel het allerbelangrijkste: de lidstaten zullen eensgezind in die richting moeten bewegen. Daarom ben ik zo teleurgesteld dat er geen verdragswijzigingen komen. Een “krachtiger, eenvoudiger en sneller Europe” is alleen mogelijk als we de veto’s in de Raad afschaffen. Maar ook het Parlement zal deze agenda moeten volgen. Dat kan alleen maar met een sterke pro-Europese coalitie in het midden. Wanneer ik naar dit debat luister, zie ik opnieuw dat extreemrechts noch extreemlinks oplossingen bieden voor de Europese problemen. We kunnen niet terug naar het verleden.”
“Voorzitter, Europa is zonder twijfel de beste plek op de wereld om te leven. Nergens ter wereld hebben we een hoger niveau van vrijheid, democratie, welvaart en welzijn. De “Europese levenswijze” is zo belangrijk dat we er zelfs een speciale commissaris voor hadden. Maar we moeten ons sterk inspannen om deze positie te behouden, want we worden bedreigd. We worden van binnenuit bedreigd door nationalisme en van buitenaf door geopolitieke en economische bedreigingen, schaarste en hoge energieprijzen. Het werkprogramma van de Commissie richt zich op de juiste zaken: de interne marktstrategie, het doel om tegen 2040 90 % minder CO2 uit te stoten, de ontwikkeling van een Europese defensie-industrie en de vereenvoudiging van de regels.”
“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. 3-0010-0000”
“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. 3-0398-0000”
“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.”
“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. 3-0142-0000”
“So I urgently call on the EU, the Member States, the coastal guards: make this your first and foremost priority. 2-0363-0000”
“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?”
“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. 1-0135-0000”
“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.”