Sebastian KRUIS

Policy topics Sebastian KRUIS is active on

What Sebastian KRUIS has said (26)

• 2026-07-07 “Thank you. President. Well, if we have the freedom to choose, we'd like the Netherlands to be stronger. And the chance of having trade with Mexico with its population is something very positive. We'll see imports hopefully rising by 57%, as well as customs duties going up, which will mean that our companies also have better access to public procurement markets when it comes to logistics and machinery. And all of us will, I think, benefit, particularly when it comes to cheese products, for example, where we'll see customs duties disappearing. But we're against Parliament's resolution because once again, the left is abusing this kind of agreement to highlight its own objectives and priorities. So partners, trade agreements, all of these really should remain as such. Woke isn't an export product. Thank you.”
  Trade relations with Mercosur
• 2026-07-07 “Thank you, president. Well, if we have the freedom to to choose, we'd like The Netherlands, to be stronger. And the chance of having trade with Mexico with its population is something very positive. We'll see imports hopefully rising by 57% as well as customs duties going up, which will mean that our companies also have better access to public procurement markets when it comes to logistics and machinery, and all of us will, I think, benefit, particularly when it comes to cheese products, for example, where we'll see customs duties disappearing. But we're against parliament's resolution because once again, the left is abusing this kind of agreement to highlight its own objectives and priorities. So partners, trade agreements, all of these really should remain as such. Woke isn't an export product.”
  Free trade agreements (FTAs)
• 2026-07-07 “(14:01:18 - 14:02:15): you, president. Well, if we have the freedom to to choose, we'd like The Netherlands, to be stronger. And the chance of having trade with Mexico with its population is something very positive. We'll see imports hopefully rising by 57% as well as customs duties going up, which will mean that our companies also have better access to public procurement markets when it comes to logistics and machinery, and all of us will, I think, benefit, particularly when it comes to cheese products, for example, where we'll see customs duties disappearing. But we're against parliament's resolution because once again, the left is abusing this kind of agreement to highlight its own objectives and priorities. So partners, trade agreements, all of”
  Trade relations with Mercosur
• 2026-06-15 “Yes. Thank you very much, mister chair. Folks, let me be very clear from the outset. This deal is not perfect, but perfect was never on the table. The EU simply does not have the cards to force a better outcome. We negotiated from a position of weakness. And the real question is, how did we end up here? Because of years of misguided policies, suffocating bureaucracy, and an energy policy driven by ideology instead of common sense. That's why now we have a continent where businesses are no longer expanding but leaving. So right now, our companies do not need political theater. They need certainty and predictability so they can invest, compete, and create jobs. Voting against this deal may sound tough, but it means escalation, a trade war with United States, and serious economic damage. And that is not the path my party will support. That's not a good deal, but it's at least it is the least bad option. That's why we choose realism, we choose for our businesses, and we choose for the Dutch economy. Thank you very much for your attention to this matter.”
  EU-US trade relations
• 2026-06-15 “Well, thank you very much for your question, mister missus Biera. But let me be very clear. What Trump understands is the power of of competitiveness. And I understand that the left side of this parliament, we just heard that other left wing did what we do. It has nothing to do with enforcing competitiveness and enforcing jobs and our economic strength. So, yeah, don't don't ask me about how capital how like like, how capitalism works. But, yeah, if you would understand, then you would not be on the left side of politics. Thank you very much.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• 2026-02-26 “E-000817/2026 Answer given by Mr Šefčovič on behalf of the European Commission The Trade Agreement between the EU and Colombia, Ecuador and Peru 1 entered into force on 1 November 2024. The Commission agrees with the Honourable Member that it would now be appropriate to initiate a reflection on how the Agreement fits with the current geopolitical and economic environment. Regarding the transformation into a modern strategic partnership, the Commission committed in the 2022 Joint Communication ‘A New Agenda for EU-Latin America and Caribbean Relations’ 2 to discuss the possible upgrade of the Agreement's provisions on sustainable development. To this end, the EU and the Andean countries have established a Working Group under the relevant Committee where discussions are still ongoing. A broader modernisation of the agreement could be considered. The Commission is exploring with various partners to extend the trade and economic cooperation to new fields. Any formal request for a negotiating mandate to the Council would require further scoping to ensure alignment with the EU’s strategic priorities. The conclusions of any deliberations in this regard will be fully reported to the European Parliament. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/summary/eu-trade-agreement-with-colombia-peru-andecuador.html. 2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52023JC0017.”
  Free trade agreements (FTAs)
• 2026-02-18 “Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission 5.5.2026 Written question The Commission’s position draws among others on scientific reports, surveys and other analyses that informed its evaluation [1] of the EU tobacco control legislative framework. The available evidence indicates that novel nicotine products are not harmless or risk-free and raise important public health concerns, notably as regards health effects, addiction, youth uptake and dual use with tobacco products. In its public communication, the Commission seeks to reflect the evolving state of scientific knowledge in a balanced and proportionate manner. The approach to taxing new nicotine products such as liquids for electronic cigarettes and nicotine pouches in the proposal to revise the Tobacco Taxation Directive [2] is driven by not only the need to ensure the proper functioning of the internal market, but also by fiscal considerations, notably tax-driven substitution effects that may affect the sustainability of revenue generation. Indeed, while the public health debate is still ongoing with regard to these relatively new products, none of them have been deemed safe or risk-free. Based on the same assumption used for traditional tobacco products, that higher tobacco taxes and prices are the most effective measure to reduce overall tobacco use, the introduction of taxation on new products aims to contribute to a reduction in their consumption. [1] Evaluation of the legislative framework for tobacco control https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13481-Evaluation-of-the-legislative-framework-for-tobacco-control_en. [2] https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/taxation/excise-duties/excise-duties-tobacco/revision-tobacco-taxation-directive-proposal_en.”
  Smoking regulation · Regulation on New Oral Nicotine Products
• 2026-01-14 “P-000127/2026 Answer given by High Representative/Vice-President Kallas on behalf of the European Commission The Council Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 of 13 November 2017 1 established the following restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela: an embargo on arms and equipment which might be used for internal repression, an asset freeze on the persons listed in Annex IV of the Regulation and a ban on entry into and transit through the territory of Member States applicable to the same listed persons. Annex IV of the Regulation currently lists 69 natural persons directly responsible for undermining democracy, the rule of law and human rights. The EU stands ready to use every tool at its disposal to support a transition towards democracy in Venezuela. The EU has not imposed restrictions on EU exports to and investment in Venezuela. These activities were never discontinued by way of an EU Regulation. The Commission will engage with the Venezuelan authorities with a view to create a more favourable economic environment for trade and investment and, if conditions allow, seek to provide support for specific investments with public policy objectives. The Commission and the European External Action Service will also aim to ensure that European companies in Venezuela do not operate at a disadvantage compared to companies from Venezuela, the United States or elsewhere. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2017/2063/oj/eng.”
  EU-US relations · EU-Venezuela relations
• 2025-10-01 “E-003810/2025 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission The Commission is committed to implementing the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) 1 in a spirit of close partnership, transparency, and open dialogue. By means of the EUDR, the EU takes its responsibility as one of the main consumer markets of commodities linked to deforestation and forest degradation. Even before its entry into application, the EUDR triggered a number of positive changes, new initiatives and efforts in Member States and partner countries. Withdrawing its application would send a wrong message and further encourage deforestation. A number of Latin American countries are developing national traceability systems which can apply to all their exports of relevant commodities, not just those exported to the EU. For instance, Brazil and China are cooperating to develop full traceability of Brazil’s beef supply chains. Moreover, once the traceability systems are established, they can provide valuable information that is also useful for other uses such as demonstrating compliance with responsible business conduct or low carbon agriculture. The Commission presented a proposal to amend the EUDR in order to reduce the load on the EUDR Information System and ease the administrative burden for economic operators, while maintaining the Regulation’s environmental integrity. On 4 December 2025, the co-legislators agreed on the revised EUDR 2 . The new date of entry into application will be 30 December 2026 for all companies except for most micro- or small operators, for which it will be 30 June 2027. For micro- or small operators already covered by the EU Timber Regulation 3 , the entry into application will be 30 December 2026. The amendments to the EUDR also limit the obligation to submit due diligence statements to the first operator placing the relevant products on the market. Downstream operators, such as retreading industry or craft businesses, will no longer need to submit due diligence statements, nor to pass on the reference numbers further in the supply chain. 1 Regulation (EU) 2023/1115 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 May 2023 on the making available on the Union market and the export from the Union of certain commodities and products associated with deforestation and forest degradation and repealing Regulation (EU) No 995/2010, OJ L 150, 9.6.2023, p. 206–247. 2 Regulation (EU) 2025/2650 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 2025 amending Regulation (EU) 2023/1115 as regards certain obligations of operators and traders, OJ L, 2025/2650, 23.12.2025. 3 Regulation (EU) No 995/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 laying down the obligations of operators who place timber and timber products on the market, OJ L 295, 12.11.2010, pp. 23– 34.”
  Trade impact on forests
• 2025-07-28 “E-003116/2025 Answer given by Mr McGrath on behalf of the European Commission Meta’s decision to discontinue political advertising on its online platforms in the EU is a commercial decision. The Commission is in contact with Member States and stakeholders to assess the possible impacts of this decision. The Regulation does not ban political advertisement or prevent platforms from hosting political advertising. It does not introduce any requirements on the content of political adverts. With the ongoing digital transition, it is essential for people to easily identify whether they are viewing paid political content – both offline and online. By promoting transparency and accountability, the Transparency of Political Advertising Regulation 1 supports a pluralistic, open and fair democratic debate, where freedom of expression is fully guaranteed. It establishes common EU transparency standards, requiring political advertising to be clearly labelled as such and to include information such as who paid for the advertising and how much. This ensures that citizens can exercise their democratic rights in an informed manner. The Regulation does not affect Member States’ rules regulating aspects related to political advertising other than those covered by the Regulation. Such national rules may be related to the conduct and financing of political campaigning, including general bans or restrictions on political advertising during specified periods, known as silence periods, donations from individual campaign donors or prohibitions using commercial advertising for election campaign purposes. The Commission has issued guidelines 2 to support all actors to understand and comply with their obligations and will monitor the application of the Regulation. 1 Regulation (EU) 2024/900 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 March 2024 on the transparency and targeting of political advertising. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/900/oj/eng. 2 Guidelines to support the implementation of Regulation (EU) 2024/900 on the transparency and targeting of political advertising: https://commission.europa.eu/document/0e5bb552-72f5-434e-8778-ed95e2955f25_en.”
  Disinformation & online freedoms · Digital advertising
• 2025-07-17 “E-002949/2025 Answer given by Ms Albuquerque on behalf of the European Commission Panama has been removed from the EU list of high-risk third countries since 5 August 2025. Panama’s removal is a direct result of improvements in its Anti-Money Laundering / Countering The Financing Of Terrorism (AML/CFT) framework and a recognition of Panama’s efforts as the country is no longer considered high-risk. According to the methodology for identifying high-risk third countries under Directive 2015/849 1 , any third country representing a risk to the international financial system identified by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) is presumed to represent a risk to the EU internal market and will in principle also be listed by the EU. When that country is delisted by the FATF, and provided there are no remaining strategic deficiencies, the Commission services will initiate the necessary procedure with a view to updating the EU AML/CFT list, as appropriate. Although Panama was delisted by the FATF in October 2023, it remained listed by the EU due to remaining strategic deficiencies. In January 2024, after further exchanges with Panama, the Commission concluded that Panama had addressed these deficiencies. On 14 March 2024, the Commission adopted a Delegated Regulation 2 to remove Panama and other countries from the EU list, but in April 2024 the European Parliament objected to the set of countries to be delisted. On 10 June 2025, following engagement with several third countries to address the concerns raised by the European Parliament in the April 2024 resolution, the Commission adopted a new Delegated regulation with a view to updating the EU list. That Regulation has been published in the Official Journal on 16 July 2025 as Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1184 and has entered into force on 5 August 2025 3 . 1 https://finance.ec.europa.eu/document/download/f745b6e8-735b-4855-b050-f52276356fe6_en. 2 C(2024) 1754 final. 3 OJ L, 2025/1184, 16.7.2025.”
  Anti-money laundering regulation
• 2025-03-06 “E-000989/2025 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Ribera on behalf of the European Commission The Digital Markets Act (DMA) aims to establish fair and contestable digital markets in the EU. This includes creating a more dynamic advertisement market that offers more transparent, lower cost alternatives to gatekeeper advertising services for businesses, including small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Targeted advertising exploit personal data of users. The DMA requires gatekeepers to give users the choice whether to grant access to their personal data for advertising purposes. If users refuse consent, they should have access to an equivalent alternative that is less personalised (e.g. by using less data for advertisements). On 23 April 2025, the Commission adopted a decision which found that Meta’s ‘Consent or Pay’ model is not compliant with the DMA as it does not offer an equivalent alternative of its social networks. 1 The Commission’s assessment of the ‘Consent or Pay’ is separate from the assessment of the model by the Court of Justice, 2 which was based on the General Data Protection Regulation 3 and competition law, not on the DMA. The DMA does not ban personalised advertisements. Companies can publish personalised advertisements using Meta’s advertising services, while benefitting from a fairer and more contestable digital market. In addition, the DMA only applies to designated gatekeepers and does not affect the use of subscription or consent or pay models by other companies. The DMA applies equally to all large digital actors operating in the EU that meet certain objective criteria. The Commission investigates possible non-compliance with the DMA in the EU without discrimination. 1 See https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_1085 2 See Case C-252/21, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:62021CJ0252. 3 Regulation (EU) 2016/679, OJ L 119, 04.05.2016.”
  EU rules on digital competition
• “Thank you. Well, if the left is going to say that we can impose rules on this. Well, what sort of rules on earth are you thinking about? I find this very alarming because your rules amount to your approach to Brussels and to national regulation. And you think that Brussels should be regulating everything on the basis that what is to be sanctioned offline can be sanctioned online in the same way? Thank you. Supplementary question. Well, that is, of course, completely not what we're about. We're talking about AI generated Deepfakes of minors. People whose lives will be changed and damaged forever by this behavior. This is simply nothing to do with what you are saying. Allowing the tech bros to get off scot free and to use their platforms how they wish. What we need to have if we have is if we have any platforms, they need to be safe, but we need to make sure that women and children and the whole of society can use social media safely. We need this in a more desperate way than we ever have. Reply. Thank you very much. Well, if you believe in the European project, this isn't part of it. You always go off the deep end in these sorts of debates. This is really not the point at all. The point is that people are always exploiting opportunities to seek to ban social media platforms. I would simply like to place greater trust in our own national legislation, our own national parliaments. We are proud of our history in the Netherlands, and we bring our proud history here from Denmark and from Amsterdam. And so please let us continue to determine at home how we think the legislation should be crafted and implemented.”
  Digital platforms liability for harmful and illegal content
• “Thank you. President. Let me be clear from the outset. Did the European Commission negotiate badly? Yes. Is this deal better for us than for Europe? Yes. Would we prefer a zero tariff deal? Yes, of course, but the European Union simply doesn't have the cards to force a better deal. We have empty hands and we're tongue tied. The real question is, how do we get here? Because we've made the wrong choices. Smothering bureaucracy. We have energy policy run by weirdos and windmills, nuts. An economy where companies don't build but pack their bags. We don't need political theatre. We need predictability in order to invest. That's why our company's needs voting against. Sounds very brave, but it leads to escalation and trade war with the US and major economic damage. And the PPE is not going to be involved. It's not a good deal, but it's the least bad option. Therefore we're in favor of realism for our companies and for the Dutch economy. Thank you.”
  EU-US trade relations
• “Thank you president. The day before yesterday, it was hate speech. Yesterday it was disinformation. Today it's AI images on X and tomorrow it will be something else the left doesn't like. Every time Brussels responds with new digital protections and it's always too late every time they dream up something else moral outrage, condemnation. But nothing is actually protected in reality, apart from the lies and the censorship which purports to make us safe. We need to be realistic here. This is not safety. This is not protection. It's power play. It's a debate about who is allowed to participate in discourse and who is not. It is not to do with extremists and pedophiles. It's to do with political opposition. Anybody who deviates from the the left wing narrative is to be condemned is to be silenced. They're not allowed to react or respond to the debate. These are the rules. And these are the rules which govern open platforms, banning people from expressing their views freely, banning people in a way that is not in line with the Constitution, with principles. It's simply a digital dictatorship. And the PVV will never condone this. We are for the protection of people and their rights and their freedoms, and they may not be infringed in this way. Thank you.”
  Disinformation & online freedoms
• “Thank you very much. Madam president, first bureaucrat in the room. We're talking about how to boost European competitiveness. It is urgent if we carry on at this rate. The only question to ask is who's going to turn off the lights? We pay five times more for energy than the US and China. Our companies. Are getting a stab in the back with all of the regulations we adopt and the single market strategy. The Commission has mentioned ten obstacles to the single market, but you're not mentioning the biggest one, which is the European Commission itself. And of course, everybody on the left of this House. Time and again we talk about competitiveness and people jump up to think of new rules. If we really want to help Europe, the best and most urgent action would be very straightforward. Just not adopt any new rules and regulations for the rest of the mandate. Just three and a half years of silence from Brussels. That would be the best thing for our competitiveness. So just to pack up and go and let leave our citizens and businesses in peace.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Mr. slipper. When somebody in this House was exonerated from legal repercussions in Hungary, I didn't hear you talking in this way. So you can talk as you like about the powers of this parliament and the way it is run. But the reality is that every single time a debate such as this on social media comes to this House, another reason is dreamt up for imposing further censure. People should be able to do what they want without censure. You can't go banning things in this way, and it is important that we don't place any more constraints on digital platforms. Thank you.”
  Disinformation & online freedoms
• “Thank you very much. Thank you to the Secretariat as well for this mission. It was very informative. The visit to Brazil allowed us to. Speak to people from various sectors. We were we were able to discuss topics including the deforestation. We were able to speak to key industries, including, um, the issues with, uh, administrative burdens. We were able to speak about the causes of deforestation, um, and how the products that come about, um, as a result of deforestation are then exported to other markets. Now, what I want to do is to discuss the regulation that will require, uh, practical, um, implementation. It's going to be a huge administrative burden. And. The fact is that we can actually kill two birds with two stone here. We can create economic opportunity for the EU and we can also fight deforestation.”
  Trade impact on forests
• “Madam president, I would like to start by thanking the Commissioner for his efforts to reinstate or improve trade relations between the EU and US. I'm also delighted that he's put forward a proposal to work towards a zero tariff zone. However, president, the efforts are being made to try to undermine the commissioners. I see that spanners are being thrown in the works elsewhere. Last week, the European Commission adopted measures against Meta and Apple, the tech giants. The Americans have said in response that they view those fines as economic barriers, which are just damaging as tariffs. So my question is simple. Don't you think it's counterproductive for the European Union to negotiate with one hand on doing away with tariffs while at the same time with the other hand handing out tariffs which Washington views as fines? So, president, let's stop allowing our trade policy to be hijacked by left wing parties who have got their obsessions about punishing big tech barriers to trade. Must be done away with. Exactly as should tariffs. So let's not get caught up in these economic vendettas. Thank you.”
  EU-US trade relations
• “Thank you. President. The EU always wants to act on the pretext of defending democracy, but it was always about more and more censorship. There are all these communists. Who want more and more rules. More and more taxes, more mass migration, unaffordable energy, permanent war mongering. And those who do not listen to Brussels like Hungary or Belgium, have to be punished. The people of Europe, though, are voting against a corrupt system of the globalist elite, and people don't want to be spied on, controlled and see their media censored. What they're doing is fines, chat controls, subsidizing their own media, their own intelligence services. These are Stasi practices. We're seeing the last convulsions of a communist utopia that is losing its grip on power. But as with every communist regime that has tried to conquer Europe, this attempt will also fail. So, to the European Commission, I say that your days are numbered. The wall always falls and this wall stands in Brussels.”
  EU political integration
• “Thank you. Chair. Now, recently, Commissioner Shashkevych was in the United States in order to have discussions. And one day later, Trump announces new tariffs. So Trump and his finance ministers have made it very clear that the tariffs that come in April could be avoided if you had agreed on a 0% rate. But of course, that's a huge threat for the European market, and the impact of that would be very serious. We're being we're facing down a trade war and having mutual zero tariffs. What does that mean for the EU. We should be pragmatic. Free trade without any barriers is better than an escalation.”
  EU-US trade relations
• “Thank you for the question. Well, of course I'm against it. The point is that there are bands in the Netherlands already, and I think this is an issue which should be dealt with in the Netherlands. If images are generated in the Netherlands, whether it's by AI or pornographic material of another sort, it is outlawed in the Netherlands. It is illegal. It should be dealt with in the Netherlands. I do not think that faceless bureaucrats should be pontificating to us about what we should be doing here in the European Parliament. This is the umpteenth time this has come up. It's about the news online. It's about images online. What will it be next? Thank you.”
  Regulation of pornography in the EU
• “Yeah, thank you very much chairman. First question: the left wing activists have sponsored Mister Becerra here. I'm not interested in ex-activists who come from nowhere and give us their view on what has been presented in the media. I think we one should be pragmatic here. Likening Nigeria and Israel, well, we shouldn't be taught lessons by others. There's a country where women can run around freely where there's the rule of law. Being punished because they took action against terror and they didn't want to sit down with Hezbollah and Iran. The commission is playing with fire. It's about looking at sanctions. Weak signals to Israel are a gift to Hamas. Israel needs our support. We shouldn't be imposing trade sanctions. We should be expanding trade with Israel. More research, innovation, and investment there. In the forefront of cybersecurity and the rest of the economy and a lot of areas where we are dependent on Israel. We shouldn't be—we should be opening the doors rather than imposing sanctions. We're giving in to terror and any sign of weakness would be an own goal. Israel is a natural ally. We shouldn't act against barbarism and we shouldn't be filled with hate with Israel because we should be bound together in freedom.”
  Relations with Israel - Palestine
• “Thank you. President. Yes. Through overregulation, we hope to see lagging behind China and the US. Europe has lost its path. And that's why we now have the competitiveness compass, because the European Commission believed that the best way to become more competitive in the world is to have a whole new avalanche of new rules. If you look at this year alone, there are tens of new EU rules coming down our way. The Digital Networks Act, Package Travel Directive, the EU cloud and AI Development Act, the framework for carbon capture and storage, the Innovation Act, the Action Plan for electrification and the Clean industrial deal. President, I could go on for another half hour listing them, but that's just a small sample of the terror that's coming our way and coming the way of our businesses. A compass, a sundial. A telescope. A map. A travel guide. None of it makes a difference. The European Union is navigating without any kind of sense of direction is going completely the wrong way. And in this way, we never find our way home. If we want to be more competitive, then we have to stop producing heaps of new rules which obligate our businesses to suffer.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Yes. Thank you very much. On behalf of Miss Geary, I would like to give some remarks because we, the Patriots, are pleased that the Commission has finally admitted its mistakes. It has overburdened companies during the previous mandate. Omnibus one and two are exactly the proof of this. And now they are trying to save what can be saved without losing face. However, we are convinced that that delaying the process is not enough because both directives, because both directives, the CSD and the CSD should be fully repealed as they are doing no good to anyone. Even the new German Chancellor called for the repeal. So we are very much in hope that the EPP will be our partner in this for the sake of Europe's competitiveness. Thank you very much.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Thank you, Mr. President. This is the first omnibus proposal on simplification of rules. Or as they call it in Brussels, cutting red tape. Now, if you actually look into that a bit, you can actually see what the implications are. There are a whole bunch of laws. If you look at them, you can see that it encompasses a myriad of huge piles of details, and all it actually amounts to is more and more and more legislation, rules, regulations and red tape. So how on earth can you claim that you are getting rid of red tape when actually you're doing it through imposing hundreds of thousands of super bureaucrats and more red tape? These people are further and further away from the real people, drowning in their sea of bureaucracy and red tape. They need not so much an optimist, but they need an absolute chainsaw. Taken to all this plethora of red tape. Red tape. We need people who are actually prepared to cut this ruthlessly. Thank you.”
  EU political integration