Speeches

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, This is basically a proper debate. We have had a new situation in the Council of Ministers since last week. We have a blocking minority, led by Germany, Bulgaria, Italy and Poland. Other countries will follow: The Czech Republic is here now. It is now up to the Commission to make a new proposal. However, it is obvious – as we all know in the room – that the Commission is not yet in a position to make this new proposal. Therefore, we as the EPP are against holding a discussion now on Wednesday on the basis of speculation. I believe that the Commission should first reorganise itself and see what it can propose. We as the EPP look forward to the debate. We have always been in favour of openness to technology and against bans. In this respect, I would like to have a debate, not this week and then next time with the resolution, but now is not the right time.

Madam President, Vice-President Timmermans, ladies and gentlemen! Today we can still take it, the last exit before the final combustion ban from 2035. Today we have the last chance to leave this technologically hostile road that Greens, Social Democrats and Liberals have taken. They are the ones who want to make a bet here and put everything on one card. There are very clear arguments against this insanity. For the necessary emission reduction in the transport sector, we need innovation and space for smart ideas, but the ban on combustion limits this much-needed freedom. Our proposal is better: set a clear, strict framework and then let the market decide which technologies are needed to achieve the objectives. The ban also ignores the current situation. Price advantages for end customers were the favourite argument of Social Democrats and Greens in the negotiations. But the current reality is different: high electricity prices, inflation and expiring purchase premiums. All calculations for price advantages are void. And finally: In Germany alone, 600,000 people are working on vehicles with internal combustion engines – their jobs are now at risk. We are already seeing the first consequences: the promise of liberals, greens and social democrats to create new jobs – battery cell production often goes to Canada or America. And some in the European Commission would have liked to have continued happily. They wanted to get rid of the incinerator on trucks and buses. Again, there is no room for innovation, no competition of the best ideas – instead bans again as if nothing had been learned. Now, however, one seems to have come to their senses at the last few meters, and this is also a success of those who have so far opposed this prohibition policy. Ladies and gentlemen, send a clear signal again today and vote against this trilogue agreement.

Dear Mr President, Commissioner Vălean, ladies and gentlemen, For the EPP, I negotiated two legislative proposals from the Fit for 55 package: the CO2 fleet limits for passenger cars and the Infrastructure Development Regulation. Both projects are two sides of a coin for me. Unfortunately, the majority of both Parliament and the Member States have voted in favour of banning the use of combustion engines in cars from 2035 onwards. A legally non-binding recital will not change this. Let me be clear: From 2035 onwards, it will no longer be possible to register a passenger car with an internal combustion engine. And I still think that decision, Mr Bloss, is completely wrong. Deciding now which technology will save the most CO2 in 2035 and at the same time be affordable for citizens – what a hubris! Greens, Social Democrats and Liberals are still firmly behind the ban and are pushing it further. There is no trace of insight due to rising energy prices. What does all this mean for infrastructure development? First of all, one thing: We need more speed. Blinders and technology fixation do not help us. Greens and Social Democrats wanted to include the crowbar principle – no consideration of actual needs, only rigid targets, planned economy, inclusive criminal system – and, in addition, the train infrastructure without an impact assessment. I think that would be bad legislation. Our ambition, ladies and gentlemen, should be better regulation. For all of us it is clear: We need to advance infrastructure development in all EU Member States and not just in a few. Hence my urgent appeal: Support the EPP's proposals! Make sure that we get an infrastructure that actually benefits citizens in the end and that no money is wasted.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I have already put forward what I am saying today in numerous speeches or letters to the Commission: No burdens for small and medium-sized businesses! My demands have not changed, and unfortunately the Commission's evasive responses have not. Although Mrs von der Leyen announced an aid package yesterday, the Commission continues to ignore many of our key concerns. Unfortunately, there is no implementation. We have been waiting for the appointment of the SME Envoy for more than three years – unfortunately, this has not yet happened. Actually, the one-in-one-out principle should apply, but in practice: Two new laws, one out. By 2030, there is even a threat of: Five in, one out. You can't do that! An entrepreneur with five supermarkets in my region threatens to incur additional electricity costs of one million euros next year. And the EU is addressing these concerns further: sustainability reporting, the supply chain directive, new REACH tightening or the absurd requirements on plant protection products. Limiting production in a food crisis – I can't explain it to anyone. This bureaucracy and these rules take the air of the middle class to breathe - that's not possible! The vague announcements must now finally become actions. We need real relief, otherwise I'll see black. Otherwise, there will soon be no bakers, no farmers and no metalworkers. We need a moratorium on the burden on SMEs – now!

Mr President, Vice-President Timmermans, ladies and gentlemen! Does the automotive industry still have a future in Europe? Today we decide not more, but also not less. Many of you are now thinking of the big car companies, but forget about the many small and medium-sized companies, especially in the supplier industry. Unfortunately, over half a million people will lose their jobs. And who is responsible for this social clean-up? Social Democrats, Greens and some Liberals in this House want the ban on the combustion engine for ideological reasons. It is clear that this is tangible and that can be marketed in a headline, but the reality is different: Emissions are only shifted from transport to energy production, no matter what. The rigid focus on the electric car brings us new dependencies, for example from China – no matter. Hundreds of thousands of jobs are at stake, no matter what. As an EPP, we cannot follow this path. That is why we have tabled amendments that bring together climate protection and openness to technology. This means concretely, and I ask you to listen carefully: almost complete electrification of new cars from 2035, but also a door for other CO2-neutral technologies. We need ambitious reduction targets and flexibility for the market and customers. In short, we don't need bans. Therefore, I would like to ask you: Support our amendments – a 90% reduction target and a voluntary accounting system for synthetic fuels. I believe that then we will combine climate protection and realism in politics, as the Vice-President has just mentioned.

Mr President, Commissioner Vălean, ladies and gentlemen! What are we talking about today? About transport poverty. Mobility is becoming unaffordable and simply unaffordable for many people. There are 18 million commuters in Europe, more than half of whom use the car for their daily commute to work. People in rural areas, in rural areas, are particularly affected. What are the causes of this development? The price, of course. But the decisive drivers are above all taxes and levies. Examples of a litre of gasoline: 65 cents in Germany, 71 cents in Greece and 72 cents in Italy. Yes, we want change. We want carbon neutrality by 2050. But we don't want that on the backs of the people who need their car to secure their income. Mobility must remain affordable. Here in Parliament, it is above all the Greens and the Socialists who are always demanding new taxes and fees and the highest possible CO2 price. They then call for social balance and redistribution. I am in favour of finally taking this problem to its root. This means: reluctance to introduce new levies, taxes and charges on a permanent basis; Moderate, pragmatic regulations that take into account social impacts. If we take this into account, we do not have to make up for the disadvantages we have created in retrospect by means of the detour of social funds. Individual mobility must remain affordable for everyone. Thank you and Merry Christmas!