Speeches

Mr President, Mr Dombrovskis, ladies and gentlemen! The transformation that the Greens, Social Democrats and Liberals initiated here a year and a half ago by banning combustion engines is not working. International sales markets are weakening, sales of battery vehicles in Europe are falling and the necessary infrastructure is not available. Even companies that have fully focused on electric vehicles are revising their plans. The emission targets set are difficult to maintain and billions of euros in fines are threatened as early as 2025. In short: The European automotive industry is in a deep crisis. The current legal framework is proving too narrow and too inflexible. The consequences are dramatic – jobs are being lost, most recently a plant in Brussels that has closed or will close next year. That is why we must act now. First, we must do everything we can to avoid penalties in the coming year. In the current phase, companies cannot and must not be forced to make such payments. This money should flow better into the transformation, the preservation of jobs and locations. Secondly, we must implement what has long been a key demand of the CDU/CSU: The ban on combustion engines from 2035 must be lifted, not only in 2026, but as soon as possible in 2025. The industry needs this clear signal that we are taking back this wrong decision. We finally need openness to technology instead of a policy of banning it. Thirdly and lastly, we need to be broader. The pure focus on electro is a dead end. We need all technologies, a broad mix and also the recognition of climate-neutral fuels.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! The green ban policy is ubiquitous: First the burner-off, then absurd restrictions on the driver's license including night driving ban for beginners, finally a law to restore nature, which can paralyze our agriculture. In this House, we are increasingly engaged in correcting this anti-consumer and anti-industrial policy, a policy of de-industrialisation of Europe that reduces our prosperity and increases our dependence on other regions of the world. This is not how global environmental protection works. But contrary to the opinion of the Greens and Social Democrats, the protection of health, the protection of our European industry and the protection of jobs are not contradictory – the result of the negotiations on Euro 7 is the best proof of this. The result is pragmatic and realistic, for three reasons: Air quality is sustainably improved by stricter exhaust emission limits for trucks and buses, by regulating emissions from brake and tyre abrasion for the first time – which is particularly important for electromobility – but also by replacing older vehicles with the latest-generation combustion engines. The industry remains competitive, the moderate adjustment of the limit values creates the necessary planning certainty for the industry. This is practical and oriented towards economic feasibility. And thirdly and lastly: Individual mobility remains affordable. Strict limit values and new test procedures would have made cars considerably more expensive, but brought little added value for air quality. Especially in times of crisis like these, cars must remain affordable for citizens. In the Euro 7 negotiations, the voice of reason has won. The result is a prime example of how environmental and industrial policy can go hand in hand if we leave green ideology out. That is why I ask you to agree with this trilogue tomorrow, so that we can once again shape policy with moderation, because smart environmental protection with industry – which works, but against industry – will be difficult.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Driving licences are part of growing up for many young people, especially in rural areas. A driver's license means freedom to meet friends, take a holiday trip or just drive to work. Thanks to the EU, the driver's license is also valid outside Germany. The EU Driving Licence Directive has thus far been a success story with real added value for each of us. The Greens, the Left and the Social Democrats seem to want to change that. I cannot explain the amendments in any other way, ladies and gentlemen. Mandatory medical tests for everyone, no Europe-wide recognition of accompanied driving from 17, special rules for beginners. In any case, these proposals do not serve road safety. On the contrary: For young drivers, the frequency of damage is 25 percent lower if they have already obtained a driver's license at 17. I experienced this with my daughter, who also did it at 17, which is successful. The ‘accompanied driving’ system is therefore a success story. So: No more paternalism, more pragmatism, trusting people – with Europe-wide recognition of accompanied driving, recognition of driver's licenses and concrete simplifications for all road users.

Mr President, Commissioner Hoekstra, ladies and gentlemen! Buses and trucks are currently responsible for 6% of emissions in the EU, and we all depend on their services in our daily lives – for commuting to work or for full shelves in the supermarket. Just give up, that's out of the question. And only together can we manage to reduce the emissions of the industry. All options must be on the table. But instead of making this possible, Greens and Social Democrats prefer to push ahead with their ideology of prohibition. Because again, CO2-neutral fuels should play no role, again there should be artificial restrictions on electric and hydrogen. Again, no openness to all technologies, rather ban, rather Bas Eickhout. And you can do that better – as you have already shown in the car – that is your policy. But with us – the many jobs, the small and medium-sized manufacturers of trucks and semi-trailers seem to be completely indifferent to Greens and Social Democrats – manufacturers that are deeply rooted in their regions and offer well-paid jobs. Unrealistic targets – and frankly, ruinous penalties – are now looming. This is politics against our industry and also against our middle class, in the end politics against the people – we must not accept this. Today's vote is the last chance to leave the wrong path of technological hostility in this legislature. And Bas Eickhout said: We shouldn't talk about e-fuels. So, dear Bas Eickhout, there are three options from the EPP today: We have a broad definition of CO2-neutral fuels, we have a carbon-correction-Factor with a lid, and we have a request only to e-fuels. And I can say for the EPP: If today we finally move this Parliament in the right direction and one of these motions is approved, then the EPP is also on board and then we can correct the mistakes we have made in the past. We are ready as an EPP, I hope the Greens too.

Dear Mr President, Commissioner Dalli, ladies and gentlemen, I want more realism in this debate. We all want better air quality for our citizens, affordable mobility for citizens and businesses and a competitive industry in the European Union. In order to make progress in all areas and not overburden anyone, we need a healthy middle ground in the Euro 7 standard. We have already worked out this, and this proposal is being voted on here today. It improves air quality. Stricter limits will result in Euro 7 cars emitting 60% less particulate matter and trucks emitting 60% less nitrogen oxides compared to Euro 6. Mobility remains affordable. Strict limit values and new test procedures require considerable investment, but bring comparatively little added value for air quality. If we keep the proven Euro 6 test procedures and only moderately tighten the limits, we will prevent high investments in expensive technology that ultimately pays the consumer. We ensure the competitiveness of European industry. It was only at the beginning of this year that the incinerator phase-out was decided in the EU from 2035. We cannot force the auto industry to invest billions in an end-of-life technology. Climate protection only works with industry, not against it. Air quality and maintaining competitiveness and jobs in the EU are our priorities. This proposal strikes the necessary balance. What is missing is a passage to technology neutrality. Carbon-neutral fuels help climate protection. And by what means we achieve climate protection or better air in the end, must not be prescribed. We need competition. A ban on certain technologies is never effective. Politicians are not better engineers. I haven't found any, even among the Greens, although I have been looking for a long time. For this reason, we have introduced changes so that the continued operation of combustion cars that are operated climate-neutrally with CO2-neutral fuels is still possible after 2035. Ladies and gentlemen, we have found a good compromise. That's why I appeal to everyone here: Please support this balanced approach to better air, affordable mobility and a globally competitive industry.

Vice-President Wieland, Commissioner Jourová, ladies and gentlemen! The economic situation in industry and SMEs is extremely tense. War in Ukraine, inflation, disruptions to international supply chains and numerous natural disasters are causing uncertainty. We won't solve all problems at once, but we need to start offering solutions again. A new start is now needed for greater competitiveness in the European Union. It is high time that the EU Commission implements a concrete location policy for the EU. The SME relief package presented yesterday is only a first step, a good and correct signal. Of course, as an EPP, we are pleased that our long-standing calls for a SME representative in the Commission have finally been successful. However, this position must now also be filled quickly. Equally positive and overdue: The competition test is to come, administrative procedures and reporting obligations for our companies are to be simplified and the transitional periods for SMEs are to be extended. However, it is important that it does not remain with vague announcements. We need concrete measures to cut red tape. And there I see openly still a crux and a enforcement deficit, I want to say. The last four years of this College of Commissioners have been marked by consistent bureaucracy building. Instead of One in, one out It is de facto: Three new laws in, one out. This is the Commission's last chance to change that. The target announced by the President of the Commission to reduce reporting requirements by 25% is also a real step here, but again only the tip of the iceberg. If Ursula von der Leyen is serious, then we must now One in, one out Consistently implement. We need a real U-turn, we need concrete instead of vague announcements. And this also includes a stress moratorium for medium-sized companies, because the relief comes only through implementation. We will be economically successful again if we implement these simple principles.

Madam President, Commissioner Gentiloni, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen! It's just sad now. Theoretically, I could give the same speech from last year again. Unfortunately, not much has changed. There is still no stress moratorium. We have also been waiting for the SME envoy for more than three years now. is just a distant utopia. Instead, we are approaching the status of “at least three new legislative proposals in and one out”. This bureaucracy and these rules take the air out of the middle class to breathe. I can't do that. It is a good thing that, as the European Parliament, we are once again emphasizing our demands with a resolution this week, giving this and the next Commission another task list. It can't go any further. If our demands continue to be ignored, I see black. Then rows of medium-sized companies, farmers, bakers, metalworkers will simply give up. Instead of vague announcements, real measures are needed: Finally, the establishment of an SME envoy centrally positioned in the Commission President's cabinet, who can also take action if new legislation is overburdened with bureaucracy, the mandatory application of One in, one outWe have been calling for this for a long time, in order to avoid ever more bureaucratic requirements from the outset, for the introduction of mandatory SME tests in the impact assessments of new laws in order to anticipate the impact on SMEs, and finally for a burden moratorium on the 25 million SMEs in Europe suffering from these excessive regulations. We just talked about it for two hours: Tax the rich. Before we collect taxes here, the money must first be earned. In this respect, we need relief for small and medium-sized enterprises. Let's start this today!

Madam President, Commissioner Vălean, ladies and gentlemen! This is an important signal today! Lack of charging infrastructure is still a major problem. Without public acceptance, there will be no reduction in emissions. We need a Europe-wide success story and not a few charging stations in a few countries. AFIR has been a great success here, including for the EPP. Where others wanted to exclude again, we relied on technology openness, agreed on legally binding goals that give planning certainty. This must now be implemented by the Member States. The AFIR was just the starting signal. More commitment is needed, in particular due to the ban on combustion engines from 2035, while we are still waiting for Vice-President Timmermans' proposal for the recognition of climate-neutral fuel. Well, either he can't or he doesn't want to, in any case: So far, the Vice-President has delivered nothing. Prohibitionists remain loyal. Although the truck expansion targets in AFIR have been weakened – there was simply no majority in the Council for more ambition – the Greens now also want the ban on combustion engines for trucks and buses. I think that's just unworldly and unrealistic. We need all the solutions: Electricity, hydrogen, LNG, sustainable fuels. We shouldn't rule out anything. In the end, we reached a good compromise on the AFIR technical file. I would like to thank everyone involved and allow me to make a personal statement: Colleague Ertug has left the house. Dear Ismail, all the best to you and your family, and I hope to see you again outside Parliament.

Madam President, Minister Roswall, Commissioner Schmit, ladies and gentlemen! We should take the ICCT report seriously. And also the judgment of the ECJ. Shut-off devices are only legal if they serve to protect the engine. This must be assessed on a case-by-case basis by the competent authorities. In Germany, in my home country, the Federal Motor Transport Authority is responsible for this. This commented the ICCT report soberly: The measurements are outdated, and there have been numerous retrofits and recalls since then. So before some are eagerly working on the next campaign against the automotive industry, let's take a look at the facts: The fact that European legislation has developed in particular in the context of the diesel scandal, that we are now examining it more closely and more closely – as the Commissioner has just pointed out – and that we finally have tests in real operation and no longer rely solely on laboratory tests, is what we, as the EPP, have been advocating from the outset, including in the EMIS Exhaust Gas Testing Committee and in the subsequent legislation. It is also a fact that air quality in the EU has improved significantly in recent years. For example, even the German Federal Environment Agency (Umweltbundesamt) attests that there are virtually no more exceedances of the applicable limit values in Germany. In 2021, only one percent of urban measuring stations were found to exceed the nitrogen dioxide limit value. That's good news. In addition, air quality is improved even further every year through fleet renewals and the switch to alternative powertrains. So whoever incites or polarises now and whoever conjures up a new scandal should be honest that he really has different intentions, that he uses every opportunity to brand the automotive industry, that he does not care about the European car industry and also the workers in this industry. It is the same ideology, the same hostility to technology, which has also promoted the ban on combustion engines here in the House.

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!