Speeches

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. Securing the sustainable future in livestock farming, in the livestock sector, is important to all of us. I say this quite clearly: Yes, yes. And I think the majority of society out there also says quite clearly: Yes, yes. But what do we say yes to? I say yes to meat and milk as food. But I also say yes to the fact that more plant-based foods are important. I say yes to extensive grazing, and I say yes to the fact that we need the feed base ourselves in Europe. And at the same time, I say yes at fair prices for farmers – quite clearly. I say yes to science. And I am very annoyed that the report attacks scientificity in such a way. Science is the basis of our decision. I say yes to NGOs. It is quite clear that we need NGOs that are active in the animal welfare sector, in the environmental sector, but also in the agricultural sector. I say yes to agricultural organizations as well. Don't make the report look like it's called: Are you for or against farmers? It is about: How do we do it better? How do we move into the future with livestock farming?

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, We stand here today because we are fighting to ensure that there is and should be the only truly fair legal principle when it comes to sexual contacts, the only fair principle, namely genuine consent, namely: ‘Yes only means yes’. I would like to address specifically the husbands and permanent partners of women. It must be clear to them that we are fighting for a principle that signing a marriage contract does not mean lifelong access to a woman's body. Some believe that there is such a thing as a standing order, but it is only available on the bank. We are fighting for a principle that even wives who have once signed up to be wives still have the right, the clear right, to decide: Do I want to have sexual contact or not? And if I don't really want him with consent, it's rape. Why did I consciously choose husbands and stable partners? Because they are the main group of perpetrators. It's not just the culprits who jump out behind the bush. Yes, there are. But the main culprit, the cynical thing about this group of the main culprits is that it is the people who are very, very close to the women, who go beyond their borders and who rape them.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, What Europe is always proud of is that we have a great consumer protection programme, that we really stand for consumer protection. Consumer protection always means that what's in it is what's on it. And now we come to the vote tomorrow: It says ‘simplification’, but that's not really in it. If one or the other of the amendments goes through tomorrow, there is no simplification in it, even though it says ‘simplification’ outside. This is a label scam. It is label fraud when there is "simplification" on the outside and reduction of grassland protection on the inside, when there is "simplification" on the outside and it is on the inside that we are cut off from the future environmental legislation, when there is on the outside label that we want to go further into the good future for agriculture and actually the step backwards is in it. If tomorrow these amendments, which come from the extreme right, but also from the Conservatives, go through, then a proposal became an absolute label hoax. That's why it's very clear to me: I will not agree with this kind of simplification. And anyone who thinks he can steer the debates in a different direction with a veggie burger just wants to distract.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen! Yes, the Commission is currently on the road with a 'bee-protection' banner; this bee-protection banner should be at the top. However, it is important to say that the Commission's recent proposals on European agricultural policy are in stark contrast. Bee policy is not made in your committee or in your Commission, but bee policy – the real bee policy – is made in the Agriculture Committee. If deregulation continues in the Committee on Agriculture, if the Pollinator Strategy, the Biodiversity Strategy and other things, but also the Nature Restoration Directive - which is currently under massive attack in the Committee on Agriculture - continue to be pushed against the wall, if the simplification packages are not simplification packages but bee attack packages, then we notice that the Committee on Agriculture is the committee responsible for ensuring bee health. We all know that the main cause of bee decline is intensive farming. We all know that the task of extensive agricultural systems is a problem, that climate change, but also invasive species, urbanization and the intensification of forestry are all reasons. These reasons will only be anticipated. You will not be able to support the bees with small bee hotspots, but only with a comprehensive, good, sustainable agriculture throughout Europe. Therefore: Bee policy is agricultural policy, agriculture policy is bee policy. A big banner above it doesn't help us, we need it every day.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, It is clear: The majority of people in Europe do not want GMOs in our fields. No GMOs in our fields! Votes have proved this time and again in the individual Member States, it is clear. I would like to say one thing to my previous speaker, Mr Buda: Mr Buda, it is shameful how, on the one hand, you stand behind EFSA in this case and make it clear: We are doing what EFSA wants, namely putting GMOs on the plate. On the other hand, when it comes to animal welfare, you are insulting EFSA in such a way that in the last debate I was ashamed for you of how it can be that such an authority of the European Union is insulted. We are at a clear point here. We are the representatives of the people. The population does not want GMO products in our fields. I expect the Commission to stop with a continual fire of requests. Motions for motions for motions which, as a Parliament, should at some point force us to say yes. Parliament will say no, even in the future – and yet I expect that this democratic legitimacy of our vote will be more valued here. This is a clear message to the Commission.

Madam President, Commissioner! First of all, I would like to apologise to the viewers who may be sitting on the TV, sitting on the PC – apologies for some of the speeches that have been delivered here in the house. This part of Parliament is constructive. This part of Parliament works in a friendly way with each other, even if we do not always agree. But there is also a part here in the house – this part is destructive from the beginning. This part is backward-looking and sometimes just stupid – I would like to apologize for that. But now on to the subject: We got a roadmap. A roadmap: The word alone means that we are still not on target – a roadmap. And I have to be very clear: Yeah, he's not bad, the roadmap. We have no knowledge deficits, no knowledge deficits at all – we have implementation deficits, action deficits. That is why I so much hope that this roadmap will really get very concrete initiatives this year, very concrete legislative papers, very concrete papers that will move us forward. Because we have had roadmaps for so long – we need implementation in the different areas.

Mr President! Dear colleagues, dear colleagues! There has always been. It used to have a different face – it used to be the so-called witch burnings. A woman was picked out of the mass of women, she was mostly exposed, pulled naked on a cart, dragged through the city, to the pyre and burned under greed by many people. Those were the pyres before. Today, there are pyres on the Internet. A woman is pulled out, the woman is exposed, often also naked, she is slandered, and she is publicly burned. And what does it do to the others? It does with the other women exactly what it should have done many hundreds of years ago, namely: The other women are silent. What we need to do: On the one hand, of course, we have to look at the countries outside the EU. On the other hand, we must also see that within the EU, if member countries do not protect their women sufficiently from this hatred, then these member countries must also get the funds frozen – the rule of law, human rights, freedom of the press is part of it. But if you don't protect your women, you can't get money from the EU. That's the look inside.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Today, 25 November, the day against violence against women, I would like to address the men – the real men. The real men are the men we reach out to. The real men are the men who never beat. The real men are the men who want equal women to take over family work. The real men are happy when women are successful in the profession. The real men defend women and protect women. The real men do not hide behind tradition or religion. The real men are Democrats. But we also have the men who are cowardly, who are weak, and who are not men. The men who are perpetrators, who are afraid of self-confident women, who are afraid of having conversations, who are afraid of the sexual pleasure of women, who are afraid and who hide behind religion, who hide behind alleged tradition, who completely misdefine masculinity and who, above all, quite often have not democratic, but actually fascist ideas. This means: We European women know which men we can count on. It's the Democrats. And we European women know exactly which ones are not.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen! The situation of women in Afghanistan is devastating. It's about one thing: It's about breastfeeding women. It's about taking away their language. It's all about making women invisible. When we look at what is happening in Afghanistan, we realize that such tendencies also exist in our country. Because there are also tendencies with us that some believe that women should come back to the stove. There are also tendencies among us that some believe that parliaments are better if there are no women represented in them. We also have tendencies that especially the extreme right side believes that women have a different place in society than men. We're standing here. We stand here as the European Parliament, fighting globally for women to be allowed to speak out. We want women to be visible all over the world. We are fighting worldwide for women to get half of the parliaments. We are on the side of our sisters.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! The strategic dialogue in agriculture was a good dialogue, a dialogue that involved many groups and groups, a dialogue that hopefully brings us forward, because the real advantage of this dialogue is the consensus that seems to be underpinned: the signatures of the various groups and groups that promise to abide by them. What is not new is the content. Almost similar content was already in the Farm to Forkcalled a strategy. This means that in terms of content, we have summarized what has been known for a long time and, above all, is already known in science, and yet: Good dialogue. Now the question is: Is this strategic dialogue and the paper a Sunday paper that can no longer be found on Monday and no longer be implemented, or do we manage to bring this paper into Monday and into the week so that politics can really emerge from it? And I would like to take a very specific look at Mr Dorfmann. Mr Dorfmann, what is your role in the EPP? Your role in the EPP is to vote in the implementation of the strategic dialogue with the Democrats. If you fail and at the end vote with the right side, then it will be dark in Europe!

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, When it comes to prevention of trafficking in human beings, it is important to state precisely: What is the purpose of human trafficking? Because only if I really have the purpose in mind can I take preventive action. And I would like to explicitly contradict my previous speaker: It is right and good, and I would like to thank you for clearly stating what the purpose of exploitation is, namely trafficking in human beings for the purpose of sexual exploitation, offline or online, trafficking in human beings for the purpose of surrogacy, trafficking in human beings for the purpose of organ trafficking. Exactly the purpose gives us the direction on how to start prevention. It's clear: If the purpose is sexual exploitation, whether in prostitution or pornography, then we have to start there if we want to stop human trafficking. Exactly in pornography and prostitution – it must be clear there: Here is the starting point. For the purpose of surrogacy, we have to start right there and also with organ trafficking. It is important to know that legal structures – if there were legal structures, and there are legal structures, e.g. in prostitution – these legal structures are exploited to build the illegal structures. This means: Illegal prostitution takes place more or less in the shadow of what is supposedly legal. Therefore: The purpose gives us the clear approach where prevention can start.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, Agriculture policy has long ceased to be a niche policy, but a social policy. I voted for the Green Deal, and I would do it again because it's the right way to go. I understand farmers who are annoying. I also understand that farmers require impact assessments, impact assessments on laws: What happens when pesticides are reduced? What does that do with my farm, with my farming, with my opportunity to make money? These impact assessments for farmers are important and correct. But at the same time - and this is really important to mention - society is also calling for impact assessments, namely: What happens if we don't reduce pesticides? What happens if we continue to lose species? This means that there are impact assessments not only on the one hand, but also on the other. I am grateful to my faction, the S&D, for always being able to find the balance. Agriculture is social policy. And if the EPP believes that it can now act as if it had to protect farmers from Brussels, I would just say: Let's catch the farmers! Let's go with them into a time, a difficult time, a time of climate change, of climate adaptation. This is not easy; Agriculture needs our support. The EPP is deepening the gaps between society and agriculture, but we need to fill these gaps.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I have a déjà vu experience: As a German Member of Parliament, I experience something the second, the third, maybe even the fifth time: a situation in which Germany is blocking something in the Council, even though it has long since been transposed into law in Germany. You may remember the Women on Boards policy with me. The Women on Boards Directive had long been implemented in Germany, but Angela Merkel had blocked it in the Council. Now it is similar: The topic ‘No means No’, the topic ‘Yes means Yes’ has long since been implemented in Germany. And that is why I would like to specifically address Justice Minister Buschmann from Germany: How can it be that Germany is blocking something in the Council that Germany likes for German women? How can it be that Germany blocks something in the Council and thus does not allow European women to share in the same legal interests? I can't understand. Our Justice Minister Buschmann of the FDP wants to block in the Council that rape is included as a definition in the directive. We can't let that happen, it can't be! This cannot be the case that the large country of Germany in Europe is blocking this directive.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, I think facts should be the basis for democratic decision-making processes. We know, and these are the facts, that intensive use of pesticides is one of the main drivers of species extinction and biodiversity decline in Europe. In the last 30 years, there has been a decline of more than 75% in total biomass and flying insects in the protected areas. We know, and these are facts, that pesticides can lead to serious diseases such as leukemia, Parkinson's disease, increased risk of liver, breast cancer, type 2 diabetes, but also asthma, allergies, obesity, disorders of hormonal glands, etc. We know, and these are facts, that the EU has a flawed admissions procedure. There is no really sufficient research on cocktail effects, no really sufficient research on pesticides on soil health. Only five species are tested, but in reality there are a million organisms in soils that are not tested at all. We know, and these are facts, that the industry has deliberately withheld studies on the harmful effects of pesticides on brain development. The industry is dancing around on our noses. That is why, precisely because I am a member of the Committee on Agriculture, I am opting for a stricter regulation on pesticides and will vote in this way on Wednesday.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner! There is a paper on the table and I would like to thank the rapporteur. Yes, it is a paper with good approaches. But there are things that are missing. There are things that are very good. There are things that are too much. Let me say this clearly, and especially to you, Commissioner, because you should incorporate this into your strategy and your paper, which you then put on the table. What's missing? There is no clear indication that the production and consumption of protein derived from farmed animals from intensive and feed-based factory farming should be reduced. That's missing. There is no clear indication that we have a point here that we urgently need to reduce. As I said, feed-based factory farming, this point is missing. The point could still be included if we accept Amendment No 2 today. What's good in the paper? It is good that there is a commitment to the pasture. Pasture is the most sustainable form and the best form for animals and for people, for the environment. Livestock grazing in meat production is definitely the best. It is good that the transformation is called that there should be a transformation towards the sustainability of animal husbandry. It is clearly stated that we have a deficit, a deficit in feed protein, and that this deficit in feed protein cannot be compensated in the long term by imports, but that in the future this deficit in feed protein can only be compensated on our own soil. What is in the report that certainly does not belong in it? It does not include a commitment to the new genetic engineering, as if the new genetic engineering would improve the feed topic in our country. It does not belong in the fact that we are suddenly talking about industrial meat. As if industrial meat would replace the protein strategy in Europe. I think these are two things, Commissioner, that you should write down urgently. GMOs have nothing to look for in this protein strategy paper, and even the new industrial meat has nothing to look for in it. Because that makes the paper a lukewarm paper again, when it is said that one and the other is always possible. No, we have to decide. We need a clear path.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner! It is quite clear that the voice of the people has spoken here. The European Citizens' Initiative has taken a clear stand and has supported us. Parliament has received a great deal of outside support when it comes to banning fur farms. Fur coats: You have to imagine that for a fur coat made of mink, 60 mink must die, 60 animal life for a coat, or for the chinchilla coats 200 chinchilla animal life for a coat. In my opinion, there is only one word for it. The word is perversion. This is an absolute perversion when animal life is used in such a way for jewelry. That is, breeding and killing for the sole benefit of the fur is simply incredible, and it is, as I said, an incredible perversion. We need to make it clear where we are in Europe. We do not want to have this breeding here, but we do not want to have products from other countries, from other Member States. That's why we need a ban on imports of furs, we need a clear ban on sales, and we need a clear positioning that perverse consumer behaviour has no place in Europe!

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Thank you again for the exchange. The vote will take place tomorrow at noon. Tomorrow at noon Europe takes a stand, Europe takes a stand. We have seen, from several examples, that the path of liberalization is an erroneous path in the matter of prostitution. It is a mistake because it makes women a commodity and above all because violence is immense. There are countries, there you can look at it, every day, even in my home country, unfortunately. I would also like to remind you once again what happened shortly after the war broke out, the war, the Russian war of aggression. Posters were posted at German railway stations. Women should not respond to offers from men to go home with them, they would sleep there, be able to live there. Because everyone who hung the posters knew that women would have to pay with their bodies if they went with them. That means in a climate of ‘everything is normal’ and it is a kind of currency, if I have no other currency in my pocket, if as a woman fleeing Ukraine I might arrive at a station in Germany with a child under my arm and I have no other currency in my pocket, then I have only one currency left. This is my body. We feminists cannot remain silent about this. We can't say it's a trade, it's not and it will never be. We must break the cycle of getting into prostitution out of poverty and need, and never getting out of poverty and need when you are in prostitution. It's the same. The pillars are clear. More prevention, more exit aids, decriminalization of all people who are in prostitution. But, of course, the criminalization of those who earn from women. Women deserve a lot, a lot. The focus of my report is on the protection of victims and the protection of dignity. But also the punishment of offenders. Because only both together can lead to toxic relationships, as they also exist in prostitution again and again, that toxic relationships are blown up. I ask you to agree with my report tomorrow. Not because it is my report, but because it comes from the middle of this House with a large broad coalition. I ask you to agree. We are taking a good step for Europe.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, Europeans! The own-initiative report here in a house is always based on any party taking a ‘political family’ initiative. As S&D, we took the initiative and a year ago we had the topic ‘Regulation of prostitution in the EU: cross-border impact”, and most importantly the consequences for equality. We have proposed the subject. The subject has been accepted. I would like to thank my colleagues very much for allowing me to become rapporteur at the end. Also the shadow rapporteurs who worked with me on the subject – also thank you very much from the point of view. Thank you for the good cooperation. Thank you for the collegial design of the report. The report goes into detail about the actual living conditions, under which predominantly women live in prostitution. Poverty, exploitation, impoverishment, discrimination – often combined with previous experiences of violence – makes these women a very vulnerable group in our society. Last girls first: This book title brings it to the point. The last women, the women and girls of a society that often cannot resist, find themselves in a spider web of prostitution. Prostitution is racist. Prostitution is sexist because it is men who exploit women. And it is above all men who exploit groups. I just want to say: 70% of women in prostitution are women with a migrant background – sexist, racist and above all violent. Prostitution is not work and prostitution is not sexuality, but prostitution is violence. Only by recognising prostitution as an experience of violence and analysing the structure behind it can we uphold and strengthen women's rights. Let me be very clear: The report does not obscure the fact that there may also be a small group of women who may temporarily volunteer to engage in prostitution. But the myth of prostituting oneself is an expression of freedom and self-determination, I do not follow this myth. The vast majority of women and girls in prostitution are neither self-determined nor voluntary, but are trapped in exploitation. It is important to recognize that the report focuses on the fact that there are people who earn from prostitution. They deserve women to go out. It is the pimps and traffickers, it is the brothel operators and the freemen who then form the demand. That is exactly what the report is about. For, as I said, it is violence that is at stake. It's about money versus foreplay, it's about money versus holding out, and it's about money versus holding out. The report makes it clear that the OECD study on prostitution and human trafficking says that, for example, liberalized countries such as Germany even fuel prostitution. Europol clarifies that legal infrastructures in Germany – such as brothels and walkways – are still, to a large extent, trafficking in human beings. That's on the table. We have to do something about that. We must finally act. Five points that are important. Firstly: Prostitution as a form of gender-based violence needs to be recognised, categorised – women need to be helped. Secondly: Prevention and education must be at the centre and, of course, women must be lifted out of poverty. Thirdly: Significant increase in exit programs. Exit programs are important. Exit aids must be coupled with the clear knowledge that it takes time to get back into society. Fourthly: Decriminalization of all prostitutes, women, men, trans people, all must be decriminalized. Fifth: It is clear that those who earn from prostitution – but also those who are free – must be criminalised. Ladies and gentlemen, we are at a crossroads: We can decide where we want to go – as a European Union. Do we want to follow the liberal situation and liberalize prostitution? Then we just need to look at Germany as it is there, and I can only advise against it. Or do we want to take a new step? A step based on the need for a gender-responsive system, including in prostitution. Prostitution affects not only women who are directly affected, but prostitution affects society as a whole – it affects us all.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. I would like to speak here as a member of the Committee on Agriculture. One thing is clear: the two demonstrations we saw outside Parliament today do not reflect the issue. These two demonstrations should make us believe that there is a situation of farmers against non-farmers. But that is not the case. It's not about farmers versus non-farmers, it's about one thing: It's about power and the idea of coming to power together with all, all right, or about the future. This is the mixture: Power or future. I think the two sides need to be looked at closely. On the one hand, the EPP is with the Eurosceptics and with the extreme right, who think they would rather give up nature than give up power. On the other hand, I would like to say thank you to all those who have really turned on their brains and asserted reason, who clearly stand by the side of science, who clearly stand by the side of the farmers of the future, who clearly stand by the side of those who know: It is also about the next generations. It's not farmers against non-farmers, it's reason against power.

Dear Madam President, It honors you, because we all make mistakes, only mistakes have to be corrected and everything is good. First of all, I want to say thank you. I would like to thank all the Democrats in this House who have fought for many years for the Istanbul Convention to be signed by the EU itself as it is now. And I would also like to thank our Commissioner Helena Dalli very much. We wouldn't be that far without you in this position. I would like to mention points that have nothing to do with the Istanbul Convention, because we have already heard a lot of things that clearly belong to it. What doesn't belong to it? The eternally stupid arguments of yesterday, in our culture or in our tradition, it would not be possible to sign the Istanbul Convention. I will not let this argument count. Another argument that should never count in the EU: That some member countries believe that the Church would decide what is law and order in our country. No, it's not the church that decides. In Europe, it is not the Church that decides what law is, but we in the democratic parliament. And as a third point, and this must be made very clear again: Private violence can never, never and never again be private. Private violence affects society as a whole. That's why we fight it every day, every night, every minute, every second.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, Although there are, of course, a large number of states in the world where women's activists stand up for women's rights, including the right to abortion, today we are looking in particular at Poland. Because there it happened that activists were convicted, activists who helped women in their need, not to have to carry out a pregnancy against their will, with medication. A woman was sentenced to eight months of social work by a state that doesn't value that woman's work, doesn't value her advocating for life on a daily basis, namely women's life. This morning we had a press conference with women from Poland, Justyna and Marta, and they told us they were going to continue. They will continue to stand up for women's rights, they will not be discouraged. They close a gap. These courageous women close a gap that the Polish government has torn into the country, a gap of mistrust and a gap of violence against women. Because those who deprive women of the right over their own bodies exercise violence against women. We say thank you to Justyna, thank you to Marta, thank you to all women's rights activists worldwide. We're at their side. The EU women and part of the EU men stand by their side.