What Maria spoke about.

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.

Dear Mr President, Commissioner! There is no peace with hunger, we all know that. Fighting hunger is peace policy number one. But in the shadow of this crisis that we currently have, in the shadow of it, party politics is also being made now. It is claimed that hunger will be satisfied if we give up 4% of wasteland here in Europe. It is said that hunger is satisfied if we do not observe the crop rotation here. I think that's hypocritical. Sustainable food systems are much more comprehensive. For example, we must finally get away from our soy imports. Sustainable food systems cannot rely on massive imports. That doesn't work. We have to get away from having our hands on the surfaces of others. We live on the lands of others. Why isn't this being addressed? We need to help countries feed themselves. Of course, there are also times of crisis, there must be food supplied from abroad. But it usually has to be that countries feed themselves. Above all, we need a trade policy that is on an equal footing. Hunger can only be fed locally. You have to understand that first and then act on it.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, No help comes as directly to children as good water policy. No problem is doubled as bad water policy. This means: Water is very special, if we see this as a fundamental right, as a human right, a child's right. It is about health, it is about nutrition already in infants, it is about physical and mental development – all this is based on good water. But it is also about the dignity of children – about the dignity of children to be able to wash themselves, to be able to cleanse themselves. I would also like to mention the girls especially when they menstruate. It is also about the education of children, because children need schools, and schools need good water. All of this is related. Water protection is the most direct child protection we can imagine. And we have four tasks: We always have to make water available, we have to make water accessible in such a way that the price is affordable, water must be of good quality, and water must be stable and reliable, even after droughts, even after floods, even when there are other problems. Water protection is direct child protection.

Mr President! Hunger in the world keeps us all busy. We have 10 fingers. We have ten fingers to do ten things about it. Point 1: Immediately set all levers in motion that the wheat comes out of Ukraine. Unblock the ports. This has to be done. We urgently need a ban on speculation on food – worldwide. We urgently need a debate on tank – plate – trough. The plates need to be filled more – less the trough and less the tank. We urgently need more humanitarian funding, for example for countries in the Global South. And we need debt relief. We need these five things right away. In the long term – and in the long term, it starts immediately, tomorrow – we need more support towards self-sufficiency, that is, food sovereignty for all countries. We must be able to better protect crops, with infrastructure, with warehouses. We urgently need more regionality, more circular economy. We urgently need more organic farming. We urgently need the right to seeds and the right to procreation worldwide. And we urgently need no privatization of water worldwide. Ten tasks. We know them well. We just have to tackle.

.– You speak clearly to me as a man – to me as a woman. They talk to me as a man who can make a jump, who can have sex, who can have unprotected sex, but never has to pay the same price for it. You talk to me as a man who thinks he can put himself in the position of a woman. I can only say that it is the time when you, as a man, have to remain silent, because it is about something that you would never have to endure yourself!

Madam President, Violence has many faces. Withholding age-appropriate sexual education is a form of violence. Withholding contraceptives is a form of violence. Withholding medical help during and after childbirth is a form of violence. Withholding information about abortion is a form of violence. Withholding medical services in the form of abortion is a form of violence. A society that is medically capable but does not support women who want it, such a society is a violent society. A society that speaks out clearly against forced marriage, that speaks out clearly against forced sterilisation but does not speak out clearly against forced pregnancies – and a refused abortion is equivalent to forced pregnancy – such a society is not a free society. We stand here and fight for a free society, not only in Europe, but for a free society throughout the world. It is mostly a male, right-wing violence that wants to force us into limits, and it is mostly a male, right-wing violence that believes that it can make politics on the body of women. (The speaker agreed to respond to an intervention under the blue card procedure)

Madam President, Victims are the whole of Europe. The victims are all of us. The victims are taxpayers and taxpayers. I am speaking from the AGRI area. The victims are, of course, the normal farmers who want to get subsidies and need subsidies. Who are the perpetrators? The perpetrators are a small group, a small greedy group that cannot get its neck full, a small greedy group that on the one hand strives for power, strives for control of the media, on the other hand also naturally strives for money and really enriches itself with money. That is why we must do everything we can to clearly separate the perpetrators from the victims. We must do everything we can to arrest the perpetrators. This means that we finally need more resources for the people, for the staff of OLAF, for example – finally more resources and more staff for OLAF –, finally more resources and more staff for the European Public Prosecutor’s Office and, of course, for Europol. We need a Commission that really wants to bite, a Commission that really bites and only gives in - I would say once - when it has a chunk of meat in its mouth. Especially if she killed someone. This is really about protecting the European Union, protecting it every day. I expect that from the Commission.

Madam President, I think we all agree: People, institutions, big companies exploiting war – that is despicable! It is despicable to use war to gain one's own advantages. But I would also like to make it quite clear here in this House: It is despicable for the EPP to use the war to push through its own agricultural agenda. It's despicable! I would like to mention this word here, because it is about exactly one thing: You set your old agenda – your agenda ‘Pesticides on Ecological Focus Areas’, your old agenda ‘More and More Meat’, your old agenda against the Green DealYour old agenda against Farm to Fork – they are now being used in the shadow of a war. For me as a S&D woman, it's despicable that you do something like that. And to you, Commissioner, I would like to say one more thing, with just as harsh words: You stand here for minutes and talk about a heading – it is about ‘within the EU’ and ‘outside the EU’. And you're not talking one sentence about Africa, not one sentence about other people starving to death. They even talk about the fact that we can actually feel quite safe – with us everything is fine, we have a good grip on it. And you don't understand that others are starving. They don't name it. Here, too, I would like to say: I can't understand that. Actually, I appreciate you. But today I was very, very disappointed in you. Yes, it is! The situations as we have them today, such violent situations also need these violent words. And I hope – I hope that by tomorrow the EPP will still have time to withdraw its five amendments, which are so fierce, to make it clear that they are concerned about the matter and not about their old agenda.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, Why did we even set up a committee of inquiry on animal transport here in-house? Because the scandals were screaming to the sky, because it was no longer possible to cover up what was happening here in Europe, and because you knew you needed a committee, a special place, to take care of animal welfare. There have been persistent infringements in the Member States. It was looked away, looked away, and, above all, there were no infringement proceedings. And one thing was clear: The will to set up a committee of inquiry was clear. This issue must not be discussed in the AGRI Committee – in a committee that may not be balanced at the end – but this issue must be discussed on neutral ground, in a committee of inquiry. We were tasked with creating a report – a relentless report – and writing recommendations. And here I really have to say that I am not only annoyed, but sometimes really angry about how certain colleagues believed that they had to turn the ANIT Committee of Inquiry into a second Committee on Agriculture. It is not the task of the ANIT Committee of Inquiry, it is the balance itself - how will this possibly be possible with farmers later on? – to weigh up, but its task is to shed light on the situation of the animals. Our task is to make a good recommendation to the Commission. The Commission will then produce papers, and then the balancing will happen. Whoever did it at the beginning – and Mr Buda, I am looking at you in particular; You have also today reopened the debate here with the statement: ‘Yes, but it must not be too bad for farmers’ – whoever enters the race with an alleged balance, with an alleged ‘we do everything balanced, we do everything balanced’, consciously weakens. Because the balance and the balance, which should be established later in a trilogue, but not in the committee of inquiry. That's why I'm really upset about how it went. We have to recognize that there are gross violations here. That's why we have the committee of inquiry. And I have a graduation request for you, Commissioner: that no matter how the votes go today, you take note of the many good things that have been discussed in committee, the many good hearings and incorporate them into your work.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, It is a sad truth, but it is a truth that the whole world has drastically strayed from the zero hunger course. The course cannot be held at the moment. Our progress in fighting hunger is declining, and in fifty countries hunger is a serious, very serious, or even a serious problem. It has already been mentioned: It's about conflict, that's often the reason. It's about COVID-19, and that's one of the reasons. And I would like to thank you, Commissioner, because you have made it very clear where the EU is opposed. Green Deal Did you mention, Farm to fork You mentioned it. They led the thousand-day debate and talked about robust food systems. You did not mention a point, and it was true that you did not mention it, but the more painful it is – our agricultural policy. In our agricultural policy, we are not taking a step towards the countries that are hungry, but our agricultural policy is the driver and driver of hunger worldwide. I think it needs to be more clearly stated. And it would be so nice if in the future we could also call our agricultural policy a good situation in terms of combating hunger. But we can't do it yet. We still believe that the world market is the horny one. We still believe that we want to serve the world market, and we still believe that we want to feed the world. I don't think so. Unfortunately, it is believed by a majority here in Parliament. That is why the agricultural policy we have voted on is a driver of hunger and not a damper for the next seven years. That's bitter.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, For the S&A/D Group as FEMM coordinator, I can only say: We stand absolutely behind you and will support every step you take in this direction to protect women online from violence. Usually people talk about topics as if they were so side-by-side. There is the topic ‘Violence against women’, there is the topic ‘Pay gap’The problem with paying. There is also the issue of participation. I believe that rarely on a topic such as ‘Violence against women on the net’ do you notice that all of these topics are interlinked. Because the goal is to attack women on the net, the goal is to silence them, that is, to exclude them from participation, also from political participation. That's the goal. While we have summarised it under the heading ‘Violence against women’, we must also clearly identify it. It's about banning women's mouths, rejecting them, sending them back, back to the kitchen. Therefore: You have our full support. We will do everything we can to finally tackle this truly cancer-like issue of violence against women online. Because free speech on the net, free speech in parliament, free speech at home in the family, free speech in the workplace, free speech is not only for men, but also for women, without being disseminated for it, without being hunted for it on the net.

Mr President! I speak as a European, as a woman, as a mother, as a grandma, and I want to make it very clear: Whoever does not share the values, whoever does not share the content, whoever does not share the mandates of the Istanbul Convention, cannot be part of this EU. Because this EU is a promise, especially a promise to women. The Istanbul Convention is something of an anthology. The Istanbul Convention is an anthology for protection missions, an anthology for actions, for a promise of peace to women and above all for a uniform level of protection for all women in the EU. The Istanbul Convention is thus the most far-reaching instrument we currently have to protect against violence against women. And it is quite clear that it is finally time to ratify this paper, to ratify it as an EU, to ratify it by qualified majority, not to waste any more time and thus to stand quite, very clearly on the side of women and on the side of men who are clearly fighting against violence against women. It is a group of women and men who want to take a step into the future. And the eternally stubborn men, we must overcome them.

Madam President, Commissioner! Today is the day of reckoning. Billing means: This agricultural policy package is on the table – the whole package, the many, many pages, the many small indents. We, who have worked together, know these thousands of pages. There is a lot of content packed in it. When we vote today on this big package, we have to make it clear that we can only focus on the big picture now. However, I would still like to remove certain points from this package in order to explain my vote and the voting behaviour of my S&D Group in the European Parliament. This package – as I said, you can only agree with the whole package with yes or no – of course this package has good sides, of course. I would like to say that the best part of the package was created in my office, namely the social conditionality, the request that in the future it should no longer be permissible for human beings and traffickers to ultimately receive money from the EU as if they were normal employers. This is a wonderful paper. If I could pull this paper out and agree to this paper individually today, I would. I know that the whole S&D group would do the same. But we have a responsibility to look at the other papers besides this good paper. Surely the worst paper or the worst point in this whole package solution is that 75% of the funds are still allocated purely by area. That's tax money. These are the funds that we in our member countries, which people are working on, through their day-to-day work. We do not allocate these funds according to performance or precisely, but these funds are awarded with the watering can. This 75% area money hurts so much because the money is missing elsewhere. If we had money without end, yeah, okay, you'd give it to them. But the money is missing elsewhere. It is missing somewhere else to really achieve this change of direction. But what is really particularly violent, and this must be emphasized here: From the outset, Commissioner, you know, we have not negotiated on an equal footing. The council is self-centered, characterized by a worldview and view of man, which is from the day before yesterday. The Council is self-absorbed. The council that believes it can determine all things. The Council, before we sat down at the negotiating table for the first time, high level-Decision adopted: There will be no mandatory capping. We had different chair heights. Our chair, the chair of Parliament, was smaller, and it is humiliating to have to conduct such negotiations, in which the Council sits coldly opposite and simply says: No, let's not do it. Saying no today also means saying no today to an undemocratic way of making politics here: a self-sufficient council and a parliament that tried to do good, but whose chair was unfortunately too small.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, It happens every day. It happens every day that women in this world get pregnant unintentionally. And it happens exactly every day worldwide that there are groups and groups that think they can access and say exactly in this situation: “We are not by your side”. Texas is for us an example, an example of an insanely backward-looking situation, namely to put pressure on women who are in a conflict situation. It happens every day. It's good that there was a change just tonight. It is good that the law is not coming now as some have believed. But it's only a small time to pause and stop the air, because it's going to happen again. When will humanity finally realize that it is a human right to determine one's own body? We have Members here on the very, very right who believe that wearing a mask would be unacceptable, but who in the same way believe that it is reasonable to continue a pregnancy that one does not want to continue. Here is measured with double standards, and it is not to be endured for us women! And I would like to mention again the very, very right-wingers here in the hall. It is unacceptable for us women how sometimes getting a syringe, i.e. a vaccination, is seen as unreasonable and the restriction of women's or human rights. And as on the other hand, twelve-, thirteen-year-old girls who are pregnant after rape are said: ‘That is reasonable.’ Let's think about what is reasonable and what is not.

Dear Mr President, dear Commissioner! Perhaps I have not quite understood one of you, or I would ask you to put this into concrete terms again. You were talking about the world community at the beginning. You talked about good chances for everyone. They talked about hunger, about food crises. But I think you have repeatedly drawn the wrong conclusion, namely that Europe must feed the world. We don't have to. We should finally take our hands off the surfaces of others so that others can feed themselves. We are the ones who need land so that we can import soy for our animals, for example. After all, we are the ones who destroy markets by delivering excess quantities, including milk to Africa, for example. This means that we are confusing food markets with our European agricultural policy. And I would like to know an answer from you: Is it true that Europe should feed the world in your interest? Or should we make sure that all the peoples of the world can feed themselves well? That would be a good agricultural policy, and that would be the future!

Madam President, If you still need reasons to vote in favour of the report on which we are voting today and tomorrow, I would like to give you a few reasons. Reasons that simply represent everyday life in Europe. Structural violence: social conditions that restrict women, unequal power relations, unequal life chances, assigned role situations and, of course, the denial of possible access to abortion. Physical violence: Abuses, physical assaults, kicks, beatings, women are burned, women are spit on, women are pulled by the hair. They are treated like a piece of cattle. Sexualised violence: Rape, abuse, sexual coercion, rape with objects – taking photos, making films. Prostitution and pornography. Psychological violence: Intimidate, insult, humiliate, downplay, psychic terror, stalking, controlling, reading text messages. Economic violence: Don't give women the money they deserve. Those who still need reasons to agree should open their eyes and see what is going on every day in Europe.