Speeches

Madam President, On Europe Day, 9 May, 13 Member States issued a joint statement rejecting the key call of the Conference on the Future of Europe, i.e. the call for treaty changes to achieve an EU state that would erase the sovereignty of the Member States. The Conference on the Future of Europe calls for an EU Constitution. In 2005, after the Convention on the Future of Europe, this idea was already rejected in referendums by majorities in France and the Netherlands. Thirteen Member States are now opposed to it. And since Hungary is even more strongly opposed to an EU constitution and thus did not sign the declaration, we have a majority against it. When will the EU finally include the word "no" in its vocabulary, the "no" of our peoples to more and more EU? Only the German government wants to wipe out its own country. My advice is therefore: If a German government wants something, they are intuitively better against it.

Madam President, This Parliament supports the OECD agreement on minimum taxation and claims that it is an important step towards greater tax fairness. More tax justice is particularly important to us. The Socialist Group, however, recently invited Brazilian ex-president Lula da Silva, here in Parliament – the same da Silva, who was twice convicted and imprisoned in Brazil for corruption and money laundering. And then there is Ukrainian President Zelenskyy, whose party just joined the European party ALDE. Because of the Pandora papers We know that Zelenskyy spent at least $40 million on himself and his family. cronies safe in tax havens. Under his ruling party, Ukraine remains one of the most corrupt and poorest countries in Europe. Hypocrites like to sunbathe in the halo of renunciation and renunciation, but secretly they are reluctant to escape the sensations of the sinner. So be honest: They just want more taxes, not justice. Above all, my group wants less taxes for everyone, except for multinational. And we want this without ifs and buts, only consistently.

Mr President, Commissioner! Competition law addresses distortions of competition, including subsidies. However, climate rescue and the green transition are now to be subsidised – without a basis in the EU treaties. The green transformation goes far beyond environmental protection. Two economies are thus created, a state- and ECB-subsidised, regulatory and interest-favoured green economy and a conventional industry that is subject to strict rules so that investors also invest green. But what if the rest of the world doesn't take part in the climate rescue? With a share of around 7% of global CO2 emissions, the EU's impact on the climate is zero. The result: We dismantle our best industries where we are still competitive. Employment and incomes are falling, while migration is rising and prices are skyrocketing – for the benefit of no one but your green financial jugglers and wind turbine barons.

Madam President, The EU Future Conference calls for EU forces to abolish the national veto and also the notion of illegal migration. Your transnational lists, in order to alienate members of parliament and voters from each other, you already got them today. Now this Parliament is pushing for a new EU constitution, after the first attempt 17 years ago failed in referendums in France and the Netherlands. This time there should be no referendums, because the conference is already democratically legitimized by the participation of 800 citizens. In fact, however, the EU still refuses to disclose, firstly, the interests and names of its conference citizens. Interesting, because my office determined: Many of the EU citizens who participate there are members of EU NGOs such as Pulse of Europe. Secondly: The citizens were selected by Kantar, a long-standing EU service provider. The selection is random, but favors self-selection, because the conference always started on Thursdays, when most people work. Thirdly: At the beginning of the conference, it was said that citizens could also participate online via the digital conference platform. Many EU critics have also done so. Therefore, the platform content has now been removed. The conference proposals ignore platform users as much as the 450 million EU citizens, and they are based solely on the 800 conference citizens, i.e. 0.00018 percent of all EU citizens, or 1.8 millionths. However, the conference citizens themselves are not to blame, because they were advised by selected pro-EU experts who explained to them what they should then propose. If the citizens were skeptical, they were silenced. This was confirmed by some young citizens who spoke to me immediately after the end of the conference. Unfortunately, they could not say this publicly. It is clear to them: Every critic has problems here. No wonder, then, that the conference proposals correspond exactly to the plans that Macron and Merkel put Ursula von der Leyen in the top three years ago. You palaver here about fundamental rights, democracy and the rule of law, but you restrict expressions of opinion and open debate. For 30 years, more integration has led us into the economic abyss. They continue to do so – against all experience and against all reason.

Mr President, last week the Conference on the Future of Europe endorsed 325 recommendations for a sovereign EU federal state with new fiscal powers, joint EU armed forces, a permissive migration regime and transnational EU electoral lists, which mean people would vote for Members of Parliament who may not speak their own language. We are told the proposals are consensus-based – really? One political group, the ECR, left the Conference because it was a farce. My own group expressed vehement opposition. Eight days ago, Marine Le Pen won the majority of votes amongst the under 50 year olds, workers in rural France, they need to be defeated by the metropolitan and financial elites and those who quit reason. There is no consensus. Instead, we have a cultural war between an unholy alliance of globalists, their gatekeepers and the cultural Marxist left versus traditional Europe.

Mr President, representatives of the Commission! In anticipation of the EU Future Conference and the EU state, this House wants to reform the EU electoral law here several times. First, through transnational lists: From now on, we will not vote for familiar national but unknown EU parties in European elections. Germans or Dutch vote for Portuguese or Maltese, while Greeks are represented by Irish or Finns. It's like India after 1948. MEPs speak English so that their constituents do not understand them; Only that Indians consistently speak English better than many Globish here. Secondly, the fraud-prone postal ballot is now to be introduced throughout the EU. Thirdly, the voting age is to be reduced to 16 years. I know why: You mean they all voted tight on the left. But be careful: Eight days ago, Marine Le Pen won not only the majority of votes among workers and middle-class employees, but also among young people. Fourth, all the quota-climbing; But no one becomes a better member of parliament just because he, she, it's a woman or you can't decide. Oh, it's all very obvious what I'm saying here. I wish I could be more original, but unfortunately the truth isn't always interesting.

Madam President, Viktor Orbán has undeniably won the parliamentary elections in Hungary. The EU's response: the opening of Article 7 proceedings against Hungary for failing to comply with the rule of law. According to the Commission, Hungary is policing the judiciary, imposing transparency on Western NGOs, restricting media freedom and rampant corruption. In fact, Hungary has more oppositional media than Germany, where politics also appoints all supreme judges directly, and NGOs pursue a globalist agenda almost without exception. And Berlin and Brussels waste tax money a hundred times more frivolously than Hungary. Hungarian courts also judge far more lawfully and verbatim than German or the ECJ. With high growth, healthy family and national sentiment and stable demographics, but without the euro and mass migration, Hungary is a successful conservative counter-model to stagflation and the de-Europeanising EU. Devaluing this model of success is the real motive behind your concern for the rule of law. If it was really about securing democracy and the rule of law, the best thing would be that Germany and the EU would no longer be governed from Brussels and Berlin, but from Budapest.

I think Council Regulation 883 is quite clear. It says, I think in Article 2, ‘it shall be prohibited to sell, supply, transfer or export, directly or indirectly, dual-use goods and technology and any items which may be intended, in their entirety or in part, for military use or for a military end-user’.

Madam President, Hello, Mrs. von der Leyen, thank you very much for coming. President von der Leyen, you yourself called your Commission a geopolitical Commission, which would promote the European way of life and seek to assume a stronger role for Europe in the world. Now, you said these were long-standing concerns of yours, which would inspire your Presidency. In 2014, the European Council adopted Regulation 833, which prohibits the sale of dual goods to Russia. These are goods or technology, we all know which may be put to military use. Now, according to various press reports in the Brussels Times and, oddly enough, also the Deutsche Welle, between 2015 and 2018, German companies exported electronic components, which appear to have found their way into Russian drones, and there’s also talk of German sales of depleted uranium. During the relevant years, you were Germany’s Defence Minister. So my question to you is really quite simple. Can you explain to us why these transactions were approved by the German Economics Ministry, which I believe is the agency that approves all arms exports if they are allowed? Presumably this happened with the assent of your Ministry, the Ministry of Defence.

Mr President! Commissioner Šefčovič wants to bring Ukraine into the EU because Ukrainians are dying for European values. For 20 years, the EU has been supporting Ukraine in the fight against corruption, with no results. In a special report last year, the European Court of Auditors attests to Ukraine's major corruption and the capture of the state by private interests. High-level corruption hampers competition, growth and democratisation. Dozens of billions of euros are lost every year. Ukraine remains one of the poorest countries in Europe behind Albania. Your Ukraine policy has failed, as has your Russia policy, your migration policy and your economic policy. The only thing you can think of in all your shipwrecks is importing problems from other countries into the EU. Their crisis policy is only a pretext for accustoming Europeans to an ever-lower standard of living.

Madam President, The Conference on the Future of Europe states that the Europeans wanted an EU state with an EU constitution, dictated by the participation of 800 citizens, selected by a subsidiary of the US Bain Private Equity investment company. As a reminder: 800, that is 1.8 millionth of the nearly 450 million EU citizens. The 1.8 millionth is hardly to blame. They come joyously and inquisitively, and pro-EU Spinelli experts tell them that big problems can only be solved in Brussels, which knows exactly what to do but fails due to the national veto. Now we have to choose between European virtue and national attachment. No wonder, then, that the citizens' recommendations are similar to the plans that Macron and Merkel gave Ursula von der Leyen in 2019. There is no coincidence and everything is orchestrated.

Madam President, never let a good crisis go to waste. In common parlance, crises instil fear and disorientation, which allow clever politicians to impose otherwise unacceptable policies. We saw that during COVID and are seeing it now over Ukraine. We are told the war is fuelling energy and food price explosions because we are too dependent on Russian gas and oil. The EU’s conclusion: to end Russian energy imports and to accelerate the green transition. The truth is, without Russian energy, the lights would go out over most of Europe and energy prices would rise sky high – not because of delays over the Green Deal, but because of the Green Deal and because Germany, when President von der Leyen – who’s now slipped away – was still a minister under Merkel, decided it would quit reason and be the first happy-go-lucky, hippy, green industrial power without nuclear energy and fossil fuels at one and the same time. Madness is trying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. This includes the insane obsession of creating a single EU federal state, even if, as a result, most people are worse off. Why does the European Commission not invite EU citizens to submit their energy bills to the Commission and indicate how much more they are willing to pay for the Green Deal, or whether they would prefer the Commission to use that money instead to pick up their energy bills.

Mr President! 100 million people – as we have heard – suffer from chronic kidney disease, and it is projected that kidney disease will be the fifth leading cause of death in the world by 2040. Kidney function decreases by one to two percent annually in every person from the age of 50. If certain risk factors such as diabetes, obesity or high blood pressure are added, the function of the kidney can even be reduced by up to 15% annually. Kidney disease is a human, but also a financial burden on health systems. The annual cost in Europe is around €140 billion, and the trend is increasing. Nevertheless, research into new therapies for chronic kidney disease in Europe is lagging behind internationally. Most patients are unaware of their state of health due to the lack of early diagnosis – the result also of a specialist shortage of nephrologists in Europe. The preferred treatment for end-stage renal failure is transplantation. However, the waiting period for a postmortem organ donation is 6 to 8 years. The only alternative is dialysis. As a result, only 45% of intensive care patients in the EU are transplanted and 55% are dependent on dialysis. Where can we save money to help kidney patients? Here are a few suggestions: The European Institute for Gender Equality has a budget of almost 8 million euros, which we could save immediately. The Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund, the Emergency Assistance Fund for Africa and the refugee payments to Turkey cost us around 5.5 billion euros a year, which could also be saved if we secured the borders. By the way: The German government can cost its migration policy at least 60 billion euros per year, and the climate rescue and energy policy alone already cost the Germans more than 100 billion euros per year. Consider the dialysis hours, doctors, nurses, and organ donation campaigns you could buy with it. While we are wasting hundreds of billions every year on world rescue projects, today we in the European Parliament need to ask for adequate funding for 100 million people who urgently need healthcare. So that there is not immediately an outcry: We are not against environmental protection or local aid for refugees, only our first concern is with compatriots and Europeans, especially when they suffer or fall ill. Moral duties are like concentric circles, from near to far. We see it this way, but in agreement with the Stoics, Scholastics, Immanuel Kant, the Scottish moralists or Hegel. But you don't want to know anything about European culture here. For you are thinking above all of distant countries, of which we know little.

Mr President! EU Member States have the highest tax burden of the OECD. The German tax burden on self-employed workers is 50%, compared to the OECD average of 34.6%. Nevertheless, the eurozone has the highest unemployment rate in the OECD: 7.2%, compared to the OECD average of 5.5%. 3.9% for the US and 2.8% for migration-free Japan. The hidden tax – inflation – expropriated German savers by 116 billion euros in 2021 alone. But inflation is rising. This year it will be 200 billion euros. The answer to these problems stares us in the face: We need a comprehensive tax reform. This means that the Member States must alleviate the tax burden on normal earners, reduce the enormous expenditure on non-European immigration and stop inflation of the money supply as a surreptitious tax. Instead, this Parliament ignores overtaxation and even calls for new EU taxes to support the Green Deal. It also aims to harmonise VAT rates at a high level so that Member States cannot reduce taxes on fossil fuels in order to save the poorest from freezing to death. Their green turnaround is the most antisocial ideology since the Industrial Revolution. Under the EU Treaty, the principle of unanimity protects national tax sovereignty from attacks by the EU. Changes to the contract also require unanimity. Therefore, the European Parliament now calls on the Council to circumvent the contractual tax rules in Articles 114 and 115 TFEU. Tax issues requiring unanimity in the Council are to be reformulated and redefined as elements of competition policy in accordance with Article 116. Then the qualified majority was enough. However, the EU wants to punish Member States for breaches of the rule of law. Nevertheless, it openly calls for the circumvention of the treaties if it serves the fullness of its own power. The EU position is always the same: If the treaties get in our way, we ignore them or take them out. The European Court of Justice will prove us right. And so it is. While the CJEU gives the Commission the right in 80% of all infringement proceedings against Member States, the same CJEU regularly dismisses actions for annulment brought by Member States against the EU institutions. Therefore, the legal certainty in EU law is also particularly high, because the CJEU regularly decides per EU. However, such legal certainty has very little to do with the rule of law. Hypocrisy, according to the French moralist La Rochefoucauld, is the tribute paid by the vice of virtue. It is the same with all the talk of the rule of law in this Parliament.

Madam President, We are the winners of the war in Ukraine, not Moscow, Kiev or Beijing, but – at least at the moment – Paris, Rome and Frankfurt. In fact, the Maastricht rules should be reactivated after COVID-19. But the war in Ukraine means: Paris and Rome in particular do not have to save, and the ECB in Frankfurt continues to print billions every day. After the COVID-19 crisis, government debt in the euro area is close to 100% of economic output, while the ECB balance sheet total is above 82% of gross national product. That is, the eurozone countries spend much more than their countries generate, and the money supply expands without the economy growing. The result is devaluation of money. The Maastricht criteria should moderate governments, prevent waste of money and protect citizens and their savings. But here they deprive governments and speculators of great wealth and expropriate the citizens.

Mr President! The prices of gas and crude oil are rising faster and higher. Russia alone is to blame, because it is shortening natural gas and manipulating the price. Maybe. But the main blame lies with European Commission President von der Leyen. Firstly: Since taking office, she has replaced long-term supply contracts with spot contracts because she believed gas demand would fall. In fact, prices are rising. Spot prices, however, are not ridiculous prices, and spot prices hit consumers full. Secondly: The Leyens Green Deal. Spain's central bank simulated the impact of the carbon tax and transfer pricing. Conclusion: Spain's high inflation rate of over 6 percent will increase by a further 1.5 percentage points. According to German economic practices, ecopolitics contributes even a third to the inflation rate. Even ECB Director Isabel Schnabel admits that climate rescue is driving inflation. Today is International Women's Day, and contemporary women rule Europe. For 16 years it was Angela Merkel who decided to phase out nuclear power and save the climate in Germany. Von der Leyen, who provides the world's highest electricity prices in Germany and the highest gasoline prices in Europe, and Christine Lagarde, who finances the world rescue with negative interest rates, expropriates savers and gradually renders the euro worthless. By 2030 at the latest, we will be broke here. But then the three most expensive women in Europe with Klaus Schwab and Elon Musk have long since escaped into their transhumane future.

Madam President, The Kiev moment, according to this Parliament, shows that the citizens wanted more EU with a new EU migration pact to legalize all migration, more family reunification and safe access routes for up to 70 million migrants by 2035. In fact, Europeans want to help displaced Ukrainians. But, according to the results of the large INSA migration survey, 80% of Europeans also want more border security. More than 80% no longer want unqualified migrants, and 75% are convinced that migration will be a problem for personal security, the survival of social systems and/or our cultural identity. Dear colleagues, please finally take note: Many EU citizens want to help their neighbours, but they do not feel indiscriminately responsible for all the problems of the world.

Madam President, The ECJ decided today that the Commission could link disbursements from the EU budget to compliance with so-called rule of law criteria. In interpreting the concept of the rule of law, the EU institutions have very wide discretion. Specifically, payments to Hungary and Poland can now be withheld because both countries are accused of endangering the independence and impartiality of the judiciary. Three comments on this: First, the CJEU follows an ultra-flexible interpretation of the contract contrary to Articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. This means that the ECJ does not attach priority to the wording, but often prefers other interpretative criteria that enable more EU integration. The Treaties are interpreted contrary to the wording. Right is what the judge says it is. Secondly: The Treaties do not provide a legal basis for conditionality in the allocation of budgetary resources on the basis of EU universal competence to enforce the rule of law, including against national constitutional law. Under the principle of conferral, all competences remain with the Member States, unless they have been explicitly and exclusively transferred to the EU. The judiciary and even fundamental rights are not such exclusively delegated subjects. Thirdly: Poland and Hungary, according to the ECJ, politicized the judiciary. In fact, both countries do not go nearly as far as Germany. Because in Germany, politics elects all constitutional judges, all judges are allowed to be members of political parties, all prosecutors are politically bound by directives and the opposition is supervised by the secret service. Germany has 19 secret services, and the President of the German Constitutional Court is a former deputy head of Merkel's parliamentary group. He is a business lawyer and partner of a business law firm that brings a lot of money and also likes to donate. Germany will not be judged, but Hungary and Poland will be judged. Let's sum up: The ECJ disregards methods of interpretation under international law, finds any goals and purposes in crystal-clear treaty provisions, renders compliant judgments and treats Hungary and Poland differently from Germany, because the rule of law has become the rule of links in Germany. What is called the rule of law here is nothing more than the continuation of the rule of links practiced here by other means, in this case those of the judiciary.

Mr President! The ID Foundation recently investigated the influence of NGOs on EU legislation. Out of 12 600 lobbyists in the EU Transparency Register, 3 500 are NGOs. NGOs maintain close contacts with the Commission and politicians and write draft laws such as lobbyists, but are hardly subject to disclosure rules. From 2014 to 2017, NGOs received at least 11.3 billion euros from the EU budget. That's at least 11.3 billion for pro-EU lobbying, as NGOs call for more migration, more climate rescue, minority rights and more EU. ‘NGO’ or ‘non-profit organisation’ may sound philanthropic and like ‘non-profit association’. However, multinational NGOs receive billions of financial investors and are financially stronger than medium-sized savings banks. But as so-called Not Owned Entities or privileged organisations are exempt from anti-money laundering and financial transparency laws. Their sources of money often remain in the dark. Last year, Hungary tried to tighten transparency requirements for foreign NGOs. However, the CJEU rejected the Transparency Act as a violation of the free movement of capital – unfortunately. A little modified, it would be a good model for the EU.

Madam President, The EU is planning a new EU migration pact with fast asylum procedures, new access routes for migrants, more family reunification and more reception capacities through relocation. This means: Tens of millions of new migrants by 2040, because climate change and the right to abortion are also to become grounds for asylum. All this, according to Mrs. von der Leyen, the citizens wanted. Really? According to a survey commissioned by my ID colleagues and myself, hardly a quarter of EU citizens know about the EU plans. 90 percent therefore want more data on the cost of migration, and 80 percent of citizens believe that migration threatens internal security, our national identities and/or the welfare state. Only 16% say migration is safe. Are you here either out of your mind or do you want to ruin Europe? Either, or - to regret is both.

Madam President, Commissioner, Madame Lagarde! 30 years Maastricht and 20 years Euro: The ECB celebrates the euro as a major integration step and guarantor of Europe's economic strength. But there is no mention of the Lisbon agenda of making the EU the world's most competitive knowledge-based economy by 2010. What a hubris! The eurozone has had the lowest growth in the developed world for years. In high technology, we are behind China and the United States. Unemployment remains high and would be even higher if the migrants were not embezzled. And the euro itself is the most expensive currency in the world, which must be saved with hundreds of billions every year. For German savers alone, the euro cost around 116 billion euros in 2021, as inflation is now five and a half percent, while in Switzerland it is 1.5 percent. Unaffordable, economically disastrous and permanently unconstitutional, because the euro rescue has been carried out since 2010 by constant breach of Articles 123, 125, 127 and 311 of the EU Treaties. Conclusion: The euro is a path of confusion and aberration, as are your climate rescue fantasies and unqualified mass migration. My colleague urged me to be gentle today. I did what I could.

Mr President! Congratulations on your re-election! Youth unemployment in the EU is 16.3%; in Italy it is 30%, in Greece and Spain it is 33%, and in some places it is even above 40%. More than three million young Europeans are looking for work. At the same time, the EU has allowed five million unqualified asylum seekers to enter the country since 2015. In Germany, there is a shortage of skilled workers and more than 700,000 vacancies. Young Europeans might be more likely to fill these jobs than migrants. So take advantage of the EU free movement of persons and offer young southern Europeans in particular a perspective again! Solve their problems not through inflation and at the expense of German savers and taxpayers, but through competitiveness and better training opportunities! In short: Take citizens' concerns seriously. Stick to the treaties and trust majorities instead of your NGOs!

Madam President, On 11 November, the Russian Prosecutor General requested the Supreme Court to close the International Memorial organization. Memorial is said to have received donations from abroad and, contrary to the Foreign Agents Act, has not disclosed sources of money and has not provided relevant information to publications. The EU condemns Russia's actions. At the same time, Germany and the EU are also legally complicating party, media or NGO financing from abroad. US media companies are also curtailing freedom of expression in the EU at will. Politically compliant public broadcasting enjoys billions in funding. Germany denies RT broadcasting licenses, and private chats will soon be legally monitored. The West calls its donors stakeholders, the Russians agents. The British philosopher John Stuart Mill complained that the competition of ideas is nowhere so free. And the rule of law is also in the EU and in Germany sometimes only fair weather event.

Madam President, This year, EU governments received the first payments from the EU Recovery Fund. Relative to gross domestic product, Croatia received almost 1.6%, while Germany – the largest contributor to the EU budget at €40 billion per year – received only 0.06%. In addition to the 0.00% we receive from the SURE unemployment program. The EU therefore seems to be worth more than 26 Germans in terms of gross domestic product. Per capita disbursements range from 420 euros per Italian to 27 euros per German citizen, although Germany pays back the lion's share of the debt-financed recovery fund. In other words: An Italian is worth 15.5 Germans. Germans have the lowest median wealth in the EU, the lowest home ownership rate. They pay the highest wage levies in the EU and are expropriated by the ECB by at least 5% of their savings each year. The Commission stresses that everything is fine, because the German Government finally agreed. Unfortunately, the Commission is right. The German government has agreed to allow Germany to be exempted like a Christmas goose. In this sense: Merry Christmas, especially to the many victims of wage slavery in Germany.

Madam President, More than 50 French soldiers have died in Mali since 2013. The country is not pacified, Islamists terrorize the population. The government of Mali now wants the withdrawal of French troops and wants to protect the population with the help of the Russian Wagner Group. France is calling for further EU sanctions against Russia. Mali is the first test sample for the new Green Foreign Minister Baerbock. Will it remain true to its emancipation and self-determination rhetoric for Africa or willfully, according to Macron's wish, replace French troops with EU and also German troops? Let's be honest! In the Banlieues French troops from Paris and Marseilles are more likely to be needed to protect lives there. Just like German soldiers in Duisburg or on the Kölner Domplatte.