Speeches

Mr President, Commissioner! I think it has been clear since yesterday that we cannot rely on the US as a partner or even friends in terms of security policy or trade policy. But what has also been clear since yesterday is that the US will make policy for the super-rich and especially Musk and Trump for further enriching themselves. And Trump joins his colleagues, the autocrats Xi Jinping and Putin, because they have a common interest: The common interest is to weaken the European Union, to divide the European Union, to attack freedom of expression and to abolish the independent judiciary. And all three support right-wing populist and far-right parties – our Orbáns, our Melonis and also our Austrian mini-Trump Herbert Kickl. But it is also our European People's Party that helps the far-right to power. This is the opposite of a pro-European policy. This is the opposite of a pro-democracy policy. And I urge you to: Rethink your path. Take a pro-European course again and do not help these people to power, because it will be to the detriment of the European Union, to the detriment of our citizens and to the detriment of our values-based policies. Turn around.

Thank you, Madam President. And also thank you very much to our Commissioner Várhelyi for being here today in this debate – unfortunately not many MEPs, but the public is very interested in this issue: Well over 80% of the European population wants improvements in the area of animal welfare. In this respect, this should be a clear mandate for all of us to work on it. And many farmers also welcome it when there are clear rules on animal welfare, especially those broad, broad majority of farmers who take good care of their animals. They have no interest in sending their animals on long-distance transports, but they have an interest in finding a slaughterhouse in their region. We must also make visible those farms that are good-farming, that are animal-friendly. Commissioner, we need animal welfare labelling so that those farmers are also rewarded by the market and so that consumers can see what they are buying and under what circumstances it was produced. And this labeling is a piece of legislation that we still miss. Animal welfare standards for agriculture are also a clear help to make visible how it works, but also to make visible who does not adhere to them and then to take appropriate measures. And last but not least, animal welfare standards in the slaughterhouse – which was also announced by the Commission – I think that even if animals go on their last journey, this should take place under humane conditions – as little suffering and as little horror as possible. I would ask you to submit a law on this matter as well.

Mr. Chairman! Commissioner Hansen! If my colleagues in the dairy industry get up every morning at 5 a.m. and then find that the milk is no longer being picked up – for cost reasons – then that creates frustration. And when you see that the price of milk also falls below the production costs, then that creates very great frustration. And if you are still in a pinch, because you bear the entire entrepreneurial risk of milk production on the investments and you cannot simply turn off a cow, just because the milk price is bad, then this milk must also be sold below the production costs, then this creates a huge frustration. It is no wonder that 800 companies are still closing down every day in the European Union. And it's no wonder, unfortunately, that we have such high suicide rates within agriculture. When I can't hand over a business because the boys don't want to do it anymore, because they see how hard the work is and how little money comes out in the end and a business comes to an end where generations have worked to build this business, that creates tremendous frustration. We need to reverse to an agricultural policy that is human-friendly, animal-friendly and environmentally friendly. That's our job here.

Madam President, dear colleagues, yes, it was a wake up call to see the Russian army invading Ukraine. It was a wake up call also for some of our governments that did not have the priority when it comes to enlargement of the Western Balkan countries - some of them have finally realised that the Western Balkans is not somewhere at the outskirts but in the inner yard of the European Union. And I very much welcome that now the Council has this meeting with the Balkan leaders and engages with ambition when it comes to enlargement. We also have to see that we, as European Union, have also caused some disappointment, because we were not always keeping up to our promises. But ok, now is the time to move forward. We just have to see that with good initiatives like the growth pact, we need to look into who are we giving this money to. Is it governments that follow the rule of law? Is it governments that support independent justice? Is it governments that align with our geostrategic positions? And there we need to be very clear and also very critical. Where the rule of law is kept, that must be clearly decisive. Also we, here, in this House have some homework to do. I call on all Members here in the House from countries that are still not accepting Kosovo as an independent state. We have some work to do here. Speak to your people back home. Let's get this moving. We also have some homework to do when it comes to bilateral issues that are unfortunately in involving and evolved and included into our negotiations towards accession. Please let us clarify bilateral issues on a bilateral basis and not use the accession process to actually talk about bilateral issues. Let's find compromises. Let's move on. Let's welcome the Western Balkan states at the table of European nations as soon as possible.

Mr President, yes, if you read the Budapest declaration, you have to go all the way through the bullet points to the last bullet point, which is finally touching agriculture. And yes, it says we need a resilient and sustainable agriculture. And, God's sake, it says farmers need a proper income. But isn't that in contradiction with point 11, open trade policy? And unfortunately, you missed the word 'fair'. It's not in the text, so it's not about fair trade. And you want to put us into a competition with global agriculture that is heavily industrialised, that is destructive and poisonous, that is actually troubling the local communities? That's the competition you want to put farmers into? I think that's not going to work because that's unfair competition with lower production standards. And did you actually think of the potential of farming that it has for CO2 sequestration, that it has to protect biodiversity, that it has for flood prevention? Is that something you consider? No, you missed it in the text. This is a potential that agriculture has and that we urgently need to leverage. And towards Fidesz, you take care for agriculture? Yes, you took care that agriculture comes under the control of your Fidesz, Viktor Orbán friends and oligarchs - that's how you took care of agriculture! You're talking about agriculture. You are misusing the bad state agriculture is in for your rhetorics. But working on bettering the agriculture, that's not something I have seen up to now. So don't tell us this fake news here.

Good morning, Mr. Colleague! I am not surprised that you have no idea what measures are being taken. It is your group that does not appear here in Parliament at work, but all you are doing here is sowing hatred and discord. You don't even work here. The measures that the Greens have put in place in all the countries where they govern are the expansion of renewable energy, fewer fossil fuels, more railways and fewer roads, and investments in climate protection. This is how forward-looking politics works, together and without you, which you sow hatred and discord.

Mr President, Agriculture Commissioner Wojciechowski! March 2024: Winter drought in Spain; Only 16% of the water reservoirs were filled. Then July 2024: Heat wave in Romania, more than 40 degrees, 90% of the harvest of sunflowers and maize destroyed. Sicily: extreme drought; Sicily becomes a desert. Last week: country below in Poland, Czech Republic, Austria; Tens of thousands of citizens have lost their homes and tens of thousands of hectares of agricultural land are under water. Everyone here should have understood by now that we have to do something here now, that we have to invest in soils that absorb water, with our common agricultural policy, that we have to give rivers space to flood - i.e. the law to restore nature - and that we need measures to cool our cities in order to avoid heat deaths, which we unfortunately saw again this year in Vienna with 53 tropical nights. We should finally stop burying our heads in the sand, ignoring science, denying climate change and inciting people against each other. We are elected to protect citizens and we are elected to ensure long-term food security. Take your responsibilities finally!

Mr President, Commissioner McGuinness, welcome, colleagues, back from the summer. For some of us it was not so easy to reach Parliament these days, literally speaking from an Austrian perspective. But we're actually debating the dialogue today, and I think it's a good sign that when people sit down and talk to each other, we even find a lot of common ground. So this is a pathway out of polarisation that we have gone into in this election campaign. And you see, if people sit down and talk with reason and based on facts, you actually come to some quite encouraging results. Yes, agriculture, farmers have to be made partners and thriving for good food production, for climate protection, for environmental protection, for good water and for good air that we deliver to our citizens. And yes indeed, it's exactly farmers that are at the forefront when it comes to climate impacts and to impacts of loss of biodiversity. And yes indeed, we're still losing more than 800 farms every single day. And so the statement to say we have to make sure that CAP money comes to the farmers that need it most, and not just spread it over hectares and hectares, I think this is a very good conclusion of this process that we have seen. And yes, we need an equal playing field when it comes to competition. This is meant within the European Union, but it also is meant when it comes to global trade. It needs an equal playing field. We need to acquire the same standards for imported products as we ask our farmers to produce after. And yes, the extreme weather events again show it's important to have resilient agriculture. It's important to have soils that are able to absorb water – so fertile soil. It's important to have resilient forests and to refrain from doing clear cuts to prevent landslides and mudslides. It's important to look into our common task to ensure long‑term resilience of European food production in times of climate crisis, and we need to make sure that we use the funding that we have to help farmers in this transition, to partner with farmers and nature protection and food production. This is the cause for the next mandate here, and I'm looking forward to constructively contribute to that work.

Mr President, Commissioner! From theory to practice: My farm is located in the south of Austria. In 2022, we had to deal with a massive drought. In 2023, a hurricane dragged a swath of devastation through my forest. Last Sunday we had 30 degrees plus – mid-April, in the south of Austria. It's been snowing since yesterday. As I stand here in front of you and speak, the forest breaks down in my home, because it is already in full foliage. And you from the European People's Party and the Austrian People's Party have nothing else to do than to prevent climate action, to delay it, to weaken measures and to prevent certain laws in the first place. And for whom do you do this? You do that for the fossil industry, and you do that for the agrochemical industry. And this is to the detriment of the Austrian and European populations. It is to the detriment of future generations, and it is to the detriment of farmers what you are doing here. Confront yourself with this, and you will also be presented with the bill for it during the election!

Madam President, thank you, as we sign up to the actual motion from the EPP, but we would like to ask a split vote on the addition of Renew because we are in favour of having a resolution, but we’re not in favour of enlarging the scope to generally ensure stability of the EU agricultural production, because banning foodstuffs from Belarus and from Russia has a security aspect – it has an aspect that we do not want to finance their wars and their participation in the war of aggression. And to secure our agricultural produce, we need a much broader debate. And this would be off topic to add. So I would ask for a split vote on the addition from Renew to be split from the last point and to add a resolution, because this we would be in favour of.

Mr President, Commissioner, colleagues, yes, this report that was built with a big consensus between the political parties is also pointing out on the criteria that we need to apply when it comes to new membership candidates. Yes, there’s also geostrategic reasons for us to speed up the candidacy process, but we, in this report, state very clearly that Copenhagen criteria have to be the basis of negotiation and of an accession process. Also, we need to start to reward countries that have a full alignment with our security and foreign policy. We need to reward those that align, but we also need to set consequences for the ones that do not align, because we also have candidate applicants that are actively cooperating with China, that are actively aligning their security and foreign policy with Russia, that are backtracking on democratic standards like election law. There we need to be consequent and also withdraw funds from these countries, because otherwise the process of accession is not a trustworthy one, if you do not reward the ones that deliver. We need to look towards the East, and we need to look towards the new big candidate countries. First of all, the support for Ukraine needs to be uncontested and there is some additional work to do. Because unfortunately we cannot rely on the support that will be coming from the US: who knows how these presidential elections end. We need to take responsibility within the European Union, within our States, and support Ukraine to defend this illegal invasion into the country. That’s the first step and then we look into the candidate process.

Mr President, Commissioner! About a quarter of food inflation comes from food speculation. But by this I do not mean trading on the stock exchanges, but betting on rising or falling prices. The Commission has promised to look at this and to do something about it. My specific question is: What did you do about it, or what do you plan to do? About 10 percent of the price increases can neither be explained by speculation nor by increased production costs. It is reasonable to assume that there are cartel formations in both processors and retailers. What can you give us in terms of concrete results, what are cartel-like procedures? And the production costs for agriculture: We are trapped in a fossil price trap here, while the companies that produce fertilisers doubled their turnover and profits in 2022 – Bayer Agrar plus 82 percent, BASF plus 71 percent, Syngenta plus 32 percent. They make very good money in this business. The price is paid by the farmers and the customers in the supermarket. We urgently need to do something about it. And I ask you: What is your plan for this? What is your concept? What are your answers? It's urgent.

Mr President, Commissioner, I miss dedication to end fossil fuels until 2040. I also missed an ambition to end fossil subsidies until 2040. I miss a goal of 100 % renewables until 2040, even though renewables are the cheapest form of energy for our citizens and for industry, and they are that form of energy that makes us independent from fossil autocracies. By the way, it keeps the money of energy production in our own economy. I don’t get the point why you’re so much focusing on carbon capture and storage. Your own Advisory Board has told you that this is the most expensive form of collecting CO2. Why not pay the farmers well for sequestering CO2 into the soil? Why not pay them well for changing their methods of production that are climate-friendly and environment-friendly? That would be a low-hanging fruit that is much easier to reach and would also fulfil a lot of other goals, and not serve the industry again with technical solutions behind which they can hide their ongoing fossil extraction. I don’t see that needed ambition in this, but maybe my speech is going to change something here.

Ms Šojdrová, firstly, I referred to products in the supermarket and not to the issue of seed labelling. And secondly: It is not my opinion, but that of the European Court of Justice. 2018 the judgment: New genomic techniques are also genetically modified organisms. Read the court ruling of the European Court of Justice, where you will then learn what the realities look like.

Madam President, Commissioner! So you want to ban GMO-free production in Austria? Mind you, a country that is 100% GMO-free, conventional and organic. So you want to contaminate organic agriculture with genetic engineering? Mind you, a production method that works as close to nature as possible. Genetic engineering is the opposite of natural. So you do not want to apply your own precautionary principle here and simply grant permits without having checked whether there are health or environmental concerns. And you want to bring about an approval that, once granted, even if problems arise, can no longer be withdrawn. Here, they provide the large multinational companies with an open door to patenting virtually every type of breeding, whether with or without genetic engineering. I wonder: Do you listen to the citizens? Do you want to eliminate food labelling? Yes, because citizens did not want to buy these products. Fine, then we just don't write on where genetic engineering is inside anymore, then they will buy it already. Count on our resistance! (The speaker agreed to answer a question on the blue card procedure.)

Madam President, there’s clear evidence of electoral fraud, and we have clear evidence of additional voters being brought in by buses into Belgrade. Even dead people have voted, and there’s clear evidence that this fraud was well organised, well ahead of the elections. These elections were not just influenced: they were clearly stolen. Hundreds of thousands of Serbian citizens have been protesting for free and fair elections, and rightly so, because Serbians have the same right to demand free and fair elections and institutions that follow their constitutional obligations as all other European states. So I call for an international investigation into this election fraud, and I call on all Member States not to accept this election result before we see a result of this international investigation, because there is no democracy without free and fair elections.

Madam President, Commissioner! In the long term, we can only ensure security of supply by protecting our good soil, with agriculture adapted to the climate and nature. For us farmers, this means more work and more effort. This surplus labour and this additional expenditure are not compensated for in producer prices today. In any case, producer prices are so puny in the European Union that 800 to 1 000 farms lock their doors forever every day. And what is not possible is that we apply high standards for our own production in Europe and then open the doors for imports, for products that do not have to meet these standards in any way. And the next step – even worse – then at all duty-free imports via free trade agreements, for example the Mercosur agreement. This will make life difficult for our farmers, it already makes it difficult for them today. We have to ensure fair producer prices here and we have to ensure that imported products entering the European Union meet the same standards that we European farmers have to meet in our production. This is our responsibility in the European Parliament.

Madam President, dear colleagues, preventive diplomacy means action before a conflict escalates, and it’s quite difficult, actually, to get resources and attention for conflicts that have not yet escalated. We have to be aware of that. And just to bring a concrete example, I mean, in Bosnia, we have massive tensions between ethnic groups, mainly steered by Mr Dodik’s Republika Srpska. I think we should not wait until this conflict escalates, but really put our efforts into easing the tensions as much as possible. We, the European Union, consider ourselves a power for peace, but that also comes with an obligation. It comes with the obligation to put attention and resources, to prevent civilian victims, to prevent human suffering, and to prevent destabilisation, also through an accelerating climate crisis, together with diplomatic services, together with civil society and together with the local population. There’s a lack of preventive diplomacy and that is the outcome we can see in and around the Europe in the moment. So let’s learn the lessons of this and put preventive diplomacy at the core of our diplomatic services. I think we should do the learnings and move on onto this. Thanks a lot to Željana Zovko for good leadership on this report. I think we found very good compromises, which we Greens will support.

Madam President, Commissioner! Mr Bernhuber would therefore like to know what the Commission intends to do within the framework of the common agricultural policy for the conservation of our bees and pollinators. Mr Bernhuber asked the Commission to put forward proposals. It is precisely that colleague, Mr Bernhuber, who today has led the way in sinking the Commission’s proposal to reduce pesticides – and pesticides are the main reason for the loss of biodiversity, they are the main reason for the loss of our bees and pollinators – that is, the very proposal that the Commission has drawn up to reduce pesticides – not only to protect pollinators, but also our health and our environment. What kind of duplicity is that? What is the wrong game that the European Conservatives are playing here? On the one hand, sink good legislation that protects our pollinators, and on the other hand, make yourself here and pretend that you have something left for nature or natural pollinators. I would say, Mr Bernhuber, you are ashamed!

Mr President, Commissioner! Some of us here in the House have been supporting candidate countries for many years. Since Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine, it has become more so, because many here in the house have understood that it is not only about economic cooperation and cultural cooperation, but also about tangible geostrategic interests. As far as the Balkans are concerned, many realise that this is not a region that is somewhere on the edge of Europe, but in the middle of our European Union, and that it is precisely in this country that a lot of influencing factors take place from outside. Now we have taken some steps to promote the accession of these countries, to finally bring our commitment as a European Union seriously into the debate and to support the countries. I support this, and I look forward to welcoming all the countries of the Western Balkans to the European Union sooner or later. However, we ourselves must take our criteria - the Copenhagen criteria - seriously when we go into accession talks, when we go into accession negotiations. We must look honestly and not pretend that there are no problems, that laws have not been enacted in Republika Srpska, which, for example, make it impossible for civil society organisations to do their work, which make it impossible for journalists to express their opinions openly. We must not hide the fact that although laws have been enacted in Serbia, the implementation of these laws in detail, where it is felt by the people, unfortunately often does not take place as we would like. We must recognise that in some areas there are still serious problems with the rule of law, despite reforms being carried out. Montenegro, Albania are not yet where we need to go. And it does not help us if we lie to ourselves in the pocket or if the Commission lies to us together in the pocket and says ‘Yes, good progress here, good progress there’. We must ensure that the essential criteria, the essential fundamental values – freedom of expression, democracy, the rule of law, the Copenhagen criteria – are respected seriously and seriously. This must and will remain the basis of our accession talks.

Mr President! The Commissioner is no longer here - it doesn't matter. In organic farming, we see that 21 percent of farm managers are under the age of 40, while in conventional agriculture, we have just 12 percent of farm managers under the age of 40. This clearly shows that a friendly approach to animals, an agriculture without chemical-synthetic pesticides, an agriculture that works with nature, is much more attractive for the young generation to take over farms. Perhaps we should develop the whole of European agriculture more towards agroecological and environmentally friendly methods. I think that would help to get more young people interested in the profession. But in particular, it is the educated women who leave rural areas – educated women who, if necessary for part-time work, find hardly any jobs in rural areas where there are infrastructure deficiencies, shortcomings in public transport, kindergartens, schools, access to schools, but also in care for the elderly. This is what makes it difficult for women to work in agriculture: At the same time, take care of the family and a lot of responsibility in agriculture. Finally, access to land: There are many young people who would like to work, who would like to start farming. In order to do so, we must consider whether our support policy will mainly support larger and larger farms and whether we do not need greater support for small farms in the common agricultural policy in order to end the death of farmers and keep young generations in the countryside.

Madam President, we are talking about a country that has still one of the highest positive attempts towards joining the European Union. We’re talking about a country where actually a vast majority of politically elected parties claim to be or are actually in favour of EU accession. And I think we also need to acknowledge that the country has had some progress in the fight against organised crime. It has had some progress when it came to fulfilling chapter 23 and chapter 24 requirements when it comes to judges. But we also see a country where the obvious common willingness to join the European Union has not really shaped the political decision making. And I really call on Montenegro that is still the frontrunner in the negotiations. I call on Montenegrin politicians when it comes to the questions of accession, of fulfilling chapters 23 and 24, to leave aside their disputes and look into the actual future of their country and deliver on the future of their country and the will of their populations, to bring Montenegro closer to entering the European Union. And it’s the country that has the best chances to enter European Union within a few years. This has to be the main driving interest of the political elite in the country, and I think we should do everything that we can do to support them on this way. I want to thank the rapporteur and all my colleagues. These were exceptionally constructive negotiations. As you see, we mainly came with all amendments compromised – okay, two splits and two amendments to be voted – but thank you for the very constructive work in this shows we are speaking with one voice as the European Parliament when it comes to Montenegro’s accession to the European Union.

Madam President, dear colleagues, I hear this argument that we need to enhance our cooperation with democratic nations and regions in the world, even in the light of authoritarian regimes beefing up their connections to each other and their cooperation. And I buy this argument. Yes, the democracies of the world should move closer to each other and enhance cooperation. But then we need to look into the concrete trade agreements, whether they are serving us with that. And let’s take the EU-Mercosur trade agreement. Do we think this is going to support democracy in Brazil? A trade agreement that will basically favour a handful of multinational mining companies, a trade agreement that will basically favour some big landlord agro-industrial producers, by the way, that produce far below the standards that we have in Europe, and we’re endangering European farming through that. This is a trade agreement that will lead to reduced industrialisation of Brazil. It’s going to lead to an even bigger gap between poor and rich. It’s going to diminish the middle class in Brazil. This is clearly not a strategy to strengthen democracies. And we have seen in our trade relations to several African states that if we go down that path, that this is endangering democracies. So please look into this old trade agreement from the last century – EU-Mercosur – let’s renegotiate it and let’s bring it into a shape for the 21st century.

Mr President, Commissioner! First a little training to my colleagues from the conservative side here, Mr Dorfmann and Mr Liese: Glyphosate is not a plant protection product, but a plant killer, and the alternative is called mechanical weed regulation! And yes, welcome to the 21st century, today we can mechanically regulate weeds with the combination of mechanical technology and new digital technology in mixed crops up to one centimeter to the plant row. Glyphosate is therefore a pesticide that is completely unnecessarily sprayed on our fields. If we're serious about reducing pesticides, we'll start with glyphosate. If we are serious about protecting biodiversity, we must stop using glyphosate in our fields. If we take seriously the protection of our soil life and the protection of aquatic ecosystems, then we must end the use of glyphosate and follow the precautionary principle, because there are several suspicions that these are also negative consequences for health. For the sake of protecting the environment and our citizens and for the sake of modern agriculture: Let's stop using glyphosate and finally get it out of the pesticide shelves!