Speeches

The very stability of Europe is at stake! The current European Commission was elected in 2024. Since then, it has proved to be aware of what’s at stake for Europe, especially in the economy and for our security. At the same time, the Commission has been challenged due to crises and geopolitical developments. Its initiatives for the Omnibus-packages show the efforts by the Commission to contribute to Europe’s future prosperity. For our security, the Commission has been a constructive partner of the European Parliament in fostering our defence capability. When it comes to global crises the Commission has been keeping up Europe’s stance. I see the motions of censure against the European Commission as nothing but attempts to destabilise Europe; no matter whether they had been tabled by the extreme left or by the extreme right like recently. As the EU is for the time being to be seen as the most stable part of the world, it’s even more severe when political groups try to destabilise it. For all these reasons my intention has remained as in all the former cases to vote against the motion of censure against the European Commission.

Mr President, Commissioner, colleagues, to be very clear, the Strategic Compass of the European Union identifies and defines China in three dimensions for the European Union: as a strategic partner and economic competitor, and also as a systemic rival. As everybody who has ever had encounters with Chinese officials knows, this systemic rivalry is something very much disliked by our Chinese counterparts. But this very debate today, and the reason for this debate, shows there is a different system, there is systemic rivalry. It is just unacceptable from a European perspective to have minorities persecuted. 'Assimilation' is unacceptable from a European perspective, also due to Europe's history and the values Europe represents. At the same time, we live in a world of more and more confrontation. Europe's success story is based on cooperation internally, and I think Europe's outreach to the world must also be one of cooperation. Especially in these times where more and more world powers seek more confrontation, we have to be able to defend ourselves, we have to be more resilient, we have to be more independent, and we have to increase our independence and our diversification of risk, especially when it comes to China. But we also have to reach out our hand for cooperation where it is possible, where reciprocity is possible. Of course, this applies also to China – because China will be around, China will be an influential factor for Europe, and if we want the best for Europe and for the world, this cooperation on a positive basis will be important. And if we want to change something about the persecution of people, of minorities, of ethnicities, of religions within China, the cooperation approach will also provide better leverage.

Mr President, Commissioner, colleagues, since April 2023, the crisis in Sudan is by far the largest humanitarian crisis we have on Earth. We should ask ourselves from time to time why other smaller crises with maybe more political impact, more clear ideological roots, are more present in our political debates than this largest crisis on Earth, where people are suffering – children, women and men have been suffering since April 2023. Each year, here in the plenary of the European Parliament, we do not only discuss the crisis, but we also foster the humanitarian aid from the EU side, which becomes even more important in times when aid investments are cut all over the world. It's again the World Food Programme, the WFP – unideological and helping starving people – that continues to assist over 3.3 million people each month, the majority of whom are facing emergency levels of food insecurity. In February alone, the WFP distributed a lot of food and USD 12 million in cash. But the World Food Programme depends on funds from States, especially from EU Member States that fund it. To help in this crisis is not only a human question, which is clear and would be enough to decide in the right direction, it is also a question of Europe's security and Europe's dignity to be among the supporters.

Mr President, Commissioner, thanks, actually, for participating in our debate, Commissioner, and for not interfering in a democratic process or elections. Participating in a debate is what every Commissioner is supposed to do, this is the whole point and the whole meaning of the democratic process. Dear colleagues, what sore losers they are, because they are now imposing and suggesting that it's the Commission that interferes in democratic processes and elections after losing the election in Hungary. No, the ones who took the decision in Hungary were the Hungarian citizens and, especially as an Austrian, I'm very thankful to them because it strengthens Europe in its entirety. It strengthens central Europe, it strengthens the bilateral relation between Austria and Hungary, that we will have a decent government in the future, and we will have a majority in the Hungarian Parliament with colleagues who will take decent decisions in the very centre of the political spectrum. It is Trumpism that has been voted against in Hungary. It is the political centre that has been voted in favour in Hungary by the citizens. That also means that maybe the climax of extremism is already over – of right extremism as well as of left extremism, of Trumpism as well as of wokeism. The decency of the political centre, the State's responsibility of the political centre is what the Hungarians voted for, and I am very hopeful for Europe in its entirety that this future will sustain and will be good for every generation. But since the extremists have put on the table this idea of the Commission interfering in democratic processes and elections, let us ask the question for a second – who is actually interfering in democratic processes and elections in Europe? Exactly, your friends in Russia. Putin's Russia is interfering in our elections, and you are part of this interference. That's a matter of fact, that's what we have to discuss. Don't be such sore losers, accept the democratic decisions, such as the one in Hungary, and try to observe the political centre with decent and straight, responsible decisions.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! The application of EU law is our topic today. And hand on heart: We had years when it was not easy for the users of the right we created here to apply the right one hundred percent because it was too complicated because it was too much. Because we did not follow the liberal principle of Montesquieu, which said: If there is no need to make a law, then there is no need to make a law. This principle has often been betrayed at European level. And in this period we have taken a different path. We have stopped some of what was becoming, and we have scaled back some of it by deregulation, as I say, by simplification, as others say. And we have managed, through better majorities here in the European Parliament, to give people confidence that the European level manages to focus on the essentials. And the important thing is enough work for all of us. The people's representation of Europe will not run out of work. Parliamentarism has enough to do for security, for the economy, in view of the geopolitical situation, in view of the economic difficulties. We need to move towards recovery, not more regulation. At the same time, two things are clear: Many parts of the world look to Europe because Europe creates regulation on many issues that is beneficial to people who are fit for purpose and humane. And that creates something that is not yet possible in these parts of the world. We are also a positive role model in some things. And it is also clear that sometimes the implementation of EU law at Member State level and at other levels is even more complicated than it actually comes from the European level – gold-plating That's what it means. It is not always in Brussels to look for problems when problems arise with the application of EU law.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! EU citizens have freedoms like hardly anyone else in the world. This has been made possible by European integration and must be defended time and again. And to defend that is the principle of the rule of law. This is not some abstract, cool entity, but it means that every human being is worth the same amount. And we can do that in the European Union. We are also the most reliable partner for others in the world. We need to see the positive developments: In Poland, an anti-law regime could be overcome, in Hungary, an anti-law regime could be overcome. When I remember, in February 2022, during a rule of law mission in Poland, I could see how bleak the state of the jurisprudence there was. In Hungary, we have witnessed for years how companies from other parts of Europe have been harassed. And now there is a blossoming, a spring for Europe, in Hungary, in Central Europe, for all of Europe.

Mr President, Commissioner, colleagues, I want to thank you for the excellent negotiations we had. They were tough, I can tell you, but they led to a result that is on the table today and that is of utmost importance. As the Commissioner has just stated, fundamental rights are not an abstract ideal, he said, and I could not agree more. I think many people would ask what is the whole point of fundamental rights? It might sound a bit abstract. I think fundamental rights and the values behind fundamental rights are like the seed that, in the long term, bear the fruits of our freedom. And these fruits of freedom are opportunities, are equal rights for everybody, men and women, our chances for children – it is our very civilisation as we have it. Of course, we have to develop it, but we can also compare it to other parts of the world and we can see that the values behind fundamental rights would be nowhere in today's world as much respected as in today's Europe by the European Union. This is a big achievement of generations before us and we have the big responsibility to hand over to future generations also a civilisation of that kind, based on these values that also are enshrined in the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. The Commissioner has also stated, among other things, the rise of antisemitism in Europe. This is something of utmost concern. Over the last years, in each country, we know the figures in each country, we know that it is online and offline. There is not one kind of antisemitism which is less harmful than another kind of antisemitism. There is left-wing extremist antisemitism, right-wing extremist antisemitism, there is Islamistic antisemitism – you know that I always distinguish Islam from Islamism, religion from harmful ideology and terrorism, we have to do that all the time as Islam is a religion very much also earning the rights of freedom of religion. There is also anti-Zionism in our times. Israel is put out as the Jew among the states and actually – the time has stopped, Mr President, can I continue to speak? Is it part of my rights to continue to speak?

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! Some time ago, I saw a post from the European Commission that said: We need to mobilise Europe's savings for Europe's competitiveness. Someone wrote it, commented: My savings, the European Commission certainly does not get them. And I would like to say to these people: Well, of course. The European Commission should never get your savings. We, as parliamentarians, would be the first to oppose it. We are the opposite of the European Commission. We are the citizens' chamber, the representation of the citizens. And we want the savings for Europe's competitiveness to be set in motion because we need the recovery, because we are lagging behind China and the US. Growth in China has been 12 times higher since the pandemic, and seven times higher in the US. There is a lot in Europe, but it is not invested in the capital market. People need to be informed. We need to pay attention to our language. And we need to set the right framework conditions so that we can invest well in a good economy for future generations in Europe.

Madam President, Commissioner Jozef Síkela, ladies and gentlemen! We live in a world with more and more confrontation. We are experiencing global players who are losing their reliability, who are no longer reliable. Europe is different. Europe has many challenges in the so-called Hard power, in our defense capabilities, in economic growth, in many ways. But Europe can do a lot, Europe is reliable. Europe is a reliable partner for others around the world, and the Global Gateway expresses and sums it up. And this is a strength that we must seek to create more cooperation in this world full of confrontation, because inwardly Europe has become strong through cooperation. Generations before us have created this, and we carry it into the world. And it will carry, and our partners know that, and through the Global Gateway we are building even closer partnerships. Ronald Reagan said, "The best social programme is a job." I say, "The best development cooperation is economic cooperation." Thank you, Jozef Síkela, for going in this direction as Commissioner. We need to help humanitarianly, we need to help development, and we need to work together economically to make it work sustainably.

Mr President, Commissioner, colleagues, Georgia is an enormously important European country, a country we will not lose sight of and one that is important for the future of Europe. Georgians feel European, they think European, they have European aspirations. My very first visit outside the EU after the election in 2019 led me to Georgia. I was meant to participate in a conference in the Georgian Parliament and to speak at this conference on the premises. It did not take place because riots were on the streets because, already at that time in 2019, a Russian representative had sat down on the Georgian Parliament Chair's seat, and that's what the people couldn't accept. This is what I experienced there: they want Europe, they do not want to be a Russian satellite state. We will help the people of Georgia, we are on their side.

Thank you, I appreciate it. We are already exercising the parliamentary debate as it is meant for Parliament. So thanks for this additional question. Well, among many things that should be looked at, I always put it in the framework of more strength to the outside and more freedom to the inside. This is what the future structures of the European Union should provide. I think the number of issues where the unanimity principle would apply must be much, much smaller. This number must decrease in order to make the European Union ready to react and act stronger to the outside and to the inside. And a very last point. There are already rumours and discussions, even open discussions, about the core Europe or something like that. I think this is a fallback position that must be discussed, but it would be better if the European Union would be reformed and enlarged in its entirety.

Of course, we need a new EU Treaty. In the 1.5 minutes of speaking time I had before, I was not even able to only mention the third institution: the Council. And I think it's up to the Member States, in the Council, to the governments of the Member States, to take the courage to start a negotiation process on the Treaties. This was always the way Europe was reformed, the European Union developed. We have the longest period of time in Europe's history without a Treaty reform. We have the longest period of time without an accession. We have even had a country dropping out of the European Union during that period of time. So there are many good reasons to really work on further reforms, but we exercise now how a reform approach can work with this very agreement.

Madam President, Vice-President, colleagues, we have inherited from generations before us a Europe with separation of powers, a Europe with the very first parliament in Europe's history for Europe in its entirety – a parliament established in 1979, the same year as the Iranian regime. And I very much trust now more than ever that the European Parliament will last longer than this Iranian regime. I want to, in particular, thank our colleague Sven Simon for undertaking the endeavour of negotiating this agreement, because it is of utmost importance that we achieve results with the separation of powers, with a strong parliament, which is the only directly elected body in this European Union and which is the citizens' chamber. I think it is not by chance that Vice-President Šefčovič is with us today, because he is not only the longest-serving member of the College, he is also – and I know that from my personal experience – a good example of how the Commission can engage with the parliamentarian when it comes to the very interests of the Europeans. But this must be structurally enshrined. The people want more leadership, a more visionary approach, and this very body – the directly elected Chamber, the European Parliament – is the body providing more leadership, a more visionary approach. And these days, we have seen a more visionary approach by our Commission's President when it comes to the statements on the evolving situation in Iran. This is why, to the inside for more freedom, to the outside for more strength of Europe, the Parliament must have a stronger say and the agreement is a good path towards that.

Madam President, High Representative Kaja Kallas, colleagues, we live in a world with more and more confrontation. Europe's approach has always been – at least when it was successful – one of cooperation, and cooperation is the decisive element of the success story of Europe to the inside, and cooperation is the way Europe reaches out to the outside. Of course, especially in recent years, we've been able to defend Europe, we've been more independent in security and defence and enlarging also this capacity, but cooperation is our approach. Maybe that's something we still have to fight for and to argue for. This very week in the European Parliament has shown exactly that – that it is a very tight race always between the ones who see the value of cooperation against the ones who are reluctant or are driven by anxiety, not even rationale, so much. So we have to do a lot here. And this is where India comes in: the largest country on earth, a country we have a lot of prospects with, a lot of opportunities in joint endeavours. And India is open for this cooperation with Europe. India is also the largest democracy on earth, while of course different in the one or the other respect to Europe, but still a country we can work with, a country that is open for us. And this is why the EU-India summit is a shining light in these times of many shadows and a lot of darkness.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Europe needs a recovery. We need it for prosperity now and in the future, for our social security systems, also for our independence from other parts of the world and to maintain our civilization. We therefore also need every opportunity to become entrepreneurially active. That is why it is right that there should be a separate European legal form for companies valid throughout the European Union – if this makes possible something that we know from the Declaration of Independence of the United States, with whose administration we are currently dealing with major problems, but which we nevertheless appreciate, namely the pursuit of happiness – Pursuit of Happiness. I say this today because this new legal form is intended to make entrepreneurial activity easier, but not the knighthood of fortune. Not the gold mining mentality, which may then turn the stable European economic model upside down. No, striving for happiness and happiness is not just profit, although it belongs to the economy if it is to work, but means contributing something, entrepreneurially, to make other people's lives easier through products and services. This is what many in Europe want and can do, but they lack the legal form for it and the right capital market for it in Europe. That is why the Capital Markets Union is so important. That is why we need to mobilise what capital would actually be available in Europe.

Madam President, Commissioner! Dear colleagues! We are talking today in the European Parliament about Russian espionage, espionage under Putin-Russia. And first of all, in the spirit of public awareness, it must be emphasised that it is not about intelligence services, as we have, as Europe has, as the Member States have, and that, hopefully, at European level, this is actually being built up for defence under strict parliamentary control, but about intelligence services for the purpose of the attack, point 1. Item 2: The aforementioned public information is incredibly important because Russian espionage is not necessarily undertaken by Russian nationals and because the Russian agent is not immediately recognizable as in a James Bond film, but can also be the nice guy next door who then spreads false information, spreads so-called Putin-Russian narratives, who then says that NATO has provoked Russia, for example. We know that, it's just not true. And even it would be true if it did not justify war and war crimes. We see that there are willing agents of this Putin-Russian propaganda – yes, also here in the European Parliament, and this is particularly reprehensible, because we must use the parliamentary tools with responsibility. And that is the opposite of what happens here if what Russian espionage wants is also done in the European Parliament. And besides those with criminal energy who do this intentionally, there are also those who have nothing of it themselves, who are, in a sense, the useful idiots of this Russian propaganda. We need to uncover this. We have to stop it, through enlightenment.

Mr President, Commissioner, colleagues, we keep up the attention for the people of Georgia. This is a clear message the European Parliament conveys again today to Georgia, to Europe, to the world. Because to keep up the attention is the first step to a better future. This very week, we have provided courageous Georgian journalists with the Sakharov Prize, the human rights prize of the European Parliament, and we will keep up the attention. I have visited Georgia several times, for example, exactly the day of the riots in 2019, in June, shortly after the European Parliament's elections, and these riots took place because of Russian interference, or at least, the allegation of Russian interference, the appearance of a Russian leader in the Georgian Parliament, even in the seat of the Chair there. It should have been a lesson for the leadership already at that time that people do not accept this kind of Russian influence because they know what it is about after the occupation of Abkhazia, of South Ossetia. So also we, as European Parliament delegations, we several times conveyed the messages: speak to each other among the political parties, keep up democratic standards, try to seek for diversity in your political landscape. It is exactly the opposite that has happened. But the Georgians deserve better. The Georgians want a better situation, and we will keep up the good faith and also the concrete support for the Georgians to have a better, positive European future.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the debate is about recent developments in Palestine and Lebanon. The developments are very different. In Lebanon, Hezbollah is weaker than ever; in Palestine, Hamas is still not yet fully defeated. In Lebanon, we have a bright future already close in reach with an election next year. After the Pope's visit, there was a lot of confidence in the country. In Palestine, UNRWA is still around. We need more trustworthy organisations of international funding, we need support for a proper future, on the way to a two-state solution which can only be – in one generation or more – really applicable. It is a huge difference. The future for the region is the Abraham Accords. The Abraham Accords are starting exactly like the European integration once started: with cooperation among former enemies in economic dimensions and then in other dimensions, and this led to peace, freedom, prosperity. This is what we all have to wish for. All the countries in the region – no matter whether Palestinians, Lebanese or the others – would be affected.

Mr President, colleagues, when I was reading early morning on Monday after the horrible attack in Sydney, Australia, in a Jewish newspaper about the matter of fact that the hero Ahmed Al‑Ahmed was a muslim, is a muslim, fortunately, since he survived the attack. It touched me deeply and it reminded me of what I have stated time and again in this plenary and elsewhere that Islamism and Islam is not the same. Islamism is an ideology of hatred, anti-Semitism, violence, brutal terrorism. Islam is a religion as other religions and deserves the same freedom of religion. How many times have we talked in this very Parliament about anti-Semitism and where it leads to, and about the responsibility of the vast majority of people who are not anti-Semites, to make proper dwelling for Jewish people possible. And how many times it was of doubt whether we are coherent in Europe of doing that. So Australia is not Europe, but we must not underestimate the threat that's also here. It's also in the Member States of the European Union that's everywhere in the world. So this horrible attack, while we mourn the victims, we must even strengthen our efforts to make proper dwelling for Jewish people possible and to fight anti-Semitism in all its forms.

Mr President, dear colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, the Iranian regime has been a threat to the outside and to the inside. The Iranian regime is weaker than ever before after the attacks on 7 October 2023 against our civilisation, I would say, because the Iranian regime was behind it, and the Iranian regime had to pay the bill for it and still has to pay the bill for it. But I care for the people in Iran. No matter what religion or ethnicity, everybody deserves a proper life. This is exactly what the difference is between us and our values in Europe and beyond, and the approach of the Iranian regime. I have been sanctioned by the Iranian regime since January 2023, and I am absolutely aware of the fact that the Baha'i and other minorities are even more under threat than ever before, because the regime is so weak that it tries to do everything to remain in power. We must not allow the regime to get away with that.

Madam President, colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, first, for the vast majority of people on this planet, spirituality, religion is a major part of their identity. Only because in Western Europe it is only slowly increasing that we have this understanding, we must not forget to have that in mind and take that into account when we reach out to the world. Secondly, Islam and Islamism are two different things. Islam is a religion. Islamism is a terrible terrorist ideology, very harmful. And most harmed by Islamism is Islam itself, because it disappears as a religion from the public sphere if Islamism is too present, and Islamism is also the grounding for persecution of Christians in Nigeria and elsewhere, but mostly in Nigeria today. And we have to fight that by fighting Islamism and by keeping up religious freedom. I want to, in particular, commend the activities of our Vice-President Antonella Sberna in that specific field of religious freedom, which is of utmost importance also in the very interests of Europe's core values.

Mr President, Commissioner, thank you very much for your speech and the EU's efforts so far. I think we should align with those who also take efforts for stabilisation, for future peace, and for proper dwelling and dignity. That is what we wish for everybody and especially for the people in Sudan due to this largest humanitarian crisis in the world. It has been the largest crisis since 2023, but I cannot avoid to make the remark that we might have been covered with some crisis regions, which we, ideologically driven, focused more on for a very long time. But now we focus on the largest crisis we have on Earth, especially on this very day, which is also the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women. Rape as a weapon of war is widely used in Sudan. This is something that is absolutely unacceptable and it has to be addressed, as well as humanitarian aid, meaning also humanitarian access. This is something that will be a precondition for what the Commissioner has just pointed out as EU help, EU support. Humanitarian access is a precondition for that. Politically speaking, we are confronted again with an actor we already pretty much know: the Muslim Brotherhood. So, I think the European Union politically should support the efforts of the so‑called 'Quad' – meaning the US, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Egypt – to achieve a ceasefire, and to support a peaceful and sustainable resolution of the matter. This would be the political approach the EU should take.