Speeches

Madam President, Madam Prime Minister! Indeed, it is a crucial moment in Europe when the Danish Presidency will take over. At a time when geopolitical uncertainties are growing, but also in our society, more and more people are feeling left behind – and at the same time not safe enough. That is why social security is essential for us. And I would like to say that today we have heard many examples where everyone would like to become Danish. I would like to give another example where Denmark is a role model for us – and that is public procurement. You make sure that it is not the cheapest offer, but actually that where good work is created by public procurement – and here we want to learn from you, we are making an own-initiative report, because we want good work and also fair and free mobility – here Denmark is a role model. We need digital methods here to ensure that we really have fair mobility in the future and a point ofincomprehensible words) Enlarging and reforming the EU.

Mr President, dear Mr Executive Vice-President Séjourné, ladies and gentlemen! When Jacques Delors launched the single market, it was clear to him that the single market and social policy must be closely linked. He was a visionary and European and understood that a market alone does nothing. And the winged saying about it was: Nobody falls in love with a single market. For him, the Single European Act was not only an expression of the internal market, but also of solidarity and economic and social cohesion. He had an understanding of competitiveness where he said: Social dimension, environmental research are the trumps of competition. And that's why it's interesting – the new Commission presented the strategy here – to see what's actually in it in the spirit of Delors. What is the basic narrative? The single market must be freed from its shackles. But intellectual property rights are defined here as bureaucratic obstacles or even denied to certain groups. Pressure on liberalisation without looking at the consequences and costs for consumers and workers – looking at the costs for businesses is good, but the other groups still need to catch up. And that is why our plea is: They have us at their side when it comes to truly mobilising the potential of the single market in Delors' spirit and using it for economic and social progress and prosperity for all. And that we are not reverting to a shortened competitive model. If we want to convince people that this single market strategy works for them too, then it must be broader in scope. And then we need to make sure that workers and consumers know: This is not a strategy for companies, but also for them, for the whole of Europe.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. First of all, I would like to thank the two rapporteurs for their work. We are sending two very, very important messages, two important messages with this report. One is: We need enough resources. It's a truly dramatically changing world, and we have huge investment gaps. Therefore: Some colleagues have already summoned the Hamilton moment. But also: We really need sustainable resources of our own. And the second message that is given is that we need to spend the money wisely and correctly. And that really means a structural, long-term and, above all, regional way of strengthening social and territorial cohesion. And of course, the money must also be spent in such a way that it corresponds to our goals. And here I would like to mention one more point: child poverty. We need them Child Guarantee It's really because it's an investment in our future, and we'll only have sustainable societies if we make sure of it.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen! Many at the moment have such a feeling that something is slipping. And you remember that it was great Europeans like Jacques Delors, great Europeans like Jean-Claude Juncker, who knew that Europe has no chance among citizens if it is not a strong social Europe, a strong base, even a soul. And that's why they're looking closely at what's actually happening. In the last period, we have really shown that Europe can make life better for those who bring pizza, because they are now socially insured. We have shown that women have better ways of getting equal wages. We've done a lot. And now they look at the work programme and say: There are many beautiful words in it. A lot is said about what is important. But where are the deeds, the concrete deeds? Whether it is about artificial intelligence in the world of work, whether it is about strong democracy in the workplace. Where are the actions to really strengthen social Europe? And even more: They listen carefully, people, when it comes to competitiveness. Everyone is in favour of greater competitiveness, especially when we look around the world. But you wonder who's going to pay for it? Is the understanding of competitiveness that one should push down wages, that one reduces rights, that one no longer wants to prosecute those who exploit? Or is it a competitiveness where we say: Through good work, through co-determination, through participation, through legal clarity, we strengthen competitiveness, and we show people that Europe makes your lives safer.

Madam President, Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen! Wherever you are at the moment in companies, the employees have great concerns about how this change is going and what it means for them. And that is why it is so important that employees are involved in this change and do not do it over their heads, because if they are not properly involved, they will ultimately reject the change completely. And this transition of employees harms companies, harms the economy, harms our competitiveness. I agree with the Commissioner who said: When the voice of employees is heard, it strengthens resilience in companies. And we know from so many studies: Where we have co-determined companies, they are more sustainable, they are more innovative, they are more resilient to crises and ultimately more economically successful – and that is why it is a competitive advantage. And now, when employers send out e-mails and ask all MEPs to vote against the report because they say it harms competitiveness, impairs the speed of decisions, I can only say: Do not listen to these arguments from the mothbox – this is detrimental to us, our economy and also to the European social model.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. Indeed, since this Commission has been in office, the international situation has continued to deteriorate, but so has the social situation of many Europeans. We need bold initiatives for the future of Europe. What comes from the Commission? A poorly prepared first omnibus that does not create a single workplace and where you can see that the multis have led the pen there. We – and this is also my reply to Jeroen Lenaers and the EPP – made it clear yesterday with Renew that we want to talk about a package together here. But what does the EPP do? Cowboylike She marches forward with just procedures, without talking to Renew or to us. If you want to go through this with the right, then listen again to yesterday's debate on the omnibus, what a lopsided level this is. And at a time when we need bold steps towards European joint procurement: Parliament has put forward a proposal on this, because the Commission is faltering and does not dare. We need more efficiency, and we can only do it in Europe.

Mr President, Vice-President Mînzatu, ladies and gentlemen! If you listen here, you get the impression: Difficult times, new rules, but old game – if you listen to the speeches here. It shows that sustainable fiscal policy and future investments are now essential if we as Europe can truly give our citizens stability, prosperity and security in uncertain times. We have here as a new element the framework for social convergence, a warning mechanism, and we as Parliament underline this in the report, we will look very closely at how it is implemented. We have seven Member States that are at increased risk when it comes to social protection when it comes to good work, even when it comes to poverty reduction. And that is why it is important to add to this, because all of this – as well as schools, as well as investments in digital infrastructure – strengthens competitiveness, even if the ideological camp, which speaks here of the will of the people, etc., cannot see it. Competitiveness needs a stable social balance.

Mr President, colleagues, who does not like to have simple legislation with a high level of legal certainty? We call it 'the art of doing legislation'. Anyone? I don't think so, even though the Commission is not here. We as S&D support this. We engage in simplification, and we want to better protect SMEs from multinationals putting their obligations on them. But – surprise! – if you really look at the package, you can see that quite a few of these proposals don't deliver on simplification. And Omnibus: I think the term is to maximise people's confusion because they don't know what an 'omnibus' is here. If you look at these four very different legal proposals, you will find out that these are legal proposals we worked on. We found compromises in this House. We found majorities in the last mandate. If you look at two of these four omnibus packages – especially if you look at the due diligence proposals – it is pure deregulation. It is not simplification. And it's not rational proposals for simplification: it affects real people. You're talking about growth and jobs; we are talking about growth and good jobs, also for the fruit picker from Morocco, also for the child that has to dig minerals or the transport worker that works here and delivers our products. These proposals were written by multinationals, by business lobbyists that lobbied for that for a long time. And EPP, Mr Tobé, instead of talking with the other political groups, like S&D, like Renew and the Greens, you cowboy-like march through without any talking to come up with a fast procedure here. But I think the art of doing law in Europe was finding good compromises. It was not the cowboy style of marching through and just push, push, push without having good legislation. Because what good legislation can come out of this – without any consultation, without any legal assessments here – to march through? I have to say, Mr Tobé, but also to Mr Weber, it has consequences if you leave how we did legislation in the past and you want to do it with the far right in this House. You have the choice: to negotiate with us for simplification, for better protecting SMEs, or you march through with the right here, but this will have consequences for the whole legal term. In this sense, I hope you come to your senses.

First of all, Or I can speak German. When I pointed out that the rights do not understand that decarbonisation and competitiveness belong together – this means that if you really want to have an automotive industry in the future, you cannot turn back the wheel now, but must really invest and rely on decarbonisation here. The same goes for the economy. And indeed, one question remains open here, namely: How will the investments be financed? How do we ensure that if, for example, the Recovery and Resilience Facility expires in 2026, we will continue to have resources available in the future? We just have to do that.

Mr President! Mr Executive Vice-President Séjourné! In fact, there is a lot of talk here about the direction of the compass. North Pole, South Pole - where do we really want to go? What's the message? I believe that there is broad agreement on the objectives here in the middle of the House: Combining decarbonisation and competitiveness, as the right will never understand, innovation and reduced dependencies. But the question is how to get there. And I was pleased, Mr Séjourné, that you mentioned the high-quality jobs, which are simply central, which are to be created. But how do we ensure that they are also of high quality? And then when I look at the fact that you're on the 28th. regimes want to involve labour law – this would further destroy the systems where there is existing codetermination. And we know that co-determined companies are more competitive than others. Therefore, I can only advise you very, very urgently to take out the labour law. When we look at the US, with the IRA The United States has given an answer. They didn't publish a compass, and they didn't have big debates, but they really took money into their hands to invest. Because the area of investment, which also remains a void here. Where do the investments and innovations come from? I think there's a need for reconnaissance. The solution less is more helps us zero. It's gonna be a pipe-cracker. We need to do better, and we need to work together in this direction.

Madam President, Commissioner Šefčovič! Listening to the debate, you have such an impression of why perhaps Mrs von der Leyen is not here. Because this work programme really inspires hardly anyone. Bold, fast, easy – write fast. But obviously not so easy to implement. And it has already been said: Simple does not mean too simple. Let me give three examples. If you think that you can do a good job to maintain competitiveness, you look into the program and ask yourself: Where are the measures for good work in AI in the workplace, for teleworking, for the right to disconnect? Bringing children out of poverty, for example, where are the measures? We don't see any. Competitiveness needs the right framework, investment. It has been said that it is a shrinking draghi, which is being presented here because, for example, the parts are being taken up for de-bureaucratisation, but the investments, that is the backbone of this report – misrepresentation! There's nothing. We need a permanent investment capacity. Where do we see something here? The Social Convergence Mechanism? Misrepresentation! One topic drives all people around: Affordable housing, affordable housing. How can Europe support this? homelessness; Help people find a place to live again. Short-term rentals that really evade housing. Where are the bold measures?

Mr President! Madam Executive Vice-President! Indeed, the previous speaker just recalled that during the pandemic, millions stood and clapped on the balconies in support. And now exactly the same nurses, nurses, doctors expect us to improve their working conditions. And indeed, when we talk to nurses and carers, we find that it is not only the pay, but it is also the permanent overload – that there are not enough forces that are saved at all corners and ends. That is why it is important that we invest here and that we ensure that good working conditions also serve to ensure that people can really stay in their jobs until the end of their professional careers. That we give better pay, but also that we invest in the education of the people we have here who also provide care services. And if, and we will have to do so, we are actually recruiting carers from other countries, then we must do so on decent terms. And then we also have to make sure that we don't steal the well-qualified skilled workers from others. We have to do it with responsibility.

Mr. Chairman! Commissioner! In fact, we are already discussing good work all afternoon, and mental health is very much related to good work. I would like to focus on a group in agriculture that is very important. The Commissioner referred to it, namely, among the 10 million people we have as employees, the 7 million day labourers, the seasonal workers, whom we used to call migrant workers, are a really important group, without whom the tomatoes would not end up on our table, not the lettuce and not the apples. And that's why it's important that we take a closer look. And indeed, social conditionality is an important step, really an important step towards more justice, but we also have the Commission’s reports, for example on mobile seasonal workers from last year. And there it is again, how often the rights are violated, that they work under particularly precarious working conditions and are also often exploited. And that is why it is important that, in addition to the analyses, we actually also take a closer look at how we can better implement this mechanism, and where it has gaps, how we address them. And I want to make this clear again, specifically to the people who, for example, sting asparagus in my area in Germany and who also have to be socially protected so that they do not end up without social protection, just because they come, for example, from another country. But if, as is currently the case every 350 years, the asparagus farmer only has to count on a check, then black sheep can simply hide too easily in the herd – and we have to get there.

Mr President! Madam Executive Vice-President! I met a representative of the Berlin City Mission two weeks ago and we talked about the problem of homelessness in my city – more than 80% of the people come from Central and Eastern Europe. And he gave me a sentence; He said: "For many people in Europe, labour exploitation in such subcontractor chains is the start of the descent." They come because they hope that they can earn money with honest work, hope for a better life for their families, fall into the hands of dubious intermediaries. The families are in debt, then they don't get their wages and quickly end up at the bottom. And – Commissioner, you said it – we have different EU legislation. Here a little, there a little. But we really need to tackle this complex and widespread system. And I want to take an example: In the meat industry in Germany, subcontracting has become the rule – we had really brutal circumstances – and we have made a law that just prohibits subcontracting for the core areas. It works, it works, businesses continue to prosper and people have better working and living conditions – that is what we need in Europe. And that is why we are calling for a European legal framework to restrict subcontractor chains and, above all, to prevent the outsourcing of core activities. We must dismantle this systematic network and ensure that everyone in Europe can have a good job. And that will only be possible if we approach it holistically.

Mr President! Dear Executive Vice-President Mînzatu, welcome to the first exchange here in the European Parliament, in the heart of European democracy, on such an important topic. This is about the foundations for workers in Europe, and I really invite all workers in Europe to listen to what Mrs Tovaglieri or Mr Torselli are spreading here for the patriots and ECR. This is anti-worker. Because – and here I would like to quote an American trade unionist who said: ‘Show me a country where there are no strikes and I will show you a country where there is no freedom’; and that it is essential, indeed – one thing distinguishes autocracies and dictatorships: There is no right to strike. We must be very concerned when we see in Europe that the right to strike is being further and further restricted. Those who want good work – and this Commission wants good work and good wages - do not fall from the sky. Strengthening collective bargaining policy means that you have a right to strike, that people can take to the streets for their demands, so that they can negotiate on an equal footing. Because without such instruments, there is no difference between capital and labour. That is why it is important that we, as a parliament, as a house of democracy, keep an eye on those who want to torpedo the right to strike and indeed collective bargaining, and that we, who protect it, expand and take care when collective bargaining policy and the right to strike come under pressure.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! Today we are celebrating this anniversary, and it is not an exuberant birthday celebration, because we see what problems there are and that we are also in Europe in a dangerous downward spiral when it comes to child poverty. It is good that the Commission is providing a guarantee for children. They want to strengthen, but they need the means. That is why we are calling for 20 billion euros to finance the guarantee for children in order to lift them out of poverty. But we also need to increase the participation and visibility of children in politics here. That is why, in the last legislature, Parliament proposed that we proclaim a European Children's Capital every year, where we really talk about the rights and protections that are at the heart of it. I therefore call on the new Commission to: Take note of this suggestion. In fact, equip the guarantee for children in such a way that it can work, that we have 5 million children less in poverty, and at the same time set up a European Children's Capital. Let's put the kids first!

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! In fact, this transformation will succeed if we take the employees here with us. And the Draghi report actually focuses on the need for further education and training, not only for competitiveness, but also for innovation. And it is good that this builds on the Pillar of Social Rights, which guarantees for the first time a right to further training – we must anchor this, this is a job for the next Commission. I am glad that the Commissioner has highlighted the role of the social partners because it is essential: that both sides that employers like trade unions, like works councils develop concepts together in the companies. And I am also happy – I have just come from a debate on ESF Plus projects, where both social partners in Germany, employers and trade unions, have developed a programme for advice and training. Please do not shorten skillsdebate, but see that we need a good basic qualification and actors in the companies that drive this forward.

Madam President and dear Enrico Letta, I think it is very important that we still keep a vision of what we could do and what is possible, but where we lack the courage so far to do so. Jacques Delors always said that no one falls in love with the common market. That was true in the past, it's also true today, but you show that it's not only a single market, but it is what it does for people, how it enables people. And therefore we really have to boost the common market indeed, but also – in the spirit of Jacques Delors – to always have in mind that this always needs a strong social dimension going for it, if we want to also convince the citizens that it's in their interest to do so. But I also have to say I could comment on many things, because your report is very rich. I want to highlight the fifth freedom, a fair mobility, a new push here for innovation, and to deliver for our citizens.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen! In fact: We are now talking about 100 million people at risk of poverty and social exclusion in Europe, one of the richest continents; Madam President has said: More than one in five people here in Europe. And this International Day for the Abolition of Poverty must really be a wake-up call here because we need more. Yes, we need a poverty strategy, but we also need concrete policies, and one of them is indeed that we need a fixed budget of 20 billion in our own ESF+ for the child guarantee to better protect the 19 million children – 19 million who have had the future stolen – from poverty, and we need action. But we must not only remain national, but, according to the Treaties, poverty reduction is also the main objective of European development policy. This must remain so and must be our compass for combating poverty around the world.

Mr President, Vice-President Schinas! You can kill a person with an apartment as well as with an axe. That was a winged word 100 years ago. We are seeing housing costs explode in Europe at the moment and in some regions it is no longer possible at all to find adequate and affordable housing, a roof over one's head. Homelessness is growing across Europe and the promise we made to end homelessness remains empty talk. That is why it is important not only to stand by saying that adequate housing is indeed a fundamental social right and that it is also enshrined in the European Pillar of Social Rights, but also to look at what we can do to ensure that people with low and middle incomes can find adequate housing. I would also like to mention in particular young people who are in education and work, who may want to start a family. If they don't have the means to find housing, it encroaches on a lifetime. That is why people are asking themselves, Mr Ferber, what can Europe do to end this crisis? And Enrico Letta, in his report on the future of the single market, strongly recommended that the EU urgently tackle the design and application of all EU rules, funds and policies that have a direct or indirect impact on national housing markets. We've got a lot of stuff. We are proud that we will now have a Commissioner for this, and that we have a special committee here in the House, which we have helped to enforce. It will not regulate the market. We need a coherent Housing‐Plan in Europe. We will put pressure, including on the Commission, to ensure that this happens appropriately. As far as resources are concerned, this has already been mentioned here: If you have REPowerEU, you should also Re-empower European citizens are struggling to find adequate housing.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen! I think Thomas Piketty sums it up very well: Inequality is not the result of pure coincidence or any inescapable necessity. It is always the result of specific political decisions. And that's what it's all about now. Because we are faced with a crucial question of social justice: Why do the richest pay much, much less tax than the middle class? Strong shoulders have to carry more than weak ones. This injustice not only leads to manifold problems, but also undermines trust in democracy. We live in a Europe where families and small businesses like the kiosk around the corner pay their taxes, while super-rich don't make an adequate tax contribution. We can't accept that. It's time for a fair tax system and time to make sure these strong shoulders carry more. This is what the people of Europe demand. They hope that politicians will finally dare to take responsibility for the wealthy worldwide. That is why we are not discussing an abstract issue of justice today. If everyone makes their fair contribution, we will continue to have more resources in the future to make the necessary investments for the future, for example in our infrastructure, and also to better combat poverty in Europe. We can then ensure that we can better equip schools and kindergartens so that all children, regardless of social background, have equal opportunities. Think about climate protection. We urgently need funds for transformation, and the CO2The footprint of the super-rich is a multiple of what ordinary taxpayers pay. We've had a lot of crises in recent years, and that's why it's important that we talk about it and change course. Julia Friedrich argues in her book “Crazy Rich” that we simply need to speak more openly about exorbitant wealth. Brazil's President Lula is doing it, IMF chief Kristalina Georgiewa is doing it, civil society representatives, economists and billionaires are all calling for a billionaire tax. The Brazilian G20 presidency has made a proposal for a global minimum tax of 2 percent on the wealth of billionaires. That could bring in $200 to $250 billion a year, and studies show countries are missing out on up to $4.8 trillion in tax revenue from tax havens. We also need to do more about it. Taxation is a crucial tool to achieve a fair, strong and sustainable Europe. That is why it is essential that nails are made with heads at the summit of the 20 most important industrialised and emerging countries in Rio on 18 and 19 November. We need a concrete roadmap for a mandate at the international level from the UN and OECD to negotiate concrete rules for a minimum tax for the super-rich, so that more tax revenues from the super-rich help to secure the urgently needed investments in infrastructure, climate protection, schools and education. Let's tackle it!

Madam President, dear Commission! It is an essential debate that we are having here, because we are actually talking about the existence of more than 14 million people. It doesn't help that you revel in yesterday's dreams or talk hoarse about having to go back now. Last week we went on a business trip to Audi in Brussels and talked to the people, to the management, to the works councils, to the trade unions. And the last thing – they told us – that should happen to us is to play a role backwards now. Instead, they pointed out how important it is, on the one hand, that the necessary investments are there and that one has a coherent industrial strategy and not individual elements that then do not work together, and that one has to make this huge change – people no longer like this term transformation at all – that one cannot make this giant change against the employees, but must do it with them. This also means that they must be involved at an early stage – which, incidentally, did not happen at Audi – and that democracy in the workplace must also be strengthened in order to involve them in this change. But I want to point out again: Where is Audi shifting its jobs? To Mexico. And why? Because the US, with its Inflation Reduction Act, has hired a giant vacuum cleaner to attract investment, and Europe does not yet have a coherent response, and it needs it very quickly.

Mr President, Commissioner! Indeed, this historic judgment is indeed a good message to citizens, to workers, but also to the many small and medium-sized enterprises, and it strengthens trust in democracy, but also in the institutions – and we know this is sorely needed. We really have to put a stop to such dirty tax deals, because they actually prevent us from having well-equipped schools that have digital infrastructure up to date, or from investing accordingly. And we talked about competitiveness here this week – a key factor in that. I would also like to thank the Commission for its tenacity, and of course – it has been stressed – this House has always been the engine behind it. But we need a systematic approach for the next Commission to close loopholes and really ensure that tax justice is everywhere and that we ensure that it further strengthens trust in democracy.

Madam President, What a signal! To come to Parliament, to the Chamber of the Heart of European Democracy, and not to stay in the debate, to hear what the Members have to say, I think it is a great pity, I would like to express here for this House. After Enrico Letta's report on the future of the single market, this report is the second report to provide a basis for the further development of Europe and the economy. Mr Draghi pointed out in his report that a core area for competitiveness is really essential: These are massive, massive investments, both public and private. This is important – as Mr Weber said – at a time when many workers fear for their jobs, where purchasing power has been declining for a long time and many workers are worried. That is why I would like to emphasize once again that we will never be able to cope with these enormous challenges of the socio-ecological, but also of the digital transformation without sufficient investments. We support the number given by Mr Draghi in his report, which ranges from 750 to 800 billion a year. This must be the first step we can take. But the ones behind it trickle-down economy, which shines through, which does not work; This has been shown. That is why we believe that one area is totally underexposed, namely that companies that have strong social dialogue, have employee participation, are more innovative – competitiveness – and that we also need to strengthen that.