Speeches

Madam President, The EU single market must no longer be a market for products derived from forced labour. The new law must contribute to the fight against modern slavery. This is both a question of human rights and a question of fair competition, because exploitation must not be a business model. We must not forget that the protection of human rights is first and foremost a state task. That is why it is so important that in the future the Commission should take responsibility and, together with the Member States, carry out the demonstration of forced labour in the supply chains. Because unfortunately you have to say: The EU Commission under von der Leyen has – as is often the case – forgotten to present an impact assessment on this law. That is, we do not know whether this law is practicable. That is why it is so important that we liberals have enforced that the law is reviewed two years after its entry into force to see if it is effective. Because our global commitment to human rights needs an EU that works.

Mr President! Three and a half years ago we discussed here: What should the European law on artificial intelligence look like? My three demands are still my benchmark today. I demanded at the time: We must promote innovation, strengthen citizens' rights and harmonise the internal market. Let's take a look at what's available now! The definition of AI is international, regulatory sandboxes are coming, and there are clear responsibilities in value creation. But there remains bureaucracy and ambiguity that will be easier for big tech companies to handle than for SMEs. I believe that it is important that the Commission provides clarity in its implementation, because the Artificial Intelligence Act must not become a brake on innovation. With regard to civil rights, we have not been able to achieve a ban on real-time biometric monitoring against the Member States, but we have been able to overcome important hurdles in the rule of law. I also fought for stronger rules in retrograde biometric identification and foresighted policing. I can say that we have improved the Commission proposal; But I would have liked to see more innovation and even greater protection of civil rights. But AI progress and regulation will not end with the Artificial Intelligence Act. For our democratic and economic future, we need to continue working to ensure that governments do not misuse artificial intelligence for surveillance and that innovation has a home in Europe.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. I am convinced that we need more competitiveness. Because this is also a commitment against the threat of autocrats for our democracy and economy. But we will not strengthen competition or become more resilient if we seal off our single market and only protect individual companies politically. I hear far too often that ‘fair competition’ is being said, but it actually means protectionism and subsidies. The European economy is so diverse with many small and medium-sized players. We also need to make it possible for them to play at world level. But above all, Ursula von der Leyen's Commission must finally stop creating ever new bureaucratic laws that are well-intentioned but badly made, as unfortunately also the Supply Chain Act. We need to break down barriers and bureaucracy in the single market, and we need to review planned laws and streamline existing ones. We need new markets through more free trade and access to energy and raw materials through new partnerships. And we need more courage and joy in technological progress. We need an economic turnaround for more growth, competition and prosperity in Germany and Europe.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. The clear commitment of the European Parliament to a future-proof WTO is a very important signal, as multilateral cooperation is more important than ever at a time when autocracies are attacking democracies – with weapons, with disinformation or with economic dependencies. Multilateralism is harder than ever. The World Trade Organization has always been at the heart of our global economic cooperation. But we are experiencing great geopolitical pressure, coupled with protectionism and trade wars, and we would have to work out the solution in the WTO. But the system itself is getting old. If China continues to claim developing country status, if the U.S. continues to paralyze dispute resolution because it doesn't name judges, then it's really obvious: The WTO no longer works. But our European response must not be single-handedness or protectionism. Our response must always be to continue to fight for reform. And the last ministerial conference gave us hope. There is an opportunity now to launch a package, a package for a genuine reform of the WTO, which brings a solution to resolving trade conflicts. We need more flexibility for plurilateral agreements and, above all, a permanent solution for modern E-commerce-Rules, because digital commerce already accounts for 25% of all commerce today. The WTO must arrive in the 21st century, and I expect the Commission to fight with all its heart for the future of multilateral trade.

Madam President, Ladies and gentlemen, it is unbelievable that we will unfortunately not be able to conclude a free trade agreement before the elections. Neither the elections in the EU nor in India have suddenly fallen from the sky, and it is incredible that the EU once again fails, as it did with the US, to pursue a trade agreement in time, and in particular with India. India is such a geopolitically extremely important partner in the region and in the world. We cannot allow ourselves to let this potential continue to be so untapped. India is a society that strives for progress, with smart minds and a market that is developing rapidly. There is enormous potential in this, including for our European companies, solely in terms of sustainability. Trade and technology, European investment and the exchange of knowledge could explosively boost renewable energies such as hydrogen or solar. And we always hear a lot about economic sovereignty from Mrs von der Leyen's Commission. We do not achieve economic independence through protectionism. We need more trade with more partners. It makes us more independent. And that is why we now need an offensive for free trade and, in particular, a trade agreement with India.

Mr President! The decade of foreign and economic naivety is over. We must take the threat of autocracies for our democracy, for our society, for our economy bitterly. Our answer must not be to resort to similar methods for our system rivals. Our answer must not be to foreclose our single market and pamper champions, instead of looking at the diversity of our economy with its many small and medium-sized enterprises. Because the spiral of subsidies and protectionism is pure poison for fair competition and growth. Our answer must be to strengthen our internal market. Above all, Von der Leyen's Commission must also show that cutting red tape is more than a lip service in the State of the Union speech. We need to review planned European laws and streamline existing ones. We need to enable new markets through more free trade, access to energy and raw materials through more partnerships. Because if the Commission wants to seriously strengthen economic security in Europe, it must no longer prevent companies from becoming stronger.

Mr President! After all, the EU is a beacon, a beacon for all those who strive for democracy, and especially those who are threatened by autocratic shadows. Because in the conflict between autocracy and democracy, we as the EU must stand unwaveringly by the side of democracies like Taiwan. Taiwan is not only an important trading partner, but above all a value partner in the region. I think it is high time we finally found the political courage to start talks for a free trade and investment agreement with Taiwan. I must honestly say: I think that the Commission's stumbling block on this issue is becoming increasingly irresponsible. The time has come to tie cooperation with Taiwan to an agreement with China which, as we all know, is rightly on hold. First of all, the Commission should work with our Taiwanese partners to develop a framework programme to specifically promote trade and investment conditions so that we can facilitate trade, reduce bureaucratic barriers and simplify the recognition of degrees, licences and standards and maximise this potential. Because Taiwan’s involvement in international organisations and international cooperation will also be crucial for the future of democracy in the region – essential for the freedom of Taiwan’s citizens to continue to be free to decide on their own future.

Mr President! Colleagues, we have already heard today how many different faces violence against women and girls has. I would especially like to talk about digital violence today, because every day women are insulted, harassed and threatened on social media. And these messages invade our privacy as quickly as an arrow, because we all have our mobile phone always at hand. One in ten women in the EU has experienced harassment online. That's a terribly high number, but not terribly surprising. I, too, am one of them, and I would bet that many of my colleagues here have also experienced harassment online, because when women are exposed, when they have a strong opinion, they are very quickly overwhelmed with hostility and harassment – in particular often fuelled by political parties here on the right side of the house. We must not allow women to withdraw from public spaces, to stay away from debates because they need to be afraid – fear for their physical and mental health and safety. We need to take online harassment as seriously as any offline harassment. And above all, we must pursue this with all the severity of the rule of law, because a living democracy needs strong female voices in the discourse.

Madam President, More trade with more partners makes the EU more independent, even if many left-wing colleagues disagree today. It is more trade with more democracies that strengthens our economy and democracy worldwide. Free trade with New Zealand will grow our economy and our value partnership. Our EU exports can increase by 4.5 billion euros per year, our companies save around 140 million in tariffs. But the free trade agreement with New Zealand is above all a strategic success. It is a sign that the EU is still in a position to conclude free trade agreements. That is why this success must above all be a spark that finally launches an offensive for more free trade. I expect the Commission to make trade policy its absolute top priority, in particular the negotiations with Australia and India. And in the European Parliament, we still have to ratify the trade agreements that have been concluded in this legislature, above all the Mercosur agreement – that is what I am saying so clearly here. New Zealand can only be the beginning of an offensive for more free trade. The time to act is now.

Mr President, I believe the EU-US summit has shown very clearly that we stand united in our fight for democracy and against the autocrats of this world. But the transatlantic partnership is so much more than just standing against autocrats. It is also working closer together than we do with other partners. It is also growing together. And the best way to do so is by trade. And in that regard, the result of the summit has been disappointing. And in the EU, just like in the US, we want to strengthen our economic security. More trade with more partners will make us less dependent and more trade with more democratic partners will make our economies and our democracy stronger. And the dispute remaining from the Trump tariffs needs to be solved by the end of this year. We need to see the promised agreement on sustainable steel and aluminium, and we need to see an agreement on critical minerals to ensure fair competition for European companies. Let us strengthen the transatlantic partnership by abolishing tariffs, foster more cooperation through the Trade and Technology Council, and let us work towards a vision for EU-US free trade agreement.

Madam President, Those who say ‘strategic independence’ often mean protectionism. Trade with more partners is the strategic independence we need, especially from autocratic regimes. Prosperity does not come from subsidies, wealth comes from competition. That is why we must now put the brakes on additional bureaucracy. The EU needs to become more attractive for investment in the future and ideas that can become big. Because we must not forget: The EU is not a foreign policy power. The strength of our single market determines our role in the world, and the focus of recent years in trade on defensive rather than offensive has stunned many of our partners. I want the EU to be a reliable partner. That is why we must now ignite the turbo for economic growth; I therefore expect the Commission to press ahead with ongoing negotiations, such as with India or Australia. In Parliament, we still have to ratify the trade agreements concluded during this parliamentary term, in particular with New Zealand and Mercosur. We now need an offensive for more trade, for the strategic independence of the European Union.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen. We know very well: The conflict of our time is autocracy versus democracy. We see this in foreign policy, in digital policy, but especially in economic policy. Authoritarian countries such as Russia or China are specifically building dependencies in order to then be able to use them as a weapon against us. We need a strong trade offensive. We need more trade with more partners so that we are not dependent on individual countries. We also need a strong defense. We must be able to defend ourselves as the EU when authoritarian countries put pressure on us – putting pressure on our companies, on individual countries or on the EU as a whole. If countries no longer follow the rules, if trade is no longer an instrument of cooperation, then we as the EU must defend our economic interests – confidently and unequivocally. That is why I will also agree to the instrument against coercive measures. Because as a liberal, I will always fight for the strength of the right to win, not the right of the stronger. Because we must stand firm against the cooperation of autocracies and their targeted attacks against us democracies. For me, the basis of an alliance of democracies is the unity of the European Union. And it is also our shared determination to defend democracy, freedom and rules-based free trade.

Mr President, colleagues, you mentioned it: the human rights situation in Bangladesh is deteriorating. We see reports on extrajudicial killings and forced disappearances and restriction on freedom of expression. The decade-long case against Odhikar is such an example. We see human rights defenders and the opposition being oppressed ahead of the elections next year. It is this serious violation of international conventions that has led to the EU and Bangladesh being in an enhanced engagement on the current trade preferences. The minimum criteria for preferential access to the single market is meeting international human rights standards. Therefore, we must see Bangladesh comply with ILO core standards and they must guarantee free and fair elections in 2024. The human rights commitments in order to gain EU trade preferences are not just a checkbox to cross off once. I expect the Commission to work closely with Bangladesh to live up to their current human rights obligation, and in order to meet further commitments under the soon-to-be-revised GSP scheme, because if the human rights situation does not improve, we must draw the conclusions also on the trade side.

Madam President, We are talking about the Single Market Emergency Instrument. The name says it's about emergencies. There are a lot of good things in there, but I want to make one thing very clear: Under the heading of crisis management, the EU Commission will be able or should be able to intervene in production in the EU. The Commission wants to prioritise work orders or require companies to create strategic reserves. That would be massive interventions in the market economy. Above all, these would also be disproportionate interventions and would be unnecessary interventions. Because we saw in the corona crisis, how clothing companies have produced masks, how distillers have produced disinfectants instead of drinks. We don't have to dictate politically how responsibility goes. We must make it easier for them to fulfil this responsibility and to implement it. We must ensure that Europe is able to act in the event of a crisis. That is why I also find measures such as the emergency measures, such as the fast lanes or the quick approval for critical goods good or the temporary suspension of product-specific rules. But I must say quite clearly that I strongly oppose interventions in the market economy by state production specifications for companies.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. The potential of artificial intelligence is so great that we cannot even imagine it today. With the AI Act, we want to set a framework above all else: What kind of applications do we want to have in a liberal democracy? If we create a law that will cover all sorts of challenges for all time – no. Do we have to do this? No, no! I think we need to look more: What is the technological development? Are there real loopholes in the law? And then we have to close them. But I experienced exactly the opposite when ChatGPT got bigger and bigger. It quickly became very loud that we have to regulate generative AI as strictly as possible, perhaps even ban it, because you don't know exactly what you can do with it, and that would be highly dangerous. Dear colleagues, out of fear of calling for bans, we should not do that. We'd rather watch: How can we become a continent of progress? How can we use openness to technology and the joy of innovation in such a way that it characterizes us as a society, that it characterizes us, that we also secure our prosperity through progress? Of course, we must not be naive either. We must not close our eyes to the fact that opportunity always comes with a risk. Because in the conflict of our time – autocracy versus democracy – dealing with technology will be crucial. Is AI becoming a tool that makes our lives easier? Does generative AI help me in my job, does it make me cooking suggestions or does it help me with holiday planning? Or will artificial intelligence become a means of oppressing the population, as we see it in China? Will generative AI become a fire accelerator for disinformation and an attack on democracy? I believe our goal must be that it is the democracies that set the benchmark for how we as a society want to use the potential of artificial intelligence. In my opinion, it is absolutely essential that we lead the way with our international partners. Cooperation as in the Hiroshima AI Process or Commissioner Vestager’s Code of Conduct or Commissioner Jourová’s initiative are important initiatives in this regard. I am convinced that a common global framework on generative AI would be a real milestone for a democratically shaped technological future.

Mr President! The potential of artificial intelligence is so great that we can hardly imagine it today - for all areas of life, be it education, work or health. That is why it is so important that with the Artificial Intelligence Act we now want to lay the foundation for what kind of application of artificial intelligence we want to have in a liberal democracy. Opportunity and risk are always in the application. Face recognition - super convenient to unlock a cell phone, but biometric face recognition for surveillance in public spaces, dear colleagues, we know that from China. This has nothing to do with a European Union. We need to put a clear stop to such dangers while at the same time innovating. Made in Europe promote. For example, we strengthen experimentation in real-world laboratories. That's why we decided to rely on quality standards for general-purpose AI and generative AI, such as ChatGPT, and not on prohibitions or a high-risk rating. Because we must not follow fantasies of surveillance or overregulation in the Artificial Intelligence Act. Our goal must be to strengthen citizens' rights, boost business and innovation so that we can make the European Union a hotspot for progress and artificial intelligence.

Madam President, dear colleagues, this is the fifth time since the coup in February 2021 that were debating in this plenary about this. We have been calling on the Commission and we’ve been calling on the Member States to act and the only thing that has happened is the number of victims has been rising. There have been about 22 000 people arrested, 3 500 being killed. The military junta has ousted the democratically elected parliament and the government. For two years, the junta has been killing, banishing, arresting and raping people with impunity. And now they want to legitimise their rule by sham elections because they know they want to boost their image, but they don’t want a real democracy. They dissolved 40 political parties. They prevented opposition leaders from running by sentencing them on politically motivated charges, because it’s the autocrats and the despots of this world that terrorise and murder because of their fear of freedom and democracy. And it’s the fifth time and hopefully the last time that I’m calling in this Chamber on the Commission to ensure that none of the military conglomerate benefits from the preferential access to our single market. Because as the European Union we need to act and we need to stand in solidarity by those seeking freedom and democracy in Europe and the world.

Madam President, dear colleagues, we see it, we feel it: women’s rights are under attack all over the world. And it’s generations of women before us that fought hard for the rights we have today, and I and so many women and allies here today, make clear that we are not going to be the generation that stands by while a wave of conservative and right wing extremists try to wash away our rights. Because it’s not only happening in some faraway and undemocratic country, it’s happening right inside our very own European Union. We see that one in three women have experienced violence and we see Member States on the same side wanting to deny women their EU-guaranteed fundamental rights. I don’t know what’s so hard to believe about the fact that fundamental citizens’ rights, that women’s rights are human rights. And to be quite honest, it makes me very furious to hear this nonsense propaganda coming from the right side of this House about women’s rights and the Istanbul Convention today. Because the Istanbul Convention is the basic minimum that I expect as a commitment to safety and well-being from the State, as a citizen, as a female citizen. And it’s a shame that not all EU countries have ratified the Istanbul Convention. And I’m very proud that the European Union steps in to ratify this, to at least safeguard what can be done on a European level, a harmonised response to this gender-based violence, that we’re going to see prevention of this, that we’re going to see protection as female citizens and that we’re going to see punishment of the perpetrators.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. I'm a hamburger. Our beautiful port has just become the latest symbol of dependence on China. A container terminal under Chinese influence does not sound relevant until you assemble the puzzle pieces. Then you see Rotterdam, you see Piraeus, you see 14 European ports. When we put together the puzzle pieces between the EU and China, we see systemic competition in all policy areas. We are at the beginning of an age of artificial intelligence with so many opportunities for our society. At the same time, the Chinese surveillance state must also be a reminder to us where our journey must not go. We must not be dependent on technologies made in China. Because dependence is a specialty of China, which we have seen in recent years. If autocracies are to reintroduce the right of the stronger, then our offer must be more free trade with more partners, more cooperation on an equal footing. Dear colleagues, the EU was founded to ensure peace, freedom and democracy. We must carry these values forward in an alliance of democracies, in an alliance that takes joint responsibility for these values and opposes the autocracies of the world.

Mr President, colleagues, you’ve all been very clear, and I think we’re very much sharing a line here. It is very clear the Hun Sen regime has dismantled democracy in Cambodia. The democratic opposition is in exile, if they’re lucky, or in prison. Now, in the sham trial, Kem Sokha, the former opposition leader, has been sentenced to 27 years in house arrest, stripped of all political rights. The regime is not even trying to hide their intentions about manipulating the elections in July. Kem Sokha and other political prisoners must be released immediately and unconditionally, and the Council must finally prepare to implement targeted sanctions against the autocratic leaders. The Commission must make clear that the legitimacy of the Cambodian Government will depend on the legitimacy of these elections. If the independent electoral observers find evidence of unfair elections, it is more than overdue that the Commission is finally fully withdrawing the EPA preferences because the conflict of our time is autocracy versus democracy. We cannot forget this and we should not fool ourselves. The autocrats of the world are united in the fight against freedom and democracy, and that is why the EU must always, must always, always, always stand by those fighting for our democratic values.

Mr President, as a person born in the western part of the European Union, I only know a close European Union. And I must say I am so humbled and inspired when I see people taking to the streets fighting for their country to take the European path. But it is their government letting them down over and over again, it is the ruling party breaking commitments on uniting the country, backing out of international agreements and not doing the slightest bit to work for the reforms to make their way into the EU candidate. Their free media is suppressed. The political opposition is being oppressed. Former President Saakashvili is being left to die in prison. An opposition leader has been detained and beaten in prison last week, and the Russia-inspired foreign agents law is just the latest tip of the Russia-inspired anti-democratic iceberg. It would massively limit NGOs. It would limit civil society. It is only thanks to those brave people taking to the streets that this law is off the table for now. So our message today must be very clear: to the Government of Georgia, the international world is watching your actions very closely. And to the people of Georgia, this House stands by you in solidarity when you stand up for your freedom, for your European future. We are with you.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen. We have just heard from Commissioner McGuinness: China supplies 98% of our rare earths, Turkey 98% of borates, South Africa 71% of our platinum. The figures are from 2020, but we have known for a long time that we have large dependencies on critical raw materials, large dependencies on individual countries, and that these are often the countries with which we are still in a systemic competition. Since this realization, however, too little action has happened. We need more trade with more countries in the world so that we are not dependent on individual autocrats. The raw materials partnership with Canada, for example, is a good start. I also see a lot of potential in this Trade and Technology Council with India, and, Minister Roswall, I am very grateful that you mentioned the rare earth finds in Kiruna, because we must also be prepared to look literally at our own doorstep and use our own resources in the EU. Because critical raw materials are critical, because they are not easily replaceable and are so critical for modern technology. They are critical for a sustainable economy, jobs and prosperity in Europe in the future. And they are therefore equally critical of the independence of the European Union from dictators and autocrats and therefore also critical of our European values.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. For round birthdays, you like to review the past and make plans for the future. And by the 30th. We have rightly said today that the single market is at the heart of the European Union. And that's why I have three birthday wishes to keep it that way in the future: fair competition, economic cooperation and social opportunities. Fair competition means, above all, that Made in Europe It must be created by attractive ideas and good location conditions such as affordable electricity prices, but not by protectionism and a spiral of subsidies. Economic cooperation in the single market has much more potential. We need to complete the Digital Single Market so that good ideas can grow businesses, and we also need to strengthen the internal market from the outside through free trade, especially with democratic partners. Social opportunities need smart laws that advance digitalization and progress. We need to unleash technological progress, we need the brightest minds. We need mobility, and we also need qualified immigration. A strong single market is the best engine for a thriving economy, for good jobs and for opportunities for every European. Commissioner Vestager, minister Roswall, jag hoppas att jag can räkna med he.

I think this is actually an excellent question. We have a different situation of youth unemployment throughout the whole of Europe. Young people have many shared dreams – the first apartment, the first love, and also trying to find a good education, trying to find a job. The fact is the situation varies throughout the European Union. But also the fact is we have different circumstances. We have governments that make laws that make it harder for young people to get into employment, that favour older colleagues over newer colleagues. We have different education levels and systems in different countries. I come from a country where we have a different education system that also is very training—based. So I think, especially on fighting youth unemployment, we need to come together to learn from best practice examples to really enable young people into the labour market. Because young people are not just cheap labour; young people are the future. Young people are the hope for better employment. They are the bright ideas of the future. They are the ones that will create jobs in the future. They are the ones that will create new companies in the future. So it all really comes down to what we bring for education. This is really where I see the Member States in responsibility. On the European level, we can ensure, for example, by being against unpaid internships, by having best practice exchange and knowledge trainings and really bringing young people together, that we also help our Member States to put young people first.

Madam President, dear colleagues, when I entered this Parliament three years ago, I was president of the European Liberals, and in that capacity I had the great honour to travel through 35 European countries. I’ve met many young people from all over Europe. I’ve demonstrated for abortion rights in Poland. I’ve protested against upload filters. I joined the fight against youth unemployment. All those young people I met had very similar hopes and dreams, filled with expectations for the future. There was always one thing that I heard from them when I was a youth politician, but now also being a parliamentarian: ‘listen to us’. Also, in the Year of Youth, I’ve been to many events, and at every single one of them, I was asked to ensure that this year of the youth will be more than just a show, that it will have a lasting effect, that there will be better processes to include young people. When I hear the disrespect from the colleagues on the right, from these populists, the disrespect for young people and their involvement, I can just say I am so proud that the Bundestag, the German Parliament, has just approved voting rights for people as of the age of 16. Young people want to be heard, young people deserve to be heard and, dear Commissioner Breton, you should really listen to young people, especially after the Year of Youth. (The speaker agreed to respond to a blue-card speech)