Speeches

Madam President, ‘Only a dead Jew is a good Jew’, ‘Kill all Jews’ – such smears have only taken place on the streets in Berlin in recent days. And I cannot tell you how much I am ashamed that in Germany such slogans can be found on our streets again. I am very grateful that the debate today was very unanimous that there was a clear signal against anti-Semitism in Europe, here from the European Parliament. But the truth also includes: A group has not spoken on this subject today, with not a single speaker. That was the ESN faction to which the AfD belongs. And another faction, the Left Group, had only sent a single speaker into this debate who, while condemning anti-Semitism, said at the same time that one had to speak out against the alleged genocide in Israel, because otherwise one would play into the hands of anti-Semitism. We can see that anti-Semitism is being strengthened by both extremes in Europe. We must speak out against this.

Mr Mularczyk, you did not hand me your document, but you entered my office unasked, unannounced, with staff who filmed me. I gave this to the President as a question of discipline. And in the matter: If, after so many decades of European solidarity, where many Polish taxpayers have also benefited from the EU budget, where we have a common budget here, where we shape the future together in a European way, you continue to push this question of division into our Europe, then you are not interested in the future of Europe and, above all, in the German-Polish friendship for which I will continue to advocate.

Dear colleagues! Of course, what the right-wingers are saying here in the House is wrong. Every euro that goes into the EU's strong budget is also well invested. In the end, net contributors will also benefit from a strong single market in Europe. But the truth also includes: We will probably have to do more with the same money in Europe – we will not have more funds available. Let's take a look at it: Member States have their own difficulties in their budgets, will be unwilling to give in addition. We have already tried debt – with Next Generation EU. And we realize that it costs us something, because interest rates are rising. So the solution here in the house for more money is own resources, additional taxes. It should be paid by someone else, preferably not the Europeans. But if we take a closer look, we often make fun of Trump's tariff rage, which tells Americans that tariffs won't pay Americans. The result is that they actually pay for it. But we are planning something similar with the digital customs or a digital tax. This, too, will ultimately be paid by European taxpayers. We need to have a focus. We need to save money in the budget. And we need to invest in defence and competitiveness.

Thank you, Mr Colleague, for accepting my interlocutory question. Mr Colleague, you have shown that the budget is going to be much bigger. They used the absolute numbers. If you look at the relative figures, including inflation, then the budget as a whole does not get much bigger – at least the proposal made by the Commission. Wouldn't it be fair if you used such large figures to actually include inflation and then actually look at the fact that the budget is not growing strongly, at least in the Commission's proposal when debt is deducted?

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, We have actually heard no meaningful arguments against this prohibition of conversion therapy. The only argument I heard was a bit: if the young people and children are insecure, then in the future it could also be forbidden for the parents to talk to them. This is such a non-argument, and it simply shows that these people who have put this forward have never dealt with people who are, for example, homosexual. Anyone who thinks that you just come out of juxtaposition and Tollerei has never seriously dealt with it. It is an extremely difficult decision – even today – to say, for example, to go to his parents and say, ‘I think I am gay’. This is still an extremely difficult decision. And anyone who believes that this is something like advertising and that you have to do something there, simply did not understand that still young people in doubt commit suicide in Europe and that we have to fight this, instead of doing something else to suppress these people, to abuse for this terrible agenda. I am passionate about this because I believe that we in Europe must not allow this to happen and because we must protect our children from it.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. The guidelines for the budget are an important opinion for Parliament to start negotiations for this budget. NextGenerationEU's interest payments will make it hard enough for us to push through many really important priorities. We have just heard various committees that have advanced important topics. For my group, it is above all competitiveness, but also the new future viability of Europe, the possibility of defending us and, of course, defending the rule of law in Europe. But, ladies and gentlemen, we risk – as honestly as we have to be – various requests that the entire guidelines fail in the votes tomorrow in the end. I advise all political groups, including my own, to pause once again to see if this is the right signal we want to send in difficult negotiations with the Council, which we want to put on many different priorities. In the end, Europe is also a compromise. At the end of the day, what can be achieved together for a stronger Europe in these times? This is how we should vote wisely tomorrow.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, The United States has changed: European allies are threatened; The rule of law is called into question; Trump jokes about whether elections are still going on. Political violence and arbitrariness on the streets of America are the reality. This is the reality of Trump's America. But it is not enough to just discuss it here and complain about it; It is time to deal with this reality. We Europeans are now on our own, threatened with military power by Russia, competitively left behind. But, dear friends, a better Europe is possible – a better Europe is now possible. We are world champions in regulating, but we are amateurs in deciding quickly. We act slower than the world changes. That is why we need the United States of Europe. They are not idealism, they are the necessity of this time. Without them, we have no security, no economic strength, no self-determined life in Europe. That is why Europe's time is now.

Madam President, I refer to Article 178(10), which provides that: Blue cards regulates. I can go with one Blue card Just ask the current speaker a question. The speaker just did not ask the current speaker a question. The speaker responded and said something else. If we allow this, then in the future everyone will just ask some question and someone else will keep talking. That can't be. That is why I ask the Bureau to review this. One Blue card It must be clearly addressed to the speaker who is currently speaking, otherwise it will not be allowed.

Well, I'm using the right to respond to my question because you accused me of not naming a source. I have clearly quoted the Eastern Committee of the German Economy. It's not a leftist either. NGO. So in that respect, just deal with such sources, instead of telling some nonsense here again!

Mr Jungbluth, since you have just questioned what Mr Jungbluth said, I would like to quote you something: Representatives of the Eastern Committee of the German economy speak of alarming developments and describe cases of intimidation, refused permits, high special taxes and subsequent takeover bids at low prices. In addition, the business associations summarise the criticism in such a way that special taxes and administrative harassment are systematically imposed in strategic sectors in order to favour Hungarian owners. What do you say to that? What do you say to German companies that experience this? East Committee of the German economy, aren't they fighting for the German economy? Or do they represent Orbán's interests?

Madam President, Dear colleagues! Commissioner! But you have allowed yourself a really almost pre-Christmas joke with us. Without hesitation the Commission has set up the mechanism, without hesitation. So, let me remind you briefly: It took months, you waited for the verdict, the European Parliament had to sue the Commission for inaction, but then you got it. without hesitation made. This is exactly what we hope will be different in the future. That the Commission is in fact acting immediately on objective criteria. That we will have a mechanism that will make all the mechanisms that we have in the Rule of law-area have, united. We want all funds to be placed under the rule of law in the next budget. We are writing all this in this resolution, and that is why I would like to thank the two rapporteurs, Jean-Marc Germain and Monika Hohlmeier, for their cooperation. And to the right, who have again asked the question whether this is all lawful at all. The rule of law also means, among other things, that independent courts decide. They had the opportunity under the rule of law – Poland and Hungary also used it – to bring an action before the European Court of Justice. The European Court of Justice has ruled that this mechanism is lawful. That is why it is a success for the rule of law in Europe, it is a success for the rule of law and for the people of Europe that we protect money with this mechanism. But we want to make this mechanism even better because we want to better protect every single taxpayer euro in Europe from corruption and protect the rule of law.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. For me, the debate is a bit too either-or: on the one hand values, on the other hand economic power. I think we're talking about a dilemma here. Yes, we need our values, we need to defend data protection. But we were also always able to set international standards because Europe was particularly successful economically, because it was a strong market, because others were guided by our standards. If we are honest: The growth in the U.S., the productivity gains there that have been economically outpacing us in the last ten or fifteen years, is due to the digital economy. Of course, it is not only digital legislation, our data protection legislation that weakens us there – of course, it is also other things: Our capital, our common market, which is still lacking in the digital sector. But it's also digital legislation. That's what the Draghi report says, which is always quoted here as much as a Bible. That is why, I believe, we must seek simplification. But at the same time, we need to defend our values – and I want to talk about a real, differentiated debate. I want to make one last point here, because that really annoys me. We always discuss data protection here, but as an EU, we were also rarely willing to enforce our oh-so-great rules consistently. The Commission has always buckled in front of the Americans. We have two data exchange programs with the US. They failed in the European Court of Justice. We talked about it again and again. Therefore: Make smarter rules, but also enforce them consistently.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Where is the Presidency in this debate? There are allegations that a Member State is spying on the EU institutions. But does that not matter to the other Member States? This is business as usualAre you going to accept it as if it were completely normal? And also in the Commission, I must say quite honestly: The Commissioner has just explained to us that there seems to be an investigation, an investigation. One could hear from a spokesman that Mrs. von der Leyen had let Mr. Várhelyi come to her, so to speak, and said: ‘Did you spy?’ And then he said: "No, I didn't spy." And then that's good. There must be at least one suspension until the investigation is completed. We are dealing with it as if it were normal, and that is the bad thing, that we are now allowing a member state to openly take action against the EU institutions, that we have to get used to espionage and all these things, and that there is no concept of cooperation between the member states, that the rule of law in the European Union is being broken piece by piece. And we can't let that happen, ladies and gentlemen.

Mr President, eight years after the murder of Daphne, her fight for truth and the rule of law is still unfinished. The European Parliament cannot be silent about it. We owe Daphne this justice. But what really makes me angry in this debate is actually one thing: that not even one speaker of the PfE and the ECR is even here speaking in this debate. Not one. This is actually telling us a lot, because normally the right-wing groups always say, 'You are just attacking conservative governments like Orbán'. Now there is a debate on a socialist government and they are not here. This is actually … (Heckling) No, I have not! Where's your speaker on the list? You are the only one here. No speaker at all in the list. You don't care about it! That's really what makes the difference. We care about the rule of law. We care about the rule of law when there's a conservative government, when there's a socialist government. We care about all different European countries, and we protect the rule of law everywhere. That defines us and that differentiates us from you and your friends Orbán and Co.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, We are discussing Europe's digital sovereignty. There is a lot of discussion about the US, about China, but at the same time the EU is proposing something with chat control that has nothing to do with European values. These are Chinese models. Full monitoring of all our chats, breaking up encryption – this is exactly the opposite of what we need in the digital world. That is why I appeal to the Presidency of the Council: Stop riding this dead horse! There hasn't been a majority for two years. Finally, start thinking in the Council – with the Member States – about what we have already decided almost unanimously here in Parliament: This is child protection, by really making sure that we step up prevention, but not introducing this mass surveillance. Please turn around in this attempt to reshape Europe. The right-wingers here in the House are already using it to set the mood against the European Union. Recognize at last that this is a wrong path, and join us in real child protection, but not mass surveillance.

Thank you, colleague, for accepting my blue card. Actually, I only put it to be also in your viral video. But here's my question. You mentioned that, of course, polarising content is getting more reach. But isn't that something that we also saw before there was online media, like the Bild's big headlines that are trying to catch attention? And isn't that maybe translated in the digital world? And how can we make sure that algorithms still really put the attention in the right way?

Mr. Colleague, thank you very much for Blue card accept. I wanted to ask you because you mentioned your previous speaker, Mr Mazurek: Do you know that the colleague apparently laughed during a visit to the Auschwitz concentration camp in a photo and once said that the Jews only invented the Holocaust? How would you classify this again against the background of the statements made here in plenary on this topic?

Madam President, I would be happy if the right-wing factions would speak out clearly against anti-Semitism, if Viktor Orbán again uses anti-Semitic stereotypes and uses them against Soros. Ladies and gentlemen, a few days ago there was a shop window in Flensburg with the words ‘Jews are not welcome in this business’. It reminds me of the darkest days in German history. Jewish students are attacked at European camps. Artists lose appearances just because they are Jews. Europe's problem of anti-Semitism is undeniable. Anti-Semitism, which once began on the far right and was intensified by migration, is increasingly also fueled by the political left, and that is a huge problem. Who celebrated on 7 October two years ago with sweets and then on 8 October From the River to the Sea What fuelled this hatred, if not anti-Semitism? One thing I want to say clearly: Criticism of Israel is legitimate, as it is of any democratic state. But we are witnessing how partly justified criticism turns into sheer hatred of Israel and this hatred of Israel becomes hatred of Jews in general. Dear colleagues, history teaches us: When societies turn against Jews, they do not stop with Jews. That is why the freedom and security of Jews in Europe is also our freedom and security.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, The political right bases its arguments on these discussions of the rule of law. Now you even had to argue that no one is there – if you are the only one of your group that is there at all, but people are sitting here; That's really interesting. Then there is always the argument in these rule of law discussions, we always talk only about Hungary. Now we are not talking about Hungary, which actually shows that we care about all Member States – now we cannot use the argument either. And then comes the third argument, whatever comes in these rule of law discussions: Brussels really only wants to punish governments that they don't like politically, right-wing governments. Yes, but Fico – the last time I looked at them, they are now sitting with the non-attached Members, but actually this is a social democratic party! All the arguments they always have fall into thin air. What is it about? We are concerned with protecting the rule of law because we are concerned with the fact that taxpayers’ money, our taxpayers – German taxpayers, Slovak taxpayers, Hungarian taxpayers: Everyone deserves to be treated decently. And only a rule of law can ensure this, and that is why we are taking a close look everywhere in the European Union.

Mr. Colleague, thank you for allowing this question. I think you have been a bit tough with Mr Bausemer now, because he is at least the only one who dares to come here. But probably the reason is that he was not yet a member of parliament in the last period, otherwise he would probably be part of the whole. But he has to answer that. I have a question that I really asked myself, maybe as a corruption expert you can answer this: Why do you go to the European Parliament, if you are against it, against the whole European Union? Maybe that's why you just want to pull money out of here. Could you explain that to us again?