Speeches

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. The website of Mrs Anderson, a colleague of the AfD, must be really great – it cost over 64 000 euros. And if you take a closer look: The tender procedure is not entirely clear, and behind it is a company owned by a local politician of the AfD. Apparently this is the system. It is not the only case: Quite a lot of other cases where either dubious associations are financed, behind which right-wing politicians stand, or media, magazines, anything else – all without a decent call for tenders – that is the accusation. Now you can say: Mistakes can happen. If the 4.3 million times happen, then there seems to be a system behind it. And of course the presumption of innocence applies and of course we will clean up this. But it is significant that the very rights, who are always the first to complain about the misuse of EU funds, who say that the money is being spent incorrectly, who are the first to criticise the privileges of politicians – they are also the very first to reach into their pockets and take the money of European taxpayers. And we won't let them go through that, ladies and gentlemen.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Now we have just heard that this debate here, i.e. that some MEPs had fallen over Budapest – 70 MEPs – and had brought their communist worldview over the Hungarians. So I've heard a lot as a FDPler, but no one has called me a communist yet. This is really new. You really get totally creative. Let's take a look at what Viktor Orbán has achieved. What does Viktor Orbán have to do with this? ban achieved? We've been discussing this for a long time. He organized the biggest parade of all time in Budapest. Thank you very much, Viktor Orbán! Thank you very much! It has been much bigger, much more impressive than ever before. I always thought Fidesz was law and orderBut he doesn't seem to be doing it in the end either. What was the whole number? What was that supposed to do? It was perhaps only a single campaign stunt that was planned to act in his election campaign. It's not about the thing. Nor is it about minorities. It is not about children's rights. It's about him trampling on it and using it. Because Mr. Froelich just said this: "Not my children". I really can only hope, Mr. Froelich of the AfD, that your children are not homosexual. Because honestly, that's exactly what parents are, that's exactly what causes many children to end up with higher suicide rates.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner! This will be a special budget. We have huge challenges: Defence, migration, competitiveness. We have to repay 30 billion euros a year in coronavirus debt for the first time, and the answer for many is here: We just have to spend more money. I don't think that's gonna work. It won't work. We have spent twice as much in the last financial period, if you take the Corona debt to it, as in the financial period before. Let's ask ourselves honestly: Has Europe become twice as good? And that's why we need to prioritise these challenges now. The Commissioner was quite right to say: We need to achieve better results for European citizens, even with less money. We need to think about how to spend smarter, how to make it easier to get European money, and how to become more effective overall. But above all, we must prevent money from sinking into corrupt pockets, and that is why we need a strong rule of law mechanism. It must finally be clear that this rule of law TÜV, which the Commission presented yesterday, is also closely linked to the budget. That is what you have to fight for, Commissioner, and that is what I ask the Council to fight for. Because it must not be the case that the Member States that do not comply with our rules will continue to receive our taxpayers' money.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. I always think about these debates: The arguments of the right cannot really be confused. But then comes the next debate, and they make it over and over again; It's really impressive. Here, a colleague has just said that the debate today is a foreign influence, and compared it to the use of Soviet tanks in Hungary in 1956. Tell me, are you still ticking right? What are these comparisons? To equate such a debate with this. The next speaker then said that he wished Daniel Freund to wear high heels at the Pride; I would even support that. The next speaker then talks about the fact that they should finally put on their clothes. We are talking about Satan. So if you listen to this, the arguments, that's unbelievable. It is now time that we stop talking about it, because apparently you are not available for meaningful arguments. We finally need action from the European Commission to defend these civil liberties. And we must stand resolutely by the side of those who go to Budapest on the Pride.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner! Dear Ana, thank you very much for your report, which is very, very important, which we worked on together, on the rule of law. Because the rule of law is often such a big concept, but it is indeed very central to the European Union, because if we do not have common rules that everyone adheres to and independent courts that interpret these rules, then we can also save all European cooperation. We have to make this clear again and again when we talk about the rule of law. Of course, we are a union of values, which means that we want to comply not only with the rule of law, but also with democratic procedures. This is what we are trying to protect here, by the way, in every Member State. The Rule of Law Report is not only aimed at a few, but covers the rule of law throughout the European Union. We need to be much more consistent here, and we have also made new proposals, for example to include more of the Single Market perspective: If the work of companies is restricted, if the rule of law is lacking there, then this also has a very concrete economic damage for the European Union. It is important that we take this up and that the European Commission take up this stronger role. Single market dimension I also want to include. But we must also talk about the fact that we are going even more consistently with the results that we have in the rule of law mechanism, perhaps also asking ourselves once again as Parliament whether we should start our reporting on this earlier, because the next report from the Commission, which we are expecting soon. This means that we must also be quicker there, and there must finally be consequences, because it is not enough just to talk about the rule of law; We must also defend them in concrete terms in the European Union.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, What is this terrible crime of child abuse? What do we do with children there? What's happening there? How many millions of times does it happen in Europe, online, but still in close family circles, in sports clubs, everywhere? On the other hand, we are now trying to present a directive here in order to do something more effectively. What are the rights in Parliament? She uses her entire speaking time, especially from the AfD, to talk about alleged early sexualisation and LGBT; The issue seems to be so important to them. It seems to them that it is so important that they say zero that we regulate here how we better protect victims; that they say zero about the fact that in the future we want to better ensure that people who are additionally working for children – teachers, in clubs, elsewhere – are subject to more scrutiny across Europe. That's not important to them. It is up to them to see their hatred again on this issue. Do your job to protect children! I ask the European Commission, if it goes ahead now, if this directive finally becomes law, that it will not be transposed by the Member States for a long time, as was the case with the last directive in 2011. The EU Commission had to open infringement proceedings against seven Member States. What's that supposed to be? We must protect children together, ladies and gentlemen.

Mr President, Madam Executive Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen! Imagine for a moment, Pegasus, this surveillance software, is on your phone. What can happen there? You can turn on the camera and microphone secretly, make live recordings of conversations; one can retrieve the location data of the mobile phone, so know where you are everywhere; Read all the news; Access calendars, photos, passwords, app data. Pretty crass, isn't it? And this is exactly what has been used in 14 Member States of the European Union, often illegally, to spy on journalists, opposition figures and their families. Now we've just heard from the right here that it's all right, but I think that's not right, because most of the time it's done under the guise of national security. But it's just a blatant invasion of privacy, it's a spying on our democracy. Then one wonders, after we have determined all this, in a long work in the committee of inquiry, and two years later: What actually happened? What is Europe doing? It's watching. What is the Commission doing? She's watching. It announces that it is concerned, but there is still no legal framework, no protection for the victims and, above all, no protection for our democracy. The Commission must finally prevail, even against the Member States. You don't want that, yeah, we know that. But we need protection here, because anyone who spies on democracy in Europe will be held accountable – this must apply again in this European Union.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. What are we waiting for? What is the Commission waiting for? What are Member States waiting for? What else needs to happen so that we can finally negotiate consistently? The rule of law has already been largely abolished, independence of the judiciary, democracy restricted. The OECD has said the elections in Hungary were free but not fair. Millions of taxpayers’ money – Hungarian taxpayers and European taxpayers – stolen. Civil society is now being restricted. Prides are banned and the ban is monitored with automatic facial recognition, as in the case of George Orwell. What else is going to happen? What will happen until we finally act? Are we waiting for the book to be burned? Or must Putin be openly supported in his struggle by Orbán with troops? When do we finally act consistently and put an end to this? Not with our taxpayers' money. It must be over now. No more money for Viktor Orbán's regime. If you stick to zero EU values, you also have to get zero euros from the EU budget.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, If you might see this speech on TikTok in the future, then you can't be sure that the data you have there won't end up in China on any servers. Firstly, this is incredibly worrying and secondly, it simply violates our rules – and that is why the EU Commission has imposed a fine of €530 million. Because it is also clear: Our rules also apply to large platforms, by the way, not only to Chinese, but also to American ones. Now the AfD comes here and says: Freedom of speech is in danger again because we are talking about it now. Firstly: If so, why is TikTok not present in China itself? They have their own app. It is much more strictly controlled. And by the way: The algorithms are very different because it is designed for harmony. The Chinese themselves know that these algorithms are destroying democracy more and more, they know that. Nor is it about freedom of expression. You can tell everyone nonsense. I also like to listen here, because that's quite amusing. The difference is: In the case of the algorithms, the wrong opinion or nonsense is then powdered out, the extremes and thousands of people are displayed. That's the difference. That is why we need to talk about algorithms when we also talk about democracy.

Thank you for accepting my blue card. I want to ask you, have you been to Ukraine once? Have you visited? Have you seen what's happening there? What you do here, and with the massive media outreach you have, especially for young people in Europe, I think it would be your responsibility also to look at what's happening there and not doing whataboutism, which you did right now with this speech. Talk about Ukrainians, see what's happening there, and then talk again with us about what's happening there.

Of course, we have to shift the budget, and that's exactly what I said. This is where a majority goes and says: No previous edition is to be touched in any way. This is good fiscal policy, that you also have to set priorities, that you also have to ask yourself: What have we achieved so far with certain expenses? Where can we get better? What can we save? This debate is difficult, and we have to have it here. I also didn't say that I'm generally against any debt. We took on debt in the coronavirus pandemic, but so far we have not developed a plan for how we will ever pay it back. This will not work with new own resources either. It is 30 billion euros that we have to pay back in the year. If we now want to make new debts for defence, we have not even said how we want to organize this together in Europe. That's not a plan.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. We need to talk about debt. They are calling for Eurobonds for defence spending and other crises. They are calling for an EU debt union and are selling it here as pro-European. But is it really European to make new debts for defence without first explaining what a common European defence should look like? Is it European, after the promise to take on debts once during the coronavirus pandemic, to demand them again, even though the coronavirus funds have not even been spent in full? For every crisis, the answer is the same: More common debt. Is this European if future generations have less room for manoeuvre in future crises than we do because we consume it today? Is it European to make debts without having any idea how they should actually be repaid? It would be really European to rethink, to organize defence European instead of national, so that we always deter Putin safely, to strengthen our economy now, so that we can always afford this defence safely, to set priorities in the budget, instead of declaring every expenditure in the current budget inviolable. We are the generation that must secure Europe. Not only against the threat from the outside, but also against the convenience and political short-sightedness (...)

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen! Let's look at the nonsensical arguments put forward here. The first argument is: Hungary can decide on its own. Yes, Hungary has a lot to decide on its own, but Article 2 of the EU treaties states that sexual orientation is protected as a fundamental right, and therefore you cannot simply decide on your own. These fundamental rights are fundamental rights that European citizens have and no one has forced you to sign the Treaties – that's what it says and that's what we're referring to. Secondly: Then you say, why is this debate again, why is it not about migration or the economy? Why are you attacking minorities? Take care of the economy and migration instead of trampling on minorities. Thirdly: Then comes the argument, we have to do this. Pride March This is because children will be changed in some way. The propaganda would then come, etc. That's not how it works. You don't just get gay because you see a CSD or a Pride. This will only make you a little more tolerant. If you have such a madness, I sometimes wonder: How confident are you with your own sexuality? How sure are you of that? Oh, yeah, that's right. It was the former Fidesz boss who was caught in the pandemic at an illegal sex party as he slid down the gutter. That may be the reason. That's why you get so upset about these questions. Ladies and gentlemen, just stop this nonsense.

Mr Colleague, thank you very much for the question which I am very happy to answer. I think the difference is exactly where we go from offline to online surveillance, that we don't throw overboard the same principles we have. There must always be an initial suspicion for an investigation, because there must be no general mass surveillance, where we end up giving up the presumption of innocence, where innocent citizens are constantly monitored; There's the difference. So if we strengthen the digital skills of our police officers, who identify in concrete cases, then I am very, very much in favour. If we basically monitor everyone, for example with artificial intelligence, as is planned for chat control, then I am against it.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. Dear Commissioner, thank you very much for this security strategy! More cooperation in Europe in the fight against terrorism, organised crime and cyberattacks is certainly the right thing to do. A colleague, I believe from the EPP, has just said: Without security, there is no freedom – and that is right. But whoever gives up freedom in order to gain security will lose everything in the end. That's why there must also be red lines in our fight for more security: No general suspicion against our citizens, no mass surveillance, no weakening of our fundamental rights. So we need a smart and rule-of-law security policy: more investment in digital policing instead of blanket monitoring tools such as chat control and data retention, effective exchange between authorities, better tools to fight extremism without restricting freedom of expression. Yes, we want to make Europol a real European crime office, a counter-terrorism agency. We want to strengthen our European Public Prosecutor's Office. We must always make sure that we strengthen security and do not give up freedom in the process.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I don't know where to start, honestly, from what I've just heard. So, member state competence, then somehow sexualLGBT propaganda, then it is said that we somehow want to impose the privileges of rainbow families on anything. And then you have the audacity to talk about children and children's rights. The worst thing you can do to a child is that they no longer have the protection of their parents when they are in another country in the European Union; This is the worst thing that can happen. They want to take away from children the most important thing they have, namely the parents. They want to take away from children the most important thing they have, namely love and protection. That's what you're all about! You really care when you talk about family, when you talk about values, not about it. It's about your conservative ideology. In your picture may not be what may not be, even if rainbow families for children ... That is why we will fight against it, and the Commission must now finally ...

Mr President! Dear colleagues! Was it prudent that Friedrich Merz made these requests last week after saying weeks earlier that he won't do just that with changing majorities? I don't think so. But it was just as unwise for the SPD and the Greens not to go into forging a migration pact in the middle. What really disturbed them about this law, which all the prime ministers, including the Greens and the Social Democrats, had co-decided? We will not make the populists small if we do not make the problems they once made big small again. And that is why we have to solve the problems in the democratic middle. Because, of course, the rights are a threat to our economy. The AfD wants to get out of the euro. What kind of economic kamikaze trip would that be? Yes, the D-Mark was once strong, and the Euro also has design flaws. But a return would be a disaster. Valuation, expensive exports, millions of jobs at risk. Studies warn that by up to 20%, economic growth would collapse. The AfD is talking about sovereignty. But their plan is exactly the opposite. Germany cannot afford to go this wrong way.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner! We are discussing the next scandal after the Pegasus scandal – now the Hungarian government seems to have been spying on EU institutions. And how do Fidesz and Co. respond to this? So there would be no prosecutor's investigation at all. Yes, what a miracle! In a country where the rule of law has been completely broken, where the public prosecutor’s office is no longer independent, they are not investigating – yes, madness. So the quickest thing I would do if I were also interested in good conditions in the European Union would be to immediately bring all the investigators to my country, show complete transparency – is not the case. For example, I would also become part of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, which could really investigate this. Then the colleague has just said here that they are not looking at other countries. Yes, of course! They are part of the European Public Prosecutor's Office and they are investigating if such a thing takes place. That's really the height that's taking place here. And I must say it quite honestly, also to the Commission: If I saw these reports, I would act and finally act. This must actually take place.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Freedom of expression is the foundation of our democracy, and therefore: The DSA also does not establish a Ministry of Truth, but sets clear rules and transparency. If Musk and Weidel talk to each other on X, then this is not forbidden, the DSA has not forbidden, has also happened. From my point of view, it also showed the inability of Alice Weidel, this conversation. But if Musk's content is automatically favored by the algorithms, then that's a problem, and that's exactly what the EU Commission is determining that the algorithms are being changed there. If Zuckerberg says that he wants to work together with the US administration against EU regulations, then we cannot accept this and must be clear as an EU. But is it completely wrong that Zuckerberg is now Community notes Doing fact checks? I think we should at least look in that direction – the DSA does not clearly specify how fact-checks should take place. Now TikTok is to be operated by the US and China. Where are we Europeans? Let us be more committed to ensuring that innovation also comes from Europe and not just a lot of regulation, ladies and gentlemen.

Mr President! Freedom of speech is the foundation of our democracy. The exchange of different opinions and arguments, the competition about it, which ensures compromises in a society. But this competition has to be fair. That's what makes our open democracy, that's what makes liberal democracies. But if there is an outside attempt to influence this – as Anne Applebaum calls it in her new book “Autocracy, Inc.”, the autocrats of this world who work together and consciously try to influence our liberal democracies – then this is no longer fair competition of opinions, it is not freedom of expression, but the free and open society is used to influence our opinions in the interests of the autocrats of this world. We must take action against this, not by massively curtailing freedom of expression. It is also not part of the DSA. Instead, we create maximum transparency about the algorithms and the influence that is there from the outside. Because the speaker of the AfD asked me earlier which influence, which gentlemen I would serve, I can only say: I serve my constituents. In contrast to the AfD, I did not receive any money from Russia.

So you didn't get a blue card until now and now you get two at the same time. It's about social media and I think you do it well, you know, you convince people. And nothing is wrong about that. But the problem here, and that's what we're discussing, is if there's a foreign actor putting lots of money to influence the whole discussion – that is what is happening there. And there's also a difference to the past. And there are new developments here. So can we agree together that we want to protect free speech, that we want to have transparency on what's happening on the platform and fair rules? That is what we are talking about.

Madam, thank you very much for taking my Blue card accept. You have just mentioned that the election in Thuringia has been reversed. Did not Mr Kemmerich resign there, an FDP member, and why should he listen to Angela Merkel? That's my first question. And my second question is: What kind of sulfur stench do you mean in the hallways? I haven't been in your hallway lately. I don't know what it smells like. I didn't notice any sulfur stench in this house. Maybe you can clarify that.

Madam President, The right here complains that we have to have this debate at all. We only have to have this debate because it exists and its policies in the countries attack the rights of homosexuals in the first place. We could just leave this debate here, we'd all like it if they just came to their senses. There is talk of sexual propaganda in schools. It sounds like you're just saying a little bit, you can be gay, and then automatically the kids would all become gay in class. If there is a gay character in the Netflix series – ups, all of a sudden everyone becomes gay. It really doesn't work that way. The only thing that happens when a school class teaches that, for example, two men or two women can love each other, the only thing that happens is that students may become a little more tolerant. But for the students who are actually queer, who struggle with themselves, who think: Am I different? Will my parents accept me that way? It is important for these students, because they still have a much higher risk of suicide in Europe. As long as we don't change that, I ask you never to talk about the safety of children again. You're doing the opposite.

Madam President, dear colleagues, today we remember Daphne Caruana Galizia, a brave and tireless journalist whose voice was silenced because she dared to expose the truth. Daphne wasn't just reporting stories. She was fighting for justice, for accountability, for the very soul of our democracy. And for that, she paid the ultimate price. Her brutal assassination is a chilling reminder for Europe. When Daphne was murdered, that blow wasn't just against her. It was a blow to media freedom across our continent. It was a message meant to instill fear, to silence those who hold power to account. But we cannot allow that. Media freedom is not just another value. It is a cornerstone of our democracies. Without free and independent media, the foundations of justice and transparency begin to crumble, corruption thrives, and the powerful can act unchecked in darkness. We must unite to protect media freedom, not just for the sake of journalists, but for the sake of democracy itself. Let us honour Daphne's legacy by safeguarding what she fought for: truth, justice and the unyielding right to speak freely.

Colleague, thank you for accepting my blue card. Because you referred directly to me, I want to ask where in my speech I talked about the conflict between Israel and Palestine. I didn't talk about UNWRA. I also didn't talk about the Palestinian Authority. I just talked about antisemitic schoolbooks. And I want to ask you: who would be against removing antisemitic content from school books, other than an anti-Semite?