Speeches

Madam President, dear colleagues, Palestinian schoolbooks teach hate. In science and math books, terrorists are praised. A female terrorist who killed several Jews is cited as an example for female empowerment. Most maps replace Israel with Palestine. Despite our financial support, these books haven't changed for years. But whenever we propose withholding funds until anti-Semitic pages are removed, the Budget Committee rejects our amendment. Please tell me, how can a parliament that always claims to defend fundamental values suddenly oppose removing anti-Semitic content from a schoolbook? What motivates this double standard? The hateful pages could be ripped out within hours and the funds could be released immediately. Colleagues, this is not about being pro-Israel or being pro-Palestinian. This is about breaking the cycle of hate and ending the teaching of hate. And since we are all paying for it, we can make it happen. The final vote is tomorrow. So let's make this happen.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen! The Rule of Law Report is now an established mechanism. And we also see that the indications from the reports are increasingly being taken up in the Member States. It is good that the Commission plans to include the internal market component more in the Rule of Law Report, because with competition policy, the EU Commission also has a strong sword in its hand to use it to ensure rule of law policy. This is because concentration of power, including in the area of competition, can limit the rule of law. I very much support the fact that the Commission is setting out there. However, it must also be mentioned in this Rule of Law Report that the EU Commission has postponed it for the first time. It should be published much earlier. We were able to Politico read that Ms von der Leyen did not like it so much that in the time when she still had to get through to the heads of state and government, she did not want to write anything about the rule of law in the family tree of the Member States. This political shift, this is wrong and this should not happen again. That is why I would like to take this opportunity to thank Věra Jourová, who has worked incredibly in recent years on the issue of the rule of law, for this Rule of Law Report. For your commitment, dear Věra, thank you very much.

Thank you, colleague, for this question because it's really good, because it is connected. It should not be differentiated. If you are destroying the rule of law and European values in your country, if there is an Article 7 procedure in place and the rule of law conditionality applied to your country, that should make a difference. You should not make the school bully the school director – and that is what we did in the European Union! That is why this House called for the Council to change that. It could easily be done. We did it already. The Brits, they changed their Council Presidency. There should not be a Council Presidency when a Member State is violating our fundamental principles. That is what it is about.

Madam President, what a speech Mr Orbán gave. What a speech. Mr Orbán, you say you want democracy and you brag about your majorities in the Hungarian Parliament. Yet for years, you have only ruled by emergency decree. Are you so afraid of democracy, Mr Orbán? You say you are for national sovereignty, yet you invite Chinese policemen to surveil the people in your country. You say you want to stop migration, yet you let Russian spies into our Schengen system and call it the 'National Guard'. That is what you're doing. Mr Orbán, you are not a patriot. You are just a useful idiot of Russia and China. That's the reality. You say you want to fight for more economic competitiveness, yet you keep introducing new company laws and taxes to drive European competitors out of your country. You've turned Hungary into a banana republic. You've robbed your population and enriched your family and friends. Under your rule, Hungary has become one of the poorest and officially the most corrupt country in the EU. What a fraud! What a burden for your people. Mr Orbán, please step down to make Hungary great again.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner! We are still discussing a lot about X, or Twitter, and Elon Musk. The commission even constantly writes letters, which it then posts on X, and argues with Elon Musk. I think we should write a little less letters with Elon Musk and look more at what's actually happening with our teens with TikTok. We know that TikTok is a China app and there is influence from China on this app. A study by Rutgers University shows that content that does not correspond to the Chinese government, such as criticism of China or support for Ukraine, is massively reduced compared to Instagram. This is an influence on our debate and especially on young people and therefore also a threat to our democracy. Islamists are increasingly using TikTok to radicalize young people. I therefore call on the Commission to: Proceed with all severity now! Take advantage of the DSA's ability to bring transparency to the algorithms and actually be tougher on TikTok – the Americans are already a bit further along.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, We also need the economic transition in Europe. Only with a strong economy can we achieve our goals. We need to cut red tape in Europe. Since Mrs. von der Leyen has in recent years, you have rather built something. We need a stronger European capital market so that we can also mobilise private capital. And we need more joy in inventing than in forbidding in Europe. Now, Mrs von der Leyen, you wanted to do something for the middle class in Europe. You have been looking for a representative for over 18,000 euros per month. You then brought the worst qualified CDU friend into this job. Now Mr. Pieper had to resign or did not take the job. They have thus done a disservice to small and medium-sized enterprises in Europe and undermined the credibility of the Commission. So Europe will not be fit for the economy, Mrs von der Leyen.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! A discussion on the Financial Regulation may not be one of the most emotional debates taking place here in Parliament. But it is one of the important debates, because the basic rules for our budget must ensure that taxpayers' money reaches where it belongs. We have achieved this very successfully in the negotiations, which is why I would like to thank the rapporteurs very much. With the new Financial Regulation, there are more facilitations for recipients of EU funds as well as more barriers for fraudsters of EU funds. We are thus strengthening the rule of law, we are strengthening the role of Parliament, and we are strengthening the overall effectiveness of the EU budget, even if Viktor Orbán does not want to do so. Nevertheless, we must ask ourselves whether the next reform of the Financial Regulation does not have to be even more substantial. Germany's Financial Regulation is still relatively manageable with 31 pages. The EU Financial Regulation is usually quite difficult to understand with more than 200 pages. That is why our motto must be: finally cut red tape and create added value – even if Ursula von der Leyen does not want to.

Mr President, dear colleagues, with the budget we set the right priorities for the future, for a stronger economy, but we also have to act along our values. Over the last 30 years, the European Union has paid EUR 8 billion to Palestinian territories. Where did the money go? Ten per cent of the Palestinian budget goes to the so-called Martyrs Fund. This fund pays a monthly income to every Palestinian and their family who commits a terrorist act. The more people the terrorist kills, the more money the Palestinian Government pays. If we as the EU continue to finance that, we are idiots. If we are brave enough to freeze funds for EU Member States such as Hungary and Poland we must also be ready to be tough with the Palestinian authorities now and say either the Martyrs Fund ends now, or EU funding ends now. We have to fight for peace. Yes, we have to support humanitarian needs, but we also have to act according to our values. We cannot finance terrorism from our European budget.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! It is important that we discuss this rule of law report here again. But we also need to link it to more concrete consequences. It is not enough just to analyse the situation in the rule of law in different countries, but we actually need to implement more. But it is important that we have this report because we are looking at all countries throughout the European Union. And otherwise it has always been the argument of the right when we discuss Hungary here, for example, that only one country is ever pilloried. Today, when we talk about all countries, we talk about Hungary again, or everyone talks about their own country. That's really special. But if Fidesz's colleague is serious about saying that the rule of law is some mythical entity and that there are traditional values and family, and that's something we wanted to prevent here in Brussels, then you really have to ask yourself: Aren't you a little embarrassed to do this? We now know what traditional values mean in Hungary. This means covering up child abuse and pardoning it. These are your traditional values. That's what it's all about. Therefore, it must be clear here: The rule of law in Europe must be defended jointly by the European Commission and the European Parliament!

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. I think it is important that we set stronger priorities in this budget. And that is why we also need to redeploy and, for example, redeploy cohesion funds – towards the new tasks that we have. We actually did that with this review. But I would like to go into this here, because things have just been mentioned by colleagues: Support for Ukraine. The colleague Joachim Kuhs from the AfD has asked whether we have once asked the Ukrainians if they want the money. Yes, we did. You don't have to ask her. You can hear it loud and clear. But the AfD does not hear that, because it always travels only to Russia and not to Ukraine. That's the difference. Mr Wallace said that we are prolonging the war in this way. Whoever says that actually means the following: This war can be ended quickly by Russia winning. Yes, that's how it can be quickly ended by Russia winning. So the war can be ended quickly. Or Russia could quickly end the war by Putin withdrawing his troops from Ukraine. That is the consequence. We as Europeans want a world where the strength of the law rules, not the right of the stronger. We don't want a world where autocrats can simply invade others. The European Union, European unification, it has been the answer to the Second World War, to the invasion of other countries. That is why our response as Europeans is to say clearly here: We are on Ukraine's side. We will not allow borders to be moved again by force and bombs.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! We have just received terrible news from Yemen, where 13 people have been sentenced to death for their sexuality. Fortunately, this is unimaginable in Europe. European values are tolerance and diversity. In Europe, it doesn't matter who you love. But we also see that our values, our European values, are being attacked. Liberal democracy is under threat from within and from without, including from Russia, and we see that, at the same time, the first thing that is targeted is minorities. We must oppose this. This is another reason why the European Commission's LGBTIQ strategy is an important step and the report in which we record progress is a good one together; I would like to thank the rapporteur. As a liberal negotiator, I have tried to help ensure that we actually do more. Because as long as queer teens still have a higher suicide rate, we haven't done enough. As long as there are still conversion therapies in Europe, we haven't done enough. That is why in this report we support the European Citizens' Initiative to ban conversion therapies. We need to do more to protect our citizens. Right-wingers are now trying to present themselves as particularly queer-friendly with their amendments – with their Islamophobic amendments. But if at the same time they question the rights of LGBTIQ, of rainbow families with their applications, then they actually only show their ugly face. Stop it! Help us to fight together for tolerance and democracy in Europe!

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! Rutgers University in the US recently presented a study showing that TikTok systematically reduces or less plays out content that does not match China’s interests – content that informs about the Uyghurs, support for Ukraine and also support for Israel. This is very worrying, because our debates, especially among young people, are shaped by TikTok. Currently, the educational institution Anne Frank warns that speed radicalization of young people to anti-Semitism is taking place on TikTok. That's really worrying. Let's use the rules that the Digital Services Act gives us in this context! Let's actually create transparency about whether TikTok systematically reduces this content or also contributes to radicalization! We have these possibilities. Commissioner, I ask you that, as soon as the DSA comes into force, we also apply these rules now, especially with TikTok.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Now we've all celebrated: the great unity on the summit and so on and so forth. But we have to say: Why did this special summit take place? This was only because the summit was blocked by Viktor Orbán in December. That's why we actually have to draw conclusions and think: What happened? How do we prevent this Putin disciple and demolitionist from further blocking our European future in the future? We saw two summits. One in December: We tried to smear him with 10 billion euros and sold off the rule of law like in a winter sale. And then we saw another summit where the heads of state and government remained clear, drew a clear line, even speculated on what to do with the Article 7 procedure. That is, Viktor Orbán only understands the language of power, and we must speak it more clearly in the future. When will the Council, when will the Heads of State and Government finally understand who they are dealing with? You have to draw the conclusion and learn now that this is the way we need to deal with Viktor Orbán in the future. Otherwise, we will see again and again that he is blocking the European future.

Mr President! Mrs. von der Leyen, you've been blackmailed. They have released 10 billion euros for Viktor Orbán once going to the toilet and thus the accession talks with Ukraine could begin. However, he can block every further step and immediately did so again with the funds. So they have achieved little for Ukraine. Instead, however, they have squandered the rule of law in the European Union as in a winter sale. They are to blame for the fact that 10 billion euros are now further seeping into corrupt pockets in Hungary. They say that this is all constitutional and necessary. But you know that's nonsense. The opposite is the case! As soon as the reforms were decided on paper, you released the money in an urgent procedure so that you could appease Viktor Orbán before the summit. This appeasement does not work, but it damages the rule of law in Europe. You do not live up to your role as guardian of the treaties. But you support Putin's disciple Orbán. We will take your decision to the European Court of Justice. And if you continue to release money to Hungary without appropriate reforms, we will table a motion of censure in this Parliament. Finish your zigzag course! First, we had to force you to apply the rule of law mechanism. Then you presented yourself as a great fighter for the rule of law, and in the end you release everything again. Fight with us for the rule of law. Otherwise, make it clear: You don't care about values, you don't care about rules, you don't care about the rule of law in Europe!

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I'm really pissed off tonight because we're attacking stock culture in Europe right now. Especially since the pandemic, young people in particular have invested, with small amounts: the student or trainee who puts something aside and invests, simply via neobrokers on the stock market – and very, very cheaply. Instead of doing more now to strengthen the stock culture even more, we are now putting a stop to the prohibition of payment for order flow. Instead of a blanket ban now, we could work with transparency to show customers the advantages and disadvantages – instead of simply banning everything as it is here. This will not make our companies, the neobrokers, more innovative. It makes sure that we put the stop there. It will also cause the stock culture in Europe to collapse. This is exactly the Europe we don't need. It is an anti-future, it is a bureaucratizing Europe. It is not a Europe that gives young people and stock savers a chance.

The question does nothing at all. First, I was already there on the last and visited Slovakia on site. But the question just shows again that here a Whataboutism takes place by you, by the rights, that you actually do not want to deal with the fundamental question, that you do not want to deal with the fundamental questions, where the rule of law, where corruption control in Europe still works. And unfortunately I have to say: Those people there who want to trample on the rule of law and European values and then are so cheeky to come up with whataboutisms – Ms von der Leyen has still given them the greatest gift today. It's a shame!

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, The events in Slovakia are indeed dramatic and the Commission has correctly described that it is very concerned. But I have to be honest: If I experience this debate here tonight, at the same time, really at the same time, as the same Commission, which is now very concerned about the rule of law there, at the same time releases 10 billion euros in blocked funds to Hungary, then it must be said: What are we even debating here? Robert Fico is a mini-Orbán. And tonight, the European Commission sent him the loud and clear signal: It doesn't matter in the end. Even if you apply the rule of law mechanism, even if you take all the measures, you only need to veto the EU Commission to pressure and blackmail it and it will release the money. As a result, the credibility of the European Commission on rule of law issues is dying tonight. You are personally responsible for this, Mrs von der Leyen, and this great responsibility that you bear for the destruction of the core values of the European Union, which we will chalk up to you. I think you should step down. (The speaker agreed to answer a question on the blue card procedure.)

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. One year after Qatargate – you can now read more information, you just have to look at Politico. It is written in great detail: an Excel list, where all cases are there, where you really wanted to influence the institution, then the nice SMS exchanges, where Mrs Kaili tried to offer the President of Parliament tickets for the World Cup in Qatar, which Mrs Metsola, by the way, refused – so many nice details are still there. And now we are all discussing here, suggesting again what we have done in terms of measures, but the central point is: A year later, we still have no charges in this case. However, we have a conflict of interest of the chief investigator of the Belgian authorities, and this clumsiness of the Belgian corruption investigations extends the investigation incredibly long. I say here quite clearly: The more mistakes the Belgian authorities make, the more our institutions are actually damaged. The scorners of democracy in Europe are rubbing their hands – especially in Hungary – to whom we are now giving an additional billions, which will once again end up in corrupt pockets. I am always in favour of more transparency and anti-corruption rules, but anyone who takes 100,000 euros in cash will not enter them into a transparency register in the future. We must regulate this with criminal law, and we must take a clear approach to this.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! Of course, we must protect our democracy against disinformation, lies, hatred and hate speech. Freedom of speech is just as important to our democracy. And exactly this balancing act – what is hate speech, what is hate, what is wrong, what is an opinion that I do not like? – it is very, very narrow in a democracy. This is precisely why the Digital Services Act should be a liberal regulatory framework. We didn't want to pretend exactly what was wrong, we should say: Illegal content is deleted, but otherwise we set processes for how we want to moderate it better. I fear now that in this crisis, with very rapid measures, we run the risk of being too harsh. To be honest, I find it a bit worrisome that we criticise Twitter – or X, as it is now called – but that the Commission is now communicating exactly how it is taking action against the platforms. Honestly, that doesn't quite go together. Let's make sure that we protect democracy, freedom of expression, that we take action against fake news, but let's also be careful with it. Let's take action, let's take action with evidence. We should enforce that. And this is more difficult than the quick message, the quick opinion in such a crisis.

Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President of the European Court of Auditors! Thank you for this report, which shows that we still have a lot to do when it comes to controlling EU funds. And of course, we are all a bit surprised and horrified to see how the error rate has increased. But if we're honest, we can't be surprised. We are now at the end of the cohesion funding period and we are desperately trying to spend the money in those Member States that still have a lot of money. And of course, the error rates go up, which is a matter of course. And as parliamentarians, we also have to ask ourselves how we actually want to fight this. There is more than enough money, there is no retrieval, there are the huge absorption problems – and at the same time we now have a budget with more budget commitments than ever before, with more debt than ever before. In other words, we have the pressing problems that we discussed yesterday in budgetary policy: On the one hand, we need money very, very urgently in some areas – where interest rates are now pushing us down and where we need more for migration and for Ukraine. And in other areas, the money lies around and is spent with desperate means to then produce mistakes. That is the whole of the European budgetary policy set out here. We all know that in Parliament, in the Commission, and the Court of Auditors says so. We just need to change it. And we'd have to go and say, Cohesion policy, as it is, has failed. We need to set them up differently, we need to focus them more on future priorities.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. The tightness of the budget and the interest burden are actually forcing us to set even stronger priorities. We have to ask ourselves where we really want to invest in the budget, and we also have to look at what funds do not flow out, such as cohesion funds. Again, we are still not prepared to set enough priorities - not in the Council, not in the Member States, but also in the European Parliament, we need to pay even more attention to how we actually get along with the funds made available to us. But I also want to say something about the current events here. We were all shocked by the images from Israel, and I would have liked the news of Monday that the Commission had given to the world to become a reality. That we really would have said: We stop the money first and then make sure that really no cent can flow towards Hamas. But that's exactly what we're doing, unfortunately, far too little now. Of course, there must be humanitarian aid again. But today we have to say: Never again may even one cent indirectly get close to these terrorists, never again may only one cent flow into anti-Semitic textbooks. Never again is now – this must also be the case in the European budget!

I will make it short, Mr President. The colleague did not answer the first question put by the colleague. You have pointed out that there is a difference between heterosexual and homosexual relationships, because a child can emerge from heterosexual relationships. Do you want to take rights away from heterosexual couples who can't have children biologically? That would be the consequence of your argument. How do you see that then?

Mr President, Commissioner! Netflix currently has one of its most popular series, Heartstopper. Nick and Charlie, two teenagers in high school, fall in love, a series that is really great. I highly recommend them to everyone in the house, especially the right. You'll learn a lot about tolerance when you watch the series. But I can assure you one thing: You don't get gay from watching Netflix. Nevertheless, there are countries in Europe that want to ban series, films, books, anything where homosexual characters occur, anything that is so-called LGBT propaganda and dangerous for children and adolescents. But what actually happens when a heterosexual adolescent, for example, Heartstopper Is it looking? He may be a little more tolerant, able to put himself in someone else's shoes. A gay teenager will feel taken care of, who sees someone who realizes that he is not alone. And this is urgently needed. Even today, young people in Europe are ten times more likely to commit suicide if they are not heterosexual. Therefore, if you really want to protect children - as you claim - you would have to invest more in education, in tolerance, in an environment in which everyone can feel comfortable. They don't want to protect children. I have not heard a single argument in the debate that is really about protecting children. It's about your propaganda, it's about making your mood at the expense of minorities, and that hasn't lost anything in Europe.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, This morning, reports have reached us that the Commission is considering releasing parts of the money that has been frozen vis-à-vis the government of Hungary in exchange for support for a stronger EU budget. I think we need to make it clear today: Just as a pro-European group, we fought for this rule of law mechanism. It is a success of this European Parliament. We make it clear: There must be no dirty deal with Orbán, Mrs. von der Leyen! (Applause) No money can be released until all criteria are met and we have a stronger rule of law in Hungary again! That is why I am reading the corresponding oral amendment: Insists that changes to the MFF shall have no negative impact on the protection of the EU budget against breaches of the rule of law. Reiterates that funds that are currently withheld shall not be released to Member States as long as the conditions for freeing the funds have not fully been met. Please support this amendment.

Madam President, Commissioner! Of course, this report sets the right priorities. We need more money, especially in supporting Ukraine and also for other priorities of Parliament, and of course we have to pay the interest for NextGenerationEU, which has risen. But it will be difficult to get more money for the EU budget in the Member States, because there too, these financial constraints are there, there too, more must be spent on interest. That's why we should take a look: We have packed 750 billion euros on top with NextGenerationEU, and already now we see that the money is flowing badly; We see that cohesion funds are flowing even worse. We should be so courageous as to set new priorities here and reallocate money there that is not needed there. At the same time, however, we are also receiving new media reports today that the Commission is planning to release parts of the money to Hungary in order to get the Hungarian support to raise more money for the EU budget. I want to say quite clearly for Parliament: If you go in that direction, Mrs von der Leyen, you will have the bitter resistance of the European Parliament. It can't be that we buy the approval of more money with a dirty deal with Orbán. There must be no more rebates on the rule of law in Europe.