Speeches

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.

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.