Speeches

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner! I have just heard a lot here in the debate: This is a national debate, there is no regulation, back and forth and what not all arguments. The question we are discussing here tonight is the following: How is a child? What is best for a child? And best for a child is when they have parents who love and care for them. And these parents should have the security and the child should have the security that these parents can take care of it. After all, what happens now to a child who may grow up with two lesbian parents, where the other mother is no longer accepted as a mother? In the case in which something happens to the biological mother, for example, the other mother has no options at all, has no rights at all to take care of the child. I think, yes, it is laughing now, it is unbelievable that such a question is laughing now. This shows the absurdity of this debate. It's not really about the child. It is not about this child then being sure that the second parent can take care of it. You are concerned about your ideology, because it must not be in your spirit – Mr President, I have to finish this now – that this child lives in this family. That's what you're all about. That's why you laugh at this point, because it must not be that two same-sex parents raise a child. And because you'd rather take away this child's rights than take care of it! That's what it's all about! That's why they're so upset at this point! (The President withdrew the floor from the speaker.)

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. Sometimes I cannot explain what is happening here in the European Parliament and in Europe at all. If I were to go home or if I were to explain to the visitor groups here in Parliament that hundreds of opposition politicians, journalists have been spied on in Europe with a software where everything could be closely monitored, that there has been interference in the deepest privacy, that it is known that these are facts, and if I were to explain that we have a committee in the European Parliament that is supposed to clarify this all over Europe and that has been working very intensively for a year, then people would say: Yeah, great, good that you're doing this, that you're going after it. If I were to tell you that not a single Member State really cooperates with this committee of inquiry and the Commission looks away and does not act, people would ask me: Hey, how's that gonna go? Why is this so in Europe? Why can't you protect civil rights more consistently? Why are Member States simply looking away and ignoring this? I can't explain it to anyone, nor can anyone understand it. That is why it is a groundless impudence of the Member States and the European Commission, and they must finally stop this blockade and answer the Committee of Inquiry.

Madam President, The business model of organised crime makes excellent use of our internal market, it makes use of our freedoms, and therefore Europe must act in a coordinated manner. Clan crime, organized crime, does not respect our rule of law; She uses every opportunity, she uses our freedoms. But the rule of law must be consistently enforced throughout Europe, and Europe is the solution: better investigations through Europol cooperation, but also a strengthening of Eurojust, our judicial cooperation, because it is also about the fact that criminal prosecutors can really condemn criminals and put them behind bars. We need to do more, more exchange of information. This is really difficult to create more resources here, to actually create better information exchange. That's really difficult. It is easier to just pass more and more mass surveillance and new laws. But it is not new laws or surveillance that catch criminals, but better equipped police officers and more European cooperation. This is the path we should take to fight consistently organised crime in Europe.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Of course, the events in Greece are worrying, the spying on the press and journalists. But let's also look at the bigger picture. Today, international media reports under the title Story Killers that a secret company manipulates elections in various countries, that it is openly offered that spyware is used to manipulate elections. That's the picture we have internationally. We have dealt intensively with spyware in the Pegasus Committee, which can not only spy on our smartphones, what is there, but can also use the cameras, listen and much more, even sending your own messages seems to be partly possible. And then we see that this is apparently being used in Europe and also worldwide to attack elections. So it is no longer just about our privacy – that would be worth protecting – but it is also at its core about our democracy. And then I hear this debate here, and I really have to ask, ladies and gentlemen: Aren't you a little ashamed of this debate, how is pure party politics done here again? Wie der Kollegin In 't Veld, die als Berichterstatterin auftritt und hier wirklich aufklärt, vorgeworfen wird, sie mache das rein aus parteipolitischen Gründen, wo es überhaupt keine liberale Partei in Griechenland gibt, die sie da verteidigen könnte? How many elections still need to be manipulated? How many situations must there be before we realize that it is not about party politics, but about our European democracy. That is what I am asking myself, and that should have been the debate here in this House today.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! Especially in the debate, the whole absurdity has been noticed. The rights and conservatives who usually talk about the family that needs to be protected, about the nucleus of society – the children need to be protected. Orbán has even proposed a law to protect children. It's always about the kids, it's about the family. And here we see all the absurdity: What does it have to do with the protection of the family, with the special protection for children, when you make a child stateless? What good is it for the protection of the family to force parents to fight bureaucracy in front of authorities, even to have to go to court, instead of spending time educating their child? Nothing. Entirely absurd ideology, because you believe that what cannot be must not be. This becomes clear at this point. Family is where children are, where people take responsibility for each other. Parents in one country are also parents in the other.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner! Sabotage on Nord Stream, attack on the rail network in Northern Germany – we must not be naïve when it comes to critical infrastructure. And it is precisely a European vote on this question, what constitutes critical infrastructure for us, how we protect it together, that is important. And that is why it is important that we have the debate and that we also move forward with a corresponding directive now, today, together. But we also need to look at which authoritarian states influence our critical infrastructure, which ports are bought by which states or which shareholdings there are, how we need to better protect our digital world by protecting encryption and not harming it yet. We have to look at it together. We need to look critically at critical infrastructure – this is what the new directive does. Thank you to the rapporteur. This is the right step to better protect our critical infrastructure.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! A few months ago, news came that the European Commission was proposing to actually withhold €7.5 billion from Hungary. And I heard in my conversations with citizens: Finally, something is happening. Something's finally happening. Finally, action is being taken against the dismantling of the rule of law in Europe. But then what happened? We have seen that the way the mechanism was applied was far too small: The regulation would allow for much more – not only cohesion funds, but also other funds. These measures negotiated by the Commission with Hungary did not concern the rule of law at all. It was not about the rule of law, about the independence of the judiciary, but only about the fight against corruption. And even this small part – if you look at the 17 measures – is not consistently brought to an end. It is already clear: Most of the 17 measures that should have been implemented by the weekend have not been implemented. What happens now? Will the European Commission no longer hold back the €7.5 billion? I say quite clearly: If the European Commission releases the EU funds now, Ursula von der Leyen will take personal responsibility for irretrievably turning Hungary into a corruption swamp. And then you have to be so honest as the European Commission: Then this rule of law mechanism will no longer be used, then it will be dead. This honesty must then also be clear; This is why our appeal is once again clear: The money must not be released, the rule of law in Europe must finally be defended.

Madam President, dear colleagues, we had some talks with the other groups on the title because right now it states: negotiations between the Commission and Hungary. To be very honest, it’s what happens right now but it should not be this way. The rule of law in Europe should not be negotiable. That is very clear from our side. We call on the Commission not to negotiate, but to assess, and that’s why I would propose a new wording, President: ‘assessment of Hungary’s compliance with the rule of law conditions under the conditionality mechanism and state of play of the Hungarian RRP’. Let’s make clear it’s about assessing, it’s about the guardianship of the Treaties, and it’s not about negotiating about the rule of law. Be very clear about that.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner! We have a difficult annual budget ahead of us. We see the energy crisis, we see inflation, and we know that our possibilities under the Multiannual Financial Framework are limited. That is why there are three priorities in this budget. On the one hand: We must do everything we can to fight inflation, we must support citizens. At the same time, we must not forget the right projects for the future. Because that would be a mistake not to actually prepare for the future in a crisis. Now we have just heard a big speech from the AfD, the ID faction. These are all the wrong priorities and they would not help the citizens at all. We just heard that here. That is why I want to take a look here, because we are doing far too little: What was specifically requested by the ID Group? I can tell you this: delete all appropriations for the European Public Prosecutor’s Office without justification. The European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) has identified €5.7 billion in damage to the EU budget and Member States’ budgets in its first seven months of work alone. 576 investigations in just seven months. You don't want that, you want to cut it off, cut it off. They are not concerned with the taxpayers' money of ordinary citizens. They are not about helping citizens. You're still playing your games. We can see that too. You are making these requests. That's ridiculous. Just leave that alone.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. Today we commemorate the murder of Daphne. This horrific murder was an attack on Daphne, but above all an attack on press freedom in Europe. With an attack on freedom of the press, it was also an attack on democracy, because freedom of the press is the air that democracy needs to breathe. But I have to be honest at the end of this debate: I'm shocked. Shocked on the one hand by those who still defend the backers and reject a debate here for political reasons, and shocked on the other hand by those who have the intellectual audacity to talk about double standards in this debate, about the fact that the problems in Malta with the rule of law are not talked about and only always about Poland and Hungary. This audacity of talking about not doing so in a debate that addresses precisely these issues is already shocking. This Parliament, even if you do not like it, will always look at the need to defend the rule of law when democracy is under attack, and we will also look at the restrictions on press freedom and the fear of journalists. That is our task in this Parliament.

I do not think I need to comment here on any statements made by Mrs Baerbock out of context. But I did not speak in any way at any point in my speech about democracy and whether Viktor Orbán won the election – the OSCE says the election was free, but not fair. The fact that they are going back to democracy and elections shows that you don't really want to talk about what this is about, namely projects where money flows endlessly into the pockets of Viktor Orbán's friends, where the European Anti-Fraud Office says: "4% of all EU funds are misused." You don't want to talk about stealing EU funds, about stealing taxpayers' money. That's why always this evasion, and you just proved it again.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner! If you follow the debate here, then what usually takes place in this debate will take place again: Hungary defends the rights here in Parliament, says it's all political and so on and so forth. Corruption exists in all EU countries. Ten times as high, ten times as high as in other average countries, is the abuse of EU funds in Hungary! It is simply a matter – you want to hide this – of money being stolen from Hungarians and ending up in the pockets of Viktor Orbán’s friends. That is what this is about, and that is what the rights here in Parliament are trying to hide. At the same time - and you really have to listen to that, Commissioner - the right-wingers in Parliament praise the Commission's approach! This is what is happening in this mechanism. Because we know: In the end, no money will be withheld. And this will happen with great applause from the right and the enemies of the rule of law in Europe. The timetable you use as an excuse – where you say: We do not have the time after this mechanism, we have to decide now, and then we have to look at the measures at that time – that is an advanced argument. It's wrong. You could just as well withhold the seven and a half billion euros, in my view even more. And then, under this mechanism, Hungary would always have the opportunity to provide evidence that these laws, which are now being adopted – that's a good thing, we like to look at that, but we want to see it – that these laws, these changes, actually change something in practice, that money no longer seeps into the dark pockets, that corruption is combated. As long as this is not the case, you should withhold the funds. Madam President, I'll take these Blue card I love it, but I'm a little surprised why I don't have one on my display. Blue card I have been reported. That surprises me. I would also like to ask my colleagues questions. If now Blue card is possible – very gladly, then we will do that in the debate, and I will take a Blue card Of course, I love it! (The speaker agreed to answer a question on the blue card procedure under Rule 171(8) of the Rules of Procedure.)

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. The report on the situation of fundamental rights in Europe is right and important, because we must be vigilant when it comes to defending citizens' rights in Europe. News is shaking us again: Surveillance scandals and Pegasus. In the committee of inquiry, we repeatedly deal with the fact that opposition figures and journalists are monitored with espionage software. But when we talk about the situation of fundamental rights here, we must also talk about a major threat to fundamental rights posed by the European Commission. The so-called chat control monitors the personal communication of all citizens in the European Union. The European Data Protection Board has just delivered a devastating verdict on this proposal from the European Commission. He says that the current form of the proposal would present more risks for individuals and thus for the general public as a whole than would actually present more risks for offenders. That is the wrong way forward and I therefore call on the European Commission to withdraw and revise this proposal.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! I would like to quote Viktor Orbán from the summer: We're not a mixed race, he said. I could not have imagined seeing such racist statements from a head of government again in Europe. Nevertheless, it must be said otherwise that this is a very good report which has been presented here. But there's nothing new in it. We are in this situation – the Commissioner has also described the situation in great detail. We know the situation. I no longer know how you are doing, ladies and gentlemen, how many times we have now reported on it here, how many times we have discussed it in Parliament – the same thing always happens. The right-wingers here in Parliament, who are otherwise always against European cooperation, are always very good at working together, defending Viktor Orbán, that would be all very evil, etc. – we all know that. We know the whole debate here. And they are not prepared to accept any arguments at all. But one thing is different today. One thing is different today. In a few days, the Commission, the European Commission, will be able to withhold money from Hungary for the first time under the rule of law mechanism. And I call on the European Commission to remain tough here, not to bend over, not to be involved in any negotiated solutions now, but to remain clear, to defend the rule of law in the European Union and also in Hungary, and I call on the Commission to do so.

Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, The DSA sets clear rules for the online world. And this quick agreement on this digital package shows: Europe can act. Europe can indeed move fast and also set rules in this world. That's a good sign. As the Liberal negotiator in the Committee on the Interior, however, digital civil rights were particularly close to my heart. We didn't achieve everything we wanted. But we have ensured that there is no general monitoring obligation, that upload filters will not be introduced by liability obligations in the future. This is a victory for digital civil rights at this point, and I believe it is also a very important sign for many young people who demonstrated against it a few years ago. But the next attack on digital civil rights is already being prepared. The chat control would be a general monitoring of all our chats. It would be a privatization of law enforcement. We shouldn't do that. The values that we share with the DSA Describe, we would break with it. We shouldn't go that way.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs President-in-Office of the Commission, what you have presented here seems to have sounded good at first sight. Clear three conditions that Poland, the Polish government must meet. But the conclusion you have drawn from approving the recovery plan is, in our view, the wrong conclusion. Conditions should have remained for this and not become milestones, where it is now in question whether money will eventually flow, even though these clear conditions have not been met. And if you follow the debate here, you get: The right-wingers here in the European Parliament celebrate this as a great victory and say that it would be the left-wing narrative that the rule of law in Poland and so on, and now the Commission would have shown that this would not be the case. And usually the right-wingers here in the European Parliament tell great nonsense and great untruth. But there seems to be a core here. Five of your Commissioners, including three Vice-Presidents and two Commissioners dealing with the issue, voted against your decision. You've split your commission. You also said: The decision of the European Court of Justice would, of course, remain in force and the penalties would continue to be applied. Yeah, what else?, I wonder. It would be even better if we changed that. Mrs von der Leyen, President of the Commission, I trust that you will remain tough and that you will remain consistent. I voted for you as President of the Commission, with the confidence that you will be the guardian of the Treaties. But that trust from me is finally when you're not. And the moment money is transferred to Poland without the rule of law being restored, my trust is over.

Madam President, The rule of law, fundamental values and European values are under pressure in Europe. That is why we must use the various instruments that we have consistently, coordinate them, and we must also further develop the Rule of Law Report. I would therefore like to thank the rapporteur, Terry Reintke, for this very, very good report. But I also want to say at this point: When we talk about the attacks on the rule of law in individual Member States, I must also mention here a major attack by the European Commission on all the citizens' rights of the 440 million European citizens: With the chat surveillance proposed by the European Commission, digital letter secrecy would be dead. This would be a big brother agency that monitors citizens' private communications. In my view, this Stasi 2.0 must be rejected. It has nothing to do with European values. These are Chinese models. I appeal to the European Commission: Take this proposal back, otherwise you will no longer need to talk about civil rights in the future.

Madam, you misunderstood me. The translation may not have worked properly for you. I'm not talking about 4% in Poland, I'm talking about 4% in Hungary. And this is data from OLAF, the European Union Anti-Fraud Office. I made that clear. In Poland, however, the situation of the judiciary is still problematic, as many judgments of the European Court of Justice have shown. And since we have included the independence of the judiciary as part, as a criterion, also in the rule of law mechanism, the lack of independence of the judiciary in Poland also jeopardises the decent use of EU funds.

There are no connections between the current German government and Putin. By the way: I have publicly criticised past ties, especially those of Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, on several occasions. Nor did I establish a connection between Poland and Russia. But I find it interesting how you now turn the topic in this way and now show it with your finger. I expect to see clear rulings from the European Court of Justice and also clear reports from the European Anti-Fraud Office. I just did that in my speech. (The speaker agreed to reply to a question on the blue card procedure)

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, We have now heard the usual from the right again here in the debate. This is now the punishment for the election, it is about punishing right-wing and conservative politics, we would not like that, now Brussels would act and sanction here. This is not what the rule of law mechanism is all about. You don't like to talk about it. The issue is that funds are misused, that EU funds are stolen. In Poland, according to the EU's Anti-Fraud Office, four percent of all EU funds have gone into abusive use, corrupt channels. That's millions of dollars in taxpayers' money. Otherwise, you always want the EU budget to be as economical as possible. When it comes to money flowing to right-wing despots, you can't defend that passionately enough. When it comes to European cooperation, you are always skeptical. When it comes to cooperation between rights and despots in Europe, European cooperation works very, very well. It only works better if you work with Putin. That's the policy you're actually doing here. (The speaker agreed to reply to a question on the blue card procedure)

Madam President, Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen! Putin hates democracy. He hates liberal, free societies, and he hates European cooperation. So it goes without saying that he is supporting the very forces in Europe that are turning against all these points. It is embarrassing enough who has nevertheless been paid by Putin in the past, including from established political forces in Europe. It is bad enough that in the past, appeasement of Russia and Putin has been considered a tried and tested political means, and it should be ashamed of who has defended these positions. But anyone who still holds Putin's rod is complicit in the deaths in Ukraine. There are still plenty of left and right-wing Putin understanders in our parliaments, and they need to be confronted. They blame NATO for the killings in Ukraine, and that is simply harmful. They must all be confronted, and it must be clear: Those who sow populism in Europe will reap Putinism.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! First of all, I would like to thank our rapporteur Nicolae Ştefănuță for his great work. Of course, we are now discussing the budget in a changed situation. And it is all the more important that we stand up for a strong Europe and set the right priorities. People are worried about the economy. We see rising prices. And it is all the more important that we rely on a strong economy in order to be able to tackle the challenges together. And it is all the more important that we put a focus on the budget, especially on small and medium-sized enterprises – the start-ups – in order to achieve innovation and a strong economy. But we must also continue with the major transformation tasks, digitalisation and decarbonisation, which have become no less important, also in the current political situation. And we should focus on research, on innovation. Europe must achieve new things together. At the same time, I would like to call on the Commission to finally use the rule of law mechanism. Because every euro that ends up with corrupt opponents of the rule of law not only loses its value for the political priorities of the Union, but the Union also loses a bit of its values through each of these euros. And we should stop that.

Madam President, The time of excuses and distractions is over today. You've fulfilled your dirty deal from the EU summit. They illegally waited to use this mechanism, but with today's verdict, that's over. The grace period for Orbán and Kaczyński has finally expired and the Commission must now fulfil its legal role. Finalizing guidelines isn't enough, take action! And then to all the rights here in the European Parliament: LGBTI law? That's not what it's about. More power for Brussels? That's not what it's about. It's not about Putin either. Why do you use these ridiculous arguments? I can tell you: Because you want to cover up what it's really about, that EU money is stolen, that it leaks into dark channels. You want to hide it! They want to hide the fact that the hard-earned money of the European taxpayers should be stolen further. Everyone needs to know that. That's what you're all about. You want to hide it! You do not want to do this by doing nothing, dear Commission. Take action at last! It is not the time for guidelines. It's not the time for penpals. It is time to actually act now and protect the rule of law in Europe. Otherwise, you will engage with these forces – those forces that do not feel committed to common values, but want to further hide the fact that European tax money is being stolen in these Member States – or you will engage with these forces.

Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, When I ran for the European Parliament, there was almost no discussion with pupils or students about upload filters and young people's concerns about the free internet. And that is why today I am proud of this compromise that lies ahead of us. Yes, we will delete illegal content more consistently. But we're not making the mistake of making the platforms liable for what's going on. Overblocking and more uploadingFiltering would lead. We find a good compromise, and we are not curtailing freedom of expression. That's very, very important to me. I know that from colleagues who seem to have still not understood the Internet correctly, there are amendments that want to reintroduce it. As the negotiator of the Liberal Group in the Committee on the Internal Affairs, it was particularly important to me that we uploading-Filters have that we do not have an encryption ban, that we do not have a clear name obligation and also not the obligation to retain data. We have reached these specific points for civil rights. But we also create more transparency in algorithms. We control the power of Big techWe want to create a rules-based internet. And I am very proud of the quick work we have done in the European Parliament. I would like to thank the rapporteur and all the other colleagues, because we have come to an agreement quickly here and perhaps also quickly to an agreement with the Council under the French Presidency. This is important for us to participate in this global debate. Big techHow do we deal with the Internet? – actually setting a European standard, and we are successfully implementing that.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. In a parliamentary question to the Commission, I asked whether the non-nomination of prosecutors is not a reason for the European Public Prosecutor’s Office to trigger the rule of law mechanism under the Regulation. The Commission replied to me that non-cooperation with OLAF and the European Public Prosecutor's Office would indeed be such a reason. But, of course, we haven't seen actual action in recent months and the rule of law mechanism being used, and that's a longer trend. We see that people are watching, and we see that first Hungary, then Poland, now also a little bit more and more Slovenia is being used as a model. That is why we finally need decisive action on the issue of the rule of law in Europe. But I am also confident today because today I am proud of the coalition agreement of the new federal government, which has set a clearer line in the rule of law. We must fight together more decisively for European values in Europe, otherwise they will continue to try to undermine European values.