Speeches

Mr President, sexual violence; electric shocks through field phones or car batteries; mock executions; sleep deprivation; and forcing detainees to sing the Russian national anthem and patriotic songs for hours at night. Those are the standard methods of torture by Russia. Putin's Russia blatantly disregards the Geneva Convention, sentencing prisoners of war and civilians to 20 years in prison, including life sentences. These trials are fabricated. Confessions are obtained by torture, and the legal process is nothing more than a theatre. Thousands of Ukrainian prisoners of war are held incommunicado without any rights guaranteed by international humanitarian law. Thousands of Ukrainian prisoners of war are struggling. They are being severely physically and psychologically tortured and they live in hunger, without basic supplies, without medical assistance. Death in such conditions is also a murder. So, before we call for their liberation, first and foremost, we need to help them stay alive by using all our networks and all our power.

Madam President, Jews have been credited with inhuman powers for thousands of years. Today, inhuman strength is required of Jews. They are allowed to suffer, but not defend themselves. Jews can be victims. Then all the memorials in the world are safe for them. But woe to the Jews when they fight back. Then the world is upside down. The ‘news agency’ TikTok becomes the measure of all facts, while the ‘World Court’ YouTube becomes the measure of all judgments. Palestinian victims must be avoided with all our might, and we agree on that. We need a two-state solution. Here, too, we agree. And yes, Israel must abide by international law. But what does Hamas do? The Hezbollah? The protesters in Neukölln who celebrate them? In what international law is the right to death threats from Hamas triangles on our homes and doors? Under what laws can Jewish children be attacked? And by what law can the world judge Jews more harshly than the criminals in Yemen and Syria? Our attitude must be clear: No anti-Semitism, not even here under the pretext of criticism of Israel. As long as I'm politically active, I'll stay true to it. And I expect everyone here to do the same.

Mr President, dear colleagues, do you remember the spirit of Belarusian uprising? The many people who dared to stand up, to go to the streets and to say that they were fed up with manipulations and falsifications of Lukashenka's regime. The wonderful women, our laureates of the Sakharov Prize, who exemplified hope. Now, the hope is gone for so many in and outside of Belarus. Two of the women – our laureates – are in exile. Another one is in prison. Her fate – the fate of a brave and patriotic protester who refused to be deported from her country – is one of the motivations for this resolution. Maria Kalesnikava is denied contact with her family. Nobody knows about her situation. She is most probably sick, but probably still alive – probably, not surely. But she is just one of many who are isolated, arbitrarily imprisoned, denied health care. Some names representative of the 1 355 political prisoners of Belarus are mentioned in our resolution. But there are two more reasons why this resolution is important for us, why this resolution is important for me personally. One is an apology. We, the Western countries, owe an apology to you, dear Belarusians. I know how much it hurt to see that during the recent prisoner exchange, that involved the Belarusian dictator, no Belarusian democrats were freed. This is frankly a big mistake, our mistake, and this mistake must be corrected by redoubling efforts to free the Belarusian prisoners in the future. This is also what our resolution says. The third reason is the fate of the Belarusian political diaspora. We must do our utmost to address their needs – and there are plenty of them, specifically in the European Union – make it possible and safe for them to stay here and to get documents, provisional passports for those who are denied their own passports by their own country. These are our duties. These are our duties to you, dear Belarus. Zhyve Belarus!

Mr President, ever since Russia launched its brutal attack on Ukraine, all what Ukrainians want is peace. All that we want is peace. All that all the Europeans want is peace. For this vision of peace, for freedom from Russian bombs against children's hospitals, for freedom from Russian missiles against electricity infrastructure, for freedom to determine what kind of passports you and your kids want to carry, for freedom from murder, torture and rape. For all this, we support Ukraine in its defence. Ukrainians did not break peace and we do not break peace when we help them. It is the peace we long for. It is the peace they long for. But this defence is not for free. It is our common European project and we must own it. We must finance it. It is unfortunate that my own country, Germany, is sending counterproductive signals. It recently announced to reduce financial aid for military assistance to Ukraine by half in the state budget for next year. No, there is no magic trick. There are no magic Russian assets that will help us to finance Ukraine. A well of endless resources that we will be able to use to help Ukraine. We must be honest with ourselves and with our citizens. We must own the project of Ukraine support. There is no time for hesitation or reluctance because winter is coming. To survive this winter, Ukrainians need energy infrastructure. They need it because Russia has been systematically destroying the infrastructure for months and now years. Over 14 million people in Ukraine are already in humanitarian need, and we need to think mid term and long term. Let's give Ukraine a perspective, let's integrate it into our European defence industry program that we will be creating here in this Parliament already now, so that Ukraine will not face another attack in two, three or five years. This is also our responsibility.

Dear colleagues, dear citizens, but, in the first place, dear Ukrainians ... It is more than symbolic that the first statement on the second day of this legislative term is about our support for Ukraine. I remember negotiating our first resolution, immediately after the full-fledged assault of Russia against Ukraine in 2022, with many of you. That was a moment of unity, of our unity, European understanding of what it is all about now, a moment when the main pro-European parties all sat down together in this House and realised Europe also means responsibility for our common future and solidarity with our neighbours, especially with Ukrainians. Ever since, we have been standing firmly on the side of Ukraine, firmly on the side of international law and peaceful European order. The past elections changed nothing on this position. Anyone who states otherwise has to explain to us how else we could secure peace, international rules, humanity on our continent, if not by supporting Ukraine. Our support must be effective, though. The time for speeches is over. If we don’t want Russia to destroy the last pieces of Ukrainian infrastructure, we have to invest more in effective ammunition, defence systems, jets that would enable Ukraine to defend its air space. False patriots are talking about escalations. We just saw a children’s hospital destroyed, and this was not the first time children’s hospitals, maternity clinics, theatres full of civilians were destroyed. We are not escalating here! It is Putin who is escalated! And we have to enable Ukrainians to defend themselves! One more thing we have to enable for them is to become part of our European family, and this is the role for this Parliament. We have already started our bilateral meetings with the Rada on how to make accession for Ukraine possible. We will continue. These upcoming five years will be instrumental on our joint path to freedom for Ukraine and to Europe for Ukraine.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, I'm incredibly relieved. The decision of the US Congress to put together another very large aid package for Ukraine is a glimmer of hope for the country and for all of us. Many of us now also want to use the Russian assets stored in the EU to support Ukraine. The question is: How do we do it in a way that is legally and politically justifiable? This house created a basis a few months ago for confiscating private assets of Russian oligarchs in a wise and legally secure manner. Now we should proceed similarly wisely and in accordance with the rule of law. This means three things: We fully support the Council's decision to transfer interest income on frozen assets to Ukraine. But then they really have to be forwarded to Ukraine. We are by no means obstructing our search for a suitable way to use Russian state assets legally. Until such time as this solution is found, the following shall apply: The Russian state assets must remain frozen until all damage caused by Russia has been paid for. These are already registered. In the future, a tribunal will decide on these claims. Until then, our role is to explain to our citizens that we have to pay for Ukraine and stand with Ukraine financially.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. I often talk to people fleeing from Russia, but of course also from Ukraine; And they wonder. You ask me – and many of you too: How can it be that we have fled Putin's propaganda and yet end up with Putin's propaganda? Not somewhere, but in Germany, in Europe. What is happening here is not an isolated case. It's no coincidence either. This is not an isolated derailment of a single Member of Parliament. No, this is a natural, ideological closeness to a government that has declared us – Europe – and our democracies to be enemies. That closeness is the problem. This proximity is isolated on the left, and this proximity is very much on the right, with the right-wing radicals in this hall. When Russia started this war – the latest war – I wrote: We must not only defend Ukraine, but also deputize ourselves. It is time to deputise ourselves – and citizens have the greatest responsibility and opportunity to do so in their choice. Dear citizens, through your decisions, through your decisions, you can help ensure that the enemies of democracy no longer sit in this Parliament next time, but only friends of democracy – from different parties, but from democratic and anti-Putin parties. This is your chance.

Madam President, colleagues, it’s not a matter of politeness. For many people in Ukraine and in Russia, it’s a matter of survival. What we’re talking about here is not elections. It’s a mockery of choice that we’ve been experiencing for the past months and witnessing for the past months in Russia. An election campaign made by the Kremlin – made that political opponents were killed. Also, some of us who are friends with them, or some of us who gave them prizes, have witnessed that. The political campaign made in the Kremlin meant that some few authentic opposition candidates were disqualified for no reasons, and it meant that people in occupied territories in Ukraine were not just killed and tortured – they were at gunpoint subjugated under a new occupier tsar. We already witness the fallout of this travesty of elections: Ukraine terrorised even more and Russians controlled even tighter. Under those circumstances, our answer can be only threefold. The EU should state clearly that these elections were an illegitimate farce. We must urgently increase help for Ukraine so that they don’t have to vote once again under gunpoint. And we do everything to support the courageous Russian opposition and to save those who are in prison for political reasons, like Vladimir Kara-Murza, like Ilya Yashin, like Lilia Chanysheva and many others. This is our duty and this duty we will follow.

Mr President, thank you very much. Thank you, colleagues, and thank you, Commissioner, for discussing this very important issue. I respect the diversity of views and the plurality here, but I think it is important also to base it on facts and on this particular draft. And this draft says – and the Commissioner has emphasised it – this draft is written based on a sincere respect for the national traditions of how civil society is designed in each particular country. This is something that I mentioned before. This is not an attempt to substitute national traditions in this area. Coming from Germany, where vereine – associations – are so dear to our hearts, I would be the last one to try to demolish this system. But we give an additional option, and I think that any European deserves this additional option to also incorporate themselves in a European way. Yes, I agree with my colleague from Renew that compulsory signing of European values is an important point and it has been also incorporated into the draft. Mr Breton, who was here before, mentioned a couple of points. We discussed this in the Legal Affairs Committee. Most of these points are besides the matter. The decision-making is not given to the general assembly, but to the board, as in most NGOs and most associations. And yes, Anna, I agree with you wholeheartedly. This is not the last stop in this journey. We will have to continue because, as I said at the beginning, civil society is not just an add-on, it’s the core of our democracy. If we want to develop our democracy, if we want to make it truly European without disrespect to national traditions, then we need to continue this journey and to strengthen civil society and to go towards a true European civil society. Thank you very much for all the support.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, For years we have been looking for ways to strengthen our European democracy. It is often about defending this democracy against someone, and less and less about making our democracy European. When we met here five years ago, it was clear: It would be about strengthening EU institutions and pushing back authoritarian rulers. But is that all that makes a democracy? Not at all. Democracy is people, democracy lives on its commitment. And where people are committed to our democracy, to our society, something emerges without which our democracy is inconceivable: A free and dynamic civil society. Because no parliament in the world stands alone for democracy – not if this Parliament, not if this Commission is not surrounded by a vibrant and well-protected civil society, is embedded in it. And that's what this is all about. For democracy to flourish, we need a civil society. In order for this democracy to understand itself European, we need a civil society that can organise itself European-wide. I see this when I am travelling in border regions of this Europe – whether here in France or with me in Brandenburg on the border with Poland. But what does this mean that a civil society can become Europeanised? This is where we, the European legislators, and the Commission, bear the responsibility. With this law, with this Commission proposal, we face up to this responsibility. We are resolving the lopsided situation, the legal asymmetry of this EU, according to which we have been able to set up European public limited companies for years, but it is still inconceivable to set up a European NGO. For years it has been possible to establish a European foundation for the production of profits, but not for the common good, not as associations. Hopefully it will be different now. With this proposal, we are giving European civil societies a chance to organise themselves in Europe, to settle freely in Europe, to think in a European way and thus to overcome borders geographically or in their minds. We are not abolishing the national traditions for the establishment of associations – we are complementing them. We say to those engaged: Come, if you want, you can also unite European, already with your foundation set a sign for Europe and for democracy at the same time. We still have a lot to do before we have a European public, European, well-functioning democracy; But we already have a European civil society. Today we give it the visibility it deserves. I would like to thank our dedicated Group staff, our staff and my staff. I thank you, dear shadow rapporteurs, for your commitment and the Commissioner and his House for yours. Above all, however, I would like to thank those who have been campaigning for our democracy for years – despite pressure, despite persecution – who make up this democracy: of our European civil society.

Mr President, colleagues, innovation is always an opportunity, but only if you are able to steer it and you have to do it before it makes you obsolete. You have to steer it in a direction that benefits, not harms, our economy, our society, our humanity. This AI act is our timely attempt to control the future developments before they control us. Yes, this law is weaker than the regulation that we, as this Parliament, have wished. But it is better, much better, than no regulation at all, than an AI Wild West. And in many areas, this law is a pioneer work. Yes, we would have loved to see a complete ban on biometric facial recognition or a comprehensive prohibition of behavioural observation by AI, but the fact that indiscriminate mass surveillance is no more possible, that we have bans like emotion recognition vis-à-vis students and employees, that we introduced fundamental rights assessment, environmental obligations, the regulation of foundational models – all this shows that Europe is a continent that feels the pulse of history, also in the digital age. What is next? Now we need investment and we need support of AI technology made in Europe. This is the next challenge and yes, we are facing it, we are accepting it now.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Many people in the EU wonder how it can be that super yachts of Russian war glorifiers are still being brightly polished in Croatian ports, that many a putinfied oligarch with his crooked private jet flies cheerfully from Nice to Istanbul and back, even though the EU airspace should be closed to Russian aircraft. And all this while people are dying in Ukraine! I remember the discussions we had about it in the shelter in Kyiv when it was only planned, and now the guidelines are there. With the two Directives on the definition of criminal offences and sanctions for breaches of Union restrictive measures and on asset recovery and confiscation, we are creating a long overdue legal framework. And that's not enough! Despite the many legal hurdles, it has become possible that the link to the Russian attack on Ukraine is established, that it is imposed on the Commission to now draw up guidelines on how Member States will use the confiscated values for the reconstruction of Ukraine – because that is the most important thing for us! The purpose of this legislation is to help our Ukrainian friends to help in this terrible humanitarian situation. Once we've done that, we've already done a lot together.

Mr President, 14 years ago, Alexei and myself were riding a bus bringing us back to the Yale University to New Haven. We were discussing prospects for Russian politics. I was sceptical, but Alexei was the one who changed my mind with one simple phrase: we shall convince them if we are able to reach them. This was the essence of his understanding of what it means to be a leader for common good. It was not about exerting benefits, not about serving lobbies. It was about reaching out to his fellow citizens, telling them the truth, believing in them and giving them hope. I don’t have any sentimental relationship to my country of origin, but Alexei and people like him have become my sentiment. People who differ in politics but are united on democracy. People like him and his wife Yulia, who returned to their homeland because they belong to their homeland, to their people, even risking their lives, even losing their lives. People like Vladimir Kara-Murza, who continues speaking the truth despite being poisoned and imprisoned. People like Navalny’s lawyers who continue serving the rights, civil rights and freedom, even though losing them themselves. This resolution is a testimony, a message to those courageous people who believe and don’t give up in despair, even in the face of death. For many of them and for me, Alexei never died. Alexei cannot be killed because you cannot kill hope. And so, Alexei is still alive in my memory, smiling against the sun of New England as we continue our bus ride and discuss about the beautiful future of Russia. And he reminds me again and again in what he believes: we can convince them if we’re able to reach them.

– I am curious to see what the consequences of this statement will be for you. I hope you will bring this initiative to your party, and this will affect not only this youth organisation, but all youth organisations that are observed as far-right in Germany.

– A question also to you, which I have already asked my colleague before: We now get reports about the AfD youth organization from Saxony, which talked about the deportation of the Jews in ghettos and also about anti-Muslim plans during its trip. Doesn't that contradict your ardent appeal to fight anti-Semitism? What conclusions would you draw from this?

Madam President, I would like to start by calling on my colleague: Stop playing different groups against each other! We have mass demonstrations of democrats in Germany, and these are people who stand up for the rights of all. This must not be misused for anti-Israeli political rallies. That's not how we're going to get any further. A Jewish student was kicked into hospital a few days ago, in the middle of Berlin, because he was Jewish and because he did not welcome Israeli-related anti-Semitism. This attack did not come from nothing. There are, of course, many Jewish students at FU, the university where he studies, who are harassed and feel threatened. A Jewish team captain was deposed in South Africa and an Israeli player in Turkey. All this has nothing to do with legitimate concern for Palestinians – all this has to do with 1000 years of hatred against Jews. And so in this House, too, my appeal: Anyone who starts with echauffeured speeches, with obsession and one-sidedness, ends up with hospital-mature beaten Jews on Europe's streets.

Colleague, thanks for these enthusiastic words on anti-Semitism, but how do you react to the new reports that one of the youth organisations of your group, Alternative for Germany, in Saxony was openly discussing bringing Jews, and people of other origins as well, into ghettos? These are the news items coming in right now from Saxony in Germany.

Mr President! Lisa-Maria Kellermayr was a doctor in Austria and is now dead. Not because of a physical influence, but because of bits and bytes, because of words, because of hatred. During the COVID epidemic, she campaigned for vaccinations and harvested a veritable hate avalanche online. She then took her own life out of desperation. People will hate people and that will not change in the future. But network platforms bundle the hate, fuel the hate, and bring it home to us. They make it a business model and make money out of it. For far too long we watched with a naive look. With the DSA, we've taken a right step in the right direction, and with the new AI law, we've also addressed the deepfakes. They must now be flagged when they are generated. And media literacy: It must be strengthened in the same way as civil courage, including online. Let's create a culture of digital civil courage!

Mr President! If in June 400 million people decide how this house works for the next five years, how we relate to our neighbours, then I wish that they form their own opinion beforehand, not the opinion of Putin, Erdoğan or Xi; an opinion based on facts, not deepfakes, hate speech and disinformation. And I hope that in July there will be 720 MEPs here in this Chamber who stand up for the interests of the people in our Union and for human rights and not for the interests of aggressors and imperialists and not for their secret services. We have to wake up from the land of our dreams. We must recognize and combat attempts of espionage and infiltration within our own ranks. This is not child's play and must be done in accordance with the rule of law. Yes, this is a Herculean task, but it is a necessary task, a task for all of us, for all factions, including mine. No, the EU is not at war with Russia, as Russian propaganda portrays it. But Moscow is looking for confrontation with us, and Moscow is trying to do everything possible to influence our decisions and our informational field. Everyone who sees Russian media and follows how I do that knows that. The Kremlin wants to hit the heart of our democracy and destroy our unity and pluralism. And to all those who are involved and who feel addressed now, I say: Shame on you! I have always said that, including at our Group meetings. And if in the current case a colleague is seriously suspected of espionage for a Russian secret service, then we demand and support a complete investigation and call on the authorities in each Member State to investigate. Last but not least: The question of self-discipline is important in this House. This also applies to our political groups, and this applies to each of us. Maximum responsibility and prudence: We owe it to our constituents.

Madam President, This war will never end until Ukraine gains the upper hand. This war will never end until Ukraine is stabilised and strengthened – by us. If we fail, we have all collectively and collectively failed, and we invite Putin to keep going, to our own limits. And to the Putin friends on the right and left, those who are now thinking of peace negotiations, I say: You don't have to read peace letters. Negotiations are always better than war, but only if they strengthen the victim of aggression, do not further torment, empower, do not incapacitate. And so there are three things that apply to us. Firstly: The delivery of military equipment must be reinforced, including Taurus, and also other equipment, which effectively helps Ukrainians. Secondly: We need transparency about the assistance we have received so far. The acrobatics of numbers in Paris and Berlin are embarrassing. Thirdly: We are observed by Moscow and also by Beijing. All Orbán's embarrassing action must stop. And that will be so.

Mr President! It's October '23 and Ukraine is fighting out of last resort on the front lines in the east and south of the country. In Beijing, a social chat with friends takes place. "It is a great pleasure to see you again," said President Putin, who is bombing Ukrainian cities. "Hungary never wanted to oppose Russia", Orbán replies. “Our aim has always been to expand the best contacts.” I read this protocol on the side of the Kremlin, and I seriously wonder: Mr Orbán, you don't have them all anymore. They sell out our European interests. They are paralyzing Europe. They're blackmailing us all. Everyone here in this house and in the capitals of Europe. It's not about gimmicks, it's about the existential interests of our continent! I would also like to say to the Commission: Anyone who gets blackmailed will always get blackmailed. And if the extortion money is still illegal, then even more so. This is another reason why we in the Committee on Legal Affairs will seriously examine the correctness of the action against the Commission.

Mr President, we are mourning for countless Palestinian innocent victims. So many children. So many civilians. We are mourning for Israeli victims of Hamas pogroms. Baked babies, women raped to death again and again. Committed by a criminal organisation now hiding behind Palestinian children. Shooting missiles on Israeli civilian cities. We need to ask ourselves where our responsibility lies, for more humanitarian aid, more pressure on Israel to make this humanitarian aid accessible for more restraint of Israel and more humanitarian law respect. Our responsibility for being too passive in any attempts to reach a durable and just two-state solution. During the last years, our responsibility for tolerating Hamas, a leadership in Gaza with a genocidal ideology, and our responsibility today to help Palestinians, but not by pouring fuel into fire by using unverified figures, with populist TikTok diplomacy, which helps to get more likes rather than more help for Palestinians. We must engage immediately in the region for a durable two-state solution, instead of projecting our own demons on victims of our own European genocides.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, We did not agree with this report. We will not agree with this report either. Why? For two simple reasons: Firstly, I personally do not agree with reports that are eye-wiping, and I do not agree with reports that make civil society the scapegoat of our problems. This report is eye-wiping because it imposes requirements on the NGOs that have been around for a long time. And the Commission has confirmed it several times, even today: The requirements set out in this report have long been set out, for example, in the Financial Regulation. to find. And here we are on the subject of scapegoats: Anyone who stylizes NGOs, which are part of our democracy, as the main evil of corruption, who does not use Qatargate to address corrupt politicians, but instrumentalizes it to denounce our civil society, has not understood the foundations of our democracy. And that is another reason why we will not agree with this report, no matter how softly flushed it is in the end.