What Nicolaus spoke about.

Madam President, Sometimes you wonder what's wrong with the left. We have seen in recent days that Al-Shifa Hospital – as it has been claimed and as you have always denied – was not just a hospital, but a military base. It follows that Hamas has now really broken every humanitarian rule of warfare. And we also saw children's rooms where rockets were stored, etc., etc. If you say there's a massacre here, it's just a lie. The Israelis are doing everything they can to prevent this massacre from taking place. The only massacre we are talking about here is the massacre that Hamas committed against the Israelis. That is, you invoke humanitarian reasons here, but do not recognize that Hamas has long and repeatedly broken all humanitarian rules of warfare. That application must therefore be rejected.

Madam President, We all know that Israel has been attacked, and we all know that the Gaza Strip is a densely populated area. So if you're saying that Israel shouldn't intervene militarily there, why not explain how to defeat Hamas terror if you don't intervene there? We know they are populated areas. The Israelis give the Palestinians living there the opportunity, so to speak, to get away from an attack – which is quite right – but give a solution to how to resolve this conflict when Israel is facing a terrorist regime here. You can't do that, you don't want that, and all your assertions that we need humanitarian solutions here that have been violated by Hamas. So stop talking about humanitarian rules and international martial law when we're dealing with terrorists here. That's all nonsense, that's all obfuscation you're doing. And it's really a shame how you behave here!

. – Madam President, Commissioner! Today we are once again talking about the rule of law, this time surprisingly not about the rule of law in Hungary or Poland, but about the rule of law in Spain. As I have said here many times, I am not a friend of these debates. What laws Member States adopt is primarily up to them. But imagine if the Polish or Hungarian government had decided to significantly reduce the penalties for sex crimes. The outrage of the Left, the Greens, the Socialists and the Liberals would be without borders. Hungary and Poland would have been accused of structural violence against women, of recession in the darkest of times, and they would certainly have demanded an Article 7 procedure and severe financial sanctions. Now we have exactly this situation in Spain. However, here the reduction of penalties for sex crimes comes from the socialist government. More than 200 convicted sex offenders have benefited from the new regulation. Their penalties have been drastically reduced. Many of them are free again. What this means for the victims, anyone can imagine. But the socialist government not only has a heart for sex offenders, it also has a heart for criminals who misappropriate public funds: Here, too, the penalties have been drastically reduced. In this respect, too, it must be said: Had the Poles or Hungarians enacted such a law, the outcry of the left parties would have been huge, and the Commission, it is certain, would have immediately frozen all funds. But now it is Spain, and then the laws come from the socialists. As far as corruption and embezzlement are concerned, they are setting new standards here in Parliament as well. We should recapitulate: By the way, it is not the colleagues of PiS or Fidesz who have taken money from the Qataris, but exclusively socialists. The Commission and the colleagues of the Left parties now have a serious problem: If they take the protection of women and the fight against corruption and embezzlement seriously, they would have to take action against Spain. If they do not, they make it clear that the protection of the rule of law depends on whether or not an EU-friendly government is in power in the country.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. So now we have a massive increase in respiratory diseases and at the same time a lack of medication. A colleague asked earlier whether the EU Commission had actually learned nothing from the pandemic. And the answer is no. The EU Commission has actually learned nothing. You have to say: Unfortunately, as always. The European Commission always promises that only it can solve the big, EU-wide problems. But when it comes to such problems, it shows again and again: The EU Commission is unprepared, unorganised and, unfortunately, often unsuspecting. This was the case with COVID and the headless organisation of vaccinations. This is the case with the Ukraine war, this is the case with inflation, and this is of course also the case with the energy crisis. So now we're on respiratory diseases. It has always been one of the EU's great promises that it will promote the well-being of its citizens, not just prosperity. Now we see: In more and more areas, it does nothing for the well-being of the citizens, but undermines prosperity and now also physical health. Commissioner, if the European Commission does not at some point begin to deliver on its promises, then one must ask oneself: Why are you still in this store?

Madam President, I was in my 20s when I read the book. Robert Conquest was the first historian to raise public awareness of Stalin's hunger war against Ukraine. According to his estimate, around 12 million people died of hunger or hunger-related diseases in the early 1930s. As is customary among historians, the number of deaths has long been disputed. Today, the experts expect about six million. But it doesn't make crime any smaller. There is also debate over whether the Holodomor was a genocide or ‘only’ the elimination of domestic opponents. The genocide assumption is supported by the fact that the starvation terror was directed primarily against the Ukrainians, i.e. had an ethnic component. This is countered by the fact that 1.5 million Kazakhs and other ethnic groups were also affected and that Ukraine was hit precisely because the peasantry there vehemently opposed collectivisation. Both sides have good arguments, but this debate is not for politicians, it is for historians, and therefore this House is also the wrong place for such discussions. Instead of talking about the pros and cons of genocide, we should focus on something else: Socialism kills, whether in the national or international variant. Socialism is always criminal. It always causes corruption, favouritism and the purchase of offices, as we are witnessing again and again. Socialism is always the opposite of justice, and it is more murderous than any nationalism has ever been. Socialism is the enemy of free travel, free choice of profession, freedom of belief and conscience. He is the enemy of free speech. Socialism is a mistake, and those who still follow it today are morally depraved. If we can agree on such a resolution, I would like to support it.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, In the United Nations Annual Report on the Situation of Ethnic, National, Religious or Linguistic Minorities, one thing is striking: The situation of these minorities is problematic in China, Pakistan, India, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Sri Lanka, Myanmar as well as in almost all Arab and African countries. European countries are conspicuously absent from the report. While it is noted that Roma have suffered excessively from COVID, not even the UN report can see this as state discrimination. Contrary to what left-wing parties here in the House claim on every occasion, the situation of minorities in Europe seems to be exceptionally good. However, it is different, as the UN report says, with the situation of Christians and Jews in almost all non-Western parts of the world. They are being discriminated against, persecuted and killed everywhere. Unfortunately, the majority of people in the house don't want to know about it. She is almost compulsively refusing to even talk about the issue, as in the November plenary session, when you did not want the persecution of Christians to be on the agenda. Anyone who voted against inclusion on the agenda at the time, but now complains of discrimination against minorities, is a hypocrite. Dear colleagues here from the entire left bloc, this is especially true for you. One has the impression that when it comes to these questions, not only six socialists have been bribed by Qatar, but the whole left half of the house here. That they now want to talk about minority rights at Christmas, but consistently deny the rights of the largest persecuted minority in years, is a single disgrace.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. Last week I was at the Conference of Presidents, where Commissioner Šefčovič spoke, among other things, about the problems with Great Britain. The term ‘framework agreement’ was used 50 times. Commissioner Hahn, this goes to your address and please pass it on to your colleague Šefčovič: Our framework agreement with European states is fundamental rights and freedom of the press, and after that you should finally act. Julian Assange has been in a British maximum security prison for three years, along with the worst criminals. Julian Assange is not convicted. There is not even a trial. If his wife and two young children want to visit him, she and the children must also undergo the most degrading body searches. Commissioner Hahn, have your wife and children ever been fooled by prison staff and sniffed by dogs? Assange did what the media had to do. He has published what other people don't want to read. Assange is not a criminal, but a publicist and editor-in-chief. If what has been happening to Assange for years were to happen in Poland or Hungary, this would be a major alarm – and rightly so. Assange is our framework agreement. His case is more important than customs barriers or fish rights. That's why you're finally putting Julian Assange's release on your agenda. Otherwise, when it comes to journalist rights, you shouldn't complain about anything here either.

Mr President! Not only do we have a problem with corrupt MEPs here, we also have a problem with corrupt NGOs, as this case makes clear. One of the detainees was the founder of the NGO Fight Impunity, another secretary general of No Peace Without Justice. Both NGOs had – as in practice – the same address. It is precisely these structures that are the gateway to all kinds of corruption. It is not without reason that Interpol warns that NGOs are increasingly used for money laundering. And German constitutional protection points out that Qatar, as well as other European countries, systematically finance left-wing NGOs to destabilise Europe – through migration, demilitarisation, travel opportunities for Islamists and hate preachers. Corruption is a permanent problem in this House because there is no political control. As long as the left majority Bureau and committees as closed shop This will not change if it is dealt with and not granted a seat to all political groups.

Mr President, Commissioner! Mr Weber! Mr Marquardt obviously did not like your speech - I liked it. It is precisely the proposals that the AfD has been making for years. And I also understand why you gave this speech – let me finish. They come from Bavaria, and in Bavaria it is the same as in all federal states now: The asylum centers are full, the cities and communities are asking for help. They say: We can no longer, our container villages are full, we no longer know where to go with the migrants. The same is true in North Rhine-Westphalia and other countries. In NRW, the mayors – many social democratic mayors – have just made an appeal to the federal government to help them because they no longer know where to go. And that's why all appeals for solidarity are pointless: When people run out of opportunities and costs go through the roof, you can't ask for more solidarity. I can't do that. And here in the room there is a large pink elephant, which above all the Social Democrats do not want to address; You have already done so – that is the Danish asylum and migration policy. The Danish Social Democrats have said very clearly that they no longer want immigration; Their clear goal is remigration, asylum only exists in exceptional cases, and asylum camps are to be set up abroad, where every asylum application is examined first before you can enter Europe. Basically, you've already suggested that, and that's the way to go. There are, of course, reasons why the Social Democrats, like Mrs Bischoff here, have been silent about this Danish solution for months or years. Nevertheless, this House should be more concerned with this political action by the Danes.

Madam President, We are talking about the human rights situation in Qatar. Seriously? Qatar is an Islamic state. It has been known for decades that there is no equality, no free elections, no multi-party systems, no trade unions, no freedom of religion, no freedom of expression and pitiful working conditions, and that homosexuals there must fear for their lives. But whenever one wanted to address such conditions as prevail in almost all Islamic countries and unfortunately also more and more in European, here in Parliament, Greens, Leftists, Socialists and Liberals shouted that this was Islamophobic and cultural hegemony, and in general the Europeans should restrain themselves with their structural racism, which allegedly prevails everywhere. Did you forget all this? Now at the World Cup you finally find the courage to address these conditions. Are you all Islamophobic? Do you like Western cultural hegemony? I don't need cultural hegemony. It is only important to me that our values apply here. Other peoples should do and leave what they want, but not here, as many of you often demand. Criticism of Qatar is pure hypocrisy. When in Rome, act like the Romans: We should also allow Qatar to do so. But it is much more important that we finally demand it here in Europe.

Madam President, Commissioner! In order to appreciate this discussion, you have to look at the critics. This is especially true for Mr Körner, who is a member of the FDP, and the FDP is now almost synonymous with purchaseability in Germany: This starts with the VAT reductions for hoteliers and does not end with the e-fuels for Porsche. Mr Freund from the Greens, on the other hand, says with a lot of pathos: No tax money for autocrats in the EU. But for left-wing NGOs, of course, all tax money is always available in sufficient quantities – even if Interpol now warns that many of these NGOs are nothing more than money laundering companies. I also believe that there is a lot to improve in Hungary and that we should not always give too large amounts to corrupt countries. But you have to see that the main problem is that the EU is just throwing money around and taking in more and more money. I think we should start there: If the budgets of the EU were to be cut significantly, corruption would also fall significantly.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. When I saw the issue – whitewashing of the extreme and anti-European parties – I thought to myself: Who but the left can put such nonsense on the agenda? But I am actually happy about the debate, because it shows that the left also sees what we all see now. The left worldview, the left cultural hegemony breaks down: in Sweden, in Italy, in Hungary, of course in Poland – but also in France, it is on the verge of doing so. The election results show it clearly. It is precisely these election results that are the reason why we are holding this debate here today, if it is a debate at all. It is only a matter of defaming right-wing parties, conservative parties, without having any arguments for it. But you should take note: People don't want left-wing hegemony anymore. They have had enough of open borders and imported crime, they have had enough of gender and wokeness, they have had enough of excessive minority rights and they want affordable energy and no deindustrialization. Green Deal. The Danish Social Democrats, by the way, understood this a while ago when they were clearly restricting immigration. The Swedish Social Democrats have also done so, albeit too late. Are they all fascists? Perhaps before the next European elections, the left should think about how it is approaching the reality and the needs of the people a little bit. Otherwise, but this would also be welcome, we will have significantly fewer leftists here in Parliament soon after the next election.

Mr President, Commissioner! It's always the same game. We are getting more and more refugees, and you are appearing here and always telling the same nonsense about above all. The truth is: You really don't have anything under control anymore. Schengen and the promise that external borders will be protected have clearly failed. Mass immigration is currently taking place, not only from Ukraine, but also from India, Burundi and Tunisia. We now have a refugee catastrophe or the refugee numbers of 2015, and there were many promises that this will never be the case again. But Ms Johansson, you'd better look into your phone, that's right, because you'd hear the truth here. So maybe you look up, then you'd learn something. You are talking about labour market integration. That, too, is a lie. We see everywhere in all European countries that people simply do not allow themselves to be integrated and only take what brings them money from the labour market integration measures. So in this respect: Think about it, you have completely failed, and draw the conclusions from it.

Mr President! Today it is about the influence of Putin's Western accomplices and how this influence can be stopped. That certainly makes sense. Putin was a criminal even before the invasion of Ukraine. The murders of Boris Nemtsov, Anna Politkovskaya or Stanislav Markelov speak an overly clear language, as well as the inexplicable tendency of many Russian oppositionists to plunge themselves into death from a great height. But who are Putin's accomplices in Europe? Angela Merkel, who, with the support of all her partisans here in Parliament and in the German Bundestag, brought Germany into dependence on Russian natural gas? Ex-Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, who started the gas business and called Putin a flawless Democrat? The entire Social Democratic Party of Germany, which actively supported Gerhard Schröder's course for years? Or does the Left Party belong to Putin's accomplices? After all, The Left and its predecessor parties have always been paid by Moscow, and even recently The Left addressed devotion addresses to the Kremlin. Most likely, Greenpeace is also one of Putin's accomplices. This is what NATO claims. NATO is certain that Greenpeace has received funds from Russia to fight fracking. And anyone who has read the extremely pro-Russian anti-Ukrainian article that Greenpeace recently had to delete after sharp protests can actually come to the idea that Greenpeace is also one of Putin's accomplices. Perhaps Fridays for Future and Greta Thunberg will also be funded by Putin. At least that's what Hillary Clinton meant some time ago, and Clinton is now truly no one from the right spectrum. The aforementioned Angela Merkel has also made this assumption. Merkel said it was completely ruled out that out of nowhere and without massive financial support, a large anti-Western movement could emerge. So when it invited Greta Thunberg, did the European Parliament court an accomplice of Putin? You see, I really want to know who Putin's accomplices are. The issue is too important to be misused for partisan purposes. So let's look closely, but please objectively and in all directions.

Madam President, thank you very much! We see illegal annexations, we see mobilization, we hear the threat of the use of nuclear weapons. Russia's war against Ukraine has entered a new phase. If the EU wants to continue to be taken seriously, it must find an answer. And this must be more than useless sanctions, which primarily harm their own countries. But it is not only the Russian-Ukrainian war that threatens us. An unprecedented act of piracy against supply infrastructure, against Nord Stream 1 and 2, has also demonstrated Europe's vulnerability. Strangely enough, this does not seem to be an issue here. Everyone takes it as shrugging as if it doesn't matter that one of the essential gas pipes has been damaged here. Who was the culprit? The following evidence is beyond question. Firstly: U.S. units are currently crossing the Baltic Sea. Secondly: U.S. military helicopters from Gdansk were in the air where the attack happened, according to satellite footage just before the attack. The US president had announced that he would prevent the commissioning of Nord Stream 2 in any case. After the attacks, US Secretary of State Blinken did not condemn these acts of piracy, but welcomed them as a great opportunity to sell liquefied natural gas to Europe. And former Polish Foreign Minister Sikorski, a member of this Parliament, publicly thanked the Americans in a tweet for the attacks. Who can be the perpetrators? For most media it is clear: It was Putin. However, this only says a lot about journalism, just as plausible as perpetrators are North Korea, Iran or Greta Thunberg. The European Commission should look very, very closely here, and we have already submitted a request for clarification, and it will be interesting to see which of you supports this request. This attack, which must be clear to everyone, has the potential not only to tear NATO apart, but also the EU.

Madam President, Commissioner, honourable Members! Hungary again. However, the Commission cannot really put forward against Hungary, as we have just heard, something that could not be put forward against other countries. Because also in Germany, France, Austria, Spain or especially Malta, the rule of law has come to the dog. Freedom of expression is under threat, the rule of law is under threat, and corruption is a problem everywhere. But strangely enough, these countries have no problem with the Commission, because they do not have a conservative government either, and only conservative governments are filthy and covered with Article 7 procedures by this Parliament and also by the Commission. In Germany, we have always had the highest approval of the EU. It is falling dramatically, even in other countries. What's that for? I think it is also due to such proceedings as against Hungary. We see that people just don't feel like everlasting interference anymore. And when we talk about meddling here, it is in particular about such arrogant meddling, as Mrs von der Leyen showed just before the Italian elections. The receipt came immediately. We are seeing the same thing in Hungary. Especially Mrs von der Leyen, an unelected, democratically unlegitimate person, has the forehead to call the Prime Minister, who has just been re-elected by the Hungarians with the applause of many MPs, an electoral autocrat here. One really wonders if you all still know the rules of democracy. I think people have had enough of these interferences, they also have had enough of these somewhat pointless procedures that never come to an end anyway. They are suffering from the energy crisis, they are suffering from migration, they are suffering from deindustrialisation, especially from Germany. I know you're grinning about it, but she'll catch it soon, too. And I think that instead of getting upset about Hungary, we should rather deal with people's serious problems.

Mr President! Today we are talking about the Fundamental Rights Report 2022. This was originally my report. I had become rapporteur on the random system of d'Hondt, much to the annoyance of my esteemed colleagues. Because the situation of fundamental rights in Germany has come to the dog, but Germany is never criticized as the largest net contributor to the EU, I had focused my report on the German deficits of the rule of law: the scandalous influence of politics on the appointment of judges, on the political dependencies of prosecutors, on the massive violations of fundamental rights in the wake of the COVID crisis, on the instrumentalisation of the secret service to combat political competition and on the problems of the state-controlled media. Many of these are problems that this Parliament has repeatedly sharply criticised in Hungary and Poland. However, these problems also exist in Germany – and that they exist, I had documented in detail with numerous examples. My colleagues, however, did not want to know anything about all this. They didn't even want to explain these questions. Instead of entering the usual discussion procedure, they refused. Not a single meeting took place. Instead, my colleagues drafted some 400 amendments in secret meetings. There was not a single word left of my report, again: Not a single word left. I have therefore withdrawn my name, because this report is no longer my report. The procedure says everything about the state of democracy in this House. You don't want to argue, you want to dictate. You don't want democratic debate, you want Chinese relations. You don't want to seek the truth, you just want to demonstrate your little rachitic power. Responsible for this anti-democratic clown theatre are the people who usually talk about democratic values on every occasion, namely Sophie in 't Veld, Birgit Sippel, Vladimír Bilčík, Sergey Lagodinsky, Tineke Strik and a few others who are so insignificant intellectually and characterly that I don't even know their names. Dear colleagues, you are all pathetic hypocrites. They don't care about democratic values. What you showed was the Communist Politburo's procedural tricks. Their behavior was unworthy of democracy. Unfortunately, the problems of the rule of law in Germany are no longer mentioned. In Germany, independent journalists are being driven out of the country. Doctors who oppose vaccinations receive a visit from the state police at 4 a.m. in the morning, and the same happens to judges who called lockdown measures unconstitutional in their rulings. Germany is in a miserable state under the rule of law. But so is this Parliament. A collection of anti-democratic hypocrites should decide on the rule of law. This is a joke, and this report is also a joke.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. Hungary again today: There, the situation of the rule of law, but especially the situation of the press, is worrying. However, this debate is not without joke, because just yesterday the respected Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung criticized the one-sidedness of the EU Commission. In France, according to the newspaper, ‘major industrialists bought up the press’ in order to use it as an instrument of power. Mr Reynders, this has been the case for years, you should know that. What does the Commission do? Nothing. In Germany, public broadcasters have just had to admit that they have political filters in favour of the government. Commission response: I haven't heard one yet. Mr. Reynders, you should look into this in the future. This is exactly what you criticize in Hungary. Only Hungary is criticized. Clearly, Hungary does not have a left-wing president or a left-wing government. The problem is not Hungary. The problem is the EU – its one-sidedness, its left-wingness, its unwillingness to take action against large countries such as Germany or France. I'm worried about some things about Hungary, but as long as you don't give up your one-sidedness, this whole debate here is for the cat.

Madam President, Today we are talking about the Eastern Partnership in terms of security and defence policy. But in fact, the desperation grips you when you read these motions. There really isn't a single proposal left in this house that isn't cluttered by left-green flower dreams. Actually, as I said, it's about security and defence policy. But the motion also deals with civil society, alleged fight against disinformation and, of course, saving the climate. They want to set up a climate fund. But what does a climate fund have to do with security and defence policy? And then, of course, there are calls for immediate oil and gas embargoes on Russia and the immediate EU and NATO partnership with Georgia, Moldova and so on and so on. One really wonders if at some point you will take Russian interests into account in some way. I am absolutely no friend of Putin, but one can already understand that as little as the US probably wants Russian troops on the Canadian border, so little do the Russians want American troops on the Ukrainian-Russian border. And one should take note of this at some point. This is not a resolution on security partnership; this is a resolution on the Uncertainty Partnership and should therefore be rejected.

Mr President, Madam President of the Commission! I am grateful to the Commission for releasing the money from the Reconstruction Fund for Poland, even though it is mostly German money. But the release of funds is a good sign, because it is a sign that we have a bit more common sense again, at least in the Commission, because Poland has not actually promised anything, it has defended its sovereignty against the leftist patronage from Brussels. In any case, it was never possible to understand why the politically arbitrary appointment of judges in Germany is completely unproblematic, but leads to Article 7 proceedings in Poland. So: Poland has won a full negotiation victory, even if you don't want to admit it. But the times are such that there is little room for the left flower dreams and that one should rather look at the real-political specifications. And Poland has not only defended Europe in the time of the thousands of Afghan refugees who stood on the Belarusian-Polish border, but Poland is also now doing essential things for the security of Europe. And for that we should be grateful and not constantly overwhelm the PiS government with new procedures.

Madam President, Commissioner! It is not often that I praise political opponents, but Mr Amor, your report is really good. Turkey has so far received €8.3 billion from the Accession Fund and the result is more than unsatisfactory. But I hear the Commission's words again: Yes, Turkey is an important partner, and we need to have a high-level dialogue, and then there will be further investment. One really wonders how long it should go on like this. What Mr Lagodinsky said is also true – we hear that every year: There are always reports about Turkey, and every year it gets worse. We have the oppression of opposition and minorities, we have the erosion of fundamental rights – especially among women – we have a completely politicised judiciary with absurd criminal proceedings against regime critics, we have rampant corruption, no will to reform, money laundering, oligarchic structures, terrorist financing, and the freedom of the press is highly endangered, and there is also harsh homophobia. So honestly: What else does it take to draw the right conclusions from it at some point? We talk about Poland and Hungary at every plenary session, but compared to Turkey, these two countries are paradises of freedom, civil rights, functioning justice and the press. Turkey is an important partner, but probably not an important partner within the EU – at least not under Erdoğan. We should take note of this at some point and as long as Erdoğan is there, definitely stop the accession negotiations and do not transfer any further funds to Turkey.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen. We often talk here about topics that are literally far from the European citizen – then we should also find the time to talk about a topic that is now burning more and more on the citizens' nails, because hardly any citizen knows how to actually finance the rising prices and, above all, his life and that of his family. And that is why, on behalf of the ID Group, I am asking that we supplement the agenda and, on Wednesday, as the second item after the two votes, discuss the fiscal and monetary policy options of the Union and also how perhaps the Union itself is contributing to this inflation and inflation. The motion has already been on the COP table several times, but today I am building on your agreement.

Mr President! Dear colleagues! Dear guests from Ukraine! War crimes are, of course, inexcusable, and they must also be clarified, regardless of where they were committed – whether in Butsha, Mariupol or Kharkiv – and regardless of which side they were committed by, and of course regardless of whether the perpetrators were regular soldiers, mercenaries or militiamen. That is why we support every enlightenment. However, the misery of this request is: It mixes the necessary demand for information and punishment of the perpetrators with demands for sanctions, which will harm Europe in particular. One has nothing to do with the other. It is an abuse of war crimes for enforcing an idiotic political agenda. Moreover, the EU is not and should never be responsible for the investigation of war crimes. Independent courts should do that, and we have an International Court of Justice in The Hague that should do just that. As much as we support the investigation of war crimes, we reject their instrumentalisation in favour of sanctions and an expansion of EU competences. That is the only reason why we are voting against this motion.

Madam President, Madam Reintke! Actually, the Spanish colleague who works in the Committee on Petitions has already said everything about your report, namely: We are not credible if we only accuse governments of a certain color of violations of the rule of law. The same is true in the report: It's just about Poland and Hungary. And then you move on to such absurd formulations as: “None of the criteria constituting a democracy would be met”. So we just had elections in both countries. Of course, we also have courts, we have parliaments, we have separation of powers. And if you always think that the appointment of judges in these countries is undemocratic, then I would like to point out to you how things are going in Germany – only with the difference that in Germany also the prosecutors are not independent, but bound by instructions. However, it becomes particularly absurd if you accuse increasing anti-Semitism. I believe that in Warsaw and Budapest you can walk around with the Kippa; This may be significantly different in Molenbeek, but especially in Neukölln in Berlin, for example. There's just this American Jewish Center Berlin points out that anti-Semitism is strongly rooted in Muslims in particular and that Muslims are the main source of anti-Semitism in Germany. Perhaps you will also dedicate yourself to this topic, then the Rule of Law Report would also become a bit more meaningful and true. The way he is now, you can only kick him in the barrel. I agree with the verdict of my esteemed Spanish colleague: You are not credible, and your report is not at all!

Madam President, Of course, the war in Ukraine also means a lot of suffering for women. I don't want to downplay that. But if here Mrs Charanzová – I think the correct name is – says: Women are the biggest victims of war, then that's just fake news and stupidity. In Ukraine, men are fighting, not women. Men are torn by grenades, torn by bullets, mutilated by mines, not women. Men die in the field, in the defense of Kiev, in the steelworks of Mariupol, not women. Men defend the freedom of Ukraine and, by the way, the freedom of women. Women don't do that. These men didn't want war. They didn't want all the misery, the suffering. But they bear the brunt of the war, not women. Here, however, it is pretended that women are the main sufferers. That's really, you have to be clear: That's grotesque. And instead of talking every time about women and housing and abortion rights and the like, you should think about what we can finally do for the heroic fighters in Kiev and Mariupol, because here almost nothing is done for them. You should finally be debating this. (The speaker agreed to respond to an intervention under the blue card procedure)