What Nicolaus spoke about.

Mr President! Just a little hint: Having already welcomed the Italian Prime Minister today, I would just like to point out to the House that today we also have numerous members of the Bundestag and of the German state parliaments at the top of the visitors' gallery, which we should welcome.

Madam President, Well, if I look at the seats like this, then the interest in journalism doesn't seem to be that huge. I have worked in journalism for over 20 years. The paper I worked for was itself the target of numerous SLAPP processes. I witnessed our colleagues being carried to their graves because they were shot in war zones, and these attacks were deliberately carried out in order to suppress journalism. But you should be on Freedom day Journalism also discusses the problems that journalism has. We all know how important it is for democracy and for informing people. But we should also point out what threatens journalism. And journalism is also endangering the legislative proposals that come from this House. When I read that attempts are being made to suppress hatespeech and disinformation, but – I myself am in the Committee on Internal Affairs – to this day have not yet been able to define what hatespeech and disinformation are supposed to be in detail, then we are embarking on a very steep track, on a steep path that ends in censorship. Because the one who has the power to say what disinformation is can determine journalism or even choke it off. And when I see in committees that any criticism of gender or migration is immediately branded as disinformation, and when I see Commission President von der Leyen calling criticism of her vaccine procurement disinformation – that is disinformation written in all Western newspapers, in Frankfurter Allgemeine, Spiegel, Süddeutsche, in the English newspapers – then one really has to wonder whether the concept of disinformation is not the first step towards censorship. So: We should be very careful. I welcome, of course, that the Commission is trying to at least alleviate the financial problems of journalism. But that, too, is a downhill road. Journalism, which depends on money from the rulers, will not be independent in the long run. Therefore, I can only warn you that you will continue on this path. Honestly, People have been thinking for over 20 years about how to put journalism back on a solid financial platform. None of the many managers have come up with this correctly, but certainly the wrong way is to do it through the government. We should also discuss this at World Freedom Day Think about the press.

Mr President, Commissioner, Madam Rapporteur! The report is indeed good, even if I did not vote in favour for various reasons, but it actually applies only to normal times. The problem is that we are not living in normal times, and Schengen is actually dead. Even the French presidential candidate Valérie Pécresse has said that the demands for open borders, as they stand in the German coalition agreement, basically mean the end of Schengen and must also lead to domestic border controls again. We have just witnessed Mrs Baerbock, the German Foreign Minister, who said: Yes, we have to take in ten million. And Mrs. Faeser, the German Minister of the Interior, says that everyone from Ukraine can come to Germany, regardless of the passport. This means: If a country like Germany opens its borders to Afghans, Africans or anyone who enters via Ukraine, Schengen is dead. Then there's no point in evaluating, and that's why it's a bit abstract what we're talking about here. It has nothing to do with reality.

Madam President, Mr López Aguilar, you said that I probably disagreed, and you are right. They said it was scandalous that we were talking about pushbacks. I find it rather scandalous that Germany has already taken in 20,000 people again – that is the wrong word, but they have definitely come to Germany – about whom we really know nothing at all. We basically have the loss of control that we already had in 2015/2016. And here you really have to ask: Have we learned nothing from the Bataclan attacks? There were also people who came in via Germany, who then carried out these attacks in Paris. So this is not just a theoretical, an abstract danger, it is a current danger. And Germany is just as bad at the moment as it was in 2015/2016. Mr Oetjen, I agree with you. Of course, people must have the right to make an application. This is part of the rule of law. But the rule of law also requires rejected asylum seekers to leave the country at some point. And you know for yourself that we currently have around 300,000 rejected asylum seekers in Germany who would have long been obliged to leave the country. Unfortunately, your party never says that. That is, I find it a bit difficult to talk about non-refoulement here and so when we have people in our state who have been abusing the asylum rules for years and continue to live in Germany, even though they have no right to do so.

Mrs Vollath, I think you understand me. Just one question for your understanding: In your view, is compulsory vaccination, as introduced by Austria, also a violation of fundamental rights? Or do you think that such compulsory vaccinations are covered by the Austrian constitution?

Madam President, Thank you very much, Mr. Glucksmann! They had said that there were many politicians paid by Putin or even those who were his keynote speakers. For once, I agree with you. Yes, that's true. Let me name a few: for example Mélenchon, one of your French colleagues, or Wolfgang Schüssel from the ÖVP or, of course, Gerhard Schröder, the former German Chancellor – SPD – together with Matthias Platzeck, one of the former Prime Ministers of Brandenburg – also SPD – and, of course, Manuela Schwesig, currently Prime Minister of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania – also SPD. The three main lobbyists in Germany for Putin. No, not the three main lobbyists, I forgot a lobbyist. That was Angela Merkel, who has also done everything to bring Germany into energy dependence on Russia, and has ensured that Putin has just the money that this house rightly wants to take from him again. But we don't have to look so far, we can stay here in the house. In December, Martin Schirdewan gave a blazing speech on the Soviet Union and, of course, on the successor state. So if you are looking for a Putin friend, then you can look in the first row here, because there is one sitting there. Fortunately, even if I belong to the AfD, I was never embarrassed to think Putin was a particularly fine person. Politkovskaya, Nemtsov, Skripal, Litvinenko, Grozny, Aleppo, Kadyrov – what else does it take for people to see what Putin is? Nevertheless, many politicians have pilgrimed to Moscow over and over again. I think we should all remember that and verbally disarm everyone a bit. With the exception of probably the Poles and many representatives of the Baltic countries and a few others, far too many had sympathies for Putin for far too long. As long as you don't admit this, this debate remains hopelessly dishonest.

Madam President, I would ask for a point of order under Rule 157 of the Rules of Procedure. At the press briefing on Friday, the S&D group admitted that it only put this issue on the agenda to talk about the election campaign in France and, above all, about Marine Le Pen. This is a clear violation of the House's usual practice of not interfering in current election campaigns. I therefore ask the Bureau to withdraw the floor directly from anyone who now mentions a person or a party from the French election campaign and not to have this contribution published in writing either in the video or later.

Madam President, Mr High Representative! This war is terrible, and if you don't let yourself be touched by the pictures from Butscha or Mariupol, you probably won't be touched by anything. This war must be ended as soon as possible. But these feelings should not overwhelm us. Despite all the understanding of the sanctions packages that have already been adopted here, I have great concerns when I hear that Mr Halicki or Ms Szydło or Mr Gahler are calling for a complete oil and gas embargo. That's so easy to say, but then you should also tell all your voters what that means. It doesn't mean that you just lower the heating by two degrees at home, but it means much more. There are now several studies in Germany by experts who have calculated or thought about what a complete oil and gas embargo would actually mean. It would first mean that the entire petrochemical industry in Germany would immediately come to an end. But if the petrochemical industry fails, plant construction, the automotive industry and the consumer goods industry also come to a standstill, nothing is produced anymore. And this is important: Not only is it coming to a standstill in Germany, but it is also coming to a halt in many other European Member States. That would mean that we immediately have to reckon with several hundred thousand unemployed, the supply industry goes before the dogs. And what that means politically, you should all keep a close eye on it. It predicts a severe recession comparable to the 1929 recession. What this means for Europe, if Germany fails as the engine of the economy, you should all keep a close eye on it. For the Member States, too, this means significantly less money if Germany defaults as a net contributor to the EU. So a total embargo on gas and oil is economic suicide. This embarrassment we are in is unfortunately the legacy of Angela Merkel. But I am in favour of tough sanctions, I am in favour of all arms deliveries to Ukraine in order to help the fighters there. But we should be very careful: Committing economic suicide to help Ukraine is certainly the wrong way.

Madam President, Today we are talking about the consequences of Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine for our food security and thus EU agricultural policy. We were happy with what we never knew – too many subsidies, too much bureaucratic control from Brussels and, of course, far too expensive for the taxpayer. Recently, green lifestyle ideas such as greening or the Farm to Fork strategy have been added. Ladies and gentlemen, it is really a shame that only the war had to open your eyes and that we can only now hope for an end to the policy of rewarding farmers with subsidies for not farming their arable land. For years, the Commission, supported by this House and by many Leftists and Greens, has done everything at national level to make food more expensive. The German Minister of Agriculture – of course a Green – demanded higher food prices in December. Now you and he fear and lament exactly that. How unreliable can you actually become? It took a war for you to finally wake up from your global agricultural dreams, which, as we know today, are irresponsible in terms of security and social policy. Therefore, my request: Reform the agricultural policy. Finally, accept modern production methods! Our amendments are on the table.

Mr President, Commissioner! The protection of workers in the workplace is really an important issue. That is why you would have deserved better than this new so-called framework, which is imbued with ideology and - unfortunately, it has to be said so clearly - nonsense. Three examples: First, climate change is now to blame for an increased number of skin cancers. This is especially true for construction workers. If you go to Southeast Asia, you can also see construction workers working in the greatest heat, wearing hats and woolen scarves. In Germany, the construction workers prefer a bit more liberal. This probably has to do with the ideal of beauty. In Southeast Asia, a white skin is the ideal of beauty, here it is probably different. But seriously: Should the European Parliament now consider whether construction workers are body-free or not? So, folks, if you intervene, we're really going to the nanny state. More ideology: COVID-19 is now also supposed to be an occupational disease. This is surprising at first glance, because COVID-19 not only affected workers, but also older people in particular, but across all sections of the population. One must read the report carefully in order to understand this line of thought at all. Why is COVID-19 now an occupational disease? Because many people had to work at home and therefore reportedly moved less. And that would have an impact on the musculature and the musculoskeletal system. However, this is of course a downright ludicrous circle conclusion, because it was not COVID-19 that led to any occupational disease here, but the lockdown. But this is not to be said, because, of course, the European Parliament and the European Commission have also had such lockdowns for their employees. And you don't want to admit that you may have contributed to occupational diseases here yourself. Whether there are indeed occupational diseases in this sense is also extremely questionable. If you look at the increase in sales of online fitness courses and especially of device manufacturers, you might rather think that there has never been a bigger boom in this sector and that people have moved more than ever before. Third ideological overload of this framework is, of course, the reference – which must never be absent – to alleged sexual violence. Argumentation is here: Because so many people were at home, the drivers of delivery services were also sexually harassed more often. That's clear: The drivers of Über Eats, Amazon Fresh or DHL are known to have an insane amount of time when they come by and are probably the perfect victims of sexual violence for that very reason. So if someone drops off a package for a short time and then immediately vents again – I honestly cannot imagine how there should be any extravagance. But maybe someday there will be a study. In short: Occupational health and safety is an extremely important issue and it is precisely for this reason that European workers deserve better than this study, which is brimming with ideology and stupidity.

Madam President, Mrs Johansson, Mrs Klinkert! They had said that the EU had acted quickly and effectively. Well, putting a directive into effect, so to speak, is not exactly what is meant by quick and effective action. Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Hungary acted quickly and effectively, without asking the EU in detail. Until yesterday, however, the Poles and the Hungarians in particular were still the cold racists for the EU, who allegedly had no heart for refugees. Now Poland alone has taken in 1.2 million refugees. If the U.S. did something similar, it would now be about eight million. When - and that would be a crucial question - is the European Commission actually apologising for this permanent slander against Poland and Hungary? Someday it will be time. It is correct: The Poles, Hungarians, Slovaks and Romanians welcome mainly women and children. The Ukrainians are defending their country. Ukrainian women and children do not want long-term asylum. Most of the time, they are looking for relatives or friends to crawl into. They don't want government benefits either. And that, dear Ms Johansson, is a fundamental difference from other migrants, especially African migrants. Most of them are not refugees – those who move through 30 peaceful countries are no longer refugees – but social migrants who want to immigrate to the welfare systems. They don't want countries like Poland and Hungary, nor do most other countries. The only ones who want them are, I think, you and the European Commission. Unfortunately, these migrants are now blocking reception capacities in many countries, especially in Germany, also in my hometown of Berlin. Berlin now has to create new premises, but can't find them. And why is that the case? Because of your, Mrs Johansson, failed, erroneous, reality-blind migration policy. Hence my appeal: Stop slandering Poland and Hungary for the first time. Second, stop your unfortunate migration policy. And thirdly, Mrs Johansson, it is best to stop yourself. That would be the best thing for the house.

Madam President, Commissioner! Now I just wanted to say something friendly about Mr. Borrell, and then he leaves. That's how it is. But, Mr Borrell – I can still see you up there – you are right: Correct information is the cornerstone of democracy. Unlike many in the INGE committee, however, I have worked as a journalist for a long time and therefore know: Yes, there is false information, accidentally, out of lies, when you are lied to, but also when you are attempting to instrumentalize you. And the main source of this misinformation is usually either the economy or politics. Mr Glucksmann said yes: The main source of information for the propaganda pro Putin was for years Mr. Schroeder, but then also Mrs. Merkel, who also supported and promoted all contracts for gas supplies with Mr. Schroeder, by the way always with the participation of today's EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, who then also ruined the German armed forces at the same time. So: There is always misinformation and propaganda. We have seen this also in the Iraq war, in the refugee crisis, and the antidote to misinformation and propaganda is good journalism. And that's where the problem lies. Today, at least in Germany, we have editors-in-chief who are no longer interested in the truth, but in the attitude of journalists, i.e. in their ideological attitude. The media as the fourth power has largely failed, and that is why there is also a lack of a control body that makes clear what propaganda and what truth is. We have witnessed this in numerous media scandals in Germany, especially in the mirrors by Claas Relotius. The problem is also that the media have less and less funding and therefore can hardly afford good journalism that really researches. I don't know how to solve this problem, but certainly no solution is a Ministry of Truth. Mr. Borrell had said he didn't want a Ministry of Truth. But in fact, the recommendations made here by the INGE Committee go exactly in this direction. You want to set up fact checkers and things like that. But also fact checkers are people who usually have an agenda and are paid by someone, here in doubt then by the EU. And that means: They are also not independent and neutral, but have a certain direction. There are no algorithms that can prove the truth. That is why we can only say: If journalism fails as a source of truth and we no longer allow the free strife of opinions – even opinions that we may not like, even opinions that may be wrong, even opinions that may be financed by foreign powers – then we have a society dominated by censorship, we have a society that is actually Orwell's. 1984 It's the same. We are seeing this in Russia. Russia has passed a disinformation law. This is basically exactly the model of what is threatening here. Many media outlets have stopped working because the work in Russia is currently becoming too dangerous for free journalists. That's exactly what's going to come here if we impose heavy penalties on misinformation. In this respect, Ms Jourová: I disagree with you. INGE is not important. INGE is not only superfluous, but downright dangerous, because we are running into a censorship state with INGE.

Mr President, Commissioner! Shrinking spaces, i.e. shrinking fields of activity for civil societies: This is nothing more than fake news. Especially in Germany, but also in many other countries, the financing increases year after year, so there can be no talk of shrinking space at all. What are Civil Societies? Civil societies are what are usually referred to as NGOs or now in New German as NPOs – non-profit organisations. In fact, there is nothing behind it but lobbyists. And those who talk to people from Europol, as I did recently, have very clear concerns there. They talk about the fact that many NGOs have already been infiltrated by organised crime, and also about the fact that many NGOs serve to launder money. Unfortunately, the European Parliament is not looking into this. Above all, however, NGOs or what is called civil society are a concrete democratic-theoretical problem. At least in Germany it says: ‘All power of the State proceeds from the people.’ It does not say: All state power comes from civil society and lobby groups. This is exactly what happens when the EU, but also the countries, give more and more money to such lobby groups. Therefore, a supposedly shrinking space for civil societies should not be lamented, but expressly welcomed. Civil societies are not, as has been said more often here, a guarantor of democracy, but they are an acute threat, and therefore any funding should be stopped.

. – Mr President, Commissioner, Commissioner! This is a good day, if I can agree with you in large parts. Then this is also a premiere, and I hope that you are now actually implementing what the dear committee has been calling for for a long time. Woman in 't Veld said it: Of course, there are also sensible investment programs, but the problems of corruption, tax evasion, money laundering, but also the rising real estate prices are big problems for the citizens of the respective state. The only thing with which I have a real problem here, although everyone likes it, is the suddenly still quickly patched up clan-like for all Russians. Of course, one wonders: Didn't you know who Putin was? Does the name Politkovskaya tell you anything? Does the name Boris Nemtsov tell you anything? Do the clashes over Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk tell you nothing? Grozny has been bombed, Aleppo has been bombed. And what if we all look at the Russian oligarchs now? What about the African warlords? What about the war criminals? What about the Chinese Communists, the high party officials? And what about the Arab despots who have also bought golden visas everywhere? We say that European values are not for sale. But for me – I am now a lawyer, but I am good – individual responsibility and individual guilt also stand for European values. And I find it extremely problematic that we introduce kinship here. I know this is a difficult story, but we should all think about it again. Otherwise, I welcome this resolution. But I can't make friends with the clan.

Mr President! Of course, violence against women is a problem that should be addressed. However, I would like to draw your attention here to a study by the Bavarian State Criminal Police Office, which has once examined what sexual violence against women – at least in Bavaria – is all about. The results of this study were, firstly: Advertisements of women for sexual assault are taken extraordinarily seriously, and the investigation is always in the hands of women. Second result: In fact, although women led the investigation, in a large part of the cases there was no conviction. Why? Mainly because of evidence problems – statement was against statement. But then there were also numerous denials of testimony by the victims, and numerous cases also took place in the drinking and drug milieu. And then – and I find this an amazing result: About 15% of the cases were false suspicions. And now comes something really important: Indictment of women in these cases: Zero. Knowing the consequences of an accusation of sexual assault is a scandal in its own right. But: No one closes their eyes to sexual violence against women. But one should also protect the men from false accusations. In Germany, the editor-in-chief of Bild-Zeitung has just lost his job. And why? Alleged sexual violence against women. What was it about? It was consensual sex with adult women who also benefited from it: They were promoted. So honestly: MeToo is a little different. Therefore: I have every understanding when we take action against sexual violence against women. But we should be careful that there is no fundamental victimization of women here. We should also start protecting the men against false suspicions and false accusations.

Madam President, Commissioner! We are talking about equality between men and women. First of all, the most important equality is legal equality. Incidentally, we have had them for 70 years – definitely in Germany, but also in most other European countries. Then there are always the same two arguments for the alleged unequal treatment of men and women. The first is that women are not in sufficient numbers in leadership positions. Yes, especially Germany is an industrial nation, which is essentially based on industrial companies that are technically oriented. Now let's look at the STEM subjects, i.e. the science subjects. At the moment, only 30% of women are represented in Germany, and the degrees are around 10%. This also leads to the fact that only around 11% of women in Germany work in such so-called STEM subjects later on. Later, they often leave the profession because of pregnancy, for whatever reason. But that means you can't really be surprised that there are very few women in management positions in large companies. The more interesting statistics are as follows: For 40 years, self-employed women, i.e. architects, lawyers, doctors, etc., have earned an average of 30% less than men in Germany. This is an amazing statistic, because there is no influence on the self-employed. What this is about is not entirely clear. Maybe they work less, maybe they are more interested in a balanced work-life balance. But that's the statistics. You should also take note of this. In other words, unequal incomes are not necessarily an expression of unequal treatment.

Mr President, Commissioner! The famous Austrian writer Karl Kraus once said: An evil never flourishes better than when an ideal stands before it. That's the way it is here. Of course, the protection of women is important, but this report is exactly the opposite: He's a danger. The report starts with a concept such as: cyber violenceIt is not clear what it means at all. As an explanation, he refers to another rubber term such as Hatespeech. And ultimately, that's what it's all about: One wants to exclude unfavorable or unwelcome opinions, especially ban any criticism of gender or abortion. This is with the expression cyber violence Primarily meant. And Mrs Spurek, your statements have more or less confirmed this. Secondly, it is still not clear why this regulation is supposed to be transnational and cross-border, i.e. to be introduced into the catalogue of Article 83 cases, where serious crime or drug trafficking are usually involved. And when I asked Mrs Dalli in committee how many cases there were, for example, in which Sicilian women harassed in Denmark or people from Portugal perhaps the women in Lithuania or Poland, Mrs Dalli could not answer me. I assume you can't answer that to this day either, because there are very few cases for that. I think the national rules are enough, the national criminal law and the national protection of women. And that is why this regulation, which is being proposed here, is superfluous and highly dangerous for freedom of expression.

Mr President! Today we celebrate the thirtieth anniversary of the demise of a totalitarian criminal regime, the socialist USSR. When the USSR went down, I remember, it was a day of great joy. It was thought that liberal democracy had prevailed with its protection of individual human rights. Unfortunately, that was a mistake. On the contrary: Liberal democracy is now under threat all over the world – and unfortunately, especially in Europe. Greece, Austria, Italy and other countries sanction people who do not want to be vaccinated with fines and occupational bans. Last week, Germany introduced compulsory vaccinations for nurses. We're not talking about Ebola or the Black Plague. We're talking about a disease that many infected people don't even notice and that has a maximum mortality of 0.15%. And we're talking about vaccines, the use of which many states have been exposed to right now because of massive side effects. Nevertheless, many European states are pushing for interference with physical integrity. But if even physical integrity is not a limit for the state, what is it? Almost 20 years ago, the eleven-year-old banker's son Jakob von Metzler was kidnapped and murdered in Frankfurt. The kidnapper could be arrested quickly, but he did not want to reveal the whereabouts of his victim, who was still believed to be alive. In his desperation, the police chief threatened him with torture. From a legal point of view, this is exactly the same question as with vaccination, namely: Should the state be allowed to intervene in the physical integrity of third parties for the protection of the general public or here for the life of an eleven-year-old child? If this is answered in the affirmative, the so-called rescue torture for the protection of victims is also permissible. This is the crucial question here, including when it comes to the obligation to vaccinate: Is physical integrity still a limit for the state, or is it not? Of course, you can advocate interventions, that's your decision. But then, please, never talk about European values again. That's why we put them in the ton. And then we are back to the USSR, this time in the European variant. The fact that this is not a little better can already be seen in the defamation and exclusion of unvaccinated people as enemies of society and people's pests. German-Jewish journalist Henryk Broder said: If you are wondering how Communism, how National Socialism were possible, then the answer is: Your parents and grandparents were the same as you are today.

Mr President, Commissioner, councillor! I myself was a member of the mission in Slovenia, and in the end, Head of Mission Sophie in 't Veld notes: The institutions are working. The judiciary, parliament, civil society and, above all, the press can work, and three quarters of the Slovenian press are critical of the government. Four things alone, according to the Head of Mission, are problematic. Firstly, data protection, but this is also the case in 90% of European Member States. Secondly, as we have discussed, the appointment of European prosecutors. This has now been done, i.e. the problem has been resolved. Thirdly, the funding of the national press agency has also happened in the meantime, i.e. the problem has been solved. And fourthly, according to Sophie in 't Veld, the tone between the government and the opposition is very sharp. That's right. Slovenia is a divided country in this regard. But the EU is not the watchdog of choice of words and also not the nanny for friendly dealings. So there is no single reason to continue monitoring Slovenia. And three of the seven mission members have also made it clear that one must finally end here. And the real scandal is that these objections were not mentioned in the final report. Instead, they want to continue monitoring, and this is nothing more than a tax-funded slander of a conservative government. And as much as I appreciate Sophie in 't Veld, we shouldn't go over here for the next 30 years to observe all sorts of countries for the eternal glory of the DRFMG head.

Madam President, So now we want to vaccinate the whole world. Of course, one wonders why? So far, the reasons have been either false or misleading. Let me summarize: First it was said that they only wanted to vaccinate the vulnerable groups, i.e. the people over 60 years of age. Now it says: No, you have to start at 18 years old. Then there was the second reason: 70% have herd immunity. Now it says: We need 100%. And this is the peak of absurdity: The unvaccinated are a danger to the vaccinated. You haven't heard that before. Then the third reason was that one had to be vaccinated out of solidarity, out of solidarity with the vulnerable groups. Now it says: The vaccinated have a particularly high viral load. And that is, for vulnerable groups, it is obviously the safest when they are visited by unvaccinated people. And then we now have more and more vaccine breakthroughs, i.e. people who are seriously ill with COVID despite being vaccinated twice. And the rationale you hear here now is: If two vaccines have already failed completely, then we urgently need a third one with a vaccine that is likely to fail as well as the vaccine with the previous two vaccinations. That's really smart. In Germany, we have 48 confirmed deaths related to vaccination – 48 cases. These are just the cases that have been induced. Of course, it is known that many people who died after being vaccinated were not obduced at all. That is, the dark figure is probably many times higher. If any company, let's say Nestlé or Pepsi or any other company, were to launch a product that would kill 48 people within a year, we wouldn't be talking about whether we should distribute that product to the world, but we would be talking about whether management should not be imprisoned. I would urge this Parliament to do the same. We should talk about the effectiveness of vaccines and about liability issues for the management of vaccine manufacturers. I believe that this Parliament should focus on this, not on vaccinating the world.

Mr President! Dear Mr. Schinas, I admire you. No one knows how to tell so many lies in such a short time. I will correct some of them. They said: Migration is the normal thing. 0.8 % of the world's population are migrants, 99.2 % are not. The normal is the sedentary. They said: Migration is beneficial for the host country and is based on some OECD studies. Strangely enough, the UN commissioner in charge said clearly: Today, migration is almost always detrimental to the host country. They also said: Most migrants are legal. Here are a few figures from Germany: 1.3% of last year's asylum applications were justified. Conversely, this means: 98.7% of arrivals were illegal. So much for your claim that most migrants are legal. But this concept here is not only a big lie or is not just based on lies, it is also antisocial. Youth unemployment: in Spain at the moment 30.6%, in Italy 29.8%, in Sweden 25.1%, then Ireland comes with 24.5%. And now you want to bring in additional uneducated people? But even if you bring them in, especially if you bring in the educated, the donor countries will bleed out. Again, this is deeply antisocial, and you should finally stop pursuing a policy here that consists of lies and great unsolidarity.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. Indeed, since 2014, Parliament has been calling for the introduction of an EU social security number, and indeed – I do not want to deny that – such a social security number would have various advantages. But you also have to see: The European Commission itself eventually buried the project as intrusive and expensive. Let us follow Mrs Nicholsonová's suggestion: First, let's see what the reasons were! The European Commission has dealt with this for a long time, and therefore there will probably be reasons. One major reason is probably the unresolved question of data security. Not only the German Bundestag was hacked, but also important social security institutions in Italy and Greece. And the fact that the social security data of all European citizens can now be freely floated in other countries, so to speak, is perhaps not the wisdom of the last conclusion. So let us wait for the reports or considerations of the European Commission and then we should decide, but not beforehand.

Madam President, Mrs Metsola, Mr Wölken! I used to be a journalist myself and had a SLAPP case against me – by the fascist expert Max Mosley. It would have cost the publisher about two million. That means I know what I'm talking about. That's why I have a lot of understanding for this initiative. But the proposal is well-intentioned, but unfortunately it is badly made, because there are too many substantive definitions and references to ideological rubber terms such as LGBTI, climate change or Hate speech. We know exactly what will happen: Lawsuits against journalists defending excessive minority rights, climate hysteria or left-wing identity politics are supported. Anyone who criticizes this will not. They are trying to protect freedom of expression. This is worthy of all honor. But I'm afraid you'll get the opposite.

Mr President, Mr Minister, Commissioner! Two weeks ago, a Spaniard spoke here with a similar slogan and, by the way, someone who always advocates Catalonia's independence. I thought that was a good idea. Of course, every people has a right to the protection of their traditions, their language, their culture and their livelihoods. And above all, it also has a claim to protection against the clearly racist project of mass migration to Europe. Thus we are also in the Western Balkans, because the peoples not only have a right to protection from mass migration, but they also have a right to protection from crime, from corruption. And these are the main problems in the Western Balkans, quite apart from the fact that we have no political solution at all to the tensions prevailing there, which have just re-emerged between Serbia and Kosovo. But above all, the Western Balkans is a group of countries that is almost devoured by corruption. None of these countries are in the Transparency index above Cuba and Saudi Arabia. I don't know how that's possible. There is a lot that needs to be done to undercut their corruption status. Above all, however, the mafia is also extremely active in these countries. Albania is now considered one of the hubs of the European drug trade, and quite a few already refer to Albania as a narco-state, i.e. as a state in which mafia money dominates all state structures, including the press, including the jurisdiction. You really want to bring these countries into Europe now. This, by the way, is also a breach of the promise we had after Brexit. The Commission stated: Yes, we understand, no further expansion. Now it has been forgotten again. Economically, the Western Balkans are also completely uninteresting. So it's a bullshit project. And when I hear, once again, 3.3 billion, Mr McAllister, I can only say: 3.3 billion is also wasted here. And that's usually 3.3 billion German taxpayers' money.

Madam President, Minister, Commissioner! Poland, Poland, Poland, Poland again and again! Time and again, the left here in Parliament put Poland on the agenda. And if you can't find anything new, then you're talking about an anniversary, about an alleged abortion ban that actually doesn't exist. But I think this concept is good. I would also have a few anniversaries that I would like to discuss with you here, such as the anniversary of the attack on the Bataclan theatre by Muslim migrants, the anniversary of the attack in Berlin by a Muslim migrant, the anniversary of New Year's Eve in Cologne 2015 with over 1000 sexual assaults on women by – you will guess – Muslim migrants, the anniversaries of the attacks on Charlie Hebdo and the murder of Samuel Paty and then the anniversaries of the attacks of London, Amsterdam, Brussels, Hamburg, Dresden, Vienna, Nice, Barcelona, Stockholm and so on and so on. Do you notice anything? Oddly enough, Warsaw, Krakow, Katowice, Gdansk and Wroclaw are not on this list, nor are Budapest. Perhaps the Polish government – as well as the Hungarian government – is doing much more right than many people here in the hall suspect.