Speeches

Madam President, Minister, Commissioner, what are we talking about here? The extreme right-wing violence? Seriously? Last week, two members of Antifa were sentenced to long prison terms in Stuttgart for half-killing three members of a conservative union. Response from the European Parliament and Ms Dalli: Zero. In Leipzig, 1,300 police officers were not enough to keep Antifa in check. Heavy stone slabs were thrown at police from the houses – these are clear murder attempts. Response from the European Parliament and Ms Dalli: Zero. In Berlin last week, 3,500 policemen were not enough to evacuate a left-wing extremist camp. Again there were serious riots, again various police officers were injured. Response from the European Parliament and Ms Dalli: Zero. The AfD, in particular, is repeatedly subjected to severe attacks by the left-wing extremists. In Berlin alone, about 30 cars were set on fire by members of the AfD, including mine. Our homes are under attack, our offices, our homes, our family members, our deputies. Reaction in any case: Zero. And that's why, Mrs. Dalli, here's a clear work order: Wake up at last! Do something about the murderous left-wing extremism! That would finally be a reasonable task for you.

Madam President, First of all, I would like to ask you to send my wishes for recovery to President Sassoli. We are politically separate worlds, but I wish him all the best for his health. Ladies and gentlemen, two weeks ago – we just heard – the European Youth Event took place here in this House. This event was also attended by well-known representatives of Femyso, the youth organization of the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood. This Muslim Brotherhood is classified by several German constitutional offices as clearly unconstitutional: Their goals would be diametrically opposed to democracy and the rule of law. Mrs Barley and Mr Karas, according to the distribution of business, you are responsible for such events. Is it possible to know why you are inviting young terrorists and enemies of the constitution to the European Parliament? The whole thing is also scandalous because several people in Europe have already fallen victim to Islamist attacks in recent weeks. On top of that, a few years ago there was a similar case with an invitation from the FEMM committee to the Muslim Brotherhood youth organization. This House rightly emphasises in many, many meetings the protection of women and, above all, the Istanbul Convention. But then representatives of an organization that is one of the most anti-women and anti-democratic organizations on this planet are invited. Can anyone explain how this fits together and what line this house is following?

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. Once again, I am grateful for this debate. I have learned that small national flags – whether Austrian, German or Italian – are inadmissible political banners, but t-shirts with left-wing union slogans are not. Honourable President Karas, the interpretation of the Rules of Procedure that you are carrying out is, I should say, refreshing once again. About the new agency: This is typical of the EU. Here the second step is taken before the first. Because, dear colleagues, we should all take note: Schengen has failed, and for over two years now it has been trying to establish a new system. This, too, has not yet been done. And above all, the Danish Social Democrats have actually completely withdrawn from the European asylum system. They want zero immigration and want to repatriate the people who have already immigrated. This should come to mind at some point. This means: We have an agency that, in the absence of a business foundation, actually does not know what to do. This is at least as refreshing as the interpretation of the Rules of Procedure. It's a bit like getting dressed and then getting in the shower. As I said, refreshing, but also a bit idiotic.

Madam President, Nothing against this debate, but today it is really absurd, and one wonders: Under which moon does this Parliament actually live, and above all under which moon does Mr Glucksmann actually live? On 26 September – you may not have noticed – it was not only the election to the German Bundestag, but also the election of the Berlin State Parliament. This election was a unique state-induced manipulation of the electorate's will. Voters had to wait up to four and a half hours to cast their vote. In Berlin's Wilmersdorf district, 77 more votes were cast than there were even eligible voters. In other constituencies, the turnout was as high as 150% of eligible voters. Minors were allowed to vote, although the minimum age for voting is 18. Those who were a bit clever could not only vote by post, but then again in person at the polling station. Many districts received ballots with candidates running in other districts. So whoever cast his vote in the belief that this was the right ballot, voted invalidly. In some constituencies we have 30, 50 or even 60 % invalid votes, because the responsible election leaders sometimes only noticed that they did not have the right ballot papers at noon or in the afternoon. Four days after the election, only one estimate was available from 22 Berlin constituencies: April, April! – was identical in all 22 cases. Responsible for this chaos, for this deliberate distortion of the will of the electorate: The Berlin government of the Left, Greens and Socialists, i.e. the party friends of precisely those here who always echo the alleged manipulation of the voter will by social media. Now the big question: Why isn't this an issue? Clearly, because, of course, the local Socialists, Greens and Leftists do not want to kick their party friends in Berlin against the leg. And the EPP will not take up this issue either, because it is currently in coalition negotiations with this or most of these parties at the federal level. Quite frankly – we can save ourselves this debate here. Massive electoral manipulation does not require social media at all, it only requires deliberate election prevention by the Greens, Social Democrats and the Left. About this and about the manipulated elections in Berlin, we should talk about it urgently and not so much about a Gaga topic as the disinformation through social media.

Mr President! I don't think anyone in this room is serious about protecting women and children. However, when I hear that the liberals are already demanding special courts, and also read terms such as ‘patriarchy’ or ‘femicide’, which will not stand before any constitutional court in the world, then I must say: While this resolution has a reasonable reason, it is weak in its implementation. And there is another reason why I am against this resolution: This resolution shows that, unfortunately, many here in the hall have little idea of the matter. I myself worked as a prosecutor for a long time in my education, and many women, but also partners from homosexual relationships, came to me. They had been severely beaten, their noses had been broken, their teeth had been knocked out, their arms had been broken, their fingers had been broken. These were all consequences of domestic violence. And my then prosecutor always said, when I wanted to get to work, so to speak, indignantly: Take your time, it won't come to the trial anyway. Unfortunately, this was the case in almost all cases. Whenever it came to trial, the main witness fell over because she didn't want to testify against her former partner. The partner had somehow come to the hospital with flowers a day before the trial, and the trial burst because the main witness did not want to testify. This, unfortunately, was the realization: People fear violence less than loneliness, and that's why a new law here will change little, as shameful and as bleak as it is. But the legal protection of women and children is well regulated in most countries, and European regulation will do little to improve it.

Mr President! Mrs. Johansson, you've been knitting here all along. Is this debate as irrelevant and desolate to you as you express it? Well, you also knitted yesterday during your boss's state-of-the-union speech. I did not find the speeches of your boss convincing either, but out of respect for this House I would have done anything but knit here. Ms Johansson, you said – I wrote it down –: The Commission fully recognises the importance of full transparency. Then do not knit, but finally do something! Why don't you make sure that the contracts are finally published, in full. And also the protocols, from which it follows why Mrs von der Leyen has actually renounced a call for tenders here. Should Sanofi, which has not yet supplied an effective active ingredient, be preferred? You said earlier that I wrote it down: The safety of the European people is our top priority. Is it now the safety; Or maybe it was more French economic interests? You know, Mrs Johansson, this Parliament is used to a lot of the Commissioners. But what you are showing here in terms of disinterest, lack of transparency and disregard for Parliament must be said to be something special. You are also a very special bird.

Madam President, Thank you, Mr Geuking, for your brilliant speech. I too had written down the statements of Mr Pineda, who actually said that there was no political oppression in Cuba. This is amusing, but probably more in the area of explaining jokes. Other things we've just heard here have also been amazing. Ms Metz of the Greens said: The communication channels should be kept open, which probably means: Just talk, but just don't act. Mr López of the Socialists argues that already at the conclusion of the trade and cooperation agreement with Cuba, the situation in Cuba was as miserable and shitty as it is today. This cynicism can probably only be afforded if you are a socialist. And then we just heard from the connected Spanish colleague that now the achievements of the revolution are at stake. What achievements these are, I don't know. Probably the most bitter poverty, a failure of the health system and the fact that many would like to leave the achievements of the revolution behind and want to leave the country. Yesterday Ursula von der Leyen had her State-of-the-Union-Speaking and, as so often, citing European values. What are these European values if we don't live them with Cuba in mind? Against Poland and Hungary, they are repeatedly cited by the left. But when it comes to the terrorist regimes in Cuba or Venezuela, one distances oneself from these European values and distances oneself from them. In this respect, you should really consider whether you continue to live this contradiction here or whether, in the case of Cuba, you are finally living the values – these European values – that they always represent. These values are political freedom, freedom of expression, democracy. And that's where you should start in Cuba.

Madam President, Dear Mrs Riba i Giner, is it hate speech if you impute to all Conservatives, without any support, that you are underestimating women's rights? I definitely don't do that for myself, and neither do my colleagues. If we reject this submission, it is solely for objective reasons: First, Article 83 covers serious crimes such as terrorism, organised crime, drugs and trafficking in human beings. It fits Gender-Based Violence Not really in. Secondly, the offences referred to in Article 83 must have a cross-border dimension. Here you have never explained how and why this should be the case. There must also be a special need for European regulation. I can't see them here either. In short, there is no reason – no reasonable reason – to: Gender-Based Violence to be included in the catalogue of Article 83. Nor is it clear what Gender-Based Violence It is at all. The report cites patriarchal structures, male dominance, and even psychological violence. These are keywords, but not clear legal terms. And criminal law needs very clear legal concepts. This is even a constitutional requirement, because criminal norms must be determined. This means that anyone who agrees with these vague legal concepts and this proposal is in breach of the very rule of law that is always upheld in this House.

Madam President, When it comes to Poland and Hungary, this House is largely in agreement, at least on the left. When we talk about media pluralism, there would be a country that would be much more important to focus on, namely Germany. Germany has four major media players. One is public broadcasting, which is so thoroughly green-left that even the respected Neue Zürcher Zeitung recently wrote that news broadcasts and talk shows are pure government propaganda. The second major player is the Bertelsmann Group, which publishes, among other things, the star and the mirror. Their influence is never seen here either. This may have to do with the fact that the corrupt Elmar Brok, who was a member of parliament here for years, even during his time as a member of parliament for decades on the paylist by Bertelsmann. No one's looking there either. And then, of course, we have the German Social Democrats, the SPD. So, you have to imagine, a party that has been in government for years has one of the largest newspaper groups in Germany. This was and still is not a problem for the EU. And Mr. López Aguilar would probably bite his tongue rather than criticize his girlfriend's newspaper possession, Mrs. Barley. So before you criticize Poland, you should start with Germany. Because when it comes to pluralism of opinion and the free press, it is not Poland that has a problem, but above all Germany.

Mr President! I think everyone here in the room thinks the immigration of highly qualified people makes sense. But, Mr Sánchez, this is not about that. This is another one, because you not only want to lower the income limits, but also bring in seasonal workers. And Mrs. Johannson himself said: We also need cooks, tilers and, of course, especially Afghans. Sure, they are all super qualified, and spouses should have immediate access to the job market. But if the spouses are not highly qualified, then I do not understand how you can claim that this would not lead to social dumping. Of course, this will increase the pressure on low-skilled European workers. We have almost 15 million unemployed at the moment. But you don't care about them, instead of doing something for them, your only concern is to expand the paths of legal migration and to promote migration in every possible way. In other words: The workers, especially the unemployed in Europe, Mr Sánchez, do not give a shit to you, and that is very sad.

Mr President! We are accustomed to fraud and self-deception here in this Chamber, but the Commissioner's discussion and assessment of this matter are really unusual. In fact, one must say: The European Parliament’s COVID strategy and vaccination strategy have failed completely. We've heard it before: Today there are not only travel restrictions, there are also passenger locator formsThere are honor declarations and so on. There is a patchwork across Europe. There can be no question of a unified strategy or application of the law, and you stand up and consider that a great success. Well, please. But not only the COVID certificate strategy has failed, also the vaccination strategy. The Israeli Ministry of Health has just found that even with the vaccine Biontech-Pfizer, efficacy has decreased by over 30% compared to the Delta variant. What will this look like with Epsilon, Kappa, Lambda or My? Not to mention Omega. So the only thing that the EU's alarmism has caused here is a single enrichment programme for the pharmaceutical industry. Unfortunately, citizens have had relatively little of all the EU's activities. In addition to the payments to the pharmaceutical industry, they have had to live, and must continue to live, above all with the restriction of their fundamental rights and freedom of travel. The EU's COVID strategy has therefore been a mistake from the outset, and now, given the many variants of the virus, it has also failed completely. Many billions of euros have been verbalized and no vaccine protection has been achieved.

Madam President, The quality of this debate can already be seen in the introductory report by the rapporteur, Mr Glucksmann. He gives three examples of the illegal influence of foreign powers. These are the Brexit campaign, Nord Stream and Piraeus. Mr Glucksmann, you can support the Brexit campaign, that is covered by freedom of expression. And if Athens sells Piraeus to China, then you can be unhappy about it. But they themselves say: Maybe it was legal or illegal. What now? If it was legal, then it is legal. And then it's not illegal interference by foreign powers. Didn't you actually learn from Sciences Po that the terms are kept apart and that there is a clear difference between legal and illegal? You might want to think about it. Of course, if China is really the big threat – as I see it in parts – then why has the EU just concluded a trade agreement with China? It all doesn't go together. First of all, one wonders why Turkey is never mentioned? It has been proven that Turkey spied in Germany before the last federal election and put massive pressure on even Germans with Turkish roots. However, this is not mentioned at all. They probably don't want to jeopardize the refugee deal. Unfortunately, as a member of the INGE committee responsible, I have not yet seen a single perfectly provable example of illegal interference by foreign powers in European elections. Everything was always just conjecture, weak chains of evidence and alleged money flows, but not a single piece of evidence. The foreign interference is the paranoia of the European Union in order to keep the peoples in fear and thus to justify ever new surveillance possibilities.

Mr President! After Parliament showed its reverence to the LGBTI community in the Chamber two weeks ago by raising the rainbow flag, we should also show the reverence to those who have become victims of migration policy, namely the victims of Würzburg, but also of Vienna and probably also of Gothenburg. I therefore request that the flags be placed at half-mast in front of the European Parliament and that these victims be paid tribute with a minute's commemoration.