Speeches

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. I think we all agree on the analysis. It is, unfortunately, very, very dismaying, clear and unambiguous and shameful for such a country. And the question remains open: What can we do here? The Philippines is an island nation, far from us. Can we really intervene here? Can we really change things here? I ask you from the Commission. If you can do something, then you have to do it, then you should do it. But please check carefully: Who will take these measures? Because there are over 100 million people living on these many islands, and they can't help having such a president. They can vote him off, of course, but you all know: It doesn't work the way it might work for us. And that's why I urge you to check carefully: If you have this privileged status, market access, if you should close it, who do you really meet in the end? That is the question, the all-important question. Otherwise, we have to admit: We can do little. We also have to say to ourselves in a certain way: We can't get involved and we don't want to get involved in things. If even here in the Western Balkans, for example, we do not succeed in enforcing the rule of law after 20 years, as the Court of Auditors found in a study, if we do not succeed in doing so, how can we succeed in the Philippines? So in the end, all that remains is the hope that the sons will not follow the sins of their fathers and that they may give up a better regime.

Mr President, Commissioner! A year ago we talked about the spring frosts that had seriously harmed the wine and fruit farmers in southern Europe. Today we are talking about drought and drought in the Iberian Peninsula. What are we going to talk about next year? Colleagues, of course I mourn with the farmers – and even as the son of a farmer – that they have to accept the severe losses and lack reserves to compensate for these losses. Thank goodness there is an EU aid fund for natural disasters, which in my opinion should only compensate small farmers. Natural disasters come and go. The Iberians have known droughts for centuries, and they have aligned their way of farming with these droughts. This is evidenced by the many oak forests. They also knew that someone else was in charge of the weather and that the one sending the storm wouldn't let those people down. But let's return to the subject. What can we do? What should we do? Let's learn from Israel. There we see that droughts do not have to be catastrophes if, on the one hand, you learn how to extract water from the sea – and the Iberian Peninsula is almost completely surrounded by the sea – and, on the other hand, you use scarce resources effectively and efficiently through sophisticated technical irrigation systems. I saw how well this works with my own eyes and was able to enjoy the result of these efforts, a delicious Israeli wine from Samaria. Dear Iberians, learn from Israel, plant vineyards, even if they don't like to be heard in this house. And practice the economical use of water. Then you will not need any EU aid in the future, and I can look forward to a good Portuguese wine.

Madam President, My heartfelt congratulations on your re-election, all the best and God's blessings! Dear colleagues! Once again, we are talking about women's sexual rights and their reproductive health. And again, we are exchanging the well-known points of view. What is new, however, is that Mr Macron is clearly saying these days what is behind your downplaying words – namely: It's about abortion, the killing of human life. You may rejoice that the killing of unborn children should be included as a human right in the basic treaties. And Mr Matić, your report is obviously bearing fruit. But instead of rejoicing, you should weep, as I weep over this tremendous affront, this infamous attack on a foundation of our constitution, our conditio humanaThe right to life, the dignity of man. They put the axe at the root of Europe. You're destroying your own structure. And I am convinced that if this abortion had been a human right in the treaties, Poland and Hungary would never have joined this Union. And it goes beyond that. Because where family life was once a right, today it becomes an exclusive privilege for elites and migrants. At least in Western Europe, we are facing the disappearance of the European bourgeoisie and our Christian-Jewish culture. And I don't want that, and I don't think you want that either. But then we have to resist President Macron's initiative. We need to look back at what holds us together in Europe, what has made us strong and what is still necessary so that we can have a good and livable future. Abortion destroys this future, and we still want a life with our children and children's children in freedom, in dignity, in joy. And as a father of ten children and gifted with 15 grandchildren, I can confirm this to you: That's the way it is. Be smart – choose the future and stop Macron’s initiative!

Madam President, Dear colleagues, week after week you are trying to find new reasons and legal instruments to force Poland and its people to accept your globalist agenda. Unlike many Western member states, Poland defends its borders, its citizens and its culture with pride and dignity. Poland does not want migrants who support barbaric atrocities such as forced marriage and female genital mutilation. Poland also does not want radical Islamic migrants who attack Jews and Christians almost daily, as we saw last Sunday in France at a Catholic worship service. Poland also does not want to have purple-haired woke warriors fighting for birth-shame and abortion. We should acknowledge that the heart of democracy and the rule of law is rooted in our Christian-Jewish identity and that Poland very well defends this identity. The EU should therefore be proud and grateful that the Polish government upholds the national and cultural identities of the Member States. I wish you a blessed and joyful birth of our Savior!

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen. Let's be honest. With these guidelines on inclusive language, we have made ourselves the ridicule of the whole world. The Commission obviously pursues an unnatural and un-European policy if it wants to outlaw all references to our Christian-Jewish heritage. This delusion of inclusive language attacks every aspect of our national culture and society. Don't you notice? There is obviously a war raging here against our Christian-Jewish identity, not only against our Christian roots – and I am very grateful to Mr Weber for his commitment to the Christian faith – but above all against traditional family values and free choices in the family. Women are forced to make a career instead of starting a family. What's wrong with a woman choosing to have multiple children and taking care of her family? Isn't that the most important and responsible job you can have? The European treaties, by the way, speak loud and clear here: The EU is based on the traditions of the Member States. We should therefore respect our traditional identity in word and deed. The Commission jeopardises this fundamental principle with the guidelines, thank goodness, which have been withdrawn. Not Poland and Hungary, but the European Union, with its crusade against our traditions, our culture and Christianity, is the most violating of our fundamental rights, including freedom of belief and conscience. I wish you a blessed and happy birthday.

Mr President! Before Christmas, my wife and I receive extensive wish lists from our children. This year, however, there are quite different things on it than usual, not the doll's kitchen, not the pocket knife, not the climbing equipment. No, the children wish that they can go back to school without a mask, that they do not have to be vaccinated, that they can celebrate Christmas with grandma and grandpa again. It breaks my heart that I cannot fulfill these wishes for my children. But we could do that if we finally reversed this crazy model of crisis, of fear-mongering and panic-mongering. I hope that we will again draw plausible and sustainable conclusions from the facts and figures. For example, by comparing the mortality rate of 0.23% for Covid-19 with the mortality rate of 30% for smallpox, we can see that compulsory vaccination against coronavirus is disproportionate, especially since vaccines cannot produce sterile immunity. Dear colleagues, let us fulfill our children's wishes and end the division of society as soon as possible! It is precisely in these times that I wish all of us a blessed and joyful birth of our Redeemer Jesus Christ.

Mr President! I have received information that at least 400 Members and staff have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 in the European Parliament last month of November. This high number of infections is very surprising given the strict hygiene measures in our house. I can only explain this to myself as a result of the in-person event of the mini-plenary at the beginning of November. And now, because of the mid-term elections, the next plenary session in Strasbourg is to be held again as a presence-based event. Mr President, do you want to accept the risk of a massive infection again? You know that the vaccines quickly lose their effect and are also contagious to the vaccinated. Can you be responsible for a mandatory face-to-face meeting in view of the upcoming risk situation? Elections can also remote It's a secret election, isn't it? I urge you to check this.

Mr President, Commissioner McGuinness, ladies and gentlemen! I have to pour some water into the wine. And I would also like to briefly explain to you why. I have serious concerns for several reasons. The first is: We are creating a new bureaucratic monster if we want to regulate philanthropy. Just a short story: A few weeks ago, a party colleague of mine suffered an arson attack on his family car. His whole car burned out. As is so common: He is a young father with three children. He has no insurance for the car. The perpetrators will probably not be caught. You know where it comes from, but you won't catch it. What to do? We immediately started a fundraising campaign, and within a few days over 10,000 euros came together. He can buy a new car, and that's good. Imagine: Would that have been possible with such rules, where then all donations are also regulated? If I had to fill out a five-page form, do you think I would have donated something? I also sat down that evening and of course made a referral. And what about the other things? When the big flood was in July in the Ahr Valley and in many places here in Central Europe, what happened? Within a few days, a billion, over a billion euros of donations came together, and they can be used for reconstruction. When Notre-Dame Cathedral burned more than a year and a half ago, donations from the great over 200 million and the other 250 million came within a short time. Then, in total, I believe, there were over two billion euros in pledges. Would that have been possible if we had regulated everything? It was said: Cross-border – all good. But what about the money laundering we want to fight? How is this supposed to work? Big donations may be protected. You get donation receipts, you can work tax-exempt, and then at the end? Money is being laundered somewhere in all this work. My main reason against this new proposal that you have made, however, is something completely different. It is a violation of our Judeo-Christian heritage. We all know: Jesus talks a lot about money. You know the story of the camel and the eye of the needle. A camel can go through a needle's eye rather than a rich man coming into the kingdom of heaven. Maybe that's why so many rich people donate so much? I don't know; It can be. But giving is part of the DNA of Christianity. Even God gives, we celebrate this at Christmas. God gives His Son to us so that we may be saved. But this giving is not compulsive. It's not regulated, it's voluntary, and it also makes you happy. There is a beautiful verse in the Letter to the Corinthians that Paul writes, where he says: ‘God loves the cheerful giver.’ So God loves the cheerful giver. Do you really think that if we regulate all this, then someone would still like to give? No, because in the end we have to give something. As far as this is concerned, I have no confidence in the Commission. I'm sorry, Mrs. McGuinness, but if you regulate something like that, it's going to be an exuberant monster. In the end, everything will fall by the wayside. And what today is the mortar, what holds us together, that Christian, that giving, yes, that willingness to give – it is wonderful that there is. This will be destroyed, this will be destroyed in the end, and in the end nothing will be left behind. Giving also makes you happy. I like to remember this, Mr Wieland, perhaps you also remember this: We used to have such poetry albums, and we were allowed to record something with the girls at school. And there was a verse that stuck with me, which says: “If you want to be happy in life, contribute to other happiness, because the joy we give returns to your own heart.” Giving also makes you happy. Do we want to break this? Do we want to destroy it? Let's trust people to know what to do when they give, and let's bury our cravings for regulation of the things we ultimately destroy when we regulate them.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. I have the impression that the discharge experience, which has a budgetary focus, is being misused for the implementation of political objectives, and that is not how the matter is dealt with correctly. When we deal with the agency Frontex here, it's about the year 2019 for the first time and we bring current things to the table here. And the second is: Ultimately, we need to empower Frontex to do its job. They need to be strengthened to really enforce their mandate there. If we do not want them to protect the borders, the external borders – yes, of course, then we have a problem. Then we don't want to upgrade Frontex. We don't want to strengthen it. Then we will leave them in the rain and we will throw beatings between their legs. And I don't think that can be. We in the Committee on Budgetary Control, and I would like to thank the chairman, Mrs Hohlmeier, very much for this, are of the opinion that in the discharge procedures we always limit ourselves to the retrospective consideration of budgetary issues, to budgetary control in the strict sense, and leave the political issues out. This is of no use if we bring in politically charged discussions here. This has to be done elsewhere, I agree with you. But at the end of the day, we just have to stop hitting Frontex all the time. And we need to bring Frontex back to its very own task. Then I would like to point out something that, in my opinion, is really a huge problem that has nothing directly to do with Frontex: We also need to reinstate the Dublin rules. It cannot be the case that only 128 persons out of 4 000 return applications are currently being returned in Germany. In Greece it is even worse: Only one out of 7,000 applications will be returned. How can that be? There are things in the wrong, and we prefer to strike at Poland or Hungary or others, rather than taking care of the actual executions of compliance with the rules.

Madam President, Since yesterday, I have received over 600 emails from concerned Polish citizens and have read many of them carefully. Your message is unanimous: We Poland stand by our government and our constitution. We do not want an EU that dictates our way of life and that exceeds its competences. We do not want an EU that morally condemns us and accuses our government of anti-Semitic stereotypes, as we have heard today. Minister, you have many important issues and a long agenda in the coming days. I don't know if Poland is into it. But you should talk about it first, because your house is on fire. You have to put out this fire – or do you want to push the Poles out of the Union? Do you want to be the gravedigger of this increasingly flourishing Union? Strengthen the true values of Europe and its predominantly Christian identity. Stop the corona measures and end the division of society into vaccinated and unvaccinated. Give freedom, sire!

Madam President, Madam Minister, Commissioner Hahn, ladies and gentlemen! Congratulations, you did it again! They shall submit a budget which formally fulfils most of the criteria and requirements of the Treaty and the Financial Regulation. You know very well that we have an elephant in the room and that this budget is only part of the overall NextGenerationEU package and that its financing is largely through loans. This is a taboo for the EU budget. You can't wipe this blemish away. And this forbidden debt financing will continue to burden all households. How should you and how do you explain this to your children? My grandchildren often ask me: “What are you doing in Brussels?” I assure you: ‘I am fighting for your future.’ 14-year-old Rahel, who is currently drafting a business plan for lessons, then asks me in disbelief: “But Grandpa, why are you in so much debt?” What do you say to your grandchildren? How do you explain to them the gigantic cost of the Green Deal, which is currently burning in the flames of coal and Russian gas? How do you explain to them that year after year we spend more money on nonsensical projects that our children have to pay back without being able to be beneficiaries? Please think of your children, and let's finally stop this drift into a debt-financed EU overall budget. Let's be honest and secure the future of our children!

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. I am surprised and confused. We're talking about Texas' heartbeat law here in plenary. Has Texas been admitted to the EU? Did I miss something? It is already a violation of competence if we interfere in Poland's abortion law. How much more when it comes to Texas? What are we pretending to do here? Solomon once said: He grabs a dog by the ears that interferes in other people's things. Let's listen to the wise preacher. Or do we want to escalate it as much as we do in California? They now want to ban their officials from traveling to Texas. Will we one day also ban our officials from travelling to Poland? However, I would like to point out something else with an anxious heart. They want to promote reproductive health. Then why do you want to eliminate the result of reproduction, which, even according to the definition of the ECJ, is human beings living after the fusion of egg and sperm? Do you really want to give preference to a culture of death? Do you really want to put women's rights above the right to life of an unborn child? Dear colleagues, I ask you for everything that is dear and worth to you: Say goodbye to this culture of death. Let yourself be touched by a child's heartbeat. Open your heart and listen to the heartbeat of these children. Give them a future. Give us all joy and fulfillment. God will reward you.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. I would like to confine myself to the Refugee Facility and make a few comments. Did you really believe that the European Union is entering into treaties with Erdoğan, and he is fulfilling every single passage of those treaties? Did you really believe that these agreements would allow the EU to escape its obligation in the long term, namely to protect the external borders and, in particular, to prevent illegal migration? Did you really think Erdoğan would give up his role as the EU's assistant policeman in the long run? Now Turkey is planning a 300-kilometer border fortification to protect its country from even more uncontrolled migration, especially from Afghanistan. Turkey's demand for more money for this new task is actually understandable. The six billion euros promised so far are a lot of money for the permanent care of the millions of migrants stranded in Turkey. But for whatever reason, that money isn't enough in the back and front. Ladies and gentlemen, please stop talking nicely about the imminent breakdown of the agreements between Turkey and the EU. Commissioner, please direct this to the Commissioner: Please upgrade Frontex and finally take over the protection of the EU's external borders, and thank Erdoğan for taking over this protection so far.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! Mrs Montserrat deserves the credit that this important issue is on the agenda today. Thank you very much for that. Much has also been said correctly on the development, purchase and distribution of COVID vaccines. But questions about the sometimes devastating consequences of vaccination have so far been omitted. I want to say something about that. Did you know that this year more people died from the consequences of the COVID-19 vaccination than in the last 20 years from the consequences of all other vaccinations? And what about the countless other, sometimes serious vaccine damage? Why do we hear so little about it? Is something being hidden here? When vaccination against swine flu had negative consequences a few years ago, the vaccine was quickly withdrawn from circulation. Even today, thousands, especially young people, suffer from the consequences of vaccination. I know a young person who was vaccinated at the time and now suffers from narcolepsy. He finished his education and would like to work. However, he is not allowed to have a driver's license because of the constant danger of falling asleep suddenly, and he also finds no work. Unfortunately, his disease is not recognized as vaccine damage. The manufacturer of the vaccine was probably exempted from liability for vaccine consequences. Obviously, the same thing is happening again today. But despite massively increasing vaccination damage, of which we don't hear anything, hardly hear anything, as if there were no tomorrow, simply continue to be vaccinated. Why aren't vaccines being withdrawn from the market as they once were in the case of swine flu? And who is actually liable for this increasingly apparent vaccine damage? Dear Commission, finally pull the line on these vaccines and stop this experiment on humans. I beg – I beg you: Clarify the liability issue, and the many injured vaccinated will thank you.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. Today, 700 years ago, Dante Alighieri, one of the greatest poets in the world, died, and I would much rather talk about this brilliant European and his Divine Comedy today than about the Brexit Adjustment Fund and the related affair, who gets the most from this honeypot of the charitable commission. I have already expressed my opposition to this redistributive instrument on several occasions, including from this point of view. I do not need to repeat my criticism. But how these funds and the distribution criteria are disputed that France should suddenly receive 100 million euros more than Germany, the largest contributor, makes me sad. Because I am truly not an enemy of Europe, just a critic of the EU and some excesses. Allow me, therefore, ladies and gentlemen, to point out a problem with the amendments: The subsequent preference of France will drive a wedge between the two most important countries of the EU. Do you want to jeopardize the friendly relationship between the two countries because of 100 million euros? And you, dear Commission, when will you finally stop inflating the EU into a European superstate with ever new redistributive activities? Pull the tear line before the overstretched EU flies around your ears.

Mr President! I am very concerned about the plans to introduce a COVID-19 certificate to regulate access to the EP. Mr President, you have always stressed the importance of keeping Parliament fit for work. And now you want to restrict access to the workplace for our employees? That can't be your goal! I therefore ask you, firstly, to clarify what is really planned and, secondly, to do everything possible to ensure that unvaccinated staff can always work for us in the EP in the future. Because both the vaccination and a PCR test are medical interventions. It must remain the free choice of each individual whether or not to take this risk. A vaccine skeptic must not suffer any disadvantages! Otherwise, we will divide society. I urge you, Mr President, to ensure that these freedoms are safeguarded in your home.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. We all seem to agree that animal testing must be abolished. I'm just wondering: How could it take so long, and why did it cause so many problems? Why are there millions of animals that really suffer unnecessarily? I miss a little bit that we have to think about why this happened. Of course, we humans are responsible for our fellow creatures, and we can't just pretend it's something outside of ourselves. We really have to deal with this matter and rethink our basic attitude. The wise King Solomon once said: The righteous man takes care of his cattle. Do we really care about these animals? Or do we not care? We need to get back to feeling responsible and knowing for these fellow creatures, and then we need solutions to change that.

Mr President, Commissioner Hahn! Please stay strong! Don't give in to this pressure from the European Parliament! I believe that this is a violation of the European Council agreements – Mr Körner, you are right. I also think it is a slap in the face of the Member States Poland and Hungary, because they were promised that these rules would be finalised first and that the CJEU procedure would be awaited – and only then should this be continued. You don't. Ladies and gentlemen, I am afraid that the conditionality mechanism and the new guidelines It is a strange cocktail of both reasonable and completely nonsensical rules. It is reasonable to act at national and European level through mandatory accountability and to fight against fraud, corruption and nepotism. We all agree on that. But there is also a nonsensical part, which obviously has the increasingly clear intention of really monopolizing morality and regulating the use of funds through new EU values. This is obviously intended to deconstruct truly conservative European values such as marriage and the family, which are currently being upheld in Poland and Hungary. Just keep it up! The Bible says: What man sows, he must reap. They divide the EU – not Poland and Hungary. Stop it! Dare again more European spirit: More Europe, less Europe.

Mr President, Mr President Hoyer, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! The reports contain a lot of good, and the EIB is also doing a lot of good. But unfortunately there are also some negative things in the reports – especially at the end – and I would like to go back to that very briefly. First, there is a lack of transparency between intermediary financial institutions. There is a lack of information on the final beneficiaries. There is a lack of disclosure of the beneficial ownership of some clients – and then this problem with the short-term follow-up employment of several vice-presidents. But the real problem is that the European Court of Auditors still does not have full audit powers. And we have to work on that. If we fail to solve this problem, we will still be discussing the same problems in ten years' time and the EIB will not be able to fulfil its mandate.