Speeches

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Today, we are passing a law laying the foundations for Europe's largest civil construction programme. Our trans-European transport network includes the largest 426 cities in Europe, the largest ports and airports, over 100,000 rail kilometres and so on and so on. The Commission estimates the construction costs at 1.5 trillion euros. That is 10% of the total European economic output. What we decide today will shape our continent over the next centuries – from Kyiv to Lisbon, from Oslo to Sicily. And yes, our trans-European transport network also includes our neighbours. We are growing together, distances are shrinking, the European transport network is making traffic faster, easier and cheaper. It opens up more opportunities, it enables more freedom, and freedom is our future. Ladies and gentlemen, long live Europe!

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. We will adopt a new law on data exchange between online rental platforms and national authorities this week. And I'm happy about that for two very special reasons. Firstly: We solve a long-known problem. All of us know Airbnb and Co. Many people like to use them to find accommodation or to rent it themselves. And this coexistence of private and commercial providers is now quite normal. But – and that is the point here – everyone has to play by the same rules. And while there are strict requirements for commercial accommodation establishments, it was often not possible to determine who rents what to whom and over what period of time when renting a platform. And this has increasingly become a problem, a big problem. And depending on the member country or region, the situation became increasingly difficult to survey. And now the rules are clear. Now the rules are uniform, and we have free rein for transparency and fair competition. And secondly, I like this law because it is actually a very nice example of how laws are made in our internal market. The European Union is creating a framework that gives countries a solid data base. And this basis serves as a basis for tailor-made laws on the ground – depending on the region or member country. This is how the European Union works. This is how subsidiarity works. Please, more of them! Many thanks to our rapporteur Kim Van Sparrentak. Thank you for the good cooperation also to all other colleagues.

Dear Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, We know what happened to our solar industry, and we're just seeing what happens to our wind industry. And you can guess what might happen to our automotive industry. Did we brace the horse from behind? I therefore expressly welcome the fact that our Commission President addressed the issue of critical raw materials so clearly and importantly today in her State of the Union address. But here in this house there is also another side. In this house, however, it is precisely those who would rather see today than tomorrow that we only rely on electric cars, that we only rely on wind power. These are precisely those who are trying to do everything in their power to hurdle the extraction of critical raw materials. So sometimes I have to ask myself how one can simply ignore the consequences of one's own demands. It will be an absolutely convincing yes to me. Critical Raw Materials Act give. We would have needed him a little earlier, I'd like to be honest. But I prefer that we work on the future, and that's why I hope for broad approval.

Madam President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, let us be frank, shall we? Road transport is working because we have a working internal market for road transport. It is as simple as that. And looking at the changes the Commission just made to the Weights and Dimensions Directive, road transport will be even more attractive in the future. Good for road, bad for the others. In the new proposal, the Commission gives Member States more possibilities to increase the productivity of road transport by 50%, from 40 to 60 tonnes. A similar jump in productivity for rail would correspond to 1 110-metre trains. Road transport is closely linked to our single market, but rail is more or less loosely attached to kind of a principle and abstract concept of the internal market. Which brings me to the rail capacity proposal. Instead of a single European railway area, we have 25 railway islands. By sheer luck, you will find two or more countries which have the same operational rules, technical standards and infrastructure. And instead of addressing the big white elephant in the room, we have again the proposal on the table, which is tailor-made to please 25 Member States at the cost of the whole sector, at the cost of our whole economy and environment. But again, we leave railway companies at the mercy of 25 national infrastructure managers. Kindly asking them to think more European will not do the trick. But I am confident that we – that Parliament – will amend this proposal accordingly. And lastly, on your proposal on counting emissions: a harmonised standard for counting emissions is nice, but as long as the majority in this House pretends that electricity from coal is zero emission, so long it is without any added value for the climate. However, the EPP is ready to improve the package and close the first reading in this mandate.

Madam President, Making Europe an investment location should not only be the subject of this debate today, but it should be at the heart of all our policies. Unfortunately, after a closer look at the last few years, I have to say that the Commission in particular and some parts of this House are pursuing some objectives, but consolidating and expanding Europe as an investment location is not one of them. As an EU, we are more committed than ever to climate protection - and that's a good thing. Step by step, we are implementing the Green Deal. I also liked to share a lot of it myself and out of conviction. I think, for example, that we have done something really good on the issue of expanding emissions trading. As the European Union, we also play a good role in digital policy: Targeted laws, proportionate laws and sustainable laws. But the list of laws that weaken the site, rather than strengthen it, has unfortunately become longer and longer: Ecodesign Directive, nature restoration, taxonomy, to name a few; and more and more often I feel that technology neutrality is only put in the headline, in the hope that no one is already looking so closely. I think we'll make a mistake in the long run if we continue like this, and it's time to say it louder: We need climate policy, which is also a real investment policy.

Madam President, I've heard a lot of arguments here for the last hour and a half, especially from the left, that are scary. That's kind of a pity. But it has always been that way when it comes to digitalization. Yes, AI will change our lives at least as much as the computer did. It's just not so visible; It's just not as noticeable as it has been in the last 20, 30 years. The reason for this is that artificial intelligence only comes to full strength when automation and interfaces are added. Because it is not so visible, because this strength is not so noticeable as at the time when we watched mechanical punch card machines while calculating, we have to look at it even more closely here in the house. And that is what we are doing with this act. My motto is: Don't be afraid of artificial intelligence, but regulate high-risk areas. And I am convinced: Both are possible.

Mr. Colleague, thank you very much. I did not talk about the risks because some other colleagues have already done so today. This is precisely why the call for regulation has become stronger. Because such a new development, such a niche, which sets out to become a great development, is of course always associated with opportunities, but also risks. I believe – and I have followed the negotiations and also contacted Stefan Berger again and again – that, of course, there is a great deal about transparency and reporting obligations, and I believe that a balanced and balanced result has been found that will also be informed accordingly, as you have asked.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! It's like we've heard it many times here. We are facing a particular challenge, precisely because it is about digital services. There is a small niche here that sets out to conquer the world. And no one on this exciting journey thought of contacting the legal world, which quietly begins to ask after these first successful adventures: Yeah, can they do that? And that sounds a bit like an exciting story by Thomas Brezina, but it's quite a reality when we look back in recent years. Crypto assets are now well-established parts for many investor profiles and no longer just something for professionals in the Fintechworld. And because this little niche is about to grow up, the call for regulation is getting louder and louder. And this does not always have to be something negative, because regulation also means planning security. And that is why it is up to us to build a legal framework here that not only allows and promotes such developments, but at the same time protects consumers and, of course, prevents fraud. And I'm really looking forward to what this future journey of the crypto world will look like. With today's decision, the EU is really richer in a legal framework that supports innovation and protects people. I would like to congratulate my colleague Stefan Berger on his work. He has been committed to this topic since the beginning with a lot of heart and soul. Congratulations to all those who negotiated. (The speaker agreed to respond to an intervention under the blue card procedure.)

Madam President, I would like to start with four very small questions. Should the building sector contribute to CO2 reduction? Yes, yes. Should the legislator develop rules of the game for this? Yes, yes. Should these rules of the game also lead to the reduction of dependencies on fossil fuels? Yes, yes. Should these measures ensure energy savings and affordable energy bills? Yes, yes. All these questions, all these goals are good goals. No homeowner wants to increase their dependency or energy bill. You want the exact opposite. All the important issues surrounding investment – in insulation of houses, in new windows, in other, better heating systems – are correct. But these questions don't just vary from country to country, region to region, and house to house. You are really challenging us, and I must say, ladies and gentlemen, I am really concerned that the directive on which we are voting this week is going beyond its objective. The building sector is already included in the new emissions trading system in terms of CO2 price signal and CO2 reduction, and also in the new Energy Efficiency Directive. Yes, it is our job to ensure CO2 reductions, to ensure these rules of the game. But do we have to regulate everything three times and price it three times? Housing is already expensive enough.

Madam President, In accordance with Rule 195 of our Rules of Procedure, I would like to draw your attention to something. Sometimes a camera is really in the wrong place at the right time. In my speech on Tuesday on the ban on internal combustion engines, I talked about the importance of jobs and our competitiveness, and it was at this very moment that the camera captured a disrespectful gesture from Vice President Timmermans to me. We can have different opinions, and this plenary is exactly the right place to discuss different opinions. And because of such a gesture, the world does not end. But I think I'm not the only one in this House this week who wants more respect for us MEPs.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen. I admit that the geopolitical situation is complex. That's why I thought we'd break it down to a simple example. We take a normal company, and we call this company Europe. This company produces great products, pays its employees well, sheds profits and also takes care of the environment. Now the management of this company wants to produce in the future only products for which raw materials are needed, which are controlled by the two competing companies. And we call the competing companies USA and China. If you ask the management as a shareholder how it imagines it, as I did in my question to the Commission, then you hear that dependencies will increase in the medium and long term, but you are already working on a strategy. We are at a point where Europe's prosperity and jobs are once again dependent on the goodwill of third parties. Is this the strategic sovereignty we read about in every headline? Is that what the 440 million shareholders want? I believe that, for all the good I have heard today, we must also be allowed to speak critically about it. Where are the plans to finally make energy in Europe so cheap again that we can produce competitively? Where are the initiatives that not only push up environmental requirements, but also ensure real, technology-neutral access? I would like to know this in the sense of the company Europa.

Dear Madam President, Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, I really have to say: It's been easier to stand here and talk about a topic, because I think we're really facing a historical mistake today. We're banning the internal combustion engine today. That was wrong, that is wrong, and that remains wrong. We are only entering a new dependence on China for rare earths and metals for car batteries, for which we leave no single alternative. We renounce green jobs in Europe, we are renouncing value creation, and we are weakening our position as an industrial continent. And all this without coming even a small step closer to our global goal of climate protection. Please do not misunderstand: The need to actively pursue climate protection is not in any way called into question. But a good solution is rarely black or white. And technology neutrality is the only way to kill two birds with one stone: Protecting the climate and keeping Europe competitive. I am really deeply convinced that a car with an engine from Steyr, powered by e-fuels from Denmark or biofuels from Austria, helps the climate more than an e-car from China or America, powered by coal power. I will therefore vote against this ban with full conviction.

Dear Mr President, dear Minister, dear Vice-President, dear colleagues! We are celebrating our birthday today, and I am very happy about that – the 30th. It is the anniversary of our single European market, the benefits of which we can all feel every day. We can all order goods throughout the European Union. We can travel freely, we can study, work, live, have children, retire. Our companies can offer all their services in the European Union. And I looked at myself: What does this mean for the European regions, especially for my home region? Every second job depends directly or indirectly on exports. And about 30 years ago, just over 3 billion euros in goods were exported in Tyrol. This year, or last year, it was $16 billion. And nominally, that's an extraordinary 429 percent increase. I think we are right to celebrate this birthday today. But we also see, especially in the pandemic, that the internal market is faltering in times of crisis. And that is why it is very important to me that one of the greatest achievements of the European Union must not be a fair-weather construction, but that we must constantly develop the internal market and that we must get more resilience into it. Dear colleagues, I would also like to return to the quote about falling in love that we have heard many times today. Jacques Delors said: Nobody falls in love with a single market. I think if we had him here today, if we could have him here, maybe he would see it differently. I've been listening here for the last two hours, and I've heard a lot of other things. I'm happy about it. Happy birthdayPreferably the internal market.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Today we are discussing our policy programme for the digital strategy in order to become, as they say, fit for the location of the future. It's about infrastructure, artificial intelligence, 5G, 6G, cloud computing, blockchain, and more. It's also about quantum computing, and I'd like to go into that briefly. The report, by the way, congratulations, Mrs Rapporteur, highlights that quantum computing capacity is becoming a crucial precondition. By 2025, we want to have our first quantum computer, so that we can reach an absolute top position in the field of quantum capacities by 2030. And I think we have great potential as a European Union to truly become a world leader in this field. With a little pride, Commissioner, I can say that my home region – Tyrol – is home to the world’s first quantum architecture company. We need to create the framework conditions for such companies – this is how a European quantum computing ecosystem can change the world.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. I am really happy that we are discussing this topic today. We fought for a year to have the big predators on our agenda this week. And we have heard many examples from all regions of Europe over the past hour: that growing wolf populations lead to more and more damage, but also to more and more suffering and thus become an ever-increasing problem. And that is why it is all the better that we finally discuss it today, because I believe that the EU institutions must not close their eyes to it, but must provide solutions. Dear Commission, Commissioner, we will take your floor and, with our vote tomorrow on the resolution, ask you very specifically to address the problem, not only in terms of financial compensation payments, but also in terms of practical solutions for the regions of the European Union and, above all, for smaller Member States.

Dear Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Let's call things by name. We feel that Europe must put itself at the back of its feet on the energy question. In recent months, we have fought very hard in the Transport Committee to ensure that already existing hydropower plants can also be counted towards the production of green hydrogen. It is therefore all the more incomprehensible that it is now under discussion in the context of the Renewable Energy Directive that it is precisely these hydropower plants, which have been producing wonderful green electricity for many years, must not be credited for the production of green hydrogen. Dear colleagues, at home in Austria, no one understands this. In Austria, 61% of electricity is generated from hydropower. We have less wind and less sun than many other Member States. For the purposes of subsidiarity: Please don't take that away from us. That is why I am seeking support for our amendments 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14. Let us take advantage of our existing hydrogen potential on the common path to climate neutrality, not only in Austria, but throughout the European Union.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. We approved the Green Deal by a large majority here almost exactly one year ago. And tomorrow we'll see if the green deal is just green or will be a deal. But I don't see a deal if we weaken our airports and airlines with a one-sided emissions trading system. I also do not see a deal if we undermine technological neutrality by banning the internal combustion engine, shift our dependency on resources to China and do not take advantage of our great strength – research and development. One Green Deal It also needs green jobs. It would be a deal to regulate aviation as it is per se: Internationally. And it would be a deal if we were to scale up good, sustainable and European-produced biofuels and synthetic fuels, because in order to maintain our competitiveness and reach our climate targets quickly, we need all technologies, and that is why Europe needs the internal combustion engine.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I have listened well here for the last hour and a half, and I note that we all want more sustainability in the single market and more products that are easier to repair. That's a good thing! This path – this common path – must be pursued by innovative companies and self-responsible consumers. The necessary framework for this must come from politics, and it must come from us. The practical implementation and feasibility of these framework conditions are particularly important to me. In any case, we need more repair culture in Europe. There are already many good examples, many so-called best practice examples – I can mention the craftsman bonus from Austria. It is in this direction that we must continue to think. However, I am a bit reticent when it comes to repairs at any cost – where labour costs, duration, complexity or material costs are disproportionately high. I think it's up to us to find a good balance here in the coming weeks and months. We are now at the beginning and I am curious to see what steps the Commission will present before the summer. We in the European Parliament will have a business eye on it. But we will also throw a consumer eye at it – for a more repair culture in Europe.

Madam President, Thank you also to the Commission and the Council for their statements on our common European approach to affordable, secure and sustainable energy. You will find many partners here in the house along this path. But I would like to remind you once again that ambitious goals are good and right right now, but they must also be feasible. We don't have time to limit ourselves with artificial criteria when producing green hydrogen. We do not have time to further restrict good and sustainable biofuels produced in Europe. We need to use all types of renewable energy, whether hydro, wind, bio or solar, because we simply need them. Only with European energy competition and a wide range of offers will our renewable energy ultimately be affordable and secure.

Mr President, thank you and good to see you. Commissioner, dear colleagues, tomorrow’s vote on the Eurovignette goes far beyond the actual text. It is the first piece of legislation which will play a crucial role in light of the Green Deal targets, and the sad truth is that this legislation is not fit for this job. It couldn’t possibly be more distant to our own EP first reading position. If we as Parliament agree with the text on the table, then we send a bad message. We would tell everyone in Europe that the European Parliament will not defend the integrity of the internal market. We would tell everyone that the European Parliament will not do everything to shift goods from road to rail, and we would tell everyone that we are not willing to really go for the user- and polluter-pays principle. With the text on the table, we even assist Member States to go for double and triple taxation. Literally everything in this text can be changed by the Member States whenever they want and this does not provide stability, long-term predictability and resilience. This is not a European approach. Liebe Kollegen, selbst das Prinzip der Subsidiarität wird nicht mehr beachtet. In meiner Heimat wird der längste Eisenbahntunnel der Welt gebaut. Doch selbst der Parlamentsvorschlag von diesem Haus eines zweckgebundenen Mautaufschlags zur Finanzierung genau solch notwendiger Infrastrukturprojekte auf unserem Kontinent hat ein Vetorecht anderer Mitgliedstaaten. Die Euro-Vignette, so leid es mir tut, hat den Namen „Europäisches Gesetz“ nicht verdient. Die Abstimmung morgen ist auch eine Abstimmung darüber, wie ernst wir es mit der Erreichung unserer Ziele nehmen, sei es die Verlagerung auf die Schiene oder das Prinzip der Technologieneutralität. Ich bitte daher um die Unterstützung der Änderungsanträge der EVP und der Grünen.

Dear Mr President, esteemed Commission, ladies and gentlemen, In Austria, e-commerce sales last year reached a record high of more than 10 billion euros. The growth rates over the past 20 years have been enormous. Also 20 years old is the e-commerce policy, which still governs the basics of how we shop online. And we know that 20 years online feels a bit like 200 years in offline life. This means that it is time to create future-proof and new rules here – and we are doing so with the Digital Services Act. We want to promote this growth in online retail and at the same time create more security for consumers. We want fair competition for companies and above all good and necessary framework conditions for how platforms have to deal with illegal content. We do this with the Digital Services Act. Commissioner, as a digital entrepreneur, I can also say from a practical point of view: The DSA will shape the Digital Single Market enormously, because with it we will do something like a digital spring cleaning on the Internet. And I would like to thank our rapporteur, but above all my EPP colleague Arba Kokalari, for the excellent cooperation. Together with Argusaugen, we have ensured that the European Parliament's negotiating position remains balanced, fair and proportionate. Large platforms need to handle content more responsibly, and at the same time we need to see that new bureaucracy does not cut off the air for European small and medium-sized enterprises. For example, if online advertising is made proportionate and lawful, it is good for consumers and the economy. However, good control mechanisms are also needed as a prerequisite for this. We do this with the Digital Services Act.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, There is no question at all that our internal market is one of the greatest achievements of the European Union, which we want to protect and improve. Of course, free movement of goods is important, and we have also done everything we can to maintain supply routes during the coronavirus crisis. But I know the original text on this debate and I know from which corner the initiative came, namely from the ID colleagues south of the Brenner. That's why I stand here today and speak for the population in my homeland Tyrol. I speak for over 750,000 Europeans. The road transport route simply has capacity limits – especially for us in the Alpine region. For this reason, the measures in Tyrol are emergency measures for people, the environment and infrastructure – because we are on the limit. The solution is also to shift to rail. We all need to work together: for a functioning internal market, for a competitive Europe and, above all, for regions worth living in.

Mr President, I fully agree. I think the European Year of Rail was a success. The flagship project, the Connecting Europe Express, was a good showcase and I took the good opportunity and joined the ride. The Commission, together with the partners from CEF, did an amazing job to make it happen and how they made it happen. But the Connecting Europe Express also showed that you cannot simply cross a border if you are on a train. So instead of sending one train, and the same train through Europe, we had to use three, and the coaches had to be pulled by different locomotives depending on the country the train was driving through. But dear colleagues, I do not want to touch the topic of artificial burden and sky high hurdles for rail, I will not touch upon tail plates versus tail lights, because today we should acknowledge and celebrate what we achieved during the European Year of Rail, especially if you factor in that COVID-19 is not particularly a friend of cross-border journeys. However, I am really glad that you, dear Commissioner, together with Christian Schmidt and Herald Ruijters, know anyhow what needs to be done, and I know that you are working very hard to make this single European railway a reality. And you can count on Parliament on this, you can count on this House, that the objective which unites us across groups is to finally break the chains of national rules in order to fully unleash the potential of rail. So that in 2030, maybe, the next connecting Europe Express Train can freely criss-cross the continent with the same locomotive and the same driver and the same staff in the same coaches. I truly believe in that, and I want to thank everyone who contributed to the European Year of Rail. The next station is called TEN-T legislation. Let’s do it together!

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, The debate this morning clearly shows that energy in the future must not only be clean, but also affordable. It is unreasonable for people in Europe to have to think about how to get their homes warm in winter. Affordable and clean energy is not either-or, it is both-and-also. To achieve this, both clean and affordable, we need to focus on true technology neutrality in the Fit for 55 climate protection legislative package. By that I mean fair, really fair starting conditions, also in the footnotes and in the appendices of our future laws. Whether the energy is stored in hydrogen, biological or synthetic fuels is secondary. It is important that citizens and businesses and the economy have different options. Only in this way will we be able to ensure that all regions of Europe can play out their own strengths and thus use resources as efficiently as possible.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, If you look at the advantages of the European train control system ERTMS, you inevitably have to ask yourself why we still afford dozens of national systems in parallel. In this report, we have, in rare agreement across all political groups, recorded what it takes to move the rail forward. It is an increase in Europe, it is an internal railway market, it is a European coordinated procedure according to a single technical framework. There can therefore only be one motto for railways, and that is an increase in Europe – with jointly developed and uniformly applied standards. Only in this way can competition take place on equal and fair terms for all and also cross-border. This, of course, comes with changes for some in the sector. But 175 years after the first train ran between two European capitals, it is finally time to move the European rail system into the 21st century. Many thanks to all the colleagues who have worked, especially to our main negotiator.