Speeches

Mr President! What are we talking about here? In truth, this agenda item exists only to satisfy the Socialists' need for more rules and more money. This need of the socialists for the money of other people is well known, but we must first repair the individual traffic, which the socialists have almost driven to the wall with green and black help anyway. What about the air passengers? What about the drivers? Everything gets more expensive, everything gets more regulated, but nothing gets better. There is nothing with the blessing and progress that the EU is supposed to bring to its citizens. Whether the tram in Brussels operates according to the same rules as the tram at my home in Linz is not a European matter. Public transport is a matter for the country. Public transport is regulated where it happens, and certainly not in the back rooms of the EU Commission. Public transport still works halfway. So keep your fingers off and don't drive this against the European bureaucracy wall! It is enough at some point, this constant demand for rules, rules, subsidies and even more subsidies. It only got us where we are now. Just leave it!

Mr President! The CO2CBAM is nonsense. Emissions trading is nonsense. All this CO2Pricing is complete nonsense. A worldwide unique nonsense. By the way: The whole world laughs at this EU nonsense. This bullshit makes energy more expensive, it makes industrial products more expensive, it makes people’s lives more expensive – and now CBAM also makes imported goods more expensive. And by the way, it is also a massive impediment to trade agreements. This is shown by the stalled negotiations with India. There is only one profiteer of this nonsensical procedure, one – and that is the EU Commission. They have wanted their own tax revenue for a long time. CBAM is like Christmas and Easter together. New customs duties, new revenues directly into the Commission's budget in Brussels. We all pay for the colliery: the consumer, the industry, the export industry. But most importantly, the Commission gets its pocket money. CBAM: This is cOnsumer burden at maximum. Maximum consumer burden – nothing else.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! There are circles in the European Parliament who want to switch everything in Europe to a war economy. By the way, they are exactly the same ones who wanted to replace trucks with cargo bikes five years ago. These colleagues are lost anyway, so my appeal is to the MEPs of the European People's Party and to the Social Democrats. The EU, firstly, was founded as an economic union with the aim of creating lasting peace through shared prosperity. Second, economic recovery and prosperity require a functioning and efficient infrastructure. This, ladies and gentlemen, is the DNA of the EU, a DNA that has already been severely affected by the harmful focus on any utopian left-green climate targets. As an Austrian, I have been committed to the expansion of both the Brenner line and the Pyhrn-Schober axis for years. These are projects that would provide great added value both for my home country Austria and for the entire Central European area. Here, an increase in European funds can really provide added value for citizens and businesses, much more than the three-digit million euro support to the green NGO swamp in the environment of the Directorate-General for Climate. This is and will remain a scandalous waste of money. As spokesman for the Patriots, I can only underline that stability and planning security for our infrastructure projects must not be sacrificed at the altar of any political fashion.

Mr President! The Savings and Investment Union is nothing more than a scam at the expense of citizens. The Commission is not concerned with free access to capital markets, but with using private savings for its own questionable policy projects – projects such as the Green Deal or the readiness 2030 upgrade programme. Instead of looking for expensive means in the financial markets, the private savings of the citizens should now be available. If you were really interested in investing, you could deregulate the financial markets or introduce educational initiatives on financial literacy. But you prefer to create a bureaucratic system that should take away the decision-making power of the citizen over his own capital. With a pliers grip of the digital euro and the Savings and Investment Union, you want full access to information about the private assets of EU citizens. Let me tell you very clearly: Savers and investors have to decide for themselves what they use their money for, not the European Commission and certainly not Ursula von der Leyen.

Madam President, With the ban on combustion engines and ever stricter emission standards, the EU is deliberately destroying the European car industry, and because of the emission standards, our car manufacturers must even reduce CO2 emissions.2-take out loans with the competition, and then threaten fines of at least 15 billion euros. And who now thinks he is saving the European car industry if he simply postpones these fines by a few years, I say to him: The only ones who can expect help from this policy are the Chinese carmakers; They will wipe our European car industry off the market if the EU continues to stick to the Green Deal. €1 trillion in value added, one third of private R&D investment, 14 million jobs: This is still the case in the European car industry today. And that is being destroyed with this ideology-driven, downright religiously delusional net-zero-emissions-green-deal policy. You have to stop this, Commissioner. You have to stop the Green Deal. Then we don't need action rescue plans, then our industry will be able to survive on its own.

Madam President, European industry is in an existential crisis and the EU, with its completely insane Green Deal policy, is primarily responsible for this. Excessive energy prices and ever-new EU rules are destroying the livelihoods of industry. In this situation, one should think that the EU is ready to finally really counteract, that the EU is ready for a real policy change, that the EU is ready to save industry – one should think, but does not happen; It just goes on as before. It's going on stubbornly, and that's the whole truth behind your bus: continue as before. And the worst part is that you know that too. They know very well that it is the Green Deal that is destroying our economy. You know you've been following a wrong path for five years, but admitting that would mean losing your face, and that's why you're continuing as before. That's why, out of vanity, you'd rather sacrifice our economic foundations and the future of our youth. This bus, these changes, is far too little and is far too late.

Madam President, The US withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement is an opportunity for Europe. Or better yet: This is an opportunity for Europe. It's the chance to finally break up with this crazy climate religion. It's the chance to put an end to the climate madness, to the nonsensical CO2-Pricing - one CO2-Pricing that drives up energy prices. It's a chance to put an end to the destructive Green Deal. One Green DealIt is the one who cuts off the air from our economy, destroys our agriculture, burdens our citizens. And now a message to the incorrigible climate believers, to the proclaimers of the upcoming climate apocalypse: In addition to the EU, there are only five countries that have committed to the Paris climate agreement. The EU and these five countries account for only 12.5% of CO2 emissions.2emissions. Do you really think this has any effect on the climate? Therefore: Let's take the chance, let's give Europe a future again, let's get out of the senseless Paris climate agreement!

Mr President! The hottest year in measurement history, so measured probably among other things by these several hundred measurement stations in the UK and the USA, which no longer exist and whose data have been fictionally extrapolated. Or from such measuring stations, which you have placed directly in heat islands, i.e. in the middle of the cities, where it is always warmer anyway than in the countryside. In Washington, President Trump is being looted because of the cold wave in the Capitol and not outdoors, it's snowing in Hawaii, and the Southern Hemisphere is experiencing a cold summer like rarely before. But the united believers of the climate church, the hysterics of the last days, who are already calling for the climate apocalypse again, and they demand measures, even more of these measures that ruin our economy, measures that destroy our economic livelihoods, measures that, above all, do not benefit the climate in view of a only seven percent share of Europe in the global CO2ejection. None of these senseless Green dealMeasures also have only some influence on the climate. They only cost huge sums of money, they make us poorer, and they thus rob us of the resilience, the resilience, to cope with the effects of climate change. If Europe is to have a future, then we need a 180-degree turnaround. Then it must read: Stop this harmful Green Deal!

Mr President! For an impact assessment of the Green Deal, you simply have to read a newspaper once or get out of your Brussels bubble once. The consequences of the Green Deal will then be clearly shown to you: Business closures, business failures, record-breaking energy prices, rising unemployment, farmer deaths, loss of purchasing power, dizzying public debt – these are all the consequences of the Green Deal. Let's talk plainly: With the destructive Green Deal, there will be no international competitiveness. This should have become clear even to the most stubborn climate fanatic! Either Green Deal or Competitiveness. Let's take a look at the costs of this crazy green deal: It is calculated in trillions. Billions - that was yesterday. Billions in costs for a completely counterproductive program. And where will these trillions come from if we start destroying our own economy? What if we start destroying agriculture? What if we really drive the industry out of Europe? Do you want to make even more non-contractual debt? Or higher membership fees? Or new EU taxes? Or all three together – that would probably even be right for you! Let's finally face reality: Restoring competitiveness can only be achieved without a Green Deal! So go away with this Green disaster.

Mr President! Has there been any foreign interference in the elections in Romania? Possibly. Were social media channels used for this? Also very possible. The deliberate influence of voters through the media is as old as democracy itself. Every responsible citizen should be aware of this, and then this is not problematic for democracy. But one thing is without question a serious threat to democracy, and that is censorship, state censorship, the restriction of media freedom through censorship. This is what the EU is doing with the Digital Services Act. A red line is crossed. It is legitimate to resist foreign influence, but censorship must never be the means of choice. Unfortunately, the EU has embarked on a highly problematic path here. With prohibitions and censorship, democracy will not be saved; With bans and censorship, democracy will be destroyed.

Mr President! This declaration is nothing more than a document of total policy failure, the admission of total failure of EU policy. We heard the wake-up call, it says. Business as usual is no longer an option. And what's next? Will there finally be a fundamental change of policy in the EU? A departure from this completely erroneous climate policy or from the destructive agricultural policy, from an agricultural policy that turns Europe from a food exporter to an importer? Nothing like that is planned. Europe should be debureaucratized, is also there to read. And yet the deforestation ordinance is adhered to, a bureaucratic monster unlike any other. And where are the proposals to stop the self-inflicted energy price explosion, a price explosion that takes the air away from industry and citizens? Nothing like that is required. More Green Deal is called for – exactly. Even more centralization, even more money to Brussels. I'll stick with this: This declaration is not a restart document. It is a document of the total failure and utter failure of this EU policy.

Madam President, The Letta report correctly identifies many problems of the internal market: rising energy prices, inadequate infrastructure, especially for high-performance railway lines, lagging behind in future technologies, overbureaucratisation in particular. That's all right; It's not new, but it's true. As correct as the analysis and diagnosis in the Letta report is, unfortunately, the suggestions for improvement are just as wrong. That was the case with the Draghi report, and that is also the case with the Letta report. There is only one thing they can think of to solve the EU's problems: Even more EU, even more powers for Brussels, even more EU institutions, a new fiscal capacity, the Capital Union, and that is precisely the problem. Even more powers for Brussels means even more bureaucracy, even more useless rules, even less flexibility for Member States. It is high time for new ways, for less centralism, for less EU, for more flexibility for Member States, more subsidiarity and more freedom.

Madam President, Mercedes is serious and wants to sell all car dealerships. VW questions German locations and does not rule out redundancies. Problems with BMW, production is completely shut down. Fiat plant in Poland closed. Fiat's Mirafiori plant is closed from June to September. These were just a few headlines from the past few months. The European automotive industry is dying. And what does the EU do? It is now like the Amen in prayer: Whenever the European Commission makes a decision, it is the wrong one. This is especially true in the automotive sector. Ideology instead of openness to technology is obviously the motto. And the ban on combustion engines is an outgrowth of this policy. And with this purely ideology-driven Green Deal, the European automotive industry is being destroyed. And to top it all, carmakers are now facing billions in fines because of EU rules. And now they are also trying to keep the competition away with punitive tariffs. This is the completely wrong way. This does not work with CBAM, with CO2‐Border adjustment mechanism, this will not work in the automotive market either. The right way would be to strengthen the domestic industry. But instead, our industry is being destroyed by ever new and increasingly nonsensical regulations. The whole Green Deal is in fact a programme to destroy the European economic foundations. The Green Deal will go down in history as a beacon project of stupidity and ideological stupidity.

Mr President! Strengthening the role of Digital Services Act and protecting democracy and freedom online: The title of today's debate alone is a blatant mockery. It's pure cynicism, a censorship law like this. Digital Services Act in one breath with the protection of freedom and democracy. China, North Korea and Iran have apparently sponsored this law. This does not protect democracy and freedom online; This will destroy democracy and freedom in the online world. This is one of the most anti-freedom and authoritarian laws in the history of the EU, and with completely vague and undefined facts such as hate speech and disinformation, this law is also a slap in the face of the rule of law. If the Commission were really serious about freedom and democracy, you would immediately have to call for the abolition of the Digital Services Act But in reality, you are terrified of real freedom of speech. That's why you created this law in the first place, because real freedom of speech is a thorn in your side.

Mr President! First, the banking union: It is completely incomprehensible to me why the EU has decided to deviate so significantly from the Basel III rules. This only increases regulatory uncertainty for investors. Overall, we need to talk about overregulation of EU banks. The industry is being forced to comply with completely crazy regulations, including these requirements for ESG and environmental reporting. All in all, this will only lead to an increase in costs for bank customers. Finally, on the anti-money laundering package: Here again highly problematic regulations are packaged under the guise of anti-money laundering. In doing so, the EU is heavily interfering with the competences of the Member States. Citizens' freedom continues to be severely restricted. The EU is increasingly following the path of a socialist surveillance state in which private ownership is to be restricted, regulated, documented or, as in the case of cash, increasingly prevented. It's a bad way.

Madam President, Fortunately, the draft of the new Driving Licence Directive, which has now been put to the vote, is considerably weaker than the original proposal put forward by the Greens' rapporteur Delli. However, it is still worth taking a look at the original proposals of the Greens. These proposals are symptomatic for the Greens – yes, for the Left as a whole. First of all, the Greens wanted to delete the successful model of the so-called L17 driving licence without replacement. It is a great model that offers young people the opportunity to obtain a driving licence at the age of 17 with sufficient driving practice. The Greens wanted to remove it. What else did the Greens want? In their ideological campaign against the SUV, they wanted an extra driver's license for heavy cars. Too stupid that this would have affected not only SUVs but also electric vehicles, which are heavier because of the battery. It's bizarre when it comes from the Greens. In particular, the Greens have targeted the driver's license newcomers. For them, they wanted a night driving ban and a speed limit of 90 kilometers per hour. Totally absurd. In addition to the new drivers' licenses, the Greens were particularly attracted to the elderly. They would like to torture you so much. Except for five years temporary driving licenses, from 70 medical tests, psychological tests, all of course to pay for yourself. This is the typical policy of the Green ban fetishists. Whether EU-wide or in the nation-states: Prohibitions, prohibitions, prohibitions. From an empowered citizen to an incapacitated subject, that is the vision of the Greens. It is good that all these nonsense has been reasonably removed by the shadow rapporteurs.

Mr President! Yes, well-intentioned does not necessarily mean well done, as can be seen in the present draft directive on the withdrawal of driving licences across the Union. Handlebars that are heavily alcoholic or under the influence of drugs, handlebars that cause a fatal accident through gross negligence, which endanger the lives of others with their behaviour – such handlebars are of course withdrawn from circulation throughout Europe. I'm totally into the draft. Unfortunately, however, this report goes far beyond the objective; Finally, we are talking about administrative offences. A Europe-wide consequence must be explicitly limited to very precisely defined, particularly serious offences. Anything beyond a millimetre is a massive undermining of subsidiarity. However, the term ‘serious traffic offences’ is not exactly a precise definition. We need an accurate, tax-based list of offences. I firmly refuse to erode the sovereignty of the Member States over the back door more and more. This is particularly true in the area of internal security. Furthermore, this report calls for the criminal framework for the offence committed to be adapted as far as possible within the legal boundaries between two participating Member States. I can't do that at all. How does the legal system of a country A adapt the applicable criminal framework for a crime to the criminal framework of a country B, i.e. a foreign legal system? Then the question immediately arises: What does the EU want next? An EU-wide adaptation of criminal law, for example? That would be just another step towards the establishment of the United States of Europe, and I am clearly rejecting this goal. It would therefore be useful to revise this draft. In the current form, I cannot agree, and that is why we have also tabled a motion for rejection, because it is precisely this draft that undermines the legal sovereignty of the Member States. It simply violates the principle of subsidiarity.

Madam President, First of all, this report on next year's European elections is nothing more than a plea for a Brussels-led central government. This can be seen in the Spitzenkandidaten system or in the transnational lists for the European elections. However, the reference to the values of the Union, the much-vaunted European values, which are the result of several thousand years of European culture, is really brazen. And it is precisely these values that are increasingly being challenged, indeed even combated, by mass immigration from the Islamic cultural sphere, which the EU is virtually promoting. However, this report becomes completely ridiculous when the rapporteurs complain about disinformation from abroad. In doing so, it is the EU itself that informs citizens, for example, about the enormous costs and the massive negative effects of the Green Deal deliberately left in the dark. This is disinformation! This EU is not making any policy for its citizens, and that is why its support for citizens is also dwindling. That is the truth!

Mr President! The EU wants to reduce emissions from heavy-duty vehicles. And what does the EU think of this? New rules and new bans. Unfortunately, recent bans are the only thing coming from the EU. How about alternatives? How about an increased expansion of the railway? How about incentives for lower-emission trucks and buses instead of unrealistic and expensive bans? At the same time, the EU is destroying European agriculture. At the same time, the EU is destroying regional food production with insane and unrealistic targets and bans. And what does that mean in the end? More imports, more transport, more trucks on our roads, more emissions and of course - and this has become a basic principle in the EU - more inflation for citizens. The EU's policies are becoming increasingly absurd.

Mr President! The EU's policy on the war in Ukraine has failed on all lines. The sanctions are not only ineffective, they are even counterproductive. The Russian economy is growing, while the EU economy is stagnating or even shrinking – a total failure of the EU. And if politics fails so completely, then it would actually be time to rethink it. In the EU, however, the exact opposite is happening. So another 50 billion euros are now to be sent to Ukraine, a deeply corrupt country. The fact that Ukraine is a country that is corrupt at all levels has already been stated by former Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker – at all levels. And it's true! Almost every week, a new corruption scandal is unfolding in Ukraine: there is a mayor, there is a department head, the heads of the recruitment offices, a deputy minister of defense, and even the president himself is involved in the affair around the Pandora papers involved. Even the EU Court of Auditors notes that EU support for reforms is ineffective against corruption at the highest level. You now want to set up a €50 billion aid fund without any real means of control – €50 billion to self-serve corrupt politicians and officials. I really have to ask myself what is going on in the Commission. There is an economic crisis in Europe. People don't know how to afford housing and heating, and you want to send 50 billion euros to a country that is corrupt at all levels. You really can't help them anymore! (The speaker rejected a question on the ‘blue card’ procedure by Michaela Šojdrová)

Ms. President! This instrument against coercive measures is, in my view, a clear step forward in the European Union's trade policy. So far, the EU has relied primarily on the WTO. However, this is blocked by the US and, in addition, WTO arbitration procedures are often slow and unreliable. This is why this instrument is necessary to combat economic coercion. In order to counter coercion attempts by third countries, the EU must be able to react quickly and decisively. To put it in a nutshell: Anyone who deals with us must expect tough countermeasures. It is also a defensive instrument. The EU does not want to wage trade wars, but it is ready to defend itself at any time. I hope that we do not have to use this instrument. But I am glad that we will have the opportunity in the future.

Madam President, Let's talk plainly. What is this joint defence procurement about? Commissioner Vestager made it very clear: It is another step for a transfer of defense equipment to Ukraine. This is what it is all about: Hundreds of millions more for the war. And secondly, the Commission representative in Austria, Martin Selmayr, has revealed what this is all about. "The European army is NATO," he said. I tell him: NATO is a US-led alliance. For Austria as a neutral country, it is unacceptable to support a military alliance with Austrian tax money that serves the interests of a non-European power. To top it all off, the whole thing is to be financed with new own resources: new EU taxes, new EU taxes. This package is not only incompatible with Austrian neutrality. This package is a mockery pack from front to back. It's just more money for Ukraine, more money for NATO and new EU taxes.

Mr President! The role of the European Investment Bank is to ‘contribute to the balanced and smooth development of the internal market in the interest of the Union’. The same is true of Article 309 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The Investment Bank will provide loans to European companies and national governments. The task of the European Investment Bank is not to finance the completely inverted and anti-citizen and anti-business climate policy of this EU Commission. The EIB is also not responsible for financing the wars of non-EU countries. Sufficient resources are also available to the EIB for these core tasks. An increase in the funds to finance the megalomaniacal plans of a completely out of bounds Commission is strictly to be rejected. And the EIB, you can believe me, will have sufficient investment needs in the EU itself in the coming years and decades to eliminate the consequences of this Commission's self-destructive policy.

Madam President, With this so-called Nature Restoration Law, this ordinance for the supposed restoration of nature, one can in truth only do one thing, namely reject it in bulk. It expropriates farmers, it creates artificial food shortages in Europe itself and in the countries supplied by Europe, it leads to shortages, and it leads to even more inflation. With this unfortunate draft, the equally unfortunate and hostile EU Commission under Ursula von der Leyen can be disposed of immediately. The majority of citizens reject their ideology-driven policies, and rightly so. The impact of this Commission's policy so far has been disastrous: massive inflation in all areas, unsafe energy supply, increasing deindustrialisation, rising unemployment. So far, they have only brought disaster on the EU. Every day that this Commission is in office longer is a black day for Europe.

Madam President, This report is not without a certain tragic comedy. The EU now clearly recognises that the Green Deal and the Farm to Fork agricultural programme pose a serious threat to Europe’s food supply. ‘Green Deal“ means that food production is falling and prices are rising massively: minus 20 % production for cereals, minus 20 % for oilseeds, minus 20 % production for beef. Huge price increases: 58 % for beef, 48 % for pork, 36 % for raw milk, 15 % for fruit and vegetables. This is the result of the Green Deal, and it is already dawning on many people what a blazingly dangerous madness this Green Deal is and that the Green Deal will be a reality. Green Deal In truth, one green desaster is. If you really want to ensure food security in Europe, if you want to be honest, then move the Green Deal to where it belongs: On the heap of history.