Speeches

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.

Mr President! How meaningless and how illegal can a legal act of the EU actually be? The answer to this question is impressively provided by this methane regulation. The aim is to oblige the few remaining operators of coal mining shafts in the EU to carry out technical retrofitting. The billions of dollars in costs will drive up prices for consumers, regardless of whether these shafts are still in operation or have been shut down for a long time. If you point this out, you will hear that it is more about providing a kind of blueprint for coal-producing countries outside the EU, so that they please promote as the EU would like. And as if all this were not enough, the green rapporteur of this methane regulation, Jutta Paulus, spread a text of a Green lobby NGO among the political groups involved and then also issued it as her own work. If a banking or pharmaceutical lobbyist had intervened in the decision-making process in this way, the entire process would have been restarted. This does not happen in Brussels, however, when a left-wing NGO so outrageously and contrary to all internal rules is working with a Green rapporteur. (The speaker rejected a question on the ‘blue card’ procedure of Bogdan Rzońca.)

Mr President! Apparently, the European Commission wants to ruin Europe as soon as possible. This planned extension of emission allowance trading and carbon pricing to the construction and transport sectors will bring the next major wave of inflation for citizens and businesses. And in conjunction with the ban on combustion engines, mobility is thus becoming a luxury good for a few rich people and for the EU cantons. Housing – an indispensable basic need – is also becoming increasingly unaffordable. The next coup d'état from Brussels is the carbon offset mechanism. Energy prices are being pushed up by the EU itself, and our European companies are losing their competitiveness on the world market. CO2 tariffs don't change that either, and that doesn't help the climate either. Business churn and deindustrialization are the result. With this program Fit for 55 The EU itself is destroying the economic livelihoods of Europeans.

Madam President, From 2019 to 2022, the ECB increased its balance sheet total by EUR 4.1 trillion. Every single day, the ECB has printed 4.5 billion new euros, which is also the real cause of high inflation in Europe; There is no need to talk about the war in Ukraine. Why did the ECB do this? It was nothing more than covert state funding. The ECB has been working on its task of price stability to rehabilitate ailing public finances. And now all this politics is flying around your ears. And that's where you're going to do the next big damage: First, you're driving inflation to enormous heights with a flood of money, and now you're driving companies to ruin with abrupt rate hikes. Unfortunately, their policy fits seamlessly into the Commission's policy: Ruinous, pointless, dangerous to citizens and the economy.

Mr President! The EU accounts for 8% of global CO2 emissions, of which the transport sector concerned has 15% within the EU. This 15% of 8% is just 1.2% of global CO2 emissions. The ban on the combustion engine from 2035 will therefore reduce global CO2 emissions by just 1.2%. And that is why you are ruining European industry, destroying hundreds of thousands of jobs and destroying our prosperity in Europe. China, India, Russia, the US shake their heads at this madness and rub their hands. With the more than 200 coal-fired power plants that China is currently building, this 1.2% CO2 reduction is more than compensated for within a week. This will not save the climate. They are destroying Europe. That's insane.

Madam President, Europol's terrorism report documents 52 left-wing extremist terrorist attacks, 43 Islamist attacks, 15 separatist attacks and nine right-wing extremist-motivated attacks over the past three years. I do not remember when we would have ever had a debate in this House about extreme left-wing terror. No, you're all blind in your left eye. And how disguised is your political compass that you see no threat in violent leftists? But even this is the subject of a study prepared for the Commission by Radicalization awareness network, And this also clearly addresses the downplaying of left-wing extremism by the political establishment. So while right-wing extremist terrorist networks fortunately lead a pitiful shadowy existence and left-wing extremism is downplayed by the Commission and Parliament, a whole new, larger threat is emerging in Europe's major cities: I am talking here about a generation of young, violent migrants who reject our state and our values. Look to Berlin, Paris, Vienna, Brussels. Even in a small town like Linz, where I come from, an Iraqi asylum seeker caused a shooting last week. But this debate, you don't want to have. Your completely misguided migration policy would be exposed, and you want to distract from it by all means. It is pathetic that this Parliament focuses solely on right-wing extremists for ideological reasons, completely ignoring both violent left-wing extremism and jihadism as well as violent and anti-state young migrants.

Mr President! In 2021, more than 130,000 tonnes of plastic waste were shipped abroad from Austria alone for recycling. In February 2021, Austria had to take back 100 tonnes of plastic waste contaminated with chemicals from Malaysia. This scandal was not only a disgrace for the Austrian Green Minister for the Environment. This scandal also shows how problematic the export of waste can be. The shipment of 100 tonnes of waste halfway around the world and back again cannot, at best, be described as environmentally friendly. So there is definitely a need for action here. However, and this is important to me, consideration must be given to small and medium-sized enterprises in particular. Legal certainty must be established without excessive bureaucratic burdens for companies.

Mr President! There are now more than 20,000 wolves in Europe, more than a favourable conservation status. Accordingly, the number of wolf cracks in Austria alone has more than doubled to almost 700 cracks within one year. On the other hand, the EU rules are from 1992, when there were almost no wolves in all of Europe. It is therefore high time to take account of the changed situation. Alpine pasture and pasture farming in particular is under serious threat, and therefore local authorities must finally be able to react flexibly. To this end, the protection status of the wolf in the Fauna-Flora-Habitat Directive must be moved from Annex 4 to Annex 5. This would make it possible for local authorities to take swift, efficient and, above all, legally sound measures. And that is why I appeal to the Commission: Give up your blockage posture! Enable a positive coexistence of humans, wolf and livestock in the future!

Madam President, The main purpose of this bond program is not the targeted promotion of promising economic sectors, but only the taboo break to finally be able to make debt. Under the pretext of fighting the crisis, the EU simply continues to expand its powers in the area of the budget – and that is what it is all about. In addition, the funds are also allocated in a non-transparent manner and without any parliamentary scrutiny. In reality, the EU is distributing debt-based money to the Member States more or less arbitrarily, without any control, and is also breaking its own rules. And it is the height of impudence to call it NextGenerationEU. For the next generation, nothing remains but a mountain of debt and an even more inflated Union. It is a moral image of this Commission: undemocratic, non-transparent, costly and pointless.

Mr President! There is so much to criticise about the EU's current transport policy that I really don't know where to start. So on to the main problem right from the start: The plans to eliminate fossil fuels are a real catastrophe for the economy and everyday life of citizens. And the expansion of alternative fuels infrastructure is completely pointless as long as a fundamental problem is not solved: Where will the electricity for the millions of electric cars come from? Road, rail, aviation, shipping – all transport sectors are to be switched to alternative fuels. In order to meet the unrealistic timetable and achieve the overly ambitious objectives of this proposal alone, billions of investments will be needed – and all this without first ensuring affordable and reliable electricity supply. An affordable and reliable supply of wind and solar parks to the highly industrialised Member States of the EU is not technically feasible. So we will continue to depend on fossil fuels to some extent. The rules of physics and technology cannot be replaced by ideological dreams. And I'm not even talking about all the other problems that these fantasies bring - the loss of jobs, the loss of mobility, the loss of know-how or the increasing dependence on critical raw materials, lithium or rare earths, or the problems of disposal and recycling and so on. And let's not forget that we are currently also in a dramatic energy and supply crisis. Finally look the facts in the face! These projects will continue to drive transport poverty forward. Mobility is becoming a luxury, especially in rural areas. Finally, present realistic and technically feasible plans for energy supply in the EU member states. Then and only then can we talk about what it looks like to expand the infrastructure for electric cars.

Mr President! First, two points on the general nature of trade agreements. Firstly: Trade agreements primarily serve free trade for mutual benefit. Trade agreements should not serve to unilaterally impose one's own world view on the trading partner. This total overload of trade agreements with ideological desires is a dead end and is driving the EU further and further into isolation. Secondly: Sanctions on trade agreements: Sanctions against trading partners and the suspension of trade agreements should and must always only be the ultima ratio, the last resort, when essential interests of the EU Member States are threatened. The required sanction for non-compliance with the Paris climate targets must therefore be rejected. Given the enormous energy needs of emerging countries, excessive demands would only drive these countries further into the arms of China, rather than making them reliable partners for the EU. Unfortunately, we have to face the fact that Europe's weight is steadily decreasing compared to other global players. Unfortunately, the EU Commission is also accelerating this development. Therefore, a sense of reality and a lot of tact will be necessary in the future in order to be able to conclude really good trade contracts. Unfortunately, I miss both in the Commission's 15-point action plan on trade and sustainable development.

Mr President! In the midst of the energy crisis with exploding energy prices, the EU Commission wants to restrict and reduce energy production from wood, which is precisely the result of this forest strategy. The use of the only renewable raw material for energy production, which is also readily available in Europe, is to be massively restricted and reduced. And citizens are rightly wondering if there is still comfort here in the EU. In recent years, countless plants for the production of energy from wood have been built in the interests of sustainability and regionality: Biomass, wood chips, pellets, combined heat and power plants. With one stroke of the pen, the Commission wants to destroy all this. A stroke of the pen puts Europe's energy supply at risk. And with a stroke of the pen, countless jobs will be destroyed in the midst of the economic crisis. And with a stroke of the pen, world-class know-how in the field of energy production from wood is destroyed. In doing so, the Commission is truly making itself the ultimate enemy of its own citizens.

Mr President! This is a very good example of the increasing restriction of freedom of expression and freedom of the press in the EU. Critical opinions are branded as hate speech or misinformation, and under this pretext a relic from bygone times is now being revived – censorship. Precisely where resistance to the anti-citizen policy of the EU is increasing, this EU now wants to censor and suppress precisely these unwelcome opinions. This applies to criticism of unrestrained mass immigration, increasing centralization or climate policy. And to be clear: The only limit to freedom of expression is criminal law. We do not need additional EU censorship. The many right and important approaches of this Digital Services Act Unfortunately, this attempt to introduce censorship through the back door is devalued. The EU does not need to point fingers towards the East. There is enough dirt to sweep in front of one's own front door, and the increasing restriction of freedom of expression is undoubtedly one of them.