Speeches

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen! We look into the mouth of a monster. The Brotherly Kiss of Donald Trump and Elon Musk. The authoritarian axis from Kremlin to TikTok. The Radical Connection of big money and authoritarian state power in the platform economy is a massive threat to our freedom and democracy. With the Digital Markets Act, we wanted to limit market power and regulate platforms so that their dominance could not be used unhindered for commercial interests. But the danger has grown. Today, platforms, political elites and authoritarian governments are closely intertwined. Instruments of power have emerged like weapons in order to gain political power of interpretation. And we have to counteract this concentrated power. Regulations alone are not enough; We need European alternatives. I remember that we federated Open sourceBringing networks out of their niche, that we can create a European platform based on Open sourceDevelop protocols or hybrid models that combine private innovation and public interests. Ladies and gentlemen, social media needs to change – we need European alternatives.

Mr President! Commissioner, it is nice to see you here today and I look forward to working together for an innovative Europe. The EU is a world-class location for innovation. We have excellent researchers, great corporate personalities who are courageous, and well-trained professionals in confident workforces – they all want to innovate together. But, of course, the potential is not yet fully exploited by Europe as a location for innovation, and that is why the European Innovation Act, which you are proposing, is also very urgently needed. Of course, we need to strengthen the transition from research to market readiness. We need more venture capital from the private capital market, but also from smart public sources. And there should also be a better focus on practical answers so that innovations can be tested at an early stage. But, Commissioner, it is not just about making innovation easier and less bureaucratic. Because let's be honest: The people who innovate here in Europe could go anywhere. They choose Europe because it is also about their hearts. They are also concerned with contributing to the human challenges we face. They want to do something meaningful. Therefore: Innovation in Europe always means making people's lives better – that should be our thought that guides us.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! With a turnover of 2 billion euros, the payment service provider Klarna is exactly the kind of unicorn that we actually need here in the EU. But Klarna actually shows us our weaknesses quite mercilessly. In 2020, the company will sell a minority stake in Chinese tech giant Alibaba. Now Klarna goes public, but not in Stockholm, Paris or Frankfurt, but in the USA. Europe has a problem: While other regions of the world promote innovation with targeted investments, we often lag behind, not because of a lack of ideas – there are enough here – but because of a lack of funding. We are strong when it comes to research, but too weak when it comes to bringing the results of research to market. We often lack risk capital. We need an ecosystem that better links science, business and capital. Foreign direct investment can play a role here, but we must not be naive either. Where capital from abroad is still welcome now, it may create new dependencies tomorrow. That is why Europe itself needs more venture capital through a strong internal market, through the Capital Markets Union and also through targeted state instruments, so that the unicorns of the future may find the EU at the end of the rainbow.

Mr President! The super-rich are rich and powerful like never before. The top one percent of the world today control more than half of the wealth and they are getting richer, despite the crises we have. An economy in the control of a few is inefficient. When a few super-rich dominate entire industries, innovation disappears and competition is suffocated. But it is of course also unfair for the richest to steal out of tax liability and thus turn their backs on our society. The ridiculous effective tax rates of multimillionaires therefore outrage people, and quite rightly so. That's why the world needs a tax on the wealth of the super-rich. The Brazilian proposal for such a tax is a good basis and the EU – the next Commission in particular – should play its part in making it a reality. A global solution also prevents tax evasion and generates revenue everywhere. The global minimum tax for companies shows that such multilateral tax cooperation also creates winners everywhere. Because the states must finally stop being played off against each other. That is why this proposal for a global tax on the super-rich is more than just a step towards justice. It is also a step towards the state's capacity to act.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! The auto industry is in crisis. We agree on that. What we disagree on is: How did she get there, and more importantly: How does she get out of there? However, it is not true that terminating employment guarantees and terminating collective agreements is the right way to go. E-cars are not too expensive because wage costs are too high, but because we lack cheap models from European manufacturers. I also don't think softening the 2035 targets is the right strategy. After all, our companies need planning security and not constant policy changes. On the contrary: They rightly expect smart, predictable framework conditions. Here we can, the policy can help to achieve these goals. On the one hand, I am thinking of sufficient charging stations. AFIR is simply not ambitious enough. Then I think about cheaper energy. We need to roll out cheap renewables more quickly and also reduce other energy cost components such as grid fees. And thirdly, we also need demand incentives for European e-cars, because they need to become more affordable. Ladies and gentlemen, let us stand with the companies and the workers, but with progressive ideas and not with backward sham debates.

Mr President, Commissioner, colleagues, the ECJ's ruling against Apple marks a milestone for tax and competition policy in Europe. It demonstrates that we can hold big corporations accountable for their aggressive tax planning. I am proud that in Europe, the law prevails over the power of billionaires. However, it raises a key question: should tax policy be left to competition law and courts? I do not think that this is sustainable. We need the political will to create a fair tax system and to close loopholes. When companies like Apple play countries against each other, our societies lose out on essential investment, on healthcare, infrastructure, education. The global minimum tax, championed by Olaf Scholz and others, ensures that companies pay taxes where profits are made and not where their headquarters are. I think it's time that we go on that way, that the US follows suit. It's time for a fair global tax system.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen! The images of the flood disaster in Central and Eastern Europe are shocking, and the news of the many victims makes me deeply saddened. They also awaken in me bad memories of the flood in my own homeland, in Saxony, 2013 and 2002. This time we got away a bit more easily because we were lucky, but also because we took good care – less sealing, more floodplains, flood protection buildings and good coordination between the authorities. European solidarity is expressed in the EU Solidarity Fund. That's good and right, but the fund is too small, and the funds are flowing too late. We need to make this fund less bureaucratic and better adapted to the challenges we face. Because we agree: Climate change will make these extreme weather events more frequent and devastating, and we need better preparedness, our infrastructure needs to become more resilient. The means of choice for this is also cohesion policy. If you want to weaken and centralise cohesion policy, you should really stop now, because with local knowledge – people know best how to protect their cities, villages, communities – and European solidarity, we can prevent such challenges. 'Build Europe back better.'

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! The gruesome attack of Solingen fills us with pain, grief and anger. People rightly demand protection from violence, Islamism, radicalisation and terror. We protect ourselves best through cooperation at European level. To do this, it is necessary to facilitate the coordination of the security authorities, tighten gun laws, prevent terrorists from entering the country and prevent locals from radicalizing. Protection against terrorism and migration policy are not the same thing and should not be mixed up as easily as this title, which was voted from right to far right here, suggests. Those who marginalise and defame migrants betray our values and promote radicalisation themselves. Nevertheless, there is also a need for order in migration policy, of course. That is why we adopted the reform of the asylum system four months ago, and it must now be implemented quickly. If you don't remember this reform over there on the right, it may be because you voted against it. It is significant that those who always blame migration for all maladministration then beat themselves into the bushes when it comes to solutions, because they do not want solutions. They see hatred, they cultivate fear, and they divide the country. We want a migration policy that works. One that welcomes professionals and provides shelter to those in need, takes quick decisions in fair procedures and implements them consistently, making internal border controls superfluous – as soon as possible, as foreseen in the Schengen system. We also owe the reform of the CEAS to an SPD-led federal government, which found an EU-wide viable solution in arduous negotiations. In contrast, Mr Merz is calling for blanket rejections from the CDU, which are now incompatible with EU law. This also shows why EU interior ministers have never managed such a reform: They are all about the headlines at home and not about sustainable solutions. Ladies and gentlemen, let us work together to deprive terror of its social breeding ground and to take up space. The goal is clear – to create security without inciting fear. Order yes, exclusion no!

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! With this, we are now laying the foundations for an active green industrial policy. That's right, because the huge European Green Deal also needs a clean industry and investment here on the ground. The Net-Zero Industry Act This is an important step to ensure the competitiveness of our manufacturers. European manufacturers should also benefit more from public procurement in the future. We want to create sustainable jobs and accelerate the transition to climate neutrality. Both are to be improved by this law. This will also make us more independent from imports in critical industries, because we need a strong solar industry here in Europe, for example, and not just in China. We can't just sit idly by and watch our manufacturers migrate to the United States or when Chinese panels flood the market here. It also costs jobs. For me in Saxony, there are prominent manufacturers who are considering deferring their investments or closing their factories altogether. But I think the Net-Zero Industry Act It can only be a beginning. We need more. We were hoping for a European Sovereignty Fund. Mrs. von der Leyen has announced this. Unfortunately, it has only become a small step. We now have it Net-Zero Industry ActWe've got STEP where there's not enough money in it. I think we need something bigger. We need public money, we need planning speed, we also need better public procurement policies, and thus we can also support people. Because we see: The people want the transformation, especially the people in the transformation regions, who want to tackle this transformation. The first Net-Zero Valley If we want to be born in Lusatia, in Brandenburg, in Saxony, there is a great enthusiasm. But we have to support them. That's why we're here. My Socialist Group supports this project, and it would be a pity if the Greens did not do so. Maybe you'll give yourself another jerk.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. Already in September last year, we called for the release of Qubad İbadoğlu in a resolution. He was released from house arrest on Monday, but only for a month. The charges remain and his health is extremely critical. He was detained for months without access to medical care and little contact with lawyers and family. Ladies and gentlemen, does this strategy of eliminating critics seem familiar to you? The same goes for the courageous whistleblower İlhamiz Quliyev, who continues to be imprisoned along with over 300 other political prisoners. Or Imran Aliyev, a journalist who worked for ZDF. Brave people who take the fate of their country into their hands, who want to enlighten and enforce freedom and democratic rights, die in the prisons of the autocrat Aliyev, who is in particularly bad society with these methods. We as the EU have several levers in hand to influence the Azerbaijani government – the Strategic Energy Partnership and the future Partnership Agreement. Let's use these levers. No agreement can be concluded without the political prisoners finally being released, and the energy agreement must be urgently reviewed.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! Rarely have the tasks facing the EU been so great. How can we ensure that our EU continues to grow together and not break apart? How do we master the green and digital transformation, and how do we remain a competitive Europe? How can change be achieved justly? How do we become a geopolitical EU in times of multiple crises? These are issues that require a strong EU with smart structural and investment instruments that also capture the reality and needs of European regions. That is why we need a genuine partnership principle. We really need shared management. And all these reflections, these dreams of centralization that you hear about right now, are phantasms. We don't need centralization. We need strong regions that are key players in European cohesion policy. Our cohesion policy must become faster and more flexible in the regions. Only then can we solve the challenges with this cohesion policy, also with the support of an industrial transformation fund, which is also what we need for structural change. Let's be honest, fellow Members: The challenges may be great, perhaps too great for individual nation states, but they are never too great for the EU, which creates momentum out of solidarity and which creates future out of community.

Madam President, Commissioner! This report looks at the end of the 2014-2020 funding period, but it also allows us to take a look into the future. This is important because the next cohesion policy funding period will be one like no other. We are faced with the question of how, on the one hand, we can continue to grow together, how we can achieve social, territorial and economic cohesion. On the other hand, we have to cope with the comprehensive structural change, the transformation towards a climate-neutral economy. I am convinced that cohesion policy, which rightly accounts for one third of the EU budget, needs to change in order to meet these requirements. Cohesion policy must become a transformative instrument that captures the profound structural change that EU regions are facing. Everyone should have the same chance to develop, regardless of where he or she was born. No one should be forced to leave their region because life chances are too low and structural change leaves nothing but wasteland. In order to cope with all these tasks, cohesion policy needs to become more agile. It must become more territorially sensitive, better reflect the needs of our regions, more flexible and simpler. In short: We need a cohesion policy that enables change and does not slow it down. We need a cohesion policy that benefits all regions.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. The Spanish Koldo case joins a series of scandals in the procurement of masks. Italy, Spain, Romania, Germany – greedy people everywhere took advantage of the plight and urgency during the coronavirus pandemic. We only hear very selected criticism from the EPP. Where was her outrage in the Union's masquerade affair when Mrs Hohlmeier mediated her friend Andrea Tandler to health ministries in the federal and state governments? Contacts with which Tandler made millions of commissions and also hurled past the tax? Why did you remain silent when the MEPs Nüßlein, Sauter and Löbel received commissions for brokering such mask deals? We are now taking care in Germany that such behavior will be punishable in the future. And where was your clarity about the conservative mask scandal in Madrid? Ladies and gentlemen, if you were concerned with the matter, the really important protection of public funds, you would have said all this today. But you are obviously only concerned with Spanish domestic policy, with which you are constantly tiring this European Parliament. They still haven't endured the loss of the election in Spain.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. The European Pillar of Social Rights stresses the right to an adequate pension. Every person of old age has the right to the means to ensure a dignified life. But it is up to the Member States to ensure this, and that is why I would like to report to you here that the German government is pushing for exactly this goal with a pension package. Because none of us wants the cashier to have to work until she is 70 years old. None of us want retirees to still have to collect bottles in their retirement to ensure their income, or not be able to buy a gift for their grandchildren at Christmas. But you have to do something about it. The German federal government is acting. It ensures the pension level of the general statutory pension; it prevents a further increase in the retirement age and creates generational capital so that the contribution remains stable in the long term. I think it makes an important contribution to the European goal of a secure pension – I would like to emphasise that here.

Mr President, Mr Secretary of State, ladies and gentlemen! Yes, we are now discussing the STEP strategy platform on the budget, on the budget revision. Actually, this is a bit of nonsense, because from a – yes – financial point of view, it is quite disappointing what we have been presented with at STEP. The Innovation Fund, InvestEU, Horizon – all these programmes would have needed more funding for strategic technologies than Member States were willing to provide. I think that's a mistake. And that is why, unfortunately, the MFF revision is insufficient from an industrial policy point of view. This is a pity, because STEP could actually have been a good answer to the industrial promotion of other regions of the world. If we look at microelectronics, solar and wind power, medical technology: All of these are industries that are to be promoted more unbureaucratically and better in the future. In the end, they will now do so with funds from the EU structural funds. We can now support up to 100 percent, which is definitely a big win, and funds are also pooled from other programmes. We are clearing the EU funding jungle, we are making everything a bit easier, we are providing a clear view. STEP does that, and that's good. Only: We have now also created a quality seal with STEP. And thus we put these projects in the shop window, also for private investors, so that we attract more private capital. Our group, the Socialists and Democrats, has insisted that we must also comply with high social and labour standards here. Because European money should only be spent on good jobs in Europe, ladies and gentlemen! STEP comes at the right time, but it's not enough. We need a forward-looking European industrial strategy, which is also adequately backed up financially. Be sure: We, as Social Democrats, will take this demand with us into the next legislature. We won't let go.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, It hurts me when Jewish institutions in Germany still need police protection to this day, when Jews are threatened. This threat comes mainly from the right; In September, more than 80% of anti-Semitic crimes came from the right. Therefore: Do not shed crocodile tears, but keep these people in check! Since the barbaric attack by Hamas on 7 October, however, many other crimes have been added, including those committed by Muslims. This is unacceptable and we are experiencing our strongest rejection. Anti-Semitic as well as anti-Muslim violence, however, stems from an image of man that views people as not equal. It affects groups that are excluded due to their religious affiliation, experience violence and cannot live without fear in everyday life. For the right-wing extremists in this house, people are not equal. Their solidarity is fake. They take advantage of the painful wounds of the Jewish community to in turn discriminate. They incite people against each other. However, we uphold the universal values of the European Union – the inviolable dignity of the human person, freedom, solidarity, equality and a fair society.

Madam President, Commissioner! I am not quite sure at the moment whether we have the same assessment of the dimension of the problem – if I have listened to your comments. Well, I'm from Germany. One in five solar panels in the world came from Germany some time ago. But then there was a black-yellow federal government that left the solar industry in the rain – that was many years ago. But now we are again in a situation where the European solar market is booming, but our domestic manufacturers don't have as much of it. You mentioned the positive numbers of solar energy rolling out. Actually, our industry is well positioned with its quality products, but they are flooded with Chinese products at the moment – with ridiculous dumping products from China. Meyer Burger, Heckert Solar, Solarwatt in Saxony are all considering reducing their capacities. These are big European manufacturers. And that's something that pushes. Time is pressing. This is a wake-up call for the whole of Europe, and we must act quickly. You called them: the resilience measures we plan in the Net-Zero Industry Act. We are all confident that they will help. And we hope to come to a conclusion tomorrow. I also have great hopes in the legislation to stop forced labour, but I actually expected a little more today. We really need to act very quickly. There are proposals on the table to ensure the short-term purchase of modules from European manufacturers. You yourself mentioned that you have to look very carefully whether you also take targeted and temporary trade policy measures. I am simply expecting more from the Commission, so that the manufacturers we actually want to strengthen are not simply gone in the end. We can't achieve our goals, either. manufacturing still with deployment. Then we can't achieve any goals. And that is why I would like the Commission to be more aware of the seriousness of the situation here.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. Expulsions, deportations, ethnic cleansing – these are the secret plans of the fascists. In Rome neo-fascists march, in Potsdam neo-Nazis meet with representatives of the AfD in the Union of Values, i.e. parties that sit in this house. They devise plans for how to expel people from Germany. Plans against fellow citizens who are not native German. Plans against Germans whose ancestors come from other countries. Millions and millions of our friends, neighbors and colleagues. It sounds monstrous and it's monstrous. For what Churchill once said should no longer apply: "If it rings at six in the morning at my door and I can be sure that it is the milkman, then I know that I live in a democracy." This elementary security of life and limb – without it, there can be no free society. The fascists no longer hide their intentions – neither in Rome nor in Potsdam. But the people stand up. Tens of thousands took to the streets in Germany this weekend. As Social Democrats, we stand by their side. No footsteps for the fascists!

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! At STEP I have a crying and a laughing eye. Weeping, because almost exactly one year ago, Mrs. von der Leyen stood here and talked about the challenges of the green and digital transformation. And we applauded at the time when it announced a Sovereignty Fund, also as a European response to the efforts and plans of other economic powers. As you know, she had to bury this plan. That is why today we are talking about STEP – only STEP – a small but smart step to support our industry on its way to more strategic autonomy. My laughing eye comes from the fact that we as Parliament have been able to significantly improve this STEP proposal. Let me mention three aspects: Firstly, it is good that we do not introduce new, unclear terms that would mean even more bureaucracy and research effort for companies, but we are building on existing industrial policy initiatives. Secondly: The STEP seal will also attract attention from private investors. As a Social Democrat, I am glad that we only want to give this quality label to projects that also comply with high social and labour standards, because European money should only be used for good jobs in Europe. And thirdly, we have ensured with the STEP contact point that companies can obtain information about all funding opportunities at a glance, and thus can light up the often complained jungle of funding a bit. Ladies and gentlemen, Europe itself must become strong in strategic technologies. We need a strong solar industry here, not just in China. We need a strong generics industry here and not just in India. And we don't just want to leave the artificial intelligence market to US companies. And who knows, maybe next autumn there will be a new Commission President here, presenting the new European Parliament with a convincing idea of a European Sovereignty Fund and bringing us all to tears.

Madam President, Commissioner! The report presented on the proposal for a mid-term revision of the Multiannual Financial Framework 2021-2027 takes into account the new global economic situation. Flows of goods are exploited and supply chains are overloaded geopolitically. Those who only look for the cheapest price today will soon look into empty warehouses. The EU needs a new strategic autonomy in critical sectors. We need to improve, scale up or rebuild production in these areas. This autonomy can also cost state money, but it must of course not only come from national aid. That is why we Socialists and Democrats have called for a genuine EU sovereignty fund. I regret that President von der Leyen has broken this promise from her work programme. Instead, we have now received a proposal for the STEP technology platform. This is a small, pragmatic approach that refrains from building new structures and primarily increases funding for centrally managed programmes. It's not a bad idea, but not much. However, STEP can only be a first step, and here the Commission has taken the pun intended. If this platform proves its worth, the Commission will have to come up with a permanent solution.

Mr President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, for eight years, the people in Pirna (Germany), Strasbourg (France) or Bratislava (Slovakia) have been waiting for better employment opportunities, better cross-border infrastructure and sometimes just healthcare protecting them. This is eight years too long. Firefighters can be forced to wait at the border before being allowed to go and help their colleagues on the other side. And several Member States’ restrictions apply even for ambulances to take patients across the border. Colleagues, this is insane. We can solve these issues. I believe that this new initiative on the cross-border mechanism addresses the legitimate concerns on constitutional sovereignty that existed in the Council, so we can finally break this deadlock. For the sake of EU citizens, let’s make the cross-border mechanism a success.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. In my home region of Saxony, mining has a long tradition: Everything comes from the mine. This has shaped the country for centuries. Mountain parades pay tribute to this tradition, but in the meantime, local raw materials also mean a future for Saxony and for many regions in the EU. The European Critical Raw Materials Act, which we are advising today, is the right response to increasing demand and supply risks. Projects will be approved faster and less bureaucratic in the future, and this is a great success. However, it is important that ambitious labour and environmental standards are adhered to, because people rightly expect this, both here and abroad. We want to develop new deposits, but only on a case-by-case basis. We do not want a gold rush in the EU, because every recycled ton of critical raw materials does not have to be taken out of the earth in the first place. That is why I am glad that Parliament wants to increase recycling rates and strengthen the search for replacements. Recycling and innovation make us more independent, and so we combine innovation, tradition and the future when it comes to raw materials.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! Criminal trials behind closed doors, solitary confinement, detention camps, blocking contacts, denial of medical care – this is everyday life in Lukashenko’s Belarus, and he is raging against the opposition in the country, against his own people. Again and again we hear about the mistreatment of political prisoners. We condemn the treatment of Wiktar Babaryka, the former presidential candidate, the political competitor. We demand his release, and we demand freedom for all 1500 political prisoners in Belarus. We stand on the side of the Belarusian people, on the side of the opposition. A delegation from this Parliament will meet with representatives of the opposition in Vilnius next week – hopefully with this resolution in mind. Let's remember Schiller's words: ‘Tyranan power can only tie hands’. Lukashenko will never break the will of Belarus’s democratic forces – never!

Madam President, Commissioner Schmit, colleagues, never before has the European Union faced so many crises at once. Our regions are key in addressing them. They need relief from bureaucracy and more flexibility to deal with the multiple crises. I therefore welcome the temporary crisis and transition framework adopted by the Commission. It enables Member States and regions to tackle the challenges by supporting relevant sectors on the path to a net-zero economy, a transition which we urgently need. I, however, think that not enough has been done. The increase in the de minimis limits does not even compensate for inflation. The notification burden must be reduced. State aid control needs to concentrate on substantial subsidies which could seriously distort the single market. But we must be cautious. Let us guard cohesion principles and make sure that territorial divides are not widened. The cohesion I mentioned can be more effectively addressed by financially supporting Member States with smaller economic capacity than by being overly restrictive on small—scale regional state aid. I therefore ask the Commission to ensure a legal framework that fosters the transition by allowing relevant small—scale state aid alongside providing more support through cohesion policy instruments where the Member States’ own resources are insufficient. This is a joint effort. Let us make Europe a global model for a just transition.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, The exhaust gas scandal has also occupied us a lot in Germany. I regret that the traditional German company VW has done damage here and lost confidence in the car industry. But the EU has reacted well and correctly. All Member States now require vehicle tests to be carried out in real driving mode. In this way, the considerable gap can be closed between the CO2 emission values measured on the test bench and those in road traffic. The test was also introduced in real driving mode to measure nitrogen oxide emissions. This decision is correct, and it is also the basis of the new Euro 7 emission standard that we are currently working on. These real driving emissions However, they must be guided by realistic everyday conditions and not by abusive test drives. Emissions standards that are ambitious, clear and feasible strengthen trust in industry and authorities. Dieselgate must not be repeated.