Speeches

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, The Commission's new Single Market Strategy promises a "simpler, seamless market", but it raises critical questions. Firstly: The Commission intends to remove the top 10 trade barriers, such as different packaging and labelling rules, lengthy recognition procedures for professional qualifications and complicated business start-ups. But many of these obstacles have existed for decades, despite countless initiatives. Why would it succeed this time? Secondly: The strategy focuses heavily on digitalisation, from product passports to paperless processes. This sounds modern, but there are risks: Small and medium-sized enterprises could be additionally burdened by new digital obligations and costs instead of really being relieved. Thirdly: The Commission calls for more national ownership and wants to install Sherpas in governments to monitor implementation. This can help, but it risks further restricting national leeway. Fourthly: Simplification of rules is urgently needed, but the announced "omnibus" remains vague about how bureaucracy is actually to be reduced. The challenges are identified – less fragmentation, more competitiveness, better opportunities for businesses and consumers. But the strategy remains vague on many points and risks repackaging old problems instead of actually solving them. The old problem of the EU.

Madam President, Rather than discussing what the Commission has done to implement the Digital Markets Act in the last two years since it entered into force, one should first of all look at the actual impact of the Digital Markets Act – in my view, much less than is presented here. Google, for example, continues to control over 90 percent of searches in Europe, which is practically the same as before the Digital Markets Act. At the same time, the nature of this market power has changed. Since 2025, Google has been displaying AI-generated summaries directly in search results that provide users with answers without having to click on external pages. The result is massively lower click-through rates on these pages. This is precisely why European publishers have brought an antitrust complaint to the Commission. Another example: Apple. The company was fined €500 million for preventing App‑ developers from alerting users to low-cost external offerings. The reaction was the introduction of a new fee structure, which leads de facto to the same result. This is no coincidence. Companies with this market power naturally have the resources to formally comply with regulatory requirements without any significant change in their actual business practices. The decisive factor is whether there will be more competition, more innovation and more freedom of choice in practice at some point in the future. The central mistake was to assume that regulation alone is sufficient to build digital competitiveness. But without its own chips, without data centres and without a corresponding digital infrastructure, European regulation will only have a very limited effect.

Mr President! Sexual violence is a crime, and the victims deserve every protection and the perpetrators a consistent, harsh punishment. We should not be discussing this at all here in this House. But now it goes on. It has already been mentioned today. There has been a social change, and it is also worth talking about here. And even if you think it always comes in one direction: Yes, numbers are changing, the numbers have risen massively. This certainly has something to do with it, because men have come to our country with a cultural and religious worldview that is not appropriate here. You can't close your eyes to it. It is also due to migration and integration policies. And when you walk through our European cities with open eyes, you notice that. Women’s sense of security has changed – including mine, which is now almost 52 years old. It has not improved, it has deteriorated. But I do not want to spend my time on endless debates about any definitions here in this House, but I want to come to this: What do we do? We need clear actions. What do we need? We need clarity, consistency. Consistent prosecution and real deterrent penalties for sex offenders. We need a consistent restoration of public safety. We also need clear migration policy consequences. If we really want to protect women, then we must no longer look the other way, but we must express reality, even if it is inconvenient.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, As a former teacher, I listened carefully to the previous speakers and said: Yes, you can see how unrealistic you often speak, because the reality looks very different. I would like to take out one point, because unfortunately I was only allowed one minute of speaking time: All or many previous speakers have spoken of equal opportunities. Then we start with a programme that could have taught equal opportunities for decades, namely the Erasmus+ programme. What happens? Even the Hungarians are excluded from this program. That's what your equal opportunity looks like, that's the reality. But what comes next: Many are no longer offered this opportunity, because believe me – I am still in contact with many of my colleagues – what needs to be done here for teachers – and for that I am now also a spokeswoman that this will finally be abolished – all this madness of paper, these application forms, interim reports – valuable time that colleagues could spend better with the fact that they are with the students, that they are training and that this continues. Let us not constantly speak here of any terms that we would like to have, but let us put deeds!

Mr President! Ladies and Gentlemen! The present Consumer Agenda shows a fundamental change of direction in European consumer policy. However, consumption is no longer understood as an expression of individual decisions, but as a political control field. Purchase decisions, mobility, digital use and forms of payment are assessed and regulated by the Commission. Here are some examples. This is particularly evident in the digital sector. Under the concept of digital fairness, new facts are created based on indefinite categories such as problematic designs, undesirable influence or allegedly unfair personalization of offers in the digital space. These inaccurate definitions create legal uncertainty and increase the pressure on companies to adapt content and business models as a precautionary measure. The consequences concern not only innovation and competitiveness but, most importantly, the freedom of communication in the digital space. At the same time, the ambition to strengthen European competitiveness is at odds with the proposed measures. New transparency obligations, product passports, sustainability requirements and additional control mechanisms increase costs and complexity for European companies, in particular for small and medium-sized enterprises. There would still be a number of examples. And, of course, the trend towards centralisation is also growing. Despite repeated references to simplification, this agenda leads in practice to more regulation, more requirements and more administrative burden. It sets political goals over individual consumer decisions and entrepreneurial freedom.

Madam President, Protecting children and minors in daily life should be at the heart of our discussion and reflections – and all this without limiting our freedoms. It should also remain the focus of the parents, and the parents should continue to have the care and supervision in their hands. This is what makes me think, makes me think, in particular the proposal to carry out the control in a centralised way in the form of an EU Digital ID. That makes me doubt the good intentions behind this motion for a resolution. A centralised tool developed by the EU to carry out these identification processes in order to decide whether citizens are allowed to access information or not leaves a pale connotation. We have highlighted all the regulatory side effects in the discussions, and have also repeatedly stressed that parents should continue to keep the tools in their hands. Unfortunately, they were not taken into account.

I would have liked to have understood the question in more detail. No, my mother has not experienced violence – thank goodness – and I am happy for that. But what she sees, what it means for her granddaughter, for her daughter, what it means for everyone else around her in this future generation, she sees, she speaks clearly. And I'll tell you that too: She is repeatedly condemned for allegedly involving her daughter in the rights. But she raises her voice and says: No, they get up and tell the truth.

Madam President, 51 years old and a proud Austrian woman, for 26 years mother herself, and at this point also congratulations to my mother, who celebrates her birthday today. And one minute is not enough at all for this big issue we are talking about today – violence against women. But there's one thing I'll tell you too: Recently, the cityscape has changed. My entire life as a woman has changed. But not because our men are returning to any patriarchal structures, but because they have been imported and they are imported and are being lived out here in Europe. Here you are always there and support it by criticizing our discussions on this topic and not going into it at all. But on the subject that I would also like to mention: Surrogacy. We know that there is a great deal of physical, psychological and above all economic violence here. A need that is exploited to fulfill the wishes of others. Even in countries such as Ukraine or India, women carry out children for foreign clients, often without sufficient medical care, legal protection or real freedom of choice. At this point, Europe should clearly speak out against this form of violence.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Yes, here we are on the two terms – there are two genders. We all share principles such as freedom, the prevention of violence, and even the prevention of violence. We need safe spaces, the protection of women and girls and the creation of these very safe spaces. These are all goals that deserve our support. But unfortunately, the commission sacrifices them on the altar of the supposed inclusive language. This statement avoids clear terms. It uses keywords such as ‘diversity’ and ‘intersectional discrimination’, refraining from using the clear words: Woman and man. Without this legal clarity, there is a risk that shelters and safety standards will not only actually benefit women. Let me concretize this with an example: In women's sports, women compete against each other because they share biological similarities. This creates a level playing field. If it is no longer clear or it is no longer defined at all whether the criterion is biology or a self-assessment, this principle is shaken. Under the slogan of gender equality, regulations are already being created that also allow persons with male biology access to women's competitions. This undermines exactly what the Declaration itself seeks, namely fairness, safety and protection for women.

Dear colleague, you started your speech by nagging America; Do the same with Hungary. I have spoken of it and will emphasize it, as Kant once said: Let us give the universities their freedoms, let people decide for themselves there and never patronize them!

Mr President! Of course, the recognition of degrees within Europe always opens up opportunities for students. However, unification should not mean paternalism and national sovereignty in the field of education should always be respected. Hungary under Prime Minister Viktor Orbán strongly demonstrates this. Despite significant difficulties caused by EU sanctions and political pressure, Hungary's government continues to focus on strengthening its educational institutions. Pursuing an independent education policy, independent of ideologies, is important for young people. Restrictions on Hungarian students, such as the temporary suspension of Erasmus+ programmes due to political tensions, are a major challenge. But Hungary shows that even under pressure, it is possible to shape educational policy paths that protect cultural identity and national interests in a self-responsible and successful manner. We should therefore ensure, when standardising degrees, that no country is forcibly unified into a grey unit, but that each country can preserve its educational autonomy. A European solution must combine diversity and autonomy; Special attention must be paid to this in the implementation.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, The planned revision of the Package Travel Directive may, at first sight, bring improvements in consumer protection. But their pitfalls for citizens and businesses are: Although the experiences from the Thomas Cook bankruptcy and the corona crisis provide important lessons, the practice threatens to disproportionately burden our small and medium-sized tour operators in particular with new bureaucracy, rigid payment limits and an excessive amount of information obligations. The deletion of the linked travel services takes travellers flexible design away from rigid flat rates and provides uncertainty instead of clarity. Instead of strengthening freedom of travel, we risk making offers more expensive and curtailing the choice in Austria and Europe. There is a need for practical consumer protection, which promotes small and medium-sized enterprises rather than strangles them, and which takes into account the right to freedom of travel – not another provision from Brussels that degrades our citizens to mere consumers and businesses to mere vicarious agents. Our tourism industry deserves trust instead of ever new chains and forms.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, The numbers are upsetting, and they have already been mentioned. It is therefore undoubtedly our duty to protect children from sexual abuse. But if there is then a cut, an ideological paternalism, the erosion of national competences and partly the disempowerment of the parents, yes, then we say no to it. It happens again and again that the children are taken out of their real world, into virtual situations, but not only into virtual, but into real situations are brought by the early sexualization in the schools, through sex education programs that take place here. Believe me, I was in school until recently, and I also have children of that age in my kinship who tell about what's happening there. Therefore, yes, we always say yes to the protection of children, but with a sense of proportion, with common sense and above all with respect for national sovereignty. Stop re-educating, even in terms of their genders! The protection cannot take place more than enough and can begin here and today.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Once again, we see the EU's motion for a resolution on the single market resonate with great words, but ignore the real problems of our economy and our citizens. For years, we have been hearing promises about cutting red tape and reducing the burden on our companies. But the reality is different: More and more new regulations, more and more regulation, less and less freedom for our domestic companies. The Single Market is supposed to be a driver of prosperity and growth, but instead our small and medium-sized enterprises are hampered by an excessive number of EU rules and reporting requirements. The Commission is talking about innovation and competitiveness. But in reality, the big corporations in particular are benefiting, while our regional companies are struggling with ever new hurdles. We demand: Stop the overregulation and the unrealistic requirements from Brussels! The single market must finally once again serve the people and businesses who work here and pay taxes, not the interests of global corporations or the ideological dreams of an EU elite. Less bureaucracy, more ownership and real competitiveness – this is our way to a strong single market.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen. I stand here as a woman on the right, a woman who has faith in democracy. And I tell you: Data protection must not become an excuse to suppress the free opinion of citizens. It is remarkable that this topic is being raised at a moment when TikTok, which is becoming more and more popular, is also dealing with it or not, and where patriotic presidential candidates and patriotic parties are also becoming stronger and stronger. Yes, we need a clear edge. Yes to tough rules against data abuse. I agree with that. But also a yes to free speech. Every citizen must be allowed to say what they think, without fear of lockdowns, digital pillory or ideological censorship. I trust our youth as well. We stand for a free, secure Internet, one in which data protection and freedom of expression apply together. Even for a self-determined Austria, which cannot be dictated by China, by America and certainly not by Brussels, what can be said and done.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen! I want to stay on the topic and not go too far. The EU Roma Strategy is an attempt to create a framework with ambitious targets for Roma equality, inclusion and participation by 2030. But let me also take a critical look at this policy. While the EU invests millions in anti-discrimination programmes and consolidates quantifiable targets in the areas of education, employment, housing and health, the reality on the ground is often ignored. I would like to bring an example from my hometown, namely from Villach Warmbad. There, motorhome parking is strictly regulated and operated for a fee. Tourists pay their fees well. At the same time, poaching camping of certain groups is often excused with cultural sensitivity. We see similar challenges in Italian communities. The one-sidedness of EU policy is particularly evident when I also think of the Carinthian minority in Slovenia. Where are the measurable goals and funding programs? Where is the equal attention to their rights and cultural identity? Please don't get me wrong: Anti-discrimination is important, but it must apply to everyone, regardless of ethnicity. A truly inclusive policy must take into account local realities and not be measured by double standards. The EU should adopt a balanced approach that respects both Roma rights and the interests of local communities and protects minority rights universally, not selectively according to populist opportunity.

Madam President, Ladies and Gentlemen! Yes, vocational training is a key component of the European labour market strategy. Austria has an independent and long-developed tradition here. At a time when the EU labour market is facing a shortage of skilled workers, it is important to show how to respond to the changing labour market by strengthening teaching and continuing vocational training. Yes, Austria has a dual education. Yes, we even have a model called apprenticeship with a Matura, which imparts both theoretical knowledge and practical experience in the company. Instead of constantly relying on the fact that it is about importing skilled workers from abroad, you have to pay attention to the further development in your own population. In its own Member States and in Austria, this is designed in such a way that it can also be reacted to in a relatively flexible way. That is why we need cooperation between educational institutions, companies and, above all, governments, which are ready for performance to be recognised again.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, The present Demography Toolbox leaves many questions open and also gives many only vague formulations. This approach overvalues administrative solutions rather than addressing the fundamental structural issues. The root causes of the demographic crisis, such as economic uncertainty and lack of future prospects for young people, are not sufficiently addressed. The importance of the classical family image for social stability is also not adequately taken into account. Targeted incentives to increase the birth rate and financial support for families with multiple children are largely lacking. And like many of my previous speakers, I do not see the solution in immigration, without pointing only in one direction, but there were also – if you have listened – speeches from other directions. Yes, the strategy potentially intervenes in areas traditionally within the competence of Member States, such as family policy and social legislation. We strictly reject this patronage. We urgently need a more holistic and bold approach that truly captures and addresses the complexity of Europe's demographic challenges.

I am missing the question now to give an answer, but listen to yourself and your colleagues here today. You are an example of how you are afraid of freedom of expression – and I do not change my mind about that either.