Speeches

Mr President, those who wish to precipitate Ukraine's accession to the European Union pursue a single goal: We are dragging ourselves into a war against Russia. There can be no question of that. Ukraine will not be favoured over other candidate countries. Before it joins, it will have to live in peace with all its neighbours and meet all the Copenhagen accession criteria. This is not currently the case, since it is a state that is both totalitarian and corrupt. Its leaders must stop threatening European statesmen and refrain from any action that could harm the political or economic interests of a Member State. On the European Union side, enlargement policy will have to remain subject to the unanimity rule. There can be no exception in this regard. As our Union is not a federal state, but an association of sovereign states, unanimity must not only be maintained, but must once again become the general rule in our decision-making.

Mr President, talking about the European Union's foreign policy is difficult, because under Mrs Kallas such a policy does not exist. Instead of improving international relations, it degrades them. Instead of engaging in dialogue with her counterparts, she drives them in. Instead of working for peace, it advocates war. While the High Representative has replaced diplomacy with Russophobia, the doors of the chancelleries are closing in front of her, including among our allies. The people of Europe have had enough. They want a policy that serves them, guaranteeing peace, freedom and prosperity. The High Representative is the guarantor of the contrary. Under its aegis, the European Union controls and censors. The Foreign Affairs Council sanctions those who do not share its views, including Jacques Poos and other journalists and intellectuals. In order to defend a member country against Washington's imperialist and annexationist visions, the High Representative must invent non-existent Russian or Chinese threats. It is time for Mrs Kallas to resign and for the European Union to change course.

Madam President, on 17 September, more than 50 NGOs from across Europe sent the Commission a warning. The message was simple: the Digital Services Act is becoming less a shield for citizens and more a muzzle on speech. Quoting the letter: 'the DSA risks violating Article 11 of the EU Charter on Fundamental Rights'. Madam President, legal acts written in vague words, implemented by politicised enforcers and using undefined concepts do not defend democracy; they corrode it. The DSA abolishes freedom of speech through both political and algorithmic censorship. So when will the Commission at last change its course and stop its hunt on democratic freedoms? Will it use the November review of the DSA, or even the upcoming Digital Omnibus legislation, to correct course and ensure that the DSA protects freedom of expression, rather than eroding it?

Mr President, Madam Vice-President, I understand the European Commission's reasons for imposing a fine on Google. No one should abuse their power to limit freedom of expression. But why does the Commission not apply the same principle to itself? Is it not also a judge and party under the DSA? It monitors or has others' publications monitored, it limits freedom of expression while pretending otherwise and at the same time promoting its own views in the media. For this reason too, this regulation, like others, should be fundamentally revised. The future shield of democracy, apparently intended to strengthen and protect our democracy, will very quickly turn against citizens and voters. The cancellation of democratic elections in Romania was a clear warning. This shield will limit political pluralism and restrict freedom of expression. As with Google, we must also monitor the actions of the European Commission.

Madam President, Prime Minister, welcome to this House. Today, you should have spoken Luxembourgish, at least in part of your speech. Among all the nations represented here, the Luxembourgish nation is the only one whose representatives do not have the right to express themselves in their own language. I therefore ask you to conclude without delay an administrative arrangement with the Council and Parliament, as provided for in the 2005 Council conclusions and negotiated under the Luxembourg Presidency. The Luxembourgish language fulfils all the conditions: it is constitutionally recognised, it is our national and administrative language and it is spoken throughout the country. As far as Europe is concerned, it is time to revise the treaties by means of an intergovernmental conference followed by referendums in the member countries. The Commission, as well as other Union institutions and bodies, constantly arrogate to itself competences which the Treaties deny them, such as in the field of defence, health or housing. Moreover, the Commission is not transparent. We have to react. Europe cannot be a federal construction. It must be conceived as a Europe of sovereign nations.

Mr President, Commissioner, this subject would be better known as 'the American tariff diktat', even though the Commission has not even negotiated to defend European commercial interests. Obsessed with its desire to further prolong the war in Ukraine with the help of the United States, it yielded to all the demands, and this in a key area of its competence. Why then do we need a European Commission? It is necessary to put an end to the politicization of tariffs in order to make them mere instruments of trade policy. Any attempt to impose political sanctions through tariffs must be ruled out. Similarly, the Commission should not try to include censorship of social media with extraterritorial effect in trade agreements with third parties. On the contrary, censorship of digital services and markets must be abolished. The Commission did the opposite of reasonable. It should have stood firm on tariffs and acceded to US arguments to guarantee freedom of expression.

Madam President, Prime Minister, the Trump administration, Secretary of State Rubio, General Kellogg openly declare that the war in Ukraine is a proxy war, a coalition war waged by the United States and NATO against Russia. Thanks to the New York Times, we know that it is ordered from Wiesbaden. At the same time, President Trump tells us that this war is that of President Biden and that, if he had been president, it would never have started. Thus, the Americans today contradict the propaganda, which is still ours, of a unilaterally Russian war of aggression. They no longer accept this terminology in their official statements. Let's draw the consequences. Let's be as honest as the Americans: Let's end this war! Let’s change our policy towards Russia and help Ukrainians rebuild politically and economically! We hope that the Danish Presidency will do so.

Mr President, Commissioner, the blackout in Spain on 28 April laid bare the perilous flaws of the Green Deal. Addiction to unstable renewable energy promoted by NGOs and funded by the European Union threatens to plunge our citizens into darkness. Our energy policy must be based on science and not on ideological chimera. The interconnection of electricity networks must enhance stability rather than create chaos. Synchronized weather conditions across Europe make the exchange of green energy illusory. Nuclear power, the only reliable solution to decarbonise while securing supply, is inexplicably neglected by the European Union. The Spanish blackout is sounding the alarm in order to protect our citizens and businesses, only networks based on reliable energy sources can be interconnected.

Madam President, this reminder to the Rules of Procedure relates to Rule 144, which lays down the time-limits within which written questions must be answered. Of the 40 written questions I put or co-signed in my first year in this Parliament, only half a dozen were answered within the deadline. Among the questions that remain unanswered are also important questions for all of us. Often the answers are so vague or superficial that they have no added value. Another colleague has written to the Commission complaining about this problem and has been waiting for the answer for five weeks. I therefore ask you, Madam President, to remind the European Commission of its obligations and to defend the rights of parliamentarians.

Madam President, today we are being asked to grant discharge for the management of a number of agencies and bodies of the Union. This is a good opportunity to take a closer look and see that some of these entities are far from meeting our expectations or are even clearly superfluous. In the latter category, we can classify the European Institute for Gender Equality, which is an institution that propagates radical feminism. We can also abolish the "EU vs Disinformation" entity, which itself spreads unbridled disinformation, further imbued with primitive and shameful Russophobia. Among the agencies that need to do better, we can count Frontex, which must again focus on preventing any illegal immigration instead of criticising the Member States. Finally, the Fundamental Rights Agency must confine itself to defending the rights rooted in our Treaties and accepted by the Member States: his activism is unacceptable.

Mr President, the European Commission is constantly demanding more money to wage a war in Ukraine instead of seeking peace, to pursue a ruinous and ineffective climate policy, and to act in areas in which it has no competence. In open violation of the treaties, it constantly wants to increase debts in order to make integration irreversible. The Commission does not deserve our trust. We must put an end to his financial thirst. Even today, the scandal surrounding the supposed COVID vaccine is not clear. We have learned that the Commission is using taxpayers' money to corrupt NGOs. We still do not know how the debts of the Next Generation EU programme will be repaid. Instead of requiring more contributions from Member States or new own resources, the Commission will have to settle for its current funding and prove that it will use this money wisely, transparently, honestly and effectively in the future.

Madam President, the statement concerns the review of the Digital Services Act. Article 91 of the DSA provides for a review of the Act by November 2025, regarding the designation of very large online platforms, their scope and the DSA's compatibility with various legal instruments. The DSA has been heavily criticised not only by the current US administration, but also by European politicians and human rights defenders, who have alerted and documented the far‑reaching impact of the DSA on fundamental rights, in particular the right to free speech. In this context, a well‑rounded review process is strongly needed. Can the Commission clarify the review process under Article 91 of the DSA and, in particular, the roles played by Parliament and the Council? Is the Commission envisioning amendments to the DSA and, if so, which ones?

Madam President, Commissioner, those who criticise President Trump for wanting to restrict academic freedom can also be exaggerated. While the freedom to criticise Israeli politics must be preserved, the fight against anti-Semitism and violence on university campuses is justified. Similarly, the quality of teaching and research must be restored by excluding pseudo-sciences, such as gender theory. Promoting meritocracy restores justice and fairness. Americans no longer favor certain people because of their physical characteristics. Instead of criticising this approach, we should adopt it. Let's turn our universities and research institutes into hotbeds of intellectual excellence and academic freedom, just as the US is doing now. Unfortunately, the reality is different. European universities are becoming less attractive. Some of our Member States are very poorly ranked in the Academic Freedom Index. Pressure on professors or researchers is becoming more frequent. Lectures, for example on biological sex in the natural sciences, had to be cancelled. Often these pressures on researchers are exerted by the universities themselves, which is totally unacceptable. Given these developments, the gap between the United States and Europe is likely to widen. On both sides of the Atlantic, everything must be done to support and defend both freedom of expression and academic freedom.

Mr President, Commissioner, in 2012 the European Union was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Let us therefore live up to this distinction. Instead of rearming, let’s learn to talk to each other first. Our first line of defence must be good diplomacy. In this respect, however, the EU could do much better. Our relations are strained with Washington, difficult with Beijing and non-existent with Moscow. It is not always the fault of others. We need to relearn how to practice diplomacy, how to communicate, how to listen and how to understand, even in seemingly adverse circumstances. Our second line of defense is deterrence. We want to improve our armies, but try to avoid an arms race. Instead, let us revive confidence-building measures and ensure that we do not spend excessive amounts of money and take on huge debts to cover military expenses. There are many other, often more pressing, needs in our societies. Rearmament is a dangerous activity in many ways, both outwards and inwards: Let's keep it under control.

Madam President, we are all deeply concerned about Europe's competitiveness. Business aviation plays a key role in strengthening the attractiveness of our continent. It allows business leaders and decision-makers to save time and reach destinations not served by commercial airlines. Medical flights fall also under the sector, further highlighting its importance. A well-functioning business aviation industry helps attract investment to Europe, yet it was excluded from the Taxonomy Regulation. This omission is baffling. I urge the Commission to address this in the upcoming Omnibus initiatives. Regarding sustainable fuels – the so-called SAFs – we need a globally standardised definition. The Commission must push for this. SAFs should also be available in sufficient quantities at all European airports, big and small. Finally, I call on the Commission to actively support the development of electric vertical take-off and landing technology in Europe.

Madam President, we must defend democracy and fundamental rights. On the one hand, the European Commission censors and interferes in democratic elections, on the other hand, there are those who defend freedom of expression and the integrity of elections. The DSA needs to be fundamentally reformed. The best response to disinformation is not censorship, but freedom of expression. US Professor Michael Shellenberger, father of Twitter Files, reminded us of this during his recent visit to this Parliament. President Trump, Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg are leading the way. In Europe, unfortunately, the worst is yet to come. The 'shield of democracy', a new project by the von der Leyen Commission, will further restrict our freedoms. The best shield of democracy will be the one we raise to protect citizens from the totalitarian tendencies of the European Commission.

Mr President, Europe has lost its competitiveness and its power of attraction. Its inability to innovate and overburdened bureaucracy combined with rising energy prices – largely due to sanctions against Russia – are the major causes. But the climate policy of our Union, this unrealistic ideology, this madness that Europe can save the world by ruining its economy, in a word this Green Deal is the main cause of our evils. It must be abolished. Europe’s economic actors need to take responsibility. The heads of industry federations in our member countries should come together to form the Renewal Commission and face this von der Leyen Commission, which only creates problems instead of solving them, introduces taxes and regulations instead of abolishing them, stifles initiatives instead of promoting them. CO emissions2 are a very modest problem compared to our economic decay and social impoverishment.

Mr President, the events in Romania are very worrying. On the pretext of possible foreign interference through TikTok, democratic elections were cancelled with the agreement of the Commission and in violation of the Romanian Constitution. However, interference via TikTok has not yet been established, while at the same time there has been a lot of Western political interference in the Romanian election campaign. Through its Digital Services Act, the European Commission is interfering itself in the democratic process in Romania and violating the sovereignty of that Member State with the intention of eliminating a candidate that does not suit it. Instead of censoring social media, we'd better censor the European Commission. Authoritarian and anti-democratic instruments must be abolished in the Digital Services Act. Romania must not become a precedent to allow totalitarianism on the part of the European Commission.

Madam President, my speech relates to Rules 174 and 210 of our Rules of Procedure. On 21 October, I tried to make a statement in Luxembourgish in this Parliament. I was immediately interrupted and invited to speak in English. I would therefore like to inform my fellow Members that, as a result of this, I have proposed to amend two articles of our Rules of Procedure to allow the use of the Luxembourgish language in our exchanges. I am now told that legal advice has been sought. This opinion should not be used to fabricate arguments to perpetuate the discrimination of the Luxembourgish language by the European Parliament. On the contrary, Parliament must endeavour to find solutions to enable the national language of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to be recognised and introduced into this House. The people of Luxembourg are entitled to expect that they will not be treated in any other way than the other nations represented in this Assembly.

Madam President, the final declaration of the G20 in Rio de Janeiro testifies to the impressive decrease in the diplomatic influence of the West on world affairs. Some passages, such as, in particular, the one on Ukraine or the one on the Middle East, show that, among the countries that represent the most important part of the world economy, the American and European theses on these wars are not accepted. The contrast with the recent BRICS summit in Kazan is all the more telling. While the BRICS have a political project, the G20 already seems to belong to another era, an era in which the US administration and most European states had not yet chosen to prefer war to diplomacy and thus precipitate their marginalization. If we want to regain any influence in the world, we must end the war by negotiating peace.

Madam President, according to our treaties, the European Union is not intended to become a military alliance. Without the revision of the Treaties ratified by the Member States, the militarisation of our Union violates our legal bases. The introduction of a defence commissioner testifies to the will to create accomplished facts without consulting national parliaments or listening to the will of the people. We fear refusal as in 1954 and we prefer to do without democracy. This defence dimension, which goes beyond security cooperation, violates the neutrality of Ireland and Austria. Referendums and state treaties are ignored. The transformation of the European Union into a military alliance, effectively a mere appendix to NATO, will make it impossible for Ukraine to join the European Union. If it survives the war, it will and must remain neutral. Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, if we are to be better prepared for crises, let us at least do so with respect for democracy and the Treaties.