Speeches

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. When Ms von der Leyen presented the draft multiannual financial framework, many of you were outraged – and rightly so. This is because these plans, in particular the concept of national and regional partnership plans, result in Parliament being largely marginalised in both the allocation and the control of the use of the EU budget. Moreover, the negotiations with the Commission have not changed much in this respect, as the Court of Auditors has recently confirmed. It is therefore all the more astonishing that you now want to give the Commission even more money than it originally requested. Europe does not create added value by turning more and more money over Brussels. And we should also not give Mrs von der Leyen a money bag with which she can govern the Member States. What Europe needs are clear and simple rules for cohesion policy, for the common agricultural policy and for the protection of our external borders. This is our job as parliamentarians. But we are not the service providers and certainly not the useful idiots of the Commission.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, There is a lot of money going on in Brussels. Whether the money reaches the right people is sometimes very much the question. One example is the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund. This should be mobilised in the event of mass redundancies and show that Europe also has a social side. However, a closer look shows that more than half of the applications come from Belgium. So it seems that the authorities in Belgium are a bit smarter – or know the right people – when it comes to tapping into EU funds. And, of course, the funds must not replace payments from national unemployment insurance or national support programmes. This often means that it is not the redundant workers who benefit from the subsidies, but some consulting companies that make a good deal out of the impending unemployment. Don't you think we should take a closer look at what the Commission is doing with the European taxpayer's money? Europe does not become more social by feeding consultancies and bureaucracy monsters to the Commission.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! I do not know how many energy packages the Commission is presenting here. European energy policy has become a bureaucratic monster, driving up energy costs more and more and giving the industry no more planning certainty. It's time to think about the basics. What Europe needs is safe, cheap and climate-friendly energy. For this we do not need a central planning commission in Brussels, which believes that certain forms of energy production must be privileged and others banned. Where we rely on imports, we should use all available supply instead of imposing sanctions on certain suppliers or, as is currently the case, blackmailing ourselves with American fracking ‑ liquefied petroleum gas. The pipeline infrastructure is the marketplace of the energy industry. This is a natural monopoly and must be developed in state hands. We don't need a bureaucratic climate. Green DealIt's a mechanism that CO2 priced in such a way that the costs of climate change are imposed on the polluter.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. The war in Ukraine has already cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of people and destroyed large parts of the country. But now he is also destroying Europe and the European Union. While the American president wants to end the war in order to enrich himself with the natural resources of Ukraine, which President Zelenskyy promised him, the European Union is in debt to enable Ukraine to purchase arms in the order of 60 billion euros. The EU will remain seated on these debts, because the hope of Russian reparations payments is absurd wishful thinking. The winner is again Donald Trump, because a large part of the money will end up in the American arms industry. And this at a time when the US President is threatening EU Member States and reviling Europe as a continent in decline. Europe needs to think about itself. It is up to Europe to end the war on its continent, to overcome the division of Europe and to build bridges again to the largest country in Europe by population and area.

Madam President, Commissioner! Dear colleagues! The conditionality regime is supposedly about protecting the EU budget, which is known to be adopted by Parliament and the Council. And that is indeed very important. The aim is to ensure that the funds made available by the European Union are spent in accordance with the law and regulations. As a rule, this should be conclusively regulated in the laws on the basis of which the money is distributed. And these laws are made by the legislator, that is, first and foremost by this Parliament. With the conditionality regime, however, another vehicle is now available to withhold funds that have already been approved by Parliament, without Parliament being able to influence them, solely on the basis of a Commission proposal and a qualified majority of the Council. There may be concerns about the rule of law in some Member States. But anyone who allows the Commission and the Council to withhold funds beyond the rules set by Parliament and without its consent is putting the axe to Europe's rule of law. Merry Christmas to you!

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. It seems that Parliament can be celebrated for giving the Council a little more money for the budget. The question is whether this is really a success for Parliament. It is not in the interest of the citizens we represent here if more and more money is turned over to Brussels, which could be spent much more efficiently and transparently by the Member States, their regions or municipalities. More and more money for the Commission does not strengthen the role of this Parliament, but weakens it. What the Commission is planning for the next multiannual financial framework should be a warning to us. It is not a question of common rules, common standards and an approximation of living conditions in the Union, but rather of assuming new competences and governing the Member States more or less unchecked by Parliament. We are doing a disservice to Europe.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! Why do we want to give more and more money to the Commission? As a Parliament, it is our task to supervise and control the Commission. Our task is to ensure that the Commission does not exceed its competences, and it is also our task, in any case, not to give the Commission administrative competence and budgetary resources where the corresponding tasks can be carried out more transparently, efficiently and democratically at the level of the Member States, the provinces and the municipalities. The Commission's draft multiannual financial framework should be a warning to us. What Ms von der Leyen is striving for is a domination of the bureaucracy, which, with the golden reins of money, is governing Member States in order to enforce its so-called reform agenda. The money is to be approved by Parliament, otherwise it does not have much to say. Dear colleagues, I can only recommend not to participate. We should not be under suspicion of being the useful idiots of the Commission.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Poland has not extradited the suspect for the attacks on the Nord Stream pipelines to the Federal Republic of Germany, but released them. This is a scandal, because the decision of the Polish court is a blatant breach of law. The fact that the Ukrainian is urgently suspect is not disputed in Poland either. That's why he should have been extradited. This is a terrorist attack on critical infrastructure, which is also owned by companies and Member States of the European Union. An attack that not only endangered Europe's security of supply with natural gas, but also released a large amount of climate-damaging greenhouse gases. The fact that Poland apparently has no sanctions against the European Union and that even the German government is prepared to accept this verdict shows how hypocritical all the chatter about the rule of law in the European Union is. If law is broken and acts of terrorism go unpunished, then this is not an advertisement for the alleged European community of values.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, One wonders: Why does the so-called Snapback Actually now? Why – and this seems to be what this is all about – do sanctions against Iran need to be tightened again in order to prevent the country from developing nuclear weapons? I would like to remind you that it was only three months ago that the United States, with a military strike according to President Trump, caused serious damage to Iran's nuclear program and threw it back for years. There is no point in reinforcing sanctions now. It's not about Iran's nuclear program. Rather, it is about Russia, with which Iran has now allied itself. Perhaps Europe would also like to make itself popular with the American president, who has never thought of the nuclear agreement with Iran and who, with such good behavior, can perhaps be persuaded to supply weapons to Ukraine again. Isn't that pathetic? In the past, Europe was a power of peace. Today, Europe seems to prefer to ignite and fuel conflicts.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! Visa-free travel for stays of up to 90 days is a major advance in civilisation. And it is also European in the best sense, because our continent, and in particular the European Union, stands for freedom of movement, openness to the world and diversity. The prerequisite, of course, is reciprocity. And that's a good thing, because reciprocity creates the incentive for other countries to open their borders as well. And, of course, it is true that this freedom of movement must not become the gateway to illegal immigration or, as in the case of Vanuatu, can be obtained by acquiring citizenship to some extent. With the amendments now proposed, however, we are opening the door to what I believe is a potentially disastrous politicisation of free movement. The victims are the citizens of the states, who, for whatever reason, may not want to adapt to our sometimes specifically European values or do not want to follow some of our objectives, such as the imposition of economic sanctions, which are extremely controversial in their effect. I'm afraid: We make friends with such a visa policy – according to the motto: The world is supposed to recover from the European nature – probably not.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! It has been pointed out several times that Ursula von der Leyen and Donald Trump's tariff deal is unbalanced and violates European interests. More serious, however, is the fact that the President of the Commission has made promises that are not only absurd in terms of content, but also that she cannot keep at all. If it promises the American president that the European Union will buy $750 billion worth of oil and gas in the US over the next three years, it would mean that we are completely dependent on expensive American fracking LNG for gas. But she could not promise that anyway, because it is not paid from the budget of the European Union. And I can hardly imagine that European energy companies are so stupid as to buy natural gas only in America. In this respect, the breach of contract is pre-programmed, which Donald Trump will take as an opportunity to blackmail us again. Mrs. von der Leyen should take her hat; She's just not fit for the job.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. The European Union is committed to the fight against disinformation. A committee has even been set up in this Parliament to act as a shield of democracy and to protect the people of Europe from disinformation and malicious propaganda. I recommend that this committee deal once with the Vice-President/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Ms Kallas. It seems that the claim that Russia defeated the Nazis is a questionable narrative. It is not a questionable narrative, but a historical fact, that the Soviet Union, which at that time included, in addition to Russia, Ukraine, had to bear the greatest casualties of the Second World War with over 25 million deaths and played a decisive role in liberating Europe and Germany from fascism. Those who deny this either have no idea of the story or engage in ideology-driven disinformation. In any case, such a person is incapable of representing the Union in foreign and security policy. Therefore, Ms Kallas should resign and study a little history following her own recommendation.

Madam President, Madam Minister, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! According to the presentation of the Commission and the expectations of at least a majority of this House, significant funds will probably continue to flow into Ukraine after 2027 – for weapons and for the reconstruction of the country after a terrible war. But we should be careful that Europe does not become the paymaster, while others do business. With the deal, which Ukraine signed with the US at the end of April, President Trump allegedly wants to earn around $350 billion with raw material deals and infrastructure contracts. That would be more than twice what his country has done to Ukraine so far. It is time to make it clear to President Zelensky that Europe's aid is not unconditional, but in the expectation of a fair partnership. Instead of bragging about unwavering support, Ms von der Leyen should finally also keep an eye on the interests of the European Union. Here, too, the money is scarce.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! The enlargement debate is detrimental to the European Union mainly because it is dishonest. It is dishonest because it is politically motivated. For example, we would not discuss Ukraine’s EU membership without the Russian war of aggression, because it would mean the end of the common agricultural policy – no one wants that, and that is why it will not happen. The discussion is also dishonest because we cannot afford it. No Member State will be willing to increase its contribution to the EU budget or to forego Union benefits. As well, if 5% of national budgets are to be spent on defence spending! And thirdly, it is dishonest because in reality no one wants it, not even the people of the candidate countries. Just look at the latest election results in Georgia and Moldova! The growth pains of the European Union are already unmistakable today. Even more Member States are not suitable therapy – on the contrary, it makes them even worse.

Madam President, Mr Executive Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen! Three quarters of the RRF's duration is now over, and it is indeed time to take stock – and it is quite pathetic. So far, just under half of the funds made available have been mobilised by the Member States and there are reasonable doubts as to whether they have been used as intended. Now the flexibility is to be further increased. I don't think we should join in. Let's not forget: From the outset, the Facility has been quite a stand-alone initiative of the Commission. The coronavirus crisis was only a cheap occasion; The real issue was, more or less, to get past Parliament, with hundreds of billions of joint debts, to synchronise the policies of the Member States in the sense of the Commission, yesterday in the sense of the Green DealToday, for the rearmament of Europe. The fact that not all Member States can be bought is reassuring. And we as parliamentarians should not drink the cocoa through which Mrs von der Leyen wants to draw us.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. Yesterday, in the ECON and BUDG Committees, the own-initiative report on recovery and Resilience facility adopted, in essence, extending the deadline for the submission of projects and broadening the scope of eligible projects. Should the Commission follow this request and, for example, so-called dual-use projects or the establishment of a common defence industry via the RRF In order to be funded, she is legally on thin ice. After all, this has little to do with what the Council decided in July 2020. In the summer of 2023, the German Constitutional Court put an end to a similar request by the German traffic light government – at that time, corona funds should be misused for climate protection. Let's see if the European judges also set limits to the Commission's arrogance.