Speeches

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. The Commission is concerned about health services in the tourism sector – that sounds good at first. But if you look at the details of the EU plans at stake: Again, there are a lot of rules, unclear rules, unclear responsibilities, inconcrete financing, controls, reporting points. There is no question; Health tourism is known to be a booming market in the EU. Around 5% of tourism is earned through wellness and health, and this share is constantly increasing – considering Europe’s demographics. But the key question here is again: Is health tourism a task for the EU? We say no. If someone from Germany goes to the dentist in Hungary, they have to find out about the risks – the EU is not the legal guardian of Europeans. Another important issue is patient rights. In autumn 2024, for example, a dedicated workshop was held in Brussels. Motto: Mindfulness of patient rights. We say: People are intelligent enough to inform themselves. And if someone isn't, it's their problem – we trust the Europeans. The security aspect is strongly emphasised in the current EU plans. As far as safety is concerned, I would have a few suggestions for the Commissioner. Especially in international traffic: Increased controls at the EU’s external borders – even likely – also ensure greater safety with regard to the introduction of infectious diseases. And further: More self-responsibility for medical institutions, less bureaucratic controls and, above all, less corrupt NGOs. The coronavirus regime has shown us that the EU is only partially resilient, especially in the health sector. By the way, to this day, Ms von der Leyen's contracts with the pharmaceutical companies are still under lock and key. Why actually? Where is the much-vaunted transparency? I could imagine Mrs. von der Leyen very well with an ankle cuff and more and more Europeans as well. Once again, on health tourism: Let people decide for themselves where to go on wellness holidays or go to the dentist. The real European needs neither supervised travel nor supervised holidays. This EU already has enough bureaucracy and corruption at its fingertips. Green tourism, fair tourism, sustainable tourism. People are fed up with it. It's hanging out their necks, and I can understand that. Commissioner, the plans you put forward can only be rejected. Get rid of it! Less Europe is more and more Europe.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen! While Europe is struggling with a stagnating economy and the Commission's geopolitical blind flight, today we are discussing the importance of trans-European transport projects. Just as if the problems in economic and transport policy had simply fallen from the sky – but that is not the case. These are all consequences of wrong policies. Whether climate madness, the sanctions regime or illegal mass migration organised by NGOs, everything that is lacking elsewhere devours money. In my native Saxony, bridges are collapsing; Deutsche Bahn is a shadow of itself. Nevertheless, Brussels wants to spend hundreds of billions on any arms projects. The EU demands joint debts for defence and infrastructure, but in the end German taxpayers always pay the bill. At the same time, recession and illegal migration in Europe threaten our prosperity and security. Let us first tackle the real problems facing the citizens of Europe. Recession with clever economic policies, illegal migration with remigration and corrupt Eurocrats with justice.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen! The Commission feels responsible for everything, and only it knows what is good for the whole world – what modesty. Now a pact for the oceans. There are only a handful of countries on the Atlantic. The EU has a very modest name in the text ‘Global champion of sustainability’. It's delicious. What does the Commission want? Among other things, she wants first of all Fishers of the FutureThe new people in the fishing industry. In the Soviet Union, this was still called Homo sovieticus – the outcome is known. Then the Commission wants to include social standards in the Pact – you could talk about it – and of course – I find that really repulsive – everything is to be enforced above all by corrupt NGOs. Commissioner, this is a really strong piece. They talked about visions in the pact. You spoke about aquaculture, you propagate that. Bravo! The reality, of course, is different. We are currently losing touch with aquaculture worldwide. As always, the Commission is late. The biggest nonsense in the pact, however, is the idea We interact with the oceans. Ladies and gentlemen, nature regulates its own changes, the climate changes with and without humans, and fish adapt as they have for millions of years.

Madam President, It is a pity that Mrs von der Leyen fled Parliament at the first critical comment from my colleague on her shameful policy here, but perhaps she is already practising for later. Von der Leyen now wants to invest 800 billion in the rearmament of the EU. I would like to ask: How much money will end up in your pocket? After all, they are being hunted for corruption. We need to fight bureaucracy and corruption in the EU; the US shows us how to do it – with DOGE. As long as this does not happen, we can tip another trillion and billions of euros of European taxpayers into the system, without any visible success. I therefore hope, first of all, that the Europeans will expel Mrs von der Leyen from office, and I hope for Justice that Mrs von der Leyen will soon have to wear an ankle restraint.

Mr Colleague, I do not know how old you are, but you have certainly missed the fact that during the Cold War we had very, very good treaties with the former Soviet Union, which was much more aggressive towards the West than today's Russia actually does. I don't know where the problem is. So, for us, it is important that we provide our consumers with cheap energy. The administration in the United States recognizes this. We very much hope as German representatives that Nordstream 2 will be repaired and that we will then be able to obtain cheap energy there together as an American-Russian project Nordstream 2. This is an absolute question of sovereignty; Cheap energy is also a form of sovereignty.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. The only correct thing in the Affordable Energy Action Plan is to note that energy prices are too high. On the other hand, the causes mentioned are wrong in the plan, e.g. consumer consumption or even the weather – what a mischief there is! It is correct: The EU's entire energy policy is wrong. In particular, the decoupling of cheap gas and oil imports from Russia is wrong. That is why we say: Competitive compass - get rid of it! Action plans – get rid of them! Flagship projects or pilot programmes – get rid of them! The EU simply has to think economically, profit-oriented and not green-ideologically. We need a market economy instead of a planned economy, away with green energy socialism. The solution to the energy problem is not clean energy, but cheap energy. As long as the Commission does not understand this, it would be better for the people in the Commission's activities to do nothing at all. Fossil fuels are not the problem, but the fossils in the Commission are the problem - the Commissioner can feel calmly addressed. We can only hope that they will die out like dinosaurs.

Mr Everding, thank you very much for what you have said about your visions. I'm really just interested in: What distinguishes your vision of agriculture from that of North Korea?

Madam President, Dear colleagues! I am surprised that we have not changed the agenda today. You've probably noticed: A world-class event happened yesterday. Presidents Trump and Putin will launch a peace process on Ukraine. The Commission, Parliament and the EU play no role in this. To be honest, I would have liked us to talk about this topic today. Now it is. Today we are talking about the problem of same-sex couples. Every day, the Commission continuously promotes its EU values and wants to enforce them as globally as possible. What presumptuousness! The fact that this prevents agreements, often harming the EU economy, does not matter to the Commission. The Commission does not seem to be interested in the fact that the majority of countries in the world have different values than this EU. This is especially true in the area of family. Six countries have not agreed to the idea of same-sex marriage, including Bulgaria, Romania and Poland. These countries have different traditions. Why can't we respect that? This EU always promotes unity in diversity. Does not the normal and traditional family image of mother, father, children, which has prevailed in Europe since the dawn of time, count as a part of diversity worthy of protection? Why are countries like Romania threatened here that need to change their constitution? We think that's offensive, that's disgusting, that's to be rejected. To be clear: No one should be discriminated against. No one should be preferred either. Equal treatment for everyone. This EU now wants all forms of private life to be recognised across borders throughout the EU. No, it is up to each country to decide for itself. This is a national responsibility of the Member States. This EU, while it still exists, should concentrate on its core competences, if it has them, and not interfere in the private lives of citizens. We respect the private lives of all citizens. But we also stand for family of mother, father, children. The sovereignty of a nation also means sovereignty in family matters and respect for the private affairs of its citizens. And from this point I would like to call out to my compatriots: If you pay great attention to freedom, peace and sovereignty, you will have the opportunity next week on Sunday. We say: From the Alps to the lake, all AfDs vote. Or in simple language: Be smart, choose blue!

Mr President! I should like to turn to Mr Gahler. They had passionately shouted: Slava Ukrajini. I would like to remind you that this term was used by the Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists, founded in 1929. This organization persecuted Poles, Jews, Sinti and Roma. In their continuity are people like you who proclaim here Slava Ukrajini. Colleague Lopatka may feel calmly addressed. Every month there is now a debate on Ukraine here in the House, and in the end the war will end here without the EU Commission and without this so-called Parliament. Presidents Putin and Trump will make a deal, end the war, and Europe doesn't matter in Europe. Ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, we should discuss this here in this Parliament.

Mr President! Madame Lagarde, I had listened to your report, and I must honestly say that I had trouble not falling asleep. When we look at our most important partner, the United States: There there is a departure, there is tidying up, there is just proclaiming the golden age. The United States is preparing its place in the new world of the 21st century. Lagarde's report lacks any positive vision for the future of Europe: Not a word about the end of Green Deals by Donald Trump, not a word about the fact that BlackRock, Vanguard – big investors – will no longer invest in green climate madness in the future. A bit of resilience, a bit of digitalization bubble and competition appeals are not enough. Madame Lagarde's speech was bloodless and hopeless. It can only frighten and frighten you about the future of Europe.

Mr President! As a member of the Bundestag, I myself had the opportunity to visit the Lithuanian external border, the Bulgarian external border, and there have always been criticisms of the EU's funding opportunities that too much humanitarian action has been promoted, but no robust border protection. In this respect, Commissioner Brunner's remarks are a small step forward. I alone lack faith in the will. We need the will to fortress Europe. We need, if you will, a new Iron Curtain on Europe's external borders. But we also need order within Europe. We will therefore not be able to avoid expelling millions of criminals and illegal migrants. So we need millions of remigrations within Europe. And unfortunately, in your words, Commissioner Brunner, that did not happen at all. As long as this topic is not viewed centrally as a task by you, I can unfortunately not believe your beautiful words.

Of course, the topic is important to us. We are just surprised that the Commission is currently dealing with the issue of whales. And, Commissioner Brunner, you can take this with you, I believe that we should certainly deal better with illegal migration. What does Brussels do about whaling off Iceland? Nothing. But no, this EU wants once again a free nation, here Iceland. The Eurocrats could well turn in front of their own door. Keyword: Thousands of brutal animal transports within this EU every month. But Brussels, of course, has an alternative tip to whaling: Sea cucumber breeding. Honestly, you can't think of anything else. Delicious, as Brussels is worried – or touchingly worried – about the oh-so-poor Iceland. Be sure that the tourists come because of the fantastic nature, and the whale watching boats in Reykjavik start with and without the blessing of the corrupt WEF Commission President. The Icelandic government is considering whether Iceland should become a member of the EU again. They should keep their freedom and turn to the United States. In this EU, the Icelanders expect only disgusting green socialism and condescending patronage.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Very sad news reach us today from my homeland, from Germany, from Aschaffenburg: A knife attacker killed a child, two years old, in an attack on a kindergarten group, a helper was also murdered. First of all, I would like to take this opportunity to express my condolences to the victims and bereaved on behalf of my group, the ESN Group, and the Alternative for Germany. And I ask myself in the face of such events, which occur very often: Who is actually responsible? We had a parliamentary debate on this today. No one is responsible for illegal migration in Germany and Europe – Interior Minister Faeser would have had to resign long ago. The EU Commission deals with all matters, but it should actually deal with remigration. Actually, if we're honest, we need remigration a million times over. I am surprised that the Commission ...

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. The Commission's texts on the Shadow Fleet always have only one content: Behind every incident in the Baltic Sea lies the Russian. Last Monday, NATO Secretary General Rutte fantasized in an EP hearing about the problem of the shadow fleet and attacks on our infrastructure in the Baltic Sea. The NATO amateurs and Baltic Sea neighbours held an extra summit in Helsinki last Tuesday. And Sunday reports it Washington Post with reference to a number of intelligence informants that the damage to submarine cables in the Baltic Sea is not Russian sabotage. So once again for all of you: Baltic Sea cables, underwater cables – no Russian sabotage according to intelligence services. President Trump can therefore be fully seen if he wants nothing more to do with the European NATO failures in the future. On the other hand, as a representative of German interests, I would have wished for so much commitment in clarifying the Nord Stream 2 escapade. Of course, the shadow fleet poses an ecological risk in the Baltic Sea. However, the problem of Shadow Fleet could easily be solved: Let's lift the Russian sanctions, and we will see the shadow fleet disappear in the mists of the seas.

Thank you, Madame, for allowing me to ask you this question. I had just listened carefully to you. They are associated with a quote that the newly elected American President Donald Trump, so to speak the leader of the free world, would not have all the cups in the closet. Did you say that? And have you apologized when you said it?

Mr President! First of all, I would like to take this opportunity to wish Donald Trump all the best for his tenure and God's blessings. He spoke today of the golden age, which will dawn for all of us, and of a golden future. How different then is the debate in this Parliament, where doomsday apostles and 1.5-degree fetishists try to outdo each other. For climate protection, we need entrepreneurial freedom, research and, above all, nuclear energy. And it's very gratifying that big investors have decided not to invest in all this green hocus-pocus anymore. It is also very good that Donald Trump has declared today that the Green Deal to end. And for all doomsday fetishists who can't get enough climate protection: Please look for a pharmacy, there are appropriate medications, or look for a doctor, this psychosis is treatable. It is wonderful that Donald Trump Green Deal will end.

Madam President, My very esteemed colleagues! Yes, it is true: Disabled people in Europe face many obstacles and problems in everyday life. There are no elevators, escalators, easy access to buses and trains. Therefore, it makes sense to take measures to improve this. But do we need an EU strategy for this again? As the EU itself says in the strategy text: The main responsibility for disability justice lies with the EU Member States themselves. What good, I ask, is the European Disability Card, if you have no access at any station in the EU or if an airport bus has a particularly high level. Firstly, we see the following as critical: The EU links real problems in everyday life with political aspects. We need – as described on page 10 in the text: "Disabled people should be given equal rights in politics in other EU countries.“ Specific examples of discrimination are not mentioned. Secondly: In general, the word ‘discrimination’ is used in an inflationary manner. There are problems, but I would not talk about systematic, permanent exclusion everywhere. Thirdly: It is claimed that climate change is particularly affecting disabled people. This is simply claimed, but again there is no evidence of it. One can certainly criticise certain countries or cities within the EU on a case-by-case basis, but an EU-wide strategy to make life better for people with disabilities does not – in my opinion – need to be – and will remain – the national task of the Member States first. According to my own observations, there is often a lack of maintenance of disabled facilities at train stations and airports. A defective lift on the platform or the broken disabled toilet at the airport often present people with disabilities with enormous difficulties. We should therefore take care of a better maintenance condition of such facilities. Let's set up a program with generous financial resources for this. When it comes to the question ‘How do we make the lives of our fellow disabled people?’, we should always be aware that tomorrow it can affect any of us through an accident or illness. From now on, we are dependent on being able to cope with life with disabilities ourselves. With this in mind, I wish all the Members of this House, although we often argue and disagree, a contemplative and blessed Christmas.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! Hardly a day goes by without the Commission having a vision – now also on tourism. The bulky title of the European Agenda for Tourism 2030 refers above all to the green transition – ecosystem tourism – and so on and so forth. In doing so, the EU feels called to determine, for example, how long short-term rentals can be allowed under point 15, or there are awareness-raising measures on the green transition under point 20. Tourism is a deeply national task, and the EU should first solve problems such as mass migration. It is also interesting that public contracts in tourism should be tied to green goals. Over and over again, green socialism instead of a market economy and competition – this is disgusting. The tourism strategy is superfluous. Entrepreneurs and customers decide on the spot where they travel, how they travel, how long they travel. Tourism has something to do with culture, history, private experiences, but not with aspects of climate religion. This green, socialist EU is simply the best way to leave tourists in Europe alone. The EU tourism strategy – if there was a trash can at the front, open the lid, tourism strategy in. This tourism strategy must be rejected.

Mr President, Commissioner! No one denies that pollution in the oceans and seas is a major problem. Plastic waste is particularly relevant. The solution to the EU Single-Use Plastics Directive and other proposals is now: banning. Ban on plastic bags, ban on straws - mainly ban. The pace for these prohibition orgies is usually determined by NGOs. They're constantly talking about CO.2Footprints, backpacks, raw material backpacks and, of course, from the UN Sustainable Development Goals. The special zealots demand garbage banks or see a direct connection between less plastic and less poverty. Strangely enough, you never hear about the causes of plastic waste in the oceans. The pillory is always given to certain countries, but not specifically to the polluter. If a captain deliberately disposes of plastic in the sea, and it is proven to him, then he should be severely punished for it. But the plastic bag itself or the balloon or the cotton swab on the beach are not to blame. There are first-class examples where recycling of waste works – without government intervention. The waste collection in Cairo with more than 20 million inhabitants is largely organized in a kind of self-government by private companies, resourceful individual entrepreneurs who know the situation on the ground and solve the problems. Something similar can be heard from India. If it is said today that the Baltic Sea is the dirtiest sea in the world, the individual polluters must be held accountable. This whole EU ban culture does not necessarily lead to improvement here. The objective of protecting the seas and fish from plastic waste is, of course, right – I said yes. But the ideological construction and excessive exaggeration by mostly green NGOs are not effective here. Some crazy green activists say that by 2050 there will be more bags than fish in the seas. Yes, and the deep-sea flea crab is particularly at risk. Seriously: Where's the question, I wonder? This is actually the creative approach of this EU. If plastic is so dangerous, why not invest in research to develop other materials for packaging? In summary: Punish the polluters of our oceans and seas harshly, but do not sway the European economy with ever more bureaucracy and annoy consumers with ever new regulations.

Mr Colleague, I have now listened very eagerly to what you have said. You say that, as a representative of the left of this House, you want to be very committed to the future of children. The question I ask you is: The SED in the GDR – which is your predecessor organisation – was known for mass adoptions of forced children. When can we expect the left to come to terms with history on this issue?

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, compatriots! Mia V., 15 years old, from Landau, was brutally stabbed to death by an asylum seeker from Afghanistan. A 17-year-old student from Cottbus was so badly injured by Syrians and Libyans in the schoolyard that he had to be hospitalized. A young man from Bad Oeynhausen was beaten so brutally by a Syrian at a high school graduation ceremony that he died of the injuries. All three victims are children of parents in principle, only large children. All three could still be alive or unharmed without the brutal migrant violence. No one needs a coordinator for children's rights, as long as millions of brutal killers and murderers can immigrate to Europe undisturbed and brutally murder, maim or injure our children here. The EU does not need to worry about the safety of toys as long as there is a problem of exploding crimes committed by young migrants targeting our children. Every crime statistic provides frightening information about this. You should look at this on the left side. The EU should stop millions of illegal migrations, launch large-scale remigration programmes and protect our children from the perverse pedophile networks.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen! A Communist of this House had tried to denounce me today just because I took a cap with me to a hearing, a MAGA cap. And I would like to confess once again to this Parliament: Yes, I was happy about Donald Trump's election victory. Yes, I was happy for the American people that they chose Donald Trump as their new leader. Yes, just as Donald Trump represents the interests of his country, the European peoples, the European nations, I think, can take an example. Under Donald Trump, America stands for democracy and fundamental rights. But I'm surprised that we can't look forward to an election victory for Donald Trump, even though America, the United States, is our most important ally. And finally, I would like to return to the Communist who tried to denounce me here today: He's a disgrace to this house. He was supposed to migrate to Cuba or North Korea. These are the countries that represent their values.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! No one reasonable is against protecting the oceans from destruction, but environmental protection doesn't work with rigid data, utopian targets, and ideological delusion. Practical things make sense, such as harsh punishment for captains throwing their waste into the sea or companies causing tanker accidents negligently, but we don't need a blue economy as a new socialist planned economy. An example of this: By 2030, 30% of the oceans should act as a protection zone – this is a utopian goal. Nature is stronger than the European Commission, it regenerates itself. Biodiversity has existed for millions of years. That is why we do not need EU naturalisation laws in agriculture, fishing or anywhere else. But I wonder: Where was and has the protection of the oceans remained during the demolition of Nord Stream 2? Where is the Commission's meticulous will to investigate this demolition of Nord Stream 2? It is very strange that Brussels does nothing here, although otherwise the Commission dreams of the dear long day of the Green Deal or the evil CO2 hunting. When we talk about protecting the oceans, I also have to talk about sanctions against Russia. The sanctions should hit Russia, but are now endangering our oceans, our environment, because Russia does not sink, but sends its raw materials around the globe with old, rusty ships; This is a fine example of the Commission shooting itself in the knees, with great applause from many Members of this House. Yes, we must protect the oceans, but against socialists, greens, eurocrats. That's why we say of the ESN: We agree with good ideas that are workable and, above all, economical; We agree with the statement in the main objective of protecting the seas, but we reject the blue economy basis: They are nothing more than green experiments and utopias.