Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (S&D)
185
—
Written Statements
DE
The case of Bülent Mumay in Türkiye
A resolution on the imprisoned Turkish journalist, Bülent Mumay, was discussed today in the European Parliament. It has been observed that Turkey appears to be the favourite enemy of many left-wing and green EU politicians. These politicians assume that every journalist is basically a victim who is on trial in Turkey. Why is this EU constantly interfering with its politicians in Turkey? In my home country of Germany, resisters against the CORONA regime are in prison or are banned from working. Deniers of the compulsory fees of state television are also put in prison. The domestic intelligence service of the FRG pursues the opposition with intelligence means, a unique event in Western Europe. This is what this EU should finally deal with! Why do they always apply particularly tough standards to Turkey, but do great business with the Saudis? This double standard testifies to a selective understanding of democracy and is unacceptable. Turkey is a strong and sovereign country. Interference on the part of this EU in internal Turkish affairs must cease.
Amending Regulation (EU) 2017/2402 on securitisation and a specific framework for simple, transparent and standardised securitisation (A10-0138/2026 - Ralf Seekatz) (vote)
Mr President! Dear colleagues! Today we are advising on two reports on securitisation, one on banks’ capital requirements and the other on the so-called securitisation framework. For the ESN Group it is clear: De-bureaucratization is the right thing to do. However, it is equally clear to us: We are not allowed to issue blank cheques for new financial constructions. Citizens have not forgotten the banking crisis. Securitisation must not mean privatising profits, concealing risks and ultimately leaving taxpayers liable. We support simplification where it increases transparency and strengthens the economy. However, we strongly reject regulations that blur liabilities, centralise supervision and place Brussels' capital market policy above the stability of national banking systems. Our benchmark is simple - solid financing for businesses, security for European savers and no bailouts at the expense of citizens. From this point of view, it is impossible for us to agree with these reports.
The impact of the implementation of the Maritime Spatial Planning Directive 2014/89/EU on fisheries in selected fishing areas and sea basins (debate)
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. The Maritime Spatial Planning Directive has been in force for five years. The aim was actually to create a political framework for better planning of marine space. The Directive should reduce conflicts between users of the European seas, in particular fisheries and aquaculture, and the ever-growing wind industry sector. In fact, the conflicts between these two sectors have intensified significantly: While the subsidised wind industry has benefited, fishing operations have been displaced from key fishing areas and the needs of aquaculture farms have been largely ignored. Honestly, this is no longer acceptable. Representatives of fisheries and aquaculture are still not sufficiently involved in the planning phases of new wind turbines. The Commission's priorities are crystal clear: The EU agendaGreen Deals enforcing it at all costs, whatever the cost, even if European food sovereignty falls by the wayside. This is basically the essence of this EU, which speaks of three pillars of sustainability – economic, environmental and social – but in reality aligns all its policies with its insane climate cult. It was high time for a review of the Marine Spatial Planning Directive. We welcome the initiative of rapporteur Stéphanie Yon-Courtin. The report calls for the recognition of fisheries and aquaculture as strategic sectors of high public interest. Bravo! This is fully supported by the ESN Group. Ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner! It is only logical that our food security and a strong European fishing industry should be more important to us than the inefficient production of wobbly electricity from subsidised offshore wind farms; Cheap industrial power or cheap energy can be produced differently today. The Commission speaks a lot and often of independence, but at the same time pursues a policy that increases energy prices in Europe while jeopardising industry and food security. We support this report as a small step towards recognising the destruction of our food base caused by the policies of European climate fanatics. However, the ESN Group goes one step further: We call for the end of the EUGreen Deals. The EUGreen Deal Just have to go! This is the only way there will be fish in the future. Made in Europe.
Women’s entrepreneurship in rural and island areas and outermost regions (debate)
Mr. Streit, thank you very much! I listened very much to your report. They strongly support this report. We are both German citizens – I would like to take this opportunity to greet my colleagues from Saxony. We in the GDR had lived equality. Now my question is: Today we are dealing with the rural area that is emptying out. Do you think that it is really important that we focus on scientific possibilities, mathematics and on giving women special access? Isn't it better if, as far as rural areas are concerned, we'd rather focus on family planning? concentrating? That one puts children back into the world, so to speak, that the rural area is animated. Is this really the right focus, this STEM subject question?
The role of ocean diplomacy for the competitiveness of EU fisheries and aquaculture (debate)
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen. What is already not working for Europe – by the way, our fish industry has been destroyed – is now to be applied to the whole world. Ocean diplomacy It's another word for colonialism. Globally, aquaculture is booming while declining in Europe – too expensive energy, too much bureaucracy. Egypt has lush marine protected areas, Indonesia is successfully curbing illegal fishing – all without this EU. This report finds its low point in the demand for restrictions on Russian fish imports. Charging questions of food security with moral impetus leads to hunger in Europe and will unnecessarily make the fish sticks that our children love so much more expensive. This is also a social issue. Low-income earners can then no longer afford fish, and Russia finds other buyers for its saithe in doubt. Only positive: The report recognizes the so-called international moratorium on deep-sea mining, but only China and America will benefit from these mineral resources. We don’t, we don’t do such a thing – this is what this EU moral champion is for. Commissioner, if this EU does not take any more funds for fishermen for the next budget, at some point we will only become fish. Made in China eating.
Financial literacy and the rise of finfluencers in the context of the savings and investments union (debate)
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen. What do stocks have in common with Kopf, Kolja Barghoorn and Finanzrocker? They are so-called finfluencers, run blogs, inform about their work there. I greet you warmly from this point. But no one has to look at this blog or derive anything for themselves in any way from the reports. This own-initiative report was sold to us as a contribution to financial education. In fact, it's about more control, more steering, more centralization. Even simple expressions of opinion by so-called finfluencers are potentially to be placed under abuse of power. Promoting legitimate content, expressing others, that opens the door to censorship. Financial education itself is not taught in a neutral way, but is linked to political guidelines. Citizens should be directed to certain investments according to ESG criteria. This is not a harmless own-initiative report, but a step towards more control over opinions, capital and competences. What should you do with it? The report should be ripped apart and thrown into the trash can!
Deposit protection and early intervention measures (joint debate)
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. I cannot necessarily agree with these many positive words about this paper. What is being sold to us here as progress is in fact a further step towards more centralisation and a liability union in the European banking system. The expansion of deposit insurance, the more flexible use of security funds and stronger cross-border cooperation sound good. But they carry considerable risks: national responsibility is being diluted, and sound banks and states are increasingly liable for the mistakes of their neighbours. The planned intervention options at an early stage raise questions: Who decides when to intervene, according to what criteria, and how do we ensure that this is not done politically, but exclusively according to clearly market-economy principles? We also see a dangerous development in processing and financing: increasingly complex mechanisms that ultimately do one thing above all else: shift risks instead of reducing them. For the ESN Group, it is clear that a stable banking system needs clear liability rules, transparency and national responsibility – no hidden backdoor communitisation of risks. Europe needs less bureaucracy and more economic rationality, not new instruments of the Eurocrats, which end up undermining trust.
Joint action addressing the increased use of death penalty (debate)
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen. The topic of the death penalty is very emotional and touches on millennia-old traditions on all continents. But here, too, the incompetent commission believes once again that it has absolute truth and feels that it has global responsibility. For the Commission, the death penalty is in principle and always cruel, inhumane and without deterrent effect. It even calls for a global ban. The Commission does not distinguish between death sentences for political reasons and crimes such as bestial murders, such as migrantizide or the cruel murder of children. And if I'm already with cruel Islamist murderers: Today marks the anniversary of the bloody deed of Aschaffenburg – a small boy and a hurrying adult were cruelly killed. The question is therefore admissible: Why shouldn't these inhumans fulfill their most ardent desire to enter Paradise as martyrs to their 72 virgins? Israel shows us a fairly effective practice in this existential question. So that we don't get it wrong: We reject capital punishments because this judgment is usually irreversible in the event of errors of law. Nevertheless, in our opinion, every country has the right to decide for itself whether to use the death penalty. How to say so nicely: Other countries, other customs. This discussion shows once again the whole double standard of this EU: The noses of Belarus and China are battered and overlooked by the US, Japan or Saudi Arabia – as good economic partners, of course. The EU is targeting Iran with this debate. Yes, the mullahs' regime is brutal, imposing death sentences that do not meet our ideas of the rule of law. The truth is that Khomeini came to power from French asylum in 1979. Well-rested, cooked-steeled to haunt a free country and its people as an Islamic Republic. Here, too, the West has failed colossally, and today we have the mess with Iran. This EU should deal with problems other than the death penalty. If the EU constantly insists on the rule of law worldwide, it should first turn its back on its own doorstep. Does anyone else follow the Maastricht criteria? Does the Dublin procedure work anywhere? Does anyone still pay attention to the limits of debt? No. The EU should focus on what is important: a stable economy and currency, good relations with the US, Russia and China and securing our trade routes. After that, we'll continue to see.
Territorial integrity and sovereignty of Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark: the need for a united EU response to US blackmail attempts (debate)
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. The debate on Greenland reveals the collective incapacity of this EU. Donald Trump brutally shows us all this incapacity. We should learn from this for the future. But this incompetent EU imagines itself at war with Russia, Kallas and others currently snub China, and as the crowning glory this EU now enters into conflict with the USA. The truth is: Greenland's status is the result of military power and political coercion. Greenland was colonised, the original Greenlanders had to endure euthanasia programs until a few decades ago. This is not an American mind game, this is a European reality. The US rightly has no confidence in the resilience of an increasingly Islamized Europe. Trump creates facts through military strength. We are no longer able to do this. And that this EU has not immediately responded diplomatically to Trump's advances on Greenland since he took office shows one thing: They still don't take Trump seriously. This is a historic mistake that could cost Denmark dearly.
Increasing the efficiency of the EU guarantee under the InvestEU Regulation and simplifying reporting requirements (debate)
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen. In fact, the report would have to be rejected already, because it still leads the wrong way. Green Deal follow. But under the slogan efficiency, another bureaucratic monster is created here. Only this time it should not even be properly monitored. Incredible, but that's how it is. InvestEU is already an opaque apparatus that hides risks. But instead of finally creating order, there is a serious need for fewer reporting obligations. This corrupt EU is now also openly demanding less transparency for a program that handles billions of dollars that the taxpayer ultimately bears. Every sports club, on the other hand, has to settle more cleanly than this EU with this report. So we should nod off an even bigger EU guarantee based on even less information with even more diffuse responsibilities. Anyone who builds such constructs creates the basis for abuse. Mrs. von der Leyen will certainly be pleased. It is constantly claimed that InvestEU is mobilising enormous private funds. In reality, the numbers are inflated, the effects are overestimated and the risks end up with the citizens who are not even asked. Ladies and gentlemen, this Parliament should finally stop blindly agreeing to any paper that says something about Europe. This report is not about efficiency, but about shifting power, lack of transparency and financial irresponsibility. Anyone who considers this to be progress has lost contact with reality and is promoting corruption. The AfD, the ESN Group say clearly: Rejection.
The new 2028-2034 Multiannual Financial Framework: architecture and governance (debate)
Mr President! Dear colleagues! What is presented to us here as a budget is the completed socialist planned economy. The new EUSR is emerging. It is fantasized about harmonisation, flexibility in the budget, competition boosters. There is only one thing to look for in this seven-year plan: Ideas that save Europeans' tax money. The next EU seven-year plan is expected to cover the gigantic sum of over €2,000 billion. Money squeezed from European taxpayers to pursue Green Socialist policies, to fight freedom of expression, to lead once free people from sovereign European nations into the servitude of the von der Leyens. We should cut the next budget in half. We should halve the bureaucracy of this EU. We should save, save, save. But this EU is dysfunctional, invasive, undemocratic. This will not change the planned doubling of the budget, on the contrary. This EU does not need more money, but a reset as a common economic space. The less money this Commission gets into its corrupt fingers, the better it is for the people of Europe.
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen. For years, Brussels has been talking about abolishing the time change, and nothing happens. People have said by an overwhelming majority: We want the end of this nonsense. The so-called European Parliament voted in 2019 in one of its few bright moments for the abolition of the time change, and yet we continue to turn the clock twice a year. Why? The Commission believes that because the Council is blocking the EU and it is not possible to agree on whether there should be a permanent summer or winter time. ‘Seriously?’ can only be asked here. Once again, it is clear how incapable this European Union is of action. The will of the citizens is ignored, decisions are delayed, responsibility is not assumed, but pushed back and forth. The EU fails on such a profane topic as the time change and hides behind excuses. The fact is: The people of Europe no longer want a pointless time change, and if the EU does not make it, then the nation states must finally act. Politics must solve problems, politics must not manage problems. So, what are we waiting for? To the next time change? The Commissioner gave me a hopeful vote today. Your words were very important indeed. I'm glad you put it so clearly. I thank you for this, and we hope that we will soon be living in a time together without having to turn times back and forth once or twice a year.
Situation in Belarus, five years after the fraudulent presidential elections (debate)
Mr. Sieper, I think even you notice that we now have very good information opportunities, including through social media, and you can read everything there. I have just described the circumstances: We have to ask ourselves in Germany – I was talking about Germany, not other European countries – how far we have, so to speak, internalised the democratic rules of the game, practiced them, and whether we are not well on our way to following Belarus, so to speak, in its anti-democracy.
Situation in Belarus, five years after the fraudulent presidential elections (debate)
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen. Today we are talking about Belarus and election fraud. What distinguishes Belarusian society from, shall we say, the Federal Republic of Germany? In Belarus, opposition activists are being fought, in the FRG, opposition activists are not even allowed to vote, as happened to my AfD colleague Joachim Paul for the election in Ludwigshafen. In Belarus, state television praises President Lukashenko, in the FRG we have a state radio that praises the government and systematically excludes and defames the opposition. In Belarus, opposition figures are under pressure, while in the FRG, the opposition is directly persecuted and monitored by the domestic intelligence service, with the aim of banning the opposition altogether – unique in Western Europe. So: The differences are at most gradual, with a slight advantage for Belarus. Ladies and gentlemen, Lukashenko is President, Zichanouskaja is not a saint, and Germany is more and more like the GDR. Therefore, we should first turn at our own door before we rise above countries and give advice.
