Speeches

Mr President, dear people of Europe, I supported this resolution because a rules‑based multilateral trading system is essential for global economic stability and prosperity. The WTO remains a key framework that provides predictability and legal certainty for international trade. However, global trade is under increasing pressure from protectionism and outdated rules. That is why the WTO must be modernised to address new realities such as digital trade, sustainability and fair competition. For me and for the Party of Progress, international cooperation – based on clear rules, transparency and fairness – is essential. Trade should create opportunities while supporting sustainable and fair development. My vote therefore supports strengthening multilateral cooperation and ensuring that global trade remains open, fair and predictable. I wish everyone in this room a very nice weekend.

Mr President, dear people of Europe! It is with a heavy heart that I voted against this report. Not because I do not appreciate the work of the European Ombudsman. I believe that the European Ombudsman is the most important tool for us, as an institution, as politicians, to show responsibility towards the population. I voted against this report because, instead of an objective presentation and a clear commitment to the values laid down in the Treaties of the European Union, it was ideologically hijacked, especially by those who repeatedly claim to oppose ideology. It is precisely these people who have adopted this report and have transformed it in a way where it is in fact nothing more than a statement that the Commission should move away from supporting the values and the development of the European Union. I very much hope that we will be able to vote on this report again in a better way, and then it will also find my approval.

Mr President, dear people of Europe, I supported the report on package travel and linked travel arrangements, because travellers in Europe deserve clear and reliable protection when booking package holidays. The experience during the COVID-19 pandemic showed that parts of the current Directive were unclear, especially regarding cancellation, refunds and travellers' rights. This report improves consumer protection and simplifies the rules for travellers, to get them clear and safe information about their rights, and better protection in case of problems or insolvency. For me, and for the Party of Progress, strong consumer rights and transparent markets are key priorities. My vote therefore supports clearer rules, stronger protection for travellers and a fair framework for the European travel market.

Mr President, before I do my speech in German, a note to the translators, as I will use German youth terminology: 'Haftbefehl' is an artist's name; 'Achi' is 'brother'; 'Chaya' is sister'; 'The crazy' is 'it's intense'; 'Ballon ballern' is to consume laughing gas; GTA is a video game. Dear people of Europe! The European Parliament has also seen the arrest warrant documentary, and as always: We react a bit late. And I would like to turn to all my Akhis and all my Tryers at this point: What you're doing with your head, with these GTA ‑-branded nitrous oxide canisters, that's crazy, you can't imagine. This may be more fun than going out for a drink or doing something else, but you're suppressing the oxygen connection to your brain. And that's not worth a party in the world. It's not worth the fun in the world. And that is why it is right and important for the European Union to ban the free sale of nitrous oxide. And this report has my full support.

Thank you, colleague. I lived in a neighbourhood before I came to the European Parliament, where there was a lot of use of this drug and it was a very poor neighbourhood, while I myself come from a quite rich family. I have never seen the remains, as our colleague described, of laughing gas in the richer areas, but they stack up in the streets of the poorer areas. Why do you think that this drug is more used by those in society who do not have much in comparison to those who are wealthy?

Madam President, dear people of Europe, honourable Torselli said something very important: obesity is not a question of guilt. He also said something that I would debate from my personal experience, he said: obesity is not a question of lifestyle. After I got elected to the European Parliament, I gained 15 kg of personal weight and, for the first time in my life, my doctor said to me: 'Lukas, you are close to obesity. Watch out.' And now, after a very long year, I lost half of it again. So, I think if you live a life where you are very stressed, where you have long hours, where you do not have time to cook healthily, you rely on big food chains. You rely on big restaurants. You rely on pre‑prepared meals, on fast food. I think that, especially for those people, we should take example by a policy that maybe the most fit politician in history, Arnold Schwarzenegger, introduced in California back when he was governor, where big restaurant chains need to give the calories to the food that they actually sell to people. I think this is very healthy food for thought for the Commission.

Madam President, dear people of Europe, dear Ombudsman, this position is of the utmost importance for confidence in our democracy. Democracy is not free from mistakes. It is not free from lack of transparency. It is not free from the Commission. The real question is how we respond to it. And it is precisely here that its Office comes into play, which allows citizens to participate in the answer to this question. At the same time, one Member said something very right: hardly anyone knows this institution. That is why I have a question for you which, of course, was not answered either in the report or in your speech, but which still interests me. How many people work full-time on your social media team?

Mr President, dear people of Europe, one of the most cynical things about the crimes of the National Socialists in the Holocaust was that it all, under German law, was perfectly legal. All the deportation, all the gas chambers, all the mass killings were not spontaneous acts of violence, but were based on laws, on regulation, on orders. So when the Nazi regime fell, international lawyers and the international community faced a severe challenge: how to prosecute people for something that was legal; how to prosecute those in power for something that is perfectly fine under their national law at the time. This is when international criminal law was founded – to keep people accountable, no matter how big their power to shape their own legal system. And this is to this day why the ICC is so important, and why we must draw a line in the sand now to protect it.

Madam President, dear people of Europe, the international trading system stands at a crossroads. For decades, the rules‑based order under the World Trade Organization helped reduce tariffs, expand opportunity and create prosperity across continents. Yet today, that system faces unprecedented pressure. When rules are ignored or undermined, it is not institutions that ultimately suffer, it is our citizens, our workers and our businesses. That is why the ministerial conference in Yaoundé is so important. The WTO must adapt to a changing world: modern rules for digital trade; stronger frameworks for investment facilitation; and procedures that allow cooperation among those willing to move forward while preserving the integrity of the multilateral system. But reform will not happen by itself. Europe must help drive it. Together with partners who believe in openness, fairness and international law, the European Union should act as a stabilising and constructive force for a modern and effective multilateral trading system.

So, colleague, as you're in your first legislative period, once again I will ask: do you think it is possible to craft any law while guaranteeing that there will not be bad consequences of that law? And do you think asking that question to the Commission and Parliament is the right approach?

Thank you, colleague, for accepting the blue card. You asked the Commission and, I think, the broader Chamber if they can guarantee that the bad things about the savings that you describe won't happen. So my question to you is: have you, as a legislator, ever in your life, in your political career, drafted a law where you could guarantee that there would not be any bad consequences? And is this really the right question to ask when it comes to one of the most important financial political files that we have this year?

Mr President, since the very first day of this conflict, people want me to pick sides. People want me to pick sides as a politician between an Islamist terror regime and war criminals that are corrupt and transform their state into authoritarianism. I refuse to pick sides, because the only people that I care about in this are the civilians that suffer. And you can choose which side kills more or kills worse these civilians. What I can tell you from all of this is that we need to transform Europe to play a real role in the future. We need a European army. We need a common foreign policy. We need to be able to get our own citizens out of such a situation. Only if we make ourselves ready can we really weather the storms of geopolitics.

Mr President, in accordance with Rule 10, the Members of this House have to respect the dignity of Parliament. Mr Droese just called this Parliament a 'sham' Parliament, which is an insult to the dignity of this House. The same insult was already perpetrated last plenary session by a member of his very own party, by a member of his very own group. We can no longer tolerate that Members of this House denouncing this as a 'sham' Parliament.

Mr President, dear people of Europe, Mr Tynkkynen, climate protection is not an ideology – it's a necessity. Commissioner, I would like to refer to one thing that Mrs Bentele has just rightly said: Everything fits with Canada. And sometimes, when I have a quiet moment, I think about the European Union. And then I wonder: What is the European Union? The European Union is a legal construct, a supranational organisation, a union of values, a union of the common market. But is it really tied to Europe as a concept, as an idea? Can only Europe really do what the European Union can do? I don't think so. I believe that the idea of the European Union, this Union of shared economic values, of the coming together of states on an equal footing, is something that can work all over the world. Maybe I'm dreaming too much. But maybe one day we will have a union with Canada.

Mr President, I would also like to be able to react to the reply of my colleague. Dear colleague, thank you for accepting the blue card. First, I would like to answer your question. Who will turn off the light for European industry? It will be the Russian army, when they bomb us once we lift the sanctions and allow them to push through Ukrainian lines. But my question is different. You talked about Volkswagen and the car industry. So I was wondering: don't you think that the European car industry and Volkswagen would be in a better situation if we had not fought in this Parliament – or some of us – against future technologies like electric cars?

Mr President, dear people of Europe! Listening to colleagues like Mr Jungbluth in this way makes you feel that the biggest problem we have in Europe is that the Commission is actually exercising its powers. The problem is actually quite different. After all, we would have much more time to focus on economic policy, innovation, competitiveness if we were not in a constant defensive fight against extremists and populists – a defensive fight against the values of liberal democracy, a defensive fight against the values of individual people. Anyone who reflexively defames any form of European cooperation as a shift in competence does not weaken Brussels, it weakens Europe and, ultimately, our economic strength. Cooperation in a single market is not a threat to prosperity, it is its precondition. And, accordingly, we must stand together against extremism, against populism – in economic policy and everywhere else.

Dank u wel, mijnheer. I listened very carefully to you and I was happy to hear that you are in favour of European integration in these very critical sectors. So, I was wondering if you would agree with me that if that is the case and if we want to reach this goal, we should in no way and never collaborate with those political forces who want to destroy the European Union and roll back on European integration and the shifting of competences from the Member States to the Union.

I am sorry to bore you, Mr Jungbluth, this is called a parliamentary debate. Mr Schirdewan, since we have now agreed that private leasing is actually not such a bad thing, I would like to ask you: What can we do to increase the proportion of private landlords, so that at the end of the day we may have a housing market where landlords and tenants are roughly in a balanced relationship and can operate on an equal footing with each other?

Thank you, Madam President, for removing me from the list of spontaneous interventions. I do not want to tire my colleagues. However, I would also like to ask another question to Mr Schirdewan. Mr Schirdewan, you have said a lot of great things. So in the matter, I'm right about the problem, but you couldn't let it get back on the landlords and on housing corporations that speculate, or any people who leave land and apartments empty for decades, to then make even more money with it. That's where I'm with you. But if we do know that 64 per cent of rented apartments in Germany are owned by small landlords – private individuals – do you think that the rhetoric you use here is really conducive to landlords?

Thank you very much, Mr. Colleague. My demand would be this: So how do we enter the market? Then how do we regulate this market without any price increases for the young people who then travel? As I said, I agree with you on this point, but how can I imagine this in concrete terms?

Madam President, In accordance with the Rules of Procedure, I would also like to ask a question if necessary. Mr. Colleague, thank you for accepting the blue card. They also talked about the regulation of short-term rentals, and it's about Airbnb and corresponding platforms, if I understand that correctly. And I understand that need. I understand that this is important. At the same time, I know from my own life experience and also from my circle of friends that for young people who want to travel through Europe, short-term rentals are often the only way to get accommodation on a trip. So how do we manage to regulate short-term rentals without depriving young people who want to see Europe of the possibility of a cheap overnight stay?

Now that we have civilised the debate a little, I ask the second question: In your opinion, what is the point of the current EPP programme where you say that this is the closest to this goal or that this goal is pursued most of all? And why?

Thank you, Madame, for accepting the blue card. I also wanted to ask you what you intend to do, but now Mrs Demirel has already done so in a way that I do not like. That's why I'm more likely to ask you: Do you think that it is conducive to women's equality if women assume among themselves, on the basis of generalised attributions such as membership of a particular political group, that they are in fact not interested in equality at all? And, Madam President, I would also like to have the opportunity to ask a question in accordance with our Rules of Procedure.