Speeches

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.

Thank you, Madame, for accepting the blue card. Listening to you like this, I can only say that I am once again ashamed of the role that we men – or many of us men – play in this whole complex. I couldn't help but mention the so-called "family situation" in your description of the family situation. Tradwives to think, i.e. women who stand up on social media and tell other women that they should not be in employment, that they should not stand on their own feet, but that they should submit to the man, that they should stay at home, stand at the stove and educate the children. I was wondering: What would be your message to these women?

Madam Vice-President! I would like to remind Mrs Boßdorf that the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament prohibit hate speech in Rule 10(4). According to settled case law of European courts, trans women and other non-binary persons, hate speech must be denied their gender identity.

Madam President, dear people of Europe, Commissioner, the author mentioned that research and education can become a unique selling point of Europe – and she's right. Throughout history, there have been many centres of knowledge and education: Alexandria, Baghdad, Oxford, Paris. Why not Europe again? Imagine a continent where a student in Lagos dreams of studying in Kraków; where a researcher in Mumbai dreams of studying and researching in Lisbon, over Boston; where Europe doesn't just compete, where we define what excellence means. This will only happen if we include those in our legislation who love Europe the most: young students, young researchers. Commissioner, the ERA Act must make Europe the place young minds dream about. Because when we do that – not if – we don't just win the future, we become the future the world wants to be part of.

Madam President, Mr Mazurek, I am once again impressed by the currentness and diversity of your thoughts in this House. Dear visitors, I would take this opportunity to remind some of us again about the Treaties of the European Union – quite simple and quite important documents. In Article 1, it says that the Member States establish a Union where they transfer power and sovereignty to the Union. In Article 2, it says that this Union is supported on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including – and this will be a tough pill to swallow for some of us here – the rights of persons that belong to minorities. I think this situation is really clear here. Once again, we have a government that tries to stray away from the values that its nation commits to, that embezzles EU funds. And on that, I can just say: Slovakia is more than Robert Fico and has more.

Madam President, dear people of Europe, what's happening in Minneapolis, what's happening to the rule of law in the United States is horrifying, truly horrifying. And it has been happening for years – a reminder that democracy does not die overnight. It fades slowly, step by step: a slow decline, a drift toward fascism, fuelled by fake news media. Very sad! They used to say, 'Europe is declining.' Remember that! 'Europe is finished': that's what they said. Well, look at us now: we are the biggest market in the world, the fairest society anywhere. The best rights: nobody does rights like we do, the best rights. Brussels will be the new centre of freedom: very strong, very stable, very European. Thank you very much for your attention to this matter. Have a good one.

Thank you, dear colleague, for your very colourful reply. I was a little sad to hear that you didn't in fact reply to the question at hand, so I will take the freedom to ask again. Do you think that certain fields should then be regulated by the EU? In line with the principle of subsidiarity, but would you agree on that in general? If so, following what you said in your first speech, which fields should be better regulated by the EU?

Thank you, colleague, for accepting my blue card. If I understood the interpretation correctly, you said something truly remarkable. It's not important who does the legislation. It's just important that it is good. So does that mean that you might diverge from the classical Patriots line that there are in fact many, many fields where the European Union should have the competence to regulate and not the Member States?

Dear colleague, thank you for accepting the blue card. I always listen to your speeches with great interest. You made the comparison to China, and you told us that China built nuclear power plants and the EU did nothing. As the ESN is normally firmly against any action from the EU and claims that the Treaties do not allow this or that, I was wondering: where in the European Treaties do you see the competence for the European Union to build energy infrastructure within the Member States?

Thank you, colleague, for accepting my blue card. I think you said something very important in the beginning about how the internet shall not be a place for harassment, for threats. Of course, when we think about this in this debate, we think about minors, we think about women especially, but I think especially we should also think about ourselves as human beings. So, I followed your social media quite recently and I know that you are also often the target of such things. So, I was wondering if you could share, if you want, how does it make you feel being harassed and threatened in the digital realm?

Dear colleague, even though you're leaving now, I think I just want to remind you that also it is, in certain fields, necessary that the state watches all its citizens. I will give you one simple example: all of us have to pay taxes. So the tax authorities watch all citizens in every situation. And also this is a sign of the rule of law, of a functioning state, of a functioning democracy. Democracy and freedom is not the absence of control, but that it's balanced out.

Thank you, dear colleague, for accepting the blue card. I was quite happy to hear that you are in favour of all the goals that the Commission also pursues with this initiative, with this file. Still, in the very beginning, you said that we shall not limit the digital freedom of our citizens. So how exactly then can we regulate without limiting freedom? Isn't every regulation, every law, a limitation to a certain freedom of our citizens? Is this not necessary and a sign of the rule of law and of a balanced out society?

Mr President, dear people of Europe, one month after the regime change in Syria, I had the opportunity to travel through northern Syria, and I had a meeting with Mazloum Abdi, the commander‑in‑chief of the SDF, the predominantly Kurdish forces that are now fighting with the central government. And one thing that I remember to this day is the wall of memorabilia that the commander‑in‑chief of the SDF had in this meeting room. He had tokens of remembrance from his collaboration with the CIA, with the Russians, with the Israelis, with the Germans, even with the Turkish. So with many, many different nations, many, many different organisations these people fought together under changing circumstances. I think the question that we have to ask ourselves is, do we want a Syria that keeps on being a playing field for big powers, or do we want a Syria where we contribute to the peace so that the people can actually live there?

Madam President, Rule 10(1) and (4). Dear colleagues, I have had the honour to address this chamber more than 250 times. If you spend so much time here, you start to listen not only to speeches, but to people, to the interpreters, to the ushers, to the secretaries and to the Vice‑Presidents. And they all tell me the same thing: the level of verbal hostility in this mandate is unprecedented. We hear comparisons with the German SS, on one hand; we hear colleagues being called 'losers', as if this were a schoolyard, on the other hand. And yes, I myself also crossed the line when I called Ms Anderson, the German one, 'a coward'. This was wrong, and I apologise for that. We are political opponents. We are meant to disagree, sometimes fiercely. But we must never forget every single person in this House represents citizens. You might struggle to respect the person, but you must always respect the Member of Parliament.

Mr President, before I do my speech, in the direction of a point of order: if I understood the colleague directly, she said that the European Parliament ordered for protesters to be shot. If that is the case, then I would really like the Bureau to investigate that, because this is a level of lie and deception that is unacceptable in light of the honour of this House.

You said something very refreshing. You said that it hurts that we are here and have to discuss a problem with the democratic system in your home country. And why is this refreshing? Because in many other cases when we discuss problems like this, we see colleagues who are very angry and very disappointed about the fact that we have this kind of debate. So maybe, for me, could you elaborate? Why do you think it is important that here in this European Parliament we also discuss such situations that in principle fall under the sovereignty and the competence of the Member States?

You talked, dear colleague, about the amendments, and talking about these amendments, why do you think there is so much importance put on those where it goes about freezing the financial assets in this?

Madam President, dear people of Europe, earlier in this debate I was very direct in my criticism of the Commission, and I stand by that criticism because this Parliament exists to scrutinise. But scrutiny and hostility are not the same thing. When it comes to our approach to India I must also say clearly that the Commission has done important and good groundwork. You have chosen realism over illusion, strategy over symbolism. You have treated India not as a junior partner, but as what it is: a decisive global actor with its own interests. On trade, on supply chains, on the Global Gateway, on connectivity, this is not improvisation, this is preparation, and Ms Kallas, I salute you for that. Do we still need stronger parliamentary involvement and clearer communication on values? Absolutely. But politics is not about pretending we agree on everything. It's about building something workable where agreement is possible. That is why I look forward to the work ahead in the committee, because Europe is strongest when the Commission and Parliament argue hard and then work even harder together.