Speeches

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.

Madam President, Mr Tynkkynen , you surprise me over and over again, and I do not mean this in a good fashion. Dear people of Europe! Welcome back to our popular show “We teach the fascists how the EU works”. Today we had Mr Bausemer. Mr Bausemer, he is annoyed because there are many vague legal concepts in this new directive. There must be indefinite legal concepts in a directive, which must be transposed into 27 national legal systems, which should be particularly important to our colleagues from the Europe of Sovereign Nations Group. So next time you ask yourself: why are there words such as ‘extraordinary circumstances’, ‘unavoidable events’, it is simply because we want to give our Member States the opportunity to implement this into their national legal systems in the way that makes sense, so that all our common European interests are balanced. Turn it on again next week. Thank you very much!

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.

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?