Speeches

Thank you, Mr. Colleague, for accepting the blue card. I listened very carefully to you and above all to your appeal to cash. I wonder if you are aware that the mass use of cash benefits criminals above all, so be it tax evaders, be it drug traffickers, be it people who otherwise somehow move in the gray area, in the dark area of society. Shouldn't we be open to promoting technologies that make us more modern as a society, that make financial flows more comprehensible to the state for the benefit of all?

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.

Thank you, people of Europe. To the interpreters: Don't be scared! I will not do my full speech in Lithuanian. Not yet! Mr President! I understand the three arguments put forward here. I understand the argument of security, I understand the argument of threat, I understand the argument of state responsibility. But what I don't understand is the naivety of believing that freedom and security can be offset against each other. Because the history of Europe teaches us something very simple: Security without freedom is not security – it is control, it is fear, it is concentration of power. Freedom is not a luxury for quiet times. Freedom is exactly what carries us through uncertain times. And that is why – always, everywhere and without exception: Freedom is about security.

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.

Thank you, Madame, for accepting the blue card. You have quite rightly spoken about the relevance of new trade agreements in a complicated geopolitical world. And there, of course, the trade agreement with India is very important, but this, as we have just heard, also worries many people. And at Mercosur, it's also the case that many people have concerns. I, as someone who voted in favour of the referral to the court today, but who will probably also vote in favour of Mercosur – do you not think that if you make such processes very determined, that you prejudge the concerns of the people and that you take the concerns away from the people so that they can ultimately live better with the result of such globalising trade agreements?

Thank you, colleague, for accepting my blue card. My question goes more into a certain aspect that you mentioned and less to the file at hand, I have to confess. You talked about the fact that we are constantly attacked in the digital realm, that we are hacked, especially for you, coming from a country that is under direct threat of Russian imperialism and has been always, I think that matters. So, should we also develop offensive capabilities in this area or merely defensive? What would be your opinion?

Madam President, dear people of Europe! I recently had one of those moments that shows how fragmented Europe is in everyday life. My internet in Brussels was absolutely stable, absolutely fine and exactly the level I knew from my fiber optic connection from Cologne. Then Proximus called me and said: Mr. Sieper, we would like to switch to fiber optic with you. I was honestly surprised, because I thought I already had fiberglass. But no, in Brussels I was still on copper and still had the same speed as years before in Cologne on fiberglass. This cannot be the case in a genuine single market. This is where the Digital Networks Act That is why, among other things, this legislation is so important. Perhaps a word to Mr Mazurek: People are not afraid of modern EU legislation. You are afraid because of the disinformation that you and other populist and extremist forces are deliberately sowing in order to make political capital out of it. Yes, Europe sometimes lags behind, but laws like the Digital Networks Act That's exactly what we're changing that with.

Madam President, Dear people of Europe, I would like to have two children someday. A boy named Heinz and a girl named Tilda. And one day I'll tell you about that moment. From the moment a U.S. president who dismantles democracy and puts children in cages kidnapped a Venezuelan president who stole elections and turned his people over to starvation. I will tell you that this was the turning point. The moment Europe stood up and said: We defend the rules-based order. Not with deals, not with double standards, but with clear principles. When heads of state commit crimes, there is a competent institution – the International Criminal Court. And that was the moment when the United Nations ensured a peaceful transition to democracy. The moment when we did not hide our own interests behind the claim to give freedom to a people. When Europe stood up for a world where rules count more than violence. Help me build this world. by Tilda. for Heinz.

Mr President, dear people of Europe! Many of our colleagues have mentioned important measures, such as sanctions, such as putting the Revolutionary Guards on the terrorist list, and I can only agree with that. But the most important thing that has often been said is the support of civil society, the support of the opposition. But now, at this point, we have to ask ourselves: Who are we actually supporting? Who is the right group? Who are the possible successors of the mullahs? There are some of us here who make the absolutely great mistake of supporting the monarchists now. Although not everyone is responsible for his father's sins, it cannot bring about the change of wanting to place on the throne the son of a monarch who, as a Persian nationalist, has oppressed Iran's minorities. Others here support the so-called People's Mujahideen, which are well-connected here in the European Parliament as a lobby group, a sect that carried out massive terrorist attacks against civilians in the 1990s and declared freedom of thought an enemy. If we support someone, it is only those who choose the Iranian people themselves as their successors and their first free rulers.