Speeches

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.

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.

I do not want to rely on these false arguments, as you have called it, because that is why I did not make the decision. I took the decision above all because I feel - and I would be interested in that because we have already spoken in the same committee - that it is important for me to show the Commission that it needs to pay more attention to the European Parliament and that in the past it has proven time and again that the Commission is pretty much pushing ahead with these trade agreements. So how would you rate that? Do you think that the Commission has sufficiently respected and involved Parliament in the negotiation of these trade agreements in recent months?

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?

Thank you, Madame, for accepting the blue card. And simply because I didn’t know it until just now – from the point of view of my student self, who travelled through Europe, I also thank you for the roaming legislation. My question is: You said that we need to think about how we finance this – the grid conversion. This is a correct and important question, which, I say, is repeatedly asked by broad sections of the population when it comes to such larger projects. What would be your thoughts on how exactly we finance this or who exactly finances this?

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.

Madam President, The dismantling of air passenger rights is unspeakable and a mistake. But I would like to go into something else, as Mr Haider said in his speech. He said: ‘the unelected and totally incapable Ursula von der Leyen’. And Madam Vice-President, while I am doing this just as well in a Point of Order I can only say that I find this behaviour and this rhetoric, which is already going on throughout the day and which is becoming more and more common in this Parliament, unspeakable. It is a violation of respect for the Treaties, as required by Rule 10(1) of the Rules of Procedure, to suggest that the President of the Commission would not have democratic legitimacy. And it is a violation of the prohibition on using offensive language, which is in Article 10, point 4, when it is said that this lady is completely incapable. Madam Vice-President, we cannot continue to watch the tone, the manner and the manner in which the dogs are being treated in this Parliament. Please do something!

Mr President, dear colleagues, in the light of the comment of our honoured Vice-President, one hesitates to accuse the President of the United States of anything so vulgar as organised crime, and yet facts are a stubborn thing. For years, 'the Don' informed his allies that protection would henceforth require cash upfront: pay more or face the consequences. Now, having discovered that Greenland is not merely scenery but real estate of considerable strategic value, the logic evolves. The fee is no longer sufficient, the Don now wishes to own the premises. This is not statecraft – it is the classic escalation of a protection racket. In this light, when the authorities are unable to intervene, sensible shopkeepers do not engage in endless negotiation. They install cameras, they reinforce the locks and, discreetly, they place a rifle beneath the counter – not out of aggression, but out of self-respect. Europe remains polite, but Europe will not be shaken down.