Speeches

Dear colleague, once again, do you think that AI-generated child pornography en masse is just any other reason to regulate? And don't you think that child pornography generated en masse is a good reason to update the system to have new rules? And the same, of course, goes for pictures of women generated without their consent en masse. Is this not a reason to take action, as a Parliament, in light of new technological developments? Or do you deny that?

Thank you, dear colleague. You said, and I quote you here: 'this debate is about everything that the left does not like', which then on the opposite, I think means that you, as a politician from the right, like what this debate is about. So I have to ask the question, do you like AI-generated child pornography? Do you like pictures of women that were generated without their consent? And, as you most likely will say 'no' now to that question, follow up question: do you think framing it that way, in light of the actual topic of this debate, is in accordance with the dignity of this House?

Mr President, dear people of Europe, I join in the expressions of solidarity and condolences for the tragic railway accident in Andalusia. Humanitarian aid is not a secondary gesture, it touches the core of the European idea of solidarity. In a world marked by wars, climate crises and forced displacement, solidarity is not naivety, it is responsibility. Europe exists today because after the destruction we decide to look not only at what separates us, but at what unites us, which is something simple and profound: our humanity. "Help" does not mean weakness, it means recognizing that human dignity has no borders.

I hope, rapporteur, that you are not too sad that it's just you, me and the Commissioner speaking. Dear people of Europe, I want to explicitly align myself with the analysis of our rapporteur, Mr Van Overtveldt, because the independence of central banks is not an abstract economic preference. It's a hard learned lesson from European history. Independent central banks protect price stability. They anchor inflation expectations and they shield monetary policy from short term political pressure. The European Central Bank is a clear example of this principle in practice. Its independence is enshrined in Article 130 TFEU and its primary mandate, price stability, is deliberately narrow. Why? Because once governments can directly influence monetary policy, inflation becomes a political tool and citizens pay the price. So let us be clear. Protecting central bank independence is not technocratic dogma. It is a precondition for economic stability, social cohesion and democratic credibility. And this is why this report matters.

Madam President, dear people of Europe! If you listen to the ESN's contributions in this way, you could almost believe that the EU treaties are a kind of mystical book. You like to call on it without ever opening it. The assertion of Mrs Anderson of the Union lacks the competences here is simply legally wrong. The Critical Medicines Safeguards Framework is clearly and unambiguously based on Article 114 TFEU. Internal market, supply chains, market fragmentation, this is the textbook material of European law, which I can tell you as a studied European lawyer. Article 114(3) explicitly obliges us to maintain a high level of health protection. It's literally in there. And yes, Article 168(7) TFEU is of course respected. No one organizes hospitals here. But drug availability is not a national folklore, but a European market. Perhaps the problem is not with the treaties, but with reading. And to the colleagues from the ESN and the AfD I would like to give a good old German proverb: Reading forms.

Madam President, dear people of Europe, last year I did something new: I founded my first company. After all, every Member of the European Parliament who takes themselves seriously apparently needs a side hustle. Together with a few close friends, we founded a company that organises raves – techno, electronic music, long nights, short mornings. And let me tell you, nothing kills the spirit of electronic music faster than European bureaucracy: registrations at the trade office, entries on company registers, contract licences and, of course, the existential question, the legal form. And then came the real nightmare. Like every decent rave organiser, we wanted to work across borders. We wanted to work internationally. What followed was a regulatory disaster. So, when I read the report of Mr Repasi, I felt truly understood. We are not there yet. We still have a long way to go, but this report is a serious and necessary step towards a more innovative, more realistic and finally more functional single market – and for European entrepreneurs, that matters.

Mr President, dear people of Europe, I would like to take this final debate as an opportunity to address our citizens, to address you up there, and also the ones behind me who can unfortunately not see me today. I think the Commissioner said a very important thing: humanitarian aid workers go where humanity failed. But why do we fail? We fail because of a lack of love, because of a lack of kindness and solidarity to the people around us, to the people in need. We are now approaching Christmas, which is for many people in Europe and many people in the world a festival of love, a day or days to remember that love matters and that through religion, through philosophy, through any set of values, you can find love for other human beings. And this is the most important thing. We can do a lot of legislation – and we will do – but in the end, it's you. It's the people who need to love, show love, be loved every day. Merry Christmas.

Madam President, thank you, dear colleague, that you accepted my blue card. I listened very carefully, and I agree with you that Members of the European Parliament being a mouthpiece for Russian propaganda is one of the biggest dangers that we have. Unfortunately, one of the biggest dangers that we have in that regard is one colleague that we have from your country, Mr Braun. I think we all know that terrible things he does over and over again, that he says over and over again. So my question is, what disciplinary measures, above what we already have in this European Parliament, could we impose to fight against stuff like that?

Thank you, Mr. Friend, for accepting the blue card. You have addressed Mr Bystron, to whom I repeatedly get on my nerves with the various criminal proceedings that are ongoing against him. And he always says one thing to me, I would like to have your opinion on: He always says that there have already been over a dozen and, I think, or 20 house searches with him and nothing has ever been found. And that is a very clear sign that he is innocent and that he did not lie down in bed with the Russians. I wonder what you have to say about this line of argument.

Madam President, dear people of Europe, the 2030 consumer agenda speaks not to theory, but to daily life. We must remember that behind this document there is a family struggling with rising prices, a young person misled online or a small business losing out to unfair competition. Our goal is to address people's real needs, to build a market that protects, empowers and informs both digitally and sustainably. Let us ban manipulative algorithms. Let us ensure fair access to sustainable products. Let us make it easier for people to repair, reuse and reclaim value. Every product should be safe. Every online transaction fair. Every consumer respected. This is not bureaucracy. This is trust. And trust is the currency of a resilient, people-centred Europe. Let us make consumer protection not just a policy, but a promise. Dear colleagues, this speech was written for me by my intern, Evgeny, and I would like to take this opportunity before Christmas to remind all of you to be thankful and that without our team, we are nothing.

Mr President, dear people of Europe, I am so happy that most of us support the European democratic path for future generations. And I am also happy that there are so many people who share this European democratic path against all odds – brave Ukrainian, Moldovan and Georgian people who are facing autocrats on this path, as trolls try to block Europe's future. Law on foreign agents copied from Moscow, human rights violations copied from Moscow: this path led Georgia into turmoil, and not the commitment of people defending democracy. That goes to you, Ms Firmenich, or to you, Mr (gesturing to another Member). The civil society in Georgia needs our real support. Let's strengthen our cooperation with them; let's build on their participation in the EuroNest Parliamentary Assembly. We need to act swiftly. We need to act strategically. We need to act bravely, as Georgian people are fighting for their freedom while there is still time.

Mr President, dear people of Europe, in a heated debate like we had today in this plenary and that I myself also was a part of, I think it is very important to understand that certain aspects are not to be politicised. The question of if a Member State of the European Union is breaching Union law and needs to be punished for that, is not a political question. One colleague said we just have a problem with Orbán because he is a right‑wing politician. While I do not agree with many, if not all, of Orban's policies, that is not the problem. The problem is not that Orbán is a right‑wing politician. The problem is not that he has conservative positions. The problem with Orbán is that his friends have all the powerful positions in Hungary. His friends have all the money and he is using EU money for stuff like building a bench in front of his private residence. That is the problem and that is what we need to focus on. We cannot allow the extremists and the populists to politicise proceedings like this.

Since we are now more detailed with the Blue cardThe system, I want one. Point of Order put forward. Exactly to the rule that just the Blue card regulates. Because I think you have to be very clear at this point: Mr Bausemer, you have not answered my question. So I asked you a very clear question. And I think that if we go now and introduce a new culture of debate in this Parliament, where it is better to deal with the questions ...

Thank you, Madam Vice-President, and my respect that you are maneuvering all this in this way, despite the new way in which we are shaping our debate here. Mr. Bausemer, Mr. Bausemer, it is always very interesting with you. Let's assume that your horror scenario occurs and a very far-left government in Europe comes to power somewhere. I don't mean something like in Spain, but I mean right on the left that you can't fall asleep in the evening when you think of it. And then there are cases where, by chance, all the friends of the president suddenly become super-rich and get all the state orders and political dissidents are then imprisoned. Shouldn't we also initiate something like an infringement procedure? So, turn that around. Isn't what's happening in Hungary or what's being done about Orbán actually the right thing to do?

So, first of all, the beauty of the European Union is that even if your culture becomes a minority culture – which will not happen because I think your people like to have children from all what I know and you will raise your children in your ways, which I think you want to do – even then, you will be protected by the rules and the laws of the European Union as a minority culture. Second thing, to say we are not ready and we do not have a time is the worst argument I have ever heard against that ever closer Union. We are ready. My generation is ready. The majority of this House is ready. Just because you are not ready, that does not mean Europe is not ready.

Thank you, dear colleague, that you have accepted my blue card. I was just wondering, in your speech, you complained about how this Union grows and the competences of the Union grow, and how the Union also protects certain things, how you can bring this together with two simple facts that are stated within the Treaties that this Union is built on. The first principle is the ever closer union, which is explicitly mentioned in the Union Treaties, which explicitly says that the Member States shift competences more and more to an ever closer union. And the second one – and I will even tell you the numbers, Article 2 – where the basic values of the Union, which is inclusion, which is liberty, which is protection of minorities, are included, that this is also what the EU stands for. So, how does this fit together in your argumentation? Thank you.

Mr President! Dear people of Europe! I was at a rapper's concert this weekend.SIBIO aka SSIO from Bobinn Tabinnenbusch, together with 20,000 young people from all walks of life. SSIO raps on Street mentalityBut his mosquito hears all the fans in the auditorium. The AfD would probably expropriate his German passport. Rap as an art form works like this: Conscious border crossings, conscious, provocative, even discriminatory language. This culture serves cross-border narratives as a protest against a failure of the social system. And that's exactly why 20,000 young people loudly applauded these actually discriminatory texts. Now let's be honest: For years, for 16 years, an anti-discrimination directive has been blocked here, which is intended to protect people in everyday life. While society, especially the young, has long been much wider, we are arguing about self-evidentities. If politics is at a standstill on fundamental rights, then art becomes protest. I don't want 20,000 young people to have to replace us. I want us to deliver. All or nothing. In the words of SSIO aka SSIBIO aka Kanakonda: I'm out. Just because I have a few more seconds now that I want to use, I just want to tell you guys that I'm constantly astonished how people who are part of a discriminated group themselves – who are queer or who are in a relationship with migrant people – can actually say discriminatory remarks against queer people, against migrants. It doesn't go to my head. Many in this House should really think about that.

No, not at all. I think it's a terrible thing when people are forced to cross more borders than they need to. And I think no migrant in the world has any interest in crossing more than one border illegally. It's a terrible process. It's dangerous. You rely on criminals, on people that will abduct you, that will rape you, that will take your money. So if the EU would have worked together better in the past, we would have had a system where migrants can come to us through a safe process. They can be helped at the border, distributed to a country that wants to help them and take them into shelter. And that's the solution. Migrants don't do this because they want to, but because they have to.

Mr Weimers, here we are again. Maybe it will bring you as many clicks as last time. You said that illegal migrants have to understand that there is no way that they can make Europe their home. My ancestors were illegal migrants from France to Germany 200 years ago because there was a big war. You know the drill – Napoleon, all this. So, my question is, isn't there at least some possibility that, through time, also illegal migrants can find a new home in a new place? Thank you.

First of all, the question: Don't you tell your constituents what you believe? Don't you do that? So you're just telling objective truths and I'm telling my political opinion and that's voter deception, or what are you going to tell me? But apart from that, you haven't answered my question. Should a violent bank robber be rewarded for doing evil by giving him a gift to leave peacefully? Or should he be punished and punished? That we would support Belgium here if the assets were frozen is not questioned by anyone. That's what we do. We are Europe, we stand together.

Thank you, Mr. Colleague, for accepting the blue card. They were talking about a bank robbery. I have a similar question for you. So if there is a bank robbery and the bank robber is in the bank with the hostages and has already shot half of the hostages in cold blood. Then what do you do? If you go, you negotiate with him, you call him and say: Ah, come on, take $1 million, go home, release the hostages, everything's fine. Or do you send in the Special Operations Command and bring this man down in one way or another? Isn't that what we should do with Russia? Shouldn't we track down the bank robber instead of giving him money to go home happy?

Madam President, to maybe pose the additional question: quite simply, I'm not naive, because I'm really trying to be constructive here in this House – sometimes it's hard. Who is the aggressor? Who is the one who pursues war? The one who stays at home and maybe disagrees on a political, geopolitical, strategic level? Or the one that sends his tanks, his missiles, his soldiers into the territory of a sovereign nation? Are you aware of the concept of war, of aggression?