Speeches

Madam President, dear people of Europe, dear Commissioner, we must enforce the arms embargo. We must sanction all external sponsors from both sides. We must shut down gold financing routes, guarantee humanitarian access and support the civilian‑led transition with accountability. But let's be honest, what is happening in Sudan cannot be solved by peaceful diplomacy alone. The RSF is committing the most heinous crimes we have seen in a generation. The SAF is also violating international law themselves and these crimes will not be stopped by peaceful means. In a functioning world, this is the moment when UN peacekeepers, the only truly neutral force built to defend human dignity, would intervene to protect civilian life on both sides. But they are blocked by a Security Council that no longer fulfils its function. So we face a choice: either we fight for real reform of the Security Council, or we begin to build a new kind of peacekeeping force – this time with dark blue helmets – that can actually act when it's needed the most.

Thank you, Mr. Colleague, for accepting the blue card. You mentioned that we will soon be able to use the trade agreement with the United Arab Emirates, which we may or may not conclude, as a means of pressure. And I think we all agree that we should do the same. But what else can we do? What else can we do beyond humanitarian aid and diplomatic pressure? Because at the end of the day there are evil people with weapons doing evil things.

Mr President, dear people of Europe, I would like to congratulate the two rapporteurs for their work on this file. This is more or less everything that I have to say. I would like to take the opportunity to shed light on a fundamental problem with our budgetary procedure. Not so long ago, I visited a partner country of the European Union. It is a state that is an important energy supplier for us, an important trading partner, and has a questionable history of human rights and imprisoning critics, opposition and journalists. We had people from our embassy watching the court proceedings of those people who fought for democracy, of those people imprisoned. Now, unfortunately, because we have in the near vicinity of that country, another country, also a partner of ours, that slides down into this direction – also the suppression of human rights, the imprisonment of journalists, etc. – their court proceedings also have to be watched. We needed to shift our personnel from one embassy to the other because we did not have the budget and we could not change the budget. In this time of political turmoil, we need to be able to change the budget within the year, not just decide it once and then let it go.

Mr Neuhoff, I find it extremely interesting that you think that Russia still needs some motivation to move the border of Ukraine further west. For almost four years now, the Russians have been working on this very consistently, sacrificing endless billions of rubles and, unfortunately, tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of their own soldiers. But overall, I think you should trust that Ukraine will continue on its path. This people, this nation, has shown a bravery from which we can learn a lot here in Europe.

However, I would like to be able to respond once again to Mr Neuhoff's reply in accordance with the Rules of Procedure. Mr. Neuhoff, thank you for accepting the blue card. You are a scientist of your sign. Accordingly, one of the basic principles of your life should be scientific evidence. So, if it is evident that Ukraine has been forcibly driving incredible developments in military technology over the last three years, especially in drone technology, wouldn't it be utterly stupid to exclude Ukraine from our joint development of defence technology?

Thank you, Mr. Colleague, for accepting the blue card. If I understood you correctly, if the translation understood you correctly, then you said: “Who betrayed us? Social Democrats.’ And I am a little surprised that a representative of the left here reproduces a battle cry invented by far-right monarchists of the German Empire. So, how can you actually bring this together, that here you are almost turning against your natural allies, with terms and battle cries of those who demonize you? And rightly so, by the way. I don't want to argue against that. So how does that fit together?

Madam President, dear people of Europe, in a time when conservatives and Greens are often portrayed as political opposites, even as enemies, today's agreement sends an important message. The report is not just technical work – it is living proof that cooperation is possible in the democratic majority of this House, even when political priorities are divided. Here, an EPP rapporteur and a Greens rapporteur worked side by side. They showed that when Europe's farmers need safer, faster, science-based solutions, and when our environment needs real protection, we can build bridges instead of walls. That matters, because over 100 biological control applications are expected in the coming years, and without reform, many would take more than a decade to reach the field. This agreement shows that progress doesn't belong to one side, to one ideology. It belongs to those willing to work together, and in times of polarisation that is more than a policy achievement – it's a sign of hope.

Madam President, dear people of Europe, what you have heard today here in this debate is not contradictory. It is not contradictory to have respect for the work and the commitment of policemen and policewomen, and for the fear of migrants that leads them to turn to smugglers and human traffickers. It is not contradictory to call for a safe Union that protects its border and for a dignified way to migrate to this Union. It is not contradictory to care for the people inside this continent and the people outside of that continent. History books will judge us on the question of migration, because migration will only grow in the next years, due to war, climate catastrophe and economic collapse that we see around the world. Let us not look to the contradiction. Let us look to what puts us together – to what makes us strong as one European Union, as one European Parliament.

Mr President, in accordance with our Rules of Procedure, I would also like to react to the reply that my colleague will give me. Dear colleague, I was wondering if you could explain to me the rhetorical concept of 'whataboutism'?

Madam President, unfortunately, yes. I will be very brief because I did not plan to do this. It's on Rule 10(1), first sentence: mutual respect. I would like to ask our colleague Mr De Masi not to speak in the name of the non-attached. Respecting the decision to be non-attached also means that other non-attached don't speak for other non-attached. We are not one. There is not 'the non-attached' and, I think, especially regarding what Mr De Masi said, this is quite important.

Madam President, I would like to ask the audiovisual service to move the speech that I hold in the wrong topic to the topic where it belongs in the live stream recording. Honourable Members, dear people of Europe, climate protection is not ideology. It is infrastructure; it is energy; it is every euro that we invest today in clean technology as a euro we do not need to pay tomorrow for floods, fires and bad harvests. Every day, Europe records unusually high temperatures. Every week, scientists identify ecosystemic imbalances. Every month, we see a natural disaster happening. We have been warned for over 50 years. Now is the time for responsive science-based legislation. That is why, today, I supported the setting of the new target, even though, in my personal opinion, it is a little bit behind what we actually need.

Madam President, dear people of Europe, our corporate tax system has long been like a puzzle where every Member State kept its own set of pieces. The picture on the box says 'single market', but when you try to assemble it, you discover 27 different shapes that don't quite fit. In the gaps between those pieces, profits quietly slip through. BEFIT doesn't solve the puzzle, but it finally gives us one set of pieces that belong to the same picture. It helps ensure that economic activity and taxation match, instead of letting profits wander to places that had little to do with creating them. And it brings a bit more coherence to a system that has asked companies and citizens alike to trust rules that never fully aligned. For me, this is about making Europe understandable again. A Union cannot function with a patchwork that rewards complexity and punishes clarity. That is why I voted in favour.

Madam President, I wanted to speak about the frozen Russian assets and that we should abolish the unanimity principle in the Council, but I will instead say something about the behaviour of our not-so-dear colleague Mr Braun. As a German, especially for me, it is scandalous that this man uses this plenary to call the Head of the Commission Nazi ranks like 'Reichsführer'. It is a disgrace to the suffering of his own people – the Polish people – in the face of Nazi tyranny, and – what makes it maybe a little bit funny – it is also quite uninformed, because the Reichsführer is a military rank within the SS, and not an administrative rank like the President of the Commission. I just hope that this technical mistake that Mr Braun made while spilling his hate does not refrain the Bureau from punishing him for this breach of our Rules of Procedure. We are better than that, we are Europe, we are democrats, and we need to fight against people like Mr Braun every day. Thank you.

Madam President, dear people of Europe, 'in this time of economic crisis and war, this is not the time to talk about topics like gender equality': this is what they say. 'God's laws are clear, there are men and women, and abortion is a sin': this is what they say. 'Everyone is born in the right body, no matter what science tells us': this is what they say. 'Gender equality is a threat to traditional values, to the healthy family': this is what they say. 'This is not a topic for the European Union, but the competence of the Member States': this is what they say. 'And how can you claim to support gender equality when you invite migrants to Europe who are all Islamists?': this is what they say. Do not listen to them. Listen to the vast number of our citizens who have raised their voices by claiming back their choice – the citizens of the My Voice, My Choice initiative, who demand nothing more, and nothing more radical, than freedom, equality and dignity. Because we, the people, are free and equal and will always be!

Madam President, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure, I would also like to react to the reply that my colleague will give me. Thank you, dear colleague, for accepting the blue card. You said that it is necessary that the financial framework is in accordance with the challenges that we face. And you also said that it's important to include climate protection in that. So my question is, in your personal opinion, do we give enough money to climate protection?

I think Sweden can do more. I think Sweden is a great nation, not only from its size, but also from its values and its solidarity to those in need. And that is something that Sweden has shown over and over again in the past. And I think you are very, very much mistaken when you think that Brussels dictates anything. The whole idea of the European Union is to share common interest and to find common solutions for that. And you should not be afraid of migrants. You should see those who come and seek refuge as an opportunity to better your society.

Madam President, In line with our Rules of Procedure, I would also like to be able to respond to my colleague's reply. Dear colleague, thank you for accepting the blue card. If I understood you correctly, you said that when your party wins the next election, you will not participate as a Member State in the distribution of migrants. So am I understanding you correctly that you are saying that if you win the election you will breach European Union law? And has that not, under the Dublin system, led to all this chaos that we have, that Member States did not follow through with European law? Should we not respect the law?

Madam President, dear colleagues, I also wrote a poem. But now my colleague Mr Streit also did a poem. So I will take up the challenge for a rap battle. Dear people of Europe, Joachim rhymes with gentle grace, but like the clock, he lost his place. He writes of time, yet slips the line. His hour's off, while mine's on time. He says his rhyme can lead the light, but shifts like hands in autumn night. I stay aligned; he fades away, like daylight saving gone astray. He talks of change yet moves too slow, like springtime clocks that lag below. I set the pace; I lead the climb. His verse runs late, I rhyme on time. Farmers groan when dawn won't stay, their cows confused, their yields decay. Joachim's flow does much the same: starts with hope and ends in shame.

Madam President, dear people of Europe! Every 18 seconds, somewhere in the world, a woman hears the words: You have breast cancer! And sometimes this woman is a mother, a sister, a colleague or someone who has never had the chance to go to precaution in time. Early detection saves lives, but only if it is accessible, affordable and trustworthy. In Europe, participation rates in precautionary programmes differ between Member States. These are not just numbers – this is injustice. Cancer knows no boundaries. And so our prevention should know no limits. Let's make breast cancer screening part of the European promise – equal access, shared data, strong education. Because the technology exists. Science is clear. And today I feel that the political will is there, here in the room, among us. Let us turn this into action and ensure that every woman in Europe has the same opportunities for life.

Madam President, how easy it would be if we would do it because we hate women. How easy would it be if we would do it because we do not have white skin. But in truth, worldwide, every ten minutes a woman is killed by her partner. So why do we do it? And the disgusting truth is because we can. Because we are stronger. We are faster. And quite frankly, we are more brutal. We have the power to hurt women. But with power comes also responsibility. And I think this is what men have to understand, that they have to take the responsibility to protect women instead of hurting them. Dear ladies and gentlemen, in nine minutes from now, another woman will be killed by her partner. May she rest in peace.

Madam President, dear people of Europe! The most important first: Congratulations to the author. Nela, good work! Now a supplement to what Mr Zdrojewski said: He said that culture is above all a matter for the Member States, above all something internal. And with all the respect I can show to a former minister of culture, I would like to strongly disagree or add something. We live in a time when culture in Europe is no longer just a national state. For the first time, we see a generation of young people who see themselves as Europeans in addition to their national culture. We wear the same clothes, we listen to the same music, we watch the same series on the streaming services. And when we feel inside ourselves, we not only feel like Germans – and I know that hurts some here when I say that – but then we feel not only as Germans, but also as Europeans. So let us work together to preserve the culture of the Member States and develop a European culture.