Speeches

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?

Thank you, colleague, that you have accepted my blue card. I was wondering if you are aware of two things. First, are you aware that if a snail started where the Russian army started at the Ukrainian border three years ago, the snail would now have reached Czechia, while the Russian army is still bogged down in the Donbas? This is not a picture that I'm painting. That's an actual fact. You can calculate this. Second, as a Czech, do you really think that it's good if Russian tanks roll through your country? I think you know better.

I think the life of the unborn child and the life of the woman are equal. That is why they have to be balanced. There is some point in pregnancy where abortion should no longer be possible, and we can have a debate about if this is three months, four months, five months, six months. There are different medical opinions on this. And this is something that the doctors should decide, not we politicians. But the general question is, do you weigh the life of the woman equal to the life of the unborn child? And if the answer is yes, then you vote for this initiative, not against it.

Dear colleague, I asked if you weigh the life of a woman and an unborn child equally. That was my question. So maybe that was lost in translation. Mr President, she can ask another question maybe? One that actually reflects what I said. I would be very happy to answer a question based on what I said, not on what was maybe lost in translation.

Mr President, dear people of Europe, dear colleagues, together with 'My voice, my choice', I asked citizens to propose questions to the opponents of this initiative. Do you understand that access to abortion can save a life – a woman's life? I know you do. And do you weigh the life of a woman equally to that of the unborn? I know you do. Do you understand that this initiative is carefully crafted, fully within EU law, based on Article 168(5) TFEU, fully respecting Article 168(7) TFEU, supported by the logic of cross-border healthcare under Directive 2011/24/EU, and in line with the principle of subsidiarity under Article 5 TEU? Maybe you do. I hope you do. So why do you oppose it? One citizen asked, 'Do you hate women?' – I know you do not. For some people in this room, these questions and this initiative is a lost cause. So, I address those of you who are still uncertain: tomorrow you can change lives, tomorrow you can change the Union for the better. I will do so. Join me.

Madam President, dear people of Europe, of course it would be wonderful if people did not smoke, if they did not eat red meat, if they did not drink alcohol, if everyone exercised every day and lived perfectly healthy lives. But people want la dolce vita, as our Italian friends would say. And politics must deal with reality, not with moral wishes. That is exactly why the EU cardiovascular health plan matters. For the Party of Progress, this plan is about prevention without moralising, about early detection, structured screening and equal access, so that lifestyle choices do not automatically turn into premature death. It is about using the European health data space, about EU-wide benchmarks and about turning science into everyday healthcare across Europe. To the rapporteur: I will now go smoke a cigarette. Thank you for your work.

Thank you, dear colleague, for accepting the blue card. You also talked about knowledge in the report and, as far as I'm informed, I hope this is correct, you are a doctor yourself, you are a medic. So I'm wondering, in your opinion, does this report also reflect the medical knowledge of experts, of doctors? And do you feel that the doctors of the European Union have been sufficiently involved in the stakeholder participation of this report? Thank you.

Mr President, maybe the button was hindered by the energy grid. Dear people of Europe, I listened with interest to my colleague, Mr Tynkkynen praising the Finnish electricity grid. And rightly so – Finland should be proud of it. But to turn national excellence into an argument for national solutions is deeply shortsighted. First, we have a single economic area. We share markets, supply chains and prices. We have Schengen, where borders no longer define economic realities. Second, energy grids are critical infrastructure in all of Europe. Russian attacks – physical, cyber and hybrid – have shown us one thing very clearly: critical infrastructure is European in its vulnerability. Third, Europe's weakness globally has never come from cooperation. It has come from national solo efforts – an attack on one grid, a problem in one grid, a solution in one grid will not bring Europe forward. European energy sovereignty will not be built by 27 separate solutions. It will be built by one interconnected, resilient European grid. The Finland grid is strong, but the European grid will only be strong if we act together.

Madam President, dear people of Europe, I am proud of this Parliament. I am proud because, as an MEP, I can rest knowing that I am not even needed for this. Yesterday we had a vote in the INTA Committee specifically about this file and because I was sitting in the wrong committee room, I missed that vote. Once I realised that the voting list of the colleagues next to me were way longer, I ran over and there was Bernd Lange, our INTA chair telling me: 'No worries, Lukas. It was a landslide majority for this file for phasing out Russian gas.' Don't let yourself be blinded by the very right or the very left people of this Parliament who, for some reason or another, either claim to be patriots or claim to be peaceful, I don't know. Don't let yourself be blinded by them. This is the right decision. This is the right way forward. Every litre of gas and oil that comes here is a bullet for Putin. We don't want this. Thank you, dear Parliament. Thank you, dear rapporteur. Let us vote 'yes'. And this time I will be there.