Speeches

Mr President! This last speech in the European Parliament is about the future of European industrial policy. While the US and China are investing heavily in future technologies, the EU is faltering in 27 scattered industrial policies and a state aid law that does not protect the outside world. European production facilities are migrating – like Europe’s most important solar producers in Germany and especially in my region. And yes, of course, resilience criteria in public procurement, auctions, public funding programmes are absolutely right and important. And yet the Net-Zero Industry Act is a missed opportunity because it relies on climate policy sham solutions as strategic technologies and on deregulation in the gifted hope of being able to incentivise only through private investment. Rather, there is a lack of a common European industrial policy with public investment, control, strong social, socio-ecological conditions, trade unions and civil societies at the heart of such a policy.

Mr President! The Middle East, home to 350 million people, is a melting pot of the conflicts of our time. Anyone who starts a war here provokes the wildfire. And that's what Hamas' murder and kidnapping of Israeli civilians and Iran's unprecedented drone strike on Israel stand for, as well as Israel's displacement and killing of so many Palestinians in Gaza and shelling a consulate. The EU must therefore put pressure on all, indeed all parties, to stop the archaic policy of retaliation. Second, consistently support Iran's democratic opposition. Because if targeted sanctions are right and important, the change in Iran needs a strong civil society. And thirdly: Israel must be urged to finally end the disgusting war in Gaza. It needs massive aid, it needs reconstruction for Gaza and the two-state solution. The Middle East needs a new beginning. The first step must be: Put down your guns!

Mr President! What democracy do we actually live in when the President of the Commission drives around the world with her bosom friends and makes deals with autocrats, which we then have to pay for? How democratic is it if the European Parliament only retains the role of a claqueur? For the military regime in Egypt, billions of dollars are to flow in order to keep a useful police state alive. A police state that imprisons opposition figures as criminals and is one of the leading states in the world in terms of the death penalty. Democracy and civil liberties are scrupulously sacrificed to the foreclosure of Europe, knowing full well that none of these lousy deals, neither with Turkey nor with Tunisia and Mauritania, will prevent people from coming to Europe and will continue to cost thousands of lives.

Mr President! This pact is a pact of shame, because the individual right to asylum is abolished, and there remains a right that does not make individual reasons for flight the benchmark, but the lie of the safe third countries, any asylum recognition quotas or the neurotic presumption of instrumentalization of migration. Council and majority of this House do nothing against dying on the high seas at our borders; For them, the construction of new border fences is much more important. They vote in favour of border procedures in which even families with infants are imprisoned. They agree that there are no mandatory admission criteria for refugees. What they cannot do is resist this policy. Empathy and humanity cannot even be slain with an axe. Sea rescuers, activists and NGOs do not stop helping refugees, nor does the Turkish Muslim woman in Edirne, who provides refugees with food on a daily basis, to this day. Let me close with a Catholic priest I met in Iraq in 2015, in the middle of the war, when the terrorist organization Daesh killed thousands of people, abducted them and this priest opened his church to refugees, regardless of religion. He said to us: There are the military positions of Daesh, and here is my church. I don't know what's going to happen tomorrow, if we're going to be raided, but I'm going to stay because I can't help it.

Mr President! Yes, artificial intelligence is a bit like curse and blessing. Blessings to those who live in the ways of God, curse to others who do not do so or disregard and abuse commandments. This is pretty clear: This grandiose innovation is only grandiose in the benefit of all, i.e. also of the least influential. If we as the EU lead by law, for example by better protecting workers in the workplace, then that is good. But if Parliament's ban on real-time facial recognition in public spaces is undermined by a long list of exceptions, then that is bad, just as bad as the lack of bans on the use of AI systems in the migration and border context. AI also needs clear bans for smart and comprehensive regulation – this is precisely what is lacking. This is not enough for the EU to take a serious lead.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, This report on the possible use of Frontex in Senegal was deliberately destroyed by the EPP and the extreme right in joint action. Instead of acknowledging facts – that Senegal wants cooperation with the EU, but not such a Frontex agreement – you want to ruthlessly extend the powers of the Frontex Agency, which has a pitiful human rights record. It is your arrogant, neocolonial agenda that cannot stand a country like Senegal, where migration is seen as a normal part of social action, responding with a no. As MEPs, we have a duty to question and monitor EU action in third countries. Even if the EPP and the extreme right do not want to admit it: Colonial times are over – and that's a good thing! We as the Left stand with Senegalese civil society and that does not change.

Mr President! In December 2022, the Commission President spoke of a common European industrial policy with common European funding through a Sovereignty Fund as part of the MFF review, our European IRA. Not bad, you think. But in the summer of 2023, that was already over. And now STEP took the place of it. The idea: Repurposing existing funds, ten plus ten billion euros of fresh funds – far too little – distributed among these existing funds, but please. A few months later, there was nothing left. Out of the 10 billion euros became one and a half, and they are now flowing into the Defense Fund, of all places. Honestly, dear people: Instead of such pipe-crackers as STEP, we finally really need a European industrial policy and strategy that mobilizes massive public investment, keeps companies here in Europe and gains control over the transformation. In my opinion, everything else is Pillepalle.

Mr President! The death penalty is the greatest crime against humanity, breach of any international law, archaic revenge. No reason justifies it – nowhere. The Iranian regime is systematically destroying lives in order to preserve and prolong its own. We will never stop raising our voices against this policy. We support the struggle for democracy and for a life of human dignity with our hearts and all our strength. But this must also include a European deportation ban for Iranians. And we call on the Member States to finally do everything possible to rescue their nationals from Iranian prisons, such as the German-Iranian Jamshid Sharmahd. We stand by the side of Iranians who want nothing more than to live freely, to breathe freely. Woman, life, freedom – there is no turning back.

Madam President, I am from East German Saxony. In my hometown Dresden, Solarwatt is coming to an end. 35 kilometers further, Meyer Burger will close in Freiberg, another 35 kilometers further Heckert Solar in Chemnitz. These closures would threaten not only East German sites, but also the German and European solar industry. And can you imagine what that means for a region that has already undergone major upheavals and transformations when hundreds of jobs are lost? Member States and the EU must act now, because the IRA and China's evasion to the European market have made it the dumping market for solar panels. We need resilience bonuses for solar manufacturers to create a level playing field, an EU programme to purchase existing cheap modules to make European manufacturers profitable again, and, in the medium term, more public control over climate-neutral transformation, for example through a European industry foundation.

Mr President! I consider the decision of the Norwegian Parliament to be of the utmost concern. The Norwegian colleagues are thus endangering maritime ecosystems. And they do so without need, because there are other ways and means. There would be ways to reduce the consumption of raw materials, not to rely on raw materials from the deep sea. Instead of digging the deep sea, for example, we should extend production times of batteries. We should continue to explore batteries that do not contain nickel and cobalt, secure larger market shares and much more. We should recycle more, close raw material cycles and, above all, fundamentally rethink consumer and transport policy. How green is a green transformation when elementary ecosystems are endangered? The EU must promote a global moratorium on deep-sea mining and should find clear rules prohibiting the import of raw materials from deep-sea mining. Hands off the deep sea – nothing else should we do.

Mr President! All is well and good, colleagues, but enough is enough. The latest Frontex scandal, from these days: A new Lighthouse research shows how the agency and Maltese authorities are collaborating with the war crimes militia of warlord Chalifa Haftar, supported by the Wagner Group, which is intercepting refugees in the Mediterranean Sea. These refugees end up in Libyan prisons, which the Pope has already described as hell on earth. The Frontex agency has thus become an accomplice to a brutal human trafficking group whose daily business is rape, enslavement and torture in Libya. And to be even clearer: Frontex does not care what we are talking about today, what we have stated and whatever resolution we adopt. It really, really said everything. The agency had a chance. So stop it! Abolish Frontex!

Mr President! When the Commission proposal was on the table, not only I, but also large sections of civil society were really worried that this law would be a gift to industry above all else. For our group, as for others, it was clear: It requires social, ecological guidelines and stricter requirements for project developers, high environmental standards, good work, respect for human rights. This made the negotiations in the European Parliament and the position of the European Parliament all the more pleasing. A big thank you goes to the rapporteur. This includes – which was particularly important to us in addition to the social and environmental guardrails – the principle of free, prior and informed consent for indigenous people, but also the clear rejection of deep-sea mining and the stricter requirements for projects if they want to maintain the status as strategic. As always, the trilogue put things into perspective, as we know. It is difficult enough, but I believe that there are certain points that need to be reconsidered, for example, when it comes to voluntary and informed prior consent. We have mixed feelings there. Yes, it is good that the project developers now have to submit plans for consultation of indigenous communities, minimise based damage, carry out compensations. But the clear consensus principle, that would have been more important for us to formulate it again. More than 50 percent of strategic raw materials are found on and near indigenous territories. Raw materials policy must be needs-based, socially and environmentally sound – this is extremely important. I believe that a lot has been done here, and I hope that the implementation speaks in favour.

Madam President, I met Nasrin Sotoudeh in Tehran in 2013. A warm-hearted, determined woman, lawyer, human rights activist. If you look at her life, you can't believe it: After graduating from law school in 1995, she was refused admission for eight years. When she had them, she defended women protesting the headscarf, oppositionists, dissidents, journalists, religious minorities. She was arrested in 2010 and released under international pressure in 2013; Arrested five years later, sentenced in 2019 – in absentia, without her knowledge – to 33 years and 148 lashes. Prison, hunger strike, illness, prison leave, prison. Their lives symbolise the heavy struggles for freedom, democracy and self-determination in Iran and give strength to all those who are now in prisons – many, many dual statesmen by the way, such as Jamshid, Sharmahd and many, many whose names we do not even know. To all these people we send our message: We hear you, we stand by your side, we will never stop defending your lives and your struggles, and no matter how many moral guardians are unable to stifle your resistance. Because the clocks have been ticking differently for a long time. Iran's future is women. Women, life, freedom.

Madam President, So the best thing about the net-zero industry regulation is really its name. Because the private economy continues to be at the helm of the transformation and not the public sector. As always, instead of enabling massive European government investment in strategic technologies, incentives for private investment – Invest-EU instead of EU investment – are used. It's always the same. Secondly, where public funds are used, the social and environmental criteria are far too lax. We need to talk about clear conditions – good work, wages, location guarantees, the highest environmental standards – yes, and please also about public control. And it must also be clear that companies that benefit from public investment do not pay dividends to their shareholders. So, and the third is the list of strategic net-zero technologies. They are now a grocery store with eFuels, nuclear technology – these are harmful technologies that are now called strategic. In this respect, the whole thing is – let me say that – a mockery pack with a really nice name.

Mr President! Once again, journalists had to put the problem on the table. Once again, it shows how EU-based companies unhinderedly supply dictators and despots with their spyware, which is not only used for domestic repression – no, also outside the country. And the targets this time include not only MEPs, the Commission, journalists, researchers, no, even our Parliament President. And the fact is, EU and Member States have failed across the board in regulating spyware technology. And more: They are unwilling to find real solutions. They are therefore jointly responsible for human rights violations around the world due to this matter. I ask you: Why did we, as PEGA Committee, make clear recommendations to the Commission and Member States four months ago? The swamp of the espionage software industry must finally be drained. Otherwise, surveillance companies such as Intellexa and Cytrox can continue to make millions of profits at the expense of human rights – with the EU’s tolerance. This must finally be over!

Madam President, Yes, we need a financially strong, targeted, sustainable Sovereignty Fund. No, it really isn't STEP. Firstly, because the link with the Net-Zero Industry Regulation risks also allowing CCS, nuclear power, so-called alternative fuels, to benefit from public support. That would be a clear misdirection of funding. And secondly: Strong conditions for the award of the Sovereignty Seals, which are simply missing, such as decarbonisation plans for companies, for good work, for environmental standards – we do not see real liabilities here. The third: The already tight Cohesion Fund will now also be used to steal funds for STEP and entrench companies, to the detriment of other investments and research. Honestly, how many times have we spent the budget? Again and again and again and again. And finally – because not only Washington and Beijing laugh at the extremely small amount of additional funds of 13 billion euros – only for comparison: The German government has recently earmarked almost 10 billion euros for the promotion of only one semiconductor site. In a nutshell: Even the most beautiful sheep can't be made into a tiger.

Madam President, Ten years after the terrible disaster of Lampedusa, nothing has changed. To date, a further 28 500 people have died in the Mediterranean - of carelessness, racism, died in the floods, dehydration, brutal pushbacks carried out by Member States and tolerated by the Commission. Over the last decade, the Council and the Commission have really done everything possible to criminalise asylum and migration, and now, by law, they want to chase the individual right to asylum to the devil. In this way, they deliver refugees to fascists and right-wing populists and become helpers in the destruction of democracy - here in the middle of Europe! We as the Left will never stop fighting against such a policy and ally ourselves with all those who defend human rights. We must save our Europe from the return to contempt and blind nationalism for our own sake.

Mr President! Yes, this law is the first of its kind in the EU: a common raw material strategy with binding targets. And as a left-wing group, we are primarily concerned with a new way of producing and operating. Keyword: Circular economy. We need longer lifespans of products. We need reuse and recycling when we talk about raw materials. And we also need to talk about reducing consumption. At the same time, of course, when we talk about the transformation to renewables and also to digitization, we cannot do without rare earths and metals. We therefore need fair rules for strategic partnerships and, yes, local mining to protect the environment and protect people. Parliament has done a great deal for this and has sharpened social and environmental criteria. And yet there is a need for change if we look closely: How is it possible that yesterday, for example, under the Renewable Energy Directive, this House explicitly excluded Natura 2000 sites from being acceleration areas for renewables? Critical Raw Materials Act That's exactly what you have in it and practically do the opposite. How can we say, on the one hand, that we want strategic partnerships with third countries on an equal footing, and then that free prior informed consent for indigenous communities is not enshrined in the text? I think that needs to be changed. You are welcome to do so if you agree with our amendments.

Mr President! Ladies and gentlemen, what kind of autocracy do we live in? When the President of the Commission, a resigned Prime Minister and a fascist Prime Minister go to Tunisia and negotiate a deal there, which we should only approve and of course pay for. This is neither democratic nor legal, and it is not at all justifiable under human rights. More than 300 million, of which 105 million euros alone, to prevent so-called illegal migration. Tunisia is now to be paid by the EU to hunt migrants for torturing, arresting, demonstrably driving people into the Libyan desert, where hundreds have died and people die every day. Not a single refugee has the slightest chance of applying for asylum. Where else? What century, I ask you, do you want us to go back to? And in what kind of Europe? Reverse the deal quickly!

Mr President! I enthusiastically agree with Sophia in 't Veld's remarks and repeat once again: Democracy needs transparency, and without transparency there is no democracy. What do I mean by that? Let's take the border agency Frontex. Not only does Frontex have a human rights problem, it also has a transparency problem. Frontex thus acts in the dark, systematically evading parliamentary and public scrutiny. After years of criticism, there is now a register of documents. But if you look in there, you will find only a tiny fraction of documents. In 2020, less than 5% of applicants had full access to Frontex documents. Frontex also lied about the Transparency Register. They didn't know who they met with in lobbying organisations between 2017 and 2019. Investigative journalists have found out. The same is true of the OLAF report, which virtually no one should have read in public. Without investigative journalism, it would not have become public. Frontex must change the practice of communicating with civil society, requesting access to documents, communicating by e-mail how this should be done, as the Ombudsman did in her decision of 15. It was recommended in December last year. Once again: Without transparency, there really is no democracy.

Madam President, Because their rescue is not a priority in the EU, 10 refugees have died in the Mediterranean every single day so far in 2023. Every 10 days there was a shipwreck with dead. Since 2014, 27 633 people have died in the Mediterranean Sea: Women with their babies in their arms, underage men. Crocodile tears, Commissioner, are of no use to us, because you have to act, you have to do something! What we need are infringement procedures against Greece, whose coastguard is deliberately driving refugees to their deaths. We need consequences for Poland and Lithuania, which have legalized pushbacks. We need clear words towards Meloni, which obstructs and criminalizes civilian sea rescue. The Commission and the Council prefer to trust the Libyan Coast Guard, the so-called Libyan Coast Guard, which throws people into torture prisons where women are systematically raped, rather than an NGO that saves lives every day. That is the reality. Instead of finally setting up a European search and rescue mechanism, you are doing nothing in common with right-wing populists who want to make Europe's borders a death zone. For our own sake, the EU must return to the rule of law, where the life of every human being is the highest good and not a bargaining chip.

Mr President! First of all, congratulations to the rapporteur, who has done a good job. Despite the blockade of the Member States, the U-Committee was able to clearly state that Poland, Hungary, Spain, Greece have used such spyware and Cyprus is involved in trade for the EU internal market. And yes, we know that 14 EU Member States have acquired Pegasus under the guise of national security and counter-terrorism. Shame on democracy. The results are an important signal for all victims of surveillance whose violations are recognised for the first time at EU level. Monitoring software such as Pegasus is not compatible with fundamental rights and therefore cannot be reformed. Therefore, the demand for a ban on such spyware would be a strong message to the victims, to all citizens. Dear friends, it is about the Commission finally drawing consequences for the Member States that use this spyware and that there is a legislative proposal to strictly regulate spyware, as the U-Committee has called for. I ask you to finally act.

Madam President, Artificial intelligence combined with digitalization has revolutionized the history of humanity, comparable to the age of industrialization. AI can make the world better - or deepen the divides between continents and people. AI has no morality, we humans have it, for good or for bad. Because that is so, we have no right to naivety when it comes to AI. Blessings and curses are close together. In order to develop AI as a blessing for people and the environment, clear, strict regulations and precautionary principles are imperative. Otherwise, AI will become the plaything of the powerful. AI systems are already being used to monitor, identify and predict our likelihood of crime in public spaces. AI then leads to conclusions that affect our lives: Access to social assistance, education, employment - all this is possible. Without bold regulation - and that's what it's all about: Bold regulation - AI systems will rather exacerbate the existing societal damage caused by mass surveillance that already exists and structural discrimination. That is why we also need bans, and clear bans: For example, a complete ban on all facial recognition technologies - not only in real time, but also retrospectively. One more thing: We will not agree to any regulation that will help to perfect human rights violations at the EU's external borders.

Mr President! Yes, ladies and gentlemen, we have supported the rapporteur in the decision of the EP and have also somehow admired bringing such a decision to a level that has been quite reasonable. But you have to say: After years of painstaking, tormented trilogues with the Council, which are reliably negative, it must be noted that a framework has been created that does not offer sufficient protective measures and is not safe from abuse. And the price we as a Parliament have to pay for the few protective measures that are now in it is simply too high. When you weigh that up, it's just way too high. The crux of the debate is the establishment of a notification mechanism. It's extremely important. And this should ensure that foreign data access orders are legal and proportionate. And there we are already in the debate. In the negotiations, this mechanism has been chewed up, and it must be said that it has become a toothless tiger: more exception than rule – and that, I think, is not possible. That is why we really see the danger that the new instrument could be misused to crack down on journalists, activists – precisely because governments in Europe are increasingly authoritarian, and there are plenty of examples of this: Activists are shamelessly monitored and criminalized. That is why we cannot be satisfied with it. And in the vote, that should really make us think.

Madam President, It doesn't matter what the title of this debate is, at all. And it's not about Tunisia either, it's about the entire dirty deal that was decided by the Council last week and is now about to enter into negotiations with Parliament. We would like the “” to actually be in the light here. So that means: ‘in the light of the fact of the abolition of the right to asylum following the council deal on migration pact“ – because it is about the de facto abolition of the right to asylum, the individual right to asylum, because it is about the fact that families and children can actually be imprisoned, because it is about the fact that this is not a historic success, but a huge mess. And I think you have to say that too. We must be able to say this in Parliament. That is why we have tabled our motion and would also like to vote on it by name.