Debate contributions by Maria NOICHL

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, What Europe is always proud of is that we have a great consumer protection programme, that we really stand for consumer protection. Consumer protection always means that what's in it is what's on it. And now we come to the vote tomorrow: It says ‘simplification’, but that's not really in it. If one or the other of the amendments goes through tomorrow, there is no simplification in it, even though it says ‘simplification’ outside. This is a label scam. It is label fraud when there is "simplification" on the outside and reduction of grassland protection on the inside, when there is "simplification" on the outside and it is on the inside that we are cut off from the future environmental legislation, when there is on the outside label that we want to go further into the good future for agriculture and actually the step backwards is in it. If tomorrow these amendments, which come from the extreme right, but also from the Conservatives, go through, then a proposal became an absolute label hoax. That's why it's very clear to me: I will not agree with this kind of simplification. And anyone who thinks he can steer the debates in a different direction with a veggie burger just wants to distract.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen! Yes, the Commission is currently on the road with a 'bee-protection' banner; this bee-protection banner should be at the top. However, it is important to say that the Commission's recent proposals on European agricultural policy are in stark contrast. Bee policy is not made in your committee or in your Commission, but bee policy – the real bee policy – is made in the Agriculture Committee. If deregulation continues in the Committee on Agriculture, if the Pollinator Strategy, the Biodiversity Strategy and other things, but also the Nature Restoration Directive - which is currently under massive attack in the Committee on Agriculture - continue to be pushed against the wall, if the simplification packages are not simplification packages but bee attack packages, then we notice that the Committee on Agriculture is the committee responsible for ensuring bee health. We all know that the main cause of bee decline is intensive farming. We all know that the task of extensive agricultural systems is a problem, that climate change, but also invasive species, urbanization and the intensification of forestry are all reasons. These reasons will only be anticipated. You will not be able to support the bees with small bee hotspots, but only with a comprehensive, good, sustainable agriculture throughout Europe. Therefore: Bee policy is agricultural policy, agriculture policy is bee policy. A big banner above it doesn't help us, we need it every day.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, It is clear: The majority of people in Europe do not want GMOs in our fields. No GMOs in our fields! Votes have proved this time and again in the individual Member States, it is clear. I would like to say one thing to my previous speaker, Mr Buda: Mr Buda, it is shameful how, on the one hand, you stand behind EFSA in this case and make it clear: We are doing what EFSA wants, namely putting GMOs on the plate. On the other hand, when it comes to animal welfare, you are insulting EFSA in such a way that in the last debate I was ashamed for you of how it can be that such an authority of the European Union is insulted. We are at a clear point here. We are the representatives of the people. The population does not want GMO products in our fields. I expect the Commission to stop with a continual fire of requests. Motions for motions for motions which, as a Parliament, should at some point force us to say yes. Parliament will say no, even in the future – and yet I expect that this democratic legitimacy of our vote will be more valued here. This is a clear message to the Commission.

Madam President, Commissioner! First of all, I would like to apologise to the viewers who may be sitting on the TV, sitting on the PC – apologies for some of the speeches that have been delivered here in the house. This part of Parliament is constructive. This part of Parliament works in a friendly way with each other, even if we do not always agree. But there is also a part here in the house – this part is destructive from the beginning. This part is backward-looking and sometimes just stupid – I would like to apologize for that. But now on to the subject: We got a roadmap. A roadmap: The word alone means that we are still not on target – a roadmap. And I have to be very clear: Yeah, he's not bad, the roadmap. We have no knowledge deficits, no knowledge deficits at all – we have implementation deficits, action deficits. That is why I so much hope that this roadmap will really get very concrete initiatives this year, very concrete legislative papers, very concrete papers that will move us forward. Because we have had roadmaps for so long – we need implementation in the different areas.

Mr President! Dear colleagues, dear colleagues! There has always been. It used to have a different face – it used to be the so-called witch burnings. A woman was picked out of the mass of women, she was mostly exposed, pulled naked on a cart, dragged through the city, to the pyre and burned under greed by many people. Those were the pyres before. Today, there are pyres on the Internet. A woman is pulled out, the woman is exposed, often also naked, she is slandered, and she is publicly burned. And what does it do to the others? It does with the other women exactly what it should have done many hundreds of years ago, namely: The other women are silent. What we need to do: On the one hand, of course, we have to look at the countries outside the EU. On the other hand, we must also see that within the EU, if member countries do not protect their women sufficiently from this hatred, then these member countries must also get the funds frozen – the rule of law, human rights, freedom of the press is part of it. But if you don't protect your women, you can't get money from the EU. That's the look inside.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Today, 25 November, the day against violence against women, I would like to address the men – the real men. The real men are the men we reach out to. The real men are the men who never beat. The real men are the men who want equal women to take over family work. The real men are happy when women are successful in the profession. The real men defend women and protect women. The real men do not hide behind tradition or religion. The real men are Democrats. But we also have the men who are cowardly, who are weak, and who are not men. The men who are perpetrators, who are afraid of self-confident women, who are afraid of having conversations, who are afraid of the sexual pleasure of women, who are afraid and who hide behind religion, who hide behind alleged tradition, who completely misdefine masculinity and who, above all, quite often have not democratic, but actually fascist ideas. This means: We European women know which men we can count on. It's the Democrats. And we European women know exactly which ones are not.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen! The situation of women in Afghanistan is devastating. It's about one thing: It's about breastfeeding women. It's about taking away their language. It's all about making women invisible. When we look at what is happening in Afghanistan, we realize that such tendencies also exist in our country. Because there are also tendencies with us that some believe that women should come back to the stove. There are also tendencies among us that some believe that parliaments are better if there are no women represented in them. We also have tendencies that especially the extreme right side believes that women have a different place in society than men. We're standing here. We stand here as the European Parliament, fighting globally for women to be allowed to speak out. We want women to be visible all over the world. We are fighting worldwide for women to get half of the parliaments. We are on the side of our sisters.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! The strategic dialogue in agriculture was a good dialogue, a dialogue that involved many groups and groups, a dialogue that hopefully brings us forward, because the real advantage of this dialogue is the consensus that seems to be underpinned: the signatures of the various groups and groups that promise to abide by them. What is not new is the content. Almost similar content was already in the Farm to Forkcalled a strategy. This means that in terms of content, we have summarized what has been known for a long time and, above all, is already known in science, and yet: Good dialogue. Now the question is: Is this strategic dialogue and the paper a Sunday paper that can no longer be found on Monday and no longer be implemented, or do we manage to bring this paper into Monday and into the week so that politics can really emerge from it? And I would like to take a very specific look at Mr Dorfmann. Mr Dorfmann, what is your role in the EPP? Your role in the EPP is to vote in the implementation of the strategic dialogue with the Democrats. If you fail and at the end vote with the right side, then it will be dark in Europe!