Debate contributions by Fabio DE MASI

Madam President, I refer to Rule 167 of the Rules of Procedure. We have now heard that US President Donald Trump wants to impose punitive tariffs on various European countries in connection with his demands to sell Greenland. But it is not enough if we all get up here and clap anointingly, but we have to approach the pain points of the USA and discuss here, for example, why US medium-range missiles should be stationed in Germany, in my home country. We need U.S.Big Techs finally impose withholding and punitive taxes so that it also hurts them. We should not continue to depend unilaterally on US fracking gas and – embedded in a ceasefire – put Nord Stream back into operation, blown up by Ukraine. Otherwise, Donald Trump will not be impressed. It would be time for you in this house to admit: They hung on the skirt of the USA for far too long. It's time to grow up now and finally think of something better.

Madam President, I refer to Rule 167 of the Rules of Procedure. Even though Christmas, the Feast of Love, is just around the corner, I can't spare you a point. The Brussels capital has recently been shaken again by a scandal involving the misuse of EU funds. Federica Mogherini, the former High Representative for Foreign Affairs, was briefly arrested. And I find it surprising that this House has not even been able to persuade itself to debate this circumstance at all. Having just had Qatargate, having also had accusations against Mrs Marine Le Pen – in other words, from different directions of the House – we cannot stand in front of the citizens just before Christmas and completely ignore it. We should finally discuss why EU funds are obviously always the cause of corruption and mismanagement. And I expect that Mrs Kaja Kallas will be summoned here once and that Parliament will be informed of what the state of play is and how long it has been known about these allegations.

Madam President, A few days ago, the head of Denmark's military intelligence made it clear that there is still no reliable information on the authorship of drone flights. Surely we shouldn't be naive. A few months ago, however, I asked the European Council what knowledge they had and, according to the answer, they had not even dealt with it at the political level. Now a new sow is being driven through the village every week in public. The population is put in a permanent state of fear and excitement because they want to give the impression that Russia would invade us tomorrow. I think that is irresponsible, and we finally need more transparency about the clarification of these processes. We have a veritable crisis in the automotive sector. Now that we have the 19th Prepare a package of sanctions against Russia and drive our industry out of Europe with high energy prices and thus also make the conversion - for example to green steel - impossible due to the high electricity prices, the Netherlands have now taken over the chip manufacturer Nexperia under pressure from the USA. Now production at Volkswagen is threatening to get under the wheels because Nexperia is no longer supplied from China. We are being driven by the US into a two-front economic war with China. That's totally crazy. There is an old saying: If a bag of rice falls over in China, short-time work is threatened in Bitterfeld.

Madam President, I refer to Rule 167 of the Rules of Procedure. The German Attorney General is currently investigating a suspected state terrorist attack on Germany’s energy infrastructure – Nord Stream. We may have different views in this House on the need to also source gas from Russia. Personally, I believe that we should not depend solely on Donald Trump and expensive US fracking gas. If, however, a Polish court does not implement a European arrest warrant and the Polish Prime Minister declares that the real crime is not the demolition of Nord Stream – and a terrorist is not extradited – but the construction of Nord Stream, then we will go to the foundations of European cooperation. I think this is something that a German President of the European Commission, a German Chancellor and also the European Parliament must not remain silent about. That is why we should urgently discuss this scandal.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen! Mrs. von der Leyen's deal is a surrender and has the lifespan of a one-day fly: 15 percent on European goods to the U.S., 0 percent on U.S. exports to Europe, and after a few days it was said: 50 percent on our steel and aluminium sector. This is an economic blow, and the EU Commission has just maneuvered itself into a completely one-sided dependence on the US. While Donald Trump imposes punitive tariffs on us, we fill his order books on dirty fracking gas and arms procurement – this is a completely schizophrenic approach! We didn't unpack our thumbscrews. We are the largest single market in the world: We could, for example, impose punitive taxes on U.S.Big tech- impose corporations that do not pay taxes properly here. Nothing can be heard! For example, we could target the wealth of US billionaires, such as renowned economists such as Gabriel Zucman. EU Tax Observatory demand. None of this has been put on the table, and at the same time Ms. von der Leyen has pledged to buy fracking gas and other energy products from the US for $750 billion. How does she even want to promise this, she does not make the investment decisions of the companies! This is an agreement at the expense of third parties, so there is only one consequence: Mrs. von der Leyen should step down for this deal.

Madam President, I refer to Rule 144 of the Rules of Procedure: Parliamentary right to question. We know that many MEPs have the problem that the European Commission answers parliamentary questions completely inadequately or late. In my case, on 14 March of this year, I made a request concerning Ms Ursula von der Leyen's contacts with the defence industry. This question has not been answered for more than six months, although the deadline for replying is six weeks. The European Commission has even asked me to withdraw the question because I asked a similar question under the Freedom of Information Request as an EU citizen, which has nothing at all to do with my parliamentary right to question. And perhaps it is due to a signal malfunction of the GPS system that the question has not yet been transmitted. But I want to announce here that if this question is not answered, I will go to the European Court of Justice on the basis of Article 265 of the EU Treaty and defend the rights I have here as a Member.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, The European Investment Bank could play an important role in transforming industry and boosting public investment. For example, increasing the capital of the European Investment Bank does not count towards the European debt brakes. Instead, we are now hearing a new sound here in the European Parliament: More needs to be done to invest in armaments. However, we already have a multiple of military spending in the European NATO countries, e.g. Russia. We have a discussion about 5% of the gross domestic product that is now to be invested in armaments, and that undermines the European industrial model. That would be in Germany, in my home country, every second euro from the federal budget. At the same time, we have had negative net investments in recent years. The public capital stock, which was built up over generations, was increasingly driven towards wear and tear. Bridges are collapsing, trains are no longer running on time, and there is a lack of housing. At the same time, we want to put more and more weapons into the world, which are then delivered in wars contrary to international law, in the great crimes that take place in Gaza, for example by my country Germany – which is thus guilty of abetting these crimes. That's why we say: This has to be put from the head to the feet. Public investment: Yes, civilian, but no longer military and armaments.

Madam President, I refer to Rule 131 of the Rules of Procedure. Non-attached Members were not given the right to speak today in this important debate on Ms von der Leyen. I would just like to point out that, unlike Mrs von der Leyen, we were elected by the citizens of Europe. Mrs von der Leyen has never faced a direct choice. I would also like to point out once again that it was a very large coalition, which ranged from the Greens to Mrs Meloni, who took Mrs von der Leyen into office. So it is said that with right-wing votes you can vote for Mrs. von der Leyen. But when a motion of censure comes from the right side of the house, the nose is suddenly bruised. About this policy, people shake their heads in front of the screen. Ms von der Leyen speaks of the rule of law, and she has been repeatedly condemned by European courts for breaking European law. She has not said a word today about whether she will make her text messages available to Parliament here. And in the same way, it organises the rearmament of Europe, which will break the neck of our economy, and overrides Parliament. A parliament that allows itself to be offered this, that only gives a great deal of applause here and does not ask itself why it has sent this woman into office, that is superfluous, my ...

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. Online shopping and the use of smartphones are increasingly crowding out government cash. However, government cash is also protection against the market power of digital oligopolists and also against negative interest rates at private banks. Visa, for example, makes a profit of 0.50 euros for each euro credit card fee; This is modern piracy. And yes, it's also about geopolitical issues. For example, when WikiLeaks released U.S. war crimes, it was cut off by Visa and Mastercard under U.S. pressure. Therefore, a central bank account with government digital money could actually – theoretically – contribute to limiting the market power of private oligopolists. However, the digital euro is currently not built, because there should be maximum limits for the credits. You want to lower the interest rate so that there is no digital bank run In other words, so that people do not deduct their savings from the banks and shift them into state euro balances. This is why the digital euro does not currently deliver what it promises. Cash is still insufficiently protected. It is enough to hang a sign to say: We do not accept cash! This is why the digital euro is currently unable to deliver on its promise.

Madam President, A few days ago, a European court sentenced the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, for the second time in the Pfizer affair and found that the President of the Commission has repeatedly violated European law by not making her SMS, which she sent to the head of Pfizer at the time, available to the public and citizens in Europe. And it has even announced that it wants to organize the procurement of armaments according to this model in the future. That's why I call on the house: If you, as a parliamentarian, also have the honour of defending your own house, your own rights, then order Mrs von der Leyen here ...

Now, the question of morality depends on which instrument is suitable to end the war in Ukraine as soon as possible. And if we do more harm to ourselves economically than impair Putin's ability to wage war, that is simply not a sensible policy. Of course, we did not start sanctioning the US after the Iraq war because we would have shot ourselves in the knee. That is why it is not a moral question, but a question of political logic, that we make a policy that serves the people of Europe. And if it does not lead to the desired result, then a relaxation of sanctions can also be an instrument for reaching a ceasefire. Therefore, those who want to prolong this war unnecessarily and accept more and more blood and corpses are immoral.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, US President Donald Trump is trying to blackmail us with punitive tariffs. He wants us to buy more of his dirty fracking gas. And he wants to slow down the decline of U.S. industry. But we in Europe, we are only economically able to defend ourselves to a limited extent, because we have had a recession for three years, for example, in Germany, Europe's largest economy. We have done more harm to ourselves with the sanctions than to have hit Putin with them. We have increased excise duties, which mainly affect people with small incomes. And meanwhile, the US is now getting the rare earths from Ukraine, while we are on the sidelines as paymasters. Even the transformation to green steel cannot succeed if energy prices continue to be so high. Therefore, we must return to the principle of saying: We get the energy back from the cheapest supplier. That would be the right answer to Donald Trump to stop us from being blackmailed. And it would open a diplomatic window in Ukraine. We need more public investment. It's crazy when the talk shows talk about building tanks instead of Volkswagen. And we need punitive taxes on the financial flows of big tech companies to protect our middle class.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, For three years now, a senseless and avoidable war has been waged in Ukraine, in which far too many people have already died and which essentially revolved around the NATO perspective of Ukraine. The war is illegal, but many high-ranking US security experts have also said it was a great foolishness to move ever closer to the gates of a nuclear power. 800 billion euros will now be spent on armaments, while our economy is in a coma and our infrastructure is collapsing. The European NATO states are already spending three times as much on Russia's armaments. Russia has been biting its teeth in 20% of Ukraine for three years. Therefore, it is completely illusory to assume that tomorrow they would be on the Grand Place or in front of the Brandenburg Gate. But one thing is right: Russia has 5,000 nuclear warheads, France has 290, and the AfD is now – surprise – calling for German nuclear bombs in Germany. More security, however, requires reciprocal disarmament initiatives and a new European security architecture. While Mr. Trump threatens us with punitive tariffs, we are filling the order books for the U.S. defense industry. This is completely absurd, and that is why it is time to put an end to this nonsense before generations of investigative committees deal with felt in the arms sector.

Madam President, I refer to Rule 167 of the Rules of Procedure on matters of particular interest – a colleague has already mentioned it: We have witnessed the worst atrocities in Syria against the Alevi minority in recent days. And the European External Action Service He has issued a really grotesque press statement in which he has implicitly attributed responsibility for these atrocities to pro-Assad forces in principle. You really don't have to be a friend of the Assad regime to realize that this was really grotesque fake news, and I think there must be a clear signal from this Parliament that we don't tolerate such a thing here in these hallowed halls.

Mr President! Ladies and gentlemen, the Ukrainians have indeed been betrayed, but for different reasons than many of you here think. We've sent them into an unprofitable proxy war for over three years. And all talks about renouncing the NATO perspective for Ukraine were rejected. Even former Obama security adviser Charles Kupchan has called this a big mistake. These talks were rejected in 2021. In 2022, we were so close to a peace agreement, and that was rejected. The Ukrainians were told to keep fighting. What result do we have now? More than 1 million dead and injured. The boys have left the country. The country is completely destroyed and economically dependent. And it will lose part of its territory. You bear the political responsibility for this with your bloodless perseverance slogans. It is time to end this disaster. We need negotiations, a ceasefire and mutual security promises. But these bloodless perseverance slogans will go down in the history books as a historical error.

Madam President, Ladies and gentlemen, Donald Trump has announced tariffs on aluminium and steel, and that is no surprise. But we here in Europe have made ourselves vulnerable and dependent on the Americans with our sanctions. We – our companies – have five times the energy prices compared to the US. And at the same time, these sanctions have made no contribution whatsoever to ending the war in Ukraine. Meanwhile, the Americans continued to buy uranium from Russia, for example. In other words, we need to reconsider our own interests here in Europe and put an end to these sanctions, which harm us much more than they would affect Putin's ability to wage war. Then we can also negotiate with Donald Trump on an equal footing. And secondly, of course, we are not completely defenceless, because we are still a very large internal market in the world. Apple wants to sell this iPhone, for example, not only in Liechtenstein or in some tax haven, but in Germany or France. And that's why we finally need punitive and withholding taxes on financial flows to tax havens, including the US big tech companies, if they don't pay decent taxes here.

Madam President, In accordance with Rule 27 of the Rules of Procedure, the Conference of Presidents is responsible for relations with international organisations. We now deal with the terrible war in Ukraine every week, even if we have different views on the solution of this conflict. That is appropriate, but we now have the President of the United States, the Western leader, Donald Trump, who has announced that he will move borders in Gaza and ethnically cleanse and expel the Palestinians, who have suffered so much in recent months. That is why I would like to suggest that we invite the UN Secretary-General to this House so that we send a clear signal that international law also applies to Donald Trump.

Madam President, Mr Tusk! They have identified the priorities of the Polish Presidency, which consist in increasing defence spending and tightening sanctions and completely renouncing Russian energy imports. Let's look at the armor: We are talking about 500 billion euros. In my home country, in Germany, the Greens and the AfD are competing to see who reads Mr. Trump's every wish off his lips, and it's called five, six percent of gross domestic product. But we have a giant felt in our armor: We have 89 large-scale weapon systems in Europe, 27 in the United States. Ms von der Leyen only became President of the Commission because she was responsible for the procurement felt at the Bundeswehr. We already have three times Russia’s military spending – while with us trains are no longer running, children in schools are no longer properly counting and learning to read. And at the same time, we want to tighten the energy sanctions, while Mr Trump says: If you don't buy the dirty fracking gas from us, we'll raise punitive tariffs. We've gotten completely naked and we're totally dependent on the lunatic in the White House. And lastly, I would like to ask you, Mr Tusk, why you simply let the terrorists responsible for the Nord Stream escape leave Poland instead of arresting them.

Madam President, The power outage we have just witnessed here is a symbol of the situation in which the European Union finds itself. We used to have the Juncker Commission, now we have the Bunker Commission. Mrs von der Leyen stows herself in place Schuman, she refuses the reality, the exchange with the population and also with this Parliament. What are we seeing in the United States? A true turning point in time. A world order is coming to an end, and we have a president there who is now stepping out of international minimum taxation, who threatens us with punitive tariffs if we stop buying his dirty fracking gas. Meanwhile, we have been completely naked in these negotiations because we have cut ourselves off – for example with energy sanctions – from cheaper gas without having an alternative. Now we are blackmailable, and we are complaining about some oligarchs in the U.S. who now dominate the communications infrastructure. But what do we do, for example, to use antitrust law or to tax billionaires appropriately? We are running an arms race, even though we already have, so to speak, three times Russia's military spending. We have 89 large-scale weapon systems, the US only 27. Mrs von der Leyen has only become President of the Commission because of the arms felt in Germany. We have to get out of this logic and finally take our own fortunes into our own hands again.

Madam President, According to Rule 167 of the Rules of Procedure, this Parliament can and should deal with debates that shape our time, with debates that move the 450 million citizens in the EU. While we are discussing all sorts of things – the rule of law in distant countries or racing mice in the Sahara or what do I know – many things that outrage people have not yet been taken up by this Parliament. This includes, for example, rightly discussing the power of big oligarchs – not only Elon Musk, but also Mr Zuckerberg or Mr Gates – over our communication infrastructure. But at the same time, there is an EU Commissioner, Mr Breton, who, after only four months in office, is now in charge of Bank of America He changes and puts himself in the service of a major American bank, although he was well paid by the people here. This is a scandal, and we should discuss this once in this Parliament, and not just about any other aberrations in other countries.

Mr President! Not only do we have a terrible and avoidable war in Ukraine, which is a great tragedy for Europe, but we also have hybrid warfare, for example in the field of energy infrastructure – in my country, Germany, the Nord Stream pipeline has been blown up. We had a US president, Joe Biden, who, in the presence of the German chancellor, announced in principle that this pipeline could be taken out of the game. We now have research by journalists pointing out that there is Ukrainian authorship in this demolition, and the alleged mastermind was able to leave Poland, although the German Federal Prosecutor General is investigating. Poland will soon take over the presidency of the Council, and that is why we here in Germany, the alliance Sahra Wagenknecht, expect that the EU Commission will help to clarify these grievances, that the perpetrators of these attacks will actually be named. We have more and more reports about flying objects, about military installations or energy infrastructure, and citizens deserve to know who is responsible, who is responsible, and not to be fed with any speculation.

Madam President, I'm referring to paragraph 206 on the standing committees. We were informed that there shall be installed two standing committees: one on public health and one on defence. These two have been lumped together. We support, indeed, a Committee on Public Health, but we firmly reject further armament and escalation in Europe. That's why we want to ask for a separate decision on those two standing committees.