Speeches

Madam President, The problems we are talking about here have been the same for many months. People are groaning under the exploding energy and food prices. But instead of providing a quick remedy, the heads of government in the Council have been fighting fatally for months, and the Commission, too, has so far shone rather with hesitant action and inadequate proposals. This is especially fatal for those people who don't know how to pay their bills. This is fatal for small and medium-sized enterprises, which suffer from the high costs and do not know how to maintain their production, and which are at risk of insolvency. This is also fatal for the crafts, for the bakery, for the carpenter in the neighbourhood, because the prices of grain and wood have multiplied in recent months, and people simply do not know how to get their businesses through the crisis. The heads of government must now finally get into the pot and find the courage to tackle the energy market failure with courageous politics. Yes, Mrs von der Leyen, 15% joint gas purchasing, which I think is a step in the right direction. But the question is serious: Why not 100 percent? Why not a joint purchase that really fills the stores? Why not a European gas price cap that supplies and protects households, crafts and small and medium-sized enterprises with a low basic quota? For a fair distribution of the crisis burdens, the excess profits of the corporations and the assets of the super-rich must finally be used. Estimated Mr Weber, the five richest families in Germany have the same wealth as the lower half of the population. There is an inequality like in Kaiser Wilhelm's time. These are clearly symptoms of a society that is sick at this point. No, we don't need less, we need more socialism, and we definitely need less market ideology. In order to heal society, we must now shift towards social justice and climate protection. If we do not, authoritarian forces will eventually plunge Europe into a new fascism. European solidarity, on the other hand, is key. We now need a European effort to bring all the ailing states through the crisis. We need the targeted support of industry, small and medium-sized enterprises and craft enterprises. We also need the relaunch of the SURE short-time work programme in order to secure jobs in the energy crisis on a permanent basis. We now need investments in the future to protect the climate and quickly free our society from dependence on fossil fuels. This is also one of the measures, ladies and gentlemen, to let Putin's terrible war of aggression go out of the air and force him to the negotiating table, namely to make it clear to him that there is a clear, strong political answer to the blackmail on the gas tap, which means: We don't need your gas because we invest in the future and in the climate. We demand an immediate end to the Russian war of aggression and the withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukraine. We need to get out of the escalation spiral. The United Nations must be enabled to mediate lasting peace. Unfortunately, European foreign policy does not act as a mediator on this issue, because Brussels is always working on new packages of sanctions and arms deliveries, but never on a peace plan. Mrs von der Leyen, you are no longer the German Minister of Defence, you are the President of the European Commission. Please focus again on diplomacy to lead this continent into a secure future.

. – Madam President! This war must be ended as soon as possible. Russia's illegal annexation of parts of Ukraine, partial mobilization and threats to use nuclear weapons have contributed to a massive escalation of the conflict. Putin ignites and plays with the fire in which many more innocent people will die if this damn war is not stopped as soon as possible. That is why we demand an end to the Russian war of aggression and the withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukraine. And yes, targeted sanctions against the power and military apparatus are correct and have an effect. But, Mrs. von der Leyen, I was in Sweden recently, met the people there, spoke to hundreds of people at a rally, and the people in this region are afraid. The people of this region are frustrated because political decisions have been made here – in this House and also in yours – which do not represent the future of industrial sites, which have not considered the future of the people in the region, but put these before completed facts and plunge them into existential hardships. Those who want the future and those who want peace must now also speak up for diplomacy. When you hear what has come to this House again today, including from the Commission, or what representatives of individual governments, including from Germany, are saying, I wonder whether anyone here is seriously interested in diplomacy and negotiations, that is, in an immediate end to this war at all. Apart from further arms deliveries, apart from further sanctions, no one seems to think of anything here. A few days ago, the Pope also called on the politicians in action to engage in dialogue and end this war. And it is also the duty of European politics not to continue turning on the spiral of escalation, but to finally contribute to ending this wretched war with strong peace initiatives. Of course, our solidarity is with Ukraine, and of course our solidarity is with the people in need. And as heavy as this attack, this Russian attack, weighs on the country, all diplomatic channels should still be kept open. Yes, Putin is a terrible warmonger. However, the Russian people cannot be imprisoned for this. Our solidarity must also apply to those Russians who oppose the war. The partial mobilisation has led to a mass exodus of young Russians, some of whom are now facing closed EU borders. The EU must not fall behind those people who are actively fighting against war and for peace. Open the borders for deserters and conscientious objectors!

Madam President, The food price explosion is a serious problem, especially for lower-income households and families. The price of butter increased by 40% last year and the price of fruit and vegetables by 20%. The prices for bread go through the ceiling, and the doner around the corner now costs 6 euros. I do not want children to be sent to school at the end of the month without break bread, because the money is not enough in the families. That is why I call on the European governments – Mr Michel – firstly to ban food speculation so that not a few speculators specifically enrich themselves with the hunger of the many, secondly to reduce VAT on basic foodstuffs to zero, and thirdly to offer free kindergarten and school meals, as is already the case in some European countries. Because with an empty stomach, it doesn't learn well. On sanctions: It is right to reduce dependence on Russian gas and oil as soon as possible. You can't drive out the devil with the Beelzebub. Dependence on an authoritarian regime is not solved by dependence on other dictatorships. Rather, the solution lies in courageous and fastest possible investments in the energy transition. If the oil tap is to be turned off soon, then it now needs a clear development perspective for the dependent regions. It needs job guarantees for the employees, for example in Schwedt or in Leuna, so in East Germany, my home region. We can't leave people in the rain. But let's leave them in the rain, Mrs. von der Leyen, you can't create acceptance for the energy transition. People need to be able to turn on the lights at the end of the month, watch TV or cook something. And in order to stop the price explosion in the energy sector, we now need an energy price cap. At the current prices, at the price development, the major oil and gas companies worldwide will make an additional profit of up to one trillion euros this year alone – they are currently earning stupidly and stupidly. And if we want to help the common people, then we should ask the crisis winners to cash in. An over-profit tax is now needed everywhere in Europe, including in Germany.

Madam President, In the train stations across Europe, countless volunteers welcome millions of refugees from Ukraine – people seeking protection, but also housing, income, jobs, millions fleeing a brutal war and the destruction of their homeland. Millions of tons of grain are currently blocked in Ukraine. The harvest is threatened. In a supermarket near me around the corner there has been no sunflower oil for weeks. Butter prices increased by 44% last year and vegetable prices by up to 30%. Food prices in the EU are out of bounds. Because of the war and the disruption of supply chains, the United Nations is expecting a global food and hunger crisis. The war comes at a time when energy prices went through the roof even before the Russian invasion of Ukraine and 36 million people in the EU could not adequately heat up in 2020, that is your figures, Ms von der Leyen. The war, increased demand for the pandemic, speculation on electricity exchanges and the wrong energy market design in the EU are contributing to this energy price explosion. All of this is fueling inflation. Rental costs rise, food prices rise, energy prices continue to rise, inflation eats up wages and pensions. That is why we now need a Europe-wide energy price cap so that energy poverty can be effectively combated and does not get out of hand. We now need a European effort to protect Europe's lowest-income households from inflation, energy poverty and hunger. And this requires a crisis profit tax, which is levied on the additional profits of the energy companies, the defence companies – the share price of Rheinmetall has risen by 120% since March – and also the pandemic winner, i.e. the pharmaceutical companies and the Big techcorporations. As you know, Amazon and Google earned themselves stupidly and stupidly during the pandemic. These would be effective first steps to alleviate the grossest social hardship. And we would release funds that would help with meaningful economic production in agriculture and the integration of the war refugees. It is right to work on independence from Russian gas and oil. That's why I think pumping billions and billions into the arms sector is the wrong way to go, but these funds must flow into the socially just energy transition, which frees us from dependence on fossil fuels as quickly as possible. And this applies not only to Russian gas and oil, but to gas and oil, no matter where it comes from. And some of the sanctions imposed are unfortunately unsuitable in their current form: The houses, yachts, cars of the oligarchs are almost frozen, that is, they must be preserved in the same condition as they are found. And currently, European taxpayers are paying for the maintenance of frozen oligarchic possessions. I think that's absurd. The property must be expropriated and used for other purposes. Oligarch villas must be made available to refugee families whose yachts are used for local recreation. There is an urgent need for improvement here, Mrs von der Leyen!

Madam President, Prime Minister Draghi! The Italian government is taking decisive action against Russian oligarchs and freezing their possessions and assets. However, in order for you not to remain seated on the maintenance costs for the frozen possessions, the goods must be confiscated, expropriated and used for other purposes. I want the oligarch villas to be made available to Ukrainian refugee children, whose yachts will be provided for recreation and the protégé cars for public transport. They impose a crisis profit tax on energy companies – Bravo! Crisis winners must be asked to cash in. However, if I were your finance minister, my advice to you would be that pandemic winners like BigTech and large pharmaceutical companies have to pay their excess profits to the state. And this also applies to the war winners, i.e. the arms industry. They call for a reform of the European debt brake, i.e. the Stability and Growth Pact – here too Bravo! But here, in particular, the German government is on the brakes, just as this federal government is reluctant to take action against Russian oligarchs and shy away from taxing crisis winners. However, Prime Minister Draghi, this debate is called "This is Europe“. Let us also look together at the political history of the recent financial and economic crisis, a history in which you played an outstanding leading role. Some called you Super Mario, others called you a Super Villain. You were the President of the ECB when the ECB in Greece turned off Alexis Tsipras's government because it resisted austerity and austerity policies. At that time, workers, pensioners, patients, recipients of social benefits paid for the banking crisis. Everything and everywhere was brutally cut. And when the Troika started its devastating activity in Greece, the Greek public debt was about 150% of gross domestic product. Today, however, the Italian public debt is close to 160%, as you know better than I am. And now imagine with me, just for a moment, that someone would come up with the absurd idea of subjecting Italy to the same brutal austerity course that happened with Greece at the time. They would rightly oppose it politically. And then Mrs. Lagarde, the ECB, turns the money tap on you overnight. Italy would be upside down. That was your big historical mistake. And you did a great deal of damage to European democracy at the time. Yours whatever it takes In the eyes of the population, it was only for the rescue of banks and large investors. However, Europe will have a good future if it whatever it takes that protects against exploding energy prices, rent prices, food prices, so that the crisis and inflation do not eat up wages and pensions, whatever it takesto protect the climate and democracy from the authoritarian right. In short: a whatever it takes for man and planet.

Yes, very gladly, because again I do not share these answers and at this point also consider them unsatisfactory, because the global minimum taxation is based on the tax rate of 15 percent and, for example, small and medium-sized enterprises in the European Union have an average tax rate of 23 percent. So multinational companies are better off here than the crafts, for example, or the companies that keep our societies alive. If one implemented a tax rate similar to that for small and medium-sized enterprises, then the tax revenue would be much higher. It is estimated at 460 billion. At 15 percent, the tax rate is only about 120 billion. Therefore, my question: What do you think of additional own income, such as crisis profit taxes, i.e. the taxation of excessive profits? What do you think about finally enforcing an active withholding tax, i.e. taxing where economic activity takes place? What do you think about finally closing the tax loopholes and finally denying European tax havens the flow of money?

Madam President, Madam President of the Commission! First of all, let me say that my group has been very supportive of this Question Time. For two reasons: Firstly, this gives you the opportunity to take stock of the political situation and, secondly, it gives us Members the opportunity to better exercise our democratic control over the Commission. I have a specific question for you relating to a statement you made at the beginning of your term of office. You have spoken out here in front of the House in favour of greater tax justice, and when I look at the balance sheet at this point, I must say: Very little has happened since then. Effective taxation of digital companies has given way to the rather vague idea of the global minimum taxation of multinational companies – a set of rules that presents itself as fragmented as a Swiss cheese. The FTT we discussed has not been introduced – no trace of it. This would provide us with 40 billion euros each year in additional own resources, including for the Green Deal. What also irritates me very much is that European tax havens continue to be left alone and that there are no political efforts at all to close these tax havens. Against the background of the current war, the war in Ukraine and our attempts to implement targeted sanctions also against the oligarchs who support this war, we can see how harmful this policy can be if the tax havens are not closed, how difficult it is for us to get the money of those who support this war. My question is: When will the Commission finally take action against this criminal money? When will the European tax havens finally be closed?

Madam President, Welcome, Madam Prime Minister! The attack on Ukraine in violation of international law has deeply shaken many people. Many are currently afraid that this war could capture other countries and lead to an escalation between nuclear powers. We must do everything we can to ensure that this scenario does not occur and that this war in the heart of Europe is brought to an immediate end. The European peace order is being destroyed with every air strike, with every grenade, with every bullet fired, and the existing global security architecture is being shaken. Vladimir Putin is responsible for this – without any ifs or buts. I also want to say at this point that this cowardly attack calls into question my own political views and forces me to struggle for new answers. Where there can be no doubt, but only a clear answer, is our solidarity and sympathy with the Ukrainian people, who are living through a terrible tragedy. My thoughts are also with the courageous Russians, who take to the streets not only against the war, but also under great personal dangers against Putin's increasingly dictatorial rule. We need effective sanctions against Putin and his oligarchs. Only those who hit their power apparatus also attack their power base. Let's socialize their villas, the yachts, trace the dirty money and make these riches available for humanitarian purposes and the reconstruction of the destroyed cities in Ukraine. But for the targeted sanctions to really hurt, there must finally be an end to oligarchs parking their money in EU tax havens. We need tax transparency, EU-wide real estate registers and strict regulation for cryptocurrencies. In the future, the European Union will only be able to credibly implement its role in a new global security architecture if it supplies itself with energy independently. Renewable energy needs to be scaled up now, and sustainable European food sovereignty is needed, autonomy and public oversight of critical infrastructure – such as the semiconductor industry, healthcare, public services of general interest. Ladies and gentlemen, there will be a time after this terrible war. And even though many certainties are called into question these days, one conviction remains intact: The world will not become a safer place through armament and military force. If we want to guarantee our children a peaceful future, we need concrete disarmament steps, the strengthening of international organizations, an end to weapons of mass destruction. We will have to continue to work on a security architecture based on international law, in which conflicts are resolved peacefully through diplomacy and not through war.

Madam President, Europe is looking into the abyss of a war between Russia and Ukraine, the price of which would first have to be paid by the civilian population. From the outset, the key to overcoming this crisis, which challenges and threatens the entire European peace order, has been diplomacy, de-escalation and mutual verbal and military disarmament. This applies not only to the current efforts to secure peace, but also to recent years in which relations between the West and Russia have systematically deteriorated. The exclusion of Russia from the G8, the cessation of meetings of the NATO-Russia Council, the cessation of meetings in the Normandy format and the non-implementation of the Minsk Agreement are expressions of a mutual failure of diplomacy. A new cold war has been laid over Europe, threatening to become a hot war. And in a remarkable article, dear colleague Weber, a well-known German news magazine looked back in time, in which the Western powers negotiated with the then Soviet Union shortly before the self-dissolution of the Eastern bloc, and therefore detailed that several of the participants in the Soviet Union made verbal promises that NATO would not extend an inch to the East. We know the reality: Fourteen mainly Central and Eastern European countries have joined NATO since 1990. The geostrategic architecture of the world has changed over the last 30 years, and you can intervene however you like. All sides must work on a peace order that recognizes the multilateral nature of our world, that is based on international law and that takes into account the legitimate security interests of all actors. NATO is not the international power of order. This role is still played by international law and the United Nations. And I would have been very pleased, ladies and gentlemen, if this had been clearly expressed in this debate. The resolution of the current crisis requires an unconditional readiness on the part of all parties to preserve peace. Russia must guarantee the security of its neighbours as well as Ukraine is called upon to implement the Minsk Agreement. The absurd idea of a further eastward expansion of NATO demonstrably contributes not to security in Europe, but to destabilization. There will be peace in Europe not against, but only with Russia – to refer here also to the negotiations of the German Chancellor yesterday with Vladimir Putin. But to be clear: An attack by Russia on Ukraine would be contrary to international law. It would harm Russian interests in the long term as well as a new European peace order – and the Putin government must know that. But we know from bitter experience that successful détente policy cannot be based on the claims of intelligence agencies. Rumors are already part of the escalation, and if you haven't learned that yet, just listen to me: Facts are the basis of peace. We also know that US gas companies are experiencing a boom in the crisis. Profits are bubbling, and investors are celebrating at the expense of European security. The lesson to be drawn from this is that European security interests do not necessarily coincide with US interests. European interests must be determined by us here, without transatlantic obedience. Madam President of the Commission, European energy sovereignty is not based on Russian or US gas, but on the fastest possible expansion of renewable energies. Peace in Europe must be decided in these, in our European capitals – and not in Washington or NATO Headquarters.

Mr President! Years of inaction by lawmakers and the passivity of regulators have led to the development of digital surveillance capitalism, driven by the profit interests of Facebook, Google and Co. The Digital Services Act, which is exactly the law we are discussing here and now and today, is intended to put an end to this digital state of nature. Consumers must be protected, businesses must be given clear rules, compliance must be ensured, and transparency must be ensured. Unfortunately, however, the present draft falls far short of these expectations and requirements. Some progress has been made, such as the ban on so-called dark patterns – that is, those confusion tactics that trick users into consenting to data extraction. The obligation for large platforms to provide accessibility for people with disabilities is also good news, as is the proposal that companies must provide access to some of their data. Nevertheless, the draft has serious shortcomings. Instead of finally ending the unscrupulous business with our most personal data, the Digital Services Act unfortunately stops at this point after the first step. Of course, I welcome the ban on personalised advertising for minors. However, in order to protect users effectively, the extraction of highly sensitive data must be prohibited. The profits of Facebook and other Internet giants must not be based on our political or sexual orientations and our health data. The generous exemptions now foreseen for small and medium-sized enterprises create a bureaucratic monster. Instead, transparency rules should apply to all companies with more than ten employees. The whistleblower Frances Haugen had already pointed out to us here in the European Parliament in November that the loopholes for companies must be closed. We must not continue to allow platforms to hide behind the protection of trade secrets and to evade transparency rules. The hiding game of platforms like Airbnb behind the country of origin principle must be stopped. It is only through the legal strengthening of the Member States and improved cooperation between authorities and platforms that illegal content and breaches of rules can be tackled consistently, in the interest of tenants. In the run-up to the negotiations, I met and consulted with many NGOs and other civil society players. I do not know with whom others have met, but this text hardly reflects the wishes of civil society, but above all the positions and interests of companies.

. – Madam President! Congratulations on your birthday! This is actually a nice coincidence that your birthday and your choice fall on one day. I suppose you're going to celebrate twice as hard today. Dear Roberta, you will also be accompanied very constructively by our group in your work, and I would like to congratulate you on the election on behalf of my group. The footsteps you follow, the lines of tradition you have to pick up, you have described yourself, and they are enormous: From the first president of this House, Simone Veil, a Holocaust survivor, to David Sassoli, whom we said goodbye to yesterday, your two predecessors and all predecessors have worked to strengthen European integration and democracy and prevent a relapse into destructive nationalism. And you have announced that you will continue on this path. We welcome this, and I am sure that you will succeed in setting your own accents and shaping your own political agenda. You said that the European Parliament should become an open place for the citizens of the European Union. We very much welcome that. They have said that open, democratic debates should take place, with all democratic voices in them. We also welcome this very much. And we also have an interest in strengthening this institution vis-à-vis the other European institutions, because this is the directly elected Parliament and the voice of the citizens must be heard here and must accordingly also be incorporated into politics. Nevertheless, today we have allowed ourselves to nominate a candidate of our own – Sira Rego, to whom I would like to thank very much for her willingness to also fight the democratic discourse today in the sense that we understand it, namely with an open focus, transparent and constructive. And we have made it clear what my group stands for here in the European Parliament: We are working to ensure that there is greater democratisation, a stronger social European Union, that ecological considerations are taken into account, that feminism is on the agenda of this Parliament and yes, also anti-fascism in the sense of the predecessors whose office you are taking up today. We look forward to constructive cooperation in this sense both in the Conference of Presidents and in the Bureau, as well as in other bodies of this House, and we are very pleased to be able to move things together.

– Madam President, dear family and loved ones of David, dear colleagues, let me start on a more personal note. The ceremony today is very moving because we are not only commemorating our President of the European Parliament, David Maria Sassoli, we are also commemorating a colleague and a friend whose optimism, openness and will for cooperation will be deeply missed. David’s entire work has been based on a deep-rooted, humane perspective on politics and society. As President of this Parliament, that many consider the beating heart of European democracy, David set out to strengthen democratic procedures and the rights of the European Parliament, and his political ambitions were always driven by the deepest respect for democracy. But he did not do that for the sake of his role or for the sake of this institution alone. He did it first and foremost for European citizens whose voice he wanted to be heard, whose aspirations and demands he wanted to see realised by and through this very Parliament. And from the very start of his Presidency, he reminded us relentlessly that democracy cannot be taken for granted. And that democracy is under attack every day and that it has to be defended every day. Already in his first speech as President, and we saw that earlier today, he expressed his conviction that European integration, European democracy have their roots also in the destruction, devastation of Europe caused by nationalism and fascism. European democracy and anti-fascism are two sides, and were two sides for David, of the same coin. This week, the European Parliament is about to elect its new leadership. Dear colleagues, the best way to commemorate David Sassoli is to follow his legacy and to ensure that all democratic voices are heard with the same respect in this institution now and in the future. Thank you and farewell David. (Applause)

Madam President, The Digital Single Market needs a structure that protects, on the one hand, innovative smaller companies and, on the other hand, users from the crushing dominance of monopolies. There is good news in this report: faster legal procedures in the event of non-compliance by the groups, appropriately high fines and the possibility of structural interventions in order to safeguard the market power of the companies. Big tech to be restricted. Consumers can also rejoice in the interoperability of messengers and social media, and they can be sure of surfing, not through so-called "switching". Dark patterns, i.e. unfair confusion tactics of being tricked into an unwanted data extraction. Nevertheless, I would like to point out two central criticisms at this point: The DMA I believe that everyone, not just a handful of monopolies, must be covered in the digital market. It does not matter for competitors or users whether an American, Chinese or European company takes advantage of its own market position. The fact remains that monopolies in the digital market have to be plugged in – unfortunately, the report falls short of our expectations. Secondly: There needs to be a ban on personalised advertising and an end to the Attention-seekingbusiness model. There must finally be an end to flushing more and more garbage, hate and violence into the timeline, so that users stay longer on the platform, so that their sensitive data can be reused commercially. Thank you for the cooperation and for your attention.

Mr President! December marks the thirtieth anniversary of the end of the Soviet Union. And actually, it is time to take a differentiated look at European history and the lessons to be drawn from it for the present. Unfortunately, however, in the light of the debate so far, I have to say that some of my colleagues are not concerned with differentiation, but with unilateral partisanship. Once again, history is being exploited to discredit the pursuit of a society liberated from capitalism and fascism, and to further the confrontation with present-day Russia, or simply to tell nonsense, just like the colleague from the ID faction. Yes, in the Soviet Union, stemming from Stalinism, there was the absolute dominance of a state and party bureaucracy that had strayed far from the ideals of the workers' movement, suppressed any opposition and persecuted millions of people. Therefore, however, a movement that puts and places the liberation of man from exploitation and oppression at the centre of its politics, equating it with fascism, which was and is aimed at annihilation, inequality and unfreedom, as it has happened here again today, is simply absurd. Anyone who talks about the history of the Soviet Union must not remain silent about the defeat of European fascism by this same Soviet Union. And let's not forget the enormous blood toll, the 27 million lives paid by the peoples of the Soviet Union in World War II. And anyone who talks about European history must not remain silent about the Cold War. And it is all the more incomprehensible today that its errors are repeated even after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact. The eastern extension of NATO to the western border of Russia, although excluded by the then German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher, has violated Russia's security interests. Further expansion can lead to another catastrophe. The constant saber-rattling of the warriors at NATO headquarters in Brussels, the repeated threats of sanctions by the Commission and the Council exacerbate this confrontation. There will be peace in Europe, ladies and gentlemen, not against Russia, but only with Russia. The criticism of the Putin government's policy justifies this, however wrong the actions of the Russian authorities against the human rights organization Memorial are: A new Cold War, fought on European soil, does not help anyone. Instead, a new European détente policy is needed. This applies to both sides. NATO must stop its provocations against Russia as well as Russia must guarantee the peaceful development of its neighbours. The means for this lie in diplomacy and dialogue. Let's use them.

Mr President, I'm glad you're back. Dear colleagues! About a month ago, the Commission President ruled out EU funds being invested in barbed wire and fences. And then you, Mr Michel, travel to Warsaw and announce, together with the Polish Prime Minister, that you can imagine, on the basis of a legal opinion drawn up in your house – i.e. the European Council – building barbed wire and fences precisely on behalf of the European Union, which are intended to prevent people from seeking protection in the EU. They thus adopt the language of the political right, which speaks of illegal migration when it comes to people in need, of an alleged threat to the stability of the European Union, which is to be triggered by 5,000 refugees, and want to use the so-called EU border protection agency Frontex, which is itself responsible for serious human rights violations such as illegal immigration. pushbacks is involved. But it is not these 5,000 people who are now fighting for their survival and against freezing in the Polish and Belarusian forests that threaten the EU. Mr Michel, it is politicians who voluntarily allow themselves to be drawn into the cart of authoritarian rights, thereby seriously harming democracy, existing international law and, indeed - and you must now bear this - also the anti-fascist founding consensus of the predecessor organisation of the European Union. Of course Lukashenka is a bad autocrat, and of course he uses refugees as a means of pressure. But that he can do it at all is due to the EU's permanent failure to implement a humane and solidarity-based migration policy based on international law. Anyone who fails to understand that this EU border management policy is a disgrace in the face of thousands of deaths at the EU’s external borders, of Libyan slave camps or of children who are now freezing to death in Polish forests cannot be helped. Instead of dreaming of barbed wire and walls, Mr Michel, you should work to ensure that the Member States finally get people out of there!

Mr President! The debate has clearly shown how deep the crisis of the rule of law and democracy is now spreading in the Member States and also here in the House and how much the unculture of anti-democratic thinking and corresponding political action has already spread in the Member States and here in the House. The method is always the same: It is distracted from the topic, fog candles are thrown, the topic is passed over in order to obscure the political goals. The objectives are to undermine the rules of the game for democracy and the rule of law, to undermine the independence of the judiciary, to restrict freedom of the press and to restrict the exercise of fundamental rights for minorities, refugees and women. All of this bears the hallmarks of an authoritarian transformation that is taking place not only in Poland but also in other Member States. And we can argue about anything – social policy, economic policy, climate justice, digitalisation and foreign policy – but we need to agree on democracy and the rule of law.

Mr President! Mrs von der Leyen, you spoke at the beginning of your presidency about trying to resolve the existing conflicts with Poland in dialogue. At that time, a rule of law case was already under way against Poland for attacks on the independence of the judiciary. Unfortunately, little has happened since then, and the debate today shows that the conflicts have only escalated further. This passivity on the part of the Commission and of you, Mrs von der Leyen, has also brought us into this situation. Finally take your responsibility. The time for beautiful words is over. Act and apply the rule of law mechanism without delay! Stop appeasement of the authoritarian right. Their policies must not be financed with European funds. Mr Prime Minister, you have applied today as a class spokesman for the right here in the House. Their provocations were clear, the applause from that corner too. You can still try to put sand in people's eyes, but what you call judicial reform is nothing more than an attempt to undermine the independence of the judiciary and establish a political judiciary. This calls into question the rule of law and democracy. That is what is at stake here today, and not less so, in this debate, namely that an authoritarian transformation is taking place in Poland, a transformation that aims not only at the independence of the judiciary but also at the exercise of fundamental rights. It's outrageous that you haven't found a critical word here about the so-called LGBT-free zones in your country. Human rights are trampled underfoot there, and this policy is tolerated and promoted by your government. (Applause) I find it outrageous how your government denies women in your country the right to physical self-determination. We no longer live in the Catholic Middle Ages, where women were given a chastity belt. Now your government wants to erect a fence against refugees on the border with Belarus. Fences do not solve political problems. With every fence, however, human rights can be broken and the international legal order buried. No wonder, then, that the Polish Constitutional Court recently also questioned the European legal order. This bomb has been presented to us here today with many glorifying words. But don't be fooled by their explosive power. Should a Member State begin to choose which EU legal framework it claims for itself and which it does not, others will soon follow, and that would be the political end of the European Union.

Madam President, In the EU, the cost of bailing out banks as a result of the great financial crisis was a whopping €1.7 trillion, and at that time it was highly and sacredly sworn that taxpayers would never again be asked to pay to save the monstrous gambler bonuses and megabanks. That was the birth of the banking union, and since then a lot of water has flowed down the European rivers. But not much has happened, because even a decade later we still have megabanks that are too huge and too complex to fail. The problem is that banks Too Big to Fail They have not been approached. On the contrary, the alignment of banking regulation across the EU actually facilitates the concentration and interconnectedness of the banking sector. However, what we need to stabilise the banking sector and put it at the service of society is the consistent separation of investment banking and investment banking. The still lax equity ratios are completely inadequate. The EU resolution fund is more a symbolic measure than an effective means of effectively intervening in a systemic banking crisis. Dear rapporteur, I welcome the initiative for better regulation of the shadow banking sector. I also support the call to accelerate the fight against money laundering. However, I cannot support the report as a whole, because it unfortunately neglects the massive shortcomings in the architecture of the banking union, so that in the end taxpayers have to tinker again.

Mr President! Thank you for the discussion, Madam President of the Commission. What remains of this debate on the state of the European Union? Lots of buzzwords, lots of wishful thinking, but not a convincing idea. And I'd like to help you with that. My idea or proposal for an idea would be that we develop the European Union together into a safe haven, a social safe haven. Three examples: You mentioned the staff who were at the forefront of the pandemic. This staff needs more than applause. Better working conditions, better wages and a dense working life, better public services and stronger social security are needed. This is not only what this staff wants, but also what the population wants. Second point: The digital transformation. You have to have the courage to get involved with the monopoly company, to open up the market for small and medium-sized companies, to protect data, to protect consumers and above all to secure the participation of those who are economically weaker, i.e. to shape a social-digital transformation. And when it comes to climate change and climate protection, there is no question that this project must also be socially secure, i.e. social-ecological climate protection. That is my idea, my proposal for a European Union of Social Protection Areas.

Madam President, Mrs von der Leyen, you have presented us with a lot of self-praise today, but unfortunately we owe a lot of answers and, above all, a convincing idea for the further development of the European Union. This parliament, 140 former heads of state and Nobel laureates, over 100 countries worldwide are now jointly calling for the suspension of patent protection for the corona vaccines. This is because there is an insight that the pandemic can only really be overcome if the vaccine is available to everyone, including in the Global South. When does the Commission abandon its blockade of the suspension of patent protection in order to protect the health of all, not to jeopardise the onset of economic recovery and, above all, to avoid the further social division of society? The ten richest billionaires in Europe – ladies and gentlemen, please let this figure go through your head – the ten richest billionaires in Europe increased their net worth by over €180 billion during the pandemic. At the same time, one fifth of children in the European Union live in poverty. The crisis has particularly affected low-skilled female workers, while the self-employed and precarious female service providers have lost their jobs. I don't want this or the southern European youth or pensioners to have to pay for the crisis again. It finally needs a minimum level of taxation for multinational companies that also have teeth. A comprehensive financial transaction tax is finally needed, which would flush a good 40 billion euros into the European coffers. Tax justice and poverty reduction go hand in hand. When will you finally make both a priority of your work in the Commission, Mrs von der Leyen? The West is in a deep crisis due to NATO's defeat in Afghanistan. The policy of military intervention and nation-building has failed disastrously, and yet some colleagues here, Mr Borrell, come up with nothing more than a call for rearmament and a military union. Mr Weber, do you really not think that the money you want to invest in the military would be better spent on poverty reduction? The lessons learned from the Afghanistan disaster can only mean that the EU is working on a sovereign foreign policy based on smart development policy, fair trade, effective climate protection and a humanitarian migration policy. This will make the EU a credible and strong player in international relations. Ladies and gentlemen, in order to put an end to the stalemate in European policy that has been presented to us here today, a fresh start is needed, also here in this House. And addressed to you, Social Democrats and Greens, you know that you will not be able to implement your ideas of better social security and effective climate protection with the majority relations existing here in the house. And to you liberals, you know that your ideas in defense of democracy and fundamental rights cannot be implemented if you continue to form majorities with those who do not clearly delineate themselves to the right. So let's work together here. Let's work on common new majorities for social and climate justice, for a digital transformation that leaves no one behind, and for strengthening democracy. Europeans deserve it. Thank you for your attention.

Madam President, The European debt brake prevents the necessary government investment to make EU Member States crisis-proof and future-proof. And in fact, esteemed rapporteur, we also agree that the EU must finally leave the existing debt rules behind. A more active fiscal policy is needed to deal with the pandemic and its consequences and not to shift the costs of the crisis back to the broad mass of the population, as happened with the unconditional enforcement of austerity policies after the financial crisis. Germany alone currently has an estimated investment need of 450 billion euros. And the pandemic has shown us the shortcomings in public infrastructure and public services of general interest with all their severity. We received the receipt for this false policy when our nurses in understaffed, inadequately equipped intensive care units had to fight for every single life. However, the pandemic has also revealed the digital divide in society. Where adequate internet and technology are lacking, people will be left behind. The digital age began ten years ago. But we must now invest in digital participation, education and jobs, because no one can be left behind in the digital transformation of the economy and society. Unfortunately, the report's initially very progressive positions were severely eroded in the course of the negotiations. Despite positive elements such as a possible exception rule for some growth-enhancing investments, the report maintains the rusty debt rules of the Maastricht Treaty and also the conservative economic policy of the European Semester. I call for the Maastricht rules to finally be part of history and for the EU rules to be made fit for the future. Let's dare a solidarity and future pact for the EU to promote state investment. Thank you for your attention.

Mr President, Mr Prime Minister! Now that the political right has spared you very much in the debate, but you yourself are known for fighting with the sword rather than with the foil, I will not withhold from you the joy of a political debate. Your government is taking over the Presidency of the Council at a difficult time for the EU. The EU is still struggling with the pandemic and its consequences. And unfortunately, the Council Presidency begins with a scandal, the higher reverberations of insulting statements: One of the Vice-Presidents of the Commission refuses to take a group picture. The next day, another vice president will walk with you comfortably. Mrs. von der Leyen, sometimes I wonder: What's going on at Berlaymont? But, Mr Janša, you have touched on many topics. Above all, let me talk to you about democracy. I think that the Slovenian public has a right to be informed from an independent journalistic source. And denying funding to the independent news agency is a political scandal. And even if you don't always like what is reported, you have to endure criticism as a politician. And even if you personally prefer Twitter as a proclamation body, media independence and freedom of the press, Mr Prime Minister, are essential in a democracy. I also think that the Slovenian people have a right to the functioning of an independent judiciary. The fact that your government presents some of the judges in the country as politically biased, says above all something about your own relationship to the independence of the judiciary. And the fact that the European Public Prosecutor's Office still has to wait for the appointment of European prosecutors from Slovenia and therefore cannot start its work is completely unacceptable. The work of an independent public prosecutor’s office, for example against corruption, strengthens trust in the rule of law and democratic policies. Their refusal undermines that trust. I believe that democracy thrives on cultural controversy. The contempt of the democratic opposition leads to a brutalization of political debate and culture. The US under Donald Trump was not a model of democratic culture – quite the contrary: They are a reminder to us. And the EU Member States, and in particular an incumbent Presidency of the Council, should not follow this path. I continue to think that refugees are entitled to protection in the EU and to compliance with international law. This applies to Slovenia as well as to any other Member State. Refugees are not greeted with barbed wire fences and footsteps, but with compassion. In short, Mr Prime Minister, I am pleased that Slovenia is a member of the EU and that you now hold the Presidency of the Council and that you face great challenges. I doubt, however, that it could have become a member under today's domestic political conditions. You can still use your Presidency to help address current policy challenges. You can strengthen European democracy, or you can continue your political course. Then you will find in us critics who also know how to fight with the sword.