Speeches

Madam President, Madam President of the Commission - well, she's leaving again - ladies and gentlemen! The EU appears to be waking up. There was no talk of the Green Deal at the Council summit. Instead, the focus is now on the Competitiveness Deal. So one finally recognizes in Brussels, in which disaster the de-industrialization policy of the Green Deal led by green ideologues and Mrs. von der Leyen leads. However, this course correction is not a reason for pure joy. The insight comes too late. Europe's competitiveness is not only now suddenly in jeopardy. It is the result of years of completely wrong economic policy of undermining the EU's competitiveness. The economies of the EU are increasingly losing their international connections. Millions of people are threatened with the long-term loss of their standard of living. The emergency brake must therefore be pulled now. There has to be an end to hysteria and hysteria. We need sober, pragmatic economic reason. This would be limited to setting a prudent framework for companies and renouncing state taxes on all economic processes. Less bureaucracy, less regulation, less tax burden. Less is more. But nobody seems to understand that anymore. In this way and only in this way can Europe become competitive again in the long term. The flowery fairy tale hours of Mrs. von der Leyen no longer believe anyone who knows the true data.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. I allow myself to point out two things. Firstly: Since the introduction of the Euro standard in 1992, emissions from passenger cars have fallen by 90%. However, any further euro regulation has an ever-decreasing marginal benefit. At the same time, the fulfilment costs are increasing, to the limit of technical unachievability. Secondly: E-cars are insufficiently covered by the regulation. The electric car is by no means as clean as is always claimed. Due to dirty battery production and raw material extraction, the emissions of the e-car are only shifted forward in time and space. A correct comparative life cycle assessment must take this into account. The idea of a clean, even emission-free electric car is a fairy tale, nothing else. The new requirements for the battery life of electric cars are to be welcomed, but do not hit the core of the problem. Therefore, in all clarity: A still further tightening of the Euro standard in the area of the EU is an economically fatal and ecologically inefficient instrument for a basically right goal, as well as the hasty decision of the ban on internal combustion engines from 2035. Both are misguided.

Mr President, Madam President Lagarde, ladies and gentlemen. "If you're not green, you're undesirable." These words were recently addressed to his staff by Frank Elderson, one of the ECB's six directors. He added: "Why should we hire people we need to reprogram?" Aside from the downright authoritarian nature of these statements, Elderson says that the free spirit of employees is not enough to understand the ECB's green goals. However: Climate policy is also definitely not part of the central bank's remit. Their mandate under the Treaties is to ensure price stability. So what can be said of a central bank that, in times of persistently high inflation – which is essentially its only task – gives the fatal impression that climate rescue policy is its primary mandate? Instead of dealing with democratically unlegitimate and legally indisputable support measures for climate policy, the ECB must reflect on its core mandate. As the current situation above all shows, God knows enough to do this.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen. This debate turns against anti-Semitism, i.e. Jew-hatred, and against Islam-hatred. This is to be welcomed in the aim: No religion should be the object of hatred in a civilized, free society. But the equation implicitly assumes that Jews and Muslims alike in Europe are in danger of religious persecution – and that is not the truth. The truth is: Synagogues must be guarded militarily, not mosques. Jewish cemeteries are desecrated, apartments of Jews are smeared with hassparoles. People who wear kippa or speak Hebrew are attacked daily in the open street. Jubilant masses celebrate the murder of Jews on the streets. Open anti-Semitism, including violent anti-Semitism, is rampant. Muslims in Europe do not have to live in fear because they are Muslims. Thank God this is the case, but Jews in Europe are now living in fear again because they are Jews. This is infinitely shameful. And to tackle it must not be limited to words of a ‘never again’, but any form of hatred of the Jews, which unfortunately often also emanates from Muslim migrants, must be confronted with all the necessary determination.

Madam President, With Belgium, the country with the highest tax burden in the EU as a whole will take over the Presidency of the Council for six months. A country that, despite its draconian taxation, suffers from its ailing infrastructure. Now, Mr Prime Minister, you are also proposing additional EU own resources, let's call it by name, own EU taxes. And Belgium, I can't spare you that, is a country where Jew-haters, right down to the level of government, want to deny Israel the right to militarily defend itself against Hamas' terror and defend its very existence. Prime Minister De Croo, I will tell you today what I have already said to German Chancellor Scholz at this point: Please put your own country in order before you come here with visions. I urge you to: Stay away from any plans to introduce your own EU taxes. And I implore you to: In your country, make sure that anti-Israel and anti-Semitism are vigorously stopped. This requires the responsibility that comes with your country's presidency of the Council.

Madam President, Madam President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen. Contrary to what you are describing here, Europe is in a deep crisis. Millions of Europeans hardly know how to afford the most everyday things. Businesses are moving a lot, deindustrialization is going on. Uncontrolled illegal mass migration is once again firmly under control in Europe. It is time to act urgently. These problems are existential. But the EU, your Commission, in unbearable hubris and fatal disregard for all these problems, focuses almost exclusively on the absurd goal of halting the climate change that is taking place, and is also mistaken in that, because you will definitely not stop it with your plans. Instead of wanting to adapt the global climate to the decimal place of humans – which can only fail – the right precautions must be taken to adapt our societies to climatic changes. That would work, but nothing happens. You complete a single task, and you are also doing it wrongly! With this mistake, the EU as a whole can and will fail terribly. And that is the last thing that should happen in this period of historical decisions.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen. Some proposals here in Parliament make sense, others are unwise and some are simply shameful. The report on the relationship between the EU and the Palestinian Authority is one of the latter. This report is not only one-sided, it is anti-Israel, it demonizes the State of Israel in a shameful way. It is the product of a group of MEPs in this House who sometimes live out their hatred of Israel, sometimes covertly, sometimes openly. Europe finances the Palestinians annually with 1.2 billion euros, tax money that barely reaches the civilian population, but flows into the terrorist organizations Fatah and Hamas, goes into the procurement of their deadly rockets, to a democratically unlegitimate head of government who openly relativizes the crimes of the Shoah, which seep into corrupt channels, are used for anti-Semitic, hate-inducing textbooks as well as for so-called martyr's pensions, the shame wage for the murderers of Israeli civilians. It has to end. Those who want peace in the Middle East must not side with Fatah and Hamas. The EU must finally side with the only democracy in this region, opting for and not against Israel, in the interests of both Israelis and Palestinians.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. Today we are talking about the renaturation law. As is so often the case, what the European Commission is presenting does not sound bad at first. No one can be serious against nature, against an intact nature. However, if you take a closer look at the draft, the whole thing turns out to be a nicely packaged ideological madness, as is so often the case. The Commission is not concerned with returning isolated, damaged areas to nature. Rather, 20% of our land is to be forcibly restored, i.e. to become wilderness again, half of it previously used for agricultural purposes. This plan is not only completely unrealistic, but highly dangerous – a threat to our domestic agriculture and thus to the security of our food supply. Anyone who wants to see regional products, affordable fruits and vegetables on our plates in the future, who does not want to make their important work even more difficult for our farmers, or even impossible in some cases, must vote decisively against this law on Wednesday. Yes to agriculture, yes to nature conservation, no to this renaturation law.

Madam President, Chancellor, ladies and gentlemen. Precisely you, Mr Scholz, chancellor of a once respected, strong and livable country, which is in complete decline under your government, are staging yourself here today as a great visionary for Europe? With all due respect, Chancellor, this has something involuntarily funny, downright ridiculous. Germany, under your leadership, which is not one, is a country in economic decline and advancing deindustrialization, an energy-political ghost-driver nation astonished by its neighbors. A country with rotting infrastructure, with massive violent crime, with a disastrous immigration policy. A country in the midst of an educational disaster. A country with significant problems in medical care, even for its children in the meantime. Last but not least, a country in an ever-deepening social and social divide. So do your tasks at home before you spread your visions here! Former Chancellor Helmut Schmidt is credited with the sentence: Anyone who has visions should go to the doctor. In today's Germany, you wait for months for an appointment for a doctor's visit. You have a lot to do at home, Chancellor.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. There is no doubt that digitalisation offers opportunities and benefits, as well as risks and dangers. The risks and dangers clearly outweigh the ECB's planned digitalisation of the euro as a currency. Economically, a digital euro threatens small and medium-sized banks in an existential way. They are at risk of losing liquidity. The digital euro will not bring more security, as the ECB claims, but on the contrary will cause considerable unrest in the financial market. Politically, the digital currency is even more dangerous. It is perfectly clear that this is only a first step towards the complete abolition of all other means of payment. It is a major step towards total monitoring of all transactions and thus total control of citizens by an overt state. Why has China diligently digitized its yuan? As democratically elected representatives of the people, it is our duty to protect citizens from this total control and to decisively prevent the introduction of a digital euro. The cash that is at stake here must never be abolished.

Madam President, Prime Minister, my respect for your speech. That was refreshingly liberal – I was delighted. Nevertheless, the multitude of crises in the world raises questions about how Europe should position itself in foreign policy in the future. The key question is: How does the EU need to be designed to respond successfully to these crises? The reflexive answer – also from you, Mr Bettel – always means: more EU, more centralism and at the same time a blindly angry attitude and confessional attitude, when only real politics and pragmatism would be required. The EU is – let us face the truth – today economically a sick giant that continues to lose ground globally, and politically a dwarf that no one really takes seriously anymore. Two weeks ago, Ms von der Leyen experienced this painfully and to the point of embarrassment only in Beijing, and a few days later, the German Foreign Minister, who is only ridiculed internationally anyway, at the same place as well. The EU must finally learn to pursue a foreign policy guided by balance of interests and pragmatic realism. There must be an end to teachings, moral sermons and completely inappropriate European arrogance. Otherwise, the EU will make a mockery of itself internationally. That's how... (The President withdrew the floor from the speaker.)

– Well, it is quite clear if they have the opportunity to come to Europe this way, they will do it. It is just evidence, nothing else. So it is quite easy. If there is no more chance to come in this way, they won’t do it any more. That’s the Australian way, you know, and that would be a solution that not so many people must die in the Mediterranean as they do at the time. So we must change this by saying, ‘no, not this way’. I’m not at all against legal kind of migration, but not in an illegal way, which leads people directly into death by drowning.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. Again and again, deeply shattering tragedies take place on the Mediterranean. Thousands of people have already lost their lives on the dangerous road to Europe. When we talk today about the so-called sea rescue, I say clearly: It is not a solution, but on the contrary, it is part of the problem and is also responsible. Those activists who are acting as rescuers in the Mediterranean, as well as all the unscrupulous traffickers and the whole red-green mass immigration lobby, are actively contributing to the fact that desperate people from Africa, the Near and Middle East are in the first place trying to illegally enter Europe and embark on the life-threatening, often deadly route across the sea. They bear full responsibility for this human suffering at our external borders. I say: This illegal and deadly practice must finally come to an end. There can only be one EU message to the world: Illegal migration to the EU has no chance, it is not tolerated. This is the only way to effectively protect our external borders, fight the gangs of traffickers and, above all, save countless lives from drowning. (The speaker agreed to respond to an intervention under the blue card procedure.)

Mr President, Madam Minister, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! Today we celebrate the 30th anniversary of the European Single Market. And yes, that's a reason to celebrate. Unlike monetary union, the single market is a real success story. The four fundamental freedoms linked to open borders within the Schengen area have brought much more additional prosperity to all EU citizens than most people even perceive. It is precisely for this reason that this jubilee urges us to resolutely defend the single market, this common area of freedom and prosperity. This includes the effective protection of our external borders as well as a strict fight against subsidy races. Unfortunately, the Commission is far from fulfilling its task of defending the achievements of the internal market under Mrs von der Leyen's leadership: Uncontrolled mass immigration, also promoted by this House, is an existential danger for our liberal economic area, as well as an overt commission that, in the course of its climate rescue, is pumping up true subsidy orgies. So let's not celebrate too loudly today, but let's finally do what needs to be done so that we don't negligently lose what we have achieved. There is a lot in the arrogance.

Mr President, Commissioner Hahn, ladies and gentlemen. The EU is really not too bad a crisis to inflate its budget even further and justify debt. In the case of the so-called Corona Recovery Fund, the contractual and unlawful joint borrowing was sold to us as a one-off exception. However, the Commission's current draft budget for 2023 already foresees that the EU will take on its own debt, this time with reference to the war in Ukraine. As right as it is when individual Member States help the country in its plight, it is at the same time absurd that the EU is indebted as a community so that Ukraine can cover its public expenditures. I'm not saying it for the first time and certainly not for the last time: Nothing can justify the breach of the European treaties in the form of a debt community. The EU can never obtain a debt license or its own tax sovereignty. It must remain in the pure contribution financing by the sovereign Member States. This is what the Treaties provide for, and this House has a duty to ensure compliance with the Treaties. Additional debt to pump even more money into the market now, at the expense of future generations, is literally – pardon – antisocial.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen. War in Ukraine, energy crisis and the highest rate of price increase in decades. We are all experiencing phenomena in Europe that seemed to have been overcome long ago, where many had hoped and believed that this would never happen again – war, supply shortages, fierce inflation. Politics must act in this situation and it is more important than ever that they act correctly in this complex situation. The decision-makers in the EU usually follow the impulse to meet the problems with huge amounts of money on the pump. However, this impulse should be resisted in the current situation. It would be a serious mistake to want to generate growth at all costs in times of completely out of control inflation. I strongly warn against further multi-billion-dollar debt-financed programs by the EU to pump even more money, with even more debt, into the market. That's the wrong way to go. Inflation will only continue to rise. We need high interest rates quickly. The United States, by the way, has recognized this correctly. The best medicine is often the most bitter. We now have to accept a certain recession in order to reduce inflation as quickly as possible, in the interest of millions of European consumers. Only then, after that, can it rise again.

Mr President! Dear colleagues! The murder of the young Iranian Mahsa Amini by the so-called moral police is deeply disturbing, as is the brutal violence with which the protests in the country are now to be suffocated. There are reports of over 100 dead, hundreds injured and thousands of innocent detainees, victims of the criminal, even murderous regime in Iran, a regime that has been courted for far too long by political forces on the left and right, including here in this House. I am impressed by the courage of the young people in Iran, especially the young women, who in these days risk their lives for a life of freedom, self-determination and dignity, without being intimidated by the violence and state terror of the regime of the mullahs and Revolutionary Guards. From Iran, dear colleagues, the call for freedom is sounding. We can't ignore him! We must not leave it to mere expressions of solidarity. As the EU, we must target the government in Tehran and its inhumane system with further sanctions. We owe this to the desperate, courageous people of Iran.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen. The massive rise in energy prices and the lack of electricity, gas and oil put an extreme strain on private households and companies. The current energy crisis threatens livelihoods across Europe. It really needs to be acted upon urgently. As an economist, I tell you clearly: It is perfectly clear that this crisis cannot be solved with savings and renunciation alone. We are experiencing a supply shock that cannot be countered by a reduction in demand alone, at least not without completely ruining the foundations of our prosperity. We need to increase the supply of energy and to do so we need to use all available energy sources in the short term. It is symptomatic that the ministers of the EU countries did not develop any solutions at their meeting last week and instead only dealt with the collection of consolidated profits. It is a sign of catastrophic incompetence that the German federal government still stubbornly wants to hold on to the nuclear phase-out of the largest EU country and thus puts all of our prosperity at existential risk.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. When we talk today about initiatives to tackle inflation, everyone should be aware that we are talking here about the fully foreseeable consequences of a fundamental failure of the European Central Bank. With its irresponsible zero interest rate policy, fuelled additionally by gigantic bond-buying programs, the ECB has virtually systematically created this inflation monster. For comparison: While the inflation rate is currently around 3% due to global price pressures in Switzerland, we already have a rate of over 8% in the euro area. This is the fault of ECB President Lagarde and her Central Bank Council, who have fundamentally disregarded their mission of ensuring price stability. The consequences of this are now suffered above all by the socially weak, because they are always the first victims of inflation. Expensive EU spending programmes to mitigate the consequences will not solve this problem. This is just helpless curing of symptoms. What we need now is a longer period of tough and restrictive monetary policy by the European Central Bank. The medicine is now much more bitter than if you had started earlier, as all experts have basically recommended. But it is absolutely necessary. And I tell you: With Mrs. Lagarde at the helm, that won't happen.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen. Today we are talking about a morally very difficult topic: The question of abortion. It is not for nothing that politics and society have been struggling for decades for a position, for a solution. The issue is more polarized than any other. It is highly emotional and unfortunately massively ideologically charged. I am concerned that both camps are becoming more and more radicalized. This happens to the detriment of pregnant women who are in real emergencies. I say it very clearly: Abortion is not a contraceptive. Every abortion always means the end of a life that has already arisen. It should never become a routine. But I say just as clearly that we must not make a blanket judgment and must always keep an eye on the specific individual case. As important as the protection of unborn life is, so important is the physical and psychological integrity of the expectant mother. I have dealt with it often and for a long time. I am convinced that criminal law is not capable of providing answers; However, neither ideology nor lump-sumization. Instead of giving our energies in ideological battles on this topic, we should focus them strictly on help and advice on a case-by-case basis.

Look, I'm all about reacting with prudence. I think the sanctions we have taken at the moment and the new ones we are taking are right. But I also see in this House the desire to go even further and enter into a total gas embargo. This would actually ruin us economically – in some countries completely, in others less. And that's not something that serves anyone. If we want to provide help and solidarity, then we must actually be able to do so. We don't do that by ruining ourselves economically. I expressly say to you: I consider the sanctions taken to be correct and fully support them in terms of content, including what is now being launched. But I am firmly opposed to the demand – which we have here – for a total embargo on energy from Russia at this stage. We have to do this gradually. Of course, we must become independent and free of it. Of course we have to get rid of it. But you have to do that in steps so that we don't ruin ourselves. Sanctions that affect us more than Russia itself would indeed be counterproductive. That is why I wanted to express this.

Madam President, Mr Borrell, High Representative! For six weeks now, due to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, we have been experiencing a war that confronts us with ever more and more horrific images of real horror for the people in the contested regions. It is extremely important that we, as the European Union, respond unequivocally to this aggression in these times. But it is equally important that we do not let ourselves be overwhelmed by unavoidably arising emotions, that despite all the horror we keep a clear head in our decisions. The goal is perfectly clear, every person with heart and mind shares this: This war must be ended as soon as possible. To help make this happen, we are using sanctions against Russia. For sanctions to have the desired effect – history tells us that this is very often not the case – they need to be sharp, effective and targeted. You have to meet Putin and his war machine. Unfortunately, certain side effects that also affect us are unavoidable – that is true. But sanctions that primarily drive our own citizens, our own economies into economic ruin, as exemplified by a short-term total gas embargo, are outlawed. No one would benefit if we made economically suicidal sanction decisions. I therefore appeal to the European Council, to the governments of the Member States: Be determined, yes. But please also: Be equally prudent. It is undisputed that it is our humanitarian mission to give our help and solidarity to people fleeing the war zone, as fortunately happens on a large scale. And it is our foreign policy task to do everything in our power to finally bring about a cessation of hostilities. I would therefore like to remind you here that, even and especially in the worst of times, it is absolutely necessary to keep channels of conversation open, no matter how great an imposition they may be. (The speaker agreed to reply to a question on the blue card procedure.)

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. Millions of Europeans are thinking twice these days whether they can still refuel their own car or turn on the heater. Consumer prices for oil and gas are higher than ever before. Yes, the situation on the world market is tense, no doubt about it. The bitter truth is: The state artificially increases the cost of energy. Only one third of the price of gasoline is due to the real price and thus to the crisis on the world market. Taxes and levies account for almost 70%. The state is shamelessly enriching itself in this energy crisis at the expense of its citizens. Eco-tax and carbon pricing put a huge burden on low-income households. They are highly antisocial. Energy, ladies and gentlemen, must remain affordable for all. I therefore call on the German government to immediately abolish the nonsensical and harmful eco-tax and the CO2 tax. The EU Commission is now obliged to include oil and gas in the list for reduced VAT, up to a zero rate, in order to allow Member States to make a significant reduction and mitigate the consequences of the crisis on the world market for people.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. I think we are all still deeply shocked by the Russian invasion of Ukraine. We all no longer thought such a war of aggression in the middle of Europe possible. It is therefore all the more important that we do not remain in this shock, but resolutely help the needy in this war. To all those who in recent years have mistakenly referred to economic migrants as refugees, including here in this House, I say: Take a close look! Look at the women and children who are now coming to us, fleeing the rockets and grenades for their lives. These are refugees. They must be granted immediate and unbureaucratic asylum. Poland, Hungary, Slovakia and others are doing great things in this humanitarian crisis. As a German, I say: We sincerely thank them and, more importantly, our full solidarity. It goes without saying that we do not abandon our partners and help with the reception and care of refugees from Ukraine by all means. This is the hour of humanity and cohesion in Europe.

Madam President, President Macron! Progress should therefore be a major objective of the French Presidency. It is perfectly clear: Progress and growth will only be possible with a reliable and affordable energy supply. This is an essential point. It is therefore to be welcomed that you, President Macron, are confronting reality in contrast to many other heads of government and are clearly committed to modern nuclear energy. Climate protection and at the same time a secure standard of living can only be achieved with modern reactors. This is simply a requirement of reason, and we very much welcome it. Significant unreason, on the other hand, hides behind another of your plans: They want to create growth through new debt and a large-scale intergovernmental redistribution in the form of joint bonds. They want to soften the Maastricht criteria even further and ultimately de facto abolish them. This is unacceptable, and I am telling you that macroeconomics is a mistake. I assure you: With such plans, you do not create growth, no progress, but lead the EU into another financial crisis. We should avoid that.