Debate contributions by Bernd LANGE

Mr President, Madam Commissioner for Foreign Affairs, Mr President Costa, ladies and gentlemen! I'm from Northern Germany, and there's a saying that says: If you feel the wind of change, then some are looking for a safe haven and others are re-setting the sails. I believe that, given the global situation, there is no safe haven and the ducking away from conflict does not help. In this respect, ladies and gentlemen, I am quite clear: We must defend our interests with confidence. This means that at the moment – and this is what we will decide this afternoon – we are not going to pursue the commitments on the Scotland deal, because we do not know what security, predictability is being delivered – there has been a breach of this agreement by the US before. Second, We have a list of ways to impose tariffs on American products – it was developed in April last year and we should not continue to suspend them. It should also be a clear sign to American friends from February: We will not be blackmailed. And thirdly: Yes, we need the anti-coercive law, which Anti-CoercionLaw that can enter into force – and of course we have an investigation first, then a dialogue phase and then the measures. We have adopted this legislation precisely for this purpose of political blackmail with trade instruments and we should start now, because we do not want to try to find a safe haven that does not exist, but set sail and sail quite confidently through the stormy seas for a united Europe.

Madam President, Maroš, dear colleagues, one year ago we were in London and we compared the new openness in the relation between the European Union and the United Kingdom with the creation of a new, wonderful, successful pop song. We felt the vibes – they were really good. And the music – it was really good and wonderful. But the text was missing. Now, one year after, we're looking again to this wonderful, successful pop song and still the text is missing. I would really make a plea now to the Commission that we look to the most important part of the text: the SPS, the ETS, the CBAM and the steel safeguard. Bring this into a text quite soon and be flexible so that we can sing the song at the beginning of next year.

Madam President, Commissioner, I recently had a discussion with the CEO of a big German company, and he told me I was a bit naive towards China. And I said to him, this was not naive: it was the economic strategy of your company. And that's the reality. European companies earned a lot of money over years, over decades in China, because wages are so low and the environmental obligations are so low. Also, specifically in the processing of rare earths like lithium, they put everything towards China and got a lot of benefit out of that. My plea is now, if you are taking measures, really have a look to have a fair share between companies and the taxpayer so that everybody is taking their responsibility.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, It is unusual for us to leave an international organization. But many other partners such as Thailand, which are now the largest rubber producers, have left this organization. Only 10 percent of the producers are still there, and that's why it makes no sense to be in this organization anymore. And that's why I recommend leaving.

Mr President, Commissioner, Minister! We don't make any trade was. This is really the starting point in the United States. We see that we have come into a situation where we have been virtually blackmailed, also with the question of our security partnership. Fortunately, the time of kings is over, where kings make treaties without questioning the population. Now is the time of Parliament. And Maroš: Security and stability are not included in this deal. 14 days after the deal was closed, the USTR took 407 products out of the 15 percent and placed them below 50 percent steel and aluminum. And that does not secure jobs, but I can show you the factories that produce compressors, pumps, which now have to pay 40 percent inches and still have to prove for themselves how much steel and aluminium is in the products – and they are in need of existence. In this respect, therefore, we must act here in Parliament and make use of the possibilities to amend the legislative proposal as well. As long as this situation exists, that European companies are called into question by the customs policy of the United States, I am not prepared to wave through the Commission's proposal one-to-one. We need amendments here. And we also need amendments on a clear link between changes in the US and how we are changing – very quickly and clearly, because there is no standstill clause. They refused to say: This is the end of the flagpole. And the third: Yes, I also want the WTO to be compatible. And what Ursula von der Leyen said in plenary this morning, that she is glad that we have a better deal than others, and so that those who are competing with us can stand out, is totally contrary to the WTO. We must see that we are putting our deal within a framework where the countries of the Global South also have a chance to continue to trade with us, not only in trade agreements that we conclude, but also with regard to the US deal.

Mr President, Madam Minister, Maroš! Tariffs are unjustified – as the Minister has said again – and that is why we must formulate our ideas clearly. And if, Maroš, there is now a deal in the air, then the criteria must be clear, which we as a parliament can accept at all. I think it's clear: With a deal, tariffs must immediately drop significantly. Secondly: It is clear that we have an Stand-still-Clause need that not the day after tomorrow Mr. Trump with new tariffs or other measures can come around the corner. Thirdly: It is also perfectly clear that European law cannot be bowed down, not only cannot be changed, but also cannot be bowed down. And fourthly: We need an international system that is strengthened and not weakened by a deal – precisely in the interest of the other countries in the WTO. If these four criteria are not met, then we must also take countermeasures. The Rolling Stones have already sung it: ‘You can't always get what you want“.

Fortunately, dear colleague, we have significantly enlarged and improved the toolbox in recent years: We have the international Procurement instrument created what we are applying now; we have this Foreign-Subsidies‐instrument adapted, which we also apply and which has led to a significant improvement in the conditions of competition; and we have this anti‐Coercion‐instrument Even in the pocket, so that if we really experience political pressure, we can also do that as a countermeasure. And, of course, complaints to the WTO – we will also do so. Even with a partner, if the partner plays unfairly, you can use the measures that you have.

Madam President, Madam Minister, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! Recently I had a discussion with a chairman of a large company who told me: We were a bit naive about China. I told him that we were not naive, that was economic policy. Labour costs were low and, above all, environmental requirements were low. That's why all raw material processors are currently in China. Lithium – 70% is processed in China, although it is not extracted there. So, I think this question is a question that is addressed to us, how we can become more sovereign, how we can get more other suppliers from other countries and reduce this dependence, which has also been indebted to us, on China. Of course, we will demand that China behave fairly in accordance with WTO rules, and in this respect the licence fee and the process for critical raw materials must be dismantled. This must be the goal of the summit in July.

I strongly oppose this request. First, we discussed it quite seriously in the INTA Committee, secondly there is a really urgent need, because the current regulation is expiring on 5 June, and, thirdly, this is a strong sign of solidarity with Ukraine and we support it.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! There are three “ver-’. We must defend, disseminate and negotiate. Defend against illegal tariffs – and I think it is good that you want to use all the tools, Commissioner. We need to broaden: our basis with reasonable trade agreements, fair partnerships with many countries of the world. I also think it is good that you have brought news, including on the possibilities of an agreement with Indonesia. And we need to ratify quickly to have a network here. And we have to negotiate – no question – because, of course, we want to avoid escalation. But it also means that we make it clear: These tariffs are illegal and have to go, even with the cars. It's not just about 2.5 percent and 10 percent, it's also about 25 percent tariffs on light commercial vehicles in the U.S., and that's why we need to negotiate. They have to get rid of these illegal tariffs. That is why we do not want to give any opportunities to question our legislation. And we agree with you to go together. However, we must be able to approve the mandate for possible negotiations and an outcome also as Parliament.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! The analysis of Clean industrial deals I agree, but I do not have a bit of detail. You have rightly said that energy prices are a key competitive moment. Does that mean you want to change the aid scheme? Does that mean you want to make electricity price compensation? So I want to have a little more meat on my bones. And then there is external security. After all, we have generated 35% of our gross domestic product through external relations, and we must also see to it that we ensure more defensively. For example, if there are now tariffs from the United States on steel, that no more steel comes to the European market, so that you also have a SafeguardThe regulation creates, but also ensures offensively, that raw materials can be extracted in fair partnerships and, above all, that green hydrogen can be sufficiently imported into Europe.

Saskia, you are not correct. Indeed, I am really proud, as the Commission took over my proposal for a binding, strong sustainability chapter in June 2022. And in this agreement, in the proposal by the Commission, the requirements, the obligations for sustainability are binding. The only issue is how we can really sanction this. And there we have some differences. Let's see how Parliament will develop its own position in the next months. But the obligations are binding in this agreement.

I just spent two hours discussing with the farmers last week. It's about important facts. And if you look at the fact that German and European agriculture has had a surplus of EUR 65 billion in exports, it shows that they also have an interest in exporting. Or that we have opportunities for dairy products, for cheese, for alcoholic beverages, especially in the Mercosur sector. And one has to say about the truth: We are already importing three million tons of soy, and we accept this approvingly. This is how we produce proteins for pigs and cattle. That, too, is part of the truth. So look at the facts, and then we come to a different conclusion.

Madam President, Commissioner! My dear colleagues! I find it dishonest to stand here with an index finger and say that the world should recover from the European nature without making reasonable agreements with other partners on an equal footing. And this is exactly what we are doing, so that we want to implement the same goals together with the governments of Uruguay, Paraguay, Brazil and Argentina, in terms of climate protection, in terms of the protection of biodiversity and in terms of the protection of workers' rights. We can only do this together and not with a raised index finger only here from Europe. Ladies and gentlemen, let's not be so defensive. As Lenny Kravitz said: It Ain't Over 'Til It's Over. We now have until next year to see how the development continues. How we can manage it together, if there are change requests, supplementary requests, to implement it. We have done this in other trade agreements. We are the force that ultimately makes sure that an agreement becomes a good agreement. And we need stable agreements in a global world marked by conflict. Without stable conditions in our economic situation, especially when 40% of our GDP depends on international trade, we cannot continue to exist. We give up our welfare situation. That is why we need stable conditions. We don't want to give ourselves to autocrats in this world. That's why let's discuss agreements, improve them if necessary, but shape them!

Madam President, Mr. Minister! Commissioner! Dear colleagues! Even Isaac Newton knew that an action always triggers a backlash. And of course we are now experiencing that too. I read President Trump's order this morning. It basically put its 2018 tariffs back into full effect and abolished all exceptions, including our quotas of duty-free imports. By the way: by the way, also against Ukraine, which I find very indecent, because they need opportunities for export. This means, of course, that our backlash will also occur, that from 1 April we will also re-establish our counter tariffs against the USA. And Commissioner, if Mr Trump will also put tariffs on cars and pharmaceuticals, I expect that we will take the same decisive countermeasures – a backlash against the U.S. tariff jungle – as we did on steel tariffs.

Mr President, Mr Minister, dear Maroš, ladies and gentlemen! Now the cat is out of the bag, as they say in Germany. We have here the America first trade policy, a letter from the President to his ministers on economic relations with other countries – and, ladies and gentlemen, there are, of course, many things that cause us concern: In other words, the question of further tariffs – quite explicitly formulated – but also the question that the tariffs on steel, which are still being levied, should be continued, that the WTO should also be reviewed. Many things that affect us in our economic activity – after all, we export 20 percent of our exports to the US, and there is a trade surplus of just under 200 billion. In this respect, we must see to it that we also safeguard these economic interests. And when I read the paper, there are just these attacks on fair trade. But there is also a paragraph 2g where it is said: We want to negotiate. And that's why my conclusion from this paper is a double strategy: To say, on the one hand, to act where possible in order to achieve stable relations, and to defend where necessary in order to safeguard our legitimate economic interests against unfair practices. And we should do that in the next few weeks.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! The Temu headline ‘shop like a millionaire’ would probably have to be reworded as ‘sell like a billionaire’. We have heard that four billion packages are coming this year from the online platforms Temu, Shein and AliExpress, and I wonder, Commissioner: Why do we not have equal treatment with sales within the European Union? I don't want to close the market, not at all. But it cannot be, if we have RAPEX within the European Union, if we have other possibilities and if a store sells products that are not acceptable, the store is closed, and here we always only ask for information and basically do not make clear if a product is on the platform, and this has happened several times that this platform can no longer deliver. Or – you say the 150 euros have to fall. Will the 2028 fall, as the Commission proposes, or sooner? And what about the Council and customs reform? Too little is happening here too. Not only complain, but also act for fair competition.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! I think it is good that we are talking about industrial policy today, because for a long time that was a word that was not so well-liked. Because: Together, we want to take measures to secure structural employment in the automotive industry. And that's where we need clarity. When you look at yourself: In Norway last year, 82 percent of new vehicles became electric vehicles, and this has been achieved through clarity in policy. Businesses are disinvesting zigzag prices and creating uncertainty for consumers, i.e. clarity. And then, Commissioner, of course we need action. We need clear rules on aid for batteries. We need lower industrial electricity prices. We need clear countervailing duties for unfair competition. And, dear colleagues, the providers of cars, of course, must also take part. It cannot be that we only offer electric cars for 50,000 euros and more. Here, too, we need vehicles that enable normal workers to enter electromobility. And this must also be supported by the states in the European Union. In this sense, we have an opportunity for the automotive industry in Europe.