Speeches

Madam President, Commissioner! If we do not get energy prices back under control as soon as possible, socially weaker and older citizens in particular will be brought to the brink of their existence this winter. We must prevent this by all means. However, I condemn those who want to use this debate about high energy prices to challenge our climate goals. These climate populists include Boris Johnson, who is considering dropping climate targets to push down gas prices. My dear colleagues, the outlook for the climate conference in Glasgow is bleak. In my opinion, Russia's behaviour is particularly problematic. Under the guise of maintenance work, prices are being driven up so that the controversial Nord Stream 2 Baltic Sea pipeline can be put into operation more quickly. It is precisely this reliance on fossil fuels that is one of our greatest geopolitical weaknesses. The alarm bell that we are sounding here today should be seen as a wake-up call – a wake-up call to make even faster use of the billion-dollar EU programmes for a veritable offensive on renewable energies and their storage, including hydrogen. For the industrial sector, too, we finally need to make state aid for environmental protection and energy more flexible if we want them to be able to produce without coal and without gas. Because less consumption of fossil fuels means that we can also take the pressure out of the price cauldron in the short term, under which the weakest of our society suffer the most.

Mr President, this summer’s withdrawal from Afghanistan, followed by the formation of the AUKUS pact between Australia, the UK and the US, without due consultation between allies, we all agree were nothing short of an affront. The lesson to be drawn from this is that as long as we lack credible political will to back our own security commitments, or as long as we cannot speak as one on foreign policy, the EU is only strong when embedded in alliances. Our open strategic autonomy is fundamentally linked to our capacity to take up leading roles in standard setting with like—minded partners. Therefore, I am glad that last week’s first meeting of the Trade and Technology Council produced hopeful results, against all odds. I urge the EU to seize this window of opportunity for deepened bilateral collaboration, for example, to combat distortive trade practices, including in the framework of the World Trade Organization (WTO). When the EU and the US are fighting each other, Beijing and the Kremlin rejoice. And only when the EU and the US work together on setting standards for the 21st century, the world pays attention.

Mr President, if you had told us one year ago, Ms von der Leyen, during your State of the Union 2020, that, when you stood before us again, 70 per cent of the EU population would have been vaccinated, who would have believed you? It is a tremendous success of the EU and one that makes it very clear that we need the health union more than ever. But while the EU’s capacity to protect its citizens from future and current pandemics is slowly coming of age, our Weltpolitik, as Jean-Claude Juncker used to call it, still remains stuck in infancy. All too often, the EU’s voice comes late and is not credible without the capacity to back our own commitments, as we have seen very clearly in the evacuation of our citizens from the airport in Kabul. To become credible, with open strategic autonomy, we must give ourselves the means to enforce our rules for all players in our Single Market, European or not. For example, with the tool to combat distortive foreign subsidies in the Single Market and the tool to demand reciprocity, such as in public procurement. These are the conditions necessary to guarantee that our openness remains a strength rather than weakness. Finally, Mr President, we need a fully-fledged China task force to finally, once and for all, be able to speak with one voice towards China. Finally as well, thank you for the import ban on forced-labour goods.

Madam President, the EU needs to steer, once and for all, an independent course with regard to China and the newly—emerged multipolar world. Therefore, we need a unilateral autonomy to be able to enforce our rules for all players on our single market, European or not – for example, by means of an instrument to fight distortive foreign subsidies – especially since the CAI, as Reinhard Bütikofer said, is in the freezer for the moment. The real litmus test of our strategic autonomy for me would be a deepened economic relation with Taiwan, not as a provocation, but as an affirmation of our agency. We also need bilateral engagement through dialogue before all, but this also means standing up for what’s right. An import ban on goods produced with forced labour is long overdue. What is happening in Xinjiang cannot be explained away as a difference of understanding between East and West, as some people are doing here in this House. Multilateral pressure is, of course, important and this means to uphold a good constructive dialogue with the US and Japan to go ahead and uphold our democratic values. What all these initiatives have in common is the need for coordination. Therefore, we need a China task force that brings together all the Member States so that we sing from the same hymn sheet. This is long overdue, Commissioner.

Mr President, Mr Vice-President, one of the key elements of the Fit for 55 package is undoubtedly the carbon adjustment mechanism at our borders. This centerpiece of our climate policy has a very noble purpose, which I obviously support: export our climate ambitions while maintaining the competitiveness of our industries. It would thus avoid their relocation. But at this stage, Mr Vice-President, I must make it clear that I have serious reservations that the CBAM project, as presented on 14 July, can indeed meet these objectives. With the planned end of free allowances, which is obviously inevitable, it will be our companies that will lose competitiveness on third markets. It will be our domestic companies that will suffer an additional administrative burden, related to CBAM, and it will be our manufacturing companies that will have to pay the price of CO2 of all those who will produce with a lower or non-existent carbon price. For me, it is inconceivable and unacceptable that our companies now have to pay for the lack of ambition of others. Would it not make more sense, Mr Vice-President, for the polluter himself to pay?

Mr President, Commissioner, Bangladesh has benefited greatly from the Everything But Arms scheme. We are now Bangladesh’s largest trading partner, and accounted for 24% of its exports in 2015. I therefore welcome that Bangladesh has expressed the wish to benefit from the Generalised System of Preferences Plus, after it graduates from its status of least developed country and becomes ineligible for Everything But Arms at the end of the decade. In order to do so, it must now demonstrate clear progress on human and labour rights. The fact that Bangladesh has delivered a national action plan on the labour sector, which seeks to bring the country’s labour laws into line with the standards of the International Labour Organisation, is a significant step. It is a token of how the EU’s aid for trade policy can make for positive change on the ground in partner countries. But now Bangladesh should focus on the full implementation of the national action plan while respecting all the deadlines, and there we will be very vigilant as a European Parliament as well. The Commission and the External Action Service should closely monitor this in cooperation, of course, with all the relevant international and local stakeholders as well as trade unions. A monitoring mission should also be organised, as soon as the COVID crisis will allow for it, to really see on—the—spot what is going on, and to accompany the needed progress.