Debate contributions by Moritz KÖRNER

Madam President, I refer to Article 178(10), which provides that: Blue cards regulates. I can go with one Blue card Just ask the current speaker a question. The speaker just did not ask the current speaker a question. The speaker responded and said something else. If we allow this, then in the future everyone will just ask some question and someone else will keep talking. That can't be. That is why I ask the Bureau to review this. One Blue card It must be clearly addressed to the speaker who is currently speaking, otherwise it will not be allowed.

Mr Jungbluth, since you have just questioned what Mr Jungbluth said, I would like to quote you something: Representatives of the Eastern Committee of the German economy speak of alarming developments and describe cases of intimidation, refused permits, high special taxes and subsequent takeover bids at low prices. In addition, the business associations summarise the criticism in such a way that special taxes and administrative harassment are systematically imposed in strategic sectors in order to favour Hungarian owners. What do you say to that? What do you say to German companies that experience this? East Committee of the German economy, aren't they fighting for the German economy? Or do they represent Orbán's interests?

Madam President, Dear colleagues! Commissioner! But you have allowed yourself a really almost pre-Christmas joke with us. Without hesitation the Commission has set up the mechanism, without hesitation. So, let me remind you briefly: It took months, you waited for the verdict, the European Parliament had to sue the Commission for inaction, but then you got it. without hesitation made. This is exactly what we hope will be different in the future. That the Commission is in fact acting immediately on objective criteria. That we will have a mechanism that will make all the mechanisms that we have in the Rule of law-area have, united. We want all funds to be placed under the rule of law in the next budget. We are writing all this in this resolution, and that is why I would like to thank the two rapporteurs, Jean-Marc Germain and Monika Hohlmeier, for their cooperation. And to the right, who have again asked the question whether this is all lawful at all. The rule of law also means, among other things, that independent courts decide. They had the opportunity under the rule of law – Poland and Hungary also used it – to bring an action before the European Court of Justice. The European Court of Justice has ruled that this mechanism is lawful. That is why it is a success for the rule of law in Europe, it is a success for the rule of law and for the people of Europe that we protect money with this mechanism. But we want to make this mechanism even better because we want to better protect every single taxpayer euro in Europe from corruption and protect the rule of law.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. For me, the debate is a bit too either-or: on the one hand values, on the other hand economic power. I think we're talking about a dilemma here. Yes, we need our values, we need to defend data protection. But we were also always able to set international standards because Europe was particularly successful economically, because it was a strong market, because others were guided by our standards. If we are honest: The growth in the U.S., the productivity gains there that have been economically outpacing us in the last ten or fifteen years, is due to the digital economy. Of course, it is not only digital legislation, our data protection legislation that weakens us there – of course, it is also other things: Our capital, our common market, which is still lacking in the digital sector. But it's also digital legislation. That's what the Draghi report says, which is always quoted here as much as a Bible. That is why, I believe, we must seek simplification. But at the same time, we need to defend our values – and I want to talk about a real, differentiated debate. I want to make one last point here, because that really annoys me. We always discuss data protection here, but as an EU, we were also rarely willing to enforce our oh-so-great rules consistently. The Commission has always buckled in front of the Americans. We have two data exchange programs with the US. They failed in the European Court of Justice. We talked about it again and again. Therefore: Make smarter rules, but also enforce them consistently.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Where is the Presidency in this debate? There are allegations that a Member State is spying on the EU institutions. But does that not matter to the other Member States? This is business as usualAre you going to accept it as if it were completely normal? And also in the Commission, I must say quite honestly: The Commissioner has just explained to us that there seems to be an investigation, an investigation. One could hear from a spokesman that Mrs. von der Leyen had let Mr. Várhelyi come to her, so to speak, and said: ‘Did you spy?’ And then he said: "No, I didn't spy." And then that's good. There must be at least one suspension until the investigation is completed. We are dealing with it as if it were normal, and that is the bad thing, that we are now allowing a member state to openly take action against the EU institutions, that we have to get used to espionage and all these things, and that there is no concept of cooperation between the member states, that the rule of law in the European Union is being broken piece by piece. And we can't let that happen, ladies and gentlemen.

Mr President, eight years after the murder of Daphne, her fight for truth and the rule of law is still unfinished. The European Parliament cannot be silent about it. We owe Daphne this justice. But what really makes me angry in this debate is actually one thing: that not even one speaker of the PfE and the ECR is even here speaking in this debate. Not one. This is actually telling us a lot, because normally the right-wing groups always say, 'You are just attacking conservative governments like Orbán'. Now there is a debate on a socialist government and they are not here. This is actually … (Heckling) No, I have not! Where's your speaker on the list? You are the only one here. No speaker at all in the list. You don't care about it! That's really what makes the difference. We care about the rule of law. We care about the rule of law when there's a conservative government, when there's a socialist government. We care about all different European countries, and we protect the rule of law everywhere. That defines us and that differentiates us from you and your friends Orbán and Co.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, We are discussing Europe's digital sovereignty. There is a lot of discussion about the US, about China, but at the same time the EU is proposing something with chat control that has nothing to do with European values. These are Chinese models. Full monitoring of all our chats, breaking up encryption – this is exactly the opposite of what we need in the digital world. That is why I appeal to the Presidency of the Council: Stop riding this dead horse! There hasn't been a majority for two years. Finally, start thinking in the Council – with the Member States – about what we have already decided almost unanimously here in Parliament: This is child protection, by really making sure that we step up prevention, but not introducing this mass surveillance. Please turn around in this attempt to reshape Europe. The right-wingers here in the House are already using it to set the mood against the European Union. Recognize at last that this is a wrong path, and join us in real child protection, but not mass surveillance.

Thank you, colleague, for accepting my blue card. Actually, I only put it to be also in your viral video. But here's my question. You mentioned that, of course, polarising content is getting more reach. But isn't that something that we also saw before there was online media, like the Bild's big headlines that are trying to catch attention? And isn't that maybe translated in the digital world? And how can we make sure that algorithms still really put the attention in the right way?

Mr. Colleague, thank you very much for Blue card accept. I wanted to ask you because you mentioned your previous speaker, Mr Mazurek: Do you know that the colleague apparently laughed during a visit to the Auschwitz concentration camp in a photo and once said that the Jews only invented the Holocaust? How would you classify this again against the background of the statements made here in plenary on this topic?

Madam President, I would be happy if the right-wing factions would speak out clearly against anti-Semitism, if Viktor Orbán again uses anti-Semitic stereotypes and uses them against Soros. Ladies and gentlemen, a few days ago there was a shop window in Flensburg with the words ‘Jews are not welcome in this business’. It reminds me of the darkest days in German history. Jewish students are attacked at European camps. Artists lose appearances just because they are Jews. Europe's problem of anti-Semitism is undeniable. Anti-Semitism, which once began on the far right and was intensified by migration, is increasingly also fueled by the political left, and that is a huge problem. Who celebrated on 7 October two years ago with sweets and then on 8 October From the River to the Sea What fuelled this hatred, if not anti-Semitism? One thing I want to say clearly: Criticism of Israel is legitimate, as it is of any democratic state. But we are witnessing how partly justified criticism turns into sheer hatred of Israel and this hatred of Israel becomes hatred of Jews in general. Dear colleagues, history teaches us: When societies turn against Jews, they do not stop with Jews. That is why the freedom and security of Jews in Europe is also our freedom and security.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, The political right bases its arguments on these discussions of the rule of law. Now you even had to argue that no one is there – if you are the only one of your group that is there at all, but people are sitting here; That's really interesting. Then there is always the argument in these rule of law discussions, we always talk only about Hungary. Now we are not talking about Hungary, which actually shows that we care about all Member States – now we cannot use the argument either. And then comes the third argument, whatever comes in these rule of law discussions: Brussels really only wants to punish governments that they don't like politically, right-wing governments. Yes, but Fico – the last time I looked at them, they are now sitting with the non-attached Members, but actually this is a social democratic party! All the arguments they always have fall into thin air. What is it about? We are concerned with protecting the rule of law because we are concerned with the fact that taxpayers’ money, our taxpayers – German taxpayers, Slovak taxpayers, Hungarian taxpayers: Everyone deserves to be treated decently. And only a rule of law can ensure this, and that is why we are taking a close look everywhere in the European Union.

Mr. Colleague, thank you for allowing this question. I think you have been a bit tough with Mr Bausemer now, because he is at least the only one who dares to come here. But probably the reason is that he was not yet a member of parliament in the last period, otherwise he would probably be part of the whole. But he has to answer that. I have a question that I really asked myself, maybe as a corruption expert you can answer this: Why do you go to the European Parliament, if you are against it, against the whole European Union? Maybe that's why you just want to pull money out of here. Could you explain that to us again?

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. The website of Mrs Anderson, a colleague of the AfD, must be really great – it cost over 64 000 euros. And if you take a closer look: The tender procedure is not entirely clear, and behind it is a company owned by a local politician of the AfD. Apparently this is the system. It is not the only case: Quite a lot of other cases where either dubious associations are financed, behind which right-wing politicians stand, or media, magazines, anything else – all without a decent call for tenders – that is the accusation. Now you can say: Mistakes can happen. If the 4.3 million times happen, then there seems to be a system behind it. And of course the presumption of innocence applies and of course we will clean up this. But it is significant that the very rights, who are always the first to complain about the misuse of EU funds, who say that the money is being spent incorrectly, who are the first to criticise the privileges of politicians – they are also the very first to reach into their pockets and take the money of European taxpayers. And we won't let them go through that, ladies and gentlemen.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Now we have just heard that this debate here, i.e. that some MEPs had fallen over Budapest – 70 MEPs – and had brought their communist worldview over the Hungarians. So I've heard a lot as a FDPler, but no one has called me a communist yet. This is really new. You really get totally creative. Let's take a look at what Viktor Orbán has achieved. What does Viktor Orbán have to do with this? ban achieved? We've been discussing this for a long time. He organized the biggest parade of all time in Budapest. Thank you very much, Viktor Orbán! Thank you very much! It has been much bigger, much more impressive than ever before. I always thought Fidesz was law and orderBut he doesn't seem to be doing it in the end either. What was the whole number? What was that supposed to do? It was perhaps only a single campaign stunt that was planned to act in his election campaign. It's not about the thing. Nor is it about minorities. It is not about children's rights. It's about him trampling on it and using it. Because Mr. Froelich just said this: "Not my children". I really can only hope, Mr. Froelich of the AfD, that your children are not homosexual. Because honestly, that's exactly what parents are, that's exactly what causes many children to end up with higher suicide rates.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner! This will be a special budget. We have huge challenges: Defence, migration, competitiveness. We have to repay 30 billion euros a year in coronavirus debt for the first time, and the answer for many is here: We just have to spend more money. I don't think that's gonna work. It won't work. We have spent twice as much in the last financial period, if you take the Corona debt to it, as in the financial period before. Let's ask ourselves honestly: Has Europe become twice as good? And that's why we need to prioritise these challenges now. The Commissioner was quite right to say: We need to achieve better results for European citizens, even with less money. We need to think about how to spend smarter, how to make it easier to get European money, and how to become more effective overall. But above all, we must prevent money from sinking into corrupt pockets, and that is why we need a strong rule of law mechanism. It must finally be clear that this rule of law TÜV, which the Commission presented yesterday, is also closely linked to the budget. That is what you have to fight for, Commissioner, and that is what I ask the Council to fight for. Because it must not be the case that the Member States that do not comply with our rules will continue to receive our taxpayers' money.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. I always think about these debates: The arguments of the right cannot really be confused. But then comes the next debate, and they make it over and over again; It's really impressive. Here, a colleague has just said that the debate today is a foreign influence, and compared it to the use of Soviet tanks in Hungary in 1956. Tell me, are you still ticking right? What are these comparisons? To equate such a debate with this. The next speaker then said that he wished Daniel Freund to wear high heels at the Pride; I would even support that. The next speaker then talks about the fact that they should finally put on their clothes. We are talking about Satan. So if you listen to this, the arguments, that's unbelievable. It is now time that we stop talking about it, because apparently you are not available for meaningful arguments. We finally need action from the European Commission to defend these civil liberties. And we must stand resolutely by the side of those who go to Budapest on the Pride.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner! Dear Ana, thank you very much for your report, which is very, very important, which we worked on together, on the rule of law. Because the rule of law is often such a big concept, but it is indeed very central to the European Union, because if we do not have common rules that everyone adheres to and independent courts that interpret these rules, then we can also save all European cooperation. We have to make this clear again and again when we talk about the rule of law. Of course, we are a union of values, which means that we want to comply not only with the rule of law, but also with democratic procedures. This is what we are trying to protect here, by the way, in every Member State. The Rule of Law Report is not only aimed at a few, but covers the rule of law throughout the European Union. We need to be much more consistent here, and we have also made new proposals, for example to include more of the Single Market perspective: If the work of companies is restricted, if the rule of law is lacking there, then this also has a very concrete economic damage for the European Union. It is important that we take this up and that the European Commission take up this stronger role. Single market dimension I also want to include. But we must also talk about the fact that we are going even more consistently with the results that we have in the rule of law mechanism, perhaps also asking ourselves once again as Parliament whether we should start our reporting on this earlier, because the next report from the Commission, which we are expecting soon. This means that we must also be quicker there, and there must finally be consequences, because it is not enough just to talk about the rule of law; We must also defend them in concrete terms in the European Union.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, What is this terrible crime of child abuse? What do we do with children there? What's happening there? How many millions of times does it happen in Europe, online, but still in close family circles, in sports clubs, everywhere? On the other hand, we are now trying to present a directive here in order to do something more effectively. What are the rights in Parliament? She uses her entire speaking time, especially from the AfD, to talk about alleged early sexualisation and LGBT; The issue seems to be so important to them. It seems to them that it is so important that they say zero that we regulate here how we better protect victims; that they say zero about the fact that in the future we want to better ensure that people who are additionally working for children – teachers, in clubs, elsewhere – are subject to more scrutiny across Europe. That's not important to them. It is up to them to see their hatred again on this issue. Do your job to protect children! I ask the European Commission, if it goes ahead now, if this directive finally becomes law, that it will not be transposed by the Member States for a long time, as was the case with the last directive in 2011. The EU Commission had to open infringement proceedings against seven Member States. What's that supposed to be? We must protect children together, ladies and gentlemen.

Mr President, Madam Executive Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen! Imagine for a moment, Pegasus, this surveillance software, is on your phone. What can happen there? You can turn on the camera and microphone secretly, make live recordings of conversations; one can retrieve the location data of the mobile phone, so know where you are everywhere; Read all the news; Access calendars, photos, passwords, app data. Pretty crass, isn't it? And this is exactly what has been used in 14 Member States of the European Union, often illegally, to spy on journalists, opposition figures and their families. Now we've just heard from the right here that it's all right, but I think that's not right, because most of the time it's done under the guise of national security. But it's just a blatant invasion of privacy, it's a spying on our democracy. Then one wonders, after we have determined all this, in a long work in the committee of inquiry, and two years later: What actually happened? What is Europe doing? It's watching. What is the Commission doing? She's watching. It announces that it is concerned, but there is still no legal framework, no protection for the victims and, above all, no protection for our democracy. The Commission must finally prevail, even against the Member States. You don't want that, yeah, we know that. But we need protection here, because anyone who spies on democracy in Europe will be held accountable – this must apply again in this European Union.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. What are we waiting for? What is the Commission waiting for? What are Member States waiting for? What else needs to happen so that we can finally negotiate consistently? The rule of law has already been largely abolished, independence of the judiciary, democracy restricted. The OECD has said the elections in Hungary were free but not fair. Millions of taxpayers’ money – Hungarian taxpayers and European taxpayers – stolen. Civil society is now being restricted. Prides are banned and the ban is monitored with automatic facial recognition, as in the case of George Orwell. What else is going to happen? What will happen until we finally act? Are we waiting for the book to be burned? Or must Putin be openly supported in his struggle by Orbán with troops? When do we finally act consistently and put an end to this? Not with our taxpayers' money. It must be over now. No more money for Viktor Orbán's regime. If you stick to zero EU values, you also have to get zero euros from the EU budget.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, If you might see this speech on TikTok in the future, then you can't be sure that the data you have there won't end up in China on any servers. Firstly, this is incredibly worrying and secondly, it simply violates our rules – and that is why the EU Commission has imposed a fine of €530 million. Because it is also clear: Our rules also apply to large platforms, by the way, not only to Chinese, but also to American ones. Now the AfD comes here and says: Freedom of speech is in danger again because we are talking about it now. Firstly: If so, why is TikTok not present in China itself? They have their own app. It is much more strictly controlled. And by the way: The algorithms are very different because it is designed for harmony. The Chinese themselves know that these algorithms are destroying democracy more and more, they know that. Nor is it about freedom of expression. You can tell everyone nonsense. I also like to listen here, because that's quite amusing. The difference is: In the case of the algorithms, the wrong opinion or nonsense is then powdered out, the extremes and thousands of people are displayed. That's the difference. That is why we need to talk about algorithms when we also talk about democracy.