Speeches

Madam President, With a pea budget, the EU cannot stand against Trump, China and Russia, because the EU budget is about the same size as the budget of the state of North Rhine-Westphalia. And that alone shows how incapable of action the EU is when we talk about fiscal policy. And I was a little surprised, I must say quite honestly, that Ursula von der Leyen did not even speak a single second in her speech earlier about the important decisions on the Multiannual Financial Framework. And I hope that the Commission will make up for this a little later in this debate, because without investment in the economy, in defence, but also in social cohesion, the European Union will be further divided. And that is exactly the goal of Trump, Putin and others. And that is why the heads of state and government are placing the absolutely wrong focus in the budget debate. They are discussing discounts. They discuss how to pay as little as possible together in the pot. And they are not talking about how to bring the EU together and how we manage to keep the European Union together socially. That is why I hope that this will change and that Chancellor Merz in particular will do much more to ensure that we come out with a strong EU budget in the end.

Mr President! We Greens are satisfied with the budget negotiations: Plus EUR 10 million more for the nature conservation programme LIFE, plus €20 million more for the Horizon research programme and over €30 million more for humanitarian aid. These priorities can be seen. And, above all, during the budgetary negotiations, we have once again seen what happens when the European forces hold together here in the House. From the EPP to Renew and the Social Democrats to us Greens, we have also managed to work together on this budget, identify clear priorities and then come to a conclusion together tomorrow by voting for the budget together. The other model, these are the right-wing groups in this House, these are the right-wing extremists who continue to polemicise only against the budget, some of whom were not even present at the final rounds of negotiations and who pretend that the European Parliament and the European Union are a circus. We shouldn't bet on them. We should deepen and continue the cooperation that we have also gotten back from the middle of the House in these budget negotiations.

Mr President! The EU does not live or die here in Parliament, in Council rooms or in the office of the President of the Commission, but on the ground with the people, in the regions. That is why it is good and right that the EU Commission has moved here in Parliament after pressure from the big four budgetary groups and wants to introduce a regional check, for example, or even a minimum quota of 10% for rural areas. These are good first signals that not only we need, but that we need on the ground, so that the European Union has a future and people have hope in the European Union. But on the other hand, some of the biggest questions that concern local people are: High rents, barely affordable living costs. 40 million people alone will freeze this winter because they can no longer afford their heating costs. The budget does not yet have an answer to all these concerns. That is why we must work to make the budget much more social. And I want to say one thing, justifiable criticism of the Commission: Now we have to look at the council. After all, at the end of the day, the Council and Parliament decide on this budget. And we have heard far too little from the Council on all these issues so far.

Mr President! The 2026 budget is a good time to compare – to compare how serious we really are about making improvements for the people of the European Union. We Greens are fighting for social improvements for all people. We are fighting to make Erasmus accessible to more young people, including from low-income parents’ homes. We are fighting for more money to be spent on social housing, for rents to fall in the future. We are fighting for better support for cross-border commuters when they have problems working across borders, and we are also fighting for the European Union to spend more money, not less, on health. We need social progress, and the 2026 budget, yes, certainly does not solve everything, because the truth is that the margins we have are now very narrow. I must therefore say quite frankly that I am somewhat disappointed to be confronted again by a position taken by the Council which is based solely on one thing, namely to roam the area wildly and not to present common priorities, unlike what we are doing here in Parliament. That is why I am very happy that we have managed to set clear priorities in Parliament with the room for manoeuvre that we have, and to stand up for this together. This is important for the budget now, but it becomes even more important for the multiannual financial framework, which is already being discussed in the corridors. That is why we must stand here together. That is why I once again ask all my colleagues for the vote tomorrow that we do not do stupid things, that we do not fall for the traps of the right-wing extremists, who, incidentally, are hardly present in these debates and do not decide on any motions from the side in the house. They're just making populism here. We try to work on solutions. Let's do this together!

Mr President! A small group of tech billionaires want to control the world with their technology – more powerful than any state, more important than any company and richer than everyone else. They managed to buy US policy and made Donald Trump great. Their next step is the European Union, and Donald Trump stands firmly by their side. Dealing with the tech industry is one of the key issues for our democracy. They want to hollow them out and bring positively tuned autocrats to power in Europe, too, and in part they are unfortunately already very successful with this. But the EU can defend itself against it, and we can defend ourselves against it. Therefore, it is right that, for example, with laws such as the Digital Markets Act to limit the market power of large tech companies. The law works. Apple, for example, has announced that it will end its monopoly, abolish fees and make it easier for smaller companies to operate on its products with their offerings. But of course, many problems remain. Companies like Alphabet continue to dominate the markets. The Commission has too little resources to apply the laws, and the corporations are making too much profit. And we should change that. I therefore call on the European Commission to: Don't bend over the big tech companies. Stay steadfast!

Mr President! Football belongs to the fans, not the investors. At least it should be. But the reality is different: Football has become the investment and toy of the super-rich. More than 180 European clubs are part of non-transparent multi-club ownership structures such as Red Bull or City. Oil sheikhs from Saudi Arabia and Qatar buy clubs, titles and thus also political influence. While a few make an absurd amount of money from football, the sport suffers. The unequal distribution of TV money, closed multi-club systems and astronomical salaries undermine fair competition. A small elite of clubs are still benefiting from this development. But also for them, the cake becomes smaller as soon as the games become more boring. If, for example, you already know on matchday six in Germany that the German champion is called Bayern Munich, then there is no fair competition anymore. Football thrives on this: of fair competition, of emotions and of tension. The self-regulation of UEFA and the national leagues has failed. Therefore, it is not enough if the EU Commission hopes that corrupt sports federations or national leagues will protect the sport. They have proven that they are unable to do so. If you want football to be protected from greed for profit, you have to act. Letters of intent are not enough. We need a European set of rules, similar to what Britain has just put in place. We need protection from investors – 50+1 across Europe – a restriction on multi-clubs, salary limits and fairer rules for the transfer market.

Mr President! Over €90 billion – this is how many profits Meta, Amazon, Alphabet and Microsoft have made in the last three months alone. They shift the profits in such a way that they actually pay no taxes anywhere and certainly not in Europe. While small businesses in the EU pay honest taxes, tech billionaires trick where they can. No one in the population likes this, and many MEPs here in the House oppose it, but nevertheless the EU Commission does not act. She doesn't act because she's afraid of Trump, because she's afraid of Trump raising tariffs or canceling security guarantees. But I'm telling you, when it comes to dealing with Donald Trump and tech companies, fear isn't a good guide. On the contrary: You can't make reliable deals with Trump. That's why we have to stand up independently of the US and make sure that we limit the influence of the big tech companies, and from our point of view this also includes fair taxation of the big digital companies. They make billions in profits – now is the time for them to pay taxes.

Madam President, A year after former Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi presented his report on competitiveness, it shows how tedious it is to implement his recommendations. To be honest: Not much has happened yet, and the Commission's proposals have so far been very limited in terms of its concrete recommendations. His recommendations were actually very clear: We need to invest significantly more; 800 billion euros per year, both public and private investments. If we don't, then the EU between the US and China threatens to be eaten up, and we should prevent that. We, as a Parliament, are taking the first step in this direction with the report by Aurore Lalucq, and that is very good. But I also want to say quite honestly that I think that much more would have been possible. Unfortunately, in the discussions here in Parliament, we have seen that right-wing groups have repeatedly prevented steps towards European integration for a genuine European capital market. They have made clear statements less clear, and that is really very annoying, because with small nation-states we are not really getting any further here in Parliament or in the Council at the end of the day. We need to cut red tape, yes, but deregulation alone will not be the solution. We need to ensure that competitiveness goes hand in hand with climate action and that they are not pitted against each other, and we should ensure that consumers trust capital markets. That is why we need strong consumer protection and I hope that we will be able to continue working on it successfully in the coming years.

Madam President, The world is flying apart, and that's why it's right to strengthen the EU now. And whether there are really deeds behind the many Sunday speeches, we will see this in the multiannual financial framework in the coming months. However, Europe will only become stronger if we ensure social peace on our continent, and this means that we need a strong pillar in the EU budget. Over 30% of people have such a tight income that they cannot afford to pay larger unforeseen bills. And for these people, we also have to make politics. That is why it irritates me to hear that it may be that the next EU budget will be without a strong pillar. We Greens are committed to putting social policy, social programmes at the heart of the EU budget. And pay? Yes, all this should be paid by those who can do the most. And that's where we think, among other things, of the big tech companies or financial speculators. Next week, not only propose a bold budget, but also include an EU digital tax and, for example, a tax on cryptocurrencies. We need them urgently.

Madam President! Thank you for the question, and I would just like to refer to what our vice-president of our group just said in his introductory speech to our group. I think it will be important in the next few months to get an EU budget in place, where we have room both for the green transition and for social issues, but of course also with a strengthened commitment to security policy, which takes up more space than it has done in the past for the EU. And this is at least the position we very much agree on in the Green Group. And then I thought, on the other hand, we can do something more to tax, for example, the big tech companies. And I hope that the Commission will come up with some concrete proposals next week.

Madam President! Dear Prime Minister! At a time when hatred and nationalism have taken the stage, it is important to stand together. But as a minority Dane and citizen of the Danish-German border, I think that the EU and successive governments on both sides of the border have failed us. Permanent and illegal border controls have made the daily lives of many thousands of people in our region much more difficult. Cross-border commuters and school pupils who cross the border every day, tourists and ordinary citizens who have family, friends or a doctor on the other side of the border. But that's not the only thing. Since permanent border controls were reintroduced in 2016, cross-border cooperation has been frozen and we fear that the new EU budget would leave no room for cross-border projects and cooperation. It is as if we are not being heard in Brussels, Berlin or Copenhagen. The European minorities have repeatedly called on the Commission to put minority rights on the agenda, and unfortunately they have not been listened to. So I have a simple message for you and the Danish Presidency: Don't forget us!

Madam President, The (incomprehensible words) The Reconstruction Fund is at an economically very complicated stage of stabilising the European Union. And yes, as some colleagues have already made clear, many concrete infrastructure projects have also been initiated, which also help to transform our economy green and set it up sustainably. But especially if you want a continuation of a reconstruction fund, you also have to deal with the problematic aspects, and I have to say quite clearly that the implementation sometimes takes too long, that the quality of the projects is in part very low, and also that the money too often seeps into national budgets. In one month, the new proposal on the Multiannual Financial Framework will be presented, and we should make sure that a new investment capacity is equipped with clear objectives to invest in green and innovative infrastructure, that it is about European added value and not national electoral gifts, and that there is broad participation, not only from Parliament, but also from civil society.

Mr President! More than 42 million Europeans can no longer afford a balanced meal. In recent years, more than half of the people in the European Union have experienced their income being eaten up by too high food prices. And if you want food to finally become affordable again, you also have to talk about inflation. He has to talk about the fact that half of the price increases in the food sector are due to the greed of large food companies. But the good news is: We are not helpless. We can change that. We can finally tax the big profits of corporations like Nestlé, Coca-Cola or Ferrero. We can end financial speculation with food – you don't gamble with food. And we can - and this is also a direct request to the EU Commission - finally reveal with a market investigation for the food sector that the misconduct of these corporations is to blame for the fact that our citizens can no longer afford the bill in the supermarket.

Thank you very much, Mr. Colleague. I would not be interested in which financial instruments you reject. I understand that you have a problem with joint borrowing at European level. I would be interested to know how you intend to finance the future priorities of the European Union, such as defence, for example, because I suspect that you also reject own resources. In fact, the only thing left is to redeploy the EU budget, and I would like to have concrete proposals on your part. So far, I have not heard much from the FDP either here in the house or elsewhere.

Mr President! When the world is in disarray, it is important to stand together and strengthen the European Union – socially, economically and in terms of security. And the multiannual financial framework must be the time when we move from Sunday speeches to political action. To be honest: This has been lacking in recent years. There have always been Sunday speeches on the one hand, but when we look at the budget, we see that it has too little power to make Europe fit for the future. This meets current challenges, but also the ability to react flexibly to certain events. We also need new financial instruments. And it is dishonest to say, on the one hand, that the EU must do more, but, on the other hand, not be willing to create new financial instruments. This includes, for example, financing investments in climate and security infrastructure through a fiscal capacity. Und dazu gehören auch die Eigenmittel. The big tech companies alone have made billions in profits with us in recent years, and they are hardly taxed with us. This is neither fair nor meaningful. Let's finally create new own resources. Let's tax the big US tech companies.

Mr President! For us Greens, strengthening our democracy and democratic civil society is one of the key themes for the 2026 budget. That is why we are watching with concern how the legitimacy of democratic civil society is now being attacked by large parts, not only here in the house, but also globally. We see Donald Trump cracking down on companies and universities that hold different values than he does. We see that Viktor Orbán accuses independent journalists and human rights organizations of being bought from abroad. But we also see that conservative parties such as the CDU/CSU parliamentary group in the German Bundestag want to undermine the democratic engagement of civil society with a catalogue of questions. Unsurprisingly, these questions always involve organizations that have a different opinion than those that attack them. And exactly the same thing, namely to silence unwelcome organizations, we are now also experiencing this through attacks by the CDU/CSU on the LIFE program and on environmental protection organizations here in the house. Let me be very clear: Tax money must, of course, be spent lawfully. But we have confidence in the Court of Auditors or in the European Commission, which has repeatedly made it clear that the accusations made by the CDU/CSU against these NGOs are untenable. We want broad majorities for the budget here, and we stand by them. But then we must also act together with the other democratic groups here in the House on such issues and not be driven by the far-right.

Madam President, I believe that after more than two hours of debate, it can be said that a large majority here is willing to do more for our security and, yes, to invest more together. But I think our role as a European Parliament should not only be to nod off what the European Commission is proposing, with the ReArm Europeprogram, but to go beyond it. And I want to say very clearly: If we want to take more loans together, we have to make sure that they are used efficiently, that there is transparency and that we also put more European projects forward together. I believe that if we suspend the debt rules, that is not enough, but that we need a proper reform of the debt rules at European level in order to really invest more together. I believe that we should not do this only for weapons and armaments – which alone do not create peace and security. We also need to invest in internal security, cybersecurity or climate infrastructure – only then will we, as the European Union, become more sovereign together.

Madam President, This is not a cut in bureaucracy, but a clear-cut. It is correct: The EU has a bureaucracy problem and EU regulations are far too complicated for businesses; There are also differences between national and European legislation. But simply closing your eyes and pretending that the climate crisis, overexploitation of nature or forced labor are not taking place cannot be an answer. Commission President von der Leyen has promised to stick to the objectives of the laws, but to make the application more practical. Sounds good, but it's not true. If you want to exclude 90% of companies from the scope of central laws as much as possible, then you put the axe to the law. Instead of making the laws useless, we need to talk about how we can better implement them. This includes, for example, transitional plans instead of blanket exceptions. This also includes, yes, a stronger distinction between large corporations and small craft businesses. But what is now in place is clearly beyond the target. That is why we Greens remain very sceptical and hope that changes can still be made in the legislative process.

Madam President, I want all Europeans to have equal rights, regardless of where they live and who they love. No one deserves hatred and hatred; Everyone deserves respect and equal rights. It is absurd that people in the EU can move freely, but they themselves and their families are not recognized everywhere. There have been several cases in the past where same-sex couples have had to sue for their rights in court. Two Polish women who had a child in Vienna but were not recognized at home. Gay men who did not get their marriage recognised after moving to another EU Member State. It is unacceptable that same-sex couples are still discriminated against in the European Union in 2025. It is our duty to protect the fundamental rights of all EU citizens. To achieve this, we need European laws that protect people's freedom and recognise rainbow families across the EU. Countries such as Romania, which are systematically undermining this, must be subject to sanctions by the European Commission. I would also like to urge you warmly not to let up here, but to back down, even if the political mood in some Member States is perhaps complicated. But you have a responsibility here with us. You have to live up to that.

Mr President! The monetary policy debate in this House is partly dishonest and also marked by contradictions. Financial stability in 2025 is different from what it was in the 1990s or 2000s. Therefore, the work of central banks must also evolve. For example, if you want inflation to fall and prices to become affordable, you have to deal with the causes. And the reasons for the high inflation in recent years – at least in the European Union, in the euro area – are the high energy prices and partly also the greed for profit. After all, some corporations have taken advantage of the energy price explosions and – while we were discussing sanctions against Russia – have made quite good money. Anyone who wants our currency and our economy to remain stable cannot turn a blind eye to the climate crisis. And anyone who wants us to invest in modern infrastructure cannot ignore the fact that even high interest rates have an effect on it. It is a great pity that the current ECB report, on which we will vote tomorrow, does not answer all these questions satisfactorily, but – on the contrary – closes its eyes to a large part of the problems. It is good that the ECB is much further on these issues than some Members here in the House, because it is urgently needed. And it would also be necessary to deal with what role the US will actually play for monetary policy in the coming years. Trump is making monetary policy, which is mainly in the interest of crypto billionaires. We shouldn't do the same. That is why it is important that we formulate our own monetary policy and that we deal with these issues. We Greens are ready for that. And we are pleased, Mrs. Lagarde, that we will continue to do so with you and your team in the coming years.

Madam President, It has been in existence for almost a week Trump meme coin – Economically worthless and for Trump fans, above all, an emotional bond with their great idol. The TrumpCoin is a fraud machine, which partly also foreign money goes into the coffers of the Trump family. While former US President Jimmy Carter had to sell his peanut farm at the end of the 1970s when he was elected, Trump cheats across the board. But the TrumpCoin Above all, it is also a symbol of a different US policy in the field of cryptocurrency regulation, and that should worry us. We should clearly state here that investments in cryptos are associated with high risks and that we also know that the risk of money laundering in cryptocurrencies is significantly higher than in other areas. The added value created by cryptocurrencies is questionable. US President Trump is opening the door to the privatization of the monetary system with blind deregulation and also by promoting crypto-ultras to key tax offices in his administration. Let me be very clear: This must not be the European way. I am glad that almost all speakers from the major political groups have expressed skepticism and made it clear that, on the one hand, we need international standards – yes – but that we should not take the course that the Trump administration is taking here.

Mr President! Not even three days after Mr Reynders, former Commissioner for Justice, left office, the Belgian investigative authorities were at his doorstep. The allegations of money laundering by buying lottery tickets have it all. They are the responsibility of investigative authorities, as they are now investigating and, in the concrete case, ensuring that the allegations are clarified and Mr Reynders is held accountable. But what is interesting about the case is that in recent years Mr Reynders has had a lot of influence on the rule of law, on European democracy. This is also at a time when we have tightened our anti-money laundering rules in recent years. What we have not done, however, is to include national lotteries in our anti-money laundering rules. So exactly the national lotteries, which are now under the charge of helping with money laundering. And that is why I believe that it is a problem that the EU Commission triggers a cover of silence in response here and does not act concretely on these issues. We need clarification. We need to know exactly what Mr Reynders has done to influence this legislation. And we should close loopholes such as national lotteries in the fight against money laundering.