Speeches

You know, this question reveals all the futility you have. Because you don't have any factual arguments, you become personal and cheap. The truth is very simple: I support Donald Trump, who is finally changing reality, who has a plan to end the war. We want peace, and we don't want your cheap rhetoric without a strategic goal. You don't have a plan for the industry, you don't have a plan for the energy. What you want is war. Forever - We're not there. And if you have nothing but an embarrassing ad hominem attack, then prove that we are right and overcome you. That's why we win elections and you lose.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen! I have to admit, after these debates, I am amazed at how disconnected We are of reality. Peace talks are underway in Saudi Arabia. Are you ready for the war to end? So what do you do with your war rhetoric? And when we talk about energy – energy also comes at a price. It is a fact that there is no cheaper energy than natural gas from pipelines. And if you want to buy energy more expensive, then we are no longer competitive. And if you want to upgrade at the same time, then you have to produce. How do you want to produce if your energy costs are not competitive? All you offer here is a reality that does not exist – that is a sham reality. This is why the EU is irrelevant. That's why we negotiate without the EU. That's why Kaja Kallas doesn't get an appointment in the State Department because they say: We don't talk to people who live in the magic forest, we only talk to those who are in reality. That's why I'm taking the opportunity to say goodbye to you here today. I am going where reality is now being restored – in the national parliaments, in the German Bundestag.

The change – interesting to say, because of the American attitude, we would now have to confiscate. The US Secretary of State announced today that the release of Russian funds will be part of a peace deal. Is there not a risk that, as a result of an international conference – and only this will decide in the end – the EU, if it confiscates these funds, will have to reimburse Russia? And can such speeches be made against the background of all seriousness of conscience if one knows that in the end one has to repay it from one's own budget, because Ukraine will not be able to do so?

Mr President, Mr High Representative, ladies and gentlemen! Of course, one can decouple from China. But the risk is that China will decouple from us on the other hand. If we look at the Chinese share of shipping freight, it is indeed decreasing with North America and Europe, but at the same time it is increasing with Africa, the Persian Gulf and Latin America. Of course, we can say that we no longer want to buy Chinese products. But what do we do the other way around when the Chinese stop buying European products? The Chinese car market is 25 percent in the hands of German car companies. If we compare the economic growth rates in Asia, especially in China, with those we have in Germany and Europe, then the gap is widening and not closing. So when we talk about politics, there is a lot to be said for staying realistic and also taking into account one's own strength and potential. And this does not allow us to believe full-bodiedly here, if we decouple, then we only harm the others, but above all we harm ourselves again, and this at a time when we are already characterized by deindustrialization and economic stagnation, in Germany even recession. In this respect, of course, the High Representative is right that it is time to remain realistic. China is Chinese. Do we like it? No. Can we change it? No. Do we have an advantage to go to conflict, to go to sanctions, to go to economic war? Not at all. We must take the world as it is, even if we do not like it, and bring out the best for the people of Europe. I fear that the furor with which one here thinks that one must impose economic wars and sanctions, decouples oneself, does not do justice to this reality and just leads into error and recession.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Of course, the United States has traditionally been our closest partner. But the United States is evolving. While in 1945 they were still an essentially European country due to its demographics, by 2045 the majority of them will no longer be inhabited by the descendants of Europeans. But if the U.S. moves forward from us, that means we need to become more self-sufficient, and this concept of strategic autonomy came up right here on the left side of the house during Donald Trump's presidency. Then Joe Biden came and said: ‘America is back to lead the world!“ – and everyone was happy that they no longer had to be strategically autonomous. Ladies and gentlemen, I was at Donald Trump's public appearance in New York City this weekend. I can tell you: We will have to talk about strategic autonomy again, because it looks good that Trump is withdrawing to the White House. And maybe that's a positive aspect. Europe must be strategically autonomous, in all directions. You can build a friendship on that. But friendship and partnership are different from vassalism. In this respect, I hope that this readiness will prevail here as well. We need a few European poles in the world of the future. Hopefully the U.S. will have him as a friend. But if he's not self-sufficient, then all that we're doing here is pointless.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! I am surprised at the debate that we are talking about geopolitics, but no one is bothered to explain what they mean by geopolitics. At least the lexicon understands geopolitics as a method that takes into account that politics depends on space and place – it is called geodeterminism. Among other things, the founder would not be a Nazi, dear Mr. Borrell, but Halford Mackinder with his Heartland theory. And when we apply the Heartland theory to the Ukraine conflict, we come to very different conclusions than the majority of previous speakers. It is a geopolitical approach if you go to the Gulf Cooperation Council in the Gaza conflict and thereby make it clear that the regional powers are required to mediate, and not foreign powers such as the United States or the EU. Geopolitics brings reality – geography – back into foreign policy. It brings back a position against an EU that has hitherto made a completely out-of-place foreign policy and is thus the opposite of value-based and feminist foreign policy.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen! So now we have the fourth resolution against Egypt in four years, the fourth! Strangely enough, there was apparently no problem with Mr. Morsi when the Muslim Brotherhood ruled. That is, they helped to overcome the secular and imperfect Mubarak regime; then the Muslim Brotherhood was in power, which massively destroyed the country and took action against the Christian minorities; and then the military retaliated and established a certainly authoritarian regime, but which protects the human rights of minorities and puts Egypt on a path of peace and balance. The only thing this Parliament knows is to launch a new attack on Egypt every year for individual cases which it has not examined at all and which it is not interested in. It is precisely this kind of know-it-all and neo-colonialism of European character that the Global South is fed up with. He doesn't do it anymore, and he doesn't have the willingness to do it anymore. You accept that European-Egyptian relations will be permanently damaged here. Without us!

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen! The problem with these resolutions is always that you first have to find out exactly what it is all about. Because even as a politically informed person, you don't know Sarema Musaeva, so you have to google first. The question is: What do we now want to achieve with this resolution? Does anyone think that now Russia will immediately call Chechnya for Ms. Musaeva to be released? Does anyone expect anything other than that we naturally condemn Russia in the current situation? The question is: what kind of picture do we give that the European Parliament really has nothing else to do but act like a student parliament that practices how debates work to express itself on a case-by-case basis, without anything going to happen, without any newspaper reporting on it? It's pure self-satisfaction what we're doing here. And the question is: Who does it benefit and who does it harm? I'm afraid it's hurting us more than Ms. Musaeva is using it.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, Since David Ricardo described the Law of Comparative Costs, we know that free trade brings economic benefits, and any restriction of it at least costs competitiveness. If we no longer want to subject all trade policy to trade and mutual economic benefit, but to external policy objectives, it will cost us. It will cost us competitiveness over other big trading blocks. I know that this is not a message that the majority in the House, especially on the left, likes to hear. Because there is the Pippi long stocking thinking: We make the world as we like it. But the world is not the way you like it, ladies and gentlemen, but follows the laws of economics. The esteemed previous speaker, who unfortunately has already left, said: We are not an NGO here, we have a responsibility for the common good and prosperity of the people in our Member States. They don't want us to put any abstract political principles first, but they want prosperity to enable them to have a little private happiness. This will destroy you if you overload the trade with ideology. If you compare our trade agreements with those of other trading blocs today, you will notice: We're too long, we're writing too much politics into it. We need more trade and less politics in order for prosperity to work.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! First of all, it is remarkable that we are talking about Bangladesh at this time. It is also noteworthy that a Slovak Christian Democrat discovers his heart for an Islamist opposition party. But what matters is: I am amazed at this unanimous condemnation of Bangladesh. I am the rapporteur in the INTA Committee on Bangladesh, and I know the reports from the International Labour Organisation, from all the international organisations that monitor economic conditions in Bangladesh. And there I read of constant progress in Bangladesh. Bangladesh is a country that has made a remarkable development in recent decades. And when we look at the draft resolution, when we see this language, which from above regulates a developing country that has created something, then this is nothing more than open, unsympathetic neocolonialism, where we think that as Europeans we can just loosely pick off a developing country and be able to teach. Take note of one thing: The days of letting us go through this are over. Thank goodness.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, It is undisputed that the human rights situation in Azerbaijan is bad by European standards. But the problem I have with this case is that I haven't found it and I haven't heard any evidence from you that the allegations are false. It is an ongoing procedure and the question is: Do we believe that whenever a regime critic – and that is him – is caught, criminal accusations are per se wrong? Who has to prove that the accusations are right and wrong? The risk of human rights intervention is therefore always that we act as judges in cases where we lack the expertise and knowledge of the case itself, and that what we mean well is actually poorly implemented. Namely, that we become colonial know-it-alls who explain to other countries of the Global South how to run their judiciary. I'm not ready for that. Not because I am Dr. İbadoğlu I would not appreciate it, but because I cannot decide whether the allegations are justified or unjustified. The judiciary in Azerbaijan must do this. She didn't do it, and that's why the case is none of our business!

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. We are, of course, pleased that the European Union is now putting the issue of critical raw materials on the agenda. But it seems to us that the crucial questions are not yet clear. The first is: If we are already negotiating, then we should negotiate with those who actually have these raw materials. The second is: To further process these raw materials, we need a lot of energy, and we need technology. The same goes for winning them. Do we as the European Union have this technology and do we want to make it available to the countries? The third question that arises is: What about the costs? Is what we are planning to do here competitive at the cost of buying it on the world market? Or are we building a nonsensically expensive way to get these materials, with the result that we won't have them at competitive prices for our industry. So there is a lot to clarify. We support the negotiations, but we point out that we fear that it will not get better in the end, it will get worse.

Madam President, Madam, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, This is now the second time in a year that we are dealing with an imprisoned ‘XY Unknown’ in the Arab world. Once it was in the emirates. Today it is in Bahrain. First of all, I do not believe that European voters really understand that we are spending our time on such individual cases. The second is that I am surprised that every time you choose countries that are considered relatively liberal in the Arab world, which indeed has a need for human rights. We just have to pay attention to the relationships. The fact is that Bahrain has been a partner of the West and this Union for years, that we have concluded agreements, that we have partnership. Why is this partnership being called into question on a case-by-case basis? Bahrain is fighting for its state existence. Iran does not accept independence. And the one so vowed here today was involved in a dispute that has called into question the existence of the state. I think more trust in our partner and less human rights imperialism would be appropriate.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, Tunisia gained its independence in 1956 from a European country, France. This means that Tunisians are primarily responsible for what is happening in Tunisia. In these discussions, I am always surprised that the European Parliament has the impression that it knows better how to govern Tunisia. This is not our task, but our task can only be to represent our interests in bilateral relations and to take into account the stability of the entire region. One does not take into account the stability of the whole region if one destabilizes the government there, if one criticizes it unilaterally and if one overlooks the fact that the crisis in Tunisia is also a consequence of the sanctions policy that we have adopted in response to the Russian intervention in Ukraine. In this respect, I believe that we must learn to be a little less Eurocentric – not to say neo-colonial – and also to question ourselves. We help Tunisia not by destabilising its government, but by respecting its autonomy and independence and by understanding that the economy needs an end to war and sanctions.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, I understand the excitement of being able to expand the EU to include more countries. But the truth is that none of these countries, including Bosnia and Herzegovina, is ready to join the EU according to the previous criteria. And in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the democratic deficit is already due to this peculiar role of the High Representative, who is not elected, but has an incredible legislative and executive power. So if we want to win these countries over to us and win the majority of people over to us, then this will probably only go through a new level of integration beforehand. But full membership would not do justice to these countries. But it would import into the EU an incredible number of problems these countries have, as well as shortcomings. Those that we cannot solve. And we've had enough of it.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, The natural disaster in Pakistan is indeed frightening. A monsoon that normally ends in August and does not end in September – this is unique, temperatures above 50 degrees. And if we can see something politically positive, then that is the great global help, namely that countries that are otherwise political opponents, even hostile, help here. The United States, China and the European Union are pulling together. When did that happen? This is the message for Pakistan in the future. As Europeans, we want to stay on board in this region. That is precisely why I am delighted that Ambassador Khan is with us today, because it shows that Pakistan also wants us to be part of it. As Europe, we want to be a great global peace power of trade, balance and partnership. And I think we can show it here. The future, however, cannot lie in the fact that we are only the helpers and generous donors, but it is about partnership that also respects diversity. That is precisely why, unlike you, Mr van Dalen, I believe that Pakistan must remain in the GSP+ because we can only achieve this by staying in this Central Asian region. If we pull ourselves out, we're out. But when we are outside, we can no longer influence anything – not in the sense of the dictatorship of prescribing, but in the sense of partnership, giving and taking. I believe that we should now seize the opportunity if this flood disaster is to be overcome to some extent – and I hope so – to work to strengthen our position in Central Asia – strengthen as partners, strengthen with respect for other paths and also as partners with other players, even if we sometimes do not like them.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! Trade is the essential key to achieving prosperity and peace around the world. The European Union emerged from the European Economic Community to form a large trading bloc, and today we are the largest trading bloc in the world. That's something that must be shared, and it's a success story. However, the issues we are addressing here today reflect precisely the ambiguity that, on the one hand, we want to promote trade, but on the other hand, we are also starting to politicise this trade very strongly – with negative consequences for both trade and trading partners. Unfortunately, this starts with the very first question of where sanctions are concerned. This is an astonishing focus, and it may well be that there must be sanctions, but if this is asked as a first question, it shows that the focus of our trade policy has shifted from enabling trade to enforcing policy rules. And here we have our problems. Because what's it like? We all want development, we want sustainable development and that worldwide. But this sustainable development is in the mutual interest of all trading partners, so that it is usually not important to immediately threaten sanctions, but that this is based on reciprocity. If we have to start imposing sanctions, the question arises as to whether the requirements of sustainable development that we are setting are really so convincing for everyone, or whether a new form of Eurocentrism is not taking place here, that we are making political requirements from Europe for our usually poorer and weaker trading partners, without them supporting them in terms of content, and that they must then be forced to do so by sanctions. In this respect we mean: Yes, we want trade, we want sustainable development, but we have to be careful that we do not go beyond the goal and that we abuse trade to a new form of neocolonialism that ultimately harms us and our trading partners.

Madam President, Commissioner! No one comes to reason through reason. We now have a catastrophe, and the measure will be that we will be able to draw the right conclusions from this catastrophe. The Leibniz Institute for Aquatic Ecology has already pointed out in a first statement that the Oder ecosystem must be renaturalized. We just need the reopening of tributaries, we need the reopening of old floodplains, which are now used for agricultural purposes, and above all we need the stop of dredging and barging. We generally need to stop thinking that we need to standardize and normalize nature and learn to live with what nature is. It has shaped our homeland, it shapes our thinking, and we owe it that we respect it, that we respect it and not that we destroy it in the context of any short-term expansion measures. If there is a good thing, it is that we are now discussing it – and apparently also across factions – and that there is also hope that reason will prevail and that we will not have a new disaster on the Oder.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen! As shadow rapporteur, I have listened with great interest to the speech of the rapporteur, because I do not read the words Putin, Orbán and Le Pen in the report. Welcome to the Hungarian election campaign! The word I read, however, is OLAF, a European institution that has investigated you by name for allegations of corruption. This kind of double standard is unfortunately something that confirms the prejudices against the house. And that Mr Glucksmann of the S&D Group attacks the Social Democratic German Chancellor Schröder by name, I, as a German Member of Parliament, also allow myself to be dismissed as outrageous. Corruption is non-transparent, and corruption results in political processes being influenced outside the democratic process. But then why don't you talk about the numerous NGOs and the possibility of legally influencing this democracy? Unfortunately, the report has a downside, and that is why we cannot agree with it.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. When I read the draft resolution, I was already surprised when I read about peaceful demonstrations. In fact, government buildings went up in flames, police officers were beheaded and the demonstrations were heavily armed. Where did the weapons come from? We have already had an armed uprising. First of all, I have to say that if there is an armed uprising, it is the most natural thing in the whole world that the security authorities try to suffocate it quickly by force of arms. That's exactly what happened. And it quickly crossed the stage. Nor was it the case that Russian troops stood on the front, but they protected rear facilities. In this respect, the events in Kazakhstan are not suitable for the usual Russia-bashing To continue here in the House, nor can it be seen that the government would have done something that no government anywhere else would have done. The interesting thing, however, is that we are always quick to condemn without making an analysis. The fact is that the Kazakh government has been trying for months and years to establish contacts with the West in addition to its geographical boundaries with China and Russia on the one hand and ethnic contacts with Turkey on the other, and that it is therefore also opening up and that there are reforms. The message we are sending now is that we are schoolmasters, that we are not trying to hear both sides, and that we are ultimately countering these efforts. And this message will also go to all Central Asian republics. They will say: "We cannot work together with the Europeans because if something happens here that we do not want, we will be schooled from above. We are threatened with sanctions. Let's let it be!” And that is precisely why I can only remind you, as I often do, that it is time to come back to diplomacy, to balance, to partnership, to listen, and that the times when Europe is training the rest of the world and judging by its standards are, thank God, over. Kazakhstan deserves an opportunity – but one that takes reality into account and not one that thinks that everything has to go the way it does in the European Union. Thank goodness it doesn't have to.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I am old enough to remember a little bit about the final phase of communism, and I also know the present Moscow. So when I hear here in plenary that today's Russia, today's government, is the same as Stalin's reign of terror, I have to wonder if you yourself believe what you are saying. It is obvious that this is happening on completely different levels. And the next thing is that you are hiding something that can be read in Wikipedia, namely that Memorial today no longer has the focus on researching the past, but that it is now the central platform to be active against government policy in Russia. That's Memorial's right. But in fact, what Memorial admits is that it is dependent on foreign money and that there are regulations in this regard. We can criticize these regulations, but we can't criticize that an organization that doesn't accept regulations will end up in trouble with regulators. Nor is the discussion here guided by facts, but it is another building block of this Russia-bashing, which we have meanwhile pushed so far that it does not happen only once in every plenary session – as with Poland, it happens once a month; Russia is now two to three times a month. Ladies and gentlemen, do you really need images of enemies to make your policy? Or don't you have your own positive vision?

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. Now I have to pour some water into the wine, because what we are celebrating here with a second debate is a PR campaign. By the year of rail, not a single new line has been built, not a single new train is running. This is exactly the problem: Although we are enthusiastic about the railway, it still takes several decades to build a simple new line. Even a tram line in my hometown Dresden has longer planning and construction times than a subway line in Asia. Many years of rail can still be done, but nothing will change. This is precisely why we are skeptical of such PR actions. What we need is the actual improvement of railway lines, not only between the big cities, but also in rural areas. Where is the Commission's programme to link secondary routes so that they are cross-border again? I don't hear anything, I don't see anything. Three different trains in the year of rail to send through Europe and make a bit of PR for yourself: This is the EU, but this is not a policy for rail.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, When we talk about the problem of eastern Ukraine, we should not hide the fact that there is a settlement, namely the Minsk Agreement, called Minsk II. And the question that must please those who are calling for new sanctions against Russia here is: Do you accept this agreement or do you not accept it? Even the new German Foreign Minister, whose course I think is wrong, declares that she stands by Minsk II. Minsk II has 13 points, which can be read. And it is currently the government and parliament in Kiev that have sabotaged at least four of these points alone, since 2015. Are you putting pressure on Kiev, which is economically dependent on us, to implement an agreement that France, Germany and the United States have jointly brokered and support? I've never heard of you. They prefer to give military assistance. In this respect: You want peace? Very well. Stand up for the Minsk Agreement. This is rules-based foreign policy, but not this cries of sanctions and war, which we have to hear here in part. And the second thing that matters is that, of course, you have to think about it: What does my counterpart think? This is called empathy. Russia has had historical experiences that are different from ours. If Hitler and Napoleon had started their campaigns on today's Ukrainian-Russian border, they would have won. And that is why Russia will never allow a skeptical, even hostile military alliance to stand on this border. So whoever takes Ukraine into NATO provokes the Russian attack, whether we like it or not - I don't like it either. And now ask yourself whether you are prepared to accept war for Ukraine's NATO membership. If you want to, go to war. I'm going to advertise that there's no war. And I am willing to accept that Ukraine will not become a member of NATO.

Mr President, Commissioner! The traffic jam we have in the ports is a consequence of the Corona lockdown. And it is natural that this is precisely why there is now a need for catching up and increased demand is driving up the price. However, it is also foreseeable that this price will fall because it is a one-time catch-up for the lockdown. As much as I welcome the fact that the Commission is looking at these price increases, I am so afraid that it will take this as a benchmark and an opportunity to make fundamental political changes now. Sometimes you also have to have the courage to endure such one-off effects instead of turning a one-off affect into a permanent crisis through ill-considered actions or long-term strategies. This House, as well as the Commission, tends to see the cure for any problem that arises in the fact that they are making a new policy. When I have listened to the speeches of my previous speakers, these are always very basic questions. You want to rebuild the whole society, just to get rid of the traffic jams in the ports. Let us consider whether this congestion is not a very concrete consequence of the lockdown, and whether, to the extent that we manage to get away from the coronavirus pandemic and again have real mechanisms to end the state of emergency, this congestion will also automatically decrease! And if there is a strategic idea for the future, it is that we should not make our trade permanently dependent on maritime trade routes, but that we should also look for continental trade routes. So we should also consider whether we do not need land routes to the east, so that we are not unilaterally dependent on maritime trade routes. But that too is not a question that has anything to do with the response to the coronavirus pandemic. It is a general question of our trade policy. We can discuss it now, but it will not change the current high prices. What we can take with us is that an ill-considered Corona policy drives inflation, in every area. This can help us in the short term. What can also help us is that excessive bureaucracy and excessive political action often do the opposite of what they are supposed to do. The opposite of good is well meant. I respect that people try to respond well to a concrete crisis. I wish we would react well. And that means: Let's work off this congestion that has arisen, and then let's see how it goes on, after all the economists tell us when prices normalize and stabilize, when we stop interfering with the economic cycle with new policy actions.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, We are a trading power as Europe, and that is why it is important that we have rules and institutions that regulate this trade. In this respect, I would like to thank both rapporteurs, as this is clear from your report. This is the path we need to maintain prosperity and peace on our continent. The big issue we have to argue about is whether we are going to get our vaccines. intellectual propertygive up our intellectual property. And here we do not go along, because we are living on a transition from industry to a service society. The most important thing we have is intellectual property. If we are to renounce this protection of intellectual property, no matter what, what should such a service society do and how should it continue to develop its prosperity? It may sound good, but the opposite of good is also well-intentioned here. If we want to maintain prosperity in the future, it is only possible if we expand our intellectual capacities and if we protect intellectual property, inventiveness and also assign economic value to them. Communism, all free for everyone, does not lead to prosperity and trade, but to poverty. And for this reason, we can only agree if the TRIPS fall out.