Speeches

Madam President, The main purpose of this bond program is not the targeted promotion of promising economic sectors, but only the taboo break to finally be able to make debt. Under the pretext of fighting the crisis, the EU simply continues to expand its powers in the area of the budget – and that is what it is all about. In addition, the funds are also allocated in a non-transparent manner and without any parliamentary scrutiny. In reality, the EU is distributing debt-based money to the Member States more or less arbitrarily, without any control, and is also breaking its own rules. And it is the height of impudence to call it NextGenerationEU. For the next generation, nothing remains but a mountain of debt and an even more inflated Union. It is a moral image of this Commission: undemocratic, non-transparent, costly and pointless.

Mr President! There is so much to criticise about the EU's current transport policy that I really don't know where to start. So on to the main problem right from the start: The plans to eliminate fossil fuels are a real catastrophe for the economy and everyday life of citizens. And the expansion of alternative fuels infrastructure is completely pointless as long as a fundamental problem is not solved: Where will the electricity for the millions of electric cars come from? Road, rail, aviation, shipping – all transport sectors are to be switched to alternative fuels. In order to meet the unrealistic timetable and achieve the overly ambitious objectives of this proposal alone, billions of investments will be needed – and all this without first ensuring affordable and reliable electricity supply. An affordable and reliable supply of wind and solar parks to the highly industrialised Member States of the EU is not technically feasible. So we will continue to depend on fossil fuels to some extent. The rules of physics and technology cannot be replaced by ideological dreams. And I'm not even talking about all the other problems that these fantasies bring - the loss of jobs, the loss of mobility, the loss of know-how or the increasing dependence on critical raw materials, lithium or rare earths, or the problems of disposal and recycling and so on. And let's not forget that we are currently also in a dramatic energy and supply crisis. Finally look the facts in the face! These projects will continue to drive transport poverty forward. Mobility is becoming a luxury, especially in rural areas. Finally, present realistic and technically feasible plans for energy supply in the EU member states. Then and only then can we talk about what it looks like to expand the infrastructure for electric cars.

Mr President! First, two points on the general nature of trade agreements. Firstly: Trade agreements primarily serve free trade for mutual benefit. Trade agreements should not serve to unilaterally impose one's own world view on the trading partner. This total overload of trade agreements with ideological desires is a dead end and is driving the EU further and further into isolation. Secondly: Sanctions on trade agreements: Sanctions against trading partners and the suspension of trade agreements should and must always only be the ultima ratio, the last resort, when essential interests of the EU Member States are threatened. The required sanction for non-compliance with the Paris climate targets must therefore be rejected. Given the enormous energy needs of emerging countries, excessive demands would only drive these countries further into the arms of China, rather than making them reliable partners for the EU. Unfortunately, we have to face the fact that Europe's weight is steadily decreasing compared to other global players. Unfortunately, the EU Commission is also accelerating this development. Therefore, a sense of reality and a lot of tact will be necessary in the future in order to be able to conclude really good trade contracts. Unfortunately, I miss both in the Commission's 15-point action plan on trade and sustainable development.

Mr President! In the midst of the energy crisis with exploding energy prices, the EU Commission wants to restrict and reduce energy production from wood, which is precisely the result of this forest strategy. The use of the only renewable raw material for energy production, which is also readily available in Europe, is to be massively restricted and reduced. And citizens are rightly wondering if there is still comfort here in the EU. In recent years, countless plants for the production of energy from wood have been built in the interests of sustainability and regionality: Biomass, wood chips, pellets, combined heat and power plants. With one stroke of the pen, the Commission wants to destroy all this. A stroke of the pen puts Europe's energy supply at risk. And with a stroke of the pen, countless jobs will be destroyed in the midst of the economic crisis. And with a stroke of the pen, world-class know-how in the field of energy production from wood is destroyed. In doing so, the Commission is truly making itself the ultimate enemy of its own citizens.

Mr President! This is a very good example of the increasing restriction of freedom of expression and freedom of the press in the EU. Critical opinions are branded as hate speech or misinformation, and under this pretext a relic from bygone times is now being revived – censorship. Precisely where resistance to the anti-citizen policy of the EU is increasing, this EU now wants to censor and suppress precisely these unwelcome opinions. This applies to criticism of unrestrained mass immigration, increasing centralization or climate policy. And to be clear: The only limit to freedom of expression is criminal law. We do not need additional EU censorship. The many right and important approaches of this Digital Services Act Unfortunately, this attempt to introduce censorship through the back door is devalued. The EU does not need to point fingers towards the East. There is enough dirt to sweep in front of one's own front door, and the increasing restriction of freedom of expression is undoubtedly one of them.

Mr President! If, in my home country of Austria, 1 tonne of CO2 is emitted in the production of a good, and if the production of that good is then transferred to a third country, for example because of excessive requirements, then statistically 1.9 tonnes of CO2 emissions are generated there, i.e. almost twice as much. Of course, it would make sense to continue to produce this product in Austria. This secures jobs, value creation and innovation and is also ecologically sensible. But what does the European Commission do? It does everything in its power to ensure that production is relocated abroad. There are always new goals and requirements. This makes CO2 certificates artificially expensive and scarce. Competitiveness on the world market, job security, value creation and innovation at home – that doesn’t matter to the ladies and gentlemen in Brussels. This strategy of driving industry out of Europe is highly polluting, counterproductive and pointless. And there is nothing more to say about this dangerous mischief.

Mr President! In these times of crisis, when everything is becoming more expensive, this Parliament could send a signal of austerity and simply save the parliamentary seats that have been vacant due to Brexit. You can do that, just don't do it. After all, what are the four bloc parties here in this Parliament demanding – large sections of the People’s Party, the socialists, the so-called liberals and the Greens? 28 additional seats for completely meaningless transnational lists, which no voter wants, and of course even more money for their political groups, and also a new EU electoral authority, which no one needs. And then they also want to prescribe their candidate lists to the parties by means of quotas. This is absolutely anti-democratic. And, of course, the unanimity principle in the Council is to be abolished immediately with regard to EU electoral law. This is the favorite topic of the Eurocrats and centralizers. This whole project is an imposition, a citizen mockery of the extra class.

Madam President, Today's debate is hypocritical and a low point for the European Parliament. A brutal war is being used shamelessly as a pretext to discredit the only real opposition in this Parliament. At the same time, it is also trying to hide its own close relations with Russia. But every time you point your finger at another, three fingers point back at you. And so it is here. Let's take a closer look at the Russian payroll. There we find Gerhard Schröder, Social Democrat, former Chancellor of Germany, François Fillon, Christian Democrat of the European People's Party, former Prime Minister of France, Matteo Renzi, Social Democrat, former Prime Minister of Italy, Esko Aho, Liberal, Renew Group, former Prime Minister of Finland, Wolfgang Schüssel, People's Party, former Chancellor of Austria, Christian Kern, Social Democrat, former Chancellor of Austria, Alex Salmond, Scottish National Party, here in the Green Group in Parliament, former First Minister in Scotland. All of these former leaders have one thing in common: They come from the four major factions, and they are or have all been on the payroll of a major Russian corporation. They were and are all paid together with hundreds of thousands, even millions of euros, for their commitment to Putin. And you? Do you dare to point to others? This is hypocrisy in pure culture!

Madam President, Commissioner! Energy costs increase many times over within a very short period of time. And there are also substantial price increases in other vital areas such as food or housing. Europe is facing massive inflation. The economic recession is looming, and entire industries are now on the brink of extinction. Now one might think that the EU would do everything possible to counteract this development, to lower energy prices, to help threatened companies, to support Europe's economy in this difficult situation. For example, the market stability reserve could be reduced back to 12 percent as originally planned. The reserve could also be used to deal with the acute crisis. But the exact opposite is the case. Driven by your “Green deal-Fetish" makes the situation even worse for you, the Commission. Stur insist on a model that costs companies and citizens huge sums. Ladies and gentlemen of the Commission, Mr Timmermans, you are damaging Europe. (The President withdrew the floor from the speaker)

Ms. President! With Russia and Ukraine, two of the world's largest agricultural producers are de facto failing. There is a threat of global food shortages. What is the EU doing in this situation? She stubbornly adheres to her completely absurd farm-to-fork strategy. It maintains an agricultural strategy that would reduce agricultural production in Europe by at least 13%. I have to ask myself: In what reality do you live here? Are you even aware of the immense damage you are doing here? Not only in Europe – worldwide. For the EU, this means massive price increases, social upheavals, enormous inflation. For North Africa and the Middle East, this means food shortages, hunger, instability, war. You want that? There is only one way out: Promote Farm to Fork to where this plan belongs, namely to the dung heap of the lofty spinning mills. It's best to bury the whole thing. Green Deal Right on top of it.

Mr President! With regard to the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, two aspects are important to me. On the one hand, Bosnia and Herzegovina remains an extremely fragile state, which is held together mainly by external pressure, despite efforts that have lasted for more than two decades. Some even talk about one. Failed State, and it would be downright irresponsible to want to cancel this arduous compromise now – in the current situation – a compromise that is far from perfect, but which has at least stopped the bloodshed. However, it would be completely irresponsible to want to include such a fragile state in the EU now at the point of bending and breaking. This will not solve a problem, but many new ones will be created. On the other hand, Bosnia and Herzegovina is unfortunately also a prime example of the growing Chinese influence in the Balkans. A German newspaper summed it up very succinctly. She says: The Balkans are the central lever for China's attack on Europe. China's investment in Bosnia and Herzegovina is part of this attack, and it must now be clear to everyone in this House. The development of critical infrastructure, such as power plants or transport routes, is therefore particularly problematic. The share of Chinese loans in the Bosnian-Herzegovinian foreign debt is already more than ten percent. The dependency is increasing and it is therefore important to counter this development. Direct approaches are needed. Instead of constantly threatening with the moral index finger, pragmatic and effective assistance is needed, but not an EU accession that would create more problems than solutions.

Mr President! These reports make it clear once again where the EU is suffering. Claim and reality are simply worlds apart. The EU would like to be the global guardian of freedom, democracy, peace and human rights. But it is not even taken seriously in its own neighbourhood. In the current Ukraine conflict, the EU is only listened to out of courtesy, if at all. In Syria, the EU was just a zaungast, and even Turkey is dancing around on the EU's nose. But most importantly, the EU is concerned about whether enough women participate in military operations and whether everything is gender-appropriate. There is no need to be surprised if these are the problems of the EU. And while the EU is dealing with problems in Central Africa, it is not even creating effective external border protection. And that alone shows how far-fetched and how far-fetched this policy is. And when I read the report on the strategic autonomy of the EU, I have to ask myself how this strategic autonomy can be achieved if the Commission agrees with the Farm-to-Fork-Strategy destroys the agricultural foundations of Europe and thus also the food supply and if the Commission destroys the industrial foundations of Europe with the Green Deal. Finally, a point that shows very well how insane things are in the EU: The report calls for efforts to support business start-ups and defence capital investments. This, by the way, is one of the few sensible demands in this report. But at the same time, the Commission is working on a proposal on the social taxonomy, which classifies investment in the defence industry as socially harmful. So it is precisely the capital investments that are called for in the report that are being outlawed. This is the EU in 2022.

Mr President! The corona crisis in particular has clearly demonstrated the profound economic and social change brought about by digitalisation. Therefore, a clear legal framework for the provision of online services is also useful, so that both traders and consumers have legal certainty. On some points, such as the problem of illegal short-term rentals, I could have imagined even stricter rules. On the other hand, the new rules on freedom of expression on the internet and the exchange of views between citizens on online platforms are far too strict and exaggerated. The back door is used for censorship. And this is particularly evident in the completely vague terms ‘hate speech’ and ‘disinformation’. De facto, this is about the suppression of unwelcome opinions and content. The border can and must be the criminal law alone. Everything else – and I say it again – is censorship. And the attempt to outsource this censorship measure to the operators of the platforms is particularly perfidious. This pushes for a privatised jurisprudence by large digital corporations. This is a massive encroachment on citizens' freedom of expression and information. To put it in a nutshell: What is legal offline must also be legal online. Criminal law alone can be the limit here. These new rules of censorship are incompatible with the fundamental values of a free and democratic society.

Madam President, Free and fair world trade and the removal of unjustified barriers to trade are of particular importance and importance, especially for smaller countries such as my home country Austria. I firmly believe that free and fair trade always brings far more advantages than disadvantages for all partners. In order to enable this free trade, we need a fixed set of rules and an efficient dispute resolution system. To this end, the gaps in the existing regulatory framework, such as unfair trade practices or counterfeiting, market-distorting subsidies, state-owned enterprises or forced technology transfers, must be closed, and that is precisely what the WTO should be tasked with. Our job, in turn, should be to do just that. As for the much-discussed release of patents on medical devices, especially COVID vaccines, I can only warn against such a step. Patent rights have always been and continue to be an important driver of new developments. The release of patents would also help less developing countries, which also do not have the possibility to produce such highly complex vaccines at all. It would be nothing more than a dangerous precedent challenging the right to intellectual property. In conclusion, I hope that the WTO will emerge stronger from this conference and that we will make some progress towards fair, free and fair global trade. Incidentally, it is a shame that the Austrian government wants to introduce a vaccination obligation.

Mr President! First of all, I am pleased that we are finally dealing here once again with one of the EU’s core issues, namely international trade – this is not always the case here. It is about strengthening the transatlantic partnership between the US and the European Union in very broad fields – technology exchange and trade. And this is to be welcomed in principle, especially in view of the increasing threat posed by China, and especially because of the non-market-conforming distortions of competition by China, such cooperation makes sense. I refer only to Chinese dumping prices, dumping wages, forced technology transfer in joint ventures, product piracy and, and, and. Overall, however, such agreements will unfortunately be of little use if the EU Commission continues its plans to dismantle European industry under the guise of climate protection. This irresponsible policy drives Europe in dependence on all other powers and thus makes an independent European policy impossible.

Mr President! Obviously, ladies and gentlemen of the European Commission, you have forgotten what the European Union is. The European Union is a confederation of sovereign nation states, and this confederation of sovereign nation states is based on treaties – on treaties and not on the arbitrariness of some Brussels would-be autocrats. According to these treaties, it is not at all the case that EU law always takes precedence over national law. On the contrary, it is precisely regulated: What competences does the EU have, what competences do the nation states have? It is a sad fact that the EU is constantly trying to arbitrarily expand its competences. This is the actual breach of contract. You are committing the actual breach of contract. Their presumption that they want to impose measures on national constitutional courts has now become intolerable. The arrogance with which you encountered the German Constitutional Court, the arrogance with which you now encounter the Polish Supreme Court, this arrogance is intolerable. The national constitutional courts are one of the pillars of the national constitutional states. You obviously want to destroy this pillar of the rule of law. What about their own violations of the law? What about Article 125 of the EU Treaty? What about the no bail-out clause? Here you have clearly become contractually broken. What about Article 310 of the EU Treaty, the rule that the EU budget must always be balanced? How is this compatible with your debt collection and debt policy? Let me stress it again: The EU has become shattered by the Treaty. Come to your own door and leave the Member States alone!

Madam President, The agreement between Turkey and the EU on the withdrawal of migrants is working. It even works well. And it works well for Turkish President Erdoğan. He has a loaded weapon in his hand that he can use to blackmail the EU – at any time. And he is also ready to use this weapon – as in February 2020, when Erdoğan opened the border with Greece. And in Europe they have also shown an understanding of it. The German politician Röttgen from the CDU has meant, for example, that this is a kind of call for help from Turkey. It's unbelievable. And in June 2020, of course, an additional half billion euros to Turkey was approved by the EU. This is how blackmail works. The EU is helpless because it does not protect its borders. This is the failure of the EU. Only when the EU is ready for effective and robust border protection will this blackmail stop.

Mr President! ‘Vision Zero Road Death’ is the bold title of today’s report. The reduction of road deaths is, of course, a goal that all members of parliament can join. But, to put it bluntly: It is, of course, a utopian goal. As long as there is traffic, there will be deaths. We must take note of this, as sorry as we are. Therefore, there can always be only one approach to this goal. Improving road safety is an ongoing process. There will never be an end to this. Again and again, new improvements will be necessary. New technical developments will always present us with new challenges, but will also improve road safety. However, it is always important to make sure that these new techniques are really helpful. One sometimes has the impression that many an assistant for the motorist seems more like a plague and is not very helpful. Sometimes it goes beyond the goal, you have to say. However, this report goes beyond the objective of two proposals. One is the proposal ‘Tempo 30 in all major European cities’. Roads serve to move – to move and not to stand still. This is a typical example of a left-wing policy of prohibition without measure or aim. Next is probably ‘Tempo 80 on motorways’. Every relationship between benefit and harm is completely lost. The same applies to the requirement of 0.0 per thousand in road traffic. The current limits of 0.5 and 0.8 are quite sufficient. Once again, sensible approaches are counteracted by completely excessive and utopian demands. This is now a common thread in all EU policies. This also shows how anti-freedom thinking has spread in the EU. Self-responsibility has obviously become a foreign word here.

Mr President! This "Fit for 55" climate package is the insanity of this EU Commission, which is expressed in words and figures. This climate package is not just ill-conceived, it shows the complete seclusion of the EU elites – and the whole thing under Commission President von der Leyen. And to conceal this madness, the European citizens are deliberately misinformed by the Commission. The flourishing landscapes, the wonderful future they promise – nothing but fake news! The truth is that everything will be more expensive for Europeans in the future: Housing becomes more expensive, mobility becomes more expensive, heating becomes more expensive, food becomes more expensive. In addition, the jobs of European industry will also migrate to Asia, where much dirtier production is taking place. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of jobs are being destroyed in Europe. Europe's prosperity will be destroyed, Europe's innovative power will be destroyed, Europe's economic existence will be destroyed. And why all this? For nothing. Because you can't do anything with it. Climate change is not even stopped by half a degree. Pollution is even worse! There will be in the history books: The European Commission, headed by President von der Leyen, has deliberately destroyed the world’s most successful, innovative and environmentally friendly industry. Poverty and poverty will be their legacy.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! The coronavirus crisis in particular has made us all aware of the particular importance of an efficient, modern, environmentally friendly and pan-European transport network. Although I am generally a critic of this permanent presumption of competence by the EU, which also contradicts the principle of subsidiarity, intensive cooperation between the European states is of crucial importance in the field of transregional transport policy. Unfortunately, it is precisely this cooperation that has so far often proved to be very problematic. The Court of Auditors’ report on the Brenner Base Tunnel last year, for example, showed this very clearly. The Brenner Base Tunnel is a prime example of how collaboration does not work: Insufficient coordination, lack of access routes, insufficient stations and, above all, enormous bureaucratic hurdles continue to delay the start-up of this line, and they also call into question its cost-effectiveness. The new directive now contains some positive approaches, especially in the area of intergovernmental cooperation and bureaucratic hurdles. I therefore hope that the new directive will lead to a significant improvement for future trans-regional transport projects. And for these reasons, I will also agree with the reports.