Debate contributions by Matthias ECKE

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! The auto industry is in crisis. We agree on that. What we disagree on is: How did she get there, and more importantly: How does she get out of there? However, it is not true that terminating employment guarantees and terminating collective agreements is the right way to go. E-cars are not too expensive because wage costs are too high, but because we lack cheap models from European manufacturers. I also don't think softening the 2035 targets is the right strategy. After all, our companies need planning security and not constant policy changes. On the contrary: They rightly expect smart, predictable framework conditions. Here we can, the policy can help to achieve these goals. On the one hand, I am thinking of sufficient charging stations. AFIR is simply not ambitious enough. Then I think about cheaper energy. We need to roll out cheap renewables more quickly and also reduce other energy cost components such as grid fees. And thirdly, we also need demand incentives for European e-cars, because they need to become more affordable. Ladies and gentlemen, let us stand with the companies and the workers, but with progressive ideas and not with backward sham debates.

Mr President, Commissioner, colleagues, the ECJ's ruling against Apple marks a milestone for tax and competition policy in Europe. It demonstrates that we can hold big corporations accountable for their aggressive tax planning. I am proud that in Europe, the law prevails over the power of billionaires. However, it raises a key question: should tax policy be left to competition law and courts? I do not think that this is sustainable. We need the political will to create a fair tax system and to close loopholes. When companies like Apple play countries against each other, our societies lose out on essential investment, on healthcare, infrastructure, education. The global minimum tax, championed by Olaf Scholz and others, ensures that companies pay taxes where profits are made and not where their headquarters are. I think it's time that we go on that way, that the US follows suit. It's time for a fair global tax system.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen! The images of the flood disaster in Central and Eastern Europe are shocking, and the news of the many victims makes me deeply saddened. They also awaken in me bad memories of the flood in my own homeland, in Saxony, 2013 and 2002. This time we got away a bit more easily because we were lucky, but also because we took good care – less sealing, more floodplains, flood protection buildings and good coordination between the authorities. European solidarity is expressed in the EU Solidarity Fund. That's good and right, but the fund is too small, and the funds are flowing too late. We need to make this fund less bureaucratic and better adapted to the challenges we face. Because we agree: Climate change will make these extreme weather events more frequent and devastating, and we need better preparedness, our infrastructure needs to become more resilient. The means of choice for this is also cohesion policy. If you want to weaken and centralise cohesion policy, you should really stop now, because with local knowledge – people know best how to protect their cities, villages, communities – and European solidarity, we can prevent such challenges. 'Build Europe back better.'

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! The gruesome attack of Solingen fills us with pain, grief and anger. People rightly demand protection from violence, Islamism, radicalisation and terror. We protect ourselves best through cooperation at European level. To do this, it is necessary to facilitate the coordination of the security authorities, tighten gun laws, prevent terrorists from entering the country and prevent locals from radicalizing. Protection against terrorism and migration policy are not the same thing and should not be mixed up as easily as this title, which was voted from right to far right here, suggests. Those who marginalise and defame migrants betray our values and promote radicalisation themselves. Nevertheless, there is also a need for order in migration policy, of course. That is why we adopted the reform of the asylum system four months ago, and it must now be implemented quickly. If you don't remember this reform over there on the right, it may be because you voted against it. It is significant that those who always blame migration for all maladministration then beat themselves into the bushes when it comes to solutions, because they do not want solutions. They see hatred, they cultivate fear, and they divide the country. We want a migration policy that works. One that welcomes professionals and provides shelter to those in need, takes quick decisions in fair procedures and implements them consistently, making internal border controls superfluous – as soon as possible, as foreseen in the Schengen system. We also owe the reform of the CEAS to an SPD-led federal government, which found an EU-wide viable solution in arduous negotiations. In contrast, Mr Merz is calling for blanket rejections from the CDU, which are now incompatible with EU law. This also shows why EU interior ministers have never managed such a reform: They are all about the headlines at home and not about sustainable solutions. Ladies and gentlemen, let us work together to deprive terror of its social breeding ground and to take up space. The goal is clear – to create security without inciting fear. Order yes, exclusion no!