Debate contributions by Siegbert Frank DROESE

Madam President, My very esteemed colleagues! Yes, it is true: Disabled people in Europe face many obstacles and problems in everyday life. There are no elevators, escalators, easy access to buses and trains. Therefore, it makes sense to take measures to improve this. But do we need an EU strategy for this again? As the EU itself says in the strategy text: The main responsibility for disability justice lies with the EU Member States themselves. What good, I ask, is the European Disability Card, if you have no access at any station in the EU or if an airport bus has a particularly high level. Firstly, we see the following as critical: The EU links real problems in everyday life with political aspects. We need – as described on page 10 in the text: "Disabled people should be given equal rights in politics in other EU countries.“ Specific examples of discrimination are not mentioned. Secondly: In general, the word ‘discrimination’ is used in an inflationary manner. There are problems, but I would not talk about systematic, permanent exclusion everywhere. Thirdly: It is claimed that climate change is particularly affecting disabled people. This is simply claimed, but again there is no evidence of it. One can certainly criticise certain countries or cities within the EU on a case-by-case basis, but an EU-wide strategy to make life better for people with disabilities does not – in my opinion – need to be – and will remain – the national task of the Member States first. According to my own observations, there is often a lack of maintenance of disabled facilities at train stations and airports. A defective lift on the platform or the broken disabled toilet at the airport often present people with disabilities with enormous difficulties. We should therefore take care of a better maintenance condition of such facilities. Let's set up a program with generous financial resources for this. When it comes to the question ‘How do we make the lives of our fellow disabled people?’, we should always be aware that tomorrow it can affect any of us through an accident or illness. From now on, we are dependent on being able to cope with life with disabilities ourselves. With this in mind, I wish all the Members of this House, although we often argue and disagree, a contemplative and blessed Christmas.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! Hardly a day goes by without the Commission having a vision – now also on tourism. The bulky title of the European Agenda for Tourism 2030 refers above all to the green transition – ecosystem tourism – and so on and so forth. In doing so, the EU feels called to determine, for example, how long short-term rentals can be allowed under point 15, or there are awareness-raising measures on the green transition under point 20. Tourism is a deeply national task, and the EU should first solve problems such as mass migration. It is also interesting that public contracts in tourism should be tied to green goals. Over and over again, green socialism instead of a market economy and competition – this is disgusting. The tourism strategy is superfluous. Entrepreneurs and customers decide on the spot where they travel, how they travel, how long they travel. Tourism has something to do with culture, history, private experiences, but not with aspects of climate religion. This green, socialist EU is simply the best way to leave tourists in Europe alone. The EU tourism strategy – if there was a trash can at the front, open the lid, tourism strategy in. This tourism strategy must be rejected.

Mr President, Commissioner! No one denies that pollution in the oceans and seas is a major problem. Plastic waste is particularly relevant. The solution to the EU Single-Use Plastics Directive and other proposals is now: banning. Ban on plastic bags, ban on straws - mainly ban. The pace for these prohibition orgies is usually determined by NGOs. They're constantly talking about CO.2Footprints, backpacks, raw material backpacks and, of course, from the UN Sustainable Development Goals. The special zealots demand garbage banks or see a direct connection between less plastic and less poverty. Strangely enough, you never hear about the causes of plastic waste in the oceans. The pillory is always given to certain countries, but not specifically to the polluter. If a captain deliberately disposes of plastic in the sea, and it is proven to him, then he should be severely punished for it. But the plastic bag itself or the balloon or the cotton swab on the beach are not to blame. There are first-class examples where recycling of waste works – without government intervention. The waste collection in Cairo with more than 20 million inhabitants is largely organized in a kind of self-government by private companies, resourceful individual entrepreneurs who know the situation on the ground and solve the problems. Something similar can be heard from India. If it is said today that the Baltic Sea is the dirtiest sea in the world, the individual polluters must be held accountable. This whole EU ban culture does not necessarily lead to improvement here. The objective of protecting the seas and fish from plastic waste is, of course, right – I said yes. But the ideological construction and excessive exaggeration by mostly green NGOs are not effective here. Some crazy green activists say that by 2050 there will be more bags than fish in the seas. Yes, and the deep-sea flea crab is particularly at risk. Seriously: Where's the question, I wonder? This is actually the creative approach of this EU. If plastic is so dangerous, why not invest in research to develop other materials for packaging? In summary: Punish the polluters of our oceans and seas harshly, but do not sway the European economy with ever more bureaucracy and annoy consumers with ever new regulations.

Mr Colleague, I have now listened very eagerly to what you have said. You say that, as a representative of the left of this House, you want to be very committed to the future of children. The question I ask you is: The SED in the GDR – which is your predecessor organisation – was known for mass adoptions of forced children. When can we expect the left to come to terms with history on this issue?

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, compatriots! Mia V., 15 years old, from Landau, was brutally stabbed to death by an asylum seeker from Afghanistan. A 17-year-old student from Cottbus was so badly injured by Syrians and Libyans in the schoolyard that he had to be hospitalized. A young man from Bad Oeynhausen was beaten so brutally by a Syrian at a high school graduation ceremony that he died of the injuries. All three victims are children of parents in principle, only large children. All three could still be alive or unharmed without the brutal migrant violence. No one needs a coordinator for children's rights, as long as millions of brutal killers and murderers can immigrate to Europe undisturbed and brutally murder, maim or injure our children here. The EU does not need to worry about the safety of toys as long as there is a problem of exploding crimes committed by young migrants targeting our children. Every crime statistic provides frightening information about this. You should look at this on the left side. The EU should stop millions of illegal migrations, launch large-scale remigration programmes and protect our children from the perverse pedophile networks.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen! A Communist of this House had tried to denounce me today just because I took a cap with me to a hearing, a MAGA cap. And I would like to confess once again to this Parliament: Yes, I was happy about Donald Trump's election victory. Yes, I was happy for the American people that they chose Donald Trump as their new leader. Yes, just as Donald Trump represents the interests of his country, the European peoples, the European nations, I think, can take an example. Under Donald Trump, America stands for democracy and fundamental rights. But I'm surprised that we can't look forward to an election victory for Donald Trump, even though America, the United States, is our most important ally. And finally, I would like to return to the Communist who tried to denounce me here today: He's a disgrace to this house. He was supposed to migrate to Cuba or North Korea. These are the countries that represent their values.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! No one reasonable is against protecting the oceans from destruction, but environmental protection doesn't work with rigid data, utopian targets, and ideological delusion. Practical things make sense, such as harsh punishment for captains throwing their waste into the sea or companies causing tanker accidents negligently, but we don't need a blue economy as a new socialist planned economy. An example of this: By 2030, 30% of the oceans should act as a protection zone – this is a utopian goal. Nature is stronger than the European Commission, it regenerates itself. Biodiversity has existed for millions of years. That is why we do not need EU naturalisation laws in agriculture, fishing or anywhere else. But I wonder: Where was and has the protection of the oceans remained during the demolition of Nord Stream 2? Where is the Commission's meticulous will to investigate this demolition of Nord Stream 2? It is very strange that Brussels does nothing here, although otherwise the Commission dreams of the dear long day of the Green Deal or the evil CO2 hunting. When we talk about protecting the oceans, I also have to talk about sanctions against Russia. The sanctions should hit Russia, but are now endangering our oceans, our environment, because Russia does not sink, but sends its raw materials around the globe with old, rusty ships; This is a fine example of the Commission shooting itself in the knees, with great applause from many Members of this House. Yes, we must protect the oceans, but against socialists, greens, eurocrats. That's why we say of the ESN: We agree with good ideas that are workable and, above all, economical; We agree with the statement in the main objective of protecting the seas, but we reject the blue economy basis: They are nothing more than green experiments and utopias.

Mr President! The EU has been planning a single sky for 20 years, but little has happened. We share airlines' criticism of the Commission's proposal on the Single European Sky. It will lead to higher taxes, more bureaucracy, more reporting obligations – all of which we do not want. Europe is already a very safe airspace. So why bend and break the competences of national air navigation services and throw everything into the EU pot? Not everything needs to be harmonized or certified uniformly. On the other hand, it would be important for us to abolish sanctions, e.g. against Russia. Then airplanes could fly faster and, above all, more environmentally friendly to Asia and thus CO2 Reducing. But ever new taxes and regulations drive airlines out of Europe and make flying more expensive unnecessarily. We want the worker to be able to afford his well-deserved holiday flight in the future, and not just the Eurocrats. In our opinion, the Commission could deal with important issues, such as migration, or perhaps there will also be thousands of deportation flights to be organised in the future – we would like to hear a nice proposal. We cannot agree with this proposal, which we have here.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen! It goes without saying that the EU is helping with the floods in Bosnia and Herzegovina. European solidarity makes sense here. It is also irrelevant whether Bosnia and Herzegovina is a candidate for EU membership or not. In such weather events, humanitarian aid is paramount. Nevertheless, at this point a critical remark: It would be fair to tell the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina clearly that EU accession is not on the agenda for a very long time. This also applies to the other candidates from the Western Balkans with the exception of Serbia and, of course, even more so to Ukraine and Moldova. In this context of aid, the EU should not pull the China card again with the question ‘Who helps more?’, especially since in the end it is mostly German tax money anyway. Floods are all about providing concrete help to people who are already living in poverty, especially in rural areas. Money for civil protection is also always useful. But other billions that the EU distributes around the world need to be countered. This is particularly true for forms of a junktim with so-called EU values in aid of all kinds. Control of the use of funds is also important for all aid, including for the poor people in Bosnia and Herzegovina. A follow-up check on the use of funds is very important for us. In the case of a flood, the use is clear, in the case of other subsidies not so – especially in the case of millions of our European taxpayers for NGOs of the so-called civil society. NGOs need to be much more closely monitored when they receive EU funding, including on this issue.

Madam President, In the opening speech this morning, you spoke of the special role of the Council Presidency and citizens expect something special from the Council Presidency. That's what you did. And you were talking about the House of Democracy. Madam President, I do not know your house: Here parts of this Parliament in the House of Your Democracy are excluded from the formation of the will. I just want to mention that. Prime Minister, I'm glad you're still here. Mrs. von der Leyen has sought the space here, because she shies away from the discussion. I would like to tell you: Personally, I would like to thank the Hungarians and the Hungarian people. It has been talked about several times in 1956. Hungary was once, where the Iron Curtain still existed, the longing place of millions of people. And for that I would like to thank the Hungarian people from here. What is the situation in Germany today? There, the opposition is persecuted, opponents of the regime are imprisoned, professional bans are renewed. Prime Minister, today you are once again the guarantor of hope for many people in Europe. I would like to thank you for that. Don't go...

Madam President, Commissioner! Following in the footsteps of future German Chancellor Alice Weidel and former President of the Czech Republic Miloš Zeman, the question is allowed: Is this country run by idiots? I don't think so. This Commission is only killing the European, the German automotive industry intentionally and intentionally, and only because it is infested with the green climate madness. This commission is thus plunging millions of hard-working workers from the car manufacturers and the supplier industry in our home countries into misery. Keep in mind that every pen you use, every business trip you take, every salary of too many Eurocrats – for everything, hardworking people work in our home countries. That brings me to the question: Why is the Commission accepting this mass misery? The answer is quite simple: This commission declares freedom to be the enemy and challenges individual mobility. This commission wants to lock us up in 15 minute cities. This commission wants us to eat grasshoppers and maggots. This commission wants to monitor us 24 hours a day. This Commission is not building a mobile, free and peaceful Europe. This commission is building on a disgusting dystopia.

Madam, thank you very much for allowing the question. I listened very carefully to your execution. They refer to a period from 2009 to 2015. Are you aware that when it comes to today's border controls, the technology is certainly a little more advanced than it was 15 or 20 years ago, so that today we essentially ensure border controls with modern technology, without in principle calling into question the free movement of persons?

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen! An early European, Bishop Augustine, coined the phrase in the fourth century: Take away the law, then what is the state but a large band of robbers? If you look at this EU today, you can only say: Augustine was a wise and foreseeable man – God bless him. The much-vaunted EU law is being applied more and more, if at all, only selectively: The climate religion is above all else, eco-terrorists are canonized. A good example of this is the case of Paul Watson. This eco-terrorist has sunk several cutters, accepted the deaths of seafarers, and broken pretty much every international shipping rule that exists; Ships were blocked and boarded. Nevertheless, the left-green so-called civil society is demanding his release – even the Commissioner I have understood in this sense today, but French President Macron is also calling for the release of the terrorist Watson, even together with the left-wing radical Mélenchon. That's unbelievable! Japan, of course, has the right to demand the extradition of terrorist Watson. There is no difference between Paul Watson and bin Laden. Denmark, Greenland must immediately extradite Watson. But Watson is just a small fish, and we know that the fish always stinks from the head. In this EU, very different criminals belong in court. That is why I am asking President von der Leyen from this panel: What about your coronavirus vaccine procurement corruption? What is this €7.4 billion for Egypt – allegedly to curb migration? Where is the investigation into the golden Visa, which von der Leyen apparently continues to approve? If Augustine were to be taken as the standard, von der Leyen would today be the head of a band of robbers. She belonged in a cold prison, but not in the warm chair of the Commission. Mrs von der Leyen is a disgrace to Europe, especially to my fatherland Germany. Incidentally, I am of the opinion that my German homeland will only get better when the Alternative for Germany rules in Germany. With this in mind, I wish my colleagues in Brandenburg all the best for the election on Sunday, 22.

Mr Waitz, you were just talking about things that you noticed, which seems to have been missed in some Member States. If I have seen it correctly, you are a Green and you govern in some European countries – not always for the good of the countries, of course. Why haven't you already started or implemented measures that you just criticised? If you are still in government – fortunately, that's not long in many countries, the Greens are being voted out everywhere, which is happening, thank goodness – why are you not doing these things that you have criticised long ago?