Debate contributions by Friedrich PÜRNER

Mr President! Dear colleagues! In Romania, it was therefore allegedly possible that a presidential candidate could decisively influence his reputation through TikTok videos. In fact, is it so? And now what? Is any election advertising that contains only empty promises disinformation? We have to ask ourselves that. The Romanian candidate showed himself traditionally dressed on a horse, lanes swimming in the swimming pool and during martial arts training. How big is the dissatisfaction in Romania that such videos are enough for an election victory? The very notion that videos influence elections is as absurd as the belief that cat videos control world government. Here cause and effect are confused: Dissatisfaction and bad politics increase the risk of surprise results in elections. Only a pretext for censorship and restriction of freedom of expression is sought. That's what it looks like, that's the truth! Please follow me on X, TikTok and Instagram!

Dear Madam President, The transfer of HERA to Ms Lahbib violates Rule 129 of our Rules of Procedure. Following the hearings of Mr Várhelyi and Ms Lahbib, there was a substantial change in the area of competence. The amendment concerns the responsibilities of Mr Várhelyi, Commissioner-designate for Health and Animal Welfare. He was deprived of responsibility for HERA and transferred to Ms Lahbib. Ms Lahbib was not heard on this new area of competence. This is contrary to Rule 129 of our Rules of Procedure. It violates the scrutiny function of the European Parliament and the principle of publicity. In accordance with Rule 129(7) of our Rules of Procedure, it is possible to postpone the vote to the next meeting. This is my request.

Madam President, Commissioner! We are debating fake news and disinformation here. But who decides exactly what that is? Who sits with what training in the hotlines and decides whether an expression of opinion is now illegal? During the coronavirus era, many statements were dismissed as disinformation and fake news. These statements have now come true. The German public broadcasters in particular have claimed some untruths. Examples include the ‘pandemic of the unvaccinated’, children being pandemic drivers or protecting vaccination. Their plan is nothing more than the introduction of authoritarian leadership. Any removal of an expression of opinion is nothing more than censorship. What you are doing here is gaining the power of interpretation. Democracy means freedom of expression. If expressions of opinion or unpleasant facts are censored, democracy dies a quick death.

Mr President, Commissioner! The Hippocratic Oath of Doctors states: I will protect the sick from harm. As a doctor, I am committed to this principle. Vaccination can protect, but vaccination can also cause harm, especially if vaccination is not approved for a specific group of people or if, as happened with COVID, vaccine side effects or damage are ignored. The EU is now donating vaccine doses to countries affected by the Mpox outbreak. The donated vaccine is currently only approved from the age of 18, and there is a lack of data for children, adolescents, pregnant women and immunocompromised persons. How is it ensured that the donated vaccine is not given on a blanket basis to these groups of people? In addition, the European Court of Justice recently found that the Commission was non-transparent in COVID vaccine contracts. So my second question is: How does the Commission make the Mpox contracts more transparent?