Debate contributions by Lukas SIEPER

Mr President, dear colleagues, in the light of the comment of our honoured Vice-President, one hesitates to accuse the President of the United States of anything so vulgar as organised crime, and yet facts are a stubborn thing. For years, 'the Don' informed his allies that protection would henceforth require cash upfront: pay more or face the consequences. Now, having discovered that Greenland is not merely scenery but real estate of considerable strategic value, the logic evolves. The fee is no longer sufficient, the Don now wishes to own the premises. This is not statecraft – it is the classic escalation of a protection racket. In this light, when the authorities are unable to intervene, sensible shopkeepers do not engage in endless negotiation. They install cameras, they reinforce the locks and, discreetly, they place a rifle beneath the counter – not out of aggression, but out of self-respect. Europe remains polite, but Europe will not be shaken down.

Dear colleague, once again, do you think that AI-generated child pornography en masse is just any other reason to regulate? And don't you think that child pornography generated en masse is a good reason to update the system to have new rules? And the same, of course, goes for pictures of women generated without their consent en masse. Is this not a reason to take action, as a Parliament, in light of new technological developments? Or do you deny that?

Thank you, dear colleague. You said, and I quote you here: 'this debate is about everything that the left does not like', which then on the opposite, I think means that you, as a politician from the right, like what this debate is about. So I have to ask the question, do you like AI-generated child pornography? Do you like pictures of women that were generated without their consent? And, as you most likely will say 'no' now to that question, follow up question: do you think framing it that way, in light of the actual topic of this debate, is in accordance with the dignity of this House?

Mr President, dear people of Europe, I join in the expressions of solidarity and condolences for the tragic railway accident in Andalusia. Humanitarian aid is not a secondary gesture, it touches the core of the European idea of solidarity. In a world marked by wars, climate crises and forced displacement, solidarity is not naivety, it is responsibility. Europe exists today because after the destruction we decide to look not only at what separates us, but at what unites us, which is something simple and profound: our humanity. "Help" does not mean weakness, it means recognizing that human dignity has no borders.

I hope, rapporteur, that you are not too sad that it's just you, me and the Commissioner speaking. Dear people of Europe, I want to explicitly align myself with the analysis of our rapporteur, Mr Van Overtveldt, because the independence of central banks is not an abstract economic preference. It's a hard learned lesson from European history. Independent central banks protect price stability. They anchor inflation expectations and they shield monetary policy from short term political pressure. The European Central Bank is a clear example of this principle in practice. Its independence is enshrined in Article 130 TFEU and its primary mandate, price stability, is deliberately narrow. Why? Because once governments can directly influence monetary policy, inflation becomes a political tool and citizens pay the price. So let us be clear. Protecting central bank independence is not technocratic dogma. It is a precondition for economic stability, social cohesion and democratic credibility. And this is why this report matters.

Madam President, dear people of Europe, last year I did something new: I founded my first company. After all, every Member of the European Parliament who takes themselves seriously apparently needs a side hustle. Together with a few close friends, we founded a company that organises raves – techno, electronic music, long nights, short mornings. And let me tell you, nothing kills the spirit of electronic music faster than European bureaucracy: registrations at the trade office, entries on company registers, contract licences and, of course, the existential question, the legal form. And then came the real nightmare. Like every decent rave organiser, we wanted to work across borders. We wanted to work internationally. What followed was a regulatory disaster. So, when I read the report of Mr Repasi, I felt truly understood. We are not there yet. We still have a long way to go, but this report is a serious and necessary step towards a more innovative, more realistic and finally more functional single market – and for European entrepreneurs, that matters.

Mr President, dear people of Europe, I would like to take this final debate as an opportunity to address our citizens, to address you up there, and also the ones behind me who can unfortunately not see me today. I think the Commissioner said a very important thing: humanitarian aid workers go where humanity failed. But why do we fail? We fail because of a lack of love, because of a lack of kindness and solidarity to the people around us, to the people in need. We are now approaching Christmas, which is for many people in Europe and many people in the world a festival of love, a day or days to remember that love matters and that through religion, through philosophy, through any set of values, you can find love for other human beings. And this is the most important thing. We can do a lot of legislation – and we will do – but in the end, it's you. It's the people who need to love, show love, be loved every day. Merry Christmas.

Madam President, thank you, dear colleague, that you accepted my blue card. I listened very carefully, and I agree with you that Members of the European Parliament being a mouthpiece for Russian propaganda is one of the biggest dangers that we have. Unfortunately, one of the biggest dangers that we have in that regard is one colleague that we have from your country, Mr Braun. I think we all know that terrible things he does over and over again, that he says over and over again. So my question is, what disciplinary measures, above what we already have in this European Parliament, could we impose to fight against stuff like that?

Madam President, dear people of Europe, the 2030 consumer agenda speaks not to theory, but to daily life. We must remember that behind this document there is a family struggling with rising prices, a young person misled online or a small business losing out to unfair competition. Our goal is to address people's real needs, to build a market that protects, empowers and informs both digitally and sustainably. Let us ban manipulative algorithms. Let us ensure fair access to sustainable products. Let us make it easier for people to repair, reuse and reclaim value. Every product should be safe. Every online transaction fair. Every consumer respected. This is not bureaucracy. This is trust. And trust is the currency of a resilient, people-centred Europe. Let us make consumer protection not just a policy, but a promise. Dear colleagues, this speech was written for me by my intern, Evgeny, and I would like to take this opportunity before Christmas to remind all of you to be thankful and that without our team, we are nothing.

Mr President, dear people of Europe, I am so happy that most of us support the European democratic path for future generations. And I am also happy that there are so many people who share this European democratic path against all odds – brave Ukrainian, Moldovan and Georgian people who are facing autocrats on this path, as trolls try to block Europe's future. Law on foreign agents copied from Moscow, human rights violations copied from Moscow: this path led Georgia into turmoil, and not the commitment of people defending democracy. That goes to you, Ms Firmenich, or to you, Mr (gesturing to another Member). The civil society in Georgia needs our real support. Let's strengthen our cooperation with them; let's build on their participation in the EuroNest Parliamentary Assembly. We need to act swiftly. We need to act strategically. We need to act bravely, as Georgian people are fighting for their freedom while there is still time.

Mr President, dear people of Europe, in a heated debate like we had today in this plenary and that I myself also was a part of, I think it is very important to understand that certain aspects are not to be politicised. The question of if a Member State of the European Union is breaching Union law and needs to be punished for that, is not a political question. One colleague said we just have a problem with Orbán because he is a right‑wing politician. While I do not agree with many, if not all, of Orban's policies, that is not the problem. The problem is not that Orbán is a right‑wing politician. The problem is not that he has conservative positions. The problem with Orbán is that his friends have all the powerful positions in Hungary. His friends have all the money and he is using EU money for stuff like building a bench in front of his private residence. That is the problem and that is what we need to focus on. We cannot allow the extremists and the populists to politicise proceedings like this.

So, first of all, the beauty of the European Union is that even if your culture becomes a minority culture – which will not happen because I think your people like to have children from all what I know and you will raise your children in your ways, which I think you want to do – even then, you will be protected by the rules and the laws of the European Union as a minority culture. Second thing, to say we are not ready and we do not have a time is the worst argument I have ever heard against that ever closer Union. We are ready. My generation is ready. The majority of this House is ready. Just because you are not ready, that does not mean Europe is not ready.

Thank you, dear colleague, that you have accepted my blue card. I was just wondering, in your speech, you complained about how this Union grows and the competences of the Union grow, and how the Union also protects certain things, how you can bring this together with two simple facts that are stated within the Treaties that this Union is built on. The first principle is the ever closer union, which is explicitly mentioned in the Union Treaties, which explicitly says that the Member States shift competences more and more to an ever closer union. And the second one – and I will even tell you the numbers, Article 2 – where the basic values of the Union, which is inclusion, which is liberty, which is protection of minorities, are included, that this is also what the EU stands for. So, how does this fit together in your argumentation? Thank you.