Debate contributions by Volker SCHNURRBUSCH

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! It is not often that we praise the EU, but air passenger rights are among the positive exceptions. It is good that customers can rely on airlines to claim adequate compensation in the event of delays. It is good that Parliament has opposed the Commission's and the Council's attempts to soften this rule. It is good that exemptions from liability are clearly defined when flights fail. With all understanding for an industry that is affected by Corona and the Green Deal It is unacceptable for passengers to be constantly charged new fees, for example for hand luggage or check-in. Flying has become a popular sport, despite the incantations of the left-green eco-warriors. Passenger numbers are going up, new airlines are on the market, prices are affordable. The ESN Group is also committed to consumer protection on this point and will vote with full conviction in favour of Mr Novakov's report tomorrow, thank you very much.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, when we talk about fishing opportunities, we must first of all focus on the sustainability of our coastal communities. Because it is thousands of small scale fishers who carry a disproportionate burden of European policy today. Over the past 20 years, the European fleet has shrunk by almost one third in capacity, yet Europe imports 70 % of the seafood it consumes. This is not sustainability; this is dependency. Global competitors like China continue to expand their distant water fleets, often resisting control of illegal, unreported or unregulated fishing. While our fisheries face the strictest standards in the world, many others just do not. The idea of protecting 30 % of marine areas within the EU may be politically appealing, but in the real world it risks accelerating the decline of the very communities we claim to protect. Sustainability cannot be dictated by arbitrary percentages disconnected from reality. The opportunities for our fisheries are grim, especially in the Baltic, and the EU is part of the problem and not the solution.

Mr President! What is a Democracy Shield? What values do you want to protect? If you really wanted to protect our values, first of all you should protect our external borders, because uncontrolled mass immigration puts our citizens, our institutions and our cohesion most at risk. They talk about journalists at risk, but remain silent about the journalists killed in the Gaza Strip. They have the best relations with Turkey, even though journalists end up in prison there if they criticize Erdoğan. They talk about independent media, but only finance those that promote the EU. They warn against election manipulation, but intervene even in Romania and Moldova. They want to protect democracy, but they support a corrupt regime in Ukraine. We do not need a democratic shield from this EU, because this Commission itself has a democratic deficit.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen! It sounds too good to be true. The Council speaks of simplification, of relief for small and medium-sized enterprises, of competitiveness. The message seems clear: Market economy before planned economy. But is that really so? Behind all these fine words, on closer inspection, there is still the plan to transform the economies in line with the green transition, which is to be pursued, even though it has already caused the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs, an exodus of our companies and the highest energy prices in the world. The green transition is poisonous to the economy. Who makes the wind turbines? Who the PV systems? China. Just like battery cars with a devastating life cycle assessment. They want to force forwarders to document emissions for each individual journey. And that's what you call simplification? We will not believe you until you let your words be followed by deeds and oppose the economic decline of Europe. The omnibus process, which is being voted on today, is a first step – it can be a first step – and then we will see who is behind our entrepreneurs and workers and who is not.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen! The Media Directive aims to protect European producers. That's good, because many companies have a hard time standing up to U.S. competition. It is therefore correct that films should not be treated like steel or cars in the customs dispute with America. But it is wrong to see U.S. program providers only as a threat. After all, it has long been Amazon, Netflix and others who have films and series produced in Europe by European teams and creatives. European content is also being transported, so we can be happy about this enrichment. Instead, we in Europe have to ask ourselves why we need quota regulations at all. Is it perhaps because our self-twisting is too overloaded with diversity requirements, that reality is distorted, that the index finger is also raised in the fictional? We have a vibrant producer landscape in Europe that is worth preserving and promoting. But please not according to political, but artistic or journalistic criteria. This resolution does not bring much new and should probably only be a sign against Trump. The most important sentence is: Cultural policy is a matter for the Member States. And that's where it should stay!

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen! What happened recently in Rome is reminiscent of the darkest times of mafia terror in Italy. Sigfrido Ranucci must fear for life and limb because he is involved in the machinations of the powerful and the mafia in his investigative magazine Report uncovered. He is one of the thousands of media people who are under threat worldwide. They are arrested, abused or even killed – in China, Turkey, Iran, Ukraine and most recently in Gaza. Ranucci became known for his shocking report on the US Army's covert massacre in Fallujah. No medium was able to report on it at the time. This is exactly what happened in Gaza, where there is an allegation that the Israeli army specifically killed journalists. More than 200 people were killed there. The EU has been silent on this, as have many governments that claim to defend Western values. Journalists must not be targeted by governments, armies or criminals. We need courageous reporters so that empowered citizens do not rely on state propaganda – including and especially the propaganda of our alleged friends or in this EU.

Mr President! The European Commission wants to force Google to pay a fine of almost 3 billion euros. The allegation reads as follows: Self-preferentiality in online advertising. And indeed, the tech giant is gaining clear advantages at the expense of publishers. Therefore, an American court will soon decide whether Google needs to outsource its advertising subsidiary or change its rules. The Commission would therefore be well advised to wait for this procedure and then threaten to pay penalties. For years, the EU has not been able to counterbalance the US giants in the field of digital platforms. But instead of whining and punishing, the EU should rather provide a framework that allows innovative entrepreneurs to have a European Google or Meta. Instead, clever creatives are leaving Europe in droves because they are being driven out by this very EU policy, too high taxes and the cost of living. Yes, we also need fairness for other providers of online advertising. But above all, we need a Europe as a continent of opportunities and not of prohibitions.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen. The core of the EU is the common market. But what does this Commission do? She builds one hurdle at a time. It would be nice if we also had a Silicon Valley. But instead of complaining that few US companies dominate the tech market and platforms, the EU's role would be to foster the entrepreneurial spirit that made this dominance possible in the first place. Why does venture capital flow to California and Texas and not to Germany and France? Why do IT professionals emigrate from Asia to the US and not here? Why do we experience the exodus of our programmers? Because this Commission is anti-economic and anti-growth; because it creates ever-increasing bureaucratic hurdles; because it sees markets not as an exchange of ideas, but as something unregulated that needs to be monitored. Therefore, it invents tools such as the Digital Markets Act and the Digital Services Act. The EU wants to control, it blocks entrepreneurial freedom, and it wants to censor freedom of expression online so that only its own propaganda is disseminated – as in Romania, as in Moldova, as in Georgia and, most recently, in Ukraine. We reject that.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen! If Mrs von der Leyen demands that the industry should now build small battery cars, then this is nothing less than an interference with entrepreneurial freedom and the market. We'll tell you which cars are made for whom. That's not the least of her concerns! She has already failed as a multiple minister in Germany. It is responsible for one of the biggest scandals in the EU. Please don't get involved in our car industry. What every entrepreneur needs from politics is as little interference as possible and as much planning security as possible. Both the climate hysterics and the Green deal‐Young people have been sustainably destroyed – keyword climate neutrality, keyword burner-off. Industry and politics have long been rethinking – we have always called for openness to technology – because citizens should decide how they want to move. We stand up for the responsible citizen, for proven technology, for a wide range of drive types and, above all, for a strong automotive industry in Europe, so that we are not overrun by Chinese battery cars.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen! It's not about burgers or labelling, it's about our farmers. It's about the people who provide us with good food every day. Less bureaucracy, more consideration for national characteristics, a realistic handling of environmental regulations - all this we have been demanding for a long time. All of these include the two reports. Many thanks also to the colleagues. Our farmers need a fair contract design, in particular through the obligation to set price, quantity and delivery period in advance. It was precisely these points that were the core demands of last year's farmers' protests, which impressed us all so much. The Common Market Organisation must be accompanied by additional safeguards, transparency obligations and fair negotiation conditions. Only clear rules and controls can ensure that the freedom of contract, which is to be welcomed, is not interpreted unilaterally to the detriment of producers. We will agree with both reports tomorrow, because we stand with our farmers, also and especially in the interest of security of supply in uncertain times.

Madam President, In view of the enormous number of civilians killed in this debate, I would also like to remind you that, according to unconfirmed reports, more than 200 journalists have already been killed in Gaza since Hamas invaded Israel two years ago. The case of five Al Jazeera reporters killed in an Israeli drone attack in August is particularly striking. Because here is the accusation of a targeted killing in the room, which the Israeli military rejects, as in previous cases of this kind. But as long as neutral reporting is not possible, these accusations remain without proof. It is therefore urgent that media representatives are allowed to enter Gaza in order to inform the world public about the conditions there. I therefore call on the Commission and the Council to finally be able to report neutrally from Gaza.

Dear Mr President, Ladies and Gentlemen! Recycling raw materials is a good thing, but one thing is also very clear: When a car arrives at the end of its life cycle is decided solely by the car owner and not by the EU. The automotive sector, which is plagued by climate hysteria, skyrocketing energy prices, supply chain laws and emission quotas, does not need any further intervention from Brussels. The industry needs planning security and no further EU planned economy, certainly not under the label hoax of alleged climate neutrality. Some of the amendments are very useful, and we will agree with them: with regard to fire brigades, caravans, emergency vehicles or classic cars. But that does not change the fact that the whole set of rules is under the premise of so-called climate protection, and there can be no such thing – recycling yes, climate targets no. Exceptions are correct, but the EU is not allowed to determine for any car when it has reached the end of usability. There are specialist workshops for this, and in the end it is the owner who decides whether and when his vehicle is sold, repaired, exported or scrapped. There must be no forced closure by the EU – therefore we will agree to individual amendments but reject the whole proposal. We think it is good that the specialist workshops are particularly mentioned here, including SMEs, and we also think that the extension of deadlines is right. We will reject the whole proposal in the interests of economic rationality and the interests of all car owners.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen! I come from a region where national minorities are particularly protected. Its ethnic, cultural and linguistic characteristics are worth preserving. They are among the 340 autochthonous minorities with 100 million people contributing to the culture of Europe. They stand for real diversity and not any absurd parades under the rainbow flag. This citizens' initiative aims to ensure that national minorities are better taken into account in cohesion policy. It is a shame that this Commission rejected a similar citizens' initiative four years ago. Whether it is the Hungarian minority in Romania or the German minorities in Silesia, South Tyrol or Transylvania, these cultural treasures must be protected and promoted. Otherwise, the EU's promise to ensure equal living conditions is nothing more than mere talk. By the way: The country in Europe that most violates the rights of national minorities is Ukraine. This is another reason why Ukraine has nothing to look for in the EU.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen! The European Media Freedom Act It's a Trojan horse, a mockery pack. Under the pretext of protecting the users of the media, this EU wants to introduce more and more control mechanisms and censors through the back door. We as ESN strongly reject this restriction on freedom of expression and media freedom. The network – the elderly will remember – has been hailed as a major step towards democratisation. At last, states without free media were able to talk to each other. But the censors of all stripes have long since restricted this freedom and the EU continues to play along cheerfully. Ms Barley of the Social Democrats spoke of free media – her party comrade Faeser recently banned a free medium in Germany because it had reported critically of the government. The public service media are precisely those in Germany that serve as a propaganda channel for the federal governments and narrow the corridor of opinion ever further. We as ESN are for freedom of expression, for media pluralism and against this act.