Christian Ehler
Member of the European Parliament · PPE · DE
“Mr President, before I start, to put some things into proportion: in Germany, the biggest net payer in Europe, the average taxpayer pays EUR 240 for Europe a year. EUR 240. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't spend money properly, but we should put that in proportion.”
“We lie to the people to show them in a direction that's very problematic for future generations. In terms of the proposal, just shortly: I think the proposal is referring, rightly, to the need for investments in Europe. It's strengthening the investment part. It's painful because 'more of the same' might not be the motto for that.”
“And looking to the Council, we had been always strong when we, in the 90s, had been delivering on our economy through the common market. But the common market is the free flow of goods, services and capital, and it works just for goods. It doesn't work for services and it doesn't work for capital.”
“Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it might be a little bit of a strange expression, but sometimes I feel that the President of the European Commission is the only man in the room. I mean, what we talk about is – and I am looking to the Council on Thursday – we need a deepening of the European market. We don't have to repair.”
“Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioners, I think the privilege of the EPP is that Siegfried Mureşan has been laying down the policies of a united EPP. We're not advocating our little things; we're looking for a balanced budget, indeed looking for the clarity of the budget.”
“Wir müssen uns überlegen, das ist die offene Frage – da blicken wir natürlich auf die Kommission, ich weiß, Sie arbeiten dran: Wir müssen uns an eine Exportstrategie machen. Wie gehen wir mit Exportprodukten um? Das ist so das missing Link in der ganzen Geschichte.”
The complete record
Every one of 14 lines we hold for Christian Ehler, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account.
“We lie to the people to show them in a direction that's very problematic for future generations. In terms of the proposal, just shortly: I think the proposal is referring, rightly, to the need for investments in Europe. It's strengthening the investment part. It's painful because 'more of the same' might not be the motto for that. And we have to prioritise: Horizon, ECF, investments in future, investment in technology, in infrastructure, in defence. And we can explain that to the European citizens. They want that. But what I have to say is that we have to really get in a granularity, because what the Commission wants, with this 100 % flexibility, is a cheque blanche, and that we can't grant. 2-0086-0000”
“Mr President, before I start, to put some things into proportion: in Germany, the biggest net payer in Europe, the average taxpayer pays EUR 240 for Europe a year. EUR 240. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't spend money properly, but we should put that in proportion. And I don't want to go into this shame‑and‑blame game, but Poland is a net‑receiver country. And for good reason, because the German taxpayer profits from Europe, as the Europeans do, as the Polish citizens do. So we shouldn't mislead the Europeans about the cost of Europe. We have to spend that money effectively. And I think this report contributes to that. But we should put that in proportion, because using a budget debate for anti-Europeanism is very problematic. We lie to the people, not to their benefit.”
“And looking to the Council, we had been always strong when we, in the 90s, had been delivering on our economy through the common market. But the common market is the free flow of goods, services and capital, and it works just for goods. It doesn't work for services and it doesn't work for capital. So in a way, all what we do – repair, budgets, deregulation – is all repairing. If we would agree – independently from the United States, Trump and so on – to deepening this market, that would be the biggest contribution to the European economy. I ask the Council not to be ideological, national or hesitant. We have to get our needs together. We have to deepen the market and not repair and not ask for obscure 'made in Europe', not to ask for more subsidies, not to fear deregulation. We have to go to the substance. 3-0022-0000”
“Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it might be a little bit of a strange expression, but sometimes I feel that the President of the European Commission is the only man in the room. I mean, what we talk about is – and I am looking to the Council on Thursday – we need a deepening of the European market. We don't have to repair. We don't have to repeat what we had been formulating in the trenches. We do not have to go to these black-and-white things. I mean, looking to the Greens, deregulation – a taboo word? I mean, we want to build grids and we have to have simplification. Otherwise, we are not going to build grids. Looking to the Socialists, is competition shattering the social model? No, but the unions fear you, because the unions ask us for jobs and competitiveness and not for ideology.”
“We have to have that openness and not this kind of top-down centralised theory. 'Yes' to efficiency, but 'no' to this dream of centralised steering of the European economy. 3-0084-0000”
“Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioners, I think the privilege of the EPP is that Siegfried Mureşan has been laying down the policies of a united EPP. We're not advocating our little things; we're looking for a balanced budget, indeed looking for the clarity of the budget. We're granting, and we do think, that more of the same might not be the future. We have to grant flexibility, but we will ask the Commission to resist – while having that flexibility – that a common debt fund is refurbishing the old dreams of top-down steering, the 'super-bazooka', the top-down industry policy. This is not the way to go – neither in industry policy nor on the other funds. What we need is flexibility, but we need also the courage of the Commission that innovation needs to be designed by stakeholders.”
“Aber wir müssen auch einen Mechanismus haben, sozusagen, der belegt, dass, wenn wir die allowances herausnehmen, die Funktionalität des Instruments gegeben ist. Und das könnten wir über KPIs tun. Und insofern bieten wir Ihnen da die Zusammenarbeit an und sehen das als ersten wichtigen und guten Schritt in die richtige Richtung. 1-0246-0000”
“Wir müssen uns überlegen, das ist die offene Frage – da blicken wir natürlich auf die Kommission, ich weiß, Sie arbeiten dran: Wir müssen uns an eine Exportstrategie machen. Wie gehen wir mit Exportprodukten um? Das ist so das missing Link in der ganzen Geschichte. Und wir müssen uns natürlich an einem gewissen Punkt fragen, und das wird dann meines Erachtens auch ein CBAM 2 sein: Wie gehen wir mit nachgelagerten Sektoren um, also CBAM-Stoffen, die verarbeitet sind? Also Stahl ist Stahl, aber wie gehen wir mit weißer Ware um, mit Waschmaschinen usw. Ich glaube, wenn wir die KPIs entwickeln, dann ist es auch plausibel, einen Automatismus zu haben, der einfach gekoppelt ist an die Funktionalität des Instruments. Funktioniert das Instrument, nehmen wir die allowances raus.”
“Vielleicht hilft eine Versachlichung nach den Apologeten des Untergangs. Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar! Wir müssen... die Vorschläge, die jetzt von der Kommission auf dem Tisch liegen, sind sozusagen – glaube ich – ein Anreichern von CBAM, was nötig ist, was auch gut ist – gerade die De-Minimis-Regel wird vielen helfen. Wir müssen uns aber schon noch ein bisschen überlegen, was das Design von CBAM betrifft. Also es steht natürlich die Frage im Raum, was definiert denn, inwieweit CBAM für unsere Industrien in der Transformation Schutz bietet? Also müssen wir KPIs haben, die das auch ein Stück weit verifizieren. Wie messen und woran messen wir den Effekt von CBAM? Das ist auch – glaube ich – eine Terminologie, die wir uns mal überlegen müssen.”
“We have to care about the capital market in the Union. We have to care about additional proposals which we have been avoiding so far. We need CO2 storage. We need a realistic system to make it market based. We need to end the ideological discussion about hydrogen. We need practically all the hydrogen we can get. And I think the positive note that with the steel pact we got a realistic proposal on green hydrogen on the table will help the industries. So let's go back to business. Let's go back to reality. Let's understand that this is the core of our industry, and not get under another impression. America is not the best example for these industries. 3-0112-0000 Catch-the-eye procedure 3-0113-0000”
“Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, let's end the discussion a little bit on a positive tone. I think there is some air of realism, and the energy-intensive industries are the core and the backbone of the European industries. On the other hand, decarbonisation is a generational task and it is also leading to new investments and it's also based on new technologies, and Europe needs that. On the other hand, we have to tackle the conflict of ambitions. Not all sustainability goals will be reached and that will be a painful discussion. So let's get much more practical from my point of view: we need more and faster permitting. We need affordable energy through market-based and smarter use of the mechanisms and in terms of infrastructure investments. We need more investments in decarbonisation.”
“Es ist nicht geholfen, wenn Stahlarbeitsplätze auf Kosten der verarbeitenden Industrie erhalten bleiben. Aber das bedeutet einen neuen Realismus. Ich glaube, dafür ist heute der Startschuss gesetzt. 3-0020-0000”
“Auch die Zusage – und jetzt wird es praktisch – der Kommission, Regeln für kohlenarmen Wasserstoff praktikabel und technologieneutral zu präsentieren, ist unverzichtbar als Signal für die Stahlindustrie und den Metallstandort in Europa. Ich schub da auch in Richtung Herrn Eickhout. Da hoffen wir auf die Unterstützung aller Parteien im Parlament, dass wir realistische Delegated Acts bekommen. Die seit Langem versprochene Exportlösung für CBAM muss schnell präsentiert werden und in ein Gesetz gegossen werden. Auch die mittlerweile seit 2020 angekündigten Leitmärkte für grünen Stahl dürfen nicht mehr länger politische Worthülsen bleiben. Auch da brauchen wir konkrete Vorschläge, werden sie aber auch selber vorlegen. Schlussendlich müssen wir auch an der Wettbewerbsfähigkeit von metallverarbeitenden Sektoren arbeiten.”
“Frau Präsidentin, meine Damen und Herren! Ich glaube, in schwierigen Zeiten ist heute der Steel Act ein gutes Zeichen. Allerdings, wenn ich unsere Freunde von der AfD sehe, deren populistischen Freunde in Amerika die Welt in einen Protektionismus-Krieg führen, dann sieht man ja, was die industriepolitischen Versprechen der Rechten international bedeuten. Wenn Populisten in Amerika regieren, stürzen wir die Welt in einen Welthandelskrieg. Ich bin mal gespannt, wie dann in der Realität ihre Politik aussah. Ich will sie mir aber gar nicht vorstellen. Letzte Woche hat die Kommission weitere Maßnahmen angekündigt. Der Steel Safeguard wird für die Laufzeit bis Sommer 2026 weiter gestärkt.”