Christine Anderson, July 23, 2026, Charging Stations

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, E-003112/2026 Commission.

Written Question.

On 24 February 2026, the partly publicly-owned German energy company EnBW concluded a multiannual agreement with XCharge for high-power charging stations. EnBW operates more than 8 000 fast-charging points and plans to expand its network to up to 20 000 by 2030.

XCharge was founded in Beijing. According to its US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings, its chief executive officer (CEO) and its chair/chief technology officer (CTO) control approximately 81.9 % of the voting power through Class B shares, while holding approximately 31.2 % of the share capital.

Operators of recharging points are expressly covered by the energy provisions of the Network and Information Systems (NIS 2) Directive, subject to its scope criteria. The Commission has also identified strategic dependencies, unauthorised access to operational data and remotely triggered disruptions as risks arising from connected energy equipment. It has restricted EU funding for projects using solar inverters from high-risk suppliers.

1. Beyond the general cybersecurity and supply-chain obligations under the NIS 2 Directive, does EU law require the assessment of suppliers’ ultimate control, third-country legal obligations, data access and remote software-update or maintenance capabilities?

2. Can charging equipment comply with the EU cybersecurity framework where persons exercising decisive control over the supplier retain remote-access or update capabilities and are subject to the laws of a third country presenting elevated security risks?

3. Will the Commission apply supplier-security and funding restrictions to networked charging infrastructure equivalent to those applied to solar inverters, or explain why charging networks should be treated differently?

Christine Anderson, May 19, 2026, EU Veto Right

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, P10 CRE-REV(2026)05-19(2-0150-0000).

Mr. President, history teaches us something important: political systems tend to become more bureaucratic when confidence in their political leadership dwindles. Once democratic trust declines, institutions attempt to compensate through procedures, frameworks and mechanisms. Bureaucracy, however, must not ever replace legitimacy. As Hannah Arendt warned, bureaucracy easily becomes the rule of nobody, a system in which decisions are made everywhere, while responsibility is nowhere to be found.

An EU without the veto right of Member States would slide down a very dangerous slippery slope, which we are actually seeing already. A Union that struggles to build democratic consent falls back on permanent crisis, government governance and an ever-increasing institutional expansion, while gradually hacking away at the very roots on which it rests – the sovereignty of its Member States.

But Europe does not need a permanent machinery of governance, nor does it need a foreign policy detached from its nations and peoples. It needs democratic legitimacy, and it needs accountability, and it needs leaders capable of building consensus between sovereign nations. Because once unanimity disappears, the EU ceases to be a union of equal nations, cooperating freely. It becomes something fundamentally different, a union subjecting sovereign nations to its rule – a foreign rule. History has seen such systems before – Rome, the Soviet Union. Hit the books, read up on it and draw the lessons.

Christine Anderson, March 9, 2026, Political Speech Regulation

EU Parliament, March 9, 2026 

Written questions to EU Commission E-001160/2026 

Documents disclosed in a report from the US House Judiciary Committee show that, as part of the EU Internet Forum, the Commission promoted a handbook of borderline content in relation to violent extremism that explicitly classifies ‘populist rhetoric’, ‘anti-EU content’, ‘anti-elite content’, ‘political satire’, ‘meme subculture’ and ‘anti-LGBTIQ content’ as problematic categories to be monitored or limited by platforms, even though these are in themselves lawful forms of political or social expression. 

1. How does the Commission justify equating lawful Eurosceptic or anti-establishment speech and political satire with ‘violent extremism’ in an official handbook, and on what precise legal basis did it urge platforms to use these categories for content moderation beyond what is strictly illegal under EU or national law? 

2. What safeguards did the Commission put in place to ensure that such guidance would not result in systematic discrimination against peaceful opposition movements, conservative viewpoints on migration and gender, or satirical criticism of EU institutions and policies?

Christine Anderson, November 17, 2025, Digital Omnibus

EU Parliament, Brussels, November 17, 2025, P-004565/2025 Commission. 

Written Question. 

The Commission has signaled that the forthcoming Digital Omnibus may introduce changes to concepts of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) such as compatible use, purpose limitation and secondary processing. Since the GDPR forms the legal foundation for the European digital identity wallet, digital travel credentials (DTCs) and other identity and biometric systems, any modification of these concepts could materially affect the guarantees on which these systems were legislated. 

1. Will the Commission explicitly confirm that any expansion of ‘compatible use’ under the omnibus will not enable personal, identity-linked or biometric data collected under the revised Electronic Identification and Trust Services Regulation (eIDAS 2.0) or for DTCs to be repurposed for analytics, AI training, or security or intelligence objectives? 

2. How will the Commission ensure that identity or travel-related data cannot be further processed beyond the purposes that were originally authorised by sectoral legislation, even if the horizontal GDPR framework becomes more permissive? 

3. Does the Commission commit to maintaining strict purpose limitation for all identity and authentication systems irrespective of any omnibus-related GDPR adjustments?

Christine Anderson, July 9, 2025, EU Stockpiling

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, P10 CRE-REV(2025)07-09(3-0405-0000). 

Herr President. 

In Soviet communism also was stockpiling managed – giant, secret storehouses full of grain, fuel and medical supplies which often remained unused. Now the EU Commission, under the covering of resilience, builds up stocks inaccessible for citizens, administered by non-elected elites, according to guidelines for which no one has voted. The Russian dissident Vladimir Bukowski already warned of this rising EUdSSR, a bureaucratic super-state with economic planning as per a Soviet model. One just thinks of the mRNA injections debacle. 215 million doses disposed of, having decayed. Four billion euros simply gone – thanks to the EU Commission. As always, the reckoning is paid by the taxpayer – families, workers, farmers – while inflation shoots up to the heights and supply chains collapse. Europe requires freedom so as to build, to trade, and to prosper. Crisis provisions, yes; but um Gottes willen, no storage economy under Brussels incompetence. Here, solely and alone are demanded the member states. 

 

[trans: tem]

Christine Anderson, November 27, 2024, Ursula von der Leyen

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, P10 CRE-REV(2024)11-27(3-0025-0000.). 

Frau President. 

Donald Trump presents his new cabinet: Highly competent patriots determined to Make America Great Again, determined to again make policy for the people. And what do we get? You, Frau von der Leyen –hearty thanks. The wrecking ball which mercilessly demolishes all that made the European peoples strong. I want a Europe which is strong, sovereign and successful; a Europe of success, a Europe of freedom, of democracy and of the state of law. With you, we receive nothing of all that. 

Frau von der Leyen, you alone would be bad enough. Yet the prospective commissioners which you have gathered, they are the purest wrecking crew as far as freedom and democracy and the state of law are concerned. For once make an accounting, Frau von der Leyen, of your unspeakable mRNA vaccine delivery contract. Otherwise, your commissioners proposal can take its hat. My delegation will not support it. Now, regrettably, I am not allowed to call you corrupt, else my microphone again be turned off – but even so: Frau von der Leyen, you are corrupt to the last fiber of your existence! 

 

[trans: tem]

 

Christine Anderson, March 20, 2024, Democracy Promotion Act

EU Parliament, Written Question to EU Commission E-000861/2024. 

Germany is in the process of bringing in a ‘Democracy Promotion Act’ designed to establish additional tools for promoting democracy. There are considerable concerns, however, as regards the act’s constitutionality and whether or not it runs counter to the EU’s core values. The criticism centres around potential government overreach and the creation of structures that threaten to curtail the freedom and independence of civil society in breach of the principles of freedom, democracy and the rule of law enshrined in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU). 

1. What is the Commission’s assessment of the compatibility of Germany’s Democracy Promotion Act with the EU Treaties, particularly in view of the reservations raised by the Bundestag’s parliamentary research service concerning its potential unconstitutionality and violations of the EU’s core values laid down in Article 2 TEU? 

2. Does it consider there to be a risk that the Democracy Promotion Act would quieten or silence opposition voices and critical civil society representatives? How does this square with the principles of freedom of expression and democratic pluralism enshrined in the EU Treaties? 

Christine Anderson, April 8, 2021, Social Networks – International Control

AfD Kompakt, April 8, 2021

Even to consider controlling and guiding the social networks is a clear indication of a totalitarian disposition. That Heiko Maas has one such, he already showed as creator of the network enforcement act. He now seeks international collaboration with other governments.

The plan goes beyond a sheer censorship, which is already bad enough: Governments in the future shall help to form algorithms that will distinguish which entries by internet users will be displayed and which not. Naturally, this is directed primarily at disfavored opinions which displease the governing globalists. Already these days, objective facts will be quite subjectively evaluated as disinformation. Legitimate resistance [Berechtiger Widerstand] will be nipped in the bud, whether by means of censorship or state manipulation of algorithms on the internet, or by restrictive Corona measures which force the people into isolation, into the street.

The social networks, such as Facebook, should not play along with this game. With promises of the free exchange of opinion, they have brought themselves to a position of monopoly. They now appear, on the basis of their involvement with government policy, to subsequently change the conditions. This abuse of market power needs to be prevented. Anything other would not be compatible with the fundamentals of a free society.

 

[trans: tem]