Speeches

Dear Madam President, With regard to the migration situation, I would like to ask you if you can get the news that in non-EU countries, such as Serbia, in cities and villages near the border, almost every week there are armed massacres and shootings between migrants, which threaten the life and safety of the local population, such as last week in the parking lot of a shopping centre in Subotica. Serbia is a candidate country, hoping to become a member of the EU, and has therefore been trying to meet EU expectations on migration issues for years. However, the effects of the misguided EU migration policy are being felt by the local population, as the number of illegal migrants has continued to increase in recent years and, as we can see, they are increasingly arriving at the EU border armed. What does Madam President say to the citizens of Serbia whose daily shopping poses a threat to their lives due to the migration conditions at the external borders? It is time for the Commission to finally make the security of European citizens a priority.

Concerning the topic of the 2023 budget, there are many question marks and concerns, but I would like to make three important points, which should be taken into consideration during the forthcoming interinstitutional negotiations. Given the increasing number of finalised partnership agreements, the level of payments in the field of cohesion must be increased horizontally, in order to cater for the needs of the incoming national programmes. Secondly, looking at the terrible drought that hit Europe, our farmers need more help and support than ever before. We can be certain that the European Union Solidarity Fund will receive a record number of claims so the least we can do is to fully mobilise the annual total amount of the Fund. Finally, our closest neighbours, the Western Balkan countries, have also faced serious difficulties: skyrocketing energy prices and terrible drought. To demonstrate our support, we should increase their IPA funds for 2023.

Mr. President, please. In recent years, we have stressed on numerous occasions that the budget of the European Union should not be planned in the wrong way in the current war and severe economic circumstances. The farmers' protests rocking Western European capitals and the transport companies closing the eastern borders all call for change. Yet, when we read through Parliament's priorities for the year 25, there are still divisive themes, such as the continued implementation of the greening packages or the unrestricted admission of Ukrainian agricultural products. We can see how these are detrimental to the industry and economic performance of several major Member States, and we have also seen the views of European farmers on these exaggerated and damaging proposals during the last weeks' European farmers' demonstrations. The EU budget must help to solve the problems, so change is needed in Brussels to set budgetary priorities that are truly in line with the interests of the European people and the European economy.

Madam President, I'm sorry. When the House began to debate the Commission's amendment proposal on driving licences, objectives were set, such as increasing road safety and making driving a profession more attractive to younger generations, not least to remedy the increasingly worrying shortage of drivers. However, as is often the case in the European Parliament, things have gone sideways. It started with the idea of a B+ driver's license, which caused so much outrage among citizens that it was immediately removed from the agenda. Now we have the proposal for eight T-type tractor licenses, which have nothing to do with improving road safety, but which represent a significant bureaucratic and financial surplus for farmers, which in the current situation would only be an additional fuel for the fire. Proposals that are estranged from such a reality only reinforce the feeling among citizens that something is wrong and that a change is also needed in the European Parliament. The opportunity will be given in the elections to the European Parliament.

Mr. President, please. The Fidesz delegation will support the approval of the MFF agreement, as at the meeting of the European Council Hungary was given clear guarantees that the EU funds to which we are entitled should not be adversely affected by the amendments and should continue to be used only by Hungary. In the current context, it is important to strengthen Europe geopolitically, the key element of which is the enlargement of the EU to the Western Balkans. This is why we are also particularly in favour of the reform and growth instrument, which is part of the MFF. Nevertheless, the successful conclusion of the MFF revision should not obscure the fact that the disbursement of the instruments due to the Member States in this budgetary cycle remains outrageously slow due to the Commission’s error and the risk of further increase of the increased initial interest costs has not disappeared. I therefore call on the Commission to speed up payments in order to avoid the need for another MFF revision and Member State payments before 2027.

Madam President, Commissioner, it is very unfortunate that here in the European Parliament, the same recipe is being used against Serbia that has been used against Hungary since 2010, where the leftist liberal opposition tries to turn domestic political failures into success not through democratic elections, but with external help. But just as this tactic failed, in case of Hungary, it won’t work in the case of Serbia either. But there is a difference. Hungary is already a Member State, while Serbia has not yet joined the EU. But as we can see, the discrediting campaigns have already begun here in the European Parliament. In recent years, the image and credibility of the EU has greatly decreased in all countries of the Western Balkans, not just because of the hesitancy or rigidity of the Union, but also because of these overly critical, biased opinions. We in the Fidesz delegation are convinced that these debates are counterproductive and damaging, and this House must show more respect and understanding towards Serbia.

Dear Mr President, Commissioner, I congratulate the negotiators and I am pleased that this time they have put the interests of citizens and European businesses first, because in this difficult economic situation, predictability is paramount. However, it is precisely predictability that has been compromised by the fact that the initial negotiating position of the left-wing majority in Parliament would have linked the adoption of the annual budget to a revision of the multiannual framework budget. During the negotiations, Hungary's position was that the annual budget should not be a hostage to the revision of the MFF. The fact that the negotiating parties finally managed to reach an agreement on the 24th budget within the usual deadline proves that the Hungarian position was the right one and that the tactics of parliamentary pressure failed. Tomorrow's vote on next year's budget will ensure that important EU funds for the European economy, such as agricultural subsidies or cohesion instruments, will continue to be disbursed next year.

Dear Mr President, Indeed, the 2024 budget in its current form will be one of the shortest-lived EU budgets in itself and will depend entirely on the success of the revision of the multiannual framework budget. At the same time, it is very doubtful how Member States will be persuaded to make billions of euro payments again. This is not only about the 50 billion package for Ukraine, but also about the EURI, i.e. covering the increased interest costs of the recovery fund. But we could also talk about spending on migration, or increasing the cost of bureaucracy. So far, Hungary has not benefited from the recovery fund at all, cohesion payments have been suspended and only 1-2 percent of the almost 2 billion euros that the country has spent so far on the protection of its external borders have been reimbursed. Under these circumstances, neither politically nor economically can Hungary be expected to make new payments to the EU budget. Hungary’s economic policy objective is to become a net-paying Member State of the EU budget, but this cannot happen under such conditions and cannot be forced.

Mr. President, please. Unfortunately, I have to say that I am not at all surprised that today we have to argue about truck parking lots. Already years ago, during the negotiations around the mobility package, we drew attention to the fact that the mandatory taking of rest outside the cabin will not be able to work in reality, as even then there was not enough parking and resting places. At that time, these concerns were overcome here in Parliament and in the Commission by the fact that by the time the legislation enters into force, the situation will be resolved quickly with the help of EU grants. But we can see that there has been no change, which is why we are still here today. I would therefore ask the Commission once again to review the legislative framework and come forward with concrete legislative proposals and support instruments to make a swift and effective change in improving the working conditions of professional drivers in order to restore the honour of the profession.

Mr President, Commissioner, the situation is extremely tense and complex. The recent tragic events clearly demonstrate that a solution must be found as quickly as possible. We should discuss the situation and there has to be an impartial and thorough investigation. But all these events are just manifestations, symptoms of a much deeper problem, which is the decade-long unresolved problem of the Serbian community in Kosovo. The layout for a possible solution with the creation of the Community of Serbian Municipalities is already there. Actually, it has been there for a decade, since the Brussels Agreement of 2013. In addition, there are numerous international conventions and charters providing a wider framework to tackle the situation of special communities, which in addition are also obligatory elements of the Copenhagen Criteria needed in the process of European integration. In other words, all the legal elements are there. The political willingness of the European and American mediators is there, and after a decade, the government in Pristina has to make the necessary move.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Solidarity is not a one-way street. We have heard this saying many times over the years from the EU, but unfortunately it seems to be. Ensuring equal access to EU funds should benefit all Member States equally, and this is part of the EU's solidarity. However, in the context of the MFF revision, some EU circles would now expect Hungary to voluntarily make new payments to the EU budget, such as the repayment of increasing interest on recovery programmes, while so far the country has not received a single cent of this fund. Hungary will pay one billion euros to the EU budget this year alone, fulfilling its obligations. At the same time, they owe us three billion euros. Hungarian payments seem to be welcome, but we are still unable to count on the payment of the EU funds that the country is entitled to due to political pressure. In the current economic and political context, the revision of the MFF is of great strategic and political importance, but a return to a true concept of solidarity is needed in order to swiftly conclude the negotiations.

Madam President, I'm sorry. It is very important to make the most of the opportunities offered by smart technologies in all areas of transport. At the same time, technological neutrality and interoperability of systems are key. The situation known from railway management, where the coordination of systems is still ongoing, should not be repeated. There are not so many different kinds of devices that can be installed in the cabins of trucks, nor is it realistic for truck drivers to be burdened with handling them. Simplicity and interoperability should also be sought for passenger traffic. It is also of paramount importance that the opportunities offered by ITS are uniformly accessible throughout the Union, including in rural and less populated regions. That is why I call on the Commission, when drawing up implementing acts, to place particular emphasis on these elements, so that the new legislation does not create new administrative and financial burdens for both transport companies and passengers.

Madam President, I'm sorry. This package is another important element of the framework to stimulate the green transition of transport in the EU. However, it should also be borne in mind that, as far as freight and passenger transport is concerned, it is better to think in terms of geographical Europe. Therefore, the development of transport infrastructure in the Western Balkan countries directly neighbouring the EU is also of paramount importance. The implementation of all this legislation will require significant means, which will also require an increase in EU financial support. However, we must see that the CEF, the Connecting Europe Facility for rail and road development, has been stagnating or even decreasing for years. In view of this year’s budget and the 2024 draft budget, payments from cohesion funds are also at historically low levels. Furthermore, out of the new funds, the Recovery Fund disbursements reached only 160 billion out of 740 after three years and 5 Member States have not yet received any support at all. I would therefore draw attention to the need for consistency between EU financial support schemes and policy objectives in order for the transition to be successful. Otherwise, these goals will only be achieved on paper.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Since 2014, I have followed through all parliamentary reports on Serbia, and this has always been a dynamic, intense and sometimes difficult political process. We followed different phases, fluctuating states and changes in the level of enthusiasm for enlargement at the Commission and in the Member States. At the same time, the European Parliament was typically the EU institution that sought in the strongest terms to speed up the accession process and to strengthen mutual trust and respect between Serbia and the EU, which, however, never excluded the expression of benevolent criticism, if justified by the circumstances. However, mutual trust and respect are rare birds in the European Parliament today, and I am afraid that this report, both with its biased content and its overly critical formulations, will cause lasting damage to relations between Serbia and the European Parliament. The citizens of Serbia deserve much better.

Mr. President, please. Unfortunately, the disbursement of assets from the recovery fund remains extremely slow. At present, only €152 billion out of 780 have been delivered, and there are still five Member States that have not received the amount of pre-financing. This not only casts a negative light on the effectiveness of the recovery fund as a tool for rapid crisis management, but also creates market distortions, as countries that have already received support have gained a substantial competitive advantage. The persistence of such an inequality leads not only to competition problems, but also to a situation of discrimination, where the question arises: how will the Commission make good the damage caused by the delay in granting the aid? But what is most dangerous about the unity of the Union is the long-term political consequence of the situation, since in the future what will motivate the citizens of those countries to pay, in compliance with the law, for years, the instalments of a Community loan from which their country has not received, or has only late received, its due share for political reasons.

Mr. President, please. Over the past months, it has been said on numerous occasions that the 24th budget should be one that responds to the challenges facing the Union and the Member States. This includes preventing illegal migration and protecting borders. For years now, Member States have been protecting not only their own borders, but also those of the EU, at the expense of their own budgets. It would therefore be highly justified and legitimate for border protection to finally receive funding from the Union's annual budget. Hungary and the Hungarian government have been asking for years for the EU to contribute financially to the protection of the external borders. The protection of borders is not only a guarantee of our security, but also an indispensable tool for the protection of the much-mentioned European values. That is why it is regrettable that, with this report as well, Parliament is constantly working to ensure that Member States are not given EU budget funds for border protection purposes in 24. This should be changed and even extended to non-EU countries, such as Serbia or North Macedonia, through which the main migratory routes pass.

Well, at this moment, I think that the biggest enemy of enlargement is the lack of trust of certain Member States. But also, unfortunately, this House is lately manifesting it, too, in its recent country reports in the enlargement strategy, but also in the reports on foreign and security policy. If you read these texts of the EP, it is clear that there is no confidence in the official assessment reports, there is criticism against the Commissioner and there is a big deficit of trust concerning the candidate countries, especially those which have conservative governments. And this lack of trust is sensed by the citizens of the candidate countries too. This is not the way to do enlargement policy, especially in times of war and geopolitical battles. These countries need support and need positive messages. In order to rebuild confidence and speed up the process, does the Commission think that setting an accession date for the Western Balkans would be helpful in this situation?

Madam President, I'm sorry. Recovery programs need to be accelerated. The RRF was introduced to balance the effects of the coronavirus. The crown is long over, yet only 28% of the assets have been paid so far, with the stock market prospects for the bonds not very bright. REPowerEU, linked to the RRF, is about alleviating Russia’s energy dependency. The tenth package of sanctions is now under negotiation, but REPowerEU is only in the planning phase. The Commission should be brought into maximum speed with regard to the approval and payment of Member States' plans. REPowerEU can help Member States mitigate the impact of sanctions, but this is only true if the Commission pays the instruments quickly and does not make them a tool of political pressure for some Member States, such as Hungary or Poland. The importance of European economies has weakened in recent years and the EU's global competitiveness is now at stake.

Madam President, I'm sorry. It is well known to all of us that the Commission assesses the protection of the financial interests of the Union in a report for each year. It is also customary for Parliament to draw up its own report, where it teaches Member States and national authorities how to combat fraud and corruption in a typical educative tone. However, there is no mention of how, in the face of such a wide range of EU anti-fraud and anti-corruption institutions as OLAF, EPPO, Europol, Eurojust, a vast corruption bribery network has been able to operate for years, here in the European Parliament itself? How much credibility is left to an institution, to challenge the jurisprudence of the Member States, to teach governments a lesson, to impose conditions of the rule of law, where such a high-level bribery system could operate within the gates of the institution for a long time. This is why the Committee on Budgetary Control should rather deal with this and why we cannot support this report.

Mr President, dear colleagues, it is very unfortunate that the Parliament’s reports are getting based more and more on political stereotypes rather than on facts and evidence. For example, point 69 of the Security and Defence reports, I quote, ‘brings attention to Serbia’s relationship with Russia and its lack of condemnation of Russia’s unjustified and illegitimate actions against Ukraine’. Here, I would just like to remind you, colleagues, that Serbia has signed all UN resolutions condemning the illegal and unjustified attack of Russia against Ukraine. Serbia is also strongly advocating territorial integrity of Ukraine as one of the basic principles of international law. And Serbia was also one of the first countries to refute the results of the referendum held in the four regions of Ukraine. In addition, all these facts have already been recognised in recent European Parliament resolutions. So this text will contravene them as well. Dear colleagues, facts and consistency should matter even here in the European Parliament.

Madam President, I'm sorry. The report aims to revise the 2021-27 financial framework, but its substantial implementation has not yet started. The new Common Agricultural Policy will only start in 2023, with no payments yet from the new cohesion funds and only €136 billion from the recovery funds. In this situation, where there are no evaluable results yet, there is no basis for demanding a review. Take, for example, the cohesion instruments. It is almost 2023, yet we are still in the process of making payments for the previous period, 2014-20. The conclusion of the new Partnership Agreements has progressed very slowly and we can be pleased if at least advance payments are made in the first half of next year. The question therefore arises as to why Member States do not receive the EU funds to which they are entitled. The answer is: unnecessary administrative burden, politically-based rule of law extortion, excessive conditionality making payments more difficult. We should work on breaking them down. We don't have time to waste! In the face of the new economic crisis, it is essential that Member States have access to their own resources as soon as possible.

Dear Madam President, Commissioner, I'll start again. Can I start again? Sorry, my throat is a little bit sore. Dear fellow Members, The time has come for a real acceleration of the EU enlargement process. Europe cannot afford the luxury of further delaying the accession of the countries of the Western Balkans. Many claim that the EU's influence in the region has been weakened. Unfortunately, I have to say that over the last few years, the European Parliament has actively contributed, through its decisions, to this being the case, and so is this report. It is not possible to increase trust and influence by constantly tightening conditionality. The EU conditionality mechanisms are well known to us Hungarians and are based on erroneous logic. It would be a mistake to extend them to accession countries as a means of influencing them. Serbia and the countries of the Western Balkans do not need such decisions, but sincere support and an accession date. Such decisions do not help, but rather hinder enlargement and the work that the Commission is doing.

Dear Mr President, I congratulate the rapporteurs on reaching an agreement on budget 23. This will guarantee that there will be enough money to support EU programmes. At the same time, we in the Fidesz delegation have reservations in principle, as the proceedings against Hungary have not yet come to an end. It is very important for us to be able to see our sources for next year clearly. The Hungarian Strategic Plan for Agriculture has already been approved by the Commission and we are confident that the Cohesion Partnership Agreement will be concluded soon. At the same time, we know the situation around the recovery fund, and yesterday we also saw that the left-liberal side of the European Parliament is not resting: It does not even accept the execution of its own invention, the conditionality procedure, according to the letter. They want to take away EU money for Hungary. They are disturbed by the fact that the Commission and the Hungarian Government are negotiating calmly and successfully, and we are only days away from resolving the situation. Therefore, they want to put pressure on the Commission and the Council before the final decision is taken by means of a Parliament resolution. For all these reasons, we have decided to abstain from this year's budget vote.

Mr. President, please. Today's global political situation has clearly shown that Europe needs to change its so-called energy mix. Based on the initial idea, REPowerEU would have supported the energy independence and diversification of Member States. However, with reference to greening, EU support for oil development was rejected by the BUDG and ECON commissions. Unfortunately, this makes it impossible to transform the energy situation of our Central European region and to establish its energy independence. Greening is essential, but improving current systems is just as important. In this extremely difficult energy situation, stopping EU investment in oil would be another shot in the leg, further weakening Europe's own crumbling economy. We need to go back to the original REPowerEU target and therefore support the amendments on oil and nuclear energy in tomorrow's vote!

Dear Madam President, So far, each wave of enlargement has strengthened Europe, and this would certainly be the case with the accession of the Western Balkan countries to the EU. However, in order to speed up the process, to achieve a real breakthrough for all candidates and to increase their performance, a specific target date and timetable will be needed. This would also increase the credibility and reputation of the EU in the eyes of citizens of candidate countries. The region has lagged behind the great wave of enlargement in Eastern Europe twenty years ago and has been in the waiting room of the EU for twenty years. Setting a target date would be a huge motivation for the countries in the region, and could result in the candidate countries accelerating the reforms they have started. This would benefit both the candidate countries and the EU, especially in a geopolitical situation hit by a war such as the one we are in now. Finally, I would like to thank Commissioner Várhelyi for his continued support for enlargement.