Speeches

Madam President, Commissioner, it is a real pleasure to see you among us. Often our friendly country of Albania is seen in a package with North Macedonia and the country is often the victim of a lack of progress in its eastern neighbour, and this lack of progress is, of course, due to the unwillingness of the authorities in Skopje to implement human rights protections, but this is another topic. When this has happened, we have always pointed out that the joint consideration of the two applications is unfair. However, Albania needs to continue reforms in the areas of fundamental rights, rule of law and justice in order to make rapid progress on its path towards the European Union. The plans for a fiscal amnesty, which would allow up to €2 million to be deposited in the Albanian bank account without disclosing the origin of the funds, are a cause for concern. Albania can and must prove that it cannot be suspected of being the centre of any grey deals in Europe and Albania, and Tirana must make it clear that it is determined to tackle this problem and does not allow through a question of new policies the country to be a front for illegal activity. Only swift reforms and decisive steps in the fight against corruption and organised crime will lead to a swift completion of the negotiation process. The direction of recognition of the rights and legitimate interests of minorities in Albania, including the Bulgarian one, is correct and deserves congratulations. At the end of the day, Albania deserves to be a member of the European Union because it has completed its homework, because it supports pan-European policies, and because it ultimately shares what even a person like me understands as European values. So good luck to Albania in the negotiations with the European Union.

Madam President, the genocide in Srebrenica is without any doubt a war crime and a crime against humanity committed by Serb paramilitary units. This crime was part of the war waged by paramilitary Serb forces throughout the former Yugoslavia. Before Srebrenica was Croatia, before it was Slovenia, but this genocide and crime is also the result of a somewhat indecisive policy pursued in Europe regarding Serbian war crimes in the former Yugoslavia. Dear colleagues, there is no better metaphor for this policy than the indecisive actions of the UN peacekeepers who have imperceptibly betrayed the city to the invading Serbian war criminals. The victims of Srebrenica are victims of Greater Serbian chauvinism, always supported by the Kremlin. Don't forget that. Yugoslavia, this concentration camp of enslaved peoples, among whom, in addition to Bosnians, Croats, Slovenes, Macedonian Bulgarians, Macedonians and others, was too long perceived by Western Europe as a model of socialism with a human face. The collapse of this model showed the real ugly face of this regime. Again, don't forget where it was created and who has supported it so far. Genocide and ethnic cleansing followed the disintegration of Yugoslavia for any people who did not want to be part of the Serbian world or Serbian peace, do you make the connection, I suppose? Genocides in the former Yugoslavia did not start from Srebrenica, and maybe Srebrenica was the last, but before that it was Vukovar. I am graduating, Madam President, and the Macedonian bloody Christmas on 7 January 1945. The official authorities in Belgrade refuse to call the events in Srebrenica by their real names - genocide. As long as this remains an official Serbian position, we should not make concessions to the authorities in Skopje, again, directly related to the Kremlin and Moscow. Remember the victims of the Serbian genocide. The Eternal Memory! Remember Srebrenica.

Mr President, the Pandora Papers have shown a lot. First of all, the vulnerability of our systems to hide huge funds in offshore zones and tax havens. This is possible because the European Parliament and a number of European institutions are subject to external influence. That was Qatargate. That was what? External influence to modify European Parliament documents. I ask, however, when and where it will be seen and when the European Parliament, the European Union will begin to look more seriously at the external influences and the way in which external influences influence this House in order to modify the documents of this House. Because, honourable Mr President, I think it is time to look at the way in which drafts to change documents are received, such as the report that I spoke about just now. And I wonder after Qatargate if there will be a Skopje Gate, and I wonder if the Pandora Papers will show our colleagues somewhere who have to explain why and how they propose changes to some laws? Because unlike many colleagues in this Chamber, I think that human rights, like those of the Bulgarians in Macedonia, are not bilateral relations, but a European issue.

on behalf of the ECR Group. - Mr President, unlike the previous report on this subject, I voted with conviction in favour. Undoubtedly, the Ukrainian people and nation want to break away from a sphere of influence that is outside the European one and be part of the European Union and NATO. This process began 10 years ago during a time of government that had sparked very strong protests in this country, so both Ukraine and the people of Ukraine deserve to have the right to choose and live by that choice. For this reason, I voted in favour of this report and believe that when and as peace is restored in this part of Europe, it must be within the territorial borders of Ukraine, internationally recognised by the Budapest Agreement, the 1994 Budapest Protocol, because that is the will of the people living in Ukraine.

Mr President, I strongly voted against this European Union initiative for the victims of the global climate crisis. It's just another insanity to make a day for the victims of climate change. I think it's a hysterical, alarmist, false policy that tries to blame European societies for being industrialized, for making some progress, for producing something, for doing something. Even Mr Timmermans himself, who is very much missing in this Chamber, cannot, in my opinion, show us a single victim of climate change, but he should defend this insane idea here. What this act represents and what the climate policy alarmists are trying to sell us is nothing other than telling us once again how there should be no industry in Europe, how everything should go to China, how everything should go to Russia, how everything should go to Turkey, they should do whatever they want, not taking into account that we live on a single planet. And if it's polluting in China, it's like it's polluting everywhere. So I voted against it. And I would also like to tell you, honourable President, before you knock with the hammer, that I am firmly against the violation of the human rights of Bulgarians in Macedonia.

Mr President, it is sensible that the proposal should have a common policy towards the diplomats of the Member States of the European Union when it comes to hostages, such crises and a common policy that responds simultaneously, equally and in a coordinated manner, and that should be the common policy of the European Union. This is one of the sensible areas in which there may be such a common policy. But when we talk about such a common policy, what is reasonable, should we answer whether the European Union, the European Commission, the European Parliament have a common policy when third countries try to use their diplomacy to the detriment of some of the Member States? And I can tell you one such example. The example is the report to be voted on in the Committee on Foreign Affairs, which concerns the Republic of North Macedonia's progress towards the European Union. There you have literally held hostage people who identify themselves as Macedonian citizens or North Macedonian citizens with Bulgarian national consciousness, and the pressure on them continues, and the harassment of them continues, and they continue to be denied the right to self-identify as they want. And this right, the right to self-determination, is not only a European right, it is a fundamental human right in all charters, all documents. And here my question is what we are doing in this European Parliament and what the Commission is doing, what the High Representative for Foreign Policy is doing in terms of protecting the rights and legitimate interests of those people who are literally being held hostage by the authorities in a country that is much closer to Belgrade and the Kremlin than to any European position, a European orientation. And we are witnessing how in this Chamber there are our colleagues, who must also be held hostage by this power in one way or another, who propose and change texts in European Parliament documents. Much more outrageous than Qatargate, much more outrageous than any other interference in the internal affairs of the European Union, the Member States and this Parliament. How should we, as the European Parliament, react when our colleagues, hostages here, for some reason synchronizedly propose texts that want to erase the protection of human rights, the right to self-determination, to erase facts that are happening in the Republic of North Macedonia and in which we see a clear attitude towards people who identify themselves as Bulgarians despite having their own citizenship of the Republic of North Macedonia. This is something that should be paid attention to. Tell me, Mr. President, what have I done to make you angry? (the Chair takes the floor to the speaker)

Madam President, it is usually not necessary to utter the obvious truths, but yes, the management of water resources is extremely important. Important in view of the fact that the population and agriculture in the Member States of the European Union will require more and more quantities of clean drinking water and water for irrigation. We are witnessing anomalies such as prolonged droughts, followed by severe floods. Such were mentioned in Italy, and for several days this is the picture in Bulgaria. Cities such as Berkovitsa, Etropole are flooded with unusually high amounts of rainfall, which leads to severe flooding. Therefore, the resource must be managed wisely and wisely, and this is one of the areas where planning can be done at European level on how to water irrigation, how to organise agriculture so that those quantities of water that are currently being used are not spent and the necessary areas can be irrigated to meet the needs of the population for clean food produced here in the Member States of the European Union. This can and should be done. Of course, we must also take into account the role of staggering, such as the ‘Green Climate Deal’, so to speak, which has helped many Member States, including Bulgaria, to build many small hydropower plants on rivers where they can and cannot, where they should and should not. Small hydropower plants that break the normal flow lead to drought, and in the end, under the guise of something nice and natural, they actually do the opposite. Така че това е още един пример за това, че не винаги зелените утопии са полезни.

Madam President, on the one hand, and in the first place, all the institutions agree that the Ukrainian side has fulfilled the conditions for accession to this convention, and note, moreover, that it has fulfilled the conditions in the conditions of aggression against it and of war. That's something to be noted. On the other hand, Ukraine's accession to the Convention is politically necessary. This is an expression of empathy, solidarity and clear political support on our part. I see no reason for Parliament, the Commission and the other institutions not to approve this accession and not to work for it. Accession to the Convention is also important in terms of civil and commercial turnover. Mutual recognition of judgments will support links between citizens of Ukraine and citizens of Member States of the European Union. Mutual recognition of judgments will improve the way citizens of countries work with each other and help create the common commercial links that will be needed at a time when the Ukrainian state, infrastructure and economy are recovering. So this thing is necessary and deserves to be done, for which the participants in it deserve and congratulations.

Madam President, I voted strongly in favour of this document because interference by third hostile parties in the internal affairs of the Union and the Member States is unacceptable and inadmissible. We remember the Qatar Gate case, in which funds were taken to amend EU documents by our colleagues, European representatives. At the same time, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Deputy Prime Minister of the Republic of North Macedonia boasts that he convinces our colleagues how to change Union documents related to the progress reports of the Republic of North Macedonia. He boasts in an interview that he gives suggestions for amendments to our colleagues. We see yesterday, during a meeting led by the shadow rapporteurs, how the Deputy Prime Minister of the Republic of North Macedonia here in Brussels gathers these colleagues of ours to take pictures with them and coordinate their activities with purpose and task. Without hiding, they say that the aim and task is to erase from the report all hate crimes against Bulgarians in Macedonia, the protection of the Bulgarian cultural heritage, and in general a change by a third hostile party against the interests of the citizens of a Member State of the European Union. This is unacceptable, unacceptable and must end. And this case needs to be investigated. Let's see if these colleagues have signed up for any lists, announced who they are seeing, etc.

Madam President, I voted firmly against this resolution because it is yet another interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign state and a call for witch-hunting. It aims to directly intervene at different bureaucratic levels in the EU in the internal affairs of sovereign states. Such interference, as we see in the recordings of the former Bulgarian Prime Minister, who agreed with the President of the European Commission, with the heads of the security services something unacceptable, violating national sovereignty. This is contrary to the idea of a union of sovereign states. The European Union is not a union of rainbows, propaganda, LGBTI, etc., etc. It must be a union of free movement, economic prosperity, freedom of movement and economic freedom. What is imposed through such false reports is totalitarianism, obscurity, Orwell and replaces the very idea of the European Union. Any such resolution is aimed at fighting against a democratically elected government. Will it be Poland's, Hungary's, Italy's, anything else? It's an attempt to crush common sense. This is an attempt to impose Orwellian propaganda and interference in internal affairs.

Madam President, I voted for the report on geographical indications for wines, spirit drinks and agricultural products because I think it is particularly important for our producers to be able to enhance the added value of products produced in designated protected areas. It is good that no amendments aiming to increase the products allowed outside the demarcated protected area for wines by 15% have been adopted. Currently, the 15% limit applies only to grapes, and the fraud aimed to extend it to grape must and wine. That they didn't go well is good for winemakers, winegrowers and farmers. That is why I supported both this report and our winegrowers and winegrowers in this sector.

Mr President, at this moment, on this day, the meetings of a Deputy Prime Minister of a country that is not even a candidate for membership of the European Union, who, however, conducts lobbying policy, summoning European representatives, taking pictures with them, placing them, this is Mr Maričić from the Republic of North Macedonia, continue. And he takes pictures with people from the Committee on Foreign Affairs, our colleagues, publishes them and tells them what to do in the next few days. This is very much like a Qatar Gate scandal. A non-candidate country uses European representatives. That is why I am asking you, Mr. President. Will you ask the colleagues in the photos in what capacity they were at these meetings? Who sent them there, what responsibility do they have? Why are they photographed with a person representing a country outside the European Union? And is there some kind of conversation, some kind of agreement between these people? Because there is a lot of talk about lobbying and we need to see what the cost of this lobbying is. You owe me answers.

Madam President, I voted in favour of this report for a very simple reason. Yes, of course, consumers search for and are influenced by advertisements about which environmental performance of the goods and services they buy is higher and which is lower. And of course, there must be some level of proof and there must be some level in which consumers are not misled by advertisements that present them with every single good as very environmentally friendly, as very environmentally friendly and as almost very useful. We have witnessed since the pandemic, with all the fabrications that followed before, during and after it, everything has started to be advertised as green, as green, as green. Remember green certificates and green passes, everything turned green. This leads to confusion, it leads to consumers being misled and indeed all these claims have to be proven. In this regard, it is a reasonable report and I hope it will have its result.

With all my respect, dear colleague, do you know the cost of this debate? What will be the cost to the taxpayers, first of all, and second, for the industry? This is what is important for me. What will be the impact of this debate and the future prohibition, the future ban? What will be the social cost, industrial? What will be the cost for the people who are living with and in this industry? I am not against your arguments, but still, what will be the cost? This is what is important for me.

Madam President, honourable Members, I wonder what the people in the gallery above are thinking when they see and look at what their taxes are going to and what debates they are financing with their taxes in the European Parliament? Not that I have anything against exotic topics like these, it's Thursday after all, and in oral questions everyone can ask topics that, to put it mildly, I think are strange for this room, but let's say, as they say, a question asked is answered. Another question is why people who care so much about the little chicks, caterpillars, ducklings, bees and others when it comes to human rights, in previous days avoid the topic and hide and try to ignore, and try to avoid it, such as the very important topic of human rights violations in the Republic of North Macedonia. But let's say that's another topic. My other question is to you, dear importers and people who deal with this question about chickens, ducklings, caterpillars and whatever you say to them. How much will this debate cost the industry and the people involved in bird production? Because all your such, very concerned raises usually lead to regulations, to administration, to bureaucracy, to bans and to the destruction of some branch of European industries so that you can open the doors to imports from China, from third countries and from somewhere else. This is usually the result of your regulations. Caring for ducklings, chickens will result in products being imported from foreign countries and those producing them within European countries going bankrupt and losing their jobs. This is what your efforts usually lead to. And I wonder if it's a matter of naivety or something completely different, and I'm beginning to convince myself that it's not about naivety. (The speaker agreed to answer a Blue Card question)

Madam President, I also voted against this report because I firmly believe that nation states must respect their constitutions and their legal provisions. The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Bulgaria, a sovereign state, has declared the Istanbul Convention unconstitutional in some of its texts. For this reason, there can be no doubt that this document actually aims at something completely different from its title, namely the promotion of an ideology that is incompatible with our understanding of family, traditions and our traditional way of life. In the form of combating domestic violence, gender roles are promoted, rights to the status of people who qualify as refugees in order not to be sent back to their countries. They will, of course, abuse these provisions. In this way, an attempt is made to circumvent our legal provisions. We do not agree with this and as a Bulgarian representative, I comply with the decision of our Constitutional Court. For this reason, I cannot vote for such a document. I think it introduces an ideology that is incompatible with my understanding. That's why I voted against it.

Madam President, I voted very strongly against this report, which must, and after the vote of the European Parliament, entered the European Union in the Istanbul Convention for a very simple reason - this document and this convention have nothing to do with their title. They impose, propose and try to introduce into our societies in a roundabout way, under the guise of protecting women's rights, an ideology that is unacceptable to us and that changes our way of life. This is gender ideology. Nowhere in the countries where this Istanbul Convention has been introduced does it have the effect it aims at, namely the reduction of crimes of domestic violence, violence against women. What is happening, however, is under the guise, again I say to a legitimate cause, to spend and inject ideologies that are against our understanding of society and our understanding of the family. I therefore voted against this report.

Madam President, there is hardly a more pro-Western and pro-European community in Europe, a more pro-European and pro-Western society than that in Kosovo. And yes, the people of Kosovo deserve their efforts to be supported. And the people of Kosovo deserve to start the negotiation process faster and be part of the European Union. There is no doubt about this and they should be encouraged. In this regard, the delay in visa liberalisation was a mistake and continues to be one that weighs heavily and poisons the public's perspective in Pristina. Of course, we must not forget and we must not leave unanswered the Serbian provocations in Kosovo. None of you mentioned that. The Serbian side continues to make provocations in the north, trying to use its community there to somehow blow up in the interest of Russian interests as well, and in the interest of the Kosovars and Kosovo not being part of the European Union. However, this must be stopped and retaliated more seriously and as quickly as possible. The Republic of Kosovo and the Kosovars deserve to be part of this Union.

Madam President, honourable Members and Commissioner, I hope you will listen carefully. This is important. Serbian foreign policy has one expression ‘And Tito-Tito’. People from the old Yugoslavia will know what I'm talking about. And now this policy continues, only it is not ‘And on Tito – Tito’, but it is ‘on Tito – Milosevic, after him Vucic, after him Dacic’. The same foreign policy of denying nation-states, of conducting the Comintern line, of creating false nations, of denying true nations, of suppressing these nations within Serbia, of suppressing national minorities. You should know that, colleagues, I do not have time to give you history lessons, and there is not much need. Ако досега не сте ги разбрали тези неща, няма и да ги разберете. But this Serbia has never been European and will not be European. I understand that here some of the socialists have such nostalgia for Milosevic, for Tito. They were socialists, but no, they were national socialists, not socialists. This Serbia, which you support, is actually laughing at us behind the backs of each one of you, pursuing a policy of genocide, pursuing a policy of denial of national minorities and, in fact, pursuing an anti-European policy. Ladies and Gentlemen, think about these issues. It's useful!

Mr President, in the Republic of North Macedonia, repression continues against people who, being Macedonian citizens, define themselves as people with Bulgarian national consciousness. On April 25, the prosecutor's office summoned and indicted Tomé Blazewski, secretary of the Ohrid club. On 3 May, the Prosecutor's Office in the Republic of North Macedonia indicted Lyubcho Georgievski from the town of Bitola for clearly expressing his Bulgarian national self-awareness. This is a clear example of how in one country lists are made of people who have another national self-awareness. These people are being persecuted and these people are being attacked and threatened. This whole series of openly xenophobic politics went through the adoption of legislation that erases Bulgarian non-governmental organizations retroactively and generally shows the character of the Republic of North Macedonia and its policy. A pro-Russian, pro-Serbian, anti-European, anti-Bulgarian, xenophobic and fascist National Socialist politics. And at this moment, and thus here, our colleagues pretend to eat neither onions nor onions smelled, do not notice the repression against people with Bulgarian self-awareness and pretend that they do not see them. It's a shame and a disgrace, and it has to end.

What does it mean, thank you? I am absolutely not off-topic, Mr President, because this is my explanation of vote and I have the right to explain my vote. Please give me these 10 seconds back if it’s possible. Това, което исках да кажа, уважаеми г-н Председател, преди да ме прекъснете доста нередно е, че в този Парламент се гледат всякакви други глупости, а не тези, които са важни. И това прави впечатление на хората, които плащат със своите данъци нашите заплати.

Mr President, it is a great honour that I remain the only one to speak on this subject, but yes, I voted firmly against this report because this report is absolute nonsense. This report is something that the European Parliament should not do. There is a country somewhere in Africa that decides to do something about its internal affairs. Here too, the European Parliament, which, by the way, does not take a position on much more important issues, is concerned with what the Ugandan authorities have decided. That's great, but let me give you the following riddle. We have a big country attacking a small country. The big one is armed, the small one is weaker, invades, takes its territory, occupies it, and that's bad. Which countries do you think are? I'll give you a hint, it's not who you think it is. This is Azerbaijan attacking Armenia. Did you see, did you hear here in this room that there is some kind of urgent report regarding the rights of Armenians in Armenia, in Nagorno-Karabakh, Artsakh, as they say. No, we are dealing with the decision in Uganda who should marry, who should marry whom, who should marry whom and who should carry out these ridiculous body movements..... (President interrupts speaker) What I wanted to say, Mr President, before you interrupt me quite wrongly, is that all kinds of nonsense are being looked at in this Parliament, not those that are important. And this makes an impression on the people who pay our salaries with their taxes.