Speeches

Mr President, I see your slightly bored face, it's understandable. We have gathered 13 brave MEPs for this epic debate, but it is still important and important because the theft of cultural goods really continues in Europe. You have countries like North Korea, sorry North Macedonia, where the theft of cultural heritage continues, where the forgery of this cultural heritage continues and it is presented as something authentic, as something that has happened. History must be known as it is, and cultural artifacts are part of that history. Те показват наследството, произхода и последиците. This is faithfully recorded in every archive. And we in this Parliament continue to pretend that we do not see the trafficking of these cultural values, such as North Macedonia, which I accidentally but correctly called North Korea. This is happening and continues to be a replacement of cultural and historical heritage, this thing must be put to an end. Commissioner, we are counting on you, I hope you will wake up a little bit and I hope you will take a stand on this.

Mr. President, I'm listening to you, colleagues, and I'm wondering a little bit. I wonder, because I don't understand, are you talking about this economy, are you talking about this continent, are you talking about the jobs of the people who elect you and pay your taxes? Yes, urgent action is needed and it is needed to protect economies from your green utopia and green religion. Most recently, absolutely inexplicably in the middle of a war, in the middle of a crisis, Germany closed its last nuclear power plants Emsland, Isar 2 and Neckarvestheim 2 and no longer produces electricity from nuclear power. You rely on fins, you rely on panels, you rely on utopias, you keep pushing ideology into people's heads, not economics. Do you not understand that people work in this economy and they need this energy to have jobs and pay taxes that also pay your wages? Yes, you have turned green into a religion, into a utopia, and this utopia will break the European continent, it will send jobs to China, and what will you do? You'll be grazing grass!

Madam President, I did not understand very much the example of a drunk customer throwing up in a taxi, but there may be such cases, I do not know. What I do know, however, is that between 2000 and 2015, many people recommended diesel cars and people in Europe bought diesel cars because they were advertised as greener, more efficient and more efficient. Now, however, it turns out that this was not exactly the case, and this year is not so far back, and people are asking themselves whether there is no lobbying, whether there is nothing that drives halls like this and politicians who make decisions to push them in 10-15 years a change in the car fleet and the way they work, and the way they actually earn their income, working and using their cars. It seems that the European Parliament and the European Commission are actually working lobbyists, working for some lobbying companies. It will be interesting to hear in a few years how harmful the electric campaign that is currently being talked about has been.

on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Madam President, I again voted with conviction against this report, as well as against the previous ones, for one simple reason. This is again a bureaucratic redistribution of funds, this is the imposition of a tax on entrepreneurship, this is an air tax, this is a violent destruction of an economy that works. The aviation industry needs development, not brakes to be put on it. The aviation industry is rapidly connecting different corners of the European Union, in the east and south, where there are no well-built railways, no well-built thoroughfares and this is an opportunity for people to travel freely, to trade, to work, to increase their well-being. What is happening now and what is happening today in this House is an absolutely bureaucratic imposition of new regulations, of new taxes, of new taxation, of the stumbling block of industry and, ultimately, of the destruction of industry, of freedom of movement, which should be a fundamental freedom in the European Union and which has made this Union what it is. Now colleagues in this House are working firmly and consistently against all these ideas and on all these economic grounds on which this union was built and are slowly redistributing and throwing production out of it. This is wrong and unacceptable, so I voted against it.

Member of the Commission. - Madam President, I voted strongly against the report on the revision of the European Union's greenhouse gas emissions trading system, mainly because it is expanding its scope, including buildings and transport. Yes, there is a delay mechanism, the so-called emergency brake, but it only works for one year. It is to say that after this one year, the factors have not changed and all the envisaged changes will come back into force. There is no way to miss a set mechanism for dropping off free locations. The jump is from 2.5% in 2027, to 5% in 2028, to 12.5% in 2029. For colleagues in this House who voted in favour of the proposal, I suppose that everything is very easily achievable and far in time. However, they have hardly taken into account and are unlikely to be interested in these consequences that the industry will suffer on the ground. Because, honourable Members, we are talking about sectors that will not be able to afford these changes even for years to come. This is pure communism, this is selling an air tax and this is one of the main reasons for the deindustrialization of the European continent, for the running of business in America and Europe, for the loss of jobs, for the insane consequences of the Green Deal. And all this insanity here is played out as some kind of game, has direct consequences on taxpayers' pockets, and therefore must be voted against. Unfortunately, it doesn't work.

Madam President, the main and main military-political defence alliance in the northern hemisphere is the North Atlantic Treaty, known as NATO. For the most part, the countries from which you come do not even pay the two percent contribution they have to make to support their own defence. For many years, these countries you represent have bought social peace by knowingly sub-financed, under-financed their armed forces. On the other hand, most of you are constantly attacking European agencies like the one that protects the Frontex borders. In the previous debate, just 10 minutes ago, you explained to us how we should protect our external borders and not defend our internal borders. Now you're telling us in 10 minutes that we need to use our own battlegroups to intervene in Kabul, Afghanistan. It doesn't seem very real and it doesn't seem very reasonable. It seems to me that there is a medical term for it, but since I am not a doctor, I will prefer the political one. It is called hypocrisy, duplicity and inconsistency. The main defence alliance is the North Atlantic Treaty, and everything related to Article 44 of the Treaty on European Union must be used only in a supportive way. The other is not serious. You know it well. Let us save European taxpayers this slight scratching of languages.

Madam President, to be honest, this did not happen in this House during this conversation. We have to say that there is not a very big relationship between the European Union and Iraq, simply because such a country has not and will not have for a long time. This country was destroyed under the pretext of chemical weapons being sought in it. I don't know if anyone found them. No, he didn't say, and he probably didn't find them. There was no sanction for the attack on it and this unleashed the collapse of countries like Iraq, like Libya, like Syria, which provoked the topic of the previous debate, namely a huge wave of migration to Europe. And if I heard a lot of interesting things here, there was talk about democracy in Iraq, about prosperity, about fair elections, things like that, it's some other Iraq, it's probably on another planet. He's not the one who's in the Middle East as we know him. So while we are talking here such tales we will not find any right choice and no right solution for what is happening in this part of the world. Honestly, we have to say things because situations like this in Iraq have been triggered, including with the tacit consent of this House, and this has led to a situation where we are.

Mr President, honourable Members on the left, if you really wanted to save lives, you would not have promoted illegal migration. If you really wanted to save lives, you would not have supported non-governmental organizations that organise human trafficking, you would not have given false hopes and deceived the populations of Africa, Asia and the Middle East that all these people could come to Europe, settle here and impose their way of life. If you really wanted to save lives, you would say what is the reasonable number of people you would take into your homes and set an example with your homes. How many people have you received in each of your homes, how many have you accommodated, how many have you registered, how many have been integrated? Dear colleagues on the left, as much as you do not like it, countries have borders, and these borders must and can be defended, dear colleagues. No matter how much you shake my head on the other side, every country has a border and its illegal crossing is a crime and these crimes should be punished, because in the end you talk about the rule of law. This means the rule of law, not the violation of borders. Because here in Europe, unlike you, we have our values and we have our religion. To me it is Orthodox, to some it is Protestant, to others it is Catholic. We have our way of life and we want to keep it. I hope that's not bad news for you.

Member of the Commission. - Madam President, honourable Members, there can be no energy independence and security in this House without a secure source of that energy. It is quite obvious that the wind does not blow constantly, and the sun at night sometimes sets, colleagues, so they can not run 24 hours solar batteries made from China. Also, the wind is erratic, as I told you, and you can't rely on it to continuously produce energy. Such energy can produce capacities that can be relied upon and that are predictable. Such power is nuclear power. The same energy that here, colleagues in the hall systematically, consistently destroy, destroy, led by some green utopia or motivated by producers of solar batteries, wind fins and other such tools. As long as there is such a policy, as long as there is such schizophrenia, here, in this room and in the European Commission, the European Union and its member states will be dependent on external media and external sources, and we here will continue to scratch our tongues, to be forgiven by the translators.

Madam President, I voted firmly against this report because it is one of the scandalous, scandalous debates that we are having in this House. For the people of the left, the rule of law is only the imposition of their gender ideology, same-sex marriages and any other far-left, far-progressive and far-progressive ideologies. The rule of law means the uniform and equal application of the law, swiftly and fairly. What the Left, Socialists, Democrats and others are not saying, however, is that they are trying to talk about democracy and law, and they are not talking about Qatargate, they are not talking about corruption in their own ranks, they are not talking about the fact that so far we have not heard from the Commission how the contract was concluded with Pfizer, how much money was spent, who signed these contracts. Is there corruption there? People in whose ranks there are proven corruptors, arrested with money bribes from Qatar, teach us about mind, reason and morality. This is so brazen and so brazen that it literally cannot be described. And the culprits on duty are always countries where sovereign, normal governments, like in Hungary, like in Poland, defend traditional values. Не върховенство на закона, това което иска левицата, а това е защита на корупцията.

Madam President, I voted in favour of the report on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on substances that deplete the ozone layer, because the protocol describing them and subsequent decisions at global level create a legal obligation for the Union and its Member States to establish a timetable for phasing out the production and consumption of substances that deplete the ozone layer. I support the European Commission's comprehensive approach and its proposal to revise the regulation on these substances. I believe that the Commission proposal has been flawed, which colleagues in the Committees on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety have largely filled. I am pleased that there is finally not only a green alarmism in this House, but also some sense of reducing unnecessary administrative burdens, and that clarifications and additions have been made to avoid duplication of directives and regulations.

Madam President, I have strongly voted against this report because it is one of the examples of lobbying here in the European Parliament. Under slogans of environmental protection, under slogans of climate hysterism, of climate protection, in fact, certain companies, in this case a German coalition, lobbied for the rules to be changed and business to be seized from the countries in Central and Eastern Europe in which companies operating in the refrigeration, heating industry, in these and all areas will now have to make huge changes and lose their jobs. It's a classic business takeover, it's a classic reset through the head of the European Parliament. Absolutely wrong, absolutely unacceptable. In this way, the Mobility Package was prepared, thus benefiting Western European companies, entrepreneurs and businesses again. In this way, Dutch and Western European companies are working for Bulgaria and Romania not to be in Schengen so that they can profit from transport. This is how the European Parliament is used to make Eastern Europeans poorer and Western Europeans richer. It's a shame.

Mr President, please follow the rules and do not give the floor for violation. This was not a blue card and there is no right to [... not heard] Now on to the subject. The family, according to our Constitution, consists of a man and a woman, a biological man, a biological woman. A biological woman who is a mother and a biological man who is a father. This is the Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria. This is something that we have accepted, and this is what our nation has accepted with a majority. [The speech was interrupted for technical reasons.] ... So once again there is no translation? It’s a clear sabotage! I insist to speak in my own language. Sorry for that, but I will wait and ask you to solve this issue. Thank you so much. So, ladies and gentlemen, I am quoting the Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria. You know, you know what a Constitution is, it's the basic law. According to the Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria, the family consists of a man and a woman, a biological woman, a biological man, a mother and a father. We believe that every child has the right to grow up in such a family, has the right to his biological mother and his biological father. This is our inner conviction. Now, you may believe in something different. You may want your countries to have other rules. We don't argue and we accept that. It is your right, for every citizen in his own country, to make such a family as the majority of citizens in his own country believe. But we insist that you respect our right to European and Bulgarian citizens. And to make decisions in our own country how we will arrange our families and how we will raise our children! And we insist, and strongly object, that you do not try to impose any other model on us. Our family is from a biological mother and biological father. You have decided something else for your countries. I don't mind, but don't make me accept outside dictation and outside pressure.

Mr President, Vice-President of the Commission, the proposal made is unrealistic, impracticable, naive and will, to a large extent, cause job losses on the European continent and respond to the interests of lobbyists, such as the propane sector. I do not doubt the good intentions of the rapporteurs, but I think that once again we are witnessing how good intentions will rearrange and help to rearrange an industry and this room will be used to vote in one way or another. Again, this is in the interest of German companies, for example, but in no case is it in the interest of the companies in Central and Eastern Europe that work in this field. Again, here I see lobbying in the interest and direction of companies that deal and produce, as well as sell propane, which is supposed to replace these gases, as you call them, and we see the same thing that happened with the Mobility package, which happened with internal combustion engines. A climate hysterism that, however, goes into lobbyism and actually threatens jobs.

Dear colleague, are you seriously proposing to have a commissioner for the welfare of animals? Well, if we have a commissioner for animals, do we need to have one for the bees, for the goats, for the sheep? One commissioner for every animal in this way.

Mr President, your look is eloquent and it says a lot. Dear colleagues, today we are making a big helmet on the great debates we are having here in the European Parliament. Maybe that's why we are about 19 people in the room, exactly 19 with me here on the podium and the chairman behind my back. Perhaps the fact that there are three times as many young people in the gallery is quite indicative of what we are currently doing. However, what I would like to draw your attention to is the following. We talk here about some nice things, about animal welfare and stuff like that. But behind all this are regulations, and regulations, and regulations that make it difficult for producers and farmers, difficult for people who work some real business, do something real, and try to sell it. I wonder, dear colleagues, dear Commissioner, I see that at least you have headphones, so you are listening to the translation, when the last time colleagues who speak on the subject were in a store to buy milk, butter, eggs, chicken, some such things, those who do not eat something from soybeans and something plastic. Because of these regulations, dear colleagues, in the Netherlands (Netherlands) close 3,000 farms. 3,000 farms are closing because of the climate footprint. The Netherlands is the country that net exports agricultural production second in the world, net, the most. The Netherlands knows how big it is and the U.S. knows how big it is. What does that tell you? It tells us that the regulations we are dealing with here in the European Parliament are destroying business, destroying entrepreneurship, introducing insane regulations, making life difficult for producers because someone has decided that they will talk about green deals, carbon footprint and other similar things that have nothing to do with living life. I agree, if it was something separate, there was some separate paradise of people who used soybeans, and they had let the rest live, produce, work, sell normally. I see a colleague who enjoys what I say a lot, but I hope so, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, you, a colleague. I'm so happy for you. You can ask me the blue card question, press the button there and ask for a blue card question if you wish. But this whole thing is funny. Look at how many people there are in the gallery and how many we are in the hall. What does that tell you? That tells me we're wasting these people's time here. There's inflation out there, there's war, there's real problems. We're wasting their time here.

Mr President, certainly an exotic debate against the backdrop of inflation, bank failures and war in Europe. Here we are talking about bees and other such things and I am tempted, colleagues, and those who have spoken, to ask you how many of you have seen a hive live? What is a frame lifter, what is a store, what is an overpass, what is a feeder? But we won't test ourselves to avoid embarrassment. However, citizens' initiatives are a good thing when people who understand what they are saying are talking about them. Otherwise, people in front of the TV are now watching common fairy tales such as ‘bees are our friends’. They must be your friends, I don't know. At least I've seen them live. However, speaking in this way, what impresses citizens and taxpayers is that this Parliament deals with things it does not understand and talks about things it does not understand. Again, farmers are opposed to people who grow bees, farmers. There is talk of pesticides and other such things from people who have not seen them live, and this gives all grounds for Euroscepticism to people who are outside. We heard the kids were out. If someone who looks at bees has hives, looks and sees this conversation, they will say that here some people are wasting their time. That's it.

Mr President, colleagues, illegal migration means illegal crossing of state borders. Illegal crossing of state borders means breaking the law. I am surprised that in this room, in its left, where there is always talk about the rule of law, there are calls, there is insistence to support the violation of legality, the violation of state borders, the violation of the law. Your support for non-governmental organisations that organise trafficking in human beings means support for crimes committed with a threat to the lives of people whom you trick into breaking the law. In general, in your position, honourable Members, here is in quotation marks, there is a monstrous contradiction. You speak, you insist on the rule of law, and you support its violation and endanger human lives. From this I draw the conclusion that for you breaking the law and risking human lives is nothing compared to accumulating small dots, small political capital and pretending to be the defenders of life that you threaten. It's just as simple and you should be ashamed.

Madam President, the process of improving the energy efficiency of buildings is undoubtedly important. However, this cannot be done with bans. This process has its cost, as repairs, especially serious repairs, are expensive and often associated with large initial investments. And this directive does not create European Union funds to cover this investment. Therefore, the balance between ambitions and obligations must be very delicate, and obligations come with incentives and realistic expectations. The report fails to strike this balance between obligations and prohibitions on the one hand and incentives on the other. This places new obligations, increases ambitions compared to the original Commission proposal to an extent that they are unattainable and very costly for both Member States and the private sector. There are other problems with the text, not to mention the eternal topics that are brought here, but in general this is an inflated proposal, full of elements and additions that are not related to the directive. Additional administration, additional burden is not included in the Commission text. That is why I voted against this text.

Madam President, I strongly voted against this proposal for a European regulation for the collective achievement of neutrality. I cannot help but mention the word ‘collectively’, which, for us who have lived in this order, we know what it means in our historical context. Now to the essence of the text. As part of the Fit for 55 package this Regulation covers greenhouse gas emissions resulting from direct human activity in land use. The implemented legislation introduces additional obligations and de facto sanctions in the form of an increase of the target for the following year. Those Member States that cannot achieve the so-called targets – again bans, again bureaucratic burdens with the sole aim of pleasing the extreme green extremists in this room. It is not thought how this will affect agriculture, forest holdings, nor how Member States will comply with another absolutely superfluous piece of legislation made by officials who have not seen forest outside the pots in their office. These actions are killing the European economy. That is why I am firmly opposed to such greenist ideas, which are, unfortunately, professed by the majority in this House.

Madam President, I strongly voted against this report because the binding annual greenhouse gas emission reductions binding on Member States, the so-called Effort Sharing Regulation, are nothing more than so-called ‘green extremism’. Green extremism has prevailed again, not only in this House, but also in the inter-institutional negotiations. The existing legislation sets binding national greenhouse gas targets for each of the 27 Member States of the European Union, totalling a 30% reduction in emissions for 2030. The 2005 baseline was taken. The proposal being voted on increases this figure once again to 40%. This is done by legislatively defining the so-called ‘reduction trajectory’ and defining a degree of flexibility, reserves, loans, banking and other such things. That's unreasonable. This puts these sectors in an extremely difficult situation because of the many additions of regulations, of administration, of an attempt to tax working businesses with socialist and communist in their spirit and design taxes, and this is unreasonable.

Madam President, congratulations to my colleague Zovko, as always an excellently prepared, excellent report. However, what needs to be said and cannot be saved is that in order to improve and restore relations between the European Union and Azerbaijan, Azerbaijan must take its stand and end the war it is waging against Armenia. It must unblock the Lachin corridor, it must stop the destruction of churches, of Orthodox monasteries, of memories, of cemeteries. To end the violence and aggression it is leading against Artsakh. As a reminder, Artsakh is an ancient Armenian territory. The territory of one of the oldest nations, such as the Armenian one in Europe, one of the oldest European civilizations and one of the oldest Christian civilizations. This line of genocide, violence and terror, perpetrated already by the Ottoman Empire, by the Ottoman Turks and continued, unfortunately, by Azerbaijan, must be stopped, and then one can already talk about improving relations, trade relations, etc. As far as the violation of human rights is concerned, this cannot be traded for oil and gas. At least that's what you say. I am inclined to agree with you in this case.

Madam President, colleagues, the European Union and the European Parliament owe an immediate condemnation to the blockade of Azerbaijan that has been imposed over the Lachin corridor. This blockade is a continuation of a systematic anti-Armenian policy dating back to 1915. It is essentially a continuation of the genocide perpetrated against the brave and first European and Christian Armenian people by the Ottoman Empire and the Young Turkic coup after 1915. What is happening there is a real disgrace and the European Parliament, the European Union and the European Commission in your person, Commissioner, cannot continue to play with Azerbaijan. We cannot pretend that we do not see the violation of human rights, the blockade, the lack of medical services, the pressure on these people there because they were on the other side or because we had geopolitical interests. The geopolitical interest is the protection of every right of every person, the protection of every human right to self-determination. I personally believe that both Ararat and Artsakh, historically Armenian, will ever again be. But for this purpose here, in order not to disgrace this Parliament, it is your duty, this blockade must be lifted.

Mr President, colleagues, of course the situation in Moldova is tense and worrying, and of course the reason for this is also the influence of the Kremlin and the pro-Russian agents who are trying to distract attention from their failures in Ukraine. Of course, the place of Moldova and Ukraine is in the European Union. However, there is something that I do not understand and that is why it is necessary right now, when the Moldovan public needs unity, that the authorities in Moldova try to continue to take away the autonomy of the Bulgarian community there. I do not know if you know – there are between 100 000 and 300 000 Bulgarians in Moldova who have lived there since 1776. They have also been loyal citizens of that country so far. Why is it necessary to disintegrate this autonomy, why is it necessary to turn these people into enemies? Why do these people need to be stripped of their civil and political rights? This is something that needs to end. And here you are responsible and you, Commissioner, have brilliantly defended the rights of Bulgarians in Macedonia. I hope that now as a lion you will fight for the rights of the Bulgarians in Moldova, because Moldova's path is to the European Union. But this goes through respect for the rights and legitimate interests of all communities and all minorities there.

Mr President, Members, I would like to draw your attention to the deteriorating situation on all the borders of our Eastern Partnership. As a result of the Russian aggression against Ukraine, illegal and unprovoked, unrest has started, most likely triggered again by the regime in the Kremlin, in Moldova, in Georgia, throughout the Caucasus. In the shadow of these events, however, remains the suffering of a people that is currently subjected to terror on two sides. Of course, I am talking about the Armenians and the occupation of the Lachin corridor, which leads to Artsakh, as they call Nagorno-Karabakh. And here in the European Parliament there is a lot of talk about human rights. If we are talking about human rights, there must be equal standards of human rights. And here there must be a very clear voice for the protection of one of the most ancient Christian peoples, namely the Armenian. And to urge Azerbaijan to immediately end the blockade of the Lachin corridor and allow humanitarian aid to be organized with the help of the European institutions.