Speeches

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.

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.