Speeches

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.

Mr President, Commissioner, I usually criticise you and believe that this is correct, but in this case I cannot but support your words at the beginning of your presentation. Yes, the Russian aggression has finally led even our sluggish colleagues to reflect on the need for a more organised, more unified common foreign policy of the Member States of the European Union. This, of course, cannot happen with federalization. This, of course, cannot happen with the introduction of majority voting, as this will jeopardise the interests of smaller countries in key sectors and in territories where they are under pressure. Just as most of the Western countries did not listen to us when we warned about the activation of Russian aggression on the eastern flank of the European Union and NATO, similar processes are currently taking place, for example, in the Balkans, where the same threat conducts its hybrid operations on the territories of candidate and candidate countries and directs and pits them against European Union Member States. There should be a single European response to this, not a split action.

Madam President, Members, the proposed legislative package is and can only be qualified as the deliberate and ritualistic economic suicide of Europe. The green transition in this form is a kind of mirage. The transport sector will be particularly affected. Personal mobility will be further constrained, while the transport industry will collapse due to rising fuel prices and impossible environmental standards. Private cars, cheap and affordable air tickets remain in history and can be afforded only or very wealthy people or those who are paid by the European Commission. This is the utopian, wonderful new world that the European Commission and part of this extreme group is offering us here in the European Parliament. You and I live in different worlds. Obviously, you don't care how your ordinary fellow citizens live, who just want a car to be able to move somewhere. And you obviously did not understand that the land is round, and if what is happening is giving business to China and giving jobs to China, and the land is round, and if China is polluting, it is polluting the whole land. And you're losing jobs here. I can't explain it logically. No logic, no explanation. There are two words that come to mind. One is lobbying, the other is the deliberate economic deindustrialisation of Europe. Choose which one.

Thank you, it was my mistake. Г-н Председател, гласувах в подкрепа за резолюцията относно разработване на стратегия на Европейския съюз в областта на велосипедния транспорт. Безспорно колоезденето не трябва да се разглежда само като спорт и развлекателна дейност, но и като истинско транспортно средство с индивидуална политика и специално финансиране. Велосипедът е средство за транспорт, което представлява множество предимства по отношение на здравето, намаляването на задръстванията по пътищата и следователно на замърсяването, има икономически предимства, когато говорим за покупателна способност на европейските граждани. Нужна е велосипедна стратегия, включваща повече велосипедна инфрастуктура, подобряване на градското планиране, изграждане на нови пътища, насърчаване на мултимодалността, признаване и стимулиране на европейската велосипедна индустрия, осигуряване на достъп за уязвимите групи и информационни кампании за повишаване на пътната безопасност – тъй като в една част от нашите държави на велосипедистите все още не се гледа като на участници в движението, което застрашава техния живот и здраве – а това трябва да бъде по някакъв начин предизвикано.

Mr President, I voted against the resolution on minimum income because, like any document on the good ... of the European Parliament, it is about the otherwise good idea and cause of combating poverty [....] (The President interrupted the speaker due to the inconsistency of his speech with the topic under discussion)

Mr President, it has been one year since the illegal Russian military aggression against Ukraine. A year of terror, violence and murder of innocent civilians, occupation of territories that the Russian Federation itself recognised in 1990 as part of Ukraine, has passed. What we, the countries that remember the Soviet occupation, should do is to assist Ukraine in every way and insist that it be restored within its political and historical borders, recognised and guaranteed by the Budapest Conference, even by the Russian Federation itself. Russia's aggression must be condemned once again, but it will not happen with words, it will not happen with declarations. Ukraine must be supported and assisted in all possible ways, including with all the material and technical complex that can be provided to repel the aggressor and restore the territorial integrity of the state of Ukraine. Only then can there be peace, and then there will be peace in Europe, which is something we should strive for.

Mr President, fellow Members, Commissioner, at last a meaningful and useful initiative. Unfortunately, there are not many people in the room at the moment – our colleagues. But yes, Commissioner, the initiative is useful and commendable and needs to be supported. We live in a time when more and more different types of disasters, earthquakes, fires, floods are happening on our continent and the citizens' initiative and volunteering need to be supported. And this must and can be done through the introduction of some form of common standards for the training of volunteers, for the disclosure of volunteers, for the same type of equipment of volunteers, this would be useful and this would lead to the saving of lives and property and to the minimization of the damage from natural disasters. I personally have participated several times as a citizen as a volunteer in extinguishing the effects of forest fires in various large Bulgarian mountains, I would be happy to discuss this with you, but what needs to be done is to continue to offer a uniform standard in training and qualification, in collecting equipment for volunteers and voluntary formations. And this thing could help, I say again, and benefit all European citizens and the economy and save lives. So keep going in that direction. Congratulations!

Mr President, the Istanbul Convention does not solve the problems of violence against women. Violence against women is a crime and must be prosecuted under national laws. However, the Istanbul Convention, which you are pushing very hard here, actually has other goals. It conceals propaganda and politics that are contrary to women's interests. For example, it supports an ideology that would allow biological men to compete in women's sports, would allow biological men to enter women's changing rooms. This is violence against women and against women. The Istanbul Convention is a propaganda tool for LGBT and gender politics. For this reason, Bulgaria has not accepted it. For this reason, we with our Constitution believe that this document contradicts our family values, contradicts the grounds of our society, contradicts the way we have arranged the way we live. And yes, violence against women is a serious problem and a crime that needs to be punished, but it continues and is strong even in countries that have ratified it, which shows how meaningless this document is.

Mr President, this dossier is, to put it mildly, outrageous. Totally at that. As shadow rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, I would like to point out that there is hardly a better metaphor than this legislative report for the war against ordinary people that green lobbyists in this House organise and lead. Hardly any of you can say what is the carbon footprint, what is the environmental damage that it costs to produce an electric car? How many hours of child labor, how many hours of slave labor go into making the batteries for electric cars? Of course, none of you will say these things because they do not go, they do not fit into your idea of green lobbying. The adoption of this law will lead to the end of personal mobility. This is a report directed against the ordinary citizen, against the person who wants to own a car, to be able to afford it, to travel, to ride his family. And my question to the Socialists is: How come you're socialists, and you're so oppressive and you're waging a war against the common people, against the poor people?

on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - Mr President, I voted strongly in favour of this resolution because I believe that the Ukrainian people need support and that all of us here should make this support clear. It is an absolute shame, an absolute disgrace to say that the attacker must surrender and not defend himself. It is clear who is the aggressor of all who think and are not paid by Kremlin propaganda. The aggressor in this case is Russia and the Russian state leadership. If anyone wants peace, then he must convince the aggressor to stop this attack and to withdraw and look for some conversations from now on, but to say that you should not help the attacked, the weaker, the one who is attacked at home, the one who is bombed, the one who is under the bombs 24/7, because it should end the war in this way, is shameful, disgraceful and is a manifestation of Kremlin propaganda. This propaganda, unfortunately, continues to make its way even in this room and to justify the unjustified, namely the killing of innocent people. So I supported the resolution and it is clear to me who is being attacked and who needs to be protected.

Mr President, I voted firmly against this report because of its aspirational and populist nature. I understand the Left's desire to present itself as a defender of the rights of the people to wage labor, but firstly, this report will not achieve this thing, and secondly, it fulfills the wishes of the best times in which the people of Central and Eastern Europe lived for many years under communist propaganda and Bolshevik occupation. This report will not solve any issue of the collective rights of the people to wage labour, it will be used, like the previous one, for some form of propaganda and so that the parties on the left in this European Parliament can present themselves as defenders of rights, raising slogans from socialism, not knowing socialism and not knowing the effect of this system on the lives of millions of people in Central and Eastern Europe.

on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, I abstained on this report because it does not answer the really important questions relating to political advertising and the influence of social networks, namely the question of the organisation of the moderation of social networks that use political advertising. It is good to talk about transparency, it is good to talk about the organization of this process, but as long as there are no clear rules for moderation, as long as social networks continue to be the field, and the biggest field for propaganda, and it is hostile propaganda, especially in the eastern part of Europe, especially in the Balkans, where the largest troll factories are located for creating and disseminating fake news and creating whole suggestions, whole moods through these social networks, until whatever reports are voted here, they will not answer the really important question. The really important issue is a moderation that makes it possible to prevent, expose and isolate fake news in social networks and political life.

Mr President, on 19 January this year, a young man, Kristian Pendikov, was attacked by a group of gunmen in Ohrid and beaten for his Bulgarian national consciousness. A classic hate crime, recorded and established by the prosecutor in Ohrid, who describes and says that the young man was attacked because of his self-determination as a Bulgarian. This hate crime was preceded by several attacks on Bulgarian cultural clubs in Macedonia, including Bitola, including Ohrid, by the adoption of a xenophobic and essentially Nazi legislation prohibiting the formation of non-governmental organizations of people with Bulgarian national consciousness and forgetting their names. All these crimes are hate crimes and are directed against an ethnic group in the Republic of North Macedonia that defines itself as Bulgarian. All these crimes are promoted in another way, openly or secretly, or more visibly or more invisiblely by various persons in power in the Republic of North Macedonia, including the Presidency and the Council of Ministers. This thing must be strongly condemned by this House and by the European Commission, and the Republic of North Macedonia must be forced to respect absolutely all norms of protection of human rights and the right to self-determination.