Speeches

Mr President, I voted in favour of this report. The recent escalation of Russia's brutal military aggression against Ukraine is a confirmation of its decision to violate Ukraine's fundamental rights to independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity within its internationally recognised borders and to destroy its viability as a state. The courage, courage and determination of the Ukrainian people to defend the country deserves deep respect and gratitude. Through a Team Europe approach, the European Union, its Member States and European financial institutions mobilised EUR 19 billion at the start of the Russian military aggression for Ukraine’s economic, social and financial resilience. This, combined with support from the Union budget of EUR 12.4 billion, including macro-financial assistance in support of the European Investment Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, is fully and partially guaranteed by the budget of the European Union, as well as additional financial support from Member States of EUR 7.3 billion. This should be part of our duty to support the attacked state so that it can withstand aggression.

Mr President, Commissioner, colleagues, when I look at the facts surrounding the revision of the Medical Devices Regulation, I am once again disappointed to see that something is profoundly wrong with the way decisions are taken and implemented in the functioning of this European Union. There is no explanation why, once this regulation has been adopted, due to the excessive bureaucratic and financial effort required to re-certify a range of medical devices, even those that are of excellent quality and have been in use for a long time may unexpectedly disappear from the market because companies decide to withdraw them without any explanation. The result is visible – a reduction in the availability of medical devices across Europe, which worsens patient care. Until recently, in this room, everyone had become a medical specialist, understood about pandemics, discussed the Chinese virus, what it was, what it was not, how medical care was exhausted, lack of medicines, lack of ventilators and so on, and so on. However, it seems that this is past as an explanation, everyone has forgotten it, and now the same mistakes are repeated again. This behaviour is inexplicable and it is inexplicable that citizens of the Member States of the European Union are deprived of adequate, timely and necessary medical care. Commissioner, it is time for the European Commission to start acting adequately, to mind its own business. It's in your interest, not ours. We often criticise you for these things, but it is not a bad thing to take the decision to end this vicious practice of legislation that affects the interests of the citizens of the Member States.

Mr President, I read the Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria, Article 46, first paragraph: "Marriage is a voluntary union between a man and a woman. Civil marriage shall be lawful.’ A few lines below in the following paragraph: “Children born out of wedlock have equal rights to those born out of wedlock.” This, colleagues, proves everything you are discussing here, you are fooling each other and trying to make political propaganda. Yes, we may surprise you, but we Bulgarians in Bulgaria through our Constitution have accepted marriage as a union between a man and a woman. If the child was born out of such a marriage, he has equal rights and there is no problem to be issued a document in the name of the mother. A single civil number can immediately be issued in the name of the mother. So there's no problem with that thing. What you are doing here, however, is propaganda, with which you are trying to change our society and our way of life. And we disagree with him. We do not say to allow or prohibit or adopt a form of marriage in your countries. We don't tell you how to sustain your societies. We tell you that we will not allow you to change ours, because unlike you, we think that marriage is between a man and a woman biological parents. And I think you have to comply with this will of ours, because this is democracy.

Of course, honourable Member, anyone who supports and encourages the illegal crossing of a state border is a political accomplice to those who make human trafficking. There are organizations that promote human trafficking that organize human trafficking that receive money for human trafficking, and here in this room, there are people who advocate human trafficking. And I'm surprised, but I'm not really surprised, because when the hall-occupied and hall-dominated left supports illegal migration, it does so for its own political reasons. But any of you who supports the illegal crossing of a state border should be ashamed of this, because in essence you become an accomplice to criminal acts. It's just as simple as that.

Mr President, colleagues, crossing a state border is a crime. This crime must be investigated, prosecuted, charged, tried and convicted. Instead of this happening, however, this House supports such crimes. It often talks about the rule of law. What rule of law when you support breaking the law and crimes? The hall of this European Parliament occupied by the extreme left, the extremist left, is complicit in human trafficking, is complicit in a number of crimes related to human trafficking. You work together with traffickers' organizations, you support traffickers' organizations that sell people as commodities, and you support them, and you should be ashamed of that. Supporters of illegal migration are directly responsible and guilty of the deaths of Bulgarian border and police officers who have died and continue to suffer and suffer damage, shootings with illegal immigrants and Turkish smugglers. You are talking about solidarity – have any of you called the families of these people to express solidarity to them? No, of course you're not, and you shouldn't be, because you should be ashamed. The solution is one and it must be a European one: a united firm stance, the protection of external borders, the extradition of illegal migrants, a court and prison for smugglers and a disgrace for those who support them. (The speaker agreed to respond to the "blue card" statement)

Mr President, Commissioner, I welcome the proposal for a directive on the resilience of critical sites, and I am pleased that the opinion of the Committee on Transport and Tourism is also being taken into account. Transport is an essential sector, connectivity is an important thing and, of course, critical infrastructure needs to be arranged, assessed and safeguarded. But when we talk about these things, there is inevitably a contradiction and a very strong discrepancy. There will be a lot of talk here about this connectivity report, about how infrastructure should be assessed, etc. At the same time, there are Member States that continue to block the accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the Schengen area. What connectivity are we talking about, given that 12 hours are travelled from Ruse to Bucharest, between which there are 70 kilometres of distance, Commissioner, how can this work be done? Again we see the difference between words and deeds. For 11 years now, the two countries have met all the technical criteria, meet the requirements, but are not part of the Schengen area, and this is absolutely unfair to our citizens, to our transport, to our infrastructure and to our business. So, when you talk about these things, first you need to see the issues related to the accession of Bulgaria and Romania to Schengen, so that this space can be completed and so that it can be fully assessed and worked out.

on behalf of the ECR Group. - Madam President, unlike my fellow Member, I voted absolutely against this report because this report is nothing more than a hypocritical, two-faced escape and pinning of a badge. When this hall understands and sees that in Bitola, in Ohrid, real racism develops, real xenophobia, real hatred based on the national origin of the local Bulgarians there, this hall is silent and pretends that it has not heard, seen and neither onions have eaten nor onions have smelled. This is wrong. That's two-faced. This is absolutely hypocritical. When the Serbian authorities stop commemorating the Day of the Western Outskirts and continue their illegal occupation, we write and say: ‘People, this is real racism, this is real xenophobia’, and someone there is making some imaginary declarations in order to have a clear conscience and to make himself more, more and more humane than the others. My colleague said earlier that there can be no choice which racism is worse, which is better. Either you condemn the manifestation of such actions or you do not condemn. You can't pretend to be blind in one eye, you can't help but see things happening right under your nose in a country that wants to be an EU candidate. It's just a disgrace.

Madam President, I supported this report not only because Croatia has fulfilled all the conditions and deserves to be part of the Schengen area, but also because I want to remind those Member States that continue to break the rules. It is absolutely hypocritical, two-faced and irregular for them to suspend Romania and Bulgaria from Schengen membership for their own economic reasons, because they violate the treaties. For 11 years, Bulgaria and Romania have clearly fulfilled all the requirements of the Schengen area. A few days ago, a Bulgarian border policeman died in a shootout at the Turkish border with Turkish smugglers, defending this hall here. Two months ago, two other policemen died again in pursuit of smugglers and people and traffickers of migrants, but Bulgaria and Romania are not yet part of the Schengen area. Why? Because countries like the Netherlands are pursuing their own self-interest. There are lobbyists of the big transport companies who are pushing Bulgaria and Romania not to be accepted so that their companies can work and their companies can earn more money. That's hypocritical. And that's two-faced.

Member of the Commission. - Madam President, I have abstained from supporting this report because of its content. We have heard many times here that there are increased prices, that energy is expensive. Why is energy expensive? Because of the votes in this House. Because for years, systematically, the people who voted in this House did only one thing: made electricity more expensive, fuels more expensive and citizens' lives more expensive. Why did they do it? They were led by a greenist, climateist, alarmist utopia and hysteria. They claimed that there could be no production of their own gas. They claimed that there could be no production of electricity from nuclear energy and made sure that the prices of energy carriers were deliberately high. No one else is to blame here, not Russia, not China, not other countries. It is the fault of the vote in this House. Prices have risen in this room and now the same people are telling us that we have to fight external dependencies - those that have made the European Union totally dependent on external energy sources. That's stupid.

Mr President, I am very pleased with these meetings of ours on Thursday evening, in the afternoon. I voted firmly against this resolution for the following reason: I do not believe in this ideology - climateism, hysterism, greenism, an ideology that is not based on any real scientific data and no real scientific facts. The result of this ideology is the deindustrialization of the European continent. We are killing our own production and putting forces in the hands of China, in the hands of Turkey, in the hands of Russia. We are consciously destroying our economy so that some other people who are not interested in this ideology can profit at our expense. This is unreasonable, it is not economically and scientifically justified. For this reason, we always vote firmly against all such resolutions that make us poorer, more unemployed, more deindustrialised for the benefit of other societies and other countries that have their economic and political ambitions in this direction.

on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, I have strongly voted against this resolution for several reasons. First of all, crimes, murders must be prosecuted, punished, regardless of the person of either the criminal or the victim. This is the work of criminal justice, this is the work of criminal law, because otherwise ideological explanations, ideological reasons and ideological justifications for one or another act are created in this room. Dear Mr President, in Europe and in Bulgaria there are many crimes, unfortunately, which are committed, say, because of the religious motives of the perpetrator. In both France and Germany, of which you are a member, there are jihadist and Muslim Islamist groups who commit crimes because of their motives. In Bulgaria, many crimes are committed by the inhabitants of the neighborhoods. Should these people be punished more severely for their origin? And let me raise the question of self-determination one more time. Should the offender be punished if he or she identifies himself or herself in one way or another? I think no, there should be justice.

on behalf of the ECR Group. - Mr President, I supported the resolution on the rule of law in Malta, five years after the murder of journalist Daphne Galizia, because I believe that through her work she managed to raise the issue of corruption in her society, particularly large-scale money laundering and, unfortunately, pay for it with her life. The resolution is balanced, welcomes the additional capacity available for investigating and prosecuting such crimes. This means that the European Parliament is concerned about the persistence of obstacles to freedom of expression and divergent opinions in the media. When I talk about different opinions, I'm not just talking about those who are pleasing to these media and who are in the so-called mainstream society. I believe that the resolution as it stands covers these aspects and the fact that it is supported by all groups shows its good content.

Mr President, honourable Member, I congratulate you on the question you have raised. It is timely and important. Dear Commissioner, I often, not to say almost always, criticise you for things that I believe are true, but in this case the question that has been raised and your reaction deserves both congratulations and respect. The community, the scientific community, in Ukraine must be helped, because after the treacherous Russian attack and missile strikes on higher education institutions, on high schools and on universities, it is quite obvious that this scientific thought and this scientific potential must be preserved for the good of both the Ukrainian nation, the Ukrainian people and our entire European civilization. So your position is worthy of respect, for which I congratulate you. There is one fact, historically, which you are obviously or rather unsurprisingly not aware of, but you all know that there is a very large Bulgarian community, a Bulgarian minority, in Ukraine. These people are loyal Ukrainian citizens. In Ukraine is the oldest Bulgarian high school, the oldest. There was a Bulgarian high school in Ukraine before there was a Bulgarian state. So we have to help these people, so work.

Madam President, Commissioner, violence against women and children is and must be a crime, and every crime must be prosecuted, accused, condemned and punished. And so it is right and so it should be, because this crime is abominable. However, the debate here is slightly different, because the Istanbul Convention is not this document to protect women and children from domestic violence or any gender-based violence. The Istanbul Convention has far larger, wider and different objectives, and you are well aware of this. In the Istanbul Convention, there is an ideology that for some of us is unacceptable and that is why we oppose this document, and at the same time we tell you not to take the just cause of defending women's rights as a hostage for ideological changes aimed at family tradition, family, etc. And I'll give you two examples. How do you claim to defend women's rights and encourage an athlete who is a born man to go compete in a women's league, in swimming, in boxing, in wrestling or whatever. And one more thing, how you claim to promote and protect women's rights, and you call tradition the practice in some communities, Muslim or in the neighborhoods in Bulgaria to marry forcibly 12-year-old children. This is not about protecting children's and women's rights, quite the contrary. I conclude with the call the Istanbul Convention has not been signed by us, it will not be signed .....

So, dear colleague, do you know where is the town of Bitola? The town of Bitola is one of the major cities in so—called North Macedonia. There are Bulgarians there – good guys. They created a cultural club. Well, this club was attacked and set on fire. What is your comment? By government—led arsonists. What is your comment? I want to know.

Madam President, what enlargement are we talking about at the moment when another fierce anti-Bulgarian campaign is raging in Skopje? Commissioner, a Bulgarian cultural club was set on fire in Bitola, a Bulgarian cultural club was destroyed in Ohrid, an old Bulgarian capital. The same day, the National Assembly, the Skupshtina of the Republic of Macedonia, North Macedonia, passed a law banning non-governmental organizations with Bulgarian names. Should I remind you who and in what years burned clubs culturally? Should I remind you who banned names in what years? May I remind you, Commissioner, the right to self-determination, the right of association, the right to organise? Have you forgotten all these things, Commissioner? I have asked you many times and you have not answered me at all. Because these are, so-called and defended by all of you, European values. If you're not protecting them, I don't know what you're protecting. And I hold on to the answer, because I've asked you many times, I want a real answer. Who set the club on fire in Bitola? Who destroyed the club in Ohrid? Who banned NGOs? Who swirled the anti-Bulgarian hysteria in Skopje? This is important and I expect a real answer from you, not the usual alabalicisms.

Member of the Commission. - Mr President, thank you also for your understanding in taking the floor. Dear Commissioner, many things have been said here and most of them are true. But the fight against the pandemic is a matter for the medical authorities, Commissioner. But the question for you is different. My question is how much did the organisation of the European Commission cost? Who carried out the public procurement? How much did the European Commission, the European Parliament pay for tests, for masks, for materials, for sanitary materials, for organising the tests, for placing the tests? How did you choose the companies, which companies cleaned, which companies did the tests outside, how did you choose them, what is the procedure, how much money did you spend and how much did it cost the European taxpayers? These are important things and should be known so that there are no doubts about the integrity of the European Commission's work, as a lot of money has been spent during the pandemic and you owe these answers and I expect them.

Member of the Commission. - Madam President, I hope you will really take action, as you have said. Dear colleagues, the non-accession of Bulgaria and Romania to Schengen is a real political disgrace for the leadership of the European Union. A real political disgrace, because all of you in this room, for which, by the way, I congratulate you, confirm the fact that both Bulgaria and Romania have met all the criteria and should be part of the Schengen area. But it doesn't work. Why doesn't it work, folks? Because one country is officially the Netherlands, the government of the Netherlands, not the whole of the Netherlands, and the other countries have stumbled and obstructed this for domestic political reasons so as not to cause themselves any harm inside the house. This is a double standard. You are showing us here that there are more Europeans and fewer Europeans. You show that there are first-hand Europeans and second-hand Europeans. This is hypocrisy, this is hypocrisy, and this is unacceptable to us. It is a shame and a disgrace to those who do. It is they who teach us how to deal with countries that are candidates for membership, how we should expand the European Union, how we should be one big, cheerful, happy family. What are they doing? They leave Bulgaria, Romania and Croatia on the sidelines and this is hypocrisy, and this is duplicity, and this is extremely, extremely dishonest. We all know why that is. The main reason is not even politics, but the economy. When we and the Romanians are outside Schengen, we cannot ride. We are one of the biggest carriers. Our trucks are waiting at the borders, our drivers are slow, our business is dying. Bread is taken from the hands of Bulgarian entrepreneurs and Romanian entrepreneurs. And that's a disgrace. Take action and get governments to do their job.

Mr President, there is Russian aggression against Ukraine, there is Russian propaganda. But this Russian propaganda is on American platforms. The biggest lies of this propaganda are spread by American platforms and they don't take them down. Why is that? Because they obviously do not want to, and because they help you in a lie, namely in the lie that the right were Putin's allies. No, it's not true. Putin’s true allies are in Brussels – those who destroyed European energy; those who destroyed the coal mines; those who destroyed our independence; those who made the European Union dependent on Russian hydrocarbons; and those who finance the Russian economy. These are Putin's friends. It's not us right-wingers, it's not us nationalists. Nationalism is the only resistance, a real spring resistance to Bolshevism, and communism belongs to the Kremlin. Just as we resisted with arms in hand after 45 years in Eastern Europe, and you abandoned us and betrayed us in Yalta, so today you continue to be Putin's true allies. Think about it.

Mr President, it is always an honour, a pleasure and a very interesting thing to listen to fellow Irish communists. Communism in Ireland is impressive, inspiring, it is clearly more outspoken, more real communism than that of Stalin, Lenin, Trotsky and all the other Soviet communists. But let's get back to the topic we're talking about, fraud. The frauds, of course, are reprehensible, but we voted against this report not because of fellow Irish communists who are true communists because they did not live in the Soviet Union and because they did not see the Soviet Union. And I wonder why they are in the European Parliament, and why they are not in the parliament on the island of Sakhalin, for example, or in some other such Soviet, nice communist parliament, but they are in the European Parliament. It would be interesting to go to the island of Colima, there would also be nice to see. But we voted against this report, finally, because the rule of law is being used as political pressure.

on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, we have voted firmly against this report because it once again confirms the serious political divisiveness of the individual in this House. On the one hand, colleagues say that they want to have sustainable fuels, that they want to have an environmental component, a recoverable component in fuels in the aviation industry. Then this component is added and it turns out that it is extracted from resources that lead to deforestation and forest loss in a number of countries. And then the greens, everyone in this room and others who came here on wheels a little while ago, say that this was already bad. What is true, my friends? Which of the two is true after all? Either these fuels are environmentally friendly and sustainable or they are not. They can't both be true. By the way, the many regulations, the attempts to impose administratively, people who have not earned 5 leva in their lives with some work, to impose on others how to do business, in the case of aviation, lead to what we see today at airports, severe problems.

Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I have a question for all the colleagues here who are defending this strategy. My question needs a very quick answer. Which one of you came from your birthplace to here on a bike? Can you raise your hand? Perhaps our fellow communists from Ireland came on a bicycle? Mrs. Kelly, did you come on a bike? From Ireland? This is news because there is an ocean, a sea between Ireland and Europe. You are heroes, bravo, you have managed to swim on a bicycle, maybe it is a water bike, I congratulate you. Why am I saying this? It is very nice to talk about these jokes and jokes, it is very nice to walk these stories, but this is another, Mrs Daly, nice debate about nothing, frankly, scratching the languages, it does not reflect the realities. There are places in Europe where you can ride a bike and you have to, there are places where it snows in winter and it is difficult, there are heights and you can not. But because colleagues here are racing anyone who is greener, but no one has come from their homeland by bike. What does that tell you? It tells you that once again the time of the European taxpayers is wasted and there are jokes and jokes and stories from the "Ship bush", I apologise to the translators.

Mr President, the rapporteur deserves congratulations on the report he has made and on the efforts he has made. I would like to draw attention to a fundamental mistake in the policy of the European Parliament and the Union. And this is not the rapporteur's effort, I say again, it deserves congratulations. The pursuit of more regulation is deeply flawed, honourable Members. Wanting more regulation, better regulation, goes against the idea of free initiative, free enterprise and citizens having their will, their desire to do what they see fit and what they have to do, and not to be constantly regulated by the European institutions. The desire for more regulation was Soviet-style socialism. And so that system was built, everything is regulated, everything is made in a mold, everything must be arranged in their boxes. And this disappoints citizens and drives them away from the European idea, from the European Union entirely. Let me give you an example of such regulation. Everyone here in this room is very green, you want everyone to eat green, breathe green, wear green pants or not to wear them if it is greener, but at the same time you voted for hundreds of thousands of empty trucks to walk around Europe empty, burn a lot of fuel and pollute the air. Is it good regulation or is it bad regulation? Is it environmentally friendly to walk the trucks empty or not environmentally friendly? And if it's not ecological, why vote it when you want good regulations? Separately, I leave the ideological settings and every single document that talks about administration, and there are discussed gender equality and other such topics that have nothing to do with it. In conclusion, not more, but less regulation, more sovereignty, more independence, free will and sovereign states.

Madam President, Commissioner, the Three Seas Initiative offers a unique chance for the rapid development of the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. Numerous infrastructure projects, the improvement of digital connectivity and, of course, energy projects are the three pillars of economic development on which the countries participating in this initiative should focus. It includes many important things, some of them important for both Bulgaria and Europe: infrastructure projects such as tunnels under the Petrohan Pass or tunnel number 8. Of course, this initiative is an occasion for the economic development of the countries on the periphery. Why do you have to do that? Not just because of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. It is a legitimate occasion, of course, and it must be condemned, and we all condemn it as we should. But in the European Union there is a visible double standard and a division between the centre and the periphery. Countries like Bulgaria, like Romania, like Croatia are not allowed into the Schengen area, and this prevents our economies from developing, it hinders our strength, our transport. For this reason, in order to overcome the hypocrisy of some of the elites of the Western European countries, who want them to be more equal among the equals, and who want them to be better and the rest to be few service personnel, we have to work together in the periphery or in Central and Eastern Europe, and there is nothing wrong with that. Connectivity between Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia, Hungary and Ukraine will be useful, will help all our countries to overcome the gaps in their infrastructures and make them competitive, and will hit a slight slap on the duplicity and hypocrisy of those who want to be more equal and tell us what to do.

Madam President, Madam Rapporteur, I congratulate you on your fruitful work. This report is quite different from the previous two we looked at a moment ago. What I will, of course, immediately stress is that, with the support of colleagues from different groups, our amendments were adopted, which call on the government in Pristina to consider the petition from more than 500 Bulgarians in the regions of Gora and Zupa and their rights to be guaranteed and regulated by law. I am sure that the pro-European government in Kosovo will pay attention to this issue and Bulgarians will be equal and well-received in a society that is friendly to them, and will have the opportunity to preserve their unique culture and identity. What worries me, however, is the lack of a clear indication of the real problem. The real problem is the proxy of Russia in the Balkans, Serbia. It is destabilizing and trying to destabilize Kosovo and continues with provocations, as it was at the beginning of this year. We have seen several Serbian provocations and tensions along the border, and the occasion was served by police raids of the Kosovo police, which acted against organised crime on the Serbian side, so attention should be paid there. For the rest, I can congratulate you.