Speeches

The Schengen Agreement aims to strengthen a European area to face continuous challenges and combat security threats. Schengen membership involves cross-border participation to eliminate organised crime or terrorism. In a COVID-19 pandemic world, the Member States of the European Union and the Schengen area have introduced internal border controls as a unilateral response to new challenges. It is time to demonstrate that our values are stronger than the current problems and to facilitate free movement again. Romania and Bulgaria must be full members of the Schengen area. In view of the numerous calls for full application of the provisions of the acquis, the abolition of controls at the internal land, sea and air borders of the two countries must become a reality. Romania successfully manages, since accession, the second largest land border of the EU, and our country's contribution to border security is an important thing for the entire European Union. The European Union area without border controls, known as Schengen, is one of the most concrete achievements of European integration. The right to free movement for European citizens is one of the pillars of the European project and this must remain unchanged.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the reality is that between 2014 and 2024, livestock numbers in the European Union decreased by around 12%. Animal diseases, whether avian influenza outbreaks, bluetongue or other poorly managed veterinary crises, hit farms, reduce production, increase costs and put huge pressure on farmers. In many cases we have standardised measures, such as quarantine for African swine fever on radiuses of up to 10 km, applied rigidly, without a real adaptation to the specifics of the field, which blocks farmers' activity more than effectively protects the sector. Unfortunately, we continue to discuss measures that discourage livestock farming, put increasing pressure on farmers, and end up treating the livestock sector as a heavy, polluting industry that must be punished and not supported. We see policies that increase production costs without real alternatives, increasing standards, without proportionate financial support, and in parallel, we promote policies and messages that discourage the consumption of meat and milk. Colleagues, we need to understand that livestock farming means food security, fire prevention and keeping rural areas alive. Now that we are shaping the new common agricultural policy, we need to encourage livestock farming, to get big-crop farmers involved in integrating livestock farming into their farms. At the same time, we need a strong CAP budget adapted to the realities on the ground. Finally, I emphasise one more thing: we need to change the thinking of some policy-makers on climate change. Farmers are not the problem, they are the solution. If we lose them, we lose more than an industry. We are losing our identity.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, over the last ten months, the Government led by Ilie Bolojan has provided Romania with exactly what it needed – stability. It has reduced the budget deficit, prevented billions of euros from being lost from European funds and initiated key reforms. However, PSD, a party in the ruling coalition, chose to abandon this responsibility, as they promised in Brussels that they would never make alliances with extremist forces. This decision is not only a betrayal of the coalition, but of Romania's European direction itself, because we are a state on the border of war, an essential pillar on the eastern flank. I stress that political instability is not an internal game, but a strategic risk for the entire European Union. A risk for investors, but the costs of this irresponsibility will ultimately be paid by the citizens. We can't afford to step back. That's why I say clearly: Ilie Bolojan remains the only credible and responsible leader. Romania needs stability, responsibility, leaders who do not abandon the ship in the middle of the storm. He needs Elijah Bolojan!

Madam Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, poverty in Europe is increasingly hunger. In 2024, 9% of the European Union population could not afford a meal containing meat or fish every two days. In some Member States, this is above the 30% threshold. These figures show us a painful truth: the problem of access to food no longer belongs to others, to distant or developing countries. This is a reality here in the European Union. Rural areas remain consistently more at risk of poverty and food insecurity due to lower incomes and limited access to basic services. In this context, the CAP must be understood not only as a support policy for farmers, but as an essential instrument of economic, social and territorial cohesion through which the Union can combat this phenomenon. Investment in agriculture and basic services contributes directly to income stability and access to food. And when we talk about children, our responsibility is even greater. For many children in the European Union, the school meal is the only meal of the day. The school feeding scheme is not a secondary programme, but a vital intervention, which means equal opportunities in the future. That is why I call on the European Commission to ensure that the Anti-Poverty Strategy actively addresses hunger and that school nutrition programmes are adequately funded. The future of Europe is called into question when food insecurity affects children in particular.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, three thousand slaughtered animals, six million euros in compensation. These are not figures from a statistic, but the cruel reality in which French and European farmers live following the outbreak of lumpy skin disease in cattle. The new outbreak on the border with Spain is not just a local problem, an isolated crisis and no health accident. It is the direct consequence of a lack of anticipation, delayed decisions and European policies that too often react only after the damage is already irreversible. But it is a major test for the European Commission and for our collective ability to protect European agriculture. The question is simple and uncomfortable: How prepared are we in reality for diseases that decimate populations, destroy businesses and endanger food security and the future of future generations? The war stops at the border. Diseases, however, do not. They ignore maps, treaties and trade conventions. Compensation can mitigate short-term losses, but it is not a solution. They don't save farms, they don't rebuild herds. We need effective and proportionate interventions that protect animal health, but without destroying farmers' incomes. It is all the more serious because the vaccine exists but has not been used for commercial reasons, for fear of the impact on relations with third countries. The result? The disease has spread uncontrollably, wreaking havoc in some states and arousing - and I stress - horror throughout the European Union and the world of farmers. This is clear evidence that current biosecurity measures are insufficient. Without a real vaccine-based prevention strategy, however, we will continue to passively witness the mass slaughter of animals, with devastating effects not only on farmers but also on the internal market and the commercial credibility of the European Union. It is therefore time for a paradigm shift, from crisis management through financial compensation, to prevention, anticipation and above all to political responsibility.

Mr Sieper, both large farmers and small farmers are equally concerned about respecting environmental standards and, at the same time, it is precisely the European Commission that has come and is today proposing, proposing and I am convinced that it will propose further, that even the large farmers you are talking about should be incentivised in terms of complying with these environmental standards, because, I repeat, farmers are aware that only in an indestructible communion will they really be able to ensure the sustainability of their farmers, regardless of their size.

Mr. Sieper, thank you very much for this question. I want to tell you one thing: Today, farmers are the biggest and most important guardians of environmental protection. I guarantee you that every farmer is aware of what good collaboration and good respect for environmental rights mean, because it is the environment, after all, that gives the farmer sustainability. But at the same time, we must be aware that farmers must be paid for their work, because farmers cannot be asked to do more with less money. That is why it is very important to maintain this balance between what environmental protection means and payments to farmers.

Madam President, Commissioner Hansen, we appreciate this proposal from the European Commission and I congratulate the rapporteur Rodrigues, as well as the shadow rapporteur of the EPP, Dan Motreanu, and all the others involved in this file. Colleagues, we must recognise that today the common agricultural policy has become too complicated, too bureaucratic and too disconnected from the reality of European farmers. That is why it is time to move from a Europe of overregulation to a Europe of simplification, research and innovation. It is difficult to talk today about competitiveness, food security and generational renewal, when a farmer spends more time in front of the computer than in the field, or when minor mistakes lead to disproportionate sanctions. That is why I welcome the current simplification measures for farmers, whether we are talking about GAEC 1, 7 or 5, or rural start-ups and small farmers' businesses, which will be able to be financed with up to EUR 75 000, but also the reduction in the number of controls. At the same time, more than important is the possibility of purchasing animals with high genetic value from Pillar II of development. The current simplification of the CAP does not mean weakening European objectives, but must be a lesson for us, namely that farmers should not be listened to only when they are on the street. If we really want a strong Europe, we need to start with strong farmers, and that means a simple, fair, enforceable, but not least, adequately funded CAP now and in the future.

Mr President, I, too, congratulate the rapporteurs on their work, but, dear colleagues, today we are trying to respond to historic challenges with a budget created for a world that no longer exists. It was designed for a stable, predictable Europe and not for a Europe facing simultaneously a war on the continent, a recent pandemic, record inflation, explosive energy prices. That is why the 2026 allocations need to be closer to reality and more flexible. From an agricultural perspective, the realities cannot be challenged: We had, and still have, farmers on the street. They face major challenges, ranging from geopolitical turbulence, extreme weather events, market volatility and unacceptable rises in production costs. The war in Ukraine has put and is putting huge pressure on European farmers, and frontline states such as Romania are feeling this pressure more, and the European Commission must take these realities into account. The European Union budget must guarantee a decent living for farmers if we are to maintain food security and ensure reasonable prices for consumers. Farmers, beyond their role in providing food, have a strategic mission: to fight and keep rural communities alive and to fight against the depopulation of the most isolated areas. But, Commissioner Serafin, for this we must understand one thing: We can't do more with less money. We can't do the things we set out to do if we're not predictable. That is why I ask the European Commission to come up with a proposal to make these funds, whether we are talking about cohesion or the Common Agricultural Policy Pillar 2, for development, predictable for this beneficiary, because otherwise you understand that we will not be able to respond to these challenges that we are facing.

Mr President, Mr Hansen, thank you for the proposal. We also thank colleagues Rodrigues and Imart for their work, but, dear colleagues, today we are talking about simplifying a policy that, unfortunately, we have complicated ourselves. We can analyse why we have come here, to the point where farmers have had to cry out their helplessness in the street, but it is not the time to look for the culprits, but to act concretely so that they can continue their work today and tomorrow, and especially not to repeat the mistakes of the past. Agriculture is not just about farmers, as is sometimes misunderstood in this room by some colleagues, but it is about what we call Europe's food security, which means food in sufficient quantities and especially at affordable prices for consumers. Although agriculture accounts for only 2% of our economy, this sector is vital. More than 8.7 million people work in agriculture to feed more than 450 million European citizens. However, the gains in the agricultural sector are 40% lower than in other economic sectors, which is why we need to continue the simplification process even more intensively. We must go further, stop taxing agricultural subsidies and defend the strengthening of the position of European farmers in the food supply chain. Whether we are talking about absolutely indispensable written contracts, renegotiation clauses or exemption from reporting for small farms, the rule must be clear: You can't give one hand to the farmers and take them with two others. You cannot impose bureaucratic burdens and at the same time reduce funding.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, European farmers are once again being put in difficulty in trade disputes. China imposes anti-dumping tariffs of up to 62% on European pork, which is a response to Europe's legitimate pressures in the automotive sector. But those who pay the price are our farmers, family farms, processors and rural communities. European farmers thus become a bargaining chip in a conflict unrelated to their work but directly threatening their income and stability. The consequences will be felt throughout the European Union, price drops on domestic markets, so, Commissioner - I also ask you to follow me, Commissioner - I ask you that the European executive adopts a firm position and immediately comes up with concrete support measures for this sector, but also with a unified trade strategy that reduces the European Union's vulnerability to external pressures. Europe must defend its farmers and send a clear message: We will never give in to commercial blackmail.

Madam President, Commissioner Fitto, cohesion policy is the heart of European solidarity. It must remain the tool to bridge gaps and support lagging regions. That is precisely why, Commissioner, I would like you to convey our very strong message within the College of Commissioners. We need a strong cohesion policy. We need an independent cohesion policy and we need an adequately funded cohesion policy. This is the only way to have a strong European Union. Because we live in complicated times, in a difficult geopolitical context, with border war, climate change, social and economic pressures, such as the housing crisis. However, this housing crisis needs a European response, as today's Member States have unfortunately demonstrated their inability to solve this problem. Doubling investment in affordable housing is not just a social gesture, Commissioner, but a response to the hope of a secure future that millions of young people and families expect from Europe.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in recent months, fire has turned almost one million hectares of agricultural land and forests in the European Union into ashes. In Spain, in just 10 days, the fire has consumed over 300,000 hectares. Portugal faces more than 180 000 hectares, while in Romania some crops could be 30% lower compared to last year due to drought and fires. We are not just talking about burnt land and forests, we are talking about destinies, families and our daily food. We need a European Union that responds with concrete actions, support for farmers and a stronger Common Agricultural Policy. Commissioner, we have heard little about what a European water reserve should be, which must be our shield against drought at the level of each Member State. This can only be done with the help of European funds. At the same time, we must understand that burnt forests mean irreparable losses for biodiversity and the future of future generations. Reconstruction must become a priority. Last but not least, in conclusion, I thank the European firefighters, including the Romanian ones, who went to support other Member States in the fight against the flames.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, the European Union has been built on the principles of solidarity and equality. Cohesion policy is intended to reduce disparities between regions on the basis of objective, economic and social needs, and not on any other basis. I have taken note of this initiative and, while respecting and upholding the principle of Europe's diversity, I do not believe that European funds can be allocated according to ethnic or identity criteria, because this, in my opinion, would lead to an isolation of these regions. Europe means unity in diversity. Regions need support to combat poverty, isolation or lack of infrastructure, regardless of language or religion. Cohesion policy must not be transformed into an instrument of fragmentation or the creation of privileged regions where membership of a particular minority outweighs the real needs of the population. National minorities, without question, need a legal framework that allows the preservation of traditional, cultural and identity values. And I am glad that today my country, Romania, is an example of good practice at international level. Guaranteed education in the language of national minorities, access to decision-making fora, including at governmental but also regional level are just a few examples. But first of all, Commissioner, we have to say one thing very clearly. We need a cohesion policy that is not diluted into other policies. We need adequate funding for this cohesion policy so that we can support all regions of the European Union.

Madam President, Commissioner, the budget of the Common Agricultural Policy must remain separate, not diluted in other policies, let alone cut. To touch the CAP budget today is to weaken the backbone of the European Union. This policy is not about subsidies. It is about food, safety and the future of European villages. And today, these villages are slowly dying. 800 farms disappear every day, putting our food security at risk. Young farmers don't believe in us anymore. If we cut the budget, we will accelerate the abandonment of European agriculture, our villages becoming open-air museums, and we will import pesticide-filled food from third countries. I therefore ask you today, firmly, Commissioner, and unequivocally, that the CAP budget remain separate, with adequate and guaranteed funding post-2027. It is a red line, and whoever crosses this line assumes the beginning of the breakup of the European Union.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, in the last week, hundreds of hectares of agricultural land have been burned in Romania. Today, in the area of Marseille, firefighters are still battling the flames, and extreme drought is wreaking havoc across Europe. We are talking about a crisis that is no longer the exception. It's the new reality. European agriculture is on its knees and wildfires threaten lives, housing and essential infrastructure. We cannot leave the Member States alone to deal with a phenomenon that affects the whole of the European Union. We need a truly prepared Union, a coherent and sustainable European plan. This means urgent investments in reservoirs, irrigation systems, local reserves of water for firefighting, strengthening civil protection mechanisms and including the development of the network of volunteer firefighters. Solutions can't come too late. Lack of water clearly means lack of food, and lack of food means insecurity for every European citizen. And we don't need that.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the European agricultural sector is facing unprecedented challenges today. Severe droughts burn large parts of Europe, devastating floods destroy critical crops and infrastructure, and the pressure of inflation and the unfavourable effects of international trade agreements weigh heavily on farmers. The European Commission needs to understand one key thing: without adequate and consistent financing of the Common Agricultural Policy, we cannot talk about food security or rural stability. In this context, I am sending a clear signal: The budget of the Common Agricultural Policy must remain distinct and independent from other budget chapters. It cannot be merged with other policies, not even cohesion policy, which in turn must remain distinct. Farmers need predictability if we want stability for them. We cannot build the future of European agriculture with fragmented budgets and compromises. We need a long-term vision in which agriculture and regional development are the central pillars. Kissinger said: Who produces food...

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Parliament rightly calls for it to be respected. However, the reality, dear colleagues, is that the plant sector in the European Union cannot meet the need for protein feed for the Union’s animal husbandry. We therefore need to import more than 90% of the protein feed, which is genetically modified organisms, from Brazil and Argentina. Every kilogram of meat, every egg we eat is, in one form or another, produced with the help of these genetically modified feeds. The Union has a strategy to support farmers in protein production, but it appears to be insufficient. The real question is not why we import GM feed, but, Commissioner, why we do not produce it in the European Union as long as we consume it. I think it's time to get out of the hypocrisy zone. These products are considered safe from a human health point of view, according to EFSA, and European farmers should be left and, in my opinion, encouraged to cultivate them. Otherwise, we subject them to undeserved and deep unfair competition vis-à-vis third-country farmers.