Speeches

Dear Chairman, long ago the devil sat on your doorstep, the land of Serbia. We have long known that it is an authoritarian state with complete state control over all segments of society, and especially the media used by the government in any way it comes to mind. The latest attempt to justify the tragicomic failure to organize a meeting with President Trump is the latest culmination of shameless public manipulation, which has not been seen in Europe for a long time. And whether Vucic will be able to recover to the Moscow parade is still uncertain. But what we're talking about is very serious. The idea of the ‘Serbian world’ is at the core of the aggressive hegemonic policy that led, among other things, to the Homeland War in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina in the 1990s. Let's just take the example of Montenegro in which the Greater Serbian elements practically control power and are on their way to completely marginalizing the nominally strongest party of the Movement of Europe now. One of the key factors in this is the Serbian Orthodox Church, whose patriarch in Moscow has clearly shown that he sees a key ally in Russia, not in the West. Serbian hegemony is a much deeper problem than Vucic himself. And until Serbia passes the real catharsis and faces its own failures and illusions in Southeast Europe, unfortunately, there will be no peace. Serbia has no place in the European Union.

Mr Reuten, you are very active in the delegation of the European Parliament in Montenegro. So my question is: you know, that there are Vučić's proxies in the government and in the ruling coalition of Montenegro. So what do you think about this situation? Can Montenegro advance towards the European Union while you have people like Andrija Mandić and Milan Knežević in the ruling coalition?

Dear Chair, Commissioner, colleagues, cross-border healthcare allows patients within the EU to seek treatment in another Member State, but the rules governing it are still too complex and underused. There are two legal frameworks governing this possibility, as the Commissioner also said. Cross-border Healthcare Directive and Social Security Coordination Regulation. Although these rules are in place, many patients and healthcare professionals are unaware of the rights guaranteed by the EU. An even bigger problem is the lengthy and bureaucraticly complex process of exercising this right. In addition, according to the directive, patients have to bear the cost of treatment in advance and only then seek reimbursement in their own country, which is an insurmountable obstacle for many. In order to solve these problems, it is necessary to simplify the rules. The first step should be to consolidate the rules on prior authorisation and reimbursement for medical treatment abroad, a regulation on the coordination of social security systems. This would make the reimbursement process more transparent and legally secure for patients. Also, it is necessary to ensure that the costs of treatment are generally financed in advance, in order to prevent the exclusion of underprivileged patients. Furthermore, patients should be given the right to a second expert opinion on which is the best medical procedure available throughout the European Union. Consideration should also be given to setting up a specific EU-wide unification fund to cover part of the costs of treatment abroad, ensuring that Member States that take on a greater burden of financing the treatment of their patients in other countries do not face a disproportionate financial burden. In addition, it is important to underline that the establishment of the European Health Data Space, which I have worked on as a rapporteur of the European Parliament, will significantly improve cross-border patient healthcare. Doctors will have access to the health data of patients across the EU in electronic format, enabling faster and more effective diagnostics and treatments. Colleagues, the time has come to reform the rules on cross-border healthcare. I expect that the European Commission will propose to amend them so that patients who are unable to receive adequate treatment in their country can more easily access healthcare abroad.

The Armenian people, one of the oldest Christian communities in the world, has been subjected to persecution, deportation and mass suffering. Hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children disappeared because they were Christians. Churches were burned down, holy places destroyed, among them the cathedral of the Holy Mother of God in Arabia, built in the 13th century as a symbol of the faith and spirituality of a people, was turned into ashes. It wasn't just an attack on one people. It was an attack on the Christian identity and fundamental values of our civilization. The historical facts of this crime, which claimed between 600,000 and 1.5 million lives, have been documented by numerous independent historians and witnesses of the time. It is clear that this was not an isolated incident, but an organized and systematic massacre by the Ottoman Empire. At the time of relativization of all values, it is important to clearly say: The defense of Christian communities is not a political attitude, but a moral duty. Our civilization owes its roots to these very Christian communities that have witnessed the faith for centuries despite the persecutions. We are therefore obliged to raise a voice for those whose lives and faith have simply been erased from history. Remembrance of the Armenian victims is not just a political gesture. It is an act of moral and spiritual responsibility. If the European Union wants to be credible in defending fundamental values, its policy must be consistent, whether someone likes it or not. Historical truth must not be the hostage of dailypolitical pragmatism.

In the European Union, rare diseases affect between 27 and 36 million people, many of whom are children. It is estimated that there are between 6,000 and 8,000 rare disease species, many of which are still unexplored. While this is the area where the European Union can do the most, we still do not have a comprehensive European plan for rare diseases. It's time to change that. Following the example of Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan, we also need a European Plan for Rare Diseases with clear objectives, defined timelines, benchmarks and financial resources. Since 2017, ERNs have transformed care and research for rare diseases. They are probably the most significant innovation in health and rare disease research in Europe, if not in the world, and now it is time to further strengthen them financially through significantly higher investment from the European budget. Data show that 86% of rare disease patients in the EU are willing to travel across borders to get better medical care, especially one they cannot get on their own territory. Therefore, the future European plan for rare diseases must coordinate and harmonise national strategies and facilitate cross-border healthcare, and it is particularly important to simplify the existing European rules governing the right to medical treatment abroad. As part of a broad health initiative, we need to simplify these rules on cross-border healthcare, but also make it easier to conduct clinical trials in the EU, of course without compromising patient safety, as we know that clinical trials are now concentrated in several of the largest Member States and it is very difficult for patients from smaller ones to access them. Investments in research, innovation and development are essential to understand rare diseases and ensure the availability of innovative treatments in the European Union. It is therefore essential to create an investment-friendly environment that encourages investment in an innovative industry on the territory of the European Union, so that we are less dependent on the import of innovative medicines from third countries. We must not allow there to be first- and second-order patients in the EU. All European citizens must have access to quality healthcare, no matter where they live in the European Union. Colleagues, it is time for the European Union to finally get a comprehensive plan for rare diseases. Only together can we ensure a better life for those who face the challenges of rare diseases on a daily basis.

Dear Chair, Commissioner, colleagues, social policy is a primary competence of the Member States. The European Union can act to support, coordinate or supplement national policies. A similar situation exists in health, where the responsibilities of the Member States for the definition of their health policy and organisation, the delivery of health services and medical care, including the management of health services and the allocation of financial resources, must be respected. In the area of health, the EU should only address problems that cannot be solved by Member States acting alone. The biggest problem is the inequality of access to quality healthcare for EU citizens, with over 90% of new oncological medicines available in large Member States and below 10% in some smaller countries, and huge disparities also linked to the availability of rare disease treatments. The emigration of healthcare workers, in particular doctors and nurses, from less developed to more developed Member States is also a major problem. The European Union can help through finance and better regulation. The European health budget needs to be radically increased and allow for more investment in health infrastructure, equipment and better conditions for health workers and patients. The rules on cross-border treatment also need to be fully amended to make it faster and easier for patients to get healthcare abroad that they cannot get in their own country. Finally, we need to facilitate access to clinical trials also for citizens of smaller Member States for whom they are largely unavailable today. Colleagues, the EU can do much more to ensure equal healthcare for all EU citizens, which is why we need better regulation and a much larger budget than is currently the case.

Dear Chair, Commissioners, colleagues, the Covid-19 pandemic has exposed the serious weaknesses of the European Union in crisis preparedness. At the beginning of 2020, we witnessed chaotic developments, including the introduction of restrictions on the flow of critical medical supplies between Member States, which severely undermined the principle of solidarity that underpins the European project. Among other things, this experience has resulted in the need to adopt a comprehensive strategy for the Union’s preparedness. We are facing new geopolitical realities that further underline the importance of a coordinated response to crises. Energy security, supply chains for critical raw materials, medicines, but also responses to cross-border health problems. These are all key elements of a strategy that will ensure the resilience of the Union. It is particularly important that health is recognised as one of the priorities for action by the European Union. This is confirmed by the Critical Medicines Act, which sets the framework for a secure and stable supply, but also for strengthening European competitiveness in the field of critical medicines. The element which, however, has not been fully resolved by that law concerns the stockpiling of medicinal products and other medical supplies in the event of shortages. This is why I am very pleased that this document makes explicit reference to the adoption of a common European strategy for stockpiling key resources and medical countermeasures in particular. It is essential to build up common European stocks so that medicines and other medical supplies reach those who need them most in the event of a crisis, rather than rotting in warehouses. Colleagues, the preparedness strategy is not just another in a series of documents, it reflects the lessons learned and guarantees that we will approach future crises in an organised, solidarity-based and effective manner.

The enlargement process plays a key role in strengthening stability, security and democracy in Europe. Therefore, it is good that the report recognizes the real challenges, and one of them is certainly the destabilizing influence of Serbia on the entire area of Southeast Europe, which I have already talked about several times. Serbian hegemonic politics remains the biggest obstacle to enlargement. It is most clearly reflected in relations within Montenegro, where Belgrade, as one of Moscow's allies, increasingly influences political and social processes. We are witnessing systematic attempts to undermine Montenegrin sovereignty, such as the ideas of amendments to the Law on Citizenship, which would effectively mark the end of independent Montenegro. Also, one of the leaders of the ruling coalition in Montenegro, Serbian politician Milan Knežević, invokes a military alliance with Serbia and spreads disinformation about some kind of conspiracy against Orthodox people in the Balkans, thus directly contributing to destabilizing this area. Such destabilization attempts, as part of the concept of the Serbian world, pose a serious threat to the security of the entire European continent. That is why it is crucial that the European Union finally clearly resists this policy and puts Serbia where it belongs.

The education system is the institutional pillar of society, the foundation of the social order and a key instrument of national sovereignty and identity. As we reflect on strengthening educational cooperation within the European Union, we must ensure that every initiative takes place within the framework of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, so that national governments retain primary regulatory competence over their education policies. The European Union has the power to support, coordinate and supplement the actions of the Member States in the field of education. In this context, the European Schools Alliance can serve as a mechanism to enhance educational mobility, scientific excellence, institutional cohesion and, more generally, to improve skills, as the Commissioner has said, but it cannot lead to the harmonisation of national education systems. This is particularly the case for education programmes, i.e. curricula, where Member States retain the full autonomy to define them, and the European Union can of course help them to do so. In other words, the right to education must be exercised primarily within national frameworks that best reflect the cultural, economic and social priorities of each Member State. Mobility within the European Education Area can be a useful tool for academic development, but we must ensure that it is not used as an instrument of social engineering or the forced homogenisation of educational standards. The inclusiveness of the education system is an important social goal, but one should be careful that this time it does not lead us to normative solutions that favor political correctness at the expense of meritocracy. The European Union can act in those areas where the added value goes beyond what can be achieved at national level. Any tendency towards the unification of education systems through secondary legislation or financial conditionality would be a step in the wrong direction that would jeopardise the stability of European integration and give arguments to those who want it to fail. But certainly, in the end, I would like to point out that such programmes are good, that cooperation and exchange are what strengthens European integration, which creates new generations that have been brought up on European values, but we also need to be careful that, while doing so, we act exclusively within the competences that the European Union has.

Dear Chairman, while some in BiH look towards Moscow and Belgrade, and others towards Ankara, Croats consistently advocate European values such as democracy and equality. Today we often talk about the danger of separatism, and less about the second problem in BiH, which is unitarism. Attempts to centralize and subordinate BiH to the will of Sarajevo destroy its internal stability and deny the fundamental principle on which it is founded, which is the constitutiveness of the three peoples. What has greatly contributed to today's situation are the wrong policies of the West from the past that have stimulated unitary ambitions for years, although this is what destabilizes BiH the most. Instead of supporting a just and sustainable model of consociation, they often supported solutions that lead to the domination of a people and thus instability. Let's just think about Berry and Peter. That is why today it is crucial to insist on the respect of the Dayton Agreement and the right of all constituent peoples to legitimate representatives, which includes the right of Croats to finally elect their own member of the presidency of the state. A stable BiH can only exist if the constituency of the people is respected and Croats remain key carriers of the European perspective and true partners of the EU.

Dear Vice-President, Commissioner, colleague and colleague, the introduction of a common charger, the adoption of new rules on honey labelling, the resolution of the problem of minuses in bills or the introduction of the right to repair products are all initiatives we have worked on to improve the position of consumers and further protect them in the common market. In the new mandate, we face fundamentally different geopolitical circumstances that also affect the position of consumers. Generated inflation reduces the purchasing power of citizens, and large international companies increasingly use unfair business practices. One of the major problems that is present in several Member States, including Croatia, concerns the same products sold at substantially different prices in different Member States. There are products sold in one country at two to three times the price compared to the same trading chain in a neighbouring Member State, with the biggest problem being food products. Such behavior should be put to an end. That is why I call on the European Commission to specifically address this issue in the Consumer Agenda and revise the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive as soon as possible. There must be no first- and second-class consumers in Europe.

Dear Chairman, Mr. Bosanac, I really thank you for your presentation, but this part is especially interesting when you say that defence has nothing to do with people. I mean, that's a little strange to me because, as you probably know, if there were no army, if there were no defence, if there were no outsourcing, your country would be much more vulnerable to aggression than when you have a strong army, when you invest a lot of defence, etc. I think it's clear to everyone that we had a strong army, that we had Rafale fighter jets, that we had tanks, etc. In 1991, not all the crimes that happened in Vukovar, Škabrnja, Dubrovnik, etc., etc. would have happened. So I think when we talk about people that it is the security of people that is one of the foundations of every state and in order to protect people, we need to have a strong army, so I pray that we don't sell here demagogy about the fact that we don't need an army, that we don't need military allocations, because we can't protect people and their security without a strong army, without investing in defense.

I'm glad that you support the overall concept and the direction of the Critical Medicines Act, the same as myself, but there is one thing that I think is really missing and that is the provisions on stockpiling. We remember from the last big crisis that we had a problem that some big Member States essentially kept everything that they could for themselves at the time where some other Member States had much bigger needs and where these medical countermeasures were more necessary there. So, my question is: would you support that we do whatever we can to add to this Critical Medicines Act also provisions of common stockpiling and more coordination so that we make sure that patients actually get those medicines, which they need in times of crisis?

Dear Chair, Commissioner, colleagues, the pharmaceutical industry is one of the most strategic economic sectors for the European Union. Any shortage of medicines poses a health, but also existential, security threat to Europe. Unfortunately, the European Union is becoming increasingly dependent on imports of medicines from third countries, and it is the recent pandemic that has best shown how vulnerable we are when it comes to shortages of medicines and medical equipment. This situation is further aggravated by the geopolitical circumstances we are in. Since the time of brutal force in international relations has come, everyone should take care, as far as possible, of their own interests. It is high time to take matters into our own hands, and with this bill on critical medicines, we are taking a step in the right direction. That is why I welcome the mechanisms, in particular the financial support and the acceleration of administrative procedures for strategic projects that facilitate the construction of pharmaceutical factories on European soil. I also support the joint procurement of critical medicines, which is especially important for smaller countries like my Republic of Croatia because it strengthens their bargaining power and ensures better procurement conditions. In doing so, it is extremely important to introduce additional selection criteria in public procurement of medicines beyond price, such as security of supply and production on European territory, which will certainly facilitate the availability of critical medicines for our citizens and reduce dependence on individual suppliers outside the EU. One of the things that is not so emphasized, however, is the stockpiling of critical medicines. It must never happen again that some large Member States retain critical medical supplies in a health crisis and thus contribute to deepening the crisis instead of addressing it. This is why we need to strengthen our common European stockpiles and coordinate at EU level so that medicines and other medical supplies reach those who need them most in the event of shortages. Overall, I welcome this proposal as it contributes to the EU’s economic security by reducing dependence on foreign suppliers and ensuring a stable supply. It will also increase the EU’s competitiveness in the global pharmaceutical market, attract investment in research and innovation and create new jobs. It is time for the interest of the European Union and our patients to truly become a priority and I am glad that we are now going in the right direction.

Dear Chair, Commissioner, colleagues, the mental health crisis of young people has long become a pressing problem we are facing in the European Union. The World Health Organization estimates that one in seven young people between the ages of 10 and 19 suffers from some form of mental disorder, accounting for 13 percent of all health problems in this age group. Even more tragic is the fact that suicide is today the second leading cause of death of young people in the EU, which is simply unbelievable. That's something we all really need to think about. These statistics hide thousands of sad stories and fates of young people who have their first and last name and who struggle with illnesses such as depression, anxiety and other forms of mental disorders every day. However, the topic of mental health is still a taboo topic. The one that is not talked about Young people do not encounter enough understanding of the environment when it comes to mental health and this is something we need to urgently change. Just as the important physical and health care we often talk about here in the European Parliament, mental health care must also be important. This is why it is necessary to facilitate access to professional assistance for young people, involve them in the discussion on mental health, ensure access to innovative mental health therapies and support investment in research into mental and neurological diseases, as these are all highly connected, including, of course, better data sharing. It is also necessary, and I think this should be the first priority, to adopt specific regulations at European level on the protection of young people in the digital world. Because, as we heard in the Commissioner's presentation, this is one of the biggest problems today, that is, from cyber bullying and many other disorders to which people are exposed, young people are exposed in the digital world. This is something that is a growing and growing problem and the European Union absolutely has to deal with it. The Commission Communication on a comprehensive approach to mental health, with a focus on prevention, capacity building and training, and a series of projects defining best practices is certainly a step in the right direction. However, it is necessary to go further, especially in terms of stronger funding, in order to achieve all the listed initiatives and objectives on a sufficient scale. Colleagues, it is time for the EU, in cooperation with the Member States, to take the lead in the fight against the mental problems of young people, because every life lost is a loss that we must not consent to.

Dear Chairwoman, Commissioners, Colleagues and colleagues, the basic principles of public health that are applied all over the world today have been set by the Croatian physician, Dr. Andrija Štampar. The press made an unquestionable contribution to the creation of an international health organisation, knowing that health threats transcend national borders and that working together we can better protect the health of our citizens. Multilateral cooperation is essential in the fight against cross-border health threats. This is why the European Union is paying particular attention to the US’s announcement of its withdrawal from the WHO. The Covid 19 pandemic has triggered a series of discussions, including on how the World Health Organization could work better. Organizational aspects of cooperation, financial contributions to its work or improving the way it works are topics that we can discuss, but in the fight against the spread of diseases and in the protection of the health of citizens we need to be united. That is why I call on our partners to inform us in detail about their views on the World Health Organization and how they see its work improved, so that together we can continue multilateral cooperation within this special United Nations organisation. As for the abolition of USAID, it would not be good if it meant the abolition of U.S. humanitarian development aid to poor countries in need. On the other hand, the information released to the public about the use of this agency for the purpose of promoting a political agenda is very worrying. Any attempt to use humanitarian aid as a cover to manipulate public and political space should be condemned in the strongest possible terms and every effort should be made to ensure that it is no longer repeated.

The Commission Work Programme 2025 is a strategic document whose implementation must result in a strong shift in European Union policy, making our continent more competitive, secure and resilient. For too long, we have been forced to compromise with irrational green policies, which in practice have led us to accelerate the EU’s deindustrialisation, protecting the environment yes, but in an intelligent way that strengthens our security and economy instead of destroying them. I hope that the implementation of the Commission Work Programme will mirror the idea of a reawakened Europe, which will allow us to reach out to our global rivals, to protect our geostrategic interests first and to make Europe attractive for investment. This is particularly true for strategic industries, such as biotech, where the adoption of the Critical Medicines Act and the revision of the Medical Devices Regulation are an absolute priority for this year. Also, when it comes to competitiveness, the key issues are energy prices and reducing Europe's dependence on foreign sources. How will a European entrepreneur be able to compete in the global market when paying multiple energy prices compared to ocean competitors? That's why it's important to work on diversifying the energy mix. In doing so, emphasis should be placed on clean but reliable sources, such as nuclear energy and hydrogen, building infrastructure, in particular interconnections to integrate the European energy market, and speaking with one voice on the global stage. Here we need quick moves and a clear vision, because time is short and if we do not act urgently, other global powers will simply swallow us up. I am glad that the European Commission is finally on the right track.

Dear Chairman, Commissioner, colleague and colleague, Serbia is an autocratic state in which Aleksandar Vučić and his party manage almost all segments of society. The media is under complete control of the government and political freedoms are extremely limited. Serbia's foreign policy relies on drawing concessions from both Russia and the West, i.e. sitting on two chairs. In parallel, Vučić is pursuing a hegemonic policy of aggressive expansion of Serbian influence in neighbouring countries. Of particular concern is the Serbian policy in Montenegro, which is now part of the government and is committed to bringing Montenegro into the 'Serbian world'. The targeted violation of relations with Croatia, the violation of the Constitution and the announcement of the adoption of a new law on citizenship, which would mean the end of Montenegro as an independent state, are part of this policy of Belgrade, with the strong participation of the Serbian Orthodox Church. Unfortunately, all this was culprited by the failed policy of a part of the Western actors, to whom Vucic had been a pet for years. The demonstrations we are witnessing represent a rebellion of various social groups that do not see any perspective in today's Serbia. The tragedy in Novi Sad was the cause of the rebellion, but the cause is much more. But it has to be realistic. The problems in Serbia are much deeper than Vucic and the SNS and are rooted in the fact that this country has never accepted responsibility for its own past failures. Only when all layers of Serbian society realize that there is nothing from some kind of Balkan hegemony and that the role of the regional power is an illusion, will we be able to talk about a serious European perspective for Serbia.

The European Union is facing a challenge that threatens the fundamental pillars of our health systems. In fact, an estimated 1.2 million doctors, nurses and midwives are missing in the EU. In addition, according to estimates by the World Health Organization, by 2030. The EU could lose as many as four million health workers. These data clearly indicate the existence of a structural problem that requires urgent and systematic resolution. Also, according to Eurofound research, the health and social care sector is one of those with the largest labour shortages across the European Union, and the departure of healthcare staff from less developed Member States to more developed ones is a major problem. For example, it is estimated that between 2010 and 2018, as many as 40,000 doctors from the countries of the European east and southeast emigrated to the west, and the figures with, say, nurses are similar or even worse. The shortage of health professionals is particularly significant in rural areas and on islands, as is the case in Croatia. It is therefore important that the European Union acts expeditiously within its competences. Inadequate wages, overload and inadequate working conditions have a significant impact on the number of healthcare workers. This is why, if we want to ensure quality healthcare for European citizens, we need to make health a priority in the negotiations on the next Multiannual Financial Framework. More money for health means improving working conditions in health by investing in research and development, infrastructure, but also equipping health systems with state-of-the-art devices at a time when artificial intelligence is becoming increasingly important. Colleagues and colleagues, the time to act is now. Any delay means additional pressure on overloaded systems and an even higher risk for patients. So we need a clear European strategy with concrete objectives, benchmarks and, most importantly, very strong funding in the next seven-year European budget so that we can deliver on these measures. Let's not forget, health care is a matter of competitiveness and security, but an investment in the future of all of us and that is why it is necessary to act as soon as possible.

Dear Chairman, Sweden, once known for its security, has been facing an alarming increase in violence and crime in recent years. Explosions, shootings and killings have become commonplace on the streets of Stockholm, Gothenburg and Malmö. Of particular concern is the increase in the number of young people who are perpetrators of serious crimes. The number of perpetrators of serious and fatal crimes in the 15-20 age group has almost quadrupled since 2014. Now, what has changed in Swedish society in the last ten years, and what could be the cause of this situation? Maybe, just maybe, everything has to do with the huge increase in immigration in the same period. For reasons of political correctness, will we avoid discussing the real problems and continue to live in the clouds? Colleagues, there is a need for a fierce response to increased violence, which must include stopping mass immigration, introducing stricter penalties for criminals, strengthening police powers, but also deporting illegal migrants without mercy. The current Swedish government is moving in the right direction, and we need to act much harder on immigration also at EU level. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a question of the survival of Europe.

Immediately after taking the oath of office, Donald Trump announced a radical change in US energy policy with the words ‘Drill, baby, drill’. This means that if we don't change something, the green ideology, which wants to deindustrialise the EU, will lead to us falling further behind in our competitiveness with the US and China. This is why we need a strong shift to make the EU as autonomous and competitive as possible in strategic industries. It is clear that we cannot be competitive in all sectors, but the biotechnology sector, accompanied by research and innovation, food production and the military industry must be recognised as strategic. Of course, our entrepreneurs can hardly compete in the global market while paying multiple energy prices compared to ocean competitors. Zato energetska suverenost treba biti apsolutni prioritet, a to podrazumijeva široki energetski miks koji uključuje i nuklearnu energiju, vodik, ali i zajedničku nabavu energenata radi postizanja povoljnije nabavne cijene. Ladies and gentlemen, it is time for us to make European interests a priority, not a left-wing utopia.

There are two sexes and this is something that is completely clear. If someone has always spoken against gender ideology, against the distortion of science in this sense, it has always been me and it is no secret and I think that we should go back to some normal things, that we should go back to some kind of foundation of biology, and that everything else is usually ideologizing that comes largely from the left. So if you thought I was going to say anything else, I think you were wrong about it. But once again, I repeat, therefore, the verification of the fact that, but the ideological imposition of one's own opinion does not.

Dear President, Commissioner, colleague and colleague, the Digital Services Act must be applied impartially. This means that if the rules are broken, the powerful tycoons behind the U.S. government should also be punished, regardless of the pressure that might come from Washington. Otherwise, we're nothing more than ordinary vases. Likewise, it means to act in a way that treats everything equally, both the left and the right, regardless of the ideological sign. The fight against fake news must not be turned into a restriction on freedom of speech and a confrontation with ideological dissent. In this regard, the decision of Meta to terminate the fact-checking program in the US is significant. We should rightly ask ourselves whether certain fact-checking platforms have gone too far and, under the guise of fact-checking, introduce an unprecedented censorship of opinion. In the European Union, we do not need ministries of truth to tell us what to think and who to vote for, and that is not the goal of the DSA. On the other hand, the EU has the right to decide for itself what laws it will pass, how it will apply them, without a dictation from the side, including the US.

Dear Chair, Commissioners, colleagues, Eurostat data for 2020 show that the risk of an accident at work in the agricultural sector is 18% higher than in other sectors. On the other hand, the suicide rate among farmers is 20% higher than the average. Difficult physical work, market fluctuations and unpredictable weather conditions, and to this I would add unreasonable, extremely ideologically colored, extreme green policies, make the business of farmers extremely stressful. Today, when it comes to improving working conditions for farmers and farmers, we must bear in mind that certain interest groups, especially in the past institutional mandate, have wrongly labelled European farmers as the main culprits for climate change. With their political demands, they wanted to make farmers' work more difficult, often imposing various unreasonable bureaucratic requirements. This is why, in this mandate, we must stand firmly with European farmers and farmers, who play an indispensable role in achieving European self-sufficiency in food production. They must live from their work with dignity and well-being. It is therefore essential to provide sufficient incentives in agriculture as an indispensable part of the future Multiannual Financial Framework. In addition, we need to invest in ensuring better working conditions for farmers, including modern equipment and training and education for farmers to be able to handle modern technologies. Finally, we need to further develop initiatives to support mental health, such as those mentioned in the European Commission Communication on mental health, but much broader than that. Agriculture is one of the foundations of European society and that is why it is necessary to provide farmers with quality living and working conditions.

Dear Chairman, in the process of enlargement of the country of Southeast Europe should be assessed individually and on the basis of merit, i.e. according to the ability to adopt European values. Unfortunately, the biggest obstacle to enlargement remains Serbian hegemonic politics, and it is particularly dramatic in Montenegro, which is increasingly influenced by Belgrade, one of Russia's allies. It is therefore important that the European Union sends a clear message to the Government and the ruling majority in Podgorica that actions are important, not words. Their actions, such as disrupting relations with Croatia, announcing a citizenship law that would mean de facto the end of independent Montenegro, and the latest crisis related to the Constitutional Court are incompatible with European values and the rule of law. The fact that Montenegro has not closed four but three chapters is directly related to the expansion of Serbian influence in Montenegro, which negatively reflects on European values and their European path. That is why it is important that the countries of South East Europe resist the politics of the Serbian world and with their consistent policy show belonging to the community of European peoples.