Speeches

Madam President, first of all, thanks for two decades of over‑regulation, overtaxation. While the prices are going up, you are just whining and blaming Trump. Trump is guilty. Some of you from the Greens are saying that, 'Oh, the nurse has to drive one hour in the morning to work, and now the fuel prices are over EUR 2 per litre'. Yeah, but you know, in the EU over 50 % of the fuel price goes to taxes, while in the US it's only 20 %. It's thanks to you that this nurse is paying over EUR 2 per litre. You are talking about green energy? Yes, we have done it for the last seven years, the green ideology, and the prices are just going up. Can we cut all the fossil fuels? No, it's impossible, technologically. You know in Estonia, my own country, we have the best expertise in the whole world on oil shale. We could produce the cheapest energy ever. We have also produced, actually, gasoline from oil shale. But we can't do it. You know why? Because we have the emissions trading system for climate change. It's thanks to you. And then you're whining, 'Oh, Trump is guilty. Trump is guilty.' Look in the mirror. You are guilty.

Madam President, dear colleagues, first of all, I think we all agree that this debate doesn't change anything at all, particularly. Secondly, absolutely, the defence question is very important, but we know that defence policy is in the hands of the Member States. And the backbone of the economy in Europe is definitely Germany and also France, so it depends about them, what they are going to do. In the morning, just here in the previous debate, we were listening and hearing a lot of theories about climate change. Now we are listening to theories about defence policies. But the fact is that when Germany doesn't wake up and still spending almost the same amount of money for some kind of climate policy as they are spending for the defence policy, nothing really changes. In France, Mr Macron is talking again about the discussion needed with Vladimir Putin. So we are going back to business as usual, unfortunately. The reality is that in Europe there will never be the same policy in 27 Member States. We are just very, very different, unfortunately. And that is why there are realistic ways that we need more and more cooperation regionally, especially like in the north-eastern part of Europe, with the Baltic states, with Poland, with Finland and Sweden, because we can't really rely on the hopes in Germany or France, unfortunately.

Well, if you would agree with me, everything will be wrong, because you're from Renew and I'm from the Conservatives, so it's fine. When you look at the climate policy, the question is that we need reliable resources. Is it the nuclear plants, or is it gas, is it LNG or whatever? Unfortunately, [sound cuts out] or even the Estonian economy can't run only by the sun and wind. That's a pure fact. We need stable energy. But what Germany has done because of the Greens – your partners here in the Parliament, they shut down all the nuclear plants, relying only on Russian gas, and now they are screwed, of course, because of Russia. Yeah, it makes sense. But the problem is that now you can't go with electric tanks to Greenland to say 'democracy here, let's protect it'...

Mr President, dear colleagues, first of all, as the President of the Commission, Ms von der Leyen, said, we need three things for the future of Europe – strong economy, united societies and strong defence. The problem, of course, with the economy is that we have been falling in the last two decades. Now the EU economy is about only 13 % of the global economy. Why? Of course, because of bureaucracy, over-regulation, the Green Deal, high energy prices because of the Green Deal, and so on. When you look exactly at the numbers, if we are prioritising also defence, we are paying about EUR 100 billion from the EU budget, every year, for climate policy. But from the national budgets, especially when you look at Germany and France – the strongest economies, strongest countries by defence in Europe – this year, the German taxpayers are paying just approximately EUR 80 billion for climate policy, but only EUR 110 billion for defence. Same thing in France: EUR 50 billion to climate policy, just EUR 50 billion to defence. Then we are hearing the liberals who are saying that we need a strong Europe. But sorry, I will never trust the liberals, the socialists here who have screwed up Europe. Now you can solve the problems? Like Ms Hayer from Renew, from France, said, we have to protect democracy. But really, with you...

Thank you, Mr. Paet, your speech was so beautifully pathetic that I had a few questions in Estonian. Firstly, I am in complete solidarity with Denmark, and I fully agree that every country has the right to decide its own future. But do you not think, Mr Paet, that the problem with Europe is that we have adopted resolutions? We've asked, we've wanted. But at the same time, the problem is that we don't have the strength to defend our will. The fact is that you can stand up for your values and adopt resolutions uniformly and scan together. But if there is still no weaponry and strength, then the evil ones will come and take away. Whether it's Russia, China or Donald Trump. Do you not think that the European Union's problem is like 'softening', where it is good to speak beautiful words on the lectern, accept a good salary, but no one wants to take real steps. Because they are too expensive and too uncomfortable.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen. First of all, to begin with, I am very concerned to hear the sympathetic speeches of many socialists, liberals and leftists towards the United States, because they have come up with their new security strategy, which is supposed to be a betrayal of Europe. That, in my opinion, it is like an unrealistic expectation that, if in the last decades Americans have paid for European security, at the same time that the left could put billions under immigrants, under the social system or under pensions. And now that it is said that it is no longer in the interest of the United States to continue to provide a free umbrella, now there is a big problem. I wouldn't dare go along with that speech. Because when we look at small European countries, especially in the neighbourhood, such as Northern and Eastern Europe, it is precisely existential for us to see how our relations with the United States are secured. Perhaps the countries of Western and Southern Europe may be inclined, but unfortunately small countries like Estonia find it very difficult to support your indulgence. Because the question is very fundamental. Germany may be talking about strategy, autonomy, but today Germany is not even able to restore compulsory military service. With whom, for example, should Estonia develop more relations? Should we rely on the bubble in Brussels, or rather on our ally the United States?

Mr President, dear colleagues, I really believe that the long-term and the fair peace currently being talked is not possible – not now. But it is possible to achieve peace for a certain period – especially for a resting time and the peace for Ukrainian people and the fighters to keep and maintain the dignity and the statehood, which is the most important thing ever. But, at the same time, we should not forget that Russia has not given up its demands for so-called 'security guarantees' that it presented to the US on 15 December 2021 – two months before attacking Ukraine. With those demands they demanded directly that there should be no military exercises in the new NATO member states and there should be no new member states, like Finland, which is now a member state. They have never, ever given up those demands. So peace for the future, for the long term, is not possible, realistically. But, at the same time, we have to get peace for some certain period for Ukraine. At the same time, Europe has to forget all the small talk bullshit about the green ideology, about the beautiful things. We have to prepare to protect ourselves, to keep the security.

Actually, it is a very good question. The problem with the Green Deal and with Russian energy is that Estonia has been always independent with energy, with oil shale. We have produced more than we need. We have exported to Finland, Latvia, Sweden. But now, because of the Green Deal – because the ideology is saying that there is too much CO2 – the plan is to shut it down by 2030 and to import energy, because unfortunately sun and wind is not enough in Estonia, especially in February. So we have to rely on imports from the Nordics, from other countries. And then, when we are connected with the import, we face a much bigger risk because of the connections between Estonia and Finland. Once the Russian ships go there and something happens in February when it's -20º, we are in trouble. So that is why the Green Deal energy independence is a huge problem, because it is connected to be independent from the Russian energy, actually. But Estonia is a different case and that is why we are protecting the oil shale. It is not very good for the Green Deal, but it is for our energy security and independence.

Thank you very much! Dear colleagues, Dear President, So many topics have gone through here that I don't even know where to start, but what has perhaps been talked about the most is, of course, the green transition and the economy. When Mrs von der Leyen and several colleagues say that the green transition and competitiveness go hand in hand, they are not at odds with each other, and when I listen to them crying and complain about the problems with accommodation, prices, well, sorry, we have the biggest speculation right now scam a system of emissions trading, the price of which has risen more than two and a half times in five years, as a result of which a large number of large European producers have moved their production to North America and Asia. And in two years' time, ETS2, or the second trading system, will be implemented, which will be paid for by ordinary homeowners for heating the house, car drivers for refuelling, which in turn will push more industry and the economy out of Europe. And you're saying that the green transition is possible. That well, I don't know what substance you need to consume in order to create an illusion or some kind of fairy tale that the green transition will ensure competitiveness, when we see that half of the jobs have been lost in the automotive industry in Germany. If we see that we are dependent on Asia and China to buy minerals and earths to make the green transition, then sorry, this house is far from reality or caring about a person that the Socialists or the Left are talking about and scaring the Conservatives. We're coming to power. Thank you for being stupid.

Dear colleagues, Firstly, I do not really believe that in this Chamber our unity or incoherence will decide anything regarding European security. It is still decided by the governments and parliaments of the European countries. Secondly, last week, a very large number of our colleagues sent a letter to the European Commission, by the way, concerning precisely these border violations, drone attacks or threats by drones. There were signatories from very different groups, including Renew, the Greens, the EPP, the ECR, and there we also proposed concrete solutions, of course. That we need to invest in defence capabilities, in air defence, and the question is always where the money will come from. Our proposal to the European Commission was, of course, that if we have a choice between security and survival and, by the way, the green transition, for example, then obviously billions from the green transition to defence capabilities. We'll sign it now and we'll be happy to agree. But at the same time, realistically speaking, I personally have no confidence that Europe is now acting together, that Europe is collectively protecting our security. At the same time, we are the largest importer of Russian gas, paying billions. At the same time, I fully understand the countries of southern Europe, the countries of western Europe, for whom security is not as worrying as it is for Estonia or Finland or Poland. Therefore, the realistic solution is that the Baltics, Poland, Finland, Sweden need to cooperate more, because we cannot always count on Germany and France or Italy. Sadly, but it's a reality. Thank you!

Madam President, dear colleagues, the situation in the European Union is no better than it was a year ago during the same debate. Firstly, the EU continues to be the largest importer of gas in the world from Russia, paying billions of euros for it and, at the same time, Russia just this morning attacked Poland, which is a Member State of both NATO and the EU, with drones. Secondly, there are still attempts to continue with climate extremism, which causes enormous damage to the economies, entrepreneurs and consumers of European countries. We are feeling this especially in Estonia, for example. Thirdly, the competence of the EU leadership is depressing. Ms von der Leyen clearly does not understand the situation we are in the world. The situation is even sadder with the European Union's top diplomat – our own foreign representative, Ms Kallas – who only last week made the whole of Europe a laughing stock within the framework of the European Institute of Security Studies, where she showed her infantility by not having basic knowledge of history and not having a basic understanding of geopolitics, and all this in terrible English. The people of Europe do not deserve this, they deserve much better.

Madam President, dear colleagues, first of all, we are talking about the long‑term budget for the future. We are only talking about our own resources, but let's say it in a more simple way for the voters and the public: own resources means new taxes. So, what very many of you want here is to have new taxes. So, it means to open the Treaties to more federalise the financial policy for the EU to get taxes directly from companies to the EU budget, not to Member States. But what we are not talking about at all is that maybe we should absolutely cut our expenses. We can't increase all the time the budget to have more expenses for the Green Deal, for the very beautiful and nice things, when our economy is totally running out compared to China or the US. So, we should cut our taxes, we should cut our expenses and we should absolutely, totally finish the green ideology, which is the absolutely craziest, most socialist and communist thing ever, because many of you are communists here. When our Commissioner said that we did so well during the pandemic – really? The President of the Commission is still under investigation for the crime with Pfizergate. We did not do well. So, I will never trust our taxpayers' money in your hands.

Dear colleagues, Dear Mrs Kallas, Although I'm not your biggest fan, congratulations on your birthday! When talking about NATO, many colleagues here have spoken about how social welfare should be ensured, how inflation should be combated, how people should cope. I totally agree. I also agree that the European Union itself is largely to blame for the economic problems, but that does not change the fact that in times of war, when an aggressor threatens your country, this school or pension will be of no help. Everything's gone. If you cannot protect your country, it will simply be taken away, and we will see enough countries in Europe that are still dreaming that they have no problems, but at the same time are talking about solidarity, unity, cooperation. Well, it's not very good co-operation when some countries calmly let go and other countries struggle alone, because some countries have a horrible sense of being somewhere in the south or in the west. And when it comes to costs, it doesn't matter very much whether it's five percent, it's four or six. It is a question of efficiency. What are our defense capabilities? What is our technology? In the end, perhaps what is important. How to get a bang that takes the enemy down. What the price is is is a question of its own. Maybe that five percent is sometimes like a bubble where we get stuck. This is about our ability to defend: how we can deter a potential adversary. Thank you!

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen! Dear Commissioner, First of all, of course, I think - I hope - everyone's heart is here to protect children. There is no more important thing in this world than taking care of the weakest and most powerful and ensuring that they can grow safely. But sometimes we hear such hypocrisy here that, on the one hand, we want to criminalise, punish - I agree. I also agree with my Danish colleague, who pointed out a very concrete solution - if a man exploits a child, then castration. God agreed. But while I hear here that there is no way to link this topic to issues such as gender issues, LGBTQ+ any questions, it is two-faced and hypocritical, because I am sorry, we are talking about oversexualisation in our societies in Europe as a whole. Perhaps it starts much deeper than advocating that you can change gender when you're a child. You can take the kindergarten children with you to a parade where you walk side by side with, for example, an old man in strings with a dog mask on his head. And when a German colleague here started to say that this is hate speech, I'm sorry - it's never been said in Germany and it didn't end very well. If they want to silence the so-called opposition that does not follow the ideology that has been put in place. Of course, I do not agree with that. So we have democracy here, but if we want to protect children, we go much deeper and to the root causes: which, in fact, threatens the well-being of our children and allows pedophiles to operate.

Dear President, Thank you very much, dear colleagues. And how should the European Union respond to the US tariffs they imposed? No, we should not punish Trump for this, but we should think about how to develop our own economy. The current economic space of the European Union is a labyrinth of directives and regulations. It stifles entrepreneurship, discourages investment and hampers economic growth. Europe was once a champion of the free market economy, but is moving towards a socialist command economy. Companies are currently spending more time complying with regulatory requirements than on product developments. Many companies are abandoning expansion because they are unable to bear the costs of the directives. Investors prefer to invest their money in countries where risks are smaller and regulations are more reasonable. We must not allow bureaucracy to replace the spirit of free enterprise. It is freedom that has historically led to major innovations in Europe, creating jobs and wealth. Europe has the potential to be a driving force in the global economy if it restores confidence in market freedom. This means trust in entrepreneurs. This means simpler and more flexible rules. This means fewer directives and more freedom of decision. This also means, of course, watering down the green transition. Only in this way will we protect Europe's economic interests and the well-being of our citizens.

Mr President, few colleagues and good representatives of the Council and the Commission. Firstly, in order to build a social Europe, we must give up two things that contribute to it. Green transition and too liberal immigration policy. Why these? First of all, we know very well: the green transition is costing all taxpayers with its new requirements, environmental rules, which in turn hamper economic growth and investment opportunities for businesses, which in turn reduces the possibility for businesses to even raise wages for people. And this, in turn, reduces our chances of competing with China, India or the United States. Ultimately, all this fun is paid for by the taxpayer, i.e. the one who suffers the most from it. And when we talk about bringing people to Europe who are low-skilled or non-skilled, that is a huge cost to the social systems of European countries, which are paid for by our taxpayers and their employers. And, of course, not to mention social cohesion, which it certainly does not increase. So there are two very big things that Europe can do – putting an end to the green transition and a strict immigration policy. And finally: social issues ultimately remain the competence of each country, and this house does not have very much decision-making power here.

I generally agree with you when we are talking about defence policies. We really have to support more Ukraine. I definitely agree. But, as you are from the Socialist Party from Spain, just a very small, tiny question: what is your opinion on why Spain has provided so little help to Ukraine currently? Because when you look at the GDP, the real help – military aid – it has given to Ukraine, it's almost nothing compared to Poland, Estonia, Denmark, Finland and so on. So, why is there so much talk and no actions? What is the problem in Spain with the Socialists? Why are you not acting?

Mr President, it's always lovely to see how the Germans are fighting with each other in the Chamber. Anyway, for three years, a lot of talk, no results. I think we have no doubt that in the next few months, we're going to have negotiations for the peace. So we will reach for that. But the problem is in which kind of terms we have. Today, currently in Europe, we don't have any kind of leader who will be equal to negotiate with Trump, Zelenskyy and Putin. Is it Kaja Kallas? Definitely not. Ursula? No. So, the problem now is that Europeans love to talk a lot and to make your own green deals, fight for the climate change, but in the reality, we have been talking for three years and now, of course, from the different sides, they are screaming about the human lives, how we need peace. But the problem is that we have had peace several times with Russia, and nobody has given a shit about the result – that their territories are occupied, people are murdered, killed, raped. And we are just loving to talk here for three years. Very lovely story. The problem now is that we are not still investing enough for our defence. We are still the biggest importer of LNG from Russia. We are paying billions of euros to Russia to have war. Great ...

Mr President, first of all, we are pretty many Members here on the last day of the week. First of all, in September, on September 20, 30 Members of the Parliament, so pretty many, have addressed written questions to the Commission. Unfortunately, we haven't got any answer in six weeks. So, c'est la vie, and the result is that we have to discuss the question here. And I'm even more happy that on this very important topic, we can ask directly from the new Commissioner from Austria, who understands probably very well about the consequences of the illegal migration, about security, about the defence questions. The question was about the EU funds and is there any kind of consideration in the European Commission to finance also the projects to protect our external borders physically? For example, in February 2023, the European Council implored the Commission to immediately mobilise substantial EU funds and means in order to help countries bolster their border protection capabilities and infrastructure. Commission President von der Leyen has said that the EU will act to strengthen our external borders, specifically by providing an integrated package of mobile and stationary infrastructure from cars to cameras, from watchtowers to electronic surveillance. Unfortunately, we understand very well that it's not enough to fight against, for example, the hybrid attacks by Russia, where they are using thousands of people as a weapon against Finland, against Poland, Lithuania, maybe next day to Estonia. And if those people are used by Russia's hybrid attack, how can we stop to move them to Germany, to Austria, to the inside of the European Union, thanks to the Schengen free movement that we have?. That is why we had only two concrete questions: why has the Commission not yet recognised the reality on the ground at the EU's external borders and moved to lift its anachronistic moratorium on EU funding for physical border barriers? And secondly, considering the ongoing hostile activities at the eastern border and the Member States have taken to constructing border barriers to counter the instrumentation of migrants, will the Commission change its approach and support Member States' external border barrier projects financially via the EU budget?

Honourable President, Luckily, Mrs Kallas can be spoken in Estonian, so you can all listen to our more beautiful mother tongue. First of all, we are all pleased that the Assad regime has fallen, and there is no doubt about that. The problem, of course, is that the new regime may not be more human-friendly, more democratic, sweeter, nicer and more floral. And as Mrs Kallas said at the sitting of the Foreign Affairs Committee, historically this extremist Islamist movement has not been the most peaceful one. Well, that was well said. Okay, let's look to the future. I understand that you are talking about democracy, we are building up Syria. We do great things in our words, even though every society chooses its own path. And finally, this progress takes time and it's their path to choose how to live their lives. But I'm more interested in concrete steps. That while we are talking about building up Syria, supporting it, helping it, and so on, what will we do if, for example, a new radical Islamist regime starts killing Christians? What do we really do? We speak in words of support and solidarity, but what do we do? The second thing we will do when, for example, a million Syrians start fleeing Syria, because this new regime is not very beautiful and nice. Will we protect the external border more? Are we subject to Turkish extortions such as 2016, paying EUR 6 billion to keep its border closed? Maybe what would be the real plan B-C-D if it didn't go as nicely as we are talking in this hall today?

Madam President, dear colleagues, dear representatives of the Commission and Council, in this Parliament, words are always more than deeds. There is much talk about the need to support Ukraine in its war against Russia for as long as it takes. But where are the deeds? The situation in Ukraine is getting worse every day because European aid is too scarce or comes too late. Germany, Europe's largest economy, supports Ukraine in words, but actual military aid has been limited to EUR 5.2 billion. The European Union remains the largest importer of Russian gas, buying almost half of the gas exported from Russia. In October of this year alone, the EU paid Russia EUR 1.8 billion for fossil fuels. If Europe wants to stop Russia, it needs to reduce its dependence on Russian energy and develop our own energy industry, abandoning the economically harmful green revolution. It is also necessary to increase military support for Ukraine many times over, so that negotiations to end the war can take place from a position that suits us and Ukraine, and not on Russia's terms. We need deeds, and now.

Actually, you say big sentences like they have been supporting in history, when sometimes, we know just now the facts. Recently, in the last years, the EU taxpayers' money has been used by Hamas to force the terrorists against Israel. That's the fact in the last recent years. We know who are the good side and who are the bad side. If we don't look at the facts about who is actually working together, you are also supporting terrorists. And that's the problem. You are also supporting the Russian terrorism against Ukraine. You are supporting North Korea, because they are all working together there. And that's why I really don't believe that there will be peace without destroying the terrorists. And that Israel has to win with the good side.

Madam President, dear colleagues, first of all, about the facts: the fact is that from Lebanese territory, Hezbollah has been attacking Israel since October last year. That is the fact. They have been supporting Hamas. Hamas has been supported by the very many Palestinians and probably also by the many very left‑wing colleagues here. So they are destroying the ideology that we need to destroy Israel. What is the fact? UN peacekeepers, they were warned that they are sitting next to the bases of Hezbollah. They were sitting next to it. They were warned. And now the General‑Secretary of the UN is visiting Russia to meet with Vladimir Putin at the BRICs summit. That's fine for you, of course. So the problem now is there is a lot of hypocrisy. Left‑wing radicals are, of course, providing support with the EU funds that have been deported to Hamas in Palestine. This money has been used to support the Islamic terrorists, to kill Jews and to destroy peace there. We know the facts that Hamas is working together with Hezbollah in Lebanon, with Russia, with Iran and North Korea. That is the side of evil. But we are standing on the good side to destroy the terrorists and to finally fight for peace.

Madam President, first of all, Mr Orbán, as conservatives, of course we can agree on many points. We can agree that we need a strong migration policy. We need to turn around the crazy green ideology. We need to protect our heritage, our culture, our Christian values. Definitely. And I also agree that there are so many double standards and hypocrisy in the EU. We talk about the Russia policy, yet we are importing more gas than before the war. So we are financing the Russian war against Ukraine. That's true. But at the same time, it's not a very good excuse to do the same. I remember very well, a few weeks after the war started, there was a question, 'Will Hungary allow the use of at least its territory to move military aid to Ukraine?', Hungary said 'No'. Why? If we talk about diplomacy, every war will end finally with diplomacy. That's true. But the question is what consequences will there be after the war? Because today we see a huge risk for the whole of Europe. Also for Estonia, to my country. And what have you done, really, to stand up against Russia and to protect Ukraine, even if you have a difficult history with Ukraine. But this is the question for the future and our security. What have you done?