Speeches

Madam President, Ms von der Leyen, dear Guy Verhofstadt, I would start with Guy, when he mentioned that the real reason for the huge prices is Putin. I have to just correct you. The price crisis started in Greece six months before the war. We had problems already in the last year, in December and January, and Putin was just a trigger for the real reason. And the real reason is that we have had a crazy green policy in the last two decades. We are hating fossil fuels. We are hating nuclear, like in Germany. It’s a perfect idea, of course – shut down the nuclear! It’s really bad! It’s risky. Let’s hope for the unstable wind and sun. It’s an amazing idea. Go to Sweden in January, there’s a lot of sun. It’s beautiful. It’s like in Spain in summer. Absolutely! A stable energy. And this is the reason why we gave the power to Putin to play with us. And this is also the fault of Mrs von der Leyen. What did the European Commission do at time when Germany started to build Nord Stream 2? Nothing. They said, ‘Oh, it’s just a political thing, it’s just an economical thing’. There is no economics without politics, and that’s also your fault. You’re also responsible for the last two decades, when you didn’t invest anything in the German defence, and now you are surprised, ‘Oh, we can’t help Ukraine anymore, and the Russians are playing with us’. That’s the real reason. (The President cut off the speaker)

Dear Mr President, As the Commissioner is from Estonia, we still speak Estonian. First of all, it is no wonder that we are having an energy crisis when, over the last two decades, the whole political direction in energy has been that all fossil fuels are bad, nuclear power stations must be shut down, as the Germans have done with their great minds, the Swedes have shut down, we are shutting down coal power stations, and then we begin to hope that the sun, wind and water will solve all our problems, which are impossible in purely energy policy. Unstable energy cannot guarantee a sustainable stable economy, it is simply impossible, no country in the world relies solely on renewable energy. It is simply impossible, it can be part of a big compote, but for the most part you have to have stable energy in the economy, and it can only be gas, a nuclear power plant, coal, oil shale in Estonia, but over the last two decades we have come to a situation where, in principle, our economy has depended on Russian gas and that is actually the fault of the European Commission, it is the fault of the Member States, tomorrow Ursula von der Leyen will come to talk about how she is fighting for the people of Europe, but it is also her personal fault that Germany is in the soup and we are currently in the soup of the Germans and will not solve this problem overnight. Now we are suffering for the next five to ten years, because it will take seven to ten years to build new facilities, and it is your fault in the European Commission and in the governments of the Member States and, of course, the people who have elected these governments. I'm sorry.

Mr President, as the Commissioner rightly said it’s a very important topic. I think it’s the most important topic before the winter. And it’s so important that in this plenary we have almost 20 MEPs listening to this debate. I think we have ten times more people there on the balcony, our visitors. Anyway, just about inflation, about economic problems. I would like to just mention two things. First of all, we asked last year from the ECB, from the Central Bank of Europe, how will affect their very tough green policy, green deal, the European economy. And they said very clearly, ‘yes, it will affect, it will increase inflation’, they didn’t say how much, but they said, ‘yes, it will affect’. And the same thing is mentioned several times in the speeches and in the public opinions by Ms Isabel Schnabel. Isabel Schnabel, who’s a German economist, executive member of the board of the ECB and she said same things. If we are crushing this green deal forward it will affect our economy. That’s a pure fact. And if you’re looking now on the energy sector and if we imagine what will happen in few years, if we are, of course, hating so much all the nuclear power and fossil fuels and we’re just hoping for the wind and sun – I love also sun and wind, it’s amazing things – but unfortunately, it’s not enough. It’s not enough for our energy sector. It means the price will go even more up. It will much more higher. And that’s just an economical fact. So that’s why I would like to just hear your opinion today when we have war in Ukraine, we have this kind of problems in energy sector and we see the result of the green deal in those first years actually. What is your opinion? What is the position of the Commission? Are we still going forward with, in my opinion, crazy idea, absolutely crazy idea? Or are there any plans that we actually will react to the problems what we have already today? So that’s just my only small question. And if you can answer, I would be very grateful.

Mr President, Commissioner, the representative for the Council is missed, also Ms von der Leyen has left, unfortunately. First of all, I have to say that I’m not the biggest fan of the EU, of course, as you know. But at the same time, I absolutely understand Ukrainians who really are willing to move closer to the EU. If Ukraine is really dreaming and really wanting to have candidate status, I think there is no question: of course, we have to give it. Absolutely. I think there is likely an absolutely majority in the House also here who agrees on this. I’ve told, several times also, the Ukrainians that the main goal can’t be just to be a member of the EU. The main point is to really be a successful country with a functional economy, with less corruption and to really move on the right way. Then, of course, it can be also in years, membership to the EU. There’s no doubt of this. For the final sentence, many of us have all said today here that the Council have to really understand that we are paying even more money now to Russia, to finance the war thanks to the huge energy crisis. So what will be the plan from the EU to really have a limit for energy prices? Because it’s terrible what is happening now. So I really would like to hear the answers. What is your plan?

Madam President, Ms von der Leyen, Mr Michel, first of all, as I have only one minute or one and a half minutes, I would like to really agree with Mr Weber from EPP when he mentioned that actually we have to discuss also about topics when we’re talking about inflation, when we’re talking about the food security. I really loved when he mentioned that we should not see any more the farmers as a huge risk or damage to the environment. We have to see them as producers for the food and we know that we need a food security to be more independent from Russia, from China, even from US. And, of course, if you don’t propose solutions, if we can’t solve the real problems for our citizens in European countries, then those bad guys that’s called populists will come with solutions. And, of course, they propose sometimes very good solutions, if I call myself as a populist sometimes. Second thing about Russia and Ukraine. I think the sanction package is, of course, a huge step forward. But at the same time, we have to remind that from 24 February, EU has paid over EUR 50 billion to Russia for energy. On the same time, we have proposed the military help from the EU only for a few billion euros and the sanctions are effective in the long term maybe, in six months, in one year. But we have to think how to win Russia in few months, in end of the summer, and we will win the war if there is enough military aid to Ukraine. And if Germany is not doing enough, as we see today by Mr Scholz, if France is totally not understandable, if Mr Macron is saying that we can’t humiliate Vladimir Putin, then it’s your duty and it’s your duty to provide more military aid by EU to Ukraine to win this war. And then we can also look forward with the sanction package to destroy their economy. That’s the short—term view how we have to react. And for the long term, of course, the sanctions are necessary. I don’t agree also with some Member States who are trying to block everything and are not cooperating together. But more thinking on inflation, economic problems for our citizens, and more thinking about military aid to Ukraine.

Mr President, first of all, I absolutely agree with everybody who is saying that there has to be responsibility for all the war crimes. There is responsibility also for the political leaders, but to take them to court or take them to really pay for the war crimes, first you have to win the war because without the winning of the war, there would be no responsibility, and to win the war, you just have to give so many weapons as much as possible to Ukraine. I have to remind you that in the last three months, from 24 February, the EU has paid EUR 50 billion for energy from Russia. At the same time, we have provided – for a few billion euros – arms and military technique to Ukraine. So it’s not very well balanced, but of course I fully understand it’s difficult for Germany, difficult for Hungary. We have to deal with this. But at the same time, if we pay EUR 50 billion to Russia, we have to pay as much as possible to Ukraine, especially for weapons. Second thing, everybody is shocked about the war crimes – how it’s possible in 21st century. The problem is that Russia hasn’t changed. It’s basically the same country. The problem is that in 1945, they did exactly the same war crimes. They raped the same way, they killed in the same way like today, because they didn’t have to pay for the war crimes, because at that time, of course, the common enemy was Nazi Germany. The US, the UK and France were together allies with the Soviet Union and they were the winners. Today I’m most afraid that we are doing the same mistake because, for the last sentence, when I heard last week that Emmanuel Macron proposed to Mr Zelenskyy that we need peace and we have to save the face of Vladimir Putin, I was really shocked. And of course, Macron says, ‘no, it’s false’, but in this case, I believe Zelenskyy more than Macron. There will be no saving the face of the aggressor and dictator. We have to .... (The President cut off the speaker)

Dear President, I speak estonian. Last year, as far as I know, all symbols, posters and advertisements in this House were banned. Banned the flags on the tables. For this, several Members were fined in the form of the abolition of daily allowances. I would therefore like to point out, Mr President, that several Members were waving with posters that were against the Rules of Procedure. Therefore, I ask you to investigate and punish it according to our rules, because we are all equal here, whether you are left-wing, communist or right-wing. Thank you!

Mr President, first of all, yesterday morning, I checked the statistic of how much you have paid to Russia for gas, oil and coal. In the first two months after the war, the biggest buyer and payer for Russia is, of course, Germany. The second one is Italy, the third one is Turkey, and the fourth one is the Netherlands. If I compared the prices that we paid – I mean we as Europeans – to Russia for gas and oil, it was three times higher an amount of money than it was at exactly the same time last year. And of course the Germans and others who are buying gas from Russia are saying that it’s the market price. But the problem that we have now is that we, as Europeans, are paying three times more money to Russia. We are saying that ‘well it’s the market price’, but it’s not true. The Russians are saying ‘ you have to pay this sort of money for gas’, otherwise they will not sell it. We are not the smartest ones and we are paying this money. This means that every day we are paying hundreds of millions of euros to Russia to have the energy resources and they are using this money for the military and for the war machine against Ukraine, maybe tomorrow against Moldova, and maybe in few days against the Baltic states or Finland. So what is my point? We now have a situation and the summer is coming so it’s a good time. But in September, October and November, when the winter is coming, we will again be in a situation where we are paying many, many times more money for the resources, the energy, from Russia to have a warm house, to have functioning technology, and to have functioning businesses. That’s why today the Germans and Austrians and also the Hungarians –I have to say, unfortunately – are saying that they can’t stop importing energy from Russia now. But we now have to think now how to survive next winter because otherwise we’ll be screwed and will still be paying more and more money – three times more than last year – to Russia. And this money will be used for their new occupations and their new expansions, and that’s the fault of the European energy policy. We have to learn from our mistakes, what we have done, and look for the next winter.

Madam President, dear colleagues, I was just counting that we have 35 colleagues here – that’s about 5% of the Parliament – on this important topic. First of all, I know that it’s so shocking to see in the media about those mass murders, about those rapes, about those crimes, what’s happening in Ukraine. But what I do not understand is that we are also surprised that it is possible in the 21st century. Unfortunately, it is possible, because if you are looking at the army who’s doing this, the same army did exactly the same against women in Germany in 1945. The same army did the same against the Polish people in the 1940s. And the biggest problem is that they have never, ever learned that you shouldn’t do war crimes; you shouldn’t rape others’ wives. You shouldn’t kill children. They have never, ever learned this. So the mentality is exactly the same. When we here in Western Europe are so shocked that it’s still possible – yes, it is possible, absolutely, because there’s been never, ever, any denazification in Russia. If they are talking about denazification, the only one who really needs this is Russia, because they are the really new Nazis who are making the war crimes against the civilians. Secondly, if we’re talking about sanctions, yes, sanctions are effective in the long term, not in the short term. The problem is that the expectation for this year is that the profit will be EUR 321 billion for Russia for gas and oil. So if we’re going to talk about sanctions, it has to be really effective. And, of course, the problem is that they’re going to be very harmful also for us. But that’s the price we have to pay. Thirdly, for the end, I know that Mr Borrell and Mr Michel are going to have a nice lunch after this debate and a nice dinner with a good wine. But the main work, what we really have to do now here, is to convince more and more countries to give weapons to Ukraine to fight against the aggressor. That’s the main work we have to do here. We can discuss here with political debates about sanctions, for hours, but that’s your main work, what you really have to do: to convince more EU countries to give more weapons to Ukraine to fight against this Nazi army.

Madam President, I am very sorry that the President of the Commission had to leave. I really wanted to remind her of some small things. First of all, after 2014, when the Russian invasion against Ukraine started, for the next five years European countries increased, every year, the import of oil and gas from Russia. So that means for the last six, seven years, we have paid more and more money to Russia, and that’s the money they can use in the army against Ukraine. So those European countries are also responsible for the war against Ukraine. Second thing, if you are talking about our military capacity, what did Ms von der Leyen do when she was six and half years Minister of Defence in Germany. Its military capacity was destroyed. Two weeks ago, Germany promised to give at least military aid to Ukraine, but what came out? It doesn’t have it – it doesn’t have anything to give! That’s also the fault of Mrs von der Leyen, unfortunately. But okay, that’s history. How can we go forward? Tomorrow, and in two days, there is a Council meeting – just now in the morning I checked. Twelve countries of the 27 have supplied military aid to Ukraine. Twelve of the 27. All the others have not done this. It’s time to give more and more military aid to Ukraine, because the peace agreement can’t be that the Russian occupants will stay in Ukraine, in Mariupol or eastern Ukraine. They have to get out of Ukraine. And for this work, we have to help in any way we can.

Madam President, I will start in English because it’s for a bigger audience. I’m really surprised, in a positive way, that, if I listen, our good colleagues from the Socialist Group and from the Renew Group are calling for more military help to Ukraine. That’s exactly what we have to do. I’ve heard some arguments that, if we help Ukraine in a military way, then the war would be bigger, there would be more chaos, it would be a disaster in the world, and it would be a Third World War. But no. The sooner we end the war in Ukraine, the sooner the Russians will be back in their own territory, and the sooner those refugees – who are really refugees today, women and children are escaping from a war zone to neighbouring countries – can go back to their homes. I just read yesterday that our good colleagues from Poland are ready to help Ukraine with fighter jets. That’s what we have to do. And unfortunately, I read that our good colleagues from the US are scared now. They are not ready to really move those fighter jets through NATO bases to Ukraine. But every day the Russians are just killing ordinary people. They are killing children. They are attacking hospitals. They are attacking ordinary houses. And every day that we wait to help, the more disasters there will be. And if the Russians succeed in Ukraine, then there is the question, who’s next? In the last three months, we have seen their ambitions. We have seen what they have said and their dream is to go back to the Soviet Union times. Unfortunately I, and also Ms Kallas, are from a country that is very close to Russia, and it’s very easy to close the Baltic States from the Western world. That’s why we have to stop the war as soon as possible, and harmfully, against Russians. I would also like to mention that we have to understand that there has been huge support from the Russian population for Putin. Look at 2014, after the Crimean annexation. There was huge support to go to Crimea and to occupy it. So that’s why I wouldn’t say that there are totally different parts of Russia, that there is Putin and the Kremlin, and there are ordinary people. A large part of Russians are unfortunately still supporting this aggressor. Lõpetuseks eesti keeles proua Kallasele, kuna see on nö siseriiklikult ka oluline ja kuna mul ei ole Teiega võimalik väga tihti kohtuda. NATO on meile oluline liitlane, keegi ei kahtle selles. Aga selleks, et liitlased saaksid meid kaitsta, on meil vaja ka ise panustada, maksimaalselt. Eestis on poliitiline konsensus kõikide parteide poolt, et me peame investeerima võimalikult kiiresti ja võimalikult palju Eesti riigikaitsesse. Võtma riigikaitselaenu ajal, kui meil on kõige madalam välisvõlatase Euroopa riikidest, ajal, kui inflatsioon on lendamas taevasse, ja ajal, kus meil käib sõda meie naabri juures. Ainult üks partei on sellele vastu olnud – kahjuks Reformierakond ja peaministri erakond. Põhjendusega, et muidu eelarve pole tasakaalus. Täna pole aeg rääkida eelarve tasakaalust – täna on vaja rääkida sellest, et me suudame investeerida meie kaitsevõimesse, kus kõik parteid, isegi Eesti sotsialistid, on sellega täiesti nõus. Seega, proua Kallas, kaitseme Ukrainat, kaitseme Euroopat, aga kaitseme ka Eestit! Suur aitäh!

Mr President, I was listening very carefully to the speeches, and I would like to mention two things in particular. First of all, Ms von der Leyen mentioned that Russia is now weaponising energy policy. Well, I would like to say we told you about five or six years ago that if we’re going to build up the Nord Stream 2 between Germany and Russia, of course they will weaponise it. That is obvious. There is no energy policy without other policies. This is also very clear with economic policy and defence policy, but the Germans wanted to build Nord Stream 2 with Russia, and here we are now. Of course they’re weaponising it. Germany doesn’t like to be surprised. It’s a bit ridiculous. Secondly, everybody else mentions that we are ready for anything. Ms von der Leyen and Mr Borell also mentioned that we are ready for every scenario. Hopefully we are, but, on the other hand, if you look at the facts, when Estonia just wanted to give some military help to Ukraine, who blocked it? The German Government. The German Government said ‘No, no, no you will not give it, because it was our military equipment in the 80’s – in the Soviet time – when it belonged to East Germany, and we will not give it to Ukraine.’ So, I really don’t see this harmony inside of the EU. Of course, it’s a very clear fact that Russia is a threat, but I really don’t think that we have to panic here. However, we have to be ready for everything. That is also obvious. When the previous speakers said that war is senseless and pointless, of course for us it’s pointless, but we are taking it too emotionally. We don’t really think about what Russia really wants to have. Even if you look at the troops – 135 000 troops next to the Ukrainian border – this is not enough to occupy all of Ukraine. Ukraine is a totally different country compared to what it was eight years ago. They have made really good progress on the right side. But 135 000 troops are easily enough to carry out some small actions in eastern Ukraine. If you look at what they’re doing in the Russian Duma, they are now legally recognising Donetsk and Luhansk as independent countries. It takes only a few days. Maybe when they are at risk, they will ask for military help, because the Ukrainian Government will maybe attack those independent countries. These 135 000 troops are easily enough for small military actions.

Madam President, I would like to say to President Macron that I prepared my speech in Estonian, but sometimes it’s easier to talk to him directly about his comments. President Macron, first of all, you pretty much attacked Poland and Hungary about the rule of law. We have to remind ourselves that all discussions started in 2015 and 2016, when Poland refused to participate in the common migration policy, and nobody in Brussels cared that the migration policy has been always part of the Member States’ policy. It’s not part of EU policy. Secondly, we are attacking the court system. That is too political. I just checked. In Belgium, half of the judges in the Constitutional Court are appointed by their government – political government. Thirdly, we are attacking the rule of law in Poland and Hungary and, at the same time, you, Mr Macron, a few weeks ago, said publicly that were going to piss off all the people who are not vaccinated. I thought that vaccination was a free choice. It’s good if you are vaccinated, but nobody can blame you, nobody can fire you and nobody can punish you if you’re not vaccinated. It’s freedom of choice and we are Europe, not China.

Mr President, High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, ladies and gentlemen. Surely many have a question: what could be the current goal of Russia and, if they are not achieved, would they also be prepared to act again militarily on their behalf, as recently in Georgia, Crimea or eastern Ukraine? In terms of objectives, it is quite simple: Russia has made it clear that it wants to get a legal guarantee that NATO will not accept new member states from Russia's neighbourhood, and does not want to see NATO military units or armaments too close to its borders. Such demands have been made possible primarily because Russia perceives the weakness of both the US and the European Union. So far, almost all of Russia's allegations have been false and distorting reality. NATO's military forces in Eastern Europe are only for defence, not for threatening Russia. Only a madman would think that European countries or the United States would have the motivation to threaten Russia militarily. It is also completely absurd for Russia to insist that countries bordering it should not have NATO military units for defence purposes, or that some countries should never become NATO members. When it comes to the concentration of Russian troops along the border with Ukraine or aggressive military exercises along the border with Estonia, Russia claims that Russia is doing what it wants on its territory. However, the same right applies to other countries: If Ukraine wants to join NATO, that is its right, if the other members of NATO agree. If Estonia or Poland wish to see allied forces on their territory, it is their right, and Russia has no basis for claims. Especially considering the historical behaviour of Russia and the wars initiated in the last 15 years. Russia could be a very good partner for us economically and, in some ways, an ally in terms of relations with China. But for good relations, there must be readiness on both sides. Russia, as the country with the largest territory in the world, must understand that the last century has passed, when it was still possible to carry out occupations, mass murders or deportations with Communist terror. Russia should understand that they have a lot to gain from good relations with their neighbours. However, in order for them to understand this good opportunity well, we, that is, the European countries, should be ready to defend ourselves by any means and, at this moment, to provide all possible assistance to Ukraine. Let us take Finland as an example here, a country that has economically stable relations with Russia, but at the same time has one of the best armies in Europe, certainly not for Sweden or Norway.

Madam President, Mr Borrell, first of all, many of us here, in this Chamber, are saying that refugees and migrants have dreams and have the right to go wherever they want. I would like just recall that at end of the summer of 1944, about 10% of Estonian population, about 100 000 people, mostly kids and women, escaped from the war because the Soviet Russians came to occupy. And where did they escape to? To Sweden, the closest safe country where they could go. They didn’t buy tickets to fly to Spain or to Brazil, or the US. They escaped from the war to the closest safe country. Today, what we see in the forest between Belarus and Poland, has nothing to do with refugees. If you buy tickets to fly to Belarus and your main goal is go to Germany, you are not a refugee. You have to understand that winter is coming, and winter in Poland is not very nice. I know it very well, I am from Estonia, so I know how cold it can be. That is the risk that you take. There is no responsibility for citizens in Germany, or in Estonia, or in Poland for what they are doing. The second thing, I was really surprised by the first speaker, Mr Weber. That was the part of the realists. I can understand the idealists, also the Turkish. The Western Europeans were so idealistic about the Soviet Union: everybody equal – equally poor, of course – it’s so nice, there is real equality. They were naive. That’s what I see today here: naivety. Naive people who are talking about the freedom, the friendship, everybody so hand—to—hand together. But the real world is: at some point, you need fences. You need fences to protect your own main sovereignty, your own foreign border. That’s the border of the EU. If you don’t control who’s coming over the border, you don’t have any citizens’ rights, for your own citizens, the protection of your own people, what is the most important. That’s why I would like to say: in this case, we have to stand with Poland. They are doing the main job, and they are doing a good job. Go on, Poland!

Dear Mr President, Mrs Von der Leyen, President of the Commission, Mr Morawiecki, Prime Minister of Poland. Let us not forget that the primacy of European Union law is not infinite, it has very clear limits. For example, when Estonia joined the European Union, the people voted in a referendum to join the European Union only on the condition that the fundamental principles of the Estonian Constitution, such as the eternal preservation of the nation, language and culture, are protected. However, if the European Union tries to gain excessive control over the immigration, financial or defence policies of the Member States through the Treaties, it is unfortunately contrary to the fundamental principles of the Estonian Constitution, and the fundamental principles of our Constitution are in no way subject to the law of the European Union. In addition, the Estonian Parliament has clearly stated in 2012 that if the European Union decides again to amend the treaties, which transfer even more decision-making power to the European Union, this will require a new referendum in Estonia, as in such a case the mandate obtained in the referendum in 2003 to join the European Union will no longer be relevant. Therefore, the reaction of the European Commission, the European Parliament or several other Member States criticising the Polish court's decision that a point of the Polish Constitution is incompatible with European Union law is completely unacceptable. The European Union must serve the interests of the Member States, not the Member States must humbly bow to the European Union. Countries were before and are after the European Union, and the current Union is created by countries, not the Union has created countries. Finally, I stress that the European Union is not the same as Europe as a whole. European countries that are not part of the European Union are, and will remain, part of Europe. The more the European Commission or the federalists in the European Parliament want to centralise decision-making power and drive across Member States, the more countries will want to regain their sovereignty.

Thank you, Mr President. I had a decent speech prepared in English, but when I saw that the committee was personally represented by Kadri Simson, who is from Estonia, then of course we would rather enjoy speaking in Estonian. I listened to the call. In the fourth minute of Mrs. Simson's speech, she said: “The only solution to the energy crisis and rising prices is the green transition.” “Green deal” is the only solution. And many speakers here, since, well, this house is not a very logical house, here generally adheres to ideology and fanaticism, and not to arguments and economic logic, then insists on the need to increase independence, reduce gas supplies, reduce the use of fossil fuels, increase green energy. And it's like it's going to bring down prices and make life better. Well, it's all kind of porridge and cabbage that doesn't make sense just. The sun and wind are not enough. It is not enough for the BMW car factory to stay in Germany, not to move to Hungary with one of the factories that they are currently doing. This is not enough to keep the price down, as it is a much more expensive production. But it is good to criticise, but solutions must also be offered. The solution is obvious. As my good colleague from Belgium also said, nuclear energy has been put somewhere I don't know - under the field. That's bad. Germany shut down its nuclear power plants simply because of a minor failure in Fukushima. Because of this, energy independence was destroyed, and now we are asking for a hand on long coal and gas from Russia, which is manipulating Europeans. That's not normal. Anyway, my time is over. Thank you to Kadri Simson! You are a sensible person, you understand things, so use reason, not ideology.

Thank you to the President, Mrs Johansson. Since I have two and a half minutes, I speak calmly so that the interpreters can also translate, because there are often problems with the translation, where some of the text is not delivered. Firstly: Belarus is a very complex issue. As regards democracy, several previous speakers, good Lithuanian colleagues, have stressed the need to hold new elections in Belarus, democratic elections, and that Lukashenka is not a legitimate president. Basically yes, it can be accepted – yes, democratic elections are necessary, but where I would be very careful is that (we are) not only the countries of the European Union, but also the Western countries in general have tried somehow artificially to export democracy to third countries, that is, we are going to teach some countries how to live their daily lives. I was in Belarus several days ago on an official visit to the members of the national parliament and, of course, this is not an election like that in Estonia or Germany or in another European country, but at the same time I would not take the right to go tell them how exactly you must live now, so I would try to interfere as little as possible in the internal affairs of the countries. The second issue, however, is the threat posed by these countries, such as Belarus. I am extremely pleased that now, thanks to Belarus in a funny way, Mrs Johansson, for example, has repeatedly argued that illegal immigration, which is being ravaged by Belarus, is unacceptable, it is criminal. And there have also been clear messages from the European Commission that physical border barriers are one of the effective means of taking work away from traffickers. In other words, the Belarusian regime is currently exploiting our weakness, and our weakness is that, for example, in the last twenty or thirty years, we have not invested enough in protecting our own external borders, and only now have we discovered that there is no physical barrier at the border between Latvia and Belarus, or between Lithuania and Belarus, so that we cannot walk across the border, which is completely unacceptable. Just as there is a border between Estonia and Russia, [where] there is not enough physical barrier, so I am very pleased that the direction has changed, and I hope that the European Commission will finally approve that European Union funds are spent on the construction of physical barriers. Thank you very much!

Madam President, Commissioner of course, there’s no doubt that corruption is bad; corruption is always bad. But the problem is how to fight that and what are the right mechanisms? What can we really use? Some speakers before me have mentioned that the sanctions from the US against Bulgaria is coming to the internal questions in Europe. Of course, we have to remember that there is a United States of America but there is no United States of Europe. So Bulgaria is an independent country and the US is an independent country. So it depends on the relations between those two countries. So it’s not illegal to put all the sanctions against some Member States of the EU. The second thing with corruption: very often the biggest problem with corruption is that the small fish are in a trap, but the big fish are just swimming in the ocean freely. Of course, there is a problem in Bulgaria, there’s no doubt – also in Romania. But if we are really thinking that we really can change something inside of some other country, I think we are wrong. At the beginning of the 90s there was a huge corruption problem, also in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland. And today I just checked the results from last year’s polls – the polls where they’re asking in all the Member States about how do you feel about the corruption rate? Are there any problems inside society? Do the police ask you for money? I think if I’m right, Estonia and Finland had the lowest rate of corruption. So it means that if you really want to change something, it has to come from inside the country. But very often I see in some countries – like Ukraine, Bulgaria, Romania – that the people are of course saying that, yeah, we have a huge problem with corruption; the politicians are just stealing the money. But at the same time, when they are going to the doctor, they’re used to taking EUR 10 for the doctor and thinking: hey, maybe I can just get better service than the others. So I think the only thing the EU can really do is just to control the money, what comes from European taxpayers’ money, and at the same time, every country has to fight itself against corruption. And the last thing that I would like to mention, as I mentioned about the big fish, is that the European Court of Auditors makes reports every year about how we are spending the taxpayers’ money from Europe. I would like to focus more also on the taxpayers’ money that goes to third countries. Every year we send money to Africa, to the Middle East, and we don’t really control where the money really goes. The Court of Auditors has said several times that we don’t have any overview how they’re really spending hundreds of millions of euros of taxpayers’ money.

Thank you very much, Madam President, Mrs von der Leyen. I think that the most important issue of the past year is, of course, the climate agreement, a package presented by the European Commission, which is four thousand pages long and according to which we should then save the world. I understand that perhaps the European Commission, perhaps the President of the Commission, really sincerely believes that 440 million people in Europe will be able to turn the rivers into the other way of flowing, as the Soviet Union once wanted to do, while China, India, developing countries, industrialised countries obviously do not share this plan. Then our citizens – our people – will pay for the fun that is unlikely to take us anywhere, let alone save the climate. As some colleagues have already mentioned, in Estonia, for example, the price of electricity has been the highest in the last couple of decades in recent days, and it is only rising. We know that if we tax aviation fuel several times, for example, then Members here or the President of the Commission can continue to travel calmly, travel from one point to another, but an ordinary person who hopes to go on holiday with his family once a year will go on holiday once every three years, that is, he will pay for it. Not to mention industrial development, competitiveness with other major economies – we are destroying our own industry and entrepreneurship. Finally, Mrs von der Leyen played with the idea of a joint European Union force and an army. I would remind you that Mrs von der Leyen, you were the German Minister of Defence and we know what happened to the Bundeswehr at the time. This did not work very well, and Germany's defensive capacity fell several times. I do not want the European Commission to decide on military matters, it is the competence of each Member State, and the European Commission better not stick its fingers in it – leave us alone! Thank you and have a beautiful day!

Mr President, I would like to thank Mr Kubilius for this really interesting report. This is a very important topic, as we saw with Mr Borrell, who left the chamber just before this debate. First of all, I agree with many, many things in this report. I agree that Russia is a security threat to the neighbourhood countries. It’s a threat to Ukraine and Georgia, as well as the Baltic States – I’m from Estonia, so I know this very well. However, there are many things with which I just do not agree. Firstly, this report says that we should give more power to the European Union to conduct relations with Russia. That would mean that Mr Borrell, as the High Representative for Foreign Affairs, should talk directly with Russia and represent the 27 Member States. We saw this a few months ago and it was embarrassing. So I would prefer Mr Borrell to not speak with Russia over our heads, over the Estonian head. Secondly, I would like to ask how we are to go about organising the regime change mentioned in the report? How? At the same time as we are letting Russia raise its influence over our energy policy through Nord Stream 2, where there are deals made between Germany and Russia, at the same time as the economical impact is rising because we are trying to solve problems with Fit for 55 and climate change, we are just trying to organise regime change. Now when we are weak, when we are not supporting our defence systems. We are not paying for our defence and we don’t want to have more sovereignty over our energy and climate policy. It’s a bit weird. So that’s why I have to abstain from tomorrow’s vote. I can’t vote against it, but I can’t support it either.

Dear Mr President, I speak the most beautiful language in the world, which is my native Estonian. Firstly, thank you very much to Mrs Johansson, secondly, I would very quickly comment with pleasure on a good colleague among the socialists who said something about Christ and quoted the Pope. I would be very pleased if most of this Chamber were Christians like me, because in that case we would not be able to accept a policy of free borders, where everyone can come in from wherever he wants. I must add that what the Pope said may apply to Catholics, but I am Lutheran. Therefore, fortunately for me, these Catholic speeches do not matter very much, and my philosophy is, however, that first and foremost one must protect one's own people. I would like to see people in this hall who leave their door open and invite all strangers to visit: “Come here, I believe you are good people, I will give you food, I will give you a place to sleep. I'm not afraid of anyone at all.” When someone is finally killed, like three people were killed a week ago by a Somali migrant, let's say it happened that I was responsible. Maybe I'm too xenophobic, maybe I'm not tolerant enough of her. That's crazy, you understand that very well. And this is a Christian idea - we protect our people and help those who really need help.