Speeches

Mr President, dear colleagues, today we remind ourselves of the 110th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide, notably the death of 1.5 million Armenians who were the victims of Turkish radicalisation and unchecked nationalism that led to the genocide. Remembrance of such horrible events should not be just about the past, but about the lessons we carry forward and confronting the injustices of today and the future. Europe, built on values of peace and dignity, has a duty to uphold these principles and constantly and consistently stand for human rights, demanding the accountability of those infringing these values. We cannot continue closing our eyes when it is convenient for us and pat ourselves on the back when we cherry-pick the case of suffering we stand up for. We recently witnessed the forced displacement of ethnic Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh. And yet, European Member States are still importing oil and gas from Azerbaijan and, together with the Commission, keeping the memorandum of understanding on energy with them – all while Aliyev continues his internal political oppression, crushing any dissenting voices. We should use this opportunity to reflect on how we act, rather than using mere rhetoric. Let's start with terminating the oil and gas imports from Azerbaijan and supporting the last remaining and standing democracy in the region.

Mr President, Europe is arming, not out of a desire for war, but because an aggressor in the East is killing our neighbours and friends and a former ally in the West is turning away from us. Yes, the eighty-year-old power system is coming to an end, and in the new one we have to take care of our own security. To grow up. It is a historic moment of European independence and unfortunately we are behind. There is talk of hundreds of billions of euros in defence, but concrete plans are lacking. We don't necessarily need more resolutions, and we already know what's in that white paper. We don't even need another summit. What we urgently need now is an investment worthy of a global player with a 15-trillion-dollar economy. We must show authoritarians around the world our true economic strength and ability to act. This is our moment. Well, we have to act now. If we have any time at all, it is the time that Ukrainian defenders buy us with their lives. Let's think about it! Glory to Ukraine and Glory to Europe!

Mr President, today marks three years since Russia launched its brutal aggression against Ukraine. Unfortunately, the question has arisen several times today as to whether it makes sense to support Ukraine. So let me ask you something else: What would happen if we didn't? Where would Europe be today if we remained passive, if we did not open our doors to refugees, if we did not show unity? Today, Russian tanks might stand on the borders of Poland, Slovakia or the Baltics, and there would be genocide of the Ukrainian population in Ukraine. Aggressors around the world would see that war pays off and that both the West and Europe are weak and to be dismantled. If you don't care about values, you're very poor with me. But to speak in your language of transactions, the cost of neutrality would be incomparably higher than the cost of our assistance. That's why we have to stay firm. That's why we have to keep going. Glory to Ukraine!

Thank you for the question. In fact, this legislative proposal is already on the table in Europe. It was prepared by our former Czech colleague Věra Jourová. Basically, it's kind of like the American law, just a lot more sensitive, because in laws like this, you have to be very sensitive about whether you're suppressing free speech, but you're really just striving for more transparency. I think the proposed law goes in that direction, and I will definitely work closely on it in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs.

Madam President, dear colleagues, imagine a platform where fake accounts and AI-generated content influence public discourse with precision. A platform owned by a foreign actor in close relation to their state leadership. A platform with algorithms engineered not to inform but to provoke, amplifying the most divisive and negative reactions. A platform that dominates our digital landscape. Now consider a platform benefiting specific individuals during an election in Europe. What platform did each of you imagine? Was it TikTok or X? These parallels should be striking to us Europeans. Long gone is the time when social media giants just wanted to increase their profits. Now there are political motivations behind our feeds, endangering our democracies. Extremists will accuse us of taking their free speech rights while they are owning the main means of public communication. Don't act neutral. Standing in the middle between autocracy and democracy just means standing on the side of autocracy.

I feel really strange hearing all of this from especially this side, so you will be the one to take my question about it. I feel like you did not really read the DSA, which we are discussing today, because you talk about censorship. Can you explain how legislation which makes the influence of a few chosen ones on our minds and lives transparent is censoring anyone? The only ones who need to be a little bit more upfront and open – so more transparent – are the big owners of the big tech such as Mr Musk. So can you tell me why Mr Musk's freedom of speech, so-called, on a platform which he owns, is more important to you than what your citizens and what your voters know?

I would like to ask you about the comparison you have made. I would like to know: Why do you think that the Constitutional Court in Romania threatens democracy in Romania more than the Chinese spy app? Let me just remind you that it's not Romanian, it's Chinese, which is a third country. Thank you for the explanation.

Thank you very much, Lukas. Of course, I will be gladly explaining this, because we have major studies saying that, as I said, these companies want one thing and one thing only, and that is your attention. To keep the attention for as long as possible to target you with the targeted advertisement. They, of course, hired the best psychologists of the world to keep our attention there, with which, however, they are promoting the more and more radical content, with which the minds can stay for longer periods of time. This, based on studies, leads to psychological problems of children, of teenagers, especially young girls and young boys going into the incel direction or going into hatred of their self-image. I think this is very dangerous.

Thank you for the question. No, I don't agree with your basic premise. Because what you obviously call the Internet are social networks. But social networks are digital oligopolies or digital monopolies that have taken over part of that decentralized, anonymised internet for which all the Pirates have always fought, except for you – sorry you were there and we accepted you. Because social networks have monopolized the space, they keep all their users there in the narrowest possible space so that advertisers and, of course, misinformers can target them.

Thank you so much for the question. I think it's a bit of a pity that you didn't find out anything about me or the Pirate Party, and you're attacking me here, because then you'd find out that we've been the only ones for the last 15 years who have always sounded the alarm for everyone about this. Like the shutdown of the web in the Czech Republic, we were the only ones to criticize it very intensely, because this is how, despite the individual cases, shutting down the web, especially at a time when we have the internet with VPNs and so on, obviously makes no sense at all. After all, Donald Trump himself immediately relocated to other alternative platforms, by the way, just as the Pirate Parties had to in the past, when they were also not yet mainstream. So I understand you in this respect, not in this nationalism, but in this respect I quite understand. However, we, of course, also resist this, but we want systemic changes here to those centralized social networks that centralize all power under themselves.

Madam President, dear colleagues, Commissioner, how much benefit of the doubt should we extend towards social media platforms? While this House banned TikTok use internally last mandate, we still pretend that it is just a harmless entertainment app. The United States will ban the distribution of TikTok through app stores in 25 days. Australia has banned all social media for teenagers already. I don't say I agree with all of this, but major democracies are waking up to the poison that is unregulated social media occupying our digital space and freedoms. It can even be poison for our elections and poison for our childrens' developing minds, as every major study shows. And where are we? Europe doesn't have mass-scale indigenous social media companies. We don't have access to the recommended algorithms of either Chinese or American apps in the single market, either. We are literally blind, and thus we at least need stronger enforcement of the Digital Services Act, and a clear roadmap for when these companies do not oblige – be it fines or the end of their services on European soil.

Mr President, dear colleagues, the European Union is one of the world's top destinations for university students. We have some of the oldest and best universities in the world, and we produce valuable research and technology that hostile states want. Our geostrategic enemies are going to great lengths to catch up with us and outpace us on key emerging technologies. So I very much welcome the Council's recommendations on how to defend our research. I agree that we need to urgently identify our most valuable technology sectors and corresponding PhDs, and train them in operational and research security. We should also coordinate this work with European intelligence agencies – after all, they will often be the first to uncover foreign interference and we should not pretend that this is an actor‑agnostic issue. China and Russia are our main sources of foreign interference, so while we welcome students with ties to these nations into our universities, we should not be naive and grant easy access to cutting‑edge technology to everyone. We must be vigilant, though not paranoid. The strength of our universities lies not just in their innovation, but also in their openness. Our challenge is to build walls of wisdom that safeguard our research without erecting barriers to the free exchange of ideas, because the future will belong not to those who fear knowledge, but to those who can protect it while sharing it.

Madam President, dear colleagues, this is what we call an escalation. Up to 10 000 soldiers from North Korea now support Russian forces. Russia has been amassing Iranian ballistic missiles. Putin revised his nuclear doctrine to lower the threshold for nuclear weapon use, and immediately followed it up with deploying a hypersonic missile. This escalation has a clear goal: to tire us, to frustrate us, and to drag this for so long that we either give up on Ukraine or our citizens are manipulated by fear of further prolongation into voting forces sympathetic to Putin. We need to formulate a response. So I am formulating: yes, for a true peace, there needs to be a negotiation table, but what Putin is offering is a bombarded table with splinters all over the ground and Ukraine sitting on them. We can ensure a table with two equal chairs through the only thing Putin will respect – force – and Ukraine needs from us the means to use such a force. Are we clear?

Madam President, I really do not want to repeat again Mr Sieper's words. However, I counted: we have 25 RCVs ahead of us. If we do this for each and every one of them, the 10-minute break for the IT department will be shorter than the 25 RCVs.

Madam President, dear colleagues, every couple of years we get a new report that tells us basically the same point: spend more on being prepared for disasters. This year's report is no different, but the circumstances are very different. We cannot rely on the US anymore, we cannot rely on Russia and China remaining cooperative players anymore, and thus we cannot continue to pretend that 27 Member States, some as small as mid-sized cities, all need a veto when it comes to foreign policy and to our common defence – that illusion must go. I am in favour of improving our capacity for deterrence by denial and deterrence by punishment. However, you should not mistake the breaking of encrypted communication as some kind of advantage for our cybersecurity. A backdoor for the good guys is a backdoor for our enemies. That is why Mr Niinistö probably felt compelled to add the sentence 'without undermining cybersecurity'. Well, that's like swimming without getting wet – just don't.

Mr President, dear colleagues, dear Commissioner, I urge this House and the Commission to recognise the glaring security risk: Russia's exploitation of financial loopholes right here in the European Union. Despite overwhelming evidence of corruption, state‑backed organised crime and financial entanglements with other high‑risk regions, Russia remains off the EU's high‑risk list for money laundering and terrorist financing. This inaction is no longer tenable. The EU cannot be a passive observer while Russia continues to undermine our financial integrity. Designating Russia as a high‑risk third country is not just a bureaucratic step. It is a shield for our citizens, our institutions and our market. We must act immediately, enforce stringent due diligence measures and send a clear message that Europe will not participate in any way on financing aggression and subverting our values.

Mr President, dear colleagues, I have witnessed Georgian elections in 2021 and I have not witnessed any direct manipulation. Already then, however, we were cautious not to call them fair due to suspicions of voter buying or imbalance in financing of coercive electoral campaign. Almost three weeks ago, I have personally witnessed direct manipulation in various parts of the country. Shocking instances of ballot stuffing, blatant fraudulent behaviour, absence of voting secrecy, intimidation. Let us also not forget that this was part of a broader pattern of democratic backsliding in recent months by the Georgian government. If we were cautious then, in 2021, there is absolutely no way we can call these elections fair now. That's why we need an investigation into these violations, as well as targeted sanctions on those responsible. We must stand firmly with the Georgian people in their rightful pursuit of democracy.

(Start of speech off mic) ... not an option, I assume? So I will answer in English because I understood my Czech colleague, of course, very well. Well, the difference is that the Georgian law of foreign agents is actually drafted based on how the Russian law is, and not how the US or the potential European laws. They are completely different. These laws need to be very sensitive in how they are drafted, so they are not against NGOs and, of course, any public involvement. And the Russian, of course, is drafted so that it diminishes and suppresses any public involvement. So yes, the Georgian Dream colleagues that drafted this drafted it, and we saw it, paragraph after paragraph, based on the Russian law. So that's the difference. Thank you for being able to clarify, thanks to your question, because there's a lot of confusion about it, even among my colleagues here.

Mr President, colleagues, Commissioner, I've always had a special place in my heart for Georgia, and I had high hopes for its European path. The Georgian Government, however, had different plans. A series of actions and laws proposed and adopted prove that the current government has no interest in the European future. It is shifting its policies to be tighter with Russia and even changing its laws to become a conduit for Russian oligarchs. I can just wish that Georgian citizens, who predominantly see their future in the European Union, will also see who is leading them away from it, and I wish them strength into the upcoming weeks. However, I am also part of the European institutions. We are not bystanders, we are involved. We granted candidate status and we can take it away. We granted visa liberalisation and we can take it away. We delayed individual sanctions in a hope we won't lose Georgia to its occupant, Russia. But we are losing and we cannot lead the fight – yes, as we are not Putin and the ever-interfering Kremlin – it is for the Georgian citizens and politicians to lead the fight. But we can surely aid them in their fight. We can make it more difficult for Russia to take over. We have so many examples of Europe being too late to the fight. Can we for once be on time?

Madam President, colleagues, since 2020, the authorities in Belarus have carried out more than 40 000 politically motivated arrests. More than 1 300 people are still imprisoned in horrendous conditions and six political prisoners lost their lives due to deprivation of adequate food, water, medical assistance and due to constant beating, overcrowding, unheated cells and sleep deprivation. So, what do we do as a political body, as a parliament, as a continent of 27 countries? Are we really together incapable of a reaction? We could simplify the visa residence permit process for people fleeing political oppression in Belarus – and those countries who stopped giving visas altogether, can you come back to your senses? We could also actually enforce sanctions in areas which hurt Lukashenko and his cronies. Yes, we took microwaves and fridges from the Belarusian market, okay, and now they are buying it from the Chinese. But Belarus does have critical sectors which make the richest even richer. But that would mean some European companies knocking on your doors and demanding compensations, right? So I don't feel that we are being blocked from action to actually help Europe get rid of the last proper dictator, but we lack courage. If you watch your neighbour's house burn, don't be surprised when the fire spreads onto your house.

Mr President, dear colleagues, every European with an internet connection is exposed to the unregulated, commercial, surveillance-based social media. These trillion-dollar companies destroy our attention span, our democratic institutions and trust, and our mental health for a little profit. The DSA – as ambitious as it was in the beginning – has not shown its enforceable teeth yet. Our current legal framework must ultimately lead towards algorithmic transparency so that everyone can regain agency to what they are recommended online. Information technology is too important to be controlled exclusively by the rich and the intelligence agencies. The DSA and our framework of rules must set a path for a surveillance-free, private and secure way to take part in the online sphere. That is the goal – not unilateral decisions about individual imprisonments and attempts to surveil anyone and everyone, which would be directed to the Hungarian Presidency if they were here.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I am really glad that our colleague Andrius Kubilius from Lithuania has become Commissioner for Defence, because other countries have certainly never taken such a responsible approach to our common defence. While Germany has consistently negotiated one air defense system at a time, it has uncompromisingly reduced its financial support to Ukraine. France and other countries are hesitant not to finally begin to respect international law and allow Ukraine to use weapons on military targets on Russian territory. But the crossed red lines at Kursk hurt us so much – which is sarcasm. The Czech Republic and parts of Eastern Europe are still taking most of their oil from Russia and are successfully sending more money to Russia than they are sending to Ukraine. Well, all countries have problems enforcing sanctions, and exemptions for companies are expanding, not decreasing. I hope that Andrius Kubilius will lead our common defense in spite of this and these states and will not be inspired by cowardly politics, and that there will be enough of us who will find the courage to fight even now.

Mr President, it is a sad honour that I dedicate my last speech in this room, under this mandate, to human rights and to civil society in Azerbaijan. I have met today with Zhala Bayramova, the daughter of Dr Ibadoghlu, listening to her father’s hardship. After negotiations with other Members of Parliament, I have no doubt we realise how catastrophic the situation has become since last autumn for journalists and human rights defenders such as Dr Ibadoghlu and Mr Guliyev. But I guess the governments of our countries and the Commission do not realise it, given they still consider Aliyev a strategic partner. The memorandum of understanding with Azerbaijan should be suspended. And we cannot consider Azerbaijan as a host for COP29, where we will send all sorts of civil society representatives. This is a stance we all must maintain until they release all political prisoners.

Madam President, a year ago, many of us expressed that the passing of foreign agents law would hinder Georgia’s EU prospects. Yet, after getting the candidate status, the government broke its promises and is forcing the law through. In addition, there are plans to restrict LGBT+ rights in Georgia and peaceful protesters are facing repression once again, this time from Zviad Kharazishvili, head of Special Tasks Department. All of this violates EU norms and values. Allow me to offer one comparison. Where one country occupied and attacked by Russia does everything to get closer to European values – and by that I mean Ukraine, obviously – it’s ever more painful to watch Georgia get closer and closer to Russia’s system. The candidate status is not a permanent achievement, and there can be financial consequences. Please don’t take away from your citizens the European path too.

Mr President, dear colleagues, although knowing that security services across Europe are monitoring and mapping disinformation networks is making me calmer, their job is to monitor and map them for us, for policymakers, so that we can decide what is a security threat to our democracies and protect them based on this. That politicians are paid by foreign states to undermine our system, or that there are media outlets with malign intent is no surprise if you weren’t living under a rock for the past ten years. Yet we do not have strong anti-disinformation legislation. We do not have resilient societies still. And some, or few even, use this information themselves in their current campaigns. We don’t need Voice of Europe, or ID MEPs, to show us that we have a big effing problem. The problem is cowardice and opportunism. And good luck working with that in the upcoming mandate after our elections are decided by Putin and fear.