Speeches

Mr President, I voted against the European Commission's discharge report because the European Parliament must not give a blank cheque to an institution in which fraud, abuse, corruption and the lack of transparency have become the norm. The European Court of Auditors had reported serious risks of fraud, corruption and conflict of interest that have influenced the allocation of billions of euros by the European Commission, led by Ursula von der Leyen. Furthermore, the European Commission has untransparently allocated funds to NGOs, which then carried out intense lobbying in the European Parliament to push through the absurdities of the Green Deal. The same corruption scandal goes for the contract signed by Ursula von der Leyen with the anti-COVID vaccine manufacturers. Just with Pfizer, Ursula signed in 2021 the purchase of 4.6 billion doses of vaccines for EUR 71 billion. And this is how the contracts were published so far. So I'm asking, is this the new rule for European transparency? I'm calling for the release of these contracts and for Ursula von der Leyen to publish all the contracts.

Madam President, the brutal attacks on Jewish communities in other lands and Belgium are not isolated tragedies. They are the direct consequence of years of failed education and policies, uncontrolled migration, cultural relativism and passivity in the face of hatred and antisemitic actions. Antisemitism adapts to every era. It may begin as mockery or vandalism, but it always ends in violence and death. In every case, antisemitism starts with words, words that demonise Jews and justify violence. We have seen despair before. The time for tough and uncompromising actions is now. First, we must implement education rooted in truth, because only truth defeats antisemitism at its source. Second, we must restore law and order in Europe, reassess immigration and asylum policies so that all who live here respect our laws, traditions and freedoms. If they don't, they must be deported. Every European-Jewish heritage is inseparable from Europe itself. Protecting Jewish life is essential to preserve who we are. We must draw a clear line. Zero tolerance for antisemitism. Zero excuses and zero hesitation to enforce the law.

Madam President, I voted against the report promoting European legislation on consent-based rape. Although the premise is correct, the lack of consent being a constitutive element of the rape offence, the provisions of the report are deeply problematic and ideological. The inclusion of consent in the definition of rape is welcome, and a number of countries, including Romania, are already doing so. The main problem is that the report focuses exclusively on male rape of women, but deliberately mixes biological terms of ‘male’ and ‘woman’ with self-declared gender identity. Statistics clearly show that most rapes are committed by biologically male persons on biologically female persons, i.e. by males on females. When I asked a Renew MEP how he defines the woman this law is trying to protect, the answer was, quote: “Let everyone be what they want. It is not for politicians to define what a woman is". It is precisely the job of politicians to enact clear and precise laws that punish the abuse of women. If a man sexually assaults a woman and then identifies as a woman, are we talking about rape committed by a man on a woman or a lesbian relationship between two women? Laws with confusing definitions undermine women's rights. That's why I voted against it.

Madam President, with this resolution on Armenia, we must send a clear and balanced message: the European Parliament is supporting peace, stability and reconciliation in the South Caucasus. The future of the region depends on the sustainable peace process between Armenia and Azerbaijan, and the normalisation of relations between Armenia and Türkiye. The European Union must remain a credible partner for dialogue, confidence‑building and long‑term regional cooperation. Our role is not to deepen divisions, but to encourage a peaceful and durable settlement that benefits all people and countries of the region. Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan reminded us exactly in this Chamber that Armenia's path towards closer relations with the European Union is closely connected to the EU's relations with Georgia. The road between Europe and Armenia literally passes through Georgia. Armenia and Georgia should both be seen as strategic partners of the European Union and essential pillars for connectivity, stability and cooperation in the Black Sea and South Caucasus region. Europe's engagement in the region must therefore be inclusive, forward‑looking and based on partnership. We are therefore fully supporting Armenia on its western and prosperous path towards closer integration with the European Union.

Mr President, Parliament's report on the rule of law is deeply ideological and excessively extends the concept of the rule of law to new socio-economic and cultural areas, such as the alleged right to housing, diluting the legal meaning of the term. The report then seeks to standardise concepts such as the recognition of same-sex marriages, disregarding the constitutional identity of the Member States. If in a country like the Netherlands, for example, marriage between a man and an animal is legalized, will it be imposed on other EU countries? There is talk of legal gender recognition. That is, if a man who claims to be a woman or self-identifies as a woman is recognized in the sense of the law as a woman. This will allow a perverted man who claims to be a woman to serve his criminal sentences in women's prisons or to enter women's showers and saunas. I ask the women in this room: Do you feel safe if such a provision will exist in European Union law?

Mr President, the report on the situation of fundamental rights in the EU 2024 and 2025, drawn up by a communist-left MEP, is a neo-Marxist ideological manifesto that undermines the national sovereignty and European values that underpinned the European project. The document mentions, for example, 32 times LGBTQI+, as if this were the biggest and most pressing problem of European citizens and society. At the same time, anti-Semitism is mentioned six times, in the context in which synagogues are burned in Europe. The document insists on gender-ideological indoctrination of children in European schools. You send your child to school in Europe, and instead of coming educated that he knows how to read and reckon, after this indoctrination, he ends up not knowing if he is a boy or a girl. Which society do you want? What future do you want in Europe? A future where a child doesn't know if it's a boy or a girl? Regardless of the sexual options one has at home, one can easily carry them out at home, but not in schools. Leave the kids in...

Mr President, DMA (Digital Markets Act) creates more problems than it solves for the European economy. Digital sovereignty, which you've been talking about here, means having, firstly, technology and, secondly, tech companies that allow you to claim that sovereignty. Since this was implemented DMAHow many tech firms have grown in Europe and how many new ones have come to Europe? On the contrary, data show that today's small and medium-sized businesses in Europe are suffering from this problem. DMA. A recent study, I quote, shows that annual losses in Europe as a result of this DMA, is EUR 114 billion annually. This DMA It makes the online user experience absolutely impossible. This Parliament ends up regulating even the buttons that users have to press on websites. Talk here and talk about American companies. Who is stopping Europe today from being in real competition with companies in the United States? I tell you, you, through these extensive regulations, reduce...

You were mentioning that through this Digital Markets Act, the European market was open, the digital market was open for more businesses. How many tech companies came into the European market? How many new tech companies were able to take off in the European market? Do you have any studies to see how much it is costing the European companies to implement all the provisions from the DMA?

Mr President, dear colleagues, I urge you to vote against the discharge of the European Economic and Social Committee so we can look in CONT into the recently uncovered fraud, abuse and conflict of interest allegations involving the EESC Secretary‑General, Isabelle Le Galo Flores. The European media is already talking about this for the past two days. We received recently a letter from a group of whistleblowers from this European institution that is alleging that the Secretary‑General tendered many projects, many contracts to some of her friends, and this letter is closing stating that EESC staff members urge us, the members of the CONT Committee, to conduct a full investigation into this matter and to evaluate who in Ms Le Galo Flores's circle was aware of, or involved in, this collusion scheme. So I am calling you to vote against so the report can go back to the CONT Committee so we can look into these allegations.

Mr President, dear colleagues, the new proposal on the Multiannual Financial Framework raises an extremely serious problem for the future of the European Union ‑ turning European funds into a political-ideological instrument, through the so-called rule of law conditionality. No one disputes the importance of the rule of law. However, the lack of clear, transparent and objective evaluation criteria that take into account the identity and constitutional tradition of each Member State opens the way for abuses and political-ideological arbitrariness by the European Commission. Article 7 of the report proposes to block European funds on the basis of rule of law reports. These reports have been shown to lack clear methodology, are based on questionable or obscure sources, and are drafted by anonymous bureaucrats whose expertise is not public. When we talk about the rule of law, we are primarily talking about transparency. It is aberrant, therefore, to accept that in a totally non-transparent way, European funds should be due and given to the Member States on the basis of opaque criteria. European funds must serve the development of states and citizens, not become political-ideological weapons in the hands of the European Commission.

Madam President, the Georgian Christian nation suffered in March 2026 a profound and painful loss: the passing of its spiritual leader, His Holiness and Beatitude Ilia II, the Catholicos-Patriarch of All Georgia. In an era of trials and spiritual drought, he became the living embodiment of faith, courage and paternal love. Becoming Patriarch in 1977, during Soviet darkness, he furiously revived the Georgian church and lit the flame of Christ in millions of Georgian hearts. A profound theologian and tireless shepherd, Ilia II defended the Georgian spiritual identity, language and ancient traditions in time of struggle. His wisdom guided the Georgian nation through independence and hardship alike, uniting all Georgians in prayer, action and hope. His presence brought peace, and his words carried the power of scripture. As a Member of the European Parliament, I evoke the memory of Patriarch Ilia II here today, so that his shining example of faith and courage will remain eternal here. May the Lord grant him eternal rest, and may the Georgian nation keep his eternal memory. Amen.

(the beginning of the intervention was not done on the microphone)... fraud or corruption – abuse of power and lack of transparency. If we talk about the fraud of European funds, we cannot ignore the huge fraud caused by the European Commission, both as a result of the abuse of power and the lack of transparency. An example: in 2021, the European Commission signed contracts to procure 4.6 billion doses of vaccines, totalling €7.1 billion, 10 vaccine doses per capita in the European Union. To this day, the European Commission has not published the contracts for the purchase of these vaccines to see exactly what clauses they contain and who responds if vaccinated people suffer adverse effects. The second example, media reports that the European Commission has allocated billions of euros in funding to lobby the European Parliament through various NGOs, to support Green Deal -ul. You have two examples of fraud and I call on the EPPO, OLAF and the European Ombudsman to investigate these frauds.

Mr President, the notion of rape must encompass not only the use of force, but also the lack of consent of the victim. The resolution, however, is full of references to gender identity, which, according to the neo-Marxist social construct theory of the Istanbul Convention, holds that a man who claims to be a woman must, within the meaning of the law, be recognized as a woman. Such a provision is an aberration which, first of all, will affect biological women subjected to abuse. If a man who claims to be a woman sexually assaults a biological woman, are we talking about a lesbian relationship or a man's abuse of a woman? If a man beats a biological woman who claims to be a dog, are we talking about aggression against animals or against a woman? Women must be protected from rape and assault. We clarify that woman is not an elastic notion that allows a man who claims to be a woman, but a biological reality different from a man, which must be defended and protected.

I love debates, too! You are claiming that we should move away from so‑called legal jargon. But laws are defined in two words: objective realities. You just claimed right now – an outrageous claim – that men are violating women. But I'm asking you to please clarify, what is a woman? Because people in your group are claiming that a man who pretends to be a woman should, in the eyes of your law, be acknowledged as a woman. So I restate my question: what exactly is a woman that a man violates?

Madam President, I voted in favour of the Global Gateway report out of geopolitical realism. In order to count globally, the EU must abandon its role as an actor, which only regulates and teaches others, and invest in infrastructure. While the EU was teaching different countries how to regulate that men can give birth, China was Belt and Road Initiative, invested billions of euros in digital transport and energy infrastructure. Europe cannot afford the luxury of naiveté or passivity. If we don't offer an alternative to these countries, they won't run out of infrastructure; if we don't get involved, other countries will. Global Gateway is right because it protects concrete European interests – access to critical raw materials and safe trade routes. It is fundamental to diversify trade routes and reduce dependencies. Connecting with Central Asia and development Middle Corridor They need to become clear priorities. At the same time, Global Gateway must not become a vehicle to advance the ideological agenda of the European Commission. We need to invest in infrastructure, not social engineering. Invested in partnerships, not political conditioning. Europeans' money must serve Europe's interests, not the experiments of bureaucrats.

Madam President, I voted against the Anti-Corruption Directive because it violates fundamental European values that have made the EU different from the Soviet Union in the past. 1. The Directive falls within the competences of the Member States, in breach of national sovereignty and the principle of subsidiarity. 2. Certain crimes are defined vaguely or even absurdly, which creates serious risks of abuse, something that NGOs have already pointed out. For example, articles on bribery and influence peddling criminalise the mere promise to provide undue benefits to a public official, even if this promise is followed neither by the offering of benefits nor by any concrete action by the public official. Basically, words unfollowed by any deed are criminalized, which is absurd. Here, too, the improper influence on the official is criminalized, without defining which influence is proper and which is improper. The Directive also imposes obligations on Member States, but exempts EU institutions from binding transparency rules. In short, the EU legislates for others, while Ursula will be able to continue and exercise her discretion without being sanctioned.

Madam President, I support the report on the scope of deposit protection, because it really strengthens the protection of European citizens' cash deposits and the stability of the financial system. In an economic context of uncertainty, it is essential that depositors trust their savings in banks and that they are safe. Deposit guarantee schemes already provide protection of up to €100,000 per depositor, which is a fundamental pillar of banking stability. However, this regulation goes further, improving transparency, cross-border cooperation and the efficient use of funds. Also, the fact that these protection schemes are financed by the banking sector and not by taxpayers is a fair and responsible principle. Strengthening these mechanisms reduces the risk of bank runs and protects the real economy. In short, I support this report because people's cash in banks must be safe and the banking system must remain sound.

Madam President, carbon emissions must have a price that will change our behaviour. Ursula von der Leyen said that in this Parliament in 2019 to secure the presidency of the European Commission. Seven years later, Europeans are paying that price every single day in higher energy bills, rising poverty, closing factories and many lost jobs. The Green Deal – that absurd policy sold as Europe's chance to lead the world – has instead left us weaker, poorer and a laughing stock on the global stage. A continent once rich in resources and industries now, in order to function, has to back authoritarian regimes for energy and raw materials. This is not strategic autonomy, but strategic absurdity and dangerous vulnerability. With the votes of the EPP, S&D, Renew, Greens and Left groups, the Commission drove Europe down a path of ideological decarbonisation that has proven to be economic suicide. If Europe is to have a future, we must abandon ideological green excesses and return to pragmatic action. We must bring production back to Europe in order to restore prosperity across the continent.

Madam President, I have listened very carefully to the debate and to the positions of my colleagues in this House. Corruption is the misuse of office for an undue benefit to oneself or another. However, this directive ends up criminalising not facts, but words. If you carefully read the definition from influence traffic, Trading in InfluenceIn article 10, you will see that a person who promises to give another person an undue advantage, without giving that undue advantage, according to this definition, will be reprehensible for influence peddling. The person to whom he addresses, if he receives the promise that he will receive, but without receiving and without acting in some way in the public capacity he has, is traffic of influence. What you've legislated here is the criminalization of words, not facts. Or, if the words are to be criminalized, I believe that this whole Parliament should be thrown in jail because it receives requests from...

Madam President, much has been said here about torture. Do you know what torture is? Send your child to school and instead of learning to read, count and multiply, come home and tell you he's no longer a boy or a girl, he's indecisive. Do you know what torture is? When a judge sends a perverted man to serve a criminal sentence in a women's prison, putting those women in danger, that's torture. Do you know what torture is? A minor child who is sent to school and is forced by teachers to go through what you call Gender Affirmation . Leave the children in their innocence. Who is an adult and who decides to have homosexual relationships has every right to do so. No one in Europe is persecuting someone who has sexual orientations like this. Let your children keep their innocence in school. Let them learn the book. Let them learn science and let them learn mathematics.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the rejection by the plenary of the report on the work of the European Ombudsman in 2024 is yet another example of how the European radical left wants to cover up the abuses of the European Commission and hide the biggest acts of corruption. I voted in favour of this report because the European Ombudsman has contributed enormously in recent years, including in 2024, to increasing transparency at European level and exposing abuses by the European Commission. It was the mandate of the European Ombudsman, Emily O'Reilly, who revealed the abuse of Ursula von der Leyen's refusal to make available the SMS she exchanged with Albert Bourla, CEO of Pfizer, or her refusal to publish contracts for the purchase of the alleged COVID vaccines. The current ombudsman recently opened an investigation against Ursula von der Leyen for how she again negotiated the Mercosur agreement via SMS, the messages no longer being saved. Shockingly, left-wing extremist groups, while claiming to be big advocates of transparency and accountability for European officials, voted against the report. I congratulate the current Ombudsman on her work and wish her to follow the example of the previous one, not to be intimidated, but to investigate the abuses of the European Commission.

Mr President, dear colleagues, the kind of speeches that I witnessed today here in this plenary – I don't think they're helping Georgia at all, but rather the contrary. In 2008, when Georgia was attacked by Russia, not only this plenary, but many other parliaments across the globe submitted and sent many resolutions, and nothing else. At the end of the day, at that time, it was the Georgian people who paid the price of that country's decision to follow a western path. Now, since 2019, since I was a Member of this plenary, every time when we discussed about Georgia, we just criticised Georgia. We criticised Georgia because the Georgian people elected a certain government. We criticised Georgia because it decided one way or another. But let me ask you something: where were you in 2008 when Georgia was attacked by Russia? What did you and all of us did since 2008 to actually help Georgia, beyond just submitting statements? You're claiming that people in Georgia are now arrested: that might be true, but if we are not engaging with the Government, how do you think we are going to be able to help those people? So I'm calling not to ban and not to stop the discussion with them, but to re-engage with them in order to solve all the potential problems.