Speeches

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of the report on the housing crisis in the European Union, because the problem is real and it affects more and more citizens, especially young people and low- and middle-income families. One of the main causes of the crisis is that not enough housing is being built. Difficult access to credit, excessive bureaucracy and difficulty in obtaining building permits block projects, slow down investment and reduce the market supply of housing, leading to higher housing prices. The report acknowledges these problems and stresses the need to simplify procedures and reduce administrative burdens hampering housing construction. Shocking to this report were the amendments tabled by the Group of the Left and the Greens, inspired by Marxist-Communist ideology. The radical European left wants to limit the right to property, turn the right to housing into the right to take the home of others, even by force, and limit the number of properties that an honest citizen can own. Such aggressive Marxist utopias will not solve the housing crisis, but will aggravate the problem. The solution to the housing crisis is simple: easy access to credit and the construction of new housing.

Madam President, dear colleagues, decades of European appeasement towards Russia – from 1992 war in Moldova to Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014 – encouraged Putin to launch the full‑scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the largest war in Europe since the Second World War. To remain free, we must take our defence seriously. First, strategic defence flagship projects like the drone initiative, the Eastern Flank Watch and the air and space shields are long‑overdue necessities. Europe must close capability gaps that have exposed our continent and ensure our eastern borders are protected. Second, we must dramatically improve military mobility. This means investing in modern roads, rail, bridges and ports and dual‑use infrastructure that strengthen our economies and security. Third, war today extends beyond the battlefield. Russia wages constant cognitive attacks on Europe through disinformation, propaganda and reflexive control, shaping public opinion, influencing elections and advancing policies that ultimately serve Russian interests. The radical proposal of the European Green Deal, which increased European dependence on Russian gas, is such an example.

Mr President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, we must adapt the enlargement process to today's geopolitical realities, if we want it to continue benefiting both the European Union and the candidate countries. In the past, enlargement was largely a technical process focused on economic alignment and legal reforms. Today, however, the geopolitical environment is fundamentally different. Enlargement must be therefore approached strategically, not just technically, while respecting the particularities of each candidate country. The first issue in the current approach is the political weaponisation of so-called European values. Forcing candidate countries to adopt interpretation of values that go beyond the EU Treaties, such as gender ideological frameworks, undermines trust in the European project and provides easy material for Russian propaganda. No sane society can accept the idea that a man who pretends to be a woman is an actual woman. Second, countries on Russia's doorstep, such as Georgia, Moldova or Ukraine, cannot be asked to carry out endless reforms without a clear timeline or credible security perspective. These countries that have suffered Russian aggression deserve clarity about the path ahead.

Mr President, at the heart of any lasting peace in Syria lies the protection of its ethnic and religious minorities. Syria is not a monocultural state – it is a civilisation shaped over centuries by coexistence and plurality of multiple communities. Alawites, Druze, Kurdish, Yazidi, Assyrian, Armenian and ancient Christian communities continue to endure targeted killings, abduction, forced displacement, religious persecution and the systemic destruction of their sacred sites. After decades of authoritarian rule and 14 years of devastating civil war, Syria remains fractured by power vacuums that extremist actors have been quick to exploit. The ceasefire established in late January offers a moment of cautious hope, but it remains fragile and incomplete. Protecting minorities is therefore not only a moral obligation, it is a security imperative for Syria. Syria's future must recognise a fundamental truth of its history. Its unity and power stands in diversity, not in uniformity. No community should ever be sacrificed for a false vision of unity.

Mr President, the European Union must look at faith diplomacy as a strategic instrument to conduct diplomacy, project power and influence, as well as advance power and conflict resolution. The EU is a community shaped by 2000 years of moral reflection, human dignity and responsibility towards one another, deeply rooted in Judeo-Christian values. Our Judeo-Christian heritage has profoundly influenced the values on which the European Union stands: respect for human persons, solidarity, reconciliation over revenge, and peace grounded in justice. In a fractured world, faith diplomacy allows the European Union to lead with both principle and empathy. Religion remains a powerful force in shaping identities, inspiring hope and mobilising communities for the common good. Faith diplomacy strengthens peace where politicians and politics alone cannot. It opens doors in a moment of mistrust, gives voice to conscience in times of conflict, and builds bridges where fear has erected walls. To embrace faith diplomacy is not to look backwards, but to draw wisdom from our roots. By honouring its Judeo-Christian values while remaining open and inclusive, the European Union can offer the world not just power, but purpose.

Madam President, I voted in favour of the motion of censure against Ursula von der Leyen for her non-transparent and irresponsible handling of the EU‐Mercosur Agreement. Its negotiation and signature raised serious substantive and procedural issues and the European Parliament was bypassed in this negotiation. Firstly, the agreement opens up the European market for agricultural and food products from countries with much lower standards than the European Union, which creates real health risks for European consumers. It is aberrant to ban substances in European agriculture because they are not healthy for people, but to allow free access to agricultural products from countries where those substances are allowed. Secondly, this agreement creates a deeply loyal competition for European farmers. While Mercosur producers operate with more lenient rules, European farmers are burdened by excessive bureaucracy and huge policy costs. Green Deal. To impose harsh standards at home, but to import cheaper products from far more permissive countries is simply unfair and hypocritical. While trade benefits such as access for the European automotive industry also exist in the agreement, public health and food security must take precedence.

Mr President, dear colleagues, the European Parliament's report on drones and new systems of warfare rightfully points out that unmanned systems have fundamentally changed modern combat. Drones are now decisive force multipliers, providing reconnaissance, precision strikes, logistics and electronic warfare, as demonstrated everyday in Ukraine. Europe must lead in this critical field. Therefore, first, we must invest strategically in drone technology and build strong industrial and operational capacities within the European Union. This includes reducing dependence on external suppliers for key components, as well as removing unnecessary bureaucracy that slows innovation, procurement, production and deployment. Second, we must deepen our cooperation with Ukraine. Ukrainian engineers, manufacturers and operators have gained unmatched experience in developing, deploying and scaling drone systems under real combat conditions. Third, drones must be fully integrated in our defence structures alongside effective counter-drone systems. To achieve this, we must prioritise funding, streamline production and scale production. Europe must build not only the best drones, but also be able to produce them quickly and in large numbers to ensure our security and deter any aggressor.

Madam President, fundamental human rights are not a recent philosophical invention or a product of political majorities. Human rights have their source in the Judeo-Christian heritage of Europe, which affirms that every human being has an intrinsic dignity, because he is created in the image and likeness of God. From this revealed faith came later philosophical and legal notions such as equality before the law, freedom of conscience and respect for the person, values that were the basis of European civilization. The report rightly recognises that human rights and democracy are under increasing pressure globally, authoritarian regimes continue to suppress freedom of expression, persecute religious communities and undermine democratic institutions. These realities call for a strong and united response from the European Union. I abstained, however, because, even though the report was improved by amendments, they mix the defence of fundamental rights with pseudo rights, such as gender ideology, which do not derive from the universal tradition of human rights, but from neo-Marxist political activism. To be strong again, Europe needs to rediscover its own roots and stop relativising fundamental rights.

Madam President, I abstained on the vote on the report on the implementation of the common foreign and security policy, because the European Union's foreign policy must be built on pragmatism and realism, strategic interests and clear objectives, not ideological or utopian activism. From projecting strength and bringing wealth, the European Union has become a moralizing voice that only gives lessons, but is no longer taken seriously. When European officials go to countries in Africa, the South Caucasus or Asia and ask governments to pass laws recognizing the aberration that a man can give birth, Europe is no longer taken seriously. This attitude does not strengthen Europe's influence, but weakens it, pushing some countries into the arms of Russia. Foreign policy must be a coherent continuation of domestic policy. Without unity, realism and strategic clarity, the European Union cannot act effectively on the international stage. In a context marked by Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, regional instability and tough geopolitical competition, Europe needs a mature and mutually beneficial foreign policy. Only then can the EU remain a credible actor in an increasingly dangerous and competitive world.

Madam President, dear colleagues, the notion of human rights is rooted in the Judeo-Christian belief that every human being is created in the image of God with inherent dignity and worth. While other cultures have recognised duties and hierarchies, the idea of equal, universal and inalienable individual rights grew from this Judeo-Christian moral foundation. Human rights, therefore, are not privileges granted by the state, nor can they be withdrawn at the impulse of those in power. When states forget this truth, rights are seen as privileges vulnerable to ideologies and abuse. This report rightly warns that human rights and democracies are under increased pressure worldwide. Authoritarian regimes deny freedom of conscience and religion, repress speech, persecute believers and devalue human life. Europe cannot respond to these challenges by weakening the moral foundation on which human rights were built, nor by denying biological realities – claiming, for example, that a man can give birth. We must defend human rights, not as a political intervention, but as a sacred obligation to uphold the dignity and worth of every human being.

Mr President, dear colleagues, Russia represents the greatest threat to Europe today, as the common security and defence policy report states in its first paragraph. Russia's illegal war of aggression against Ukraine is not an isolated or local conflict: it is Russia's deliberate attempt to undermine international law, redraw borders by force and weaken Europe – an effort that began in 2008 with the war against Georgia. Cyber-attacks, disinformation campaigns, sabotage of critical infrastructure across Europe and the instrumentalisation of religion demonstrate that Russia's hostile actions go far beyond the military battleground. Europe is no longer living in a time of peace by default. Deterrence, preparedness, and resilience must now guide our actions. This requires serious and sustained investment in defence – not to wage war, but to prevent it. We must strengthen our military capabilities, reinforce Europe's defence industry, improve cooperation among Member States, and ensure that Europe will act fast and tough when its security is at stake. Investing in defence is investing in peace, freedom and the protection of our citizens. Our security, sovereignty and future depend on how united, committed and strong we are.

Mr President, 40 years ago, on 8 May 1985, speaking in this plenary in Strasbourg, President Ronald Reagan reminded Europe and the United States that their partnership was not built merely on treaties or convenience, but on shared Judeo-Christian values, a common culture and history, and a deep commitment to life, liberty, prosperity and the pursuit of happiness. Those words remain profoundly relevant today. The relationship between the United States and the European Union is not only strategic, it is moral. It is rooted in shared beliefs that make the governments accountable to their people and place the dignity and freedom of the individual at the centre of public life. When the US and Europe work together, our economies flourish, our societies grow more secure and freedom prevails. In times of uncertainty, the wisest response is to learn not only from mistakes but from successes as well. NATO and the Strategic Partnership, the Transatlantic Partnership are proven successes that need renewing today. I therefore call on the European and American leaders to rediscover the words spoken by President Reagan in this plenary forty years ago.

Mr President, dear colleagues, there are only two ways of approaching truth. First, through revelation from top down. This requires faith and belongs to religion. Second, through reason from the bottom up. This requires doubt, debate and confrontation of ideas. This is the task of science and the very foundation of a pluralistic democratic society. In the 17th century, Descartes expressed this shift with cogito ergo sum. By placing doubt and individual reason at the centre of knowledge, he laid the philosophical foundations of modern Western democracy: open debate, free inquiry and access to information. Today, we hear repeated claims that online debates and elections are threatened by controversial speeches on large platform, claims that are currently used to justify tighter control under the Digital Services Act. This is an undemocratic and profoundly un‑European approach. Democracy is not endangered by too much debate, but by censorship. The European Commission must not become an inquisition policing thoughts. Its role is to keep the EU an area of freedom, not to decide what citizens are allowed to think, hear or say. Merry Christmas.

Madam President, I voted against the European citizens' initiative 'My voice, my choice: for safe and accessible abortion' because it pushes to define abortion as a fundamental human right, an approach that raises profound legal, moral and human rights concerns. Induced abortion is a deliberate action to end the life of an unborn human being. That unborn child is a human person whose fundamental right to life is protected by existing international human rights instruments. The Western legal system has long recognised the right to life as a foundation upon which all the other rights depend. Without life, no other rights can exist. To declare abortion a fundamental right means, in effect, to claim that the right to take the life of an unborn child supersedes the child's right to life. Such a legal redefinition does not strengthen the protection of women or humankind. Once such a premise is accepted, the life of no human being can be considered fully safe or guaranteed. Women need meaningful support, solidarity and protection. The European Union should uphold the protection of life and ...

Madam President, I voted for the report on military mobility, because the security of the European Union can no longer be treated as a theoretical exercise, but as a real political responsibility manifested through concrete actions. In a context marked by Russia’s aggression against its neighbours and instability at the EU’s borders, the ability to swiftly deploy military forces and equipment on European soil is essential, both for deterring any attack and for effective defence. The report calls for the removal of bureaucratic barriers that slow down our response and concrete investments in infrastructure. dual-use. With the amendments tabled, we have shown why the EU must also invest in infrastructure in Romania, in order to facilitate military mobility. Developing a genuine the Schengen Military it is not a slogan, but a strategic necessity for Europe to be able to act quickly and credibly to deter any possible military aggression. At the same time, the report strengthens cooperation with NATO and reaffirms the role of the EU as a security actor. My vote for this report is a clear political message: EU countries must be united, determined and able to defend their citizens, territory and borders, without ambiguity or delay.

Mr President, colleagues, the European Union must stop treating partnering countries, including Georgia, as instruments of political convenience or as arenas for exporting internal EU policy disputes. Every pioneering country deserves respect and good faith engagement, aimed at resolving challenges – not disengagement when the government does not comply with the absurd EU policies. Georgia was the first country attacked by Russia in the 21st century and still has parts of its territory illegally occupied by Russia to this day. At the NATO summit in Bucharest in 2008, Georgia clearly expressed its ambition to join the alliance, yet key NATO and EU Member States blocked that path. Despite this, Georgia has continued to engage constructively with the European Union. This year, though, in 2025, it accepted the EU Human Rights Dialogue in good faith, only to see it abruptly and unjustifiably postponed by the EU. Abandoning Georgia now would be unjust, strategically shortsighted and a moral failure for the European Union. Dear Commissioner, if you really care about the Georgian people, start a dialogue with Georgia now.

Madam President, dear colleagues, in Ukraine there is not only a conflict between an aggressor and an aggressor country, but also a confrontation between the current world order, built after the Second World War, based on the UN Charter, and the imposition of a new world order desired by Russia and other authoritarian regimes, an order based on spheres of influence and disregard for the sovereignty of states. According to the UN Charter, the borders of a state cannot be altered by military force. Ukraine therefore defends its sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity, as recognised and should be guaranteed by international law. Russia, however, contests this order, citing neo-imperial claims, similar to those once used by Hitler and others who devastated the European continent. A so-called peace traded for Ukrainian territories would dangerously undermine the current world order and set the precedent for future conflicts that will devastate the world. I voted in favour of the resolution in support of Ukraine, not only because I was a consort on the part of the conservative group, but also because Ukraine must be supported, both for its just cause and to protect the current international order, which has guaranteed peace and stability for decades.