What Cristian spoke about.

Mr President, the report on the proposal for a directive to combat child sexual abuse addresses an extremely serious and urgent problem. Unfortunately, however, the text has been compromised by the infiltration of ideological elements such as gender ideology, which have nothing to do with the legal purpose of this endeavour. Sexual abuse, exploitation of minors and production of child pornography material are appalling realities that call for a firm, clear and unified response from the European Union. I fully support effective, concrete and well-founded legal measures to combat these crimes. The fight against crime, however, is done through legal instruments that require clarity and precision in expression, not ideological ambiguities. Thus, the introduction in the report of ambiguous and imprecise ideological formulations, such as the reference to LGBTQ+ children, seriously dilutes the central objective - the protection of all children, regardless of context. Children must be defended equally, not divided on absurd ideological criteria. Hormonal interventions or fluid concepts of identity have no relevance in the context of preventing abuse or combating crime. They confuse and weaken the message of the Directive. That is why I have chosen to abstain from this vote.

Mr President, dear colleagues, the integration of the Republic of Moldova into the European Union is a partial reparation of the historical injustice committed by Stalin and Hitler through the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, which in 1940 led to the annexation by the USSR of Bessarabia, which was part of Romania. This Soviet occupation brought profound suffering to the Romanian population in Bessarabia: ethnic cleansing, organised starvation, deportations, systematic murder and persecution. Among the victims of Soviet oppression was the Orthodox Metropolitanate of Bessarabia, under the jurisdiction of the Romanian Patriarchate. In 1940, it comprised over 1,000 churches and 30 monasteries. Many were imprisoned, destroyed or desecrated by the Soviet communists. More than 50 Romanian Orthodox priests who refused to come under the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate were assassinated and others deported by the atheist communist authorities. Even after the fall of the communist regime and the independence of Moldova, the Metropolitanate of Bessarabia continued to be discriminated against, being officially recognized only in 2002, after a decision of the ECHR. I invite you to support the amendment I have made to this report, which recognises the Metropolitanate of Bessarabia as a victim of Soviet oppression.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in order to reduce the price of electricity, it is imperative to abandon the current system that sets the price of energy on the basis of the marginal price, which requires that the most expensive type of energy dictates the price of the entire market. This model has become inefficient and unfair, especially at a time when the share of cheaper renewable energy is increasing. If 10% of energy is produced on coal, which is more expensive, it is absurd that the remaining 90% of energy consumed, produced from renewable sources that have lower production costs, should be sold at the same price as energy produced on coal. We need an energy pricing system that covers real production costs and makes a profit for firms, but by no means the kind of cost, as is currently the case, that produces huge profits for firms but makes products and services inefficient. Giving up the marginal price for energy pricing is imperative for reducing the price of energy in Europe, which will lead to poverty reduction and the protection of families.

Mr President, I was the first voice in the European Parliament that, since the beginning of the pandemic in 2020, has drawn attention to the abusive nature of what Ursula von der Leyen is doing. Under the pretext of fighting the COVID-19 virus, we have actually witnessed the largest corruption in the history of the European Union, with catastrophic effects on people’s health and lives. Billions of euros of public money were spent on billions of doses of vaccines under secret contracts negotiated by Ursula von der Leyen, which are still not published in full, as is the case with Pfizer. On 14 May 2025, the General Court of the EU condemned the Commission for refusing to disclose personal messages between Ursula von der Leyen and Albert Bourla, CEO of Pfizer, negotiating that contract. The General Court classified that conduct as maladministration. But I say that what Ursula von der Leyen has done is a crime against humanity. I call for a committee of inquiry to be set up into these negotiations by Ursula von der Leyen and for those responsible to be held to account. Transparency and fundamental rights, including the right to life, cannot be negotiated.

Mr President, dear colleagues, I will vote against the report on Serbia, because it does not reflect in a balanced way the reality on the ground and the specific challenges that this country is facing. Serbia obviously needs to continue reforms and align with EU standards, but the report omits real progress and risks damaging trust between the EU and Serbia. Belgrade has taken concrete steps in dialogue with Pristina and in cooperation with the EU and Frontex on fighting illegal immigration. These efforts deserve recognition. Serbia also met all the criteria for opening cluster 3, but the Commission has not advanced the process. The EU also has a responsibility in shaping the regional context. The recognition of Kosovo's independence has created an extremely dangerous precedent, which has been used by Russia to justify illegal annexations from Georgia and Ukraine. Serbia has demonstrated consistency and determination in its proximity to European values. It is therefore essential that this commitment is supported and not discouraged. I encourage Serbian leaders to continue firmly on the path of integration, with the conviction that Serbia's place is with us in the European Union.

Madam President, dear colleagues, the 2023 discharge report for the Court of Justice of the European Union, for which I served as the leading rapporteur, highlights both the court's notable achievements and the areas where further progress is needed. Together with my colleagues from all political groups, we made this report more comprehensive. For that, I thank them. The report notes progress on transparency, especially by streaming some hearings live and publishing written submissions. We urge the Court to go further by broadcasting all hearings, archiving them online and allowing citizens to access case files. One issue that the report touches on only briefly – but which deserves deeper reflection – is the growing tension between the supremacy of national constitutions and the primacy of the EU law. The constitution of each Member State is the supreme law within its territory. It expresses the sovereign will of the people, affirmed through a referendum, and forms the basis of the national legal order. By contrast, the principle of primacy of the EU law ensures that European law prevails over conflicting national legislation, a principle essential to the uniform application of the Treaties. However, the primacy cannot and must not override the supremacy of national constitutions. The CJEU does not have a mandate to override national constitutions. The EU is not a federal state, but a union of sovereign nations that have voluntarily agreed to share certain competences without surrendering their constitutional sovereignty. Yet in several recent rulings, including some involving Romania, the court asserted a form of jurisprudential federalism, expanding its authority beyond what was democratically agreed upon in the Treaties. This is not only legally unfounded, but democratically dangerous. Let us be clear: the EU was created by the EU Member States, not the EU created the Member States. No nations will accept having its constitutional sovereignty absorbed by an unelected bureaucracy in Brussels. This is why we must return to the Union's foundational principles. The answer is not confrontation, but dialogue.

Mr President, dear colleagues, the report on the 2023 discharge of the Court of Justice of the European Union, for which I was lead rapporteur, highlights both the Court's achievements and the issues where further improvements are still needed, as well as some fundamental challenges. On this occasion, I thank my colleagues from all political groups for the contributions they have made to make this report clearer and more comprehensive. An important achievement of the Court in 2023 was the continuation of the reform of the judiciary, in particular through the partial transfer of competences from the Court of Justice to the General Court, which reduces the length of trials. As regards the rule of law, the report highlights a number of cases in which the Court has emphasised the importance of protecting the financial interests of the European Union. However, in some judgments, the wording used by the CJEU suggests that this defence can be carried out even to the detriment of fundamental rights, such as those pertaining to a fair trial. We have therefore introduced an amendment which reaffirms that the protection of the financial interests of the European Union must be done in full respect of the fundamental rights of citizens, including the guarantees of a fair trial. The EU must not repeat the mistakes of totalitarian regimes in which the public interest justifies abuse. Money and goods cannot be above human dignity and fundamental rights. Another important progress is in the area of transparency, where the CJEU has started transmitting hearings online. With this report, we ask the CJEU to continue this work by broadcasting all hearings live and archiving them online so that interested parties can access them. The report also welcomes the decision of the CJEU to publish, with some exceptions, documents submitted in preliminary ruling proceedings after their closure. This will significantly improve the justice system. One aspect that the report addresses only tangentially, but which deserves a deep reflection, is the growing tension between the supremacy of the Constitution and the priority of European law. The Constitution, on the one hand, is the fundamental and supreme law of a state. It expresses the sovereign will of the people, enshrined in a referendum and forms the basis of the national legal order. European Union law, on the other hand, has its own principle of priority, which presupposes that European rules take precedence over conflicting national rules in order to ensure consistency in the application of the Treaties. However, the CJEU cannot interpret the Treaties as contributing to and giving European law primacy over national constitutions, as this would undermine the sovereignty of the Member States themselves. The EU is not a federal state, but a creation of national states that have retained their sovereignty and have only voluntarily shared powers. Unfortunately, in several recent decisions, including those concerning Romania, the Court is attempting a federalization de facto by the case-law of the European Union, conferring on it powers which the Treaties do not confer on it. Such an approach is not only illegal, but directly contradicts the will expressed by European citizens who explicitly rejected the draft European Constitution in a referendum. Until then, the states created the European Union, not the Union created its member states. The EU must remain what it was meant to be: a union of states cooperating for the common good of citizens, not a bureaucratic overstate that extends its authority beyond the democratic will of citizens. The CJEU does not have jurisdiction to annul the constitutions of the Member States. For this reason, constitutional supremacy must be defended. Attempts by the CJEU to abusively expand European competences will lead to potentially destructive institutional crises for the entire European project. No nation will allow its sovereignty to be confiscated by an unelected bureaucracy. That is why we must return to the founding principles of the EU, as set out in the Treaties. In conclusion, the coexistence between the supremacy of the Constitution and the priority of European law is a tense but necessary one. The solution is not confrontation, but dialogue. A sincere and loyal dialogue between the constitutional courts and the CJEU, in a balance that respects both the priority of European Union law and the democratic sovereignty of the Member States and the primacy of their constitutions.

Mr President, dear colleagues, we must pay tribute to those who, in times of terror and oppression, had the courage to resist dictatorship and fight for freedom, dignity and truth, risking their own lives. Motivated, most often by the Christian faith, to help one's neighbor, we find examples of people who have risked their lives for others all over Europe. Romania underwent two dictatorships in the 20th century, one fascist and one communist. We have countless examples of Romanians who risked their lives saving Jews from deportation during the Nazi occupation of Romania. We also have, during the communist period, Romania's prisons full of men and women who had the courage to help partisans fighting against communism. Many worshipped God differently than the communists wanted, or listened to Radio Free Europe. Commemorating these fighters is not only a gesture of respect for the past, but also a necessary lesson for the future. Tyranny and oppression may take new forms, but our duty remains the same: to defend the fundamental values of freedom, democracy and human rights. Let us never forget the courage of those who fought against fascism and communism and make sure that their sacrifice remains forever.

Mr President, dear colleagues, there is not a collaboration between conservatives – if you mean the ECR Group and others on the right who are not in power in the EU – that threatens the bloc's competitiveness. Instead, it is the irrational regulations pushed by the Left, Greens, Socialists and Renew and sometimes even EPP that are currently undermining Europe's economic growth. Absurd policies based on utopian ideology rather than economic realities, such as the Green Deal, have led to higher taxes, increased energy costs and excessive regulations, all of which are suffocating European businesses. The current taxes already make the EU less competitive, but more will come. The aviation fuel tax and the carbon border adjustment mechanism will further drive businesses out of Europe, forcing companies to relocate to less restrictive markets. If the Left, Greens, Socialists and Renew truly want to restore European competitiveness, they must support conservative proposals for massive tax cuts and radical deregulation. The time for the neo‑socialist ideological experiment is over. Europe needs more economic freedom, not socialist restrictions.

Mr President, dear colleagues, two major topics must be at the centre of the EU Middle East strategy. First, stop rewarding the bad behaviour: the European Union allocates hundreds of millions of euros to the Palestinian Authority, which continues to implement the 'pay-for-slay' programme, based on which families of terrorists who have killed or injured Israeli citizens get a pension. As long as individuals are incentivised – even with money – to kill other people, there will not be peace. Second: start the de-radicalisation. Even as we speak, UNRWA schools are using textbooks that indoctrinate Palestinian children to hate Jews, motivate them to kill Jews, and teach them that violence is the method to achieve their political aspirations. Educations shape minds and societies. Today, however, Palestinian textbooks glorify terrorism, promote martyrdom, and incite children to violence rather than teaching them coexistence and how to pursue political aspirations through non-violent means. I call, therefore, that no money be given anymore to the Palestinian Authority and UNRWA schools until the 'pay-for'slay' programme is abolished and the schools' curriculum is de-radicalised.

Mr President, colleagues, before talking about the cancellation of the presidential elections in Romania, I think it would be appropriate for all those who speak on this topic to read the decision of the Constitutional Court of Romania, because what we heard during this debate is absolutely hallucinating. I have heard some say that it is imperative to censor the TikTok platform in Europe and others say that there has been an attack on democracy by that decision. I'm reading a paragraph to understand what really happened in Romania: “There has been voter manipulation and distortion of equal opportunities of electoral competitors through non-transparent use and in violation of electoral legislation, digital technology and artificial intelligence in the conduct of the electoral campaign, as well as through the financing of the online campaign from undeclared sources.” We therefore have undeclared funding and the use of information technology against or in violation of the law. That's the problem. Before we talk about censorship, it is important to ensure that the financing of all election campaigns is transparent.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the agreement with Mercosur, as agreed by Ursula von der Leyen, is a threat both to Romanian and European farmers and to our food security and the health of Europeans. On the one hand, the absurd Green Deal policies, which call for reducing farmland and limiting carbon emissions, are already driving up the price of agricultural products and food, leading to the impoverishment of the population. On the other hand, with the Mercosur agreement, the European single market opens up for agricultural products grown in South America, which do not even respect the growing and environmental conditions in Europe, but also generate huge carbon emissions, having to be transported tens of thousands of kilometers. Between the Mercosur agreement and the aberrant Green Deal policies, Romanian and European farmers are being destroyed by the European Commission, and citizens, for lack of alternative or because of high prices, will be forced to consume food that can make them sick. Saving the planet must start with supporting local farmers, who produce food as close as possible to those who consume it. It is unfair to make compromises with the health of the population. That is why I am asking you to block the Mercosur agreement until these problems are remedied.

Madam President, dear colleagues, Emily O'Reilly deserves and must be praised in the European Parliament for carrying out her duties in favour of the citizens of the European Union. I was one of those who supported her election in 2019 as Ombudsman, and her work during her five years in office was an example of independence, professionalism and determination that the next Ombudsman must follow. One example of determination was the inquiry that the European Ombudsman made into the European Commission's refusal to publish text messages between Ursula von der Leyen and Pfizer's head Albert Bourla, which Emily O'Reilly dismissed as maladministration, or maladministration. In Romania, if a mayor or public official negotiated privately, secretly, contractual clauses on billions of euros, public money, he was in jail, and Romania would have been given as an effective example of the fight against corruption. I congratulate Emily O'Reilly for having the courage and perseverance to investigate this abusive behaviour of Ursula von der Leyen, when other institutions remained silent. I urge you to support this report, especially Amendment 7, which calls for the publication of all contracts signed by von der Leyen with vaccine companies.

Mr. President, dear colleagues, the existence of the Republic of Moldova is the result of the Hitler-Stalinist Ribbentrop-Molotov pact, based on which countries in Europe were divided between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. In 1940, Bessarabia, which was part of Romania, was annexed by Soviet Russia, becoming the Soviet Socialist Republic of Moldova. In 1991, after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, this republic gained its independence, becoming the Republic of Moldova, which we want today as an integral part of the European Union. The population of this country has been subjected to a program of russification to erase its identity and subjugate it by assimilation. That's why their language has changed, from Romanian to Russian, spelling, from Latin to Cyrillic, identity, from Romanian to Moldovan. Today, the citizens of the Republic of Moldova have the same hopes and ideals that everyone in Eastern Europe had: to live in freedom, democracy and prosperity. Through specific Soviet means, such as disinformation, manipulation, active measures and other means specific to hybrid warfare, the Kremlin wants to keep the population of the Republic of Moldova in its own sphere of influence. It is imperative to give clear signals to the citizens of the Republic of Moldova that we are on their side. That is why I call for the inclusion of the Republic of Moldova in the roam like at home area.

Well, let me reply to you in English. It is not me saying that when we talk about mankind, we talk about men and women. It is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that states that. So go ahead and change that. Furthermore, if you claim that a man who pretends to be a woman is a woman and a man can get pregnant, please explain to the whole world how biologically that is possible. Furthermore, just a few months ago, we talked about the Istanbul Convention. The Istanbul Convention criminalises genital mutilation. So how do you apply this law to a man who doesn’t have a clitoris or labia majora or minora? You explain that because everything that you say doesn’t make any sense biologically, reasonably and practically.

Mr President, dear colleagues, combating violence against women is an extremely serious matter, and because it involves matters of law enforcement, it is imperative that deadlines be expressly defined. Combating violence against women. I have listened very carefully to what has been said in this House about women. Unfortunately, this clear, objective, ontological reality, different from a man, has today come to be considered an elastic issue, a subjective issue. Every man today who claims to be a woman within the meaning of this law wants to be a woman. A resolution on the introduction of the so-called right to abortion in the Fundamental Charter of the Rights of the European Union was adopted in Brussels last week. The resolution states that women and others who become pregnant must have the right to abortion. I ask you what other person besides a woman can get pregnant? Because if there is talk of violence against women, it must be made clear that a man who claims to be a woman cannot be a woman. (The speaker agreed to answer a question raised under the ‘blue card’ procedure)

Mr President, dear colleagues, under five years of Ursula von der Leyen's mandate, the European Union has become from an area of freedom, one of tyranny, from an area of prosperity, one of poverty. In this plenary, Ursula von der Leyen said in 2019 that the European project is founded on Greek philosophy and Roman law, avoiding mentioning Judeo-Christian values as well. It was the Judeo-Christian values based on the Bible and the tradition of the Church for thousands of years that created the basis for the recognition of fundamental human rights, because all people, whether men or women, were created by God equal and redeemed at the price of blood by the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. It was the biblical teaching of reconciliation that led the Frenchman Schuman, the German Adenauer and others to gather at the same table after World War II, to pray, forgive and reconcile, and thus lay the foundation for this project, to bring peace through prosperity. During these five years, under Ursula von der Leyen, the EU, especially during the pandemic, abandoned, ignored, defied and violated all its founding principles. The material interests of the companies producing the alleged COVID vaccines were more important than the rights of Europeans to information and to decide freely and properly informed whether or not to inject with them. The solution for the EU to have the future... (The Chair interrupted the speaker)

Madam President, I call for the immediate and unconditional return of Romania's treasury illegally seized by Russia for over a hundred years, together with compensation and up-to-date interest, for the fact that the Romanian nation has not been able to enjoy and use for its own benefit this treasury that rightfully belongs to it. In 1916 and 1917, when more than half of Romania was occupied during the First World War, Romania sent its treasure to Russia to be kept and returned after the war. The transfer of this treasure, which includes both gold and art, religious and very old archives, was made on the basis of inventory documents signed by both the Romanian and Russian sides, as well as by the French Ambassador in St. Petersburg, as a witness. In 1917, however, with the Red Revolution, Lenin's Bolsheviks, who came to power in Russia, disregarded the documents signed by Tsarist Russia, that they would return the treasury to Romania, so that it was not returned after World War I. The Bolshevik attitude was continued by the Soviet authorities, and then, after the dismemberment of the USSR, by the authorities of the Russian Federation, currently led by Vladimir Putin. For over a hundred years, therefore, Russia continues to refuse the full restitution of Romania's treasury, violating its own signed commitments, and therefore illegally owning non-Russian goods. On 15 February 2024, the PETI Committee debated petition 1968/2023, initiated by the Romanian NGO ‘Together we bring well-being’, through which civil society in Romania requested support from the European institutions for Romania to recover its national treasure from Russia. This treasure is not only a collection of cultural, artistic objects, tons of gold and jewellery, but it is a testimony to the heritage of the Romanian nation that it received from previous generations. Unfortunately, the case of Romania is not unique, Russia still owns cultural heritage and treasures from other European countries that it has robbed over time, such as Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and others. I therefore call on the European institutions to be involved in supporting the efforts of Romania and all European countries to recover their treasures and assets illegally seized by Russia today.

Mr President, dear colleagues, this debate about teachers is welcome, because school, teachers and students must be put back in the right place in European society. The school must teach students not only how to read, write and reckon, but also how to be good and righteous people in society and how to love their country. Perennial moral values develop by learning the humanities, such as classical literature, history, geography, and critical and rational thinking develops through the real sciences, such as mathematics, physics, philosophy, logic. This is what classical school did in time, developing personalities and great people of the world, when not even notebooks were and maybe not even access to printed books. But today we are witnessing the paradigm shift in education, in which both teachers and students are seen as mere transmitters and receivers of information, like machines. Between teachers and students, a human emotional relationship is created that cannot be ignored. And I give you the example of the NRRP that the European Commission imposed on Romania. In the new Romanian education law, teachers are referred to as ‘primary education providers’ and pupils as ‘primary education recipients’. How long until a teacher, a man, is a provider, and how long until a student is a recipient of information? Such terms are specific to the intelligence services and not to an educational system, let alone a system that we want to have in Europe. Stop tormenting teachers and students with the implementation and promotion of a sick ideology in schools, such as the gender ideology that confuses children so much that they don't know if they are boys or girls. Europe, in order to have a future, needs the new generations to be well-educated, and this can only be done by restoring teachers to their place of honour and giving them the respect they deserve in society.

Madam President, Commissioner, President, dear colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, the ‘This is Europe’ debates held in the European Parliament are a great opportunity for European political leaders to express their vision about the current and future course of Europe. I congratulate, therefore, the Romanian President, Klaus Iohannis, for sharing his vision about Europe and emphasising the importance of Romania for the European project. But since the debate is about Europe, before we talk about what Europe is, it is imperative to look back and see what Europe was, how this project started, where it is heading, and if this new direction has anything in common with the initial project. When Ms von der Leyen held her speech in this plenary in 2019, she said that the European project is based ‘on Roman law and Greek philosophy’. She forgot one, and the most important pillar of the European project, the Judeo-Christian values, civilisation and culture. It was the Christian belief and Judeo-Christian values, based on the Bible, that gave the power and motivation to many political leaders from different European nations that killed, destroyed and decimated each other during the Second World War to meet after the war, pray together, forgive and reconcile with each other, and come up with an economical and political plan that would and did bring peace through prosperity. Because of these visionary, faithful and courageous political leaders, Western Europe was able to achieve peace and hold it for over 80 years, which was unprecedented for Europe. I say ‘Western Europe’ because, us in Eastern Europe were under the Soviet occupation and we experienced a different kind of political and economic system, an atheistic one, in which the state and the Communist Party were God, where the state was above all and people were deprived of their basic fundamental rights. The difference between the two political and economic systems that Europe experienced after the Second World War – the European project that we witness here, which evolved in the European Community and Union in Western Europe, and the USSR and the Soviet Marxist and communist model in Eastern Europe – is exactly the pillar that was intentionally or not forgotten by Ursula von der Leyen: the Judeo-Christian values, culture and civilisation. The Judeo-Christian values are the source of and notions that later evolved and were mentioned in international treaties, national constitutions and laws like human dignity, equality before the law, the separation of powers in the state or inalienable fundamental human rights. Robert Schuman, a founding father of the European Project and former President of the European Parliament, said, ‘Democracy owes its existence to Christianity [...] Christianity teaches equality of all nature of all men, children of the same God, redeemed by the same Christ, without distinction of race, colour, class or profession [...] Democracy will be Christian or it won’t exist. An unchristian democracy is a caricature which sinks into tyranny or anarchy.’ It was exactly these Judeo-Christian values that brought peace, prosperity, respect among nations in Western Europe, and the lack of them that brought tyranny, abuse and poverty in the USSR, in Eastern Europe. It was this faith in God that my fellow Romanians held strong under communism and motivated them to dream and fight for freedom. It is therefore incomprehensible for many fellow Romanians why in the past 40 years exactly these personal and national freedoms have been violated by the European Commission under Ursula von der Leyen. The European project was built on a free market principle which was brought, which has brought prosperity in Western Europe. In the past four years, under the current European Commission, we see that free market principles are becoming an overregulated one, which is making the European businesses and products less likely to be competitive on the global market. The European project was built on the concept that fundamental human rights are inalienable, and the governments must not force or impose medical products into citizens bodies, but allowed them to decide based on their free and informed consent. We saw what happened during the pandemic, when people were forced to be vaccinated with medical products that we find out now, later on, have many adverse effects. Europe has long been a reference of democracy and human rights, championing principles of liberty, equality and the rule of law. An erosion of these fundamental rights, even by EU entities, represents a betrayal of our shared values and must be met with firm opposition. The Romanian nation, which I most proudly represent, was able to overcome any challenges during history and become today one of the fastest growing economies in Europe. We did it through faith and fight for freedom.

I am glad that you asked that question. So you want to convert this debate about climate change into a theological argument. The Bible says that God created the earth and the man, but gave the man the power to work the earth and make a living out of that work. So what you’re proposing right now here is clearly violating God’s command to respect the earth, but to use it. Let me ask you something in reply: how can you argue that 0.04 % of the carbon dioxide can produce all these bad things that you are all talking about? If we will not be able to produce energy anymore using coal and gas, we will be relying on gas from Russia. Is that what you want? You haven’t replied to that yet.

Mr President, Commissioner, the claim to reduce carbon emissions in the EU by 90% by 2040, including by closing gas and coal power plants, will condemn the European economy to bankruptcy and citizens to poverty and hunger. At school we learned that carbon dioxide is the oxygen of plants, which through the process of photosynthesis absorbs carbon dioxide and removes oxygen, which animals and humans need to live. This connection between man and nature has functioned since the world began. But today, under the command of Ursula von der Leyen, we are witnessing the imposition of a utopian, criminal ideology that requires us to completely destroy our way of life in the name of madness: zero carbon emissions. Zero carbon emissions means the destruction of the planet, because plants produce oxygen by consuming carbon dioxide. Furthermore, carbon dioxide is a gas that accounts for 0.04% of the atmosphere. Of this 0.04%, a tiny fraction is man-made. Of this tiny percentage produced by man, an even smaller percentage of carbon emissions is produced by the EU. The farmer's fight against this insane climate utopia, which will cause poverty and hunger in the EU, is just. That's why I call you to be with them. (The speaker agreed to answer a question raised under the ‘blue card’ procedure)

Mr President, under Ursula von der Leyen, we are witnessing not only the Chinafication, but also the communisation of the European Union, and the protests of farmers from all across Europe prove that. In 2019, Ursula von der Leyen said in this Chamber that carbon emissions must have a price that will change our behaviour. All the EU’s so-called green laws, promoted by the Commission in the past years, want to change the behaviour of Europeans through measures that we saw implemented in Eastern Europe by communists when they wanted to take people’s land and mass surveil them. The utopian communist collectivism could not have been implemented unless people willingly or forcibly gave up their private land to the state. Those who refused to do it had to pay taxes and quotas from their productions that were bigger than what they could harvest. The new carbon laws implemented by the European Commission under Ursula von der Leyen is no different from what the communists did in Eastern Europe to take the land away from the people. The European farmers are right, and I support their demand to stop the implementation of these green, utopian Marxist ideologies that will bring more poverty and starvation in Europe.

Madam President, at the end of this mandate, we are witnessing the desperation of the European Commission, led by Ursula von der Leyen, to have European regulations voted through the European Parliament that effectively transform the EU from an area of freedom into a prison where people are constantly monitored and supervised, so that the government knows both where they are moving and what they are selling and buying. The European Commission lied to the European Parliament and EU citizens when it proposed the digital wallet and said it would not be used for the digital euro. At the end of the trilogue on the digital wallet, Commissioner Breton said, I quote, "now that we have the wallet, we also have to put something in it", making explicit reference to the digital euro. We are currently working on the digital euro and the regulation explicitly states that this type of digital money will be used through the digital wallet. I ask the representative of the Commission why you are not sincere when you propose a regulation to be voted on in this Parliament. Under Ursula von der Leyen, the EU is clearly turning into a tyranny. I hope that in 2024 Europeans will vote in the European Parliament for a conservative majority to restore freedom in the EU.