Speeches

Madam President, dear colleagues, the discussion here is not about the so-called Media Freedom Act, a label given by the European Commission to this regulation, but the ‘Media Surveillance Control and Censorship Act’, which accurately describes the nature of this regulation. It is unacceptable that the European Commission claims to promote the media freedom, while in fact this regulation opens the doors for journalists, their employers and even their families to be subjected to surveillance and spying by the security agencies. As the shadow rapporteur in the LIBE Committee for the ECR Group, I tabled amendments aimed to eliminate the provisions that permit such spying and surveillance of journalists, but they were rejected by EPP, S&D and Renew. Joseph Stalin said, ‘The press is our party’s sharpest and most powerful weapon.’ Clearly, under the leadership of Ursula von der Leyen, the European Commission does not desire a free press, but rather a propaganda machine which is tightly controlled and subjected to surveillance, like it was in the Soviet Union. The dangerous precedent established by the so-called Media Freedom Act Regulation will have unforeseeable and devastating consequences for democracy and freedom of speech throughout the European Union, which is why the Parliament has to heavily reject it.

Madam President, Commissioner, since 2011, Romania has met all, and I repeat, all the conditions for entering Schengen, and yet it has not yet been received, with pretexts being offered that are unrelated to the conditions for Romania's accession to Schengen. After 2011, it was alleged that Romania could not enter Schengen because it still had the cooperation and verification mechanism, a mechanism that had become obsolete since 2010, but continued to be abused by the European Commission until recently. This CVM had nothing to do with the criteria for Romania’s accession to Schengen. We now see Austria, which says it opposes Romania's entry into Schengen because of the large number of illegal immigrants entering the European Union. The concern about illegal migration is justified and we see what is happening in Lampedusa. But the blame for this invasion of illegal immigrants on Europe lies not with Romania, but precisely with the European Commission and the obstructions that lead it, which, instead of stimulating the protection of external borders and the elimination of internal controls, allowed, facilitated and rewarded this invasion. Romania, with huge costs, protects its own borders, which are for the most part also the external borders of the EU, and thereby also protects Europe. I ask you to make every effort to ensure that Romania joins Schengen this year.

Mr President, over the past four years we have witnessed a significant decline in media freedom across all EU Member States. With the implementation of the Digital Services Act, we now have a minister of truth in the EU capable of censoring publications or personal opinions, even on social media. This censorship tool, which eastern European Communists only dreamed of, is now a reality in western Europe. With the implementation of the Media Freedom Act, security services can spy upon European journalists more easily. This proposal is mainly supported by the EPP, Renew and the S&D, posing a clear threat to European democracies. During the pandemic, European institutions paid millions of euros to Brussels media, which in return did not criticise or oppose their corrupt or abusive actions. In summary, under Ursula von der Leyen’s leadership, the EU is gradually but undeniably transforming into a new Soviet Union-style tyranny. I urge European citizens to vote for patriots and conservatives in 2024, so that we can restore freedom and liberty all across Europe.

Mr President, Madam Commissioner, the key difference between democracy and tyranny is transparency. In other words, when the people know everything about the government, that is democracy, when the government knows everything about the people, that is tyranny. In the past four years, since Ursula von der Leyen took office, we have seen an unprecedented decrease in transparency at the top level of the European Union, which is undermining the democracy and the proper functioning of the European Union. If your boss Ursula von der Leyen does not have anything to hide, why isn’t she here to answer questions for all of us right now? As you can see, the issue of transparency is not an issue of right or left. It’s an issue of right or wrong. And everybody is on the right side of this issue because all of us are asking exactly the same thing: for the European Commission to be more transparent and more accountable to all of us. The refusal of Ursula von der Leyen’s office to disclose to the media the personal messages exchanged between her and Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla used to negotiate contracts was maladministration, the European Ombudsman’s office concluded after an investigation. When there is a lack of transparency, corruption flourishes, and the current European Commission is living proof of it. The only solution for the European Commission to regain credibility is for it to be transparent. And that starts by publishing all the messages exchanged between Ursula von der Leyen and Albert Bourla.

Mr President, I voted against the COVID Committee report because not only is it justifying the abuses that happened during the lockdown, but it is creating the premise for such abuses to be employed again by the governments against the people in the future. I was one of the MEPs who fought for freedom and who asked numerous specific questions during the pandemic. We asked to see, for example, in full the contract signed by Ursula von der Leyen with the big pharma, but we were refused. We asked to see the mobile text messages exchanged between Ursula von der Leyen and the CEO of Pfizer, but again, we were refused. We ask that the Commission President be called before the COVID Committee to answer questions. We were refused again. The COVID report is testament that the massive and systematic cover—up of the incompetence of the European Commission and the corruption of Ursula von der Leyen. The cover—up was carried out by EPP, S&D and Renew political groups, who decided to put their obedience to the big pharma and Ursula von der Leyen over the rights and dignity of the EU citizens. I call therefore on all the EU citizens not to vote EPP, S&D and Renew in any office in the future.

Mr President, since 2021, the Council has been blatantly violating Romania's right to be a full member of Schengen, although it fulfils all the Treaty conditions for membership. The cost paid by the Romanian economy as a result of this abuse, which manifests itself in endless queues in customs and emissions of millions of tons of gas, a cost quantified in billions of euros, must be compensated by the countries that have violated Romania's law. This is what this resolution, which I voted for, calls for. It is inadmissible for Romania to be used as a punching bag in internal fights in various European Union countries, which then blackmails Romania with a favourable vote to enter Schengen if it gives them gas, ports, tax incentives or preferential contracts. The time for this kind of colonial attitude is over. We are not asking for any privilege, but only for the respect of the right guaranteed by the Treaty, as when Romania meets the conditions, it enters Schengen. Romania has fulfilled its obligations since 2011 to be a Schengen member. I therefore call on the Council to take note of this so that Romania enters Schengen in 2023.

Mr President, dear colleagues, I voted against the EU Nature Restoration Law because it will decimate the income of farmers, diminish food security, damage rural Romania and impoverish millions by increasing food and energy costs. For sure, more can be done to enhance biodiversity and save the forests. But this law is not about that. This law is about destroying our agriculture and the production of natural food. This would lead to severe food shortage and, consequently, an increase in food costs. All these insane proposals in this law are done under the pretext to reduce the carbon emissions, which is total scientific nonsense – unless you want to control the population and impoverish it. Carbon dioxide is necessary for photosynthesis, which is necessary for plants to produce oxygen. The world’s climate has always changed – even before human beings were on this earth – and will always change. The idea that, by killing cows or extra tax on meat or milk the world’s climate will change, is simply ridiculous. This law will destroy rural areas and will cause a severe shortage of food – part of the reason why I voted against it.

Mr President, Commissioner, the right of Romania and Romanians to be in Schengen is not discussed, it is stated. Since 2007, when Romania joined the European Union, it has agreed in the Treaty of Accession of Romania and Bulgaria to the European Union that once it fulfils all the conditions to enter Schengen, it is received into Schengen. The European Commission, which you represent here today, since 2011, comes and says that both Romania and Bulgaria fulfil all the conditions to enter Schengen, and yet today, in 2023, we are still discussing the imperative need for Romania and Bulgaria to enter Schengen. I ask you, therefore, to raise this subject to the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, who has all the legal levers at hand to force both Austria and possibly the Netherlands to finally accept the entry of Romania and Bulgaria by right into Schengen.

Mr President, I would say to the European citizens that we know now that the COVID committee report is a whitewash by a majority of the European Parliament, composed of EPP, S&D and Renew, to cover up the incompetence of the European Commission and the corruption of Ursula von der Leyen. A small number of MEPs asked for transparency, but we were blocked every step of the way. We asked that the Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen, who negotiated contracts with Pfizer via text messages, appear before our committee and answer questions. That did not happen. Ursula von der Leyen signed contracts worth over EUR 71 billion to purchase 4.6 billion doses of so—called ‘vaccines’. We asked to see the COVID contracts in their full and unredacted version, and we were denied access. The report also negates the side and adverse effects suffered by people who got injected with the anti-COVID vaccines. The report also praises the EU Digital Green Certificate, which was used by some governments in Europe to severely violate the fundamental rights of all the people. If these political groups have not learned anything from the mistakes made during the pandemic, I really hope that the European citizens will learn from this report not to elect the EPP, S&D and Renew into any office in 2024.

Madam President, dear Commissioner, I publicly urge the European Commission to stop sending any money to the Palestinian Authority until they stop using their school books and other materials that spread hatred towards Jews and Christians, and while there is still glorification of radicalism and terrorism. EUR 2.2 billion was sent by the EU in direct budget support to the Palestinian Authority between 2008 and 2020. Sadly, part of this money was used to print books to spread hatred against Jews. Additionally, the Palestinian Authority is supporting the indoctrination of Palestinian children that killing Jews is an act of martyrdom which will be rewarded in heaven. No peace can be achieved in the Middle East while the EU is funding books that are still indoctrinating children, from very young age, to hate and kill Jews. Jihadist violence cannot be encouraged by misuse of European taxpayers’ money, and nor should hatred be funded by our own money. If the EU wants to be a peacemaker in the Middle East, it is imperative that, going forward, any money given to the Palestinian Authority be strictly conditioned by removing any educational materials that are inciting hatred, violence or terrorist activities among Palestinian children.

Mr President, dear colleagues, we as elected officials must legislate ensuring a fair and just balance between three competing rights in regards to the press. The right of journalists to seek and expose the truth, the right of media consumers to know the truth and the right of good people to a good name and reputation. When the rights of any of these three participants are violated, the party should have access to a court where the case will be tried impartially. The Anti-SLAPP Directive started with a good premise, but unfortunately failed to provide this fair and just balance of rights and obligations between the three parties involved in this process. This directive asks the EU Member States to regulate in their national law the so-called early dismissal of a case when a journalist claims that the case is a SLAPP. This concept of early dismissal is specific to common law, not to the European continental legal system. It is totally justified to impose at the end of the judicial process a severe fine against the person who is filing abusive court proceedings against a journalist, especially with the purpose to harass or to threaten the journalist. But to allow for an early dismissal of a case at the beginning of the judicial process, just because the journalist claims it is a SLAPP, without the judge to actually check the merits of the case, is going to generate a dangerous precedent, which will undermine the credibility of the press, as well as endanger the rights of any person to defend his or her rights of good reputation and image.

Madam President, dear colleagues, surrogacy is one of the biggest threats to the dignity and safety of a woman and her child. And I restate ‘of her child’ – a man cannot give birth regardless of how many absurd resolutions the European Parliament adopts. The natural desire and destiny that only a woman has is to carry and give birth to another human person. This is an undeniable natural fact. Surrogacy laws deny and disregard the natural, biological, physical and emotional bond between the mother and her child during both pregnancy and after birth. Laws permitting surrogacy look at both the mother and her child as commodities which can be rented, exploited or sold as many rich people wish. It takes a male and a female to procreate, and it takes the natural family of a man and a woman to normally raise a child. No sane society can allow the woman to be transformed into womb for sale or hire, nor children into goods for sale. Surrogacy is violating the natural law as well as the emotional and natural bond between the mother and her child, and the child that she carries, which must be banned.

Mr President, dear colleagues, if the boxer Mike Tyson starts pretending to be a woman, with or without wearing lipstick or a dress, can we call the society which would allow him to box in the female category a ‘society’? I say no. This simple example illustrates the absurdity of those who claim to defend the rights of women, but at the same time support the senseless claim that a man who pretends to be a woman should, in the eyes of the law, the social norms, be considered a woman. There are increased threats and risks of violence against women and girls in female private spaces like restrooms or spas if a biological man who pretends to be a woman is allowed to enter such spaces, or even expose himself. Such behaviour of male perverts against women and girls should be prosecuted at the fullest extent of the law, not promoted by the European institutions – even in schools, to children. Society must not reward sexual predators for their illegal actions by sending them to serve time in female prisons just because they pretend to be women. We have a natural and legal obligation to defend and protect women. The obligation starts by acknowledging the biological reality of sex.

Well, with all due respect, dear colleague, you cannot identify what the woman is. Well, if you on the so-called left side cannot identify what a woman is, how you can pass laws to protect you? You were mentioning the Istanbul Convention. Let me tell you what the Istanbul Convention says in Article 38 on female genital mutilation, which states ‘performing any kind of mutilation of the whole or any part of a woman’s labia majora, labia minor or clitoris’. So I’m asking you, a man who claims or pretends to be a woman, how can that man be protected by this Convention? (The President cut off the speaker)

Madam President, they call it the Istanbul Convention; it should have been about women in biology, not gender ideology. We as a society have the duty to prevent and combat any kind of violence against women. But what is a woman? Apparently, this Parliament cannot define the term anymore. A woman, regardless of the age, is not a matter of feeling or the decision of a political majority, nor a social construct, as this Convention claims, but an ontological, biological and genetical reality that is clearly different than a man. Acknowledging even in the law that a man who can identify as a woman is a woman is simply absurd and actually the biggest threat to women. A man can claim that he identifies as a car, but that doesn’t mean that in a sane society we give that person a licence plate instead of an ID card. This gender ideology is clearly undermining womankind and is a dream come true for male perverts who can claim now that they identify as women and are allowed to serve sentences in female prisons where in some instances they left some pregnant. To protect women against any kind of violence and abuse, we need to define first their identity, which is not a matter of feeling, but a matter of ontological, biological and genetical fact, which is different than that of a man. (The speaker agreed to respond to a blue—card question)

Madam President, dear colleagues, dear Commission, the European Parliament has, according to the Treaty of the European Union, the duty to exercise the budgetary control over all the EU institutions. In the case of the European Commission’s discharge, we are asked to vote in blind because even to this date, after two years, nobody in the European Parliament has seen the full and unredacted versions of the contracts signed by Ursula von der Leyen with Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech. Here is how the contract with Moderna was disclosed to us, to the public and to the media. (The speaker held up a collection of papers) This is simply unacceptable! The EU Court of Auditors reported that through these contracts, Ursula von der Leyen has committed to purchase 4.6 billion doses of injections for a total cost of EUR 71 billion. Ursula von der Leyen could have given EUR 150 for every person in the EU to help recover after the pandemic and it would have been more effective than purchasing worthless injections. Ursula von der Leyen knew from the beginning that these injections are ineffective since she committed to purchase over ten doses of injections for every person in the EU, while she claimed that, with one such injection, a person will receive immunity from COVID. In any private company, a leading manager who signed such an abusive contract would have been fired effective immediately without seeing the full and unredacted versions of these contracts, no responsible MEP who cares about the people and their money can vote for the discharge of the European Commission. For this reason, I am asking all of you to vote against.

Thank you so much for the question. And I’m glad that you asked this because it is surprising that when we talk about an important topic like this, like climate change, in the media, for example, and even in these plenary people like Greta Thunberg are more quoted than actual experts. So I’m asking you in reply, what is the expertise of Greta Thunberg, of Bill Gates, for example, to lecture us, to force us, to lobby us to pass laws to violate people’s rights and for them to make money? No, you answer exactly what I asked! Because if these are scientists, look, science is based on facts, not on propaganda and everything that we heard here, everything that we heard here, it’s simply propaganda and not facts. You have to explain to the Europeans... (The President cut off the speaker)

Mr President, dear colleagues, when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is using hysterical, spoiled people like Greta Thunberg – whose place should be in school, not on the streets – to promote these reports, clearly we are dealing with a belief system and cult rather than a scientifically based organisation. Carbon dioxide is a gas that currently represents 0.041% of the whole atmosphere. Despite this small percent, for decades now, campaigns are run to make people believe that manmade CO2 is the cause of the climate change. The solutions proposed to fight climate change are higher taxes and more state control, as well as less rights and options for the people. ‘Emissions must have a price that changes our behaviour.’ This is what Ursula von der Leyen said in this plenary in 2019. Obviously the clear objective is to change our behaviour through higher taxes and prices, while fighting climate change is just a pretext to do it. People deserve a better future, but we clearly cannot achieve that by passing laws that are making them poorer while a small elite is getting richer by selling and forcibly selling them products and services that they do not need or want, but are allegedly saving the planet. (The speaker agreed to respond to a blue-card speech)

Madam President, dear colleagues, it would have been totally irresponsible to hand over more power to the WHO and the European Commission, under the pretext of effectively fighting future health crisis, when they failed to prevent the spread of coronavirus. The WHO was notified by Taiwan in December 2019 that there was a deadly pulmonary virus in China, but the WHO refused to alert the whole world about it because it was more interested in protecting the image of China than protecting the health of billions of people. The WHO declared a global pandemic only on 11 March 2020, after it said initially that the coronavirus was not human—to—human transmissible. The first two months of 2020 would have been essential in stopping the spread of COVID by isolating China until they could contain the virus. But that did not happen. Instead, the Western world was in lockdown as of April of 2020, which didn’t stop the spread of the virus but actually killed our economies. Also, healthy people were considered symptomatically infected while autopsies were not conducted on people who died of COVID so we would know on time how this virus kills. Clearly, the WHO and the European Commission does not need more power to deal with this future pandemic, but actually to be made accountable for how they handled the last one!

Madam President, dear Commissioners, dear colleagues, this debate about the Cyber package is another example of how important issues are hijacked by the European Commission and used to propose initiatives that are taking away more and more decisions from the national States and rights from the people under the alleged argument that it is done for their safety and security. Protecting our cybersecurity infrastructures is an important objective that the States must fulfil, not the European bureaucracy, which is not accountable to anybody. The European Union cannot micromanage everything or come up with one-size-fits-all regulations because it will actually undermine, in this case, both the cybersecurity and the competitiveness of the European Single Market. All these proposals are actually building the framework to create in the EU a digital tyranny and the implementation of a social credit system similar to the one in China. I am asking the Commissioners, how exactly are you going to be able to protect all the cell phones or computers in the EU without monitoring all of them? Protecting our cyberinfrastructure is very important, but we need to make sure that we are not transforming the European Union into a China-like controlled superstate, but still keep it as an area of freedom as it was intended.

Mr President, The European Commission and Ursula von der Leyen, with the help of different political groups from the European Parliament, like EPP and Renew, is currently proposing different packs of legislation that will free people of their fundamental rights and freedom in exchange for a utopian society where people will have nothing, but will be happy. For example, the new digital laws that are being promoted in the EU will deprive people of their privacy. The European Central Bank and the European Commission are proposing a digital euro to replace cash. The exchange of this digital euro will be done using applications approved by the governments, which means mass control on how, when and what people could use this digital currency for. Clearly, the European Union is transitioning from an area of freedom to a supranational government that wants full control over people, but does not want to be accountable for the people and to the people. If it does not stop copying the Soviet Union’s model, the European Union will collapse under its own weight. If we want to save the European project, we must defend the fundamental rights of all by opposing any laws that establish a digital tyranny in the European Union.

Mr President, dear colleagues, the European Commission under Ursula von der Leyen is not the guardian of the EU Treaties any more, but the guardian of corruption, opacity and unaccountability. When it has to defend and protect the rights and liberties of all the European citizens, the European Commission is mostly passive, but only acts to promote and protect special interest groups that are hostile to both people and Member States. The Commission is on steroids. The relationship between the European Commission and the Member States should be of sincere cooperation and in full mutual respect, assisting each other in carrying out tasks which flow from the Treaties. In the Pegasus scandal, many Member States have not answered questions from PEGA Committee: if, when, why and to what extent they use a certain software to spy on their citizens, including journalists or political opponents. In the face of such a severe violation of human rights, the European Commission stays passive. At the same time, the Commission has a credibility problem lecturing others about respecting human rights, while Ursula von der Leyen is under investigation for corruption. The European Commission must stop acting subjectively and discriminatorily and instead be a role model in respecting human rights, transparency and the EU Treaties.

Madam President, dear colleagues, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that the people of the United Nations have reaffirmed their faith in human rights, in the dignity and worth of human person, in the equal rights of men and women. In other words, a human person can be either a man or a woman. But what is a woman? A candidate to the US Supreme Court, when asked, could not answer. This raises serious questions about how the actual rights of women could be defended, since more and more in our society cannot define any more what a woman is. This is the biggest threat to human rights, especially to women’s rights, since a woman is more and more considered to be a feeling, not an ontological reality which differs from a man. Men who feel being a woman are allowed to compete in women’s sports, even contact or power-lifting sports, which clearly creates a disadvantage for the actual women. Supporting human rights defenders is a duty that we have in order to defend humanity. And this starts from acknowledging the fact that men and women, despite being genetically and biologically different, are equal in dignity and rights.

Madam President, I voted in favour of the report on the European Ombudsman's work for 2021 because, under the leadership of Emily O'Reilly, she was one of the few European institutions that actually protects citizens' rights and has the courage to hold the European Commission and Ursula von der Leyen accountable for their abuses. In 2021, Emily O’Reilly opened numerous investigations into the lack of transparency of the European Commission and other European institutions: such an investigation into how Ursula von der Leyen negotiated and purchased, in a totally non-transparent and illegal way, billions of doses of vaccines for public money, through text messages exchanged personally with Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, and another investigation into the European Medicines Agency’s refusal to grant public access to documents related to the manufacturing of mRNA vaccines against COVID-19. It is abusive to deny citizens the right to know how the injections they were forced to inject into the pandemic were tested. I congratulate the European Ombudsman for not succumbing to pressure and for exercising his mandate of democratic control over European public institutions. Following this report, Ursula von der Leyen should, if not in honour, at least in shame, resign.

Madam President, I voted against the Energy Performance of Buildings report because it will lead to a severe increase in home rental prices, which will make the very few rich people richer and the rest of the people poorer. Every time a European bureaucrat proposes something and labels it as ‘ambitious’, that means it is actually bad for the people, and this report just proves that. It is absurd to have the so-called ambitions that are converting into more obligations for the people which are costing them even more money. For example, the Member States will have to ensure that the use of fossil fuel heating systems will not be authorised in existing buildings undergoing major renovations, deep renovation or renovation of heating systems, as well as in new buildings, starting from 24 months after the adoption of this directive. The solution left for the people is to heat their homes using electricity, which is more and more expensive, mainly due to European Green Deal utopian objectives. Europe needs a pragmatic leadership, clearly different than the current one, a leadership that can provide practical solutions to increase economic growth or people’s health while reducing costs and making the continent a better, safer and cleaner place to live.