Speeches

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.

Mr. President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, the Republic of Moldova is until today the victim of the Ribbentrop-Molotov economic pact, as a result of which Europe was divided in 1939 between Hitler and Stalin. Following this pact, Stalin occupied Bessarabia from Romania, which he incorporated into the Soviet Union as the Soviet Republic of Moldova. Russia, whether Tsarist, Soviet or post-Soviet, has done everything possible to keep the territory of the Republic of Moldova under its own sphere of malign influence. In addition to maintaining the frozen conflict in Transnistria, Russia is today undermining Moldova economically, politically and culturally. The Republic of Moldova must be helped by all means to get out of the clutches of imperialist Russia, which for hundreds of years has been seeking slavery and poverty. Moldova recently received the status of candidate for the European Union, but this must be complemented with effective security support for it, so that the front in Ukraine does not extend to Chisinau. It is also imperative that the European Union urgently sign a roaming agreement with Moldova. Such a roaming agreement is not a big effort for the EU, but it will mean everything for the citizens of the Republic of Moldova, who will be able to communicate much easier with their brothers and families in the European Union.

Thank you so much for this question, and thank you so much for offering me the opportunity to clarify the fact. I worked – before I was elected here – as a programmer, so I know exactly how this data is stored, so when you are claiming right now that you are providing access or control of the citizens over the data, that is false – because that data is not stored on their device and they do not have physical control over the data. The data is stored on a server or on a cloud. What this regulation does is allowing or granting access to any governmental agency or even EU institutions to access that data directly. That’s what the report says.

Madam President, the European Data Act Regulation, contrary to the declared numerous benefits it brings for citizens, is yet another brick in the construction of the digital tyranny in the EU under the leadership of Ursula von der Leyen, where people are stripped of their fundamental rights like privacy, anonymity, intimacy and transformed into serialised objects that are surveilled by the government every step of the way. When this draft legislation was published, the European Commission claimed that it is benefiting the people. What benefits can people have from being mass tracked or profiled by the government or the EU institutions? The so-called benefits of this proposal, like providing personalised medicine, new mobility solutions and contributions to the European Green Deal, are just honey traps to implement mass monitoring and, later, control with this regulation. While this regulation is very keen to protect the interests of businesses like trade secrets, it is granting prerogative not only to governmental institutions but to EU institutions to request and receive data from any company that is generated by the users, which is unacceptable. The EU was established as an area of freedom and democracy, not an open air prison camp, which is why we need to reject the European Data Act Regulation. (The speaker agreed to respond to a blue-card speech)

Mr President, Commissioner Timmermans, under the leadership of Ursula von der Leyen, the EU will turn, through the European Digital Identity Wallet, from an area of freedom into an open-air prison camp. In a prison camp, the detainees are stripped of their personal identity and become numbers. They have no privacy nor intimacy, and they are free to choose only from the options decided for them. They are also constantly monitored to make sure that they behave accordingly. This is the digital prison developed in the EU through the Digital Identity Wallet. This wallet can be applied to all areas of life and the potential of tracking user behaviour is a severe threat to the privacy of all EU citizens. From a command centre, a Eurocrat will know all the health and financial data, as well as the daily interactions, of any EU citizen. This is not an area of freedom anymore, but a real tyranny that is using technology to mechanically customise all the citizens, transforming them into simple numbers towards total control. The EU citizens deserve better, which is why I urge the European Parliament to reject the implementation of the European Digital Identity Wallet.

Mr President, esteemed citizens of the states of the European Union, we have been witnessing for a long time the most insidious, long-lasting and dangerous attack on our fundamental, individual rights and on the sovereignty of our countries, which has as its end our enslavement as individuals and nations. This attack is not carried out by means of arms, but by European institutions, through the kind of administrative and judicial mechanisms that have as a means the undermining of the supremacy of our constitutions and the taking of decisions from the representatives elected by the people, by a European bureaucracy or functioning that is not elected by anyone and is not accountable to anyone. We are witnessing today the greatest attack, thus, on the sovereignty and independence of our states. In this way, we have reached the EU, where the supremacy of the constitutions voted by the citizens in the referendum is undermined by the acts of unknown bureaucrats, not elected by anyone who is not accountable to anyone. This is not democracy, but tyranny, a tyranny of bureaucrats and officials that must be stopped now, before it is too late.

Mr President, dear colleagues. Is the European Commission part of the solution or part of the problem when it comes to shortage of medication in Europe? This is the question that we must that we must ask now when the European Commission is asking for more power on handling medical crisis. Handling the COVID pandemic, prove that the European Commission is not the solution, but the cause of many problems on dealing with health crisis. While the focus of the Commission was to purchase astronomical quantities of alleged anti-COVID vaccines, people could not find antivirals or antibiotics in the European pharmacies. Now we have a flu season and we debate again about shortage of different medicines, most notably antibiotics. This debate is the proof that the European Commission is not the solution, but the cause of many problems all across Europe. The best thing the European Commission can do is to prevent the formation of medical monopolies and cartels and let the national states act in the best interests of their citizens.

Mr President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, considering the severe increase in adverse effects after the COVID-19 vaccines, including many debts, I urge the European Parliament and the European Commission to create a big pharma victim reparation fund. Similar funds were created for those who suffer from pollution of different companies under the principle that polluters pay. On 28 April 2021, in this plenary Commissioner Didier Reynders said when he referred to the digital green certificate, and I quote, ‘we do not yet have full scientific evidence about the effects of the vaccines, but we cannot wait for all these questions to be answered to start taking action’. We see now the adverse effects of these vaccines, which without any doubt are creating many problems for many people, incapacitated many of them, and nevertheless killing some of them. I urge you, therefore, to support the creation of such a fund so the innocent people who were vaccinated can be compensated.

Madam President, dear Commissioner, Minister, emissions must have a price that changes our behaviour. This is what Ursula von der Leyen said in this plenary in 2019 in her opening statement as a candidate for President of the European Commission. Three years later, we see and feel the effect of our newly envisioned European Union, an EU where prosperity is replaced with poverty, where respect for fundamental rights is replaced with more state control, where governmental transparency is replaced with secrecy to protect private or corporate interests, where decisions based on reason are replaced with those based on ideology – all with a clear intent to change our behaviour. The current crisis that is affecting all of us is mainly being caused by this decision of the European Commission, which is more focused on changing people’s behaviour than serve them. While people got poorer and small businesses closed down, especially during the pandemic, some big businesses made huge and untaxed profits. EU needs pragmatic, reasonable, common sense solutions based on facts, not neo-Marxist ideology, which is trying to change the reality to fit its argument. Commissioner, people cannot eat or burn carbon credits. I call on the European Commission to stop blocking the use or any investments in coal, nuclear or gas power plants, so we can keep up with the demand for energy and produce affordable energy.

Madam President, Europeans are now feeling the costs of the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine because it is closer to them. But we should never forget that Georgia was the first country against which Russia waged a war of aggression in August 2008. That happened after the recognition of Kosovo and after Germany and France refused to accept Georgia and Ukraine in NATO during the NATO summit in Bucharest. If Europe would have taken a stronger position against Russia after its war against Georgia, we could have avoided the war of aggression against Ukraine. After being devastated by Russia’s war, and even after 20% of its territory has been illegally occupied by Russian forces since 2008, Georgia has not retreated from its pro-Western course. Georgia was a front-runner among the Eastern Partnership countries, and Georgia is part of the Associated Trio. The popular support for these European and Euro-Atlantic aspirations are now explicitly written in its Constitution. We should never forget that governments come and go, but nations and people stay. The Georgian nation and people need our support and a strong sign from the EU now. Georgia’s place is in the EU, and they need our unequivocal support to achieve this goal.

Mr President, Madam Commissioner, the vote of Austria to abusively block Romania’s accession into Schengen is an act of flagrant political corruption. This vote also demonstrated that the Austrian EPP Chancellor, Karl Nehammer is the puppet of the Russian President, Vladimir Putin, and the Russian spearhead who is undermining the European project from within. Romania earned, at a heavy price, the national right to be part of Schengen. For 11 years the EU Commission and the Parliament are stating that Romania meets all the requirements to be part of this area. But now we cannot exercise this right because of false pretexts of corrupt Austrian politicians. Enough is enough. Romania is nobody’s punching bag for someone or a political party to earn political points in their countries. The fact, though, is that companies from Austria were trying to blackmail Romania to give them easier and cheaper access to our resources, which Austria does not have. Such imperialistic behaviour is unacceptable. While different EU leaders are talking about European solidarity, Austrian businesses, like Raiffeisen Bank, for example, do not have a problem with still operating in Russia. I urge the Commission to take all the necessary steps to punish the current leadership of Austria and all the businesses conducting operations in Russia.

Madam President, I publicly demand that the EPP Chair, Mr Manfred Weber, immediately and unconditionally expel from the EPP the party led by the Austrian Chancellor Karl Nehammer. On 8 December 2022, Austria voted to abusively block the entrance of Romania and Bulgaria in Schengen, even though both countries met all the requirements to join this area. We were not and we are not asking for privileges, not for mercy from anyone, including Austria. Romania gained its national right to be part of Schengen after paying a heavy and expensive price. From the Romanian taxpayers’ money, we are protecting and defending the borders from illegal immigration so not only us but also other countries like Austria will be protected and safe. Romania respects the obligation of the Schengen acquis and for over 11 years the Commission and the European Parliament stated in multiple reports and resolutions that is fully prepared to join Schengen. Despite all this – the undeniable facts – the Austrian Chancellor decided to abusively violate Romania’s right to join Schengen so he can gain political points. This is simply unacceptable. Mr Weber, if you are a man of your word and care about European solidarity, I publicly urge you to expel from your party the party of the Austrian Chancellor.

Madam President, dear colleagues, dear Commissioner, ‘the enlargement policy is the most effective EU policy’, states the report that we are debating right now and the statement is correct. Through the enlargement policy, the European project has managed to create economic growth for European citizens and to keep peace through prosperity in Europe since the Second World War. Moldova, along with Ukraine, is a country that recently received a candidate status to EU. The finalisation of the accession process in the EU can take some time though, but we don’t have to wait for the whole process to finish in order for the people of Moldova to feel closer to the other Europeans. One simple and concrete step to reinforce the fact that the country is on the right path is for the EU to have a roaming agreement with Moldova. Signing such a roaming agreement is not a big effort for the EU, but it will make the world of difference for the people of Moldova, enabling easier and affordable communication between the people of Moldova and those family members who have left home, will help strengthen European integration long before any political decision does. I therefore call on all the EU institutions to work closely with the authorities from Moldova to include the country in the roaming agreement, a benefit that will help both EU and the people of Moldova.

Madam President, ‘personal identity or digital identity’ is the question that we all – regular people or elected officials – need to answer in the current rash of global developments. Personal identity is composed of distinctive qualitative qualities like personal beliefs, aspirations and desires that make a human being unique in their relationship with the state and with other human beings. This is because a human being is seen as a subject with rights, including inalienable fundamental rights which are inherent to human dignity. Digital identity, on the other side, starts from the presumption that human beings are not subjects with inalienable rights, but objects at the disposal of governments which have to assign them different attributes in order to grant them certain privileges. We saw this happening during communism in Eastern Europe. We see this happening right now in China with the social credit system. And we see this being implemented right now in the Western world by organisations like the World Economic Forum. I call therefore on all the Members of the European Parliament to reject any proposals that are implementing a digital identity in the EU, and nevertheless I call on all the people of Europe and the world to reject and vote against such politicians that are proposing a digital identity.

Mr President, dear Commissioner, ‘it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law’ – this is what the preamble of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Europe of the Human Rights states. Thus, the rule of law is not a goal in itself, but a way to accurately protect the rights of all human beings. What happened during the COVID-19 crisis proved that the European Commission, under the leadership of Ursula von der Leyen, will use the rule of law slogan to impose severe violation of human rights unseen in Western Europe since the Second World War. Von der Leyen is using the rule of law slogan to blackmail now sovereign EU Member States with guarding their deserved European funds if they do not comply with the ideology imposed by the Brussels bureaucracy. Under the ruling power of Ursula von der Leyen we are witnessing right now the Chinafication of Europe, where people cannot decide for themselves, even if or what to be injected with. Ursula von der Leyen is the biggest threat to human rights in the EU right now, which is why she must immediately and unconditionally resign.

Madam President, dear colleagues, dear guests, after the Second World War in Europe, a group of eight statesmen, mostly Christians, came together and found ways not only how to reconcile themselves with each other, but how to bring peace to prosperity in Europe. To do so, they came up with a European project founded on two pillars: safeguarding the respect of fundamental rights – and that’s how we have the Council of Europe now. And the other one, it is economic cooperation – and we have the European Communities. The European Community later became the European Union, which from an economic cooperation between sovereign states, became a political union, which currently is undermining, unfortunately, the sovereignty of our nations. The European Political Community now proposed by Macron, seems to want to replace the other pillar of the European project, mainly safeguarding the fundamental rights of all the people. Europe is not a political community, but a mosaic of free and sovereign nations and states. If we want to defend and protect the rights of all of our citizens, we should keep it so.