Speeches

Dear Mr President, Today's leaders have isolated the European Union. Unfortunately, the EU economy is weak. Just think of the Draghi report. The Union cannot stand up for peace, stop migration and even support immigration, and it does not give European agriculture a perspective. For about a decade, every left-wing politician in the European Commission has been crying out for the 45th and 47th Presidents of the United States. US voters re-elected Donald Trump in a democratic election. We don't learn, they don't learn. They're not trying to reduce our isolation, they're continuing to attack our American friends by ignoring the will of the electorate, even though it's time to wake up. Donald Trump is just doing what he promised. Protect your country's borders. I know it's from the devil. It stops unrestrained illegal migration, curbs the toxic ideology that is poisoning society, and once again strengthens the American economy. Let's not isolate ourselves from the new American leadership, let's work together. For them, America comes first, and for us, our nation-states, through which Europe can be stronger.

Dear Madam President, Let's call things by name. The DSA in its current form can also serve as a tool for political censorship. Mark Zuckerberg also said that content was unilaterally censored at political request and under political pressure. Many in the United States have succumbed to pressure, but there the law does not prescribe censorship, and it seems that they have learned from their mistakes in the United States. Not so in Europe. I am afraid that in Europe the left is not learning, it is not learning again. But this DSA must be eliminated in this form. We do not need more officials in Europe who are censoring. Let's spend it on border protection, but they don't want to spend that much money on it. Freedom of expression and a level playing field must be ensured. This is the foundation of our democracy. Say no to political censorship.

Oh, Mr. President. The EU Digital Services Regulation is key. At the same time, it is essential that any such regulation also takes into account the fundamental right to freedom of expression. We cannot allow a distinction to be made between investigations on the basis of political influence, because regulation must and must remain impartial and transparent. The European Union is not a censor. Central restrictions on freedom of expression must be avoided in all circumstances. The European Commission's criticism of Elon Musk on digital regulation goes in the wrong direction. These attacks are not only about digital regulation, but can also be interpreted in a broader political context. Protecting freedom of expression and managing the digital space responsibly are not mutually exclusive, and one provides for the other. In a democratic society, both elements are necessary for citizens to be able to exercise their rights freely without being subjected to manipulation. Dear fellow Members, Every effort must be made to strike a balance between freedom and responsibility and to keep freedom of expression as a fundamental democratic value in mind at all times. Ensuring freedom of expression for the Union must be the basis for all our actions. And after I speak for the last time in this room this year, allow me to wish you all a blessed Christmas.

Dear Mr President, Product safety is an increasingly pressing issue in Europe, especially with the rapid growth of e-commerce. Let's be honest, today's market surveillance system is not efficient enough to keep pace with the challenges of the digital world. This lack of action poses a serious risk to the security of our citizens and threatens Europe's competitiveness in the long term. Due to the fast pace of e-commerce and cross-border sales, Member State authorities have a difficult task to control every single product. As a result, consumer safety is often at risk and faces challenges in maintaining regulatory transparency. The European Parliament can no longer block trilogue negotiations and start work. Start discussing proposals on product safety, including rules on toy safety. Let us not let the price of delay be the safety of European citizens or of our children. Let us take the necessary steps together so that Europe can continue to be a continent of innovation and safe products. To the members of the TISZA party present or not present, I would like to say that they should not be afraid if they ask a question in this House, it is possible to answer it in this room.

Dear Madam President, The internal market is the economic engine of the European Union. It faces serious challenges. While our competitors are well ahead of us in terms of innovation, digitalisation and technological developments, the EU is lagging behind. Why is that? Because the European Commission is not reacting in a timely and decisive manner to these international changes. The wrong approach to the green transition, the slowness and rigid regulation of bureaucracy are extremely hampering the ability of EU businesses and citizens to adapt quickly to the digital transition and the new requirements of global competition. Let's say: Our economy is on the road, energy prices are rising in Europe and businesses are suffering. The quality of services and services in the EU is declining. Europe is lagging behind in the digital race. This is particularly challenging for small and medium-sized enterprises. Our SMEs could also be viable on the global market if the EU were to effectively help them keep up with digitalisation and new requirements for sustainability. Stop the over-regulation. The future of the European Union is at stake. We need quick and effective action.

(beginning of speech when switched off microphone) ... obligated. I understand, but I still ask you the question: Why don't you deal with your green federal government? Why don't you question the mass and uncontrolled migration to Germany advocated by the Greens? Why don't you talk about the catastrophic energy transition – the Greens? Why don't you say why your green government threatens the once powerful German auto industry and cuts thousands of jobs? And don't tell me you're dealing with Europe. You are only concerned with my home country in this House. We've had enough! Their Greens flew out of the German state parliaments. They fly out of state parliaments. People have had enough of you. They are single-digit nationwide. Go home!

Thank you so much esteemed colleague, I want to raise a very short question. I just read that in 2023, your country, Spain, issued 92 401 and Portugal over 70 000 visas to Russian citizens. Are you afraid of that? Do you want to have a political debate here in this Chamber about this issue? Are you afraid that over 200 000 Russians got visas in France and more than that in Germany. Should we have a debate about that in this Chamber? So that's a very simple question.

Oh, Mr. President. The EU's Digital Services Act (DSA) is designed to ensure transparency on the internet. It regulates how to deal with illegal and harmful content on websites. However, what is harmful and dangerous, who decides? And that's a very important question. Unfortunately, as the first analyses and practical experience show, this legislation is not without its flaws. Among other things, the NGO sphere, which was described as professional but moved by political interest groups, was also integrated into its implementation procedures, again. I believe that this can have serious consequences, since it is not official state bodies or courts that can decide whether a given content is hateful content or fake news in Europe today, but an international network of NGOs driven by private interest groups. The EU Digital Services Act therefore raises a number of questions and concerns about its future ability to ensure the effectiveness of freedom of expression on our continent. These are legitimate concerns, and I would ask the Commissioner to address them.

Mr. Congressman, I'm sorry. Let me ask you a quick question. How does it feel to speak out against your own country over and over again in this Chamber? And when we are debating a discharge here, would you tell the Members present here, or perhaps the students, how it felt to accept millions of dollars in your opposition campaign in the last Hungarian national political campaign, which they cannot account for? So, technically, you're in a discharge debate here, and you have the nerve to stand up and talk about how to account for funds when you're using illegal money.

Dear Mr President, My fellow Members! How is it possible that the reports submitted to the plenary and adopted by the commission have become such biased, politically motivated texts, instead of giving a fair, objective and clear picture of the financial situation and management of the European Union? How is it possible that the reports attack Hungary through pages, demanding the immediate withdrawal of legitimately liberated resources? Meanwhile, the report mentions the biggest corruption scandal in the EU’s history only as ‘alleged corruption incidents’. That, and no more, is what you think is deserved in thousands of pages of reports for the cause that has shaken the very foundations of European voters' faith in the Union. What is the point of the discharge procedure and these reports? How can the European Parliament even get discharge for 2022?

Thank you for your time and I wanted to ask you to talk about NGOs, but in the previous national election campaign in Hungary, you and your comrades accepted more than $11 million from NGOs of dubious origin, NGOs linked to George Soros. How do you intend to account for that? Is this what the protection of the civil society means to you? Accepting money from NGOs and not holding it accountable to voters? Please answer that to me.

Mr. President, please. There is a constitutional order in the Member States of the European Union. Part of this is that everyone has to abide by the law, even civil society organisations. The latest political manipulation of the European left is using the principle of ‘more Europe’ to remove the control of civil society organisations from the jurisdiction of the Member States. This law is a direct attack on democracy and public order. There is no need for more Europe to regulate NGOs. You want to put left-wing organisations that carry out political activities without electoral authorization above the law, which interfere in elections or organise illegal migration. Fidesz and the Hungarian government stand up for the defence of national sovereignty and constitutional order. We will not succumb to political pressure. Europe deserves a better democracy, a true rule of law!

Mr. Speaker, you feel that you are losing the political debate. You, the Liberals, the Greens and, of course, the Communists. Your understanding of democracy is, if you can't win the debate, imprison your political opponents. They have them removed from electoral lists and deprive dissenters of the right to vote. Honourable Member, why don't you hear the voice of Europeans, including German citizens, who obviously have had enough of you, go home and talk to them?

Dear Madam President, European foreign trade is facing serious challenges today. We must recognise that it is in Europe's interest not to block the global economy, but to develop economic connectivity. The economic partners of the future are located in Asia and especially in India. The development of trade relations is beneficial not only for Hungary, but also for the whole Central European region. Connected trade policy would lead to cooperation in areas such as research and development, innovation, technology transfer, water management, culture, tourism, health and pharmaceuticals. If, however, instead of recognising interdependence, we make the development of trade relations subject to ideological conditions, we subordinate the interests of Europe and our region.

Dear Madam, The European Union is not a country. The European Union is made up of nation states which provisionally jointly exercise part of their sovereignty. That means we have contracts. Since we are talking about a Member State issue, why are you speaking as if the European Union in general is a country, and the President of the European Commission is not expressing his private opinion on this issue when the Council and the nation states will decide, not this house and not the European Commission?

Mr. President, please. The subject of today's session is not simply a question of law, but an ideological and political excess. The European Union would run counter to our treaties with the plan to introduce an EU parental certificate, as they left the definition of family strictly to the Member States, and that is fine. Your plan is contrary to a number of national laws, including the Hungarian Basic Law. Again and again you claim that you do not wish to undermine the traditional Christian family model, but again and again you prove the opposite. It should be left to the citizens of the Member States to decide with whom and how they want to live together. They are on the same path as when they want to force unrestricted immigration on the Member States. This proposal shows that defending sovereignty has never been more timely. We reject this proposal as such.

Dear Mr President, If we want a strong Europe, our enlargement policy must take into account our geopolitical and security policy needs. The European Union sees enlargement as a means of extortion or perfidy, or it applies double standards when it comes to membership, i.e. it undermines its own unity and credibility. Please refrain from that. Countries wishing to enter the European Union must comply with the conditions set out in the legislation. Of course, but especially the Copenhagen criteria. These conditions must be the same for all applicant countries. Not only trust, but also the geostrategic interests of the EU Member States are hurt by the fact that some countries of the Western Balkans have been deceived by the EU for more than 10 years without significant progress, while Ukraine has been pursuing an accelerated enlargement policy. All we ask is that the same rules apply to everyone.

Mr. friend! You worked for the Soros Foundation for five years and you're talking about anti-Semitism? In your green government in Germany, Jews can no longer and cannot freely take to the streets because of the mass migration you have dragged to Germany – people cannot talk freely, take to the streets freely or even go to their churches. I ask you quite frankly: Shouldn't you be a little more concerned with Germany, with your German government and with the events in Germany against Jews?

Madam President, I'm sorry. Hungary, my country, has an interest in open trade and a trade policy that takes into account the interests of the Member States. In addition to free trade, Europe's self-defence is also important. The European Union must be able to defend its own economic interests in the event of pressure from a third country. I would therefore like to thank Mr Lange for his work. But that is not the only purpose of this new regulation. Hiding under the guise of European market defence, it aims to eliminate the foreign policy veto. The key to the proposal is that, according to the Treaties, the Union has exclusive competence in the field of the common commercial policy. The new regulation aims to expand this area so that the EU can decide exclusively on matters such as foreign affairs and our sanctions policy, without consulting the Member States. This is a circumvention of the Member States, a measure that seriously undermines national competences, a circumvention of our Treaties.

Mr. President, please. Hungary has traditionally been rich in high-quality and well-reputed agricultural, food and craft products. This EU regulation is an important proposal for companies and for Europe's cultural heritage. The new legislation supports the European protection system to protect not only agricultural products, but also the origin of traditional craft and industrial products such as Herend porcelain, Halas lace or Szabolcs apples. In 2015, the Hungarian government announced its origin protection programme, which aims to significantly increase the number of Hungarian GI foods recognised by the EU. As a result of the programme, Hungary is at the forefront of the EU in the field of protected products. The new EU legislation can be an effective complementary tool for a successful national programme.

Mr. President, please. The European left wants to revive an institution that is so familiar to us, the citizens of Central and Eastern Europe: the institution of class struggle from state socialism. The time has come for NGOs with privileges to be the first among equals. Representatives of the European Left have decided to remove NGOs, human rights defenders and human rights activists from the jurisdiction of the Member States and to grant them an unprecedented privilege: if a lawsuit endangers their public participation, the court could terminate the proceedings immediately. On what basis is this privilege granted to NGOs? On what grounds are they different from any other member of society? The answer is simple: they represent the cause of an open society without the authority of the electorate. Ladies and gentlemen, this judgment can never be fair. Where justice and justice do not belong together, it is not a state governed by the rule of law.

Mr. President, please. Family law is rooted in the history, culture and social values of each nation. As a question, it falls exclusively within the competence of the Member States what legislation the Italian Government, which was formed after democratic elections, adopts and on the basis of which principles it operates its own civil status system. It belongs to a single Member State: To Italy. Member States, like Italy or even Hungary, have the right to take a position on this issue on the basis of Christian-Jewish values. Neither the European Parliament, nor any other EU institution, nor any other EU Member State has the authority to judge this or to intervene in any way in this matter. That's why we have contracts. We stand by the Italian government, we stand by its decisions.

Dear Mr President, Dear Members of the Committee, National security is the exclusive competence of the Member States. The European Parliament is out of law when it investigates, reports on, or organises a visit to our country on matters of national security. In the absence of competence, it is clear that there are only political motives for the investigation. But we'll be in good faith, maybe it's just against sovereignty. It is sad that the European Parliament is now trying to use the principle of sincere cooperation to make up for its lack of competence. In your view, the EU institutions have only rights and the Member States only obligations. The reality, on the other hand, is that sincere cooperation places just as much burden on the institutions towards the Member States as vice versa. More respect for the Treaties, more respect for the nation-states and more respect for the electorate!

Dear Mr President, Dear fellow Members, The debate on the European Parental Certificate is both a question of law and an ideological standpoint. It is a question of law because family law is rooted in the history, culture and social values of each Member State. Therefore, any proposal to make it mandatory to recognise parenthood between Member States is strictly within the competence of the nation states and constitutes a serious abuse of EU competence. It is an ideological standpoint because the EU institutions, by circumventing the treaties, are launching philosophical warfare against the traditional Christian family model in Europe. Our position, which is based on the provisions of the Hungarian Fundamental Law, is clear from both a legal and an ideological point of view. The mother is a woman, the father is a man, and the concept of the family is a competence of the nation-state. Please respect that.

Mr President, first of all, thank you, Commissioner, for your very constructive words. The United Kingdom did not leave Europe by Brexit, but only the European Union. ‘Europeanness’ is not measured by membership in an organisation, but by respecting national self-determination, culture, history and constitutional tradition – a field in which the United Kingdom has always excelled. Further to that, it was not the UK who could not keep their EU membership. The EU was unable to keep a powerful country that remained realistic compared to federalist ideas. We are sad that we lost the UK as a member state, but we respect the democratic decision of its people. Now the UK is a natural ally of the European Union and of the European nation states. The EU should conduct a pragmatic and respectful dialogue towards the UK that is finally worthy of Europe.