Speeches

Mr President, so colleagues, you deny and you don’t want to say when the life begins. If you want to put abortion as a fundamental right, then this would be the most important right, and you know this. So by this you would deny the basic right to life, and you don’t want to have what colleague Matić said: he didn’t even want to discuss when the life begins. So he is blind, and you are blind to the truth that there is another life. And we should find the balance between this.

Dear Chairman, Dear colleagues, all human and civil rights enjoyed throughout the civilized world are limited by the rights and freedoms of others. Absolute freedom that would go to the detriment of someone else does not exist. And so does the women's right to choose. A woman must have the right to decide her life, but as long as these decisions do not harm the life of the conceived child. Or do you think it's not about human life? So tell me when human life begins? Science agrees that human life is at stake and all international conventions and constitutions of Western countries regard the right to life as a fundamental human right, so anything else that would undermine that right cannot be a fundamental human right. And let's stop repeating these floscules that science has long foretold. Let's rather turn around together and look for ways to help pregnant women. And how to help them materially and in any other way, because with a positive culture and with the support of the environment, more women would choose to live, and less for abortion.

The Honourable Chair, Honourable colleagues, cohesion policy is increasingly under attack, as many in the developed members feel that they are somehow supporting the less developed ones. This presents itself with some kind of solidarity as if the more developed have no use for it. Let me break that myth. First, more developed members place their products on the single market to a greater extent than less developed ones. It is in their economic interest that the entire European market is relatively rich, not that half of it is poor. They also have a skilled workforce from less developed countries. Croatia alone has spent 18 billion euros to educate people who went to work in Western member states after joining the European Union. So in this process, we are running out of the most valuable resource without people, and now we see that the abuse of the rule of law is beginning to restrict European funds to sovereign states if they do not accept your imposed ideology. Thus, cohesion policy becomes a double colonisation that robs part of the Union of a human resource and imposes in parallel an ideological framework that these peoples do not want. Equitable development is very important for the overall development of the European Union. That's why I call on you, let's use cohesion policy to compensate for real differences between countries, not to impose ideology.

The Honourable Chair, Honourable colleagues, it is clear to everyone that climate change can have negative consequences for people and the way of life in Europe. But what do we do? The first thing that every man and every society naturally does is adapt. That is why common sense requires more investment in innovation, so that we can advance technologically so much that we can maintain our existing quality of life in changing climate circumstances. Yes, we also need to reduce the negative impact on the environment, but to the extent that we will not harm the fundamental levers of society such as the family or an efficient economy. The dogmatic approach that destroys these levers in the name of some new climate religion, which confuses priorities and is ideologically exclusive, is unfortunately the one advocated by the majority in this parliament, which is to have fewer children, eat insects, limit mobility and lower the standard of European families. But it's not good for the planet or for people. We must be responsible politicians, representatives of people, not activists and spread moral panic.

Dear Chairman, Dear colleagues, this could have been a great report because people are motivated by high energy prices to look for more energy-efficient solutions for their houses and buildings. If this report focused on this, it could also have achieved greenhouse gas reductions. But this report is confusing priorities. And it forces only the reduction of greenhouse gases, to the extent that it sees citizens not as partners, but as enemies who need to be forced to do something. For example, instead of motivating a young married couple who are building a new house, this report will focus all subsidies on renovation, for example on a grandmother who lives alone in the countryside, has a monthly income of 200 euros and is heated by wood because it has its own forest. E wants to get her to install a heat pump and solar panels. Is that real? Secondly, instead of encouraging any improvement, which always depends on citizens' capabilities, this report imposes only the highest standards, which are terribly expensive. The report aims to end incentives for gas boilers from next year and to completely phase out these boilers by 2040. It's like a gas boiler isn't much better than a coal stove. Basically, this report is unrealistic, expensive and inefficient. There is a lot of innovation in this sector. Give people knowledge and they themselves, better than you, will choose the solution that is in accordance with their needs and capabilities. Of course, if you want common sense and realistic solutions. And if you want ambitious green misses, then vote for an EPBD like this.

Madam President, dear colleagues, of course I condemn every violence against LGBT people and I hope that all of us condemn every kind of violence. Still, we have a discussion about LGBT people every month, and in the same time for a few times we had proposals to debate persecuted Christians. So hundreds of people were killed just because they were Christian, and you have always voted against these discussions. So I wonder, what do you think if every life has the same value, if there should be some balance in our discussions, or you think that when two homosexuals are attacked, it is more important than when hundreds of people are killed because they are Christians? So that is just my question.

Dear Chairman, Dear French liberals, do not blame the United States for the poor military state of European states because they have always called on you to increase the military budget, and your left-liberal governments have cut that budget. The representative of the socialists says that the European Union should be a moral beacon, and this Parliament very much accepts this role, and then we explain to everyone in the world what they should do. The question is with what authority. We're demographically decaying, we're economically backsliding, we're militarily getting weaker, and then we'd call on everyone else to be like us? You should admit that you have led the wrong social, economic and migrant policies. We need a strong Europe, a healthy family-based society, a healthy economy based on freedom, not on socialist equality called for by the President of the Socialists, which has never made progress in the economy, and we need cooperation with NATO, cooperation with countries with which we share the same culture and civilization.

Dear Chairman, dear colleagues, Croatian wine prošek, under this name, has existed since the sixteenth century. There was no single market at the time, nor was there a desire to benefit from the similarity of the name of another product. It does not exist today, because prošek, as a dark, sweet dessert wine, differs significantly from other products of similar names. I support this report because it brings a lot of improvements, and above all because it makes a provision according to which the decision on the protection of a product - and so it will be for prošek - will be made according to the procedure that was current when the procedure started. Therefore, Prošek should not be a victim of overly complex European regulations, nor of some kind of behind-the-scenes political games. I am glad that the European Union serves to protect indigenous and quality domestic products such as prošek and prosecco And I hope that Prošek will soon receive well-deserved protection.

Dear Chairman, Dear colleagues, how do we react when we hear the news that Muslims in Nigeria killed 160 people just because they are Christians, as it is now at Christmas? Are we going to say - ah, it's somewhere far away in some exotic state, we can't influence it? Or are we just gonna put ourselves up for a moment, try to put ourselves in the skin of these people who have been killed by children, parents, brothers, some alive burned in their homes? Today's ruling European politicians in their distance from Christianity do not want to stand firm in the defense of Christians, and many relativize these killings and say that climate change and the search for pastures are the cause of this mass slaughter of Christians in parts of Africa. Christians are by far the most persecuted religious community in the world, and therefore without hesitation we should place the protection of life and religious freedom as a key condition of our foreign policy relations with all countries of the world, not abortion and homosexual marriage.

Dear Chairman, Dear colleagues, Facebook, Google, Amazon and all other social platforms should have the same terms and conditions as all other media and should ensure the same rights to all users. Therefore, it should not happen that some users block or limit accounts because they oppose community rights without doing so to others who post similar content. So, this is what we should be dealing with in this debate today, but it seems that the desire for censorship prevails. God forbid you say something against the Green Deal or gender reassignment or the homosexual lobby. They would immediately declare it hate speech and disinformation, all in order to remove you from the public space. And who determines what is disinformation or hate speech? In Croatia, it is precisely those who have placed lies and intolerance towards others for hundreds of times. So, I appeal, do not fight against freedom of thought and speech, because freedom ultimately always wins.

Dear Chairman, Dear colleagues, we, from this part of the political spectrum, have been saying for years that your approach to agriculture is disastrous for both farmers and society as a whole. Now the water has come to the throat, and you do not want to admit that you have been wrong, that you have made the wrong decisions and do not want to change direction. Peasants are on the roads all over Europe. And what do they say? You have burdened them with too much regulation, you have imposed too many restrictions on them because of the so-called Green Deal. You have put them in an uncompetitive position with regard to cheap food from abroad. You do not allow them to use conventional artificial fertilizer and you would end their diesel subsidies so that they do not pollute. Have you even looked at how much money there is for an electric tractor? In Croatia, even the Faculty of Agriculture asks its employees to go to workshops in a lesbian association because without it they cannot get money from European projects... What is your goal? Are you announcing the end of agricultural production in Europe? Well, I hope that before that goal, the citizens will declare your end in the next European elections!

The president of Venezuela, Maduro, is a communist. It calls for equality and workers' rights, as well as for all communists. But workers from these countries flee to other countries where there is no equality of all workers, but on the contrary, there is freedom of the market, and communists do not like freedoms. President Maduro does not even allow his main rival, Mrs. Machado, to run. Communists don't like democracy. Because if we're all equal, what more parties do we need? There are people who say that communism and socialism are good ideas, but they were poorly implemented by chance, and they were poorly implemented in Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union, Nicaragua, Venezuela, and even North Korea. That is why today, when various equalitys and other socialist ideas are re-imposed, we must not tire of saying that communism and socialism are simply bad ideas.

Dear Chair, Dear colleagues, I support this report as it restores the focus on the much-needed balance between the three main pillars of the Common Fisheries Policy, namely the provision of food, the protection of fish stocks and the socio-economic needs of fishermen. Among other things, the report, according to the principle of subsidiarity, calls for greater respect for local authorities and in this context I proposed an amendment on the need to open the Mediterranean Regulation, which is outdated - it was adopted in 2006 and as such represents an obstacle, especially to small-scale coastal fishing, which accounts for 85% of the European Mediterranean fleet, and even more so in Croatia. This regulation places the same restrictions on small-scale coastal fishing as on industrial fisheries, and this is not good because there are marine organisms that can only be fished by small-scale coastal fishing, so now that this is not the case, when these organisms are not fished, small-scale fishermen switch to those species that are fished by industrial fishing, most of which are already overexploited. I invite you to support this amendment. We must not enslave ourselves to formalism, but we must show the courage to change documents that have not proved effective in practice.

Dear Chair, colleagues, today we are discussing the gender aspects of rising living costs and the energy crisis. So you've divided society into groups into men and women. And now what? Will you introduce one electricity price for men, another for women, or considering that you claim that there are multiple genders maybe a third for bisexuals and a fourth for transsexuals? Will you introduce special incentives only for women who decide to invest in solar panels together? In short, your divisions are meaningless. You divide society into genders, and society is already only in real life divided into groups called families. Yes, most Europeans live in families and share the cost of living there and it is not easy for them and we, instead of adapting our policies to these real groups that exist, so to families, we, in fact you, are pushing on the agenda a woke culture based on forcing the story of vulnerable groups, be they women, sexual minorities or migrants.

Dear Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, very rarely do we have such a good report on the agenda. Geothermal energy can significantly contribute to the heating and cooling of some areas, agriculture, aquaculture and, of course, the energy security of European countries. Cooperation within the European Union in the field of research, data exchange and technological development is also useful and welcome. Specifically, in Croatia, geothermal potential is one gigawatt, and from geothermal sources we could produce 600 thousand megawatt hours of electricity annually. While, on the one hand, the European Union is pushing wind farms that negatively affect our animal and plant life and violate our nature, on the other hand, geothermal energy does not have these negative effects. I know that this report will not get much space in the Croatian and European media, but I think it is important that we know that there are projects and plans that are very good for both Croatia and the European Union.

Dear Chairman, colleagues, there were obviously major irregularities in the elections in Serbia, from buying votes, subsequently inserting ballots into the ballot boxes and pressure on voters, to bringing voters by bus from other parts of Serbia to Belgrade, where local elections were held. Thus, in some houses in Belgrade, of about fifty square meters, more than thirty voters were registered who, of course, did not live there, but had to register in order to be able to vote there. Thus, Serbian political representatives bring Serbian voters to the elections in Croatia. While this time in the elections Croats were left without their representative in the Serbian Assembly, this will certainly not happen to Serbs in Croatia because they have guaranteed three seats in the Croatian Parliament, which for years, in order to make the paradox larger, directly decide on the parliamentary majority. Of course, the citizens of Serbia can freely choose who they want, but I don't see how Croatia could ever vote for Serbia to join the European Union.

Dear Chairman, Dear colleagues. First of all, it is completely illogical for associations to call the majority of their budgets full of governments NGOs. Secondly, we cannot call associations that have only a few members as representatives of citizens. Third, I would understand that we are giving another 10,000 to the association that has collected, say, 10,000 euros from membership fees and donations from citizens. However, I can't understand that we're giving them another 10 million. To put it short, the non-governmental sector in Europe today is a scam. It is in fact a parallel government that the citizens have not elected. This power often pushes precisely those agendas that are most repulsive to the people and that pressure politicians, who most often do not have their own attitude, to adopt them beyond the will of their voters. And you, dear voters, have absolutely no influence over these associations, except that governments finance them with your money and the only way to get out of this vicious circle is through elections. So don't vote for the left, or for the disguised left that calls itself the right center, because they all support this scathing system.

Dear Mr Geuking, you said now that this report has nothing to do with surrogacy and nothing to do with LGBT rights, and you support this report together with S&D, together with Renew, together with The Left, together with the Greens; they all spoke about LGBT rights and some of them, for example, the second speaker from the S&D, spoke and claimed that there was surrogacy in this report. Can you make agreement on what is written in this agreement when you support this report together?

The Honourable Chairman, Honourable colleagues, this report should in fact not be called the ‘European Certificate of Parenthood’, but the ‘Insidious and perfidious imposition of a system of inverted values on states whose peoples do not wish to do so’. You are using the European Union to impose same-sex parenting and surrogacy on states that do not want it, and you are doing so in a step-by-step system, first by moving a gay couple to a state whose laws state that marriage is only a union between a woman and a man, then by lawsuits for discrimination against that couple, then by such documents and so on. By using the European Union for your ideological wars, you are actually compromising the European Union. In addition, you are making the often seen and fatal mistake of declaring the wishes of some people their human rights and then declaring these individual rights more important than the rights of institutions such as marriage and the family on which our civilization was born. That is why I call on all citizens to save Europe in the next elections by voting against all those who supported this report.

Dear Chairman, experience has shown that it is much easier to establish partnership relations with the US and Western countries with which, in addition to economic interests, we share some fundamental values such as freedom and democracy. We need to develop relationships with others as well. But the situation in which the European Union develops relations with Russia, and then asks the US to defend it from the same Russia, clearly shows some miscalculation in the choice of strategic partners. That is why I welcome this report and I hope that these relations between the European Union and the United States will continue next year, when Donald Trump will certainly become President of the United States again, and I hope that there will be no mass hysteria in the European Parliament as it was in 2016 when Trump was elected, or in 2020 when the whole of Europe is politically mainstream, including the commoners, sided with Joe Biden. Thus, the official presidents of the European Union should by no means enter into the internal democratic decisions of Americans, but develop a lasting partnership.

Dear Chairman, a joke says that a man drove a car on the highway and heard news on the radio that a madman was driving in the wrong direction. His reaction was: ‘Not one, everyone's driving in the wrong direction!’ E, that's how European Union policy sometimes looks to me. We drive in the wrong direction, and we blame everyone else. The European Union has fully subordinated its economy to the Green Deal, which has seen a complete debacle now at the climate change conference in Dubai. The Commission assures us that we are world leaders, and it seems that we are leaders that no one is following, not even the US that clearly does not want to give up on fossil fuels. We need a realistic and effective approach to the economy and environmental policy, and you have declared people, livestock and everyone who produces CO2 to pollute the planet and make their lives miserable. So don't be like the driver from the beginning of my speeches. Think for a moment that you may be wrong, and in any case, the voters in the election will show you that you are wrong.

Dear Chairman, I think Spanish socialists should take care of what kind of image they create of Spain in front of other European nations. What we see is Prime Minister Sanchez, who has apparently spoken against the Amnesty Law for years, saying that the law is unconstitutional, and now he is implementing it. We have seen all the polls that have said that most socialist voters are against amnesty and for the whole of Spain, and the Prime Minister is now violating that too. So what we see is a man who is willing to do anything just to keep power in his hands. But I am even more concerned about the reaction of the European Commission. First a cordial congratulation on the conclusion of this coalition agreement by Ursula von der Leyen, then this speech by Mr. Reynolds, who obviously sticks to the one when you do not know what to say, then it is only important that you have a long speech. So that's unacceptable. All I have to say, the only democratic way out of this is for Prime Minister Sanchez to resign, call repeated elections, and for the European Commission to use the rule of law not only to attack Hungary and Poland, but to objectively assess all other states as well.

Dear Chairman, Dear colleagues, you say that Israel kills civilians and use this as an argument to condemn Israel. It is clear, therefore, that any news of a civilian being killed harms Israel and benefits Hamas. And from this it is clear why Hamas does not let civilians leave, but uses them as a living shield. You're looking for a truce. In this truce, of course, Hamas will not sit with its arms crossed, but will regroup and acquire additional weapons. Why don't you ask for the complete disarmament of Hamas? Why aren't you looking for fair elections in Gaza? So all of you who condemn Israel today are actually protecting Hamas and protecting radical Islamist terrorism and leading this terrorism into Europe through a completely unreasonable migration policy. I think it would be time to understand that Israel today, when it destroys Hamas, is actually doing a favor to all of us.

Dear Chairman, dear colleagues, Croatia barely left Yugoslavia, and the centralized federation in which the Serbs had all the power. And we paid with blood for that exit, we paid with blood for that freedom and that sovereignty. We entered the European Union because it is a community of equal and sovereign nation states. We want to work together, but we insist on this equality. We do not want to be a polygon for the interests of the great and powerful. Isn't it enough for you that 400,000 Croats went to work in these great and powerful member states? Now you would also like to manage those who have remained in Croatia. Efficient European centralised bodies, you say. So look at that oligarchy that is out of democratic control and their results. Internal border controls are being reintroduced, with people marching in Europe against democracy, Christianity and our way of life. Thus, Eurocentralists are leading the European Union to collapse and not only should they not be given... (The Chair took the floor for the speaker)

Dear Chairman, Dear colleagues, we have already talked about demographic problems in agriculture. In the European Union, one farmer under the age of 40 comes from three farmers over the age of 65. If we want to motivate young people to engage in agriculture, we need to create the conditions for them to live well from it. Unfortunately, according to studies by the European Commission itself as part of the Green Deal, agricultural production in the European Union will decrease by 20 percent by 2027, and the income of farmers, i.e. farmers, will decrease by 16 percent. But the good news is that we can remove the European Commission, and we cannot remove the human need for food and agriculture, so I am glad that this very good report deals with a very important topic of demography in agriculture and speaks about the need for transport connectivity of rural areas, the importance of good infrastructure and the availability of land. Farmers have always had on average more children than people in the city and I would even say that they live a more natural way of life and I believe that this naturalness of life and the need for food for agriculture will ultimately always overcome all ideological agendas.