Speeches

At the beginning of the year, the European Commission informed us that we will need to eat less meat and more insects because less harmful gases are emitted when producing insects. So we would probably compensate for the lack of meat food after livestock farming has been reduced throughout the European Union, and in Croatia not to speak. There, this decline in livestock farming is even smaller, with a peak of three months, two months, in which 27,000 pigs were killed as part of the fight against swine fever. However, this report has positive parts, because in addition to placing a great emphasis on plant-based and alternative proteins, it also emphasizes the benefits of animal-based proteins. And finally, as early as next year, European citizens will be able to decide whether they want to be test rabbits of the globalist agenda and allow them to be fed with insects, or whether they will decide to be free people who will be fed the way they want.

Dear Chairman, Dear colleagues, are we realistic in assessing our geopolitical significance? Ursula von der Leyen believes that the European Union is a beacon and a world leader, and this parliament, as a moral officer of the world, adopts a bunch of resolutions in which we condemn and evaluate all the countries of the world. Do you know another parliament in the world that so much salts the mind of others? Do we really have the power to do that? Our trade relations with third countries burden European bureaucrats with their ideology, abortion, homosexual marriage, and those states that do not want to accept this ideology turn to China, Russia, India. We're getting weaker and that's reality. We are a beacon that fewer and fewer people are watching and although Europe is the cradle of today's world civilization, it seems that we are both demographically and economically weaker and the only way to return is to return to Christian values that guarantee freedom and prosperity and life and a better geopolitical position.

So I know that there are people who would even say I hate homosexuals and who even commit violence, which I find horrible. However, can you accept the fact that there are us who respect each person and their dignity, but are critical of this behavior? And don't put us in the same basket that we want to persecute, ban, beat and don't know what. So, there are normal people who appreciate the dignity of each person, but are critical of this behavior. Can you accept that?

That's not my interpretation. You have personally requested this debate in plenary. So that's not my interpretation. And you should agree between yourselves whether you want this propaganda or not because a gentleman from the Socialist, the vice-president of parliament said: ‘There is no homosexual propaganda’. Ms. Kim van Sparrentak said she should be promoted more. You also said you should promote more. So you don't know for yourself whether there's propaganda or not. I think there is propaganda. So, as far as it's concerned, and as far as... (The Chair interrupted the speaker)

So, I think, while we're at it, even though it's on national legislation, that the key thing is intention and desire and biological predisposition, it means that someone has a child. So this is a key parameter and in any case I would help these people to have a child, when we talk about heterosexual couples who cannot have a child. But that can't be the measure of everything else. But I would not go further in this debate, because it is really not for the European Parliament to discuss it, but for the national parliaments.

I'll answer in Croatian. So, as I said, not only do I have no fears. I don't know why you have to force us to be afraid of something. So, not only do I not have any fears, but I normally communicate with people who are homosexual and with that I have no problem, just as I communicate and accept every person as they are, but that does not mean that I have to have a positive opinion of what these people are doing. You need to understand that there is a difference between accepting a person and taking a critical look at the behavior of a particular person.

Dear Chairman, Honourable Ladies and Gentlemen, first of all to present the facts - this discussion was not initiated by us, but by LGBT promoters. We haven't had this topic in three months, so now we definitely need to discuss this key topic on which the overall development of Europe depends. In the last discussion, I put forward the notorious fact that a homosexual couple cannot have their biological child, so the Renewa lady attacked me sharply and asked for some sanctions against me with the chairman, who gave her the word outside the rules, and, of course, did not give me the word and the opportunity to answer. But to repeat - I stand firmly in the position that every person has the right and freedom to choose his worldview and his lifestyle. But this fact that there is freedom of choice does not mean that every choice is equally worthwhile. So we have a right to think badly about your behavior. And even more so, we have the right to protect our children from your propaganda that you spread through the media, associations, politicians, etc. And just to say in the end - with this boring, that every now and then we need to discuss you, you're not going to change our minds. (The speaker agreed to answer the three questions raised by raising the blue card.)

Dear Chairman, dear colleagues, I certainly support any effort that wants to help people create a warm and cozy family home. But what I hear doesn't seem to be going in the right direction. In fact, I lived in Yugoslavia before 1990, and there the communists really had the same narrative as you do today. Thus, in their desire for dignified housing, they took more power for themselves because they will share it most fairly. Of course, they did not share these flats fairly, but shared them with party members, so they destroyed practically the real estate market. They built huge, ugly and practically inhumane huge buildings with small apartments. People have lived a lot worse than they do today. That's what I hear from you today. You would make great European funds. You would take people's money because, of course, it's all someone has to pay, so you'll share that money fairly to ensure decent housing. We don't trust you. So, you have shown that you are ready to burn billions of euros for the unrealistic goals of the green transition, 20 000 euros for every migrant, so, I guess you would solve his housing first, etc. So, there are good measures, but they are not going in this direction that you want to go.

Two weeks ago, on the border between Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia, there was a shooting by migrants and people smuggling towards the Croatian police. The so-called humanitarian organizations did not say a word, and if it had been the other way around, if the Croatian police had been shooting at migrants, these associations would have been attacking the Croatian police here for several months. So, the police who do their job legally are not allowed to use weapons, and those who do their job illegally, they are allowed! We can really ask the question: Who's crazy here? All of you who encourage illegal and uncontrolled migration, take them home. Do not force us to accept them or to give 20,000 euros to every migrant. You know, a person in Croatia who has worked for 40 years and paid taxes has an average pension of less than 500 euros, which means about five thousand euros a year. And now you want us to give every migrant four times as much, 20,000 euros?! So let's get serious! We need a complete change in this policy.

Dear Chairman, colleagues, dramatic events have confirmed what I said here in May. Serbia is the main cause of instability in Kosovo. The attack of Serb militants on the Kosovo police is a classic terrorist act and Mr. Borrell made a big mistake not to make it clear. In the same way, 30 years ago, the attack of Serbian militants on the Croatian police started the Serbian aggression on Croatia, and therefore we should by no means denigrate these events in Kosovo. The community of Serb municipalities and the Serbian newspaper are obviously on the remote control of Vučić and he uses every Serbian autonomy to bring instability. That is why no Serbian political autonomy is now possible. Vucic does not care about good relations between the Albanian and Serbian peoples in Kosovo. He only wants to keep Kosovo weak and unstable and thus maintain the hope that one day it will be returned militarily to the Serbs. Unfortunately, he is also helped by the Serbian Orthodox Church, which allows weapons to be stored in its sacral buildings. That is why the European Union needs to say clearly and firmly not to such a Serbian policy.

Dear Chairman, colleagues, we have this big regulation of classical media and we have about this small regulation of big tech companies like Apple, Google, Facebook or Amazon. The influence of these classical media is about this small, and the influence of big tech The company is huge. And it is these companies that are the main promoters of the culture of cancellation and woke ideology. They are presented as an attractive public space available for everyone, and in history we have not seen greater censorship and manipulation than the one that these companies are doing. So all these attempts at this kind of report just don't make sense until we establish a level playing field. Thus, this report is a missed opportunity to ensure the freedom of the media to present truthful information. The key question is: Was this opportunity missed accidentally or intentionally?

Dear Chairman, Dear colleagues, the average turnout in the European elections is twice as low as the turnout in the national elections. Thus, citizens believe twice as little in democracy at European level, i.e. European authorities have twice as little democratic legitimacy. And now you call the national representatives in the Council problematic and you want to deprive them of one significant influence they have, and therefore these representatives have greater democratic legitimacy, and give this influence to the European bodies that have less democratic legitimacy, and you still call it democratic progress. So who's crazy here? This report is actually a blow to democracy. And you are referring to the Conference on the Future of Europe. Well it is a completely manipulated process and above all on a completely unrepresentative sample. And now you impose it on national representatives who have, I repeat, twice as much democratic legitimacy. So one word is just for this report, and that's a shame.

Dear Chairman, dear colleagues, dear Mrs. von der Leyen, I now see what it means to live in the Brussels bubble. From there comes your speech, and on the other hand we have reality, we have concrete figures that show that the European economy is in a very bad situation, that energy prices are higher than ever, that many parts of Europe are cracking at the seams of uncontrolled migration, that we are demographically dying out, which will not only have consequences for the economy, but simply that the future for our European peoples is disappearing, and above all that the situation regarding democracy that you invoke and trust is not as you speak. In fact, we have twice as little turnout in the European elections than in the national elections, which shows that people do not trust you, do not trust this democracy of yours, but you do not care about small people, but only about the ideologies that you impose, therefore, from counter-effective green ideology to different social concepts. And that is the state of the nation, and that state can only be changed by new people, not by you.

–Dear Chair, European Union countries do not have sufficient production of military equipment, especially ammunition, which we have seen now during Russia’s aggression against Ukraine and this is not good. In the Homeland War, Croatia clearly saw that diplomatic efforts alone were not enough and that we must be ready and militarily defend our borders, our freedom, our people and our culture. That is why I support this proposal for a Joint Procurement Act because it will reduce the costs of procurement of military equipment, but we need to increase our own production and that is why I think that this planned budget is still too small. In doing so, we should not forget smaller countries such as Croatia, which has long defended the Western Christian world, and today defends the external borders of the European Union and Schengen, in a very dynamic part of the world. In all this, NATO will certainly be the mainstay of European security, but we need to strengthen cooperation and partnership with both South Korea and Israel, which are world leaders in the military industry. So we don't want to intensify global conflicts, but we need to be ready to defend ourselves militarily.

The Honourable Chairman, although the dramatic violence in India in Manipur began due to land ownership, it seems that it quickly became religiously conditioned violence. More than 250 churches, cemeteries and parish houses were attacked. India is an important partner for the European Union, but if we, as a community of Christian tradition, respect other faiths and identities, we must ask our partners to do the same. I propose an urgent visit by the Special European Envoy for Religious Freedom to India, and the way the Indian government will accept this proposal will show whether the authorities there are so far only powerless or consciously supporting the persecution of religious minorities by radical groups. Our message must be clear. We will not turn our heads away from violence and we will not turn our backs on persecuted Christians.

Madam President, dear colleagues, this report is not controversial, and I believe it will be supported by a vast majority of the Members. However, I am addressing you because this report is a good indicator of the extremely bad and belittling attitude of the Commission towards Parliament, and this concerns all of us, no matter which group we belong to. Today we are transposing decisions which were made by the Commission on the GFCM five years ago and have in the meantime entered into force. This is quite senseless. In addition to being slow, the Commission often misuses the right to sign international agreements with third countries, so if the Commission does not like Parliament’s point of view, then the Commission goes to some international organisation, like the GFCM, and makes the decision there – the same decisions which didn’t go through in this Parliament. Then, five or six years later, the Commission comes to Parliament so that we transpose these decisions into European legislation – the same decisions which we rejected five or six years ago. This is really a threat to the basic principles of EU, which should bring decisions within a trilogue. Therefore, I invite you to consider this topic in your groups and to contribute together to the strengthening of democracy and the trust of our voters in the European institutions. We, as their directly elected representatives, must not let the Commission, which is not directly elected by voters, to push us aside so rudely.

Dear Chairman, colleagues, Bosnia and Herzegovina deserves a European perspective. But this perspective implies not only the absorption of European funds, which this report welcomes, but also an analysis of where these funds are spent because it seems that there is no small amount of these funds drowning in general corruption in BiH. Drugo, izvješće pozdravlja unapređenje izbornog procesa, a taj je proces bio izrazito loš i kompromitiran jer nije došlo do prijeko potrebnih izmjena, i političkih i tehničkih tog izbornog zakona. And thirdly, it is good that the report condemns Serbian separatism, but the equally great reason for instability is the Great Bosniak Unitarism, which denies the other two peoples the right to national identity and their own vision of the state and seeks to put them and declare them minorities with a lower level of rights. Thus, separatism feeds unitarism and vice versa. This is why the message from the European Union must be clear. BiH is a tri-national state and all constituent peoples in it must have equal rights.

Dear Chair, colleagues, the debate on COVID has deeply divided society. But only irresponsible opportunistic politicians will ignore this important topic. We need to do a serious analysis because this topic has changed the fundamentals of society. We need to know why people were emotionally forced to vaccinate on the grounds that this protects others when no research has been done to show whether vaccination reduces the transmission of the virus. Why were you lying to the whole community? Who will objectively analyse the measures considering also mortality from other post-COVID diseases? Whose responsibility is it to procure a huge number of unused vaccines? What about Ursula von der Leyen's conflict of interest? Why can't we see the contracts with Pfizer? This report does not provide answers to any of these key questions and only shows that the European institutions continue to think of manipulating citizens.

Until 35 years ago, the economies of Eastern European countries were burdened by communists and socialists who carried their vision of social justice through the economy - and these economies collapsed, and it seems that the European mainstream is taking this path today. The speech on the economy in this parliament comes down mainly to how to get companies to green production and have enough women and LGBT people on boards. So, we made the economy dependent on subsidies, on European projects, in short - on politicians. You think that investors want to come to such conditions and changing conditions because, for example, 10 years ago the EU promoted gas as the most environmentally friendly fuel, today it would practically ban it. Therefore, a necessary prerequisite for more investment is a freer market – i.e. less regulation and legal stability. And be sure to stop all rumors about the new European tax.

Dear Chairman, dear colleagues, today we have food of every kind, but it is very expensive, and it is expensive because we have the highest environmental standards in the world. However, we are not looking for the same standards for food we import from third countries, so many of our citizens ultimately eat this cheap and unhealthy food from third countries because they simply cannot afford domestic, which is expensive, and by the way this unfair competition threatens European agricultural production. And another important thing. Farmers have always been a hard nut for politicians. For example, in the former Yugoslavia, peasants posed a threat to the communists because they were independent. They could easily produce food for themselves and their families. But today farmers are dependent on incentives, and thus on politicians and their unrealistic ideologies, such as today's green religion. So if we want food security, we need to reduce the influence of politicians, help farmers to be commercially profitable and make a realistic framework for organic production.

Dear Chairman, Honourable Ladies and Gentlemen, the root cause of this horrible violence against women is that many men in women look only at the body and ignore feelings, attitudes and other aspects of personality. And instead of the whole society implementing programs that promote the integrity of the human person, the integrity of the woman, the dignity of the woman, many of you who support the project Me too in fact, they prevent these good programs, and they promote strange social concepts such as gender ideology, which precisely threaten this integrity of the woman because they separate the body from other aspects of the personality. In this way, you are, in fact, increasing the possibility of violence against women and this is shown by the poor results of the Istanbul Convention. Therefore, the condemnation of this terrible violence against women is common to us, but we have different ways of combating this violence. Your way obviously doesn't bring results. Re-examine him.

Dear Chairman, Dear colleagues, I absolutely condemn the actions of those who, when creating a new product, give it a name that is similar to some quality or established other product, in order to benefit from the similarity of these names. However, the question of the similarity of a name must not be the only criterion. For example, as we have heard, Prošek is produced in Croatia, in Italy prosecco. Are we going to look only at the similarity of the name or are we going to consider other facts as well? First, the production of prosecco was first mentioned as early as 1556. Obviously, this is not a new product. Secondly, prošek is, as we have heard, a sweet dessert wine, darker in color, while prosecco Champagne. There are two completely different products. And thirdly, prošek is produced exclusively locally and in extremely small quantities of 20 hectolitres per year, and such micro-production can in no way endanger prosecco. So, this proposal is not well balanced, it could go to the detriment of small states and that is why I invite you to vote against Amendment 272.

Dear Chair, a number of colleagues want to clearly prevent Hungary from taking over the Presidency of the European Union in July next year, in line with its own order, while at the same time swearing a fundamental principle of the European Union of unity in diversity. This raises a key question: How many differences are you willing to tolerate? Does this suggestion by you that Hungary has crossed the limit of your tolerance, that you would like to stop cooperating with Hungary or maybe even throw it out of the European Union? Maybe Poland and who else? Remember the founding fathers of the European Union. They were able to overcome much greater differences, to overcome the then still very fresh wounds of war, World War II, killing, snatching territory, many crimes. They went beyond all this to achieve cooperation and peace. And you are not even up to the knees of the founding fathers of the European Union who, by the way, were Christians, practical believers, you are endangering the European Union. Therefore, we must overcome this narrow-mindedness and strive for peace and cooperation.

Dear Chair, colleagues, the Common Fisheries Policy implies a balance between three main objectives: economic interest, which includes the supply of quality food to consumers, the social position of fishermen and environmental protection. This action plan does not respect this balance but focuses exclusively on environmental protection. The announcement of the abolition of bottom fishing and the expansion of protected areas, even where this does not yield results, worries fishermen and coastal communities living from fishing, whose interests we in this House must care about. We were chosen by people, not fish. This action plan has no legal weight, but it is clear that the Commission will use its power to impose it on Member States. In addition, the problem is that fishers were not involved in the drafting of this action plan, and they are constantly being introduced with some new measures, the effectiveness of which is not checked later by anyone. In addition to fishermen, the Commission is also increasingly bypassing the European Parliament. Last month, the President of the European Parliament, Roberta Metsola, sent a letter to the President of the Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, on my initiative and with the support of a large majority of the groups in the Committee on Fisheries, calling on the Commission not to go beyond Parliament in taking decisions on fisheries. In fact, on several concrete examples, we have shown that when the Commission did not like the Parliament’s opinion, it took decisions through regional organisations, and the Parliament reduced itself to transposing these decisions into European law with a five-year delay. This means that we who are directly elected by citizens cannot influence measures that significantly affect their lives and this is absolutely unacceptable. The Commission should respect the fishing sector more, involve Parliament in decision-making in a timely manner, and in circumstances where the Union imports 70% of the total consumption of seafood from third countries, the economic aspect should be considered at least as important as environmental protection.

Dear Chairman, colleagues, despite losing the war, Serbia would still want Kosovo territory and would still want to minimize the rights of Albanians. Instead of encouraging peaceful coexistence in the north of Kosovo, Serbia consciously encourages intolerance, division and instability. Kosovo as an independent state is in a difficult position and deserves our support. Unfortunately, for some MPs, the ideological agenda is more important, so they tell Kosovo if you want to join the European Union, legalize same-sex marriage and implement the Istanbul Convention. The biggest absurdity is when Kosovo is asked to do so, let's say, by the Spanish socialists who form a Spanish government that does not want to recognise Kosovo. And the question is how can you make such demands before the Kosovo government that you feel has no legitimacy at all. In the case of Kosovo, the European Union needs to show greater credibility and stop subjugating Serbia. Kosovo should be recognized by all members, and the European institutions should stop interfering in issues beyond their powers