Speeches

Dear Commissioner, I know this is difficult and I respect your every effort in this regard. However, I, unlike my colleagues on the left, do not see sustainability in the long term in the fact that the Commission will help these or those when food rises. So, only to allow the conditions to produce a sufficient amount of food in the European Union, not to be stricter towards our own, but towards those outside. So, my additional question: whether you prioritise domestic production above in... (the Chair interrupted the Member)

Dear Chairman, Honourable Commissioner, the market has its own clear principles of action that policy is difficult to stop. If we have a surplus of some product, its price drops. If we have a shortfall, its price rises. So the rise in food prices we are talking about now is certainly due to reduced food production, primarily in the European Union, because of high environmental standards, which are higher than anywhere in the world. In addition, in these 17 days, since, in the opinion of the President of the European Commission, we successfully introduced the euro, food prices in Croatia have increased further up to 20%, and according to studies presented to us in the Committee on Agriculture, food production in the European Union will continue to decrease, as will the income of farmers and it seems that we are moving towards importing more and more food of dubious quality from third countries. That's why I ask you: Will the Commission work to ensure that food imported from third countries is subject to the same environmental standards as food produced in the European Union?

So, dear colleague, would you defend the European Union from the member states? So the European Union is made up of member states, without member states there is no European Union. Your colleague also said in the introduction that the European Parliament is the only democratically elected body. So what about the Council? So there are representatives of legally elected, democratically elected national governments in elections in which twice as many people vote than in elections to the European Parliament. So they have twice as much democratic potential as this house. So you are not defending the European Union, but you are defending your positions and the policies you want to impose on the people who do not want these policies.

Honourable Chairman, Honourable Prime Minister. Croatia and Slovenia are neighboring and very friendly countries. I hope that the Slovenians will be cheering for Croatia tonight in the semi-finals of the World Cup. But I have a few questions. The first is related to a topic that you did not touch upon in your introductory presentation, which is the issue of security and the rule of law in the context of illegal migration. In these years, the European Union is at a turning point where there are those within the European Union who advocate a responsible approach, firm border guarding that also gives a message to migrants that they do not even try to cross that border illegally because they will not succeed, so migrants avoid such things and we have a lot less humanitarian disasters, and we have those who advocate a so-called soft approach in which they send a message to migrants: Just come, one way or another, you'll be able to cross that border. In fact, they not only send that message, but they say not only that it is possible to cross the border illegally, but we will help you with that. So now lately we have an indication, like the Ocean Viking ship in Italy, that there is an active collaboration between these NGOs and people smugglers. I'd like to know what your position is. Will you support Croatia in responsibly guarding the external borders of Schengen and what Slovenian contribution will be to guarding the common external border, especially in the context already mentioned – the recent resignation of your Interior Minister Tatjana Bobnar. Can we expect the effectiveness and stability of your government in this regard? The second question. You've talked a lot about energy and lack of energy. I think it is more or less clear that this shortfall already occurred before the Russian aggression against Ukraine. So, we have in the European Parliament an approach that is called green and that is called ambitious, although it is not, it is very often unrealistic, unreasonable and even counterproductive that goes exclusively for bans. They would ban coal, they would ban gas, they would ban nuclear (the word is indistinct), and then they would promote heat pumps, but they would ban fluorinated F-gases in the pumps and so on, yes. You have invested huge money, 500 million euros in the recapitalization of Holding in which it is not clear exactly what you will support. And I'd be interested in that. The Šoštanj Thermal Power Plant and the Krško Nuclear Power Plant are also in this holding and I am very interested in what will happen to Krško. Of course, there is joint ownership of Croatia and Slovenia. How do you see this transition? Of course we need the green transition, we just need to see how realistic it is, at what pace can it go and I am interested in how do you see Croatia's involvement in new projects in Krško?

Dear Chair, Honourable Ladies and Gentlemen, this report shows that the European Union can be very useful when dealing with concrete issues and cross-border cooperation, rather than imposing an ideology on all Member States. Unfortunately, we will now only talk about these useful topics for about twenty minutes, and then we will again lament for hours on topics that do not fall within the competence of the European Parliament. Let's go back to the subject. People like to travel and get to know other European countries and cultures, and in order to be able to travel unhindered by train from one end of the continent to another, international railway routes are needed. Not every country can define them on its own. Collaboration is necessary in such matters and can have strong geopolitical consequences. Namely, this railway network can also help Croatia's southeastern neighbours to connect with European countries in life and economic terms. That's why the reporter has my full support.

Dear Chairman, Honourable Ladies and Gentlemen, I support this report as it goes in the right direction. In fact, in the European Union, we have three over the age of sixty-five for one farmer under the age of 40. So the village is dying out. Between 2003 and 2016, the number of farms decreased by 32%. But when the village is well connected and infrastructurally equipped and when people can live well from agriculture or other work, then life in the village is very nice, and the living space is significantly cheaper, which is extremely important for families and demography. That is why we need to be more determined and effective in adopting policies that strengthen rural development and domestic agricultural production, rather than encouraging the import of poorer food of questionable origin and the filling of pockets of buyers and large corporations. Without a prosperous village, there is no successful city. No healthy, home-grown food, no successful country.

Dear Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen, have you tested yourself? Have you tried to see how many minutes you can take and listen to the speaker at an official meeting or even a private meeting without reaching for your smartphone to see something very important that has just arrived. So we're all losing our attention. We're all looking for an attraction. We've all become addicted in some way. And so, when we talk about digitization, especially the education of young people, we also need to think about human weaknesses so that technologies really are at the service of man. Also, we should know exactly how much this digitalisation will reduce the administration, how much our citizens and entrepreneurs will really pay less for the administration and how simpler, faster and easier these processes will be. Not to happen as in Croatia where we have had more digital transformations, but for most public services you are always looking for just one more paper.

Dear Chairman, Dear colleagues, I highly appreciate the efforts of my colleague Picula on this important issue and I certainly support the enlargement of the European Union. However, I do not agree with the proposed reform, which would allow decisions on enlargement to be made by qualified majority, not by consensus, because in this way some of the Croatian neighbours, such as Serbia, could enter the European Union without Croatia agreeing to this, and in this way many issues that Croatia has with its neighbours would remain open and that would burden Croatia, and thus the European Union, in the long run. The second thing, it is clear that as a representative of Croatia, that is, the country that last entered the Union, I believe that the enlargement of the European Union is a success for the European Union, but I do not think it is good to identify too much the success of the European Union with enlargement because if it is the most successful European policy, what will happen when the European Union expands to the end? When we reach the borders of Europe, then there will be a collapse. Therefore, I believe that the success of the European Union should be sought within the European Union itself, strengthening subsidiarity, true democracy, plurality and a realistic approach to politics.

Dear Chairman, Honourable Ladies and Gentlemen, if you are very good at your job and progress and a higher salary is received by another person who works worse than you, you will say it is not fair. However, some politicians in this Parliament want to impose on businessmen exactly such a dishonest behavior. Instead of the only criterion for promotion being the quality of employees, this directive arbitrarily imposes quotas on companies, reserved places for how many women should be, and then guess how many LGBTIQ people should be, how many people of different races should be so that the company is not declared racist and so on. Where is the end of your interference? I advocate that only women be on the board of directors if they are of the highest quality employees, but only if they are of the highest quality. So, just quality, nothing arbitrary. The idea that a politician, many of whom have not spent a single day in the real sector, knows better than businessmen what is good for business is quite crazy. So, let the economy develop freely.

Dear colleague, you said the ‘numbers are important’. So since you consider gender something as the same importance as sex, I suppose that you think that also certain numbers of LGBTQ people should be CEOs there. And also, since we don’t want to be racist, also certain numbers of different skin colours should be in these committees. So my question is: do you intend to implement quotas also and to impose quotas to firms concerning LGBTQ and races?

The Honourable Chairman, the Honourable Ladies and Gentlemen, for twelve years it is known that Qatar will host the football championship. For 12 years, you've known what the human rights situation is like. For 12 years, you were able to investigate whether there was any corruption in FIFA. For 12 years, you had the opportunity for your so much-loved cancellation culture and - nothing. And now there are those who are always against patriotism, always against national pride. They invite us not to watch games, they want to prevent millions of human hearts from attaching to their national symbols, and I tell you: I love Croatia, I love football, I love watching the Croatian national football team. You won't make us feel guilty. Croatia is a sports nation and our hearts are worse when our national team plays and that is why no one will prevent us from watching the matches of the Croatian national football team!

Dear Chairman, Honourable Ladies and Gentlemen, elections in Bosnia and Herzegovina were held fifteen days ago, and not all votes have yet been counted. It seems that some members of the polling boards voted instead of voters who did not go to the polls, and one even signed himself several times instead of the voters he voted for. In addition, Željko Komšić, who was elected Croatian representative, received less than one percent of the vote in Croat-dominated areas. I don't care how he speaks by nationality or his blood cells. He was chosen by the votes of the Bosniaks and therefore can represent only them. Bosniaks now have two representatives in the tripartite presidency, Serbs one, and Croats none. All this is to blame for the European institutions and the High Representative, who not only support but also encourage such attacks on democracy. We cannot expect democratic development if the elections are so undemocratic. Therefore, we need a change in the electoral law that will guarantee the legitimate representation of constituent peoples and an increase in technical means such as the introduction of a fingerprint because BiH has the right to a democratic and European perspective.

–Dear Commissioner, during the international recognition of the Republic of Croatia, Germany proved to be not only a partner but also a friendly country to Croatia. However, in the past ten years, the Republic of Croatia has donated 18 billion euros to Germany. Namely, Croatia spent so much on the education of young people who mostly went to Germany immediately after graduation and now contribute to the development of the German economy, not the Croatian economy. What instruments of cohesion policy can you compensate for this great cost of the Republic of Croatia so that freedom of movement within the European Union is not to the great benefit of only one country and to the great detriment of others?

–The Honourable Chair, Honourable Ladies and Gentlemen, when any group of people, including Roma people, receives significantly more social assistance from the budget than they pay into the budget with their work, then this situation causes the animosity of other citizens, so the discrimination does not decrease, but increases. Indeed, today in a shortage of labour, a person who can work and does not want to work should not receive social assistance. That is why I support every effort to better integrate Roma into the labour market. But, for example, Roma in Croatia who work, when they have a fourth or fifth child, are fired because it is no longer worthwhile for them to work. Thus, Member States often demotivate Roma to work and allow crime among Roma who otherwise do not allow when, for example, child allowances are spent by fathers and thus Roma children remain discriminated against. So if we want to benefit the Roma, then we need to be aware that as long as we think we are the ones who will increase the socio-economic status of the Roma, we will not be successful. We must enable and motivate Roma to increase their socio-economic status by themselves.

Dear President, when it comes to fish farming in ponds and farms in the sea, the European Union meets only 30 percent of its needs with its own production. I support this report as it is moving towards an increase in this production and I am glad that all my amendments have been accepted by the Committee. Some MPs also came to the committee, who did not know exactly whether the purpose of the pond was to feed cormorant birds or to create a large aquarium in which the fish would live as long and happier as possible and eventually die of old age. Fortunately, however, we have concluded that the purpose of the pond is to produce food for humans. European countries have so far become accustomed to getting cheap fish, i.e. buying fish from third countries, but this has also been the case with energy and we are now suffering because of this frivolity. That is why we need to think about self-sufficiency and strengthen domestic food production.

Dear Chairman, I would like to recall that everything started with a wonderful speech about equality, racial equality, gender equality, which was often pronounced by the President of Nicaragua Ortega. And we hear this speech often here in Parliament. This speech sounds very nice, and what the realization of this idea looks like, we see now in Nicaragua, where President Ortega arrested Bishop Alvarez because that bishop did not think the same as the president, he was not the same as the president. Equally, the promoters of this equality in this Parliament would not allow, say, prolife promoters to enter this Parliament, and would probably arrest us if they had this power, as has already happened recently in European history. The idea of equality is false. We are different and this is good in a plural society, but we need to have equal rights. That is why we stand for equal rights, not equality, because equality always leads to totalitarianism and aggression.

The European Union demonstrates its credibility in defending human rights and vis-à-vis third countries with which it has partner relations such as Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan launched a war on Nagorno-Karabakh in 2020, and after a hard-won peace these days, it is grossly violating that ceasefire. This time they attacked Armenia itself. Civilian infrastructure was also targeted, with 49 civilians and soldiers killed. And just as we have condemned Russia, despite the fact that many European countries are dependent on energy from Russia, we must also condemn Azerbaijan for this aggression and aggressive policy if we want to consistently represent human rights. So let's ask ourselves what we value more: human life or gas, whether that gas comes from Russia or Azerbaijan?

Dear Chairman, Dear colleagues, what do we have in this report, what specifically is Hungary to blame for? We have one judgment of the European Court of Justice in 2016 against Hungary, but at that time we have hundreds of judgments of that court that sided with citizens against other states. Why don't you accuse these other countries too? We also have the opinion of the Venice Commission, which is not binding, and Hungary has changed its judicial system in the meantime. And that's it. Haven't you been able to find anything else? Yes, Hungarians believe that national identity is very important, that religious identity is important, and you would like to turn us all into an amorphous mass without identity, without universal human values and, of course, without the Christian faith. Thus, it does not endanger Hungary's human rights, but this report undermines Hungary's right to its identity. And with each subsequent report like this, you just show that you are not ready for plurality and just lose the trust of the citizens of the European Union.

So, here in the vicinity is the European Court of Human Rights. You very much praise this report. We have heard a lot of demagogy, and of the concrete things that Hungary is guilty of, we have only heard from the Commissioner about two processes that are just going on against Hungary. So I don't see the European Court of Human Rights condemning Hungary that way so you would like to condemn it. So my question is: Do you consider yourself more competent than the European Court of Human Rights to interpret human rights?

Dear Chairman, Dear colleagues, at a time when our citizens are starting to get huge energy bills, when the European economy is suffering because of these high prices, when many European countries are still filling the Russian coffers by buying their gas or at least would like it, therefore, at this moment the reduction of greenhouse gases is not and should not be the first goal, but the safe supply of energy to Europe. These two objectives coincide somewhat, but are also very different. We really can't put the 30-year environmental goals at the forefront, while citizens and business owners try to survive the 30-day period and pay monthly bills. Electricity doesn't have to be so expensive. The price of electricity must no longer be tied to the price of gas because many who produce electricity from other sources are now making huge profits. Today we need a realistic approach to energy, so forget, at least briefly, your green PR and listen to the citizens and their needs!

Dear Chairman, Dear colleagues, I would like to know if you are aware of what you are doing. Are you aware that you are trying to extinguish the fire with gasoline? You want to solve the problem of Serbian nationalism and Russian influence by imposing the so-called civic, and in fact Bosniak unitarism, in which Serbs feel threatened and because of which they strengthen their separatism. So you're amplifying the problem instead of solving it. This report is going in the wrong direction. So did the civil approach stop the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina? It is not the Dayton Agreement, which implies the constituency of all three peoples. Same as in Belgium where most of you work. Can you imagine, for example, that the Walloons elect the political representatives of the Flemish people as the Bosniaks elect the political representatives of the Croats? And you praise High Representative Schmidt, who is the main culprit for the collapse of the Neum negotiations on the new electoral law. So remember, the only thing that can bring lasting peace for Bosnia and Herzegovina is a just relationship between peoples!

Dear Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen, it is obvious that Croatia will adopt the euro. However, the introduction of the euro did not bring much good to Portugal, Greece or Italy. In Croatia, we could delay this introduction as did Poland, Sweden or Hungary, countries that are developing very well with their currencies. So smart countries work together with other European countries, but they themselves determine when and how closely they will integrate. Unfortunately, the rulers in Croatia never wanted to discuss this, nor have we ever used the advantage of own currency because for federalists of all colors, the only political goal is the greater integration of Croatia into a European super-state, no matter what part of that integration is really good for us. The Croatian government did not want to hold a referendum on when the euro should be introduced, but I hope that we will fight for the future economic interests of the Croatian people to be the first and main criterion of all economic decisions.

Dear Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen, Idi Amin, a dictator from Uganda, once said: ‘I guarantee freedom of speech, but I do not guarantee freedom after speech’. In other words, that dictator told his citizens that they could say what they thought, but that if he didn't like it, then he would put them in jail. So some of our colleagues who call themselves liberals and in principle advocate freedom of speech, today while the facts, scientific facts are clear, while it is known that life, that the heart of a child starts beating in the twentieth day of pregnancy, that it is not about a woman's body, but about another organism with another genetic structure, that the right to abortion is not a fundamental human right, is nowhere written down, today, while all this is known, then our colleagues would take away from us all the freedom of speech, the freedom to say what we think. Yes, it's an emotional decision. As soon as it is an unprotected child, as soon as it is a woman, a pregnant woman who has economic problems and whom we can help, of course it is about emotions. But it is still a reasonable decision that we can and must all make together in freedom.

Dear Chairman, Dear colleagues, I do not share much with German Prime Minister Scholz, but I fully support the two messages he delivered to Serbian Prime Minister Vučić ten days ago. He told him that if Serbia wants to join the European Union, it must recognise Kosovo and move away from Russia. So, Serbia can no longer sit on two chairs. Serbia must move away from Russia's aggressor policy and must also condemn its aggressor policy that it implemented 30 years ago. But it won't be enough for Serbia to do it with words alone. He'll have to show it through his actions. Thus, Serbia must return the stolen cultural treasures to Croatia. He has to give us information about 1,800 missing, probably killed Croats. It must show openness to resolve the border issue on the Danube and, above all, it must pay Croatia war reparations for everything it destroyed in Croatia during the aggression. It is only when Serbia reaches that level of civilization that it can continue its path towards the European Union at that level.

You mentioned democracy, which comes from two words: demos and baptism. So the people rule. You really think the European people have to decide the Americans. How do you interpret the word democracy? Do you think that, say, Australians should make laws in Europe, or do you think it is the European peoples who should democratically make laws in Europe, American in America, and Australian in Australia?