| Rank | Name | Country | Group | Speeches | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
|
Lukas Sieper | Germany DEU | Non-attached Members (NI) | 390 |
| 2 |
|
Juan Fernando López Aguilar | Spain ESP | Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (S&D) | 354 |
| 3 |
|
Sebastian Tynkkynen | Finland FIN | European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) | 331 |
| 4 |
|
João Oliveira | Portugal PRT | The Left in the European Parliament (GUE/NGL) | 232 |
| 5 |
|
Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis | Lithuania LTU | Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (S&D) | 227 |
All Contributions (2)
Geographical Indications for wine, spirit drinks and agricultural products (debate)
Mr President, thank you very much. Commissioner, I'm sorry. One very important message that should resonate with today's debate is that European food is food of the highest quality, that it is produced in a food safety system that is unattainable for other continents, and that geographically labelled products are first and foremost a guaranteed traditional speciality. Therefore, even our producers, Polish producers, often local, operating within the framework of modest family agribusiness, deserve better legal protection of their unique products, and at the same time to make the regulations regarding the registration of new products more friendly for them. It is therefore very important that the new rules are actively applied in the European Union's free trade agreements with third countries. I demand that the condition of recognition and effective protection of all geographical indications of the European Union with third countries be given priority when concluding such agreements. We cannot open our markets without guaranteeing that our unique cultural and gastronomic heritage is fully respected and protected. And another thing: the Regulation should now be complemented by a comprehensive strategy for the promotion of these special products on the common market and on external markets. Consumer awareness is growing in our societies and this is essential.
Environmental consequences of the Russian aggression against Ukraine and the need for accountability (debate)
Dear Mr President, Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. The Russian aggression against Ukraine is proof that the European Union lived under the illusions of a safe world. We were dealing with ideology, and there was not enough time to prepare for a war that will also reach us. Armed conflicts have their effects on the environment, but is it really the worst in them? I saw with my own eyes how the Russians were devastating Ukraine in order to make living conditions unbearable and the costs of reconstruction prevented the rapid integration of Kiev with the West. The worst thing we can do is, by restoring our defensive capabilities against the inevitable conflict, continue to live in a world of illusions of peacetime and look at everything through the prism of climate policy. Oh, that's right. Military equipment, tanks, aircraft or artillery are to be reliable and effective on the battlefield, not low-emission. If we don't start thinking in those terms, we've lost this war before it even started.