Speeches

Mr President, I'm a lawyer and I enjoy reading laws. I read this Chinese one. Did you read it? I don't think so. In China, minority languages are protected by constitution. This law cannot and doesn't change it. It stipulates a learning of minority languages and their use in public alongside in Mandarin and promotes ethnic regional autonomy. The new law does promote that every Chinese can speak Mandarin – a common national language. But this is a quite normal thing which many states do. After these decades in China, most Tibetans don't even speak Mandarin. The vast majority of Mongolians use Mongolian every day. Now compare with, say, France. We sit in Alsace, in Strasbourg. Three generations ago, 70 % of people around Strasbourg spoke Alsatian. Now, 120. How is it possible? The French constitution excludes minority languages from any official role. Some Corsican or Breton? No, because French did everything to kill these languages. So if you are concerned about regional languages, leave China alone and start right here in Strasbourg, France.

Madam President, honourable colleague Niinistö, you are the Chair of the Delegation to the EU-Russia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee. For the United States, Witkoff communicates with Russia; Trump communicates with Russia; Indians, Turks, Gulf states, Israelis, Pakistanis communicate with Russia. But you chose not to communicate with Russia. No one asks you to agree with them, but the point of your job is to keep diplomatic contact. What is the point of you being the Chair of the delegation to Russia if you decline to speak with the Russian Parliament or Government? Do you sincerely believe your approach serves the best interests of European citizens?

Mr President, there is no European money. It is only money that the Union takes from Member States, consumers and businesses. The Union was heavily indebted through the Next Generation EU fund by an accounting trick contrary to the principle of balanced economy. He'll be paying it back when most of us are dead. The budget has swelled and will continue to grow. To cover this, the European Union wants to introduce its own taxes on emission allowances, on carbon duties, on citizens to impose a tobacco tax, on companies a corporate tax. We'll pay from e-waste, we'll pay from plastic. The European Union should be an international organisation that helps its members thrive. Instead, it turns into a super-state that charges its own taxes and harms prosperity through rampant regulation, outwardly incapable of diplomacy. In a crisis, we need the exact opposite. To make the Union leaner, to cancel emission allowances, to stop worrying about energy, the automotive industry, farmers and citizens with regulations, and thus to save on officials. The budget should be half-budgeted, focusing exclusively on internal market governance and economic diplomacy. I do not read this in the proposal, so I will oppose it in the interests of the citizens.

Madam President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, the idea Global Gateway is correct and I can say that I get positive feedback from representatives of countries across continents. Three things thwart his contribution. First, the countries of the Global South have nasty memories of the colonial era and still have a negative perception if Europe tries to master them. If we invest money in partnerships with them, but then insult them with stupid resolutions, they choose other partners and our investments go to waste. Secondly, if we are towed by neoconservatives from the United States of America, who no longer arouse admiration in the world, but fear and hatred, they will not even talk to us in the rest of the world. And thirdly, we no longer have the capacity to be a strategic rival to the Chinese, who have three times more, more money, and more efficient imports and exports. If we build it for third countries – either China or us – they will choose China. We don't have to be rivals. If projects Global Gateway we will connect with Belt and Road Initiative projects, we will get more for our industry, for our prosperity and for our citizens.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there is no way we should approve a trade agreement with the United States. We give the tariffs 0%, they give the tariffs 15%. It's not a deal, it's a surrender. Let's not put our thumbs up on vassal von der Leyen's promise to buy $750 billion worth of overpriced gas and $600 billion worth of weapons from Trump. Not by mistake. We are in a situation where Trump is going after Greenland, threatening Spain. We should now take sanctions against the US, not enter into a trade agreement. After all, it is Trump's illegal war against Iran that has deprived us of Gulf gas. And it was the Americans who, under Biden and Trump, went after the Germans for Nord Stream, which then exploded. Whoever believes that these are coincidences and not a targeted attack on European competitiveness, I will gladly sell Karlštejn. Last year, the Chinese showed Trump on rare earths how to negotiate. And we have better partners in the world than 340 million over-indebted Americans. Let's show Trump strength, and then we'll get better conditions. Believe it.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is indeed time to change European energy regulation. The reason is a change of circumstances. The United States' aggression with Israel and Iran's counter-actions have shut down supplies from the Persian Gulf, maybe for a time, maybe forever. We have cut off Russian gas and oil from sanctions. U.S. supplies are expensive, our ally spares us nothing. Green energy will not save us. The elimination method leaves energy from the nucleus and energy from coal. The construction of nuclear power plants and small modular reactors is slow, and delayed states are even shutting down nuclear power plants. Let's change it. We don't have to import coal, we mine coal. No one can blackmail us through coal. Therefore, let us move away from emission allowances and hasty decarbonisation to keep coal-fired energy at least until the crisis is over. Ladies and gentlemen, I grew up in North Bohemia. No one has to tell me about environmental damage, but coal power is much cleaner today than it used to be. It is a matter of national and European interest.

Mr President, dear colleagues, in connection with the budget, I would like to remind you that we sit in Strasbourg despite having a completely adequate building in Brussels. Each month, our travelling circus moves to and from Strasbourg, spending three nights in expensive hotels and bringing along also thousands of poor staffers, destroying their family lives. The European Parliament has repeatedly voted with an overwhelming majority on having a single seat. The fact that we are still moving to and fro irrefutably proves our pathetic irrelevance. How can we discuss wars and values when we cannot even decide on our own seat? They say the Strasbourg building is a European symbol. Yes – it is a symbol of EU's mismanagement and disrespect of taxpayers' money. Please, colleagues, can we change it?

Madam President, the field of pharmaceuticals in the EU single market does not work. The pharma business has split it into 27 national markets where dominant players apply differential pricing. The Commission gave up the struggle for a single market in pharma, fought at the European Court of Justice for more than a quarter of a century. No one really enforces the EU Transparency Directive on pricing, despite it existing for decades. Cross‑border trade with pharmaceuticals is suppressed and partly moved into grey zone, where it generates Byzantine corruption. The list prices of drugs in cheaper countries intentionally wildly differ from the real market prices to discourage parallel trade to expensive countries. So, a single market in pharma does not work with the result of high prices and unequal access for citizens. By inaction, we enrich American shareholders to the detriment of European taxpayers. Commissioner Séjourné, you already have tools to remedy that. Please use them.

Mr President, Commissioner Kallas, unfortunately your foreign policy has failed spectacularly. You are right to say that you stand behind Denmark, but what can you offer it besides talking? You don't have any cards. We destroyed our own energy. We have made Europe dependent on American gas. When the Germans shot Nord Stream, you didn't even murmur. China is not a partner, but a strategic rival. You're being disdainful of the BRICS countries. You interfere in the elections of foreign countries, you support coups, you applaud the atrocities from Syria to Venezuela. You have closed your eyes tightly to the genocide in Gaza, and the Global South sees it. What does that mean? Now, if NATO turns out to be dead and Trump comes for Greenland, he'll take it and the world will just say: "Well done, now it's your turn." That's why I'm asking with a classic: ‘Quousque tandem abutere, Kallas, patientia nostra?“You have led Europe into isolation, leave now and leave diplomacy to someone competent.

Mr President, on Monday, the Council imposed sanctions on Jacques Baud, a former Swiss colonel, for his opinion on the Russian war. I'm not here to defend Mr Baud or his opinions, but the fundamentals of criminal law. Mr Baud was punished by an asset freeze and travel ban. Contrary to Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights, he was punished without committing any crime. Contrary to Article 6, there was no presumption of innocence nor hearing; no right to an attorney and no impartial court. Do you want to live in a country where citizens are punished for speech in absentia by a bunch of bureaucrats? Did somebody abolish the Convention and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and we didn't notice? Who we are going to punish next? Professor Mearsheimer, Jeff Sachs, any critic of Kallas and von der Leyen? Donald Trump and JD Vance say the EU is no longer a democracy. Looking at this case, I am afraid they are right.

Mr President, I remind the Commission that Georgia is a sovereign state, not some sort of EU colony. Georgian people elected the Georgian Dream, not the opposition. Why? Because Saakashvili was a dictator and led the country to disaster. Georgian Dream brought them peace and reasonable prosperity. The European Union should respect the principle of sovereign equality. We have no right to subvert the Georgian Government or send millions from EU taxpayers to regime change operations. This is the very foreign interference we criticise here all the time. Georgians have full right to choose their path. We do not have to admit them into the EU. It was not very likely anyway. But we need them as partners and we should engage with Georgia in respectful and mutually beneficial relations, while Georgians are still willing to engage with us.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let me draw your attention to a constitutional problem. In the case of frozen assets, the European institutions are abusing Article 122 of the Treaty with the direct and obvious aim of circumventing the Hungarian veto, and the parameters of Article 122 are hardly met. However, this has created an extremely chaotic situation in relation to national law. Article 1 of the Czech Constitution stipulates that the Czech Republic is a sovereign state. It is true that, in Article 10a, an international treaty allows certain powers to be transferred to an international organisation. However, of course, the Czech Republic has not transferred to the Union any power to violate the fundamental Treaties. Therefore, any abuse of the procedure under Article 122 is null and void and does not create any legal consequences for the Czech Republic. Even if the Czech Government were to agree to such a procedure, because only the Czech Parliament, not the Government, could extend the competences of the Union. I therefore warn other Member States, banks and other actors not to rely on a decision to abuse Article 122, and I call on the Union not to continue this constitutional quackery.

Mr President, first of all, I would like to say that I thank the Commissioner for the work done on the Critical Medicines Act. I also agree with the idea that there is a need to rebuild the European production base. I would not believe that after years, decades in the Czech Republic, in Central Europe, there will be a shortage of basic antibiotics. But I also call for us to continue to maintain friendly relations, not rivalry, with the countries from which we import medicines, because it will take time to resume the production of medicines. And at least in the medium term, we need to provide people with enough medicine. I am not only talking about China or India, but also about other Asian countries that are very prepared to cooperate with us both in the field of pharmaceuticals and health as a whole. So please don't fight it.

This is a good remark. We of course need to diversify, but it will take us some time and we should not cut ourselves off from the resources our industries need right now. If we diversify, for instance, in pharmaceuticals, it is a great thing. But for the foreseeable future we need to cooperate, and there is no need to stop the cooperation, which is mutually beneficial both for us and for our trade partners in the world.

Madam President, dear colleagues, dear Commissioner, I urge you: we must not be pulled into someone else's trade war. Earlier this year, the US tried to impose export restrictions on China. China responded with rare earths restrictions, the US backed off and on 30 October they reached a deal. Caught in the rivalry was the Dutch company Nexperia. After US pressure, the Dutch took control over the Chinese‑owned chipmaker. This step prompted an immediate Chinese response, disrupting EU automotive supply chains. China is a crucial trade partner, not a rival. We depend on them for many items, from rare earths to medicines. China is also one of our greatest export markets. We cannot afford to lose either. The EU must not become a proxy in the US‑China rivalry. Our policy must be independent, focus on EU interests, support EU workers and industries, and remove tensions in order to secure us profitable access to world markets.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, dear Commissioners, the European Council held an exchange with President Zelenskyy of Ukraine and promised him unwavering support. This week, however, the media is full of a multi-billion corruption case in Ukraine targeting the inner circle of the same President Zelenskyy. Is this something we really want in the EU? Thanks to the invitation by the Patriots, we had Professor John Mearsheimer in the Parliament. He painted a bleak picture concerning Ukraine: the war is a result of an unwise attempt to enlarge NATO; the United States will pivot to Asia; the war will end in an ugly victory for Russia, resulting also in the weakening of NATO and the EU, but Russia will not attack the EU – it will not even go beyond the Russian-speaking regions of Ukraine, so said Professor Mearsheimer. He doesn't tell nice tales, but he tends to be right. Let us adapt to reality. Let's disentangle ourselves from the quagmire of unending war in Ukraine. Let's support a peace solution on the framework of Ukrainian neutrality and engage with the countries of the Global South to guarantee it. What has changed? Let us concentrate on the core task of the EU, which is the prosperity of its Member States and its citizens.

Madam President, across Europe, there is a constitutional principle that, in a sovereign state, it is up to the people of the state to admit into its territory. In Europe, there is hardly a week without violent attacks. Member States are obliged to defend their citizens and nothing in European law should limit, challenge or charge for this obligation. Unfortunately, the migration pact does just that, and worse, on the basis of arbitrariness and non-transparency. The Czech Republic has received a wave of refugees from Ukraine. It was included in the group of states facing a significant migratory situation. It may apply for a reduction in contributions, but without any guarantee that it will be granted. Unlike other states that are in a group of states under migratory pressure, they not only may not pay, but they may also draw. On the other hand, Slovakia and Hungary have also accepted hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians, but they will probably apply without exception. Calculations of how much it will cost taxpayers are kept secret until the very last moment. This isn't right. Migration must be prevented by not supporting wars and coups in those source countries, and not by arbitrarily imposing new taxes on the citizens of the Member States by a Brussels official.

Madam President, dear colleagues, would you rather be a Belarusian or a Ukrainian? Belarus has cheap energies, oil and gas, their industry doesn't fail, their farmers don't strike, they export fertilisers around the world, they have a decent public health system and they are not short on critical medicines. They are hindered only by sanctions, which harm us as well as them, and we should abolish them. But, more importantly, Belarus has peace. They still remember the horrors of a Nazi genocide much worse than in Poland. Their constitution explicitly excludes military aggression, and they are doing what they can to keep their country away from foreign wars. Now, compare it to Ukraine after the Maidan putsch and after six years of Zelenskyy. The country destroyed, their sons dead, and those who return will find their land and minerals owned by foreign capital. Belarusian leaders are not perfect. Which ones are? But if the West tries to impose on them some new Zelenskyy, they will look across their southern borders and say 'no, thank you'. We should respect that. Yes, it is not our country, but theirs.

Honourable colleague, I would like to ask one question. Belarus is not a member country of the European Union. What, in your opinion, is our right to judge who is leading the country? And what is our right to intervene into their domestic matters and to decide who is their legitimate president and who is not?

Madam President, the Czech Parliament has decided to punish for political convictions. According to the amendment to the Criminal Code, the spread of ideas of communism is to be punishable, support for the communist movement is to be punishable, the use of communist symbols is to be punishable. All of this has been under a five-year prison sentence since January. Several countries, good partners of the European Union, have communist symbols in their flags. Will we be afraid to take pictures with their diplomats so you don't get arrested in the Czech Republic? The Communist Parties shall operate properly in the Member States of the Union. Their politicians represent voters in national parliaments and even in this parliament. Whoever publicly expresses his political opinion, for which he was elected, will have to avoid the Czech Republic in order not to lock him up there. This is unacceptable and absurd. I call on the institutions of the European Union to protect the fundamental political rights of citizens of the Union, to call on the Czech Republic to stop criminalising their execution and to put an end to this criminal abomination.

Thank you, Ms Bosse, it's my pleasure to communicate with you. The Czech Republic is not one of them, at least, because there are much bigger and stronger entities, but they are only tools. And how we deal with the tools is the issue of our political culture. Of course, we need to protect against hate speech and things coming from abroad. But the worst things we are doing for ourselves. This is my opinion and this is how I see it.

Mr President, today's theme is 'Protection of European Sovereignty'. This title is a bit misleading. Sovereignty is a conceptual emblem of states. Europe, even in the sense of the European Union, is not a state, therefore it does not have sovereignty. It has only conferred powers which can be revoked at any time by the States. Member States have sovereignty, which must be protected. Unfortunately, especially at election time, the digital space is overwhelmed by the products of political entities paid for from EU grants, from the sources of friendly embassies or from one of the parties to the information war taking place in the United States. There have even been cases where the secret services of State A have influenced the elections in Member State B through controlled leaks to the media. And the lack of restraint of the European institutions, including this Parliament, in commenting on national elections is becoming legendary. It makes no sense, colleagues, to seek technical solutions for something that is a manifestation of a lack of respect and political culture in relation to the sovereignty of individual Member States.

Madam President, many speeches by the European Commission show that we really need to protect democracy. Sixty percent of citizens do not want Ursula von der Leyen. Are six out of ten European Union citizens Russian agents or fools under the influence of hybrid threats, as it sounded today? No, they want someone who will not lead the European Union to decline. Will this unpopular politician resign? No, and he still wants to establish a ministry of truth to suppress criticism. Members in the Corruption Case Pfizergate triggered a vote of no confidence in the Commission, were identified as a pro-Russian hybrid threat during the discussion. No, they're not a hybrid threat, they're doing their job. Influencing the Election: Don't do to others what you don't want others to do to you. We are paying putschists against the Georgian government, you will let one of the parties in the Moldovan elections here agitate in Parliament and slander the competition. Prime Minister Fico's Slovakia will continue to be visited by you. And when there was an election in the United States, did you show respect to the American electorate? You said: Will we work with whomever you choose? No, you ran a campaign against Trump, and now it's backfired on you. So please protect democracy, great, but start with yourself.

Mr President, I would like to ask the Commissioner politely why you did not take Mr Šefčovič and Mr Síkela from Global Gateway And you didn't accompany Slovak Prime Minister Fico to Beijing last week? Trade diplomacy in the next century will require mutual respect. If you had come to China, a key trading partner, to wish you an anniversary, you would have solved pork or electric cars or even critical medicines. And maybe you would improve the European Union's negotiating position vis-à-vis the United States, so you wouldn't have to sign unbalanced agreements on golf. Europe is open in China. It's an industrial powerhouse. It needs global trade to work. There is no real reason for conflict, but there are many possible synergies. All you have to do is go across the street. Or you can insult them like Kaja Kallas, but then you don't sell the pork and the farmers suffer the damage. Commissioner, in my opinion, you are officials. You should conduct high-quality trade diplomacy and benefit the prosperity of the Member States. Can't it really get any better?