Speeches

Madam Vice-President, there was an important INTA vote about phasing out Russian gas. Madam President, Dear people of Europe! I still remember the cow meadows and the horse meadows on my doorstep very well. I still remember very well that I played with my friends in the fields. I still remember very well how the farmer chased us through the whole village when we broke the silage, the pasture product wrapped in white foil, with our sticks, by piercing holes in it because we thought it was funny. My heart beats for the farmers of Europe. My heart beats for agriculture and the beauty they give to nature in the countryside. And that's why I think it's right that we go and make life easier for these people. But I am also concerned that one of the most important words why we created this CAP regulation in the first place, environmental protection, climate protection, hardly occurs here. That it is hardly mentioned that in the minds of some of our colleagues it seems to be all about the interests of agriculture. Without a healthy nature, without a healthy environment, there is no agriculture.

Dear colleague, once again, I agree with you in principle. The farmers know how to protect the environment. They have been doing this for thousands and thousands of years. But sometimes, and right now in your speech, I feel that the difference is lost between a simple farmer who has one farm and works his land, and big agricultural conglomerates, big farming industry, who have no regard for the environment, who have no regard for the honour and the worth of the land that they work. So, where's the difference there?

Thank you, colleague, that you accepted the blue card. I agree totally with you that we have to protect our farmers and that we have to take their grievances into account. At the same time, we see that a lot of environmental standards that have been fought for so hard in recent years are now rolled back. You said in your speech that we can simplify the legislation without lowering the protection status. I have to tell you, I feel that the different is the case, that we are rolling it back so much. So, where is the border? Where do we actually stop with simplification and keep our environmental protection?

Madam President, dear people of Europe, history teaches us a hard but necessary lesson: appeasement does not fail because it is evil; it fails because it is naive. In the 1930s, Europe believed peace could be preserved through accommodation. In 1936, Hitler remilitarised the Rhineland and Europe hoped that restraint would calm him. In 1938, Austria was annexed and Europe hoped it would be enough. At Munich, Czechoslovakia was sacrificed in the name of peace. Within months, Prague fell. In 1939, Poland followed. Appeasement did not prevent war. It taught an aggressor that there would be no consequences and this matters today. Across the political extremes, we hear calls for peace that ignore the reality of Russian aggression. That is why, even if we do not want to, we cannot listen to these people and we must rearm. The tragedy of appeasement is not the intention, but the illusion.

Colleague, I cannot debate in principle what you said about the necessity – and you said it again now – for peaceful resolution, but I think it is, politically speaking, quite naive to think that you can actually deal with a regime like Putin's Russia in a peaceful way and that there is always a way for dialogue. Dialogue is only possible if the other person wants to speak. Putin does not want to speak. Russia does not want to speak. They want to conquer and subjugate Ukraine and then the rest of Europe. That is why we have to rearm, because we have to defend ourselves against that aggression.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, dear citizens of Europe, the European Citizens' Initiative 'Fur Free Europe' is a very important example of direct democracy in our Union. More than a million people from many different countries have used this tool to ask for one simple thing: respect for animals and a more ethical Europe. This mechanism deserves our utmost respect, it shows us that citizens are not only observers but an active part of the European project. And when so many people speak with one voice, we have to listen. That is why I believe that the time has come to abolish fur farming in the European Union: It is not only a moral choice, but also a choice of public health and environmental protection. At the same time, we must support the economic sectors involved, helping them to create new alternative markets that are more sustainable and more respectful of animal welfare. Dear colleagues, I wish you all a good weekend!

Thank you, Mr Mazurek, for accepting my blue card. You talked about people in this House enriching themselves and not working for the people. And I was thinking about the fact that you have – let me count – six local assistants working in your home country, but only one APA working here in Brussels under sufficient oversight of the Parliament. So I was just wondering, could you explain a little bit to me how your six local assistants work for the people, what they do every day, and how they are not enriching you?

Madam President, democracy needs education, so let me first take this opportunity, Mr Uhrík, to tell you about the concept of indirect legitimacy in democracy. Mr Mazurek, I told you this last plenary already, so you can share your notes with Mr Uhrík, maybe. In a democracy, it is possible that the people elect a body that then elects other institutions. That's indirect legitimacy within a democratic system. And this is not undemocratic, because there is no democratic system in Europe that does not have this system of indirect election of government bodies. Indirect legitimacy, Mr Uhrík. Mr Mazurek: with regard to the application of EU law, the Member States of the European Union democratically gave up their right to have laws, and even constitutional laws, that are higher than the European Union law. I hope you take this home. I hope you go through your notes at the end of this evening, and maybe tomorrow you will wake up enlightened, filled by the feeling and the joy for democracy.

Madam President, dear people of Europe, Fidias, what the hell? Accusing us of hypocrisy – because we talk about the hybrid war that Putin and his henchman Lukashenka wage against Europe and not about the infringement of Greek and Cypriot airspace by Türkiye – makes no sense at all. I respect the grief of the Cypriots for the situation of their country and the relationship with Türkiye. But Türkiye is a NATO member like Greece, and Cyprus is a NATO partner. Türkiye is not right now waging a war of aggression against a European nation, and it's not threatening us with nuclear destruction on a daily basis. This talking point is either uninformed or deliberate Russian propaganda. I get it – being young, being inexperienced in this House – but before you speak, please do your goddamn homework.

Mr President, dear people of Europe, dear colleagues, I was born in 1997. I still remember playing only with wooden toys at my grandmother's house and fighting lightsaber battles with sticks with my friends in the forest. I was seven when I played online games on a website called SpieleAffe – Game Monkey – with a lot of guns and a lot of blood. I was ten when I saw an infamous human waste porn video called '2 Girls, 1 Cup' – please don't Google that. I was 12 when random adults added me on ICQ and messaged me. I was 15 when the first schoolmate of mine tried to kill herself because of mobbing on Facebook. Vice-President Schaldemose, I do not agree with everything in that report – some of it lacks the understanding that only the children of the internet can offer – but I agree with more than enough to support it. As you said in your speech, the experiment of an unregulated internet must end.

Madam President, dear people of Europe, dear Commissioner, we must enforce the arms embargo. We must sanction all external sponsors from both sides. We must shut down gold financing routes, guarantee humanitarian access and support the civilian‑led transition with accountability. But let's be honest, what is happening in Sudan cannot be solved by peaceful diplomacy alone. The RSF is committing the most heinous crimes we have seen in a generation. The SAF is also violating international law themselves and these crimes will not be stopped by peaceful means. In a functioning world, this is the moment when UN peacekeepers, the only truly neutral force built to defend human dignity, would intervene to protect civilian life on both sides. But they are blocked by a Security Council that no longer fulfils its function. So we face a choice: either we fight for real reform of the Security Council, or we begin to build a new kind of peacekeeping force – this time with dark blue helmets – that can actually act when it's needed the most.

Thank you, Mr. Colleague, for accepting the blue card. You mentioned that we will soon be able to use the trade agreement with the United Arab Emirates, which we may or may not conclude, as a means of pressure. And I think we all agree that we should do the same. But what else can we do? What else can we do beyond humanitarian aid and diplomatic pressure? Because at the end of the day there are evil people with weapons doing evil things.

Mr President, dear people of Europe, I would like to congratulate the two rapporteurs for their work on this file. This is more or less everything that I have to say. I would like to take the opportunity to shed light on a fundamental problem with our budgetary procedure. Not so long ago, I visited a partner country of the European Union. It is a state that is an important energy supplier for us, an important trading partner, and has a questionable history of human rights and imprisoning critics, opposition and journalists. We had people from our embassy watching the court proceedings of those people who fought for democracy, of those people imprisoned. Now, unfortunately, because we have in the near vicinity of that country, another country, also a partner of ours, that slides down into this direction – also the suppression of human rights, the imprisonment of journalists, etc. – their court proceedings also have to be watched. We needed to shift our personnel from one embassy to the other because we did not have the budget and we could not change the budget. In this time of political turmoil, we need to be able to change the budget within the year, not just decide it once and then let it go.

Mr Neuhoff, I find it extremely interesting that you think that Russia still needs some motivation to move the border of Ukraine further west. For almost four years now, the Russians have been working on this very consistently, sacrificing endless billions of rubles and, unfortunately, tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of their own soldiers. But overall, I think you should trust that Ukraine will continue on its path. This people, this nation, has shown a bravery from which we can learn a lot here in Europe.

However, I would like to be able to respond once again to Mr Neuhoff's reply in accordance with the Rules of Procedure. Mr. Neuhoff, thank you for accepting the blue card. You are a scientist of your sign. Accordingly, one of the basic principles of your life should be scientific evidence. So, if it is evident that Ukraine has been forcibly driving incredible developments in military technology over the last three years, especially in drone technology, wouldn't it be utterly stupid to exclude Ukraine from our joint development of defence technology?

Thank you, Mr. Colleague, for accepting the blue card. If I understood you correctly, if the translation understood you correctly, then you said: “Who betrayed us? Social Democrats.’ And I am a little surprised that a representative of the left here reproduces a battle cry invented by far-right monarchists of the German Empire. So, how can you actually bring this together, that here you are almost turning against your natural allies, with terms and battle cries of those who demonize you? And rightly so, by the way. I don't want to argue against that. So how does that fit together?

Madam President, dear people of Europe, in a time when conservatives and Greens are often portrayed as political opposites, even as enemies, today's agreement sends an important message. The report is not just technical work – it is living proof that cooperation is possible in the democratic majority of this House, even when political priorities are divided. Here, an EPP rapporteur and a Greens rapporteur worked side by side. They showed that when Europe's farmers need safer, faster, science-based solutions, and when our environment needs real protection, we can build bridges instead of walls. That matters, because over 100 biological control applications are expected in the coming years, and without reform, many would take more than a decade to reach the field. This agreement shows that progress doesn't belong to one side, to one ideology. It belongs to those willing to work together, and in times of polarisation that is more than a policy achievement – it's a sign of hope.

Madam President, dear people of Europe, what you have heard today here in this debate is not contradictory. It is not contradictory to have respect for the work and the commitment of policemen and policewomen, and for the fear of migrants that leads them to turn to smugglers and human traffickers. It is not contradictory to call for a safe Union that protects its border and for a dignified way to migrate to this Union. It is not contradictory to care for the people inside this continent and the people outside of that continent. History books will judge us on the question of migration, because migration will only grow in the next years, due to war, climate catastrophe and economic collapse that we see around the world. Let us not look to the contradiction. Let us look to what puts us together – to what makes us strong as one European Union, as one European Parliament.