Speeches

Dear Madam President, We are facing more frequent and severe droughts in Europe, which is why the damage is also increasing. There is an agricultural crisis fund for compensation, EUR 440 million for the whole EU, but this is not enough. But there's a bigger problem. The fact that, according to the news, they want to abolish this fund in the next budgetary period. This is unacceptable. I hear that EU money is being used to cover Ukraine's budget deficit in 2026, which is about EUR 16 billion. I'm sure if there's any money for this, it should also be to compensate the farmers. I'll tell you something else. It does not matter how much help farmers get for irrigation during periods of drought. Now not much from this house, because due to energy sanctions, the price of energy went up, which also increased the cost of irrigation. And one more thing: the Hungarian government waives the price of irrigation water in periods of drought if irrigation is carried out from state facilities. What does the majority of the European Parliament do a few days ago? This practice is challenged in a resolution. They say that Member States should put in place adequate water pricing, which, of course, means much higher prices. Again, the question is, who will care about the situation of farmers during a drought? I see that Mr Péter Magyar, Member of Parliament, will also be speaking in the debate. I'm sure you had a good holiday. Welcome to your workplace! If you are already here, please explain why you voted in favour of this resolution and why it prevents farmers from having free access to irrigation water in Hungary. Reassure us that you don't want to deny all of this.

Dear Madam President, There can be no EU summit without pushing for Ukraine's accelerated membership of the European Union. I would like to ask you when are you finally willing to talk about the economic consequences of this, which are already being slammed? Last week, the Commission reached an agreement with Kiev to better open the gates to Ukrainian agricultural products. No one is interested in the damage caused by such a move in 2022. Acceding states in 2004 had to wait years after membership to receive the same treatment. Ukraine will receive it before membership. Why is that? Politico wants to cut agricultural subsidies by 20% in the next budget period. They do not write, but we all know that in order to make room for the cost of enlargement. Who are they going to take the money from? Farmers, families and businesses. The Pfizer blunder is not the biggest scandal of this Commission, but the fact that it is pursuing a policy that is destroying Europe's economy. Don't expect us to leave you speechless.

Dear Mr President, If media freedom is spoken of in this house, it actually means that liberal and leftist monopolies of opinion are being defended. A few examples to support this: The Brussels institutions finance only and exclusively liberal media, and the contracts are not public. Why is that? If they want to suspend the operation of right-wing media in Poland, then one word is not here; It is also normal for right-wing journalists not to be allowed into this house. They're pulling their registration. Worse still, they're building a censorship system, all under the guise of fact-checking. The European Commission is already funding more than 50 fact-checking teams and has promised them, behind closed doors, that funding will be even greater. This is not right, because not only is freedom of opinion distorted, but the will of the electorate is also ignored. We're not gonna let this happen! Like NGO contracts, media and fact-checking contracts must also be published. We demand full publicity.

Dear Mr President, They talk about Ukraine's enlargement here as if it were already a decided fact. They want an accelerated procedure, and the Enlargement Commissioner also said that there are a thousand people working on this in the Commission. Moreover, as we have heard today, they want to eliminate the possibility of a national veto. It's very democratic, I would say. But there is one thing they are not talking about. The economic consequences. The Committee on Budgets here has calculated that cohesion funds would be reduced by 24% and agricultural subsidies by 15% in the present Member States. This would happen after Europe spent 150 billion euros on war. Why do you think that the people of Europe can bear all the financial burdens? Who's going to look them in the eye and admit what the burden would be? In Hungary, more than two million people have already taken part in the vote on Ukraine's membership. We asked what those who pay the bill think of the expansion. I'm a little afraid of the answer: Do you dare to do that?

Dear Mr President, There are two types of government for the Grand Coalition here. One kind is constantly taken out, and all sorts of procedures are instituted against them. These are usually right-wing governments. And then there are pet governments. They are always left-wing and seem to be able to do anything. This includes the Spanish government. More and more scandals are coming out about the Sanchez government. According to a 500-page report, a veritable organised crime network has encircled the Cabinet: prostitution, audio recordings, Venezuelan devices, everything. What is the Spanish Government's response? He's attacking the media and he's attacking the courts. The same goes for Poland. The Polish government is ignoring court decisions, removing judges and suspending the licenses of right-wing media. These cases are known. However, when it comes to pet governments, there is no way to start a rule of law procedure. Why is that? Because in this house, the rule of law is actually a means of pressure. But in vain, they can't stop the Patriots, just like they can't stop the Vox in Spain.

Dear Madam President, The Rule of Law Report is completely unreliable for at least three reasons. 1. While judging individual decisions of Member States, it does not speak about scandals affecting the EU institutions: Mr. Reynders' money laundering case, Pfizer scandal. Where are these? 2. There is a great deal of silence about the affairs of the little favorite governments. In Poland, judges are illegally taken down, court rulings are ignored, right-wing media licenses are suspended, and the report has nothing to say about this. And finally, 3. The report also included non-governmental organisations funded by the European Commission. We looked at it, at least 87 million euros. Of course, there is not a word about the Commission's spending of EUR 17 billion on financing activist groups. They then sue governments, seize power plants and weaken border protection, all in a non-transparent manner, without democratic authority. So such a report would have a minimum value if it were to be measured on an equal footing and would also cover matters that cannot even be debated here in this house.

Madam President, I'm sorry. I am glad that we can finally argue about transparency, because so far this has not been allowed very much in this House. Why is it relevant here? What is the background to the Hungarian bill? In recent years, the European Commission has developed a system for distributing money along the lines of US USAID. They fund liberal, left-wing activist groups, which then carry out political activities, especially during elections. These are tools of external intervention. A total of 37 000 contracts were signed for a value of EUR 17 billion. The list includes organisations that sue governments that protect their borders, or lobby on behalf of the Commission against, say, farmers, or create smear materials about my country in order to withhold EU funds for us. Or they support the campaign of the parties of the Members who have spoken before me. There's always a new one, there's always a favorite candidate. There was also a large sum of money for Guy Verhofstadt's civil society organization. They also fund censors and media outlets called fact-checkers, only leftists and liberals. During last year's election campaign alone, 132 million euros were spent on the latter, but they are not yet willing to make that list public. What has been done here has nothing to do with civil society. Civil society is self-organised, built from the bottom up. These activist groups, on the other hand, are run by the Grand Coalition here, either the Open Society or USAID, in fact, are the same. Let me ask you a question here: How independent and civil is an organization that cannot function for a few weeks without the money of the American Democrats or the Commission? Well, not at all. So the aim of the Hungarian bill is to create transparency. There is a well-established example of this: the American law, let's say, is much, much stricter. And finally, one more thing. We want transparency not only in Hungary, but also here in Brussels. We therefore call on the European Commission to publish a list of supported media after activist organisations. If they have nothing to hide, they will. Thank you on behalf of the real civilians. The bill was paid by them and the consequences are borne by them.

Mr. President, please. Quote from last year's report by the central bank, the European Central Bank: "The main reason for food inflation is the extraordinary increase in energy costs." This is what many people do not want to talk about here, for good reason, because they have a huge responsibility in it. Here and in the European Commission, the green transition has been pushed for years without any consideration being given to its price-increasing effect. Then a decision was taken on energy sanctions, so that energy prices not only went up, but also remained persistently high, and there is no sign of correction, because, if we understand correctly, the European Commission would now completely exclude energy sources from the East, and since alternative energy sources are more expensive, this will lead to even higher energy prices, which will be mercilessly incorporated into prices. There's no stopping on the train, there's no brakes on the train, so if there's anything that increases prices, it's that the EPP-Left Grand Coalition here is making decisions without ever dealing with the consequences. So, if MEP Péter Magyar wants lower prices, he should complain to those who nominated him, he's such big buddies with Mr Weber anyway.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Some have referred here to the funding of NGOs. We asked the Commission for a list of NGO contracts with data requests weeks ago. First they were rejected, and then we finally got them. The numbers are staggering. Over five years, the European Commission has signed 37,000 NGO contracts worth €17 billion. The list includes a large number of organisations that carry out political activities, weaken border protection efforts, organise political actions against elected governments, lobby on behalf of the Commission or force ideological issues. Typically, a large proportion of the organisations supported are registered in Brussels. The Court is right that a significant number of these organisations would not exist in their current form without the money pump in Brussels or even overseas. What does this have to do with civil society in the traditional sense? Well, it's nothing. That's the exact opposite. The Patriot Group will publish the list of treaties. Every citizen has the right to know where the money went, especially because the bill was paid by them.

Dear Madam President, The European Parliament would have good reason to be concerned about democracy, but not for what many here have said. In France, the presidential candidate was prevented from running by judicial means. They are depriving the French people of their right to choose. In Romania, a presidential candidate who is not wanted by the elite there and here won the first round. So what happens? The result of the election will be neatly erased. Meanwhile, the former Rule of Law Commissioner has been accused of money laundering while the Commission is working hard to build a new censorship machine. And what happened in today's debate? An Italian communist tried to teach democracy who beat Hungarians bloody in the open streets with his peers. What can I say, he's a real professor of human rights. There is never any discussion about them here. That's because they won't let me. However, there is a debate about Hungary, about the sixty-seventh time. No problem, for the sixty-eighth time, we will say that the contested bill is about the protection of children. We will not give in to this, just as we will not give in to the position of peace and the issue of migration, and we will not give in to any issue that is the competence of the Member States and reflects the will of the Hungarian people.

Thank you for your question and thank you in particular for asking. My colleague has already refuted the allegations in this regard. As far as freedom of expression is concerned, your party leader has threatened to push journalists into the Danube, regularly inciting masses. He does not answer the questions, but here in the house he threatens the journalist by investigating his housing. And you don't have a word for that, but you forgive this house for not letting right-wing journalists into the house anyway, and you also forgive for allocating the equivalent of 50 billion forints to only liberal media in the election campaign. Then they try to teach us about freedom of the press. Just the usual hypocrisy that you have now joined.

Dear Mr President, What they want to say here is that freedom of the press depends on the EU taking over the funding of Radio Free Europe. A medium that has so far been 90% funded by the U.S. Democratic government. Tell me, how independent is a medium that is 90% dependent on political support, and is immediately threatened with dissolution if it does not receive the monthly sum from overseas? Well, not at all. Why do they want to take over the democratic policy that failed in America? But that's not the only place they do it. In America, for example, fact-checkers are fired, but the Commission wants to further expand the censorship system. I'm not saying it's censorship, I'm saying it's Mark Zuckerberg. We have asked the Commission this question several times in recent weeks. Whether they disclose what fact-checkers are and what methodology they are working on. Both times the answer was silence. So if you want to do something about freedom of the press, don't strengthen censorship, don't just support liberal media, and make contracts public most of all.

The Hungarian prime minister certainly pointed out that, for political reasons, they are trying to make it impossible for more and more candidates to stand. France is not the only country of its kind. Examples can be listed at length. Well, as far as the situation in Hungary is concerned. The fact is that there are intense debates in Hungary about who the Hungarian state contracts with and supports. The reason for this is that in Hungary such contracts are public, ministries regularly publish such contracts. By contrast, the European Commission does not publish a list of who it supports and how much, and when it comes to discussing Commissioner Reynders' corruption scandal, it is not put on the agenda.

Dear Madam President, All right, let's talk about transparency. The Commission uses millions of euros to fund civil society organisations that actually carry out political activities. But if someone wanted a comprehensive database of these, they would look for it in vain. For this reason, we have sent a request for information to the Commission. We asked for a simple list: which NGOs are funded, for what purpose and with what amount? The answers have arrived. The committee refuses to publish these lists. They argue that the scope of the data requested is too broad, that everything is online – which is not true, by the way – and that we did not request specific contracts, but information, which is an absurd argument. The number of contracts is estimated to be more than 10,000. Maybe not everyone knows, but some MEPs in this house, in the Committee on Budgetary Control, got the lists, but they were told that they could not make them public. Why is that? What are they hiding? The Patriot faction won't let this happen, if we have to, we'll take this to court. In the meantime, let's just say: If you want to do something about political corruption, start at home and publish the list of supported organizations.

Mr. President, please. It is worth speaking frankly, in the material called Vision, behind the grandiose goals, there are plans that European farmers will not be happy about. We have a strong suspicion that agricultural subsidies would be cut by reference to external circumstances, such as Ukraine's membership of the EU, and this intention is wrapped up in blunt terms. So when they talk about targeted subsidies, it really means that not all farmers would receive subsidies, not as many as they do now. When they talk about the need-for-need principle, it again means that not everyone who is already receiving support would receive it. Moreover, if we understand the plans well, they would pool agricultural funds with other sources, which would mask the fact that they want to reduce the aid amounts. I find it interesting that the plans included in the proposal are mostly welcomed by the civil society organisations that are financed by the European Commission. Farmers are not. In Hungary, nearly 250,000 people signed up for area-related aid. Please listen to their voices as well.

Thank you very much for your question. I think we need to fight all types of addiction, be it Russian addiction or any kind of external exposure. I don't think it's a good idea to replace one type of addiction with another. And it is definitely not a good track to make decisions here in this House that result in European companies often having to pay more for gas than their American competitors. This is a huge competitive disadvantage, which is why factories across Europe are closing down. That is why it is also a question in Germany whether, for example, the Volkswagen plant will be closed. If energy prices rise, Europe will not benefit, and economic competitiveness will decline.

Mr. President, please. The situation is serious, according to the Draghi report, European companies are paying four to five times more for gas than the US price. It wasn't a coincidence. The EU has provided ideological responses to an economic problem. They decided to replace cheaper pipeline gas from the East, such as LNG. The consequence was that the lost quantities had to be sourced from America, but at a higher cost. Imports of Russian gas, Russian LNG, have also increased absurdly. The Biggest Customers: France, Belgium and Spain. Let's look at the oil: Europe now imports three times as much oil from India as it did before the war. It's an oil that actually comes from Russia. So it's like Russia isn't getting any worse, the US LNG companies are making a big profit, and the brokers are getting richer as well. How do you pay for all this? Well, it's Europe. Families with their utility bills and businesses with their competitiveness. This is where the politics of the elite here led, which looked at everything only with ideological glasses and nothing on the ground of reality. It's time for a change of direction.

Mr. President, please. There's a case we need to talk about once we've been through the first hundred days. We know more and more about how the European Commission finances left-wing activist networks across Europe. They claim to be civilians, but in fact they are engaged in political action. Collaborating with illegal immigrants, they sue states, organize censorship, or campaign to reduce agricultural subsidies. And if someone wanted a public list of how many such groups are funded and for how much, they would look for it in vain, there is no uniform register of this. Data requests are rejected with scandalous arguments. For example, if the claimant asks for too much information. They send lists to some MEPs, but prohibit them from making them public. Why is that? How scandalous is that? The left-wing coalition wants the Commission to take over funding for USAID orphans in addition to the covered cash registers so far. What else not! We don't want to expand these money traps, we want to shut them down. In the meantime, we demand that the list of contracts so far be made public.

Dear Mr President, Europe's lag in digital industries is becoming more visible and, I add, increasingly confusing. It is a question of sovereignty and a strategic goal to overcome this lag. However, there is another important area in the digital arena, which is freedom of expression. While dissuading Facebook censors in the US, the EU institutions are working to further strengthen what they cynically call fact-checking. All this in the guise of the DSA regulation. They are increasing the bureaucracy involved in this, and after Facebook, they are now also targeting X and TikTok. We know why that is. There is a growing gap between the intentions of the political elite here and the will of the electorate. The majority here and the Commission are responding not by changing course, but by trying to silence critical voices. I can't do this. Digital sovereignty is not just a matter of technology, it is also a matter of freedom. There is no sovereignty without free expression. Be assured that patriots will fight censorship by all means.

Dear Mr President, Europe's economy is deteriorating, economic growth is around 0%, industry is being built up, and what is being debated here? On how the right wing is damaging Europe's competitiveness. It's a joke. Here, for years, a grand coalition of the People's Party and the Liberal Party has been defining politics. If anything, it weakens Europe's competitiveness. Let's see what they did: Europe spent 134 billion euros on war, which could have been spent on other things. They pushed for economic sanctions that brought record inflation. Cheaper energy sources have been cut off from Europe. With the Green Deal, they're killing the competitiveness of businesses and, by the way, throwing the world's largest heap of red tape at them. And to say one more thing, in recent years millions of people have been admitted, most of whom have been unable to find employment in the labour market. This is your responsibility. Don't blame it on anyone else. If there is anything that harms Europe's competitiveness, it is the activity of the political elite. What you call extremism is the sound of normality and patriotism. No matter how hard they try, they can't shut us up.

Dear Mr President, As far as the fundamentals of the war are concerned, we condemn Russia's military aggression. Ukraine has the right to defend its territorial integrity, and those in distress must be given a helping hand. That is why thousands of children fleeing Ukraine are studying in Hungary. But we also need to talk about the economic aspects, because in this House, people often believe in the continuation of war politics without ever talking about the economic burden of it. There is a summary on the side of the European Council. So far, the EU and its Member States have supported the war with no less than €134 billion. This is three times the amount of regional development funds disbursed in the current period. That's as much money as 10 percent of the total seven-year EU budget. It's brutal. Only the prospects for the future are more shocking, because we know that the United States is cutting back on war spending, but the four-party left-wing coalition here in this House would unconditionally go the way it has been going, that is, it would spend just that much or even more for war purposes. All this in such a way that the European economy is stagnating, so there will certainly be no more money. But tell me, please, where should these funds be taken from? From cohesion funds, Erasmus or farmers? We know that there are plans for the latter. What the Biden administration's money-filled media think about this, we have seen on the front pages. It is time to ask those who pay the bill, the people of Europe. They'll say a lot of things, and they'll ask for a lot of things, but I'm sure there's one thing: Don't make them pay for the war.

Dear Mr President, This debate is taking place at a time when Europe is plagued by multiple crises. Economic growth of around 0%, insecure and increasing energy supply, competitiveness in ruins, deteriorating public safety in large cities. So there's a lot to do. What does the EPP-Left majority of the European Parliament do about this? Well, he's asking for a debate on Hungary on the agenda for about the 127th time. All this based on the assumptions and anonymous sources of a single newspaper article. It is not an incidental circumstance that the said medium is financed from the vicinity of the American Democrats, who in the meantime have failed. The initiators of the debate are hardly interested in the fact that the Hungarian authorities provided information about the case in the meantime. That the assumption is not supported by any objective circumstances and data. Moreover, OLAF itself did not report any surveillance of its staff. I'm not going to go into more detail because it doesn't matter here. The point is that somehow they always find a place on the agenda for the forced witch-hunt against Hungary, but they never want to discuss the essential issues. For example, what is Europe's position in the new war situation? America would make peace now, and there is no discussion of this in this House for several hours. In recent weeks, he has also been prevented from discussing Commissioner Reynders' money laundering scandal, while he was the lord of life and death on rule of law issues. They also prevented a debate on Facebook's censorship, which is no longer just a conjecture, but a reality. The opinions of millions of Europeans may have been suppressed by censors called fact-checkers. There is also no debate about the consequences of immigration. Since 2017, I tell Mr Frand, 52,000 women have been sexually assaulted in Germany alone, and they are never allowed to debate them. Always from Hungary. We are used to it, but we will not accept it because every time Hungary is put on the agenda, we will say so many times that we have seen pressure, but we will not allow it on matters that are important to us.

Dear Madam President, I propose to the House that we talk about the specifics. That's because Mark Zuckerberg confessed. It is a proven fact that Facebook censored on political grounds under pressure from the democratic administration. The dirty work was done by fact-checkers. Even then, the reference was the fight against fake news. The Patriot faction initiated a debate on this, but this was prevented by the People's Party-liberal coalition. They were blocked because they are very much benefiting from this censorship. How absurd it is that in America fact-checkers are being chased away, but they continue to operate in Europe, and they would even enshrine the further possibility of censorship in legislation, referring, of course, to the fight against fake news. Incidentally, in many places in Europe, fact-checking is carried out by organisations backed by American leftist circles, and the European Commission is involved in funding. Why is that? They censor not only politicians, but voters. Tens of millions of people who do not want immigration are fed up with ideological madness and want Europe to finally stand on its own two feet. But the election results are clear, the voices of change cannot be silenced.

Mr. President, please. It is worth saying a few words about the background to today's debate. What has happened is that the outgoing Commissioner of the European Commission has been charged with money laundering. This is about Mr Reynders, who has been teaching lessons on the rule of law for years. It turned out that he was suspected of laundering money in the order of millions of euros. The Patriot faction wanted a separate debate on this, but the EPP-Left coalition prevented this. I also want a decision to be made about it. There will be a resolution this week on Kyrgyzstan, Azerbaijan, but there cannot be a harsh scandal up to the European Commission. If hypocrisy had a thermometer, it would've freaked out a long time ago. There are a couple of questions. For example, whether the European Commission, its head, Mr Reynders, was aware of the suspicions of money laundering and, at all, how rule of law cases can be decided by those suspected of laundering money on an industrial scale. We will need a commission of inquiry here, that is what we will initiate. We read that the Liberal Grand Coalition has a written guide on how to silence the Patriots. I ask you to be equally determined when it comes to the scandal of your own leader, Mr Reynders. Thank you in advance!

On 15 October, you issued a resolution that organic production should be promoted instead of extensive cereal production. This is exactly the same reasoning as the reduction of area payments. This is the same reasoning as in the document commissioned by the Commission on the future of agricultural policy. Why are you trying to deny your previous words? And while we're here, according to the authorities, you stole a cell phone because they could have recorded your behavior with women in a nightclub. My question is, how long do you want to hide behind your immunity in this house?