Speeches

Madam President, when talking about the ban of eastern energy imports, the majority here are not willing to talk about one thing: the fact that for a great number of countries, all the alternatives are more expensive. The Draghi Report clearly states that European companies already have to pay five times as much for gas than their American counterparts. As a consequence, European GDP growth is sluggish. Even the German industrial performance is declining. Don't you see the link between this and the sanction policy? The consequences are here to stay. For my country, according to the IMF, a complete ban would mean an economic loss equivalent to 4 % of our GDP. You don't seem to care. All this issue means pure ideology for you, but dire consequences for millions, even higher energy bills and ailing competitiveness. You don't seem to care. Dear grand coalition over there, the pillars of the European economy are shaking, and voters know well who is to blame for this. Their response will reach you.

Madam President, I'm sorry. This is a rather absurd situation. Some of the proposals, including this one, are about the fact that the Brussels institutions want to partially carve out the set of venomous green rules that they themselves have created. So the action is to withdraw what was previously said to be good, but not good. No problem, cutting red tape is, after all, the right direction, but when it comes to agriculture, there is a more important process. Meanwhile, the common agricultural policy is being progressively phased out. They want to cut agricultural subsidies by 20%. Meanwhile, they are opening up markets from the east and west, with the EU-Ukraine and Mercosur agreements respectively. The cash register is being reduced to make room for war support packages. European farmers will therefore receive less support by having to compete with giant estates, which will be an unequal competition. It is no wonder that there will be a demonstration in Brussels on Thursday. They are angry and have every reason to be. What is happening is a premeditated attack on common European agriculture.

Dear Mr President, We have a lot of problems with the 2026 budget. Firstly, despite the fact that millions of Europeans are sending out a message that they want change, this budget does not respond at all. For example, more money would be spent on the migration pact with 2 billion euros, which means what? Mandatory distribution of migrants. What happened today is very characteristic of the attitude here. Today there was an extraordinary item on the agenda where the left has defiantly expressed its concern about violence against women. What are they doing in the meantime? They are giving even more money to the migration pact, which would only aggravate this situation. Violence against women is growing where masses have been allowed in recent years. Even though they deny it, the connection is clear. Another problem is how agriculture is dealt with in this budget. The patriots would have increased agricultural subsidies by two and a half billion euros, which was voted down by the Grand Coalition. We would have doubled the compensation fund. There's a great need for that. Droughts are more severe, epidemics are more frequent. This was also rejected by the Grand Coalition. What do you provide more money for? The cost of war and Ukrainian politics. Europe has already spent €187 billion on this. This amount is very much lacking in the European economy, and they would now spend even more on it, while America is already getting out of financing. All in all, this budget is a symbol of immutability. It is not the war and migration that should be financed, but the farmers, finally the European economy and, most importantly, the families.

Dear Mr President, In principle, the aim of the Democracy Shield Programme is to strengthen protection against external interference, such as Russian interference. That would be fine. On the other hand, what's in it? More money for liberal activist groups, left-wing media and fact-checkers. And the creation of a so-called democratic resilience centre. In communism, there was no such fancy name for the censorship office. What does this have to do with Russia? Well, it's nothing. It is an aggravating circumstance that they want to do this opaquely. The Commission has already concluded nearly 40,000 NGO contracts, but does not respond to detailed requests for data. This House has decided on a commission of inquiry, but it has not met once in five months, and when we ask the European Commission how fact-checkers will work, we never get an answer. Everyone can see what the real purpose of the shield of democracy is. They want a shield against the electorate, which does not protect democracy, but the power machine here. They want to counterbalance the wins on the right. We'll tell you in advance, it won't work.

Dear Mr President, In this house, the so-called Draghi Report is quoted as a political bible. This report described how European companies are paying five times higher prices for gas than America. Sanctions are the main reason for this. If energy cannot come from the East and has to be sourced from elsewhere, it will be more expensive, especially in countries that do not have enough of their own energy sources, do not have seas, and have inherited fixed infrastructure. That is why the negotiations between the Hungarian Prime Minister and President Trump have brought important results. Hungary has been exempted from Eastern sanctions in the US system, but here in Brussels they still want a total ban on imports. Parliament has been in place since January 1st. In our case, this would cause as much damage as 4% of GDP that Hungarian families would have to pay. It is possible to conduct such an ideologically driven policy for the Grand Coalition here, to be insensitive to the lives of millions, but then do not be surprised if you get lost in more and more elections. If they cause cost of living, they will pay the price.

Dear Mr President, I read in the press that the Grand Coalition here is no longer opposed to the Commission's seven-year budget plan. There was an exchange of letters between them and the Commission, and they concluded that everything was now settled. We have managed to protect the farmers' money, they say. I've seen some charades in this house, but not so delusional. Nothing, nothing has changed, because. They want to cut agricultural subsidies by almost 20%. They want to merge the existing funds so as not to show how big the austerity is. The area payments would be cut and the basic payment for people over 65 would be abolished. What is happening here is the dismantling of agricultural policy. They've been mocking him, and now they're hitting his torso with an axe. But this is not only the core of an economic sector, but also of European cooperation as a whole. And this austerity plan was put together by the European People's Party and their buddies, and then they start to wonder if everything is all right. It's not that they think we're stupid, it's that they think we're farmers. There have been a lot of protests so far, and there will be more of them.

Mr. President, please. There is a strong consensus here that Russian energy imports should be banned. It's about ideology for you, but it's about economic damage for us. Not to Russia, but to us. A few countries in our region, so Hungary can only get energy at a higher price if it does not come from the East. We inherited this situation. This move, in our case, is calculated to cause as much loss as 4% of GDP, not by us, but by the IMF. The same thing will happen as before with the sanctions, with the previous sanctions. They wanted to hurt Russia, but they shot the European economy in the foot, or maybe a little higher. Therefore, even German industrial production is decreasing. And one more thing. The Polish court released the man who blew up the Nord Stream. The Polish Foreign Minister welcomed this and hoped that the perpetrator would also blow up the Friendship pipeline. Is this what it's gonna be? Will state leaders encourage attacks on key facilities, causing immediate damage in other Member States? We are talking about the energy supply of our countries, so I would like to ask you with respect: Are they out of their minds?

Madam President, I'm sorry. It seems to me that they were once again able to settle a dispute about Hungary on the basis of the claims of a single newspaper article. Well, so be it. I wouldn't consider this smear campaign serious if it wasn't for my country. Interestingly, there are dozens of truly democracy-violating events that are somehow never debated here. In Romania, the result of the election is abolished, in France no candidates are allowed to run, the Polish government ignores the rulings of the Constitutional Court, they want to shut down right-wing TVs, and one more, despite having the blower of the Nord Stream, is not released, can leave freely. Why is it that there is never any debate about them here in Parliament, always about Hungary? Everyone knows what it's really about. Their problem is that Hungary is pursuing an independent policy that is different from the left-wing, People's Party mainstream. You want a migration pact, Hungary wants zero immigration. You would give Brussels more powers, Hungary protects national competences, you want accelerated enlargement and war politics, you subordinate practically everything to this, and Hungary wants peace. That is why we are ready to make Budapest the place for peace talks if that happens. In fact, you have a problem with this, which is why you have organised practically three debates on Hungary today. No matter how many times they put it on the agenda, the answer will be given by the Hungarian people, tomorrow by the masses at the Peace March in Budapest, and in April by even more in the elections. More respect for Hungary!

Mr. President, please. This debate is taking place because many people would be bothered here if there were a peace talks between President Trump and President Putin in Budapest. Some have a problem with the location in Budapest, while others have a problem with not inviting Brussels leaders. It's up to the two presidents to decide who else they want to invite, but one thing's for sure: If you've insulted the President of the United States for years, if you've put everyone who has stood for peace on a bench of shame for years, then don't be surprised if you don't get invited to a peace talk. There is an even more important question: Do you want peace at all? Because it doesn't look like it. Ursula von der Leyen always subordinates her speeches here to war politics. They want to adopt a package of 800 billion euros for military expenditure. In order to have sufficient resources for this, cohesion funds and the agri-cost would be cut. Years ago in this house, when giving lectures to visitors, it was always said that the most important achievement of European cooperation was peace. That's right. But why did they forget?

Mr. President, please. Finally, there is a debate on the consequences of enlargement. We have to appreciate this because in recent months the European Commission has advanced at a turbo-charged pace with Ukraine's enlargement without even addressing the fundamental questions. For example: how would it affect the security of the EU to expand with a country at war? Or how should support schemes be redesigned? Why should agricultural subsidies be cut by 20% to be spent on enlargement and war policies? Or, for example, I am not going to agree that the Commissioner believes that minority rights in Ukraine are perfectly in order, while the opposite is true: language rights are being restricted. Now there is no answer to these questions, and there is no social consultation. Instead, what? That they want to eliminate doubtful voices, they want to rewrite unanimous decision-making so that they do not have to take into account the countries that have reservations. This is the slap in the face of the rule of law and all the democratic values that are always invoked here in this house. You're playing with fire!

Madam President, some days ago, this House voted on the immunity case of Ilaria Salis. She is an MEP and also a radical activist who bloodily beat up Hungarian citizens in Budapest. The EPP left-wing coalition decided to keep her immunity – that's the only reason why she is not imprisoned now. Some days ago, Ilaria Salis happily voted on the Sakharov Prize, a prize that is meant to be given for those fighting for freedom. How absurd! Do you know what kind of activities you gave the greenlight by this vote? Antifa is an organisation that attacks conferences. They are the ones beating citizens and they are the ones who set a castle on fire in Germany, in Bavaria. Why? Because they say the owner kept contact with right-wing circles. By the dirty deal you made to protect Ilaria Salis and Péter Magyar you endorsed all these activities. That's what you call 'common values' – the consequences are out on the streets, the responsibility is yours.

There are three important aspects to this case. Indeed, it should be possible for any citizen, if he or she suffers personal harm and is not properly informed, to have an appropriate way to obtain redress. In Hungary, the government has started work on this, and a working group has also been set up. I am also pleased that work has started on how to combat companies that abuse their dominant position. That's right, too. What I have been talking about is that we must not forget about freedom of speech, as we see examples in many Member States of this being restricted by various means on the internet. There is also a need to act against this.

Dear Madam President, The in-depth debate has finally begun on how to counter the dominance of digital mammoths, mammoth companies. That's right. But there is another aspect to the debate. Sovereignty is really strong when it goes hand in hand with freedom of speech, and we see plenty of examples of severe fines or even suspended prisons in some Member States for those who dare to criticise, say, a minister or a government's immigration policy online. These are usually explained by the need to combat hate speech and fake news. These must indeed be countered, but this must not be a false reference to political censorship, not even for the Commission. It is very wrong that they also want to expand a fact-checking system called the Democracy Shield, which, as we know, from America actually meant a censorship system. And when we ask you questions about the methodology on which they will operate, you will never be willing to answer them. Why is that? Eastern European countries have experienced censorship for decades. We don't want another one.

Dear Mr President, Many people here talk about the worrying rise in anti-Semitism as if they did not know exactly why. Since 2015, masses of people have been admitted to Europe, with a high number of anti-Semitic views among those arriving. Surprised by these consequences is absurd. According to data from a research centre in Berlin, 8,600 anti-Semitic incidents were recorded last year in Germany alone. That's a 77% increase in a year. It is no coincidence that the Minister of Education also talks about the phenomenon as a real threat to the life of Jewish communities. According to data from the Action and Protection Foundation, there was only one physical attack in Hungary in 2023. The number in Germany is 127. And everyone knows what the difference is. So if they want to do something for the security of everyday life in Europe, they will stop the migration policy that has been in place so far. They are withdrawing the migration pact and are finally giving support to those who are willing to defend Europe's borders.

Dear Mr President, We have a lot of debates with the Commission, but we should also mention the right goals, if any. Making transactions between farmers and purchasers mandatory in writing is a good step, because it increases the safety of farmers. This is because farmers are often not paid or, if they are, are late. But it is in vain that small, good steps are taken to protect farmers, if in the meantime bulldozers are used to dismantle the EU's agricultural support system. Here again, it is completely unacceptable that they want to cut agricultural subsidies by 20%. At the Council meeting, the Commissioner also explained why. It's because we have to finance installments and military programs. Missiles fired from Ukraine will not help farmers. And one question: Why is it that the president of the committee talks about war politics for hours, but he doesn't even listen to the farmers? So it's in vain that they put on the table the little rules that could otherwise be supported, while all their other steps are dedicated to the role of the victim for the farmers. We demand more respect and real support from them. I ask you to withdraw your budget plans. And in this context, one more thing: Whoever stands by Ursula von der Leyen in the vote of confidence on Thursday also stands by the dismantling of the common agricultural policy. It's that simple.

Dear Madam President, The paper objective of the Democracy Shield initiative can in principle be supported by the defence of democracy and action against external interventions. It's just that we all know that it's something else entirely. It's about the lack of support for liberal mainstream politics, so they're building an institutional system to stifle critical voices. This can also be seen in the new budget plan. They want to support more activist groups and more censorship organizations, and more liberal media, as we learned today. By the way, it says everything about their conception of democracy that they do not even notice the violations of the left-wing governments. The Polish government overrides the judiciary, they want to shut down conservative TVs, EU money goes to swinger clubs, and what happens in Germany is they want to push out the most popular party, and in France they ban the most popular candidate from running, and elsewhere they cancel the election result if they don't like it. Where's your famous shield at this hour? If they really want a shield for democracy, they'll start with these issues first. Everything else is just the usual...

Dear Mr President, It is important to talk about when third countries, including China, take decisions that are detrimental to European farmers. But why can't we argue about the damage that the European Commission's plans could cause? In July, the last meeting day, the new budget plans were presented so that no debate could be held on them. Since then, we have known that the agri-cost would be cut by more than 20%, which would also affect hundreds of thousands of family farms. In the meantime, they are starting to open up markets for products coming from the East and South America. We hoped that there would be a debate on this either at last week's committee meeting or at this plenary session, but there was no debate. Instead, they talk about China. They don't want to argue because they know the truth very well. It means that everything is subordinated to war and expansion spending. Therefore, they would reduce the agri-cost by an amount equivalent to 33 thousand billion forints. This could be the biggest blow to the common agricultural policy since it was established. The Patriot faction is therefore tabling a motion of censure against Ursula von der Leyen. This is also behind the reasons.

Dear Madam President, There are two things I would like to raise. First of all, we would like to ask that, when they develop their Ukraine policy, they finally take into account the economic consequences. So far, Europe has spent €169 billion on war and a further €100 billion in the new seven-year budget. Including indirect expenditure, up to 20% of the budget can go towards Ukraine. So this debate is not just about Ukraine. Because if the European economy is stagnating, these amounts will have to be taken from elsewhere. This is why they want to cut both cohesion funding and the agri-cost. Ukraine cannot be helped if the European economy goes into disarray. And one more thing: We would like to ask the High Representative for Foreign Affairs that if Ukraine bombs energy infrastructure that is critical for individual Member States, please do not let it go. Especially if the President of Ukraine admits that he was bombed in a targeted way to exert pressure. That's what happened to the Friendship Oil Pipeline. So all we ask is that the flag of the member states be attached to the Ukrainian flag from time to time.

Dear Madam President, In Commissioner Hansen's favorite phrase, there's an elephant in the room. It's pretty big. The question is whether they really want to reduce agricultural subsidies. We're hearing brutal plans. Politico says they're about to cut 20 percent. But why? In order to accommodate the costs of Ukraine's enlargement and the repayment instalments of previously borrowed funds, which have been miscalculated. In spite of the use of beautifully ringing phrases: targeted support, fairness – we all know what that means. It means that not all of those who are now receiving support will receive support. Area payments are targeted. You know this is going to be a big deal. It is no coincidence that it is only after the end of the session that they dare to come up with concrete proposals so that they cannot be debated here. But before publishing, I ask the Commissioner, is it true that a brutal cut in agricultural subsidies is planned? If so, how big? Thank you in advance for your specific answer.

I think it is very important to fight climate change, but in particular, when this House and the EU institutional system make decisions, they should not make decisions in such a way that the burden is borne exclusively by businesses and families. Because in recent years, we have seen that the majority of this House has placed enormous economic burdens on businesses and families without paying any attention to the fact that such rules are not being imposed in other regions of the world – which has caused enormous competitive disadvantages for European farmers, European businesses and European families. This is not a good direction, and I ask you to take into account the economic consequences when proposing such decisions.

I think it is very important to fight climate change, but in particular, when this House and the EU institutional system make decisions, they should not make decisions in such a way that the burden is borne exclusively by businesses and families. Because in recent years, we have seen that the majority of this House has placed enormous economic burdens on businesses and families without paying any attention to the fact that such rules are not being imposed in other regions of the world – which has caused enormous competitive disadvantages for European farmers, European businesses and European families. This is not a good direction, and I ask you to take into account the economic consequences when proposing such decisions.