Speeches

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.

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, 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.