Speeches

Mr. President, please. The European Semester was originally set up in 2011 under the Hungarian Presidency to coordinate the economic processes of the Member States and to ensure financial discipline. But this is not a priority for the left: For years, everything was done to force ideological elements into the framework. The reform of economic governance has also been fought to ensure that the Commission holds Member States accountable for more issues that would otherwise fall under national competence. This is also the biggest flaw of the report, and he would even like to see the overhead price determined by Brussels, which must be rejected, and social policy is not an EU competence either. I suggest you read the contracts. Furthermore, CSRs should not be one-size-fits-all. They should take better account of national specificities. The Commission should be reminded of this in the report. Parliament is also obsessed with gaining as much influence as possible in the process of economic coordination. This is a complete lack of role. Finally, the Semester should mean predictability and safe planning for Member States. However, the Commission would publish the CSRs late this year and is stubbornly refusing to change the target date. Please change that as a matter of urgency.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Europe's economy is bleeding from a thousand wounds. Stagnation, high energy prices, labour shortages, a weakening business environment. Our share of the world's GDP is also shrinking compared to other regions, and instead of looking for a solution, we are making our own fate more difficult by screening rules such as corporate due diligence. This is also proof of the ideologically based economic policy pushed by the left, which is a sure failure. Parliament has been pushing for this legislation for years. Unfortunately, the Council gave in, and now, before the elections, the Member States are aware of how much this would harm Europe's competitiveness. This parliament has put thousands of pages of bureaucratic burden on companies over the past five years. Now it would be up to them to be each other's gendarmes, and in some cases even medium-sized companies to guarantee something they have no idea about. Only consulting firms will look for this. And companies in the developing world will be dismantled from the EU supply chain because we become too complicated partners. The competitive disadvantage of EU companies will therefore increase. This legislative idea was wrong from the outset. It's time to step back and turn it into a business-friendly policy.

Mr. President, please. I am pleased that we can finally put the spotlight on the "i" in the renewal of the EU-Chile Association Agreement. After November, when we concluded a similar agreement with New Zealand, another free trade agreement is now on the table. One might think that the Union is entering into such agreements one after the other, but unfortunately the reality is that the Commission's certificate for the past five years is very poor. In addition, during the mandate, only Vietnam managed to do the same, also in 2020, so the previous Commission still deserves the glory. This Commission has sacrificed everything on the altar of greening and the digital transition. It has set expectations for industry that are unfeasible, especially because we do not have the critical and strategic raw materials needed for the transition. A broad network of free trade agreements and strategic partnerships would have been needed to procure them. Instead, they imposed extra reporting obligations on companies and unachievable or even offensive sustainability conditions on partner countries. This is how the Mercosur Treaty came into play. This misguided, over-ideologicalised trade policy has also hurt the competitiveness of the Union. I hope that the next Commission will learn from the mistakes and work for Europe's competitiveness and for a business-friendly environment.

Mr. President, please. Europe is facing pressing challenges. We urgently need to improve our competitiveness. The green and digital transitions must be carried out on the basis of common sense. It is necessary to give a new impetus to industry and to put small and medium-sized enterprises in a position. The European Investment Bank has always been an important actor in supporting EU priorities. In 2023, it provided over €75 billion in loans in the areas of sustainable development, cohesion, innovation and digitalisation. It is a special pleasure that 675 million euros came to Hungary. Our goal is to increase the bank's activity to 1 billion euros per year. However, this is not enough. A competitive Europe needs greater and unbureaucratic support for green energy, infrastructure development and SMEs. The EIB should play a greater role in this area. The bank's subsidy policy must not be blinded by the extreme green ideology, but must be implemented in accordance with realities. It is therefore important that the EIB also supports nuclear energy projects in the future. Without it, there is no successful green economy and no competitive Europe.

Dear Mr President, The WTO is a symbol of open, rules-based trade. The fact that 164 countries sit at the table year after year and try to develop trade between themselves is commendable, even if sometimes cumbersome. This cooperation must be built on, because it is in the interest of an export-oriented Europe. I support the reform of the organisation and all proposals, including the launch of negotiations on industrial subsidies, to promote a level playing field in international trade. I also support the conclusion of a global agreement on investment facilitation. So let's say yes to connectivity, no to lock-in, no to protectionism and no to trade ideology. I call on the Commission and colleagues to take this into account when formulating the EU's economic security strategies. Impact assessments should be carried out for the relevant new legislation. The proposals should be in line with WTO rules and respect the competences of the Member States. I call on the Commission to pursue a more proactive, smarter and business-friendly trade policy in the future. He never leaves difficult cases to the end of the term. This Commission has a poor record and has not made as much of the free trade opportunities available as it could have.

Dear Mr President, We are already accustomed to the fact that the international media and the left are colluding and creating a debate in this House out of trumped-up issues with the aim of discrediting Hungary. We are also used to double standards. We are expected to do things that others are not expected to do, for example, in the field of justice or in matters that have nothing to do with them under EU rules. For example, how child protection works in Hungary. But it's an unprecedented case that's been going on since last week. Starting in Italy and then being supported by the European left, the aim is to collide the Hungarian and Italian governments on the basis of fabricated accusations by an Italian citizen arrested in Hungary, accused of committing a brutal crime. At a sensitive moment, when serious issues affecting Europe are indeed on the agenda. They did not achieve their goal. Their goal is that the governments of Hungary and Italy do not cooperate. Why is there a double standard? A Slovak citizen who was beaten to death at Charleroi airport in Belgium did not cross the threshold of this parliament. I ask why this House has now become a courthouse on trumped-up charges.

Madam President, I must repeat my request to also listen to Hungary in this debate, if this Parliament considers the rule of law and due process to be important. As I mentioned earlier, under Rule 137(4) of the Rules of Procedure, which is an important Rule, a Member has the right to be respected in a debate. In this debate, Hungary is not given the right to speak, while we are being accused of very serious things. The truth is that a criminal, that is, a person, an Italian citizen has committed very serious crimes in Hungary and is under charge in prison. He accuses us of unworthy conditions, while it was clearly found that he lied during the legal procedure. Madam President, I would like to ask for an intervention from Hungary as well.

Madam President, I will speak in Italian. I would like to protest against the procedure applied for the debate on Ilaria Salis, which does not comply with Rule 137(4) of the Rules of Procedure and violates European values. One Member State, Hungary, is seriously accused, and as a Hungarian Member I am not granted the right to speak in the debate. This does not respect the principle of due process and thus goes against the rule of law. The European Parliament is assuming the role of a court and does not give the floor to the accused. I wonder, Mr President, what kind of procedure this is. The basic situation is that an Italian citizen was arrested in Budapest for brutally assaulting Hungarian and non-Hungarian citizens, along with other accomplices, randomly selecting their victims based on their clothing. Everything was recorded by surveillance cameras and this person accuses us of being in unworthy condition. Again, Mr President, why not give the opportunity to a Hungarian intervention?

Dear Mr President, In my country, Hungary, any kind of totalitarian symbol or act, be it far-left or far-right, is prohibited. Using them is a crime. And that's the right thing to do. However, I am speaking out in the debate to protest against the left's attempts to make political gains. Dear fellow Members, What the hell's going on? Why do we allow the European Parliament to be a space of hatred and double standards instead of concentrating on legislation in the interest of European citizens? The left-liberal side, with the complicity of the People's Party, is attacking conservative governments, while the excesses of left-wing governments are classified as internal affairs. For example, Hungary has partial access to the resources it is entitled to because it implements the Commission’s expectations. To this end, a Member of the European Parliament from the People's Party who has already been elected as an auditor, and who would be obliged to be impartial, is denigrating my country and fighting to take away our right to vote. Meanwhile, illegal cleansing is taking place in Poland, Brussels is silent. An incident that has been happening in Italy for 46 years is suddenly in the spotlight as they have a conservative government. At the same time, in Spain, the judiciary is subordinated to Parliament. And according to the representative of the socialist government, I quote, when we discuss national issues in this house, it undermines our values. What is this, if not double standards? I hope that in June, citizens will put this Parliament on a new path.

Dear Madam President, It is refreshing to finally speak out on a topic where we stand on the ground of common sense. The revision of the Markets in Financial Instruments legislation will strengthen the position of investors and facilitate access to capital markets for businesses. Firms are largely financed through bank lending in Europe, capital markets are weaker than in America, and this represents a competitive disadvantage. At the same time, investments in the digital and green transitions require huge amounts of money, for which private capital is essential. The current proposal helps with this. During the negotiations, it was crucial that easier access to stock exchange information did not jeopardise the functioning of smaller stock exchanges. The Commission's initial proposal inexplicably favoured large service providers, even those owned outside Europe, and jeopardised the existence of small independent European exchanges. Fortunately, the Council and Parliament have adjusted this. Thank you to the rapporter. Thus, a win-win solution was found. Transparency is also improved by prohibiting brokers from receiving money to redirect orders from clients to certain trading platforms. We are therefore taking an important step towards more transparent and accessible capital markets, but there is still ample work to be done to deepen the Capital Markets Union.

Mr. President, please. I suggest consideration. The FDI Screening Regulation has been in force for three years, so we do not yet have enough information to assess it. However, it is certain that broadening the powers of the Commission is not the right way forward, as national security is a Member State competence. That should be respected. It is also wrong to focus a strategy on questioning relations with one of our largest trading partners. Europe is not in a position to label investments and alienate its partners, because in the end there will be no one left to do business with us. Connectivity, not isolation, is in our best interest. In the case of outward investment, the restriction should be the last resort. I hope that the Commission will continue to consult the Member States and will not forget the impact assessment, as without it it is life-threatening to come up with any legislation. We need to know exactly how they would affect our competitiveness and the business environment. If we do not return to the path of rationality, jobs will be lost in Europe.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, according to the Socialists, selling the country by seven votes is an internal matter. Well, I wouldn't be very surprised if, after a moment, speaking of Hungary and Poland with the greatest effervescence, we are judged on any kind of matter. Don't you see any discrepancies in this? And they do so with the maximum conspiracy of the European Commission and are masters in the selective application of the rule of law and double standards. In the case of Hungary, Brussels continued to withhold funds and asked about the size of judges’ offices. At the same time, Sanchez offers amnesty to criminals who were sentenced not only for an illegal referendum, but also for fraud and embezzlement. Sánchez puts his "compis" in the judicial organs. In Congress, with the new concept of lawfare, political committees of inquiry may express their views on judges and trials already held. Brussels' reaction to this clear attack on the independence of justice: a letter of concern. Dear Dolors, Spaniards, the solution will not come from Europe. Brussels only worries if it rules the right. Maintain the unity that has been formed by the demonstrations in the streets and this will help change the course of Spain.

Dear Madam President, Dear fellow Members, European companies are right to sound the alarm about the burden on their shoulders. According to Eurochambers, business prospects are now at their worst since the 2008 crisis. German family businesses have issued a joint statement that they are already critically overwhelmed by EU rules. Companies face a number of challenges: economic downturn, high interest rates, geopolitical tensions, fragmented supply chains, skyrocketing energy prices. According to BusinessEurope, in recent years, Brussels has imposed 850 new obligations, covering 5,000 pages, for greening and sustainability. The president of France's largest business advocacy rightly says that the EU causes as much frustration and annoyance as it gives hope because of the standard-setting delirium. Not very promising statements. the 25% reduction in reporting obligations promised by Mrs von der Leyen will thus be enough, at most, for the Commission to break down the barriers it has built itself. Nothing has been made of the principle of "introducing one rule in case of a new rule", which was promised four years ago. The Commission should therefore urgently change course, dismantle unnecessary bureaucracy and subject its proposals to a competitiveness and SME test before all companies outside Europe seek to thrive.

Dear Madam President, Dear fellow Members, The current Commission has very lean certification in the area of trade policy. Only the EU-Vietnam agreement, negotiated by the previous Commission, has been put in place, and now we have reached New Zealand. That's painfully little. Since COVID, supply chains have not been safe. The situation has been exacerbated by the wars, putting European production and jobs at risk. Companies have been ringing the alarm for a long time, in vain. The Commission gives in to the pressure of Parliament from the left and imposes even more sustainability conditions that almost no state will want to trade with us. Are we content with the fact that the 5 million-strong developed New Zealand is willing to do this? Of course, we are glad that at least this has been achieved, but it will not solve Europe's competitiveness problems. Its contribution to the security of supply chains is minimal. Moreover, it sets the bar so high that it is feared that Parliament will oppose any other agreement that does not reach that level. I therefore ask the Commission that this agreement should not be the yardstick. In the interest of our companies, provide them with new market access opportunities. Ensure fair conditions for partner countries and negotiate and conclude the Chilean, Mexican and Mercosur agreements with them during this term.

Ladies and Gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, If the Commission does not change course in these dangerous times, crises could even bury the Union. So what should be done? Firstly, there is a need for broad-based cooperation against terrorism, in order to understand its migration implications. Zero tolerance for those sympathetic to terrorism and terrorism. Secondly, the Commission should not push the migration package. One of its elements, mandatory relocation, has already failed anyway. Stop illegal migration at the external borders and put aid in place with a targeted, controlled development policy. Thirdly, let us help Ukraine, but let us not leave it any longer, let us not continue the failed sanctions policy. I call for peace talks as soon as possible. Fourthly, instead of an ideological economic policy, we need to regain Europe's competitiveness, energy policy, the green transition and trade policy. Let us free SMEs from bureaucratic burdens. Furthermore, the Commission should not discriminate between Member States in the single market. Do not hold back recovery and cohesion funds for political reasons. It is unacceptable that five Member States still do not have access to it. Finally, I ask the Commission not to serve the will of third countries, but to seek and take into account the interests of European people and companies. We don't have eight months to get Europe back on track. This should not be the mandate of lost opportunities.

Dear Mr President, Dear fellow Members, There is no dispute between us that the Russian aggression against Ukraine is unacceptable. However, the sanctions did not provide a solution. What is more, we see that Europe is paying a heavier price than the aggressor. The price is the execution of Europe's economy and competitiveness. New dependencies, rising energy prices, inflation, disruption of supply chains. An impact assessment has only been carried out at EU level and not per Member State. The Commission therefore does not want to face the facts as to who it has put in a very serious situation. According to the Commission, the negative impact on Europe is minimal and Russia is in ruins. Last year, the Russian economy fell 2.1 percent. This year, the Russian economy will grow by 2.2 percent, while Europe will almost stagnate. Russia is hurt, of course, but it's still doing business, just not with us, and the war hasn't ended. While the goal was to bring Russian revenues to zero, imported Russian LNG has grown by 40% over the past six months. Several Member States also source more oil from Russia than in the past. Less hypocrisy, more insight, fellow Members! Let's not kick any more self-sufficiency with a flawed sanctions policy.

Madam President, I'm sorry. The EU has been in trouble for a long time, its economy is almost stagnating and competitiveness is at its lowest point. War and rising energy prices are giving our competitors an advantage. COVID-torn supply chains are also in a difficult situation. In such cases, trade relations should be conducted on the basis of common sense. Instead, however, we see that the Commission and the left of this house like to make decisions on an ideological basis. The certificate of this parliamentary term is shameful in terms of free trade. If all goes well, we may be able to ratify the volume-defying New Zealand Agreement and Chile. That's very little. It is unacceptable for the Commission to waste two years on the formal aspects of the EU-Mexico modernised global agreement, and the new conditions imposed on the Mercosur countries mean that we could lose access to the 260 million market. Another serious problem is the Commission's lack of involvement. We have gone so far as to advocate for a third country instead of representing the interests of the Member States. The ban on imports of Ukrainian grain has been lifted so that the warehouses of the eastern border Member States are full before harvest. This is causing serious market disruption and threatening Europe's strategic autonomy in the long term from a basic food source. I therefore call on the Commission to change course immediately. It is in the interests of the citizens and businesses of the Union that it has a mandate to do so.

Madam President, I'm sorry. I remember clearly, after the modernisation negotiations of the Energy Charter Agreement were concluded last year, the Commission proudly stated: the new text fully complies with environmental sustainability requirements. And now the Commission wants to shut it all down. The consequence of this will be that for 20 years the terms of the old agreement will remain in force, i.e. fossil investments will also have to be protected. While if the modernization agreement were to enter into force, the new ones would no longer be protected and the old ones would only enjoy it for ten years instead of twenty. Thus, the Commission's turnaround is incomprehensible to me, although I know that a number of Member States have, in the meantime, withdrawn. In an era of war-induced energy crisis, it is necessary to protect energy investments that help to decouple the Union. The Energy Charter stands for stability, which is essential for strategic and capital-intensive energy investments. If the Commission decides to throw in the towel instead, please take due care and note that there are Member States that do not want to withdraw from the Convention. Therefore, a solution is needed that allows them to do so.

Mr. President, please. The Turkey report before us is completely flawed. The EU's mandate is not to connect with its partners and re-educate them, but to form alliances that strengthen it economically, politically and security-wise. Turkey is our strategic partner, whom we have been accusing of EU membership for many years, but we do not want to negotiate with it, we are only educating it. In the meantime, he is protecting Europe's external border from increasing migratory pressure. During the war in our neighbourhood, our military ally has played an indispensable role in securing energy supplies to Central and Eastern Europe since Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. In addition, Turkey has the only successful mediation between warring parties to date, the Black Sea Grain Agreement, which has been able to alleviate the food crisis in many parts of the world for months. I'm saying this, even if Russia is out of it. Turkey would have more respect for all of this. Let's stop creating them in our own image. We're not gonna make it.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Last year, Hungary alone received 55 times more grains and oilseeds from Ukraine than before the liberalisation of imports. That's 66 times a month until May this year. Some of this is still in our warehouses, even though we should have left our region through the Solidarity Lane. This year's harvest is excellent. Where do the farmers put it? I would like to ask those who oppose the extension of the import restriction. Therefore, neither the root cause nor the circumstances of the import ban have changed and the restriction should be maintained beyond 15 September. We cannot go back to the situation before 2 May, when the Member States on the EU's eastern border were flooded with Ukrainian grain, causing serious market disturbances. Instead of getting to where you really need to be: Africa and the Middle East. The Commission should not hesitate any longer. I have no doubt that if the crops of Western European farmers had been excluded from the EU market, the Commission would have left long ago. We stand in solidarity with Ukraine, but the Commission should also be with us. Strengthen the solidarity route so that Ukrainian crops can really leave the EU. Don't play into the hands of speculators. For this, as before, we will continue to give all help, but let not our farmers pay the price of the war!

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the war against Ukraine, skyrocketing energy prices, record inflation, reserves on China would all justify the search for new partners for Europe. The July CELAC summit could have served this momentum. We are glad that they organized it after an interruption of too many years. However, not a single major unfinished business was concluded. The EU-Mexico Global Agreement has been awaiting signature for three years. The agreement with Mercosur, which would represent for us a new market of 260 million people, is moving further and further away because it has created new conditions. And then we're surprised that the four South American countries don't applaud. The Commission lets some Member States cover their protectionist desires with a green cloak, depriving thousands of European companies of business opportunities. I call on the Commission to change. Complete the agreements already negotiated as soon as possible. This is what the Union's economic interest demands and this is what will create more jobs in Europe. Also, treat your foreign partners as equals, without ideology and with respect. If we don't, we fear that Latin America will seek friends elsewhere. Do not risk now the future of our companies, which will seek their lives leaving the Old Continent. No more blows to our competitiveness.

Mr. President, please. The coronavirus pandemic, war and flawed sanctions policies have stalled economies, led to skyrocketing energy and commodity prices and record high inflation. This has created an unprecedented challenge for the SME sector, the backbone of the European economy, which employed nearly 85 million people in 2022. Moreover, the Commission itself acknowledges that the situation is dangerous. There are, of course, nice words and promises from Brussels on how they would support SMEs, but the reality is, unfortunately, that Brussels is only pro-SME on paper. Instead of helping, many administrative burdens are placed on businesses, unfortunately with the support of the left here. Slowly we come to the point where if they want to comply with all the rules, they simply don't have time to produce or supply. The Commission should finally provide real help, come forward with the SME Facilitation Package we have been waiting for since 2022. The previously promised principle of "think small first" or "whenever new rules are introduced, an old one will be phased out" will finally be put into practice. Without a strong European SME sector, there is no European economy, no European competitiveness and no European prosperity.

Madam President, I'm sorry. The economic crisis caused by the pandemic, war and sanctions, inflation and America's conscious policy have led to less foreign investment in strategic sectors in Europe in recent years. No wonder, because instead of overseas paradise conditions, what do we offer? Burning energy prices, dependence on raw materials, increasing administrative burden and rules of conduct. European companies do not have time to produce or supply if they want to meet all the requirements. We're pushing for a green transition, but we're educating China, while a solar panel and electric car battery aren't much of a thing in the world without them. We are wasting valuable years until the negotiated free trade agreements are signed. This is the case with the Mercosur and Mexican agreements, which in turn would provide a major business opportunity for companies on both sides. It is particularly painful that the Commission is only verbally pro-SME. Since September, no progress has been made with the relief package for them. The principle of "think small first" or "when all new rules are introduced, an old one will be phased out" exists only on paper. Let Brussels finally give businesses access to the air, otherwise this Commission will enter the history of the Union as having destroyed Europe's competitiveness!

Mr. President, please. Europe needs a fair competition policy that promotes competitiveness, easy access to finance, transparent rules and quick decisions. In comparison, the Commission's response to these changes is very slow. It has relaxed State aid rules, but so far only the big ones have benefited from them, threatening to distort the internal market. The Commission was able to wait four years, for example in the case of Hungary with the approval of a grant, so that we could support an investment with our own resources. This is unacceptable! Only 30% of the recovery money has reached its destination, and Hungary and Poland are in a political game. Meanwhile, trade policy has become ideologically based, so it is no wonder that in 2010 the EU accounted for 22% of global GDP, up from 17% today. China has doubled its share, overtaken us, and the US has increased its advantage. Of the world's ten largest companies, only one is European, and European-based companies are preparing to relocate overseas to take advantage of the Inflation Reduction Act. The Commission should abandon its reactive policy. Acknowledge Europe's interests at last and act consciously to increase competitiveness.

Mr. President, please. This proposal is another blow to Europe's competitiveness. It entraps companies while giving NGOs the power to keep the company they control at bay. They have to be responsible for things that they have no control over. Companies will now be each other's gendarmes instead of focusing on creating value and jobs. I would like to ask the Commission: How will this result in the announced 25 percent reduction in reporting obligations? What happened to the ‘One in, one out’ initiative? Where is the famous SME filter that the Commission does not come up with a proposal that is bad for SMEs? In the last five years alone, more than 150 laws affecting businesses have emerged. Inflation, unleashed by war and sanctions, energy prices put SMEs in particular in a difficult position. At the very least, there is now a need to increase their administrative and financial burden. Let us believe that companies are able to act fairly without threats. The left has always been anti-business, but I ask the People's Party and the liberals to finally wake up and not vote for this freak!