What Milan spoke about.

Madam President! Dear Sir/Madam, At the initiative of France, Germany and the United Kingdom, Europe has reintroduced sanctions against Tehran. This reintroduced control of Iran's nuclear programme. For more than 30 years, the Iranian opposition movement has been revealing the regime's secret nuclear activities. These revelations have been instrumental in ensuring that the Iranian regime has so far failed to develop nuclear weapons. We should at least learn from history that the policy of appeasement to such a brutal regime does not work. The European Union should adopt a stronger and more assertive policy towards Iran. Today, when the regime is in crisis, some alternatives are emerging, such as restoring chess power in cooperation with existing power structures. This is what the EU must say resolutely not and clearly to support the Iranian resistance movement led by Maryam Rajaw and its 10-point programme, which is the only guarantee of a credible path towards a free and democratic Iran.

Mr. President! The Media Freedom Act has therefore been implemented. If we look at it impartially, so that we do not just praise or criticize it, we can say that it also brings something positive. I am thinking, in particular, of greater ownership transparency, which is above all a problem in some post-communist countries, where the old former structures have had and still have a decisive influence in the media. On the other hand, with this act, the political left, in a way, has largely usurped control over the mainstream media, as well as the promotion of censorship, which is contrary to the principle of freedom of speech, on which our civilization is based. By the way, I'm glad that Musk and Zuckerberg are renouncing censorship on their platforms. We must prevent the Media Freedom Act from being politically abused, as it has been in Slovenia. Here, with the active support of the former Commissioner, the Slovenian left has broken up in media freedom. A culture of which the media are an integral part needs freedom, neither regulation, censorship, nor control. After all, who will supervise the supervisors? This is a key issue.

Mr President! Iran is once again proving itself as one of the most brutal dictatorships in the world. The political prisoners Ehsani and Hasani are sentenced to death simply because they dared to demand freedom for the Iranian people. Their only fault is the courage to stand up to a regime that has been intimidating and murdering for decades. Under the leadership of Ali Khamenei, who is now rightly known as the godfather of executions and terrorism, Iran carried out 1153, 1153 executions in the past year. That's half as much as last year. Victims include women, children, dissidents and oppressed minorities. It is high time for the international community, including the European Union, to act. All relations with the Iranian regime must be conditional on an immediate end to torture and executions. The case of Iranian human rights violations must also be dealt with in the UN Security Council and the perpetrators brought to justice.

Mr President! With the fall of al-Assad, there was a positive geostrategic shift in the region. After all, this is the end of repression against the Syrians, the end of the organic link between the Iranian regime and Hezbollah, in a way, the defeat of Russia and Iran in the region, and the plan to destroy Israel is now less likely. So what needs to be done by the European Union? First of all, it is necessary to exclude from the reconstruction the influence of the countries that have brought Syria into this position in which it is now, and to involve all democratic forces, including the European Union and the United States, in the transition. And, of course, secondly, we must do everything possible to prevent the so-called Afghan pattern, and that is why the European Union must be much more involved in the reconstruction of this country. Mrs Kallas, we have great hopes in you that you will reposition the European Union in your field in the first league of world decision-makers.

Dear President! It's been a year since the war in the Middle East when Hamas launched an attack on Israel. Today's war with Hezbollah in Lebanon is just one of the consequences of this attack. But remember, in the last year, 13,200 rockets from Gaza, 12,400 from Lebanon, 4,000 from Iran – more than half of them ballistic, 180 from Yemen, 60 from Syria – have flown into Israel. Some say Israel is an aggressor. The real aggressor is the Iranian regime. He promotes terrorist and military operations in the region and beyond. Borrell's soft approach to Iran is wrong. He was wrong. The European Union must therefore do three things: renew sanctions against the Iranian regime, put the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps on the list of terrorist organisations and support the Iranian opposition, such as the NCRI led by Maryam Rajawi and its ten points for the renewal of Iran. Only in this way can we ensure that the region will finally be stable again if democracy takes place in Iran.

Mr. President! Iran poses a double threat: First of all, internally, because they systematically kill and violate human rights. Mr Borrell, you have never clearly stood up for the Iranian opposition, led by Maryam Rajavi, and its 10-point programme. The second danger is external: Iran has the capacity, even militarily – it has an excellent military industry – to threaten the Member States of the European Union. And here too, the European Union's response is too pale. Mr Borrell, you have never stood up for us who have been blacklisted by the Iranian regime as terrorists. A few Members of the European Parliament have landed on this list, and today I had the feeling that I was listening to you to essentially equate both Israel and Iran. I therefore support once again the two demands made by my colleagues that you should demand stronger sanctions and put the Iranian Revolutionary Guard on the terrorist list.

Mr President. I never imagined that, at the end of my third term of office, I would have to cover the functioning of the European institutions. Express concern about, for example, excessive interference by the European Commission in the actions, in the policies of the Member States. As an example, I would like to mention Mrs Vera Jourová, who intervened in the Slovenian legislative process at the time of the adoption of the amendment to the National Television Act and thus caused quite significant changes, both in terms of content and personnel, on national television. Obviously, we will not be able to solve this problem at the policy level, because the mandate is also coming to an end. But I will also be forced to seek truth and justice in the European Court of Justice. I hope that in the next term of office there will be no such thing as depriving Member States of their right to sovereignty.

Dear Mr President-in-Office! It is right for the European Union to stand up for respect for human rights and for the strengthening of democracy throughout the world. We see that democracy is in recession, including the protection of human rights. There are no more new waves of democracy spreading around the world, and it makes sense that this is also an integral part of the European Union's foreign policy, including enlargement policy. Unfortunately, however, this report seems to impose on third countries ideologies that do not even have majority support in the European Union itself. I particularly think of the over-promotion of LGBTIQ content and gender theory, which even experts are slowly giving up. Therefore, I do not think that we have the right to impose such things on third countries. Every year the same story repeats itself. The rapporteur places great emphasis on the third and fourth generations of human rights and freedoms, neglecting fundamental, fundamental, universal human rights and freedoms. This time, too.

Dear Madam President-in-Office! I would also like to join my colleagues in asking where Mr Borrell, the High Representative for European Security and Foreign Policy, is today. I have already mentioned and condemned the Hamas attack on the Israeli state on several occasions, and I repeat this today. I think we should also emphasise Israel's right to self-defence. But there is another problem here, and this is UNRWA, whose personnel participated in the terrorist attacks on Israel. I am one of those who thinks that we should not fund this organisation, this United Nations agency, until the investigation has been completed. We must liberate this agency from Hamas, make it independent and only then fund it. I think the Slovenian government also made a mistake when it financed the United Nations agency too quickly already for this year. In short, it will first be necessary to clarify things within the agency and only then can we refinance – or take over another agency – this task.

Mr. President! I'm sorry that Hungary is back on the wallpaper today. She has often been a victim of double standards. This is not good for the future of the European Union. The deprivation of voting rights seems to me to be a disproportionate, strong, strong penalty for each Member State. Yesterday, I must admit, I was very sad in this House. In this fierce hostility towards Hungary, almost 80 per cent of the Members of this Parliament have denied students, young people, researchers the opportunity to participate in Erasmus+, i.e. Hungarians. Erasmus+ is a programme dedicated to cohesion in the European Union for better cohesion. In a way, this is a programme of culture in which the Turks, Belarusians and Hungarians also participate, and yesterday we did not give this possibility to the Hungarians in the vote. I think that's nefer.

Mr. President! I consider the report to be a good one, because it is critical, above all, of the European Commission, which too often refuses to publish documents or only partially grants disclosure, as I did at first when I asked Commissioner Jourová for internal documents from her controversial visit to Slovenia. For four months now, the Vice-President of the European Commission, who is supposed to be in charge of transparency, has been avoiding publishing details of her visit to Slovenia, which a good part of the public considers to have been an inadmissible interventionism in the process of adopting the Public RTV Act. There are therefore reasonable doubts as to the legality of the European Commission's action in this case, and Mrs Jourova refuses to disclose the requested documents. In short, the more you hide the facts, the more citizens will question your democracy and transparency, Commissioner Jourová, Commissioner for Transparency. You took pictures of Potemkin's village today, but my colleagues presented you with the right picture from both the left and the right, and it was not good for you.

Mr. President! I myself have strong concerns about today's debate on the alleged deterioration of the state of democracy in Israel. It seems to me that we are once again playing the role of a kind of supreme arbiter in this assembly, which will not improve our reputation in international relations. I think Israel is on the wallpaper of this house for the third time in a few months. This young country has 75 years of democratic tradition, sharing values with the European Union. In lively democracies, there are regular protests, and these are normal. But judicial reform is an internal Israeli political and democratic process that certainly does not require external intervention. Let me remind you, however, that three young men in Tel Aviv were seriously wounded by terrorists on Thursday night. This was, of course, not because of judicial reform, but because of the continuous incitement to hatred among ethnic groups in the region. This event has far greater consequences for the security situation and the lives of Israeli citizens than some judicial reform that has just begun.

Madam President. Let me start by taking a look at today's topic. It would be better to deal with both left and right extremism together, that is, to deal with it. In this way, it would be easier to achieve a certain consensus of the democratic arc on the unacceptability of both dangers. Research shows that left-wing extremism is more present in our space, so first of all, a little more about it will make a little balance. We know the history of the extreme left there until the 1990s, when they drew their ideology from Marxism, Leninism, as well as Maoism. At a later stage, it became the new ideological basis of the so-called cultural Marxism, which was largely imposed even by universities and many institutes around the world. For example, the São Paulo Forum in Latin America is a blacksmith of extreme ideas and personnel, as many of the presidents of the region are members of the Forum. So the extreme left, which is not violence and terror, is also strongly present in the EU. We have a special experience with it from Slovenia, as they have used violent methods to demolish the government and its president. Well, it is also known to be one of the active international networks of Antifa. But on the other hand, Putin's motorcyclists, the Night Wolves, as they are called, are also mass-driving in the Balkans, sowing fear among people, and there is too much right-wing extremism in the European Union itself, as we have heard today. And there are also countries and governments that support terrorism and extreme movements and write blacklists on which democrats find themselves. In short, difficult times. It doesn't matter if the extremists are right or left. It's important that he sees and does what he does. Countries should be like that too.

Mr. President! First of all, I would like to congratulate my colleague McAllister on his excellent work report. The report shows that the EU's rather united response to Russia's aggression against Ukraine is proof that we have learned from past mistakes and that our foreign policy position is improving. We are also slowly improving our approach to Iran. By the way, I would like to commend the President of the European Parliament Metsola, who yesterday, in her address to the European Parliament, showed great courage and heartfelt support for Iranian protesters who risk their lives simply because they are fighting for freedom and democracy. We are witnessing tectonic shifts in a geopolitical space that has become decentralized. Against this backdrop, the Union must stand up for itself, assert the concept of strategic autonomy and regain the prestige that Europe once had. However, this cannot be achieved only by so-called soft power.

Dear Madam President-in-Office, Commissioner, dear colleagues! There are 74 million young people aged 14-29 in Europe. That's relatively large. It is worth trying for them, but on the other hand, in a situation where we are talking about an elderly society in Europe, too little. Too little. But research shows that young people want to be more proactive in society, want to be more involved. They draw attention to unemployment, which is still prevalent in Europe and has a strong presence in many parts of the European Union. It is right to help them as much as possible. And this initiative, which came from the President of the European Commission in September 2021 to have the European Year of Youth next year, is more than welcome, but late. I believe that youth organisations and other participants have had too little time to make good preparations and, of course, there are difficulties in implementation. And also for next year, when it was proposed just before the present that this year of skills, which is a perfect idea, will be very good, but carries the same bad point as the previous initiative. We are too poorly coordinated in European policies to take such initiatives. That's why I have two great wishes. The first is to extend this initiative by six months so that they can carry out their own projects, which young people have set out to do. And the second initiative, I ask the European Commission to better coordinate such initiatives in the future, to talk to us, who are decision-makers in education policies. The European Commission is primarily an enforcer and it would be more than necessary to come together, look, analyse things and only then take very important initiatives, as is the case this year.

Thank you very much, Mr President-in-Office! So, after the brutal murder of Mrs. Amini, the Iranian people woke up again. Not the first time, most recently in 2019. But this time, women are at the forefront, and the protests promise change. But even then, years ago, and even today, the Iranian regime uses all possible means, violence, to prevent the rebels from achieving democracy and freedom. But what I am happy about today, tonight, is that the whole European Parliament is fairly united – one vote in support of the Iranian opposition in the fight for democracy and freedom. And that's good. But what Europe needs right now is for all the European institutions to be more efficient. We haven't been in the last few years. We had a rather vague approach against the regime, which during this time strengthened, became a real, factual, even nuclear power, and which also threatens the region in general. I would like to reiterate that you are... (The Chair took the floor)

Mr President-in-Office. My colleagues have already given us all the necessary figures on the subject we are dealing with. I would just like to point out that the Member States have a great role to play here, as do some European programmes, including Erasmus, which will also have to restructure certain items. What is at stake is that Erasmus can do a lot to help not only those refugees who come to Europe, but all young people and children who are also displaced within Ukraine. I would like to emphasise that the key task of all of us is to integrate these adolescents into normal life. This is crucial for their survival. We have good education systems in Europe that can help a lot. I would just like to give examples from the Republic of Slovenia, when primary school children and adolescents spoke or spoke a few words in the Slovenian language on the second day. And I believe that this is also the case in other environments where young people come from. So Erasmus needs to be expanded, its functioning needs to be expanded, not only within the European Union, but also within Ukraine, and I think that there is much more to be done there, more difficult tasks than within the European Union. Thank you very much for your attention.

Mr President, honourable Commissioner, dear colleagues. Sometimes we say: ‘The world stands on young people’, and then young people replied once: “What should we stand on?” Well, this basis can be given to them by us, a little less young or older, and those who have the opportunity to decide on youth policies. And today we are making decisions and providing young people with the financial basis for this programme. Today I am very pleased that we are going to adopt this resolution, which stipulates that the second year will be the year of young people. I would like to thank in particular our President, Sabine Verheyen, who has not only reached fresh financial means, but has also managed to negotiate for this in a relatively short period of time. As the European Parliament's standing rapporteur on Erasmus+, I was, of course, initially worried about where this new money would come from. Thank goodness we had good negotiators and that we got fresh money for this program. What I would like to see is that the Member States would also contribute more financially to this programme. Like, for example, for another programme, when it was the Year of European Culture and so on. Let me conclude with this: I think today's decision-makers have given the young people most affected by this pandemic a beautiful Christmas present.

Mr. President! The European Commission has concluded that Slovenia has no problems with the rule of law, as the institutions are functioning. However, then the left-wing political pole of this House could not agree with this position, especially the Slovenian colleagues, and this working group was created within the framework of LIBE, which visited Slovenia and, of course, prepared a report on which we will still have to talk, as it has been contaminated from the very beginning. But it is true that Slovenia has certain problems with the rule of law. Only 25 percent of citizens trust, say, the judiciary, have problems with the media, not with media freedom, but with non-transparent ownership, concentration of media ownership, asymmetry, 90 percent of the media is left-wing, left-wing, and people, of course, are not qualitatively and objectively informed in this way. Anyone who would tackle the rule of law in Slovenia would have to tackle not the tweet of the Prime Minister, but above all some corruption networks, which partly originate from the previous regime, and partly are new and actually dominate certain social subsystems. Earlier, we heard from our colleague Tomc that one such network, which has influence in the banking industry, can easily wash almost two billion US dollars of dirty money from the Iranian regime, and nothing happens. I therefore believe that this debate has some political intention to put the Slovenian government on the pranger and, with it, Slovenia. Hopefully there will be no major consequences from this. Perhaps there is also a message, the main message of this debate, that perhaps they will get it off the pranger at that time (I will immediately) when there will be another government in Slovenia.

Dear Madam President-in-Office, Commissioner. First of all, I would like to thank the co-rapporteurs Janusz Lewandowski and György Hölvény and all the shadow rapporteurs for their good and constructive cooperation in preparing the report on the implementation of the European Union Trust Funds and the Facility for Refugees in Turkey. Politically and operationally, trust funds have brought a new quality of cooperation in the field of the European Union's external action. That's unquestionable. The European Union, which often lacks visibility and effectiveness in this area. The EU administration is often criticised for being slow and insufficient in delivering aid. Well, it is precisely for this purpose that EU trust funds were created to provide an opportunity for rapid and effective action. Following the review of the implementation of the Trust Funds, I would particularly highlight as one of the most important strengths of the Trust Funds in the EU a flexible, proactive and rapid response to real needs on the ground and the possibility for third countries to participate as donors, as well as an enhanced political dialogue with partner countries. As existing trust funds will cease to exist at the end of this year, we need to focus on the many lessons learned from the implementation of trust funds and use them to improve the implementation of the new generation, as my predecessor, the European Union's external financial instruments, in particular NDICI-Global Europe, has already said. Let me underline the need to strengthen the scrutiny powers of the European Parliament in the event of the creation of a possible new trust fund. We have heard this philosophy before in the previous point. It is an important instrument of public diplomacy, I am talking about NDICI, so the role of the European Parliament in the future is crucial. Focusing on a brief overview of the Colombia-Madad Trust Funds and the Facility for Refugees in Turkey, for which AFET is responsible, we find that they have justified their added value, met the objectives set and achieved to a large extent the expected results. The war in Syria, which has created the largest refugee crisis in modern history, has had a devastating impact on Syria and the wider neighbourhood. The Madad Trust Fund and the Facility for Refugees in Turkey have been an important tool in providing humanitarian and development assistance to Syrian refugees and their host communities. It is of utmost importance to me that programmes under the Funds primarily support the most vulnerable groups: to protect children, women and youth as much as possible from violence, abuse and exploitation. Thanks to the EU Trust Fund, children in Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey can thus go to schools and have access to safe spaces for non-formal education and to protection and psychosocial care. Trust funds also provide better access to health services and support to increase economic opportunities and social inclusion. Special attention is also paid to vocational training, which improves access to the labour market and income opportunities for Syrian refugees. Looking at the situation in Colombia, we find that it remains complex. The country is facing a number of crises at the same time, which are undermining the efforts of the peace agreement. Violence persists along with high levels of organised crime and serious human rights violations. The Colombia Trust Fund has managed to achieve tangible results in providing development support to small farmers and small and medium-sized enterprises, making an important contribution to local development in the regions most affected by the conflict. Dear Sir/Madam, Unfortunately, the needs and challenges that led to the creation of these trust funds in the European Union are still present. The COVID-19 pandemic has worsened, internationally, and has also led to a deterioration of the international security environment. We therefore need to make effective use of the full range of financial assistance instruments provided for in the current multiannual financial framework. The European Union must strengthen its leading position on the international stage and ensure a stronger, more autonomous, united and assertive foreign and security policy to ensure rapid crisis resolution and the maintenance of global peace and stability.

Mr President, honourable Mr President-in-Office, honourable Commissioner, dear colleagues! For 27 years, Aliaksandr Lukashenka has been terrorizing, implementing his dictatorship with the clear support of the Kremlin, which means that Moscow also bears its share of responsibility. He is a dictator who terrorises not only his citizens, imprisons them, we have over 700 political prisoners, some are under the age of 18, violates universal human rights, organises elections, runs a regime based on the death penalty, but also terrorises the European Union. By becoming a human smuggler, more than 6,000 of them, we have heard, kidnapping European planes and the like. I am pleased to be part of this vast majority in the temple of European democracy today, which wants to send a clear and loud message to Minsk, that is to say, a strong, unified message, including a call to the Hague Court. Thank you very much.

Dear Madam President-in-Office, honourable representative of the Commission, Mr Šefčovič, honourable President Janša. First of all, thank you to President Janša for presenting the Presidency's programme. I think it's fairly balanced. On the one hand, there are some important, powerful points that touch on the issue of security, especially cyber security, and on the other, there are the policies and tasks that await us, especially in the digital and green transitions. However, there is not much time to talk about the programme, I would rather touch on or respond to some of the views of my colleague Fajon and colleague Grošelj and some of the others who are setting up the Slovenian government, presenting them as undemocratic, ineffective and the like. The facts are negating you. When the Slovenian centre-right government, in particular that of Mr Janša, was in power, the highest economic growth in Slovenia, the least unemployed, the welfare state was the strongest, and even the birth rate was significantly higher in those times. But if these facts do not convince you, let me say that the index of media freedom in Slovenia is also significantly higher during Janša's government and the index of democracy in Slovenia was also significantly higher during the period of centre-right governments.