Speeches

The upcoming NATO summit in The Hague on 24-26 June will be a key test for the Alliance's credibility and Europe's ability to respond collectively to threats. For us, the countries of NATO's eastern flank, one thing is clear: NATO must remain a pillar of security and the most effective deterrent against aggression. In the face of Russia's aggression against Ukraine, the destabilisation of the Middle East and the ever closer cooperation of authoritarian regimes, the Alliance must today clearly reaffirm its commitment to defending free, sovereign states. This means not only declarations, but concrete decisions: increase defence spending, modernise the army, develop the capabilities of the arms industry and increase interoperability. The ECR Group fully supports the objective of allocating 5% of GDP to defence by 2035. Europe should share responsibility with the US and strengthen its own strategic independence. Today, Ukraine is fighting not only for its freedom, but also for the principles that have guaranteed peace in Europe for decades. Her victory must remain our common goal.

Madam President, I'm sorry. The death penalty is a modern drama. I support all those actions that seek to abolish the death penalty. I want to make it clear that in addition to the death penalty itself and this drama, we are sometimes faced with other dramas, with irregularities in the processes that lead to the death penalty. This is also important and needs analysis. The concealment of the death penalty. There are countries that cover up the death penalty. That, too, must, in my view, be analysed. And I also wanted to recall at the very end the very important position of Pope Francis, who changed the paragraph in the catechism of the Catholic Church and recognized that the Church, in the light of the Gospel, teaches that the death penalty is unacceptable. This position should also resonate, so let's look for allies for the abolition of the death penalty in all environments. The Pope's message is also very important.

I have a question for you. I listened attentively, I am also in favour of innovation, but I wanted to ask your opinion, because in the last two years we have seen a great rate of collapse of big European companies. That year Goodyear, an American company in Germany, a semi-connector factory in Belgium, Northvolt in Scandinavia, collapsed. And now, in a month's time, we're going to vote because a Belgian company has collapsed and 3,500 workers have been laid off, and they want €7 million in aid. Don't you think that when we talk about innovation, we should also talk about collapse?

Madam President, I'm sorry. I listened to this interesting discussion with seriousness. I also believe that fur or fur is not the first human need, that we in the European Union should build solutions or look for solutions to real European problems. For some fur is a need, for others - a fanaticism. For me, for example, it's a fantasy. And I think I can sign a lot of votes here. But on the other hand, I also have social and economic aspects in mind. Let's remember that we should not hurt breeders who once invested a lot of money in their companies. Let's remember the workplaces. Remember that there is a flight of companies from Europe and elsewhere these furs can be produced and imported from elsewhere. It is necessary to pay attention to the gray zone of this production area. So we certainly face a big challenge, a big task, and building awareness around what people really need, what is most important to them. And animal lovers – I am one of them – will be in favour of not murdering animals.

Thank you so much for letting me ask you a question. In recent months, there have been large bankruptcies of companies in the European Union. In Sweden, Northvolt, a company that manufactures batteries for electric cars, collapsed. In Belgium, a semiconductor company collapsed. These are high-tech companies. Both companies have already applied to the European Union budget for money, for help from the globalization fund. I would like to ask you whether this globalisation fund from the European Union budget should be increased in such situations – and this queue, if it goes for money to the European Union, will be extended? Will you support such action? The globalization fund has been reduced over the past year.

Mr President, the resolution we present today stems from the need to strengthen the credibility, transparency and efficiency of the European Union staff selection procedures. The European Personnel Section Office plays a crucial role in ensuring that our institutions are served by a competent, impartial and multilingual public administration that reflects the complexity of our Union. In recent years, however, numerous candidates, petitioners, trade unions and even the European Ombudsman have raised concerns about organisational and technical difficulties affecting several competitions. It is our responsibility to listen to this concern, not to criticise for its own sake, but to improve. The aim of this resolution is therefore not to assign blame, but to contribute constructively to restoring trust in the recruitment process and to ensure equal and fair opportunities for all EU citizens. The objective is twofold: on the one hand, to provide candidates with faster, more modern and more transparent procedures, and on the other hand, and to ensure that institutions can rely on merit-based recruitment capable of efficiently identifying the talents needed to address the European Union's future challenges. For this reason, we call for greater transparency, clear communication, more reliable technological solutions and stronger guarantees for candidates, including those with disabilities or special needs. By inviting EPSO to carefully reassess remote testing and to reintroduce an on-site option where appropriate, we want to make sure that every candidate can demonstrate their abilities under fair and stable conditions. This resolution is supported unanimously in the PETI Committee, and is ultimately an invitation to modernise and reinforce the EU selection system, safeguarding both the reputation and the quality of our public service. It is a pragmatic and responsible step towards a more accessible, resilient and citizen-focused European administration.

Mr President, thank you very much. Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. We have a very complicated situation in the European Union. And this budget for 2026 could be better, more adequate to the challenges we face. We should react more sharply, better, now, now. We don't do this, and that's our cardinal mistake. It is bad for industry in the EU. I believe that we should do much more for entrepreneurs in this regard, and we are pulling spending on the Green Deal in this budget, which will keep energy prices high. This is terrible for entrepreneurs. There are no adequate resources for border security. Everyone is talking about security, and these measures are simply not enough. This could have been done, it could have been foreseen in this budget. Putin has turned his entire economy into a war zone. We know that it is dangerous in the world and in Europe. Why don't we do that with this budget for 2026? It could have been done. More money could have been spent. Moreover, Parliament has proposed well, but Parliament's proposals have not been taken on board by the European Commission. And that's why there's this rotten compromise. And rotten compromises are always bad. They're always bad. The situation is more complicated than the average European estimates. And we, as politicians, should be more aware of the risks that arise from this budget. It is bad that from one pocket, when it comes to agriculture, we give money to another, because we take from subsidies, we give in this budget for the promotion of food. Well, it's kind of weird when we talk about food security in general. In this aspect, too, we should simply see these matters better, the affairs of farmers, farmers in the European Union. There are not enough funds – and Parliament has proposed this – for military mobility. We don't know what's going to happen tomorrow and we're suddenly looking for money, we don't know where to react quickly. This could have been done in this budget. And the last thing: Let us not look for an enemy in the European Union in this complicated situation. Let us not look for enemies among the countries of the European Union. Our enemy is Russia and China, and we should address that completely.

Mr President, thank you very much. Every time I stand here, I say that the European Union is a good project, only very poorly managed at the moment. Because it is not the case that the Competitiveness Fund, which you spoke about, will save the European Union. In fact, he will miss out on 24 countries. This money from the Competitiveness Fund will go simply to the richest, to the best. This will make a big difference between countries. So it is also a budget of differentiation of states, unfortunately. There is also a very difficult situation in agriculture, especially in the face of Mercosur, which is what we are very worried about. The debt of the European Union is growing, so are taxes. There will be a lot of taxes, the quality of life will decrease. We are wrong about climate policy. Electricity won't cut this budget. Companies will be fleeing the EU. We will pay, just as we have just paid the Belgian manufacturer of semi-connectors money, because companies are failing. We're going to pay Northvolt in Sweden $8 million from the Globalization Fund because companies are failing. There is a centralisation of the European Union budget – this is very bad. There is a rupture of local governments – that is what we are very worried about. So, in short, a lot of worry. This is not a groundbreaking budget, these are not groundbreaking assumptions. The world outside the window looks completely different than this budget. We need to make a better budget, real, call things by their names. Then we will compete with others.

Madam President, I'm sorry. I have a good idea because the European Council is starting today. Why don't you take us, Commissioner, as we are here, with you? Maybe we could go there and just remind the European Council that there is this problem that the Council does not want to solve. Of course, I may be joking a bit, but the matter is so ridiculous that, as the last speaker said: We will probably be discussing it again in a year. And there are people from the south, from the north of Europe, from the middle of Europe, who speak with one voice. There are arguments: medical arguments not to change time, industrial arguments, economic arguments, banking arguments, health arguments. So what are we waiting for? There is full agreement on this, so let's do it.

Mr President, thank you very much. There is no problem in saying that the European Union is a good idea, only that, unfortunately, it is poorly managed. We are here to change what is wrong in the European Union. But we, with this budget, are not using this opportunity to simply change the evil that arose as a result of the mistakes of the previous European Commission. We're making mistakes in this budget, and that's my main complaint. I would like Europe to be a Europe of peoples in solidarity. That's not the case. We have a war situation in the European Union and in the world, and here we are building such non-solidarity relations between nations. We're looking for enemies. That's very bad. A strong European Union cannot be saved by mistakes such as constant borrowing, debts and so on. Next year we have to pay several billion euros to pay interest on the debt. We don't like it, so let's not look for enemies, but build solidarity. After all, I wish you all a good project and a good implementation of the project called the European Union. But for mistakes you have to apologize and you have to fight them.

Madam President, I'm sorry. This budget contains many ideological postulates. We don't like that. However, the proposal for the 2026 budget bypasses many risks. This proposal contains content that weakens the competitiveness of the European Union, inherent in the mistake of climate goals that destroy the economy, weaken competitiveness, hinder investment. False promotion of sexual and reproductive health is contrary to human nature. It is in this budget, and indirectly such a propaganda of abortion contradicts the demographic death of Europe. We have a problem with that. We need to describe exactly this problem. With such a budget, the Union becomes, in my opinion, such a vehicle. We are standing still, the world is running away, and we do not like it very much, because we would like to be and should be more competitive, really competing in technology, and not standing still and sometimes going backwards, which causes us to dislike – in relation to the world in which we are turning at the moment – those assumptions that are in this budget.

Madam President, I'm sorry. I listen with curiosity to this debate, because it is very important because it concerns our health. But who can we complain to when it comes to this increase in threat, but not to those who sign more and more different trade agreements on behalf of the European Union? If the agreement with Mercosur comes into force, more planes will arrive in Europe. More ships will come to Europe. There will be more containers. And here's a rhetorical question: Doesn't that increase the dangers associated with insects? As we read, the largest number of mosquito species – I read that it is 447 mosquito species – is in Brazil. So if we have Mercosur, we'll have more problems.

I listened very carefully to what you said. You mentioned startups. You are a young man who will probably speak here for a long time and perhaps have a career if you support startups. Because I support it too. But don't you think that the excessive regulation that is in the European Union - because there are already, as I have read, 100 pieces of legislation on digital technologies, 270 institutions supervising digital technologies in the European Union - if we add a lot more regulations, are you not afraid that your startup will have to start in the United States, because it is better and slower there than here in the European Union?

I listened very carefully to what you said. In the first sentence, you said that we have a crisis in Europe. Why did you start your speech like that? Where did this crisis come from? Who is responsible for this crisis? Do you see any role of Angela Merkel, German diplomacy in appeasing Putin? Do you see any mistakes she has made over the past decade in governing Germany and the European Union? Moreover, the Polish leader, Angela Merkel's friend Donald Tusk, did the same. Do you see any role and mistakes of diplomacy from these countries, from Germany and from Poland?

Mr President, thank you very much. Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. Today, it is an opportunity to thank all the people in the health service – researchers, doctors, those who care for Alzheimer's patients. Indeed, we have a big challenge ahead of us. We need to do something like compare the budgets of different countries for health care, for helping sick people. We spend a lot of money in different countries on various strange ideologies. These expenses are unnecessary, but people who could receive aid from their own budgets are suffering. Because the Union will not do everything – and we understand that. The Union can support and assist – and has been set up to do so. But, Commissioner, let the world see how much is spent on health and Alzheimer's in each country. Because if we hear about it, maybe it will mobilize some to take more responsibility and care for sick people. And we will also thank those who care about the sick, because it is not known whether tomorrow we will not get sick. And there are those among us who encourage abortion, who encourage euthanasia – in a situation where there is a huge increase in suicides in the European Union. So let's get back to normality, to Christian civilization. Then the EU and Europe will be better.

Sir, sir, sir, sir! Former annexation of Crimea – sanctions announced by the European Union. Putin then seized Crimea, with the European Union announcing sanctions. We now have the 18th package of sanctions. The European Union is pleased to announce sanctions. Mr. Macron called Mr. Putin and told him: Don't attack Ukraine. He laughed at those who spoke of the threat. The Belgians were worried about the trade in diamonds and did not impose sanctions because they were worried about the trade in diamonds, expensive stones. Antwerp lived by trade, not the problem of Ukraine. Is your crying and your colleagues from your party justified today? Shouldn't you hit your chest that you did much, much too little and too late?

You come from a group of greens. You're probably familiar with environmental details. So I wanted to ask you, because we have such information that Brazil uses about 4,000 pesticides to produce food. In view of this information, do you support the agreement between the European Union and Mercosur? Do you like the fact that companies that produce pesticides on the European market and cannot sell them to the European Union sell them to Brazil? Do you support such an agreement and such food that is produced with the help of chemicals?

We are both working in the Committee on Budgets and we are also aware of the situation in ECON. Here some of our colleagues said that the right is to blame for everything, that all this misfortune is related to capital markets, to the lack of a banking union, a European Banking Union. The right is to blame. After all, we know that it is not true that Spanish banks, Italian banks, Greek banks have granted a huge amount of bad loans. Nearly a trillion euros are in bad loans. And my question to you: After all, it is Germany that is blocking the creation of the next stages of the European Banking Union, because they do not want to repay bad loans. Would you agree with me?

Madam President, I'm sorry. We were pleased to hear that more than 1.2 million Europeans supported the European Citizens' Initiative. This initiative stems from the firm conviction that the European Union is very strong when it is diverse not only in terms of peoples and languages, but also in terms of regions – regions, their cultures and socio-economic specificities. The principle of territorial cohesion is enshrined in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. However, regional disparities remain significant: economic inequalities, population decline, depopulation, limited access to public services or the erosion of local cultures threaten the cohesion and unity of our common European project. This initiative calls on the Commission to take concrete steps to make regional policy more effective in promoting equality between regions, in particular those facing structural difficulties, in particular by guaranteeing fair access to EU funds for all regions, especially those with specific cultural, geographical or economic challenges, recognising and protecting regional identities and regional cultural traditions as living elements of the cultural and social heritage of the European fabric. It also promotes the sustainable development and self-sufficiency of regions by supporting local economies and demographic recovery. Strengthening regional governance and citizens' participation in shaping financial development projects and strategies in the European Union. This initiative is not aimed at separation or division. On the contrary, it is about strengthening unity through justice, enabling all parts of Europe to develop and make a significant contribution to our common future. This initiative calls for equality, not uniformity in EU policies. And cohesion policy should reflect the colourful mosaic of the European Union.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Madam Minister, I'm sorry. Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. Unfortunately, it will only get worse and there is nothing to wait for. It will be worse, because the European Commission has already contracted the European Union into a debt abyss and wants to incur more debts. The multiannual financial framework will lose value, it will actually lose value. There will be less money for the Common Agricultural Policy. I will not be mistaken if I say that it will be 20% less than it is. Regions will be blackmailed. It bodes very badly in the future. Regions will receive money if they implement reforms. This is a fatal solution. You can't do that. People in the regions will be less important. And then, of course, there's the debt: €300 billion will be charged to the new Multiannual Financial Framework, and this new budget will be much smaller in real terms. Fat years of life on credit will unfortunately turn into lean years and these lean years will result in further unrest if we do not cancel the European Commission, which simply works very badly and against the solidarity of the European Union.

Mr President, thank you very much. I want to assure you all that everything that happened in the meeting of the Committee on Petitions has been very transparent, in accordance with the rules of procedure of the European Parliament, in accordance with the rules of procedure of each committee. Everyone has had the opportunity to discuss the content of this resolution, and the content of the resolution is not the private property of anyone. Only MEPs from the Committee on Petitions are the authors of this resolution. And today I ask that we simply vote immediately in favour of this resolution, because the victims of communism in Slovenia cannot lie in plastic bags, only their remains and ashes must be dignifiedly buried and respected. If you do not respect Christian values, look at Sophocles' Antigone, and there you will learn how respect and respect for every body was taught in antiquity. I therefore believe that we simply need to vote in favour of this resolution, because this is the faith of our humanitarianism.

Madam President, I'm sorry. I am neither an extreme rightist nor an extreme leftist. I'm just a conservative. Conservatives have a calm look at everything that is happening around us. We like wise farmers, wise beekeepers, wise scientists, those who are also practitioners, who can bring their experience to the assessment of any situation. And here I would like to draw your attention to the great inconsistency of the European Union. Namely, if today we open the market in the European Union for products from South America, let us remember that there are cleared forests, there are destroyed meadows, where there are pollinator habitats. And that's where the pollinators are going to die. There will be an increase in pesticides. And we will say that we have food from South America as part of a deal with Merkosur. This is a big mistake and I think that all environments should pay attention to it as well. Let's listen to smart farmers, smart beekeepers. Life will be better.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Mr President, thank you very much. A great experiment for borrowed money called the National Reconstruction Plan failed. The European Commission staged a spectacle for those she liked, gave money to those she didn't like, didn't give money. Today, it can be seen that the reconstruction programme has led to considerable indebtedness of the European Union and has not restored the competitiveness of the European Union vis-à-vis the United States or China. I think that the European Public Prosecutor's Office should also check the activities of the European Commission, why have some countries not been given money? What about Poland? Donald Tusk's government boasts that it has unblocked the National Recovery Plan, that there is money. What to brag about here, that the MEPs from Poland voted in favour of the resolutions in order not to give local governments, investors, companies money for roads? What's there to brag about? That the European Commission has withheld funding for hospitals in Poland? That the patients were hurt because of this? What's there to brag about? That the European Commission has not given money to modernise the power grids and we have more expensive electricity? What's there to brag about? All that is wrong with Recovery in the trash. You can't do that. The Union must be a Europe of homelands, nations and solidarity.

Mr President, thank you very much. It is well known that wealth comes from austerity and wise legislation. That's what we're missing. We have too much regulation. Unfortunately, we have to get away from this as soon as possible. Doctrinal killing of coal, gas, nuclear energy and placing only on the green order drags European Union companies into the abyss. These companies – as we can see – are fleeing from the European Union to the United States, to China and elsewhere. This has to be stopped. Companies are value. Business people are a value of the European Union. Well, of course, energy, expensive energy also depresses and is a huge burden for functioning in the European Union. In my opinion, it is also a great mistake for the European Union to break relations with the United States. There's nothing to be offended by. You just have to rely on the best technology. And these latest technologies have, among others, the United States. We have to work together wisely.