Speeches

Mr President, the proposals concerning plant reproductive material have two general flaws. The first is to try to address a broad issue with one regulation and then to empower the Commission disproportionately to adopt delegated implementing legislation, of which we know nothing in advance. There is a risk of fragmented and unclear legislation. The second general mistake is to seek a unified solution despite the fact that there are huge differences in climatic and soil conditions in different countries of the European Union. There is no reasonable reason to change well-functioning practices in a number of countries and to interfere with the selection of reproductive material that has proven its worth under the given conditions. A much better solution would be to modernise the existing directives. The three-year implementation period is disproportionately short and its implementation will cause significant difficulties in practice. Efforts to check compliance with the conditions, which will lead to considerable administrative and financial burdens, are also disproportionate. The proposed practice of using heterogeneous material and exchanging seeds between farmers will jeopardise the protection of the rights of protected varieties. This will also increase the risk of phytosanitary problems. The introduction of mandatory tests on the utility value of vegetable and fruit varieties will result in a financial, time-consuming and organisationally demanding process. Nor can it be agreed to enforce access to forest nurseries and stocks of FRM. Thank you for your attention, even if it is a futile effort.

Mr President, in the proposal on the Media Services Regulation under discussion, I read that: "Independent media services play a unique role for democracy, ensuring respect for the rule of law and are an essential factor in the formation of public opinion". And that's true. But how does this compare to the introduction of censorship under the pretext of fighting disinformation that is nowhere defined? He's not comparing. This is called hypocrisy. According to the proposal, a media service is only a professional activity that is provided against payment, so that only paid editors are counted. How independent is the editor depending on the employer's remuneration? They must express the employer's views, select information and comment on it, or shape public opinion according to the employer's needs. The real goal is to eliminate independent journalism. However, under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, everyone has the right to express and disseminate their views. We are witnessing another step towards totalitarianism.

Madam President, I quote from the document on fundamental rights in the EU. Article 21 of the Charter prohibits any discrimination against political opinions or any other opinion. This is an example of hypocrisy. Here in the European Parliament, President Sassoli has declared a cordon sanitaire against our Identity and Democracy faction, about which he has spoken not only falsely but also hatefully. That is why the other factions have agreed that we will not be represented in Parliament's leadership, committees and delegations. Citizens in the EU are discriminated against on the basis of nationality and property, which is exacerbated by the EU’s policies that lead to poverty. You behave in a way that incites hatred. Hate is an emotion. Eliminate the causes of hatred and this emotion will not arise. In fact, you're looking for excuses to repress your uncomfortable opinions. That's why you're talking about rights, but you're introducing censorship. Punish the emotions you invoke yourself.

Mr President, the European Union seems to want to be unsuccessful because it has unattainable goals. Violence can be reduced, but not eradicated. There are two causes of violence against women. On the one hand, aggression, which is mainly caused by hormones, and on the other hand, antisocial behavior and primitivism due to lack of education. Some individuals, however, are insuperable and unaffectable, not even by severe punishments. If the stated ambition were to be lower, realistic, that is, to reduce violence against women, then it should be to focus education on mutual respect and not to abuse physical dominance. Furthermore, it would be necessary to significantly reduce the influx of Muslim immigrants with their ideology supporting the enforcement of subordination and obedience of women by force, the practice of female circumcision and so-called honour killings of disobedient daughters and sisters. No-go zones are beyond the influence of the police. If we do not drastically curb migration from Islamic countries and ensure security and proper education, the proclamation of the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women is hypocrisy.

Madam President, the institutions of the European Union often promote principles which they themselves actively defend. It is impossible to isolate Iran and at the same time prevent the consequences of its isolation. While Amnesty International's report describes forms of suppression of Iranian women's right to an unveiled face and personal freedom, it also criticizes France for suppressing the veil. France is doing the right thing because veiling is imposed on women by education and sanctions in the Islamic community. Most people don't want to be invisible. The keyword "Islam" has never been mentioned in the entire Amnesty International report. This is because it is criticized in Islamic countries and at the same time brought to Europe. The West would be better off with more self-reflection and less hypocrisy and a sense of superiority.

Mr President, I strongly object to the ongoing efforts to eliminate the influence of the Member States on their internal affairs and to undermine democratic principles such as universal, equal and direct elections to representative bodies. This is foreign interference in elections. It is completely unacceptable that the right to vote and to stand as a candidate should be based on the mere fact of declaring permanent residence, irrespective of the nationality of the state in which the elections are held. Citizenship, nationality, is an essential condition for democratic decision-making. It is unacceptable that the future of a municipality or country is decided by citizens of foreign countries who have not fulfilled the conditions for obtaining citizenship. Passers-by or guests, including uninvited guests, are not allowed to make decisions about our future. The proposal, including the advocated majority vote in the European Council, is proof of the intention to liquidate the remnants of the sovereignty of the Member States of the European Union.

Mr President, women in Afghanistan do not have the opportunity to participate in social life and to attain higher education. Tomorrow we will vote on a resolution. Robert Wood, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, recently said: “The Taliban cannot expect to become a legitimate member of the international community without respecting the rights of all people in Afghanistan, especially the human rights and fundamental freedoms of women and girls.” But it was the United States that brought Muslim fanatics to power when they supplied weapons to the Taliban to take over Afghanistan. With the help of the United States of America, the Taliban introduced public executions, flogging, stoning. The U.S. military was recently expelled from Afghanistan. Even governments in Europe cannot ensure human rights for women in no-go Muslim communities where Sharia law is practiced. So we can vote for anything, but we will not correct these consequences of the bad policies of the United States of America and the European Union.

Mr President, before dealing with the consequences, it is always advisable to examine the assumptions. In the event that global climate change is affected, it is first and foremost important to consider whether the goal is achievable. For reasons of time, I will mention only one of the long series of assumptions that must give rise to doubts in a critical assessment. Can any measures limited exclusively to the countries of the European Union lead to positive global consequences? They can't. Reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 55% when EU countries account for 9% means a reduction of around 5%, with growth of 17% in the previous decade. Such a reduction is negligible, even if it is achievable. The measures associated with Green Deal to cause dramatic damage to the economy and the social situation of citizens in the European Union? It can and is already happening.

(beginning of performance outside the microphone)... changes are happening. They have been happening for centuries, of which we have documentary evidence, millions of years, without industry, transport and agriculture, without human existence. They will occur even if man disappears as a species. Pretending that the main cause of climate change is human activity is completely unsustainable. In the same way, human activity will not prevent climate change. Much less can be achieved in the European Union for the benefit of the whole world. The countries of the European Union make up 1/10 of the world's land area. Anthropogenic greenhouse gas production accounts for 8% to 9%, but anthropogenic greenhouse gas generation accounts for less than 5% of total greenhouse gas production. Promoting measures in the European Union will affect the greenhouse gas balance in the order of tenths of a percent. However, the destruction of European industry, agriculture, transport and the deepening of human misery in the European Union will be achieved.

Madam President, the proposed amendment to the three directives is unilaterally aimed at promoting exclusively solar and wind power plants, i.e. intermittent energy sources. In essence, the Commission puts biogas plants at a disadvantage. Today's technologies make it possible to produce heat and electricity from biogas and, after pre-treatment, also use it to drive agricultural machinery. Nowadays, there are tractors, loaders and also combine harvesters that can work on biogas. Biogas can be injected into existing gas pipelines after purification. There is therefore no reasonable reason for this prospective and yet ecological and mainly domestic source to be legislatively discriminated against. At a time when the Commission and Parliament, through anti-Russian sanctions, have caused fertilisers to become more expensive and scarce, energy and fuel to become more expensive, it is unreasonable to legally harm production in biogas stations. That is why, together with my colleagues, I have tabled a number of amendments aimed at creating favourable legal conditions for biogas.

Mr President, Commissioner, I am a psychiatrist, a former Minister of Health and a director of a psychiatric hospital. I have long been involved in the organization of mental health care. Unfortunately, I have to say that in this area the European Union is following a completely wrong path. The so-called reforms that began in the United States and the United Kingdom sixty years ago have led to the relocation of the mentally ill from underfunded psychiatric institutions on the street among the homeless, to shelters and further to prison as a special form of social care. European countries repeat and deepen this perverse practice without any lessons. This is a nonsensical ideology. The goal has ceased to be healing. As for the social causes of mental disorders, they are still getting worse in the countries of the European Union. These are material and spiritual poverty, deterioration of social and employment opportunities and increasing social isolation, which lead to a lack of resilience of individuals, who are then easily subject to stress. Address the causes and consequences with skill, an ideological approach will not remedy the situation.

Mr President, it is true that Russia's war of aggression in Ukraine is escalating, but that is the end of the truth. The official narrative continues with lies designed to hide the reality. Lying always leads us to wrong conclusions. I am not an official of the European Commission or of any foreign ministry to repeat official lies. I don't care what they say in Russia or elsewhere. Almost all media are tools of propaganda. That's just the way it is. As far as disinformation is concerned, for example, the Prime Minister of the Czech Republic, Mr Fiala, said that the websites he had blocked were paid for from Russia. He said it publicly, he didn't prove it. It's a lie and he hasn't even apologized. There's nothing easier than calling it disinformation. How is blocking different sources different from censorship? Of course, if someone is funding disinformation media, and that can be all of them, not just those that are funded by Russia, they can be funded by Ukraine, by the United States, by various EU countries, they are, of course, funded to put things in a way that is somehow appropriate. How is this different from censorship? I am afraid that those who are fighting censorship here are fighting because they often find themselves in need of argument. Unfortunately, Europe has been in crisis lately and everyone is trying to find some other causes than what they really are. EU leaders, you have betrayed the citizens of your countries and are driving them increasingly dangerous... (The President took the floor from the speaker)

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I have lived half my life in so-called real socialism. There was real censorship, suppression and prosecution of people who expressed other than approved opinions. Officially, the system called itself socialist democracy. There was a joke that there was as much difference between democracy and socialist democracy as there was between a jacket and a straitjacket. English jacket and straightjacket. One of the main slogans after the so-called Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia was: “We want democracy without attributes”. And the newly elected President of this Parliament reminded us of our former President Václav Havel. Thirty years have passed and this Parliament, which is so fiercely criticizing totalitarian regimes, is pushing for censorship. This afternoon, one of the MEPs used the term "modern democracy" in this context. It is just a new variant of socialist democracy with the suppression of the fundamental democratic right of freedom of expression. It is said to be a fight for human rights against hate speech and disinformation. But I have rarely seen as much hatred and disinformation as from the human rights activists here, replacing rationality with ideology and fanatical slogans. Modern technology allows the free exchange of information and opinions on social networks, but that probably bothers. The new totalitarianism wants a monopoly on its own disinformation, lying and promoting bizarre views. Censorship is called content moderation, and appeal is virtually impossible. The Democrat must tolerate a different opinion and unpleasant information. We have laws against fraud, humiliation and the spread of alarm messages, and we have courts to judge. Censorship is unacceptable in a democracy, whether it is carried out by the state, digital service providers or even non-profit organisations, as proposed. These are called ‘trusted flaggers’. Every totalitarianism wants to have a monopoly on influencing people's consciousness, just like the totalitarianism you build. You are behaving tolerantly as a church inquisition that burned the rector of Prague University, Jan Hus, for criticizing the immorality of the church, which today would be valued as spreading hatred towards a group of people. Or Giordano Bruno for misinformation about planetary motion. I hope you don't burn it yet, but it is already fined, punished by the courts, fired from work, as under socialist democracy. You declare in the European Parliament cordon sanitaire. Your... (The President interrupted the speaker).

Madam President, this so-called common agricultural policy is common only in the sense that it brings about common regulations. It is not common in the sense that it acknowledges the common interests of the people of the European Union. It will harm farmers by further restricting their activities and cannot be supported, even though the worst that has been proposed ultimately did not pass through the negotiations. A change in external convergence was to be proposed, but the situation will continue, with farmers receiving up to four times more subsidies in some countries than in others, and it will get even worse. The whole reform is heading in the wrong direction, the aim of agricultural policy is no longer to financially support the production of high-quality European food in such a way as to ensure the self-sufficiency of individual countries, but obviously to reduce food self-sufficiency, to reduce production. There will be a reduction of about twenty percent, a reduction in farmers' incomes of about twenty-five percent according to official figures, and an increase in food prices of at least ten percent, for this reason alone. To this must be added other causes. To this must be added other restrictions that will occur, such as a reduction in fertilization by fifty percent, and in turn very unevenly across countries, leading to a deterioration in the conditions in those countries where the amount of fertilizer was already low. The amount of money for subsidies in the second pillar has been cut due to shifts to photovoltaic power plants, wind farms and 5G mobile networks. As this reform will worsen the conditions in agriculture and the social situation in the countryside, I cannot vote in favour of it.

Madam President, on the important topic of transforming the world's food systems, I have not found any relevant project from the European Parliament or the European Commission. I have also not heard any suggestions from the Commissioner or anyone else. There is a growing imbalance on the planet between countries that can feed their populations and those that cannot. The problem cannot be solved without limiting the birth rate. We cannot pretend that the world's population can grow indefinitely and continue to manage hunger. Too large a population is destructive, burning forests. It is not possible to provide enough food for the population of the planet while continuing to grow, especially in some countries of Africa, Latin America and Asia, where at the same time there is insufficient purchaseable demand to ensure imports. The measures advocated by the European Parliament and the European Commission are reducing agricultural production in Europe and increasing imports will lead to further deforestation and destruction of water resources. Reducing exports will lead to an increase in agricultural commodity prices. It is necessary to accept efficient management and abandon the naive ideology on which the plans are based. The promoted transition to a plant-based diet is unrealistic because people's eating habits are rigid. I cooperated on an experiment of the California State University, which verified it in the Czech Republic. It seems as if the aim is to achieve dissatisfaction among the people of Europe.

Madam President, we are witnessing an attempt, which will be successful, to use the European Commission's own failures to strengthen its power in the interests, in particular, of multinational pharmaceutical companies. At the same time, the contracts under which a gigantic trade in vaccine purchases by the European Commission has been carried out have not yet been published, although both the European Parliament and the European Ombudsman have called for this in a resolution. This is a gigantic corruption. I have worked for many years in the clinical trial of medicines, which is why I find the term ‘independent expert’ ridiculous. In this case, it is nothing more than legalizing the acquisition of sensitive business information again for the benefit of multinational corporations. Of course, there is no mention of the fundamental sensitive issue, which is the fixing of prices, the maximum prices of medicines and the solidarity system of reimbursement.

Madam President, hypocrisy is one of the most disgusting forms of lies. Decision-making without clear rules and by double standards is a reprehensible practice, but the first provision of the motion for a resolution explains that sanctions concern regimes against which the European Union has introduced restrictive measures. In other words, it does not concern those regimes against which the European Union has not imposed sanctions. The European Union, as we well know, is therefore not imposing a sanctions regime against the representatives of all countries in which democracy and human rights are being suppressed, but only against some. In some countries, the European Union does not mind the suppression of rights, in others it does, and it is a demonstration of non-essentiality. From this it can easily be inferred that human rights are not really at all at all, they are not decided on the basis of their observance. They are just a pretext for sanctions. The claim that decisions are made on the basis of respect for human rights is therefore clearly untrue, and since everyone knows this, it is hypocrisy. Let me give you a typical example of selective blindness. It is Turkey where there can be no talk of respect for human rights or democracy. And our factions have repeatedly proposed sanctions against Turkey, but the other factions have instead agreed that they are seriously concerned. No sanctions, then.