Debate contributions by Csaba DÖMÖTÖR

Dear Mr President, Europe's economy is deteriorating, economic growth is around 0%, industry is being built up, and what is being debated here? On how the right wing is damaging Europe's competitiveness. It's a joke. Here, for years, a grand coalition of the People's Party and the Liberal Party has been defining politics. If anything, it weakens Europe's competitiveness. Let's see what they did: Europe spent 134 billion euros on war, which could have been spent on other things. They pushed for economic sanctions that brought record inflation. Cheaper energy sources have been cut off from Europe. With the Green Deal, they're killing the competitiveness of businesses and, by the way, throwing the world's largest heap of red tape at them. And to say one more thing, in recent years millions of people have been admitted, most of whom have been unable to find employment in the labour market. This is your responsibility. Don't blame it on anyone else. If there is anything that harms Europe's competitiveness, it is the activity of the political elite. What you call extremism is the sound of normality and patriotism. No matter how hard they try, they can't shut us up.

Dear Mr President, As far as the fundamentals of the war are concerned, we condemn Russia's military aggression. Ukraine has the right to defend its territorial integrity, and those in distress must be given a helping hand. That is why thousands of children fleeing Ukraine are studying in Hungary. But we also need to talk about the economic aspects, because in this House, people often believe in the continuation of war politics without ever talking about the economic burden of it. There is a summary on the side of the European Council. So far, the EU and its Member States have supported the war with no less than €134 billion. This is three times the amount of regional development funds disbursed in the current period. That's as much money as 10 percent of the total seven-year EU budget. It's brutal. Only the prospects for the future are more shocking, because we know that the United States is cutting back on war spending, but the four-party left-wing coalition here in this House would unconditionally go the way it has been going, that is, it would spend just that much or even more for war purposes. All this in such a way that the European economy is stagnating, so there will certainly be no more money. But tell me, please, where should these funds be taken from? From cohesion funds, Erasmus or farmers? We know that there are plans for the latter. What the Biden administration's money-filled media think about this, we have seen on the front pages. It is time to ask those who pay the bill, the people of Europe. They'll say a lot of things, and they'll ask for a lot of things, but I'm sure there's one thing: Don't make them pay for the war.

Dear Mr President, This debate is taking place at a time when Europe is plagued by multiple crises. Economic growth of around 0%, insecure and increasing energy supply, competitiveness in ruins, deteriorating public safety in large cities. So there's a lot to do. What does the EPP-Left majority of the European Parliament do about this? Well, he's asking for a debate on Hungary on the agenda for about the 127th time. All this based on the assumptions and anonymous sources of a single newspaper article. It is not an incidental circumstance that the said medium is financed from the vicinity of the American Democrats, who in the meantime have failed. The initiators of the debate are hardly interested in the fact that the Hungarian authorities provided information about the case in the meantime. That the assumption is not supported by any objective circumstances and data. Moreover, OLAF itself did not report any surveillance of its staff. I'm not going to go into more detail because it doesn't matter here. The point is that somehow they always find a place on the agenda for the forced witch-hunt against Hungary, but they never want to discuss the essential issues. For example, what is Europe's position in the new war situation? America would make peace now, and there is no discussion of this in this House for several hours. In recent weeks, he has also been prevented from discussing Commissioner Reynders' money laundering scandal, while he was the lord of life and death on rule of law issues. They also prevented a debate on Facebook's censorship, which is no longer just a conjecture, but a reality. The opinions of millions of Europeans may have been suppressed by censors called fact-checkers. There is also no debate about the consequences of immigration. Since 2017, I tell Mr Frand, 52,000 women have been sexually assaulted in Germany alone, and they are never allowed to debate them. Always from Hungary. We are used to it, but we will not accept it because every time Hungary is put on the agenda, we will say so many times that we have seen pressure, but we will not allow it on matters that are important to us.

Dear Madam President, I propose to the House that we talk about the specifics. That's because Mark Zuckerberg confessed. It is a proven fact that Facebook censored on political grounds under pressure from the democratic administration. The dirty work was done by fact-checkers. Even then, the reference was the fight against fake news. The Patriot faction initiated a debate on this, but this was prevented by the People's Party-liberal coalition. They were blocked because they are very much benefiting from this censorship. How absurd it is that in America fact-checkers are being chased away, but they continue to operate in Europe, and they would even enshrine the further possibility of censorship in legislation, referring, of course, to the fight against fake news. Incidentally, in many places in Europe, fact-checking is carried out by organisations backed by American leftist circles, and the European Commission is involved in funding. Why is that? They censor not only politicians, but voters. Tens of millions of people who do not want immigration are fed up with ideological madness and want Europe to finally stand on its own two feet. But the election results are clear, the voices of change cannot be silenced.

Mr. President, please. It is worth saying a few words about the background to today's debate. What has happened is that the outgoing Commissioner of the European Commission has been charged with money laundering. This is about Mr Reynders, who has been teaching lessons on the rule of law for years. It turned out that he was suspected of laundering money in the order of millions of euros. The Patriot faction wanted a separate debate on this, but the EPP-Left coalition prevented this. I also want a decision to be made about it. There will be a resolution this week on Kyrgyzstan, Azerbaijan, but there cannot be a harsh scandal up to the European Commission. If hypocrisy had a thermometer, it would've freaked out a long time ago. There are a couple of questions. For example, whether the European Commission, its head, Mr Reynders, was aware of the suspicions of money laundering and, at all, how rule of law cases can be decided by those suspected of laundering money on an industrial scale. We will need a commission of inquiry here, that is what we will initiate. We read that the Liberal Grand Coalition has a written guide on how to silence the Patriots. I ask you to be equally determined when it comes to the scandal of your own leader, Mr Reynders. Thank you in advance!

On 15 October, you issued a resolution that organic production should be promoted instead of extensive cereal production. This is exactly the same reasoning as the reduction of area payments. This is the same reasoning as in the document commissioned by the Commission on the future of agricultural policy. Why are you trying to deny your previous words? And while we're here, according to the authorities, you stole a cell phone because they could have recorded your behavior with women in a nightclub. My question is, how long do you want to hide behind your immunity in this house?

I am very pleased, honourable Member, that you are speaking in plenary for the second time, many months after your election. Why energy prices are rising, please discuss this with your new allies who have imposed sanctions that have led to an increase in energy prices across Europe, not just in Hungary. Discuss with them why they let in imports that would otherwise have pushed down prices. As regards area payments, I would like to quote your resolution of 15 October, in which you said that organic production should be promoted instead of extensive cereal production. This is exactly the same reasoning as the reduction of the agri-cost and area payments. So you're in line, and then you deny it. Does it not feel awkward to mislead the Hungarians, and in this case the Hungarian farmers, after the fake news of the Syrian planes. It's a disgrace!

Mr. President, please. Nothing has a greater impact on the situation and well-being of farmers than the direction of the common agricultural policy after 2027. Some would cut EU agricultural subsidies significantly. This would seriously harm the living conditions of European farmers. The common agricultural policy should not be derived from war expenditure or enlargement, but from the interests of European farmers. Again, area payments must be preserved because they provide a strong safety net for hundreds of thousands of farmers. We welcome the fact that the European Commission is looking for ways to support young farmers. Hungary also considers this important, which is why young farmers receive additional area-based support and a higher support rate for their investments. There is a third important aspect here: protect farmers from unfair practices in third countries. Imports must be subject to the same rules as European producers. At the very least, we should agree on these in order to improve the living conditions of farmers.

Dear Mr President, I consider it an important milestone that a frank dialogue has finally begun in Budapest on how to stop a process, the drastic decline of European competitiveness. The reasons for the decline are clear. First and foremost, energy prices. For ideological and warlike reasons, the European Union is gradually cutting itself off from cheaper energy sources, and European companies have to pay for the price difference. According to the Draghi report, European businesses pay three times as much for electricity as they do in the United States. The consequences are dramatic. Long-established car brands are planning to close their plants, steel giants are laying off most of their workers, and high fertiliser prices are causing a crisis in the agricultural sector. I regret that in the Commissioners' hearings, there was no concrete plan for strengthening energy independence and reducing prices, apart from empty rhetoric. After today's vote, the European Commission can now start its work. It is time to look at the interests of European industry, not just the expectations of others. If not, hundreds of thousands of jobs could be at risk.

Mr President, I intended to talk about the Budapest summit, but tonight's events changed my intention. Not too far from here, our group leader, Jordan Bardella, was about to launch his new book. Everybody has the right to express their views, even in a book. The left shares the opposite view. Radical activists tried to block the book launch. They harassed participants, even clashed with the police, so many could not even enter the event. This is how the democracy of the left looks like. They only respect it when they are in power. Otherwise they cross all possible limits. They block a book launch on one day, then a conference on the other, impose a cordon sanitaire on the Patriots for Europe Group here in this House, or even beat passers‑by bloody in the streets of Budapest. All of this happened. We will not step back. We continue to stand for Europe's security, national sovereignty. For sure, we have yet another reason to read Mr Bardella's book. The left cannot silence us. They cannot stop change. They cannot silence the voice of the people.

Dear Mr President, I would like to address the agricultural policy aspects of the Court's report. The report proposes to examine the effectiveness of area payments. They would also limit such payments. The findings of the report are eerily similar to those of the Strategic Dialogue document. This is about the future of the Common Agricultural Policy, commissioned by the President of the European Commission. The authors, among whom farmers are rarely found, stated, even before the Court's possible audit, that area-based aid should be abolished. We only hope that this is not being prepared with the Court's report we are discussing today. If the Court were to review area aid, it would contradict itself. In fact, the Court of Auditors itself states that the lowest payment risk among agricultural subsidies is the area-related one and a half percent, compared to almost three percent of rural development subsidies. So it's not really a problem of efficiency, it's something else. It's about putting the burden of spending money on other people on farmers. European farmers face a wide range of challenges, including massive imports threatening their incomes, drought damage, climate change and epizootic diseases. They need support, even more support, not to take away their existing subsidies.

Dear Mr President, At the last EU summit, the parties agreed on the need to step up efforts to increase EU competitiveness. We agree with this, but we are also sad to note that there is a lack of explicit dialogue on what is causing Europe to fall further behind in the competitiveness race. We can identify many reasons, but the most important is that energy prices have gone up. They flew away because Europe, under pressure from the Brussels institutions, turned its back on pipeline gas for ideological reasons. The liquefied gas purchased in its place is much more expensive. Unfortunately, green energy is also more expensive in most cases, and this puts a drastic burden on European companies, both small and large. It is no coincidence that more and more companies are moving their production elsewhere. According to the Draghi report, electricity prices in Europe today are two to three times higher than in the United States, and gas prices are four to five times higher. If this persists, Europe's remaining competitiveness will be lost. We don't have to accept that this is the case, we need to redesign.

Dear Madam President, I have heard elected representatives here in Hungary speak out against their own country. It's not new, but it doesn't mean we can get used to it, and we won't. If I understand Mr Weber correctly, he recommends Péter Magyar to the attention of the Hungarians. Let's stop here for a moment because there are a few things you should know about him. For example, he tapped into politics by listening in on his wife. Not another man's wife, his own wife. He is also charged with a criminal offence: By stealing a cell phone. Not for livelihood reasons, but because someone recorded how he behaved with women in a nightclub. So I would think twice, Ladies and Gentlemen, whether such a figure is worth basing on in Hungary. Whatever you decide, please take care of your cell phone every minute if Mr. Magyar is here. Especially Mr. Weber, who sits next to him. Dear House, We are living in a time when the European state is crumbling, competitiveness is weakening, and the Schengen system is crumbling. The horror of war is here. What does most of the European Parliament do about this? He continues the witch hunt against Hungary for the twenty-sixth time. Is this really your most important thing right now? I think there's more to be done. It's not for us, it's for Europe.

Dear Mr President, The fundamental condition of the upcoming European Council is that Europe is facing a triple crisis. In addition to the war situation and economic difficulties, migration policy also needs to be rethought. Germany has recently closed its borders and other countries are introducing internal border controls. Currently, there are checks in eight Schengen countries. The Schengen system is collapsing before our eyes. So we have come to the point where Europe is forced to give up another achievement: their free movement. This is where the liberal migration policy led to the summit. Europe's doors were left open, and those who wanted to protect the borders were left alone and even punished. Hungary, for example, did not receive support for the border fence, but will receive a fine of EUR 200 million. We've been saying for nine years: First and foremost, the external borders must be protected. Many of us think, and many of us hope, that it is not too late to change direction. If there is no intention, sooner or later the electorate will enforce it.