Csaba DÖMÖTÖR

Policy topics Csaba DÖMÖTÖR is active on

What Csaba DÖMÖTÖR has said (57)

• 2026-03-19 “P-001161/2026 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Virkkunen on behalf of the European Commission The Rapid Response System (RRS) for elections is a cooperation and communication framework among relevant signatories of the Code of Conduct on Disinformation. It allows non-platform signatories, like independent fact-checkers, researchers and civil society to swiftly report time-sensitive content, accounts, or trends that they deem to present threats to the integrity of the electoral process and discuss them with the platforms in light of their respective policies 1 . The flagged content is reviewed against the social media platforms’ policies, and any content moderation decision lies exclusively on the platforms. The signatories decided to apply the RRS to all national elections in the EU and European elections 2 . Thus, it is not the Commission, but the signatories who launched the RRS. As part of the Code's commitments, it is the Code's signatories and the European Digital Media Observatory (EDMO) that have access to the RRS. The participants that are nonplatform signatories differ for each RRS iteration: usually the signatories with specific understanding of the local context and language of the election participate in the iteration, together with the local EDMO hub. In the case of the RRS for the Hungarian elections, the participants were Democracy Reporting International, Alliance4Europe, CEE Digital Democracy Watch, and the Hungarian EDMO hub (HDMO). The signatories of the Code report about their activities in the context of elections taking place in the EU, including where it pertains to the RRS, in their periodic reports, which are publicly available through the Transparency Centre of the Code. 1 European Commission (2025) Code of Conduct on Disinformation, https://disinfocode.eu/the-code/read 2 Transparency Centre of the Code of Conduct on Disinformation, Rapid Response System Q&A, https://disinfocode.eu/elections”
  Disinformation & online freedoms
• 2025-03-07 “P-001007/2025 Answer given by Mr Serafin on behalf of the European Commission The Commission adheres strictly to its transparency obligations. Information about EU fund recipients including non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and the amounts received is published on the Financial Transparency System 1 . The Commission in addition proactively shares the objectives and outcomes of funded projects on the Funding & Tenders Portal 2 . Furthermore, interest representatives that register in the Transparency Register as not representing commercial interests, which would typically include NGOs, are required to report their lobbying activities and disclose their main funding sources, including any contributions exceeding EUR 10 000, representing more than 10% of their total budget, in the Transparency Register 3 . Citizens may request access to documents held by EU institutions under the conditions of Regulation 1049/2001 4 . The information submitted by the Commission to the European Parliament referred to by the Honourable Member was provided in the context of the discharge procedure in accordance with Article 267 of the Financial Regulation 5 . The Framework Agreement 6 on relations between the European Parliament and the Commission governed the procedure for exchanging information between the two institutions. 1 https://ec.europa.eu/budget/financial-transparency-system/index.html (The annual publications are based on Article 38 Financial Regulation whereby data on recipients is not disclosed for very low value contracts below EUR 15 000 and where disclosure risks threatening the rights and freedoms of the persons or entities). 2 https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/home 3 https://transparency-register.europa.eu/index_en 4 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32001R1049 5 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L_202402509 6 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32010Q1120(01)”
  Transparency requirements of EU institutions · Transparency requirements for interest groups · Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “As far as Europe's economy is in ruins, economic growth is at 0%. Industries being dismantled. What are we debating? How the right is damaging Europe's competitiveness. That's a joke, ladies and gentlemen. For years, policy has been determined by a grand coalition of the People's Party and the liberals. If anything, that's what's weakening Europe's competitiveness. €134 billion spent on the war could have been spent on other things. They imposed economic sanctions that brought record inflation. They cut off cheaper energy sources for Europe. They're responsible for other things, too, with the Green Deal. They're killing the competitiveness of farmers and businesses, and they're also saddling them with the biggest pile of red tape, red tape in the world. And they've let in millions of people, most of whom are unable to find work in the labour market. That's their fault, not ours. You can call us all sorts of names, but what really undermines competitiveness in Europe is the activities of the elite here. What you call extremism is nothing but the voice of normality and patriotism. You cannot silence it.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “You have confirmed that there is going to be a so-called resilience center as part of the Democracy Shield program. In theory, the aim of this is to combat fake news. This sounds good at first glance, but the picture is bleaker when we consider what that came to mean in the United States. It meant that social media was censored in the name of fact-checking. It caused such a scandal that it was eventually discontinued. Despite this, the Commission is expanding the fact-checking system. We Hungarians have already seen this, not now but during the communist years. People who have been not elected by anyone and are unknown to anyone want to decide what can and cannot be said. The European Commission is already funding such groups, at least forty-five, fifty-four of them, and anyone who is familiar with them knows that they only reinforce the left-wing narrative, especially when an election is approaching. Please let me know if you know such groups which are not left-wing. I would also like to ask you what methodology do fact-checkers use, how are they selected? We never get an answer to this question. I don't think we will now either. So, I just conclude by saying, look at the election results. You cannot suppress the desire for change felt by millions of people.”
  Disinformation & online freedoms
• “Another war has broken out. This is not our war either. But in terms of economic impact, Europe is once again in the most trouble. Oil and gas prices have skyrocketed, and the fierce competition has begun between European and Asian countries for available supplies. And everything is in place for prices to remain high. But why is Europe in the most trouble again? Well, because the grand coalition here has narrowed down procurement options for ideological reasons. They have managed to impose sanctions on a product that Europe needs the most and has to import. There's one thing they didn't take into account the consequences, and those consequences have arrived. A new war only exacerbates the situation of the past four years. American energy companies are doing well. They have already made a lot of money. Russia can sell its oil and gas in Asia if it wants to. Intermediary companies are also doing well in distant countries. There's only one region that is really suffering. Europe. The consequences are deadly. The European companies pay several times more for energy than their American counterparts. In Germany alone, 124,000 jobs have been lost in industry in only one year. Volkswagen is cutting tens of thousands of jobs and golf is going to be produced in Mexico. It's one of the prides of European industry. The sanctions could cause even greater damage to Slovakia and Hungary. You're cutting these countries off from cheaper imports. On top of that, Ukraine is blocking oil shipments for political reasons and that this will brutally increase the energy bills of the Slovak and Hungarian people. You don't care who will take care of them. It's time for a change of direction. You should review the sanctions policy. If you don't. The European economy will collapse. And then the question will be who will turn off the last light in European industry. If the People's Party coalition is still unwilling to rethink its policy, we ask only one thing. Don't call yourselves pro-European forces because you are destroying Europe. Thank you. **Nicolae ȘTEFĂNUȚĂ @Chair: You have a question from Lucas. Mr..”
  EU-Russia relations (from March 2022)
• “It is rare to witness an EU summit without there being talk of accelerated accession for Ukraine. When will you be willing to address the economic consequences of such a decision? Last year, Commission signed up to an agreement in Kiev that would further open the way for Ukrainian agricultural produce coming into the EU. Look at the countries that joined in 2004. They had to wait for years before they were given the type of red carpet treatment that Ukraine has received. We know that there will be talk of 20% cuts in the next Multiannual Financial framework. It's clear why all this is happening. Where will you find the money for such cuts and shifting? Around the funds you will take it from farmers. And what about the Pfizer scandal? You are ruining the European economy.”
  EU enlargement
• “Thank you very much. If there is one economic sector being hit hard from multiple angles by this crisis, it is agriculture. The fact that both oil and gas prices are significantly higher than they were before the wars is in itself driving up production costs dramatically. But it is not only the price of fuel for agricultural machinery that has skyrocketed. Fertiliser prices have as well by an average of 50% compared to pre-crisis levels. An aggravating factor is that, unlike with crude oil, there are no strategic reserves here. The commission previously imposed additional taxes on imports. To our knowledge, this is. This will not be repealed in the action plan to be presented today. However, they will allow individual member states to provide 50% subsidies for diesel and fertiliser costs. We very much hope that the new Hungarian government will take advantage of this opportunity. This issue affects more than just the agricultural sector. Food prices are at risk if swift action isn't taken, food price inflation will be just around the corner, and it will be far more severe than anything that we have seen so far. **Sabine VERHEYEN @Chair Thank you chair. No strategy.”
  Use of fertilisers
• “Thank you. The commission has decided to open EU the. Thank you. The Commission has decided. The Commission has decided to open market for Ukraine. Um, products? Uh, honey, wheat eggs, uh, several hundreds of percents more. And this will, um, cause a lot of damage of Eastern European countries and at the same time cutting by 20% the support that these EU member countries receive. Has anybody ever thought about what happens after this? You are going to kill all European farmers off, I mean economically. Of course not literally. And this is an economic process. This is an attack on European farmers. And the European Commission will be the sole reliable soul responsible for this. You are playing with fire.”
  Agricultural trade: Ukraine imports
• “Well, we have a lot of conflicts sometimes with the commission, but when they get it right, we should say so in terms of contracts between buyers and farmers, you know, having a written contract, that's a step in the right direction. It makes things more stable for farmers. We need this because often what happens is that farmers aren't paid or if they're paid, they're paid late. So you do you do take some measures, small steps in order to help farmers. But there's no point in taking these small steps if you then use a bulldozer to crush the whole system. So for instance, the 20%, the 20% cut to agricultural support. I think it's completely unacceptable. At the council meeting, the commissioner said why they wanted to do this. They said, well, we have to finance other programmes such as defence programmes or armaments. I'm afraid that, you know, missiles coming out of Ukraine aren't going to fix our problem. And why is it that the commission has spent hours and hours talking about war policy and then refuses to listen to farmers? Why is that? There's no point in sitting down to a table to talk about the minutiae, the minor details. If at the same time, through all of your other measures, you're making the farmers into victims. I think we need genuine support. We need to do more for farmers. So please withdraw these proposals in terms of the cuts to funding. And one more comment, if I may. Thursday, there's going to be a motion of confidence. If you stand by Ursula von der Leyen, then I'm afraid you're standing in favour of a dismantlement of the cap. It's as simple as that. Thank you, thank you.”
  EU policy on farmer–buyer relations in the agri-food supply chain · Agricultural funding
• “Name of the so-called Democracy Shield program on paper is to strengthen the defense against interventions. Let me touch upon a certain kind of intervention, namely political censorship on social media platforms. According to the report of the US House Judiciary Committee, the commission had about 100 meetings with big tech companies to push for more content moderation. Separate meetings were held before certain national elections. The procedure goes like this. The commission is sponsoring so-called fact checkers. At the same time, it demands tech companies to moderate content based on the proposals from these fact checkers, and you plan to ensure even more funding for them. I don't have to tell you, because you already know that almost all fact checker groups can be found around liberal and left wing media outlets. Surprise, surprise. So on the surface, the commission is talking about foreign intervention. In practice, a huge network of censorship is being built to silence right wing and patriotic voices. Commissioner, my question is simple. Is the Commission willing to publish the records of the meetings with big tech companies concerning the elections? Thank you.”
  Disinformation & online freedoms
• “The European wine sector is in a severe crisis. European wines are increasingly pushed out of the market by imports from third countries. This trend is worsened by the market opening initiated by the commission. This is happening in a moment where consumption is already falling. For one, this is happening because a large multinational alcohol manufacturers are at a competitive advantage over family wineries. As if that was not bad enough, climate change is posing even bigger challenges to winemakers. For example, grapevine yellows is appearing in places where it hasn't been present before. There are several well-intentioned measures in the proposal currently under discussion, for example, to promote wine tourism. This is more than nothing, but less than what would be necessary. This is not going to solve the crisis. In addition, if you're allocating fewer resources to the entirety of agriculture, the consequences will also be felt in the wine industry. Winemaking is a part of European landscapes, gastronomy and cultural heritage. That's why it deserves much more attention, care and resources. Thank you.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Let me speak in Hungarian. The commission keeps referring to young farmers when they want to reform the agriculture support system. We accept that they get extra support. But at the same time, the entire agricultural support system is being dismantled. What sort of message does it send to young farmers that the Cap funds would be diminished by 20%, or that the markets would be opened? So a young farmer owning a few hectares will have to compete with Ukrainian or South American farms, which are several hundred thousand hectares large. And what kind of message is it to a young farmer that farmers above the age of 65 will get a reduced, or no support whatsoever? I think this is a message that says you cannot build on this. Even if they get support now, it can be taken away from them at any point because we need money, for example, for defence. The way to support young farmers is not saying the word young many times, but by not dismantling European agriculture. I would like to ask the panel members, is it possible to offer a perspective to young farmers when funds are being withdrawn from agriculture? Thank you.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Thank you. Chair. Let me speak in Hungarian. Thank you very much. Well, the focus is on the agricultural budget at the moment. Why? Well, because the cohesion funds are going to disappear and we're going to be funding our defense industry instead. And the agriculture is the victim in all this. We have to make sure, however, that the reality on the ground in agriculture doesn't disappear. Uh, we would want, therefore, resources to be made available in in fact, when you reduce agricultural funds and concentrate on Ukraine or Mercosur. Well, uh, the aid by the hectare issue is going to be done away with. And this is unacceptable and is an attack direct attack on our farmers.”
  Agricultural funding
• “I think the Commission's dogmatism is responsible for much of the problem when it comes to dealing with the vehicles. The approach is that only the rich will be able to afford them, but others won't. Car manufacturers have been forced to accept plans that are worse than innocent for a planned economy, as some 30 years ago in China, car manufacturers are being supported by the state. Here they are being punished by the state. So this is a cocktail. It's a green cocktail being served up to the car manufacturing industry in Europe. The CEO of Ford has said that if Europe doesn't want to turn into a museum, then we urgently need some new plan. If Europe is killing off its own car manufacturing industry, then Europe has no future.”
  Road transport environmental policy
• “There is great agreement here that Russian energy imports must be banned. Colleagues, that is ideology for you. But for us, this represents economic harm. Damage on our side, but not for Russia. There are a few countries in our region, like Hungary, that will only be able to get energy at more expensive rates. This ban would lead to a loss of 4% of GDP. That is what we are hearing from the IMF and the same will happen after the previous sanctions. They wanted to Russia, but actually they were shooting European economy in its foot. And then there's one other thing. The Polish court released the man who blew up the Nord Stream pipeline. The Polish minister of Foreign Affairs welcomed this and said that he hopes that that perpetrator would also blow up another pipeline. What is going to happen then? Are they encouraging these attacks? Here we're talking about the energy supply and we'd like to ask the following question. Please have some common sense.”
  EU approach to energy security (home-made vs import sources)
• “Thank, Mr. President. I find the remarks of the colleague from Deutsche Welle very interesting. I'm very glad that he raised the importance of independence when it comes to the functioning of the media. Let me ask a question regarding another aspect of this issue. According to open sources, Deutsche Welle received €35 million as financial support from the European Commission, a huge amount of money. Deutsche Welle has sponsored projects in Hungary with Hungarian, with other Hungarian media outlets who are 100% liberal and left wing media outlets. I have two questions regarding this. Can this media outlet be independent from the mainstream policies and opinion of the European Commission under these circumstances? Do you have the opportunity to To criticize if something goes wrong. When it comes to war policy, when it comes to green deal, when it comes to enlargement policies. And don't you think that this one sided financing method of the European Commission distorts the European media landscape? Thank you very much.”
  EU support for traditional (non-digital) media
• “Let me speak in Hungarian. Uh. Well, the aims that are set out here are aims that we could subscribe to. After all, who wouldn't want better defence against foreign interference? However, speaking from experience, what we've noticed is that when the European Commission speaks about this, the defence against foreign interference and fake news. You know, in these communications, they're actually trying to repress certain voices from the right in particular. And we haven't really talked about this much so far. You have to remember that there are three groups that would receive more funding. Ngos, the media and fact checkers, they would receive more money. Now, according to our experience, when the European Commission finances these kinds of entities, they're basically funding left wing entities, liberal entities. And I think that that needs to be noted and flagged. Now, to extend that from a budgetary point of view, we wouldn't actually be in favor of that because it would distort democracy. And most specifically, we can't support proposals where you're actually establishing new entities that would be acting without any kind of democratic legitimacy and would actually, you know, be calling out what our states are doing. And that's what's going on here. So I'm afraid we can't support the proposal as it now stands regarding U.S. interference. Madam Chair, we have some experience in this domain. And let me tell you that there are NGOs. The previous Biden administration used to fund these NGOs, and the commission is trying to take over that funding. The European Commission right now is suggesting that they take over the funding of these NGOs. So if there are risks across the pond, then I think that we need to be aware of that and take measures consequently. Thank you.”
  Disinformation & online freedoms
• “Mr. Commissioner, in the past few months, I ask you several times. Is it true that the Commission really plans to cut agricultural subsidies? You never gave me a clear answer after the new plans were unveiled today. We already know why the new long term budget is a direct assassination attempt against the Common Agricultural Policy. Now we have the number -€84 billion, more than 20% reduction, while the EU budget will be bigger. Why is this happening? Because the commission wants to free up financial space for other programmes, war policies, forced enlargement, or for repaying the post Covid loans that were miscalculated. Your boss, Mrs. von der Leyen, said that the current budget was designed for a world that no longer exists. May we kindly ask you to tell her that nobody should speak about the word of farmers like that, and nobody can force them to pay the full price of failed policies. The Common Agricultural Policy is the heartland of European integration. The current Commission forgets this will soon become some part of the past. Thank you.”
  Direct payments to farmers (pillar 1)
• “Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you to the representative of the ECA for the report. Our concerns have been confirmed. This is the first time since 1962 that there is no dedicated fund for the Cap. This is very clear. The situation is even worse than we imagined. Why does this no longer have its own fund. It's no longer clear. The budget has also been decreased by 20%, and there is less room for manoeuvre for farmers. So there will be no additional funding for the sector. And it also means that the member states will not be able to move funding from one area to another. So this re shaping of the funding possibilities will have a major negative impact. The situation remains very difficult and our position, our position will not change. There will be very unforeseeable consequences for this sector. Thank you very much.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Thank you. Itself. It is good that young farmers will receive proportionally more support, but it's only proportionally. Because if the total amount allocated to agricultural subsidies decreases, then it will mean worse prospects for everyone. What can a young person playing with the idea that he might go or she might go into agriculture, expect they can expect less support, as there are plans to reduce the agricultural budget by 20%. They will also be expected to comply with an increasing amount of green rules, which do not exist in third countries. They can also expect more bureaucracy. And one more thing. As markets have been opened up in recent years, they will have to compete with firms that operate on hundreds of thousands of hectares. The commissioner no generational program, no matter how good it sounds, can overcome these enormous obstacles. You are not helping generational renewal by destroying the Common Agricultural Policy. So if you cannot convey the message that this is a matter close to your heart and do not expect people to flock into agriculture.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Finally, an in-depth debate has begun on how to counter the dominance of digital giants. This is right. But there's another aspect to this debate. Sovereignty is strong when it goes hand in hand with freedom of speech. We see many examples of how in some member states, people who dare to criticise online receive heavy fines or even suspended sentences. Let's say criticising a minister or government's immigration policy. These are usually explained by the need to take action against hate speech and fake news. I do agree with that. But this cannot be a false basis for political censorship, not even for the Commission. It is very wrong that they want to expand a fact checking system called Democracy Shield, which we know from American experience is basically censorship. When we ask you questions about the methodology by which these systems will operate, you refuse to answer our questions. Why Eastern European countries have already experienced censorship? We do not want to repeat that experience.”
  Disinformation & online freedoms
• “The Danish presidency will have to manage the discussion on the cap. There are some details that have leaked to the press, and they're a bit worrying. You want to destroy them? Support for agriculture merge funds. Um. And, introduce conditionalities which require more work. And third, countries won't have to meet these requirements. Payments will be tied to conditions. Payments will be cut. All of this at a time where an agreement with Mercosur is on the cards. And we're likely to see very intense competition. So we'd like to see the Danish presidency's position on this, whether they'll keep subsidies or whether they will bow to the commission.”
  Direct payments to farmers (pillar 1)
• “Thank you, chair. Dear commissioner, I would like to touch upon an issue related to free speech on online platforms. This is related to your current and previous, position as well. The US house, judiciary committee published a quite alarming report some months ago. This report stated that the commission had a great number of meetings with the big online platforms with the intention to flag certain online media content or even decrease, their reach. The cover story, like always, was the fight against hate speech and disinformation. The commission sponsored, certain NGOs and fact checkers, and these organizations formed groups to flag media content and decide which content are reliable and which are not. This procedure triggered a political scandal in The US because online platforms were even pushed to decrease the reach of, Donald Trump who was not a president, but a possible candidate that time. As a consequence, the network of fact checkers was, dismantled in The US. On the contrary, in Europe, in the European Union, this network is enlarging. The commission sponsors a wide range of fact checkers who take part in the so called rapid response system. On many occasions, the commission announced the launch of this rapid response system just before national elections. The problem is that we do not know how these, fact checkers work. We do not know the consequence of their activity, and we do not know the exact social media content that were flagged. Consequently, there is an even greater suspicion that these fact checkers deal with content that do not fit into the narrative of the left wing or liberal mainstream here. According to public data, as a former commissioner, you had at least 17 meetings with representatives of the matters of Facebook. A great number of meetings were had with other big platforms and organizations that took a lion's share in the fact checkers activity. Based on all this, my question is simple. As a former commissioner, now leader of a strictly independent NGO, do you support that all relevant information should be published regarding the fact checkers activity? Do you support that a list should be published that contains all the social media content that were flagged or even deleted? We do hope that the principle of transparency would apply to these issues as well. Thank you very much.”
  Disinformation & online freedoms
• “Commissioner. President. Well, Commissioner, you say, well, we hear all the time that there's an elephant in the room. And the real question is whether you seriously think that the agricultural budget should be reduced. We've heard about a reduction of 20%. And besides that, we've heard all sorts of fine words about support, about justice and fairness. But we all know exactly what that means in practice. It means that people who are currently receiving support will not receive it in future. The area payments are at risk and. We know that the concrete proposals will only arrive at a later stage. But Commissioner, I wanted to ask you, is it true that agricultural funding will be brutally reduced? And if so, by how much?”
  Agricultural funding
• “It's outstanding that you have so much energy to talk about the media situation in non EU countries. Why don't we look at the European situation first? First of all, the European Commission is working hard on reinforcing the system of fact checkers, which are basically sensors in the US, as we have seen in the US. The commission is also planning to give more money to certain media outlets. Usually this means liberal and left wing media outlets. Don't you think that this is going to distort public discourse that you are financing liberal west left wing media outlets? If you cannot be critical, then I understand, because simply you have received €5 million in the last couple of years. So obviously you have to represent the commission situation. How can you be independent like that?”
  EU support for traditional (non-digital) media
• “Thank you chair. Let me speak in Hungarian. Organic farmers face many challenges. A demand for such products has stagnated in recent years, and this is mainly due to the fact that they are generally more expensive and food inflation across Europe has reduced the number of people able to afford these products. Free trade agreements don't help either. Imports of organic products. There are producers in third countries. They don't have to comply with the same strict rules. A telling figure is that Brazil exports 60% of its organic products, and a third factor, Uh, apparently a 20% cut in the EU's agricultural budget is supposed to take place. And this offers a narrower perspective for organic farmers. And in these circumstances, we think it's important to achieve at least one thing, i.e., that the organic label will be reserved for union producers, and therefore producers from third countries cannot use it. It's also odd to use these green labels if we know that imported products travel thousands of kilometres.”
  Import of agri-food products in the EU
• “Thank you. We are starting to see now the impact of the Russia-Ukraine war and the US, Israel, Iran war. This has led to a massive jump in fuel prices, and everybody seems to have an interest in keeping those prices high. So we've seen the initial response underpinned by panic. Ursula von der Leyen. Admitted that it was a mistake to do away with nuclear power in her own country. Cooling towers were destroyed. Ridiculous. So given the enormous mistakes we've made here in Europe or that the European Commission has made here in Europe, what can we expect in other parts of the world? So, for example, those people who forced Europe to manage without imports of energy from the East tell us how should we solve our problem? Norway is at maximum capacity. The United States is selling its oil at enormously high prices. There's no solution. So we have to completely re-examine the situation. Moreover, Ukraine Is blocking oil deliveries to Europe. We should simply not permit Ukraine to do this. And the president of Ukraine is calling about sanctions on the president of Hungary or even sending troops. This is not something we can accept. We should now start paying greater heed to what the member states want.”
  EU approach to energy security (home-made vs import sources)
• “Thank you president. We agree with the sustainability goals and objectives. We need to debate the details, of course, but it is very important to know whether farmers will be burdened by new rules and administration. And actually it's the opposite that they need. They need support. And what does the European Commission do? They came forward with a proposal that reduces reduces support by 20%. But on real terms this is a reduction of 50%. So we need to discuss all the details, but we can only do this if we agree on protecting Cap together. And I think it's very sad that the commission did put certain issues on its agenda this week, but we do not have any opportunity to discuss the budget. So I would like to ask the European Economic and Social Committee, what is your position on the reduction of budgets?”
  Agricultural funding
• “I do agree that it's worth examining how different social groups can find their place in the agriculture of the future, and this debate examines this issue from the perspective of women. Well, we've talked about general objectives, but let's take a look at what is concrete and what is the actual situation. Now we have seen what the commission is planning. And well, I can tell you that what the commission is telling is planning will definitely not be good for women working in agriculture, nor will it be good for men. Cutting payments by 20% is not going to be good for any woman working in this sector. According to the plans, the area based payments would be reduced already for farms of 100 hectares, while at the same time markets are being opened up to third countries where individual countries or individual companies farm hundreds of thousands of hectares. This is a competitive disadvantage for any woman working in agriculture, and what woman or mother would welcome to see markets opened up to countries where up to 70 chemicals already banned in the EU are still being used in agriculture, and I haven't mentioned the bureaucratic burdens. What is being prepared now is a plot against European farmers. The gender equality aspects are really noteworthy. But let me tell you, if agriculture loses profitability and if tens of thousands of farmers go bankrupt, then this sector will not be attractive to anybody. Why would women flock into a sector from which the Commission is withdrawing funding? Who would want to be a victim of their own accord? We would like to see an agriculture that is not doomed to being dismantled. We would like to see a European agriculture where both women and men can thrive, and what you're planning is the exact opposite.”
  Direct payments to farmers (pillar 1)
• “Thank you. The stated goals of the Democracy Shield program look good on paper, but we all know that behind these noble goals what you actually want is to build a political machinery without an electoral mandate. This machinery would have three main points if I understand things correctly. You want to give even more money to political activist groups, liberal NGOs including USAID orphans. You want to spend even more money on media financing. Based on experience, we can safely say this means left-leaning media. And thirdly, you want to spend even more money on fact checkers. In America, they are dismantling censorship, but you are strengthening it. Let me explain how this all works in my country. You fund a lot of organizations that then engage in political activism. They attack job-creating investments, and then their leaders become left-wing candidates. Just the other day, something like this was actually announced. Many media outlets also receive support. Without exception, these are left-leaning media outlets. They then constantly attack right-wing forces and constantly promote the aforementioned NGOs. The so-called fact checkers are also present at the same media outlets that I mentioned earlier. When Hungary is discussed in this house, without exception, these NGOs, these media outlets, and these fact checkers are invited, the ones that you finance. This completes the circle. And if anyone dares to criticize this, there is an immediate outcry that it is an unprecedented attack on civil society. And what about transparency? Well, there isn't any. The European Commission simply does not respond to requests for information. In theory, a parliamentary committee of inquiry into NGO funding was set up. The decision was made back in June. Do you know how many times this committee of inquiry has met? Zero times. Nada. That's how transparent the Democracy Shield program will be. What is being created here is anti-democratic and in every respect it serves to override election results that are unfavorable to you. A question to you, Commissioner: do you commit yourself to make public all the subsidies that you paid to NGOs so far? A simple yes or no answer will do.”
  Regulation of NGOs in Europe
• “Thank you chair. Let me speak in Hungarian the European Union is gradually opening up its markets to the producers from third countries. And in fact, the European Commission decided to provisionally implement the provisions of the Mercosur trade agreement. Many times, we've also talked about the fact that producers in third countries don't have to abide by the same strict rules that we have. Environmental protection, animal welfare, food safety. And even if they did have to abide by them, it would be really difficult to check whether they do so. Farm Europe has analysed the situation and has really hit the nail on the head when it comes to risks. It talks about Ukraine, for instance. Currently they're using 68 different active substances for plant protection products, which would be banned in the EU. So we're talking about an existential threat for our farmers, but also a food safety threat. So I'd like to ask you, Commissioner, what does the commissioner do at the moment and what do you intend to do to check these imports coming from the outside. Could we hear a little bit more about that? You know, what's the what's the mandate that you have for these checks? And do you intend to ban further active substances?”
  Pesticides & trade
• “Thank you. Chair. Let me speak in Hungarian. I'm glad that we have this chance to exchange views on foreign interference attempt. We agree that we need to counter Russian interference. But I tend to ask myself the question whether, uh, we, uh, have the same enthusiasm when the interference comes from the European Commission or the American Democrats, U.S. aid, or some subsidiary of Open Society Foundations. Someone on the left said that they consider NGOs and activists friends, of course, because they help you during the elections. Uh, we avoid, uh, speaking about that, but, uh, the European Commission signed contracts at the value of €17 billion with NGOs. And it's thanks to the Patriots that we are aware of this figure, at least in 2012, uh, micro donations arrived in Hungary. Um, and they amounted to billions of forints. The same happened in Poland with the same actors. Can I ask the contributors here if they are also determined to counter interference when it comes from the European Commission or from overseas? And can I also ask my colleagues here if we can make sure that when an NGO speaks up here, we should be aware that they have received billions of euros from the European Commission. One of the organisations picking up here has received €800,000 from the European Commission. We have checked that. So they represent the European Commission and we should ensure that transparency is there in those conditions as well.”
  Regulation of NGOs in Europe
• “Thank you. Chair. Let me speak in Hungarian. European partnership for democracy. First of all. The European Partnership for democracy. I would like to react to what you said, because it shows what the problem with this program is. You have 36 million from the European Commission. That is more subsidies that most of the democratic parties receive in the in the member States. Now, we are told that the organization wouldn't exist without these subsidies. But then these subsidies are shared with militant groups who organize their activities in Serbia, Hungary and various other countries, wherever there is a sovereignist right wing party. Now you are asking for more financing for media, but it's always for liberal media. And then you speak of foreign interference. The commission doesn't present its contracts publicly. Speaking of commercial interests or speaking of, um, security issues. But here we're not representing all the groups of society. We're representing an institutional elite. So even here there is foreign interference. This is the real foreign interference. Thank you.”
  Foreign interference in Europe
• “Thank you very much. Dear colleague, this is a question of essence. This House has made a lot of decisions which are imposing on European industry a particular production patterns, without taking into account the costs that are involved. Just ask the actors of German car industry if they are for making these rules even stricter. And please ask them also what they think about their rising energy costs. I'm sure if you ask the car manufacturers in Germany what is the cause of the layoffs, they will say that the number one reason is the price hikes for energy. I'm not going to tell what decisions carmakers should take, but I think there are other solutions as well.”
  Energy (green transition)
• “Thank you. Chair. So the new plans. Well, the most scandalous part of this is that they want to drop support for agriculture by 20%. And then they do this when farmers are fighting on a thousand fronts. So the are also opening up the markets to the Mercosur companies. So how countries. So how will it be that the farmers will be able to survive when they will get less and less support and there is more and more competition. So the commission is playing a trick on us. So it's putting the funds all together so that we shouldn't be able to see that the amount available is left. And then van der lion. Well, there's a large coalition of supporting that, but it doesn't mean that there's going to be any new money available. The member states are will be, will be able to, uh, spend more money more quickly from, uh, the funds if the commission allows it. But there's going to be a drop of 20% for funds. So I would like to ask the commission, if you're not going to help the farmers, then at least don't, uh, play this magic trick with, uh, with the money. Thank you very much.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Thank you. Chair. There's a great number of problems with the Mercosur agreement. First, the Commission opens up the EU market when it plans to cut agricultural subsidies by 20%. European farmers will have to compete with South American farms with larger areas and higher average herd sizes. Second, those farmers do not comply with the administrative burdens. European farmers have to comply with. According to Copa-cogeca, 52% of the active substances used in maize production in Brazil have long been banned in the European Union. The Commission now proposes safeguard measures to calm down farmers, but the proposed safeguards could enter into force after a long and cumbersome bureaucratic procedure. Moreover, they are not automatic. The Commission would have broad discretionary powers by the time these measures take effect. The damage will already have been done. To sum this up, this is anything but a genuine safeguard measure. What we have here perfectly fits into the broader picture. The Commission gradually dismantles the Common Agricultural Policy. This is a pure political sin. Thank you.”
  Trade relations with Mercosur
• “Commissioner, you did mention that you participated at the latest council meeting. And according to reports, you said there that maintaining the level of current agricultural support is not an option. And you also said why this is because of loan repayments and military spending. We need to adjust the agricultural support system. So at least now behind closed doors, you are not making this a secret. Why? You are taking the money away from farmers. You do that because you need to spend it on war, weapons and enlargement, and of course on loan repayments that the Commission had miscalculated in terms of numbers. This means that the agricultural budget will be cut by more than 20%. And in your hearing in November, you said that we can count on you to ensure a very strong budget for agriculture. And then what happens? The exact opposite. This is the greatest destruction since the cap has existed. The damage is sustained by farmers, but the commission is responsible. You are playing with fire.”
  Agricultural funding
• “The war in the Middle East has struck the EU at its heart once again because of the increasing costs of energy. We have seen how much the increase in cost has been €24 billion over the last two months, and the cost for families is even higher. The cost of oil has gone up 45% for natural gas, up to 30%. And this is the consequences of decisions taken earlier. A decision not to invest in our own energy sources or widening our source. This was a. Curse. Now we have a witch hunt now against the oil multinationals. So the question is, does Europe have enough energy sources? We need a new plan. I don't know what has to be done for these intelligent people here to understand that we need to change direction. We cannot sit back and do nothing. Thank you.”
  EU approach to energy security (home-made vs import sources)
• “In Europe we are seeing more frequent droughts, more devastating effects. There is a fund for compensation, some 440 million, but that is insufficient for the entire EU. There is a further problem. There are calls to dismantle that fund in the next MFF. We know that there are also calls to step up debt for Ukraine. That is unacceptable that we do not have the funds for Europe. It is equally unacceptable that energy and irrigation for farmers is becoming ever more expensive. The Hungarian government guarantees free access to water for farmers during drought periods. However, this measure was attacked by the commission, said that some sort of payment was required and a price structure. So who is looking after farmers in times of drought? We heard from other MEPs talking about this. We would like Peter to be here present to give an explanation as to why he voted in favour Of measures that would take water away from farmers in Hungary.”
  EU policy on water management
• “As I'm reading in the press, the Grand Coalition is no longer opposes the MFF. Following an exchange of letters between the Grand Coalition and the Commission. They have agreed that everything is all fine. We have won. We have managed to protect the farmers. They claim this is just a show. We've seen a few in this house, but never as one as hypocritical as this one. Nothing has changed. They want to slash farm spending by 20%. They want to merge existing funds to cover up the budgetary cuts. They want to reduce single farm payments and phase out guaranteed support to people over 65. What's happening here is simply the dismantling of the cap. They've been chipping away at it, but now now they have taken an axe to it. But agriculture is not only one sector of the economy. It's the backbone of European cooperation. And this austerity plan has been concocted by EPP and friends. And now they pretend all is fine. They take us for fools. But what's worse, they take farmers for fools as well. Don't be surprised if more people come protesting in the streets than ever before.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I'm going to be a spoil sport here. I would like to talk about a specific phenomenon at this hearing today, six organizations are represented. Out of these six, five have received a large sum from the European Commission. The only exception was the European Investment Bank. It is not surprising that we are not talking about what's really important. The fact that they intend to cut agricultural funding by 20% and this is not beneficial for anybody, not even for young farmers. One of the organisations even said that they don't see the problem with stripping the funding from farmers above the age of 65. I would like to recommend inviting some organisations that are financially totally independent of the European Commission, and are representing the interests of farmers. I'm going to ask the question that I didn't get an answer to. Do you think it is possible to offer a perspective to young farmers while at the same time withdrawing funding from European agriculture. Thank you.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Thank you. Chair. Thank you very much. I am very pleased that we're having this debate today, because we know that farmers. Do not get a lot of profit from the food sector. Because the major chains of highly concentrated and far Um, outweigh the smaller businesses. If these contracts were to this point on, contracts would be mandatory. Then that's a good thing. But we'll have to look at how that will take place. In Hungary, we adopted a law that stipulates, well that it came into force in January and said that. Businesses have to pay farmers within 30 days, which was a major problem before. There's a lot to be done in Europe, in this sector. Most definitely. And I think that we have to focus on the good examples in individual member states. Thank you.”
  EU policy on farmer–buyer relations in the agri-food supply chain
• “We're not happy with this budget. Millions of Europeans. Wanted less money to be spent on migration. But more is being spent. 2 billion more. In fact, migrants will come in higher numbers. And we're having a debate on the migration problem today. And there's a question against women. Violence against women. Why? Because there are more migrants. There is this relationship. You cannot deny it. Then there's another problem. Agriculture. Agriculture is receiving less money. We should have increased this budget line by 2.5 billion. So we should have what? We wanted more money to be spent on this. More money has been found to spend on war. But there are holes in the budget. And we're spending more on war. In situations where the US has declined to do so, we should not finance war or migration. We should be backing our economies and European farmers.”
  Agricultural funding
• “This is rather absurd situation. Indeed. According to some proposals Brussels institutions want to backpedal on the ugly green pile of regulations they created in the first place. So the action is deactivating things that they had said would be very good. Well, I don't mind cutting back. Red tape is good no matter what. But for the agriculture, there is a much more larger problem that they are continuously dismantling. Cap they want to cut back 20% on subsidies, whereby opening the markets to both east and West by the Ukrainian and the Mercosur agreements. You want to cut back on subsidies to make room for war spending. European farmers will get less subsidies, whereby they have to put up competition with large holdings, which would be an unfair competition. No wonder they are going to demonstrate on Thursday in Brussels. They are upset with a good reason. What is happening is a premeditated murder against the Joint Common Agricultural Policy.”
  Direct payments to farmers (pillar 1)
• “Let me speak in Hungarian. Well, if you're talking about the issue of Mercosur. Well, we. Certainly feel that. Well, there are no proposals from the Cyprus presidency. We of course, we should not implement this once this as long as this is before the court. The declaration on this disappeared from the agenda. There was no vote on this. Madam Minister, why was there no vote on this declaration? Was pressure brought to bear on the Cyprus presidency despite the the demonstrations of farmers? Uh, you want to implement the Mercosur agreement? This would be one of the biggest scandals of the year. It is time for us to know whether the EPP respects Principles. European principles.”
  Trade relations with Mercosur
• “Another war has broken out. This is not our war either. But in terms of economic impact, Europe is once again in the most trouble. Oil and gas prices have skyrocketed, and the fierce competition has begun between European and Asian countries for available supplies. And everything is in place for prices to remain high. But why is Europe in the most trouble again? Well, because the grand coalition here has narrowed down procurement options for ideological reasons. They have managed to impose sanctions on a product that Europe needs the most and has to import. There's one thing they didn't take into account the consequences, and those consequences have arrived. A new war only exacerbates the situation of the past four years. American energy companies are doing well. They have already made a lot of money. Russia can sell its oil and gas in Asia if it wants to. Intermediary companies are also doing well in distant countries. There's only one region that is really suffering. Europe. The consequences are deadly. The European companies pay several times more for energy than their American counterparts. In Germany alone, 124,000 jobs have been lost in industry in only one year. Volkswagen is cutting tens of thousands of jobs and golf is going to be produced in Mexico. It's one of the prides of European industry. The sanctions could cause even greater damage to Slovakia and Hungary. You're cutting these countries off from cheaper imports. On top of that, Ukraine is blocking oil shipments for political reasons and that this will brutally increase the energy bills of the Slovak and Hungarian people. You don't care who will take care of them. It's time for a change of direction. You should review the sanctions policy. If you don't. The European economy will collapse. And then the question will be who will turn off the last light in European industry. If the People's Party coalition is still unwilling to rethink its policy, we ask only one thing. Don't call yourselves pro-European forces because you are destroying Europe. Thank you.”
  EU approach to energy security (home-made vs import sources)
• “Thank you. Bees and other pollinators play a key role in preserving biodiversity. In a decline in pollinator numbers is also a threat to food security. Therefore, we agree with proposals to protect pollinators. We agree that when developing green spaces in urban areas, the needs of pollinators must be taken into account and just as important is protection against invasive species. However, we have some criticisms as part of the Common Agricultural Policy. Many member states have programmes in place that specifically aim to protect bees. Therefore, if you make cuts to the cap in the new budget, those programmes will also be at risk. We all know that you want to cut the budget for agriculture by 20%, and the solution to that problem is not for member states to simply spend more if they want to. Secondly, the Commission has referred to the Green Deal on several points. The Green Deal was a failure, just as the draft regulation on pesticides was. That came under the Green Deal. Now, if you place a greater burden on European farmers and meanwhile outside Europe, they do not have to comply with those rules, then the environmental targets will not be met and European farmers will go bust. And thirdly, this is not about wild pollinators. No, it concerns honey bees and beekeepers. And I must mention at this juncture the trade agreements pushed by the commission in addition to Chinese honey, there will be huge amounts of Ukrainian and Argentinian honey that will flood European markets. The Mercosur agreement would allow 45,000 tonnes of honey to enter duty free, and Ukraine agreement would allow 40,000 tonnes. That's 40% of EU honey production and your plans will kill the beekeeping sector in Europe and without. Beekeepers, we can't talk about protecting bees. So my question for the European Commission. In the negotiations on these trade agreements, why were the views of beekeepers in Europe completely ignored? More and more people are asking that question. I'd like to know what your response is to the question. Thank you.”
  Import of agri-food products in the EU
• “Multinational retail chains have a huge economic power vis a vis farmers. Um, it's a current practice that multinationals, uh, sort of pool their purchasing practices across a number of member states. Uh, so the farmers are certainly at a disadvantage. Um, the, uh, proposal that's been put forward seeks to ensure that the bargaining power of farmers is increased. This is an objective that we support, which is why we will vote in favour of the proposal. But of course, that isn't enough. Um, perhaps I could also mention that we heard that the Commission intends to implement the Mercosur agreement. Although Parliament has availed itself of the right to refer the matter to the courts. Um, it is not correct to sort of circumvent the Parliament and to silence the voice of farmers. That is totally unacceptable. Commissioner, I appeal to you. Speak to president von der Leyen. And, um, please do not implement the agreement. Otherwise there'll be further protests.”
  Trade relations with Mercosur · EU policy on farmer–buyer relations in the agri-food supply chain
• “When talking about the ban of eastern energy imports, the majority here are not willing to talk about one thing the fact that for a great number of countries, all the alternatives are more expensive. The drug report clearly states that European companies already have to pay five times as much for gas than their American counterparts. As a consequence, the European GDP growth is sluggish. Even the German industrial performance is declining. Don't you see the link between this and the sanction policy? The consequences are here to stay for my country, according to IMF. A complete ban would mean an economic loss equivalent to 4% of our GDP. And you don't seem to care. All this issue means pure ideology for you, but dire consequences for millions, even higher energy bills and ailing competitiveness. And you don't seem to care. Dear grand coalition over there. The pillars of the European economy are shaking, and voters know it well who are to blame for this. Their response will reach you. Thank you.”
  EU approach to energy security (home-made vs import sources)
• “Thank you very much. This is a proposal that we saw in 2020 on opening European markets to Ukrainian products. But the farmers were not asked by anybody, but they're the ones who had to bear the brunt of this. Cheap imports pushed down prices and led to huge losses of income for the eastern states of the EU and the Hungarian government. As a result, together with other member states, banned the import of Ukrainian cereal. So the new decisions are going to be taken. But the content of this decision is not going to be clear. Some people are saying they want to make conditions more stringent and others say it's going to be more lax. So there's a lack of understanding what's going to come in. And yet in just a few months, the current provision for freedom of trade will run out. We can see that Ukraine has massive possibilities. 57% of their production comes from big farms, and a lot of those are owned by American or Western European companies or or. Groups of companies. We can see the use of pesticides there, which are have been banned in the EU for a long time. And Ukraine. Ukrainian producers don't need to meet the same conditions as EU farmers do, which leads to competitive disadvantage for EU farmers. So how are we going to deal with these issues? They have no answers as yet and it seems like nobody even wants to put the question. It seems strange that decisions are being taken already without already asking. Those are being hit hardest by those same decisions. That's why I demand that the commission sits down with farmers, not NGOs, that the commission is financing themselves and talks about this properly. I think there are at least two issues that are not being taken into consideration. The fate of the future of farmers and their incomes. And if their farmers voices are not going to be heard, then there'll be more process in the future.”
  Agricultural trade: Ukraine imports
• “Let me answer in Hungarian. It is very important that we take action against climate change. It is important that when the Parliament and the EU take decisions, they are not taken in such a way that companies and families bear the burden. We've seen in recent years that, um, this parliament has placed a huge burden on companies and families, and the parliament has interfered with what is going on elsewhere in the world and is not worried about the competitiveness of Hungarian farmers, families and companies. That is not the right approach. When you suggest such proposals and decisions, you need to recognise the economic consequences.”
  Agriculture (green)
• “The Democracy Shield program is supposed to strengthen protection against outside interference. Russian interference. Fine. But what is that really about? More money for liberal activist groups, left leaning media and fact checkers. And the creation of a so-called Democracy Resilience center. Under communism, the censorship office did not have such a fancy name. But what does this have to do with Russia? Nothing. An aggravating factor is that you want to do this in a non-transparent manner. The commission has already signed nearly 40,000 NGO contracts, but it does not respond to requests for detailed information. Although this House decided to set up a committee of inquiry, but that committee has not met once in five months. And when we ask the commission how the fact checkers will work, we never get an answer. Everyone can see what the real purpose of the Democracy Shield is. You want a shield against the voters. It does not protect democracy, but defends the machinery of power here. They want to counterbalance the victories of the right. Of the right. We can already tell you this will not succeed.”
  Disinformation & online freedoms
• “The European Central Bank and its last report talks about, uh, energy prices leading to food price inflation. Nobody wants to talk about this because you have a huge responsibility here in this parliament. And the European Commission has been forcing through the Green Deal without looking into the inflationary effects of this. And then you decided about sanctions, which meant that, uh, food prices stayed high. If we understand correctly, you would completely ban fossil fuels coming from these alternative fuels. Uh, are more expensive. This is going to lead to higher energy prices and higher food prices. There's no stopping this trend. There's no brake on this train. The grand coalition in this parliament never thinks about the consequences of their decisions. If Mr. Mudur wants lower prices, he should turn to those who back him. He's the best chum of Mr. Weber.”
  Climate efforts
• “Thank you very much. We have several critical remarks with regards to the 2026 budget guidelines. One relates to compensation. At meetings here, often we hear that we need to give more money in compensation. Farmers are facing more and more serious epidemics. And also droughts cause huge amounts of damage. And in 2026, This is just €450 million, which is for the whole of Europe. That's a compensation budget. The explanation for this is that there isn't any more funding to increase this amount. But I have a question. Why is there funding for other things? €4 billion in non reimbursable funds being provided for Europe, for Ukraine. Farmers were quite likely to see that amount of money. Why does the EU find a way of providing this assistance? But if it's about farmers and those people who pay taxes here, who live here and who produce here, what about them? It's difficult to help other people while tens of thousands of European farmers are going bankrupt.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Thank you chair I will be shorter than the previous speakers. Let me speak in Hungarian. We would agree with those who have said that we need to be against manipulation and interference, but. We. It can't stray into censorship, of course. And. In the US, for example, you have people checking facts and people going after them. And when we talk about the independence of the media. Then. You know, there's the the leftist media, which are part of that. But we also need to look at NGOs. €17 billion were spent on NGOs. Left leaning NGOs. And those contracts were made public. But if that hadn't been the case, no one would have known. And then in Hungary, NGOs receive financing. More financing than democratically elected people. And there really isn't any transparency on that. And then in the Parliament, the liberals and the left are putting in place a cordon sanitaire simply because people don't agree with what they do.”
  Regulation of NGOs in Europe
• “There are three important aspects. It is true that we need to make it possible for EU citizens. If there is a personal grievance and they do not get any reply, then there should be a legal remedy in Hungary. The government has already started this work and we set up a working group. I'm also glad that we've also started working on the abuse of dominance issue, of the abuse of dominant position. That is also, um, quite right. Uh, and uh, the third thing we should not forget about free speech. Unfortunately, the number of member states we see a number of methods by which free speech is, uh, limited.”
  Rule of law in Hungary
• “There is one issue that we really need to talk about after these 100 days of the von der Leyen Commission. More and more of us know about how the commission is funding left wing activist networks across Europe. They say that their civil society organisations, but they're actually carrying out political activities. They work together with illegal immigrant immigrants to sue states. They organise Organized censorship or a campaign to reduce agricultural funding. And if you were to look for a list, a public list of how much is being funded and to whom. You know, there would be no point because there's no official record of that. And often the data requests are rejected based on scandalous grounds, such as that you are asking for too much information. A few MEPs do receive these kinds of lists, but then they are stopped from actually publishing them. Why it's so scandalous? The left wing coalition now wants the Commission to take over the funding of USAID, in addition to the existing things. Well, no, we do not want to expand these this funding. We want to stop it. In the meantime, we demand that the list of existing things be made public. Thank you.”
  Regulation of NGOs in Europe