,

“Gluttony … will eat us up.”

The process by which something that is worn out, damaged, becomes as good as new.

The definition of restoration.

There are many things on our planet that are worn out, damaged. Many of them so much so that, unfortunately, the process described above is impossible. And, sadly, the vast majority of it is down to humans. But there are still things that can be fixed. Restored. At least partially.

And one would expect – at least those of us who are aware of our responsibility to the planet – that politicians would be ‘fighting each other’ to go down in history as the greatest advocates of the environment. Fighting to show more ambition, to protect nature more.

But the opposite is happening. Self-serving politicasters and opportunists prefer to conspire against the legislative text that is the least suitable to be the subject of political infighting and, above all, of false information.

I am speaking about the Nature Restoration Law, which we voted on today. The manipulators have failed, the bill was not defeated, negotiations will continue. This is a victory, but with a bitter aftertaste.

Those of us MEPs who are genuinely concerned have shown that we care. For the environment, for climate neutrality, for the future. On the other hand, the other MEPs, too, are genuinely concerned and have shown that they care. About themselves.

I have a message for them. And a few questions.

… When speaking about the restoration of ecosystems. Land, coastal, freshwater, marine, urban ecosystems. The forest ecosystem. The agricultural ones! When speaking about restoring pollinator populations. About natural environments that have already been destroyed, damaged, exploited.

How can there still be people who claim that this legislation is “dangerous” or “unnecessary”? This is yet another classic case of politicising the matter to scare the masses. They spread fear by claiming, for example, that Article 9 of this law which aims to increase land conservation and biodiversity will drastically reduce food production, which is completely misleading.

Should we really do something for our bees and other pollinators, or should we just talk of them with pride when enjoying honey or talking to someone from abroad?

What about all other animals, plants and their diversity? Are we really not tearing up the ground beneath them – sometimes literally?

Where we have drained peatlands, have we really not caused the collapse of the ecosystem? What if we cut down a forest and don’t replace it?

Do we want more trees alongside new motorways, new high-rise buildings and shopping centres? I would dare to say that the planet is already “boiling” enough.

The renewal rates that we are talking about hover around some ten per cent, and in my opinion they are already too low, while some would prefer to halve the ambition. In fact, certain amendments adopted today have significantly weakened the text.

I repeat: it’s about RESTORATION – and only as a proportion of the total damage. Damage that humankind – we, as society, our economies, our desire for more – has inflicted on animals, plants, the environment.

And the worst thing? That it is not “only” climate change (which is reflected in long dry spells, devastating floods, hail and other unpredictable crop-destroying climatic events), biodiversity and ecosystem loss, including that of pollinators, and (excessive) pest control that pose the biggest threats to food security, fisheries, agriculture and forestry. Rather, such threats also originate from political manipulators, opportunists and hypocrites.

… Who score political points on the backs of farmers. The latter have long been the victims of insufficient legislation that would protect and preserve nature and the environment, and guarantee them greater crop stability and thus a better livelihood. I therefore also have a message for everyone in the agricultural industry. You must be aware, I am sorry to say, that the representatives of the European People’s Party and all those who opposed the proposed legislation under the pretext of ensuring sufficient agricultural land and food security, have achieved its exact opposite.

As a society, we put a value on everything. In terms of a price, profit, capital. We place a much lower value on human beings. And none whatsoever on nature.

It’s high time we ALL started to realise what is really important for life on this planet.

Gluttony … will eat us up.

– Irena

/0 Comments/by
,

“Political games are one thing, but to unjustly slander a country is truly unacceptable.”

Political games are one thing, but to unjustly slander a country with baseless claims just to please an illiberal populist is truly unacceptable. I think it would be fair to the Slovenian people if you explained to us in what way and where you are “witnessing the collapse of the rule of law and the political takeover of the media in Slovenia”? That is the least you can do. Until such time, I ask you to refrain from slandering my country without a legitimate basis.

You have now read a paragraph of an email I sent to the leader of the largest political group in the European Parliament and to all its MEPs. Do you know who that is?

Someone who is blatantly ignoring the facts. Someone who is evidently, without any remorse, consolidating the populist right and serves as a mouthpiece for their absurd and manipulated theses. Someone to whom I also wrote: “I know you know very well who their ideological allies and mentors are.”

Let the political family that blindly takes on the distorted claims of the populist agitators at least present the arguments underpinning their assertions. And who is really behind them. This is the least we are owed, if they are ready to indiscriminately bad-mouth our country. It should by now be obvious to them who it is that they are backing in Slovenia. It would be preferable that they help elevate the political culture of the right wing in our country, given its current lamentable state. I know that it is not as dismal (yet) at the European level. But it is high time to reflect on whether everyone wishes to go down this road.

It doesn’t matter whether we are liberal, conservative, left, right, top, bottom or what have you, we can disagree on many things, but we should all, without exception, stand together when it comes to the most important thing: defending the rule of law, our liberal democracies, and – as far as I’m concerned, most vital of all – truthfulness. And, if truth be told, it is sad to see how the historic values of decency, respect and human dignity, which are supposed to be the fundamental values of this largest political family, are being trampled on by radical factions. Critical reflection is always in order. Double-checking the information you get from the aforementioned radical factions is even more in order.

I do not hesitate to express criticism when it is appropriate. I do not care for instructions, partisan interests, loyalty at any price. The only loyalty I care about is loyalty to the people. But, ladies and gentlemen, the European Commission’s 2023 Rule of Law Report for Slovenia simply cannot be criticised. Unless, of course, one is instructed to do so. Or is pursuing certain interests. Or there is a price attached.

Or because one is living in a parallel reality and, above all, in the past.

But… facts simply don’t lie. And this report is based purely on facts. It is the result of thorough analysis and verifiable information, which finally and rightly places Slovenia back in the company of stable democracies in Europe.

Let there be no doubt: the previous reports were also based solely on facts. The previous two, for example, expressed great concern about the accelerated attempts to dismantle the country’s fundamental institutions. Guess under whose government.

The most recent report, however, clearly highlights progress. Including in the field of media freedom, for the first time in two years. It explicitly mentions action taken to remedy the situation of the Slovenian Press Agency, and the importance of the amendments to the RTV Slovenija Act for ensuring the political independence of the public broadcasting service. It also notes progress in the areas of civil society and justice.

Of course, certain criticisms remain. Of course, unresolved issues remain. But they, too, are being resolved. And – what is more – they date further back than a year.

That’s the difference.

The difference when it comes to instructions. Interests. Loyalty. Between conservatives, radicals, liberals. Between the previous and the current government.

That. Is. The. Difference.

– Irena

/0 Comments/by
,

“Yes, I’m going to bring up the Media Freedom Act again.”

Yes, I’m going to bring up the European Media Freedom Act again. But when you find out why (just read on), you’ll understand.

You all know by now that I am continually confronting multinationals operating on the Slovenian market, who are discriminating against the Slovenian language as they go. My team and I have been giving a lot of thought to what we can do. Send a letter, urge, convene meetings, explain… all well and good, but unfortunately not enough.

It is through legislation that companies are compelled to introduce the necessary changes, especially those who confidently declare “we don’t have to”. Well, sooner or later you will have to.

First, there’s the national level. The Ministry of Culture has finally submitted the envisaged legislative changes for public consultation. I intend to take part in the process within the framework of my competences. I hope for an ambitious, sharp, unambiguous amendment of the law.

And then there’s the European level. With its European Media Freedom Act. And Article 14 on the coordination among regulators. I am determined to include a provision in this legislation – which will have the form of a regulation, meaning that Member States will have to transpose it exactly as it is agreed in the negotiations – that will simply force foreign companies to comply with our law, even if they are not officially established in, say, Slovenia.

How? On the basis of this provision, a Slovenian inspector, for example, establishing that Netflix is discriminating against Slovenian, an official EU language on the EU market, will be able to make use of official mechanisms to request the inspector in the country where the company has its offices or a head office (in the specific case of Netflix in the Netherlands) to put the matter right.

I really believe that this provision will be adopted, as at this point none of the other negotiators are voicing any issues with it. Of course, the process then continues with negotiations with the Member States and the European Commission, but I am confident that we will succeed – I am confident that I will succeed, because I understand how important this is! – and that, in parallel to the Slovenian legislative amendments, we will FINALLY make progress in this respect. Give Slovenian the place it deserves.

It is our language, our right and our choice.

And that’s what I spoke about in my contribution for POP TV’s 24ur programme today.

Greetings from Brussels

– Irena

/0 Comments/by