Speeches

Madam President, the fact that the Commission, as a result of the unfavourable economic developments caused by the confluence of many crises, will mention the Russian aggression in Ukraine, has decided to allow the Member States to support their economies, is perfectly understandable and, of course, I also welcome this step. I also welcome, of course, the support for the green transition, which are actually connected vessels. Both the Temporary Crisis Transition Framework and the amendment of the General Block Exemption Regulation will undoubtedly help speed up investment and financing, in addition to clean energy production, which is one of the important objectives of European policies to which I also subscribe. However, this does not in any way mean that we can forget about cohesion policy and its principles, which are set out in European primary law. I am therefore asking: What are the guarantees that cohesion policy will not become the proverbial Cinderella? How do these initiatives reflect Articles 174 and 175 of the Treaty, which specifically govern the principles of cohesion? Also how provisions on outermost regions, transition regions and the most disadvantaged regions can be included in the Regulation de minimis? I have doubts about this procedure. We are undoubtedly living in a difficult time, which compels us to compromise, but I would not like the basic principles of cohesion policy to be sacrificed in favour of economic and environmental considerations.

Mr President, Commissioner, climate change is happening with more force than was expected – extreme drought, fires. In fact, we are talking about this every summer here in the European Parliament. Floods, sea level rise is even higher than expected. No one is even denying the ongoing climate change, but some say that Europe can do nothing, that we are dependent on China and the US. I don't think we can accept that logic. We have a responsibility to future generations and indeed to the entire planet. We don't have a replacement planet yet. The problems would have caught up with us anyway. Migration, the dramatic situation in agriculture, food insecurity, and I will not list all the other possible problems here. A proper manager will take reasonable measures, minimize damage as long as he can, and the international panel actually says the same thing. This is the last time we can make these changes. We should be good managers. The Commission takes these warnings responsibly. But we also need to do our homework in our Member States. There is much to be said, and much to be said, to convince citizens that this is the only way to make sense. We also need to be involved in international affairs and diplomacy.

Madam President, I also supported this report. For a number of reasons. Carbon capture is indeed a technological challenge. Perhaps one of the older methods that I could mention here is that if you make a very high-quality table of wood that lasts for decades, maybe even centuries, you've done a lot of work because a lot of carbon is trapped in that wood. We must exploit the full potential of carbon sequestration, both in agriculture, which my colleague mentioned, and in the field of uptake directly from the atmosphere and storage in such products. I think we need to support all technologies, including the CCS method, which my colleagues on the left refer to as unsupportable for a number of ideological reasons. We must not be ideological, but truly innovative, and I think this is fully captured in this report. Although I was not entirely happy with the fact that some amendments were passed.

Madam President, I also supported this proposal because I consider our climate commitments to be really serious. And the reverse of our ETS 2, which we have already approved, is the Social Climate Fund. This represents our responsibility towards vulnerable people and also towards investments to be made in the national budgets of the Member States. The amount of EUR 80 billion earmarked for this system is, in my view, sufficient. It will be subject to further reviews to ensure that 37.5% go directly to vulnerable households. I hope no one falls through that sieve. That is, moreover, the task of the governments of the Member States, which are required to submit plans for the implementation of that fund. I just have to wonder a little bit that some colleagues were able not to vote for the ETS system where this money is created, but at the same time to support their distribution, that is, the distribution in the Social Climate Fund. It's odd.

Madam President, both the European Union and the European Parliament support the commitments of the Paris Agreement. All Member States have supported these commitments, and only in the areas of transport and energy does the European Union generate half of its emissions. If we are serious about our environmental commitments, we must clearly drastically reduce these emissions. Despite some doubts about the possibility of price fluctuations, the existing ETS has proved its worth. And it is precisely the improvement in the supervision of the issue of these allowances, which are also securities, that I think disproves the criticisms of this system from their error. We will have a better system with better safeguards, with the possibility of additional use of allowances, with the possibility of even sistation trading these allowances. There are a number of restraint mechanisms in place for the system to actually work. And I repeat, our critics have not put forward any other solution to meet our commitments under the Paris Agreement.

Madam President, I previously did not support the creation of parallel structures on security issues, because I thought that NATO structures were sufficient. But I changed my mind after the occupation of Crimea. I think that the rapid deployment capacity of 5,000 men is really just a small thing. It's a start, and we need a much larger security force to deploy quickly. Many times we have learned that we don't actually have the capacity. So, as much as I support a synergy with NATO, I do not think that the aim is to weaken NATO either, but to seek genuine synergies in that coordination process, so I believe that we must use every space in Article 44 to increase the security of the Euro-Atlantic area. It's also our commitment. We are not to be stowaways on this security issue and at this time, which presents us with very high geopolitical challenges.

Mr President, I would like to draw attention today to a serious problem, which is the non-transposition or late transposition of European law into national legal orders. As our citizens in Europe have the right to consume the benefits of our legislation that we adopt, they should, of course, also have responsibilities. If European law is not transposed into national legal states, there is a violation of the principle of the rule of law, a violation of the principle of trust, legal certainty. It is important that Member States implement in their legal order those standards that require adaptation, not all European acts are implementable in a given Member State without further adaptation. As I said, citizens' trust in the European Union is at stake here, and I think there is something wrong at the moment when the European Commission publishes a list of dozens of states that are violating this right of transposition in individual sectors. We should sweep in front of our own doorstep. Even in the Czech Republic, a number of European regulations are not transposed, especially in the field of energy. This is also a disadvantage for our citizens. So let's transpose European law into our legal systems.

Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur for a very good report on this point, because it is really built on finding sustainable solutions and new resources to finance carbon sequestration. There is no doubt that we need to better reward land managers for carbon sequestration and biodiversity conservation from the point of view of the issues to be touched upon. And it is important that these land managers have relevant data at their disposal. That is, this is based on the assumption that by 2028 every land manager should have access to verified data. We have ambitious goals here. By 2030, three hundred and ten million tonnes should be stored or captured in the land sector and 20 % of non-fossil products should be placed on the market in the industrial sector and five million tonnes captured directly from the atmosphere. These are very ambitious goals. I support them. I think we should insist on technological neutrality. No technology should be excluded a priori. This also applies to the CCS technology in question, which the rapporteur has emphasised.

Mr President, people and young people in particular are protesting against the impact of climate change on their lives, against the aggravation of these consequences. We see it every year, drought, we talk about it here in the hemicycle almost every year, extreme rainfall on the other hand. We're seeing sea level rise. These are all the consequences of human activity, and we must stand up to this growth. Our fifty-five percent commitment to recalculating better land use through the climate package we are bringing to life is actually fifty-seven percent. We invest in energy efficiency, in renewables, in aviation and maritime transport. Of course, this package will also have a slightly negative impact on people's lives. We must also mention them here, but we are dealing with them thanks to the Social Climate Fund, which we have also set up. I think it is important to say that sustainability is the only crucial moment for our future. This is climate neutrality.

Mr President, I would like to acknowledge the role of the rapporteur in this regulation, because he has done a great deal of work. I myself was the rapporteur of the legislation, or only of the opinion that went to the protection of the world's original forests. I think we have come a long way over these two years, and I would like to appreciate the role of the European Parliament, because we have agreed on those products that should be so traceable that they should not contribute to deforestation. But the tasks that are still ahead of us are certainly twofold. How will we ensure compliance with this regulation? This means: How do we really protect consumers from knowing that in the morning, when they drink their coffee or chocolate, they are not actually involved in deforestation? And the second task before us is how we will find partners in the world, because that is also a question for the United States of America. We must support presidents who are not involved in deforestation, such as Lula da Silva and others. We need to find partners in the world to enforce these environmental standards.

Mr President, I really consider this approach by our democratic governments to the use of spyware to be indefensible. It is an incredible scandal when our democratic governments use this software against their citizens, even against their opposition, as many indicia suggest. And I think that there is also an incredible attitude of the European institutions. The silence you hear when you talk about what should be done in this case, when the European Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, should be much more active. I think this contrasts with our approach of involving civil society, independent associations, in our investigation. I think that the Member States should provide much more synergy to the European Parliament. And I was also shocked by the information that, for example, my state, the Czech Republic, did not provide proper cooperation. This is indeed very alarming from a state that considers itself a democratic rule of law.

Mr President, when a tropical storm strikes a small island developing state, it can destroy the island's infrastructure with significant economic and social consequences. Restoring this infrastructure requires a lot of money. But such a small state does not have many ways of mobilising capital to rebuild damaged infrastructure, for a number of reasons – it has a small economy, of course, it has a small domestic capital market – and also because climate change increases the financial risks that make lending under the international financial system more expensive. Climate change shows that these impacts will increasingly affect island states. In this context, the Bridgetown Initiative was set up in Barbados in 2022. It aims to mobilise more private and finance for the climate transition and better resilience to natural disasters caused by climate change. While it is true that small island states represent only 1% of the world's population, if we add 3.3 billion people living in the tropics, the Bridgetown Initiative takes on a much broader significance. Better protection of these countries from the devastating effects of climate change can be achieved, for example, by including clauses on natural disasters in debt instruments. The Bridgetown Initiative also sparked the debate at COP27. I believe that responsibility for the devastating effects of climate change is shared and that the most vulnerable countries deserve our support and assistance. They cannot remain alone in this risk, they cannot bear this burden alone. I am very pleased that the Commissioner has already announced that the start of the process of support for these countries has also begun at European level.

Mr President, on the contrary, I supported this report. I am very sorry that Brexit has taken place. I think that the British themselves could already have known that many of their politicians had lied to them, as well as those who sat in this House. However, I think it is important to turn the page, that it is very important to appreciate the agreement that we have finally made between Great Britain and the European Union, and we need to build a new alliance. I am satisfied with the implementation of the agreement and I think that, for these reasons, it is good to support this report in the European Parliament and hope that we will find a lot in common in the near future or in the future and we will be very close partners, that is, on both sides of the English Channel, both in the UK and in the European Union. There are many challenges ahead that are quite obvious, and I think that this alliance could be appreciated by citizens on both sides.

Mr President, I did not support this report and I would like to explain why. I do not deny at all that it is important that this coordination of economic policies takes place, of course. This policy has also been successful. During the COVID-19 pandemic, it certainly provided security for a number of employees. I also agree that this policy must address social problems, social exclusion, poverty, that is beyond doubt. But on a number of points, I think that we do not agree on what is also undermining the competitiveness of the European Union and its Member States. It is undoubtedly also a significant degree of legal regulation, poorly targeted support even for employers, for our businesses and it is a big bureaucracy. So I lacked some balance in the report and for these reasons I did not support it.

Mr President, I, of course, supported this motion for a resolution. The repression of Andrzej Poczobut and Ales Bialiatski are unacceptable. Of course, it's not just these two cases. These cases are the vast majority that we have encountered and discussed in recent months. Belarus has become a totalitarian state, trampling on all conceivable human rights, and it is important to say that the Belarusian president has undoubtedly become a servant of the Russian bear, and that he can already fly only to China or Iran. I think we need to further tighten sanctions, help the Belarusian opposition and be prepared for regime change, because I am convinced that the Belarusian people will not be forced into this totalitarian practice and that human rights and democracy may soon prevail in Belarus.

Mr President, dear colleagues, Iranian girls and women have been the target of this organised gas attack launched by Khomeini agents against them in hundreds of schools because they want to target the women and girls who are the hope for change in Iran There is mounting evidence of government involvement in these horrific attacks. And today we heard directly from Iranian women representatives how shamefully the Iranian regime treats women, girls and young people for many decades. And we heard also the request to blacklist the IRGC. I am really glad that our Parliament has long-term cooperation with Iranian opposition groups. One important movement, National Council of Resistance, is also headed by a woman, Ms Rajavi. And I remember her warning that any contacts with the Iranian regime are pointless. We lifted the sanctions and the Iranian regime used the new money not for Iranian people, but to invest in weapons in drones, which are now attacking Ukraine and to get a nuclear weapon. So, please, no more mistakes. Let’s work with Iranian women and let’s blacklist the IRGC.

Madam President, as has already been said, Swaziland is an absolute monarchy, but that does not entitle it, this country, to practices that are truly unacceptable. Restrictions on human rights, political parties are outlawed and, in fact, fundamental acts of violence against opponents of the regime, representatives of the monarchy, this is really unacceptable. If today we are even witnessing the murder of Thulani Maseko, a prominent lawyer and leader of the pro-democracy movement, we must unequivocally condemn it vigorously. We need to call on this country to give security guarantees to its representatives of various pro-democracy groups. We are witnessing exactly the opposite. Security forces systematically and systematically intimidate all political activists, trade unionists and opponents. We unequivocally condemn the death of Thulani Maseko, but it must be said that we will want more from this country, because we also provide support to this country. We need to call for an independent and impartial investigation. The African Commission on Human Rights. We want to call for respect for fundamental human rights, for dialogue with representatives of the pro-democracy groups concerned and, of course, for the release of imprisoned human rights defenders, but even parliamentarians. Members are also imprisoned in this country, and this is completely unacceptable to us. This is a violation of fundamental political rights. As I said, what we have at our disposal as tools is, of course, a diplomatic effort, but also a possible temporary suspension of programmes for Swaziland, and I think that this is also a tool that we should not be afraid to use.

Madam President, I fully agree with my colleagues that without resources of raw materials, green transition cannot really be managed. It is clear that it is even impossible, if not undermined. And it is important to say that raw material sovereignty is essential. We should definitely do much more in the field of our diplomacy, because we will not only solve our raw material needs by circular economy or by securing supplies from friendly countries. We need to ensure raw materials diplomacy in this field, as Russia unfortunately does. See where Foreign Minister Lavrov goes. I think we can expect more engagement from our diplomatic service in Africa and beyond. So I would definitely like to appeal to that as well. We must not forget the environmental impacts, but let us involve all our policies at our disposal.

Mr President, I have abstained on this regulation and I would like to explain why. I appreciate the outcome of the Czech Presidency that it has managed to negotiate a majority on such a complex file both in the Member States and, in fact, in the European Parliament. It is important for this sector to know what it can undoubtedly count on. And there is no doubt that transport contributes to increasing CO2 emissions. These are all real facts. I am convinced, however, that it is not possible to dictate a complete ban on this combustion engine technology without further ado, because the emissions can be very low. And I think it was possible to maintain the permissibility of this technology. The lack of infrastructure, recharging systems or even the transmission of new energy systems is also a major problem. This raises big questions and I think it's a bit of a rush.

Mr President, I also supported this draft report, although I am rather sceptical about the possibility of uniform EU-wide female candidates. I have already explained this position here, but this proposal goes in a slightly different direction, namely to try to bring as many voters as possible to the polls and to allow them to vote. It should be emphasised that the European Parliament is the only directly elected institution in the European Union and, of course, it is in the interest of both the Member States and our elected representatives to allow as many people as possible to vote, and the options that this report foresees, such as advance voting, postal or proxy voting, are all options that I strongly welcome and it is important to come up with these topics because, for example, in the Czech Republic, it is not at all possible to vote for the European Parliament abroad. This is a fundamental weakness of the Czech electoral system and I think that the push from the European institutions is very good.

Mr President, I also supported this draft report. It is actually the closure of the whole process and I welcome it, because EUR 20 billion is already quite a significant amount and is intended to reduce the dependence of European countries on fossil resources, especially Russian ones. This is a response to the unprecedented illegal act of Russian aggression in Ukraine. We need to diversify our energy sources, ensure security of supply, invest in energy storage, also promote faster development of renewable energy sources and also promote stability of supply. It is intended to provide certainty for citizens and businesses at a very fast scale. These investments are expected to take place within three years. States now have to show how ready they are, how quickly they are able to submit quality projects and, in fact, announce their schemes, their projects within one month of the adoption of this regulation. And I think this is a very good idea.

Mr President, I thank the Commissioner for presenting the proposal. The reform of financial markets is, shall we say, the fundamental objective pursued by this proposal. This is a long-term goal, and it follows from the proposals already presented in an earlier period. I believe that, unfortunately, the long-term nature that we are declaring here in this report is not entirely sufficient. The challenges we face are truly enormous. It is planning and a systematic approach, the elimination of bureaucracy, in fact sustainable schemes, that are all the challenges that we expected this reform to bring about and cope with. And so far, I think we're kind of halfway there. So I would also like to call for the challenges that investors want to face in these funds to be heard, and for the reform to be really more thorough, I think it is possible to draw inspiration from our Euro-Atlantic bond, within our circle.

Mr President, Commissioner, I would like to start by welcoming this initiative by the Commission and its President and also supporting the proposal as presented here by the Commissioner. In my opinion, it is very important to think carefully about the proposal, because it is not easy to create a new inter-institutional body. On the other hand, it is clear that the European Union has rules in individual institutions. They are often better than the rules in individual Member States, but sometimes individual failures simply do not capture or create the preconditions for such failures to occur. Case Qatargate shows the need to further develop this topic and indeed to prepare such an institution, because a certain independent external assessment of the rules in force in the individual European institutions, but also in specific cases, I think is important. In my view, it is also the setting of rules in individual institutions that is important, and it is the external assessment, as I have already said, that I think it is simply giving those institutions and bodies the important feedback. It should concern both ethical rules and financial rules, undoubtedly cooperation – possible and permissible – with non-profit organisations, but also with third parties. Where should this organization, or this department, body, intervene? In my view, the examination of individual specific cases is also not precluded. Undoubtedly, it must cover areas of conflict of interest, financial rules, inappropriate behaviour. I think these are all topics that need to be opened. And if anyone argues that the freedom to exercise our mandate is established, I must say that it cannot be boundless.

Madam President, I would like to join my colleague Ştefănuța in strongly condemning the Russian activities that are now directed towards Moldova. What President Maia Sandu has said today is truly extremely serious and there is no reason not to believe it. We all know that Russia has long-term plans for this country. The idea of a violent coup in the country, the exacerbation of the situation of the conflict, the transfer of the conflict to another country, the destabilisation of the entire region, undoubtedly the occupation of Transnistria, are simply great risks that we must emphatically reject today. Moldova has freely embarked on its European path. We must do everything we can to deter Russia from a possible aggression, while reassuring Moldova unequivocally that it has our full support and that its future is with us in the European Union.

Madam President, I felt a little challenged by my colleague Aubry if the EPP is here. So here we are, we are talking in this discussion, also featured our colleague Hohlmeierová, of course Jan Olbrycht and others. On the merits of the case: we support most of the proposals put forward by President Metsola. I think more transparency about meetings is absolutely possible. I don't object to her, blacklist undoubtedly also, that is, all those who break the rules must be placed on such a list, tightening access to the European Parliament and so on. I am just asking if Mr Panzeri, who is involved in this scandal and is no longer an MEP, will keep such a record of his meetings. We have to figure it out in every detail. Unfortunately, the debate also has the effect of making excuses for each other. Please stop making excuses for each other and try to do something about the mechanism. I don't think it can be rushed, I don't agree with my fellow Greens, but we really need to have a real result as soon as possible.