Speeches

Road freight transport is a key component of the European economy. Any disruption to this sector has an immediate impact on the price and availability of many goods. One of the biggest problems that discourages people from working in the sector is the disastrous state of parking and rest facilities for drivers. When the Commission and Parliament look to the distant future, truck drivers who drive through France, Belgium or Germany every day cannot find a rest area with a clean shower or toilet, or fear robbery and assault by illegal immigrants. The EU does not want drivers to be able to sleep in a clean and safe cabin of their vehicle, but the fact that the only option is a dingy hotel with no safe parking or sanitary facilities is of no concern to anyone in Brussels. Is the Commission keeping its promise to support investment in modern rest places? I heard a lot about this during the work on the mobility package. We warned then that the legislation was out of touch with reality in many places. What does the Commission intend to do to change this before there are no more people willing to work in this profession?

Madam President, I'm sorry. Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. European law has ceased to serve citizens and businesses and has become a tool of political blackmail and a cause of the crisis that is eating up our economy. The Green Deal, the conditionality mechanism, the immigration pact, the ban on registration of diesel cars or the regulation of the digital market have become a burden that our companies and public institutions cannot bear. Their implementation is costly and their effectiveness is poor. We need less regulation, but we also need to withdraw from the most harmful laws that expose us to global ridicule. We are losing our race against the United States and China. And no other omnibus will change that. This mandate offers hope for change, but the courage and political will of the Commission is needed. Otherwise, there will soon be nothing to regulate. We will become an open-air museum where innovation is neither produced nor created. The biggest threat to the European Union is its current Commission.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Ladies and Gentlemen, A plenary session without a debate on better regulation would be a lost session. As I see it, the strategy for the tenth term of the European Parliament is to debate on a monthly basis how to make law better, more effective or even more transparent, rather than simply finally passing such a law. As Cato the Elder repeated in each of his speeches ‘Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam’, we also repeat every session ‘We must finally start to make better law, better European law’. Only the question remains: how many more times will we have such a debate before we really start enacting better European law?

Madam President, I'm sorry. Oh, Mrs. Spokesperson! The European institutions are experiencing a huge crisis of trust, as the key decisions taken in Brussels in recent years have led to deplorable results. Our economy is swamped by Green Deal policies and uncontrolled illegal immigration has weakened the sense of security in many Member States. The European Ombudsman should recognise these problems and listen to the voices of disappointment and react when the European Commission is not acting in the interest of the people of Europe. The ECR appreciates the commitment of Spokesperson O’Reilly to the fight for greater transparency in the legislative process. However, the failure to act on the scandal of the Commission's funding of lobbying for radical climate policy, or the attempt to pressure Frontex not to carry out its tasks effectively, is deeply disappointing. Although the 2024 annual report has been slightly improved in the Committee on Petitions, we still cannot support it.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Today, the digital space also includes a number of electronic devices that are constantly connected to the network. We have them in our homes, garages or in our pockets. Many of them have cameras, sensors or microphones that can constantly record and forward information, often without the knowledge of their users. We are all aware that more and more consumer electronics are designed and manufactured in third countries that are not necessarily friendly to us. Some may use them as advanced spy devices. According to the study of the Polish Centre for Eastern Studies, entitled: “Smartphones on wheels”, the threat is extremely real, and the increasing presence of Chinese cars on our streets has consequences also in terms of safety. We are in a war, so far mainly a hybrid one, on which literally anything can be a weapon. We also need to adapt our cybersecurity standards to this wartime reality.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. Passenger rights are not a cost, it's a standard. For years, the European Union has been proud of this standard, of the protection it has provided to air passengers from hours of delays, flight cancellations and denied boarding. Today we hear that this protection must be weakened, because it is expensive. But that's a false argument. The problem is climate policy, not passenger rights. It is the Green Deal that has led airlines to seek savings at the expense of consumers. It is climate policy that enforces the use of sustainable aviation fuels, which are space-expensive. Of course, as MEPs, we will defend the rights of passengers. But it is up to the Commission to decide: Green ideology and killing the competitiveness of our carriers, and at the same time weakening passenger protection, or giving up absurd and ideological ideas of the Green Deal? The Green Deal is killing. The Green Deal kills also the passengers, right?

Mr President, thank you very much. Ladies and Gentlemen, We are in the process of negotiating Regulation 261 on passenger rights in aviation. The Council blocks any Parliament proposal that would extend the scope of protection, and the argument is always the same – this will reduce the profits of European carriers. And - ladies and gentlemen - the Council is right! Airlines are business, and business has to make money. That is the law of the free market. It is not the right to compensation that is the problem. It is not a free place for a child next to a parent or the possibility of taking a wheelchair or a wheelchair on board that causes the costs borne by European carriers to increase. This is the effect of EU environmental policy and sustainable aviation fuel requirements that is at the root of the problem. I already talked about this in this room in 2022, criticizing the goals in this area. They are the ones who raise the costs borne by European carriers, and they pass them on to the prices of tickets and other services. We need a revision of these unrealistic assumptions, which neither airlines nor the fuel industry will achieve. We need the courage to abandon actions that destabilise the aviation market, reduce the competitiveness of our airlines, increase ticket prices and indirectly affect the level of passenger protection. The Green Deal is killing. The Green Deal Kills.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Ladies and Gentlemen, Children are our joy, pride and future. We agree that they must be protected from pathologies, also online. The internet is like a forest. There we can explore the world, rest, spend time with others. But in the forest, as on the Internet, we are in danger. It's easy to get lost in both places. No one imagines that children without parental care will be safe there. In both cases, education, risk awareness and responsibility are needed, not another piece of EU bureaucracy. The idea that the European Commission should prohibit the use of social media from above is contrary to the principle of subsidiarity. Such decisions should always be taken as close as possible to the citizens in the Member States. Teach our children how to use technology safely. Only then, as parents or grandparents, will we be able to sleep peacefully.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Using frozen Russian money to defend Ukraine is, of course, a good but late idea. Today we are talking about the 19th package of sanctions. Nineteen o'clock! Could it be 45th or 56th? We should have given these funds to Ukraine a long time ago. We would not have to give so many loans then, and Kiev would fight Putin for Russian money. But perhaps the problem is that some European leaders from the beginning have preferred half-whist sanctions, hoping that it will be possible to quickly return to the Business as usual. Maybe it was only after blowing up Nord Stream 2 that some understood that there would be no second reset with Moscow. May today's plan not only mean an injection of cash for German, French, Western arms companies that have only recently done business with Russia. Because if this is what European solidarity is supposed to look like, then this war is already lost.

Mr President, thank you very much. Ladies and Gentlemen, We have a dozen committees in the European Parliament. They all deal with texts sent to Parliament by the European Commission. But there is one other committee, the Committee on Petitions. We deal with the texts that citizens send to the European Parliament and pass them on to the European Commission, so that some petitions are opened and if the petition concerns many countries, many people, we present a resolution to Parliament. Parliament shall adopt such a resolution. In the last term, for example, there was such a resolution concerning the cleansing of the Baltic Sea from the remnants of ammunition and wrecks after the Second and First World Wars. And what, ladies and gentlemen? And nothing. And nothing! The European Commission's response is usually silent. A few officials will come, nodding their heads – yes, yes, something would have to be done... And nothing happens to it. This petition is followed by a Parliament resolution – and nothing. This is how the European Commission treats citizens. Ladies and Gentlemen, let us learn from this, also in today's vote of confidence in the European Commission. But frankly, all previous European Commissions have treated petitions in the same way.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. Poland has been alarming for months about GPS signal interference over the Baltic Sea, the growing threat to shipping and civil aviation – also in the vicinity of my city, Bydgoszcz – and the need to develop monitoring and defence systems. Today's events are another form of Russian aggression. Moscow violated the airspace of my country. Dozens of drones reached the territory of Poland. Some were shot down by the military. I congratulate our command and the soldiers on their determination and effectiveness. Russia is becoming more and more brazen and aggressive and is crossing new borders. It's not just cyberattacks, disinformation or signal jamming anymore. It is an open, physical threat to the security of the Union and NATO. Let us stand in solidarity, let us not underestimate the threat, let us strengthen resilience and respond decisively. Russia understands only the language it speaks to the world.

Mr President, thank you very much. The old Chinese curse reads: "May you live in interesting times". And that's what's happening. We live in interesting times: war in Ukraine and the Middle East, pandemics, blackouts, food disasters, rising prices of raw materials, customs war – this is a long way to go. That is why the idea of improving the capacity to respond to potential crises and securing supply chains is, of course, right. The question is, how to do it? I understand that the Commission would like to avoid the situation from the worst moment of the pandemic, when Member States fought among themselves for critical resources, including vaccines. This was because the inherent feature of the state is that it first protects its citizens and only then helps its allies. For this reason, strategic, medical, technical and food reserves should be stored in each Member State as close as possible to the citizens. We must avoid countries specialising in stockpiling only selected stocks. The European Commission should only have a coordinating role and work closely with Member State governments in purchasing planning.

Madam President, I'm sorry. The Polish Presidency, through Minister Dariusz Klimczak, announced a great success: We have a compromise on passenger rights! And what's it all about? Airlines will be able to charge extra for hand luggage, contrary to the ruling of the Court of Justice, and passengers will only be compensated after four hours, and not so far after three hours of delay. Indeed, it is a ‘great success’ – a pity, but not from the point of view of passengers. It is not surprising, however, that the Minister is proud of himself. A few days ago, he announced as his priority a plan to create a winter railway connection from Poland to Austria and Italy. He forgot, however, that his main task was to eliminate transport exclusion throughout the country, not to care for winter holidays for the chosen ones. Fortunately, the text that we will work out in the European Parliament will actually strengthen the position of passengers in air transport. My amendments will guarantee: hand luggage included in the ticket price, simplifying and speeding up the procedures related to compensation for delay and making travelling children a special passenger, which means that there is no charge for a seat on the aircraft next to the guardian. There are still a few votes and negotiations ahead of us, in which we will show the Council what a compromise means.

Mr President, thank you very much. Well-organized and modern public transport is a prerequisite for safe and cheap commuting to work, school or doctor. It is the only effective tool to combat communication exclusion, which is a real problem in many regions of Europe. We must therefore invest in infrastructure, especially rail and road infrastructure, and modern rolling stock. We have European rail vehicle manufacturers that create innovation and jobs. This is also the case in my hometown of Bydgoszcz, which is home to a renowned manufacturer of locomotives, multiple units, wagons and trams. The next Multiannual Financial Framework must include large funds to support local and regional authorities that want to modernise public transport and buy vehicles or infrastructure produced in Europe. In this way, we can rebuild the potential of our industry, which is dying under the weight of the Green Deal.

Mr President, thank you very much. First of all, I would like to thank Mr Axini very much for representing the ECR Group in this report. The Committee on Petitions plays a very important role in the fight against the democratic deficit in the European Union. That was the case in 2023, and it is the case today. It was also thanks to our commitment that we were able to exert effective pressure on the inclusion of Romania and Bulgaria in the Schengen area. It is also worth mentioning PETI's commitment to defending the rights of parents and children to education in Spanish in Catalonia. References to the fact-finding mission on this matter, of which I was a participant, and the aggression we encountered on the ground, must be duly reflected in this report. I hope that today's vote will be able to improve and complete this text in a few more points.

Mr President, thank you very much. For the development of innovation, not only money is needed, but above all friendly regulations and regulations that do not discourage investment and risk-taking. Unfortunately, this is a field where the European Union is notorious for losing global competition. Therefore, the deregulation announced by the Commission cannot be just an empty slogan and another slogan that will not be covered by facts – and so far everything seems to indicate that this is the case. Withdrawal from further work of the draft AI Civil Liability Directive will be the best evidence of sincere intentions in this regard, but the Commission has already been withdrawing this for four months. The European Union in all areas, and especially in the economy, must move away from subordinating its policies to ideological goals. This applies to industry, transport, agriculture and new technologies. Only in this way can we return to the path of development.

Mr President, thank you very much. Infrastructure is the development of the workplace, new opportunities for the tourism industry, but also elements of security architecture. We know that Europe is in danger of war in the old style, with masses of infantry, mechanized divisions and tanks that will move along the communication routes that we will build in peacetime. That is why it is so important that projects of roads, ports or airports take into account the military aspect. This was the goal of the Central Communication Port, first criticized, and today truncated and delayed by the current government in Poland. Provide the ability to quickly move allied troops to Central Europe. Such a role should also be played by Via Pomerania, about which my previous speaker spoke, connecting the war port in Ustka with Bydgoszcz and Inowrocław. These are both military centers. The European Commission should find resources and support the construction of this expressway as an important element of security infrastructure in Poland and Europe.

Mr President, thank you very much. It is great that once again, over the course of six months, we are debating here, as every month, the plans for deregulation and simplification of the European Union. It is, of course, good that the Commission finally realises how far it has gone in its ideas. If it's going to do something, it's better to do it, not with paper straws or fixing bottle caps. The theme of the debate is Cutting red tape. There is another similar password, also with a color in the name, which should also be cut at last. This password is The Green Deal, which is the biggest burden. While we are debating here, in my district, in Janikowo, in the district of Inowrocław, the cost of the Green Deal is paid by residents, local government and employees of chemical plants, which will soon be closed, and thus the entire chain of companies will be closed. People are losing their jobs, and the whole county will soon be a ghost county. This is how the Green Deal works.

Mr President, thank you very much. Mr. Commissioner, I would like to thank you. Ladies and Gentlemen, As is well known, the compass is an instrument that we use when we do not know where to go, when we do not know where we are, it will show the way. How wonderful it was to call this commission document the Compass. The first step is to be aware of your problem. I congratulate the European Commission. And as someone who has often questioned the policy of the European Union from this place, he offers some good advice. On the 20th anniversary of the establishment of the ETS, it should be abandoned. Let’s throw away the Green Deal, let’s throw Fit for 55 in the trash – this is the direction that will make the Union finally have a competitive economy.

Of course I can reply, Honourable Member. There has never been any scientific data. And when it comes to, for example, Fit for 55It was an auction here in this room. And why 55? 60, 70, 45? It stood at 55. This climate policy, of course, is not based on any science. It's as clear as the sun. And today even Donald Tusk realized it.

Madam President, thank you very much. Mr. Commissioner, I would like to thank you. Ladies and Gentlemen, The mechanism we are debating is a harmful and costly absurdity. The Commission is donating money to environmental organisations to lobby EU institutions to support a green agenda that hurts the European economy and pushes jobs out of Europe. Brussels, like the serpent Uroborosa, constantly devours its own tail. In this case, it also devours the well-being of citizens and their economic future. How can there be fair cooperation and balance between the institutions if the Commission influences Parliament and the Member States through the hands of lobbyists, environmentalists and activists? Lack of access to information on how climate policy objectives were created is a major sin of the Green Deal. And today we know that even Donald Tusk believes that his assumptions are wrong and the costs huge. Every euro spent to convince you otherwise is a waste.