Speeches

The Inflation Reduction Act was presented in a positive way in the US – it is supposed to curb inflation, deal with taxation and focus on green energy. Nevertheless, one can perceive that the Inflation Reduction Act is based on unfair cooperation with America’s partners – such as the EU. I will name only few examples of how the Inflation Reduction Act might undermine the European-American friendship. First, the US ties its subsidies and tax breaks exclusively to the production of raw materials, intermediate products and complete production in the US or in North America, undermining the WTO agreements. Second, the minimum tax of 15%, deviates from the international OECD negotiations. It weakens the deal by not being a truly effective tax rate, giving a wrong example and making more countries adopt tax credits or engage in aggressive competition to grant subsidies to companies to ‘compensate’ for higher effective tax rates. This is not what we all fought for. True friendship is about transparency, cooperation and facing challenges together. I call on the Commission to take steps in the discussions with the US. I hope that soon we will not have to quote yesterday’s birthday child Taylor Swift when discussing US-EU relations: ‘So take a look at what you’ve done. Now we’ve got bad blood.’

The debate on a strategy for critical raw materials for the European economy could not have taken place at a more appropriate moment. Pandemic supply and demand shocks have significantly exposed the dependence of the European economy on global commodity markets. The Community is entering an era of change linked to the New Green Deal. The energy transition will require increased access to raw materials. Guaranteeing them becomes part of preserving the EU's strategic autonomy. The Community must take action in the field of industrial, commercial and environmental policy. In the interest of preserving the Union's independence, it is necessary to initiate and increase extraction within its borders, make smarter use of available materials and apply a circular economy and the recovery of minerals from waste. However, we must remember to respect the principles of sustainable exploitation of minerals, environmental principles and the rights of local communities. The Union should mobilise trade policy instruments to counter restrictions on the availability of raw materials on international markets. In this context, it is worth mentioning cooperation with Ukraine and the countries of the Western Balkans, as well as cooperation with partners interested in the development of global commodity markets, such as Canada, Japan or the USA. Both the EU's industrial policy and its trade policy, while respecting the principles of the environment and sustainable development, must lead to an increase in the EU's raw material independence and, consequently, its strategic autonomy.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Vice-President of the Commission, Europeans are increasingly asking themselves: Why should we pay for the war caused by Russia when the resources of this state, the state of the aggressor, are available? It's time to use these resources. What are the main arguments against this? Decreased credibility of the euro. I wonder if Mrs. Nabiullina, President of the National Bank of Russia, as a retaliation against Europe, will transfer her foreign exchange reserves into dollars? This will be a real revenge on the Russian economy. We are afraid to take over the resources of the Russian state. The Russians do not have these scruples, they take over, nationalize the assets of foreign companies or force them to sell to the Russian oligarchs for a fraction of their value. Sometimes I have the impression that somewhere in the back of my head we think: It'll all be over soon and we'll be back. Business as usual. I can't imagine it.

Mr President, dear colleagues, today we will vote on a topic which is very close to the hearts of Europeans – something all of us deal with virtually every day: payments. With this file, we do not only protect consumers from various types of fraud, oblige payment service providers to deliver higher transparency levels for ATM withdrawals, or give consumers better control over who has access to their data. We also ensure that online platforms such as Meta or Google are co-responsible for payment fraud happening through them. These are only some specific examples of what this file is dealing with. With this file, we prove to the EU citizens, even just before the elections, that we have their backs. We prove to euro-sceptics that they are wrong, and that the EU is an added value for each and every one of us. Colleagues, files like the payments package are negotiated several months. We did it – as David Bowie would say – under pressure, in several weeks. Thank you to the shadow rapporteurs for their cooperation. Thanks to my advisor, Pawel Wisniewski, for leading the technical work on this difficult, often very technical file. I ask you to vote in favour of the Payment Services Regulation. Let us give the Parliament a strong mandate to negotiate with the Council in the upcoming term.

Madam President, in this discussion, I would like to take up one issue: capital markets union, or more precisely, the lack of it. Our financial system in Europe is ideal for financing traditional industries with full collateral, with long business records. It’s improper to finance start-ups, disruptive technologies – those champions of new technology. As long as we drag our feet with developing, creating a real capital markets union, we’ll have to be satisfied with a long list of commendable but ineffective actions on the part of the European Union that we heard from Ursula von der Leyen. I was impressed, but still we are losing on competitiveness against China and America. Why? Let’s think about it.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Commissioner, I'm sorry. First of all, I would like to thank Michiel Hoogeveen, shadow rapporteurs and our technical team for their cooperation on this file. I remember when I volunteered to be co-responsible for this document, I was told: Why do you need this? After all, this is only about transfers in euro, in the Council they do not even want this to apply to countries outside the euro area. You don't even know how it motivated me and in the end we created a very good document together. First, instant transfers in euro will also be available from and to accounts not denominated in euro. We fought to avoid dividing the European Union into countries A and B, showing how the single market should work. Secondly, instant transfers in euro are to be no more expensive than ordinary transfers in euro available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. This is not only a convenience for citizens, but also a step towards the strategic autonomy of the Union in financial matters and competition for non-EU credit cards. We have helped non-bank institutions in accessing banking infrastructure, we fight money laundering, we prevent erroneous transfers. What is crucial, however, is that we have shown that in such a complex matter as finance and banking, the European Union is doing something for the citizen, something that the citizen understands and will feel in everyday life. We show that Orbán, Kaczyński, Wilders or other opponents of the Union are wrong. The European Union works and works for all of us.

Mr President, I’m going to say a few words about a much less sexy topic than before, which is macroeconomic management, which should be, by the way, one of the priorities of the upcoming Belgian Presidency. We know how necessary it is. Poor macroeconomic management weakens the EU in every aspect, including our reaction to the exigencies of geopolitical challenges, be it war in Ukraine, be it the energy crisis. We have achieved improvement so far over the currently functioning format based on the SGP. We have a more country-specific approach, which should strengthen country ownership. We have a longer term horizon, 4 to 7 years, more realism. We have simpler rules based on longer term expenditure. This provides for fiscal discipline being much less procyclical. What we don’t have is a permanent Community fiscal instrument. With some bitterness, let me say that we need yet another crisis to agree on this. Hopefully it is not going to be a crisis of war, of hot war – something we considered out of imagination for decades. But that is not so outlandish anymore these days. We need budgetary space for military effort, especially in view of the looming problems within NATO after the upcoming November election in the US.

The decision-making process in the European Union is over 20 years old. There was no pandemic, there was no war on our eastern borderlands, there was no energy crisis and there was no need to harmonise certain elements of energy policy. Few people thought that the membership of Ukraine and maybe Moldova in the European Union is around the corner. The world is changing. The EU also needs to change. A discussion on reforms is necessary. Today, the debated voice of the European Parliament sounds loud and goes far, for some too far. But instead of incomprehensible cries about the loss of sovereignty, one should calmly consider these possible changes. One thing is certain, closer European integration, and such would be the consequences of possible treaty changes, will make political gangrene in the style of Kaczynski's Poland or Orban's Hungary less likely. But that's all we should be happy about.

Madam President, with increasing geopolitical risks and reshuffling of global value chains, the EU needs to maintain competitiveness, promote international cooperation, and increase our strategic autonomy. Therefore, we warmly welcome the recent EU-New Zealand FTA. Its ratification will send a clear message that we are open and willing to work with partners across the world. However, this cooperation must not only mean strengthening our respective economies, but also addressing common challenges, like those related to sustainability and climate change. With the most progressive text ever adopted in the FTA by the European Union, with its strong TSD chapter, a broad set of mutually agreed commitments, and a sanctions-based enforcement mechanism, the deal with New Zealand should be seen as an ambitious but achievable paradigm for a new generation of trade agreements.

Mr President, Commissioner, the creation of the Ukraine Facility is a strong commitment from the EU, which shows that we will not abandon Ukraine and will work towards its victory and EU integration. The EUR 50 billion package has to support the ‘build back better’ principle and a set of strategic projects to create a green, sustainable and just Ukrainian economy. Massive public and private funding will be needed to restore critical infrastructure and housing and to repair damages. However the aggressor has to pay: we need to use Russia’s frozen assets to cover inflicted damages. The reconstruction has to be connected to EU accession: our Ukrainian friends have to work hard to implement the necessary reforms. When this happens, we shall all meet in the EU as partners.

Madam President, Commissioner, a well-functioning, rules-based international trade is of the highest importance for the EU, for Europe. As many as 38 million jobs depend on trade in our community. But it should also help our global partners from Latin America, Asia, Africa. New trade agreements play an instrumental role in diversifying our supply chains and securing access to needed resources. Therefore, finalising the Mercosur agreement and advancing our negotiations with India is of the highest importance. However, our trade policy needs to comply with an ambitious sustainable development agenda. We should focus on negotiating reformed TSD chapters and revising already-existing ones to make them more ambitious and effective, while introducing sanctions mechanisms where possible, just like in our recently signed agreement with New Zealand. Therefore, the EU’s trade future should be described by three words: sustainability, development and cooperation.

Mr President, in mid-2021 we were highly disappointed by the decision of the Swiss Federal Government to terminate negotiations with the Commission on an institutional framework agreement. Already then I have expressed hope that the EU and Switzerland will return to the negotiating table as we remain key trade and investment partners. We cannot rely on a number of outdated bilateral agreements which govern our economic relations. In order to safeguard frictionless trade, we have to modernise legislation on reciprocal market access for industrial goods, customs facilitation, free movement of persons, technical barriers to trade and public procurement. Even if we assume that sufficient time has passed to resume negotiations, one thing should remain clear: we cannot allow for cherry picking and tackling bilateral agreements one by one. A comprehensive framework agreement is the only proper way to tackle our deep political, economic and social ties and properly respond to our common challenges in the areas of climate change, digitalisation, workers’ rights and social cohesion.

Mr President, thank you very much. Commissioner, thank you very much. The incompetence of the PiS government ruins our country's reputation in the EU and acts against our interests. It was said here that the Schengen system is based on mutual trust and cooperation. Due to the lack of proper supervision and action in which corruption can be suspected, the current government has failed this trust and has made our neighbours carry out border controls. The PiS government, instead of organizing a false referendum in which it deceives Poles about the planned relocation mechanism, should focus on cleaning Augiasz's stables in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Only information from foreign services was needed so that the Polish authorities would deal with the matter not quietly, but by resigning Deputy Minister Wawrzyk. This confirms that there have been serious irregularities. So how should we understand the actions of the Law and Justice party, which on the one hand builds a wall on the border with Belarus, and on the other hand allows an influx of immigrants who sometimes pay many times for visas? I call it hypocritical greed.

Madam President, Executive Vice-President, since December 2021, when China imposed trade restrictions on Lithuania for purely political reasons, we were certain that new EU trade defence instruments are needed to better safeguard our Member States and the common market. Although we have acted swiftly and in solidarity to oppose this coercive behaviour, both on the political level and also in the WTO, this was not enough to stop damages and discourage this action from happening again. Our EU industries continue to suffer from unfair and hostile actions from third parties, either state actors or state-owned foreign companies. Hence, we should fully support the adoption of the anti-coercion regulation at EU level, which brings concrete instruments for the Commission to act in defence of the interests of the Union and the rules of the common market, deter coercive actions, guarantee a level playing field for our companies and force third actors to repair injuries. We should closely monitor the effectiveness of this new instrument and hope it will allow our institutions to act more swiftly against the majority of coercive actions. Finally, I would like to thank Bernd Langer, our S&D rapporteur and Chair of the INTA Committee, for his great work on this file and leadership in the efforts to improve our trade defence policy measures.

Mr President, the critical raw materials legislation is a most welcome initiative, which is crucial for the future of the EU economy and the success of the green transition. Clearly, we cannot diminish our material dependency without promoting smart design, recycling and finding substitute materials. We are also correct to support strategic mining projects across Europe, as well as innovations lowering our CRM dependency. Nonetheless, we cannot fool geology and market rules. Even if we are successful in all mentioned fields by 2030, we still be highly dependent on imports of critical raw materials. We need to form strong international partnerships with sourcing countries, fight export bans, secure clear rules on trade and use the global gateway to support our access to CRMs. Sourcing countries in the Global South need our investment, knowledge-sharing, and helping the development of the refining and production sectors. Only then will we build trust and true partnerships, instead of mere exploitation of resources.

Madam President, the challenge of Russian aggression and geopolitical shift in the world heavily influences our international trade policy. Distorted value chains and problems with access to critical raw materials weaken our EU strategic autonomy. We need to defend our global interests as the main exporting superpower, increase our strategic independence and support our industry with the inflow of needed raw materials. For this reason, I urge you to finalise important trade deals with Latin American countries, implement the New Zealand FTA and advance negotiations with Australia and India. Our trade deals need to be supported by revised TSD chapters, with a sanctions mechanism whenever possible. This should go along with the implementation of the Due Diligence Directive to cover international value chains and a working ban on imports of products coming from forced labour.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. More than a year and a half after the start of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, we are witnessing a new version of this bloody war. Withdrawing from the Black Sea Grain Agreement, the Kremlin decided to use food and economic weapons to plunge Ukraine and quarrel with EU countries. Alternately blocking and opening the Black Sea corridor, the Russians swinged grain markets, making it difficult for European farmers to plan production, and then flooded world markets with subsidized cheap grain. It is Putin who is to blame for the fact that the Polish farmer may complain about low prices in purchases and feel threatened by production from Ukraine, which should be directed to other markets. Why, then, did we not take more decisive preventive action when we saw what was happening? Why did the Polish Minister of Agriculture tell farmers to keep grain when it was known that prices would fall? Why did the Polish prime minister, who promised Ukrainians a year ago that he would help in the transit of grain, not ensure investments in logistics, in ports, in rail transit and allowed domestic speculators to allow grain to enter local markets? Why does the Polish commissioner, who also deals with agriculture, see no problem, proposes only protective measures and reacts only to the actions of the Polish government, which is not compliant with EU law, which also woke up after extensive farmers' protests. The ban on imports of products from Ukraine is a temporary and emergency solution. And someday it'll be over. Does the government have a plan for the Polish countryside and for farmers for more than 3 months? Solutions should be sought in solidarity with the Union and Ukraine. Improved transit and protection of Polish producers should be ensured, so as not to become another tool in Putin's war, which enjoys our quarrels.

Mr President, the establishment of the EU-wide protection system for geographical indications for craft and industrial products is a long-awaited initiative. Building on the years of successful promotion of GIs in the food and spirits sector, we may now use similar tools to protect and promote European craft and artisanal products. With the introduction of the EU-wide registration system, which guarantees uniform laws and protection for EU producers, we should not forget about the establishment of proper counterfeiting mechanisms and active controls of e-commerce trade. It is now the role of DG Trade to extend the protection to third countries by the means of revised trade and GI protection agreements. It is my hope that with simplified registration procedures and support of EU and local authorities, our producers will benefit from increased protection and promotion of their products within the common market and beyond.

Mr President, consumer credits may be a source of hope and happiness, but they can also lead to personal drama and tragedies for whole families. This is why I welcome the deal on the Consumer Credit Directive. As ECON rapporteur on the file, I fought for this document to enable people to make informed choices when taking credit. I welcome that, according to the new rules, a negative creditworthiness assessment precludes a credit agreement from being concluded. The new rules correctly oblige the lender to make sure that consumers have easy access to all necessary information, including the total cost of credit. Moreover, knowing how many families fall into that spiral, I welcome the fact that the Directive encompasses also small loans below EUR 200. If well implemented, this Directive lowers the risk of consumer credits being a source of personal tragedies. In a world of many doubts, this security is to be welcomed.

Madam President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, since 2020 – so more or less since the beginning of the pandemic – the richest 1% in the world have captured almost two thirds of all new wealth. I repeat: 1%, two thirds of new wealth. This year, more than 200 of the super rich – remember Davos – called on governments around the world to ‘tax us, the ultra rich, now’ in order to help billions of people struggling with the cost of living crisis, I think we should listen to those voices. At the end of the day, it’s about fairness and accomplishing our goals: social justice, protection of the environment and more investment. Let’s get it straight, it’s not about taxing SMEs or small—time entrepreneurs or taxing successful, hardworking entrepreneurs. It’s about the multi—millionaires, billionaires who just happened to be in the right place in the right moment. They will survive with supporting the less fortunate. More money does not mean more problems, but it should mean more and fairer taxes.

Mr President, I would first like to thank Mr Hoyer for all his years at the helm of the Bank. Let me use this time to ask him some questions. Number one: what role do you see for the Bank in the future reconstruction of Ukraine, with all the experience that the Bank has with this country? Second, looking back at the two terms at the helm of the Bank, what were your biggest achievements and the biggest challenges? This is what we are waiting for in your concluding statement.

Madam President, when many Member States are struggling to make ends meet to support Ukrainian refugees or fight climate change, according to recent data, in 2015, more than USD 200 billion were shifted from the EU to tax havens. I’m sick of underlining this. This is a warning call for us. Before the Pandora Papers, we already had LuxLeaks, Paradise Papers, Panama Papers and many more. Is that not enough? We have to act. First, we need better sanctions against the tax havens that are on the EU blacklist. Just naming and shaming won’t do the job: there’s too much money involved. Second, it is high time to cooperate with the US on the two pillars of OECD reform. Otherwise, we’ll be stuck in between giving tax havens a space to flourish. Third, Parliament has to have a say on tax issues. Stalling tax reforms with the unanimity principle is a joke, with all the tax leaks popping up virtually every year. Colleagues. Elton John – another celebrity after Silvio Berlusconi mentioned here – who is amongst many of the tax-avoiding politicians and celebrities revealed by the journalists in the Pandora Papers, might still be standing. But I hope that the unfair system of tax havens soon won’t.

Mr President, thank you very much. The rule of law, or rather its lack, in Poland is the subject of the river. I had hoped that we would not have to come back to this topic during this parliamentary term. But the Polish authorities are providing more and more absurd materials. The Commission investigating Russian influence in 2007-2022 is a cruel joke for Poles, as it is appointed by the party which, just before the outbreak of the war in Ukraine, is organising a rally of Putin’s European supporters in Warsaw and which has not yet explained the numerous Russian ties of its Minister of National Defence. This commission violates the constitution in a dozen or so points, straight from the times of Stalinism. A hood court that properly takes away the ability of the so-called defendants to defend themselves and ensures – attention! – impunity for the members of this committee, as if they were afraid of anything in advance. What is the aim? Of course, increasing the electoral chances of PiS. The opinion on it has already been issued by the Polish society. Last Sunday, the largest political rally in defence of democracy in recent decades took place in Warsaw. We have heard what the European Commission is saying about this. We can talk about what the U.S. State Department is saying. But the loudest is the silence on the part of the Kremlin. They're happy for you. Because this commission trivializes the serious problem of Russian interference in democratic processes in Western countries - Brexit, elections in the United States. And besides, it gives the Russian trolls the opportunity to let any materials into the public space. One troll has already become active, both in Warsaw, and is calling for the liquidation of the European Commission. This is the scale of absurdity. The establishment of this committee is a dangerous precedent. It's a contagious gangrene that needs to be resisted as much as possible.

Mr President, Commissioner, colleagues, most of you have been speaking about the Migration Pact. No surprise. However, in order for deep European reforms to be implemented, our citizens need to have confidence in the European project. And the biggest problem for them now is probably the economy. I call on the council to make progress on the reform of the Stability and Growth Pact. We need to find the right balance between flexibility for the southern countries and more assurance for the so-called frugals. We need more ideas how to cooperate with the ECB in order not to fall into stagflation or austerity policy. At the same time, I believe that one of the worst things that might happen to the EU is divergence in gross inflation and indebtedness. It might lead to a deepening of nationalist and Eurosceptic tendencies, bringing us a collapse of the European project as we know it. Hence, if the economy brought EU countries together in the beginning, it would be irresponsible for us and the Council to ignore the topic in the short and long term.

Mr President, we would like to begin the process of reconstruction of Ukraine as soon as possible. And, of course, it’s very difficult to imagine this while the Russian army is still occupying part of Ukraine. Can we do something now? Yes, we can. Three things come to my mind. First, which is proceeding, we should proceed with a stable and concrete accession path of Ukraine to the EU and broad international reforms, which go along with this programme. Second, we should push on fighting corruption and creating a stable legal environment for private capital. Third, we should promise a drastic reduction of Ukraine’s international debt, which is needed to make any modernisation plan a reality. Let us make all this happen.