Speeches

Mr President, thank you very much. Putin is incapable of waging any war without money. Poland has warned you that if the EU becomes dependent on Russia, it will use this money for the wrong purpose. And instead of stopping the "deals" with Putin, what did you do? You took revenge on Poland. I counted: 41 debates and resolutions hitting Poland during this term. Among other things, for what? For not taking in refugees. And what are you going to say today? We show you how migrants differ from real refugees, whom you keep in some humiliating camps, and we transport almost a million such people to our homes straight from the border. And instead of helping Poland, you continue to pay Putin 600 million euros a day, and for that money he murders people every day, 600 million a day. Some kind of reflection? Sure, let's see: What's on the plan tomorrow? Here you go, traditionally a resolution with sanctions. For whom? To Russia? No, to Poland. The EU needs change, but it also needs a commission of inquiry to explain who led Europe to finance Putin's war. Europe has already paid twice for German boots and arrogance with wars. We can't let this happen a third time. Oh, I'll tell you one more thing. Many of you probably thought that Ukraine would fall after two days, and she is fighting for anger, so your helmets finally arrived in Ukraine after 12 days. Well, congratulations.

Mr President, thank you very much. Commissioner, I'm sorry. Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. Firstly, we must thank the rapporteur for a good initiative, a much-needed initiative. Why is this initiative so necessary? What is needed, ladies and gentlemen, is that we, in Europe, have indeed had a system – or is it still a system – where what we have almost the most valuable, that is, citizenship, can be bought with money and used for terrorism, used for money laundering, used for organised crime. You can break all laws and all rules. And we have to put an end to this. Therefore, I ask you to support this initiative, but more importantly, I ask you to support an amendment that will not only end this practice in the future, but that will allow you to retrospectively (backwards) check which specific Russian oligarchs have used this system. And this is what I expect from you, from the Commission, that you will come here and give us a report on who has actually used this and who has been hiding behind these mechanisms. Because today you can easily tell yourself, but we have to check very carefully who used this system. And finally: You are saying so much about Ukraine and it is kind of very valuable, in this context in general fits this initiative, it can help, but you know that if we really wanted to look for who today is the most, who is actually financing Putin's activities today, you know that you would have to start looking in some European governments, because 600 billion euros a day flies constantly to Putin and he buys bombs from it, which fall on the civilian population. If you want to look, you have to look there.

Madam President, I'm sorry. You said it was about protecting money. The question is this: Why, Commissioner, did you first send a letter to Poland, when in your own rankings Poland is on the top of the countries that spend money the most honestly, and for example you did not send a letter to the Czech Republic, when the previous prime minister granted himself European money? But that didn't bother you, because he was from your political groups. Let's look at what this whole dispute is all about. Accusing Poland of politicising the election of judges to the Council for the Judiciary. But after all, Poland has chosen your system, the Western system, the European system, the Spanish system, where, I recall, the Spanish Parliament elects judges to the Council by a three-fifths majority, as in Poland. But they are still judges. In a similar situation in Germany, I would like to remind you that judges have nothing to say at all. Politicians decide who can be a judge. And, of course, you respond to this accusation with a passage quoted in this regulation from the analysis of the Venice Commission, where it is written that some countries can do this because they have better culture and better traditions. So, in short, you think that there are better nations and there are worse nations. I wonder how you link this to Article 4 of the Treaty, which says this: ‘The Union respects the equality of all Member States’? Besides, I would like to know – and I am addressing this question to Commissioner von der Leyen – what better traditions are you talking about? Because it so happens that Poland built its political heritage on religious freedom, on republicanism, and you did most of the things you did in Poland by force and violence. You attacked us when we created the first constitution in Europe because you were disturbed by the freedom that was in Poland, which was nowhere in Europe as much as in Poland. Do you think it's different today? Cancel culture is our invention, is it a Polish invention or is it your invention? Where does reading the Bible go on trial? In Poland? No, there is no censorship in Poland, there is freedom in Poland. History likes to repeat itself. Get off this path, where there are better and worse countries, because it will not lead you to anything, but will gradually destroy the European Union.

Mr President, thank you very much. Every day in this House we can hear that the rule of law and democracy are the most important. The only problem is that there is no democracy without freedom of speech. And when you look at it from the position of social monopolists, from social media, you can theoretically say anything, unless it's about abortion, unless it's about gender, unless it's about vaccination, unless it's about gender reassignment, etc. In Poland, in general, large accounts, including the account of one of the political parties, are blocked on social media for these reasons. Now it's like this: “I do not agree with what you say, but I will give my life to give you the right to say it.” We're in France, and this is Voltaire. Therefore, I appeal to you, I appeal to vote for freedom of speech, to vote against censorship, so that these values are not just spoken values, but real ones. Today you will have this power in the buttons. And I appeal very heartily and very loudly for this, let us be for freedom of speech today and we can make monopolists take care of it not only in word, but also in deed.

Mr President, thank you very much. Commissioner, thank you very much. It was not Poland, it was the European Union that was attacked, but it was not someone else, it was Poland that defended Europe's borders again. And you are constantly reproaching Poland for something: and that he cannot take care of another person, and that Poland still lacks solidarity. I do not know if you know that recently in Poland we celebrated another anniversary of the outbreak of the November Uprising, which broke out, among others, because young Poles did not want to follow Russian orders and suppress the uprising of Belgians fighting for freedom. How many of you even know about it, how many of you remember it, since you constantly reproach Poles for not fighting for values? One of you said today that Poles lack solidarity. It was the Polish ‘Solidarity’ that overthrew and destroyed communism in 1989. And you welcome many emigrants who have nothing to do with Europe, who despise our values with open arms, and you welcome the Polish Solidarity, which recently arrived in Luxembourg, how? Welcome with barbed wire. This is the time when it's really time to reflect. Because Europe has something to refer to, and you are trying to destroy this whole civilization, all these values and build something completely new, something foreign to Europe.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Ladies and Gentlemen, Commissioner! You are blocking funds for Poland because you do not like the Polish justice system. And I know how to solve this problem. I will refer to the texts of ‘Libération’: What if Poland organised its justice system in the same way as you organise your justice system in the courts of the CJEU and the Court of Auditors? So this is it: a political recommendation to the judges by the government - the judges paying into your political parties - and then the games of politicians, judges and lobbyists on hunting, in castles and elsewhere, often at the expense of the taxpayer. Commissioner for the budget for dinners with the judge who is supposed to control it, and then silence in this European Parliament. Just as you can simply throat from morning to evening about judicial independence, about the rule of law, about that - silence, censorship. You can't talk about it. That's why I have this idea for you: or maybe Poland will implement this European, modern system of yours and then you will unlock the funds? When it comes to learning, it comes from the best.

Mr President, thank you very much. Commissioner, I'm sorry. The new draft guidelines replace the 2014-2020 guidelines and focus more on climate objectives and less on energy security and competitiveness compared to the 2014-2020 guidelines. And all this can be seen, of course, the effects of this can be seen with the naked eye. You want to eliminate coal without taking into account the different starting points of individual countries. We are creating artificial carbon surcharges, which could be the cheapest source of energy for many years to come and thus be part of the energy transition. Coal is bad – okay, but you write that gas is bad too. And here we read that investments in natural gas do not have a positive environmental effect. Atom – of course we can also hear that it is bad. And I want to tell you that such a policy will lead to a tragedy: hyperinflation, poverty, reduced competitiveness of our economy, the collapse of our companies and the relocation of our companies outside the European Union. What we are seeing right now, or rising energy prices for everything, is just the beginning. When we warned how the investments in Nord Stream 2 would end, you did nothing about it. And today we warn again: It is worth changing this policy.

Mr President, Prime Minister, Madam Commissioner, upholding the rule of law is important, but more important is equality. And look, German rulings 2010, 2019, 2020: the constitution is higher than EU law. France 2021: constitution higher than EU law. Spain 2020: constitution higher than EU law. Even Romania 2021: constitution higher than EU law. And now in Poland is exactly the same, but only Poland cannot. Because you don’t like this government, you want to have back those puppets who agree to everything you say. But my country is independent, and only Poles can decide who rules. Jean-Jacques Rousseau said when Poland was attacked from every side, you mentioned about 80 centuries today. He said to the Polish people: ‘do not follow Europe blindly because in the end of this path is only money. Love the freedom you have always defended’.

Madam President, I'm sorry. I want to tell you that it is amazing what is going on in this House today. I mean, you're holding a debate to denounce Texas in the U.S., which has been defending life since the baby's heartbeat. And you say that the removal of this child is a human right, the right to be killed. And you know that the concept of human rights in general, is the concept according to which every life has its rights? Every life has its dignity, every man has his dignity, his inalienable dignity. Read, see what it is, what real human rights are. And this inalienable dignity also applies to the weaker, the disabled, but also to those who are completely healthy and who are unable to defend themselves against your aggression today. However, instead of the dignity of every life, you choose pleasures. Instead of responsibility, you choose to ‘do what you want’. Only the world you create, where human dignity is not universal, will sooner or later exclude you too. Because disability can also happen today to any of you who are in this room. And what? All that remains for you is euthanasia. Is this the world you want? Think about it.

Madam President, the EU is blocking funds for Poland because it believes that the Constitution is higher than EU law. Meanwhile, many EU countries have done exactly the same, including Germany, which has, of course, already received its funds. In addition, you say that Poland will only receive the funds if the Constitutional Tribunal rules as you wish in this matter. In other words, for years, you have been accusing Poland of alleged lack of independence in the justice system and now what are you doing? You are putting the gun to the judges’ heads and saying they can only rule the way that you want. This is the new European standard of independence. When Schuman watches what you are doing with his project, he turns in his grave – because he wanted to build solidarity between States and you are building walls. Commissioner, you said that the most important thing for you is who spends money honestly. Really? Did you compare in your data Czechia and Poland? And this is the fundamental question: whose funds do you really block?

Mr President, thank you very much. Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. When we talk about reforming the code, we need to start with what it is and why it was created. Its main objective was to stop unfair practices by tax-competing EU countries. In addition, changes in the economic environment also justified the need to adapt the Code to reality. As a Polish ECR delegation, we support the pursuit of a fair tax system at international and EU level, but we do not support solutions that deprive Member States of their influence on the guidelines. We are against changing the decision-making process to a majority one. Remaining on the principle of consensus is necessary to ensure that the group seeks common solutions that take into account the interests of all countries and build the strength of the European Union. In addition, we take the view that tax competition as such should not be condemned in the fight against abuse. Healthy and fair tax competition is important for strength and for the European economy.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. In this debate, we see that there is a certain absence that is more than eloquent. This is Commissioner Jurova. She so rebuked and tracked Hungary and Poland that she did not notice problems in her own backyard. Pandora Papers once again showed the problems of her colleague, Prime Minister Babish. The previous resolution of the European Parliament on this issue showed how the Czech Republic spends EU funds, and a colleague of the Commissioner de facto allocated these funds to herself. Please see in your own rankings how exemplary measures Poland spends in contrast, as if next time you want to attack. And today, it is with the Panama Papers that we learn about the strange transactions of Prime Minister Babis. It is not known from where or how the funds were transferred. Hidden somewhere in strange situations. And what? And Commissioner Jurova is not here. There will be another debate about Poland.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Ladies and Gentlemen, I agree with the common strategic vision, achieving cyber defence resilience in the Union. Today, these capabilities are dispersed, and their consolidation and coordination is a task for the near future. Experts confirm that the European Union has an important, fully operational resource capable of ensuring cyber resilience and collective rapid response to cyber incidents. It is therefore necessary to exchange information between cybersecurity crisis response teams, exchange best practices, step up training, research and exercises. There is a need to develop a European fast and secure network to detect, assess and counter cyber-attacks. That is why I agree with the recommendations that have been drawn up, which are very important and must be emphasised, including, among others, raising public awareness and improving citizens' skills in defending against cyber-attacks and closer cooperation between the European Union and NATO, especially on interoperability of cyber defence.

Madam President, I'm sorry. All television in Poland can work. However, it must do so in accordance with the law, which operates not only in Poland, but also in Europe. However, this is a completely different matter from your stories about the fact that this television is objective. For this television, for example, there is no Constitutional Tribunal, there is only the Przyłębska Tribunal. They are changing their own constitutional names, destroying state institutions. For them, all judges appointed during the times of the left, liberals, totalitarian communist times, are legal. And those appointed under conservative rule are illegal. These are neo-judges. They claim that Germany has a smaller share of politicians in the system of judicial appointments, when anyone who can read knows that the opposite is true. They promote gender ideology, ridicule of patriotism and Lukashenko's narratives about the crisis on the eastern border of the European Union. You like it, because everything that destroys Poland from the inside is good for you, so that Poland can never join you. Because the Poles are good for you, but for picking asparagus and strawberries. Poles, however, are not inferior to you and will not allow themselves to be treated as such. And it's good for you to take note of that. And if you want to talk about politicizing the justice system, check it out. Recently, a politician, vice-president of the CDU, went straight from the Bundestag to court. And what? Isn't that politicizing? It's a shame, a shame for you.

Mr President, thank you very much. Well, ladies and gentlemen, green policy is important. However, it is very important that the green does not quickly turn into a black policy, full of poverty, unemployment. Let me give you an example of Poland. There are only three stable sources of energy: gas, atom and coal. And you, on the example of Poland, say this: We need to get rid of coal immediately. You don't want to finance gas, and as for the atom, you also think that maybe it's unsustainable. In that case, I would like to ask you: How does a country like Poland build its energy system? But you're not interested. You are only interested in the fact that the poorer country, which is Poland, can buy electricity quickly, so that it can buy technologies from richer countries. Because you are not interested in solidarity. States are interested in dependence, dependence of weaker states on richer states. Therefore, everything under beautiful slogans can be hidden. Everyone should care about energy, but, ladies and gentlemen, the most important thing today is not to turn green policy into a policy that many people will cry over instead of enjoying.

Mr President, thank you very much. You are pretending, as usual, that this discussion is about tolerance for LGBT people. Meanwhile, as you know, there is less violence against LGBT people in Poland than in your countries. And that's what your statistics show. But you're deliberately lying so people don't know what's really going on. The point is that we think there are two genders. And you think there's 250. Biology is on our side. You think it's a scandal. We want to ban suggesting gender reassignment to children. You want to promote it. After all, we don't want children in schools of early sexualization, because for Catholics, true love is much more than desire. The effects of your anti-values can be seen: a growing number of broken families, single people, sexual violence. You throw science, experience, the achievements of generations into the garbage can and convert them into your political conviction. Exactly as Marx and Engels said, in order to build a new reality, one must destroy traditional values and the traditional family. You are on the exact same path that led to the tragedy in Europe. You still believe that it is a violation of human rights to defend the values on which Schuman built Europe. It's a shame.