What Patryk spoke about.

Madam President, I'm sorry. The Commissioner started his speech by saying that we have to fight for the planet. Well, Commissioner, I would like to inform you that carbon dioxide does not stop in the Schengen area. He's not asking for asylum. Therefore, it is important whether we are reducing carbon dioxide worldwide. And around the world, carbon dioxide has been rising every year since you introduced this policy. So I'm asking, what's the point of all this? Secondly, you claim that the ECJ has proven itself. This is a mockery. We have almost the most expensive energy in the world, plus an industrial disaster and an economic disaster. The ETS was supposed to save the planet, and for now it has saved the planet like this: form manufacturers, consultants and Chinese industry. Well, congratulations! The ETS must leave before you completely turn Europe into an open-air museum. Since the introduction of the ETS, energy prices for the average family in Europe have doubled. And what do you get out of it? I ask you, what did you gain? For the industry, it increased by 100%. What do you get out of it, I ask? This is a scandal, what you are doing. And you are still going out and claiming here that this system needs to be defended. I don't know if anything can happen that would teach you that simply what you are doing is destroying Europe. And you must be stopped because you are dangerous to yourself and to Europe.

Madam President, I'm sorry. I have heard here that the most important thing is that we have cheap energy, less bureaucracy, a safer Europe, economic development and innovation. This is exactly what Europe looked like around 2008. And the question is this: what happened then? You came to power with your program. And let's remember: in 2008, the GDP of the European Union was more than 100% of the GDP of the United States – today it is around 65%. In addition, you say that you want to have cheap energy. The only problem is that since then you have introduced expensive energy, you have introduced these ETS systems. Now let's see the data: when you introduced the ETS, the cost of allowances was around EUR 15 per tonne – today it is EUR 65 per tonne, around 250% more. This has resulted in more than 100% more expensive wholesale energy, more than 200% more expensive average energy for families. So you wanted to introduce cheap energy, and we have more and more expensive energy. You wanted to be more competitive – competitiveness in the European Union is clearly distorted. You wanted to bring about economic development – all this is destroying economic development in the European Union. And you represent the logic at the moment that the exclusive right to repair what has been spoiled is held by those who have spoiled the situation. And today the best solution should be that it is enough to radically change this direction. The Chair mentioned that we have a good start when it comes to artificial intelligence. The problem is that what is really good is exceptional regulation. Nowhere in the world is there so much regulation when it comes to artificial intelligence, and that's why we're losing. In addition to industry. She said she wanted to rebuild the industry through the Green Deal. Well, many people could take it as a joke, because it is the Green Deal that has killed and is killing industry in Europe. The production of capital goods in industry - machinery, equipment, foundations - fell by nearly 9% and is constantly getting worse. Electricity prices are additionally killing industry and are twice as high as in the United States and 90% higher than in China. Europe is now losing up to 500 jobs a day, mainly in industry. So it seems – I mean, it does not seem, I am convinced – that if we want to change something, it is really first and foremost that we need to change this direction. Because everything you have done so far has the exact opposite effect of what you have presented today.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Commissioner, I'm sorry. Why is America withdrawing its troops from Europe? President Nawrocki ensured the presence of American soldiers in Poland almost a year ago. Since then, however, I have heard vulgar criticism of America at almost every session of this Parliament. Your politicians give vent to the lowest emotions every day, and you have even organized here in Parliament a vulgar exhibition insulting the President of the United States. And Prime Minister Tusk even allowed himself to question the U.S. as an ally. And you got what you wanted. What, are you proud of yourself? Wasn't it you who were the first to propose that I use your wording to starve financially the countries that criticize you? Let me remind you: We are stronger, so we will block Poland, Hungary money, because they criticize us, and what? And today America has applied to you exactly the same tools that you have been using for a long time. And you're surprised? And now yes, only now the costs can be much higher, because we can lose the necessary help in abilities that we simply do not have. I will only mention independent nuclear deterrence, long-range strategic bombers that we do not have, strategic intelligence and reconnaissance, long-range precision weapons, the same for large aircraft carriers or multi-layered missile defence – we could lose. What did you gain, I ask? What is it? Did you give your primitive vent to your emotions, some likes, because you criticized President Trump on social media? What about the responsibility for the security of 450 million European citizens? For years, you have been wasting European money on gender policy, illegal migration or ideological climate policy, so you really need to be turned over, not American soldiers.

Mr President, thank you very much. Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. You said you did not interfere in the elections in the Member States. I would like to ask you what it was like to block EU funds from Poland, because there were allegedly bad judicial laws, and to unblock those funds immediately after the change of power, despite the fact that no law – none – has changed, not even one. What is it if you don't interfere in the election? Besides, you're saying he's not interfering in the election. We have here the report of the United States Congress, here are your e-mails from the European Commission. I want to ask which of these emails is fake. Please go out and tell me which one is fake, because if none are fake and none of these notes are fake, it says exactly what happened. I mean, yes: We have over 100 secret meetings where you have pressured platforms to aggressively censor content. Content such as this is written: populist rhetoric, anti-EU rhetoric, anti-elite content, political satire, anti-immigrant content, i.e. views that are largely represented by the majority of European Union residents. If this is not election interference, what is it? For example, at a workshop that you organized in 2025, an entry titled: “We need to get our country back”, I quote: “we need to get our country back”, has been recognised, categorised as illegal hate speech. It's like censorship in China. You've got your skills wrong at all. So I want to say that if we are to fight for anything in this House, for anything, and if Europe is to have any value, it is first and foremost the value of freedom of speech. This is something we should defend. If you think your views are better, you will not be afraid to confront them with other views. But if you are really afraid, then you will continue to apply this censorship and we will fight censorship.

Only that the previous conflicts that caused the increase in energy prices somehow did not cause Donald Trump, and the effects were the same. Do you know why the results were the same? Because your coalition and all the people who are sitting here have introduced an ideological tax on the cheapest possible energy, which our country has the most, that is, on energy from coal, which in many cases is up to 6 times cheaper than the energy you propose. And it's not that we say not to make any investments in RES. Invest, but do it rationally, wisely, based on stable sources of energy, not as you are doing right now. Because of you, energy prices in Europe are 100% higher than they were before, and you are proud of it. Shame on you!

Mr President, thank you very much. Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. Nothing amused me so much today as the quarrel between the EPP and the socialists over who cooperates with the right. That is, the EPP accused the socialists of collaborating with the right and badly in Romania, and the socialists of collaborating with the right and badly in Spain. This only shows, first of all, how meaningless the ideas of these sanitary cordons are. Secondly, it shows that you are not really different, you are the same. And the only alternative, the real alternative, is us, the people who don't look at who supports whom, but whether the solution is good or bad. That is exactly how politicians should act. Finally, as far as the Middle East and the energy crisis are concerned, President von der Leyen has just said that the most important solution she is proposing to us is to increase coordination within the European Union and more renewable energy sources. I wrote down exactly what she said. And I want to say that since Ursula von der Leyen is president, she has done nothing but this: increases coordination in the European Union and gives more and more RES. And what are the effects? I would like to remind you: energy prices have generally risen by almost 100% in the European Union since we have more RES, car prices by 30%. Our industry's share of the world's industry is falling, it is in a worse and worse state and Europe's strength is diminishing. Instead, you are proposing even more of what has led us to this very situation. I want to tell you that this is a road to nowhere, because, for now, renewable energy sources are simply in many cases more expensive than traditional energy sources, and we have traditional, our energy sources that we could use and that would be cheaper. Finally, it is necessary to abandon the ETS and not introduce ETS 2, because ETS 2 will increase energy prices even more. Nothing will solve, it will cause even more problems. So stop ETS at the beginning and stop Green Deal. This will make Europeans feel better.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. Mr President, thank you very much. At the conclusion of the Council, you missed the best opportunity to destroy this cancer, which is called ETS. And now listen carefully to what this ideological tax has caused in Europe. When the ETS was introduced, the cost of allowances was €15 per tonne. Today, they amount to 67 euros per tonne, which is more than 250% more. This was to lead to an energy transition and lower energy prices. And I ask you, so what?  When the ETS was introduced, the average wholesale price for electricity in Europe was between €30 and €40 per megawatt hour. Today it is 85 euros, which is more than 100% more. When the ETS was introduced, the average energy price for the family was around 12 eurocents per kilowatt hour. Today it is 29 cents per kilowatt hour, which is more than 100% more. So I ask: ETS gave cheaper energy, as you promised, or more expensive? Before the introduction of the ETS, the European Union was an economic powerhouse with an average per capita income and economic growth like that of America. Today, per capita income in the United States, which has rejected this crazy green policy, is twice as high as in Europe and economic growth is also twice as high. So yes: ETS was supposed to make us richer, we are poorer. It was supposed to make us have cheaper energy. We have almost the most expensive energy in the world. It was supposed to make us competitive. We've lost competitiveness, and we're shutting down the industry. But finally, the ETS was supposed to make global carbon emissions lower in the world by setting the example of the European Union – and all of us were supposed to set the example. Meanwhile, it has increased emissions, because others have not followed our example, but are taking over our industries and emitting even more carbon dioxide in these industries. So congratulations on the whole thought process. Let's call things by their first name. The ETS, as well as all your green politics, is simply dead, and you are displacing this fact and trying to put on a skirt, high heels, paint and send to the ball. This is the only zombie ball, and Europe deserves a new life. Europe deserves a free energy market. Europe deserves a free market without ideological taxes, which can once again become the most competitive in the world.

Madam President, I'm sorry. I have just heard from the Greens that the way to solve the problems of the European Union is to have more regulation instead of deregulation. The last time this type of recipe was presented by Brezhnev, when he came to Poland still in communist times. This is your way. Why is the EU weak? The key word is competition. There is no development without competition. The Draghi report you mention: electricity is 2-3 times more expensive than the United States, gas is 4-5 times more expensive than the United States, the energy-intensive manufacturing industry has fallen by 15% since 2021. Why is that so? We have cheaper energy. The key word is competition. You have destroyed the competition for green energy. If green energy were so great, it would win in the free market, wouldn't it? The same is true of freedom of speech. How do you want to build growth and prosperity without a free market of ideas? You censor inconvenient topics for you. Criticising the European Union, criticising the Green Deal, criticising migration – everything is censored. The recent leaked correspondence, where you have pushed digital platforms to exclude uncomfortable topics, shows the state of the European Union. So there is no free market if we ban competition in every area. And we have this: non-compete – non-compete on the energy market – effect: 2-3 times more expensive energy, non-competition on the idea market – effect: Millions of excluded Europeans, millions of Europeans do not identify with the European Union. Added to this is the abuse of power, the cancellation of elections and – you have done the impossible – in Poland, the most pro-European country, the number of people who want to leave the European Union has increased fivefold in recent years. It is your fault, your responsibility. People want a normal, free market, where green energy will win if it is cheaper, where your ideas that the Earth is to burn - if they have a good argument - will also win - not censorship, not regulation, not banning the free market. This is a source of weakness for the European Union. We need real freedom, as it was from the very beginning, when the European Union was the strongest, when Europe was the strongest. Freedom of speech. More freedom!

Madam President, dear colleagues, I have just read a report from the US House of Representatives Judiciary Committee. Members of Congress forced the digital platform to reveal correspondence with EU authorities. Everyone suspected that this is happening in the EU, however, this correspondence is still quite shocking. Hundreds of people paid by Europeans were involved in censorship. These include, I quote: 'populist rhetoric, anti-governmental and anti-EU content, anti-elite content, political satire, memes, anti-migrant content'. So you are illegally censoring views that often represent the majority of the EU citizens. This is a crime against democracy. You think people gave you their money so you can use it for censorship? This is Europe, not China. So we want urgent debate on this matter.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Mr. President, I'm sorry. Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. Dear Colleagues, I congratulate Mr. President on an interesting and ambitious programme. Declarations on migration are particularly welcome. We really need a return directive. We welcome the announcement of a hard line against Russia. We welcome the announcement of work on the enlargement of the European Union. I am also pleased to highlight and understand the issue of sovereignty. Declarations about industry and how important industry is, and about building competitiveness and fighting against hyperinflation of the law were very good. And these are very good things. We will be here, you will be able to count on our help here. But it is also important that we are not naive. Some things are irreconcilable. Some things, such as competitiveness, building a better industry, improving the cost of living of Europeans, cannot be reconciled with the requirements of the Green Deal, which makes the European Union weak and we are not able to deal with the most important problems, such as tariffs today, Greenland, we are not at the table at the most important negotiations. That is why it is also important that you keep in mind the new budget and do not push us to reduce agricultural spending or cohesion policy spending. We will not forget your problems, at the end I want to say. We will help you in your fight. Cyprus is very important to us. A country with a great history. We are here to help you and we keep our fingers crossed for you.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Today, Europe is faced with a choice: either Nord Stream 3, or another embarrassment, or a quick and short-term settlement of your interests, or finally long-term and strategic thinking. I remember that in this room we warned you about Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2, which, yes, gave immediate interests, that is, cheap gas, but in a strategic perspective deprived the continent of its own energy sources, which made us pay more for it. And that's exactly what happened. The weakness of Europe, which has rid itself of its own energy sources, has encouraged Russia to attack and receive a dividend for cheap gas. We still pay for it to this day. At this session we will be handing over another 90 billion to Ukraine and we cannot see the end of it, because we have got rid of our own energy. And now you want us to get rid of our own food. A continent without its own farms will sooner or later be condemned to another attack. In the Treaties of Rome, as in the founding fathers of the European Union, there has always been a clear commitment to self-sufficiency. I don't know why you give up on it with such contempt. Nor do I think there are supporters in this room, nor do I think there are opponents of the FTA in this room. However, there are critics of unfair competition and there are those who pretend not to see what is happening here. You have imposed Green Deal standards on European farmers, plant protection products, well-being that are not found in the Mercosur countries. How can they compete fairly? It's more or less the same as if you put two people in a race and tied only one of them's arms and legs. How are you not ashamed? Brazil uses 393 pesticides, mostly not authorised in the European Union, including herbicides banned in the European Union due to high toxicity. Fungicides and other substances withdrawn from the European Union due to risks to women's and children's health. The European Union has been banning the use of growth hormone in animal production for decades and restricting the use of antibiotics in animal husbandry. These standards do not exist in the Mercosur countries. So you want to create hell for European consumers. It's all about selling cars quickly. Just like you used to want to sell gas fast – and how did it end? I will illustrate this by example. It's nice to have a super car, but to use it, you first need to have a full stomach, and a healthy stomach, not stuffed with poison. You're also lying about protective enclosures. You have no way of monitoring and checking on-site production in the Mercosur countries. Even if you send all the officials of the European Union to Latin America, you will not be able to check even 1% of what they produce there, and the protective provisions are unilateral. Today, the Mercosur countries have confirmed that they will not apply them. So why do you keep lying to our farmers? The evidence. The latest communication from the Brazilian government with information that shows that the lack of European inspections for poultry meat and eggs, the recognition of the Brazilian inspection as equally entitled to European, so there will be no our controls. Why don't you talk about it? You are deliberately hiding this information. Finally, this agreement will support Putin. In 2022, we decided not to import Russian fertilizers, and then they immediately went to Brazil and today they will go back to the European Union. I ask, what is the point in all this? This is not an equal trade agreement. This is an unequal trade agreement. Europe is not just a market. Europe is a community of values, and you want to replace it and build it on the principle that we will destroy the agricultural sector in order to build other sectors. It is more or less the same as having two children, putting a stick on one child, and giving the other child a lot of gifts. I don't know if anyone with you wants to build such a project, let alone call it a community. Great projects fail not when they lose wars, but when they betray their own societies. That's why you have to leave.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. Rule of law toy – your favourite toy, an illegal tool. Let us recall: it can never be the case – this principle should at least be clear to any lawyer – that secondary law is above primary law. Well, it so happens that the authors of the treaties, so all the states, have agreed to certain principles regarding the assessment of the rule of law (they are enshrined in the treaties) and what you do is completely illegal. Secondly, the definitions are unclear and that is why there is so much controversy about the rule of law. Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, the European Union is losing its strength, its resources at a time when there is war on our border, and you, instead of building solidarity between states, are using this tool to turn one country against another, into your political games, which only strengthen external forces and strengthen Russia. The proof? Here you go. Poland had funds blocked for the previous government due to changes in the judiciary, and I would like to inform you that funds have been unlocked, precisely in connection with this tool, when the government changed and no law has changed – to this day, no law has changed in the judiciary. That is why it is a shame and disgrace to use such tools. You apply them only to those countries whose governments you do not like. And if that were not the case, let me just remind you that a journalist who dealt with the government was murdered in Malta. There is no rule of law mechanism. Not to mention Romania, where the elites twisted the elections, i.e. democracy. Not to mention Bulgaria – that's where I won't mention the history with Bojkov, etc. – whether Spain: new sexual scandals that are erupting there. Because that's where your people are, isn't it? There is no need for the rule of law. In addition, I would just like to recall that previous assessments of the rule of law have been influenced by people such as Mr Reynders – the rule of law model – or by NGOs involved in Qatargate – by other rule of law models that have not yet been settled, by the way. And if we see that you in the next MFF try to introduce even more centralist rules, even worse, then I have no doubt that this will destroy trust in the European Union. This is good news for Russia.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Commissioner, I'm sorry. Russia. Russia has never kept a deal and will never do so in the future. You have to talk to Russia in the only language she understands, that is, by force: immediately confiscate her funds and give all confiscated funds to the war, so that Russia gets what it deserves. However, if you say that the United States divides Europe, you have to ask yourself if it is not a coincidence that the United States only benefits from a divided Europe and a weak Europe that you have created and for which you are responsible. You have cut the European Union's share of world GDP by almost half in 20 years of government. You have led to the collapse of industry, to the decline of its competitiveness. You inflated Russia's money. You have quarreled nations. You've been bringing in migrants. You have destroyed energy sovereignty. Instead of democracy, you are introducing Orwellian sanitary cordons. You have poisoned traditional culture and education with some woke. You've destroyed industry, you've destroyed innovation. Instead of dealing with development, you deal with censorship. At this session, you want to waste Europeans' money again on the most necessary things, i.e. abortion on demand. The U.S. could never impose any tariffs on you, and Russia would not start a war if the European Union were different. The EU was supposed to be the largest and best free trade zone in the world, and through you it began to deal with measuring carbon dioxide, spreading leftist ideology, punishing countries that want to defend traditional values, or becoming a leader in inventing new regulations. We need less regulation, less Green Deal, less of your ideas, and more freedom for business and ordinary people. We need more freedom of speech and less terror. And yet now you are pushing Europe to destroy its own agriculture. You have made a mockery of the Old Continent and are directing it towards the open-air museum. And now you're screaming: Give us more power because we know how to do it. No, you've shown for 20 years that you don't know how to do it. And today, the United States only benefits from the weakness you have built here. Europe can be great again, but not with the people who made it small, ideological and ridiculous.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. This is a repetition of the attack, which first appeared 10 years ago, on Commissioner Várhelyi, when he was still an ambassador to the European Union and his right hand was Péter Magyar. I understand that at that time there was no doubt. Even then, the European Commission announced that this was nonsense. The same case was investigated by the Belgian authorities, stating exactly the same. Then you interviewed him twice for commissioner, and everything was fine. So what's really changed since then? This is another stage of illegal interference in the election campaign. Why illegitimate? Recall that the bodies of the European Union are obliged to behave in an objective manner. They cannot legally engage in what is happening in an electoral campaign in a Member State, as is currently the case in Hungary. Of course, Várhelyi's greatest sin is that he has different views than the right ones, so he must be attacked. He would probably be defended if he behaved like another lady who also liked to be in Hungary. I mean, Mrs. Salis. If Mr. Várhelyi was running with a telescopic battalion, he'd probably be defended. And yes, unfortunately, he has other conservative views, so he is an ideal target for attack. More or less, according to this logic, it all works.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Madam Minister, I'm sorry. Europe is falling because of you. Industry, innovation, research, artificial intelligence, space, the internet – we have lost everything. Security, migrants, war abroad again. Everything that was good in Europe, you have destroyed, and what is worse, you are even ridiculous, because even this letter calling the summit... Let me quote: "firstly, we need to step up our efforts to move away from over-regulation of the European Union..." (which is true, but the Union is over-regulated by the Green Deal), and in the next paragraph you write that we need to achieve our climate goals. So in order to reduce the Green Deal, we need even more Green Deal. It is more or less like saying that we must defend freedom in Europe and therefore ban the sale of diesel cars. The Chair said that competitiveness is the most important thing. Let me just remind you: The European Commission announced in 1995 that the European Union would outstrip the United States in terms of GDP by 2010. The World Bank report from April this year shows something different. Since the introduction of the ETS in 2008, the GDP of the European Union has increased by 13.5% and that of the United States by 90%. You said, Madam President, that green energy is the cheapest. Meanwhile, when we add ETS, system stabilization costs and investment durability, this energy is the most expensive. The President says that the market for green energy is growing. The only problem is that the market for traditional industry is growing more and growing faster than the GDP of the European Union. This market is many times larger. The Chair also boasted about the reduction of global carbon emissions just now. The problem is that this carbon dioxide emissions are increasing and Europeans, instead of being the frontrunners in carbon dioxide emissions, want to have cheap energy. Economic growth and the future of Europe have been destroyed by high energy prices. Since you're president, energy prices have risen by an average of 30%. In Europe, the chances of housing for young people will be destroyed by the ETS for buildings, and agriculture will be destroyed by an agreement with Mercosur. And by the way, you will destroy people's health, because you will be removing from Brazil products containing 370 different pesticides, which are mostly banned in the European Union. It is time for radical change.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. The discussion about banning the sale of diesel cars is a discussion about much more than just the industry. This is a discussion about who Europe should be for. Is Europe only for the rich or for everyone? This is a discussion about freedom of choice, which is supposed to be so important to us, or finally a discussion about the rationality of decisions and competitiveness. But first, let's repeat: we want to withdraw from the biggest fraud in history, the Green Deal, and to withdraw from the ban on the sale of diesel cars. Because what you're doing is just crazy. And now it's like this: The automotive industry has been one of the biggest pillars of the European economy for decades, both in terms of employment, exports and research. It directly and indirectly employs about 14 million people. It accounts for 8% of the value added of the European Union's processing industry and generates a trade surplus of €120 billion per year. Eliminating this in the name of a green ideology is a disaster for the competitiveness of European industry, jobs, economic security, employment structure and real technological opportunities. Let's talk about assumptions first. Well, you planned that the ban on the sale of internal combustion cars in 2035 would be only a destination, and by then you had imposed new taxes and burdens on manufacturers of internal combustion cars and subsidized those who produce electrics. And what's the effect? As a result, the price of new cars increased by 30%. What was the purpose? Reducing carbon emissions and forcing us to win the technological revolution and ultimately improving our competitive position. That's how it was supposed to be. And what are the effects? And now let's turn to your report, to Draghi's report. From year to year, our competitiveness decreases instead of growing. Between 2017 and 2022, EU vehicle exports fell by 16%. At the same time, imports of cars from China increased fivefold. Chinese manufacturers already control 14% of the import market in the European Union, and the share of European brands in Chinese sales of electric cars has fallen by 6%. From 2015 to 2023, the market share of Chinese brands in the electric vehicle market in Europe increased from 5% to 15%, while the share of European companies fell from 80% to 60%. The production costs of an electric vehicle burdened by the Green Deal are 30% higher in the European Union than in China, and the manufacturers there are one generation ahead of us when it comes to green technologies. In addition, they control about 70% of the global supply of lithium-ion cells, which are necessary throughout the entire production chain. So if we compare today the Chinese and American strategies, which were based on stable energy sources and proportional, peaceful development of RES, to the European Union, which did it radically, those strategies proved to be much more effective. They do not prohibit anything there, and in the United States there is no ETS system and all derivatives at all, and somehow they win with us. In addition, through the Green Deal, we have higher prices for energy, labour and raw materials, which reduces the attractiveness of investments in this sector. You have also set yourself climate goals and, of course, I just want to remind you that they do nothing at all, because from year to year carbon dioxide emissions simply increase. We have a huge problem with charging cars. Every time an electric car is charged, it is always zero in your tables. Why don't we talk about where this energy comes from? Very often, for example, it comes from coal-fired power plants, but in the table you always have zero. Or even if it comes from renewable energy sources, it must still be protected by stable energy sources that are emission-based, or else they would be blackouts, as we have seen in Spain. In Switzerland, as you know, there was even a regulation that, in the event of a lack of energy, the use of electric cars should be banned. The same thing happened in California in 2022 during the heat when residents were urged to avoid charging electric cars. And in general, the question is, for whom do we actually create this system? This is the system that will make an electric car a luxury good.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Mr. Prime Minister, I'm sorry. It's actually funny that you appealed to Robert Schuman, of whom we are all proud, and to the European values he defended. And you mentioned climate among these European values. I don't know anything about Robert Schuman defending the climate, but I do know of a value that the Lord did not mention at all, namely Christianity. He said that either Europe would be Christian or it would not be Christian at all. And he wrote that Europe owes its existence to Christianity, because it must have its soul, which you destroy so consistently. Furthermore, you are calling, Mr Prime Minister, for the Treaties to be amended and for the veto rights of states to be revoked. Robert Schuman, meanwhile, said on 9 May 1950 that ‘it is not for Europe to merge into one country’ and that the European Union saw, I quote, ‘as a community of peoples deeply rooted in their traditions’. I also want to say that it is no longer possible to listen to how you say, how it is necessary to fight Russia. Meanwhile, I don't know if you all know this, but Germany has just filed a motion to arrest the Ukrainian who blew up Nord Stream. So this is it: Russians can kill whoever they want every day, shoot civilians, bomb hospitals, and poor Ukrainians are no longer allowed to blow up the gas pipeline that helps Russia finance its war with Ukraine. You seem to be fighting Russia, but you still don't want to take away their frozen resources in Europe. We already have the seventeenth package of sanctions, from which there is absolutely nothing. Russia is still laughing at us. And let's call things by their first name: The Green Deal you are referring to is a scam and a scam. We lost everything in this case. Europe is much more expensive than China and the United States. Economic growth is lower. The world's carbon emissions are rising every year instead of falling. And we even lost the competition for green technologies to China. So it's time for a radical change in Europe, and what should we do? We should get back to our roots. As you rightly said, Mr. Prime Minister, Robert Schuman said. Back then, Europe was a power and it was strong because it was based on values and had a true soul. And what you are proposing now is a path from which Europe will no longer recover. A radical change is needed.

Madam President, today armed Russian drones fell on Poland. Poland shot them down. Therefore, as an exception, we are requesting a debate and resolution on this matter tomorrow. This is an unprecedented situation and we are expecting your solidarity.

Madam President, I'm sorry. What is the state of the European Union? You think that words will cover the facts that everyone feels today. This is enough to compare the data from 2019, when you became President of the European Union, to this day. Well, there was peace on our border, and now not only is there a war, but Russian drones are falling on Poland. Because, of course, you wanted to have cheap energy from Russia and you believed in all those resets with Putin. And now we're all paying for it. Energy prices have doubled in Europe since you became President. Food prices have also increased. The price of living has risen. The debt of the European Union has also increased. Since 2019, prices of new cars in the European Union have increased by 30%. And industry becomes the shadow of the old power. And you still want to increase the climate targets to 90%. Since then, the sense of security in Europe has also declined. Violence has increased, including sexual violence. In February 2025, in a report by the European Parliamentary Research Service, you acknowledged that gang violence is increasing across the European Union, a phenomenon related to the escalation of competition between rival criminal gangs. In 2008, the GDP of the European Union was more than 100% of the GDP of the United States. Today it is almost over 60%. How did you do it? You're still proud of yourself. We look bad, even when it comes to political freedom. It is here that the concept of ‘sanitary cordon’ was conceived. This is where the idea of cancelling the election results was conceived, if not the right one wins, or the persecution of political competition in countries where your people do not rule. In addition, there is an attack on freedom of speech, an attempt to attack freedom on the Internet. Instead of moving towards economic integration, which has always been profitable, the European Union opts for political integration. More mechanisms of conditionality, more centralization, that is, all that has led us to where we are today. However, not all of this taken together is the biggest problem. The biggest problem is that Europe has lost its sense of meaning. What is the symbol of the city we are in, a city that has more than 2,000 years of history? The green whims? The rainbow flag? Or those stupid bottle caps? No, I don't. The Cathedral of the Blessed Virgin Mary, that is, a symbol of the synthesis of faith and reason, that is, of all that is so lacking in Europe today. Goethe wrote about her: “Here music is enchanted in the stone, soaring lines and endless forms lead the spirit to God.” I'm talking about God. I hope I have not offended anyone in this House. For you, the generation of decadence, with some incomprehensible self-satisfaction are pushing us all to the abyss. That's why you have to leave.

Madam President, on the basis of Rule 164, after the CoP decision, if there is development about this scandal, it should be voted. You are afraid of voting on this debate because you are afraid of truth. After the CoP, lots of information about this scandal was published in Poland. So if you really would like to spend millions of euros on techno parties on balconies, I congratulate you.

Madam President, this is the first session after the holidays and I would like to raise a motion for debate in case you, in the future, would like to say that you didn't know about this scandal. So, during the holiday, your coalition spent millions of euros from European recovery funds on politicians' families, for example on PO members' spa, then they bought 107 yachts. And now –attention please, because this is not a joke – the funds went to a solarium in a pizzeria, a swingers' club, a techno party on balconies. So, if you vote even against the short debate on this matter, don't you even dare, in the future, lecture us about the rule of law, about how to develop the European economy, unless you really think that the swingers' club works for European competitiveness. Maybe, but not in the proper area. But anyway, if you think so, let it be a symbol that we need to restore common sense in Europe. So I would like to ask for the debate.