Speeches

Definitely. We shall increase the rate of the circular economy. And once we are ready and we have the capacities and we have enough metals, let's say, on our European continent to recycle and go without major imports, then we can cut off the fossil fuels. That's it. That is the strategy of smarter states. They also go outside fossil fuels. Just the speed is in line with the speed of self-sufficiency, the circular economy and other sources. The problem with this part of this House is that you want to do it right now. That's the problem.

As I said, renewables will always have a share, but you need metals that are not in Europe. Okay? So you replace one dependency for another. So, the dependencies must be diversified, on the sources and also on the suppliers. I don't know what you're not getting here. It is clear.

Thank you for the question. It's clear that there is an oil crisis once every 30 years or so. It can happen and we can manage it. Your solution is to replace one dependency for another dependency. So if you just replace oil and fossil fuels by renewables only, you will maybe lose the dependency on countries delivering fossil fuels, but you will increase the dependency on countries delivering metals, for example, or some green technologies. So the answer is having mixed, diversified technology and not just focusing on one shot.

Madam President, Commissioner, it is naive to think that Europe will be free of fossil fuels in this century. Therefore, it is completely wrong that in any crisis it is your measure to accelerate Green Deal and building more renewables. Yes, these resources will always have a crucial role to play, but if there are too many of them, they take up a lot of space, they are not cheap, and people don't really want them. That is why we need to rethink the European Union's climate goals, diversify fossil fuel suppliers and use the coal and gas that we still have in Europe to massively roll out nuclear resources across Europe, and only when we have enough nuclear and renewable resources can we consider cutting off fossil fuels in some, I repeat in some, sectors. Until then, European producers of strategic commodities, such as fertilizers, steel, glass, must be freed and given emission allowances. And until you understand this, you will only continue to destroy Europe and the rest of Europe will laugh at you.

Of course, I also appreciate domestic energies, but if you just decide that there will be no oil, then there will be no asphalt. Maybe it's more about diversifying the oil from more places to make it safer and maybe the price could be lower. But simply if you don't import oil, you don't build new roads, you don't have medicines, etc. This means: How are you going to do this without the oil? You're green, progressive, so tell us the solution. Or don't you have any?

Colleague, thank you for accepting the question. If you see this Europe without oil imports, I can ask you. How do you plan to build new roads? Because you know that oil also includes oil, from which asphalt is made and you need it for new roads. So what do you want to build roads from in Slovakia?

Mr President, Commissioner, as the shadow rapporteur for the 'other institutions', allow me to thank all those who participated in the discharge activities. They are very important. When it comes to the other institutions, many of them are doing a very good job. I would especially like to highlight and positively assess the work of the European Court of Auditors and the European Ombudsman. On the contrary, the European External Action Service's performance has, let's say, room for an improvement. When we talk about discharges, there is one that attracted my attention a lot, and this was the Commission discharge. And the reasons are the excessive level of political manipulation and activism. The rapporteur did not hesitate to mention speculative elements not even related to the particular year of the discharge – 2024. And also it seems that the level of criticism of particular Member States increases if, in the Member States concerned, there is a government that fights the EU migration deal, fights the Green Deal, or fights for more national sovereignty. Hungary is mentioned 24 times, Slovakia six times, Poland four times – the president, by the way, not the government, Czechia ten times. This is not a way of serious work, and Patriots for Europe, as pragmatic and constructive work, will not participate on this.

Madam President, Commissioner, good evening. No one questions protection of the water environment, but our measures shall not contradict. And I am afraid that our global rivals must be laughing sometimes when it comes to EU actions, because look what we are doing. The critical medicines act – I would say a very good proposal – tries to get medicine production back on EU soil, and now implementing the European Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive basically expels medicine out of European soil. So this does not make sense. What was wrong for this directive? The Commission provided most likely very wrong calculations, targets and also assessments. So I really believe that now it's time to stop the clock and invite the Commission for new assessment, together with the industries, so that we do not fight about the figures, that there is real clarity, and also then provide the review that would also take responsibility for the non-EU players. Also, allow me to state that environmental measures and standards in Europe are already on an extremely high level, so further uncontrolled pressure in this direction could be a showstopper for the EU as a global player. So I'm afraid we cannot do more for climate, or not much more than the others do, and definitely not on the cost of availability of medicines, and especially generics, in the EU.

Madam President, this does not happen often, but I must agree with my colleague Andriukaitis that it really makes sense to recognise obesity as a non-communicable disease of civilization. Thank you for that. It is in Europe's interest to combat population obesity, especially among children. For food, eat more local products and a varied diet, on the contrary, avoid ultra-processed products. The largest multinational chains and companies would certainly be able to produce healthier food, but they don't have to, and they don't. In sports, it is primarily the responsibility of parents and it is in the interest of each individual to do sports. But let's face it, the European Union is not helping here either. The funds that could be invested in sports grounds and children's sport are sometimes over-invested and inefficiently invested in green measures, which ultimately do not help. So if we want to have, say, a healthier population, a less obese population, let's invest more in sports and not in nonprofit political organizations, self-promotion of Brussels, and senseless green measures.

Madam President, Mr Commissioner, this is a very impressive and ambitious project. Its success could increase energy autonomy in states around the North Sea. Also, guaranteed political support is a very good signal. However, even more important is the long‑term trust of private investors of the capital and this is not guaranteed. The uncertainty remains high. Slow grid development, scale‑up issues and the risk that real costs could massively exceed estimations. So, as I said, this project deserves attention and support, but I would strongly recommend not to consider its success as guaranteed. At the same time, in all regions of Europe, we should focus on diversification of stable sources, for example, nuclear energy. Putting all our eggs in one basket does not work, especially within the energy sector.

The follow up is clear. Germany has invested a lot in renewables, and still they have on average 20 times, 15 times higher carbon footprint in electricity production than France with nuclear. So basically today they are the same as Czech Republic with coal and nuclear and, with nuclear, France is much better. So if you invest only in renewables, you will end up like in Germany – you will have gas dependency and still a very, very high carbon footprint. Is that a solution? Where is decarbonisation with the renewables?

Thank you, honourable colleague, for accepting the question. I understand very well that you would like to invest in renewables as soon as possible, and of course, then have the local electricity production. Unfortunately, we also need nuclear as part of the solution and it takes some time and for this, we need the fossil fuels. Because how else can you explain that today in France currently the electricity carbon footprint is 20 times lower than in Germany, which has been massively investing in renewables for 20 years. How can you explain that?

Actually, without coal and steel, we would not be having the debate here. So maybe you could learn something from European history – it would be nice as well. And when it comes to prices, you must also understand that you need to invest a lot into the grid, because the consumer doesn't pay the cost, the price on the market – he pays the final price. So we need to find a balance between the speed of decarbonisation and reasonable investments. And again, we shall use local sources. In some countries, we still have coal.

This is always the debate we have. So, for example, in my country there are a lot of coal sources and the grids are fully prepared for this. But because of the high ETS price, we are forced to close them earlier than is necessary. If we used them for a few years longer – like 5 to 10 years – we would not need to import so much gas. For the gas price, yes, of course, it's volatile, I agree. But we can diversify, and to diversify you need long-term contracts. And with methane regulation, for example, you do not succeed to have long-term contracts pushing the price down. So it's about the speed of decarbonisation. I do not question decarbonisation as such, but the pathway – we are doing it in too ambitious a way.

Mr President, Mr Commissioner, surprisingly, I will start a little bit positively. So, there are some positive elements in your speech. Your thoughts on the grids go in the good direction. I welcome the SMR point and also the idea on lowering taxes. Yes, this is the good time to lower taxes. But you will not be surprised that, since your hearing as a Commissioner candidate, there are still elements that I point on and you are ignoring them a little bit. So, when it comes to the state aid rules, we need the nuclear without unnecessary restrictions and not only for SMRs, and also to include, under some conditions, coal and gas – it is really needed. Also, ETS – one huge effect on the price. We must have drastic changes. It will hurt, but it is necessary. The price must be below EUR 30, no debates, and ETS to be postponed as long as possible. Also there is – Mr Commissioner, I am talking to you, please do not share with your colleague. Also, there is a number of legislation that have an impact on the price of gas, for example the Methane Regulation, the EPBD Directive or also the 'Do no significant harm' criteria for the gas, and maybe we need more diversify the gas. So, it is not true that everything you put forward is wrong, but I am afraid many of the things you put forward are wrong. I am afraid you are repeating the same failure and this is that you believe that you can simply close the fossil sources without having a stable replacement, and I am afraid it will not work.

Madam President, Mrs von der Leyen, Mr Šefčovič, I have listened carefully to your words and you have certainly mentioned some measures that will certainly help improve European competitiveness and self-sufficiency. But what really amazes me is that you didn't mention the high price of the emission allowance as the main reason. Do you want to improve Europe's competitiveness and self-sufficiency and not solve one of the most expensive emission allowances in the world? If their price does not fall by half, then we can really forget about saving Europe. And in doing so, you are really ignoring the strategic industry, its employees, and some states that really claim that if we don't react quickly, there will be a lot, a lot of damage. Furthermore, let me point out that your consistent perception of renewables as essentially flawless and cheap is not only flawed, but also very dangerous. If that were the case, the market would take care of it itself. So it is nice that you want to save Europe, but it will not succeed if you are not able to admit that you have made some mistakes and do not try to correct those mistakes and face them. It may be politically unpleasant, but I'm afraid it won't be possible without it.

Mr President, honourable colleagues and, of course, I would like to thank the team of the shadow rapporteurs. I believe that in this file we can all learn that professional cooperation is possible no matter the different initial positions and also other starting circumstances. In December 2025, the majority of this House asked for a new climate target for 2040 to be negotiated in the trilogue, and this happened. The European Parliament succeeded in the trilogue to make more robust conditions for the quality of international credits, which is a success of this Parliament. Now, this file is here for final confirmation. I think all of you know that I would prefer, as do approximately 40 % of colleagues here in this House, to have no further new climate target. Therefore, allow me, in my capacity as a rapporteur, to make a small remark: in the previous mandate, many rapporteurs were here being applauded and being acclaimed for historical victories. Now, just three years later, the CO₂ standard cars, the ETS CBAM and the reporting directives, i.e. key flagships, are now being revised because of a reality check. Myself, as a rapporteur, I would like to express my concerns that if this file that we have today on the table is voted through, very soon we will have to come back and correct it as we have for other previously adopted flagships. Many thanks for your cooperation.

Madam President, advocating for Hungary's exclusion from the SAFE programme is acting against European security. And even worse is that you do it for political reasons. Brussels technocrats fear so much of sovereign governments, like the one of the Viktor Orbán, that they even do not hesitate to bend the rules, like now with the SAFE programme. And this is totally wrong. But far worse than Brussels technocrats are those who do not hesitate to sell their own country to these technocrats. And these people are now trying to take control of your great country. Don't let that happen.

Madam President, Commissioner, as the shadow rapporteur on behalf of Patriots, I believe that the Critical Medicines Act addresses real challenges, and these are medicines shortages and Europe's continued dependence on third countries. For this reason, I support the Commission's proposal. When it comes to the health committee report, it reinforces key elements, notably on strategic projects and criteria for public procurement. We also welcome Parliament's call for a dedicated budget for this act. However, important concerns remain – in particular, excessive environmental requirements linked to the Green Deal, placing heavy burdens on manufacturers. You can imagine what happened with the Urban Wastewater Directive. We also have concerns about increasing Commission powers at the expense of national competences and about the participation of candidate countries in joint procurement. Despite these issues, the Critical Medicines Act is a step in the right direction. It can meaningfully reduce shortages by boosting EU production and lowering external dependencies. I am confident that the remaining concerns that we have can be addressed during the trilogue negotiations. And finally, let me underline that this is not only about competitiveness, but it is also about patients and their access to medicines in Europe.

I represent some electorate. So, I represent the electorate that believes that Europe is not ready for having a swift overpower of functions by Brussels. For your comment on the values, that we become a minority and what happens ... Please ask in Duisburg, in Marxloh. There you may see what's going on with your state.

Thank you for this question. The Treaties do not describe a timeline. So, one day, maybe my great‑grandchildren will live in federal Europe, but Europe must be ready for this and I am afraid that today they are not ready. Europe is not ready for accepting more duties in the given time. And your second question, just remind me briefly the words, what was it about? Oh yes, the values, thank you. When we come to the values, I have mentioned that there is a start of Islamisation of Europe and I am afraid that if my culture becomes a minority in Europe, my roles, my rights as a minority will not be respected. So, before we do this change, we are warning that this change is wrong and this is exactly going on. So, I think I am fine with my speech and I have answered your questions. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much for this question. Actually, I can confirm that when I travel across Member States of EU, I come across citizens, and there are many of them that have concerns about the democratic elements in their own, usually Western, Member States and also in the Brussels centre at the heart of the European Commission. And they are afraid about the future, that our ancestors have given to us, that our values based on Christianity are in danger.

Madam President, Commissioner, yes, the rule of law is both a value and an objective. The rule of law is a guarantee of freedom and prosperity for citizens. Unfortunately, it is true that the rule of law is failing badly in some EU countries. What do citizens think is the biggest risk to the rule of law? Massive import of people with a foreign culture, which has worsened security and begun the creeping Islamization of our continent. Furthermore, the economic destruction of Europe through completely unrealistic climate goals and, for example, the centralization of power by the European Commission, which also promotes the loss of citizens' privacy and bribes nonprofits and the media for the purpose of manipulating the public. Yes, these are real risks to the rule of law and our freedom. And how many times does your report criticize the real culprits? European Commission 0. Germany, France or Belgium 0. No go The zone doesn't seem to matter. But you mention Hungary 46 times, Poland 10 times, Slovakia 7 times. I mean, that's crazy. Your blindness is beginning to be your own destruction. Please wake up while you have time.

Madam President, thank you, Mr Commissioner, for presenting the Safe Hearts Plan. I believe it will be an important step in fighting cardiovascular diseases, which remain a significant burden to our healthcare systems and also the leading cause of death, not only in Europe. I also appreciate the respect for national competences in the field of health policy. Thank you very much for the emphasis on prevention and early detection among the key pillars of your strategy. Supporting healthy habits is far more effective than an ideological or prohibition-based approach. We must just be careful with measures such as new assessment systems or potential EU-wide levies to ensure they are evidence based, proportionate and respect technology neutrality. Our aim is not to prescribe lifestyles – we know that the bans and directions from Brussels don't work for people, neither for alcohol, nor tobacco, nor nicotine, nor food. We just must be careful. Finally, we must take into account the differences and specificities of the needs of individual regions, if this strategy shall bring real results. Let me thank you for your presentation, and you can count on our support with the Safe Hearts Plan.