Speeches

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?

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.

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.

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, 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.

Mr President, dear colleagues, a harmful conglomerate of Socialists, People's Party, Liberals and Greens set our great continent on fire. Look what this conglomerate did to their own countries: they opened borders and imported people with culture incompatible with EU values, they increased regulation to such a level that businesses better leave our continent, they reduce freedom and slowly install censorship. And they use people's money to finance political NGOs and so-called 'independent' fact-checkers and media to hit anybody who disagrees. And these technocrats now attack Hungary because of values – why? Because they fear Hungary. Because they fear other patriots like in the Czech Republic, Poland or Slovakia. Because we have safe streets, we do not import culture nor religion, and because we are able to say 'no' to Brussels if they come with a migration pact or with federalisation of Europe. So, dear Hungary, dear citizens of Hungary, one message for you: be proud of your great country and your values and never surrender.

Mr President, colleagues, thank you for your contributions. I wrote down some comments. Allow me also to reflect a little bit. To Commissioner Hoekstra, yes: move to action, of course, but it's really neat that Europe is the first and the fastest one in the world. Question mark! Mr Pellerin-Carlin, climate action is vital, of course I agree, but it must be correct action. To Ms Vrecionová, of course I agree that overlooking the situation of farmers is the beginning of the end. To Ms Pereira, yes, the Green Deal and Draghi report, but imagine that the Green Deal shall not be a religion and the Draghi report shall not be a Bible. To Mr López, a message to the world is great, I agree, but only if the others follow. To Ms Ferenc, yes, I have also concerns about the affordability of energy after imposing such a strong climate target. We must be very careful about the implementing measures if the goal is approved. Ms Zalewska, I fully share your concerns that this target perhaps is not realistic – it's also linked with concerns about affordable energy. Mr Gerbrandy, I see you are a little bit more optimistic, because I'm afraid that the rest of the world wishes a weak European Union, not a strong Union in the position of a leader, but the future will show us. And Ms Martins, of course we need to protect our planet for the simple reason that it is the best planet we have. So once again, many thanks. Have a great evening.

Mr President, Commissioner, Madam – leaving! – Minister, honourable colleagues, allow me a couple of words in my capacity as the rapporteur on this file. Despite this plenary voting down the urgent procedure at the end of July this year, the very next day, the main committee, the Environment Committee coordinators, decided to impose quite a strict and tough timeline – basically, for example, giving me only 80 days to present the draft report, and expecting a plenary vote in September. As the rapporteur, I also naturally respected this timeline, and I used those 80 days mainly to get more information from the European Commission, especially more clarity on the enabling conditions that accompanied the proposal for reduction of the greenhouse gases by 90 % by 2040. I wanted to know much more about what the European Commission means by 'technological neutrality', or, for example, what the ETS 2 price will be if we have a 90 % reduction around 2035, or what the electricity price will be, or what the future of combustion engines will be after 2035. And truly, within this couple of days, the European Commission provided feedback and answered, but very honestly, not much –diplomatically speaking – has been answered. So therefore, taking also into consideration that the European Union already has two legally binding targets in greenhouse gas emissions reductions for 2030 and 2050, I thought that maybe the European Commission needs more time, and we do not need to hurry anyway as Europe with those two targets. So despite the fact that I am really personally – not as a rapporteur but personally, as and MEP – convinced that we do not need any further reduction in climate targets, I proposed only the rejection because that means that the European Commission can later come with a better‑explained proposal. Then, after the summer break, we held approximately 10 political and technical meetings with the different variants on the table. I'm a little bit sad that the variant called 'postponement', which was there to attract the centrist political groups, offering international credits and many flexibilities, but postponing the decision for the 2040 target until 2029 – because only then will we know whether we hit the previous target of 2030 – this has not been so attractive for the political groups. They waited. In the beginning they were in a hurry, and then waited for basically the Member States to conclude. I fully respect that. In the end, we have the Monday vote of the Environment Committee leaning quite close to the Member States' position. Allow me also, in my capacity as rapporteur, to thank the AGRI Committee that presented the opinion in the form of a letter to the committee, with its opinion – very close in my eyes to the original Commission proposal – and also the work of the TRAN Committee, which decided in the end to vote down the proposal with the 90 % reductions by 2040. Tomorrow's vote will take place. There are amendments tabled. We will know the outcome tomorrow. So once again, thank you very much for your work, and I am looking forward to hearing your interventions here.

Madam President, honourable colleagues, the COP is an excellent opportunity to share good and bad practices. And as EU is responsible for hardly 7 % of global emissions, the Patriots for Europe agree that we shall help the largest emitters of greenhouse gases to reduce their emissions. I was thinking that the best way, maybe, is perhaps to advise them what they should do if they wanted to fail in the climate transition. I started to write the following list: make your Green Deal a religion, not a flexible economy tool; do not respect technology neutrality because market-based solutions are for kids anyway; make your carbon price most expensive worldwide; if possible, close as soon as possible all your stable fossil power plants and, of course, even if you have no adequate replacement available; don't allow alternative scientific opinion and politicians opposing your religion labelled as extremists; don't be at all stressed if your strategical industry leaves your country or continent, and the last and most important, use people money for PR campaigns saying that all of this is great. And at this stage of writing, I realised how happy I am that this is definitely not the way that we do in Europe. Enjoy the COP, ladies and gentlemen.

Mr President, many of you, colleagues, accent the need for united support of Ukraine, and I generally agree, but I believe it is much more important to provide smart support of Ukraine. Last week, the ITRE Committee voted for the ban of Russian oil, oil products and natural gas from Russia, starting January 2026. But products derived from natural gas are allowed, for example, fertilisers. So buying Russian fertilisers is okay for the European Parliament. At the same time, the ban on Russian oil without exception for Slovakia and Hungary also means that Ukraine will not be able to sell own-harvested oil to refineries in the country, and now most in the Czech Republic. This example shows that maybe less activism and more realism would be much more beneficial, not only to the peace in Ukraine. And allow me one sentence: some of you are so desperate about the fact that Trump has decided for Budapest, that it really shows that you do not have the situation under control.

Mr President, dear representatives of ECA, many thanks for the report. The expenditures from the EU 2024 budget on the heading of natural resources and environment were almost EUR 65 billion, which represents almost one third of the total expenditures. I would like to have two questions. Has the Court identified cases where the Climate Pact investments did not deliver measurable environmental benefits? If so, how significant were these discrepancies relative to the total reported climate spending? And the second question is on electro-mobility. To which extent did the Court elaborate and consider the life-cycle emissions of electric vehicles, including production and energy sourcing, within the audit scope, particularly when attributing emission reductions to electric vehicles' uptake?

Mr President, that is the madness you are demonstrating. Once again, you want to weaken the Member States and strengthen Brussels. Making acceptance of, for example, the Balkan states conditional on the abolition of the right of veto is pure desperation. Abolition of the right of veto means surrendering to the majority, and often to Brussels technocrats, often completely out of touch with reality. And I believe, together with the Patriots, that if there were more veto power in the past, we would be walking on safer streets in the European Union today, there would be no creeping Islamization of Europe in some states, European industry would not stagnate and there would be no risk of censorship on social networks, for example. So let me tell you something so everyone remembers. The ANO and Patriots for Europe movement will never support the abolition of the right of veto.

Mr President, honourable colleagues, the European chemical industry and chemicals play a key role for EU citizens and the EU economy. Therefore, one would expect that EU policies will have ambitions to boost the EU-based chemical industry. Unfortunately, the opposite is true: the EU chemical industry is suffering and without substantial changes in course of last year's energy, climate and industrial policies, the EU chemical industry will not survive in Europe. Maybe, therefore, I am pleased to see three negotiated files related to the EU chemicals ecosystem, with a positive effect on transparency, predictability, information access, assessment process unification, the common data platform, 'one substance, one assessment', better coordination among related agencies and, last not least, more ECHA and less European Commission. These are just a few examples of positive signals. Also, the industry's concerns on sensitive information disclosure have been positively addressed during the trilogue negotiations. What is not positive, in the eyes of a patriot, is that the final text allows the Commission to update the concentration limit via delegated acts, and this is not a good direction forward but, anyway, the world is not perfect. But, in general, the outcomes of trilogues are a good message for suffering EU chemical industries. So thank you for that, and thank you, rapporteur.

Mr President, Madam Commissioner, on World Mental Health Day, we are reminded that mental health is not just a medical issue – it is also a social and economic one. To accent topics of the mental health and well-being of young people, we reaffirm our commitment to strengthen national healthcare systems through reducing inequalities and through advancing towards complex health coverage. We further agree to ensure access to safe youth‑ and child‑friendly healthcare, including mental and digital health. Across Europe, too many citizens face stress from insecure jobs, rising living costs, housing difficulties and also social isolation. These pressures deepen inequalities and put the most vulnerable at even greater risk. Therefore, improving mental health must be a fundamental priority and we call for continual and systematic action in this area.

Mr President, Commissioner, you are repeating the same mistakes, setting unrealistic goals. You try to force expensive and sometimes unreliable clean technologies on people as the only option, and you don't care at all that a large part of the public isn't interested in them. Instead of listening to the public, you'd rather regulate, raise prices, or ban them. And I will tell you something, Commissioner, by raising the price of old, often fossil-based technologies, you will speed up their end, but you will certainly not ensure a corresponding increase in the share of clean technologies. Production, including emissions, will move outside Europe, making Europeans even poorer and not saving the climate. So please, Commissioner and your entire Commission, wake up and stop repeating mistakes while there is still time.