Speeches

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.

Mr President, Commissioner, colleagues, the debate is so far missing a key element, which is what needs to be done to reduce the economic impact on citizens and businesses in case the EU leaders decide to stop Russian gas imports. Commissioner, two actions are missing in your plan recently published. What is needed is the removal of unrealistic requirements in the EU Methane Emission Regulation to increase the attractiveness of Europe as such for gas imports from third countries and, second, introduce substantial changes in the ETS to reduce the price of carbon allowances. These are two basically simple measures at the end. Commissioner, please bring three points: increase the stability of natural gas supplies after the potential phase‑out, compensate the higher gas prices via cheaper ETS, and avoid premature closure of reliable coal‑fired power plants, which is needed in parts of Europe. So this is basically now your homework. You are invited to do it and, of course, don't forget to place nuclear on an equal footing with renewables on top of it.

Mr President, thank you Vice-President Fitto, Vice-President de Groot, thank you colleagues for the debate – the debate shows the high importance of the European Investment Bank, and also it shows the high level of expectation that the members in this House have of the institution, of the bank, about the role of the bank in achieving its goals and addressing risks, not only for you as such, but also for our Member States and, in the end, for our citizens and communities. I have been very grateful for many of the topics that have been put on the table during the debate: geographical balance, taking higher risks, focus on SMEs, climate adaptation, security, cybersecurity, housing, agriculture and cohesion, and, of course, many others. I am happy that the Budgetary Control Committee has put forward the report which touches on those topics, clearly describes the development and successes of the bank, but also the expectations and needs of the Parliament when it comes to the needs for investment and the future role of EIB, which this House, I believe, sees as a partner, and is looking forward to cooperating with in the very long term. Allow me once again to thank you for the chance of being a rapporteur, and I would like to invite all of you voting tomorrow to support the report.

Mr President, good afternoon colleagues, Vice-President Fitto and Vice-President of the EIB de Groot. Despite the fact that the main scope of the report is dedicated to the financial activities of the bank in 2023, we considered, on top of this scope, other useful elements to better understand the EIB's operational model, internal system and also strategy in current vibrant times. Why? Because the EIB already now plays a crucial role in implementing EU policies, and its role might grow in the near future. Therefore, I am extremely grateful for the openness and hospitality that the bank provided while drafting this report. I would like to also remind all of us that the EIB is not the subject of the standard discharge procedure we are used to. To sum up the activities we have done: firstly, there was a questionnaire based on the inputs from the CONT committee members that was effectively answered by the bank. Then on 11 December 2024, we held a one-day working visit in the EIB, meeting eight representatives of departments and one vice-president. And on 25 January, we held a follow-up video conference on topics like transparency and prevention of the conflict of interest. Now, on the substance, the EIB maintained in 2023 the triple A rating and liquidity ratio within the limits and had a positive result of EUR 2.3 billion. Also, the 2023 signed investments are expected to create 1.4 million new jobs in coming years, and this shall contribute growth of one percentage in GDP. The EIB manages up to 130 mandates, both from the Commission and the shared management, and produces 450 reports every year. Therefore, simplification is not only needed here, but as well has been recognised within the system and addressed in the system, and of course not at the cost of sound management. By the way, EIB manages six mandates from the RRF, namely for Greece, Italy, Romania and Spain. On energy security, the bank focuses on the security of supplies via grids reinforcement, cross-border infrastructure, but also introduces new modern elements like demand response and energy storage projects, and also value chains for critical materials. Another important topic is security – EIB supports the EU defence and security industry under the dual-use principle, and the budget has been increased here from EUR 6 billion to EUR 8 billion and newly includes also activities in space. The bank cooperates with the European Defence Agency and, in order to mobilise money for innovative projects, has opened the One-Stop-Shop. When we look at the climate, it is one of the main priorities of the bank – there has been EUR 40 billion in climate, EUR 25 billion in sustainability and also many projects newly in climate adaptation. The bank is active also outside the EU, namely in Ukraine, Western Balkans, Moldova but also Africa. When it comes to accountability, the bank cooperates within OLAF and EPPO and has its own ethics and compliance committee. We are running slowly out of time, so to sum up, the EIB has demonstrated, I would say, unprecedented engagement with the Parliament in preparing this report. I am very thankful, in my opinion, as also an auditor outside the European Parliament, the EIB is running a successful operational model applying risk prevention and continual improvement approach and tries to address existing challenges and opportunities effectively. I would like to thank all the representatives of the CONT committee, of course, of the bank, of the Secretariat, and I am looking forward to the debate to come.

Mr President, Commissioner, although they are called rare, these diseases affect 30 million Europeans and we know of more than 6 000 rare diseases. It is therefore clear that this area requires closer cooperation between Member States, but also instruments on a pan-European scale – cross-border care, secondary use of data, modern funding methods for more expensive transformative therapies, simplification of regulatory legislation, in particular health and technology assessment, and the establishment of a contact point to support start-ups and small businesses. Research, development and production on the territory of Europe of these rare diseases and their therapies requires a competitive setting of conditions for innovative companies. Last but not least, let's not forget about patients, patient organizations and their initiatives, which also lead to the development of therapies for some rare diseases. Commissioner, we welcome that rare diseases are your priority and you have our support for the implementation of a comprehensive plan for this important area, which we need to address in Europe.

Madam President, dear colleagues, I have the feeling that this is another unnecessary debate. I believe that the elected representation has the right to update legislation in place. And of course, every piece of legislation can be challenged at Constitutional Court. Concerning this case, some of you blame Hungarian policymakers for targeting minorities. In my understanding, the aim of the discussed amendment is to protect people, especially young population, from excessive public behaviour, regardless of sexual orientation. And we shall not forget that the rights of minorities is granted by Hungarian Constitution. So the real question behind is the compliance of this amendment with the Hungarian Constitution. And I honestly hope that the European Parliament has no ambition to just compliance of any national policies with respective national constitutions. This is the role of judges, not of policymakers.

The important thing is the price which the households pay and industries pay. The produced price is not the traded price, and the consumption price is not the price that is traded. So you must look at the final, final bills, and the figure is two times, three times as high than in the United States. So, unfortunately, we need to take a different approach and respect geographical differences in the EU. In some places, more renewables is okay, and in some places you need to have coal for longer and then switch to nuclear.

Mr President, dear colleagues, Commissioner, I naively thought that the aim of the affordable energy action plan was to provide affordable energy. But I tell you something: this plan will achieve no substantial energy cost reductions, because you, the European Commission, repeat the same failures as in the past. You are obsessed by an energy mix based on renewables. You blindly push forward the electricity market integration. You have disrespect for the existing reliable coal industry. You are failing to place nuclear on the forefront of the energy transition in parallel to renewables. You egotistically insist on maintaining unsustainable EU climate goals. You completely ignore what's going on in the US and in the BRICS countries. And you naively believe that you will mobilise private capital through your bad plan. You will not, and your plan will fail. So if you really want to help, Commissioner, cap immediately the ETS price at EUR 30, and instead of bringing new climate targets for 2040, please cancel the existing targets for 2030 and 2050.

Madam President, Commissioner, on your proposal Clean Industrial Deal – not trying to save the industry, but trying to save you Green Deal and climate objectives. Goals that may have made sense in 2019, but today we know they are unrealistic. Unrealistic climate targets, but also unrealistic technological ambitions, the most expensive greenhouse gas charges in the world, are the causes of the existential problems of European industry. And what do you do? You close your eyes to the real problem and you still want the industry to do the same and close their eyes too. Your proposal for a new, better Green Deal it will only drive more industry out of Europe and, unfortunately, the climate will not help. If you really want to help industry, Commissioner, and help immediately, then put forward a proposal that will make greenhouse gas emissions charges significantly cheaper without delay, and abolish the 2030 target instead of the new 2040 climate target.

Mr President, Mr Commissioner, the Critical Medicines Act is an extremely important file. The world is in a de- globalisation phase. Dependencies reduction and self-sufficiency have become a logical trend. This for sure includes medicines, their availability and affordability simply matter. Therefore, we welcome the ambition to maintain a list of critical medicines for which European research and production capacities would be granted. But it is not an easy task. As critical, we consider a wide range of medicines, including those old simple molecules whose production was, due to cost optimisation, transferred outside the EU in the past decades. And now we want them back. Also, we shall consider what should be the role of the EU here. In my opinion, mainly coordination of fair distribution of supportive projects among Member States to avoid duplication and at the end, after implementation, coordination of logistics of critical medicines. However, we believe that tools like CMA and Pharma Package can contribute positively to increase medicine supplies resilience on our continent, and in this regard, Mr Commissioner, you have our full support. However, I would like to extend that attracting private investments of pharma industry in the EU would require at the same time, in parallel, energy cost reductions, decreasing of obligations linked to the medicines lifecycle and also less bureaucracy, which is exactly the opposite of which some of your colleagues, Mr Commissioner, are doing.

Madam President, every reasonable person is able to adjust their goals and strategies. The world has changed, but not the EU energy and climate policy. The goal was EU prosperity, worldwide follow up and global emissions reductions. But we see the opposite: the EU economy is struggling and global emissions are growing. The Green Deal – at least its climate part – is dead. If we insist on its implementation, we will fail to protect Europeans from climate change effects and the European ability to adapt to climate change. After the US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, the global reality and more information and understanding of the mechanism of climate change, it is clear that we are entering a new post-Paris Agreement era – which for Europe means speed of emissions reductions, and therefore ETS prices, must correspond to the US and China; no coal power plants shut down until having stable and reliable effective replacement; renewables and nuclear must be placed on equal footing; invest in diffusion development massively and, of course, get rid of ESG, climate law, taxonomy, etc. And of course, Madam Commissioner, please do it now. And now, to the WHO: Europe is still part of the WHO. Or maybe we shall change this.

Mr President, colleagues, so the cooperation of Patriots, Conservatives and Sovereignists threatens Europe's competitiveness? Do you find it strange that factions in the European Parliament are collaborating with a similar programme? Can you accept a different view at all? Maybe parties with a different opinion than yours wouldn't have to run at all. Well, that would be great. You could continue as before. Ban, raise, subsidize and regulate. But you forget about people. And I'll tell you what. In the European elections, a lot, a lot of people have made it clear that they are fed up with your ten-gender policy, green economic destruction, centralisation in Brussels and censorship, and we will not disappoint their voices and trust. You can't beat common sense and silence the Patriots, so remember that.

(Start of speech off mic) ... thank the Hungarian Presidency for a professional, proactive and innovative approach. Now, in the beginning of the new mandate, I would wish to Mr Costa to have a strong European Council, because we need a strong voice of Member States. The EU is a project of Member States and only a strong European Council will defend EU future and will overpower the EU Commission's appetite to control EU citizens and weaken or destroy European nations. It is time to have more strict, more detailed and more bold conclusions of the European Council to protect the Member States of the EU. Now to the agenda of the European Council: I appreciate the geopolitical agenda is in the centre, logically, including the war against Israel. But when we are talking about ceasefire, we should also mention – and it is not in the text – that the first condition for the ceasefire is the release of hostages, and this should be the voice of the EU Member States. What I am missing in the text is accent on the EU economy: industry is leaving Europe, world emissions are not decreasing and the Commission wants to continue with the green agenda. And this should be also strictly addressed and refused in the European Council conclusions. So we need end of green madness, we need end of green dictate and we shall stop ruining our industry.

Mr President, censorship is not the way to protect elections. Social media is a tool, not a cause. Censorship is not the solution. Then why are you trying to do it? I'll tell you. Thanks to social networks, people can collectively share what they really think. And that's not what your power cartel of traditional politicians, Brussels officials, and some nonprofits and the media want. You are doing everything you can to get the Patriots who defend the interests of people like Marine Le Pen, Andrej Babiš and Matteo Salvini out of politics. But you won't be able to do that. Patriots don't give up fighting for people. Nor will you succeed in silencing people through censorship of social networks. Are you concerned about the democratic nature of the election? No, you're worried about your election result. Over the years, you have gradually tightened the loop around people, taking away their safety, prosperity, national identity and freedom. And now you're afraid because there are Patriots and social networks that bring power back to the people. You can't beat people! People are sick of you! You are rightly afraid!

Mr President, Madam Commissioner, this is indeed an interesting topic consisting of different elements that need to be put in balance. First, we want to protect citizens from the effect of second‑hand smoke and aerosols and achieve the 2040 goal for a tobacco‑free generation. Second, we do not want to excessively interfere in the lives of Europeans with any ambitions to regulate their lives. Third, European institutions shall not go beyond the treaties and shall respect national competences and sovereignty. Fourth, we shall take science into consideration. These are four basic elements concerning this topic, and I would like to invite you, dear colleagues, to consider them during tomorrow's vote on the resolution and related amendments.

(Start of speech off mic) ... is that your policies, policies of climate activists, as you are, are not leading to saving the climate. You are lying to people about that if they will be ambitious, that there will be no floods and so on and so on. But that's not true. You have no data, you have no science base, you have no impact assessments: you are just lying. So you are the root cause.

Mr President, Minister, Commissioner, the European response to climate change so far has not been effective. It is not helping to protect the climate, it is causing major damage to the European economy and it is reducing the opportunity for Europeans to adapt to climate change. The so-called Fit for 55 European climate package is not only distrusted by investors, but above all by a significant part of the public. And in the rest of the world, our European climate policy is shaking its head in disbelief. Regulations, unrealistic targets, bans and price increases. This green policy of yours, far removed from reality, will make Europe an open-air museum and will not protect the public from drought, floods or fires. Please stop lying to people. Are you still so pompous that you travel the world instructing others to follow the same path? You're all a laughingstock. Please pull the emergency brake while there's still time.

Mr President, Commissioner, for how long are we going to pretend that the system is under control? I have a feeling that for years the Commission didn't listen to companies, and if the Commission listened, then only to the voices they like. The EU has become a regulatory monster; high quantity and lower quality. To be honest, also the European Parliament has its contribution to this fact. We shall not undermine this. Before being elected in 2019, I was a quality manager in industry. I was responsible to implement European directives and regulations into the real shop floor. The aim of the regulations were GMP, 'good management practices'. But in a result for the companies, it was as well GMP, but different: 'generate more paper'. This cannot go on like this. Since 2019, in the US there has been 3 000 pieces of legislative acts; in the EU 12 000 or even more – 13 000, someone referred. It's not possible. So we have maybe last one or two years to fix this. Uncompetitive energy prices, bureaucracy, that we are talking about now, and investment uncertainty. If we do not fix this then our economy would not be competitive on global level.

Madam President, colleagues, on Monday evening, six political groups concluded and co-signed the joint motion for a resolution on the Medical Devices Regulation. This was tabled yesterday into the EP system. The Europeans could have enjoyed for one day being more important than the political dispute. However, yesterday it happened that some political groups decided to remove the name of our political group from the joint text, despite the fact that the Patriots have constructively and actively cooperated. So, ladies and gentlemen, to those political groups, I tell you something: you may try to hide our name, but you will not succeed to hide the fact that the Patriots have been successfully part of the final text. Let this, my speech, be a testimony of your weakness, fear and hypocrisy.

Madam President, Madam Commissioner, I have an essential question: do you want to have steel in Europe? I think we have heard in this debate many reasons to say 'yes', but to save the steel in Europe we must act now. One point: to create a demand market for high‑tech and low‑carbon and green steel would, of course, help. But it is not in the short term. To revise the (sorry for the stupid proposal) CBAM in such a way that it will have the trust of businesses is also important, but it will not be in the short term. What we need to do in the short term is address the high prices of energies. And one of the elements is the highest price of the carbon allowance globally. The EU ETS is the most expensive in the world. Last week, more than 50 MEPs asked the Commission to cap the price at EUR 30. Please do it. Please do it now.

Mr President, Commissioner, I am very pleased that mental health is receiving more and more attention, not only in political debates, but also in public debates. It is indeed a growing problem, affecting the entire population and also affecting the youth, our children. The appropriate care is very small or not appropriate. Waiting periods – it takes a long time to find a child psychologist in some regions. And that is why I would like us to actually come together here today and make a kind of commitment that, following the example of Europe's Beating Cancer Plan, we will also create a European Mental Health Plan that is comprehensive, that focuses on all phases, including prevention, and that will help direct future economic instruments precisely towards implementation and help Member States to implement this common plan.

Madam President, what kind of debate is this again? Disinformation, populism and public media? What, like three in one? I do not question the need to counter disinformation, especially when it is directed against citizens' interests from abroad. It makes sense to talk about that. But why are you bringing populism into this? After all, you call populists people who, unlike you, are not afraid to tell the truth and defend the interests of citizens. For you, populists are those who reject unthought-out green madness. Those who want to stop dangerous Islamic migration, and those who want to preserve national veto power and not further strengthen Brussels officials, often detached from reality. And the public media? Yes, let's underline their importance. After all, people want it to be impartial. But the fact that a medium is public does not necessarily guarantee that it will simply be impartial. And changes in these media must be judged by the law and not by whether the government making the changes is more inclined to Brussels or less. That would be hypocrisy. And this is how you will have a three-in-one debate here, so that those who point out your inability to defend the interests of citizens can be called collaborators of foreign countries and populists. After all, you are almost as desperate as our Czech Fiala government. And to perfection, all you have to do is hire some guy to run what is disinformation and what is not, and he will simply say, sorry, Madam President, 'pig' to Europeans with a different opinion.

Madam President, Commissioner, Minister, I would like to thank the Commission, Council and the Hungarian Government, because we have heard that the dialogue is going on, step by step, we believe, to a successful end. And maybe at this stage, this plenary should finish the debate. Because we can ask: 'Tell us in 14 days, in one month what is going on'. But this House requires deeper debate. Okay, we are in a political House. Let's have a deeper debate. I'm not against it. At the end, we are sharing as 27 sovereign Member States one continent. So if we are with the idea that there is a risk, let's debate the risk and ask how it is addressed. But we shall not apply double standards and one-way democracy and one-way diplomacy. We have heard so far that these working permits, which are – in terms of security checks – on equal footing with other European visas, are now five plus five together. Maybe in years we will be talking about one hundred, a few hundred, maybe – and I will just say maybe – 2000. For example, imagine 2000 working permits for Russians and Belarusians. Some of you mentioned, I wrote it down, 'unacceptable and dangerous'. Okay. But where the same people and the same faces have been in 2023, when 220 000 multiple entry visas have been issued to the citizens of the Russian Federation – 100 times more. No one claimed a risk. It's not serious. Where have you been last week? The Chancellor of Germany announced that he is considering 250 000 working permits for one African country. Maybe – in your logic – potential bringers of Sharia law. So where have you been? So please, if you want to have serious debate, please use the data and not double standards.

Mr President, welcome, Madam Commissioner. You looked quite satisfied during the presentation of your thesis and I am not fully in agreement. You look satisfied maybe because you have a little bit forgotten to speak about the competitiveness and the energy prices. And I tell you a small secret. They are maybe lower than during the peak in the energy crisis, but they are still high. Not only for citizens, but as well for the economy, for business, for industry. We are talking about when it comes to electricity price, it's 2.5 times higher electricity price compared to US and China. So I mean, it's not an easy situation for businesses and it has implications. Maybe for some Green guys it has good implications because emissions are decreasing, but unfortunately not always because of, let's say, successful transition projects. Of course, there are many of them, but also because businesses are leaving. There is deindustrialisation. And this is, to be honest, a very bad situation and a very bad problem. Maybe you don't know, but flagships of European industry are really companies that proudly produced chemicals, steel, glass. They are dismantling functioning factories and moving to China. And this is something that we cannot afford and that we cannot sustain. Why? Because they are not competent on the global market. They could be competent on European market in case that the CBAM, this customs, are working, but they are never competent on the global market. So they better invest into China and the US, and this is a problem. What we did wrong? We took a wrong strategy. We want to catch up with China. But they are smarter. They also massively invest and you are asking for massive investment in greens and faster. I am not against but they invest into nuclear as well, on an almost equal footing, and they also invest into new coal-fired power plants. We are trying to close our coal as soon as possible, and at the same time replace Russian gas, which I understand, but the effect is very bad because we don't have enough cash in the economy, we don't have stable sources and we don't have cheap electricity because of the carbon allowances. I have only five seconds left, so please try to propose to your successor a capping of the ETS price. This is a path for cheaper electricity and competitiveness.