Speeches

You all know that I’m not a big fan of the concept of sustainable finances – they add yet more criteria to economic considerations, thereby undermining the value of price as relevant information. Therefore, one might expect that I would also be an implacable opponent of European green bonds. But this is not the case. I understand that if some bonds are to be labelled as green, they must do so according to the same rules throughout the EU. The report we are going to vote on today initially wanted a lot more than was needed, but during the negotiations the overambitious ideas of the rapporteur, Paul Tang, were corrected into a form that can be lived with. Personally, I am especially happy that European green bonds do not push nuclear energy into a corner and offer more relaxed grandfathering rules. I will therefore vote in favour of Tang’s report and hope that my leftist colleagues will do so.

The report, of which I was shadow rapporteur, is a balanced text by the European Parliament. It commends transatlantic cooperation, calls for respect for NATO's commitment to devote 2% of GDP to defence regardless of external circumstances, and welcomes the decision of the NATO summit to activate Article 5 of the Washington Treaty even in the event of hybrid attacks that threaten our security. The European Parliament itself can only appeal to EU and NATO member states to follow its recommendations. Our government also has a lot to catch up on when it comes to defending our country. I very much hope that after the October elections, the situation in our country and in this direction will change significantly for the better.

Madam President, we have read the recipe of the European Commission and it reminds me of GOELRO (Soviet State Planning Commission for Reconstruction) of 1920. Lenin summed it up with the famous sentence ‘All power to the Soviets and electrification of the whole country’. How it turned out, we know. So let's not repeat the mistakes, please. I, for the record, am all in favour of reducing our dependence on raw materials from dictatorial or authoritarian regimes. I am in favour of electrification, but ladies and gentlemen, we must not have the most expensive electricity in the world and we must not have the risks of blackout, which is the reality today. So the Commission is proposing here: Wear sweaters when you're cold, shower with cold water, ride a bike. These county councils, we don't pay the Commission for that. We pay for it to enable the full development of nuclear energy. Where is the taxonomy that levels the playing field with renewables? Where is ETS reform so that electricity is not the most expensive in the world? We have coal, we have gas, and we can temporarily mine it.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I think we have to admit one thing: our problem is not the climate. Our problem is our weakness. Our problem is that we are losing the competitiveness. To correct this, we need two things: to have lower prices of electricity and energy in the short term, and nuclear embracement in the strategic long term. And here, we have a problem. On nuclear, I welcome the admission of Ursula von der Leyen that abandonment of nuclear was a strategic mistake. If this is a strategic mistake, we should correct this. A week ago, I asked Ms Ribera when will you submit the delegated act as a Commission to put nuclear on equal footing. No response. So again, I am asking: when will you do this? And on ETS, we really need a serious reform, not a cosmetic one. So please, we must do this now and we must do a deep reform.

Madam President, we are at a critical moment for European security: flagship defence projects of common interest are not just initiatives, they are strategic investments in our future. There are things no single Member State can address alone. This project must be interoperable, technologically advanced and coordinated with NATO. Russian aggression has shown the urgent need for a coordinated response. We in the ECR strongly believe that defence readiness and investment in capabilities is essential, but we rejected protectionism that will slow things down. Speed is essential, and nations on the eastern front line know this very well. Let me be clear: to strengthen European defence means to loosen the hands of industry. No war has ever been won by regulation. The war in Ukraine clearly demonstrated ingenuity and willingness to risk: win the battle.

Mr President, our obsession with environmental protection and social well-being has brought us to the point where we strangle everything that is still alive in business. Renewables, networks, nuclear, ports, hydrogen, mining, modernization, their authorisation takes years. That's unacceptable. We are constantly discussing Trump's tariffs, but this hidden cost is stifling investment far more. The Commission believes in success through regulation. It's a mistake. I say: “Let's remove barriers, let the market operate.” We do not need more subsidies or protectionism, but faster, simpler rules. I appreciate the calls by Prime Ministers Meloni and Merza for faster deregulation. So far, the Commission has put forward 10 so-called omnibuses. It's not enough. There is a whole series of regulations that will allow any ‘crazy’, even if he lives in a completely different place from where he stands, to throw a pitchfork or any obscure non-profit organisation to challenge decisions relating to permitting processes in court. All this is slowing down and endless bureaucracy. Finally, there is the fact that some key areas such as clean transition or taxonomy, especially core or gas, energy, have not yet been corrected at all. Ladies and gentlemen, it's time for a proper spring cleaning.

There was a great British historian, Arnold Toynbee, who was, in fact on the left, and he developed the concept of challenge and response. Our response is more important than this rhetorical challenge by Trump. Our response should be to develop a stronger part of NATO on European soil, because the organisation is to protect us. So, really, to spend more money on defence, to develop the industrial base and not to make it weaker with your Green Deal.

Mr President, what is happening around Greenland is a really big challenge for all of us. On the one hand, Commissioner Kallas was right when she expressed some understanding for not just the US or our security concerns regarding the future of the Arctic, but also over the idea that Russia or China are going to corrupt the referendum in Greenland. It's a nightmare. However, at the same time, Donald Trump – and I would underline Donald Trump – is pressing Denmark or trying to blackmail our European colleagues when they expressed their solidarity to Denmark by sending the troops there for the military exercises. This way of handling by Trump is absolutely unacceptable and intolerable. We must stay behind Denmark here. We must have a dialogue inside NATO about the legitimate security concern on one hand, and regarding the economic attempts to blackmail, I think Europe is strong enough to exert pressure too and should not be afraid to use it.

Mr President, welcome back from Brazil, Commissioner. Lídia, as the leader of the delegation, spoke Portuguese, so I will speak Czech. Mr President, where are the Danes? They are missing. The Presidency is ashamed of the outcome. Well, we in Bohemia say that they fell like peasants at Chlumec or European like Napoleon at Waterloo. I warned you here. The mandate was Napoleonic arrogant, bad, unrealistic, too ambitious. The Americans are gone and the BRICS, the bricks, that is, Russia, China, India, Brazil, South Africa, have made us ‘good day’. The European Union has done nothing substantial to achieve, nothing about fossil fuels, almost nothing to cut down forests. On the contrary, the European Union has retreated in everything essential that others wanted it to do. We're supposed to pay three times as much to replace lost American money. Yes, you may be applauded by some NGOs – with the exception of Greta, who already has another mission, anti-Semitic, and if she comes back, she would scold you anyway. The whole world's laughing at us. We could laugh, too, but the European taxpayer, who will pay for all this, would not be allowed to cry. We have to change that.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, just as an introduction, listening to the debate today, I think that the key purpose of this legislation is not to fight the United States, but to make European defence stronger, so we should keep this in mind. I think, generally, I welcome the outcome of the trilogue and will vote in favour. It's a good compromise that makes sense. However, on our path to the enhanced industrial base, one serious obstacle is also this House. The Commission defence omnibus is a very good start, thank you very much. But the negotiations on Parliament's position suggest that some groups have not yet moved past their Greta Thunberg fandom. Even worse is the file on accelerating permit-granting for defence readiness. Parliament is overcomplicating matters, as if there were no war in Ukraine. We have to act responsibly: we may have different positions, but we should stand united if our defence is at stake.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, a free, prosperous society is characterised by the fact that it has both entrepreneurs who create its wealth and bureaucrats who regulate, prohibit and, above all, consume that wealth. When others dominate, society becomes poor, it loses competitiveness. And unfortunately, that's exactly what happened to us, despite our warnings. The European Council has already called for simplification virtually everywhere from the automotive industry to military mobility, digital and financial services to the environment and energy. My question is: Where did the comrades go wrong? Why do we need to simplify, correct? Because legislation in the European Union in recent years has been flawed. She was ideologically motivated, creating a rampant bureaucracy, just forbidding and ordering. This unmanaged red-green experiment must end, and today we have a unique opportunity to vote. Keep your head up!

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I will speak Czech today. Lidia Pereira introduced her text here by citing or referring to Roger Scruton. I don't know, dear Lizzie, if you've ever seen each other. I was really friends with Roger. I even hosted him in Prague on a final visit, he had a few weeks left for the rest of his life. And I hate to do this to talk second, but I can assure you one thing, if Roger Scruton reads this text in his coffin today, he'll turn around in that grave. Be sure of that, because the text is wrong. And I guarantee you that the ECR, unless our amendments pass, will in no way support it. Why? First of all, the ambitions, the regulations we're coming up with, the regulations we're supporting, they're just continuing to feed the Chinese monster. After all, even the President of your Commission admits this in a famous letter to the leaders this week because she writes: “Our own policies have contributed to China going up and this should serve as a warning.” But then there is no answer. So the Americans, the Indians, the Russians are laughing at us. The story that Brazilians and Mexicans will charge carbon, that it will be five times cheaper. So just another nail in the coffin of our competitiveness. Calling on the defence sector at a time when war on the left, right, south, east is completely ridiculous. Are they supposed to decarbonize? They're all laughing at us. And finally, who's going to pay for it? Denmark or the Netherlands? With all due respect, you can't do that. France, which today has twice as much debt as the eurozone rules allow? The Americans won't give anything, the Chinese, the developing country, won't give anything. Where's the money going? Yes, the corrupt leaders of the Third World. Ladies and gentlemen, to not be completely negative, thank you for one thing. Finally, after six years, you have acknowledged that the core is a legitimate instrument of decarbonisation, but otherwise misery.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this summer, Luca de Meo made the announcement which tells us everything about where we are. The CEO of Renault – and, in fact, the man who produced the only successful, competitive, small electric automobile – has decided to leave as CEO of Renault to accept an offer from the French luxury industry. That's where we are. No trust. The best manager has no trust in the future of the automotive industry and goes to the domain which is the last competitive one in Europe. We should blame the Commission – and, finally, maybe, you are waking up to the reality. But it's time to act now. This House must be unblocked and be ready to join forces with the Member States to come forward to scrap the 2035 ban and ease the pressure on the industry towards fully fledged technological neutrality. The sooner we do it, the better.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I see two points as critical here. First, instead of just reacting, we must be proactive. Since 2014, we have always been one step behind: too late to provide air defence, too late to allow Ukrainians to hit targets inside Russia. Putin is not a peacemaker but a conqueror, and understands only one language: power. Secondly, it is the national governments that must do their part first, by raising defence budgets, enhancing the industrial base, strengthening civil preparedness. But we cannot overlook the elephant in the room: our economies, our industries, are shrinking under the excessive climate regulations. If we want to succeed, this legislative Moloch must be dramatically cut down.

Mr President, just two years after the most horrific pogrom against Jews since the Second World War, we see the European Jewry once again facing daily abuse, verbal attacks, beatings, even killings. We see activists, including some of our own Members here, sailing alongside those who sponsored Hamas terrorists, supporting their claim to deny Israel's very right to existence in security and peace. I would never have imagined that such a picture could return to our continent. At the very peak of this iceberg of hatred stands Greta Thunberg, a once-celebrated young woman who has already filled this House with her radical green ideology. It is our moral duty to do everything in our power to melt this iceberg of antisemitism down, to eradicate this most ancient and repugnant form of hatred from our societies.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, efforts to draw Vladimir Putin to the negotiation table led nowhere. Our experience proves that Russia understands only one language, and that is power, not the nice talks which we have here. Therefore, we must follow two goals at the same time. Firstly, arming Ukraine and rearming ourselves. With the EU machinery, any project can become a bureaucratic nightmare. We must make the development, production and distribution of weaponry in the EU as simple as possible. Don't forget, our enemy is not environmentally considerate. Secondly, keep the relations with the US. Gigantic fines of Google will not improve our relationship. In this sense, a pragmatic Maroš Šefčovič is doing more sensible work than the ideologue Teresa Ribera.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the European Commission is already globally known as the gravedigger of AI, and I do not mean artificial intelligence: I mean the automotive industry. It is nothing against you, Madam Commissioner, but the proposal was entirely wrong: it set up unrealistic targets, risked higher costs to manufacturers as well as consumers, and threatened basic ownership rights. It is thanks to God and to the European Parliament that, with the effort led by Jens Gieseke and Paulius Saudargas – thank you very much for this – we now have a much more workable outcome. On plastic, instead of the Commission's demand for 25 % in six years, we adopted a phased approach of 20 % within six years which will then be subject to review. Half may come from the pre-consumer waste, with the closed-loop requirement reduced to 15 %. We also defended vehicle owners' rights: Annex 1 was redrafted for this purpose. So yes, some concerns remain – mandatory parts removals, cross-border treatment – but overall this is a clear improvement on the Commission's effort.

Commissioner, your proposal is wrong from start to finish. And I'll say it here in Czech, because almost no one speaks English here anymore. You still bury Europe here in your national languages. Why is he bad? Firstly, the emissions reduction target of 90% for 2040 is unrealistic. It is not defended by any proper impact study, as the Commission’s Regulatory Scrutiny Board has acknowledged. We don't do it technologically, we don't do it financially. Secondly, the legal basis is erroneous. It has a major impact on the energy mixes of the Member States, which are in their exclusive competence, and you cannot change it arbitrarily, violently and by majority. Third, the proposal will definitively wipe out the energy-intensive industry and bury our defenses. What steel will we use to make tanks? Chinese or Turkish? How are we going to keep doing ammo without chemistry? How do we make planes without aluminum? And the gas? Yes, I am glad that we have liberated ourselves from gas from Russia, but your country, the Netherlands, still takes it as one of the largest customers in Europe. And what did you do to stop it? Fourth, the proposals for flexibility are just green colonialism, because it will help rich countries like the Netherlands or Germany, big multinational corporations, and poor countries and small businesses will pay for it. Fifthly, blackouts in Spain and the Czech Republic show where this ideological-dominated policy will one day lead us – poverty, anarchy and chaos. So nothing forces us to accept the law now, just ambitions to lead the world when America and China laugh at us. It's best if you take it and pull it back.

Madam President, dear friends, war is at our door. We all know it, and if we strive for peace – and I certainly do – we won't wish it into existence by nice speeches, but we must work hard for it. Trump's America may not always treat us kindly, but those are the rules of the game now, and we would better learn to play accordingly. NATO remains by far our best chance to defend ourselves. The upcoming NATO summit in The Hague is an excellent opportunity to prove to our transatlantic ally that we mean it seriously. The EU is not a military project. Its fundamental aim has always been the peaceful cooperation of nations, but peace without strength is an illusion. The freedom and prosperity achieved after our forefathers fought so hard will vanish in an instant if we refuse to defend them. Higher defence expenditure will of course cost us something, but in comparison to Ukraine as a wasteland left behind by the Russian aggressive behaviour, the 5 % of GDP is the price we dare to pay. I see two killers of EU defence: the bogeyman of European bureaucracy and the green over-regulation that sucks our limited resources. The former must be thrown away for good. The latter must be radically reworked. This would certainly require a mental shift, which we must undergo. And if we miss this opportunity, then we will lose everything.

Mr President, the debate about cutting ties with Israel is, quite frankly, absurd. Until now, the European Union has had just a little influence on events in the Middle East, if I do not count the money to Hamas misused for terrorist attacks. If we proceed with reviewing the EU-Israel Association Agreement, we risk losing the last remnant of respect we hold with our Israeli partner. Let's not forget the real threat in the region – the Iranian nuclear ambitions. According to the IAEA, Tehran has stockpiled over 400 kg of highly-enriched uranium. Is there anybody in this Chamber who really believes that it's for peaceful purposes? The EU's diplomatic efforts have led nowhere. Israel acted reasonably and the German Chancellor could not have said it better today – that he's doing a dirty job on our behalf.

Mr President, I will start on a positive note: the changes proposed by the Commission remove unnecessary bureaucratic burdens, especially for SMEs. In this regard, the Commission has reacted appropriately and deserves recognition. Now to the concerns. Firstly, the transition period has revealed numerous weaknesses, many of which remain unaddressed. CBAM, a bureaucratic monster, is simply not ready. Access to the emission data – the crucial element for calculating how much importers will have to pay – is often limited and difficult to verify. In many cases, we have no reliable way to confirm whether Indian or Chinese importers are providing accurate information. Secondly, the phase‑out of the ETS free allowances as part of the implementation of CBAM is putting entire industries in serious jeopardy. The transition period clearly demonstrates we don't fully understand the consequences of this regulation. After all, it is the first of this kind. Until CBAM proves it can work without harming our industries, those allowances must stay in place or be replaced with adequate compensation. European producers still lack expert solutions. Burdened with high environmental and social compliance costs, they are increasingly unable to compete in the global markets. I trust the Commission recognises these issues and will present a comprehensive proposal as soon as possible.

Madam President, listening to the debate, one can have the impression that water is a major battleground in the Spanish politics. But seriously now, firstly, I appreciate that the ENVI text on water resilience shifts the emphasis from exclusively nature-based solution to also recognising the technological and grey infrastructure, placing them on the equal footing. To put it bluntly, dams are essential for effective water management, regardless of what some of our green friends may claim. Secondly, PFAS level in the groundwater and surface water are indeed a concern. However, let's pursue a phased-out approach where viable alternative exist. And finally, please bear in mind that the water policy falls under the Member State competence. While coordinating at the Union level can be beneficial, let us not repeat the past mistake in over-regulating also this area.