Speeches

Mr President, the dynamism, openness and highly skilled workforce of the US economy are some of America's greatest strengths. But President Trump's tariff drive and protectionism risk undermining these very foundations. After the Second World War, free trade helped rebuild Europe, lifting millions into prosperity and ensuring long-term peace and stability. That legacy must be defended. The European Union must champion free trade as a source of growth and resilience. We cannot afford to fall into the trap of rising protectionist sentiment. I am encouraged that the European Commission remains committed to the trade agreements. The path ahead is clear: we need more pragmatism, less green regulation and taxation, and to promote openness as much as we can.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, in my opinion, the proposal we have received is not enough – with all due respect. It spells decarbonization, but it doesn't work globally. China and India are laughing at us. Donald Trump will show us again this afternoon, you know what. We need to cut energy prices immediately, otherwise the industry is finished. There are two ways to do that. Firstly, swiftly with a legislative proposal, the reform of the ETS. We have put forward our proposals, now the point is to approve them. Secondly, true technological neutrality with certainty for investors. We need gas, we need nuclear. To date, Vice-President Riber has not responded to what she wants to do to put nuclear on a par with renewables. So, ladies and gentlemen, we must act, otherwise it is the funeral of European industry, over which Khrushchev's motto will hover: “They meant well, but it turned out as usual.”

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Radio Free Europe is part of our history, but also of my personal life. From his radio waves in the communist regime, the wider Czech public could learn about the activities of opponents of the communist regime and the imprisonment of us dissidents. But not just that. In July 1989, I smuggled a recording of the legendary tragicomic speech of the last leader of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, Miloš Jakeš, who not only mistook boilers and broilers for a party meeting, but also admitted ingenuously: ‘Comrades, we are alone as a stake in a fence’. Free Europe then broadcast it every day, fulfilling not only its mission of spreading freedom, but also helping regime change. Today, the circumstances are different, but it still helps spread information in Iran, Russia, Belarus. Let us be open to the possibility of funding from the European Union as well, and let us find a consensus on what this support should look like. It'll be good if we can do it.

Madam President, I will speak Czech because, for my country, the European Commission's policy towards the car industry is a disaster. For five years, I have been criticizing the way that the European Commission has forcefully imposed on us, the way of prohibitions, orders and senseless regulations and subsidies, a way that is contrary to the wishes of customers and to economic reality, is the way to disaster. This catastrophe is happening now. This is the fattening of China and Elon Musk for the money of European taxpayers. The Commission is already aware of this and is beginning to correct what it has forced us to do. Fine, but it's not enough. What's going on now is three things. Firstly, spreading the fines over three years is not enough, we need more. At least five years. Second, the one-sided fixation on electromobility must end. There is a need for truly technological neutrality, including internal combustion engines powered by synthetic fuels and other tools. And thirdly, review 2025 is fine, but you don't deal with trucks at all. We have to do far, far more.

Madam President, European security is under immense strain. Panic and reactionary statements, especially on social media, only make matters worse. We must stay clear-eyed and strategically focused. European nations must recognise reality. The burden of defence now rests mostly on our own shoulders. We see clearly the signs of this shift. Governments are waking up. I am keeping my fingers crossed for Chancellor-elect Merz to find the financial resources for much-needed security enforcement. We must act swiftly. Our defence industries need a framework that enables them to deliver, both through cooperation and national initiatives. That means cutting bureaucracy, simplifying the processes, providing real financial access and bringing energy prices down. We cannot have both an overambitious green transition and a fully capable military. Resources are finite. Europe must decide what it values most.

Madam President, we must be interested in the US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement for one reason only: to reflect on our own course. Let me tell you, the one which we take is not the right one. The radical decarbonisation is not a religion we must adhere to at any cost. It makes no economic sense to continue on this path alone. China does not care about our approach, just to its own advantage. India and Türkiye are the same. The US has made a huge U-turn. Argentina and Indonesia will most likely follow. The EU must undergo painful self‑assessment and admit that we are on the wrong track. The Green Deal needs a deep reform. It is not a growth strategy. It is costly, self-inflicted policy resulting in economic poverty and mistrust in politics. Hopefully, with this omnibus the Commission has begun taking steps in the right direction. So let's energise ourselves to use this as an opportunity and to do much more.

Madam President, we are saying nothing new when we call for a more proactive, more assertive approach to European defence. The message from across the Atlantic is crystal clear: take greater responsibility for your own safety. We can set aside the debate about the percentage of the GDP dedicated to defence spending, because it would be the subject of the talks in NATO, but higher spending is inevitable. 2% is not enough. The days of economic prosperity without military power are over. My serious concern is this: are we ready to adjust our economy? The world is changing, and so far, I have not noticed any significant shift in the Europe scores. Member States will need to invest more in European defence, more in cybersecurity, and reform our military for 21st‑century combat. This would send a strong signal to both sides of the Atlantic, to friends as well as adversaries. Europe's wealth has a military dimension.

Mr President, we must take the new administration – our key ally – seriously. The executive orders signed, the policy changes announced. They are not mere formalities. They mark the beginning of the new era. I raised the questions during the hearings, and I will raise it again because no clear answer has been provided. What is our plan B to the Green Deal? How does the Commission intend to ensure the EU, with the stagnating economy, collapsing Industry and insufficient defence policy, will not find itself isolated in this rapidly changing world? What measures will the Commission take to avoid the trade wars with the United States? Where is the Council plan to engage with Donald Trump? We are entering an era where economic might and military power will dictate the terms of the global relevance. Soft power is not enough. Will we rise to the occasion or will we fade into the irrelevance? This is the question of the day.

Mr President, Commissioner Ribera, you should listen to us, not discuss here. Please stop killing the European automotive industry. Please stop killing the nuclear energy here. Stop discriminating against nuclear energy. The chief economist of the EBRD said people tend to think about industrial policy as 'picking winners, but it's equally important to let losers go'. This statement underlines the deeper problem with our current debate about the Green Deal. Winners and losers are a natural part of the industrial life cycle in a market economy. My issue is that the Green Deal is not market-driven. It is a political mandate imposed on industries and it significantly disrupts the free market economy. Commissioners claim they listen to industries. I honestly wonder which ones. Industries plead for more time, more flexibility and less bureaucracy. As a convinced advocate of the free market economy, I fully understand them. Industries are not our enemies. They represent the pillar of our welfare. To speak about winners and losers in this sense is cynical, because it is the Fit for 55 package which created a value set of regulations and conditions, and frankly, some of them are unrealistic, overambitious and ideological. So they need urgently to be reassessed and corrected.

Mr President, let me start by commending the High Representative's statement calling for stability and territorial integrity in Syria. Indeed, it is in our interest to see a stable Syrian Government that brings an end to the civil war and halts the migration wave to Europe. While the EU – I would say rightly – is not engaged militarily in Syria, our diplomacy must work to prevent the new government from forming alliances with the Iranian regime. Iran, along with its proxies, is becoming notably weaker, which is a positive development for the region. And for the Syrian Government to distance itself from any collaboration with terrorist organisations would be a critical test to achieving a stable Middle East. Finally, religious and ethnic minorities in the region, like Yazidis, Kurds and Syriacs, have faced terrible persecution in the past. The EU must therefore ensure that any serious recognition of the new Syrian Government is contingent upon rigorous respect for the rights and protection of those minorities.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it was here that the President was ‘hugged’ for visiting Israel. No, I thank her wholeheartedly for expressing solidarity on behalf of Europe. Nor am I adding to the brutal ‘hoofing’ from the left or from some to the very right, that is not my style. On the other hand, times have changed. Completely different, much harder times await us, elections in America, deglobalization, trade wars, power real politics all over the world. And, of course, thanks for Draghi's report, the analysis where we are is excellent. But I must say that the hearings we've been hearing here have not filled me with much confidence that some people in decision-making positions are, so to speak, up to the job. But what fills me with hope is that there is a slightly different balance of power than it was five years ago. So we're going to have the opportunity to actually fix some things so that we don't lose competitiveness and stand up in the world.

Madam President, the decisive victory of Donald Trump is a reality, and with a majority on the Hill, he will restore the strong leadership in the White House. So, what should we do? Firstly, we must invest much more into our security and defence to gain the respect in Washington to keep NATO alive. Secondly, with Trump's departure from the Paris Treaty, we must prefer realism over the green ideology and correct the Green Deal to get our economies back on track. And thirdly, a real problem is Trump's mercantilism. Therefore, enormous responsibility would be on the new European Commission. It must engage immediately with Washington to avoid escalation into trade wars that would seriously harm our businesses. Here are three keys to a new transatlantic agenda. Let's not screw this up again.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, what we are witnessing now is not a transformation of the automotive industry in Europe. It's his controlled liquidation, liquidation under the banner of Green Deal under the auspices of the European Commission. Producers are fleeing expensive energy and insane regulations to America, China and India. Millions of employees are and will be on the cobblestones. The tariffs will not help here, they will only make everything more expensive, there is no money for social transfers and there will be no money. If something doesn't work, we have to change it. We must revise without delay Green Deal. We need to quickly postpone the fines, which are supposed to start next year and are literally liquidating for the automotive industry. We must lift the ban on internal combustion engines and allow for competitive solutions based on technological neutrality. This is the only way that can enable the car industry here in Europe to survive.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the situation is not escalating now, it escalated a year ago, when Hamas brutally attacked Israel and Hezbollah helped it to do so. Both Hamas and Hezbollah are terrorist organizations with which there is no point in negotiating. We have to stand with Israel in this civilisational conflict. And what I hear here – yes, it is a mixture of naivety, a constant call for a ceasefire that no one listens to, or fear of those who have migrated to Europe in recent decades and are outspoken anti-Semites, or even hatred of Israel. I am glad that my country's government has blocked the defeatist statement that was proposed here by Mr Borrell, and we stand and should stand unequivocally behind Israel in this. And if we are dominated by fear, naivety or even hatred of Israel, then there is an amen with us.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the amount of rainfall that has fallen in Central Europe over the last few days has been truly extreme. And most, by far, most of them have fallen in my country. So it justifies me, I think, making three remarks here. First of all, the damage will be enormous. They go into tens, hundreds of billions of crowns. The European Union is, of course, based on a principle of solidarity, and we will, of course, welcome any help in rescuing and restoring it. Second, the lesson. The key word is adaptation, and here I agree. Instead of spending frenzied money on frenzied mitigation that yields no immediate results, adaptation is important. We have made a big step forward. Meteorological forecasts, crisis management and everything else. In fact, three victims so far, against about fifty or sixty in the two previous floods. So yes, adaptation. And thirdly, this has already been said. The greatest damage was in Opava and Krnov, and hydrologists clearly proved that if the dam stood, these cities were protected. The dam is not standing because green groups like the Rainbow Movement have prevented it for years. And we support them here with money. So we should also introduce the principle that if they prevent something and then it has billions of dollars of damage, they will bear the consequences, because every policy has its consequences.

Madam President, Mario Draghi's report is strong in naming the problems here. I'm applauding. But it fails in offering a workable solution. EUR 800 billion per year in the form of a joint EU debt demonstrates more a political instinct of a socialist than any political realism, which Europe needs so much. Let us therefore start where we can change right now in this House. First, overregulation. EU regulation, kills innovation, drives our industries and scares capital out of our continent. Secondly, the cost of living, the prices of energy two times or three times higher than in comparable economies are a silent killer of family budgets and big enterprises as well. Therefore, the climate policy must be reformed so that they do better reflect the economic reality.

Mr President, I remember vividly how Frans Timmermans told us passionately that the Green Deal was the Bible before he went home for the election defeat. It isn't. It's just a political concept that evolves, corrects, adapts to reality. The results of Frans' missionary work are poor. The Americans innovate, the Chinese produce, and we only pay for it in Europe. More and more people are realizing that it can't go on like this. Green Deal it needs to be reconciled with reality, economic opportunities and social viability. Labeling critics as the far right or even blaming Putin for it is really intellectually lazy. And adoring those who stick to roads or destroy paintings in galleries is completely out of the question. I believe that the next Parliament will respect reality more than this one and that, of course, strengthening the realistic right will also contribute to this at the expense of the green and ideological left.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I think it is very good that, in the Union, after the crises of previous years, we are dealing with the system design of the electricity market. By doing so, we strengthen the stability and predictability of energy costs while protecting consumers, both citizens and businesses. Electricity prices will be less dependent on fossil fuel prices. States will have more options to intervene in times of crisis without compromising market stability. At the same time, and most importantly, during the trilogue, the greatest green nonsense fell out of the regulation, and it also respects the principle of technological neutrality. This also means for us in the Czech Republic that we will build our energy mix according to our needs and not according to who dreamed it in various green wet dreams. The nuclear renaissance is here. This is the most important report I am taking away from the electricity market review, which is why I will vote in favour of both reports.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much. It was very interesting debate. Just I noticed there were three different areas of remarks. One deals with the healthcare and the impact on the health in the cities, that this proposal, which we modified from the original proposal by the Commission, does not contribute to improving of the air quality. And that’s not true, because it introduced the stricter NOx limit for the buses and heavier cars. And this is the largest source of the problem. On the contrary, if we accept the original proposal, it would have even paradoxically devastating impact on the environment and the air quality, because the poor people, who would not have enough money to purchase new electric cars, and the automotive industry would squeeze out from the fleets the combustion cars already now, then this famous Havana effect will show up. Second remarks relates to the issue of technological neutrality, synthetic fuels, etc. Yes, I was in favour of including this, but simply there was a matter of fact that in this building there was not a majority for this. And even we had not the majority in the Council. So if you ask me as the rapporteur, I would wish to include this because I’m in favour of developing the combustion cars further with synthetic fuels and following the path of the technological neutrality. But to complete the job, we need a different Parliament. So let me conclude again that, despite all those doubts, I urge you to vote in favour of this, because this is the reasonable compromise which guarantees the balance between the environment and the interest of the industry, as well as the interest of the customers.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, today’s vote is an important milestone for the automotive sector, an industry that has always stood as a pillar of innovation and economic prosperity in Europe. Almost 17 months ago, the Commission published its original proposal. In short, it sets the common standard for approving motor vehicles, engines and related systems, components and technical units, but unlike the earlier EU regulations, covers light duty cars, vans and heavy duty trucks and buses, all within a single legal framework. Its purpose was to streamline the rules governing vehicle emissions, tighten requirements on the tailpipe pollutants and, for the first time, add rules that will also affect electric cars, for example on the brake oppression and on tyres that release microplastics, as well as requirements concerning battery durability. I ordinarily welcome efforts to improve the legislation. However, as a parliamentary rapporteur, I strongly oppose the Commission’s initial draft. My main concern was the potential impact both on industry and customers. The Commission-proposed changes, particularly to vehicle testing requirements, would increase manufacturing costs and raise prices for small budget cars, which are essential for working people and rural communities. Higher prices would result in the market withdrawal of specific models and potentially in a ‘Havana effect’. This could lead to people postponing new purchases or only buying second-hand vehicles, and would be disastrous for everyday consumers and the automotive sector. It would also paradoxically redirect investment away from electrification. For that reason, it was crucial to find a good balance between the environmental growth and manufacturer and social interest. This was largely achieved with the adoption of Parliament’s first reading mandate, following constructive and fruitful negotiations with the EPP, Renew, ECR and ID groups. Thankfully, the Council shared my concern and adopted a negotiating position close to that of Parliament. An agreement was reached at the end of the Spanish Presidency – a deal that, in my opinion, represents a fair, reasonable compromise. For passenger cars and vans, it maintains the Euro 6 exhaust limits for buses and trucks, and introduced the stricter NOx emission limits, a key pollutant affecting air quality in towns and cities. Crucially, however, Parliament and the Council recognise excessive costs that would be imposed on the sector if the existing testing conditions for vehicles were revised, as originally specified by the Commission. Therefore, the testing parameters for light and heavy duty vehicles are unchanged from the Euro 6. The deal sets brake particle emission limits for cars and vans, and introduced the tyre abrasion limits in line with international adopted standards by the UN. It also sets the minimum performance requirements for batteries. The deal contains stricter lifetime standards up to 200 000 km/10 years, guaranteeing the better result, return of investment. Importantly, it also includes the phased implementation plan, providing the sector with credible and cost-effective lead-in times. I believe that the interinstitutional agreement we have reached is a triumph of common sense over the entrenched ideology, and I urge you, my fellow parliamentarians, to support this deal.

Madam President, the most pressing challenge of our time is to contain the Russian aggression and to provide, immediately, more military help to Ukraine. We do not need more empty promises, but concrete deeds. We must deliver more guns. At home, we do not need new uniforms, we do not need to build a European army to compete with NATO and we do not need a never-ending debate about extending the QMV. But we urgently need to generate more resources for our defences and we terribly need to modernise our obsolete armed forces. It’s the way to make Europe stronger, and stronger NATO, to contain Russia and deter it. The entry of Sweden into NATO is certainly a great move in the right direction.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this European Ukraine Facility is a very important instrument and we should support it, because it helps Ukraine economically to survive. We should take also in our minds one fact: that it’s not enough. We need to support more in the other area which is vitally important, not just for the security and defence of Ukraine, but for the security and defence of all of us, and that’s our support in delivering what we have promised, but where we are lagging behind – and that’s supporting arms deliveries, in the guns. Yes, yesterday there was an important meeting in Paris, and I would love to thank those who invited the European leaders, like President Macron, and those who actively participated and brought the new initiative into the game, like my own Czech Government. But it’s not about the declaration, it’s about the deeds – and we should do more in the area of our military support.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, at a time of peasant upheavals over Europe, the Commission is coming up with another plan, the main criterion of which is unrealistically high ambition. But the main problem with this climate plan for 2040 is completely different. It is an effort to impose a different lifestyle on people, to limit their freedom of choice. Have you, ladies and gentlemen, brought this to the attention of the electorate? Did you openly come forward with a plan for what their lives would look like if we were really consistent? Have you told farmers and people that after energy, transportation, housing, we are going to make meat, milk and other basic foods more expensive? I don't think so. According to the evolution of political preferences, voters are shocked by the effects of your earlier ideas. I don't know where else you want to go and you plan to spy on their stamina, but I consider it a gamble to put forward such a draconian proposal before the elections without knowing its real socio-economic implications.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, you know that I often criticise here, but now I will praise. The news is very good. It rightly calls on the European Union to make far greater use of the potential of geothermal energy, which has one huge advantage. It is a stable renewable resource that does not depend on the weather. The earth releases heat and energy all the time. And not just that. Even those systems are able to function to store excess energy from those other renewable sources. I myself have lived for several years in a town in northwest Bohemia, in Litoměřice, which is a pioneer in efforts to use geothermal energy in our country. Ten years ago, universities, the city, with the support of the state, made experimental drilling, and now, thanks to the support from the Just Transition Fund, we are starting the corresponding investment, which will basically heat the entire city, more than twenty-five thousand people, with this system. This is a step in the right direction.