What Mikuláš spoke about.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we need to talk about refugees. First of all, I would like to thank all those who actively help, all those who drive people, provide food, help refugees with orientation in a new environment, or make their apartments available according to their capabilities. And here I see a huge upsurge in civil society and interpersonal solidarity. But I am standing here as a person from a country that failed in the last wave of refugees, because at that time the Czech Republic refused to help, it was afraid of people driven out of their homes by war, and our society was choking on hatred. Now the situation is different and the dedication of ordinary Czechs is huge and I believe that we can do it, but we can't do it alone. I would like to ask you, and now I am addressing my colleagues from Parliament, from the Council and from the Commission. Please consider the broadest possible support for those states that seek to provide assistance and facilities to those fleeing their homes in war. We do this primarily for them. Thank you all very much and the glory of Ukraine.

Madam President, dear colleagues, I would like to ask you: no more excuses. Today, the European Court of Justice ruling finally gives a green light to the Commission to use the conditionality mechanism and enforce the rule of law in Europe. European funds should never be used to undermine the independence and impartiality of the judicial system or the prevention of conflicts of interest, or to suppress freedom of expression and media pluralism. These are the bases of our democratic Union and should be not endangered. The Hungarian and Polish governments are now reminded that the rule of law applies to everyone and should be the main prerequisite to get the access to public money. Orbán and Morawiecki’s efforts to delay the democratic process have only made it worse. That’s why the Commission should trigger the mechanism without any delay. Oligarchs and subsidy fraudsters have no place in Europe.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I will try to be brief. I think we're going to do quite a stupid thing because we want to spoil the great proposal we have with such petty nonsense. It is great that we are tackling common action against cancer at European level. It's an insidious disease, it attacks everyone indiscriminately, and that research solution is very expensive, and it's hard to do at the national level. And it is with this joint research that we show that European cooperation makes sense, because it simply shifts the knowledge not only of Europe, but also of humanity as a whole. Unfortunately, here, just in the right way of thinking about prioritizing, coordinating and solving those real problems, someone has decided that they will still start banning harmful things. I absolutely acknowledge that there is a correlation between cigarette smoking and cancer, this is a well-known fact and the risk that every smoker takes on the moment he smokes a cigarette. That is why these tobacco products are also subject to the appropriate tax, and I am certainly very much in favour of informing people about the consequences of their actions and informing them that this can have very unpleasant consequences for them. I am in favour of translating these consequences into the price of the tobacco products concerned. But, unfortunately, in the heat of trying to save people, we've gotten into a situation where we're doing something that we shouldn't do, and that's forbidden. I just don't think this Union should focus all its power on that little common man who actually does nothing but want to have a cigarette. If he wants to do it at his own risk, please let him do it. I see no reason to forbid him. Oh, thank you.

Mr President, we stand at the height of what could have been one of the greatest European achievements. After intense work, we have managed to create a set of rules that gives us the interoperability, a more open digital market, better choices for users and less power for the tech giants. I’m also proud of the critical changes regarding transparency, as platforms are now obliged to provide explanations and clearer labels or changes in their terms and use, and their display. Parliament, and I am happy to hear this as a member of Pirate Party, has learned from the protests against the Copyright Directive, ruling out new filtering and monitoring obligations on our content and personal communication. However, instead of banning upload filters, we only got vague promises. The text could also have further limited the collection of personal data in ads, which fuels the ugly economy of surveillance capitalism. But the main problem from my point of view are the cross—border removal orders, which could lead to the deletion of fully legal content in one country just based on a decision taken in another one. This is particularly dangerous in the current rule-of-law crisis, where some of the Member States are backsliding towards authoritarianism. Giving the tools to diminish freedom of expression is unacceptable, and it will definitely not help us to create a smoother Digital Single Market. We need the Digital Services Act, but not at all costs, and especially not at the cost of giving dictators better whips. So I’m looking forward to further discussion on this issue between the Member States and a Parliament. Thank you very much, and looking forward to further comments on this issue.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is time to change course. I fully understand that the RRF was intended as such a hotfix for the COVID-19 situation. Just a quick cure to ensure confidence in our European future. But now we should also think about how the money is going to be used. Because some of those national plans submitted by Member States that are still under review are being reviewed for rule of law issues. Others have been approved, but when I look, for example, at the Czech plan, I have to say that it is more or less a combination of old projects, without there being enough ambition or long-term planning. And here I think the Commission should be stricter. We clearly need to increase our ambition under the RRF, we just need plans that solve people's real problems and that allow us to make truly sustainable investments. We need better digitalisation, better transparency and consistent budgetary control, because bad investments will deprive us of much-needed finance, but also, most importantly, they will distort market conditions and increase corruption and, in general, they will simply damage the legal environment in Europe, and we do not want that.

Mr President, the rule of law in Slovenia is unfortunately deteriorating quite rapidly. But as the only Member representing the Budgetary Control Committee during our mission to Slovenia, I have to admit that I observed something I would call grassroots-level corruption. There is a big lack of competition in the country due to its size, and more than 90% of public procurements are won by local companies. For example, one single company can win most of the construction contracts as it is very much connected to the establishment. I am afraid we should strive for a more open, transparent and integrated EU single market on public procurement. I also witnessed a very high level of pressure on the independence of different state institutions and civil society organisations. The government is cutting funds, initiating intimidation lawsuits and verbally attacking anyone who dares to investigate or criticise its actions. One example of good journalism is the Slovenian press agency, which unfortunately relies almost exclusively on governmental funding.

Mr President, this is not a proposal that would fill the headlines of newspapers, but this is a proposal that clearly shows the potential for European cooperation. This is also a bit more personal file for me because before coming into politics, I also worked in a metrology institution, and I would like to use this opportunity to say thanks to all that work in this essential, although little-discussed, area. First, I’m very glad how this proposal went. We got more openness in how we use the results of scientific work. There is still a very, very long way to go towards really open science, but this is a good sign. At the same time, distribution of costs seems to be logical: with the EU paying for the research and the projects and the Member States covering the administrative costs. This European level of cooperation is, in my eyes, made even better by increased European oversight and more inclusion of scientists in it. The speed with which this file was prepared so it could start working for a better future is also commendable, and I thank my colleagues for it. This will be especially helpful for the smaller Member States, where the resources for development in the field are hard to come by.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as we have seen in the case , people with money and influence still manage to circumvent European anti-money laundering rules and, with various dubious maneuvers, buy secret castles in France and so on. It is not acceptable for government officials to deceive citizens with hidden dirty money deposited in the Caribbean and at the same time, perhaps because of their status, to remove more and more countries from the list of tax havens within the Council. We urgently need to review the European Union's anti-money laundering legislation to make it work better. Laws can only work if people respect them. I am deeply concerned that, for example, for four years the Czech government has successfully avoided transposing the European directive, including those parts on ownership and identity or on access to information, because here it really seems to me that the Czech government is behaving according to the saying that ‘whoever does not steal, steals from the family’. So I very much appreciate the Commission's proposal to make the existing provisions, which are voluntary, mandatory and to establish a European Union Anti-Money Laundering Office to ensure transparency. But unfortunately, we're going to have to do a lot more than we've done so far.

Prime Minister, you are pretending that European law is incompatible with the Polish Constitution. However, European law protects Polish citizens in the same way as all other European citizens. I recall this because both our nations have decided to return to Europe because we share a common history and democratic values. What can you tell me about the 88% of Polish citizens who are in favour of Poland remaining in the European Union? Last week, mass protests took place in Poland, where hundreds of thousands of people gathered to express their disagreement with your attacks on the Polish judicial system and on European courts. What do the fundamental rights of Polish citizens, including women, minorities, the LGBT community, which you ruthlessly deny, do? What about the rights of citizens in your neighborhood, typically the rights of Czechs whose drinking water they steal? What do you do to your judges that they are afraid of treason charges whenever they decide against your interests? This is not extortion when I ask you to respect the fundamental principles of equal justice for all. Because you can hardly ask for EUR 57 billion from the European budget and at the same time no legal control over that money. You just imagine that the wolf eats and the goat stays whole.

Madam President, I would first of all like to thank the journalists for their courageous work, because thanks to the Pandora Papers we now see that it was precisely those people who were supposed to oversee tax rules who exploited loopholes in the system, both dictators and top European politicians here. So here we see why some politicians cared so little about making these things transparent and fair. I will not be polite, I would like to say some names, specifically Andrej Babiš decided on European financial regulations, first as the Czech Minister of Finance and then as the Czech Prime Minister. And all this time he was not only in a conflict of interest as the owner of Agrofert, but he also abused tax havens, thanks to which he bought several castles in France. So what's next: First of all, we need to comply with the existing rules that are currently against money laundering, and we need to improve them so that this does not happen anymore. But most importantly, we need to improve the decision-making structure that we have, because otherwise it won't happen. Today, every member state can veto legislation against tax havens. So it is finally time to end the decision-making by unanimity on these issues and decide by qualified majority in Europe, because there will always be a Babiš at the table who will veto it for his personal benefit.

Mr President, even if it may not seem so at first glance, the common procurement of vaccines was definitely one of the historical moments of the European Union. As was mentioned in the State of the Union speech yesterday, we have managed to vaccinate most European citizens. This is certainly a big success, but it is a success that stands on a series of scandals, failures and a general lack of transparency. This has not only cost us public money, but also faith in the European project, which is a key factor in the challenge of convincing many European to get themselves vaccinated. Lives are at stake, and we need to brace against the coming COVID wave, which will come this autumn, including by ensuring that procedures are as transparent as possible, that there are no backroom deals, and that every single one of us can clearly understand the terms and conditions of the vaccine contracts that are purchased. Based on this, I would like to ask a few questions. First of all, when will we have vaccine contracts fully released, and in what format? How are we finally going to get the full machinery label contracts without redacted parts? Secondly, what extra steps is the Commission taking to explain the details of these contracts to the Parliament and to the general public? I believe that, after such a long time, just releasing them is not enough. To gain the trust of the public, what kind of effort will the Commission make to ensure that the context of the negotiation is clear, that the language used, as well as its impact, is understandable and presented in a simple and approachable way? Certainly, based on this clear public and Parliamentary interest in making the contracts transparent, which specific steps need to be taken to change the existing Commission policies concerning health care? There will be more vaccines to buy in the future, and there will be new challenges arising. To really get the most out of the unfortunate situation, I really do think we need to be able to honestly answer these questions, so we need to be able to learn more from our unfortunate mistake.

Madam President, I am glad that at least partially, we have learned from the COVID-19 crisis and strengthened the critical European Medicines Agency (EMA). And what I would especially like to underline as a very positive development is a better protection of sensitive personal health data. A European medicines supply database and transparency obligations requiring the publication of clinical tests, boosting both confidence in the system and our general research, is a great improvement. However, I feel that especially after everything that has been unveiled by the tragic health crisis, we are still in this powerful war. The EMA has demonstrated great speed, reliability and scientific excellence. We need to explore what more it can do, and empower the Agency to provide the best possible research and control, deeper cooperation with both national agencies and top research centres across Europe. We have seen a campaign against the EMA led by Moscow with the help of their puppets, including Prime Ministers Orbán, Janša, Babiš, or Matovič, using the Sputnik vaccine as a dangerous tool. So, we should not ask what the EMA can do for us, but what we can do for the EMA and related agencies. And I still think that there is room for improvement.