Speeches

The presentation of the new European Commission and its programme is a key moment for the future of the Union. This is the time to learn from the mistakes of the last legislature and take action to repair the European economy. Unfortunately, the erroneous decisions taken by the von der Leyen Commission, especially those related to the Green Deal and Fit for 55, have contributed to the loss of EU competitiveness vis-à-vis global rivals. The Draghi report makes it clear that energy costs in Europe are among the highest in the world, which weakens our industry. The Green Deal, although it may have had noble objectives, was implemented too quickly and without taking into account the real economic consequences. As a result, citizens pay higher bills and European companies lose out in global competition. The new Commission must change course. We need a realistic climate policy that does not damage our economy and effective protection of farmers' interests, including the rejection of the Mercosur agreement. It is also crucial to listen to the voices of citizens who have expressed their expectation for change in the last elections. We cannot support a programme in which harmful policies continue. I call on the Commission to take responsibility and reform.

Madam President, the reasons for this resolution come from petitions submitted by entrepreneurs in Poland. This is the resolution warning about companies from China, for example, buying companies in the EU, and then using them for unfair competition. We know they use cheap and unhealthy materials in production. That is why we must strongly protect fair companies in the EU. Therefore, let us support fair producers and protect consumers. This is what this resolution is about.

Mr President, thank you very much. Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. We are concerned about the situation of the European Union and believe that the document we are discussing is not a strategy, it is rather a wish list. We need to answer simple questions: What works in the EU today and what doesn't? What should be limited? Where do we have the duplication of competences and what should remain in the competence of the European Union, and what should remain in the competence of the nation states, the Member States? There is not enough about savings in this document, because today the situation is completely different than 7 years ago. We are not talking enough about savings, and our voters are waiting for us to show the savings that the European Union should really take care of. Our new own resources are a source of concern. This means further fiscalisation of the European Union. Do we have a mandate for that? No, I don't. Thus, the tax union – this idea – is implemented in this document. We don't like it. The report broadens the notion of European added value and the Union budget should focus on what really is common – security, agriculture, competitiveness, infrastructure, support for regions. There is not enough about it in this document. Finally, before we increase global ambition, let us take care of the fundamental things in the European Union: secure borders, economy, technological development, competitiveness, cohesion. So we need less illusion and more discipline, less centralization and more subsidiarity. The Union budget must remain an investment tool and not a mechanism for uncontrolled increases in expenditure and competences. Question to the Commissioner: Where are the funds for the European Globalisation Fund? Unfortunately, we are currently dealing with the bankruptcy of companies in the European Union. Almost every month we vote in the European Union on aid for individual countries. Is it somewhere in the budget? This is my question, it is a positive one, because I would like to share it with my constituents.

Mr President, thank you very much. This is a serious debate and I want to make it clear that the fact that the UK, the Netherlands, Sweden have already introduced serious restrictions on use is a very good direction. In fact, we are talking, on the one hand, about a kind of drug, because it is a drug used in anaesthesia, but we are also talking about the fact that it is a drug, ladies and gentlemen, that it is a chemical, an undesirable substance, which for some reason appears on the market in unlimited quantities. Well, here's the question: Who causes the excess of this substance on the market, who sells, who earns? That's the question. And let's also look at one more issue, the use of chemicals in the kitchen, in gastronomy. Because if this agent is used in gastronomy, it is also bad. Well, in Poland, even last month, the first batch of meat from South America came and contaminated meat from South America was found, because it used an unauthorized chemical agent. So let's look at these chemicals as a whole. And this problem, that there is too much on the market of this substance, must actually be reduced.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. Oh, Mrs. Spokesperson! Despite the diversity of expressions, I thank you very much for all your positions, for all your opinions, for all the interventions that you have addressed to the Ombudsman and to the Committee on Petitions. We are the European Union, we are a beautiful organization consisting of very diverse nations and history. But these problems that affect you, as well as the Committee on Petitions, also reflect the great problem we are facing at the moment. We have a problem with a complicated situation that causes different positions. Nevertheless, the future of the European Union depends on how the institutions of the European Union respect each other and partner with each other. The Ombudsman and the Committee on Petitions are places that bring all people together. It is a bridge between the average resident of the European Union and these institutions of the European Union. And respect for the Ombudsman as a person, as well as for the institutions, can bring about a better quality of work for the European Union and for this important, great project for all of us. I wish the Ombudsman all the best. I hope that everyone, in their own conscience, will decide today, during the vote, how to assess this report, which is not the end of the world, but the beginning, I hope, of a better path.

Madam President, I'm sorry. The ombudsman! Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. I would like to begin by providing a brief procedural explanation. Well, after the vote in the Committee on Petitions, the original rapporteur of this report decided to withdraw from this function. Therefore, in line with established parliamentary practice, as Chair of the Committee on Petitions, I have been asked to take over the role of rapporteur. Today's debate concerns the report on the activities of the European Ombudsman in 2024. It is worth emphasizing here that this report refers to the work of Ms Emily O'Reilly, who has served as an ombudsman for many years and has made a significant contribution to strengthening standards of good administration in the European Union. At the same time, I would like to congratulate you once again on your appointment as spokesperson, once again congratulate you on your appointment as spokesperson for Teresa Anjinho and wish you every success in further strengthening the transparency and accountability of the European institutions. The scale of the Ombudsman's work shows how important this institution is. In 2024, close to 18 000 citizens received assistance and more than 400 investigations were launched into potential instances of maladministration in the European Union institutions. They most often concerned issues such as transparency of the institutions' activities, access to documents, culture of public administration or recruitment processes in the European institutions. Transparency of the decision-making process in the European Union and the right of citizens to access documents of the EU institutions remain one of the most important topics. This is a fundamental principle stemming from the Treaties and one of the basic conditions for democratic control over the functioning of the institutions. It is therefore particularly important to reduce systemic delays in granting access to documents and to ensure the transparency of the legislative process. The report highlights the need for greater transparency in the functioning of Commission expert groups and advisory bodies whose composition and modus operandi have a direct impact on the design of European public policies. Preventing conflicts of interest and strengthening ethical standards in the European institutions and the relationship between public institutions and different interest groups remains an important issue. At the same time, the Ombudsman's findings should not remain merely observations on paper. When maladministration is identified, institutions should react not defensively but constructively. Transparency, access to documents and respect for ethical standards are not optional. They are legal and democratic obligations. Citizens expect the European institutions to apply the highest standards of accountability. Therefore, the Ombudsman’s recommendations should lead to concrete and timely powers in administrative practices. The report also stresses the importance of decision-making based on sound scientific data and analysis, which is particularly important in areas such as environmental policy, agriculture and natural resource management, where decisions at European level have a direct impact on the lives of citizens and local communities. An important element of the report is also to address new administrative challenges, including the use of artificial intelligence in public administration decision-making processes. New technologies can support the work of institutions, but they cannot replace human responsibility. The necessary human oversight, transparency of operation and full accountability of the institutions for the decisions taken is a key issue. Finally, I would like to stress that the activities of the Ombudsman are not directed against the institutions of the European Union. It aims to strengthen, by improving the quality of public administration, increasing transparency and strengthening the accountability of the institutions towards citizens, our constituents. A strong and effective ombudsman means a better European administration and a better administration increases citizens' trust in the European Union.

You mentioned Russian tanks and the war in Ukraine, which made the situation in Europe very complicated. And in a moment, today we will vote on aid for a Belgian company that has laid off 3,500 workers. This is a company that manufactures internal combustion engines. And we will again help a company that has gone bankrupt for economic reasons. Do you think that everything can be lost to this war in Ukraine and to Putin's aggression? Isn't it sometimes the case that the European Union has made huge mistakes and that's why we have the collapse of companies in the European Union?

Madam President, I'm sorry. The death penalty is a modern drama. I support all those actions that seek to abolish the death penalty. I want to make it clear that in addition to the death penalty itself and this drama, we are sometimes faced with other dramas, with irregularities in the processes that lead to the death penalty. This is also important and needs analysis. The concealment of the death penalty. There are countries that cover up the death penalty. That, too, must, in my view, be analysed. And I also wanted to recall at the very end the very important position of Pope Francis, who changed the paragraph in the catechism of the Catholic Church and recognized that the Church, in the light of the Gospel, teaches that the death penalty is unacceptable. This position should also resonate, so let's look for allies for the abolition of the death penalty in all environments. The Pope's message is also very important.

I have a question for you. I listened attentively, I am also in favour of innovation, but I wanted to ask your opinion, because in the last two years we have seen a great rate of collapse of big European companies. That year Goodyear, an American company in Germany, a semi-connector factory in Belgium, Northvolt in Scandinavia, collapsed. And now, in a month's time, we're going to vote because a Belgian company has collapsed and 3,500 workers have been laid off, and they want €7 million in aid. Don't you think that when we talk about innovation, we should also talk about collapse?

Madam President, I'm sorry. I listened to this interesting discussion with seriousness. I also believe that fur or fur is not the first human need, that we in the European Union should build solutions or look for solutions to real European problems. For some fur is a need, for others - a fanaticism. For me, for example, it's a fantasy. And I think I can sign a lot of votes here. But on the other hand, I also have social and economic aspects in mind. Let's remember that we should not hurt breeders who once invested a lot of money in their companies. Let's remember the workplaces. Remember that there is a flight of companies from Europe and elsewhere these furs can be produced and imported from elsewhere. It is necessary to pay attention to the gray zone of this production area. So we certainly face a big challenge, a big task, and building awareness around what people really need, what is most important to them. And animal lovers – I am one of them – will be in favour of not murdering animals.

Thank you so much for letting me ask you a question. In recent months, there have been large bankruptcies of companies in the European Union. In Sweden, Northvolt, a company that manufactures batteries for electric cars, collapsed. In Belgium, a semiconductor company collapsed. These are high-tech companies. Both companies have already applied to the European Union budget for money, for help from the globalization fund. I would like to ask you whether this globalisation fund from the European Union budget should be increased in such situations – and this queue, if it goes for money to the European Union, will be extended? Will you support such action? The globalization fund has been reduced over the past year.

Mr President, the resolution we present today stems from the need to strengthen the credibility, transparency and efficiency of the European Union staff selection procedures. The European Personnel Section Office plays a crucial role in ensuring that our institutions are served by a competent, impartial and multilingual public administration that reflects the complexity of our Union. In recent years, however, numerous candidates, petitioners, trade unions and even the European Ombudsman have raised concerns about organisational and technical difficulties affecting several competitions. It is our responsibility to listen to this concern, not to criticise for its own sake, but to improve. The aim of this resolution is therefore not to assign blame, but to contribute constructively to restoring trust in the recruitment process and to ensure equal and fair opportunities for all EU citizens. The objective is twofold: on the one hand, to provide candidates with faster, more modern and more transparent procedures, and on the other hand, and to ensure that institutions can rely on merit-based recruitment capable of efficiently identifying the talents needed to address the European Union's future challenges. For this reason, we call for greater transparency, clear communication, more reliable technological solutions and stronger guarantees for candidates, including those with disabilities or special needs. By inviting EPSO to carefully reassess remote testing and to reintroduce an on-site option where appropriate, we want to make sure that every candidate can demonstrate their abilities under fair and stable conditions. This resolution is supported unanimously in the PETI Committee, and is ultimately an invitation to modernise and reinforce the EU selection system, safeguarding both the reputation and the quality of our public service. It is a pragmatic and responsible step towards a more accessible, resilient and citizen-focused European administration.

Mr President, thank you very much. Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. We have a very complicated situation in the European Union. And this budget for 2026 could be better, more adequate to the challenges we face. We should react more sharply, better, now, now. We don't do this, and that's our cardinal mistake. It is bad for industry in the EU. I believe that we should do much more for entrepreneurs in this regard, and we are pulling spending on the Green Deal in this budget, which will keep energy prices high. This is terrible for entrepreneurs. There are no adequate resources for border security. Everyone is talking about security, and these measures are simply not enough. This could have been done, it could have been foreseen in this budget. Putin has turned his entire economy into a war zone. We know that it is dangerous in the world and in Europe. Why don't we do that with this budget for 2026? It could have been done. More money could have been spent. Moreover, Parliament has proposed well, but Parliament's proposals have not been taken on board by the European Commission. And that's why there's this rotten compromise. And rotten compromises are always bad. They're always bad. The situation is more complicated than the average European estimates. And we, as politicians, should be more aware of the risks that arise from this budget. It is bad that from one pocket, when it comes to agriculture, we give money to another, because we take from subsidies, we give in this budget for the promotion of food. Well, it's kind of weird when we talk about food security in general. In this aspect, too, we should simply see these matters better, the affairs of farmers, farmers in the European Union. There are not enough funds – and Parliament has proposed this – for military mobility. We don't know what's going to happen tomorrow and we're suddenly looking for money, we don't know where to react quickly. This could have been done in this budget. And the last thing: Let us not look for an enemy in the European Union in this complicated situation. Let us not look for enemies among the countries of the European Union. Our enemy is Russia and China, and we should address that completely.

Mr President, thank you very much. Every time I stand here, I say that the European Union is a good project, only very poorly managed at the moment. Because it is not the case that the Competitiveness Fund, which you spoke about, will save the European Union. In fact, he will miss out on 24 countries. This money from the Competitiveness Fund will go simply to the richest, to the best. This will make a big difference between countries. So it is also a budget of differentiation of states, unfortunately. There is also a very difficult situation in agriculture, especially in the face of Mercosur, which is what we are very worried about. The debt of the European Union is growing, so are taxes. There will be a lot of taxes, the quality of life will decrease. We are wrong about climate policy. Electricity won't cut this budget. Companies will be fleeing the EU. We will pay, just as we have just paid the Belgian manufacturer of semi-connectors money, because companies are failing. We're going to pay Northvolt in Sweden $8 million from the Globalization Fund because companies are failing. There is a centralisation of the European Union budget – this is very bad. There is a rupture of local governments – that is what we are very worried about. So, in short, a lot of worry. This is not a groundbreaking budget, these are not groundbreaking assumptions. The world outside the window looks completely different than this budget. We need to make a better budget, real, call things by their names. Then we will compete with others.

Madam President, I'm sorry. I have a good idea because the European Council is starting today. Why don't you take us, Commissioner, as we are here, with you? Maybe we could go there and just remind the European Council that there is this problem that the Council does not want to solve. Of course, I may be joking a bit, but the matter is so ridiculous that, as the last speaker said: We will probably be discussing it again in a year. And there are people from the south, from the north of Europe, from the middle of Europe, who speak with one voice. There are arguments: medical arguments not to change time, industrial arguments, economic arguments, banking arguments, health arguments. So what are we waiting for? There is full agreement on this, so let's do it.

Mr President, thank you very much. There is no problem in saying that the European Union is a good idea, only that, unfortunately, it is poorly managed. We are here to change what is wrong in the European Union. But we, with this budget, are not using this opportunity to simply change the evil that arose as a result of the mistakes of the previous European Commission. We're making mistakes in this budget, and that's my main complaint. I would like Europe to be a Europe of peoples in solidarity. That's not the case. We have a war situation in the European Union and in the world, and here we are building such non-solidarity relations between nations. We're looking for enemies. That's very bad. A strong European Union cannot be saved by mistakes such as constant borrowing, debts and so on. Next year we have to pay several billion euros to pay interest on the debt. We don't like it, so let's not look for enemies, but build solidarity. After all, I wish you all a good project and a good implementation of the project called the European Union. But for mistakes you have to apologize and you have to fight them.

Madam President, I'm sorry. This budget contains many ideological postulates. We don't like that. However, the proposal for the 2026 budget bypasses many risks. This proposal contains content that weakens the competitiveness of the European Union, inherent in the mistake of climate goals that destroy the economy, weaken competitiveness, hinder investment. False promotion of sexual and reproductive health is contrary to human nature. It is in this budget, and indirectly such a propaganda of abortion contradicts the demographic death of Europe. We have a problem with that. We need to describe exactly this problem. With such a budget, the Union becomes, in my opinion, such a vehicle. We are standing still, the world is running away, and we do not like it very much, because we would like to be and should be more competitive, really competing in technology, and not standing still and sometimes going backwards, which causes us to dislike – in relation to the world in which we are turning at the moment – those assumptions that are in this budget.

Madam President, I'm sorry. I listen with curiosity to this debate, because it is very important because it concerns our health. But who can we complain to when it comes to this increase in threat, but not to those who sign more and more different trade agreements on behalf of the European Union? If the agreement with Mercosur comes into force, more planes will arrive in Europe. More ships will come to Europe. There will be more containers. And here's a rhetorical question: Doesn't that increase the dangers associated with insects? As we read, the largest number of mosquito species – I read that it is 447 mosquito species – is in Brazil. So if we have Mercosur, we'll have more problems.

I listened very carefully to what you said. You mentioned startups. You are a young man who will probably speak here for a long time and perhaps have a career if you support startups. Because I support it too. But don't you think that the excessive regulation that is in the European Union - because there are already, as I have read, 100 pieces of legislation on digital technologies, 270 institutions supervising digital technologies in the European Union - if we add a lot more regulations, are you not afraid that your startup will have to start in the United States, because it is better and slower there than here in the European Union?