Speeches

You just said that we on the right don't understand everything. So I wanted to ask you a question. A few hours ago, the European Commission said that from January 1, 2028, the annual budget of the European Union will lack EUR 30 billion to repay the debt. That's my question: Are you in favour of maintaining ETS2 and maintaining the carbon tax, which is supposed to be the income of the European Union, i.e. to continue the mistake that is already a genetic mistake of this term?

Mr President, thank you very much. Madam President, thank you. On behalf of the ECR, I would like to say very clearly that this document, which Parliament has prepared, is better than the documents of previous years. As the ECR, we believe that the European Central Bank should primarily take into account the basic economic parameters of individual countries. Then his interventions will be more believable. And if there is something extraordinary, then, of course, yes, the ECB should help. The European Central Bank must be ideologically resilient, and we absolutely agree. The so-called common sense is really very, very necessary in the activities of this bank. There should be no preference for any companies, no industries. Only a clean economy and clean bank interventions in crisis areas. When it comes to the digital euro, more information, more conversations, more debates are needed, but real economic freedom is always with free resources, with live cash – and we cannot block that. We should not be afraid of the United States, we should take the best solutions from there. Then the European Union will be better too.

Mr President, thank you very much. I wanted to speak to pay tribute to 21-year-old Mateusz Sitek. A Polish soldier, a 21-year-old soldier, was killed by bandits on the Polish-Belarusian border. Killed, murdered. And I want to say this here, because when we Poles defended the border of the European Union, when Putin and Lukashenko pushed refugees into Poland by conducting a hybrid war, you had a great time here in the European Parliament on the false film of a Polish director who ridiculed the Polish police, Polish soldiers, all those who defended the border of the European Union. You must be ashamed of it. I will always remind you of this, because today, of course, this debate is important, I am glad that the Commissioner has taken this position and not that position, but we have called for this money at the border, for this security in previous years, and it has failed. And yesterday you applauded Donald Tusk, who here in Brussels said: What the Polish government of Law and Justice is doing is ugly propaganda. And we were simply defending the border of the European Union. (President took the floor)

Mr President, thank you very much. This is a very important debate, but it is a pity that we spend so little time in the European Parliament in general talking in support of traditional families. It is also a pity that much is being said here in Parliament, but also in the European institutions, simply about the promotion of abortion. It's all very inconsistent what we're doing. I think that in five years we will be talking about the same thing again and there will be no real help for mothers, for children. For example, when we want and should talk about relief for mothers giving birth, for single mothers, for traditional families, business, for example, turns its back on such a problem. Businesses see only their own interests. So, unfortunately, demographic policy will be a very weak point in the European Union's policy, which I very much regret. If individual countries do not solve this problem, I do not see such situations in this room and in the budget, in which I have been working for 6 years in the Committee on Budgets, I simply do not see the possibility of supporting, unfortunately, the demographic problems of the European Union.

Madam President, thank you very much. I will take this opportunity to listen to this very interesting debate to thank the Polish Commissioner for Agriculture, Janusz Wojciechowski, for what he has done on animal welfare. His successes in this area are undisputed and I hope that every Commissioner will have similar successes and develop these issues of animal welfare and carbon farming. We have already achieved a lot of good in this area and we should talk about it even more. Today, for example, Polish small farms using eco-schemes, leading the so-called carbon farming, are very successful, for example in meat exports. And you don't need huge farms producing food by force. It is precisely in these small farms, which have been valued by Commissioner Wojciechowski, that there are very good traces of high-quality food production in Europe. And that's what I thank him for.

You have mentioned Putin's name many times in your speech. It is good that we are talking today about TikTok's bad influence on decisions in general. And what were you doing when there was an agreement between Putin, Russia and Germany on Nord Stream? When this agreement was concluded in 2005, it was then that the war against Ukraine began. Where were you with your political team at the time? I wanted to ask you if you really think that only TikTok disturbs... (The Chair took the floor)

Madam President, thank you very much. The ombudsman! Mr. Commissioner, I would like to thank you. In 2023, the work of the European Ombudsman, Emily O'Reilly, was extremely important. As in previous years, especially in the context of transparency and accountability of the EU institutions. In the past year, the Ombudsman has conducted inquiries into decision-making, environmental legislation and third-party influence, which was of particular importance following the Qatargate scandal. I believe that this activity has contributed to raising awareness of the transparency of the European Union, especially on issues such as the exchange of messages between the President of the European Commission and Pfizer on the issue of vaccines or the lack of transparency in environmental legislation. What Mrs. O'Reilly did was necessary, and we want your successor to build that trust as well. May this successor have as much strength as you have in overcoming numerous difficulties, because this function and your work must simply bring positive effects for the European Union.

Mr President, thank you very much. This is a really important debate, an important problem. I totally agree that we need to talk about this. Plastic has not always existed, the explosion of popularity of plastic occurred somewhere in the 50s of the last century and since then plastic has taken various forms and is used in our social, private, industrial life on various scales. And on an ever-increasing scale. And today it has become a global invention and a global problem. Therefore, on the basis of this discussion on plastic, I wonder whether we will be discussing the problems with the disposal of photovoltaic batteries, photovoltaic panels, car batteries, the entire industry, so lauded today, related to electromobility, with the same heat in this plenary room. This will also be a problem and we will have to introduce a tax one day. Just as today there is a tax on plastics, there will be a tax on electromobility.

I listened very much to your speech. You always take an unambiguous position, so I know who I ask about energy, about energy prices. I would therefore like to ask you about what Business Europe, a European think tank, wrote, which said that if the European Union pursues its climate goals unhindered, if we all support these goals, then in 2050 the price of energy in the European Union will be 3 times more expensive than in the United States. What consequences do you think this could have? In 2050, energy is three times more expensive in the European Union than in the United States.

Madam President, thank you very much. We are crying here today that Russia is attacking, that China is attacking. For two decades, the European Parliament, the European Union, worked with Putin, providing him with money, buying cheap hydrocarbons. Now, in recent years, the European Union has been cooperating with China. European Union countries provide money to China, because 97% of photovoltaic panels are purchased in China. And these countries have money and they laugh at the European Union and mock it because they know that it is getting weaker. This discussion is very important, absolutely very important also for Poland, because, among others, the Baltic Pipe pipeline runs through the Baltic Sea. It is very important from the point of view of Poland's energy security. So when we talk about security at a meeting of the Committee on Budgets and we make proposals to strengthen the European Union's budget for security, then the left, then the socialists, then the liberals say no, we don't give more money, we don't need more money for security. So let's not cry, let's do it. Let us create safe situations for every country of the European Union and for the Baltic Sea.

I listened very carefully to your speech. You mentioned President Trump twice in your speech. You represent the largest group in the European Parliament, the EPP. Then I ask: What advice will you give to your group on how to build a relationship with President Trump? Because, of course, we are an important organization as the European Union, but the United States also plays its part. So, what is your group's and your position on defense relations with America?

For a socialist, you have presented enough, I would say, a rational approach in the discussion with the United States in relation to Donald Trump. You have heard that Trump has announced that he will build nuclear power, that he will look for gas and coal, he will drill. Now here's my question: Our Commissioner-designate is very clear: we will stick to the ETS2, that is, we will introduce new taxes. European energy will become more expensive, American energy will become cheaper. How do you see the functioning of business, companies in such a case? Because we already know that companies from the European Union are fleeing to the United States.

Madam President, thank you very much. What we say here is important, but even more important is how we act. But what do we have? We have already exhausted the Solidarity Fund for this year. A month ago in Strasbourg, we voted on financial aid for the floods of last year. For next year 2025, we have a little more than EUR 1 billion in the budget for the Solidarity Fund. We can't do that. Flooding, people who have drama, have to expect faster help from the European Union, so we have to change a lot to make this help go faster. We have a European Investment Bank that handles huge amounts of money. Maybe you need to make some kind of loan fund for redeemable loans for flood victims, because it just can't continue like this. Not everything depends solely on the climate. There are also people's mistakes. There are people's mistakes, including the fact that wise investments in flood infrastructure are blocked. I invite you to Poland, I will show you places where foolish people blocked flood investments and there was a flood. Victims were there. Where we built flood investments, there was no flood, so let's also hit our breasts, and in particular I am talking here to the Left and the Greens.

Mr President, thank you very much. We knew it was bad, but today, thanks to this report (a very good report), we know it is worse. And this is a very small consolation for us. This is because we have errors in the spending of money by the European Commission. The allowed percentage of 2% has been exceeded and these errors are 6%. This is a scandal, you might say. If we ran the house like this with money, we'd be totally bankrupt. Errors in taking loans – this is also strongly emphasised in this report. If it is not known whether this loan will be for a new recovery plan and whether it will cost between EUR 17 and 27 billion, it means that the European Commission is simply governed by its own law and does not want to share its mistakes with us. There is also a lot of uncertainty about how this loan, this community loan, will be repaid, to which we have been burdened by downloading this loan. So there cannot be such a situation - it is very wise for the Court to say - that the answer to all these errors of the European Commission will be a greater centralisation of the European Union, because Mrs Von der Leyen wants to have even more power and wants to govern herself. We can't let that happen. Thank you very much for this report.

I would like to ask you a question because I listened carefully to what you said. In 2012, the European Union had a surplus of 16 million tonnes of steel. In 2024, the European Union has a 10 million tons steel deficit. All along, you Socialists have been with the governments of the European Union. Please give the reasons for this deficit in steel production in the European Union, because it was you who ruled the European Union all the time.

I have a question for you. The European Court of Auditors announced a week ago that the European Union is indebted to 543 billion euros. Mr Draghi says that the EU should take on more loans - about 800 billion euros a year. I would like to ask you what do you think about this debt of the European Union? Where does it come from? What are the reasons for this debt? And isn't it sometimes the Green Deal, among other things, that is to blame?

Madam President, thank you very much. I won't say anything big or new, but I will say what has already been said here: But let's hit our own breasts. All those who have said that it is a big mistake to shut down agricultural production in the European Union and to establish close contacts with Mercosur – as has been done for the last 20 years in the European Union – are to blame. When farmers, farmers and American traders heard about it, they simply enlarged their farms and searched for this market in the European Union. We made a mistake. We encouraged them to deforestation, to set fires, and now we despair. Let's get away from this, from this mistake. We will be strong in the European Union if we have our own strong agriculture.

You have talked a lot about the persecution of Jews and Muslims. That's the truth. But it's no secret that the most persecuted religious group are Christians. You didn't say anything about it. And I have a request and a question for you at the same time, because you come from the socialist group: in your group of socialists, here in the European Parliament during this term, there are your colleagues, people who ruthlessly attack the Catholic Church in Poland. They've had trials, but we have courts that acquit them. They interrupt masses, paint buildings, hang all sorts of quirks on sacred objects. And I ask you to focus on your group of socialists and talk to those colleagues who are attacking the Catholic Church in Poland.

In April this year, I tabled an amendment to ensure that border barriers across the European Union, not only in Poland, are financed by the European Union. You voted against this amendment. We are renewing this amendment. We propose to the European Parliament to support this amendment because we all want to be safe. This is not about any particular interests of one country. Will you support such an amendment in order to finance sustainable security at the European Union and external borders from the European Union budget?

You are so sorry to hear about these billions of losses. I would like to ask you what you will say to your colleagues from the group of Greens who come to Podkarpacie to the town of Kąty, Myscowa and block the construction of a water reservoir. They come without living there. They don't do business there, they're not even farmers. They come in and block it. For years. They do it today, yesterday, two years ago and 10 years ago. What will you tell them? And how about the report of the European Court of Auditors, which says that the costs of the dispersed activities of the European Parliament amount to 114 million euro. These two sites cost us so much, plus 19,000 tons of carbon dioxide emissions.

I have a question for you, because after the occupation of Crimea by Russia in 2014, France was trading with Russia. Did you criticize your president, your government for that?

I have a short question for you because I liked what you said. On the other hand, we see that the ecological environments in each country talk about protected areas, about increasing protected areas. So how to expand this economic activity, natural economic activity, when ecologists simply block the development of normal, traditional, natural, good agriculture?

I am speaking in this debate because in the last legislature there were many debates in this chamber of the European Parliament about Ukraine and, unfortunately, very harmful opinions about how Poland and Poles behaved. There were very defamatory words against Polish farmers. I would like to remind you that Polish farmers defended Polish land, Polish food, Polish food security and their own farms. I would like to remind you that in this parliamentary term, in this new parliamentary term, there should be no false, untested judgments and opinions. This Parliament may then be better off if there are concrete, proven, true statements here. Unfortunately, in the previous assessments of some MEPs who are also in this Chamber today, this was not the case. I therefore ask that we simply respect each other and that this debate on important issues will be better.

Mr President, thank you very much. Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. We are debating at a time when there is great concern in the European Union. Voters are asking why companies are fleeing the European Union, why farmers are protesting, why jobs are shrinking, why people do not have the money to pay their electricity and heat bills, why there is less security in the European Union, and it is expected that this problem will widen even further. But a compromise has to be found. I think it was found in part. Thank you very much for your cooperation, Mr Negrescu, and we as ECR will abstain here. It is true that some of our amendments, the ECR amendments, have been appreciated – for which I thank you once again – but there are also some provisions that we cannot agree to. I am thinking here above all of these big decisions related to the Green Deal, to reproductive and sexual rights, but these are not the most important things. The most important things are those that are related to the economy, and I think we have done a little too little in this matter.