Speeches

Mr President, thank you very much. Very interesting discussion, very interesting conclusions, situations. On the other hand, I look at the left side of this room and I am very surprised that it is applauding in some situations when we talk about the fact that in Nicaragua all opponents of the current president, who tried to compete with him, are in prison. Many journalists, almost all journalists who were against him, had to go abroad. Then why do you socialists applaud such situations? What is democracy according to the Socialists? Consider why you support such a figure in Nicaragua who is simply discredited in the democratic arena. Please consider why this is your support for this man who is destroying the lives of people in Nicaragua.

Thank you very much for this very interesting discussion and I am impressed by the detail of many questions. However, my question with such a request, because probably the answer will be difficult, is why, despite the fact that Charles Michel as the head of the European Council negotiated between Armenia and Azerbaijan, the agreement between these countries was concluded with knowledge, or even invitation to the entire discussion of Putin. Is it always the case that in that place we have to talk about the situation with Putin?

I have this question because I agree with you that this solidarity fund is simply too small and the bureaucracy is too slow in disaster situations. The European Union loses its good reputation. What about such catastrophic, dramatic situations? We now have a review of the Multiannual Financial Framework. Don't you think that when discussing these various transfers, we should simply increase this fund and simplify the procedure in obvious situations of reaching for this money?

Mr President, thank you very much. I wanted to approach this discussion with all seriousness and that is why I will quote the appeal that the U.S. State Department issued yesterday. Namely, the call to clarify whether these provisions will not prevent voters from voting for the candidates of their choice. This is a very good call, because it is a serious institution. We're talking about the U.S. State Department. There is also a very serious response from the National Electoral Commission, the body that in Poland decides who can run, who cannot run, who has public rights, who does not have public rights. And the National Electoral Commission today, May 30, issued a statement in full composition. It is widely available. Well, she announced that the verification committee can not prohibit anyone from running in the elections to the Sejm and to the Senate. Ladies and gentlemen, let us respect this place, the European Parliament. Let's not lie. Let us not tell the truth, because we are downgrading the European Parliament.

Review of Multiannual Financial Framework. It will be very soon. For you, for your groups, what are priorities? Where should we give more money and which priority is for you the most important?

I have a small question for you, Madam, because there will be a review of the EU Multiannual Financial Framework. It will be very, very soon. And I want to ask you, what are your priorities, or your group’s, where we will dedicate more money after reviewing this situation?

Mr President, thank you very much. During this debate, I heard once again that in Spain the penalties for corruption have been reduced, because thanks to this, the socialist government and socialist courts can release corrupt socialist colleagues. In France, the president passes laws bypassing the French parliament, and police beat up protesters on the street. And that's good. In Spain, France, this is the rule of law, and Poland, although OLAF has not yet found any irregularities, is being patched with the rule of law. Unfortunately, therefore, it can be seen that the European Union is dominated by different measures, different assessments and that there are political actions aimed at right-wing governments. And for that, I am embarrassed.

I listened carefully to what you said about trust in public institutions. And this morning I read in a newspaper here in Brussels that seven more Commissioners were using hotels in Qatar, Egypt, Morocco, Jordan and Vietnam for free. The commissioners. Moreover, they themselves admitted that they used free hotels. I would like to hear your opinion on this. What do you think of that?

Mr President, thank you very much. Whatever we say, we have a very difficult situation. Well, the plans were that the cost of servicing the loan will be 1 billion, and it turns out that it will be 2.36 billion euros. This is 100% more than planned. Of course, the forecasts were in 2020, we are talking about 2023. There are many indications that this cost will increase in 2024, and in the following years it will also be a major nuisance for the European Union budget. So we should ask ourselves this question boldly: whether the Union is able to repay the money it has, that debt and that interest. How much more do you need to secure funds for interest and debt in the coming years? Will the EU maintain this high rating? This is very important when it comes to cooperation with financial markets. So we have a lot of work ahead of us and it requires a very real approach to the problems of the European Union, also in the context of the war in Ukraine.

– I agree with you, I agree with your statement in its entirety. Indeed, we are talking about transformation here all the time in Parliament, and from time to time we have very large market deformations of the European Union – war, COVID, etc. These are all things that the EU needs to respond to. Your country, Romania, and mine, Poland, are affected by the influx of grain from Ukraine. How do you see the reaction of the European Union, the European Commission, in this context? Because in front of our eyes there is a drama of farmers in those countries where illegally imported grain was coming in.

I would like to ask you the following: I see, observing the cryptocurrency market, a large promotion – even propaganda – of the positives of the cryptocurrency market. Natomiast dosyć słabo opisane są zagrożenia. Does this regulation we are talking about say that there should be an obligation to provide reliable information about how the cryptocurrency market works?

Mr President, thank you very much. There is no doubt that the 2024 budget is another, second budget related to the war that is ongoing in Ukraine and concerns the European Union. We believe that this war issue should have its reference in the budget and it has it. It is important that we note these references in the budget, although we know and see that there are certain expenses in the budget, which in times of war, in difficult times, might not take place. The second issue is the possible revision of the Multiannual Financial Framework, which is important to us. We will see what we can and cannot do, but if this review were to take place, we will certainly, as the ECR, support spending on agriculture, on safe food and on border security. This is our permanent position. Thirdly, of course, we support the Commissioner's proposal and thank him for taking into account the proposals related to the increased importance of cohesion policy, the Common Agricultural Policy. We also support Mr. Lewandowski, who prepared this material. We believe that the Connecting Europe Programme is very important. We also appreciate spending on agriculture. The ECR is very truthful. But I want to leave you with this difficult question, which is often asked here, about the fact that we want to close Europe by building some fences. I have complaints and remarks: Why can't we support spending on the security of the whole European Union at its borders? The Finns will build a wall or fence for the safety of Finland. Poles have a fence with Belarus. We have 13 road and railway crossings with Belarus and anyone can come to Poland. 7 million Ukrainians came from Ukraine and had no problem arriving. We are not against security, we are for security. However, we are against bandits who might want to come to the EU. I would therefore ask you to take this into account in the future.

Mr President, thank you very much. Ladies and Gentlemen, There is such a natural order of life: first we have the children we take care of, we raise them, then we educate them, we teach them responsibility, then they acquire skills in the education process, then they take up a job and then they start families. This is the natural order of human life. Do you not have the impression, Commissioner, that sometimes in the European Union we disturb this natural order of life by pushing for anti-values, by giving very bad examples, by denying the nature of man. I think it's worth thinking about, because life is quite demanding and difficult. When we want to talk about our children's successes, we also need to teach them the effort. The question is, do you also see such attempts to disrupt this natural order of young people's functioning?

Mr President, I have a small question only. My question is that whether EU farming organisations accept this regulation, you know this problem, that what situation is between agricultural organisations, they accept or not accept this regulation?

I am very pleased with your comments, but I have a question. Germans, Germans and German politicians quite often instructed Poland, Poles and said that there is a lack of the rule of law, that we are intolerant, and it turns out that in Germany the gap to the disadvantage of women is 18%. What were German politicians doing at the time that there were so many deficits and such a disadvantageous situation of women in Germany? You are the prostitutes against women in Germany. Why don't you admit it? Why are you attacking Poland all the time and you can't admit that? You don't know much about Poland, and you criticize Poland. Explain to me why women in Germany have such poor wages and why you, the Socialist State, are in charge at the moment.

I really liked what you said. I'm just as sensitive as you are to the poverty you're talking about. However, I would like to hear your opinion on one of the sources of this poverty and economic crisis in the European Union. Namely, I am thinking about the European carbon trading system. I would like to ask you, what is your opinion on this matter? Because we know – or do we believe – that about 50% of the energy, heat and energy cost in the European Union is the result of this very bad system.

I listened attentively to your intervention and I wanted to draw your attention and ask you, in principle, about one aspect of this whole animal welfare issue. Namely, I am convinced that animal owners respect their animals, breeders respect their animals, but there is a problem in transport. Do we know if we have instruments to check, as the European Union, what happens to animals during transport? Do we have any information here?

I listened carefully to what you said, but I wanted to read something to you. Here are the most honey bees in Western Europe: France, Belgium, Switzerland, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Italy and Spain. Do you not think that this situation is due to the dominance of industrial agriculture in these countries and the lack of small-scale agriculture and biodiversity?

. – Well, I wanted to ask you, because Angela Merkel once made a huge mistake in proposing the so-called forced allocation mechanism. It was in 2015. And this information is still resounding on different continents. That's why migrants come to Europe. Do you not think that it would be easier to follow the Danish route and, for example, at this moment already allocate huge amounts of money from the European Union and inform all countries from which emigrants come not to come because illegal roads are busy?

I know that you are an expert on the subject and you are a professional in the field of ecology. I appreciate that, but two hours ago there was a debate about the Energy performance of buildings in this room. Sir, a Romanian MP said that 60% of Romanians would not be able to afford climate policy. A Dutch MP said that one billion euros is needed for documents in the Netherlands alone to implement climate policy. And a member of parliament from Germany said that 40 billion were pumped into the insulation of buildings in Germany and there is no effect. Are you from Slovakia? Don't you worry that poor people simply won't be able to withstand the pace of change you're proposing?

You are the leader of this project and I know that you are well versed in the problem, but my question is this: EU documents show that in 2023 we will have zero GDP in the European Union. Tell me, from where will companies, from where will people take money for these expenses, when they will have the main concern (companies, people and households) just to survive? Please show the financing of this project for the average Kowalski in the European Union. Because we have to explain this project somehow, because as a rule, that you have to insulate and you have to save, that's ok, but where will this money come from?

I would like to ask you about your view of the action of the presidents of 40 major cities of the European Union, including Berlin, London and Warsaw. These presidents propose a very serious reduction in meat and dairy consumption. These are very drastic proposals. Do you think that such a proposal of serious politicians of the 40 largest European cities will benefit farmers? Because today we are all worried about the fact that farmers have to pay a lot for fertilizers. What will happen if their idea is implemented? What is your view?

Madam President, I'm sorry. Commissioner, I'm sorry. Madam President, I'm sorry. I listened very carefully to the speech of the President, and I must say that when we talk about the euro, it is also in a sense, as a currency, an ideological project. Inflation was 17% in the Netherlands and 18% in Poland. Poland is not in the Eurozone. As far as the Banking Union is concerned, perhaps it is very important to come to this Banking Union, but how are we going to reconcile the two worlds of the South – Greece, Spain, Italy – and the banks of the North? There are huge differences in their functioning. The number of bad loans in these southern banks is terrifying. So we have another problem here. Thus, the market neutrality of the European Bank would be the greatest value that everyone should strive for, so that there is no political and ideological pressure. For example, apart from banking neutrality, we have an ideological project called greening, greening, greening... we do not know what it is about. All this is incalculable, although of course very valuable from a debatable point of view, because we all want to live in a clean ecological space. However, we absolutely need more economic realism. In my opinion, the reaction of the European Central Bank in the post-pandemic situation was also weak. During the pandemic, a lot of money was pumped in various countries, rightly saving the economy. But the post-pandemic response was a little too slow, in my opinion, and it would have been necessary to control money more quickly, the empty money that functions in the economic or economic market. In short, this reaction today that interest rates will still be raised is a very good direction, we will support such a reaction. We would simply like to live in a European Union that is very competitive with the United States and China, and for that we simply need economic Eurorealism.

From what you have said, you are very pleased with the solution that is being proposed. My question is this: Are you not afraid that this solution for the production of electric motors and the decommissioning of internal combustion engines will lead to the creation of a mountain, heaps of toxic waste? Today, we have a plastic tax in the European Union. There used to be a fashion for everything to be plastic. Today, European countries pay a tax on unprocessed plastic. Don't you think it will be the same with batteries, that there will be a problem with the disposal of these batteries? And what will you say to the people who will have to pay millions of euros a new tax on your idea, today?

Madam President, I'm sorry. An urgent response to the energy crisis caused by the leaders of the European Union is needed, and we agree with that. We as ECR will vote rather moderately, I will propose to abstain. We cannot support this proposal, because the condition for its support on our part is the possibility of financing gas infrastructure investments from grants. And there is a suggestion that it should be different. In the current geopolitical situation, the proposal that such investments should be financed by loans should simply be considered an ineffective proposal. We are also very sceptical that REPowerEU will be financed by the ETS. In our view, this will deprive those Member States that have the money from the sale of free allowances of the possibility of transforming their energy system. Therefore, given that Poland may have some benefits from this programme, our position is so far sober and we will talk about abstention.