Speeches

I am listening urgently to this debate and I wanted to provide some information. By October 2022, the European Border Guard Agency Frontex had registered around 280,000 illegal entries into the European Union. This is 77% more than in 2021. During a speech yesterday, the Swedish Prime Minister said that illegal immigration must be tackled in the European Union. We need to sort this out. What is your opinion on this?

I listened carefully to your comments. I see you don't like what America, the United States, is doing. I don't like what China is doing. And how do you like this situation when, as part of public aid in the European Union, Germany dedicates 200 billion euros to its companies, France over 100 billion euros, as part of public aid, and other countries from among the 27 countries of the European Union do not have such a possibility? Do you think this is distorting the market? Should we really teach America what to do? And should America wait for this slowdown, which is in the European Union? I just wanted to ask you, what do you think about this? Is it fair that Germany, with such a huge budget, can support its own companies? The French have money. They can support French companies. And other countries? What about Poland, Romania, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, poorer countries that do not have such money? Isn't that a lack of solidarity in your opinion?

Madam President, I'm sorry. There are right-wing parties, there are right-wing voters and there are right-wing parliaments in Europe. That is why there are right-wing governments that will restore order and competitiveness to the European Union. And that's what we're waiting for. And I am very pleased that the Swedish Prime Minister has presented the time of his Presidency very realistically and responsibly. I'm just congratulating you. We agree with these priorities. I am pleased that you support energy independence, including nuclear energy. This will ensure the economic stabilisation of the European Union. We certainly need to think about refugees and reduce this illegal emigration to the European Union, because this illegal immigration is simply becoming a problem for the European Union. Corruption in the European Union must be eradicated. From here, the vice-president of the parliament instructed Poland and said that it was illegitimate. He's in custody now. Let's pay attention to that. The European Union is there to compete economically, not ideologically, with Asia and America.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. Ladies and Gentlemen, Improving the Multiannual Financial Framework, yes. Violation of treaties – no. Of course, we support any action that will bring relief to the struggling Ukrainian people. We agree with that. We also want to remember that support is due to Member States that help refugees fleeing the war in Ukraine to different countries. This should be noted in the budget of the European Union. The decision to grant candidate status to Ukraine and Moldova should also be welcomed. We support it. Furthermore, we agree that the role of the Union budget as guarantor of additional macro-financial assistance to Ukraine is essential. We support that too. However, we must call for new policy initiatives to be financed with fresh money without harming pre-existing EU programmes or policies, and for new resources not to be aggressive. And this may happen because we hear that some countries will lose their income as a result of new tax ideas, just like Poland. We can lose a lot of money on these new ideas. Nor can we absolutely agree to move from unanimity to qualified majority voting when adopting the MFF regulation. Such an idea very spoils the solidarity policy of EU countries and mutual trust. Imposing qualified majority voting risks widening differences between Member States. The bigger ones will be more important, the smaller ones will be suppressed. That's what we're so afraid of. This is a cardinal change and we do not want to accept it. So let us do everything we can not to destroy the unity of the European Union.

Madam President, I'm sorry. I listened with great curiosity to this debate. It is very much needed and I am convinced that the protection of reliable media is in place. I am also in favour of protecting independent journalism. However, Poland has been mentioned here several times. I think these are very harmful opinions. In Poland there are private media with German capital, private televisions, private newspapers. There is no problem with media pluralism in Poland. I do not know where and who wanted to show some cases of suppression of journalistic freedom in Poland, because with the biggest scandal in the history of Poland we had a place when it comes to the persecution of the media under Donald Tusk. This was in June 2014, when the Internal Security Agency entered the Wprost daily. To this day, these journalists live, they remember that action. Computers were taken, the editorial office was closed and disks were copied. And this is the biggest scandal in the history of Poland. And then Donald Tusk became President of the European Council.

I have heard from you about this activity, your high activity among young people in recent years. I would like to ask you whether in this activity there was also a visit to countries where at the moment there is the greatest unemployment: Spain, Italy? What have you done, what do you propose to change this very unfavourable situation when it comes to youth unemployment? What do you propose in your activity?

Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. We say no, but not in the name of some strange principle, only because, according to our calculations, according to the calculations of experts, all these taxes will trouble poor countries more than rich countries. And this is our basic translation presented to our constituents. The proposed basket is unsustainable, overburdening the less prosperous Member States with carbon-intensive economies. And that's naked truth. It is also premature at this point to decide on the CBAM-based own resource and on the residual profits. All revenues of the Union budget should constitute a single envelope in accordance with the principle of universality of the budget of the European Union and should not be prejudged in sectoral acts. The decision to introduce new own resources should not be taken in a rush, on time, without full knowledge of the design of the new mechanisms and proper impact analysis. So we have a huge problem. This discussion continues in every political group. I am convinced that all political groups, not only the ECR, have a problem with this, but we make it clear that we will not support such situations in order to deprive Poland, for example, of ETS revenues. This is unfair because we will run out of money for the energy transition. So in this case the ECR will vote against.

Mr President, thank you very much. Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. Of course, as ECR, we will support this budget, because there are funds for payments, because it will be possible to implement the actions and because there is also a response - a good answer to our proposal to help Ukraine. Of course, the ECR has also tabled its amendments, in particular on military mobility, on humanitarian aid. These amendments have been accepted, so we see a plus in this whole budget. And, of course, we have concerns, like everyone else, about what's going to happen next. Nevertheless, for today, we would like to make it clear that there was a willingness to cooperate during the conciliation, that this money for Ukraine is very important for refugees. Those who are, but those who are beyond the borders of Ukraine, who have fled this war. There are additional funds for military mobility, for energy. Very interesting money for Ukrainian students, so all this deserves recognition. And, of course, we also want to point out that it will be possible to implement cohesion policy, the common agricultural policy in 2023. This is also very important to us.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. The new own resources must take into account the provisions of Protocol No 28 to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. They must not overburden the less affluent countries. As is the case with the first basket of own resources proposed by the European Commission. In particular with regard to the proposal to transfer part of the ETS revenues to the budget of the European Union. We just can't support it. The timeframe and volume of borrowings by the European Commission are strictly defined in the Own Resources Decision adopted by unanimity. All countries have borrowed. Not all countries have received help. This is a scandal. This is an injustice. We cannot accept it and we will claim the money we owe. This decision on own resources, on the financing of own resources, obviously requires cooperation, but we also know – and we see in the report whether in the proposed resolution – that three taxes will not be enough to repay these resources or these borrowings. Therefore, more will be needed. And there will be other problems in this regard.

Mr President, thank you very much. Commissioner, I'm sorry. On behalf of the ECR Group, I also express my positive opinion on the draft law on operational resilience and digital operational resilience. I would also like to say that President Billy Kelleher was very transparent in his deliberations. We could all make comments. Anyone who wanted to speak made comments. What's valuable is that we've simplified this original system a little bit. We have made some important amendments, e.g. regarding unnecessary, in our opinion, clarification. It was possible to bypass these provisions, also in terms of securing private property, to apply measures to the level of risk. All this was the subject of our deliberations. I hope that this whole project will increase the ability of companies to survive in the event of hybrid attacks, disruptions or various problems with cyberattacks. We all know that cybersecurity is a key element in supporting the stability of the European financial system and that is why the ECR Group supports this solution.

Let me just repeat: Amazing why, despite having a lot of experience in building renewable energy in Germany, you have been buying a lot of energy from Russia year after year over the last years?

Thank you very much, Mr President, and thank you very much for accepting the question. My question is that you come from Germany – you have had a lot of experience in building renewable energy for many years. Explain to me this paradox, why are you building more and more renewable energy sources every year, getting more and more renewable energy and buying more and more gas and coal from Russia in recent years? Why did this happen?

Thank you for accepting this question. Namely, you and your group – which is very influential here in the European Parliament – are praising very renewable energy sources. Mrs von der Leyen has just said that we can get 90 new GW from renewable energy sources. Do you have any idea what the cost of producing 1 GW of energy is and where we will get the money for it? Saying that we need 90, 180 or 300 new GW is okay. Who's going to pay for all this? What is your idea and where is the money for it?

Madam President, I'm sorry. Thank you very much for allowing me to ask you a question. I would like to ask you a question because you mentioned the food aspect of this problem of deep-sea fishing. Would you like to expand your speech? What did you mean by that? What kind of food drama could this cause?

Madam President, I'm sorry. This very interesting debate is coming to an end. I would like to raise one more aspect and ask the Commissioner a question, because we have hardly talked about it with all the enthusiasm for the enlargement of the European Union (and I am) to the Western Balkans. I would like to ask about the economic aspect of this enlargement, because from time to time there are estimates of what it will look like when it comes to joining, for example, these few countries to the European Union. How will the common agricultural policy, cohesion funds, etc. have to change? Are there any data in this matter that you can tell us about here?

Madam President, I'm sorry. Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. Thank you very much to the rapporteurs who have reached a certain goal in a spirit of compromise. I hope that tomorrow, indeed, we will all vote together on a common good position for this budget for 2023. Of course, we have always treated the situation of the European Commission as a very conservative approach. We are concerned that resources will be sufficient to cover all needs in shared management. We therefore welcome the addition of a traditional payment declaration to the Council's position. The autumn budgetary negotiations should result in a common position of the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament on the matter. Unfortunately, the European Commission's corrective letter published on 5 October does not show any increase in assistance to Member States hosting refugees. I'm sorry about that. Poland and other countries still have refugees from Ukraine. The development of hostilities in Ukraine suggests that further humanitarian support will soon be needed, regardless of how much funding will be available under the Solidarity and Emergency Aid Reserve. We also welcome the deletion of the so-called flexibility instrument in heading seven, because when there is war, it is not time to discuss administration. The budget documents reflect the situation in the European Union well, because they show that we are dealing with inflation, with Putin inflation, we are dealing with a Russian aggressor, we are dealing with expensive energy, food, that the quality of life will fall, that all the debts that the Union has incurred will have to be paid somehow, and so look for fresh moneyLooking for new money. We understand this, but we also ask, of course, who led to this situation. And maybe someone in Poland will hear about this real situation in the European Union, because the Polish opposition here in Parliament keeps saying that the crisis is only in Poland.

Thank you very much for accepting the question, for a very simple reason, because you are part of a political group that plays an important role in the European Parliament and in matters related to . Aren't you worried, worrying about poverty, that it may increase? Do you have any concerns that theReady for 55 Will it exacerbate poverty in the EU? After all, in this package there is information and, let's say, actions to be aimed at increasing taxes on domestic fuels and on car fuels. Aren't you worried about that?

Thank you very much, Madam President, and also the Honourable Member, for accepting the question. Of course, I like all those statements that talk about fair trade agreements between the European Union and individual countries or continents or international organisations. We know that there are trade agreements with countries where children are used for work. I would like to hear your opinion on this. What do you think of that? Do you know such countries, and such countries that have agreements with those countries where children simply work from an early age and are used for this work?

– As I understand it, you are from France. This is my question, because you have spent a lot of time in your speech, just now, on legal issues and you have accused various people of various things, in your speech, in the current situation. I'll ask you this: Have you, as a French citizen, also spoken out and made allegations to President Macron when, contrary to the prohibitions, you bought weapons in Russia? Did you also make comments?

. – I would like to ask you briefly: Who is to blame for all this? Well, because I have been hearing here for two hours a lament that the economy is collapsing, that someone has slept, that we have war, putinflation, that we are heading towards recession, that we have huge unemployment. I hear that in Spain at the moment there is thirty-seven percent unemployment among people between the ages of 18 and 24. Maybe you would tell me who led to this situation, because I think some culprits are somewhere?

Mr President, thank you very much. Sometimes I drive to Brussels or Strasbourg. A thousand kilometers I drive through Germany, on the left and right I see photovoltaic farms or wind farms. Sometimes I drive by car through the Netherlands and I also see the wind farms themselves. I recently heard that Iceland, which is completely independent of gas and coal, was buying energy because it ran out of wind and sun. Ladies and gentlemen, what are we talking about? We are simply talking about the fact that sometimes there are very dangerous, very unpredictable situations in the European Union. I support, and my government also supports, the European Commission's position that we in the European Union must be prepared for crises. These crises just happen. And to all those who want to reject the financing of gas investments or investments in nuclear energy, I would like to dedicate information on how many people in the European Union do not have hot water, how many people live in unheated apartments. Take this, ladies and gentlemen, into account. If you put an end to this type of investment, there will be poverty in the European Union, and that is terrifying.

Mr President, thank you very much. Ladies and gentlemen, a taxonomy is needed because it indicates which investments are clean and which, as the Commissioner said, are dirty. And this taxonomy is needed, only that the whole process of indicating which investments are dirty, which are clean, takes a lot of time. Rejecting the delegated act will make the poorer the poorer. Today, from this lectern, the Prime Minister of Greece said that sometimes with our irresponsible decisions, household budgets can collapse. We MEPs work for the people who elect us, and we should take into account all the speeds that affect any change, including changes that affect whether the house will be warm, whether there will be hot water, or whether people will simply have the money to live in better conditions than those caused by the current crisis situation. And I want to say very clearly that the rejection of the delegated act will result in a lack of financing for gas and nuclear investments over a longer period of time, that persisting with the rejection of the delegated act is simply an indication that people will continue to insulate their homes with coal, and that coal is worse than nuclear than gas. It's worse. You know that very well! China is currently building 14 nuclear power plants, India 8, Russia 4. Where are you taking us?

Mr President, thank you very much. In fact, this interesting discussion at the moment is a discussion about the security of the European Union, because energy security is an important element of this security. That is why I want to say here with my humble voice that, of course, I support those measures that have been prepared when it comes to gas storage, but we still need to take the next step. Hence my question to President Timmermans, if you would like an answer. I am observing the gas field market in Europe and I note that there are offers to deepen old gas wells. That's what money is needed for. Such offers are currently from Austria, from Hungary. So in short, without too much interference with the natural environment, it is possible to reach new gas deposits by deepening old wells. Does the Commissioner believe that such solutions could be financially supported by the European Union? That is my question, because, of course, the question of storage is one thing, but the other is the question of buying gas from the Russians and from Putin – and that is shameful. So shouldn't we prepare a financial offer from the European Union to deepen old deposits and obtain gas from certain sources, without too much interference with the environment?

Thank you very much for agreeing to answer the question. I have this question for you: do you not think that all these attacks on Poland in this situation, which the Poles are doing, as they are helping refugees from Ukraine, are very well seen in Moscow. Don't you think that these attacks on Poland cause Putin to open champagne and are happy that Poland is economically and economically weakened by not receiving the money due from the National Recovery Plan? Are you aware that Poland, as acting on this eastern flank, also on behalf of NATO, today plays an extremely important economic role in defending the European Union? And your attacks on Poland simply serve Putin. Are you aware of this?

My question is as follows: because you represent a political, left-wing environment, you should be sensitive to social issues, to issues of poverty, to issues of danger, to issues related to the fact that this package will, however, divide society and will be very expensive. Are you not afraid that the poorer will be even poorer after the introduction of this package? The left-wing community does not see any risks arising from this package at all.