Speeches

Mr President, thank you very much. Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. Emotions, screams, blackmail – this proves that it is a bad regulation, ill-considered, incalculable, striking nature, striking man. Because something that is impossible to do causes the opposite effect to be achieved. This regulation is wrong because it interferes with privacy and property. Truly, we will not lower the temperature in Strasbourg if we take away their land from the farmers. Someone has to feed us. Besides, farmers, foresters, fishermen love nature no less than representatives who seemingly demand attention to this nature. This regulation is also wrong because it gives too much power to the European Commission, which will complain, monitor, report and take decisions on its own. The diagnosis states that Natura 2000 sites have not been identified, so ‘no’ is being said and more is being done. It's the wrong way. I suggest that instead of going on vacation to a hotel with air conditioning, you decide to visit a farmer, learn how to take care of nature and animals.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. You're spending a very busy evening with us. It is indeed a great satisfaction that we want to adopt a report on competences 4.0 in the European Year of Skills. Before I talk about the report, I would like to thank the competent, highly skilled shadow colleague and shadow colleague rapporteurs, as well as their advisors, because we really understood each other on the fly, we got along with each compromise or amendment. Indeed, the world is changing at a pace at which we cannot move on to the agenda. We must meet the challenges. It's a 4.0 world. It's probably going to be 5.0 in a minute. We need new competences, those that are needed primarily in the digital world, because these are not only basic skills, but also those related to management, programming, analysis, presentation, as well as skills forced by another way of functioning, education or work. And personal, interpersonal, social relations look different, there are completely different organizational needs, but of course we remember all this, because we also set trends and needs that are necessary to realize, and not only diagnose the situation. We showed that it is necessary for the company to be in school, the school in the company, to individualize different paths of improvement throughout life, to support generations, so that the mentor can teach and show and raise a new employee. We also stressed in the report that it is important to promote companies that can educate their employees in this way, give them satisfaction, recognize that they are with them all the time. It is for its own good and the good of the market and competitiveness. On the other hand, so that the school, education understands that the company can be properly online, that together they should be educated and together they should prepare the employee for the labor market. At the same time, we emphasized that the promotion of a company that can support an employee has such competences that it has everything that the 4.0 market needs, that such a company should also be promoted, it should also function as a model, as an example to follow. Of course, we leave all this to the Member States, because that is their competence. In the end, I can only say that such a form of promotion is this year Euro Skillsy, and I cordially invite you all: They are held in Poland, in Gdańsk, in the first week of September. I hope that you will follow how those who develop their competences, as those who promote vocational education, industry will compete with each other. Thank you again for the excellent work.

Mr President, thank you very much. Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. As a summary of three untruths and a corrigendum to these untruths. Firstly, it is not true that there is an agreement on the migration pact, for the simple reason that, if there were, there would be no need to resort to treaty fraud, because such decisions are to be taken not by the Council of the European Union, but by the European Council. The second is not true - you are deceiving Europeans by saying that we are talking about migration and refugees. No, we are talking about illegal immigration, respectfully referring to labour migrants, respectfully welcoming war refugees. Thirdly, it is not true that you want to help. The European Commission, the European Union, the socialists, above all, want to legalise illegal trafficking in human beings and illegal immigration.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. We have a very ambitious, very sensitive generation on the market, which has expectations of its employers and, of course, cannot imagine an internship for free. That's clear, and that gives us the precise goal we want to pursue. They very much need high-quality internships, that is, not only paid ones, but those with a mentor, with a guide who will give them the competence, skills and strength to find themselves on the market. Therefore, I think that these goals, which were shown in the document, sounded well and also show our responsibility. However, I have a problem with the fact that it is a directive and a decision. For good purposes, we should not break the treaties and I think that if we expanded the research and asked more precisely, not only in Belgium and only 300 people, we would have even more information. We could have had a much better document.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. I'm glad you have headphones today. I won't talk, I won't perform until the Commissioner wears his headphones. Colleagues, noble and obvious goals. We want a circular economy, we want to collect, we want to collect batteries from citizens, we want to dispose of them and recover them. Indeed, ambitious targets have been set, but in addition to support for obvious ambitions, risks have been put in place. Note that we have not assessed why the system does not work so far and have not been able to control, check and draw conclusions in recent years. Secondly, we did not count the costs and bureaucracy that will be passed on most often to the customer. Thirdly, we absolutely do not count the risk, what is in the batteries, and especially the raw materials so difficult to access in the world. Recall, however, that China is responsible for a very large area when it comes to the chain, including lithium. We really have a long way to go. Thank you, Commissioner.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. We live in a time of growing empathy and awareness of how we breed animals, how we handle animals. Therefore, any social initiative that sees a problem, wants to solve it, should be welcomed as a good, as a pretext for discussion. But we have to be responsible. We need to investigate every case. We need to look at the rules in place and how to support entrepreneurs to make their farming socially acceptable – in terms of animal welfare, on the one hand, and how they will bear the costs or pass on the costs to consumers, on the other. That is why I welcome the balanced position of the Commissioner, who speaks about the review, about the analysis, but also highlights the times in which we live: in times of rising food costs, rising energy costs (we are not really able to estimate when they will end), in times of war. It was said here that Germany and France have methods, they have ways, that they are already introducing this ban. Maybe it is really worth talking about methods, talking about how the Germans and the French implement innovations that serve breeding. Because I would like us not to stay here with such an impression that here the Germans and the French invented, have their own idea and want to make money on the Europeans.

Mr President, thank you very much. Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. Ladies and Gentlemen, Yes, we have the Montreal agreement, the UN agreement in March, the communiqué and the document that we are working on, on nature restoration. All this arouses great emotions. Why is that? Because, unfortunately, as usual, it is a vision, it is a declaration poorly scientifically proven, and in addition uncounted. I would like to remind you that we had the same fun with the Fit for 55 package. At this moment, speak to your citizens, who will personally bear the cost of our ambitions. They will be punished. They will be forced. They will fulfill certain duties by pulling out their money, not being sure what effects they will get. Therefore, if we do not count, if we do not dedicate specific solutions with full financial support in order to clean up, rebuild and at the same time take on carbon sequestration, because this is the potential of the ocean, we will destroy another branch of the economy. We'll hit the fishermen again. Commissioner, I would like to inform you that in Poland the common fisheries policy has ruined this area of the economy. It can't happen again. Let's think about the future. Let's think about people who know how to use nature and how to take care of it.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Ladies and Gentlemen, European farmers, especially Polish farmers, have opened their hearts, houses, created jobs for Ukrainians, because there is a war going on. She'll probably go on for months. That's why it's so important that we debate. And probably the first conclusion is that we should discuss this issue once a month in order to settle all these issues. Also to prevent disinformation. Very many want to fuel the anger of farmers, very often right, that this respect be, this support, that this unity addressed to Ukraine be destroyed. That is why ad hoc action is needed. It is therefore good that we voted in favour of the proposal yesterday. Because in Article 4 it allows for blockages, those blockages that are already taking place and will allow for others, but also to think about public aid, to support farmers at every step. But I think that we also need to discuss systemic solutions, look at the common agricultural policy in a different way. War tells us to verify all sorts of accents. It is important what we do for European farmers.

Mr President, thank you very much. Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. Yes, we have a summary of several IPCC reports, because this is not new research, new research ahead of us, as well as the search for new algorithms and the possibility of counting and checking how it all works. But since they are scientists, they should be taken very seriously, but also seriously demanded of them. First of all, require education all over the world. Because, in fact, the European Union becomes the beneficiary of all recommendations, and all climate summits, although very often becoming markets for vanity and emissions, show who is responsible for these more than 100 years of the production period, the last 100 years of excess carbon emissions. And although the slogans are right: Let us stand in solidarity, let us share – let us not say that those who are not responsible must now be held accountable. Secondly, you need to read the reports in full, not selectively. For example, the entire section on removals – natural removals, which were not supposed to be included in the climate law. I would like to remind you that the last few hours have actually decided that we are talking about absorption, as well as carbon capture. We already know the technologies, we also know what are the emotions of those who present these technologies. They would like to build a system similar to the ETS. Europeans, because the world does not experience it, because it does not participate in it, will not survive the next system, which they will have to finance themselves. Therefore, it is necessary to ensure that the money for investments related to capture, removal, closed economy is - whether it resulted - from the reduction of the ETS or replaced by the ETS.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Commissioner, I'm sorry. Friends and colleagues! Everyone agrees: chemicals, substances harmful to man, soil, air, water, should be eliminated. But it is necessary to make such changes, such revisions based on evidence, on science, that will not lead to the opposite effect. Therefore, you need to think about at least three documents that we mention here. Firstly, the revision of the REACH Regulation, the revision of the Water Directive or the documents related to soils, with care for soils. It is important to remember that these are chemicals that are actually found everywhere. They're in cell phones, they're in contact lenses, they're in guitar strings, they're in dental floss, or they're in makeup products. I am talking about it specifically to show the multitude, multiplicity and complexity, in order to properly choose the means. Secondly, let us trust scientists, researchers, and producers, because they do not necessarily want to poison us – they also want to participate in this process. Let's listen to the public consultation. They are expected to end at the end of September or October this year. Let's be careful. If we prepare the documents properly, maybe not immediately, but gradually we will eliminate harmful substances.

Mr President, thank you very much. The ECR has no problem voting in favour of the ODS Regulation. It is indeed an alignment, an alignment of definitions or an alignment with other pieces of legislation. The reality has changed a bit and we need to modernize this document. However, we have a big problem with the regulation on fluorinated gases, because it is unrealistic and impossible to implement. In fact, it goes against what is in the RePowerEU document, to which Mr Timmermans is particularly attached. There is no way to move away from fluorinated gases at such a pace and at the same time not worry about heat pumps, which are an alternative here. This will cause a disruption of the energy system, energy efficiency, the collapse of small and medium-sized enterprises and, finally, the inaccessibility of heat pumps on the market, because they will be so expensive. Here it is necessary to reflect, to extend the time, to show alternatives, to price these alternatives, so as not to be suspicious that we care about the interests of a few – especially German – companies.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Commissioner, I'm sorry. I welcome our debate and I hope that this is how the Commissioner will look at the problem, that is, in an absolutely holistic way, because the initiative, although backed by a million signatures – who does not love bees in the world and does not know how important they are – is unfortunately one-sided. I am a Polish woman, where every year we grow bee families, where we have a tradition for centuries. We know how to care for bees. And I want to start with the fact that during the analysis we should think about and try to take the example of those who have such results, although they also use plant protection products. Of course, money is needed, not just for the little ones. Thanks to Commissioner Wojciechowski, they are already here. But also for large apiaries, mapping is needed so that there are no conflicts between farmers or between those who move out of cities and inhabit villages. I'm glad we're going to discuss this.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. Friends and colleagues! Indeed, the work was intense, sympathetic, I think we respected each other, although very often we disagreed. And now maybe without this bloating, the truth embedded in reality. I recall the second article of the climate law, it was a difficult article to reach a compromise, which says that we are in solidarity at the level of the European Union, that we take into account not only natural sinks, because we knew that nature could not cope. What happened to those documents? This law and this article simply don't work. First of all, LULUCF is unfair. I think that here I have repeatedly pointed out to the sympathetic rapporteur Fin that I do not understand why they, so rich in forests, have to absorb 7 million tons, and Poland 38 million tons? I never got an answer. Tell me, tomorrow or the day after tomorrow, achieve your goals? Later you will be able to borrow, you will be able to trade. Secondly, this document is based on absolutely unreal data, because these are data from 2016 to 2018. The world of forests is completely different. In addition, I remind you, there is talk of punishment, that is, you will not achieve the result, then you will have to increase your efforts by a few percent. And finally, there is no money to help member states when the storm comes, when the fire comes. As far as effort sharing is concerned, it is mockingly referred to at the moment as the one concerning the economy and those elements of nature that are not covered by the ETS. Oh, they are. After all, we are talking about transport, we are talking about apartments and houses. After all, we doubly punish those who drive cars, heat or cool their own homes. It does not take this document of war, including migration, into account at all. There are several million Ukrainian citizens in Poland who have an influence on how the reduction effort also counts. Finally a reserve. Well, that's a masterpiece. War, pandemic, raging energy prices, ETS, which already reaches 100 euros, and here we are talking about doubling this reserve. How much does he have to accomplish to make Mr. Frans Timmermans satisfied? 200? 300 euros? Ask Europeans about this so that it does not end like the regulation... (Chair took the floor)

Madam President, I'm sorry. Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. The energy crisis, which was felt even before the war, which is the result of an absolute financial pyramid, which is the ETS, later the war, caused that the economies of the Member States, but the economy, also managed, in quotation marks, by the European Union, switched to manual control. Today, the farmer needs our help, because he has to implement recommendations, plans, programs. He has to learn many things, and he struggles with everyday life and thinks about the future. I am glad that such decisions are made as in my country, that the state helps and subsidizes, among other things, fertilizers. It should probably become the norm. Therefore, Commissioner, the question is how to help farmers, as soon as possible now, in a month and for two, to have a sense of care, but also a sense that they can serve their societies by ensuring food safety.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Mr Vice-President, thank you very much. Friends and colleagues! This regulation is a violation of privacy and property, it is a violation of competitiveness and a violation of the free market. Finally, it is a regulation that will aggravate the energy crisis and the exclusion of communications. In the end, it's just greenwashing. The battery is made up of a carbon footprint, not to mention a lion whose prices have soared a thousand times. Its extraction is an absolute ecological disaster, a ton of lithium extraction is a dozen tons of carbon dioxide, not to mention the amount of water needed for this extraction. At the same time, after the scandal in the socialist group, after the scandal that is being prepared when it comes to the Greens, because rapporteurs are caught in the impure lobbying of external companies, I call on the Bureau of the European Parliament to take a special look at this regulation. Who took what for it? Who is behind this regulation that is ruining the European economy?

Madam President, I'm sorry. Commissioner, I'm sorry. Friends and colleagues! I do not know if you are wondering about the fiery speeches of the socialists. It's like they want to shout reality. They are the ones who talk about procedures, about rules, and they themselves cannot explain this scandal. Let us not be seduced and let us be credible. Why does the Bureau of the European Parliament, why does the European Parliament at all agree to act as Vice-President of Parliament precisely on behalf of the Socialists? They should be held collectively responsible. Let us forget the dignified representation that should be in the Bureau of the European Parliament. Let's look at all the lobbyists. Let's look at NGOs. Do NGOs, associations and foundations confess to us who they are funded by? The big scandals are probably ahead of us when we review regulations that clearly serve specific companies and a specific lobby. Let us look at how Gazprom and Russia influenced our decisions, as were the declarations of the European Commission, from which nothing emerges.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Mr. Prime Minister, I'm sorry. The ambitious and very concrete assumptions of the Presidency – this is important – because we have another difficult year ahead of us, more difficult than the one that has passed. The war in Europe is not over. It is necessary to ensure unity around support for Ukraine, and the financial, military, but also refugee, refugee and war support for countries that have welcomed Ukrainians, including the United States, Ukraine, Ukraine, Ukraine, Ukraine, Ukraine, Ukraine, Ukraine, Ukraine, Ukraine, Ukraine, Ukraine, Ukraine, Ukraine, Ukraine, Ukraine, Ukraine, Ukraine, Ukraine, the United States, Ukraine, the United States, the United States, the United States, the United States, the United States, the United States, the United States, the United States, the United States, the United States, the United States, the United States, the United States, the United States, and the United States. Poland, which, apart from the evidence of sympathy, did not receive a single euro. I would like to remind you that millions of Ukrainians have passed through Poland, who are safe with us and who have been well taken care of. This is a difficult, more difficult year, because the Fit for 55 package is still going on without any major reflection. And let us recall that the energy crisis broke out even before the war – we prepared this fate for ourselves. At the same time, the frozen directive on the taxation of energy from coal and gas – which will have to be reviewed by the presidency – foresees an increase of 300-500%. It will take a lot of courage to tell Europeans about it. Finally, it is a difficult year, because it is shocked by corruption scandals in the European Parliament. The European Parliament is weak. I am surprised by the courage of the President of the Socialists, who dares to instruct any country. I'm asking her to settle the matter in her political camp.

Mr President, thank you very much. Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. Colleagues! The Commissioner said a sentence for which I thank you very much because it expresses the spirit of the regulation. He said that our waste is our responsibility. We would like to say that this regulation will make it so that we will not have to be ashamed that we make declarations, after which we export shamelessly to the whole world and get rid of the problem. Transparency, clarity, accountability and penalties for non-compliance and for illegality. That is how it should be done. I also want to say that I lack more producer responsibility in this regulation. However, it is not necessary to worry about shipments, but to concentrate and require producers to take care of their own waste. Lastly, to ensure transparency, as few delegated acts as possible. Let's not let officials decide what the rules should look like.

Mr President, thank you very much. Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. Mr. Secretary of State! Everyone is right, but the numbers are absolute. According to Eurostat, almost 95 million Europeans are at risk of poverty, including energy poverty. Most often they are women, in 80 percent women raising children. The children's situation is becoming dramatic. We have to act because the situation is getting more and more dramatic. The energy crisis and the economic crisis are having a profound impact on children. In fact, on their lives, on their education and on our future. But I want us to tell the Europeans that we, too, are responsible for this. Energy policy is leading to disaster. We were the ones who caused the energy crisis before the war. It is time to look at our actions – the European Commission, the European Union, the European Parliament – holistically. On the one hand, you cannot say pay more, because we have such ambitions, more for food, more for energy, and then declare that we need to help those at risk of energy poverty. Let's be honest, because our children deserve it.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. Friends and colleagues! Energy prices are indeed unacceptable, but they became unacceptable in the last quarter of 2021 before the outbreak of the war. The war has accelerated everything. You really have to make decisions about diversification, storage, saving. But unfortunately, these changes to the directive will not change anything. They are a guarantee of absolute chaos, in addition without proper financing. In addition, they are a violation of what we have always said about public participation, about the protection of the environment, habitats, nature, because we forget about it. Article 16d, which says that for some reason, devices for this type of renewable energy are investments of a public purpose, is unacceptable. This means that we will allow the ruthless actions of investors, which will interfere in privacy, in the property of Europeans, causing absolute chaos. In the context of corruption scandals, we are also opening the door to such activities when investing in renewable energy.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Commissioner, I'm sorry. There is war in Europe, an energy and economic crisis, and people are living in energy poverty. That is why we owe it to Europeans to be honest and to know that the actions that the European Commission is taking are, unfortunately, sham, because we will not reduce energy prices if we do not stop the ETS, and we are doing nothing but expanding the ETS, reaching deep into the pockets of Europeans. At the same time, the European Commission does not dare to say that it froze the energy taxation directive by March, where the prices of energy from coal are to increase from 100% to 300%, and the prices of heat and energy from gas from 300% to 500%. At the same time, the possibility of reducing VAT in individual Member States is blocked. Poland must give up on this, because these are the European Commission's own resources. Beware of platforms. We already had joint purchases, including vaccines. To date, the European Commission has not explained the contracts it has concluded with pharmaceutical companies.

Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry I'm late. I am grateful to be able to speak. Energy prices, gas prices, moving fertiliser production outside the European Union, dependence on imports, and finally the war that disrupted all supply chains all led to a dramatic situation in the fertiliser market. Yes, you have to act here and now. Don't think about what's next year, what's next two years, because farmers and citizens need help. Therefore, suggestions: The ETS is a speculative market that makes everyone lose control of energy prices. It should be suspended, as should work on the Fit for 55 package. Please, Commissioner, tell President von der Leyen that we very much need a reduction in gas prices, a freeze on gas prices, and that is precisely what she is opposed to. Finally, let us allow financial aid to farmers. Let's give them that help.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Commissioner, I'm sorry. Listening to my colleagues, I know one thing. That our delegation has a strong mandate, that we all speak one language. This is important! She will have the courage to push through all those biodiversity-friendly recommendations that are in favour of solutions to block international wildlife trade. That is why I am pleased that we can say that we are in favour of improving the enforcement of prohibitions and restrictions on trade in protected species, of transparency, that we are in favour of facilitating and financially securing the implementation of this Convention. At the same time, we are in favour of strengthening the role of the European Union in the global fight against trade, wildlife and ensuring the implementation of the European Union Action Plan against Trade, Wildlife and Wildlife 2016-2020. I wish you good luck and courage.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Commissioner, I'm sorry. It is a pity that we do not discuss what is important for resolving the causes of the ecological disaster on the Oder. In two weeks, in three weeks, at the next meeting in Strasbourg. The Commissioner, the requesting Member State, is well aware that the Polish Government, but not only the German Government, but also the Commission, are awaiting the results of the studies. They will appear on September 30. Then we'll know a lot more. Let me remind you: 30,000 samples were taken, several European countries are being tested and they are in line with each other. Decisions are made regarding the verification of water and legal permits, which may be outdated with climate change and decreasing water status, not only the Oder. Unfortunately, fish sleep is becoming more and more common. That is why cooperation and knowledge are so important in order to draw conclusions – not only in Poland – but so that these conclusions serve the work and prevention of such events throughout the European Union. That is why I thank the European Commission for this restraint, which has repeatedly said that it is waiting for the results of research. A number of actions are announced, because we do not remain passive, we want to act further, draw conclusions and, above all, support residents, citizens, but also the river. We want the Oder to come back to life every day.

Mr President, thank you very much. Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. Today's debate is special, because in fact everyone is a little right, because the intentions are right, we have similar ideas and a similar diagnosis. Today, however, details are missing, details of every event that took place during the summer that ended. To diagnose correctly, to count correctly and to manage it, as the Commissioner said. We have very difficult decisions ahead of us, because they are related, among others, to financing. But unfortunately, there are voices here saying that the package Fit for 55 solve these problems. Not for a second. Energy policy and climate policy are in a huge crisis. We cannot think about what happened, where we made a mistake, because at the moment it is citizens, it is Europeans who pay for ideas that are not counted, do not have a good financial basis. Remember, poverty is not ecological. If we lead to the impoverishment of states, to the impoverishment of businesses, to the impoverishment of citizens, we simply will not achieve any goal. Let's look at the package again. Fit for 55Really serving the environment.