Speeches

Madam President, I'm sorry. Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. When I hear the voices of the EPP, the Greens, Renew and the Socialists, I am truly astonished. You have all raised your hands in favour of the Fit for 55 package. Every document, every directive, every regulation has hit agriculture differently. Therefore, the first thing: Hit your breasts, go to your farmers and talk about these decisions. In a few weeks' time, we will be voting on increasing ambition to cut carbon emissions by 90% by 2040. At every meeting of the Environment Commission, we hear that agriculture is most responsible for climate change. I guarantee you that you will vote for these changes. Commissioner, I know that the Polish government is raising this issue and wants to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 90%. And I also want to ask what the Commissioner for Trade will do with duty-free trade on the Polish-Ukrainian border. Polish farmers announced a protest on January 24.

Mr President, thank you very much. Oh, High Commissioner! Friends and colleagues! Important words have just been said that we should care about a strong United States, a strong European Union, because then there will be a strong alliance and partnership. I thank you for this report and for this discussion. I try not to hear that unfortunately there are voices that are announcing attempts to interfere in the elections in the United States. Unfortunately, we very often experience such interference in elections in different countries on the part of the European Parliament or the European Commission. I am glad that from various countries, including German voices, French voices are resounding here, because this year we have heard too many bad words, and this is from the German side, which wants to limit its contribution to NATO, or we have heard the words of the French president, who distances himself from the United States or NATO. This is a warning for us, because more important are all the issues that unite us, not those that divide us. At the same time, I do not hide that we are worried in Poland, because the foreign minister will be a man who was on the lips of all Russia and was on all stripes on Russian television. When Nord Stream 2 was destroyed, he tweeted that he thanked the United States. At the same time, in Poland, we know him from vulgar, café discussions about the fact that we cooperate too strongly with the United States. I hope that the European Parliament, the European Commission will be able to watch over Radosław Sikorski, who until recently was an MEP, with us.

Mr President, thank you very much. Russia is waging a total, totalitarian war against Ukraine and Europe – murdering people, destroying the economy, leaving the land burned. Mines, mines, destroys waterworks, destroys industrial plants. It's all cruel. The European Union gives evidence of concern, but it must have a plan. How, firstly, to win the war, secondly, to find money, thirdly, to mine Ukraine, secondly, to make it a country where there will be good, clean, drinking water. And it will indicate the funds and opportunities to be able to save the environment. Without specifics, without plans, we will only have appeals. We can't win a war like this.

Mr President, thank you very much. Friends and colleagues! Yes, we are indeed meeting for the fifth time to cry out, to appeal, to recall statistics, to talk about violence. But we owe it to our colleagues, mothers and sisters to be in their offices every day – and not just on the occasion of an international holiday – together with their governments and with pressure on the government, on their actions. What I've been missing over the past five years is this whole system analysis. Because it is not enough to provide data on the scale. We need information on how education works, how social welfare works, how the justice system works, why it does not work in different systems. We live in the 21st century. Women are enlightened, educated. They know their worth. I want to show an example of such an action, because here we were able to agree cross-party in Poland. There are rules already in place. There are others that, for example, ruthlessly and immediately separate the persecutor from the woman. According to these provisions, a person who engages in physical violence and poses a threat to the life or health of his household must, by decision of the police, leave the apartment without delay. He is also banned from approaching his home for 14 days, and the courts have the tools to hear the case more quickly. Indeed, the Police and Military Gendarmerie were given new powers. In addition, a person who has been subjected to violence is considered to be in particular trauma. Therefore, he needs special care, even during the interrogation. And this is what we offer to Polish women. I want it to look like this all over Europe. Here we are together. There is no division.

Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. You know very well that I like you very much and respect you, but I have to start with a difficult proposal. It seems to me that you should investigate in the Commission who brought this project, because clearly someone wants to earn something here, because this project is really throwing away dozens of years of work, education, investment, searching for solutions, so that the economy really closes down. And suddenly there are solutions that say that we will deal with plastic that no one can dispose of anymore. It is necessary to amend Articles 22, 26, as well as those articles that delegate or allow the Commission to delegated acts, in addition designed in such a way that, say, the Commission has until the end of December for such a delegated act, and from the first of January of the following year these provisions are to apply. This is not how the economy is constructed. Let's be responsible for the people, let's improve this document during the votes.

Mr President, thank you very much. Nice to see you here. Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. Absorption, carbon capture is very important. It's good that you have to pay for it, encourage it to just happen. Unfortunately, this document does not meet these needs, because it builds a system in an absolute legal vacuum. Roughly we say that somehow it will be that the market will determine that farmers, foresters are interested, because they will perform all sorts of activities that they will do anyway, and they will get money for it. Unfortunately, if we do not link this system to the ETS, that is, we do not reduce the purchase of allowances by just buying carbon capture and removal certificates, then we will simply create ETS 3, which will absolutely function on the market without any control. That bodes badly. I hope that during the next work we will be able to work out secure documents.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Friends and colleagues! Thanking the shadow rapporteurs, advisers and assistants for their very intensive and very efficient work, I would like to request a referral back to the committee responsible, in accordance with Rule 54(2). 4 to negotiate.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Europe will be strong globally when it is no longer weak internally, when it respects the treaties, when it respects member countries, when it respects Europeans. After all, it must remember that we must take care of border security, stop wading into an absurd immigration pact, which will cause us to have even more terrorism precisely in the European Union, taking care of terrorism around the world. It must ensure energy security, so that future generations do not fall into energy poverty, and remember that when thinking about renewable energy, it cannot become dependent on the whole world, especially China. This is the report from a few weeks ago. Finally, it must ensure food security. You cannot give in to oligarchs who trade in Ukrainian grain, among other things. It is important to ensure that Europeans feel safe so that individual Member States can independently take decisions together and in line with the European Union.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. We actually have six months of work ahead of us. Therefore, what the European Commission should deal with is primarily the verification of documents. It is impossible to boast that there are more and more of them, there will be more and more, because this is a guarantee of absolute chaos and very superficial treatment of documents. So I would like the Commission to choose the most important ones, the ones that it is able to finish together with the European Parliament. Besides, you have to look for money. The budget lacks 65 billion euros. Without this, the implementation of any ideas will absolutely not be possible. Third, we need to think about safety. We really cannot stand before the Europeans and say that here we are in a bubble and the outside world does not concern us. As the war goes on, so it goes on. There is no way to end it. It is uneasy in Israel. And today, as we started a minute of silence – to honour the memory of the killed Swedish supporters – there is no reflection on how we will ensure the safety of Europeans. How we will deal with illegal migration. We want to make all the mistakes we made in 2014, in 2015. Security is also energy security. It has to resonate here. Energy prices have calmed down a bit, but you know that they will explode again, all the more so because the European Commission wants all shields and support for those at risk of energy poverty to disappear. This is a challenge for the European Commission and Europeans need to hear about it, because we in the elections to the European Parliament will absolutely confess it. And, of course, the Green Deal must be taken seriously. I don't know if you hear jokes about how the package Fit for 55 it is a package to make China richer, as Commissioner von der Leyen also said in her report, showing that we are just ending our independence from Russia and we are absolutely becoming dependent on China. These are the most important events, the priorities that the Commission must think about.

Mr President, thank you very much. Commissioner, my fellow Members! Unfortunately, this document is impossible to implement. I know, the WHO gives guidelines and we make it a legal basis. When I ask what studies these guidelines are based on, I don't get an answer. In addition, it is an institution that has been almost privatized for a long time. But it's on a different subject, on a different circumstance. It is a document that primarily wants to punish member states. I understand, the Commission does not have dramatic money, it needs that money, but it wants to punish citizens, and in addition, it puts one citizen against another, because it allows him to report. Can you imagine a senior woman who will burn wood in a fireplace and be accused under this document? Therefore, we want to take care of cleanliness, air quality, we do a lot, every member country, the European Union as well. But we must be cautious, prudent and, above all, find sources of financing for all the investments needed to implement this document. Unfortunately, in the systems of the Member States, in the systems of the European Union, this money simply does not exist.

Mr President, thank you very much. Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. We will not give our lives to anyone. The sufferings of those who have lost the wealth and achievements of their entire lives, we probably cannot understand, but we can act here and act in the future. Here, it is simply a need for solidarity and money to rebuild this property, to rebuild infrastructure, to make plans, including infrastructure, for the future. We also need to do a thorough analysis. I would like to remind you that in many countries there are ongoing investigations concerning, among others, fires. Here, the slogans related to climate change are not enough, because very often it is human action. We also need to reevaluate, I think, the Green Deal and the package. ‘Fit for 55’. Because, in general, we no longer have money in the system. The European Union alone is short of 65 billion euros, and money for sewage, water supply, fire protection, deconcrete of our cities and concreted streets costs a lot of money. We need farmers here and now, five years from now and ten years from now.

Mr President, thank you very much. Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. Now for a moment about the facts. The report presented last week includes: The European Union shows how climate policy depends on the whole world, which is outside the European Union, primarily on China. China will be the beneficiary of our Fit for 55 package. Second, the package Fit for 55 it is obsolete because it arose before the pandemic and before the war, causing major market turmoil and an energy crisis. It needs to be verified. There is no money in financial systems that would meet all these algorithms, because there are no calculations. Most of the impacts are simply untrue. Thirdly, and this is the biggest allegation, it is a package that has come against man. In order to realise any concept, the idea – and yet this is a good idea about protecting the environment – we have come up against people. People are only there to pay for it. They're not our partners. We could not convince them of the Green Deal. That bodes badly.

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)