Speeches

Mr President, thank you once again and thank you, colleagues, for everything you have said here today, because I think we can agree that this is really just the beginning. We managed to solve a lot of problematic things, such as credit cards, such as the right to be forgotten, but also only for a part of the patients. I very much hope that this right will subsequently also be used in the new Mortgage Credit Regulation or Directive, where it is just as important as for consumer credit. I very much hope that in the next revision of the text there will be an extension to far more diseases in the right to be forgotten. I hope that we will be able to solve, for example, crowdfunding, which unfortunately was not included in this directive at all, but it is up to our colleagues and ourselves to make it work at all. In order to encourage our Member States to implement this Directive as quickly as possible, they have started to apply it. Because it is precisely the financial crisis, which certainly does not end, but falls on every single state, on every single citizen, that shows us how desperate situations, even due to the lack of legislation, the citizens of the Member States can get into. It is now also in our hands and in the hands of the Commission to prove that what we have done together here will be implemented for the benefit of all consumers throughout the European Union. Finally, let me say two more thanks. We all know that without our teams, the Asian teams, many of the things we do would not have happened, and I would very much like to thank the two people who worked in my office on this document, Peter and Martin, and our IMCO Committee Chair, Anna Cavazzini, who stood by when the political agreements were not always easy, and I think she was also able to fight for consumers at the right moment. So thank you very much, all of you, and now it is up to us, the Member States, as quickly as possible, to take this directive into their own hands and apply it in such a way that there are no more irregularities.

Mr President, it is not easy to take over such a large and important legislative document as the rapporteur from the smallest political group. However, I believe that, given the context of the current economic crisis, as rapporteur for The Left, I have stood up and prepared legislation that will significantly protect consumers taking out credit. Before I get to the actual analysis of what went well and what did not, let me thank all the shadow rapporteurs, their assistants and political advisers, including the secretariats and the linguists. Without you, it would not be possible to finish this job. I cannot fail to thank the two Presidencies that contributed to the new directive, both the Czech and the Swedish Presidencies. Last but not least, I would like to thank the Commissioner and his wonderful team. It was a long and difficult journey. I am not going to lie, there is a result at the end of it that is definitely not perfect and in all respects what I would like as a left-wing politician, but it is such that I can proudly stand behind it. I consider the greatest success of my vision to be that for the first time we have succeeded in enforcing into European Union legislation the so-called right to be forgotten of cancer patients.  For years, all sorts of patient forums have talked about the discrimination people who have cured themselves of cancer experience on a daily basis in the financial markets. From now on, those who have recovered from cancer and apply for a loan for which insurance is required will be protected by the ‘right to be forgotten’, which will guarantee that, after a certain period of time has elapsed since the end of their treatment, the bank or insurance company will not be able to use their cancer as a reason for the deterioration of credit insurance.  Personally, I would like this right to apply to all major diseases, not just cancer, but the Member States of the European Union have agreed only on cancer. Anyway, the door opened. Once established, the law may gradually be written everywhere. Another thing I am particularly proud of is the new regulation of credit advertising. Like advertising on cigarette packs, credit advertising should always contain a clear and prominent warning that borrowing money simply costs money. At the same time, some dangerous and misleading types of advertising will now be banned directly. Personally, I believe that advertising for consumer credit, at least in the mass media, should be banned completely, but this unfortunately turned out to be completely impassable. Overall, the new directive covers a number of previously unregulated financial products, such as credit cards or various micro-loans. I am particularly pleased that, after fierce battles with the Council, the directive has also been extended to the very widespread "buy today and pay tomorrow" schemes. New regulation is needed primarily against big tech companies, as they are assertively trying to enter the credit market and wield enormous power to make consumers buy impulsively. I consider it the biggest failure of the negotiations that we have not succeeded in enforcing an obligation for Member States to set a maximum higher chargeable interest for consumer credits or, alternatively, a maximum credit price that the borrower is obliged to pay for the credit. From my point of view, this would be by far the most effective consumer protection instrument. Colleagues, once again, thank you very much to all those involved for the smooth cooperation. I look forward to the debate and I firmly hope that the document will pass the final vote smoothly and that the new Consumer Credit Directive will then be swiftly implemented by the Member States as well. In my opinion, it was late yesterday and we can no longer afford to waste our time.

Mr President, in the Council conclusions, we commit to providing Ukraine with sustainable military support for as long as it takes. Instead of drugs for rare diseases and cancer, which the Commission refuses to buy en masse, it will rather buy artillery ammunition and rockets en masse with European money. What does primary law say about the use of European money for military purposes, colleagues? He forbids it. Instead of making every effort to reach a peaceful settlement, we will participate in the further murder of two peoples. Does it just seem absurd to me? Furthermore, we commit to ensuring stable, predictable and sustainable financial support to Ukraine in the coming years. There is nothing to object to the reconstruction of Ukraine, but I ask: How high is Ukraine in the world corruption rankings? The day will not pass when the theft of military or other aid by the Ukrainian oligarchs will not be uncovered. And that's what we hear: Ukraine will solve the corruption when the war is over. We're throwing our citizens' money into the canal, and apparently most of you don't care.

Mr President, I do not want to sound too negative about this report, but the fact is that, as it is written, it represents only a right-wing ideological view of events as they have happened. Right-wing colleagues, who have teamed up with liberal colleagues and part of the socialists, paint the pink reality of how the pandemic really happened in the EU. Yes, on the one hand, the text acknowledges that not everything has succeeded, but on the other hand, it already says that it is not necessary to change too much. And most importantly, we must not frighten the pharmaceutical industry. The report is completely uncritical of the machinations involved in concluding contracts for bulk purchases of vaccines. It avoids questions about how it is possible that the contracts have not yet been fully released to us or to the public. It neglects how they were negotiated via the mobile phone of the President of the Commission via SMS. It no longer addresses Pfizer's reprehensible behaviour towards us as members of this body. The mistakes made by Member States in promoting their own vaccination campaigns, often in a misleading way, have also been completely ignored. The chapter itself is the non-solution of patent law both inside the EU and outside, when a right-wing warlord forced himself by force not to comply with Parliament's previous resolutions calling for at least some reform of the TRIPS agreement. On the contrary, the image presented by the right here in terms of how the EU helped the third world is uncritically laudatory. Colleagues, I am sorry, but all I can say about the vote is that whoever votes in favour of this text has no dignity as a Member. The report is a one-sided view of the entire pandemic that runs counter to the pharmaceutical industry and current European power structures.

Mr President, Commissioner, colleagues, if adopted, the Artificial Intelligence Act would be the first rules on artificial intelligence in the world. This is certainly a very ambitious goal for the European Union to be the first in the world in this area and thus to set trends in the regulation of these rapidly developing technologies. That is why it should not only be ambitious how many people we are going to be in the world, but also, above all, whether these rules will be ambitious and genuinely serve the citizens and protect the citizens of the European Union, their fundamental rights or their health. Unfortunately, the text that emerged from the IMCO and LIBE Committees lacks ambitious rules. There are no cases where the use of AI to determine people’s access to education, to evaluate jobseekers or to decide whether to give notice will not be a high-risk use. If we really want to protect citizens, these uses must be subject to the strictest possible rules and controls. But in the current text, these uses would not automatically be assessed as high-risk. I repeat, there is no case where leaving the decision on the fate of employees to artificial intelligence will not be high-risk. Preliminary caution is therefore quite appropriate, but it is lacking in the text. At the same time, it is not possible to talk about good regulation if it allows the surveillance of employees in the workplace with the help of artificial intelligence without their consent. Is it really our goal to show that this corporate dystopia, where employees' every move is monitored by their supervisors and employers in their workplaces, is all right in Europe? If not, it is necessary to prohibit the use of AI for this purpose. Together with my colleague Ernst, we tabled a number of amendments that put the protection of citizens first. If adopted, it will also be possible to adopt this proposal. However, if these comments are not addressed and our amendments are not accepted, it is not possible for me to support this proposal.

Madam President, I think we all recognise the need to fight antimicrobial resistance and thank you very much for the resolution that we have here today. The new pharmaceutical package is also presented by the Commission to help with this ticking bomb. Unfortunately, it turned out as usual. I simply cannot identify with the solution to antimicrobial resistance in the new package. Perhaps the biggest evil, of course, is the proposed incentive that would reward developers of new antibiotics with a so-called sales voucher, i.e. a voucher that would allow a special unlimited annual protective exclusivity for the drug chosen by the company. As if that wasn't enough, these vouchers can also be traded. This is absolutely scandalous! The Commission is not only failing to address the problem of antimicrobial resistance in real terms, but is also creating a secondary speculative market for medicines. What do you think's gonna happen? Which medications do you think the company will apply the vouchers to? Well, of course, to the most expensive and most in demand drugs from their portfolio, to the detriment of, for example, rare disease patients and our public health insurance systems to maximize their profits. Neither I nor my group can and will accept that.

Madam President, Commissioner, we have been looking for a year at the European Commission's failure to ensure such a trivial thing as the control of grain imports from Ukraine, which were intended for transit to countries outside the European Union and, of course, ended up on our market. It damages our agriculture and ends up in products and on the shelves of our shops. I'm not talking about potential health risks. If it weren't for countries like Poland and Hungary, you simply haven't solved this problem to this day. Although there has been a shift in the last few days, I want to warn you again that your solution may soon bring new problems. Five countries have negotiated an import ban and compensation, but you are now again allowing imports into the EU, so the problem will simply persist. We have a single market in which we can transport products without any restrictions. In addition, you continue to completely ignore the ticking bomb of importing other commodities such as poultry and eggs. If you want to help Ukraine export agricultural products to developing countries, please make sure that this is really just transit, and a really effective measure.

Mr President, I am not very happy that, thanks to the government of the Czech Republic, my country must serve as an example of what steps not to take. Czech Post has planned to close 300 of its branches by summer 2023. It is said that due to declining interest in services at branches and the impact of digitalisation. As a state-owned company, the Czech Government also approved the plan. Only our dear government has forgotten the citizens once again. For a large number of citizens who have problems using online services or who have poorer access to the internet, access to postal services will simply be severely restricted. They will have to travel longer distances to crowded branches. Completely unconceived and anti-social solutions can only lead to privatisation and higher prices for postal services. Digitalisation certainly offers a number of unquestionable benefits to citizens, but it must not serve as a pretext for socialists to make blind cuts and restrict access to services. And I call on the Czech Government to abandon this non-conceptual solution, to start taking citizens into account, and on the European Commission to finally stop calling for any liberalisation or privatisation of public services.

Madam President, Commissioner, one of your objectives in the strategy is to adopt measures for fairer access to vaccines and medicines by strengthening local pharmaceutical systems and production capacity. This is a beautiful proclamation that has already appeared in the Pharmaceutical Strategy for Europe three years ago. I ask you, what did you do as the European Commission? After all, the Commission is not even able to deal with production capacities and medicine shortages within the European Union for months. Every citizen who goes to the pharmacy these days sees what is not available. Another thing – I would expect both the strategy and the European Union’s individual steps to reflect the European Parliament’s position that the experience of the COVID-19 pandemic shows that poor countries cannot rely on donations of vaccines and medicines. They need to have access to technologies and recipes so that vaccines and medicines can produce themselves. My faction has argued for years that a TRIPS waiver is necessary for this. We do not agree that the European strategy for exporting vaccines to poor countries has been successful. Our future strategy for the world should be guided by the principle of global equality in health, which requires a complete rethink of the legal framework for the protection of intellectual property. It's the only way we can really make a difference.

Dear colleagues, as former Vice-Chair of the Committee of Inquiry into Emission Measurements in the Automotive Sector, I see the outcome of Dieselgate in the European Union as one big loss for all. We have lost our industry, which has lost its position on the market in the United States. They lost our consumers, who were far from being compensated as those across the ocean, and the European institutions, who simply did not learn their lesson, also lost. What was the main reason for the scandal? After all, the statutory emission reduction targets have decoupled from what is physically, costly and socially possible. When I look at the approved end of the sale of new combustion engine cars in combination with the newly proposed Euro 7 standard, I can only come to the conclusion that history will simply repeat itself. If the new Euro 7 contains requirements that cannot currently be measured using the best sensors, what is going to happen? Colleagues, the Diseselgate case was not an isolated failure of our producers, but the result of a long series of bad political decisions. If the adopted goals do not respect what is realistically possible in practice and socially acceptable, then it is clear that those who are supposed to bring them to life bypass and ignore them. We continue to do this.

Madam President, with eight hives per square kilometre, the Czech Republic is the fourth country in the world in terms of the number of hives. But the past few years have been catastrophic for pollinators. In winter, frost is increasingly alternating with rapid warming. Bees are disoriented, and if the temperature exceeds 10 degrees, they begin to fly out, brittle and die. Yes, pollinators are endangering agricultural chemicals. Cases of the death of poisoned beehives are not a rarity in the Czech Republic either. Pesticides, however, are far from the only and certainly not the biggest current problem of beekeeping. Pollinators are further harmed by drought, devastation of the landscape, insufficient pollen diversity, change in the structure of agricultural production and crop rotation. We must not forget about diseases. It is simply a set of measures that we need to take if we want to help. And I am very happy for the seventh successful European Citizens' Initiative in a row, and I very much hope that the Commission will not treat it like the previous ones and will address the problem properly. However, let's really approach this with intellect and comprehensiveness. One measure won't solve anything.

Madam President, today we are to vote on new CO2 emission limits for cars and commercial vehicles by 2035. The general public knows this regulation under the media abbreviation of the ban on the sale of newly produced cars with an internal combustion engine after 2035. I would like to say a few words about the whole negotiation process, which I consider to be unfortunate, and the more unfortunate is the result itself. In particular, it was presented by the Czech Presidency that this was not the real end of combustion engine cars, because the Council had, after all, promoted the possibility of using synthetic fuels. That's not the case. The only enforced reference to synthetic fuels is contained in a mere recital, i.e. a non-binding part of the text. The debates with the Commission have also been heard, and I think the Commissioner has also promised that if the production of new combustion engine cars comes to an end in 2035, manufacturers will live to see the current Euro 6 emission standard so that they do not have to invest additional resources in dying technology. This did not happen either, and the Commission tricked those Member States who believed it into coming up with the Euro 7 proposal, which will make new ICE cars significantly more expensive by imposing additional requirements not only on the engine, but also on the brakes, etc. The role of useful idiots was then played by the Czech government, which enforced the ban essentially without any defiance, contrary to the pre-election promises under its presidency. And now she realizes that, in combination with the Euro 7 proposal, she has voluntarily killed herself in an industry that makes up 10 percent of the Czech Republic's gross domestic product. The Czech Minister of Transport Kupka then recalled a month and a half after the end of the presidency that the Czech Republic cannot approve Euro 7, but it is of course too late. Not to mention that we are voluntarily and unthinkingly depriving ourselves of the competitive and technological advantage that we have had so far. We will depend on raw materials to produce batteries from China and Africa. For months, colleagues here have been hearing what a mistake it was to bet on fossil fuels from Russia. Today we are doing the same thing again, just with other great powers. The battery industry does not exist. In addition, the development years are behind the Chinese. We bet on electric cars, but how we produce electricity into them and at what price they are simply not solved here either. At the same time, electricity prices are currently crushing households across the EU. So I could go on for an hour. Colleagues, in light of this situation, I would like to ask you: Consider your vote on new CO2 emission limits for cars and commercial vehicles. People and the economy are already bad enough, and this could be fatal. Is this really the path that European industry should take? Aren't we shooting ourselves in the foot? I'm not convinced, and I don't think I'm alone here.

Madam President, corporations and the media have been censoring their websites for a long time. We all know it when we get banned. Previously it was for vulgarity, now it was for an inconvenient opinion. Now, however, the state also wants to censor. The Czech government is even going so far as to want, at a time when it is ordering its citizens to tighten their belts, to sponsor or more correctly bribe 150 million crowns every year, the right media that will spread the government's truth. Is it misinformation that the Czech government will not raise the retirement age? Well, of course it is, because we know it will be. At the end of November, the Prime Minister himself denied it. Is he a misinformer and will he be punished by the sites that quoted him? And what about the so-called disinformation that turned out to be true, and vice versa, the truth that we know today was disinformation, such as the presence of weapons of mass destruction that served as the US ticket to Iraq? Finally, a brief message to the government. Maybe it's time to think about why people don't trust you so much. Start solving citizens' problems and don't turn the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms into a tearing calendar.

Madam President, the absent President of the Commission stayed with us for exactly an hour. It also shows something about the Commission's interest in the views of MEPs. Thank you, Mr. Michel, for staying with us until the end. I'm terrified of what I'm hearing here. If you imagine supporting Ukraine by supplying more tanks there, I'm sad. Other sanctions, military support, €3 billion already mobilised from European money to support Ukraine, but no one knows to whom and what they serve. Can the European Council and the Commission really do nothing else? Will he not for a moment admit that they might be a mover and a peacemaker? Do you remember why the ECSC was created as the forerunner of the European Union? This is to prevent war. You've all forgotten that. In the end it will solve Green Deal. Do you know what's missing from your policy? A man. He won't drown your battle plans at home, he won't cure your weapons, sanctions won't pay him for overpriced food, and Green Deal They don't give him a decent wage. Think of him at least once, ladies and gentlemen. Or don't be surprised that more and more people across Europe don't trust you and doubt the very meaning of this institution.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the problem is the system itself, and all the adjustments we are making here are simply cosmetic and do not solve it. Under the current legislative situation, there are a number of measures that can at least mitigate medicine shortages. Let me remind you that years ago the Commission came up with a new Pharmaceutical Strategy for Europe, in which it emphasised the need to bring part of pharmaceutical production back to the EU. However, neither the Commission nor the Member States have yet indicated who should pay for it. And so nothing happens for years. There is also a need to talk about the general anchoring of medicines and medicines in European Union law. Today, medicines are treated as ordinary goods, such as sugar, salt, flour, so they are subject to the rules of the common market and the principle of supply and demand. And that just has to change! We need to remove medicines from the free movement of goods and regulate movement more. After all, I proposed it already in 2018. In some Member States, they have now discovered with horror that there are even no central registers that would allow a person to look at which specific pharmacies they have a medicine available in and in which they do not. The system that would make this possible was proposed by me and my colleagues – some of whom are sitting here – for the new mandate of the EMA. Again, this was rejected, arguing that such a register would impose an excessive administrative burden. It is also necessary to mention the absolutely unsatisfactory, even tragic, regulation of European Union patent law, which is set up in such a way that only what is the highest margin is produced. The right does not want to talk about it at all. So we're just slapping around, and we have, and we're going to have, drug shortages until we change the system. It's up to us, colleagues, the proposals are here, it's up to us to have the courage to accept them.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Czech Republic has long lacked essential medicines on the market. Unfortunately, this is not a result of an increased incidence of respiratory diseases, but rather a systemic problem. We mainly lack penicillin and other antibiotics and medicines for children such as cough syrups, etc. The blackout is the worst in 30 years and can last for several more months. There are many systemic causes: non-functioning patent law, production of medicines and extraction of the necessary substances for their production outside the EU, parallel re-export of medicines between Member States with different price levels, lack of central registers on the availability of medicines directly in individual pharmacies or lack of harmonisation of health law. The situation is not helped by the fact that we have a minister in the Czech Republic who is incompetent and invokes a solution at the level of the European Union. Unfortunately, all the changes we are making in the European Union or at national level are cosmetic. It treats the symptoms of the disease, but not its causes. From my point of view, this whole system needs to be broken down and rebuilt. At the very least, it is necessary to abolish current patent law and ensure that medicines are not subject to the free movement of goods. I will be happy to say more about this in the debate tomorrow.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, at first glance, the idea of a common European market is a great thing. Unfortunately, if we take a closer look at the veneer of one of Europe's great freedoms, we will find that everything is not as rosy as it seems at first glance. It is considered that the Czech Republic has clearly benefited from an open common market. However, the fact is that we live in a country where nothing belongs to the Czechs anymore. We are practically foreigners here, all of which are owned by corporations from other Member States. From the networks of virtually all petrol stations to parts of the energy system and major food chains and industry. You could tell it wasn't really a big deal. The problem is that this thesis only works if it is good. In a crisis, it always turns out that the shirt is closer than the coat. The current energy crisis has confirmed this. For years, the European Union has fought within the framework of the internal free market for the energy market to be fully liberalised. You have fought, colleagues. The result is that the Czech Republic, a country that is certainly not one of the richest in the European Union, now has the most expensive electricity prices. Electricity is cheaply produced in our country, exported to the stock exchange and bought there by companies from rich member countries. For the citizens of the Czech Republic and local companies, only the expensive ones at Western prices will remain. The problem is further accelerated by the fact that even Western companies will find relatively cheaply purchased electricity on the stock exchange expensive. This is followed by an attempt by countries such as Germany to replace this "preciousness" with their companies, which calls into question the propagated internal free market and further widens the gaps in competitiveness. If this is done, only another sale of companies will follow, and the colonial status of the Czech Republic will only deepen. Another example of a dysfunctional internal market can currently be found in the market for medicines. It was revealed to us by the lack of drugs against respiratory diseases. Since under European Union law pharmaceuticals are ordinary goods such as sugar, they are subject to the rules of the common market. Because they are cheaper in Eastern Europe, they are simply bought where they are more needed. And these countries, which are cheaper, so their patients pay for the fact that there are no drugs. And we need to really start talking about changes to primary law that would exclude medicines and pharmaceuticals from the freedom of movement of goods. There's a lot that went wrong. We have something to fix. I don't know if I want another 30 years. I would like 30 years to be better, especially for EU citizens, who would really benefit from the internal market.

Madam President, we have been hearing from the European Commission all the time over the past year how we must be humbled so that we can then read in the press how much richer they have become again – the crisis of the non-crisis. And your solution? To pass on the economic burden to citizens, whose standard of living will in many cases fall fundamentally this year. In the Czech Republic, real wages will fall the most in the last thirty years and also the most among OECD countries. Yet the resources to prevent the crisis from hitting the most vulnerable again are there. We are suffering from capital outflows abroad and within the European Union itself, we are looking at tax havens and multinational giants are simply making us a good day because nobody regulates them. When will you finally take the courage to stand up for those for whom you should be here, Commissioner? When will the EU stop creating problems and start solving them? Enough words. We've been listening to this for almost a year and nothing's going on. People are living worse and worse. It takes something specific to do for them.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me first of all thank the rapporteurs for their exemplary cooperation in negotiating this resolution, which I have had the honour to chair. I hope that the consensus that we have had throughout the process can also be translated into a smooth vote. What has not been agreed on, however, and I regret it, is once again the issue of patent rights. It's been almost 100 years since insulin inventor Frederick Banting renounced his patent on this substance and uttered the famous phrase: “Insulin belongs to the world, not to me”. And it is sad that almost 100 years after this scientist's self-sacrificing gesture, some of my colleagues, especially from the right, are so ideologically blinded that they refuse even to mention this step in the resolution under discussion. Up to 32 million people in the EU live with some type of diabetes. Half of them don't normally have the right blood sugar levels, leading to long-term and serious health problems. On the occasion of World Diabetes Day and 100 years after the selfless gesture of a scientist, we must deepen our cooperation at European level in the fight against this disease.

Mr President, Commissioner, as regards the newly announced initiative on mental health, I would like to see a comprehensive plan that protects the rights of people with mental health problems, raises awareness and puts an end to stigma and discrimination in the field of mental health. In order to do so, the EU must take the path of developing a comprehensive long-term strategy or mental health plan, ideally along the lines of the Cancer Plan. The Covid-19 pandemic has shown us that mental health care is often a neglected and underfunded area in our health systems. Access to appropriate care is steadily decreasing, the worst is for children and teenagers. Mental health is a cross-sectoral issue. Poor mental health often has its roots in the social, economic, physical and cultural environment and is not just a personal and health problem. We must bear in mind that the current bad economic situation and the confluence of various crises will continue to have significant repercussions on the mental health of the population and our problem will only accelerate further. My question to the Commission, then, is how will the Directorates-General concerned work together to make this initiative as effective as possible, and when can we expect any concrete plan?

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the time to play with words has passed. The conflict in eastern Europe has entered our homes and threatens to savagely attack the quality of life of people across Europe in winter, and the dangers of nuclear war have increased dramatically. At the moment, the Czech government, the European Union and NATO are doing nothing but adding oil to the fire. There is an absurd competition on who will supply more weapons to the fratricidal war, who will show more courage to fight to the last Ukrainian. The recent terrorist attacks on gas pipelines from Russia to Germany did not damage the interests and property of only these two countries, they immediately threatened social peace across Europe and also showed in practice the disunity of the West, the different attitude of Washington and Berlin towards Ukraine. And you certainly remember the threatening words of US President Joe Biden in early February, when he threatened to ‘terminate’ the Nord Stream pipeline in the presence of the German Chancellor. I call on all EU institutions to use their influence, take the initiative and start peaceful and diplomatic negotiations. This is the only way to end the conflict. The sooner, the better.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am very pleased that now we finally have the opportunity to come close to the end of the fight for common chargers for mobile phones and many other electronic devices. And it certainly wasn't a short fight. After all, we have been trying for over a decade to push the Commission from the ground of the European Parliament to take action and come up with a proposal for the introduction of common chargers. Eight years ago, in 2014, we approved the Radio Equipment Directive, in which we called on the Commission to introduce uniform chargers through a delegated act, but until recently the Commission was inactive in this respect. We all face the problem of different chargers for different electronic devices. Chargers accumulate in our homes, most of which are designed only for their specific device. And this is not only confusing, but also unnecessarily expensive for consumers and really very environmentally friendly. If the Commission really cares about the environment, the steps to introduce a common charger should have been taken a long time ago. So why did she face the problem only recently? Was she afraid to stand up to the interests of companies like Apple or Amazon? Was she afraid to stand up to the possible opposition of former US President Donald Trump's government? I would like to remind you that the Commission is supposed to defend the interests of the Union and not the US government or multinational corporations. And I very much hope that from now on the Commission will have a backbone and will no longer be afraid to really start defending the interests of the people who live in the Union. Yes, I think the ambitions contained in the proposal for a directive could have been higher. It could have applied to a lot more devices. Nevertheless, the adoption and unification of the USB-C standard within two years is a really important step to reduce electronic waste and will undoubtedly make life easier for all of us. That is why, as shadow rapporteur, I hope that we will approve the directive, and I would like to thank the rapporteur in particular for my work.

Madam President, Commissioner, by adopting these two regulations, we are completing the work that started with the COVID-19 pandemic. While I have strong reservations about the three main documents making up the European Health Union, I firmly hope that their timely and smooth implementation will allow us to prepare sufficiently for the next pandemic, which will undoubtedly come. Unfortunately, the legislation adopted has significant limits, which are mainly based on how little EU primary law deals with cooperation between Member States in the field of healthcare. In the long run, we have to change that. Cooperation in the field of public health and care would merit a fundamental overhaul in the Treaties. If this does not happen, we will forever be condemned only to cosmetically clothe the holes that constantly appear. However, I am currently looking at a possible upcoming revision of European pharmaceutical legislation. Only this can help us dampen the problems in European healthcare and its accessibility that the pandemic has only exposed. It is considered that the Commission has still not presented the expected revision for this decade. There is not much time left in this legislature. The current framework of both general pharmaceutical legislation and intellectual property rights or medicines for rare diseases and cross-border healthcare is no longer sufficient to meet the demands of the times. We are constantly deteriorating citizens' access to medicines and healthcare, divergences are widening across the EU and it can be assumed that the current confluence of different crises is only accelerating these problems. It is five minutes past twelve, and something needs to be done, first and foremost, for the citizens of the EU.

Madam President, Commissioner, Minister, this point is entitled ‘The EU response to the increase in energy prices in Europe’. And if you were to ask the citizens of your countries what the answer is, I guarantee you that a long silence would follow for most of them, just silence. Indeed, in this case – as in the case of pharmaceutical companies during COVID-19 – the European Union is just watching the crisis get richer, while people are falling to the bottom. It is true that some national states are not able to help either, among them, unfortunately, the Council chaired by the Czech Republic. Yesterday they happily announced that they had capped the price at almost three times what people were still paying at the beginning of the year! In the case of huge Czech inflation, it is simply a lethal cocktail. Enough of the policy that fed the richest 1% and impoverished 99% of citizens. There has been enough talk, it is eight months after we know about this trouble, and we are simply not dealing with it - neither the Commission nor the Member States. The only people who actually pay for it are EU citizens. Colleagues, let's recover!

Madam President, Prime Minister, it is not very often that I agree with something that has been prepared by the Czech right-wing government of Petr Fiala. I may surprise many, but I consider 4 out of 5 priorities of our government for the Presidency to be right. However, the problem lies elsewhere – the reality is often harsher than the high-pitched words of the Czech government. It's much tougher and more ruthless. Even so, the Czech government intends to quietly assist Brussels in abolishing the right of veto for member states. The government then mandates energy security for Czech citizens by forcing them to buy cheaply produced energy in the Czech Republic with multiple surcharges. Czech citizens with a one-third salary compared to their western neighbours are already forced to pay higher prices than they are. Cybersecurity is designed to shut down inconvenient websites without a court decision. And it strengthens the resilience of the economy by privatising the last remnants of state-owned and national enterprises. And the increase in prices is twice as high as in the rest of the European Union. She has no program for hard-tested families and left Czech companies behind in connection with the ban on the sale of internal combustion engines. And perhaps there is no point in talking about democratic institutions in a government made up of parties that are soaked in mega-scandals of corruption. I wish the Council of the EU and all of us that the Czech Government does not treat it as it treats its citizens. Indeed, the Czech Republic needs – and especially when it holds the Presidency of the Council of the European Union – a government that will have the interest of the citizen in the first place and not a full mouth of excuses as to why what is not possible, when, moreover, we see elsewhere that it is possible. Not by words, but by works you will know them. Good luck not only to the Czech government, but to all of us.