Speeches

Madam President, I'm sorry. Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. I was at the birth of legal conditionality in 2020-2021. In fact, every money in our budget is conditional, because in order to obtain this money, you have to meet certain criteria or win these competitions. Our toolbox, our instruments to defend the rule of law, because it is fresh, is quite rich. These are the so-called enabling conditions on cohesion and some milestones in the RRF. We have the European Public Prosecutor's Office, we have OLAF, we have infringement procedure. So the instruments for defending the rule of law and civil liberties are quite solid. On the other hand, I have some doubts from the outset, which Commissioner Serafin probably shares, namely, as he said himself, he must prove a direct link between the misuse of powers and the damage to the financial interests of the European Union. And secondly, not always, and it often happens that innocent beneficiaries of programs suffer for the sins of their rulers in European capitals. I share some of the points made by our rapporteurs: Mr Germain and Mrs Hohlmeier. There has been some simplification in the coordination of the different instruments, but we have time to fix this.

Madam President, Minister, Commissioner, in one week only, we are to see the vision of Europe post-2027. Equipped with budgetary figures that is not telling, but simple political declarations. But a week before we know practically nothing. And this is not good. We know what our priorities are across the European Union and what is the most exciting thing I am to ask is how to reconcile the mission letter of Commissioner Serafin with the common request for decentralised regional cohesion policy, which is not dependent upon the wishes or discretion of national parliaments? Equally important is the repayment of the new generation EU debt in the context of no progress on own resources and also in the context of a new, possibly necessary common borrowing. What is equally important is clearly outlined agricultural policy and not the melting pots of other programmes.

Madam President, Minister, Commissioner, in one week only, we are to see the vision of Europe post-2027. Equipped with budgetary figures that is not telling, but simple political declarations. But a week before we know practically nothing. And this is not good. We know what our priorities are across the European Union and what is the most exciting thing I am to ask is how to reconcile the mission letter of Commissioner Serafin with the common request for decentralised regional cohesion policy, which is not dependent upon the wishes or discretion of national parliaments? Equally important is the repayment of the new generation EU debt in the context of no progress on own resources and also in the context of a new, possibly necessary common borrowing. What is equally important is clearly outlined agricultural policy and not the melting pots of other programmes.

Mr President, Commissioner, the multiannual framework is never business as usual. There are always exceptional circumstances. When Commissioner Serafin was younger, there was a pressure close to blackmail by Prime Minister Cameron ahead of his unhappy British referendum. Then the pandemic and double funding of our budget and NextGenerationEU; therefore, we now have a problem of how to repay NextGenerationEU given that there is no progress on own resources. But this is also the first wartime budget, therefore, we need to seek creative solutions of how to finance defence given the limitations of the Treaty also of budget solutions. If I may ask a question also of cohesion, how to reconcile the mission letter of Mr Serafin with a decentralised model. Commissioner Serafin was very encouraging today on this point. Therefore, good luck. This job is your free choice.

Mr President, thank you very much. Mr. Commissioner, I would like to thank you. We agree on Parliament's priorities for 2026. Parliament's negotiating power should be solidly supported by a majority vote on Wednesday. This is important because Parliament has a real impact on the annual budgets of the codecision, and especially now we have huge problems to find a solid financial response to new challenges, new risks within the tight MFF 2021-2027 framework. That is why we are resorting to off-budget solutions, such as NewGenerationEU or the new SAFE initiative with a budgetary guarantee, but based on Article 122, which virtually eliminates Parliament. That is why it is so important for this bargaining chip of Parliament to defend itself in the vote on Wednesday. This will be our exam on the art of making compromises in this forum. Going beyond the annual budgets, we are increasingly curious about what Commissioner Serafin will do for us in the budgets after 2027.

Madam President, Commissioner, annual budget procedure is seemingly routine, but in fact, this is never business as usual. What is unusual about 2025 is that this is the first budget based on revision of the MFF, implementing the so-called 'cascade mechanism', and the last budget of Johannes Hahn, drafted by Johannes Hahn – for me, an incarnation of the honest broker. With one minute, one issue only, that is your line, that is financing of interest costs of NextGenerationEU, bigger by EUR 2.3 billion than assumed. This is really annoying, this is really frustrating to dispute overnight whether this is 55/45 or 50/50. This is not decisive for the future of Europe. We need thematic special instrument, euro line, above ceilings and this is the hope of ending conciliation before midnight.

Mr President, thank you very much. Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. The annual budgetary procedure consists of repetitive, routine steps. But it's not business as usual, especially now that we're designing budgets in an increasingly unpredictable time, in the shadow of war. National budgets will gradually be militarized. Unfortunately, for the time being, this is being transferred very gradually to the Community budget. At this stage, at the guidance stage, it is important to have a broad base of support for Parliament's budgetary priorities, which has been successful, as this sets the negotiating position in the interinstitutional arrangements. This is thanks to the rapporteur, Victor Negrescu, but also to the shadow rapporteurs, who made sure that a certain predominance of social issues – understood due to Mr Negrescu’s political affiliation – was balanced by competitiveness, innovation and defence considerations. So this is a good preview for the next steps of this fairly routine procedure.

Madam President, I'm sorry. European money is not unconditional. Traditional conditionality is related to the use of this money in agreement with the European Commission, with a high degree of discretion in the structural funds and much greater rigour in the National Recovery Plans. But two countries have provoked rule of law conditionality. This is Hungary and, unfortunately, my country, Poland. But there is a difference. While I am critical of Poland's governance in recent years, the implementation of the Structural Funds from the perspective I was designing for 2014-2020 has been quite decent. If we have an eastern plague called oligarchy, it is due to the management of state-owned companies. Unfortunately, in Hungary, thanks also to the use of European funds. Therefore, it is no coincidence that Hungary is the first and only country affected by legal conditionality for the time being. They did not meet the horizontal condition, the so-called enabling condition, related to the Charter of Fundamental Rights. I really wish Hungary and its compatriots very well, i.e. full fulfillment of the conditions that will enable the full use of structural funds and the launch of the National Recovery Plans. In this case, it is necessary to act in such a way that there is no shadow of suspicion that it is a political decision. They must be built on the solid foundation of the principles of our community.

Mr President, thank you very much. The 2024 budget is the budget with which the European Parliament goes to the elections, so it is good that it is on time. People expect an agreement from us and they pay us for it, not for protracted disputes between institutions they don't understand. Of course, we are aware that the annual conciliation concerns millions, because billions are already arranged, hidden in national, agricultural and cohesion envelopes. But it is good that Parliament's delegation has achieved some of the so-called top-ups in areas that reflect our priorities, namely Erasmus, Horizon, Connecting Europe and humanitarian aid. Our rapporteur and the whole delegation were faced with the choice of two strategies. Both are risky. The first is to agree on an annual budget without a revision of the MFF, knowing that it will not be enough to finance all the needs of next year, because it was agreed before the pandemic and before Russia's aggression against Ukraine. The second is to wait for the review, which is not easy, and thus risk what is known as the ‘Revision’. provisional twelves. The delegation and Siegfried Mureşan chose a lower risk and it is good that they chose because the budget is on time.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. I am a living memory of previous attempts to introduce new own resources for the European Union. Commissioner Hahn is witnessing that these attempts were not successful. What has been done since then? Simplify VAT and introduce a tax on untreated plastic. This is not a very efficient source of budget power. In addition, it requires compensation for countries such as Poland, which are coping poorly with the disposal of plastic. This new package is delayed, but it is not an option. This is a package that is a necessity to repay big debts without prejudice to the currently funded European Union programmes and national envelopes, so it is a question of the credibility of the European Union. I hope that countries that have agreed to the New Generation EU in full knowledge that this requires new resources are aware of this.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. The multiannual financial framework, as the name suggests, has a multi-annual horizon. And this is their value, because it is predictable, investment money – which is generally lacking in national and local budgets – which makes it possible to finance investments that are long-term in nature. This is particularly important for countries such as Poland, which are in a civilizational pursuit. But seven years is a long time. It takes 2-3 years to agree and negotiate. Especially now that we are living in a turbulent period, amidst many uncertainties, one thing is certain: we will be exposed to external shocks as powerful as the pandemic or the war, which require costly responses and which do not fall within the tight limits of the budget adopted and agreed before the war. A genuinely important revision is therefore needed. The Commission presented a review, fresh money – as Parliament has always called for – in the order of €66 billion. The least disputed part is, of course, aid to Ukraine, but there are other needs, also well addressed. However, in Parliament’s view, this is an insufficient revision, which is why we will seek, above all, budget flexibility, with the expectation that they will already contribute to the annual budget in 2024.

Mr President, thank you very much. Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. The budget of the European Union stands out from the budgets of national states and Member States with its long-term predictability. This is a huge advantage, because it makes this budget an instrument for financing long-term investments, primarily in the broadly understood infrastructure, which for a country like Poland is of great value. Only those times of predictability are behind us. We live in and this is mainly due to various geopolitical threats around the European Union. The 2021-2027 MFF was agreed before the pandemic and before the Russian aggression. The costs of operating the EU Recovery Instrument were agreed before Russia's aggression, which gives rise to further large commitments, costly commitments. All assumptions are outdated. We need to wake up to a new reality. This is why Mr Van Overtveldt's report is so valuable and useful, because it awakens us to a new reality, when it will be necessary to place the costs of operating this instrument above the ceilings of the financial perspective, when new ones are needed. own resources, to repay the capital after 2027. Equally, a revision of the current financial framework is needed to keep up with the current challenges of our time.

Mr President, thank you very much. Right in time delivery of yourself. I'm sorry for disappearing, but we're discussing it at the same time. guidelines in my group, i.e. the EPP group. I choose from this debate those voices that make it clear that if we have new initiatives, especially legislative ones, they should be financed by fresh money, and not by the typical in recent years Muddling Trough. That is to say, I am choosing the votes that lead to one basic conclusion, which may be the conclusion of today's debate: If you want to have a budget that is fitA major revision of the Multiannual Financial Framework agreed before the pandemic and before the Russian aggression in Ukraine should take place, which is growing up to the challenges. Only then will we be able to do it. I would also like the Commission and the Council to do so.

Mr President, thank you very much. Commissioner, thank you very much. The 2024 budget is the budget with which Parliament will go for the European elections, so it must contain an answer to the problems and fears of the people of Europe. This is the second wartime budget, which also generates costly commitments, but is limited by the ceilings of the current financial perspective, which was agreed before the pandemic and before Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. This means severe restrictions. Margins are small or even non-existent – one third of what is available this year – which also limits Parliament’s initiative to pilot projects i preparatory actions. We have inflation that is not balanced by 2%. deflator, we have higher than expected service costs EU Recovery Instrument. Finally, Ukraine and Moldova have candidate status, i.e. macrofinancial assistance are entitled to Pre-accession assistance. There has to be only one conclusion: We need a deep revision. IFF. We expect the Commission to present both an annual draft and a draft of this revision in June this year. Without this, we will not deliver on the agreed priorities of the European Parliament. We were able to agree on them. Thank you very much shadowsI thank the secretariat, the advisers, all those involved. This is a good thing ahead of negotiations with the Council. Now I will quickly read these priorities in the language in which they were agreed, i.e. in English. ‘A stronger economy and more resilient society through future-oriented investment’ – investment in SMEs, research and innovation. ‘Towards energy independence as the foundation of security.’ Next one: ‘Green and digital transitions and the strategic sovereignty of the EU’. ‘A secure Europe for future generations.’ ‘An effective response to global and challenging challenges.’ These are agreed priorities. Once again, I thank all those who have shown goodwill to come to a compromise. But there is one thing that divides us. Of course, there is an undisputed need to seal, protect the external borders of the European Union. To what extent, however, is the budget to be involved in the construction of walls, fences and other physical infrastructure? It's not an easy thing for my generation that remembers the Berlin Wall. But I get it. I would rather tear down, not build new walls, but I understand the arguments of those countries that are under migratory pressure. Sometimes it is government-sponsored pressure from autocratic regimes. This is the situation on Poland's border with Belarus. That is why I presented a compromise which was taken from the conclusions of the European Council in February this year. In the hope that if it has been agreed by 27 countries, it means that it should also get some support in the European Parliament. I would very much like this one issue that divides us not to dominate the budgetary procedure, so that the total budget becomes a hostage to this one issue that divides us. Judging by the willingness to cooperate so far, I hope that will not happen.

Mr President, thank you very much. Budget agreements are always good news in these turbulent times, amid so much uncertainty. This is the wartime budget. Macro-Financial Assistance does not have direct budgetary implications, but there are elements of assistance to Ukraine in this budget, primarily in the neighbourhood policy. This is an inflation time budget, which exacerbates ongoing projects. This is a budget of high interest rates, which increases the cost of operating the European Recovery Instrument. Small margins forced the use of special instruments: Flexibility and Single Margin Instrument. The European Parliament increased funding for its priorities by €687 million. Of course, our rapporteur, because this is also his, above all, merit - Nicolae Ştefănuță - adds, and rightly so, the commitments. And the fact that both sides have come out of the negotiations quite satisfied is already a measure of the creativity of the European Commission led by Commissioner Hahn. The priorities are very well outlined, they are also the political priorities of my group: Horizon – here we use Article 15 of the Financial Regulation, Connectivity – Energy and Transport, small and medium-sized enterprises, EU Health, Creative Europe, Clean Energy Transition and the Eastern Partnership. Most importantly, in these turbulent times, by providing financial certainty, we have made a modest contribution to reducing the uncertainties and fears for the future that have returned to our continent.

Madam President, I'm sorry. The 2023 budget is the first budget of wartime in the pacifist by its very nature of the European Union, the last budget of the 2014-2020 perspective that I have been drafting, and the last year for contracting national recovery plans. It may come as a surprise that, in such extraordinary circumstances, the Council's budget line is , i.e. cuts, in part contradicting the preferences or declarations of the Czech Presidency. Parliament's position responds to these extraordinary conditions, because when, if not now, it is necessary to reach for all the possibilities of the European budget, not only modest margins, but also, for example, these commitments? And our unanimous vote practically means unity in Parliament, which is a good premise for effective negotiations. The priorities of the European Parliament are understandable to people. The social, economic consequences of the pandemic and the war must be tackled, Europe's competitiveness and anti-crisis resilience must be strengthened, and investments that create jobs in areas such as the green deal and the digital economy must be supported. I hope that such a budget will emerge from the conciliation. People don't wait, they don't expect inter-institutional disputes, people wait for results. Europe should deliver.

Commissioner, I'm sorry. Mr. President, I'm sorry. In the EIB's operations, there is an indelible tension between the quasi-public mission and the normal pursuit of maximising the financial result. And in both reports that we are discussing, these specific commitments of the EIB as our private bank, which at the moment is facing the new rules voted today as a bank for the digitisation of small and medium-sized enterprises or cohesion, are in fact included. Of course, the bank also reacts to extraordinary events, extraordinary challenges, i.e. the war in Ukraine or the pandemic before. And it will certainly play an important role in the reconstruction of Ukraine. However, for me, more important than the various activity reports are the evidence of recognition for the bank from the business side. I know that testimony. In 2018, the president of Hoyer was awarded by the largest Polish economic organization at the gala in Warsaw, and earlier awarded were Margaret Thatcher, Jacques Chirac or José Manuel Barroso. It seems to me that this most important test is still ahead of us, namely this dual public and commercial role in extremely important times of extraordinary geopolitical challenge.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Poland has been a front country for three months. Russian missiles are falling several kilometers from our eastern border. Poles have opened their homes and hearts to millions of refugees. The Commission sees this and has taken a decision widely discussed in Poland – it has approved the National Recovery Plan. Aware that the conditions set – the disciplinary chamber or the non-repression of judges – are not sufficient to repair the Polish rule of law, as the damage goes much deeper. I see in this a gesture of solidarity with Polish society. I know how much these funds are needed in a country that now has a historically low investment rate, blamed on economic uncertainty and tax chaos called the ‘Polish Deal’. Of course, it is necessary to enforce these conditions, but they are insufficient. Two more are needed. At least a part, at least a third of these funds must go to local governments. And it is not loans, because local governments are indebted, they count losses after recent pseudo-reforms, but grants. And secondly, investment money cannot be turned into political money, electoral money. We have had the worst possible experience in this regard. So you have to look at your hands. And only if these conditions are met will this national plan be beneficial for Polish society and the Polish economy.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Commissioner, thank you very much. Today we are closing the first phase of work on the 2023 budget. It is never, there are always extraordinary circumstances, now there are more than ever before. 2023 will be the last year of the current financial perspective with full freedom for Member States to spend their money. But it should also be the year of the launch of the Partnership Agreements, i.e. the launch of the new financial perspective, and the full programming of the national recovery plans. There will be a need for new sources of funding for the budget, but of course there is a new circumstance, there is a war of hitherto unknown magnitude of a humanitarian and famine disaster, most likely in North Africa. Today, we are not able to estimate the financial and budgetary consequences of this misfortune that Putin has caused us, but we all have the impression that our current resources are disproportionate to our needs. Of course, the war does not invalidate the important priorities of the European Union known to us: The Green Deal, the digital economy, the post-pandemic recovery, but the emphasis is inevitably shifted to broadly understood security, strategic sovereignty, independence from Russian raw materials. We know from experience that crises are not conducive to the Community method. There is a temptation to make ad hoc intergovernmental agreements, which is why we will work all the more in these special times to ensure that the role of the European Parliament as a budgetary authority is duly recognised and respected.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Ladies and Gentlemen, Commissioner! The Recovery and Resilience Facility is an extraordinary testimony of European solidarity to meet extraordinary challenges. The European Commission is borrowing to get this money into the economy as quickly as possible. Therefore, it is pleased that this money is flowing to most European countries, including Spain, which were affected by the pandemic crisis, but earlier by the financial crisis. I would like this money to go to Poland. But I understand the reasons why they don't flow. There is a fear that investment money may turn into an election fund or enrich oligarchs from the circles of power. In the European Union, all money is conditional. The terms of the European Commission's consent are understandable. They are identical to the principles that Poland agreed to and which introduced us to the European Union, because an independent judiciary is a friendly investment climate. It is also a guarantee that the funds will serve a good cause. Therefore, the fulfilment of these conditions is indeed in the interest of citizens, because it protects them from abuses of power. It is in the interest of the economy because the economy urgently needs investment. And these are my wishes for next year 2022. To make it happen.

Mr President, thank you very much. Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. The budget agreement is good news for a pandemic-ridden Europe. The conciliation procedure did not deviate from the routine of previous years – the dramatic split on Friday, the agreement on the last day of the conciliation, i.e. on Monday. This is business as usual. What's new is the content of this budget. Admittedly, advances from the recovery plan are already flowing to many countries this year. The question mark is over two troublemakersPoland and Hungary, but the 2022 budget is indeed the first to have a solid reinforcement from NextGenerationEU. And the greater its value, the greater its appreciation for our rapporteurs, Karlo and Damian, and for all the other participants in this conciliation. Nothing more can be said in one minute.

Madam President, I'm sorry. At the start of the implementation of the new financial framework, we have two amending budgets for 2021, the usual amending letter for 2022 with a serious amount of over EUR 1 200 000 000. The need to adapt the new financial framework to the new Social Climate Fund initiative and, arguably, to seriously revise this newly agreed financial framework, so the implementation of this new financial framework is marked by new challenges, new needs requiring a serious financial response and flexibility. Some of these new challenges are unpredictable, others are as predictable as possible. This includes the need to extend aid to Syrian refugees. It was known in December last year, but it did not find expression in the new financial framework. I am saying this because the EU trust funds I have dealt with are coming to an end and I am counting on better cooperation with the European Commission in implementing the new generation of EU foreign policy instruments.

Mr President, thank you very much. Today another hour of shame for the rulers in a place where there were so many reasons to be proud of Poland. Prime Minister Morawiecki, present in Strasbourg, is only the executor of the will of Deputy Prime Minister Kaczyński. It's bizarre, but it's real. The real boss, Kaczyński, in Warsaw, said that nothing would convince him that white was white and black was black. It was in this spirit that Prime Minister Morawiecki’s homily in Strasbourg was maintained. The whole democratic Europe is wrong, everything is fine in Poland. They more and more resemble a crazy driver who goes against the current on the highway, but it is he who accuses everyone else of having the wrong directions. The EU is not wrong: standing up for such principles that secure civil liberties against abuses of power, stands on the side of Polish citizens. However, our task is to bring back a democratic and law-abiding Poland.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Commissioner, I'm sorry. Thank you for all the votes. And I wrote down the words that were most often said during this debate, apart from Erdogan, of course, or . The three most common are: , and . And I am pleased that these are the strong points and conclusions of our report, and I believe that the Commission will take this into account when shaping the model of relations with the European Parliament in the future.