Speeches

Mr President, Commissioner, the automotive sector is at a crossroads, we all know that. On the issue of fines, we managed to pull the emergency brake, but that is not enough. For more than a year we have been calling for a thorough review of the entire automotive legislation. I hope you realize how important this is. You can't just talk to the car industry, but you also have to listen to what it tells you. First of all, just throw a senseless ban on the production of cars with internal combustion engines in the trash. Second, adjust not only the emission target for 2035, but also for 2030. Third, open the door to technological neutrality, hybrids, synthetic fuels and advanced biofuels. Fourthly, kick-start the real development of hydrogen in the EU so that it can also be used effectively in transport. Fifth, and most importantly, ask people what they really want. Give them the freedom to buy a car without ruining it. Commissioner, take your blinders off your eyes. Start working for the benefit of our citizens, for the benefit of our industry.

Madam President, Commissioner, the single market is the most valuable thing we have in the European Union, but we must also take good care of it. In the meantime, we treat him as a child, punishing him in good faith that we will raise him. That's wrong, and it shows how it's getting back at us. Four freedoms are self-evident mantras, but they don't really work. With the digital internal market in particular, we meant well and it turned out as always. We need to promote entrepreneurship and innovation, we need to break down barriers, we need to break down unnecessary obligations and regulations. And there's no need to always invent a bike. We're inspired by how they do it elsewhere. If we want the Single Market to really work, let's work on it together without unnecessary talk and, most importantly, right now!

Mr President, Commissioner, six months ago you all called on Draghi here, but since then, unfortunately, competitiveness has become an empty concept. The Commission must take steps that will lead to real help for business, including lowering energy prices, and not those that tighten the screws further. Climate target 2040 will not help us, on the contrary, I say it openly. Of course, when it comes to clean technologies, they have huge potential, but if we don't change course, it will be a lost opportunity. Our companies know best what to do and how to do it. They can bring innovation. But they need an environment where sticks are not thrown under their feet. We have much more to cut through the thicket of regulations and unnecessary obligations. Otherwise, there will be no clean tech industry in Europe. Or it will come, and then it will run away, and a place Clean Deal We will have Chinese Deal. And I really don't want that.

Mr President, Commissioner, six months ago you all called on Draghi here, but since then, unfortunately, competitiveness has become an empty concept. The Commission must take steps that will lead to real help for business, including lowering energy prices, and not those that tighten the screws further. Climate target 2040 will not help us, on the contrary, I say it openly. Of course, when it comes to clean technologies, they have huge potential, but if we don't change course, it will be a lost opportunity. Our companies know best what to do and how to do it. They can bring innovation. But they need an environment where sticks are not thrown under their feet. We have much more to cut through the thicket of regulations and unnecessary obligations. Otherwise, there will be no clean tech industry in Europe. Or it will come, and then it will run away, and a place Clean Deal We will have Chinese Deal. And I really don't want that.

Mr President, Commissioner, in the last 5 years only energy resources have been discussed in the European Union. We talked about which is clean, which is dirty, how long it will be here with us, but too much bet on one card, on renewables and, most importantly, we forgot that we also need robust, secure and interconnected networks that will help prevent blackout. I would like to thank the rapporteur, my colleague Anna Stürgkh, for her excellent moderation of the work on the compromise, which we will be voting on tomorrow. Commissioner, if the Commission comes up with concrete proposals for electricity grids already this year, you will find a number of things in the report that you should take into account. I will mention two points that I consider crucial. First, technological neutrality. While connecting smaller renewables is a major challenge, we must ensure a technology-neutral approach to electricity generation. We just can't do without it. Second, the money. The modernisation and construction of electricity networks will require massive public and private investment, so it is essential that we increase support from the energy part of the CEF programme, mainly for cross-border interconnections. We have been talking about a big debate on the new Multiannual Financial Framework, so I hope you, as the Commission, have made sufficient remarks.

Mr President, Commissioner, I may surprise you, but I am glad that the Commission has finally come up with a plan to end energy imports from Russia, and I believe that legislation will follow soon. But there is one big BUT, and I mean diversification. This is a necessary condition for all of our next steps. When it comes to natural gas, I am mainly talking about diversification through LNG or alternative pipelines. As for oil, I am proud that my home country, the Czech Republic, has recently completely cut off Russian oil supplies thanks to the TAL-PLUS project. However, it can be more difficult with nuclear fuel. My country is one of those countries that still has old Soviet reactors. That is why we must work together to be completely independent in nuclear energy in the near future, because if we as the European Union want to decarbonise, at least there is still agreement on this, we will not be able to do it without nuclear energy.

Mr President, Commissioner, the gas crisis caused by Russia's aggression against Ukraine has made it clear that we need to secure sufficient supplies before the heating season so that we do not freeze in the winter. At the same time, we also need gas at a reasonable price. It is therefore a good thing that we have broken down the intermediate targets for filling trays. This will give Member States sufficient security of supply, sufficient flexibility in terms of time and percentages, especially if market conditions are not favourable. I am convinced that the wider use of joint purchases through the instrument could further reduce prices AggregateEU. The good news for the upcoming negotiations with the Council is that our positions are not too distant. I therefore congratulate the rapporteur and thank all my colleagues for their excellent cooperation.

Mr President, dear colleagues, the targeted amendment to Regulation (EU) 2019/631, published on 1 April, introduces urgently needed compliance flexibility for manufacturers of new passenger cars and light commercial vehicles for the next few years. It allows manufacturers to average fleet CO2 emissions over a longer period rather than annually. In light of the relevance of the amendment and the need to provide immediate solutions to the needs of the European automotive sector, the ECR Group calls for the application of the urgent procedure under Rule 170(6), and the swift adoption and implementation of the proposal.

Mr President, Commissioner, I think I'm going to say something that you wouldn't expect from a conservative, but I'm going to say it: Europe cannot afford to slow down, because at a time of economic uncertainty and security threats, a strong transport infrastructure is not only key to prosperity, but also to defence and geopolitical position. High-speed rail, as a key element of the trans-European transport network, strengthens Europe's mobility, trade and defence. The Czech Republic lies in the heart of Europe and it is true that without a strong Central European node, the entire transport network remains incomplete. What do we need? Of course, money, faster construction and less bureaucracy. We must also be able to use the CEF effectively in the next programming period, because any delay means higher costs. That is why I repeat again: it does not slow down, but we invest in a strong, modern, safe transport network. This is a necessary condition not only for our competitiveness, but also for our security.

Madam President, Commissioner, steel is a strategic raw material, we do not need to remember that here. It is necessary not only for the green transition, but also for the completion of the defence capabilities that we urgently need. The European steel industry must therefore not remain stuck in a corner. I will mention two elements that I consider important in the action plan. The first thing – scrap. A valuable raw material that we export senselessly and massively outside the European Union. The Commission rightly attaches importance to it, but it plans to come up with the most effective actions later. I do not understand why, Commissioner, you should take these steps immediately. The second case – the ETS boulder. I see some positive measures, but I don't know if the CBAM will work at all. We need certainty at least here. Therefore, Commissioner, once again, guide the price of allowances into a reasonable corridor, because if they are in a reasonable corridor, then not only will we lower the price of electricity, but we will also incentivise steelmakers to actually decarbonise.

Madam colleague, if you know, the Czech Government is working on other matters concerning Green DealSpeaking of the automotive industry. As far as the ETS is concerned, we are developing initiatives that will lead at least to the postponement of ETS2 by a year or two. As for the other things I've been talking about here, I'm in contact with people who have something to say in the Council, they listen to me and it's a bit of a longer run. But don't worry, we're working on it.

Mr President, I may start out surprisingly positively. I appreciate three things about the action plan we're discussing here today. Firstly, to strengthen networks; secondly, to speed up permitting processes; and thirdly, to include the core. But this is all a long run, and we need to look for faster ways to lower energy prices. And the Commission must stop alibiistically giving up the most effective weapons in its hands. I am referring to the EU ETS. The price of allowances flies up and down, while it would be enough to exclude traffickers from trading and thanks to the reserve keep the price below a reasonable ceiling. This is also linked to the fact that the Commission must stop shifting the financial burden to the Member States. If it regulates, it must also give money. Member States are facing tight budgets and the currently discussed need to increase defence spending. Well and last but not least – nuclear energy must be on an equal footing with other low-carbon sources. We need to change the taxonomy.

Madam President, Commissioner, I am glad that you are devoting a special action plan to the automotive industry. There are a number of good steps for the future, such as the emphasis on autonomous driving or battery production in Europe. On the key issue of fines, however, you came to the industry to help only half the gas. Give him five years, as required by ACEA, which aggregates the attitudes of all European automakers. Then there is the revision of the CO legislation.2 from the cars. If you start working today, you can send us not only a report but also a legislative proposal by the end of the year. Goal 2035 is critical and makes absolutely no sense. We need technology neutrality and affordable cars that people will want to buy. And you've completely forgotten about trucks. We also need a review this year.

Madam President, I am sorry, but the Clean Industry Agreement shows that the Commission is still on the old tracks that lead to the "open-air museum" destination. Yes, the document also contains some positive measures, but it does not address the real causes of the crisis in European industry, making it difficult to increase its competitiveness. Perhaps because the Commission insists on a commitment to reduce CO2 emissions2 90% by 2040, without knowing what the situation will look like in 2030. I therefore call on the Commission to address, as a matter of priority, the problem called the ETS. ETS1 must be more predictable and ETS2 must be postponed for at least two years. But what we need the most is cheap energy for our companies. We will see what concrete legislative proposals will look like, but so far I see the Clean Industrial Deal as a much missed opportunity.

Mr President, Commissioner, without secure infrastructure, the digital technologies on which our economy and society depend will not work. I am glad that the Czech Republic is a pioneer in this area. The so-called Prague proposals for building 5G networks from 2019 preceded the 5G Toolbox in the following year. 5G Toolbox needs to be consistently applied across the European Union, but we also need to further reduce strategic dependencies on countries that are not our trusted partners. We need a regulatory environment in the EU that makes life easier for our companies. We need more support for research and development, and we also lack a functioning cybersecurity certification system. And in this context, Commissioner, I also asked the committee, we still do not have an evaluation report from you on the Cybersecurity Act. Then please deliver it.

Madam President, Commissioner, we must take a constructive approach to cryptocurrencies. The MiCA Regulation has been in force since last year and I believe that it is being implemented without major problems. In the Czech Republic, thanks to our MP Jiří Havránková, we managed to enforce both the automatic right to set up a bank account for crypto-entrepreneurs and the tax exemption for the sale of cryptocurrencies after three years. I think that other European countries could be inspired by this approach. On the contrary, I would not recommend ideas such as taxing unrealized profits from cryptocurrencies that we hear from some countries. Americans have a different approach to regulating cryptocurrencies, so I believe that achieving global standards is not an option at least at this time. That is why we should be careful with any other possible regulation from us in the European Union. It is important that excessive regulation and an unpredictable legal environment do not motivate start-ups and other companies to flee Europe. When we talk about blockchain, it is the technology of the future that offers a number of practical applications. Next Tuesday, I'm hosting an event in Brussels that I'd like to invite you all to. Among other things, the project of the Czech Technical University will be introduced and it will be an innovative blockchain platform for decentralised issuance of bonds for small and medium-sized enterprises. Why don't you come by?

Madam President, Commissioner, I was a little doubtful whether the Commission would pay sufficient attention to nuclear fusion, because I did not read anything properly in the nomination letters of the new Commissioners. But when I then spoke to Ekaterina Zachariev, Commissioner for Start-ups, Research and Innovation, and saw today's debate on the agenda, I was convinced that it would be a little different after all. Nuclear fusion energy is a promising future, but it's a little bit longer. Therefore, it is important to support mainly the international ITER project, but also other projects that contribute to its development. From this point of view, I am somewhat disappointed that the EU has ended its financial contribution to the UK's JET project, in which the EU's scientific community has also participated. But there are other sub-projects from other Member States. For example, I am proud that Czech scientists have been creating experimental tokamaks for many years and are currently building a new modern tokamak COMPASS-U, which is the first in the world to create conditions similar to those in the reactors of future fusion power plants. By the way, Mario Draghi’s report also highlights – and this has already been said here – that nuclear fusion can play an important role in the future, a low-carbon, climate-friendly, affordable and safe alternative in our energy sector. We need to work not only on development and demonstration, but we need to prepare for subsequent commercialization already now. We will need an environment that stimulates industrial innovation and facilitates public and private investment for the deployment of fusion energy. I therefore believe that the Commission will listen to Mr Draghi's recommendations, prepare an overarching innovation strategy for fusion energy and promote public-private partnerships.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let us put this debate back where it should be. Because what we have been experiencing for the last five years since the European Commission was one big nightmare. We often received suggestions that either didn't have any impact assessmentor they had an impact assessment that was simply done to get what the European Commission wanted. Sometimes we read that the measures do not affect the European budget, but then we found that they affect either the budgets of the Member States, the budgets of companies, the budgets of people, or somehow all of them. If the Commission wants to have at least some elementary confidence, it should follow these following principles. Firstly, a mandatory part of any legislative proposal should be impact assessment and otherwise Parliament should not be concerned at all. The same applies to delegated acts. Secondly, it must be clear what will happen to whom, including an analysis going down to the level of individual Member States and relevant sectors. And thirdly, if there are major shifts during the negotiations, it is absolutely essential that we impact assessment They were ready again and they knew what we were all up to.

Mr President, Commissioner, I am very pleased that the European Innovation Act is one of the first initiatives that the new Commission presents to us. I believe this is a clear signal that you are serious about the competitiveness of the European Union. In the EU, we need globally successful companies that can innovate. We need start-ups that not only grow up here, but stay there. If our companies are to innovate, it must be easy for them to translate research into practice. But we hear from all sides that the main problems are overregulation and access to finance. Regulation and the associated administrative burden is a horizontal problem that affects SMEs the most. Therefore, a thorough inventory of obligations and, above all, a sensible approach to any future legislation is needed. When it comes to money, I agree that the big problem is the lack of a Capital Markets Union, but that is not going to happen. That is why I think it is imperative to immediately kick-start public and, above all, private capital in the European Union. We can't move without it.

Madam President, Commissioner, I find this whole debate rather absurd. Yes, there was an energy crisis because of the Russian aggression in Ukraine. But let's look in the mirror. We have caused high energy prices in the European Union mainly through our own energy policy and wild decarbonisation. We need four things: putting European regulation back on track, investing in energy infrastructure, including interconnections, simple approval of new sources, including nuclear, and enabling capacity mechanisms. If we do this, we won't be dealing with energy poverty at all.

Mr President, Commissioner, Secretary of State, I have been saying for a long time that we cannot unilaterally push through the ambitious commitments that are affecting our industry and that European citizens are also feeling on their wallets without the vigorous involvement of other regions and states, such as China or India. Yes, we must strive for a global agreement, that is absolutely clear. Of course, I will be glad if there is a significant shift at COP29, but unfortunately there is no indication of it at all so far. We have little reason to be optimistic, and the results of the EU's climate diplomacy so far are very unconvincing. The Commission simply needs to do much more. And when it comes to the European Union's climate and energy policies, we cannot continue to shoot ourselves in the foot and pretend that we can somehow manage it. It is necessary to take into account economic and social reality, otherwise we will continue to rush down the hill.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we all know that the EU is based on the principle of the free movement of goods, services, capital and, above all, people. And this ideal is best described by modern high-speed railways. The rapid and efficient movement of people between Member States and major cities is crucial for our future. In the context of decarbonisation, we need to promote transport that is sustainable and environmentally friendly. But one thing is crucial: speed, not only of trains, but above all of decision-making. We cannot afford endless bureaucratic delays. Firstly, we need simple permitting processes, and secondly, we need money, enough money, to finish all the projects that we have now on paper. Only in this way will Europe be functional, competitive, strong and fast.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, two weeks have passed and we have another debate about a sector that is at risk in the European Union. Steel is irreplaceable, you cannot build a single wind farm without it, nor can a single train run without it. This is why we must finally begin to see it as a strategic raw material. In the same way, we must start to see strategically needed production capacities and set EU policies accordingly, which is not happening at the moment. There are several factors that have a negative impact on the steel industry. In addition to Chinese overproduction, the problem is mainly in high energy prices, as my previous speakers have already mentioned. These are logically the ones most impacting the energy-intensive industry and emission allowances are further aggravating the situation. If we want ‘green’ steel, we must create the right conditions to do so and also ensure the availability of scrap, which we do not have in Europe. At the beginning of European integration, we had the European Coal and Steel Community, and I can somehow understand why coal is in decline, but getting rid of steel production in the European Union will come back to us like a boomerang, and I really don't want to shine a light on it.

Madam President, Commissioner, the European car industry is facing a crisis, we all know that. But could we not avoid this debate? Let's see how we got here. The closing Commission, applauded by the Socialists and the Greens, systematically tightened the screws. All bets were on one card: electrification. The automotive industry is facing increasingly complex and unpredictable regulation and unrealistic emissions requirements. It's impossible to pretend we can keep going up against the wall. The automotive industry has more than a century of tradition in Europe and employs millions of people. It is necessary to stop and thoroughly reassess the current direction. The Commission should act immediately. For example, we already know that car manufacturers cannot meet CO2 emissions requirements.2 and imminent fines just aren't fair. We need a revision of existing legislation as soon as possible, we need to give space to different paths to decarbonisation, otherwise we will end up badly to the detriment of the car industry, our citizens and the EU as a whole.