Speeches

Under the headings of ‘simplification’ and ‘better regulation’, the European Commission is increasingly exceeding the limits of its competences. The new Work Programme for 2026 confirms this trend – instead of cutting red tape and facilitating the functioning of the internal market, it announces a further expansion of the Commission’s influence over decisions that should belong to the Member States. Instead of common rules, we get an announcement of how countries are to spend their public money, what technologies to support and what priorities to pursue. This is particularly evident in the areas of public procurement, energy and defence, where EU ‘implementing recommendations’ effectively limit the sovereignty of national strategies. This is not ‘better regulation’, but an attempt at central control. Europe does not need more regulation and plans from Brussels, but more trust in the Member States. A strong Europe is a Europe of free and responsible nations that work together – and are not governed. This is what citizens expect and what treaties require.

For years, Poland has consistently warned that Russia poses a real and strategic threat to European security. Unfortunately, these warnings were often ignored as parts of the European Union prioritised cheap energy and continued economic cooperation with Moscow. The consequences of this short-sighted approach are now evident. Strengthening defence capabilities is therefore not a choice but a necessity. Poland has already demonstrated this through substantial investments in modernisation, increased defence spending and enhanced readiness on NATO’s eastern flank. However, building a stronger European defence must not lead to misguided concepts such as creating a separate EU army or duplicating NATO structures. NATO remains the only credible and effective guarantor of collective security in Europe. Any initiative that weakens transatlantic cohesion or questions NATO’s central role ultimately serves the strategic interests of Russia. Europe should focus on reinforcing national capabilities, improving military mobility, boosting defence industry cooperation, and ensuring fair burden sharing within NATO. A stronger Europe in defence means a stronger NATO, not an alternative to it. Only through unity, realism and strategic clarity can Europe effectively deter aggression and safeguard peace.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Ladies and Gentlemen, I am pleased that the European Parliament is taking action to ensure that the European Commission is as transparent as possible. And that's the word I want to focus on the most. I think it should be extremely important for the European Parliament that the European Commission makes available to us the documents it creates within the European Commission, which are not always public at the time of the negotiations. For example, the Mercosur agreement, which was hidden for many months and not made available to either Members or the public during the negotiation phase. The second issue is also the answer to our written inquiries. I regret to say that the current rules in this area are no longer being complied with. That is, the answers are given after the deadline, but above all there are no answers to the real questions that are included in these questions. It could be said that the European Commission will win a speech-grass competition, for volunteering, when it comes to answering Members' questions. And I would like the European Commission to focus on actually responding with openness to these questions and also pointing out the challenges that all of us face in solving various European problems.

Madam President, I'm sorry. We have to call things by their first name. Sexual deepfakes are a form of violence, and generating nude images without consent is a tool of humiliation and blackmail. It's just digital violence. And the perpetrators of this violence must, of course, be ruthlessly prosecuted. And online platforms should immediately block such content and cooperate with all law enforcement authorities. I think that in this room – in this regard, at least in the absolute majority – we all agree. But let's remember one thing. Often, in these discussions about online security, some want to go a step further, i.e. use the rules that are in the DSA for purposes such as fighting against some kind of views. That's the problem in this room, ladies and gentlemen. I think we should focus on what is most important, on the fight against violence, on what is obvious, what is wrong, and not on criticising or blocking our political views online. We must fight violence, but we must also fight for freedom of speech.

Mr President, thank you very much. Dear Commissioner, In Europe, we have created many laws that protect consumers in a real and good way. Unfortunately, we have also created many regulations that have created too many bureaucratic requirements under the slogan of consumer protection. I am pleased that the Commission also sees this, and in some of the projects that it is presenting now in Omnibus, it is trying to remove those provisions that introduce this excess of bureaucracy. It is true that I encourage you to go further in some of these projects. However, what is before us today, our main task, is primarily to enforce these rules from third countries that import goods into the European Union, and which repeatedly do not comply with these rules. It's just unfair competition. Because when Polish, European companies actually implement European regulations, such as China or other third countries, they simply do not comply with these regulations. I encourage the Commission to focus on this, so that customs policy can be coordinated, but I would emphasise that it should be coordinated rather than centralised.

Mr President, Commissioner, I would like to thank you very much. I am pleased that the European Commission is taking the first step in deregulation and simplification in the digital area. That's good information, but not enough. I urge you to be courageous after all. If we are to compete with China, if we are to compete with the United States in the development of artificial intelligence and cutting-edge technologies, we must encourage foreign capital, but also European capital, to dare to invest in these technologies in Europe. Today, thanks to the regulations that currently exist, many European companies or capital funds decide to invest abroad, because the risk of legal regulations in the European Union is simply too great. That is why, Commissioner, I support the boldness of this project. We will be tabling amendments in this regard and you can count on this project to be more ambitious, including with the support of the European Conservatives, but hopefully also of the European People's Party and other parties in this room.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Ladies and Gentlemen, Protecting children online is, of course, one of the most serious tasks we face as politicians. Social media is one of the many dangers that children face. Social media can be addictive. But this does not mean that under the pretext of these threats we can regulate the Internet in such a far-reaching way as is proposed through identity verification. Age verification is a de facto verification of identity in the future. Parents should decide what content their children have access to. And so, social media platforms should be obliged to create such tools so that parents actually have such control. And it is a challenge for the European Commission to prepare such technical solutions so that social media platforms, various types of other platforms have the technical responsibility to create such tools so that parents can protect children from inappropriate content. However, we cannot play with limiting the anonymity of the Internet, because the tools you propose will lead to this in the future.

I think everyone in Europe is talking about the regulatory ball. The conclusions of the European Council fortunately note this problem, but I have the impression that the European Commission, unfortunately, does not really see this problem. European bureaucrats are choking the continent's competitiveness under the weight of regulation. Although we have big words about simplifying the law, as I have to be brutally honest, unfortunately nothing follows from this, because on the one hand the European Commission proposes packages called simplification, and on the other hand a whole range of different types of new regulations, delegated acts, reporting. I have the impression that everyone here feels like in such a political, bureaucratic matrix. On the one hand, the words about simplification, and on the other hand, further acts that are supposed to complicate the lives of entrepreneurs. Simplifying legislation and partial deregulation, increasing economic freedom in many areas, among other things, are a lifeline for Europe. It would be fairest for the European Commission to say that for years it has erred in this area and simply made mistakes, because without real deregulation, European companies will continue to flee Europe. After all, no one will invest in a place where every year means new regulations, more expensive energy or less predictability for business. This also brings me to the second topic: ETS and ETS2. A Europe without cheap electricity, without cheap heat, without cheap fuels will not be able to compete with other continents. Today we hear from the European Council that ETS2 should continue to be implemented. We just have to get out of this system. This system cannot be saved. This system will simply make Europeans poorer and make European entrepreneurs less competitive. Even today, the European Commission is still unable to withdraw from the ban on the registration of new combustion cars by 2035. Courage and courage! European Conservatives will help make Europe better.

Mr President, thank you very much. In principle, digitalisation is, of course, a good direction when it causes us to solve some kind of overregulation, when we simplify laws and use it to simply have fewer administrative obligations. Unfortunately, I have the impression that in this document there is also the second part of digitization or arguments that appear during digitization: new responsibilities, only in digital form. That's not a good solution. This is not a good solution when it means additional obligations for European companies. I am talking here, among other things, about additional obligations regarding the reporting of the environmental footprint or all elements related to the Green Deal and the implementation of these obligations, which we should remove from the legal system, and not mandate their reporting in digital reports for the next decades. In fact, our lack of competitiveness is due to two reasons: One is, of course, competition, in the good sense of the word, which, of course, exists in the international environment. The second reason is the restriction of our competitiveness by the internal regulations of the European Union, through the Green Deal, higher energy prices, through various types of regulations that cause our companies to have higher production prices. And that's what we should be focusing on. Finally, let me give you one example: we have recently rightly introduced additional steel levies from outside the European Union, but our main goal should be to reduce the cost of steel production in Europe, not just to reduce its imports from abroad.

Mr President, thank you very much. Ladies and Gentlemen, Strengthening sovereignty does not require the creation of a regulatory corset. Sovereignty is the freedom to act for our companies and for the scientists who create innovation. Innovation is only possible if there is a risk. Because innovation arises in freedom and in taking this risk. I have the impression that the European Commission wants to keep risks to a minimum in many areas, especially digital ones. Without risk, there is no innovation. Therefore, this is not the way we should go. Sovereignty does not mean isolation. Let us distinguish the building of sovereignty from the building of isolationism, which has probably never been good for Europe. Therefore, it is also worth emphasizing. Another important thing when it comes to digital sovereignty and sovereignty when it comes to technological solutions is the issue of energy prices. And we all know very well that digital solutions, especially in the area of artificial intelligence, are extremely energy-intensive. Therefore, we must also look for a way to make electricity cheaper in Europe. Unfortunately, for this to happen, it is also necessary to withdraw from many of the Green Deal regulations. Also bet on nuclear energy as a stable energy that would also power database centers. That is why today we should talk about it, not about further regulations that are supposed to limit the possibilities of international cooperation and opportunities for our companies and scientists.

Madam President, I'm sorry. I have the impression that we are beginning to make the same mistakes in the field of agricultural policy as we did in the past in the field of energy policy. I mean, you are building here right now a future of agriculture that will depend on external actors, on producers outside the European Union. Unfortunately, such an example is the agreement with Mercosur, which in the future will threaten the profitability of agricultural production in Europe. That's one thing. And the second thing, of course, is the scandalous decision, unfortunately by the Polish Commissioner – but unfortunately I have the impression, together with the Commissioner – to cut agricultural expenditure by 22% in the future budgetary perspective. It's two huge blows. On the one hand, huge unequal competition with the Mercosur countries and, on the other hand, a 22% reduction in agricultural spending. These are powerful blows that will hit European agriculture. And I hope that in 10-15 years we will not have to say ‘we did not say’ the same as we mentioned the wrong decisions about gas imports from Russia. Because today we remind you of those mistakes, and I hope that in 15 years we will not remind you of those mistakes that you are making today.

Madam Member, you have just said so boldly about these goals, I have a question. How is it that during the Polish Presidency you failed to reach a mostly blocking agreement with Mercosur? How is it that the Polish Commissioner, who is responsible for the budget in the European Union, proposes to reduce the budget for farmers by 22%? How come you're just hypocrites in this case? Because it was largely up to your party and your government to see if all this could improve.

Dear President, The Single Market is a guarantee that Europe will grow faster. But for this to be possible, we need to focus on what has been discussed in this room for many years, namely simplifying the rules and creating a common legal framework so that there are as few barriers as possible within Europe. In recent years, however, I have felt that the direction was quite the opposite. From Poland's perspective, for example, the mobility package hit carriers who wanted to compete across Europe. The Posted Workers Directive has de facto restricted competition within the European Union, while at the same time allowing goods from China to come to Europe virtually without any restrictions, regardless of what is happening in China when it comes to human rights, when it comes to real environmental requirements. That is why today we must say plainly: the single market within the European Union must be built, but on the other hand we must defend our borders very strongly when it comes to unfair competition from outside, whether from China or, unfortunately, also from the Mercosur countries, a party to the agreement you are about to sign.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Ladies and Gentlemen, Here, some in this room were very angry about the fact that we are reminding about Europe's mistakes from years ago, about the mistakes regarding Nord Stream 2 and the lack of sanctions when Russia first attacked countries such as Georgia or Ukraine. But let's focus on what we can do today, because many of you are afraid to talk about the past. Let's talk about the present. Today, we can decide to give up the Green Deal blocking industry, which is really necessary to build tanks and defend against Putin. We can decide to block the agreement with Mercosur, which will fund Russia with more funds, because Brazil is buying fertilizers from Russia. We can block regulations that block the development of technologies, including defence technologies in Europe. And above all, we can use Russian property, which is frozen in Europe, instead of taking loans.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Ladies and Gentlemen, The European Commission promised businesses a highway to grow, simpler law, less bureaucracy and more competitiveness. What is really going on in this House? Every now and then we are creating new laws, which are voted for and demanded by the left. More regulations, more provisions on the Green Deal, the implementation of climate neutrality by 2040 with a new pace of 90%. All this means that our companies cannot compete. And when it comes to the single market, we see protectionism. We see that there are a lot of regulations that actually prevent competition from other companies from other countries. The best example of this is the Transport Directive, which prevented healthy competition for Polish companies. If we want to really compete with the United States, with China, then the single market must really be created, not just in declarations. And here we open the helping hand of the European People's Party. We're ready for this. Do not cooperate with the left, do not regulate Europe, let it be free.

Mr President, thank you very much. Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. Thank you very much for this discussion. As she has shown, public procurement is extremely important to all of us. I would like to address some of the arguments that have been put forward here during this discussion. There were arguments concerning, among other things, the protection of workers' rights. In this document, we explicitly stress that such additional, different types of criteria may appear, but they are to result from national legislation and are to depend on the person, on the entity that carries out the public procurement. We do not want to create one big European template, because we know that in different criteria it may not be adapted to the economic needs or social conditions in a given country. The same applies to issues related to energy, the green transition. Here we are strongly in favour of technological neutrality. It is up to the Member States to decide how they create their own energy mix, as is clear from the EU treaties. This is a competence of the Member States. They can use this preference, but let it be a decision of the Member States as part of their individual strategies that they adopt. We also talked about European preference. I am in favour of looking for ways to ensure that technologies or orders are carried out within the European Union, within individual Member States, so that we do not actually turn out to be naive in this international competition. On the other hand, to those international partners outside the European Union who behave fairly towards us, to those partners who also open their markets, I understand that we can apply the principle of equivalence. But of course, where this principle of equivalence does not exist, we must get rid of naivety and build our strategic goals and advantages there, so that we can actually develop our own technologies. Ladies and Gentlemen, thank you very much for this discussion, thank you for the compromises that have been presented. I know that not everyone likes this report, but it is a compromise. Perhaps that is why it is so.

Dear Mr President, When we talk about public procurement, we are actually talking about something much bigger. We are talking about how Europeans' money is spent, but we are also talking about the opportunities that we have gained precisely from the money that can be spent on public procurement. Europe can be a locomotive of innovation, but unfortunately it can also be an open-air museum of paperology and bureaucracy. And this report is just talking about a few important things that I would like to mention. Six points that are important to me and that I would like to talk about here. First of all, what I started with. Many companies, many public institutions say that public procurement is too complicated and that bureaucracy is stifling us all when it comes to its implementation. Therefore, here in the report we clearly indicate the areas that should be debureaucratised, how to simplify procedures. Secondly, digitalisation, i.e. using these technical possibilities, such as artificial intelligence, but also transparency, conducting public procurement online, so that they are more widely available, but so that they are transparent and accessible to anyone who wants to apply for them. Third, science and innovation. Both the United States and China and Korea are investing billions in science and innovation. Europe must also use public funds to invest in science, but in order to do so, it is necessary to simplify procedures and allow public institutions to take the risk of innovation, so that officials who decide to tender for innovation and development do not later fear responsibility for breaking the law. That is why, in this report, we encourage that specific innovation pathways be made more accessible to the scientific world, but also to public institutions that will outsource them to businesses. Fourthly, the issue of small and medium-sized enterprises. We've been discussing this a lot. We talked about the fact that because there are such bureaucratic barriers, many small and medium-sized enterprises do not take part in tenders, because they simply do not have an army of lawyers, administrative departments that will handle these public procurements. That is why we are talking directly about considering issues related to the division of public contracts, so that they also reach small and medium-sized enterprises in this procurement chain, so that there is no misunderstood subcontracting, which causes small and medium-sized enterprises to receive a disproportionately small margin in relation to what tasks they actually perform in this tender. Fifth, the issue of farmers and food supplies. We discussed this all the more in the context of the discussion about shortening supply chains, about using the possibility of producing and buying goods directly from farmers, as close as possible to their place of residence, so that it is also allowed when it comes to public procurement, and it did not mean that farmers would not take part in procurement because they would be afraid of bureaucracy. And we also talked about these shortened supply chains when it comes to agriculture. And sixthly, an important topic for me – albeit also exciting here – is the issue of technological neutrality and the autonomy of states when it comes to public procurement. I think we should focus in this report – and we have done so – on simplifying procurement, on identifying what is possible. But last but not least, so that it is up to the Member States, contracting authorities, to decide what taxpayers' money in a given country is spent on. So this autonomy of states, including technological autonomy, I emphasise in this report. Ladies and Gentlemen, I hope that this report will allow the European Commission to prepare the relevant legislation and that we will still have the opportunity to return to the discussion, already with the concrete proposals that the Commission will present. Thank you all very much for your cooperation in this report and I look forward to your comments as well.

Ladies and Gentlemen, the automotive industry is extremely important for Europe, and even more so in the context of such challenges as competition with Asia, in particular with China. That's why it's good that we're talking about the automotive sector today. Unfortunately, the first submission to the European Commission in this regard was very far-reaching and detrimental to real competitiveness in Europe. I am pleased that, following these changes, which have been carried out by the Commission, we have made such changes that, among other things, have allowed car parts to continue to be remanufactured so that users across Europe can benefit from cheaper spare parts. I am pleased that the provisions on the compulsory scrapping of cars, which could be repaired and which can be repaired, have also been removed. And thanks to the fact that we changed the regulations in the first appendix, you will still be able to simply take a broken car to the car repair shop and fix it. And that fortunately, the car lobby lost here, which would like to exchange these cars for new ones and immediately buy another fresh out of production. I am also glad that the provisions on the fact that the citizen is actually the owner of his car have been guaranteed, because in some provisions - in some of these provisions - one could get the impression that he is only a temporary owner, and later we want to forcibly decide on his ownership. So after these amendments, these provisions are much better, although I hope that in the future the European Commission will not put forward such proposals again in the initial phase.

Ladies and Gentlemen, you want to talk about what media freedom looks like, but I would also like to start with how it is implemented here in this House, but also with your friends and the leaders of the European People's Party. Donald Tusk, one of the leaders of the European People's Party, does not admit to press conferences in Poland, to the conference of the prime minister of the Polish government, the largest news station - Telewizja Republika. He simply physically forbids entry to their press conferences. That's one example. The last time we discussed the dismissal of President von der Leyen here yesterday, you used tricks so that Members could not comment on why we wanted this dismissal. You just wanted a brief statement. So I'm gonna take this opportunity to say this: because you have a dangerous migration policy and a migration pact. This is because the Green Deal policy is impoverishing society and endangering the quality of life, and because the agreement with Mercosur that you wanted to keep secret is causing Polish and European farmers to lose out on this agreement.

Mr President, thank you very much. I am a huge enthusiast of all digital solutions that can facilitate the functioning of the economy, public institutions and all activities of a social nature. However, I am opposed to any solutions that would have an element of coercion. One such concept is, among other things, the introduction of digital money as an exclusive means of payment. This is something that would de facto result in a lack of any privacy, a lack of any notion of social freedom. That is why I wanted to make it clear here that we, as the ECR Group, are against such coercion in the future. We are in favour of making public digital services more accessible, but we are opposed to them becoming the sole gateway to, for example, using the Internet, because such ideas were to make access to the Internet no longer anonymous by means of a digital identity, which is the state's one. Some people in this room had such ideas, so clearly such ideas have to be said no. On the other hand, we must, of course, use all new technologies in order for Europe to develop economically and to take advantage of the opportunities offered by artificial intelligence, for example. But let me take this opportunity to say one more thing: we also need to start a debate here on how citizens should have the right to erase data that is stored by state registers. It cannot be the case that the state forces, for example, the retention of non-essential personal data for 15-20 years. Let us also start the debate today.

Madam President, I'm sorry. We see in the world at the moment a race of science in different places, in different disciplines, but above all in such areas as artificial intelligence, the development of energy, biotechnology, the latest information technologies. In these areas, the European Union should do everything to stand on an equal footing in this race, in particular in the context of competition with the United States or China. This is only possible if we actually focus the funding on these most important areas and actually focus on them. As it is clear that the tax resources, the financial resources at the disposal of the European Union and the Member States, are limited, we must take this decision. And we must also boldly say that spending money on left-wing ideological research is simply a waste of money. It is a loss of hope for the advancement of science in such areas as I have just said. And today, courageously, the left must choose whether you want to fund your left-wing ideas, research on whether there are 30 or 35 genders, or whether you want Europe to race in the development of artificial intelligence, energy or other areas that will translate into the quality of life of citizens. Ladies and Gentlemen, this is not a question of discussion about the freedom of science, because everyone can conduct the scientific research they want. He can decide for himself. It's a decision about where the taxpayers' money goes. And taxpayers' money should go where the results will translate into a better life for citizens.