What Piotr spoke about.

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.

Mr President, thank you very much. In the context of the discussion on trans-European transport networks, I would like to emphasize the importance and role of building a new expressway Via Pomerania, which is extremely important for my region in Poland - Pomerania. This is a road that would connect the Baltic Sea - from Ustka through Słupsk, Bytów, Chojnice, to Bydgoszcz - in order to improve economic opportunities there, but also to ensure transport security in terms of potential weapons, in terms of what could happen in crisis situations. This is very important for the security of Poland, but also for the security of the Baltic Sea and the security of those countries that are in this basin. From this point of view, I would like to ask the European Commission to speed up, for this reason, the revision of this list of the transport network, which is currently in place, so that precisely these new ones, important for road safety, can be taken into account. At the same time, I am taking the opportunity to convince the Polish Presidency to quickly prepare a corridor study that can be forwarded to the European Commission.

Mr President, thank you very much. Ladies and Gentlemen, A key mistake that was committed against Russia was the development of infrastructure that allows the transmission of gas. This infrastructure has its name, it is called Nord Stream. In 2014, when Russia attacked Ukraine for the first time, Germany decided to continue the construction of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline. In that case, if you really want independence from Russia, then I have one simple proposition. Let the Germans prove that they want this independence. Let them liquidate, let them destroy the Nord Stream and Nord Stream 2 pipelines effectively. Let them withdraw from its further exploitation in the future. Let them show that they really do not want to pay Russia the euro for gas that will flow from there or will be able to flow in the future. Prove your true intentions and stop Russian gas forever.

Madam President, I'm sorry. I have the impression that many in this room, unfortunately, do not mind that citizens are getting poorer due to high energy prices and heating prices. I have the impression that many in this Hall, unfortunately, also do not mind the fact that in Europe more factories are falling and our industry is collapsing. But what's more shocking to me: I have the impression that this Hall is not very impressed by the war that is approaching the European gates, because in order to win it, we must be ready to prepare our weapons, and for this we need steel. Tanks are not made of cardboard, ladies and gentlemen. If the steel industry collapses in Europe, we will have no way of arming ourselves. That is why we urgently need to withdraw from the ETS, to block the introduction of the ETS2, simply to introduce a pragmatic, not ideological, green industrial policy. And, Commissioner, I call on you to do so. I am counting on French and European common sense.

Mr President, thank you very much. Ladies and Gentlemen, Financial resources are needed to build infrastructural independence, including technological independence. The European Union should decide what it wants to spend these funds on from its own budget. There are three major policies that we are pursuing at the same time: it is a security policy, including technological security, a social policy that allows citizens to live at a sufficiently high level, and unfortunately the Green Deal policy, which increases these costs of living and generates various types of expenditure in this policy. If we want to be truly technologically independent, we should allocate additional financial resources to this area. But for this to be possible, we must give up one of the three policies I have mentioned, and we should give up the Green Deal policy, which at the moment limits Europe's development and independence. Secondly, we should stop insulting our technology partners from different continents in the world and work with them to ensure that the right technologies are also being developed in Europe.

Mr President, the biggest threat to Europe's growth is not China or the USA, it's a weak leadership. This became clear in Paris. Vice-President JD Vance spoke with confidence, warning that strict rules could kill AI before it even starts. Ursula von der Leyen couldn't connect with the message. While Vance spoke of opportunity and leadership, von der Leyen focused on ideas that have been holding Europe back for years. The new strategy from the Commission should have been a roadmap for growth and a clear rejection of failed policies like the Green Deal. Does the left side of this Parliament have the courage to accept new technologies and use them to help Europeans? The US is ready to work together to build a better future. Europe must have the courage to do the same.

Thank you for that question. It's very apt. I'll tell you what I'm afraid of. Among other things, I am concerned that the European Commission has so far failed to provide information on what actions it has taken against Platform X in terms of preventive censorship. I have asked the European Commission twice about this, and so far I have no answer as to whether such proposals for preventive censorship against X were directed or not. The Commission does not want to answer me and I expect it to do so. That's the first thing. Secondly, I have the impression that the DSA in the hands of this European Commission is to be treated as a kind of preventive censorship. Why is that? Because you think that you decide what is bad content and what is good content. And that's the fundamental difference.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Ladies and Gentlemen, When I listen to you, I have no doubt. Indeed, democracy and freedom of speech in Europe are under threat. But for completely different reasons than the left side of the political scene says here. First of all, because you want to play big brother. You want to play censor who will decide what is true and what is not. In fact, today in this room we are discussing how you want to introduce mechanisms of preventive censorship, which for years were well known in the years of communism in Eastern Europe. Today you're talking about how it's bothering you to let people decide for themselves on the basis of facts what's true and what's not a ready-made solution that you want to serve to people online. Today we are talking about the fact that social media should be free. They should be free from censorship and your solutions that you propose. And some of you seem to know better what is true, but really believe me, citizens are able to distinguish it. On one condition: You will give them the freedom to judge.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Freedom of speech is the foundation of any democratic system. I have the impression that there are people in this room who would like to violate the foundations of democracy by violating freedom of speech, in this case freedom of expression on the Internet. Some of you in this room would very much like the European Commission or other EU institutions to act in such an enlightened way and prevent certain content from being banned in some miraculous way. Who would decide that, ladies and gentlemen? Officials from the European Commission? Do you on the left want to make that decision? No, that's not right. It is supposed to be freedom of speech, that is, in short, freedom of expression under different conditions. If you want to fight disinformation, let's focus on education. Let's show how to fight it, how to translate fake news, which appear. But do not go with the instruments of censorship, which unfortunately we know very well from the communist times in Poland. On the other hand, Commissioner, I would very much like to ask you to answer a question about the actions taken by the previous Commission in relation to Platform X, because I have not yet received an answer on this matter.

Mr President, Ladies and Gentlemen, In the debate on the issue of academic freedoms, it is worth recalling what influences look like in various areas, precisely those external ones that appear in Europe. And I would like to point out these three above all and a certain naivety, which, unfortunately, is also shown by some people in this room. The first area is energy. Let us remember perfectly how Russia influenced many universities in Europe and argued that gas is better as a way of supplying Europe than, for example, electricity from nuclear power plants. A lot of people in this room have fallen for this rhetoric. The second point: limiting, under the pretext of science, under the pretext of protecting the environment, the development of infrastructure, for example in the case of Poland on the Oder. Here, too, there are often scientific arguments, but in fact behind the backs of the lobby of other countries. And the third thing: identity. Because it is often precisely in the course of various activities at universities that attempts are made to build a cosmopolitan identity so that we do not have strong nations in Europe. In fact, this will make Europe weak in the future.

Madam President, thank you very much. There is no doubt that we should be concerned with protecting against content that can be harmful, against content that can have a negative impact on society and, in particular, on the upbringing of children. However, in this House and also in the European Commission, this topic is very often used to take steps that go much further. Steps that limit freedom of expression. Steps that lead to preventive censorship. Finally, the steps that cause the proposal to withdraw from the possibility of data encryption, encrypting communications in such messengers as Signal, WhatsApp, Messenger and so on. The European Commission recently presented one of its projects, which includes, among other things, the elimination of encrypted communication and preventive scanning of citizens' content. Ladies and Gentlemen, this is probably a version of the Chinese Internet, not the European one! I demand a clear declaration from the European Commission that the Chat Control project to eliminate encryption will be withdrawn. That's the first thing. And finally, I demand an answer to the question, did you propose illegal agreements at X, at Elon Musk?

Mr President, thank you very much. Mr. Commissioner, I would like to thank you. Ladies and Gentlemen, Product safety regulations in Europe are extremely important. On the one hand, they make consumers safe and, on the other hand, they make us standardise some kind of production solutions in Europe, which, of course, also brings tangible benefits and safety for consumers. However, we see this growing competition from Asian markets in particular, and my concern is that these regulations will not apply in practice to those countries that enter the European market in a different way than production on our home market. In this connection, I have a question for the Commissioner as to what action could be taken here (if only by enshrining, in the new budgetary perspective that we will be working on, additional resources for offices, for national and EU institutions, but above all for national ones, because they most often control the quality of products) so that the actual control of these products, which come in particular from Asia, takes place.

Madam President, thank you very much. Europe is at a crossroads today. He can choose one of the paths of economic development or go the way of the abyss, de facto Today we are talking about such an option. Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki, the former Prime Minister of Poland, pointed out many months ago that Europe is on the wrong path when it comes to economic development. And today, Mr Draghi's report actually fully confirms this. Let's give one number. Recently, only 6% of global investments in artificial intelligence, in this very modern area, goes only to the European Union, 6% from the global market. This shows that, unfortunately, Europe is very unattractive in terms of modern technologies and economic development. Europe needs change, it needs immediate change, but for this to happen, it needs less bureaucracy, more freedom for entrepreneurs, a real common market, no protectionism and, above all, a fundamental change when it comes to the Green Deal and the ETS, which generates huge energy costs. If we do not do this, if we do not react today, the United States and the Asian tigers will quickly defeat us economically, and Europe will unfortunately become an economic open-air museum.

Mr President, thank you very much. Ladies and Gentlemen, The word ‘censorship’ has the worst connotations. It's about systems that have nothing to do with democracy. Associations with systems that have done a lot of harm in Eastern Europe, especially in Central and Eastern Europe. Freedom of speech must be a pillar of democracy. Freedom of expression in the 21st century also means freedom of expression on the internet. That is why we need to keep a close eye on every action that is taken by the European Commission and by social media platforms as part of the DSA package. It was intended to protect a democratic society from all sorts of attempts at influence that might arise. But I have the impression that, although Commissioner Breton, responsible for the implementation of this package, is no longer in the European Commission, the problem that has arisen, the problem of preventive censorship that can be introduced by this package, is unfortunately very topical. Officials in the European Union are talking about the fight against disinformation. This is the official reason why this package works. But shouldn't we really say today that this is part of the introduction of preventive censorship? Is there a risk that will come up? And today's question: Who's to judge? Is criticising the migration package, for example, a fight against disinformation? Is this a fight against hate speech? But is it possible to have a public debate in a situation, especially when Germany is closing its borders today? Ladies and Gentlemen, we did not read Orwell to observe the creation of a European Ministry of Truth. There can be no consent to this.