Speeches

Madam President, I'm sorry. Mr. Secretary of State! According to experts' estimates, Ukraine faces the need to export in the next nine months about 50 million tons of cereals last year and this year's harvest, or about five million tons per month. My country, Poland, has already taken all possible measures to improve the capacity of our border, making it possible to transport around one and a half million tonnes of cereals per month through four separate border crossing points, but these possibilities are only used in half. Unfortunately, the problems are mainly on the Ukrainian side. Partially destroyed road and rail infrastructure, unsuited to the challenges of rail transport, and in particular the lack of cereal wagons and transhipment infrastructure at the border and, as I would like to stress, the avalanche-increasing costs of compulsory insurance for this transport, are just some of the problems undermining the efficiency of these green corridors. In this situation, it is even a dramatic challenge, in my opinion, to unblock the way of sea transport of grain through Ukrainian ports on the Black Sea with the participation of EU institutions, the UN and maybe even NATO. Without this, it seems that around 40 million tonnes of Ukrainian grain will not be exported, and this threatens – as has been said many times here – the famine of countries in North Africa and the Middle East, with all the negative consequences for all of us.

Mr President, thank you very much. Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. Friends and colleagues! I will focus on the CBAM border fee instrument. In a situation of drastic tightening of the EU's climate policy, this is, of course, a logical solution. Protecting the EU market is our responsibility. What is more, we introduce this tax quite carefully, it applies only to some imported goods, we have a transitional period, but we must be aware that already announcing the intention to introduce it will increase prices. I have two serious reservations about this instrument. The first: it must be a solution or a tax solution and therefore requires unanimity. You cannot try to bypass this unanimity by suggesting an environmental fee. And the second: there is no doubt that the abolition of free emission permits in so-called sensitive industries will result in a drastic increase in the prices of these products. And yet we are dealing with a huge increase in the prices of energy carriers, including agricultural raw materials, so even a drastic increase in the prices of artificial fertilizers, which translates into the prices of food products, and thus into inflation. And we have to take that into account.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. The Schmiedtbauer report strikes a balance between ecological ambitions and economic realities in EU countries so well that it was adopted in the Committee on Agriculture by acclamation, which I would like to stress. However, the level of organic farming varies greatly from one Member State to another, as has been discussed here. Therefore, setting a binding target at Union level requires a significant increase in inputs in a short period of time, which puts Member States with a lower level of agricultural maturity at a disadvantage. Therefore, it is good that the rapporteur stresses the need to provide adequate financial incentives to modernise and ensure the viability of farms. However, it should be stressed that Russia’s aggression against Ukraine and the ongoing war there are hitting all EU strategies and may also be a blow to the development of EU organic farming. In this situation, the priority should be to increase the efficiency of food production, and in particular to maintain the liquidity of agricultural raw materials supply, in order, inter alia, to avoid famine, especially in Africa, where Ukraine has so far met a significant part of the demand for grain. Finally, I would like to thank the rapporteur for supporting my ECR group's amendments. We were particularly keen that environmental awareness and standards should also be raised with our third-country trading partners in order to reduce the disparity of requirements and burdens between EU farmers and their non-EU partners.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Commissioner, thank you very much. I would like to point out first of all, in my opinion, the most important factor, which we underestimate in relation to the budget for the next year. These are the consequences of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. They are multi-directional. We discussed this yesterday in the Committee on Budgets. This is an issue of impact on the prices of energy raw materials. They are already responsible for 50% of inflation in the European Union and are likely to increase as a result of this conflict. This is a matter of the prices of agricultural raw materials, especially cereals. After all, Ukraine was its leading exporter. The lack of this export will affect it. Finally, these are the consequences of the refugees and the reconstruction of Ukraine. The Commissioner pointed out yesterday at the meeting of the Committee on Budgets that the Commission will react to this type of expenditure in neighbouring countries only when more or less the number of permanent refugees in a given country has been established. I would like to inform you that 700,000 refugees from Ukraine have been registered in the PESEL system in Poland as of yesterday. What does that mean? That these people have all the rights that Poles have, except the right to vote, which means that they will stay in Poland permanently. Of these, 50% are children, 40% are mothers. Therefore, we very much ask that this matter be included in next year's budget, because these costs will also be borne next year.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Ladies and Gentlemen, Commissioner! While I share the optimism in Mrs Tinagli's report about the recovery of pre-pandemic GDP levels by the end of 2022 in all EU countries, I would like to point out that Russia's aggression against Ukraine, a full-scale war taking place outside the European Union's eastern border, will have a negative impact on the European economy. This is what Commissioner Dombrovskis said. I also hope that the Union will finally decide on full sanctions against Russia, including the oil and gas embargo. Therefore, we should take into account their negative effects on the European economy and its financial system. The EU must decide on such sanctions, because in a situation where the Russians are murdering civilians in Ukraine, continuing imports – I apologise for the brutality of the wording – means that the blood of Ukrainian children and women flows into Europe together with oil and gas. Besides, Commissioner, if we do not stop Russia's sanctions in Ukraine, then the next ones will be the Baltic countries, including your country, Latvia, and then perhaps also my country, Poland. Full sanctions will cause financial trouble for many European companies, banks and funds. It should also be remembered that Russia has borrowed about four hundred billion dollars in the West, and in a situation where it has already basically declared limited insolvency, all these companies, banks and funds will be in great trouble. I would also like to strongly oppose further blocking by the Commission of funds from the Polish RRP. In a situation where Poland received one million three hundred thousand refugees within 13 days and they all found a place in Polish families, in public buildings, in hotels, blocking these funds is simply a disgrace to the Commission.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Commissioner, I'm sorry. In this debate, I would like to draw attention to three points. Firstly, in my view, the best instrument to encourage improvements in animal welfare is simply financial incentives for farmers. Not the injunctions and prohibitions that are very often proposed. And I hope that the European Commission will ensure that these incentives are included in the strategic plans that are currently being discussed in the Commission, both in the so-called eco-schemes and in the second pillar of the common agricultural policy. It is also necessary to support farmers' investments in animal welfare, because they will not be able to cope on their own. The second is the Farm to Fork Strategy. It provides for short supply chains and this is the area to improve animal welfare and thus process production close to where it was produced. And finally, thirdly, the issue of trade agreements. We have to be very firm here. It must not be the case that European farmers meet certain welfare standards, and there is no such condition in agreements with third countries for imports, as far as non-European farmers are concerned. The Commission must be vigilant in this regard.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Ladies and Gentlemen, Commissioner! Mr. Minister, I'm sorry. Well, during his last visit to Poland, Commissioner Thierry Breton formulated the political conditions for the approval of the Polish recovery plan. He spoke about the need to liquidate the Disciplinary Chamber, as well as the need to reinstate judges who were removed from this ruling by court judgments. So, in addition to applying the double measure to Poland since 2016, when the government in Poland changed to the Law and Justice government, the Commission is formulating further political demands on my country, which have nothing to do with the regulation governing the functioning of this fund. I would like to ask the Commissioners: Do you realize that you are demanding that the Polish government interfere in the functioning of the Polish judiciary, in the judgments of the courts? Are you suggesting that these sentences cease to apply (I mean sentences against judges)? This is persuading the executive to violate the constitution and to interfere in the separation of powers! It is a similar proposal, as if here in this room the Prime Minister of my country Mateusz Morawiecki demanded that the head of the Commission von der Leyen suspend the judges of the Court of Justice of the European Union who participated in hunting organized by various organizations in the French castle of Chambord.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. This debate has a historical dimension for European agriculture, because after three years of difficult negotiations, we accept in compromise the reform package of the common agricultural policy. This is our joint success, as farmers and other CAP beneficiaries need legal clarity and the details of the new CAP model as soon as possible. The undoubted positive of the new arrangements is that Member States remain free to implement the system of future direct payments and to apply arrangements such as the definition of an active farmer, the redistributive payment or the payment for young farmers, taking into account local needs and specificities. A strong advantage of the new CAP is also the proposal for so-called eco-schemes and the allocation of at least 25% of the funds from the first pillar for this purpose, with a minimum level of expenditure in individual years and flexibility in their use. However, various risks and risk factors for the agricultural sector must be borne in mind and taken into account, such as the long-term effects of Brexit, the negative effects of the COVID-19 pandemic or the recent sharp increase in energy prices, which translates into a large increase in agricultural production costs. We must also bear in mind that the ultimate objective of the reformed CAP should be to ensure the food security of the European Union, the stability of agricultural markets and the viability of European farms, especially small and medium-sized family farms.

Mr President, thank you very much. Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. In this debate, it has repeatedly resounded that what is happening on the Belarusian-Polish border is part of the hybrid war waged by the Lukashenka regime and also supported by Putin and his services. There must therefore be real sanctions against both regimes, Commissioner. It cannot be that we will only punish Belarus. We should also punish this hand, which pushes Belarus to this type of action, and from what we hear, it follows that the European Union is close to accepting the certification of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline, which will, after all, provide another billion euros to the budget of Russia, which will put pressure on the countries of Western Europe. I would like to thank very much all those parliamentarians who thanked my country here, Poland, and the soldiers who defend your security at the border – your people sitting here and your voters. Yes, 20,000 border guards, soldiers, policemen defend this border every day against the invasion of immigrants, not refugees. We help refugees: Approximately 2,000 people are in the centers that Poland is helping.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. Madam Minister, I'm sorry. Speaking in this debate, I would like to stress that Parliament's rejection of the cuts proposed by the Council is a necessity in a situation where the economies of the Member States are catching up with the COVID pandemic. In addition, new challenges are emerging, such as the sharp rise in energy prices, to which the Commission will have to respond, all of which require additional measures. It should be stressed that the 2022 budget is already the second budget of the new financial perspective and, at the same time, the payment appropriations contained therein must cover the accounts presented by beneficiaries implementing projects from the 2014-2020 financial perspective in accordance with the n + 3 rule. We must make every effort to ensure that these payment appropriations are not lacking and that the situation from 2014 to 15, when there were billions of euros of outstanding bills in the Commission, and there was a lack of funds to settle them and, moreover, the Commission had to pay interest, is not repeated. In this regard, I would like to express my hope that, as in previous years, Parliament will join the Council’s payment declaration attached to the 2022 budget, which will allow a rapid response to the need for additional payment appropriations.

Madam President, I'm sorry. To begin with, a remark that has already been raised here many times. Namely, if the European Commission presents a strategy without assessing the impact on the sectors concerned by the strategy, and above all on farmers' incomes, this is a non-professional action and does not create the conditions for creating good law. Several months have passed and there is still no impact assessment. And then there's this data-hiding incident. This is a situation that does not inspire trust. But, of course, this strategy has good solutions, including reducing the use of plant protection products, but this must be done in consultation with Member States and farmers when examining the impact on their incomes. This cannot be a reduction for the reduction itself. Finally, the last thing related to our relations with third countries: if we tighten the operating conditions for European farmers, this must be reflected in trade agreements. We talk about it all the time, we remind in the Committee on Agriculture. Unfortunately, the European Commission is not keeping an eye on this. The successive agreements we sign do not contain this element of protection for European farmers.

Mr President, thank you very much. Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. To all those who speak up here and attack my country, Poland, I want to remind you that as a country of Solidarity, at the time when this fund was created, we acted in solidarity and wanted to help countries that could not cope on their own. These were and still are the countries of southern Europe. We stood in solidarity and wanted to create this fund. Not all countries behaved that way. I'm not going to list them here so as not to upset the good mood, but at least five of these funds didn't want to. It was only after receiving certain concessions on their behalf that they agreed to create this fund. Secondly, the fund was to be used to quickly rebuild and build resilience to future economic crises, create social security systems. We do not understand this obstruction of the Commission, which does not accept the plans of Poland, Hungary, Sweden, without giving legitimate reasons. Finally, thirdly, the Commission has prepared a comprehensive regulation for more than 30 pages, in which it precisely describes the responsibilities of the Member State and of the Commission itself. We have fulfilled all the obligations under this regulation, from line to line, everything. We completed it by mid-July. The Commission does not yet say what kind of doubts it has about the Polish plan. There are some generalities coming out of the Commissioner's mouth. Commissioner, the Commission cannot behave like this. Poland, as a sovereign country of 40 million, cannot succumb to such blackmail.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Commissioner, I'm sorry. The sharp rise in energy prices observed in recent months is due to several reasons. Firstly, the violation or even interruption of supply chains, the accelerated growth of economies that are catching up with the downtime caused by the pandemic, the announcement of a drastic tightening of the European Union's climate policy and, finally, what to hide here, Vladimir Putin's gas blackmail, carried out primarily on Western European countries. Germany pushed for the construction of Nord Stream 2, wanting to become a gas hub for Western European countries at all costs, but now, in order to put it into service without the provisions of the third energy package, Putin uses gas blackmail, which lifts gas prices in Europe exorbitantly. My country has experienced such blackmail from Russia many times. We have warned Western European countries and EU institutions against this. They didn't listen to us, they listened to the Germans. Now we are suffering the consequences, but we still have influence on some factors. And let's draw the right conclusions from it, but not as they were here in this room. It is true that renewable energy is relatively cheap, but if we include the need to build reserve resources, and we must have them, because the sun does not always shine and the wind does not always blow, then it will turn out to be the most expensive.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. The agricultural production of the European Union is of great importance for global food security, as we have been the world's largest exporter of agri-food products for years. A special role is played here by the Common Agricultural Policy, which will be undergoing a deep reform in the near future, and the next great challenges facing the CAP are tackling the long-term effects of Brexit, a serious reduction in the European Union budget as a result of the United Kingdom's exit from the European Union, or even the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. All this complexity should lead the Commission to comprehensively review all recent strategies and programmes, such as the Green Deal, Next Generation EU, Fit for 55, Farm to Fork, Biodiversity and examine whether their cumulative effect, while beneficial for the environment, will not jeopardise the profitability and, consequently, the volume of future agricultural production in the European Union. It should be stressed that the European Union is the world's largest donor of food security, spending billions of euros a year on global food security, strengthening resilience to crises and improving the sustainability of agriculture, including in third countries. The European Union thus contributes to combating malnutrition, increasing food availability and improving access to food for people at risk of hunger. For this to continue, the world needs a strong, resilient, viable and efficient EU agriculture and hopefully a reformed Common Agricultural Policy will meet these challenges.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. Despite the ever-increasing cooperation on the exchange of tax information between Member States and third countries since 2013, the value of tax revenue foregone by EU budgets is not decreasing at all. According to the rapporteur, this amounts to between EUR 160 and 190 billion per year for corporate tax avoidance and EUR 50 billion for individual tax avoidance. Without calling into question the sense of this cooperation and the exchange of tax information by the tax services of the Member States, it might be worth proposing at the level of the Member States the introduction of additional taxation for large companies that have revenues below one percent of their turnover. In my country, Poland, the government wants to introduce such an additional tax from next year. I hope, Commissioner, that the European Commission will not question this solution, as it was in the case of the trade tax. I would point out that, by challenging this Polish solution, the Commission ultimately lost it at the Court of Justice of the European Union.

Mr President, thank you very much. Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. We are once again discussing the rule of law and the conditionality mechanism. This rule of law is changed by all cases, especially in relation to Poland and Hungary. But what does the rule of law look like when it comes to the functioning of the European institutions, including the European Parliament? You regularly violate this rule of law, you break it. Were there any findings from the Council and the Commission? Why do you not respect them? Poland and Hungary had the right to challenge this mechanism before the CJEU. They did it. Why do you not want to wait for the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union? Or do you already know this decision? It is an independent court. You know that there is a devastating legal opinion for this regulation, and yet you are pushing for your solutions without waiting, as the Court of Justice in Luxembourg will say in this case. I would like to inform you that Poland spends European money without embezzlement, without corruption. This is evidenced by the settlement ok. 60% from the current financial perspective.