Speeches

For years, the citizens of the European Union have been clear: It's time to stop changing time. Twice a year, millions of Europeans switch their watches and, with them, their rhythm of life, sleep and health. There is no longer any rational reason to maintain this outdated system. According to the data of the European Commission, 84% of citizens participating in the consultation supported the abolition of the time change. Studies indicate that changing watches causes sleep disturbances, more road accidents and a drop in productivity, and the energy benefits that once justified this practice do not matter today. The decision to move away from seasonal time changes is an expression of common sense and concern for the health of Europeans. I call on the Commission and the Council to put an end to the multi-annual deadlock and to put in place a single, stable time system for the Union as a whole. Europe needs more common rhythm and less bureaucratic chaos. It's time to stop wasting energy and just stop changing time.

Madam President, I'm sorry. I am pleased that in this room there has been a loud statement that passenger rights are not negotiable. And I am very pleased that the Committee on Transport, in which I have worked for many years, speaks with one voice: We are on the side of the passengers. And I was astonished to accept the position of the governments of the Member States, which we have been waiting for 11 years. Ladies and Gentlemen, the CJEU has long ruled that a delay of more than three hours gives passengers the right to compensation. Secondly, free hand luggage cannot be a luxury, but an element of a basic transport service. And thirdly, fair competition. The same rules must apply to EU and non-EU carriers. I often hear about the costs of airlines, but we rarely hear about the costs incurred by a passenger whose flight is delayed, who did not catch the next flight for a change, who did not manage to sign important documents, did not manage to get to work and so on. These are tangible costs that we must not forget either. I therefore hope that tomorrow Parliament will say with the voice of the European Commission: Yes, we are voting for air passenger rights.

Mr President, thank you very much. Initiative My voice, my choice this is one of the strongest signals that has reached the European Parliament in recent years. It is a call for safety, dignity and real help. And we all know that bans do not reduce the number of treatments, but, as has been said, they become more dangerous. In the Union, more than 20 million women live without real access to safe sexual and reproductive health services. And I would like to stress that the initiative does not change the legislation of the Member States. The European Commission has made it clear that it falls within the competences of the European Union and is based on solidarity. This is a support mechanism for countries that want to help unaccompanied women. Help, not compulsion. And I want to remind you from this place about Agnieszka, Dorota, Marta, about women from my country, from Poland, who went to the hospital and did not get help. Women who had to die because doctors were afraid to make a decision. It is a systemic failure that costs lives, that causes tragedies to families and children without a mother. That is why I want to tell all Polish women from this place, from the European Parliament, that you are not alone. Your health and your life matter. No one has the right to force anyone to be heroic. And tomorrow's vote, ladies and gentlemen, is an opportunity for the European Parliament, for Europe to stand on the side of women, on the side of security and on the side of freedom of choice.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Often in this room we talk about physical violence, about visible violence. Today I would like to talk about violence, which we often do not touch, and which happens quietly in the workplace. This is institutional and economic violence. According to the Fundamental Rights Agency, one in five women in the European Union experiences such violence. One in three single mothers in Europe lives on the verge of poverty. These are not statistical errors. Unfortunately, often systems do not support mothers, they only account for them. A woman who gives birth to a child often loses her job, often the chance of promotion and financial independence. At the interview, no man hears the question of whether he will become a father. Young women often hear them. They hear the question of whether they intend to have children, and instead of equality, they hear that this is their choice. Self-employed women, women who own businesses, often have other social benefits when they become pregnant and have children. This is institutional violence. When the law does not protect, and motherhood is punished.

Madam President, I'm sorry. What is very troubling is the awareness of how many useful Putin idiots we have in Europe who are helping to spread disinformation and fake news. And it is terrifying that there are politicians – including in this room – who still believe that it is possible to negotiate with Putin. Ladies and Gentlemen, Putin understands only the language of force, which we have talked about many times in this room. Violation by Russian drones of the airspace of Poland, Estonia and other countries are no coincidence. This is a Russian provocation and a test of our European response and solidarity. Putin is testing how far Europe can go. Therefore, our response must be decisive. We need action, not statements. We need investment in defence shields and anti-radar systems and, above all, strengthening the European defence industry – removing the shackles of restrictions and regulations that unfortunately do not match today's challenges, threats and expectations.

Madam President, I'm sorry. The chemical package is a test of whether we can regulate wisely, taking into account scientific achievements, innovation, market realities and whether we can defend the competitiveness of European industry. In cosmetics, for example, we are currently seeing a dangerous shift from a risk assessment to a hazard-only approach. Current interaction between the Regulation CLP and CPR leads to automatic bans of substances, even those that are safe in real use and often also present in food. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that the derogation for category 1 CMR substances does not always work. Unclear criteria and unrealistic deadlines make it difficult for industry to provide evidence of safety, even when a substance has been assessed as safe by the relevant authorities. This is a threat to thousands of products, innovations, as well as to European small and medium-sized entrepreneurs who are losing their competitiveness vis-à-vis companies outside the European Union. I am pleased that today the Commission is moving towards wise simplification with a security priority. Clear deadlines, realistic transition periods, protection of natural ingredients, consideration of real conditions of use is a proportionate, predictable and science-based approach. Simplification does not mean deregulation. On the contrary, it is an opportunity for better, more comprehensible and effective implementation of the law. A law that protects people and the environment, but does not stifle industry, does not block innovation, and does not eliminate hazardous ingredients.

(beginning of speech outside the microphone) ...I think that there is rarely such consensus and unanimity in this House. We do not agree to lower the rights of air passengers. The current proposal raises many concerns. Firstly, raising the time thresholds for obtaining compensation from three to six hours for transatlantic flights means a real loss of compensation or compensation for hundreds of thousands of travellers. The reduction in compensation rates does not reflect inflation or the real costs incurred by passengers. Reducing the deadline for submitting an application to 6 months will hit the weakest, the elderly, who often do not know the procedures. Finally, the extension of the catalogue of extraordinary circumstances to include technical defects or staff strikes is contrary to the case-law of the CJEU. These are events for which the carrier should be prepared. Ladies and Gentlemen, passenger rights are not a privilege, it is a European standard – and the United Kingdom, Canada, Turkey or Saudi Arabia are modelled on it. And we cannot allow them to be weakened. At the center of the regulations must remain a passenger, because the airport without passengers is just a hangar and planes. And it is people who give meaning to European mobility and for them we create this law.

Mr President, thank you very much. Commissioner, I'm sorry. Years of fighting for our rights and equality, and it seems that we still have a long way to go, or even that the climate for fighting for our rights, for equality is not friendly in the world today, and I get the impression that there are more and more conservative politicians who would like to close our mouths and would like to close women in their homes. Ladies and gentlemen, we must also ask ourselves: is the Europe we are building a Europe for all women? Do our strategies take into account the needs of those living in remote areas, small towns and villages? Equality cannot be a mere metropolitan privilege. We must ensure that every woman, wherever she lives, has access to the same rights and opportunities. I therefore call on the Commissioner and the Commission: Let's invest in infrastructure in rural areas, let's support rural women's entrepreneurship by offering training and financial programs. Break stereotypes by promoting gender equality in every community. Let our women's road map be a path that all women follow, regardless of where they live, whether in the heart of the city or in a small village. Only then will Europe truly be united in equality and justice. And I think that's what all women dream about, especially those from the countryside and small towns.

Mr President, thank you very much. It is very sad that, despite the knowledge, awareness, actions and many debates in this House, we still have a problem with equal rights, with equal pay between women and men, and we still have a problem with violence. It's sad and embarrassing. Speaking of our indications for the UN session, I would like to touch on one point: the voice of women in rural and remote areas, who additionally face challenges and constraints such as education, the labour market, health services or transport exclusion. Let us remember that these women are the foundation of local communities and, at the same time, too often remain invisible in politics and public debate. Let us also remember to increase the representation of women in STEM sectors. Data show that women continue to be a minority in science and technology professions. If we want to be an innovative and competitive economy, we need to eliminate barriers that discourage women from choosing such professions. We must not forget, of course, the fight against violence against women throughout the European Union. One in three women experience different forms of violence. It is a shame these days, a shame for all those who do not want real action and do not want to make real decisions to change this situation. Finally, the pay gap, about which so much has been said here. It is a shame that women earn 13% less in the same jobs. Equality is the foundation of European values. Let's keep that in mind.

Mr President, thank you very much. Commissioner, I'm sorry. The most effective way to protect biodiversity internationally is through cooperation and joint efforts at global level. And we must remember that the causes of deforestation or forest degradation differ when we look at the global context and the European backyard. Because when we look at the global context, it is caused by the expansion of agriculture or urbanization in different regions of the world. And these problems should not be confused with the impact of adverse climate change on forests, such as prolonged droughts, storms or forest fires, which then lead to a massive occurrence of secondary pests and diseases. Just as there are different causes of degradation of habitats and species, there are also different methods available to counteract these phenomena. And these degradations should be very well documented and well scientifically justified. In order to reduce human activities leading to the degradation of ecosystems, increased international efforts are needed to strengthen the role of sustainable management of all categories of land use as a better alternative to existing practices. This cannot be achieved by sanctions alone. An example of such a balance is the concept of sustainable forest management, which has been developed and successfully implemented in Europe for almost 35 years. The European Union, as one of the signatories of the Forest Europe Ministerial Agreements, should better promote and encourage other countries to follow the European approach to sustainable forest management, which is based on three pillars: environmental, economic and social. European forests are a refuge of biodiversity and natural resources on a scale that no other form of land use offers, providing a whole range of ecosystem goods and services to society. Human activity has shaped Europe's forests over the centuries - and I am finishing up, Mr President - leading to semi-natural forests of very good quality and rich forms, including biodiversity, as well as productive commercial forests...

Mr President, thank you very much. Smoking is one of the leading causes of death, disease and enormous social costs. Today we are facing a new challenge: e-cigarettes. In my country, Poland, almost half of young people use them every day, and 21% reach for disposable devices that tempt with easy accessibility and attractive flavors. And let's not be fooled by the fact that e-cigarettes are a way to break the habit. It seems to me that this is a tool that, unfortunately, draws young people into new addictions. And today we do not know the consequences of this new fashion. It is our responsibility to put in place solutions that effectively limit young people's access to e-cigarettes and reduce the harmful effects on public health. However, in our actions and decisions, we must maintain a healthy distance and common sense. And that's what I'm calling for.

Mr President, thank you very much. Europe is responsible for less than 9% of global CO2 emissions, but this, of course, does not relieve us of our responsibility to fight the climate crisis. However, the ambitious targets we set for the European economy and Europeans must be acceptable and bearable. Taking care of the environment, we must not forget to support the competitiveness of the European economy. I also want to stress that European entrepreneurs understand the need for change and the fight for a clean planet. However, they stress that they need flexibility, without imposing a single rigid solution. Every goal requires common sense and responsibility in order for Europe to thrive in a sustainable and competitive way. As climate-neutral politicians, we also have a responsibility to support and protect the European economy and European jobs.

Mr President, thank you very much. Today, Mrs. Maląg denounced Poland and denounced her government, the PiS government, of which she was a member, which for 8 years led a prosperous stock exchange company to financial collapse by manual control, by bad business decisions and by tragic personnel decisions. Today's government and efficient managers are trying to restore this company to functioning and competitiveness. Returning to rail, to passenger transport, I want to say that we need rail to be fit for the 21st century. We need to complete the single market for rail – this is the key to efficient and sustainable connections. We need to standardize and standardize technical systems. We need competitiveness because it drives innovation, improves service quality and reduces costs. Without this, we will not see the flow of passengers from other means of transport. If we want rail to be the first choice rather than the last, it must be competitive, modern, faster, cheaper and accessible to all.

Madam President, thank you very much. Commissioner, I'm sorry. One remark to Mr. Braun. If he is so disgusted by this Europe, the European Union, the European Parliament, the easiest way is to give up his mandate, give up this euro, the collective farm money. It's a simple matter. He'll solve the situation quickly. Ladies and gentlemen, once again we are debating in the European Parliament about the tragedies of Polish women, which result from the restrictive law introduced by the previous government, as confirmed by the UN report. We are debating, although unfortunately we are aware that all solutions and changes must be voted in the Polish parliament. And although we have no direct influence on these votes, on the decisions of Polish MPs, this way we want to once again send a strong signal to Polish women. We are with you and we will do everything to convince the parliamentary majority in Poland to vote for the changes we promised during the election campaign. I would also like to stress that the current government, the government of Donald Tusk, is strongly in favour of introducing the regulations that Polish women are waiting for, which give Polish women the opportunity to choose and make decisions. No one has to decide if they don't want to, but let's give the choice to those they want, those whose lives and health are at risk. Ladies and Gentlemen, although we do not have this majority at the moment, I would like to emphasize that the Polish government is doing a lot, has taken many actions that until recently were impossible. I agree with those who say that change is too slow. That is why, from this place, I appeal to our coalition partners, to the President and to everyone: Don't be Poland's conscience.

Mr President, thank you very much. Ladies and Gentlemen, Until you want to ask the question: who has an interest in destroying the European automotive sector, a sector that is one of the pillars of the European economy? There are redundancies and the last concern of a man who does not have a job is concern for the environment. Let us acknowledge that electric cars are too expensive for many consumers and inefficient. The transformation must always go hand in hand with the opportunities of the industry, because without it thousands of jobs are at risk. We cannot impose a pace that will destroy our industry. I think that today we need to take into account the current economic and technological realities. We need to activate a healthy approach and common sense. I have no doubt that today's problems in the automotive industry are due to the unilateral approach of both the Commission and many MEPs in this House, who, by focusing exclusively on electromobility and reducing CO2 emissions, have neglected the issue of competitiveness...