Speeches

Madam President, I'm sorry. We all agree that interconnectors in the energy market contribute by design to greater security, lower prices and lower emissions. We have also worked for a long time with the Commissioner on TEN-E, the guidelines for cross-border energy networks, so as rapporteur for this project in Parliament, I will certainly not deny that this objective is extremely important. However, it is only today, in a situation of deep crisis not anticipated by any European strategy, that we can see the importance of national self-sufficiency as well. It is clear that in crisis situations, each network operator will primarily take care of the security of domestic customers. And we have to come to terms with reality, realism dictates that we recognize it. Therefore, in the face of the energy crisis, we must be aware that the EU's energy policy priorities so far are largely inadequate. We will have to face a situation of scarcity and high prices for a longer period of time. And there are very negative examples of politics, e.g. France, which trusting in an integrated market, has recently become an importer of electricity from an exporter. But I'd like to say one more thing. The single market consists primarily of common rules and certain principles of equal treatment within the European Union, which the Commission is to be the guardian of. However, yesterday's proposal on the price cap on the gas market is a situation in which we are once again witnessing a decision forced by the strongest Member State, contrary to the majority of states constituted in the Council, demanding that the Commission limit speculation and raise prices in the context of the war in Europe. And I think that yesterday's decision really caused great indignation and concern among our citizens, but also in think tanks.

Mr President, I would like to thank you. We ask ourselves whether the Council's findings on combating the effects of the energy crisis meet citizens' expectations. Needless to say, not exactly, because, first of all, they are late, insufficient. Security of supply should be taken care of much earlier by the Council and the Commission. How did it happen that only now did the Council and the Commission discover the price of our energy sector's dependence on Russia? Was it really unpredictable? These hundreds or thousands of very wise officials were not able to predict this? Secondly, the proposed measures, for example those aimed at lowering prices, especially gas prices, are being implemented very reluctantly. But thirdly, citizens expect not only immediate measures, but a rethinking and reformulation of our entire climate and energy policy. It is necessary to answer the question whether, in the current geopolitical situation, in the face of a war that will last a long time and may also move to the territory of the Union, the goals set for 2030 are to be achieved and at what cost, by whom we are willing to socially accept their achievement.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Despite some skeptical voices, I believe that the European political community can play an important role in agreeing on a common position and consolidating European states in the current situation of Russia's aggression against Ukraine. The most important thing is the format of this body. It involves countries that do not want to join the European Union, such as Switzerland, or return to it, such as the United Kingdom. And I would like to remind you that the European political and cultural community is wider than the European Union itself. The United Kingdom provides more military assistance to Ukraine than countries such as Germany and France, and thus contributes more than these countries to the security of the countries of the Union neighbouring Russia. Switzerland provides humanitarian aid to Ukraine. So it is good that there is a new format in which we can cooperate with such and other countries.

Mr President, thank you very much. Today, bold and quick market interventions are needed to protect consumers from the negative effects of high energy prices. For example, wholesale gas prices should be reduced as soon as possible. It is necessary to freeze the prices of ETS allowances and introduce mechanisms to limit their price increase. At the same time, the Commission should ensure that the strongest countries do not impede competition in the internal market with their interventions and assistance to businesses. But there is more to it, Mr President, than just a short-term solution. It is necessary to rethink and revise the entire energy and climate policy of the Union so far. In her inaugural speech in 2019, the President said that her Commission would be geopolitical. Meanwhile, in its noble climate and energy projects, this Commission ignored political realities, as if there were no China and Russia. And this is also one of the reasons for the current dramatic situation: This policy, this Commission.

Mr President, thank you very much. I'm not going to name names, I'm just calling on my colleagues to do a conscience check. I will not mention Social Democrats or Christian Democrats here, but I could talk about Manuela Schwesig, as my colleague said, about Lars Klingbeil, about Sarah Wagenknecht naturally and many other politicians. So do an examination of conscience and think, Social Democrats, Christian Democrats, who supported, who made Putin strong. I would like to say something else, because I think that the most dangerous are those who repeat Russian propaganda without knowing it, not fully consciously. Recently, political discourse in Europe is often accused of fascism, post-fascism. Anyone who disagrees with the mainstream is a fascist, etc. This is, of course, a repetition of the rhetoric of the National Front of the 1930s. If you go back to history, you will know that it was inspired by Stalin. So we repeat the Soviet or post-Soviet language. I can no longer conclude, but please reflect.

Madam President, I'm sorry. I understand that the aim of this report is greater transparency and democracy in the financing and operation of European parties and foundations. But my colleagues have already explained why we cannot support it. We cannot support it because, of course, it is also an interference in the activities of parties at the level of nation states and you want to build European democracy and at the same time weaken democracy where it actually exists, in our countries. Hence the reference to European values. But it's not about European values, because we don't have a problem with European values, it's about what's nicely called in German. deutungshoheit. Who will interpret these values? For some, human dignity is euthanasia and abortion. For us, no. For some, Gerhard Schröder's SPD and Andrej Babish's ANO are in line with European values, not quite for us. So we either allow the possibility of discussing values, or we want to have censorship and control of political processes.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Let's be honest and honest: The war in Europe has exposed many weaknesses in our energy policy. And it is not only about dependence on Russian raw materials, but about the weakness of our legislative solutions. An example is the electricity market model developed only in 2019. From the annual control report (ACR) we can learn that the model is perfect, but unfortunately only on paper. It works well only in laboratory, artificial conditions, but in the real, imperfect world, these mechanisms are completely unsuited to the situation of shortages and galloping prices, causing an energy crisis. This is just one example. Another example is the ETS, which is why we should change it instead of artificially steering the market by setting a price cap on gas. On the other hand, when it comes to Russian gas, we should fight here, in this Parliament, for a complete embargo on that gas. And one last point about Norway, our partner, who so often teaches us about European values in Poland. You now have an excellent opportunity in Norway to show European solidarity and give up your income.

Mr President, thank you very much. I think, dear colleagues, that in the current situation we should not change the existing objectives of the offers. Moreover, I think that we need a moratorium – two or five years – on the European Commission's lofty ambitions in the field of climate and energy policy. Not because I am against climate protection, not because I do not want our energy sector to transform. But we are dealing with a completely exceptional situation in which it turns out that the paradigms on which we were based as the European Union or individual Member States do not work. Some have been disappointed by their belief in a secure supply of energy resources from Russia. All of us have been disappointed by the model of the electricity market, which we must change a few years after its establishment. I remember all the nights I spent working on it. In a moment, we are going to deny the existing rules of the free market, establishing, almost like a cartel, upper limits on gas prices. Therefore, raising the high target for renewable energy sources is simply surrealistic in the current situation. I think that the Europeans will give an appropriate assessment. Briefly on the issue of forest biomass and forest protection. Indeed, the development of biomass must be accompanied by appropriate environmental protection measures, and it is here that I strongly support the European Commission's proposal in this direction.

Mr President, thank you very much. Of course, I agree with the general line taken by the rapporteur and I thank Mr Bilčík and the shadow rapporteurs for their work on this report. The report presents many of Serbia's weaknesses from the point of view of the Union and the integration process, while not overlooking the context of the war in Ukraine and Serbia's response to it. It contains a lot of right comments. However, it is difficult to resist the impression that sometimes the interference in Serbia's internal affairs goes too far, that our concern also turns into moralist interventionism, not to say moralist imperialism, in this case, as in many others. Especially since many of these moralistic requirements are not met within the Union itself – for example, we read in this resolution that ‘it is regrettable that the work of the National Assembly has been hampered by the lack of a genuine political debate between the majority and the opposition parties’. And do we really have debates in this Parliament between groups that have considered themselves only pro-European and genuinely pro-European factions like the ECR? At most, backstage. Another example: the resolution rightly denounces Serbia’s ties to Russia, including its military ties, its non-adherence to sanctions against Russia. Only with our criticism we forget that the Union was less fundamental towards some Member States, which after 2014 bypassed the EU embargo by selling military equipment to Russia, despite sanctions. So let's apply the same standards.

Mr President, thank you very much. I must say that reality can surprise. It was difficult to assume, say a year ago, that one of the leaders of the Greens in Europe, the intransigent climate defenders, now the Vice-Chancellor of Germany, would announce the re-launch of coal-fired power plants. It was difficult to expect that this Parliament, which had set itself the goal of a heroic and uncompromising fight against fossil energy sources, would speak out in favour of the obligation to fill gas storages throughout the Union. This return to realism is something worthy of support and I would like to thank all my colleagues, Mr Buzek, for their excellent cooperation. Nevertheless, as ECR, we cannot vote in favour of the agreement thus adopted. And this is because the gas we want to fill these tanks with is to come mainly from Russia. And this means that in the decisive months of the war, we intend to support Russia with additional money. And it is probably in rubles – because some countries pay in rubles, as we know – contributing to further war crimes committed by Russia, and perhaps even to its victory. The urgently prepared amendment may have contributed to reducing the financial stream feeding Russia's war in Europe. But the decision to create stocks from other sources, or at least to privilege these other sources, was too bold for the main political groups of this Parliament and mainly for the Council. Even though we would then come out without creating, at least through this regulation, an incentive – and unfortunately this is the case – to buy even more gas from Russia. Meanwhile, as we know, Russia is gradually screwing up the tap, showing its strength, and we are helpless and talking about goals for the next ten, twenty years, without reacting appropriately to this situation.

Madam President, I'm sorry. I just wanted to say that I find the President's decision outrageous that you, in such an important vote, do not allow us to vote on amendments which, as you know exactly, are controversial. The president and some of the people here are simply afraid of democracy. Let's vote, let's vote on the amendments as we should vote.

Mr President, thank you very much. It must be agreed with the rapporteur that indeed a parliament without the right of legislative initiative is an incomplete, flawed parliament. But the European Parliament is not a parliament in the sense that parliaments are parliaments in states of parliamentary democracy. And even more so, it is not a superparliament above national parliaments, as some colleagues think. The European Union is not a state, but a union of states, and we MEPs are representatives of our peoples and we are elected in our countries. We do not represent a Europe in the abstract. Therefore, this parliament is not and should not be a parliament in the strict sense, all the more so because it is dominated by views detached from the social and cultural context, because it is mistakenly convinced that the European Parliament ex definitione acts in the abstract interest of all Europeans. This parliament is not a place for substantive debates, most often. It rarely involves a real exchange of arguments, the meaning of which is understood and considered. For these reasons, I believe that the European Parliament should by no means have a legislative initiative.

Mr President, thank you very much. According to the Stockholm Institute for Environmental Protection, no country has met its commitments under the Paris Agreement, and only one-tenth of all environmental goals have been achieved since 1972. Greenhouse gas emissions from economic activities in the European Union returned in the last quarter of 2021 to a level higher than before the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic. At the same time, many Europeans are asked whether, because of the war in Ukraine – which should revise our policies – such a revision has taken place. And he expects a change, a deep reflection on Green Deal. Of course, such a change has occurred. We have started to care about the security of energy supply. Some countries have coal reserves. Yes, even the Germans, whom the Greens co-rule, are starting coal-fired power plants again and gas. We are worried about oil supplies, I know how difficult the negotiations were, the sixth package of negotiations. On the other hand, when it comes to long-term goals, our idealism is growing. Our policy is becoming more and more ambitious. The only question is whether our citizens share these ambitions. The President has no doubt about this. But I think he's wrong. And what will happen, Mr President, if it turns out that you are wrong.

Mr President, thank you very much. It seems that we all understand that the main problem of our energy policy is the discrepancy between long-term goals and actions that need to be taken in the near future. It is not known how long this next time will last. The most pressing current problem is Europe's supply of non-Russian hydrocarbons. And that is the most important problem. The following question must be asked: Are we doing enough to actually take the action that the situation requires? Well, it seems to me that it is not that, unfortunately, we are not ready for this, and in the case of the regulation on energy storage agreed with the Council today, we have lost the opportunity to send a clear signal and to immediately deprive Russia of at least some of the proceeds from gas trade.

Madam President, I'm sorry. To make our debate a little more productive, we asked eminent legal professionals to evaluate last year's Commission reports. Their initial assessment confirmed, Commissioner, the many weaknesses of these reports, but also the fact that everyone – even a layman like myself – is caught in the eye when looking at them. The fact of unequal treatment of countries. This shows, for example, the striking difference in the sources on which these reports are based. For example, in the case of Germany, the report is mainly based on government information representing 33% of the sources and on the Commission’s own information – 32% of the sources, while only 20% of the information comes from entities not directly related to the German State, 7.5% from the press, 2.5% from international organisations. In the case of Poland, the opposite is true. The main sources are NGOs and media critical of the government. There is no indication that anything has changed this year. I therefore encourage the European Commission to carry out a thought experiment and change the proportions. You may be surprised by the conclusions.

Madam President, I'm sorry. We must tell ourselves that the bitter truth is that almost all of Europe has poisoned itself with Putin and poisoned itself with Russia contrary to our warnings – our Polish warnings. The European right in many Western countries believed that Putin was a defender of traditional values. Some separatists believed that Russia could be an ally in the quest to change borders in Europe. The Left – Die Linke or Jean-Luc Mélenchon in France – has poured its love for the Soviet Union into today’s Russia. But Putin’s influence has been and still is the greatest and most dangerous in the ruling parties – the Social-Democracy and the so-called centre-right. We know that France sold weapons to Putin despite sanctions. And that's what we should be discussing here. Only today, allegedly by such independent media, are the names of: They were counted, I can't count. Today there is no appeasement policy responsible for these years. This debate serves to blur this responsibility and divert attention from the contemporary Chamberlains, who now pretend to have always been Churchills.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Thank you very much for this discussion. As I said, we have tried to find a compromise that takes into account the objectives of the Union, but also the interests and position of various countries, including Malta and Cyprus. And this exception we have made for these two countries is, as you know (those who have criticised it), subject to a number of reservations in order to eliminate people suspected of corruption or other crimes. So there really is no reason to vote against the report for this reason. I would like to say a word to my fellow Greens. You now co-govern in one of the most important countries of the Union, with the largest economy. You can immediately impose an embargo on oil and gas from Russia, and somehow we do not see it. We do not see the principle of principle so demonstrated here in this room when it comes to other issues. In this case, you are not so determined. You can also ask: Is it because it is about the interests of other countries, about their location, about the affairs of Europe or just about their own country? Well, if it was also said here that Sicily can already be supplied only from renewable sources, then try to do it where you co-govern, namely in Germany. We'll see with what effect.

Mr President, as you said, I was appointed rapporteur for the Commission proposal on the revised guidelines for trans-European energy infrastructure. But it was almost one year ago, and it took us one year of negotiation to achieve an agreement. First in the Parliament, what was not easy, then with the Council and the Slovenian Presidency. But I would like to thank my colleagues, shadow rapporteurs for their hard work, involvement in the process until the last all—night trilogue in December. It was very, I think, very productive and very interesting. We had a different position, but we find agreement. And secondly, I have appreciated the pragmatic and efficient approach of the Slovenian Presidency. Thank you, Madam Ambassador Tamara Weingerl—Požar, you contributed very much to this agreement. And last but not least, I have to thank Commissioner Simson and your teams of Commissioner Simson for availability of advice and all expertise. I wanted to say that it is the first revision of TEN—E policy and PCI guidelines since its creation in 2013. And we have made a number of substantive changes in the regulation – I just mentioned the main. First of all, the governance process has been strengthened with a better stakeholder involvement. We discussed this very intensely about governance but it was changed. The second, the most important change is the mandatory sustainability criteria that have been introduced for all types of project. We have also extended the scope of the regulation in order to include some projects with third countries. These projects of mutual interest would have to demonstrate that they bring benefits for the Union and not for a single Member State. New categories of projects include hydrogen infrastructures, certain types of electrolysers, as well as smart gas grids to integrate low-carbon gases into existing gas network. Concerning the electricity, there are two major changes. The eligibility criteria for smart electricity grids have been simplified to enable more projects of common interest in that field. And we have introduced an amendment allowing new sub-category of projects to apply for PCI status and financing in the regions with low levels of offshore renewable electricity. The projects will consist of direct connections of the offshore wind farms to the national power systems in so-called radial form. This is an important addition for Member States and sea basins where offshore wind farms are at the planning stage. The final text of the revised regulation is a result of bargaining based on the Commission’s proposal, which, as you know, excluded from the start – and this is, I think, very important – further support for gas infrastructure in the framework of projects of common interest. And here I must say, in my draft report, published in March last year, I warned that the Commission may be over-optimistic in estimations of the level of connectivity and supply resilience for these natural gas networks, and that probably there are not yet enough interconnections in a lot of the smaller gas markets, for example in south—east Europe, and connectivity still poses a problem between some Member States and the rest of Europe. In the draft report adopted by the ITRE Committee we have included a definition of ‘security of supply’, meaning also ‘energy security’, and we have stated that it cannot be achieved without reducing strategic energy dependencies, it was very important. And we know that in the tragic reality of war in Europe and the dramatically low level of the Union’s energy security proves that, since years, the EU has made serious mistakes in assessing the needs, including in terms of trans-European energy infrastructure. And I think that the Commission now seems to recognise it and it’s probably too late to reopen the TEN—E Regulation but we understand that the Commission is already preparing an instrument to foster gas-network interconnection and LNG terminals in a desperate attempt to reduce the Union’s dependence on Russian imports.

Madam President, I'm sorry. My group also believes that the Commission's proposals go in the right direction – reducing dependence on Russia by diversifying sources of fossil fuel supply, reducing consumption, developing renewables more quickly. But this means that so far, until February 24 this year, we have been going in the wrong direction or not in the right direction enough. I have been here for seven years and I have never heard us admit (Commission and European Parliament) that sometimes we make bad decisions. Why were we going in the wrong direction? Because dependence on Russia was growing and no one was particularly disturbed, despite our reservations, my political group and my country. It now proposes joint gas purchases, regulations on gas storage, other solutions and, at the same time, a faster transition to renewable sources. But the reality is different. For now, desperate efforts for fossil fuels are underway, the best and symbolic example of which was the visit of the German Minister of Economy to Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. So the gap between our ambitious goals and reality is getting bigger and bigger, and I think we should consider it.

Madam President, I'm sorry. In my view, this judgment of the CJEU confirms the views expressed some time ago by Professor Andreas Voßkuhle, former President of the German Federal Constitutional Court, that the CJEU is a court with a political agenda – further centralisation of the Union – and in this spirit interprets the Treaties and creates secondary European law. Now we are waiting whether the Commission will behave in accordance with this judgment and, when taking action against a Member State, will try to demonstrate a real link between the alleged irregularities in the application and functioning of the justice system and the incorrect spending of EU funds, or whether the Commission, in breach of the rule of law, will be guided by the ideological slogans that have been used here in this Chamber and abuse its competences. And this is also a question of the rule of law, because it also applies to the EU institutions, and the European Parliament also applies.

Madam President, I'm sorry. They will enter, they will not – this is the question we asked ourselves in Poland in 1981. This is the question Poles asked themselves in 1956. When they entered, like in 1920 or 1944, they murdered us and stifled our freedom. Now we have asked this question in relation to Ukraine. Fortunately, they did not enter that night – this does not mean that the danger has been averted and that this question will not arise again. Unfortunately, the Union and some Member States have disregarded the Russian threat despite the war in Georgia in 2008, despite the war in eastern Ukraine in 2014. Under Angela Merkel, the great European, Germany invested in Nord Stream 2, becoming increasingly dependent on Russian gas. Will Germany, France and the EU as a whole now base their policies on a proper assessment of Russia and its political traditions and strategic goals?

Madam President, I'm sorry. My two colleagues, the esteemed Foreign Ministers Waszczykowski and Sikorski, were somewhat critical of this report and at the same time agreed, which rarely happens to them. On the other hand, I would like to commend these two reports for their realism. For me, this is an expression of growing realism. One element of this realism is that both reports acknowledge that NATO remains the main guarantor of security on the continent. Therefore, our efforts in the area of the Common Security and Defence Policy, including the planning of priorities in the Strategic Compass, should be consistent with the activities of the North Atlantic Alliance. Another expression of realism, which should be particularly appreciated in this Parliament, is naming the situation on the Polish-Belarusian border by name and condemning the Lukashenka regime for hybrid attacks against Poland and the Union as a whole and the instrumentalisation of people for political purposes. What worries me, however, is that EU realism always comes at a time of overt crisis. Is our security and defence policy reactive, that we cannot assess the scale of threats and properly identify their nature? If the voices warning about the threat from Russia were taken seriously, there would not be such a serious situation as we have now, and this should also be taken into account.

Mr President, thank you very much. Commissioner, I'm sorry. This year's State of the Energy Union report shows the two most important phenomena or processes. Firstly, the ongoing energy transition, which the Commissioner spoke about in 2020, is the first time that renewable energy sources will overtake fossil fuels as the main source of electricity in the Union. It's good because it shows that we are achieving our goals. The share of renewables in the overall energy mix will reach at least 22%, although we know that some Member States will not meet the target. But there is a second phenomenon, which we should not forget, namely the sharp increase in gas and electricity prices in the European Union, and of course in other regions of the world. The problem of current prices calls for stronger action by the Commission, all the more so as energy poverty affected 31 million people in the European Union in 2019, according to the report. It seems to me that the proposed toolbox is not sufficient, as are the announced changes in legislation providing greater access to gas storage facilities and increasing capacity through the revision of the SOS Regulation, and I think that we should probably change the attitude towards gas as a transitional fuel. Together, the pressure on the main supplier of natural gas to Europe, the Russian company Gazprom, should also be increased. The Union should speak with one voice in dialogue with external suppliers. We also need to increase gas supplies to the Union from alternative directions, including conventional gas from Norway and LNG from the US, the Maghreb and Qatar, and maintain much higher fuel reserves in the future. Nor should the Commission underestimate the problem of uncontrolled increases in CO2 prices. Therefore, the upcoming revision of the ETS should introduce regulatory solutions to limit uncontrolled price increases and limit the share of emissions trading to those directly covered by the scheme.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Commissioner, I'm sorry. What is most surprising about this debate is the surprise that energy prices are soaring. How can they not grow? It would be a miracle if they didn't grow. After all, as always, variable weather, speculation on emission allowances under the ETS, dependence on Russia for gas supplies, which uses gas as a political measure, contribute to this. But the most important reason is our politics. It has long been clear that climate and energy policies will lead to higher prices. The goal of this policy is to increase the price of fossil energy, so they are rising. We can congratulate ourselves that it is starting to bear fruit.

Mr President, thank you very much. Commissioner, I'm sorry. I just wanted to remind you that the European Parliament has already adopted three resolutions on the situation in Belarus, two – last year, one – including. The EU has imposed sanctions on Belarus in four packages, targeting as many as 166 individuals and 15 entities. Despite this, Lukashenko, unaffected by these harsh sanctions, suppressed the resistance of the society. He is the winner in this conflict. His protector Putin will be powered by billions of euros from Germany, not just from Germany. Yesterday it was announced that Nord Stream 2 was filled with gas and stopping this investment would be a real sanction. Unfortunately, we couldn't afford it. So there will be funds for a hybrid action on the border of Belarus with Lithuania and Poland. We can expect a repeat of 2015.