Speeches

Madam President, I want to build on the authors of this proposal. It is right for the European Parliament and the European institutions to stand up for deposed President Bazoum. Indeed, he is a democrat, a man who has promoted the principles of democracy in this difficult tested region of Africa. He was deposed by the military junta, that was clearly stated. He is imprisoned in the palace. However, I would like to point out that the European Commission should reconsider its policy in this area overall, as it shows how the problems in the Sahel are growing. It is not the first country in the Sahel where a military coup took place, where the government was deposed. Let's look at the situation in Mali or Burkina Faso. The situation is similar there. This is an area where problems with Islamic terrorists are growing. They cause panic among citizens, among civilians, and then there is a growing desire for military leaders to take power and fight in this way. The situation with the Wagners who are involved in this area, the influence of Russia, are all topics that we could discuss here and that show how complex this area is today, how sensitive it is and how our policy in this area should take these facts into account. In any case, let us now do our utmost to release President Bazoum and allow him to leave the country, and, above all, to allow the junta to retreat and allow him to return to power.

Madam President, I would like to thank the colleagues who have prepared this resolution, but I would like to point out that the subject of human rights and Iran is regularly discussed here in plenary. Especially in the last parliamentary term, there has often been a debate about whether it is possible to conclude a treaty and cooperate with Iran. It is an atomic research treaty – a nuclear agreement. The situation clearly shows, as we said at the time, that no treaties can be concluded with the Iranian regime. He doesn't want to keep any contracts. It is the country with the most executions in the world next to China. It is a country that does not respect human rights. Its state and judicial system absolutely does not work, it does not work on the basis of laws and impartial rules. So I am very skeptical that it will be possible to cooperate with Iran in some way in the future, and the cases that we are describing here today only show that.

Madam President, I listened with interest to today's debate after we unfortunately rejected pesticide restrictions in the morning's vote today. This debate really shows a lot of hopelessness. Commissioner, you can try to support various projects, grants to small and medium-sized farmers, but if there is no radical reduction in pesticides, then we will simply not save pollinators and we will not increase their number. Personally, I'm sorry. I myself voted in favour of most of the provisions restricting pesticides. I was more radical than my faction colleagues. In the end, nothing came through. Unfortunately, that is politics. So let's think about how to get back to some global European solution to reduce pesticides as quickly as possible. Until then, we have only our individual little practice left. I am a representative in Prague, the capital of the Czech Republic. For example, we are dealing with the issue of light smog, which damages insects. We're changing public lighting. Even small things like that make sense. But without global restrictions, European restrictions, unfortunately, these will only be small islands of positive deviation.

Madam President, Commissioner, this is a very interesting debate. Let me ask you one more question. Analysts often say that one of the reasons why European armaments don't want to export that much ammunition to Ukraine is because of their trade policy. They have their customers. They are afraid that Ukraine is not a long-term market. I am therefore asking whether the Commission is considering any further package of incentives for European armourers to make it more economically attractive for these companies, which decide in a market economy, to supply goods – cartridges – to Ukraine. Fortunately, we are not a controlled economy like Russia. We don't have war production here, where the head of Russia, Putin, decides and the production is directed at the bullets. We need to talk to the manufacturers. That is: Is there any alternative to increase the attractiveness of arms and ammunition exports to Ukraine?

Mr President, a few days ago, Karel Schwarzenberg, a prominent Czech politician, statesman, a man who helped bring down communism not only in Czechoslovakia, but throughout Central Europe, died. He supported dissidents and then publicly engaged for many years. He was a longtime foreign minister of the Czech Republic. He was also the author of the first Czech Presidency, to whose success he contributed as Foreign Minister. Karel Schwarzenberg has always adhered to European values, and I wanted to take advantage of this place and invite the relevant European authorities and authorities to reflect on how to recall Karel Schwarzenberg's legacy on a European level in the long term. Such personalities are missing today, and their work and legacy must be remembered for future generations.

Mr President, in my short speech, I would also like to support the report that we are discussing and to support the compromise form that has emerged in the relevant committees. And I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Pereira, for the fact that she, her team and the shadow rapporteurs have prepared a text of the proposal that, in my opinion, does not raise any doubts about us adopting unnecessary regulation, but we are adopting legislation that can work in practice, that is based on voluntary participation by farmers, farmers and farmers, and that can really be beneficial and can also help farmers to generate additional incomes and resources. All the previous speakers here agreed that it is necessary to adjust carbon absorption, that it is not only possible to adjust the actual emissions that are and will be emitted, but also to address existing carbon if we want to be neutral. And without a solution to the absorption of existing carbon, we will not really get to the commitments contained, for example, in the Paris Agreement. It is therefore an extremely important part of the regulation that we are trying to address our commitments, the European Union's commitments to the Paris Convention. I am glad that I perceived in the debate that took place here that the representatives of the key factions are in agreement and that the amendment that will be presented tomorrow has a chance to pass and that it will work in practice.

Madam President, I did not support this material and it is therefore good to explain why. In short, I am concerned that the proposals for tax redistribution between the European Union and the Member States, with the European Union's revenue boosting, will ultimately lead to an increase in taxes for Europeans, because the Member States will have to somehow increase their revenues in order to be able to send more money into a common, Community budget. In short, this will ultimately be paid for by the European, by European companies, by European citizens. Someone has to pay for that. In such cases, I am restrained. That is why, in the end, I did not support this proposal, because it does not seem entirely responsible to me to exert such indirect pressure on tax increases in the European Union, especially today, at a time when we are dealing with energy price increases, etc. We need to discuss this further, but we also need to really think about who pays the taxes. It must always be paid to the Member States by citizens and companies.

Madam President, I was happy to support this compromise. In my opinion, common sense has prevailed and the proposal, on the one hand, protects nature and, on the other hand, preserves the competitiveness of the European automotive industry. The original version presented by the Commission would make smaller and medium-sized cars unaffordable for the middle class and would harm both Europeans, citizens who buy not only large luxury cars, and, of course, manufacturers. So this proposal makes sense. I'm glad he passed. Thank you to the rapporteur who negotiated this. I also thank the Czech Government, which played a large part in this and initiated in the Council a shift in the views of individual Member States and an agreement between the very countries that view this legislation rationally and not only ideologically. A rational view is more important than an ideological view, and we really need to combine nature and European industry to prevent the growth of Chinese industry.

Madam President, I wanted to build on the speeches of some of my colleagues who also spoke here today within this bloc about growing anti-Semitism and political extremism in Europe. I think this is a big problem and I wanted to use this one-minute speech to call on all the institutions of the European Union not to really underestimate even the verbal crimes that we have seen recently in the demonstrations that were triggered by Hamas's attack on Israel. If there is a peaceful demonstration somewhere, it is, of course, legitimate speech, legitimate freedom of expression. But if someone is advocating extremism, advocating Hamas's attack on the free, peaceful citizens of Israel, then we cannot turn a blind eye to it. And here, as Europe, we should really work together to try to sanction and respond to these verbal crimes as well. Because if we turn a blind eye to these manifestations of extremism, Europe will be retaliated against in the long run.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I am honoured to speak in this debate. I personally consider it extremely important that today we are debating a possible ban on fur farms in the European Union. In fact, more than half of the countries in the European Union have already adopted such a ban. My country, the Czech Republic, adopted this ban in 2017 and has been in force since 2019. I had the honor of being at the debate and enforcing this ban, and it became clear that the public, people, wanted this ban so that animals would no longer suffer. Commissioner, we need an overall European ban. For this to make sense, fur farms need to be banned across Europe. These arguments have been made and are clear. Keeping animals on their skin is completely unethical and immoral. Animals are only killed to make someone look good. This is something that is absolutely indefensible at the beginning of the 21st century. There is not a single ethical argument for why animals should be abused in this way. The second argument is an expert argument. Animals in cages suffer horribly. The experts clearly agreed on this. It's not that animals don't mind. The professional public is on the side of banning the breeding of animals for skin. And the third argument is the support of the European public. The numbers are clear. 1.5 million people want this ban, and 89% of Europeans, according to the barometer, want the European Union to improve animal welfare.

Mr President, I will be very brief here. I consider the issue of Schengen to be one of the clear priorities and advantages of the European Union. Whenever I explain the advantages of European integration in my country and I feel that the people there are not very attuned to European integration, the issue of Schengen and the abolition of internal borders is a topic that everyone perceives positively and always works. On the other hand, of course, there is the issue of internal border control in the future if we fail to guard the external border against irregular migrants. I supported this report because it is precisely intended to lead to other elements of the modernisation of the Schengen system. I think that the system is, to a certain extent, cumbersome today, and a number of the changes that are being pushed through in the report have my support and will make Schengen even more attractive to our citizens.

Mr President, I supported this report. Despite the problems that this report describes in relation to Montenegro in the areas of justice and the constitutional court, the functioning of the political system and the disputes that prevail among representatives of public authority there, I think it is important for Montenegro to be a member of the European Union in the long term, especially for geopolitical reasons. We need the Balkans to be European, to be somehow a partner towards the European Union and not to strengthen the interests of Russia, whose behaviour we see today in Ukraine and in countries that used to fall within the sphere of the Soviet Union. So the reason here is clear why we should be interested in joining Montenegro. And I hope that next year the report will show more progress and improvement in the areas of justice, state administration and so on.

Mr President, I supported this report and I consider it important, but I wanted to add that I consider the current issues of financing the Palestinian Authority to be particularly important, where I supported those amendments which clearly state that the financing of the Palestinian Authority is to be suspended at least until such funds are verified, before the Palestinian Authority clearly condemns Hamas' aggressive terrorist attacks on Israel. And if this is not done, then the money, if it does not take the form of humanitarian aid, is not to be paid. I think it is important to say that the European Union should also support other countries with its money. But the condition of such support should always be that it is used for the development of human rights, for the development of the conditions there, and not that it is used directly or indirectly for terrorism, for the support of authoritarian regimes. So that's why I supported it.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, let me make a few remarks on this very important subject. The theme of innovation is a key theme for the future of Europe. I'm not as optimistic as some of my colleagues. Unfortunately, I think we lag a bit behind the United States of America or some Asian countries, such as South Korea, in innovation. We are giving a smaller percentage of innovation than these countries, and unfortunately this is already starting to be reflected in the results. I have therefore listened very well and attentively, Commissioner, to your statement that this topic is one of the priorities on your agenda and that the European Commission and European policy want to focus on this in the future. Personally, I think it is a question of, firstly, a bundle of money going in that direction and, secondly, how that money is distributed. And within innovation, there are a number of topics that can be clearly supported, both research issues, namely academic research or applied research, where more money can go and can be distributed, for example, on the principle of excellence. There are many excellent disciplines where Europe is the leader, where other countries lack such expertise and where the European Union's financial assistance will strengthen our position on a global scale. There are many areas that deserve our attention. I personally believe that the topic of start-ups that has been mentioned here is important. So, please, let's focus our attention there.

Madam President, this has been a very interesting debate. In principle, all colleagues here agreed on the importance of mental health, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. And I think it is a clear signal from Parliament, a clear call to the Commission to address this issue, in the legislative field – there have been a number of proposals that I would sign for mental health diseases to be included in occupational diseases – up to the issue that the European Commission has the ability to influence the actions of the social partners and, in principle, to influence employers in the European Union so that they do not underestimate the mental health of their employees and take this issue seriously and help to create a quality background for their employees so as to reduce the risk of mental harm to individual employees. Figures have fallen here on how alarming the situation is for young people in Europe, for young employees. And I think this is a subject that the next Commission and the next Parliament will have to address legislatively.

Madam President, I wanted to support the report. I think it's very well written. I am particularly interested in passages in the field of justice. I consider the warning that the constitutional judiciary in Montenegro is not functioning, the court is not fulfilled, etc. to be a very precise part of this report. The report is factual, correct, and reasonably critical. On the other hand, I want to emphasise here what my colleagues said in their speeches. We need Montenegro in the European Union in the future. This is our geopolitical interest. It is not possible, as my colleague said, to have a small Belarus in the center of the Balkans and to create here a base for Russian influence. That is, let us support Montenegro's efforts to move closer to the European Union. Let us offer concrete further assistance, but it is clear that the Montenegrin people will eventually have to manage the process on their own and a certain consensus called for by the report, so that the legislative and executive powers will communicate more with each other and that together they will pull together so-called together in the interest of moving closer to the European Union, that is also what the report is about, and I welcome it.

Madam President, I wanted to draw attention to a subject that I think is particularly important, and that is the subject of legislation that protects animals. I must say that in my country, the Czech Republic, the animal protection community was very frightened and surprised by the statements made by Mr Šefčovič, a Member of the Commission, who questioned the Commission's commitment that a package of legislation to improve animal welfare should be presented by the end of the year. I want this to be said here, so that the representatives of the Commission perceive that this information has not fit in, it has been very intensely perceived by citizens in my country, in the Czech Republic, as well as by animal protectors. I ask the representatives of the Commission and the Commission to reconsider this situation and indeed to put forward four basic pieces of legislation to improve animal welfare, not just, as I have noted, one regulation to cover animal transport.

Mr President, I supported this strategy for a better internet for children. However, I note that, in addition to the strategy, concrete steps will then need to be developed. For example, I am very interested in the topic of abuse of social networks of the Internet to the detriment of children, sexual abuse of children in the online space. And here I would like to point out that a new piece of legislation was prepared by the European Commission a long time ago and that we have not moved on to discuss it. And if that does not happen by 2024, then the current legislation, which is optional in nature, will cease to apply and there will be no regulation at that criminal level of child abuse when chatting on the internet, etc. So it is certainly an important thing, but it needs to be translated into concrete steps. And this is what the criminal law protection of children against negative conduct on the Internet has to do with, which I personally consider to be an important step.

Mr President, I would like to comment on Moldova, which was the subject of the vote. I am happy to support this, but I want to make a public appeal here, so that we do not really take this as a formal matter of negotiating the approximation of Moldova to the European Union. And we should really have a realistic scenario of how in the next ten years this country could join the EU, because if we only formally negotiate and discuss here every year some report on the state of preparedness of the accession agreements, it is little and we will simply leave Moldova in the lurch of Russian influence. So I welcome this, I support the report, but at the same time I appeal, it cannot remain only with formal reports, it needs concrete actions, concrete help to Moldova, which is under pressure from Putin's Russia, and concrete help to move closer to the EU.

Mr President, I supported the resolution. Azerbaijan's behaviour is a scandalous violation of international law. Attack on Nagorno-Karabakh. It is necessary to consider how to help Armenia, which unfortunately is abandoned today and that help is minimal, let's face it. Similarly, it must be said that one must condemn Russia’s position, which gave the impression that it was trying to maintain peace in the region and thus maintain a certain ceasefire, albeit in a somewhat tense situation, and in principle these ‘peacekeepers’ of Russia did nothing against Azerbaijan’s aggression against Nagorno-Karabakh. A sad situation of support for the resolution, but it will require some action and assistance from the EU, including humanitarian assistance, to the remaining Armenians, if there are any left in Nagorno-Karabakh.

Mr President, the debate has been very interesting and shows the case where, on the one hand, we are adopting legislation that, for example, improves the working conditions of certain workers, the need to sleep in hotels, shortens the period during which a truck driver has to drive, but, on the other hand, we are doing nothing to make these rules workable, so that they are real rules. And that seems like a big problem to me, Commissioner. Unfortunately, such a picture and such cases damage the image of the European Union. We will adopt legislation that cannot be implemented in practice. What can citizens, and not just truck drivers, think about the European Union? And so, I beg you, when we adopt legislation so ambitious in relation to the social conditions of truck drivers, we must logically also deal with the situation, how to actually fulfill it. This means the state of the car parks, the state of the rest areas, etc. It should probably be a matter for private investors or Member States, but when we regulate the legislation, we also need to be interested in this other aspect.

Mr President, I wanted to thank the rapporteurs for this resolution tabled, and I want to support it publicly here. The situation in Afghanistan is catastrophic. The Taliban has broken all the promises and commitments they have made to both the domestic and international community, and we must respond to that. The authors of the resolution described in detail how human rights, the rights of political opponents, women's rights are violated. The situation is indeed extremely sad and it should clearly be actively assisted by the political opposition on our part. We should be more financially supportive of those who present a free Afghanistan. So I welcome the proposal and hope it will be supported in the vote tomorrow.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let me also say a few sentences on this subject that I consider important. I was surprised, some colleagues here said that the topic is not important, there are more important topics. I'm not going to judge. But when it comes to human rights, it's always an important issue. Human rights are the foundation of the values of European integration and we should treat this with respect. And at a time when the human rights of minorities are not respected in all states, in all EU states, we need to talk about this. And the debate is right, and I welcome it here and support it. We have talked here about the creeping enforcement in some states of legislation that violates, harms the rights of minorities. The biggest example is Hungary, and I hope that the lawsuit against Hungary will be unequivocal and that this law will be repealed. But it is not only about such a glaring example of violations of minority rights, but it is also about how LGBT people have the same rights in other Member States. In my country, the Czech Republic, there has been a debate over the introduction of gay marriage for many years. We still don't have such a law, even if we have a registered partnership. Gay marriage is not possible in all EU Member States, so let us not talk about equality and the fact that this problem does not exist, when in every country we could find cases of how the situation of homosexuals can be improved. Thank you for the debate, I think it's important.

Madam President, the debate on the fate of the Energy Charter is precisely an example of how sometimes compromise between the different EU institutions is difficult to find. I respect the adoption last November of the European Parliament's position that this multilateral international convention should be abandoned on the basis of a Commission decision. On the other hand, I will not deny that at that time the faction, the European People's Party, did not vote for this globally, but rather favoured and favoured the option of modernising this multilateral treaty, bringing it into line with other international obligations, such as the Paris Agreement on climate protection. Now the situation is essentially blocked and it is a real pity, as I say here as other colleagues, that there are no representatives of the Council...(the debate has been interrupted.)

Madam President, the debate clearly shows that there are two public interests at stake here. On the one hand, the public interest in agricultural production, on the other hand, the interest in protecting our health, nature, biodiversity. Personally, I am inclined not to use or prolong the use of this substance, because even though doubts have been expressed in the debate that is taking place here as to whether or not this substance is harmful to nature and health, some colleagues have stated that it is not, so it must be stated that doubts remain. I would like to draw attention, for example, to a large study by the authors of the University of Washington in 2017, which describes the harmfulness of glyphosate for life, for the environment, not only in mammals, as also mentioned here, and the negative impact on humans themselves, but also on biodiversity in the field of the environment and insects. The fact that today these substances have a negative impact and an effect on insects, reduce the number of bees and bumblebees, I think, is sufficiently described. So I think that we should be careful in using this substance, in prolonging the use of this substance, but most importantly, we should focus on quality and deep research that will clearly tell whether this substance is harmful or not. And if we're not sure that the substance is really okay, then I'd be restrained in prolonging its use.