Speeches

Mr President, I have listened very carefully to the whole debate and I am very pleased that across all factions, in principle, all the speakers supported Moldova's swift accession to the European Union. I very much welcome it. I think it is extremely important that it is not possible to let this country down and thus create space for Russia to strengthen its influence there. And if it is possible to start the next phase of talks with this country already next year, this is, in my view, extremely important. It is not only in the interest of this country that cares for refugees, but it is in our interest that there is not a buffer zone of states between Putin's Russia and the European Union that will be demoralised because their entry into the EU will be delayed. I thank everyone and ask the Commission and the Council to take the necessary further steps on this matter.

Mr President, I would like to speak with the Commission. It seems to me that the case that is being brought up here is a bit contrary to the principle that we are talking about. First of all, it must be said that the letter that has been sent is of a recommendatory nature. After all, each country is sovereignly free to decide how to transpose and whether to adopt tougher regulation than the one in the directive. So if someone recommends something to someone, it does not in any way limit the rights of national legislators to have countries transpose in a broader way than the regulation in the directive. Secondly, I have been responsible for the transposition of European law in the Czech Republic for many years as a minister and I consider gold-plating to be a negative phenomenon. That's how it is. If, therefore, we say, and I do not dispute this, that we want more transparency in the field of tax law, that we want more, harder regulation, that should be included in the directive itself. This should be part of European law. That is the basic essence. And Member States are to transpose as best and as accurately as possible what is contained in the Directive, in the legislation on which there was agreement, the agreement between the European Parliament, the Commission and the European Council. Any divergent regulation simply and well breaks the single market. That is simply the principle. If the legislation is different, if each country adopts different legislation, somehow exceeds the regulation contained in the directive, then there will be 27 different legislations. That is fundamentally wrong. I am forgetting the political aspect. If some kind of legal regulation is adopted that goes beyond the level of European regulation, it is also perceived negatively by citizens. They then ask their national politicians: Is the European Union responsible for this regulation or is it a decision of the national government and the national parliament? So, in my view, the political aspects of overregulation vis-à-vis citizens must also be taken into account. So if we transpose the directives precisely, I think this is the right approach.

Mr President, I personally consider the regulation of artificial intelligence to be one of the key, perhaps even one of the main, tasks that the European Union institutions have at the legislative level at the moment. I am very pleased that this debate is taking place today. It summarises the various initiatives taken by the Commission in this area. We are debating here a regulation which is now in the legislative process and which we are approving here at the level of the European Parliament. I think it is important to reiterate those basic principles that, at least for me, I perceive that it is the regulation on artificial intelligence, which is approved in the legislative process, that should be the basis of European regulation and the basis on which further initiatives will derive. The initiatives that the Commission is implementing, which I consider to be worthy also at a global level, and which are necessary in terms of the speed of development of artificial intelligence, should be a derivative or should be derived from the regulation that we are approving here. They should implement it and fulfill it, be consistent with it, not empty it. This has been said several times. I think it is extremely important for the European Commission to feel this position of ours, that of the European Parliament, that the basis is European regulation, legislation that underpins other global initiatives for regulating and regulating artificial intelligence.

Mr President, I am honoured to be able to speak in this debate, because I consider this to be an extremely important topic. The principle of the public is the basic principle of the functioning of any democratic body exercising public power, and we should really set an example in this case. Citizens control the activities of public authorities, including ours, precisely through the available information about our activities and through access to documents that inform our decision-making. I think that's extremely important. It is the essence of the functioning of democracy as such. In all powers, and in the judicial power, we have public courts and hearings, and this is all the more true for political power, and it should be true for us, and we should lead by example. I am not in favour of any major revolutionary changes, but I thank the rapporteur and the rapporteurs for this report. It is well-written, well-balanced. I also thank the Commission, Commissioner, for its intervention. I think that we should gradually improve the availability of all our documents by working hard, and that availability does not mean that these documents are public, but how they are understood, how easily citizens and voters find them on the Internet, how easily they can work with them, in what languages they are and so on. All this is in fact hidden under the principle of public access to documents and there is much to improve. This is unequivocal and evolutionary, in a gradual way I hope that the citizen will be more and more satisfied with the documents and our work.

Mr President, I supported this annual report on Albania. I think we need to pay much more attention to the Balkan countries, which are candidate countries for the European Union. The geopolitical situation is changing. Russia clearly shows its interests not only in its neighbourhood of the former Soviet Union countries, but also in the Balkans. And we, especially for geopolitical reasons, aside from other reasons such as common values with other European countries, must do our utmost to ensure that these countries see a clear path to the European Union. And I'm not just saying that as a phrase, but I think the war in Ukraine makes it clear. That is why I am glad that this report has been adopted, although it also describes certain shortcomings that Albania has, for example, in the area of justice. It appears – see Bosnia and Herzegovina – that Russia is very active in the Balkans. It will do its utmost to strengthen politically and not to bring these countries closer to Europe. We have to do the opposite.

Mr President, I want to justify this resolution because, in the end, I did not support the resolution on the Palestinian Authority. The reason for this is that I believe that this report is too positive for the Palestinian Authority and does not take much account of the fact that the State of Israel is the main partner, or so I see it, for democracy in Europe. The democracy that works here in the Middle East, which works very intensively with us, while the Palestinian Authority is associated with many problems. For example, there have been no elections for a long time that would legitimize the administration of Palestine itself, and unfortunately we do not perceive, at least this is how I perceive it, the sufficient struggle of the Palestinian Authority against terrorism. I would therefore be stricter with regard to the Palestinian Authority in this regard.

Mr President, I supported this resolution, for the simple reason that I think it is precisely the policy that the European Union is supposed to pursue towards countries that can potentially be sources of migration. Lebanon, a country formerly perceived as the Switzerland of the Middle East, is now in a severe economic and political crisis. And we have to deal with it, we have to communicate with the government there. We must do everything we can to help the country so that tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of refugees do not start to leave it and then try to reach Europe via the Mediterranean or Turkey. So that's exactly what I think is a non-violent, correct, consensual policy. That is why I supported the motion for a resolution.

Mr President, thank you very much and I will build on my predecessors. I also agree that the situation in Kyrgyzstan needs to be addressed. It's not easy, things are getting worse. Pressure on the independent media is being exerted by the government and the president, and we must deal with that. The most blatant case was the pressure against Radio Free Europe's branch. This radio was blocked accounts, websites were blocked, it was decided, albeit not yet final, to ban the activity. Let's see how this thing turns out. In any case, such pressures on independent media are unacceptable, and we must reject them, condemn them, and it is right that we are talking about them here. This applies not only to the media, but also to human rights activists. It is necessary to describe this and make it clear that this cannot be done by a partner who wants to be a partner towards us, towards the European Union.

Mr President, I, like my colleagues, want to support a motion for a resolution which, in my opinion, is extremely topical and serious. India, the largest democracy in the world, a key partner of the European Union also in trade matters, in short, a country where democracy has worked in recent years, but democracy is also about the protection of human rights. And we see cases that are described in the motion for a resolution where, in short, human rights are not protected, especially for religious minorities. We mention here especially the Christian religious minority, not only in one federal state, but also throughout India. And we must appeal to the central government of India. We must appeal to Prime Minister Modi that it is impossible for a key partner of the European Union not to guarantee human rights to its citizens in this way, whether they are Christians or whether they are without religion or have another religion. This is totally unacceptable, and that is why we need to negotiate with the prime minister and the government in this direction.

Madam President, I would like to thank my colleagues for preparing this resolution. We here in plenary have very often debated the crimes of the Maduro regime in recent years. Unfortunately, the situation is not improving, and it must be said that if Maduro prevents free presidential elections in 2024, and unfortunately all this suggests, then it will be another of his crimes, and it is necessary to strengthen the international isolation of his political system and his leadership of the country. There's been a lot of talk about a future summit. Again, we need to talk about how to pressure Maduro to allow democratic and free elections, which, when the key anti-Maduro candidates are not able to run, will become a mere farce and have nothing to do with the elections themselves. So I support this resolution, I am very happy for it, but I am afraid that more pressure needs to be put on President Maduro.

Madam President, let me return to my speech on the subject. Maybe a little boring, but I am very glad that today we are responding to the consequences of Qatargate, that we are aware that this case has had unprecedented negative consequences for citizens' perceptions of the European Parliament and the European institutions. Personally, I see two planes of correction. Firstly, the one that we do not affect, and that is the quick reaction of the judicial authorities so that a specific criminal case is investigated as quickly, impartially and professionally as possible, so that it is clear that it also applies to a European politician. This means that European policy is also affected by the competent judicial authorities if there is sufficient evidence to do so. This is the individual reaction of the independent judiciary. And then the second one we're discussing here today. I would like to thank the two rapporteurs, as well as the Members of the Committee, who have prepared a report that makes recommendations for improving preventive rules in the fight against corruption and improving the transparency of individual Members' behaviour and decision-making in the European Parliament. I consider these rules to be balanced, they are not insufficient for me. I am very pleased that colleagues have come up with these rules in this way and I will support, as will my faction, to translate them into concrete measures as soon as possible, which will really lead to reducing the risk of crime and corruption. We never completely nullify these options, but reducing options is what preventive rules are meant to do.

Mr President, thank you for the opportunity to address this very important point as well. I have listened attentively to the whole debate and am very pleased that the fight against tax evasion is an important topic for the Spanish Presidency and also for the Commission, and that it is therefore envisaged that intensive work will be carried out on the recast of the Directive. Everyone in the debate here supports the need to fight tax evasion, but it will be important what the final form of the proposal for a directive, which will be discussed in the legislative text, will look like, because with such legislation it is doubly true that the devil is buried in detail, so it will be necessary to find such a regulation so as not to bully decent entrepreneurs, so that the regulation is effective and affects really those who want to circumvent the legislation and do not want to pay taxes. It is also important to ensure that the new legislation does not impose an excessive administrative burden on businesses, especially SMEs, for which the administration is a major problem and blocks their activities. From what I know about it, from how I studied the materials, I can see that the proposal is going in the right direction. But there are still things to discuss. I am therefore looking forward to taking the Spanish Presidency further, and we will be discussing the specific details next time.

Madam President, I am very grateful for this interesting debate and I also wanted to add my voice to support Bosnia and Herzegovina's membership of the European Union, but the more we have to describe the problems associated with President Dodik's political activities. The crisis around the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the separatist tendencies, the tendency towards Russia, has been said many times during the debate here today. We must not underestimate this. We must not only respond to this with diplomatic phrases, but we must respond with action. I join my colleagues who have made it clear here today that sanctions mechanisms are needed, sanctions against Dodik and his people. We need to react vigorously to this. This is the only chance to allow Bosnia and Herzegovina to travel to the European Union in the future. If we close our eyes, the Dodiks will win and Bosnia and Herzegovina will never become a member of the European Union.

Madam President, let me also speak to the position of our faction. We strongly support Ukraine in its fight for freedom and we believe that every gesture, even symbolic gesture, is important to support Ukraine. And here I want to build on what was said by the chairman of the committee. In my view, it is right that, in the event of Ukraine's accession to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, the accession should not be merely implicit, silent, or our acceptance of Ukraine's accession should not be merely implicit, but that we should properly carry out the procedure and explicitly express our acceptance of Ukraine's ratification of the Convention. I think that there should be a clear decision by the Commission and that Parliament should also discuss such a decision. The reason is both legal because, as has been said today, Ukraine is a war party and it needs to be assured and clearly defined that Ukraine's ratification has been done properly and in order. On the other hand, besides the legal reason, these are the political reasons that I have already indicated here. I think that expressing as soon as possible our agreement to Ukraine's ratification clearly expresses our support for Ukraine and our efforts to move closer to the European Union. Ukraine permanently declares its desire to join the European Union in the future. And it is this Convention that is such a tiny piece of approximation to the European Union at a time when, in short, judgments of civil and commercial courts will be mutually recognised and enforced. And the fundamental, fundamental link that will exist between the European Union and Ukraine clearly strengthens the approximation of legal systems in this area. One thing is the political will and willingness to accept Ukraine into the European Union, and the other thing is real preparedness. And this convention helps.

Mr President, in the end, I supported this material, mainly because I am convinced of the importance of traineeships both in the European Union with our institutions and, more generally, with any other employer. Of course, I see the European level, I see the growing interest of young people in getting to know the work of the European Parliament, the European Commission. I see the interest of young Czechs growing. I represent the Czech Republic here and I am happy about it. On the other hand, I'm not so sure that we need to adopt some extensive regulatory material, some special regulation. So I wanted to take advantage of the fact that I am speaking here, and I defend that I am positively attuned and supported the material on internships, so that, on the other hand, any legal regulation that will be, will be as general, as concise as possible, and will not lead to employers then being afraid to give young people a chance in internships.

Mr President, I am not very much in favour of new European regulations, but in the end, after some hesitation, I supported this proposal, because it is a fact that if we are moving to full electromobility from 2035 and in general strengthens the importance of batteries within the Green Deal, then perhaps some legal regulation is needed. That is why, after some hesitation, I finally supported this proposal. Importantly, large gigafactories are being set up in Europe to produce batteries within the (incomprehensible word). There is a great debate over whether or not to set up a similar company in the Czech Republic. And by the time such businesses are set up, they will produce millions of batteries, they will recycle millions of batteries, so perhaps some regulation is appropriate here and is appropriate. So let's see, let's look at this with some scepticism about further regulation in mind. But perhaps there is no other way than to adopt such regulation, because the importance of the battery in the future will simply increase significantly for our economy and mobility.

Mr President, I have also supported the regulation of artificial intelligence, but I have taken the opportunity to explain my vote in order to put forward the very objection that my precious colleague, MEP Šojdrová, has expressed. I want to say that I am very sorry that the amendments of our EPP faction, which allowed for a much more efficient use of artificial intelligence in biometric identification, have not passed. Because I am convinced that the procedure that has been followed, when it will be necessary to wait for a court decision, etc., in such crucial cases as child abduction or in cases of the most serious crime, such as terrorism, will lead to a significant reduction in the effectiveness of the use of AI. I hate to say it, I'm saying it in public. It was said here, ideology prevailed. And I would like to ask you to consider whether cases of child abduction, terrorism, etc., do not merit a quicker and immediate deployment of artificial intelligence.

Mr President, I want to join my previous speakers in supporting political prisoner Jimmy Lai, who is essentially a victim of Communist China's pressure on Hong Kong. We must not forget that this particular case of unfair prosecution, political prosecution, is the result of China's violation of its international obligations, its violation of what it claimed when taking over Hong Kong, its preservation of the political system there, its preservation of the system of freedom, pluralism of political parties, its preservation of freedom of expression and human rights for Hong Kong citizens. And here's a specific case that clearly shows how China is behaving. It has pushed through legislation that is essentially intended to ‘protect’ national security while being used against people who have different political views than communist China. Let us be vigilant and do everything we can to free this political prisoner. But the basic problem is with Communist China.

Madam President, I have always listened very carefully to our debates on current human rights issues. It is always a great human tragedy, but when the tragedy of a country becomes the tragedy of children, I am particularly moved. And I would like to ask – and I am taking advantage of the chance of being here – the Commission representative to do our utmost to support Sudan humanitarianally as soon as possible. It is a country where there is probably no point in talking about sanctions, pressure on the government, or any other way of negotiating with the public authority of that country. 'Cause I don't think that's gonna help. But we can now help with humanitarian aid, with humanitarian corridors. And that's what I want to ask. Because really, if there are children starving somewhere and there are dozens, hundreds of children dying, even though here is a concrete example of an orphanage on the outskirts of Khartoum, I think we just have to do something about it and we have to help.

Madam President, I have been addressing the issue of the European Public Prosecutor for years. I consider this an important topic. At the moment when we set up this office without having competence for the whole of the 27, I think that we should primarily push for this office to work not only for the 22 states of the European Union, but for the entire European Union. This would greatly enhance efficiency. Since the enforcement of sanctions and the circumvention of sanctions is a major problem in relation to Russia, I would not oppose the option of considering, at this moment, that even for 22 states, this office would have competence in the field of searching for and investigating this crime. But I repeat, the primary problem of the European Prosecutor or the European Public Prosecutor is that it does not cover the whole of the European Union, but only four-fifths of the Member States. Please, Commissioner, let us discuss this. Let us push to increase the efficiency of the Office by bringing the entire European Union under its umbrella.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I have listened very carefully to the debate and I have also been familiar with the work of the committee before. I want to thank my colleagues for the very good work they have done. I want to thank the rapporteur, the President, because it is not always customary for an investigative collective body to draw such clear conclusions and really try to find a solution and reveal the essence of the problem. It is clear that, once these recommendations have been adopted by the Committee, there needs to be a clear response at European level. It is clear and clear that individual Member States, especially those where there is suspicion or even evidence that Pegasus has been abused, will find it difficult to adopt regulation themselves or to enforce the regulation that is adopted. This is precisely the topic where we need to demand clear European action and to ask the Council, to ask the Commission, that this issue does not end only with the recommendations of our Parliament. Like others, I believe that there must be clear strict rules on judicial review of the use of such spyware and that the very narrow circle of the most serious crime where such software can be deployed must be clearly defined. If we underestimate this, if we let it go, if we give in for political reasons, then it will be very retaliatory in the long run, and this has also been said in the debate. So I thank all my colleagues who have done this, and I support the conclusions of their examination.

Madam President, I therefore very much support my colleagues in their struggle for motherhood for Members, but I would like to return to another topic. I defend animal rights here and I therefore wanted to take the opportunity to address the Commission directly and ask the Commissioner to finally take this issue seriously, because young Europeans in particular consider the issue of animal protection, animal welfare, to be an important topic. In the Czech Republic, we have now launched a campaign to ban the breeding of dogs on chains and other national adaptations. It has a huge response in young people, in people who are aware that fighting is not only for human rights, minority rights, but also for the rights of animals as living beings that they perceive, they suffer. And on the floor of Parliament, I sometimes feel that the agricultural lobby is predominant, that we rarely realize that the debate about the transport of animals at a distance, etc., is not only about business, but also about the ethical problem. So I beg you, Commissioner, let us do something for animal rights before the end of the parliamentary term.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to support this proposal. I remember when, as Minister of Justice for the Czech Republic, I went to the Council of Ministers ten years ago to discuss these matters academically. It has taken many years and we have legislation here that, in my opinion, deserves attention and support, because in the fight against organised crime, in the fight against cross-border criminal cases, it is clear that, in the era of digitalisation, it is not possible to do just with classical instruments of judicial cooperation. We need ways and forms to secure e-evidence, to ensure that service providers do not delete information in such evidence, to preserve it and to provide it for criminal proceedings. On the other hand, I take very seriously the objections that fall here from the point of view of data protection. Every effort must be made to ensure that this information is not misused, whether for the purpose of criminal prosecution or for political struggle. I am glad that there is at least a limit in the level that this evidence relates to serious crime, that it is limited, that it does not relate to ordinary crime. It is a breakthrough in privacy and such an institute should be used only for the most serious crimes. And it is really important to ensure that the procedural rights of those concerned are respected.

Madam President, I supported this report. I am really afraid of foreign influences from Russia, that is, from this area. I see it differently from my previous speaker, and I personally think that we need to be vigilant on this matter and we need to constantly debate what kind of cyber warfare the Putin regime is waging against us. And we see in practice just a small step from these hybrid threats and hybrid wars to a real attack on a sovereign state. Russia, the bearer of, say, hybrid attacks and wars against democracies, is today attacking Ukraine, a sovereign independent state. And this should lead us to think that we really should not underestimate these threats to our democracies in hybrid form, and we should really see them as one of the forms of contemporary wars against democratic states. So I supported the proposal and I am glad that it was discussed and passed through Parliament.

Madam President, I was happy to support this report. I consider this to be a clearly positive thing, on which there is probably a general consensus both between the right and the left in this room, because with this legislation, if fully adopted, we will strengthen the protection of specific agricultural products, wines and spirits produced within the EU, which are characteristic and typical of a particular region. So for the protection of our manufacturers, especially small and medium-sized ones, this adjustment will be of great benefit. I'm glad she came through today and I supported her.