Speeches

Madam President, Commissioner, as the shadow rapporteur on behalf of Patriots, I believe that the Critical Medicines Act addresses real challenges, and these are medicines shortages and Europe's continued dependence on third countries. For this reason, I support the Commission's proposal. When it comes to the health committee report, it reinforces key elements, notably on strategic projects and criteria for public procurement. We also welcome Parliament's call for a dedicated budget for this act. However, important concerns remain – in particular, excessive environmental requirements linked to the Green Deal, placing heavy burdens on manufacturers. You can imagine what happened with the Urban Wastewater Directive. We also have concerns about increasing Commission powers at the expense of national competences and about the participation of candidate countries in joint procurement. Despite these issues, the Critical Medicines Act is a step in the right direction. It can meaningfully reduce shortages by boosting EU production and lowering external dependencies. I am confident that the remaining concerns that we have can be addressed during the trilogue negotiations. And finally, let me underline that this is not only about competitiveness, but it is also about patients and their access to medicines in Europe.

Thank you for this question. The Treaties do not describe a timeline. So, one day, maybe my great‑grandchildren will live in federal Europe, but Europe must be ready for this and I am afraid that today they are not ready. Europe is not ready for accepting more duties in the given time. And your second question, just remind me briefly the words, what was it about? Oh yes, the values, thank you. When we come to the values, I have mentioned that there is a start of Islamisation of Europe and I am afraid that if my culture becomes a minority in Europe, my roles, my rights as a minority will not be respected. So, before we do this change, we are warning that this change is wrong and this is exactly going on. So, I think I am fine with my speech and I have answered your questions. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much for this question. Actually, I can confirm that when I travel across Member States of EU, I come across citizens, and there are many of them that have concerns about the democratic elements in their own, usually Western, Member States and also in the Brussels centre at the heart of the European Commission. And they are afraid about the future, that our ancestors have given to us, that our values based on Christianity are in danger.

Madam President, thank you, Mr Commissioner, for presenting the Safe Hearts Plan. I believe it will be an important step in fighting cardiovascular diseases, which remain a significant burden to our healthcare systems and also the leading cause of death, not only in Europe. I also appreciate the respect for national competences in the field of health policy. Thank you very much for the emphasis on prevention and early detection among the key pillars of your strategy. Supporting healthy habits is far more effective than an ideological or prohibition-based approach. We must just be careful with measures such as new assessment systems or potential EU-wide levies to ensure they are evidence based, proportionate and respect technology neutrality. Our aim is not to prescribe lifestyles – we know that the bans and directions from Brussels don't work for people, neither for alcohol, nor tobacco, nor nicotine, nor food. We just must be careful. Finally, we must take into account the differences and specificities of the needs of individual regions, if this strategy shall bring real results. Let me thank you for your presentation, and you can count on our support with the Safe Hearts Plan.

Mr President, dear colleagues, a harmful conglomerate of Socialists, People's Party, Liberals and Greens set our great continent on fire. Look what this conglomerate did to their own countries: they opened borders and imported people with culture incompatible with EU values, they increased regulation to such a level that businesses better leave our continent, they reduce freedom and slowly install censorship. And they use people's money to finance political NGOs and so-called 'independent' fact-checkers and media to hit anybody who disagrees. And these technocrats now attack Hungary because of values – why? Because they fear Hungary. Because they fear other patriots like in the Czech Republic, Poland or Slovakia. Because we have safe streets, we do not import culture nor religion, and because we are able to say 'no' to Brussels if they come with a migration pact or with federalisation of Europe. So, dear Hungary, dear citizens of Hungary, one message for you: be proud of your great country and your values and never surrender.

Mr President, colleagues, thank you for your contributions. I wrote down some comments. Allow me also to reflect a little bit. To Commissioner Hoekstra, yes: move to action, of course, but it's really neat that Europe is the first and the fastest one in the world. Question mark! Mr Pellerin-Carlin, climate action is vital, of course I agree, but it must be correct action. To Ms Vrecionová, of course I agree that overlooking the situation of farmers is the beginning of the end. To Ms Pereira, yes, the Green Deal and Draghi report, but imagine that the Green Deal shall not be a religion and the Draghi report shall not be a Bible. To Mr López, a message to the world is great, I agree, but only if the others follow. To Ms Ferenc, yes, I have also concerns about the affordability of energy after imposing such a strong climate target. We must be very careful about the implementing measures if the goal is approved. Ms Zalewska, I fully share your concerns that this target perhaps is not realistic – it's also linked with concerns about affordable energy. Mr Gerbrandy, I see you are a little bit more optimistic, because I'm afraid that the rest of the world wishes a weak European Union, not a strong Union in the position of a leader, but the future will show us. And Ms Martins, of course we need to protect our planet for the simple reason that it is the best planet we have. So once again, many thanks. Have a great evening.

Mr President, Commissioner, Madam – leaving! – Minister, honourable colleagues, allow me a couple of words in my capacity as the rapporteur on this file. Despite this plenary voting down the urgent procedure at the end of July this year, the very next day, the main committee, the Environment Committee coordinators, decided to impose quite a strict and tough timeline – basically, for example, giving me only 80 days to present the draft report, and expecting a plenary vote in September. As the rapporteur, I also naturally respected this timeline, and I used those 80 days mainly to get more information from the European Commission, especially more clarity on the enabling conditions that accompanied the proposal for reduction of the greenhouse gases by 90 % by 2040. I wanted to know much more about what the European Commission means by 'technological neutrality', or, for example, what the ETS 2 price will be if we have a 90 % reduction around 2035, or what the electricity price will be, or what the future of combustion engines will be after 2035. And truly, within this couple of days, the European Commission provided feedback and answered, but very honestly, not much –diplomatically speaking – has been answered. So therefore, taking also into consideration that the European Union already has two legally binding targets in greenhouse gas emissions reductions for 2030 and 2050, I thought that maybe the European Commission needs more time, and we do not need to hurry anyway as Europe with those two targets. So despite the fact that I am really personally – not as a rapporteur but personally, as and MEP – convinced that we do not need any further reduction in climate targets, I proposed only the rejection because that means that the European Commission can later come with a better‑explained proposal. Then, after the summer break, we held approximately 10 political and technical meetings with the different variants on the table. I'm a little bit sad that the variant called 'postponement', which was there to attract the centrist political groups, offering international credits and many flexibilities, but postponing the decision for the 2040 target until 2029 – because only then will we know whether we hit the previous target of 2030 – this has not been so attractive for the political groups. They waited. In the beginning they were in a hurry, and then waited for basically the Member States to conclude. I fully respect that. In the end, we have the Monday vote of the Environment Committee leaning quite close to the Member States' position. Allow me also, in my capacity as rapporteur, to thank the AGRI Committee that presented the opinion in the form of a letter to the committee, with its opinion – very close in my eyes to the original Commission proposal – and also the work of the TRAN Committee, which decided in the end to vote down the proposal with the 90 % reductions by 2040. Tomorrow's vote will take place. There are amendments tabled. We will know the outcome tomorrow. So once again, thank you very much for your work, and I am looking forward to hearing your interventions here.

Madam President, honourable colleagues, the COP is an excellent opportunity to share good and bad practices. And as EU is responsible for hardly 7 % of global emissions, the Patriots for Europe agree that we shall help the largest emitters of greenhouse gases to reduce their emissions. I was thinking that the best way, maybe, is perhaps to advise them what they should do if they wanted to fail in the climate transition. I started to write the following list: make your Green Deal a religion, not a flexible economy tool; do not respect technology neutrality because market-based solutions are for kids anyway; make your carbon price most expensive worldwide; if possible, close as soon as possible all your stable fossil power plants and, of course, even if you have no adequate replacement available; don't allow alternative scientific opinion and politicians opposing your religion labelled as extremists; don't be at all stressed if your strategical industry leaves your country or continent, and the last and most important, use people money for PR campaigns saying that all of this is great. And at this stage of writing, I realised how happy I am that this is definitely not the way that we do in Europe. Enjoy the COP, ladies and gentlemen.

Mr President, many of you, colleagues, accent the need for united support of Ukraine, and I generally agree, but I believe it is much more important to provide smart support of Ukraine. Last week, the ITRE Committee voted for the ban of Russian oil, oil products and natural gas from Russia, starting January 2026. But products derived from natural gas are allowed, for example, fertilisers. So buying Russian fertilisers is okay for the European Parliament. At the same time, the ban on Russian oil without exception for Slovakia and Hungary also means that Ukraine will not be able to sell own-harvested oil to refineries in the country, and now most in the Czech Republic. This example shows that maybe less activism and more realism would be much more beneficial, not only to the peace in Ukraine. And allow me one sentence: some of you are so desperate about the fact that Trump has decided for Budapest, that it really shows that you do not have the situation under control.

Mr President, dear representatives of ECA, many thanks for the report. The expenditures from the EU 2024 budget on the heading of natural resources and environment were almost EUR 65 billion, which represents almost one third of the total expenditures. I would like to have two questions. Has the Court identified cases where the Climate Pact investments did not deliver measurable environmental benefits? If so, how significant were these discrepancies relative to the total reported climate spending? And the second question is on electro-mobility. To which extent did the Court elaborate and consider the life-cycle emissions of electric vehicles, including production and energy sourcing, within the audit scope, particularly when attributing emission reductions to electric vehicles' uptake?

Mr President, that is the madness you are demonstrating. Once again, you want to weaken the Member States and strengthen Brussels. Making acceptance of, for example, the Balkan states conditional on the abolition of the right of veto is pure desperation. Abolition of the right of veto means surrendering to the majority, and often to Brussels technocrats, often completely out of touch with reality. And I believe, together with the Patriots, that if there were more veto power in the past, we would be walking on safer streets in the European Union today, there would be no creeping Islamization of Europe in some states, European industry would not stagnate and there would be no risk of censorship on social networks, for example. So let me tell you something so everyone remembers. The ANO and Patriots for Europe movement will never support the abolition of the right of veto.

Mr President, honourable colleagues, the European chemical industry and chemicals play a key role for EU citizens and the EU economy. Therefore, one would expect that EU policies will have ambitions to boost the EU-based chemical industry. Unfortunately, the opposite is true: the EU chemical industry is suffering and without substantial changes in course of last year's energy, climate and industrial policies, the EU chemical industry will not survive in Europe. Maybe, therefore, I am pleased to see three negotiated files related to the EU chemicals ecosystem, with a positive effect on transparency, predictability, information access, assessment process unification, the common data platform, 'one substance, one assessment', better coordination among related agencies and, last not least, more ECHA and less European Commission. These are just a few examples of positive signals. Also, the industry's concerns on sensitive information disclosure have been positively addressed during the trilogue negotiations. What is not positive, in the eyes of a patriot, is that the final text allows the Commission to update the concentration limit via delegated acts, and this is not a good direction forward but, anyway, the world is not perfect. But, in general, the outcomes of trilogues are a good message for suffering EU chemical industries. So thank you for that, and thank you, rapporteur.

Mr President, Madam Commissioner, on World Mental Health Day, we are reminded that mental health is not just a medical issue – it is also a social and economic one. To accent topics of the mental health and well-being of young people, we reaffirm our commitment to strengthen national healthcare systems through reducing inequalities and through advancing towards complex health coverage. We further agree to ensure access to safe youth‑ and child‑friendly healthcare, including mental and digital health. Across Europe, too many citizens face stress from insecure jobs, rising living costs, housing difficulties and also social isolation. These pressures deepen inequalities and put the most vulnerable at even greater risk. Therefore, improving mental health must be a fundamental priority and we call for continual and systematic action in this area.

Mr President, Commissioner, you are repeating the same mistakes, setting unrealistic goals. You try to force expensive and sometimes unreliable clean technologies on people as the only option, and you don't care at all that a large part of the public isn't interested in them. Instead of listening to the public, you'd rather regulate, raise prices, or ban them. And I will tell you something, Commissioner, by raising the price of old, often fossil-based technologies, you will speed up their end, but you will certainly not ensure a corresponding increase in the share of clean technologies. Production, including emissions, will move outside Europe, making Europeans even poorer and not saving the climate. So please, Commissioner and your entire Commission, wake up and stop repeating mistakes while there is still time.

Mr President, Commissioner, colleagues, the debate is so far missing a key element, which is what needs to be done to reduce the economic impact on citizens and businesses in case the EU leaders decide to stop Russian gas imports. Commissioner, two actions are missing in your plan recently published. What is needed is the removal of unrealistic requirements in the EU Methane Emission Regulation to increase the attractiveness of Europe as such for gas imports from third countries and, second, introduce substantial changes in the ETS to reduce the price of carbon allowances. These are two basically simple measures at the end. Commissioner, please bring three points: increase the stability of natural gas supplies after the potential phase‑out, compensate the higher gas prices via cheaper ETS, and avoid premature closure of reliable coal‑fired power plants, which is needed in parts of Europe. So this is basically now your homework. You are invited to do it and, of course, don't forget to place nuclear on an equal footing with renewables on top of it.

Mr President, thank you Vice-President Fitto, Vice-President de Groot, thank you colleagues for the debate – the debate shows the high importance of the European Investment Bank, and also it shows the high level of expectation that the members in this House have of the institution, of the bank, about the role of the bank in achieving its goals and addressing risks, not only for you as such, but also for our Member States and, in the end, for our citizens and communities. I have been very grateful for many of the topics that have been put on the table during the debate: geographical balance, taking higher risks, focus on SMEs, climate adaptation, security, cybersecurity, housing, agriculture and cohesion, and, of course, many others. I am happy that the Budgetary Control Committee has put forward the report which touches on those topics, clearly describes the development and successes of the bank, but also the expectations and needs of the Parliament when it comes to the needs for investment and the future role of EIB, which this House, I believe, sees as a partner, and is looking forward to cooperating with in the very long term. Allow me once again to thank you for the chance of being a rapporteur, and I would like to invite all of you voting tomorrow to support the report.

Mr President, good afternoon colleagues, Vice-President Fitto and Vice-President of the EIB de Groot. Despite the fact that the main scope of the report is dedicated to the financial activities of the bank in 2023, we considered, on top of this scope, other useful elements to better understand the EIB's operational model, internal system and also strategy in current vibrant times. Why? Because the EIB already now plays a crucial role in implementing EU policies, and its role might grow in the near future. Therefore, I am extremely grateful for the openness and hospitality that the bank provided while drafting this report. I would like to also remind all of us that the EIB is not the subject of the standard discharge procedure we are used to. To sum up the activities we have done: firstly, there was a questionnaire based on the inputs from the CONT committee members that was effectively answered by the bank. Then on 11 December 2024, we held a one-day working visit in the EIB, meeting eight representatives of departments and one vice-president. And on 25 January, we held a follow-up video conference on topics like transparency and prevention of the conflict of interest. Now, on the substance, the EIB maintained in 2023 the triple A rating and liquidity ratio within the limits and had a positive result of EUR 2.3 billion. Also, the 2023 signed investments are expected to create 1.4 million new jobs in coming years, and this shall contribute growth of one percentage in GDP. The EIB manages up to 130 mandates, both from the Commission and the shared management, and produces 450 reports every year. Therefore, simplification is not only needed here, but as well has been recognised within the system and addressed in the system, and of course not at the cost of sound management. By the way, EIB manages six mandates from the RRF, namely for Greece, Italy, Romania and Spain. On energy security, the bank focuses on the security of supplies via grids reinforcement, cross-border infrastructure, but also introduces new modern elements like demand response and energy storage projects, and also value chains for critical materials. Another important topic is security – EIB supports the EU defence and security industry under the dual-use principle, and the budget has been increased here from EUR 6 billion to EUR 8 billion and newly includes also activities in space. The bank cooperates with the European Defence Agency and, in order to mobilise money for innovative projects, has opened the One-Stop-Shop. When we look at the climate, it is one of the main priorities of the bank – there has been EUR 40 billion in climate, EUR 25 billion in sustainability and also many projects newly in climate adaptation. The bank is active also outside the EU, namely in Ukraine, Western Balkans, Moldova but also Africa. When it comes to accountability, the bank cooperates within OLAF and EPPO and has its own ethics and compliance committee. We are running slowly out of time, so to sum up, the EIB has demonstrated, I would say, unprecedented engagement with the Parliament in preparing this report. I am very thankful, in my opinion, as also an auditor outside the European Parliament, the EIB is running a successful operational model applying risk prevention and continual improvement approach and tries to address existing challenges and opportunities effectively. I would like to thank all the representatives of the CONT committee, of course, of the bank, of the Secretariat, and I am looking forward to the debate to come.

Mr President, Commissioner, although they are called rare, these diseases affect 30 million Europeans and we know of more than 6 000 rare diseases. It is therefore clear that this area requires closer cooperation between Member States, but also instruments on a pan-European scale – cross-border care, secondary use of data, modern funding methods for more expensive transformative therapies, simplification of regulatory legislation, in particular health and technology assessment, and the establishment of a contact point to support start-ups and small businesses. Research, development and production on the territory of Europe of these rare diseases and their therapies requires a competitive setting of conditions for innovative companies. Last but not least, let's not forget about patients, patient organizations and their initiatives, which also lead to the development of therapies for some rare diseases. Commissioner, we welcome that rare diseases are your priority and you have our support for the implementation of a comprehensive plan for this important area, which we need to address in Europe.

Madam President, dear colleagues, I have the feeling that this is another unnecessary debate. I believe that the elected representation has the right to update legislation in place. And of course, every piece of legislation can be challenged at Constitutional Court. Concerning this case, some of you blame Hungarian policymakers for targeting minorities. In my understanding, the aim of the discussed amendment is to protect people, especially young population, from excessive public behaviour, regardless of sexual orientation. And we shall not forget that the rights of minorities is granted by Hungarian Constitution. So the real question behind is the compliance of this amendment with the Hungarian Constitution. And I honestly hope that the European Parliament has no ambition to just compliance of any national policies with respective national constitutions. This is the role of judges, not of policymakers.

The important thing is the price which the households pay and industries pay. The produced price is not the traded price, and the consumption price is not the price that is traded. So you must look at the final, final bills, and the figure is two times, three times as high than in the United States. So, unfortunately, we need to take a different approach and respect geographical differences in the EU. In some places, more renewables is okay, and in some places you need to have coal for longer and then switch to nuclear.

Mr President, dear colleagues, Commissioner, I naively thought that the aim of the affordable energy action plan was to provide affordable energy. But I tell you something: this plan will achieve no substantial energy cost reductions, because you, the European Commission, repeat the same failures as in the past. You are obsessed by an energy mix based on renewables. You blindly push forward the electricity market integration. You have disrespect for the existing reliable coal industry. You are failing to place nuclear on the forefront of the energy transition in parallel to renewables. You egotistically insist on maintaining unsustainable EU climate goals. You completely ignore what's going on in the US and in the BRICS countries. And you naively believe that you will mobilise private capital through your bad plan. You will not, and your plan will fail. So if you really want to help, Commissioner, cap immediately the ETS price at EUR 30, and instead of bringing new climate targets for 2040, please cancel the existing targets for 2030 and 2050.