Debate contributions by Ondřej KNOTEK

Mr President, colleagues, so the cooperation of Patriots, Conservatives and Sovereignists threatens Europe's competitiveness? Do you find it strange that factions in the European Parliament are collaborating with a similar programme? Can you accept a different view at all? Maybe parties with a different opinion than yours wouldn't have to run at all. Well, that would be great. You could continue as before. Ban, raise, subsidize and regulate. But you forget about people. And I'll tell you what. In the European elections, a lot, a lot of people have made it clear that they are fed up with your ten-gender policy, green economic destruction, centralisation in Brussels and censorship, and we will not disappoint their voices and trust. You can't beat common sense and silence the Patriots, so remember that.

(Start of speech off mic) ... thank the Hungarian Presidency for a professional, proactive and innovative approach. Now, in the beginning of the new mandate, I would wish to Mr Costa to have a strong European Council, because we need a strong voice of Member States. The EU is a project of Member States and only a strong European Council will defend EU future and will overpower the EU Commission's appetite to control EU citizens and weaken or destroy European nations. It is time to have more strict, more detailed and more bold conclusions of the European Council to protect the Member States of the EU. Now to the agenda of the European Council: I appreciate the geopolitical agenda is in the centre, logically, including the war against Israel. But when we are talking about ceasefire, we should also mention – and it is not in the text – that the first condition for the ceasefire is the release of hostages, and this should be the voice of the EU Member States. What I am missing in the text is accent on the EU economy: industry is leaving Europe, world emissions are not decreasing and the Commission wants to continue with the green agenda. And this should be also strictly addressed and refused in the European Council conclusions. So we need end of green madness, we need end of green dictate and we shall stop ruining our industry.

Mr President, censorship is not the way to protect elections. Social media is a tool, not a cause. Censorship is not the solution. Then why are you trying to do it? I'll tell you. Thanks to social networks, people can collectively share what they really think. And that's not what your power cartel of traditional politicians, Brussels officials, and some nonprofits and the media want. You are doing everything you can to get the Patriots who defend the interests of people like Marine Le Pen, Andrej Babiš and Matteo Salvini out of politics. But you won't be able to do that. Patriots don't give up fighting for people. Nor will you succeed in silencing people through censorship of social networks. Are you concerned about the democratic nature of the election? No, you're worried about your election result. Over the years, you have gradually tightened the loop around people, taking away their safety, prosperity, national identity and freedom. And now you're afraid because there are Patriots and social networks that bring power back to the people. You can't beat people! People are sick of you! You are rightly afraid!

Mr President, Madam Commissioner, this is indeed an interesting topic consisting of different elements that need to be put in balance. First, we want to protect citizens from the effect of second‑hand smoke and aerosols and achieve the 2040 goal for a tobacco‑free generation. Second, we do not want to excessively interfere in the lives of Europeans with any ambitions to regulate their lives. Third, European institutions shall not go beyond the treaties and shall respect national competences and sovereignty. Fourth, we shall take science into consideration. These are four basic elements concerning this topic, and I would like to invite you, dear colleagues, to consider them during tomorrow's vote on the resolution and related amendments.

(Start of speech off mic) ... is that your policies, policies of climate activists, as you are, are not leading to saving the climate. You are lying to people about that if they will be ambitious, that there will be no floods and so on and so on. But that's not true. You have no data, you have no science base, you have no impact assessments: you are just lying. So you are the root cause.

Mr President, Minister, Commissioner, the European response to climate change so far has not been effective. It is not helping to protect the climate, it is causing major damage to the European economy and it is reducing the opportunity for Europeans to adapt to climate change. The so-called Fit for 55 European climate package is not only distrusted by investors, but above all by a significant part of the public. And in the rest of the world, our European climate policy is shaking its head in disbelief. Regulations, unrealistic targets, bans and price increases. This green policy of yours, far removed from reality, will make Europe an open-air museum and will not protect the public from drought, floods or fires. Please stop lying to people. Are you still so pompous that you travel the world instructing others to follow the same path? You're all a laughingstock. Please pull the emergency brake while there's still time.

Mr President, Commissioner, for how long are we going to pretend that the system is under control? I have a feeling that for years the Commission didn't listen to companies, and if the Commission listened, then only to the voices they like. The EU has become a regulatory monster; high quantity and lower quality. To be honest, also the European Parliament has its contribution to this fact. We shall not undermine this. Before being elected in 2019, I was a quality manager in industry. I was responsible to implement European directives and regulations into the real shop floor. The aim of the regulations were GMP, 'good management practices'. But in a result for the companies, it was as well GMP, but different: 'generate more paper'. This cannot go on like this. Since 2019, in the US there has been 3 000 pieces of legislative acts; in the EU 12 000 or even more – 13 000, someone referred. It's not possible. So we have maybe last one or two years to fix this. Uncompetitive energy prices, bureaucracy, that we are talking about now, and investment uncertainty. If we do not fix this then our economy would not be competitive on global level.

Madam President, colleagues, on Monday evening, six political groups concluded and co-signed the joint motion for a resolution on the Medical Devices Regulation. This was tabled yesterday into the EP system. The Europeans could have enjoyed for one day being more important than the political dispute. However, yesterday it happened that some political groups decided to remove the name of our political group from the joint text, despite the fact that the Patriots have constructively and actively cooperated. So, ladies and gentlemen, to those political groups, I tell you something: you may try to hide our name, but you will not succeed to hide the fact that the Patriots have been successfully part of the final text. Let this, my speech, be a testimony of your weakness, fear and hypocrisy.

Madam President, Madam Commissioner, I have an essential question: do you want to have steel in Europe? I think we have heard in this debate many reasons to say 'yes', but to save the steel in Europe we must act now. One point: to create a demand market for high‑tech and low‑carbon and green steel would, of course, help. But it is not in the short term. To revise the (sorry for the stupid proposal) CBAM in such a way that it will have the trust of businesses is also important, but it will not be in the short term. What we need to do in the short term is address the high prices of energies. And one of the elements is the highest price of the carbon allowance globally. The EU ETS is the most expensive in the world. Last week, more than 50 MEPs asked the Commission to cap the price at EUR 30. Please do it. Please do it now.

Mr President, Commissioner, I am very pleased that mental health is receiving more and more attention, not only in political debates, but also in public debates. It is indeed a growing problem, affecting the entire population and also affecting the youth, our children. The appropriate care is very small or not appropriate. Waiting periods – it takes a long time to find a child psychologist in some regions. And that is why I would like us to actually come together here today and make a kind of commitment that, following the example of Europe's Beating Cancer Plan, we will also create a European Mental Health Plan that is comprehensive, that focuses on all phases, including prevention, and that will help direct future economic instruments precisely towards implementation and help Member States to implement this common plan.

Madam President, what kind of debate is this again? Disinformation, populism and public media? What, like three in one? I do not question the need to counter disinformation, especially when it is directed against citizens' interests from abroad. It makes sense to talk about that. But why are you bringing populism into this? After all, you call populists people who, unlike you, are not afraid to tell the truth and defend the interests of citizens. For you, populists are those who reject unthought-out green madness. Those who want to stop dangerous Islamic migration, and those who want to preserve national veto power and not further strengthen Brussels officials, often detached from reality. And the public media? Yes, let's underline their importance. After all, people want it to be impartial. But the fact that a medium is public does not necessarily guarantee that it will simply be impartial. And changes in these media must be judged by the law and not by whether the government making the changes is more inclined to Brussels or less. That would be hypocrisy. And this is how you will have a three-in-one debate here, so that those who point out your inability to defend the interests of citizens can be called collaborators of foreign countries and populists. After all, you are almost as desperate as our Czech Fiala government. And to perfection, all you have to do is hire some guy to run what is disinformation and what is not, and he will simply say, sorry, Madam President, 'pig' to Europeans with a different opinion.

Madam President, Commissioner, Minister, I would like to thank the Commission, Council and the Hungarian Government, because we have heard that the dialogue is going on, step by step, we believe, to a successful end. And maybe at this stage, this plenary should finish the debate. Because we can ask: 'Tell us in 14 days, in one month what is going on'. But this House requires deeper debate. Okay, we are in a political House. Let's have a deeper debate. I'm not against it. At the end, we are sharing as 27 sovereign Member States one continent. So if we are with the idea that there is a risk, let's debate the risk and ask how it is addressed. But we shall not apply double standards and one-way democracy and one-way diplomacy. We have heard so far that these working permits, which are – in terms of security checks – on equal footing with other European visas, are now five plus five together. Maybe in years we will be talking about one hundred, a few hundred, maybe – and I will just say maybe – 2000. For example, imagine 2000 working permits for Russians and Belarusians. Some of you mentioned, I wrote it down, 'unacceptable and dangerous'. Okay. But where the same people and the same faces have been in 2023, when 220 000 multiple entry visas have been issued to the citizens of the Russian Federation – 100 times more. No one claimed a risk. It's not serious. Where have you been last week? The Chancellor of Germany announced that he is considering 250 000 working permits for one African country. Maybe – in your logic – potential bringers of Sharia law. So where have you been? So please, if you want to have serious debate, please use the data and not double standards.

Mr President, welcome, Madam Commissioner. You looked quite satisfied during the presentation of your thesis and I am not fully in agreement. You look satisfied maybe because you have a little bit forgotten to speak about the competitiveness and the energy prices. And I tell you a small secret. They are maybe lower than during the peak in the energy crisis, but they are still high. Not only for citizens, but as well for the economy, for business, for industry. We are talking about when it comes to electricity price, it's 2.5 times higher electricity price compared to US and China. So I mean, it's not an easy situation for businesses and it has implications. Maybe for some Green guys it has good implications because emissions are decreasing, but unfortunately not always because of, let's say, successful transition projects. Of course, there are many of them, but also because businesses are leaving. There is deindustrialisation. And this is, to be honest, a very bad situation and a very bad problem. Maybe you don't know, but flagships of European industry are really companies that proudly produced chemicals, steel, glass. They are dismantling functioning factories and moving to China. And this is something that we cannot afford and that we cannot sustain. Why? Because they are not competent on the global market. They could be competent on European market in case that the CBAM, this customs, are working, but they are never competent on the global market. So they better invest into China and the US, and this is a problem. What we did wrong? We took a wrong strategy. We want to catch up with China. But they are smarter. They also massively invest and you are asking for massive investment in greens and faster. I am not against but they invest into nuclear as well, on an almost equal footing, and they also invest into new coal-fired power plants. We are trying to close our coal as soon as possible, and at the same time replace Russian gas, which I understand, but the effect is very bad because we don't have enough cash in the economy, we don't have stable sources and we don't have cheap electricity because of the carbon allowances. I have only five seconds left, so please try to propose to your successor a capping of the ETS price. This is a path for cheaper electricity and competitiveness.