Speeches

Ukraine has been fighting for over a month. He fights not only for his freedom, but also for the security of Europe. And here we have Trojan horses in the EU – Germany, France and the Netherlands. This war would not have happened if it had not been for Nord Stream 1 and 2, if it had not been for dependence on energy supplies from Russia. It can be said that the German will to dominate Europe has once again led to war. The blame for the death of people in Ukraine is also borne by countries that sold weapons to Russia after 2014 despite the embargo. And today, the EU finances the war by paying Russia 600 million euros a day. So who should feel guilty for the brutal aggression against the Ukrainian civilian population? When Putin has received EUR 45 billion from the EU since the invasion of Ukraine, Ukraine has only received EUR 1 billion. This is European hypocrisy. And what did Poland get for helping Ukraine? The European Commission has just deducted the penalty imposed by one lady from the CJEU from the funds granted to Poland. Is the war and over 2 million Ukrainian refugees in Poland an opportunity for the announced starvation of Poland? After all, we have another debate in the EP about Poland, because apparently it is Poland, not Russia, that is the enemy. And this is precisely EU solidarity in the face of war! No one here thinks that evil should be stopped as soon as possible.

Mr President, thank you very much. Several positive changes made to the European Media Freedom Act as a result of interinstitutional negotiations are not enough. The main issue remains, namely the incorrect legal basis for the proposal. Not all regulations contained here concern services provided in the single market, so Article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union cannot be invoked here. In addition, the regulation of markets such as the radio market or, in particular, the press market infringes the provisions of the Treaties by restricting the powers of the Member States in media policy-making and, therefore, their cultural sovereignty. This has nothing to do with protecting media freedom. On the contrary, it is at odds with, for example, the protection of freedom of the press. The consultation mechanism introduced in the act does not change anything here. The main concerns relate to the newly established European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB). Media Services, which, contrary to its declared independence, will be supervised by a political institution such as the European Commission. Does the Commission also have the legitimacy to harmonise values? Can freedom be regulated by a regulation, in particular when, under the guise of protecting values such as freedom of expression, the independence of the media, their freedom is in fact threatened?

Madam President, I'm sorry. "Hate speech" is a controversial term. It is an ambiguous concept that can be interpreted subjectively, and additionally inscribed in the political context. We are seeing instances of restrictions on fundamental rights and freedoms, including the fundamental right to free expression and the right to criticism. After the fall of communism and, as it seemed, the disappearance of the ever-present accompanying censorship, it returns in an even more dangerous form. What is the purpose of criminalizing hate speech? There are provisions in the codes that provide protection for those affected by hatred. These rules cover the protection of everyone, including, for example, people with different sexual orientations. So it is not about protection, but about creating a tool to fight against political opponents, whom you want to discredit. Using noble slogans, influential political minorities strive to make the rest of the world afraid to say what they think, to call things by name, to reveal uncomfortable facts. Today, it is not minorities that are at risk, but the freedom of public debate. It is scandalous and symptomatic in this regard to threaten Twitter, a ban on action in the European Union.

Madam President, I'm sorry. The proposed regulation on the European Media Freedom Act introduces provisions that do not concern the improvement of the functioning of the single market. It thus infringes the provisions of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union referred to as the legal basis. It also significantly limits the competence of Member States to shape cultural policy and media. The harmonisation of media rules across the Union may in fact lead to the destruction of national systems. The stated aim of the act is worthy of support, but in fact many of its provisions have nothing to do with the protection of media freedom, such as the competence of the newly created European Board for Media Services in the field of non-audiovisual services, in particular press and radio. Meanwhile, for example, the norms of the Polish constitution, expressing directly the principles of freedom of speech and the prohibition of preventive censorship and press concessions, are a real guarantee of the independence of the press in our country. No one questions the principle of freedom of the media. But is the real aim of the Commission to strengthen this freedom or, under the guise of caring for it, to take over non-Treaty powers that undermine the sovereignty of the Member States in this area?

Mr President, thank you very much. For centuries, books have been not only a source of knowledge, but also an educational tool, protecting cultural heritage, shaping national identity. The European book industry has experienced major changes in recent decades due to new technologies and the emergence of dominant players in the online market. It was assumed that as a result of these changes, printed books would be completely marginalized. However, despite the transition of society to a digital way of life, the attachment to the touch of a printed book still dominates. However, traditional bookstores and publishers still face other challenges, such as rising production costs and issues related to the paper supply chain. Many books are printed in Asia. In order for the book sector in Europe to retain its strength and importance, it must receive support. It seems necessary to recognise books as a fundamental good in all Member States. The introduction of mandatory compatibility of readers and e-books or the introduction of a requirement for transparency in the use of artificial intelligence. One thing is certain, we cannot lose the great value of a printed book.

Mr President, thank you very much. Parliament's proposal for a European Cross-Border Mechanism amends the original proposal proposed by the Commission in 2018. The European Cross-Border Mechanism, as a solution to overcome administrative and legal obstacles to cross-border cooperation and currently blocked in the Council, is much needed, but not as proposed by the Commission. It is therefore good that Parliament, in its amended proposal, has taken into account key comments from Member States on the most controversial issues, such as forced derogations from national law and non-voluntary behaviour. It is proposed to make this mechanism a voluntary and flexible tool to tackle cross-border barriers. A well-designed mechanism can become an instrument to support the effective crossing of these barriers through balanced and proportionate harmonisation of laws, setting minimum standards while respecting the sovereignty and different specificities of Member States.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Nearly 1.5 million people have signed a European Citizens' Initiative to end not only the cruel use of animals in cosmetic and chemical tests, but also all animal experiments. No other ECI has received such support in so many countries. It is also supported by scientists and industry. There is no official animal testing of cosmetics in Europe, but that's not all. Every year, more than 10 million animals suffer during experiments carried out in EU laboratories. Many of the ingredients in cosmetics are chemicals that are subject to different regulations requiring animal testing. Today, however, it is safe to do without suffering animals. Modern, alternative methods of checking cosmetics are more effective than outdated and cruel experiments on animals. Let us support the citizens' demands calling on the Commission to amend the legislation and present a plan to phase out all animal experimentation, to support the development and deployment of new technologies, including the redirection of funding from animal testing to alternative methods. Let us put an end to the suffering of millions of animals in European laboratories.

Madam President, I'm sorry. The Artificial Intelligence Act is the first regulation of this kind in the world. Scientists, meanwhile, have been pointing out the dangers of artificial intelligence for a long time. They warn that increasingly powerful digital minds are being deployed that no one can fully control, including their creators. A recently published open letter with the signatures of hundreds of prominent artificial intelligence researchers and technology industry leaders even says that systems with human-competitive intelligence pose profound risks to society and humanity. The AI Regulation is intended to guarantee the safety and fundamental rights of citizens. They prohibit the use of artificial intelligence, e.g. in social scoring systems, biometric identification or manipulation through subliminal techniques or allowing extradition police actions. They require transparency, such as the information that the content was created by artificial intelligence. These regulations are very much needed. Hopefully there will be similar ones in other parts of the world. The threat must not be ignored. We cannot risk losing control of our civilization.

Mr President, thank you very much. The protection of personal data is a fundamental right of citizens. Therefore, when transferring this data to recipients in third countries, it is necessary to ensure at least the same level of protection of natural persons as is in force in the Union. For many years, the Commission has been struggling with the problem of enabling the flow of personal data between the Union and the United States, as the Court of Justice has already annulled the agreements negotiated in this area twice. The motion for a resolution submitted strongly criticises the new agreement with the US aimed at regulating transatlantic data transfer and storage. At the same time, it does not note the improvements in the protection of personal data that have been made here. It seems that the criticism of the US approach to privacy contained in the motion for a resolution goes too far. I understand the complexity of the problem. However, I recall the importance of transatlantic data flows for many citizens and businesses. However, there is no legal basis in place that would allow for a fully secure and free transfer of data to the US. In fact, we have a broader problem today. We need new legal regulations, perhaps even a new model of personal data protection that is compatible with the modern global digital economy.

Mr President, thank you very much. Cyberbullying – cyberbullying – is the modern face of violence. The latest statistics on cyberbullying in the world make us sound the alarm. It affects between 20% and up to 50% of young people. What is important is not only the scale, but also the consequences that online violence can cause. And it has even more devastating effects than traditional forms of violence. Research shows that victims of cyberbullying are much more likely to suffer from depression, anxiety, and suicidal behavior. It is also worth noting that COVID-19 lockdowns directly contributed to the scale of cyberviolence. Research by researchers from American universities has revealed that violence on social networks has increased due to covid restrictions by up to 70%. Today, the European Commission's support for action to prevent online violence is crucial. This is a challenge that requires the cooperation of the state, school, technology companies, as well as the family. The importance of supporting the family, so weakened today by various activities, including this House, is demonstrated by the fact that mental problems of young people, including feelings of insecurity or loneliness, are among the reasons for cyberbullying.

Mr President, thank you very much. Many countries are currently exploring the possibility of introducing central bank digital currencies. Some have already introduced them. The European Central Bank has announced that it will start testing ahead of the introduction of the digital euro this year. Of course, it promises that the digital euro will be safe and provide a high level of privacy, although, as you know, unlike cash, it does not allow anonymity. Digital currencies have long been met with public criticism, amid fears that increasing the ability to control spending will lead to surveillance of citizens. They will also enable new forms of social control at a time when we are facing diminishing protection of human rights, including in the European Union. These concerns were justified by the recording of a conversation published earlier this month, during which the President of the European Central Bank, Christine Lagarde, was fooled by the fact that she was talking to the President of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelenskyy. When the false president noticed that Europeans were protesting against digital currencies because they did not want to be controlled, the president allowed herself to be honest and admitted that the digital euro would be used to control citizens and their spending more.

Mr President, thank you very much. The best interests of the child must be paramount in all adoption decisions. The minimum standards for adoption should be obvious to everyone. The purpose of adoption is to provide the child with an environment in which he will grow up in an atmosphere of love and understanding and harmonious development. The child should grow up in a family environment. And here it is impossible not to refer to the tragedy of Ukrainian children. It is necessary to disseminate information about the fact that Russia will deport thousands of children from Ukraine in order to give them up for adoption to Russian families and to erect them. Russian propaganda cynically claims that these children were saved. The number of abducted children is unknown. Non-governmental organizations say it could be as many as several hundred thousand. The new package of sanctions against Russia has already blacklisted dozens of people responsible for illegal deportations, including a distinctive Russian child rights advocate who herself adopted a boy from Mariupol. Action is therefore urgently needed to raise awareness of the situation and support Ukraine in the recovery of children.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Terrorist threats are an important problem. It should be expected that it will be debated in the European Parliament seriously, with concern for the safety of citizens, and not used instrumentally. Europol’s 2022 report on religious and political terrorism in the Union shows that there have been more Islamist (43 cases) and left-wing (52 cases) attacks than right-wing (only 9 cases) attacks in the last three years. Of course, that's too much. Leftist ideology and Muslim extremism therefore pose a more serious threat to democracy, constitutional order and security in the Union. It is therefore hypocritical to worry Parliament only about right-wing terrorism. This is about slandering political opponents. It is the parties concerned about the security of Europeans that condemn mass migration, taking citizens' concerns seriously, that are called the extreme right. Is that weird? That's our tradition here.

Mr President, thank you very much. The European Agenda for Culture was established in 2007 to define priorities in this field. Culture is essential for the economy and social cohesion, it is obvious, although I am aware that not everyone is aware of this. It is also a truism that culture and creativity should be protected and supported. Let us remember, however, that Article 167 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union states that it is for the Member States to decide on their cultural policies and, at the same time, emphasises the importance of the common cultural heritage. In the extended report, however, it is worrying to point out that the fundamental essence of culture is identity building, combined with a call to support LGBT communities as victims of discrimination. Is it the task of the EU institutions to promote this identity? Is this group really being discriminated against today and in need of support? The program of these circles is widely present in the mainstream on both sides of the Atlantic, and their activity is not spontaneous civic actions, but activities financed by millions of grants from large international corporations, some governments and local governments, and through scientific grants. LGBT movements have specific ideologies and political goals. This is the destruction of existing social relations and the whole of culture. This is not a politically indifferent ideology. It is the left-wing parties that include it in their agenda. Environments striving to destroy the Old World are not interested in protecting cultural heritage, but in cultural revolution.

Madam President, I'm sorry. In October 2021, the European Commission presented a formal proposal to designate 2022 as the European Year of Youth. At the time, we were critical of the late adoption of this initiative. It was obvious that such a rush would make achieving the set goals too much of a challenge. Now it's confirmed. It was necessary to listen to rational arguments and provide sufficient time to prepare real actions in such difficult times for young people. It was young people in particular who were affected by the economic, psychological and social consequences of the unprecedented measures put in place under the guise of the fight against COVID-19, such as lockdowns or segregation of people instead of the equality claimed here. School closures have caused damage to education. Young people have also lost opportunities for training, volunteering or work. And even today, economic and political tensions caused, among other things, by Russia’s aggression against Ukraine do not make their lives easier. The resolution, which aims to establish the legacy of the European Year of Youth, will not change this. A year in which paradoxically, on average, nearly 14% of young people under the age of 25 in the European Union were out of work. There are also provisions in the resolution whose motive is ideology, not real concern for the well-being of young people, and calls for action that does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity. These include calling on the Member States to include citizenship education – in the form of global and EU citizenship – in their national curricula, although the area of education is an exclusive competence of the States.

Madam President, I'm sorry. It is difficult not to support the objective of advancing digitalisation in order to increase innovation, economic efficiency or administrative efficiency. However, the civilisational breakthrough that the world is currently experiencing in the aftermath of the Fourth Industrial Revolution brings new challenges and controversies related to the use of digital technologies and artificial intelligence. By creating huge development opportunities, it has also created various threats, including the risk of digital abuse, invasion of privacy, surveillance, dehumanization and alienation of people. There are numerous cases where erroneous decisions by computer algorithms and artificial intelligence have the effect of violating the rights and freedoms of many citizens. The Digital Decade programme does not sufficiently address public concerns about the potential negative effects of digital deployment. On the other hand, we find here the characteristic provision for today's EU documents that these technologies are to be in line with the values of the Union. But what are these ‘Union values’? Are these values historically co-creating the European spirit, such as Christian ethics? Are they rather an expression of leftist ideological aspirations that, instead of the benefits of new technologies, will bring us the totalitarianism of a new wonderful world?

Madam President, I'm sorry. Russia's aggression against Ukraine has brought death and destruction. We know that Ukrainian national heritage and cultural goods are also being destroyed. Information about ruined objects of historical, cultural and sacred value is made public by the Ministry of Culture and Information Policy of Ukraine. Since February, dozens of monuments, museums, theaters, culture houses, libraries and monuments have been destroyed. At least 270 religious buildings have been completely ruined or have suffered to varying degrees. These are churches, mosques, synagogues, buildings of religious communities of Ukraine. It is also known that the Russians plunder museums and sacred objects. According to the Ukrainian side, Russian robbers in uniform have robbed almost forty museums so far. Thousands of different historical objects were looted, including unique objects of jewellery art, weapons, coins, collections of historic icons, valuable prints and paintings. How difficult it will be to recover these artifacts from Russia is shown by Poland's experience gained after World War II. It is worth noting that the Ukrainian authorities, taught by their own experience, now make sure that valuable museum objects are not in the combat zone. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has officially requested that the historic centre of Odessa be declared a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Together with Ukrainian cultural workers, we must act to protect Ukrainian cultural heritage in order to support culture and the creative field. I therefore support, above all, the provisions of the resolution calling for attention to be paid to the protection of this heritage, support in documenting all attacks, especially against heritage protected by international conventions. It is important to note that any financial support provided to Ukraine in the field of culture should not jeopardise the financial resources of the Creative Europe programme. I believe that concern for Ukraine's national heritage will renew the awareness that Europe will be a family of peoples if it combines the ideal of unity, taking into account the richness and diversity of cultures and traditions of individual peoples. European unity will only last if we build it on the spiritual values that Europe once shaped, and not by filling the concept of ‘European values’ with strange content that has nothing to do with Europe’s true traditions.

Madam President, I'm sorry. The importance of developing solutions to the demographic, economic, social or environmental challenges faced by border regions is demonstrated by the fact that they cover 40% of territories and 30% of the population of the entire European Union. Most of these challenges can be financially supported through Interreg cooperation programmes. However, its budget for 2021-2027 has been significantly reduced. In the case of Poland, the national envelope for Interreg was reduced by as much as 20%. The current geopolitical circumstances have shown how wrong politics are. The Russian aggression against Ukraine has shown the great importance of adapting cohesion policy to the specific and changing needs of individual Member States and of ensuring that it is adequately financed at a level that allows it to properly achieve its objectives at a given place and time. The war has affected cross-border areas to a much greater extent than other regions and new objectives and action plans should be set in line with the new reality. Strengthening existing cross-border cooperation programmes between Poland, Hungary, Romania and Slovakia and Ukraine under the Interreg initiative will be a testament to European solidarity with the Ukrainian people.

Mr President, thank you very much. President von der Leyen proposed to return to one of the currents within the German Bauhaus Modernism. Why should Germany's cultural heritage be imposed on the whole Union? The ideas of the Bauhaus, due to their leftism, could not develop even in German cities before the war. Is the Marxist idea that architecture is supposed to be a tool for solving social problems close to the Bauhaus also close to Parliament? We already know the consequences. Social and racial isolation and segregation emerged from the projected integration. From the projected community, a sense of anonymity, spooky blocks of flats. Mass architecture has not improved the quality of life. Let us remember the dark pages of the Bauhaus, like the romances with communism and Nazism. After all, the plans for the camps in Sachsenhausen, Auschwitz and Buchenwald came from the hands of the creators of this legendary school. What is the aim of adopting an international style that will force Member States to move away from their own traditions? Isn't this linked to Chancellor Olaf Scholz's willingness to take responsibility for Europe? Of course, after the rejection of national selfishness – as it calls the needs of other countries. Some things Member States simply have to like, even taste.

Madam President, I'm sorry. The title of the debate ‘Links between Russia and European extremist, populist and anti-European parties’ is deliberate manipulation. Firstly, the European Union and Europe are not the same, so what are the anti-European parties? I don't think it's about Islamic parties propagating values and customs that stand in opposition to traditional European values. How about it? Secondly, the impression is to be created that only right-wing parties maintain friendly relations with Russia. What about the social-liberal and pro-EU party of French President Manuel Macron? What about the Social Democratic Party of German Chancellor Olaf Schulz? Putin's greatest friends who dream of returning to business with Russia? The real problem in the face of the war are President Macron's constant calls to Moscow and Germany's ambiguous attitude towards Russia's aggression against Ukraine. This convinces Putin that he can end the war on his own terms. The rulers in Germany and France could speed up the end of the war, but prefer to block the supply of heavy weapons to Ukraine in Russia's interest. Only the strong position of the US and NATO gives Ukraine hope for victory.

Madam President, I'm sorry. In that case, Commissioner, I will ask. Are the assumptions of this proposed regulation, which I have already mentioned, Vice-President of the European Commission Frans Timmermans, about a 50% reduction in pesticides used in agriculture without taking into account the differences in the circumstances of the Member States, no longer relevant? Should not the aim be not only to reduce but also to equalise the use of pesticides per hectare in all Member States?

Madam President, I'm sorry. Commissioner, I'm sorry. Consumption of the most dangerous pesticides in Europe is on the rise. As a result, Europeans are increasingly exposed to toxic substances. We know the negative impacts of pesticides on human and animal health and on the environment and biodiversity. Action is therefore urgently needed to promote and support alternatives. Europe-wide information campaigns need to be carried out, as farmers often do not know which substances they can reach for if they want to increase food safety. It is necessary to create effective instruments to increase the profitability of crops without chemistry. But is the 50% reduction in pesticide use proposed by Frans Timmermans, Vice-President of the European Commission, without taking into account the different circumstances of the Member States, the right and fair solution? Farmers in Central and Eastern European countries use several times less pesticides per hectare than in many Western European countries. If the percentage reduction applies equally to each country, many Western European countries will still use more protection measures than against reduction, e.g. in Poland.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Thousands of people have died as a result of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Millions were forced to flee their homes, many were deported deep into Russia. The Russian army uses atrocities, rape, torture and genocide as weapons against civilians. This particularly affects women and children. This evil did not come out of nowhere. This is the result of the West's policy towards Putin's Russia. The ambiguous role of some countries has already emerged when they armed Russia. Then they watched the aggression idly, as if hoping for a quick surrender of Kiev. They then blocked the sanctions. And now this House is trying to use the tragedy of Ukrainian women and children to promote its own ideological agenda. When millions need help, you wonder how to make life easier to take instead of how to protect it. If there were genuine concern for the fate of women, we would address the issue of greater involvement in helping Ukraine at the EU level to stop these atrocities as soon as possible, or solidarity assistance for Poland, where the most Ukrainian women have been sheltered.

Mr President, thank you very much. Today's debate on the abuse of Israel's Pegasus spyware, with an indication of Poland and Hungary, has a broader political context. Amnesty International's investigation has already shown that 50 000 people have been targeted by services from 50 countries using this tool. The German Federal Criminal Police purchased Pegasus, and the German government, when asked several times about its use, refused to explain and submit to scrutiny. The Citizen Lab investigation report revealed widespread use of the software by the Spanish government against activists, mostly Catalan. 63 victims were identified, but only the appearance of clues indicating the use of Pegasus also in Poland and Hungary was touched by the European Parliament, indifferent to the wiretapping scandal affecting dozens of Polish journalists under Donald Tusk. After all, it is not about the tool, but about the very fact of surveillance. As usual, the goal is simply Poland and Hungary. Think about whose useful idiots you are doing in this time of war.

... it's just based on exchanging best practices. On the other hand, some of the provisions of the draft report go beyond the role that the EU institutions can and should play in this respect. The diversity of the European Union, including the diversity of education systems, is a fundamental value of the European Union. It is up to the Member States to decide how to implement citizenship education. Attempts to harmonize the core curriculum, curricula, number of study hours are a violation of their rights. It is not acceptable to set EU indicators or targets to monitor the solutions used by Member States in the digital education domain and thus provide a basis for their assessment according to the vision of the model of citizenship education adopted by the EU institutions. As the proposed division of competences in the field of education is unacceptable – the report openly promotes federalism, European identity and mentions European citizenship on several occasions – we will vote against this proposal.