Speeches

Mr President, Madam Commissioner, by all accounts, the EU-US summit was successful enough. Congratulations. So let me make a larger point. Satrapies such as Russia, China, North Korea, Iran and Venezuela collaborate to harm us. Therefore, we need to stick together. There are two things that keep me awake at night. Number one, if the election in the US goes the wrong way next year, we’ll be in real trouble. And I beg you, colleagues, we need to get serious about European defence. And secondly, the bill in the US Congress to supply arms and ammunition to Ukraine is having difficulty. We need to communicate to our American colleagues that this is crucial. This is what I think we should do.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for the briefing on the state and impact of sanctions. I fully support the financial measures, the measures to stymie the Russian war effort and measures to tighten up the effectiveness of sanctions. I would like to focus on just one aspect of them – the personnel sanctions. Patriarch Kirill, in my view, should also be sanctioned. Just because he is a religious figure doesn’t give him the right to call for hatred. We sanction various mad mullahs; we should sanction him as well. Then there is Mr Vasily Nebenzya, the Russian Ambassador to the United Nations, who, of course, enjoys diplomatic immunity in the United States, but not here. It’s an important message to send to Russian diplomats that justifying a criminal war of aggression and war crimes may not pass. Finally, a real viper – Mr Sergei Karaganov, who has been advocating for the use of nukes against Ukraine and against us. He may not have personally harmed anybody, but Julius Streicher at the Nuremberg trials also did not harm anybody. We need to send a message here as well – if you behave like a muzhik rather than a gentleman, you do not belong in the gentlemen’s club.

Mr Kuźmiuk, I have a simple, specific question: whether you are in favour of your party colleague, Minister of Agriculture of the Republic of Poland, Minister Telus, publishing, as he promised, a list of companies that have earned on the import and sale of Ukrainian grain. Isn't that right? Yes or no?

Mr President, I would like to thank the Commissioner for the presentation. Of course, we should always be aware that we are a confederation and that the contributions of the European institutions should be counted together with the contributions of the Member States. Of course, we need to do more, more urgently, but I hope that this outrage at Nova Kakhovka joins the long list of charges against the Russian leadership at The Hague or somewhere where we convene an international tribunal. I hope it also gives pause for thought. Who says that we should negotiate with Mr Putin? Would you really want to entrust the security of your country to the signature of a man who has ordered this outrage? No, ladies and gentlemen, the real negotiation is being done by the brave soldiers of the Ukrainian army. God bless them. I hope they negotiate all the way to the international boundaries of the Ukraine State. Slava Ukraini!

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in objecting to this debate, the leader of the group of our ruling party, Professor Legutko, said that there is nothing to protest about, that this proposed committee is standard parliamentary practice. No, Mr Legutko, it is not a parliamentary committee! Don’t you read your own laws? It’s outside of parliament. It’s actually run from the cabinet office in Warsaw and it can include people who are not members of parliament. Mr Legutko said that the proposed committee meets all democratic standards. No, it doesn’t! There are no rights for defendants. The definition of Russian influence has not been given. There is no effective appeal. The chairman is both prosecutor and judge. And yet the committee has the power of a court; it can bar people from holding government office for ten years. Helpfully, Mr Legutko confirmed that it’s going to be a witch hunt. He said that it’s needed because he doesn’t like some gas contracts, and he says that Polish ambassadors were coached by Minister Lavrov. Mr Chairman, it’s true. Minister Lavrov visited Poland in 2009 and made a speech to Polish ambassadors, who grilled him on the situation in Georgia. That’s a reason to suspect someone of treason? Have you gone completely bonkers? Mr Chairman, if you don’t find evidence against someone, you may not do what you’re proposing to do, at least in Europe. A couple more sentences, please. On Sunday, the people of Poland will march against […] slide towards democracy. (The President cut off the speaker)

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. What happens to our data is important to us citizens. Let me give you a drastic example: those of us on the Polish opposition who have been targeted with the Pegasus anti-terrorist software still don’t know what happened to the data that was gathered, which is completely unacceptable. Transatlantic data flows are also essential to the EU-US economic relationship. They are important for our companies, for our investments, for our trade in services. It is therefore crucial that we finalise a new EU-US agreement governing data flows to bring legal certainty to transatlantic data transfers. In the EU, we have the GDPR, which governs how the personal data of individuals in the EU may be processed and transferred. The US lacks such a legal framework. Concerns that the data of EU citizens might not be in safe hands once it is transferred to the US are legitimate. However, President Biden’s executive order clearly outlines that the US intelligence agencies be subject to limitations when collecting and using our data. The order determines the principles of proportionality and necessity in line with EU standards. Most concerns previously raised by the European Court of Justice on the previous two agreements have been addressed. Some concerns do remain, but I’m of a more positive assessment than made in our resolution. I call on the Member States and the Commission to ensure that the outstanding issues are addressed in order to avoid another ECJ ruling that would strike down the new framework. Let us ensure that our companies have legal certainty and our citizens can trust that their data are secure. Commissioner, I rest the matter in your competent hands.

Madam President, I'm sorry. The High House! Mr. Commissioner, I'm sorry. No one will overtake me in supporting heroic Ukraine in its fight to defend itself against Russian aggression. But, Commissioner, I feel misled by you and the Commission. Because in response to the Russian blockade of exports through the Black Sea, transit corridors were to be created through Poland, so that what Ukraine had previously exported to Africa could return to Africa. Meanwhile, you have opened up the European market without quotas – and you hear that even without some controls – to all Ukrainian food. That's not how we agreed. Polish farmers protested. Donald Tusk protested. The Polish People's Party protested. Why didn't you protest? I didn't see you protesting. And what's most important: Putin is threatening to block exports through the Black Sea again, which means that everything that is produced in Ukraine at the moment and the entire this year's collection can go to the European market, including mainly to Poland. What will you do then? You suggest that this system should continue to work. You have made the fate of Polish and European agriculture dependent on Putin's goodwill. We won't forgive you for that. And in this way you harmed the issue of Polish agriculture and the kindness of Poles to support Ukraine. Oh, I'm sorry.

Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that our policy on China is, in fact, quite clear. To collaborate where possible, to compete where needed and to confront where necessary. We need to make ourselves a little less dependent on China. We need to make ourselves more self-reliant on defence. Basically, the policy can continue indefinitely for mutual benefit. But we have two red lines: don’t arm Russia; don’t attack Taiwan. If you arm Russia, we will have a trade war. If you attack Taiwan, then, despite what some say or wish, we would eventually come down on the side of our ally, the United States. Therefore, I have a piece of advice and a plea. Don’t repeat Russia’s catastrophic mistake. Instead, help her get out of it.

We had a meeting here in the European Parliament this morning with Bill Browder, who initiated the Magnitsky legislation, and he claims that we have not used this mechanism as much as the United States. So, just take a look at it, please.

Mr President, High Representative, as chairman of the USA delegation here in the European Parliament, I’d just like to express satisfaction that President Putin’s criminal invasion of Ukraine has brought us as the West together. And I’d like to thank the Commission and you personally for your leadership on this, which gives me hope that we will prevail. I therefore have only two suggestions. Number one: could we make the Trade and Technology Council – which I think is crucial in denying the autocrats the dual use and aggressive technologies – could we broaden it to include key allies such as Australia, Japan, South Korea and the United Kingdom to make it more effective? And secondly, it appears that the US is far more energetic in applying the Magnitsky Act, which we have also adopted here. Russia now has more political prisoners than the Soviet Union did under Brezhnev. But some of those prosecutors, judges and gaolers of people like Kara-Murza and others still have not been sanctioned and they should be.

Mr President, thank you very much. Commissioner, I'm sorry. The High House! On social media, a video was published, a fragment of a Russian television journalistic program. It shows how Putin's propagandists imitate the sound of drones and missiles falling on Ukraine, and laugh at it, chuckle, and rejoice at the suffering of people who, according to them, are Russians, who are not Ukrainians at all. This laughter is the best proof of what Russian fascism is today, the Russian need for domination. We were just talking about the Holodomor. Stalin tried to destroy Ukraine 90 years ago, killed 5 million people. This time, Mr. Putin, you will not succeed, because Ukraine is fighting and has the solidarity of the whole civilized world. There will be Ukrainian members of Parliament in this room someday, and you, Mr Putin, will be where you belong, in the dustbin of history.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let us be clear about what happened in the 1930s. It wasn’t a natural disaster. There was first the collectivisation, and then Stalin blamed the victims. And throughout that time, the Soviet Union was exporting grain. What happened was that internal troops, NKVD, was sent to Ukraine, surrounded places district by district, activists took grain and all the food that there was away from the peasants and then, while surrounded, the troops waited until everybody died – up to 5 million people. I commend to you the definitive work on this subject, Red Famine by Anne Applebaum, who happens to be my wife. There was famine in other parts of the Soviet Union, but in Ukraine it was accompanied by a vicious purge of the bearers of Ukrainian culture in the cities as well, up to 200 000 people. And the reason why it’s important to commemorate this is that Putin is trying to do by somewhat similar means the same thing again, namely to reduce the Ukrainian nation to the status of Russian folklore, but to deny Ukraine the right to exist as a separate culture, separate nation, and a separate functioning, democratic and pro-European state. This is what we are talking about. So it’s very important and couldn’t come at a better time that we should pass this resolution. I commend it to the House.

Mr President, I wish to thank the Commissioner for his introduction. Foreign interference in democracies is, of course, a very broad subject. In that sense, the scandal that were dealing with is easy because taking cash from people is illegal under any rules. But I agree with my colleague Mr Auštrevičius when he says that we should not only punish those who’ve been corrupt, but also the corruptors. Qatar should – if it indeed was Qatar – come to regret what they’ve tried to do. I also agree with my colleague Ms Geese that attacks on social media are troubling, and what’s happening at Twitter is no good. We have also tolerated the activities of Russia Today or Sputnik for far too long. I have personally been targeted by the Russian Fancy Bear organisation, and Pegasus can, of course, be used not only by governments among Member States, but also by external entities. But I think what is crucial is what Mr Groothuis said, that we need an ecosystem here that is non-permissive. Therefore I call on Roberta Metsola, who promised me when she was canvassing for votes, that we would create a dedicated unit here in the European Parliament that would be dedicated to vetting and to counter—intelligence. Let us do this before we have another crisis and another scandal on our hands.

Mr President, High Representative, colleagues, China accounts for a quarter of humanity. It’s an ancient culture. It’s our largest trading partner. We want to have a constructive relationship with it. I proposed the paper, which was supported by this House some time ago, whose gist was that we should, with China, collaborate where possible, compete where needed and confront when necessary. I believe that’s still the right policy. On behalf of the EPP, Mr High Representative, I support the thrust of what you’ve just proposed. Personally, I think the Chinese leadership has made three big mistakes recently: dropping the ten-year rule, nationalising parts of the economy, and the aggressive wolf warrior diplomacy have not enhanced China’s popularity or influence in the world. The ten—year rule and the economy are internal Chinese matters, but on China’s external relations, something could be done about it. If China stopped threatening Taiwan, if China helped to resolve the war in Ukraine – and she can, because she has influence over Vladimir Putin – that would greatly help our relationship. We need to put the Europe—China relationship back on a pragmatic footing.

Madam President, Madam Commissioner, colleagues, there are two definitions of terrorism. One is that it is the deliberate use of extreme violence to achieve political aims, and the other is attacking combatants during an armed conflict. Russian death squads have killed President Yandarbiyev of Chechnya in 2004 in Doha. Litvinenko, killed with polonium in London, has already been mentioned. Major Skripal in Salisbury with novichok and one could go on. And we all know what Putin is doing to Ukrainian cities right now. So Russia fulfils both definitions, but it is not a sponsor of terrorism. These are not done by some other organisation that Russia pays. These assassinations and these bombing campaigns are done by the employees of Russian security services and of the Russian Federation. Therefore, Russia is not a sponsor of terrorism, but a terrorist state. The challenge for us is to pass legislation, like in the United States, that will enable the victims of this terrorism to claim compensation from Russian state assets. And this should be the purpose of our activity and of the pronouncements we are going to make in the next few days.

Mr President, I say to Mr Putin: all you have achieved with your bogus annexations is that Ukraine will no longer negotiate with you. Your situation is very precarious. You can no longer win, but you still have some room for manoeuvre. A previous ruler of Russia, Nicholas II, also attacked what was perceived as a weaker adversary, Japan, in 1904 and also lost both on land and at sea. He concluded a peace, instituted internal reforms and gained himself 12 more years in power. Mr Putin, you probably won’t do it because you’re more of an egomaniac than a patriot, and you’ll probably end up in some bunker. Steiner will not come and you will go down. The choice is yours.

Mr President, High Representative, colleagues, there are moments in the history of man’s struggle for liberty when only poetry will do. I recommend to you a song called Barai by Sherwin Hajipour, whose lyrics are put together from messages sent by protesters that describe what this is about. ‘For dancing in the streets. For fear when kissing. For yearning of just normal life. For this polluted air. For tears with no end. For this forced heaven. For pills of nerves and insomnia. For women, life, freedom. For freedom. For freedom!’ Dear Iranian sisters, I hope you win this, but you are already our heroes. From the bottom of my heart, I salute you!

– I wasn’t referring to the honourable lady. I am prepared to accept that you regard Putin as a capitalist pig. But the real standard for me of your attitude is: do you or do you not support the right of the people of Ukraine to defend themselves and do you support giving them the means to defend themselves? That is the question.

Madam President, I am shocked that after the war crimes in Bucha, after the bombing of the trading centre in Kremenchuk, after the mining of Ukrainian ports, which makes it impossible to export the grain, there are still some pro—Putin sentiments in this House. Colleagues from the left say that’s a false accusation. I hope you remember how the Russian judge justified the launch of this invasion – that the people of Donbas need to be ‘protected from gay parades’. I hope colleagues from the right now see what kind of defender of traditional sovereignty Vladimir Putin is – he has invaded another sovereign country – and what kind of a defender of tradition he is as a former colonel in the KGB! It is not okay to appear on Russian propaganda outlets. It is not okay to mouth Russian propaganda. It is not okay to accept donations from Russian outlets. Now that Vladimir Putin has declared war on Western civilisation, it is treason. It is treason to the people of Ukraine, it is treason to Europe and it’s a treason to this House. I hope the people who engage in it will be defeated, will be punished for it by the electors. (The speaker agreed to respond to a blue—card speech)

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the peoples of Europe demand a health union. They demand an energy union. And above all, in the face of Putin’s cruel aggression, they demand a defence union. We need standing military forces. We need a Commissioner for defence. We need joint purchases of equipment. We need a joint headquarters. And this cannot be done without Treaty change. We need to do it because in future, if Mr Trump returns to the White House or the United States is involved in the Pacific, we might not be able to rely on the United States, and we should not be helpless. So I’m in favour of moving to the Convention, but don’t take it for granted that I would always be in favour of majority voting. Because in this crisis, on the one hand, I feel Mr Orbán should not be allowed to veto sanctions, and on the other hand, we have a structural problem. Germany and France, the largest countries in the EU, are also the most secure. And during the Ukraine war they have not convinced me that they feel the sense of threat of us on the flanks. If we move away from unanimity, they will get an effective veto on anything the EU does, and this requires consideration. I am looking forward to a lively debate.

Mr President, thank you very much. The High House! Last year, from this place, I asked what misfortune must happen in order for us to take European defence matters seriously. Putin's unprovoked aggression against Ukraine even exceeded my expectations. The North Atlantic Alliance, the United States, has risen to the challenge. The European Union has done more than I personally expected, and I would like to thank the Commission warmly for that. But we need more. We need a defence union, we need a rapid response force, we need to strengthen conventional defence forces, cyber defence forces, partially joint purchases, more weapons for Ukraine. Ukraine has already won candidate status. We need to punish war crimes in Ukraine. Personally, I would consider a majority vote on some issues, for example, when it comes to personal sanctions or sanctions at all, because I do not think that one country should be able to block, for example, such sanctions as they are, were proposed for the war instigator Cyril. So Natalie, David, I support, I congratulate the report, but I expect you to convince your governments of it. And the next Polish government will support the defense union.

I would like to thank the honourable Member for recalling my speech in Berlin in 2011, where I indeed said that I feared German power less than I feared Germany’s inactivity. And you know what? It seems to fit the current attitude of the German coalition to the war in Ukraine. No human institution will be perfect, but when the facts change, I change my view. What do you do? Therefore, we need institutions that would protect people’s identity but enable us to work more effectively together. I think some of those proposals do that.

Madam President, I would grant the nationalist side of this debate that the process of the conference has not been perfectly democratic. But I’d just like to remind you that the whole idea of the conference was to open up the process to unelected people, to the kind of people that we don’t normally talk to. So that was deliberate. And if your supporters were less active or less persuasive in that process, well, that is your mistake and your failure. But don’t blame the process. We’ve been through a lot as the European Union in recent years – the financial crisis, the refugee crisis, Brexit, the pandemic and now war. And some of you have argued – correctly, in my view, that we need to take a strong stance. We need energy transformation and financial help for energy transformation. We need strong sanctions on an aggressive power, on Mr Putin. That we need energy security, including a gas Union, purchasing of gas together. And at the same time, you say the EU should go back to being a Union of fatherlands, a free trade area – some of your supporters have even asked for abolishing this Parliament. I have to tell you, these ideas are not compatible. You have to choose, if you will the ends you have to will the means. Personally, I want a Union strong enough that can not only stand up to Putin, but send him to hell. And therefore, I believe we need not a superstate, but a super power. And therefore, these proposals should be considered seriously. (The speaker agreed to take a blue-card intervention)

Madam Speaker, High House. Artificial intelligence is a great invention, but like any invention, it can serve good or evil. It can be used for cancer detection or surveillance, safer driving or autonomous killing, also with the help of weapons of mass destruction. It can expand our knowledge or create deep fakes and manipulate entire societies. As a Union, we are not a leader in this technology, but leaders do not always do it well. Russia, for example, created or supported the anti-vaccination movement during the last pandemic with the help of bots. In China, the system is so advanced that you can get social points for paying bills on time, crossing the road on lanes. All life can be regulated with the help of points such as ours in Europe points for driving a car. It's a nightmare. In the United States, in turn, these technologies are owned by large corporations that make sky-high profits and have such an impact on the U.S. Congress that meaningful regulation is almost impossible. So we in this House are humanity's only hope for meaningful regulation of this technology, for balancing the interests of industry with the human need to live in privacy, responsibility for the word, and simply to live in a civilized society. We need more investment in this technology, but also better regulation. I would therefore like to congratulate the authors of our report.

Madam President, I would like to put to the leaders of the People’s Republic that President Putin has made a disastrous mistake in invading China, but so have you. Because by all accounts, he gave you a warning that he would do that and you didn’t object. You should have. Because if this horrible war has done anything, it has certainly brought the free world together. I’m not sure this is what you intended. Therefore, I’d like to tell you not to make another mistake, because globalisation has already suffered two huge blows. The first, the rise of populism in the West – and it’s partly a reaction to the fact that globalisation was good for poor people in poor countries, but bad for poor people in rich countries – but you have risen a billion people out of poverty in China, and we respect you for that. The second one is the pandemic. We’ve discovered that we need some of those medicines and equipment nearer to home. If you were to supply President Putin with the lethal assistance that he needs to crush Ukraine, it’s not just what we would do, it’s what our consumers would be thinking about every time they consider buying a Chinese product. You really don’t want to go there. You don’t want that effect. You don’t want to deal globalisation a third blow that globalisation might not survive.