Debate contributions by Markéta GREGOROVÁ

Madam President, dear colleagues, Commissioner, when my homeland reached independence from Russian fossil fuels, they still paid Putin for it, with the argument that it's cheaper. I was baffled by this. Phasing out Russian gas is not just energy policy. Europe is at war – this is a security decision. Russia will now lose almost EUR 1 billion every month because of Parliament's negotiation. There is an immediate, tangible and measurable impact. The European Parliament shows it's not here just to vote on temporary sanctions that get renegotiated every six months. On banning Russian oil, we have not gone as far and fast as we could have. The Commission is committing to phasing out Russian oil in the near future. That is, however, too slow. At least we ended constant abuse of sanctions by certain Member States, and that uncovers the true strength of the European Union. Together, we can do what no Member State could achieve alone. It's never cheaper if it is paid by human lives, peace and international rule and democracy.

Mr President, dear colleagues, did you know that not only ChatGPT, but also Facebook, X and LinkedIn have all, at some point, trained their AI models on your personal data without your consent? And guess what? This is exactly what the Commission intends to make a general rule with its digital omnibus. You may have noticed that none of these companies are European: it is a sell-out of our values to American pressure. Big tech gets exclusive rights to our personal data, while European companies struggle to get access to quality data. In parallel, the Commission has decided to delay important rules safeguarding our rights and ensuring that AI systems are safe when they involve high risk for our societies. We are talking of AI for biometrics, education, employment, law enforcement. While other pathways were available, the Commission decided to go along with the biggest players' demands, and the Commission has also extended the possibilities to test high-risk AI in real-world conditions. Kids could be faced with real-world testing of AI toys. You folded to the pressure of the big ones and the rich ones, and we will make sure that we will not give up on our standards because Trump asked us to.

Madam President, dear colleagues, China's strategy has shifted 180 degrees. From biding their time and hiding strength, China is now in a full-on global trade war. We are collateral damage, and we are also seen by Beijing as weak, divided and expendable. Otherwise, the recent rare-earth restrictions would not hit EU companies and force our Commissioner to ask for fast-track licenses in the way they did. Our trade and trade defence system have been built for a world that doesn't exist anymore. If the two largest trade partners are hostile and mercantilist, we must adapt. I urge my colleagues from the Council and Commission to help Parliament to adjust our defences. Concretely, we should make the ACI less political and allow the Commission to initiate it. We must reform our export control system to meet China and the US on an equal footing. That means no more national fragmentation, that means building up deterrence, and that means attaching a high cost for coercing European trade globally.

Mr President, dear colleagues, every euro that still flows to Moscow through energy trade is a euro funding Russia's war machine. We have heard today from the far right so much about funding the war – these flows are funding the war, and funding it we are. In 2024, the EU still imported almost EUR 22 billion worth of fossil fuels from Russia – more than the aid paid to Ukraine in the same period. In the ongoing negotiations on phasing out Russian gas and oil, the Council has included several loopholes. These carve-outs undermine the effectiveness of our sanctions and prolong the war in Ukraine – something everybody in this room claims they do not want. The Union already has the instruments to support this transition for Slovakia, for Hungary, including the REPowerEU plan, large-scale investments in renewables and improved interconnections between Member States. We as the Czech Republic are very happy to help Slovakia. To continue as we are is to fund the aggressor. So it is time to close the loopholes and stop the money flows and prove that the EU speaks and acts without hypocrisy.

Mr President, dear colleagues, after four long years of investigation into Google's surveillance empire – sorry, they call it advertising – the Commission finally acted: a fine of EUR 3 billion for Google for suffocating European competitors and abusing its dominance. But, let's be real, EUR 3 billion for Google is nothing. The company made around USD 1.3 trillion in ad revenue during those years. That's not a penalty – it's a parking ticket. It's not deterring, it's not dissuasive – it's barely a rounding error. Our full dependence on a single foreign monopoly in any industry is an unacceptable risk. Whether it is online advertising or rare earth, we are putting our economy, our innovation and our sovereignty in someone else's hands. It's time we get serious about breaking up monopolies so that European companies can finally compete, and Europe can stand on its own feet again.

Mr President, colleagues, the Commission promised to President Trump more than EUR 1 trillion in purchases and investments into the US without any binding nature, any way to measure them, and without even distinguishing them from plans already in place. What happened on 27 July was presented to the public as necessary damage control and to me, as an MEP, as a hidden win for European industry because we supposedly avoided 30 % tariffs. In truth, it was little more than performative politics. It was a petty shakedown by a hostile American administration, and the costs should haunt the US for years. We can play the same game. We can fairly tax US digital monopolies and support our own digital champions. We can stop relying on US weapons and build our own military capacity. When the US undermines its global trade and monetary role we should be ready to step in when the dollar falters. Otherwise, what are we really expecting from giving the bully our lunch every day?

Madam President, dear colleagues, Council, Commission, the upcoming EU–China Summit is more than a diplomatic event. It is a test of Union's credibility. We often hear – and we have heard it today from the Commission – that the EU should engage with China as an equal partner, but it's time we actually behave like one. We allow our markets to be flooded with heavily subsidised Chinese goods, and also allow blocking our companies entering Chinese market, undermining them. Most gravely, we ignore China's support for Russia's war of aggression in Ukraine. Yes, ignore. I have heard you saying: 'We are very concerned. We will continue criticising.' When have you ever done that? That has never been done. What's the success of the Commission? Has any heavy machinery not been sent from China to Russia thanks to your doing? I've never seen that. China runs massive trade surpluses, and after a trade war with the United States, it really needs the European market. And do you know what that is called? Leverage. So I thus urge President von der Leyen, – or please, Mr Šefčovič, if you could convey that message, because she left – to stand firm in Beijing and defend our strategic interests. And our strategic interests are Ukraine, not German cars.

Madam President, colleagues, High Representative, whether we end up spending 3 % or even 5 % of our GDP on defence, the core principle must remain the same. We have to spend it on what we actually need. It's not just about more money. It's about smart money. Due to high costs, poor coordination and low efficiency, we don't get the military capability we should pay for what we spend. Throwing more money at broken systems will not protect us. We must learn from the most experienced and adaptive army in the world today. The Ukrainian armed forces. They have shown how to do more with less. How to be agile, innovative and focus. Ukraine teaches us, for instance, that asymmetric drone swarms can beat all of our current weapon systems, and cost only a fraction of them. This cannot be a race of national egos or parallel procurements. It must be a joint European effort. Coordinated and goal driven. Air defence, cyber resilience and battlefield readiness are not optional but essential. And let's not forget the why. This is not a blind ramping up of military budgets. It's about securing our democratic way of life against a aggressive regime that wants to see us divided and paralysed in an ever more polarised world. Delaying action only makes the final bill higher. So yes, 5 % is a big number, but the real threat is doing too little, too late.

Mr President, dear colleagues, today we remind ourselves of the 110th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide, notably the death of 1.5 million Armenians who were the victims of Turkish radicalisation and unchecked nationalism that led to the genocide. Remembrance of such horrible events should not be just about the past, but about the lessons we carry forward and confronting the injustices of today and the future. Europe, built on values of peace and dignity, has a duty to uphold these principles and constantly and consistently stand for human rights, demanding the accountability of those infringing these values. We cannot continue closing our eyes when it is convenient for us and pat ourselves on the back when we cherry-pick the case of suffering we stand up for. We recently witnessed the forced displacement of ethnic Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh. And yet, European Member States are still importing oil and gas from Azerbaijan and, together with the Commission, keeping the memorandum of understanding on energy with them – all while Aliyev continues his internal political oppression, crushing any dissenting voices. We should use this opportunity to reflect on how we act, rather than using mere rhetoric. Let's start with terminating the oil and gas imports from Azerbaijan and supporting the last remaining and standing democracy in the region.

Mr President, Europe is arming, not out of a desire for war, but because an aggressor in the East is killing our neighbours and friends and a former ally in the West is turning away from us. Yes, the eighty-year-old power system is coming to an end, and in the new one we have to take care of our own security. To grow up. It is a historic moment of European independence and unfortunately we are behind. There is talk of hundreds of billions of euros in defence, but concrete plans are lacking. We don't necessarily need more resolutions, and we already know what's in that white paper. We don't even need another summit. What we urgently need now is an investment worthy of a global player with a 15-trillion-dollar economy. We must show authoritarians around the world our true economic strength and ability to act. This is our moment. Well, we have to act now. If we have any time at all, it is the time that Ukrainian defenders buy us with their lives. Let's think about it! Glory to Ukraine and Glory to Europe!

Mr President, today marks three years since Russia launched its brutal aggression against Ukraine. Unfortunately, the question has arisen several times today as to whether it makes sense to support Ukraine. So let me ask you something else: What would happen if we didn't? Where would Europe be today if we remained passive, if we did not open our doors to refugees, if we did not show unity? Today, Russian tanks might stand on the borders of Poland, Slovakia or the Baltics, and there would be genocide of the Ukrainian population in Ukraine. Aggressors around the world would see that war pays off and that both the West and Europe are weak and to be dismantled. If you don't care about values, you're very poor with me. But to speak in your language of transactions, the cost of neutrality would be incomparably higher than the cost of our assistance. That's why we have to stay firm. That's why we have to keep going. Glory to Ukraine!

Thank you for the question. In fact, this legislative proposal is already on the table in Europe. It was prepared by our former Czech colleague Věra Jourová. Basically, it's kind of like the American law, just a lot more sensitive, because in laws like this, you have to be very sensitive about whether you're suppressing free speech, but you're really just striving for more transparency. I think the proposed law goes in that direction, and I will definitely work closely on it in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs.

Madam President, dear colleagues, imagine a platform where fake accounts and AI-generated content influence public discourse with precision. A platform owned by a foreign actor in close relation to their state leadership. A platform with algorithms engineered not to inform but to provoke, amplifying the most divisive and negative reactions. A platform that dominates our digital landscape. Now consider a platform benefiting specific individuals during an election in Europe. What platform did each of you imagine? Was it TikTok or X? These parallels should be striking to us Europeans. Long gone is the time when social media giants just wanted to increase their profits. Now there are political motivations behind our feeds, endangering our democracies. Extremists will accuse us of taking their free speech rights while they are owning the main means of public communication. Don't act neutral. Standing in the middle between autocracy and democracy just means standing on the side of autocracy.

I feel really strange hearing all of this from especially this side, so you will be the one to take my question about it. I feel like you did not really read the DSA, which we are discussing today, because you talk about censorship. Can you explain how legislation which makes the influence of a few chosen ones on our minds and lives transparent is censoring anyone? The only ones who need to be a little bit more upfront and open – so more transparent – are the big owners of the big tech such as Mr Musk. So can you tell me why Mr Musk's freedom of speech, so-called, on a platform which he owns, is more important to you than what your citizens and what your voters know?

I would like to ask you about the comparison you have made. I would like to know: Why do you think that the Constitutional Court in Romania threatens democracy in Romania more than the Chinese spy app? Let me just remind you that it's not Romanian, it's Chinese, which is a third country. Thank you for the explanation.

Thank you very much, Lukas. Of course, I will be gladly explaining this, because we have major studies saying that, as I said, these companies want one thing and one thing only, and that is your attention. To keep the attention for as long as possible to target you with the targeted advertisement. They, of course, hired the best psychologists of the world to keep our attention there, with which, however, they are promoting the more and more radical content, with which the minds can stay for longer periods of time. This, based on studies, leads to psychological problems of children, of teenagers, especially young girls and young boys going into the incel direction or going into hatred of their self-image. I think this is very dangerous.

Thank you for the question. No, I don't agree with your basic premise. Because what you obviously call the Internet are social networks. But social networks are digital oligopolies or digital monopolies that have taken over part of that decentralized, anonymised internet for which all the Pirates have always fought, except for you – sorry you were there and we accepted you. Because social networks have monopolized the space, they keep all their users there in the narrowest possible space so that advertisers and, of course, misinformers can target them.

Thank you so much for the question. I think it's a bit of a pity that you didn't find out anything about me or the Pirate Party, and you're attacking me here, because then you'd find out that we've been the only ones for the last 15 years who have always sounded the alarm for everyone about this. Like the shutdown of the web in the Czech Republic, we were the only ones to criticize it very intensely, because this is how, despite the individual cases, shutting down the web, especially at a time when we have the internet with VPNs and so on, obviously makes no sense at all. After all, Donald Trump himself immediately relocated to other alternative platforms, by the way, just as the Pirate Parties had to in the past, when they were also not yet mainstream. So I understand you in this respect, not in this nationalism, but in this respect I quite understand. However, we, of course, also resist this, but we want systemic changes here to those centralized social networks that centralize all power under themselves.

Madam President, dear colleagues, Commissioner, how much benefit of the doubt should we extend towards social media platforms? While this House banned TikTok use internally last mandate, we still pretend that it is just a harmless entertainment app. The United States will ban the distribution of TikTok through app stores in 25 days. Australia has banned all social media for teenagers already. I don't say I agree with all of this, but major democracies are waking up to the poison that is unregulated social media occupying our digital space and freedoms. It can even be poison for our elections and poison for our childrens' developing minds, as every major study shows. And where are we? Europe doesn't have mass-scale indigenous social media companies. We don't have access to the recommended algorithms of either Chinese or American apps in the single market, either. We are literally blind, and thus we at least need stronger enforcement of the Digital Services Act, and a clear roadmap for when these companies do not oblige – be it fines or the end of their services on European soil.

Mr President, dear colleagues, the European Union is one of the world's top destinations for university students. We have some of the oldest and best universities in the world, and we produce valuable research and technology that hostile states want. Our geostrategic enemies are going to great lengths to catch up with us and outpace us on key emerging technologies. So I very much welcome the Council's recommendations on how to defend our research. I agree that we need to urgently identify our most valuable technology sectors and corresponding PhDs, and train them in operational and research security. We should also coordinate this work with European intelligence agencies – after all, they will often be the first to uncover foreign interference and we should not pretend that this is an actor‑agnostic issue. China and Russia are our main sources of foreign interference, so while we welcome students with ties to these nations into our universities, we should not be naive and grant easy access to cutting‑edge technology to everyone. We must be vigilant, though not paranoid. The strength of our universities lies not just in their innovation, but also in their openness. Our challenge is to build walls of wisdom that safeguard our research without erecting barriers to the free exchange of ideas, because the future will belong not to those who fear knowledge, but to those who can protect it while sharing it.

Madam President, dear colleagues, this is what we call an escalation. Up to 10 000 soldiers from North Korea now support Russian forces. Russia has been amassing Iranian ballistic missiles. Putin revised his nuclear doctrine to lower the threshold for nuclear weapon use, and immediately followed it up with deploying a hypersonic missile. This escalation has a clear goal: to tire us, to frustrate us, and to drag this for so long that we either give up on Ukraine or our citizens are manipulated by fear of further prolongation into voting forces sympathetic to Putin. We need to formulate a response. So I am formulating: yes, for a true peace, there needs to be a negotiation table, but what Putin is offering is a bombarded table with splinters all over the ground and Ukraine sitting on them. We can ensure a table with two equal chairs through the only thing Putin will respect – force – and Ukraine needs from us the means to use such a force. Are we clear?

Madam President, I really do not want to repeat again Mr Sieper's words. However, I counted: we have 25 RCVs ahead of us. If we do this for each and every one of them, the 10-minute break for the IT department will be shorter than the 25 RCVs.

Madam President, dear colleagues, every couple of years we get a new report that tells us basically the same point: spend more on being prepared for disasters. This year's report is no different, but the circumstances are very different. We cannot rely on the US anymore, we cannot rely on Russia and China remaining cooperative players anymore, and thus we cannot continue to pretend that 27 Member States, some as small as mid-sized cities, all need a veto when it comes to foreign policy and to our common defence – that illusion must go. I am in favour of improving our capacity for deterrence by denial and deterrence by punishment. However, you should not mistake the breaking of encrypted communication as some kind of advantage for our cybersecurity. A backdoor for the good guys is a backdoor for our enemies. That is why Mr Niinistö probably felt compelled to add the sentence 'without undermining cybersecurity'. Well, that's like swimming without getting wet – just don't.

Mr President, dear colleagues, dear Commissioner, I urge this House and the Commission to recognise the glaring security risk: Russia's exploitation of financial loopholes right here in the European Union. Despite overwhelming evidence of corruption, state‑backed organised crime and financial entanglements with other high‑risk regions, Russia remains off the EU's high‑risk list for money laundering and terrorist financing. This inaction is no longer tenable. The EU cannot be a passive observer while Russia continues to undermine our financial integrity. Designating Russia as a high‑risk third country is not just a bureaucratic step. It is a shield for our citizens, our institutions and our market. We must act immediately, enforce stringent due diligence measures and send a clear message that Europe will not participate in any way on financing aggression and subverting our values.