Speeches

I consider the investigation of war crimes to be correct and important for the restoration and consolidation of peace, so the EU should promote in international proceedings the measures necessary to support the prosecution of representatives of the Russian regime responsible for war crimes. At the same time, I consider it necessary to abolish Russia's right of veto in the UN Security Council and to exclude the Russian Federation from the UN. As was the case with the Soviet Union, which was expelled from the League of Nations (the predecessor of the United Nations) in 1939 after it invaded Poland and Finland militarily.

With sanctions against Russia, little is said about an important issue – the form by which trade barriers against Russia are and will be imposed. Whether these are import bans (quotas, embargoes) or tariffs. In my opinion, it is more advantageous for EU Member States to introduce import duties instead of bans. This is why: with trade bans, the supply of imported goods is reduced and therefore the price of the goods in the importing country rises, while the money from this increased price remains in the exporting country. On the contrary, with tariffs, although the price of the goods in the importing country also rises, the money from the increased price will remain in the importing country. Moreover, unlike bans, tariffs can be adjusted gradually and flexibly, precisely according to the evolution of the situation. The revenue from tariffs can also more easily compensate countries that will suffer the most from the restrictions on imports from Russia.

Mr President, the common economic and fiscal rules in the European Union should aim at strong economic growth. To support this objective, more than a decade ago, the European Semester was also set up to oversee the order in the economic and fiscal policies of the Member States. In recent years, however, the semester has become quite overloaded. More social and green policies have come to the fore, at the expense of an emphasis on economic growth. At the same time, we need economic growth to improve also in the areas of social and green policies, not just employment and salary growth. Europe is struggling with slow growth, elevated inflation and high debts. European policy-making must therefore focus more on economic growth.

Mr President, if a police officer, in the event of a serious breach of the rules, prohibits a foreign driver from driving a car, this prohibition should, in my view, apply throughout the Union, not just in that country, as is the case today. In my view, we can commend the Commission for such proposals. Especially since up to 40% of cross-border offences remain impunity today. Every citizen of the European Union, including those in Lisbon, Tallinn, Copenhagen and Slovakia's Svidník, should be assured that there is no driver in his city who has been banned from driving in Amsterdam, Rome or Warsaw for driving under the influence of alcohol, for example, at twice the speed allowed there. This proposal will increase road safety across the European Union, reduce material damage and save health and lives. All this at a very low cost. We rarely see such projects. Because it is so effective, I will certainly support this proposal.

Madam President, the banking sector in most of the Member States of the European Union seems to have fallen asleep in some segments. Payments to another bank, domestic or foreign, take several days. Competing with traditional banks, i.e. modern fintech companies, allows instant payments throughout the European Union, and even mostly for free. Currently, banks do not offer such services mainly due to the lack of competitive pressure, I think. Banks' reluctance can also be seen in the fact that in all countries with the largest share of instant payments, the initial impulse was coordinated by a central authority, such as the state, a national bank or a banking association. This is an example of regulation that will benefit consumers. As the banking sector is regulated at Union level, this regulation also needs to be coordinated in the same area. The measure will also contribute to a more efficient functioning in the Single Market by increasing competition in the payments market. According to the Commission, the delay in money transfers is temporarily blocking EUR 200 billion. The release of this amount will mean an increase of EUR 1.8 billion.

Madam President, I welcome the increased transparency and availability of price data on capital markets brought about by this proposal. Increasing transparency is important to increase the credibility of trading on capital markets for all categories of investors. This will lead to increased competition and thus easier access to finance from capital markets. Higher investment costs for retail investors compared to other countries are also a major problem that persists in capital markets in the European Union. One of the reasons for these differences is the regulatory costs themselves. According to several studies, MiFID II legislation has led to a reduction in the supply of investment products and services, a reduction in the profitability of investment firms due to high regulatory costs and, ultimately, more barriers to entry as well as mergers and acquisitions for small investment firms in the region. Too many obligations and bureaucratic procedures can be a barrier for both consumers and businesses at the same time. Our aim should be to increase overall well-being and not to increase the number of consumer rights at all costs, whether or not they ultimately prove useful. It would therefore be appropriate for the Commission to also analyse regulatory costs and their impact on prices.

Mr President, reducing the use of hydrofluorocarbons is a nice example of effective action to combat climate change. Indeed, according to the impact assessment for this proposal and independent studies, the cost of removing one tonne of CO2 equivalent by such a restriction is even lower than the European Union Emissions Trading System ETS. The ETS is one of the cheapest ways to reduce emissions in the atmosphere. However, not all politicians think this way, and even fewer of them, of us, act on the basis of data. Too often they adapt to public opinion in order to ensure their popularity. In the area of climate, this can be seen, for example, in the former absurd subsidies for burning wood, the so-called "biomassacre", or in the promotion of more expensive renewable sources instead of cheaper and safe but unpopular nuclear energy. Most recently, Parliament is even trying to promote the electrification of air transport, which is, by the way, one of the most expensive and therefore worst ways to combat climate change. It is very difficult to fight against popular reforms by the unpopular ones, even if they bring us long-term benefits. However, this is necessary. We need to be more data-driven, less emotion-driven. Otherwise, it will cost us dearly.

Madam President, corruption is certainly not Covid, but it is also transmissible across borders. It is therefore legitimate for EU bodies to deal with corruption in individual Member States. To some extent, corruption in one Member State is corruption throughout the Union. Robert Fico's government wants to dissolve the Special Prosecutor's Office, which focuses on the prosecution of corruption and organised crime and has results. I see two fundamental problems in this. The government wants to do this in the so-called expedited legislative procedure, i.e. without enough time for comments, and the government proposes to abolish an important office on the grounds that it has made mistakes. If that were true, we shouldn't disturb the Special Prosecutor's Office when it's wrong. Even if it were true, just as we do not abolish the courts, the government, or even democracy when they are wrong. Those who feel harmed appeal to higher instance courts, just as thousands of ordinary citizens have done for decades, who do not have the possibility to dissolve the police, prosecution or courts. If they remain dissatisfied with their decisions, they can turn to international institutions such as the Court of Justice of the EU or the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. In terms of building the rule of law, I do not consider it essential, nor real, that all those who deserve it be inevitably condemned. However, I think it is crucial that everyone feels that such a possibility exists in Slovakia. That Slovakia is a self-corrective society. Thousands of protesters in Slovakia have shown in recent days that much of society is losing this feeling by abolishing the Special Prosecutor's Office. In 1968, society in the then Czechoslovakia resisted totalitarianism. This was followed by normalization, i.e. cleansing. It took almost 30 years for the company to regain courage and achieve change. Meanwhile, the difference between the quality of life in Czechoslovakia and Austria, for example, has changed beyond recognition. Now society is trying to resist the domination of the state by a group of parties. We can give up and wait 30 years to compare the difference between Slovakia and Estonia, for example. Or not give up.

Madam President, I welcome the conclusion of the free trade agreement between the EU and New Zealand. I am surprised that there are such loud forces in the European Parliament that prevent protectionism, that is to say, they prevent selected producers at the expense of all consumers. Gross domestic product is estimated to grow by between €1.8 billion and €3.9 billion on the EU side thanks to the agreement. This means increasing citizens' wages as well as boosting economic growth. This will somewhat increase the possibility of financing public goods such as education, health and environmental protection. Unlike one-off subsidies, this agreement benefits citizens in the long run, not just for a year, as is often the case with incentives to the economy. I would point out that this is only the second free trade agreement during this mandate. I therefore hope that the Commission will be able to step up its efforts and connect the European market with other trading partners.

Madam President, the new right to repair is intended to guarantee the repair of a mobile phone or washing machine, for example, throughout its lifetime. In particular, the manufacturer will have to produce all the spare parts and tools needed for repair throughout the lifetime of the product. However, the proposed measure may not be environmentally or economically advantageous, as producing all spare parts is an order that does not reflect market demand. If some parts do not spoil at all, but will have to be manufactured and stored for years, such an obligation will make the product more expensive, of course, to the detriment of the consumer. A consumer-friendly solution is a high-quality competitive environment that does not incentivise producers, such as fax machines that have long been replaced by mail, to produce and store all their spare parts, and which, on the contrary, incentivises producers to cut red tape.

Madam President, the primary objective of Next Generation EU was to mitigate the socio-economic impact of the pandemic. This is my first comment. The implementation process has shifted to the objectives of digitalisation and the Green Deal. Later, resources were used to address the energy crisis and Ukraine. Rather, this shows that the objectives of this package were not quite clear from the outset. Clearly, there was no need to create such a large fund to deal with the effects of the pandemic when the money was eventually used for other purposes. The real objectives seem to have been to increase the redistribution rate. The consequence will now be an increase in the tax burden on the Member States of the European Union and also in the form of new European taxes, which will burden not only the rich but also the poor. Second remark. Taxes should be introduced when they are effective and where their choice is effective with the least possible damage to the economy. The renowned Bruegel Institute identifies only European emissions trading as an appropriate European tax among the Commission's proposals. Third remark. I prefer direct payments by Member States to new taxes because it is more transparent. The last remark. All other projects that increase the tax burden must undergo dramatically better impact analyses than Next Generation EU initially did.

Mr President, I also appreciate the work of the European Court of Auditors this year, but I will add something else this year. Given the challenges facing the European Union, I believe that the key statements of the European Court of Auditors should be more forceful. So far, we have not been able to implement a system ensuring the sustainability of public finances. So far, we have not been able to enforce in the Union that key materials always contain a high-quality cost-benefit analysis of the measures put forward. We do not have a programme that steadily increases labour productivity in the EU and thus its economic growth. In such a situation, there is a report, the wording of which in many cases notes the limited effectiveness of the programmes. Instead of such formulations, we would need to know whether the programmes analysed were repayable – that is when we would be able to make better decisions in the European Parliament.

Mr President, the long-term problem with the eurobudget is regular, politically marketing increases in expenditure. The budgetary challenges have been overshadowed in recent years by high inflation rates, which also help the Union to reduce the relative burden of its debt. At the beginning, inflation helps the budget, at the end it hurts. Moreover, most Member States already face medium to large challenges with regard to the sustainability of public finances. We are also still facing the consequences of the multi-crisis. Against this backdrop, Parliament criticises the Council's budget cuts and proposes to increase spending by billions of euros. However, in order for the European Union budget to remain sustainable, it is time to manage more economically and efficiently, without substantially increasing spending. The Union will not cease to exist at the end of this parliamentary term.

Madam President, if the objective is a successful Union and an increase in the standard of living of Europeans, we should not choose, centrally and without published measurable criteria, the sectors that we will subsidise. There is a risk that we will spend taxpayers' money and not achieve our goals. The effort to select winners in the European Union is not new. For example, 15 years ago, France and Germany were so worried about Google’s search engine that they subsidised their own European search engine, Quero – we know the result. The Union cannot consistently select the sectors that will be key for us in the future. I believe that the solution is to create a business environment in which companies with the highest added value are promoted. The winners should primarily be chosen by the market, i.e. by the citizen – only very exceptionally by the European Union.

Madam President, I appreciate the Commission's efforts to conclude free trade agreements. Free trade agreements contribute to offsetting the negative effects of the current crises. By increasing economic growth and quality of life, they will increase the resilience of supply chains and are one of the few tools to reduce the still high inflation in a relatively painless manner. Let us be careful that protectionism in other EU regulations does not obliterate the benefits of trade agreements. The Union will be successful when we expose companies to global competition, not when we isolate ourselves from it. While domestic producers often benefit from protectionism and traditionally have a strong say in national governments or EU leadership, consumers who are currently benefiting from free trade do not have such a strong representation. Therefore, let us represent them more intensively.

Mr President, I agree with greater transparency and scrutiny of the financial instruments that we will call "green". However, the error of the proposal is in its bureaucratic approach, where politicians and officials decide what is green, often at odds with scientific knowledge. Thus, for example, there was a risk that nuclear power generation would not be included in the taxonomy and thus be considered environmentally friendly. A better alternative would be for companies to disclose hard indicators, in particular the company’s overall carbon footprint. Such a system would be simpler to manage and it would be easier for investors to assess which companies are large emitters of greenhouse gases and which do the most to reduce them. This information is important. Not the color of the bond.

Madam President, we know with certainty today that there will be another crisis in the future. We don't know where he's coming from, but he's coming. It is therefore good that we, as a Union, want to be better prepared for it. However, I do not entirely agree with the solution proposed, so that the Commission can, during the next crisis, impose what is to be produced by which firm. For example: Let us remember that during the pandemic, companies eventually supplied customers with enough masks, even without the state ordering them to do so. In my opinion, the best preparation for future crises is low public debt. In a crisis, states will be able to procure the necessary goods or services, such as vaccines and vaccinations, cheaper and faster than orders to specific companies.

Mr President, after the crisis which the COVID-19 pandemic undoubtedly was, it is important to draw lessons from all the positives and negatives in order to act as effectively as possible in future crises. The European Union’s innovative approach to introducing COVID passports was the right step forward. These passports allowed for the safe free movement of persons. This initiative has been well implemented and today serves as an inspiration far beyond the borders of the European Union. However, it is important to mention that we could do more on the issue of transparency, for example, it could help if the European Union were to put in place rules to ensure that contracts are only valid after they have been made public. Such a step would significantly increase transparency and allow the citizens of the European Union to better follow and understand the decisions affecting them.

Mr President, major transport projects of EU importance are among the largest investments co-financed by the European Union budget. It is therefore of the utmost importance that their financing is efficient. I therefore appreciate the latest non-legislative report dealing with these projects, for three reasons. Firstly, it draws attention precisely to their problems so far, due to which even inefficient projects could be financed. Secondly, when choosing them in the future, it puts a key emphasis on value for money. That is, in order to maximise the benefits for citizens of one euro invested. And thirdly, it focuses on funding the public goods themselves and not anything that is currently popular.