Speeches

To the previous speaker, I would like to say that no Member State is free from hate crimes. Not Slovakia, not Finland in my country. It's everywhere, and that's why it's every one of us's responsibility to make sure we don't support hate speech. We stand up to it every time we hear it. In this Chamber, I have repeatedly heard hate speech against rainbow minorities, ethnic minorities, Roma, linguistic minorities. We can start with this room. Trying to turn this into blaming you or a particular nationality now is over. It's everyone's responsibility, and we could start with this room.

Mr President, the murders in Bratislava have shocked the entire European rainbow community. Young people murdered in front of a gay bar were subjected to hate crime only because they belonged to a rainbow minority, because this was the only thing the murderer knew about them. Although it is only the perpetrator who is legally responsible for the murder, it is still the responsibility of all of us, because for us politicians, words are actions. From politicians in Slovakia as well as in this Chamber, I have repeatedly heard hate speech. I have heard how I and my existence are a threat to both children and the foundations of society as a whole. I've heard how I'm ineligible to be a parent and how I don't have the same rights as other people. The murders in Bratislava are the worst outcome that hate speech can lead to. Human rights are a whole. They can't be supported selectively. If you are willing to trample on the human rights of one group, you are willing to undermine human rights, including your own. Everyone should have the right to live as himself, as himself, without fear of violence and discrimination. Unfortunately, this is not the case in today's Europe. (The speaker agrees to respond to the blue card)

Mr President, Russia's aggression is getting worse. Threatening with nuclear weapons is in itself a violation of international law and a threat before which we will not retreat from our support for Ukraine. The explosion of the Nord Stream pipeline in the Baltic Sea must be thoroughly investigated by an independent body and we must ensure that our entire critical infrastructure can be secured from possible sabotage. Russia started building an energy crisis even before its invasion of Ukraine. The supply of gas encountered unexpected technical problems and thus the price of gas was artificially raised. Energy is one of Putin's weapons in this war, and it is now aimed at all of us. What will be crucial for the EU will be the steps we take to ensure that Europeans survive next winter. There has been a lot of good action, but I still call for the importance of energy savings. It should play a much bigger role. The prerequisite for our success and our strongest weapon is unity. Unity in sanctions against Russia and unity in solutions to the energy crisis. A common solution is in the interest of all of us. In addition, Russia has not held any referendums, but a grotesque play that has nothing to do with democracy, but in which intimidation and threats were used to seek a fog curtain for illegal regional alliances. These territories remain part of an independent Ukraine and we will never acknowledge this illegal attempt to conquer the territories of a sovereign state. The EU must continue to support Ukraine, listening to the wishes of the Ukrainian people. The support must be political, financial, humanitarian and support for Ukraine's ability to defend itself militarily. We must provide access and security to EU territory, to Russian dissidents and conscientious objectors. It is also time to acknowledge the fact that we need to get rid of nuclear weapons globally. Without a nuclear threat, this situation would look quite different. The nuclear threat sustains and enables conflicts, and the EU must take the lead once peace is established in order to build a future without nuclear weapons.

Mr President, Prime Minister Marin, this, both through the European Parliament and through your government, has been curbed by many simultaneous crises. We are living in very challenging times, when we need to be able to respond at the same time to several crises that threaten the foundations of our lives. The COVID-19 pandemic hit both societies and citizens hard, and the crisis is still not over. The virus still requires us to be vigilant, and we will be rectifying the social impact of the pandemic for a long time to come. The pandemic hit those who are already severe the hardest. It has hit female-dominated sectors particularly hard. At the same time, we are facing a climate crisis. Global warming continues to be an existential threat to humanity that we cannot fail to address. Climate action is one-eyedly blamed for the sharp rise in energy prices. That is not entirely true, but the fierce prices are the result of Russia's military actions, in which energy has been harnessed as a form of warfare. In fact, if we had made faster progress on the green transition, as the left has been saying for years, we would not be nearly as dependent on Russian fossil fuels as we are today. If we had done more before, we wouldn't be as vulnerable as we are now. As we detach ourselves from Russian fossil energy, we must understand that we must detach ourselves from fossil energy. Anti-war measures must not and do not have to conflict with climate work. Only by investing in renewable energy will we build a safe, predictable and self-sufficient energy future in which we are not dependent on any fossil energy supplier, especially an authoritarian one. There is a strong synergy between the actions required by the war and climate solutions, if desired. In exploiting that synergy, we all win. Now that prices are so high, households need to be supported to survive, but at the same time the big picture needs to be kept clear – we need systemic change to bring our society, our economic structures and our way of life to climate-resilient levels, and this needs to be done in a socially fair way. The longer we delay, the more expensive and difficult it will be for everyone. And that's a debt we can't leave to future generations. Mr President, Prime Minister, democracy is also in crisis. There is a struggle between democracy and authoritarianism. Within Europe, too, we have countries that are breaking with the rule of law, which is the common value base of the Union as a whole. There can be no common Union without a shared understanding of the importance of the rule of law. The rule of law and a legal society are prerequisites for a free society. That is what we must defend with all the means at our disposal, including the financial sanctions that the rule of law mechanism allows us to do. Prime Minister Marin, the vision of strategic autonomy that you often mention: when it is implemented in a climate-resilient way, it will receive our full support.

Mr Huhtasaari, you said that one of the most important tasks of the state is to guarantee the safety of its citizens. I fully agree with you, but you still object, although this delegated act means that it will be more difficult for Finland and Estonia, for example, to release Russian natural gas. For example, this taxonomy regulation does not recognise the joint floating LNG terminal of Estonia and Finland. LNG is the way natural gas can be imported from elsewhere and not by pipeline from Russia. Isn't there a pretty bad contradiction in your speeches in this regard, Mr Huhtasaari?

Mr President, the recipe for combating climate change is, in the end, quite simple: emissions need to be brought down, sinks and biodiversity up, and financial flows need to support this ecological reconstruction. Taxonomy is an important tool in diverting cash flows to the investments needed to make the necessary transition. Financial institutions and investors convey a consistent message: We need a way to define which investments are truly green and which contribute to climate change solutions. This is where taxonomy was created: a classification system based on scientific criteria allowing for the identification of truly green investments. The Commission is now adopting an additional act which is in complete contradiction with the taxonomy already adopted, i.e. with the regulation adopted by the Commission itself. The situation is so absurd that it would make you laugh if it weren't so serious. It is an undeniable fact that natural gas is a fossil energy source and that it is highly climate-warming, but the Commission still wants to define it as green or sustainable. What makes the proposal particularly difficult is the fact that the Commission has bundled both natural gas and nuclear power in the same piece of legislation. They are two completely different things and completely different in terms of investment logic. Nuclear power is low-emission, although not entirely free from environmental problems, but under certain conditions it can be part of a sustainable path towards a climate-resilient Europe. Bundling the two in the same is not only intellectually dishonest, but also completely illogical. The consequence of this is that the entire taxonomy is polluted when it is no longer able to provide information about what investment really is green. And so it turns into a green washing machine, although one of its purposes was precisely to prevent green washing. If this piece of legislation remains in force, the Commission will have to renounce its statements that the EU is a global leader in climate action. How on earth can we demand the dismantling of fossils from others when we ourselves decide that fossils are green? Dear friends, the only way to save a taxonomy is to reject this endless delegated act.

Thank you, Commissioner Sinkevičius. And what about the measurable targets? Because we need an agreement with measurable targets. How will we bind the finance to the measurable targets? Because as we have failed completely in our 2020 targets, so have all the countries I know, including my own, has failed their biodiversity targets for 2020. So, we don’t have a very strong reference there to give us guidane. So, how to bind the finance to measurable targets so that you get finance when you proceed, because that would probably be the only way to get this part of the country, Europe, to do its part as well.

Mr President, biodiversity, of course, has an absolute value in itself, but it’s also a crucial part in our fight against climate change. The stronger the biodiversity is, the better is our planet’s resilience ahead of the inevitable warming we are heading to. That is why we need a strong international agreement. I refuse to accept that the momentum has gone due to these postponements. I think if it is gone, then we have to regain it, and I think that the EU is a key player here. So, Mr Sinkevičius, how do we do that? I think that, first of all, we have to put our own house in order – and we are not quite there yet – and then we have to have real ambition. You were talking about the finance earlier, and I really didn’t get exactly your position. What is the Commission’s position on the Global South demand, which I think is very reasoned and very sound? What is the Commission’s position exactly on the Global South demand to get international finance, because they need the finance as otherwise they will not meet the targets.

Madam President, the process with this ETS file does not live up to what I consider to be the highest values of democratic decision-making. In the last plenary session, the ETS proposal was voted down and referred back to committee. Where I come from, referring back to the committee means the plenary did not find the proposal sufficient, for whatever reasons, and by referring back to the committee, it gives the message it wants the proposal to be reworked and brought back with changes. In this case, the committee sent back the exact same text the Parliament already once dismissed. The only action in the committee was a decision by the majority of coordinators to put the vote in the committee to send back the exact same text. No discussion in the committee was held. The shadows from each group who, even if the negotiations would be really tough, were all committed to finding a common compromise, were not called even for one discussion on how to proceed, nor on the content. And now, with the facilitated voting order, we won’t even have the opportunity to express our position as the Renew, EPP and S&D compromise is exceptionally voted first. Democratic decision-making is a competition between the best possible alternatives. It’s about defending yours with the best possible arguments, not trying to block others with any possible means you can find. Madam President, this process was far from the respect this House deserves and far from what the climate needs. The climate politics of this House is completely contradictory. On one hand, we passed a climate law where we state all targets must be based on science and aligned with the Paris Agreement, and yet today we are voting on a proposal which is not according to science. And Mr Canfin, we are not in line with 1.5 degrees. This fact does not change however you try to spin it. And that’s not my opinion – that is science. The climate crisis is not something far in the future. It is happening as we speak. Just put on the news and try to imagine how will you explain that you did not do enough when there was still a chance?

Mr President, imagine yourself in a boat on the high seas. The boat starts to leak, the water comes in visibly at an ever-accelerating speed. How to react? Are you going to start battering the water away as quickly as possible, or are you going to announce that the burden is just too great for you right now, and you are going to wait for someone else to solve the situation? Or do you trust that the boat can withstand all the water, even if all the experts disagree? And when water just comes in and out, no matter how fast you try to remove it, are you trying to block the leak or bump faster? A person with a normal instinct for self-preservation does not rely on being able to drain enough water, but seeks to prevent water from entering, and a person with a normal instinct for self-preservation takes action as soon as he notices that water is flooding in. From the point of view of the climate, it seems that we, as humankind, lack the instinct of self-preservation. We hold short-sightedly to the benefits achieved, even though we know that there is no alternative where things continue as before. The effort sharing sector accounts for 60 % of the EU’s total greenhouse gas emissions. When the starting point for the whole climate package is insufficient, minus 50 % of emission reductions by 2030 is not in line with scientific advice. This inadequate overall goal is repeated for each presentation. For all the elements of the climate package under discussion today, it is the duty of this Parliament to set targets at an adequate and safe level. This rate of one and a half degrees is exceeded in less than eight years. It is expected to be exceeded for the first time in five years. What are we gonna do? Do we do what we need, or do we wait to see how much water our boat can endure before it sinks? Ladies and gentlemen, the longer the necessary and sufficient climate decisions are delayed, the more expensive and the more difficult and the more drastic that change will be for everyone. Braking does not protect anyone, on the contrary.

Mr President, Parliament has recognised the climate emergency and, in response, we have signed the Paris Agreement and enacted a climate law obliging ourselves to base climate decisions on scientific advice in order to be on a safe path. At the same time, it is estimated that one and a half degrees will be exceeded in less than eight years, and yet we are dealing with the climate package, the baseline level of ambition of which does not follow scientific advice. The 2030 emission reduction target of less than 55% is simply too low. When the overall target is too low, this is repeated for all parts of the package and does not give assurance that we are on a sustainable path. Despite its shortcomings, the Fit for 55 package is driving us towards a carbon-neutral Europe. Whether we can get there in time depends on the ambition of this Parliament. Emissions trading is one of the most effective tools for accelerating emission reductions. Expanding and improving it is therefore justified. There must be a price for pollution that encourages the transition to a zero-emission mode of production, and it is therefore good that there are finally steps and a timetable for phasing out free allocation. As we know, free allocations have slowed down investments in clean solutions and thus slowed down the transition by taking away the incentives to make the necessary investments. Free allocations run counter to the whole idea of emissions trading. The new CBAM will replace them by preventing unfair competition from products produced outside the EU with lower climate standards. The proposal to extend emissions trading to road transport and housing is challenging. The costs would fall directly on ordinary households and there would be no certainty that social justice would be achieved. Therefore, the compromise now negotiated to start only with commercial operators is a good solution at this stage. These emission reductions in this sector are needed, but they must be implemented in a way that is socially fair and does not make those who are already strict pay. That is why I believe that the effort-sharing sector would be the right instrument for these emissions, because it would enable the Member States to use the best means for them. In order to achieve the green transition, we will need historic investments. Since the transition cannot and must not be fully paid for with taxpayers' money, private money must be involved. This can best be achieved by creating a stable and predictable investment environment that, through regulation, ensures that the most profitable investment is always emission-free. That is why we should now set emission reductions at a sufficient level at once so that we do not have to tighten the target again in the coming years. The ever-changing regulatory environment generates stranded assets and creates uncertainty that we cannot afford. Obstructing climate action is not in the interest of any citizen, on the contrary. The longer we wait, the more drastic, more expensive and more difficult will be the necessary transition ahead of us. The cost of inaction is many times greater, both humanly and financially.

Mr President, the steps taken by the Commission to break away from Russian energy include many highly supportable measures, such as increased energy efficiency, energy savings and renewable sources, but also very questionable choices, such as the weakening of emissions trading and fossil investments. At the same time as we break away from Russian energy, we must remember that the climate crisis has not disappeared anywhere. It's still the biggest existential threat to us. That is why we need to let go not only of Russian fossil energy, but of fossil energy, no matter where it is produced. It is of the utmost importance that the solutions to be taken now because of the war do not conflict with our climate goals, and there is a synergy between them if we so wish. And yes, sanctions and other necessary solutions will be felt and affect the daily lives of all of us Europeans, but that is the price we must be prepared to pay to support Ukrainians and defend freedom. In the end, it is in the interest of all Europeans that we move our energy system towards a self-sufficient system based on renewable energies.

Mr President, Russia's cruel and illegal war against Ukraine must be condemned and the news of the atrocities committed by the Russians in recent days must be thoroughly and independently investigated and the perpetrators brought before the International Criminal Court. It is not just the future of Ukraine that is at stake, it is the future of all of us. It is a matter of each independent country's right to freely decide its own future. Yesterday, the Commission published new sanctions that, among other things, will put an end to imports of coal from Russia. This is worth about 4 billion a year for Russia, while oil and gas account for more than 100 billion. This is not yet enough and sanctions must be extended to oil and gas without delay. In addition, all Russian banks must be frozen from the Swift system. It is completely unsustainable for us to use energy purchases to finance Putin's war machine. Now that it is finally clear to everyone that we need to decouple from Russian fossil energy in a fast timeframe, it is important to understand that we also need to decouple ourselves from fossil energy. We must strive for energy self-sufficiency by investing in renewable energy sources and improving energy efficiency. There is a strong synergy between the decoupling from Russian energy and climate goals, if desired. Unfortunately, some have used war as an excuse to break away from the climate goals we have set for Europe. This is very short-sighted and is not in the interest of any European. The climate crisis is not a problem somewhere in the future, but an acute crisis that we cannot afford to fail to resolve. Finally, Mr Borrell, the European Union must have the courage and the ability to play a strong role in peace mediation. We must do everything in our power to find a negotiated diplomatic solution to put an end to this bloodshed.

Mr President, for a long time the price of emissions trading fell behind in a way that did not encourage the necessary changes. There were too many rights, the price was low and, in addition, free allocations distorted and ETS compensations granted by governments weakened the effectiveness of the ETS. Indeed, according to the European Court of Auditors' report, free allocations have slowed down the transition, as there has been no incentive for the necessary investments. Allowances are also available free of charge. Free allocations are justified by the need to prevent carbon leakage. At the same time, we have prevented the emergence of innovations and investments that could make Europe the world's leading provider of carbon-neutral products and solutions. The new CBAM will create a barrier to carbon leakage by setting a price for products at the European border, where it is produced with lower climate standards. This is not an easy exercise, but through it we will eventually make free allocations unnecessary. We have to give them up. From the point of view of industry and industry, and thus jobs, it is essential that we are able to provide a predictable and stable operating environment. It is important to set emission reductions at an adequate level now, rather than having to tighten the targets in a hurry along the way. This is the only way to provide operators with a predictable environment in which investments are directed correctly.

Mr President, the last reports of the IPCC tell us that we are running out of time and that political decisions are still lacking. The good news is that we are still able to influence and mitigate the negative effects, but it requires that we take action vigorously and immediately. With the current model, we are crossing the 1.5 degree limit already within ten years, and when the 1.5 degree limit is exceeded, the consequences are more negative than previously thought. Climate change has already weakened food security as extreme weather events have increased around the world. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has further aggravated the situation. It is essential that adaptation measures also follow scientific advice and thus avoid poor adaptation. One of the proposed solutions to food security is to increase the area under cultivation and abandon biodiversity targets, but it is one example of short-sighted poor adaptation that will come back in the future. Land use change is one of the drivers of climate change and weakens biodiversity. In order for our planet to adapt to the inevitable warming ahead, we need strong biodiversity to protect us.

Mr President, there has been disagreement in this Chamber on many ways of climate policy and sustainable development. I hope and believe that the circular economy is a solution that presents itself as an opportunity in which everyone wins. As we get rid of the over-exploitation of virgin natural resources, we create new value chains and enable the creation of new jobs. When waste is already planned out in manufacturing, the product, when it reaches the end of its useful life, offers us a new raw material that continues its cycle. The climate thanks us, we are not wasting the planet's limited natural resources and we are enabling the creation of new jobs. The need for batteries will multiply, according to the Economic Forum's estimate, by as much as 19 times in the next few years. Achieving the climate targets requires increasing the use of batteries to achieve emission reductions in transport, and the digitalisation of everyday services also increases the need for batteries. The growth rate is high. It is absolutely essential that we are able to recover valuable metals from batteries and reuse them. The power of this regulation lies in the fact that it takes into account the entire life cycle. I think it is particularly important that we also take a stand on human rights. Many of the raw materials we need in our everyday digital transformation come from conflict-affected areas and, at worst, their value causes conflicts. It is unsustainable that our consumption is made possible at the expense of human rights, and it is therefore important that corporate responsibility due diligence applies to all batteries in the future. I am delighted and grateful to have presented Mr Bonafè with the report's position on ambition. I myself would have been prepared to go even further, but I will be happy to vote in favour of this report. This is in the planet's interest and will also reduce Europe's dependence on these critical raw materials. In addition, the regulation makes the consumer's situation easier, as the batteries can be replaced by themselves and the labels indicate the carbon footprint. The new battery regulation is an important step towards using raw materials that respect planetary boundaries and achieving the full potential of the circular economy.

Mr President, Prime Minister, the war started by Russia is totally unacceptable. It is a cruel and cowardly attack on a sovereign state, and completely innocent civilians are its greatest victims. As we prepare to help refugees, we must do everything we can to bring peace to Ukraine and further tighten sanctions. There is now a heated debate in many Member States about their positioning in the new, worse security policy context. Like Ukraine, all sovereign states have the right to make their own security policy decisions independently. They must not be dictated by fear, but by constant consideration with restraint, but without undue delay or pressure, and their goal must be peace. In addition to immediate peace efforts and humanitarian aid, the EU now needs to get rid of its dependence on Russian fossil energy in a timely manner. This is necessary from the point of view of climate, energy security and security. Yesterday's Commission communication was a good start, but we can do even better. We must immediately mobilise green investments that will accelerate the transition in the fast term. We need measures very quickly to improve energy efficiency and to change heating systems. Member States now need to know that these necessary investments, including those that create jobs, can start right away. If this requires a re-evaluation of existing or ongoing funding mechanisms, we must be prepared to do so.

Mr President, sexual rights really need to be defended at the moment. In Europe, anti-sexual rights movements have become stronger and more organised. These movements receive significant funding from outside Europe and are not only aimed at opposing sexual rights, but more broadly at opposing the rights of women and minorities, i.e. at undermining human rights. Reproductive rights are human rights that must be guaranteed to everyone and everyone must have the right to decide freely and responsibly on their own reproduction. Abortion is part of that. It is a woman's right to choose and decide on her own body, including in Europe. As we know from international examples, banning abortions does not stop them, but makes measures unsafe and dangerous. Already in Europe, many women risk their lives by putting their lives in the hands of quakers. The best way to prevent unwanted pregnancies is through high-quality sexual health information and education and access to contraceptives, not through denial of the right to abortion or reduction of women’s rights. Since women's rights are human rights, they must be realised in every European Member State. If they do not happen in a Member State, we must create a European solution. For example, as President Macron said yesterday, the European Charter of Fundamental Rights includes the right to abortion.

Mr President, the COVID-19 situation has again taken a turn for the worse with the new variant. At the same time as we are vaccinating for the third round in Europe, the average vaccine coverage in developing countries is around 6%. The nature of this pandemic is only such that no one is safe until everyone is safe. We must ensure that all possible know-how and production capacity is made available also in developing countries. An essential part of this is the temporary increase in patent protection. This is absolutely necessary, but it is not a sufficient solution on its own, and concrete practical measures are needed to ensure that vaccinations are carried out. Although donations through COVAX have increased, not all vaccine doses have been vaccinated. We need expertise, infrastructure, supplies and skilled pairs of hands. If we do not make vaccines available to all people in the world, Omicron will not be the last variant. It is time to admit that the current means are not enough and do not guarantee global justice.

Mr President, the speeches that the Commission has heard in this Chamber about vaccine solidarity in the EU are awkwardly hollow when you look at what the Commission is actually doing. The rich Western countries, including the EU, have scrapped most of the existing vaccines. The division between richer and poorer countries is blatant and unfair. During the AIDS epidemic, patent protection was temporarily lifted and saved millions of lives. The pharmaceutical industry did not collapse and no company lost its operational capacity as a result. COVID-19 vaccines would not exist without billions of euros of public money, and it is therefore entirely reasonable and also our moral duty to temporarily remove patent protection in order to make all possible production capacity and know-how available and to make vaccines available to all people. The right to health must take precedence over the pursuit of profit. And this selfishness of rich countries is not even in our own interest. As long as the virus spreads freely, the likelihood of new variants increases. No one is safe until everyone is safe.

Mr President, I fully understand the disappointment of civil society. It seems difficult to understand that the leaders of states are not able to make sufficient decisions, even though we have all the scientific information at our disposal and its message is clear. With the current decisions, we are heading towards fatal warming. But the most important thing about Glasgow's outcome is that it continues to keep alive the one-and-a-half degree goal of the Paris Agreement. The path to Paris is still possible, but it will take a lot. It will call for every promise and every declaration to become a binding decision, and it will continue to call for tighter emission reductions also in Europe. For the first time, the phasing out of fossil fuels is mentioned in the final result. Although the wording is not as strong as it should have been, the message is still quite clear. The era of fossil capitalism is over, and climate solutions must be based on scientific knowledge. The most important thing now is to achieve sufficient real emission reductions in the short term. Planting trees and compensation models are important, but without sufficient emission reductions, they are meaningless because time is running out for us.

Mr President, there are now many promises and commitments with regard to the climate. But where are we in reality? According to the UNEP emissions gap report, with the decisions taken so far by the parties to the Paris Agreement, we are moving towards warming of more than three degrees Celsius, while under the Paris Agreement we must strive for one and a half. That is why the Glasgow Summit is of the utmost importance. It has to translate those promises into concrete ones. We need effective short-term measures, and we need decisions on them now. We still need stricter emission reduction commitments to get us on the path to Paris. We need systemic change. Fossil fuels must be phased out as soon as possible and all investments from now on must be directed towards sustainable forms of energy. The search for oil in the Arctic must be stopped. We need a deeper understanding that biodiversity and global warming are not separate issues. When we need to protect and restore the natural carbon sinks of forests, we must at the same time take care of biodiversity. The stronger biodiversity is, the better the adaptability of our planet to the inevitable warming ahead. And as a rich continent, it is our duty to assume our historical responsibility and act as a bridge-builder between the northern and southern hemispheres, so that developing countries also have a real opportunity to do climate action. And we need to be able to agree on a global goal of carbon neutrality that will allow us to reach 1.5 degrees.

Mr President, this debate is not about Poland, it is about the European Union. Among the values on which the EU is built, the values that all Member States have signed up to, with the rule of law at their core. The exercise of public authority must always be based on the law. Without an independent judiciary, this is not certain. The independence of the judiciary and thus the rule of law have been called into question by the current Polish government. A fundamental element of the rule of law is a free and independent tribunal. How else can we ensure that justice is united and the same across the Union, unless the rule of law and its value base are among the priority principles? In addition, there is currently no right to apply for asylum at the Polish border. The rights and living space of rainbow minorities have been severely restricted, and Polish abortion legislation deprives women of the right to decide on their own bodies. That is why the current Polish government has crossed the line, after which the distribution of stimulus money must be coupled with a rule of law mechanism.

Mr President, energy poverty is a real problem, and I see it at the moment as the sum of many different things and their simultaneous realisation. What is important now is to analyse the causes, i.e. the factors that make up the price increase, so that we can choose the right means. One very clear reason is the increase in the price of natural gas, but behind it there are many factors that should also be analysed. It is affected by both wind and solar power production, as well as geopolitics – of course also emissions trading – but this situation serves as an example of the need for Europe to strive for energy self-sufficiency and can be achieved by switching to renewable energy. We need to accelerate this transition while reducing our dependence on fossil energy but also on Russian natural gas. For acute emergencies, short-term solutions are largely in the hands of the Member States, often from the social policy side, but for the EU we can promote energy efficiency and changes in heating systems and, above all, accelerate the transition towards sustainable energy production.

Mr President, the budget for the agreement with Turkey has been EUR 6 billion. These funds should help refugees and support communities that work on the ground. In the case of Turkey, the Court’s special report concludes that it has not been possible to verify all projects and that the Turkish authorities have not received information on all beneficiaries of the cash grant project. This, combined with the fact that Turkey has not allowed international observers to visit and monitor detention centres, indicates that the situation is very problematic. There is a great potential for abuse. A particular concern is that Turkey has not complied with the non-refoulement clause, especially at the Syrian border. At worst, EU funds support authoritarian regimes and have failed to guarantee refugees dignity and respect for human rights. The EU must put its common asylum policy in order, starting with the realisation of human rights and assistance to those in need. The right to seek asylum is not now a reality at the EU's borders and is completely unsustainable. This cooperation with Turkey is highly questionable.