Speeches

Mr President, it’s two years since the start of the full scale invasion of Russia in Ukraine, but it’s also 10 years since the illegal occupation of Crimea and, let me remind you, exactly 20 years since the poisoning of President Yushchenko of Ukraine. Twenty years later, even the so-called useful idiots in this hemicycle must clearly see the intentions of the imperial regime in the Kremlin. Even more importantly, it must be clear what our pragmatic interest as nations in a united Europe is, and it is that defending the independence and internationally recognised borders of Ukraine is the interest of our own national security. Furthermore, isolating Russia economically is our clear interest of our economic independence. A lot of Russian propagandists say that Russia doesn’t like meddling in its backyard, but in the imperial mentality in the Kremlin, their backyard includes not only Sofia and Bucharest, but also Berlin and Moscow.

Mr President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, let’s start with the most important thing I didn’t hear till now in the debate. No job is a quality job in time of inflation. No job could be a quality job if it buys less in February than in January. By the way, we as public authorities, neither in Brussels nor in our national governments, we do not create quality jobs. It is business that creates quality jobs, and what we can do is fairly simple. We can cut red tape in order to allow business to thrive. We can provide for education. As I started, I will finish with the same message. Last but not least, especially we here in the European institutions, we can guarantee in the next five years that no more pro-inflation policies will be promoted in this House.

Mr President, dear Commissioner, a lot has been said during this debate about the benefits of social criteria in public procurements and reasonable arguments we've heard, and a lot has been already done to grant such award criteria. So I will focus on the risks they raise because there is no perfect solution in the economy, neither are social award criteria a perfect solution. First, it is the risk of discrimination against companies from less wealthy Member States or Member States with lower levels of trade union coverage of social bargaining. Second, I must reiterate, any non-price criteria has a higher, often much, much higher corruption potential. And here, once again, we put at risk countries with less stable rule of law in our Union, and we know from all our debates that such countries exist in in the European Union and maybe more now than a few years ago. And by far the most and important risk that I would like to point out: often, not always, but often, social award criteria in public procurement have quite a high inflation potential. So they might end up providing better income for few and higher prices for many, at the expense of fair competition on the market. And here I must reiterate, finally, that one thing we as a union and our economy, now and in the years to come, at least in the couple of years to come, what we cannot afford is pro-inflation measures, because we have taken many such measures during this and previous terms, and we are facing a huge crisis of the purchasing power of our population, with all its political impact.

Madam President, this debate can take place from at least two or even three perspectives. Firstly, the perspective of international security and the security of international trade, knowing that a huge part of the world's trade traffic passes through the Red Sea. And here we have to state quite clearly what the situation is. The so-called ‘Houthi group’ is a terrorist group that engages in piracy in the maritime territories of the world’s most intense commercial traffic, the world’s most intense shipping. From this point of view, the limited but military response to these acts of piracy is not in doubt as a true and adequate measure. This is always an adequate measure against acts of piracy that threaten global security and global commercial navigation. I am shocked to hear, by the way, and more than once by people whom I politically value as Russian assets, that striking the military capabilities of this pirate group is a problem for commercial traffic and not for its piracy activity. There is no doubt, however, that we must look at this crisis also from its humanitarian point of view, from the point of view of the life and rights of the civilian population in Yemen. Here again, we must point out that the so-called Houthis are a group directly sponsored, fully backed by the Islamist terrorist regime in Iran, which bears enormous responsibility for the more than 10 years of civil war and the hundreds of thousands of civilian and peaceful Yemeni casualties and the devastating famine that this civil war in Yemen has caused.

Mr President, two hours ago, the dismantling of the monument to the occupying Red Army began in Sofia and now the symbol of its power, the Spagin assault rifle, is raining down on the ground, where it belongs. This monument had to remind us for decades that we are not part of the free world, that we are doomed to an Asian dictatorship. Why am I telling you this? I say this to remind you that the free world still exists today. Moreover, it is the only one that can tackle the major risks and challenges we face – global uncertainty, climate risk, the dangers posed by the uncontrolled development of artificial intelligence. And if we in Europe are afraid that in this partnership of the free world we are somehow weaker, that we are less united, that we are lagging behind economically, this is a problem that we here, inside together, have to solve, but as part of the free world.

Thank you very much, colleague Bütikofer. I think it is in a way part of our next debate here in this hemicycle. But yes, I think that facing this war, we must always keep in mind that the free world is not a notion from the past, that there are a lot of countries – including prosperous countries – who are helping now Putin to sustain his war efforts. And I am absolutely certain that we must stay united, not only supporting Ukraine, but also impeding these attempts.

Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I must admit that it is difficult for me, against the backdrop of monstrous human casualties and destruction, to talk about the other kinds of defeats of the Russian aggression in Ukraine. However, the truth is that more and more people in Europe are feeling the economic weight, the economic problems caused by this aggression, and first of all, they are caused precisely by the deliberate destruction of the natural, water and energy resources of the Ukrainian state by the Kremlin regime. The destruction of the dam in Kakhovka, for example, caused severe damage to tourism throughout the Black Sea basin and in my country Bulgaria. But first of all there is a defeat, there is a threat that will remain far after the end of hostilities, God forbid soon. It will remain long after the economic problems are overcome, and that is the threat to our health from this aggression. Because we remember Chernobyl and are terrified of what might follow from the destruction that Putin's regime is inflicting. (The speaker agreed to answer a Blue Card question)

Mr President, Commissioner, colleagues, I cannot support this bill as it is proposed simply because its objectives are good, but far from realistic. And the road to hell is paved with good goals, but unrealistic. Electric trucks, when we talk about heavy goods transport, I would like to focus there, as technology is not in an industrial readiness to enter our market. Nor are there any degree of market realization and proven usefulness. Far more important than anything, we do not have any financial, price justification for transporting this type of electric truck, and we simply cannot afford – and I am not talking about today, tomorrow or until the elections, and for the entire next term of the European institutions, we cannot afford more pro-inflationary measures to combat climate change, because climate change is a proven fact before us, but inflation is not the solution to this problem.

Mr President, Commissioner, first of all, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Maria Spyraki, warmly for her work, for her understanding, for her constructive and consensual approach to this report. Secondly, I would like to thank all these colleagues from Bulgaria, Greece, Spain, Italy, France, from all the parliamentary groups in this House, thanks to whom essential oils have been temporarily excluded from the scope of the regulation. Special congratulations to our colleague Andrey Novakov from Bulgaria, who for very respectful reasons is absent from the current debate. However, I would also like to call on you tomorrow to support the amendments whereby essential oils are clearly and definitively excluded from the list of dangerous substances and from the warnings of dangerous substances on the labelling of products. Not because this is the interest of the producers of essential oils. Not because in my country Bulgaria the production of essential oils is a lucrative livelihood for thousands of families and a traditional livelihood for thousands of families for more than a century. Because they are not dangerous substances. Essential oils, extracted ecologically, naturally from plant products, are quite the opposite. These are useful substances that are present in our care for the health of citizens, and not in the risks to this health.

Mr President, why am I in favour of this directive, despite the serious objections of some European industry? Because it gives the right solution to a key problem. New pollutants simply have no place in areas with chronic pollution. In areas where climatic and geographical conditions pose a constant risk of toxic levels of emissions into the air. Areas where people just literally, for a significant part of the year, can not breathe quality air. Areas such as my hometown of Sofia, the capital of Bulgaria, locked between several mountains, areas such as Ruse and Giurgiu, on both sides of the Danube River, which for 40 years have been struggling with various pollutants for their children's right to breathe. Areas like Pavlikeni in northern Bulgaria, facing today a megaproject that will destroy the chances of tourism and agriculture in the area. Yes, colleagues, we need to preserve our heavy industry, we need a new industry, but that is why we need to give guarantees and protect the trust of citizens.

Mr President, it is obvious that the majority in this House support the legislative objectives of more and cheaper renewable energy, as well as renewable energy that is environmentally friendly. But we will not achieve these goals by repeating populist, I would say even ideological clichés, but by pointing out the risks and shortcomings of the legislation that is before us. Firstly, the limited definition of renewable energy excluding, for example, the use of hydrogen sulphide in the Black Sea. Secondly, and above all, the lack of pan-European balancing infrastructure of the priority North-South electricity transmission corridors to balance the periods of peak solar generation in Southern Europe and the periods of peak wind generation in Northern Europe. And last but not least, the risk of increasing gas dependence, the so-called gas loin of our energy, which requires the introduction of a new generation of capacity mechanisms that allow the transition from coal to low-carbon energy without locking in the so-called new dangerous transitional fuel.

Madam President, based on the result of the plenary vote, please refer the matter back to the ENVI Committee for institutional negotiations because, as I said yesterday in the debate, the dialogue only starts now.

Member of the Commission. - Madam President, we have heard fellow rapporteurs from the Socialists and the Liberals in this Parliament sharply raise the issue of the effect of industrial emissions on people's health. But believe me, the issue of citizens' health is also paramount in every discussion in my group, in the European People's Party. We have heard colleagues from both the Socialist Group and the EPP, representatives of the Committee on Energy and Industry, put the topic of innovation first. The topic of innovation was certainly a top issue in every discussion and in the Committee on the Environment. We have heard colleagues on the right side of the House prioritise the issue of the price of agricultural produce and the impact of each of our legislation on it, but we have also heard the representatives of the Socialists and the representatives of the Liberals in the Committee on Agriculture raise this issue as a priority. We have heard from all parliamentary groups unanimity regarding the protection of small-scale, family farmers, but also differences in which measures and which amendments we will vote on tomorrow will have the most beneficial effect on the development of small and sustainable farms in Europe. Can we create legislation that addresses all these concerns at the same time? My simple answer is yes, and on the Industrial Emissions Directive we are very close to this positive answer. But in order to achieve such legislation, we need to set one main goal, and that is not to end the dialogue tomorrow, but to start it tomorrow. Because we also have negotiations with the Council, but above all because the Industrial Emissions Directive is based on the principle of dialogue between stakeholders, between countries, the Commission, industries, organisations fighting for a better environment and better public health. The dialogue taking place in Seville. So with the vote tomorrow, for which I call once again not to go to extremes, we are just starting the dialogue on building a working European legislation for both human health and the health of European industry and agriculture.

Madam President, dear colleagues, I would like to start my presentation of the IED report with rather political than technical considerations. And I would first say that we all see in the last weeks we face quite a dangerous polarisation in our vote here in the hemicycle, in this House. A polarisation which endangers the political legitimacy of our decisions, or at least diminishes this political legitimacy before trilogues and before the general public. So far, in the work on IED in the ENVI Committee, we did not fall in this trap and we found a balanced approach. Therefore, I would very much like to thank all my colleague shadow rapporteurs, Mr Chahim, Mr Wiezik, Ms Paulus, Ms Zalewska, Mr Lancini and Ms Matias. We maintained a rather strong ambition to protect health and the environment for European citizens but, at the same time, we avoided further red tape and bureaucracy for our industry. We maintained the trend to industrial transformation and transition agreed with the Green Deal, climate law and ‘Fit for 55’ package but, at the same time, we encourage innovation throughout Europe as the sole solution to the dangers that we face for our industry. I must say, as we all know, there is one major point in the report where we could not find an agreement. We found no compromise. And it is the agricultural part of the report. It is the inclusion of higher thresholds of animal rearing in the scope of the report and, most particularly, the inclusion of cattle rearing in the scope of the report. There was no compromise here in my point of view, mostly because of miscommunication before the report was presented by the Commission to both the Council and Parliament. Therefore, it is a rather natural political conflict that we face. And I must say, although we had no compromise at ENVI level, we moved a lot towards each other. The alternatives that we will face tomorrow in the plenary are not showing polarisation within our House. They are showing different approaches, different views, but also a very good faith and good spirit between partners who disagree on certain topics. Therefore the vote, whatever the outcome, will show democratic differences within our society. By the way, I cannot make a forecast on the vote, and I’m sure no one in this House can make it. We don’t know the outcome, but what we know is that it will show the democratic representation of our Members for their constituents back home. This is the reason – and here is where I went with my first four minutes – the reason for my call for moderation, whatever the outcome of this controversial vote, because we achieved a lot – a lot for both the benefit of our citizens and our industry. And we moved as close as we could on the controversial issues. Therefore, I call that, at the end of the day, no matter the outcome of this controversial part of the vote, we still support Industrial Emissions Directive and Industrial Emissions Portal for the good of our citizens’ health, of our environment and of our competitive, innovative industry.

Madam President, today we are discussing the very important issue of interference in the electoral process in the countries of the European Union. In my homeland, however, Bulgaria sees the next step of hostile interference in our internal affairs, and it is interference in the post-election process, in the very formation of state governance. Today we are witnessing an absolutely unprecedented attempt to block the creation of a common government between the first two political forces in the state. An experience clearly involving, on the one hand, organised crime and, on the other hand, the compromised public prosecutor’s office, which is called upon to combat it. On the one hand, the security services, on the other hand, the fifth column in the Bulgarian policy, against which these services should protect us. And all this happens under the auspices of the Bulgarian President and his caretaker government. I am also sending this message to you as a call for support, but also as a very serious warning of where the collapse of the rule of law is leading.

Dear Commissioner, in the summer of 2022, we faced a real perfect storm in the European energy system with the problems that blocked French nuclear power plants, with the drought which impeded hydropower on a European level, with heat and subsequent peak consumption of electricity and, of course, the main reason, the war in Ukraine and the disruption of gas markets. In this period, we relied heavily on coal generation, which was for really a short period crucial and economically feasible, which it’s normally not. So my main question is, does the Commission have any plans of sustaining coal generation as a critical strategic reserve in times of heavy crisis like we faced? Or, if not, what other type of emergency crisis measures do you have in mind?

Madam President, Vice-President, colleagues, there is one paradox, and that is that the success of European climate policy will not be measured in percentages - neither in 50, nor in 55, nor in 57, nor by 2030, nor by 2032. It will be measured in economic efficiency, the success that can make this policy attractive to the whole world and thus really help our fight against the climate. And here is a very simple test that we face. First of all, we need to see whether this policy can be attractive to poorer, economically lagging countries within our Union itself. This is the test that will determine its ultimate success. And here I must say that I am an optimist. There are huge opportunities for economic development in Central and Eastern Europe based on the European Climate Law. We have huge opportunities to extract critical materials, to produce batteries, to produce hydrogen, and not just to produce renewable energy, but to bring the production of renewables themselves back to the European continent. We also have considerable potential in working on electric motors, not to mention over and over again that the electric cars of the future will be imported into Europe. But here I want to note something back. My country Bulgaria has so far reduced its greenhouse gases by over 40% compared to 1990, but not thanks to modern technological development, but to deindustrialization. And here especially for Effort Sharing Regulation we have to pay very careful attention, to assess whether it is really fair and whether it is attractive and opens up chances for countries like Bulgaria.

Madam President, Commissioner, colleagues, the renovation policy of our building stock achieves an extraordinary number of objectives at the same time. Firstly, it is of enormous social benefit, reducing the bills of both businesses and families, of citizens. Secondly, it has an undeniable positive effect on the environment, and a significant positive effect. Thirdly, but not least, it has a huge geopolitical effect, supporting the energy independence of the European Union and supporting our efforts to economically isolate the aggressive Russian empire. It is therefore no wonder that in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, although after difficult negotiations, we have reached a serious compromise in favour of this directive. As rapporteur in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, I would only stress that our agreement is not based primarily on administrative coercion, but rather on the idea that support for the renovation of buildings is natural. It benefits society as a whole, both tenants and poor owners, to whom we have paid particular attention, a mass problem in Eastern Europe. And I would particularly underline what has been transferred from our report to the main report of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy – "pay as you save" schemes or pay as you save, which will help everyone to take advantage of the opportunity to renovate their property.

Mr President, if the question of voting on the entry of the European Union as a party to the Istanbul Convention were to be raised in this House, I would certainly vote in favour. I will vote in favour because the rights of victims of domestic violence are much more important than the interests of populist politicians. But I must warn that this may not be the right decision, because it will trigger a wave of long-standing legal disputes between countries like mine, which have a Constitutional Court ruling against the Istanbul Convention, and it will also certainly trigger a wave of anti-European political propaganda campaigns. It is therefore far more important that we focus on a very strong, strong Directive on the protection of victims of domestic violence. A directive that provides all the legal protections and guarantees that the Istanbul Convention provides, and is the basis for strong national legislation to protect victims of domestic violence, because countries like my Bulgaria have failed in recent years to adopt even an adequate serious law.

Mr President, I do believe electric vehicles are the future of mobility. And I am no fan of combustion. Living in a city with detrimental air-quality problems. And furthermore, in my home country, Bulgaria, we produce no internal combustion engines and we have a strong automotive industry which might hugely benefit from a deep transformation of mobility markets. And, however, I will not vote for a total administrative ban of internal combustion engines. I will not do it because I believe administrative bans will not lead to the transformation that we want. And quite on the contrary, I am very much afraid that an administrative ban will lead to a lazy and expensive electric vehicle industry in Europe, exactly the contrary of what we aim. I must very much remind you that we did not leave the Stone Age because we run out of stones. But also we didn't leave the Stone Age because we administratively banned the use of stone for industrial purposes. It was always technology, initiative and competition that drove us ahead. I believe we will live in the climate-neutral and combustion-neutral society without burning fossil fuels for our mobility, but not through administrative bans.

Thank you very much, colleague Chahim, for a strong message and good example. But still, I have a very important question – because you gave perfectly well the example with the steam engine personal car, which existed for a few years and then, of course, ceased to exist in the 20s, so about 100 years ago. My very important question is, was the steam engine for personal cars administratively banned by anyone? Because I don’t know that information.

Mr President, Commissioner, colleagues, social dialogue is fundamental for the social market economy of Europe. This is not a cliché, but a mere fact. Although with quite a different scope, social bargaining is incorporated successfully into any national labour law and any national social system. Europe is becoming more and more united, especially in the face of the Russian invasion, but also in the face of aggressive Chinese trade policy, and these are just some examples. European businesses are becoming more and more mobile and more and more international. I would say so it should be, because the challenges we are facing are global and the opportunities before our businesses, which means before our labour markets as well, are mobile, global and becoming more and more dynamic and international. Yet we obviously have no strong social bargaining framework on a transnational level. We don’t have it on the EU level. We don’t have it on the single market level. I totally agree with the rapporteur that existing European legislation is not answering the present challenges we face in Europe. It was maybe quite perfect when it was designed, but for two decades we have moved ahead. I have heard a lot of critics – and we have critics inside the EPP – and certainly any motion, and this one in particular, has its shortcomings, but I would say we shall address those when we have the Commission proposal. But now what we had better do is to support the motion, because we have problems to face.

Mr President, I am afraid we are making a serious mistake in this debate. And we quite rightly, quite rightly, here express our disapproval of the practices of a particular company in lobbying and its influence on the formation of political decisions. There is no doubt that everything that has been revealed on this issue is deeply reprehensible. But we are quite wrong to transfer this problematic experience from the specific company and the specific politicians and officials who made these decisions to the link between the new technologies and the labor market. A relationship that we have no right to ignore, and I'm afraid we do it systematically. And since I have never been embarrassed to be in a minority in a debate, as is undeniably the case here, I will allow myself to issue two specific warnings. One is that if we do not adapt our labour and social security legislation to the realities of the labour market and to the real, different choices that people make today when they work, compared to a period decades ago, the victims of this decision will be the poorest and most vulnerable in the labour market. And secondly, the heavy regulations that we are preparing to impose will have a much lower impact on Uber-type giants than on their competitors, namely competition in this market will drive unfair practices out of it by virtue of the will of the workers themselves.

Madam President, dear Commissioner, dear Minister, dear colleagues, I’m afraid that today we’re not brave enough in this House facing the challenges from the biggest clean-tech investment plan in the US and – I would rather say – in Western history. We are not brave enough because we dare not say that our main task today is not to discuss protectionism and certainly not to discuss nationalisation, but to discuss the revival of transatlantic free trade negotiations and discuss maybe the opportunity to have a clean-tech transatlantic free trade agreement between the largest democratic blocks and the blocks that are really devoted to the green transition in the world we live in, which is far from perfect. And secondly, we are not brave enough to dare to say that we must literally turn the tide of overregulation and endless paperwork that investors in European clean tech are facing.