Debate contributions by Matej TONIN

Madam President. Migration is a problem in many areas. And today I would like to touch on the so-called Australian model. We will be able to turn things around in the European Union if we give a clear message that it is simply not possible to enter the European Union illegally. And if you come, you'll just be strictly back. If Australia is doing this, I see no reason why the European Union should not be able to do the same. Of course, the European Union is not an island like Australia, but on the other hand, we have migrants who will need our institutions at least a few times. This is when they may want to be greeted in our health systems, when they want social support or assistance, or the third time they want to get a job. And with these three elements, it will be very easy for the European Union to determine their status. And when this status is found to be illegal, then, of course, there is no other option than to strictly return them back to their homelands. And here is the key message. The message needs to be reversed.

Mr President. Dear colleagues! Let us admit that Schengen is dead, that it is in some way falling apart. And it is this Schengen, which is the greatest asset of the European Union. One thing that we all love so much and which has also benefited so much the economic development of many European countries. And this Schengen is collapsing before our eyes for the simple reason that we do not regulate illegal immigration. Illegal immigration is now closing borders between Member States. We need to do everything we can to stop illegal immigration. That is why three things need to be done. Firstly, the swift return of all those who came to Europe illegally. Secondly, we need to strengthen our external borders. Thirdly, to set up migration centres in third countries outside the borders of the European Union.

Mr President! Honourable Commissioner, Members of Parliament! Good day! The green transition was definitely the phrase of the previous mandate. In a way, an ideology developed where we did everything, of course, slogans were key to reducing CO2 releases. Like I said, key slogans were more important than the data and facts themselves. And, for example, the German case is very telling, where they started shutting down nuclear power plants, where they invested billions of euros in renewable energy, but still failed to reduce CO2 per unit of energy produced. Even more. Electricity was purchased from Polish thermal power plants. If you look at the case of Slovenia: In Slovenia, we had to close down primary production of aluminium. We now import it from China, where it is being made in a much dirtier way than we did in Slovenia. We shut down the thermal power plant because of too expensive CO2 Coupons, while in China thermal power plants grow practically every day. What do we really need? If anything, then we need realism instead of activism, and instead of an activist green transition, we need a realistic green transition that offers competitive energy prices and, above all, builds on innovation rather than bans themselves. And right here, right here, the Energy Union will be key. Only through efficient, competitive electricity prices will our economy be able to survive and, above all, people will be able to afford it. And if anything, then I am convinced that nuclear energy is part of the solution and that, like the European Union, it promotes wind and solar energy, so should nuclear energy.