Speeches

Madam President, Commissioner, especially the rapporteur, thank you very much for your work, because I think it is largely the result of your commitment that we have the text together today. I am glad that, after years of being ignored by the European Union in the area of housing, tomorrow we will vote on a proposal for a regulation by regulating at least what data online short-term rental platforms, such as Airbnb, have to share with cities. It is no secret that short-term rentals often lead to rising housing prices and deteriorating quality of life in cities. According to the regulation, platforms will have to share detailed data about the apartments offered through them and will be responsible for their completeness and accuracy. The regulation will also facilitate the fight against illegally offered apartments. However, it is up to the Member States and cities themselves to make use of this regulation. It is up to them to establish authorisation schemes and to request data from platforms. And I firmly hope that the Czech Republic will take full advantage of this, because even the current lack of regulation of short-term rentals contributes to the fact that Prague is the most expensive city to live in in the entire European Union. There will be an opportunity to do something about the housing market, so use it and stop just throwing people who are looking for housing, sticking their feet with reluctance or fear of the anger of platforms and speculators and preventing them from having a chance to live decently. I also strongly hope that the future European Commission will become more active in the area of housing. The problem of inaccessible housing affects the whole of Europe, and action must be taken clearly to ensure that everyone has the right to decent housing and that cities are a place to live.

Mr President, thank you to the Commissioner for answering this important question. Nevertheless, I would like to describe the situation of teachers in the Czech Republic, because it is alarming. Teachers' salaries are not dignified, despite the government's pre-election promises to raise them to 150% of the average salary. However, after the election of the teacher, the government threw overboard. Investment in education, unlike in arms, is almost non-increasing and, thanks to high inflation, will remain lower than in the previous year. Non-teaching workers such as cooks, cleaners or janitors are not affected by salary increases at all. Despite reason, the Minister of Education has decided to cap the number of teachers in a senseless effort to prevent a reduction in the number of students per teacher, thus significantly jeopardising the quality of teaching. Despite the strikes by education workers, Prime Minister Fiala said in his arrogance that the strikes were unjustified. I will be glad if the situation finally begins to be resolved. The Commission will stop cutting and we will realise that the education of our children is our future.

Mr President, let me inform you about the situation at the Liberty Ostrava smelter, which has been out of operation since December. The steel producer directly employs six thousand people and indirectly provides work for tens of thousands. The company is devoured by financial problems caused by the implementation of the nonsensical Green Deal, expensive energy and the competition resulting from the botched sale of the Commission-sanctioned steelworks, which put Liberty Ostrava's direct competitors in the hands of its main and only energy supplier. Years ago, when GFG bought the Ostrava smelter from the ArcelorMittal concern, a number of experts warned that removing the only energy supplier Tameh and leaving it in the hands of the original owner is a very bad idea that will threaten the future of the Czech smelter. Nevertheless, the Commission approved the sale. Today, the worst-case scenarios have been fulfilled and the energy for supplying the Czech steelworks has become the main tool of the competitive struggle of the two competing groups. There was an employee in the middle. And I'm asking: How does the Commission intend to address this situation for which it is responsible?

Mr President, housing in Europe has long been overlooked by the problem that urban dwellers, and especially young people, are now suffering. The clearest example is Prague, where, thanks to the neglect of the problem, the hate campaign and the cowardice of some representatives, who were more interested in their personal PR than their citizens, is now the most expensive housing in the Union. In the capital of the Czech Republic, an apartment of 75 square meters will now be available for more than 25 annual salaries. I therefore call on the Commission not to put its head back in the sand and to do what it can, and not only to help young people. In the past, the European Parliament has called for higher funding for social housing, allowing data to be shared on the situation in individual cities, fighting speculation and banning forced evictions. However, the Commission has so far only made progress in regulating short-term rentals. That is why, even now, I ask you not only in the Commission, but also in the Czech Republic and in all cities, to finally start resolving the situation. Housing is a fundamental human right, not a commodity or a privilege.

Madam President, Commissioner, for several years now, in this institution, we have been wondering how to return pollinators to nature. But I am afraid that we will fail again with the atmosphere that reigns here today. In the meantime, some aggressive invasive species, such as the Asian hornet, have been added to the classic threats such as pesticides and diseases. In the last few months, she's even come to my country. It is quite clear that if we want to sustain life as we know it today, we cannot do without comprehensive protection for pollinators. But it cannot only lead through blindly defending further phasing out pesticides and setting unrealistic targets that further threaten our food self-sufficiency. Yes, colleagues, I am talking about what happened here today with the regulation on the sustainable use of plant protection products. For so long, some have been pushing the saw with other unrealistic targets, the whole thing has fallen under the table. Innocent victims are our pollinators, to whom this fanaticism has rather aggravated. Next time, it would require more moderation and reason.

Mr President, nineteen years ago, my country joined the European Union and was thus one of the first states to join after the adoption of the Copenhagen criteria. The Czech Republic had to fulfil these criteria concerning, inter alia, the principles of democracy, the rule of law and respect for the rights of national minorities before its adoption. After 30 years of existence, all countries interested in joining the European Union are required to fulfil them. And it's the right thing to do. We certainly would not want to accept a country that violates the rights of minorities or a country where corruption strangles all the principles of the rule of law and destroys people's lives. At present, however, we are constantly hearing that Ukraine, which is one of the most corrupt states in Europe, where the rights of national minorities are fundamentally violated and where the opposition faces persecution, belongs to the European Union. I would therefore like to remind you, as a citizen of a state that has met the Copenhagen criteria, that there is no accelerated way to join the European Union and that no state that has not met these criteria before is definitely not part of the European Union. Unrealistic promises are useless.

Mr President, it has been just over two weeks since we voted on the new Euro 7 emission standard, which has finally passed through Parliament in a relaxed form. And now we are voting on another emission standard, this time for new heavy-duty vehicles, and this time the report from the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety is even more devastating than the Commission's original proposal. Not only are we destroying industry by tightening emission standards, but in our green blindness some colleagues may not have noticed that we can harm the environment by approving this report. Requiring heavy-duty urban buses to be fully zero-emission from 2030 can actually worsen the accessibility and quality of public transport, as cities in Europe simply do not have the charging infrastructure ready for it. If we really care about the environment, we need to make public transport more attractive, not cripple it. People need to get to work or school and then back home. I hope common sense wins and this liquidation policy is rejected.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, like other countries in Europe, the Czech Republic suffers from a shortage of health professionals. According to the minister, up to 3,000 nurses and 1,000 doctors are currently missing. Poor working conditions, also caused by long overtime, deter potential new health workers, while health schools suffer from insufficient finances and capacities. The voluntary nature of overtime is often rather declaratory, as the maintenance of the Czech healthcare system simply depends on it. Instead of a systemic solution, however, the Czech government coalition came up with a proposal to extend overtime. I am glad that healthcare workers have opposed anti-social pseudo-solutions and a large number of them have refused to work extended overtime. The Minister of Health was forced out of his original intention to resign. Here again, I agree with the paramedics that it is not possible to make only cosmetic changes or return to the old dysfunctional tracks. Health workers, like all workers, deserve decent wages and conditions, no 24-hour shifts. Schools need sufficient funding. Health workers are people, and people are not machines. So let's not treat them that way either in the Czech Republic or elsewhere in Europe.

Madam President, colleagues, Commissioner, during the COVID-19 pandemic, it became clear that mental health is as important as physical health. That is why we urgently need a new strategy and changes in legislation, especially towards emerging technologies such as the use of AI or teleworking. And also burnout syndrome, which we have probably all experienced here, should be recognized by our laws as an occupational disease, because it often has the same and worse consequences on health than the diseases and injuries that we already recognize today. However, the best legislation will not solve the reasons why employees' mental health is constantly deteriorating. These are, above all, the existential insecurity of the employees, the dissatisfaction that they are not getting paid as much as they would need to cover their costs, and the forced participation in the rat capitalist race for life. Until we solve the fact that in order to provide for his family, a worker has to chain work contracts or, as a self-employed person, take on too many jobs to make a living, everything will remain as it is. Let's pay people enough so that they and their families can live a dignified life without having to work 16 hours a day. Otherwise, the problem simply cannot be solved.

Mr President, Commissioner, it has been more than a year and a half since the European Union imposed extensive sanctions on the Russian Federation following the events in Ukraine. This is also why Europe is going through an energy crisis. With record-high inflation, many households in Europe have seen a huge drop in living standards, while energy companies have enjoyed record earnings. We replace our dependence on Russia with dependence on Azerbaijan, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. We really did that. On the other hand, despite the proclamations that we have heard here that Russia will be on its knees in a few weeks and all will collapse, Europe has not succeeded in isolating Russia from trade with third countries, and through these third countries, Europe is constantly acquiring Russian goods. The only ones whose lives are de facto complicated by sanctions are civilians. Therefore, if the sole aim of the sanctions was not to worsen the standard of living of European and Russian civilians, then there can be no doubt that no sanctions are an effective solution. Only dialogue can resolve the conflict in Ukraine. So if the EU is really about ending the war and not whipping its own citizens, it must use its mighty influence to demand a peaceful end to the fighting.

Madam President, freedom of speech and of the press, free and fair elections, these principles seem to have become a hindrance to the European Commission when it found that in democratic elections people can opt for a different direction of their country than they would like. This was demonstrated in the elections in Slovakia, when the Commission forced social networks to censor more severely so-called Russian propaganda, which can only be explained as an attempt to prevent the victory of the SMER party. A party that speaks openly about peace at a time when the Union rages frantically with weapons. Social networks are already severely restricting freedom of speech. However, the Commission clearly believes that digital oligarchs still allow us to express ourselves too openly. It also turned out that the Commission did not intend to limit itself to elections when it began enforcing social media censorship of posts that did not correspond to Israel's view of the events in Gaza. I urge the Commission to immediately stop its attempts at stricter censorship, otherwise next year's elections to the European Parliament will not be considered fair either. If the Commission intends to continue this practice in the future, I believe that, as in Slovakia, European voters will resist the pressure and will not let those who try to silence us win.

Mr President, Commissioner, although I congratulate the rapporteur on the agreement reached, I must also express my disappointment. It must be recognised that this will include important consumer rights in the horizontally applicable Consumer Rights Directive. I also welcome the fact that we have changed the text from full harmonisation to minimum harmonisation, which will allow Member States not only to preserve pre-existing consumer rights, but also to introduce others. But there was room for much more in the negotiations. We must admit that the Council has accepted almost none of the demands of the European Parliament. This applies in particular to texts relating to so-called review clauses and sanctions clauses. My group would also prefer stricter regulation of advertising for financial services, especially with regard to influencers advertising online. I do not have to explain here that the role of these influencers in investment advice is growing from year to year. They have no responsibility, but no responsibility. That is why we have recently witnessed a number of scandals, especially in the area of investing in cryptocurrencies. And that has to change as quickly as possible. Therefore, the text of the Directive is very disappointing in this respect. In short, the minimum has been reached and we have missed the opportunity to better protect consumers.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I ask: What, apart from the debate, has actually been done to ensure that our citizens have access to even basic medicines? The Commission’s position on this has emerged when its President was not even worth mentioning in her State of the Union address. Allow me to replace you, Madam President. The situation regarding the shortage of drugs in virtually all drug groups today is absolutely tragic. Today, people are afraid to get sick in Europe. What has been done to bring API and generic manufacturers back to the EU, which the Commission famously announced three years ago? Three years ago! Is there money available at national level or at EU level? Well, they haven't. It just stayed with the flight plans. Promises, promises and people suffer. After all, I do not have to go far, just remember the comedy with the introduction of the pharmaceutical package. You can find money for guns whenever the gun sector needs it, but, Commissioner, this is what the citizens will add up for you in the elections. But what's worse? Because of this, citizens simply suffer in Europe because of your incompetence.

Mr President, I have heard many times in this room, but also from other European and national leaders, that protecting the environment and nature is a priority for the Union and also for its Member States. Sure, such words are certainly well listened to, but let's look outside this hall at what the real reality in the European Union is, as the case from the Czech Republic now proves, where the so-called protection of nature must in practice give way to the interests of the military-industrial complex due to the crazy policy of militarization. The Ministry of Defence of the Czech Republic presented its intention to build a military logistics center in Mošnov. However, the construction of such a centre and associated infrastructure would seriously disrupt the Poodří Protected Landscape Area, which is also a significant European site, and would negatively affect the birds living in the area, without adequate compensation. Colleagues, just because it's an army, please don't shut up when it's destroying what you're trying to protect here and what you're investing money in.

Mr President, I am very happy for any proposal that can really help regions and local producers, and I therefore welcome the fact that artisanal and industrial products can also enjoy the same protection against copying as agricultural products, food, wine and spirits. Such protection can in turn lead to a strengthening of the competitiveness of traditional industry and crafts in the Union, the creation of new jobs in these spheres, the growth of local economies and a more consistent protection of cultural heritage. However, the protection of geographical indications for industrial and craft products will not only help local producers, but also consumers across Europe, who will be able to be sure that, for example, the glass they buy actually comes from the locality it has in its name and is therefore of sufficient quality. Finally, the conditions between agriculture and industry will be levelled, and glassmakers, jewellery manufacturers, cutters, seamstresses and a large number of other craftsmen will also enjoy GI protection. I am very glad for this suggestion. I hope he can help them all in their business.

Mr President, thank you once again and thank you, colleagues, for everything you have said here today, because I think we can agree that this is really just the beginning. We managed to solve a lot of problematic things, such as credit cards, such as the right to be forgotten, but also only for a part of the patients. I very much hope that this right will subsequently also be used in the new Mortgage Credit Regulation or Directive, where it is just as important as for consumer credit. I very much hope that in the next revision of the text there will be an extension to far more diseases in the right to be forgotten. I hope that we will be able to solve, for example, crowdfunding, which unfortunately was not included in this directive at all, but it is up to our colleagues and ourselves to make it work at all. In order to encourage our Member States to implement this Directive as quickly as possible, they have started to apply it. Because it is precisely the financial crisis, which certainly does not end, but falls on every single state, on every single citizen, that shows us how desperate situations, even due to the lack of legislation, the citizens of the Member States can get into. It is now also in our hands and in the hands of the Commission to prove that what we have done together here will be implemented for the benefit of all consumers throughout the European Union. Finally, let me say two more thanks. We all know that without our teams, the Asian teams, many of the things we do would not have happened, and I would very much like to thank the two people who worked in my office on this document, Peter and Martin, and our IMCO Committee Chair, Anna Cavazzini, who stood by when the political agreements were not always easy, and I think she was also able to fight for consumers at the right moment. So thank you very much, all of you, and now it is up to us, the Member States, as quickly as possible, to take this directive into their own hands and apply it in such a way that there are no more irregularities.

Mr President, it is not easy to take over such a large and important legislative document as the rapporteur from the smallest political group. However, I believe that, given the context of the current economic crisis, as rapporteur for The Left, I have stood up and prepared legislation that will significantly protect consumers taking out credit. Before I get to the actual analysis of what went well and what did not, let me thank all the shadow rapporteurs, their assistants and political advisers, including the secretariats and the linguists. Without you, it would not be possible to finish this job. I cannot fail to thank the two Presidencies that contributed to the new directive, both the Czech and the Swedish Presidencies. Last but not least, I would like to thank the Commissioner and his wonderful team. It was a long and difficult journey. I am not going to lie, there is a result at the end of it that is definitely not perfect and in all respects what I would like as a left-wing politician, but it is such that I can proudly stand behind it. I consider the greatest success of my vision to be that for the first time we have succeeded in enforcing into European Union legislation the so-called right to be forgotten of cancer patients.  For years, all sorts of patient forums have talked about the discrimination people who have cured themselves of cancer experience on a daily basis in the financial markets. From now on, those who have recovered from cancer and apply for a loan for which insurance is required will be protected by the ‘right to be forgotten’, which will guarantee that, after a certain period of time has elapsed since the end of their treatment, the bank or insurance company will not be able to use their cancer as a reason for the deterioration of credit insurance.  Personally, I would like this right to apply to all major diseases, not just cancer, but the Member States of the European Union have agreed only on cancer. Anyway, the door opened. Once established, the law may gradually be written everywhere. Another thing I am particularly proud of is the new regulation of credit advertising. Like advertising on cigarette packs, credit advertising should always contain a clear and prominent warning that borrowing money simply costs money. At the same time, some dangerous and misleading types of advertising will now be banned directly. Personally, I believe that advertising for consumer credit, at least in the mass media, should be banned completely, but this unfortunately turned out to be completely impassable. Overall, the new directive covers a number of previously unregulated financial products, such as credit cards or various micro-loans. I am particularly pleased that, after fierce battles with the Council, the directive has also been extended to the very widespread "buy today and pay tomorrow" schemes. New regulation is needed primarily against big tech companies, as they are assertively trying to enter the credit market and wield enormous power to make consumers buy impulsively. I consider it the biggest failure of the negotiations that we have not succeeded in enforcing an obligation for Member States to set a maximum higher chargeable interest for consumer credits or, alternatively, a maximum credit price that the borrower is obliged to pay for the credit. From my point of view, this would be by far the most effective consumer protection instrument. Colleagues, once again, thank you very much to all those involved for the smooth cooperation. I look forward to the debate and I firmly hope that the document will pass the final vote smoothly and that the new Consumer Credit Directive will then be swiftly implemented by the Member States as well. In my opinion, it was late yesterday and we can no longer afford to waste our time.

Mr President, in the Council conclusions, we commit to providing Ukraine with sustainable military support for as long as it takes. Instead of drugs for rare diseases and cancer, which the Commission refuses to buy en masse, it will rather buy artillery ammunition and rockets en masse with European money. What does primary law say about the use of European money for military purposes, colleagues? He forbids it. Instead of making every effort to reach a peaceful settlement, we will participate in the further murder of two peoples. Does it just seem absurd to me? Furthermore, we commit to ensuring stable, predictable and sustainable financial support to Ukraine in the coming years. There is nothing to object to the reconstruction of Ukraine, but I ask: How high is Ukraine in the world corruption rankings? The day will not pass when the theft of military or other aid by the Ukrainian oligarchs will not be uncovered. And that's what we hear: Ukraine will solve the corruption when the war is over. We're throwing our citizens' money into the canal, and apparently most of you don't care.

Mr President, I do not want to sound too negative about this report, but the fact is that, as it is written, it represents only a right-wing ideological view of events as they have happened. Right-wing colleagues, who have teamed up with liberal colleagues and part of the socialists, paint the pink reality of how the pandemic really happened in the EU. Yes, on the one hand, the text acknowledges that not everything has succeeded, but on the other hand, it already says that it is not necessary to change too much. And most importantly, we must not frighten the pharmaceutical industry. The report is completely uncritical of the machinations involved in concluding contracts for bulk purchases of vaccines. It avoids questions about how it is possible that the contracts have not yet been fully released to us or to the public. It neglects how they were negotiated via the mobile phone of the President of the Commission via SMS. It no longer addresses Pfizer's reprehensible behaviour towards us as members of this body. The mistakes made by Member States in promoting their own vaccination campaigns, often in a misleading way, have also been completely ignored. The chapter itself is the non-solution of patent law both inside the EU and outside, when a right-wing warlord forced himself by force not to comply with Parliament's previous resolutions calling for at least some reform of the TRIPS agreement. On the contrary, the image presented by the right here in terms of how the EU helped the third world is uncritically laudatory. Colleagues, I am sorry, but all I can say about the vote is that whoever votes in favour of this text has no dignity as a Member. The report is a one-sided view of the entire pandemic that runs counter to the pharmaceutical industry and current European power structures.

Mr President, Commissioner, colleagues, if adopted, the Artificial Intelligence Act would be the first rules on artificial intelligence in the world. This is certainly a very ambitious goal for the European Union to be the first in the world in this area and thus to set trends in the regulation of these rapidly developing technologies. That is why it should not only be ambitious how many people we are going to be in the world, but also, above all, whether these rules will be ambitious and genuinely serve the citizens and protect the citizens of the European Union, their fundamental rights or their health. Unfortunately, the text that emerged from the IMCO and LIBE Committees lacks ambitious rules. There are no cases where the use of AI to determine people’s access to education, to evaluate jobseekers or to decide whether to give notice will not be a high-risk use. If we really want to protect citizens, these uses must be subject to the strictest possible rules and controls. But in the current text, these uses would not automatically be assessed as high-risk. I repeat, there is no case where leaving the decision on the fate of employees to artificial intelligence will not be high-risk. Preliminary caution is therefore quite appropriate, but it is lacking in the text. At the same time, it is not possible to talk about good regulation if it allows the surveillance of employees in the workplace with the help of artificial intelligence without their consent. Is it really our goal to show that this corporate dystopia, where employees' every move is monitored by their supervisors and employers in their workplaces, is all right in Europe? If not, it is necessary to prohibit the use of AI for this purpose. Together with my colleague Ernst, we tabled a number of amendments that put the protection of citizens first. If adopted, it will also be possible to adopt this proposal. However, if these comments are not addressed and our amendments are not accepted, it is not possible for me to support this proposal.

Madam President, I think we all recognise the need to fight antimicrobial resistance and thank you very much for the resolution that we have here today. The new pharmaceutical package is also presented by the Commission to help with this ticking bomb. Unfortunately, it turned out as usual. I simply cannot identify with the solution to antimicrobial resistance in the new package. Perhaps the biggest evil, of course, is the proposed incentive that would reward developers of new antibiotics with a so-called sales voucher, i.e. a voucher that would allow a special unlimited annual protective exclusivity for the drug chosen by the company. As if that wasn't enough, these vouchers can also be traded. This is absolutely scandalous! The Commission is not only failing to address the problem of antimicrobial resistance in real terms, but is also creating a secondary speculative market for medicines. What do you think's gonna happen? Which medications do you think the company will apply the vouchers to? Well, of course, to the most expensive and most in demand drugs from their portfolio, to the detriment of, for example, rare disease patients and our public health insurance systems to maximize their profits. Neither I nor my group can and will accept that.

Madam President, Commissioner, we have been looking for a year at the European Commission's failure to ensure such a trivial thing as the control of grain imports from Ukraine, which were intended for transit to countries outside the European Union and, of course, ended up on our market. It damages our agriculture and ends up in products and on the shelves of our shops. I'm not talking about potential health risks. If it weren't for countries like Poland and Hungary, you simply haven't solved this problem to this day. Although there has been a shift in the last few days, I want to warn you again that your solution may soon bring new problems. Five countries have negotiated an import ban and compensation, but you are now again allowing imports into the EU, so the problem will simply persist. We have a single market in which we can transport products without any restrictions. In addition, you continue to completely ignore the ticking bomb of importing other commodities such as poultry and eggs. If you want to help Ukraine export agricultural products to developing countries, please make sure that this is really just transit, and a really effective measure.

Mr President, I am not very happy that, thanks to the government of the Czech Republic, my country must serve as an example of what steps not to take. Czech Post has planned to close 300 of its branches by summer 2023. It is said that due to declining interest in services at branches and the impact of digitalisation. As a state-owned company, the Czech Government also approved the plan. Only our dear government has forgotten the citizens once again. For a large number of citizens who have problems using online services or who have poorer access to the internet, access to postal services will simply be severely restricted. They will have to travel longer distances to crowded branches. Completely unconceived and anti-social solutions can only lead to privatisation and higher prices for postal services. Digitalisation certainly offers a number of unquestionable benefits to citizens, but it must not serve as a pretext for socialists to make blind cuts and restrict access to services. And I call on the Czech Government to abandon this non-conceptual solution, to start taking citizens into account, and on the European Commission to finally stop calling for any liberalisation or privatisation of public services.

Madam President, Commissioner, one of your objectives in the strategy is to adopt measures for fairer access to vaccines and medicines by strengthening local pharmaceutical systems and production capacity. This is a beautiful proclamation that has already appeared in the Pharmaceutical Strategy for Europe three years ago. I ask you, what did you do as the European Commission? After all, the Commission is not even able to deal with production capacities and medicine shortages within the European Union for months. Every citizen who goes to the pharmacy these days sees what is not available. Another thing – I would expect both the strategy and the European Union’s individual steps to reflect the European Parliament’s position that the experience of the COVID-19 pandemic shows that poor countries cannot rely on donations of vaccines and medicines. They need to have access to technologies and recipes so that vaccines and medicines can produce themselves. My faction has argued for years that a TRIPS waiver is necessary for this. We do not agree that the European strategy for exporting vaccines to poor countries has been successful. Our future strategy for the world should be guided by the principle of global equality in health, which requires a complete rethink of the legal framework for the protection of intellectual property. It's the only way we can really make a difference.

Dear colleagues, as former Vice-Chair of the Committee of Inquiry into Emission Measurements in the Automotive Sector, I see the outcome of Dieselgate in the European Union as one big loss for all. We have lost our industry, which has lost its position on the market in the United States. They lost our consumers, who were far from being compensated as those across the ocean, and the European institutions, who simply did not learn their lesson, also lost. What was the main reason for the scandal? After all, the statutory emission reduction targets have decoupled from what is physically, costly and socially possible. When I look at the approved end of the sale of new combustion engine cars in combination with the newly proposed Euro 7 standard, I can only come to the conclusion that history will simply repeat itself. If the new Euro 7 contains requirements that cannot currently be measured using the best sensors, what is going to happen? Colleagues, the Diseselgate case was not an isolated failure of our producers, but the result of a long series of bad political decisions. If the adopted goals do not respect what is realistically possible in practice and socially acceptable, then it is clear that those who are supposed to bring them to life bypass and ignore them. We continue to do this.