Debate contributions by Jana NAGYOVÁ

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the threat to cybersecurity in today's world is as much a threat as it is when an armed enemy army is standing at the borders of states and enemy fighters are flying over your heads. It's just not so visible to many people. The coming era of quantum computers in combination with emerging AI will fundamentally change the rules of the game in the field of encryption and data protection in the coming years. It will be total game changer. And if we are serious about cybersecurity in Europe, and we certainly should be before third countries turn us into some kind of "cybercolony", we must quickly and openly acknowledge both our dependence on third-country technologies and many internal problems. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Commissioner and the Commission as a whole for this cybersecurity package, which I am very curious about, that is, the details. And I have to say that together we have a difficult task to try to solve what is almost unsolvable, and I only hope that this proposal will bring what is expected of it, that is, simplicity for fairness, hardness for attackers and strategic autonomy for Europe.

Madam President, Commissioner, colleagues, the European automotive industry is not in crisis today because it cannot innovate. He is in crisis because Europe, in its ideological enthusiasm, has set him goals that have no basis either in reality or in physics. The numbers are clear. Automotive The package you are presenting today is definitely better than nothing. Unfortunately, it still doesn't look like a well-thought-out industrial strategy for today's world. It is more like trying to extinguish a fire that is no longer under our control. For the Czech Republic, the automotive industry is not just one of many industries. It is a fundamental pillar of the economy, accounting for around 9% of GDP and dependent on it for up to 500,000 people. That is why we continue to emphasise and continue to insist that we want to maintain carbon-neutral combustion engines, ensure clear and long-term real technological neutrality and legal certainty for manufacturers and consumers.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this package comes not only with a week's delay, but with a cross after the fungus. This was supposed to be the Fit for 55 spine, not an additional patch. The reality is inexorable. We are building a 21st century digital economy based on renewables based on 1970s infrastructure. Money is not the only problem. We need faster processes and investment certainty, which the package contains and for which I am grateful. But even if we had permission tomorrow, we'd be waiting four years for key components like transformers. This is a physical reality that no directive will change. Europe has slept here too. And the Commission's solution? Instead of supporting supply chains, it wants to take on the role that national regulators and network operators can play today, disconnecting Member States from their own energy decisions even more than they do today. But as far as 'it's not over till it's over', let's start to work on the package and try our best for Europeans.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, if we are serious about promoting the development of the sustainable fuels industry, it is absolutely necessary to put the current legislation in the basket and start again, better, at last with reason. Am I exaggerating? Not much. I remember how in 2003 the Biofuels Directive had 5 pages and the industry was growing rapidly as a result. The aim was to increase energy self-sufficiency, reduce transport emissions and help farmers achieve a stable income. Today we have 11 regulations that regulate this area and often contradict each other. European industry is slowing down and moving production outside Europe. But what is growing successfully are imports of would-be sustainable biofuels, respectively fuels, those double-counted according to the RED directive, with certificates, the origin of which is often very dubious. This is not how we contribute to energy self-sufficiency, we are not helping European farmers, and because of dubious imports from the other side of the world, we are not reducing our carbon footprint as much as we would like. Good job Europe, links not for Europe.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, we are in the middle of a polycrisis in a period of uncertainty. In this situation, a budget is being created that will be with us until 2034. This is quite a long time, during which we will almost certainly witness many political and economic upheavals. This means that the financial framework must be set very pragmatically so as to contribute to a more competitive and better Europe for all, which, of course, we know, but not only for the voters of today's Euro-coalition. At this moment, more than ever, we, as representatives of a completely unique European project, should be able to suppress our egos and animosity and try to work together regardless of cordon to work towards constructive cooperation across the spectrum and institutions, rather than negotiating behind closed doors and circumventing one's own rules just to maintain power. The citizens of Europe, and I am sure they do, need to see that when it comes to a matter and a problem, we can also find common ground here in Brussels. And now, perhaps, more than ever. I believe you know exactly what I'm talking about.

Mr President, Commissioner, let me first say that, in principle, we are in favour of a rational ban on Russian gas and oil imports, but in accordance with the principle of solidarity and taking into account the specific situation of landlocked states. The European Commission's proposal, as well as the Council's proposal of Monday this week, respects these principles. By contrast, the European Parliament's position, with a total ban on oil, oil products and gas imports as early as 1 January 2026, is a blow to the backs of those Member States and industries that are already doing their best to diversify resources and maintain competitiveness. Moreover, what is the point of prohibiting the import of natural gas as a raw material while continuing to import products from it with significantly higher added value? It also bans the import of oil products. The aim of this action is to help Ukraine and stop Russia. But it certainly won't help if we let part of our industry fall and make the hard times even harder for them.

Madam President, Commissioner, once upon a time, Europe was a centre of progress, a place where people stared in hope for a better future. But that time is gone. By our conviction that we are the best, by our pomp and bureaucracy, we have allowed many brains and inventions to flee to third countries. The problems are bright, brain drain, a third less R&D spending, and only a quarter of registered patents compared to the US and China. Putting innovations on the market according to the real situation is even worse. No wonder. A fundamental step for Europe is to carry out a task that has remained unfinished for almost seventy years since the Treaties of Rome, namely the realisation of the four freedoms. Fragmentation of markets costs Europe over EUR 200 billion every year, and we are looking for new financial resources. They're on our plate. But one must believe that it will be better. That is why I believe that the last steps of the European Commission, and this is the programme Choose Europe for Science and the promise of a separate Horizon programme will bear fruit. I just hope that access to it will be set up in such a way that even smaller states have a real chance to draw on it. Otherwise, "Last switched off" will apply.

Mr President, fellow Members, Commissioner, the new multiannual financial framework is being prepared in times that the history of European integration does not remember. What was yesterday does not apply today. Therefore, this framework must be much more than just a budget. It should be a tool to reunite Europe, to strengthen it both from within and from without. However, this cannot be achieved at the moment by a greater centralisation of budgets and funds, as discussed, or by disproportionately imposing requirements on Member States in connection with the absorption of funds, let alone by strengthening the powers of unelected Commission officials. On the contrary, subsidiarity and solidarity must remain the main pillars on which to rely. From a procedural point of view, it is shared management, which has been a proven functional system for years, encompassing both the European and national dimensions. Don't change something that works. As far as priorities are concerned, colleagues, I think, have included almost everything I would like to say myself. In conclusion, therefore, I would just like to say that I think that there is no time to introduce new own resources, because even today we do not know how to use them efficiently enough, and I certainly do not agree with other new debts, because today Europe is the most indebted as it has been in history.

Madam President, Commissioner, the energy-intensive industry has become a ‘vulnerable animal’ thanks to the witch hunt, which now needs the highest level of protection. We know this very well in the Czech Republic and we experience it today and every day. Motion for a resolution, represented by the European Parliament, is, in my view, a step in the right direction, although I still lack more emphasis on technological neutrality, the role of nuclear, overregulation or the need for a complete adaptation of the ETS and CBAM, which have now become a ball at the foot instead of assistance. Europe has accelerated its ability to reduce CO2 emissions2 energy, but completely forgetting that the energy-intensive industry is something else. Technologically, today this industry is not able to replace 100% fossil resources or operate without emissions. If we want this industry to survive – and it must survive, if we want Europe to be self-sufficient and defensive, because tanks and heavy armoured vehicles can hardly run on electricity and we really do not want to import them from China – then it is high time to turn the wheel and stop the nonsense that has been approved here. Decarbonisation as it is today is de facto deindustrialisation. I hear very often here that it is impossible, that the train is running and that we have to go on, that we simply ‘take it backwards’. Please, this was exactly the communist rhetoric that I listened to throughout my childhood and growing up. It scares me. After all, when we created a monster, we must be able to tame it with the same common forces.

Mr President, reducing the European Union's dependence on imported energy commodities from Russia is certainly okay, but it is necessary to see things in context, otherwise we are shooting ourselves in the foot and helping the aggressor. Natural gas is not only used as an energy commodity, but is an essential component for the production of nitrogen fertilizers. And it has been dying in Europe for the last few years. Why? It's simple math. Since 2020, the price of emission allowances has tripled, since 2021 the price of natural gas has skyrocketed – currently to 2.5 times the price before that time – and imports of Russian nitrogen fertilisers have started to increase significantly over the same period. Imports have doubled in tons, we have doubled in the last few years. So we're changing one addiction after another, significantly more serious. In this context, it should be added that ammonium nitrate is an essential component for the production of explosives.

Mr President, Commissioner, I would like to thank the Commission for this work, because it is not really bad as a first draft, but I would like to see the final version after incorporating the comments of those most concerned, that is, the industry. Moreover, this compass should have been here fifteen years ago, at a time when the scissors between the economic development of the European Union and the United States began to open and to this day have not closed. But to be more than just critical, the truth is that the pillars on which the compass rests contain points as well as horizontal themes that can only be agreed with. On the other hand, stubbornly sticking to the 90% decarbonisation target by 2040 devalues this effort. If this compass was to lead us to a new northern star, which today is competitiveness for the European Union, I am afraid we have a problem. There are things that go against each other, not to mention being driven by the same crew that put us on the cliffs once before.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Green Deal is an ambitious project that has had the potential to bring about many positive changes. Instead, this transformation in the way it is implemented has stifled our industry and we have lost competitiveness. I think Mario Draghi's report contains a sufficient number of facts. And although all the measures to the project Green Deal, adopted by the previous political establishment, are not yet in force, the figures and predictions show very clearly the implications. The absurd thing about all this is that Europe is sinking, no one is responsible for it, and the same politicians who caused this situation continue to rule us and still pretend that everything is fine, that we will implement it, promise us more news and promise us more plans. Let me give you a few facts. World emissions production has been increasing in recent years, no matter what we do here, by 1.3% year-on-year since 2022. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, this was only 0.8%. Oh, oh, oh, oh! European emissions are falling by 7.5% per year over the same period. As a result of this trend, Europe today fell to 6% of total global emissions production in 2023. That's great! Oh, oh, oh, oh! China's share has risen to 30% and continues to grow. What are we playing at here? After all, we are moving production and emissions to third countries, from where we import green electric cars, green batteries, green technologies, but also our clothes and toys and play we are green. This is what I think we really didn't want. More intellect and less ideology!

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the single market will never be truly unified without a common transport system. What the European Commission is presenting as progress is a small step forward, but since the common transport policy has been talked about for almost seventy years, I would not see it so positively. Yes, what is stated in the September 2024 report will please. That is, as a result of liberalisation, prices have fallen and the number of rail passengers has increased. But what the report does not talk about and what is an integral part of the picture, if we want to improve the rail market, is naming the real obstacles, of which there are several, and offering proposals for viable solutions. At the moment, I consider it an absolute priority to address the limited availability of railway capacity, without which further development is not possible, both by investing in additional transport infrastructure, of course, but also by accelerating the introduction of modern technologies for securing and operating the railway, because the current ones fail too often and have already cost us too many lives. The railway is a super conservative lady and she doesn't like change. But without these changes, we will not build a truly common transport market.

Mr President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, taxing the super rich is a hot topic and you can see it was already mentioned also in the US presidential elections. Yet tax evasion is a major problem. The reality is that getting super rich often means paying super less in taxes. In a global market with varying conditions, capital can easily exploit differences to its advantage, seeking opportunities to multiply and avoid unnecessary charges. Studies and reality also show that stricter taxing rules have often failed to deliver the expected benefits to the state or to the public. Such was the case of the windfall tax applied in the Czech Republic. Therefore, as legislators, we should and must address the roots of this issue, which means the presence of a different level playing field in different countries which are part of the global market. Taxation is only the end of the story, but altogether all those issues have a direct impact on EU competitiveness. Therefore, solving this issue is key to promoting peace and equality, and to supporting global economic stability.

Mr President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, as a convinced democrat I respect the conclusion of the appeal court in Luxembourg, and I would like to congratulate the Commission for the big win. I also support the idea that paying taxes is normal and that if the EU wants to be competitive we need a level playing field all across the Europe. Otherwise, businesses in Europe will be racing for state aid among the Member States. But the current situation reminds me a little bit of the saying that 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions'. Therefore, let me express my concerns about the implication of the Apple tax judgment in two important areas. First, one can argue that this judgement represents a major shift in power, giving the EU greater influence over national tax policies. But if fiscal issues are to be touched, then only Member States should decide. Second, it sends a signal to investors, whether from the EU or abroad, that doing business in the EU is like shooting at moving targets that move in an unknown direction. Is this the message we want to send to investors? I don't think so. Moreover, we are sending this message in a time of intensive discussions about the urgent need to increase EU competitiveness in the global world. At the same time, we all know very well that there are issues we cannot or don't want to deal with because we would have to compromise our social or environmental standards, and this is something we don't want to do. What we can and should do is to create a stable and attractive regulatory environment.