Debate contributions by Klara DOSTALOVA

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, let me recall the very important conclusion of the European Council. The leaders did not agree on the use of frozen Russian assets. At the European Council, requests were made by the Belgian Prime Minister to provide strong guarantees in the event of retaliation by Russia. The European Council therefore invited the Commission to present options for financing support to Ukraine, i.e., in addition to the use of frozen Russian assets, the European Union’s joint loans are the second way. You by estimation Financial Times means the payment of interest of EUR 5.6 billion per year. For example, it is estimated that a heavily indebted France would pay EUR 1 billion, while Italy would contribute EUR 675 million. Green Deal. Not to mention the fact that in the future it is necessary to count on the cost of reconstruction of Ukraine, which, according to the estimates of the World Bank, is in the hundreds of billions of dollars. In doing so, people in the Member States are dealing with: ‘Will I pay my bills next month, support my family, keep my company?’ Fortunately, soon the winner of the Czech elections, future Prime Minister Andrej Babiš, will be in the European Council. A voice of common sense that listens to the people and not to the Brussels elites.

Madam President, I will be very brief today. We have new strategies, new objectives, new initiatives, but still the same problems – expensive energy, loss of competitiveness and tired citizens who no longer believe that someone in Brussels is hearing their voice. The Commission speaks of Europe’s Independence Moment, but how can we talk about independence when we import energy, food, raw materials? In essence, national parliaments are no longer dealing with anything other than implementing regulations and directives from Brussels. Instead of plans for new green, digital or gender revolutions, we should talk about industry leaving, farmers leaving and young people no longer believing that they have a future in Europe. 2026 could be a real moment of European awakening, and I hope that the Commission will stop running Europe from the cabinets and start listening to it from the streets, factories and farms. A once-living community becomes a system. A system that feeds itself with other plans and papers, but Europe is still to be a community, not a system. It's supposed to be home to ideas, innovation, not a directive factory.

Madam President, Commissioner, once the European car was a symbol of strength, prosperity and ingenuity. It was our gold, our pride, our livelihood. Millions of people across Europe worked in factories, supply companies, repair shops, entire regions lived in the automotive industry. And today, for the sake of the European Commission, we are witnessing its gradual dismantling. The Commission has decided that it knows best what is good for us. And so one day, out of the heat of her offices, she came up with a spectacular ban on combustion engine cars from 2035. No plans, no debate, no sense. They didn't care what it did to jobs. They didn't care what it did to car prices. They didn't care if we had the infrastructure. They just announced it, expecting us all to nod obediently. But we warned. Workers warned trade unions, warned suppliers, warned entire regions, shouted: “Don’t do this, you will ruin our lives.” And what has the Commission done? She laughed in our eyes. She called us backwards, ignorant, obstructing progress. In short, arrogance, contempt, ridicule. And now? Now their plan is crumbling like a house of cards. Sales of electric cars are falling because people simply cannot afford them. Car production in Europe is declining, supply chains are controlled by China, which is building factories in our country and bringing its own workers. Meanwhile, thousands of our people end up in employment offices. What about the Commission? Well, as always, he's setting up new strategies, new working groups, new round tables, more papers, more presentations, press conferences. That's their cure for every crisis. But strategy doesn't pay the bills. Colleagues, let's not let the car industry be destroyed.

Madam President, Minister, Commissioner, the European Commission has presented the ten biggest barriers to the single market, but we must remember who created them. In many cases, it is by its own regulations, which overwhelm businesses and fragment energy, services and transport, and then solemnly announces that it will remove them. Yes, digitalisation of certifications or support for small businesses sounds good, but the problem is not a lack of strategies, but an excess of regulation. The Commission is issuing new rules faster than it is abolishing old ones. Many contradict each other and cause confusion for businessmen and officials in the Member States. If we want the Single Market to really work, we need to revise some of the objectives Green Deal, ensure affordable energy and support industry as an engine of the European economy. The principle of mutual recognition must be maintained, food prices affordable and quality comparable across the European Union. I therefore call on the Commission to finally simplify the rules, to listen more to Member States and entrepreneurs and to focus on their real needs. The Single Market will not work without effective and comprehensible enforcement. Clinging to obsolete dogmas will not help the European economy.

Madam President, unfortunately, there is still a queue of big marketing phrases over Europe. Meanwhile, the frost of forms is forming on the bureaucratic zone, the wind of businessmen's departures is rising and citizens' insecurity is increasing. But citizens don't care what the prediction is of mere words. They feel a draft in their wallet. A third of them expect their standard of living to deteriorate within five years. It's not just a number, it's a loss of trust. Europeans are not an ATM, they are people who work, pay bills and want security. But your policy has made energy more expensive, added paperwork, and subsidized nonprofits that lobby for more bans. You say that you are protecting Europe, but in practice you are making it an expensive workshop where companies leave and jobs disappear. Security is not populism. Safety is a fundamental duty towards people – to ensure that they are not afraid for work, for bills, for their future. It is precisely this duty of the President that you are not fulfilling. Your role is not to build a European state and be its head. Your role is to be the head of the College and the head who serves the citizens of the European Union.

Madam President, Commissioner, cohesion policy, including housing investment, is intended to serve one clear purpose: to improve the lives of Europeans, to reduce disparities, to develop infrastructure and to ensure affordable housing. But instead of practical solutions, the Commission turns them into instruments of political coercion and ideological experiments. We hear promises of simplification – less bureaucracy, more digitalisation, stronger support for municipalities. All this sounds good, but unfortunately the reality is different. Funds are increasingly tied to conditions that have nothing to do with growth – the Green Deal, the gender agenda or the rule of law. At the same time, cohesion policy must not become a hostage to political disputes or a laboratory of new ideologies. If cohesion policy is to make sense, it must return to its mission of supporting citizens with investments, reducing regional disparities and not burdening them with centralised control. People out there don't need more. Green Deal, do not need gender guides or endless Brussels conditions. They need work, they need housing and they need a normal life. It should be remembered that cohesion money is not Commission money. It's citizens' money. And this money has to go to innovation, roads, hospitals, schools and housing. Let us remember that cohesion policy is one of the few positively perceived instruments of European policy. And we should never forget that.

Mr President, Commissioner, European public procurement today resembles an old labyrinth. Complex, full of dead ends and bureaucratic corridors in which municipalities, businesses and citizens themselves are lost. Instead of being a bridge between public funds and quality services, they have often become an obstacle. The text presented offers a way out. Not a promise of everything to everyone, as the Socialists and the Group of the Greens demanded, but a balanced compromise. On the one hand, it ensures value for money and fair competition; on the other hand, it opens the door to quality, sustainability and long-term thinking, without, however, placing an unbearable additional burden on businesses and local authorities. Still, I must add that some passages are too ambitious and risk getting lost in bureaucracy again instead of really making people's lives easier. It is therefore up to the Commission not to succumb to the temptation to add another layer of regulation to the forthcoming revision. It is like a farm, if you want a crop, you have to prepare the soil, but you must not overfertilize it. In the same way, we must protect competitiveness, develop small and medium-sized enterprises and ensure that every euro of taxpayers is used wisely. And I wish you the best of luck!

Madam President, dear colleagues, the RRF instrument was a response to an extraordinary crisis, but it also showed its limits. It was a centralized rigid model that often ignored the real needs of regions. The European Court of Auditors summed it up very well. The milestone achieved often meant only that a document had arrived in Brussels, not that something had actually changed, built or improved. And now the Commission wants to extend this approach to cohesion policy itself. That would be a fundamental mistake. It is the difference in cohesion that is its advantage. It is based on knowledge of local conditions, partnership and long-term vision. Unfortunately, the Commission proposes to go even further, borrowing on behalf of everyone and making decisions from the Centre. This is not a way forward, but a way back. We need flexibility, subsidiarity and trust in the regions, not a unified RRF2.0-style model. Instead of building new complex mechanisms, we should strengthen what has proven to be successful in the long term, i.e. cooperation, trust and respect for local conditions. European cohesion is not based on central commands, but on listening, understanding and shared responsibility. It is in this direction that we should go together.

Mr President, Commissioner, I think we are all aware that the single market is the backbone of the European economy and the Commission's strategy rightly describes that it faces obstacles. I would like to acknowledge that the Commission has identified problems such as fragmented regulation, cumbersome recognition of qualifications or inequality for small businesses. But what does the Commission propose? Digital passports, QR codes, new committees, other officials in the form of sherpas. However, this will not free a small business in the Czech Republic, just add more responsibilities to it. I would focus mainly on the fact that, for example, 80% of goods from China do not meet the standards, but we control our citizens more than such imports, which distort our market. This makes "insurance for an uncertain world" a word-filled brochure, not a tool for businesses and citizens. The Single Market deserves more than a strategy that shifts responsibility and brings complexity. If Europe is to work, we need fewer phrases and more action, fewer illusions and more courage. And to that end, I wish you good luck.

Mr President, colleagues, the motion for a resolution promises to address old challenges and new business practices, but so far it remains empty-handed. Unfortunately, this is what is typical today of the Commission’s approach to everything that comes out of Parliament – great slogans, few results. Yes, I appreciate the emphasis on reducing administrative burdens and supporting small entrepreneurs. Yes, our consumer law is strong, but the Commission once again shows that it only hears what it wants to hear. While consumer protection is important, in reality, people today face dramatic increases in the cost of living and are unable to meet even basic needs. What about the Commission? Nothing. Not even mentioning that exorbitant environmental ambitions need to be reconsidered. In this respect, the Commission is completely failing. And Ukraine? Its integration into the single market is a political triumph. But no one really asks: What price are we going to pay for this? Closing our eyes to different standards and challenges will destroy the level playing field for our businesses. If the single market is to work, we need fewer ideological experiments and more common sense. The Commission must stop ignoring reality and start protecting what Europeans really care about – fair working conditions, competitive firms and affordable housing. Words are not enough. We need action and the courage to acknowledge where the Commission has repeatedly failed.

Madam President, the Brussels bureaucracy has decided to bet everything on one card – electric cars – while completely ignoring the reality of the market, the economic situation of the Member States and the fate of hundreds of thousands of employees in the automotive industry. The Commission plans to support battery production, but where do we get the raw materials? Europe is 90 percent dependent on imports of key materials from China. The Commission is talking about supporting jobs while quietly admitting that hundreds of thousands of people will lose their jobs. Instead of fair support for the traditional automotive industry, it offers vague promises of retraining, as if people on assembly lines could become AI programmers overnight. Finally, the plan talks about a just transition. How can a just transition that destroys traditional technologies, ignores hydrogen solutions and hybrid models, and at the same time hits hard those who simply do not have the money for an electric car? We need a real plan that combines innovation, competitiveness and respect for economic reality and technological neutrality. Unfortunately, this action plan is not the solution. It is a step towards the economic decline of Europe.

Mr President, the European Commission solemnly promises to cut red tape by 25%. They say it will bring relief to businesses of EUR 6 billion and mobilise EUR 50 billion in investment. So why do entrepreneurs keep tearing their hair? Because instead of releasing the hands of our companies, Brussels is inventing more rules, more exceptions, more subsidies for the right sectors. In the event of a delay in ESG reporting, he forgot to tell the banks and so on. And while the Commission holds press conferences and brags about new plans, our businesses are collapsing. What about the industry? The German steel industry, once the pride of the European economy, is now collapsing. What about Czech companies? Czech automakers, which employ thousands of people, face more and more regulations. Czech engineering companies are struggling with senseless administration, which is holding them back in production and innovation. Europe will not benefit from cosmetic red tape. Europe does not need more paper tricks. It needs real action, less regulation, more support for entrepreneurs and less interference in the lives of ordinary citizens, and a return of common sense to politics. Today, the European Commission proudly announces: Entrepreneurs, we will save you! She forgot to add that she screwed concrete shoes to their feet. Entrepreneurs need clear action and legal certainty, and this is more than important for ESG reporting in particular. Why don't we vote on postponing reporting at this meeting? Dear colleagues, we should include 2 in the case of cutting red tape.

Mr President, let us look at the irony of today's discussion. We have a serious point on the agenda that says that the cooperation of conservative and patriotic parties threatens European competitiveness. Mr. Repasi here invites us to work together on Wednesday, to work together. Where were you, Mr. Repas, when he imposed himself cordon sanitaire? The topic of today's debate clearly shows how far political censorship has gone in Europe. They say it is a threat to democracy when conservative and patriotic parties come together. And who decided that? Who determined that some democratically elected parties have fewer rights than others? Isn't democracy a competition of ideas? Europe lacks innovation, but the main issue is the fight against the right. Industry is fleeing the European Union, but the main problem is the cooperation of conservative parties. Energy prices are rising, but the main danger is that patriots want to have a say in politics. And you know what the best part is? Your ideological strategy is not working. People see this selective democracy and are starting to reject it, because in a democracy, political competition is not defeated by censorship, but by better arguments. And you, dear colleagues, are missing them.

Madam President, Commissioner, today we have a debate called Preparedness for a new trade era. I'm sorry, but what kind of readiness do we want to talk about today? Was the Commission prepared for Trump's tariffs? She wasn't. Was it prepared for cheap Chinese imports that are destroying our industry? She wasn't. Was she prepared for an energy crisis that she herself helped trigger? Well, she wasn't. But this time, this time, dear colleagues, it will certainly be different. After all, the Commission closely monitors the situation, analyses the impacts and prepares strategy papers. So what exactly will he do? Well, he'll create a working group, maybe even a round table. At its worst, it will issue an ambitious action plan that no one will respect. While America introduces tariffs, Brussels introduces a profound reflection. While China supports its industry, we support an inclusive trade framework. And while others are defending their interests, we are drafting guidelines on ethical standards for banana imports. This is how, according to the European Commission, an economic powerhouse is built, ladies and gentlemen. And what if we once said enough to Brussels, which is just watching Europe collapse? Europe must protect its interests, because there are no friends in trade, there are only interests, and if we continue to be weak, the world will not count on us.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, RESTORE is a proposal that responds to the urgent need to help regions affected by natural disasters. No one is questioning the need for a quick response. But why should EUR 17.7 billion be drawn from cohesion funds for the long-term development of regions? Cohesion policy is not a money box that the Commission can open at any time. Cohesion policy is the building block of a united and prosperous Europe. It helps regions grow, creates jobs, ensures better living conditions. And now these funds are to be used as an emergency patch. And I ask why, when we have another tool here, a crisis tool called Recovery and Resilience Fund. Why not use this tool? There's plenty of money there. The audit itself confirmed that it is not used as much. It would only be enough to extend the implementation deadline for 2026, and states could use this fund with 100% funding. I have also written to the Commission on this subject, and I would like to thank all my colleagues across the political spectrum who signed this letter, so that we can truly protect the cohesion funds and use this crisis instrument to do so. Solidarity and responsibility must not be opposites, but go hand in hand. Let us support RESTORE, but let us insist that the Commission look for the right ways and alternatives. Finally, let me thank the Commissioner very much, who just said here that 100% is an expression of solidarity, because 95% is co-financing and 5% will have to be given by small municipalities.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, today marks the end of Game of Thrones. Unfortunately, instead of the triumph of common sense, backstage deals and power games have once again prevailed. Winter is coming. Let us find the courage not to elect this Commission, not only in the name of the institutions, but in the name of the people who make up Europe and who, unlike the Commission, gave us a mandate. But courage will probably be lacking, so at least I am calling on the new Commission to stop being a factory for standards and to become the architect of a well-arranged and functional system. The Commission must adopt a zero-growth rule of regulation, no new standards, until the existing ones are simplified, clarified and adapted to the needs of modern times. The Commission must ensure greater transparency. Europeans deserve to know what the different legislative proposals will bring and what impact they will have on their lives. I therefore call on the European Parliament to go down in history as the creator of a clear and strong Europe, not as the custodian of countless bundles of rules that no one understands.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, across the ocean, voters have shown the world what true democracy means. They have chosen a leader who listens, acts, and does not let himself be bound by phrases. They choose the one who speaks to them, not about them, and who shares their worries and knows how to listen. What about the European Union, the European elites? Instead of self-reflection, they demonize those who call for change, build walls around dissenting opinions, and ignore the voices of millions of voters. It's not a democracy, it's a game of thrones. Tell me, when did Europe, the cradle of democracy, become a place where you have to agree, or are you bad? How can we help Europe? First, stop forcing people to do what's right. Secondly, start really listening. And thirdly, do not try to label and close your eyes to differing opinions. Recognise that Europe is diverse and everyone has the right to their own opinion. This is the principle of democracy. A Europe that does not know its citizens is not a Europe for citizens.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Europe is today trapped by a bureaucratic monster. Over the last five years, more than 13,000 legislative acts have been adopted. Yes, you hear me right! More than thirteen thousand rules, regulations, restrictions that not only stifle our businesses, but also our common future. Brussels has become a bureaucratic factory in which papers are produced, but not solutions. Instead of untying the hands of entrepreneurs, we are tying them up with more and more loops of unnecessary regulation. What about our glorious digital and green transitions? Instead of making progress, they are tools of economic suicide. Small businesses face huge costs – fifty-three billion euros a year for digital compliance alone, and another twenty-eight billion euros for green legislation. These initiatives, which look like the future, are in fact a death sentence for many companies. It's time for a radical change. It is no longer possible to see Brussels destroying the European economy under the guise of sustainability and progress. We need to simplify the rules, get rid of this bureaucratic hydra and return Europe to real competitiveness. Europe is in a deep coma from which it may never recover.

Mr President, Commissioner, affordable housing is something of a cornerstone on which every successful state and a strong Europe must stand. It is a topic that resonates in every Member State across the political spectrum and social groups. The European Union is talking about grand plans, but in reality we are still in a dense web of bureaucracy and opaque public support rules. Commissioner, allow Member States to invest in housing without public support rules. This is not competition, housing is not competition to the private sector. The Commission always comes up with a plan that looks beautiful on paper, but what happens in reality? For example: How do you intend to incentivise Member States and their citizens to invest in the renovation of houses and apartments when you are enshrining them with rigid regulations? What about the so-called green mortgages? Other beautiful words that mask the fact that low-income people simply can't reach them. We must be uncompromising. We want housing for people, not for papers. Affordable housing – not just social housing – is more than a matter of policy for all. It is a question of dignity, stability and the future of the whole of Europe.

Madam President, Mrs Reintke, on behalf of the Greens, has no right to say who is welcome in the European Parliament and who is not. I welcome you here, Prime Minister, and like you, I expected a completely different debate, so I would like to invite you all to reflect and return to your roots. The motto of the European Union is "United in diversity" and should lead to unity, not division. Presidency of Hungary with its motto "Make Europe Great Again"it reminds us that Europe can and must be a global player. This symbol, represented by the Rubik's Cube – a brilliant invention that, like Europe, is complex but always has a solution – shows us that, although each state has its own different priorities, there is room for unification. And right now, it's time to build bridges, not walls. Hungary is not a problem. Hungary is a partner that offers solutions and has the right to be respected. A Europe divided in opinions may be strong, but a Europe divided in spirit does not stand a chance.

Madam President, Commissioner, if there is anything that should bind us together, it is the fate of the car industry and with it tens of thousands of jobs. The European Commission is pushing for a 15% reduction in fleet emissions by 2025. But what does it really bring us? Brussels' dreams are turning into real nightmares for our producers. The infrastructure is insufficient, the demand for electric vehicles is stagnating and electric vehicles remain a luxury that most Czech households simply cannot afford. Now tell me: How can automakers, including the Czech Škoda Auto, reduce emissions when they lack the basic conditions for success? We need a solution that keeps our engines running – not just environmentally, but economically. Let us preserve our jobs, our factories, and let our industrial heart beat. It is necessary to repeal the regulation from 2035 for cars with internal combustion engines and stop the absurd ambitions of the European Commission to ban or order anything. Let us support plug-in hybrids and alternative fuels to help reduce emissions in the existing fleet. Let's be realistic, let's revise Green Deal, which must not become an ideology, but must stand on reality. The European Union has shown in the past that it can act sensibly when responding flexibly to problems in, for example, aviation or agricultural technology. Why not now? Why don't we protect our own industries and jobs for Europeans?

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, those who have experienced floods know well that sometimes nature cannot be fought. Sometimes we just have to step back and try to mitigate the damage. The Czech Republic is currently facing devastating floods that are destroying our homes and infrastructure. This natural disaster shows that we need not only immediate help, but also long-term solutions. I call on the European Commission to focus on concrete actions that will protect our country and other states in the future. Unfortunately, only in the Czech Republic we have three victims and there are seven missing people. Water is now beginning to decline in some parts of the Czech Republic, slowly revealing the extent of the damage it has caused. For example, the Mayor of Opava, the Czech statutory city, estimates the damage to be more than two billion crowns. Municipalities and entrepreneurs estimate the total damage to be approximately CZK 20 billion, which is approximately EUR 817 million, or 0.3% of the GDP of the Czech Republic. And this is already a significant intervention in the Czech economy. However, this scale of destruction brings not only material damage, but also new threats, such as the spread of diseases. I propose to launch a programme to build flood protection measures across the European Union, because water knows no borders. We need to share the best technology and know-how to protect our communities. Together, we can strengthen dams, create retention tanks, modernize drainage systems. Investing in these measures is not an expense, but an opportunity to secure a safer future. Bureaucratic paralysis, for example, is behind the dam project in Nové Heřminovy, which could have prevented billions of dollars of damage. It is also necessary to strengthen research and development on climate change and disaster prevention, to modernise monitoring systems and to improve river basin management. They can save thousands of lives. From this place, I would like to thank the Integrated Rescue System and ask all of us to applaud them together.

...obstacles to innovation, the European Commission comes up with further regulations that stifle European entrepreneurs. Our entrepreneurs face constant bureaucratic hurdles. What do we see in real life? Trade union leaders during a strike in Brussels yesterday pointed to a broader threat to industry. A union representative at the Audi factory said: "We also want to send a clear message to the European authorities, which are complicating the situation for Belgian industry, but also for European industry. The manufacturing sector is leaving our countries in the first place.” This event is just further evidence of how European industry is under pressure, while the European Commission remains blind to reality. So what to say in conclusion? Wake up, Europe! Wake up!