Debate contributions by Marcin SYPNIEWSKI

Madam President, I'm sorry. We have heard many arguments against the death penalty. We have also heard arguments that criminals can be rehabilitated. On the other hand, how are we to punish and prevent such serious crimes as premeditated murders, with particular cruelty, murders of children? And here it is not enough even the death penalty itself, but the reconstruction of the entire system. Because at some point in Europe, I have the impression that we have trusted that we can actually raise criminals, and yet all the statistics confirm that this is completely impossible. The law should be strict, not focused on rehabilitation. It is the European Union itself that has led to the fact that crime in Western Europe is on the rise today. Mass, uncontrolled migration is associated with an increase in crime, especially very violent crime, rape and murder, with the use of firearms, with the use of sharp tools. We need to stop this so that Europe is safe and we don't have to think about what to do to make life safer in Europe.

Madam President, I'm sorry. All of you who want to ban fur farming are big hypocrites. You are talking about the need to regain competitiveness in Europe, and you are debating the killing of an industry in which my country, in which Poland is at the forefront of the world and employs tens of thousands of employees, paying many, many hundreds of millions of taxes to the Polish budget. You say that fur farming is inhumane and barbaric, but for you, abortion, euthanasia and surrogacy are a fundamental human right. At the same time as we are debating a ban on fur farming here, an initiative calling for safe and legal abortion across Europe will be discussed. Does the life of a chinchilla mean more to you than the life of a very old or very small man? Well, that's not fair. I do not believe that Europe wants to go this way. We must defend human life, not deal with the lives of other creatures. You challenge me and my colleagues very often from Russian agents. And don't you see that banning this industry, the fur industry, in Europe will make these plants where they will move? They will move to Russia and Belarus and they will pay taxes there, there they will contribute to the fact that these countries will benefit from it, they will employ workers there and strengthen the local economy. No one's health, freedom or property is safe when Parliament is sitting. With a single hand gesture, you can plough up any industry that you do not like at the moment. What's next? The deforestation regulation, the woodworking industry, agriculture, all those industries related to products from the tree - in the name of its stupid ideology, which will reward only large corporations at the expense of small producers - has already been ploughed up since its entry into force. What's next? You're going to ban hunting, you're going to ban meat? Is that your way? I remind you that you have just loudly boasted about the restrictions on the sale of cars with an internal combustion engine, and then quietly withdraw from it. You don't learn from mistakes at all. We will not build European economic power with this approach. And there was already a system that fulfilled all dreams, that promised to set everyone free, that it would lift everyone off their knees, that everyone would be fine – and we remember well how it ended. And you're trying to squeeze everyone in again. It is not possible to build a community on ideology, it is not possible to build a healthy economy.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Brussels is actually creating a new arms superministry, which is to decide from now on who in Europe can produce weapons, how to produce them and to whom to sell them. This is no longer a collaboration. This is taking over the competences of nation states step by step, because it is each state that should decide on its defence policy. After all, the European Union does not deal with defence, and I do not know when this change took place. In fact, every country, including Poland, is supposed to contribute to this fund and count without any guarantee that it will get something in return. And above all, before we took care of our factories, 300 million euros is directed towards the integration of the Ukrainian arms industry with the European one. Once again, we do not remember an important principle: Before we help someone, let's help ourselves first. Because our factories, because of the madness you've enacted here, because of the Green Deal, they're barely going to die, and because of that, the arms industry needs support.

Mr President, thank you very much. There is no more persecuted religion in the world, no more persecuted social group in the world than Christians. Let's look at the great African country of Nigeria, which has been burning for years. Thousands of Christians die every year because they believe in Jesus Christ. The militias are killing people, burning churches, kidnapping clergy and displacing entire villages. This is not a land dispute. This is genocide caused by religious hatred. Hundreds of villages disappear from the map, and unfortunately the world is silent. The West is indifferent to what is happening in Nigeria. The Nigerian government is passive and the perpetrators really go unpunished. The European Parliament has condemned the genocide taking place in Nigeria. On the other hand, unfortunately, the European Commission, I get the impression, is not doing everything that can be done. After all, this is really about Christians, who still make up the majority in Europe. This is about our brothers and sisters in the faith, who must be helped and decisive action must be taken here.

Mr President, thank you very much. I have three problems with this report. The first concerns the income tax itself, which is the most harmful tax. There is no more harmful tax because today, across the European Union, work or profit is taxed more than vodka – and I do not understand it at all. Because if the authorities want to discourage someone from drinking, then they tax alcohol. On the other hand, if they want to discourage someone from working, from developing, from making profits, then income is taxed. In addition, income tax in itself causes that it is the rich who have money to care about it, to invent loopholes, hide income, optimize. And it will always be so, because they have the money for lawyers and advisers, not an ordinary man or a small company. The second problem is that there is no such thing as EU tax law. There shouldn't be such a thing. We should not harmonise tax systems and countries that have better taxes should win over those that have worse taxes. And the third problem I have is that in fact this BEFIT is an introduction to the next own resource of the Union and in this way you will be collecting money from sovereign states.

Madam President, I'm sorry. I don't understand something. We all agree here, even with the Commission, and then this clock and millions of clocks across the European Union will have to reverse or move the hands forward on command. It's time to put an end to this. And I get the impression that the European Union can do anything, as long as it's about small things. Once, a long time ago, it regulated the curvature of a banana, the use of a flush in toilets or the air margin in the package of chips. She even ordered the nuts to be attached to plastic bottles, otherwise no one would be able to handle it. But when 84% of citizens in the Commission's consultation said clearly: ‘raise this time change’, then suddenly the whole EU machine is jammed. It's been six years and silence, because no one can decide whether we prefer the sun at five or six in the morning. If the EU stops on such a simple matter, how can it deal with more serious problems, such as the migration crisis, such as the crisis on the energy market? It's time to end this absurdity. The change of time is a relic from the era of candles and steam locomotives. That's when the energy was saved. Today we have LEDs, we have automatic lighting control, 24-hour production, and official reports from the Commission and the European Environment Agency say clearly: Energy savings are zero, but costs... Twice a year the whole continent gets jet laga without an air ticket. Increased accidents, heart attacks, sleep disorders. Children fall asleep in schools, drivers go semi-conscious, trains have wrong timetables. And why? Just to keep this bureaucratic clock of absurdity ticking. Let us finally put an end to this time change before we debate it again.

Mr President, thank you very much. This report is very interesting and worth getting acquainted with. In it, the Court says that we have had another year of errors in the spending of EU money. Although this level of errors in the European Union countries has fallen to over 3%, it is still too much, because over 3% is about 6 billion euros. It should also be noted that the Commission does not carry out its own checks, but trusts the papers presented by the Member States. If we went deeper, it would probably be even worse. This is called Green PR. The Commission overestimated climate spending by 7 percentage points. The Court has previously alarmed about billions of euros spent on NGOs, various foundations and think tanks without any transparency and without auditing the results. And in fact, if a private company had received such an audit result, the prosecutor would have been sitting with it a long time ago. We don't have any such stories. No one bears the consequences. As is usually the case in Brussels, no one answers. The Commission boasts that there are fewer errors and it is better. But really, it's like someone said they stole less from us this year: instead of eight billion, six.

Mr President, thank you very much. The European Union budget for 2026 is no longer a financial plan. This is really an ideological manifesto. It is an expression of philosophy, and unfortunately it is a philosophy of interventionism, redistribution and bureaucracy. Again, we see an attempt to spill money wherever we can, in the belief that more money produces more results. Meanwhile, it is not the lack of funds that is Europe's problem, but the misdiagnosis of its disease, the fact that Europe is structurally inefficient, overregulated and suffocating its initiative through its fiscal policy, by paying more and more taxes, more and more hidden costs of doing business and ordinary life for its citizens. And there is nothing in this budget to reverse the decline in Europe's competitiveness vis-à-vis the rest of the world. Instead, we see all that has already happened, that is, maintaining artificial demand, subsidizing green ideological projects and billions more for the operation of the central apparatus. No nation, no institution wins by subsidies, only by freedom. More freedom, less subsidies. That's how it should be.

Mr President, thank you very much. Ladies and Gentlemen, The European Union can sometimes come up with a law so complicated that a farmer has to measure centimeters of grass, and an entrepreneur fills in tables longer than he works. And when the consequences come, ordinary people pay for them. That is why the Committee on Petitions is invaluable. This is the only phone number that someone is really answering in Brussels. This is a straight line from the people of the European Union to the European Parliament. And thanks to these petitions, there are issues that we are not talking about here in the plenary, that are not in any reports, and that everyone knows from life - the effects of poorly written regulations, poorly implemented legislation, wasting taxpayers' money. From railway safety to environmental decisions issued without reliable data. Here the European Union can prove useful, fix something, clarify or simply stop disturbing people. But above all, this commission is to serve the people, not to be a club for the Member States or to serve for some political disputes. If the Union were governed by its citizens, maybe something would finally work here. I therefore take a very positive view of the Committee on Petitions, as it is one of the few places in this institution where there is still a human voice. And let's not ruin it.

Mr President, thank you very much. Ladies and Gentlemen, There are no good or bad taxes. There are less bad taxes. And these less bad taxes include a tax that is neutral, that least affects the market and people's choices. However, as Ludwig von Mises pointed out, the tax is better for the rulers, the less neutral it is, because thanks to this they can shape human behavior and choices. And I, unfortunately, doubt that the Commission would care about such simple taxes, because many officials, but also lobbyists and lawyers, would lose their privileges. For example, EU VAT, which is a milking cow for fraudsters. You've known that for 50 years. We in Poland have known about this for 20 years. And you are introducing more and more new restrictions and requirements officially to fight all these abuses. But the same advisors who write these laws also advise everyone on how to handle them, including these great criminals. And always on these changes suffers the most small entrepreneur who does not keep up with these changes. And, of course, every step towards simplification should be commended. But in fact, you would have to come here with some big lawn mower and cut these rules to almost zero, because only then can Europe be competitive. Taxes must be low and simple.

Mr President, thank you very much. Ladies and Gentlemen, Today we are talking about a strategy that affects millions of European families. And of course, each of us has probably read the statistics, which are frightening, but you have to be aware that behind each of these numbers, behind each of these millions, there are actually millions of individual cases that affect individual families, individual patients that cause them suffering, experiencing this tragedy, also the financial burden, but also all other feelings associated with it, hopes, pain and experiencing this disease. This is certainly the main cause of disability and dependency among the elderly at the moment. This is a huge scale of the challenge. Indeed, we need such a coherent, ambitious strategy on Alzheimer's and other dementias, primarily covering those things that Member States seem unable to cope with on their own, i.e. including issues of diagnosis, research for treatment, but also issues of care or support for families. And above all, in all these actions, it must be remembered that every person, including those suffering from Alzheimer's or dementia, is still a human being and must be given dignity and their lives protected. I can't hide one fact here, unfortunately. In some countries that have legalized euthanasia, it is increasingly possible to apply it to people with Alzheimer's disease and dementia, including those who are no longer able to express their will. And this undermines our core European values, the values that underpinned Europe – the inviolability of human life. A person with dementia does not cease to be human. The answer cannot be shortening her life, but solidarity, care and support. First of all, I would like to emphasize that this disease is not only the suffering of the patient, but also a huge burden for caregivers, as has already been said before. They are the ones who most often bear the burden of daily care, give up their professional work, live in constant stress, face loneliness and lack of systemic support. And they certainly deserve our highest respect and appreciation for this great sacrifice. And we should provide systemic support through access to respite care, rehabilitation or social services. Remember that people with dementia or Alzheimer's also suffered from well-known people, such as Margaret Thatcher or Ronald Reagan. In fact, anyone can become a victim of it and Europe deserves to build such a solid plan.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Every year the European Union spends billions of euros on investment, and every year it spends heavy money in various funds. In addition, because the money is missing, it is in debt and we are already paying this debt, and our children and grandchildren will pay it back. We will be burdened with this all the time. And in addition, in order to move all this, it has been proposing centralization for years. For years, he has been trying to ensure that most decisions are taken in Brussels, not in individual countries. Well, what's the effect? Even Draghi's report said that. Europe is not competitive, it needs big investments to catch up with the rest of the world. We don't have innovation. It was all these decisions that killed you and you didn't draw any conclusions from it. You're still proposing the same thing. You propose that we spend even more this time and now it will surely end differently. Well, it will not end otherwise, because an official will never make a better decision than an entrepreneur, than a man. He knows what's best for him. He knows how to invest money, how to save. He knows this much better than any, even the smartest official from Brussels. You have to learn from your mistakes and stop centralizing everything. Creating more unions, more reports will not help. The economy must eventually be deregulated. Ultimately, we have to bet on countries to build their own capital markets and not to disturb people. You've actually driven capital out of Europe. We do not produce anything in Europe, we will have to import everything. This needs to be addressed, not further harmonisation.

Madam President, I'm sorry. Ladies and Gentlemen, We have already discussed the crisis in the automotive industry, in the steel industry, in agriculture, in the energy sector, even in beekeeping, and today it is time to save the chemical industry. Everywhere a crisis, but it is not really a crisis, but the result of this crazy, bureaucratic, climate policy of the European Union. Europe does not need further strategies and plans, but real relief from the burden on the economy. The chemical package is a step in the right direction. It's a simplification, but it's still too cautious, it's late, and it's still too bureaucratic. We continue to create a system in which the entrepreneur has to talk to the clerk and lawyers, not to his client. That's not how we're going to build competitiveness. New concepts, concept One substance one assessment it can increase regulatory coherence, but it also risks centralising decisions and marginalising Member States. It is supposed to be simpler and faster, but in this way we are killing competitiveness. We need deregulation, simple rules, strong companies and respect for national competences. We need common sense, not ideology. Without it, Europe will be a museum, not a healthy economy.