Speeches

Mr President, these days we are commemorating the 80th anniversary of the Slovak National Uprising, which broke out on 29 August 1944, and the 80th anniversary of the Carpathian-Dukla operation, which was the largest mountain battle of World War II and the largest battle in Czechoslovakia. Unfortunately, today we left one of the last living partisans in Slovakia, Mr. Karol Kuna, who was 96 years old, and we have fewer and fewer memorials of the Slovak National Uprising. I would like to quote Mr Kunu, who said: If it weren't for the many who broke the bonds of enslavement, we wouldn't be living in a free country today. Slovak partisans fought for the values of resistance against fascism, such as freedom, justice and equality, and only thanks to them was Czechoslovakia and the Slovak Republic finally a free country that stood on the side of the winners. Today I would like to pay tribute to these people who have fallen for our freedom. In the Slovak National Uprising, about ten thousand people fell, who were not only soldiers, not only partisans, but also civilians who helped these people survive in the mountains. About 150,000 people were killed in the Dukla operation. Either they lost their lives, their health, or they were captured. Honour their memory.

Madam President, I understand that this is a discussion about the priorities of the Hungarian Presidency, despite the fact that many of the speakers are speaking about their feelings and about the different facts, so they should be taken away the floor. But my question for Mr Körner is: can you explain to me, please, how is it connected the national discussion or national decisions of Hungarian Prime Minister or the Hungarian Government with the Presidency of the European Union? Because I didn't understand very much from your presentation. How is this correlated or connected? You didn't very much speak about the Presidency priorities, which I would like to hear, finally, somebody in this room to speak about. Because this is just the hearing of Mr Prime Minister of Hungary and not the Presidency discussion which should be here.

Madam President, this summit, and indeed today's debate, is also about some global agreement, that we are building peace, human rights and sustainable development. And I believe that the United Nations has an irreplaceable role as a global mediator and also in creating a real space for discussing the future of the whole world, because all countries are represented there. I consider the end of wars and the promotion of peace to be one of the most important agreements, which actually came into being during this summit, that we all want to continue to work together on this. Maybe I'd like to go back to that development. We, as the European Union, are now presenting such modern colonialism that, while we say that we want the whole world to get better, we are fighting for people all over the world. On the other hand, we do not mind exploiting the countries of Africa and other regions for the sake of mineral resources and raw materials, and we pretend that it is all right, and we export to them our waste, which we produce here. I think we should change that. And I would like to commend the agreement in the field of digital cooperation, in the field of digital technologies, where we can really help education in third world countries.

Mr President, people buy a car because they need it, not because they have nothing to do with money. When I buy a car, the most important information about the car is the price. So affordability of cars for any type of car is the most important thing that people look at. When we talk about the current crisis in the automotive industry, we caused it ourselves. This Parliament, too, with its decisions and, above all, with the fact that we have put so much pressure on the Green Deal and on such nonsensical aspects and nonsensical regulations that we have not thought through properly. I hope that the new Commission will also talk about the impact and impact studies on such different proposals that it is going to put forward, how different our decisions can affect different sectors of industry and how they actually have an impact on individual people. The automotive industry is in crisis because we have decided, we have decided, that we will use only electric cars. We definitely need to reverse this. We need to look, as the European Parliament and the European Union, at what we are capable of doing. I liked the ideas that colleagues also mentioned that let's support different types of fuels and let's support different forms of hybrid cars, for example. But let's not just talk about electric cars, because there's really a big problem with that.

Madam President, first of all I would like to say that I am very sorry for all the victims who died on 7 October last year. And I want to express my solidarity with their families and, of course, with the families of the people who, unfortunately, are still being held hostage. Of course, no form of terrorism must be accepted or excused, and we must all say that this is wrong. And we, as the international community, must fight terrorism together. However, a terrorist attack does not give Israel the right to attack the population living in Gaza. I am very sorry for the 40,000 victims of these people who died in Gaza. They were women, they were children, they were young people, they were elderly people. And, you know, we talk a lot about Israel, about the Jews, and about various things that concern this region. And we say sometimes, I feel like second-class people who live in Gaza today. I personally visited the refugee camps that are in Lebanon a few years ago. And you know, to see generations of people growing up in a refugee camp from those previous conflicts: What will we grow out of these people? It will not be people who will see peace, who will want to cooperate. We must do more than the international community to resolve this conflict, to win two states on this territory. Above all, we need to stop the humanitarian crisis that is there at the moment. And I am very supportive of Mr Borrell. As the European Union, we must do everything to get help to those people who need it most, and Israel must make this possible.

Commissioner, when we are talking about the Energy Union, I wonder whether that Union is real cooperation and where the European Commission was when Hungary and Slovakia were blackmailed by Ukraine and threatened to stop Ukraine from importing critical raw materials through Ukrainian territory, for which we paid. This was also mentioned by a colleague from Hungary, so I would be very interested if you could answer me. When we talk about the Energy Union, it is very important to talk about the fact that we still have high energy prices in the European Union, which are felt by our own citizens. Our companies pay about three and a half times what companies in the United States pay for energy. So we really have to deal with how much that energy costs us. We support the production of hydrogen in the European Union, but we still do not know exactly what we will be using it specifically for. It might also be interesting to know what ideas we have and how we will use the hydrogen we plan to produce on a large scale. We need better infrastructure for electricity. If we want to use electricity more, whether we should focus more on Member States investing money also in ensuring that energy security is actually supported by good infrastructure. And also, when we talk about electric cars and the use of electricity, the safety of these vehicles is important, because we can see that today, even car manufacturing companies are going back to fossil fuels and standard engines, because they are much better.

Madam President, I think this report is a very good basis for further discussion, and it is a wish list that we could perhaps make a little use of, but look at how. The proposed amount of money that Mr Draghi proposes that we add to the European budget every year may not be the best idea, and the Member States will, of course, have to deal with it, but it must be taken as a good proposal. I think we shouldn't forget people. I also miss a little bit in this report such a social dimension and the promotion of employment, but the promotion of workers' social rights and what we have actually built in the European Union in this area. I am also pleased that he mentions support for cohesion and cohesion policy, which is indeed a very good EU policy for investment and balancing regional disparities. However, I am somewhat sorry that he is saying that some regions should be left out and that we should invest this money more in innovation. Supporting the start-ups of our own smart people is certainly a very important part of this report. But the most important question that arises is what we are sacrificing. Mr Draghi asks whether we are sacrificing the environment, the standard of living or our soul. I think we should sacrifice a little pride and say that some legislation is not good and we should correct it.

Madam President, the European Union is an institution designed to promote peace, not war. I will repeat this in this House all the time. We're confusing two things here. Some of you here say that you want peace, and then at the same time you say that peace means the defeat of Putin. Because these are two different things. When we talk about peace, peace means discussion, cooperation, or negotiations to bring a solution to the table. When we talk about war, we are talking about the dead. We're talking about guns, we're talking about guns. I think that the Union should talk about a peace policy, and that we should call more in this House, too, for some peace negotiations to be held and for us to support, no matter what peace plan, just so that this war ends and people do not die. You know, the Slovak Republic is inundated with people who have fled Ukraine. And I am very sorry that some Member States are releasing these people to go to war in which they do not want to fight. This is also a violation of human rights in my opinion, and we should also consider whether this is right. Ukraine is actually a country that will be devastated by war. You are all saying here that we will support Ukraine until the last minute, until the last euro. But how many? What does that mean? We have here the Draghi report, which speaks of support for the European Union's competitiveness. But at the same time, you're saying that you're going to give an infinite amount of money to get people killed there and keep fighting there. So we really need to recover so that we don't sell our souls to the devil just to take some kind of revenge that many of you here are longing for.

Madam President, we are talking about the future of agriculture. We saw farmers on the streets, and suddenly it was possible to change European legislation. So I'm glad that we really want to do something. On the other hand, we should perhaps stop importing cheap agricultural products from Ukraine and really make a real difference to European agriculture. Potrebujeme investície, potrebujeme diverzifikáciu, potrebujeme inovácie, technológie v poľnohospodárstve, ako ste povedali pani komisárka. Otherwise, I wonder why Commissioner Janusz Wojciechowski, who is in charge of agriculture in such an important debate, is not here. You talked about these necessary things, but that's why we need more money for agriculture. And then the most important thing in all this is certainly that we maintain sufficient support for farmers in all regions of the European Union. Many colleagues have said that animal production needs to be reduced a bit. I think the opposite, because animal production also benefits us in that it also contains the products that we need in order to increase crop production. So I would certainly also talk about more support for animal production, because not all people in the European Union want to be vegan. Farmers must not suffer from the Green Deal, and we also do not need new regulations and for agriculture to absorb the problems we have. But the most important thing to do is to finally match the payments between eastern and western farmers so that we have real equality in agriculture in the European Union.

Madam President, this first part-session is mainly about big symbols, and I am very sorry that the first debate in this new European Parliament is not about our citizens, it is not about our topics, it is not about social security, it is not about fighting poverty at all, but it is about a third country, Ukraine. But I understand that this is your decision. I am also very sorry that the debate on the debate on Gaza, on the situation taking place there, was not adopted. I do not know where this war is less important or where these people are less important than the people in Ukraine. I am also very sorry that we have not accepted the debate and discussion about the current political culture, not only in the European Union, but also in a world where political leaders or people who have a slightly different opinion than a majority or what is said in the standard media are being attacked, as happened to the Prime Minister of the Slovak Republic Robert Fico and, more recently, Donald Trump. So I am very sorry that this House has once again decided to talk only about Ukraine and still about Ukraine. Nevertheless, speaking of Ukraine, I think that what we should be saying first is certainly the EU's peace policy. The European Union was created as a project of peace, and that should be the first thing we should say. That we are to push for peace negotiations, we are to push for a solution to the situation and we are to push for the two sides to sit at the same negotiating table and for peace to finally come to Ukraine, and not just to deliver constant weapons and talk about how this war must end with Russia's defeat.

Mr President, it was the Nordic social model and Sweden, which brought the social pillar to Europe, that was our model, so that we do not forget the citizens of the European Union and people throughout their lives. And I am very pleased that, even today, we are standing here at the end of the mandate of this European Parliament and we are talking about the fact that social Europe, the Europe we want and, as social democrats, we very much support it. Throughout life, from birth, we should take care of our citizens and our people. This means that decent birth care, health care, good education, but above all social conditions, fair working conditions for people throughout their lives are a very important part of our policies and we must not give up on them. We must not resign in support of trade unionists, in support of bargaining, of collective bargaining. Even today, in the twenty-first century, this is not self-evident for some industries and for some companies, so this is also a thing that we must not forget for the next five years. A fair wage and a dignified life for everyone throughout life, including in old age. Fair pensions, from which people can really live with dignity, are also a very important part of our efforts. And I think that this commitment to the declaration that we are talking about today for the next five years, not only for the European Parliament, but for the European Union as a whole, is also a very positive signal for the citizens of our Union.

Madam President, war is certainly a violation of international law, but also what we are proposing here today and what we are talking about here is, in my opinion, a violation of international law. You yourself have said this, Mr Borrell, that there is some innovative idea that we need to innovate and invent a way to do it, because it is clear to us from the outset that this is not right, and I think that, although I am here in a kind of isolated voice that will say this, we must replace the emotions that touch us all with truly pragmatism and common sense. We cannot replace a violation of international law with a violation of international law. The European Union is not Robin Hood. We are an institution based on the rule of law, on the law and on clear rules and a functioning system. In particular, the certainty of law which the European Union stands for and which it is trying to present is at great risk in this case, and I do not think that, although we might all like to do so, this is the right way to use it. We cannot innovate in this way, Mr President and Vice-President of the European Commission, and I am also very pleased that, in this debate, you have finally acknowledged that the European Union does not have the competence to buy arms, and that is why you have devised a peace instrument so that you can use it, because that is also very important in this debate, we cannot bend the law as we like it at the moment.

Madam President, work must be voluntary, working conditions must be adequate and, of course, there must also be a well-deserved reward for these people. Forced labour has no place in the 21st century, and we can already see that even chronic violators of these rules are gradually approaching the rules of the International Labour Organization. If it is standard and prohibits such work. There is no reason why we, as the European Union, should tolerate or stop actually addressing this situation, and we should allow for the possibility that some people and some companies may actually still benefit from forced labour. There is no tolerance at all for companies to talk about not being able to check in their production chain whether there was any forced labour that might have happened during that production. In my view, it is also a very good solution that the European Commission investigates such breaches. If a company violates this possibility and will not be able to prove whether there was any forced labour, because, of course, there will always come first some kind of stimulus, which will certainly have some justification. I don't think that's going to be the way we're going to abuse these companies. Certainly, if we do not use such products, this is our concrete way of combating forced labour ourselves. And I think it is good that we ban it from importing into the European Union if something like this has been produced. We can't afford to buy cheap things because people were abused in making them. We are in the 21st century.

Madam President, I would like to congratulate Mr Répas on a great report and perhaps tell you a little about what I am wearing. This skirt from my sister, but this part is part of the costume from the village of Čeľadice near Nitra in Slovakia, which was worn by both my grandparents and people before them, and it was precisely those generations who valued their resources and all that they had and tried to repair all the things they wore. And today we're going back to the common sense that worked here, and we're really trying to get back to what should have been. If someone buys something, they should have the right to have it repaired somewhere. This will not only create additional jobs on the European market, but will also create additional jobs in factories that produce various spare parts. And I think that this is also the right step to maintain not only the resources that are very limited on our planet, but also that common sense that we must return to. There are people who say that if we have such a right to repair, we will actually make some further progress impossible, or that they will have to store some of these parts somewhere. But you know, when there was also a discussion about, for example, keeping a 2-year guarantee for products that people buy, some people also said that that's why some companies go bankrupt, and basically nothing happened. So I think it's a very good suggestion to give consumers a lot more freedom, and what we buy should have the right to keep as long as possible.

Madam President, it is such an interesting debate that there is, I think, even up to fifteen MEPs who are interested, even though Mr Hojsík is saying that the whole of the European Union is here. Some who signed up for the debate did not even come to it, so this is how the Slovak Republic and this is your fictional topic of all MEPs. And I think it's completely meaningless again. We transfer domestic issues and domestic debate to the European Union. And here we talk. Not all Slovak MEPs are sitting in this room, because they probably do not consider it so important to protect their country. I think it is good what Commissioner Reynders said. And thank you very much for correcting your position from December last year, for appreciating the approach of the Slovak government and for really having the communication. We don't pretend to do everything ourselves. The Slovak Government has the right, and the Slovak Republic has the right, to pass laws that we think are good for us. And, of course, we are in communication with the European Commission so that these laws are in some correspondence with European law. As my colleague Mrs Benova said, yes, it is at this very moment that the Slovak Government meets with the Ukrainian Government. So all your accusations of some opposition colleagues, how pro-Russian we are, and these stupid things, you have the answer today. At the same time as we sit with Ukrainians and talk about how we are going to help, how we are going to help cross-border cooperation and those people who are fleeing Ukraine. I think that this polarisation of society, which you are demonstrating here, is absolutely inappropriate, and we see that there are already increasing attacks in Slovakia not only on us as coalition MPs, but also on us as coalition politicians, but also among people. And this needs to be stopped. We don't need another enemy. My colleague, who also just left, who spoke in front of me, so neither you nor I think you have been to Slovakia in your life, here you are talking about Fico, whom you have not met in your life. You are making him a demon because you need to think of some other proxy themes before the European elections. But I ask you, don't take my own country, my own state, my own colleagues into your mouth, because you don't know anything about it and you're shaking stupidity.

Madam President, cohesion policy is an investment policy, as someone has rightly said to me just now. I think that this is one of the best policies that the European Union has, and that is why it is very important that we continue to support it and that we continue to leave sufficient funding for cohesion policy, because we see, as someone also said a moment ago, that when you go anywhere in Europe, you have signs everywhere saying that projects are financed by the European Union. Whether it has been in the fields of education, social policy, digital, regional disparities, construction, etc., it is indeed a very successful policy. I would like to highlight for this period, which we are talking about today, the pilot projects that were also on the territory of the Slovak Republic. Whether it was, for example, the transformation of coal regions in Upper Nitra, but also a special project for the so-called lagging, catching-up regions, where there was Prešov and Banská Bystrica self-governing regions in Slovakia, which received special funding just for the transformation of these regions, and as pilot projects we could try different types of policies that can work in these regions. I believe that this policy must continue to be supported, strengthened, but above all combatted in the area of cohesion policy, both against the bureaucracy that still persists in this policy and against the Gold Platingwhich we still have.

Madam President, the European Union is a place that is both interesting and attractive for talent and for skilled people, including from third countries. And I am very pleased that we are going to promote legal migration to the EU, because that is what we need. There are no illegal migrants who are being exploited, but we need legal people who will come, who we know who they are, what their job skills are, and they can fill those jobs that we have been in for a long time. For example, we need a lot of drivers, drivers, people who can handle, for example, retail cash registers, we need technicians and a variety of other people, not only those who are highly educated, but also those who may be less qualified for jobs that are vacant for a long time and for which Europeans may no longer want or can no longer fill them. I think it is very important in this proposal that we also want to protect these people who come as legal migrants, that they have the labour protection that workers in the European Union also have, because in doing so we will prevent illegal exploitation, dumping of cities, cheaper labour, so that the conditions are really the same for all, and thus we will protect workers also in the European Union. And anyone who comes up with a desire to work should really have the right to stay if he can work for our good, for the good of all of us.

Madam President, information for people who use such platforms for temporary housing is, of course, very important. For example, many of us live in some other country, such as Belgium, Brussels, and sometimes we need to rent something for a short period of time or go on holiday and rent accommodation via different platforms, because we do not like to live in a hotel. However, the information provided by these platforms is diverse and not sufficient, which is why I think it is a good step taken by the European Commission and the European Parliament to somehow unify this information and data, to collect it, and to know, in particular, what is happening, where it is happening, and how we can then further protect, in particular, the consumers that matter most to us. I think that we are concerned not only with information, but also with the protection of consumers as such, so that later they can actually claim themselves if they need to protect their rights in some way. Because even today we see that in Slovakia, in Bratislava, there are growing various housing units and complexes, in which most of the apartments, for example, are rented for a short time through different platforms and there are different people living there, about whom we often do not even know much. So I think that's a good step. I will support it and congratulations to the rapporteur.

Mr President, I think the enlargement policy of the European Union is one of the best things we have. However, whoever wants to be a member of the European Union must comply with the rules, as we have all had to do here today. And all countries, of course, must agree to the accession of this country. I think it's a good policy. It is a way of improving life, progress, better cooperation for all people in Europe. I support the enlargement of the European Union to include countries in the Balkans, because I believe that these countries have been waiting for membership for quite a long time and we should make more efforts to help them along this path. However, I am more sceptical about Ukraine and I would like to call on us to avoid making false promises and bending our own rules just to please Ukraine. I think Ukraine's road to the European Union will still be very long, but they really have to go through it like everyone else. Just like all the countries before them. And changing the rules in their favour will not only be fair to the rest of us, but also to those countries that I have just mentioned, such as those in the Balkans. As far as this proposal is concerned, I am very pleased that we are talking again about the European Union Commissioner for Enlargement, because this is one way to help.

Mr President, health and safety at work is very important. And up to 97% of the various accidents that happen in the workplace could be avoided if really sufficient training or safety measures were made, which are sometimes forgotten by employers. People are tired people, they have a lot of work and they do not have enough rest, and therefore sometimes some misfortune can also happen. The greater the problem is if this misfortune is fatal. And I think that any such death is absolutely meaningless and very difficult to explain to the family that will remain after such an employee. People choose jobs. It's not like it used to be. They are no longer slaves who have to work for the company's profits, but people choose where they want to work and choose for a reason. That is why employers should treat them with respect and protect their rights, their work and, of course, their lives. It is all the more important now also to work with trade unions, with representatives of employers who propose very good and positive measures to prevent not only such accidents, accidents, but also to protect the health and life of employees, as this must not be sacrificed at the expense of profit.

Mr President, I will talk about the right to unions. Large foreign companies coming to Eastern Europe and Slovakia feel that they can choose from our legal order what they will respect and what they will not. In my opinion, the law applies equally to everyone. And even a large company, which has thousands of employees, can not choose what it will adhere to and what it will not. It happened to us recently that we had problems in a trade union in a large company, LIDL, and today we have very similar problems in a large organisation, DELL. Dell is an American company that also operates in Europe and has several thousand employees in Slovakia. These employees formed a union three years ago, and when they started making demands or wanted to work in that union, this big company decided to simply fire them. Of the ten members of the union's management, seven are either on notice or have already been dismissed. This is something absolutely unacceptable, and I would also like to call on large multinational companies such as DELL from this place that they cannot choose what they respect and what they do not. The right to trade unions, social dialogue with trade unions is an important part of European law and social dialogue and our democracy.

Mr President, I think that the Global Gateway proposal or initiative is a very good, correct way for us to actually support the whole world. As the richest, most successful, we also have a responsibility towards other parts of the world, and this infrastructure support is a very good idea for me that the European Commission has come up with. After two years, we can see that it works. I very much liked Mr Bullmann's suggestion that we could extend this cooperation to the parliamentary sphere, and it would certainly be a good and beneficial idea, as this cooperation is based not only on the promotion of energy, digital and transport infrastructure, but also on the exchange of experience and perhaps some good solutions, because together we can make much better progress. I think that this cooperation platform is an opportunity for progress not only for the European Union, but especially for those parts that will work with us in other parts of the world, and we can support the countries that are developing. For example, by promoting not only digital skills but also digital connectivity, we can promote better education, better opportunities for countries outside our territory. But we can also link not only education but also the freedom to reduce regional disparities and support young people in these regions to have better opportunities.

Mr President, eight months ago in June we had the same discussion on this subject. And when I look around the room, there are the same people sitting here. There was Agnes, there was Alicia, João, Brando, Atidzhe, Seán, all the same people who are still talking about the same thing that we want to support young people in the European Union, and that internships are not a substitute for a job and must not be used and abused by companies to do the work that traditional employees should do. That is why I think it is really time, after years of talking about it, that traineeships should be paid and these people really protected, these young people entering the labour market, it is really time for the European Union to finally do something to ban traineeships that are unpaid. And I am very sorry that it is not only the institutions within the European Union, but also some national institutions that still use traineeship places that are free, because it is really young people who finish some of their education, want to get into the labour market, and many times some kind of traineeship experience is required, so that we do not really put these people in a situation where they still have to pay for themselves from their family budgets to work somewhere. This is indeed unacceptable in the 21st century, and I would like to congratulate Commissioner Schmit on his nomination as a spitzenkandidat for the Socialists, and I believe that you will win.

Mr President, I would be very interested to know why we came up with such an overambitious goal. When I listen to this debate, it's not funny for most people, but it's just something we disagree with. I think we should focus more on how to reduce the European Union's own consumption and how to use what we have, how to stop exploiting third countries for the raw materials and resources we need for our innovations, to be more beautiful and better. I think that reducing our consumption or therefore our emissions in 50 years by 90% is an absolute number that I do not know who came up with it at all and why. But I am even more impressed with agriculture, by 30%, where we want to reduce emissions compared to 2015. And I would be interested to know that now how we want to do it, that we will now have some cow meters, how many gases they produce, and we will now discuss how much they can or can't or what we're going to do. Indeed, I think we will have clean air, perhaps in 2040, when we will achieve these goals, which I do not believe in at all, and we will have clean air, but no food and we will all die for beauty, because the European Union does not really need such investments or, therefore, such changes. And rather, let's think about what we can do with what we have, and not invent new things of this nature.

Madam President, I join the crowd of people who have spoken before me, who do not support this proposal in its current form, because whether we call it NGTs or GMOs, it is still a genetic modification of plants, and for me it is not a natural process, and we still do not have sufficient information about the consequences and consequences this can have not only for the human organism, but also for the environment. I think that consumers, because we somehow grow everything to have something to eat, which is, of course, a prerequisite both for me and for these crops, or therefore for these new seeds, consumers should have informed choices. That means they should know what's in it. And as we have written on some products today, it's GMO-free. It's something people are explicitly looking for, and we don't have to go or look out at those protesting farmers, or the hundreds, thousands of emails we've received when we know it's something people don't want. So it's important to me if we should make any such adjustment, the one that's on the table isn't good. I don't like it. We need to have clear research. We need to know what the consequences are for the human body, for the environment, for pollinators. We must know what consequences this may have, for example, for organic farming, which, of course, is very specific, but I think, as Mrs Tóth said, that the Member States should decide what they want to grow on their territory and whether they will agree that such breeding techniques are used in seeds in their environment or in their country.