Speeches

Mr President, the report is living proof of how dangerous the EU has become. One is reminded of a well-known story about Dr Frankenstein, who wanted to create a perfect being and instead created a monster. What the report proposes is the grabbing of all essential competences of the Member States, thereby reducing the national institutions to ornamental functions. Should the reform come into effect, they will have less power than German Länder. Who the hell do you think you are to place yourselves above the Member States? You do not have the legislative initiative. Thank heavens for that! Your democratic legitimacy: scarce. Your record: lamentable. Your respect for law: non-existent. You want to govern the entire continent, but are not even capable of supplying hot water in the building. Unfortunately, the EU will probably go about it in the traditional EU way: keeping millions of people out of it and exerting pressure on national institutions by all sorts of foul tricks. And the final point: it is not that some parts of the project are good and some are somewhat excessive. All of it should be rejected and never, ever brought back again!

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, is the EU in better shape today than, shall we say, 20 years ago? The answer is an emphatic ‘no’. To paraphrase Shakespeare’s Hamlet, something is rotten in the State of the Union. There is more than ever instability, conflict, tension and uncertainty. Let me quote a recent issue of The Economist: ‘Inflation remains hot [...] officials are increasingly worried by the cloudy growth outlook [...] the bloc is facing recession.’ It is, to your credit, Madam President, that you initiated and continue the sanctions against Russia. But again, one cannot be all too happy. Before the invasion, the Commission did not dare to do something about the German-Russian energy alliance. Through this refusal to act, the Commission bears some responsibility for the depth of the energy crisis. The migration policy has been a failure. Despite the Commission’s hustle and bustle and fiery rhetoric, the people-smuggling business is thriving and the disintegration of the social fabric continues. In Western Europe, the number of thefts, robberies and rapes has soared: about 30 rapes for 100 000 inhabitants in France and Belgium, compared to less than 2 in my country. The Green Deal – the Commission’s flagship – instead of being a vehicle of growth, is a costly extravaganza: over EUR 300 billion by 2030 with rising living costs, energy bills and other unpleasant aspects of the Commission’s and Parliament’s fantasies. The Commission has been unsurprisingly silent on this matter. The last sinister fantasy is the Nature Restoration Law. The curator of these harmful reveries, Mr Timmermans, has taken a convenient exit and seeks his luck in national politics. I hope that voters will give him what he deserves. Another financial extravaganza has been the common debt of EUR 800 billion by 2026. We already know the predictions were erroneous. The cost of all this will be at least twice as high. The EU budget is in shambles: -EUR 66 billion as of today. You apparently calculated that the markets would have had more trust in the financial credibility of the EU than that of the Member States. Unfortunately, you mistook the EU propaganda for the real thing. And finally, politics. When I compare the past Commission with yours, I see a continuous slide towards oligarchy with a growing disregard for any restraints the Treaty stipulated. The Commission turned into a partisan machine, meddling in national politics, trying to topple the governments they don’t like. You, yourself, Madam President, threatened the Italian voters before the elections. Let me quote you: ‘If things go in a difficult direction, we have tools’, you said. Let me remind you, you don’t have any tools to interfere with the democratic process of the nation state. Mr Lukashenko has such tools. You don’t. You made the rule of law a caricature. There is an old proverb: ‘Physician, heal thyself.’ Heal thyself, Madam President. For one thing, let the Commission stop juggling with the legal basis, claiming, for instance, that taxes are not taxes but contributions, thus sidestepping the necessary procedures, and perhaps start by providing all the documents relevant to the vaccines deal, including the text messages. That would be a good example of how to be a law-abiding person. And the last point. Believe it or not, but this Commission will go in history as one that tried to regulate the language of the European Union and to establish a sort of officially sanctioned indoctrination. For instance, by abolishing certain words such as ‘Christmas’. Yes, you withdrew from this idiotic move, but the fact is that the bureaucrats were planning it – a large bunch of the European Commission had been working on how we should avoid the word ‘Christmas’. I mean, this is simply outrageous. But this gives us an insight into how the Commission works, and what we see should be a warning to us all.

This is amazing! I mean, this is political hooliganism! (Mixed reactions) So Poland has also been a place that Russian infiltration was present. And just let me give you a few examples. There was an attempt to tie us to the Russian gas supply for several decades to come. We had the Polish ambassadors being coached by Russia’s Foreign Minister, Mr Lavrov. I know some of your colleagues have been responsible for this. I know that you suspect that all the truth may come out, but please, for the sake of decency, reject this stupid and disgraceful proposal.

Madam President, let me begin by saying that investigation is a standard parliamentary practice – oh yes, it is – and the commission that has been set up meets all democratic standards. Whoever says otherwise lies; whoever says otherwise lies. (Interjections from the floor) Madam President, could you please discipline the colleagues? The Soviet – sorry, the Russian interference... (Interjections from the floor) Russian interference has been with us for a long time. The top politicians from France, Germany, Finland, Austria have been on the payroll of Putin and his oligarchs, and...

Madam President, Mr Chancellor, ladies and gentlemen, to understand the role of Germany, one needs to start with the basic question: what sort of political system is the European Union? And I submit it is a combination of an oligarchy and a tyranny of the majority. The Parliament functions, of course, as the tyranny of the majority and the Commission is a typically oligarchic institution, unelected with limited democratic legitimacy and having an unquestionable lust for power. And as far as I could understand you, Mr Chancellor, you want this body to have even more power. But the pillars of European oligarchy are the big guys among the Member States, and the biggest is, of course, Germany. The big guys do what they want, never bothering to consult anyone and calling it leadership. And with the voting system in the Council securing their interests, there is little chance they could be outvoted. Of many sins that the German Governments have committed, let me mention two: the migration crisis – when Germany single-handedly opened the EU borders – and recently, the energy and security crisis, which resulted from its having a long and murky tradition of political romance with Russia. Today, the German politicians beat their breasts and promise to be good boys in the future. Well, the problem with the big guys is they can promise anything and repentance is easy for them as it is inconsequential. When I heard that the best option would be the gradual abolition of the veto and the abolition of the veto in foreign policy, I simply cannot believe my ears. The Russian policy was the most spectacular disaster of the EU’s big guys, and those who are most responsible for this want to have more power in foreign policy. The logic behind it boggles the mind. The more we screw up, the more power we want. The logic would be the reverse. Because you screw up so much, you should be kept in check for as long as possible. Chancellor Scholz, I do not have any illusions about Germany mending its ways. You are too big, you are too hubristic, especially lately, I read your statement and I heard something like this today also, about Germany taking responsibility for the EU. Just a matter of interest, if you could satisfy my intellectual curiosity, where can one read about the German responsibility for the EU in the Treaties? The only proper thing for the German Governments would be to take the backbenches. And as political hygiene requires, let others run the show. You tried. You failed. You should withdraw. Unless, Mr Chancellor, you and your colleagues in the European oligarchy believe that German leaders, like diamonds, are forever.

Madam President, well, there is not much to be said. A lot of facts have already come out, and I’m sure more will come out in the future. Perhaps some of them quite surprising in a most unpleasant sort of way. But you are right, of course, Madam President, that a European institution – the European Parliament – was targeted by the bad guys. They probably consider the Parliament to be a place with several weak spots. Indeed, they succeeded to a degree that shocked a lot of us. I always wonder, to what extent is it a problem of the personal weaknesses of our colleagues, former colleagues or staffers, and to what extent is it a problem of a system, of a structure, and of rules and procedures? Probably both elements should be taken into account, and I wish there could be some kind of critical objective analysis of this phenomenon. After all, this is a huge institution, which is very complex and not easy to manage. Such a critical analysis should be conducted with somebody from outside, not from our midst, for obvious reasons, that we are more interested in sustaining this institution and defending it no matter what we say openly. I would suggest that we should have a sort of critical description of the way such an institution functions. Perhaps that would give us an insight into what was wrong and how to prevent similar developments from happening in the future. One last point: one thing that will certainly not improve the reputation of European Parliament is pompous, highfalutin rhetoric. This will not help. I have an impression that we very much like to indulge in lofty language that didn’t help in the future, hasn’t helped and won’t help. Just do something real. We want the real thing, not rhetoric. Rhetoric is a very easy thing.

Madam President, Prime Ministers, two minutes of truth, of bitter truth. The bitter truth is that the European Parliament has done a lot of damage in Europe. It has been sending a false message that it represents the European demos. There isn’t, and there won’t be any European demos. The Parliament has infected Europe with shameless partisanship and the infection became so contagious that it spread to other institutions such as the European Commission. The Parliament has abandoned the basic function of representing people. Instead, it has become a machine to implement the so—called European project, thus alienating millions of voters. The Parliament has become a political vehicle of the left to impose their monopoly with their fierce intolerance towards any dissenting view. No matter how many times you repeat the word ‘diversity’, diversity is becoming an extinct species in the European Union, and particularly in this Chamber. The Parliament is a quasi parliament because it rejects the essential principle of parliamentarism – namely accountability. The deputy, let me remind you, is elected by the voters and must be accountable to the voters that elected him. Not so in the European Union. The idea that, say, Spanish, German, French, etc. deputies, accountable to their own national electorates, can dictate something to, shall we say, Hungarian society or any other society to which they cannot be held accountable and which cannot take them to task is simply preposterous. Colleagues, call it what you will, but democracy it is not. To sum up, the Parliament represents the genius that does not exist, works for the project that ignores reality and law, shuns accountability, turns its back on millions of people and serves the interests of one political orientation – and this is just the tip of the iceberg. Having said that, ladies and gentlemen, I rest my case.

Madam President, I would like to raise a point of order in accordance with Rule 195 and Rule 10. Yesterday, during the debate on Russian relations with European parties, Ms Evin Incir from the S&D Group accused my Swedish colleagues in the ECR of having direct connections with and financing from the Kremlin. This is a defamatory accusation. Furthermore, it came from a member of the Social Democrats of Sweden, a party with a shameful pro-Soviet past. It came from a member of the S&D Group, a group which includes former communists and Kremlin flunkies, and is the home of the German Socialist Party, once led by the infamous Gerhard Schröder. Let me emphasise that there is no greater or more consistent critic of the Kremlin’s policy in this Parliament than the ECR Group. Therefore, I expect Ms Evin Incir to withdraw her statement and I would kindly request, Madam President, that you act in accordance with our rules.

Mr President, thank you very much. Ladies and Gentlemen, Arranging absurd debates, and there have been many, seems to this Parliament. This level of absurdity surpasses even the lowest standards of rationality. The current debate is not only absurd, but I would say it is wicked. I would like to address Members from outside Poland who support this debate. Ladies and gentlemen, you don't know anything about Poland. You know nothing about this institution. And I hear - a colleague said something about the Disciplinary Chamber and expressed such enthusiasm that the Disciplinary Chamber is liquidated. After all, this lady has no idea what the Disciplinary Chamber does and what she does. It's zero. Null. It's just that. Poland – I have heard the term – is said to have an authoritarian government. Does India have an authoritarian government? There is a thousand times more freedom in Poland than in a country like Spain, which is ruled by an extremely repressive and unpleasant government. What are you even saying? Zero, just zero knowledge! Complete ignorance, only fueled by such ideological hatred and indignation. Which, of course, as an observer of public life, I can somehow understand, but I regret it. Recently, one of the MEPs used such an expression that Poland should be financially starved. I understand that the European Parliament has also adopted this strategy of financial starvation of Poland. The word starvation sounds a very unpleasant echo, because it refers to an extremely nasty political tradition and, as I say, sounds terrible to the Polish ear, but the truth is that this Parliament has indeed adopted such a strategy. And that is, I must say, very sad. But I'm struck by the lying language that's raining down here. When you talk about democracy, it's not really about democracy. You're talking about the tyranny of one group. When you talk about values, it's really about intimidation and blackmail. When you talk about the rule of law, it's about getting an extra battalion on your opponents. I'm disgusted by that. When Poland joined the European Union in 2004, even the biggest opponents of the Union in my country and beyond could not imagine a similar degeneration. Ladies and gentlemen, you are sowing the wind and sooner or later you will collect the storm.

Madam President, for anyone who has eyes to see, it must become clear that Putin’s war will continue and that the EU’s reaction has not brought the expected results. Despite the narcissistic, self—indulgent and self—congratulatory rhetoric of the European leaders, the sanctions have too many loopholes and some of the Western European governments are beginning to have second thoughts. They modify their position or quibble over technicalities. The SWIFT blockade, which was to be an atomic bomb so far resembles more a firework. The ban on the hydrocarbons proposed, among others, by Poland and Latvia was not accepted by the Council. Instead, President Macron continues his absurd telephone conversations with Putin and the German Government continues its typical self—serving political game. This European hesitancy is precisely what Putin must have counted on when deciding to invade Ukraine. In the meantime, the Russian economy has become stabilised more or less, Moscow Exchange is gaining profits, Russian ruble has gone up and Gazprom gets EUR 900 million a day. And there is a time factor, Putin has all the time he needs. He has wide support among the Russian population. His army is not badly equipped. He has been devastating Ukraine with the arms he bought from France, Germany and eight other European countries. And this after the arms embargo that followed the annexation of Crimea. And Ukraine does not have time, as the war is being waged on her territory. People are killed and cities ruined. Does Europe have time? Let us not delude ourselves. With the passing of time, Western Europe’s reaction will weaken and a desire to have some sort of normalisation will increase. This happened in the past more than once, and I’m afraid it might happen in the future. Anyway, I wouldn’t bet it won’t.

Madam President, the war has created an entirely new situation, and we have to do everything we can to win this war because it’s our war, the war of all European nations. Once Putin decided to go ahead with the invasion, it became clear he’s determined to subdue Ukraine and will not hesitate to resort to extreme measures. It was he who once said, let me remind you, that the collapse of the Soviet Union had been the greatest geopolitical tragedy of the century. So there should be no misunderstanding as to his intentions. He plans to create what was once the Soviet empire – perhaps not with one stroke, but that is definitely his final objective. Moreover, he has been more or less open about it all along. The Ukrainian army and the Ukrainian people are opposing the invaders, and they desperately need some military back—up, arms and other tools of defence. Fortunately, after the initial opposition from some countries, it is now about 20 governments I think, which have started helping the Ukrainians. It’s very good that some time ago, in the Council, the Member States decided to create a European Peace Facility and that these funds can now be used to help Ukraine. I’m proud to say that it is my government that was first to propose, as early as Thursday morning, to activate the European Peace Facility. So, the flow of arms, the flow of necessary technology and other means of defence must continue. Whatever the effects of the sanctions, who wins the war will ultimately be decided on the battlefield. Finally – and I must say this, I’m sorry, because as usual, the EU with its narcissistic and self—congratulatory proclivities likes to escape responsibility – Putin made his decision because he was induced by the weakness of the West. Let us be frank. He did not think much of the Western leaders, and it showed. He didn’t hide it. In a way, he was right, having been for a long time pampered by the French and German Governments, by some American administrations, and also by the European Commission that was both unable and unwilling to stymie the Nord Stream projects. So to those Western leaders and governments that took upon themselves the job of dealing with Russia, and particularly to the German politicians – but not only to them – we must say today, ladies and gentlemen: you blew it and your leadership credibility is gone. It’s time for a reset, and let us start by enabling Ukraine to join the European Union.

Madam President, when in 2008, the Russian Army invaded Georgia, Poland’s President, Lech Kaczyński, gathered political leaders from Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in Tbilisi and at the public meeting, he said these memorable words, ‘Today it is Georgia. Tomorrow Ukraine, then the Baltic States. And in the future, maybe Poland.’ Well, unfortunately, these words are not only memorable, but they sound prophetic, too. But, there is a discrepancy between East European and West European political sensibilities. For most East Europeans, Russian imperialism is a fact that has determined and continues to determine their very existence. For the West Europeans, it is simply news in the media, sometimes sensational and exciting, but generally, it is a rather tedious story in a far—off land, presumably made up by some political fantasies. To make the matter worse, Russia has become an object of deep attraction for many Europeans and additionally, an engaging partner in power-politics, also in economic relations, not to mention the notorious Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2. The fact that former chancellors of Germany and Austria, former prime ministers of France and Finland have been working for Russian businesses, were employed by Russian businesses, is meaningful. These gentlemen and many others too, also ladies let me add, are not mavericks, but they represent what is typical of a large segment of European political establishments. To call a spade a spade, Europe is a weak link in the line of defence against Russian imperialism. No wonder that Putin likes to humiliate European politicians and has been quite successful in this. Those politicians desire to accommodate Russia and are keen on conducting business as usual with her, and this is the reason why they de facto accepted the annexation of the Crimea. Well, recent signals from Europe and also from outside Europe could be rather mixed. But there is a lot of reassuring talk about the hardening of the European position vis—à—vis Russia. We’ve heard a lot of tough words today, a really significant EU pep talk, but how hard this position has really become, not in words but in deeds, we will know in the weeks and months to come.

Mr President, thank you very much. Prime Minister of my country Mateusz Morawiecki was supposed to come here. Unfortunately, he was not allowed to do so, but he asked me to convey the content he wanted to express. I do so all the more willingly because they reflect the views of my group, of many millions of my compatriots, as well as of the people of Europe. At the moment, several thousand Polish officers and soldiers are patrolling the eastern border of the European Union. For the first time since the Iron Curtain, the integrity of Poland’s borders, the Baltic States, is under threat. This is a long shadow of Russia's neo-imperialist policy. For several weeks Lukashenko has been sending hundreds of civilians to the border every day. This is not a repeat of the 2015 migration crisis. We are dealing with a planned provocative action in which migrants are only Lukashenko's tools and the aim is to destabilise Europe. Lukashenko's intentions do not need to be proved, he himself provides such evidence. “We will massacre all the scum that you, the West, have financed.” These words did not come at a secret meeting, Lukashenko said on BBC television. For years, Vladimir Putin's Russia has been consistently striving to rebuild its imperial position and subjugate parts of Europe. Its strength is our passivity. When she attacked Georgia, we were unable to stand up to her. When she was tearing Crimea out of Ukraine, we were not able to stop it. When Lukashenko falsified the presidential elections, we lacked the determination to defend the Belarusian people against dictatorship. When Vladimir Putin himself started a game aimed at playing out the interests of individual European countries, we lacked the solidarity that would put a dam for the construction of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline. I am writing ‘we’, although Poland has strongly objected to each of these cases from the outset. I am writing 'we' because in the long run we are all victims of this policy, all of Europe. On the eastern borders of the European Union, on the Polish-Belarusian border, there is a regular battle for the future of Europe. It's high time we realized that. This is a conflict that is taking place in the field of information, because almost every day the farms of Russian trolls bombard the Internet with fake news. The conflict is taking place in cyberspace, there is no week without reports of cyberattacks coming from the East. This conflict is taking place in the economic field, where Russia is constantly blackmailing other countries with gas taps. At the same time, it does not mean that Russia has given up direct forms of violence, as Polish, Lithuanian or Latvian soldiers can testify. We need clear rules that will allow Europe to take the lead and block further actions by Putin and Lukashenko. First of all, no concessions. Things have gone too far. Russia and Belarus have crossed all borders and can no longer be allowed. Second, nothing about us without us. Any attempt to resolve a conflict must be based on consensus. Any attempt to negotiate without some countries is a success for Vladimir Putin. Thirdly, solidarity in the face of a common threat. This is not the case for Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia. This is a broader issue. Fourthly, words are no longer enough, we must act decisively, including through sanctions. Fifth, transatlantic cooperation. This conflict has the dimension of a civilisational clash and this requires an appropriate response not only within the European Union, but also cooperation should be extended to NATO. Sixth, a common energy policy. The EU is subject to Russia's energy blackmail because we continue to play against each other in energy policy, not for each other. Until this changes, we can be sure that Putin will play these interests to his advantage. Seventh and last, Europe is more than the European Union. Countries that remain outside the EU, such as Ukraine or Moldova, must receive a signal that they will not be left alone to the neo-imperialist policies of Moscow. We must return more energetically to the idea of enlarging the Union to include new members. These are the seven steps we need to take. Otherwise, Europe will stand still and the ground beneath us will begin to collapse. Europe's security is our common concern. This is the deepest meaning of alliances, in order to stand in one line at the moment of trying. And these alliances should be confirmed not only by words, but by concrete decisions and political actions.

Mr President, Madam President of the European Commission, Prime Minister. Prime Minister, from what you have heard so far, you might have already guessed that you find yourself in a most peculiar place. The European Parliament is the institution that, firstly, has been governed by the same political coalition from time immemorial. This is rather unusual in any nation state, with predictably unfortunate consequences. Secondly, the coalition is decidedly left-wing, with the EPP and Donald Tusk following suit, becoming more and more radical and trying to enforce their leftist views on the entire world, including recently, believe it or not, on the American State of Texas. Thirdly, it has no understanding for dissent and therefore surrounds the dissenting groups with a cordon sanitaire, which is quite an effective way of neutralising the opposition. And fourthly, it has managed to establish a tyranny of the majority that controls everything, from administration to the distribution of the key political positions. Once you keep this in mind, you will understand why this Parliament has been waging a cold war against, and trying to destabilise, conservative governments in Europe, and why, to achieve this end, they have been violating the basic principles of the Treaties and making up ad hoc rules that are not there. In this inglorious task, they have been unfortunately seconded by other institutions, including the European Commission, which, at least since the times of Jean-Claude Juncker and Mr Timmermans, became a political institution, strongly partisan, ideological and arrogant. The principles of conferral, subsidiarity and proportionality explicitly inscribed in Article 5 were thrown overboard. To give an example, tomorrow there will be another chapter of Poland-bashing because of our abortion law. Who cares that such matters as abortion are exclusively the competences of the nation state? The majority can outvote any restraining rule. If making 2 + 2 = 5 were to hurt the Polish Government, they would not hesitate to put it to the vote. You know what? Chances are that they would have it carried. Having got rid of the basic principles of the treaties, they came up with their own rules which don’t exist in the Treaties and which the Treaties preclude. The first product of their inventive genius came from the Commission, and it was the rule of law framework, and then its parliamentary offspring, the rule of conditionality ˗ an absolute outrage and a sheer monstrosity from a legal and moral point of view. So what? Might is right. The newest gizmo is the primacy of EU law. In various public statements this phrase has been immersed in typical EU gobbledygook, but I would love to know what exactly do you mean by making this claim, Madam President? There is not a word about it in the Treaties. Where did you take it from? If not from the Treaties, then where from? And what do you think it means? That European law trumps national law in the areas over which the EU has exclusive competence is a rather commonsensical statement. Nobody questions it. Does it mean that European law trumps the national law in the areas over which the EU does not have any competence? But this is absurd. It would be like the primacy of the European law over the law of the State of Texas. I’m sure that the majority of my colleagues in this Chamber would want precisely this, but this does not make it any less absurd. Or perhaps, by primacy you mean that the European institutions will decide which areas are under their competence and which are not, and the national institutions will have no power to oppose their decision. But this is a very dangerous concept, extremely dangerous, because it gives the EU omnipotence and omniscience it does not have, it cannot have, and to be frank, it does not deserve. Over the last decade, the EU has turned out to be unable to restrain itself and respect the limits imposed by the principles of conferral, subsidiarity and proportionality. The trust that it will stay within the Treaties in the years to come is gone. You see, Madam President, we are not afraid of European law ˗ we are afraid of European lawlessness, of the tyranny of majority, of abuse of power and of the cavalier use of the Treaties. despite what one can see in the Parliament and in the Commission. Might is not right.