Alexandr VONDRA

Policy topics Alexandr VONDRA is active on

What Alexandr VONDRA has said (77)

• 2026-06-16 “31:07 – 11:32:18): Yeah. We, the Europeans, are paying the cost of the war, and thus any de escalation may provide a short time relief. However, the Iran war has demonstrated 2 key things. 1st, US is no more willing to play a role of the power which is solemnly responsible for freedom of navigation. And secondly, Europeans' defense capabilities are insufficient to engage in any sort of the serious military conflict or even to assist our allies in a reliable way. Let's put it bluntly. Iran is Europe's. The emperor has no closest moment. So instead of empty talks, our priority should be a rapid buildup of deterrence and also enhance our capabilities to take responsibilities of freedom of foreign trade in the cooperation with you with The US, not against The US. Thank you.”
  Defence spending
• 2025-04-01 “E-001328/2025 Answer given by Mr Tzitzikostas on behalf of the European Commission The Commission is determined to make road transport across the EU more sustainable and resilient, while boosting the competitiveness of our industry and operators. In March 2025, the Commission published the Automotive Action Plan 1 and the Communication on Decarbonising Corporate Fleets 2 . In addition, in the mission letter from the President of the Commission, the Commissioner for Sustainable Transport and Tourism has been called upon to prepare a legislative proposal for clean corporate fleets. Based on these commitments, the Commission is preparing a legislative proposal and will explore options and measures in an impact assessment on how to support the uptake of zeroemission vehicles by corporate buyers, without putting unnecessary burden on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and considering criteria on sustainability and resilience. Requirements on companies are only one of the options that will be explored, and all options will scrutinise costs and administrative burden for all parts of the value chain. The Commission held an open public consultation in 2024, where more than 250 stakeholders, ranging from businesses and their associations to Member States and non-governmental organisations, put forward their positions on all aspects of corporate fleets. Additionally, the Commission will perform an additional open public consultation focused on options for the legislative proposal. The Commissioner for Sustainable Transport and Tourism will hold a Strategic Dialogue specifically on corporate fleets in the course of 2025. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52025DC0095 2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52025DC0096”
  Corporate fleet electrification: binding zero-emission quotas vs. voluntary approach
• “Arnold Toynbee, he was, in fact on the left, and he developed the concept of challenge and response. And our response is more important than this rhetorical challenge by Trump. Our response should be to develop a stronger part of NATO on European soil, because this is to protect us, the organisation. So really to spend more money for defence, to develop the industrial base and not to make it weaker by your Green Deal.”
  Defence spending
• “Dear Commissioner. So first to clean industrial deal In the last couple of weeks, I have undergone numerous meetings with the businesses large and small, and the clear reflection and common denominator of this is disappointment. Disappointment because there is no solution. How to bring the energy prices down, which is the key obstacle to the competitiveness of Europe, with one exception. And to bring the. And that's the bringing the burden to the member states. And it's from a regulator. It's not fair. That leads me to the ETS. It needs to be adjusted. It's simply too expensive. Colleagues in the committee have proposed a smart solution that would allow companies to invest into innovations instead of paying for Co two allowances. So I'm interested in your opinion. Secondly, on nuclear. There is no path to full decarbonisation without nuclear energy. Therefore, it is about recognizing nuclear as a not just a right of the member state, but also as a critical pillar of Europe's energy security and stability. Also, the European Commission must remain the guardian of the treaties, and the rules based, impartial system is the foundation of our union. Your recent letter, calling for the immediate suspension of the signing process for the new nuclear reactors in the Czech Republic might raise legitimate concerns about fairness, equal treatment and even a conflict of interest. Finally, the EU taxonomy urgently needs a balanced revision. Nuclear energy must be granted full level playing field with the wind and solar solutions. Let us work together to ensure that Europe's energy transition is guided by the common sense fairness and strategic vision, not by just particular interests. Thank you.”
  Nuclear energy
• “Thank you. Chair. Madam, I have to go back to the nuclear again because, you know, Mohammad from the same party was trying to protect you. But he was not right. There is not an equal treatment between the solar wind energy producers and the nuclear on. On the other hand, and this is exactly what Emmanuel Macron has said last week in Paris that the legislation must be correct to uneven treatment of the nuclear compared to the renewables. And if Ursula von der Leyen has said that it was a strategic mistake, your nuclear policy, then the mistake must be corrected. So and it's fundamentally unfair if, for example, Czech or French taxpayer is contributing to your solar or wind business while the Spanish taxpayer is refusing to pay for our nuclear business. So the concrete, very concrete question. When you introduce a delegated act under the EU taxonomy to ensure a genuine level playing field for nuclear and also for gas to manage the transition. And when we could expect such a proposal, please. I'm really looking for the answer here.”
  Nuclear energy
• “Thank you. Chair. Chair. Before I would put my ECR position, I would, with all due respect, make some kind of a correction. What has been said earlier, uh, you know, ah Our work has not been originally intended for the green policy, and borrowing was excluded by Germans, the Scandinavians, the Dutch per se. But due to the Covid and hard hit which came to Spain and Italy on the first tranche, that was something. What? Wake up everybody, because euro as a currency could be undermined and thus borrowing as some kind of exceptional. Instrument has been accepted to save the EU and to put the frugals on the board. It got this green flavor because it was easier to explain, you know, some of our northern or Western friends that we are going to save the world with that. So just a correction, you know? Um, but right now, it's clear that RF, originally designed to support the post-pandemic recovery, has instead become a symbol of mis allocation and bureaucratic in efficiency. And while the envy opinion correctly highlights the fund flaws, it fails to stress the urgent needs for stronger financial control, independent audit and transparent reporting to prevent reckless spending and effective project. Dcr stands firm in its demand that RF prioritize sustainable, technologically neutral solutions to strengthen the industrial and environmental resilience rather than being dictated by ideological agenda. So without proper oversight, taxpayer money is wasted and Europe economic competitiveness is put at risk. So my group calls for a fundamental reassessment of our expenditures to ensure the funds are fully and efficiently utilized. Investment proceed without unnecessary delays and bureaucratic inefficiencies and financial mismanagement are eliminated. To that end, I will be doubling tabling the amendments to strengthen financial oversight, enhance transparency, and driving real economic resilience. Thank you.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Ladies and gentlemen, this summer. Luca de Meo made the announcement, which tells us everything where we are. The CEO of Renault. And in fact, the man who produced the only successful competitive small electromobility Has decided to leave as a CEO of Renault to accept the offer from the French luxury industry. That's where we are. No trust. The best managers have no trust in the future of automotive industry and goes to the domain, which is the last competitive one in Europe, and we should blame the commission. And finally, maybe you are waking up to the reality, but it's time to act now. And this house must be unblocked and be ready to join forces with the Member States to coming forward to scrap the 2035 ban and ease the pressure on the industry towards full fledged technological neutrality. Sooner we do it better.”
  Road transport environmental policy
• “Yeah. Thank you. Chair. Uh, welcome. The commissioner. It's nice to have you here again. Uh, I have two questions. Uh, first, concerns the urban waste water treatment directive. It was already mentioned by EPP speaker, uh, raising this legitimate concern about the human health and antibiotic biological resistance. But it also can have a negative impact on, on the pharmaceutical industry, in particular on the concept, the concept of extended producer responsibility. So alongside the automotive industry, Pharmaceuticals are among the top investors in research and innovation. I have already discussed this topic with Commissioner Roosevelt. So how do you coordinate with her on this matter, and what steps will you take to ensure the stability of the sector and continued supply of medicines, in particular the critical one? And second, my favorite issue, the council recommendation on smoking. It calls on member states to expand their smoke and aerosol free policies. The recommendation adopted last year encourages EU countries to extend the protection against second hand smoking exposure to include key outdoor areas. I find this deeply concerning because it interferes with personal freedom. So yes, of course there is the impact on the health. But if I as a smoker I am practicing this on the balcony or in the garden where it does not pose any risk to the others. So I think it's, uh, it's too much. And my question is, how do you see the development of the legislature here in this particular area?”
  Smoking regulation
• “Thank you. Chair. Free, prosperous society is characteristic by having entrepreneurs who create the riches for the society, but also bureaucrats who regulate, prohibit and consume the riches. When the other group dominates, the society becomes poorer and loses its competitiveness. Unfortunately, this is exactly what is happening to us despite our warnings. The European Council is calling for simplification, basically anywhere from the automotive industry through military mobility, through digital and financial services, all the way to the environment and energy. My question is where was the mistake? Where did you make a mistake? Why do we need to simplify and correct things today? Because the legislative work in the EU in the past years was mistaken. It was ideologically driven. It it created a excessive bureaucracy and it prohibited things. It regulated things and and controlled things. This red green experiment needs to finish today and at today's vote. This is a major chance. Heads up.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Thank for the second response. I agree with you and thank you for your bill, but I do not agree with you on the taxonomy. And you know that it's a taken as a transitional nuclear. And we need to transform this into the strategic. Exactly like renewables. And if you are walking in the corridors, there are the rumors that it's because Austria, despite losing the court case, is still continue its legal challenge to the Court of Justice regarding the taxonomy. So we have heard a great deal of Viktor Orban's blackmail. So do you see the Austrian appeal as an obstacle to proposing the delegated act in a better form?”
  Green Taxonomy
• “Thank you chair. I will start on a positive note. The changes proposed by the commission remove unnecessary bureaucratic burdens, especially for the SMEs. In this regard, the Commission has reacted appropriately and deserves recognition. Now to the concerns. Firstly, the transition period has revealed numerous weaknesses, many of which remain unaddressed. Sebum, a bureaucratic monster, is simply not ready access to the emission data. The crucial element for calculating how much importers will have to pay is often limited and difficult to verify. In many cases, we have no reliable way to confirm whether Indian or Chinese importers are providing accurate information. Secondly, the phase out of the ETS free allowances as a part of the implementation of Cbam is putting entire industries in serious jeopardy. The transition period clearly demonstrates we do not fully understand the consequences of this regulation. After all, it is the first of this kind until Cbam proves it can work without harming our industries. Those allowances must stay in place or be replaced with an adequate compensation. European producers still lacks expert solution. Burdened with high environmental and social compliance costs, they are increasingly unable to compete in the global markets. I trust the commission. Recognized these issues and will present a comprehensive proposal as soon as possible.”
  Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM)
• “Yeah. Thanks, chair. So I took my green shirt and suits today to demonstrate that, you know, I'm not taking lightly our commitments. And I was listening. Mr. Commissioner, your ten minute speech very carefully. And in fact, I appreciate that you did not mention the 90% target for 2040. Contrary to some speeches before, and I understand this as an expression of certain political realism. And just listening to some comments here, I think that on behalf of the ECR, this 90% is absolutely. It is a political fantasy. It does not do anything with neither economy nor science. It depends on technologies we have not deployed on raw materials, rare materials, which we do not control on a behavior that does not change among the people, and international cooperation that does not exist. So mass electrification, heating transport industry is expected even as our power grids strain under the current demand. As seen in the last week's blackouts in Spain and Portugal. So. And now a few remarks on the climate financing. The reality is that in the accounting until 2035, it's assumed that the EU is going to pay one third of the global payments for the developing countries. And that was, you know, including the US commitment, which will not be any after the Trump withdrawal from from the Paris Treaty and from its global financial commitments. We have listened to Brazil. Your comments about Brazil. Yes, their president is committed, but China, India, Russia, those are the Gulf states. So do you really believe that this European commitment is sustainable? I mean on the financial ground and that you will succeed to to bring us something affordable.”
  Climate efforts
• “Yes. Thank you. Chair. Thank you, first of all, for organizing this. It's very interesting those brainstorming from Canada and, uh, Very valuable. You know, I would take now this, uh, Donald Trump's harsh rhetoric, which is unacceptable, of course, aside and would concentrate with my question on on the Canadian and the EU interests. So I could hear rightly that, you know, we share not just the same value, but also an important strategic interest, particularly in the Arctic. Uh, I also have heard a statement in the beginning that we have the full respect to the rights of indigenous people. And thirdly, there is simply the truth that Greenland is in between us. Europe is belongs to Denmark, and it's in between Canada and the EU. So just imagine a hypothetical situation now that the Inuits in Greenland Would decide to hold a referendum on the full fledge independence. And China or Russia is watching this and made an offer which is difficult to decline. You know, instead of granting half billion dollars in a year like Denmark is practicing now to offer 5 or 10 billion in a year in exchange for, you know, help to campaign in the referendum and in exchange for allowing them to build a military installation for Russia. China is a peanut those price. So my question is just a few model this hypothetical situation. And knowing that there is not any immediate threat what the Canadian and the EU reaction should be, or are there some measures, you know, which we can apply to prevent this kind of scenario?”
  Foreign interference in Europe
• “Dobry den de. Chesky Lidia Pereira to. Are now in the particular text. Well there's mention of Roger Gruden. Now I don't know if. Uh, if you're familiar with this individual. I was a friend of his, and I even had the opportunity to greet him in the park at the towards the end of his life. Uh, and I can tell you one thing, uh, would if Rogers would to see this particular text and he would, uh, read it, he would turn in his grave, I can assure you of that, because this particular text is particularly bad, and I can guarantee that the. Uh, if our amendments don't pass, we will not support this particular text, because the ambitions, uh, this These regulations, which were showered with and called to support. They feed into this Chinese monster. Even the president of the commission. Uh. What's mentioned here is our own policy. Our own policy has led to China, uh, to the, uh, blossoming of China. This was for the commission president said that. So this is a warning. Indeed. It's a kind of cautionary note. Uh, people are laughing at us with all of this. And if Brazil and South America, uh, pay for CO2, then it might be a little bit, uh, a better deal. But, uh, this war, north south, east west, all of this. It's it's it's totally senseless to speak about decarbonization. And who's going to pay for all of this? Denmark, the Netherlands. They don't. They don't have the money for that. Well then France, France with its with its twofold above the particular limits of national debt. So where's the money going to come from? Where's the financing going to come from in the corrupt leaders of the third leaders? Now I don't want to be too negative now, thank you very much indeed. After all of these years, I think indeed, you ought to really accept that, well, nuclear energy might be a solution with regard to this decarbonization that's on the forefront.”
  Nuclear energy
• “Well, nobody is happy with the budget as I here. And we also in ECR believe that this proposal should be approached with caution and a broader assessment is terribly needed. In particular, the absorption of the current MFF programmes in a single national and regional partnership plan for each Member States. Now, three points, not the question. So first, as usually, we are principally suspicious of the EU's own resources and even more distrustful to the new ones. Uh, for example, we are against this new levy on tobacco. And look, we will not change the human nature. And if the goal is to have less legal smokers of tobacco and to have more consumers, illegal consumers of fentanyl, just visit any US state. And this is not what I would dream for. Secondly, at a time when the inflation has been eroding people's incomes and economic growth is slowing, it is imperative that we curb EU ambitions. That goes too far. The best example of poor decision is the next generation EU related debt. The repayment of this debt in the next MFF represents 8.5%, a stunning amount for a tool of questionable value and efficiency. And thirdly, the estimated spending target I would say for climate in particular, there are no money for nature restoration, but for climate should represent not 30 but 35%. This is simply too much. More concerning, however, is that this proposal blurs the line between expenditures on mitigation and adaptation measures. It should be clear which envelope serves which purpose. Otherwise, we risk accusation of the lack of transparency. That must be crucial.”
  Own EU resources · Size of EU budget
• “41:18 – 16:43:17): Yeah, thanks chair. So I would follow those nice words about Petra's work. You know, we also appreciate that and it's an excellent work on this opinion, so it will have a full ECR support. The emphasis placed on strengthening the security of the Union's external borders is both timely and necessary. We also welcome the increased focus on defense-related investment within the Connecting European Facility. So that said, we believe there is a scope to be even more ambitious. Our amendment seeks to ensure that most transport projects under the CEF are compatible with dual use and military mobility requirements, while reinforcing an overall focus on infrastructure that enhances military mobility and supports broader civil defense preparedness. We further believe that greater attention should be given to the strategic use of infrastructure to safeguard security of supply. This includes strengthening transport and logistic links to guarantee the stable delivery of fuel and energy from reliable like-minded partners, while accelerating efforts to eliminate full trade with Russia and other hostile actors. So again, thank you very much. So it's a fun and a pleasure to work with people in the radio in SEDE. If I may have some advice, please extend some influence to your colleague in any way not to put the obstacle into the route of our goal to make Europe strategically stronger. Thank you very much.”
  Defence spending
• “52:29 – 16:52:58): We do not have a shadow here, but just generally, what I was listening, you know, this idea to have a possibility of redirecting the resources for defense, we would support it. And the protection of critical infrastructure is also having important tasks. So at least, you know, I don't know the text, but just listening to the comments of Nicolas, those are the areas which we may—”
  Cybersecurity investments for critical infrastructure
• “(17:05:08 – 17:07:45): Yeah. Thank you, chair. So 4 years, I have been proposing to focus, our attention less to mitigation and more to adaptation measures, achievable within one's lifespan, calculable with a clear value for money ratio. That is why I welcome this initiative. At the same time, I regret to say that some outcomes of these recommendations bears all mark of highly political and ideological undertone. Here are my 3 comments to the recommendation proposed by the European Scientific Advisory. Firstly, Brussels should not dictate how member states manage their own risk. Climate risk and adaptations are local and regional matters. The topography, economic structure in the agriculture base, and infrastructure of member states differs. I argue that mandating harmonized climatrix assessment, common scenarios, and EU wide adaptation targets remove the flexibility that member states needs to respond to their own specific circumstances. Adaptation planning should be driven by national governments and regional authorities who understand their vulnerabilities. Secondly, locking policy into contested model is fiscally irresponsible. Recommendation to you to use projections of warming by 2100. I would challenge the proposal to commit vast public resources to investment frameworks and regulatory obligation coming from models that are subject to continuous revision. And finally, the adaptation mandates will accelerate this into the industrialization. Recommendations 4 and 5 would systematically redirect private capital away from productive investment. At the moment when European industry is already under severe pressure from energy cost and Chinese solar capacity, mandatory climate, there is disclosure at yet another layer of bureaucracy burden that American and Asian competitors simply do not face. I will propose to replace this architecture with targeted voluntary incentives for the most vulnerable sectors and regions. Thanks.”
  Climate efforts
• “Thank so. Look, I will support this rejection because of two things. First, 90% is absolutely unrealistic. And secondly, for CO2 in Belgium, we need 2035. As Peter has rightly said, we do not and we do not need the legislation because it's easy to handle the commission. Just to put together the national climate plans. Uh, but of course, uh, you know, just listening here and anticipating some majority. And given the fact that the commission proposal is a copy paste of the German coalition agreement, including of those 3% of the credits, like an expression of the green colonialism in Africa, which will benefit the big countries with the big corporation and our small and medium sized companies will pay the price. So my question is to rapporteur, if we submit the amendment putting a strict request to the Commission to make a level playing field for the nuclear in taxonomy. As a condition, synequanon are going to support this amendment.”
  Green Taxonomy
• “Thank you very much. So you know originally I was very careful when I saw this title taxation because we in the ECR are not in favour of any kind of the harmonisation of direct taxation, of wealth taxation. Etc. but just listening this and in particular listening the arguments of Gaia, I think it's very interesting, this idea of uh, of using the what, the exemption, uh, because of the couple of reasons, you know, first, you know, if those who are interested in in developing the European industry, it's much better to, uh, to incentivize the member states than to force them to do it. Yeah. Then those who are simply are in favour of having more around the with the practical consequences in, in, in the European and just, you know, uh, to, to to do what the US are very strong. So uh, this is certainly, you know, way of listening, uh, how they are doing the things, uh, and just, you know, this development, you know, Palantir is the largest contractor now, you know, and it's not about the state subsidies. It's really about the role of the private sector. So this key passage, which has been used a couple of times that, uh, that the most modern state generate the future military capability primarily through regulatory authority, not direct purchasing power of the state. I think it's very sort of, uh, of listening to.”
  EU competences on taxation
• “Oh, sorry for not being here. I had to vote for Fratelli membership in the EU, so I do not know whether it has been already raised or not. But my question goes to the nuclear energy. Because all those, you know, decarbonisation commitments without the nuclear, it's just illusion for many, many EU countries. So now we are approaching the new commission. There are two appointments which are very important because of the nuclear. It's Teresa Ribeiro as a future vice president and Mr. Jurgensen as energy commissioner, both with a very anti-nuclear history. Dennis, the Hungarian presidency, which is being bypassed by many of the colleagues here. So can you amuse me? You know what I may expect from the executive with regards to development of the nuclear energy in Europe? Because without that, we have a real problem.”
  Nuclear energy
• “So, Very interesting. And thanks for for organizing this. Uh, just maybe one question to, uh, to Boston because, uh, look, uh, that's, uh, we are talking about the debate exemption for the military purposes. So, uh, then there are many other activities in the society, in the industry. So what is your experience if you would allow this in a more general level, in one sector, like the military industry? So what is your experience with the appetite of the others to ask for the same? Because, uh, we need to collect some taxes and generally, uh, at least I would prefer, uh, to tax rather the consumption than, than the laborer. Enterprising, uh, because of the obvious reasons. So, uh, and then, you know, us are the pioneers in the innovations in technologies, but they are also pioneers in the government deficit in a very difficult different. So whether there is some experience, if you open the green, if you give the green light somewhere, then of course this is a precedent. And to the Europeans, the second question. Uh, so to do it, it of course would require to follow the rules of the game. So to reach the unanimously, uh, decision on, for example, the word exemption. So this is not a bypass for changing the rules or, uh, or directing into, into harmonisation of the taxation in other areas. That's my question to Europeans.”
  EU competences on taxation
• “Yes, thank you very much. So look firstly to this projected reduction of emission by 54% by 2030. I think, you know, there are two reasons why to be careful. First we do have the reservation about the published data, because the member States, under the immense pressure, may put on paper whatever data they see useful to accommodate the commission. You know, the creative accounting is the typical way you have to operate. And secondly, it calculates with the start of the ETS on time. And it's two. I mean, and here simply it will come at the cost to the member states, which can be devastating. So, uh, put it simply, we are already operating at the limits of our capacity, and I cannot imagine the increasing our ambition to 90% by 2040. So ICR would never support this. And we should also listen to our own propaganda. You know, in front of the building you have information. Just only 80 million people want stronger action against the climate change, while more than 160 million wants an action to put the under control their living costs. So 80 million is less than 20% of the EU population. So it's nothing. So should take this seriously then. Secondly, on the adaptation, I agree that we are lagging behind and this represents another political misstep. We continue to invest vast sums into the climate mitigation with ambiguous long term goals, while failing to prioritise climate adaptation, which offer clear short term benefits that are tangible to our citizens now. And lastly, regarding nuclear energy, the Commission notes that the large scale nuclear reactors could provide up to 110GW of net electricity generation capacity in 2050. So this comes with a considerable level of uncertainty, to quote the commission. But this uncertainty has a specific origin, the Commission itself. For months, we have been hearing everything responsive from Commissioners Ribeira in Jurgensen regarding the establishment of a level playing field for nuclear energy. Let me be clear. Any serious climate plan for 2050 is totally unthinkable without nuclear power and the full level playing field for it. With with the other renewables. Thank you.”
  Nuclear energy
• “Ladies and gentlemen, dear Commissioner, your proposal is bad from the very beginning, right to the end. I'll say that in Czech, because no one speaks in English here. And we are sending Europe to death. Five languages. Why is it bad? 90% up to 2040 is not realistic. You have no scientific impact study. And you've acknowledged that we won't be able to do that technologically nor financially. The legal basis is wrong. It has an impact on the energy mix of the member states, and that is the exclusive competence of the Member states, and you can just change that yourself. Third, definitively, it will destroy energy intensive industries. It will bury our industry. What munition can we produce without chemical industry? How can we produce aircrafts without aluminium? And you've mentioned gas, but the Netherlands is one of the largest buyers of gas. Russian gas. And what have you done yourself to stop that? For the flexibility is just green colonialism because it will only help the Netherlands and Germany. But small countries and poorer countries will pay for that. Fifth, blackouts in Spain and the Czech Republic show where where we will end up. We will be poor. There will be anarchy and chaos. Nothing is forcing us to adopt that. But America and China are laughing out. The best thing to do is to take it back and delete it. Thank you.”
  Energy (green transition)
• “No. Again. China, Japan. All the Asian countries are now running on coal as a sequence of the high price of gas. And, you know, your program to build an innovative hub in Europe. It requires to have a cheap energy, cheap electricity. And this policy is just feeding the Chinese monster because who is the hub? China. Not us because and in fact, Peter was very right with the need to do something with ETS and the effect of the energy intensive industry. So are you comfortable with the current situation?”
  Battery supply chain: EU gigafactory sovereignty vs. reliance on Asian suppliers
• “Please look me in. The Sierra are not happy with this proposal because it's a draconian. It's going to kill the energy intensive industry in, in Europe. And I think it's a shame that the commissioner is not here. Yes, he is proposing 90%. This is something that China is very happy because, you know, I think it's a lot of hypocrisy. You were promising us how it would improve the industry in this continent. Everything is made in China. Solar panels, wind turbines, batteries. Everything is made. China made in China. So Mr. Hoekstra should be here to explain us and not to go to China now, because of course, they are applauding him. It's another favor to China. What we are discussing here. So they are happy with that. So look, 90%. I had a family. I asked my family what is, you know, in between 55 and and 100. Everybody in my family told 77.5. You had three options. And tell me you know why you decided to present us the most draconic in the form of 90. And don't, uh, don't use this, uh, argument of the scientific panels, because this is not the most important thing. The most important thing is a thorough impact assessment on the energy intensive industry.”
  Energy (green transition)
• “Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. You've read the recipe of the European Commission, and this reminds me of 1920. Uh, the Russian. The Soviet State Planning Commission for renewal in. Recapitulated it in the famous sentence, the all power to the Soviets and electrified the whole country. And we know what the result was. So let's not repeat those errors. Certainly, I am in favor of cutting dependencies on fuels from dictatorships. I am in favor of electrification. But ladies and gentlemen, we mustn't have the most expensive electricity in the world and blackout risks for that. And this is a reality today. The European Commission tells us wear sweaters and take cold showers. Well, we are not paying you for this kind of advice. We are paying you for allowing the full development of nuclear energy. Where's the taxonomy that will set the conditions straight? We have gas, we have coal, and we have we can extract them temporarily.”
  Nuclear energy
• “Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Quraysh. Thank you very much for your presentation, because I think that you rightly identified the two key challenges which must be tackled in Efsa. And first, it's the speed of the process because there was waiting, you know, eight or even ten years to, uh, to approve a new bio pesticide or the crop protection products is really, uh, terrible. And secondly, to have the more openness towards the innovations. And here are my two questions related to to to to to this, uh, uh issues. Uh, first the speeding up, uh, would you support, setting transparent, time bounded targets for each stage of the review process to to improve the accountability performance and also to overreach this bureaucracy even within Asia, and secondly, to to the innovation, because some stakeholders in the industry describe as a as a black box. So, uh, how concretely will you make a some more open and collaborative in its engagement with innovators? So it becomes an enabler rather than a barrier to the progress? So, for example, could Efsa also learn from more agile international regulatory models, for example, how the United States or Australia. Handle the collaborative scientific review. Thank you.”
  EU policy on pesticides
• “(14:52:30 – 14:54:46): Yes. Thank you very much. So listening to geopolitical lecture, but I think we need to change our policy to stop feeding the Chinese monstrous. That's what we are doing now. And I think the way forward is not this false assumption that if regulation becomes strict enough, the market will automatically adapt quickly enough because that's a delusional policy. We need more technological neutrality. We need more competition. And I think in this respect, the Salini report is an important course of correction, in the light of original commission proposal. It reconnects climate policy with industrial reality, technological openness, and economic credibility. It proposes more realistic targets for light commercial vehicles. It recognizes eligible renewable fuels within compliance. And finally, it accelerates access to credits to support investment and avoid distorting the competition between different decarbonization pathways. So this is the kind of thinking Europe needs more of, strategic, industrial, realistic, and not the ideological one. Because conquer competitiveness is not created through penalties and visual sinking. It is built through innovation, affordable energy, industrial strength, and technological openness. That is why I also will be tabling amendments focused on enabling realistic compliance pathways, genuine technological neutrality, support for European manufacturing, and the protection of industrial jobs. The report by Massimiliano Salini is not the final destination, but it is a crucial first step in correcting the mistake of the last mandate. If we want to avoid just the continuation of feeding of the Chinese monstrum. Thank you very much.”
  Road transport environmental policy
• “Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Madam Secretary. I fully, fully support what you have said in your introductory remarks and in fact, just listening to the previous speech, send a message to Mark Rutte that we in DC are absolutely happy with the way how he's managing NATO and just, you know, listening those to Spanish contribution. Here are one which I very appreciate, and the other one which I do not understand so much. It brings me, you know, there is a commitment 5%. And there was one open dissent and it was the Spanish prime minister. So my question is there are the conclusion that allies agree there's not the all allies agree. So because I did not notice any kind of a public assurance by Pedro Sanchez that he stayed behind the conclusion. My question is whether you obtain some kind of assurance that Spain belongs. The government belongs among the allies.”
  Relations with NATO
• “Yeah. Thanks, chair. Welcome, Minister. Minister. We wish you all the best in in in our six month work. Uh, you come from Denmark, so it's a country with extraordinary wind potential so you can win this fight. But there are other countries with a very limited, renewable potential. For example, mine is Czech Republic or Poland, and it's much harder. And here comes my three question number one. It's the targets of for 2040. 40. It's clear that the member states hold different views there. How are you going to accommodate the critical voices that see the 90% as too draconian, or this issue of 3% flexibility in the credits, which, you know, the 3% is good for a couple of multinational, some richer state, but the poor state, smaller companies have no chance to to. Are you willing to compromise here? Are you willing to, uh, to give more flexibility? That would be a fair result. Secondly, on nuclear. Again, you know, I did not read any reference in your Danish presidency program to the nuclear energy. And frankly, you know, there are other countries like mine which cannot decarbonize decarbonize without nuclear energy. So where are you willing to push the commission because Juergens and Rivera they are against to include the nuclear into the taxonomy on the full scale, uh, equal treatment with the renewables, uh, to take part at the financing in the next financial, uh, perspective. And finally, the third question, it's to. There is, uh, an on paper, which was signed by 18 member states to introduce some kind of a, uh, price ceiling because, you know, uh, in Denmark it is a small country, flat market climate. But there are the others with, uh, harsh winter, uh, harsh summer, uh, more mountains. And here the impact of the on the social could be devastating. So are you ready to, uh, negotiate? Uh, really alongside this proposal for introducing the price ceiling to the ETS.”
  EU approach to electricity market and prices
• “Thank you. Chair. I know. Yes, the international conditions have been changing dramatically. Michael Carney in Davos was true about one thing. The military and economic power will play a much greater role than simply respecting the rules of the game. We need to adapt to the new reality. We must not simply be sad like a Brontosaurus who sees a comet hitting the Earth. We need to strengthen ourselves to gain respect and not be laughable. We must not waste our time on endless debates on reforming the institutions. We must not. Simply simply so new uniforms. But we also must not, must not undermine NATO. What we do need to do is to build its European pillar. We need to spend more on defence. We must strengthen rather than weaken our own industry. We need to gain access to raw materials. And most importantly, most importantly, we still need our allies. Mark Rutte is right when faced with a choice of the US, Russia and China. Despite all the rhetorics of Mr. Trump, Washington's our closest ally.”
  Relations with NATO
• “Thank you. Chair. The dynamism, openness and highly skilled workforce of the US economy are some of America's greatest strengths. But President Trump's tariff driven protectionism risks undermining these very foundations. After the World War II, free trade helped rebuild Europe, lifting millions into prosperity and ensuring long term peace and stability. That legacy must be defended. The European Union must champion free trade as a source of growth and resilience. We cannot afford to fall into the trap of rising protectionist sentiment. I am encouraged that the European Commission remains committed to the trade agreements. The path ahead is clear. We need more pragmatism, less green regulation and taxation, and to promote openness as much as we can.”
  EU-US trade relations
• “Very much. Madam Minister, we all were listening very carefully to the speech of your Prime Minister yesterday, and I have to say that myself. My group, I think, certainly appreciate this part which has dealt with the Green Deal because they were the arguments which we are using for many years, how it is undermining European competitiveness and threatening the social stability in our country. So we now need to detect whether the Prime Minister, Donald Tusk, was speaking yesterday seriously, or whether he was just addressing the Polish public opinion before the upcoming presidential election. I think a key. I hope that he was addressing us, not the Polish, just the Polish public opinion. And here I would love to know in more detail what is your plan to completely redesign the Green Deal, and in particular to change the ETS to what he has promised yesterday? So first, where is the proposed timeline? Because I think the businesses are feeling this very urgent. So it must be done immediately. The review. Secondly, where you have the support from the council, because is there any coalition of the willing on the horizon? And thirdly, how you would. What is your leverage to the Commission? Because in the Parliament it's an anathema what your Prime Minister has proposed yesterday. So here I think that's my first question. My second question is Donald Trump has signed this executive order to withdraw from the Paris Treaty Agreement, which is in fact consume already because we have listened at one and a half degrees, it was already reached. This, this. But it's also about about about the financing because he is withdrawing the global financing. So what is the plan B of Donald Tusk to respond to Donald Trump's decision to withdraw from the global financing. Are we going to pay more for the others in the global arena in this situation that Europe is economically stagnating or even is recession for the secondary like Germany?”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “Q I just arrived from the airport to. And the last cup in Baku ended in disappointment over the lack of a climate finance deal. So the outcomes raised serious doubts the Cop processes ability to effectively address the global climate challenges. Firstly, regarding the agreement at Cop 29 on the new collective Quantified goals. The goal is to triple climate finance for developing countries to the third $300 billion annually by 2035, and also to mobilise a total of 1.3 trillion A trillion U.S. dollars per year by the same date. The ECR Group cannot support any calls to mobilise finance, particularly for the loss and damage fund, until there is a clear and universally accepted definition of what the developing country means. Nationally Determined Contributions are the primary tool for achieving the goals of the Paris Agreement, without resolving this inconsistency in countries classifications. Further discussion on climate finance or NDC will lack a reliable foundation and secondly, in the light of the US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, the EU's ambitions to fill the gap, whether politically or even financially, could place immense pressure on both public and private financial resources. This comes at a time when the EU is facing unprecedented global challenges, declining competitiveness and a growing need to retain and allocate capital within Europe.”
  EU climate aid for global South
• “Thank you. Chair. Look, I'm an elected politician, uh, in one of the two largest parties in my country. And as such, I have to communicate with the people. And more and more, I am enjoying a lot of criticism of the European Commission in the last couple of years, but this time it reached the peak. Everybody. Doctors, patients, medical sisters, scientists. They ask me, are you going crazy? Are you mad? Just, you know, to start the process, according to some datas which are built on, uh, the drinking, especially by the authority where we still remember the high representative who are drinking ethanol in the amount larger than the law. And to apply this to ethanol, which is indispensable and irreplaceable instrument in protecting the human lives in the hospitals, in the medical service. So are you serious with that? You know, the idea that you just, you know, you feel the pressure and you are postponing something for February. Please stop this. I fully share and we have limited time. So on the concrete argument, I fully share what I have heard from Andrea Wexler, and my only appeal is please kill that process. It's a suicide. It brings us into the society which, you know, is unable to take any kind of a risk. So Europe is going to be the food for the others, and it's a really dangerous. So please stop.”
  Drinking regulation
• “And this is important, you know, to find really the balance. You know, on the one hand to keep the research, innovation and thus the protection of those innovation on the European market, because otherwise everything will go to China, US, and we will be just dependent and will face another distortions on the market. On the other hand, there must be guaranteed the access to the vaccine for the people. And it's the issue of the price. And, you know, there are the countries in the West like, you know, Denmark, Netherlands, Germany, which are the champions of research and innovations. And they are, of course, the interest they have the interest to protect and to to expand with their business in Europe. And they are afraid of escaping this to China and the US. On the other hand, they are the poor countries which you know, have are struggling with finding enough money, you know, to to it's more and more expensive to healthcare in, in, in Europe as well as in the world. So do you believe that we would strike the right balance in the pharma package on this?.”
  Pharma IPRs
• “Thank you. Nobody is interested in the budget. He is not here. The Patriots are not here. The budget is wrong, you know. But first of all, thanks to the chairman, you know, for using English because Italian is a beautiful language. But, you know, in the middle of the summer to have this on the ears, it's like a torture. So thank you for being truly European, you know. But back to the budget. You know, with all due respect to the rapporteur, this draft opinion, uh, reflect is always a recurring pattern in our committee. Fiscal overreach and ideological rigidity. It does not adequately reflect the real economic and social pressures European citizens are facing now, in both stone and substance. It reads more like a wish list than a realistic, prioritized contribution to the budget process. The war in Ukraine Trend continues. Inflation persists. The cost of living crisis is far from over. This is not the moment for automatic restoration or politically driven spending increases. We therefore cannot support a blanket reversal of all council cuts. Paragraph four presents the Green Deal as a pillar of the EU competitiveness. But that claim does not hold. The Green Deal has brought high costs, excessive regulation and spending that is open, poorly targeted. What we need now is further expansion. But a more measured is not the further expansion, but a more measured and efficient approach, one that align Europe's economic realities.”
  Size of EU budget
• “41:18 – 16:43:17): Yeah, thanks chair. So I would follow those nice words about Petra's work. You know, we also appreciate that and it's an excellent work on this opinion, so it will have a full ECR support. The emphasis placed on strengthening the security of the Union's external borders is both timely and necessary. We also welcome the increased focus on defense-related investment within the Connecting European Facility. So that said, we believe there is a scope to be even more ambitious. Our amendment seeks to ensure that most transport projects under the CEF are compatible with dual use and military mobility requirements, while reinforcing an overall focus on infrastructure that enhances military mobility and supports broader civil defense preparedness. We further believe that greater attention should be given to the strategic use of infrastructure to safeguard security of supply. This includes strengthening transport and logistic links to guarantee the stable delivery of fuel and energy from reliable like-minded partners, while accelerating efforts to eliminate full trade with Russia and other hostile actors. So again, thank you very much. So it's a fun and a pleasure to work with people in the radio in SEDE. If I may have some advice, please extend some influence to your colleague in any way not to put the obstacle into the route of our goal to make Europe strategically stronger. Thank you very much.”
  EU transport infrastructure integration
• “Well, thanks, Madam Chair. Thanks, Madam Commissioner. So I think generally it's a step in the right direction. I would particularly appreciate this deletion of transformation plans because this master, don't you know, from the times of the Communist command, economy has nothing to do in the competitive environment. So good job in eliminating this. And two points, one, streamlining are from a different perspective than has been mentioned by previous speakers. Yes. Another good step in the right direction. However, we still, you know, the working documents stakeholders argue that 20 months is the average. But in reality, if you go to member states to businesses, it may be twice as much longer. And we should shorten the really the timelines and also, yes, renewables. Fine. But you know, we should also think about, for example, nuclear mining. It's almost impossible to open the new mine. And in this geopolitical contest with China, even the US, you know, we have a problem here. Extended producer responsibility. Yes. Some areas are covered. That's welcome. There are the areas which are not covered yet, like packaging waste regulations, single use plastics and urban waste water treatment. So can we expect another environmental omnibus in this particular areas? It would be desirable. And also you know, the staff working documents, estimates, you know, the the fees are of 20 billion per year, but the proposed cost savings are about 300 million per year. So it's a huge gap still. And what further action do you intend to take in this area? Thank you very much.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Thank you. Chair. Look, I'm an elected politician, uh, in one of the two largest parties in my country. And as such, I have to communicate with the people. And more and more, I am enjoying a lot of criticism of the European Commission in the last couple of years, but this time it reached the peak. Everybody. Doctors, patients, medical sisters, scientists. They ask me, are you going crazy? Are you mad? Just, you know, to start the process, according to some datas which are built on, uh, the drinking, especially by the authority where we still remember the high representative who are drinking ethanol in the amount larger than the law. And to apply this to ethanol, which is indispensable and irreplaceable instrument in protecting the human lives in the hospitals, in the medical service. So are you serious with that? You know, the idea that you just, you know, you feel the pressure and you are postponing something for February. Please stop this. I fully share and we have limited time. So on the concrete argument, I fully share what I have heard from Andrea Wexler, and my only appeal is please kill that process. It's a suicide. It brings us into the society which, you know, is unable to take any kind of a risk. So Europe is going to be the food for the others, and it's a really dangerous. So please stop.”
  Drinking regulation
• “And there is none. So what lead you to justify the option number three? Secondly, are those carbon credits. You know not speaking about this is an advantage for the rich states, multinational corporations who are going to invest in Africa and the countries like Poland, you know, the person, they will pay the price. So it's a form of the climate colonialism proposed by the European Commission. But tell me, you know why 3%. Where is the justification? Why not Five 710%. Credits. Why? Three. I did not hear any kind of a thorough justification. And finally, the question about nuclear when the Commissioner has presented this last, last weekend in Strasbourg and I told him, you know, he's nice talk about, you know, shutting down the Russian gas, his native Netherlands, he's one of the largest importer of the Russian gas until today. So, Commissioner Sasha, we will go nuclear. Oh, finally. But tell me, where is the proposal? By commission on nuclear in taxonomy. To put it on the equal footing with. With the renewables. There is nothing yet. Just the opposite, Commissioner Ribera. Commissioner Jorgensen are still actively opposing. So where is the nuclear proposals? This is the third question. Thank you.”
  Green Taxonomy
• “Yeah. Okay. No. I am not going to repeat what I have said just to conclude that, you know, we in this parliament, it's at least a little bit better. So the the picture is that the rapporteurs were unable to agree on the joint report, so we would have enough opportunity to submit the amendments and to do what the the job which my colleague, Cavadena, has recommended. So I must therefore just use the opportunity as the commission if we already know that overlapping regulation and constantly expanding compliance obligations are undermining investment and competitiveness and the numbers told us exactly this, then when will simplification actually require removing duplicated burdens instead of simply reorganizing them? This is my question to the company.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Good morning. I'm going to speak Czech because the European Commission's policy on cars is a disaster for my country. For five years I've been saying the path that the commission is forcing us down with crazy regulation, with prohibitions. This, this. It flies in the face of the wishes of the consumer is a path to destruction. For five years I've been saying this. And now here we are. What we're doing is we're sending European taxpayers money to China and to Elon Musk. And now the commission is trying to steer a new course. It's a bit too little, too late. There are three things we need now. It's not enough to spread the fines across three years. It should be five years at least. Then the fixation on electric cars must stop. We really need genuine technological neutrality, including the combustion engine, synthetic fuels and other things. And it's all very well to have a review. But it doesn't say anything about goods vehicles. We must do much more.”
  Road transport environmental policy
• “Thank you. The EU taxonomy is one of the most powerful tools we have to direct the capital towards a greener future. But to work, it must be grounded in science and energy reality, not the ideology. That is why the nuclear in particular deserves the equal footing with the renewables. Firstly, energy security demands it nuclear provide a always on baseload power that wind and solar cannot. If we want to retire coal, we need to finance the replacement and the taxonomy in the current form blocks us from doing exactly that. Secondly, the science supported. If the taxonomy is truly about promoting decarbonisation, then classification must follow. Life cycle emission full stop. Nuclear life cycle CO2 output is comparable to wind. And thirdly, our competitiveness depends on it. The United States and China are financing nuclear. Without any hesitation. Every day we deny these technologies green status. European utilities faced higher capital costs than their global competitors. We are handicapping ourselves in a race we cannot afford to lose. Nuclear, properly regulated, must not be just a transitional mean, but a truly strategic way of producing electricity, and therefore the taxonomy must be reopened and to correct it. The Commission President has already recognized that this antinuclear hysteria in which this legislation has been framed in this Parliament is over because it was a strategic mistake. So the taxonomy should reflect that and it should reflect it right now.”
  Nuclear energy
• “15:56 – 16:17:56): Look, India is a very important country, no doubts about it, and we certainly do have the interest to extend our reach, outreach globally. So I think all those attempts to extend this, you know, this free trade agreement with India is a very important move by the EU and even our maybe interest to extend the defense market possibilities in India. It's a huge customer, so that's no doubt a very good move and congratulations for this. At the same time, and it's my second point, India is different, you know, from Canada, Australia, Japan, South Korea because those countries are different by size, geographical location, but they do not have any special relationship with Russia. That's common for them, while India is a bit different and traditionally they are playing their own games. I mean the Indians, it's a power. And my question is, you know, where is the greater interest on the Indian side or on the EU side to get closer? And just taking this into account, whether it be to have some leverage, you know, to work with Indians to prevent them from being too close to Russia because, you know, it's the security and defense partnership, it's something different than just the trade partnership. And this is something both the Americans are trying to do. And my question is whether, you know, we are attempting to do the same and what are the results?”
  EU-India relations
• “Yes. Thank you. Chair. Thank you, first of all, for organizing this. It's very interesting those brainstorming from Canada and, uh, Very valuable. You know, I would take now this, uh, Donald Trump's harsh rhetoric, which is unacceptable, of course, aside and would concentrate with my question on on the Canadian and the EU interests. So I could hear rightly that, you know, we share not just the same value, but also an important strategic interest, particularly in the Arctic. Uh, I also have heard a statement in the beginning that we have the full respect to the rights of indigenous people. And thirdly, there is simply the truth that Greenland is in between us. Europe is belongs to Denmark, and it's in between Canada and the EU. So just imagine a hypothetical situation now that the Inuits in Greenland Would decide to hold a referendum on the full fledge independence. And China or Russia is watching this and made an offer which is difficult to decline. You know, instead of granting half billion dollars in a year like Denmark is practicing now to offer 5 or 10 billion in a year in exchange for, you know, help to campaign in the referendum and in exchange for allowing them to build a military installation for Russia. China is a peanut those price. So my question is just a few model this hypothetical situation. And knowing that there is not any immediate threat what the Canadian and the EU reaction should be, or are there some measures, you know, which we can apply to prevent this kind of scenario?”
  Foreign interference in Europe
• “Here. Thank you. I think the real problem is not what is a part of this proposal, but what is not there. And yes, of course, the simplification, you know, the SMEs would appreciate this. But if I'm talking with the big companies, with Chamber of Commerce, with the Union of Industry, and even with the trade unions, they are not happy. And it's not enough. And the core problem is that we deal with sebum while we are ignoring ET's. Both are closely interlinked and we will resolve one if we address also the other. And in this sense, I find the commission sequencing of omnibus as negligent and not helpful. I remember very well in the previous term that the work on sebum and shine was here was dependent on the result of ETS negotiations in the trilogue. Now we go backwards and think it will work. This commission proposal is an admission of what many of us have been saying all along. Sebum, as originally designed, is a bureaucratic beast that places undue strain on the European businesses. Now the Commission is scrambling to clean to clean up the mess. Proposing exemptions, simplification and delays that should have been there from the beginning. So, and there is also the question of export. It needs to be incorporated in the future. Revision of Cbam a direct reimbursement or free allocations are possible options on the table. Regarding the possible extension of Cbam, an impact analysis must come first. The extension should not jeopardise our competitiveness. European industry needs more than stopgaps. It needs a cbam that is practical and fair. The goal should not be the world's most complicated carbon tax. It should be a system that effectively addresses carbon leakage without crippling the industry. Thank you.”
  Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM)
• “I will start with a reaction. You know, Romanian colleague has accused my Swedish friend that she is an extremist. And look, there are hardly more countries than Sweden, Finland, Austria, Poland, my country with 100 years long tradition of forest monitoring on the national level. If you have a problem in Romania with a criminality, it is your homework to fix that and not to call the Brussels to help you. So look, yes, the forests are under stress because of many reasons. But with this proposal, if it enters into force, it would not help forests but would put under the stress those who are managing the forest. And it's not simplification, it's a complication. It's an attempt, you know, to enter into, into the domain of the national states. We have a system which is, well, working for 100 years, and we do not need to destroy this by this bureaucratic.”
  Management of EU forests
• “Thank you. Chair. Look, we are afraid that the system will not work. As the authors of this I hope for. A it's a classic, you know, big socialist redistribution and of of of the health. And as always, you know, we remember it well that everybody is going to be poor. Uh, that's first, uh, ideologically, but practically, uh, there are the problems even deeper. Uh ets2 is, in fact, the tax on driving of people to work and keeping their home warm. And we want to compensate this. Uh, but look, in reality, beyond those, you know, ten, 15% richest, everybody is going to pay that middle class as well as the poorest people. Then there is another problem. It's that you have a different living standards and the wealth among the member states. And this tax, you know, does not take this into account. And thus, you know, in the rich countries like Germany, they are afraid of the poorest people, you know, and the repetition of the yellow vest riots, like we have seen in France a couple of years ago. But in the not so rich countries as Germany or Netherlands or whatever, uh, the middle class is going to pay the price. And the poorest, of course, too. And then is the big problem is, you know, the €65 billion between 2026 and 32 in the US have even, you know, with adding something from the national contribution, it's not going to be enough to compensate everybody. So what is the going to be the result? Maybe the poorest people will get something and the middle class is going to be angry. The bedrock of the stability in the society. So I really uh and last but not least, you know, the system is behind the schedule. Only two states have submitted the the their domestic legislations. The others are of course waiting because it's like a economic and social time bomb. And they want first to modify the ETS two because this is designed now, it will lead to those social problems. So I would expect the Commission to submit some correction of the ETS two and then we can fix this problem.”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “Well thank you Peter. Thank you, Commissioner, for being with us. So you perfectly know, we were pushing hard for speeding up the CO2 emission review. So when, uh, in December, we could have a chance to read your proposal. Uh, the recognition on our side was that this is not a real relaxation. It does not make the European automotive industry more competitive. And I am afraid that in general, you are simply rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic boat. First, the so-called 10% flexibility is not a flexibility. Real one at all. Instead of adjustment, it merely shifts the problem elsewhere, creating a new problem called the green steel. I must ask, where is the definition of green steel? Does it make cars cheaper? Does it make more attractive to consumers? I'm afraid the answer is no. The flexibility, therefore, must be unconditional without hidden constraint and the new regulatory pressure. Second, the allocation of just 3% for biofuels and e-fuels cannot be presented as a technological neutrality. This is not a serious alternative pathway. Europeans expect practical, scalable solutions. They don't expect a blind adherence to EVs on. And this brings me to your idea to support small electric vehicles.”
  Road transport environmental policy
• “Well, thank you very much, Madam Commissioner. We all know about you distance from the nuclear energy, but in the current circumstances and you are a commissioner, you are no more the Spanish politician working in Spain. So you should respect the will of the others. You should also respect the current geopolitical circumstances. And to make a Copernicus Turner turnaround with regards to the nuclear energy. Because without that we can forget about decarbonisation. And I have a couple of things. So first, on the state aid rules and that's your responsibility and on the nuclear because, you know, there is this in the clean industry order, there is this simplification of the state aid rules for renewables by June 2025. But when it comes to nuclear, it offers only a woke assessment in accordance with the treaty. So will you extend the same simplification in nuclear energy? And if not, why do you truly consider this a fair and technological neutral approach? And the same is with taxonomy. Yes. In omnibus we appreciate the simplification for SMEs. But on the taxonomy, the proposed changes in in omnibus remain superficial. So and we have a report that because of you during the college meeting, so will you also amend the Complementary Delegated Act and adjust the key technical screening criteria for nuclear and also gas. For example, the impractical requirement that gas activities must rely entirely on renewable gases by 2035, or classification of nuclear as a merely transitional activity. That is absolutely unrealistic. And finally, on on the climate law and 2040 targets. So how you would plan to set the target without concrete roadmap to achieve this? And you seriously expect us to approve the target without knowing how it will be met? And are you in favor of setting specific renewable targets for 2040? Wouldn't it be better to set a technological neutral decarbonization carbon, giving the member states the flexibility to choose whether they depend on renewables, nuclear, or the mix of both? Thank you very much.”
  Energy transition (state support) · Nuclear energy
• “No, I'm sorry, Madame, but you are not right. I was a negotiator for taxonomy a couple of years ago. And taxonomy, the nuclear in taxonomy legislation is taking just a transitory source, not a strategic one. And thus, if you are building a new nuclear power plant, small, bigger one, if you want to, to, to, to, to finance this, if you want to make an insurance, it has an effect. So the taxonomy legislation, which is the EU legislation and which limits our hands must be changed. So again, when are you going to propose the new delegated act to taxonomy? Please answer me.”
  Green Taxonomy
• “Obsession with environmental protection and social welfare has led us to stifle all remaining vitality in our lives. Modernization. Well, these authorization procedures, the permits take years. We complain about Trump's tariffs, but what we are doing to ourselves. In terms of red tape is very damaging. We don't need market obstacles. We don't need more protectionism or subsidies. We just need fewer rules. So I support Mrs. Maloney and Mr. Mertz's call for less red tape, but we need to do more. Today. Anybody can block a permitting procedure and bring a case before the courts. And all of this slows down the entire procedure, and the bureaucracy is out of control. Things like the taxonomy or the clean transition or you know, water protection rules. I mean, none of these areas have been corrected. We need to get to work on this.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Well thank you Chair you as a reporter did your best to advocate it and but at least you know you were realistically summing up the current situation so thank you very much for at least your reflection of this. But I have to tell that I'm totally disappointed with the commission performance I was listening you last week in Ostrava you know you were online with in front of the group of tens or forty fifty major entrepreneurs in our country were expecting an answers and you did not provide anything and here is the same. First of all in your presentation the justification for ETS you did not mention this but it's in the presentation is that you would expect to reduce the congestion until now I was expecting that you know the rationale behind this is that the people step by step would switch from the dirty cars into the greener cars but it will not reduce the congestion. So first question is are you really planning you know to to to to bend the individual mobility in fact you know or to prevent us to have the cars you want us to go to drive the bicycle you know Chinese you know everybody's arguing with Chinese you know they were driving the bicycles forty years ago now they are in the car so is your plan that you we we will come China in the next ten years to just leave the car to drive the bicycles. And secondly and more importantly you know is the concern about the raising the prices here nineteen countries has sent a letter no response yet the price in the futures market is now over the eighty euro are you serious here are you preparing something where is the promise you know what are you going to react on this how to accommodate this system of of MSR you know nothing we have heard until yet your commissioner was just wokely promising to Delhi to to submit something or to provoke something in due time. You know this is the highly unpopular there is not a single political party in my country which supports this ETS2 it's a danger that you know the social fund is maybe you know it it it will cover the needs of the poorest they are not coming to the election so they are voting the communist but it will you know harm the middle class and will not have enough money to compensate this and are you if those people are trying to vote will vote the the the extremist and we will lose the democracy we will go into China even as such are you ready you know for this are you supporting this thank you.”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. So we in the ECR certainly support the simplification and Cutting the red tape as it is proposed for the medium and small size enterprises. But my further remarks would rather concentrate not on what is containing this proposal, but what is missing there. And that's gas, and in particular the nuclear. The Commission has left this provision untouched and thus giving Parliament no opportunity to revisit them. And that's deeply disappointing for us. And. And wrong. Just two weeks ago in the Energy Committee, several MEPs raised the valid question about the nuclear role, and Vice President Ribera raised could not answer a single one. And Commissioner Jourgensen says he is not the enemy of the nuclear energy quoting, but offers no clarity on the status moving forward. And this is really not a serious policy meeting. And we need the commitment, clear commitment by the Commission. And I therefore ask, Will the Commission revise the Complementary Delegated Act and the technical screening criteria for gas and particle nuclear? Nuclear is indispensable and strategic industry to our net zero objectives. Its reliable, emission free and already deployed at scale. We invest in nuclear because it works. It guarantees energy security, reduced dependence on imports and supports our industry. So in the taxonomy must be changed. And I really eager to hear your view on this.”
  Nuclear energy
• “The media already called this. Yeah. So hybrid vehicles must remain part of the European mobility. They are proven consumer accepted transition technology. Yet the tightening of the utility factor unfairly penalizes hybrids and de facto would remove them from the market. That is not a technological neutrality. It is, again, regulatory exclusion. And finally, I must address the Industrial Accelerator Act. This is the cornerstone of the automotive package, and yet it has still not been published. This is simply unacceptable. How the industry, legislators, stakeholders are expected to engage seriously with the automotive package when the rules on the local content thresholds remain unknown. And finally, you know, you talk about the engineers. I'm talking about the with the engineers of Skoda. You know, there are there is a tradition of fourth generation guys and they have a different conclusion than your engineers. So I think generally the The politicians should be avoiding to, to to to use the engineer language. You know, there was an engineer of human souls this famous you know, one of the communist leaders was talking about this. We should avoid this temptation. Thank you.”
  Road transport environmental policy
• “Yes, sir. We read that ETS is a tax on competitive. And it seems like a paradox. But on the 15th of July, there's going to be a review. And this Parliament could decide where it's going to stand. Will it stand on the side of industry or will it continue along the path of a self-flagellating Europe, the eurozone. Industry has to deal with energy that costs twice as much in the US or in Asia. And their response is instead of thinking about ETS. Which has increased the cost of shipping and transport, they are going ahead with ETS two. This is going to mean the costs will trickle down to companies and citizens, but on the 15th of July, I hope they take the right decision before our factories close.”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “Ladies and gentlemen, the proposal that we've received unfortunately, does not suffice. It focuses on decarbonisation, but it doesn't help because China and India are laughing at us. And Donald Trump is going to show us, you know what? This afternoon, what we need to do is to lower energy prices. Otherwise it will be an end to industry. How to do that? First, a vast reform of ETS. We have submitted our proposals. Now it's about approving them. And second, true technological neutrality certainty for investors. What we need is gas. What we need is nuclear. And the commission's vice president, Mrs. Ribeiro, has not answered our questions as to what to do in order to make nuclear on par with renewable resources. Ladies and gentlemen, we need to act. Otherwise, it's a funeral of European industry. They meant well, but the result as we know it.”
  Energy (green transition)
• “Ladies and gentlemen, the European Commission keeps usurping more and more power from the Member states. Remember this moment. The destiny of the European car industry is decided on the background of chaos, internal strife within the Commission and its incompetence. The ban on the internal combustion engine was a grave error. I welcome that the Commission should now finally admit that there should be technological neutrality. However, this is only half hearted. Limiting the consumer's choice is bad. This Soviet style of management didn't work 50 years ago, as far as I can remember. And it still doesn't work. Commissioner, you are creating another problem. The duty to use green steel in the manufacture of cars is a cheap attempt to transfer manufacture elsewhere. And all these fleets, it seems like from the arsenal of Chinese communists will try to amend this to get it right. Thank you.”
• “Commissioner from Brazil. As a leader of the delegation, speak Portuguese, so I will speak Czech. The Danes are missing. The presidency is embarrassed about the result. No, we say in Czech you ended up like, uh. Well, say like Napoleon. Waterloo. The mandate was arrogant. It was wrong. It was unrealistic. It was overly ambitious. The Americans are gone. Brics, the. That is Russia, China, India, Brazil, South Africa are making fun of us. The EU has failed to promote anything essential. What we wanted to achieve nothing about fossil fuels. Almost nothing about deforestation of rainforests. In fact, the EU has made concessions on everything important that others wanted. We should pay three times more as a replacement for Americans. Maybe some NGOs are applauding. Except for Greta, who has a different mission, an anti-Semitic one. If she comes back, she would tell you off. Anyway, the whole entire world is laughing at us. We have turned into a cash machine. We could laugh, but the the European taxpayer is crying because they will pay for everything. We have to change that.”
  Climate efforts
• “Yes. Thanks. And I also would speak on behalf of my colleague, from, Tran, mister Kurkilek. So just I'm here. So thanks, madam chair. And let me be clear. Euro 7 is a crucial legislation, and I say that as the parliament's lead negotiator, in the last mandate. I welcome the fact the commission has recognized the problem and brought forward, the omnibus aimed at reducing unnecessary burden, improving coherence, and avoiding market fragmentation, including clarification of Euro 7 testing requirements and the removal of unnecessary barriers for electric vans. However, we should not pretend that these goals are enough. We must do more to protect the competitiveness of the sector which supports more than 10,000,000 jobs across the EU. Manufacturers are implementing sustainability reporting rules, battery legislation, PFAS restriction, all while competing globally against China and The U. S. So if the Commission is serious about the technological neutrality and industrial competitiveness, then simplification efforts must also address the contradictory signal still built into this framework. On the 1 hand, the utility factor is pushing plug in hybrids out of the market through the regulatory methodology rather than consumer choice, and it's On not the other hand, heavy duty manufacturers are being asked to finance both transition to 0 emission trucks and Europe 7 compliance and the same I have 3 minutes.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “Yes. Sure. Thanks, Pierre. Look. Of course, this idea is, to legally force the companies to buy electromobiles is wrong on its core. It goes against the principle of the market economy, and it should be dismissed. You know that openly I am criticizing how this excessive regulation, is just feeding the Chinese industrial monster. But with this piece of legislation, it would be even worse. If agree, we step by step would transform ourselves into what China has been 30 years ago, a command economy and roads filled just by the bicycles, of course, with the spares made in China. So, no go.”
  Corporate fleet electrification: binding zero-emission quotas vs. voluntary approach
• “Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Mr. Minister, for your introductory remarks. So I really appreciate your words of support for the Ukraine and, uh, articulating this Danish example, which is certainly a very good one. Uh, you are right that this is not a business as usual. And here I would maybe raise to two questions. One, maybe from the opposite corner. Uh, what the French colleague has said here. Yes, there is the conflict between speed and between the legitimate interest of a European to build its own defence industry and capability. But in case of Ukraine, the speed is the most important one. And it could be exactly illustrated on this last announcement by the American president. And they are ready to deliver either defensive system, which Europe does not possess, like patriots, and which is terribly needed to defend the cities in Ukraine, or even a deterrent. Guns, for example, Tomahawk Tomahawks, which, you know, Europeans either do not produce or are not ready to offer, and which is the way how to deter Moscow or for the attacks. So here the speed is more important, I think, than anything else in the case of Ukraine. So what is your opinion about this? I understand the strategic importance, but it does not fix the problem of the speed. And it's not about the drones, it's about some larger guns. And secondly, you know, this demand, you know, to build the European strong force in the defence industry brings the issue of the consolidation. And here again, it's a certain dilemma. You know, big companies like around metal medium sized company in some other countries, uh, you know, how to guarantee, uh, the level playing field and equal treatment that would not result just in a, the big one defeating the medium. But.”
  EU-Ukraine relations
• “Okay. Thank you very much. So just first hearing. Looks very impressive. So Congratulations. This is really because I just read this. Press release where, you know, some of the issues were not mentioned while you did raise them in your introductory statement. So just for the matter of clarification, on the general level, in the last couple of years, there were it was not just the problem, the red tape, but was the general prioritization of the environmental policies that were like a Bible above everything. So this means that what are you now pushing forward is something when these environmental concerns would be subordinated to the general public interest for security and safety. That's a first question. Secondly, more concretely, uh, whether, you know, this permitting process and the 60 days limit with a silence means an approval. So will it deal with er process? Will the municipalities who are important, you know, if you decide to construct some company would be obliged to, to to to follow this 60 days deadlines with this silence means the approval because that's exactly what I I'm listening pretty often now with, you know, some military industries who decide, you know, because there is gunpowder is lacking. So they are going, for example, to Germany with a decision to, to, to, to construct a new factory or to repair the old one. And they are facing those enormous obstacles by the municipalities, you know, just to cut a couple of trees in the courtyard, etc.. So and thirdly, on ESG, on the financing. So it means that the ESG will not govern the, the, the the access to the financing on this issue. Thank you.”
  EU policy on permitting for renewable energy projects
• “Thank you, madam Chair. Thank you, Commissioner, for what you are doing. Look, to succeed in that, we need the political will by my member states. We need the resources for money and we need the competitive and strong industry. And to the last goes my comment. There is now this roundtable organized by the Commission mapping of the European Defence Industries. And I just noticed that, you know, there's some sense of the lack of information among the member states. You know, on the feedback on the selections of those companies which are invited or not. And here I think it is very important just to make a parallel. So we had the automotive debate. So commission was legislating something, offering some incentives, bringing some figures on the board. But then, you know, the company is facing the reality. They are now facing, uh, the verge of collapse in Europe. And I think we need to avoid this situation. So, uh, my question is, uh, what are your plan to engage more the defense companies and the member states together?”
  Defence spending
• “Q I just arrived from the airport to. And the last cup in Baku ended in disappointment over the lack of a climate finance deal. So the outcomes raised serious doubts the Cop processes ability to effectively address the global climate challenges. Firstly, regarding the agreement at Cop 29 on the new collective Quantified goals. The goal is to triple climate finance for developing countries to the third $300 billion annually by 2035, and also to mobilise a total of 1.3 trillion A trillion U.S. dollars per year by the same date. The ECR Group cannot support any calls to mobilise finance, particularly for the loss and damage fund, until there is a clear and universally accepted definition of what the developing country means. Nationally Determined Contributions are the primary tool for achieving the goals of the Paris Agreement, without resolving this inconsistency in countries classifications. Further discussion on climate finance or NDC will lack a reliable foundation and secondly, in the light of the US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, the EU's ambitions to fill the gap, whether politically or even financially, could place immense pressure on both public and private financial resources. This comes at a time when the EU is facing unprecedented global challenges, declining competitiveness and a growing need to retain and allocate capital within Europe.”
  EU climate aid for global South
• “Thank you chair. Listening debate that one can have the impression that water is a major battleground in the Spanish politics. But seriously now. Firstly, I appreciate that the text on water resilience shift the emphasis from exclusively nature based solutions to also recognising the technological and grey infrastructure, placing them on equal footing. To put it bluntly, dams are essential for Effective border management, regardless of what some of our green friends may claim. Secondly, PFAS levels in the groundwater and surface water are indeed a concern. However, let us pursue a phased out approach where viable alternatives exist. And finally, please bear in mind that the water policy falls under the member State. Competence while coordinating at the union level can be beneficial. Let us not repeat the past mistake in overregulating also this area.”
  Water pollution
• “So there is a broad consensus, and I agree with that, that we must limit the use of PFAS. These substances are persistent in the environment and we have a duty to protect public health. I believe we should work towards detoxifying our daily lives, reducing unnecessary exposure whatever possible. Nevertheless, as we move forward, we must distinguish between types of use. Not all PFAS application are the same. Our priority should be limiting consumer facing uses. Pfas in textiles, cosmetics, food packaging where alternatives already exist or are within a reach. Industrial uses, however, are another matter. Pfas are essential in high performance applications like lubricants or gaskets, where no effective substitutes currently exist. In some cases, their use is unavoidable and some degree of environmental release is a technical reality today. That is why I support a gradual, careful manage reduction of PFAS under specific conditions. First, we must fully map PFAS use to avoid supply chain disruption and unintended bans on critical applications. Secondly, essential industrial components must be protected, especially where no alternative exists. We should also recognize the role of PFAS in supporting policy goals, including the Green Deal. For example, PFAS are used in paints and lubricants for wind turbines until substitutes are available. We will have to accept some environmental trade offs in order to safeguard strategic industry and energy security, or to give up to China is the alternative. So finally, we must assess the economic impact of restrictions across the supply chain. We need smart regulation, not blanket bans.”
  PFAs
• “Thank you, Chair. I was carefully listening the Commission presentation and it sounded to me like you know something said three, four years ago in the heydays of Greta, but not so much realistic. Yes, we should pursue the multilateral policy making further, that's I agree, but should take into mind what's happening is U.S., China, India, and elsewhere. So, here are my questions. First, you know, concerning 2040 targets, we did not hear anything here, but in the communication of the Commission, there is indirectly still this 90%, but it's a no-go in this part of it, I guess. You know, go across the various political groups. So, what is your plan here with the 2040? Secondly, the climate diplomacy, the EU climate diplomacy, U.S. are withdrawing. So, is any global climate deal possible without the U.S. and with other major polluters as China playing that, or just take India as an example, you know, you did not mention this. Indian government was celebrating the world record in coal mining per year over a one billion ton in a year mined to the last year. So, this is a reality where we are. So, how will the EU react to over half of the G20 nations potentially failing to meet their 2030 emission target? And certainly, financing, you know, there is a twin challenge, green deal obligation on one hand and the investment on defense in the other. So, you know, the COP 29 agreed to scale up financing to developing countries to at least 1.3 trillion per year by 2035. EU, you know, according to ECOFIN donated almost 30 billions in last year. Is this financial sustainable? And why the EU is committing to this unimaginable number without China being a serious contributor? China, you know, this parliament is full of the steel makers from Europe lobbying us, you know, stop China. That's the reality because it's, you know, their commitments and then there are the realities. So, please be more realist.”
  Climate efforts
• “Yes, thank you very much, chair. Thanks. Welcome here. So it's glad to hear you here to see you here. You know, my political group has the same concerns like EP or Patriots on the impact of the future revision of reach on the chemical industry and and and and the other sectors. So but I'm not going to repeat this. We have discussed this also separately. So I will now focus on entirely different challenge. And uh, and, and also the rule because of the rich. And that's this idea of total uh let ban or restriction to in hunting and fishing under the reach regulation. Uh last week there was the agri and Fishery Council. And if I'm correct, 12 countries has already expressed their uh problem in particular with the timing of this ban, you know, this year and wants to postpone this logically, uh, but the commission has repeated the arguments that, you know, it's everything in favor, and that the Social and Economic Committee of ECA argued that its conclusion that it's fine. Go ahead. There are alternatives. Yes, there are alternatives. But frankly, there is a war just in the neighborhood. And. The storages are empty in Europe, in the armed forces. Ukraine is in terrible need of delivering more. And there is just a couple of factories and industries in a handful of the member states. And now, you know, when they are raising their capacity to, to produce the munitions for Ukraine. And it's in my country, we are going to to push them, you know, to invest alongside with some alternative Captive to appease, you know, the commission ideas about, you know, it's it's a joke. We are against shooting literally into our hands. So, you know, I would ask just if you are pushing for something like this just to keep a certain balance between costs, benefits and unintended consequences of what we are doing. And this we should really postpone because it would have a devastating impact on our ability to support Ukraine.”
  Arms export from the EU
• “So my question is, do you recognize the problem of the price volatility, and are you ready for swift negotiation on this matter? And thirdly, on nuclear, you know, your commissioner is not a big fan of nuclear, but simply, you know, many countries in the EU without the strong wind or solar potential have no chance to meet the 2050 target. Without nuclear and with the taxonomy, it's still a half empty bottle. And we need to, uh, to, to, uh, to reach the level playing field for nuclear energy in taxonomy with the renewables. And my question is, are you ready to apply more pressure on the Commission, which stubbornly refuses to acknowledge the problem? And whether you would take into account also on the MFF negotiations, because it's fundamentally unfair if, for example, the taxpayer of my country is obliged to pay for the grids, which supports, for example, the German businesses, the renewables export from wind, while the German, for example, taxpayer is refusing to pay, uh, you know, the costs of the infrastructure for the nuclear energy. I think we need an equal treatment. Thank you very much.”
  Nuclear energy
• “Thank you very much. So, look, I don't have any question, just a quick comment because my group, the ECR will not participate at Santa Marta conference. We are not supporting this process. We stick behind this consensus based Cop meetings where the largest emitters took part and they should do much more than Europe is, is, is, is doing and they are not doing this. So this is just a handful of countries which do have some special national interest or have the advantages in speeding up. But just to take you to the consideration that there are some other European countries which have a serious problem, especially in this Geopolitical situation and good luck for Colombia as a host. I just understand that it's in their interest because they have an electricity mix with a huge hydro energy potential. So yes, it's easy for you, but at the same time, you are a big the Colombia is a big and growing exporter of coal, oil and gas. So yes. It's benefits largely. And just reading the statement of president of Colombia a couple of years ago and is still is in office, that cocaine is less dangerous than coal. So try to explain to people in my country, you know, because we have nothing but the coal. So I am in favor of decarbonization, but to select the speed which would not harm our competitiveness and Welsh at home. So that's my brief comment.”
  Fossil fuels
• “Thank you very much. So we have read this acceleration paper two weeks ago published by the Commission. Yeah. The mixture of some reasonable things with the advice is likes to shower with the cold water. Yeah. This is not the reason why we are paying the commission, you know, to make those proposals. But let's focus on those reasonable things. Some of them are the measures which brings the burden on the shoulders of the member states. And, you know, in the fiscal, uh. Requirement stability. It's not as easy. One good advice is on the nuclear. I agree with that. But after two years long pressure, tomorrow we will have the first exchange of views on the delegation act on taxonomy, how to revise that? But why the commission, when the Commission proposed this delegated act to put the nuclear really on the equal treatment with the renewables? We had a structured dialogue with Teresa Ribera, and she refused to respond to us. Even in the ping pong format. So I'm now interesting about your response, whether it would be better or the same ignorance, like your colleague. Yeah. And secondly, the reality is that Japan, China, all Asian countries with the big price of gas, they are going on the coal. And before the nuclear would be in place, it would take 10 to 15 years. Why not to use the coal to stabilize the market? When the prices of guys are too high.”
  Nuclear energy
• “Thanks, chair. Thank you, Madam Commissioner, for being with us. We certainly appreciate your willingness to find a solution and to communicate this with us. You know, for our group, uh, the interests of the farmers and foresters are very important. And based just on what we could discuss with them in the last couple of weeks. Uh, yes. Uh, You are trying to do some good things, but we are not there yet to have the solutions. There are five points which I missed most. Mostly the same, but you have already here. Uh, first, you know, we do have the problem with the readiness and the interoperability of the unit system at all scale. Secondly, this issue of the big and small. So, uh, exactly due to the integrated supply chains, the smaller operators are are afraid and are not, uh, appeased with that special treatment. So it has to be, I think, handled also in this light. Thirdly, uh, the bureaucracy, the possibility of duplicated or non-functional due diligence reporting obligations. Fourthly, the capacity of national authorities to conduct consistent and enforceable supervision from day one. It's very needed. And lastly, the lack of legal clarity relating to some information requirements, in particular to geolocation of plots of land. So what we proposed is a concrete solution as stop the clock to ensure the readiness, genuine simplification of due diligence and a single realistic timeline across the Member States. And our goal is to find a proper balance between the protection of the forest and standing up in practice. So let's move forward together Parliament, the Member States, and the Commission to secure a credible, proportionate implementation.”
  Trade impact on forests
• “Thank you. Chair. The Competitiveness Fund is supposed to be a response to changing geopolitical environment and urgent need to catch up with the rest of the world. The priority is to shift the focus of the budget towards competitiveness, security, defence and innovation to address investment gaps. The commission text needs modification, but it seems its authors understand the zeitgeist and have tried to act accordingly. Unfortunately, the rapporteur seems to be reading from a different textbook from five years ago, when green ideology and hysteria of Greta Thunberg was ruling in this House. If you put the threat of terrorism in one sentence together with climate change, something is seriously wrong with assessment of the situation. Next, competitiveness means using all sources of energy, including nuclear and imported gas. They are not a problem, but part of the solution to the energy transition. With regard to decarbonisation, our aim must be balanced and pragmatic approach. One small remark on the life programme. Any changes must be accompanied by strict transparency clause to avoid feeding the ideologically driven NGOs, which plays against the EU competitiveness goals. Finally, regarding defence, we need a rapid deployment of technologies and accelerating permitting. The greening of defence investment and calls for low carbon steel are not the way forward. In fact, all this regulatory nonsense is what is holding us back from moving towards with some confidence and success in the global competition.”
  Energy (green transition)
• “Thank you, Commissioner, for being with us. I think that we may all agree that the key role of the Commission is to be the guardian of the level playing field, and it exactly relates to my two questions here. The first issue is the exemption from the application of the EU procurement rules to electricity generation. We can agree that procurement obligation may hinder development, and that is exactly why the Commission grant exemption to ten member states, including to Germany, Netherlands and Denmark, while some others have not been exempted yet. Like my country, the Czech Republic, I may pay tribute to the influence of the commissioners Hoekstra Jürgenson, or to the president of the Commission herself. But I think really we need equal treatment here. So I would like to know your comment on on this. And what are you going to do? And second question relates to my favorite issue is the EU taxonomy. There is a growing political. Will the Commission to support SMEs and nuclear in general. And you play a very important role here. And you said that this is a strategic issue, not just a transitional one. So but we need to change the EU taxonomy to put this the equal treatment with renewables. So when you will submit the new delegated act to taxonomy on nuclear. Thank you very much.”
  Energy (green transition) · EU policy on sustainability criteria in public funding