Beata SZYDŁO

Policy topics Beata SZYDŁO is active on

What Beata SZYDŁO has said (47)

• 2026-07-07 “(11:19:02 - 11:21:13): Thank you, chair, dear Taoiseach, dear commissioners. Ladies and gentlemen, 1st of all, I would like to thank the Taoiseach for presenting the vision of the Irish presidency. There are indeed many challenges ahead of us. We keep our fingers crossed for achieving these goals. Security is definitely the most important thing for the EU. But in my speech, I would like to focus on the most difficult task ahead of the Irish presidency and all of us, basically, namely the EU budget for the coming years. Multiannual financial frameworks, the new financial perspective. It is a huge challenge, and there are many question marks. 1st of all, I think we all agree, at least in my political group, that we cannot impose any new taxes on businesses and European citizens. Now you've mentioned that the budget should be increased. We don't want cuts in the key European project projects. However, this cannot be at the cost of European citizens and to the cost of competitiveness of European industry. And this is another task that is very important. We are all looking forward to the review of the ETS because this is the key thing because the European economy will depend on that, whether it will really develop and flourish and become competitive. Because so far, it's been squashed by these solutions that the EU came up with itself. So fingers crossed, Tischak, and I hope that this presidency will be an important and merit base. Thank you so much. Thank you. Now for the Renew”
  Size of EU budget
• 2026-06-23 “(09:33:48 – 09:36:28): you very much, commissioner, for setting out your position. I think that, and my colleague from the Patriot has said this, I think there isn't any doubt at all about how important security for European citizens is. It's an absolutely fundamental question. It's 1 that we, the European Parliament and in the European institutions, in the commission, etcetera, have been grappling with. It's a question a fundamental question that needs answering. The disruption to security comes from different quarters, and we have to say quite clearly that some of those sources of disruption have been caused by the European Union itself. I'm thinking about migration policy. That's resulted in a situation where Europe has problems today with illegal immigration. The 2nd topic, which makes me scratch my head is the interference by the European Commission in the activities of the member states. Now the extent to which the European Commission is able and wishes to maintain a balance when it comes to how they interfere with member state security arrangements is fundamental. And it always comes back to, well, we fight disinformation, and we are therefore going to step in. Now there can be prior cases where politicians or even individual countries have and the governments thereof have perhaps followed the European Commission's line a 100%. But this always comes under the aegis of disinformation combating and, that the rights of, of the people are being, supplanted. Commissioner, you mentioned the fact that there is this anti Semitism and anti Muslim sentiment that's being stirred up. Now what about Catholics, Christians, who feel just as under threat? And I think there's a reaction required there as well.”
  EU policy on integration and ethnic, racial and religious discrimination
• 2025-08-28 “E-003324/2025 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Ribera on behalf of the European Commission Poland notified the planned aid for the investment into the capacity expansion of conventional truck production as regional investment aid under the Guidelines on Regional State aid 1 (RAG). The objective of regional aid is to ensure regional development and cohesion. Accordingly, the Commission’s assessment focuses on this objective, while also assessing the overall impact of the aid on the internal market. The RAG and Council Regulation 2015/1589 2 respectively provide a framework for assessment and a procedure that the Commission applies uniformly to all Member States, ensuring equal treatment and non-discrimination. The RAG analysis verifies whether the aid fulfils its purpose, i.e. has a positive impact on regional development and cohesion. More generally, State aid control aims at ensuring that such aid does not adversely affect the level playing field on the market and trade between Member States. Thus, the Commission considers the overall impact of the aid on the internal market by also assessing criteria, such as the existence of the incentive effect or the proportionality of the aid. Industrial resilience and defence capabilities are not explicit criteria of the analysis, but the Commission may consider them in the ‘balancing test’ of the aid’s positive and negative effects. 1 OJ C 153, 29.4.2021, p. 1. 2 OJ L 248, 24.9.2015, p. 9.”
  EU Competition policy · State Aid
• 2025-03-06 “P-000981/2025 Answer given by Mr Jørgensen on behalf of the European Commission Following the Russian military aggression against Ukraine as of 2022, the EU has acted firmly to cut its reliance on Russian energy. REPowerEU 1 , adopted in May 2022, aiming to fast forward the clean transition, diversify supplies, and enhance EU energy resilience. The EU adopted sanctions to phase out Russian coal imports. Sanctions on Russian oil have also reduced imports from almost a third to 3% of total EU imports. In terms of gas, the EU reduced its Russian gas imports from over 45% in 2021, to 19% in 2024, replacing it with alternatives like liquefied natural gas from a number of international partners. With the end of Russian gas transit via Ukraine, beginning of 2025, the share could fall to 13% this year. However, Russian energy, particularly gas, remains in the EU energy mix. To address this, the Commission is working apace on a Roadmap to end Russian energy imports by fully implementing REPowerEU, which is in the Commission Work Programme for 2025. 1 https://commission.europa.eu/publications/key-documents-repowereu_en”
  Natural gas · EU approach to energy security (home-made vs import sources)
• 2024-12-05 “P-002795/2024 Answer given by Mr Šefčovič on behalf of the European Commission The Commission is closely monitoring the situation regarding the import of fertilisers into the EU from Russia and Belarus. Significant increases took place for nitrogen fertilisers classified under the EU Combined Nomenclature heading 3102, where imports from Russia in the first ten months of 2024 have reached 2.07 million tonnes, i.e., 6% more than in the first 10 months of 2023 and 49% than in the same period in 2021, before Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. A recent increase has also been observed in fertilisers mixtures containing nitrogen listed under heading 3105, with Russia exporting to the EU close to 1.6 million tonnes in the period between January to October of 2024, 60% more than in the same period of 2023. Imports from Belarus remain low, below 100 000 tonnes, and stable. While reflecting on possible new measures, upholding food security remains among EU’s primary consideration. Any potential measure should contribute to preserving a competitive EU fertilisers industry, reducing dependencies while ensuring that EU farmers have access to ample and diverse sources of fertilisers. Where there is unfair competition stemming from imports, the EU uses trade defence instruments to restore fair competition. There are anti-dumping measures in place on imports of mixtures of urea and ammonium nitrate from, inter alia, Russia 1 which are currently subject to an expiry review. There are also measures in place on ammonium nitrate from Russia 2 . Where measures are no longer effective, they may be reviewed. 1 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1688 of 8 October 2019: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32019R1688 2 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2100 of 15 December 2020: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2020.425.01.0021.01.ENG”
  Use of fertilisers
• “Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. Mr. Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. I listened attentively to what the Commissioner spoke about. And these are issues that are fundamental for Democracy. And I'd like to believe the EU freedom of speech, protection against foreign interference. Today, those issues, those values are at stake and are threatened in the EU. We know that very well. And looking at what is happening even today, what happened today in Poland with respect to the war in Ukraine, Putin's attack, disinformation, we witnessed that every single day and it is becoming more and more a reality. But we're also talking about the rule of law, Mr. Commissioner. The problem is that those important issues you mentioned, those values that ought to be the basis of our community, ought to be equally measured everywhere, Irrespective whether the country has a conservative government or a different government. We need to evaluate that equally. And I'm talking about that on the basis of my experience as the prime minister of a former Polish government.”
  EU Supervision of the Rule of Law
• “Thank you, president. Ladies and gentlemen. During its last term, European Commission with madam von der Leyen led to a huge economic crisis in Europe. Lack of competitiveness, a deep crisis concerning our security and standards of living of Europeans. And all this was caused, among others, by New Green Deal and Migration Pact. So in this term, the European Commission, headed by the same Mrs. von der Leyen, decided to fight the problems that it created on its own during the last term. How will it does it want to do it? By continuing new Green Deal, by continuing the migration pact, adding Mercosur, Which will be a disaster for European farmers. It is harder and harder for Europeans to live. They are less and less secure. Energy prices. Cost of living. And this is a disaster. More and more companies going bankrupt. Industry is being closed. People are losing jobs. Can we do something? Yes. What? Let's stop the new Green Deal. Mercosur and migration pact.”
  Von der Leyen
• “Thank you. Chair. I will speak Polish. Thank you very much. The Western Balkans. Have become a battlefield for the future of Europe. Democratic institutions are very weak. And when it comes to disinformation, this is something that, uh, has become a part of daily life. Uh, uh, divisions on the basis of identity have weakened trust in the government and in the European Union. Russia remains the main threat. It is engaging in propaganda and flooding local networks with their propaganda to weaken democracy in Serbia. The Chinese presence is, of course, much more subtle. China is present as a reliable partner and when it comes to the EU. The EU seems paralysed in the region. Now, one question has already been asked. I'd like to reiterate it. What mistakes did the EU make, especially when responding to basic questions? Do the Western Balkans remain an important region for us? Do we continue to believe that the Western Balkans belong to the democratic community, or do they not? I remember when I was Prime minister of Poland, we had partners in Serbia who very clearly told us that they were left all alone with what was happening in their country, and they were left to their own devices in the face of Russian influence. Now we're talking about the integration of the Western Balkans. We've been talking about this for a long time, but there's no real progress to be seen on this front. In fact, we're are seeing regression. So my question is the following. How can the EU guarantee and ensure that disinformation is not used to do away with the democratic opposition like the EU? How can we fight the financial flows that support the Russian logic in the Western Balkans? I am concluding. Furthermore, it seems that these are very basic questions and the EU needs to find responses to them if they continue to see the Western Balkans as a key partner. Thank you.”
  Foreign interference in Europe · EU enlargement
• “But of course, that is something that has to remain our objective throughout. I acknowledge that, but at the same time, I have to wonder, because I'm puzzled by these differences that might exist between protection on the one hand and interference or influence on the other. Where do you draw the line? You know, often we analyze data and we know that vulnerable groups are targeted. They are targeted because there is a determined will to influence their behavior, their online behavior, public behavior, all of which will then have an impact on, for instance, the Organization of Democratic Elections. And I know that previous speakers in this debate have already mentioned that particular point. So these are issues that we have to address. I mean, some problems are deemed problematic and they have to do with public institutions. But at the same time, you know, what about training courses, which are organized and training courses which are actually designed to to sort of, so to speak, train people. I think we've come full circle to some extent. So my question really is, how does the UN intend to guarantee that these global mechanisms, global mechanisms which are designed to manage or govern the internet, how do you make sure that we don't end up with a system that actually represses free democratic debate? We all support democracy, freedom, and democracy. Democracy isn't a question of filtering public opinion using algorithms or expert algorithms to filter these debates. Democracy actually means that the powers must be criticized as well.”
  Disinformation & online freedoms
• “Ladies and gentlemen, If today you think. And this is what I also said in the previous debate, if you think that Europe can afford to leave the alliance with the US, that we can afford to give up NATO, then you are deeply wrong. And those who say so and think so, they are doing what Putin wants from them. Europe needs to think about its own energy security. We have enough resources that could guarantee the security. We have to have smart policy that will be safe for us, and we have to rearm and not think about illusions.”
  Relations with NATO
• “Thank you. Chair. Ministers. You on both said that you were awaiting for specific acts and documents to be prepared by the Commission, and only then would you take decisions and present further details of your plans. What are the direction of further work by the Commission will be? We can say it all already based on what the commission said this morning. So the Green Deal will accelerate will be implemented harder and faster. This is to the detriment of the European economy, which has been losing competitiveness, and more and more Europeans find it quite difficult to make ends meet. This spells trouble for businesses as well. So what happens if the commission wants to go even faster down that road? Will you will the Polish presidency terminate those acts which are harmful to us? Now, Minister Charnetski mentioned she was working on a document, a strategy for moving away from fossil fuels. The previous government in Poland had already prepared such a strategy. So what is your work about? Do you want to move away faster from fossil fuels? If so, what's got this to do with the competitiveness of Polish economy? Thank you.”
  Energy (green transition)
• “Thank you. I would like to thank you for the information you've presented to us. I think that the conclusion which comes clearly is that we're dealing with a growing challenge, with challenges developing faster and faster, and we have to look for new tools we would be able to use to combat the challenges. And the question is whether we are ready. So I want to emphasize that the solutions introduced in Canada are of interest to us. Therefore, I have two questions. My first question is of course we heard about it. But if you could make it more specific, what are the first conclusions from the operation of the Transparency Register of Foreign Influence? And the second question, which is, I think the most important question for me in the context of combating foreign influence and the Fimi issue, the question is how do you cooperate with digital platforms to counteract Fimi without excessive interference into the freedom of speech? So, to put it short, how do you perceive. The limit between freedom of speech and foreign influence? How do you measure it and how do you solve the issue? Thank you.”
  Foreign interference in Europe
• “We. It is no secret that the actual real extent of our import from Russia is much greater than that that is reported. Especially swap transaction transactions are important. And the third part of my report relates to the actual architecture and our proposals for the future. First of all, we need to focus on price accessibility. We need to take into account the national price risk. Risk related prices. We need to ensure the accessibility of energy resources in all Member States. To sum up, ladies and gentlemen, I would like us to be realistic and take a realistic glance at our imports and structure of our market. We are importing 60% of our raw, raw resources, and we will continue to do that in the near future. A large proportion of those resources will be imported, and this is why we need to take into account the fact that natural gas is also an important raw resource for fertilizer production and in other industries. Mr. Draghi wrote about that in his report. We also spoke about it in Strasbourg during the plenary session last week. Europe needs to develop its industry. It needs to rearm, which means that we need to have enough fuel, energy sources. But but we also need to be aware of the fact that any guarantees for the development of our industry will be focused on our energy security.”
  EU approach to energy security (home-made vs import sources)
• “(14:47:16 – 14:49:32): Thank you very much, chair. Ladies and gentlemen, well, the ECR group that I'm representing here does appreciate certain proposals by the European Commission. At the same time, we see a lot of problems and issues with this proposal. First of all, because we're talking about a totally new approach to budgeting to the EU budget. This is not a simple and straightforward budgetary reform. This is a fundamental modification of the way in of managing our resources, which is based on centralization, and it takes away the power of deciding decision making powers from regions and local authorities. We do appreciate the strengthening of the security and defense aspect. It is also good that we are working we're focusing more on external borders. This is a step in the right direction, but the issues that we see include a total lack of investment in infrastructure related to transport. There are no obligatory amounts for transport sector. At the same time, we are very strongly promoting the so called green mobility. And we believe that considering the current geopolitical situation and given the status of energy transformation in Europe, we should not treat decarbonization as a priority task. Third, cohesion funds should, first of all, be used to in order to finance the so called hard infrastructure that is railroad and other similar projects. We should not allow for a situation in which key projects such as TNT would be dependent on mechanisms that are so far not really specified. And we're talking about transport poverty, which might might turn into a huge problem. So, of course, we will propose our own amendments. Thank you very much.”
  EU funding for transportation
• “(14:22:54 – 14:25:37): am sure for commissioner, it will be nice to hear the language we share. Commissioner, thank you so much, for your presentation of the budget. Very interesting. However, many many doubts and questions arise as a result. For instance, question marks as to priorities that the European Commission is trying to put forth in this draft. I'll give you examples. Increasing indebtedness of the European Union And what follows lack of, real plan how to stop the debt. The debt has been growing, and my previous speakers have mentioned that as well. I'm worried it's a spiral, a downward spiral. As a result, maybe we'll find ourselves in a situation where we won't be able to implement projects related to the key policy areas for the community. Another issue, priorities that have been drafted in this budget proposal. We live in the times of political crises. What's most important for our member states, for our citizens, is security, especially security for borders, support for defense industry, and the European Union has a dedicated program going that way. But if you look at how funds are distributed in next year, I don't think it reflects the priorities that have been supported so far by the European Commission. Therefore, I believe we should expect a shift when it comes to financial support. I think we should move away from expenditure, which only fuels, the further indebtedness of the European economy. I'm mentioning here, for instance, Green Deal, which bring only those projects bring only bring a burden for European economy. However, they are still treated as priorities in the proposals. You've mentioned support for agriculture, very important indeed. Therefore and to conclude, in order to be able to present our assessment of this draft, we'll have to go into analysis much deeper. But at this stage already, I think we should shift the main focus of financial support. Thank you.”
  Size of EU budget
• “Thank you very much, president. First we had this Green Deal which destroyed the European economy. Now we lost the remnants of competitiveness that we had in certain companies are moving abroad. And the German automotive industry made the pressure on miss von der Leyen. This president has been pushed by the German automotive industry, and miss von der Leyen succumbed to this pressure and signed the Mercosur agreement. Now, this deal means that the European industry will lose its competitiveness, but it will also lead to the disaster in the European agriculture. And the farmers are protesting outside because they feel that the they feel threatened and they are here to send a strong message to us. But not only to us, but also to the European Commission, because we are facing a major threat in terms of our sovereignty, which is now limited by the signing of this agreement. What is the reason for all of it? There is always the. The reason is the interest of a one single member state. And the Mercosur is a major mistake as the Green Deal before, but also the dependence on the supplies of the Russian gas.”
  Trade relations with Mercosur
• “On the other hand, we need to avoid the other extreme that is business as usual in our relations with Russia. Russia is an aggressor. If we renew imports from Russia, it will not be a win win solution. It will not ensure security. We need to remember what happened in 1938. In Munich states, European states wanted to buy some peace, But as Churchill said, they came back without peace and without money. Furthermore, I would like to state that I understand that opinions differ on this topic at hand. I have spoken to the representatives of various political groups. I know that all your opinions are important, but we need to draft a very clear report. So I would like to invite you not to introduce additional topics. For instance, the energy markets, price setting, the delegated act on low emission hydrogen, etc. if we want this document, which is extremely important, as I said, especially in the context in which we live today in Europe, if we want to have a document that will be clear and Indication of directions to be taken by the European Commission in order to. Enable it to introduce good and safe and secure solutions, we need to focus on the key issues. Thank you very much and I will be listening to your opinions also.”
  EU-Russia relations (from March 2022)
• “President. Commissioner. Ladies and gentlemen, uh, the issue, the problem about the European Democracy Shield is as follows. We are talking about goals that are very important, and the message is very important. We want to avoid manipulation and foreign interference, amongst other things, coming through the internet platforms which might interfere with, uh, citizens decisions in the electoral process. But at the same time, we are getting a bit suspicious of the fact that perhaps it is exactly the European Commission and the majority present in this House as well Might lead to a situation whereby the principles of democracy would be violated. Focusing on, as the previous speaker said, focusing on the political correctness. Our duty is to avoid that. We do need indeed to protect ourselves against foreign interference, especially in on platforms on the internet. There is no debate around that. That's clear. But we must be vigilant. We must not allow any manipulation that would accompany this, uh, those activities. This is a very important message for the entire European Union. We need to take care of the freedom of speech and respect for democratic debate in the European Union. Thank you.”
  Disinformation & online freedoms
• “So I just wanted to refer to the last few years. The last few years have shown how important it is for us to have these projects. These are projects that are made possible thanks to this framework for transport, for energy. So we've seen the fruit that this has borne, and I therefore would like to extend my support for the Commission proposal. The Commission is proposing here to increase resources for these types of projects where we're looking at improving necessary infrastructure, and I'm very happy with that. I'm very happy to see also that infrastructure for mobility is included here, and military mobility in particular. Allow me to draw your attention to the funding of this infrastructure. A couple of comments on that dual use infrastructure in particular. I'm referring here, for instance, to both bridges and railway tracks. The construction of both. I think it's important to take into account the current political context When it comes to military mobility, I think that the funds should be sent first and foremost to the eastern flank countries of the European Union, because they are most at risk. They are most in peril because of Russia's actions right now.”
  EU funding for transportation
• “Yes. Thank you very much. President, Commissioner and dear colleagues, today we are faced with an initiative which are under the name of Democracy Shield in the face of hybrid threats essentially is a danger for its foundation because there is a very dubious element of this project and which leads to these doubts. We're talking about interference in elections. You, commissioner, saying that you want to protect Europe, the European Union, the member states against foreign interference. Well, yes, we have to do this, and we have to firmly resist Russian influence, and we have to protect Europe from these kind of attacks. But at the same time, you cannot appropriate the powers and competence of sovereign countries and create a tool which is going to allow you to have an influence on the decisions of elections in individual member states. No treaty, no agreement and no commitments obligations on the part of the Member states. None of these powers have been conferred to the European Union level. These are in the hands of the sovereignty of individual member States, so we wouldn't agree to this in the ECR. We are not going to support a solution which take the right to a free choice for the citizens of individual member states, because this was going to destroy the foundations of the European Union.”
  Foreign interference in Europe
• “Thank you very much, Commissioner. One quick question. What do you intend to do specifically in order to allow Europeans to pay a lower the energy bills to stop the growth of prices and to allow our. Entrepreneurs and business people to sleep well at night. Because. Otherwise they would wake up in the middle of the night from a nightmare. So you have told us a very interesting story about the plans of the European Commission. But it all boils down to one sentence. You want to continue on a path that has already led to huge problems. People cannot afford to pay their bills, and the European economy is getting less and less competitive. These are facts as described in the Draghi report. Now you are stressing that we should implement faster Those solutions, which were already suggested by the Commission, that we should be more ambitious. Et cetera. Et cetera. This is all well and good, but the world is moving away from the so-called green regulations. The world is racing ahead and we are lagging behind. So we also have to think about our energy security. Moving away from those energy sources that we have in Europe in the past, such sources guaranteed our security. I'm talking, for instance, about coal mining in Europe. So your plans lead to a worse situation for Europeans. So please be more realistic. Commissioner, because Europeans have had enough with all those costs and the problems in our economy. Thank you.”
  Energy (green transition)
• “Thank you both on the right and the left. We're hearing complaints on the right are saying that they can't achieve a level of competitiveness which is sufficient because of the conservatives who want to put a stop to your excellent ideas for developing the automobile. Industry. You are forcing those crazy economic ideas which can be called the Green Deal. You've had the idea to kill the automotive industry. Let us talk about facts. People are losing their jobs. And as for competitiveness, go out to the streets and count how many Chinese electric cars are operating there. Using your own ideologies. You are destroying our industry. You are jumping into the dry swimming pool and you are pretending to beat the world. Record the record in stupidity and you must not destroy all European economy. Well, the symbol of Europe should be a little electric car. As Mrs. von der Leyen says, you can as well call it. Ursula.”
  Energy (green transition)
• “Sorry. I will speak. I will speak Polish. Okay. Uh. Thank you very much. First of all, thanks to the author of the opinion, the document is really relevant because of the safety and security issues related to Europe. Military mobility is the key element of the EU security, especially in the light of the war that is raging behind our eastern border. So the mobility of the military equipment is not only a challenge, but it's also a test of our European solidarity and capacity to act swiftly. So I'm glad to see the initiatives, uh, strengthening the Rearm Europe MCF. However, I would like to underline that the cohesion policy is of key importance for many countries, including Poland. So any mechanism allowing for shifting the funds to military for military reasons. This should all be transitional and not obligatory. And the sovereignty of member states in that respect should be maintained. And I support all the provisions that point to the priority given to hotspots. Uh, transborder sections. That all is very important for military mobility. And also in order to assure the financing of military jets of dual use, I would like to propose to raise the Pre-financing level to 40%. Thank you again for preparing this document, and I hope our further cooperation will bear a lot of good fruit. Thank you.”
  Defence spending
• “Thank you, Mister. Mister chair. I will speak Polish.Thank you very much. I'm speaking on behalf of, uh, Mr. Hamburg. The rapporteur and I would like to present the comments that he has sent me. First of all. Based on the information presented. We understand that you want to deprive the Parliament of a decision making power when it comes to this particular item, and I think it runs contrary to the Interinstitutional agreement. When we were talking about the amount, the amount was reduced from 186 to 30 million, which was a drastic cut. Now you want to also limit the scope Hope of the instrument. Could you explain and shed a little bit of light on those decisions?”
  Conditions to access EU budget
• “Thank you, Madam Chair. I think that every one of us in this room agree that democracy has to be protected against. External interference. But this cannot go together with the limiting pluralism or extending the powers of the Commission without a clear mandate. I have many questions to Mr. Commissioner said, and the basic question is what is our role? Why are we here? Why are we having this debate? The document on the European Centre for Democratic Resilience is still in the pipeline. We haven't proved it and the Commission has already announced that it's going to be created. Another question is why do you need another tool? You already have some tools and instruments at your disposal that are supposed to protect us against foreign interference. I agree with the previous speaker. Everything seems to indicate that it's an attempt to interfere in the electoral process in individual member states, and an attempt to limit national sovereignty of individual member states. It's an attempt to impose censorship and an attempt to impose a certain way of thinking on our citizens. I have some experience from Poland with interpretation that the European Commission has applied to our internal situation, and it was very detrimental. What I have in mind are notions such as conditionality or the rule of law, which the European Commission applied for political purposes, and it blocked the EU funds from Poland. And Mr. Commissioner has also taken a position on that matter. I will not quote what you've said. However, you did give an interview on this matter at Deutsche Welle. Ladies and gentlemen, I am convinced that we need to strengthen our resilience against foreign interference. At the same time, we mustn't muzzle European citizens with regulations like this one. And I disagree with you, Madam Chairman, that the elites and elected have the same root. A lot depends on where we are from, which country we come from, and unfortunately, this is the way the EU approaches us.”
  Foreign interference in Europe
• “Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. The ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of the rapporteur, I would like to make a few comments that I was requested to pass on to you. The rapporteur believes that this motion undermines the prerogatives of the budgetary authority. The European Parliament would like to take part in the decision making process of the implementation of the budget on a more frequent basis. It's it's stepping back very clearly in the arguments that we listened to today are not convincing. So for this reason, the rapporteur would like to discuss this issue very clearly in the assessment of the budget, which will be planned for September this year. Thank you.”
  Accounting and auditing of EU budget
• “Thank you very much indeed. President. President von der Leyen, ladies and gentlemen. From what we've heard today. Based on what Mrs. Ursula von der Leyen has told us today, we can't be hopeful about our future in the EU, where we are both competitive and live insecurity, and it's a sad conclusion to have to draw now for the past few years. The president was painting a fairly positive image, but the reality, of course, is very different. And now we say that we want to be competitive and. We have the European Commission and also the decision taken by the Parliament lately that will have killed off industry, the automotive industry, the steel industry will have been lost. It's not through having small electric cars that we're going to win that fight. Uh, we're playing catch up and we'll be paying the price now for this Green Deal policy that we've had for years. We talk about food security, the position of farmers in the EU. But it's the decisions that were taken here, uh, in the past that have led us to this situation. Our farmers currently face direct competition from Mercosur. And we're also trying to strip member states from their competencies and their sovereignty. But that's not the right way of going about it. And I don't think that's the Europe that Simone Veil was talking about and wanted. The EU does need to develop, and we need to do so in respecting the rights and prerogatives of Member states. And yes, of course, there has to be solidarity. But the work programme that we've just heard about doesn't give us any guarantees along those lines.”
  Climate efforts
• “Thank you for the presentation. I will share with you my perspective as a Polish national. We are a frontline NATO state, and we are also a key hub for support in Ukraine. Therefore, we experience constant pressure from Russia, be it cyber attacks, sabotage and disinformation. I would like to ask you how your experience and the conclusions that you have drawn from the situation in Ukraine can be put to use to strengthen the. Potential and the capacity of the measures taken by NATO. Also, what is your assessment of the readiness of individual member states in counteracting disinformation, and how can we avoid overlapping activities?”
  Relations with NATO · Cybersecurity investments for critical infrastructure
• “Thank you, Madam President. Dear colleagues, this is of course, a very important and necessary discussion, given that more and more frequently we are confronted with all sorts of dangerous phenomena on the internet, on social media. And those threats are becoming more and more intense day by day, more and more frequent. But what is also occurring, and I see this to be a serious danger, namely, the ease with which information can be manipulated when it is submitted to social actors. And. The tools that can be used to avoid these undesirable phenomena. Could also in fact be turned around and used as tools to limit pluralism of opinions for us all. Of course, freedom of speech is very important. We need to make it possible for individuals who want to criticize governments in individual countries, or to criticize the EU should be able to participate in public debate as well. And I think that member states should have a leading role in regulating the information and advertising markets. So any regulation that is introduced must not result in any restrictions on freedom of speech. So we need to avoid those kinds of activities and invest rather in independent journalism and educate members of society to be able to distinguish between propaganda and genuine information.”
  Disinformation & online freedoms
• “(15:20:40 – 15:22:14): Thank you, chair. I'd like to thank the authors of this report. The US show that it's capable of ambitious trade agreements that are real watershed, but we have these successes in Latin America and Asia. But there's room for more flexible, more nimble strategies to complement our existing trade strategy. I read the report that you presented, and I'm a bit doubtful about the solution that's proposed by the authors in some instances. Given the lack of nimbleness, they add more conditions and more standards and more supervisory mechanisms. And I'm wondering if we're not falling into the same trap with a different name. What I am convinced by is the stress on a clear financial commitments because that could make a real difference. And in that regard, I'd like to ask you the following question. Beyond the critical raw materials and clean energy, which the report proposes, what other areas of cooperation do you think should be on the table if we want to, ensure that these agreements also respond to the clear needs of our industry today? And despite the trade tensions with China, do you see any possibility for a sectoral agreement with China which would help to balance our trade relationship with China? Thank you.”
  Trade relations with China
• “Thank you, Madam Chair. I think that every one of us in this room agree that democracy has to be protected against. External interference. But this cannot go together with the limiting pluralism or extending the powers of the Commission without a clear mandate. I have many questions to Mr. Commissioner said, and the basic question is what is our role? Why are we here? Why are we having this debate? The document on the European Centre for Democratic Resilience is still in the pipeline. We haven't proved it and the Commission has already announced that it's going to be created. Another question is why do you need another tool? You already have some tools and instruments at your disposal that are supposed to protect us against foreign interference. I agree with the previous speaker. Everything seems to indicate that it's an attempt to interfere in the electoral process in individual member states, and an attempt to limit national sovereignty of individual member states. It's an attempt to impose censorship and an attempt to impose a certain way of thinking on our citizens. I have some experience from Poland with interpretation that the European Commission has applied to our internal situation, and it was very detrimental. What I have in mind are notions such as conditionality or the rule of law, which the European Commission applied for political purposes, and it blocked the EU funds from Poland. And Mr. Commissioner has also taken a position on that matter. I will not quote what you've said. However, you did give an interview on this matter at Deutsche Welle. Ladies and gentlemen, I am convinced that we need to strengthen our resilience against foreign interference. At the same time, we mustn't muzzle European citizens with regulations like this one. And I disagree with you, Madam Chairman, that the elites and the elected have the same root. A lot depends on where we are from, which country we come from, and unfortunately, this is the way the EU Approaches us.”
  Disinformation & online freedoms
• “Thank you. Thank you. President. Ladies and gentlemen. Commissioner, we find ourselves in an exceptional situation because we're facing war. There are no topics that are more important for Europe than security. This is a budgetary priority, the most important one for us. In fact, the issue of security is crucial. But security is linked to the economy, to employment. And so we cannot commit the same mistakes that we have in the past. We have to be more pragmatic and act more. Citizens are paying very high bills for energy, and we're familiar with the Green Deal, but we need to go further. Agriculture is crucial for Europe's security and for its citizens. I have to repeat that once more. We need to be sensible about this.”
  Defence spending
• “Thank you. President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. What is this clean industry deal? Well, from one pocket, the EU is supposed to give more and more money for new Green Deal. And on the other hand, we need more and more money in order to help with the damage that the new Green Deal caused. Today. We've been talking all the time about security, about rebuilding our defense, about creating and rebuilding our defense industry. But to produce tanks, we need steel in order to produce steel. We need steelworks and they need coal. We destroyed the defence industry and we destroyed our coal mines, our steelworks. So how are we going to create the defence industry? How are we going to produce? Will we have electric tanks? The symbol of our success in climate policy is the plastic bottle with the top that you cannot unscrew. And our symbol in reality should be the tank that will protect us.”
  Climate efforts
• “Thank you. I would like to thank you for the information you've presented to us. I think that the conclusion which comes clearly is that we are dealing with a growing challenge, with challenges developing faster and faster, and we have to look for new tools. We would be able to use to combat the challenges. And the question is whether we are ready. So I want to emphasize that the solutions introduced in Canada are of interest to us. Therefore, I have two questions. My first question is of course we heard about it, but if you could make it more specific, what are the first conclusions from the operation of the Transparency Register of Foreign Influence? And the second question, which is, I think the most important question for me in the context of combating foreign influence and the Fimi issue, the question is how do you cooperate with the digital platforms to counteract Fimi without excessive interference into the freedom of speech? So, to put it short, how do you perceive. The limit between freedom of speech and foreign influence? How do you measure it. And how do you solve the issue? Thank you.”
  Regulation of NGOs in Europe
• “And we also need to look at the adequate protection of our infrastructure as we met with the operators of this infrastructure. We have had a confirmation from their part that our energy infrastructure is not well protected, well safeguarded. We need to change this. The second part will relate to the supply to the deliveries of energy supplies and raw materials from trusted suppliers and withdrawal from Russian sources. We hear more and more frequently that we should go into the back to the realpolitik and go back to the import of inexpensive Russian raw resources. But this is not really realpolitik. This is being blind to the actual situation. And this might lead us to straight to catastrophe. And within this context, if we start talking about going back to cooperating with Moscow, this is really close to treason. We need to withdraw from all those aspects of our imports. And hence I have a question to the European Commission. When will we receive the roadmap related to that? It was supposed to be presented in February than in March. Right now it has disappeared from the agenda of the European Commission. No further information is available, so it would be worthwhile to ask the European Commission why is this roadmap not being processed and worked upon? Why has this item dropped from the agenda? And we must focus on ensuring transparency of the current imports.”
  Cybersecurity investments for critical infrastructure · EU approach to energy security (home-made vs import sources)
• “Yes. Thank you very much. President. Commissioner. Ladies and gentlemen. We can't live in a world of illusions because this debate is yet another debate about defence in the European Union and what we should be doing in order to strengthen our own security, the security of the European Union and the member states. But we seem to be staying in the same place. So we should have no illusions, as the member States, that we are have an obligation to strengthen the NATO alliance. And the NATO alliance is the guarantee of security for our countries and for the European Union, its only sovereign country's sovereign member states that can guarantee the security of the European Union. Why is it that we seem to be deceiving ourselves about a defence union joint procurement, a European army? The European Union has led to a drop in economic competitiveness in the European Union. So I think what we have to do is draw lessons from the mistakes that we've made in the past. Sovereign countries are the guarantee of the security of the European Union.”
  Relations with NATO
• “Thank you very much, chair. First of all, let let me stress that I consider that the progress of negotiations at technical level in, terms of the Connecting Europe Fund has I I see that it is very positive. Progress has been made. This program has got tremendous impact upon the development of Europe's regions, especially those that have been excluded in terms of transport. We also need to stress that the new version of this program is coming up on stage during a periods of period of tremendous, tension and geopolitical tension, in particular, the ongoing Russian aggression in Ukraine, and we need to take this into account in our work. As a result, it is countries located along the eastern border of the European Union that are the most exposed to attacks and to pensions. This this region should be treated especially should be treated especially favorably in the program. I do support the increase of financing for the military, mobility goals, which has been proposed. I believe that in line with the European Commission's communication on terms of this region, easternmost region of the European Union. It is these countries that are the most exposed to hybrid warfare from Russia. They should have the greatest capacity to use those funds. I also accept the and welcome the position of core rapporteur in terms of protecting critical infrastructure. I have also filed my amendments related to the protection of critical infrastructure, I really believe that these should these issues should be taken into account. As regards the financing of the energy infrastructure, I do approve of the broadening of the investment to low emission sources of energy. Thank you.”
  EU funding for transportation
• “Thank you, Madam Chair. I think that every one of us in this room agree that democracy has to be protected against. External interference. But this cannot go together with the limiting pluralism or extending the powers of the Commission without a clear mandate. I have many questions to Mr. Commissioner said, and the basic question is what is our role? Why are we here? Why are we having this debate? The document on the European Centre for Democratic Resilience is still in the pipeline. We haven't proved it and the Commission has already announced that it's going to be created. Another question is why do you need another tool? You already have some tools and instruments at your disposal that are supposed to protect us against foreign interference. I agree with the previous speaker. Everything seems to indicate that it's an attempt to interfere in the electoral process in individual member states, and an attempt to limit national sovereignty of individual member states. It's an attempt to impose censorship and an attempt to impose a certain way of thinking on our citizens. I have some experience from Poland with interpretation that the European Commission has applied to our internal situation, and it was very detrimental. What I have in mind are notions such as conditionality or the rule of law, which the European Commission applied for political purposes, and it blocked the EU funds from Poland. And Mr. Commissioner has also taken a position on that matter. I will not quote what you've said. However, you did give an interview on this matter at Deutsche Welle. Ladies and gentlemen, I am convinced that we need to strengthen our resilience against foreign interference. At the same time, we mustn't muzzle European citizens with regulations like this one. And I disagree with you, Madam Chairman, that the elites and the elected have the same root. A lot depends on where we are from, which country we come from, and unfortunately, this is the way the EU Approaches us.”
  Foreign interference in Europe
• “That is what we can do. What is our potential? Because without NATO, without the United States, Europe will not manage. Right now, in the current context, we need to be aware of that. And I believe. There is a way too much emotion driven political debate right now around this topic. As I said, we need to take into account the potential of the individual member States and of the entire Europe. The time that is needed to adjust to all the changes. And finally, once again, I would like to appeal to the European Commission, and you have raised that as well, that the European Commission needs to present the road map of stopping the use of Russian fuel resources, oil and gas. This is absolutely beyond my grasp. Why is this not being done right now, and why is this document not discussed right now? I would like to thank you very much for this constructive cooperation and this constructive debate, which we had today, and I'm looking forward to our further meetings and the continuation of our work. I believe that we will be able to draft a really good and thorough report, which will really pinpoint the issues and indicate actions to be taken in order to prepare Europe for the future challenges.”
  Relations with NATO
• “Two minutes for the rapporteur. To sum up. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, chair. Thank you to all of you for your comments that I have listened to carefully and I have noted them down. I believe that we are on the right track towards a good and above all, a very pragmatic and effective and efficient document. All of you have stressed the importance of what is going to be to go into this report, and I believe that we have a consensus around most of the issues. I would like to invite you to send me your amendments in writing. We will continue meeting during technical meetings, and I believe that all these details that have been raised here will be thoroughly discussed. And to the extent possible, we will introduce them to the report. I will also mention the fact that we are under technical constraints, and that is the number of pages of the report, that is the volume. But this is not the crux of the matter. We need to draft a report which will focus on what is the most important to all of us. That is Europe's energy security. And and here I do agree that we need to take a two pronged approach to this issue. First of all, we need to prepare new solutions for the future that would safeguard our autonomy and independence in terms of energy supply for Europe. But on the other hand, we need to take into account the potential and the resources of the member States that are held here in the here and now.”
  EU approach to energy security (home-made vs import sources)
• “Thank you. Thank you very much, chair. Ladies and gentlemen. I would like to join my voice in thanking the rapporteur. He's done a great piece of work here. This, uh, huge number of amendments shows that we're all committed to this. We all want to get as complete a document as possible that can safeguard democracy and protect us against foreign interference and which. Will, I hope, defend our freedoms. Freedom of expression particularly. As supposed to make it easier for there to be interference in the affairs of Member States. There are various different priorities for my group, and there are about seven sticking points for us here, and that's reflected in the amendments that we have lodged. Firstly, we need to defend the principle of subsidiarity in accordance with article five of the treaties. We can't allow there to be a situation where the competences of member states, independent member states is taken on by the institutions, and we also need to safeguard freedom of expression. Secondly, strengthening the role of member states. On this, we don't think we should be setting up new bodies and institutions. We need to better support the current institutions and they should be helping member states. Third point. Defending freedom of expression and pluralism. And as I've said Earlier. As I've said previously, quite a few times, we need to be looking at where to put the emphasis in terms of wanting to defend ourselves against disinformation and interference and freedom of expression. We think that the essential issue here is. Defending ourselves against Russia. We need to take into account the fact that Russia is the main threat and the main source of problems in the EU, and then various different standards and rules and the EU's that are up to the EU. This is an area where we need to be clear about the various different issues of the roles of the EU and finally, transatlantic cooperation. The role of NATO and. And the role of our links. Those are our amendments. I'm open to cooperation in the future. Thank you.”
  Disinformation & online freedoms
• “Mr. president, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. Well, I think we're in a state of war. And today, for Europeans, the most important thing is security. And this budget does not reflect this priority, objective, competitiveness, the economy. We talk about this time and again at each debate. And all these sectors, of course, need to be supported and citizens need to be able to live a. Calmly and with hope in their future, confident of their future. So we talk about the budget. We need to look at all these priorities we can take take as a starting point different projects, ideological projects. But at the end of the day, this should not be in the core of our debate where we talk about the future of Europe and our future depends on our action today. Are we going to be looking at the true priorities and look at the ways to achieve this?”
  Defence spending
• “(14:22:54 – 14:25:37): am sure for commissioner, it will be nice to hear the language we share. Commissioner, thank you so much, for your presentation of the budget. Very interesting. However, many many doubts and questions arise as a result. For instance, question marks as to priorities that the European Commission is trying to put forth in this draft. I'll give you examples. Increasing indebtedness of the European Union And what follows lack of, real plan how to stop the debt. The debt has been growing, and my previous speakers have mentioned that as well. I'm worried it's a spiral, a downward spiral. As a result, maybe we'll find ourselves in a situation where we won't be able to implement projects related to the key policy areas for the community. Another issue, priorities that have been drafted in this budget proposal. We live in the times of political crises. What's most important for our member states, for our citizens, is security, especially security for borders, support for defense industry, and the European Union has a dedicated program going that way. But if you look at how funds are distributed in next year, I don't think it reflects the priorities that have been supported so far by the European Commission. Therefore, I believe we should expect a shift when it comes to financial support. I think we should move away from expenditure, which only fuels, the further indebtedness of the European economy. I'm mentioning here, for instance, Green Deal, which bring only those projects bring only bring a burden for European economy. However, they are still treated as priorities in the proposals. You've mentioned support for agriculture, very important indeed. Therefore and to conclude, in order to be able to present our assessment of this draft, we'll have to go into analysis much deeper. But at this stage already, I think we should shift the main focus of financial support. Thank you.”
  Size of EU budget
• “You've got four minutes. Thank you very much, chair. Ladies and gentlemen, the report that I will present to you right now. Well, I hope that we will work on it and in a consensual manner. This report is especially important, in particular considering the current situation in the global context across the eastern border of the European Union. A war is being waged. We know that this situation may turn. The events may turn in any direction really. So within this context, we need to focus on preparing a document that will ensure energy security to Europe, thus ensuring security to the Europeans. As for what I'm proposing within this report and its structure, It is as follows. I suggest that this report should consist of three parts. The first of them will relate to the need of establishing a new and comprehensive approach to energy security. This stems mainly from what I have already mentioned in my introductory words, and that is the new threats that have appeared and emerged over the most recent period. They might intensify over the next years, and we are also aware of the fact that the energy industry and energy transfer is changing and evolving. We need to meet those challenges in terms of not only technologies, but also price accessibility, sustainable development. We also need to put a strong stress on the geopolitical aspect of energy security. We need all. We all need to understand that the times of the so-called peace dividend is over, and we need to look differently at these issues, at the issue of energy security, the supply of fuels that might be inexpensive, but they come from aggressor states.”
  EU approach to energy security (home-made vs import sources)
• “Thank you. I would like to thank you for the information you've presented to us. I think that the conclusion which comes clearly is that we're dealing with a growing challenge, with challenges developing faster and faster, and we have to look for new tools we would be able to use to combat the challenges. And the question is whether we are ready. So I want to emphasize that the solutions introduced in Canada are of interest to us. Therefore, I have two questions. My first question is of course we heard about it. But if you could make it more specific, what are the first conclusions from the operation of the Transparency Register of Foreign Influence? And the second question, which is, I think the most important question for me in the context of combating foreign influence and the Fimi issue, the question is how do you cooperate with digital platforms to counteract Fimi without excessive interference into the freedom of speech? So, to put it short, how do you perceive. The limit between freedom of speech and foreign influence? How do you measure it and how do you solve the issue? Thank you.”
  Transparency and oversight of AI-generated content
• “Thank you. President. Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, one can say finally, at last, four years later, we have got a decision that should have been taken a long time before. Most of the speakers who have spoken before me, also the Commissioner, have underlined this is a historic moment and this is truly the solution that for now, but also for the future, is absolutely necessary. However, we have heard Mr. Commissioner say that this decision is going to be invaluable. It's not going to change. But ladies and gentlemen, the situation in politics is also highly dynamic. And we know very well that the principle of business as usual very often dictates the conditions in the political discussions and is more important than common sense and security. When you consider various interests. So it seems that right now we should first and foremost focus on this decision that was taken not to be changed, ever. We should watch for those rules to be binding also for oil, for crude oil. And remind ourselves some time ago the decision to build Nord Stream two was taken. Now we're saying it was a historic error. Thank you.”
  EU approach to energy security (home-made vs import sources)
• “I would like to support the proposal made by the rapporteurs Co-rapporteurs. I think it's important for us to extend the the range or the list of institutions that could here be involved in terms of funding, particularly when it comes to energy infrastructure. I think that that is important because we need to defend these energy infrastructures against hybrid threats. And I would also like to extend my support to all the comments made here regarding modernization of infrastructure, energy infrastructure and increasing. The funds also mentioned has been made of 85%. Now, finally, I would like to wrap up with a question, and this is a question that I would like to put to the rapporteurs when it comes to the governance models or governance arrangements for this mechanism. I'll refer you here to article 15. In particular, I wanted to know from you, why are you suggesting here this particular procedure with council committees? I'm not sure. I mean, I think personally that this system is a system that should remain in place because I think it's proven its worth. Thank you.”
  EU energy infrastructure integration