Ivan DAVID

Policy topics Ivan DAVID is active on

What Ivan DAVID has said (37)

• 2026-07-14 “(15:30:02 - 15:32:16): you very much. I would like to pass the floor to mister Ivan David. Thank you very much for the presentation that we have just listened to. The situation in Africa is more important for us than it might seem at the 1st glance. We say that if you want to help someone, don't give him a fish, teach him to fish instead. I think, that we can learn something from Africa, but at the same time, we can pass on a lot of know how to Africa. In Prague, in the Czech, Agricultural University, there is a department of tropical agriculture, and, it is in high demand. And I think that it is a good, contribution to our international cooperation. The EU member states also take part in stealing things from Africa, in looting Africa in, for example, paying a very low price for African products, not only minerals, but even agricultural products. On the other hand, we have also witnessed the complete destruction of Libya where, there had been a developed irrigation system. I wonder, if it's possible to tackle these problems with forestation, with planting trees in the desert like they did in China, they actually planted hundreds of thousands of trees in the desert and the results are coming now and they're positive. So for example, in Kenya, the share of forests has dropped by 90% in the last 60 years. Is that another factor that contributes to worsening of the situation in Africa? And my next question concerns population growth. This might be a limitation for the agricultural success because there are much there are many more people to feed.”
  EU Development & Humanitarian Aid
• 2026-07-14 “Thank you. The winner takes it all. That's the rule of capitalism. And perhaps the rule also is that the richer. Take it all. So chains are not going to be softened by the cries of agriculture. And they're not interested in maintaining the idyllic, bucolic life and family farms. Yes. In Europe, smaller, uh, companies are more numerous, but in principle, they are less competitive than the larger ones. That's why multinational chains are welcoming all opportunities to buy cheaper from overseas. Only in order to liquidate domestic farmers by dictating prices. That's the fact. Too much red tape exists because we have a lot of regulation. We need to keep an eye on it. We need to also keep an eye on how subsidies are distributed. There are too many officials that need a job, so they're inventing things that they will do to justify those those jobs. And then we have expensive inputs. That is something that we need to attend to, and not just throw pennies at those that are willing to work in horrible conditions.”
  EU policy on farmer–buyer relations in the agri-food supply chain
• 2026-07-14 “Dear Minister, I have merely three questions. The first one, how do you want to contribute to the situation where retailers, retailer chains, who are in charge of the markets? We can say in practical terms do not prioritize third country products. How can you support local production getting to our market? Secondly, how do you want to achieve a reduction of administrative burden for our, um, for our farmers? We have been talking about it for some time and there is no improvement noticeable. And my third question, how do you want to lower the burden for the farmers? When we see that the input costs are rising practically everywhere?”
  EU policy on farmer–buyer relations in the agri-food supply chain
• 2026-07-13 “(18:11:43 - 18:13:44): I'd like to know to what extent the problem can be compensated. Couldn't we redirect direct payments? That would mean but the fact is that the deficit should be compensated by the member states. But that would lead to further unbalanced conditions, unequal conditions. Perhaps that's a distant problem, but I think we should try to solve the international relations that have led to the problem. Perhaps we should get away from this project which is damaging in this, these efforts towards decarbonization, and in particular, without it having been proved to what extent it would help the environment and the do anything for the for climate change. Now on CBAM. CBAM is an effort for towards compensation and to protect projects within the EU. Perhaps we must insist on that, but perhaps we should think about where the causes lie. And in this case, we should be trying to deal with the problems at the root cause rather than dealing with the, consequences.”
  Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM)
• 2026-07-13 “(17:05:01 - 17:07:13): In medicine, the main principle is do not do harm. That's principle number one. And the second one, deal with the root causes rather than the consequences. The European Commission, on the other hand, rather deals with consequences without attending to the root causes that are often related to their very own policies. If you look at the growth in prices in fertilizers, a lot of it is related to the efforts to destroy Russia via sanctions, and that in turn has driven up the prices of energy. Related to that, there are efforts to support industry by increasing tariffs, which in turn increases prices and further hurts farmers. And then the Hormuz Strait situation. The problem is that we are trying to help Israel destroy Iran, a local power, with a very clear outcome. And once again, everything goes back to politics and to our main partner on the other side of the Atlantic. How do we improve this? If there is reallocation from direct payments now the question is from which interventions is the money going to be taken away, and how is that going to affect various rates? Without that information, we will have no way of knowing whether we will be able count to compensate for the increase in costs and what the consequences for companies are going to be.”
  Use of fertilisers
• 2026-07-06 “(21:12:18 - 21:13:00): I doubt there are any, interests that you described, but we need to approach this rationally. We do not need to use our fears, as arguments. About 4 years ago in the envy committee, I have heard a, hysteric speech of a member who was yelling at us when we will finally ban chemicals. And I think this is typical. And instead of being paranoid, we need to be rational. I have lots of experience in, drug testing and pharmaceutical trials. And I believe that what we need is to apply realistic approach and methods to the testing of substances used to protect plants. We need to consider that real exposure instead of just, testing and using doses that are many, many times higher that obviously could then cause higher toxicity comparison to the level of real exposure. We need to consider new ways of application that help mitigate these risks. On the other hand, talking about the biological form of treatment, I would support it anywhere where this form of treatment is really and truly efficient. For instance, molds contain very dangerous toxins. And if we don't use necessary chemicals, for instance, when treating seed to protect it from mold, then this represents a much higher risk, not just an economic loss. Finally, I want to underline what was already said. If on 1 hand, we are applying extremely hard line practices and approach to minimalize any type of chemical protection of substances. But on the other hand, we allow import and the same people vote for imports from 3rd countries where people die young because they are being constantly exposed to extremely dangerous pesticides. And often, these products are imported in Europe without any inspections or these products are inspected in places where these products are produced, which means that it is very easy to bribe those inspecting them. So let us be rational. Let us consider real exposure, real possibilities to examine the exposure and its effect. What is important are the batteries of tests that are used, and this is something that needs to be scientifically examined. Aside from that, I believe the proposal is headed in the right direction.”
  EU policy on pesticides
• “I believe that we should not turn a blind eye to the fact that agriculture is not a priority for the European Commission. What is their priority is clearly getting ready for war. This is what we need to understand. Nevertheless, I am convinced. That very adequately emphasis is being placed on competitiveness and effectiveness. And I would disagree with the previous speaker who has some reservations about limiting the aggressiveness of payments. And there are some economic laws which we simply cannot overcome by pure will or ideology. Economies of scale are clearly there. And of course, division of labor is much more efficient. Sometimes we tend to forget about this. So the idea that in the future European farming could continue to be based on family farms is problematic. Just as in the EU, we do not have 4 million shoemakers, but only a few companies who are able to efficiently produce shoes. It is also true that. And it's true that. Only those small shoemakers can survive who produce some kind of specialized shoes or tailor made shoes. Similarly, farming needs to follow the same rules and needs to take this into account, and I am sometimes surprised by what I hear. From Commissioner Hanson, who, for example, mentioned that money needs to be spent on those who need it the most. This is a beautiful principle. Which we were. Very much taught about in socialist countries, about the. This was about the future of communism where everybody should be working according according to their capacities and receiving according to their needs. But this is not realistic. And my last remark is about young farmers. I think we should speak about workers in farming rather than young farmers. An engineer in an agricultural company is a young farmer or not. I believe he is beneficial to farming and therefore he should be understood also as a as a farmer.”
  Direct payments to farmers (pillar 1)
• “Madam chair, the housing crisis, including the growth of homelessness, has a number of causes and shows the failure of the European Union policies. Priorities of the European Union, such as emission allowances, Russian sanctions. High administrative demand. Make housing expensive. The so-called European Plan of Affordable Housing is not going to solve the problem. It defines the goals, but there are not clear means to those goals, and they are dubious, such as new technical solutions, new constructions, materials, or the favorite mantra of administrative burden. Uh, redesigning state aid is seems to be of less importance as the arms industry support. And so the theoreticians of the, in the European Union can now use a new term next to energy poverty. Transportation, poverty. They can define also housing, property. Social problems cannot be solved in a social practice.”
  EU housing policy
• “If we are talking about the relationship between soil quality and farming, actually the correlation is not as simple as it might seem because farming, when done well, can contribute to improve soil health and soil quality, but it can also lead to soil degradation. This can be linked to to intensive livestock farming also growing. Um, utilitarianism, this kind of orientation, and also the fact that less and less manure is brought onto the fields, uh, which reduces soil productivity. Um, irrigation can be beneficial, but it can also mean that, um, some water streams simply disappear. This is what happened next to the Aral Sea RL lake, where a major river no longer flows into the lake because all of it, all of the water is consumed for irrigation. At the same time, it needs to be said that if we use deep wells for irrigation, which used to be the case in in ancient Mesopotamia, this resulted in soil salination and the soil becoming infertile. So yes, we need these measures, but there are no easy solutions for improving soil health and soil quality. Generally speaking, if we remove a green cover, then there is not enough humus. Which would normally naturally form. It used to be as as happened in Ukraine over hundreds and thousands of years with black soil being created this way. And if we do not add manure to the fields, then of course the organic component in soils goes down. So again the correlation is not so easy. And we need to maintain our soil and good health. Thank you.”
  Soil protection policy
• “A lot has been said, and I don't think certain arguments need repeating, but. Historical facts should be repeated. The United States when it was established, introduced high tariffs on imports of a number of commodities because they were economically weak. As soon as they became strong in the last third of the 19th century, they did away with tariffs because it was it benefited them. Tariffs are always a sign of weakness and imbalance, and we cannot believe that the world will go back to business as usual where there was a general free trade. We need to envisage we need to count on tariffs being introduced. Weaknesses can arise from our own production or of absence of production. The commission representatives said that we will try to achieve a mutually beneficial agreement. That is certainly praiseworthy, but what are the chances when we know that the United States is always ruthless and will not care about the EU getting any benefits from the agreement? Quite on the contrary, they'll try to get as many benefits for themselves.”
  EU-US trade relations
• “Well. It seems like we're going back to more general questions. They have we seem to be going back to more general questions now. Our famous Egyptologist, doctor and Professor Barta recently work on. A book on how great civilizations died in the past, and he came to the conclusion that it was mainly due to a two high number of officials and priests and too much bureaucracy, too many complications. And I feel like this seems to be the model we are taking on now. I'm listening to the representative of the commission, and based on their presentation, it seems like we're going from success to another success. We're so successful. But then I don't understand why farmers are complaining and why they are dying out. Why are we still talking about competitiveness when it's so natural and self-explanatory? I don't understand. We seem to be creating new barriers such as the Green Deal or anti-russia sanctions, which are driving energy prices up. And that then translates into everything else. We're talking about administrative burden, but that is caused by all these new directives, regulations. They need to be checked and monitored. We need to be constantly checking whether conditions are being met. So it's nearly impossible to remove administrative this kind of administrative burden. In 1990, in Czechoslovakia, we decided to work on capital building capitalism. And the decision was that we needed to remove central planning in order to do it. But then we entered the EU, and there seems to be a lot of central planning and central central management, but the center is now far further away from us geographically, but also far further removed from reality.”
  EU political integration
• “What we all know is that the quality of the soil is deteriorating practically everywhere, which means that to care for soil is ever more fundamental. But we should have a rational approach to improving the quality of the soil. I do not think a label should help, or that we should invent a new label for this kind of agriculture. We have seen that in many disciplines, and it's usually connected to some ideologies or attempts to idealize something and to proclaim that something is correct. And when something is not done like that, it's considered to be bad. What I'm interested in is how would you make use of, uh, nutrients and manure, for example? And why should we adopt a new name for this set of approaches?”
  Soil protection policy
• “Said three hours ago, we had a debate with representatives from Ukraine, and they told us that within two years they will be able to meet European standards regarding pesticides. Do you think it's realistic? How will they prove it? Is it enough to say that their controls are very stringent? Next question will be revise decisions that were taken within the precautionary measures, because I think there are several issues with the administration, with the argumentation. How can we prove their safety? And then how about the African swine fever that keep cropping coming up in certain countries? It seems that they cannot come to terms with certain safety measures that are needed. Also to make sure that they stop spreading this disease, then in certain countries we have bovine tuberculosis and other countries have managed to suppress it ten years ago. Then, Canada, we import lentils with pesticides that were sprayed on lentils even three days before the harvest. Is that okay? Is that something that we will condone? Colleague whites mentioned. Fur farms. And he said that these animals are killed only for their fur. But three weeks ago, Politico reported that livestock will be also reduced in in its breathing because we should eat less red meat. So we have animals that we keep only for red meat. What's the difference?”
  Import of agri-food products in the EU
• “I would like to remind everybody of what we had here about three years ago. That was when the French members from the French Parliament had this initiative. On farming. And the idea was to see how the retail chain worked in the country. So there was this initiative taken, and sectoral representatives did come together round a table and an agreement was reached. There were no cameras. Everything was done confidentially, confidentially, people were told, and confidential data and confidential business information obviously was not But that didn't actually solve anything. I think with this observatory. We. Have the impression that we need to solve this basic problem. There are a lot of smaller players in the chain, but there's a lot of big players who aren't providing the necessary information. And without that information, we can't reach conclusions and take action. So there was this experiment in France, which was a noble endeavor to try and solve problems, but it didn't actually solve anything. And I do fear that the commission is falling into the same trap. We saw the protests in European cities, in the streets. We need to wake up and see the reality. There are big companies and not enough is being done.”
  EU policy on farmer–buyer relations in the agri-food supply chain
• “May we support transfer of provisions on financing of NRP to the Cap regulation? The transfer of these provisions is one of those things that slow down the negotiations of the CMO regulation. The transfer of those provisions is important because we need to make sure we have adequate financing for school programs and sectoral interventions. As for labeling meat products, we support this initiative and we give a preference to the wording as we have it in the CMO proposal from last year, which, in addition to specific definitions, give flexibility to member states and regional specificities. As for sectoral interventions, we are against mandatory 30% co-financing and against the expansion of sectors where interventions are mandatory. As for protein crops, we support the French initiative. As for standards and availability of stocks, we are very much against the proposal to give the commission any implementing powers that could have an impact on national security. Thank you.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Please allow me to disagree Strongly. We do need to address the causes and the origins of the current situation. And these are not inside farming. So from this agricultural Committee, we cannot deal with these. The situation was caused by a repeated aggressive action by the US. For many years the US used to be presented to us as the main ally of the EU. And now we must be asking ourselves the question to what extent the EU continue to be a beneficial partner for the EU. This is a key question to be asked. It's not only about Trump because Maidan. The Maidan revolution in Ukraine was funded by the US with similar intention to weaken the competition and to gain advantage. Although in the long term, military experts in the US have been warning against any attacks against Iran because Iran precisely might try to block the Hormuz Strait, which is what happened. So these are the true causes of the current situation. And as for the EU, I am convinced that we must ensure and make our utmost in order that the Commission doesn't make the situation deteriorate further. We must. We must seek ways to compensate for the missing supplies and. Also through its allowances. We must not. We must not make the fertiliser production in the EU even more expensive. Thank you.”
  EU-US relations
• “Nature preservation. Nature conservation is a major, major task for the society as a whole. The task of farmers is to produce agricultural commodities and to contribute to food security. And I believe that farmers are the rules for farmers should be reasonable. They should not be doing any harm to the environment. But on the other hand. I do not think that farmers should be in charge of a more general tasks and positive action for the environment. Aiming at achieving a change in our environment or nature that some see as positive. Based on our experience with credits in other sectors, this experience is rather negative I would say. So if these if these credits were to be freely tradable, there are a number of risks associated with this. And as the previous speaker, I believe that, um, the sources of funding for these tasks need to be found elsewhere. Uh, it must be simpler on the administrative level, and we must bear the objective in mind.”
  Nature protection and restoration in the EU
• “Madam president. Waning competitiveness is one of the European Union's biggest problems in the long term, and runs the risk of landing us in a real mess. So conditions for business are already highly unfavorable. We're seeing an exodus of qualified skilled workers. Overregulation and other charges and burdens at the initiative of the European Union. All of this is torpedoing our economy. And the biggest burden is the ETS on the free market in emissions. So it has to be reformed while there is still time. It's the not the Green Deal that holds the solutions. We need to scrap the competitiveness pact and also the initiatives from the conservative group.”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “Dear chair, there are many solid arguments calling the agreement into question, and we have heard them. I am convinced that this agreement is not very helpful to us, because if there are still products where the European Union can offer more favourable conditions than China, for example, then we know that it won't be the same tomorrow. And to avoid problems, European companies will build their factories in Brazil directly. Then the advantage for the European Union will be very questionable. This is a competition of a fragmented To European agriculture against international corporations in wholesale as well as in retail. This is what it's all about. The European Union is governed by international corporations from the very start. There is no one who could seriously doubt that. We know that market monitoring that has been mentioned here will be conducted in a way that will not guarantee anything. There is a huge reason to distrust, even more so after we have witnessed the import of agricultural products from Ukraine. Even there, we heard a lot of promises. We heard that Africa is starving and the products will be re-exported to Africa. But then the deputy Minister of Agriculture from Ukraine. Explain to us that they import their products, they export their products to countries where there is demand for them, which of course, unsurprisingly, were the neighboring countries of Ukraine whose domestic agriculture was seriously damaged by that. And the cure was the same as always. Funds had been taken away from elsewhere, and the and the farmers who survived were compensated. Those who didn't survive were not compensated, obviously. So they were compensated for damage that could have been prevented and could have been predicted. Thank you.”
  Trade relations with Mercosur
• “Thank you. Commissioner. You mentioned that it is necessary to have the same conditions for producers in the EU and outside the EU. That's a great, ambitious goal. But the conditions from the outset are very different and they will continue. This will continue to be the case. And this would lead to, at the very least, social dumping. You also mentioned that at the very highest level. We have laws and requirements. I would like to stress that the Czech laws, when we joined the EU had to be repealed. And. And this meant that because we couldn't have significant quality food imported into. Czech Republic this is very difficult. Also we have this dual quality of foods in some member States. We have high quality food, in others it's lower quality. What about. Other. For example. Um, Hans, how Hans are are kept. There can be many infections. This can be dangerous for consumers. And then eggs are then contaminated. This can lead to higher costs for animal breeders. I'd like to know why that's the case. Thank you.”
  Import of agri-food products in the EU
• “I find it embarrassing to answer such a naive question. We have to ask ourselves, what would be the benefit for Russia to continue the war if Russia wanted further territory when they already have a vast territory of further resources where they already have vast resources? Or would they want to achieve self destruction by waging further war? These ideas are nonsensical. I fear that if you continue preparing war warmongering as you have been doing so far, you will only achieve the continuation of the war, that the war will reach Central and Western Europe. And that's probably what you want.”
  EU-Russia relations (from March 2022)
• “Your son has provided for a quite extensive statement, and I will raise the most important ones when it comes to area payments, we have to always link it to real productivity, not to ownership or formal ownership or holding. And what we want here is for member states to keep the possibility, to always link it to productivity, especially when it comes to voluntary support for productivity with a special care for special commodities. This is a this approach is in line with subsidiarity, in line with the need to look at specific needs of the area of the market where the current system will be maintained. We have to always look at productive use of the land. No payments for anything else than productivity. There will be some crops that need strategic help, such as fruit and vegetables. And we have a special minimum requirements. Then we have some other crops. And there. We think that non-productive green conditionality shouldn't apply. Instead of that, we should always condition. Support by unit payments. There we will have a clear link between productivity and payments. We also have to look at convergence, especially for new member states, and we have to always look at the treaty. The condition was to make everything even. For all member states by 2014. And that didn't happen. We still have a model from 1980 and 1985, and that way is that model has not been even considered. And we think we have to decouple funds. No reduction, no nonproductive requirements arising from the Green Deal. No. No other production and no capping of payments based on the size of the farm.”
  Direct payments to farmers (pillar 1)
• “Madam president, since the coup of Maidan and since the imposition of the present regime, most of the EU institutions and governments have been supporting Ukraine in its self-destruction. Since the beginning, it has been clear that the Ukraine cannot militarily defeat Russia, not even with massive support of the US and the EU. It has turned out it's impossible to break Russia through military expenses and 20 packets of sanctions, as was the original intention. The result of the so-called support for Ukraine is the continuation of war and death of further hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian men. Ukraine. Ukraine would have been able to reach a peace agreement under much better conditions than today. It was not allowed. If the war in Ukraine continues, the Ukraine will lose further territory. It is obvious that the the representatives of a number of EU countries wish for the continuation of the war. A refusal to adopt realistic solution will only prolong the suffering of the Ukrainian people.”
  Russia-Ukraine conflict (10th term)
• “Thank you, I'd like to emphasize that this attempt by Brussels. The analysis of history starting in ancient Egypt, showed us that such a fall of an empire was caused by growing power of administrators, and in that case, church. In our case, this would be just ideology. And instead of facing real problems and trying to solve them, They try to deal with projects that don't have any sense. Undoubtedly, it is necessary to take into account local conditions in individual member states, and that cannot be done from the center of the European Union. It is a very vast area and the conditions vary across member states. It is also necessary to take into account climate changes. And we should stop planting monocultures, because we've started with that in Central Europe in the 18th century and it didn't work. So we need to replenish forests with what they used to be like. And there should be pines forming approximately 10%. And that is our goal. And to try and have a central monitoring that may make sense, but we are risking that that would be incompetent advice coming from a very far away.”
  Management of EU forests
• “Chair, I understand the worry about accessibility of fertilisers because it's important for our agriculture. Fertilizers are not sufficiently available. The production of artificial fertilisers depends on the availability of energies. Um, we have, uh, sanctions against Russia. And this results in the reduction of competitiveness of our producers in Europe. As a result, we've seen tariffs on the imports of fertilisers from Russia and Belarus. And this resulted in higher prices of fertilisers. Then the US attacked Iran and there has been a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. As a result, prices of fertilisers went up again. The Commission is proposing to reduce the consumption of artificial fertilisers as part of a green Deal. The Commission must be very happy about this situation. But what is the solution? Just explain our citizens by food prices are going up.”
  Use of fertilisers
• “She's the skeptical viewpoint of the previous speakers. Many questions have been asked. I have one point to make. If we look for solutions and then stick to principles which are barriers to competitiveness. Like most Green Deal ideas. On the so-called Green Deal. If the deal with Mercosur is cannot be, cannot can't be touched, then we can continue thinking about what will improve the competitiveness of European farmers forever. Thank you for your attention.”
  Trade relations with Mercosur
• “Mr. Flanagan mentioned that we need to draw lessons from the current situation. It is true that it is no coincidence that we repeatedly, repeatedly talk about fertilisers as energy intensive products. As for the Hormuz Strait. Of course, this is not a natural disaster. It is a man made disaster. It is a result of a not thought through act by the United States, who is often mentioned as a key political partner to the EU, although the US tend to behave in the opposite manner. This is a clear, clearer and clearer every day. As for the Russian aggression against Ukraine, let us remember that this came after the Maidan revolution, which also didn't happen of its own. It was supported by the U.S., but I don't need to remind ourselves of that. So these were the consequences of certain causes, and the original plan didn't play out. The following steps, namely sanctions against Russian energy. And this also didn't happen just on its own. Their source was the European Commission granted by the European Parliament. And all these steps, one after another, meant as a result, poor availability of raw materials and also fertilizers. Whose production is dependent on the availability of energy and certain raw materials. So the calls for self-sufficiency. While we know what resources Europe has, this is not a realistic call. So let us come back to reality based politics. Let us look for raw materials under conditions which are affordable for the EU. Thank you.”
  Use of fertilisers
• “Over the past 100 years, nothing has really changed. Uh, as far as the social situation, societal situation of women. I think we don't need any proof for that. Really? Uh, it is quite obvious in many aspects, uh, where women, uh, want to participate in developing and developed societies. Uh, they do have opportunities, uh, ideology separated from reality. Uh, is not good. Uh, a men and women are biologically different. Uh, men are better able to lift heavy burdens. This is probably the most important difference here. We know that rural life is harsher than city life. We know that in cities, there's no difference between a man's work and a woman's work. In the rural areas, there is a difference. The division of labor is simply dictated by the rural conditions. Um, um, if we adhere to a traditional rural life with family farms, then of course, this is also reflected in the position of men and women and their mutual relations. Uh, the family farms, uh, um, uh, cannot uh, in the long term, uh, compete with supranational companies and extra large farms. And this is why there is an enormous pressure on abandoning agriculture in the EU. The traditional model of farming is a contributor here. The women faced with their fate in the rural areas flee to the cities. This has been happening for at least a hundred years. Um, this trend is exacerbating is being exacerbated. Men in rural areas find it difficult to find partners. Women refuse to get married in the countryside. If we want to preserve our countryside with our family farms, and we must be aware of these problems.”
  Gender roles, equality and inclusion
• “For listening. Of course, I understand the attempts to protect the rights, intellectual property rights, but I think that the key issue now is when I compare it to patents of drugs. So that's the period of protection when it is too short, it has no sense and when it is too long, so it prevents further development. I would like to ask whether. Njt techniques. Can be used only to avoid patent protection. Something like we have with the new medicinal products. And all the time we hear people speak about competitiveness. So I would like to ask, why do you think that the European Union is behind China and the United States?”
  Pharma IPRs
• “I will speak Czech. I think we have to focus on the general aspect of the matter is the repetitive issue in agreements with countries that are mostly agricultural, and there is a chance to export industrial products there. Some of these countries are agricultural powers. Superpowers. So who benefits and who is the victim of such agreements? It is certainly not beneficial for farmers and for agriculture. There should be standard instruments for regulation. Customs duties. Or amounts or quantities that can be imported. Quality controls. But this is not happening, of course. So the winners are retail chains, of course. For them, it's profitable to import at low prices all year long. At the same quality. And it is good for some industrial producers. And what is the problem in general? The commission. Expresses their satisfaction over an agreement that was done, but the commission pretends that it is not responsible for the situation. The commission, that is officials, administrators who should compare the real reality against desirable outcome. But that has not happened because the desirable outcome that was the included in the judgment. This arrangement will always disadvantage weaker producers. So we are, uh, dogs that are barking, but the caravan continues on, goes on because officials are not responsible.”
  Import of agri-food products in the EU
• “Dear chair, protecting children against abuse is our duty, of course. Already about 20 years ago, I was told by a political analyst of a transnational company that systems for tracking all communications were in the works under the guise of protecting children against abuse. I thought at the time she was exaggerating, but I was naive. Today, no thinking person can have any doubts anymore. We are supposed to choose between agreeing to censorship and between being accused of protecting those who commit crimes against children. I have been accused of both on social media. The guise of protecting children represents the misuse of child protection as a means towards censorship and spying. It's just the same as if you said that an act of arson were the reason to prohibit the sale of gasoline. There are many ways to protect our children without infringing on the civic rights guaranteed in the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms. Totalitarianism is demagogically attacking by way of our feelings.”
  Privacy & detection of online child abuse
• “To put it simply, Russia is the aggressor. Aggressor. The question is how long it has taken to provoke them to become aggressor. The attacks against the Russian population in the east of Ukraine. That is quite clear. So if you fail to understand this, I don't know what is there to talk about. You are preparing war, and I fear that you will succeed and the battlefield will be Eastern Europe and this is what we want to avoid.”
  EU-Russia relations (from March 2022)
• “Well, I listened very attentively to what the Minister has presented to us. However, I remain quite skeptical. Still, of course, we've learned from you that there are a lot of challenges ahead, and we want to achieve better results. But I don't feel like we are going in the direction of improving the position of farming. Now, when it comes to the. Deterioration of competitive competitiveness through the Green Deal, I think that's going to continue at just the same pace. And my worry is that these negative trends that we're observing will continue. I have several questions for you. Obviously I'm looking forward to your replies. First, how do you plan to increase the attractiveness of farming so people are more interested? So entrepreneurs and young people are more interested in it. How do you intend to increase the share? In profits for farmers, especially when it comes to retail chains and transnational chains, and when it comes to those importing products from outside of the EU. How do you want to ensure that the conditions they need to meet are just as strict as those that need to be met by European farmers? Because I'm not quite sure whether that's the plan, because obviously it is in the interest of the importers not to have such strict conditions. Thank you.”
  EU policy on farmer–buyer relations in the agri-food supply chain
• “(18:12:32 – 18:14:34): Thank you very much. Unlike some of the previous speakers, I see an unusual fresh wind in the commission's proposal and indeed a spirit of rationality here. When I attended an envy meeting some years ago, there was an MEP there who started shouting, when would we finally ban chemicals? Whereas I'm sure that the MEP in question was composed of chemicals herself, I am fundamentally against the so called precautionary principle because the question is for how long will we apply this precautionary approach? We could indeed this way ban completely everything, and many supporters of this precautionary approach would not exist, in fact, if we did. What we have to realize is that even with a scientific look at things, there is always some certain methodology that is never 100% complete. In the days when experiments on animals were possible, there was always a limited number of animals that you would test a certain substance on. I was involved in such testing of psychopharmaceutical products, and safety there is indeed paramount. And if after a time you never found any risk or any danger after using the appropriate dosage as opposed to what potentially could happen, of course, we can always, after a time, receive new information that lead to a reevaluation of what was previously understood. Thank you.”
  Use of animal testing
• “Madam chair, the housing crisis, including the growth of homelessness, has a number of causes and shows the failure of the European Union policies. Priorities of the European Union, such as emission allowances, Russian sanctions. High administrative demand. Make housing expensive. The so-called European Plan of Affordable Housing is not going to solve the problem. It defines the goals, but there are not clear means to those goals, and they are dubious, such as new technical solutions, new constructions, materials, or the favorite mantra of administrative burden. Uh, redesigning state aid is seems to be of less importance as the arms industry support. And so the theoreticians of the, in the European Union can now use a new term next to energy poverty. Transportation, poverty. They can define also housing, property. Social problems cannot be solved in a social practice.”
  EU policy on urban development
• “Distinguished chairman. We are supposed to discuss the dangers collaboration between conservatives and the far right pose for competitiveness of Europe. But the world is not ruled by your labels. In fact, the true danger and the actual cause of poor competitiveness is largely this House and the European Commission, which pushed through the Green Deal and sanctions against Russian Russia that led to the high energy prices and costly production, which cannot succeed in market competition. Instead of talking about 58 different genders, you should pay attention to the living standard of our people. The talent leaves. Instead of supporting immigration, you should support birth rate. You should support school education. Conservatives and the far right are, in fact, rational politicians who try to stop the decline of the EU caused by you, not the left, but the extreme leftist and the irresponsible neo liberal right?”
  Climate efforts
• “First of all, I don't want to repeat what everybody has already said. I believe that what is really important is that if we minimize risks, if we exclude risks of abusing him for hydro cannabis, which totally frankly, I mean, it's not anything totally benign, obviously. Skizofrenia. Depression, all kinds of psychological problems as well as addictions are connected with it. If we minimize that, then okay, there is no reason or no barriers in order to use him for all kinds of other uses as we know them. That for me is the most important, important thing that I would like to express. Thank you for your attention.”
  Cannabis consumption