Petr Mach: The Green Deal is counterproductive and is driving businesses out of Europe
Petr Mach is a Czech economist and former MEP who is running in the European elections for the Freedom and Direct Democracy Party.
Mr. Mach, your party is known to be highly critical of EU regulations, and in fact would like Czechs to be able to vote in a referendum on whether they want to stay in the EU or leave. So I assume that you’re running in the elections in order to try and change something in the way that the European Union works or the set course. Is that right?
“Yes, you are absolutely right. We oppose regulation in general on the European Union level. And the strongest regulation ever is the Green Deal. It is supposed to completely ban combustion engines from the European Union market as of 2035. It makes energy, electricity, and other energy sources very expensive, and it makes Czech businesses less competitive in comparison with the rest of the world. I think it really endangers our industry, it makes the life of ordinary people very difficult because it makes energy expensive. My goal in the European Parliament is to have a new vote on the Green Deal. We want to completely vote it down.”
“There is a chance, for the first time in the history of the European Parliament, that the opposition could have a stronger vote, and push through on some issues. “
So you feel that at this point, Euro critics stand a bigger chance of gaining a voice in the European Parliament?
“Yes, I do, for the first time in history. We can observe that from the very beginning of the EU, it has been ruled by a grand coalition of the Party of European Socialists and European People’s Party. Those who opposed giving more power to the EU were considered, by the majority, as enemies and as people who have no right to participate in the decision-making. Now, there is a chance for the first time in the history of the European Parliament, that this opposition could have a stronger vote, and push through on some issues, including the Green Deal.”
Even if that turns out to be so, climate change is a problem that is not going to go away and needs to be addressed. You may argue that Europe is not financially in shape to implement the Green Deal. But what would you do instead?
“First of all, I think that the Green Deal is counter-productive. Under the Green Deal, the emissions of carbon dioxide are much more expensive in Europe than the emissions of the same volume of carbon dioxide in China. In China, they also have an emissions trading scheme, but there the price is different. (The price is set by the government or the European Union, depending on how many permits it issues.) Due to the fact that the same volume of C02 emissions is more expensive in Europe than in China, this directly leads to businesses closing in Europe and going to China. And paradoxically, production in China, India, or Brazil, is often more expensive for energy.
“Due to the Green Deal, C02 emissions in Europe went down by maybe one-third, but global emissions rose significantly because the production moved from Europe elsewhere.”
“So, by adopting the Green Deal, we will completely undercut our economy, and the impact on the global climate is rather the opposite. We can observe that due to the Green Deal, C02 emissions in Europe went down by maybe one-third, but global emissions rose significantly because the production moved from Europe elsewhere. It simply does not work. My idea is that it would be much better if in the Czech Republic we could decide ourselves what to do. For instance, I myself would be in favour of re-forestation – I think that this would be a much better solution for our country. We would have better forests and more forests, and it would be a small contribution to the global climate as well.”
Turning now to some very divisive issues in this campaign. Opinion polls show that what Czechs are most concerned about is migration and safety. Looking at migration first, Czechia is one of the 15 EU member states which has just sent the Commission a letter asking for it to look for new ways to address the problem of migration with the help of third countries. What is your take on the present Migration Pact and what would you want to change about it?
“If a migrant from North Africa arrives in Europe, and he doesn’t want to come to the Czech Republic and the Czech Republic doesn’t want him – why should we be obliged to accept him or pay instead?”
“We strongly oppose the Migration Pact, and just like I want a new vote on the Green Deal, I also want a new vote on the Migration Pact. We have criticized the government, who in our opinion, was not telling the truth. They said there are no quotas, they said we would eventually have an exemption, because we have hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians, and I claim that neither of these things are true. In the Migration Pact, the Commission is supposed to set the number of migrants that each country should have, calculated on the basis of population numbers and the GDP of the EU. For the Czech Republic, it should be a 3% share. There is an option that instead of taking in migrants, you can pay out – which would be very expensive for the Czech Republic. If a migrant from North Africa arrives in Europe, and he doesn’t want to come to the Czech Republic and the Czech Republic doesn’t want him – why should we be obliged to accept him or pay instead? There is no logic.”
But we are a part of the European Union, and the EU has a problem. So how would you go about resolving it? Would you support the suggestion that the EU should cooperate with third countries outside of the EU for the problem to be resolved there, so there isn’t such an influx? How would you go about it?
“First of all, each member state should be completely responsible for protecting its borders. In the Czech Republic, people can only arrive to the Schengen area by plane, and we completely protect these borders. No one without a proper visa or passport can enter the country illegally by plane. Countries like Hungary and Poland have built fences to protect their land borders. The same responsibility should lie with the countries that have a maritime border, and they should be responsible for turning the ships that take illegal immigrants back to their country of origin. This is the first point – every country from the Schengen area should protect its external borders. If the EU can help with something, it could negotiate with Libya and maybe Turkey, so the EU, on behalf of the member states, could open some migration centres on their territory, where the migrants would wait for a decision as to whether a member state would accept them or not.”
Staying on the subject of security and looking at the war in Ukraine, the Czech Republic has been a staunch supporter of Ukraine since the war began and has sent military and humanitarian aid. Some parties are now increasingly pushing for peace negotiations. What is your take on this? Should the country continue helping, and if so, in what way? And what should be the stance of the EU?
“We have called for peace negotiations from the very beginning. I am afraid that the current strategy of the West and Ukraine is wrong and inefficient. If the current goal of Ukraine and the West, at least as it is officially declared, is to get the whole territory of Ukraine back under its control, it seems to me that the current strategy is not working. I’m afraid that the current strategy will only lead to a situation where Ukraine will have no more soldiers to fight, which would be a clear victory for Russia. I think we should change our strategy, and peace negations are the obvious way how to deal with this situation.”
In the meantime, are you against further military aid to the country?
“I think that what should come in the first place should be a basic elementary agreement on a cease fire, which would open the door to peace negotiations. Because, if the official position of the West and Ukraine is “We are ready to negotiate only after all Russian troops leave Ukrainian territory” then that is simply not realistic. They need to accept that peace negotiations should start, there could be a cease fire, and that could open up a space for the negotiations to proceed. I think that maybe a referendum could be organized under some international surveillance.”
A referendum on what?
“In the eastern territories of Ukraine, in the self-proclaimed Luhansk and Donetsk republics referenda could take place in which people could vote on whether they want to be part of Ukraine, whether they want independence or whether they want to belong to Russia. In my opinion –if there is a clear tendency of these people to declare their independence from Ukraine, then the civilized way how to resolve this is a referendum and not a war.”
Turning back to the workings of the European Union - decision making and the right of veto. The right of veto is still implemented in three areas of EU decision making. I understand that you are strongly against abolishing that right in those areas?
“Yes, in my opinion, international cooperation should be based on unanimity, that is on the right of veto. Therefore, I was strongly against the Lisbon Treaty back in 2009, because it gave more powers to the EU, it moved many areas of decision-making from unanimity to a qualified majority vote. So we oppose any proposals to get rid of the unanimity principle in the few remaining areas where we have it.”
But it also complicates decision making sometimes, so how would you address that?
“I would love it if the EU moved back to being as it was before Maastricht, or I would love an EU that would look like EFTA, the European Free Trade Association.”
“In my opinion, no one should prevent countries who want to have some common policy to have it, but we should not force countries who don’t want it, to participate. For example, countries that want to have the euro can have it, but countries who want to retain their own national currency should not be forced to give it up. Another example is that some countries are part of the Schengen area and some are not. Therefore, I don’t think we need a qualified majority, I think we can have a European Union where countries participate or not in different areas, on the premise of voluntary participation. Those who want to have some policies can have them, and those who don’t want to participate should not be forced to do so.”
It sounds like you would prefer a European Union as it was 25 years ago, a looser alliance of states, rather than it being closer-knit?
“Exactly. I would love it if the EU moved back to being as it was before Maastricht, or I would love an EU that would look like EFTA, the European Free Trade Association. If you look at EFTA, Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Lichtenstein, they don’t have any system of tax redistribution or subsidies, they do not need a common currency to trade. EFTA is based on unanimity, everyone in EFTA has veto power over everything, and it works quite efficiently.”
“I oppose any enlargement. We don’t like the fact that we are out-voted in more and more areas, or that our taxpayers’ money is used for something else than in favour of Czech, and any enlargement would only add to this.”
Looking at the future European Union, are you in favour of expansion?
“I think it should be clear from what I have said, that under the current situation, with the many powers of the EU, the vast regulation, redistribution, and qualified majority voting, I oppose any enlargement. We don’t like the fact that we are out-voted in more and more areas, or that our taxpayers’ money is used for something else than in favour of Czech citizens, and any enlargement would only add to this.”
Why is it important for Europeans to go to the polls in these elections?
"Because the European Union has the power to decide on legislation. It decides on how expensive energies are, what we can use for driving, whether some engines are banned or not. The civilized way to have your say is to vote and be represented in the body where these decisions are taken. Those who favour these decisions, as well as those who oppose them, have the right to be represented in the European Parliament. I encourage everyone to take advantage of this right to vote in the European elections.”
Petr Mach is a Czech economist and former Member of the European Parliament. He was a member of the Civic Democratic Party but left its ranks at the end of 2007, over its support for the Lisbon Treaty. He then founded the Party of Free Citizens which he led until 2017. In 2023, Mach joined the Freedom and Direct Democracy, and was voted its lead candidate in the 2024 European Parliament elections.
Petr Mach worked as an executive director of the Center for Economics and Politics in Prague from 1999 to 2009, and as an external economic adviser to then Czech president, Václav Klaus, from 2003 to 2007.
Related
-
European Parliament elections
In Czechia elections to the European Parliament will take place on June 7-8, 2024.
