Thank you very much. Ladies and gentlemen, we still have the final part of the European Council programme ahead of us, and that is the discussion on the Middle East. All the other conclusions concerning Ukraine, competitiveness and the budget have already been agreed and approved. So I think it is right to inform you about them now. I am doing this also because I want to go back to the meeting on the Middle East.
And I confirm that we have agreed a meeting with the agency that is carrying out enforcement in Slovakia against the Forum project. I simply want to ask very clearly whether there are more such examples in Slovakia, because we have a huge problem with this. We are finding that non-governmental organisations are abusing various grant mechanisms, having invoices reimbursed repeatedly, and even using these grants for private purposes. It is a deadly combination if this is happening in Slovakia, and God forbid if it is also happening at the European level. That is why I will be speaking with the relevant commissioner and the relevant people on this topic, and that will be the final conclusion of my work here in Brussels. And this is exactly in line with what I said when I defined, at the integration committee, what my goals and priorities are and what I intend to focus on. But let us turn to the summit itself, which is drawing to a close.
Not only in the conclusions of the European Council, but I can say that this was also the case yesterday practically all day. The topic of Ukraine dominated, with the participation of Ukrainian President Zelensky, with whom I met personally. It was our second personal meeting after Armenia. I assume there will be another opportunity to meet briefly in Gdansk, where I will attend the international conference on the reconstruction of Ukraine. And I will return in two words to this meeting.
We have diametrically opposed views on many things. Diametrically opposed, but I think you know me. I am a supporter of dialogue, and therefore it is my duty to hold dialogue also with people with whom I do not share the same opinion. That is why I welcome the fact that such opportunities exist, because in direct dialogue you can put things across more pragmatically and efficiently than through exchanges of papers or doing it by telephone. That is why I welcomed this opportunity, and I once again focused on cooperation between Slovakia and Ukraine as a state that borders us. We want a stable and democratic Ukraine, because we need that in Slovakia. What interests me above all is when the next joint government meeting can take place. We do not have a fixed venue, but it has been agreed that this government meeting will take place at some point, including the agenda on which we are now working together.
I would like to say very clearly that I have long recognised the philosophy that anyone who wishes to become a member of the European Union can apply, can meet the criteria that have been set, and at the end of the day it is the member states that decide whether to accept that country or not. So we cannot prevent anyone from seeking such a European perspective, and above all we cannot prevent Ukraine. However, I made it very clear that there are three candidates that are substantially better prepared. There can be no shortcuts, detours, or any preferential treatment for anyone. And for me at this moment the absolute priority is the trio of states, namely Serbia, Montenegro and Albania, which are the best prepared. And as for Ukraine, if Ukraine is interested in learning something from us, perhaps about our experience of joining the European Union, we are ready. But I see this as a long-term process. A long-term, long-term process, because the conditions that will have to be met are enormous in number.
Yesterday the discussion was extremely interesting from the point of view of whether we should hold dialogue with the Russian Federation or wage war. I cannot, and I never do, comment on what anyone said at the European Council meeting, but I can speak for myself. I spoke and I welcomed the information that people around the President of the European Council, Mr. Costa, had created some kind of diplomatic communication channel with the Russian side. We need this channel badly. We are not talking about negotiation now, I am talking about communication. That is a big difference. Notice how various things happen. A drone falls there, something happens there. Now the Greek Prime Minister has informed us about an incident involving a drone that fell into the sea, which was loaded with enormous quantities of explosives. If this had fallen and broken up some tanker, it would cause enormous problems. That is why a communication channel is essential and important. And in this I support the President of the European Council, that with this step his people have moved forward.
There are several prime ministers. I am among them, perhaps one of the loudest, and that is the question of dialogue and negotiations. We are not solving the question of who should do it or how it should look. We are solving the question of whether or not. I certainly prefer negotiation and dialogue to war, and in this spirit I also spoke yesterday at the European Council meeting. I think this is not set up well, because we will witness the continuation of this military conflict. I am personally convinced of that. You know that this conflict has no military solution. It is senseless killing of people on both sides. And therefore everything that the Slovak government can do, that could lead to some reconciliation or lasting peace, the government of the Slovak Republic will certainly do.
Last night there was an extremely interesting geopolitical discussion linked to competitiveness, and everyone was crying about China. Allow me one short example that you all know well, because we ask ourselves the question, for heaven's sake, what are we going to do? We see that China is racing ahead by leaps and bounds in many areas. I remember the period in the past when it was perhaps industrial espionage, when China bought some product, copied it and then manufactured it. But today the problem is that China is ahead, even in development, in science, it is simply becoming a world leader. This is beginning to be a fundamental problem. So yesterday I reminded everyone, of course, of our old familiar story. We in the European Union are lamenting that China is overtaking us or that China is taking the lead in many areas. Well, it is enough if we return to that unfortunate aluminium producer in Slovakia, Žiar nad Hronom.
Listen, I am a poor lawyer, I am not a technician, but I know what is stupid and what is not stupid. At least as a lawyer we can distinguish that. So we have an ecological, modern factory that produced 17% of all primary aluminium production in the European Union. 17%. We are a country that has 85% of its electricity without carbon. We have connections with all our neighbours, we are a net exporter of electricity, and yet we buy electricity for 100 euros and more per megawatt. So an ecologically perfect, good factory that produced 17% of total aluminium production in the European Union had to be closed because of us, because of the European Union, because of the senseless climate targets that have been set. Once again. What reward do we Slovaks get for having 85% carbon-free electricity? We have connections and we are even exporters of electricity. What is our reward? We pay 100 or 110 euros per 1 MW and we have to close perfect ecological factories. The result? We import aluminium from China. Not to mention that the carbon footprint in China is five or six times higher than in Žiar nad Hronom, where enormous amounts of money were invested. So, as an answer to the crying, it is simple: let us reduce electricity prices. And again we have done nothing about this. Again we are waiting until 15 July to see what the Commission proposes regarding the emissions trading system. Very complicated. I am glad that the proposal from the Austrian Federal Chancellor passed, who proposed that the free allowance system should continue after 2030. So I am not among those who are crying about China. I am absolutely aware of China's reality, also because we maintain a strategic partnership with this country. You know that I had the opportunity, which perhaps other prime ministers did not have, to meet repeatedly with the Chinese president, Mr. Xi. I believe that the moment will come when the president will also visit the Slovak Republic. We are aware that this is a superpower that is pursuing its goals in the world, and crying will not help. Simply put, we made a serious mistake at home and now we are paying for it and crying. So the answer, as in this segment, for example, the production of aluminium that we import from China, to change this situation is very simple. We will make decisions to reduce electricity prices, and we can make them. We ourselves can make decisions within the European Union that will drastically and very significantly reduce electricity prices. I ask whether anyone really wants this, because we all talk about the single market and how everything works. But if we look at the price of electricity in Portugal, in France, and compare it with Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, even Italy, then let us forget that there is any single market for electricity.
The third area to which we devoted our attention this morning is what I call the European Union budget, because the foreign words that the Union loves to use are hard for people to perceive unless they work professionally in this field. The budget for the coming years, starting with 2028, for the first time reaches the dimension of a complete, total change. Simply put, it has to be completely different from what it has been so far. There is an interest on the one hand to increase the total volume of this budget. The figures range from 1 trillion 985 billion to approximately 1 trillion 450 billion euros. That is roughly where we are at the moment. That figure came both from the Commission and then also from the negotiating box presented by the Cypriot Presidency. The problem is that the Commission proposes reducing the cohesion envelope, that is, the reduction of regional disparities, and equally the envelope for the common agricultural policy. A group of friends of cohesion was immediately formed, that is, the reduction of regional disparities. We play a very active role in this group. There are 16 of us altogether, and we argue that reducing regional disparities is not only the essence of the European Union, but that we also see a huge opportunity for competitiveness in it, that we cannot set the reduction of regional disparities against competitiveness. There are other arguments that say: let us reduce the envelope for reducing regional disparities. Let us reduce the envelope for agricultural policy and let us put more money into defence. Let us put more money into some new priorities that come into consideration. It will be very difficult to build a budget, because we see two different worlds in the European Union, and that is understandable. There are those who are net contributors to the budget, and there are those who are not net contributors to the European Union budget. As for the Slovak government, it would be clear. First, we belong to the group of supporters of reducing regional disparities. We also believe that we cannot weaken the common agricultural policy. And here I again asked, and I also said in my speech, that in concrete steps and in shaping the parameters of the common agricultural policy we must not forget that Slovakia is built on large farms. That is simply a specific feature, and this specific feature must be taken into account, because otherwise we will be brutally disadvantaged. Even now Slovak farmers do not receive as much as farmers in the western countries of the European Union, and this discrimination must end. On the other hand, we do not resist new priorities. If someone comes and says let us create a competitiveness fund, which is being discussed, fine, but this competitiveness fund cannot be built on the basis that only the exceptional get it. So if I have an exceptional product or want to do something exceptional, I get money from the fund for it. Then this will further deepen regional disparities. This competitiveness fund must also take into account some geographical distribution of strengths. It cannot be just about the fact that I am perfect in science and research, I get more. I am not perfect, so I get less. We do not resist, of course, proposals, for example, to strengthen the eastern, let us call it, border of the European Union. There are countries, we fully respect this, the Baltics, Poland and others, who have borders with a very sensitive, critical area. We are, after all, neighbours with Ukraine. So if such a proposal comes to strengthen, let us call it some eastern partnership or some projects for strengthening, for interconnectivity between Ukraine and the European Union, we will not resist this, because we too can benefit from it at the end of the day. The topic is also how to secure new resources. Because if we are talking about increasing the total volume of the budget, we have to talk about where to get the additional money from. Are there any ideas? There is now an idea to have some revenue from electronic waste. That looks like a champion that could pass. Uncollected electronic waste could be a source of revenue, but we are far away. We are only talking today about whether we are able to reach an agreement by the end of 2026. If we reach an agreement by the end of 2026, in 2027 we will be able to adopt all the necessary legislative acts so that from 1 January 2028 we can simply work with the newly approved budget. We will be constructive players, we will of course guard our interests, but on the other hand we must realise that only an agreement will move us towards having a European Union budget. Have you noticed that our migration pact has started?
I want to make it very clear so that there are no doubts. In 2024, when the vote was held on the 10 legislative pieces or initiatives that practically make up this package, we voted against two and abstained on eight. So the government of the Slovak Republic does not consider this migration pact to be a good work, but unfortunately, despite our opposition, it applies and we must comply with this pact. There is mandatory solidarity. Fortunately, what threatens us is not something we cannot handle. I think I can say this, Mr. Brisanec, what threatens us is that it is about 4 million euros in 2026 that should be the sum we have to pay. We looked for some alternative solutions that we wanted to offer to countries, but there was no special interest in this. So we will prefer the mandatory contribution. I repeat, we voted against it. We would rather make this contribution than have to take in some migrants. There it was almost up to 200 people, some 170, 180 people just for 2026. The year 2027 will now be defined as to what will happen next. But here the government of the Slovak Republic has clean hands, because we absolutely rejected this migration pact. We do not consider it right and good. That is all. Now I am running upstairs. I will give you space for two or three questions on the discussion on the Middle East. We approved all the other things that concerned Moldova, that concerned, I do not know, there were various small things, but I think that now there may be a sharper discussion on the topic of what is happening in the Middle East, how we will react to the many violations, to the many crisis situations that are arising there. And then I will also try to make that meeting with the relevant commissioner about the grant schemes that are being abused and that are today the subject of enforcement by the European Commission. Please, two or three questions.
