What Ernest spoke about.

Madam President, the first thing to recognize is that we have a social bomb on the way, with salaries that are being massively depreciated when we adjust them to inflation and with a electricity bill that many citizens will not be able to pay. Intervening in the energy market and windfall profits had been urgent for many months. We're late with it. Despite this, the music that comes to us from what the Commission is going to present tomorrow, I have to say, sounds good to us. If we are really going to force companies to put a limit on their income, to reinvest the excess of that income in consumers to lower their electricity bill, and, if we are finally going to put a tax on extraordinary profits, that is certainly going in the right direction. And also, if you are going to use Article 122 – as it seems you are going to use – to kick-start that tax, that is good news. Now, we're going to want to discuss how that money is spent. That money has to revert to the citizens. And we have to go much further, because there are other sectors that are also having extraordinary, massive benefits, particularly banking, which, with the decisions of the European Central Bank, will have extraordinary profits, which will also have to start discussing. Because at the end of the day it is a question of making a fair distribution of the costs of inflation.

Mr President, the high bill for unjustifiable light paid by our citizens has fundamentally two reasons. The main one is our endemic dependence on fossil fuels, which are much more expensive than renewables. And secondly, a shortcoming in our regulatory framework that we urgently need to change. One of the reasons and one of the effects that this poor regulatory framework is causing is that, while the electricity bill is extremely high, the profits of energy companies are extremely high and extraordinary. The International Energy Agency has pointed this out: in 2022, €200 billion in profits. Only in Spain, for example, in the first half of the year, the two large electricity companies, 1 471 million profits. This is something that we cannot tolerate and, therefore, it is essential to start recording these extraordinary benefits, because we are not facing something that has the origin in greater added value, but simply in a regulatory failure. It is therefore very good to start recommending to the Member States to start recording these extraordinary benefits, but also, and I take the floor to the Commissioner, I believe that the Commission should have a much stronger framework for coordinating these measures, and I hope that the Commission will act in this regard.

Mr President, President Michel, Commissioner, we welcome that the Council has taken the historic decision and accepted the status of accession candidate for both Ukraine and Moldova, as called for by the European Parliament. The war Russia is waging against Ukraine is one against European integration, and we must stand together. We do regret, however, the lack of progress towards the Western Balkans. While the countries joining, we know, have to undertake tough democratic reforms, the job is not theirs alone. But where the European Council is disappointing a growing number of European citizens, President Michel, is when it comes to the debate on the future of the EU. While Parliament has already called for the establishment of a new Convention, the Council conclusions invite the institutions to follow up on the debates of the citizens only within their competences and within the current Treaties, which basically means the EUCO seems to have ruled out Treaty change and a new Convention. It’s a big disappointment. A big disappointment that the French Presidency did not move forward the process of amending the Treaties, as requested by this House. Furthermore, in the programme we just discussed with the Czech Presidency, we only see a vague reference to continuing the debate. President Michel, Europe may be ready to send a political signal for new members, and this is very much welcome, but the Council does not seem ready to address the issue of internal reform to make such commitment a real success. History is knocking at our doors. A real political union is more needed than ever. Please take up the challenge!

Mr. President, inflation is hitting families hard. Right now, rising basic expenses like food and energy are choking lower incomes. The decisions of the European Central Bank, in addition to trying to curb inflation with an instrument that is not suitable for it, such as raising rates, can worsen the situation and generate a self-inflicted recession. But not everyone is suffering this impact equally. We cannot deny the distribution effects that inflation is generating, because there are people and there are companies and actors in the market that are making extraordinary profits and doing great business because of this situation. The International Energy Agency reminded us how, in 2022, energy companies have earned more than €200 billion. Or it is also the case with the food sector, where large agro-industries have directly passed on the increase in costs to consumers. Therefore, we need to act. And acting means doing it fast in some areas. First, to reiterate the European Council's commitment to move towards taxation of profits "fallen from heaven". Second, accelerate the energy transition. That means reforming our electricity market so that the lower price of renewables can reach the electricity bill. Third, with a general increase in lower wages and social protection. And that also happens, among other things, to support the most vulnerable families, as recently approved by the Spanish Government. Fourthly, a minimum income directive at European Union level. We need it urgently. And fifth, curb speculation also in the real estate market. And on this we are going to raise an objection on a revision of the MiFID Directive that we cannot share in this plenary. These are some of the measures to try to help the most vulnerable in the face of an impact that they are receiving in a very, very dramatic way, without forgetting that there are actors in the market that are making magnificent profits because of inflation.

Mr President, well, the situation is indeed very serious. The deal is about to derail. And it is us Europeans who are about to derail it because of the veto of Hungary. How are we going to explain that to our international partners if that happens? Secondly, I think, Mr Beaune, the way you have tried to overcome the veto has come to a dead end. The logic of accepting the blackmail and doing secret deals behind doors has come to a dead end. It doesn’t work. And also we have to say that what kind of working methods will the Council adopt if this is the logic for the way forward? Which is going to be the next file if we accept that logic? This needs to stop. And the only way to stop that is to go for an enhanced cooperation in the short term. I’m very happy to hear Commissioner Gentiloni saying that we’re not going to give up: the Parliament will not give up, and not giving up today means finding other ways, overcoming the veto and go for an enhanced cooperation. And finally, I think we need to address the issue of unanimity in fiscal matters. Member States need to address that seriously, because this needs to stop.

Madam President, Madam President of the Commission, we absolutely do not share the decision to have approved the Polish plan. The rule of law instruments – protecting budgetary instruments from breaches of the rule of law – have been one of the great advances in recent years and that mechanism we have is not to punish Polish citizens. The only one responsible – and this has to be clear – if the money does not reach Poland, is the Warsaw government for not complying with what it has to comply with because it is a member of the European Union. This has to be very clear. But you've made a mistake. Moreover, it is a decision that is not shared by a large part of the College of Commissioners, as it has transpired. Perhaps they were afraid that Poland would take them to court. I do not think that this has any way to go because the regulation really leaves you room to protect the rule of law in the adoption of the plan. But hey, that decision is already made and now all you can expect from us is to be very vigilant that the conditions are met. Because if not, Madam President, you run the serious risk of being censored. It's very serious what we're playing. You cannot be surprised that Parliament is in such a bad mood today and, therefore, we did ask you to be very strict in complying with those three conditions and, if not, Parliament would have no choice but to censure it.

Madam President, Commissioner, I would like to start by thanking the rapporteur Aurore Lalucq for an excellent report. Tomorrow, the Parliament will speak. Clearly, we want the minimum level of taxation for multinational groups to be swiftly adopted. I have to say that my group is really puzzled by what is going on in the Council at the moment. That we are not able to agree on that proposal, which is basically what the Commission presented, a copy-paste of the international deal – and it’s not something that is really revolutionary, it’s an important first step, but it’s only a copy-paste of the international deal – is simply unacceptable. We need to tell Poland very clearly that they need to unblock it and they need to do it now. And if that is not the case, colleagues, the risk really is that if the EU does not apply this deal, the US may not do it either and maybe the whole deal may fall. So, I think we cannot afford to do that. So, all the pressure needs to go to Poland, I hope that next week we will have good news. But otherwise, if that is not the case, we will have no other option than to explore other legal ways, like Article 116, or maybe enhanced cooperation. But we cannot fail this time.

Mr President, let me first welcome President von der Leyen’s announcement on the ban for Russian oil to be included in the new sanctions package. The support of Ukraine needs to go hand—in—hand also in supporting our citizens most affected from the consequences of war. We are at the doors of possibly the third, once in a lifetime, deep crisis that generations of Europeans will suffer. The cumulative crises have led to devastating social consequences in our continent. 96 million people in the EU are already at risk of poverty. Increased inequalities, the return of war in Europe and the existential threat of climate change is a scary prospect. And once again, history knocks at the doors of the European project. During the pandemic, the EU learned how to respond to difficult economic and social situations after the disastrous years of austeritarian lunacy. Now, we need to show that this willingness to protect our citizens will be the norm and not the exception. Price inflation in the EU has reached levels not seen since the 70s, but half, we know, is directly due to fossil energy price rises. And it is why we need action on the energy sector. It is not time, in our opinion, to restrict our accommodative monetary policy, which would have disastrous economic consequences, but to accelerate our energy transition. I is not time either, I am sorry to say, to postpone our Green New Deal. I mean, climate change does not wait. We know that our Green Deal and energy transition is the best solution to the crisis that we are having, so I more than disagree with what the EPP has said this morning today in the plenary. We know that we need to accelerate that energy transition and, for that, we will probably need also no financial instruments to be put in place. That is why we want also to call for a new energy sovereignty facility to facilitate Member States to accelerate that transition. We know that politically this is difficult. Putting in place your effort was a difficult process, but we need to be ambitious and I am sure that we will be able to do that again.

Madam President, Mr High Representative, Madam President of the Commission, the world is becoming increasingly aware of Putin's atrocities in Ukraine. I want my first words to be for the victims of Bucha and their families and relatives. As President Zelensky said yesterday before the Congress of Deputies in Spain, the massacres are too reminiscent of the massacre suffered by the Spaniards in Guernica in 1937: These are war crimes that must be thoroughly investigated, and the International Criminal Court must play its role there. The crimes of Putin, who is torpedoing diplomatic negotiations, unfortunately confront us with a scenario of escalation of the conflict, and, given that scenario, Europe must remain united – that is the most important thing – by supporting Ukrainians on all fronts, and also with sanctions – applying them better, because sanctions have implementation deficits – and we Greens are also supporting it with a total embargo on all fossil fuels from Russia, including gas, and also uranium. But, in the short term, we must also look to cushion the costs that the war will have among our citizens in order to be better prepared, and I want to celebrate the decisions that were taken in the Council on energy matters, allowing the price of gas to be limited, taxing the extraordinary profits of the electricity companies ... That is important: we can't make the usual ones pay those costs. And in the long run, as Europeans, we need to reflect on what all these years of external dependence on fossil fuels have meant, which today are not only a problem for climate change, they are a threat to peace and security; We know this today: What is the point, therefore, in this context, of continuing, for example, to keep gas in the taxonomy? We must devote the maximum effort to the urgent deployment of renewables, put all our resources there; We are probably going to need a new European fund to be able to make that transition much faster. And we don't have time, because the IPCC report tells us how we are running out of time to fight climate change. Today the energy transition is not just a matter of fighting climate change: It is also, above all, a guarantee of peace and stability.

Madam President, I think that debate was indeed very necessary because tomorrow, probably, the ECOFIN will fail again on delivering on that deal and it is not exactly that the Commission put things very difficult to them. They just copy pasted the international agreement. But in extension to that, we have an extension of the transitional period, now already on the table, some opt outs and not even with that all Member States are happy. So, I think we absolutely need to urge Poland and Estonia to unblock that deal. Imagine how the EU would look after all the efforts made at the international level for that if that deal is delayed here. I think this would be totally unacceptable and I think this is why this Parliament needed to speak today as it did. And finally, Commissioner, a final word on the method and the legal base that we have used. We know unanimity in taxation is a growing problem, more and more. And for that, this Parliament has repeatedly called for the use of Article 116 for taxation matters to overcome that. This episode that will happen tomorrow is again another reason for reflecting on this.

Mr President, well I think that we’re in front of a new, important scandal and now affecting a Swiss bank. Well, the record of problems of the Swiss financial sector are well known. I know the Commissioner just said that probably under their assessment Switzerland maybe should not be in the AML blacklist yet. Well, one of the problems maybe is how do we do that list and what kind of criteria do we use? And this is something as well that the fact that Switzerland is not yet in that list should also make a reflection on how are we using and how are we making that listing. Secondly, I think that the cooperation with third countries should be improved. I think this is something that we can also take as a conclusion of this scandal, particularly because we don’t have enough bilateral agreements with some countries where we know AML enforcement is really a problem. And also, we need to be aware that those kinds of problems can also happen at some point in the EU because we have real problems yet on the implementation and enforcement of AMLD5, for instance, which is not fully implemented. So I think that once again this scandal should give us an impulse to improve our legislation and our measures.

Madam President, I welcome the Prime Minister to the European Parliament. Canada has been a close partner and friend of the European Union, and also of Ukraine, for many decades. On behalf of the Green Group, I would like to thank you and the many Canadians who have shown clarity and determination in supporting Ukraine in these dramatic times. As we know, this is not just a war between two countries, but a brutal attack on an international order based on law and democracy, not on the force of bombs. As we speak, Putin is committing war crimes in Ukraine, bombing kindergartens and hospitals, and we must support the Ukrainians' fight against this invasion, in unity as we have done. The European Union and Canada are called upon, Prime Minister, to work together to defend, in the coming decades, a global architecture based on international law and the defence of human rights in the face of the growing threats of authoritarianism. I would like to thank you, Prime Minister, especially for opening the doors to the Ukrainian refugees, helping those who are most in need. I would like to wholeheartedly thank the Canadian people for that. But here in Europe, dear Prime Minister, we have also made mistakes. Putin’s fossil-fuelled war must wake us up. Our energy transition is today not only an urgency for tackling climate change, but also a matter of security and international stability. Climate change is one of the biggest threats that humankind has suffered in the last centuries, and we need to act equally. Also in Canada, Prime Minister, where fossil-fuel infrastructure is still being built, where net zero is only planned to be reached by 2050 without any intermediate target, where tar sands, one of the most climate-polluting sources of oil, have been expanded. You may allow me, friends and partners need also to be honest and frank to each other. Our collective addiction to fossil fuel is a security risk now. In Europe and in Canada, it is a destabilising factor. It is a threat to peace. And Canada and Europe should change the course of action if we want to abide to the commitments of the Paris Agreement. It’s very good to be strong supporters of multilateralism, as we are, and believe strongly in multilateralism, but we should live up to the promises, then, of the Paris Agreement and move forward to action. It is our responsibility. It is your responsibility, Prime Minister. We are hundreds of millions of people to build another future in Europe and Canada. In the face of this brutal attack in Ukraine, in the face of an authoritarian backlash in the world, let’s work together. And let’s work together, not building our societies in old, short-sighted policies, but really based on our common wish to live in a peaceful world and on an habitable planet. Thank you very much, Prime Minister, for your solidarity and for your presence with us today.

Mr President, I would like to begin by thanking the rapporteur Pedro Marques and the negotiating team, many of whom are here, for the good cooperation we have had. For the first time, Parliament is going to position itself in favour of ambitious and effective measures such as a minimum rate for withholding interest, royalties and dividends, as well as the need for a common European framework for the taxation of these revenues. I would like to highlight three things in this report that I find particularly relevant. First, it recognises the need, as I have said, for a minimum rate of withholding for interest, royalties and dividends. Secondly, it recognises the need for a minimum retention rate also for outgoing flows outside the European Union. Third, it clearly and forcefully requires the European Banking Authority and ESMA to be held accountable for the cum-ex scandal and to assume their supervisory responsibilities. I would like to recall that this scandal may have cost the loss of tax revenue of at least EUR 150 billion globally over the last 20 years. In Spain alone, for example, between 10 and 18 billion may have been lost. Therefore, we pointed out in this report that the EBA and ESMA have to give explanations because we find it unacceptable, in our view, that it is not yet clear to what extent these dividend arbitrage or “coupon washing” transactions are illegal or not. Finally, the European Parliament has never before spoken so clearly in favour of setting minimum rates. We expect the Commission to take note of the upcoming legislative proposal on withholding tax procedures in the EU, scheduled for Q2 2022. And in this regard, we must also ask the Council to unblock and swiftly conclude the negotiations on the revision of the Interest and Royalties Directive, which we also believe is an essential step in combating tax fraud and evasion and moving towards fair taxation in the European Union. Today we cover an element of our tax harmonisation in the EU that is essential and that is why I would also like to end by thanking Pedro Marques and the whole team once again for the excellent work.

Madam President, Mr Executive Vice-President, Commissioner, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, thank you for being here. I would like to thank my colleagues in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, and particularly our President Irene Tinagli, for the good shared exercise that has allowed us to have a report with great cross-cutting support and I think the important thing, especially at the moment when we are now, is that we can send a message that this House is able to agree on a focus on the Semester, but it is clear that war is changing everything and also our urgencies, and I want to point out a few. Firstly, I believe that, in the short term, we have no choice, Mr Executive Vice-President, but to extend the escape clause for another year. You have said that they will evaluate you from the spring projections; At the very least, I would like to convey my full support for that decision to be taken. And secondly, there is the energy question, from which we cannot escape: firstly, because I believe that the European Commission has to help ensure supply, not least from the news we heard yesterday, but also because we have to intervene in the gas market and, above all, in price-setting. And in many countries – today we have the meeting of ministers – such as Greece or Spain, with very different political colours, they are saying that the electricity bill cannot continue at these levels. Therefore, the decision to either decouple the marginalist gas allocation system, or to establish some kind of price-setting measure, as requested by the Greek Prime Minister, is imposed; I think these are emergencies that we cannot avoid in the short term. In the long run, it is clear that the crisis forces us to accelerate the energy and green transition, and from that point of view, I believe that the debate we will have on tax rules and on the ability to give more room to investment for the green transition is a fundamental pillar, and the other fundamental pillar is that I believe that the war and the emergencies in the transition will probably force us to launch a new European fund to underpin that transition. I believe that these are some of the ways of working in the short and in the medium and long term that we cannot avoid.

Mr President, Putin's war has already caused two million displaced people and this time we cannot fail refugees as we failed refugees coming from Syria in 2015. The Temporary Protection Directive has been activated. That's good news, but that doesn't mean it's all figured out. First, because relocation is still voluntary and we will need Member States to provide places and accept that there are refugees relocated. And secondly, because in the application, in my view, there is unacceptable discrimination, because, in some cases, the Member States will be able to apply less protection to those refugees who do not have Ukrainian nationality, which, frankly, when we are talking about people fleeing the war, is by no means tolerable. So I think that what we need to ask the Member States is, first, to offer places – to mobilise – and, secondly, to not in any way apply different protections to people fleeing the war on the basis of their nationality. And finally, as Maria Arena said, let us not forget that there are thousands and thousands of refugees around the world to whom, unlike Ukrainians, we are not giving the possibility of such protection. I believe that the decision we make with Ukrainians must also be applied to people fleeing war in other parts of the world.

Mr President, firstly, I would like to thank Ms Sophia in ’t Veld for the excellent work on that, but I have to say I can’t remember how many times this Parliament has already called for an end to these citizenship and residence by investment scheme programmes, and they continue to be there. We still have Member States which operate on a residence basis, others still operate even on a granting of nationality basis, and we know all the problems associated with money laundering, with crime, and we know that the OECD, for instance, has signalled that these schemes are misused very frequently to undermine the common reporting standard and the due diligence procedure. So, we really need to stand united and say, this needs to stop. And we need particularly to say that in the middle of the debate about tackling the Russian oligarchs’ wealth in the EU. There are many more things that can be done to tackle that problem in terms of freezing assets or banning shell companies, or confiscating some assets, as some Member States have already done. But one thing we need to start with is putting an end to such programmes, which are really shameful.

Mr President, in 2021, at least 275 people were executed in Iran, including two child offenders and 10 women. In Iran, the death penalty is used as a political tool that not only punishes those who have been sentenced to capital punishment, but also those who advocate for its abolition. It’s the case of Narges Mohammadi, who has recently been sentenced to another eight years in prison, or Nasrin Sotoudeh, the recipient of the Sakharov Prize in 2012, who was sentenced to 33 years and six months in prison in 2019. I would like also to stress that we continue to ask for the freedom of Djalali, as this Parliament already recalled in the past. Today, we call again on Iran to fulfil its international obligations by abolishing the death penalty and implementing its human rights commitments. We also urge the immediate release for all unjustly jailed human rights defenders. As we speak, crucial negotiations are undergoing in Vienna to revive the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Even if the scope of these talks do not include a dialogue on the situation of human rights in Iran, the two are deeply interlinked. A successful negotiation of the JCPOA will provide the basis for the peace and development needed for a more stable country that over time improves the prospects for all Iranian citizens who, we shouldn’t forget, have been the most affected by COVID and the economic sanctions. We need more dialogue with Iran, not less. The EU and other actors have already adopted a number of sanctions against individuals and entities responsible for human rights violations in Iran. Exercising further pressure has to go hand in hand with general political engagement, as some groups in this Parliament are advocating for. And this will, in a certain moment, help us as well to improve the situation of human rights in the country. The EU should continue to monitor and raise human rights matters in the context of the EU—Iran high—level dialogue and reiterate that respect for human rights is a core component in advancement of EU—Iran relations. It is in our interest to support the talks, to return to the JCPOA, also to have more leverage to improve the human rights situation in the country.

Mr President, the human rights situation in the Philippines has gravely deteriorated under the presidency of Rodrigo Duterte. Between 12 000 and 30 000 people, including women and children, have reportedly been killed in the context of his ‘war on drugs’ campaign since 2016. According to prominent NGOs working in the field, this campaign could be considered as a crime against humanity carried out with near total impunity. On the other hand, at least 146 human rights defenders and 22 journalists have been killed since 2016, as well as trade unionists, indigenous people and environmental activists. The government has so far failed to ensure independent and effective investigations and prosecutions against the perpetrators of those crimes. In a climate of deteriorating media freedom and internal repression, the upcoming presidential elections in the country are at risk of not being held safely and democratically. In this regard, we regret that the Philippine authorities have not invited the EU to conduct an election observation mission. A robust response is needed to reverse the downward trend of human rights in the country. The EU should suspend the GSP+ system without further notice until the human rights situation in the country improves significantly. The EU should stand on its core values and denounce the massive violations of human rights and support all mechanisms for accountability of the perpetrators of those violations while ensuring the reparations of the victims.

Madam President, Commissioner, we are all concerned about the impact that the price increase, and particularly the electricity bill, is having on some of our fellow citizens. But to conclude, from here, that monetary stimuli must be withdrawn and interest rates raised, as conservative groups seem to suggest, is profoundly wrong. As the president has said very well, interest rates cannot handle the price of fossil fuels and, therefore, it is not there that we can tackle this problem. On the other hand, if we now repeat the mistakes we made – as was said now – in April 2011, by raising rates and withdrawing stimulus, what we will do is to jeopardise the recovery, to jeopardise the smooth running of employment in the euro area and to create problems again. spreads in different Member States. Therefore, that is by no means the solution. On the other hand, there is something that the ECB can do in the medium and long term to combat this energy price, which accounts for 50% of the price increase, which is to accelerate the green transition on the basis of existing monetary policy instruments; for example, by ensuring a greater ecological perspective in the centres or, for example, by withdrawing purchases of fossil fuels that are still made massively through asset purchase programmes. That should be done by the ECB and not withdraw stimuli, something that would now be a profound mistake.

Mr President, sexual harassment at work is an extremely widespread phenomenon, but it also affects this House. I would like to recall that four years ago the women of this Parliament came out to the cry of 'Me Too' to also denounce that they had been victims of sexual and occupational harassment in this House. And what have we done four years later? We still owe them a comprehensive and strong response to protect them. We do not yet have compulsory courses for all Members, Evelyn Regner recalled. Only a quarter of the deputies of this House have taken the course, because now it is simply mandatory. We do not yet have a professionalized and independent mechanism to deal with harassment cases nor do we have an external audit to see if we are doing things right or not. We owe that to the women of this House, who today are still unprotected because we have not made the decisions we should have. And finally, I want to end with something else: This is a fight that also concerns the men of this House. Again, in today's debate only four men have spoken and there have been more than twenty interventions. Two of them, in addition, will intervene to say that gender-based violence does not exist. Please, comrades, step forward. This is our fight, too. (Applause)

Madam President, I think that the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) process is being developed at a very good rhythm, democratically. It is being deployed extremely efficiently, and we all have to congratulate ourselves on how things are moving forward. I have a couple of things to mention. I think probably the most immediate challenge is going to be absorption and execution in order for the instrument to have a real macroeconomic impact. I think this is one of the things we should focus on at the moment, and also be sure that all the climate goals that we enshrined in the regulation are well respected. But not only that, also to ask Member States in their recovery plans to update their climate and energy plans as they will need to do towards the 2030 goals. I think this is something that is going to be very important. Thinking of the future, Commissioner and Vice—President, I think that with the RRF we have learned a better way of organising our economic governance – greater ownership, having specific policies for every Member State, not having one rule and one—size—fits—all for everybody – and I think this is an extremely good lesson for the discussions ahead in the reform of the Semester and also our fiscal rules.

Mr President, one third of European women have experienced some episode of violence throughout their lives. In the case of Spain we have already thirty-seven deaths this year. For some years, since 2003, since they are counted, more than a thousand victims. It is a real plague and today we have risen with the number – take care – of 53 000 women who have police surveillance because they are persecuted by their partners or ex-partners, threatened by violence. It's a real plague. Half the population, Commissioner, lives under the threat of sexist violence. Is there anything more urgent in terms of public policy than tackling this phenomenon? And the European framework is totally inadequate. Yes, it is a shame that six countries do not want to ratify the Istanbul Convention, but put it on the Council's agenda and ratify it by qualified majority if necessary. Finally, it cannot be that we do not yet have a European framework of our own. We expect a lot from the directive you have promised us. We hope that it will be comprehensive, broad – covering the phenomenon in a very very broad way – and ambitious to put an end to this scourge. Many Europeans who today in their countries do not have their own framework for combating gender-based violence need this directive in order for their countries to impose rules at once.

Madam President, this agreement is clearly a step forward. For the first time in Europe we will know from the multinationals how many activities they have in a given Member State in relation to how many taxes they pay, and with this we will know exactly if they are using illusion practices. Of course, we did not manage to have everything we wanted and not having the global disaggregated data is really a shame. And here we have to regret the very negative role of some Member States that not only have been blocking the report in the Council for five years, but also that have been downgrading the final deal in the Council. But still, it's a step forward, and even if we do not have the global disaggregation, with having the European disaggregation we will cover more than 80% of the illusion practices that happen in our territory. And also, very importantly, I want to remind you of one of the clear victories of this Parliament: we have a review clause in four years where we will be able to improve that legislation. So I think that tomorrow we need to adopt this, put the legislation in place and in four years make it better.

Mr President, I think that the agreement reaches an important step forward. Firstly, multilateralism indexation matters demonstrate that it can deliver, and this is very important. And secondly, for the first time, we will be establishing at global level a minimum floor on tax competition, which is, indeed, very good news. But I also have to say that the agreement leaves a bitter taste in some of the aspects. 15 percent – we know it’s too low. And here we have to regret the role played by some also in Europe, for instance, to take out the words ‘at least’ before 15 percent. Secondly, the thresholds are too high. This will mean that those new rules, Pillar One and Pillar Two, will affect only a very limited number of companies. And thirdly, the way Pillar One is designed will mean that the revenues of the new mechanism will not go to countries that are more in need and where more activity actually happens. So it leaves a bitter taste, even though we recognise it’s an important step forward. Now the question is what we do at the European level, and we fully agree that this agreement needs to be swiftly implemented as soon as possible. And here there are things where greater ambition cannot be put, but there are areas where we can actually, as Europeans, put greater ambition. Nothing prevents us to change the thresholds actually at European level to put more ambition on a deal. And here is, I think, something that the Commission should look at, because this agreement is a very first step, but we need to go much beyond what has been agreed at the OECD level.

Madam President, with this resolution, the European Parliament wants to join the condemnations across the US on the adoption of the SB8 law by the Texas legislator. This law constitutes a strong attack on women’s freedom and sexual and reproductive health and rights, which are fundamental human rights, and violates US women’s constitutional rights by de facto totally banning abortion with no exemption. This law would also disproportionately affect the most vulnerable groups of women and will not reduce the need for abortions, but result in women having to seek clandestine abortions or to carry their pregnancy to term against their will. What’s worse, this law empowers and gives monetary incentives to any private citizen to sue anyone who may have helped women obtain an abortion, allowing for individual enforcement of abortion bans that creates a climate of fear and intimidation. The SB8 law is one of the strictest abortion measures in the US, and it could have a trigger effect on other US states attempting to pass abortion bans across the country. For all these reasons, we call on the Government of the State of Texas to repeal the law, to ensure safe, legal, free and quality abortion services in Texas, and to make these services easily accessible to all women and girls. Promoting sexual rights is one of the five pillars of the EU gender action plan. Therefore, the EU and its Member States should make sure that women’s rights are respected and promoted in their relations with other countries and also with the United States.