Speeches

–Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there is a popular saying in Spanish for cases such as the one that brings us here. As regards the European Parliament's right of inquiry, you, the Council: not a bad word, not a good deed. What is at issue is the Council's sincere cooperation with regard to the very special powers of the European Parliament. The Committee on Constitutional Affairs has been patient and has shown good faith for more than two mandates – 12 years. And in the two mandates and peak - and in the part that touches me, ten years - we have been teased and entertained until we reach the blind spot at the end of each of the mandates. It is my personal perception, but it seems to me that you are only interested in lowering our research competences and, in some things, it seems that they want us to be like a flock of lambs. Parliament cannot tolerate violations of its investigative prerogatives. The legal framework in force since 1995 is not even fully complied with. And in the rest, the rejection of the three proposals without negotiation. And today they told us the same thing. Parliament must act with one voice, and the new Parliament – this time it does – cannot let another five years pass in good faith. If there is no rapprochement by the Council, it must activate the procedure to bring it before the Court of Justice of the European Union for breach of the principle of sincere mutual cooperation between institutions. It is good that this is known outside the AFCO Committee, it is good that it is known throughout this House. Without further ado, I say goodbye to all of you because today is my last day. This has been it, folks.

Mr President, Commissioner, when the European Commission published its report on the rule of law in Spain in July 2023, it did not reflect the magnitude of the problems that the governments of Pedro Sánchez have created and continue to create. Attacks on the independence of judges and the colonization of high State institutions are becoming more acute. The investiture has taken place in exchange for a promise of impunity to criminals, tried or charged with serious crimes. The Government of Sanchez has eliminated the crime of sedition, has reduced the penalties for embezzlement, has pardoned criminals who reiterate their intention to commit crimes and now intends to amnesty fugitives from justice, investigated for terrorism, embezzlement and high treason and investigated in the files on Russian interference in Europe. And the latest, ladies and gentlemen, is a multibillion-dollar corruption scandal that the European Anti-Fraud Office will investigate and that reaches at least number two in the Government and the Socialist Party when the events occurred. We cannot remain blind to the corruption or populist drifts that often come together, whatever the sign. The very serious deterioration of our rule of law puts at risk the quality of European democracy as a whole. Hopefully they can integrate all these facts to have a thorough analysis of what is happening in our countries.

Madam President, we are indeed going to talk about Russia. The deputy named as a collaborator of the Russian FSB showed support for years to the environment and terrorists of ETA. He also consistently supported Catalan secessionists who committed crimes before and after 2017. The case of Russian interference in Catalonia requires a special note, because the judicial investigation, fortunately, advances. We can point out that Russia carried out combined interventions in Catalonia over an entire decade, mixing GRU field agents and direct access to the regional government, including the fugitive Puigdemont, as well as advice and a disinformation strategy through Russia Today y Sputnik, among other digital platforms, which managed to pass information to media that were unaware of this secret roadmap. They offered soldiers and money to set up a kind of autocratic tax haven, as one of those publicly implicated has acknowledged. The aim was to destabilise the Union through the destruction of the rule of law in Spain. That is why it is so important that the Council and the Commission understand the dangerous agenda of the Spanish Government, yes, plotting an amnesty law and a gigantic operation of impunity and contempt for judicial independence, including on crimes of corruption, embezzlement, terrorism and collaboration with Russian interference. To tolerate such a thing would be the victory of the most damaging populism in the Union. Open the angle to defend our rule of law, which is yours, please.

– Madam President, thank you very much, Commissioner, for your words. I would like to thank all the honourable Members who have worked on the drafting of this report and the vast majority of those who have spoken in this debate, who, moreover, show that the vast majority of this Parliament is very clear that we are, as political operators, tremendously responsible for part of the ecosystem of public opinion and that we can give good or bad examples to the rest of the public on what it means to use ideological pluralism and our freedom of conscience. We can do it carefully, thinking about what we do and what we say, or we can let ourselves be carried away also by the bubbles of hostility and hatred. The vast majority of speakers today, however, wanted to show the need to work against the most dangerous manifestations of speech that can generate serious hate crimes. That's what we're in. I hope that the majority of Parliament will consider it this way tomorrow. But I want to thank in a very special way Mrs Adamowicz, who is an example of how to face personally and politically what it is to suffer the consequences of the worst speeches of intolerance that then generate a victimization that is very, very complicated to drag. That is why we want to fight impunity. That is why we regret that the Council is not here today. I want to indicate something, that we see things as they are and not our prejudices. Homeless people killed, for example, in Spain; urinating on a Roma woman by a group of young people in Italy; throw several meters at a two-year-old child for peeking into a children's car and because the child is black, in Italy, by the father of the car baby to a two-year-old child!; torture a mentally disabled boy for 48 hours, sew his lips and brutally torture and tattoo him in Spain; Murder a Persian woman who has converted to Christianity in a refugee camp in France or murder two young gay men for being one in a bar in Slovakia. That's hate crimes. Please, ladies and gentlemen, let us look at reality and not at our own prejudices.

– Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, two years ago, the Commission tabled a proposal to extend the list of EU crimes to hate speech and hate crime. We refer specifically, Commissioner, to those incidents which, because of their particular gravity and cross-border dimension, require a European criminal response. Everything is not punishable – I advance it so as not to confuse us in plenary. Moreover, EU case-law is progressing less rapidly than the new hate dynamics in digital times. It is also important to keep this in mind. The current EU framework only covers, and minimally covers, hate speech and socially motivated hate crimes in very few motivations. I think it's good to use the classics. Aristotle helps us to understand perfectly what we are going to say today: the aggressors attack types or classes of people only because they are part of a collective detested by them. The basic reasons for detesting them and committing serious crimes have to do with being different, with seeing them as inferior, as negative, as intolerable, as they could not be visible. In recent years, there have been major social transformations. Social media has served to normalise extreme hate speech, including in certain user groups, and this has real-life repercussions for new crimes, some of which are very serious. The fight against impunity in these times requires legal rigour always, but also political decision. European legislation today covers hate speech and hate crimes motivated by race, skin colour, religion and national or ethnic origin. Here's what's up to now. Serious crimes relating to gender, sexual orientation, age, ideology and disability, among others, are not covered. The inclusion of other criminal categories in the list of Eurocrimes is urgent and necessary, but it is not now necessary to legally define criminally relevant hate speech or the penalties associated with such crimes, nor to consider them as particularly vulnerable. The aim of this report is to make a strong political appeal to the Council, which is not there to move and expand this list. Only the French Presidency was active at the time, but Poland and Hungary expressed their opposition. Today the Belgian Presidency, although it rains and snows heavily in Brussels, is not here. It is no excuse and a very bad sign, from the point of view of what it means to respect both the Commission, which made this request two years ago, and this Parliament. Not everything is punishable. But it is no less true that inhibitions are being erased and that more crimes are being generated. In its communication, the European Commission proposed that we address hate speech and crime effectively on the basis of, inter alia, sex, sexual orientation, age and disability. The interim report we are transmitting today, which I hope will be adopted tomorrow, wants to convey to the Council, which is not, and to the Commission, which is - thank you very much, Commissioner - the following messages. Not all hate speech is illicit, but it all leaves a mark. Freedom of expression should be exquisitely protected and limited only when it is fully justified to do so. And the Council does agree on other things. We will therefore send you the resolution tomorrow so that you know what this Parliament is saying: that we want as soon as possible to put an end to the impunity that currently exists, because we do not have coherent elements for issues that transnationally affect serious crimes and that are paid very dearly by the real victims. Future criminal law in this area must respect the principles of necessity and proportionality – as we know – and guarantee freedom of expression, of course. But I will end by stressing that the protection of people from the most serious hate speech and hate crime must be universal. Social dynamics, Commissioner, are changing very fast. They manifest themselves very aggressively, so it is important to act and not leave room for impunity. I hope that the Council, even if it is referred, will listen to us at some point.

Mr President, I would also like to thank the honourable Members who have worked on the drafting of this report and all those who have spoken in this debate. In fact, in order to be able to say something to the Commission with as much enthusiasm as Mr López Aguilar, I have to say that both Mr Ruiz Devesa and Mr López Aguilar, Mr Doleschal or Mrs Collado have spoken about the key issues: How do we make the most of the value added in the 21st century to European citizens coming from the end of the 20th century? Updating everything that has to do with digital, investing in youth, taking into account that the world has been extraordinarily transformed and that now each of the European citizens is key for the institutions, for the democracy of the future. We must therefore invest and be courageous, as were those who proposed European citizenship and made it a reality. We too must be courageous, understanding the present time, and my colleagues cannot have told you better than I could have said. Let us bet on those things that we are telling you in this report. We appreciate, of course, the package, especially on the consular issue, which is very concrete and very necessary, but they also believe in the Citizenship Statute and in the proposals we make. Let us invest in European citizenship, which is investing in the critical infrastructure most needed in these times of harmful interference by third countries.

Madam President, it is always an honour to speak after listening to Mr Rangel, but it is up to me today to talk about the other part of the debate: the report on the application of European citizenship. I am very honoured to have the opportunity to speak about European citizenship in this plenary session. Citizens have been part of the European project for more than 30 years. Precisely, it was adopted in the time of Jacques Delors and was approved during the Spanish Presidency of Felipe González. It was a milestone at the time of its creation and a difference for the better, positioning the European Union in a different and better way than other political realities. It is also a milestone, therefore, today and an intellectual political challenge. Because the world has changed, extraordinarily. So it is time to reflect on the present and future of that European citizenship, because we have experienced those transformations. What do I say... is it an added value? Absolutely, yes. Are changes and improvements needed to continue to have the maximum of that value? In a geopolitically turbulent world, I think so. Specific crises, those caused by cross-polarization, by foreign interference, by the normalization of internal hostility and other hybrid threats, test the organizations and institutions ordinarily responsible for responding. In these current circumstances, every European citizen has become a key element. Non-Europe in a globalised world would be the choice of poverty and chaos. And, ladies and gentlemen, every European citizen is today the most critical critical infrastructure. I would like to think that strengthening and updating European citizenship is important for this House and for the Union. Parliament and the Commission have worked almost in parallel and with similar deadlines to issue their reports. And I will start by talking about Parliament's proposal for a report. It exposes problems that citizens face when they want to exercise their rights and also reflects on the present and future of this common citizenship. I would like to highlight the following messages: Obstacles to the full exercise of Union citizenship remain, in particular in the areas of political rights, freedom of movement and residence, consular protection, and equality. We also propose, from Parliament, the drafting of an EU Citizenship Statute that compiles existing dispersed rights and new ones, in line with current, logically, and future legislation, and also that a horizontal non-discrimination clause be included. We propose the creation or updating of some rights in order to have a gender-balanced democratic representation on electoral lists, a permanent digital interactive platform that encourages the participation of citizens in the life of the Union, to enjoy a recognition of periods of study to work in the Union. In the digital field, we believe it is essential to recognize universal access to the internet, grant a digital identity to each user, regulate their digital heritage and clarify the citizen's relationship with artificial intelligence tools. We included other recommendations in the report. For example, creating a European Charter of Digital Rights, adapting school curricula to teach European and Union history, and increasing the participation and consultation of citizens, especially young people, in the decision-making process. Look, European citizenship is a strength of the Union that we can improve and that gives us a shared democratic identity: the one given to us by the laws. I would like to recall that we can activate the path of Article 25 of the Treaties and adopt new provisions that complement - if we want to - and update existing citizenship rights, without waiting for the reform of the Treaties. And I would ask them to support the text of the report so that it would be adopted by a large majority.

Mr President, I did not intend to ask for the floor, but I think something must be said that is important. It's much worse than giving impunity in exchange for seven votes. In reality, the big problem is that the socialists have proved them right. And they don't have it. The Catalan secessionists of all these years were not and are not right. It is not a democratic deficit. It is a problem of exclusionary identityism and stale populism. And the problem, when you are right, is that you are now your hostages. First it was the pardons. Those pardons that Thomas and Brave would never have appreciated, because there was no repentance. It is the amendment of the Criminal Code to weaken embezzlement or eliminate sedition, to make us weaker. And now, large-scale impunity. And what's behind it: a fraudulent constitutional mutation. Because can the Constitution be changed? Yes, but not against the laws and against the will of most Spaniards. This is the problem.

Madam President, it is our responsibility today to analyse Daphne Caruana's commitment and courage. And also whether the trauma of his murder six years ago served enough to change the corruption situation in Malta and the environment of impunity. Unfortunately, that is not the case at all. The investigation into his death indicated that the government, with its corruption, created an atmosphere of impunity that led to the degradation of the rule of law from the highest levels of government. And we have no sentence. There is also news about scandals every day: vote buying, administrative favor deals, clientelism and social control. This, ladies and gentlemen, is so. It doesn't matter the color of government where things like this happen. And the recommendations we are going to vote on must be against that environment of impunity that generated the murder of Daphne Caruana. And knowing that we need to protect every investigative journalist who fights corruption in every place where these kinds of issues occur. Because the quality of our democracies is a matter for everyone in the European Union. And it doesn't matter whether corruption is left-wing or right-wing. We owe it to Daphne, her family, honest citizens and officials who continue to be honest.

Madam President, the technological revolution has surprised us adults without an instruction manual to protect minors from their risks, so I thank the Commissioner. The resolution on the New European Strategy for a Better Internet for Children places this responsibility on us and we must be quick and successful. I will cite an example from my country: there are terrible crimes related to the use of false images, generated by artificial intelligence, which represent – falsely – minors in explicit sexual conduct or that affect their privacy, and which, in addition, involve sexual extortion. It is a sample of the risks we face. As for technology addictions, big tech companies know about the addictions of minors and intentionally avoid publishing and sharing data on them - in fact, they have been avoiding sharing them with this Parliament for a year - because they do not want this issue to affect their business model by a penny. Collaboration with the legislator on something like this, which is also very important, cannot be voluntary or optional. Likewise, media literacy must also combat the aforementioned risk of having generations of fanatics, no matter which sign, as a result of the reinforcement of biases derived from algorithms. This also affects the business model of tech companies, and it's something we're going to have to solve because democracy is also at stake. I'm glad we mostly agree.

Madam President, Commissioner, without truth there is no democracy. Without journalism, understood as truthful and verified information, there is no democracy. Protecting journalists and journalism is therefore one of the two or three most important things of the 21st century. And I speak in a personal capacity. The Media Freedom Act knows me little by little. Does self-qualification serve to have the effects of a media outlet? Clearly, no. Is there a need for an extra guarantee for the media on the internet against the possible arbitrariness of the big platforms? Yes, yes. Article 17 of the Committee on Culture and Education can be improved, but it is better than the European Commission's proposal, because the Commission runs away from public law when it comes to dealing with harmful or illegal content, passes the hot potato to large platforms and creates a problem of guarantees and legal inaccuracy in terms of freedom of expression and fundamental rights. Article 17 is not mature and we are going to shift responsibility to a much more opaque negotiation between Parliament and the Council. Escaping from public law, we eliminate legal trust and certainty, which is the best that law gave us in the 20th century. Through the gaps that we leave the populists of the left, the right, nationalists enter, and, when they rise to power, the laws become opportunism, let us not forget it.

Mr President, thank you very much to the rapporteur for this report. It has already been said: We are in a liberal democracy and therefore we are citizens. In this case we are parliamentarians and we are not vassals. And that is why it is so important to focus on the rules of the game. And it is good for us to remind ourselves of the foundation of our democratic and parliamentary system in order to improve it. The report stresses that in a democracy, "parliaments must be part of all decision-making processes", so that legislative procedures via the fast track of urgency should be a minority. Sadly, the Executives are showing off lately with these types of formulas. This is happening in a very extraordinary way in my country. We make this report at a time when, paradoxically, populisms stand out and not only those on the right. Liberal democracy is at risk at a time when we are trying to give far more rights and quality to the activity of citizens in the liberal political system. We have seen this, for example, in Israel. This is what we see in Hungary. Parliamentary majorities are invoked to circumvent equality before the law and to erode freedom of conscience. Because identity populists believe they are above the law and the rights of others. Therefore, the key is to know if we are going to give them the reason, if a government can make those responsible for serious crimes have impunity and if they can convert, therefore, everything we are trying to do on wet paper. It is very important that we also defend the obvious.

Madam President, in Spanish there is a saying that says: We remember Santa Barbara when it thunders. And in this Parliament he has thundered a lot with Qatargate; And he's thundered so much that we're here. I hope that we can have, after thunder and lightning and rain, a good harvest in regulatory matters. We are changing the rules to be more aware of our obligations, to minimize the temptation to mix public interests with anyone else. With these new rules a Member will not be able to stop being so and immediately dedicate himself to the representation of interests, what we call lobbying. We will be required to publish our meetings and those of our teams in connection with our work as legislators. And we define – very importantly – the conflict of interest and determine what to do when it exists in a perfectly articulated way. There are issues, such as our heritage when we enter and when we leave Parliament, which, although they will not be public, will be available to the authorities. They will be very useful for investigating possible corrupt pacts and various criminal issues. The thunder of Qatargate doesn't sound right now, but its effects are there. Hopefully we will have a good harvest of regulatory rules for our transparency and to better defend parliamentary interests.

Madam President, Commissioner, this Parliament has been growing in political and legislative power, but our vulnerability from the point of view of integrity and security has also grown. The corruption scandal has demonstrated our naivety in the past and the risk of damaging interference from high-risk foreign countries and the most indecent lobby. And this is what we are going to fight with the vote on this report. We are going to invest in a culture of security, in a true culture of security, which is achieved by investing in transparency and integrity. During these three years we have seen many things in the Commission on Disinformation. The Milov report showed us co-option at the highest level; the co-option by Russian companies, Fillon, Strauss-Kahn, Schröder, of dozens of great leaders. But the Qatargate It has taught us that it is much more multilevel. Hopefully the recommendations will take a step forward so that very soon there will not be a single deputy whose dream is to be hired millionaires or corrupted by companies that depend on dictatorships such as Russia, China or other autocracies.

Madam President, Commissioner, if the report we are going to vote on today causes so much sting in the populists of the far-left and those of the far-right, Mrs Kalniete, it means that you have done a great job. The fact is that the European Union is a central player in the democracies of the world and that autocracies attack it very intensely because we are open societies and we have to remain so. But what we cannot do is witness impunity for interference and harmful disinformation. We have to govern well, with transparency, avoiding all forms of corruption, of course electoral corruption or the corruption of interference or co-option of leaders, without traps. Last week, an alleged vote-selling scheme was revealed in Melilla (Spain) to interfere in the elections; there is suspicion that there has been direct interference from Morocco. Nine detainees. In addition, other events have occurred before: This is the point, Moroccan interference comes as no surprise to anyone in this Parliament. Russia's connections with political parties, politicians or interference in activities against European democracy in Catalonia are also known. What is clear is that we need rules, that the recommendations of this Commission that are going to be voted on have to be considered by the European Commission, and that we have to make them into laws and defend ourselves; Because the fact is, they're going to attack us.

Mr. President, Mr. Commissioner, it's a new crime, but it's an old crime, and Jackie Fox, a courageous mother, has brought us here. And with all humility we send you the embrace of our Group and, of course, my deepest personal recognition. It happens in all our countries, Commissioner. There are twins in Spain, Leila and Alana, who last February, aged 13, threw themselves from a third floor to end their lives and one of them died on the spot. They were Argentine migrant girls who had arrived in a small town in Catalonia and were in their first year of high school. Commissioner, it is the crime of the banality of evil. And it's a plague. And it must be a Eurocrime. Because we cannot allow impunity even if many of the perpetrators are minors and there is a need for – yes – training and community involvement, and teachers. Whatever you want. And data is needed. But there can be no zero cost to that moral torture of children and young people from which they cannot escape. It's a plague. It is the crime of the banality of evil. And we must act.

Madam President, with all the strength, corruption must be fought with all the strength so that it does not gain ground, so that it does not spoil our systems and lead us to democratic or economic collapse. So the Commission's proposal is welcome, I think by almost all of us. Congratulations. And he's going to have our full support, certainly from our group. In Spain we have been denouncing for months the reform undertaken by the Spanish Government, which creates an attenuated type for some of its members of the legislature against real criminals. And, in fact, Spain continues to fall in the prevention and fight against corruption and appears in the ranking together with Botswana and Cape Verde. Economists Acemoglu and Robinson wrote twenty years ago Why Countries Fail. There are countries that fail and others that do not. Transparency, the fight against corruption, integrity are key to not degrading. Countries that do not fight corruption with all their might will be poorer and less free. That is why, Commissioner, thank you for helping us in this fight. Thank you. It is a matter for all Europeans.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner Jourová, a general principle: the rule of law does not deteriorate overnight and political power can hide it for quite some time. Concrete things: I am concerned about the situation in Spain. The government of the judges, indeed, remains blocked. It's been four years. Because the big parties, the People's Party and the Socialist Party, do not want to change the law, because they want to continue controlling. The key, Commissioner, is first to change the law; If not, we'll never, ever get out of this situation. Second, this particular government – and please shut up that I am talking about. (addressing another Member)— it is scaring judges, sometimes for ideological reasons, into self-censorship, and the Commission’s mere warnings have not yet achieved anything about it. The Government had adopted amendments to the Criminal Code to reduce the penalties for embezzlement and the crime of sedition had been eliminated to favour convicted offenders. Partisanship is endemic in the control of the public media, when it can, and in the partial or total capture of organs that should be independent, such as the CIS - the important and powerful Centre for Sociological Studies. The big parties in Spain have this temptation. And the worst is the entry of ultra-left populists into the Spanish government. It's gotten worse since then, Commissioner.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I listen to Mrs Roswall from the Council and I think she is playing the harp. With all due respect. Immigration patches have broken out one after another for eight years and the Council writes conclusions as if it had not been talking to Parliament for eight years and as if it had not dropped the migration and asylum package three and a half years ago. The key – the first thing we have to see that does not work – is the Dublin Regulation. I also hear Mrs McGuinness talking about external borders and their short-term problems and it seems to me that she is playing the violin. It is that countries with external borders, with more exposure to large flows of people, cannot with pressure that is already structural – it is not a short-term issue. So we are in this Parliament waiting for a miracle, understanding the word 'miracle' as the will, really, to unite and to move this package forward. Because the migration problem is exponential and it's intoxicating everything. In 2015 there were good words, but many governments were not sincere Are they going to be in 2023? If we don't, we can't be fair or effective.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, the Sánchez government is gaining power by supporting ultra-identitarian populism in Catalonia. We do not invent it, say the interested parties themselves. And we are witnessing the erosion of safeguards that are important for a democratic state and the reason is to grant total or partial impunity to perpetrators of serious crimes against the rule of law. This is the substance. Spain has just suffered a carousel of judicial reforms that lead to the elimination of the crime of sedition when there are still accused without judging for the serious facts of 2017, which are the most serious attack in the European Union on the rule of law, Commissioner. And the reduction of penalties for embezzlement directly affects the people who proclaimed the end of the separation of powers in Catalonia – let us not forget this – against democratic institutions, against constitutional order, Commissioner. And we don't talk about assumptions. The beneficiaries of impunity themselves have acknowledged this publicly over and over again. And the drift doesn't stop, Commissioner. You yourself have spoken of the need to comply with sentences when they relate to fundamental rights and the Government is trying to avoid this, perhaps by another secret pact. Impunity appears as a derivative and from Ciudadanos we have warned again and again of this.

Madam President, Commissioner, it is thirty years since that declaration and two years since we debated, in this very House, the rights of persons belonging to minorities. I said then, and I repeat today, that the protection of minorities and the most vulnerable - and, of course, the protection and promotion of linguistic diversity - is and must continue to be a growing priority. This protection can only be achieved by defending a society in which we are free and equal in rights and freedoms. The promotion of linguistic diversity should also be part of this idea. In the resolution on minority rights adopted in this House, just two years ago, we said how to do it. Language rights must always be respected and promoted in line with the law, so that the fundamental rights of all people are respected, without any discrimination. I believe that it is time to understand identity as a shared wealth, not as dogma, and to promote languages and cultures openly, in a Europe without policemen of thought or identity, without discrimination, as I say, with citizens. An open Europe, a Europe with free and equal people. Merry Christmas.

Madam President, Commissioner, the Rule of Law report is right to bring together in one document aspects such as the fight against corruption, pluralism and media freedom. Because they all allow us to create a global picture of the health status of our democracies. In terms of transparency of media ownership, we remain concerned about the absence of sufficient rules on the sharing of institutional advertising and conflict of interest. But there are also specific, systematic cases of harassment of European journalists by non-European countries. This is the concrete and real case of Ignacio Cembrero, a great Spanish journalist, accused for the fourth time by Morocco for reporting on the Alawite policy, while the Spanish authorities remain indifferent and let a Spanish journalist be harassed and harassed judicially. Commissioner, we must do something. The fight against corruption and freedom of the press are two basic pillars of our democracies that we must demand with the utmost rigour from Europe, especially when we see our states faltering openly and also when, unfortunately, the poison of corruption enters our own institution.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we have been letting the asylum and migration package rot for seven years. And in seven years, our gaze has become intoxicated and polarized. By not solving a common problem, social problems have been generated that some pretend to solve the bravado, against our own laws, while others live in a world of voluntarist dreams. And those who must be pragmatic and lead – governments – do not show their faces, not enough, do not lead, do not say clearly how far they can go together. Commissioners, I know you are doing what you can, but the will that is lacking is in the Council. No will. And the incoherence of the non-system, of not having a system, is fueling social division and frustration. And people are still dying. We have given asylum to many people - it is true - but we have also lost thousands of opportunities to manage better, to improve many of our towns and cities. And by not managing it correctly, we have allowed it to be equated with people who just want a chance and work hard, very hard many of them, with those who are abusing the system. I want to think that the plan for the Mediterranean can help the Council think, but I have my doubts.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, rarely can we agree on something that is really so important and so necessary. The directive to adapt attacks to our system of critical infrastructures that are mutating, just as society is mutating, is really a moment of collective congratulations. We must also congratulate the French Presidency on this last-minute agreement. We can't afford these attacks. For example, less than a month ago in Spain, through the Judicial Neutral Point, a system managed by the General Council of the Judiciary that connects the networks of different public administrations, the attackers accessed millions of sensitive data: identity cards, income statements, bank accounts, addresses, working lives, business relationships of each and every one of the citizens that were included in these connected databases, politicians, entrepreneurs, characters of public relevance. They took everything: the full databases of the services of the Tax Agency, the Social Security, the Public Employment Service, the General Directorate of Police, Aliens or the General Directorate of Traffic. These and other types of critical infrastructure are the main vulnerabilities in hybrid wars of the present – as the Commissioner said today – and of the future. In Ukraine, electricity and communications are under attack. Data hijacking and energy attack can lead to disaster in our societies. We're reacting. We are in luck precisely for that. But we must be quick and we must make this kind of vulnerability visible to our societies. Today we are in luck.

Madam President, Commissioner Vestager, congratulations and thank you, Bart. We are working against the clock to bring our standards up to the historic moment. Technological changes involve new and dangerous risks and the new directive is absolutely necessary, because we are old with the old one. However, we are going to supplement the directive with the regulation applicable to European institutions and bodies, and then it will not be implemented and will work effectively. For that, citizens have to understand the risks, which we risk if this shield does not work. Our economy is at risk, our health systems may be, our protection as consumers may be, but so are, as has been said here today, our security and the stability of our democracies. Ensuring high levels of cybersecurity will defend us against the threats, conflicts and hybrid wars in which we are involved. We have to do a lot, we have to open our eyes and say something that is very important. I guess it exists in all languages: Better to be safe than sorry.