Speeches

Mr President, racism is prohibited in Europe, but it does exist. That's why we're here. And we don't know if states do all they can. We don't think so. Social hatred is directed towards people who are part of vulnerable groups because of their haters and defined mainly by their haters. They take away their individuality and differentiate them by race, language, ethnic ascendant, ideological, whatever. Real people are attacked on the basis of prejudice. And those who build the enemy on the basis of intolerance and prejudice consider themselves victims. This is how they justify and update the excuse to continue hating. This is very important in this House because we have a responsibility for those speeches. Thus they justify the dehumanization of the one they do not like and think they exercise self-defence, but it is false: They are prisoners of these prejudices. This is why it is not only by legislating that these behaviours can be tackled, but it is also necessary to legislate and it is necessary for States to act. Juan Fernando López Aguilar said: only 12 Member States have submitted plans. And the horizontal anti-discrimination directive has been blocked in the Council since 2008, ladies and gentlemen. The decision to extend hate crime is an imponderable one and remains blocked. And Czechia does not respond.

Mr President, we cannot bring young Matúš and Juraj back to life. His nineteen-year-old killer committed suicide, but before he did, it seemed funny to him not to feel remorse. He had dehumanized his gaze towards the people he murdered by a mixture of prejudice, intolerance and fanaticism. Authorities are investigating the killings as perhaps the first case of lone wolf terrorism in Europe for homophobic motivation. Therefore, an ideological crime, meditated, in the last link of organized hatred. Twenty-one people died from at least some form of homophobia in just five European countries between 2015 and 2020. Verbal intolerance generates monsters. It is time, ladies and gentlemen, to open your eyes. And the European institutions have to face up to our responsibility, the criminalisation of socially motivated hate crimes as Eurocrimes. To this end, Hungary and Poland must stop blocking its adoption and Czechia, as the current presidency of the Council, must take charge of this dossier for a necessary agreement. We can't bring it back to life. That is why we must prevent the growth of intolerance and avoid impunity, social, institutional and judicial.

Mr President, Malta has fallen 31 places in the global press freedom rankings since the murder of journalist Daphne Caruana in 2017. He's risen to 78th out of 180. The murder of the most annoying journalist sought, in reality, the fear and silence of many. And, from the ranking data, we know that things haven't changed substantially. Slow justice is less justice and relative impunity is not justice. The judicial procedure has been long and tortuous, and we only have the tip of the iceberg of the whole plot that led to the murder of Daphne Caruana. The hitmen have confessed, but everything else goes unpunished. The existence of citizens, ladies and gentlemen, is an indispensable condition for our democracies to remain so. The profession of journalist cannot be a profession of heroes. When she was killed, Daphne had the accounts seized by the quarrels to silence her mouth, so that no one knew about the corruption. And this is one of the challenges in the European Commission's European Media Freedom Act. The European Parliament cannot allow the Council to make rebates or impostures in this dossier. No, in this dossier.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is now clearer that Putin's second coming to power in 2012 was fraught with toxic and resentful identitarianism. National-populism has worked inside and outside Russia with its disinformation industry (we have said so). In recent decades it has captured and financed conspiratorial ideas and also anti-European political movements and ultra ideologies, both conservative in the new extreme or radical right, as well as in the pro-Venezuelan, Cuban and Iranian left axis. It has also fueled pro-independence in case they burst the Union at some point. After the occupation of Ukraine, however, they desperately need to generate doubts and fear in public opinion so that it cowers, so that it accepts, with all layers of self-deception, dialogue, getting along, which must be yielded to Putin. Giving in to someone like that, to a regime like that, is bread for today and hunger for tomorrow. Or, rather, gas for today and disaster for tomorrow. Ladies and gentlemen, in the Special Committee on Foreign Interference in All Democratic Processes in the European Union, in particular Disinformation, we must continue to gather information and understand the mechanisms of direct and diffuse interference. The key battle is a dialectic of wills. We can't lose her.

Mr President, Commissioner, I bring you a problem and a solution. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union can only be invoked when the rights being infringed are in application of EU law, and not when those situations of infringement occur in so many real-life situations. This, in fact, leads to a systematic and silent lack of protection of citizens in Member States where, for different reasons, access to justice is restricted and citizens cannot assert their rights before the courts themselves, even if they are rights recognised in the Charter. We are faced with what it is to be a citizen, whether the competences should be updated or not; It happens, as you know, also in Spain where regional institutions call for disobedience and contempt of sentences. But the Conference on the Future of Europe included in its conclusions the proposal to universalise the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to provide solutions when this happens: the key is on, you just need to turn it and cross that threshold. I bring you a problem, I bring you a possible solution, Mr. Reynders.

Madam President, the identitarian, populist regimes, whether left or right, seek to accumulate power around the Executive and its leader; Orbán's case is also like this, he has had to control the judiciary, the electoral law, reach the media: Everything he doesn't control wants to suffocate him. The fundamental issue from the European point of view is that it has the political will for us to have to accept the denaturalisation of the democratic rule of law, and, of course, we have to make it clear that this will not be the case; This is the fundamental issue. The parliamentary majorities, ladies and gentlemen, do not give the ultra-nationalist regimes a Corsican patent, neither in Hungary, nor in Catalonia, nor anywhere in the European Union should something like this happen. At the end of August, Orbán promised to change ten laws to fight corruption and protect European Union funds, and it gives the impression, because we are no longer naive, that it is a question of avoiding the application of the rule of law mechanism, which could freeze European money destined for Hungary. We can no longer be candid and we cannot forget these ten years in which we are working and that we are not going to break into: the democratic rule of law has rules, and they are not just about majorities, they have internal rules, so I understand that today the President of the Commission has indicated that promises must become facts before progress can be made in mutual trust.

Madam President, it has become very clear: Today the proxies are silent, they are looking the other way, but nothing related to Putin's Russia of recent years is foreign to the current invasion of Ukraine. The vast majority of those who have played within Putin's strategy to weaken Europe and to weaken the liberal rule of law - whether left, right or secessionism, as in the case of Catalonia - all of them anti-European, because they are illiberal, have been profiled in this House since the invasion of Ukraine on 24 February. Some have remained mute, others have become pacifists without limits, so that, in this way, Ukraine says: Okay, we made a deal. We agree what Russia wants. No, he has to defend himself, he has to win the free world. We know that Putin has recruited elites, that there has been funding in some parties in France and Italy and that Catalonia was about to be a chaos for all of Europe, in addition to weakening the institutions with lies, because the victims went through the bad guys and the criminals went through the victims. Hybrid operations in our democracies are laundered for years. We're not naive and we understand the board. We're going to defend the free world and we're going to defend ourselves from every lie. That's what we're going to do: to defend ourselves.

Mr. President, two metaphors for today: a positive and a negative. The trains of Council representatives have been delayed, and the fact is that the Council has lost trains for years: trains to solve problems more effectively and faster. The positive part and metaphor today is that you have arrived on time and this is the important thing: has arrived on time. Beyond the ideological biases of each, beyond the territorial origins of each, we must think in geopolitical terms. That is why we need a convention, not because of obsessions of an ideological type, of a territorial type. Faced with the most serious issues, it makes no sense for a single country to block the decisions of the Union, because it weakens us, immobilises us and makes us lose credibility. In times of digitalization, of artificial intelligence, of hybrid attacks, of war at the gates, we cannot be foolish. We have to think in geopolitical terms. That is why we must break the taboo of not having a convention or not being able to touch Treaty rules. It's about having more agile, more effective rules and solving problems for all of us. Yes to the convention.

Mr President, first of all, thank you very much to Mr Rangel for the wonderful work he has done. We are talking here again and again about the Conference on the Future of Europe and that citizens quite naturally call for legislative initiative for the European Parliament. Is it on a whim? No. It's because they don't live in a bubble; This is because they want quick solutions to real problems and they know that the European Parliament is prepared and mature to be able to do some of that work that we cannot do now. As simple as that. At present, the right of legislative initiative is reserved almost exclusively to the European Commission. We can ask, but we are listened to or not. The European Commission can ignore us perfectly and we are not the step of a lobby influence for the European Commission to decide whether or not. I think we are mature, we are responsible for dealing with many transnational problems and challenges. So if there is anyone listening to the Council - which we do not see here - we ask that they listen to us. The citizen has been very clear in the Conference. He has asked us to have that right of direct initiative as well. And they do it because of what I say: They don't live in a bubble. We have epochal challenges, complications in the future that comes to us; So, we have a unique opportunity to make changes. It is time to convene a Convention and to make it clear to the Council - which is not here - that revising the Treaties to recognise this right is both positive and necessary.

Madam President, I just listened to Mr Lacapelle, I listened to Mr Lebreton... Let's see: Invoking sovereignty or invoking parliamentary majorities does not serve to justify the commission of crimes or to circumvent the rule of law or not to follow the courts according to the corresponding hierarchy. Let's start there: not in the European Union. On matters outside the European Union, I am not going to say anything, but not in the European Union. That is why we are here today to assess the Rule of Law Report. That the rule of law in each of the Member States is a matter for all Europeans. The report we are voting on tomorrow includes recommendations that cannot be ignored. And we have to work without bias, right, without prejudice, right, to address every risk situation in any Member State. And we have to listen to civil society, especially professional associations on issues that have to do with justice, because the key to democracy is the separation of powers, the rule of law and compliance with judicial decisions in the appropriate body. The opinion of the Committee on Petitions to this report focused on sub-state entities to remind that they are also obliged to respect the fundamental values of the EU and that Member States must act when they do not respect them. And when the Member States do not make them respect sub-state entities, there must also be the European Union, as it has been in the case of LGBT-free spaces and as it has to be in the case of Catalonia with regard to some decisions that an ultra-nationalist government does not want to abide by either.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I have attended all the meetings of the Conference on the Future of Europe and this, like you, has allowed me to listen, as never before, to citizens who were transforming, committing themselves to thinking about the common policy. A path has been opened that will not be closed thanks to new technologies. And this new form of citizen participation has come to stay and is very interesting for all of us. We have been able to draw some conclusions: It is only together that we Europeans can meet the challenges and that citizens are calling for us to be agile, to be effective. And we can do it because the crisis has shown it: We are able to do things fast and do them together, and we have no other one left for the future to come. There is one issue that has been discussed here: it has been denied that there is a European identity. Of course there is a European identity! There is a European democratic identity, this House gives it. Among other things, it is given by the Treaties. Like all the identities of which each of us is composed, it is modified over time and is improved. That's why we need the convention: to change and improve our European democratic citizenship, our European democratic identity, our future as Europeans, our future in general.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, we are not at war, but we are not at peace. The invasion of Ukraine has painfully served us to understand how much Putin's totalitarian strategy affects us. It serves to complete a puzzle of which the destabilisation of the European Union through hybrid threats and industrial disinformation is part. Putin's agents have worked to blow up the European Union, also through ethno-nationalist parties in Catalonia, with Puigdemont and his entourage. With leaders who are hiding in this European Parliament today to escape justice. False Europeanists, false patriots, act against the interests of the people they claim to defend, the flags they claim to defend. Some, by the way, hide these days because Putin's lies and bombs offend, as never before, even the blind of convenience. The European Parliament has adopted two reports and they ask us to look deeply into the case of hybrid interference and threats in Catalonia. It is necessary that this investigation reaches its final consequences to know what exactly the agents of the Kremlin were doing. Ladies and gentlemen, we need that in-depth investigation, because it is several years of disinformation, lies, hybrid threats, sabotage with Russian support to blow up democracy in a Member State of our European Union. And it can be a precedent.

Mr President, Commissioner, we are all very concerned these days. I would therefore particularly like to thank my colleague Yana Toom for the great work he has done together with the shadow rapporteurs for this report. This report is very important, even if it is a very late hour of debate. Three years ago, I myself had to assess the implementation of European citizenship; That's why I know how important it is. Everything that we said then, everything that is provided now - which is a great job - is absolutely necessary. But, in addition, the times we are living in, the Russian invasion of Ukraine itself, have suddenly changed our gaze on many of the things that we looked at before with even less concern. European citizenship is going to become essential, because we Europeans are going to face, together, every threat and every blackmail. That is why strengthening it makes perfect sense; Therefore, analyzing it, as you have done, makes perfect sense. And we are asking that we give European citizens a status that says that they are, that they are citizens and that, because they are, they have additional rights, which must also be strengthened. And it's a success story: European citizenship unites and identifies us; And it is that common democratic identity for the 21st century that will – as I say – keep us afloat despite the threats. Its nature is now strategic. And today, more than ever, it is the people who make sense of the European Union. The cohesion of the project lies in the citizen's will to have a strong and relevant European Union at the geopolitical level. And, therefore, we cannot fail them; That is why this implementation report is important. We can and must give reasons and more strength to citizens to defend our democracies, putting them at the centre of the political system, as you have done. It is very important, and we must also address the need to give all necessary rights to stateless persons. Thank you very much for the work to the rapporteur and shadow rapporteurs.

Madam President, Commissioner, Mrs Klinkert, Mrs Kalniete, ladies and gentlemen, the bombs we see falling in Ukraine today have been in preparation for a long time. The excuse for the control of the Dombás is preceded by years of disinformation war, with the clear objective of destabilizing Western democracies and anyone who wants to approach them. Foreign interference, notably Russian, together with Venezuela and Iran – let’s not forget – goes beyond electoral manipulation or spreading falsehoods: It seeks to create chaos, inflict distrust on national governments, public authorities and the liberal democratic order. In the future, our Special Commission will need to come up with clearer definitions of what we need to do, seek international methodology and standards, and prepare future regulations to shield us against these attacks. We need to be aware that disinformation thrives in weak, fragmented environments at national or European Union level, where our democratic systems are questioned and torpedoed. It happens when secessionist movements, as in Catalonia, or populists of left and right ally with those who want to misinform and deceive to advance their agenda, whoever falls. In any case, we must be aware that this report initiates new defences and, by the way, every vote counts. Everyone will be held accountable for the votes they cast.

Madam President, Commissioner, educating the gaze, cultivating the gaze, humanising the gaze is the key, from childhood, to seeing every human being as valuable and dignified. The resolution calls for addressing the basis of prejudice and hostility, which generates social hostilities of the kind of racism and xenophobia and discrimination. I will tell you a personal experience: for the last two and a half years, we have collected in our office 80 000 data on hate incidents, more than half of them racist, from six European countries... And besides, there's under-representation, there's under-notification. We have documented thousands of cases of racist, sometimes media incidents, such as when they affect football stars, but also anonymous, cruel, as in the case of a three-year-old boy of African origin who was kicked brutally in the abdomen by a father who made him jump through the air and fall to the ground - he crashed it on the ground - simply because the child had looked out to see a baby in a stroller. Where we should work most, no doubt, is in schools, because as adults we are very resistant to our own ideological biases. School, to offer equal opportunities, to develop talent; school, to avoid segregation, ghettos, new prejudices, fear, hatred that is not accurate to each of us. Ladies and gentlemen, we can develop many lines, but, for eleven years, we have a directive blocked in the Council: on equal treatment irrespective of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation. Since 2008. It has been so long that the Council and the Commission must let us know how they expect us to carry out the clear and understandable minimums that will help in realistic and effective public policies to banish this type of scourge.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, today we are in a great hurry because we do not want to leave gates for Russian or Belarusian oligarchs. But we have been pointing out for years, as Mrs In ’t Veld has done, as Mr Casa has done, as we have done so many times, that there are a dozen countries that offer residence by investment schemes and even directly facilitate citizenship, as in Cyprus and Malta; something scandalous that opens the doors to all Europe, not only that of the country that believes it benefits from the money, which seems easy, but nobody gives hard to four pesetas, as they say in Spain. We have been trying for years, as I say, to stop tax evasion and money laundering, which are also related to this. And yes, infringement proceedings have recently been opened for the most blatant cases of the sale of passports to non-EU persons by Cyprus and Malta, but this is not enough. We cannot leave tailings for dictators or their environments. We can't leave queues for organized crime networks. Crime increasingly has transnational components and dirty money intoxicates and corrupts wherever it is established. Entrepreneurs, of course, are welcome, but the environments of criminal dictators should never be, and we have catnip they come in through. There is dirty Russian capital, Belarusian, Venezuelan and other corrupt dictatorships and regimes in the world. We have to apply strict control to these golden visas, because they are sold as a business opportunity, an investment opportunity, and often they are not; And because, and this is very important, the defense of democracy also involves the defense of the integrity of our system. So, today we are in a hurry; Let's see if we stop having this rush.

Mr. President, I'm not young. Yeah, it's in plain sight. That the European Union has helped countries and many people progress for decades is a reality. That those of us who are no longer young believe we know everything that is convenient for young people, that happens in every generation. Now, the technological transformation is so profound, the geopolitical challenges are so serious or our political weaknesses are so unprecedented that it is not possible to think or act as usual. We are the first generation of adults who cannot and should not exercise paternalism and who must resolve the Year of Youth as never before. Training, it has been said, professional traineeships, in each country - no doubt - but the homologation of professional qualifications and accreditations throughout Europe - it has also been said - are the first thing we must face in a true dialogue with realism and ambition. The reality of employment – it has been said – youth emancipation – it has also been said – is the second thing and some countries stand out very negatively – for example, Spain and Greece – in this. We can neither settle, nor resign ourselves, nor think of not working together. At the Conference on the Future of Europe we have seen that young people want to be co-stars in the design of the future. And they're right. We can't do less than that. So let's go ahead and not do it with paternalism. And let's give them a chance to co-design with us.

Madam President, Commissioner, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg handed down a judgment in April this year in a case of the use of force by the police against three Roma children in a police vehicle while they were being transferred to a police station in 2009 in Košice, Slovakia. Endless procedures for twelve years to prove the victims right. The system wasn't with these people. In democratic systems we entrust very relevant functions to the police forces and bodies and, precisely for this reason, we have to deplore and prevent something like this from happening again, especially with minors. But this incident preceded another one involving the use of force by the police against those same children and three others at the Košic-Sur police station. It sounds like the water of discrimination in Slovakia over and over again. And in Czechia, as the chairman of the Committee on Civil Liberties has pointed out. European Roma suffer episodes of hostility and stigmatisation of social motivation and most cases are not reported. The police should be there to help them, to protect them, so they can report. Tomáš's case of a police reduction resulting in death is absolutely chilling. Anti-Gypsyism is historically entrenched. In this Parliament, we have heard messages that dehumanised children simply because they were Roma. Although we have a practical guide for the police services to prevent discrimination against the Roma community for ten years now, there are many – there are many – who are not yet aware of these practices, based on what we are seeing. Underreporting, as I say, is a scourge, because it generates a culture of impunity. Victims of prejudice, of hatred, must be able to trust institutions and the police. The European Union is a machine for recognizing rights, but we do not create protection mechanisms at the same time. Let's keep that in mind. Never again.

Mr President, Mrs President von der Leyen, Prime Minister, the victory of the PiS came under the promise of reforms in the name of independence, but the reality is different: the reform of the Polish judicial system with arbitrariness and discrimination of judges, including the review of the Constitutional Court, led to the rule of law procedure initiated by the European Commission in 2016. The Polish Government has been acting since 2016 as a cacique force, as an occupier, says a Polish friend of mine, in a conquered territory, where it seems that the will of the winning party is interpreted as the supreme law that allows the conqueror to do what he wants above the legal system itself. Five years of populism have passed, of dissolving pluralism with its lies about the only national being, its political victimhood, its exclusionary identity: Whether left or right, populism wants to implement a political theology. President von der Leyen, today is blackmail to normalize what populists consider their heritage, and we must see in this how much they resemble the communists and Putin... (the Chair withdrew the floor to the speaker).

Madam President, Mr Breton, the chairman of the committee dealing with disinformation raised the question - I think quite correctly - and he ended up quoting a German poet. I was coming here, towards the plenary, thinking rather that this is the third time that I am going to cry out in this Parliament this week against disinformation. And I have remembered Cato the Elder, that of "Carthago delenda est", because we are certainly increasingly aware that damaging, intentional and massive disinformation poses the risk of corrosion from within democratic systems. That is why this debate and those we have had this week on the complex role, in this case, of social platforms makes sense. Future European laws for the digital sector should involve platforms, but not only platforms, because there are platforms that host very harmful activity: Farms trolls, of bots for the mass diffusion of polarizing narratives, conspiranoic or openly contrary to science and validity criteria. Validity and science – as the Commissioner knows – avoid pure nihilism and social and political chaos. Many platforms use the anonymity of the source issuer. And the indications are that many are linked to foreign interference. Mr Breton, two specific questions within the President's question. Can you point out to us any specific lines about how you plan to address the lack of transparency about the origin, those responsible and the funding of those platforms that publish disinformation and hateful content for industrial dissemination? As we need political legitimacy and legal certainty – that is clear – in order to dismantle criminal operations, how do we deal with identity verification procedures? Disinformation delenda estMr. Commissioner.

Madam President, malicious cyber operations against the European Union and its Member States are the result of the opportunities offered by digital transformation. Attacks against our societies are transforming, increasing, and it is time to tackle our technological and legal vulnerabilities, also in the international structures of which we are part with our allies, but not only with them. These attacks fall with difficulty within the scope of Article 5 of the NATO Treaty or Article 42(7) TEU, although they have a very dangerous cumulative strategic effect, so the EU must fill the legal vacuum by reinterpreting the latter Article and Article 222 TFEU to improve our collective defence. Just yesterday - as Mr Paet said - we were able to see what a malicious attack on critical infrastructure could look like in our real life. That is why we need to increase autonomy and technological capacity. Without our own capabilities we do not have the best opportunities to defend our rights, our values, our lives, our security. Therefore, security and defence require boosting European innovation, of European seal, by economy of scale, with the guarantees of our historical and political acquis.

Mr President, thank you, Commissioner Johansson. Parliament’s consideration of the application of artificial intelligence in criminal law and criminal matters was necessary, even if it was a sensitive matter. We need to strike a balance between security and freedom when social or technological circumstances change, and the fact is that they have changed. There are no magic solutions to complex issues, but the police or judges must be able to use technologies that avoid some of the impunity of more sophisticated cybercrime or terrorism when it has very serious objectives and has enormous resources. Because impunity would also constitute a degradation of society's right to justice and, more specifically, of the victims. However, the technology is such, so powerful, that the empowerment of certain measures, such as facial recognition, should only take place under strict judicial control. It is essential to preserve, in a general sense, the privacy of people and even some other guarantees. I personally have doubts about the moratorium on paragraph 27, but I have no doubts that we have to continue working on the basis of this report, which will mark our political position, and that the objective must be to have very fine-tuned rules, with large, strong consensuses, very much in the majority, of this House.

Mr President, Commissioner Schmit, I would first like to congratulate you on your strength and conviction at this hour of the night. To date, the COVID pandemic has caused more than 750 000 deaths in the EU and has tested every gear, every piece of social gear and public policy, amplifying the crises, threats, challenges of our time. All of us who have passed through here - talking to him, asking him - have talked about a lot of things, but it is almost inexhaustible. Therefore, what we have to conclude accordingly is that, at least, we have to strengthen the pillars of public policies for the future, because some of the things that are happening and that have happened must be absolutely unrepeatable. I'm just going to quote three: First of all, we cannot ignore the impact of the virus among the most vulnerable, our elders in the early stages. Although it is very hard to look back on this, we have to tackle triage so that it never happens again. Secondly, in the case of people in disability homes, by age – for whatever reason – we have to study the absolute situation of emotional isolation so that something like this can never happen again. Thirdly, as far as minors are concerned, there is something very urgent that we need to do: children from disadvantaged backgrounds in technological poverty were left out of the education system and it is now, urgently, time for Member States to do something so that there is no such school failure. So, sheriff, force and the bull.

Madam President, there are technologies that can be born as software aimed at fighting terrorism and crime and that can become malware, can cause abuse. Its creators said that the limit of its sale would be that of governments that guarantee that the ultimate purpose of this technology and its use would be legitimized according to the law in force in each of the territories. And it is serious, because we are facing a serious scandal. It is essential that we require prior judicial review to adopt measures that may affect the inviolability of the home and the secrecy of communications. Spain requires the authorisation of a judge of the Supreme Court. Such guarantees should be required in all Member States and, in addition, correctly applied. In the case of third countries with authoritarian regimes, it is clear that they must have their access to something like this absolutely blocked. We have to investigate any abuse and we have to be concerned, as Mrs Loiseau said, also about interference; for things that, with Russian agents or with relations with Russian interference interests, are happening in this Parliament. We also need to investigate what happens in the direct environment of a European parliamentarian in relation to Russian agents.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Borrell, in any case, you cannot turn into a black swan. Since 2018, European measures in the cyber domain represent a joint diplomatic response to malicious activities in cyberspace. However, there is no allocation of responsibility to any of the countries of nationality of the cyber attackers. Even in the proven cases of Chinese, North Korean and Russian nationals, sanctions do not affect their states or governments. There is no attribution of responsibility to a State, even in the case of the Main Center for Special Technologies of the Main Command of the General Staff of the Defense of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, also known by the code 74455 ⁇ is easier ⁇ , who is considered responsible for various cyberattacks. The FBI, on the other hand, associates Iran and China with such activities. We Europeans play with a hand on our backs and a blindfold in the face of the true language of power, which is also that of sanctions. Lavrov, Putin and Xi Jinping smile, no doubt, for the sanctions we have imposed on the cyberattacks we have suffered. But will Member States consider the actual hybrid risk? How do they intend to improve sanctions to reach the real brains of these cyberattacks?