Speeches

Mr President, Commissioner, the Global Gateway initiative enables the European Union, first of all, to structure the investments it makes abroad; secondly, to guide them with specific objectives, public policy objectives, in this case the green and digital transition; thirdly, to make them more visible because one of our problems is the enormous fragmentation of our power, and that detracts from our visibility; and, fourthly, to give a narrative to the action in terms of the investments we make abroad. That is why it is a very positive project. I know well the impact it has on Latin America, which was the great message launched during the last EU-CELAC Summit last July, with an amount of EUR 54 billion, which we hope will have results. We know good and very positive projects under the Global Gateway: the BELLA cable, the electrification of schools in Colombia, the protection of the green Amazon in Brazil. But not only this: We need to continue the project beyond 2027. We need to think about invisible infrastructure, stability, social cohesion and security. And we need to work with our counterparts, listen to the governments with which we work, listen to the transformations that we want to make in economic and social matters in Latin America to end extractivism and bet on the fight against inequality.

Mr. President, in October last year in Barbados, an agreement was reached between the democratic opposition of Venezuela and the Government of Venezuela in the sense that the international community was demanding. An agreement between Venezuelans that would signify a roadmap for a free and competitive presidential election during this year 2024. An agreement that, in addition, had as reference the work done by the European Union in the last electoral observation mission deployed in the country. Unfortunately, and today we have to regret and denounce it, what has happened in the country in recent months and weeks has gone in the opposite direction. The repression in the country of democratic opponents has continued, and the disqualifications that are the cornerstone of the system of repression that is lived today in Venezuela continue with, in addition, a presidential candidate who had won the primary elections of the opposition, of the opposition table. Therefore, we demand that Venezuela comply with what was agreed in Barbados for a roadmap of free and democratic elections in 2024, which is what the citizens of Venezuela deserve.

Mr President, Commissioner, today various droughts are threatening different parts of Europe. They threaten our way of life, our economy or our agriculture. One of those cases is that of my territory, Catalonia. During the last three years it has rained in a very abnormal way: much less than normal. In fact, since February 80% of the population has been in an emergency situation due to drought. Important restrictions can be expected for this summer, and it is something that happens in other parts of Spain, in France, in Italy, in Hungary. We have to be clear and explain that this is a direct effect of climate change and it's probably not just droughts, it's a new normal, a new climate. It is not up to the governments that it rains, but it is up to the governments that we adapt to it. And it is true that it is likely that not enough has been done during the last decade, as in the case of Catalonia, but now is the time to act and adapt. First, with solidarity and cooperation between administrations, because this does not understand borders. The example of the use of the Sagunto desalination plant for Catalonia is a good example of this. But also: involve the European Union and mobilise European resources, manage water resources more efficiently and sustainably, invest in water infrastructure, the necessary cross-border cooperation and certainly education and awareness-raising for our citizens, because water stress is unfortunately here to stay.

Mr President, Commissioner, today from the European Parliament we welcome this positive announcement by the European Commission to reduce our emissions in Europe by 90% by 2040. A message that strengthens our global credibility as leaders in climate action and reaffirms our commitment to the Paris Agreement and climate neutrality by 2050. It is important that this be done now that denialist voices are also multiplying, including in this Parliament. I would say that there are three underlying reasons beyond climate to pursue such a goal: – because this will accelerate the reduction of our fossil fuels and we have learned from the invasion of Ukraine that it is toxic to the environment but also to geopolitics; – because it will undoubtedly improve the public health and health of our citizens, and – because it will be good for innovation, technology and the competitiveness of our companies, sending a clear message, a predictable roadmap that will not only push innovation and efforts today, but the competitiveness of tomorrow to have a leading Europe also in the economy.

Mr President, Commissioner, the world is powerless in the face of a massive humanitarian disaster in the Gaza Strip. A tragedy that cannot be justified by the heinous attacks committed by Hamas on 7 October and which this Parliament has already strongly condemned. Today we are witnessing Israel's indiscriminate bombing of civilians, attacks on hospitals and critical infrastructure, severe famine, shortages of medicines or the forced displacement of two million citizens who are trapped in hell. That is why this Parliament today has to demand a permanent ceasefire, in line with what has already been demanded by an overwhelming majority of the members of the United Nations General Assembly. A political solution, passing through two States, through an international peace conference that ends the endless vicious circle of violence and suffering and strong support for the work of the International Court of Justice, because wars also have rules and no one is exempt from them. Today, not only is the stability of the region in Gaza at stake, but Europe's credibility as a global player is also at stake.

Mr President, COP 28 will enable the world to take a step in the right direction in what is the greatest challenge for humanity in this century: global warming. It has shown that climate multilateralism works, with a space for dialogue and rules to face common objectives and common challenges, and I want to say that, in a world like the current one, dislocated, with so much competition between great powers, it is something to highlight. The conclusions of the Conference are as follows: we have set up and operated a loss and damage fund called for by the Global South and, in addition, half of the resources committed come from the European Union or the Member States of the European Union; we will triple renewables and double energy efficiency by 2030, a goal that has been led by Europe, and finally we have sent the right message: We are transitioning to a world without fossil energies, without fossil fuels. It is a change that will face huge and gigantic economic interests. But we send the clear message: capital and regulators are needed to invest in technology and innovation and also generate rules that allow us to make this substitution. It must be stressed that, all this, this great dialogue, which has led it has been Europe and the European Union. So it is also time to congratulate the European Commission, Commissioner Hoekstra and the Presidency of the Council of the European Union, the Spanish Presidency, and especially Teresa Ribera, who has been able to extract great commitments led by Europe for the change that the world needs.

Mr President, Commissioner, today the conservative forces in this House have decided to bring a debate here to tarnish the good name of one of Europe's most established democracies and to instrumentalise the European institutions. And the reason is the inability to assume the result of the polls in the last elections in Spain, on July 23. Spain voted and a parliamentary majority has given continuity to a progressive government. And not only that, that same majority of representatives of national sovereignty has launched the most generous measure of grace of all, which is a perfectly constitutional amnesty law – as stated in the case-law of the Spanish Constitutional Court – and which has a total legal fit in the European area. You know that this measure is explicitly included in constitutions such as the Italian, French, Swedish and, at the same time, do you know that it has been launched fifty-four times in Europe? So why didn't anyone ever bring that measure here, saying it contravened the rule of law? Why? In the case of Spain, it is set in motion to turn the page definitively to the greatest constitutional crisis that our country has experienced in forty years. Incidentally, it should be added that it occurred during the People's Party governments. It is a measure that demonstrates the strength of Spanish democracy and a forgiveness that makes Spanish society stronger. Europe and this house are full of scarred stories and we know, because we are a good example of this, that we can go from confrontation to making word, voice and coexistence our way of relating. But why do you count on the complicity of the European People's Party in this debate? Why? The truth - and let's be honest - is because you, Mr Weber, had the piece of Spain and the Government of Spain for the power games of Europe in 2024. That's the reality behind it. And the Spaniards have said "no" to their strategy, which we see in several national governments and which I would like to reproduce here, which are agreements between the extreme right and the right. If you are concerned about the rule of law in Spain, unblock the infamous blockade of the General Council of the Judiciary. Stop harassing public representatives and party headquarters and stop opening the doors of institutions to the far right. Spain will continue to have a dignified Government, which defends the general interest and which will remain committed to the values of Europe and its future. Don't hesitate. (He refused to have Paulo Rangel ask him a question under the "blue card" procedure.)

Madam President, Commissioner, the world is once again holding a Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, this time in Dubai, in a world full of geopolitical tensions and confrontations, and where multilateralism operates in the climate as one of its last springs, of its last dimensions. It is a meeting that will serve us to take stock, especially the global balance, where we will see that we do not do enough, and about what happens with climate change in a year where all the scientific indicators say that it is accelerating. We know that, if we do not redouble our efforts and our ambition, we are going straight to a three-degree temperature growth on Earth, with huge disruptions to our way of life and our economy. It is time to show ambition, for Europe to be able to operate the loss and damage fund, on which much of our relationship with the Global South depends, to be ambitious, tripling the deployment of renewables by 2030 and, at the same time, doubling energy efficiency. Our credibility depends on it all.

Madam President, this is a very important vote, so we ask the Bureau to indicate how many Members have stood up to block this oral amendment. The exact number, simply.

Madam President, Commissioner, today we are discussing the Sustainable Development Goals now that the United Nations is meeting again to discuss them. But it's worth taking stock now that we're halfway there. In 2015 the United Nations and the two hundred countries of the planet made a common roadmap for the challenges we share: peace, security, poverty, inequality or the fight against climate change. It was a hopeful road map. The world agreed on what to do. Now that we are halfway there, we can say that the results are meager, few: 15% of what we had marked; whereas, in fact, the world is worse off today than it was eight years ago in many respects; and that the tool to address these objectives, which is multilateralism, is at least dislocated. What can we do now? Where does cooperation work? In the field of climate. It is one of the few aspects on which today the world continues to work together. And there, in the field of climate, the Global South tells us that we need to talk about financing, that we need to change the international financial system, and that is why there are initiatives such as the Bridgestone initiative, very relevant, that combine several Sustainable Development Goals. There Europe has to put the accent and continue working these next eight years. Some in this House and in the world – the far right – have told us that this was a globalist agenda, an ideological agenda. We must remember that an agenda shared by two hundred countries in the world for peace, against poverty and for equality is the road map that the world needs.

Madam President, Mr High Representative, Europe is going through the most geopolitically turbulent time it has experienced since the end of the Cold War. Competition between great powers, very serious conflicts in our neighbourhood that could escalate, an uncertain political future for the United States, a hostile nuclear force on our borders and a new disruptive political reality – China and its size – that we have to learn to manage. All this is signifying a strategic awakening for Europe; the will to have autonomy, own positions, own capacities and own and effective decision-making processes in an interdependent world, increasingly guided by the logic of force and war. For that we have to be able to find new balances in our politics; reducing dependencies while accepting a globalized world that we cannot reverse; working with our partners and allies while not wanting a world of blocks that is dangerous for our future, and having capabilities of our own at the same time that our pillar in terms of security is NATO. Coexistence, dialogue, cooperation and standards. We're going to have to learn to do all this because the world we operate in today is what it is.

Madam President, first of all, I would like to thank the support and work of the entire public health sector for this dossier, to thank the doctors, nurses, public health professionals, who asked us to take a step forward in favour of higher air quality, cleaner air. And we've done it. By the way, they are the same ones who two and three years ago were risking their lives for us, against the pandemic, and who today have asked us for this vote and we have done it. Without further ado, I would like to refer the proposal, under Rule 59(4), back to the Committee on the Environment to begin interinstitutional negotiations.

Madam President, I invoke Rule 10 of this House's Rules of Procedure on Members' obligations, after hearing yesterday in the debate on Latin America MEP Hermann Tertsch, from Vox, from the ECR Group, as it literally said: No one killed Allende. Allende was preparing a dictatorship like the Cuban one and that stopped. Freedom of expression does not justify a murder or justify a seventeen-year dictatorship with tens of thousands killed, disappeared and tortured. Therefore, I call on the Presidency to study legal consequences for these unjustifiable and intolerant statements.

Mr President, Mr High Representative, today we value the EU-CELAC summit, which was held after eight years without summits. Why do I think it has been a success and a first step, a first stone to build a qualitative leap in relations with the region? Not only because we celebrate it, but because of its participation. It should be remembered that 26 heads of state from the 33 in Latin America attended, and almost all of them from the European Council. And remember that the format was a success, an inclusive format. And it is a no-brainer, but in the world we meet not with imaginary friends, we meet with the countries that exist and with the countries that Latin America has. Sometimes we like them more or less, but they are who they are. With a statement that was not easy because, obviously, with a third of the United Nations agreeing on a text, it is difficult. With concrete results: the Global Gateway, a €45 billion investment package and with continuity, because we know that this is a first step, as there will be an upcoming summit in two years. And what was said: what was said about the invasion of Ukraine, about the reconstruction of multilateralism, about the green agenda or about the industrialization of Latin America. A first step that we should be able to assess fairly from this House after eight years of calling for it to be held.

Mr President, Commissioner, first of all, I would like to start by thanking you for this final turn and thanking the shadow rapporteurs who have helped to build a majority in the Commission and who are working to get a favourable position tomorrow, all the staff of Parliament and, very especially, Olga from my office, and Laia, whom I also see around here, who have worked very hard to move this file forward. I also wanted to thank very especially civil society, which accompanies us today in the debate here, the Network of Patients in Defense of Public Health of the Environment, which has been working on this file for the last few months. Look, the same ones we asked during the pandemic to be in the first trench against COVID-19, the same doctors, the same nurses, the same public health professionals, some of whom gave their lives to protect our public health, are the ones who ask that tomorrow we vote for the improvement of air quality, because they see, day after day, the consequences of pollution. They are the same ones that we went out to applaud on the balconies every day who now ask us to approve this proposal tomorrow. Some things have been said and I think I want to refute them. It has been said that this proposal goes against growth, road traffic or factories. That's a lie. Just lying. We need to be able to adapt our growth to the protection of public health. And indeed, the Commission's proposal is accompanied by an impact assessment indicating what it would cost us to adapt to better air quality. It tells us that it would be less than what it costs us, in terms of public health budgets, the diseases that pollution causes today. And not just that. I do not understand what the Group of the European People's Party is doing. The EPP Group has tabled an amendment which is tougher, which is worse, than that proposed by ID and ECR. The EPP Group has tabled an amendment with an ambition not only lower than the ambition of the European Commission, but, in some parameters, lower than the standards we have today, which are about 15 or 20 years old. I would advise you to stop anti-science, denialism and lies and work for the European Green Deal and for the protection of the public health of our citizens.

Madam President, Commissioner, today we are discussing the important vote that we will have here tomorrow, in the plenary of the European Parliament, for the revision of the Ambient Air Quality Directives in favour of cleaner air in Europe. Why is the discussion about air quality important? Today the European Environment Agency ranks air pollution as the greatest environmental threat to human health and our well-being. The figure it gives us is 300 000 premature deaths per year directly and indirectly. It affects a long list of debilitating diseases and pathologies: asthma, cardiovascular disorders, lung diseases, pneumonia, cancer. It is not just a debate on public health. Obviously, it is a debate about the most disadvantaged, because, socio-economically, it does not affect everyone equally, but especially pregnant people, children, the most vulnerable, since the most vulnerable groups always end up being exposed to more pollutants. It's also an economic debate because all of this comes at a cost in terms of health care. European legislation has been able over the last decades to improve our air quality. It is something that the European Union has been able to do. For decades we have been able to improve that quality. But today it remains a serious problem, as 98% of Europeans are exposed to levels of air pollution that, according to the World Health Organization, are harmful to our health. Our current standards are between fifteen and twenty years old. That is why the European Commission has put a good proposal on the table as part of the European Green Deal and its Zero Pollution for Air, Water and Soil Action Plan. A proposal that is more demanding in terms of standards, and that, in addition, has positive elements that I would like to highlight, especially two: regular review mechanisms – because year after year we have more scientific, empirical data, knowledge that allows us to be more demanding – and regulation around access to justice and compensation to empower citizens. The Committee on the Environment of this Parliament adopted a first proposal which is in line with what has already been put on the table by the European Commission, but which introduces a few more elements: 1. To have as a horizon to align our air quality standards to the criteria of the World Health Organization. We can discuss the date, what is the most appropriate pace, but what seems indisputable to me is that our horizon and our objective are not to harm the public health of European citizens. 2. Improve monitoring. Because we know that monitoring, evaluation, is a key issue in this aspect and we have to be able to have a well representative monitoring of plural reality, because we do not all breathe the same air, even if it seems counterintuitive. 3. Air quality plans, which are so relevant because it is the tool used by local and regional administrations to promote in their roadmaps the improvement of air quality and public information. This information is something very relevant, since information means awareness on the part of citizens and more demand on their administrations. We are facing a unique opportunity. I would like to end by telling you that during this term of office we have had the most important public health crisis in Europe in a century. In a century. And now we are discussing and debating a fundamental tool to protect the public health of our citizens. Let's not miss this opportunity. Let us bet on the health of our citizens, because it is our responsibility, not to the environment, but to public health and the public accounts of the coffers of European administrations.

Madam President, today in the European Parliament, in an urgent resolution on human rights violations in the world, we deal with political disqualifications in Venezuela, an unconstitutional and arbitrary practice that retains fundamental political rights through administrative decisions for Venezuelan citizens. We have now had one last major disqualification, but in recent years there have been hundreds, if not thousands, of opposition leaders who have been disqualified and have had their basic political fundamental rights curtailed. The European Parliament wants to send a clear message: This practice makes free and fair elections in the country impossible. And it does so especially looking at 2024 and its presidential elections. We show our categorical and most resounding rejection and demand respect for the plurality of ideas and opinions that must be heard and competed in justice at the polls. At the same time, we call on the country's authorities to implement the recommendations of the European Union Election Observation Mission in 2021, to return the country to a democratic path, with fair, free, inclusive and transparent elections, and we call on the international community to accompany what has to be an inclusive political dialogue in the country that guarantees those fair and free elections that the country deserves. At the same time, I would like to thank all the shadow rapporteurs who have been able, as a result of generosity, to agree on a clear, resounding and forceful message around this and democracy in Venezuela.

Madam President, Mr Vice-President Timmermans, during this month we have had, in the records, the three warmest days recorded in the history of humanity so far. It's July 3rd, 4th and 5th. It is proof that climate change, global warming, is already a reality, a reality that has become a quasi-existential threat, not only to our way of life, but also to our economy, to our ecosystems, to our agriculture. And for all this, we have been working since the beginning of this mandate to put the European Green Deal in place, to make a commitment to renewable energy, to transform our economy and have a roadmap for our decarbonisation. And, unfortunately, in recent months we have seen a shift on the part of the European People's Party towards denialist positions, which validate populist arguments on the far right, which put the European Green Deal at risk and which, in addition, prove a new political arithmetic in Europe, a new pact of majority between the right and the far right. Today, that strategy has been defeated here in the European Parliament with the law on the restoration of nature. Correct, because you will be defeated, and not only at the polls, since history will also end up judging you.

Madam President, today we are discussing the implementation of the Political Dialogue and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and Cuba, approved in 2017, and of the High Representative's recent visit to the island. To begin with, why does the High Representative travel to Cuba? To implement the foreign policy of a political dialogue agreement that this Parliament approved not many years ago and approved the 27 Member States of the Union with the will to have a critical constructive dialogue, to demand openness on the island, but to be able to speak, to be able to use diplomacy as a tool to change things. It must be said that the island is not as it has been for a short time. It has been like this for many decades, as has just been recalled here. And yet we approved that political dialogue agreement. Why do we approve of them? First, because the Americans first opened the diplomatic door with the island. Secondly, because we had two decades of common position and diplomatic blockade and isolation that gave nothing as a result. And, third, because we were already breaking that diplomatic blockade, because we had heads of state and foreign ministers who were dedicated to traveling to the island, so it didn't make any sense to have a diplomatic blockade with the common position. That is why we have that agreement, to speak sincerely and constructively about democracy and human rights, of course. But I would like to add two elements. In order to also have credibility and maximum legitimacy as a European Union and as a Parliament, we need two things. First of all, we must demand diplomacy with everyone, whatever they think, especially those who think differently from us, especially in such a turbulent world with which we live. And secondly, we must do it equally with everyone, so that every time we are accused of double standards, we do not make them have reasons and arguments about the loss of legitimacy when we make criticisms regarding human rights.

Mr President, once again today, this Parliament is once again denouncing the terrible situation in Nicaragua under the repression of the Ortega-Murillo regime. Nicaraguans continue to live under persecution that affects anyone who expresses any kind of dissent or discrepancy with respect to the regime. Democracy has literally been liquidated in the country. The judicial system and the rule of law have been completely dismantled, subject to the authoritarian power of the tandem that governs the country. NGOs, political parties, civil society, student society, students, the press and the media have been arbitrarily outlawed and prevented from carrying out fundamental tasks in public conversation and in any democratic state. While it is true that the release of the 222 political prisoners last March is good news, we must immediately remember that forced deportation and deprivation of nationality constitute a deplorable violation of international law. And from here we want to send three messages. First, we want to demand the immediate release of all those who continue to be arbitrarily detained and the return of Nicaraguan nationality to those who have been illegally deprived of it. Secondly, we want to call for human rights to be respected and for basic civil and political rights to be allowed in the country, returning to the democratic path, with a dialogue that must be inclusive. And thirdly, we want to support the efforts of the High Representative and the European External Action Service in the country and their policy of demanding democracy that is tireless and, at the same time, tries to find solutions, solutions that we will have to find with the region. That is why the EU-CELAC summit, with an inclusive dialogue, is also a good opportunity to build alliances, talk about human rights and push for a democratic way out that restores freedom to the Nicaraguan people.

Mr President, Vice-President Vestager, today we are debating the creation of the Day for the Victims of the Global Climate Crisis with one priority objective: Make visible the victims, with names and surnames, that exist today in Europe and around the world. Why? Because large layers of the Earth are going to become inhospitable territory, where life is not going to be possible, which will cause great forced displacements. Because extreme weather events multiply year after year, including in Europe – floods are an example – causing casualties in Belgium, Germany and Italy. Because high temperatures – especially heat waves – are causing more and more casualties in our countries, especially in southern Europe, and particularly affecting vulnerable groups and the elderly. In addition, all this causes victims unevenly. Developing countries and the most vulnerable groups, who are least responsible for climate change, suffer the most. We must make visible and remember inequality, call for action, the decarbonisation of our economy and a just green transition, and, above all, fight for the European Union, which was forged on the basis of the European Coal and Steel Community, to be today the world champion in clean and renewable energy.

Madam President, there is a clear consensus in this House on this report, especially with support for building rapid response capacity. Some of your interventions have stood out. I believe that necessarily learning has to come out of the battlegroups. To a large extent we want to build this new instrument because the operability of the battlegroups. They've never been activated. They have not been activated for operational reasons and for reasons of political will. We need to learn the lesson now that we create a new instrument: rapid response capability. What kind of nature is it? We are not creating new European troops. We are creating an instrument that allows us to activate troops of the national armies, that is very clear, that are rotating in twelve months and that are coordinated and integrated and that work together to make it easy and effective to activate them on behalf of the European Union, with unanimity in the Council with the Member States. What are we going to activate them for? Rescue and evacuation, assist our missions, assist withdrawal, initial phases of entry and stabilization. It is already marked for what we want to use this rapid response capability. In the interventions there are a couple of trade-offs that I reject: the trade-off between diplomacy and defence, between diplomacy and defence capabilities. Indeed, having security and defence capabilities makes us a more credible and effective diplomatic actor in the world. Or between NATO or European capabilities. We do not work only with NATO, we work especially in NATO and we need to be a credible actor and ally in NATO. Finally, I thanked all the Members and the staff of the groups their work. And I would also like to do so to all Members' offices, which without them we would not be able to do our job, including mine, which has worked hard for this report.

Madam President, today in this Parliament we are having an important debate on what will be a key instrument for strengthening our security and defence capabilities: the EU Rapid Deployment Capacity. This is a proposal by the High Representative, Josep Borrell, following the frantic and very problematic evacuation and departure from Afghanistan during the summer of 2021, which highlighted some security shortcomings, such as not having a force of its own prepared from the European Union to act quickly in a hostile environment. With this report, Parliament sends a clear message of support for the creation and implementation of this EU Rapid Deployment Capacity, which will have at least 5 000 troops that will be continuously available and jointly trained, and which will also aim to become a permanent force. The Capacity should be ready by 2025, have a 12-month rotation, and respond and act within a reporting period of five to ten days. With regard to funding, the European Parliament calls for maximum use to be made of the European Treaties. This means that administrative expenditure is financed by the Union's regular budget and operational expenditure by the European Peace Facility, which we must strengthen and increase. The report proposes that decision-making and the use of Article 44 of the Treaty on European Union should be done initially by unanimity, although constructive abstention is allowed and then qualified majority voting can be used in subsequent operational decisions. The report also addresses other very important issues, such as the need for a defence industrial base in the European Union and the further strengthening of the EU's relationship with NATO. We must understand this mechanism, this EU Rapid Deployment Capacity, as one more element of our cooperation within NATO, and that it is necessary to overcome the current gaps in strategic enablers. We in Parliament will continue to support the work of the High Representative and, in addition, we welcome the fact that, during the second half of this year – during the Spanish Presidency – the first joint military exercise of this Capability will take place. I do not want to end without thanking all Members and all shadow rapporteurs for their work and contributions. I would particularly like to thank Mr Sikorski from the EPP Group, Mr Nart from the Renew Group and Ms Neumann from the Greens/EFA Group for their contributions. I believe that your work, your suggestions and the joint discussions have made it possible to have a final proposal that is better than the first proposal, the initial proposal. This final proposal is balanced, ambitious and realistic. I would also like to thank all the technical teams in this House, in Parliament and in the groups for their work. The truth is that the brutal war – the invasion of Ukraine – the exit from Afghanistan and the security of our neighbourhood are causing a real strategic awakening for the European Union. And, within this strategic awakening, lies this proposal for the EU's Rapid Deployment Capacity to defend and protect our citizens, defend our legitimate interests and our values in the world, become a stronger ally within our Atlantic Alliance and work for our necessary strategic autonomy in the world, with the will that Europe becomes a true geopolitical agent, effective, real and credible in the world. A world full of competition to which we have to adapt.

Mr President, High Representative, Peru is experiencing a serious institutional political crisis, especially since December 2022, but during the last five years it has not been possible to channel the country's governance. Since 2022, the country has experienced huge demonstrations that have left 60 dead and 1,200 injured. That is why, today, I think it is worth it that, from here, from the European Parliament, we send several messages. First, respect for the country's institutions and democracy. There are no possible shortcuts, and any attempt to break the constitutional order like the one this country has experienced is reprehensible. Secondly, the claim of the legitimate right to peaceful protest in the country, which has been violated in recent months, and the claim of ongoing national and international investigations to know what has happened to these 60 dead, because there are indications of a disproportionate use of force by public order. Thirdly, in the face of this blockade that is leaving serious wounds in the country, new elections are necessary, as the president has defended, which are being blocked today by the Peruvian Congress. It is true that new elections in the country are not a magic wand, but it is difficult to imagine an inclusive exit and the recovery of confidence by the citizens of Peru without holding elections in this friendly and allied country.

Mr President, during this week we approved some of the most relevant elements of the Fit for 55 legislative package, which should allow us to decarbonise our economy. We turn our promises into action, into transformative agreements that – we stress – have a very important social element. I would like to highlight the extension and strengthening of one of the pillars of our climate policy, which is the emissions trading system, which has allowed us, since it has been in place since 2005, to reduce emissions from the areas it regulates by more than 40%. We raised three questions about this emissions trading scheme: to extend it to maritime transport, which is very important; prevent the price of allowances from skyrocketing with some set of clauses, and at the same time build the Social Climate Fund, which should exceed €86 billion to support the most vulnerable. Added to this is the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, which has to protect our industry and prevent unfair behaviour by foreign producers. We do all this, moreover, when the IPCC has just recalled that immediate action is absolutely necessary.