Speeches

Madam Vice-President, thank you very much for your reply. He is right, measures have been taken progressively, but the crises make us put ourselves more in front of the mirror. In that sense, the State aid regulations and the ease that has been given so that companies can protect themselves against crisis situations, such as the COVID-19 crisis and the energy crisis, have allowed to give more aid. I think this is also a way to defend ourselves against unfair competition from countries like China, and not only the United States: its Inflation Reduction Act allows an injection of an amount of money into aid that we cannot match the European Union. That is what I referred to earlier, perhaps I did not explain it well, to whether it could be considered to adopt, outside periods of crisis, the rules for State aid for sectors in order to allow them to compete on better terms with other countries that have different rules.

Mr President, Madam Executive Vice-President, Mrs Vestager, I would like you to inform us whether you believe that the 18 Member States that have already implemented their own rules on investment screening – in order, precisely, to be able to protect the strategic infrastructure of the Union from the influence of those investments coming from countries such as China, which defend their interests, which are not compatible with our own – have coordinated and reconciled what each of them does. I understand that it has still been a short time, but I think it is important to be able to have analyses that can be updated periodically. I believe that important steps have been taken: investment control, foreign subsidies, PPE ..., but they have been taken mainly as a response to crisis situations. The same applies to the mechanism for extending State aid. Outside periods of crisis, what will be left? Will we be able to continue defending the interests of European industry against interference from countries like China?

Mr President, Mr High Representative, there are two indisputable truths between the European Union and China: China is our biggest trading partner, but it is also our biggest rival because of the difference, the distance between our systems. The challenge is that this contradiction does not paralyse us and does us moral and economic damage contrary to the interests of the Union. We can't stay in a loop. We have to find a way out. The way out of this contradiction is suggested by the High Representative, Mr Borrell, and I would like to thank him for his leadership. I agree with his leadership and involvement, and I thank him for that, in order to achieve greater strategic autonomy, to influence the complex international context in which we live. The way to be able to live with China is to be more effective, establishing alliances with third countries, reinforcing our commitment to multilateralism, perfecting the instruments that we have already equipped ourselves with, and some that we lack, to achieve greater equality in trade relations with China. And the most important and effective: the unity of action between us so that investing, producing and doing business in China is no longer an adventure and an opportunity.

Mr President, Mr Dombrovskis, unfortunately, the modernised text of the Energy Charter Treaty does not meet the climate ambitions of my political group, that of the Socialists and Democrats, nor the demands of this Parliament, nor the internationally agreed emissions targets. The agreement certainly includes improvements, and that is why I would like to thank the Commission for its work and efforts. But we don't think they're enough. The deadline to limit, eliminate the protection of fossil fuels is still too long. And the old model of private arbitration, investor-state dispute settlement, which this Parliament has repeatedly opposed, remains unchanged. And I want to remember that this model has generated at least 135 lawsuits and condemned governments to pay more than $50 billion to private investors. For these reasons, the Netherlands, Spain, France and Poland have already announced that they will withdraw from the modernisation of the Treaty, as Italy has already done; and other countries will follow the same path. I therefore call on this Parliament to adopt a resolution which, while highlighting the shortcomings of the text, is consistent and consistent with this Parliament's position and calls for the need to start a process towards a coordinated exit of the European Union from the Treaty without jeopardising the interests of the other Member States.

Madam President, first of all, I am grateful for the Left Group's proposal. However, taking into account that this is a mini-plenary with an agenda full of issues to be discussed and that, in addition, it has been proposed to incorporate new issues into the agenda, what my group proposes is a debate of the rapporteurs of the political groups, followed by a resolution at the November II part-session, that is, instead of a full debate, a smaller debate with the rapporteurs of the political groups.

Mr President, Commissioner, I would first like to congratulate President Lange and other colleagues in my group on their leadership in the development of this instrument and to thank the other groups for the consensus reached in this resolution. Consensus, which always deserves to be highlighted, especially in these turbulent times, is more important than ever. Few instruments can better represent the principles and values of EU trade policy than this 15-point revision of the TSD Action Plan. The Commission has done a remarkable job and we have acknowledged that. But we want more. We want this Plan to materialise effectively. So that our priorities and aspirations are met and, above all, so that access to our powerful market is useful, to achieve more just and sustainable development, particularly in the least developed countries. Hence the importance of country-specific roadmaps. That is why we want stricter implementation and enforcement to ensure the effectiveness of the strategy and, consequently, we call for greater involvement and reporting capacity of civil society and advisory groups, as well as greater parliamentary scrutiny, especially as regards the way trade agreements evolve and in relation to the implementation of sustainable development clauses. Failure to comply with these clauses must be sanctioned, as my group has long advocated. But good practices and compliance must also be recognized. This will help make our action against climate change and biodiversity loss, against deforestation, for due diligence and to ensure decent work and to advance the circular economy and energy transition more effective. Finally, and very important for my group and for me, significantly: this strategy must serve, Commissioner, and it will serve, finally, to make the gender perspective fully present in the agreements and lead to greater equality between men and women.

Madam President, Mr Vice-President / High Representative, the tension in the Taiwan Strait is unaffordable. China's utterly deplorable military actions threaten stability and peace in the region and the delicate status quo between Taiwan and China. The European Union must act intelligently, as it is doing. We don't need activist or testimonial positions. We need consensus and to defend our values by relying on those who share them as universal principles to regulate globalisation and global governance. Taiwan is a key partner and is a democratic ally in the Indo-Pacific. And of course, the European Union has and must strengthen our bilateral relations with this country. Relations between the European Union and China have long been frozen by the exchange of sanctions. But we cannot remain paralyzed in our relationship with Taiwan. We need to expand them. We need to deepen them as much as we can without breaking the status quo international. The best way to help Taiwan is to strengthen ties with this country. And the best way to do that is to work to keep China on our side. On the side of peace, on the side of respect for international law through dialogue.

Mr President, Commissioner, Ukraine is a politically and commercially relevant country for the European Union. As early as 2021 it was our 15th customer and the European Union was its main supplier. Ukraine has filled the world markets with some products that are essential for human food and that are also essential for the Ukrainian economy, because they are the basis of it. It is essential that we help them to continue to play this role. Let the production of these essential foods reach world markets. We must effectively facilitate transit through solidarity corridors and unblock the situation at ports of departure in the Black Sea. Ukraine was already our partner. Now, in addition, it is a candidate country to enter our European Union. This is a lesson for Putin and for all totalitarian rulers. The European Union has already recently demonstrated its ability to deal with an unexpected health crisis through democracy, unity and solidarity among us and with others. Now we are going to show with those same elements that we are able to win Putin, to win the consequences of his cruel war, of the energy crisis and of the food crisis that is beginning to be generated. No element can stop us. My political group can rest assured that we will always stand by Ukraine.

Mr President, after Brexit all the omens that it was a bad decision, especially for the British, have been fulfilled: the empty shelves, the lack of medicines, the sharp increase in exports from Ireland to Northern Ireland, while those from England are collapsing, the victory of Sinn Féin and, finally, the partygate and the very internal opposition to the Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, which have prompted him to present a law that supposes, as all those who have preceded me in the use of the floor have said, unilaterally breaking the commitments and the international agreement signed with the European Union. The agreements are to be fulfilled and Boris Johnson's bill is a clear breach, an illegality to unilaterally change an agreement that he had decided to do so. Of course, we won't allow it. The Protocol itself – the Agreement itself – sets out the mechanisms for resolving differences and discrepancies through dialogue. But there's no dialogue if one of us doesn't want to.

Madam President, first of all, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur for the report, for indeed the teamwork, and all the shadow rapporteurs who have been involved in drafting it. And I would like to stress that the priorities of my political group, the S&D Group, have been perfectly reflected in the text of the report and in the commitments we have made. It is very important for us to defend the European Union's competence in investment policy and the modernisation of this policy, in which this Parliament and my political group have played a leading role, both in favour of transparency and in favour of ending the system of investor-state dispute settlement based on arbitration, which is not acceptable, and changing it to the new system of the multilateral investment court, which must be the future for resolving disputes. We advocate an in-depth reform of the Energy Charter Treaty so that it effectively complies with the principles of sustainable development, the European Green Deal, the defence of human rights, and makes it possible to end the transition from fossil fuels. We hope that tomorrow a large majority will support this report, as has happened in the Committee on International Trade.

Mr President, Commissioner, 9 June 2022: while we are holding this debate, 25 million people in the world suffer from forced labour. Most of them, women, girls and boys, displaced populations and the most vulnerable groups in society. For the Social Democrats, the eradication of forced labour in all its forms, all over the world, is a high priority, because few things are more important than ensuring decent working conditions. The European Union aims to achieve this in its internal action and in its foreign and trade policy by supporting the standards of the International Labour Organization and their implementation in our trade agreements. But it's not enough. To eradicate once and for all this savage plague of forced labour, we need to equip ourselves with new and more effective tools. That is why we defend and reiterate our call on the Commission to urgently present to this Parliament a powerful instrument for banning the entry into the European market of goods processed or transported under conditions of forced labour. No exceptions. Other advanced societies have these tools at their disposal; Europe needs to act urgently. Europe cannot allow some countries to base their development on the slave labour of their citizens. It cannot accept European companies collaborating with contractors in third countries who enslave their workers. No one should accept that people in a situation of weakness are exploited by others who make huge profits from it. Our aspiration for the effectiveness of this instrument is not directed at a specific country, it is a universal aspiration. But, of course, we have all seen the terrible images of the situation of the Uyghur people in China. We hope that our performance will immediately alleviate this. We therefore urgently ask you to present this instrument to Parliament.

Madam President, Mr Dombrovskis, I would like to start by congratulating our rapporteur, Mr Caspary, all the shadow rapporteurs, the chairman of our INTA Committee, Bernd Lange, and the Commission and the Council because I think we have done an excellent job. It is true that it has taken too long, ten years, but we can welcome the result achieved because the European Union is finally equipping itself with the necessary instruments to be able to ensure fair rules of the game and, in this case with the international public procurement instrument, equal treatment in public contracts: a principle as simple as reciprocity, which has taken so long to start providing itself with objective elements to guarantee it. I would particularly like to welcome the fact that the social, labour and environmental obligations to be taken into account in public procurement procedures are finally included; We must fight not only against environmental dumping, but also against social dumping. And I want to ask you one thing, Mr. Dombrovskis: in this instrument, there are infinitely lower – and therefore more effective and efficient – thresholds for tenders for works and services than those being raised in the foreign subsidy instrument; it must be ensured that there is coordination between the two instruments and that there are no distortive elements in the other Regulation: in this is where it is well collected.

Madam President, I believe that we must congratulate ourselves and you, High Representative, on the fact that the Summit took place and that the channel of dialogue with China remains open, especially at this time. We need to regain détente and dialogue. The European Union and China have deep divergences, but we need to face the great challenges that lie ahead: climate change, peace – undoubtedly now the most important – and respect for the integrity of states and the international order, which has blown up following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. China cannot close its eyes to Bucha's barbarism. I think it is very important to send the Chinese authorities a clear message of their responsibility and responsibility to help end the war and alert them to the consequences of not doing so. We must put on the table, as you have rightly pointed out, all the problems that we have to address. In trade policy we must achieve a balance in economic relations with China, ensuring reciprocity and a level playing field, providing us with the necessary effective instruments, without tepidity, with ambition. Nobody wins with the freezing of dialogue. I am confident that China will take the steps that will allow the conditions to be met to recover it. Without intimidation of anyone, let alone any Member State of the Union; without sanctions against anyone, let alone Members of this Parliament.

Mr President, Mr Vice-President, Commissioner Dombrovskis, the Energy Charter Treaty, as we know it today, is absolutely unacceptable for my group, for the European Union and, of course, for the sustainability of our planet. I would like to express my concern about the position of those Contracting Parties to the Treaty that do not share the ambitions of the European Union in the field of climate change mitigation, sustainable development and the green transition, even though they are also signatories to the Paris Agreement. In order to be able to support the modernisation of the Treaty, the Commission and the Council must ensure that a number of conditions are met. The list of protected energy materials has to exclude most fossil fuel investments and include green hydrogen. It should be expressly prohibited for fossil fuel investors to sue Contracting Parties for implementing public policies involving the phasing out of fossil fuels, in line with the commitments made in the Paris Agreement. In addition, it is essential to ensure that investment protection is granted only to those investors in real assets. Investments with exclusively financial and often speculative objectives should be excluded. And the European Union's ability to develop public policies consistent with our commitment to become the world's first climate-neutral region by 2050 must be ensured. If these conditions are not reached by June 2022, the Commission and the Member States must prepare for the coordinated exit from it and it must be done in advance, and I ask you, Mr Dombrovskis, for an assessment of the impact that this withdrawal is going to have. We must be prepared for that situation. On the other hand, I also ask the Commission to enforce the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union so that the provisions of ISDS in the Energy Charter Treaty are not applicable in the case of intra-Community disputes.

Madam President, Commissioner, the European Parliament's urgent resolutions serve to denounce unacceptable situations that are often unpleasant for the governments of the third countries to which they refer, which is especially difficult when it comes to a friendly country, such as Mexico. But keep in mind that, in the last twenty-five years, at least 150 journalists have been killed in Mexico. Unfortunately, with the arrival of the new Government, the situation has worsened. In this legislature, the figures of the previous legislature have already been exceeded. Since the beginning of 2022 alone, six journalists have been brutally murdered, marking one of the worst periods for the Mexican press in recent times. In addition, according to official statements, 90% of attacks on journalists go unpunished. For all these reasons, the violence against journalists perpetrated with impunity in Mexico is of great concern to my group and to this Parliament. And so it is perfectly expressed in this resolution, which expresses our concern and which is supported by a large majority of this Parliament. We call on Mexico to strengthen the strategy of the Protection Mechanism for Human Rights Defenders and Journalists. Democrats do not like the president of a country pointing to journalists in his frequent public speeches and, even less, if there is the fateful coincidence that they become victims of violence. Freedom of the press and the free and secure exercise of the journalist's profession are hallmarks of democracy and the rule of law in a free world. Journalists and the free press have a say in what politicians do. Not the other way around. We stand with Mexico in solidarity in the sadness that this scourge represents for people and for democracy. Only with respect, transparency and security will it be possible to guarantee freedom of expression in Mexico and thus strengthen its democracy. This resolution adds the voice of this Parliament to the global outcry to reverse the situation of insecurity and defencelessness suffered by Mexican journalists and human rights defenders.

Madam President, Commissioner, this Parliament, as has already been said, last June adopted an important resolution on the response to the global challenge of COVID-19, whose debate unfortunately remains topical because very little progress has been made since then. Some of the Member States of the European Union are already declaring the fifth wave of the pandemic and are starting to provide a third booster dose, while almost 50% of the world's population has not yet been able to take the first dose. Global production is still controlled by large pharmaceutical companies, which have been able to rapidly develop their vaccines thanks in large part to the public effort, but the coverage of the world population that is undoubtedly essential to combat the pandemic has not been achieved. That is why we need to increase global production capacity and support the temporary release of vaccines. It is about putting the remedy before the disease, because either we all get vaccinated as soon as possible or no one will be safe from the disease. The Spanish Government has announced the liberalisation of antibody test patents. Set an example.

Madam President, I am speaking to ask for this Parliament's majority vote on the resolution, so that our voice is strong, clearly heard and the Commission, Mr Dombrovskis, feels our support. With this resolution, the European Parliament shows its strong support for multilateralism and calls on the Commission and all WTO members to achieve concrete results that strengthen fair, sustainable, rules-based international trade capable of meeting the challenges of the 21st century. Our priorities are fully reflected in the resolution: combating unsustainable subsidies to fisheries; a limited package on agriculture; a response to the pandemic, in which we Social Democrats support including the temporary suspension of certain provisions of the Patent Agreement to improve global access to vaccines, addressing global production constraints and supply shortages. A roadmap with an effective commitment to reform the organization, including the unfair sanctions system. Citizens need answers and their representatives cannot fail. My colleague Lange said: There is no time to die. I add: There is no room to fail.

Madam President, Commissioner, I am speaking to highlight the problem of Valencian citrus fruit, a sector of great importance for my community, for Spain and for the European Union. Valencia is the main export region in the EU, with a turnover of more than €2 billion per year, employing 250 000 families. However, its competitiveness and profitability and, therefore, the livelihood of hundreds of thousands of people are threatened by the lack of reciprocity in phytosanitary requirements and by the inadequate implementation of certain trade agreements such as that of South Africa. The European Union does not defend its citrus producers when it does not require cold treatment of imports from South Africa to prevent the entry of the fake moth - one of the pests most feared by citrus growers - which is required by the United States and China and which the European Food Safety Agency - as you are well aware, Commissioner - strongly recommends for reasons of plant and environmental safety. Nor does the European Union defend its producers when it acknowledges the distorting effects of the sharp increase in citrus imports as the European season begins. For all these reasons, I call for cold treatment for imports from South Africa and for citrus fruits to be declared sensitive products, as the Spanish Government, the Valencian Government, the entire sector and, of course, this MEP does.