Speeches

Mr. President, we have to put an end to the myth of the starving artist. Cultural professionals do not choose to be in a precarious situation, but it is the result of poorly designed working conditions. We have to put an end to the contracts called by-out (total purchase of rights), which go against the Copyright Directive and our European copyright model. We need to include social conditionality to ensure that not a single euro of European funding is allocated to those who do not respect social rights and minimum labour rights. And, in addition, with this proposal - hopefully with a majority - we call for the EU to propose a directive on decent working conditions for cultural professionals.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, we have made this proposal in agreement with virtually all but one of the groups, since the subject of the report - next year's elections to the European Parliament, including the issue of the lead candidate process for the presidency of the European Commission, as well as the development of the whole post-electoral process - requires, in our view, the possibility of introducing some missing element that has not been possible to negotiate in the form of amendments tabled in plenary; and, above all, that there is no discussion scheduled for this session. And we believe that, from what I said at the beginning of the speech, the importance of the item requires that we can have a debate at the next plenary meeting.

Mr President, thank you to the Secretary of State, Ángeles Moreno Bau, who spoke on behalf of the Spanish Presidency. I would remind the House that the Atlantic Charter between the United States and the United Kingdom was signed in Newfoundland on 14 August 1941. It was the common position of the Allies in the face of the threat of Nazifascism. And in 1995, Felipe González, also representing the Spanish Presidency, signed with Bill Clinton the New Transatlantic Agenda. Since then we have the system of annual or biannual summits with their declarations, but we strangely lack an all-encompassing joint framework of the relationship, either in the form of a declaration – a new Atlantic Charter – or a bilateral treaty or association agreement. I think we need to think in this direction so that we can deal with all the elements of this very important transatlantic relationship: trade, economic, investment and geopolitical.

Madam President, we have heard presentations by the President of the European Commission and the President of the European Council regarding the relaunch of enlargement further east of the European Union and the Western Balkans: the opening of chapters with Ukraine and Moldova and the candidate status of Georgia. It is something that I, of course, support. At the same time, we have not heard the necessary link between this enlargement process and the political deepening of the integration project. Enlargement and deepening must go hand in hand. These enlargements cannot be considered without opening up the process of reforming the Treaties. I would therefore remind the European Council that, at its meeting on 15 December, it has the opportunity to approve the European Parliament's proposal to convene a convention for the reform of the Treaties.

Madam President, thank you very much to Executive Vice-President Maroš Šefčovič for his presentation, which has been good. I share it, but it is true that I have missed more content in the part of democracy. He spoke of the rule of law, but not of democracy. And I'm not saying it's not in the proposal, but it's not in the speech. We have the European elections next year, in June 2024, and I believe that we must introduce ideas into that work programme for next year to strengthen the European democratic process, even without changing the rules of the Treaty, without changing the electoral law. For example, the Commission can take a position so that national political parties, which paradoxically present the ballot papers, incorporate the logos of European political parties into them. And the Commission can also take positions and encourage more effective implementation of the top-of-the-line principle of candidates for Commission President next year than in 2019.

Mr President, Commissioner, I see that there are different sensitivities on this matter also within the People's Group, because we have heard Mr Karas and then Mr Rangel. It was a little different. But thank you, in any case, for the opportunity. Although it will take time away from the short time I have, I will start by replying to Mr Lebreton, whom I thank for remaining in the Chamber, because some of his colleagues talk and run away. I would ask you to stop talking about federalism all the time as a bad word. I take this opportunity to tell you that I am the president, proud, by the way, of the Union of European Federalists. And, look, the ideology of federalism has not caused the disasters of its ideology, which is nationalism. In fact, if you reread the Schuman Declaration, you say that the ECSC is the first step for a European federation, it is 1950. That idea, that federal ideal, has given us 70 years of peace. His, that of nationalism, gave us all the wars that caused the greatest disasters in Europe. It would therefore be appropriate for him to stop using that with contemptuous intent. I do not have much time left to talk about the report, Mr President, but I thought it important to point out the above. As for the report, I fully support it. Representative democracy is not incompatible with deliberative or participatory democracy. In fact, one reinforces the other. And I also think that we have a great opportunity, as Mr Cimoszewicz said - I take this opportunity to congratulate all the rapporteurs - so that, with an application, such as EU-DEM or EurHope, of the Young European Federalists, we could have the single portal that is proposed for petitions and citizens' initiatives and for online consultations.

Mr President, I believe that you, Commissioner, will have listened to the debate. You have been left quite alone with the far right, with a part of the PP – not even all of them. We have already heard from Mr Gahler, a fairly solvent person in the People's Group. Nor has it had the support of even the whole ECR Group. That's already noteworthy. We have listened to Mrs Kanko, who has not supported him either. And, of course, all the others have not supported him, neither socialists, nor greens, nor the left. Anyway, it's not to be very satisfied. You, or your boss, have signed an agreement without any legal basis, bypassing your boss, by the way, the High Representative of the Council. I believe that in the Justus Lipsius building they should not be to uncork bottles of champagne with the procedure either. She was joined by Mrs Meloni, the first president of a far-right government in Italy after World War II, known for persecuting homosexuals and immigrants in her country. I don't know if what they wanted to do was also a bleaching operation by Mrs Meloni. And, in addition, they have signed the agreement with a president who has ended the rule of law, freedom of the press, who has suspended Parliament and who, in addition, abandons immigrants in the Libyan desert. It's not to be congratulated, Mr. Várhelyi.

Mr President, the subject of this debate is extreme heatwaves, floods and forest fires. All these events occur at the same time in my land, the Valencian Community and the province of Alicante. That is why I believe - we all agree, almost all of us, at least, in this House - that the basis of everything, the origin and the cause of these three evils - including, of course, also droughts - is climate change. We therefore need to accelerate the financing of the Green Deal. The Green Deal requires a real climate budget that it now lacks. We have to make a large issue of EU green bond debt to finance that transition. And at the same time, my land, Alicante, also needs a system to take advantage of the torrential rains that we are not yet putting on our feet. The Commission needs to make further efforts in that regard and also support the transfer mechanism to continue to bring water where it is needed in periods of drought and heatwaves. In particular, it is essential that the Commission supports the Tajo-Segura transfer.

Madam President, thank you very much to the rapporteur for this report, my colleague from the Socialist Group Gabby Bischoff, for her work, and to all the Members who have been involved in drafting it. As has already been said, Parliament had to give a strong response from the point of view of strengthening integrity, our internal controls, transparency in relation to the event known as Qatargate. It is true that it is not necessarily an ideal practice to have to legislate as a result of the specific case, but, surely, this case has allowed us to do a updating exercise that could be pending. And, in that regard, I believe that important developments must be highlighted, such as a clearer definition of what we consider to be a conflict of interest, greater publicity for the activities of Members, their meetings and the organisations with which they meet, and also an increase in sanctions for anti-regulatory behaviour. It is true that we have not achieved absolute consensus in the House, which is regrettable, because of the lack of competition from the People's Group. Hopefully it may still be possible before the vote in plenary.

Madam President, I just want to move an oral amendment, in agreement with the other groups, for this paragraph in which we just give an explanation. When we are calling for the sanctions, we mentioned those that are obstructing the political process and those that are obstructing the judicial process on the blast in the port, but we didn’t mention those that are undergoing financial misconduct and corruption investigation. So we just want to add to the paragraph: ‘those involved in serious financial misconduct and those obstructing corruption investigations’.

Madam President, thank you to the colleague for the question. We are proposing a European mechanism that includes the Member States and Frontex. It is therefore a joint mission to ensure maximum coordination and complementarity. This mission may also require funding, as my colleague points out, and we will have to look for the means in the pending revision of the multiannual financial framework. But let us not forget that the Member States have the assets, that is, the vessels that can help us to launch and implement this mission.

Madam President, thank you to Commissioner Johansson for participating in this important debate. The tragedy of Adriana in Pilos has, in my opinion, unfortunately been the chronicle of an announced death. And I think there are important political and also criminal responsibilities that will have to be cleaned up in this case. But above all, what we have to achieve with this debate and with this resolution is that what has happened in Pilos will never happen again in the Mediterranean. And that is why I have to thank my colleagues from the other groups - Lukas Mandl, from the EPP Group, Fabienne Keller, from the Renew Group, Erik Marquardt, from the Greens/EFA Group, and Cornelia Ernst, from the Left Group - for having arrived at the proposal we make in the resolution that we will vote on tomorrow for a European search and rescue mission. Because what is clear, beyond the ideological question on this issue, is that there is also a question of European responsibility and subsidiarity. There is a humanitarian obligation to save lives at sea, and it is an obligation that should not separate us in this House either by ideology or – as I say – by subsidiarity. Let us therefore move in that direction. Let us all vote in favour of this resolution tomorrow in order to send a strong signal to the Council about what we are demanding from this House. Two days ago the headless body - headless, I repeat - of a two-year-old boy was found on a beach in Tarragona, Spain. Police believe he drowned trying to cross the Mediterranean. Ladies and gentlemen, let us not allow this to happen again. (The speaker agreed to answer a question under the "blue card" procedure)

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, more than a year ago, on 10 May 2022, 116 Members of this House addressed a letter to the European Commission asking it to establish the legal basis for the confiscation of EUR 300 billion of Russian state assets. A year later, the European Council instructs the Commission, the Council and the High Representative to continue the work to develop this legislative basis. Taking advantage of the fact that Vice-President Šefčovič is here, I tell him that we are very late with this task. And things, in our opinion, quite clear: an aggressor state, confirmed by the United Nations General Assembly Resolution and by the International Court of Justice, cannot have absolute immunity from jurisdiction as some are saying. And, moreover, nowhere in international law is it said that war reparations have to wait for the conflict to end. Please proceed swiftly with this legislative proposal.

Madam President Dita Charanzová, thank you very much to the Commissioner and other colleagues for the debate. I join the calls to continue combating climate change as the main tool to combat drought, as well as other measures such as rationalization in the use of water, saving measures and the use of treatment plants. But I also believe that the Commission needs clearer and stronger support for the instrument of transfers between surplus basins and deficit basins. This traditional instrument is also part of our arsenal and should not be stigmatized. Surely, it is even a better tool, for example, than overexploiting underground aquifers. Let us remember: transfers such as the Tajo-Segura, which is essential for human consumption and agricultural development in the province of Alicante, must receive clear support from the European Commission.

Mr President Marc Angel, I take the opportunity of this debate to address again Minister Roswall of the Swedish Presidency because, a year ago, the European Council at the end of June made a mistake that you can correct. When Ukraine was welcomed and declared a candidate, President Macron forgot his commitment to advance the political deepening of Europe and proposed the European Political Community, and everyone got lost. That was the occasion, while giving that signal towards enlargement, to give a signal towards deepening, that is, towards the reform of the Treaties. Because obviously nobody can believe that we are going to go to a Council with 30, 33 or 35 members and continue as before, with the right of veto and other things that do not make sense. So please, Minister Roswall, take the opportunity of this European Council to say something very simple: that enlargement and deepening must go hand in hand.

Madam President, thank you to Vice-President Jourová for her presence and also to Mrs Roswall, on behalf of the Council. Minister, the truth is that I do not think that the issue is to enter into a debate between us, parliamentarians, but I was a little shocked by the intervention of my colleague Paulo Rangel. Knowing its position against transnational lists, one must admit that this is Parliament's position and, when we come to debate with the Council, precisely because after a year... Colleague Rangel, you've had your two and a half minutes, then maybe you can make a blue card. (in response to a comment by Paulo Rangel). I believe that today is not the time to re-discuss between us what we already approved on 3 May, but to urge the Council to start negotiations with Parliament, more than a year after its adoption. Especially since Mrs Roswall, on behalf of the Council, kindly sent us a letter to the European Parliament recently urging us to make the proposal for the composition of Parliament. We see that they are in a bit of a hurry, but of course, one knows that in life there is that which the Romans called «quid pro quo’. So if you want us to vote on the composition proposal tomorrow, it would be good to expect that you, a year after we voted on our electoral law proposal, would also start negotiating. Because, although you said, Madam Minister, that the report has its complexities and that there are many new elements, you also know that we have proposed to negotiate on three elements in particular – the pan-European constituency, gender equality and the rights of persons with disabilities – and we have not yet had a response to our offer. We're still waiting. And, in addition, another element must be kept in mind. One is left with the feeling that the Swedish Presidency does not have a great will to go forward when you conclude your speech by saying: "By the way, we must not forget that the most important thing is the issues that interest citizens". What are you trying to say? That this issue, that of strengthening European democracy and giving them the possibility to vote directly for European political parties, is of no interest to citizens?

Mr President, Commissioner, if you can wait a moment, because you have not answered the question. He hasn't answered the question I asked him. But it's gone running, you can't do anything anymore.

Mr President Karas, Commissioner, thank you for your presence. According to the World Bank, since October 2019, Lebanon has been gripped by the most devastating and multifaceted crisis in its modern history. We could even say that these superlatives fall short. At the root of this crisis, among other factors, lies deep-rooted corruption that weakens institutions and curtails the possibility of change. But there is a paradigmatic case, which is that of Riad Salamé, the governor of the Central Bank of Lebanon. There are seven European countries that are investigating it and have claimed their participation in the judicial processes. He has also been indicted in Lebanon by three judges. A number of arrest warrants have been issued against him, most recently by France on 16 May of this year and by Germany on 23 May. Interpol has also issued a red alert regarding Mr Riad Salamé. In addition, investigations in Lebanon have been obstructed by the political class – part of the political class – and the judges who instruct them have been harassed or dismissed from their posts. I would therefore like, Commissioner, at the end of the day, a concrete answer from you to this question: the Commission has the Council's framework decision which expires at the end of July, is it prepared to implement it in order to sanction the Governor of the Central Bank, Mr Riad Salamé, before 31 July?

Madam President Picierno, Madam Vice-President, thank you for your presence and thank you to colleagues. The truth is that when the Commission proposal on this subject arrived, I printed it on paper to read it carefully and carefully, so that nothing escaped me, bearing in mind also that the Commission had taken its time – four years – to make this proposal. One might expect that, after four years, having carried out many consultations with experts or having read Parliament's own-initiative report, a very powerful, very ambitious proposal would come from the Commission. However, as it is said in Spanish, it seems that you have given birth to a mouse. They have taken a long time to present us with something that has a level of ambition and also a disconnect from Parliament's proposal that really catches our eye. So, before that, the most expert colleagues involved in the dossier will have to decide whether to return the proposal to the Commission, rejecting it outright, or to amend it and turn it around almost like a sock.

Mr President, it has been said that the blasting of the New Kakhovka dam constitutes an ecological and humanitarian catastrophe and, in my opinion, is also a symptom of the desperation of the Russian armed forces who, at the beginning of the spring counter-offensive by Ukraine, have resorted to this war crime to try to sustain their defences. This reminds us that we must continue to provide all military and arms support to Ukraine for this counter-offensive to be successful. At the same time, we need to move forward with sanctions. It is essential to approve the 11th package of sanctions and, above all, to establish secondary sanctions so that third countries cannot help Russia circumvent our sanctions.

Madam President, I would like to transfer all my support and that of the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party to this resolution. Of course, we again demand the release of both Navalny and Kara-Murza and the other opponents. But I have to tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that I have no real hope that this will happen. That is why I think the most important thing is that we sanction, as several colleagues have already requested, all those who are involved in the trial of both Navalny and Kara-Murza and the other opponents. That means that we sanction, as the United States and Canada have already done, the judges who have handed down these sentences, the prosecutors and the police officers who have ordered the arrests, as I say, of Navalny, Kara-Murza and all political opponents in Russia.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I would like to extend my thanks and congratulations to the rapporteur, Javi López, also a colleague of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats, for this magnificent report, and to the other rapporteurs who have collaborated on behalf of the various groups. Because this position of Parliament really comes at a very opportune time, because we must relaunch, we must ensure, by the end of 2025, that this force or rapid reaction capability is already operational, available. It is one of the main commitments of the strategic compass put forward by High Representative Josep Borrell, and one of the elements that, in my opinion, justifies the mandate of this Commission in the field of security and defence. The report adequately raises the issue of the General Staff and Headquarters, which must be established to give effect to this rapid reaction force. And in this regard we have two possibilities: the first, to do an exercise of creation, let's say, of new plant of this General Headquarters and General Staff. The second, and I propose it for consideration and debate, is to try to communitize the Eurocorps, which, as you know, is based precisely in Strasbourg and which is a capacity that is already available, although not at Community level. That is why I say that perhaps through PESCO it could be communitarized, so as not to have to do an exercise in the creation of a new plant.

Madam President, thank you to Commissioner Hahn for joining us in this debate. It is a debate that is undoubtedly taking place at a very opportune time. Why? Because just in recent weeks there has been the parliamentary visit referred to by President Skyttedal, to which I am also grateful for her work, and also the meeting of the EU-Iraq Cooperation Council between the High Representative/Vice-President Josep Borrell and the Iraqi Minister for Foreign Affairs. It is true that the satisfaction - I have to say it in my personal capacity - is not complete, because it would have been desirable for this debate not only to be an exchange of views between parliamentarians and the Commission, but also to have been accompanied by a resolution; Let us not forget that the last resolution of this Parliament on Iraq is from 2018. It has rained a lot – as it is said in Spanish – since then in Iraq and in Europe. And we are also on the 20th anniversary of the US intervention in Iraq. Having said that, let us take advantage of the time we have to lay down some positions, at least in the capacity of Members and groups. Iraq is a country trying to advance its democratic transition, in a troubled region that has suffered from the lack of freedoms and the scourge of the Islamic State. Undoubtedly, it is an imperfect democracy, but one of the few cases and examples we have in the region and, therefore, we have to give all possible support. In this regard, I believe that a test of our joint cooperation must be the establishment, still pending, of the joint interparliamentary committee between this Parliament and the Iraqi Parliament, on which we are working from the delegation. I also do not want to leave the opportunity to address the Commission because we believe – from what we are told – that Commissioner Urpilainen is not a big fan of maintaining financial support for the UNESCO initiative ‘Reviving the spirit of Mosul’. You may not know right now if that is the case, but you may be able to ask yourself when the debate is over. Members of the parliamentary delegation had the opportunity to learn about this initiative and we firmly believe that it is necessary to recover a jewel of universal heritage and give hope to the people.

Mr President, thank you to Vice-President Maroš Šefčovič, not only for his presence, but for having negotiated the Windsor Framework, which is a rule of interpretation of the Protocol that allows us to get out of the situation we were in. Therefore, congratulations. Congratulations also, of course, to my dear colleague Pedro Silva, the rapporteur for the report on the implementation of the Withdrawal Agreement. I think we have to take into account several elements. First of all, perhaps, to follow very closely the use in practice – if it is used, hopefully not – of the so-called Stormont brake, because it is true that, until we see it in practice, we cannot calculate exactly what consequences its activation can have. Also take advantage of the new climate, because after all this is the debate on relations between the European Union and the United Kingdom, to recover some elements of cooperation that in its day - Maroš, you will remember - we proposed in the agreement on the future relationship, which at that time Prime Minister Boris Johnson decided to withdraw, such as cooperation in foreign and security policy and other important elements. In this regard too, we have to express our concern with the proposal for a migration law recently made by the current Prime Minister, on which Ylva Johansson has already declared that it is obviously contrary to international law, given that intention to deny the right of asylum to people arriving through the English Channel in the United Kingdom, and which has implications also with regard to our migration policy.

Madam President, Mr Nausėda, President of the Republic of Lithuania, I have absolutely shared your speech in the elements of firmness towards Russia, of total support for Ukraine, in the defence of its integrity and sovereignty. Also, in opening up to enlargement, of course, for Ukraine, for Moldova, for Georgia and also, as has been recalled, for the Western Balkans. He has my full support on that agenda that he has put forward. At the same time, I would like to tell you that this agenda requires, if we are honest and if we are credible, also a mention, which I have not found in your speech, to the necessary deepening of the political project. It must be clear to me, and I am also speaking on this occasion as my group's spokesman on constitutional matters, that there can be no enlargement without deepening. It is not sustainable to go to a Foreign Affairs Council with 30, 32 or 33 states with veto rights in foreign policy, for example. Or that we also need unanimity to approve the multiannual financial framework with 33 Member States and, let us not forget, 33 national ratifications. Therefore, Mr President Nausėda, I encourage you to also contribute to the debate in the European Council to pave the way for the adoption of a new Treaty that is more democratic, more efficient and therefore more federal.