Speeches

Madam President, Dear Commissioner, Dear Rapporteurs – Shadow, I note that the Commission continues not to give up its position and to contribute to a solution. I note the insistence, and I will say better, the stubbornness of the European Commission, the same stubbornness that I have identified in other larger files and that we have discussed in the Committee on Fisheries, with profound impact on the sector. I'll say: blocking the possibilities for fleet renewal, particularly for small-scale coastal and artisanal fishing, which is obsolete; the insistence on considering fishermen as non-compliant at the outset, imposing even greater restrictions on fishing through the control regulation; insistence on confusing engine power with fishing capacity; the decision to impose restrictions on bottom fishing in areas without involving the sector and without appropriate studies are examples of the inflexibility which the Commission always demonstrates and which, in this case, it continues to demonstrate. The Commission seeks to place the burden of responsibility for this decision on the European Parliament, when the hand it says extends knows it as well as we do, is not a guarantee of a solution. The register you propose lacks a tripartite agreement and does not currently guarantee registration in the official journal offering the legal guarantee. We reject this burden, which, I insist, falls entirely on the Commission in this transposition. We might not be in this situation. The unanimous position expressed by the speeches in plenary demonstrates this. Commissioner, accept with humility the criticisms that have been made here. We will be ready to continue the work on the basis of a new proposal which, I insist, we propose to the Commission to present as soon as possible.

Madam President, Commissioner, dear Shadow Rapporteurs, I note once again that, in a debate on fisheries-related issues, the Commissioner responsible is not present. The purpose of this proposal is to incorporate into EU law the conservation, management and control measures adopted under the Southern Indian Ocean Fisheries Agreement (SIOFA, the Regional Fisheries Management Organisation responsible for the management of fishery resources in its area of application). The conservation and management measures adopted by the SIOFA shall be binding on the European Union as a contracting party. The Commission's proposal, now under consideration, aims to transpose the recommendations set out by the SIOFA since 2016. Seven years have passed since the decision on these recommendations. The Commission proposal goes beyond several requirements of the SIOFA conservation and management measures. On the other hand, following three negotiating processes to transpose recommendations from management and conservation organisations, the Commission once again insists, in this transposition, on the use of so-called dynamic references, calling into question the right of operators to know their obligations in their mother tongue, as laid down in the Treaties and reiterated by the Court of Justice of the EU. The use of such dynamic references has always been rejected by the European Parliament, setting a strong mandate to reject them in interinstitutional negotiations. This time, after discussion and broad agreement and majority in the Committee on Fisheries, it is proposed to reject the European Commission's proposal. We regret both the late presentation of the Commission's proposal after the SIOFA recommendations, and the insistence against the legal recommendation in the presentation of the so-called dynamic references. We also regret that it was only on the verge of a rejection of this proposal by one of the co-legislators that the Commission decided to affirm the search for a solution to this and future transpositions. The outline of the Commission's suggestions is unclear, unclear or without a legal or budgetary framework that would make it possible. They ask Parliament to change its position without making a clear commitment to abandoning the insistence on dynamic references. I suggested in good time that the proposal could be withdrawn. This would interrupt the process and save everyone time. Nothing has prevented or prevented the Commission from doing so. I cannot, however, accept that the Commission should seek to replace the European Parliament by interfering in its role as co-legislator by determining what it should and should not do. This is unacceptable. The position taken by the Committee on Fisheries and which I propose to maintain was very clear: reject this approach and proposal, close first reading. We invite the Council to take the same position, allowing the European Commission to present a new proposal that is limited to the SIOFA recommendations and does not include the so-called dynamic references. This will allow Parliament to give its opinion again on a new proposal in the framework of respect between institutions and their internal procedures. I can assure you that this Parliament will be as committed, then as ever, to finding a solution that respects the principle of multilingualism and the right of operators to know their obligations in their mother tongue.

Madam President, research into and the use of alternative fuels that contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions associated with maritime transport is a change that may seem positive and necessary, but it must be done taking into account the specific realities of the Member States and the effort required to meet decarbonisation objectives, underpinned by a framework of public investment that ensures such a change. Despite derogations for the outermost regions, this regulation advocates submission to the markets, the extension of the perverse emissions trading, the defence of the interests of economic groups that take advantage of the trend of renewable energy and private managers of the main ports of the Member States and the loss of relevance of the maritime and port sector of peripheral countries such as Portugal. This regulation, like the entire so-called Package 55, is another contribution to increasing imbalances between Member States, leaving behind, unsurprisingly, dimensions such as public service, public control of strategic sectors, workers' rights or state sovereignty.

Madam President, the debate that is being held today, in addition to the national benefits that some political forces want to make of it, is only intended to hinder the necessary normalisation of relations between Cuba and the European Union, a path that was opened with the signing of the Political Dialogue and Cooperation Agreement between the EU and Cuba. Let us talk, then, about Cuba, about the criminal blockade imposed by the United States, which, for more than 60 years, has been attacking Cuba, with very serious damage to the economy and development of this country and a violent and systematic aggression against the rights of the Cuban people. Let's talk about the achievements and advances of the Cuban Revolution, particularly in terms of political, economic, social and cultural rights and its recognized policy of international solidarity, particularly in the field of health. Let us speak of the enormous resistance and determination of Cuba and its people in the struggle against interventionism and interference by the United States, in the defense of the sovereign right to decide its destiny and to continue on the path of socialist revolution. All solidarity with Cuba and its people.

Madam President, we do not question the promotion of possibilities for mobility and connectivity between countries and regions. In fact, from here, we take the opportunity to remind you that Portugal no longer has important international rail connections to Madrid and Hendaye, in the historic and Lusitânia Comboio Hotel that ceased operating in 2021, and that we cannot fail to associate it with the objectives of the process of liberalisation of the railway of which the trans-European transport network is part. It aims to deepen this policy in the name of the internal market and so-called competition, favouring the concentration of the sector and the geographical and financial centre of the European Union, to the detriment of peripheral regions. We therefore reject the option of criticising and subordinating national transport plans to the objectives of the European Union, interfering with the sovereignty of the States. What is urgent is the strengthening of rail investment at national level, ensuring in Portugal the reversal of the liberalisation process into a single, public operator, CP. Develop and restore infrastructure, value workers, strengthen and improve supply at the service of populations.

Madam President, we have learned that on the 6th, a court in the United Kingdom rejected Julian Assange's appeal against the extradition decision to the United States, following the arbitrary detention to which he has been subject since 2019. This is a worrying decision, not only because of the real risk of serious violations of his rights, including his right to physical integrity, freedom of expression or a fair trial, but also because the attempted extradition, criminalisation and arrest of Julian Assange represents unacceptable pressure to condition the publication of information of public interest. According to the President of the International Federation of Journalists, if Assange is extradited and arrested, no journalist in the world will be safe. It is time for this House to speak out against this unacceptable detention, and we therefore propose this debate and this resolution as a matter of urgency.

Madam President, the increase in antimicrobial resistance and the widespread use of antibiotics are recognised as public health problems that require action and political decision-making. It is important to reject the instrumentalisation of this issue by those, such as pharmaceutical multinationals, who favour profit over the right to health. How to reject individual accountability approaches that mask the impact of the policy option of lack of investment in public health services, worsening this situation, hindering both the prevention and proper management of antimicrobial resistance. It is also important to intervene in changing agricultural production methods, combating intensive production that employs high loads of antibiotics or genomic practices in the production of genetically modified seeds, and whose markers contribute to antimicrobial resistance. A real fight against this problem requires changing policies that promote investment in quality public health services, promoting greater prudence and vigilance and more public research in this area for the development of new alternatives and new antimicrobials.

Mr President, I wish to express here in the European Parliament our total solidarity with the just struggle of Easyjet workers in Portugal, who have been carrying out strikes these days. A fair fight for wage increases and working conditions similar to other European countries and against total deregulation of schedules, and, compared to workers from other countries of the European Union, the Portuguese are the ones who can fly more and rest less. It should be noted that the wage gap is up to 100% between Portugal and other European countries where the company operates. It should also be recalled that the European Commission has imposed the allocation to Easyjet of 18 slots daily accounts at Lisbon airport, withdrawn from TAP, thus objectively contributing to expanding the business and profits of this company and to harming TAP, guaranteeing Easyjet's bad working practices, shaking the water from the hood, becoming unaccountable instead of preventing them, and favouring its growth in this sector.

Mr President, Portugal has a historical relationship with the collection and use of algae in coastal regions, from the harvesting of moliço to the harvesting of sargaço for agricultural use as a fertiliser, which has shaped coastal communities in central and northern Portugal. The use of this resource was replaced by the use of chemical fertilizers, but to the detriment of the environment and the communities that depended on this activity. Interest in algae reappears for the food, medicinal or phycocolloid industry. Another rediscovery that can have an interesting economic value and that must be accompanied by the corresponding labor and social valorization in favor of the communities where it is inserted and national development strategies. It is important that the support that is mobilized here, the implementation strategies that will be implemented are not to the detriment of support for fishing, in particular small-scale fishing, or the usurpation or competition with specific areas of fishing.

Mr President, Commissioner, the fisheries sector is facing a situation that requires immediate and concrete measures to ensure its continuity. However, what the Commission is presenting here is a handful of nothing. Both this action plan and other recently published documents seek to point out the responsibility of the situation in the sector to Member States and fishermen, who say they do not properly implement EU instruments. The Commission washes its hands like Pilate and shakes off responsibilities. Commissioner, when will you recognise that the Common Fisheries Policy – disconnected from reality, disregarding the specific situation of national fisheries, promoting greater centralisation, depriving states of sovereignty over their exclusive economic zones, promoting the liberalisation and dismantling of public regulatory instruments, deficient in support, in particular, for small-scale fisheries – when will you recognise that EU fisheries policy has contributed greatly to the decline of this sector? The sector needs solutions, concrete and effective responses, adjusted to each reality and not the void of proposals or a path that calls into question the future of fishing.

Madam President, Commissioner, after seven consecutive increases, we are finally discussing here the impact of the increase in interest rates decided by the ECB. Contrary to what some would suggest, this is a political rather than a technical decision. It is inconceivable that such a decision should be taken without taking into account the predominant causes of inflation, the economic and social situation, and the needs created by it in each country, and the different impacts that result from it. More and more families are struggling to pay off the provision of housing credit, which has increased brutally. Consequences also for small and medium-sized enterprises and states. We must put an end to the escalation of interest rates and reverse this path, address the real causes of inflation and its impacts, defend wages and purchasing power. And here the Commissioner spoke of wages, when the Commission is co-responsible for policies advocating low wages. Urgent action is needed to make banks' profits bear the costs and impacts of interest rate increases. Households cannot continue to see their situation worsened when banks continue to accumulate profits from the rise in interest on loans, especially when they do not have an impact on their remuneration.

Mr President, what we are talking about is not more flexibility or lighter rules. On the contrary, they add new and heavier constraints on the part of the institutions of the European Union and the powers that control them over states such as Portugal. They want to impose a regulatory framework with increasing interferences in the sovereignty and in the fiscal, financial, economic and social policies and choices of states such as Portugal, with more sanctions and with sanctions that are easier to apply. By imposing limitations on primary expenditure, they want even greater pressure to reduce public investment, non-valuation of wages, disinvestment in public services and other social functions of the state. What is needed is the definitive repeal of the Stability Pact and its derivatives. Nothing should override the sovereign use and realisation of the instruments and potential that Portugal has at its disposal to guarantee the rights and aspirations of the Portuguese workers and people to develop the country.

Mr President, we must value the National Health Service and reverse the right-wing policy that has contributed to its degradation, inseparable from its submission to the impositions of the European Union. The review of macroeconomic governance and the focus on primary expenditure point to even greater pressure for disinvestment in health. The ruinous path, followed by successive governments and which the current one insists on maintaining, has a dramatic expression, at the expense of the population and compromising the right to health. Some illustrative figures: million users without a family doctor; 600 000 people waiting for the first specialty consultation, almost half above the maximum set times; 190,000 people waiting for surgery. Nevertheless, the NHS continues to provide the vast majority of health care to populations. It is necessary to value its professionals, increase investment and assign greater autonomy in NHS units, guaranteeing the right of populations to health.

Mr President, they seek to institutionalise an EU tax policy by meddling in the tax policy of each state, subverting the right principle of a budget based on contributions according to the gross national income of each state. They want to make those who are in the worst condition pay more, imploding the concepts of cohesion and convergence, calling into question the redistributive function of the budget, when they should be the ones who benefit the most from integration and have tassels and discounts contributing the most to the EU budget. New fees? which result from cooperation between States while respecting their sovereignty, ensuring an adequate fight against tax fraud, tax evasion and tax avoidance and under the principle that wealth should be taxed where it is generated, constituting national revenues of States. This should result in greater tax justice, ensuring significant resources for States to promote the necessary increase in wages and pensions, combat the increase in the cost of living and invest in public services and social functions, and promote national production and development.

– Madam President, last week we were confronted with the seventh increase in interest rates by the ECB, which will see further developments in the future. This is an option that worsens the living conditions of workers and peoples. It is not just a matter of the brutal increase in the benefits of housing loans – and it would no longer be a small one – which, in countries such as Portugal, means that almost half of families are currently struggling to pay their housing benefits. There are more and more families facing the situation of having to hand over their homes to the bank. It is households that are paying for these options, while banks continue to accumulate profits. This is a dramatic situation and it would not be understandable if this House once again did not promote this debate. We therefore insist on scheduling this discussion and the necessary measures to alleviate the consequences of these options on families and workers.

Mr President, the European Union budget, particularly in the context of the brutal increase in the cost of living stifling peoples and workers, which is inseparable from EU policy choices, must contribute to promoting investment, improving public services, supporting productive and strategic sectors, promoting food and energy sovereignty, creating jobs with rights and increasing wages and pensions, combating poverty, social exclusion and growing inequalities, and protecting the environment and biodiversity. This requires a significant reinforcement of the budget according to the gross national income of each Member State and the deepening of its redistributive function, supporting the promotion of effective convergence in economic and social progress between Member States. Parliament continues to postpone the discussion we have proposed on the measures to be taken to deal with the harmful consequences of the increase in the interest rate determined by the ECB. Well, this discussion is also an opportunity to signal this issue and mobilize means for measures that respond to the serious housing problems, aggravated by increases in interest rates, as well as speculation. We reject the escalation of the militarisation and interventionism of the European Union in progress and the reinforcement of the budget appropriations of the corresponding headings. People want peace, not war. Let us mobilize these resources to respond to the needs that peoples face for the development of countries, for the establishment of relations of solidarity, cooperation and peace.

Mr President, Commissioner, from here we welcome the intense and persistent struggle of the French workers and people against raising the retirement age, resisting the brutal repression to which they have been subjected. Cynic silence and atrocity of the European institutions in the face of aggression and violation of fundamental rights and that does not ignore the political choice of the EU for raising the retirement age – pressure that continues in Portugal – while seeking to undermine public social security systems, promoting their privatisation, and promoting low-wage policies. The brutal increase in the cost of living, inseparable from the political choices of the European Union, has had very harsh impacts on pensioners in Portugal, many with poverty pensions. In December 2021, the average pension was just over €508, below the poverty line. Urgent and necessary is the increase in pensions above inflation – as we have proposed at national level – an immediate interim increase of 9.1%, and never less than EUR 60. This, yes, is the way to dignify those who have worked a lifetime.

Mr President, what we are dealing with today is the deepening of the perverse and ineffective instrument of buying and selling the right to pollute, extending emissions trading to a greater number of sectors. The scope is broadened, demands are increased on States, a path is required that will contribute to the aggravation of inequalities and asymmetries, to phenomena of economic and productive concentration, and that passes to the peoples and workers the bill for the profits and economic interests of some. So much so that they now create a fund to mitigate the impact of this path on people, a so-called social and climate fund that, in addition to being insufficient and with a small range of beneficiaries, uniquely penalizes Portugal, unjustifiably discriminating against a cohesion country. We have said it and we say it again: current environmental problems require a regulatory approach, as opposed to market-based instruments, that sets reduction targets according to fair and effective criteria, in accordance with the principle of common but differentiated responsibility.

Mr President, forests, particularly large tropical and subtropical forests, mostly located in developing countries, are essential ecosystems for the balance of the planet and the existence of humanity, influencing the water cycle, meteorological regulation and as a guarantor of biodiversity. Forest degradation, and especially deforestation, have objective causes, ranging from harmful forest management policies to their commercial exploitation or agribusiness itself. The European Union cannot shake responsibility for the problem of deforestation with its common policies, which are themselves harmful to forests in the Member States, or with the free trade treaties it concludes, by seeking to gain a dominant position over the natural resources of third countries and by superimposing the profits of multinationals on the interests of the peoples. Defending forest ecosystems should safeguard, promote and encourage participatory and community management and exploitation models – examples of which are common land in Portugal – enhance sustainable and deforestation-free production, support small and medium-sized producers with better prices paid for production and regulate international trade.

Mr President, today we have proposed a debate on the concrete and urgent measures to be taken to mitigate the impact of the increase in ECB interest rates. Regrettably, the right, with the votes of the PSD and CDS MPs, and the far-right voted against this proposal. While thousands and thousands of families in Portugal, as in other countries, are seeing the bottleneck tighten more and more, not knowing whether they will be able to continue to pay for the house, due to the increases that in some cases have reached 65%, the European institutions are side by side with the reality that is worsening with your policies. In your silence is: the people who endure, the people who pay the profits of the bank. Families need concrete answers for yesterday. Among other things, it is necessary to: make banks' profits bear interest rate hikes, define spreads low ceilings, make it possible to renegotiate housing loans by reference to a 35 % effort rate, protect permanent own housing from attachment.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, in the middle of this month, the European Central Bank set the reference interest rates at 3.5%, following the sixth consecutive increase in those rates, and has already announced further increases. Measures that have a brutal, albeit unequal, impact on the economic difficulties of workers, families, companies and states. Dramatic impacts on housing, particularly in countries such as my own, where the variable interest rate predominates, particularly on households. Now, these families are not sure if they will continue to be able to pay the rents of the houses, given the so significant increases. The Commission and the Council can no longer ignore this reality. Workers and families demand concrete and urgent measures. This Parliament cannot stand idly by and watch the disaster to which thousands and thousands of families are being pushed. It would be inconceivable to delay this debate, here in this House, on a topic that affects people's lives so much. Let the debate take place.

Mr President, without pollinators, agri-food production capacity and quality would be substantially reduced. We are not just talking about the honey bee, but about the immense group of solitary and communal bees and other insects that are irreplaceable in pollination. Research is needed in this area to reduce the use of and dependence on the use of pesticides. Opposed to the interests of pharmaceutical and agro-industrial multinationals, which requires not only public investment in research, but also the creation of national technical and productive capacity. But it is a mistake to fine-tune the discussion on pesticides. It is necessary to question the production model, leveraged in the guidelines of a CAP that privileges the increasing concentration of agricultural production, monoculture and intensification of the production model, and the abandonment not only of traditional species and models, but also of small and medium-sized producers, thus contributing to the reduction of biodiversity, also of pollinators. Commissioner, today we repeat the debate in June last year, where I questioned you. Since then, the Commission has done nothing to answer these questions.

Mr President, the increase in Israeli repression of the Palestinian people is being brutally aggravated, with an escalation in the policy of forcibly expelling Palestinians from their homes and lands at the hands of the current Israeli government, which integrates forces of a fascist nature, and which is even more ostensibly pursuing Israel's long-standing plans. The repeated proclamations of the European Union in defence of the two-state solution are in stark contrast to the connivance, shaped by multiple forms of support and cooperation and double standards, with Israel's policy, which has long prevented such a solution, grossly violating relevant UN resolutions and successive agreements with the Palestinian authorities. We need to go beyond statements, Mr. Borrell. It is necessary to take a position of unequivocal defense of the immediate realization of the right of the Palestinian people to a sovereign and independent State, with the borders of 1967, capital in East Jerusalem, with the realization of the right to return of refugees, in compliance with the relevant UN resolutions. All solidarity with the Palestinian people.

Madam President, as much as you want to paint it social or green, the European Semester will still be what it has always been: an instrument of conditionality and interference in the budgetary policy of States, to the detriment of the peoples, for the benefit of the great powers and economic groups. Let us recall that the 2022 country-specific recommendations, in the case of Portugal, highlighted the strengthening of fiscal pressures until 2023, aimed at containing current government expenditure, i.e. by pushing for the containment of real wages and investments in public services. This discussion cannot be separated from the announcement of the end of the escape clause of the Stability Pact and the reinstatement of the excessive deficit procedures, linked to the ongoing debate on the revision of the so-called economic governance, with a view to increasing the constraints on state spending and public investment and its sanctioning framework. Negative developments that are anticipated to the detriment of countries like Portugal.

Madam President, this is yet another speech which, by pointing to war, without pointing out solutions to put an end to it, seeks to scapegoat all evils. And yet, the concrete problems facing the peoples – aggravated by the policies of sanctions, liberalisation of sectors, concentration of production, precariousness and low wages that the European Union promotes – still lack solutions. Where are the measures to reverse the rise in poverty and stop the indecent concentration of wealth? Where are the measures to contain the loss of purchasing power and the brutal rise in the cost of living? What are the measures to put an end to the exploitation and speculation of large economic and financial groups and their obscene profits? What initiatives to invest in public services and defend universal and solidarity-based social security? What are the proposals to end the assault on labour rights, increased exploitation, precariousness and deregulation of working hours? People want peace, they want what is being denied them. In Portugal, as throughout Europe, the mobilization of the population, of the workers, is intensifying. Claims for the right to a decent life, to work with rights, to increase wages are multiplied. The end of speculation and exploitation, intervention in the markets, the fixing of maximum prices. For the right to health, education, housing. For peace. This is the voice you have yet to hear.