Speeches

Mr President, Madam Vice-President Jourová, I would like to start with a special mention - if you will allow me - to you and Commissioner Reynders to acknowledge their commitment to the instruments for monitoring and strengthening the rule of law that have been developed in this mandate. I would also like to highlight the role that the Commission has played in facilitating the renewal agreement of the General Council of the Judiciary in Spain and, at the same time, to recall that an essential part of that agreement is still pending implementation, such as the reform of the model for the election of Council members in accordance with European standards. Here, too, I hope that the Commission will be able to fulfil that role of facilitator and witness to the commitments that have been made. Mrs Jourová, unfortunately, the term 'slippage' has become fashionable in the European Union (backsliding) to describe negative developments in several States as regards the rule of law. And to me this from the backsliding It reminds me of the tale of the frog in the casserole: As the temperature of the water gradually rose, the frog did not realize the danger until it reached the boiling point, and then the frog's situation was hopeless. Mrs Jourová, do not pass us off as the frog with the rule of law in the European Union. We need to further improve the governance of the judiciary (one of the crucial issues of ensuring the rule of law), the appointment of judges, the position of the prosecution in judicial systems, the fight against corruption through the definition and tightening of criminal sanctions, as well as the harmonisation promoted by the directive we are going to discuss. But we also need to prevent governments from using means that may formally appear legal, but are politically fraudulent, to overturn final court decisions when they, for whatever reason, harm them. We need to monitor and act on this slippage so that it is not too late and therefore we need strong action from the Commission which we will continue to promote and push forward.

Mr President, Mr Vice-President Schinas, Frontex is an essential instrument for the management of the external borders, with two exceptions: for the populist far-right, which has just described it as a travel agency, and for the socialist and communist government of Spain, which considers that Frontex has nothing to say or do when there is an unprecedented migration crisis in the Canary Islands. The European Union does indeed have to make and demonstrate a policy capable of controlling the external borders. But we have to do it without falling either into the populist lie that promises miracle solutions - which are impossible - or into the double standards and hypocrisy of the left. We must remind the left that the one who speaks of mass deportations is Chancellor Scholz. It must be remembered that the one who has unilaterally reintroduced controls at all border points in Germany is the Social Democratic Chancellor. But, in Spain, the Supreme Court has declared the illegality of the hot return of dozens of minors in Ceuta that occurred in the summer of 2021. In Spain, when corpses piled up on the Moroccan side of the border with Melilla, the only comment the interior minister made was that the Moroccan gendarmerie had acted very correctly. Well, neither lies nor demagogy: Let's get to the task. We have instruments, we have resources, we have means. Therefore, this is a possible goal to which we have to be committed.

Madam President, Madam Vice President Jourová, it now turns out that, in one of the many Springfields in the United States, immigrants eat cats, dogs and pets. It also turns out that Putin invades Ukraine because he is the guardian of Christian values in the face of decadent Western democracy. In this same House we have had to remember the infamy of two totalitarianisms that agreed to divide Poland, because Stalin is a character who, with Russian disinformation, wants to be rehabilitated and whitewashed. And that's for not remembering everything that has been said about vaccines, COVID, smear and smear campaigns against candidates, democratic electoral processes and representative institutions. Our democratic systems are challenged to survive in a toxic environment where disinformation benefits from the enormous multiplier power of today's technologies. The worst thing is that the fake news and disinformation has also become a business that pollutes the media and has been adopted by many governments as a strategy to attack their adversaries. Therefore, we have to vindicate - and we fully agree - the role of those media that strive to provide truthful information thanks to their independence and the professionalism of those who make them and we have to denounce those governments that, under the pretext of fighting disinformation, want to establish covert forms of censorship, want to create levers of pressure on independent media and abuse public resources. In this regard, I would like to inform you that the legislation proposed by the Spanish Government is extremely worrying. Ladies and gentlemen, freedom of expression requires many things from us. It requires us to listen to opinions that we consider absurd or points of view with which we radically disagree. What freedom of expression does not require of us is to tolerate lies, to be silent in the face of manipulation, or to allow hoax propagators, here or in Moscow, to rouse themselves by distorting the democratic conversation of the whole society.

Mr President, Commissioner, I do not think I am exaggerating if I say that Schengen can be seriously damaged by the opportunist discourse of the extreme right and by the double standards and hypocrisy of the left. The generalisation of border controls raises some extremely worrying consequences. We cannot convey to citizens the idea that Schengen is a threat to their security, nor can we generate so many exceptions that in the end affect the general rule. Schengen cannot be a kind of optional compromise. It is the duty of States. In that sense, Schengen cannot be the scapegoat for other shortcomings of the Union or of the Member States either. This is consistent with addressing the security concerns to which States naturally have to respond. We need to improve the control of the external borders. We need to strengthen police and judicial cooperation. We need an adequate legal framework soon for the return of those who are in an illegal situation. Schengen must remain a reality that brings citizens closer to the experience of the Union as an area of freedom, security and justice.

Madam President, Commissioner, Europol has identified eight hundred and twenty-one criminal organisations in Europe. They are organizations of multinational composition, they are organizations of transnational scope, they are organizations that carry out a great variety of criminal activities with technological means and they are organizations willing to use violence. Therefore, we have to act and the remedies are quite clear: we need to move towards a massive application of more and better technology; we need to step up cooperation, strengthening the role of Europol, as is being done in recent years, but also improving police and judicial cooperation, and, in that regard, we believe that there is ample room for improvement in the current regulation of the European arrest warrant; we need to close the gaps in our criminal laws, and we need to act against money laundering. I would like to refer to two specific points on this last point. First, Europol's recurrent warnings about the increasing infiltration of criminal organisations into legal economic structures. We need to be very aware that this infiltration is taking place, that it has devastating consequences from the point of view of corruption and that we need to fine-tune and strengthen our instruments to deal with this situation. Secondly, we need to improve the protection of state law enforcement agencies acting against crime. They have to have better means and they have to have better legal protection. The various trade union associations that are denouncing a very significant increase in assaults on police officers have to be heard: We need to protect those who are protecting us.

Madam President, Commissioner, this is going to be the first debate of many that we are going to have in this new legislature, because we are all aware that we are facing one of the great political and social challenges and because we have to respond to the concerns and expectations of citizens. I do not intend to go into the very fact of the terrorist attack, as described by the Commissioner, but I do want to express my remembrance of the victims and my solidarity with them. It is clear that law enforcement mechanisms that should have worked have not worked, have failed, and this cannot be said to be the fault of the European Union. We do not try to link, nor do we want to link, immigration to terrorism: We leave that to those who trade politically with fear, because no responsible or effective policy can be done with that thick outline. Indeed, it is curious to see that those who demand the most from the European Union are those who systematically oppose strengthening its rules, resources and instruments. And we also say that it is irresponsible not to take into account that certain migratory flows pose specific risks that need to be identified and acted upon. It is clear that coming from a country in conflict cannot in itself guarantee access to asylum. National governments in the coming weeks will have to present their national plans for the implementation of the Pact on Migration and Asylum and we have to demand that the Commission be rigorous and demanding in analysing them.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen of the Socialist Party, I do not think you have thought this through. Come and give lessons of democratic memory here, when you keep as a strategic partner who has not condemned or condemned a single one of the almost nine hundred murders committed by ETA. I think they have not thought well to come here to talk about democratic memory when every hour, every minute and every day depend on the government of parties that want to destroy the Spanish Constitution, which is the constitution of freedoms and reconciliation. How dare they give lessons of democratic memory to a party that has paid like no other the tragic tribute in blood to defend the Constitution, the Spanish nation and freedom in Spain? When I heard your president contemptuously refer to the town councilors, I remembered all the town councilors who in all the tragic episodes of our history have been victims of violence and who do not deserve such contempt. His idea of historical memory is summed up in the unholy exhibition of Pedro Sánchez photographing himself surrounded by the remains of victims of the Civil War. That image of dignity defines them. And you should not, because of the trajectory of the Socialist Party, let that image define you.

Mr President, Mr High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice-President of the Commission, we are holding this debate with the concern of an escalation in the Middle East. It is true that Iran – with its direct attack on Israel – has elevated the aggression to an unprecedented and much more dangerous state. But the escalation has already been caused by the action of Iran’s subsidiary forces – from Hamas to Hezbollah to the Houthi militias. Iran is a global threat that is actively present in all the most conflictive scenarios, not only in the Middle East, but also in Ukraine. And it is true that sanctions by themselves are not a policy, but it is no less true that appeals to calm by themselves are not either. Iran is an apocalyptic theocracy based on bloody repression acting through an armed wing that has to be considered for all intents and purposes a terrorist organization. Iran is likely to already possess nuclear capability and so-called militarization is pending. Well, the resolution we are going to vote on is very explicit about the consequences that must follow Iran's failure to comply with its obligations. Finally there is the Iranian people. The struggle of women and the opposition that must be supported, instead of echoing the defamation campaigns that come from the Iranian theocracy. All of them have the right for the European Union to recognise their struggle and support their legitimate aspirations.

Mr President, when the biggest case of corruption with public funds for employment aid broke out in Andalusia, the Socialist Party said that this was a matter of four gulfs. Well, that case of four gulfs turned into a fraud of almost seven hundred million euros, ten trials held so far, ten convictions and thirty-five convicted, including the two former presidents of the Socialist Party and former presidents of the Junta de Andalucía. Today we are talking about a corruption scheme in the government and in the Socialist Party of hundreds of millions of euros that affects the financial interests of the Union and that has to be thoroughly investigated. I suppose the Socialists will also say that in this case it has no path either. Well, in order not to have the case covered, for the moment it has arrived in Brussels, in the form of an investigation by the Prosecutor's Office, and it has arrived in Venezuela. Because there is evidence that the previous Socialist Government of the Balearic Islands loaded to European funds a consignment of absolutely useless masks of more than three million euros. And to Venezuela because there are more than well-founded suspicions that this same corrupt plot facilitated the breach of the sanctions that weigh on the Maduro regime and, in particular, on its vice president Delcy Rodríguez. Not to mention the academic activities of a person very close to the President of the Government, generously sponsored by an airline that the Government later rescued with four hundred and seventy-five million euros. Gentlemen of the Socialist Party, you have a very curious way of fighting corruption, which is to cheapen crime, to amnesty embezzlers and to slander those who have been innocent after the investigations that you have wanted to promote.

Mr President, Commissioner, thank you first to the rapporteur for this report, which we support and which we must welcome. The Commissioner knows that we have supported this instrument because we need a full-time European Commission, not a part-time European Commission in defending and guaranteeing the rule of law. And as I have seen that there is a certain tension in this debate, we will have to remember - in all serenity - some things. Yes, the corruption scandal that has erupted in Spain and that affects the socialist government has serious European implications and that will come out. And no, it is not the rule of law to agree with criminals to reform the Criminal Code, it is not the rule of law to reduce the crime of embezzlement, it is not the rule of law to declare that the Attorney General of the State depends on the Government, it is not the rule of law to amnesty embezzlers or it is not the rule of law nor is it European to exchange impunity for votes to remain in the Government.

Mr President, Commissioner, we in the Group of the European People's Party have wholeheartedly supported the reform package proposed by the Commission for the regulation of supplementary protection certificates. The new measures, which are essentially procedural, are aimed at reducing procedural times, reducing costs and are therefore beneficial to the sector and ultimately promote and incentivise innovation. There are still two aspects, however, which are very relevant for the European People's Party and to fulfil precisely the objective pursued by the Commission with this reform: reduce costs and administrative burden and improve legal certainty. These are two issues proposed by the European People's Party which so far have not had sufficient support, but we hope that they will be able to do so in tomorrow's vote. On the one hand, we consider that the new opposition procedure proposed by the Commission is unnecessary, since there are sufficient guarantees for interested third parties to be able to intervene at the various stages of the procedure. And, on the other hand, the proposal, already known, that nullity actions be brought directly before the Unified Patent Court in order to avoid the unnecessary delays and costs involved in a review of the decision by the European Union Intellectual Property Office itself. With these two measures, which we are going to propose via amendment, we want to help speed up these processes, to avoid duplication and unnecessary burdens without harming, in any case, the interests of third parties that are fully guaranteed by having various instruments of participation in these procedures. Our position is generally very favourable and we hope that they will be able to improve the vote in plenary tomorrow.

Mr President, I believe that there is only one possible message that must come out of the European Union: Without María Corina Machado there are no presidential elections with minimal credibility. Fifteen dialogues with the opposition. No results. Fourteen hundred disabled since 2002. Countless attempts at agreement. And now, María Corina Machado, who is the hope of democratic change in Venezuela, disabled. It makes no sense for us to talk about verification missions so that the Union becomes a part, a decoration with which the Chavista regime is adorned. Let's not fool ourselves: a credible policy towards Venezuela based on cheating alone is not possible. It is clear that this declarative policy will not achieve minimum democratic conditions for an electoral process. Continuing to do the same will only lead to the same rather than disappointing results.

Madam President, we must at least congratulate ourselves on the fact that the Russian strategy of interference is becoming clearer. This should be the end of innocence. It is clear that it is a continuous strategy, sustained over time, financed with a huge amount of money and with very specialized human resources. We are clear that Russia seeks the destabilization of the European Union, the discrediting of its institutions, the contamination of public debate. It seeks to break the territorial integrity of states: Members of this House, associated with the Russian intelligence services, work in concerted agitation and propaganda in the purest Soviet tradition, Members of this House feed the homophobic and anti-Western garbage coming out of Russia Today and Sputnik, Members of this House have discussed with Russian representatives how best to attack the territorial integrity of Spain. For it is a moral and political duty to denounce before this House that, while we debate how to deal with Russian interference and its attempts at destabilization, in my country, in Spain, an amnesty law will prevent and close the ongoing judicial investigation into Russian participation in the attempted secession of Catalonia in October 2017. Ladies and gentlemen, in Spain it turns out that not only is Mr Puigdemont to be amnestied, but Pedro Sánchez is also going to amnesty Putin.

Madam President, Mr President, many heads of government and state pass through this rostrum, but you really are a unique case. He is the only prime minister to occupy this rostrum who has left his government in the hands of a man fleeing justice for some of the most serious crimes a politician can commit. That's his presidency. That is unprecedented, no matter how hard you try, because otherwise, if we talk about the Middle East, Israel has withdrawn its ambassador and you are congratulated by Hamas. If we talk about energy, it turns out that Spain increases its gas purchases from Putin. If we talk about immigration, we know how to solve the immigration crises in the Canary Islands: centrifuging unchecked immigrants on the peninsula. You, Mr President, are unfortunately sitting between European anomaly and national shame, because the truth is that seditious embezzlers accused of acts of terrorism are going to go unpunished. As Europe strives to strengthen the rule of law, you come here with the message that enforcing the law is bad for coexistence. The rule of law means subjecting power to institutions. You come here with the message, representing the institutions subject to power. The rule of law is judicial independence and it is the judges who were severely insulted yesterday in Congress by their partners – judges of all stripes – who have denounced what their government pacts mean. We are the first political force in Europe. We regret that you are moving in that direction, towards institutional and democratic degradation. We're not going to follow them; we will continue to fight for a Europe of law, law and institutions

Mr President, on 23 July there were general elections in Spain. Before July 23, amnesty was absolutely unconstitutional and would never be granted, and Carles Puigdemont was a fugitive from justice. After the 23rd, amnesty is the quintessence of the Constitution and Carles Puigdemont is an exile. Man, some explanation deserves the thing. And while quoting Mandela is very tempting, I think the explanation is much simpler: a politician who gives impunity to his allies to make him president of the Government. And it is hard to believe that in the Europe of the rule of law impunity is the currency of exchange that is exchanged for votes. Because there is an amnesty that will erase embezzlement, crimes against the rule of law and responsibility for acts of terrorism (Mrs. Garcia, article two, read it all). An amnesty that will cancel the judicial investigation into the Russian interference that this Parliament has already declared proven. An amnesty based on a political pact against judicial independence that provides that Parliament can review judicial proceedings. An amnesty that does not promote reunion - in plain sight - but is generating a very serious fracture and division in Spanish society. And please do not cite Portugal and France to legitimize the amnesty. The crimes that this amnesty understands and will erase are precisely the crimes that were excluded in the amnesties in France and Portugal. Mr Reynders, if this amnesty goes ahead, if this amnesty of embezzlers, (alleged) terrorists and seditious people goes ahead, I believe that the voice of the European institutions, when they have to defend the rule of law, will be much weaker.

Madam President, my group is opposed to holding this debate. Parliament is working intensively on this regulation and, as the Commissioner for Home Affairs is scheduled to appear in the LIBE Committee next week, we intend to add this matter to her appearance for explanations as appropriate.

Madam President, Commissioner, if at this moment we already think that the internet is a space that poses serious risks for our children, let us imagine how things can evolve with the massive application of new artificial intelligence tools or the management of natural language. We have a number of already very specific problems that need to be addressed. We must establish a real and effective age verification mechanism during navigation to prevent minors from accessing pornography distribution platforms. And this mechanism has to be legal, and it can be. We must establish, at European level, a uniform legal response to these phenomena. We must establish real mechanisms for two phenomena that are on the rise and that acquire an extraordinary gravity, such as cyberbullying and sexual harassment. Education is important, but precisely for this reason we must provide resources to those who have to act as real warning signs in our schools and in our families to prevent this from becoming the plague with which it threatens to become.

Madam President, Commissioner, I think we have to express our satisfaction with the progress that has been made in Albania in bringing that European perspective closer together and, finally, in joining the Union as the Albanians wish. But we know that this process requires efforts, it requires firm commitments, and we cannot hide the fact that there are also large deficits in terms of institutional organisation, the rule of law, electoral legislation, the police, justice and freedom of expression and demonstration. These deficits appear to have become visible in a recent police operation against the main Iranian opposition group in exile, based in Albania, after an agreement negotiated with the Albanian authorities. A massive operation of unjustified use of force. It's not about exempting anyone from law enforcement, because it's one thing to enforce the law and quite another to give political success to Iran's brutally repressive regime. I believe that, unfortunately, the latter is what has happened.

Madam President, Commissioner, allow me to greet the representative of the Spanish Presidency at this first hearing in Parliament and, of course, wish him every success in discharging his responsibilities. Jefferson said that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. And it is not that the reports on the rule of law have been drawn up for an eternity, but they already accumulate a few editions and that gives us enough perspective to be able to know the X-ray of what is the situation of the rule of law in the European Union. I believe, Commissioner, that this is one of the most remarkable achievements of your mandate, and we have always been in favour of a universal, homogeneous and non-discriminatory instrument in analysing where these problems lie. We have reiterated, from the PP and the Spanish delegation, concerns about the deterioration of the legislative quality, about the deterioration of the legislative process, about some reforms. I will not go in to answer other party allusions that have been made; I simply want to express here the conviction today, precisely today, that next year - I assure you, Commissioner - the chapter dedicated to Spain will be much more positive.

Madam President, Commissioner, the truth is that today is a day to congratulate ourselves on this initiative. We have to be realistic: There will be no pauses, there will be no moratoriums on the development of artificial intelligence and we are therefore facing the most important transformation phenomenon of our civilization in centuries. That's why I think it's also important that we take a constructive view, an optimistic view that not only underscores the risks, but also expands the opportunities. We are not facing the irreversible and inevitable dystopia, but we are facing a new era of opportunities in which we can lead from the European Union in terms of regulation. Such regulation has to offer certainty, it has to facilitate innovation and it has to build trust. And we believe that, indeed, this standard meets these three objectives. And I do regret that whenever legitimate security concerns have been raised, China's argument is used as the final argument to silence this debate. No one is talking about China or Russia; we are talking about the European rule of law, about legitimate security concerns of its citizens for specific exceptions in some use of available technologies.

Madam President, Madam Vice-President, the truth is that the magnificent report authored by our colleague Sandra Kalniete speaks for itself. It is a document of which we can be proud who have participated in this committee because, to begin with, it is a crucial contribution to raising awareness of what this threat and this challenge represent. And, secondly, because I think it is a report that meets the need for objectivity through proven facts, with recommendations and initiatives, and that monitors the implementation of the first report adopted by this committee. We are facing a challenge that unfolds in the shadows and, in the face of darkness, it is best to shed light. This report sheds light on the scale of the challenge and who is responsible for it. It is therefore important that we speak with the names of China, Russia and Venezuela; let's talk about malign influence strategies like Qatar and Morocco; Let us be aware that wherever there is a crisis there will be an interest in setting it on fire. And we have some experiences: Some experiences, such as that of the illegal secessionist process in Catalonia, which had the support and accompaniment of Russian agents. Elections to the European Parliament will be held in a year's time. Let us be aware that, once again, attempts will be made to condition the free decision of our democratic systems.

Señor presidente, señor comisario, es realmente lamentable que con demasiada frecuencia se tenga que producir un hecho trágico para que se tomen medidas legislativas. Legislators should anticipate and address problems that we know exist and cannot be silenced. Coco Fox's life shouldn't have been lost. But now what we have to do is honor his memory and the struggle of his mother, Jackie Fox, to confront this scourge from a legislative point of view. We need to provide comprehensive protection for children with concrete rules – not just declarations – setting out obligations, proper reporting procedures, effective prevention protocols, commitment by parents and guardians, the education system, authorities, organisations and civil society and, of course, the firm commitment of all those companies offering digital services within the European Union. Cyberbullying is a reality that children suffer in silence and humiliation, that destroys them psychologically and that in many cases marks them with consequences difficult to erase, if not with lethal consequences. Cyberbullying is not just the bullying digital, it is sexual extortion, it is persecution, it is the induction to commit acts that are seriously harmful to the mental integrity, moral integrity and physical integrity of minors. Thank you, Frances, for your initiative and your commitment. We strongly support this cause and call in this debate for the criminalisation of cyberbullying throughout the European Union, with the adoption of measures to prevent, investigate and punish harassers and the support that victims deserve.

Madam President, Commissioner, we must welcome this Commission initiative because it will resolve unacceptable situations within the Union as regards persecution and the punishment of embezzlement. And we especially thank the Spaniards, who have seen, with amazement and shame, how the Government of Spain and its parliamentary majority a few months ago amended the Criminal Code to dissolve the crime of embezzlement and reduce penalties. I repeat, dissolve the crime of embezzlement and reduce the penalties. How did they do it? Under an urgent procedure and with an amendment to a legislative text that was being processed in Parliament. Why did they do it? To benefit his political allies convicted of embezzling public funds to finance the secessionist process in Catalonia. And now that we have the Commission's proposal, now what? Well, now we encourage the Government of Spain to take this opportunity and not wait for the proposal to be finally approved to rectify and correct a serious political and legislative error. We encourage you to do your real homework, to re-establish the crime of embezzlement and to recover your sentences. We encourage you to be diligent and seek agreement, at least with the main opposition party. And we encourage you to do so before the start of the next rotating presidency of the Council, which Spain will assume on 1 July. Honestly, Commissioner, I have little confidence, but to see if you in the Commission are more successful than we are and convince the Spanish Government to fix another of the legislative disasters that characterize it soon.

Mr President, Vice-President Jourová, we have heard a truly extraordinary statement that 'criticising a government in a democratic place means insulting a country'. No, we are democratically critical of the Spanish Government and affirm, however, that Spain does not have a structural problem of the rule of law. Spain's rule of law problem is its government. But your government – fortunately – is not a structural condition, because governments change with the ballot box. Vice President Jourová, lose all hope. The Spanish Government has neither complied nor will comply with any of the recommendations in its reports: of course, neither with the reform of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, nor with the reform of the General Council of the Judiciary. Look, they ask us to play a game, but they say that they will only play the first part and, therefore, there will be no talk of modifying the election system of the General Council of the Judiciary. In the next report, during the Spanish Presidency, there will appear, among other things, a government – and we should not look at Israel – that uses its parliamentary majority to set aside court rulings when they affect its political allies. This is the summary of the situation of this government in Spain and its stormy relationship with the rule of law.

Mr President, after what we heard here a few hours ago, I can think of nothing that can improve the words of the Nobel Peace Prize laureate, Mrs Ebadi, because it is difficult to think of a more authentic, more passionate and more pressing testimony. So, I want to recall a request that Mrs. Ebadi made to us today: ask for the record in the history books of what the Iranian regime does to Iranian girls. And we in Parliament can help to put the repression of this regime on record in the history books. But we have to do more. The need for the Revolutionary Guard to be added to the list of terrorist organisations has been repeatedly mentioned and needs to be repeated. Let's not fool ourselves: the scheme may start its washing operations, but the scheme cannot be reformed. However, even if the regime cannot be reformed, the regime is not unbeatable: We must keep this idea in mind when we implement the strategy that the Iranian threat requires.