Speeches

Mr President, bullfighting. This is the barbarism that defines the profound hypocrisy when we talk in this House about animal welfare. While Article 13 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union defines animals as sentient beings deserving of protection, in the same article we see these rights being crushed in favour of the supposed traditions of the Member States. With regard to bullfighting, the reality is indeed perverse in the European Union. Although this barbarity is limited to Portugal, France and Spain, the European Commission hides itself in Article 13 and refrains from curbing the presence of minors in bullfighting events, refuses to end the financing of these activities with money from the Common Agricultural Policy and remains silent when brave bulls are killed in the middle of the arenas for the sadistic pleasure of those who watch this aberration. It is therefore time for the European Commission to stop hiding behind the Member States and to announce, here and now, that the next revision of the Treaties will bring an end to the cruel, sadistic and violent bullfighting industry.

Madam President, the far right has a fanatical and violent roadmap. And the latest episodes of invasion of institutions representing the rule of law, both in the United States and in Brazil, are a clear example of this political savagery. But this fanatical and violent script lives and feeds mainly on disinformation, unrealism and denialism. And the goal is clear: reject democratic elections when they are losers, undermine civil society's trust in institutions by painting themselves as saviors of the homeland, and encircle the principles of press freedom whenever questioned and criticized. However, and the counterpoint, the solution has to come from the progressive camp. And if there is a lesson to be learned from these recent barbaric acts, as former presidential candidate Ciro Gomes pointed out, it is that the pacification of society will only result from a profound restructuring of the economic and social model. And this change will also have to occur in the very physiognomy of democratic institutions and expand in the political debate of ideas and proposals.

Mr President, dear all, Europe is facing multiple crises with the war in Ukraine, the fossil energy dependence, the inflation and the growing climate collapse. That is why it was so vital that we reach an agreement on making the EU more resilient to the challenges we currently face through the EU budget for 2023. And our 2023 budget shows focus: focus on helping people both in European Union and in the rest of the world; focus on supporting citizens affected by the economic downturn; focus on restoring nature affected by climate change; and focus on those who are most affected by war. But this focus came with hard work. If we look at the budget proposed by the Commission back in June, the Parliament achieved quite a lot. We have made substantial reinforcements for the environment and climate, energy and health policies, and we also have strengthened the support for our eastern and southern neighbourhoods, and we also have increased the budget for humanitarian aid. However, we all know that this is not enough. We need to be more active on all of those key areas. Therefore, we must push the Commission and the Council to urgently revise the multiannual framework. The EU budget cannot be pushed to the limit where it won’t serve its purpose. And the overall goal is to speed the EU shift towards a decarbonised economy, builds a fairer society, and continue to be a major player in geopolitical affairs.

Madam President, dear all, the European Union budget for 2023 is not a merely standard procedure where we should just present normal budgetary lines and carry on with our standard work. We live in times of urgency. We have to tackle the climate catastrophe that we are on. We have to address war in our borders. We have to prepare for possible humanitarian crisis. And we need to mitigate the huge impacts that energy prices and overall high inflation will have on our citizens’ life. The EU budget is the most powerful tool that we as a Union have to try to influence also the rest of the world into doing what needs to be done. Although we understand the special circumstances that led to the timing of this year’s amending letter by the Commission, it does not employ the best practices and it influences the European Parliament’s ability to fulfil properly its role as a budgetary authority. We would hope that this doesn’t repeat itself. Let me address just three main issues on this amending letter. First, we will welcome the humanitarian aid increase, although it is still not as sufficient as we think. With the escalation of Russian attacks on civil targets in Ukraine, we have to expect further increases on humanitarian needs next year. Unfortunately, this goes also for humanitarian needs regarding climate change. In the amending letter, it is stated that further reinforcements in the course of 2023 are likely to be needed in the EU, so it has to sustain its 2022 humanitarian assistance and support the sharp increase of number of people in need. So we would like to question why this proposal was not made now, and will this be a proposal on the negotiations? Secondly, it is a positive sign that we see a reinforcement of the Union civil protection mechanism. To be able to react to more severe impacts on climate change, although there should also be increases in the parts of the budget that invest on fighting climate change and speed up our efforts. In this regard, the EU budgets is the best way to do that. Finally, on the issue of the European Union recovery instruments: the reinforcement of EURI of 450 million is extremely large. The European Parliament has warned repeatedly that having the EURI line in heading 2b is unsustainable, and that the NextGenerationEU interest costs and repayments should be counted over and above MFF ceilings. Will the Commission ever make this proposal? How is it planning to deal with the situation? And also finalising the position on the Council for us is quite disappointing in conditions that we are living in. The Council calls for prudence in its approach, but for us it is quite questionable and disappointing. We need more ambition for next year’s budget, not blunt cuts. And overall we believe that the European Parliament has presented a realistic and powerful proposal and with the rapporteur, Ms Ştefănuță, and all my shadow colleagues, I think we can push for a 2023 budget that properly reflects our priorities, our visions and our citizens’ needs.

Mr President, once again here we are talking about drought and its serious impacts on society and ecosystems. Once again, it seems to me that nothing structural will be done, because the majority of MEPs, governments and European institutions continue to look the other way. To ensure the survival of humanity, we must face reality. We need to be radical, that is, go to the root of the problem. We need to preserve and regenerate our native forests, because without them there is no water abstraction. We need to change our food production model and reduce its water footprint, because without this we will continue to waste water. And finally, we urgently need to change our eating habits, drastically reducing and cutting the consumption of animal proteins, as this is one of the most inefficient ways of food production and has a huge water footprint.

Mr President, Brazil is a key and important partner of the European Union. However, Brazil and its citizens are currently experiencing a dangerous and structuring economic, environmental and social crisis. And the first round elections will take place on 2 October, and I do not believe that it is the populists, both left-wing and right-wing – and I am talking about Lula da Silva and Bolsonaro – who will be able to restructure that country and turn it into the nation it should be. And so we need to implement, I believe that Brazilians need to implement, a national development plan that has as its pillar education, the ecologically sustainable reindustrialization of their industry, that can better distribute wealth, combat violence, combat climate crimes and ensure the projection of this country to the nation it should be. I hope that the next President of the Federative Republic of Brazil to come to this Chamber will be called Ciro Gomes.

Madam President, the European Union is already in the sixth package of sanctions against Russia over the invasion of Ukraine. However, in the fisheries sector, I believe that we can go further. Overall, we import about 2.5% of fish and fish products from Russia, worth EUR 605 million annually. It is true that there is already a ban on the import of caviar, but this ban is merely symbolic, as exports to the European market are low. The European Union abandons the boycott of products such as cod and saithe – Alaska, thus guaranteeing an oxygen balloon to the Russian fishing industry and to the Moscow regime itself. It is true that the total blockade of fish imports from Russia will not end the invasion, but all efforts are needed to isolate the Russian Federation and to ensure the end of European funding for Putin's criminal war.

Madam President, it is curious that my colleague from the Portuguese Communist Party did not agree to answer a question and, once again, on an issue that is as important as the 2020-2023 budget. There has not been a single word of condemnation of the invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation and so, once again, we see here the position of the Portuguese Communist Party in whitewashing an invasion that has been going on for more than a month and using other arguments to try to whitewash this invasion. It is a regrettable act, but unfortunately it did not even deserve a reply from my colleague.

Madam President, dear colleagues, dear Commissioner, these 2023 guidelines were impacted by the horrific developments in Ukraine, and in total support we adapted the text and opened the door to further economic support and to the reconstruction of the country. This collective work was led by Ştefănuță, whom I salute. Together we were able to reach a balanced text that we can support. This text includes many of my Group’s priorities, like climate and biodiversity protection in the EU, but also throughout the world, where Europe should lead and fund concrete actions to tackle climate change and to protect the Earth’s biodiversity. There are other areas where we achieved a good final text, like gender mainstreaming, rule of law, foreign affairs, humanitarian aid, and a good ambition on the funding of key EU agencies that really need to be supported, like, for example, the European Environment Agency and the European Institute for Gender Equality. But I would like to however highlight a passage in paragraph 6 that states that the EU should strengthen its energy security and autonomy and develop further the Energy Union via interconnectivity between Member States. Although I agree and we agree with this overall principle, we should refrain from using this energy independence needs to once again subsidise the fossil fuels industry, an area that has led us into a very dangerous and sustainable current situation. However, as I stated, this is a good compromise text that will influence the Commission to propose a pragmatic draft budget that hopefully will lead to a concrete 2023 budget that is as green, sustainable and powerful as it should be.

Madam President, the invasion of Ukraine has, of course, created great market instability and a brutal increase in fuel prices, and this increase has, of course, affected several sectors, including the fisheries sector. But we know that there are large tax exemptions for fossil fuels in fisheries and also subsidies to this industry, and this is not the way we are able to help small-scale fishing and diversify activities within a blue economy. And so, considering that the fisheries sector does not pay around EUR 1.5 billion annually in taxes – hence not collected by Member States – we need to rethink how to help this sector in the transition to a truly green economy. That is why we must use all the funds at our disposal, in particular the Fisheries Fund, to diversify the possibility for fishermen, and in particular small-scale fishing, to modernise their fleet, to have cleaner engines, genuinely more decarbonised engines, and to be able to adapt to new professions within a blue economy. Without this, we will not be able to make a transition to a decarbonised economy in the fisheries sector.

Madam President, Commissioner, in political speeches, animal welfare in the European Union tends to be characterised as one of the best in the world. However, we need to be cautious when we express this pride because, in most cases, animals that are exploited by the intensive livestock sector do not lead a dignified life, quite the contrary. In livestock farming, these animals are not free to express their natural instinct, they live in cages and in the whole process, from rearing, transport, to their death, they are treated as mere commodities. And the report on which we are voting tomorrow should portray this - the deplorable living conditions to which we subject these animals in livestock farming - and do so in a realistic, factual and science-based way. Unfortunately, against the will of the Greens, this report focuses on aspects such as competitiveness in the livestock sector and the economic consequences of investing in better animal welfare standards. Yes, analysing these aspects is important, but it is not central to a report whose mandate is to analyse shortcomings in the implementation of animal welfare legislation. And it is worth remembering: this report is not about the farmers, it is about the animals that are in charge of these farmers and how we have failed them in terms of protection and care. In addition, and incomprehensiblely, this report states that the production of foie gras respects animal welfare. Considers that the constant violations of European legislation are only sporadic cases, rejects mandatory food labelling indicating animal welfare standards and, in an attempt to protect the economic interests of livestock and contrary to science, does not recognise that a reduction in meat consumption and the number of animals per holding is urgent. For all this, colleagues, and if we really care about these animals, I ask you tomorrow to support the alternative resolution of the Committee on the Environment, which portrays the problems in implementing animal welfare legislation much more accurately and to support the Green amendments to ensure that the agriculture report is, in the end, less bad.

Madam President, Commissioner, animals in the circus suffer from profound physical and emotional abuse. They are not happy animals and this is seen by their eyes. They are slaves to a system and an industry that profits from their suffering. However, in many Member States measures have already been put in place to fully ban the use of wild animals in circuses. However, there are countries in the European Union that still allow it and others that have only banned the use of some species and what eventually happens is that circuses travel to Member States where such restrictions do not exist. That is why we need a coherent and uniform approach within the Community. It is time for the European Union to act. It is time to ban the use of wild animals for human entertainment and this time we debated circuses, but in the very near future we will certainly debate the ban on cetaceans and other aquatic animals in dolphinariums, as is the bad and bad example of Zoomarine in Portugal.

Dear President, Dear Commissioner, this morning I was taking my two daughters to school and I was looking at why some political groups and some MEPs are in favour of this common agricultural policy. It is totally incomprehensible to me how one votes in favour of a common agricultural policy that directs most of its funds to those who do not need them - so 80% of direct payments will go to the richest 20% of households within agriculture - that does not preserve biodiversity, so it goes even against the Farm to Fork Strategy, it goes against the Climate Law and continues to finance highly polluting industries such as intensive livestock farming. It is totally incomprehensible to me how one can vote for this common agricultural policy, and I will, in good conscience, vote against it because I really want to preserve the planet, I want to preserve the guarantee of a biodiverse future for my children and for all the people of this united Europe, and so my vote will be against this common agricultural policy.

Mr President, Commissioner, the EU has made a clear commitment to proactively reduce and replace animals in science since 1993. However, we are now in 2021, 20 years later, and despite almost three decades long, the number of animals used has decreased very, very slowly. So why doesn’t the EU have relevant policy initiatives on the line to reduce, replace and actively phase out animal testing? Why don’t we have an action plan setting out a proactive strategy to phase out animal experiments with milestones and timetables? Is the Commission just expecting Member States by their own initiative to invest in the phasing-out of animal testing? Since when has this reality really worked in EU policy? We know that without binding targets, there are no real incentives to progress. And Commissioner, what happens in laboratories cannot just stay in laboratories. We must end animal experimentation now.

Madam President, I begin this speech with the appeal of the Portuguese environmentalist and diver, Miguel Lacerda. Antarctica is a sanctuary of biodiversity and must be protected. And it is at the next meeting of the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources that the world has an opportunity to take a decisive step to protect Antarctica and the South Ocean. Why? Because it is home to ecosystems that are extremely rich in wildlife and are also key areas for mitigating the impacts of climate change. The European Union and its Member States should therefore press countries such as Russia and China to accept the creation of the largest marine protected area on the planet. Scientific diplomacy must serve the common interest and not give in to the nationalist and Umbiguist interests that are holding this agreement. It is time to act and, Commissioner Sinkevičius, we are all counting on you.

Madam President, we have been destroying the oceans for many decades, and with this European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund, we believe we will continue to do so because, in a time of climate emergency, we should not be aiming for the lowest common denominator. On the contrary: the EU should be listening to science and ensuring real leadership in ocean governance. But this is not the case, and we will continue to destroy what keeps us alive, the oceans. How? By continuing to finance with public money a very profitable, large—scale fisheries sector. And we are obviously not talking about small—scale fisheries, but vessels that are above 24 metres and eligible for public support. On top of that, certain areas of support, like first acquisition, modernisation and replacement of engines, can also be considered as harmful subsidies and will lead, in our analysis, to more overfishing. Yes, we recognise the efforts of the Commission throughout the negotiations, but unfortunately, once again, the Council and most political groups did everything they could to undermine this agreement. As usual, they continue to live in the past and we need policies that protect our future. To conclude, the lack of ambition and concrete commitments concerning climate goals and biodiversity protection dictates that we, the Greens, cannot support this final agreement.