Speeches

Mr President, Commissioner, the budget is the origin and the reason for the existence of a Parliament. It involves the concrete embodiment of political priorities, responses to challenges and solutions to problems, and that is what we are doing today, to discuss this Parliament's priorities for the 2027 budget, a budget, incidentally, which is again burdened by the repayment of interest and debt from NextGenerationEU funds. For the People's Group, our priorities are as follows. This budget should strengthen the competitive capacity of our companies and SMEs through simplification, reduction of red tape and efficiency in management. This budget should provide strong support to Ukraine. It must mean increasing investment in defence, as well as strengthening the security of our borders by combating illegal immigration, human trafficking and drug trafficking. It must have a strong commitment to upholding the rule of law and the conditionality regime and a firm commitment to key EU programmes such as the CAP, cohesion policy, fisheries policy or Erasmus+. Budgets must also focus on families as a priority and social pillar of the European Union. We also believe it is important to protect religious communities, especially Christians persecuted by the world. Finally, it must strengthen the mechanisms for monitoring and evaluating aid to third countries by combating terrorism and demanding respect for European values. I believe that the text to be voted on tomorrow reflects this and I would like to thank the rapporteur and the other shadow rapporteurs for the work we have done.

Madam President, Commissioner, one of the priorities of a Parliament – the most important one – is to make a budget and to monitor it. We in the European institutions have agreed to link budgets to the rule of law as a guarantee of our democratic system. This conditionality mechanism has been a major step towards the consolidation of the European project as an area of shared values rooted in the most basic democratic principles: the separation of powers and respect for the rule of law, principles that cannot be negotiable or occupy a separate plot from the rest, because they are inseparable from the founding principles of the European Union. I am aware that this measure has not always been understood by citizens, for example, by a researcher who can see his funding cut off by the autocrat drift of the government of the nation or by a student who can see his Erasmus endangered by the colonization of the institutions that his government does to the detriment of the separation of powers. Therefore, we always insist on the importance of protecting final beneficiaries: citizens. Conditionality is not only sanctioning, but seeks to defend the financial interests of the Union when there is no rule of law framework that ensures good administration and prevents corruption in the management of European funds. We must also remember that this conditionality mechanism, this respect for the rule of law as an inalienable principle of the European Union, must be applied to all states equally, fleeing any kind of arbitrariness, because defending the rule of law is not negotiable. And of course, let us always apply this conditionality effectively, quickly and forcefully, avoiding duplication and unnecessary administrative burdens that end up affecting the Union's investments and the management of the budget, something to take very seriously into account for the next financial framework. I conclude by congratulating the speakers on their great work and wishing them a Merry Christmas.

Madam President, Commissioner, the European Union cannot simply look the other way in the face of the tremendous humanitarian crisis that the people of Sudan are suffering because of the war. I join all the demands that have been made today, especially that of urgently mobilizing humanitarian aid, creating a corridor and, above all, assisting women and children, bearing in mind that women, subjected to rape, are being used as a weapon of war. Today, as a day when we especially remember women in this Parliament, we must remember the horror that women and girls in Sudan are suffering. I therefore want to call for effective action to be taken and not to look the other way, just as we have not done with many other conflicts. But today I also want to raise my voice for the situation of Christians in Sudan, who, being a minority in this country, are also being victims - along with the rest of the civilian population - of persecution and massacres. And finally, I want to raise my voice especially because, in the midst of this tremendous conflict – this cruel conflict – many Christians are being particularly targeted, attacked and persecuted.

Mr President, Commissioner, as I have said on several occasions, the adoption of a budget is the origin and the reason for the existence of a Parliament. I therefore consider the adoption of the budget for the year 2026 to be very good news. It is a good budget that reinforces essential programmes and responds to our priorities. I would therefore like to congratulate the rapporteurs, Mr Halicki and Mr Nemec, for their great work, as well as the other rapporteurs and teams who participated in the negotiation. In my opinion, the main difficulty of this budget, as it was last year, has been to find the key to see how to cope with the payment of the interest generated by the debt of the Next Generation funds. €4.3 billion has been used in this year, twice as much as the Commission had foreseen. And, without a doubt, we must bear in mind that from the year 2028 we will begin with the repayment of the principal of the debt. We are talking about EUR 25-30 billion a year. It is certainly too heavy a burden on the Union budget. The repayment of this debt implies limitations and cuts that affect other programs that we all consider essential and priority. And that is where some may think that the easy resource is to create new taxes, which end up paying companies and families - the same ones that, by the way, have not seen the impact of Next Generation funds on their economy. I think it is essential that we take this into account when approving the next financial framework, so that we can really benefit our economy and be more competitive.

Mr President, Commissioner, the pressure exerted by this Parliament seems to have begun to take effect, and I really welcome the fact that the Commission accepts that it has to amend its original proposal. It's a good first step, but it's manifestly insufficient. We continue to reject the nationalisation of European policies, the nationalisation of the CAP or cohesion, and we also reject the cuts that are being proposed, mainly on the CAP, fisheries and cohesion. And as it cannot be otherwise, we reject the creation of the CORE, this tax on European companies, especially when you are betting on competitiveness through the creation of the European Competitiveness Fund, betting on simplification and betting on creating jobs. We therefore ask you to continue to amend the proposal so that together we can have a good financial framework for Europe.

Mr President, Commissioner, I would like to begin by thanking and highlighting the work of the European Court of Auditors. Its reports and evaluations have been, and continue to be, essential to shed light on the management of European funds by the Commission and the Member States. I will not tire of repeating it: the success of the Next Generation European funds, as well as the other European programmes, will not depend on the brilliant projects or ideas, but on their rapid implementation, so that the resources reach the real economy. To make an impact. And, in this sense, I regret having to refer to my country, to Spain. Spain is one of the major beneficiaries of European funds. Therefore, we cannot continue to assume as normal what the Court of Auditors has been denouncing for years, something that it does again in this report: lack of transparency and opacity, ridiculous execution rates, constant non-compliances and delays with what was agreed, an impact of investments and reforms infinitely less than expected... In short, a failure. Is this really the model for the next financial framework? I doubt it.

Mr President, Commissioner, Minister, the budget is the origin and the reason for the existence of a Parliament: is the democratic legislative act par excellence; It involves the embodiment of political priorities, responses to challenges and solutions to problems. Unfortunately, repayment of the debt of NextGenerationEU funds is a limitation. Even so, the budget we are voting on tomorrow responds to the Union's priorities: It's a good budget. Collects bets on territorial cohesion, support for our primary sector, the defense of our borders and the strengthening of security, the competitiveness of our companies, job creation, the commitment to research, innovation and educational excellence; I would therefore like to congratulate your rapporteur and reiterate that this is a good budget. However, in the European Union we have a sad and democratically unsustainable exception: the Government of Pedro Sánchez. Spain has had no General State Budgets since 2023. After two years without budgets, the Government is in breach of the Constitution and its obligations to Parliament: Spain is the only Member State that has not sent its budget plan to the European authorities. This is a sad exception that I find myself obliged to denounce on a day like today.

Mr President, Commissioner, tax complexity and fragmentation between states penalises the productivity, investment and economic growth of European companies. An example: Spain is the second EU country to have increased corporate taxes the most in the last decade, and the result is catastrophic. Spanish companies are on average 9.6% less profitable than European ones, and Spain leads unemployment in the EU. In a global market, tax simplification is a competitive advantage, reduces administrative costs, brings predictability, attracts investment and facilitates business growth, i.e. job creation. For all these reasons, it is absolutely incomprehensible that the European Commission has decided to create the corporate resource for Europe (CORE), a new tax on the invoicing of European companies that is absolutely contradictory with the objective of enhancing the competitiveness that the Commission has set itself as a priority. The bet is another and must be another: simple, transparent and stable regulation, free tax competition between states and incentives to promote competitiveness.

This is precisely what I was saying. I sincerely believe that the main cause of European feminism is to speak up for women, in this case, like those in Afghanistan or many others, which is that they do not even have recognized rights as people. And is it really our concern now to talk about abortion? It's just so sad! What I'm saying is that what's happening in Afghanistan is dramatic. I think it should be one of the main causes of European feminism, and I hope you agree with me that defending women's rights in Afghanistan should be. Trying to politicize that doesn't seem to me to help women in Afghanistan, and it doesn't seem to me to help the feminist cause in Europe either.

Mr President, when Afghanistan suffered a terrible earthquake a few weeks ago, we learned that the Taliban regime, an Islamist regime, prioritized rescues of men over women, leaving them literally alive under the rubble. Terrible. This horror that shocks us also provokes a sad reflection because, while in Europe we focus our efforts on debates and mobilizations on the situation of women – a continent where, by the way, we enjoy all rights and freedoms – the real persecution of women is being committed outside our borders without having almost any media presence. Shouldn't this be the main cause of European feminism? Because these women, like Afghan women, are born victims and should therefore be the main object of the feminist struggle in Europe. From here I demand sanctions against the Taliban regime and the activation of all pressure mechanisms at our disposal.

Mr President, Commissioner, today is 7 October and I would like to begin by reminding the victims of the terrible terrorist attack perpetrated by Hamas and calling for the immediate release of all hostages. Since that terrible day, according to the figures they give us, anti-Semitism in Europe has increased by 400 %. And the truth is that, in this debate, I have listened with amazement to how immigration has been accused of the rise of anti-Semitism in Europe – it must be that in 1930 there was no anti-Semitism in Europe. And, on the other hand, I also hear with amazement how it is meant that many of the demonstrations that began legitimately with a legitimate criticism against the Israeli government have not resulted in anti-Semitic behavior. It's not true. There have been anti-Semitic graffiti, anti-Semitic chants and even anti-Semitic riots against shops in Spain. Therefore, it seems to me just as unworthy that from a government, such as the Spanish one, this type of behavior is encouraged than the fact that from the extreme right it wants to hold immigration responsible for anti-Semitism.

Mr President, Commissioner, as you are well aware, this Parliament is a strong supporter of cohesion policy. And it is because it is a successful policy, and as a Spaniard I know very well what I am talking about. We in the Committee on Budgets welcome any reform coming from the Commission to make this pillar of the Union more efficient. We therefore support this necessary simplification of programmes, the elimination of administrative obstacles and duplication or the reduction of unnecessary bureaucratic burdens, all with the final recipients in mind: citizens, families and businesses. But any attempt to simplify programmes and gain efficiency cannot be at the cost of diluting cohesion policy, centralising management and replacing the active involvement of regional and local authorities. That is why we are concerned about the proposal for the multiannual financial framework that you presented in July and encourage you to reconsider. Simplify to gain efficiency, yes; simplifying to cut or recentralise, no. This should be the maxim guiding the future of cohesion policy.

Madam President, Commissioner, the time has come to send a very clear message to the Council: There is an ambitious plan, a roadmap, and we have to make it a reality. Despite the different ideological positions that exist in this Parliament, we have been able to find a meeting point to unite different political groups and say that we cannot maintain this situation in which, in Europe, savings are not invested and in which entrepreneurs go outside our borders to seek investment to develop their projects. We cannot continue to maintain a situation in which different legal systems cause fragmentation that makes it almost impossible to invest in different Member States, and even more dramatic: we cannot continue with a Council that does not understand the capital markets potential of the Union. In this report that is put to the vote, what we say is that there is a solution and there is a need to act quickly, and we encourage the Commission - and, of course, the Council - to work so that European savings do not remain under the buffer. In this way we defend that yes, there is public investment, but that it only serves to boost private investment; defend the need for sound financial education to overcome this cultural obstacle, channel savings into markets, attract venture capital and retain it in Europe; supporting entrepreneurs in their projects and when seeking funding; respect national competences in tax matters; lowering the fiscal and legislative burden on businesses and rejecting institutional fragmentation. We have done so by looking for meeting points and, in that regard, I would like to thank the rapporteur for her work, because a strong position of this Parliament in support of the Commission is essential and we should send a clear message to the Council: We can't wait any longer.

Madam President, Commissioner, making things easier for businesses, SMEs and families, as well as making ourselves more competitive in the global economy in which we live, are fundamental objectives that we can achieve through simplification in the management of European programmes and the elimination of administrative and bureaucratic obstacles, but the answer to this need cannot be the merging of programmes around national plans, nor the raising of taxes or centralisation to the detriment of the regions. Firstly, because the experience we have had with NextGenerationEU funds of linking transfers to funds, national plans or reforms has not been successful and it does not seem reasonable to insist on what does not work. Secondly, because the multiannual budget of the Union cannot be the sum of national interests, but a strategic and overall vision. It is against the very essence of the Union to do so. Neither the CAP, nor Erasmus, nor cohesion policy nor fisheries policy can be...

Mr President, Commissioner, what will be the European Union's priorities for the next seven years and how will we provide them with the budget to be able to meet them? That is what will be decided in the agreement of the next financial framework. That is why I welcome the fact that this Parliament, in the report to be voted on tomorrow, includes as one of its priorities the quest to promote and favour the competitiveness of our companies, our industries and our strategic sectors, as well as administrative simplification in order to put an end to all this excessive bureaucracy. I am also glad that it includes strengthening our defence and security as priorities, as well as the CAP, cohesion policy, innovation, research or Erasmus+. However, I would also like to add to the criticism that this report includes of the model - which seems to be under consideration - of making national plans, rather than having a European vision of the investments to be made from the budget. And finally, I want to stress that when we talk about budgets, we talk about taxes coming out of citizens' pockets, and it is our responsibility to use them efficiently.

Mr President, Commissioner, it is estimated that, in the European Union, 70% of savings are in bank accounts and, in the United States, the other way around, 70% of savings are invested in capital markets. Also, we're hearing it here: European entrepreneurs do not find the funding to start their projects or to grow them. And a very significant number go outside the European Union, largely to the United States. We have a Council that does not allow us to move forward, a Council that is incapable of providing a solution to this problem. We have a Commission that offers a proposal - which has been very well detailed by the Commissioner - for a roadmap on how to really get the barriers removed in the European Union and both attracting investment and getting investment flowing between Member States. But there is no political will on the part of the Council. And you have to report it. I was the rapporteur for the report on the capital markets union four years ago and, in my speech when we voted on that report, I raised my voice on behalf of this Parliament calling for political ambition on the part of the Commission too, but mainly the Council, to move forward. The situation four years later has not changed on the part of the Council and it is regrettable that they are not here today, as my colleague Marcus Ferber said. And it is regrettable to hear now that they propose that there be two speeds to achieve these objectives. We can't waste time and we need to react now.

Mr President, Commissioner, budgets are the concrete and precise embodiment of political priorities, responses to challenges and solutions to problems. Budgets are essential for the proper functioning of the institutions. Without them, political action is limited to empty promises, false rhetoric and accounting artifices. No budgets, no priorities, no policy. If we want Europe to bet on competitiveness, defence, security, cohesion, the CAP, research or Erasmus+, we need a budget. That is why I would like to highlight the budgetary procedure we have in the European Union and the work of its rapporteur, Mr Halicki. Unfortunately, we cannot say the same in Spain, in my country, where the Government refuses to comply with the constitutional mandate to present the budgets for the second consecutive year. It is an absolutely inconceivable democratic anomaly in a state of the European Union and I want to denounce it publicly here.

Madam President, Commissioner, once again this Parliament raises its voice, in a united way, to denounce the atrocities of the Iranian regime. A regime that, according to the data, has executed a thousand people in 2024, a regime that oppresses mainly women, but also anyone who opposes the mandates of the regime itself. The important question is how long we in Europe – from the Commission, from the governments of the Member States – are going to maintain, for example, diplomatic representations, or are going to allow ambassadors of the Iranian regime to roam freely through the Member States of the Union, or how long are we going not to strengthen sanctions on the Iranian regime. We raise our voices, we condemn what is happening, we join the pain of the victims, we ask for their release, but we have to do much more, and I ask that it be so.

Mr President, it is undeniable that the new US administration poses potentially conflicting uncertainties for the European Union arising from mainly protectionist announcements. But what we cannot do is turn these uncertainties into the excuse to cover up our shortcomings and to avoid the much-needed self-criticism. Europe's problem with Trump is primarily a European problem. What leadership are we offering the world? Do we have strategic thinking, capacity and determination to put it into practice together? What are we doing to be more competitive in a global world? From the European Union we must strengthen our commitment to the Atlantic link: It is irreplaceable as the main guarantor of democracy and freedom, something even more necessary in today's unstable and dangerous world and with the threat at our borders. Only through the collaboration of this Atlantic Alliance can Europe continue to grow, both economically and in terms of security. Let's not miss the opportunity.

Mr President, Madam Vice-President, let me warn you that it is very dangerous and irresponsible to impose an ideology as if it were a kind of sacred doctrine that no one can question or debate or disagree with. When someone questions the excesses of the requirements imposed by the Green Deal, the immediacy of the deadlines, the effects it will have and has on the economy, they are not committing blasphemy or questioning the need to take care of the environment. In the last European elections the message of the citizens was resounding: We cannot close down key economic sectors of our economy, lose hundreds of thousands of jobs and reduce our competitive capacity to meet climate objectives that, moreover, no one else wants to meet on the planet. There is an urgent need to review these objectives imposed on strategic sectors, as well as to put farmers, livestock farmers, transporters, SMEs and families at the centre of our policies. Solutions cannot go exclusively through more and more public spending, through transition plans that continue to be subsidies and aid in charge of further increasing our public debt and our tax burden: It is time to review these policies and adapt them to reality. And what I deeply regret is that given your very poor service record in Spain, Madam Vice-President, you are not part of the solution: You're part of the problem.

Mr President, this debate coincides with the second anniversary of the horrific murder of Jina Mahsa Amini, a 22-year-old Iranian Kurdish girl, arrested in Tehran on 13 September 2022 for – according to the regime – violating laws on veiling in Iran. Plain and simple, for not wanting to wear the veil. Three days later, he died in hospital due to physical abuse in police custody. Her death sparked mass protests, led by women, across the country, united under the slogan "Woman, life, freedom." Women who are asking for something that we enjoy here and maybe don't value: Simply and simply, to be able to live in freedom and decide the life they want to lead. A murderous regime, which last year killed 853 people with the death penalty, a regime that must receive more sanctions and which we cannot allow to roam freely through Europe with diplomatic representation.

Madam President, Commissioner, I wish you all the best in the new phase that is beginning. I am going to read you some data from a report comparing the venture capital market in the United States and in Europe. And, truly, it's devastating. On the one hand, it tells us that the European Union represents less than 50% of the size of the American venture capital market. He then tells us that the capital rounds in the United States are larger at all stages, in the initial stages and in the growth stages. It also shows us that investments in Europe are mainly earmarked for European Green Deal expenditure, while in the US they are earmarked for investments in artificial intelligence, in health or in defence. It shows us that we do not believe start-ups highly valued by the markets and that the ones we create simply go away. And the number of "unicorns" in the United States is three times that of "unicorns" in Europe. And finally, it highlights the serious damage of regulatory fragmentation in Europe, which prevents an agile market for venture capital markets. The big question is whether we want a Europe of entrepreneurs, of companies that generate jobs, that generate wealth, or we want a Europe of public investment or civil servants. We simply have to react and react now.