Speeches

Mr President, the budget is a political instrument: It can serve to promote peace policies or death policies. But doing both at once is an exercise in cynicism. You cannot sponsor the ethnic cleansing and genocide of the Palestinian people, Mrs Metsola and Mrs von der Leyen, but then promise to triple humanitarian aid to Gaza. Which way? Where will such aid come from if the only available corridor has just been destroyed by Israel? You can't fund the Israeli military industry with hundreds of millions and then fund UN schools that are destroyed by the bombs and missiles that we fund. Although now it seems that the Popular Group also wants to eliminate aid to UNRWA. That is why we propose that this budget be used for peace policies. We suggest suspending the Association Agreement with Israel until Israel respects UN resolutions and international law. We call for an end to the arms trade with this occupying power. We suggest that Europeans' money be used to strengthen rights and free lives.

Mr President, Commissioner, Secretary of State, there is no doubt at this stage that the New Pact on Migration and Asylum is a custom-made spawn of the far right. And when we thought that nothing could surprise us anymore, Mrs. Meloni arrives and demands a little more, that rescue NGOs be criminalized. We have been listening to narratives for years to dehumanize migrants. I suppose it is much more tolerable to accept them sinking into the sea, being returned to a desert or being tortured in places like Libya. Of course, Mr Schinas, what they do not say is that all this suffering is paid for with our money, that we are devoting more and more resources to militarising and externalising borders and that all this will be covered by the New Pact on Migration and Asylum. They hide that they have turned the asylum procedure into a dead end labyrinth. It is impossible to meet your requirements to access this right. This is not about those who come from outside, this is about an attack on the system of rights that gives meaning to Europe.

Madam President, the image of sexual assault has been seen across Europe: the president of the Spanish Football Federation kissing one of the World Cup champions without his consent. And this that for anyone with common sense is sexual and power abuse, has been questioned, which reveals that it is something normalized in all areas of life. They want to convince us that their privileges and abuses are normal. That it's not so bad that a guy touches your ass on the street. That it is not so much that your boyfriend rapes you because he has the right to be your partner or that your boss gives you a morreo because he is very happy. But it is for so much, because it is abuse, it is sexual violence, they are privileges of men who settle on our bodies. As footballers and the feminist movement have already said: "It's over". That is why we need a framework of feminist coexistence, that is, of rights, to have a sports field, but also work, political and social, free of sexual violence.

Madam President, we have told you before, Mrs von der Leyen, you are geniuses in marketing and propaganda. We just delighted with a speech full of half-truths and zero self-criticism, yes, with impeccable language. So much so that it has left him no room to talk about the real causes of inflation, the more than 2,000 deaths that this year alone has caused the EU's migration policy or the rise in mortgages perpetrated by the savages of the European Central Bank. How far from ordinary people is your speech, Mrs. von der Leyen! Because you know what's missing from your proposal? Human rights or workers. Not a single mention in his entire speech. Not one. I'll tell you more: lacks an economic policy that stops squeezing families and stops fattening banks and multinationals, or a real change that solves the problem of the energy crisis. In short, it lacks a proposal for ordinary people.

Mr President, Commissioner, this summer we have broken all records for extreme temperatures in Europe. In addition, we have seen a part of our forests burn. Afterwards, we have had torrential rains and also a brutal increase in sea temperature. These are just some of the consequences of climate change today. And, in that sense, it is essential that when we talk about the fight against climate change we do it from the concrete also, providing solutions. One of the most important is the adaptation and transformation of the current energy model, a transition that accelerates the abandonment of fossil energy for renewable energy, that is done with criteria of social justice, that allows rational planning of available resources and, if possible, that it does so from the public. That is why I recognise that this directive is not our ideal. In fact, we believe that much more demanding measures would be needed, such as our proposal to increase renewables to 50% or the issue of biomass. However, we believe that the approach is positive and that it will allow us to take another step towards a decarbonised model.

Madam President, we know that large energy companies in Spain have increased their profits by 140% and banks by 43%. Just yesterday, Banco Santander announced an extra 10 billion, an all-time record. And all thanks to Mrs. Lagarde's fine work. I say fine because the rise in interest rates is a robbery of families to fatten the accounts of banks. We know that there are European companies like Ferrovial, who have parasitized the public money of our country for years and years, but when they are asked to pay a little tax, not even fairly, they flee to a tax haven within the European Union. We know that in this situation of price rises and crises there are winners and there are losers. The winners, the usual: parasites of multinationals and banks. Losers: working people. Now Germany and her gang propose to return to austerity, that is, they propose to aggravate this situation. Therefore, from the left we propose something quite different, and that is that we promote a fair fiscal model that makes those who have more, pay more.

Madam President, just a few weeks ago I was in Cordoba, walking on the dry bottom of the Sierra Boyera reservoir, the first in my country where there was not a drop of water left. Unfortunately, if we don't do something, it's not going to be the last. Spain suffers the worst drought in decades, with anomalous temperatures. All this has caused that the reservoirs are currently below half their capacity and that we have a critical situation. Of course, this is one of the symptoms of the climate crisis. Climate change is not an invention, as the right and the extreme right pretend to make us believe. It is a phenomenon endorsed by the entire scientific community, which is already hitting us. And here we find two models. The first is that of the denialist hoaxes, which give rise to, for example, the PP in Spain to make a law to dry and destroy Doñana. This penalizes farmers who have been doing well for years to favor the business of those who exploit illegal wells. The second is that of wisdom, which is committed to water management that faces that will be increasingly scarce and that we will have to adapt production and consumption to this reality. We will therefore have to allocate resources to modernise infrastructure, ensure public control and have sustainable, rational and fair planning. That is why the Nature Restoration Act is an indispensable tool for the future of Europe and also for responsible water management. And for that reason, the blockade again of the PP, allied with the extreme right, actually reveals that in the face of business everything is worth it. Even saying things as delusional as protecting bees and pollinators endangers food security or that watering golf courses is far more important than giving people a drink. We need bold measures, for this law to go ahead and for those who pollute and deplete our resources to be put on hold.

Mr President, Commissioner, as much as I think about it, I do not understand what the photo with Meloni in Tunisia brings to the European Commission. Believe me, it would be a mistake to think that cutting rights for migrants does not go with us because, at the moment when the human rights of a single collective are questioned, we are all at risk. That is, it starts with the rights of migrants, continues with women, LGBTI people and continues with freedom of association, the press or the control of justice. Sounds familiar, doesn't it? On the other hand, it seems that, in addition to buying you the idea that human rights are not universal and indivisible, you have decided to give this lady absolute control of European migration policy. Of course, having her as head, then it would be much easier for them to agree with Poland and Hungary. The problem is that, with so much embrace of the far right, they are normalizing racism, machismo, climate denialism and all kinds of hate crimes.

Mr President, I often wonder where the line between the Union's racist migration policies and Meloni's racist migration policies lies. I don't know if you've ever thought about it. Because when it is normalized to close millionaire agreements with dictatorships in exchange for controlling migratory flows; when it is approved to erect walls with concertinas and install refugee camps that are detention centers; when life-saving NGOs are criminalised and Frontex is used to illegally expel human beings or centres where people are tortured and trafficked in Libya are funded; When it is celebrated to open the borders to the plundering of resources from the Global South while those who have been plundered are beaten and left to die at sea, that line is deeply blurred. Take charge of your decisions. Its migration policies are the breeding ground in which the new far right grows. Meloni's emergency decree is a racist decree that is another step on a path that the European institutions began years ago. In essence, it is still a preview of what is intended to be adopted with the New Pact on Migration and Asylum. From the left we will continue to insist that another migration policy is possible, with rights, cooperation, solidarity and future for our territories and for our neighborhoods. There are resources for it. We just need the will to do it.

Mr President, the truth is that it is a pity that Mr Weber is not here, with how worried he is lately about Spain. Look, I thought he was not going to recover from the blow his party gave him by proposing Mrs von der Leyen as President of the Commission. But, look at him, there we have him, serving as the leader of my country's opposition. In fact, as it continues, I see Mr Feijóo contesting the candidacy for the presidency of the Government. Anyway, as I saw him a little clueless, I sent him a concrete email with the Spanish Constitution to clarify how judges are elected in my country. Beyond ironies, gentlemen of the People's Party, you are irresponsible. Corruption and the blockade of the renewal of the judiciary being their greatest credential, they should spare us this spectacle and stop trying to destabilize, with trickery, the democratic government of the fourth economy of Europe. The problem of the rule of law in Spain is summarized in two words: People's Party. Stop making a fool of yourself.

Madam President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, the truth is that it must be acknowledged that they have turned the Commission and the Council into excellent propaganda agencies, into high-level advertising agencies. They announce a lot of things, all the time, all the time. But behind, unfortunately, there is only smoke. You know that families in Europe are having a hard time because of the increase in the cost of life, because of the increase in interest rates. And they know that it is clear to the public that an important part of the responsibility lies with the rules of the game; laws that allow parasites from banks and multinationals to squeeze us. They promise us that they will make decisions to change these rules. Every fortnight there is a meeting of the Council or the Commission, but in reality we remain the same. They've been saying "tomorrow, tomorrow, tomorrow" for a year, when it's something we needed yesterday. Mrs von der Leyen yesterday happily announced a proposal to modify the electricity market that does not change anything because it does not change the marginalist pricing system, since gas will continue to mark the price of energy in Europe. Tomorrow we have the enlightened European Central Bank threatening to raise interest rates again. Although, as now that a bank has gone bankrupt again in the United States, they have a little more empathy than with the bankruptcy of families and decide to contain the escalation of the Euribor. In short, what we need is for you to make decisions to relieve the pressure of the people, even if this means, in this case, cutting a little to those who always win.

Madam President, Mrs Lagarde, the decisions you make at the European Central Bank are a nightmare for any working family. They know perfectly well, because they have already come out recognizing it, that their commitment to raising interest rates is not containing inflation, because it has to do with energy prices. Therefore, their decisions, which of course are conditioned politically, but by those who do not stand for elections, are a cheap trick to continue swelling the pockets of the financial and banking elites at the cost of impoverishing workers, among other things, by the brutal increase in mortgages. It is a nonsense and a mockery that, on top of that, has already threatened to maintain and increase. I know it's complicated for you, but for a change, it would be great, it would be great, for you to stop ruling against the people. That nothing happens because banks do not earn another year billions of euros of obscene profits. Please stop being a toxic asset to the public.

Madam President, it seems that we have not had enough with the dozens of dead on the fence of Melilla. Nor with the Frontex scandals, violating human rights and expelling refugees with violence. We no longer seem to be shocked by hot returns, denial of the right to asylum or the criminalisation of NGOs; It even seems that it no longer bothers us so much to hear the racist arguments of the far right. It is now acceptable to negotiate a clearly xenophobic migration policy, which denies fundamental rights such as protection for those fleeing wars and conflicts, continuing to finance fences or talking about safe countries to deport human beings without any guarantees. It is not true that migration is a problem; on the contrary. All that is needed is to work towards this, to allocate funds to places of arrival, to decent reception strategies and to promote a border policy that respects rights and facilitates safe and secure migration. We are in time for Meloni and Orbán to stop controlling the European migration agenda.

Madam President, this debate is an instrumental debate of the People's Party, which uses this House to question the legitimacy of the Government of Spain, in the pure style of the extreme right in other parts of the world, especially taking into account the history they carry and, above all, their particular vision of legality. Any examples? Whoever was his interior minister paid with funds reserved for policemen to spy on political opponents and members of his own party: illegal. Its headquarters renovated with black money: illegal. His ministers jailed for doing illegal things, for corruption. Its president, M. Rajoy, ceased due to the biggest corruption scandal in our country. But also their conception of the rule of law, which does not prevent them from being outside the Constitution, blocking the renewal of the General Council of the Judiciary. Or his coalition government with the far right in places like Castilla y León, where this week they proposed forcing women to listen to the heartbeat of their fetuses before aborting. An attack on our rights. I could go on, but I don't have time in the two minutes I have to list all the history of these people. Although I think that with these examples it is clear that perhaps the one who most twists the rule of law in our country is precisely the Popular Party. And of course we have many things to improve, like everyone else, but it is undoubtedly one of the EU governments that has made the most progress in rights and democracy this year: our Iberian exception, which places the electricity bill as the lowest in Europe, the increase in the minimum wage, the record number of fixed contracts for labor reform, the law of "only yes is yes", which finally protects us women from sexual violence, the trans and LGTBI law, the abortion law, the reinforcement and revaluation of the public pension system, the minimum living income and, something very important, the law of memory that closes the blackest chapter of our recent history and that, yes, cancels fascism in our country. It could also follow, but these examples are worth so that the Spanish PP does not try to confuse this House in the coming months with debates that have little to do with the defense of rights and much to do, however, with an electoral interest.

Madam President, the problem of the increase in the cost of living is fundamentally due to a proven fact: multinationals, banking and the financial sector are parasites. I'll explain myself. Spain’s six largest companies – of course energy and banking – made historic profits this year: €25 billion. They have grown seven times more than wages. This means that they have taken advantage of the crisis to speculate and make boxes opportunistically, plundering the pockets of families. As if that were not enough, the incompetents who run the European Central Bank raise interest rates, choking on mortgages, increasing bank profits and pushing us into recession. But this is not inevitable. Look, Mr. Gentiloni, I give you some suggestions: favour requiring the European Central Bank to immediately lower interest rates; push once and for all for marginal market reform – this is the only way to contain energy prices; And above all, please work empathy. There are many people in Europe suffering from their bad choices.

Madam President, Commissioner Timmermans, the eco-social crisis undoubtedly pushes us to update the Renewable Energy Directive, of course, to displace fossil fuels, to lower the price of the electricity bill and, undoubtedly, also to strengthen the EU's energy autonomy. But obviously that won't be enough. In addition, we must consider a deployment of renewables that is associated with a reduction in energy consumption and a model that advances in criteria of justice and public participation. Indeed, if the current energy crisis has demonstrated anything, it is that the rise in prices is a consequence, among other factors, of the failed market model – the marginal market –, the lack of public control and the lack of planning. Of course, we believe that advancing in the acceleration of renewable projects of distributed generation, self-consumption and energy communities, as well as establishing elements of public planning and zoning, are positive elements of this Directive, as is the commitment to strengthen the resources of public administrations. However, we are concerned that this Directive does not contribute to changing the energy model and introduces elements that will be conflicting, such as positive administrative silence, which will increase previous problems of planning of the territory, or the formulation of the general public interest that, as it appears, rather seems to have to do with the particular business interest. May we be able to improve this directive with intelligence and determination.

Mr President, every six hours a human being dies at sea trying to reach Europe. Thousands of people, without having committed any crime, are being held and overcrowded in refugee camps with their rights suspended. Frontex has systematically carried out hot returns at sea. We give billions of euros to undemocratic regimes to guard our borders. There are miles and miles of the EU's external border without a single physical point to seek asylum. Melilla's tragedy has resulted in dozens of deaths. All this and more is the EU's migration policy. It is not an arbitrary plan or the fruit of improvisation. It is a collective and conscious decision to violate international and European laws that, if applied, would prevent death and pain. It is an immoral game of balance between Macron, washing his hands, Meloni, leaving people adrift at sea, and the Commission's proposal to turn the far-right narrative into law. If human rights are a problem, let us change the law so that they cease to be. That is why, from the left, we believe that we must end the business of migration policy, which is a business of death, and put European money to defend life and rights. In Lesbos, in Melilla, in the Canary Islands, etc., less Frontex and less militarisation and more resources to promote reception programmes and public services of quality and employment for those who are there and for those who arrive. We must equip ourselves with a public and European civil rescue unit for rescue at sea, enable legal and safe ways for no one to risk their lives in search of a dignified future, carry out a binding and solidarity-based distribution of people migrating between all EU countries to avoid the shame of these detention camps, and, ultimately, eradicate racism from European migration policy.

Madam President, after the unfortunate words of Mr Borrell justifying the policy of building walls in Europe, with his fantasies of invasions, gardens and jungles, it is easier to understand the scandalous increase in the budget allocation for migration control. It is contradictory that, now that we are suffering harshly from the effects of climate change and the energy crisis, and that we are still recovering from the pandemic, we will see increased funding for the militarization of borders, while those of climate policies or health programs are cut. Surely we would do better if, instead of increasing spending on migration control by 13%, these resources were used to strengthen public services, employment and decent reception in places of arrival, to fight climate change, to deploy a social shield against the energy crisis or to promote peace. Hopefully, in these three weeks of work, the final result will stick more to the real needs and avoid feeding the discourses of the extreme right.

Mr President, at this point no one doubts that eating, dressing and living costs more because the price of energy has risen. And there is no doubt that this is produced by an electricity market model aggravated by war and scarcity of fossil fuels. We can continue to debate, we can continue to make headlines, but it is urgent to start doing so, because inaction only shows its complicity with the oligopolies. Look, in Spain, while the energy oligopoly obtained benefits estimated at billions, each family, just the shopping basket, increased 567 euros more a year. That is, its benefits come out of our pockets because not enough is done here and that generates an discomfort that we see, for example, in today's mobilizations in France. However, this is avoidable. It would be enough to change the marginalist model, it would be enough to put the general interest first and promote control and public intervention, and it would be enough to consider energy as a right and not as a business.

Mr. President, sometimes the contradictions are revealing. In this institution, where fundamental rights are sometimes overlooked, such as in migration policy, where we have Member States trampling on the rights of women and LGTBI people, or where we push for economic policies that often ruin the lives of workers, we have nevertheless been able to draw up this report on the situation of rights in the Union, which precisely collects and denounces many of these aspects. In that regard, I would like to pay particular attention to this report's condemnation of the situation at the Union's external borders, specifically with regard to hot returns, the use of systematic violence, the lack of guarantees for the right to asylum, etc. In conclusion, I would like to thank you for considering our proposal to add economic rights to this report: is a turning point in a year like this in which savage measures are being applied against European households, such as the unjustified and short-sighted rise in interest rates by the European Central Bank, inflation, rising energy supply prices, etc., which augur a situation of high vulnerability for ordinary people. I hope that this report will also serve for strong actions that protect our countries and our people and that next year's report will not be so harsh.

Mr President, the Renewable Energy Directive is perhaps one of the most important pillars of European policy, not only at the energy level, but also at the climate, economic and industrial level, and it even determines issues of geopolitics and strategic autonomy. The responsibility to have a directive that is powerful and fit for today's needs is therefore crucial. Even more so at a time of drift and confusion on the part of the EU, knocked out by the harshness of the energy crisis and hostage to its neoliberal dogmas in a time of scarcity and out-of-control energy markets. This proposal has unambitious objectives in our view, with no specific obligations for sectors or Member States. They have not even dared to reach 50% renewables by 2030. It has no qualms about expanding the use of certain crops or burning forests to generate electricity, when we are losing biodiversity and experiencing a cereal crisis with strong impacts on food prices. There is a clear error of approach from the beginning. In conclusion, they are turning one of the main tools for fighting the crisis, an ecosocial and fundamental pillar of the EU's strategic autonomy, into a document of low ambition and, of course, of little use for the enormous energy and socio-environmental challenges we face. I truly hope that we will change our approach, be responsible and take care of what the scientific community, civil society and the European environmental movement demand of us.

Mr President, imagine that in the midst of the pandemic the European Commission would have come here to propose a strategy against vaccination. Well, that is precisely what they defend with the new taxonomy. Although the scientific consensus points out that the vaccine to curb climate change is the abandonment of fossil fuels, they want gas and nuclear energy to be green energies by decree. It exceeds its powers, Mrs McGuinness, to continue to benefit the electric oligopoly that will continue to parasitize public funds. You defend the interests of the great energetics and not those of the people. Perhaps that is why they hide behind a security perimeter and do not listen to the hundreds of activists who have been prevented from entering this Parliament, the seat of popular sovereignty, through which lobbyists do walk. We need to reduce the consumption of fossil fuels, including gas. We need to give security and certainty to future generations. That is why nuclear energy must be abandoned. And we need this Parliament to take a courageous decision that does not undermine our future.

Madam President, let us be clear: European institutions are racist. EU migration policies are racist. Border control is done with a racist bias. Only in this way is it understood that, in the face of the same phenomenon, one acts differently. If we have been able to protect several million Ukrainian refugees fleeing horror, nothing, absolutely nothing, justifies that we do not do exactly the same with those who have been fleeing other wars and other horrors. But that's not what we've seen on Melilla's fence. We have seen bodies overcrowded and beaten, we have seen the Moroccan guard invading the community territory to execute hot returns and at least 37 people killed and almost a hundred injured. And it is necessary to remember that there is not a single physical place to request asylum throughout the southern border. And you know why? Because EU asylum policy is conditioned by skin colour. Therefore, I would ask those who "regret" the deaths, while financing the executioners, less cynicism and also to initiate an investigation to purge the responsibilities of this massacre.

Madam President, bad news: It is not enough to win rights on paper, we must remain permanently mobilized, and it is that the right to abortion had been armored for fifty years in the United States, ensuring that women decided on their bodies legally and safely; The sentence that is at risk today protected life, how public health or education protect life, how life is defended by the new sexual and reproductive health law, the new abortion law in Spain, broadening women's rights. However, we see that there are very organized minorities maneuvering in the shadows to limit our rights trying to impose their reactionary agenda, in the same way that on Monday Vox, the extreme right, tried to hijack this debate and take it out of the Plenary: As always, how grown up to cut rights, but how subservient to the powerful. Of course, have no doubt, feminists, from all corners of the world, will continue to mobilize and legislate to defend our bodies and life, a life worth living.

Mr President, the use of Pegasus is an unprecedented scandal: A private company protected by the Israeli regime is marketing with impunity a weapon of mass destruction of democracy, a weapon of mass destruction of political confidence. In my country even the telephone number of the President of the Government has been spied on. In addition, that of other political, social leaders, journalists, lawyers. And of course, it is not that we did not intuit the fragility of any device: is that in the face of these events that change the rules of democracy, how will any European citizen feel protected? With this issue what is clear is that, in the end, whoever has enough money and power can skip fundamental rights. And how to protect ourselves? First, no more secrets. We need transparency and broaden the basis of democracy. Responsibilities must be cleared and decisions made: diplomatic, political and legal.