What Nacho spoke about.

Madam President, Nicaragua is experiencing many parallel dramas: the dramas of these hidden prisoners - but fortunately not forgotten in this House - and some of them having died in those prisons; the drama of the boundless cruelty of the dictatorship of the former supposed revolutionaries killing activists; the drama of exile with the best of the country living outside; the drama of not having natural resources that would make the country palatable for Trump’s interventionist policies – which is a strange drama, but we already know that Trump’s interventions in other countries are not about democracy but about natural resources. Some light is on the horizon: Some EU governments, such as the Spanish government, have given protection and asylum to 220 Nicaraguans. Many other countries in the European Union should do so, as some American countries have done. What are we going to do with Nicaraguans in exile? The send them back What have we heard here this morning from the far right or protection to rebuild the country when the dictatorship is over?

Mr President, in light of relevant recent developments, I would like to propose the following oral amendment to paragraph 40. After the sentence ending in 'International Federation of Air Line Pilots', I would like to propose the following two sentences: 'deplores the interference with military aircraft carrying European officials to a recent meeting of EU defence ministers in Cyprus;' and 'expresses concern regarding the establishment of an office of Türkiye's ruling Justice and Development Party in an historic building in occupied Nicosia, which can be considered as a further step towards an intended socioeconomic and cultural assimilation of the Turkish-Cypriot community.'

Mr President, I thank all the Members who have spoken, although I will make a distinction: There is a sector of this Parliament that is simply Islamophobic and therefore Turkey is a majority Muslim country and there is nothing to do. They forget that there are 20 million Muslims within the European Union - I do not know what they intend to do with them. Then there are deputies who are impatient: Why do we continue to consider Turkey a candidate country with this situation? And then there are those of us who consider that there is room in the future for Turkey to return to the democratic path, because we distinguish the Government of Turkey from Turkish society, because we know the country, because we know that the polls indicate that there is a large majority of society that still thinks that Europe is the normal destiny of that society and, therefore, we leave them in the hands of the authoritarians we do not do it anywhere. Why don't we tell the Serbs: Forget about the European Union? Because it is not logical, because there is always a path and we do not want to kill the hope of that civil society. Commissioner, you are going to visit the country – if I am not mistaken – in the coming weeks: Some Commissioners, I do not know if the High Representative, Mrs Kallas, so let me humbly make some small suggestions. Meet with civil society. They feel orphaned, they miss the voice of the European Union. Commissioner, save yourself a million euros. Save yourself a million euros and say something relevant that will comfort that pro-European and pro-democratic civil society. They don't want a million euros, they don't want millions of euros, they don't want programmes, they want someone to speak out - just like we talk about Georgia or just like we talk about Serbia - and I don't understand why Turkish society doesn't deserve the same support that Georgian society or Serbian society deserves. And, therefore, in those conversations with the authorities, please do not limit yourself to making a private criticism. Come out, hold a press conference and do as I do, that I continue to have relations with the Turkish authorities despite my continued criticism of the domestic situation in the country. It's okay. They are perfectly intelligent and know perfectly well what we think of their democratic deterioration. So, those are my tips for your future visit.

Madam President, I would like to thank the shadow rapporteurs, it has been a pleasure to work with them, and I ask for support for the updates that we will be voting on tomorrow in the report. Democratic standards are at the heart of every accession process, which is why every progress report must also be at the heart of it. Being the rapporteur for Turkey is very frustrating. My colleagues who deal with other countries sometimes have good news. I haven't had good news in ten years. Indeed, Turkey is the candidate country whose democratic standards have deteriorated the most in recent years – a consequence of an absolute lack of political will to be consistent with the authorities’ occasional pro-European declarations. They are not statements we need, they are facts and facts are stubborn, to the point that today academic analyses speak of Turkey as a pure and harsh authoritarian system. Can an authoritarian country be a candidate for the European Union? Apparently yes. But an authoritarian country will never be a member, because this is still a club of mature democracies and we want it to remain so. Last year, prominent opposition figures – some from prison – and pro-European civil society have asked me to maintain and even revive the accession process. That is, the victims of authoritarianism ask us not to kill hope for a democratic future for the country. And that is the difficult balance of the report. Not killing hope means clearly differentiating between candidate country status and the rest of the relationship. Being a member of the European Union is about democracy and being a partner is about interests. What we cannot admit is to use the rules of one game at the table of the other, that is, forgetting the very serious democratic deterioration of the country. That is why the report is clear: in no way can the accession process be reactivated now, it is frozen and for good reasons. What we would like, Commissioner Kos, from Parliament, is for the Community Executive to accompany us in our criticism of the domestic situation in the country. The silence or weakness of the statements of the Commission and the External Service, in the face of situations such as the arrests of mayors, including that of Istanbul, the controlled blasting of the main opposition party and so many other undemocratic steps, have two consequences: give free rein to authoritarianism and increase the feeling of abandonment, orphanhood, of democratic civil society. If there is democratic change in the country, it will take us decades to regain the credibility that we are now losing with that civil society. And Parliament does not want to be complicit in that silence. We have the other part of the relationship: the partnership and the interplay of overlapping or divergent interests. We have to find a scheme of coexistence and good neighbourliness with Turkey, but without surrendering our principles. That is why relations with Cyprus and Greece are an essential part of any future relationship model. Any aggressive action or statement will be taken into account by the European Union. There is a lot of talk about the security and defense factor in all relationships. The report recognises the importance of Turkey from this point of view, but also points out as serious obstacles, in addition to the essential good neighbourly relations, the degree of mutual trust necessary for a security and defence partnership that is still far from being achieved – such as the customs union, inevitably linked to legal certainty, judicial independence, essential for investors, or visa liberalisation, the responsibility for which lies with the Turkish authorities. However, Parliament supports and expects the resumption of all high-level dialogues, the continuation of migration agreements without forcing returns to Syria, the connectivity agenda, roaming or the banking system. It's not an easy balance, it's true. All I ask is that we do not take out of the equation a civil society that needs, more than ever, the European Union.

Madam President, Madam High Representative, in politics, saying things as they are has a value and calling things by name is a virtue. Therefore, we must recognize the success of Mrs Kallas in naming apartheid what Israel does to the Palestinians. It's a no-brainer, of course. As much as some ministries are falsely scandalized, many of us would have liked that phrase to be uttered in public, here, for example, in this Parliament. Because this kind of simple reality-checking brings the Union closer to its citizens and begins to repair the damage of double standards to our credibility. Those who from anonymity have criticized Kallas for escaping the moral trap of unanimity, argue that the High Representative can only express herself after the unanimous agreements of the governments, as a mere note-taker or spokesman for agreements already taken. For that you do not need a high representative, ChatGPT would have been worth it. Proposing agreements and expressing opinions is part of its capabilities and frequently does so on Russia without any complaints. The senior mute representatives wiped out Borrell.

Mr President, Commissioner Mînzatu, under this regime, the Commission wants to sign an agreement on the deportation of immigrants on behalf of or at the request of some Member States, with two immediate effects: recognition de facto to the Taliban of an international legitimacy that they lack and to prevent that political stain and cost from falling on the governments that want to negotiate with the Taliban. Why does the Commission have to bear this cost? Why don't you welcome the Taliban in the capitals that want to make that kind of deal? Or do they want the Union to negotiate the handover of women and girls who cannot work or study? Why does the Commission allow itself to be entangled in this obvious trap? Why are bilateral agreements signed with other countries by the capitals and with the Taliban is the Commission interposed? Why have we not been told that there has already been a supposedly technical meeting with the Taliban in January? Commissioner, we have a road map with the Taliban. I think the Commission should re-read it.

Mr President, this Parliament is as transparent in what it says as it is in what it is silent. And this Recommendation is no exception. I appreciate the tone that our colleague Kovatchev has managed to create in the group of negotiators and his flexibility in accepting our proposals. However, our amendments show our discomfort with some of these revealing silences. How is it possible that, in a text like this, one carefully avoids mentioning Trump critically? Isn't Trump a major player in the dismantling of our bilateral system? We speak of threats to the sovereignty of Denmark and Greenland as if it were an earthquake, without attributing it to anyone. We speak of UNRWA in an unrespectful tone, with its crucial and irreplaceable role, and I stress: UNRWA is irreplaceable. We insist again on the issue of Palestinian Authority schoolbooks, and we never talk about Israel's schoolbooks, in which similar signs of dehumanization of Arabs and Palestinians have been found. That is why, Andrey, despite acknowledging your work, our amendments are dedicated to filling in those shameful omissions. This text clearly points to a structural fatigue of the United Nations system and its difficulty in adapting to new international actors. The United Nations was born to host States, but today in the international arena there are interlocutors who are no longer States and for whom the United Nations has not yet adapted: the European Union, of course, and certainly also the African Union, from another point of view. And this disconnect with emerging realities is a brake on the renewal of the United Nations. Quite simply, this United Nations no longer represents the world if it does not include the European Union in its Security Council.

Mr President, Commissioner, yesterday we heard a speech that raises many questions. If the world is no longer governed by international law and values must be put on the back burner, why do we insist on those principles and values as the indispensable core of the accession processes? If this ideological world no longer exists, except in our obsolete Treaties, why maintain the fiction that the Union is still a crossroads of democracies and not a geopolitical club? If the geopolitical point of view is predominant, why insist on the maturity or immaturity of the democracies of the candidate countries? Yesterday's toxic speech by the President of the Commission represents the anti-Schuman moment, the anti-Delors moment of the European Union. In relation to enlargement, what does that paragraph mean that the candidate countries must be brought in? already now? And what does it mean that enlargement is not about ideology, but is a matter of common European interest and security. Are interest and security now the measure for the accession processes? Between yesterday's defeatist speech and the Council's rejection of the reverse membership, I'm afraid your schedule has become extraordinarily complicated.

Madam President, this is a sad anniversary, but it is a sadness softened by the widespread conviction that we are doing what is morally right. Acting politically with that moral security is important. I want to pay tribute to a whole generation of Ukrainians who have suspended the realization of their dreams in order to have a homeland in which to fulfill them, especially the young people and so many martyrs who will no longer be able to dream and whose photos we saw on the walls of St. Michael in Kiev. We have to make so much pain not useless. An essential element of our moral strength regarding war is the permanent remembrance of the basics: There's an aggressor and an aggressor. And the moral equidistances of the present American Administration are intended to obscure this origin. That is why peace is not enough: It must be a just peace consistent with the abysmal difference between aggressor and aggressor. Of course, it is the Ukrainians who have to measure the terms of that longed-for peace. But, for this, they need our help, not to prolong the conflict, but to negotiate in a position that guarantees a just and lasting peace: "fair" means military aid now, "durable", guarantees for the future.

Madam President, this is a point about the same Rule, Rule 188, on the admissibility of amendments. Our group believes that the President's services have applied this rule in a way that is not fair concerning an amendment tabled by our group and others from the Greens. The title of this urgency is 'Christians in Türkiye'. My group has tabled an amendment that tries to modify a paragraph to include a reference to religious minorities other than Christians in Türkiye, but that has been declared inadmissible, apparently because it goes beyond Christians. At the same time, there is an amendment from the ESN Group that makes a reference to Christians all over the world, not in Türkiye, that has been declared admissible. Strangely, nobody noticed that the amendment goes beyond Türkiye. This is clearly unfair and unequal treatment, and my group will likely formally protest against the decision, and we reserve our right to address this matter at all appropriate levels. The administration should always apply the rules consistently and impartially.

Madam President, I say to dear Kaja – you and your team, you live here in the Parliament. Sorry for that. In the current landscape of domestic democratic regression and aggressive US foreign policy, the European Union has repeatedly expressed the need for reliable new partners in the world. One mechanism for securing such partnerships is political and trade agreements. But this policy and map cannot be the result of juxtaposed and changing national interests depending on national electoral calendars. Does Europe want all the partners it can have or not? What cannot be easily explained is choosing to support one or the other agreement depending on the pressure of one or the other sector or depending on the electoral calendar of each country. Because one day it will be an agreement and a sector, but in the future it will be another agreement and another sector. Because in everything you can find some sectors that receive some kind of damage from the agreements. The underlying problem is that we are renationalising European competition in foreign trade. Just look at this morning's voting map with Mercosur: national alignments over political groups and forgetting our obligation to defend European interests. Today it has been Mercosur and tomorrow it may perhaps be India, because in that case too there will be sectors affected. At this stage, as soon as we slide down that slope, this Parliament will be organised by national delegations and not by political groups.

Mr President, this is Parliament's annual report on human rights at the political moment of absolute prevalence of the crudest realpolitik and in the midst of a global reversal of the approach to principles and values. Therefore, it is also good to highlight the enormous contribution of this approach to principles and values in realpolitik. The defence of human rights, the rule of law and the promotion of democracy is not an optional policy of the European Union; is a mandate of the Treaties. It is a legal obligation, but it is also that a world of democracies is not only a fairer world, it is also a safer world. Democracies are boringly predictable; autocracies are unpredictable. Democracies have checks and balances, free press, critical public opinions, real systems of guarantees... Democracies do not militarily invade a neighbour at night – and if they do, they are no longer democracies. Therefore, our contribution to the stability of the world also lies in our policy of promoting democracy; They are not only the values of our civilization, they are also an instrument of stability and security for all.

Mr. President, I want to thank David and Thijs for the effort, for trying the impossible: a description of European foreign and defence policy at a time of heightened volatility and uncertainty over the past 75 years. As difficult as photographing a Formula 1 car. It is impossible to foresee some updates, David and Thijs, for example, the convenience of not publishing private messages between heads of state. In this panorama, which seems to be the end of the era of rationalism and the Enlightenment of which the European Union is the daughter, we must return to the basics, to the essentials: a period of essential consensus in foreign policy here, between the central groups of Parliament, between Parliament and the Executive, in the institutions of the Executive and between the Member States. Anything that weakens us must be rejected outright, and there we must speak of unanimity, as Hilde has done; find an acceptable term in the tone and volume of our public statements in foreign policy; and addressing European citizens when talking about foreign policy, because European citizens are starting to see their heads of government more than European foreign policy leaders.

Mr President, I would like to express my solidarity with almost all the Danish colleagues. My recommendation to Mrs Kallas, to the senior officials of the Commission and the Council and to Parliament itself is that the manuals on geopolitics and diplomacy should be forgotten and thrown away. What they will need in the coming months is patience and a basic child psychology manual. Unity will also be required, "UNITY" with capital letters. We have to forget about the small domestic fights here, between groups, between groups and institutions, between the institutions of the Executive and between the Member States. We have to reject anything that might weaken us, agree on some basics, discuss them in a discreet area and appear before the world and Europeans as the bloc we say we are. To find that common space, you have to raise the tone in the Executive and you have to modulate the tone in Parliament, because European citizens are starting to trust their national leaders more than the leaders of the European Union. And, therefore, a year of basic consensus is not a suspension of European democracy, it is an imperative in the face of an existential threat.

Madam President, there is a new risk surrounding the Gaza conflict: relaxation, the drop in the attention of international public opinion, which is even logical after so many months of tension; But it is a risk that must be avoided, and not abandoned to the idea that there is a peace process underway that – with shocks – will yield results. To begin with – as has been said here – it is not a real peace process but, for the moment, only a ceasefire that has not even managed to stop the deaths, which are already counted – again – by dozens; a ceasefire, by the way, which committed Israel to allowing humanitarian aid in and which, in one week, has allowed 800 trucks when 600 are needed every day and, of course, this aid – inevitably – cannot reach the devastated north of the Strip; But this is not only about food, this is about essential services such as water and health care, at least basic. Another aspect in which you do not have to relax: accountability for the crimes committed. How we act now will be the measure for Putin: When there is a ceasefire in Ukraine, are we going to abandon Putin's accountability? Attention to the dilemma and the answer, because a different treatment will again test our credibility in the Global South. So, when the dilemma arises about responsibilities in the Strip, let's not lose sight of Russia's case and Putin's personal responsibilities. This Parliament approved in September the full re-establishment of UNRWA's mandate and funding. Trump's plan, fortunately, does not exclude any international agency. Many novice actors - from politicians to real estate agents - are going to appear in Gaza and some, surely, combining both souls, but UNRWA alone has 20,000 Palestinians on the ground, experts in the provision of all kinds of public services, which could be the germ of a future Palestinian administration without Hamas.

Mr President, this framework is a perfect example of the European Union's new foreign policy. We're looking for partners around the world with a sign on their forehead that says "We're desperate. We have anxiety. We need friends. And our interlocutors know that. They know it and they use it. And that's not a good starting point for any negotiations. Another of our limitations is that we negotiate with the implicit threat that our interlocutor can look for other international sponsors and can move to the dark side: Another weakness that many exploit. And, therefore, it is not strange that in the new formats of agreements our differential weapon, values and principles disappear, and an allergy is imposed to put anything that can minimally bother the other party. In the case of India, I no longer speak of violence against religious minorities. I don't talk about pretrial detention for years. Not even the ILO conventions, not even a mention of sustainable development. Pure realpolitik and no proximity values. The temptation of Greater Switzerland is calling. An introverted, walled, rich, aged, yet free European Union. Is that the model?

Madam President, first of all, I would like to thank the shadow rapporteurs for their work, with whom I have had an excellent collaboration. The Kyrgyz Republic is one of our main partners in a region where we have interests in security, connectivity, strategic diversification, conflict resolution and the defence of multilateralism. The previous agreement was already 25 years old and it seems logical that it has been revised at this stage. It has an ambitious trade and sustainable development chapter, with a rather remarkable inclusion of labour rights, climate change policies and openness to European companies and investors and the importance also of critical raw materials. It also strengthens cooperation in the field of foreign and security policy, conflict prevention and terrorism. However, we follow with concern the trend towards a security political model that is rapidly eroding the democratic standards of what was once considered an island of democracy. And we hope that this agreement will provide the Commission with new tools to reverse this trend.

Madam President, the barrage of words about Gaza is not only a graphic example of political impotence, but it is becoming an obstacle to action, an alibi for inaction. We must break this vicious circle and move from the mere description of horror to its political and legal qualification and the attribution of responsibilities, inside and outside the European Union. You have to abandon the phrases made and do something very important in politics: call things by name, without diplomatic jargon. Let's try it in today's resolution, because this notorious lack of credibility is no longer just something we will suffer from for decades in our relationship with the Global South, but is already affecting European citizens; And I don't mean just the protesters, but anyone watching a newscast, with those images that aren't broadcast on Israel's public television. Naming moral evil is necessary. Let's remember Hannah Arendt's warning of the "banality of evil" and call things by their name. That is why our proposal includes the term "genocide", points to the Israeli authorities as responsible for war crimes, calls for the suspension of the EU-Israel Association Agreement and calls for sanctions, embargoes, recognition of Palestine and the release of hostages.

Madam President, the script of the authoritarians is boringly similar, if not because it creates so much pain and so much cruelty. In addition to the pressure on the media, on NGOs, the harassment of minorities, the dismantling of the judiciary, paranoid narratives about imaginary external enemies, the falsification of elections and so on, they always coincide in the arrest of opposition leaders. It's happening in Turkey and it's happening in Georgia. Putin stops them and kills them, some of them he kills even without stopping them. In the case of Georgian Dream it is enough to remove them from the stage with any absurd excuse. In case there is any remote doubt about the political nature of the persecution, look at the offer of the president of the country: offers to pardon imprisoned opposition leaders if they agree to participate in local elections. First you are arrested so that you do not make public life - and all the sentences refer to the fact that you cannot hold public office - and then your own jailers offer you the key to the cell if you serve to legitimize their elections and their more than probable victory. Sarcastic and cruel. Commissioner Kos, be careful with the comparison and the tone we use with Georgia and Turkey, because the same things are happening.