What Nacho spoke about.

Madam President, we are talking, Mr Borrell, about interference in democratic processes, and there is no democratic process more important than elections. That is why my proposal in this committee and to you is that the risks of interference in elections, in elections in the broad sense, should be specifically identified and addressed: in the electoral process. For its transcendence and also for the existence of greater vulnerability. Many citizens connect with politics during the electoral period, disconnect and reconnect, and at that time they are much more vulnerable, with greater avidity for political information and greater exposure to that disinformation. The aim of these interferences – as we have said many times – is not to change the figures of the vote cast. That's very difficult. It is delegitimizing the electoral process itself. The only figure that interests those who interfere in elections is the figure of a growing abstention, because it will serve to delegitimize mature democracies. And that is why, Mr Borrell, we must also change the way we observe elections. Before and after a vote there are the new risks to electoral integrity and that is why we have to study them and propose new ways to defend ourselves in the elections against these foreign interferences.

Madam President, Mr Borrell, it is a pleasure for you to come to this debate, because you are a politician and, therefore, you are able to respond in your second speech to what we say here, which is something I must regret that does not always happen. I am going to speak to you against the backdrop of what is called the Council's 'offering of a positive agenda' to Turkey, and I would like to thank you for the enormous harmony between the groups in this House, because everyone has understood that it is not a question of supporting or not supporting the particular political agenda of the HDP, but its right to defend it, its right to express it peacefully and its right to participate in elections and ask for electoral support and to defend the institutions. However, as one more part of a determined policy of dismantling all checks and balances the political system, the idea and the objective is to put an end to any critical bubble in Turkish public life, both in civil society and in institutions; institutions already reduced to a minimum by an authoritarian interpretation of the presidential system. The massive suspension of parliamentary immunities is a line of attack. The use of the Prosecutor's Office and the courts is the second, for simple political criticism. The leader of the main opposition party has an indictment, with a request for four years in prison, for saying "the alleged president" to refer to Mr Erdoğan. The strategy against HDP is a bit more elaborate, always with extensive coverage of anti-terrorism legislation: banning the party and outlawing it and disabling almost 500 leaders of that party to prevent it from being refounded, as happened in the past, and doing so near an election. It is unjust and undemocratic - yes, Mr Borrell - and it is a serious political mistake. As you and I, who are Spanish, know from our historical experience, keeping people who decided to abandon a violent path in the institutions is key to resolving the conflict. Keeping the HDP in the institutional game is key to overcoming the Kurdish conflict in a democratic and definitive way. But in the meantime, Mr Borrell, we have to defend your right to act as such parties and that must be part of the framework of the so-called 'positive agenda' offered by the Council to Turkey.