Speeches

Madam President, it has been a month since English journalist Dom Phillips and Brazilian indigenist Bruno Pereira were brutally murdered in the Amazon they sought to protect. Two lives that join hundreds of other lives that in recent years have been mown down for opposing the predation of the forest and its natural resources. The devastation of Brazilian natural biomes by fire, pollution and machines, the attack on indigenous reserves and land grabbing are mechanisms used by those who make intensive agricultural production, the capture of protected species or mining their way of accumulating wealth. It is their interests that the European Union, beyond the hypocritical proclamations, supports when it insists on trade liberalisation or complicity in destabilising coup forces in Brazil and the region. It will be the Brazilian people who will change the circumstances that will allow us to preserve natural ecosystems and defend the populations that depend on them. From here we express solidarity with the Brazilian democratic and progressive forces that struggle to resume the path of social progress, the sovereign development of cooperation and peace.

Mr President, taxonomy is part of an approach that we disagree with. It is part of a process of financialization of the environment that involves, among other things, channeling significant financial flows to emerging businesses around the environment. According to the proponents of this market approach, the virtuosity of these businesses will lead to the achievement of environmental goals. The public authorities can only give the right signals to the market, it will take care of the rest. The taxonomy is intended to be that signal given to the market. The European Commission, as always, behaves as a kind of notary of economic interests, which, in this case, are even contradictory. It no longer surprises anyone, Business as Ursula. To this erroneous, counterproductive and pernicious view, we oppose another that gives centrality and protagonism to public authorities in decision-making, regulation, investments, the regulatory framework of private sector action, the definition of goals and, very importantly, in the most appropriate ways to achieve them. (End now) The problem is not just any implicit choice list, it goes far beyond it.

Mr President, the EU Action Plan and the report we are debating here are based on a premise that we cannot agree with: Calling the social sector the social economy. A political and ideological option, deliberately taken, which aims to commodify the provision of social care. The role of charities and cooperatives is undeniable. But both should not replace, but complement, the public responses of the States. The guarantee of social rights and social protection are, in our view, a responsibility of the State. The social sector must provide a quality response that is universal, close and tends to be free of charge. Workers in the social sector should be guaranteed the highest standards of labour and social rights, decent and fair pay and continuous training. Responding to the scourges and social needs cannot be a mere act of welfare, charity or philanthropy, but rather a true and genuine commitment on the part of the State to combat inequalities and the unjust distribution of wealth.

Mr President, for decades right-wing policy choices and the prevalence of deficit and debt criteria over social justice have dictated public disinvestment in the social functions of the state, the de-responsibility of the state in promoting well-being and protecting populations, and the commodification of care, both in health and education. The absence or lack of an adequate, universal and free public response in these matters has led thousands of people, mostly women, to informally and individually assume the care of close relatives, transferring to their backs all responsibility for the people they care for, subjecting themselves to a brutal physical and psychological burden and depriving them of their personal and professional life. We advocate the strengthening or creation of robust, community-based public networks, duly endowed with financial, technical, material, infrastructural and human resources, decent working conditions, career development prospects and fair wages, protection and support for informal carers with psychosocial support and social protection, training and empowerment. It is time for states to take care of carers and carers into their hands.

Madam President, following the decision of the extradition court to the United States of America and the subsequent assent of Secretary Pretty Patel last Friday, Julian Assange appealed to the Supreme Court against his extradition order. Yesterday, on the day he turned 51, the last ten years in captivity, there were expressions of solidarity all over the world, including in Lisbon, where we were, once again calling for Assange's release, denouncing and rejecting a decision aimed at imposing unacceptable pressure to condition the disclosure of information of public interest. We cannot fail to note the silence of the institutions of the European Union, in contrast to other situations on this case and the disclosure of information, among others, on the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, exposing violations of international law, including war crimes. Expressing solidarity with Julian Assange, we will continue to demand the refusal of his extradition and the annulment of the charges against Assange and his immediate release.

Madam President, the fight against poverty and social exclusion is inseparable from the eradication of the specific discriminations that affect, for the most part, women and children. To this end, specific social measures are needed as regards access to affordable housing, transport, justice and energy. We believe that the right to work is an essential condition for economic independence, the professional fulfilment of women and the realization of equal rights. To this end, we must put an end to this scourge of precariousness, which is attacking the youngest and the youngest female workers. Professions, salaries, careers and, of course, pensions must be valued. We also advocate the strengthening of public services, with a clear commitment to a universal and free national public health service, a public and democratic school that guarantees equal rights and opportunities for all and a stronger public social security system. Measures that do not fit into the neoliberal policies of the European Union, but which for us are the way to fight poverty and guarantee a better future for women today and tomorrow.

Madam President, setbacks and progress in the way societies have looked at abortion are inextricably linked to setbacks and progress in the female condition. Abortion must be seen as a public health problem and as an issue intertwined with women's fundamental rights. Women's struggle for access to sexual and reproductive rights and the dominance of their sexuality is a secular struggle that has endured persecutions that unfortunately continue to this day. The damaging effects and harmful consequences that this decision will have on the human dignity and reproductive health of American women should indignate us all, women and men, for whom the demand for participation and the taking of a position is an act of conscious citizenship in the defense of women's rights. Equality must be full, concrete, and there is no equality without rights. From here we express our solidarity with the women who feel these unacceptable setbacks, in the certainty that no right is lost forever.

Mr President, the current situation shows that security of energy supply must not be dependent on market contingencies which, as you have seen, threaten it. In the absence of public control of the sector, where market conditions are not attractive for private actors to supply the minimum levels deemed necessary for reasons of security of supply, States are called upon to pay the bill. If it is the people who pay double, on the one hand the storage targets and, on the other hand, the already high gas bills, why do they insist on this market logic? The process of privatization and liberalisation of the energy sector, which has hurt the peoples so much, is being reversed. This agreement and its urgent procedure stem from the sanctions imposed on Russia, which, it is assumed, severely affect the peoples of Europe and, if they benefit anyone, it is only the United States of America. This is also why there is a need or obligation for countries to guarantee certain levels of energy reserves, with the risk of replacing some dependencies with others and adding harmful environmental impacts.

Madam President, since 2009, we have asked the European Commission seven times about fuel price formation, more specifically about the reliability and reasonableness of a fuel pricing process, which gives a private company the power to determine fuel prices on the market. Referring at some point to ongoing cartel investigations, we wanted to know the conclusions of those investigations and the extent to which consumers were affected. The absence of concrete answers from the European Commission to evidence of collusion and cartelisation in fuel price formation raises further questions: what is the Directorate-General for Competition and the Commissioner in charge of it for? To monitor the contracts and policies of states is energetic, when the interests of multinationals are at stake it is lazy and, in the current situation, given the evidence of the opportunist and speculative exploitation of refining margins by the world's major oil companies in fixing international prices of fossil fuels, it is passive. We will continue to insist and demand answers, because it cannot be the people who pay for this market scheme.

... yes, we are internationalists but we are also defenders of the sovereignty of each people, and of each people deciding what their future will be. And what this project has shown us, also by its federalist, militarist and neoliberal matrix, what has happened, are the asymmetries of development between different states, the issue also of increasing inequalities and the issue of the prevalence of some states that dominate others. And what the unanimity rule would do was to further accentuate this trend, while not solving the problem of workers and peoples.

Mr President, I recall in this debate the process of the Convention on the Future of Europe, which would lay the foundations for a so-called European Constitution. A farce that was then exposed by the rejection in several referenda, and the European Union disregarded the results of these processes of popular suffrage, then imposed the Treaty of Lisbon. They now intend, in general terms, to repeat the mystification operation launched at that time. It is therefore necessary once again to defend the reversibility of the Treaties, starting with the Treaty of Lisbon and including the Fiscal Treaty and the neoliberal, federalist and militarist matrix contained therein. We defend the inalienable right of every people to debate and express themselves in an informed manner, including by referendum, on the content and purpose of current and future agreements and treaties. What is needed is to defend a process of genuine cooperation between sovereign and equal states in rights and a Europe that defends sovereignty and democracy, rights, enabling alternative paths for the future, justice, progress and peace. (La oradora acepta respond a una intervención realized con entreglo al procedimiento de la ‘tarjeta azul’)

Madam President, the European Parliament continues its policy of complete adherence to the United States' ingerencist and destabilizing strategy in Latin America. This new resolution against Nicaragua and its people is yet another demonstration of how this Parliament does not hesitate to misrepresent the facts in order to cover up an unacceptable policy that is contrary to the principles of the United Nations Charter and international law. We therefore reject any external interference in the Republic of Nicaragua and the continued destabilisation and attempt by the United States of America, with the support of the European Union, to impose its economic and political dominance over that country. We therefore call for an end to this policy of interference, including the coercive and unilateral measures imposed on the margins of the United Nations, aimed at hindering Nicaragua's economic development and attaining the living conditions of the Nicaraguan people. We affirm our solidarity with Nicaragua and its people in the struggle in defense of its sovereignty and independence, of the right to decide its own path of development, free from external pressures and interferences, in defense and in the pursuit of the Sandinista revolution and its development and social progress.

Madam President, in my country, Portugal, after years of fighting for women's rights, voluntary termination of pregnancy was finally decriminalised in 2007. Since then, the number of IVGs has progressively decreased and it is estimated that 40% fewer abortions have been performed in the last ten years. Those who oppose the decriminalisation of IVG in the United States or in Europe know well that banning it has no effect on combating abortion, only making it clandestine, unprotected and dangerous to the physical and mental health and sometimes to the very lives of women, but only to those who cannot afford to do so in a safe place in another country. We condemn and reject all setbacks in sexual and reproductive rights felt anywhere in the world. The way is to move forward, not back down. Advance access to sexual and reproductive health services with the necessary reinforcement of quality and free public health services, sex education, free access to contraceptives and family planning services.

Mr President, Vice-President Timmermans said here that this emissions reduction package should leave no one behind. I said this knowing that the insistence on perverse market solutions, which are not only questionable as to the effectiveness in reducing emissions but also burden workers and populations, contributing to the increase in the cost of living, as the Commission itself acknowledges, justifies the creation of the Social Climate Action Fund to mitigate the socio-economic consequences of the extension of emissions trading. This fund is clearly insufficient and the Commission proposal is marked precisely by support for a very restrictive range of those affected, leaving many behind. And the methodology for calculating the financial allocation is uniquely detrimental to one Member State, Portugal. Portugal is the only country whose gross national income per capita is less than 90% of the EU-27 average that will have a lower allocation of the total percentage of the fund than the percentage of its population in the EU-27 as a whole. It is unjustifiable discrimination that needs to be corrected.

Madam President, worsening living conditions, rising housing costs, the loss of purchasing power of families and rising interest rates make it urgent to protect the homes of many families and prevent them from becoming homeless. In this sense, States should assume themselves as promoters of public housing and promoters of urban construction and rehabilitation policies to extend the provision of public housing at costs compatible with household incomes. We advocate the strengthening of public investment in the rehabilitation and construction of public housing, which responds to identified housing shortages, workers and, in particular, young people, enabling the empowerment and constitution of families. There is a need to increase the supply of public housing under supported or conditional rent schemes. But in order to do so, it is necessary to break with the budgetary constraints imposed by the European Union, followed by national governments which, as can be seen, limit the responses needed to improve the living conditions of the peoples.

Madam President, the reality of island regions within the European Union is diverse and presents structural disadvantages in relation to continental territories because of their size, low population density, seasonal demographics, high topographical variation or poor connectivity. These structural features call for a positive distinction between public investment policies that enable greater territorial and social cohesion and counteract the divergent trend in the development of these territories. The Portuguese islands are at the same time outermost regions, suffering from this double insularity. The development of the archipelagos of the Azores and Madeira necessarily involves investment in agriculture, support for small-scale and traditional fishing, industrial development, sustainable tourism and improved accessibility, both between islands and with the mainland. It also involves policies and investments to achieve this development, including a POSEI dedicated to fisheries and a POSEI dedicated to transport, as we have defended and as we will continue to defend. We regret that the conditionality imposed on the Structural Funds impacts these regions, limiting the development possibilities that would be fundamental.

Mr President, the European Union's sanctions policy sacrifices the interests of the countries and peoples of Europe and contributes to the escalation of confrontation, hindering the path to peace. The case of gas is paradigmatic. The packages of sanctions adopted were followed by an even sharper speculative increase in the price of gas, which had already been rising in previous months, and the people were paying. Gas storage targets are set for Member States to meet, but as economic groups do not want to make such investments, states and the people will pay. Some dependencies are replaced by others, more distant and environmentally more harmful, more expensive, and the people pay. This is more than just because there is a need for state intervention and capping, but it is insufficient. We need to go further. The exploration, supply, production, transport and marketing of different forms of energy should be in the public sphere, under public and democratic scrutiny. It is the only way for the people not to pay for the war, the sanctions and the profits and profits of the multinationals in the sector.

Madam President, last Friday Tatjana Ždanoka, a Member of this Parliament, was arrested in Riga with other Protestants who were demonstrating publicly and peacefully against the demolition of a memorial to Soviet soldiers in Victoria Park. His detention deserves repudiation by this Parliament. From here we express our solidarity with Tatiana and those who do not give up defending the historical truth, the rights and freedoms that the struggle of the peoples has guaranteed. The same European Union that seeks to assert itself as a champion of human rights and democracy in different parts of the world lives harmoniously with these violations or even promotes them. An example of this is the imposition in the European Union of censorship of the media, which already extends to cultural and sporting activities, contrary to national competences and laws, such as the Constitution of the Portuguese Republic, imposing a logic of unique thinking. The destruction of historical heritage is yet another facet of historical revisionism and the attempt to rewrite history in order to erase the achievements achieved by the Soviet Union and the Communists and the rights and achievements achieved by the struggle of the peoples.

Madam President, this debate and the accompanying resolution are yet another piece of the systematic exercise by the European Union and its institutions of cynical instrumentalisation of rights and values to seek to impose their dominance over sovereign states. Not by chance, the resolution ignores the policy of interference by the United States of America and the European Union in Belarus, insisting on the promotion of internal destabilization and the policy of sanctions aimed at stifling the country, creating greater difficulties for the peoples. Policies in clear conflict with international law and the Charter of the United Nations, including the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of each country. There is also a two-pronged view which they seek to impose on different subjects, such as the principle of neutrality, omitting the role of NATO and its expansion to the east. This is an exercise that does not contribute to the necessary de-escalation in the region. Rather, it adds to the escalation of confrontation, which is contrary to peace in Europe and in the world.

Madam President, I would like to begin by highlighting the role of women in the defence of peace, calling for an end to a war that should not have begun through a political solution to the conflict, with the aim of an immediate ceasefire that the escalation of confrontation does not provide. Among the different types of violence to which women are subjected is violence in the context of war, in any war. In this context, the violence adds up. Women and girls are at greater risk of sexual violence and exploitation, of falling into human trafficking networks and subsequently becoming victims of prostitution and other violence. It is therefore important to minimise the suffering of women fleeing war by ensuring that multiple discriminations, whether of race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, age or language barriers, are tackled. Ensure also safe transport and safe routes, decent housing in the host country, the right to health, including access to sexual and reproductive rights, social and labour rights and decent working conditions, ensuring that they are not victims of labour exploitation and that the path to attack established labour and social rights is not taken on this pretext. On this point, the resolution we are voting on today could and should have gone further. As far as the financial means are concerned, too, the resolution falls short of what is desired, tying up support for the association agreement and the neoliberal policies enshrined in it. For the necessary measures to support the reception of refugees, it is necessary to provide additional resources from the European Union, without withdrawing funds from the Structural Funds that do not stretch and are already insufficient for other necessary responses. Finally, we want to express our solidarity with Ukrainian women and welcome the mobilisation that their suffering and struggle has generated in the European institutions. May this solidarity mobilization be extended to all women who suffer the same drama in Palestine, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya or any other region of the world beset by war.

Madam President, I would like to remind you that, some 20 years ago, a process similar to this was initiated which now ends, even in name, the so-called Convention on the Future of Europe. This process eventually resulted in a so-called European Constitution enshrining the neoliberal, federalist and militarist policies of the European Union, which was rejected in referendums. And what has the European Union done? It imposed the Treaty of Lisbon against the will of the peoples. They have now recovered a new Convention to insist once again on the deepening of their policies which, in fact, are at the root of social inequalities, development asymmetries between countries or relations of domination. versus dependency within the European Union. With the same recipe, the results will not be different. The answer to the problems of workers and peoples is to break with these policies and for a Europe that defends sovereignty and democracy, rights, enabling alternative paths for the future, justice, progress and peace.

Madam President, artificial intelligence, as a representation of the technological and scientific advances we are witnessing, must be put at the service of improving the living conditions of workers and peoples. It must be at the service of peace, development, wealth creation and well-being. But this is not what this report advocates. On the contrary, it focuses on the sacrosanct market with the aim of putting these advances at the service of the profit of a few, with the increase of exploitation and the deterioration of the living and working conditions of many others. It puts the development of science at the service of militarism and war, not peace. We distance ourselves from this mercantilist and warmongering vision and argue that advances in artificial intelligence should promote, among other things, the reduction of working hours without loss of income, the reduction of hardship at work and should be directed towards key sectors, such as health. We believe that artificial intelligence should contribute to social progress and not be the engine and alibi for further exploitation and social and labour setbacks.

Mr President, yesterday thousands of workers took to the streets on the occasion of International Workers' Day. They denounced the serious increase in the cost of living, whether in fuel, energy or food. It is necessary to tackle, once and for all, the speculative rise in prices by the big oil companies, the big distribution groups and other economic groups that are driving up the prices of essential goods and services. Concrete solutions to problems in the areas of electricity, fuels, gas are needed to defend the food sovereignty of states, increase cereal production, improve the agri-food chain, support agricultural production and small-scale fisheries and, of course, to increase wages and pensions. If wages are not raised, if the cost of living is not stopped, and if more military spending, sanctions and weapons continue to be applauded, the situation will only get worse. The workers and the people, who are already paying the bill, can count on our intervention in the defense of a better life and peace.

Madam President, organic farming can play an important role in mitigating the effects of climate change and restoring biodiversity. We advocate a short supply chain approach, not subject to market orientation, but to people's food needs and their ability to produce the food they need. Quotas of agricultural land under organic production vary significantly across the European Union and there is no single agricultural model that suits all countries and regions. It is therefore important that the national or regional organic farming strategies promoted by the Member States respond to their needs and the objective of ensuring food sovereignty and that these strategies ensure adequate support for farmers, especially small and medium-sized farmers. We also warn of the classification of organic salt, which should only be classified as such when it is produced according to natural processes, without additives or carbon emissions in its production, which characterize the production of sea salt.

Mr President, Roma communities have been victims of racism, xenophobia, prejudice and stereotypes for centuries. Europe’s history is tainted by persecution and discrimination against Roma communities, hostility and expressions of hatred in public and political discourse against them. From the Inquisition to Nazi-fascism, to the present day, there are too many examples of the marginalization of the Roma and the poor socio-economic conditions in which many of them live. The situation for Roma women is even more serious and they face multiple discrimination in accessing employment, education, health, social services and limiting their decision-making. National strategies, framed within a common European framework, continue to prove ineffective. There is an urgent need to put an end to policies that perpetuate the condition and persecution of Roma communities, and there is an urgent need to implement policies that dignify and defend the rights of Roma communities. Developing community programmes that strengthen social relations with the Roma community and the educational integration of children and young people is one of the ways forward.