Speeches

Mr President, the response to the global resurgence of the pandemic and the summit with the African Union in early 2021 are closely linked issues at the next European Council. Indeed, the pandemic reappears largely because of the Omicron variant, which started in Africa, where the vaccination rate is 7%. And we know that the likelihood of new variants of the virus appearing where the vaccination rate is so low, is immense. Africa, and especially South Africa, urges the EU to temporarily lift patents on vaccines and related technologies. But the European Union says no. Is this our proposal for a partnership with the African Union? The argument that the lifting will not speed up the continent’s vaccination processes is false. Africa has at least six plants ready to produce messenger RNA vaccines in a matter of months and this would allow mass access to cost-effective vaccines and dedicate the continent’s resources to improving its logistics networks. But if this argument were true, it would be one more reason to suspend patents. Because in this case, the pharmaceutical industry has nothing to fear, because no one will be able to compete with it. The Omicron variant forced the suspension of the WTO meeting, where the European Union was going to violate the mandate of this Parliament. We still have time to rectify and do what the global interests of the planet, the interests of Africa and the interests of the EU itself demand of us.

Madam President, Commissioner, the Commission, in order to ensure access to vaccines worldwide, proposes that WTO Member States use the compulsory licences provided for in Article 31 of the TRIPS Agreement instead of advocating the temporary suspension of patents. This is a serious mistake, Commissioner, it is irresponsible, because this Commission proposal will not increase the production and global availability of vaccines to the same extent, for three reasons. The first is that governments that use compulsory licenses can be sued by patent holders. On the contrary, the suspension of patents provides them with the necessary legal certainty to increase local production. The second reason is that compulsory licences will not lead to a significant decrease in the price to be paid for vaccines globally, contrary to what would happen with the end of the monopoly implied by the patent. The third reason is that compulsory licences do not include all intellectual property rights – copyright, trade secrets, industrial designs, etc. – and therefore do not allow developing countries to obtain the technology needed to produce messenger RNA vaccines. As proof of this, the WHO has not yet benefited from any transfer of this technology, because pharmaceutical companies do not share it voluntarily. In conclusion, the EU must support the temporary suspension of intellectual property rights on vaccines at the next WTO Ministerial Conference.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, COP26 confirmed that the pace of politics and the pace of nature are dramatically decoupled. We know that, before COP26, the warming forecast for 2100 was 2.7 °C, but these forecasts are now 1.8 °C, in case all agreements are implemented. This is still too far from the 1.5°C that science requires us to avoid collapse. It is true that they are not all failures. The agreement to reduce methane emissions and the explicit inclusion of coal in the commitments are good news, but, as the UN Secretary-General said, this is not enough. It is reckless to have postponed to 2023 the financing of $100,000 per year for the green transition of developing countries. As the report of the Global Inequality Laboratory, the map of carbon pollution fits perfectly with that of global economic inequalities. The richest 2% of the world’s population emits almost 48% of global emissions and the richest 1% produce 17% of the total, while the poorest half is responsible for only 12%. We can't save the planet if we don't act faster, but above all we can't save the planet if we don't make it fairer.

Madam President, Mr Garicano, I thank you for waiting at the end of the debate to hear this speech and for allowing me to speak with all due respect, but with all forcefulness. I know that some of you don't like history at all, but history says that Nazism was defeated in Germany; Fascism was defeated in Italy; Salazarism in Portugal; Stalinism, in the countries of the East ... But Francoism was not defeated in Spain, and Spain is the exception of the European Union, and who violated European principles and values in 2017 was not the Catalan Government putting ballot boxes and allowing people to go to vote, it was the Spanish State beating up voters who were going to vote peacefully, imprisoning an innocent Government and now persecuting us against what the Council of Europe demands. By the way, I end with a question: Do you think that the Spanish Supreme Court and the Spanish Constitutional Court should be subject to the decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union? Yes or no? Because they're not, and it's okay with you.

Madam President, Madam President of the Commission, at the next European Council you will show how far you want to go in order for Poland to accept the primacy of European law. But, probably, Poland will tell you: “Spain can ignore it and we can’t?” And you will not be able to answer, because Spain ignores the decision of the Luxembourg Court that has affected our immunity for months. As a result, Poland will feel legitimised to continue defying the EU. And then it might be Hungary. And then another country, and another... Is it really worth seriously threatening European projects, Madam President, only to protect the Spanish state and its authoritarian drift through the inaction of the European institutions? And you know the origin of the problem; You know that perfectly well. Spain is, I insist, the only European state with a fascist totalitarian past that has not been able to build its democracy on the defeat of fascism, totalitarianism. I would like to stress: It is the only one. This is not an opinion, it is a historical fact, but a historical fact with dramatic consequences, so dramatic that if you do not stop soon the violations of the rule of law that Spain continues to perpetrate today, the bad example of this country will end up fatally wounding the European project.

Mr President, Commissioner, the authoritarianism of the Beijing regime challenges our concept of democracy. We're all saying it. Their minorities (Uyghurs, Tibetans, Hong Kong citizens and also the democrats who since the Chinese regime fight for a better country) suffer a systematic violation of their fundamental rights. Europe must abandon the "one-China" policy, or rather recognise that China and Taiwan are, for all intents and purposes, two different countries, and treat them as such. This has been repeatedly expressed at the polls by the people of Taiwan, and we must therefore respect it from the European institutions. From Catalonia, Taiwan has all our support and hopefully in the coming months we will vote again in this House on Taiwan, but this time on an investment treaty that strengthens relations between Europe and Taiwan. Europe must prioritise alliances with other democracies. If Europe is to be a global power, it must make geopolitical bets that reinforce democratic systems with civil, political, labour, environmental and other rights. May this resolution be a milestone towards much closer relations between Taiwan and the European Union.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, in order for the Farm to Fork strategy to achieve its proposed objectives, consistency with other EU policies is needed, all of which are: agriculture, trade, biodiversity, etc., which is not the case at present. We have the theoretically key tool, the CAP, but we missed an opportunity with the latest revision that is not aligned with the objectives of the Green Deal. We still need to apply the "Farm to Fork" principles to fisheries policy, with the European Code on the Conduct of Food Chain Leaders and make them go beyond voluntary measures. As far as the Union's trade policy is concerned, we also want consistency with regard to imports and exports of food, chemicals and GMOs, and we must give a very clear signal to promote the phasing out of highly hazardous pesticides worldwide. Finally, the Commission must ensure that free trade agreements create sustainable and fair food systems. If we do not act consistently, this strategy will be ineffective and we will pay dearly for mistakes that this Parliament can still correct.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, in November Poland plans to receive EUR 24 billion from the Recovery Fund but, in accordance with the conditionality mechanism that accompanies this fund, the Commission informed Poland that it will first have to comply with the provisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union. When the Polish Constitutional Court challenged the Luxembourg Court and ruled that domestic law had primacy over Community law, the Commission blocked the release of funds. In Spain, the Supreme Court, in particular Judge Llarena, also appealed against the Luxembourg Court, which on 30 July had said that the Euro-orders issued by this judge against three Members of this Chamber – President Puigdemont, Clara Ponsatí and myself – are suspended. However, last week this judge informed the Italian judicial authorities that he does not intend to suspend the European arrest warrant, ignoring the decision of the European court. Mr Gentiloni, will the Commission apply the same standard to Spain as it does to Poland? The next installment of the Recovery Fund Will it freeze in Spain until the Supreme Court complies with the decision of the European Court? And if it doesn't, why this double standard? Do we require some states to comply with European law if they want European funds and not others? Really? Is this the Europe we want?

Mr President, what characterises the European model of life? Or rather, what should characterize it? We know this very well: the defence of human rights, civil and political rights; But, most especially, what is specific to Europe is the defence of social and economic rights. In other words, there is no European model of life without a welfare state. But there is no welfare state without a sufficient and equitable tax base. How else can we finance public services that guarantee our fundamental rights, our social rights without a solid tax base? The existence of tax havens is therefore a direct threat to the European model of life. Aggressive tax planning practices and unfair tax competition are a threat. The Commission estimates that 10% of European GDP is diverted through tax havens every year. And the 2021 report said that every year we lose between €36 and €37 billion of corporate tax. This tax dumping occurs at three levels: between States of the Union, between the Union and third countries and, within States, between regions. The Community of Madrid, in this sense, is a dramatic example with its aggressive tax planning policies. We have to fight at these three levels and, indeed - we know this very well - tax harmonisation is the unfinished business of the European economic project.

Madam President, this Parliament is very concerned about the problems of the rule of law in Poland or Hungary, and it does well; But it cares very little about the degradation of the rule of law in Spain... And it's bad, very bad. Freedom of the press must be protected at all costs, in every corner of the Union. We cannot look the other way when it is threatened in Poland, but the independence of the judiciary is also fundamental to our democracies, and the Union must not look the other way when it is Spain that runs it over. A few days ago, the head of Justice of the Spanish PP opened an interview with this headline: The PP has the support of the majority of the judicial career. Don't be naive. In Spain, politicians who want judges to choose their government, do not do so to have a more independent judiciary, but on the contrary, to control it. Another person in charge of the PP, already confessed, in 2018, that the objective of his party was "to control the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court from behind". How long are we going to keep playing with the double standard? Don't you realize that by keeping quiet about breaches of the rule of law in Spain, we are giving the rest of the EU states, such as Poland, free rein to follow the same path? If they continue to play with fire, one day they will not know how to put out the fire of the violation of civil and political rights throughout the Union.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the latest IPCC report of last August makes it very clear that in order to end global warming we need to stop emitting carbon as a matter of urgency. We are at a point of no return, there is margin but it is a concrete and unambiguous margin. The thirty years that we have set ourselves up to 2050 cannot be a test, the challenge is enormous because it concerns everything: agriculture, industry, transport, electricity and the energy sector in general. We have a first deadline, 2030, in which governments and the Union at the helm must specify what they will do: current plans and targets are insufficient if we do not want to overcome the increase agreed in Paris. We celebrate the adoption of the Fit for 55 but we are aware that the changes to be promoted are radical and that a total and just transformation is needed. That is why we will fight to ensure that the changes we have to undertake do not harm the most vulnerable citizens and regions. We will follow closely the establishment of the Social Fund. In addition, the resources we will get from the implementation of the CBAM should be dedicated to these most fragile sectors of the population.

Mr President, the pandemic has undoubtedly been a huge human tragedy, with social and economic consequences that we are all aware of. However, the EU has learned useful lessons for the future. Among them, the need to make progress in building a common European health policy, in the specific areas where greater integration will allow us to do more and better. This regulation on cross-border threats is of course one of the pillars of this new European Health Union and we are satisfied with the quantity and quality of the contributions we have been able to make. These include the definition of real health needs in all policies, the extension of epidemiological surveillance of communicable diseases to their consequences on non-communicable diseases, in particular mental health, the inclusion of regions, and in particular cross-border regions, in prevention and transparency plans, and the publication of the list of members of the EU Health Security Committee, in order to avoid any conflict of interest with the pharmaceutical industry. In conclusion, more Europe in the field of health so that EU Member States and regions can ensure more and better the right to health of their citizens.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is a great pleasure for me today to make this speech in Italian. In the last Council, President Michel said that non-discrimination against LGBTI people is part of the DNA of the Union. No country can therefore claim to be part of the Union if it does not respect this principle. However, Hungary recently passed a homophobic law that prohibits talking about homosexuality in textbooks and television programs for minors. In Poland there are municipalities that declare themselves free from LGBTI people. This week in Spain, the Supreme Court banned public buildings from waving the LGBTI flag. These public actions encourage the most intolerant sectors of our society to intensify their hate speech against the LGBTI community, which ends up legitimizing physical violence, threats, beatings, group assaults and even murders, as in the case of Samuel, the 24-year-old gay brutally beaten to death in Galicia just a few days ago. We need a Union that acts strongly against LGBTI-phobia. We don't just need words and speeches, we need concrete facts and courageous policies.

Madam President, the harassment of dissidents in Nicaragua is unacceptable, and it is very sad to see how those who call themselves heirs of a revolution that in 1979 generated so much hope in Latin America, in Europe, in the whole world, today embody exactly the opposite of what that revolution symbolized. The European Union must demand that the Nicaraguan Government release the candidates for the presidential elections, the many activists and journalists who have been arrested since last June, allow the right to demonstrate and guarantee truly free elections in November. In the event that Daniel Ortega refuses, indeed, the Council must prolong sanctions against him and other high-ranking officials of the Government of Nicaragua. However, when the Union demands all this from Ortega, he replies ⁇ cito ⁇ : Have we asked the Europeans to release the political prisoners they have in Europe? It does not occur to us to go and ask to be released because they are internal situations of them. And he says so in reference to the Catalan independence leaders retaliated by the Spanish state. Russia, Turkey, Nicaragua: Once again, Mr Borrell, the silence of the European Union in the face of human rights violations in Catalonia is used by authoritarian regimes to deny the legitimacy of the European Union in its defence of democracy and the rule of law. Follow the example of the Council of Europe, please. The silence of the Union in the face of what is happening in Catalonia is very expensive for us.