Speeches

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, one, two, three, four days without help. Caught by more than two meters of water on the way home. Crucial hours to have been able to save completely wasted lives. In the face of this, there is no justification. There isn't. It is petty that Mr. Sanchez should say to them: If they want help, ask for it. It was clear that help was needed. It was clear that immediate action was needed. Offering help is not an option. It was an obligation. Denying the right to relief is criminal, especially for those who have responsibilities and resources, such as a national government. Fifteen days later the response is still insufficient. Go to Valencia, watch the videos and you will see that those who try to clean this slimy mud are desperate neighbors with volunteers who did not hesitate to react in the first second. Not like institutions. A youth that is frightened to see the reaction of these adults, of their leaders.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, strengthening the rail sector in Europe. In Spain we did not even get it to work; the current management of the government is disastrous. Renfe, our main operator, has left behind its prestige and is now synonymous with chaos and inefficiency and even danger to people. Last week a train derailed in Madrid and no one has taken responsibility. There are services canceled without explanation, chronic delays, lack of maintenance, let's not talk about investment... This leaves thousands of citizens stranded: It deprives them of a service that is basic to their daily lives and key to territorial cohesion. European funds for rail transport are being mismanaged. Citizens see their tax dollars thrown away. So much talk of the Green Deal, of emissions, of restricting the entry of cars into cities, and means of transport like this - which many of you would consider clean - are left abandoned. It's a tremendous inconsistency. It shows how at the political level there has been more concern to push an ideology than to preserve, to build, what should be everyone's heritage. It is imperative that urgent action be taken to restore the efficiency and reliability of the railway sector. We need a clear commitment to properly manage resources and ensure a service that meets citizens' expectations to be interconnected, both at national level and between major European cities.

You said men can decide to do whatever they want. I don't think that's entirely true, do you? If a woman makes the decision to go ahead with her pregnancy and have that baby – something that happens and I agree with that – the father has an obligation to take care of the baby. So, if we assume the obligation of the father to take care of that baby, why do you think that he does not have to have an opinion, in this case, of abortion and that it is only a thing of women? Excuse me, it's a basic biology lesson, but children have a father and a mother.

For my part, I would like to know what your position is on abortion. Would you limit it to cases where the woman's life is at risk or do you talk about an abortion in other situations? In what cases, for example? What stadiums? What assumptions? Because I think it is manipulated here by talking about situations where women's lives could be at risk, which, as we have said, is a completely different case from the one that many of you are trying to defend or in this House are trying to defend. Bringing up these cases where the woman's life is in danger is a manipulation. I ask him: What is your position on abortion? That it be limited to cases where the woman's life is at risk or a free abortion, without limit of deadlines, without assumptions? How long? Until the baby is born? I would like to know your opinion in that regard.

I start by thanking my colleagues, because you are giving me an opportunity to exchange views with you on a topic that you know I am very concerned about: Thank you for this opportunity. Do you realize, Irene, the social impact of abortion legislation like the one that exists in Spain? What message are we conveying to society, to children, to women, when we point to fertility as a problem, when we point to pregnancy as a problem? It's closing his arms, it's telling him: You are not welcome. I want a society that embraces life, that celebrates life, that celebrates women's fertility, not that is against women.

When a woman's life is at stake, no one questions that there is a decision in that regard. I don't know exactly all the details of what happened there. But when there is a risk to a woman's life, Polish law provides for such a situation. If you would like to collaborate with medical professionals, who are tried to be set aside, who are not even given the freedom of conscience... In hospitals, medical advice is usually given and that medical advice requires the deliberation of more than one health professional and among those professionals. In Poland, whether abortion is protected when a woman's life is at risk depends on a medical decision made in a hospital. With my colleagues here in the European Parliament I have had the opportunity to visit Poland and see what I say.

I think a woman's right is to be protected in her pregnancy, to be able to welcome her baby. We know that where there are permissive legislations, where there is the simple proposal of abortion, the woman feels pushed to abort. I do not see you concerned about this situation of women, which is a real discrimination: that a woman cannot take her children because of a complicated economic situation or lack of emotional support, often from a man, or because she has to avoid seeing a pregnancy after an aggression. I don't see them concerned about those situations where abortion is being imposed in some way. The simple proposition of abortion puts pressure on women. Women want to be protected, they want to be welcomed, they want to be able to say "welcome" to their baby.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the conclusions of the United Nations regarding Poland and its legislation on abortion are very worrying. They represent a clear interference in the sovereignty of a country to impose an agenda that violates the most fundamental right: the right to life. There is no right to abortion. They invoked a 1979 convention on discrimination against women that made no mention of it at all. It is a shame that the United Nations believes that it can demand from States legislative changes contrary to its own Constitutions, that references be invented, that they try to manipulate cases where women's lives are at risk. It's not these women they're worried about. Be clear: They seek free abortion, without assumptions or deadlines. Polish law is an example of engagement with the most vulnerable: the unborn child and its mother. Don't pretend to confront them. Legislation in other states, increasingly permissive to abortion, promotes the abandonment of pregnant women, who are not offered alternatives and are pressured into this irreversible and dramatic decision. Abortion is a failure. Although they want to disguise it as a health service, it is contrary to the vocation of doctors to heal and care. It is incomprehensible that they are being pushed to act contrary to this principle. Where will the doctor's trust be with the patient? I call on the United Nations to restore the original meaning of human rights, where the right to life and the dignity of the person are unquestionable.

Mr President, Commissioner Schinas, ladies and gentlemen, 11 million children and adolescents suffer from mental health problems in the European Union. Suicide is one of the leading causes of death between the ages of 15 and 29. It's very worrying. What are we doing wrong? Why are our young people losing the illusion for life and suffering? We are facing many changes that can affect us. Family, which plays a crucial role in emotional stability, seems to have lost its social value. Do you know the difficulties we have to overcome when we have not enjoyed a childhood of security and trust? Let us also think about the confusion that is often promoted around identity. How can they find their place in the world if they are made to doubt who they are? Loneliness, addictions, hypersexualization, coexistence with the digital world: These and many other issues need to be analysed in depth in order to give young people the future they need.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I understand that abortion harms women and that women should receive support and alternatives. But here it has been said that maintaining a pro-life stance is intolerable and that such speeches should not be allowed. My way of thinking is not accepted in this House. Moreover, they point to all those who think like me as aggressors of human rights. Many of you would take me out of this House because of the way I think. I'm accused of being an extremist. So what do you suggest? Do I cease to exist so as not to disturb them? Freedom of conscience, thought and religion are being violated in Europe against those of us who do not assume the single thought they want to impose on us.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, today we are concerned about the women of Iraq; at the previous plenary session, those of Afghanistan; And Iran, how are the women there in Iran? What or who legitimizes assaults on women? Who forces them to cover their body and face? Who forces girls to marry at age nine? We all know that. Ladies and gentlemen, in Iraq, in 2021, 22% of unregistered marriages were already of girls under the age of 14. Now, of course, it looks like it's going to get worse. But in Catalonia, Spain, in 2023, the number of women and girls subjected to forced marriages increased by 20%. Faced with this, one cannot remain ignorant and deny the threat posed by the advance of Islamic radicalism in the world. It is for the safety of everyone, everyone, but especially women. It is an enormous irresponsibility to appeal to an alleged cultural respect to admit violations of human rights. It is time to remove the complex and truly defend women, both in Iraq and in Europe.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, last Thursday, the CUP registered in Catalonia a proposal for a law on the effectiveness of the right to abortion that proposes to eliminate the deadlines – that is, that it be possible to have an abortion at any time –, to allow 12-year-old girls to have an abortion without their parents’ consent and to prohibit the conscientious objection of doctors and nurses. Unfortunately, the line taken last term in this House is already inspiring initiatives like this. Do you realise what it means in practice to eliminate deadlines? How many of you would have the cold blood to end a child's life the day before they were born? I don't know if I'm naive, but I don't think they're capable. However, that is the pure reality behind beautiful words and supposed women's rights. They're not rights. They are a trap that leaves us totally unprotected until we reject those we love the most: our children. I ask you, please, to reflect. We now have a chance to turn the tide. Women are sources of love and life for our society. Let us offer alternatives that allow us to have a horizon of hope.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I thank the Afghan women who have accompanied us and courageously offered us their testimony: We're with you. The recently adopted law on the prevention of vice in Afghanistan blatantly violates women's most basic human rights, attacks their dignity and seeks to alienate them from society. We all agree on this, don't we? However, it is incomprehensible that while this House is supposedly condemning the adoption of this rule, it is at the same time promoting the importation of these cultural practices into Europe. In Spain, France or Germany it is already common to see women on the street completely covered with a niqab. Do you think that dressing like this is the only obligation imposed by the Islamic fundamentalism that we are denouncing today? It would be naive not to recognise that the freedom and dignity of these women is already under attack in Europe. If you don't want these denigrating customs in countries like Afghanistan, why are you here? It is hypocrisy, an incoherence that legitimizes the practices that fundamentalist regimes are imposing on the population, thus completely unprotecting women from them. In addition, the European Union is also complicit when it is not clear or when it supports radical Islamists for political interests who, as in Afghanistan, Iran or Gaza, attack the dignity of their people. Can one condemn what one practices? The European institutions have shown that they have no judgement in this regard. In fact, they themselves act abusively, imposing here a unique model of thinking that does not even allow us to be critical of these practices. Europe must continue to rely on the Christian values that inspired the European project in order to remain the beacon that the world needs. Don't let us bring to Europe what we don't want to see in Kabul.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission can continue to applaud itself as much as it wants for the management of COVID-19 and for vaccines, but the reality is that if they take to the streets they will see how people have lost confidence in the institutions. We would all like to forget what we experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic, but we cannot. We must not let the same mistakes happen again: a disproportionate restriction of freedoms, and impositions using health as a pretext. We are concerned about the drift that the management of monkey pox by international institutions may take with the approval of the European Union: lack of transparency, vaccines and more vaccines, lack of scientific criteria, diminishing the sovereignty of nations... In this regard, we denounce the amendments to the International Health Regulations that were adopted last June by the World Health Organization and which redefines the concept of emergency and introduces a clause that seriously undermines national sovereignty. It is a grave irresponsibility to shatter the principle of subsidiarity: It exposes us to the risk of being left in the hands of international bodies that may not look out for our interests. We need first to restore trust in the institutions, that there is legal certainty with a framework of competence that does not allow the serious attacks on the democratic order and freedom that we suffered during the COVID-19 pandemic to reoccur.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, after our insistence on the previous mandate, the obvious is now recognised: the policies imposed by the European Union have led to the paralysis and destruction of businesses and jobs. It is impossible to create initiatives, we are no longer a reference in innovation. That's your responsibility. Those who survive today do so by falling victim to a system of subsidies and swallowing up ideological agendas. The logical thing would have been to start the mandate by correcting the line and making the objectives more flexible. But no, you come back with the same thing. The Green Deal – incompatible with competitiveness – is maintained and they are satisfied that there is this debate, that the Draghi Report is published... This isn't enough. The situation is very serious. It is necessary to correct, stop tripping over the same stone. It is time to move from words to deeds. For our companies to be competitive again we need to give wings to talent, remove barriers, reduce regulations and abandon, once and for all, absurd ideological goals that benefit no one but some of you.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, at our interparliamentary meeting in February, the Belgian Presidency itself announced that Europe was going to suffer an economic one with serious social consequences. The governor of the Central Bank said verbatim that greening would reduce our growth potential, put us at a disadvantage, that there would be many losers and that it was not known how much it would cost or who would pay for it. This mandate has been devastating for Europeans. However, this Declaration of La Hulpe, at the end of the mandate, allows to boast of what is called the social Europe. A new Competitiveness Pact was presented last 18th, which continues to drive the Green Deal forward; a pact that should be repealed. It shows without complexes the intention to continue deepening the problem and then the excuse of the social is used to put the band-aid. Thus, the European Union meddles in the competences of the Member States trying to impose, in addition, a failed socialist model not only in the past, but in the present. My own country is a very clear example. The best social policy is to create prosperity and support the family; that companies can offer jobs, employment. But for this they need an environment in which they can operate competitively, something that during this mandate they have been determined to destroy. They weren't in Brussels on tractor-drive day. They live in a bubble that doesn't allow them to empathize with citizens' desperation. The upcoming elections will be decisive in ending this self-destructive effect.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is dramatic when violence breaks into the home and into relationships of supposed trust. The Internet also exposes us to risks of aggression that should not go unpunished. We must all combat and end domestic violence and violence against women. However, we see that women's safety is increasingly threatened by uncontrolled immigration. Fear already conditions our freedom and our way of acting. We must reflect on the way in which it is being undertaken and even if it is not part of the problem, because it is turning its back on the principles that underpin our culture and protect us, giving way to those who do not respect it. It fosters an instrumentalist and hypersexualized vision of women that already harms us. Gender ideology does away with common sense. It aims to reduce violence to being a woman and aggressiveness to being a man. There seems to be more concern about confronting and generating hatred for men than actually ending violence.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, thank you to the rapporteurs for bringing together so many views. Trafficking in persons is essentially a perversion of the value of life and, therefore, of the dignity of the person. No one deserves to be treated as an object, let alone an object of compromise. We are all an end in ourselves, and not commodities or useful for others to dishonor our identity. From a culture that denigrates the value of human life, we can expect practices to proliferate that immorally and criminally target people, trafficking in women and children that must be investigated and persecuted. Surrogacy is also a mode of exploitation, where some profit from the desperation of others with proposals that manipulate the will of the parties involved, who are tempted with ways out that – far from liberating them – chain them in great dilemmas and desires always unfulfilled. It can't be any other way. The baby is offered as a design object, susceptible even to rejection. Women are caught in perverse contracts that ignore their freedom and health and promote acceptance of the traumatic tear that comes with separating a mother from her child. Let us hope that this change in the directive on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings will prevent these practices that harm us deep in the human heart.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, all of us have been created as members of the human family. Our existence does not depend on being accepted or not by others. To consider exercising the "guaranteed freedom" of ending it in the mother's womb, as cited by the change in the French Constitution, calls into question the principles that underpin the rule of law. The European Union must not continue this drift, which entails the degradation of its fundamental rights. In the face of the transcendence of a pregnancy, women need support, information, affection; Because, in the face of helplessness or adversity, the abortion proposal does not allow for a truly free or conscious decision. Let's help women resolve the circumstances that lead them to that dramatic decision: poverty, loneliness, risk of losing their job, fear of not being accepted or losing their freedom. Let's stop seeing motherhood as a threat. Let's appreciate life. We know that no mother regrets being one. The choice of abortion leaves us stranded. It is not a health service, it is the care of pregnancy and childhood. The woman who feels welcomed, dear, does not deny life and can receive it with hope.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Semester is the framework within which the economic and budgetary policies of the European Union are coordinated. It is an interference to change its nature by including matters in which the European Union has no competence, such as the so-called social policy, not to say socialist policy, with proposals for greater public spending, greater debt and subsidy culture, when it is the regulations approved in this House that end any possibility of prosperity and growth and kill the competitiveness of our companies with impossible bureaucratic burdens and with the imposed ecological transition, thus destroying millions of jobs. It turns its back on the fundamental unit of society, which is the family, when it is in the family where life, care, education are developed. We know that it is the best tool for social integration and equality. Not hindering job creation, supporting families and ending ideology are the best and most sustainable social welfare tools. Socialism generates problems and then pretends to appear as the savior. Not the new governance framework that seeks to seize our resources, the resources of our nations, and then hijack our freedom and our sovereignty.

Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, once again such sensitive issues – and of course we are all concerned about them – are used to make proposals that have no legal basis and thus create precedents that disrupt the service relationship that the European Union should provide to the Member States. It is not for the European Union to authorize or not to authorize the ratification of this Convention. This House celebrates on many occasions that in this mandate it has exceeded its competences in the field of employment, not only by ignoring our Treaties but with the intention of changing them through the back door. Many fall into this trap for not challenging fashionable ideological postulates, as has happened with green ideology and happens in this case with gender ideology. An ideology without scientific basis that does not protect women and for which, in my country, citizens are already showing disaffection, because it breaks the principle of equality, confronts men and women and also lacks utility to solve problems such as violence against women. Ireland this past week has shown itself in this same direction. Our group will make common sense to preserve the Europe that has made us great.

Madam President, Commissioners, Members, this report shows the enormous contradiction in which this Parliament is navigating. Life must always be protected and cherished. It is not a right available depending on the circumstances. The pregnant woman and the life of the person in her womb must be protected, welcomed. The practice of abortion that this report raises as a human right is sold as a sign of freedom for women. But, really, it's a pressure against us. It is a contempt for femininity, motherhood and childhood. In Spain we broke records of birth minima. Can we continue to be an international reference? Turning our backs on the most vulnerable shows us the degree of dehumanization of society. You cannot use the pretext of the supposed defense of human rights to cancel those who do not think like you, as we are the defenders of life. This means going against the sense of human rights when, in addition, for example, the persecution of Christians in the world is ignored.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, once again the European Union is meddling in areas that do not belong to it. Each country has a legal heritage to regulate the relations between companies and workers. It is not surprising that some see this proposal as a hindrance to the challenge of new employment models such as platform workers. Technologies must be used to offer job opportunities and provide services that meet a flexible demand, all with adequate social protection, of course. This proposal does not achieve either because, in addition – as we Spaniards know well – it is a copy of the – as has already been demonstrated, failed – law in Spain, which has increased litigation and legal uncertainty, causing, for example, the emergence of intermediaries who now hire these low-wage workers. Like everything that is treated with a social-communist perspective, it destroys opportunities and worsens the conditions of those it claims to protect. Why not improve the social protection of the self-employed? They deserve it. They are a pillar of our economy. Because many people would see advantages in this regime if it were conveniently protected and valued.

Mr. President, at Christmas we remember the birth of Jesus. They are special days to meet families. This year, on Christmas Eve, as we all celebrated, at least 170 Christians were killed in Nigeria in a coordinated and deliberate attack on Christian village communities on Christmas Eve. In Nigeria, more than 52,000 Christians have been killed by Islamic extremists in the past 15 years, 18,000 churches have been burned and 2,200 Christian schools destroyed. And they question it? Christianity is the most persecuted religion on the planet, also in Europe. The position of this House is intolerable. Attempts are made, first, not to address this issue. When he is scheduled, he is summoned on a Wednesday at ten o'clock at night. And now we have to hear that this is not a religious conflict, but climate change. I don't know if it's the hours, but it looks like you guys are delirious. The attitude of this House in the face of a dramatic massacre against our Christian brothers is shameful.

I've been shocked that wanting to protect women's choices and do whatever they want, why is there a problem with women willingly staying home? Why do you consider it a setback? That same woman who at one point in her life may decide to stay at home, at another time may want to join the professional life. But I am shocked that this alarms and that I consider it a setback for women's rights, because I believe that women should be free to decide where they should be at all times. It seems to me a contradiction, simply. What can you say about it?