Speeches

In the digital age, social media platforms have transformed our societies, providing new opportunities for citizen participation, but also exposing significant risks to democracy and fundamental rights. The Digital Services Act (DSA) is a crucial step towards regulating these platforms, ensuring transparency, accountability and user protection. However, we must be even more ambitious. It is crucial to strengthen measures against disinformation, hate speech and election manipulation. Platforms must act proactively, ensuring that their algorithms do not promote harmful content that polarises our societies. In addition, we must protect freedom of expression by preventing content moderation from being used to silence critical voices or limit pluralism.

Mr President, talking about the rule of law is very important, but it is not a really abstract concept: ensures that democracy works, that rights are respected and that European funds, by the way, reach those who have to reach out. I therefore believe that this report goes in a very good direction: It improves the annual cycle and also recognises something essential, which is that without civil society, without free journalists and without independent justice there is no rule of law. But when we read article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and see that it says that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights, I like to raise my voice a little bit to defend that dignity and those rights above anything else. And, on some occasions, we see a certain bias of this spectrum of the right and the ultra-right, really, to follow some lines that have more to do with the principles and precepts of Alex Karp, the CEO, by the way, of Palantir, in front of placing the human being at the center and here, in this Parliament, we have to continue defending, above all, the Law and the human being.

Mr President, the responsibility to analyse rigorously the management of the institutions and bodies during the preparation of this report has indeed been very important to us. As for the Court of Justice, we have seen progress in digitalisation and efficiency; the European Data Protection Supervisor complies with the fundamental right in an absolutely dizzying digital environment; and the European External Action Service is also very important in supporting human rights in the world. However, it is the ninth time that the ultra-right is trying to poison and is really trying to develop xenophobic positions in the report. I would like to appeal to the European People's Party: that what is happening to the Spanish Popular Party in Spain, which boasts of national priority, does not stop being a supposedly patriotic instrument to generate a shameful trench where fear hides disguised as identity and ends up turning the coexistence of all Europeans into a threat. When the PP looks at VOX in Spain, it sees no threat to democracy, it sees a shameful instruction manual. Please don't let this happen in Europe too.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, rapporteur, I am very sorry, but the S&D Group cannot support this report at all. For us, the protection of the financial interests of the European Union is an extraordinarily important issue, it is not a minor issue, and yet we have seen that this report - with the regrettably support of the People's Party, which is becoming increasingly right-wing; this is the truth, it is becoming more extreme – it significantly weakens the rule of law; It goes so far as to cover up the misuse of some funds, that it seems that some agree that these bad arts and bad practices suddenly disappear from this report. And above all, and something very important, something begins that some have been demanding for some time, quite incoherently and, by the way, quite unfairly, which is to reject the fundamental role that civil society has precisely in controlling the transparency of all these types of projects. So, we're not going to support this, we're not going to allow it and I'm so sorry: the People's Party has fallen into the trap of the far right in this Parliament. It will be again.

Mr President, Commissioner, the truth is that Europe is at war, we have to know: trade wars, kinetic wars, hybrid wars. But the reality is that this report does well in looking at space, it does very well in looking at the sky. Honestly, we've gone from trench warfare, very kinetic, to Star Wars, where we're actually using drones as a pretty powerful coercion system. You also have to know a little about the system and the price of drones. Russian drones, for example the kamikaze Shahed or Geran-2 type, cost almost $50,000; decoys or observation decoys, such as the Gerbera type, cost $10,000; Orlan-10, $120,000. And the new European drones cost almost tens of millions of euros. We have to know and place ourselves at that level, because, of course, it is very important to also think about a necessary satellite network at this time that Europe does not have. I think there's the future: look also at satellites, know exactly where to develop and use Galileo and Copernicus with a certain proactivity. Because the satellite network is the one that is really going to give us effective and powerful coverage to the drone system that we want to implement. Security is at risk, it is at stake, and Europe certainly has to make an effort to protect all citizens.

Mr President, Commissioner, the truth is that piracy of sporting events and other live events is not just digital picaresque, it is real-time theft. The truth is that we are seeing that voluntary tools are not being efficient. The 2023 Recommendation has had a rather limited impact, as acknowledged by the Commission itself. And, of course, cultural and audiovisual employment, clubs, grassroots sport, journalism, European creation are at risk... My question is whether or not the Digital Services Act we have works in the face of these events in real time and live. It's something we have to see. Look, in Spain, for example, we have a pioneering, effective, guarantor creation and system; where piracy of sports broadcasts in real time is combines swiftly, judicial guarantees and liability of intermediaries. I believe that in the digital single market there can be no benefits without responsibilities. And above all, real-time impunity has to be cut.

Madam President, I like to say that Europe is at war. There are visible wars and invisible wars, but from the point of view of cybersecurity, without a doubt, we are in a frank minority. Russia today has fundamentally three intelligence services working in a very proactive way: the FSB, the Federal Security Service, with advanced persistent threat (APT) cyberattack groups, such as Secret Blizzard; the GRU, which is the Chief Intelligence Directorate of the General Staff, with groups such as APT28, Forest Blizzard, which is permanently attacking critical infrastructure in Europe; and the SVR, the Foreign Information Service, with the APT29, Midnight Blizzard, as the Cozy Bear or The Dukes groups. My question is: What is the European Intelligence Service? What is the Commission doing, what is the Council doing, to have top quality information and really protect our citizens? I believe that, sincerely, a unique intelligence service that gives us coverage and protection is more necessary today than ever.

Madam President, Commissioner, we would like to welcome this Agenda precisely to promote fairer digital markets and sustainable consumption. Above all, we welcome the Commission's strong commitment to the Digital Equity Act. I think it's very important. That is precisely why we have called for this debate: to inform this House, to inform citizens and businesses; because the single market does not work if it is not to protect all consumers. It is very important to bear in mind that precisely the most vulnerable groups, such as minors, must be protected. It is fine to simplify, but we certainly do not agree with deregulation at all. I believe that this Digital Equity Act must be extraordinarily ambitious, but, above all, it must take into account the confidence of consumers, who can lose almost €7.9 billion a year precisely because of unfair practices in online commerce. I like to celebrate your slogan that our life is about to change, but I hope it's for the better. So my congratulations: Of course, in this context we socialists will be supporting the initiative.

Mr President, Commissioner Serafin, I would first of all like to congratulate Jean-Marc Germain and Monika Hohlmeier on the excellent work they have done at the forefront of this report. It seems to me that these spaces of understanding are very necessary - increasingly necessary - in this Parliament, above all to build Europe, to continue building Europe. We are seeing today some interventions in which respect for the rule of law does not matter, as if it were an optional issue. I believe that, precisely, this resource, the application of the rule of law conditionality regime, is fundamental because, in the end, threats exist. Europe is experiencing a real hybrid war, and a setback in a democratic state is a setback for all. When we talk about disinformation campaigns, democratic processes, attacking press freedom, NGOs, minorities, espionage cases... this is not a minor issue, it is a very serious thing. That is why I want to incentivise the next multiannual financial framework, the Commission, to continue working towards a unified, coherent and effective rule of law.

Madam President, the first thing I would like to do is to congratulate the rapporteurs on this report and, moreover, on having taken into account the opinion of the Committee on Security and Defence. I would also like to highlight the success in this report of focusing on strategic issues as important as cybersecurity or hybrid threats. It is a question of sovereignty, survival and also strategic credibility within the Union. The only possible path is to be able to combine the effort of the technological base, including talent, increase strategic autonomy and, above all, protect the territory and the population. Ladies and gentlemen, Europe is at war, we cannot avoid it and that is why we have to work together. We cannot work each of the twenty-seven separately. Hybrid threats do not know any kind of border today when they block an airport, when they invade airspace, when they blackmail with tariffs or try to manipulate an electoral process. Together, all united, we are stronger and our strength lies precisely there. That's where our future is.

Mr President, Mr President Murphy, thank you very much for the annual report of the European Court of Auditors. Undoubtedly, this report represents an essential exercise of democratic control over the use of the Union budget and, in that sense, as socialist rapporteur, in these institutions, stress that the Court does not in fact comment on the accounts of the Court of Justice, the European Ombudsman or the European Data Protection Supervisor, which demonstrates a sound and transparent management of these institutions. However, there is one thing that does concern me in a special way – in what I have been working on in this Parliament in recent times – and that, moreover, is part of the essence of the structural debates, increasingly present, which has a lot to do with security and defence, where the report warns of slow and fragmented management and implementation. Taking into account the budgetary implosion we are having, especially for the next long-term budget, which practically multiplies by ten the investment in security and defence, I would like us to work much more also so that not a single gram, not a single euro is delegitimized. It is not only about spending more on defence but also about doing more with intelligence, transparency and European vision.

Madam President, as my dear friend Oscar López, the Minister of Digital Transition of Spain, would say, we can be techno-optimists, but what we cannot be is naive. And it is true that from Europe it is very important that we continue working to give the battle of rights, which is not happening practically anywhere in the world. We need to work for algorithmic transparency, platform accountability, of course, protecting our children, protecting mass disinformation campaigns and, above all, protecting our societies from lies. I am a convinced technologist, but above all to put technology always at the service of people. And speaking of technology, I too have to confess that I am a convinced Social Democrat. That is why this afternoon here I want to be absolutely supportive. And I also want to raise my voice and say, Cheer up, Alberto!

Madam President, the first thing I want to do is to congratulate the rapporteurs on a very timely report and, moreover, I have to admit that it is very balanced. I believe that, in addition, it comes at a crucial moment where, of course, the European Union has to address and show - thinking of the future EU-CELAC summit in Santa Marta - some very important challenges in two regions that really unite us. That is why, after hearing here today, this afternoon, some messages with that national-populist-Trumpist vision, or others that are extraordinarily colonialist, are going to allow me to want to place myself on the sidelines of that. I think it's time to build. I sincerely believe that it is time to treat Latin America with respect and see the geopolitical and strategic opportunities we have, thinking about that future. I come from a meeting held this past week in the Dominican Republic in which we talked about cybersecurity, the new space model, new economic models. Honestly, I believe that there is the construction and there is the future by which we have to guide ourselves.

Madam President, Commissioner Kubilius, my first words are one of support, solidarity and strength. And also, why not say it, of a feeling of resilience that Europe has to have, right now, with all the Polish people. It seems to me that it is very important that they know that they are not going to bend us and that we are not going to lack efforts, resources or desire to defend peace on European territory, and of course in Poland, because it is suffering these misfortunes on the part of some who think that they are going to destabilize them. Much of this afternoon's speech has a lot to do with the work being done; Mr Kubilius has already put some measures on the table, but I think it is very important to stress that we need, fundamentally, two elements: firstly, to have our own infrastructure – for example, we do not have a European military satellite plan of our own and it would be very important to develop it – and, secondly, to have a robust intelligence system, purely European, to protect the 27. And in that we will continue to work intensively over the coming months.

Mr President, how bad, ladies and gentlemen of the People's Party of Spain, this debate has come to you! But how dare they come here to talk about corruption in Spain and to tarnish the public image of all Spaniards? I've been working against corruption for 20 years. From Madrid I have faced any corrupt party, of any color, in Spain, and now also from Europe I have to say it out loud. But are you – the People’s Party of Spain – going to come and teach us about corruption? You, Mr. Zoido? You, Mrs. Montserrat? But, well, if you had as leader of the office of defense against the corrupt in your party Mr. Pradas, who has just been sentenced to seven years in prison for corruption. Do you – the Community of Madrid, Spain’s biggest source of corruption, led by the People’s Party – talk about families? Are they talking about corrupt? Please make him look at it and don't bring back here a debate that's strictly national, because... Do you know what I'm telling you? We will not stop denouncing what you have done, also in Madrid, throughout Spain.

Mr President, Mrs Kallas, the first thing I want to do is congratulate you. Many congratulations, Happy birthday! I hope today's debate is more about peace than war, to congratulate you on the day, isn't it? But let me tell you that, ahead of the next summit, I came a little worried from the Parliamentary Assembly that we had in Ohio, in Dayton, more worried almost than I had gone. Fundamentally, because I realized that there was a feeling based on a debate that we've had all this morning here and, a priori, it seems to me profoundly false: and it is talking about the percentages, what each of the countries can contribute. Honestly, I think it is much more important for Europe to think about that great European shield, that great strategy that, from the Commission, you have to develop in order to create a genuine European military defence structure. We can't talk about a war each of the twenty-seven on our side. I would like, for example, to ask you what decisions you take in the Commission. On what systems, on what intelligence bases do you make decisions. About the 27-year-old's reports? It's a mess. I believe that Europe must have its own model, it must have its own army, that countries must contribute more to the budget of the European Union, to speak of a reality that you made clear and evident this morning: There is a real threat from Russia which, for the next three or five years, may be a reality. And, in the face of that, there are not only speeches about industry, about companies or about an Omnibus package, such as the one presented to us yesterday by Commissioner Kubilius, only to simplify what is not very well known. What we have to do is really think about European defence.

Mr President, Commissioner Serafin, the first thing I want to do is to thank the work done by, above all, Niclas Herbst, who has done a magnificent job, and all the shadow rapporteurs for the collaboration. Welcome to this report. I believe that Parliament has a great deal of concern, especially on two issues that I am, of course, also concerned about: one is the error rate, more than 5,6 %, an upward trend almost since 2020; the other is the debt, which really already amounts to EUR 458.5 billion. But I believe that Parliament has and asks the Commission for a clear and effective action plan to try to circumvent all these kinds of issues. What happens is that here in the debate today we have also seen some contradictions, especially in how we try to talk about NGOs, which the Commissioner - I think also in his speech - has made quite clear: there has been no irregularity. Therefore, there are some debates in which some talk about transparency, about ... In short, if there had not been transparency, for example, we would not have learned that there are some companies in which some also have interests. I would sincerely like us to ask ourselves when defending human rights, the environment or social justice has become suspicious in Europe. I believe that we have to continue working in an intense way, especially the parties and groups that are building Europe. Eighty years after the end of the Second World War, I believe that it is well worth following this path which, for example, in collaboration within the committee with Mr Herbst and with the other groups, we have been able to consolidate.

Mr President, Commissioner, first, I would like to extend my congratulations on the European Union's internal security strategy. But there are two things that I am particularly concerned about that I wanted to share with you and Vice President Virkkunen. The first has to do with the digital ecosystem. You have said that we will even remove content from the platforms. That may be fine, but we should at least make it clear how to verify the identity of each of the platforms and how the DSA is actually implemented in Europe. I believe that in this you have to be much harder and much more forceful. Secondly, we are talking about the Rearm Europe Plan. We're really talking about how to define our border security strategy outwards. And one of the big deficits that, for example, the Niinistö Report raises is that of the intelligence services. To really make an internal security it is much more important that the internal intelligence is also perfectly coordinated. That, without a doubt, is one of the challenges they have to develop in this work programme.

Madam President, deregulate? Yes, I think we all agree on making our Europe more and more competitive. The Draghi Report says it in a special way. But I believe that, rather than deregulating and removing bureaucracy, the fundamental goal is to be world leaders at something. It has been shocking to me that some of the previous speakers have given the Chinese economy as an example, as if it were the beacon of the West. Anyway, it's kind of surprising to take steps backwards. I find it very problematic that the due diligence rules, which are undoubtedly a risk, are placed on the frontispiece of that great weapon that we must use to deregulate. I do share that you cannot cut bureaucracy without thinking about what the Draghi Report itself puts on the table, which is to lead. That is really our goal, Commissioner, to lead, and for that we have to be much more competitive, but not deregulating, no. What we have to do is remove bureaucracy to be competitive in the world. Of course I do.