Speeches

Madam President, Commissioner, we have in front of us two reports that I think are indicating the right direction. We have to create a European single market on defence, which is better said than done. We have a lot of hesitations within Europe and a lot of enemies outside Europe against this European single market on defence that demands a European industrial and technological base with European preference in order to have the possibility to avoid duplications, to increase our efficiency, to transfer technology, and to have standards that are common to across the European Union. We also need, of course, the political will to go ahead. And for that purpose, we have to support the small and medium‑sized enterprises. They don't have the financial muscle, they don't have the capabilities to integrate themselves into the chains of production. We have to help them. We also have to create perhaps an acceleration of innovation for defence in Europe – I think that is a good idea – and to incorporate and integrate Ukraine as soon as possible into our European security and defence structures. That would be more for our benefit than for theirs. Courage! We will support you, Commissioner.

Madam President, four years after the criminal war in Ukraine, I think the time has come to pose the question: Putin, where is your victory? The answer of the European Parliament is: nowhere. You have lost the war politically, morally, and most likely you are going to lose the war militarily also. You wanted to topple the regime and to put a puppet government in Ukraine, but thanks to the resilience and the courage of the people of Ukraine, you didn't. You endured more than one million casualties and you are more dependent on China as a minor junior partner than ever before. You have brought your economy to the verge of collapse. And you are forcing a 'coalition of the willing' in Europe, the European Union and NATO willing and able to support Ukraine up to the end. What is our deal for the future? It is clear: we have to reaffirm here our unwavering support to the Ukrainian people, to increase our sanctions, to increase our pressure on Putin, because the only language he knows is the language of strength. He has to come to the negotiating table in a weak position. We have to bring our Ukrainian people in a strong position in order to get a good deal. Don't forget, Putin is not waging a territorial war; Putin is waging an ideological war. He wants to destabilise Ukraine, he wants to destabilise Europe, and he will not end this even after any ceasefire or peace treaty. Let's be clear about that. We have to support Ukraine even after the peace treaty with all our forces and our resources. Slava Ukraini!

Madam President, Commissioner, thank you very much for your readout. I think that you have said Europe finds itself at a real crossroad concerning security and defence out of different reasons, but mainly because we have to set up a credible deterrence against Russia for future possible military adventurism and because we have to reset the European link on a new basis, on an equality basis. So far, the European link with the US has been a relationship of dependency, and it is not possible anymore, it's unsustainable. The new transatlantic link has to be based on reciprocity and equality, and that's why we need a European defence union, a European Union that is capable of taking the reins of its own future. And that means a single market for defence, that means a European industrial and technological base, as you have said, Commissioner. Above all, we have to reform also our architecture and our decision-making processes so that we can have, at the end of the day, a European headquarters, a European command and control change, and military integrity change, and we are able to take our own decisions. It will be taken along the year 2026 and 2027. We have already agreed upon the political and strategic framework, and now we have to deliver on concrete and possible work strands, whether military mobility, whether it is the drone wall, space defence and missile defence. We have a need for speed in decisions of strategic capacity and democratic accountability.

Mr President, thank you very much to my colleague and friend, Mr McAllister, for the presentation of a very good report. It's very difficult at this time when things are changing so quickly to come up with a report which is not totally updated. You have a report and after a couple of weeks, you have to update it again. First of all, I think that in the report it is underscored, and I wanted to highlight it, the importance of having a proactive, not reactive, foreign policy and to have leadership. And for that, we need a single voice, or perhaps different voices, but delivering the same message. That probably means that down the road we have to advance in the qualified majority vote in order to avoid vetoes from the usual suspects. In addition to this, we have to be more efficient, bringing together all the instruments at our disposal – concerning development cooperation, trade and commerce, human rights, industrial policy, diplomacy, and so on and so forth – in order to speak together, with one single voice, and using all the instruments, working together. In addition to this, we are in favour, obviously, of a rules-based international order, but it doesn't come out of the blue. I mean, there is no such thing as a natural international order or a logical international order. The international order is the result of the power relationships among nations, among states. Then, if the European Union was to have a rules-based international order, we have to outreach to like-minded countries in order to have a critical mass in order to impose this order, because otherwise there will be another one.

Mr President, 3000 dead, 20 000 injured. Thousands and thousands of people in jail. We don't know, actually, the figures of the massacre of the Iranian people by the regime. We cannot turn a blind eye to that. We have to cry. We have to support the Iranian people as they deserve. What can we do? We can still do a lot of things. And I think that we should proceed ahead very quickly. First, we have to review all the instruments we have at our disposal, whether the sanctions of the United Nations, our own sanctions concerning commerce, trade, financial services, reassurance, energy and so on and so forth. And at the same time, to designate once and for all the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as an international terrorist group. There is no delay, no more excuses not to do it, as is the case of the government of my own country. And in addition to this, to remember that every barrel of oil sold means a bullet to kill the Iranian people. And that's why we have to put a stop to that. We stand by the Iranian people. The Iranian people will prevail. Long live the Iranian people!

Mr President, as the Commissioner has pointed out, throughout the year 2025, we have been able to set up the legal framework for the European defence: the White Paper on defence, we have later on the European defence readiness roadmap, the European defence readiness omnibus, the European industrial transformation framework, but now, in the year 2027, we have to deliver. We are going to be judged and to be assessed by how able and capable we are to deliver. The first step we have to look into is military mobility – the package that you have just announced. Here I think we have a good example of how to deliver on both the military and the civilian civilian sector as well. We have the funding already earmarked for that. We have also the political will. Now we have to deliver and to be able to come to fruition in 2026 and 2027. The financial package is already there. The SAFE package has shown us how much demand is there. We are now preparing the second SAFE package before the first has been already delivered. That means there is political will and demand. Then there is no excuse not to deliver.

Madam Chair, after Brexit, we continue to share with the United Kingdom the same geopolitical challenges. That's why we have agreed upon with them the UK‑European Union Strategic Partnership, as well as the European Union‑UK defence and security partnerships. I think that there we identify clearly the common challenges, how we have to fight against hybrid threats, massive disinformation campaigns, cyberattacks, regional conflicts and the change of supply. This being said, I think that now the Commission is negotiating, with our support, the participation of the UK in the SAFE Programme – the loan fund for joint procurement. Actually, we are discussing with them the possibility of a contribution fee and how will be the contribution of the non-European components in any service and in any product put in the European market. We support the Commission. I think that we come to an agreement, but a good agreement on both sides, and that means that we have to keep our conditions to be flexible, to be pragmatic, to accommodate the British desires as long as possible, to count on our support and I hope we will come to an agreement very soon.

Madam President, by means of the continuous airspace violations and the sabotage of our critical structures what Putin is trying to do is to find out which are our weak points in our collective defence. He's trying also to wreak havoc and to cause mayhem in our political leaders and fear among the society at large. And we have to accept that, to a certain point, he has got it, because he has realised that we don't have a collective answer, whether from the military point of view or even from the political point of view. It is very difficult to understand why, after nearly four years of war in Ukraine, our military planners have not been able still to set up a very effective counter-drone defence in Europe. Now we have to come to an agreement, at a political level, on how to respond to these continuous airspace violations, how to have a communication strategy, and how to pass on the message that, within some short period of time, we will be able to set up our defences. And for that, we also have to be ready to invest massively now in these counter-drone capabilities.

Thank you very much for the very pertinent question. The European Union has to make sure that we have a lasting and fair peace – not peace at any price. Peace at any price is no peace at all. It is injustice for the Ukrainian people. In order to achieve that, we have to continue supporting Ukraine, because it is not the stability and the peace in Ukraine which is at stake here – it is our, your, my stability and peace. Should this war in Ukraine not come with a fair outcome, the whole European project will be put at stake. The whole European and NATO project will be put at stake. There is a lot. That's why we cannot give in to any kind of peace plan, which doesn't incorporate fair conditions for the Ukrainian people. And to change Putin's calculation means that he has to assume that he cannot win this war. As simple as that.

Mr President, what does it mean to engage in a lasting and fair peace? It means to understand why Putin marched into Ukraine. He didn't march into Ukraine in order to occupy the Donbas. He already had the control of this through the terrorists and the militias; he marched into Ukraine in February 2022 in order to topple the regime and to put a puppet president in Ukraine. This is the objective of Putin. No matter what kind of list of land concessions to Putin, he will not change his calculation. He will continue the war the day after the agreement, through hybrid threats and through massive information activities. The only way for us to change Putin's calculation then is to show that he cannot win this war, massively supporting our Ukrainian friends and increasing our pressure upon Putin. How? Through sanctions, with secondary sanctions for those who engage with Russia in order to make clear that he cannot go along with that. By the way, it would be very useful if the European Union put all these priorities that the President of the Commission has put forward here together and put forward as a peace plan – a European peace plan hand in hand with our Ukrainian friends, which offers security guarantees, which offers a political horizon, which offers financial support so that Ukraine can win this war and Putin changes his calculation. Otherwise, we will have this spending on our heads for years to come.

Madam President, I think that the recent Chinese introduction of export restrictions on raw materials and rare earths as a response to our policy concerning electric vehicles and semiconductors is an escalation of the weaponisation of the trade policies by China. We have to confront this in a smart way. That means we cannot decouple from China, but we also have to take a risk in order to reduce our dependence on China. That means to apply an initiative called the economic security doctrine, which incorporates many of the instruments we have. We don't need to create new instruments. We have to coordinate the instruments already existing in the European Union, including, for instance, the RESourceEU programme that deals with this particular problem. In addition to this, we have obviously to diversify the supplies with our longstanding and trusted allies – the US, Canada, Australia, Japan and even the Philippines. And finally, we have to engage with China in a critical dialogue that allows us to pursue our interests and at the same time to pass over the real messages.

Madam President, I think that we agree that we need European defence for the next years, and that means that we need a European defence, technological and industrial base. And that, at the same time, means that we need a European preference for the acquisition and the joint procurement. That is exactly what the European Defence Industry Programme means. It means that for the first time, Europeans, we decide to have European preference for the joint procurement that we need. It doesn't mean that we slam the door in front of our partners. We will have this open to collaboration with like-minded partners that want to contribute. The percentage of the European component is 65 %, could be more, could be less, but I think that we have agreed upon a very reasonable threshold, that also allows for the participation of like-minded countries. As well, the amount of money is not too much, it is EUR 1 500 million until the end of 2027, but I think it's a first step, a good gesture, for Europeans to go ahead with our own single market. That means that we don't need 27 national, fragmented markets, but a common one. And this means also that we commit ourselves in EDIP with a Ukrainian instrument to deliver as much as EUR 300 million. It's also a good message that we want to integrate the Ukrainian friends in the European chains of production. At the same time, I think that we have to encourage and to foster the participation of our small and medium enterprises, because it is meant for them, to incorporate themselves to our effort. And finally, we have to decide whether or not to make this transfer from European defence dependent on the US to European defence dependent on Europeans in an orderly way, or in a disorderly way. Obviously, we have to wait for an orderly way.

Mr President, the time has come to block all means of financing the Russian effort, which is why we strongly support the Commission's proposal to bring forward to 1 January 2027 the total ban on the import of natural gas into Europe. But, in addition, we are in favour of banning imports of other elements, for example nuclear energy or hydrocarbon derivatives. That will blind the financing of the Russian war effort and, at the same time, reduce Europe's dependence on non-democratic third countries. To do this we also have to fight the indirect routes of incorporation of Russian gas and, for that, we have to approve clear traceability certificates that tell us through which routes Russian gas indirectly enters Europe. And finally, if we are really serious about the will to blind funding to Russia, we have to start discussing economic, diplomatic and trade sanctions on those third countries that continue to buy Russian gas and oil. That would be definitive to demonstrate our seriousness with regard to the crisis in Ukraine.

Madam President, our absolute priority must be to bring Putin to the negotiating table and, for that, we have to alter his calculation. He thinks that we are going to get tired sooner or that we are going to lack the financial, military and political means and resources to help Ukraine, and in that miscalculation we have to influence. We need to make sure that we give Ukraine all the help and financial support it needs in the coming years and that is why the Commission has decided – and we approve – not to confiscate, but to use 140 billion of Russian assets held in Europe as collateral for a loan to Ukraine. Since we know that Russia will never pay for the repair, it will possibly lose that funding. We are aware that there are legal risks in terms of the prestige of foreign investments in Europe, the confiscation of European assets not repatriated in Russia and the sale of European currencies on international markets. But all these risks – which are certain – pale in the face of the need to support Ukraine with all the financial resources at our disposal, and this is a guarantee of that.

Madam President, after three and a half years of war in Ukraine, we see surprised by the incursion of drones into our airspace. After three and a half years of war in Ukraine. That doesn't say much in favor of our capacity for planning and foresight. Russia is using drones and we can only oppose expensive Patriots or the takeoff of sophisticated F-35 aircraft, which is unsustainable. That means we have to react quickly and in a very short time. And the first thing we need to do is to propose, ahead of the next meeting of Heads of State and Government on 23 and 24 October, which will be held here in Brussels by the Commission, a contingency plan. An action plan that provides for rapid, unified and effective action by Europe in the face of attacks by Russia, which, if it has declared war on Ukraine, has declared a hybrid war on Europe. And that means disinformation – a massive disinformation campaign – cyberattacks and hybrid threats. And for that we have to be prepared. But not only from a military point of view, but also from a communication and political point of view. Let's do it!

Madam President, Commissioner, two years ago there was a cruel and savage massacre of Israelis. And then we've had two years of war and suffering in Gaza. But right now we have a ray of hope in the peace plan presented by the United States that the European Union and the Member States should unreservedly support because it is the only serious, viable and feasible initiative to bring peace and end the suffering of the Palestinians. It is a very complex plan that has several phases and is conditioned by many factors. But we have to support him from now on. The Government of Israel supports it, it is supported by the Muslim countries and the Arab countries of the region, it is supported by the Secretary-General of the United Nations and therefore, as I say, it is the only hope. This shows that international conflicts are resolved and vehiculated through diplomatic work, diplomatic efforts, the hard work of leaders who are willing to get political commitments and not sterile activism, aspavent, radical positions and other totally useless manifestations.

Madam President, High Representative, I extend my congratulations to the rapporteur on the report on Ukraine. I think that it is time for the European Union to cobble together a comprehensive initiative on peace for Ukraine. During the summer we have been attending a lot of meetings and encounters in Alaska and in Washington, and I think that the people, our public opinion outside, need to have a clear idea of what the European Union stands for with regard to Ukraine. We have to put together, to cobble together, an integral, comprehensive peace plan together with our Ukrainian friends. The main idea is that Russia cannot win this war. We have to support our Ukrainian friends – not to defend themselves, but to win the war, which is something quite different. And for that, we have to promise them a quick integration into the European Union. We have to strengthen and reinforce their armed forces and to integrate the army into our European defence infrastructure. Only with these clear messages can we set up a clear deterrence against Putin.

Thank you, dear colleague, for your intervention. It's totally unbalanced and untrue: Spain, again, never set up concentration camps in the modern time in Cuba. I mean, the real oppressors of Cuba are the communist regime under Fidel Castro and his successors. And you know that millions of Cubans have left the country because they cannot live in Cuba. These are the oppressors of Cuba: the communist regime that you represent. The second point: I have not said anything about Israel. I have said that Iran is the head of the monster which will destabilise the entire region. And without this regime, we will probably leave the region and ourselves better off, and you as well.

Madam President, the Middle East is enduring a change of geopolitics and of the geopolitical map, and one of the main elements for this change is to hold Iran accountable for its sponsorship of terrorism and destabilisation across the region. We know that appeasement doesn't work with this regime, and we know as well that direct military intervention is not advisable either. What will work will be international isolation based upon the hardening of the sanctions against this criminal regime, as well as political and diplomatic pressure. At the same time, we have to recognise and support the democratic opposition of Iran, which will be the only one that will put an end to this regime. As far as Gaza is concerned, we reiterate our call for unhindered access of humanitarian aid to the Palestinian people, as well as a kind of future for them which has to be without Hamas. Hamas cannot be in the future political framework of the Palestinians. And to back the cease fire immediately. Concerning my colleague Botenga from The Left, I must say that Spain never set up concentration camps in Cuba. He has to review his history books, because the communist regime of Fidel Castro and his followers has forced millions of Cubans out of his country and oppressed them and brought them misery and repression.

Madam President, thank you very much President of the Commission, reciprocity, transparency and respect for a level playing ground. These are truly the three principles upon which our relationship with China has to build up. Firstly, on the security front, we cannot accept that China continues supporting and assisting Putin's Russian war of aggression against Ukraine. If China wants to be recognised as a big power, it has to assume also big responsibilities. It is a member of the Security Council, that means that it's supposed to be a guarantor of peace and stability in the world, and you cannot guarantee peace and stability in the world if you assist Putin's war of aggression. Our relationship with China cannot be normalised as long as it continues supporting Putin. Secondly: human rights. We cannot ignore that China massively and grossly disregards the human rights of racial minorities and religious minorities. We have to remember that. Thirdly: trade and services. China has to abide by all the dispositions of the World Trade Organisation and not select those it likes and disregard those it doesn't like. We know the pattern of behaviour of China; they subsidise the industries in order to eliminate the competition, they get the monopoly and they impose the conditions afterwards. Fourthly: rare earths and raw materials, critical raw materials. We cannot accept the threat and the menace of control of exports of raw materials. It goes against the rules of the World Trade Organisation. By the way, this particular point is not the responsibility of the Chinese only; we have renounced exploiting our own raw materials and rare earths because of the dispositions of our green agenda. This has to be reconsidered if we want to not depend entirely on China. So: reality, reciprocity, transparency and a level playing ground.

Madam President, thank you High Representative for your introductory remarks, in the run up to the NATO summit next week, we have to ask ourselves why NATO has been the most successful defence organisation ever in history. I think there are three elements. First of all, because we Europeans and Americans share the same principles, we share the same convictions. This is the strength of our relationship. Second, because of the strength and the ability and capability of NATO to adapt to the new realities; the flexibility of the organisation. And third, the unwavering leadership of the US. That's why we have to strengthen our link with the US. We perhaps have to recognise that we have to start the debate on the geographical application of NATO because the geopolitical, geostrategic and economic situation has evolved, obviously, and most of the items are not decided only in the Atlantic but also in the Indo‑Pacific. The Indo‑Pacific and the Atlantic are interrelated. That's why we should perhaps start thinking about extending NATO to like‑minded countries around the world and to have a global NATO because if we are not in the right geographical position, we will be out of business very quickly. Concerning the financing, as the HR/VP has said, one of the main items of this summit will be the ramping up of the money that we have to put for our common defence. It's not only a matter of numbers. We firstly have to decide what are our main threats and risks; secondly, what are the capabilities that we need to have in order to face these risks; and thirdly – but thirdly, not first – how much money we need to finance our capabilities. That's why, I think, we will come to a good conclusion that we have to ramp up our efforts to have fairer burden‑sharing with the US, but also to identify our capabilities in the near future.

I am delighted to be here today. The bottom line, when I think of the Palestinian crisis today, is how to help the Palestinians in practical terms. Apart from making rhetorical, political vents, how do you help them in practical terms? And the best way to help in practical terms is to have influence with the Palestinians and with the Israelis to try to bring them to the negotiating table and prevent these useless massacres of civilians. We can make big statements here, but that doesn't help the Palestinians at all if we're not realistic, we're not pragmatic, and we don't take into account the instruments we have at our disposal to influence the Government of Israel and Israeli society instead of totally erasing ourselves from the equation and turning away.