What António spoke about.

Mr President, Commissioner, this is a Green Deal which looks more like a black deal. What has been said here in general, I will not repeat, but I will talk about my country, about Portugal, and the effect that Green Deal It has been about Portugal. It is very simple: agricultural land transformed into solar panels, destroying fauna and flora; the destruction of thousands of cork oaks, which is an iconic and fundamental tree for the Portuguese economy – thousands of cork oaks, I repeat –; the installation of pointless wind farms and, now, with a schedule of making offshore wind farms, all along the Portuguese coast which is the greatest good we have. Portugal lives off the sea and, in this way, they will prevent us from fishing, they will prevent us from tourism, they will prevent us from security. This is what the Green Deal Give it to Portugal. It is the destruction of our economy, of jobs, it is the destruction of our society.

Mr President, Commissioner and Vice-President of the Commission, one message I would like to convey to you, Commissioner, is that you will not have an easy job at this stage in Syria. A terrorist will always be a terrorist. Someone who has been to Abu Ghraib never forgets in his life. What do I mean by this? I want to say that those who took power in Syria at the moment were terrorist and mercenary movements in the pay of various countries. In terms of geostrategy, we have a Turkey that is already active on the ground, we have Israel that has occupied a buffer zone to protect it, we have other forces — don’t think Iran lost in this exchange, because this was the result of a deal — we have the Muslim Brotherhood behind the terrorist forces that made a deal in Doha. So we're going to have an extremely complicated subject and it's going to be very difficult to bring humanitarian aid to those who need it. You can be sure of that, because they won't let you. And by the way, I'd like to say this: if the European Union, once and for all, does not take the reins of the problem in this matter, and if it does not move forward, it will never move forward, because it will lose its face completely and it will be a weakened European Union that, from now on, will try to deal with the issues that confront it. So, Commissioner, I wish that instead of being like that music all the time paroles, paroles, to take action and turn the European Union into a trusted partner, into an active partner.

Mr President, Madam Commissioner, today we address a real threat to European sovereignty: foreign interference and espionage in our universities carried out by countries like China, Russia and Iran to acquire strategic and sensitive knowledge. Recent cases have highlighted this problem, such as academic partnerships in our countries that have resulted in access to sensitive technologies in fields like artificial intelligence, biotechnology and cybersecurity. A study by the European Union Institute for Security Studies itself has revealed how authoritarian regimes use universities to infiltrate and influence networks, collect sensitive data, and even recruit agents. These actions go beyond the academic espionage, they represent a direct threat to our security and sovereignty. We need to act now. I propose concrete measures. One: strengthen security in EU-funded projects with righteous audits and vetoes on suspicious collaborations. Two: supervise foreign researchers in sensitive fields in coordination with national intelligence services. Three: establish a European list of high-risk foreign institutions, warning universities about potential threats. Four: promote partnerships within the European space and the free world with the countries that share our democratic values. European universities are pillars of innovation and our independence. Protecting the knowledge generated with them is safeguarding our freedom and the future of Europe.

Madam President, Madam President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, today I wish to express my concern about the state of the procedure for appointing members of the European Commission, which undermines the credibility of our Union. What should be an example of transparency and meritocracy has become a stage for political games. This politicisation undermines citizens' trust in our institutions. On the one hand, the policies pursued by the previous and current Commission make us extremely concerned. One Green Deal It is increasingly turning into a Black Deal, with unacceptable consequences. On the other hand, the freedom granted to immigration, without any control whatsoever, concerns all European states, the citizens of Europe and all societies that are being destroyed by this immigration. Finally, I would like to say one thing, Madam President, is that we are in favour of freedom and against totalitarianism. And that's what makes us move, and that's what makes us fight.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, we are here today to discuss a crucial issue for the future of our Union: Europe's civil and defence preparedness. Patriots for Europe advocate an approach that combines national sovereignty with European strategic cooperation. The Niinistö report highlights multidimensional threats that affect not only military security, but also public health, the economy and infrastructure. We agree on the need to strengthen European resilience, but we believe that any measure must respect the sovereignty of the Member States. The centralisation of decisions in Brussels should not compromise the ability of each nation to act according to its specificities and needs. NATO remains the backbone of European defence. We are against the creation of a European army, but in favour of strengthening national armies. We draw attention to the importance of incentives in the private sector and investments in resilience. We insist that European funding be fairly distributed and transparent. This is very important, because most of the time it is not. Finally, we reinforce that Europe will only be strong if its Member States are strong. The strength of the European Union cannot exist without the strength of states. Together we can build a resilient Union, but the strength of our Union lies in the diversity of its parts.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am amazed when the minority in this House, the House of Democracy, comes to say that, with the election of Trump, the world will end. Trump is the evil being who will end the world. My dear friends, nothing could be more wrong. Trump's election was a boon to the Western world and we, Europe, have to deal with it. It's not going against Trump that we're going to win and we're going to be more Europe. It is, rather, by engaging with the US administration, by making our interests prevail, along with American interests, even if they are not the same. So yes, we're going to win, we're going to have even less WokismWe're going to have less destruction of society, we're going to have our children more protected. Therefore, it is not with war that we will prevail, it is not with confrontations that we will be able to make our ideas follow. It is, yes, with collaboration, with negotiation and moving forward.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, everyone is talking about the current situation in Tunisia, but nobody is talking about what caused this situation. This situation originated during the so-called Arab Spring, which was pushed by the Muslim Brotherhood, as in Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Algeria. That is where the destabilization of Tunisia began and that is what we do not want to understand. And if we do not understand it, we cannot help Tunisia – and helping Tunisia is key. With more or less democratic elections, Tunisia is an important country for the European Union. Tunisia is important to the southern countries of the European Union and we cannot live without the southern shore of the Mediterranean. That's a fact. And we have to help Tunisia in a smart way. It is not by pouring money, it is not by giving advice, it is not by making sanctions that we will help Tunisia. We will help Tunisia from the inside out: support the living forces of the nation and, with them, build democracy.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there is no doubt that Iran has become a terrorist state. It is no longer a sponsor of terrorists, it is itself a terrorist state. We see it in the region, sponsoring Iraq, sponsoring Hamas, sponsoring Hezbollah, sponsoring the Houthis and all those who somehow want to fight what society is as we conceive it. We cannot let that happen, as they are exporting instability to Europe. The various terrorist acts have already been mentioned here, and I will only say one thing: I am very afraid that Iran, as a state, and the Muslim Brotherhood have come together in a war against values and against the West. That's the big fear I have right now and I hope it doesn't happen. And to do so, the Western and American secret services must unite in a gigantic effort to stop this invasion of terrorism in Western Europe and eventually elsewhere and on other continents.

Madam President, Commissioner, Thank you for your speech, I think it was very to the point. Ladies and gentlemen, today we are discussing a central and very important issue for global stability, which is the interpretation of United Nations Resolution 2758 of 1971. It is clear that China makes a rather changed political interpretation of what the resolution was made for and that it was to give the People's Republic of China representativeness in the United Nations, but it does not comment on Taiwan. And this is serious, because we know that the end, China's goal regarding "one China, two systems" is precisely Taiwan. But we see with great displeasure what has been done in Hong Kong and Macau, with great abuses of human rights and corporate rights that exist there. Therefore, Taiwan would be no different from the treatment given to Macau and Hong Kong. We, the European Union, are not mistaken. Madam President, I have served in China and I know that people and that country relatively well. The Chinese will not back down and are a global and regional danger, because they do the same with Taiwan, the Philippines, Indonesia, Vietnam and other smaller countries in the region. This is extremely serious and is very serious for security and stability in that region and globally. For, my dear friends, the position of the European Union must be one of balance, of stability.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the 2025 budget of the European Union must give priority to our citizens in terms of efficiency, safety and the protection of our values, cutting unnecessary spending and simplifying administrative procedures, rather than financing a bureaucratic machine that is heavy, inflexible and distant from the citizens; This includes the case of Switzerland, the external action of the European Union. The failure of the European Union's policies on illegal immigration and trafficking in human beings needs to be reviewed decisively, because Europe's security and stability are, with these wrong policies, at risk. Concerned is also the continued funding of cultural agendas woke They weaken European values, families and countries. It is also imperative to stop any financial support for cultural groups linked to terrorist movements. Strong financial support to the primary sector, for food security, for the survival of rural and maritime areas, is key. Therefore, by 2025 bureaucracy must be reduced, illegal immigration must be combated, ‑ must reject harmful cultural agendas and ‑ must support the primary sector with full responsibility.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am surprised - or not - at this debate, because we have the solution in hand, and that solution is called Schengen. All of our countries are practically part of Schengen, and while Schengen was complied with, there was no illegal immigration and no forced immigration. There was the immigration that would have to be. I am not against immigration, we are not against immigration, but in my house comes who I invite; You're not going to force the front door into my house without my permission. As for Frontex, it is not just Frontex that is at stake, because there are other land borders, airports, ports that are equally important. And as far as Frontex itself is concerned, I must say the following: You have the staff you have, which are more than enough, you have the means you have, you have the money you have, which is more than enough. What is needed is to reshape Frontex, to put it to work as it should be, and not as it has been working so far, with orders. It is not the agents' fault; It is the fault of the orders given to them. And these orders do not go in the direction for which they were created. Therefore, Frontex can be effective, it can be a perfectly useful body for European security, it must be reformulated, it must be revised and it must be restored to what has been created.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, on the 3rd of this month, last Thursday, I landed in Bosnia-Herzegovina, under a very strong storm, to be part of the delegation that was to oversee the municipal elections. I had no doubt that something different was going to happen for the worse that night, given the violence of the elements, namely the rain. Bosnia is an extremely important country for us, it is a country in the heart of Europe that we need to pay attention to. It is not only attention when 20 or more people die because there are still many missing, in which there is natural damage, in which there are flooded populations, in which there are villages that cannot be reached, as was the case this time. That's not the only way we're supposed to help. We must help Bosnia to be a true democracy at the heart of Europe and nothing has been done in that direction. The European Union sends money, it thinks that money will be able to solve all matters, but, my dear friends, it will not. I have been in Bosnia since 1996 on another condition – I was an ambassador from Portugal. I returned there in 2007 as a representative of the Council of the European Union and have now returned for the verification of the elections. And I must tell you that very little has changed, especially when it comes to people. Hatred remains dormant, divisions remain and Bosnia remains a divided country with a highly worrying future for all of us, for the whole of Europe and, in essence, geostrategically, it is a danger, a bomb in the long term for all of us. We must therefore help Bosnia. It is not only in this case of this misfortune. We must help Bosnia from the bottom of all the roots of democracy and in such a way that it becomes one of us, because it is very important and only in this way will we be able to balance the internal European area. Because if you look at the map, there's a big divide between western and eastern Europe, and in the middle there's a European vacuum. That void has to be filled, and Bosnia is part of it.

Madam President, Mr High Representative, I would like to start by saying that this Pact for the Future is a kind of appetizer for the 2030 Agenda, so popular in the United Nations and other globalist circles. I must say that we do not allow ourselves to be deceived by wolves dressed in sheep's clothing. I will give you some examples on key topics of this pact. Firstly, the problem of the centralisation of power in the United Nations and international bodies, which takes away from citizens their own governance and creates a much stronger global elite far from society. Portugal, for example, regarding supposedly sustainable energies, always falls into the same story, which is to make bridges offshore in which wind power plants are placed, thus destroying what little we still have in fisheries, destroying our coastline and destroying what is most precious to Portugal, which is the sea. Regarding digital governance and data control, we can very easily fall into censorship and surveillance of citizens by institutions. And this is unacceptable. The non-participation of non-state actors, i.e. civil society, is also extremely worrying, because it distances governance from citizens not only in Europe, but throughout the world. As for the declaration, finally, on future generations, who defines these interests? It's the agenda Woke? Are these principles that today circulate freely to disturb and undo what is our society? Are these the principles that will guide the activity or not? So let's try to secure our society and secure our future and that of our children.

It is clear that each state is sovereign in the decisions it makes. And it is also clear that shortly after the massacre of 7 October, the Secretary-General of the United Nations came to say practically that it was a justified attack, thus supporting the terrorist movements and saying almost that Hamas had done something that Israel had provoked. Now, I find this extremely serious, much more serious than, in fact, Israel banning the presence of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, which has been totally partial on Israeli territory.

Madam President, Vice-President Borrell, the conflict in the Middle East is not new, it is very old. And those roots are deep roots, and you have to go to those roots to resolve the conflict. Ceasefires are not possible; Humanitarian corridors are mere Band-Aids that do not solve the essentiality of this conflict. This is what we have to do fundamentally: is to study, is to see, is to be able to find places where people can understand each other in a prolonged way and with long-term results. It is clear that the conflict does not extend only between Israel and the Palestinians. And I would like to remind Lord Borrell that Israel invaded Lebanon to save the lives of the Christians who lived there against the onslaughts of Arafat's Fatah at that time. We need to look at the story as it is. On the other hand, the two-state solution is a chimerical solution, that is, it is a solution that is not at all possible at this time. You don't make a state when there's a war. Who will govern the Palestinian state? Hamas? Fatah? They are territories without geographical continuity. And what borders would we establish? Seventy-seven, as I've heard here? Why not 78 or 79 or 80, or the current ones? These are all fundamental issues so that we can understand the problem. And finally, I would also like to say that, on the Israeli side, it was crucial that they end the settlement policy, that they stop with the settlers in territories that are not from Israel, because that would help a lot to resolve the conflict. We must therefore deepen this conflict. We need to deepen the solutions so that we can resolve in peace, security and diplomacy.

Mr President, Mr Vice-President, Minister, ladies and gentlemen, I have been a career diplomat for 40 years. I was one of the Schengen negotiators. Everyone is talking about Schengen in this plenary. No one has any idea what you're talking about. Not only have I worked Schengen I and Schengen II, but throughout my career I have practiced Schengen. It had to grant visas in accordance with the requirements of the Schengen agreements. I had to do an analysis of the people and the reasons they had for visiting my country, because I knew that when they entered Portugal, they would be allowed to travel throughout the Schengen area by virtue of the respective agreements. Now we have what? We have a total and absolute lack of a state of law, in which anyone enters any country, namely the countries of Western Europe. Fourteen visas were issued to Russians in July and August. Fourteen! Ten to Russians and four to Belarusians who, moreover, were perfectly identified. I don't think it's a spy case. You want cases of security issues? I'll give it to you. Visa liberalisation for Kosovo nationals, with mafias all moving freely around Europe. In my country, leaders of Bangladesh, outlawed in their own country by Islamist radicalism, went to hold meetings in the capital of my country, in Lisbon. These are security risks. This is what is putting Europe in danger. It is not the half dozen visas that Mr Orban grants to the Russians or Belarusians. And who told you that these ten Russians and four Belarusians are Putin's agents and are not opponents of Putin who simply want to go to work and make a living? Who's telling you? On the other hand, ladies and gentlemen, we must have a lot of geopolitical studies and we must know what is happening in our Europe.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, today's conflict in Gaza is a structural conflict and not a mere conflict dating back a few years. It is a conflict that is deeply rooted in mutual hatred and racism. Let's be very clear: It is not in two days that what has been going on for a long time will be resolved. It is not just a ceasefire, which will be broken at the next opportunity, that will solve the problem in the Gaza Strip or Palestinian lands. No, no, no, no. I must say that very strong diplomatic action will be needed. There was a certain balance until the fateful day of 7 October. I always said that the crucial problem would be the hostages. They've killed most of them, and some of them with savagery refinements. After they had a press conference, they killed them in cold blood. This is unacceptable. All I'm asking you is one question: is if they really want Iran to move from being a regional power to being a global power, through its proxies, such as Hamas, Hezbollah and other terrorist movements, together with the Muslim Brotherhood, which dominates around 90% of Sunni terrorist movements; whether they want Iran's power to extend or not. And in order for that not to happen, you have to negotiate. We need to bring together countries that are currently reluctant to do so in order to achieve this, such as Egypt, Turkey and, of course, the United States. My dear friends, the time is one of deep reflection, but also of quick action. Let's quickly make a real peace and not a sieve peace over the sun.